Agreed. Not commenting on this particular accident either, but from personal experience as a new chum flying with friends - knowing where the 'Pilot only' button on the IC panel is, and having the guts to use it, is definitely one for the list! "Did you see that down there? It's a Moose! Yeah, definitely a Moose!!" :ugh:

As someone who cut their teeth flying in the area, I think the track flown is not only strange, but it likely tells the story!

Yes, it's ironic. John Denver and Steve Fossett, both rich and famous, died flying nondescript aircraft.

Was the track attempted to stay clear of Amberley? Easier terrain wise through the zone to YBAF - Did he request a clearance or is there a hesitance to do so with military ATC?

Looks like approaching the dividing range from the W they diverted to right of planned track until perhaps able to see a gap below cloud and over top of the range, ducked over the range near Pilton, then ducked down one of the valleys running ~NE until resumed track to intercept the northern VFR route through Amberley airspace. Not an unheard-of scenario for a lot of VFR pilots returning to YBAF when the clouds press up against the range, though most go south to Cunningham's Gap or Spicer's Gap. Passed quite a few ALAs near the end e.g. Gatton, Coominya, though. Was the ACFT and pilot IFR rated? If so, and if plan B (ALA or off-ALA landing) wasn't an option, a plan C could have been to turn away from high ground, climb to lowest safe and ask Amberley Approach for assistance as a PAN.

Very sad for the families - lost some good folks by all accounts.

Why would someone worth ~$50M be flying around VFR in a 40+ year old aircraft if they needed to get somewhere?? How many more of these type of accidents do we need until people get the message??

That's actually a different they were pilots who flew for fun and knew the risks they were taking. These guys were trying to get somewhere. When Steve Fosset wanted to get somewhere he took the jet and flew at M.90 at 40000'+

Plenty of rich people fly single engine aircraft or warbirds for fun and take the inherent risk.

It this was a charter, were they even legally able to upgrade to IFR?

Stay "legal" for the CFIT or break the rules and stay alive....what to do, what to do?

To answer that, you'd really need to know what avionics was fitted to the aircraft, but it'd be a brave charter pilot who took on a job in a Day-VFR only aircraft.


Oh, PLEEZE! Not that old furphy again!!!! The age of the aircraft has absolutely nothing to do with safety nor it's comfort level, nor it's ability to carry out the mission! In fact many older aircraft are actually safer than the newer versions, maintenance and owner $$ spend depending. Ask any warbird owner.

Hundreds of charter flights operate every day in aircraft that are day VFR only, which is perfectly legimate. Remote NT, QLD and WA especially would be a totally different scene without it. Majority have bare minimum avionics too, and operating in all sorts of weather.

Legal to operate IFR though as a charter flight? No. Would I do it if the only other alternative was CFIT? Hmm

Don't be ridiculous. Are you actually suggesting that a (potentially) 10,000 hour plus 182RG with steam gauges would be as safe as a Cirrus with full glass panel and ballistic parachute? Or that an old piston engine is as safe as a turbine as in, say the 208?

I love old Cessnas, in fact they're just about all I fly. But having recently flown a 172N model with a full Garmin G3X panel - likely worth more installed than the airframe and engine - there is no doubt in my mind that most of the GA fleet are operating on old legacy technology that is inherently less reliable than modern glass options.

For instance, Garmin Synthetic Vision (available on G1000 and later I think) would have potentially helped with terrain avoidance if it was VFR into IMC. Garmin Electronic Stability and Protection would have helped if it was loss of control. I could go on but I'm sure you get the point.

VFR into IMC no aircraft is safer than another, all fixed wing aircraft out of control will hit the hill at a speed that's non-survivable, and as yet there's no safety device that will protect you from that. The weak link is the brains in the system, not the machine. Glass cockpits and fancy gadgets and we still have VFR loss of control in IMC. If you are not trained for IFR and are flying in tight valleys with limited visibility any excursion into cloud will probably be fatal. Very few airlines even allow circling approaches these days, why, because visual maneuvering in confined areas in low visibility has caused many accidents, and that's with professional seasoned IFR pilots. Thinking that some fancy kit will save you will probably get you into more trouble.

Agree. All I'm saying is that a non-instrument rated pilot would have had better odds if they were VFR into IMC and aided by modern avionics as found in new glass cockpit GA aircraft - if that's what happened in this situation.

If you happen to inadvertently go IMC en-route well above the ground and possibly have ok instrument skills or a good autopilot I might say yes. But twisting through valleys, I doubt it would matter much. The time between losing visual reference and hitting a tree/hill at low level there's probably not even enough time for a good IFR pilot to switch to internal ques and references the fancy screens.

And here starteth the conspiracy theories on military airspace. I am sure Dick Smith will chuck in his two bobs worth soon...

VFR into IMC flying below higher terrain.

Would Carby Icing be possible?

I think this lies at the heart of the VMC into IMC problem. There are no better odds if you are not instrument rated. The controllability issue is one thing then there is the complete lack of understanding of LSALT and the possible effects of icing. Your odds of crashing into the ground are extremely high and the odds of surviving are extremely low regardless of the instrument fit. Until non-IFR rated pilots understand that the odds are never in your favour then they will continue to die at a regular interval. The tragedy is that they take others with them.

Anything is possible.. it's the ATSB's job to find out. And on that note, here's a link to the Report place-holder:

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2022-041/

From the location of the accident on Flightaware, would they not have been fairly close to the VFR reporting point of Fernvale, just outside the Amberley CTR?

And everything to do with risk. Why is there an age requirement on the SID program?