Tiger Moth Crash on Gold Coast

[dutchroll]

It has a lot to do with your licence, in that you cannot exercise the privileges of your licence without a valid medical. In other words, your licence is not worth the paper it is written on if you don't have the medical (in GA and the commercial world). It becomes meaningless. A wall ornament, perhaps.

 

In common vernacular, the loss of medical category is sometimes also called "loss of licence", which may not be true in an exact literal sense, but is for all practical purposes. Our own company insurance policy even calls it "loss of licence", but in reality it refers to the "loss of ability to use your licence" (permanently due to loss of medical).

 

The term "fitness" when used by CASA generally refers to medical fitness. When they say ".....decide whether the pilot is fit enough to keep his licence" this to me says "decide whether the pilot is medically fit enough to exercise the privileges of his licence". Especially as he was seriously injured and there is no hint of illegal activity on his part so far. That ultimate decision, whether anyone likes it or not, rests with CASA Medical section.

 

We deal with this stuff all the time in my day job.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident and will pass their findings onto the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who then decide whether the pilot is fit enough to keep his license.To me this means that he is already been declared unfit to hold a licence and he must PROVE himself fit.

 

This type of attitude really pisses me off !

Spinal injury: Imagine he's flying you around and he loses feel in one of his legs?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

You may well be right dutchroll, but this is not an everyday incident. The young man has been involved in a crash in which a paying passenger has died.

 

The quote provided by asmol is "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident and will pass their findings onto the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who then decide whether the pilot is fit enough to keep his license." To put that another way, CASA will use the findings of the ATSB findings to decide if the pilot is fit enough to keep his licence.

 

Why would they use the findings of the ATSB to decide on his medical fitness? And if it is his medical fitness they are talking about why would they not say "fit enough to keep his medical". However this may all be just the media misquoting the ATSB so we will just have to wait and see.

 

 

[dutchroll]

That media quote is not actually how the system works.

 

CASA cannot use ATSB findings as evidence when they see a copy of the report. They have to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence. This is very strictly controlled under the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

 

CASA cannot cancel your licence unless you've been found by a Court to have breached the regs. In other words, they can't do it on a whim after simply reading a report. It's actually more effort for CASA to cancel your licence than you might think.

 

CASA can medically ground you very easily. In which case your licence is worthless until such point as you get your medical back. This happens in our company quite often, usually temporarily but occasionally permanently.

 

 

[Camel]

Spinal injury: Imagine he's flying you around and he loses feel in one of his legs?

I flew as a passenger in a C180 tail dragger, the pilot did an excellent cross wind landing, later I said "why do you limp" he replied " I only got one leg " , he had a prosthetic leg.

 

 

[aldee]

Been a while since I operated under or read a CASA rule book but here in NZ if you're not medically fit, in my case motorcycle accident & broken leg,you're obliged to send your license to CAA for safe keeping & return upon proof of fitness

 

Could this be the situation in this case ?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I imagine running out of fuel was the problem for that pilot HITC.

Actually no. Running out of fuel was the result of a series of other far more concerning problems. In CASA's view, and perhaps the views of others but they are irrelevant for the sake of this discussion, the pilot had developed an 'attitude' which resulted in frequent questionable decision-making. The pilot was aware of the low fuel status while still a long way inbound, and continued the approach regardless, one of the reasons being because the pax had a schedule to keep. Another was that the aircraft was booked for other work after that flight's completion. Keep in mind that being a helicopter a landing could have been made at any time and this whole incident would have been no more than an embarrassing delay rather than a potentially fatal crash.

 

The pilot might just have got away with it and landed at Darwin airport with virtually zero fuel in the tanks. It would have been illegal to not have the required reserves, of course, and it was later shown that the flight distance could not have been conducted whilst maintaining the required reserves, let alone with the strong headwind that was forecast and existed that day - and had the landing been uneventful the 'indiscretion' would probably have gone undetected. The pilot clearly did not anticipate the controller's request to hold orbiting while in CTA to give priority to an arriving military aircraft - although requests to hold were not unusual . Darwin is a military control zone, not a civil one ...

 

At that stage the pilot should have declared a 'requirement' for an immediate landing, and it would have been granted, but the pilot was aware that 'requiring' anything would have raised questions later, so the pilot elected to comply with the hold request and hope for the best. Within a minute or so the engine quit.

 

An auto-rotation to landing in a swampy area was made, the aircraft was damaged but the pax were uninjured ... and the pilot went home without making a report to the company. As CP, after the emergency services (if involved) and the controller, I should have been the first informed of the crash (crash - there's no such thing as an 'accident') but the pilot never reported it to me. The first I heard was from CASA when they called me the next day asking where the aircraft was. They knew the answer, of course, but wanted to know why I hadn't been in touch with them the previous day, immediately after the crash. I had to say I wasn't aware of the occurrence. At the time I was in Kununurra, some 800km away, so the only way I could have known was by the pilot following proper procedure and reporting direct to me, which they didn't.

 

So, as you may appreciate, the running out of fuel wasn't the real issue, it was actually a case of the pilot having developed a personal 'culture' of ignoring proper procedures because they' 'knew better'. I was also disciplined for this occurrence (quite correctly, in my opinion, hard though it is to admit it) because it was deemed that I should have recognised the problem earlier and either fixed it, or if couldn't do so, reported it to CASA as part of my responsibilities as CP. The reason I say I was correctly disciplined for it, is that I had recognised the problem and had been trying to fix it for a long while but I should have recognised that it wasn't fixable, and therefore I should have reported it. I remain grateful and relieved that when (not if) the crash occurred, the pax were not injured - or worse.

 

That media quote is not actually how the system works.CASA cannot use ATSB findings as evidence when they see a copy of the report. They have to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence. This is very strictly controlled under the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

 

CASA cannot cancel your licence unless you've been found by a Court to have breached the regs. In other words, they can't do it on a whim after simply reading a report. It's actually more effort for CASA to cancel your licence than you might think.

 

CASA can medically ground you very easily. In which case your licence is worthless until such point as you get your medical back. This happens in our company quite often, usually temporarily but occasionally permanently.

I quite respect what you say DR, but the way CASA happens in the airline industry where the pilots and personnel are supported by strong unions and large management organisations is quite different from how it happens to the small commercial operators.

 

Whilst you are quite correct about what powers CASA actually have, they wield far more than their strict entitlement, and there were many cases of discipline by CASA rather than by the Court process. Admittedly I have been out of commercial operations for 12 years but from what I see things haven't changed much during that time. The only cases you get to hear about are the ones, often as not embarrassing for CASA, which go to Court and are dealt with there. Behind the scenes though (and this is why I have more respect for CASA than some do) CASA have to deal with a large number of occurrences that are way outside the rules and which are, by some pilots, repeated as long as they can be got away with, and with the full support of their operations management.

 

The big problem for the regulator is sorting out the wheat from the chaff. In my experience there were two types of 'small' operators, those that did all they could to cheat the system and those that did everything by the book. I didn't come across much in between.

 

Without going into the specific details of how they went about it, the irony is that those that cheated the system were by far the 'stronger' companies because they had much more money, so paid their pilots and engineers better rates and thus gained more loyalty from their personnel who stuck together and made the indiscretions far harder for the regulator to discover.

 

Consequently when an 'occurrence' such as that I described above takes place in a 'clean' company, it's very easy for the regulator to apply enough pressure to the pilot and the company for either or both of them to agree to whatever disciplinary action CASA feels is appropriate. Any resistance can easily be overcome, if necessary, by veiled threats of suspension of the company air service licence 'pending review', which is a power that CASA can effect immediately and indefinitely ... and which the 'just surviving' operations can't afford.

 

Where 'stronger' companies are concerned it was far more difficult for CASA to prevail but when they did have a clear case the pilot was often persuaded by the rest of the staff to just 'take the fall' and would receive the full support and pay entitlements from the company until the suspension, or whatever, was lifted. This apparent obeisance appeased CASA who could appear to be effective, while the rest of the company's crew carried on in the same manner as previously ...

 

 

[dutchroll]

I'm still struggling to understand what people appear to be getting paranoid about here.

 

The media statement is clearly confused, so much that I personally would've shaken my head and then totally disregarded it if I'd read it in the newspaper.

 

As I said earlier, my wife's a former DAME and she's reading this shaking her head wondering what all the fuss is about. To her (having read the news reports about his injuries) it is blindingly obvious that CASA are going to assess his future "fitness to fly". Though the media statement confuses this issue, as that decision is nothing to do with the ATSB or its investigation.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I'm still struggling to understand what people appear to be getting paranoid about here.The media statement is clearly confused, so much that I personally would've shaken my head and then totally disregarded it if I'd read it in the newspaper.

 

As I said earlier, my wife's a former DAME and she's reading this shaking her head wondering what all the fuss is about. To her (having read the news reports about his injuries) it is blindingly obvious that CASA are going to assess his future "fitness to fly". Though the media statement confuses this issue, as that decision is nothing to do with the ATSB or its investigation.

I don't think anyone's getting paranoid DR. Since the press have apparently printed - "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident and will pass their findings onto the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who then decide whether the pilot is fit enough to keep his license." I would have thought it's plainly intended to indicate his fitness regarding aircraft handling ability rather than fitness regarding medical condition, contrary to what your interpretation of it suggests. They really don't seem to be talking about his current injuries do they? Or am I missing something here?

 

And - whilst you say "CASA cannot use ATSB findings as evidence when they see a copy of the report. They have to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence. This is very strictly controlled under the Transport Safety Investigation Act.", that doesn't mean that they wouldn't take the ATSB findings into account when deciding whether to carry out their own investigation for the purpose of gathering their own evidence, or building their case. In fact they most certainly would, and do ...

 

Frankly, I can't see why anyone would expect that CASA wouldn't take a very active interest in a commercial operation having an occurrence which results in a fatality from what, as I said previously, from first appearances should perhaps have resulted in no more than an off-field glide landing. If a family member of mine was the unfortunate passenger in this case I'd be very concerned if CASA were to provide no more scrutiny of the events that led to their demise than to check that the pilot was healthy enough to resume his flying duties. One would think that they'd want to check his currency and proficiency on emergency procedures at the very least. I'm not suggesting that there is anything amiss, but it is the duty of the regulator to ensure that there isn't, particularly where someone has lost their life.

 

 

[kaz3g]

That media quote is not actually how the system works.CASA cannot use ATSB findings as evidence when they see a copy of the report. They have to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence. This is very strictly controlled under the Transport Safety Investigation Act.

 

CASA cannot cancel your licence unless you've been found by a Court to have breached the regs. In other words, they can't do it on a whim after simply reading a report. It's actually more effort for CASA to cancel your licence than you might think.

 

CASA can medically ground you very easily. In which case your licence is worthless until such point as you get your medical back. This happens in our company quite often, usually temporarily but occasionally permanently.

When we hold a CASA licence we have a legal obligation to ground ourselves if we suffer any event which could place our medical fitness to fly in doubt and a further obligation to report it to Avmed if it is more than a transient issue.

 

If you have a condition which is, or is potentially debilitating to the extent it adversely affects your ability to fly, and you fly regardless of it, you may expose yourself to criminal charges including reckless operation and reckless endangerment. If you have an accident and the known pre-existing condition is implicated causally, you will also have no insurance.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Camel]

When we hold a CASA licence we have a legal obligation to ground ourselves if we suffer any event which could place our medical fitness to fly in doubt and a further obligation to report it to Avmed if it is more than a transient issue.If you have a condition which is, or is potentially debilitating to the extent it adversely affects your ability to fly, and you fly regardless of it, you may expose yourself to criminal charges including reckless operation and reckless endangerment. If you have an accident and the known pre-existing condition is implicated causally, you will also have no insurance.

 

Kaz

If you self impose the restriction on yourself it would be fair to lift it yourself, tell CASA and you will never hear the end of it until you have jumped through a heap of obstacles and emptied your wallet. I have no respect for CASA or it employees as they seem to be completely out of step with reality, complete fools, idiots and no regard for safety just full of their own self importance !

 

 

[dutchroll]

Since the press have apparently printed - "The Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident and will pass their findings onto the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, who then decide whether the pilot is fit enough to keep his license." I would have thought it's plainly intended to indicate his fitness regarding aircraft handling ability rather than fitness regarding medical condition.....

What you're doing is taking a media statement as if it is the literal accurate truth. I honestly cannot understand how (or why) you would interpret it that way.

 

And - whilst you say "CASA cannot use ATSB findings as evidence when they see a copy of the report. They have to do their own investigation and gather their own evidence. This is very strictly controlled under the Transport Safety Investigation Act.", that doesn't mean that they wouldn't take the ATSB findings into account when deciding whether to carry out their own investigation for the purpose of gathering their own evidence, or building their case. In fact they most certainly would, and do ...

Yes, and they're welcome to do that. So what? We don't even have the faintest idea what the ATSB findings will be. They can use the report as guidance for their own investigation, but they can't use it as evidence in a Court.

 

Frankly, I can't see why anyone would expect that CASA wouldn't take a very active interest in a commercial operation having an occurrence which results in a fatality from what, as I said previously, from first appearances should perhaps have resulted in no more than an off-field glide landing.

You are correct that they will have the magnifying glass hovering over this operation. I didn't deny that. That doesn't mean they're targeting the accident pilot.

I've flown the Tiger Moth. The Tiger Moth is a wonderfully docile little biplane. Also, when you have an engine failure at very low level in it, you're pretty much screwed. It is also not a very "crashworthy" airframe, to say the least. Old Tiger Moth joke: when flying a Tiger Moth, carry half a brick. If the engine fails, throw out brick and follow it down. When you land, get out of the way or you might get hit by the brick from above.

 

Too much jumping at shadows here, I'm afraid.

 

 

[cscotthendry]

If you self impose the restriction on yourself it would be fair to lift it yourself, tell CASA and you will never hear the end of it until you have jumped through a heap of obstacles and emptied your wallet. I have no respect for CASA or it employees as they seem to be completely out of step with reality, complete fools, idiots and no regard for safety just full of their own self importance !

The problem stems from our aviation regulator being our aviation safety body. Everyone knows the "safest" airplane is one that never leaves the hangar and that is unfortunately how CASA operates. What we need is to separate the safety body from the regulatory body, and to give the regulatory body a different mission with regard to aviation. In the US, the FAA is charged with promoting aviation, and is the regulatory body. The NTSB is charged with making aviation "safe" but it has little power with regard to regulations, and so needs the cooperation of the FAA to implement its safety policies. In the US, if one pilot does something stupid, the NTSB might want a whole bunch of new rules, but the FAA will filter that through how it will affect aviation in a more realistic and holistic way.

It's very popular to CASA bash here in Oz, but the problem is in CASA's mission definition.

 

 

[djpacro]

....In the US, the FAA is charged with promoting aviation .....

Not true since the ValueJet crash.

[cscotthendry]

Not true since the ValueJet crash.

More info please...

 

 

[djpacro]

If you go to the FAA website you will see the current Mission https://www.faa.gov/about/mission/

 

This explains the aftermath of the ValueJet accident http://edition.cnn.com/US/9606/18/faa.valujet/

 

"I am urging that Congress change the FAA charter to give it a single, primary mission, safety and only safety," Pena said. He said this would be the most fundamental of a number of changes the administration was making to increase safety.

U.S. Transportation Secretary Federico Pena.

[cscotthendry]

Thnx, wasn't aware of that, but my partial defence of CASA still stands I think.

 

 

[Teckair]

With some planes if you climb too steep and too slow they will stall in the event of an engine failure before you can get the nose down. I have always taught on take off to build up speed in ground effect and not climb too steep for the first 300 feet for this reason. I do not think the comments by HITC are out of line.

 

 

[Teckair]

Also, when you have an engine failure at very low level in it, you're pretty much screwed.

If that were true they should not be used for joy rides.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

If that were true I don't think they'd have been the most populous and revered ab initio training aircraft, military and civil, over a period of, what, two or three decades?

 

Like any high drag/low inertia aircraft they simply have to be operated appropriately. To suggest that having an engine failure in any phase of flight and in any type of aircraft means "you're pretty much screwed" is a bit odd, to say the least, unless you habitually fly in a manner which leaves you without options.

 

 

[kaz3g]

If you self impose the restriction on yourself it would be fair to lift it yourself, tell CASA and you will never hear the end of it until you have jumped through a heap of obstacles and emptied your wallet...

And pilots regularly self-impose and then lift a grounding restriction themselves for any one of a host of minor and transient issues...colds, 'flu, simple fractures, lacerations, headaches and muscle strains are but a few of them.

 

But cardiac events, neurological damage, surgeries involving hospital stays and other more significant events should be referred to your DAME for clearance to protect you, your family and the public.

 

My only experience with CASA Avmed was a good one. They listened to me and my specialist after I recovered from some fairly major issues 17 years ago and I have never had to provide anything other than a routine AFR since. I'm coming up to 72 years so have sort of expected they might want more but have been pleasantly surprised thus far.

 

Kaz

 

 

[aldee]

EFATO is a calculated risk we all have to consider every takeoff

 

Take a look at a heli height/velocity chart & the " deadmans curve ", where an engine failure is at an altitude too low for successful auto rotation

 

It's a numbers game, despite our best efforts sometimes the deck can be stacked against you & you may find that "you are screwed"

 

Disclaimer: not suggesting EFATO was the cause of this accident

 

 

[facthunter]

The "brick" analogy with the Tiger moth must be a modern concept. It won't glide far , due to poor L/D, but it's gliding slow and very controllable and stable. As for the not being strong/crashworthy. I recall no fatalities from actual spin accidents into the ground. They are rare not to be survivable whereas the Chipmunk was inevitably a fatality due to far higher ROD if you didn't get it out of the spin. This is a general statement not related to the current discussion of causal factors. Nev

 

 

[djpacro]

I am aware of at least one spin accident in a Tiger in the UK where the pilot walked away however I am also aware of quite a few local stall/spin accidents which were fatal.

 

Happened upon this enlightening NZ report just now https://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=8&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiXksOY4ZPKAhWkGKYKHXiyDCUQFghEMAc&url=https://www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/ZK-BAR_Fatal.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGd5QFYUCc97WH5LkipHJ--1thbAQ&sig2=y1s6IHvrVyBKhrlc3GyAPQ&bvm=bv.110151844,d.dGY - see page 13 for a brief summary of Tiger accidents there.

 

Or go to https://www.caa.govt.nz/safety_info/fatal_accident_reports.htm for report 06/4477 on 23 May 2011.

 

 

[dutchroll]

The "brick" analogy with the Tiger moth must be a modern concept. It won't glide far , due to poor L/D, but it's gliding slow and very controllable and stable. As for the not being strong/crashworthy. I recall no fatalities from actual spin accidents into the ground. They are rare not to be survivable whereas the Chipmunk was inevitably a fatality due to far higher ROD if you didn't get it out of the spin. This is a general statement not related to the current discussion of causal factors. Nev

Perhaps I should've been more specific: serious front seat injuries in Tiger Moth crashes are not at all uncommon, and this is the nature of that aircraft design. Also I was obviously referring to a crash situation with forward velocity such as EFATO, rather than a spin situation. Apples and oranges there, but as Dave points out, there are plenty of fatal examples.

I'm not arguing that it's not stable and slow in a glide. I'm arguing that an EFATO in a Tiger Moth into anything other than a nice flat paddock is not good.