You are kidding right? If you don't have the tools and information required, then stay on the god damn ground ! :mad:

Yes, hindsight is wonderful, but it wasn't a 50/50 day kind of day, it was an absolute rat**** of a day, with I'm assuming, an owner/operator with a serious case of get-home-itis as this is a big corporate client - with whom, had he had to remain on the ground, wouldnt look that good for future business from this client ...

Looks worse with dead client employees???

been there, done that!
 

In another life i flew that run for just over 18 months, during those two bloody horrible winters and one glorious summer, lost count of the number of times i "poked my head in and had a look" and got away with it, :sad: albeit with only mail on board. I think "complacency" is the word of the day and it's up to the regulator to decide if that adds up to negligence.

As many have said before me, hopefully someone will take a lesson from this and the countless other "accidents" like it. Next time your standing beside your plane trying to see a way through the murkiness and make a go/no go decision, :bored: stop and have a quick think just how important it is to get there today!:ok:

Pyro
 

Typical commment from some smug 20yo smartarse with no idea! :mad:

Been in many near death experiences have we?

It's entirely possible that just after the accident Jo said that (quoted from a newspaper), and then formed a different opinion later.

From bitter personal experience I can tell you that your thoughts, opinions and emotions will change massively with time after an accident such as this.

DIVOSH!

@Di_Vosh, those opinions will change depending on what you have heard in the media and who you have been hanging around with.

Plovett, How can you not call it a accident? You still call car crashes accidents don't you? People don't go out with the intentions to crash but it happens.
A large amount of people overestimate their abilities and get caught out. That statement can be applied to multiple phases of life.

I'm getting sick of the GA operators passing the buck onto the pilot when they know better. Although as a 63yr old... He should have known better...

No, they are still crashes. Intention has nothing to do with it.

In fact , the word 'accident' has been taken out of police manuals. It is now a crash

Alot of posts on this forum have commented on the fact that this crash was a single engine aircraft.. Um.. there was no engine problem or failure in this crash!
If the pilot involved had been flying a twin with his experience(not IF rated) he prob would have ended up in the exact same situation!
A CFIT accident or a forced put down due weather have nothing to do with how many engines the plane has..
The fact is if IFR was legal SE and the pilots trained accordingly then a large proportion of SE accidents would be eliminated.

From Wikipedia

Accident it was, the circumstances leading to it include gross negligence.

UTR

AHA! the old singleengine V twin argument raises its facile head once again.

The munber of engines in NO WAY contributed to this accident. The fact that it was a single actually diminished the chances of fatal and serious injury.

How much safer is a twin? in theory it should be almost infinitely safer than a single, after, an accident in the event of engine failure, which is extremely small even in a single, should be all but infinitesimally small when you have another engine, so twin accident rate (considering they are mostly flown IFR by professional pilots) should be almost non existant. In fact you are only about 40% les likely to have an accident in a twin BUT about 60% more likely to be killed or injured in the event of an accident.

In this case (the 'accident') the occupants were very fortunate to be in a single, but even more fortunate that they were in a recently designed and certified aircraft that meets much higher safety standards than 99% of the clapped out old twins that cut priced operators run on a shoe string. name me one eight seat twin that flew into the side of a hill and everyone walked out of............................waiting..............

A twin has definite safety advantages in some applications, e.g. at cruise, above SE altitude, clear of terrain and below the FZL. I totally understand where wally comes from, driving a B200. When it comes to actually crashing you are better ina single and Waaaaayyy better in a scarevan than almost anything else I can think of, especially clapped out old 402's.

This operator is using the most appropriate type for the jobs involved in that neck of the woods, he made an investment in two brand new GA8's (I think) and this payed off for him ultimately, because even though there is serious concern surrounding the conduct of this particular flight, which I am sure will absolutely NOT be the result was NCD (no person died) as we say in the tower after an intense period of aerial activity.

Say what you wish about the operator, pilot or circumstances, as is typical on PPrune, usually without ANY knowledge of the actual circumstances, but to attribute the accident to the aircraft type is farcical.

HD

The comment about single engine relates more to the fact that it forces the flight to be VFR (don't start about single engine turbines or singles v multi engine please - it has been done to death on PPRuNe) because if this particular flight had been IFR this thread would not exist. :ugh:

Was there not a 402 parked unintentionally on the side of a mountain at Strahan or Queenstown yonks ago Harley where they walked away? Fading memory and all that.

PLovitt Oh yes, I see what you mean now,

IFR Twins never crash, simple. especially not CFIT accidents in bad weather. never happens, and even if they did no one would ever die, the survivors would all probably win tattslotto the very next week.

Sorry, My Bad,

I still say horses for courses, and if you gonna crash, do it in a Scarevan.


Hi Bri !, Cant recall the accident to which you refer, was more in mind of a few Nevergo's and 402's and metros over more recent times perhaps. I say good luck to anyone who can walk (run) away, done it a few times myself and have always been very happy to get (another) fresh start. Clearly I am VERY slow learner.

HD

Brian & HD, it was a Navajo from memory. Trying to sneak up the King River to get into Queenstown back in the days when there was a low-capacity RPT service there.

HD, sarcasm is not called for. This particular crash was caused by a non-IFR pilot flying into IMC and not having an escape route. An IFR flight would have been climbing through the muck and, yes, there is a way of getting to LSALT out of Lady Barren.

You may well be right about an Airvan's capacity to survive a bingle but preferably, the object of the exercise is to avoid putting yourself in the situation where it is put to the test.

From memory the CFIT 'crash' near Queenstown on the West Coast of Tas was a Bizjets C402B on a let down in IMC using the Strahan NDB. The pilot in the LHS was D-R-Y- K-NN-D-. He had just joined Bizjets and was under supervision on a route endorsement.

I beg to differ PLovett, an IFR flight would never have gotten airborne considering the destination. :ugh:

There has been quite a few Airvan bingles.

Everyone has walked away.

Speaks for the design and justifies those agonizing seats!

Unfortunately, not everyone has!

Airvan, Elcho Island, NT

Surprised he got off the ground in the first place without the prop snapping in half :ouch:

The Strahan accident was a Cessna C402B operated by a company called Bizjets out of Essendon in the late 1970's. The aircraft was on an RPT or Reg 203 flight into Strahan, the PIC was checking a new pilot and the approach was flown incorrectly instead of tracking outbound 300 degrees and then tracking back inbound 120 degrees, the pilot under check flew 120 degrees and flew into hillside. Fortunately no one was injured or killed.

Me old mate with the sim at Essendon used to use that incident as a discussion point for budding IFR pilots on correct tracking and orientation!!