Aircraft down in Canley Vale
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its been obvious for many years that there needs to be well directed investment in renewing the nations G.A fleet.
Government departments and private enterprise systematically screwing down GA operators have had their part in shaping the industry into what it is today.
However that being said what's stopping operators from getting together and actively standing up for, and working towards a better future ?
Where was AFAP or AOPA today reassuring the traveling public and dismissing the ridiculous comments aired by the media ?
If this was a road transport accident the transport workers union would be defending those involved from trial by media.
You so called captains of the industry need to pull your head in and understand
that without a united stance you'll achieve nothing.
Government departments and private enterprise systematically screwing down GA operators have had their part in shaping the industry into what it is today.
However that being said what's stopping operators from getting together and actively standing up for, and working towards a better future ?
Where was AFAP or AOPA today reassuring the traveling public and dismissing the ridiculous comments aired by the media ?
If this was a road transport accident the transport workers union would be defending those involved from trial by media.
You so called captains of the industry need to pull your head in and understand
that without a united stance you'll achieve nothing.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Government departments and private enterprise systematically screwing down GA operators have had their part in shaping the industry into what it is today.
Re post no. 64.........
Too many questions forming here........And yes, it is very sad.
(Post referred to renumbered - as some appear to have been removed)
The question is - Why not YSRI or even Schofields I wonder? Were they not visible due fog?
Too many questions forming here........And yes, it is very sad.
(Post referred to renumbered - as some appear to have been removed)
The question is - Why not YSRI or even Schofields I wonder? Were they not visible due fog?
Last edited by Ex FSO GRIFFO; 16th Jun 2010 at 01:12.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The industry race to the bottom has been driven by government and bigger company contracts all based on the lowest price without any regard to what has been purchased."
"An absurd statement really. All purchasing contracts - building construction, supply of parts and equipment, supply of transport services etc - are based on the lowest price, whether Government or private enterprise."
Air Ace,
Not an absurd comment at all. I've been involved in tendering government contracts outside of aviation and a lot of the time price is not the major consideration.
However with Fixed Wing Non Emergency transport, a lot of the time there is no contract per se but rather a "preferred supplier" or "approved supplier" status... sometimes. Price (as you've correctly asserted) seems to indeed be the major driver in deciding who gets those gigs.
"If you have a problem with the age, quality or performance of the Australian GA fleet, take it up with the operators, most of whom happily indulge in a race to the bottom, selling a commodity for less than it's cost."
Dunno about "happily indulge" mate! All of the decent operators would love to have modern turbines performing the job. A few are actually pursuing that option as we speak however they are running up against other operators who really do ride the ragged edge financially as it were. I'd predict though that over the next few months, regardless of the accident investigation result, you'll see small jets starting to replace the pistons. Small steps eh?
"How about you leave the technical investigation with those competent to comment at the ATSB? "
Fair and correct comment. However if you're been around this particular segment of the industry you'd have noticed a distinct ground swell of opinion that is of the view that turbines are the way to go. Not much more expensive on a trip by trip basis but a heck of a lot safer and efficient. If this awful situation leads to a sea change... good.
I'd just like to go to work and operate an aircraft that isn't the same age as me. Not asking too much is it?
"An absurd statement really. All purchasing contracts - building construction, supply of parts and equipment, supply of transport services etc - are based on the lowest price, whether Government or private enterprise."
Air Ace,
Not an absurd comment at all. I've been involved in tendering government contracts outside of aviation and a lot of the time price is not the major consideration.
However with Fixed Wing Non Emergency transport, a lot of the time there is no contract per se but rather a "preferred supplier" or "approved supplier" status... sometimes. Price (as you've correctly asserted) seems to indeed be the major driver in deciding who gets those gigs.
"If you have a problem with the age, quality or performance of the Australian GA fleet, take it up with the operators, most of whom happily indulge in a race to the bottom, selling a commodity for less than it's cost."
Dunno about "happily indulge" mate! All of the decent operators would love to have modern turbines performing the job. A few are actually pursuing that option as we speak however they are running up against other operators who really do ride the ragged edge financially as it were. I'd predict though that over the next few months, regardless of the accident investigation result, you'll see small jets starting to replace the pistons. Small steps eh?
"How about you leave the technical investigation with those competent to comment at the ATSB? "
Fair and correct comment. However if you're been around this particular segment of the industry you'd have noticed a distinct ground swell of opinion that is of the view that turbines are the way to go. Not much more expensive on a trip by trip basis but a heck of a lot safer and efficient. If this awful situation leads to a sea change... good.
I'd just like to go to work and operate an aircraft that isn't the same age as me. Not asking too much is it?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as in any other industry, a customer will always go for the cheapest option. Especially if they are ignorant to the quality of each suppliers product. Naturally Competitors will drop prices incrementally until either they win the majority of the market, there competitors go broke, or in the case of G.A. all operators go broke together.
Australia has about 5 major hubs with 5 different price schedules for the same work. Why do some operators maintain high prices, still get the work, and in turn maintain aircraft better than the next guy and enjoy better safety records.
It cant happen overnight, but wouldnt it be nice if everyone got together and said if you want to hire a light piston in this country you will have to pay. Im sure Turbines would become an option then.
But of course, we would all struggle to spend our Airline Level Salaries and I would be as Naive as ever.
Australia has about 5 major hubs with 5 different price schedules for the same work. Why do some operators maintain high prices, still get the work, and in turn maintain aircraft better than the next guy and enjoy better safety records.
It cant happen overnight, but wouldnt it be nice if everyone got together and said if you want to hire a light piston in this country you will have to pay. Im sure Turbines would become an option then.
But of course, we would all struggle to spend our Airline Level Salaries and I would be as Naive as ever.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hear what your saying air ace.
Yet i think its fair to say that the industries you have mentioned aren't quite the same as aviation.
For a start they are day to day easily seen and understood by the average person , the retail sector for instance is the largest employer in the nation and well represented by industry groups and various levels of government intervention.
Retail is seen to carry financial and political clout.
Aviation on the other hand is the complete opposite.
As can be seen by the ridiculous comments and opinions that the average joe's of this world including journilists see fit to make.
Anyone with a passing interest in aviation knows the unique challenges facing the future of G.A.
My question is why is there no unity amongst G.A operators to stand up to the government like other industries do ?
Yet i think its fair to say that the industries you have mentioned aren't quite the same as aviation.
For a start they are day to day easily seen and understood by the average person , the retail sector for instance is the largest employer in the nation and well represented by industry groups and various levels of government intervention.
Retail is seen to carry financial and political clout.
Aviation on the other hand is the complete opposite.
As can be seen by the ridiculous comments and opinions that the average joe's of this world including journilists see fit to make.
Anyone with a passing interest in aviation knows the unique challenges facing the future of G.A.
My question is why is there no unity amongst G.A operators to stand up to the government like other industries do ?
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: OMAA
Posts: 253
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would YHOX have been an option if it were not a construction site it is now?
Audio link from liveatc.
No one sells safety. No government has any interest in any form of aviation other than RPT, except as a source of tax revenue or land for property development.
My sympathies are also with the company and all its staff who will now be put through the wringer in a CASA audit.
My sympathies are also with the company and all its staff who will now be put through the wringer in a CASA audit.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While i'm not going to speculate on the flying merits of a PA31 on one engine...
ON the subject of getting more modern aircraft into Australia;
A change in the Tax depreciation for aircraft for go a long way towards encouraging investment in new aircraft.
The current rate is 10%.
33% would generate some outside investment in newer aircraft.
(The USA currently has 70% first year depreciation).
ON the subject of getting more modern aircraft into Australia;
A change in the Tax depreciation for aircraft for go a long way towards encouraging investment in new aircraft.
The current rate is 10%.
33% would generate some outside investment in newer aircraft.
(The USA currently has 70% first year depreciation).
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GADRIVR
The move to GA turbine aircraft began many years ago - it is not some new innovation. From my 40 plus years in the aviation industry, I clearly recall the introduction of Twin Otter, Bandeirante, Metro, Mitsubsihi, Aerocommander, Cessna and other turbine and turbo jet aircraft from the early 1970s.
People with short memories seem to suggest only twin piston engine aircraft are involved in accidents similar to yesterdays accident. My memory of the last two similar accidents discussed on these forums involved a Westwind at Norfolk Island and a Brasilia in Darwin.
I suspect there is little difference in the accident record of twin piston engine aircraft, versus twin turbine powered aircraft, considering the hours and sectors flown, despite generally a difference in pilot experience levels between piston engine and turbine powered aircraft.
I'll wait for an informed, competent report from the ATSB before drawing any conclusions.
And despite a significantly larger GA industry and a regulator whose mandate includes promotion of aviation, the US air charter industry is still full 30 plus year old of round engine Beech 18s, DC3s, DC4s, and Queenairs, Cessna 400 series, Piper twins etc.
The move to GA turbine aircraft began many years ago - it is not some new innovation. From my 40 plus years in the aviation industry, I clearly recall the introduction of Twin Otter, Bandeirante, Metro, Mitsubsihi, Aerocommander, Cessna and other turbine and turbo jet aircraft from the early 1970s.
People with short memories seem to suggest only twin piston engine aircraft are involved in accidents similar to yesterdays accident. My memory of the last two similar accidents discussed on these forums involved a Westwind at Norfolk Island and a Brasilia in Darwin.
I suspect there is little difference in the accident record of twin piston engine aircraft, versus twin turbine powered aircraft, considering the hours and sectors flown, despite generally a difference in pilot experience levels between piston engine and turbine powered aircraft.
I'll wait for an informed, competent report from the ATSB before drawing any conclusions.
The USA currently has 70% first year depreciation
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Agreed Air Ace
This could be a perfectly healty specimen, only to be taken out by something simple....like 50% JetA1 in the tanks.......or any number of otherwise crazy things. Iced up fuel vents, bugs in fuel vents....who knows how many things could get you airborne and slowly cripple your performance.
Was YSRI fogged in or something? No doubt he considered it and believed he could make YSBK with no problem.
With 7000' from Nth of YSRI, why would it not make it overhead YSBK at a good height on one engine? ATC would give him the airspace.
A few things not adding up here.
J
This could be a perfectly healty specimen, only to be taken out by something simple....like 50% JetA1 in the tanks.......or any number of otherwise crazy things. Iced up fuel vents, bugs in fuel vents....who knows how many things could get you airborne and slowly cripple your performance.
Was YSRI fogged in or something? No doubt he considered it and believed he could make YSBK with no problem.
With 7000' from Nth of YSRI, why would it not make it overhead YSBK at a good height on one engine? ATC would give him the airspace.
A few things not adding up here.
J
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
With 7000' from Nth of YSRI, why would it not make it overhead YSBK at a good height on one engine? ATC would give him the airspace.
Would he have decended as per normal requirements for entry into BK?
Dog
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air Ace,
I've not drawn any conclusions at all in relation to Andrew and Kaths unfortunate demise. You're perfectly correct, leave the investigation and conclusion drawing to the experts.
I'd put forward the notion, that if a patient had been onboard, the noise levels would be one hell of a lot louder from the media, general public and government sectors.
I've flown this type of work before. I can tell you quite confidently that both myself and my workmates aren't overly thrilled flying these museum pieces... period.
There's no need for them to be in the air anymore. The reasons as to why we aren't flying more modern hardware have been covered in other posts.
These aircraft don't cut the mustard climbwise assymetrically. They don't cut the mustard maintenance wise. They are rubbish.
I'm gathering from your posts that there's no good reason for getting these aircraft removed from the industry.
I disagree.. strongly.
I've not drawn any conclusions at all in relation to Andrew and Kaths unfortunate demise. You're perfectly correct, leave the investigation and conclusion drawing to the experts.
I'd put forward the notion, that if a patient had been onboard, the noise levels would be one hell of a lot louder from the media, general public and government sectors.
I've flown this type of work before. I can tell you quite confidently that both myself and my workmates aren't overly thrilled flying these museum pieces... period.
There's no need for them to be in the air anymore. The reasons as to why we aren't flying more modern hardware have been covered in other posts.
These aircraft don't cut the mustard climbwise assymetrically. They don't cut the mustard maintenance wise. They are rubbish.
I'm gathering from your posts that there's no good reason for getting these aircraft removed from the industry.
I disagree.. strongly.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Quote:
700 people a year die worldwide in aeroplane accidents, 3000 a day worldwide on our roads. Keep it in perspective.
Well said GG.."
700 people a year die worldwide in aeroplane accidents, 3000 a day worldwide on our roads. Keep it in perspective.
Well said GG.."
Every aeroplane has a place in the industry.
The Piper PA31 series has proved itself many times throughout it's long history. You can't go on a witch hunt against all of the series because of this. It's akin to killing all the great whites after a human attack. I enjoyed my time in them, I also always had a what if up my sleeve and a plan c.
Flying aeroplanes is about risk management. Perhaps there are things Andrew could have done better given hindsight, perhaps the engineers could have tried harder, perhaps the operator could have spent the extra money on that non essential maintenance, perhaps, perhaps. You could go around in circles all day. In aviation as a Pilot in these aeroplanes you need to make a decision straight away in a situation like this and hope it's the right one. You don't have the luxury of sitting on your hands with guaranteed performance and a second crew member to run the PILOT model. There is no what if, you run with it and make it work. You're either drinking beers that night, or your mates are.
I'm looking forward to the report so I can understand what happened. It's a bloody shame these aeroplanes don't have FDRs and CVRs as the feeling I get from some of these accident reports on GA aeroplanes are based on what the investigator would like to assume happened, to keep everything tidy in their own mind.
It's pretty easy to draw conclusions from the initial facts we have, we also know a PA31 won't maintain 7000 feet on one engine so a drift down was assured. We also know you are going to be working pretty hard in one of these aeroplanes if you have an EFATO prior to the 4th takeoff segment. Lightly loaded it should have got it's wits approaching around 3000 feet to a very manageable sink rate.
Let's also remember that that second engine on a piston twin is not a get out of jail free card. (it's usually sold to the general public as such) It gives you options and most of the time extends your glide to somewhere suitable to land. You can't expect something from it that it was not designed for and then be upset when the inevitable happens. Such is the nature of the beast.
The report will be interesting reading.
The Piper PA31 series has proved itself many times throughout it's long history. You can't go on a witch hunt against all of the series because of this. It's akin to killing all the great whites after a human attack. I enjoyed my time in them, I also always had a what if up my sleeve and a plan c.
Flying aeroplanes is about risk management. Perhaps there are things Andrew could have done better given hindsight, perhaps the engineers could have tried harder, perhaps the operator could have spent the extra money on that non essential maintenance, perhaps, perhaps. You could go around in circles all day. In aviation as a Pilot in these aeroplanes you need to make a decision straight away in a situation like this and hope it's the right one. You don't have the luxury of sitting on your hands with guaranteed performance and a second crew member to run the PILOT model. There is no what if, you run with it and make it work. You're either drinking beers that night, or your mates are.
I'm looking forward to the report so I can understand what happened. It's a bloody shame these aeroplanes don't have FDRs and CVRs as the feeling I get from some of these accident reports on GA aeroplanes are based on what the investigator would like to assume happened, to keep everything tidy in their own mind.
It's pretty easy to draw conclusions from the initial facts we have, we also know a PA31 won't maintain 7000 feet on one engine so a drift down was assured. We also know you are going to be working pretty hard in one of these aeroplanes if you have an EFATO prior to the 4th takeoff segment. Lightly loaded it should have got it's wits approaching around 3000 feet to a very manageable sink rate.
Let's also remember that that second engine on a piston twin is not a get out of jail free card. (it's usually sold to the general public as such) It gives you options and most of the time extends your glide to somewhere suitable to land. You can't expect something from it that it was not designed for and then be upset when the inevitable happens. Such is the nature of the beast.
The report will be interesting reading.
Join Date: Nov 1998
Location: International
Posts: 327
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Air ace, this guy was clearly level headed and capable of handling the aircraft on one engine. The problem is the aircraft does not have the performance on one engune.
Piper PA-31P-350 Mojave at Max Gross 7,200 pounds:
Rate Of Climb: 1220 fpm
Ceiling: 26500 ft
Rate of Climb (One Engine): 255 fpm
Ceiling (One Engine): 14300 ft
Sorry, but I do not accept your:
"....this aeroplane cannot perform on one engine and is dangerous."
Last edited by Air Ace; 16th Jun 2010 at 01:24.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Aus
Age: 43
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's also remember that that second engine on a piston twin is not a get out of jail free card. (it's usually sold to the general public as such) It gives you options and most of the time extends your glide to somewhere suitable to land. You can't expect something from it that it was not designed for and then be upset when the inevitable happens. Such is the nature of the beast.
I remember the PA-31 figure at MTOW is something like 50' per minute. Gear up, Configured, Feathered etc. etc. Its the perfect world scenario that rarely exists, bar at the Piper test field on the day of manufacture. The Mojave (PGW included) always felt damn sluggish, even on two.
When doing Initial Multi Training or specifically Chieftain Endorsements, I'd always encouraged guys to look at the reality, that one engine at weight in a Chieftain is deadly and a controlled, forced landing straight ahead, beats an attempt to demonstrate the theory that light twins fly on one every time.
As twin pilots we get rammed with all the theory of Assymetric Flight, and quite often forget the practicality of the aged machines we fly around Aus. I dont know where the answer lies but I hope we can all learn something out of this tragic accident.
this aeroplane cannot perform on one engine and is dangerous
As for making decisions straight away, you need to get that idea out of your head, quick decisions only if you have to but if you have time to sit on your hands then you should do.
There is a time and a place for sitting on your hands (multi crew jet/turboprop ops) minor system failures in piston aeroplanes etc. This wasn't one of them. Press the nearest airfield function of your GPS, pick the closest and most suitable airfield and go there quickly! This was what I am implying if you read into my post.