Lake Evella crash findings
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BIK_116.80
Thanks mate.
You identify exactly the confusion that exists in the
Your succint definitions of the difference in common usage and meanings between cultures both local regulatory and profession specific was indeed in that instance the cause for some confusion until we sorted out between us the concept being conveyed.
As you point out a C152 and a Concorde both in that instance carry the "public transport" category tag whilst requiring quite different "performance" requirements.
You might agree that this was one of the factors that had led some to ascribe the same "performance" to the Titan that they were used to in their daily "transport category" lives.
I also think you would agree that the career path to most European airlines is quite different than Oz with a relatively few pilots being exposed to GA in the same way that we are here, hence the understandable confusion.
I have a great respect for the British CAA certification standards, that has seen some of my least favourite types refused certification by them on their dodgy performance.
Perhaps I caused you to misread my post to bushy by my laziness in trying to compress the "public use and "transport category " concepts into a catchall phrase.
No matter you have now made it all the clearer for us all.
And that raises another subject altogether.
Which of the two methods UK v Oz conveys the more "honest", description for the want of a better word, of the service and level of safety provided with out a further qualification to the public.
Perhaps neither, both methods of description studiously avoid the "type certification" monster and all that it brings.
In Oz we perpetuate this matter in the promotion of Part 121B as bringing the little uns to the same standard of "operational" and "maintenance" requirements as the biguns. Whilst I am ecstatic about the removal of the distinctions that existed between charter and LCRPT, I am very uncomfortable with the surrounding regulatory hype, that suggests at least to the public mind, that all is now "equal" between the little uns and the big uns in OZ, because "now the operational and maintenance requirements are the same", when it cannot by definition insofar as type certification be so.
If you and I are having an etymological struggle sorting this out, what chance the Kylie Minogue fans.?
Does this mean that I have to supress these concerns lest I put some AOPA voters offside by trying to protect them from the 21st Century.
I dont think so, I think the more honest view is that it should at least be on the agenda, in the knowledge that there will be positive change and upgrade with the rapid evolution of the new technologies and that they should be prepared for its introduction or become irrelevant.
AOPA should be leading this argument and therefore "controlling or setting the pace" at which this occurs for any given state of evolution. We have some catching up to do as at the moment we have slipped from "proactive" into "reactive" mode.
In my view whilst AOPA must have its members concerns at the forefront, the public and their perception of AOPA as their defacto representative to Government and Regultor will not be served if we are seen to be fighting to preserve "the old ways" at their expense.
It is ever thus, if the public are educated to properly understand the benefits of a new technology or "way" they will pay the money. That cannot be unhealthy for anyone in the industry.
They may grumble a bit but once they get the hang of it they usually can't get enough.
I have said elsewhere here, that I believe the AUF and AOPA are natural allies, both in their respective roles serve the whole community for their different and global interests.
Maybe we need to rethink the whole Regulatory concept between the FAR23 and 25 types and the constituencies they were designed to address rather than try and cobble up regs to make em do things for which they were not intended for a small section of the aviation population which "catches" the larger rest, in a system they neither need nor want.
This is a legitimate role for AOPA and can serve both constituencies (different subgroups here) of its membership in its positive and "proactive" leadership of this debate.
At the very least AOPA must use its resources to frame up the concepts and arguments and then ask the membership where they want us to go, rather than be told what is good for them.
It seems bushy would rather I use the "garlic, cross, wooden stake and burning witches" routine.
Bargger and I promised myself I would be brief
barleyhi
Thank you for that, I enjoyed it and the lesson immensely.
Thanks mate.
You identify exactly the confusion that exists in the
two cultures separated by a common language
As you point out a C152 and a Concorde both in that instance carry the "public transport" category tag whilst requiring quite different "performance" requirements.
You might agree that this was one of the factors that had led some to ascribe the same "performance" to the Titan that they were used to in their daily "transport category" lives.
I also think you would agree that the career path to most European airlines is quite different than Oz with a relatively few pilots being exposed to GA in the same way that we are here, hence the understandable confusion.
I have a great respect for the British CAA certification standards, that has seen some of my least favourite types refused certification by them on their dodgy performance.
Perhaps I caused you to misread my post to bushy by my laziness in trying to compress the "public use and "transport category " concepts into a catchall phrase.
No matter you have now made it all the clearer for us all.
And that raises another subject altogether.
In the UK "public transport" roughly equates to what we in Australia would call "RPT" and also "passenger charter" (and to a lesser extent airwork as well).
Perhaps neither, both methods of description studiously avoid the "type certification" monster and all that it brings.
In Oz we perpetuate this matter in the promotion of Part 121B as bringing the little uns to the same standard of "operational" and "maintenance" requirements as the biguns. Whilst I am ecstatic about the removal of the distinctions that existed between charter and LCRPT, I am very uncomfortable with the surrounding regulatory hype, that suggests at least to the public mind, that all is now "equal" between the little uns and the big uns in OZ, because "now the operational and maintenance requirements are the same", when it cannot by definition insofar as type certification be so.
If you and I are having an etymological struggle sorting this out, what chance the Kylie Minogue fans.?
Does this mean that I have to supress these concerns lest I put some AOPA voters offside by trying to protect them from the 21st Century.
I dont think so, I think the more honest view is that it should at least be on the agenda, in the knowledge that there will be positive change and upgrade with the rapid evolution of the new technologies and that they should be prepared for its introduction or become irrelevant.
AOPA should be leading this argument and therefore "controlling or setting the pace" at which this occurs for any given state of evolution. We have some catching up to do as at the moment we have slipped from "proactive" into "reactive" mode.
In my view whilst AOPA must have its members concerns at the forefront, the public and their perception of AOPA as their defacto representative to Government and Regultor will not be served if we are seen to be fighting to preserve "the old ways" at their expense.
It is ever thus, if the public are educated to properly understand the benefits of a new technology or "way" they will pay the money. That cannot be unhealthy for anyone in the industry.
They may grumble a bit but once they get the hang of it they usually can't get enough.
I have said elsewhere here, that I believe the AUF and AOPA are natural allies, both in their respective roles serve the whole community for their different and global interests.
Maybe we need to rethink the whole Regulatory concept between the FAR23 and 25 types and the constituencies they were designed to address rather than try and cobble up regs to make em do things for which they were not intended for a small section of the aviation population which "catches" the larger rest, in a system they neither need nor want.
This is a legitimate role for AOPA and can serve both constituencies (different subgroups here) of its membership in its positive and "proactive" leadership of this debate.
At the very least AOPA must use its resources to frame up the concepts and arguments and then ask the membership where they want us to go, rather than be told what is good for them.
It seems bushy would rather I use the "garlic, cross, wooden stake and burning witches" routine.
Bargger and I promised myself I would be brief
barleyhi
Thank you for that, I enjoyed it and the lesson immensely.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: ombimob
Posts: 31
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes pilots especially up north are constantly ,I cant say forced but are swayed towards living and working in conditions that most people could not safely conduct a paper round from.
They are made to push the limits during a "normal" working day
in regards of weather duty times fuel and weight factors not to mention a/c servicability then there is unagreeable customers and sometimes vilent pax , oh yea and thats on 100-400 bucks a week if you are lucky after your employer has just made you go and tend to the garden in your spare time between flights . Pilot error ? pull you head out of its favorite place ! i had better go my bp is rising.
They are made to push the limits during a "normal" working day
in regards of weather duty times fuel and weight factors not to mention a/c servicability then there is unagreeable customers and sometimes vilent pax , oh yea and thats on 100-400 bucks a week if you are lucky after your employer has just made you go and tend to the garden in your spare time between flights . Pilot error ? pull you head out of its favorite place ! i had better go my bp is rising.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
drexel - this is where a good chief pilot can make a difference. For this job a backbone is required and in some ways an actual large physical presence is required.
Not in any way critcsm on the former CP in question, he's a lovely chap that gave time and hope to newcommers. I'm just speaking from my experience and stories from other mates.
CP's keep operators and pilots in check. A good positive organisation will have more of a safety culture than a negative one. Operators that do the right thing reap the rewards - pilots are likely to go the extra yard to get the job done. The others? - you can't imagine what is done and this is a fine example. Every time you **** on your employee he will **** on you back I tell you. Think before you speak/act. Disrespect for the machine, the operator and sadly it cost a life.
Noone expects to get rich out of GA - they just ask to be treated normally.
Not in any way critcsm on the former CP in question, he's a lovely chap that gave time and hope to newcommers. I'm just speaking from my experience and stories from other mates.
CP's keep operators and pilots in check. A good positive organisation will have more of a safety culture than a negative one. Operators that do the right thing reap the rewards - pilots are likely to go the extra yard to get the job done. The others? - you can't imagine what is done and this is a fine example. Every time you **** on your employee he will **** on you back I tell you. Think before you speak/act. Disrespect for the machine, the operator and sadly it cost a life.
Noone expects to get rich out of GA - they just ask to be treated normally.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is only ONE person who will ever know exactly what went on after VH-BBI took off from Lake Evella on 4th February 2001. Unfortunately all the rest of us (the family, the friends, the “expert” eye witnesses and aviation experts) can do is merely speculate. The truth will never be known and no one will ever be certain why BBI crashed.
It is just tragic that it takes an event like this to happen, and the death of a young guy, to bring to light many issues concerning GA, ATSB and CASA. There is much to be said about the charter company involved with this accident. Their two pilot fatalities and few near misses in a short period of time are surely enough statistics to raise many safety concerns.
The fact that ATSB came to the decision not to attend the crash site only hours after the accident occurred has been reported as Australia's fastest air crash investigation in history. They had come to their conclusion not long after the family of the deceased had been notified, and before any police had even attended the scene.
SPLATR says that the Coroner should “realise that the ATSB does not work for them, and that they have a responsibility to conduct their own thorough investigation”. Given the fact that it takes many years for a Coronial Inquiry to be heard, who then is responsible for the initial investigation? It seems that no one wants the responsibility! I take my hat off to Sgt Burness of the NT Police for his investigative role in the crash of BBI. However it would have been more comforting for the police if they had had the support of the ATSB. They are the experts in this field aren’t they?
MAINFRAME refers to the Inquest and the fact that all parents want to do is blame everyone except their child for the crash . I am positive that ANY parent would want to find out WHY their child is no longer alive today. And if there is anything they can do to prevent other parents from going through the emotional torture they have been through, then of course they are going to pursue an inquest. If it saves another young pilots life and lifts the standards of General Aviation and the bodies who govern it, then surely their pursuit is only a positive one. Inevitably there is going to be emotion involved, they are human after all, and they have just lost a child. Also when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding the accident and if you were in the given situation then I am sure you would so the same.
STREWTH makes the point about what is a real senior pilot? Despite the fact that the pilot in question was known as senior base pilot at the Lake, all it was was merely a title. It came with it no extra pay or benefits, and definitely no extra respect from the company. He still lived in sub standard accommodation which believe it or not he had to pay rent to the company for. If it weren’t for the lucrative side business of selling cigarettes to the local community members, the Pilots at Lake Evella would not have survived financially. I guess young pilots are prepared to sacrifice living and working conditions momentarily until they have the opportunity to move onto bigger and better things. The company obviously knew that and took advantage of the situation. If these boys didn’t take the job, then the next guy waiting in line would have.
Mr Hat refers to the people who removed the deceased from the wreckage and suggested that viewing the carnage should be recommended viewing for “operators who have lost a grip on reality”. Perhaps the operators should have visited the site immediately after the accident, but the fact of the matter is they didn’t.
Perhaps they didn’t think it important?
Perhaps it would have cost too much money?
Perhaps it took too long to fly from Adelaide to the Lake?
Perhaps it was just all too much of an inconvenience. Just like it was too much of an inconvenience to collect the belongings of the deceased and return them to the family.
The Gapuwiyak community however were genuinely sincere and gave Rob a very moving send off where he was “loved out of the community” with a traditional Aboriginal Ceremony.
This writer only hopes these tragic circumstances never happen to YOU or anyone else that you know. I would never wish anyone the heartache of waiting two long years for an inquest, dealing with the system, or waiting for people to return phone calls and shuffle paper in order to get some answers and find out why it all occurred. I would never wish anyone the pain of watching their parents doing something they never envisaged doing in their lifetime, and that is to bury their own child.
It is just tragic that it takes an event like this to happen, and the death of a young guy, to bring to light many issues concerning GA, ATSB and CASA. There is much to be said about the charter company involved with this accident. Their two pilot fatalities and few near misses in a short period of time are surely enough statistics to raise many safety concerns.
The fact that ATSB came to the decision not to attend the crash site only hours after the accident occurred has been reported as Australia's fastest air crash investigation in history. They had come to their conclusion not long after the family of the deceased had been notified, and before any police had even attended the scene.
SPLATR says that the Coroner should “realise that the ATSB does not work for them, and that they have a responsibility to conduct their own thorough investigation”. Given the fact that it takes many years for a Coronial Inquiry to be heard, who then is responsible for the initial investigation? It seems that no one wants the responsibility! I take my hat off to Sgt Burness of the NT Police for his investigative role in the crash of BBI. However it would have been more comforting for the police if they had had the support of the ATSB. They are the experts in this field aren’t they?
MAINFRAME refers to the Inquest and the fact that all parents want to do is blame everyone except their child for the crash . I am positive that ANY parent would want to find out WHY their child is no longer alive today. And if there is anything they can do to prevent other parents from going through the emotional torture they have been through, then of course they are going to pursue an inquest. If it saves another young pilots life and lifts the standards of General Aviation and the bodies who govern it, then surely their pursuit is only a positive one. Inevitably there is going to be emotion involved, they are human after all, and they have just lost a child. Also when there are so many unanswered questions surrounding the accident and if you were in the given situation then I am sure you would so the same.
STREWTH makes the point about what is a real senior pilot? Despite the fact that the pilot in question was known as senior base pilot at the Lake, all it was was merely a title. It came with it no extra pay or benefits, and definitely no extra respect from the company. He still lived in sub standard accommodation which believe it or not he had to pay rent to the company for. If it weren’t for the lucrative side business of selling cigarettes to the local community members, the Pilots at Lake Evella would not have survived financially. I guess young pilots are prepared to sacrifice living and working conditions momentarily until they have the opportunity to move onto bigger and better things. The company obviously knew that and took advantage of the situation. If these boys didn’t take the job, then the next guy waiting in line would have.
Mr Hat refers to the people who removed the deceased from the wreckage and suggested that viewing the carnage should be recommended viewing for “operators who have lost a grip on reality”. Perhaps the operators should have visited the site immediately after the accident, but the fact of the matter is they didn’t.
Perhaps they didn’t think it important?
Perhaps it would have cost too much money?
Perhaps it took too long to fly from Adelaide to the Lake?
Perhaps it was just all too much of an inconvenience. Just like it was too much of an inconvenience to collect the belongings of the deceased and return them to the family.
The Gapuwiyak community however were genuinely sincere and gave Rob a very moving send off where he was “loved out of the community” with a traditional Aboriginal Ceremony.
This writer only hopes these tragic circumstances never happen to YOU or anyone else that you know. I would never wish anyone the heartache of waiting two long years for an inquest, dealing with the system, or waiting for people to return phone calls and shuffle paper in order to get some answers and find out why it all occurred. I would never wish anyone the pain of watching their parents doing something they never envisaged doing in their lifetime, and that is to bury their own child.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lilsis,
from where i stand there has never been anything but heart felt sorrow for the family involved.
When you refer to "tragic Cirmustances", hopefully you are not refering to the actual accident, in my opinion this, in the main did not happen due to poor management or ****ty aircraft, somebody did something very silly before it cost him his life, period.
from where i stand there has never been anything but heart felt sorrow for the family involved.
When you refer to "tragic Cirmustances", hopefully you are not refering to the actual accident, in my opinion this, in the main did not happen due to poor management or ****ty aircraft, somebody did something very silly before it cost him his life, period.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lilsis
Whilst I am staggered, mortified and disgusted by that revelation, I have to say that sadly I am not surprised.
I don't know who the operator was, but if what you say is correct then he/they should be damned to hell forever.
I have had the misfortune to have only lost one crew member in a perfectly serviceable aircraft, he was not performing "aeros" and we believe got caught on short finals by a willy willy. The file after 30 odd years is still open, but, we were at the site 750 nm away, within the time it took to round up one of the fleet and fly there.
I carry that sight and the thought of his family and children with me still.
Please accept my personal apologies for their unforgiveable behaviour and deepest sympathy at the loss of Big Bro with the consolation that he was “loved out of the community” in a truly sincere fashion.
Mr Hat refers to the people who removed the deceased from the wreckage and suggested that viewing the carnage should be recommended viewing for “operators who have lost a grip on reality”. Perhaps the operators should have visited the site immediately after the accident, but the fact of the matter is they didn’t.
Perhaps they didn’t think it important?
Perhaps it would have cost too much money?
Perhaps it took too long to fly from Adelaide to the Lake?
Perhaps it was just all too much of an inconvenience. Just like it was too much of an inconvenience to collect the belongings of the deceased and return them to the family.
The Gapuwiyak community however were genuinely sincere and gave Rob a very moving send off where he was “loved out of the community” with a traditional Aboriginal Ceremony.
Perhaps they didn’t think it important?
Perhaps it would have cost too much money?
Perhaps it took too long to fly from Adelaide to the Lake?
Perhaps it was just all too much of an inconvenience. Just like it was too much of an inconvenience to collect the belongings of the deceased and return them to the family.
The Gapuwiyak community however were genuinely sincere and gave Rob a very moving send off where he was “loved out of the community” with a traditional Aboriginal Ceremony.
I don't know who the operator was, but if what you say is correct then he/they should be damned to hell forever.
I have had the misfortune to have only lost one crew member in a perfectly serviceable aircraft, he was not performing "aeros" and we believe got caught on short finals by a willy willy. The file after 30 odd years is still open, but, we were at the site 750 nm away, within the time it took to round up one of the fleet and fly there.
I carry that sight and the thought of his family and children with me still.
Please accept my personal apologies for their unforgiveable behaviour and deepest sympathy at the loss of Big Bro with the consolation that he was “loved out of the community” in a truly sincere fashion.
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: aus
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gaunty,sadly it was true from what I have also been told and I also would hope that this sort of gut wrenching and unacceptable attitude from an operator does not happen again.
It is obvious that the deceased's family is aware of this post and for that reason I feel that posts such as LRT's is kept at a minimum for their respect,I feel your view has been quite obvious....tragic circumstance it was....tragic meaning "sad"...circumstance meaning "event",quite simple really.
It is obvious that the deceased's family is aware of this post and for that reason I feel that posts such as LRT's is kept at a minimum for their respect,I feel your view has been quite obvious....tragic circumstance it was....tragic meaning "sad"...circumstance meaning "event",quite simple really.
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 2,382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only way we can pay our respects and outline our condolences is to pull people aside that are contemplating tricks in aeroplanes and give them a talking to. This ain't a game. I'm making my feelings clear on the matter.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As Robert’s Family we think that we know him best & here are some points we
wish to put forward. Thank you all for your comments and assistance in this terrible time as it has helped us to see what you feel.
We know he was no ANGEL (but is now), and would have put himself and
machine to the test, sometime near the limit, but he was not an idiot.
The senior base pilot tag was as to be in charge of the new pilot and act
as ICUS, to show him the ropes and make sure he could navigate visually and using
instruments, and NOT having to rely upon the GPS.
What you must all understand is that our original advice on the cause of
the crash was "mechanical failure”. This was changed to "pilot error” upon
our arrival in Darwin the next day. We could not comprehend the news
broadcast on the television that evening and the print media the next day stating “WINGOVER"and stunt flying. It was thought unusual that the cause of the crash was available so soon after it happening, knowing the ATSB had not visited the site nor interviewed eye witnesses. All media releases were handled by The Operations Manager of the charter company, and at no stage in the four days we were in Darwin were we contacted or interviewed by any journalist or Police, nor did we sanctioned use of any photographs printed or shown. We realise that now in similar circumstances the media no longer report in this manner and I refer you to the new type of media coverage as shown in
the Groote Island and Hamilton Island incidents. The pilots name is not mentioned and unauthorised photos are not released. One little step of progress for the grieving Family.
Our family at this time had no reason to doubt that an investigation would be held by an approved body duly appointed. There were some concerns
expressed to us by other pilots, and these were communicated to the Coroner and ATSB on our return to NSW. At no time did we form an opinion that Robert was an innocent victim, nor look for scapegoats, or hide behind technicalities to try and get out of our obligations.
What happened on the 4th February 2001 will NEVER be known because the Inquest was unable to determine it. During the inquest it was not able to determine what actually happened as the witnesses were either not actually looking, unable to recall or not able to give an answer. (I guess this is inevitable when Inquest take so long to be heard). But it was a fact that there was no prior discussion of a show, no discussing any display, and what was attempted was not a wingover as ATSB had said but an involuntary stall. The reasons for it will never be known, for the one who does know cannot talk in his defence.
The ATSB chose to make a decision as to the cause within THREE HOURS of the event, and then decided not to attend the scene or give any explanations as to why they came to the conclusions they did. The failure of ATSB not to attend the Inquest meant that their decisions could not be examined. CASA allowed the company to operate the business under another company’s AOC for three years before the crash, and only suspended the licence because the company was going into liquidation and the AOC was up for renewal.
The company gave evidence that nothing about the running of the business under the new AOC had changed except a new Chief Pilot had been appointed. This has to be questionable considering all the proposed changes to be made according to CASA. When you talk of working conditions and pay there will always be the unscrupulous ones who try and cut corners and costs, including maintenance etc, screw the staff (not literally but financially), ignore the rules and run risks, all for a bigger profit for themselves. It is only by a large number of people contacting the relevant people that things will be made to change and stop companies from operating this way. It is only you that can achieve this.
The decision of ATSB and CASA not to investigate the accident is regretted, but fortunately due to a push from us ALL fatal accidents are now investigated, and the family is involved. If ATSB had been involved and assisted the police, the right questions and answers may have been available earlier. Police are experts at car crashes not aircraft. In saying that though, Sgt Burness did an excellent job. We had no contact with a police officer, CASA or the ATSB relating the accident. We took it upon ourselves to make written contact to the ATSB with no luck in receiving a response. When we then tried to obtain a copy of the ATSB report on the accident we were denied a copy as we weren’t even listed on there “interested parties” list. The fact is the ATSB did not realise we existed, they didn’t realise Robert actually had a family. Trying to gather any information from CASA or ATSB proved difficult. They wanted to charge us $15000 for the privilege under the Freedom of Information Act.
Evidence was given at the inquest and at times witnesses tended to not remember, or be unsure and vague on specific points but certain and positive about selective items. The workings of the stall warning device and its serviceability etc took up a lot of the time during the inquest. Are you aware that one of the pilots had played a trick on the pilot a few days before the accident where he placed a rock under the reed in the stall warning and when the pilot starts the aircraft the stall warning goes off and the pilot then has to get out and fix it. Big Joke! He is now a Chief Pilot. So what happens in Arnhem Land stays in Arnhem Land. He must have forgotten about this theory momentarily? Similar time was spent on the conversation between the pilots prior to Robert taking off in BBI. It was an important point, but the witnesses were not totally sure of the conversation.
Hours were spent on the angle and rate of climb/ascent. Some of the witness statements were not cross examined but their evidence was relied upon in the outcome. It was clear though from witnesses that were cross examined that what that had reported initially in their statement and what they indicated in the court room were not the same thing.
One aspect the family thought strange was the fact there was no fire after impact, giving rise to the amount of fuel on board. The previous pilot of BBI was unable to recall his movements on the day of the accident (where he had flown, when and how much fuel loaded). The only information available was a piece of paper with some
blurred figures he saw after two years. Apparently there was blood on the paper and “someone” had tried to wipe it off? The amount of fuel and its displacement could not be accurately determined.
The aircraft wreckage was sold within weeks of the crash and any evidence was allowed to be removed from the wreckage. This hampered the investigation. The relevant parts were not able to be inspected until some months later or not at all. Any evidence to support any theory was unfortunately either destroyed or unavailable because of crash damage or no early professional inspections. We finally had a chance to meet with ATSB in October of 2001 where we discussed many points, and one of those being the use of parts from damaged aircraft for other aircraft. They were dismayed to learn that parts from BBI were used from the engine even after the impact suffered during the crash. They were advised this was the law and they allowed it to happen. Now however the wreckage is buried
and not reused. A comforting thought.
In reply to "bushy" and "gaunty", according to the maintenance release the aircraft engine had almost 10100 hrs whilst the prop had 900+. Your theory is that if these aircraft were looked after by the pilots they would last longer. So if the aircraft is subject to a lot of "antics" by young pilots who practice manoeuvres whilst just stooging around will not last as ones that haven’t done this type of flying. The flying done by present (at the time)pilots and previous pilots before them in BBI and other aircraft, similar to that admitted to in the inquest, could mean the service life of the aircraft was decreased. Those circumstances could have caused old BBI to get tired at the wrong time. Shortcuts on maintenance would not help. Young pilots should think about their actions when attempting this type of flying because it could be them or their mate on board next time. I fully understand the financial reasons and implications as to why aircraft of this age are being used. For with newer planes the costs are higher which leads to less profit and less jobs etc.
One final thing...Whilst trying to tie up loose ends we contacted the employer about Roberts final pay. Their answer was I‘m sorry we can’t do anything because "he hasn’t filled in his time sheet". They considered our efforts in obtaining information required to finalise bank accounts and superannuation etc as harassment and thus chose not to respond.
Thank You
wish to put forward. Thank you all for your comments and assistance in this terrible time as it has helped us to see what you feel.
We know he was no ANGEL (but is now), and would have put himself and
machine to the test, sometime near the limit, but he was not an idiot.
The senior base pilot tag was as to be in charge of the new pilot and act
as ICUS, to show him the ropes and make sure he could navigate visually and using
instruments, and NOT having to rely upon the GPS.
What you must all understand is that our original advice on the cause of
the crash was "mechanical failure”. This was changed to "pilot error” upon
our arrival in Darwin the next day. We could not comprehend the news
broadcast on the television that evening and the print media the next day stating “WINGOVER"and stunt flying. It was thought unusual that the cause of the crash was available so soon after it happening, knowing the ATSB had not visited the site nor interviewed eye witnesses. All media releases were handled by The Operations Manager of the charter company, and at no stage in the four days we were in Darwin were we contacted or interviewed by any journalist or Police, nor did we sanctioned use of any photographs printed or shown. We realise that now in similar circumstances the media no longer report in this manner and I refer you to the new type of media coverage as shown in
the Groote Island and Hamilton Island incidents. The pilots name is not mentioned and unauthorised photos are not released. One little step of progress for the grieving Family.
Our family at this time had no reason to doubt that an investigation would be held by an approved body duly appointed. There were some concerns
expressed to us by other pilots, and these were communicated to the Coroner and ATSB on our return to NSW. At no time did we form an opinion that Robert was an innocent victim, nor look for scapegoats, or hide behind technicalities to try and get out of our obligations.
What happened on the 4th February 2001 will NEVER be known because the Inquest was unable to determine it. During the inquest it was not able to determine what actually happened as the witnesses were either not actually looking, unable to recall or not able to give an answer. (I guess this is inevitable when Inquest take so long to be heard). But it was a fact that there was no prior discussion of a show, no discussing any display, and what was attempted was not a wingover as ATSB had said but an involuntary stall. The reasons for it will never be known, for the one who does know cannot talk in his defence.
The ATSB chose to make a decision as to the cause within THREE HOURS of the event, and then decided not to attend the scene or give any explanations as to why they came to the conclusions they did. The failure of ATSB not to attend the Inquest meant that their decisions could not be examined. CASA allowed the company to operate the business under another company’s AOC for three years before the crash, and only suspended the licence because the company was going into liquidation and the AOC was up for renewal.
The company gave evidence that nothing about the running of the business under the new AOC had changed except a new Chief Pilot had been appointed. This has to be questionable considering all the proposed changes to be made according to CASA. When you talk of working conditions and pay there will always be the unscrupulous ones who try and cut corners and costs, including maintenance etc, screw the staff (not literally but financially), ignore the rules and run risks, all for a bigger profit for themselves. It is only by a large number of people contacting the relevant people that things will be made to change and stop companies from operating this way. It is only you that can achieve this.
The decision of ATSB and CASA not to investigate the accident is regretted, but fortunately due to a push from us ALL fatal accidents are now investigated, and the family is involved. If ATSB had been involved and assisted the police, the right questions and answers may have been available earlier. Police are experts at car crashes not aircraft. In saying that though, Sgt Burness did an excellent job. We had no contact with a police officer, CASA or the ATSB relating the accident. We took it upon ourselves to make written contact to the ATSB with no luck in receiving a response. When we then tried to obtain a copy of the ATSB report on the accident we were denied a copy as we weren’t even listed on there “interested parties” list. The fact is the ATSB did not realise we existed, they didn’t realise Robert actually had a family. Trying to gather any information from CASA or ATSB proved difficult. They wanted to charge us $15000 for the privilege under the Freedom of Information Act.
Evidence was given at the inquest and at times witnesses tended to not remember, or be unsure and vague on specific points but certain and positive about selective items. The workings of the stall warning device and its serviceability etc took up a lot of the time during the inquest. Are you aware that one of the pilots had played a trick on the pilot a few days before the accident where he placed a rock under the reed in the stall warning and when the pilot starts the aircraft the stall warning goes off and the pilot then has to get out and fix it. Big Joke! He is now a Chief Pilot. So what happens in Arnhem Land stays in Arnhem Land. He must have forgotten about this theory momentarily? Similar time was spent on the conversation between the pilots prior to Robert taking off in BBI. It was an important point, but the witnesses were not totally sure of the conversation.
Hours were spent on the angle and rate of climb/ascent. Some of the witness statements were not cross examined but their evidence was relied upon in the outcome. It was clear though from witnesses that were cross examined that what that had reported initially in their statement and what they indicated in the court room were not the same thing.
One aspect the family thought strange was the fact there was no fire after impact, giving rise to the amount of fuel on board. The previous pilot of BBI was unable to recall his movements on the day of the accident (where he had flown, when and how much fuel loaded). The only information available was a piece of paper with some
blurred figures he saw after two years. Apparently there was blood on the paper and “someone” had tried to wipe it off? The amount of fuel and its displacement could not be accurately determined.
The aircraft wreckage was sold within weeks of the crash and any evidence was allowed to be removed from the wreckage. This hampered the investigation. The relevant parts were not able to be inspected until some months later or not at all. Any evidence to support any theory was unfortunately either destroyed or unavailable because of crash damage or no early professional inspections. We finally had a chance to meet with ATSB in October of 2001 where we discussed many points, and one of those being the use of parts from damaged aircraft for other aircraft. They were dismayed to learn that parts from BBI were used from the engine even after the impact suffered during the crash. They were advised this was the law and they allowed it to happen. Now however the wreckage is buried
and not reused. A comforting thought.
In reply to "bushy" and "gaunty", according to the maintenance release the aircraft engine had almost 10100 hrs whilst the prop had 900+. Your theory is that if these aircraft were looked after by the pilots they would last longer. So if the aircraft is subject to a lot of "antics" by young pilots who practice manoeuvres whilst just stooging around will not last as ones that haven’t done this type of flying. The flying done by present (at the time)pilots and previous pilots before them in BBI and other aircraft, similar to that admitted to in the inquest, could mean the service life of the aircraft was decreased. Those circumstances could have caused old BBI to get tired at the wrong time. Shortcuts on maintenance would not help. Young pilots should think about their actions when attempting this type of flying because it could be them or their mate on board next time. I fully understand the financial reasons and implications as to why aircraft of this age are being used. For with newer planes the costs are higher which leads to less profit and less jobs etc.
One final thing...Whilst trying to tie up loose ends we contacted the employer about Roberts final pay. Their answer was I‘m sorry we can’t do anything because "he hasn’t filled in his time sheet". They considered our efforts in obtaining information required to finalise bank accounts and superannuation etc as harassment and thus chose not to respond.
Thank You
Grandpa Aerotart
Papa I met Robert when he was in Darwin...my aircraft was online at the same company but has not been since early last year.
He was a great kid and you should be proud of him and the job you did raising him.
He was highly regarded by all who knew him...that's a fact not a platitude. I was more than happy to have him fly my aircraft.
Brgds to you and your family.
Chuck.
He was a great kid and you should be proud of him and the job you did raising him.
He was highly regarded by all who knew him...that's a fact not a platitude. I was more than happy to have him fly my aircraft.
Brgds to you and your family.
Chuck.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lilsis and Papa - Well done for getting on line and explaining how Rob's accident and the surrounding issues really were/are. It's easy for everyone to speculate, but as you say there is 'only one person' who would be able to tell what happened that day, but unfortunately his beautiful soul and lovable presence is unable to do so.
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower - I have bitten my tongue thus far - not anymore - " I hope you never lose someone who is close to you in such tragic circumstances and have to read such SPECULATIONS as you have posted. Were you there at the time of the accident? - NO! " Which once again takes me back to the 'speculations' scenario. It's easy to sit at arms length and tap away at the keys till your heart's content, but has that heart ever lost someone precious? Consider the family and friends who have!
Rob enjoyed his time at Lake Evella and talked often of the many friends and extended family he made whilst there. His life was full of adventure and he crammed so very much into that short life. You hear people say " He wouldn't have wanted to go any other way " and I have to agree, but for his family to have to endure the lies, deceit, manipulations and speculations over the last couple of years has only made the grieving process all the more difficult. This family have been a tower of strength to those who knew and loved Rob, even in their darkest moments they have drawn on a strength from only God knows where, to ensure everyone else is "doing ok" For that, I thank them - it has helped me in ways no-one could ever understand or appreciate.
Finishing up - How about the author's of the speculative posts be mindful of this beautiful family who are doing everything in their power to move forward as best they can. It's not a big ask and I feel that any of you who knew Rob, would know this would be what he'd want for his family.
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower - I have bitten my tongue thus far - not anymore - " I hope you never lose someone who is close to you in such tragic circumstances and have to read such SPECULATIONS as you have posted. Were you there at the time of the accident? - NO! " Which once again takes me back to the 'speculations' scenario. It's easy to sit at arms length and tap away at the keys till your heart's content, but has that heart ever lost someone precious? Consider the family and friends who have!
Rob enjoyed his time at Lake Evella and talked often of the many friends and extended family he made whilst there. His life was full of adventure and he crammed so very much into that short life. You hear people say " He wouldn't have wanted to go any other way " and I have to agree, but for his family to have to endure the lies, deceit, manipulations and speculations over the last couple of years has only made the grieving process all the more difficult. This family have been a tower of strength to those who knew and loved Rob, even in their darkest moments they have drawn on a strength from only God knows where, to ensure everyone else is "doing ok" For that, I thank them - it has helped me in ways no-one could ever understand or appreciate.
Finishing up - How about the author's of the speculative posts be mindful of this beautiful family who are doing everything in their power to move forward as best they can. It's not a big ask and I feel that any of you who knew Rob, would know this would be what he'd want for his family.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watta,
as previously stated i feel nothing but heart felt sorrow for the family invoved and honestly hope they find closure and can move on from this horrific event.
PPRUNE is in my eyes not considered to be a location that families will be able to console their loss, it is a place where people working in the aviation industry come to debate topics relating to their industry.
There is alot of wisdom in the words of MAINFRAME a couple of pages back, ( if MAINFRAME is who i think he is ) he was the CP of a company that lost a pilot and 5 passengers in an accident of a similar nature, read his post again in a year or so.
If i was in your position i would respond in the exact same manner, i'd want answers, and fair enough too.
to someone who is not emotionally involved it seems reasonably clear cut what happened, if you wish to understand what it is that makes you and I have different outlooks please call me on 0428 241 105.
This may be hard to understand, but this topic alone will save lives, what has been discussed here has been read by many young aviators and i am sure it has made a positive impact.
as previously stated i feel nothing but heart felt sorrow for the family invoved and honestly hope they find closure and can move on from this horrific event.
PPRUNE is in my eyes not considered to be a location that families will be able to console their loss, it is a place where people working in the aviation industry come to debate topics relating to their industry.
There is alot of wisdom in the words of MAINFRAME a couple of pages back, ( if MAINFRAME is who i think he is ) he was the CP of a company that lost a pilot and 5 passengers in an accident of a similar nature, read his post again in a year or so.
If i was in your position i would respond in the exact same manner, i'd want answers, and fair enough too.
to someone who is not emotionally involved it seems reasonably clear cut what happened, if you wish to understand what it is that makes you and I have different outlooks please call me on 0428 241 105.
This may be hard to understand, but this topic alone will save lives, what has been discussed here has been read by many young aviators and i am sure it has made a positive impact.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
L_H_R,
Firstly, PPRUNE is an open site and access is not only to those within the Aviation Industry, hence mine and many others' posts. If we feel the need to post our opinions expressing the loss of a family member / friend / colleague etc. who WAS in the Aviation Industry it is our right to express our opinion, regardless of how YOU see it.
I fail to see what difference reading MAINFRAME's post will make today, or in one year's time or in five years time for that matter. It is also in your eyes that you see his words as 'words of wisdom'
You say, if you were in my position you would respond in the exact same manner - lets hope you don't have to go through similar circumstances. Perhaps then you may understand where I am coming from in regard to my original post
The answers regarding Rob's inquest have been brought forward and that is that, but as you are aware, my original post was extended not to say whether Rob was right, wrong or otherwise, but to bring to people's attention that there ARE people outside of the Aviation Industry (i.e family) who read these posts and to be mindful of them.
You say "to someone who is not emotionally involved it seems reasonably clear what happened" - once again that is your opinion (speculation). I hardly see what phoning you to discuss our different outlooks would make, we both are obviously pretty set in our ideas and my post came from a genuine, caring place - my heart, not my ego!
I do agree that the discussion of this topic will save lives and be read by many young aviators as well as Non-Aviators. It seems that alot have formed their opinions and so be it - everyone has the right to their own opinion - but once again please be mindful of Rob's family.
Firstly, PPRUNE is an open site and access is not only to those within the Aviation Industry, hence mine and many others' posts. If we feel the need to post our opinions expressing the loss of a family member / friend / colleague etc. who WAS in the Aviation Industry it is our right to express our opinion, regardless of how YOU see it.
I fail to see what difference reading MAINFRAME's post will make today, or in one year's time or in five years time for that matter. It is also in your eyes that you see his words as 'words of wisdom'
You say, if you were in my position you would respond in the exact same manner - lets hope you don't have to go through similar circumstances. Perhaps then you may understand where I am coming from in regard to my original post
The answers regarding Rob's inquest have been brought forward and that is that, but as you are aware, my original post was extended not to say whether Rob was right, wrong or otherwise, but to bring to people's attention that there ARE people outside of the Aviation Industry (i.e family) who read these posts and to be mindful of them.
You say "to someone who is not emotionally involved it seems reasonably clear what happened" - once again that is your opinion (speculation). I hardly see what phoning you to discuss our different outlooks would make, we both are obviously pretty set in our ideas and my post came from a genuine, caring place - my heart, not my ego!
I do agree that the discussion of this topic will save lives and be read by many young aviators as well as Non-Aviators. It seems that alot have formed their opinions and so be it - everyone has the right to their own opinion - but once again please be mindful of Rob's family.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watta,
You're entitled to your opinion.
Again to the family, nothing but heart felt sorrow.
i can not see why this topic should be made more digestable for easier viewing, read the coroners report, why didn't ATSB conduct a million dollar investigation, why would the pilots at the event possibly not have clearer recollections of the time leading upto and including the event, why would the company elect not to confront/console the bereved family( i feel this was very very wrong ).
these are all questions that have to be answered for yourself, soon enough a picture will be presented where all the answer lead to the same conclusion.
Having delt with CASA and the ATSB in the past has led me to see them as experienced people that have a very hard job, when parties, usually bereved, disagree with their findings or actions, it is automatically suggested that CASA and\or ATSB are wrong or incapable of the task at hand. This is not fair, i wouldn't want their job.
Watta, i agree to disagree for the sake of ending this, i'm sure the family wishes to see the end of it.
You're entitled to your opinion.
Again to the family, nothing but heart felt sorrow.
i can not see why this topic should be made more digestable for easier viewing, read the coroners report, why didn't ATSB conduct a million dollar investigation, why would the pilots at the event possibly not have clearer recollections of the time leading upto and including the event, why would the company elect not to confront/console the bereved family( i feel this was very very wrong ).
these are all questions that have to be answered for yourself, soon enough a picture will be presented where all the answer lead to the same conclusion.
Having delt with CASA and the ATSB in the past has led me to see them as experienced people that have a very hard job, when parties, usually bereved, disagree with their findings or actions, it is automatically suggested that CASA and\or ATSB are wrong or incapable of the task at hand. This is not fair, i wouldn't want their job.
Watta, i agree to disagree for the sake of ending this, i'm sure the family wishes to see the end of it.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LEFT HANDED ROCK THROWER I don’t want you or any other persons to “soften” their responses for the sake of those who may be viewing the site. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I’ve heard all the scenarios before therefore nothing is really going to shock me, so go ahead. I look forward to the “picture” being “presented where all the answers lead to the same conclusion”.
You asked “why didn’t ATSB conduct a million dollar investigation”? Something I’d like to know as well. Why did the ATSB decide not to conduct an investigation only a few hours after the accident happened and before the police had attended the scene or any witnesses interviewed. Who did they speak to? What did they base their decision on? You were obviously very lucky with your own personal dealings with CASA and the ATSB as there is no way I could form the opinion of them that you have. Perhaps if the ATSB had responded to the summons for the Inquest we would have had the opportunity to find out answers to our all questions. Unfortunately as they seemed to go underground and be unavailable for the inquest we were denied this right. I agree with you that I wouldn’t want their job, however they have a job to carry out appropriately. If they dealt with the grieving family sincerely, or perhaps if they even acknowledged their existence, then families would probably see them in a better light.
You asked “why didn’t ATSB conduct a million dollar investigation”? Something I’d like to know as well. Why did the ATSB decide not to conduct an investigation only a few hours after the accident happened and before the police had attended the scene or any witnesses interviewed. Who did they speak to? What did they base their decision on? You were obviously very lucky with your own personal dealings with CASA and the ATSB as there is no way I could form the opinion of them that you have. Perhaps if the ATSB had responded to the summons for the Inquest we would have had the opportunity to find out answers to our all questions. Unfortunately as they seemed to go underground and be unavailable for the inquest we were denied this right. I agree with you that I wouldn’t want their job, however they have a job to carry out appropriately. If they dealt with the grieving family sincerely, or perhaps if they even acknowledged their existence, then families would probably see them in a better light.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Perth
Posts: 841
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For interest folks the ATSB Final Report has been posted on the 11DEC03.
go to www.atsb.gov.au then rattle through to aviation then final reports.
go to www.atsb.gov.au then rattle through to aviation then final reports.
Last edited by Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower; 14th Dec 2003 at 19:39.
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-BBI
Is this the same 210 that was forced landed on the beach in Sydney late 80's, early 90's?.
Landed on the water and surfed into and did a 180 on the beach. I have photo's some where. Back then is was yellow and brown striped.
Any confirmations?
Dog
Landed on the water and surfed into and did a 180 on the beach. I have photo's some where. Back then is was yellow and brown striped.
Any confirmations?
Dog
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Qld,Aust
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The report seems fairly accurate without going into any of the side issues. the only thing that bugs me a little is
I don't think that this was ever established.
I hope this issue can be laid to rest
Yakka
"the pilot had indicated his intention to conduct a low pass over the runway after takeoff"
I hope this issue can be laid to rest
Yakka
