Light plane crash near Mt Gambier
Tragic ending to a well meaning flight to help a fellow human. My only criticism of AF (I am not a volunteer for them but may in retirement) is that in the advert shown on TV it shows a $1m + aircraft (malibu on memory) assumed fully IFR with weather radar etc when in reality it will be a $60k single engine VFR aircraft that will turn up on the day. Why do people use this service? because it's free. What passengers have to realize is that flying in these aircraft is not the same or have the same safety as RPT. That is not saying don't go but just be aware and if the weather/pilot/aircraft is a concern to you don't get onboard. RPT is like train travel. Defined tracks, safety systems and monitoring to avoid collisions along the way etc along with the physical size of the thing that allows backup systems and dual drivers. Private aircraft are like private cars and pretty much do there own thing enroute with just 1 driver of variable experiance.
Would you jump into any car for a long trip with no questions asked?
AF probably need to look at their minimum experiance levels and teach online to both there pilots and clients the safe limits in flying VFR so passengers can ask the right question before they commit to travel, and the risks for pilots being pressured by passengers to meet appointments to takeoff if not VMC. Not saying this was the case here but we don't know.
Would you jump into any car for a long trip with no questions asked?
AF probably need to look at their minimum experiance levels and teach online to both there pilots and clients the safe limits in flying VFR so passengers can ask the right question before they commit to travel, and the risks for pilots being pressured by passengers to meet appointments to takeoff if not VMC. Not saying this was the case here but we don't know.
Last edited by mostlytossas; 18th Nov 2017 at 05:02.
mostlytossas.
CAsA requires basically the same maintenance for VH registered aircraft regardless of being RPT or Private.
They are the same LAME's but only some different paperwork and other compliances such as tool control.
Similar for Pilots CAsA sets the mark that a person becomes safe to fly with passengers then for hire and reward being commercial pilots and ATPL.
None of these qualifications make for safer flight if bad decisions are made - I believe this pilot was IFR rated (I may have that wrong) but the IFR rating is exactly the same for any pilot not just private pilots.
RPT is mostly procedure issues to hold a person to blame.
CAsA requires basically the same maintenance for VH registered aircraft regardless of being RPT or Private.
They are the same LAME's but only some different paperwork and other compliances such as tool control.
Similar for Pilots CAsA sets the mark that a person becomes safe to fly with passengers then for hire and reward being commercial pilots and ATPL.
None of these qualifications make for safer flight if bad decisions are made - I believe this pilot was IFR rated (I may have that wrong) but the IFR rating is exactly the same for any pilot not just private pilots.
RPT is mostly procedure issues to hold a person to blame.
Moderator
Bend alot
I think that you may have overstretched a bit in the suggestions in your last post ... perhaps you might like to amplify the reasoning by which you arrived at your conclusions ?
Might I suggest that there are quite some differences between maintenance classes and PVT/CHTR/RPT operations ....
I think that you may have overstretched a bit in the suggestions in your last post ... perhaps you might like to amplify the reasoning by which you arrived at your conclusions ?
Might I suggest that there are quite some differences between maintenance classes and PVT/CHTR/RPT operations ....
Spot on JT re Bend a lot. I do not know what the required probation period is for PP but suggest that an exception be made for Bend a lot and an extension of that period by a significant amount be given in order for wisdom to be gained.
Bend alot is merely one of the numerous log ins of a well-known serial pest. The selective dyslexia is the giveaway.
Can one direct me to the differences for getting an IF ratting for PVT/CPL and RPT operations - I was of the understanding they are the same.
Many maintenance orgs carry out maintenance on a private C152 to say RPT B200 aircraft.
The maintenance of these aircraft are both carried out I.A.W the AMO's procedures manual - I have yet to come across an EPM that has different levels for PVT, CPL & RPT ops within the same company. If we have a B200 in private cat and RPT cat, there would be very little difference in the maintenance required.
Even when we talk CAR 30 v 145 there is very little difference in the actual maintenance done on the aircraft or how it is done on the aircraft. one AMO said other than some name changes there was little difference between the CAR 30 & 145 approvals, with the main being the tool storage requirement.
However when it came to the office side of things extra staff were required for compliance. Something that brings light to this is years ago you would order 100 self tappers and get them in a little bag with QTY, P/N & GRN - the last time I ordered 100 self tappers they all came in individual bags with their own GRN printed label as from the manufacture. Now that created 100 line entries to put in our store, 100 copies of the GRN document - then 100 entries on parts book out sheet (if I follow the EPM instructions) and 100 entries of P/N and GRN in log book. Not one of these extra entries makes the aircraft any safer but you might be fatigued when it comes time to screw them in.
I am also seeing cheat sheets for much of the compliance items in a effort to save time in 145 AMO's - never a good thing. While numerous audits are being carried out by many other than CAsA, they are missing what I think are some pretty serious and basic issues because they all have only looked at the paper product and not the product itself.
Many maintenance orgs carry out maintenance on a private C152 to say RPT B200 aircraft.
The maintenance of these aircraft are both carried out I.A.W the AMO's procedures manual - I have yet to come across an EPM that has different levels for PVT, CPL & RPT ops within the same company. If we have a B200 in private cat and RPT cat, there would be very little difference in the maintenance required.
Even when we talk CAR 30 v 145 there is very little difference in the actual maintenance done on the aircraft or how it is done on the aircraft. one AMO said other than some name changes there was little difference between the CAR 30 & 145 approvals, with the main being the tool storage requirement.
However when it came to the office side of things extra staff were required for compliance. Something that brings light to this is years ago you would order 100 self tappers and get them in a little bag with QTY, P/N & GRN - the last time I ordered 100 self tappers they all came in individual bags with their own GRN printed label as from the manufacture. Now that created 100 line entries to put in our store, 100 copies of the GRN document - then 100 entries on parts book out sheet (if I follow the EPM instructions) and 100 entries of P/N and GRN in log book. Not one of these extra entries makes the aircraft any safer but you might be fatigued when it comes time to screw them in.
I am also seeing cheat sheets for much of the compliance items in a effort to save time in 145 AMO's - never a good thing. While numerous audits are being carried out by many other than CAsA, they are missing what I think are some pretty serious and basic issues because they all have only looked at the paper product and not the product itself.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All operations authorised by the PIFR are conducted
under the IFR to the same procedures and standards which
apply to other IFR aircraft conducting the same IFR operations.
For class A
As the system of maintenance will be assessed against the
requirements of the current edition of the manufacturer's
instructions, CARs and CAOs, it is advisable to use these
documents as guidance when developing the system.
Also a read of the CAsA Maintenance Guide For Owners/Operators clearly states for piston class B schedule 5 does not let you get away with less.
With class A CAsA certainly wont be going for anything different from the manufacturer (reputable one) states to do and when.
So on a King Air 200 the only extra thing that springs to mind between PVT and RPT and I might not even be correct is an extra hand held fire extinguisher in the cabin. Certainly the only added safety I can think of.
under the IFR to the same procedures and standards which
apply to other IFR aircraft conducting the same IFR operations.
For class A
As the system of maintenance will be assessed against the
requirements of the current edition of the manufacturer's
instructions, CARs and CAOs, it is advisable to use these
documents as guidance when developing the system.
Also a read of the CAsA Maintenance Guide For Owners/Operators clearly states for piston class B schedule 5 does not let you get away with less.
With class A CAsA certainly wont be going for anything different from the manufacturer (reputable one) states to do and when.
So on a King Air 200 the only extra thing that springs to mind between PVT and RPT and I might not even be correct is an extra hand held fire extinguisher in the cabin. Certainly the only added safety I can think of.
JT with all due respect they are procedural differences - the nuts and bolts are very much the same if not exact.
An exception will be to dodgy running pistons on condition past 12 year or TBO Hrs in PVT - but many charter aircraft legally do the same.
* But the prop has no exception!
So as 2 of my posts have now been released to view - I stand by my comment in the terms given or did you want a specific area of amplification?
An exception will be to dodgy running pistons on condition past 12 year or TBO Hrs in PVT - but many charter aircraft legally do the same.
* But the prop has no exception!
So as 2 of my posts have now been released to view - I stand by my comment in the terms given or did you want a specific area of amplification?
Moderator
I think that we shall have to agree to disagree on philosophy of maintenance and operational imperatives. Especially with respect to the latter, a general consideration relates to typical crew experience and operator support organisation.
It is 10 posts - you will see this makes 9.
I started in this game in 1985 and will admit my English is not great, but I have done and seen much more than many around me in many places - some call that wisdom.
But the real wisdom comes when you listen to the biggest of fools, and learn something from them.
I have no doubt John a Charter op would have better resources than a Private Pilot - But a 5,000 hr PPL with multi IFR 10 years experience in the top end verses a CPL with IFR and Instructor rating and no top end experience.
I think the key is experience not qualification.
Moderator
I think the key is experience not qualification.
I concur .. with the caveat that qualification (bit of paper or demonstration of that relevant knowledge and standard, at the least) is a necessary rider. Ill-considered experience, per se, may not provide much of a cushion in extremis.
I concur .. with the caveat that qualification (bit of paper or demonstration of that relevant knowledge and standard, at the least) is a necessary rider. Ill-considered experience, per se, may not provide much of a cushion in extremis.
And many people who claim e.g. 20 years of experience are often merely reliving the same year - repeating the same mistakes - over and over.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree experience is more important than license type.But so is currency on type. The fact you may have 10,000hrs in your log book means little if you retired years ago and only do half a dozen hours a year to keep your license (or what you believe will keep you up to date). Over the past 30 odd years I have seen or heard of a 747 captain start to flare a c172 at 100feet,which could have ended in a fatal stall.A military captain fly a Cherokee from east of Melbourne to Parafield and have to declare an emergency due fuel exhaustion and land at Adelaide at night on vapours. I reckon just about any PPL would know better than either example. Many other examples too all because they were not current on type.
Final report out. ATSB say they don’t apportion blame but findings sink the boot into AF rather than the appalling decisions by the pilot.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577660...-069_final.pdf
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/577660...-069_final.pdf
