C172 down near Camden - one fatality
But you did say this:
Someone of your claimed experience should be able to provide a long list of maintenance / airworthiness issues of which you are aware, first-hand, that have created safety risks. That list will be much longer than the list of aviation accidents and incidents of which you are aware, first-hand, caused by the sudden incapacitation of the pilot.
I could fill an entire thread with details of the various creative ways in which LAMEs have made attempts on my life - inadvertently I hope - over the last four decades. Accidents or incidents of which I am aware caused by sudden incapacitation of the pilot? None first-hand. I know of a couple of holders of Class 1 medical certificates who died suddenly of undiagnosed medical conditions, but not in circumstances that caused an aviation accident or incident.
While increased age brings increased chance of medical events there is never a stage in your life where a stroke/cardiac event, seizure, severe reaction to substance, blackout, etc etc could not happen. So unlikely as it may be, it is still possible at any age to be a factor and medical screening even for commercial pilots is not going to pick up most hidden things that might incapacitate you unless you have regular symptoms presenting prior.
I would consider a medical episode as likely as something hitting the windscreen.
I would consider a medical episode as likely as something hitting the windscreen.
I could fill an entire thread with details of the various creative ways in which LAMEs have made attempts on my life - inadvertently I hope - over the last four decades. Accidents or incidents of which I am aware caused by sudden incapacitation of the pilot? None first-hand. I know of a couple of holders of Class 1 medical certificates who died suddenly of undiagnosed medical conditions, but not in circumstances that caused an aviation accident or incident.
Except from the track indications there is no evidence to say they were commencing a turn, that's all pure speculation. (The curve at the end of the tracking is whilst the aircraft is in rapid descent).
I'll add that the plots indicate over 1 minute from the start of downwind to where things seem to have departed normal, a lot can happen in 1 minute of aviation, or nothing may have happened until the split second it departed controlled flight.
I'll add that the plots indicate over 1 minute from the start of downwind to where things seem to have departed normal, a lot can happen in 1 minute of aviation, or nothing may have happened until the split second it departed controlled flight.
But you did say this:Someone of your claimed experience should be able to provide a long list of maintenance / airworthiness issues of which you are aware, first-hand, that have created safety risks. That list will be much longer than the list of aviation accidents and incidents of which you are aware, first-hand, caused by the sudden incapacitation of the pilot.
I could fill an entire thread with details of the various creative ways in which LAMEs have made attempts on my life - inadvertently I hope - over the last four decades. Accidents or incidents of which I am aware caused by sudden incapacitation of the pilot? None first-hand. I know of a couple of holders of Class 1 medical certificates who died suddenly of undiagnosed medical conditions, but not in circumstances that caused an aviation accident or incident.
I could fill an entire thread with details of the various creative ways in which LAMEs have made attempts on my life - inadvertently I hope - over the last four decades. Accidents or incidents of which I am aware caused by sudden incapacitation of the pilot? None first-hand. I know of a couple of holders of Class 1 medical certificates who died suddenly of undiagnosed medical conditions, but not in circumstances that caused an aviation accident or incident.
Comparing the list to catastrophic structural/mechanical failures is probably similar, the chance of catastrophic failure of the airframe leading to loss of an aircraft is very rare. Most crashes are pilot error these days, that is loss of control or CFIT, a reasonably serviceable airplane flown into the ground. I would include mishandling basic failures, like engine or instrument failure as pilot error, unless again it caused something catastrophic to occur.
In this case we see something that happened very fast and caused the aircraft to lose height very rapidly and impact the ground at high speed. Could be severe airframe failure, could be incapacitation (that includes a bird/drone hitting the plane/pilot), could have been severe miss handling. Who knows, ATSB may never find the key evidence or they might, there might be witnesses, camera evidence and so on. It might just end in an educated guess by the ATSB as to what happened here. At least any extreme medical episode should show in postmortem examination, and structural failure should leave clues.
BTW most incapacitation I'm aware of in commercial operations have not been traditional things that will ground you, mostly food/gut related, severe cramps/pain one at least was an un-diagnosed diabetic. I know of several pilots that have had cardiac events a few in flight, they were all able to land and seek help.
The sad thing is that diagnosed individuals that are managing the condition are the least risk, but tend to get put through the hoops every medical. It's the hidden cases that are threats, or those poorly managing it, like the Daylesford driver that's up for a lot of legal pain. It would be better handled if it was just required that you give notice to your health professionals that youa re a pilot, and only if they consider you a risk should they have to contact AvMed.
Last edited by 43Inches; 29th Jan 2024 at 01:39.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: On the chopping board.
Posts: 929
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
2 Posts
Not saying that this happened in this instance, but one thing I am starting to notice is that there are a lot of new gen pilots who are taking photos/vids of their flights for social media and family. I sometimes wonder about the possibilities of distraction when this occurs using a phone and not a GoPro device, and if it will create a new avenue of safety issues within the aviation industry
Does it make a big difference whether the pilot had actually commenced the turn or was merely preparing to turn (which clearly he was going by the drop in airspeed prior the point at which the turn was expected). Either way the point at which he was either commencing the turn or was about to do so, is where something went horribly wrong.
No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.
Having said that I tend to agree with what Bentleg posted above. Depending entirely upon what he was flying in his time at RAAus and given that many LSA's have low-speed stall characteristics, it's quite possible he simply got too slow down-wind.. and then deploying flaps whilst looking for the runway under the wing was all it took to spin in. Base turn can a busy time for low-time pilots in new-to-them aircraft. Of course asymmetric flap (and subsequent "WTF is happening??") could do it too and is one reason many instructors teach never to lower flaps in a turn.
No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.
The speed reduction mid downwind would line up with 10% of flap being deployed. Such will not cause loss of control from any cable failure. I’d expect a bank to the left, but nothing too volatile. Even for the most inexperienced, I would still expect a wings level control input for such a bank, didn’t seem to happen here, track is fairly constant on a left heading until impact. Obviously other questions to be asked if flap wasn’t the cause of that speed bleed on downwind.
Last edited by nomess; 29th Jan 2024 at 05:19.
No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.
In response to any posts suggesting that mental health might have played a role in this, I don't believe that for a second. Something sudden has happened that the pilot has been unable to or has incorrectly responded to. I don't think it's a run of the mill 'pilot error' scenario, and so I don't believe we'll get answers any time soon. My only hope is that the ATSB can come to a clear cut conclusion for all concerned. In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers are with all involved.
The following 3 users liked this post by Jenna Talia:
I hit a Bin Chicken turning final in a Tomahawk, no significant control issues as it was right at the tip but substantial damage. Plus blood and feathers which I'm sure the investigators would be looking for
I’m not sure why you find it odd, ATC was clearly asking for a location on the accident site, I’m assuming to direct emergency services.
As an ex Camden controller from many years ago I would have to say that downwind leg doesn’t look right, wouldn’t be obvious from the tower but it looks like the pilot was distracted by something based on the track. Terrible event and my condolences to all affected, I have a 15 year old looking at flying as soon as possible and I need to remind myself this is a rare event.
Last edited by SuperStinker; 31st Jan 2024 at 21:49. Reason: Spelling
Thread Starter
What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).
What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).
Whilst I don’t know any that would head back inside during a first solo with eyes away, you certainly wouldn’t do it for a 15/16 year old. They are a child and you have a duty of care whilst they are in your hands.
Most instructors at Camden (10 odd years ago) would get tower permission to stand near the runway side of the 24 runup bays, which are about mid runway. Prime viewing spot for the whole circuit.
Direct supervision of solo activities, that is student pilots operating solo flights is all about the pre-flight activities. The supervising person is responsible to ensure the weather is adequate, the aircraft is serviceable and fueled, and that the student is capable of the flight and competent and understands the limitations of the exercise (one circuit, several, what to practice etc). Once the instructor jumps out of the aircraft the student becomes "PIC" of the solo flight and then is responsible as such for the flight. There is not much at all the instructor can do, or is responsible for once the student embarks on the solo journey. Any questions from that point will be back to the initial responsibility of whether the student was capable and competent to conduct that flight as "PIC".
As far as monitoring of the in flight portion, you just have to be on hand. It's probably a good idea to monitor the student visually on first solo, but subsequent solos, area solos etc, what are you going to do? It would not be legal to use a hand held radio on tower frequency, and would just cause confusion. These days you could follow the aircraft on flight tracking programs, but that is not required. If an aircraft is overdue you would contact ATC and try to find if it's safe.
No such thing as 'child' pilots, aviation regards a child as not yet 13 years old. Duty of care in regard to solo flights is the same and does not change if the applicant is 16 or 65. The main difference is under 18 the persons guardian(s) may have to provide consent to the activity. Generally legal supervision of minors is required for those under 13 years old, however this does vary between states some allow lower ages. School children traveling together have different rules and so on. Above that and the minor can travel and move around without a legal guardian and no one else will be held responsible for their safety.
Also it is commonly allowed for a 15-18 year old to be legally responsible for a younger child that would normally be considered too young to travel.
As far as monitoring of the in flight portion, you just have to be on hand. It's probably a good idea to monitor the student visually on first solo, but subsequent solos, area solos etc, what are you going to do? It would not be legal to use a hand held radio on tower frequency, and would just cause confusion. These days you could follow the aircraft on flight tracking programs, but that is not required. If an aircraft is overdue you would contact ATC and try to find if it's safe.
Whilst I don’t know any that would head back inside during a first solo with eyes away, you certainly wouldn’t do it for a 15/16 year old. They are a child and you have a duty of care whilst they are in your hands.
Also it is commonly allowed for a 15-18 year old to be legally responsible for a younger child that would normally be considered too young to travel.
Last edited by 43Inches; 1st Feb 2024 at 04:08.
The following users liked this post:
Direct supervision of solo activities, that is student pilots operating solo flights is all about the pre-flight activities. The supervising person is responsible to ensure the weather is adequate, the aircraft is serviceable and fueled, and that the student is capable of the flight and competent and understands the limitations of the exercise (one circuit, several, what to practice etc). Once the instructor jumps out of the aircraft the student becomes "PIC" of the solo flight and then is responsible as such for the flight. There is not much at all the instructor can do, or is responsible for once the student embarks on the solo journey. Any questions from that point will be back to the initial responsibility of whether the student was capable and competent to conduct that flight as "PIC".
As far as monitoring of the in flight portion, you just have to be on hand. It's probably a good idea to monitor the student visually on first solo, but subsequent solos, area solos etc, what are you going to do? It would not be legal to use a hand held radio on tower frequency, and would just cause confusion. These days you could follow the aircraft on flight tracking programs, but that is not required. If an aircraft is overdue you would contact ATC and try to find if it's safe.
No such thing as 'child' pilots, aviation regards a child as not yet 13 years old. Duty of care in regard to solo flights is the same and does not change if the applicant is 16 or 65. The main difference is under 18 the persons guardian(s) may have to provide consent to the activity. Generally legal supervision of minors is required for those under 13 years old, however this does vary between states some allow lower ages. School children traveling together have different rules and so on. Above that and the minor can travel and move around without a legal guardian and no one else will be held responsible for their safety.
Also it is commonly allowed for a 15-18 year old to be legally responsible for a younger child that would normally be considered too young to travel.
As far as monitoring of the in flight portion, you just have to be on hand. It's probably a good idea to monitor the student visually on first solo, but subsequent solos, area solos etc, what are you going to do? It would not be legal to use a hand held radio on tower frequency, and would just cause confusion. These days you could follow the aircraft on flight tracking programs, but that is not required. If an aircraft is overdue you would contact ATC and try to find if it's safe.
No such thing as 'child' pilots, aviation regards a child as not yet 13 years old. Duty of care in regard to solo flights is the same and does not change if the applicant is 16 or 65. The main difference is under 18 the persons guardian(s) may have to provide consent to the activity. Generally legal supervision of minors is required for those under 13 years old, however this does vary between states some allow lower ages. School children traveling together have different rules and so on. Above that and the minor can travel and move around without a legal guardian and no one else will be held responsible for their safety.
Also it is commonly allowed for a 15-18 year old to be legally responsible for a younger child that would normally be considered too young to travel.
And there is a lot a supervising instructor can do, like I listed in previous post. There are ways to talk to a solo student in CTA: ask the tower to relay a msg, ask the twr if you can speak directly to the aircraft. If your the type worried about using a handheld radio, get yourself an AROC. But if your timely advice turns an accident into an incident, or incident into a non-event, nothing is going to happen. Now in a CTAF, where personalities try to dictate right of way, comms with your solo student can be essential.
And the biggest reason to be supervising a solo student: if something does happen, when the police come knocking, or the atsb, or the kids parents; you'll be able to give an account of what actually happened. As the authorising instructor, that'll be a lot better then saying "I was in the tea room when...". Same goes for your weird statement about minors. They are considered minors, and if you as an instructor arnt considering your elevated duty of care given your position of authority, you shouldn't be sending minors on a solo. Or instructing them at all. Be dammed if the regs don't say so specifically; they don't tell you not to call people of the internet idiots but I do that too.
The following 2 users liked this post by Styx75: