2 dead in Vic NW of Melb at Wallup
 

Heraldsun.com.au



UPDATE 10pm: TWO people are dead and another is in a critical condition after a light plane crash near the western Victorian town of Wallup tonight.

Police said a man and a woman were killed in the crash. Another woman is being airlifted to a hospital in Melbourne.*

SES, police and CFA crews started searching the area, located 340km northwest of Melbourne, at about 6.30pm after a local farmer reported seeing a low flying plane before hearing a crash.

Others farmers also joined the search.

It is not yet known where the plane was flying to or from.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has been contacted and will investigate the scene in the morning.

*

Two dead in light plane crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Looks like a 3rd passenger survived. Wish her well.

Two killed, one critical after plane crashes near Wallup, western Victoria | Herald Sun

Oh how sad:sad: The ABC are quoting this morning on the radio that the flight was an 'AngelFlight' .Possibly EN to Nhill . Whatever the reason for being airborne in bad weather I hope that we can get to the bottom of it & all learn.


Wmk2

www.news.com.au has a pic of the scene and frankly its a miracle that one person has survived at all.

:(

Very sad, I guess the media/public will start again with the "Elderly Pilot" rant like they did with the incident at Tyabb on the weekend.

****e, an Angel flight, what a bloody tragedy. It was her 24th flight and his 25th.

Bad weather, bad light, possible pressure to get the patient home................... the holes begin to line up. :sad:

That.... and the 45 year old aircraft no doubt.

http://angelflight.org.au/media/2011...0Chronicle.pdf

From the angel flight website.

Bad light ? Last light would have been around 6.08pm and there were reports of the a/c heard at 6.15pm.

If this was IFR there should have been no problem with low level scud running, so one must assume it was a VFR and what on earth was this guy thinking? :ugh:

On that basis it will bring a lot of bad light indeed on those who operate properly. Of course that is the case for everyone, from RAA to RPT.

Hey Jab,
have you done any flights for AngelFlight? How strict are their rules wrt NVFR or IFR flight? It seems strange (from a risk management/insurance perspective) to allow a flight such as this to operate NVFR, despite what CASA may allow.

There will be no doubt a lot more to come from this event. Their hearts (AngleFlight) are in the right place with only good intentions & that's a beautiful thing but like most accidents of this nature something perhaps needs to change so that we can reduce the chances of this awful event happening again.
It wasn't very pleasant down this way in Vic last night certainly questionable as to whether being out there in a SE plane NVFR or even IFR for that matter was a clever thing to do.Perhaps the pilot just got caught with his good intentions leading the way. More to come am sure.

May those left behind, the families/friends of all concerned find peace in the near future. I'm not a religious man but if there is a God then he sure does work in mysterious ways.


Wmk2

Sad indeed. I was speaking to the pilot of this particular aircraft around four weeks ago and made comment to him about how nice his aeroplane looked with it's original (recently applied) paint scheme.
He appeared to take a lot of pride in how the aircraft looked and in how it presented. Most unfortunate to see things end up like this.
However, regardless the state of repair of the aircraft it's not a good look for Angel Flight to have flights conducted in a'45 year old' aircraft. We all know in here that that in itself isn't a problem. But for the media and those who react to what the media says and does, it is. As the fleet continues to age, it's an issue that Angel Flight and others, will have to deal with.

I'm fed up with us accepting that the aging aircraft argument has any validity. It only gets a run at all because there is a comparison made with private vehicles with has no basis in logic.

No-one questions the age of commercial watercraft, or private yachts. No-one questions the age of cranes or construction machinery. There isn't even any real criticism of airline aircraft age. Consider the age of the DC-9's 727's 747 classics, twin otters, Fokker Friendships and other aircraft still working commercially around the world.

While many private aircraft date to the seventies, the vast majority (with the exception of school & charter aircraft) have done a fraction of their design flight hours.

My 1972 Alfa has significantly less safety than a modern car because of the advances in brakes, suspension, headlights., demisters, tyres, windscreen wipers, airbags, steering wheels, ABS, crumple zones, laminated windscreens and the list goes on. I would contend that my 1978 Seneca has exactly the same level of safety as one produced by Piper last month - especially since it done about 3 years worth of flying for a charter operator.

Its time we started calling out the ageing aircraft argument for the lie that it is.

There is no indication that this really sad accident has anything to do with it being a single engine aircraft vs a twin (John Faine this morning) or that it was a 1965 model Cherokee 180.

Shooting from the hip here but its nothing to do with aircraft age I reckon.

Sounds like VFR into IMC to me. :sad: Could be very wrong.

And night VFR under those conditions..........well what is the LSALT? not scud running height hey?

AF do screen your requirements, but at the end of the day its the PIC who controls everything.

Having said that.........I get the odd call when a VFR only guy pulls the plug, and I must commend them for doing so.

I have also pulled the pin on IFR flights.....and still gone flying myself elsewhere, but that was by myself for my own purposes. One has to set ones own limits and standards and I set mine based on the friends I keep, long living Airline, RFDS and well Forkie too. High standards indeed but I sleep at night. Follow the rules and the chances of having an accident are very very slim, even s/e IFR.... (Watch Wally bite here :E)

Enough said.

I understand witnesses heard it for a bit before they heard the bang which has been reported as being at about 1830. Impact damage looks to me like the pilot was not in control at the time. Disorientated or inadvertant IMC?

Pilot, teen killed in mercy-flight crash
OMG. When I did my NVFR rating, my instructor told me it was a "Licence to Kill". I can't agree more with Jabawocky and Old Akro because a mere night rating has no place for night flights. A young pilot in a new twin aircraft could easily have ended up in similar tragic circumstances. The night plays all sorts of tricks with the eyes. Let this be a lesson for all of us - nothing short of IFR with full stage reporting would be close to an absolute minimum level of safety.

RIP, and wishing a speedy recovery for the traumatised mother.

Old Akro:

Mate, you are so wrong about this and your post is more full of holes than a swiss cheese, however, did it have anything to do with this tragic event? I don't know, maybe ATSB will find out.

Many of the postulates in your post are actually supportive of aging fleet replacement, rather than refuting them but this is not the time and place to discuss these matters in depth.

Be aware that the 'crashworthiness' of more recently certified aircraft that are designed to comply with dramatically higher safety design standards may not have prevented this event, but may have mitigated the injuries that were sustained in the impact. I said may as i do not know the circumstances, but one of the factors built into new (designed) aircraft is the inherent ability to reduce the incidence of injuries during and after impact. Older designs absolutely do not meet this criteria, no matter how well maintained these aircraft are, as these standards and requirements did not exist when they were designed in the 1960's

A tragic day for the dedicated pilot, his family and in particular the people entrusted to his care and their families.

HD

I was in Sydney yesterday so I have no idea what Melbourne was like, but from the BOM website:
Horsham airport & Nhill Airport reported nil rain between 4pm & 8pm. Longerenong 0.6mm, Stawell 0.8mm over the same period. Warracknabeal does not have hour by hour records but it had 7mm between 3pm yesterday and 9am this morning. All stations in the area had less than 12kts Northerly wind, many in the territory of 5 kts. Don't understand the radio reports of heavy rain unless it was very localised showers.

If the ABC reported location is correct, the aircraft was not on an IFR track. The accident site is approx 20nm North of Horsham where the sector LSALT is 3900ft, but it is very close to the Warrnacknabeal - Nhill track which has a LSALT of 2,200 ft (approx 1,700 ft AGL).

The accident site would be consistent with flying visually through the Kilmore Gap to Bendigo or Mangalore then direct to Nhill. With a setting sun, a cloud base and rising terrain to Ballarat, going North then west behind the higher terrain may have seemed a good cautious option, especially if the Pilot had flown from Yarrawonga during day because it would have been flying back into a "known" area.

Sad accident indeed.

Whilst the premise behind Angel Flight is noble, I have always maintained that EMS / medical transfer flights should be made only by contracted operators.


The pax have no idea what they are getting themselves into when they board and Angel Flight as opposed to a contracted operator.

The aircraft seemed reasonably intact. So it looks like a CFIT to me.

4/8 cloud seems the question as to whether it was a NVFR flight and LSALT seems to be the question whether it was an IFR flight or either.

One should consider all factors and ignore media speculation in cases such as this. The ABC this morning stated Angel Flight "chartered" the aircraft from the pilot???? Oh, (and weather could be a factor). Nobody mentioned "ageing aircraft" or the fact that it had no ballistic parachute or an on board entertainment system. It probably just disappeared from radar screens as is normal, or the pilot had no flight plan, or it wasn't a mercy flight because he was coming away from medical help.

God preserve the souls of the dead and insulate them and their loved ones from the repercussions that are bound to follow.

You may all like to reflect and offer a silent prayer for all the times you have got away with similar.

For what it's worth, I departed Warracknabeal for Mildura at around 1610 yesterday. Began VFR but after take-off it soon became apparent that I wouldnt be able to maintain VMC at planned 4500 so chaged to IFR and entered IMC at around 3500, it became clear around 30NM north of YWKB and when I looked back to see how far it extended it was basically a wall of cloud / poor vis from the ground up and as far to the west as I could see, there was also a few returns on the storm scope. Wind from the ground up was a consistent 20Kt+ northerly and yes there were showers moving through.

I suppose this is the weather that would have still been prevailing around the time of the incident.

Have to agree with havick too.

Havick:

I think you might like to delete your post or risk being labeled a pompous **** with a very very short memory :-

Pilot, nurse die in Sydney plane crash

In my opinion, a NVFR rating should not exist. It is rarely used for what it was designed for.
I used it commercially many years ago and looking back.....there but for the grace of God go I.
I had an expired MECIR when I exercised it, (a couple of years earlier had done the full training) and I imagine that that is the only reason I'm still alive. If I had had a bare bones NVFR and had done it I can think of a couple of occasions where I would have sucumbed to the visual and somotogravic illusions that exist. Instead I managed to claw it back and only scared myself half to death.
I think it needs reconsidering.

Have to agree with Sunfish...not to mention the air ambulance that went in approaching Mt Gambier a few years back.
Fact is IFR,VFR, commercial or private, they will all crash in bad weather with lack of care or the rules not being followed.
There is nothing wrong with NVFR providing it is just that..night V F R.
And I would guess there is not one among us that has not got caught out or pushed the boundries at some time or other. This latest accident unfortunatley comes as a timely reminder.

Sunfish... Label me however you like, but I will not retract my opinion.

Yes, any A/C can crash. But the punters that jump on board an Angel Flight really take pot luck with who's flying them and in what equipment. One day they could get a highly experienced pilot in a good A/C, then next a brand new PPL in a busted ass 172.

What audits do pilots/aircraft go through, what minimum experience is required prior to a certain flight being undertaken etc etc..

There heart is in the right place, but does joe public really know who is flying him/her around?

** note that I am not speculating on this particular crash and its' cause.

Havick:

You might like to remove that post as well since it labels you as unthinking and ignorant as well as forgetful.

You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

Label me however you want, I really couldn't care less. Don't think for a second that I hide behind anonimity here, because I voice my openly about this subject.

4pm liftoff from EN, VFR via Kilmore to Nhill.
(10 points go to Old Akro.)

Like everything aviation, history is usually the motivation for sensible regulation. Statements as above do little to enhance the good this rating allows VFR pilots.

I say this without prejudicing my opinion that many regulations are made to suit an eleventh hour protocol to save CASA's arse.

The NVFR is not such a case.

Things could have changed since I last flew at night, but the forcast was the deciding factor on whether a NVFR flight could be legally undertaken.

If this was taken in hand when preparing any NVFR flight, in near end of daylight, (not necessarily this one), the flight should be considered to be able to progress with safety.

From Angelflight web site

"Our volunteer pilots and aircraft owners' flight credentials exceed the requirements of CASA and the aircraft meet specified CASA and insurance minimums"

There is also a mention of a minimum of 250 hours

So in other words the standard is the legal minimum or above

Fully agreed, BUT, with 11,000 flights without accident or incident, I wonder how the stats back up that concept.

Who oversees the standards and conduct of a pilot as would occur under the umbrella of an AOC with a chief pilot etc..

Well Sunfish label me a pompous arse, but I have to agree with Havick.

When people board these flights they have no idea what rules and regulations surround these operations. I agree that this is indeed a very noble idea but what are the checks and balances involved. What is their interview process and background checks? What is their Check and Training system? How do they know if someone is current? I've seen some pretty ordinary stuff from some of these operations labelled as Angel Flight in the past and have only thought it would be a matter of time before an accident happened.

I'm absolutely certain that all of you, if faced with putting a loved one in a RFDS B200 or an Angelflight Cessna 172 for a flight to wherever, you would all go for the B200 as you are all well aware of the differences between the two operations.

[quote
In my opinion, a NVFR rating should not exist.
Like everything aviation, history is usually the motivation for sensible regulation. Statements as above do little to enhance the good this rating allows VFR pilots.

quote]
..... but do weigh this good against the loss of life that follows as a consequence.

I don't do angel flights myself but have two mates that do.
If it was to be only a commercial operation it simply would not exist. Few if any commercial operators would do it for free as they have a business to run with all the costs of it to cover,and fair enough.Most people who use it could not afford to pay for it so would go by other slower means. So be careful what you say. If angel flight ceased to be who would be the losers? The very people it was set up to help. Just like the many commuter airlines that closed down following the Monarch crash at Young and another enroute to Lord Howe Isand because "we can't have these old piston aircraft like Chieftans in RPT" many rural communities now have no airservice. Not to mention less jobs for new CPL's.

Oh and to whoever posted the irrelevant comment about the RFDS accident at Mount Gambier. The RFDS operates around 70,000 flights a year nationally. So 1 fatality in around 700,000 flights or on a better scale 1 fatality in 230,000,000 km flown is nowhere in the range of 1 fatality in 11,000 flights. Thats 63 fatalities for every 1 of the RFDS.

Harry, That was me son. I am quite aware of the RFDS safety record but it merely points out an IFR operation does not guantee safety in itself.
As to your silly comment about getting on an air ambulance well ofcourse that would be safer/better etc. But the point is this is not available to Angel flight users. There condition does not qualify them to go by air ambulance. They are usually people going to clinic for long term treatment like chemo etc,or often for family members of patients visiting from remote areas. To the best of my knowledge the RFDS does not run an RPT service for all and sundry.

For those jumping the gun and calling for the NVFR to be scraped (or state it shouldn't exist)

This accident has nothing to do with NVFR. It would be the same as saying IFR shouldn't exist because somebody in a metro flew into a hill..

Not all flying conditions suit all flights. Forecasts whilst not bad, can be wrong. This accident may not even be related to NVFR.

If you are so convinced NVFR is so bad, climb out of your turbine multi, climb into a piston single and go for a night flight in good conditions. It can be very enjoyable.

Weather permitting I would prefer to be NVFR than IFR (at night) There is generally more light outside the cloud.