S211 Down Port Phillip Bay
Noticed something in flight manual provided earlier in this feed regarding Inverted flight limitations, maybe this had a bearing on the accident. (See page 7 of the manual in the Operational supplement section) maybe he was inverted for longer than 30 seconds, the engine coughed and he panicked to get upright again and hit the other aircraft?
If you read the pre-lim report then you would have seen the actual pictures of the contact. Viper 1 was still in the inverted position when contact occured, there was no 'panicked' roll evident. The report states Viper 2 climbed and rolled from under Viper 1and contact was made. There would have been mention of any notable flight path changes made by Viper 1 as they have video evidence of the whole sequence.
Perhaps their budget didn't stretch far enough to cover a dedicated camera aircraft? Or was it just an overload of FIGJAM?? The risk assessment for this flight would make interesting reading - although I doubt it would take very long.
Assuming the plan was for Viper 1 to get B-Roll footage of Viper 2 (from above moving against the sea), inverted flight is certainly an unconventional way to do it. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to operate a stabilised pro camera above your head upside down! Everyone else I know would get a CASA dispensation to temporarily fit a camera beneath the aircraft - for safety reasons, if nothing else - and fly upright.
Perhaps their budget didn't stretch far enough to cover a dedicated camera aircraft? Or was it just an overload of FIGJAM?? The risk assessment for this flight would make interesting reading - although I doubt it would take very long.
Perhaps their budget didn't stretch far enough to cover a dedicated camera aircraft? Or was it just an overload of FIGJAM?? The risk assessment for this flight would make interesting reading - although I doubt it would take very long.
From the sounds of it the risk assessment and pre-brief were very thorough and they had worked through a plan of how the flight would proceed (in the report). The problem seems to have started when V2 went off script. I've met the pilot of V1 a number of times and witnessed several of his in flight displays, all of which were elegant use of energy at safe altitudes in well coordinated patterns. I can only imagine he would have been very professional in the conduct of these shoots, and his reaction to the first off script event probably shows that concern of sticking to the plan. Beyond that the final report will unlock the mysteries behind what we don't know, there is more than enough evidence available for the ATSB to get a clear understanding.
Last edited by 43Inches; 24th Jan 2024 at 02:49. Reason: fixed V1 vs V2 error
It’s all just conjecture really. If the ATSB released the actual recordings (even the transcripts) of the word for word “contact”, “discussions” , “advisory” and “alerts” on company frequency we’d all have a much better idea of what was briefed, what was off piste and what was f$&@ed up.
unfortunately we’re just left with sanitized drivel:
The safety pilot in Viper 1 observed Viper 2 pass beneath and alerted the pilot of Viper 1 to the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 1 then rolled upright and contacted the pilot of Viper 2 to discuss the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 2 advised that passing underneath Viper 1 provided a good filming opportunity and requested to repeat the manoeuvre. After discussing the manoeuvre, the pilots decided to attempt the previous manoeuvre again, and Viper 2 moved to the right echelon position to recommence the manoeuvre.
Reads like a building inspection. Useless.
unfortunately we’re just left with sanitized drivel:
The safety pilot in Viper 1 observed Viper 2 pass beneath and alerted the pilot of Viper 1 to the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 1 then rolled upright and contacted the pilot of Viper 2 to discuss the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 2 advised that passing underneath Viper 1 provided a good filming opportunity and requested to repeat the manoeuvre. After discussing the manoeuvre, the pilots decided to attempt the previous manoeuvre again, and Viper 2 moved to the right echelon position to recommence the manoeuvre.
Reads like a building inspection. Useless.
The following users liked this post:
What conjecture? The ATSB knows exactly what happened. This is the preliminary report. As previously posted #385, there are safety reasons for not flying underneath the aircraft you are contracted to avoid.
It’s all just conjecture really. If the ATSB released the actual recordings (even the transcripts) of the word for word “contact”, “discussions” , “advisory” and “alerts” on company frequency we’d all have a much better idea of what was briefed, what was off piste and what was f$&@ed up.
unfortunately we’re just left with sanitized drivel:
The safety pilot in Viper 1 observed Viper 2 pass beneath and alerted the pilot of Viper 1 to the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 1 then rolled upright and contacted the pilot of Viper 2 to discuss the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 2 advised that passing underneath Viper 1 provided a good filming opportunity and requested to repeat the manoeuvre. After discussing the manoeuvre, the pilots decided to attempt the previous manoeuvre again, and Viper 2 moved to the right echelon position to recommence the manoeuvre.
Reads like a building inspection. Useless.
unfortunately we’re just left with sanitized drivel:
The safety pilot in Viper 1 observed Viper 2 pass beneath and alerted the pilot of Viper 1 to the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 1 then rolled upright and contacted the pilot of Viper 2 to discuss the manoeuvre. The pilot of Viper 2 advised that passing underneath Viper 1 provided a good filming opportunity and requested to repeat the manoeuvre. After discussing the manoeuvre, the pilots decided to attempt the previous manoeuvre again, and Viper 2 moved to the right echelon position to recommence the manoeuvre.
Reads like a building inspection. Useless.
All they can release in the Pre-lim is factual information that is of low doubt. All the rest is subject to scrutiny to be unwound and investigated, otherwise you just end up with public trials of individuals without proper explanation, and without all the evidence.
