2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Havick raises an interesting point. The word being TASKED. This word brings subtle, but not inconsiderable pressures of their own.
1. The flexibility/support given to the tasked pilot when he called a no-go
2. The understanding of the AF tasking office as to the nature of the cancel.
3. The flexibility/understanding of the doctor involved in rescheduling the appointment at such short notice....try that as a melbourne resident, it'd be months before you got another appointment.
The whole AF network is a credit to those that created and developed it.
Ive regularly had to ferry aircraft at short notice for maintenance, often at the end of the day. "it has to be there" being the implication. Either the a/c is not IFr or I'm not current, an hr of daylight left when the boss pops in and says get the aircraft down to maintenance pronto. Murphies law dictates the wx will be marginal too. Not NVFR able The pressure is on, you feel it intensely.
A few times, I've had to stand my ground and say no. Much to the boss displeasure. If there is a flight where you will make a cockup, this is it. A few times after take off, I have said to myself WTF am I doing.
I can image the pilot, would have felt the same pressure. 4pm at EN, low wx, EoD 6ish and ETA very close to EoD. Low cloud, rising terrain, NVFR. The pressure of getting a not well pax home. In this scenario, there is zero margin for error. Even the most experianced pilots can fall victim of this subtle build up of pressures.
It is evident, he did make that decision. I am not going to say that decision was right/wrong, inside/outside etc etc his capabilities/training. However that decision is clear that he felt confidant of achieving his objectives for the flight............if he didn't there'd be a crap load on the news that he had spoken with ML CN seeking diversions/help etc.
Cheers
Jas
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Brisbane
Age: 61
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It should be made clear that Angel Flight can not be compared to EMS / medical transfer type operations. People using Angel Flight's services are well enough to sit on a bus or a train for 12 hours (or however long it takes to travel from the black stump to see a specialist in the City) but can't afford the bus fare. They don't qualify for EMS / RFDS or any other free service. They're on their own. They have three things going against them - they are crook, broke and live a long way from specialist medical care. If I was an Angel Flight recipient I would think one accident in more than 11000 flights were pretty good odds, especially when a trip might be cut done from 10 hours on a bus to 1.5 hours in a light aircraft and the fact that I may be faced with tens and in some cases hundreds of these trips in my battle against chronic disease. Just my humble opinion though.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Harry Cooper wrote:
I'm sorry Doctor Harry but it's your flawed logic that is irrelevant.
I'm a Angel-Flight volunteer pilot and consider it a great honour to help somebody who would otherwise endure a long sometimes difficult road journey, or incur costs that would not be recoverable. A couple of times I've flown Wudinna-Parafield with the cutest 6 year old girl suffering from juvenile arthritis. For her the choice is an 80 min flight or a painful 7-8 hours by road.
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.
Harry Cooper's reasoning is illogical and must be ignored, because no consideration is given to the total number of flights an AF pilot might fly when they're not operating AF. If an AF pilot does 63 PVT flights for every one AF, then statistically there is no difference in the fatality rate when comparing RFDS to private AF. My log book tells me I've done one AF for every 42 PVT flights and being unemployed for the last 9 yrs I have more availability than most.
Oh and to whoever posted the irrelevant comment about the RFDS accident at Mount Gambier. The RFDS operates around 70,000 flights a year nationally. So 1 fatality in around 700,000 flights or on a better scale 1 fatality in 230,000,000 km flown is nowhere in the range of 1 fatality in 11,000 flights. Thats 63 fatalities for every 1 of the RFDS.
I'm a Angel-Flight volunteer pilot and consider it a great honour to help somebody who would otherwise endure a long sometimes difficult road journey, or incur costs that would not be recoverable. A couple of times I've flown Wudinna-Parafield with the cutest 6 year old girl suffering from juvenile arthritis. For her the choice is an 80 min flight or a painful 7-8 hours by road.
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.
Harry Cooper's reasoning is illogical and must be ignored, because no consideration is given to the total number of flights an AF pilot might fly when they're not operating AF. If an AF pilot does 63 PVT flights for every one AF, then statistically there is no difference in the fatality rate when comparing RFDS to private AF. My log book tells me I've done one AF for every 42 PVT flights and being unemployed for the last 9 yrs I have more availability than most.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ITW,
when you finally get to an age where you fail your Class 1, and you revert to a Class 2 and inherent PPL, would you be happy to let your wife or son fly with YOU??? Because that is really the question you are asking.
Many AF pilots are former airline personel, but now they only hold PPL's. Does that make them less qualified? According to your post it does.
I learnt a long time ago, a flight is only as safe as the aircraft engineer and PIC choose to make it, no matter the qualification.
You make the remark about not having an IR....what if the PIC only had a PIFR, according to some around here, he is twice as dangerous as the CIR guy.
come on guys, get real.
when you finally get to an age where you fail your Class 1, and you revert to a Class 2 and inherent PPL, would you be happy to let your wife or son fly with YOU??? Because that is really the question you are asking.
Many AF pilots are former airline personel, but now they only hold PPL's. Does that make them less qualified? According to your post it does.
I learnt a long time ago, a flight is only as safe as the aircraft engineer and PIC choose to make it, no matter the qualification.
You make the remark about not having an IR....what if the PIC only had a PIFR, according to some around here, he is twice as dangerous as the CIR guy.
come on guys, get real.
Last edited by jas24zzk; 16th Aug 2011 at 13:33.
Without reading all the BS written above, it sounds like from reports that it may have been an unknown CFIT scenario? Ground reports of throttling back, etc (engine still working at low altitude).
Maybe the IFR instruments or GPS were giving false readings?? Anyway I don't know, just going on some reports. The paint scheme looked like LBE but I'm unsure what type of aircraft it was??
I hope we all learn from the investigation what happened.
And no i would not think it had anything to do with age of aircraft, other than servicibility of aircraft for type of mission conducted.
KP
Maybe the IFR instruments or GPS were giving false readings?? Anyway I don't know, just going on some reports. The paint scheme looked like LBE but I'm unsure what type of aircraft it was??
I hope we all learn from the investigation what happened.
And no i would not think it had anything to do with age of aircraft, other than servicibility of aircraft for type of mission conducted.
KP
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course its a bleedin' honour to help where otherwise someone far less fortunate than ourselves would be severely inconvenienced, but that is not the point.
Whenever we have passengers on board it is our duty as pilots to ensure that we do not unnecessarily increase the danger to them. Flying by its very nature has risks, a pilots job is to manage the risk to the point that the level of risk is acceptable.
When we have medical patients on board the care factor is increased. I was very conscious when I was flying aero-medical flights in the NT (not RFDS or NTAS) that I often had people who were totally incapable of making an emergency exit or at best would be handicapped in doing so.
From what has been published to date the aircraft may have been appropriate to the task if the flight was VFR but the weather and timing most certainly wasn't. I stand to be corrected but at present I believe the pilot's risk assessment and decision making was at fault. Given his passengers, that was inexcusable.
Whenever we have passengers on board it is our duty as pilots to ensure that we do not unnecessarily increase the danger to them. Flying by its very nature has risks, a pilots job is to manage the risk to the point that the level of risk is acceptable.
When we have medical patients on board the care factor is increased. I was very conscious when I was flying aero-medical flights in the NT (not RFDS or NTAS) that I often had people who were totally incapable of making an emergency exit or at best would be handicapped in doing so.
From what has been published to date the aircraft may have been appropriate to the task if the flight was VFR but the weather and timing most certainly wasn't. I stand to be corrected but at present I believe the pilot's risk assessment and decision making was at fault. Given his passengers, that was inexcusable.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ozyland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Weather permitting I would prefer to be NVFR than IFR (at night) There is generally more light outside the cloud.
I was agreeing with you until you posted that gem...
Weather permitting I would prefer to be NVFR than IFR (at night) There is generally more light outside the cloud.
I was agreeing with you until you posted that gem...
I have, lets just say a couple of hours up NVFR, and I have upgraded to IFR in anger at night, a total of 0 times. NVFR doesnt have to be scary. Its still safer than driving a car with all the idiots on the roads.
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.
Angel flights carry sick people & their rele's etc that are NOT of an urgent nature otherwise the Air Ambo's would be behind the steering wheel. So what I believe the arrangements ought to be are only day VFR in a SE plane & IFR day or night in a Multi when it's safe to do so. In the case in question here NVFR (even partly) one has to ask.... what's the rush? I understand the girl & mum where on their way home or something to that effect if the wx was sus & unable to be completed in daylight then surely a pilot would say it's in our best interests to stay another night & proceed if safe to do so in the morning.
I see no urgent need to push a possible bad situation when these flights are made up of non urgent transfers.
The many years I flew sick people around (the world over) I always had in the back of my mind there's simply no healthy reason to go kill 4 or 5 people (Pilot/Dr/nurse etc) just trying to save one, sounds cruel I know but life is precious to us ALL. There where many times when I knew a very ill person was way out west requiring urgent transport but we never turned a wheel to retrieve them due a high risk of not making it out there never lone getting back all due WX, those where some of the worst soul searching times.
Terrific service but they have their place in the scheme of things.
Wmk2
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.
Angel flights carry sick people & their rele's etc that are NOT of an urgent nature otherwise the Air Ambo's would be behind the steering wheel. So what I believe the arrangements ought to be are only day VFR in a SE plane & IFR day or night in a Multi when it's safe to do so. In the case in question here NVFR (even partly) one has to ask.... what's the rush? I understand the girl & mum where on their way home or something to that effect if the wx was sus & unable to be completed in daylight then surely a pilot would say it's in our best interests to stay another night & proceed if safe to do so in the morning.
I see no urgent need to push a possible bad situation when these flights are made up of non urgent transfers.
The many years I flew sick people around (the world over) I always had in the back of my mind there's simply no healthy reason to go kill 4 or 5 people (Pilot/Dr/nurse etc) just trying to save one, sounds cruel I know but life is precious to us ALL. There where many times when I knew a very ill person was way out west requiring urgent transport but we never turned a wheel to retrieve them due a high risk of not making it out there never lone getting back all due WX, those where some of the worst soul searching times.
Terrific service but they have their place in the scheme of things.
Wmk2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is a moderately long skid mark leading up to the final resting place of the aircraft. It would be interesting to see the condition of the prop to determine how much power was being delivered at the time of impact. With a skid-mark of that length, one would normally expect to survive.
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: ozyland
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Would I fly NVFR for Angel flight? Probably not, but thats just my option as pilot in command of my bug smasher.
Unfortunatly people have lost their loved ones in this case, and unfortunatly this will be a real issue for Angel Flight. I can just imagine the grief Angel Flight and the family of the PIC could receive over this. (potentialy emotional toll, legal issues and casa issues) which is a real shame when they were just helping familys out and giving a bit back to the comunity.
Should this mean the end of Angel Flight? Probably not
Will it mean the end of Angel Flight? Debatable. Really depends how this all goes.
Should this mean the end of NVFR? NO
Last edited by Avgas and Fanta; 17th Aug 2011 at 01:50.
When you live....
As a sometime AngelFlight pilot, there are some things on this thread that need clarifying.
1. All passengers are fully INFORMED of the circumstances of the flight (regs etc). However, I've never kidded myself that they UNDERSTAND the implications of what they're told. I believe that obligates me, as the pilot, to provide additional levels of safety over and above what is legally required. As Jabba said, when I fly myself or even my family, there is a risk profile known to me and entrusted to me by people I know & love and who know me. Where the 'stranger' element comes into it, I choose to apply a different risk profile which better reflects what I believe the expectations of an Angelflight passenger might be. Naturally it's subjective but is based around a thought that it's reasonable for Joe Bloggs off the street to understand that light aircraft crash more often than bigger ones but it's less likely that they'll understand that a private ops flight has less restrictive requirements than would be applied for Charter especially when flying IFR.
2. I think I've almost canceled as many Angelflights as I've flown. For reasons such as - running late so light will be an issue; TAF is legal but approaching possible requirement for me to do most/all of an approach and I'm not as current as I could be; tired - didn't sleep well last night; possible icing enroute with limited escape routes etc. All stuff I could have/would have still flown myself for. Never had anything other than 100% support from the staff and never felt that there was any thought I'd be overlooked in the future for consideration.
3. Comparisons to Med class flights are wrong. The yardstick for comparison should be a standard charter operator. Monday's flight could have been done by a 150hr CPL in a C182 by a charter operator with full commercial 'protection'. We can never know what the decision making process was by a 800 hour PPL but if pressure to go was a factor then I'd hazard a guess that a 150hr CPL might have felt even more pressure to go and so the flight would still have gotten airborne and we can only speculate how a 150 hour CPL would have reacted when confronted with the same set of circumstances. Therefore any arguments about %fatalities etc should be against the whole CHTR category and not just the RFDS as these are not medivac flights.
4. AngelFlight exists soley because we, Australian society, don't properly support regional communities in fair and reasonable access to healthcare. The quotes by RFDS, Air Ambos etc listed in this thread indicate that the government is not willing to support those who live in rural areas properly by providing cost effective and safe transport to medical services. And by safe, I mean not asking single mums with 3 kids, one terminally ill to get to appointments in Melbourne by whatever means necessary (i.e. driving) every couple of weeks. Other AngelFlight and Medivac pilots will attest that the trips back home tend to involve parents and kids sleeping from wheels up, often until after shutdown because they are so emotionally and physically buggered from what they've been through. I'd love to know the accident rate, compared to the general population, of people driving cars to/from hospitals from the country and then compare it to the number of patients flown home. Not to mention that the cost to the patients of 8+ hours of fuel each way does not get subsidised by anyone. My perfect outcome for AngelFlight would be that it's services are no longer required.
I hope this tragedy helps Angelflight learn and grow stronger because it still provides a valuable service that would not be replaceable under our current governmental system and would ultimately cause greater hardship and exposure to risk to those it helps.
UTR
1. All passengers are fully INFORMED of the circumstances of the flight (regs etc). However, I've never kidded myself that they UNDERSTAND the implications of what they're told. I believe that obligates me, as the pilot, to provide additional levels of safety over and above what is legally required. As Jabba said, when I fly myself or even my family, there is a risk profile known to me and entrusted to me by people I know & love and who know me. Where the 'stranger' element comes into it, I choose to apply a different risk profile which better reflects what I believe the expectations of an Angelflight passenger might be. Naturally it's subjective but is based around a thought that it's reasonable for Joe Bloggs off the street to understand that light aircraft crash more often than bigger ones but it's less likely that they'll understand that a private ops flight has less restrictive requirements than would be applied for Charter especially when flying IFR.
2. I think I've almost canceled as many Angelflights as I've flown. For reasons such as - running late so light will be an issue; TAF is legal but approaching possible requirement for me to do most/all of an approach and I'm not as current as I could be; tired - didn't sleep well last night; possible icing enroute with limited escape routes etc. All stuff I could have/would have still flown myself for. Never had anything other than 100% support from the staff and never felt that there was any thought I'd be overlooked in the future for consideration.
3. Comparisons to Med class flights are wrong. The yardstick for comparison should be a standard charter operator. Monday's flight could have been done by a 150hr CPL in a C182 by a charter operator with full commercial 'protection'. We can never know what the decision making process was by a 800 hour PPL but if pressure to go was a factor then I'd hazard a guess that a 150hr CPL might have felt even more pressure to go and so the flight would still have gotten airborne and we can only speculate how a 150 hour CPL would have reacted when confronted with the same set of circumstances. Therefore any arguments about %fatalities etc should be against the whole CHTR category and not just the RFDS as these are not medivac flights.
4. AngelFlight exists soley because we, Australian society, don't properly support regional communities in fair and reasonable access to healthcare. The quotes by RFDS, Air Ambos etc listed in this thread indicate that the government is not willing to support those who live in rural areas properly by providing cost effective and safe transport to medical services. And by safe, I mean not asking single mums with 3 kids, one terminally ill to get to appointments in Melbourne by whatever means necessary (i.e. driving) every couple of weeks. Other AngelFlight and Medivac pilots will attest that the trips back home tend to involve parents and kids sleeping from wheels up, often until after shutdown because they are so emotionally and physically buggered from what they've been through. I'd love to know the accident rate, compared to the general population, of people driving cars to/from hospitals from the country and then compare it to the number of patients flown home. Not to mention that the cost to the patients of 8+ hours of fuel each way does not get subsidised by anyone. My perfect outcome for AngelFlight would be that it's services are no longer required.
I hope this tragedy helps Angelflight learn and grow stronger because it still provides a valuable service that would not be replaceable under our current governmental system and would ultimately cause greater hardship and exposure to risk to those it helps.
UTR
Jaba
I've had three insurance companies independently tell my employer that they consider me less at risk flying a Jabiru to Katherine and Tennant Creek than driving the Stuart Highway - and I fall well short of meeting the requirements for an AF pilot.
(As I have to visit Katherine four times a year and Tennant twice, who am I to disagree.
)
I agree your heart is in the right place, but its far from reality. One could argue that during the many long drives all these folk would have made over the years how many would have been killed in a car crash, given many are old, sick and tired mums etc etc. Despite GA stats I think the folk are at less risk. Hard to prove but a gut feeling.
(As I have to visit Katherine four times a year and Tennant twice, who am I to disagree.
)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever the actual cause of this crash, I think it will prompt a look at the way Angelflight operates. I am sure that Angelflight don't pressure pilots to fly. However, the nature of the operation means that pilots will often feel self imposed pressure.
Much of the safety of airlines comes from SOPs that are very conservative when compared to the actual capabilities of the aircraft and pilots. They have rules that take away much of the opportunity for a pilot to get into a risky situation.
Angelflight probably need to do the same, so that it doesn't always come down to the judgment of the pilot. Then the pilot has clear guidance where they must say "This flight doesn't meet the requirements, we can't go."
I don't know what they do currently, but some appropriately conservative rules might be:
- No night VFR, and VFR flights must have 60 minutes margin before last light
- For VFR, the forecast cloud base must be at least 2000' AGL along the planned route
- No single engine night IFR
- No more than 8 hours between first flight and end of Angelflight flying on that day for a pilot. (Media reports said that the pilot took off from Yarrawonga at 7:30am, which is a long day.)
These wouldn't be overly restrictive, but would go a long way to eliminating the most risky situations. The light and flight time requirements should be reasonably predictable at the time the flight is being scheduled.
Much of the safety of airlines comes from SOPs that are very conservative when compared to the actual capabilities of the aircraft and pilots. They have rules that take away much of the opportunity for a pilot to get into a risky situation.
Angelflight probably need to do the same, so that it doesn't always come down to the judgment of the pilot. Then the pilot has clear guidance where they must say "This flight doesn't meet the requirements, we can't go."
I don't know what they do currently, but some appropriately conservative rules might be:
- No night VFR, and VFR flights must have 60 minutes margin before last light
- For VFR, the forecast cloud base must be at least 2000' AGL along the planned route
- No single engine night IFR
- No more than 8 hours between first flight and end of Angelflight flying on that day for a pilot. (Media reports said that the pilot took off from Yarrawonga at 7:30am, which is a long day.)
These wouldn't be overly restrictive, but would go a long way to eliminating the most risky situations. The light and flight time requirements should be reasonably predictable at the time the flight is being scheduled.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
UnderneathTheRadar
Where to start? Every single point you make is sensitive & valued. Thanks for taking the time to put into words what many haven't had a chance to do. Can only endorse everything you comment upon and hope other posters ponder long & hard.
RIP these poor victims. I understand the young lass was on her final AF trip home having beaten a long term debilitating illness.
RIP these poor victims. I understand the young lass was on her final AF trip home having beaten a long term debilitating illness.
I can't believe some of you guys. Willing CASA or some other Government Dept to make flying even more restrictive and ownerous than it already is.
Hell let's go the whole hog..All aircaft must have at least 3 turbine engines, a crew of 4 including navigator and radio operator (we can't have the pilots distracted from flying the aircraft now can we?) VFR daytime only with no more than 4 octas. Flight times not to exceed 2hrs in any 24hr period.
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.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's the facts.
Hell let's go the whole hog..All aircaft must have at least 3 turbine engines, a crew of 4 including navigator and radio operator (we can't have the pilots distracted from flying the aircraft now can we?) VFR daytime only with no more than 4 octas. Flight times not to exceed 2hrs in any 24hr period.
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.
Sorry if that sounds harsh but that's the facts.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Some good comments Andrew R and UnderneathTheRadar!
Mostlytossas, no one is advocating increased regulation, simply for Angel Flight to have an introspective look at their operations. I suspect the Coroner will be making recommendations on how to mitigate risk factors in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if they look a lot like what Andrew has suggested.
All organisations take a long hard look at themselves after something like this happpens and I'm fairly sure Angel Flight will do the same.
PS: With regard to medical services in the bush, if someone requires urgent transportation they get it, if not they are left to make their own arrangements, this is no different to how patients are triaged in cities.
Mostlytossas, no one is advocating increased regulation, simply for Angel Flight to have an introspective look at their operations. I suspect the Coroner will be making recommendations on how to mitigate risk factors in the future, I wouldn't be surprised if they look a lot like what Andrew has suggested.
All organisations take a long hard look at themselves after something like this happpens and I'm fairly sure Angel Flight will do the same.
PS: With regard to medical services in the bush, if someone requires urgent transportation they get it, if not they are left to make their own arrangements, this is no different to how patients are triaged in cities.
Can't agree with you there Howard. Take a look at back posts. Some saying NVFR should not exist or single engine IFR etc, what arrant nonscence. I'm going to show my age here, but I remember being at Cudal many years ago when it used to be the headquarters for Hazelton airlines, (remember them) having an Cessna's radio repaired. I got talking to the chief pilot at the time who stated that very opinion that NVFR should not exist. Yet this same person was quite happy to have single pilots with few years experiance, flying old Chieftens IFR in all sorts of weather on RPT op's. Now I ask you what is more concerning. NVFR in VMC conditions with the pilot and his few passengers that agree with their own free will to fly with him, or upto 9 paying passengers sitting oblivious to the regulations behind some kid in icing/ stormy conditions?
A few short years following our discussion occured the Monarch crash at Young,then the Lord Howe Is crash into the ocean and finally the Whyalla airline crash. All if my memory serves me correctly, with young relatively inexperianced IFR pilots at the controls.
My point being it is not the rating that is dangerous, but how it is used by the pilot in command.
A few short years following our discussion occured the Monarch crash at Young,then the Lord Howe Is crash into the ocean and finally the Whyalla airline crash. All if my memory serves me correctly, with young relatively inexperianced IFR pilots at the controls.
My point being it is not the rating that is dangerous, but how it is used by the pilot in command.
Last edited by mostlytossas; 17th Aug 2011 at 05:15.