Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

182 crashed into trees at Porepunkah

Old 12th Jan 2023, 22:39
  #121 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: FNQ ... It's Permanent!
Posts: 4,324
Received 186 Likes on 93 Posts
ATSB Report

This Navajo departed Cairns for the west and failed to remain in VMC below the LSALT.
Capt Fathom is online now  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 22:52
  #122 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by Traffic_Is_Er_Was
I don't think there is any. It seems under the CASR it is a pilot responsibility to assess the operation and to conduct it safely, and availability and/or use of lights is just one thing to consider (or so they advise in AC 91-02)
Should CASA disagree, it would be either they prove it wasn't, or the pilot prove it was. Any bets on the way that discussion will end?
Agreed, there is no legislation directly requiring it. However, Part 91 Acceptable Means of Compliance contains CASA’s thoughts on the matter, and that will be the benchmark that would be brought forward in a court of law. If lighting doesn’t meet those standards, the onus falls on the PIC to prove that it is safe. I believe that there is a very good chance that you would be found to be in breach of CASR 91.410 Use of Aerodromes and CASR 91.055 Aircraft not to be operated in manner that creates a hazard, both of which are strict liability offences attracting a penalty of up to 50 penalty units each, particularly if an accident has occurred which lighting (or lack there of) was found to have even indirectly contributed to the accident.
werbil is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 23:05
  #123 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 609
Received 94 Likes on 72 Posts
Originally Posted by werbil
Once again this thread has proved that a lot of pilots operate with a lack of understanding of aviation legislation, and is sad reflection of the variation in standards between various training organisations.
No. If anything, it's a sad reflection on the complexity of the aviation legislation in this country, which, coupled with a lack of continuing education causes a lot of pilots (and instructors and examiners!!) to be unaware/ignorant of the current requirements. That's part of the reason behind the PEGs (which don't help as much as they should IMHO) and the VFRG.

To CASA's credit, they're trying to address part of that with their AvSafety pilot seminars, but it's going to take a long time to reach every pilot in Australia!

Last edited by PiperCameron; 12th Jan 2023 at 23:34.
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 23:11
  #124 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 312
Received 20 Likes on 10 Posts
Originally Posted by visibility3miles
I don’t mean shake the wings as vigorously as you would a salad bottle containing oil and vinegar, which can indeed intermingle two ingredients that normally separate into distinct layers very quickly.

Just rock it gently. I was told that if a tank is not fully fueled, i.e., not up to the cap, water droplets can condense/form on the inside of the tank, and that gently rocking it can dislodge them and make them sink to the drainage point.

I was told to do this before draining the tanks because if there is water condensed inside the tanks, and you don’t get rid of it, it could come back to haunt you when the run up and take off dislodges it, and it then get into the fuel line to the engine, which does not burn water as efficiently as fuel.

Distinguishing between pale blue fuel and water is easy enough in broad daylight, but it might be more difficult at night. I was also taught to drain it twice if there was a significant amount of water.

[Am I the only one who was taught this?]

That’s all I ws trying to say.
I was taught the same thing in 1971 in the UK. Also taught to fill up every aircraft on the ramp every night to leave as little air as possible in the tanks. Less air = less moisture content to condense out in the pre-dawn cold - even in what then passed for "summer".
Pearly White is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 23:12
  #125 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 6,066
Received 559 Likes on 261 Posts
Once again this thread has proved that a lot of pilots operate with a lack of understanding of aviation legislation, and is sad reflection of the variation in standards between various training organisations
Might also reflect the complexity of trying to find an answer in the regs for the question you have, which your post reflects upon werbil.
Whilst I was extremely confident that a self planned IFR departure was legal, I wasn’t sure of where in the new Part 91 it would be found. It ended up taking quite a bit of digging to find
megan is online now  
Old 12th Jan 2023, 23:22
  #126 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 3 Posts
Originally Posted by megan
Might also reflect the complexity of trying to find an answer in the regs for the question you have, which your post reflects upon werbil.
Agreed 200% about the complexity of the regs, but at the end of the day knowing how to plan a safe IFR departure where there is not a published SID is a fundamental, essential skill for any IFR pilot that flies at airports outside of radar coverage.
werbil is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 12th Jan 2023, 23:59
  #127 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,948
Received 483 Likes on 268 Posts
And hence the issue with operating out of YPOK. In order to depart with bare minima you would need a way to ensure terrain clearance via approved methods to ensure at least low flying requirements are met, and most likely a court would want to see proof that you could maintain 500/1000ft terrain clearance during climb.

GPS waypoints not fixed in the units database cannot be used, so self plotting waypoints in valleys is out of the question. So you must then rely on cumbersome nearby waypoints or DR. Then there is calculating climb rate until reaching LSALT along your selected route, how accurately can you do this for a light aircraft that has fairly wafty manuals. Airlines usually produce escape procedures/CDPs that have surveyed the terrain/obstacles around an airport and using relevant data and worked out tracking that complies with regulations. These tracks have huge margins around them with splays expanding out to allow for winds and tracking errors etc... They can be approved to be flown via the FMS/GPS reducing splays, but those will be hard entered into the FMS database.

So in considering the points against a light aircraft departing legally from YPOK, it would be most sensible to depart VMC until reaching a safe altitude.

At night I doubt any departure direction from YPOK would comply with required night take-off splays, so even if you had lights it would be hard to prove legal.
43Inches is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 14th Jan 2023, 01:31
  #128 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,043
Received 33 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
And hence the issue with operating out of YPOK. In order to depart with bare minima you would need a way to ensure terrain clearance via approved methods to ensure at least low flying requirements are met, and most likely a court would want to see proof that you could maintain 500/1000ft terrain clearance during climb.

GPS waypoints not fixed in the units database cannot be used, so self plotting waypoints in valleys is out of the question. So you must then rely on cumbersome nearby waypoints or DR. Then there is calculating climb rate until reaching LSALT along your selected route, how accurately can you do this for a light aircraft that has fairly wafty manuals. Airlines usually produce escape procedures/CDPs that have surveyed the terrain/obstacles around an airport and using relevant data and worked out tracking that complies with regulations. These tracks have huge margins around them with splays expanding out to allow for winds and tracking errors etc... They can be approved to be flown via the FMS/GPS reducing splays, but those will be hard entered into the FMS database.

So in considering the points against a light aircraft departing legally from YPOK, it would be most sensible to depart VMC until reaching a safe altitude.

At night I doubt any departure direction from YPOK would comply with required night take-off splays, so even if you had lights it would be hard to prove legal.
Not true re airline Airline EOP or CDPs. The splay is normally starts at 1.5 to 1.95 time the wingspan (depending on aircraft category) and expands out to 600m eithrr side of centreline, increasing to 900m for turns. They don't need to be in the FMC data base, they could be track/distance, or even track to intercept a radial, or track runway Centreline. The use of the FMC fix page, to display pilot entered points to help with tracking is not only approved but encouraged. If you have an engine out SID all the better.

Everything in aviation doesn't need to be rocket science. ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields. And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.

Before NVGs and GPS we used 1:25000 and 1:50000 maps to determine safe alts for arrivals and departures for marks on the ground we needed to land on. Normally lit by cyalume sticks or hexy burners. It can't be hard if we could do it.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 01:52
  #129 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,948
Received 483 Likes on 268 Posts
Originally Posted by donpizmeov
Not true re airline Airline EOP or CDPs. The splay is normally starts at 1.5 to 1.95 time the wingspan (depending on aircraft category) and expands out to 600m eithrr side of centreline, increasing to 900m for turns. They don't need to be in the FMC data base, they could be track/distance, or even track to intercept a radial, or track runway Centreline. The use of the FMC fix page, to display pilot entered points to help with tracking is not only approved but encouraged. If you have an engine out SID all the better.

Everything in aviation doesn't need to be rocket science. ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields. And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.

Before NVGs and GPS we used 1:25000 and 1:50000 maps to determine safe alts for arrivals and departures for marks on the ground we needed to land on. Normally lit by cyalume sticks or hexy burners. It can't be hard if we could do it.
Again in Australia you can not navigate by pilot entered waypoints below LSA in IMC. You can use preloaded waypoints in the FMS but not generate your own. Not sure the point regarding the CDPs, for DR the margins are higher and expanding, on FMS/GPS departures you will be in terminal mode so if using GPS derived data you can use much smaller splays.

Anyway the point being somebody has done all this for you and its kept up to date with approved aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.

None of this applies to YPOK, I doubt it pays for any obstacle surveys of the area and no expanded ERSA data is available for gradients, which only apply in a very small area from take-off, which in the case of YPOK would be useless as the en-route climb requirements would be just as bad.

I did my IFR pre GPS, on clocks and needles, doing things like DME homing, still had various ADME. Never surveyed a map, just used the IFR charts and WACs for terrain details. In anycase a load of planes flying into hills at night changed all the arrival rules for night in the 90s for good reason.

PS I'd still prefer some more VOR/DMEs regularly placed, I don't trust GPS 100% and it has let me down a few times.
43Inches is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 02:01
  #130 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,937
Received 218 Likes on 115 Posts
I wonder if the pilot has done this before…? asking for a friend. If only there was a way to go back and track historical flights…
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 02:04
  #131 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,948
Received 483 Likes on 268 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
I wonder if the pilot has done this before…? asking for a friend. If only there was a way to go back and track historical flights…
I'd be interested to know where he actually landed, it says in trees, but no one has provided a location of the wreck.
43Inches is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 02:41
  #132 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,241
Received 132 Likes on 82 Posts
Not true re airline

In Oz, the rules for heavies have always been reasonably well prescribed. Except for benign terrain airports, it has always been a reasonably detailed exercise for the ops engineers to run the sums to keep the aircraft out of trouble. Some places require a bit more work than others, of course. The rules for lighties, on the other hand, are not of much practical use. In years gone by, when I played with lighties, I used to do a bit of a mix and match to improve my chances of seeing another day ... The use of GPS for track guidance gets a bit complex as there are various accuracy and reliability considerations which come into the melting pot. The older pilot flown mandraulic analyses included a fair bit of fat to account for reasonably likely stick and rudder problems.

ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields

I have a slightly secondhand bridge to sell you ..... generally, such splay data as may exist is too short to be of much interest or use.

And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.

STODAs can be of use as one can run some sums and infer discrete obstacle information to some extent. Most folks aren't aware of this - I can recall, in these pages, introducing Old Smokey to the technique, years ago. Given that no-one (as far as I am aware) does inclino surveys (one identifies and figures the discrete obstacle data from a traditional survey and then works backwards to get the surface data for ERSA - why ? Who knows). And then, those of us who do the backroom work ring the surveyor and get the discrete data for use.

However, STODAs are of little direct value to light aircraft operations as the takeoff is predicated on a relatively high AEO climb gradient capability. OEI and one wants to do a discrete obstacle analysis ? Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.

Type A charts, for the major runways, are a lot more value but, even then, they often don't go out far enough or, for some runways, still need an escape path turn to avoid the rocky bits. Keep in mind that some Types go on forever before the net flight path gets to 1500 ft. The DC9, for instance, due to the lengthy third segment, takes a LOT of miles to do so ....


aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.

Not quite the case but such information as the aerodrome operator has can be obtained. Problem is that, oftentimes, that data is nowhere near enough to be fit for purpose. In such cases, the operator's ops engineers have to resort to this and that to get an adequate set of data. In general, Captain Speaking, out on the line, would have no way of achieving what is necessary to figure the RTOW. The sums are the easy bit, getting the obstruction profile data is where the workload lies.

I notice that all ERSA provides for this strip is a bland statement that there is "high terrain in the circuit area". That's pretty useful stuff is it not ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 04:14
  #133 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,043
Received 33 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by john_tullamarine
Not true re airline

In Oz, the rules for heavies have always been reasonably well prescribed. Except for benign terrain airports, it has always been a reasonably detailed exercise for the ops engineers to run the sums to keep the aircraft out of trouble. Some places require a bit more work than others, of course. The rules for lighties, on the other hand, are not of much practical use. In years gone by, when I played with lighties, I used to do a bit of a mix and match to improve my chances of seeing another day ... The use of GPS for track guidance gets a bit complex as there are various accuracy and reliability considerations which come into the melting pot. The older pilot flown mandraulic analyses included a fair bit of fat to account for reasonably likely stick and rudder problems.

ERSA gives terrain climb gradient for most airfields

I have a slightly secondhand bridge to sell you ..... generally, such splay data as may exist is too short to be of much interest or use.

And will give several for the same runway under supplemental take-off distance data.

STODAs can be of use as one can run some sums and infer discrete obstacle information to some extent. Most folks aren't aware of this - I can recall, in these pages, introducing Old Smokey to the technique, years ago. Given that no-one (as far as I am aware) does inclino surveys (one identifies and figures the discrete obstacle data from a traditional survey and then works backwards to get the surface data for ERSA - why ? Who knows). And then, those of us who do the backroom work ring the surveyor and get the discrete data for use.

However, STODAs are of little direct value to light aircraft operations as the takeoff is predicated on a relatively high AEO climb gradient capability. OEI and one wants to do a discrete obstacle analysis ? Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.

Type A charts, for the major runways, are a lot more value but, even then, they often don't go out far enough or, for some runways, still need an escape path turn to avoid the rocky bits. Keep in mind that some Types go on forever before the net flight path gets to 1500 ft. The DC9, for instance, due to the lengthy third segment, takes a LOT of miles to do so ....


aerodromes feeding data to the airlines about survey details.

Not quite the case but such information as the aerodrome operator has can be obtained. Problem is that, oftentimes, that data is nowhere near enough to be fit for purpose. In such cases, the operator's ops engineers have to resort to this and that to get an adequate set of data. In general, Captain Speaking, out on the line, would have no way of achieving what is necessary to figure the RTOW. The sums are the easy bit, getting the obstruction profile data is where the workload lies.

I notice that all ERSA provides for this strip is a bland statement that there is "high terrain in the circuit area". That's pretty useful stuff is it not ?
In some places STODA is all you have John. Make sure you can make that gradient if a motor stops to circling, and get above 10nm safe before leaving the circling area. Degrade gradient for turns if you need to turn and depart from overhead. It's not perfect, but a bit better than TLAR (that looks about right).



donpizmeov is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 04:16
  #134 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 6,066
Received 559 Likes on 261 Posts
Pardon me, briefly, while I suck in my breath somewhat .... I've had a few robust discussions with CASA folk in years gone by regarding their published requirements for lighties but that's a whole different story.
Seems to me that a story lurks there John that may be beneficial to twin drivers should you wish to avail of your time, the Va story has been a valuable education, another thread perhaps?
megan is online now  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 04:20
  #135 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Victoria
Posts: 76
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
NVFR and ADSB

Do you need to be ADSB equipped for NVFR? I know you do for IFR but not sure re NVFR.
Egipps is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 04:36
  #136 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: overthere
Posts: 3,043
Received 33 Likes on 13 Posts
Originally Posted by megan
Seems to me that a story lurks there John that may be beneficial to twin drivers should you wish to avail of your time, the Va story has been a valuable education, another thread perhaps?
Agreed. Discussion about performance is very rare now. The more the better. Especially from someone who knows the subject and has experience to share. Very good idea for a new thread John.
donpizmeov is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 06:09
  #137 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,241
Received 132 Likes on 82 Posts
In some places STODA is all you have John.

And, in many places, not even that. If one is going to consider OEI for light twins, STODAs are going to provide very little comfort for the typical pilot. Indeed, we are very fortunate in Oz to have pretty benign terrain, overall - with the odd nasty aerodrome thrown in to keep us on our toes.

Make sure you can make that gradient if a motor stops to circling, and get above 10nm safe before leaving the circling area

Much sucking in of the breath !

STODA (or EOL values, in the dimmer, dark past which were introduced long before my time and, as far as I can reasonably surmise, back in single engine days) are of use to M/E aircraft with better performance but of very little value to the bottom feeder bugsmashers.

Keep in mind, also, that the certification standards for light twins provide for pretty abysmal OEI performance and, for lighter aircraft, effectively none. I have to say that the present rule rewrite for lighties does leave a bit to be desired in respect of performance. One of the problems is that, in earlier days, we had the (engineering) certification standards in ANO 101.22 and, before that (I can't recall the number now as those earlier documents disappeared shortly after I got into long pants) some long alphabetic orders the content of which has long been lost to my recall. The operational versions of the certification standards were published in Part 20 (20.4 for our interest, here). There were a few discrepancies but, in the main, one could get a reasonable version of the story from Part 20.

At least we had the Oz 0%/1% climb gradient rules for light twins which gave us some hope of living post engine failure.

A major problem arose some years ago when Qantas's Ron Yates was commissioned to undertake a certification study. Ron was a fine chap - no doubt about that - but the report did have a bias toward airline needs. The end result was that the local Oz rules were thrown out and we reverted to the OEM/overseas regulator documentation. For GA, that caused some heartache (Commander MTOWs and light aircraft maximum seating come to mind immediately). As a side corollary, Part 20 progressively acquired the undeserved "status" of a certification document, which was never its original aim in life. Worse, in latter years, the flying ops folks progressively lost the connect to engineering certification and a lot of the previously acquired corporate wisdom went down the gurgler.

For argument's sake, let's pick a figure for a continued takeoff in a light twin with a failure shortly after liftoff. Unless you have pulled the gross weight back a lot, perhaps you might get one percent at sea level ? 5 km straight out and there you are at a bit under 50 m (150-odd feet), noting that the climb gradient is reducing slowly all the way up. Tell me again how you were planning to climb to LSA/MSA in the circling area ? One of the difficulties is that most light twin pilots either never see a routine OEI operation ..or only on I/F renewals for a short period during the test so the AEO performance is what is etched in their minds.


Degrade gradient for turns

And there goes another 1 % plus from your gradient .....

It's not perfect, but a bit better than TLAR (that looks about right).

It sure isn't perfect and should be a very rude wake up call for the typical GA pilot. Forget TLAR - unless you have the data and do the sums, the gradients (OEI) are so shallow that they are just absolutely not amenable to winging it on the fly.

Seems to me that a story lurks there

Nothing specific but I have had the occasional discussion over the years .... a separate thread going beyond this one sounds like a good idea.

Discussion about performance is very rare now. The more the better.

Couldn't agree more. How about one of you good folks dream up a suitable thread title and we can see where it might lead us. Might be a useful vehicle to get into a looksee at the new regs, perhaps, with a view to teasing out any subtle meanings and problems ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 06:24
  #138 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,937
Received 218 Likes on 115 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
I'd be interested to know where he actually landed, it says in trees, but no one has provided a location of the wreck.
Directly north of the airport, off to the left of the runway centreline. If you look at the NW camera, at the base of the hill in the image.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 06:26
  #139 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,937
Received 218 Likes on 115 Posts
Originally Posted by Egipps
Do you need to be ADSB equipped for NVFR? I know you do for IFR but not sure re NVFR.

Only for IFR because NVFR is still VFR.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2023, 07:09
  #140 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,424
Received 501 Likes on 256 Posts
Originally Posted by Squawk7700
Only for IFR because NVFR is still VFR.
Which is why I keep asking….

Where is the provision that says the operational requirement I quoted from the Part 91 MOS, to which ENR 1.2 'points', does not apply to NVFR at or below the higher of 3,000' AMSL and 1,000' AGL?
Lead Balloon is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.