Octane, your brother has a very valid point, the term "controller" unfortunately might imply to the young that s/he on the ground giving "orders" (controlling) is the "boss". You do what you have to do to keep out of harms way, even though it may take reams of paperwork later.

Old saw "Am I up here because you're down there, or are you down there because I'm up here". Simple answer.

Agree with the comments above and in my experience ATC are only too willing to help in such a situation.

Last wet season around January I was flying a single engine inbound to Darwin and due to storms had to stay at 9500 till almost overhead Darwin and then descend. They wanted me to track differently but I told them that I cannot due weather and this is the only track and alt I can follow. They let me do it but after landing they talked to me and told me I should not have done so because ifr traffic had to be put on hold and they told casa , who later had a word with me and said I should have done something else etc. My only option that day was to descend below the weather 75 miles out and should have but chose to get a bit closer to Darwin and find some wholes but took me all the way to Darwin to find a descent one.

Disappointing that that was the outcome for you from a reasonable request to ATC...

I think something that isn't really taught to students these days is the difference between REQUEST and REQUIRE.

The amount of times I've been given a heading that would have turned me straight into some nasty weather, beit VFR or IFR, is amazing. But one also has to remember that ATC often just rely on the delayed BOM weather radar, so their SA is also not complete so it's not them doing it on purpose either.

No matter where in the world I assume ATC have all the bells and whistles available, that includes weather radar displays. It always amazes me when getting vectors that lead straight into a CB! Then on the other hand you can tell when controllers are using it as the vectors are nothing short of brilliant. I have experienced both scenarios in many parts of the world.

I must say many moons ago Darwin ATC superb in suggested headings to avoid the scary stuff!

Yes as has been pointed out, require xxx, if that does' work - PAN PAN!

Saying I was taught for different reasons, but still applies:

"Better to be judged by 12 than carried by 6"

I always find it a bit rough when ATC/CASA give you a talking too when you didn't break any rules. Sure you could have scud run for 75 miles but you didn't know that at the time. I prefer to be vfr on top any day.

But, pilotchute, this is Australia, after all. About the only right a pilot in command has, is to be intimidated by the bureaucracy, and the right to take the blame when it all turns to custard. Have you seen the draft CASR Part 91?? Where the forgoing is codified.

This goes double if the situation leads to any public or political embarrassment of said bureaucracy. Think Norfolk Island, just for one.

After all, Oh!! Shock!! Horror!! an IFR aeroplane was held up so that another aeroplane could operate safely --- can't have that nonsense, after all, the IFR generates revenue, got to get your priorities right. And, of course, unlike the US ATC service, here the biggest revenue generators get priority.

And then, notwithstanding the fact that you have not breached any regulations, you will be hounded out of the Australian industry, the "word will be dropped" to potential employers, potential jobs will not materialise.

Then you will head of overseas, and in the normal course of events, if you play your cards right, you will have a HCRPT command in 8-10 years, maybe a lot less, and for the rest of your career, pay a lot less tax than in Australia, on an equal or (often much) higher income.

With a very long memory, and a long time in the industry, I can quote all too many examples.

Finally, doesn't matter how big your aeroplane, or how you do it, stay well away from TS/TCu.

"Dead On Schedule" just ain't worth it. The accident record has plenty of examples of why!!

Tootle pip!!

Heard today tbe aircraft went to approx 9000feet quickly and decent was even quicker.

Has it been determined yet whether the wings came off prior to impact or after impact?

Aircraft broke apart in flight. Wings broke off approx 3 feet from the wing route. At this area is where the wing attach to centre section doublers etc stop an then goes to the wing spar section alone to the wing tip.

Bold statement.

They may or may not have hit something first!

They MAY have "broken off" 3 feet above the ground!


I think weather is a relevant question.

ICAO Annex 2 gives an aircraft Captain the right to take whatever action is necessary for safety.

Don't be afraid to do so.

I had to do this in Darwin about 2 years ago.

- ATC flied a report.
- I filed an ASR through the company.
- Darwin ATC changed their procedures.

Never heard another word.

Has it been confirmed that wing separated. Where did u guys find this info?

The news photos of the wings hanging in the trees some hundreds? of metres away from the fuselage tell the story!

NT NEWS are known for their stories - My info say one, one side of the road and the other very close to the fuse.

That area also would have some of the highest trees in that "Darwin" area.

I have heard from the area and some involed - the wing/s did not fall off.


That separation point around 2-3 foot out/bd from the cabin has a extra bit that extends about another 18 inches (about 3/4 inch square).

My bet is that is bent aft, not up ( but a chance down).

The operator.

The operator generally keeps his cards very close to his chest in any incident/accident. He is also a very capable engineer and if he was at the site will have a pretty good idea of what happened and at what stage, it will be interesting to speak to him in a few years about it.

The operator is Amish. Has 9 kids all homeschooled.

Home schooled yes but 9, I know its a few.

I don't know the extent of structural rebuilds he has taught them, but I know Amish has completely rebuild a few wings in his time.

What the F has that got to do with a C210 coming down?

True
 

Yes that is true.

Amish? I didn't know there were any Amish in Australia. And given that one would be an aircraft operator/engineer is even stranger - as their beliefs forbid them from flying.

DF.

It is a Areostar thing! is my guess.

Really.
Ive known hin for 40 years.

I was talking to a young aspiring soon to be CPL and told him one of the most powerful words that he can use with ATC is UNABLE. He was surprised by the word. Do students not get taught Unable, Require or Request any more and when or how to use them?


I am in no way insinuating that the above words would have related in any way with this tragedy.

Yep since EAC on the old side when he was Chief Gingerbeer. But his rebuilds were before that.

Atsb report
 

When does the atsb initial report come out. I thought usually 30 days but nothing yet.

Unless a interested party has an objection to part of the draft report - that can create a delay.

Now states "Inflight Break Up" in the title of the report. But no further details.

And the cause of the "inflight break up" will be very interesting.

Will they - if proven change the tile to inflight break up caused by design and AFM limitations exceeded?

A lot further between the wings and fuselage than previously reported, not a nice read.

Is it true that a lot of pilots have resigned from the operator?

At the moment that’s true of EVERY operator.

At least we know what caused the accident, Nasty CB......

Lots of lessons to be learnt from this accident for all, including me who has been stuck twice by lightning in a bigger aeroplane.

Keep away from the CBs!!!

Hello Duck,

Could you tell us about the lightning strikes? I'm curious..

Thanks

Dash 8s, once in solid IMC when the WX radar gave no indication of CBs and the other was in VMC well away from the CB. First one resulted in a prop change and a hole in the cabin roof. Pretty common to have lightning come out of CBs in clear air up to 20 miles or further from the active cell - they don’t teach this stuff in flying schools, it’s learnt from experience....

Seems that ATSB folk still subscribe to the old Va myth.
Bad form to plot Va against ground speed when they have no idea of the real CAS.