2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup
SW3, I don't think anyone disagrees with your examples,though NVFR for the personal transport of the pilot only is over the top for a private operation. If a passenger/s is happy to travel with the pilot on a private flight so be it. No different to jumping on the back of a motorbike,car, speedboat etc. Freedom of choice nothing more or less.
What you described about "stormy night IFR only" is how it is right now. Just follow the rules. The VMC criterior is higher for NVFR than day VFR and has been for decades. This is the possible reason for the crash, continued flight into non VMC conditions. I say possible as the ATSB has not reported on a cause yet and in fact it may have occured before last light and had nothing to do with it.
The last thing Australia needs is more restrictive regulation that will do nothing to prevent poor judgment anyway. All aircraft types crash sometimes even modern airliners into the ocean. The answer is education at all levels not more rules.
What you described about "stormy night IFR only" is how it is right now. Just follow the rules. The VMC criterior is higher for NVFR than day VFR and has been for decades. This is the possible reason for the crash, continued flight into non VMC conditions. I say possible as the ATSB has not reported on a cause yet and in fact it may have occured before last light and had nothing to do with it.
The last thing Australia needs is more restrictive regulation that will do nothing to prevent poor judgment anyway. All aircraft types crash sometimes even modern airliners into the ocean. The answer is education at all levels not more rules.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Safety is my point and 100% agree with Al, it is cheaper than an accident.
We know it, agree with it, and have heard it a million times.
But that wasn't the COST I was referring to, and your posts have now confirmed that you are indeed missing the whole point of AF.
If it became a requirement for the pilot to have a higher category of licence, or the aircraft to have more engines or equipment, then that would make each flight much more costly, and that extra cost would result in:
NO MORE ANGEL FLIGHTS.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Still missing my point. Read my post again is all I'll say. There's a reason why CASA requires certain aircraft types for different operations (IE Multi at night) when commercially carrying pax and this is for safety. So what I'm saying is that is why a single engine NVFR flight for AF is completely different to a purely private operation and in such an instance for a flight of this time and conditions an IR should be held. I never said NVFR is for sole pilot transport, I said private use.
The cost of conducting a safer operation or regrettably not going at that particular time is far better than an accident. As you may read again, I'm all for AF, given the right task to the right pilot in the right aeroplane. I'd be the last to want more regulation and I've never mentioned more regs, just keeping in the current regs up to ones abilities and qualifications.
The cost of conducting a safer operation or regrettably not going at that particular time is far better than an accident. As you may read again, I'm all for AF, given the right task to the right pilot in the right aeroplane. I'd be the last to want more regulation and I've never mentioned more regs, just keeping in the current regs up to ones abilities and qualifications.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I haven't gone back through the whole thread, but I think this point is different to what you've all been discussing. The aircraft in this case went down in my airspace. I wasn't working at the time. One of the guys I work with knew some of the people involved. He has been rocked by the event. It's shaken a few others of us up at well.
What we are trying to grapple with is anything simple that could have made events better. Something that could have got services to the accident quicker. The best we've been able to think of is the use of VFR "flight following". It may not have had any effect in this case, and the service is definitely workload permitting. We can't work out why more VFR's don't use the opportunity. Having said that, if you do want to use it, do us a favour and put a plan in.
Cheers,
R.S.
What we are trying to grapple with is anything simple that could have made events better. Something that could have got services to the accident quicker. The best we've been able to think of is the use of VFR "flight following". It may not have had any effect in this case, and the service is definitely workload permitting. We can't work out why more VFR's don't use the opportunity. Having said that, if you do want to use it, do us a favour and put a plan in.
Cheers,
R.S.
SW3
For the nth time. There is no indication that this was a NVMC related incident. Do I need to repeat this slowly? Because it was reported after last light it has been assumed by many that it occurred after last light. But either look for my earlier posts or do the homework yourself and look up last light at Horsham or Nhill. The Essendon departure time was publicised as wheels off at 4pm. Make a flight plan for an Archer on your favorite flight planning programme and look at the flight time. The wind observations are on the BOM site too. Based on these, the flight should have landed with a comfortable margin before last light. If you look at the source media reports the accident time occurred anywhere between 5.45 and 6.15. The reported times in the media are erratic. At this stage probably on the ATSB knows the real time. But either way there is no prima facie evidence that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IFR, it may be a systems failure, it may be pilot incapacitiation, it may be a number of things, but logical analysis does NOT point to NVMC.
The NVMC debate is a good one. But for crying out loud stop labeling this accident as NVMC related and stop criticising Angel Flight on the basis having allowed this flight as a NVMC operation.
For the nth time. There is no indication that this was a NVMC related incident. Do I need to repeat this slowly? Because it was reported after last light it has been assumed by many that it occurred after last light. But either look for my earlier posts or do the homework yourself and look up last light at Horsham or Nhill. The Essendon departure time was publicised as wheels off at 4pm. Make a flight plan for an Archer on your favorite flight planning programme and look at the flight time. The wind observations are on the BOM site too. Based on these, the flight should have landed with a comfortable margin before last light. If you look at the source media reports the accident time occurred anywhere between 5.45 and 6.15. The reported times in the media are erratic. At this stage probably on the ATSB knows the real time. But either way there is no prima facie evidence that this was a NVMC accident. It may be VFR to IFR, it may be a systems failure, it may be pilot incapacitiation, it may be a number of things, but logical analysis does NOT point to NVMC.
The NVMC debate is a good one. But for crying out loud stop labeling this accident as NVMC related and stop criticising Angel Flight on the basis having allowed this flight as a NVMC operation.
Roger S, I'll tell you why pilots don't use flight following or bother to put in a flight plan half the time. Because ASA discouraged it not so long ago that's why. Wasn't so long ago we were all told to "not clog up the system with VFR plans" and "just call up at the boundry to CTA for clearance" along with the introduction of flight notes to be held by friends and family.
Now that ASA has new equiptment that won't take manual last minute entries (so I'm told) flight plans are back in vogue.
Problem with ASA and CASA for that matter is they change their minds more times than the wind changes. Little wonder VFR operators throw up their hands in dismay and go it alone. I don't blame you coalface workers as I know you mostly agree with the above and try your damness to make it all work but your management is hopeless and wouldn't hold a job on any civvy street. Trying to get them to come up with a workable, reliable system and actually stick with it for more than 5 minutes is like trying to herd cats.
Now that ASA has new equiptment that won't take manual last minute entries (so I'm told) flight plans are back in vogue.
Problem with ASA and CASA for that matter is they change their minds more times than the wind changes. Little wonder VFR operators throw up their hands in dismay and go it alone. I don't blame you coalface workers as I know you mostly agree with the above and try your damness to make it all work but your management is hopeless and wouldn't hold a job on any civvy street. Trying to get them to come up with a workable, reliable system and actually stick with it for more than 5 minutes is like trying to herd cats.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 95
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For the nth time. There is no indication that this was a NVMC related incident. Do I need to repeat this slowly? Because it was reported after last light it has been assumed by many that it occurred after last light. But either look for my earlier posts or do the homework yourself and look up last light at Horsham or Nhill.
Harry
The ATSB has not yet released any form of report. I think the time they currently list is the time at which they were notified - not the accident time. I'll think you'll find that the news reports quote witnesses which point to the accident occurring in the window of 1745 - 1815, which pretty much fits a 1600 departure time from YMEN, tracking KIM - YBDG - YNHL at PA28-180 speeds with probably 2-3 kts headwind. If a Cherokee 180 took 2 hours 50 to get to Horsham, there is a whole other issue at play.
The ATSB has not yet released any form of report. I think the time they currently list is the time at which they were notified - not the accident time. I'll think you'll find that the news reports quote witnesses which point to the accident occurring in the window of 1745 - 1815, which pretty much fits a 1600 departure time from YMEN, tracking KIM - YBDG - YNHL at PA28-180 speeds with probably 2-3 kts headwind. If a Cherokee 180 took 2 hours 50 to get to Horsham, there is a whole other issue at play.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Mildura
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the endurance of a Cherokee 180 with 3 POB and bags?
With a departure time of 1600 and an estimated accident time of 1850 is there a chance of fuel exhaustion?
Also from what ive read the aircraft was not operating on a SARTIME, surely this should be a minimum requirement for Angel Flights?
I also notice that the pilot had flown 80 hours in the previous 7 or so months, and the remainder of his 720 hours command experience was spread out over 43 years - is there any type of recurrent checking or record keeping of recent experience with Angel Flight, or is a mickey mouse AFR every couple of years plus 1 hour at night 12 months ago and 3 T/O and landings 90 days ago all that is needed to be able to be tasked for a mission at night?
With a departure time of 1600 and an estimated accident time of 1850 is there a chance of fuel exhaustion?
Also from what ive read the aircraft was not operating on a SARTIME, surely this should be a minimum requirement for Angel Flights?
I also notice that the pilot had flown 80 hours in the previous 7 or so months, and the remainder of his 720 hours command experience was spread out over 43 years - is there any type of recurrent checking or record keeping of recent experience with Angel Flight, or is a mickey mouse AFR every couple of years plus 1 hour at night 12 months ago and 3 T/O and landings 90 days ago all that is needed to be able to be tasked for a mission at night?
Lets let this thread die. Its going around and around and doesn't need a new round of beating up of Angel Flight and / or the pilot based on imagined conditions.
My conclusion is that the accident occurred between 1745 and 1815 or approx 10 - 40 min before last light. It may have been in deteriorating light and it may have been in poor weather, but prima facie there is no indication that it was NVMC related. This is consistent with media reports and the reported departure time, flight route and aircraft speed.
The actual time of the accident (I imagine) will be the subject of significant research by the ATSB. Its quite likely that at low altitude in that location the txp returns were not reliable. In fact, at low level (ie 1500 ft AGL) in that area I wouldn't be fully confident of reliable VHF comms to ML centre. The accident time is likely to be based on a flight projection based on earlier txp returns supplemented with eye witness reports. I'm sure that the ATSB will do a good job of this in the report, however, all this data must come from sources outside the ATSB (ie ASA) and will take some time to collect and analyse. As a placeholder I'm equally sure that they are currently showing the time at which they were notified of the accident which by my estimation is 30 - 60 minutes after the actual accident time. Once again, this time lapse would be consistent with a VFR flight without flight following.
There is nothing to suggest that the pilot was any less than a well qualified, experienced, diligent, current pilot in a well cared for, well maintained aircraft. He had flown from Yarrawonga to Essendon that day. This is a tragic accident. Lets give a fellow pilot a break and not drag up baseless speculation that impinges on the character of someone unable to defend themselves.
There will be lessons to be learned and I for one will be looking out for the ATSB report. Given that Angel Flight tightened its procedures a year or so ago proactively after the US incident, I'm confident that they will also be looking for improvement actions. But they currently have higher requirements than CASA requires. So any criticisms raised about Angel Flight are even more valid to be asked about guys taking mates for joyflights, or flying for business under cost sharing arrangements or the whole spectrum of private flying. None of this finger pointing has gone on with the Sydney ditching, ABC chopper, Lake Eyre 206 or any of the other recent spate of accidents yet the same questions can be asked of pretty much all the recent accidents.
There are good points in this thread about NVMC ratings, but it applies to all flying not this accident. There is also a very good point about why flight following is not used more commonly and why our system is not sufficiently resourced so that it can be encouraged. I think there is also an debate that could occur about the degradation of weather forecasts for cat D locations like Nhill and the whole abandonment of flightwatch. But these are separate and peripheral to this accident and could each be the subject of separate threads.
My conclusion is that the accident occurred between 1745 and 1815 or approx 10 - 40 min before last light. It may have been in deteriorating light and it may have been in poor weather, but prima facie there is no indication that it was NVMC related. This is consistent with media reports and the reported departure time, flight route and aircraft speed.
The actual time of the accident (I imagine) will be the subject of significant research by the ATSB. Its quite likely that at low altitude in that location the txp returns were not reliable. In fact, at low level (ie 1500 ft AGL) in that area I wouldn't be fully confident of reliable VHF comms to ML centre. The accident time is likely to be based on a flight projection based on earlier txp returns supplemented with eye witness reports. I'm sure that the ATSB will do a good job of this in the report, however, all this data must come from sources outside the ATSB (ie ASA) and will take some time to collect and analyse. As a placeholder I'm equally sure that they are currently showing the time at which they were notified of the accident which by my estimation is 30 - 60 minutes after the actual accident time. Once again, this time lapse would be consistent with a VFR flight without flight following.
There is nothing to suggest that the pilot was any less than a well qualified, experienced, diligent, current pilot in a well cared for, well maintained aircraft. He had flown from Yarrawonga to Essendon that day. This is a tragic accident. Lets give a fellow pilot a break and not drag up baseless speculation that impinges on the character of someone unable to defend themselves.
There will be lessons to be learned and I for one will be looking out for the ATSB report. Given that Angel Flight tightened its procedures a year or so ago proactively after the US incident, I'm confident that they will also be looking for improvement actions. But they currently have higher requirements than CASA requires. So any criticisms raised about Angel Flight are even more valid to be asked about guys taking mates for joyflights, or flying for business under cost sharing arrangements or the whole spectrum of private flying. None of this finger pointing has gone on with the Sydney ditching, ABC chopper, Lake Eyre 206 or any of the other recent spate of accidents yet the same questions can be asked of pretty much all the recent accidents.
There are good points in this thread about NVMC ratings, but it applies to all flying not this accident. There is also a very good point about why flight following is not used more commonly and why our system is not sufficiently resourced so that it can be encouraged. I think there is also an debate that could occur about the degradation of weather forecasts for cat D locations like Nhill and the whole abandonment of flightwatch. But these are separate and peripheral to this accident and could each be the subject of separate threads.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old Akro, settle! NVFR is not my only point and I'm not only centering on this tragedy. My whole point is keep within your depth and qualifications. A flight leaving into the late afternoon or early evening in possible marginal weather? Best in an IFR twin. And please accept I'm not attacking AF, however the risks of SE at night etc must be considered. My concerns stem from experience, not from wanting to criticize a fantastic organisation. End of story. I understand where you're coming from but CASA has regs in place for the same flight conducted commercially which essentially has just as much at stake and is not dissimilar from an AF task only money doesn't change hands.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lets let this thread die. Its going around and around and doesn't need a new round of beating up of Angel Flight and / or the pilot based on imagined conditions
When you live....
ATSB Preliminary Report out
Landed in Bendigo, didn't depart until 17.11, time of impact approx 18.20. Let the NVFR debate restart....
I don't understand what the report is trying to say about the TAFs. On one hand it indicates that the TAFs were saying an improvement was on but at the same time indicating that there had been an INTER in place (but I can't tell if it had been removed). Not clear but pointing to a possible false hope being given that getting in would have been ok.
UTR.
I don't understand what the report is trying to say about the TAFs. On one hand it indicates that the TAFs were saying an improvement was on but at the same time indicating that there had been an INTER in place (but I can't tell if it had been removed). Not clear but pointing to a possible false hope being given that getting in would have been ok.
UTR.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weather in the area around the accident was reported by other pilots not to have been suitable for VFR flight in the late afternoon.
I think its unclear. One would assume he landed at Bendigo because the weather didn't look good. At Bendigo the pilot checked the weather on NAIPS and the passenger rang someone at Nhill. One would assume that the combined information of passenger & pilot led them to decide to continue. They spent about 20 minutes on the ground at Bendigo at a time when there were still people around, so I'm willing to give the pilot the benefit and assume he made a good fist of trying to get a better handle on the weather ahead. I landed (as a passenger) at Tullamarine in a Virgin Blue aircraft at pretty much the accident time and I thought the Melbourne basin looked CAVOK or very close to it. This is a fair way from Horsham, but it does serve to question the assumption that there was universally poor weather.
I'm sure this will re-ignite the NVFR debate, but the accident occurred basically at last light and not some time after last light due to disorientation. So, I still think its probably a VMC to non-VMC thing.
Given that the pilot has landed at Bendigo (presumably) to seek better weather information, my question is does our system provide adequate information on which to base a decision to fly a hour's flight? In my experience, the TAF's for Horsham / Nhill are very poor - especially toward the end of its validity. There is a (phone only) AWIS, but without cloud data. In fact there are none with cloud data in that whole segment of Victoria. Would the outcome have been better with the old flightwatch? Would the outcome be different if flight following was easier to access? Would the outcome be different if he took the more direct route (largely following the highway) via Ballarat which would have required an airways clearance. But at this time of the afternoon it is unlikely that this would have been granted.
The pilot is likely to be blamed here for poor decision making. But given that he landed and sought additional weather information, I think it is appropriate to review whether our system was able to provide him with adequate information. The Bendigo landing is not consistent with a reckless or gung-ho pilot.
I'm sure this will re-ignite the NVFR debate, but the accident occurred basically at last light and not some time after last light due to disorientation. So, I still think its probably a VMC to non-VMC thing.
Given that the pilot has landed at Bendigo (presumably) to seek better weather information, my question is does our system provide adequate information on which to base a decision to fly a hour's flight? In my experience, the TAF's for Horsham / Nhill are very poor - especially toward the end of its validity. There is a (phone only) AWIS, but without cloud data. In fact there are none with cloud data in that whole segment of Victoria. Would the outcome have been better with the old flightwatch? Would the outcome be different if flight following was easier to access? Would the outcome be different if he took the more direct route (largely following the highway) via Ballarat which would have required an airways clearance. But at this time of the afternoon it is unlikely that this would have been granted.
The pilot is likely to be blamed here for poor decision making. But given that he landed and sought additional weather information, I think it is appropriate to review whether our system was able to provide him with adequate information. The Bendigo landing is not consistent with a reckless or gung-ho pilot.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Motor racing and aviation have some things in common. I have a little knowledge of both.
If you only think you can..........YOU CAN"T.
The stopping in Bendigo is a telling tale, whether it be VFR into IMC or just Night VMC. My guess is a blend of both
If you only think you can..........YOU CAN"T.
The stopping in Bendigo is a telling tale, whether it be VFR into IMC or just Night VMC. My guess is a blend of both
without eod graphs in front of me or relevant apps, does anyone know what time (local) that last light was in the vicinity of Warracknabeal on that particular day?
'A loud bang was heard at approximately 1820'
'A loud bang was heard at approximately 1820'
Published last light was 6:23pm. Accident was at 6:20pm. The pilot was NVMC rated and the flight was replanned at Bendigo to land at Nhill shortly after last light. This was not a NVFR accident.
It was probably a VFR no non VMC accident.
My question is; given that the pilot stopped at Bendigo, made phonecalls and sought updated weather - for a flight of less than an hour over flat terrain - has our system delivered the level of flight service that it should? I don't think that this is a question that will get a look-in on the ATSB report, but I think its a question worth asking.
And for Jabawocky, having come freshly from being Clerk of Course at a race meeting this weekend. Racing provides track inspections and reports, safety cars, flag marshalls and other support. We intervened 3 times to clean oil or other debris from the track and sent an ambulance out once as a precaution. I also spoke to 2 drivers to counsel them on poor judgements they made. There are many people whose job it is to advise drivers of changed conditions and generally watch over them.
It was probably a VFR no non VMC accident.
My question is; given that the pilot stopped at Bendigo, made phonecalls and sought updated weather - for a flight of less than an hour over flat terrain - has our system delivered the level of flight service that it should? I don't think that this is a question that will get a look-in on the ATSB report, but I think its a question worth asking.
And for Jabawocky, having come freshly from being Clerk of Course at a race meeting this weekend. Racing provides track inspections and reports, safety cars, flag marshalls and other support. We intervened 3 times to clean oil or other debris from the track and sent an ambulance out once as a precaution. I also spoke to 2 drivers to counsel them on poor judgements they made. There are many people whose job it is to advise drivers of changed conditions and generally watch over them.