Coroners Finding on 2013 Glider Fatality
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether the deceased pilot of the glider knew it was dangerous (assumed the risk) or didn't is a moot point because the law clearly knows it is:
CBP - Flying lessons in a single engine light aircraft - a dangerous recreational activity
The risk is there for all of us and responsibility therefore rests with all of us to do all we can to prevent the risk materialising.
Kaz
CBP - Flying lessons in a single engine light aircraft - a dangerous recreational activity
The risk is there for all of us and responsibility therefore rests with all of us to do all we can to prevent the risk materialising.
Kaz
I agree with yr right.
Australians need regulation. It's in their DNA.
Absent rules regulating an activity, Australians are completely incapable of resisting the descent into dangerous anarchy.
Australians need regulation. It's in their DNA.
Absent rules regulating an activity, Australians are completely incapable of resisting the descent into dangerous anarchy.
Kaz's link is rather interesting...
Please look at the paragraphs under the heading:
Significant risk of physical harm even if the instructor was experienced.
"In assessing the likelihood that such a risk would materialise, the Court of Appeal considered the statistical evidence that one in 500 light aircraft flights in 2007 ended up in a serious accident, which meant that it could not be seen as a trivial risk." (My bolding.)
I find that statistic rather difficult to believe.
Please look at the paragraphs under the heading:
Significant risk of physical harm even if the instructor was experienced.
"In assessing the likelihood that such a risk would materialise, the Court of Appeal considered the statistical evidence that one in 500 light aircraft flights in 2007 ended up in a serious accident, which meant that it could not be seen as a trivial risk." (My bolding.)
I find that statistic rather difficult to believe.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As oficial arseclown of the week...(was that last week? -shortest reign in history 
Or week commencing this Sunday) I'll quote again, that which the red mist obscured.
As Mr. Arouet intimated, the regulatory bodies are not doing the job, therefore it's up to individuals to maybe set up a new body?
In the days when the Rogallo hang -glider was a new invention, the Authorities were caught with pants down and thumb firmly implanted in rectal orifice. Darwin candidates (not the sort from Darwhine, Dunnunda!
) found ever more imaginative ways to kill themselves with Lawn-darts......The British Hang Gliding Association was formed. they are nowadays officially recognised and effectively govern safe conduct.
Amazingly, Our CAA has backed-off to the extent that light single-seater powered Flex-wings (under the auspices of the British Microlight Aircraft Association) are now totally deregulated!
You have to hold the appropriate Pilot's licence, but if you reallyare stupid enough to fly something that's unairworthy, you are free to eliminate yourself from the gene pool.
Which brings us back to Mr. Ranga's suggestion that"Ab-Initio" = "thick as pig-5h1t, unable to see a problem with conflicting traffic, silent white aeroplanes heading into clouds to ride the lift....no radio, no transponder, no flashing beacon.......F..k me, I've never been in a glider but I could see the potential risks when I played with balsa models as a ten year old.
So, Am I to take it that the average Aussie has to be led by the hand, absolved from all personal responsibility and have his life ruled by Big Brother?
There you go,Fellas, another "rant" to provoke a bit of constructive thought.
Or week commencing this Sunday) I'll quote again, that which the red mist obscured.
.It aint rocket science to communicate with others and set a safe,level field of play. there's no need to sit on your hands just because the "official" body is doing so.
In the days when the Rogallo hang -glider was a new invention, the Authorities were caught with pants down and thumb firmly implanted in rectal orifice. Darwin candidates (not the sort from Darwhine, Dunnunda!
) found ever more imaginative ways to kill themselves with Lawn-darts......The British Hang Gliding Association was formed. they are nowadays officially recognised and effectively govern safe conduct.Amazingly, Our CAA has backed-off to the extent that light single-seater powered Flex-wings (under the auspices of the British Microlight Aircraft Association) are now totally deregulated!
You have to hold the appropriate Pilot's licence, but if you reallyare stupid enough to fly something that's unairworthy, you are free to eliminate yourself from the gene pool.
Which brings us back to Mr. Ranga's suggestion that"Ab-Initio" = "thick as pig-5h1t, unable to see a problem with conflicting traffic, silent white aeroplanes heading into clouds to ride the lift....no radio, no transponder, no flashing beacon.......F..k me, I've never been in a glider but I could see the potential risks when I played with balsa models as a ten year old.
So, Am I to take it that the average Aussie has to be led by the hand, absolved from all personal responsibility and have his life ruled by Big Brother?
There you go,Fellas, another "rant" to provoke a bit of constructive thought.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
"In assessing the likelihood that such a risk would materialise, the Court of Appeal considered the statistical evidence that one in 500 light aircraft flights in 2007 ended up in a serious accident, which meant that it could not be seen as a trivial risk."
I find that statistic rather difficult to believe.
"In assessing the likelihood that such a risk would materialise, the Court of Appeal considered the statistical evidence that one in 500 light aircraft flights in 2007 ended up in a serious accident, which meant that it could not be seen as a trivial risk."
I find that statistic rather difficult to believe.
Kaz
Anyway, "secular government" is a religion like all other religions. It's such a widely held faith that when anyone questions it, they're treated like a heretic.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Need for regulation
As sympathetic as I am to the view of Henri Mignet (the air is an ocean that comes to every man's door and he has a right to set sail on it) we *are* going to have some government regulation of our aviation activities.
The proper debate is what form this will take and how it is administered.
The moral case for regulation is in the first place that there are innocent third parties on the ground who want nothing to do with aviation and a good number of whom probably think aircraft are inventions of the Devil.
They have a right that some steps be taken to make the probability of an aircraft falling on their heads so low as to disappear into noise floor of the other everyday risks that everyone takes. If they choose to move next to an established airport they can be assumed to voluntarily take on the slightly higher risk.
Those of us who fly will all agree that there need to be some "rules of the air" so that we know who gives way, what to do arriving and departing from airports etc.
In the case of sport aviation we all know the activity is dangerous but this isn't an excuse to make it unnecessarily so by failing to carry out simple commonsense procedures like visually checking above and behind before launching a glider. This is especially important at gliding operations where the aircraft have no go round capability and a landing glider has no choice *but* to land and at low altitudes a very limited choice of where.
It is also fairly obviously undesirable for accidents where an organisation is involved, to have the organisation itself provide the bulk of any investigation.
In my experience the GFA is a heavily rules based organisation but actual on field operations use little common sense and there seems to be in most cases little concept of the sanctity of an active runway. It isn't for parking gliders or towplanes on (especially where aircraft have no go round capability).
There are other routine things done like making the aerotow launch point 100 to 150 meters up the runway from the threshold in order that gliders may land behind it and avoid lots of ground handling. All very nice until you have a rope break/uncommanded release/towplane engine failure shortly after takeoff where that extra unused runway behind may make the difference between a good recovery from the emergency and disaster.
There are other GFA SOPs that bear looking into by outside professional aviators to see whether they can be done better and whether some practice emergencies are better done by briefing and discussion rather than by creating real ones accidently during practice.
It is no wonder that the accident rate is so bad.
To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor.
In return, CASA forces anyone wishing to fly gliders to join the GFA and a gliding club (you also get to join a State Association as part of this). Gliding clubs may be your cup of tea if you are comfortable with the ambiance and efficiency of a poorly run Soviet era collective farm.
Don't look for any change from GFA or CASA here.
Nowadays there are many self launching sailplanes on the market (as distinct from the so called "travelling motor gliders" which are high L/D powered aircraft where the Flight Manual allows you to turn the engine off in flight) and there are people with PPLs or higher who may wish to buy same and operate from a nearby public or private aerodrome which doesn't have a gliding operation. This is very difficult to do as several people I know have found out. Simply getting approved to operate by the GFA requires 200 hours "under supervision" no matter how many hours you have in powered aircraft.
The ridiculous extreme was a bloke who, with a partner built a two seat homebuilt travelling type motor glider and was told by the GFA that, no, he couldn't do the test flying until he got 200 hours gliding under supervision despite the fact that he had 25,000 hours and was once a military test pilot.
Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.
In any case the gliding problem is a self limiting one. The GFA is half the size it was in 1983-84 (the population of Australia has increased by more than 50% since so it is worse than it looks) and the average age of GFA members must be around 60. Give it ten years and you'll be able to pick up a glider really cheap.
Pity really. Gliding is a lovely activity with a 100 year, mostly honorable, history . Sport for *pilots* and a technological activity that has produced beatiful and efficient aircraft.
It could be turned around fairly easily but the destruction of the GFA/CASA collusion as it currently exists is necessary.
The proper debate is what form this will take and how it is administered.
The moral case for regulation is in the first place that there are innocent third parties on the ground who want nothing to do with aviation and a good number of whom probably think aircraft are inventions of the Devil.
They have a right that some steps be taken to make the probability of an aircraft falling on their heads so low as to disappear into noise floor of the other everyday risks that everyone takes. If they choose to move next to an established airport they can be assumed to voluntarily take on the slightly higher risk.
Those of us who fly will all agree that there need to be some "rules of the air" so that we know who gives way, what to do arriving and departing from airports etc.
In the case of sport aviation we all know the activity is dangerous but this isn't an excuse to make it unnecessarily so by failing to carry out simple commonsense procedures like visually checking above and behind before launching a glider. This is especially important at gliding operations where the aircraft have no go round capability and a landing glider has no choice *but* to land and at low altitudes a very limited choice of where.
It is also fairly obviously undesirable for accidents where an organisation is involved, to have the organisation itself provide the bulk of any investigation.
In my experience the GFA is a heavily rules based organisation but actual on field operations use little common sense and there seems to be in most cases little concept of the sanctity of an active runway. It isn't for parking gliders or towplanes on (especially where aircraft have no go round capability).
There are other routine things done like making the aerotow launch point 100 to 150 meters up the runway from the threshold in order that gliders may land behind it and avoid lots of ground handling. All very nice until you have a rope break/uncommanded release/towplane engine failure shortly after takeoff where that extra unused runway behind may make the difference between a good recovery from the emergency and disaster.
There are other GFA SOPs that bear looking into by outside professional aviators to see whether they can be done better and whether some practice emergencies are better done by briefing and discussion rather than by creating real ones accidently during practice.
It is no wonder that the accident rate is so bad.
To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor.
In return, CASA forces anyone wishing to fly gliders to join the GFA and a gliding club (you also get to join a State Association as part of this). Gliding clubs may be your cup of tea if you are comfortable with the ambiance and efficiency of a poorly run Soviet era collective farm.
Don't look for any change from GFA or CASA here.
Nowadays there are many self launching sailplanes on the market (as distinct from the so called "travelling motor gliders" which are high L/D powered aircraft where the Flight Manual allows you to turn the engine off in flight) and there are people with PPLs or higher who may wish to buy same and operate from a nearby public or private aerodrome which doesn't have a gliding operation. This is very difficult to do as several people I know have found out. Simply getting approved to operate by the GFA requires 200 hours "under supervision" no matter how many hours you have in powered aircraft.
The ridiculous extreme was a bloke who, with a partner built a two seat homebuilt travelling type motor glider and was told by the GFA that, no, he couldn't do the test flying until he got 200 hours gliding under supervision despite the fact that he had 25,000 hours and was once a military test pilot.
Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.
In any case the gliding problem is a self limiting one. The GFA is half the size it was in 1983-84 (the population of Australia has increased by more than 50% since so it is worse than it looks) and the average age of GFA members must be around 60. Give it ten years and you'll be able to pick up a glider really cheap.
Pity really. Gliding is a lovely activity with a 100 year, mostly honorable, history . Sport for *pilots* and a technological activity that has produced beatiful and efficient aircraft.
It could be turned around fairly easily but the destruction of the GFA/CASA collusion as it currently exists is necessary.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: lancs.UK
Age: 77
Posts: 1,191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Excellent post, eyrie
Everything I wanted to say, but as
I must assume you're not an indiginous Digger.....Having said that, the whole of Aus's white population are immigrants, so unless Mr Ranga is insinuating that every country only sent retards to Aus..... Welll, that's obviously not right.
CASA is incompetent and unfit for purpose, you only have to read the "Colour Vision" thread to realise that....25 years of empirical, real world statistics showing safe professional aviation and these idiots decide to ignore the facts and start a vindictive persecution of a minority.
At the same time, they choose to ignore the abject failure of GFA to administer, regulate and promote the sport of gliding...instead they're seemingly intent on killing the goose that lays their particular golden egg.
In true terms, it would appear that they have managed to reduce the percentage of Australians who go gliding , by 75%
Or ,to put it another way, only a quarter of the numbers that indulged before 1984, (Orwell, anyone?) are still willing to tangle with GFA/ CASA.
3/4 of their revenue-base destroyed in 30 years!...so, in 10 years time there will be no gliders in Australia.
Yes, we know it won't actually happen, but the decline and failure of two inept organisations is self-evident.....A few pollies need a good application of boot to their rectal orifices to sort this shambles out.
Campaign Against Safe Aviation, indeed! Presumably the other stands for "Get F.... All."
Everything I wanted to say, but as
You've just proven how much of an arseclown you are by not realising just how stupid the average Australian is
Welll, that's obviously not right.CASA is incompetent and unfit for purpose, you only have to read the "Colour Vision" thread to realise that....25 years of empirical, real world statistics showing safe professional aviation and these idiots decide to ignore the facts and start a vindictive persecution of a minority.
At the same time, they choose to ignore the abject failure of GFA to administer, regulate and promote the sport of gliding...instead they're seemingly intent on killing the goose that lays their particular golden egg.
In true terms, it would appear that they have managed to reduce the percentage of Australians who go gliding , by 75%
Or ,to put it another way, only a quarter of the numbers that indulged before 1984, (Orwell, anyone?) are still willing to tangle with GFA/ CASA.
3/4 of their revenue-base destroyed in 30 years!...so, in 10 years time there will be no gliders in Australia.
Yes, we know it won't actually happen, but the decline and failure of two inept organisations is self-evident.....A few pollies need a good application of boot to their rectal orifices to sort this shambles out.
Campaign Against Safe Aviation, indeed! Presumably the other stands for "Get F.... All."
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Looking forward to returning to Japan soon but in the meantime continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 69
Posts: 2,976
Received 102 Likes
on
59 Posts
the whole of Aus's white population are immigrants,
I was born here. So was my Father, and his Father, and so on for I believe at least another two, possibly three generations.
How does that make me an immigrant?
42 years ago, when I was learning to fly gliders, the pre take off checklist was BCHAOTIC. (IIRC)
Ballast, Controls, Harness(es), Airbrakes, Outside, Trim, Instruments, Canopy.
The 'Outside' call was responded to by the person hooking up the winch cable, "All clear above and behind." Seemed to be quite a safe arrangement.
( Pinky, Some therapeutic advice... Top up your glass of Shiraz as I've just done and relax!)
Ballast, Controls, Harness(es), Airbrakes, Outside, Trim, Instruments, Canopy.
The 'Outside' call was responded to by the person hooking up the winch cable, "All clear above and behind." Seemed to be quite a safe arrangement.
( Pinky, Some therapeutic advice... Top up your glass of Shiraz as I've just done and relax!)
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
I was born here. So was my Father, and his Father, and so on for I believe at least another two, possibly three generations.
How does that make me an immigrant?
I was born here. So was my Father, and his Father, and so on for I believe at least another two, possibly three generations.
How does that make me an immigrant?
Didn't you make it to the Naturalisation Ceremony?
Kaz
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Styx Houseboat Park.
Posts: 2,055
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
More good work from Eyrie – -it makes sense of the ambiguous statement :-
And this is the 'expertise' which has been 'elevated' to the CASA bored. It answers a lot of questions and leaves little doubt about how matters aeronautical are to be dealt with.
Second the motion.
-it makes sense of the ambiguous statement :-
GFA AGM – "The big news is the resignation of our President Anita Taylor."
To get back to the discussion at hand I'll re-iterate that the GFA operates under a self ADMINISTRATION not self regulation model. While the GFA may make the rules CASA reserves the right to approve them or otherwise. To make the relationship quite clear the GFA receives currently about $150,000 per year from CASA to administer gliding on CASA's behalf. The GFA is a bought and paid for sub-contractor.
Over the last 10 years or so the GFA and CASA have colluded to make flying gliders or motorgliders on a PPL, impossible. It helps to know that some of the CASA people involved in this were enthusiastic GFA supporters.
Pity really. Gliding is a lovely activity with a 100 year, mostly honourable, history . Sport for *pilots* and a technological activity that has produced beautiful and efficient aircraft.
A widow's perspective.
Maybe the following article from the Goulburn Post will help to give some semblance of balance to an uninformed, apparently skewed SMH contribution...
Trust the 'only mistake' in glider crash
By LOUISE THROWER
Oct. 6, 2014, 10:39 a.m.
THE widow of a pilot killed in a glider crash says she is devastated and appalled by a coronial inquest’s findings.
Dr Catherine Brassill was speaking after coroner Mary Jerram handed down her findings on Thursday into the death of Andrew Ahern.
The 50-year-old former Qantas 747 simulator instructor died at Carrick airfield on April 27, 2013. The Blanik glider in which he was taking off with instructor Lindsay Gamble was struck by a landing Nimbus craft. The Nimbus hit the Blanik’s tail, causing it to plummet 30 metres, killing Mr Ahern instantly.
Magistrate Jerram concluded on Friday that “this accident was the responsibility of all in general and of no one in particular.” The inquest heard conflicting evidence from Southern Tablelands Gliding Club members on roles and responsibilities of key operating personnel in decision making and ensuring safety for takeoffs and landings.
Dr Brassill says the finding is not good enough and she’s considering her legal options.
“The message has gone out that it’s okay, there is no one to blame,” she said.
“We all know that gliding is not the safest sport in the world but when you only have one glider in the air and one about to take off, that is not a normal danger.
“Andrew and his family had a reasonable expectation that they should not be launched into the path of an incoming glider.”
Instead she felt that the coroner was saying “bad luck.”
Having this response from a judicial hearing into a death she believed should never have occurred was devastating for her and her two daughters, Dr Brassill said.
She argued it was not an “accident,” as Magistrate Jerram had described but a crash that was highly avoidable.
“People just had to take proper care and it was clear from the evidence that it was not taken,” Dr Brassill said.
She was disappointed the Coroner did not explicitly absolve her husband of fault.
Counsel assisting the coroner Peter Aitken SC had earlier told the inquest there was no evidence Mr Ahern was to blame.
As a former Qantas instructor, she had no doubt her husband made a take off call as he had always done everything “utterly by the book.”
“His only mistake was putting his trust in others around him,” Dr Brassill said.
Mr Ahern’s elderly mother also attended Friday’s inquest findings at Glebe Coroners Court.
But the family was heartened by some of Magistrate Jerram’s recommendations.
She recommended that not only should an audit be undertaken of operating procedures at the Southern Tablelands Gliding Club by the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA), but that the results be independently assessed.
The family had suggested the independent review, arguing that the GFA had previously missed aspects like the location of the launch site near a row of pine trees, which obscured views.
Importantly, the coroner recommended that GFA consider mandatory placement of dual band VHF radios in all gliders. The inquest had heard that some radio calls were not heard by operators due to inconsistent frequencies. The radio in the Nimbus had also been malfunctioning.
Dr Brassill welcomed this recommendation.
“Pilots have to be up there with as much as possible to keep them safe but if a radio is not working, there is no point having one at all,” she said.
“I believe there should be severe penalties for that.”
Other recommendations include: * That the GFA clearly define the roles of key operating personnel; * That the GFA and the club consider using a common VHF frequency at the airfield; * That the GFA consider the suitability of installing FLARM (an electronic device alerting aircraft of potential collision) in gliders; * That the club have a preference for performing landings and takeoffs on separate strips; and * That radio frequencies between gliders and to ground personnel be coordinated.
Dr Brassill said these suggestions were welcome but she was disappointed by Magistrate Jerram’s conclusion.
“A clear message hasn’t been sent that this is unacceptable,” she told the Post.
“It is not a level playing field.
If you have caused the death of someone in the air through what you have done, or failed to do, then you should be held just as accountable as though it were a road accident.
“…We put our faith in the justice system and it has let us down. There has been no justice for Andrew.”
Club commits to safety
THE Southern Tablelands Gliding Club (STGC) accepts the findings of a coronial inquest into Andrew Ahern’s death.
President John Wilkinson said coroner Mary Jerram’s determination spoke for itself. He has committed to implementing safety improvements and told the Post that some were already underway.
“The STGC from the very earliest stages has worked with the family to understand, learn and improve safety for everyone,” Mr Wilkinson said.
“This inquest gives very firm direction to us, the Gliding Federation of Australia and the family. I will support the family until the cows come home. From day one we have walked arm in arm with them and have been open, honest and frank. We have walked this journey together.”
He said the club had understood for some time the need for clarity around personnel roles and responsibilities. The inquest had been a firm reminder of its importance and provided direction.
Similarly, landings and takeoffs would be separated.
Mr Wilkinson said separate strips had always been available. On the day of the accident, club members decided to use a single strip because another had not been mown.
“There may be circumstances in the future where we use one runway but procedures are in place to deal with it quite safely,” he said.
The inquest heard from the GFA that single strip gliding operations were not uncommon and could work safely.
Mr Wilkinson also described the coroner’s recommendation for VHF radios in all gliders as a “very positive step.”
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which regulates gliding, will ultimately decide its implementation.
The club has already conducted trials on coordinating radio frequencies to Goulburn CTAF, which the coroner recommended. This frequency alerts glider pilots to general aviation around the Goulburn area.
“We are in a busy aviation environment not far from Goulburn airport and we’ve been aware of that from day one,” Mr Wilkinson said.
He described the recommendation for an audit as “absolutely logical”. The club was keen to ensure it had addressed all issues. The GFA undertook an audit after the accident.
“We have been a willing participant in this whole process and nothing will divert us from achieving the best outcome from tragic circumstances for the family,” Mr Wilkinson said.
“Our ultimate aim is to improve safety for all glider pilots and ensure it never happens again.”
Asked whether he agreed with Magistrate Jerram’s statement that the crash was “the responsibility of all in general and no one in particular,” Mr Wilkinson said he would let it speak for itself.
“I can’t second guess the coroner,” he said.
By LOUISE THROWER
Oct. 6, 2014, 10:39 a.m.
THE widow of a pilot killed in a glider crash says she is devastated and appalled by a coronial inquest’s findings.
Dr Catherine Brassill was speaking after coroner Mary Jerram handed down her findings on Thursday into the death of Andrew Ahern.
The 50-year-old former Qantas 747 simulator instructor died at Carrick airfield on April 27, 2013. The Blanik glider in which he was taking off with instructor Lindsay Gamble was struck by a landing Nimbus craft. The Nimbus hit the Blanik’s tail, causing it to plummet 30 metres, killing Mr Ahern instantly.
Magistrate Jerram concluded on Friday that “this accident was the responsibility of all in general and of no one in particular.” The inquest heard conflicting evidence from Southern Tablelands Gliding Club members on roles and responsibilities of key operating personnel in decision making and ensuring safety for takeoffs and landings.
Dr Brassill says the finding is not good enough and she’s considering her legal options.
“The message has gone out that it’s okay, there is no one to blame,” she said.
“We all know that gliding is not the safest sport in the world but when you only have one glider in the air and one about to take off, that is not a normal danger.
“Andrew and his family had a reasonable expectation that they should not be launched into the path of an incoming glider.”
Instead she felt that the coroner was saying “bad luck.”
Having this response from a judicial hearing into a death she believed should never have occurred was devastating for her and her two daughters, Dr Brassill said.
She argued it was not an “accident,” as Magistrate Jerram had described but a crash that was highly avoidable.
“People just had to take proper care and it was clear from the evidence that it was not taken,” Dr Brassill said.
She was disappointed the Coroner did not explicitly absolve her husband of fault.
Counsel assisting the coroner Peter Aitken SC had earlier told the inquest there was no evidence Mr Ahern was to blame.
As a former Qantas instructor, she had no doubt her husband made a take off call as he had always done everything “utterly by the book.”
“His only mistake was putting his trust in others around him,” Dr Brassill said.
Mr Ahern’s elderly mother also attended Friday’s inquest findings at Glebe Coroners Court.
But the family was heartened by some of Magistrate Jerram’s recommendations.
She recommended that not only should an audit be undertaken of operating procedures at the Southern Tablelands Gliding Club by the Gliding Federation of Australia (GFA), but that the results be independently assessed.
The family had suggested the independent review, arguing that the GFA had previously missed aspects like the location of the launch site near a row of pine trees, which obscured views.
Importantly, the coroner recommended that GFA consider mandatory placement of dual band VHF radios in all gliders. The inquest had heard that some radio calls were not heard by operators due to inconsistent frequencies. The radio in the Nimbus had also been malfunctioning.
Dr Brassill welcomed this recommendation.
“Pilots have to be up there with as much as possible to keep them safe but if a radio is not working, there is no point having one at all,” she said.
“I believe there should be severe penalties for that.”
Other recommendations include: * That the GFA clearly define the roles of key operating personnel; * That the GFA and the club consider using a common VHF frequency at the airfield; * That the GFA consider the suitability of installing FLARM (an electronic device alerting aircraft of potential collision) in gliders; * That the club have a preference for performing landings and takeoffs on separate strips; and * That radio frequencies between gliders and to ground personnel be coordinated.
Dr Brassill said these suggestions were welcome but she was disappointed by Magistrate Jerram’s conclusion.
“A clear message hasn’t been sent that this is unacceptable,” she told the Post.
“It is not a level playing field.
If you have caused the death of someone in the air through what you have done, or failed to do, then you should be held just as accountable as though it were a road accident.
“…We put our faith in the justice system and it has let us down. There has been no justice for Andrew.”
Club commits to safety
THE Southern Tablelands Gliding Club (STGC) accepts the findings of a coronial inquest into Andrew Ahern’s death.
President John Wilkinson said coroner Mary Jerram’s determination spoke for itself. He has committed to implementing safety improvements and told the Post that some were already underway.
“The STGC from the very earliest stages has worked with the family to understand, learn and improve safety for everyone,” Mr Wilkinson said.
“This inquest gives very firm direction to us, the Gliding Federation of Australia and the family. I will support the family until the cows come home. From day one we have walked arm in arm with them and have been open, honest and frank. We have walked this journey together.”
He said the club had understood for some time the need for clarity around personnel roles and responsibilities. The inquest had been a firm reminder of its importance and provided direction.
Similarly, landings and takeoffs would be separated.
Mr Wilkinson said separate strips had always been available. On the day of the accident, club members decided to use a single strip because another had not been mown.
“There may be circumstances in the future where we use one runway but procedures are in place to deal with it quite safely,” he said.
The inquest heard from the GFA that single strip gliding operations were not uncommon and could work safely.
Mr Wilkinson also described the coroner’s recommendation for VHF radios in all gliders as a “very positive step.”
The Civil Aviation Safety Authority, which regulates gliding, will ultimately decide its implementation.
The club has already conducted trials on coordinating radio frequencies to Goulburn CTAF, which the coroner recommended. This frequency alerts glider pilots to general aviation around the Goulburn area.
“We are in a busy aviation environment not far from Goulburn airport and we’ve been aware of that from day one,” Mr Wilkinson said.
He described the recommendation for an audit as “absolutely logical”. The club was keen to ensure it had addressed all issues. The GFA undertook an audit after the accident.
“We have been a willing participant in this whole process and nothing will divert us from achieving the best outcome from tragic circumstances for the family,” Mr Wilkinson said.
“Our ultimate aim is to improve safety for all glider pilots and ensure it never happens again.”
Asked whether he agreed with Magistrate Jerram’s statement that the crash was “the responsibility of all in general and no one in particular,” Mr Wilkinson said he would let it speak for itself.
“I can’t second guess the coroner,” he said.
Just to clarify, being a former Qantas simulator instructor does not mean he was a Qantas pilot. My sim instructor had not the faintest idea how airline pilots went about their business, but he had plenty of wrong ideas about how he thought they should.
Those left behind always want someone to be responsible but not the person they are linked to. It seems to me that the Coroner was saying that it was an accident but that improvements can be made. A good starting point would be to implement ICAO recommendations regarding SMS at a local and organisational level. It is just as relevant at a sport and recreational level as it is at a commercial level.
Those left behind always want someone to be responsible but not the person they are linked to. It seems to me that the Coroner was saying that it was an accident but that improvements can be made. A good starting point would be to implement ICAO recommendations regarding SMS at a local and organisational level. It is just as relevant at a sport and recreational level as it is at a commercial level.
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goulburn Post
Here's another article about that accident. It seems the deceased was a long time aviator.
Family remembers Glider crash victim | Goulburn Post
If I ever figure out what an SMS is I might agree with Lookleft. AFAIK it is just the latest buzzword in a long list like TQM, Six Sigma, ISO 9000, ISO 14000 etc etc. Gets the top brass off the hook. "See we set up an SMS and so it can't have been our fault that the accident happened".
This accident is just the latest in a long line of gliding accidents that should not have happened in the last few years.
Like the guy at Lake Keepit who had his head cut off by being put through the end fence after an aborted launch (what did I say about not using all the runway?). His first training flight in a glider.
The Instructor who killed his sister in law at Gympie by getting a little low before trying to join circuit, passed up three opportunities to turn in early or land safely on the cross runway and wound up turning final below the threshold of the runway (14 at Gympie - those familiar will know it is possible).
The bloke injured at Benalla in an inadvertant outlanding on his first weekend gliding(Instructor in aircraft).
The 21 year old female student at Ararat 2 1/2 years ago whose instructor proved incapable and tried to do a low altitude turnback resulting in a spin in killing them both.
The above aren't exhaustive and there was nothing daring or radical being attempted. Just normal operations.
It goes on and on and nothing gets done. The GFA makes excuses and CASA does nothing.
GFA does make more rules though. One excuse for not publishing the results of accident investigations was that it wasn't necessary as the GFA would simply make more rules to prevent that type of accident and all pilots had to do was follow the rules.
The latest GFA idiocy I've been told about is a REQUIREMENT that all pilots do full spins and recoveries on the annual check.
Many clubs have Puchacz gliders. I wouldn't spin one. 25 of the type have been spun in around the world out of a couple of hundred built. Including one with a couple of USAF Test Pilot School graduates. Interestingly the successor glider from that manufacturer has a completely different tail design of known good spin recovery characteristics.
As for the rest, these annual checks will commonly be done where the spins will be entered at relatively low altitude, parachutes won't be worn and the overall risk exposure will be high.
Properly trained glider pilots don't accidently spin.
Can someone say "risk management"?
Family remembers Glider crash victim | Goulburn Post
If I ever figure out what an SMS is I might agree with Lookleft. AFAIK it is just the latest buzzword in a long list like TQM, Six Sigma, ISO 9000, ISO 14000 etc etc. Gets the top brass off the hook. "See we set up an SMS and so it can't have been our fault that the accident happened".
This accident is just the latest in a long line of gliding accidents that should not have happened in the last few years.
Like the guy at Lake Keepit who had his head cut off by being put through the end fence after an aborted launch (what did I say about not using all the runway?). His first training flight in a glider.
The Instructor who killed his sister in law at Gympie by getting a little low before trying to join circuit, passed up three opportunities to turn in early or land safely on the cross runway and wound up turning final below the threshold of the runway (14 at Gympie - those familiar will know it is possible).
The bloke injured at Benalla in an inadvertant outlanding on his first weekend gliding(Instructor in aircraft).
The 21 year old female student at Ararat 2 1/2 years ago whose instructor proved incapable and tried to do a low altitude turnback resulting in a spin in killing them both.
The above aren't exhaustive and there was nothing daring or radical being attempted. Just normal operations.
It goes on and on and nothing gets done. The GFA makes excuses and CASA does nothing.
GFA does make more rules though. One excuse for not publishing the results of accident investigations was that it wasn't necessary as the GFA would simply make more rules to prevent that type of accident and all pilots had to do was follow the rules.
The latest GFA idiocy I've been told about is a REQUIREMENT that all pilots do full spins and recoveries on the annual check.
Many clubs have Puchacz gliders. I wouldn't spin one. 25 of the type have been spun in around the world out of a couple of hundred built. Including one with a couple of USAF Test Pilot School graduates. Interestingly the successor glider from that manufacturer has a completely different tail design of known good spin recovery characteristics.
As for the rest, these annual checks will commonly be done where the spins will be entered at relatively low altitude, parachutes won't be worn and the overall risk exposure will be high.
Properly trained glider pilots don't accidently spin.
Can someone say "risk management"?
Its been many years since I have had anything to do with gliding. Just not my thing to hang around all day helping out on the strip to get my "turn" in one of the club's gliders. However, I used to aero-tow a bit for them and solo'd in the Blanik as part of my training for that approval.
While a terrible tragedy for all concerned, I think the coroner got it right! Who are you going to blame, the poor "wingman" who gave the "go" for the TO probably without realising that a glider could be on final out of sight behind the trees, or whoever approved the strip for gliding ops, or the Nimbus pilot who didn't see the Blanik or wasn't able to dodge it, or whoever didn't ensure that comms were in place with all aircraft operating in the area.
I flew GA for a number of years out of one of the busiest weekend gliding clubs around. I don't recall any serious incidents. The club had a couple of highly experienced CFI's in that time and, as I recall it, an enviable safety record.
Dr
“this accident was the responsibility of all in general and of no one in particular.”
I flew GA for a number of years out of one of the busiest weekend gliding clubs around. I don't recall any serious incidents. The club had a couple of highly experienced CFI's in that time and, as I recall it, an enviable safety record.
Dr
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 108
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you Dr for posting a little badly needed balance in this thread. Your positive experiences and anecdotes are as valid anyone else's and are typical of many.
Somewhat surprisingly despite the previous litanies, there are many sport, private and commercial pilots with both operational gliding experience and a positive view of that experience.
I feel for the family of the lost pilot and for the other pilots involved and their families. Sadly, at this time when the wounds are once again raw via the Coroner's Court, a number of the above postings have done them a disservice in a time of grief, loss and the inevitable soul searching through what appears to be some personal axe grinding sessions.
Anyone who has experienced a Coroners' finding knows that they never get it right, and they never get it wrong. Through an extremely tedious and detailed process of evaluating the human aspects, the facts, the possibilities and the probabilities, almost always involving various contributions of a number of expert witnesses, some of whom at times actually are, a big picture evaluation is arrived at.
Equally a major disservice has been done to the thousands, yes thousands, of supporters of gliding in Oz almost all of whom do so in a voluntary capacity. Gliding in this country has been self managed for nearly 70 years. As an old organisation which originally drew heavily on the British and military bureaucratic expertise and philosophy of that time, there are still some dated structural remnants remaining (do a couple of other aviation organisations come to mind?). These are becoming fewer and fewer as processes are continually reviewed and updated. I've watched this evolution over nearly forty years.
But this is just my opinion. For anyone who is seriously interested in finding out a little about the factual aspects of gliding ops in Australia, have a look through the website Gliding Australia for soaring and sailplane pilots.
Go to the Docs/Forms tab at the top of the page (its open to anyone), click on the All Documents drop down then on Operations and scroll through the various tabs like HF Resources, Instructor Bulletins, Ops advice notices, Ops Safety Bulletins, and then have a good look in the Manuals Folder at the Manual of Standard Procedures and Ops Regulations.
Make up your own mind on the degree of focus and emphasis on safety that this organisation holds and promulgates, or doesn't. Of course some will see all of this as 'just more over regulation'. People at all levels will make mistakes despite what is published, not because of it. Mistakes are what make us human and are how we learn. When Reason's slices of Swiss cheese align disastrously, we all pay some price and will continue to do so until we manage our cheese better. I don't work for GFA by the way!
LD
Somewhat surprisingly despite the previous litanies, there are many sport, private and commercial pilots with both operational gliding experience and a positive view of that experience.
I feel for the family of the lost pilot and for the other pilots involved and their families. Sadly, at this time when the wounds are once again raw via the Coroner's Court, a number of the above postings have done them a disservice in a time of grief, loss and the inevitable soul searching through what appears to be some personal axe grinding sessions.
Anyone who has experienced a Coroners' finding knows that they never get it right, and they never get it wrong. Through an extremely tedious and detailed process of evaluating the human aspects, the facts, the possibilities and the probabilities, almost always involving various contributions of a number of expert witnesses, some of whom at times actually are, a big picture evaluation is arrived at.
Equally a major disservice has been done to the thousands, yes thousands, of supporters of gliding in Oz almost all of whom do so in a voluntary capacity. Gliding in this country has been self managed for nearly 70 years. As an old organisation which originally drew heavily on the British and military bureaucratic expertise and philosophy of that time, there are still some dated structural remnants remaining (do a couple of other aviation organisations come to mind?). These are becoming fewer and fewer as processes are continually reviewed and updated. I've watched this evolution over nearly forty years.
But this is just my opinion. For anyone who is seriously interested in finding out a little about the factual aspects of gliding ops in Australia, have a look through the website Gliding Australia for soaring and sailplane pilots.
Go to the Docs/Forms tab at the top of the page (its open to anyone), click on the All Documents drop down then on Operations and scroll through the various tabs like HF Resources, Instructor Bulletins, Ops advice notices, Ops Safety Bulletins, and then have a good look in the Manuals Folder at the Manual of Standard Procedures and Ops Regulations.
Make up your own mind on the degree of focus and emphasis on safety that this organisation holds and promulgates, or doesn't. Of course some will see all of this as 'just more over regulation'. People at all levels will make mistakes despite what is published, not because of it. Mistakes are what make us human and are how we learn. When Reason's slices of Swiss cheese align disastrously, we all pay some price and will continue to do so until we manage our cheese better. I don't work for GFA by the way!
LD