2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup

[TriMedGroup]

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.

The TAF's are horrendous, especially as you say toward the end of their validity. This is made worse by the METAR's basically being a bunch of obliques and no AWIS available via VHF.

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.

In this day and age it is astounding that not every pilot is using an iPhone on NextG (I am in no way suggesting the pilot of this flight did not have one), pretty much all of VIC has reception and the ability to have any weather forecast or report that you want without having to bother ATC and then write down the details, coupled with the BOM radar and access to all the AWIS sites via telephone is a much better proposition than flight watch in my opinion.

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.

If you have an iPhone then you have acccess to the most comprehensive briefing service i have come across.

Also I'm not sure where you think Yarrawonga is, but the flight from there to Essendon is no where near the Essendon-Nhill track and seeing as the weather comes from the west, and the flight to Essendon happened 10 hours earlier according to another post I dont see how he could have observed the expected weather for his flight to Nhill?

[Jack Ranga]

I think twice about getting in the back seat of a car with someone I don't know.

Based on my experiences in the aviation industry over the last 25 years I DONOT get in the back seat of a light aircraft unless I KNOW the pilot and his/her experience.

Members of the public have a right to know what level of safety is being provided on any flight. Risk Management.

How that is to be relayed to the public, I don't know?

[Jack Ranga]

Lets also remember that a VFR pilot getting an updated forecast from Melbourne FS in peak hour is like pulling teeth.

I don't think "it was all to hard" goes well at a board of inquiry...

All Air Traffic Controllers are aware of this. I don't know of any ATC who has said 'go away' or 'not available due workload'

Ask and you SHALL receive. I'd be a brave ATC who did otherwise.

[Old Akro]

I've been denied requests for area & TAF forecasts on area frequency. Other times its been given in what I'd describe as a hostile tone and manner. And the Melbourne frequencies at 4 - 6pm can be just hard to get a word in. Please don't take this as criticism of the controllers, its the environment that AsA have put them in that I'm intending to comment upon. You can only stretch a rubber band so far.

And for Tri-Med, I think you missed that it appears the flight was YMEN - KIM - YBDG - YNHL. The YMEN - YBDG leg is the general area he would have flown through from Yarrawonga to Essendon - or at least he would have had visibility across to Bendigo and beyond on the trip down.

[Jack Ranga]

Old Akro,

Send me a PM with details please

[VH-XXX]

Not suggesting they are less safe than production aircraft, however I was surprised that AF allow the use of experimental amateur built aircraft due to public perceptions.

[Jack Ranga]

That's another thing the public need to know triple. And the way I explain the risk is:

I've driven all the rivets in this aircraft, I have a personal stake in them being as close to perfect as possible. The alternative is to have a minimum wage employee driving the rivets who couldn't give a rats arse whether it's done properly or not!

[framer]

Im not a fan of the conventional NVFR. To be honest I think it's rubbish, it is a good way to end up IIMC or disorientated,

Yip.

With 2500+ hrs and CIRSE + PIFR I would like to think I'm mature and sensible enough to cancel due to WX, which I have done once. Angel Flight will then, if the departure point is serviced by RPT, arrange tickets.

Thats great, you obviously have lots of experience but what if you just had a bare NVFR? would you be as well equiped to make those decisions or to cope if you made a bad one?

Maybe the IFR instruments or GPS were giving false readings??

More likely that the bum and ears were giving false readings IMO.

I think it's good having spirited debate here but a few are missing the point in some ways.
NVFR is fine under controlled conditions but when tasked as such for an AngleFlight then there would be some level of 'commercial' pressure upon the pilot & this then makes the job dangerous.

Spot on.

I have never flown for Angel Flight, but I doubt they would ever apply any presure on the pilots.

They don't have to, the pilots do it to themselves. It's in our nature and takes experience (mostly bad) to overcome.

If their is no cloud below 60,000 feet, and its a full moon, its a great night for VFR.

You'd think so wouldn't you. With 1000hrs TT in 2.5 years, and a current NVRF and an expired CMEIR I departed into a black hole about 10 years ago in a BE-58 and the somotagravic effect that had nearly ended it for me. Now with a lot more experience (19 type ratings) after the last ten years full time flying I look back and am surprised it doesn't happen more often. Would this accident have been tasked to an ifr pilot if NVFR didn't exist?

The fact of the matter is this pilot for all his good intensions flew NVFR in what has been described as clearly non night VMC conditions and unfortunatley paid the price.
Putting up new rules and conditions will not stop further accidents occuring if the current rules are not being adhered to already.

It wasn't only him that paid the price.
One element of the cause is that he was leagally allowed by CASA to fly NVRF. If he didn't have that silly rating he wouldn't have been in a position to make the decision he did. What would have happened if the rating didn't exist? AF would have rung someone with an IFR rating, the aircraft would have been at a minimum of LSALT being flown by someone with more training under his/her belt than the accident pilot, and they would have been at a safer altitude.
Alternatively, it would have been obvious to the pilot that he couldn't make the flight without a risk of being caught in darkness and he would have canned it until the next day. If the NVRF rating was pulled or the 'under the hood' time increased to the same as an IFR rating , the patient would still get there, just later or in a different plane.

I think its mainly about weather and judgement and neither of those can be regulated.

No. But you can make the descision much simpler for the pilot if NVFR isn't an option....either do more training, or stay on the ground until it's light.

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.

i see where you're going but don't think it needs to be that extreme, they could have VFR flights, as long as it's daylight. Have a rule that if you can't be on the ground 30mins prior to ECT then it'l be done the next day or handed over to an IFR pilot.

They have also released several studies into VFR into IFR because it keeps happening and predominately private pilots are not getting the message

Because they don't know how 'out of shape' it can get very quickly until they have seen it happen. Whats the answer? Recognise human nature's drive to get the job done and eternal optimism that "it'l all be ok" and prevent them from being in rapidly fading light, navigating visually, and hesitant to punch up into cloud because they have only a few hours on instruments from quite a while back.ie, get rid of the 'quasi-ifr rating' you can either fly on instruments or you can't.

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.

dead right. A shame he had to make that decision.

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.

Agreed. A shame he didn't have to say "sorry folks, we have to cancel until the tomorrow but the good news is I'm doing my training for an IFR rating and from November I'l be able to fly at night as well"

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....?

Nup, we just give em clear cut boundries as to what flights require a high level of instrument flying skills and take away the muddy water in between.

I think AF do a great job. I don't know if this accident was caused by anything the pilot did or didn't do. I just think it's a silly rating that shouldn't exist. I respect all of the pilots opinions who think otherwise but wanted to put my opinion across.
Cheers, Framer

[Jabawocky]

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.

I think the average would be at least 50% more km per trip and I would not be surprised if it were double that.

The rest of Oz is a lot bigger than Victoria remember

[Old Akro]

Framer

You've forgotten that this does not appear to be a NVMC accident. The accident was reported by the media after dark, but it probably occurred 15 - 30 minutes before last light.

It has been reported that the aircraft was wheels off at Essendon at 4pm which would give it an ETA Nhill about 44 minutes before last light.

The rules and decision making relating to this accident are day VFR ones.

[Kharon]

With respect, affection and understanding.

For a “commercial” operator there is a very real and carefully managed CASA requirement to 'get it right', (God bless 'em). It's a tough process to gain an approval to conduct 'patient' transport. (AWK, AOC - Ambulance function ).

They (CASA) seem to me to have been, for once remarkably tolerant of this “quasi” legal operation. Now we have bodies.

I am no great fan of the current CASA, but; the management of icing, bad light, delayed departure, thunderstorm activity etc. etc should preclude the operation of, for the most part, enthusiastic “amateurs” on any sort of "schedule' which does not include them or theirs. (I know, believe me, I know).

The night sky, a front or even an unscheduled delay is, without a doubt, beyond the training level of an enthusiastic amateur, reality; my Mama could do a flight from A to B, IF; and I do stress IF it all goes according to Hoyle. Day or night,

I never flew with a Hoyle, only a Murphy.

While (seriously) I applaud the efforts of these people, I have real concerns about insurance cover, regulatory ramification and; that the CASA may decide that compared to the RFDS standard, this service, whilst laudable is, perhaps only marginally safe, let alone legal, and that the pilots compared to the average 'commercially' operating model are not quite up to the regulatory mark. Irrespective of "hours".

Thunderstorms, icing, EOD, systems failure, performance capability, and the pilot's approach to a very difficult job, without any formal control, training, operational control or “big brother' supervision has got to be 'fraught' with both legal and operational Cheese holes.

Re think required – I think so, (Tax deductions aside – of course).

Selah.

[havick]

Kharon has summed up the points I were trying to raise earlier.

[jas24zzk]

Interesting point Kharon. The reality, is that if you take away something like AF, the pilots will lose nothing. They will still spend the same amount of money flying their aeroplanes. The only losers will be the patients and thier families.

Really what was Victoria's 'un-natural' body count in the last 24 hours?? couple in cars, (oh you don't hear about the ones that die more than 8 hours later) and a couple in the city that were shot..... go figure.

One element of the cause is that he was leagally allowed by CASA to fly NVRF. If he didn't have that silly rating he wouldn't have been in a position to make the decision he did. What would have happened if the rating didn't exist? AF would have rung someone with an IFR rating, the aircraft would have been at a minimum of LSALT being flown by someone with more training under his/her belt than the accident pilot, and they would have been at a safer altitude.

So what we are gunna end up with is someone with an IFR aeroplane and rating, toying with freezing levels and and aeroplane not equipped to be there.....just great, remove one danger and replace it with another

Just plum!

[Kharon]

Jas`-`Wrong.

Killed by "professional" drivers ?? - No. God help a (amateur) bus driver who, for the best of reasons, killed a load of kids, was not current or was not "qualified", according to the regulatory powers.

Turn this one around; if it had been a "commercial" operation and had killed a couple of underprivileged folk, a kitten traveling as freight or even dared to provide a 'pilot' marginally not current, an AOC (and jobs) would be long gone.

Never send a boy to do a man's job and always - avoid high performance weather in a low performance aircraft.

Selah.

[framer]

So what we are gunna end up with is someone with an IFR aeroplane and rating, toying with freezing levels and and aeroplane not equipped to be there.....just great, remove one danger and replace it with another

There will always be risk, but I think it would be a more acceptable level of risk if there was no 'quasi-ifr' rating. Thats just my opinion. If AF wanted a flight to end within 30 mins of ECT and they didn't have the option of a VFR flight to do it, they would schedule an IFR pilot or wait. The difference being that the pilot has done more training and the aircraft is better equiped. Tracking A-B at MSA on a radial is easier than scooting around hills in the dark.

You've forgotten that this does not appear to be a NVMC accident.

Fair point. This may or may not have anything to do with the NVFR rating. If it turns out that he had one though, I contend that that would have placed pressure on him to continue to destination utilizing the rating when it became obvious that it was getting dark and that if he didn't have the rating he may have made different choices.
But you're right. This accident may have nothing to do with having the rating. If he was only day VFR qualified though It's harder for me to understand the decision making process.

[Old Akro]

Framer, by my arithmetic, the flight had an ETA of 44 min before last light. So by your guidelines there would have been no concern about conducting it as a VFR flight.

Karom has introduced so many red herrings its hard to deal with them all. But there is no suggestion (other than yours) that Thunderstorms, icing, mechanical failure, or aircraft performance had any role in the accident. Its debatable whether or night darkness (possibly ahead of declared last light) had anything to do with the accident.

I don't know where the insurance argument has come from either. I don't think there is any suggestion that the insurance cover for the passengers would be any worse than a commercial operation. Indeed their situation may be significantly better than if there was a $2 Pty Ltd holding company behind an AOC.

And what with the final quip about tax deductions? Tax deductions don't have anything to do with this. None of the pilots, or ground crew gain any tax benefit whatsoever. I'm not even sure that Angel Flight has DGR status. In fact it costs me quite a bit to do Angel Flights.

Finally, there was another really tragic accident last night by one of the best equipped operators with a highly skilled professional pilot. All of those who have criticised the Angel Flight operation would do well to reflect that similar accidents can happen to the best pilots, with the best training.

[mostlytossas]

Took the words right out of my mouth Old Arko.
Last nights tragic accident was probably another case of flying below lowest safe(because you cannot hit the ground at speed above it) by a very experianced operator in a twin turbine helicopter ( therefore I'm guessing not engine failure but we will wait and see).
Proof that it is not the rating that is dangerous but rather non compliance with the rules/common sense.
So what now Framer &co? Ban single pilot IFR perhaps?

[HarleyD]

Old Akro, and others,

I think that many here are missing the point, the prescriptive response of attenpting to cure symptoms by placing enhanced standards is not a real solution. You can demand high experience and prohibit some types of operation and event secify acceptable aircraft types, without oversight it is completely pointless, accidents based upon the lack of compliance, with even simple standards will still occur.

An organization such as AF has a public face that has an implicit level of care and professionalism, it advertises on the Telly, and 'tasks' missions. , there is therefore a perception that there is not just an individual taking responsiblity for flight standards, but that thee is an organizational structure that provides oversight and attempts to ensure compliance with the required standards, whatever they may be.

The commercial equivalent has an AOC , a Company Ops Manual and a Chief Pilot as a minimum. pilot currency, validity, and suitablity is closely scrutinized and guidance, advice and support is available form the CP for every flight. individual flights are authorized based on these and other factors.

Records of renewals, flight reviews, 20.11, medicals and DFT have tabs kept on them and this is the sort of thing that AF could do well to emulate. rather than respond to the knee jerk and just demand higher experience levels. this is pointless in the extreme as are the suggestions that restricting the permitted flight classification, or numerical quantity of power-plants are viable solutions.

Keep the standards simple, but apply due diligence to satisfying the customer that there is effective oversight. Just asking the PIC if they are up to speed is not enough for a commercial operation, and it should not be enough for such a worthwhile organization as AF. Oversight and scrutiny it is a means of DEMONSTRATING active duty of care, not just a passive request.

When I read ANO 48 I believe that FDT does not apply to private ops, however CASA sometimes has a different slant on this particular matter, regarding duty time for private ops. this matter could also be addressed in a COM for AF. it beggars credulity that a PPL could legally have a huge TOD, even if small FT, and judge their own competence and rest state, without oversight or supervision, then take off on a 'tasking' for which they perceive they have a duty to conduct, even if it was within the legal requirements for a private op. Commercial standards should apply, even if the flight crew are PPL.

This may or may not have affected the outcome of this particular flight. who knows, but it could easily help in the future.

HD

[TunaBum]

It is the case that even if an aircraft is insured, if the flight was a piviate flight (as this was) and if the pilot breached regulations that resulted in the accident, the insurer would be within their rights to refuse the ensuing passenger liability claims in addition to the hull claim.

It would be untidy if AF pax aren’t necessarily covered by insurance

I can think of a few words other than "untidy"!

TB

[Jabawocky]

It is a requirement.

But we all know insurance is a great thing......until there is a big claim