S211 Down Port Phillip Bay
Depends on how much damage the aircraft has sustained and if it's controllable. I have no problems with the PIC's decision to go to Essendon as a known airfield he had planned for given the (as far as we know) very light damage that was able to be visually seen from the cockpit. MB not suitable, extra track miles to Avalon for minimal gain given the condition of the aircraft. It's been explained in depth in this thread from pilots with real world experience in this type of flying, with a lot more experience than I have.
interesting channel 9 I think reported he was inverted when they came into contact or just before.
The following users liked this post:
Not if you're going coastal to stay in glide range of land while you do your admin. Tracking coastal you'd have to keep trucking PAST EN/ML to get to Avalon. On Flight aware data you can see him decelerating to a speed not much higher than his later approach speed while tracking coastal, quite possibly doing that admin prior to making a decision.
Not if you're going coastal to stay in glide range of land while you do your admin. Tracking coastal you'd have to keep trucking PAST EN/ML to get to Avalon. On Flight aware data you can see him decelerating to a speed not much higher than his later approach speed while tracking coastal, quite possibly doing that admin prior to making a decision.
If the wind was close to 17 as PC says it was, then YMAV looks more attractive yet again versus 26.
There’s no doubt it was a better option, but other factors took over, as you would reasonably expect them to. The biggest surprise to me is they didn’t climb to give more options.
The following users liked this post:
..but, yes, you're right. I'm sure ATC would have cleared him into the Class C up the top end of the bay in an instant if he'd asked. Maybe he did? I've not heard the YMEN tower comms so no idea.
Last edited by PiperCameron; 27th Nov 2023 at 04:17.
If the aeroplane was performing ok and I considered the damage contained, yes I would consider the option of overfly built up areas and go to home base which would be more familiar. If the aeroplane wasnt performing it would depend. You can't make a blanket decision until you have all the facts. You can certainly pre think what options are available, but you can't make the decision until you see what you have and what you don't have after the incident.
Lots of light aircraft fall from the sky when the engine stops. Should they all avoid flying over built up areas all of the time? Or should they carefully consider there options and always have a plan B?
yes I would consider the option of overfly built up areas and go to home base which would be more familiar
The following users liked this post:
He was a Jetstar pilot. He left Jetstar early last year or possibly early 2021 and he flew the 787 for many years before that. His recent experience with Avalon was probably as an airshow display pilot. It doesn't matter though, for reasons only he could consider he chose EN.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lookleft:
Interesting that 7 News reporting that ATSB did not need the wreckage to be recovered and were happy to leave it where it lay.
Would that imply they already have all the information they require?
Would that imply they already have all the information they require?
They would have the two surviving pilot statements of what happened, probably video footage and evidence of an unsurvivable impact. The wreckage is of more use to the Coroner than to the investigator's.
WetCompass
I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..
……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.
It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:
Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin
It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…
You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.
I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..
……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.
It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:
Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin
It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…
You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.
The following 9 users liked this post by ruprecht:
Join Date: Nov 2023
Location: Leongatha
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Alternate to Avalon
Reference made above to "tracking coastal within glide distance of land" to Essendon.
Newsflash. Port Phillip Bay is an almost entirely enclosed body of water and one can "track coastal" in either direction. A route over the heads via Port Arlington and Point Henry leaves a tiny over water segment, and is shorter than tracking to Essendon. In fact, distance is not a factor if your aircraft is in good shape, the engine is turning and burning and you have fuel in the tanks.
In dismissing Avalon as an option someone referred to the perils of taking a direct track as it was "over deep water". Deep water only becomes an issue if you are concerned about losing control and spearing in. Hellooo! If that is a concern, under no circumstances should you choose a destination which requires flight over built-up areas. To be brutal, if the aircraft was at risk of catastrophic failure, the deep water only becomes an issue for recovery of bodies.
As for comparison with US Air 1549 (Sullenberger)?
That is the reddest of red herrings. Sullenberger's choice of alternates was limited by having 0/2 engines running and sfa altitude. He, in fact, chose the option of ditching in the Hudson for the very reason that an attempted approach to Teteboro could have put lives on the ground at risk.
The S211 had wing damage but it seems there were no issues with fuel or engine function, so choice of airport on those grounds was not a factor.
There seems to be a level of emotional reaction here in supporting those involved.
Understandable, perhaps.
But that, plus $5, will get you a cup of coffee.
Newsflash. Port Phillip Bay is an almost entirely enclosed body of water and one can "track coastal" in either direction. A route over the heads via Port Arlington and Point Henry leaves a tiny over water segment, and is shorter than tracking to Essendon. In fact, distance is not a factor if your aircraft is in good shape, the engine is turning and burning and you have fuel in the tanks.
In dismissing Avalon as an option someone referred to the perils of taking a direct track as it was "over deep water". Deep water only becomes an issue if you are concerned about losing control and spearing in. Hellooo! If that is a concern, under no circumstances should you choose a destination which requires flight over built-up areas. To be brutal, if the aircraft was at risk of catastrophic failure, the deep water only becomes an issue for recovery of bodies.
As for comparison with US Air 1549 (Sullenberger)?
That is the reddest of red herrings. Sullenberger's choice of alternates was limited by having 0/2 engines running and sfa altitude. He, in fact, chose the option of ditching in the Hudson for the very reason that an attempted approach to Teteboro could have put lives on the ground at risk.
The S211 had wing damage but it seems there were no issues with fuel or engine function, so choice of airport on those grounds was not a factor.
There seems to be a level of emotional reaction here in supporting those involved.
Understandable, perhaps.
But that, plus $5, will get you a cup of coffee.
He was a Jetstar pilot. He left Jetstar early last year or possibly early 2021 and he flew the 787 for many years before that. His recent experience with Avalon was probably as an airshow display pilot. It doesn't matter though, for reasons only he could consider he chose EN.
It is a sad industry if command decisions are to be made on the basis of what keyboard warriors might opine after the event.
Last edited by flyinghorseman; 29th Nov 2023 at 19:47.
WetCompass
I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..
……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.
It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:
Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin
It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…
You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.
I had a student at 2FTS during the formation flying phase, who was having issues with what to do and say when the wingman loses contact and calls “blind”. When we sat down and discussed it, he showed me his preparation notes. He had written down every possible scenario like this:
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, descending
WING, below safety height, turning towards, descending
LEAD, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
WING, below safety height, turning towards, climbing
LEAD, below safety height, turning away, descending
WING, below safety height, turning away, descending
LEAD, above safety height, turning towards, climbing…..
……and so on and so on. Below each heading he wrote down every action and radio call, it went on for literally PAGES of text. The problem with this method is that when faced with a scenario, he was spending way too long trying to remember the exact mental cassette (that’s how old I am…) to plug in before acting — and when faced with a slight variation to his prepared responses he couldn’t cope because he didn’t have the exact response.
It was because he spent too much effort trying to learn the ANSWERS when he should have been learning the FORMULA:
Get me safe
Get wing safe
Get above safety height
Organise a height separation
Organise a rejoin
It’s not specific for every scenario, and you may call it winging it, but it gets the job done. As 601 said above: that’s why you get paid the big bikkies…
You remind me of that student: always looking for the exact answers, never thinking on his feet.
Newsflash for you then, sir: "tracking coastal" in the majority of posts in this thread refers to the Melbourne Coastal VFR route between Carrum and Melbourne City - as clearly marked on charts and used by anyone wanting to track along the eastern shore of Port Phillip towards the city wishing to avoid a mid-air with anyone coming the opposite direction. Just FYI. This airspace is under the control of ML CTR on 135.7, whereas the other side is (mostly) under AV APP 133.55
To get back to YMEN it would require one frequency change to 125.1 and to get to Avalon it would be one change to 133.55. The Avalon airspace starts around 8nm out and Essendon is ~7nm out to make contact.
Lots of light aircraft fall from the sky when the engine stops. Should they all avoid flying over built up areas all of the time
It is a sad industry if command decisions are to be made on the basis of what keyboard warriors might opine after the event
The following users liked this post:
.
Four variables, lead/wing, above/below, towards/away, climbing/descending. That's 16 cases. So maybe 16 pages to enumerate the procedure, and there may be scope to compress that if some of the procedures are common to some of the cases. Not only that but you can rigorously test your principles based method against every case and make sure it works. What a motivated student and great learning opportunity for instructor and student.
The following users liked this post:
I think you might be making an assumption there .
Sure, but that’s just for a single scenario. Now consider everything else that might go wrong on a given trip, and how many different possibilities you’d have to work through. How many pages would you have to write, and how big would your brain have to be to be able to apply it all? Being a motivated and well-prepared student is great, but it’s got to be in a way that can be applied practically. (Which I think was Ruprecht’s point.)
.Sure, but that’s just for a single scenario. Now consider everything else that might go wrong on a given trip, and how many different possibilities you’d have to work through. How many pages would you have to write, and how big would your brain have to be to be able to apply it all? Being a motivated and well-prepared student is great, but it’s got to be in a way that can be applied practically. (Which I think was Ruprecht’s point.)
Aviation safety is an incremental process. Somebody writes out the 16 pages and then should publish it in one of the aviation journals. And then others can read it and improve on it. There are hundreds of thousands of pages in the aviation journals. This is how science works and how we have the super safe aviation systems we have today.
My heart sank when I read Ruprecht's post. It seems he shut down part of a really good process. In medicine they have the concept of the scientist-practitioner. Every medical specialist at some point has done a research project and knows how the scientific process works. What a pity we don't do that in aviation.