2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup
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.
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?
The fact is, that if you fly at night there are times when you need to be flying soley by reference to your instruments and I personally don't believe that the NVFR rating prepares people well enough for that situation.
It feels like people think I'm making a judgement on their abilities or something from the responses. I'm not. I just don't think the rating prepares people well enough. I understand that others don't agree with me and thats fine.
Cheers, Framer
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
framer;
Have you read the NVFR syllabus? It clearly lays down what conditions are NVFR and what is not. Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills. (there used to be a class 4 day rating). So by this reckoning, is having additional skills a danger to normal day VFR.
Day VFR requirement for end of daylight doesn't co-incide with calculated end of daylight BTW. Nor does helicopter visual reference mirror fixed wing VFR.
Have you read the NVFR syllabus? It clearly lays down what conditions are NVFR and what is not. Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills. (there used to be a class 4 day rating). So by this reckoning, is having additional skills a danger to normal day VFR.
Day VFR requirement for end of daylight doesn't co-incide with calculated end of daylight BTW. Nor does helicopter visual reference mirror fixed wing VFR.
Have you read the NVFR syllabus? It clearly lays down what conditions are NVFR and what is not. Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills.
Just like day VFR but with a navaid endorsement and instrument skills.
It is not Red Tape to develop a position wherein an otherwise innocent / uneducated passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight. Said passenger has grown up with motorcars and has some level of understanding of the risks associated therewith. Airline travel in Australia is statistically the safest way to travel and that is also generally accepted amongst the general population, but Joe Public does not necessarily have the same level of understanding relating to light aeroplanes.
The recent study released by ATSB shows GA Charter is 4.3 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than RPT operations. GA private ops are higher risk again. How many AF passengers would know this? The safest GA operation is EMS, despite their operations in all weathers and at all hours into often rudimentary landing sites. In light of this, and the Sydney Mojave crash, perhaps NSW Health should reconsider their 'lowest bidder' air ambulance operation. RFDS might not be the cheapest air ambulance service, but they are the safest.
In Qld, non-urgent patients (and if necessary escorts) are eligible to be carried by airline at no cost for specialist treatment not available locally, to a suitable major regional centre or the State Capital, and once there they have any required accommodation subsidised. Non-urgent patients whose condition requires in-flight management are transported by RFDS. Is this not the case in the rest of the country?
I was an AF pilot. At that time, there was no form of pilot checking, other than holding a copy of licence & medical on file. It was up to the pilot to declare whether they ere legally and operationally up to the task, when they either bid for a mission or were called by the coordinators.
Is AF actually a private operation? One of the criteria of the definition (hire or reward) is that the pilot receives no benefit, but AF does provide fuel through Air BP which surely constitutes 'reward', doesn't it?
A 'private' operation, where there is a well-funded administrative base, which advertises its service heavily in mainstream media, where pilots and aircraft are 'tasked' on 'missions' with some form of time constraint (appointments etc) doesn't sound much like a 'private' operation.
The AF website declares it pilots to be "heroes', and lists a 'mission log'. This underlying philosophy is one of the key points identified in the US study into EMS crashes.
This sad event will raise many questions, questions that probably should have been raised before the show got off the ground.
The recent study released by ATSB shows GA Charter is 4.3 times more likely to be involved in a fatal accident than RPT operations. GA private ops are higher risk again. How many AF passengers would know this? The safest GA operation is EMS, despite their operations in all weathers and at all hours into often rudimentary landing sites. In light of this, and the Sydney Mojave crash, perhaps NSW Health should reconsider their 'lowest bidder' air ambulance operation. RFDS might not be the cheapest air ambulance service, but they are the safest.
In Qld, non-urgent patients (and if necessary escorts) are eligible to be carried by airline at no cost for specialist treatment not available locally, to a suitable major regional centre or the State Capital, and once there they have any required accommodation subsidised. Non-urgent patients whose condition requires in-flight management are transported by RFDS. Is this not the case in the rest of the country?
I was an AF pilot. At that time, there was no form of pilot checking, other than holding a copy of licence & medical on file. It was up to the pilot to declare whether they ere legally and operationally up to the task, when they either bid for a mission or were called by the coordinators.
Is AF actually a private operation? One of the criteria of the definition (hire or reward) is that the pilot receives no benefit, but AF does provide fuel through Air BP which surely constitutes 'reward', doesn't it?
A 'private' operation, where there is a well-funded administrative base, which advertises its service heavily in mainstream media, where pilots and aircraft are 'tasked' on 'missions' with some form of time constraint (appointments etc) doesn't sound much like a 'private' operation.
The AF website declares it pilots to be "heroes', and lists a 'mission log'. This underlying philosophy is one of the key points identified in the US study into EMS crashes.
This sad event will raise many questions, questions that probably should have been raised before the show got off the ground.
In the Weeds, Perhaps you should contribute to the lake eyre thread instead of this one where the main consensus is that it was likely a case of disorientation on takeoff in a black hole scenario. Others words not mine though I gotta agree it is starting to look that way. You are obviously far superior in all matters aeronautical to the rest of us.
But back to the point of this thread, it is not the rating that makes a flight unsafe but how it is conducted and the fact you can never avoid pilot error entirely. How do you explain the Air France crash into the ocean then? Even the French safety inspectors put it down partly to pilot error for failure to reconise and recover from a stall.
But back to the point of this thread, it is not the rating that makes a flight unsafe but how it is conducted and the fact you can never avoid pilot error entirely. How do you explain the Air France crash into the ocean then? Even the French safety inspectors put it down partly to pilot error for failure to reconise and recover from a stall.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
framer;
Your post in reply to mine has haunted me in that you are essentially right and I have been just another rating collector. I say this without malice because I now see what I did to gain (the then), class 3 rating was to do the simulator work associated with it and collect a NVFR, class 4, along the way with the SE night flights.
Despite rarely using it to flight plan except for late arrivals it gave me little real need of the paperwork, it's just a VFR rating that extends the EOD to me.
In the US a VFR pilot can fly day or night and there is no such rating.
It's either VFR or it's not regardless of time of day.
Perhaps Australia could unburden itself of more red tape with a simple night check- and for cross country's add on Navaid endorsements to his day VFR.
However you simply can't have a bit each way.
Your post in reply to mine has haunted me in that you are essentially right and I have been just another rating collector. I say this without malice because I now see what I did to gain (the then), class 3 rating was to do the simulator work associated with it and collect a NVFR, class 4, along the way with the SE night flights.
Despite rarely using it to flight plan except for late arrivals it gave me little real need of the paperwork, it's just a VFR rating that extends the EOD to me.
In the US a VFR pilot can fly day or night and there is no such rating.
It's either VFR or it's not regardless of time of day.
Perhaps Australia could unburden itself of more red tape with a simple night check- and for cross country's add on Navaid endorsements to his day VFR.
However you simply can't have a bit each way.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A spokeswoman for the Royal Melbourne Hospital said Mrs Twigg's condition had improved from critical to serious overnight.
Mrs Twigg's husband, Len, is travelling to Melbourne today from their hometown of Nhill to be by his wife's side.
Read more: Plane crash mum's condition improves | Jacinda Twigg, Don Kernot
Good News,
cheers
A172
Mrs Twigg's husband, Len, is travelling to Melbourne today from their hometown of Nhill to be by his wife's side.
Read more: Plane crash mum's condition improves | Jacinda Twigg, Don Kernot
Good News,
cheers
A172
Join Date: May 2010
Location: More than 300km from SY, Australia
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PA31-350 - Chieftain
Come on - don't try to blame the PA31 for Monarch or Whyalla.
Whyalla Incident:
The link with Whyalla to a regulator who blamed every thing else except themselves is apparent from the civil law case in the US - CASA and a failure to deal with an AD on TIO-540 crankshafts and properly promulgate information.
In the case of Monarch - from the ATSB report:
On Friday 11 June 1993, at about 1918 EST, Piper PA31-350 Navajo Chieftain aircraft, VH-NDU, while on a right base leg for a landing approach to runway 01 in conditions of low cloud and darkness, struck trees at a height of 275 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome at Young, New South Wales, and crashed. The aircraft, which was being operated as Monarch Airlines flight OB301 on a regular public transport service from Sydney to Young, was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. All seven occupants, including the two pilots, suffered fatal injuries.
The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with
controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without
adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local
contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Not the fault of the PA31-350 at all.
Whyalla Incident:
The link with Whyalla to a regulator who blamed every thing else except themselves is apparent from the civil law case in the US - CASA and a failure to deal with an AD on TIO-540 crankshafts and properly promulgate information.
In the case of Monarch - from the ATSB report:
On Friday 11 June 1993, at about 1918 EST, Piper PA31-350 Navajo Chieftain aircraft, VH-NDU, while on a right base leg for a landing approach to runway 01 in conditions of low cloud and darkness, struck trees at a height of 275 feet above the elevation of the aerodrome at Young, New South Wales, and crashed. The aircraft, which was being operated as Monarch Airlines flight OB301 on a regular public transport service from Sydney to Young, was destroyed by impact forces and post crash fire. All seven occupants, including the two pilots, suffered fatal injuries.
The investigation found that the circumstances of the accident were consistent with
controlled flight into terrain. Descent below the minimum circling altitude without
adequate visual reference was the culminating factor in a combination of local
contributing factors and organisational failures. The local contributing factors included poor weather conditions, equipment deficiencies, inadequate procedures, inaccurate visual perception, and possible skill fatigue. Organisational failures were identified relating to the management of the airline by the company, and the regulation and licensing of its operations by the Civil Aviation Authority.
Not the fault of the PA31-350 at all.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: dans un cercle dont le centre est eveywhere et circumfernce n'est nulle part
Posts: 2,606
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
equipment deficiencies
The CAA were not without serious questions to answer either WRT proceedures and maintenance, but then like current Labor policy of recent, the plebs have short memories and if you say the same thing over and over, it becomes fact.
Whyalla was a tragic joke played on the public by CASA.
In the US a VFR pilot can fly day or night and there is no such rating.
I would like to know the minimum hours under the hood required to gain a NVFR rating in Australia v's the minimum to gain an IFR rating as well.
Can anyone help me there? Any current instructors know the answer?
Cheers, Framer
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Location Location!
Age: 46
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not Red Tape to develop a position wherein an otherwise innocent / uneducated passenger can reasonably expect to survive a flight.
Would you support a public transport operator style accreditation system (as for private Bus/Rail/Tram operators) for HACC/Community funded volunteer cars, driven by the public? These services perform the same service as AF in regional areas, only in cars.
I was an AF pilot. At that time, there was no form of pilot checking, other than holding a copy of licence & medical on file. It was up to the pilot to declare whether they ere legally and operationally up to the task, when they either bid for a mission or were called by the coordinators.
Is AF actually a private operation? One of the criteria of the definition (hire or reward) is that the pilot receives no benefit, but AF does provide fuel through Air BP which surely constitutes 'reward', doesn't it?
A 'private' operation, where there is a well-funded administrative base, which advertises its service heavily in mainstream media, where pilots and aircraft are 'tasked' on 'missions' with some form of time constraint (appointments etc) doesn't sound much like a 'private' operation.
The AF website declares it pilots to be "heroes'
This sad event will raise many questions, questions that probably should have been raised before the show got off the ground.
Aviation in Australia needs LESS regulation, not more, and seeking to have a sub-set of private flights operate under quasi-commercial regulation is a VERY slippery slope.
Apologies if my post sounds attacking, it is not meant to be (i'm in a hurry
)
Up into the air, You misunderstand my point. I never said there was anything wrong with the PA31-350. My point was if you want to ban NVFR as some do then ban single pilot IFR also as that rating also has many fatalities. None of which I support by the way but merely point out you can't have it both ways. Frank is correct the Monarch accident did have a u/s auto pilot and to get around the regs at the time Monarch then carried a second pilot who if my memory is correct was later found to be very inexperianced and in an operation like that,little more than a passenger himself. The aircraft flew into a hill approaching Young airport in cloud carrying out a NDB approach.
As for Whyalla yes there was a bad batch of crankshafts that caused the engine failure of one engine, the other was found with holes in the top of the piston due it was reported to having an overlean mixture. Some pilot error also came into it at the inquest due to the above and also the route flown as the aircraft was reported to be "in trouble and sounding like rough running" over the town of Althorp before crossing the gulf. Why the pilot did not hug the coast towards Pirie before crossing at a narrow point was never known. However it was suggested at the inquest he may have been confused with the illusion of being closer to Whyalla than he was as at night over water the lights can appear much closer than they really are.
As for Whyalla yes there was a bad batch of crankshafts that caused the engine failure of one engine, the other was found with holes in the top of the piston due it was reported to having an overlean mixture. Some pilot error also came into it at the inquest due to the above and also the route flown as the aircraft was reported to be "in trouble and sounding like rough running" over the town of Althorp before crossing the gulf. Why the pilot did not hug the coast towards Pirie before crossing at a narrow point was never known. However it was suggested at the inquest he may have been confused with the illusion of being closer to Whyalla than he was as at night over water the lights can appear much closer than they really are.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Media report:
The survivor has been woken from an induced coma.
Maybe she may have some recollection of the events leading to to this tragedy.
In reference to the Whyalla Airlines accident, the radar track showed a decrease in GS and heading deviation/s somewhere near Port Wakefield, which to me indicates the engine failure occurred well before crossing the water.
The survivor has been woken from an induced coma.
Maybe she may have some recollection of the events leading to to this tragedy.
In reference to the Whyalla Airlines accident, the radar track showed a decrease in GS and heading deviation/s somewhere near Port Wakefield, which to me indicates the engine failure occurred well before crossing the water.
My point was if you want to ban NVFR as some do then ban single pilot IFR also as that rating also has many fatalities.
NVFR =
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was of the belief that in the Whyalla crash that indeed the first engine did cease before the over-water segment of the flight began. Pilot radioed base and was told to keep going and legally he was entitled to.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: -28.1494 / 151.943
Age: 68
Posts: 463
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One wonders if aviators like those brave pilots in the US mail service & others like Amelia Earhart & Charles Lindburgh are rolling about in their collective graves, thinking what a bunch of soft c*cks.
no further corospondence entered in to.
Have a lovely day,
A172
no further corospondence entered in to.
Have a lovely day,
A172
As one who has done a few Angel Flights -
AngelFlight does not task anyone to do a flight. The pilot volunteers for it. Having said that there are quite a few AF flights on offer with late in the day departures that I am not willing to undertake because of the hour. I have mentioned this to AF and their response was they will pay for overnight if needed. Personally I'll stick to daylight flying thanks, even when IFR.
AngelFlight does not pressure any pilot to complete. Quite the reverse. I have been called by AF offering to cancel on a day when I was willing to go. Any pressure to get to the destination is self induced by the pilot. I have diverted for weather when close to the destination on two occasions and the pax has happily arranged to be picked up from there.
I agree withe the view expressed by others that if you kill AngelFlight, the only people who will suffer are the deserving pax.
All AF pilots are required to fly a public liability insured aircraft, and I believe AF has its own insurance as well.
The view that there should be higher standards when you carry AF pax compared to flying alone is crap. I value my neck as much (if not more) than anyone elses. I apply the same standard to ALL flights.
AngelFlight does not task anyone to do a flight. The pilot volunteers for it. Having said that there are quite a few AF flights on offer with late in the day departures that I am not willing to undertake because of the hour. I have mentioned this to AF and their response was they will pay for overnight if needed. Personally I'll stick to daylight flying thanks, even when IFR.
AngelFlight does not pressure any pilot to complete. Quite the reverse. I have been called by AF offering to cancel on a day when I was willing to go. Any pressure to get to the destination is self induced by the pilot. I have diverted for weather when close to the destination on two occasions and the pax has happily arranged to be picked up from there.
I agree withe the view expressed by others that if you kill AngelFlight, the only people who will suffer are the deserving pax.
All AF pilots are required to fly a public liability insured aircraft, and I believe AF has its own insurance as well.
The view that there should be higher standards when you carry AF pax compared to flying alone is crap. I value my neck as much (if not more) than anyone elses. I apply the same standard to ALL flights.
I agree withe the view expressed by others that if you kill AngelFlight, the only people who will suffer are the deserving pax.
The view that there should be higher standards when you carry AF pax compared to flying alone is crap.