DA40 night over water
Regarding the ditching of WJC. There is little doubt that the R (rescue) part of the SAR action could have been handled a lot better. That was 36 years ago, and most people today won’t understand how primitive facilities were at that time. No GPS, few helicopters, commiunications were limited ( 727s would go HF a few hundred kms west of Brisbane). The SAR team could have done better. Many of the SARMCs were ex wartime pilots, some were really smart and competent guys, and frequently conducted successful SAR missions. So, one bad effort, but many very good efforts as well. I think it’s offensive to make out that the DCA and later SAR people were generally poor performers.
So SAR was a ballsup in this event; what about other players, the pilot? WJC was approaching half way across the strait, and reported a low fuel indication, and quickly decided to ditch whilst he still had power. Think about that: floating around Bass Strait, about maximum distance from land, midwinter, with survival chances practically nil (it was amazing that the F27 managed to find the location, considering nav aids at the time). I remember that day very clearly, a screaming N/NW wind was blowing, the aircraft was only 60 nm or so from Devonport. I have always wondered why they didn’t immediately turn towards DPO. If they in fact did run out of noise, they would have been a lot closer to help, and they would have bought more time for assistance to be arranged. Why would one choose to go for a swim with survival chances minimum to practically nil, when the engines were still running, and may have made it to a relatively close suitable runway?
We’ll never know, but I’m pretty sure there was more than one ballsup on that day.
So SAR was a ballsup in this event; what about other players, the pilot? WJC was approaching half way across the strait, and reported a low fuel indication, and quickly decided to ditch whilst he still had power. Think about that: floating around Bass Strait, about maximum distance from land, midwinter, with survival chances practically nil (it was amazing that the F27 managed to find the location, considering nav aids at the time). I remember that day very clearly, a screaming N/NW wind was blowing, the aircraft was only 60 nm or so from Devonport. I have always wondered why they didn’t immediately turn towards DPO. If they in fact did run out of noise, they would have been a lot closer to help, and they would have bought more time for assistance to be arranged. Why would one choose to go for a swim with survival chances minimum to practically nil, when the engines were still running, and may have made it to a relatively close suitable runway?
We’ll never know, but I’m pretty sure there was more than one ballsup on that day.
few helicopters
Although there is no certainty that the projected missions would in practice have been flown as shown, it gives a useful comparison of alternative actions and indicates that timely use of one of the Longford helicopters might have resulted in successful rescue action.The decision to not check the availability of rescue helicopters other than NSC and PVFis considered to have been an error of judgement.The SARMC was by far the best informed of the Melbourne RCC personnel regarding the normal capabilities and likely response times of various organisations in the area. This seems to have proved a distinct disadvantage in this case, in that he depended on his knowledge and experience of the typical situation rather than checking on actual availability at the time.
Had the available resources been employed in a more effective manner, his rescue may have been successful.
Had the available resources been employed in a more effective manner, his rescue may have been successful.
Folks,
Once such matters were taken out of the hands of Airservices and handed to AMSA, there has been huge improvement, but it was a lot of work to get there, and non-AMSA bureaucratic artificial obstacles in Canberra did not help.
I never cease to be amazed that the "Princes of Process" cannot grasp the idea that getting to job done (particularly where life is at stake) takes, or should take, precedence over "the imperative of approve process"..
Tootle pip!!
Once such matters were taken out of the hands of Airservices and handed to AMSA, there has been huge improvement, but it was a lot of work to get there, and non-AMSA bureaucratic artificial obstacles in Canberra did not help.
I never cease to be amazed that the "Princes of Process" cannot grasp the idea that getting to job done (particularly where life is at stake) takes, or should take, precedence over "the imperative of approve process"..
Tootle pip!!
Survival suits don’t appear to be standard issue for these overwater jaunts?
Even though they were in the water for no more than 25 minutes there is evidence to suggest that symptoms of hypothermia were beginning to set in
It's an interesting commentary on the nature of bureaucracy. It was easier to start a brand new agency (AMSA) than to change the culture of Airservices enough for them to do rescue stuff efficiently. Despite Airservices, on the face of it, being knowledgeable about matters of aviation. I guess no-one here will be surprised by that.
Interesting comment.
My view --- it was easier to do other than try to change the "culture of Airservices" ---- and AMSA was hardly new.
Having had quite considerable experience of both, it always surprised me just how different the two organisations manifested themselves --- the only thing they has in common was the postcode 2601.
Tootle Pip!!
They perform very different roles, you only have to look at the JD’s and mission statements to see that.
Leadsled, you should put up your resume on here some time soon. I don’t know how you found the time to do all of these things in your life!
Leadsled, you should put up your resume on here some time soon. I don’t know how you found the time to do all of these things in your life!
Thread Starter
Survival suits.......ha ha they probably weren’t even wearing the life jacket.......
Engine failure at 4,000’ and you’d not have any time to don the life jacket either......good luck trying in the dark cold water.....
DEAD.
Engine failure at 4,000’ and you’d not have any time to don the life jacket either......good luck trying in the dark cold water.....
DEAD.
Having done the run to Kangaroo Island many times myself in the same aircraft... its nothing out of the ordinary. I have also taken Socata Tobagos across the Spencer and St Vincent gulfs at night, with life jackets on. Almost all of the KI runs from Parafield done by FTA are IFR, with life jackets worn (Company requirement due to the approaches at Adelaide that normally start/end a flight) under constant surveillance by ATC.
Not once have I been concerned about taking a single engine aircraft of that type over water, they are maintained to a very high standard - and I am only aware of one aircraft with the same engine type having engine issues within that company in the last 5 years (Rough running). In the words of my old instructor: "The aircraft doesn't know it's over water... It's no more likely to fail over water than over land"
Not once have I been concerned about taking a single engine aircraft of that type over water, they are maintained to a very high standard - and I am only aware of one aircraft with the same engine type having engine issues within that company in the last 5 years (Rough running). In the words of my old instructor: "The aircraft doesn't know it's over water... It's no more likely to fail over water than over land"
Thread Starter
Yes yes hasn’t happened in the past so we’ll be ok Jack......sure you run with that plan whilst the vast majority of older guys chose to find a better way...
On the first point, I don't really think Airservices do much of a job in their primary mission. As for their days of search and rescue, the less said, the better.
Fortunately not all organisations in Canberra have a "culture" like Airservices, CASA or the ATO.
As for the second, you can cover a lot of ground in your time if you don't spend it all in the pub, for me now around sixty years.
Tootle pip!!
FTA train mainly commercial pilots for the airline industry. One would imagine therefore the policy whether official or otherwise would be to train the students for the reality of life in the workplace. That is to fly the route in the shortest and quickest way possible. If the student can't cope with that then better to find out early so to save the student and/ or his sponsoring employer money by culling him/her from the course.
After all can you imagine any commercial employer putting up with the following scenario..The task is to fly a say C210 Parafield to Pt Lincoln to collect fresh oysters for export to Middle East. The pilot elects to fly the safest route being always within gliding range of land. This would take him north to Pt Germain ( north of Port Pirie), across the Spencer Gulf to Point Lowly, then down the east coast of Eyre Peninsular. Twice the distance at least to the direct route. How long do you reckon that pilot would last in that job?
Different if you are flying privately of course. Then you have the luxury of deciding your route as you are the one paying for it.
The only advantage aviation has over surface transport is speed of delivery. This is due to the ability to travel in straight lines, and the speed aircraft can fly at.
The reality of life so get used to it.
After all can you imagine any commercial employer putting up with the following scenario..The task is to fly a say C210 Parafield to Pt Lincoln to collect fresh oysters for export to Middle East. The pilot elects to fly the safest route being always within gliding range of land. This would take him north to Pt Germain ( north of Port Pirie), across the Spencer Gulf to Point Lowly, then down the east coast of Eyre Peninsular. Twice the distance at least to the direct route. How long do you reckon that pilot would last in that job?
Different if you are flying privately of course. Then you have the luxury of deciding your route as you are the one paying for it.
The only advantage aviation has over surface transport is speed of delivery. This is due to the ability to travel in straight lines, and the speed aircraft can fly at.
The reality of life so get used to it.
A few years ago I saw an R22 flying across to KI, and I thought, not for me. But people fly R22s across the English Channel. Some people are strong believers in 'the engine doesn't know....". At least on the KI trip they could in principle at all points glide to land if above about 8000'.
Thread Starter
ACMS, we get it - you aren't a fan.
If you have a such an issue with it, rather than start a public forum with the 'I'm right, you're wrong' mentality, try taking it up with the regulator. That type of narrow-minded thinking is what has put us back in the dark ages in GA in the first place. In fact, I dare say it would be well received - you'd fit right in.
If you have a such an issue with it, rather than start a public forum with the 'I'm right, you're wrong' mentality, try taking it up with the regulator. That type of narrow-minded thinking is what has put us back in the dark ages in GA in the first place. In fact, I dare say it would be well received - you'd fit right in.
Sure mate, you’ve heard the saying.......”There’s old Pilot and there’s bold Pilots.......but there’s no old bold Pilots”
Seems appropriate to me.
There’s ways to mitigate unnecessary risk and they didn’t bother at all.
After 40 years flying I’ve learnt there’s things that aren’t worth the risk......
All the best to you as well.
At least on the KI trip they could in principle at all points glide to land if above about 8000'.
*Genuine question, as I didn't know choppers could glide that far!!
I know zip about choppers of course, but in the R22 POH it says that best glide is "about 4:1 or one nautical mile per 1500' AGL"
https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/..._full_book.pdf
https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/..._full_book.pdf
Thread Starter
I know zip about choppers of course, but in the R22 POH it says that best glide is "about 4:1 or one nautical mile per 1500' AGL"
https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/..._full_book.pdf
https://robinsonheli.com/wp-content/..._full_book.pdf
The average Light Aircraft would be around 11:1 or so......
The Robbie would need to be at FL230 to be able to glide to the nearest land PF direct to KI.....!! ( at the worst point about 15nm from land )
A C-172 only 8,000’ to glide to land at the worst point on that direct track.
Last edited by ACMS; 17th Jun 2019 at 10:29.
Sorry, I didn't make myself clear. When I fly to KI, I cross at the narrowest point of Backstairs Passage: from vicinity Blowhole Beach to Cuttlefish Bay, about 8.5 miles. I assume 10:1 in the jab @ 65 KIAS, so over 6000' gives something of a safety margin. For the R22 (which of course I know nothing about), that crossing, at 6000' gives v little safety margin. Above that, a bit more.