Lockhart Crash
Of course this is all assuming that the station was accurate and not having any issues and that there wasn't even heavier rain localised in the vicinity of the crash. Temp, Dew Point and Rel Hum would suggest a lot of low cloud around then too which would have made it difficult possibly.
Honestly just found it surprising how little wind there was around after looking at the Radar images of the area swirling around. My first thought was "Why did they go there anyway with the weather described" so went to check BOM and found it wasn't so bad looking at the data there. Happy to be corrected by anyone who was actually in the area.
I’m not sure what value a camera would have in preventing this accident. The PIC was by definition a professional pilot and the expectation is that he should give it a go unless there was good reason not to. He was IFR rated for a reason.
My experience of Lockhart over 3 years is that it’s tropical and if you don’t like the weather wait 30 mins.
Cameras have their usefulness in determining VFR conditions and should be encouraged in that context. Their usefulness is limited in determining whether the cloud is above or below IFR RNAV minima.
The METAR. AWIS and talking to UNICOM operator are many many times more useful than a webcam image
My experience of Lockhart over 3 years is that it’s tropical and if you don’t like the weather wait 30 mins.
Cameras have their usefulness in determining VFR conditions and should be encouraged in that context. Their usefulness is limited in determining whether the cloud is above or below IFR RNAV minima.
The METAR. AWIS and talking to UNICOM operator are many many times more useful than a webcam image
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Australia
Posts: 423
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just as a matter of interest but does the C404 have windscreen wipers? Even with wipers, trying to see a runway through a windscreen affected by heavy rain can give a false horizon. The result is the aircraft is much lower than the pilot thinks he is. An old trick is to wipe car windscreen rain repellent over the windscreen before departure. It has the effect of breaking up the water flooding over the windscreen, into individual drops and the result is amazing you can see where you are going more clearly.
Operating a jet transport in heavy tropical downpours characteristic of many Pacific atolls where the duty Towering CU pouring rain sits over the runway at inconvenient times, rain repellent was essential. It worked marvellously. A squirt from a bottle of Coca Cola on the windscreen was effective in cleaning rain repellent residue from the windscreen after landing.
See: Visual illusions when landing in heavy rain
Operating a jet transport in heavy tropical downpours characteristic of many Pacific atolls where the duty Towering CU pouring rain sits over the runway at inconvenient times, rain repellent was essential. It worked marvellously. A squirt from a bottle of Coca Cola on the windscreen was effective in cleaning rain repellent residue from the windscreen after landing.
See: Visual illusions when landing in heavy rain
Compressor, I'd posit that it's a lot easier and cheaper to deploy some good quality Webcams around aerodromes than it is to have a Unicom everywhere which makes them extremely valuable in my mind. AWIS is great but it tells you what's happening right there, where as a good webcam can help fill in some blanks about where stuff is actually happening. It's all extra data really to help complete the picture but in the end it's about the Pilot being able to take that data and use it wisely of course and neither is a substitute for the other.
If this was a VFR into IMC accident, a webcam could have made a difference and they might have never get off the ground and just gone to the pub. But unless it’s fog all around, a TEMPO +RA TAF shouldn’t stop an IFR commercial pilot going (caveat that I haven’t seen the TAF for yesterday)..
Again, I’m not deriding webcams. I’m not sure of their relevance in this accident. It reminds me of my RFDS days. Returning to base from the big smoke I’d sometimes get the nervous doc or nurse back at base call me to say the weather is atrocious - fierce rain and storms. and i should delay returning (about an hour flight). They never understood when I’d say thanks, that’s great news, I’m leaving now ... knowing full well it’d clear by the time I got there. It never failed me.
Sheepy - they were 5000m+ from the runway.
They have their value, but in a fast changing tropical environment when you’re trained to shoot an approach to 200ish feet I still don’t think that is that useful. When do you look at it? Before departure, 90 mins ago? At the IAF? You want the data for the last two hundred feet which is as you say is the AWIS.
If this was a VFR into IMC accident, a webcam could have made a difference and they might have never get off the ground and just gone to the pub. But unless it’s fog all around, a TEMPO +RA TAF shouldn’t stop an IFR commercial pilot going (caveat that I haven’t seen the TAF for yesterday)..
Again, I’m not deriding webcams. I’m not sure of their relevance in this accident. It reminds me of my RFDS days. Returning to base from the big smoke I’d sometimes get the nervous doc or nurse back at base call me to say the weather is atrocious - fierce rain and storms. and i should delay returning (about an hour flight). They never understood when I’d say thanks, that’s great news, I’m leaving now ... knowing full well it’d clear by the time I got there. It never failed me.
Sheepy - they were 5000m+ from the runway.
If this was a VFR into IMC accident, a webcam could have made a difference and they might have never get off the ground and just gone to the pub. But unless it’s fog all around, a TEMPO +RA TAF shouldn’t stop an IFR commercial pilot going (caveat that I haven’t seen the TAF for yesterday)..
Again, I’m not deriding webcams. I’m not sure of their relevance in this accident. It reminds me of my RFDS days. Returning to base from the big smoke I’d sometimes get the nervous doc or nurse back at base call me to say the weather is atrocious - fierce rain and storms. and i should delay returning (about an hour flight). They never understood when I’d say thanks, that’s great news, I’m leaving now ... knowing full well it’d clear by the time I got there. It never failed me.
Sheepy - they were 5000m+ from the runway.
In this particular accident 10-15mins out it may have been apparent from the webcam that a heavy shower was approaching and that were other options such as holding, diverting etc... but we won't really know as we weren't there and won't have any real clue till the investigation is complete. Even then with the way CASA/ATSB goes with GA we may never have any real clue or good safety outcomes from it unfortunately, which I personally think is just another tragedy to add ontop of it all.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am with compressor stall on this regarding web cams. My experience of them in cloudy weather is that they will show you just that - rain, clouds but at what height? Unless the camera is pointed at something like a hill with a known height then it is very hard to determine the base.
I go back to my earlier post; there is now so much new avionics out there that can make these approaches so much easier and safer but for a variety of reasons we are not using them. How much of a difference would a synthetic vision based off a terrain data base have made in this situation. I know they are not to be used for navigation purposes but it would have brought to the pilot's attention that he was closing with the ground.
This equipment is expensive, more so because the idiocy of regulatory compliance in this country to install non-type specific equipment. However, the costs of a fatal crash are infinitely higher as this operator is about to find out.
I go back to my earlier post; there is now so much new avionics out there that can make these approaches so much easier and safer but for a variety of reasons we are not using them. How much of a difference would a synthetic vision based off a terrain data base have made in this situation. I know they are not to be used for navigation purposes but it would have brought to the pilot's attention that he was closing with the ground.
This equipment is expensive, more so because the idiocy of regulatory compliance in this country to install non-type specific equipment. However, the costs of a fatal crash are infinitely higher as this operator is about to find out.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: (Not always) In front of my computer
Posts: 371
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
there is now so much new avionics out there that can make these approaches so much easier and safer but for a variety of reasons we are not using them. How much of a difference would a synthetic vision based off a terrain data base have made in this situation.I know they are not to be used for navigation purposes but it would have brought to the pilot's attention that he was closing with the ground.
Whilst I acknowledge your comment which i have bolded, myself, I use an altimeter to monitor approach profile and MDA.Synthetic vision should have no input to an instrument approach. Synthetic vision is not in any way an appendice to an approach chart. Sure, its an aid in situational awareness but beware the Children of the Magenta Line mentality. Fly the promulgated approach chart, not the synthetics. It is not a video game.
I'm not in any way having a go at the PIC who I have no knowledge of, but I believe was quite experienced. You don't get a gig flying a C404 IFR with a basic CPL resume despite the current state of play in industry. Also, what cost is considered acceptable to add this capability to a 40 year old airframe. 50% the cost of the current asset? Money down the drain.
I know the operator involved and wish him well in the coming weeks, the AOC renewal is due in two weeks. I also know the Cairns CASA culture, poor bugger.
Don’t we already know the outcome of this tragedy? CASA will find a reason to cancel the operators AOC, bankrupting him and putting people out of jobs as we enter a recession. The ATSB report will blame the pilot. Nothing will change.
I don’t think people appreciate the remoteness of Lockhart. Cairns to Lockhart is the equivalent of flying Moorabbin to Bankstown the big difference is in this incidents case the only town you fly over is 1 hour out of Lockhart. Don’t think an hour old webcam image is going to be much use. In my experience you still only get 2 bars of 3G at the airport on a good day.
I don’t think people appreciate the remoteness of Lockhart. Cairns to Lockhart is the equivalent of flying Moorabbin to Bankstown the big difference is in this incidents case the only town you fly over is 1 hour out of Lockhart. Don’t think an hour old webcam image is going to be much use. In my experience you still only get 2 bars of 3G at the airport on a good day.
TAF AMD YLHR 102325Z 1023/1108
VRB03kt 9999 -SHRA SCT010 BKN020
FM110300 32007KT 9999 -SHRA BKN020
TEMPO 1023/1108 VRB20G35kt 1000 TSRA BKN005 SCT015CB
RML
T 25 29 29 26 Q 1009 1007 1005 1006
TAF YLHR 101849Z 1020/1108
VRB03KT 9999 -RA SCT010
FM110000 06005KT 9999 -SHRA SCT010
TEMPO 1020/1100 3000 RA BKN005
TEMPO 1100/1108 3000 SHRA BKN008
PROB30 TEMPO 1020/1108 VRB25G35kt 1000 TSRA BKN005 SCT010CB
PROB30 1020/1022 0500 FG BKN001
RMK
T 25 27 29 29 Q 1007 1009 1007 1005
VRB03kt 9999 -SHRA SCT010 BKN020
FM110300 32007KT 9999 -SHRA BKN020
TEMPO 1023/1108 VRB20G35kt 1000 TSRA BKN005 SCT015CB
RML
T 25 29 29 26 Q 1009 1007 1005 1006
TAF YLHR 101849Z 1020/1108
VRB03KT 9999 -RA SCT010
FM110000 06005KT 9999 -SHRA SCT010
TEMPO 1020/1100 3000 RA BKN005
TEMPO 1100/1108 3000 SHRA BKN008
PROB30 TEMPO 1020/1108 VRB25G35kt 1000 TSRA BKN005 SCT010CB
PROB30 1020/1022 0500 FG BKN001
RMK
T 25 27 29 29 Q 1007 1009 1007 1005
no doubt somehow justifying the success of the regulation reform.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had a look on google earth. It appears the dunes are around 40-60 ft AMSL on the extended runway center line. I did see a picture in the press this morning that showed the wreckage at the edge of the dune / beach treeline so he must have been low.
Groggy
Groggy
"must have been low"...Not only that !...VERY LOW. The MDA is 830'.
Ours is to reason why..hopefully (sic) the ATSB will find/ give us the correct answer.
Was there some 'emergency' that bought it low ?
No post impact fire ?
RIP to all.
Ours is to reason why..hopefully (sic) the ATSB will find/ give us the correct answer.
Was there some 'emergency' that bought it low ?
No post impact fire ?
RIP to all.
Many years ago a F27 pilot told of the irregular approach to Lockhart. Fly outbound SE from the NDB. When over the sea (5nm) descend to become visual. Fly VFR back to Lockhart. Old "wisdom" hasn't passed down?
