I am not a conspiracy theorist at all but after reading the article in the Sunday Mail today (29/9/02-page 9) we might have to look beyond the square. The US citizen who so tragically lost his life had a father who was and I quote a veteran CIA counter- terrorism expert. The US couple had just spent the night with the US Ambassador to Australia a long time friend and the US woman, who's life was spared by a twist of fate, had written an analysis of how a terrorist attack on US air bases would affect their combat capabilities. The couple also worked for SAIC, one of the largest research and engineering companies in the US.
Am I finding too much subtext here?

Yeah!...I think that's a long shot when you consider that turning back to the field instead of landing straight ahead is an accepted no no. I say that without disrespect to the families of those involved.

In answer to your question Skychaser - YES.

My condolences to all involved in this tragic accident.

Skychaser, stop taking those drugs.
 

What an unadulterated load of rubbish from Skychaser. So it was a "hit"? Just stop and THINK for a minute. IF you wanted to remove some one wouldn't it be quietly and disreetly? A light aircraft crash is guaranteed to make the front page.

Oh I just realised, it was a wind up. Good one.:rolleyes:

Is anyone else as disgusted as I am at the ATSB's exploitation of this tragic accident to promote the flight recorder issue?

Jesus, you can't be serious! FDR's in a cherokee six? I fail to see what that will achieve that a decent scene investigation won't.
This winds me me up a bit FDr's TCAS, EGPWS. The expense would put most companies out of business. Or maybe the ATSB/CASA would just as sooner not have people fly comercially in light aircraft?

GAMAN

Your last sentence sums it up in a nutshell.

The media reports the engine "spluttered" and the aircraft turned back, with the usual result. Conspiracy theories are ludicrous.

If the aircraft was the one I think it was, I am surprised the ATSB issued (according to the media) an immediate interim report, indicating a Log Book and history "clean bill of health."

I think you will find the FDR currently being discussed for light aircraft is a small and relatively low cost solid state device, currently under development and trial.

Tragic for all involved and condolences to all.

A few issues to comment on here. The previous operator used partenavias and 402's for the island hopping, and the new operator needs to reinvent the wheel and use "barely" singles.
The media has also issued a statement that the crash was caused by possible fuel contamination. With respect to the 1300hr deceased pilot, I speculate that the accident was caused when he decided to turn a fully laydened sh#tbox back at low level. How many times do flying instructors and operators for that matter need to drum into students heads that turning back will kill you. In fact a particular 208 operator in QLD tells his boys that a caravan can turn back "feathered" from 500 ft. Thats fine on an empty a/c, but they seldom are. This false sense of security is a bad thing to install in junior pilots minds. Trying to bring the bird back is a financial issue, its the low level spin recovery that kills the boys.
The better outcome here would have been that the GA pilot lost his job (which is what happens these days), and the insurance company is b#tching about a wet Cherokee 6 or one that ground looped on the remaining runway, and every one walked away. But sadly the newspapers didn't read that way.

If anything comes of this, lets consider the turn back issue, and maybe operators should consider suitable aircraft types for certain routes based on safety not the $$$

Be safe. :rolleyes:

Sad, Sad, Sad.....
 

My heart and sympathies go out to all concerned.


Seems that Grant Kenny had some type of financial interest in the aircraft....However, that aside, the local "newspaper" here on the Sunshine Coast, ran a story on the front page, by Carly Crawford, headlined Shaken Kenny to stay with aviation.....The story was a brief outline of what happened at Hamilton, the unfortunate incidents involving Grant recently (last 12- 18 months) and Grant's own staring death in the face.

Following is a brief excerpt from that story:

And Kenny himself stared death in the face when he was a passenger on a Hazelton Airlines flight from Sydney which stalled mid-air before plunging earthwards.

That incident happened on a Bathurst bound flight in June, when the 500-tonne passenger plane stalled, rolled and dived, only pulling up 65 metres before hitting the ground.

I have checked and have not made any typos.

If it was the aircraft I think it was, I had a problem with its fuel system a few years ago. Selected the left tip tank and the engine stopped. Switching bank to the mains got it going again. The engineers found a problem with the fuel selector... hope this had nothing to do with it.

Condolences to family, friends and colleagues of all involved.

Please,

none of us has Factual information on this tragedy.

The media, as always, speculates ( and reads pprune ) and it's sole interest is to sell newspapers and prime time news.

Very seldom does the media get it right, and they never apologise for their usually spectacular mistakes.

Todays news is tomorrow's fish & chips wrapper, when the story is flogged to it's end, they move on to something else.

The media, particularly with regard to aviation, have their own lexicon. "Fully laden", "Full of Fuel", etc,etc etc. is their stock in trade, uttered without verification, and arrogantly, no retraction is ever issued. I have been party to what they can say and how they say it.

None of us can make a single guess at what happened based on media reports. Think back to Whyalla Airlines, remember the absolute b**!!!!! published, so much so that an operator was illegally shut down purely on the basis of the media deciding what was the cause and who was to blame. Even tricky Dicky grandstanded (and was so very wrong) on this, no-one apologised and no-one will.

I hope that none of you readers ever have to stand trial by media, and if you do, I wish you luck in having the wrong redressed.

I can assure you that both ATSB and the insurance company investigator (who is usually extremely skilled, attends most crashes and works with ATSB, NTSB and other regulatory bodies internationally) can generally, through thorough investigative work, come up with a plausible or most likely scenario, and one which usually is validated later with credible evidence.

It is disappointing that our media cannot be relied on to validate the c**p that they print, they really don't care, the old journalistic maxim of "Never let the Truth get in the way of a good Story" will always reign supreme, as unfortunately some of you may be unfortunate enough to experience in your careers.

None of us can make a judgement on the basis of media reports has to be understood by everyone, and the real maxim, "The Truth Will always Prevail" generally wins in the end.

So, please, don't second guess this on the basis of an unskilled (aviation) and poorly informed journalist who is trying to impress his/her editor with a great story.

As with Whyalla and many others, the truth will prevail.

Trust ATSB, they really do know their stuff, as does the insurance investigator, they will guide us closer to the truth than the media, and they don't use the media to get to the facts, they get the facts themselves. We will learn what did happen or may have happened, and we learn from that.

Even the reports of FDR's and CVR's are the result of the press manipulating that which they don't understand and quoting out of context. Common sense dictates that it is virtually imposssible to install a FDR in a GA aircraft, maybe a CVR, but the media does not even know the difference !

A bit trivial, indeed demeaning don't you think Nasa, especially given the scale of family fatalities, attempting to score brownie points by proving you're savvy enough to spot the '500 tonne' blooper by a cub reporter in a small provincial newspaper?

While nothing to do with the recent accident it may be of topical interest to know that the RFDS practice turn backs on the PC12.
The Bonanza Society Proficiency Training scheme included demonstration turn backs. And the RAAF practice turn backs on the PC9.

While reputable operators practice such nonsense and get away with it no wonder word gets around that its worth a go occasionally.

I dont think it is fair to condemn any institution in particular for advocating turnbacks. Whilst in general it is not advisable, this is more to do with the general low performance of GA aircraft, rather than with the manoevre itself. It is simply a function of altitude/speed/distance. In a cherokee six, I suspect that there is no chance at all that it will have ever achieved a height at which a turnback would be successful. A PC9 however is a totally different kettle of fish. It has a level of performance that enables it to be able to trade speed/height/distance to make a turnback possible. In the case that an aircraft has the capability, and your company has the resources to ensure that all pilots are proficient in the manoevre (ie RAAF), and the potential to throw it away (i.e eject) still exists, then it must be preferable to train for the possibility rather than blindly eject from a recoverable situation.

Don't Shoot The Messenger
 

Bon Giorno…..Trivial…..Yes…..Demeaning…..Yes….. attempting to score brownie points…..Yes….. especially given the scale of family fatalities…..Even more so.

The story by a cub reporter in a small provincial newspaper was all of the above, and was an attempt at pure sensationalism with no proper research into facts, but by putting a picture of Grant Kenny on the front page of the Provincial Newspaper in the locality where he lives and runs his businesses from, was designed purely to sell newspapers.

Your post highlighted the point I was trying to make….being savvy enough to spot the '500 tonne' blooper is easy for people involved in the industry, but is just fodder for the masses, further denigrating the aviation industry in the eyes of those who are not aware of the folly of believing the press

What a terrible loss.

As far as a turn back I would think a full Cherokee six would have the glide angle of a greased crow-bar.

PC9 Turnbacks
 

The RAAF are very strict on teaching turnbacks. Students are NOT taught them on the PC9 - the first time anyone gets to do them is instructors course (CFS). Good article in one of the DFS Flying Safety mags (Spotlight) last year on turnbacks and their history. Worth a read if you can get your hands on it.

As this thread is diverging into a turnback debate (but that does not yet confirm what happened - we await the BASI report) people might like to refer something from the depths of pprune - started by the inimitable Centaurus.

turnbacks

From it there is such a wealth of inexact science, so much so that it is easy to see how a pilot, young, old, black or white might make a dubious decision to give it a crack if faced with an ugly situation ahead. Personally I do not advocate it in light GA singles. Gliders (ones without the motor on the ground!) and PC12 with professioal training is a little different.

Centaurus,

Didn't the RAAF lose a Winjeel and crew at Point Cook many years ago as a result of a turn-back?