2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup

[Howard Hughes]

I think you are missing the point Mostly, I like many others have no qualms with NVFR, it is legal! My only question would be (and I think it is also the point others are trying to make), is does it have a place in what is effectively a 'quasi' commercial operation?

[andrewr]

So more restrictive than commercial ops?

Perhaps, given that these may be performed by private pilots. My list was meant as a suggestion not a prescription - of course any final rule would be different. They already require 250 hours PIC, which is more restrictive than commercial ops IIRC.

You might have more relaxed requirements for pilots with a CPL and/or charter category aircraft, although commercial operations also typically have an operations manual that will be more restrictive than the bare commercial regulations.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Not sure why you're referring to these accidents, tossas.
Monarch, yep, CFIT, but that pilot had almost 2000hrs TT and 400 on type. Not exactly inexperienced.

Lord Howe? From memory, the pilot had mechanical issues and Whyalla was a double engine failure due to the engines being run too lean under company SOPs.

Don't think accidents are purely the domain of inexperienced pilots. There are plenty of examples of experienced CFITs.

[mickjoebill]

The search and rescue

News report say it took up to two hours for the accident site to be located by ground crews. Is this correct?

Was air support called for? but couldn't respond due weather or distance?


Mickjoebill

[717tech]

Someone said that AF require some dual flying before being approved for flights. I don't believe this is correct. I signed up but never did fly. They simply requested a photo copy of my license and log book totals. Unless things have changed....

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Whether I am flying by myself, flying with members of my family, or flying members of someone elses family - same rules, same risk management, same decision making process!

Dr

[Old Akro]

Some points are being forgotten.
1. I believe this is the first accident that has occurred on an Angel Flight in 11,000 flights. If that had been 11,000 car trips, how many accidents would be expected? If an average round trip is (say) 500km this equates to 5.5 million km. The Lumley fleet benchmark is 1.5 accidents per 100,000km, so at best practice fleet accident rates this would be over 80 car accidents that would have occurred for these hospital transfers, the odds are that at least one one of these would have been fatal. I would contend that overall, Angel Flights are better than the other private alternatives.
2. We don't know what time the accident occurred. Depending on the media reports it was in somewhere between about 5:45 & 6:30pm. The published last light for Nhill on that day was 6:23pm. The crash site is less than 15 min from Nhill for a Cherokee 180. Its possible that the aircraft could have landed before last light if the flight was completed. I'm sure the experience of the day was different due to the cloud cover, but this was not a NVMC flight in the true sense. This was a flight that would have / should have finished in declining light at or near last light at a good, long sealed strip with good lighting, a Navaid and in an area of flat terrain with an equally good alternate nearby (Horsham). If the reported wheels up time of 4pm at Essendon is accurate the ETA at Nhill would have been 5:49pm, so maybe ATC vectors in Melbourne, or weather detours delayed the planned arrival time. Its not really a bad use of a NVMC rating to act as an fall back if the landing is done in low (pre-last light) light or a few minutes after last light.
3. There are a number of posts saying that Angel Flight should impose higher standards than CASA has set. Are we really suggesting that a not for profit organisation should be setting itself up as knowing better than the government regulator? And if Angel Flight creates its own regulations and there is another accident, does that mean Angel Flight is now responsible for justifying these standards? Angel Flight is not an aviation operator. Its more like a match making service between good Samaritan pilots and people in need. If the flight standards are inadequate, then they are equally inadequate for any of us who take mates for a fly and we should be looking to CASA to tighten its regulations. I don't think anyone really wants that.

At the end of the day, I don't believe this accident is about experience, training standards, or equipment. I think its mainly about weather and judgement and neither of those can be regulated. I'm sure that there are lessons to be learned and that's why the accident should be studied and analysed. But I'm doubtful that regulation is the solution.

[Jabawocky]

Whether I am flying by myself, flying with members of my family, or flying members of someone elses family - same rules, same risk management, same decision making process!

Dr

Forkie has taken the words out of my mouth.......I was about to say, I have the same standards be it me or a plane full. I often tell folk who ask, I do not give a rats about thier ar$e, I am looking after mine! If yours is strapped to the same structure, it should be OK too!

I do not operate any different, but I do think others may not like being subjected to what we as pilots will accept in terms of weather/ride and having to divert etc. I can divert back to Brisbane, thats fine for me, for them they may be better driving or staying in a motel and not having to return and then have to do it anyway.

This was a VFR flight, NVFR has nothing to do with it. The pilot ran out of daylight and good weather, by all reports. That is IMC and IFR is required. NVFR requires LSALT until 3 miles etc etc etc, so he was not following any flight rules.

As Clinton has pointed out.........Insurance....and what do insurers do when its obvious the rules where not followed?

If you follow the rules and have a big bingle.......and most would agree that is rare, insurance is going to have to pay. Break a bunch......well you pay all the prices of your actions.

This will end in tears for all concerned just like so many others, a C206 YSBK-YBAF comes to mind a year or so back.

[jas24zzk]

Clinton,
AF do require you to provide proof of insurance/etc, as would anyone that organises this sort of thing.

My recollection, is that at some point QBE were somehow involved, but i can find no mention of them on the AF site.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

This will end in tears for all concerned just like so many others, a C206 YSBK-YBAF comes to mind a year or so back.

VH-JDQ.
He had just over 100 hrs TT and killed one of my friends.

[Lookleft]

There will be changes made to the way AF operate as a result of this unfortunate accident. You can't simply say "oh well it was all legal" and continue with business as usual. IMHO the minimum requirement will have to be changed to the pilots having at least a PIFR if not a Class 1 and all flights conducted as IFR. It is no different to the changes required from EMS rotary operations and parachute ops when there were fatalities.

[PLovett]

Lookleft, I don't think changing flights to IFR is going to help, in fact it could make it worse by tempting pilots to continue when they should not.

Angel Flight is non-emergency, there is no pressure in these flights to get through. It would be preferable for standards similar to those suggested by Andrewr earlier, to be implemented. All of their pilots need to have it firmly fixed in their minds that they don't have to be heros; that it is far preferable to be on the ground sometimes; and that another 12 to 24 hours does not matter.

[Lookleft]

That is also the problem with VFR, pilots are tempted to go when they shouldn't. The ATSB files have more records of VFR into IFR fatal PVT ops than IFR PVT ops. They have also released several studies into VFR into IFR because it keeps happening and predominately private pilots are not getting the message. Even though AF is a charity organisation it can't afford to have a repeat of this accident. The ATSB report will eventually release its recommendations but based on its studies of VFR into IFR I think it is most likely that instrument rated pilots will be part of the recommendations.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Hey Jabba

Forkie has taken the words out of my mouth.......I was about to say, I have the same standards be it me or a plane full. I often tell folk who ask, I do not give a rats about thier ar$e, I am looking after mine! If yours is strapped to the same structure, it should be OK too!

Back in post 15 you implied that you have cancelled flights for others then gone flying yourself?
When I talk about different standards for AF - it's not just a safety factor that I'm applying - it's an allowance for making sure I don't frighten those who I don't know by needing to divert, putting them in rough or turbulent conditions and especially making sure I don't end up with hysterical passengers - because I don't know them.

I'm quite fond of my ar$e too!

The insurance one is interesting, unlike jas24kk, I don't think I was asked to provide insurance information (that I can recall) and even if I did (it was ages ago) then there is no ongoing requirement to prove that it's still valid. I've never had any indication that AF hold any kind of insurance policy to protect the pilots (or passengers for that matter). Jas may be confusing with FunFlight who do hold insurance for all passengers (donated by QBE) and prior to this, used to mandate that current insurance had to be proven prior to each FunFlight flight.

My understanding of insurance is that your hull liability may be void if you break the rules but they will still pay out personal liability to passengers (and maybe persue you afterwards?) - but I'm not 100% sure on that and if that's standard to aviation policies for private aircraft.

The AF statement that pilots have to hold CASA mandated insurance is bit of a furphy though as there is no compulsary insurance requirement for private ops and I know many self-insured pilots.

However whatever AF or other insurances are held by whom and protecting whom, the lawyers will run straight to whoever they can identify has the biggest policy and persue them as there is no point chasing someone who isn't going to be able to pay.

UTR

[Jabawocky]

Back in post 15 you implied that you have cancelled flights for others then gone flying yourself?
When I talk about different standards for AF - it's not just a safety factor that I'm applying - it's an allowance for making sure I don't frighten those who I don't know by needing to divert, putting them in rough or turbulent conditions and especially making sure I don't end up with hysterical passengers - because I don't know them.

Gooday UTR

Read my last post again in its full context, you have just taken only half the context.....make a good journo there mate ........or maybe I did not make it clear

I have cancelled on a day when I went flying myself, and would have happily had anyone else on board, but..........I would not like to have launched for Grafton, with tempo's on the forecast, arrived over the field where they can hear me come and go doing a MA and come back for a second one perhaps and then divert. And leave them wondering if I was coming back, crashed, and then when its all too late miss the appointment.

In this case we spoke the night before, mother was fuelled up for the 5 hour trip just in case, and at 4.30am I gave her a call and explained the wx which she could see outside her kitchen window, and gave her the option. She had already decided with my briefing the night before that it could be 50/50 or worse so, plan B was executed.

If you get what I am saying, I have the same operational standard, learned a lot from Forkie, Chuckles and all my airline and RFDS mates, and apply that thought process to every flight. What I do not do is force my level of tolerence for weather, ride and comfort and the chances of diverting upon them.

Theodore is a great example, done a few there and cancelled or delayed some, no RNAV, and the nearest one is an hours drive or so away at Biloela, so why launch and then let them down. Dropping some elderly lady off at Biloela late in the afternoon or evening because you can't get in, or taking them back to Brisbane is just not what its all about.

I hope that makes sense.

[QSK?]

Angel Flight USA

I would not be surprised if CASA requires AF Oz to increase its pilot experience requirements in line with recentt USA experience

Angel Flight Groups Increase Volunteer Pilot Hour Requirements

By Glenn Pew, Contributing Editor, Video Editor


After decades of safe operation, last summer Angel Flight organizations had by August seen three fatal crashes; this summer some of their volunteer pilot requirements will change. A recent letter co-signed by Angel Flight Mid-Atlantic Chairman (AFMA), Steve Craven; president of Mercy Medical Airlift, Ed Boyer; and Executive Director for Airlift Hope America, Jim Smith written to volunteer pilots listed new pilot qualifications/safety standards effective July 15, 2009. Pilots wishing to participate with those organizations must now have a minimum total time of 500 hours (unchanged) with no less than 400 hours (up from 250) as Pilot in Command with a minimum 50 hours in make and model. Other qualifications for any aircraft to be used for Angel Flights include a minimum of $1 million liability insurance with no less than $100,000 per seat. (There are other requirements, check with the specific groups you're interested in joining.) Contacted Friday for comment, AFMA's Craven told AVweb, "While we had been contemplating increased pilot qualifications and insurance requirements for some time, we were motivated by the fact that after 30+ years, millions of miles and hundreds of thousands of needy patients flown safely, last year the Angel Flight world experienced its first fatal accident." The letter also announced future steps intended to establish a "culture of safety" within the participating organizations.

Mandatory annual recertifications, plus mandatory affirmation that all qualifications are met prior to an accepted flight, will be "built into our flight coordination system," states the letter. The letter also outlines a series of programs intended to develop a "culture of safety" within the Angel Flight community. Safety programs to include an online safety forum, a separate online safety page and a pilot mentorship program to help initiate new pilots into the organization with an emphasis on safety. "We intend to create a positive culture of safety in our organizations with experienced safety focused volunteer pilots," said Craven.

[Old Akro]

Sitting in my airconditioned corner office with a 24 inch computer screen and high speed broadband its pretty easy to say that this was a VFR to IFR accident and that the pilot should not have proceeded. But standing on a windswept tarmac at Essendon after having successfully flown from Yarrawonga, I'm not sure that the decision was as clear cut.

I flew into Melbourne as a passenger on a kero burner and we landed at about 6:30pm. We seemed to do the Monty 5 STAR which involves a fairly circuitous lap of Melbourne going the long way to land on rwy 09. I reckon we did this at about 5,000ft in clear skies and excellent visibility. Judging by the view from the 737 window, the Melbourne basin had very little cloud below 5,000 ft at that time. It also worth noting that the TAF's for Horsham / Nhill can be pretty inaccurate, especially since the flight was to be toward the end of the TAF validity. There is no RPT in the Ballarat / Horsham / Nhill corridor and I suspect for that reason the TAF's do not appear to be as good as (say) the Hamilton / Portland / Mt Gambier corridor. Lets also remember that a VFR pilot getting an updated forecast from Melbourne FS in peak hour is like pulling teeth. Nhill and Horsham both have AWIS, but neither are transmitted on radio frequencies. So if the pilot wanted a mid flight weather update, he needed to be on the mobile phone. Without the old Flightwatch service or the US style airborne weather services, we really all need (Telstra Next G) smart phones now to access NAIPS and look at weather radar and call up AWIS services in flight. But AsA has never told us that we are increasingly on our own.

The conclusion from this is that the pilot probably had way less than perfect weather information because the system we live in has degraded the available briefing service available to VFR pilots. But, I'll bet this is a topic that doesn't rate a mention in the ATSB report. The pilot had also flown from Yarrawonga, so had recent direct observation of the weather on a significant part of the route, so he was probably relying a fair bit on his own assessment.

Its undeniable that the pilot has made a wrong decision, but I don't think we should be too hasty to cast stones, one might bounce back on the glass of our air-conditioned offices. I suspect he has made a number of decisions each of which are reasonable in isolation (if not perfect) but they cumulated to put him in a bad space.

Its very very sad and I want to understand the accident to learn from it. But I'm no where near ready to condemn the pilot.

[Wallsofchina]

Old Akro, I think your last two posts probably sum up the situation precisely.

All the rest is politics.

The standard of weather reporting HAS slipped over the years.

Regardless of that, there were decisions to be made well before it started to become dark over sparsely populated wheat country.

[Old Akro]

QSK. I'm sure you're correct that a increasing of the minimum requirements is inevitable. Angel Flight did tighten its procedures about a year ago (as a proactive response to the US accidents) to require certified copies of licences and medicals and each pilot is require to reconfirm his or her currency at each flight allocation. But Angel Flight's experience requirements are already well in excess of CASA's requirements for a CPL pilot flying charter, so the question is how far ahead of CASA do you need to go? Already, a person could fly as a charter passenger with a Pilot who would not be allowed top conduct the same flight with the same passenger if it was allocated by Angel Flight rather than booked privately by the passenger.

The pilot concerned in this incident is reported to have 800 hours. Do we make the minimum 1,000 hours? Then if there is another accident do we make it 1,500 hours? Then if there's another....?

As I said earlier, this is about weather (and delivering weather information to pilots) and judgement. We need to look beyond rules to improve either of these.

[VH-XXX]

There are 1,000 hour pilots that I'm not happy for those close to me to fly with, so it's hard to draw a line anywhere.