VH-YTM final report
When you live....
Senator Rex Patrick's response to ATSB report.
"Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.
The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.
Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.
The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.
Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.
If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads."
"Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.
The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.
Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.
The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.
Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.
If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads."
But wait, there’s more.......
In using the safety system “occurrence” database for what is clearly a partisan political purpose - helping CASA destroy Angel Flight, the ATSB has not only utterly compromised its alleged independence but has destroyed any faith in the alleged anonymity of ALL reporting schemes, both mandatory and voluntary.
As for the analysis, I fail to understand why the ATSB has not discussed or commented on its startling finding that Angel Flight operations are seven times more dangerous than ordinary GA operations. The only reason I can think why is that at least someone is ashamed of this hatchet job.
It appears ATSB is now part of the problem, along with CASA.
To put that another way, I am aware, I think, of safety occurrence reports that are, to put it mildly, less than frank about what happened. The current ATSB behaviour seems to provide a strong disincentive to report anything at all if it can be avoided.
In using the safety system “occurrence” database for what is clearly a partisan political purpose - helping CASA destroy Angel Flight, the ATSB has not only utterly compromised its alleged independence but has destroyed any faith in the alleged anonymity of ALL reporting schemes, both mandatory and voluntary.
As for the analysis, I fail to understand why the ATSB has not discussed or commented on its startling finding that Angel Flight operations are seven times more dangerous than ordinary GA operations. The only reason I can think why is that at least someone is ashamed of this hatchet job.
It appears ATSB is now part of the problem, along with CASA.
To put that another way, I am aware, I think, of safety occurrence reports that are, to put it mildly, less than frank about what happened. The current ATSB behaviour seems to provide a strong disincentive to report anything at all if it can be avoided.
Last edited by Sunfish; 15th Aug 2019 at 02:53.
Angel Flight offers an invaluable service to families in regional and remote areas burdened with an ill or disabled family member. Only two nights ago I spoke with Senator Hollie Hughes’ who had used Angel Flight for her own autistic son, Fred, to access city services from remote areas of NSW. She described it as a Godsend.
The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.
Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.
The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.
Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.
If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads.
The findings in respect of community service flights are intensely bureaucratic in nature and clearly written by people sitting at a desk in Canberra without reference to any of the thousands of families that have been helped by organisations such as Angel Flight.
Indeed, it's hard to take the report’s analysis of Angel Flight seriously. It asserts that many flights can be replaced by commercial services almost blind to the costs of regional flights, their limited routes, and their limited schedules. Indeed, the data the ATSB uses to support its claim are based on the very narrowest of data sets.
The ATSB uses ‘lies, damned lies, and statistics’, coupled with predominantly subjective analysis, to portray community service flights as unsafe. Angel Flights use experienced pilots and safe aircraft. There is no difference in the safety case associated with a CASA certified pilot flying a mate to the footy in Melbourne and a CASA certified pilot flying someone to chemo therapy in Melbourne, except the ill patient is more aware of the qualifications of the pilots and the risks associated with a flight.
Its Pel-Air (Norfolk Island ditching) all over again - for that particular report the ATSB were found to be grossly incompetent and were ultimately required to redo the report.
If CASA and the ATSB were in charge of road transport, no one would be allowed to use the roads.
Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.
Would it be safer if Angel Flight pilots held instrument ratings?
In the USA over 80% of private pilots hold instrument ratings when practically none do here.
Why? In the USA it is affordable because it is not bound up in bureaucratic bullsh#t that doubles the cost of gaining one.
A classic illustration of how over regulation diminishes safety by suppressing participation.
In the USA over 80% of private pilots hold instrument ratings when practically none do here.
Why? In the USA it is affordable because it is not bound up in bureaucratic bullsh#t that doubles the cost of gaining one.
A classic illustration of how over regulation diminishes safety by suppressing participation.
Hear! Hear! Senator Patrick.
Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.
Here is the crux of the problem: “invaluable service”. CASA does not put a value on community service flights and, even if it wanted to, it wouldn’t know how to balance that value against the cost of the risks. And once you resort to the rhetorical question: “what price a life?”, any mitigation at all is justifiable.
‘’But that matter is dealt with every day by actuaries and risk management professionals.
The ICAO understands it.
https://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyMa...alltext.en.pdf
Of course: it’s unavoidable in the real world where there is no such thing as zero risk. One description for it is “affordable safety”.
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good to see Angel Flight defending themselves. That report is a joke. If that was a school assignment it would have been handed back with a big “F” stamped on it and an instruction to resubmit. Come on ATSB, that’s just embarrassing. What the hell is going on..? You’re trashing the legacy of what was once a world leading investigation agency. I just don’t understand how they can sign off on this tripe and think it’s acceptable or that no one will question its veracity.
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with the general sentiment here that the ATSB report has a strange focus on irrelevant, plucked "statistics" that serve to make Angel Flight look bad.
However, from the first paragraph under the "Recommendations" heading in the Angel Flight response in the Australian is this:
and then:
WTF did they want the ATSB to say about this? How many times do the ATSB/CASA/NTSB/FAA/EASA/Flight Safety/etc have to tell people not to fly in IMC when they or their aircraft are rated to only fly in VMC?
Should the ATSB have said - "Pilots are reminded that they should remain VMC when they or their aircraft are NOT rated for flight in IMC - IMC is commonly recognised by NOT being able to see the ground and sky outside at the same time..."
FFS, I agree with most of what they have said in the article, but they do themselves no service by making silly statements like those...
Had Angel Flight offered any "safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather."?? I think it's more their responsibility than the ATSB's...
However, from the first paragraph under the "Recommendations" heading in the Angel Flight response in the Australian is this:
The ATSB offered no safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather.
It is regrettable, that the Bureau made no relevant safety recommendations, nor gave any guidance whatsoever, to pilots flying in poor weather conditions
Should the ATSB have said - "Pilots are reminded that they should remain VMC when they or their aircraft are NOT rated for flight in IMC - IMC is commonly recognised by NOT being able to see the ground and sky outside at the same time..."
FFS, I agree with most of what they have said in the article, but they do themselves no service by making silly statements like those...
Had Angel Flight offered any "safety recommendations to pilots flying light aircraft in bad weather."?? I think it's more their responsibility than the ATSB's...
Last edited by josephfeatherweight; 16th Aug 2019 at 11:25.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Based on what's been presented, there could surely be no safety recommendations beyond what CASA, ATSB, and every school and instructor ever says...DO NOT FLY INTO IMC IF YOU OR YOUR AIRCRAFT ARE NOT SUITABILITY EQUIPPED OR RATED.
You can be caught out whilst airborne and the PIC may be able to offer some kind of reasonable explanation, but to make the decision to launch into it from the ground really is inexcusable.
You can be caught out whilst airborne and the PIC may be able to offer some kind of reasonable explanation, but to make the decision to launch into it from the ground really is inexcusable.
It’s really no different to one of their ground based earth angels, speeding to the hospital in a vehicle type that they are not licensed to drive.
Joseph featherweight and BigPapi you are both on the money. ATSB ridiculous sector comparisons are not feasible or reasonable.
The obvious conclusions from this and the other AF fatal incidents are that the pilots f****d up and in my mind were driven by getthereitis which is the critical factor that must be addressed by AF in controlling how well intentioned pilots carry out there missions. Over the top actions by CASA will not solve this problem - more safety education might do so.
The obvious conclusions from this and the other AF fatal incidents are that the pilots f****d up and in my mind were driven by getthereitis which is the critical factor that must be addressed by AF in controlling how well intentioned pilots carry out there missions. Over the top actions by CASA will not solve this problem - more safety education might do so.
Irrespective of what ATSB continues to do to ensure its trashed reputation remains trashed, there should be:
1. More effective safety education, including more effective human factors education, not mere words parroting lessons already learned and not mere seminars and videos the equivalent of “drugs are bad”. They don’t count as “comprehensive safety education and training programs” in terms of CASA’s functions.
2. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to highly experienced private pilots to become instructors of key airmanship issues. Private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in their logbooks have a better insight into the practicalities and risks of VFR flight and human factors risks and, more importantly, more experience in how to mitigate them in the real world, than a freshly minted CPL Grade 3 instructor or an ATPL with 20,000 hours at 35,000’. Any idiot can say: “just don’t fly VFR when the weather’s IMC”. That’s not how to effectively mitigate the risks of ‘getthereitis’.
3. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to IFR ratings. PIFR has been stuffed by the complicators. (Yes I know that some theorise that the conditions at Mount Gambier in this case were not conducive even to IFR flight. That merely reinforces the other points.)
1. More effective safety education, including more effective human factors education, not mere words parroting lessons already learned and not mere seminars and videos the equivalent of “drugs are bad”. They don’t count as “comprehensive safety education and training programs” in terms of CASA’s functions.
2. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to highly experienced private pilots to become instructors of key airmanship issues. Private VFR pilots with thousands of hours in their logbooks have a better insight into the practicalities and risks of VFR flight and human factors risks and, more importantly, more experience in how to mitigate them in the real world, than a freshly minted CPL Grade 3 instructor or an ATPL with 20,000 hours at 35,000’. Any idiot can say: “just don’t fly VFR when the weather’s IMC”. That’s not how to effectively mitigate the risks of ‘getthereitis’.
3. Less complicated (and therefore less expensive) paths to IFR ratings. PIFR has been stuffed by the complicators. (Yes I know that some theorise that the conditions at Mount Gambier in this case were not conducive even to IFR flight. That merely reinforces the other points.)
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We have, to date 6 deaths resulting from poor pilot decision making. The 2 AF pilots where licensed & qualified for the tasks at hand under the rules & regs governing each flight. We can all pontificate here 'till the cows come home but the basic facts are that both pilots made intentional decisions that had tragic outcomes, WHY? That question will always remain unanswered despite all the education/reports possible!
Humans are not very good at following rules, we see this demonstrated daily, we are a complex being & influenced by many factors for decision making even at times despite the obvious!
Can't bring those people back but can we learn from their demise? Sadly no:-(
Humans are not very good at following rules, we see this demonstrated daily, we are a complex being & influenced by many factors for decision making even at times despite the obvious!
Can't bring those people back but can we learn from their demise? Sadly no:-(
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just don't fly VFR when the weather's IMC.
I must be an idiot.
Edit: -in credit to you Lead Balloon I very much understand what you're saying, that's not effective education or risk mitigation/management. But in this case, this wasn't a pilot that got caught out airborne, or made a marginal judgement call about cloudbase or visibility in a shower, this was a pilot who made a conscious decision to take off into IMC conditions.
I must be an idiot.
Edit: -in credit to you Lead Balloon I very much understand what you're saying, that's not effective education or risk mitigation/management. But in this case, this wasn't a pilot that got caught out airborne, or made a marginal judgement call about cloudbase or visibility in a shower, this was a pilot who made a conscious decision to take off into IMC conditions.
Last edited by BigPapi; 17th Aug 2019 at 03:27.
The problem with this ATSB report is that it has been used to pursue a political agenda against community service flights.
The accident itself was tragic and the cause pretty much black & white without any real extenuating circumstances. They pilot had trouble landing visually. What bigger sign do you need to not immediately turn around and take off??
All pilots like me who have cancelled Angel Flights due to weather know that the Angel Flight organisation is extremely understanding and supportive in such circumstances.
The ATSB maliciously misrepresents the Angel Flight accident rate. It does not count the full hours of Angel flights.
And the life’s of the poor passengers are no more (or less) special because its an Angel Flight. This accident should be examined as an accident regardless of who is on board.
The CASA argue meant that community service flights should be charter flights is completely flawed. A
private pilot should be safe to carry passengers. Period. The CPL training and study is about working in a commercial environment that runs to time, has last minute changes, carries minimum fuel and is done day in day out so that duty times are an issue.
The ATSB / CASA should be really use these accidents as cause for reflection on a) whether the PPL flight training requires improvement, b) if the CASA safety education mechanisms are working and c) whether CASA’s bureaucracy around IFR ratings is discouraging pilots from becoming IFR rated and how many lives would be saved if Australia had the same level of IFR ratings as the US.
There is a real argument that CASA’s over regulation of IFR is costing lives.
The accident itself was tragic and the cause pretty much black & white without any real extenuating circumstances. They pilot had trouble landing visually. What bigger sign do you need to not immediately turn around and take off??
All pilots like me who have cancelled Angel Flights due to weather know that the Angel Flight organisation is extremely understanding and supportive in such circumstances.
The ATSB maliciously misrepresents the Angel Flight accident rate. It does not count the full hours of Angel flights.
And the life’s of the poor passengers are no more (or less) special because its an Angel Flight. This accident should be examined as an accident regardless of who is on board.
The CASA argue meant that community service flights should be charter flights is completely flawed. A
private pilot should be safe to carry passengers. Period. The CPL training and study is about working in a commercial environment that runs to time, has last minute changes, carries minimum fuel and is done day in day out so that duty times are an issue.
The ATSB / CASA should be really use these accidents as cause for reflection on a) whether the PPL flight training requires improvement, b) if the CASA safety education mechanisms are working and c) whether CASA’s bureaucracy around IFR ratings is discouraging pilots from becoming IFR rated and how many lives would be saved if Australia had the same level of IFR ratings as the US.
There is a real argument that CASA’s over regulation of IFR is costing lives.
I'm glad my underlying point was not lost, BigPapi. One of my many faults is that I tend to be too blunt/sarcastic. My apologies for that.
Just as any idiot can say: "just don't fly VFR when the weather's IMC", any idiot can pass another law or impose more restrictions each time someone dies in an aircraft accident. That was the point of Senator Patrick's analogy.
Just as any idiot can say: "just don't fly VFR when the weather's IMC", any idiot can pass another law or impose more restrictions each time someone dies in an aircraft accident. That was the point of Senator Patrick's analogy.