Light plane crash near Mt Gambier
So, LeadBalloon, the regs says don't do it (fly from VMC into IMC without training). Common sense says don't do it. Usually, the accident report says Nice try, but fail. Game Over.
I agree with you - more regulation is not the answer (hence my comment that CASA appear to be trying to legislate against stupidity). But at the moment, there is a increasing perception that flying in light aircraft leads to death. That's not helpful for those trying to run a business and / or make a living.
So what do you suggest?
I agree with you - more regulation is not the answer (hence my comment that CASA appear to be trying to legislate against stupidity). But at the moment, there is a increasing perception that flying in light aircraft leads to death. That's not helpful for those trying to run a business and / or make a living.
So what do you suggest?
What you said was:
My suggestion?
First, find out things called facts.
Secondly, determine, on a basis of those facts, whether there is actually a problem.
Thirdly, determine how most effectively to solve that problem.
Fourthly, decide whether the cost of that solution is worth paying.
Fifthly, if the cost is worth paying, implement the solution.
We already know, as a matter of fact, that pilots flying VFR occasionally fly - whether intentionally or unintentionally - in IFR, often with catastrophic results. There is general agreement that this is a problem.
The chronic failure to address the problem is a consequence of the fact that CASA is not qualified to do #3 or #4. A regulator's solution to most problems is to ... increase regulation. (To a hammer, every problem is a nail...).
#3 and #4 have to be taken out of CASA's hands.
It might be that the costs of effectively solving the problem outweigh the costs of the problem itself. But you have to do that analysis first.
The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27 billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.
That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.
It appears that CASA are being forced to legislate against stupidity.
And by our choices, as evidenced by our actions, we appear to need it.
And by our choices, as evidenced by our actions, we appear to need it.
First, find out things called facts.
Secondly, determine, on a basis of those facts, whether there is actually a problem.
Thirdly, determine how most effectively to solve that problem.
Fourthly, decide whether the cost of that solution is worth paying.
Fifthly, if the cost is worth paying, implement the solution.
We already know, as a matter of fact, that pilots flying VFR occasionally fly - whether intentionally or unintentionally - in IFR, often with catastrophic results. There is general agreement that this is a problem.
The chronic failure to address the problem is a consequence of the fact that CASA is not qualified to do #3 or #4. A regulator's solution to most problems is to ... increase regulation. (To a hammer, every problem is a nail...).
#3 and #4 have to be taken out of CASA's hands.
It might be that the costs of effectively solving the problem outweigh the costs of the problem itself. But you have to do that analysis first.
The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27 billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.
That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.
Lead Balloon,
Re. your two last posts, well said, a pity your sentiments were not more commonly held beliefs, in the "rules" obsessed aviation community.
Now for my two bob's worth --- no pilot sets out to knowingly kill himself and any passengers --- and only the pilot in command knows what the actual conditions were, that prevailed at takeoff, and they can vary quickly.
This pilot believed they were withing (his) limits, otherwise he would not have gone, but, sadly, he did.
Sadly, CASA "priorities" are "enforcement" after the event, if there are survivors they can "prosecute". The FAA, and other similar authorities came to realise, years ago, that "education" before the event is the most effective at minimizing aircraft accidents, but CASA activities have always been, and more so than ever at present, are weighted towards "compliance and enforcement", with the entirely predictable results.
Angel Flight is a wonderful initiative, and there is no problem with Angel Flight, that the "answer" is more regulation or other CASA interference, but I fear for the future of the organisation, once CASA decides it has got to go.
Tootle pip!!
PS: My guess, but a guess based on long experience, is that the visual horizon, once airborne, was obscured, not as good as it seemed on the ground, and he got "the leans", you do not need to be solid IMC for that to happen.
Re. your two last posts, well said, a pity your sentiments were not more commonly held beliefs, in the "rules" obsessed aviation community.
Now for my two bob's worth --- no pilot sets out to knowingly kill himself and any passengers --- and only the pilot in command knows what the actual conditions were, that prevailed at takeoff, and they can vary quickly.
This pilot believed they were withing (his) limits, otherwise he would not have gone, but, sadly, he did.
Sadly, CASA "priorities" are "enforcement" after the event, if there are survivors they can "prosecute". The FAA, and other similar authorities came to realise, years ago, that "education" before the event is the most effective at minimizing aircraft accidents, but CASA activities have always been, and more so than ever at present, are weighted towards "compliance and enforcement", with the entirely predictable results.
Angel Flight is a wonderful initiative, and there is no problem with Angel Flight, that the "answer" is more regulation or other CASA interference, but I fear for the future of the organisation, once CASA decides it has got to go.
Tootle pip!!
PS: My guess, but a guess based on long experience, is that the visual horizon, once airborne, was obscured, not as good as it seemed on the ground, and he got "the leans", you do not need to be solid IMC for that to happen.
“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."
-------------------I would have thought that this could be considered libelous, no matter what he thought, did his friend?? have the knowledge to responsibly make that statement?
-------------------I would have thought that this could be considered libelous, no matter what he thought, did his friend?? have the knowledge to responsibly make that statement?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bendigo, Australia
Age: 76
Posts: 97
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“He said he was never too old. But without beating around the bush, I thought if he was ever going to go this is the way he’d go,” he said."
-------------------
I would have thought that this could be considered libelous, no matter what he thought, did his friend?? have the knowledge to responsibly make that statement?
-------------------
I would have thought that this could be considered libelous, no matter what he thought, did his friend?? have the knowledge to responsibly make that statement?
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Sydney Australia
Posts: 128
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would have thought that this could be considered libelous
While your outrageous defamation is allowed to remain published
A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.
I can't see any cause for concern there.
The cost of road trauma in Australia in 2016 is 27 billion dollars (according to figures published by DIRD/BTRE). Although everyone agrees that is a "problem", the costs of effectively solving the problem are considered too high to pay. The speed limit isn't going to be set to 10KPH, private drivers are not going to be subject to recurrent testing or mandatory training for special activities, and collision-preventing technology isn't going to be mandated for private vehicles. That's because the economic and political costs would be too high. That's called 'affordable [politically pragmatic] safety'.
That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.
That's not how it works in aviation, because aviation is 'special'.
Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results
Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.
There's no cause of action possible for defamatory publications about a dead person. So while it may be socially reprehensible to speak ill of the dead, it is not a tortious act.
A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.
I can't see any cause for concern there.
This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here. Road trauma costs a lot of money and the cost of solving the problem is too high. Let's treat aviation the same - maybe we could get the cost of aviation accidents somewhere up near $27B.
Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results
Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.
A septuagenarian private pilot flying a ~25 year old piston single engine aeroplane in bad weather with a sick kid and a carer on behalf of an organisation that brokers the flights while exercising little operational control and no pressure to get the job done in airspace managed by the world's second best ATS system regulated by an incompetent NAA.
I can't see any cause for concern there.
This is one of the dumbest comments I've seen on here. Road trauma costs a lot of money and the cost of solving the problem is too high. Let's treat aviation the same - maybe we could get the cost of aviation accidents somewhere up near $27B.
Let's delegate #3 and #4 on the list to the same fools who produced the outstanding road safety results
Piss poor road safety is not a reason to weaken aviation, it is a reason to improve road safety.
Do you entertain the possibility that the ratio of the costs of "air trauma" compared with the benefits of aviation was already orders of magnitude lower than that of road trauma compared with the the benefits of the road transport system, and that further strangulation of aviation activity is having a net negative effect?
I do. But I'm dumb.
Tell me: How does CASA assess the costs of, say, banning 'community service flights' in private operations, and against what criteria does CASA decide whether that cost is worth paying?
...My suggestion? First, find out things called facts...
A very brief google of TB10 issues show seat failures and blinding smoke in cockpit incidents. Apparently the tail plane has had problems. And then there are the typical aging aircraft issues of airframe corrosion and wiring problems. Any of these 'issues' can fatally affect an aircraft on take off. Even a pax seat failure on take-off can have the pax grabbing for those 'handles' conveniently in front of them.
As an aside, I've had an absent minded pax use the flight controls as an aid to pull the seat forward. Luckily before flight so i were able to 'educate' the pax, again, about what not to touch.
.
Last edited by Flying Binghi; 3rd Jul 2017 at 11:54.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we accept (in 2016) approximately 1235 people killed in fatalities on Australian roads.
Per trip, Angel Flight is about 2000 times worse. If you guess an average Angel Flight of 500km, it works out to 40 times more dangerous per km than by road.
These are bad figures. I am sure they will be scrutinised by the Coroner, as well as CASA.
If you want to protect Angel Flight and prevent extra CASA regulation, 2 things need to happen:
1) Acknowledge that there is a problem and
2) Take some pro-active steps to address the problem.
#2 could be as simple as setting some weather minimums for the trip.
e.g. for day VFR:
- No cloud forecast below 2000 AGL on the planned route
- No requirement for an alternate or holding in the destination forecast
- No more than scattered areas of visibility < 10km in the forecast.
- Arrival at least 1 hour before last light
The forecast could be checked at head office for each flight, and the flight cancelled if the forecast limits are exceeded, without giving the pilot the option.
This is nothing new. We know what is required to make aviation operations safer. We know that pilots tend to push the limits and will sometimes pay the price if that is allowed. We know that setting boundaries well away from risky areas hugely improves safety.
I doubt that there are many commercial operations that work on the same basis as Angel Flight, i.e. no concrete guidance to the pilot other than obey regulations and use your own judgement.
Commercial operations are supervised by a CP, and have operations manuals etc. that set additional limits on top of the regulations for a reason. Angel Flight needs to learn from this, and take back a bit of the responsibility from the pilots.
Road trauma is not just fatalities. It includes injuries and property damage.
Are you sure that all Angel Flight pilots are 'just' private pilots? Really sure? Do the ATPLs and CPLs become irresponsible when free of the shackles of a CPs scrutiny?
If there is a problem, it is not caused by Angel Flight. It's caused by human factors issues that have been around forever.
If the rules for day VFR Angel Flights should be changed, the rules for all day VFR private operations should be changed.
But hang on a second, if the current rules were complied with, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?
The problem isn't the rules. We're drowning in rules. If only all of that regulatory reform program money had been spent on instrument ratings and education instead...
My prediction: There will be no change to the regulatory requirements imposed on community services flights. Aside from all of the difficulties of defining what they are and are not - thus turning a dog's breakfast classification of operations regime into a bigger dog's breakfast - there is formidable political support for AF.
Are you sure that all Angel Flight pilots are 'just' private pilots? Really sure? Do the ATPLs and CPLs become irresponsible when free of the shackles of a CPs scrutiny?
If there is a problem, it is not caused by Angel Flight. It's caused by human factors issues that have been around forever.
If the rules for day VFR Angel Flights should be changed, the rules for all day VFR private operations should be changed.
But hang on a second, if the current rules were complied with, there wouldn't be a problem, would there?
The problem isn't the rules. We're drowning in rules. If only all of that regulatory reform program money had been spent on instrument ratings and education instead...
My prediction: There will be no change to the regulatory requirements imposed on community services flights. Aside from all of the difficulties of defining what they are and are not - thus turning a dog's breakfast classification of operations regime into a bigger dog's breakfast - there is formidable political support for AF.
The Vic road toll is very roughly 1 per day (and yes, that is considered too high and a lot of time and money is spent trying to reduce it). Road journey statistics are roughly 10 million trips per day and 100 million km/day. So that's 1 fatality per 10 million trips or 100 million km.
Per trip, Angel Flight is about 2000 times worse. If you guess an average Angel Flight of 500km, it works out to 40 times more dangerous per km than by road.
These are bad figures. I am sure they will be scrutinised by the Coroner, as well as CASA.
If you want to protect Angel Flight and prevent extra CASA regulation, 2 things need to happen:
1) Acknowledge that there is a problem and
2) Take some pro-active steps to address the problem.
#2 could be as simple as setting some weather minimums for the trip.
e.g. for day VFR:
- No cloud forecast below 2000 AGL on the planned route
- No requirement for an alternate or holding in the destination forecast
- No more than scattered areas of visibility < 10km in the forecast.
- Arrival at least 1 hour before last light
The forecast could be checked at head office for each flight, and the flight cancelled if the forecast limits are exceeded, without giving the pilot the option.
This is nothing new. We know what is required to make aviation operations safer. We know that pilots tend to push the limits and will sometimes pay the price if that is allowed. We know that setting boundaries well away from risky areas hugely improves safety.
I doubt that there are many commercial operations that work on the same basis as Angel Flight, i.e. no concrete guidance to the pilot other than obey regulations and use your own judgement.
Commercial operations are supervised by a CP, and have operations manuals etc. that set additional limits on top of the regulations for a reason. Angel Flight needs to learn from this, and take back a bit of the responsibility from the pilots.
Per trip, Angel Flight is about 2000 times worse. If you guess an average Angel Flight of 500km, it works out to 40 times more dangerous per km than by road.
These are bad figures. I am sure they will be scrutinised by the Coroner, as well as CASA.
If you want to protect Angel Flight and prevent extra CASA regulation, 2 things need to happen:
1) Acknowledge that there is a problem and
2) Take some pro-active steps to address the problem.
#2 could be as simple as setting some weather minimums for the trip.
e.g. for day VFR:
- No cloud forecast below 2000 AGL on the planned route
- No requirement for an alternate or holding in the destination forecast
- No more than scattered areas of visibility < 10km in the forecast.
- Arrival at least 1 hour before last light
The forecast could be checked at head office for each flight, and the flight cancelled if the forecast limits are exceeded, without giving the pilot the option.
This is nothing new. We know what is required to make aviation operations safer. We know that pilots tend to push the limits and will sometimes pay the price if that is allowed. We know that setting boundaries well away from risky areas hugely improves safety.
I doubt that there are many commercial operations that work on the same basis as Angel Flight, i.e. no concrete guidance to the pilot other than obey regulations and use your own judgement.
Commercial operations are supervised by a CP, and have operations manuals etc. that set additional limits on top of the regulations for a reason. Angel Flight needs to learn from this, and take back a bit of the responsibility from the pilots.
That's because AF is not a commercial operation. More a travel 'clearing house' for people who want a free flight from private volunteers for health issues. ...and obeying flying regulations and using ones own judgement - What better advice then that.
And we still don't have an official accident report for this prang yet so how can we make any sort of judgement ?...
.
Thread Starter
My understanding is that three out of the four were pilots. If it's the case that they were VFR entering IMC en-route to YKII, I'll always wonder why two of them didn't say: "Let's get the f**k out of here."
Last edited by gerry111; 4th Jul 2017 at 05:54.
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Surely there must be witnesses on the ground at or around YMTG around the departure time of this flight. Not a witness of the departure, but a general description of the actual weather at the time. The METAR indicates 200' cloudbase and 3km viz, and maybe the Rex crew noticed something, or even the refueller? Air Services had live cameras filming the four quadrants at the time, I wonder whether these still pictures are recorded? I wonder what the AWIS (133.425) information was at the time, and is this data recorded?
Live Weather Cameras | Airservices
Live Weather Cameras | Airservices
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After a relatively quick (2 hours) search of the regulations, all I could find to determine VFR conditions and if it is legal to take off for Day VFR is as follows;
1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track
If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.
2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)
3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.
4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.
For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, lets say there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?
Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.
1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track
If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.
2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)
3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.
4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.
For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, lets say there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?
Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.
I've always found this one quite ambiguous on its own as it assumes the destination aerodrome will have TAF.
What it implies is that if the destination doesn't have a TAF, then an alternate WILL ALWAYS be required (and will need a TAF) as you won't be able to verify that conditions are forecast be above the specified minima without one.
An ARFOR is too vague and open to interpretation to be used for satisfying alternate requirements.
After a relatively quick (2 hours) search of the regulations, all I could find to determine VFR conditions and if it is legal to take off for Day VFR is as follows;
1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track
If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.
2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)
3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.
4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.
For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, lets say there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?
Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.
1. Forecast - If you can obtain a forecast then cloud must be at least 1000' AGL above the highest obstacle 10nm either side of track
If no forecast then pilot is satisfied that the weather at the departure point will permit the safe return within 60min.
2. Alternate - The forecast cloud must be Scattered or less, 1500' AGL and 8km vis (not applicable if less than 50nm)
3. Takeoff/Enroute/Landing - Class G: below 10,000' - 1000' vertical, 1500m horizontal, 5km visibility. AT or below 3000' AMSL/1000'AGL; clear of cloud and in sight of ground or water, 5km visibility - MUST HAVE a radio and used on appropriate frequency.
4. Reg 157 may fly below 500' due stress of weather.
For IFR the take-off minima is black and white, but for VFR it can be down to interpretation; for example, lets say there are no TAF's for my departure, destination or any airfields along my track. The ARFOR that I have obtained shows cloud above 1500' and visibility of 8km. However at my departure the cloud is low and I estimate that it is 800' and I guess visibility to be 5km and I'm satisfied I can make a safe return. I do not need an alternate due to forecast. I jump in the plane and take off. At 600' I start entering cloud, I drop to 500' and can see the ground and if need be due to press of weather I can fly less than 500' if I need to so I head off to my destination. Have I broken any Visual Flight Rules?
Please provide references to any rules that have been broken.
How do you "start entering cloud" as well as "remain clear of cloud"? You're IMC, not VMC, as soon as you "start entering cloud". Breach of 172.
The exception in 157 to which you referred says in whole: "through stress of weather or any other unavoidable cause it is essential that a lower height [than otherwise required by 157] be maintained".
The weather-induced stress has to be "unavoidable" and it must be "essential" that the lower height be maintained, before the exception applies. That is not a blanket authority to take off and fly from A to B at 490' AGL just because the cloud base happens to be 500' AGL along the track from A to B.
Unless ISIS has overtaken A or the only source of your urgently-needed life-saving medicine is at B, you can avoid the weather-induced stress by doing a 490' circuit and returning to land at A. It's not essential for you to continue to B. If there's a suitable landing area in between A and B, you can avoid further weather-induced stress by landing there. It's not essential for you to continue to B.
I can sorta understand the decision to take off in the mistaken belief that the cloud base is much higher (although VFR pilots should acquaint themselves with the various simple methods of accurately estimating the height of low cloud bases), but as soon as you know the cloud base is going to force you below 500' AGL I reckon a decision to continue to your destination below 500' AGL would be dangerously irresponsible and in breach of 157, except in the sorts of remotely possible situations I've given. Even in those situations, technical compliance with the regs won't stop you colliding with that stonking great tower on the hill directly on track.
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Goolwa
Age: 59
Posts: 124
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I 100% agree Lead Balloon, I think the problem lies with some pilots that they do not have a clear-cut go/no-go plan in their heads, they look out and think, "yeah, I can make that". On the roads you have a sign with big black numbers with a bright red circle telling you "this is the speed limit", a driver can of course go slower than the limit, do the limit or choose to exceed the limit, no power on earth can control the choice a driver will make. A VFR pilot also has to make a choice, but either through lack of training (VFR minimums drummed into them), lack of experience (gee I almost died then! I'll never do that again) or lack of responsibility (I'll do what the heck I want) they still fly into situations where they end up in IMC. Certainly more regulations are not the answer, clearer regulations maybe?
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whether it be ear tags, clear felling, aviation regs, road regs or whatever - some just will not comply - they know far better than everyone else.
I 100% agree Lead Balloon, I think the problem lies with some pilots that they do not have a clear-cut go/no-go plan in their heads, they look out and think, "yeah, I can make that". On the roads you have a sign with big black numbers with a bright red circle telling you "this is the speed limit", a driver can of course go slower than the limit, do the limit or choose to exceed the limit, no power on earth can control the choice a driver will make. A VFR pilot also has to make a choice, but either through lack of training (VFR minimums drummed into them), lack of experience (gee I almost died then! I'll never do that again) or lack of responsibility (I'll do what the heck I want) they still fly into situations where they end up in IMC. Certainly more regulations are not the answer, clearer regulations maybe?
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.
I guess some action will be taken by the authorities because as we know all Australians need a regulation before they can choose to obey, ignore or work around it.
.