Light plane crash near Mt Gambier
Head in the sand fella's.
Negligence needs to be called out. That track in paints a picture that words can't.
I don't think AF needs to become CPL or IFR only etc, but if you aren't going to at least take a lesson from this and accept it for what it is, you're part of the problem.
Negligence needs to be called out. That track in paints a picture that words can't.
I don't think AF needs to become CPL or IFR only etc, but if you aren't going to at least take a lesson from this and accept it for what it is, you're part of the problem.
Apropos of nothing in particular ...
The father of a very good school friend of mine was a RAAF pilot a long time ago. He was ferrying a propellor-driven trainer (pre Plastic Parrots and Ginwheels) from A to B. His parent's farm happened to be along the way. He decided to 'pull over' there for a cup of tea and bikkies.
After the visit he strapped back in and prepared for take-off. During taxi he managed to taxi into a shallow trench that he'd failed to see, damaging the undercarriage and destroying the propellor.
Being an officer and gentlemen, he naturally concocted a story about an engine failure and forced landing. He even tore some branches from one of the trees on the boundaries of the property and jammed the greenery into the undercarriage struts and other components.
The subsequent investigation and board of inquiry never identified the fact that the location of the 'engine failure' and 'forced landing' was his parent's farm...
I'm intrigued by a few aspects of the preliminary report.
I'm not sure what is so surprising about the departure path and altitude of the aircraft. TB-10 with 3 pax and possibly full fuel reaches 500' AMSL - about 300' above aerodrome level - 45 seconds after take off in humid conditions. What altitude would be 'normal' in that aircraft in those conditions, 45 seconds after take off?
"Veered to the left" seems an overstatement compared with Figure 2. I'd be interested to know the wind conditions at the time. Maintaining runway heading by DG/compass after take off won't result in maintenance of runway track, if there is a crosswind.
I wonder why there is a reference to a strong smell of "fuel" rather than a strong smell of AVGAS. I do hope ATSB has or will discount the possibility of the aircraft having been refuelled with the wrong fuel. (Would we be bludgeoning AF into IFR-only operations, if this turned out to be a mis-fuelling tragedy?)
Apparently CCTV showed the aircraft took off from runway 24. I wonder how far away the camera was from the aircraft and runway.
I'm not sure what is so surprising about the departure path and altitude of the aircraft. TB-10 with 3 pax and possibly full fuel reaches 500' AMSL - about 300' above aerodrome level - 45 seconds after take off in humid conditions. What altitude would be 'normal' in that aircraft in those conditions, 45 seconds after take off?
"Veered to the left" seems an overstatement compared with Figure 2. I'd be interested to know the wind conditions at the time. Maintaining runway heading by DG/compass after take off won't result in maintenance of runway track, if there is a crosswind.
I wonder why there is a reference to a strong smell of "fuel" rather than a strong smell of AVGAS. I do hope ATSB has or will discount the possibility of the aircraft having been refuelled with the wrong fuel. (Would we be bludgeoning AF into IFR-only operations, if this turned out to be a mis-fuelling tragedy?)
Apparently CCTV showed the aircraft took off from runway 24. I wonder how far away the camera was from the aircraft and runway.
Head in the sand fella's.
Negligence needs to be called out. That track in paints a picture that words can't.
I don't think AF needs to become CPL or IFR only etc, but if you aren't going to at least take a lesson from this and accept it for what it is, you're part of the problem.
Negligence needs to be called out. That track in paints a picture that words can't.
I don't think AF needs to become CPL or IFR only etc, but if you aren't going to at least take a lesson from this and accept it for what it is, you're part of the problem.
From the just released interim report:
"...Readers are cautioned that new evidence will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB's understanding of the accident as outlined in this web update. As such, no analysis or findings are included in this update."
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...r/ao-2017-069/
.
That the odour was described as fuel rather than AVGAS might suggest that the investigators don't consider it relevant at this stage, remembering that this is just a preliminary report. What caught my eye was that the aircraft impacted inverted which is a strong indicator of disorientation.
It didn't take long for the media to join the dots.
Father demands aviation regulator CASA 'get off its butt' after second fatal Angel Flight crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
It didn't take long for the media to join the dots.
Father demands aviation regulator CASA 'get off its butt' after second fatal Angel Flight crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Enroute from Dagobah to Tatooine...!
Posts: 791
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
While I do feel for the families left behind in these tragedies, as a pilot, am I the only one to find the last bit in that ABC article somewhat concerning?! 
The pilot might also leave behind a wife and kids who also have a difficult future to consider...! I can only imagine how difficult and distressing it would be for the pilot's family to also have to deal with this kind of legal caveat scenario on top of their loss...
The pilot might also leave behind a wife and kids who also have a difficult future to consider...! I can only imagine how difficult and distressing it would be for the pilot's family to also have to deal with this kind of legal caveat scenario on top of their loss...
He offered this advice to the family left devastated by the latest Angel Flight crash.
"First thing to do, get in touch with a lawyer and caveat everything of the pilots, everything he owns, so it can't be sold," he said.
"If someone had said that to me I would have said, 'don't be stupid, why would I want to do that?'
"Do it. You can't not think of yourself, you have to think of you, your family, your kids and the future."
"First thing to do, get in touch with a lawyer and caveat everything of the pilots, everything he owns, so it can't be sold," he said.
"If someone had said that to me I would have said, 'don't be stupid, why would I want to do that?'
"Do it. You can't not think of yourself, you have to think of you, your family, your kids and the future."
I wonder why there is a reference to a strong smell of "fuel" rather than a strong smell of AVGAS.
Besides - the ATSB says he refuelled at Mt Gambier. I don't believe MtGambier has a MOGAS pump, so it's gotta be AVGAS.
The ABC story is a disgraceful, emotional beat up. The accident is really tragic and sad. But the lives of Angel Flight passengers are not worth any more or any less than any passenger that rides with a private pilot.
Despite the reports of fog when he took off - the aircraft climbed to 500 ft. I'm surprised that the pilot wasn't either through the fog and on top by then, or near enough the top to be seeing blue. There are both METARS and SPECI reports at the time recording an overcast base at 200 ft.
Despite the reports of fog when he took off - the aircraft climbed to 500 ft. I'm surprised that the pilot wasn't either through the fog and on top by then, or near enough the top to be seeing blue. There are both METARS and SPECI reports at the time recording an overcast base at 200 ft.
Thread Starter
Maybe the ATSB doesn't know the difference?? Or more seriously, "fuel" is a generic term of which AVGAS is a subset. And the ATSB are reporting the comments of witnesses who will almost certainly be untrained to distinguish between AVGAS & MOGAS. I think you are reading more into this than it deserves.
Besides - the ATSB says he refuelled at Mt Gambier. I don't believe MtGambier has a MOGAS pump, so it's gotta be AVGAS.
Besides - the ATSB says he refuelled at Mt Gambier. I don't believe MtGambier has a MOGAS pump, so it's gotta be AVGAS.
DF.
The ERSA entry for Mount Gambier says AVGAS by swipecard bowser and JetA1 by tanker. I therefore consider it almost impossible that there could have been wrong fuel loaded. I hope this is confirmed one way or the other in the final report.
(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)
(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 25th Jul 2017 at 11:03.
The ERSA entry for Mount Gambier says AVGAS by swipecard bowser and JetA1 by tanker. I therefore consider it almost impossible that there could have been wrong fuel loaded. I hope this is confirmed one way or the other in the final report.
(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)
(DF this is why the credit card terminal at YLEC asks three times for confirmation of the required fuel type.)
I'm prepared to bet a carton of Coopers Pale Ale against anyone who reckons that the final report will find that the aircraft had AVTUR loaded at YMTG.
Last edited by gerry111; 25th Jul 2017 at 14:43. Reason: grammar; spelling; punctuation and syntax,
Thread Starter
DF.
Thread Starter
I can still clearly remember one pilot who despite the fact that I was standing behind the Avgas bowser, grabbed the Jet A1 hose & started towards his piston engine aircraft. Normally I used to have the Jet A1 pump locked, as well as the hose reel chained. This particular morning had been very busy, & while the bowser was locked the hose reel wasn't chained. I waited until he'd taken about a dozen steps then said to him "Sir, that is the JetA1 hose - not the Avgas one". I swear I have never seen anyone turn white as quick as he did!
DF.
Air BP's rules were no sticker beside cap (either type) no fuel. Or fill in a fuel order form.
I can still clearly remember one pilot who despite the fact that I was standing behind the Avgas bowser, grabbed the Jet A1 hose & started towards his piston engine aircraft. Normally I used to have the Jet A1 pump locked, as well as the hose reel chained. This particular morning had been very busy, & while the bowser was locked the hose reel wasn't chained. I waited until he'd taken about a dozen steps then said to him "Sir, that is the JetA1 hose - not the Avgas one". I swear I have never seen anyone turn white as quick as he did!
DF.
I can still clearly remember one pilot who despite the fact that I was standing behind the Avgas bowser, grabbed the Jet A1 hose & started towards his piston engine aircraft. Normally I used to have the Jet A1 pump locked, as well as the hose reel chained. This particular morning had been very busy, & while the bowser was locked the hose reel wasn't chained. I waited until he'd taken about a dozen steps then said to him "Sir, that is the JetA1 hose - not the Avgas one". I swear I have never seen anyone turn white as quick as he did!
DF.
While I do feel for the families left behind in these tragedies, as a pilot, am I the only one to find the last bit in that ABC article somewhat concerning?!
The pilot might also leave behind a wife and kids who also have a difficult future to consider...! I can only imagine how difficult and distressing it would be for the pilot's family to also have to deal with this kind of legal caveat scenario on top of their loss...
The pilot might also leave behind a wife and kids who also have a difficult future to consider...! I can only imagine how difficult and distressing it would be for the pilot's family to also have to deal with this kind of legal caveat scenario on top of their loss...
I will be intrigued to see how CASA proposes to define and distinguish community service flights in the classification of operations scheme. It can only make a dog's breakfast a bigger dog's breakfast.
I agree completely. Should not take much effort or time to test the fuel found at the crash site.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 60
Posts: 1,542
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course the fuel should be tested. However the report that impact was beyond vertical/inverted would IMO not suggest an engine or fuel problem.
Loss of control, vac pump?
Loss of control, vac pump?
Does anyone know what if any forms passengers are required to sign off on when requesting an Angel flight? Are they required, and therefore be aware that these flights are private with not the same insurance cover or aircraft equiptment as a RPT service. Are they aware just as travelling in a private car that they themselves accept that risk before getting on board?
Thread Starter
They are indeed, as the RFDS found out recently at YLEC at 2300 hours when the PAL lighting system let them down. None of the contact numbers the RFDS base had worked. Lucky for them I was listening, & still have keys for the agent's box! 
DF.
DF.