Oh, come on....enough of that "twin engine/twin pilot save lifes" crap...

His plan was pure and simple, and it should have worked out...should have, but as we know, it didnt.

If the report was true, he was just another inexperienced pilot trashing it...

The report claims he only had 1000 hours, which is nothing when it comes to mountain flying, especially at night....

So it appears it was another loss of life based on a pilot misjudging the situation, and being overconfidant on skills there were not up to the game.

I have done high altitude operations, landed 8 Pax at 16400 feet, did longline (single pilot) to the same location, and did NVG sling load into the mountains as well (multi pilot)-but then i was trained to do it.

Before my training, i thought i had done it all...so what new tricks could they teach me "old dog" in the mountain course?
I had it all already..VFR, IFR, instructor, examiner, single pilot, multi pilot, long line, onshore, offshore, NVG

Oh, how they showed me..
And i learned....

Thereafter i never approached something i havent done before in the same way...and that might have been one of the most valuable lessons i ever learnt..

no, the point is that a twin-engine, twin pilot operation would generally have more checks and balances than a single-pilot operation.

You would at least have to display some CRM to convince the other guy that your plan was safe and thought through and you would have considered your actions in the event of a single engine failure and possibly modified your departure to take that into account.

You would probably have a better instrument and navigation aids suite with maybe a backup GPS or moving map.

Instead we have a one-man band, albeit with a passenger, who decides that a night unaided mountain departure is a good idea, has some sort of problem he wasn't expecting (whether it was environmental or mechanical I don't know) who didn't treat the situation with the respect that it demanded.

exactly.

Need a 'Like' button for this;

Additional engines don't prevent CFIT, never will.

Additional crew helps a lot, provided there is no steep gradient in the cockpit between you and an indigenous air race world champion holding a CPL(A), CPL(H) (rated for AS350, BO105,R66) and entitled to NVFR.

Following applicatble regulations/permits would have prevented this 100%:

The off airfield takeoff and landing permit was issued for
- a maximum of 3 takeoffs and landings between 2016-07-15 and 2016-09-15
- at that mountain hut only
- and valid only between 07:30 and 14:00(!).
So the nightly departure (1h past ECET) was unauthorized. Specifying a bogus departure location on the flight plan further adds some sour taste, sounding like conserving on remaining allowed rides to the hut.

Especially sad, as there was time enough to take off before 14:00 lct, thereby complying with all regs. and avoiding mountain NVFR.

exactly my point, someone non-aircrew would trust the pilot implicitly whereas someone trained - even if they were very junior - would say something.

Trouble is - as we have seen too many times on these pages - when someone is determined to bend the rules because they can, they are their own worst enemy and any normal risk assessment seems to go out of the window.

crab
What's wrong with bending some of the rules? you know the silly ones...

Oh yes, the silly ones that were written by someone else and clearly don't apply to me because I am so much better................and then suddenly you are a preventable statistic.

Chop jock cast a big fly into the water and you just had to take it .......!!

except that you and he have often supported 'rule-benders' in the past in terms of weather limits so it rather minimalises the effect of a 'fishing trip'.

Hannes Arch certainly won't be the last....
Some pilots have no wish to learn from others, it seems.............

Off the top of my head... (all twins at night, multiple variants, mostly CFIT)

Slovakia - Police (Bell 429)
Canada - ORNGE (S76)
USA too many to mention but... Air Methods Corporation - KidsFlight 1 (BK117), North Memorial Center (A109E), WI Med Flight (EC135)
Ireland - Coast Guard Rescue 116 (S92)
Scotland - Police SP99 (EC135)

I would love to see the industry only operate twin multi-crew aircraft with Cat A performance at 20,000ft. But lets not manipulate the facts to justify our preferences.

A second engine does not prevent poor decision making, poor CRM, poor procedures or mechanical issues. This accident was clearly due to an operator "bending the rules" and extremely poor decision making.