Islander down at Melaleuca?
Leafy, no need to talk down to people here you supercilious ass. The history of registration list has only just popped up.
So...relatively young for an Islander at perhaps ‘only’ 32 years old. Though that list does not state when PBN actually built it.
But with so many changes of ownership, there is still the thought that somewhere in its life it was over stressed, and possibly more than once. And corrosion and cracking has been known to occur in airframes younger than 32 years.
It really pisses me off when people immediately start calling in to question the pilot’s actions, or lack of experience, before a proper investigation has been concluded.
So...relatively young for an Islander at perhaps ‘only’ 32 years old. Though that list does not state when PBN actually built it.
But with so many changes of ownership, there is still the thought that somewhere in its life it was over stressed, and possibly more than once. And corrosion and cracking has been known to occur in airframes younger than 32 years.
It really pisses me off when people immediately start calling in to question the pilot’s actions, or lack of experience, before a proper investigation has been concluded.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 10th Dec 2018 at 11:06.
Yeh right, GA pilots are known for always honestly reporting their screw ups. Your heavy landing could be a greaser in my book. My severe turbulence could be light chop in yours. Many things never make it to the tech log.
And of course GA aeroplanes are never flown over weight, not here and not in Pakistan either.
And of course GA aeroplanes are never flown over weight, not here and not in Pakistan either.
Yeh right, GA pilots are known for always honestly reporting their screw ups. Your heavy landing could be a greaser in my book. My severe turbulence could be light chop in yours. Many things never make it to the tech log.
And of course GA aeroplanes are never flown over weight, not here and not in Pakistan either.
And of course GA aeroplanes are never flown over weight, not here and not in Pakistan either.
So you are happy to risk the pilot after you? x2 comments
Only they don't make it because of you the pilot telling lies.
Yes many fly over weight Trump ordered them to.
* seems this lady hit weather, did a few course changes then (possibly due commercial pressures or even ego) tried to head to original destination or planned to, that did not end well.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Feeling very sad for this poor young lady.
There but the grace of God.. etc etc having spent the early 80's flying in Tassie and a fair bit of it to the west coast and far south west, also in Islanders, albeit a fair bit older than this one. (Anyone remember EQT?)
It is incredibly inhospitable terrain-Take a look at photos on Google Earth. When you are down on the far south west coast on your own in the aircraft, trying to pick your way up valleys shrouded in cloud, with nobody to ask what the conditions ahead are like, there is an overwhelming sense of remoteness.
I daresay you are right Horatio.
The FlightAware data (ADS-B gaps notwithstanding) https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../YBHB/tracklog appears to show a course reversal a few miles west of Federation Peak. The last minute or so as the aircraft approaches West Portal is the most upsetting- a rapid climb and speed reduction back to 90kts with a course change of almost 60 degrees, no doubt in a vain attempt to avoid the terrain or perhaps in IMC and hoping to out-climb whatever was in the immediate vicinity.
I put myself in that situation once - trying to get an ABC TV crew down to Matsuyker to film a cargo ship that had lost its rudder in appalling conditions. Biggest scare I ever gave myself. I was lucky enough to get away with it. Its a long time to hold your breath waiting to get to the LSALT of 6400 ft. Poor Ms Walker was not so fortunate.
The learning curve is so steep in the those early years of your GA career and you are excited to be presented with opportunities to show your worth so you can go on to bigger and better things.
Its just so sad that those opportunities are probably the most dangerous you will come across in your flying career.
RIP
There but the grace of God.. etc etc having spent the early 80's flying in Tassie and a fair bit of it to the west coast and far south west, also in Islanders, albeit a fair bit older than this one. (Anyone remember EQT?)
It is incredibly inhospitable terrain-Take a look at photos on Google Earth. When you are down on the far south west coast on your own in the aircraft, trying to pick your way up valleys shrouded in cloud, with nobody to ask what the conditions ahead are like, there is an overwhelming sense of remoteness.
What about a young pilot who has flown into a corner and not been able to escape - has that ever happened before in Australia?
The FlightAware data (ADS-B gaps notwithstanding) https://flightaware.com/live/flight/.../YBHB/tracklog appears to show a course reversal a few miles west of Federation Peak. The last minute or so as the aircraft approaches West Portal is the most upsetting- a rapid climb and speed reduction back to 90kts with a course change of almost 60 degrees, no doubt in a vain attempt to avoid the terrain or perhaps in IMC and hoping to out-climb whatever was in the immediate vicinity.
I put myself in that situation once - trying to get an ABC TV crew down to Matsuyker to film a cargo ship that had lost its rudder in appalling conditions. Biggest scare I ever gave myself. I was lucky enough to get away with it. Its a long time to hold your breath waiting to get to the LSALT of 6400 ft. Poor Ms Walker was not so fortunate.
The learning curve is so steep in the those early years of your GA career and you are excited to be presented with opportunities to show your worth so you can go on to bigger and better things.
Its just so sad that those opportunities are probably the most dangerous you will come across in your flying career.
RIP
Leave the debate to Mach E and Horatio. (Funny bastards to boot- oh you "supercilious ass" !) It is a fact that these two know what they are talking about (unlike the troll who should not be airing his ignorance here at all). Because I flew commercially for 30 years out of Hobart and Cambridge I too know, first hand, how severe the denture dislodging turbulence can be. (How about a cabin fire extinguisher - in a Heron - dislodged from it's parcel shelf attachment bracket, to then bounce about the cabin as the two drivers are holding onto the base of their seats with white knuckles with one hand , while the other is gripping the controls praying to get on the ground with some semblance of control?) Yes, my son - if you have not been there , then with all due respect , you know SFA about it.
Surely the ATSB can tell us, even now, whether it was a structural failure or a CFIT?
Surely the ATSB can tell us, even now, whether it was a structural failure or a CFIT?
I didn't think I had anything to add until I saw the ZK-OBL entry (post #20). I flew as a pax on this aircraft from Queenstown to Milford Sound (thank God it was my wife's idea, or I'd have never heard the end of it), and we endured possibly the most severe turbulence I've ever encountered in my career (as Fantome so aptly puts it: denture dislodging turbulence). And then, despite the pilot's alleged choice of a smoother route home, we had an equally grueling tumble-dryer type flight back. I did wonder then about the fatigue life of the BN-2 then, so the possibilty of a structural failure in this case is eminently possible.
Very sad about the young lady involved.
Very sad about the young lady involved.
hullo adore a 9 . . .. . (Yes I always thought there was a lingering odour in that old workhorse OBL . . (.NOT Kiwi fruit!) . .. . at least you had the strength of ten. . .. if not in your abdomen . .. . then in the old Diesel.
(don't you love speaking in code?)
and yes . .. . I entirely share your sentiments about the deceased. . .. . . ("FATE IS THE HUNTER" . .. Ernie et al)
(don't you love speaking in code?)
and yes . .. . I entirely share your sentiments about the deceased. . .. . . ("FATE IS THE HUNTER" . .. Ernie et al)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Hongkers
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
(How about a cabin fire extinguisher - in a Heron - dislodged from it's parcel shelf attachment bracket, to then bounce about the cabin as the two drivers are holding onto the base of their seats with white knuckles with one hand , while the other is gripping the controls praying to get on the ground with some semblance of control?)
Paper runs to Hobart in the Heron at 3am passing the Great Western Tiers in strong South Westerlies. Some of those jolts made you look at each other and wonder how short of ripping the wings off that one was and how big the next one would be.
BB
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hobart TAF that morning.
TAF AMD YMHB 072036Z 0720/0818 16008KT CAVOK FM072200 16008KT 9999
-RA SCT010 FM080200 14012KT 7000 -SHRA BKN005 FM080900
18006KT 9999 SCT010 BKN025
PROB30 INTER 0720/0722 7000 TSRA SCT005 SCT080CB=
Heres an older youtube video,
just note the cloud base and circuit height on arrival at YBHB.
Typical for the weather down there to be pretty crappy. Am I correct in assuming that there is no RNAV approach published? I remember they were talking about publishing one years ago.
TAF AMD YMHB 072036Z 0720/0818 16008KT CAVOK FM072200 16008KT 9999
-RA SCT010 FM080200 14012KT 7000 -SHRA BKN005 FM080900
18006KT 9999 SCT010 BKN025
PROB30 INTER 0720/0722 7000 TSRA SCT005 SCT080CB=
Heres an older youtube video,
Typical for the weather down there to be pretty crappy. Am I correct in assuming that there is no RNAV approach published? I remember they were talking about publishing one years ago.
Leave the debate to Mach E and Horatio.
It really pisses me off when people immediately start calling in to question the pilot’s actions, or lack of experience, before a proper investigation has been concluded.
Maybe you could have done a quick fact check on your hypothesis before going out on a limb, eh?
Emad, note that the TAF you posted was amended, issued at 072036 for 2000/1800 period.
So, the times would suggest that Met had issued a late change, probably responding to unexpected changes in the actual conditions.
Local time of issue was 0736, by which time the pilot would be close to departure. It’s likely the pilot didn’t receive the changes. It would be interesting to know;
What the original TAF had forecast; and
if the amended TAF was passed on to the pilot.
So, the times would suggest that Met had issued a late change, probably responding to unexpected changes in the actual conditions.
Local time of issue was 0736, by which time the pilot would be close to departure. It’s likely the pilot didn’t receive the changes. It would be interesting to know;
What the original TAF had forecast; and
if the amended TAF was passed on to the pilot.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SB 190
Those speculating on structural failure may want to read up on SB 190, which is mandated for compliance in both Australia and NZ.
From memory is carried out every five years.
FWIW
Edit: Just read the AD, five years initial inspection and then every two years there after.
From memory is carried out every five years.
FWIW
Edit: Just read the AD, five years initial inspection and then every two years there after.
Last edited by Eddie Dean; 11th Dec 2018 at 00:14.
Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: In the room next to the lift
Posts: 52
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by growahead[left
Local time of issue was 0736, by which time the pilot would be close to departure. It’s likely the pilot didn’t receive the changes. It would be interesting to know;
What the original TAF had forecast; and
if the amended TAF was passed on to the pilot.
What the original TAF had forecast; and
if the amended TAF was passed on to the pilot.
Originally Posted by growahead[left
TAF AMD YMHB 071705Z 0718/0818 32008KT CAVOK FM072200 16008KT 9999
-RA SCT010 FM080200 14012KT 7000 -SHRA BKN005 FM080900
18006KT 9999 SCT010 BKN025
PROB30 INTER 0718/0722 7000 TSRA SCT005 SCT080CB=
The Hobart TAF doesn’t tell you what the conditions are like around Federation Peak. I’m just suggesting if she was operating VFR, there are clues that it would be pretty crappy down there. I have flown that route over 100 times. Scared the bejezzus out of myself a couple.
Just wondering if anyone knows if they tend to operate IFR or VFR. I can find no published instrument plate for YBHB.
Anyone know the conditions that the Chopper or Challenger crew encountered on the day?
Some here may well think that I and a few others come up with “incredibly imaginative possible causes” and believe in the statistic “pilot error accidents still outnumber other accidents 4:1” . I take no offence that I have an active imagination - honed from many years of wondering, knowing and occasionally experiencing, what can go wrong will go wrong.
But consider that most accidents result from more than one cause - often a combination of equipment, environmemt and the human. Old aircraft, primitive instrumentation, poor performance, mountainous terrain, bad weather, non existent instrument approach (and possibly no aircraft capability to do it anyway). Even if the tail did not fall off or the elevator cable did not break, or an engine was not down on power, this may not be simple CFIT.
CFIT implies it is all the pilot’s fault. All avenues including structure and maintenance history and instrument serviceability must be investigated. We owe that much to this unfortunate pilot and those who will grieve for her.
So here is another statistic ( I saw it on TV so it must be right): Of all occupations, that of aircraft pilot is the 3rd (or may have been 4th) most dangerous. Note “occupation” so the implication is that weekend warrior PPLs are not included. Now, we all know that airline flying is the safest mode of transport, so take out airline pilots from the data and we have GA as a very hazardous undertaking indeed. Up there with firefighting and bomb disposal.
But consider that most accidents result from more than one cause - often a combination of equipment, environmemt and the human. Old aircraft, primitive instrumentation, poor performance, mountainous terrain, bad weather, non existent instrument approach (and possibly no aircraft capability to do it anyway). Even if the tail did not fall off or the elevator cable did not break, or an engine was not down on power, this may not be simple CFIT.
CFIT implies it is all the pilot’s fault. All avenues including structure and maintenance history and instrument serviceability must be investigated. We owe that much to this unfortunate pilot and those who will grieve for her.
So here is another statistic ( I saw it on TV so it must be right): Of all occupations, that of aircraft pilot is the 3rd (or may have been 4th) most dangerous. Note “occupation” so the implication is that weekend warrior PPLs are not included. Now, we all know that airline flying is the safest mode of transport, so take out airline pilots from the data and we have GA as a very hazardous undertaking indeed. Up there with firefighting and bomb disposal.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 11th Dec 2018 at 17:45.
[QUOTE=Mach E Avelli;10333068]
But consider that most accidents result from more than one cause - often a combination of equipment, environmemt and the human.
*** so aircraft - weather and location and pilot.
Old aircraft, primitive instrumentation, poor performance, mountainous terrain, bad weather, non existent instrument approach (and possibly no aircraft capability to do it anyway).
** New aircraft have a good and recent crash history - No it is actually published performance that the pilot studies and is aware about, I don't think any person disagrees about the weather being bad or that it was know an instrument approach was not possible - but they were far from needing an instrument approach.
Even if the tail did not fall off or the elevator cable did not break, or an engine was not down on power, this was no simple CFIT.
*** Fact trouble was far before the crash so no the tail did not fall off nor could a elevator cable have broken (check the actual flight data) - an engine down on power is a long shot - ref the POH and the surrounds and make a call. (but a good climb on a engine low power)
CFIT implies it is all the pilot’s fault. All avenues including structure and maintenance history and instrument serviceability must be investigated. We owe that much to this unfortunate pilot and those who will grieve for her.
** Prove one fact mate! you have nil.
So here is another statistic ( I saw it on TV so it must be right): Of all occupations, that of aircraft pilot is the 3rd (or may have been 4th) most dangerous. Note “occupation” so the implication is that weekend warrior PPLs are not included. Now, we all know that airline flying is the safest mode of transport, so take out airline pilots from the data and we have GA as a very hazardous undertaking indeed. Up there with firefighting and bomb disposal.
*** Disproved in a thread last week!
But consider that most accidents result from more than one cause - often a combination of equipment, environmemt and the human.
*** so aircraft - weather and location and pilot.
Old aircraft, primitive instrumentation, poor performance, mountainous terrain, bad weather, non existent instrument approach (and possibly no aircraft capability to do it anyway).
** New aircraft have a good and recent crash history - No it is actually published performance that the pilot studies and is aware about, I don't think any person disagrees about the weather being bad or that it was know an instrument approach was not possible - but they were far from needing an instrument approach.
Even if the tail did not fall off or the elevator cable did not break, or an engine was not down on power, this was no simple CFIT.
*** Fact trouble was far before the crash so no the tail did not fall off nor could a elevator cable have broken (check the actual flight data) - an engine down on power is a long shot - ref the POH and the surrounds and make a call. (but a good climb on a engine low power)
CFIT implies it is all the pilot’s fault. All avenues including structure and maintenance history and instrument serviceability must be investigated. We owe that much to this unfortunate pilot and those who will grieve for her.
** Prove one fact mate! you have nil.
So here is another statistic ( I saw it on TV so it must be right): Of all occupations, that of aircraft pilot is the 3rd (or may have been 4th) most dangerous. Note “occupation” so the implication is that weekend warrior PPLs are not included. Now, we all know that airline flying is the safest mode of transport, so take out airline pilots from the data and we have GA as a very hazardous undertaking indeed. Up there with firefighting and bomb disposal.
*** Disproved in a thread last week!
Eddie Dean is it a SB or an AD ? While it is comforting to know that there is an awareness of ageing aircraft, and a program specifically for the Islander, work done is only as good as those doing it and the components going in to it.
But the point I am attempting to make (but beyond the comprehension of some) is not that structural failure was the most likely cause, only that it - and any other equipment failure or design deficiency - must be eliminated by investigation before branding it as a CFIT and nothing but a CFIT.
Bent a lot out of shape seems to think that having expressed an opinion, and a concern that the investigation may rush to a conclusion, it is my job now to prove facts. He offers the ‘fact that trouble was far before the crash’ Que? Also that PPruNe is a reliable place for proof. As if...
But the point I am attempting to make (but beyond the comprehension of some) is not that structural failure was the most likely cause, only that it - and any other equipment failure or design deficiency - must be eliminated by investigation before branding it as a CFIT and nothing but a CFIT.
Bent a lot out of shape seems to think that having expressed an opinion, and a concern that the investigation may rush to a conclusion, it is my job now to prove facts. He offers the ‘fact that trouble was far before the crash’ Que? Also that PPruNe is a reliable place for proof. As if...
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 11th Dec 2018 at 18:51.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: UTC
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I understand the young lady did not have an IR. Challenging conditions for a VFR pilot in a VFR aircraft. And considering she only received her CPL a year or so ago I do wonder why the owner of the company would tell the press she had been “working for them for 3 years” and “highly qualified and experienced”. He is the same person who regularly complains about CASAs “over regulation” of GA. Why must another young life be wasted by putting someone in a place they should not be, in weather that they are not qualified or equipped to fly in? Self regulation works for some operators and not others, hence we have CASAs “over regulation”. RIP Nikita.
If true she did not have an IR, did she receive enough training in that particular operation? According to one statement she had already been appointed to train others in that operation.
I recall the same company lost two people in a Cessna on a photo mission during a Sydney Hobart yacht race a couple of years sgo. Did that pilot have appropriate low level flying training?
I recall the same company lost two people in a Cessna on a photo mission during a Sydney Hobart yacht race a couple of years sgo. Did that pilot have appropriate low level flying training?
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Eddie Dean is it a SB or an AD ? While it is comforting to know that there is an awareness of ageing aircraft, and a program specifically for the Islander, work done is only as good as those doing it and the components going in to it.
But the point I am attempting to make (but beyond the comprehension of some) is not that structural failure was the most likely cause, only that it - and any other equipment failure or design deficiency - must be eliminated by investigation before branding it as a CFIT and nothing but a CFIT.
Bent a lot out of shape seems to think that having expressed an opinion, and a concern that the investigation may rush to a conclusion, it is my job now to prove facts. He offers the ‘fact that trouble was far before the crash’ Que? Also that PPruNe is a reliable place for proof. As if...
But the point I am attempting to make (but beyond the comprehension of some) is not that structural failure was the most likely cause, only that it - and any other equipment failure or design deficiency - must be eliminated by investigation before branding it as a CFIT and nothing but a CFIT.
Bent a lot out of shape seems to think that having expressed an opinion, and a concern that the investigation may rush to a conclusion, it is my job now to prove facts. He offers the ‘fact that trouble was far before the crash’ Que? Also that PPruNe is a reliable place for proof. As if...
Should you care to read SB 190 you will see that it is quite extensive, I would take exception to your implication that maintainers would not comply completely with the requirements therein.
I agree with with your comment that operators "force" inexperienced pilots to fly when perhaps the conditions are not conducive to safe flight.
Have seen this in PNG and Australia and have lost several young pilots due to this issue.
You have made several statements that Bend A Lot has listed and simply asked for substantiation of the same.
FWIW