Light aircraft down at Moree.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A37575 "it is all too easy to forget in the stress of a night approach, the actual height above terrain on base and final. For example 1000 ft QNH is only 300 ft above runway level."
No bloody way mate! It is something you can NEVER forget. We spent 25yrs flying mail runs in that western NSW country, all at night, all between 19.00 and 24:00+. The fellow flew that area all his flying life, he knew his altitudes by rote. If it is a dark night with no moonlight, without external cues, it is basically an IFR approach and landing. I would think that he was an instrument rated pilot flying a very well equipped aircraft that had a lapse of concentration due to fatigue, from what i read his initial point of departure was BN. It can happen to the best..and does! Nuff said from me, God rest their souls
No bloody way mate! It is something you can NEVER forget. We spent 25yrs flying mail runs in that western NSW country, all at night, all between 19.00 and 24:00+. The fellow flew that area all his flying life, he knew his altitudes by rote. If it is a dark night with no moonlight, without external cues, it is basically an IFR approach and landing. I would think that he was an instrument rated pilot flying a very well equipped aircraft that had a lapse of concentration due to fatigue, from what i read his initial point of departure was BN. It can happen to the best..and does! Nuff said from me, God rest their souls
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Shrike, yes I did.
I now feel bad for posting on this thread. I will remove my comments aimed at Journalism, and aviation, and post under a new topic.
Hope it won't affect the continuity of this one... i am sure there is much more to come, - and more on topic than my ramblings.
I now feel bad for posting on this thread. I will remove my comments aimed at Journalism, and aviation, and post under a new topic.
Hope it won't affect the continuity of this one... i am sure there is much more to come, - and more on topic than my ramblings.
~
They think every light aircraft is a "Cessna"
DF.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: I like cheeseburgers
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Geez I hope this was a pvt flight and not a "charter"
sorry to hear about it for all involved .....
Does get to be a black hole out there in some parts of the circuit at MOR
sorry to hear about it for all involved .....
Does get to be a black hole out there in some parts of the circuit at MOR
I think this accident will be found to be very similar to the Bonanza accident on Bathurst Island. Not sure if the Saratoga has four fuel tanks but possibly the fuel state was considered to be ok but given that there was no post impact fire I would think that fuel exhaustion is a real possibility.
Such a sad event. We all cringe when we hear/read such happenings.
Unfortunately whilst man & machine are interfaced we shall have such outcomes. Whether it be fuel related, mechanical related or even a body failure (heart attack for Eg) we can only hope we each learn from this as well as the many other events that will sadly follow. If it's straight out human error by way of height misjudgment for Eg then we need not judge here as we have ALL made errors.
Flying an aircraft at night in remotely lit area's or in IMC is inherently dangerous as we don't have that one feature we humans rely on so much, our vision beyond the cockpit.
Take care out there everyone whom find them selves in the same position, at night, low (as in the circuit) and with minimal outside cues.Watch that Alt, that Hdg that VSI like a hawk for even the most experienced of drivers out there can get caught by the night stalker!
Wmk2
Unfortunately whilst man & machine are interfaced we shall have such outcomes. Whether it be fuel related, mechanical related or even a body failure (heart attack for Eg) we can only hope we each learn from this as well as the many other events that will sadly follow. If it's straight out human error by way of height misjudgment for Eg then we need not judge here as we have ALL made errors.
Flying an aircraft at night in remotely lit area's or in IMC is inherently dangerous as we don't have that one feature we humans rely on so much, our vision beyond the cockpit.
Take care out there everyone whom find them selves in the same position, at night, low (as in the circuit) and with minimal outside cues.Watch that Alt, that Hdg that VSI like a hawk for even the most experienced of drivers out there can get caught by the night stalker!
Wmk2
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems to be a common belief on here that when an aircraft crashes it will catch on fire if it has fuel on board. Not always so! particularly if it has simply flipped over or similar.
Very true but on this occasion the wing has separated from the fuselage which would probably expose fuel lines from the wing. The usual caveat applies about waiting for the final report but fuel starvation/exhaustion has been a regular cause of accidents in Australia.
If it is a dark night with no moonlight, without external cues, it is basically an IFR approach and landing.
and ...
Unless the pilot is very experienced and IFR rated, if going into this type of country airport it is all too easy to forget in the stress of a night approach, the actual height above terrain on base and final.
It's my understanding that NVFR was originally intended as a means of letting VFR aircraft get home a bit after last light, or launch a bit before first light.
As we all know, though, it's possible - probable even on a lot of nights - that flying at night can involve no visible horizon, not a lot of ground reference features and very limited attitude information outside from stars, ground lights, moonlit terrain or whatever.
My point is that for an adequate safety margin on many NVFR flights, you need to be as good at instrument flying as an IFR pilot - probably better at hand flying on instruments seeing as you probably won't have an autopilot.
So, peuce, the line between visual and instrument flying blurs significantly in the NVFR world as I'm sure you know. I'm not suggesting anything in particular about what happened in this Moree accident, but I know that I've flown on a lot of dark nights where some aspects of a circuit were far more instrument than visual.
As we all know, though, it's possible - probable even on a lot of nights - that flying at night can involve no visible horizon, not a lot of ground reference features and very limited attitude information outside from stars, ground lights, moonlit terrain or whatever.
My point is that for an adequate safety margin on many NVFR flights, you need to be as good at instrument flying as an IFR pilot - probably better at hand flying on instruments seeing as you probably won't have an autopilot.
So, peuce, the line between visual and instrument flying blurs significantly in the NVFR world as I'm sure you know. I'm not suggesting anything in particular about what happened in this Moree accident, but I know that I've flown on a lot of dark nights where some aspects of a circuit were far more instrument than visual.
However, I guess my point is .... a visual black hole approach is difficult for anyone. I don't see how being IFR rated makes it any easier or less disorienting.
It's not like there's an ILS at these places !
P.S. A NVFR pilot who regularly exercises that rating would arguably be safer at a black hole aerodrome than an IFR rated pilot, who infrequently flys at night.
There are so many variables here. It just makes me mad to read the rash generalisations from the armchair experts.
It's not like there's an ILS at these places !
P.S. A NVFR pilot who regularly exercises that rating would arguably be safer at a black hole aerodrome than an IFR rated pilot, who infrequently flys at night.
There are so many variables here. It just makes me mad to read the rash generalisations from the armchair experts.
Fair enough.
Speaking of black holes, that picture from the preliminary report of the finals track, caravan park, a black gap and then the runway looks like a situation where the 'black hole' illusion where you fly over lights in the undershoot and, because the angle they subtend in your view gets bigger as you get closer to them, can subconsciously feel like you're getting high on approach slope, could possibly have been a player.
Speaking of black holes, that picture from the preliminary report of the finals track, caravan park, a black gap and then the runway looks like a situation where the 'black hole' illusion where you fly over lights in the undershoot and, because the angle they subtend in your view gets bigger as you get closer to them, can subconsciously feel like you're getting high on approach slope, could possibly have been a player.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If there's one thing to take away from this regardless of how often you fly, be it NVFR or IFR, calling out the altitude to yourself and your passenger if you have one is an excellent way of avoiding this; simple and effective.
Saying to yourself, airport 300ft, I'm 800ft, I'm turning onto final at 500ft, I need to be at 300ft by one mile, call out 200ft, 100ft, etc, etc, you know what I mean. If you are too low you are going to realise pretty soon if you are deliberately calling out the altitude. Relying solely on visual aids simply doesn't always work, short of an approved approach lighting system. My 2 cents worth.
Saying to yourself, airport 300ft, I'm 800ft, I'm turning onto final at 500ft, I need to be at 300ft by one mile, call out 200ft, 100ft, etc, etc, you know what I mean. If you are too low you are going to realise pretty soon if you are deliberately calling out the altitude. Relying solely on visual aids simply doesn't always work, short of an approved approach lighting system. My 2 cents worth.
Saying to yourself, airport 300ft, I'm 800ft, I'm turning onto final at 500ft, I need to be at 300ft by one mile, call out 200ft, 100ft, etc, etc, you know what I mean. If you are too low you are going to realise pretty soon if you are deliberately calling out the altitude. Relying solely on visual aids simply doesn't always work, short of an approved approach lighting system. My 2 cents worth
At 500 feet above airport elevation the copilot would look down at his instruments and call out the airspeed reading, altitude and rate of descent. The reason for this was the stable approach criteria. We pinched the idea from Ansett in those days. But there was another reason.
Below 500 feet, both pilots are concentrating on the appearance of the runway because with no glide slope guidance it was all too easy to misjudge the approach angle - especially through a rain swept windcreen where optical illusions caused by looking through water gave erroneous visual indications.
While non-standard, my personal preference under serious black hole conditions, was an additional final call from the PNF at 200 feet, of airspeed, ground speed, height and rate of descent. Something like: "200 feet..Bug plus five...Ground speed 135... Sink 700.
The reason for this was human factors. At 200 feet both pilots will probably be heads up - being a visual approach. Of course the PF is watching his own flight instruments carefully as well as the runway perspective. It is all too easy, however, for the pilot to concentrate on the runway perspective, correcting for drift and still miss an increasing change of airspeed and sink rate. At the same time, it is odd's on that the PNF is watching the runway with increasing interest with only 15 seconds to the flare. He too may miss an unexpected speed or sink rate trend.
By having the PNF go heads down momentarily at 200 feet to actually read out the airspeed and sink rate, then if the PF hasn't done it, then at least someone has. If through misjudgement, the PF has closed the thrust levers to less power than desirable for the conditions, at 200ft, even with idle thrust, (perish the thought on a 737), there is enough room for an immediate go-around and spool up.
Rate of descent in a light single engine type is easily changed with power. The problem crops up at night if the pilot inadvertently raises the nose a few degrees to stretch the glide as it were, and fails to note a rapid speed bleed. Next second, a stall warning sounds taking the pilot unawares and it is likely he instinctively pulls back on the stick close to the deck to prevent landing short. All this applies to a dark night black hole illusion where no visual glide slope aids are available.
In my mind that is why a deliberate heads down check of flight instruments at 200 ft, is a useful final check under the circumstances described, and still leave time for a go-around. A single pilot operation can adapt.
Grandpa Aerotart
At almost ANY typical outback aerodrome the simple expedient of having -> ARP in the GPS and then multiplying the dist x 3 + elevation will stop you getting too high or low.
A quick glance down on final - 1.5nm to ARP that is 350' amsl...you should have 800' on the altimeter. If your IAS, power and ROD are all within tolerances you are looking good.
A quick glance down on final - 1.5nm to ARP that is 350' amsl...you should have 800' on the altimeter. If your IAS, power and ROD are all within tolerances you are looking good.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The chief pilot of one company that I worked for introduced a standard approach that he wanted all company pilots to use. It came from an old Ansett training manual and was basically a constant descent to a landing.
The initial point was at 10 miles to touchdown where the aircraft had to be at 3,000' AGL and approach flaps selected. Up to that point the aircraft had been descending at 500'/min. The descent rate was then adjusted to 5 x GS, the undercarriage was selected at 5 miles to touchdown and landing flaps at 1 mile. Basically, it was 300' for every mile from the 10 mile point.
This approach became second nature as it really worked well for the C402 I mainly flew but where it came into its own was when I was based at Tennant Creek where I often had to night visual approaches, sometimes in less than ideal weather. It really meant I didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time I did an approach; just watch the numbers between the GPS and the altimeter.
The initial point was at 10 miles to touchdown where the aircraft had to be at 3,000' AGL and approach flaps selected. Up to that point the aircraft had been descending at 500'/min. The descent rate was then adjusted to 5 x GS, the undercarriage was selected at 5 miles to touchdown and landing flaps at 1 mile. Basically, it was 300' for every mile from the 10 mile point.
This approach became second nature as it really worked well for the C402 I mainly flew but where it came into its own was when I was based at Tennant Creek where I often had to night visual approaches, sometimes in less than ideal weather. It really meant I didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time I did an approach; just watch the numbers between the GPS and the altimeter.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post