Crash at Hamilton Island
This is from ABC online:
Hamilton Island crash investigators focus on engine, propeller
Air safety investigators are focusing on the engine and propeller of a tourist commuter plane that crashed on Hamilton Island, in Queensland's Whitsundays, killing all six people on board.
Alan Stray from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released a preliminary report into the tragedy that claimed a New Zealand family of four, an American tourist and the pilot on September 26.
Witnesses told investigators the engine of the Piper Cherokee Six was making an unusual noise before it crashed into a quarry.
Mr Stray says a detailed examination of the engine should be completed next week but admits the cause of the tragedy could remain a mystery.
"We will not speculate, we will only deal with facts," he said.
"If we don't have sufficient facts to bring down a definitive finding then we will say exactly that."
For those interested, the ATSB report can be found Here
Hamilton Island crash investigators focus on engine, propeller
Air safety investigators are focusing on the engine and propeller of a tourist commuter plane that crashed on Hamilton Island, in Queensland's Whitsundays, killing all six people on board.
Alan Stray from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released a preliminary report into the tragedy that claimed a New Zealand family of four, an American tourist and the pilot on September 26.
Witnesses told investigators the engine of the Piper Cherokee Six was making an unusual noise before it crashed into a quarry.
Mr Stray says a detailed examination of the engine should be completed next week but admits the cause of the tragedy could remain a mystery.
"We will not speculate, we will only deal with facts," he said.
"If we don't have sufficient facts to bring down a definitive finding then we will say exactly that."
For those interested, the ATSB report can be found Here
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: A galaxy far, far away
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I knew and flew with the pilot killed on H.I. on several occasions. He was a live wire alright but not an idiot. He had a G2 IR and a fair bit of exp. Why did he turn back? I dont know but just consider the scenario for a second. Engine failure, first thing trained to do: Attempt Restart (Our flying school policy), If no go, then land ahead. So the engine dies, lose a few seconds just pannicking, then another 15 seconds trying to restart, all the while heading out to sea with 6 on board (including two kids) and only one door? I would have probably attempted a turn back too. I think he probably made his call in a knee jerk re-action. Terrible tragedy for sure, but lets not sit around and preach about EFATO drills and how "I would never do that", when very few of us have ever been in his shoes and had to make the call and ride out the consequences.
RIP Andrew Mate.
Hope the Surfs up wherever you are
RIP Andrew Mate.
Hope the Surfs up wherever you are
Grandpa Aerotart
OK I have been avoiding posting on this thread because,
1/. I didn't know the lad involved, and
2/. I didn't see him crash.
However I have seen people crash, have had a few engine failures myself over the years (1 self inflicted) and have forced landed singles where the damage ranged from 'pretty well rooted' through 'a few dings and a cowl flap ripped off' to 'not a scratch on the paintwork'.
I feel I'm qualified to comment in general terms.
Facts as we know them,
1/. The pilot departed in nice weather.
2/. The aircraft suffered some kind of 'problem'
3/. The pilot lost control and everyone was killed.
We actually need to know NOTHING else.
Point 3/. above is the kicker.
NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!
FACT:
If a single engined aeroplane, indeed most aeroplanes, arrives on the ground under control then, in the vast, VAST majority of cases most or all of the occupants will survive, even going into tall timber or water or anything in between.
"He was a live wire/a true gentlemen" I'm certain!!
"He wasn't an idiot" I'm less certain.
"He was a GR2 Instructor" Means absolutely nothing.
"I would probably have attempted the turnback too". Then you most assuredly ARE an Idiot.
And I have done a turnback and survived..when I was VERY practiced at it and had briefed myself that that's what I would do in the particular circumstances I faced, in the particular aircraft I was in and only above my minimum height...before that it was the softest thing more or less straight ahead...on that day houses, trees and high tension power lines.
Of all the trite, meaningless little 'saying' this industry has spawned only one ever meant anything to me.
"A amatuer pilot is surprised when an engine fails but a professional is surprised when one doesn't"
And that has nothing to do with the type of licence held.
It's irrelevant what cause the power loss...because that didn't cause the loss of life...if he'd done NOTHING else except select full flap and trim for the correct speed and landed straight ahead in the water it's HIGHLY PROBABLE that all would have survived...how many doors in a Cherokee 6? 2 last I flew one...and they don't sink like a stone!
All you young pilots with dreams of QF who spend your days looking cool in your pilots uniform with lots of bars and lovely gold wings realise this;
If you accidentally depart controlled flight for ANY reason then you F**KED UP.
If you do it close to the ground you will probably DIE.
If you kill your aeroplane, yourself and your passengers it is YOUR FAULT!
And for the PC brigade, yes there are circumstances which are 'unrecoverable'....but only Test Pilots see them and not often these days.
The sad facts are;
1/. That Govt budget cuts have removed CASA's ability to monitor the industry.
2/. The ATO system is NO replacement for independant (read CASA) Examiners of Airman.
3/. The pink blowse set have whittled the curriculum down to the point where people are no longer learning to fly aeroplanes. Experienced 'Instructors' often can't really fly an aeroplane themselves.
4/. The first time you 'depart controlled flight' should not be on your own with pax on board...it should be at a safe height with a competent Teacher sitting beside you.
If this young man had recieved LOTS of training and exposure to unusual attitudes, aerobatics, spinning (Full spinning), Min speed manouvering...etc etc then perhaps he would have known enough to realise the inherent limitations of the aircraft he was in and not attempted anything silly. If he had been afforded the opportunity to 'depart controlled flight' a bunch of times during his training, and I include type specific training, then perhaps he would have recognised it before it took him by surprise!
How many others would that have saved too?
I absolutely KNOW it has saved my life. I thank god for my early instructors who went WAY beyond the minimum curriculum.
I thank the various C&T Pilots I flew with over my first several thousand hours bush flying who could show me how to fly various aircraft to the limits.
I lost 2 non pilot friends to a identical accident many years ago. I've lost many pilot friends since in a variety of way...VERY FEW were unavoidable.
If this young lad was your first friend...sorry but there will be more!
I don't feel terribly sad anymore(for the pilot, I do for the pax) when these tradegies happen...I feel angry!
Chuck.
1/. I didn't know the lad involved, and
2/. I didn't see him crash.
However I have seen people crash, have had a few engine failures myself over the years (1 self inflicted) and have forced landed singles where the damage ranged from 'pretty well rooted' through 'a few dings and a cowl flap ripped off' to 'not a scratch on the paintwork'.
I feel I'm qualified to comment in general terms.
Facts as we know them,
1/. The pilot departed in nice weather.
2/. The aircraft suffered some kind of 'problem'
3/. The pilot lost control and everyone was killed.
We actually need to know NOTHING else.
Point 3/. above is the kicker.
NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!
FACT:
If a single engined aeroplane, indeed most aeroplanes, arrives on the ground under control then, in the vast, VAST majority of cases most or all of the occupants will survive, even going into tall timber or water or anything in between.
"He was a live wire/a true gentlemen" I'm certain!!
"He wasn't an idiot" I'm less certain.
"He was a GR2 Instructor" Means absolutely nothing.
"I would probably have attempted the turnback too". Then you most assuredly ARE an Idiot.
And I have done a turnback and survived..when I was VERY practiced at it and had briefed myself that that's what I would do in the particular circumstances I faced, in the particular aircraft I was in and only above my minimum height...before that it was the softest thing more or less straight ahead...on that day houses, trees and high tension power lines.
Of all the trite, meaningless little 'saying' this industry has spawned only one ever meant anything to me.
"A amatuer pilot is surprised when an engine fails but a professional is surprised when one doesn't"
And that has nothing to do with the type of licence held.
It's irrelevant what cause the power loss...because that didn't cause the loss of life...if he'd done NOTHING else except select full flap and trim for the correct speed and landed straight ahead in the water it's HIGHLY PROBABLE that all would have survived...how many doors in a Cherokee 6? 2 last I flew one...and they don't sink like a stone!
All you young pilots with dreams of QF who spend your days looking cool in your pilots uniform with lots of bars and lovely gold wings realise this;
If you accidentally depart controlled flight for ANY reason then you F**KED UP.
If you do it close to the ground you will probably DIE.
If you kill your aeroplane, yourself and your passengers it is YOUR FAULT!
And for the PC brigade, yes there are circumstances which are 'unrecoverable'....but only Test Pilots see them and not often these days.
The sad facts are;
1/. That Govt budget cuts have removed CASA's ability to monitor the industry.
2/. The ATO system is NO replacement for independant (read CASA) Examiners of Airman.
3/. The pink blowse set have whittled the curriculum down to the point where people are no longer learning to fly aeroplanes. Experienced 'Instructors' often can't really fly an aeroplane themselves.
4/. The first time you 'depart controlled flight' should not be on your own with pax on board...it should be at a safe height with a competent Teacher sitting beside you.
If this young man had recieved LOTS of training and exposure to unusual attitudes, aerobatics, spinning (Full spinning), Min speed manouvering...etc etc then perhaps he would have known enough to realise the inherent limitations of the aircraft he was in and not attempted anything silly. If he had been afforded the opportunity to 'depart controlled flight' a bunch of times during his training, and I include type specific training, then perhaps he would have recognised it before it took him by surprise!
How many others would that have saved too?
I absolutely KNOW it has saved my life. I thank god for my early instructors who went WAY beyond the minimum curriculum.
I thank the various C&T Pilots I flew with over my first several thousand hours bush flying who could show me how to fly various aircraft to the limits.
I lost 2 non pilot friends to a identical accident many years ago. I've lost many pilot friends since in a variety of way...VERY FEW were unavoidable.
If this young lad was your first friend...sorry but there will be more!
I don't feel terribly sad anymore(for the pilot, I do for the pax) when these tradegies happen...I feel angry!
Chuck.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: QLD, Australia
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chuck
I am with you 100% on this one, the most sensible writings in this thread so far.
I too am sick of seeing others apologising for the screw ups of pilots, just so we don't hurt anyones delicate feelings.
When people get killed, feelings don't come into it any more, cold hard facts and observations do.
I am with you 100% on this one, the most sensible writings in this thread so far.
I too am sick of seeing others apologising for the screw ups of pilots, just so we don't hurt anyones delicate feelings.
When people get killed, feelings don't come into it any more, cold hard facts and observations do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chuck,
your points 1, 2 and 3 have no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about always the case with a 'turn back'.)
Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision?
The only way we can reduce our exposure to accidents is to be proactive in safety as individual pilots and operators: go and practice in areas where we are vulnerable, in a simulator (as relevant) or aircraft (in controlled conditions.)
Have regular safety meetings with ALL operational staff and make it policy.
It's a costly and time consuming procedure sure, but whatever the business it's still "Threat Management"
ie: if this occurs at this point we will do this, if it occurs after that we will do that. Make the plan early, prove to staff that what you plan works or doesn't work at certain points and make it gospel. Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment..... just like the ol' "V1".
I know it sounds all theortical but it isn't if you really think about it. You'd fit most of it on an A4 piece of paper. eg. Title PA31 Policy CNS-TSV.
your points 1, 2 and 3 have no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about always the case with a 'turn back'.)
Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision?
The only way we can reduce our exposure to accidents is to be proactive in safety as individual pilots and operators: go and practice in areas where we are vulnerable, in a simulator (as relevant) or aircraft (in controlled conditions.)
Have regular safety meetings with ALL operational staff and make it policy.
It's a costly and time consuming procedure sure, but whatever the business it's still "Threat Management"
ie: if this occurs at this point we will do this, if it occurs after that we will do that. Make the plan early, prove to staff that what you plan works or doesn't work at certain points and make it gospel. Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment..... just like the ol' "V1".
I know it sounds all theortical but it isn't if you really think about it. You'd fit most of it on an A4 piece of paper. eg. Title PA31 Policy CNS-TSV.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that can be added to or subtracted from Chuckles post that would make it any more or more, I say again more, effective and profoundly wise advice.
3/. The pilot lost control and everyone was killed.
We actually need to know NOTHING else.
Point 3/. above is the kicker.
NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!
We actually need to know NOTHING else.
Point 3/. above is the kicker.
NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!
Grandpa Aerotart
Watchdog,
Because I found your post so profoundly disturbing I'm going to do what I rarely do on this forum these days...I'm going to give you BOTH BARRELS...BOHICA Watchdog
Quote:
"your points 1, 2 and 3 have no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about always the case with a 'turn back'.)"
How does that work again?
A young pilot takes off with paying pax on a nice day with nothing more terrifying than some warm water in front of him and that's enough to force him into a 'heat of the moment' decision which causes him to go against everything he has, presumably, been taught since day one!
I say 'presumably' because if there is one thing that gets hammered in EFATO training it's 'don't turn back'.
Quote:
"Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision? "
MAN DO I
Our regulator has been gutted by successive budget cuts for YEARS. The result is
1/. many good people leave in disgust and dissapointment,
2/.many losers get jobs who would not have otherwise
3/. the good guys who remain are hamstrung in their efforts by the losers, who in my experience have a disturbingly uncanny ability to 'get ahead' into non flying management while the good guys just 'wanna drive aeroplanes and help people improve'.
As a direct result systems like the ATO system pop up to fill the void left by the regulator. This system has individuals who rely on there 'popularity' with 'Flying Schools' for their living. If they demand too high a standard they just don't get called very much and hence don't make a very good living.
I have a friend who is a VERY experienced pilot who is an ATO. He tells me this IS going on all the time...luckily for him he's only a few months away from retirement and it doesn't particularly worry him that he's not being called by some of the companies in his area...it's allowing him to wind down...he's GIVEN UP trying to make a difference!!!
Flying schools the length and breadth of Australia have stopped trying to teach people to 'fly' and are these days teaching them to be 'Airline Pilots'.
With the exception of schools involved in closely monitored airline cadetships they wouldn't have the remotest idea what that actually means! So we have 'Instructors' and 'Future Airline Pilots' strutting around in flash uniforms and a curriculum which has moved far away from teaching people to fly an aeroplane and instead is heavily biased towards 'Procedural aircraft systems management'.
And TOSSERS like Toller think this is a GOOD THING
The number of stories I hear of 'Instructors' demanding their students do completely stupid things in non transport category aircraft because "That's the way the airlines do it" is truly scary!
And yet the number of young pilots these days who have very little to no idea what will happen next if they do X with the controls in Y circumstances is growing.
I've seen it over and over while conducting C&T in both piston twins and laterly a Corporate jet.
I had a guy once who could NOT fly a visual circuit in an Islander but could fly the gauges beautifully...that's all that mattered to him...he was besotted with any picture of a jet glass cockpit. I covered over all his instruments and made him fly 16 sectors to various bush strips with nothing but RPM and a bubble compass..The improvement was immediate so I signed him off (after a severe talking at!)and as he never had a crash in PNG I suppose it worked...he's now a 737 800NG captain at a certain low cost airline and from what I hear still times downwind to work out where to turn base
A young pilot I knew slightly took off from a NT strip in a C210 in 2000 and pulled straight up into a wing over to return and 'beat up' his watching pilot mates...he didn't make it half way round the 'turn' before losing control and spudding in...DEAD!
A young Kiwi ex Instructor(1500 hours) crashed my C185 back in 92 after departing Port Moresby with a CofG that, when we later plotted it, barely stayed on the page let alone the graph. His 'CP' had sent him off alone after 4 days in PNG and, predictably, he got lost and flew up the wrong valley. When he got to the dead end he attempted a steep turn to exit, stalled, and spun in killing everyone on board. I was the first person to reach the crash site...he didn't even knock any branches off as his path through the jungle canopy was so verticle...the horizontal stab was wound FULL nose down and zero flaps were set for the turn.
You ever seen dead people at a crash site Watchdog?
Tell me these pilots had any idea what the most likely outcome of their actions was going to be?
I could give you 10 or 15 more examples of pilots who should not have held a licence or at best who's woefull knowledge of aerodynamic cause and effect was the result of the system we have in place now.
I could also give a handfull cases where my own lack of judgement when I was very inexperienced led me into situations in C185s in the PNG Central Highlands where I was about to either DIE or badly damage an aircraft. What saved my bacon on those occassions was KNOWING how to MAX PERFORM the aircraft without LOSNG CONTROL and not GIVING UP...and GOD protects wise men and fools
Quote:
"The only way we can reduce our exposure to accidents is to be proactive in safety as individual pilots and operators: go and practice in areas where we are vulnerable, in a simulator (as relevant) or aircraft (in controlled conditions.)
Have regular safety meetings with ALL operational staff and make it policy.
It's a costly and time consuming procedure sure, but whatever the business it's still "Threat Management"
ie: if this occurs at this point we will do this, if it occurs after that we will do that. Make the plan early, prove to staff that what you plan works or doesn't work at certain points and make it gospel. Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment..... just like the ol' "V1"."
Man you wouldn't believe the involuntary gag reflex people who use words like 'Proactive' and 'Risk management' and 'Threat management" give me.
To date virtually everyone I EVER met who talks in 'Buzz Phrases' like the above knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject.
And your answer is to sit everyone down and give them a 'survive by the numbers' approach.
"Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment...just like the ol' V1"
Man you are part of the PROBLEM
I could be wrong but all your last paragraph tells me is that ALL YOU'VE GOT is THEORY.
A CASA FOI I was talking to recently (very experienced before succumbing to CASA ) told me about asking a CFI at a big school to brief and demonstrate Min Radius/Max Rate turns as part of his renewal.
He had to go away and research the subject and almost got it right on the day..to his credit it is now his favorite way of testing people...it's his thing!!
Another Chief Pilot I was told about by an Examiner when asked to demonstrate a Min radius/Max rate turn set flaps 20, reduced power to 18inches and crept around the turn at 30 degrees AOB!!
One of my LEAST favorite 'sayings' is;
"A superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to avoid having to use his superior skills".
Well guess what Watchdog...You've got to have one or the other AT LEAST...what this industry seems to be producing is pilots with NIETHER.
Chuck.
PS Jesus wept...rant mode disbabled
Because I found your post so profoundly disturbing I'm going to do what I rarely do on this forum these days...I'm going to give you BOTH BARRELS...BOHICA Watchdog
Quote:
"your points 1, 2 and 3 have no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about always the case with a 'turn back'.)"
How does that work again?
A young pilot takes off with paying pax on a nice day with nothing more terrifying than some warm water in front of him and that's enough to force him into a 'heat of the moment' decision which causes him to go against everything he has, presumably, been taught since day one!
I say 'presumably' because if there is one thing that gets hammered in EFATO training it's 'don't turn back'.
Quote:
"Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision? "
MAN DO I
Our regulator has been gutted by successive budget cuts for YEARS. The result is
1/. many good people leave in disgust and dissapointment,
2/.many losers get jobs who would not have otherwise
3/. the good guys who remain are hamstrung in their efforts by the losers, who in my experience have a disturbingly uncanny ability to 'get ahead' into non flying management while the good guys just 'wanna drive aeroplanes and help people improve'.
As a direct result systems like the ATO system pop up to fill the void left by the regulator. This system has individuals who rely on there 'popularity' with 'Flying Schools' for their living. If they demand too high a standard they just don't get called very much and hence don't make a very good living.
I have a friend who is a VERY experienced pilot who is an ATO. He tells me this IS going on all the time...luckily for him he's only a few months away from retirement and it doesn't particularly worry him that he's not being called by some of the companies in his area...it's allowing him to wind down...he's GIVEN UP trying to make a difference!!!
Flying schools the length and breadth of Australia have stopped trying to teach people to 'fly' and are these days teaching them to be 'Airline Pilots'.
With the exception of schools involved in closely monitored airline cadetships they wouldn't have the remotest idea what that actually means! So we have 'Instructors' and 'Future Airline Pilots' strutting around in flash uniforms and a curriculum which has moved far away from teaching people to fly an aeroplane and instead is heavily biased towards 'Procedural aircraft systems management'.
And TOSSERS like Toller think this is a GOOD THING
The number of stories I hear of 'Instructors' demanding their students do completely stupid things in non transport category aircraft because "That's the way the airlines do it" is truly scary!
And yet the number of young pilots these days who have very little to no idea what will happen next if they do X with the controls in Y circumstances is growing.
I've seen it over and over while conducting C&T in both piston twins and laterly a Corporate jet.
I had a guy once who could NOT fly a visual circuit in an Islander but could fly the gauges beautifully...that's all that mattered to him...he was besotted with any picture of a jet glass cockpit. I covered over all his instruments and made him fly 16 sectors to various bush strips with nothing but RPM and a bubble compass..The improvement was immediate so I signed him off (after a severe talking at!)and as he never had a crash in PNG I suppose it worked...he's now a 737 800NG captain at a certain low cost airline
and from what I hear still times downwind to work out where to turn base A young pilot I knew slightly took off from a NT strip in a C210 in 2000 and pulled straight up into a wing over to return and 'beat up' his watching pilot mates...he didn't make it half way round the 'turn' before losing control and spudding in...DEAD!
A young Kiwi ex Instructor(1500 hours) crashed my C185 back in 92 after departing Port Moresby with a CofG that, when we later plotted it, barely stayed on the page let alone the graph. His 'CP' had sent him off alone after 4 days in PNG and, predictably, he got lost and flew up the wrong valley. When he got to the dead end he attempted a steep turn to exit, stalled, and spun in killing everyone on board. I was the first person to reach the crash site...he didn't even knock any branches off as his path through the jungle canopy was so verticle...the horizontal stab was wound FULL nose down and zero flaps were set for the turn.
You ever seen dead people at a crash site Watchdog?
Tell me these pilots had any idea what the most likely outcome of their actions was going to be?
I could give you 10 or 15 more examples of pilots who should not have held a licence or at best who's woefull knowledge of aerodynamic cause and effect was the result of the system we have in place now.
I could also give a handfull cases where my own lack of judgement when I was very inexperienced led me into situations in C185s in the PNG Central Highlands where I was about to either DIE or badly damage an aircraft. What saved my bacon on those occassions was KNOWING how to MAX PERFORM the aircraft without LOSNG CONTROL and not GIVING UP...and GOD protects wise men and fools
Quote:
"The only way we can reduce our exposure to accidents is to be proactive in safety as individual pilots and operators: go and practice in areas where we are vulnerable, in a simulator (as relevant) or aircraft (in controlled conditions.)
Have regular safety meetings with ALL operational staff and make it policy.
It's a costly and time consuming procedure sure, but whatever the business it's still "Threat Management"
ie: if this occurs at this point we will do this, if it occurs after that we will do that. Make the plan early, prove to staff that what you plan works or doesn't work at certain points and make it gospel. Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment..... just like the ol' "V1"."
Man you wouldn't believe the involuntary gag reflex people who use words like 'Proactive' and 'Risk management' and 'Threat management" give me.
To date virtually everyone I EVER met who talks in 'Buzz Phrases' like the above knew ABSOLUTELY NOTHING about the subject.
And your answer is to sit everyone down and give them a 'survive by the numbers' approach.
"Make the individuals decision so he doesn't have to make a fatal one at the heat of the moment...just like the ol' V1"
Man you are part of the PROBLEM
I could be wrong but all your last paragraph tells me is that ALL YOU'VE GOT is THEORY.
A CASA FOI I was talking to recently (very experienced before succumbing to CASA
) told me about asking a CFI at a big school to brief and demonstrate Min Radius/Max Rate turns as part of his renewal.He had to go away and research the subject and almost got it right on the day..to his credit it is now his favorite way of testing people...it's his thing!!
Another Chief Pilot I was told about by an Examiner when asked to demonstrate a Min radius/Max rate turn set flaps 20, reduced power to 18inches and crept around the turn at 30 degrees AOB!!
One of my LEAST favorite 'sayings' is;
"A superior pilot uses his superior knowledge to avoid having to use his superior skills".
Well guess what Watchdog...You've got to have one or the other AT LEAST...what this industry seems to be producing is pilots with NIETHER.
Chuck.
PS Jesus wept...rant mode disbabled
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 30th Oct 2002 at 03:56.
Watchdog
It is not a split second decision. It is made calmly and s l o w l y at the holding point, or during the pre-flight or whilst sitting around waiting for the passengers to return instead of reading w*nker mags. The what if... is the best protection a pilot has. Pre-take off safety brief, pre-instrument approach brief etc.
The point is to remove any split-second decision. The pilot should and must know what he or she will do if A or B or C happens.
no relevance to a pilot making a split-second decision in the heat of the moment, in this case the guy made the wrong one (as is just about
The point is to remove any split-second decision. The pilot should and must know what he or she will do if A or B or C happens.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Ether
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I feel the need to wade in here.
I agree with EVERYTHING Chimbu has to say about this.
Watchdog.
"Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision?"
Yes!!!
All the way through my training I fought to get more experienced instructors to teach me, and now having a fair bit of experience in GA and coincidentally Cherokee 6's the standard of training has been a pet hate. I didn't realise how woefully inadequate my training was until I started flying Air Transport ops with a bare CPL and MEIFR.
The regulator has all the ability in the world to set the standards for training through the syllabus and the standards for flight examining staff.
Something has to be done about the state of aviation training.
Does anyone out there think it is an ideal situation for a 350hr instructor to be teaching a student who will then go on to be a 350hr instructor and so on....
I agree with EVERYTHING Chimbu has to say about this.
Watchdog.
"Do you honestly think a regulator (good or pathetic as ours is) could have influenced this unfortunate fellas decision?"
Yes!!!
All the way through my training I fought to get more experienced instructors to teach me, and now having a fair bit of experience in GA and coincidentally Cherokee 6's the standard of training has been a pet hate. I didn't realise how woefully inadequate my training was until I started flying Air Transport ops with a bare CPL and MEIFR.
The regulator has all the ability in the world to set the standards for training through the syllabus and the standards for flight examining staff.
Something has to be done about the state of aviation training.
Does anyone out there think it is an ideal situation for a 350hr instructor to be teaching a student who will then go on to be a 350hr instructor and so on....
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Three Tors
Posts: 405
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Spinnerhead.....
When people get killed, feelings don't come into it any more, cold hard facts and observations do.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Mate, I too have to agree with everything you have said in this topic. In my 30 years in this business I have seen declining standards and many pilots move on to the upper flight levels, a few friends included.
I have survived several incidents that have been fatal to others, thanks to the quality of training and the experience of those that helped mould me in my formative years.
You and I probably remember Fred Knudsen and other DCA legends who helped us on our way and instilled a healthy approach to aviating.
There are still a few newer legends out there carrying on the tradition, but hamstrung by their peers in CASA, the beaurocrats and others who have infiltrated the system.
As for ATO's don't write them off, there are some great guys out there, some of whom have been in CASA and got out so they can do their safety job better, some who have been canvassed by CASA and declined. ( Mr Toller, it is a sad fact that good staff still leave in droves despite a salary twice that of the industry, what's wrong inside CASA ? Too much of a club ? )
In S/E Qld, you won't beat John Appleby and Lester Neideck, Mike Jones further north, Rocco in TSV, Bob Harris Innisfail and David Kilin in Cairns. The industry is fortunate to have people of this calibre, and I'm sure the other states have their quiet achievers who do not compromise standards to ingratiate themselves with those who seek the easy way to a rating.
Check and training, even in a small charter company can go a long way to reduce the senseless and repetitive accident rate.
I too get angry at every senseless and needless fatality.
We don't need it, and we, the industry, without CASA, can reduce it by not accepting the minimum standards that the sausage factories turn out for us to correct.
An initial check to line should probe and explore the safe envelope of each and every type the new employee will fly, the stall characteristics, the EFATO drill, the engine failure in cruise followed by the forced landing.
We also need to reinforce the moments pause before takeoff, when we can program the subconscious to perform the required vital actions until the conscious mind can resume control.
There are no split second decisions to make, for each and every takeoff the pilot should preconsider the "in the event of" "I will xxx". This must be done at the threshold, just prior to opening the throttle, not half heartedly chanting a meaningless mantra while backtracking.
Know the possible scenarios for each takeoff and each phase of flight and know before hand what your intentions will be, then tell your subconscious this is what you are going to do.
I am here writing this as a result of being taught to do just that. I have seen my own hands moving, securing a failed and shattered engine on a twin in heavy imc, while I watched in shock, slowly catching up to what was actually happening and taking over from the subconscious as soon as I was able.
The severe shock of the unexpected can be overcome by this simple expedient.
Mostly our job is hours and hours of the predictable, and is as a result, sometimes numbingly boring.
We are really paid for the few seconds of fright and the correct response to the emergency that presents itself.
Excepting structual damage or airframe failure, a large proportion of emergencies can be dealt with and a survivable outcome is usually possible.
A 180 degree turn at rate one takes one minute. If you are descending at 700 fpm and you are at 300', what's the point of not accepting that you CAN'T turn back before you impact ?
What is difficult about this concept?
You must configure the aircraft for the inevitable return to the surface at an airspeed and vertical speed that gives you a chance of survival. This is surely taught, and must be followed.
I have survived several incidents that have been fatal to others, thanks to the quality of training and the experience of those that helped mould me in my formative years.
You and I probably remember Fred Knudsen and other DCA legends who helped us on our way and instilled a healthy approach to aviating.
There are still a few newer legends out there carrying on the tradition, but hamstrung by their peers in CASA, the beaurocrats and others who have infiltrated the system.
As for ATO's don't write them off, there are some great guys out there, some of whom have been in CASA and got out so they can do their safety job better, some who have been canvassed by CASA and declined. ( Mr Toller, it is a sad fact that good staff still leave in droves despite a salary twice that of the industry, what's wrong inside CASA ? Too much of a club ? )
In S/E Qld, you won't beat John Appleby and Lester Neideck, Mike Jones further north, Rocco in TSV, Bob Harris Innisfail and David Kilin in Cairns. The industry is fortunate to have people of this calibre, and I'm sure the other states have their quiet achievers who do not compromise standards to ingratiate themselves with those who seek the easy way to a rating.
Check and training, even in a small charter company can go a long way to reduce the senseless and repetitive accident rate.
I too get angry at every senseless and needless fatality.
We don't need it, and we, the industry, without CASA, can reduce it by not accepting the minimum standards that the sausage factories turn out for us to correct.
An initial check to line should probe and explore the safe envelope of each and every type the new employee will fly, the stall characteristics, the EFATO drill, the engine failure in cruise followed by the forced landing.
We also need to reinforce the moments pause before takeoff, when we can program the subconscious to perform the required vital actions until the conscious mind can resume control.
There are no split second decisions to make, for each and every takeoff the pilot should preconsider the "in the event of" "I will xxx". This must be done at the threshold, just prior to opening the throttle, not half heartedly chanting a meaningless mantra while backtracking.
Know the possible scenarios for each takeoff and each phase of flight and know before hand what your intentions will be, then tell your subconscious this is what you are going to do.
I am here writing this as a result of being taught to do just that. I have seen my own hands moving, securing a failed and shattered engine on a twin in heavy imc, while I watched in shock, slowly catching up to what was actually happening and taking over from the subconscious as soon as I was able.
The severe shock of the unexpected can be overcome by this simple expedient.
Mostly our job is hours and hours of the predictable, and is as a result, sometimes numbingly boring.
We are really paid for the few seconds of fright and the correct response to the emergency that presents itself.
Excepting structual damage or airframe failure, a large proportion of emergencies can be dealt with and a survivable outcome is usually possible.
A 180 degree turn at rate one takes one minute. If you are descending at 700 fpm and you are at 300', what's the point of not accepting that you CAN'T turn back before you impact ?
What is difficult about this concept?
You must configure the aircraft for the inevitable return to the surface at an airspeed and vertical speed that gives you a chance of survival. This is surely taught, and must be followed.
Grandpa Aerotart
CJ I very much doubt spinnerhead meant it unkindly.
When you have lost a few more friends...and you will...you may see it in a different light.
I hope you never see the numbers I have...if I include non aircrew friends and people I may have only flown with once, like the fella who issued me with my IR, who died with one of my early instuctors when their CAA Bonanza had a midair with a glider, and pilots from competing companies who I may only have spent time with at the aeroclub or yachty or a "How's your end of the funny farm?" when our paths crossed at some mountain strip it's up over 40!!!
If you just include people I considered really good mates it's still over 20!
After 4 in my first year in PNG I started to harden up...at some point after that I just got very pissed off every time.
Several days after pulling the bodies out of my own aeroplane, during which good people were telling my wife to watch me because I seemed to show no emotion whatsoever I lost it and broke down crying...because of that young dead pilot? No he was an idiot!
Because I had lifted out of the crumpled fuselage the tiny bodies of two children, 1 boy and 1 girl, both about my daughters age at the time...3 or 4...and carried them to the bush helipad and zipped them into the same body bag.
That's why I get worked up about this stuff.
Chuck.
PS Mainframe I certainly know there are some bloody good ATOs out there...but the system is still flawed and needs to change back to a more hands on approach from the regulator...perhaps CASA should, upon receipt of a request for an flight test, decide from a short list, which ATO will conduct the test.
At least that would stop the shopping around that goes on!
When you have lost a few more friends...and you will...you may see it in a different light.
I hope you never see the numbers I have...if I include non aircrew friends and people I may have only flown with once, like the fella who issued me with my IR, who died with one of my early instuctors when their CAA Bonanza had a midair with a glider, and pilots from competing companies who I may only have spent time with at the aeroclub or yachty or a "How's your end of the funny farm?" when our paths crossed at some mountain strip it's up over 40!!!
If you just include people I considered really good mates it's still over 20!
After 4 in my first year in PNG I started to harden up...at some point after that I just got very pissed off every time.
Several days after pulling the bodies out of my own aeroplane, during which good people were telling my wife to watch me because I seemed to show no emotion whatsoever I lost it and broke down crying...because of that young dead pilot? No he was an idiot!
Because I had lifted out of the crumpled fuselage the tiny bodies of two children, 1 boy and 1 girl, both about my daughters age at the time...3 or 4...and carried them to the bush helipad and zipped them into the same body bag.
That's why I get worked up about this stuff.
Chuck.
PS Mainframe I certainly know there are some bloody good ATOs out there...but the system is still flawed and needs to change back to a more hands on approach from the regulator...perhaps CASA should, upon receipt of a request for an flight test, decide from a short list, which ATO will conduct the test.
At least that would stop the shopping around that goes on!
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 30th Oct 2002 at 12:14.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Chimbu,
Read my lips: you can teach/scream/yell all you like throughout someones training and they MAY STILL do something strange/stupid. You can regulate all you like but human nature usually "in the heat of the moment" win.
So tell me, the guy that you "signed off" years ago, and now he's a 737 CP, you sure he will always make the right call at the right time for the rest of his life because you witnessed it one day during a test. Yeah right.
So tell me again just how our regulators can determine that?
"A young pilot takes off with paying pax on a nice day with nothing more terrifying than some warm water in front of him and that's enough to force him into a 'heat of the moment' decision which causes him to go against everything he has, presumably, been taught since day one"
...what's this got to do with my post?....I am not referring specifically to this accident. You have misread my reply, I agree with the majority of your points but you can't come out and say it occurred because of a lack of regulatory survellience.
Icarus,
we are in agreeance - read the 2nd line, 4th paragraph on my previous post.
Read my lips: you can teach/scream/yell all you like throughout someones training and they MAY STILL do something strange/stupid. You can regulate all you like but human nature usually "in the heat of the moment" win.
So tell me, the guy that you "signed off" years ago, and now he's a 737 CP, you sure he will always make the right call at the right time for the rest of his life because you witnessed it one day during a test. Yeah right.
So tell me again just how our regulators can determine that?
"A young pilot takes off with paying pax on a nice day with nothing more terrifying than some warm water in front of him and that's enough to force him into a 'heat of the moment' decision which causes him to go against everything he has, presumably, been taught since day one"
...what's this got to do with my post?....I am not referring specifically to this accident. You have misread my reply, I agree with the majority of your points but you can't come out and say it occurred because of a lack of regulatory survellience.
Icarus,
we are in agreeance - read the 2nd line, 4th paragraph on my previous post.
Grandpa Aerotart
Watchdog,
I rarely yell and never scream...I like to think I can teach when given the opportunity and a willing student...on my better days the student doesn't even need to be that willing..although I have run into one that was a dead loss so having passed him around the other training captains I sacked him...and rang CASA...who did nothing next time he renewed his Instructor Rating...last I heard he was still 'teaching'...I shudder to think what.
Human nature usually wins...I disagree...if you can train soldiers to move forward while being shot at and kill just because there Govt says to I'm bloody sure you can train people to fly an airplane safely under any circumstances they are likely to encounter and give them skills to manage the less likely as best as is possible.
I'm equally certain that telling the average 18 year old lad not to do beat ups or try and turn back after an engine failure because it's illegal or he might be killed won't work either...it didn't with me.
But if you really train them well you might cause the more circumspect to pause and not do it and you might cause the less circumspect to do it in such a way that they will not kill themselves.
In PNG it was always about keep new guys alive long enough for them to build experience and judgement. I don't see a flying school has any different imperative.
That was the way my first CPs and C&Ter treated me when I turned up and it seemed to work...I always seemed to have just enough experience and manipulative skills to stay alive in the first few years.
The guy I 'signed off' learned a big lesson during that final period of line training. We were working in a well established company with a strong C&T cadre. Some months later he was upgraded to C402, then 404 then Twin Otter. Each time was a comprehensive endorsement and 15 to 30 odd hours ICUS. Now he works for a company which also has a strong C&T Department, I know many of the checkies, with 6 monthly sim checks. He might not be one of my favorite people and he may not be the best pilot I ever flew with but he is having a successful career.
You don't think 16 odd sectors in and out of PNG bush strips with everything covered over was a reasonable test?
I should have put him on an aeroplane back to Oz? You wouldn't believe how close to that point it got...but I didn't and that was a judgement call...I've never lost a minutes sleep worrying about anybody I trained and signed off.
I can't gaurantee I will make the right decision every time for the rest of my career, let alone anyone elses....but the more I practice the luckier I get so here's hoping!
All I can do is my very best with the pilots I train or check while they are under my 'umbrella'...when they go to work someplace else or to fly another type they become someone elses responsibility until such time that they become a checker or trainer or a Chief Pilot...then I hope they remember my good days and my bad ones and pass on the lessons learned from both.
I don't believe I mentioned Regulatory Surveilance anywhere in my posts....nor am I nieve enough to subscribe to theories of zero accident rates. What I do believe pashionately is that the average standards of PPL and CPL graduates is abysmal and not getting any better.
We've certainly got more than enough REGULATIONS.
There is nothing much wrong with ATC and Airspace, despite what Mr. Smith and Smith tell us.
What is DESPERATELY needed is overhaul of the pilots licence curriculae...a return to more traditional skills with an emphasis on handling skills and understanding of aerodynamic cause and effect.
The Regulators are fiddling while Rome burns!
Airlines are the place to learn airline SOPs not flying schools.
A Transport Cat aeroplane or Sim is the place to learn about Multi crew SOPs...not a Duchess, Baron or an Aerostar.
I would love to see all piston twin training happen mostly in a Sim that's the equivalent of the best airline sims...don't know that it will happen though.
CASA are forever coming out with warm fuzzy buzzword rhetoric about increasing air safety and maintaining high standards...but they virtually never do anything that will ACTUALLY go someway towards attaining that.
I believe the basic CPL is probably one of the easiest to obtain professional qualifications around...all it requires is a year 10 education and deep pockets. It should be made a helluva lot harder...not more expensive and not more hours to qualify..200 should be adequate for a basic CPL...it's what you do with those 200 hours that can have the greatest impact on the accident statistics.
I believe if that was done, via overhauled curriculae and tougher standards in testing we could probably reduce the really stupid fatal accidents by 1/2...not a bad start really!
Ohh and I can't read your lips...this is a BB not TV
If I upset you with my response to your post, learn to live with it...I have
Chuck.
I rarely yell and never scream...I like to think I can teach when given the opportunity and a willing student...on my better days the student doesn't even need to be that willing..although I have run into one that was a dead loss so having passed him around the other training captains I sacked him...and rang CASA...who did nothing next time he renewed his Instructor Rating...last I heard he was still 'teaching'...I shudder to think what.
Human nature usually wins...I disagree...if you can train soldiers to move forward while being shot at and kill just because there Govt says to I'm bloody sure you can train people to fly an airplane safely under any circumstances they are likely to encounter and give them skills to manage the less likely as best as is possible.
I'm equally certain that telling the average 18 year old lad not to do beat ups or try and turn back after an engine failure because it's illegal or he might be killed won't work either...it didn't with me.
But if you really train them well you might cause the more circumspect to pause and not do it and you might cause the less circumspect to do it in such a way that they will not kill themselves.
In PNG it was always about keep new guys alive long enough for them to build experience and judgement. I don't see a flying school has any different imperative.
That was the way my first CPs and C&Ter treated me when I turned up and it seemed to work...I always seemed to have just enough experience and manipulative skills to stay alive in the first few years.
The guy I 'signed off' learned a big lesson during that final period of line training. We were working in a well established company with a strong C&T cadre. Some months later he was upgraded to C402, then 404 then Twin Otter. Each time was a comprehensive endorsement and 15 to 30 odd hours ICUS. Now he works for a company which also has a strong C&T Department, I know many of the checkies, with 6 monthly sim checks. He might not be one of my favorite people and he may not be the best pilot I ever flew with but he is having a successful career.
You don't think 16 odd sectors in and out of PNG bush strips with everything covered over was a reasonable test?
I should have put him on an aeroplane back to Oz? You wouldn't believe how close to that point it got...but I didn't and that was a judgement call...I've never lost a minutes sleep worrying about anybody I trained and signed off.
I can't gaurantee I will make the right decision every time for the rest of my career, let alone anyone elses....but the more I practice the luckier I get so here's hoping!
All I can do is my very best with the pilots I train or check while they are under my 'umbrella'...when they go to work someplace else or to fly another type they become someone elses responsibility until such time that they become a checker or trainer or a Chief Pilot...then I hope they remember my good days and my bad ones and pass on the lessons learned from both.
I don't believe I mentioned Regulatory Surveilance anywhere in my posts....nor am I nieve enough to subscribe to theories of zero accident rates. What I do believe pashionately is that the average standards of PPL and CPL graduates is abysmal and not getting any better.
We've certainly got more than enough REGULATIONS.
There is nothing much wrong with ATC and Airspace, despite what Mr. Smith and Smith tell us.
What is DESPERATELY needed is overhaul of the pilots licence curriculae...a return to more traditional skills with an emphasis on handling skills and understanding of aerodynamic cause and effect.
The Regulators are fiddling while Rome burns!
Airlines are the place to learn airline SOPs not flying schools.
A Transport Cat aeroplane or Sim is the place to learn about Multi crew SOPs...not a Duchess, Baron or an Aerostar.
I would love to see all piston twin training happen mostly in a Sim that's the equivalent of the best airline sims...don't know that it will happen though.
CASA are forever coming out with warm fuzzy buzzword rhetoric about increasing air safety and maintaining high standards...but they virtually never do anything that will ACTUALLY go someway towards attaining that.
I believe the basic CPL is probably one of the easiest to obtain professional qualifications around...all it requires is a year 10 education and deep pockets. It should be made a helluva lot harder...not more expensive and not more hours to qualify..200 should be adequate for a basic CPL...it's what you do with those 200 hours that can have the greatest impact on the accident statistics.
I believe if that was done, via overhauled curriculae and tougher standards in testing we could probably reduce the really stupid fatal accidents by 1/2...not a bad start really!
Ohh and I can't read your lips...this is a BB not TV
If I upset you with my response to your post, learn to live with it...I have
Chuck.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 30th Oct 2002 at 14:25.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watchdog
We are probably in heated agreement, as I have had the privilege to have survived regulatory regimes from as far back as the early sixties (my student pilot license says 1962 in fact, with a photo of an impossibly young child, I barely recognise on the inside cover).
I have seen it all from it's gold plated glory to the puny claytons effort we know suffer in the politically debased cause of "user pays".
East the Beast for example, God love him, terrorised, to put it mildly, his bailiwick. But he actually knew of what he spoke. A "quiet chat" about the possible consequences of your "indiscretion", left you in no doubt whatsoever of the present limits of your skills and knowledge.
But it was delivered from the lofty heights of actual experience and REAL surveillance.
To fruitfully answer simple questions the like of, "how come your identically equipped and same MT weight Navajo can carry 200 lbs more over the same distance as your competitor" required a skill and dexterity mastered by very few if any.
If, when you taxied in and 'Uncle Bob' or 'Rantin Ron' were waiting and you weren't at least 99% kosher, it was unlikely that there would be a warm fuzzy 'counselling'.
They and everybody understood the rules, so there was no "interpretation" necessary or "sought", you just handed over your license.
Whats so hard or unreasonable about that.
Operational Control and regulatory Flight Plan post flight audit and surveillance, sounds a bit fascist now, but it kept everybody honest and sorted the dodgy bros out from the real ones with real time checking of payload range, flight times and duty hours.
The word "privilege" was much bandied about in relation to the activities you were allowed to conduct and as conferred upon you in relation to your license.
Ponder the meaning of the word "license" in its fullest sense and the "privilege" and "responsibility" it allowed and required.
Fast forward to 20 years later mid 80's when as the local Cessna bloke I field a call from the senior FOI asking if it was possible to carry 9 POB, 20kg baggage EACH, fitters toolbox (40Kg) Newman -Perth with IFR reserves with 'x' amount of fuel in the tanks in a particular Cessna 421C.
My short answer was that apart from being somewhat overweight at TO it would probably be into the fixed reserves by Mount Singleton (about 45 minutes out) and likely be running on air by short finals, why do you ask?
"Well its on the ground after a wheels up at Perth AP and reported engine failure/s on short and short short finals." There was a bit more to it all but that's the guts of it.
All flight planned using their regulatory approved company "Operations Manual".
The company, fortunately for all went broke, but had won the contract, with the regulatory approved Ops Manual as its' authority, against the kosher ones, who insisted on a fuel stop at Meeka or reduced payload.
Their also regulatory approved Ops Manuals had a quite different but correct set of numbers.
Needless to say the operator and crew got a "free spin" pass.
I have seen no evidence to suggest it has gotten any better.
My point being?
OH yes I/we can.!
Its not the lack of but the quality of the surveillance that counts.
We are in that most dangerous of all times when ALL of the so called experience out there that "youngsters" rely on, and how otherwise would they know, is of the what I have come to call the "Prince of Wales Syndrome".
"I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales".
Six Degrees of Separation, heck try about Twenty and you might be getting close.
My question would be how many degrees of separation were there between this pilot and somebody who actually knew of what he was talking about.
It used to be that the regulator had it's share of the cream and for the most part you could get a reasonable rendition of "the word".
Now I suspect for the most part it's the old blind talking to the deaf routine.
As Chucks avers, I know there are some truly professional FOIs out there, but how do those that dont know the difference know the difference?
We are probably in heated agreement, as I have had the privilege to have survived regulatory regimes from as far back as the early sixties (my student pilot license says 1962 in fact, with a photo of an impossibly young child, I barely recognise on the inside cover).
I have seen it all from it's gold plated glory to the puny claytons effort we know suffer in the politically debased cause of "user pays".
East the Beast for example, God love him, terrorised, to put it mildly, his bailiwick. But he actually knew of what he spoke. A "quiet chat" about the possible consequences of your "indiscretion", left you in no doubt whatsoever of the present limits of your skills and knowledge.
But it was delivered from the lofty heights of actual experience and REAL surveillance.
To fruitfully answer simple questions the like of, "how come your identically equipped and same MT weight Navajo can carry 200 lbs more over the same distance as your competitor" required a skill and dexterity mastered by very few if any.
If, when you taxied in and 'Uncle Bob' or 'Rantin Ron' were waiting and you weren't at least 99% kosher, it was unlikely that there would be a warm fuzzy 'counselling'.
They and everybody understood the rules, so there was no "interpretation" necessary or "sought", you just handed over your license.
Whats so hard or unreasonable about that.
Operational Control and regulatory Flight Plan post flight audit and surveillance, sounds a bit fascist now, but it kept everybody honest and sorted the dodgy bros out from the real ones with real time checking of payload range, flight times and duty hours.
The word "privilege" was much bandied about in relation to the activities you were allowed to conduct and as conferred upon you in relation to your license.
Ponder the meaning of the word "license" in its fullest sense and the "privilege" and "responsibility" it allowed and required.
Fast forward to 20 years later mid 80's when as the local Cessna bloke I field a call from the senior FOI asking if it was possible to carry 9 POB, 20kg baggage EACH, fitters toolbox (40Kg) Newman -Perth with IFR reserves with 'x' amount of fuel in the tanks in a particular Cessna 421C.
My short answer was that apart from being somewhat overweight at TO it would probably be into the fixed reserves by Mount Singleton (about 45 minutes out) and likely be running on air by short finals, why do you ask?
"Well its on the ground after a wheels up at Perth AP and reported engine failure/s on short and short short finals." There was a bit more to it all but that's the guts of it.
All flight planned using their regulatory approved company "Operations Manual".
The company, fortunately for all went broke, but had won the contract, with the regulatory approved Ops Manual as its' authority, against the kosher ones, who insisted on a fuel stop at Meeka or reduced payload.
Their also regulatory approved Ops Manuals had a quite different but correct set of numbers.
Needless to say the operator and crew got a "free spin" pass.
I have seen no evidence to suggest it has gotten any better.
My point being?
you can't come out and say it occurred because of a lack of regulatory survellience.
Its not the lack of but the quality of the surveillance that counts.
We are in that most dangerous of all times when ALL of the so called experience out there that "youngsters" rely on, and how otherwise would they know, is of the what I have come to call the "Prince of Wales Syndrome".
"I danced with a man who danced with a girl who danced with the Prince of Wales".
Six Degrees of Separation, heck try about Twenty and you might be getting close.
My question would be how many degrees of separation were there between this pilot and somebody who actually knew of what he was talking about.
It used to be that the regulator had it's share of the cream and for the most part you could get a reasonable rendition of "the word".
Now I suspect for the most part it's the old blind talking to the deaf routine.
As Chucks avers, I know there are some truly professional FOIs out there, but how do those that dont know the difference know the difference?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To anybody ( including but not limited to Watchdog) who does not believe/understand the sorry state of training, surveilance and regulatory buffoonary within the industry I recommend a thorough read of the ATSB report into the C310 crash at Newman WA. which was released last week.
Like that one there are many, many, many accidents just waiting to happen while the responsible regulatory and government organisations pander to the politically influential and aeronautically challenged. Aviation and more specifically training in Australia has become a dangerous joke!
Like that one there are many, many, many accidents just waiting to happen while the responsible regulatory and government organisations pander to the politically influential and aeronautically challenged. Aviation and more specifically training in Australia has become a dangerous joke!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: none of your business
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu Chuckles
You Quote:
"NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!"
"If you kill your aeroplane, yourself and your passengers it is your fault"
What a load of ****! You don't have much faith in pilots do you?
How about some sort of mechanical failure? Broken control cable, jammed elevator e.t.c
I think a job with the ATSB, CASA or the tabloids might suit you better.
Only the pilot at the controls of the aircraft and God, know the whole story. So, stop speculating and for gods sake, stop playing the Martyr!
You Quote:
"NOTHING short of a wing falling off is reason enough for this tradgedy....NOTHING!!!"
"If you kill your aeroplane, yourself and your passengers it is your fault"
What a load of ****! You don't have much faith in pilots do you?
How about some sort of mechanical failure? Broken control cable, jammed elevator e.t.c
I think a job with the ATSB, CASA or the tabloids might suit you better.
Only the pilot at the controls of the aircraft and God, know the whole story. So, stop speculating and for gods sake, stop playing the Martyr!
