Aircraft down in Canley Vale
Avgas 172. After Andrew 'passed' Richmond I understand he asked BK if he was closer to Richmond or BK. The reply was "SYD Radar advise you are now closer to BK.". It would appear Andrew was then committed to BK. When it became obvious he could not make it to BK it appears he was attempting to land on the sports oval close to the impact point. If the a/c had not struck the power pole the outcome may have been different.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
RatsoreA
That is good news indeed.
But it is something in the GA world you can imagine happening. And some folk like PA39 who I can believe when he says its happened many a time to him, it just serves to the younger folk a good lesson on what to accept and what not to.
J
That is good news indeed.
But it is something in the GA world you can imagine happening. And some folk like PA39 who I can believe when he says its happened many a time to him, it just serves to the younger folk a good lesson on what to accept and what not to.
J
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jaba,
I agree with you totally. There are many dodgy operators out there (I have worked for one) that have absolutly no problems with sending out someone who will fly the plane if you won't. In fact, in my first job, I was asked to be that second person. All I was saying is that I personally have not experienced that aspect of GA from this organisation.
Further, I am not denying that "commercial pressures" exist in the industry (they exist in most industries).
This quote from the coroners report into MZK says it all -
"4.46. However, this is a serious issue, and one that deserves close attention by CASA. It is no secret that young pilots are very keen, if not desperate, to progress in the industry, and in those circumstances they are highly susceptible to pressure, whether intended or otherwise, from their employer to maintain schedules and a high degree of performance. The temptation in those circumstances may well be to cut corners and compromise flight safety and that is a serious matter indeed."
This sort of pressure is not just limited to commercial operations either.
Quote - "Company and passenger expectation. The pilot may have been influenced by a perception (real or otherwise) that the passengers and the company expected the aircraft to continue..."
The ATSB is littered with reports of private flights ending badly, because the pilot felt pressure, real or otherwise to continue the flight into bad Wx/unsuitable Xwinds/whatever.
I don't want to trot out a bunch of tired cliches, but the addage that "you should learn all you can from the mistakes of others, as you won't be around to make them all yourself" is certainly true. I hope that everyone that reads this thread can learn something from it, and apply it to thier own flying. Human factors is really a complicated subject, as there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied across the board. 2 + 2 in human factors does not always equal 4!
I agree with you totally. There are many dodgy operators out there (I have worked for one) that have absolutly no problems with sending out someone who will fly the plane if you won't. In fact, in my first job, I was asked to be that second person. All I was saying is that I personally have not experienced that aspect of GA from this organisation.
Further, I am not denying that "commercial pressures" exist in the industry (they exist in most industries).
This quote from the coroners report into MZK says it all -
"4.46. However, this is a serious issue, and one that deserves close attention by CASA. It is no secret that young pilots are very keen, if not desperate, to progress in the industry, and in those circumstances they are highly susceptible to pressure, whether intended or otherwise, from their employer to maintain schedules and a high degree of performance. The temptation in those circumstances may well be to cut corners and compromise flight safety and that is a serious matter indeed."
This sort of pressure is not just limited to commercial operations either.
Quote - "Company and passenger expectation. The pilot may have been influenced by a perception (real or otherwise) that the passengers and the company expected the aircraft to continue..."
The ATSB is littered with reports of private flights ending badly, because the pilot felt pressure, real or otherwise to continue the flight into bad Wx/unsuitable Xwinds/whatever.
I don't want to trot out a bunch of tired cliches, but the addage that "you should learn all you can from the mistakes of others, as you won't be around to make them all yourself" is certainly true. I hope that everyone that reads this thread can learn something from it, and apply it to thier own flying. Human factors is really a complicated subject, as there are no hard and fast rules that can be applied across the board. 2 + 2 in human factors does not always equal 4!
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Wentworth
Age: 59
Posts: 212
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most posters appear to have assumed a lineal situation, failure of one engine, partial power on the other from the start which has led, intended or not, to inferences that the guy made a mistake in not landing at Richmond.
There is also the possibility that engine failure was progressive - that at the beginning he had height and distance to play with when he opted for Bankstown. It still could have been that things deteriorated progressively en route after what could have been correct decisions were made, so we should keep an open mind on this guy, who clearly from posts here, was well respected for his culture and skills.
There is also the possibility that engine failure was progressive - that at the beginning he had height and distance to play with when he opted for Bankstown. It still could have been that things deteriorated progressively en route after what could have been correct decisions were made, so we should keep an open mind on this guy, who clearly from posts here, was well respected for his culture and skills.
Tragic as the outcome is, hindsight is a wonderful thing.....
That golfcourse from 400ft or so must have looked 'inviting' for a second or so - if, in fact, he even saw it.
He may (must) have been fairly well pre-occupied at that time, balancing his then predicament with the art of trying to keep the disabled aeroplane flying.
I wonder if any of us would have immediately pulled the throttle on the remaining engine and plonked it down onto that golfcourse, with the risk of 'severe' damage/injury(?), vs. just trying to get that little bit further to a perceived safety?
I guess really, that I am simply 'speculating' out loud - "What would I do now, IF..."
Just like most of us. And, for us, there are no real answers as such.
But some speculation (review?) can be a healthy thing to try and learn something from this whole tragedy.
Best of luck to all.
That golfcourse from 400ft or so must have looked 'inviting' for a second or so - if, in fact, he even saw it.
He may (must) have been fairly well pre-occupied at that time, balancing his then predicament with the art of trying to keep the disabled aeroplane flying.
I wonder if any of us would have immediately pulled the throttle on the remaining engine and plonked it down onto that golfcourse, with the risk of 'severe' damage/injury(?), vs. just trying to get that little bit further to a perceived safety?
I guess really, that I am simply 'speculating' out loud - "What would I do now, IF..."
Just like most of us. And, for us, there are no real answers as such.
But some speculation (review?) can be a healthy thing to try and learn something from this whole tragedy.
Best of luck to all.
Having followed this thread since last Tuesday, I can only find in appalling that most of the people posting are sitting back in their comfortable armchairs pontificating.
Andrew was a fine pilot who did not take chances.
His final moments I sure were ones of attempting to save the situation and his passenger, Kathy Shepherd - both of who I knew.
Having been in Andrew's situation - over a built up area with nil engine/s and limited choices.
In my case Frankston Golf Course was available and by purely miracle and the past training by Bill Whitworth & Bill lord 40 years ago I survived.
So to all you "Expert Commentators" I suggest you wait until at least a preliminary ASTB report is issued and let Andrew memory be a testament to him.
Andrews funeral is on Thursday in his home town in the La trobe valley
R.I.P.
Andrew was a fine pilot who did not take chances.
His final moments I sure were ones of attempting to save the situation and his passenger, Kathy Shepherd - both of who I knew.
Having been in Andrew's situation - over a built up area with nil engine/s and limited choices.
In my case Frankston Golf Course was available and by purely miracle and the past training by Bill Whitworth & Bill lord 40 years ago I survived.
So to all you "Expert Commentators" I suggest you wait until at least a preliminary ASTB report is issued and let Andrew memory be a testament to him.
Andrews funeral is on Thursday in his home town in the La trobe valley
R.I.P.
DHPilot
The personal grief issue has been addressed previously, again I point out no-one has brought this young mans training, culture or professionalism into question.
He did take a chance and it did turn out to be a mistake, the end result says so.
This exact event has occurred many times before and will continue to occur, simply because what he did is exactly what most of us here would have done. That's why it is very important to sit back in the comfort of our armchairs and pontificate as you put it.
As it has been said before, the accident report will not provide you with the answers you seek.
Read back through the entire thread and you will understand.
The personal grief issue has been addressed previously, again I point out no-one has brought this young mans training, culture or professionalism into question.
He did take a chance and it did turn out to be a mistake, the end result says so.
This exact event has occurred many times before and will continue to occur, simply because what he did is exactly what most of us here would have done. That's why it is very important to sit back in the comfort of our armchairs and pontificate as you put it.
As it has been said before, the accident report will not provide you with the answers you seek.
Read back through the entire thread and you will understand.
Xeptu
I don't accept that the pilot " took a chance" when he turned back to Bankstown. I think it is conceivable that it was the best decision at the time, but that subsequently an additional problem emerged.
Until the report comes out, I have no basis to assume that the pilot was not diligent, competent and well trained.
I don't accept that the pilot " took a chance" when he turned back to Bankstown. I think it is conceivable that it was the best decision at the time, but that subsequently an additional problem emerged.
Until the report comes out, I have no basis to assume that the pilot was not diligent, competent and well trained.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Kyeemagh
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anybody simplifying this to a mathematical problem have you done the pi r squared thing to include the 180 north of Richmond? I'm sure that was at a reduced angle of bank - or if not, a lot of altitude loss in the turnback. I'm guessing you'd "bank" on anything from 5 to 10 NM purely in the 180 ... wait for the ATSB radar analysis and do your calculations again.
Old Akro
Life itself is a chance, crossing a busy road is a chance, being a pilot and being in the accident aircraft on the day was a chance.
Do you understand where we are coming from. This thread is not about the decision, or whether or not the aircraft was capable of doing it, it's about the accident.
Life itself is a chance, crossing a busy road is a chance, being a pilot and being in the accident aircraft on the day was a chance.
Do you understand where we are coming from. This thread is not about the decision, or whether or not the aircraft was capable of doing it, it's about the accident.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So to all you "Expert Commentators" I suggest you wait until at least a preliminary ASTB report is issued and let Andrew memory be a testament to him.
The simple reality is that the pilot made a series of choices that resulted in two deaths.
All the evidence so far is that the aircraft was perfectly controllable until the moment of impact (even if it meant shutting down the second engine and "deadsticking" it in to the first available open space (of which there are many if you care to look at Google Earth), so it wasn't the aircraft's fault.
Perhaps the most distressing part of this discussion is the apparent refusal by some to accept that the pilot in command is ultimately responsible for his actions. I would imagine that Andrew, judging by the testimony of those who knew him, would be the first to hold his hand up and admit that the outcome would have been very different if he had made different decisions.
For me, the decision about whether to go to Bankstown or Richmond isn't the most vital one, although it is important. The really vital decision that needed to be made was to recognise when the situation had deteriorated to the point where there were few options left, and then pick a landing spot and go for it while there was still enough height in the bank to ensure a successful outcome. It seems that decision was left too late.
Part of being a professional is recognising that you live and die with your decisions, and in aviation, the penalties for making the wrong ones can be severe. Whatever you decide in aviation, you own the result.
In this case, the outcome wasn't random or dictated by chance. It was a direct result of the decisions that were made. End of story.
I know some of you take offence when I am blunt like that, but FFS we are supposed to be professionals. Time we acted like it.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Hyperspace
Age: 51
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
REMOAK
You got to be kidding.
"The simple reality is that the pilot made a series of choices that resulted in two deaths."
I would hardly consider the outcome as the pilot's choice. Are you suggesting he chose to crash the aircraft? He made a decision (whether valid or not) to return to Bankstown, and from the evidence (tape recording) he elected to land the aircraft on the road. His decision was based upon (again the tape) due to a loss of height which would have ended in the a/c crashing.
"Own the result"
What planet are you on? What you are saying is that failures outside of our control are your fault.
I urge you to reconsider you statements, they contain fallacious conclusions and are poorly argued.
You got to be kidding.
"The simple reality is that the pilot made a series of choices that resulted in two deaths."
I would hardly consider the outcome as the pilot's choice. Are you suggesting he chose to crash the aircraft? He made a decision (whether valid or not) to return to Bankstown, and from the evidence (tape recording) he elected to land the aircraft on the road. His decision was based upon (again the tape) due to a loss of height which would have ended in the a/c crashing.
"Own the result"
What planet are you on? What you are saying is that failures outside of our control are your fault.
I urge you to reconsider you statements, they contain fallacious conclusions and are poorly argued.
Joesh
It's a harsh reality that remoak writes, but however perfectly correct, you are the pilot in command, it is actually totally irrelevant what choices, decisions, failures and circumstances bring you to that point in space. Whether he had engines or not, he had a fully controllable aircraft. He left the final decision to land, somewhere, anywhere, too late and that is the cause of the accident.
It's a harsh reality that remoak writes, but however perfectly correct, you are the pilot in command, it is actually totally irrelevant what choices, decisions, failures and circumstances bring you to that point in space. Whether he had engines or not, he had a fully controllable aircraft. He left the final decision to land, somewhere, anywhere, too late and that is the cause of the accident.
