Light plane crash near Mt Gambier
What we essentially have is a commercial pressure (though self imposed) on pilots who probably only fly once a week or less, in most cases favourably VMC conditions. Many AF pilots would be instrument rated, however the weekend flyers would still not push their instrument flying skills to the limit on a regular basis and would likely only fly IFR recreationally in conditions that are marginally worse than what one could do under VFR.
In fact MikeWil's who post is some sort of imagined fantasy.
Any Angel Flight pilot who has cancelled a flight knows that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight. I have personally cancelled an AF due to fog and contrary to MikeWils ignorant assertion, AF encourage pilots to cancel if the pilot feels the situation is marginal.
The AF pilots I know are competent, current, regular pilots and AF requires the pilot to confirm his / her currency before applying for each flight.
Furthermore, the most cursory research by posters like MikeWill will show that the pilot concerned flew very regularly. FlightAware show the history of his flights with filed flight plans. At a guess you could probably double those flights to account for flights without a submitted flight plan.
And (as a CPL) I reject the assertion that CPL's are inherently safer pilots than PPL. I'll take a 70 year old, current, experienced PPL over a spotty faced CPL mass produced by one of the major flight training organisations any day of the week.
Last edited by Old Akro; 29th Jun 2017 at 20:30.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It seems strange to me that in the USA the vast majority of private pilots hold instrument ratings, whereas in Australia they do not. I think I recall reading the ratio is something like 80% to 20%. Given the huge safety benefit having instrument skills brings I wonder why this is so?.
There is also the question of cost. Higher costs limit the amount of flying a pilot can afford in a given year. Whats the old saying? "practice makes perfect".
A bit of a trawl around the US charter operators reveals their charter rates are somewhat cheaper than the operating costs of the same the aircraft in Australia.
I wonder why they can do things so much cheaper than us?
Given their private pilots appear to fly a lot more on average than we do and appear to hold better qualifications than we do is the US more safe than Australia?
There is no doubt that angle flight provides a vital service to the community that would be otherwise unaffordable. The alternative of committing to the roads is patently less safe. It would be a tragedy if an incident like this resulted in the usual knee jerk reaction of increased regulation making the service unviable.
There is also the question of cost. Higher costs limit the amount of flying a pilot can afford in a given year. Whats the old saying? "practice makes perfect".
A bit of a trawl around the US charter operators reveals their charter rates are somewhat cheaper than the operating costs of the same the aircraft in Australia.
I wonder why they can do things so much cheaper than us?
Given their private pilots appear to fly a lot more on average than we do and appear to hold better qualifications than we do is the US more safe than Australia?
There is no doubt that angle flight provides a vital service to the community that would be otherwise unaffordable. The alternative of committing to the roads is patently less safe. It would be a tragedy if an incident like this resulted in the usual knee jerk reaction of increased regulation making the service unviable.
Last edited by thorn bird; 29th Jun 2017 at 21:04.
It would be a tragedy if an incident like this resulted in the usual knee jerk reaction of increased regulation making the service unviable.
It is just so frustrating to see members of the 'industry' who rail against CASA's regulatory micro-management calling for an increase in regulation by CASA. The 'industry' wants CASA to regulate all drones and to have greater powers to do so. Senators are doing impersonations of people with their hair on fire about it. Members of the 'industry' want CASA to increase the regulatory requirements for 'community service flights'.
Jesus wept. The bureaucracy loves this stuff.
For the people who want to trust the data: Great. What are the data?
How many community service flight and hours have been flown. What is the fatality per mission/hour flown ratio? Who decided that that ratio is unacceptable?
What is the opportunity cost of the reduction of available community service flights if increased regulation ruled out substantial numbers of volunteers?
Are you trying to guarantee fatality-free community service flights? If yes, there will be none. RPT aircraft have fatal accidents too.
Why don't we reduce the national speed limit to 10KPH? If it saved just one life, surely it would be worth it.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Australia
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cant believe Dick Lang on Chanel 7 last night crapping on about how AF needs better processes for vetting pilots blah blah blah.
If AF had to invest in training and checking and ensuring pilots meet minimum criteria higher than that already required, they wouldn't be able fund the service that they operate.
It is a volunteer organisation - that doesn't mean compromise on safety but it can't all of a sudden demand 1000 hour minimums with sim checks by an AF FI every year - who will pay for that? And will it actually ensure a higher level of pilot competency?
If AF had to invest in training and checking and ensuring pilots meet minimum criteria higher than that already required, they wouldn't be able fund the service that they operate.
It is a volunteer organisation - that doesn't mean compromise on safety but it can't all of a sudden demand 1000 hour minimums with sim checks by an AF FI every year - who will pay for that? And will it actually ensure a higher level of pilot competency?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What is the fatality per mission/hour flown ratio?
Who decided that that ratio is unacceptable?
AndrewR,
You say one passenger fatality in 5000 missions is high. And yet we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.
No calls for mandatory recurrent testing for drivers licences (say, every five years you have to re-sit your drivers test).
No calls for mandatory specialised training for those who want to tow a caravan (including how to reverse a caravan).
No calls for mandatory training for driving on gravel roads, driving in stormy conditions, driving at night.
Why are these training requirements mandatory in the aviation world, and yet not mandatory on the roads, which affects more people?
Because driving a car is seen as a right, and flying a plane is seen as a privilege. Yet both are just means of transport.
You say one passenger fatality in 5000 missions is high. And yet we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.
No calls for mandatory recurrent testing for drivers licences (say, every five years you have to re-sit your drivers test).
No calls for mandatory specialised training for those who want to tow a caravan (including how to reverse a caravan).
No calls for mandatory training for driving on gravel roads, driving in stormy conditions, driving at night.
Why are these training requirements mandatory in the aviation world, and yet not mandatory on the roads, which affects more people?
Because driving a car is seen as a right, and flying a plane is seen as a privilege. Yet both are just means of transport.
What uninformed nonsense.
In fact MikeWil's who post is some sort of imagined fantasy.
Any Angel Flight pilot who has cancelled a flight knows that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight. I have personally cancelled an AF due to fog and contrary to MikeWils ignorant assertion, AF encourage pilots to cancel if the pilot feels the situation is marginal.
In fact MikeWil's who post is some sort of imagined fantasy.
Any Angel Flight pilot who has cancelled a flight knows that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight. I have personally cancelled an AF due to fog and contrary to MikeWils ignorant assertion, AF encourage pilots to cancel if the pilot feels the situation is marginal.
Choosing not to read my entire post or just selective reading?
Either way, if you go back and READ AGAIN, you will notice that I did acknowledge that there is no pressure from Angel Flight to complete the flight.
I stated that any pressure is a personal one, not a company imposed one.
You probably need to go back and have another look at your human factors theory if you don't acknowledge that many pilots will experience an increased desire to get the job done when they have passengers on board, whether they be friends/family/clients etc.
At this stage there has been no public information about whether the pilot and / or aircraft was instrument rated. Just a lot of conjecture by guys showing their ignorance.
Pilot ?wasn?t licensed to fly in fog?
And (as a CPL) I reject the assertion that CPL's are inherently safer pilots than PPL. I'll take a 70 year old, current, experienced PPL over a spotty faced CPL mass produced by one of the major flight training organisations any day of the week.
Now is probably a good time to point out that it's understandable when VFR Flight and Low Cloud or Fog come together a Spatial Disorentation event would be high on the list of usual suspects. It's not however a given in this specific event. A loss of power or engine power degrade in these conditions will still produce the same outcome. I note the wreckage suggests wings level and right way up at impact, coincidence, maybe, maybe not.
And there was me thinking that the Renmark, Essendon and Lockhart River tragedies involved CPLs.
I don't think that's the reason.
Think it's actually a mixture of things.
First, it would be political suicide for any government that introduced mandatory periodic private driver re-testing or specialist training.
Secondly, the human mind plays tricks that have people believing that dying in an aircraft accident is horribly terrible but dying in a car accident is not. That's why even those in the 'industry' will call for ever-more regulation in response to aviation accidents (although it's almost always for more regulation of 'someone else').
Here's an idea: Let's call for a ban on the carriage of passengers in private operations.
Hopefully the lynch mob will be able to find some regulatory action taken by CASA against the pilot in the past, to "prove" what an irresponsible person he was.
Because driving a car is seen as a right, and flying a plane is seen as a privilege. Yet both are just means of transport.
Think it's actually a mixture of things.
First, it would be political suicide for any government that introduced mandatory periodic private driver re-testing or specialist training.
Secondly, the human mind plays tricks that have people believing that dying in an aircraft accident is horribly terrible but dying in a car accident is not. That's why even those in the 'industry' will call for ever-more regulation in response to aviation accidents (although it's almost always for more regulation of 'someone else').
Here's an idea: Let's call for a ban on the carriage of passengers in private operations.
Hopefully the lynch mob will be able to find some regulatory action taken by CASA against the pilot in the past, to "prove" what an irresponsible person he was.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
How true! And why they would well just to just shut the f... up!
There are of course others who are less ignorant attempting to maliciously misinform the press or perhaps have they some other personal axe to grind.
Take this one:
Would these 'CIR rated pilots' happen to fly a latest spec uncertified experimental home built aircraft? To attempt to imply that 'airline and other CIR rated pilots' (which many AF pilots are) are not welcome is just downright misleading.
This is tragic enough to the families and all involved and out hearts should go out to them without all of this BS.
There are of course others who are less ignorant attempting to maliciously misinform the press or perhaps have they some other personal axe to grind.
Take this one:
Would these 'CIR rated pilots' happen to fly a latest spec uncertified experimental home built aircraft? To attempt to imply that 'airline and other CIR rated pilots' (which many AF pilots are) are not welcome is just downright misleading.
This is tragic enough to the families and all involved and out hearts should go out to them without all of this BS.
CTR,
Yes that is exactly what happened as a knee jerk reaction to the previous accident. Maybe you do not get the irony of it all. But for the avoidance of doubt, my previous statement was and still is 100% accurate and not misleading at all.
As for feeding the media......maybe we all should quite prune now. The media misquote all the time, so anything they pick up here is more or less likely to be fact and then misrepresented.
I am sorry you are so upset by the facts.
Personal decision making can be good or bad with any pilot of any age. imho
CAsA has a belief system that is PPL-Bad, CPL -Good. Its invalid.
I'd rather fly with a 4000 hr ppl than a 200 hr cpl without a wealth of experience and vital decision making. But I'd pay attention with both.
And I've had a few low time CPLs try and kill me, too
In court, as a PPL.. a CAsA w*nker (and an ambush witness) gave a lengthy dissertation about dangerous PPLs and how they cause all the accidents.
CAsA has to make a "safety" case out of it even if that wasnt the issue.
No mention was made of course, that over the period of harassment by CAsA, there were SEVEN light charter accidents in NQ alone with 21 fatalities.
Says it all really.
CAsA has a belief system that is PPL-Bad, CPL -Good. Its invalid.
I'd rather fly with a 4000 hr ppl than a 200 hr cpl without a wealth of experience and vital decision making. But I'd pay attention with both.
And I've had a few low time CPLs try and kill me, too
In court, as a PPL.. a CAsA w*nker (and an ambush witness) gave a lengthy dissertation about dangerous PPLs and how they cause all the accidents.
CAsA has to make a "safety" case out of it even if that wasnt the issue.
No mention was made of course, that over the period of harassment by CAsA, there were SEVEN light charter accidents in NQ alone with 21 fatalities.
Says it all really.
I have to agree that qualifications don't really count for much in any field really, I remember back years ago I needed a small surgical procedure done, I asked a theatre nurse who would you pick, she gave me 2 names, I said any others and she said well if you're just having your toe nails clipped or perhaps a couple of stitches.
Best advice I ever got and I have applied it in everything that involves spending money.
When I look back at my flying career, I was lucky to have made it to 3,000 hours, since then I have trained many high performance turbine pilots with 3,000 hours and when I'm done, I ask them the question. So now you know what you now know, how do you think you went to get this far, and they agree, I was lucky.
Everything you do in an aeroplane is for a reason, if the reason is not there or is not sound, then you're doing it wrong
Best advice I ever got and I have applied it in everything that involves spending money.
When I look back at my flying career, I was lucky to have made it to 3,000 hours, since then I have trained many high performance turbine pilots with 3,000 hours and when I'm done, I ask them the question. So now you know what you now know, how do you think you went to get this far, and they agree, I was lucky.
Everything you do in an aeroplane is for a reason, if the reason is not there or is not sound, then you're doing it wrong
Last edited by Xeptu; 30th Jun 2017 at 03:27. Reason: extended
Looking at the data, regrettably, these tragic deaths bring the total of fatalities in GA in SA to 18 individuals in the past five years. I have to say, this figure surprised me (although it pales when compared to the road figures).
Of those, Renmark and the Lake Eyre helicopter in 2011 were commercial standard ops. All others appear to be private.
Of those, Renmark and the Lake Eyre helicopter in 2011 were commercial standard ops. All others appear to be private.
You say one passenger fatality in 5000 missions is high. And yet we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.
One of the things dragging all forms of GA down is the lack of technology upgrade of aircraft and lack of training facilities. If you look at the USA you can get a sim for basically any type of aircraft which really enhances the training available, and vastly improves your IFR skill set.
Join Date: Jun 2017
Location: Adelaide
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had been near YTM and its pilot on numerous occasions in the last couple of years, however it was just one week before the accident flight that I spoke to him for the first time. He was just about to depart for YPLC, and gave me some advice on communicating with ATC when flying a direct route. He appeared, despite the early hour, to be a very competent, calm, informed and unhurried pilot. He was friendly, helpful, articulate, well dressed and his aircraft was immaculate. He had the appearance and demeanour of a professional. He was not some 50-hour-a-year woozy-headed almost 80-year-old pilot in any respect. I would have trusted my family with this man.
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From latest ATSB report for a similar accident.
"The ATSB cautions that, on entering an area of reduced visual cues, the risk of experiencing spatial disorientation and a loss of control is high, measuring from between 60 to 178 seconds from the time of entering the area of low visibility. This risk is highest for those without proficiency or recent experience in instrument flying."
"The ATSB cautions that, on entering an area of reduced visual cues, the risk of experiencing spatial disorientation and a loss of control is high, measuring from between 60 to 178 seconds from the time of entering the area of low visibility. This risk is highest for those without proficiency or recent experience in instrument flying."
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
nothing new to aviation in that statement sheppey.
What is perhaps missing tho, is the related reaction of the pilot upon recognition of loss of spatial awareness.....
Been there, done that, and in no hurry to repeat.
What is perhaps missing tho, is the related reaction of the pilot upon recognition of loss of spatial awareness.....
Been there, done that, and in no hurry to repeat.
There are good, decent, intelligent, current pilots of mature age who fly immaculate aircraft and are prepared to donate their time and their aircraft to help others. They go about their business competently and legally in private category flights. They are not 250 hour commercial pilots who on this forum at least, appear to know everything and are doing their best to demonise this gentleman and the organisation he was helping. I did not know him, I had never met him, I have never flown an Angel flight and I will not speculate on what occurred. But it would be nice if some of the aviation gods here with their infinite newly won wisdom would just stop and think for a while that this was a man who in his 73 years on this earth has obviously contributed a large amount to his community. I can only hope some of the experts here can do the same in the next 50 years of their life.
Last edited by flywatcher; 1st Jul 2017 at 01:33. Reason: spelling mistake