For Once I Agree With AOPA
Seems he boxed himself into the last possible day to get his Annual done by changing dates multiple times to delay it for numerous reasons. It’s a 172, there are dozens of pilots that you could have trusted to fly it there for him safely that would do it for free.
judging harshly won't bring him back but it MIGHT make some other PVT VFR pilot think twice about doing the same thing!
Seems he boxed himself into the last possible day to get his Annual done by changing dates multiple times to delay it for numerous reasons.
He delayed his departure on two occasions due to the weather, resulting in the final flight taking place the day before the annual inspection was due.
You needed to combine those two statements to give the correct context.
I hesitate to comment because we are talking about a tragedy - someone's life here. A family shattered. I feel uncomfortable about using this incident to push an agenda by AOPA (as much as I think CASA is a debacle and that I generally support AOPA).
Dispassionately looking at it, he had to judge between letting a MR expire and flying into IMC without training or appropriate equipment. He in the end, chose the second option.
If you stuff up and overrun an MR I would say better to fly with an expired MR, with a risk of a fine (probably unlikely), than fly into IMC and gamble your life! (Of course best option would be - wear the inconvenience - get an approval but whatever)
We drum into student pilots the incredible folly of going into IMC if not trained or equipped. Pilot's will (almost) universally say how foolish it is. Yet... it keeps happening!
That to me is the issue. Why? It has been like this for ever. This is where the problem lies. People keep doing it! And in the huge majority of cases *not* because of expired MRs !
Whether it is to facilitate maintenance, pressure to get home or whatever, the responsibility is on the pilot to choose what to do, (not on the regulator, passengers or family wanting to get home or whoever is applying the pressure).
Could there be better options to ferry aircraft needing maintenance? Sure but my personal opinion is - not for reason that lacking such options forces people into IMC. Claiming it is CASAs fault in this case doesn't gel with me (and I think it is inappropriate for AOPA to use it here - this is a tragedy where a pilot pushed into IMC, not an issue of a regulator forcing him to do it).
I am unhappy that AOPA are linking this here.
My (personal) 2c
Dispassionately looking at it, he had to judge between letting a MR expire and flying into IMC without training or appropriate equipment. He in the end, chose the second option.
If you stuff up and overrun an MR I would say better to fly with an expired MR, with a risk of a fine (probably unlikely), than fly into IMC and gamble your life! (Of course best option would be - wear the inconvenience - get an approval but whatever)
We drum into student pilots the incredible folly of going into IMC if not trained or equipped. Pilot's will (almost) universally say how foolish it is. Yet... it keeps happening!
That to me is the issue. Why? It has been like this for ever. This is where the problem lies. People keep doing it! And in the huge majority of cases *not* because of expired MRs !
Whether it is to facilitate maintenance, pressure to get home or whatever, the responsibility is on the pilot to choose what to do, (not on the regulator, passengers or family wanting to get home or whoever is applying the pressure).
Could there be better options to ferry aircraft needing maintenance? Sure but my personal opinion is - not for reason that lacking such options forces people into IMC. Claiming it is CASAs fault in this case doesn't gel with me (and I think it is inappropriate for AOPA to use it here - this is a tragedy where a pilot pushed into IMC, not an issue of a regulator forcing him to do it).
I am unhappy that AOPA are linking this here.
My (personal) 2c
Maybe I should have been more succinct. There was a maintenance organisation located at the origin of this flight which was perfectly capable of doing a 100 hourly on a C172!
Last edited by Possum1; 20th Mar 2019 at 08:26. Reason: added a word
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hesitate to comment because we are talking about a tragedy - someone's life here. A family shattered. I feel uncomfortable about using this incident to push an agenda by AOPA (as much as I think CASA is a debacle and that I generally support AOPA).
Dispassionately looking at it, he had to judge between letting a MR expire and flying into IMC without training or appropriate equipment. He in the end, chose the second option.
If you stuff up and overrun an MR I would say better to fly with an expired MR, with a risk of a fine (probably unlikely), than fly into IMC and gamble your life! (Of course best option would be - wear the inconvenience - get an approval but whatever)
We drum into student pilots the incredible folly of going into IMC if not trained or equipped. Pilot's will (almost) universally say how foolish it is. Yet... it keeps happening!
That to me is the issue. Why? It has been like this for ever. This is where the problem lies. People keep doing it! And in the huge majority of cases *not* because of expired MRs !
Whether it is to facilitate maintenance, pressure to get home or whatever, the responsibility is on the pilot to choose what to do, (not on the regulator, passengers or family wanting to get home or whoever is applying the pressure).
Could there be better options to ferry aircraft needing maintenance? Sure but my personal opinion is - not for reason that lacking such options forces people into IMC. Claiming it is CASAs fault in this case doesn't gel with me (and I think it is inappropriate for AOPA to use it here - this is a tragedy where a pilot pushed into IMC, not an issue of a regulator forcing him to do it).
I am unhappy that AOPA are linking this here.
My (personal) 2c
Dispassionately looking at it, he had to judge between letting a MR expire and flying into IMC without training or appropriate equipment. He in the end, chose the second option.
If you stuff up and overrun an MR I would say better to fly with an expired MR, with a risk of a fine (probably unlikely), than fly into IMC and gamble your life! (Of course best option would be - wear the inconvenience - get an approval but whatever)
We drum into student pilots the incredible folly of going into IMC if not trained or equipped. Pilot's will (almost) universally say how foolish it is. Yet... it keeps happening!
That to me is the issue. Why? It has been like this for ever. This is where the problem lies. People keep doing it! And in the huge majority of cases *not* because of expired MRs !
Whether it is to facilitate maintenance, pressure to get home or whatever, the responsibility is on the pilot to choose what to do, (not on the regulator, passengers or family wanting to get home or whoever is applying the pressure).
Could there be better options to ferry aircraft needing maintenance? Sure but my personal opinion is - not for reason that lacking such options forces people into IMC. Claiming it is CASAs fault in this case doesn't gel with me (and I think it is inappropriate for AOPA to use it here - this is a tragedy where a pilot pushed into IMC, not an issue of a regulator forcing him to do it).
I am unhappy that AOPA are linking this here.
My (personal) 2c
VFR drivers will continue to die as well as take others with them, the reasons are known & unknown, sadly we as a pilot community just have to live with the fact that humans don't make smart pilots sometimes. The 2 CSF flights that ended in tragedy are the perfect Eg's! ALL pilots are responsible for their own actions!
Thread Starter
I think what AOPA is trying to get at is that the rules don’t encourage sound decision making, merely blind obedience. BTW, the pilot would cop a felony conviction, even if just a “fine”. That is not trivial .
Absolutely true. HF or a similar short book/study/exam on human psychology/decision making should be a requirement of any pilot flying outside of the circuit. As someone working towards CPL who identifies as someone who is "lucky enough to encounter it [HF/psychology experience] during other non-aviation activities" I feel I am qualified to make such a statement.
Lead Balloon, you are really at the very end of a very thin wedge. Risk delta from day -1 to day +1 is negligible, but then the argument becomes well if one day overdue is ok then why not two? If two days overdue is ok why not three? so on and so on. As with any cut-off point, an arbitrary point must be set and maintained else the system fails.
This is all just science and in no way represents my support or non-support to CASA, AOPA, or the accident findings.
Lead Balloon, you are really at the very end of a very thin wedge. Risk delta from day -1 to day +1 is negligible, but then the argument becomes well if one day overdue is ok then why not two? If two days overdue is ok why not three? so on and so on. As with any cut-off point, an arbitrary point must be set and maintained else the system fails.
This is all just science and in no way represents my support or non-support to CASA, AOPA, or the accident findings.
An “arbitrary point must be set”? Which of the laws of physics says that?
And if the point is “arbitrary”, it follows that it is not supported by “science”.
The actual data show that most GA aircraft are over maintained, causing maintenance-induced failures.
Does anyone really believe that the airframe of an average GA aircraft and the equipment fitted to it magically degrade at a rate that is - surprise surprise - OK at the magic man-made numbers of 100 hours or 1 year - such wonderfully round numbers - but not OK afterwards. The data show that those numbers were - to use a scientific term - a complete arse pluck.
I ask again:
What is it that CASA does, in considering whether to issue a special flight permit or not, that mitigates that risk? How does the turning of some bureaucrat’s mind to the question whether an aircraft should lawfully be allowed to fly, and the decision by that bureaucrat to issue a special flight permit, mitigate any real risk that exists in the real world.
Walk me through the causal links.
Real world example is required...this youtube may as well be on another planet
This guy has a pot that drops a valve guide, field repair and flown out. This entire episode will never be allowed to happen in Australia..Is it safe? What level of safety is "lowered" to allow this field repair? What difference would a piece of paper make?
EDIT- not exactly in the spirit of the thread. However, please look at this along the idea..pressure to fly the plane back to "My" LAME or be able to get "My" LAME to fly/drive/callout to the location and rectify the situation.
This guy has a pot that drops a valve guide, field repair and flown out. This entire episode will never be allowed to happen in Australia..Is it safe? What level of safety is "lowered" to allow this field repair? What difference would a piece of paper make?
EDIT- not exactly in the spirit of the thread. However, please look at this along the idea..pressure to fly the plane back to "My" LAME or be able to get "My" LAME to fly/drive/callout to the location and rectify the situation.
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 20th Mar 2019 at 11:02.
I had to get one of these a couple of years ago to ferry an aircraft following a prop strike (thanks to a useless ARO who failed to put red and white cones around an unserviceable part of the parking area) whose annual had expired while the repairs were being done. I filled in form 725, CASA put me in touch with an aeronautical engineer who spoke to my LAME and with a few conditions, eg no passengers to be carried, the aircraft was back at base a couple of days later; it took longer to find an available ferry pilot and get them to the aircraft than it did to get the permit.
