|
Lake Evella crash findings
Lake Evella crash coronor's inquest findings released yesterday.
NT Department of Justice Interesting reading. |
Aviation In the Third World
On 4 February 2001 the deceased was the pilot of an aircraft VHBBI a Cessna 210. He was to complete a charter from Lake Evella to Elcho Island on the afternoon of 4 February. The deceased had never piloted the aircraft known as BBI until he assumed command of it that afternoon The deceased took control of the aircraft without conducting a pre-flight inspection of it; notwithstanding that Darryl Stace had not completed the daily maintenance report. Mr Stace had not completed the maintenance release report for the 3rd or the 4th of February. In those circumstances the deceased should have conducted his own check of the aircraft and satisfied himself that there were no outstanding defects so as to render the plane unsafe. Again referring to the stall warning device my understanding is that it can be easily checked whilst on the ground, and whilst in flight provided the checking is done at a safe height. the deceased did not undertake a normal take-off, rather that he gathered speed quickly and kept the plane low to the runway preparing the aircraft for flight. That is he lifted the undercarriage very close to the ground and probably reached a speed of about 100 knots at the end of the runway before he caused the aircraft to ascend very steeply. the aircraft climbed very steeply to a height of about 400 - 500 feet, at which stage the aircraft stalled. It then pivoted and descended almost vertically towards the ground albeit that before impact some recovery had taken place. I am satisfied from the evidence that has been adduced at the inquest that mechanical failure did not contribute to this accident. no entry had been made in the daily maintenance release relating to BBI that the stall-warning device did not work. The pilots employed by Air Frontier Pty Ltd at the time of this accident were not paid unless they were flying; and they were paid by the hour to fly. They also received in addition to this hourly flying rate a small retainer, so in the words of Mr Hunt junior "they could survive". It may be that the circumstances of their employment arrangements put pressure on the pilots not to enter defects in planes that they became aware of, particularly those that rendered a plane grounded. It may also be that because the 100-hour service was imminent that the defective stall-warning device was not recorded as defective in the daily maintenance release The deceased for whatever reason attempted an aerobatic manoeuvre for which he was not trained and for which the aircraft was not designed. Its instrumentation was designed for "normal" flight, not unusual flight. Whether the stall warning device would have sounded during the manoeuvre and whether the deceased would have had time to react to it or not is problematic. Air Frontier Pty Ltd and their operations were questioned by counsel for the family and both Mr Hunt senior and Mr Hunt junior gave evidence. … Young pilots are employed not within the general aviation award, but on a verbal contract paying them hourly for their flying time. They are expected to live in remote communities in what can only be described as substandard conditions. I do accept that the accommodation at Lake Evella was all that was available, however, that does not make it appropriate. At the time of this accident the pilots at Lake Evella were young and relatively inexperienced. They had chosen aviation as their respective careers and were flying as much as they could to get up their hours to move on. They were doing their apprenticeship. Evidence was given at the inquest about a culture of cowboy flying by the "Mooney pilots", as the Air Frontier pilots were known. There was a habit of low flying and the doing of tricks, in fact both Mr Robertson and Mr Stace indicated that they had undertaken aerobatic procedures for which they were not trained. The deceased himself had a reputation for low flying and had told Mr Robertson when he arrived only two weeks before the accident as the newest Air Frontier pilot that "what happens in East Arnhem Land stays in East Arnhem Land". Given that the deceased was the Senior Base pilot at Lake Evella, and to an extent at least responsible for Mr Robertson's training and supervision that evidence is disturbing and corroborative of the cowboy culture. Air Frontier through its Chief Pilot and Director purported not to know what was going on at Lake Evella and believed that Mr Baxter was performing well. They based this conclusion apparently upon the fact that the accommodation at Lake Evella was neat and tidy whenever the Chief pilot, Mr Hunt visited. All Mr Hunt's visits were scheduled visits, he made no surprise visits so the pilots knew when he was arriving so it is not unusual to expect that they would tidy up their accommodation in anticipation of his visit. No contact was made by Air Frontier with members of the community or anybody else who came in contact with their pilots to check about their conduct and activities. It is difficult to accept that the operators of a charter company in these circumstances would not be aware that young men might, if left to their own devices as these young men were, have some fun and try and extend themselves. Further, given the circumstances in which they were expected to live and work, it is almost beyond belief that they did not know what these pilots were doing. It is clear from the evidence that the pilots knew that what they were doing was wrong, inherently dangerous and not within the charter of their employment or in accordance with their training and knowledge of extant air safety regulations. However, having had the opportunity of seeing Mr Hunt Snr and Jnr give evidence I am inclined to accept that they did not know what their pilots were doing. I note that Mr Hunt Snr is now retired and no longer employed as a Chief Pilot. … the investigation of this particular accident was made more difficult by the failure of ATSB (Air Transport Safety Bureau) to attend the accident site, at the time, and conduct an investigation. ATSB apparently acting on the advice of others determined that they would not attend the accident because it appeared to be an accident involving pilot error only. The basis for that determination could not be explored as the family may have wished because Mr Heitman the ATSB representative who made that determination was not able to be called to give evidence, because he could not be located. This has deprived the family of the opportunity to test Mr Heitman and ascertain why he formed the view about the accident that he clearly did, without attending the scene or conducting any other enquires[sic] other than telephone contacts with it appears Senior Sergeant Bradley and nobody else. Nonetheless even though Mr Heitman did not give evidence I am comfortable in forming the view that it was an inappropriate and wrong decision and probably not based on any clear direct evidence from any eyewitness to the accident. It was unfortunate that ATSB did not attend the site of the accident at the time. Notwithstanding I am, as I have indicated, satisfied that a proper investigation did take place and that the circumstances of this accident have been properly and fully investigated. That this happened is largely due to the perseverance of Acting Sergeant Scott Burness, and I commend him for his efforts. As to how Air Frontier was operating at the time given the circumstances of the Air Operators Certificate and the relationship of Air Frontier Pty Ltd with Mooney Investments/ Mooney Holdings is curious. I will refer the evidence in relation to the status of the company to CASA and invite them to make comment. The issue of the safety of general aviation in the Northern Territory is also a matter that prompts me to forward the transcript of these proceedings to CASA for their information and appropriate action and investigation if necessary. It is beyond the scope of this inquest for me to comment further than I have about the activities of CASA or ATSB or make any findings in relation to them. |
I cant understand why new pilots from the cities who have spent 30 to 40 grand on getting a license would want to throw it away doing stupid things which has cost this guy his life.
The idea of 'what happens up north stays up north' does not work. Reports like this soon filter down to many places seen as 'the next step' . Do you really think they will employ you? With such flagerant attitudes it seems some people dont deserve to have a license. I must admit however nobody deserves to lose their life. |
HEALY, I don't think you really realize what goes on up there. The vast majority of this sort of activity does not get reported, at least to anyone who can or will take any action. Because of the remote location(s), reports(generally as pilot gossip) of this kind of activity are usually 7th hand, and unverifiable and I have seen on many occasions it in no way impeeds the particular pilots' progress to the next step at all. Employers cannnot determine the veracity of the 'rumours' they hear and will employ based largely on their own personal impression of the pilot.
Even when 'busted' you can still go to the next stage. Let me give you a well known example from a couple of years back. Pilot x flies metro for well known regional airline in northern Australia. Pilot x gets job with e. coast regional airline. Pilot x, on one of their last RPT flights for current airline, decides to formate with company C402 (both ac full of pax) for a laugh. ha ha ha! Company of course finds out and grounds Pilot x for their last week of employment. BIG DEAL. Pilot x goes on to their job at e. coast regional who either don't know and/or don't care. I give you this example because it is one that was common knowlege, and as Pilot x was an RPT captain, do really think he/she had never done this sort of thing before? Let's face it, there are countless numbers of pilots in all airlines that would like to keep their extra-proffessional activities from earlier days quiet. So HEALY I think it is fanciful thinking to believe that this activity impeeds a pilots' progress. Why do you think it is that the only time the public hear about this is when there is a death or serious injury? |
Fair enough SLICE however dont you think it shows even a little bit of unprofessionalism.
Rules are designed to prevent people from ultimately killing themselves or others. Why should it be OK to bend the rules in one place and not the other. For most the rumours are as you said 7th hand however it could be easy for some pilots to develop a John Wayne mentality which they carry on further into their careers. As you said in your last paragraph, why should we here of young inexperienced pilots being killed. It just should not happen! |
I agree absolutely - totally unprofessional - but we have face the fact that young men(mostly) when left to their own devices in remote locations will engage in this sort of activity IF they perceive that it will not affect future employment prospects. QF (by no means the only one- but they should set the example) has it ranks embedded with individuals who have a history of doing exactly what the pilot of VH-BBI was doing and worse. QF either don't know or more to the point, don't want to know. Pilots notice this and in absence of any meaningful enforcement of the regulations (CASA) there seems to be little disincentive to becoming an amature test pilot.
|
Wow !
What a thread and likewise the Coroners report. Unable to contact the ATSB officer ! The Chief pilot claiming no knowledge of extra professional activities ! Substandard accommodation. Where was CASA while all this was happening ? Altogether a real can of worms. The retirement of the Chief Pilot can be called convenient but perhaps not beyond the arm of a court action should someone want to follow up on the apparent and knowingly lack of positive control and supervision of the junior pilots at the Lake. Little wonder that the pilots at that location went ferel. They were underpaid. They lived in sub standard accommodation. They were juniors being exploited in the name of getting flight time to try and better their lives. There was a major lack of supervision by the CP and not even an experienced, more mature, real senior pilot. One has to say that the firm would not have employed a real senior pilot because it would have cost real money, money that they were apparently not prepared to pay. What is that expression 'You pay peanuts, you get monkeys'? Reviewing this accident and the Coroners report one has to come to the conclusion that this type of rot is probably going on elsewhere. One has to ask the question 'What does CASA intend to do about this type of activity'? One also has to ask serious questions about the involvement or lack of involvement of the ATSB, an organisation that until recently has had the universal respect of the industry. Perhaps no longer. This writer is of the opinion that a copy of the Coroners report should be forwarded to the CP and owners of all the top end charter firms with the statement that this type of activity stops NOW - no lack of supervision, no pilots allowed to go ferel, no sub standard pay deals and no sub standard accommodation, to name just a few. In short they will have been warned! From this point onward those owners and CPs are totally responsible for ensuring that the activities noted above have finished. Period. Owners and CPs that allow this type of rot to continue are in the gun for legal and financial action. Claiming ignorance will be no excuse ! CASA for one needs to lift its game to ensure that the flying side, at least, is checked and rechecked. Transgressions are to result in the immediate grounding of said firms and the CPs approval cancelled. And the whole dirty mess publicised. On that subject ALL pilots should be sending a copy of this thread and a copy of the Coroners report to each and every newspaper, big and small, to put the maximum pressure that we can bear onto these two bit firms that could not care a damm about their pilots and their welfare ! Then, and only then, will we see a change in the attitude of some charters firms towards their pilots and their operations in general. |
CurtissJenny
I agree with you totally. The only problem I think you will find is that CASA doesn’t have the power to control pilot’s wages or accommodation issues. One could argue that it is a proper and adequate rest issue but I am not certain if CAO 48 covers this. I could be wrong, as it is a while since I have had anything to do with Australia’s Flight and Duty regs. :) |
404 Titan,
Thanks for the follow up. I am of the view that this accident and the Coroners report marks a watershed in how pilots, young pilots in particular, should be employed and treated while flying charter in the top end, or anywhere for that matter. If we as pilots do not take a stand now this kind of exploitation will continue while there are young pilots out there prepared to accept sub-standard conditions in the name of getting a few hours to take them on the next and hopefully better flight position. If we do nothing then CPs and employers will take that as acceptance of conditions that they would not put up with if applied to themselves. I say again to ALL pilots forward a copy of this entire thread, with the Coroners report marked in highlighter, to every newspaper that you can find - big and small - with the view that the adverse publicity will stop this kind of rot. Those sub standard CPs and employers need to be informed that they are on notice that this kind of activity is not acceptable and that they have been warned. A repeat should be grounds for court action and a financial penalty. |
Firstly I want to say that I think it is tragic that that a young man died for what was a rush blood, a silly moment. I hear that he was one of the least likely to do this sort of thing though I may be wrong. My heart sunk as I read the report, it really shocked me. What went though his mind moments before the impact with the ground. I bet you he said "why did I do it, what for?". And his parents, what can I say.. there are no words for them. Having said this, I and most others have had the odd rush of blood. Mine have been quite boring and legal really, and in reality, I find just flying enough of a rush. Whenever I think about this sort of thing, I think back to this man or another not long ago in the NT and think what would they and their families give to turn back time. It takes discipline to fly high performance GA singles and twins on a ferry when mates are watching, I know. But unlike impressing your mates with your bmx back when you were 10 this is a different ball game. I'm constantly reminding myself and others about these young men who are up there looking down on us wishing they had another chance. Do me and everyone else a favour and condemn the "horseplay" before we read again about a mother who has lost their baby or mate who has lost his best mate. Its just not on. Mr. Hat.
|
There was a major lack of supervision by the CP and not even an experienced, more mature, real senior pilot. One has to say that the firm would not have employed a real senior pilot because it would have cost real money, money that they were apparently not prepared to pay. What is that expression 'You pay peanuts, you get monkeys'? Is this wrong? How old should you be? How many hours? Are you realistically going to find ANY pilot that could be considered "senior" that would WANT to go live in Lake Evella flying locals around in C210's and C206's? Not bloody likely. From this point onward those owners and CPs are totally responsible for ensuring that the activities noted above have finished. Period. A hypothetical situation if you will, lets say a report comes onto the chief pilots desk from another employee or other company pilot that they suspect that Joe Bloggs at Kickatinalong is doing some low flying or the occasional beat up. Chief pilot takes the pilot in, gives him a verbal thrashing and him them on the spot. With no evidence (and lets face it, most pilots wouldn't be willing to give evidence against a collegue) I wonder how quickly the company ends up in court for unfair dismissal. I totally agree that there need to be systems in place to minimise the number of accidents that do occur. Better education, better training, closer supervision and more accountability will all help, but you will never prevent situations like these from happening again. There is alot that this report has said, and yes, it is time for something to be done about it. It will take time and effort on the behalf of the regulator, the operator, the insurer and the pilot. |
Well said Mr Hat.
It brings forward an idea which has probably been thrown around alot but, to my knowledge (correct me if wrong) failed to materialise. An independant Pilot Union which can prevent such exploitation. This idea, which get many people laughing however could help prevent such occurances. It seems the pressures put on many pilots are through a number of different factors. The idea of such a Union for GA I guess can not be seen as realistic with so many pilots willing to work for sod all to get that elusive experience. It is very easy to look at a situation and say "yeah, it will be OK" however this is a good time to take stock and really think if it is actually worth it. It would be even better in such a situation as the victim found himself in to fly it as it should be flown correctly and obey all Legal and Airmanship qualities which could wash off on his mates and prevent their parents getting a phone call. Food for thought. |
Unfortunately Mr Hat, the culture still exists, as demonstrated by the similar accident at Groote.
It comes back to the culture set by the CP and the company. It is to easy for those at the top to say they were unaware of what was happening at the out bases. Slice reports on an incident with a regional in NT, and it would appear when made aware of the incident, took positive action, as such a incident was not part of their culture. I can recall the regional in Tasmania where the CP actively encouraged low flying, and from all reports, was the ring leader in flying 4 engine piston aircraft along beaches at 50'. Numerous other episodes from around Aust spring to mind, and I would say that there are a few senior Captains out there who are saying "but for the grace of God go I". The other sad thing is that when these accidents happen, the first thing we read about is how good the pilot was, what a beaut person they were, what a good pilot etc etc. The Coroners report or ATSB report usually indicates a gross error. CASA need to become more than a paper tiger, and get out into the industry push the Safety case from a practical point of view. Operators who are not supervising their pilot's activities should be forced to pay the penalty with automatic suspension of their AOC. |
Check the facts
Before taking a swipe at the ATSB, I suggest contributors and coroners check the legislation under which it works. Essentially it does a safety investigation only. It does NOT apportion blame. The Director can choose NOT to investigate if he or she so decides. If the ATSB finds, or if there is a suggestion that an accident, was due pilot culpibility and there is no safety benefit from the investigation, it will drop the investigation or simply not investigate...that is CASA's job in that instance and it is up to CASA to investigate if so chooses.
In the past, BASI investigated every accident. Goverment has chosen to cut funding to the agency and so the ATSB has had to choose which accidents/incidents it investigates due to financial/resource limitations. That choice is often made on the initial report. Coroners have taken to giving the ATSB a hard time about investigations because they had come to rely on the ATSB (BASI ) to do their job for them. The sooner Coroners and the like realise that the ATSB does not work for them, and that they have a responsibility to conduct their own thorough investigations, the better it will be for all. So here, it seems, we have a classic busting of rules, and limits, and an extremely poor display of airmanship (read common sense). The ATSB chose not to investigate. That is it, close the book. So what do we learn from this accident? Being a cowboy eventually catches up with you? Follow the rules? Wow, no new lesson in that one! |
A company from the directors and chief pilot down must instill a culture that fosters a mature a disciplined attitude from all. If this also means dismissal for some actions then so be it. There are such companies out there. It is a shame they all can’t be like that.
|
Owners and Chief Pilots have had some onerous responsibilities for a long time. Those responsibilities include:
Civil Aviation Act section 28BE - Duty to exercise care and diligence (1) The holder of an AOC must at all times take all reasonable steps to ensure that every activity covered by the AOC, and everything done in connection with such an activity, is done with a reasonable degree of care and diligence. (2) If the holder is a body having legal personality, each of its directors must also take the steps specified in subsection (1). (3) It is evidence of a failure by a body and its directors to comply with this section if an act covered by this section is done without a reasonable degree of care and diligence mainly because of: (a) inadequate corporate management, control or supervision of the conduct of any of the body's directors, servants or agents; or (b) failure to provide adequate systems for communicating relevant information to relevant people in the body. CAO 82.0 Appendix 1 - 2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHIEF PILOT 2.1 The Chief Pilot for an operator is to have control of all flight crew training and operational matters affecting the safety of the flying operations of the operator. 2.2 The responsibilities of a Chief Pilot must, unless CASA otherwise specifies in writing, include the following responsibilities: (a) ensuring that the operator’s air operations are conducted in compliance with the Act, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1988, the Civil Aviation Regulations 1998 and the Civil Aviation Orders; … (f) monitoring operational standards, maintaining training records and supervising the training and checking of flight crew of the operator; … having had the opportunity of seeing Mr Hunt Snr and Jnr give evidence I am inclined to accept that they did not know what their pilots were doing. SPLATR – sadly true. That was the point of my post. “Senior Base Pilots” busting the rules and dying in commercial operations, against a backdrop of no supervision or regulation, is apparently now such a mundane event in Australian aviation that the investigator doesn’t bother turning up. |
Chief Pilots are not able to stop people from doing stupid things, the accident happened due to the fact a young pilot did something stupid and killed himself.
As a Chief Pilot you have to assert yourself but ultimately a person with a CPL should know what can happen from such a stupid action, does a Chief Pilot need to brief him\her specifically on not to do this even though CASA has made the effort to make it LAW. The coroner did a great job. Not all GA companies can afford to operate brand new kingairs and provide pilots with 60K package, these pilots are at the early stages of an apprenticeship, therefore crap wages and a large learning curve. |
Lefthanded_Rock_Thrower
You may be very right when you say that a Chief Pilot may not be able to stop people from doing stupid things, but they will be held responsible for them. From what has been written in the Coroner’s report there was a severe lack of supervision of operations at this companies remote bases. Accusations have also been made in the report that the pilot concerned and other pilots had been known to do this type of thing before. Evidence was given at the inquest about a culture of cowboy flying by the "Mooney pilots", as the Air Frontier pilots were known. There was a habit of low flying and the doing of tricks, in fact both Mr Robertson and Mr Stace indicated that they had undertaken aerobatic procedures for which they were not trained. The deceased himself had a reputation for low flying and had told Mr Robertson when he arrived only two weeks before the accident as the newest Air Frontier pilot that "what happens in East Arnhem Land stays in East Arnhem Land". Given that the deceased was the Senior Base pilot at Lake Evella, and to an extent at least responsible for Mr Robertson's training and supervision that evidence is disturbing and corroborative of the cowboy culture. :( |
404 Titan as usual spot on.
BUT. Geeeeeeeez, and , here I go again, VH-BBI (unless the rego has been transferred to anothery) was a very tired old sh!tfight the last time I saw her over 15 years ago and I dont imagine she has been sitting in a hangar since and must have put on at least another 9,000 hrs. Which BTW was about its design life in the first place. I cant find the serial number because VH-BBI is now a Bell 206 but if my memory serves me right it must have been an early "M" and by then with probably a min. 15,000 hrs.?? I don't suppose any one looked beyond the "stupid pilot" routine, as it appears that the ATSB did not attend the site, and investigate the very real possibility of a structural or component failure at some time during the final seconds, given the age and service conditions of that aircraft. The youngster may have been a little enthusiastic and I am not condoning the alleged actions, but the manoeuvre described may well have been performed within the airframe design limits, but was simply the straw that broke the camels back. is apparently now such a mundane event in Australian aviation that the investigator doesn’t bother turning up. Young pilots and geriatric airframes do not mix well. But I guess that now, we'll never know. |
404 Titan, in all respects I agree, although ( theres always an although ) alot of the "Evidence" can possibly be categorized as scuttlebutt, as no person was willing to actually state times and locations alot in legally left unproven.
at face value it would appear that this these pilots had infact gone feral, we've all seen them. so with that it leaves CASA with only the subjective to react to, it looks like ****, it smells like **** and yep, it tastes like ****, it therefore must be. if the persons feeding the scuttlebutt fire would come forward alteast these sort of things could be headed off. |
The youngster may have been a little enthusiastic and I am not condoning the alleged actions, but the manoeuvre described may well have been performed within the airframe design limits, but was simply the straw that broke the camels back. |
Gaunty, VH-BBI was a 210L, serial number 21060471.
DF. |
Left_Handed_Rock_Thrower, 404 Titan
Thanks guys, you both seem to understand what really happens out there. The Coroner did his job. Quite simply he needs to determine just four issues: Who,When, Where & Why . He does not convict or sentence, he may make recommendations. In almost every fatal involving a young male pilot there is likely to be an element of Testosterone Induced Activity. This may take the form of acts to demonstrate their prowess, or acts acts that indicate a denial of ability to safely perform a task. In every inquest parents of the decease will want to attribute blame to anything other than an error of judgement or act of stupidity by their son. Every time, even on this forum, we see the plaudits come in, "He was "the best pilot on the field", he was the greatest pilot, he was top of his class, he was a legend" Unfortunately, the majority of pilots who conscientiously do their job, don't break the law, fly professionally all the time just don't merit a mention. They're not legends, not the greatest pilot on the field and more importantly NOT DEAD. At the inquest, every avenue will be pursued by the family to attribute blame to the operator, the equipment, the standard of maintenance, the lack of direct supervision, or any other possible avenue that will deflect blame away from the deceased. Very seldom does the attitude or mindset of the pilot come under scrutiny. The observation that "he simply f#*@ked up" is invariably the reason for the inquest. Human factors may hold the key to why there is a need to show off, to impress, to seek attention, to flagrantly flout the law, the regulations and common sense. Sadly, by the end of the year more will have made it to the pages of ATSB reports and the Safety Digest. A Chief Pilot will exercise due diligence in placing a pilot at an outstation, knowing that his judgement has placed a pilot out of direct supervision. The Chief Pilot will ALWAYS get to hear about acts of "cowboy" flying, either from other pilots or most often the locals where the stupidity takes place. At this stage, he either condones the behaviour or sacks the pilot. There is no place for counselling, the behaviour will be repeated until sufficient maturity sets in or an accident results. Pilots need to understand that it is better to be sacked than to be permitted to kill themselves and/or passengers, and wreck an aeroplane in the process. The airlines engage in psychiatric testing during recruitment, this is not done in GA recruitment. Therein lies a potential answer to reducing the carnage of stupidity, yet this presents enormous problems of litigation, industrial relations etc. I have said it before and I will say it again. Aeroplanes don't usually crash, Pilots crash them. |
Desert Flower
Hmm that's it 1974 model, was bought new by Bell Bros, then the largest earthmoving contractors in the West and in the middle of the largest construction effort in Australia next to the Snowy scheme. The building of the Iron Ore mining infrastructure around Hedland, Karratha, Newman and Paraburdoo. It was the same age as the pilot, 28years old. Bell Bros also operated an HS1254BRA can't remember its rego, might have been VH-BBJ a C206 and C182. They were the first significant users of corporate aircraft starting I think starting with Austers then a Miles Gemini, Meta Sokol and new C411 VH-BBX, we operated the sistership VH TDB. Interesing days.:ok: Mainframe In every inquest parents of the decease will want to attribute blame to anything other than an error of judgement or act of stupidity by their son. Every time, even on this forum, we see the plaudits come in, "He was "the best pilot on the field", he was the greatest pilot, he was top of his class, he was a legend" Unfortunately, the majority of pilots who conscientiously do their job, don't break the law, fly professionally all the time just don't merit a mention. They're not legends, not the greatest pilot on the field and more importantly NOT DEAD. strewth I agree with you re the "he just f****d up", but he does deserve, that the complete picture be shown and the ATSB are not doing the other youngsters any favours, given the age of the machine, by not ensuring that a stuctural or component failure was not a contibuting factor. There are still too many of old these old sh!tfights out there masquerading as "public conveyances". I came closer than I would like to have been to becoming one of those statistics in a "modern" but "very" high hour turbine, that was waaaay past its use by time, notwithstanding that it was "spanner weary" from premium maintenance. The fault was discovered by a very diligent LAME doing a prepurchase inspection after I had flown it across the country for this purpose, in some fair turbulence at times and reported some "odd" pitch problems to him and after the preflight being signed out by the LAME at departure. It was not expected, not part of the maintenance schedule, nor had been experienced before as this aircraft was the fleet leader in airframe time. The fix was simple but the consequences prior were not. |
Gaunty
I note that in almost every one of your posts you refer to "aging" or "Geriatric" aircraft. Most of the airline aircraft in Australia have flown many more hours than the average G.A.aircraft. Also, the Caribous, F111's and FA18's are no longer young. But they are all still doing the job, and will for a while yet. It was reported that the B747 at Longreach had flown 91000 hours. Some G.A. aircraft will go to 40000 hours, and some, have no limit specified.There are aircraft in Australia built in the 1940's, still flying. Of course this all depends on good maintenance, and therin lies the problem. We have a serious problem with a shortage of LAME's, and an oversupply of desparate young pilots. The age of the aeroplane is not relevent. The condition of it is. I wonder if you may be an aeroplane salesman. |
bushy
Indeed I was, amongst other things in this industry, a fairly succesful and well respected one in new and used aircraft, if I may be so bold. But the question is not as simple as you would think. You are making the common mistake of comparing industrial grade product with domestic quality. Military aircraft are designed and built for fairly obvious reasons to be extremely robust . Next time you get to walk past an F111, particularly the F111, or F18 give the fuse or one of the flying surfaces a sharp rap with your knuckles then expect to spend the rest of the day wishing you hadn't. Notwithstanding that their complexity and the need for reliability "on task" requires them to be and also makes them very maintenance intensive. Airline equipment, industrial grade, is designed to operate 24/7 with long periods between inspections at a maintenance base, surrounded on the ground by all manner of other equipment and personnel with a high risk of "inapropriate" contact and in all manner of hostile weather conditions. Their complexity and the need for reliability "on task" requires them to be and also makes them very maintenance intensive on a maintenance hr/flight hr basis. The have however enough passenger seats available to produce a maintenance seat cost/hr heaps lower than your GA machine. If there are any aircraft flying around that were built in the 40's, you would have a hard time getting me to allow my family to fly in one, other than as a fellow enthusiast vintage aircraft buff. The public certainly have no place in this type other than as "experience" type charter and should be "informed" of the lower safety protection available. RPT in anything registered in Oz before 1 June 1963? get out of here. I recommend for your study and information if you are to become a professional pilot the complete FAA FAR 23 and FAR 25 both the performance and design sections. They set the basic rules, the manufacturer builds his reputation on the robustness and "in service reliability" of the equipment. If it is always breaking and in the shop it is not making money and the airlines are very quick to drop them, their very economic survival depends on it. You may have a view about aeroplane salesmen, perhaps you have been mixing with the wrong ones, but I can assure you the real ones are highly skilled and an integral part of the manufacturers process in providing the most important feedback and equally important education to the "end user". It is highly unlikely that you have operated new equipment or had any direct contact with the "factory salesman", given the age of the GA equipment still staggering around. If you had then you may hold a different view. We have a serious problem with a shortage of LAME's, and an oversupply of desparate young pilots Two relatively unrelated issues. LAMES; There is a dearth in ALL parts of the economy of young people wanting to start a career in skilled trades, as their perception is that "trade" is not nearly as cool as business, hospitality or whatever. Anyone with even the most glancing contact will know otherwise. Problem is the clapped out geriatric fleet and low wages resulting therefrom do not provide the financial OR professional incentive for most LAME to either stick around or promote apprentices when he can go to an operator of modern, equipment get paid whats his hard earnt skills deserve and live in a hospitable environment..\ Think about it his way, you are complaining that there aren't enough LAMEs. in the bush, unless you have decided that is where your lifetime career is going to be, then why would you be surprised that they have similar ambitions to move and progress in their professional careers. It's OK for you to go to airlines for the professioanl development and satisfaction you seek, but not them.??? If there were modern and equally sophisticated aircraft operating out there, and the modern GA stuff is, then I promise you there would not be shortage of LAMEs out there either. Working long and hard in a difficult environment to keep the same an old piece of sh!t you've had for ever flying, and having, continuously, to make job and life threatening "judgements" about how long this "bit" will last, either because there 'aint no more left in the world or the cost or remanufacture is prohibitive is not IMHO professionally fulfilling. "an oversupply of desparate (sic) young pilots" Has always been so regardless of the age of the equipment. Forgive me, but I wasn't aware that the GA industry was stuctured around the need to employ "desperate" young pilots, I always thought it was because there was a need for aviation services that employed the number of pilots necessary. There have been too many aviation endeavours that have been started on your premise to number here, rather than the other. Those that have taken the latter path are the ones that are mostly still around. In summary there are many more and much deeper historical reasons that would take more time than I have available for the moment to describe. |
Thousands of times I have asked myself "why and how?" the why has been the hardest part to deal with,the how cannot be changed. Yes the person we have been talking about was a friend,and I am a little set in my thoughts as I have had all this time to think and try to rationalise the reasons.
I feel it important to have my say too. The why? well Mr Hat made a good point when he spoke of the childhood antics and the BMX...the child never leaves us,that unrestrainable and invinceable part of our makeup..we are all children that have been told to grow up.Remember back to your BMX tricks,then onto the skateboard,then onto who had notched up the most sexual experiences by age 18,then onto who can drink the most shots...did we do all of this for ourselves? god no..or maybe to impress the mates? its a mix of our culture,the kid in us that doesnt grow up and the need to be accepted by our peers. I realise that my friend did something silly,but I cant blame him as a person for that and call him a fool,he didnt go up that day to kill himself,he loved his life too much and he had so much of it to give. It has however brought a lot of things to light,that should be discussed and taken seriously for someone elses sake. Why was the maintenance release not signed for 2 days? was it a normal practice or was there a legitiment reason from the pilots to not want to sign it? were they in fear of grounding an aircraft at such a remote location without a maintenance facility within cooeee? would they have to walk hot coals? The wages? they were paid a "small retainer" and then by the hour for flying.."enough to survive" in the words of the boss....I didnt see a mention that out of this they were then charged rent for the "substandard conditions" and that they also had to sell cigarettes to the locals to have enough to make it survivable. It was well known what goes on up there and considering every pilot I have met from there is knowledable in the fact, before and after, I find it hard to beleive that the owners were not aware.Sure they all have a choice,they didnt need to accept the job but the only choice they made was to live there and put up with it for a short period of time,just enough to gain the hours to move on. There was a hypothetical situation mentioned about a report coming onto a chief pilots desk about suspicions of low flying and beat ups,the boss would give the pilot a verbal thrashing and possible release of employment...well I dont beleive that it would be the unfair dismissal they would be worried about,sure it would cost a bit but nothing compared to the pilot making phone calls to the authority about aircraft maintenance and employment expectations...this is where the culture breeding is starting. We have a pilot who is underpaid,needing those first hours to get the hell out of there,living on cheap food,living no better than the locals,very little respect for the owners system of operation and we expect him to stay within the regulations and be responsible and respectful? that would not make him human would it? disrespect breeds disrespect..... do you think he needs better training or education? no he needs to feel respected not used,needs to be flying safe machines,needs to be given the responsibility that if he is not happy with the aircraft it doesnt fly....this is a breeding ground for this cowboy culture and if anyone who had been there both past and present were to speak they would only say they were grateful for enough hours to get away from the whole scene...that's why they dont have pilots who are in senior years there with more experience. Gaunty talked about the straw that broke the camels back..I am not saying this had anything to do with it but it is a concern for the others still flying...these machines have thousands of hours on them,and being that Rob was not the only one that ever did this you have to ask yourself.."how many times can this machine do this before something in the airframe goes snap?"..it can happen definitely and it will happen if it continues to be the culture..think about the person that has to fill your shoes next round,when you are eating prawns and they are eating pasta. At the time of the accident many pilots in the said admitted to doing the same,and it was mentioned in the inquest....not a single one was given marching orders.. I agree with Dog One..CASA does need to be more than a paper tiger,I know they need hard evidence but what harder evidence do they need than a deceased person before there are controls put into place to stop the culture breeding..the only way to stop the culture is from the top,the operators not the pilots,it follows the chain.There is not one person in the company I am employed that would ever do anything similar,the sheer fact that it would be dismissal,no question about that breeds a culture of safe flying. When you have circumstances like this there are always going to be inquests involving the family,"every avenue will be persued to attribute blame,the operator,the equipment,the standard of maintenace,lack of direct supervision and anything else to deflect blame"...and why? because without concerns and questionabiltiy about all the above there wouldnt be one,and they have the right! I challenge every one of you who find this out of line to sit for 2 years, just like this family has had to, and think about why the child you gave birth to and loved unconditionally is no longer with you...you'd be asking questions too.. |
The last thing any young male pilot needs is an audience of fellow young male pilots.
Condolences to all hurt by this waste. |
urkidnme
Well thought out and right to the point. CASA will support you, but you will have to be proactive, it is now and has ever been the pilot who is the frontline trooper for the Regulator. That's why your licensing training teaches you what the rules are and what is and is not acceptable. It carries with it an obligation, if you don't fulfil that obligation then you have no right of reply. The rest you have covered. Oh and thanks for amplifying my comments. these machines have thousands of hours on them,and being that Rob was not the only one that ever did this you have to ask yourself.."how many times can this machine do this before something in the airframe goes snap?"..it can happen definitely and it will happen if it continues to be the culture.. |
admitting inaction is as bad as action, the company directly or indirectly could not possibly advocate this sort of flying.
Whether or not the pilot was treated to a lesser level than he expected or not, is irrelevant, poor conditions did not kill this pilot, i like most others that work in GA have found themselves in this situation, it didn't make me go out and carry out these type of acts, hence the reason i'm still alive. If this accident happened from a snapping wing spar whilst operating within the parameters of normal flight, then the arguement would be different. in the same way this accident is not due to only one factor, if he didn't carry out this aerobatic manuevre, and subsequently stuff it up he'd have survived this flight. even to the observers of this wing over it was evident he had not succesfully carried out this maneuver, be it legal or illegal, an aerobatic pilot in a pitts special could die in the exact same way. |
I think there are two separate issues here.
A person has died because he pushed beyond the laws of physics. The operator is using the over supply of pilots to their advantage. Much the same as most others do. I don't think the gentleman went out that day saying "I'm getting paid nothing, I'm going to do a beat up". It might more have been along the lines of "Ah the boys will love this - it will look and sound awsome". This is NOT to say that this young man may have used all his skills everyday to stay alive, and to stop clapped out heaps of sh1t from killing him. This is also NOT to say that "getting by" is ok. This is NOT to say that he wasn't pressured a million times and even when not direclty pressured felt pressures to do things that were wrong and dangerous (read: wet season... go or be gone). I think the above pressures may blur the focus of a pilot and may leave a pilot jaded and therefore more likely to go astray. What I cannot say is that the operator is responsible for the mans death. If he had made a normal departure that day he would be alive today and the world would be a better place to have him still on board. As for the operator who knows? I'm sure they have done some serious soul searching. I'm sure the people that pulled him from the wreckage must have. Brave people indeed. Viewing that sort of carnage is highly reccomended to pilots that are thinking of doing any tricks and to operators who have lost a grip on reality and are pushing people continually beyond the realms of safety. |
I don't think that the particular operator can be blamed for the death. All of us as pilots know the risks of beat-ups etc. I think that it is wrong to blame the operator.
However The company has a responsibilty, like all operators, to treat their pilots as valued employees. It is not the choice of the pilot to live in Arnhem Land, nor is it their intention to be paid so they "can survive". The operators of that company know that the only way their pilots survive is by "supplimenting" their income. Sure it is a good experience (looking back of course :D) but we are still qualified professionals getting paid less than your average 15 year old Maccas flipper. I truely believe that when you show somebody respect, you get respect in return. If these operators looked after their pilots, thanked them for hard work etc, maybe they would see their employers in a better light. Nobody ever thinks they will die (it won't happen to me etc) but everybody fears that one indiscretion may cost their job and if that job is valued, then it's not worth the risk. Just my bitter and jaded opinion. |
Used and Abused
I don't think that the particular operator can be blamed for the death. All of us as pilots know the risks of beat-ups etc. I think that it is wrong to blame the operator. Civil Aviation Act section 28BE - Duty to exercise care and diligence (1) The holder of an AOC must at all times take all reasonable steps to ensure that every activity covered by the AOC, and everything done in connection with such an activity, is done with a reasonable degree of care and diligence. (2) If the holder is a body having legal personality, each of its directors must also take the steps specified in subsection (1). (3) It is evidence of a failure by a body and its directors to comply with this section if an act covered by this section is done without a reasonable degree of care and diligence mainly because of: (a) inadequate corporate management, control or supervision of the conduct of any of the body's directors, servants or agents; or (b) failure to provide adequate systems for communicating relevant information to relevant people in the body. CAO 82.0 Appendix 1 - 2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF CHIEF PILOT 2.1 The Chief Pilot for an operator is to have control of all flight crew training and operational matters affecting the safety of the flying operations of the operator. 2.2 The responsibilities of a Chief Pilot must, unless CASA otherwise specifies in writing, include the following responsibilities: (a) Ensuring that the operator’s air operations are conducted in compliance with the Act, the Regulations and the Civil Aviation Orders. (b) Arranging crew rosters. (c) Maintaining up-to-date records of all licences, rating, medical certificates and endorsements held by each flight crew member employed by the operator. (d) Maintaining an efficient system for recording flight crew duty and flight times for each crew member employed by the operator. (e) Maintaining up-to-date records of the qualifications of each pilot employed by the operator. (f) Ensuring compliance with loading procedures specified for each aircraft type used by the operator and proper compliance of loading documents, including passenger and cargo manifests. (g) Effectively managing the organisation’s training and checking functions. (h) Conducting proficiency tests in the execution of emergency procedures and issuing certificates of proficiency as required by section 20.11 of the Civil Aviation Orders. (i) Training flight crew in the acceptance and handling of dangerous goods as required by the Regulations or the Orders. (j) Ensuring that the document library required under the conditions of the operator’s AOC is properly maintained and kept up-to-date. (k) Monitoring the standard of operation authorised by the operator’s AOC. (l) Allocating aircraft for use in particular operations conducted under the operator’s AOC. The Coroners report has stated that this operator failed in a number of the above requirements. If this is the case then I believe CASA should take action against this operator. Remember just like your license, an AOC is not a right, it is a privilege. With a privilege goes responsibility and if this operator has failed in their responsibility then they should lose their privilege, i.e. their AOC. With the rest of your post you don’t have an argument from me. |
Used, many companies by there policies alone disagree with your point that it is their "responsibility" to treat the pilots as respected members of staff.
the reason i feel this is the case is due to many pilots not respecting the company, a 2 way street. if you were to try and calculate the reasons this accident happened, break it into percentages, "the pilot doing something stupid because he wanted to" would still be the highest scorer. im sure theres been many other pilots in this company that have flown company aircraft and not killed themselves conducting a wing over, does that mean these individuals were breaking legislation by not doing what presumably all the others were doing, or did this pilot decide to operate by the laws, of which every CPL holder should be well versed. contributing facts to this accident could even cover things such as the pilot having run out of his favourite toilet paper the night before and had to use the " rough stuff " (you know the single sheet spearmint scented stuff) he stole from the public toilets at Borroloola the day before, who knows, but ultimately he made the decision that caused his death. |
404 Titan
I agree with you that they are legally responsible to ensure that their bases and pilots are supervised and run safely within the law. What I was trying to say was that I think that it is silly to say that he was living in a sh!t hole on bad wages etc and this was the reason he did it. I hope that makes sense. Left handed rock thrower says : the reason i feel this is the case is due to many pilots not respecting the company, a 2 way street. I feel so dirty. |
I feel so dirty and perhaps even violated.
|
Gaunty
I am very surprised at your series of posts on this forum, and your reply to my previous post This is not what I would expect from a "well respected"person in the aviation world. Your comment "if you are to become a professional pilot" was interesting. I have flown 15000 hours in the last 30 odd years, including time in the sacred, whizz bang multi turbine machines. You also say "It is highly unlikely that you have operated new equipment or met with factory salesmen" Yes I have. A young man has died and this is serious. Operating small aircraft in the outback is essential, difficult work which demands a very high degree of skill, Knowledge, and self discipline. It is a very unforgiving and can appear to be deceptively simple. Lapses of discipline are a human trait and can be deadly. I recently heard of an aviation safety lecturer who was seen " beating up" vehicles on an outback road. He probably did not realise the danger of what he was doing. What is really needed is a far more positive attitude, and some more experienced pilots. This will not happen while G.A. is only considered as a way to get hours and get out of there. It will not work properly with pilots who do not want to be there. It takes time to get to be a good bush pilot, and it is an honourable profession.This is the most important flying in the country, and it is not easy. Most G.A. aeroplanes in the outback are about one third of the way through their useful life, and their condition depends on how well they have been looked after. New aeroplanes will not stop the accidents. Accidents are usually caused by people. It is not appropriate to use this to denigrate the aeroplanes for what appear to be commercial reasons masquerading as safety. I am sorry gaunty. Your attitude and writings do not earn my respect. Outback Aviator |
It took me a long time to actually summon courage to open this post and take a look-see.
Rob made a mistake, the culmination a few trialled and "escaped with his skin manouvers"... I too have seen some idiot things done by pilots... formation flying, barrel rolls in partenavias (anyone who doubts what happens to a partenvia when it stresses on an over 2 "g" maneouver should take a look at an airshow video available). The barrel roll I saw went well for the pilot concerned... this time. What really concerned me was the hero worship going on in the C207 behind me. The same pilot canyon flying, low level along rivers and lakes, and all the "junior" pilots thought him the hero. I counldnt proove a thing. But the pardy turns up after a couple of months of this treatment with popped wing rivets and had to have spar straps long before the relevant AD came out. Thats where it starts. Pilots thinking 1. they are having some innocent fun with a machine in front of their mates, 2. no one will know, 3. there is no evidence, 4. the company cant do a thing.... anyway I dont care! Im so sick to the stomach of people dying in front of me.... I saw it 1 or 2 a year self induced fatalities... If you an call them that. Company induced pressure, time induced pressure, any pressure you like, its still the pilots choice. My current job involves more immediate consequences and death. Self induced pressures or poor decision making killing people on our roads. My humble veiw of the CP's position is to investigate reputed allegations thoroughly and impartially... allow an open office in conjuction with respect running both sides of the table. The CP is there for the pilots and CASA. He / she should be the mediator between company issues, compliance, and pilots issues. Ive worked under CP's who were willing to sacrifice ethics, respect, and compliance to satisfy an owner. The same as rolling a partenvia, the CP will come unstuck at some point, but has never earned the respect or leadership of the companies pilots but they were a hero to the boss... until the boss sacrificed them to the court system. Sure, as Gaunty has said, these airframes are domestic quality, there is a limit to what expense can be shovelled out to keep it flying cheaply vs scrapping the airframe and sourcing a less tired one. These airframes deserve more care and TLC, not more stressful flying than its manufacturer intended. There are newer options.. the GA8 is a good all-round machine, as are some of the other machines on the market... the C210 was fast you say... errr, airframe drag took a once proud 150kt machine down past 140-130 range... The shorter legs common in the arnhem area are more suited and most of the newer types are waaaayyyy better ventilated) to something like a GA8 or the composite Explorer idea. Any one who says, oh, we cant afford the upgrades... mmm... Im out of line but it dosnt have to be instant upgrade... a nice current model 206 is going to last 20 years as well. The accounts out there Im sure will agree, that a new or very low time current model airplane is a good investment, And the clients like em. There are ways of protecting such investments, from pax and pilots to a degree... but a pilot flying a new machine is going to be much more protective of it than a clapped out old one, where youre lucky if the radios work. I know of this company, and frankly any company which cannot afford to pay pilots, cannot afford to operate. Three airframe recoverys / losses in four months... But, a huge but.... is pilots have minds and decisions to make on their own... You decide to stay and put up with substandard conditions, you decide to put up with harrassment and degredating behaviour, you decide to conduct potientially dangerous acts. If these companies decide this is what the best conditions are... then bite your tongue, and move on... Even Rob knew that. The cowboys of arnhemland are more than alive and well. Only the current lot can change anything...and bitching at the bar while organising the esky for the next profiteering run of KFC and cigs after a town stop doesnt count. Its easier than you think... The pilot underdog doesnt have to be a flea and tick ridden, down trodden camp dog. Well thats my albiet opinionated piece said.... rest easy Guys... |
bushy
I take exception to your assertion that I have a commercial motivation insofar as my comments on the safety issues here are concerned and I think you have chosen to misunderstand me. Just for the record, I have not been involved in new aircraft sales for over 15 or used for around 10 years now, neither do I have any direct or beneficial financial interest therein. Having said that, I think you are confusing the message, safety is and always will be a commercial imperative, why otherwise would we spend so much time and money on maintenance and inspection. Old equipment costs more to maintain properly, than is commercially viable. Just today I was talking to a mate in the sales business who had to spend $13,000 on a 100hrly on an aircraft he had just traded and has since found another $8-12,000 that needs to be dealt with, before it can be presented for sale. Yes it was a charter bushy and yes not the least bit uncommon. Tell me that the operator had been maintaining that aircraft to acceptable Charter standards and where was the airworthiness Regulator. They are not all tarred with the same brush, but neither does the age of the equipment help them either. The youngsters are having to fly that sort of gear. The whole regulatory routine is a farce unless there is also regulation of the revenues. To leave it to the market, in GA in any event, will inevitably produce the result that we now have. You may be surprised to know that I totally agree with much of what you say; A young man has died and this is serious. Operating small aircraft in the outback is essential, difficult work which demands a very high degree of skill, Knowledge, and self discipline. It is a very unforgiving and can appear to be deceptively simple. Lapses of discipline are a human trait and can be deadly What is really needed is a far more positive attitude, and some more experienced pilots. This will not happen while G.A. is only considered as a way to get hours and get out of there. It will not work properly with pilots who do not want to be there. It takes time to get to be a good bush pilot, and it is an honourable profession.This is the most important flying in the country, and it is not easy. Most G.A. aeroplanes in the outback are about one third of the way through their useful life, and their condition depends on how well they have been looked after. New aeroplanes will not stop the accidents. If you had been following my posts for the last 5 or 6 years you will have seen that I have consistently argued that it is the lack of revenues and regulatory control that has forced/allowed the situation to develop where the operators simply have no option but to keep old and yes sh!fight aircraft going that have no place to be doing so and were not designed to be so. You may have a different opinion, but that is a fact. Shall we have a discussion on the 400 series and Navajo spar life. It became an issue when it became clear that these types were going to flying way past what the manufacturers had intended. And you can trust me to keep on about it too, until there are some positive changes and yes IMHO it is a legitimate role for AOPA. Unless of course you subscribe to the idea that bushies should be required to accept a lesser standard of equipment than the townies. In most States now, you cannot register a Public Taxi or Charter vehicle, bus, or whatever that is more than 10 years old, and/or does not meet some fairly strict criterion in appearance, condition and serviceability. And by law/regulation, they all have to charge the same fare, and that is rigourously monitored. Try turning up in your immaculately maintained EJ Holden with a taxi sign on the roof and see whether you can get a fare , other than the Vintage Holden buffs or Wedding Cars. You couldn't now get compliance on one, if you presented remanufactured versions without extensive modification that would cost more than it would be worth. The world has moved on a little since 1967. Which takes me back to: What is really needed is a far more positive attitude, and some more experienced pilots. This will not happen while G.A. is only considered as a way to get hours and get out of there. Tell me that you would rather be flying an old clunker than something new and modern. How do you maintain that positive attitude and experienced pilots around and what is going to keep the youngsters of whom you speak motivated when the boss wont charge enough to be able to afford a modern well equipped fleet. The "badges of honour" often described here by the youngsters about how they had to "borrow" the toilet paper from the airport toilets and "scrounge" food to make ends meet, might be a "rite of passage" but are inexorably linked to the age and decrepitude of some of the equipment the operator makes them fly. We all know who they are and are not. There are operators out there reequipping with new gear. New gear is very expensive and focuses the owners attention like nothing else on its operation and by whom, every body wins. If you had read my profile you will see that I was also directly involved in the beginning of the modern GA business as we now know it. I have been there and done it then and more recently having no trouble whatsoever getting top revenue dollar for top equipment. It is the dills who undercut your rates, just so that they can stay in a business that never existed for them in the first place. The regulators State and Federal stand back and watch the race to the bottom. And try to bring in even more regulations to stop the rot. We have to break that poverty mentality for all our sakes. I promise you if the Australian fleet wasn't as old as it is you would not be seeing anything like the type of regulation they are attempting to impose. Shall we talk about the QLD Govt medical contract that allowed the replacement of younger aircraft with a much older C90, it can only have been on the basis of price, which took a young pilot and his passengers to their deaths. I'd be happy to discuss my evidence and the subsequent acceptance and recommendation by the Coroner on this and the Transport category issues in relation to a recent turbine fatal. It will take a little time to wind its way through the system, but it will mean better, safer and younger equipment for passengers and pilots to fly. Everybody wins. Further if you want to have a snipe at my AOPA aspirations feel free, but ask yourself this question, unless someone is buying new equipment and traditionally it was the operators, where do you think the late model used for the private market is going to come from. Anything that is not a C172/182 in the private market is being snapped up by the operators desperate for lower hour equipment. Because the operators have not been able to maintain their revenue rates, that, market supply has been skewed to the detriment of the private guy. Get it back into balance and everybody wins. The public get better safer equipment, you seem to have ignored the FAR23/25 argument, the pilots get better and more modern equipment, the owners can afford to pay other than slave wages and just maybe, they will see that GA as a career, is indeed an honourable and satisfying one. It certainly was for me. We have 2 options, accept the status quo and resign oursleves to second best or change it. One last thing, you choose to take "if you are to become a professional pilot" I recommend for your study and information if you are to become a professional pilot the complete FAA FAR 23 and FAR 25 both the performance and design sections. Doesn't matter how many hours you've got, I 've met types of pilots driving all manner of whizbangs, airline corporate and charter who have not the faintest idea of the fundamental difference in philosphy between the two. They may know how to apply the rules pertaining, but not the underlying reason beyond that the aircraft weight is over or under a now arbitrary 5700kg. FAR23 = safe = private, business and recreational. FAR25 = safest = the conveyance of the public = Transport category. As a result of a thread I started in Reporting Points on this subject in relation to the deaths of a C404 crew and their dead heading airline pilot and FA passengers, that airline and the others in the UK who hadn't already, changed their deadheading policy completely in response. Did I bag the type or the crew, no, just made those who should have known, better educated about the issues. That's right, very few in the airlines and certainly the great majority of the Airline pilots who responded really understood what this public transport category was all about. I think the regulator reviewed their policy on it as well. I copped a fair bit of flack about that too, but I would do it all over again. Everybody won. Those operators who had been operating this market in the older piston twins found that they had to operate and could get paid for modern whizbangs, pilots got upgraded, passengers were safer and so it goes. I think its time we all had that discussion as pilots and owners in Australia. We do not have any alternative. NC These airframes deserve more care and TLC, not more stressful flying than its manufacturer intended. |
Useful site and relevant--
http://www.hikoudo.com/index.html It is as Gann titled a book: 'Fate is the Hunter.' You should not worry about the friend to beat, or the government minimum standard to meet; this is a long game of solitaire. You must not stop if you have beaten the other student or have passed a test. The real exam will come when you are alone. Chinese Taoist philosopher Lao Tzu is credited with the saying, "The way of the sage is to act but not to compete." Sam showed me that we should blend with the energy and flow of the universe to make the perfect flight, not butt heads and compete in false contests of ego. There may be few visible flying competitions -- especially outside the military and college crowds -- yet pilots create tremendous internal competitive pressures. To solo in ten hours, to make the flight without turning back, to make the runway the first time. We can turn flying into a competition. Unfortunately many make the completion standards way too low. People pass the flight test, then relax and get complacent. We may compete with the sky, or the operating manual, or a friend -- instead of working with them. The only real test will come alone. Maybe in the dark. Certainly unexpectedly. You might fail the test before you even know you are sitting an exam. In controlled flight into terrain accidents -- CFIT is the industry term -- pilots fly a perfectly good airplane into the ground and don't even know what hit them. Talking with an NTSB investigator about human nature one day, he mentioned that the most dangerous thing he know of to a new pilot was a video camera. The pilot feels the almost irresistible need to show-off, to look not just competent, but great. Consider the F-14 going vertical (up then down) while the (proud then horrified) parents filmed below. Or the C-150 buzzing the girlfriends house then stalling. Showing off in front of airshow crowds has wasted a perfectly good Airbus airliner and a B-52, along with lots of lives. The video camera can kill you -- and a bunch of innocent Italian skiers enjoying a nice day in the mountains. You have to resist the pilot ego. Make your way to be the quiet controlled pilot who does not show off. When others (the boss, the passengers, ATC) or yourself (your schedule, your pride, your ego) push you to go faster -- you go slower. We know it unconsciously. The panicked pilot is frantic, rushing out of control. The commanding captain of the ship has the deep slow voice. He or she has time for everything. They have mastered the routine giving them the time to look at the big picture. During one flight with Sam when I was rushing to do everything he reached over and smacked me on the shoulder. "Relax or you will die all tensed up," he said. You can do more by going slower. U.S. airline captains, in addition to simulator checks and recurrent ground training, have to have a 'line check' at least once a year. A check airman sits in the cockpit and observes a normal flight. Very few people fail line checks, but the possibility is there, and everyone wants to look good to the examiners. It's a follow-every-rule-exactly-by-the-book kind of an event. A couple of years ago, at the end of a four-day flight sequence, I had a line check flying from Chicago O'Hare to Madison, Wisconsin. (Smart check airmen choose short flights that get them home in time for dinner.) Thanks to a sharp first officer and good weather the line check went well. As a courtesy I offered the Puerto Rican check airman the left seat for the flight back to O'Hare, but he preferred to sleep in the passenger cabin. We taxied out on time only to hear from ATC that O'Hare had a ground hold due to traffic, and that no estimated takeoff time was available. Arghh. We pulled to a stop on the only convenient taxiway, and shut down an engine to save gas. We talked to the flight attendant. We talked to the passengers. We waited. Parked with a tailwind, ATR aircraft have an occasional bad habit of giving an amber caution alert 'NAC OVHT,' meaning that the engine nacelle is starting to overheat. You change the airflow over the nacelle (by say bringing the 13-foot propeller out of feather) and the caution normally goes out in 20 seconds or so. No big deal. We knew we might get this alert sitting with a tailwind. We sat together in the Wisconsin sun, the three normal occupants of an airline flight deck -- captain, first officer, and boredom. In the calm warm cockpit we heard an aural alert. I put the yesterday's USA Today newspaper down to deal with the NAC OVHT caution. But if it's a nacelle overheat why is the red engine fire handle lit up? Strange, that sounds like the fire bell. Engine fire? Engine fire! I slowly struggled through the syrup of clichéd confusion. Simulator training and mental review reasserted themselves. The first officer was fully aware. We called out the 'Engine Fire - Ground' checklist from memory like a couple of drill sergeants. It started weird because the checklist expects you to be taxing, but we were stopped with one engine shut down. However we worked the problem. Soon I was firing the explosive squibs that release halon gas into the engine to starve a fire of oxygen. My crew were evacuating the passengers. I was talking on the radio to gentlemen in bright yellow trucks wearing silver spacesuits. I fired the second shot of halon gas. The (as it turned out very small) fire finally went out. Entering the empty cabin, a captain alone on a crippled ship, I saw the rows of seats were not quite empty. The check airman was sitting in the back row. Grinning. "You never know when the real checkride gonna happen." He was right of course. It was not my real test, but it was a wake up call. None of us know when the real test will come. I doubt it will happen with an examiner -- or a got-to-impress-girlfriend -- watching me in the right seat. It will come alone. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 09:00. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.