S211 Down Port Phillip Bay
And then there are the malicious Strawman arguments. I'm willing to wager that you know you were being malicious.
All we're talking about is a diversion to an airport with excellent facilities.
What is your problem exactly?
Ok George, let’s say you’re right and that after any mid-air collision, the aircraft might break up in mid-air, or pieces could fall off, even if the collision seemed to involve no more than a small dent. I hope that’s a fair summary of your position, without any strawmanning, ad hominem, etc.
But we can’t just draw the line at a mid-air, can we? What about a birdstrike (or suspected birdstrike)? We’re just talking small dents, after all. Sure, the spar mightn’t fail, but maybe pieces will fall off. It might’ve been a big, heavy bird - we’re not really sure.
Or what about severe turbulence? Perhaps it’s overstressed the airframe. Pieces might fall off, or the entire structure could fail. We really don’t know.
So there you are, George, in your 200t airliner planning an approach to 16R in Sydney. But you’ve just had a suspected birdstrike or flown through some nasty turbulence (you choose). By your own reckoning, you simply can’t guarantee that pieces won’t fall off or the structure won’t fail. Are you, the scientist-engineer-pilot, going to continue your approach over a highly-populated area in a 15 kt headwind to the longest runway in the country, or are you off elsewhere? By your own logic, I don’t see that you have any option but to divert, after your suspected birdstrike/spot of nasty turbulence.
Let’s take another example. Can you absolutely guarantee that the aircraft you’re about to fly has never had another pilot overspeed it/overstress it/do a hard landing, without reporting it? Unless you’re the only one who’s ever flown it or it’s straight out of an inspection, I don’t think you can. In which case, you simply can’t be sure of its structural integrity, and you shouldn’t be flying it over a built-up area. In fact you probably shouldn’t be flying it at all. It gets a bit tricky, doesn’t it?
This doesn’t prove anything, but might be of interest:
I’ve known quite a few people who’ve been in mid-air collisions; witnessed one from the ground; and known of numerous others. In each case all the structural damage and separation of parts happened at the time of impact, not subsequently.
I’ve also known two pilots who died when their airframes failed without warning in flight, in separate incidents. They hadn’t overstressed or oversped, nor collided with anything. So you can never really be sure, can you?
But we can’t just draw the line at a mid-air, can we? What about a birdstrike (or suspected birdstrike)? We’re just talking small dents, after all. Sure, the spar mightn’t fail, but maybe pieces will fall off. It might’ve been a big, heavy bird - we’re not really sure.
Or what about severe turbulence? Perhaps it’s overstressed the airframe. Pieces might fall off, or the entire structure could fail. We really don’t know.
So there you are, George, in your 200t airliner planning an approach to 16R in Sydney. But you’ve just had a suspected birdstrike or flown through some nasty turbulence (you choose). By your own reckoning, you simply can’t guarantee that pieces won’t fall off or the structure won’t fail. Are you, the scientist-engineer-pilot, going to continue your approach over a highly-populated area in a 15 kt headwind to the longest runway in the country, or are you off elsewhere? By your own logic, I don’t see that you have any option but to divert, after your suspected birdstrike/spot of nasty turbulence.
Let’s take another example. Can you absolutely guarantee that the aircraft you’re about to fly has never had another pilot overspeed it/overstress it/do a hard landing, without reporting it? Unless you’re the only one who’s ever flown it or it’s straight out of an inspection, I don’t think you can. In which case, you simply can’t be sure of its structural integrity, and you shouldn’t be flying it over a built-up area. In fact you probably shouldn’t be flying it at all. It gets a bit tricky, doesn’t it?
This doesn’t prove anything, but might be of interest:
I’ve known quite a few people who’ve been in mid-air collisions; witnessed one from the ground; and known of numerous others. In each case all the structural damage and separation of parts happened at the time of impact, not subsequently.
I’ve also known two pilots who died when their airframes failed without warning in flight, in separate incidents. They hadn’t overstressed or oversped, nor collided with anything. So you can never really be sure, can you?
Here's the scenario we're talking about:
You're over the southern part of Port Phillip Bay and there are 3 known airports to choose from after the collision, one of which is huge, into wind, control tower with radar vectors available and no flight over built-up areas required. Why not take that one if you have any doubts?
If we go outside that scenario into strawman territory, then it depends. For example, Sydney airport, why not ask for an approach in over Botany Bay if possible? Or if you are further north why not go to Williamtown if that's long enough, I'm sure the military types will be accommodating, or would they send a stricken aircraft away because "you're still flying and it's all in your checklist"?
As for a bird strike, particularly in a lighty, why not land ASAP and have the aeroplane checked on the ground? I've done that more than once.
As for flying an aeroplane with an airframe that might have been overstressed by previous inconsiderate pilots such as in an aeroclub situation or with student pilots who have been soloing, yes, BTDT. You do as thorough preflight as possible and if you have any doubts get it checked before flying off into the sunset. If the aeroplane breaks up in flight you'll be dead and it'll be the inconsiderate pilot who'll have to answer to the court (if they can find them).
But these are not the scenario we are talking about. In the scenario we are talking about you know there is damage, just not how much. Continuing without consideration of your aircraft being unairworthy is potentially negligent. Sure you can keep going, but then be prepared to defend your decision in court. "Well your honor, I didn't mean to crash, I did know there was damage but I made my decision because I'm experienced and had magic training." Against a good barrister? Good luck with that one.
But I reckon you know all this because you're an experienced pilot. You're just trying it on.
Last edited by georgeeipi; 1st Dec 2023 at 04:58.
You are straw-manning.
For example, Sydney airport, why not ask for an approach in over Botany Bay if possible?
Or if you are further north why not go to Williamtown
As for a bird strike, particularly in a lighty, why not land ASAP and have the aeroplane checked on the ground? I've done that more than once.
You do as thorough preflight as possible and if you have any doubts get it checked before flying off into the sunset
If the aeroplane breaks up in flight you'll be dead and it'll be the inconsiderate pilot who'll have to answer to the court (if they can find them).
In the scenario we are talking about you know there is damage, just not how much
No I’m not, I’m applying your logic to other scenarios. You’re repeatedly using the ‘straw-man’ claim to try and get yourself out of awkward spots.
There was 15 kt headwind on 16R. Do you really want to land your 200t airliner with 15 kt tailwind and a potentially compromised airframe?
Oops, probably a similar wind to what was in Sydney, so you’ve either got to overfly Raymond Terrace &/or other populated areas to land into wind, or take a non-precision approach onto 30 with considerable downwind. You’ve certainly now ventured into some interesting territory for what was originally just a possible birdstrike or turbulence encounter, haven’t you?
For starters, we weren’t talking about a lighty, and in our example, landing ASAP involves 16R over a densely populated area. Try again.
Not good enough, and far too glib. Your thorough preflight won’t detect underlying structural damage, and you’ve got no way of knowing whether or not you should have any doubts.
WHAT?! It’s not just you that’s dead, what about all those people you were flying over in an aircraft whose structural integrity you couldn’t guarantee? Has this entire discussion been a waste of time??
You may have a very good idea how much, depending on the magnitude and location of the impact. Or you may not. In the case of the S.211, we have no idea what they knew. In the end, it may come to a subjective assessment of risk, just as it did when you considered diverting and landing downwind due to a possible birdstrike.
There was 15 kt headwind on 16R. Do you really want to land your 200t airliner with 15 kt tailwind and a potentially compromised airframe?
Oops, probably a similar wind to what was in Sydney, so you’ve either got to overfly Raymond Terrace &/or other populated areas to land into wind, or take a non-precision approach onto 30 with considerable downwind. You’ve certainly now ventured into some interesting territory for what was originally just a possible birdstrike or turbulence encounter, haven’t you?
For starters, we weren’t talking about a lighty, and in our example, landing ASAP involves 16R over a densely populated area. Try again.
Not good enough, and far too glib. Your thorough preflight won’t detect underlying structural damage, and you’ve got no way of knowing whether or not you should have any doubts.
WHAT?! It’s not just you that’s dead, what about all those people you were flying over in an aircraft whose structural integrity you couldn’t guarantee? Has this entire discussion been a waste of time??
You may have a very good idea how much, depending on the magnitude and location of the impact. Or you may not. In the case of the S.211, we have no idea what they knew. In the end, it may come to a subjective assessment of risk, just as it did when you considered diverting and landing downwind due to a possible birdstrike.
So you're talking about a single scenario based on Sydney. I thought you were talking about a variety of scenarios. So you're suggesting that you're in a 200t airliner flying into 16 and that requires over flying Sydney itself. So you've made up a scenario where there is no alternative.
Well then congratulations, clearly you have no alternative (because you made it up that way) but to go into Sydney 16R carrying damage. In court if something did fall off and killed a dozen people on the ground you would testify that you didn't know the full extent of the damage because there is no magic training or experience that would enable you to know such a thing but you are the captain and you made your inflight decision as best you could and you take full responsibility for your decision you made based on incomplete information. (all of which is the opposite of what you argued earlier) You'd take your chances with the opposing barrister and whether they can prove that you did have magic training and you did know the full extent of the damage because that would prove you to be negligent and you'd be hoping that he couldn't identify an alternate airport. I'm sure you know this because you're a very experienced pilot.
But then you know you made the scenario up this way to prove what exactly? That Avalon doesn't exist near Port Phillip Bay? And you're going back to "what they knew?" I thought we're not talking about "what they knew?" I thought we were talking about what we know now and what we might do in future if we ever have an event that makes our aircraft unairworthy and not discarding good airports around Port Phillip Bay all because we were stressed because we saw our friends perish and we became fixated on "where our car is parked" (as someone wrote above). The best antidote for stress and shock is visualization and training, is it not? But then you know this because you're an experienced pilot and you know how to read a flight manual.
So you've made up a scenario where there is no alternative.
Well then congratulations, clearly you have no alternative (because you made it up that way) but to go into Sydney 16R carrying damage.
Well then congratulations, clearly you have no alternative (because you made it up that way) but to go into Sydney 16R carrying damage.
What I’m trying to get across is that it may be impossible to ever be completely certain that your airframe is not compromised in some way, even though your argument is based on requiring that certainty. Generally we’ll assess and accept that risk, on the basis that we have no reason to believe that it is compromised (you only had a possible bird strike after all, so I reckon you’ll be fine to continue onto 16R
). In the case of the S.211, the pilots may very well have had no reason to believe that the airframe was structurally compromised - impossible as that may be for you to believe. I simply don’t know, and nor do you.
Not from me, but one of your supporters that wants to cancel this discussion just like you do. But on another thread, quite happy to "speculate" because it's "educational" and telling everyone to go f-off without quite saying it that way. Perhaps you should take their advice and if you're bored, go elsewhere and entertain yourselves.
Why is wetcompass now posting as georgeepi, did he get banned?
… and this is why we will never be friends.
I’ve known quite a few people who’ve been in mid-air collisions; witnessed one from the ground; and known of numerous others.
And yet the aircraft still flying landed back at base with it's occupants still alive and no reported bits falling off en-route over built up areas. Not trying to diminish the actual collision, but I can't see that what was said after the collision and where they landed makes any difference to the outcome. PIC took command, made decisions, surviving aircraft and passenger went home that night. Changing which decision after the event would have made any difference to the outcome?
Were life vests donned or available for these flights?
Mjb
No, I didn’t, and I’m quite disappointed that you never considered Canberra or even Nowra. The Monday morning quarterbacks are going to be all over that, and the fact that you’ve gotten into this mess over what started out as only a turbulence encounter or a possible birdstrike.
What I’m trying to get across is that it may be impossible to ever be completely certain that your airframe is not compromised in some way, even though your argument is based on requiring that certainty. Generally we’ll assess and accept that risk, on the basis that we have no reason to believe that it is compromised (you only had a possible bird strike after all, so I reckon you’ll be fine to continue onto 16R). In the case of the S.211, the pilots may very well have had no reason to believe that the airframe was structurally compromised - impossible as that may be for you to believe. I simply don’t know, and nor do you.
What I’m trying to get across is that it may be impossible to ever be completely certain that your airframe is not compromised in some way, even though your argument is based on requiring that certainty. Generally we’ll assess and accept that risk, on the basis that we have no reason to believe that it is compromised (you only had a possible bird strike after all, so I reckon you’ll be fine to continue onto 16R
). In the case of the S.211, the pilots may very well have had no reason to believe that the airframe was structurally compromised - impossible as that may be for you to believe. I simply don’t know, and nor do you.Back to your scenario, I did think of Nowra and Canberra as well. But I thought your scenario is about there being no alternative since you were quick to dismiss Williamtown. And both Canberra and Nowra are not as long as Sydney, which you seemed to indicate was critical. But now you are disclosing that you were deliberately hiding these alternatives in your description? For what purpose? To catch me out? Ok, then, now that you've disclosed that Canberra and Nowra are there, are you now going next going to tell me we don't have enough fuel to get there? Or the crosswind is too strong? Or the runways are too short? What next?
WetCompass emailed me and asked me to look at this thread. (we know each other and go back a way). Yes, he was banned. Not sure why, but reading through the thread it's pathetic. The moderators either don't understand, or they're hypocrites. Either way, I'm happy to say that and they can ban me as well if they so choose.
And yet the aircraft still flying landed back at base with it's occupants still alive and no reported bits falling off en-route over built up areas. Not trying to diminish the actual collision, but I can't see that what was said after the collision and where they landed makes any difference to the outcome. PIC took command, made decisions, surviving aircraft and passenger went home that night. Changing which decision after the event would have made any difference to the outcome?
So payload delivered and they walked away for another day's flying, so all good.
Only problem is, it's the right outcome but the wrong process.
WetCompass emailed me and asked me to look at this thread. (we know each other and go back a way). Yes, he was banned. Not sure why, but reading through the thread it's pathetic. The moderators either don't understand, or they're hypocrites. Either way, I'm happy to say that and they can ban me as well if they so choose.
The following 2 users liked this post by junior.VH-LFA:
WetCompass emailed me and asked me to look at this thread. (we know each other and go back a way). Yes, he was banned. Not sure why, but reading through the thread it's pathetic. The moderators either don't understand, or they're hypocrites. Either way, I'm happy to say that and they can ban me as well if they so choose.
The following 3 users liked this post by Squawk7700:
I've been an FO where the PIC busted IFR minimums. Their argument? Those minimums are for the average pilot, has to be, by definition. They are experienced captains so it's ok for them to go a little below the minimums.
So payload delivered and they walked away for another day's flying, so all good.
Only problem is, it's the right outcome but the wrong process.
So payload delivered and they walked away for another day's flying, so all good.
Only problem is, it's the right outcome but the wrong process.
Collision occurred, Aviated, communicated, landed, walked away.
Maybe communication could have been better but, perhaps he was a bit distracted. Is there a new minimum communication for emergencies that takes precedence to aviating?
Could have landed somewhere else but, perhaps whilst aviating he reduced his workload by landing at a familiar location that was only a few minutes further away than other locations. But more time may have been spent looking up details on those other locations.
The following users liked this post:
Again, not from me, but from good ol Megan predicting the collapse of pprune for "lack of discourse" if we didn't have open discussion.
When the ATSB investigated the overrun of QF1 in Thailand, the ATSB investigated the evacuation procedure. Everyone go out alive so why did they do that? Every accident and incident is an opportunity to investigate all aspects of procedures, even if the procedures that "worked". In the case of QF1 the investigation revealed areas where Qantas could improve its evacuation procedures. Discovering that only became possible when the system was put under stress. That's what we're trying to do here, but before the 3 years ATSB investigation. Seems some only want discourse that suits them and the rest should vanish. And much of the justification is based on "you don't know what you're talking about", and much of that is based on constructing a false description of the argument and destroying the false argument. It's a shame because all of that has the effect of trying to shut down a legitimate discourse.
Bit of a stretch. Slight difference in scenarios between busting minimums and dealing with an emergency.
Collision occurred, Aviated, communicated, landed, walked away.
Maybe communication could have been better but, perhaps he was a bit distracted. Is there a new minimum communication for emergencies that takes precedence to aviating?
Could have landed somewhere else but, perhaps whilst aviating he reduced his workload by landing at a familiar location that was only a few minutes further away than other locations. But more time may have been spent looking up details on those other locations.
Collision occurred, Aviated, communicated, landed, walked away.
Maybe communication could have been better but, perhaps he was a bit distracted. Is there a new minimum communication for emergencies that takes precedence to aviating?
Could have landed somewhere else but, perhaps whilst aviating he reduced his workload by landing at a familiar location that was only a few minutes further away than other locations. But more time may have been spent looking up details on those other locations.
It's not "a stretch". It's an example of where you survive but with the wrong process. Then one day, applying the wrong process you, or someone else, may not survive. In the case of Port Phillip Bay there's a 3rd airport available and reduces risk to those below. If the mayday had been clearer ATC could have suggested Avalon as an alternative and then reduced the pilot's workload by providing all the info needed. As described elsewhere, one frequency change and a couple of radar vectors is all it would have taken. Notams, weather etc all would be taken care of by ATC and provided to the pilot. This continual resistance that it was all too hard for an experienced pilot is just baffling. Sorry, but I don't buy it.