So sad and so unesesary -:(

I haven’t yet found the flaw in ATSB reasoning, but I used to do something like this sort of work years ago.

While I may well be mistaken, ATSB has come to some what appear to be startling conclusions;

1. Angel Flights are seven times more dangerous than ordinary private operations. These private operations themselves are more than twenty times more dangerous than charter and RPT.

This implies that Angel Flight pilots are seven times stupider than the general GA pilot population or, as ATSB seems to suggest, there is a reality distortion field around ATSB operations that makes people idiots (seven times stupider!) when operating an Angel Flight.

But wait! There’s more.... Table B5, Technical occurrences, shows that the aircraft knows it is on an Angel Flight compared to a private flight and being malevolent, responds by making things break or fail in flight. The possible exception may be the engine, which seems to be non sentient and fails without regard to who is driving or where they are going.

Then of course there is the weather, birds and wildlife, all of whom seem to have it in for angel flights.

I have to say I am not convinced because “category of operation” is a rather imprecise term. We are not comparing apples with apples I think. For example a private operator doing dozens of scenic s from his home airport is not exposed to unfamiliar airports and less than perfectly sunny weather. A fairer test would be to look at private flights that match Angel flight trip durations - say four hours there and back and compare those safety occurrence records rather than comparing angel flight with someone doing circuit training.

Anyway, that’s my opinion FWIW.

Junior LFA you are right. I have no problem with that. Similarly the previous accident I think. But how do you extrapolate from two fatal accidents in ten years of operation to “systematically unsafe”? That is where I may have issues.

I can’t help thinking that there is some well connected greaseball waiting to launch a taxpayer funded alternative to AF.

As for the statistics about RPT being dramatically safer, it probably is, but one A380 going down in Sydney CBD will change that. Accident occurrences in RPT are very infrequent but large. The Feyneman appendix to the Challenger report is still worth reading again and again.

The answer to AF’S problems might be what my Dad did for me and I did for my son and others have done for their kids......An insurance policy; “if you have had too much to drink, or don’t trust your driver, then call a cab, anywhere, anytime, we will pay the cab fare absolutely no questions asked.” I only ever availed myself of that maybe twice, my son with me likewise.

How difficult would it be for AF to have an IFR professional and suitable aircraft as a backup on call, so a volunteer can bail without letting their patients down if they feel things are getting beyond them?

Having someone on call would cost money, but there would still be lower costs than a full professional outfit.

It’s beyond sad when the ATSB so shamelessly manipulates statistically insignificant data and coincidental clusters to support CASA’s knee jerk response to accidents during private ‘community service’ flights. [My bolding.]

If CASA and ATSB were left to deal with this kind of stuff, mere coincidence and scaremongering statistics would be the basis of most regulatory activity. Oh wait...

So I’ll have a go at summarising the safety messages from the YTM tragedy:

1. Don’t fly in IMC if you don’t have a current IFR rating.

2. Resist external pressures to fly when you shouldn’t.

3. As a consequence of 1 and 2, always have a Plan B and a Plan C.

If only these lessons had been learnt before and some organisation were funded and responsible for aviation safety promotion - constantly and effectively repeating these messages and getting them across. Oh wait...

They already have a backup plan. Cancel the flight if there is any doubt. It’s not that hard! There is no urgency, that’s why they are not going by ambulance of the fly docs. That is made clear to all pilots and participants.

The memorial to the victims should be a better service, not no service.

Looking at the CCTV images in the report, the pure contempt this individual has for the lives of his passengers and himself is inexcusable. Whatever flight school turned out this product just 2 years before the accident should be very proud:D

Correct: We should blame Angel Flight.

Those conditions don’t even look suitable for IFR flight.

Agreed on the webcam though. Air services give us a low quality low res image and keep the good ones for themselves. It would have been good to see the proper images.