MERGED: Alligator Airways Grounded
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth
Age: 58
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let me put it this way: if you opened the throttle and didn't get the required power setting, what should you do? Close the throttle and taxi off... Insinuated commercial pressure or no pressure.
For God's sake lives were at stake! You, as Pilot in Command are responsible and the Chief Pilot's last line of defence to know you know your stuff and will defend your passengers as I strove to defend You.
I asked the PIC, what power setting do you require for takeoff. Answer, 38 Inches. Next question, what power setting did you have? 29 inches. Third question, why did you takeoff? ...No reply.
I re-checked his questionerre - yep, 38 inches. He knew also that 29 inches was our cruise power setting. Not even our climb setting - let alone takeoff.
He's a lovely guy.
CASA in Court challenged me - he didn't understand English. I said, you gave him a level 6 English pass - satisfying CASA that he did. Shot themselves in the foot.
You will read CASA findings in the future - they all represent CASA's point of view and defend only their case. In short, they are biassed. It has been interesting to see how they work, up close. Ask yourself, what tangible benefit has CASA given to safety, lately? I asked them for help - none!
CASA were determined that we would not sucseed. They told me at the CP interview that, "the easiest way for us (CASA) to stop an operation from flying is to remove the Chief Pilot" and that "we (CASA) may have handed you (me) a poisened chalice".
When the CASA machine's mind is made up - they have no choice but to take it all the way. Very few have enough money to prevail against all of your tax-payers dollars.
For God's sake lives were at stake! You, as Pilot in Command are responsible and the Chief Pilot's last line of defence to know you know your stuff and will defend your passengers as I strove to defend You.
I asked the PIC, what power setting do you require for takeoff. Answer, 38 Inches. Next question, what power setting did you have? 29 inches. Third question, why did you takeoff? ...No reply.
I re-checked his questionerre - yep, 38 inches. He knew also that 29 inches was our cruise power setting. Not even our climb setting - let alone takeoff.
He's a lovely guy.
CASA in Court challenged me - he didn't understand English. I said, you gave him a level 6 English pass - satisfying CASA that he did. Shot themselves in the foot.
You will read CASA findings in the future - they all represent CASA's point of view and defend only their case. In short, they are biassed. It has been interesting to see how they work, up close. Ask yourself, what tangible benefit has CASA given to safety, lately? I asked them for help - none!
CASA were determined that we would not sucseed. They told me at the CP interview that, "the easiest way for us (CASA) to stop an operation from flying is to remove the Chief Pilot" and that "we (CASA) may have handed you (me) a poisened chalice".
When the CASA machine's mind is made up - they have no choice but to take it all the way. Very few have enough money to prevail against all of your tax-payers dollars.
Last edited by GedStreet; 10th Jun 2012 at 16:58. Reason: Enhanced emphasis.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth
Age: 58
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am incredulous how you rumour networkers, hidden behind your pseudonims provarocate. Its easy when you hide.
Do not ever pretend to know what I think and did.
You can ask me: [email protected]
Re-publish it here, if you see fit, but better under your own name - it shows some professionalism.
Thank you.
Do not ever pretend to know what I think and did.
You can ask me: [email protected]
Re-publish it here, if you see fit, but better under your own name - it shows some professionalism.
Thank you.
Last edited by GedStreet; 10th Jun 2012 at 15:32.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats almost a topic closer.
But i'll bite.
Very nice to see you threw one at CASA that they couldn't rebuke...a small victory for the lil guy.
I don't think anyone here has directly attacked your efforts as CP. More to the point is that they feel you never had the chance to effectively do the job you were employed to do. All of that is time based for 2 reasons, 1 you needed to appease CASA, 2 you needed to convert your employer so that you could appease CASA.
I don't think any future employer will take the Alligator experience as a negative on your resume. If they do, then they are dumb. Many earlier posts in this thread were positive to your appointment.
As for our 'rogue' pilot taking off without the turbo doing its job, I have to agree with Jabawocky. The pilot clearly did not understand what he should have seen on the MAP guage. This isn't the fault of the CP, as Jaba says, its a fault in our syllabus. The CPL syllabus and exams ask some questions about turbo's but they are generic, and the required learning BARELY tells you the truth. You can actually pass the exam without knowing the difference between turbocharged and turbo normalised. Just another CASA crock!. (pun intended)
That pilots flying, after he realised it had turned to crap, is sensational! Pure low flying, he kept his wits about him for a good result...plenty of guys about couldn't fly that!
But i'll bite.
Very nice to see you threw one at CASA that they couldn't rebuke...a small victory for the lil guy.
I don't think anyone here has directly attacked your efforts as CP. More to the point is that they feel you never had the chance to effectively do the job you were employed to do. All of that is time based for 2 reasons, 1 you needed to appease CASA, 2 you needed to convert your employer so that you could appease CASA.
I don't think any future employer will take the Alligator experience as a negative on your resume. If they do, then they are dumb. Many earlier posts in this thread were positive to your appointment.
As for our 'rogue' pilot taking off without the turbo doing its job, I have to agree with Jabawocky. The pilot clearly did not understand what he should have seen on the MAP guage. This isn't the fault of the CP, as Jaba says, its a fault in our syllabus. The CPL syllabus and exams ask some questions about turbo's but they are generic, and the required learning BARELY tells you the truth. You can actually pass the exam without knowing the difference between turbocharged and turbo normalised. Just another CASA crock!. (pun intended)
That pilots flying, after he realised it had turned to crap, is sensational! Pure low flying, he kept his wits about him for a good result...plenty of guys about couldn't fly that!
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth
Age: 58
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, that flight should have ceased on the runway - prior to any attempt at rotation.
Thank you for your support but - far out, i can't be in the co-pilot seat for all flights and that PIC had done a handsome number of flights for us before that day, 5+ hours with me too and a number of solo revenue flights, quite sucessfully.
Why did you take off - no reply...?
I'm as puzzled as you.
At our meeting, that evening the PIC got a ripple of applause from his fellow pilots. I said NO! You must realise how close this was to a disaster. It wasn't clever. It wasn't good flying - it never should have happened.
Airmanship appears to be dead.
Thank you for your support but - far out, i can't be in the co-pilot seat for all flights and that PIC had done a handsome number of flights for us before that day, 5+ hours with me too and a number of solo revenue flights, quite sucessfully.
Why did you take off - no reply...?
I'm as puzzled as you.
At our meeting, that evening the PIC got a ripple of applause from his fellow pilots. I said NO! You must realise how close this was to a disaster. It wasn't clever. It wasn't good flying - it never should have happened.
Airmanship appears to be dead.
Last edited by GedStreet; 10th Jun 2012 at 17:39.
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Perth
Age: 58
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh and that wasn't the only one I threw for the lil guy.
Kicking goals from the back line was our Solicitors comment and, cogent and compelling was the Judges comment on my testimony. Very well defended, he went on to say but he couldn't be held to account for letting Alligator fly again.
A consevative judgement. He did not want to be accused of being brave.
Kicking goals from the back line was our Solicitors comment and, cogent and compelling was the Judges comment on my testimony. Very well defended, he went on to say but he couldn't be held to account for letting Alligator fly again.
A consevative judgement. He did not want to be accused of being brave.
Last edited by GedStreet; 10th Jun 2012 at 17:47.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for the various replies Ged. I have never worked in Kununurra but have been involved in GA in the surrounding regions.
I have also plied my trade about the world and been a junior pilot in NZ, Africa and the Pacific regions. As a LAME/ Chief Engineer in many other parts of the world I have also seen first hand how some of these companies end up trying to operate.
We can all see you have been through hell and back. Not one person on this forum has knocked your name, - I think to the contrary you have attracted much admiration for your approach.
I realise the media reporting and even the court events may not be entirely accurate as we view them.
You were a brave man taking that task on and I now realise you had little support in your role. My experiences have been that the Chief Engineer is not beyond laying down the law... to any within yelling distance. That would be junior pilots, Chief Pilot, Ops Manager, owner and even the regulators.
You at Alligator were missing that vital back-up.
There will be many young pilots reading this. There will also be others in GA that will also be learning and hopefully relating events to their own personal circumstances. Something positive has to come out of this mess.
Many of the NZ'ers here will remember United Aviation at Palmerston North.
For me this is a major case of deja vu. Their demise was in 1997 and was brought about with the loss of a Baron and pilot.
The accident/death/Police/manslaughter scenario is very real...... some here have been through the process before. Some more than once.
I believe you were lucky to have been spared that on 28th April.
The Australian regs are not the easiest in the world, the regulators perhaps not the friendliest or most helpful about.
If nothing else there is an industry protocol and most companies and participants within the industry can live with that.
My plea here is to get across to inexperienced pilot's that you are not engineers... You have no knowledge, or right, to declare a U/S aircraft fit for flight.
The system is there for everyone's safety. The video is a classic example of what can happen when things do go off the rails.
That one flight cost many people a lot of money.
It could have been a whole lot worse.
I have also plied my trade about the world and been a junior pilot in NZ, Africa and the Pacific regions. As a LAME/ Chief Engineer in many other parts of the world I have also seen first hand how some of these companies end up trying to operate.
We can all see you have been through hell and back. Not one person on this forum has knocked your name, - I think to the contrary you have attracted much admiration for your approach.
I realise the media reporting and even the court events may not be entirely accurate as we view them.
You were a brave man taking that task on and I now realise you had little support in your role. My experiences have been that the Chief Engineer is not beyond laying down the law... to any within yelling distance. That would be junior pilots, Chief Pilot, Ops Manager, owner and even the regulators.
You at Alligator were missing that vital back-up.
There will be many young pilots reading this. There will also be others in GA that will also be learning and hopefully relating events to their own personal circumstances. Something positive has to come out of this mess.
Many of the NZ'ers here will remember United Aviation at Palmerston North.
For me this is a major case of deja vu. Their demise was in 1997 and was brought about with the loss of a Baron and pilot.
The accident/death/Police/manslaughter scenario is very real...... some here have been through the process before. Some more than once.
I believe you were lucky to have been spared that on 28th April.
The Australian regs are not the easiest in the world, the regulators perhaps not the friendliest or most helpful about.
If nothing else there is an industry protocol and most companies and participants within the industry can live with that.
My plea here is to get across to inexperienced pilot's that you are not engineers... You have no knowledge, or right, to declare a U/S aircraft fit for flight.
The system is there for everyone's safety. The video is a classic example of what can happen when things do go off the rails.
That one flight cost many people a lot of money.
It could have been a whole lot worse.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comprehensive replies Ged, thanks. I concur, you can't be in the copilot's seat for every flight, the pilot must bear some responsibility for the events of the day. As you state, he was able to verbalise and record on training documents the MP he should have expected to see that day -but still persisted with an attempted departure despite the obvious shortcomings in performance. Those that suggest "mixed-fleet" flying as a defense/excuse... puhleeze! The pilot would have been approved to fly that (turbocharged) aircraft as well as any normally aspirated airframes and would have been well aware of the differences in performance of the turbocharged airframe. On turbo'd airframes I have flown, you will comfortably hold the aircraft on toe/park brakes up to about 29"MP... but once the turbo kicks in, she's going somewhere, regardless of what restraint you have trying to hold her. It just ain't possible to mistake the difference between a functioning or non-functioning turbo.
The suggestion posted earlier that "the aircraft will still fly without the turbo" (or words to that effect) I believe may refer to an aircraft already airborne (in the cruise?) at the point of turbo/waste-gate failure -assuming of course that the failure is not catastrophic, throwing red-hot bits of high-velocity metal all over the place. Certainly not a "take it flying without the turbocharger" situation.
Those suggesting this was a "soft" failure -wow, I just don't get your reasoning. There's not a great deal more attention-getting than an airframe not performing to expectation under full-power conditions IMO. I have aborted a departure in a BN2 with a 2-3" discrepancy in MP between the engines at full throttle once. It could have been attributed to instrument discrepancy in an old airframe, but she didn't sound/feel right. BB probably remembers that incident -it turned out to be a carb-air box that had worked its way loose. Another time a former CP aborted on a very short runway with a full load under similar circumstances, also in a BN2. That time it was a mag-switch failure. If something doesn't feel right, sort it out!!! Your arse is a pretty good indicator of trouble -as well as being what you are putting at-risk (as well as any others attached to your airframe) if you don't.
Keep up the good work Ged, fight the good fight. I believe there is beaucoup industry support for you, personally and professionally, not to mention sympathy for the circumstances thrust upon you.
The suggestion posted earlier that "the aircraft will still fly without the turbo" (or words to that effect) I believe may refer to an aircraft already airborne (in the cruise?) at the point of turbo/waste-gate failure -assuming of course that the failure is not catastrophic, throwing red-hot bits of high-velocity metal all over the place. Certainly not a "take it flying without the turbocharger" situation.
Those suggesting this was a "soft" failure -wow, I just don't get your reasoning. There's not a great deal more attention-getting than an airframe not performing to expectation under full-power conditions IMO. I have aborted a departure in a BN2 with a 2-3" discrepancy in MP between the engines at full throttle once. It could have been attributed to instrument discrepancy in an old airframe, but she didn't sound/feel right. BB probably remembers that incident -it turned out to be a carb-air box that had worked its way loose. Another time a former CP aborted on a very short runway with a full load under similar circumstances, also in a BN2. That time it was a mag-switch failure. If something doesn't feel right, sort it out!!! Your arse is a pretty good indicator of trouble -as well as being what you are putting at-risk (as well as any others attached to your airframe) if you don't.
Keep up the good work Ged, fight the good fight. I believe there is beaucoup industry support for you, personally and professionally, not to mention sympathy for the circumstances thrust upon you.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: East
Posts: 186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Those suggesting this was a "soft" failure -wow, I just don't get your reasoning.
The engine was still producing partial power. Not enough for takeoff, but in flight it would have at the very least given you more forced landing site options.
RS, I agree with your sound reasoning and yes, some pretty poor form was displayed.
However, to defend the indefensible he had less than 20 hours on type. He probably didn't know enough to know it didn't feel right. When did he look at the MP? Once airborne?
From a turbocharged background I always waited to feel the surge as the turbochargers boosted up before checking the MP. Did he know enough to know it didn't feel right? Was he expected issues with the waste gate?
There is more to this than just the plain old blame the pilot for being a unit.
I commend Ged for the effort he put in, but CASA had already written alligators history. With or without Ged the end result would have been the same.
However, to defend the indefensible he had less than 20 hours on type. He probably didn't know enough to know it didn't feel right. When did he look at the MP? Once airborne?
From a turbocharged background I always waited to feel the surge as the turbochargers boosted up before checking the MP. Did he know enough to know it didn't feel right? Was he expected issues with the waste gate?
There is more to this than just the plain old blame the pilot for being a unit.
I commend Ged for the effort he put in, but CASA had already written alligators history. With or without Ged the end result would have been the same.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm aware of the definition of a "soft" failure NIK320, but thanks... however my point remains, there was nothing "soft" abut this failure under discussion IMO.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have to ask GG. What is the primary display of power indication in a constant speed equipped aircraft ?
In any take-off the pilot has to be satisfied the engine is making power.
This engine most certainly was not and he would have been well aware that the aircraft was still on the ground at the normal lift-off point.
So not only did he ignore the available instrumentation but he chose not to abort the take-off and instead persevere with what he had available.
He was very lucky to get off as lightly as he did.
Alligator representatives at the hearing said they could not defend the indefensible. The judge did not believe removing the pilot from flying was the fix to some of the culture issues.
In any take-off the pilot has to be satisfied the engine is making power.
This engine most certainly was not and he would have been well aware that the aircraft was still on the ground at the normal lift-off point.
So not only did he ignore the available instrumentation but he chose not to abort the take-off and instead persevere with what he had available.
He was very lucky to get off as lightly as he did.
Alligator representatives at the hearing said they could not defend the indefensible. The judge did not believe removing the pilot from flying was the fix to some of the culture issues.
Obviously the MP BB.
Look, I'm not saying the pilot is an angel, I'm saying he was/is inexperienced.
Thankfully he wasn't flying an Airbus A320 while he learnt this lesson hey
Look, I'm not saying the pilot is an angel, I'm saying he was/is inexperienced.
Thankfully he wasn't flying an Airbus A320 while he learnt this lesson hey
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Look, I'm not saying the pilot is an angel, I'm saying he was/is inexperienced.
Thankfully he wasn't flying an Airbus A320 while he learnt this lesson hey
Thankfully he wasn't flying an Airbus A320 while he learnt this lesson hey
You could start a whole new thread on that topic alone.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"CASA were determined that we would not sucseed. They told me at the CP interview that, "the easiest way for us (CASA) to stop an operation from flying is to remove the Chief Pilot" and that "we (CASA) may have handed you (me) a poisened chalice".
Ged,
would you say now, from your experience with CASA and the way they operate, it is a classic example of why you'd be out of your mind to accept a chief pilots position under the current regime in CASA??
Who the hell would trust a back stabber.
The Skull has form for that, "star chamber" and all.
Ged,
would you say now, from your experience with CASA and the way they operate, it is a classic example of why you'd be out of your mind to accept a chief pilots position under the current regime in CASA??
Who the hell would trust a back stabber.
The Skull has form for that, "star chamber" and all.
Last edited by thorn bird; 11th Jun 2012 at 06:11.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Guys,
I am Denys Sergieiev, pilot of WOV on the april 28th.
I don't want to make excuses, just want to clarify some things.
About my smile on video, I was in shock till the rest of the day this is uncontrollable reaction.
I didn't know that something wrong with aeroplane before I applied full power on the runway.
Yes I did have a time to abort take off, this mistake looks incredibly simple and my action incredibly stupid, but you know facts what you don't know is the emotions attached to this decision. Unfortunately ability to resist emotions only comes with experience which I didn't have. At the time I believed that I can go with 29 inches and I was under pressure to go because flight was delayed by two hours and after that I had another one.
I know that I did wrong and no excuses for me.
Do I suffer after this? Yes I do, and it will be with me till the rest of my days.
Did I learn from this? Yes I did. This is kind of lesson which you don't want to learn hard way.
But life is going on and I can't just lie and die regretting about what happened.
I determined to continue flying and be much safer pilot than I was before.
I am Denys Sergieiev, pilot of WOV on the april 28th.
I don't want to make excuses, just want to clarify some things.
About my smile on video, I was in shock till the rest of the day this is uncontrollable reaction.
I didn't know that something wrong with aeroplane before I applied full power on the runway.
Yes I did have a time to abort take off, this mistake looks incredibly simple and my action incredibly stupid, but you know facts what you don't know is the emotions attached to this decision. Unfortunately ability to resist emotions only comes with experience which I didn't have. At the time I believed that I can go with 29 inches and I was under pressure to go because flight was delayed by two hours and after that I had another one.
I know that I did wrong and no excuses for me.
Do I suffer after this? Yes I do, and it will be with me till the rest of my days.
Did I learn from this? Yes I did. This is kind of lesson which you don't want to learn hard way.
But life is going on and I can't just lie and die regretting about what happened.
I determined to continue flying and be much safer pilot than I was before.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Denys,
Good on you for jumping on and standing up for yourself, it's clearly worked well for Ged as well. As I have said, I was quite shocked at your physical response after the incident, and I do apologise as I hadn't considered it was due to shock.
I hope all new pilots have followed the Alligator saga, or will hear about it in years to come, as there are so many lessons to be learned.
Good on you for jumping on and standing up for yourself, it's clearly worked well for Ged as well. As I have said, I was quite shocked at your physical response after the incident, and I do apologise as I hadn't considered it was due to shock.
I hope all new pilots have followed the Alligator saga, or will hear about it in years to come, as there are so many lessons to be learned.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Denys. Welcome to the forum and it must have been a gruelling first up post for you.
As you have no doubt gathered, several of the pilots here think you are extremely lucky in a way that you didn't write yourself, the plane and the pax off.
You seem convinced that you could go with 29 ", - that is the problem with an operation where local rules start getting made. Bar talk and hearsay can start over-riding the manuals.
You are not alone in doing something incredibly stupid.. yours was just so dangerous and public that it was the final straw in bringing down an airservice operator.
Many operations fail after a crash, the publicity and loss of confidence by the public means that the revenue loss is unacceptable.
I can rattle of a string of names of junior pilots who have not only killed themselves but often their passengers and the company in the process.
You were very fortunate in a way.. then again if was mortified to see Ged report your fellow pilots' take on the events.
Perhaps it could have happened to a number of your peers.... you may have just been the unlucky one in the batch.
Some of you guys need a cranky Chief Engineer to ream you out..
You will soon stop the cavalier approach to defects and the reporting of same.
The moment that engine did not get above 30" on the take-off the aircraft was no longer airworthy.
I have never bought into the argument that a 200 hour pilot has not got the experience to realise that. The rules are very clear and it is not difficult to teach.
As you have no doubt gathered, several of the pilots here think you are extremely lucky in a way that you didn't write yourself, the plane and the pax off.
You seem convinced that you could go with 29 ", - that is the problem with an operation where local rules start getting made. Bar talk and hearsay can start over-riding the manuals.
You are not alone in doing something incredibly stupid.. yours was just so dangerous and public that it was the final straw in bringing down an airservice operator.
Many operations fail after a crash, the publicity and loss of confidence by the public means that the revenue loss is unacceptable.
I can rattle of a string of names of junior pilots who have not only killed themselves but often their passengers and the company in the process.
You were very fortunate in a way.. then again if was mortified to see Ged report your fellow pilots' take on the events.
At our meeting, that evening the PIC got a ripple of applause from his fellow pilots. I said NO! You must realise how close this was to a disaster. It wasn't clever. It wasn't good flying - it never should have happened.
Airmanship appears to be dead.
Airmanship appears to be dead.
Some of you guys need a cranky Chief Engineer to ream you out..
You will soon stop the cavalier approach to defects and the reporting of same.
The moment that engine did not get above 30" on the take-off the aircraft was no longer airworthy.
I have never bought into the argument that a 200 hour pilot has not got the experience to realise that. The rules are very clear and it is not difficult to teach.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Greetings Denys
That took guts -logging on here & posting as you have. Well done. On viewing the video, I understood the nature of your smile. I don't think that there are many that would have reacted significantly differently when faced with a similarly trying situation, whilst maintaining a semblance of 'professionalism' for the fare-paying punters in the immediate aftermath...
I understand only too well the pressures you perceived and given the obvious culture of the organisation stemming from the owner/ops manager/chief engineer, it's a wonder that the organisation escaped without fatalities.
At least you kept your head and kept it together upon realising the seriousness of the situation you were in, but true Professionalism would have meant that you never got into that situation in the 1st place. You would have aborted the departure immediately on realising you were not developing full rated power. I personally don't believe a scan of the engine instruments is necessary for that -your arse would have told you 1st- and a brief scan of the instruments confirmed what you already knew.
I'm confident you have learned a lesson from all this -admittedly a harsh lesson, but one you'll never forget. I hope that your dealings with the regulator are not excessively harsh. I respect your determination to continue in aviation and wish you all the best.
That took guts -logging on here & posting as you have. Well done. On viewing the video, I understood the nature of your smile. I don't think that there are many that would have reacted significantly differently when faced with a similarly trying situation, whilst maintaining a semblance of 'professionalism' for the fare-paying punters in the immediate aftermath...
I understand only too well the pressures you perceived and given the obvious culture of the organisation stemming from the owner/ops manager/chief engineer, it's a wonder that the organisation escaped without fatalities.
At least you kept your head and kept it together upon realising the seriousness of the situation you were in, but true Professionalism would have meant that you never got into that situation in the 1st place. You would have aborted the departure immediately on realising you were not developing full rated power. I personally don't believe a scan of the engine instruments is necessary for that -your arse would have told you 1st- and a brief scan of the instruments confirmed what you already knew.
I'm confident you have learned a lesson from all this -admittedly a harsh lesson, but one you'll never forget. I hope that your dealings with the regulator are not excessively harsh. I respect your determination to continue in aviation and wish you all the best.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Australia
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks guys for the warm words.
During my training instructor told me "don't listen what people say do what law says"
but I didn't get this lesson. Now I did. And will remember it.
I really feel sorry for my passengers, they trusted me their lives and I had no right taking any risks.
I am happy that I still alive and surprisingly for many others I want to fly much more than I did before and I want to be the safest pilot.
This incident completely changed my view of flying and valuables in life and I can only regret that I didn't think like that before.
Thank you for reading this I feel much better now.
During my training instructor told me "don't listen what people say do what law says"
but I didn't get this lesson. Now I did. And will remember it.
I really feel sorry for my passengers, they trusted me their lives and I had no right taking any risks.
I am happy that I still alive and surprisingly for many others I want to fly much more than I did before and I want to be the safest pilot.
This incident completely changed my view of flying and valuables in life and I can only regret that I didn't think like that before.
Thank you for reading this I feel much better now.