C172 Down on Middle Island

[VH-MLE]

This verdict is very dangerous in my opinion. I can think of numerous accidents whereby a pilot could have faced the same consequences, because of what he, or she, did, in the heat of the moment - an example is the C404 EFATO after takeoff accident at Jandakot Airport a number of years ago.

I've raised the issue of startle factor several times before - including this video, which has a number of very important messages in relation to startle factor. I know little of what transpired in the court, but a defence built around startle factor, would have seemed like a reasonable starting point to my non legally trained brain.

I'm very sorry that a young passenger died as a result of this accident, but I think punishing the actual crash outcome on its own, is more than a bit harsh...

You Tube

Just my 2 lire's worth...

VH-MLE

[43Inches]

Great video for pilots to watch, if he'd tried to make the field he may well have turned fireball mowing through the motorway. Instead he realised the low energy state, kept the wings as level as possible and chose the field. That is the difference to what is being talked about with the 172 accident pilot, who chose to throw the plane into a high angle of bank turn at low altitude and lost control. Moral to the story as always, better to land in the rough under control than lose control and land on anything else upside down or sideways. If you kill anyone in any activity you are going to get the third degree, best to try not to be in that situation in anything, airplane or otherwise. There are many ways you can plan ahead to prevent being in these situations.

[netstruggler]

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

You are joking, aren't you? How on earth do you know what is right or wrong when you have no idea about the subject?

Not a joke. Google 'Adverserial vs Inquisitorial legal systems'.

[43Inches]

The whole point of a jury of peers vs appointed specialists is that the selection is supposed to be random to enable a 'fair' trial. That is those producing the verdict have not had time to be corrupted by the system so as to be biased. That is why there is strict rules on jury selection and behavior. If the system appoints people to make the decisions where the context is complicated they can manipulate the outcome by having only those that agree with a certain train of thought, that is they ignore the evidence and facts in favor of their own bias. This occurs a lot in medical cases, where interpretation of cause can vary wildly between doctors, you can stack panels so that those who will agree or disagree, depending on what you want, are selected or are in the selection pool. Insurance companies have perfected this to an art, they can even make it look like the selections are random until you dig deeper.

With the jury each side puts forward the argument and the most compelling will get the jury onside. Therefore each side gets to put up their most favorable witnesses and specialists and hopefully the truth is more believable. The jury do not need to be specialists as they will get commentary from each side regarding the specifics. It's not perfect, but neither is a panel of specialists who can be biased by a number of issues, let alone acting corruptly for the courts or prosecution.

[Capn Bloggs]

Nice piece of armchair quarterbacking there, 43 inches. I'm sure there have been plenty of successful turnbacks that would have resulted in a worse outcome had the pilot just gone straight ahead.

Originally Posted by netstruggler

Not a joke

This should have been an inquisitorial investigation, not Adversarial. I still maintain that, in these highly technical cases which are totally unfamiliar to the jury, they (the jurors) haven't got a hope of, effectively, being taught to fly in the number of days of the trial, let alone being bombarded with the counter arguments being pushed by both sides. For the vast majority of court cases, theft, fraud, aggression (rape, murder) drunken car accident, speeding at 200kph in a 60 zone, the jurors are well aware and understand the scenario. They don't have to learn about it. They only have to shift through the evidence to decide and most probably can spot BS artists a mile away.

In this situation, they have none of that. Most people wouldn't have a clue about aviation, much less the finer points of doing a turn when confronted with a water landing.

I hope none of you end up in court facing Harvey Spectre after an aviation accident.

[43Inches]

Nice piece of armchair quarterbacking there, 43 inches. I'm sure there have been plenty of successful turnbacks that would have resulted in a worse outcome had the pilot just gone straight ahead.

Not at all, earlier it was stated there was video evidence presented showing the pilot had 'thrown' the aircraft into a tight low level turn and lost control as a result, the result being an out of control impact rather than in control. An inquest would have come to the same conclusion, the same aviation experts would have made the judgement instead. A steep turn at low level is not considered appropriate reaction in this situation and if the pilot had the reputation of rash flying behavior, well it bit him in the end. Why was he in the situation at low level where landing on the water was the only option? He put himself there, sorry, but we all make choices, Murphy came up and bit him on the arse and somebody died as a result. Think ahead, plan for the unexpected, when it does occur don't rush into an attitude that can lead to loss of control. The video was a good example of taking the rough over the chance at the tarmac, Sully chose the Hudson over a risky flight over built up areas, the list goes on. The list of those that lost control at low level and caused fatalities is even longer. The reason that a pilot is told to lower the nose and land straight ahead at low level is exactly because of startle factor, most pilots wont have the mental gymnastics to calculate if a risky turn is going to work, so its much easier to drill land straight ahead on the softest thing possible.

BTW a murder trial Jury most likely have never murdered anyone, fired a gun, tried to hide evidence and so on, yet they rely on the experts testimony as to the whys and hows.

If you were driving a car and were suddenly faced with an obstruction and instead of braking straight ahead chose to hit the accelerator and try to drift around the object and your passenger died you would probably be in the same court, with similar charges.

[Centaurus]

Regarding the bunt the pilot was reported to have done to give the passengers a "thrill." I recall one flying school at Essendon that did similar maneuvers on young air training corps cadets. I watched as this particular pilot would take up three kids in a C172 and subject them to extreme negative G during a quick circuit. After landing he would taxy like the clappers to the Essendon Terminal and take another three cadets and repeat the exercise until he had gone through about 20 kids. Some were airsick poor little kids.

[Avv]

Late to the Party but this little exchange caught my eye

Originally Posted by Bull at a Gate

Happens to drivers of motor vehicles all the time. The law applies to pilots as well.

Originally Posted by Capn Bloggs

"All the time"? What, make a genuine mistake and they try to throw you in the clink? I don't think so.

Yes they will, especially as a professional driver/pilot, you will be held at a higher standard for your paying passengers sake than an amateur would in the same situation.
Case in point
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...ailed/10625824
He "genuinely" didn't know how tall his vehicle was...

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Avv

Late to the Party but this little exchange caught my eye

Yes they will, especially as a professional driver/pilot, you will be held at a higher standard for your paying passengers sake than an amateur would in the same situation.
Case in point
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-12-...ailed/10625824
He "genuinely" didn't know how tall his vehicle was...

You're right, of course... Then there's Brett Button who got 32 years for "an accident" that killed 10 of his passengers.

[Capt Fathom]

Originally Posted by KRviator

Then there's Brett Button who got 32 years for "an accident" that killed 10 of his passengers.

Yes.... but his bus didn't have an engine failure part way through the roundabout!

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Yes.... but his bus didn't have an engine failure part way through the roundabout!

He caused the accident by putting the bus in a position that provided no margin for error. It was not an intentional act to cause the bus to roll, but his actions leading up to the situation were.

In the Pilots case it was exactly the same, we are taught in single engine aircraft to be mindful of our flight path and encouraged to consider engine failure during all phases of flight. He chose to put the aircraft into a situation where safe landing options were only achievable with an extreme maneuver, and lost control as a result. Therefor he is in exactly the same boat as the bus driver. It is a cop out to say that your only option to avoid crashing into the sea was to fling it around to the beach. The engine failure just exposed his lack of safe margins when flying, no different to tailgating and then blaming the brakes when you don't stop in time.

[Lead Balloon]

There are myriad circumstances in which there are no viable forced landing options after an engine failure in a single-engined aircraft. Just one recent example out of many I've observed, first-hand:

Not that long ago a VFR route was added to the Canberra VTC. The route goes from Cotter to Tharwa, not above 3,500' AMSL. Have a look at the VTC and note the spot heights of the granite adjacent to that route, which roughly follows the Murrumbidgee River.

I flew it. Once. I was jiggered if I could spot any viable forced landing area anywhere along that route. And at the height AGL, there wouldn't be much time to do a leisurely couple of orbits to look for one anyway.

By putting it on chart, 'the powers that be' could reasonably be assumed as having endorsed it as a safe option. For my part, I don't think it is, at least not for single-engined aircraft.

The terrain under the routes in and out of YSBK is now 8/8ths of McMansions and Motorways. Good luck in finding a viable forced landing area within the 60 seconds or so you'd have after an engine failure along those routes.

If the cause of the engine failure is attributable to the pilot - e.g. fuel mismanagement - that's a whole different 'ballgame'.

[PiperCameron]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

There are myriad circumstances in which there are no viable forced landing options after an engine failure in a single-engined aircraft. Just one recent example out of many I've observed, first-hand:

Not that long ago a VFR route was added to the Canberra VTC. The route goes from Cotter to Tharwa, not above 3,500' AMSL. Have a look at the VTC and note the spot heights of the granite adjacent to that route, which roughly follows the Murrumbidgee River.

I flew it. Once. I was jiggered if I could spot any viable forced landing area anywhere along that route. And at the height AGL, there wouldn't be much time to do a leisurely couple of orbits to look for one anyway.

By putting it on chart, 'the powers that be' could reasonably be assumed as having endorsed it as a safe option. For my part, I don't think it is, at least not for single-engined aircraft.

See, that's where you have it wrong, LB: The primary purpose of a VFR route is to keep you outside of controlled airspace (ie. away from the big boys) - not to provide 'safe' options for engine out.

Case in point: The Melbourne Inland Route has been on the charts for decades. Not only is a goodly part of it (around the aptly-named Mt Disappointment) over country with zero safe gliding options, but if you stray too far to the east at the step-down your clearance from terrain could be highly questionable - and that's on a good day. There has been at least one fatal along this route in recent memory.

The only upside of VFR routes is that SAR will have a fair idea where to look for your crash site.

[Lead Balloon]

That may be the subjective purpose, but that "jury of peers" rather than "specialists" would make the reasonable assumption that 'the powers that be' had, by putting the route on the charts, implicitly endorsed it as a safe option.

[43Inches]

The marking of VFR lanes around controlled airspace is partly avoidance of CTA and provided for safety. This may not necessarily mean that landing areas are afforded at all times, however it does organize traffic into a stream for separation purposes in confined areas, and provide key landmarks for navigation to assist such. There will obviously be times that landing areas are at a premium, that is why I used the word 'mindful' and 'consider'. So that a pilot should be flying to maximize the chance of successful landing following engine failure at any point, but there will be short periods where this may not be possible.

In the case in point the pilot somehow had to choose between a water landing and an extreme maneuver. Why is that? If they had flown a proper circuit to land at the beach, then at any point gentle turns while gliding to point towards land would have sufficed. It sounds to me the pilot was most likely intentionally too low among other things, resulting in no other options.

The fact still stands though that at low altitude you should be trained and rehearsed at just lowering the nose and accepting what is ahead of you with mild turning allowed. The same way steering to avoid obstacles on the road vs maximum braking straight ahead is frowned upon by law. Remember that swerving to avoid something is exactly the same, if you succeed and nobody is hurt and no damage you will drive away feeling like you avoided a bad situation, if you don't and somebody is killed you will have an investigation into why you swerved vs braking, and it will usually point out that if you braked the damage would have been less and most likely avoided a fatality. And since driver training is aimed at braking rather than swerving then you are in a bad situation legally.

That may be the subjective purpose, but that "jury of peers" rather than "specialists" would make the reasonable assumption that 'the powers that be' had, by putting the route on the charts, implicitly endorsed it as a safe option.

The panel of specialists would still have to consider what an average pilot should know and do vs what occurs. I agree that if an engine fails in one of those lanes and you are forced to land on a road, or trees as a result, you will be treated in a much lighter manner than this case. If you were complying with the route and altitudes as specified and you attempted to maneuver in a safe manner but could not achieve a 'safe' landing then a jury or panel of specialists would both be empathetic. The question then would be whether your actions led to the engine failure or such.

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by Capt Fathom

Yes.... but his bus didn't have an engine failure part way through the roundabout!

No, he didn't. He acted far outside the scope of his training and common sense and killed passengers and was rightfully jailed for it. Where's the difference?

[Lead Balloon]

I didn't keep up with the details of the ongoing prosecution. What first-hand witness with expertise used the term "extreme maneuver", 43"?

[43Inches]

Originally Posted by Lead Balloon

I didn't keep up with the details of the ongoing prosecution. What first-hand witness with expertise used the term "extreme maneuver", 43"?

A passenger was filming from inside the aircraft, which included the moments up to and including the impact.

[Lead Balloon]

Which is not an answer to my question.

[43Inches]

Timothy McNamara is the name that comes up as the one presenting the video evidence.

It showed the plane coming into land, the sound of the engine failing, and the plane trying to gain altitude before making a sharp left-turn and attempting to swing around.

Pretty sure that is describing pulling up and a steep turn, which given the altitude and situation would be considered an 'extreme maneuver'. From the ATSB report he pulled up and rolled into a 40 degree angle of bank turn to the left, which he then saw a sand dune and tried to then kick in more rudder to drag the aircraft around the turn while at around 100ft, then with the stall warning intermittently sounding lost control hitting the sand at 60 degrees AoB. So the pilot was at low altitude, high bank angle and low speed and kicking in rudder to a large out of balance situation, I don't think that sounds like a reasonable response to an engine failure. It does not take a specialist to really explain that, also the pics taken show beach ahead of the aircraft at the time of the engine failure, not open water, yes the chance of ending up in the water was there, but definitely not more risk than trying to turn back over unknown terrain at 100 ft.