Light plane crash near Mt Gambier
The pax in the back probably deserved a lot better than what they got, even if it was with the best of intentions.
It's probably worth a look at the operational pressures placed on a bloke that was just trying to do the right thing and how they can be better handled in the future.
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't work for CASA but have over 25 years as a professional pilot. On top of that is in excess of 30 years of picking up mangled remains from all types of accidents. I spoke with the pilot of the Nhill crash shortly before he left Essendon, only later learning what had happened. I don't have an agenda and my post does not contain defamatory content, just facts. Get a grip on what you are alleging and look at the broader circumstances here.
I see your point.
Angel Flight passenger murdered by negligent pilot.
Investigation closed. Court case closed.
It's as if pilots don't realise they're pilots who may, one day, be the subject of this lynch mob idiocy.
Did I forget to say:
And:
Angel Flight passenger murdered by negligent pilot.
Investigation closed. Court case closed.
It's as if pilots don't realise they're pilots who may, one day, be the subject of this lynch mob idiocy.
Did I forget to say:
And:
I don't think there's a lynch mob forming mate, but I don't think anyone can argue that the forecast being what it was, VFR flight was neither appropriate nor legal. Even if the bloke was a competent IFR pilot, he hadn't filed IFR. That alone is sadly going to void the insurance.
It's a pretty **** situation and I'm sure everyone would like to know more about how it came to be, so it can be prevented in the future.
There's no winners here.
There's no winners here.
There are winners here, you idiot. Did I say:
Last edited by Lead Balloon; 28th Jun 2017 at 21:34. Reason: Ironic pilotism
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, a murder charge requires the proof of premeditation. That did not occur here. As I said previously, obviously there is the best of intentions with every Angel flight, however, to launch in IMC conditions, whilst not in a capable aircraft, licensed, current and legal leaves few conclusions.
Sorry, no, it's not even slightly worth it.
The operational pressure on Angel Flight pilots is precisely and absolutely zero. They don't have to go anywhere or do anything in an aeroplane unless they decide to. Angel Flight certainly DO NOT decide for them or pressure them in any way. That is NOT how they work.
The operational pressure on Angel Flight pilots is precisely and absolutely zero. They don't have to go anywhere or do anything in an aeroplane unless they decide to. Angel Flight certainly DO NOT decide for them or pressure them in any way. That is NOT how they work.
You have it wrong, Clearedtoenter.
The investigation has been completed. The cause is clear.
Junior.VH-LFA and jobsright have sorted everything.
By the way:
The investigation has been completed. The cause is clear.
Junior.VH-LFA and jobsright have sorted everything.
By the way:
...to launch in IMC conditions...
It's a rare day indeed when the available met describes the actual conditions at take off.
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If this is another Nhill accident there will be a lot of folk I know scratching their heads. When airline and other CIR rated pilots in the latest spec aircraft were told by AF they were not welcome due their lawyers safety concerns........ Yet this happens again..........
Sad day for common sense.
Sad day for common sense.
Sorry, no, it's not even slightly worth it.
The operational pressure on Angel Flight pilots is precisely and absolutely zero. Pilots don't have to go anywhere or do anything in an aeroplane unless they decide to. Angel Flight certainly DO NOT decide for them or pressure them in any way. That is NOT how they work.
The operational pressure on Angel Flight pilots is precisely and absolutely zero. Pilots don't have to go anywhere or do anything in an aeroplane unless they decide to. Angel Flight certainly DO NOT decide for them or pressure them in any way. That is NOT how they work.
Last edited by Karunch; 28th Jun 2017 at 12:08.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's far too early to tell, but WX has to be the stand-out suspected cause of this tragic event. AF flights can be allocated 10-14 days ahead so it's too far out to assure WX will be suitable for VFR (and sometimes IFR). I've looked at forecasts the day prior to a planned AF flight and if it looked beyond the capacity of myself or my aircraft, it I've rung AF and cancelled. AF will then book them on RPT (providing the patient's origin is serviced by RPT) or reschedule the treatment where possible.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No, a murder charge requires the proof of premeditation. That did not occur here. As I said previously, obviously there is the best of intentions with every Angel flight, however, to launch in IMC conditions, whilst not in a capable aircraft, licensed, current and legal leaves few conclusions.
The investigation has just began....
where is the info that says........
1. The aircraft in question was not IFR rated (it is capable of being so)
2. Do you know the Pilot wasn't licenced IFR
3. Do you know he wasn't current?
4. Do you know that he wasn't legal?
Sorry, but your statement and the questions I have on it just ring that you have an axe to grind....one without a handle it would seem.
It may come out that you are correct, but on given public domain information at the minute, i'm forced into that mindset
enjoy your cyrstal ball.
Cheers
Jas
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I take a fair bit of umbrage at this post.,,,,,,enough to think you have commercial concerns/ambitions.
The investigation has just began....
where is the info that says........
1. The aircraft in question was not IFR rated (it is capable of being so)
2. Do you know the Pilot wasn't licenced IFR
3. Do you know he wasn't current?
4. Do you know that he wasn't legal?
Sorry, but your statement and the questions I have on it just ring that you have an axe to grind....one without a handle it would seem.
It may come out that you are correct, but on given public domain information at the minute, i'm forced into that mindset
enjoy your cyrstal ball.
Cheers
Jas
The investigation has just began....
where is the info that says........
1. The aircraft in question was not IFR rated (it is capable of being so)
2. Do you know the Pilot wasn't licenced IFR
3. Do you know he wasn't current?
4. Do you know that he wasn't legal?
Sorry, but your statement and the questions I have on it just ring that you have an axe to grind....one without a handle it would seem.
It may come out that you are correct, but on given public domain information at the minute, i'm forced into that mindset
enjoy your cyrstal ball.
Cheers
Jas
When you live....
Local knowledge from YMTG - the weather sensor is located at the BOM site on the west south west side of the airfield. This side also has some hills and LOTS of plantation forests.
This topography/vegetation provides for quite different weather conditions at the airfield when compared to the AWIS even though they're only a few hundred metres apart. It's common to get visual off an instrument approach even when the AWIS says you shouldn't be able to.
That said, OVC002 is unlikely to be flyable weather allowing for variations but if there is any wind at YMTG (and the 5kts shown on the METAR may be enough) then it will fluctuate through ranges of conditions fairly quickly. YMTG to YPAD is dead flat after 10nm (apart from the Adelaide Hills but the forecast there woudl have been fine - there could have been a "if I can just get to the coast...." mindset going on. I'm curious how/when the pilot got there - it would have to have been the night before one assumes.
I'll agree with those above who've said that there is no pressure at all from AF to fly - I've cancelled flights for weather that wasn't terrible but wasn't great and never has anything ever been even remotely insinuated by the staff that this was a problem or a hassle or it would somehow count against me in future - even where appointments were then missed as a result.
Sad day for the families of all but especially the passengers. The word was out in town very quickly that the crash had happened and that AF passengers were uncontactable. Took a long time for confirmation though.
I hope AF weathers the storm, learns any lessons needed and keeps on going.
UTR
This topography/vegetation provides for quite different weather conditions at the airfield when compared to the AWIS even though they're only a few hundred metres apart. It's common to get visual off an instrument approach even when the AWIS says you shouldn't be able to.
That said, OVC002 is unlikely to be flyable weather allowing for variations but if there is any wind at YMTG (and the 5kts shown on the METAR may be enough) then it will fluctuate through ranges of conditions fairly quickly. YMTG to YPAD is dead flat after 10nm (apart from the Adelaide Hills but the forecast there woudl have been fine - there could have been a "if I can just get to the coast...." mindset going on. I'm curious how/when the pilot got there - it would have to have been the night before one assumes.
I'll agree with those above who've said that there is no pressure at all from AF to fly - I've cancelled flights for weather that wasn't terrible but wasn't great and never has anything ever been even remotely insinuated by the staff that this was a problem or a hassle or it would somehow count against me in future - even where appointments were then missed as a result.
Sad day for the families of all but especially the passengers. The word was out in town very quickly that the crash had happened and that AF passengers were uncontactable. Took a long time for confirmation though.
I hope AF weathers the storm, learns any lessons needed and keeps on going.
UTR
He got there a short time before he loaded the pax and took off again. Interesting track on FR24.
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/a...h-ytm/#de33286
He got there a short time before he loaded the pax and took off again...
.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
What? You have not seen idiots arrive in conditions that were nothing short of pharquing stupid before???
Sadly, I have.
The inbound makes the outbound all the more likely.
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Adelaide, South Australia
Posts: 394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My curiosity got the better of me about whether flights of YTM operated IFR or VFR, so I looked at FlightAware track log of YTM for the cruising altitude of some recent flights.
It's a little tricky without knowing for the QNH for the particular day, but i see a lot of flights were VFR to/from YPLC between 4500' and 7500'. The track log for Wed June 21 (YMBD-YPLC) show some unusual groundspeed (not airspeed) fluctuations on climb from 4000' to 6500' (113 - 54 Kts) that may be caused by a downdraft from westerly winds over the Adelaide Hills, but the subsequent cruising groundspeed suggests a fairly light headwind. Nothing else looked out of the ordinary, although I'd fly as high as possible over water (just in case) to have maximum glide range.
It's a little tricky without knowing for the QNH for the particular day, but i see a lot of flights were VFR to/from YPLC between 4500' and 7500'. The track log for Wed June 21 (YMBD-YPLC) show some unusual groundspeed (not airspeed) fluctuations on climb from 4000' to 6500' (113 - 54 Kts) that may be caused by a downdraft from westerly winds over the Adelaide Hills, but the subsequent cruising groundspeed suggests a fairly light headwind. Nothing else looked out of the ordinary, although I'd fly as high as possible over water (just in case) to have maximum glide range.
Thread Starter
DF.
