3 lost west of Brisbane Monday 29-8-22
SIDS is a structural strength maintenance requirement. Nothing to do with risk in VFR to IMC ventures. There is a possibility that an aircraft that was not compliant with SIDS that encountered enough turbulence could break up below relevant margins, however if it was SIDS compliant or more importantly structural failure was not an issue, then age has very little to do with anything. VA almost bent the tail off a brand new ATR, nothing to do with age.
I'd hazard a guess that most light aircraft crashes involving high profile people have been weather related, not aircraft mechanical related.
I'd hazard a guess that most light aircraft crashes involving high profile people have been weather related, not aircraft mechanical related.
And here starteth the conspiracy theories on military airspace. I am sure Dick Smith will chuck in his two bobs worth soon...
With regard to age of aircraft having a bearing on VFR into IMC crashes some types have actually gone backwards, with many Pipers having smaller windscreen sections and less external visibility than earlier models of the same type, some with significantly less visibility in a banked turn than before, to make way for extra avionics and switch positions. Piper Archer, Seneca and Saratoga are examples where visibility is reduced in new compared to older models.
Thread Starter
To answer that, you'd really need to know what avionics was fitted to the aircraft, but it'd be a brave charter pilot who took on a job in a Day-VFR only aircraft.
Oh, PLEEZE! Not that old furphy again!!!! The age of the aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with safety nor it's comfort level, nor it's ability to carry out the mission! In fact many older aircraft are actually safer than the newer versions, maintenance and owner $$ spend depending. Ask any warbird owner.
Oh, PLEEZE! Not that old furphy again!!!! The age of the aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with safety nor it's comfort level, nor it's ability to carry out the mission! In fact many older aircraft are actually safer than the newer versions, maintenance and owner $$ spend depending. Ask any warbird owner.
If it were a Cirrus you’d press the heading hold, button apply full power and climb to a pre-set altitude and it would be all over (for the better) in a matter of minutes and you wouldn’t even be talking about it the next day. Your passengers would be raving about how good this fancy Cirrus was. If the engine had failed in IMC, you would have pulled the CAPS and be talking about it over beers at the local pub after your rescue.
The situational awareness when looking at a glass cockpit with Avidyne’s or G1000’s is chalk versus cheese, especially with synthetic vision. I’ll bet a significant amount of cash that many VFR pilots are using their well equipped aircraft to transit IFR conditions or punch through clouds on AP on a regular basis and they are doing it very safely, with ADSB in and out. It doesn’t make it right, but it happens.
I know someone who flew to King Island, lost his nerve as it got too cloudy and heavy rain, pressed a few buttons and the aircraft flew him towards home and back to safety. He left it a bit late to turn around and would have been a statistic in a 172.
I also know someone years ago who flew a Cirrus to a remote island with adequate margin for last light. He got there and found that it had gotten too windy and he couldn’t safely land. He gave it 5 attempts, pressed a couple of buttons and the aircraft flew him back to the mainland without issue, except that he had to fly around a thunderstorm in complete darkness across Bass Strait. With his VFR skills in anything but a Cirrus he would have been in serious trouble. Was it a bad judgment call to head there? No, not at the time, but by being in a modern aircraft, he gave himself so many more options.
I posted this because its a Cirrus with a glass cockpit... No aircraft is safer VFR into IMC.
https://www.avweb.com/flight-safety/...o-imc-part-n1/
That's an SR-22 event that was fitted with a chute, never used, spiraled in. Comment down the bottom is poignant, saying that increased events with Cirrus linked to pilots believing they can fall back on the chute (or automation if you please) and impact terrain before using any.
Comments on this site are echoing that exact poor sentiment, as if a VFR pilot would have piece of mind while struggling to use the features in the aircraft. After all if they were that in control, they would not be spiraling out of control.
I won't post anymore reports/articles on this, I've found many more VFR into IMC Cirrus accidents, and its making me sick thinking about it, it's way too preventable.
Last edited by 43Inches; 30th Aug 2022 at 08:36.
“…If it were a Cirrus you’d press the heading hold, button apply full power and climb to a pre-set altitude and it would be all over (for the better)…”
I’ve got an older paddock basher aircraft that has a ‘Blue Button’ on the auto pilot. Mines not unique, many older aircraft have updated panel avionics, etc.
I’d be interested to know what were the panel fit-out in the accident aircraft? Were it a new fit-out?
The older vacuum driven attitude instruments had their faults though they could handle water dripping through a poorly sealed front window. If the accident aircraft had a new whizz-bang electronic panel fitted all it would take were a leaking front window and the important part of the panel can go blank…. Ask me how I know…
If the aircraft has a modern panel fit-out I hope the ATSB have a look-see at the windscreen sealant condition and the possibility of an avionics short-out.
.
I’ve got an older paddock basher aircraft that has a ‘Blue Button’ on the auto pilot. Mines not unique, many older aircraft have updated panel avionics, etc.
I’d be interested to know what were the panel fit-out in the accident aircraft? Were it a new fit-out?
The older vacuum driven attitude instruments had their faults though they could handle water dripping through a poorly sealed front window. If the accident aircraft had a new whizz-bang electronic panel fitted all it would take were a leaking front window and the important part of the panel can go blank…. Ask me how I know…
If the aircraft has a modern panel fit-out I hope the ATSB have a look-see at the windscreen sealant condition and the possibility of an avionics short-out.
.
Thread Starter
That’s why they started the Cirrus training programs and they got very measurable results. A bit like when they fitted airbags to vehicles, they said “in the next 10 years, 90% of vehicles will have them,” however many of us laughed at the time.
I'm not sure you watched/read those articles, they are crashes SINCE 2019. If Cirrus training has made any difference then it has not done anything for these poor sods.
*disregard, I was looking at some recent ones in the last few years, although the video is based on an accident in 2011, there are still several Cirrus VFR into IMC accidents in the last 2 years*
*disregard, I was looking at some recent ones in the last few years, although the video is based on an accident in 2011, there are still several Cirrus VFR into IMC accidents in the last 2 years*
All I'm saying is that a non-instrument rated pilot would have had better odds if they were VFR into IMC and aided by modern avionics as found in new glass cockpit GA aircraft
Based on the track and position of the accident, its not clear to me if he was kind of following the VFR path around Amberly or if he had decided to divert to Redcliffe. Either way, he was probably folowing the spots that he could see - or thought he could see - through low points in the hills. Theres got to be a good chance the pilot thought he could see through the terrain and was suckered in by a brighter section. To those who suggest that he could transition VFR to IFR, I suspect by the time the pilot realised that he couldn't maintain VFR - it was all too late. From a personal perspective, I dont think IFR & VFR flying mix well. You need to be in the mindset and have planned for one or the other. And to tansition VFR to IFR and enter cloud from below the LSALT on climb surrounded by higher ground is potentially less safe than scud running. This was a day that an IFR pilot would conduct the entire flight IFR.
The sadness is that just minutes before the aircraft had flown nearly overhead 3 perfectly good airports at Gatton where landing for a leg stretch and to make a couple of phonecalls looks like a really good idea in hindsight from my airconditioned office. Alternatively, a left turn and he could have flown up the Wivenhoe dam straight into Watts Bridge.
I dont know that area well, but have flown a VFR aircraft in the area on a day that wasnt a lot better. Unfortunately, the Amberley resytricted area blocks the best terrain. I had some good advice from locals at Archerfoeld. It seems there is a lot of local knowledge to getting around the Brisbane basin in marginal VFR.
Forget the debate about old aircraft. The real debate is why Australia has such a low percentage of IFR pilots and why CASA makes it so damned hard to be allowed to follow the magenta line in IMC.
That's what I was getting at with earlier comments, that the IMC was probably entered right before impact, meaning any fancy equipment would not have done much.
As for the IFR rating debate, it's not an Australian thing, the US has a huge rate of VFR into IMC accidents. Including many of the glass cockpit types. It really is an education thing and promoting that your airplane will somehow save you from disorientation accidents is misleading and many will push further into bad conditions thinking that. A lot of VFR pilots are VFR because the don't want to bother with the hassel of IFR flight and the need to keep current. Cirrus chutes have proven useful in situations where you have things under control, but you realise a normal recovery might not be possible. By the time a VFR pilot is spiraling out of control the chute and autopilot are the last things on their mind. Without the discipline IFR training provides pilots wont have the thought to rely on the autos, so unless the aircraft have automated recovery without pilot consent then it wont matter much. How many times do you see drivers over-react and slam down the accelerator instead of brake and make things worse in a panick, these are the same people flying private aircraft. Do you really think complicated systems and recoveries are better than stringent, stay out of cloud messages.
As for the IFR rating debate, it's not an Australian thing, the US has a huge rate of VFR into IMC accidents. Including many of the glass cockpit types. It really is an education thing and promoting that your airplane will somehow save you from disorientation accidents is misleading and many will push further into bad conditions thinking that. A lot of VFR pilots are VFR because the don't want to bother with the hassel of IFR flight and the need to keep current. Cirrus chutes have proven useful in situations where you have things under control, but you realise a normal recovery might not be possible. By the time a VFR pilot is spiraling out of control the chute and autopilot are the last things on their mind. Without the discipline IFR training provides pilots wont have the thought to rely on the autos, so unless the aircraft have automated recovery without pilot consent then it wont matter much. How many times do you see drivers over-react and slam down the accelerator instead of brake and make things worse in a panick, these are the same people flying private aircraft. Do you really think complicated systems and recoveries are better than stringent, stay out of cloud messages.
Thread Starter
Old Akro, some good thinking there, you’re clearly showing your experience in this area.
To further discuss your point that I’ll call the “transition from VFR to VFR in IMC,” do you think that many of the pilots that have been lost in VFR to IMC accidents are capable of flying safely on instruments assuming all things are going well? As in, fly straight and level in IMC, climb and descend happily and navigate to a waypoint? I personally feel like the answer would be a clear yes….
Therefore as you’ve pointed out, I feel like the issue is with the transition to IFR (or in this case, a VFR pilot flying safely in IMC). As you say, you need to be prepared to fly in IMC, to think ahead, plan your altitudes etc, which I’m sure many VFR rated pilots could handle easily, however by preparing to do this early you KNOW that you are breaking the rules and you KNOW the better option is to turn back and land elsewhere as even IFsr pilots do sometimes. Leaving it too late to make the transition is where it all falls apart and happens quickly.
Not directly talking about this tragic crash, but in general… are we that afraid of the regular that we would rather kill ourselves and our passengers than fly deliberately into IMC? Seems like it.
To further discuss your point that I’ll call the “transition from VFR to VFR in IMC,” do you think that many of the pilots that have been lost in VFR to IMC accidents are capable of flying safely on instruments assuming all things are going well? As in, fly straight and level in IMC, climb and descend happily and navigate to a waypoint? I personally feel like the answer would be a clear yes….
Therefore as you’ve pointed out, I feel like the issue is with the transition to IFR (or in this case, a VFR pilot flying safely in IMC). As you say, you need to be prepared to fly in IMC, to think ahead, plan your altitudes etc, which I’m sure many VFR rated pilots could handle easily, however by preparing to do this early you KNOW that you are breaking the rules and you KNOW the better option is to turn back and land elsewhere as even IFsr pilots do sometimes. Leaving it too late to make the transition is where it all falls apart and happens quickly.
Not directly talking about this tragic crash, but in general… are we that afraid of the regular that we would rather kill ourselves and our passengers than fly deliberately into IMC? Seems like it.
the US has a huge rate of VFR into IMC accidents
https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/cgi/view...ument%20rating.
An interesting study paper into VFR into IMC accidents.
Of note table 4, 32% of all VFR into IMC accidents were instrument rated pilots, so having an IR is no cure for this.
Also interesting that 82% of pilots involved in accidents were aged over 40, only 18% were aged under 40. No surprises though that 60% were under 1000 hours TT.
Figure 9 was a good graph of what is the problem, education, private pilots are not trained nearly enough on weather awareness and interpretation and exposure to real world environments is haphazard.
It was good to note that the trend was downward.
I agree that quality IF rated pilots can reduce the occurrence of VFR into IMC accidents, as does additional type specific training. But the huge missing chunk here is just basic understanding of weather and the dangers of operating in or near IMC. Especially the way weather interacts with terrain in valleys and other choke points that you can get trapped in, or lured into. Then if you are trapped on top, even if you stuffed up, ask for assistance.
I have heard several instances on the radio where a VFR pilot has asked for assistance from ATS, followed their instructions and I'm happy to say none I've heard live have ended badly.
An interesting study paper into VFR into IMC accidents.
Of note table 4, 32% of all VFR into IMC accidents were instrument rated pilots, so having an IR is no cure for this.
Also interesting that 82% of pilots involved in accidents were aged over 40, only 18% were aged under 40. No surprises though that 60% were under 1000 hours TT.
Figure 9 was a good graph of what is the problem, education, private pilots are not trained nearly enough on weather awareness and interpretation and exposure to real world environments is haphazard.
It was good to note that the trend was downward.
I agree that quality IF rated pilots can reduce the occurrence of VFR into IMC accidents, as does additional type specific training. But the huge missing chunk here is just basic understanding of weather and the dangers of operating in or near IMC. Especially the way weather interacts with terrain in valleys and other choke points that you can get trapped in, or lured into. Then if you are trapped on top, even if you stuffed up, ask for assistance.
I have heard several instances on the radio where a VFR pilot has asked for assistance from ATS, followed their instructions and I'm happy to say none I've heard live have ended badly.
https://www.news.com.au/national/que...3e94be866aa646
They were quick to release the pax details. Dare I say that if I was worth $47m, I wouldn’t be flying around in an old Cessna.
They were quick to release the pax details. Dare I say that if I was worth $47m, I wouldn’t be flying around in an old Cessna.
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Australia
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Never fly in rain unless you know exactly where the ridges are.
As for this "continued flight into below VMC" stuff, people including the accident investigators don't know that that is not what happens. What happens is you are marginal VMC or maybe happily trundling along 1000 feet above the ground and 1000 feet below the base and ten miles vis, suddenly it comes down on you and there you are, down on the deck in rain. You didn't fly into it at all, it came and got you.
Don't tell the accident investigators they will have to re-write thousands of accident reports.
As has been mentioned, there are cheap and excellent and reliable efis sets out there which show you the obstacles and terrain. They are many orders of magnitude better than the classic instruments. However they are uncertified and thus don't get into certified aircraft, which leaves the drivers with fifty year old panels. Good old following-the-rest-of-the-world Casa won't let you use those cheap and excellent and reliable little efis, despite their obvious superiority. I haven't asked them why.
Amberely airspace - it is brave pilot asks Australian controllers for clearance through controlled airspace. They are just sitting there with there with Violations pad on desk and pens poised. Wasn't there a pilot killed in NSW a while back, denied clearance into CTA, hit a ridge going around it?
As for this "continued flight into below VMC" stuff, people including the accident investigators don't know that that is not what happens. What happens is you are marginal VMC or maybe happily trundling along 1000 feet above the ground and 1000 feet below the base and ten miles vis, suddenly it comes down on you and there you are, down on the deck in rain. You didn't fly into it at all, it came and got you.
Don't tell the accident investigators they will have to re-write thousands of accident reports.
As has been mentioned, there are cheap and excellent and reliable efis sets out there which show you the obstacles and terrain. They are many orders of magnitude better than the classic instruments. However they are uncertified and thus don't get into certified aircraft, which leaves the drivers with fifty year old panels. Good old following-the-rest-of-the-world Casa won't let you use those cheap and excellent and reliable little efis, despite their obvious superiority. I haven't asked them why.
Amberely airspace - it is brave pilot asks Australian controllers for clearance through controlled airspace. They are just sitting there with there with Violations pad on desk and pens poised. Wasn't there a pilot killed in NSW a while back, denied clearance into CTA, hit a ridge going around it?
Thread Starter
Father and son in the Mooney? Probably blamed due to lack of a current AFR which as many know, could have had no relationship to the outcome at all.
Amberely airspace - it is brave pilot asks Australian controllers for clearance through controlled airspace. They are just sitting there with there with Violations pad on desk and pens poised. Wasn't there a pilot killed in NSW a while back, denied clearance into CTA, hit a ridge going around it?