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

S211 Down Port Phillip Bay

Old 22nd Jan 2024, 18:28
  #401 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2022
Location: Rolleston
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Maybe not what happened but possibly why it happened?
Biscuit501 is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2024, 06:37
  #402 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by Biscuit501
Maybe not what happened but possibly why it happened?
Is there anything at all to suggest this might be the case, or is it just a random thought bubble?
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2024, 10:18
  #403 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,786
Received 415 Likes on 229 Posts
Originally Posted by Biscuit501
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.
43Inches is online now  
Old 23rd Jan 2024, 21:22
  #404 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2022
Location: Melbourne, Victoria
Posts: 552
Received 81 Likes on 63 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
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.
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.
PiperCameron is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2024, 23:01
  #405 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Elsewhere
Posts: 608
Received 67 Likes on 27 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
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.
Why assume that, when the cameraman was in Viper 2?
itsnotthatbloodyhard is offline  
Old 23rd Jan 2024, 23:27
  #406 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,786
Received 415 Likes on 229 Posts
Originally Posted by PiperCameron
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.
As stated above Viper 1 was the target aircraft, it had fixed cameras on board that covered the incident, as did Viper 2. However Viper 2 was the dedicated camera ship as such with the passenger being a camera operator to capture more directed footage. The original idea was that Viper 1 invert and Viper 2 pull up from behind alongside filming from an offset angle. Viper 2 attempted that in the first pass, on the second pass V2 went under V1 and unsettled V1 with the unexpected manoever. They had a conversation about going off script, and on the third V2 conducted the underneath pass, but appears to have pitched too early and clipped V1.

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
43Inches is online now  
Old 24th Jan 2024, 01:37
  #407 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 93
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by 43Inches
They had a conversation about going off script, and on the third V1 conducted the underneath pass, but appears to have pitched too early and clipped V2..
You got your V1 and V2 back to front.
Amiri01 is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2024, 06:13
  #408 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 68
Received 8 Likes on 7 Posts
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.
BronteExperimental is offline  
The following users liked this post:
Old 25th Jan 2024, 22:04
  #409 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: The Coal Face
Posts: 1,289
Received 325 Likes on 124 Posts
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.
Chronic Snoozer is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2024, 22:39
  #410 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Aus
Posts: 2,786
Received 415 Likes on 229 Posts
Originally Posted by BronteExperimental
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.
On the face of it, yes, I think they probably have all the information they need for conclusive evidence. But then there is weeks of pathological evidence to go through, fine comb the wreckage, wait on missing pieces, wait for all witnesses to come forward, aircraft histories to be compiled etc, etc, etc... Just in case some other causation creeps in, like pilot incapacitation or aircraft malfunction. Most likely evidence of that will be on video as well so making life a lot easier for the ATSB. Although like the "Onff" recording in the Potomac disaster, even having recordings of the lead up can add confusion as to the whys and human limitations.

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.
43Inches is online now  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.