Arion Lightning EFATO at Shepparton Airport 6/2/22

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, aro said:

This isn't how CTAFs work.

 

If the traffic is students under the supervision of the CFI, this sounds OK. Otherwise it's basically unauthorised air traffic control.

I understand what you are saying but ultimately, anywhere, someone has the duty of care if there is a forseeable risk (in relation to that risk)

Is circuit control prohibited in CTAF regulations?

 

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, RossK said:

Chamberlains said;

The Pilot’s claim against the council, however, was unsuccessful, and the court held that the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liability Act.

This is despite the council putting a Ferris wheel in the obstacle clearance splay of the runway!

Your use of the Old Bar incident is just a distraction and despite how much you argue it, is irrelevant here.

If a pilot chooses a runway with a 15kt tailwind and ploughs into the fence at the end, it's not the councils fault, duty managers fault, responsibe persons fault or anyone else you want to lay the blame on.

Runway choice, decision to land/take off is always going to be pilots responsibity, not some person on the ground.

I've already mentioned once that my reason for posting the Chamberains summary related just to the similarity of a pilot choosing to land on a downwind runway, and their report on how the judge viewed his breach of duty of care; in particular in choosing not to use the Duty Runway which was in use, and landing on the downwind runway, and deciding to go round, and not being able to make altitude he had an accident.

 

In the Shepparton case the Pilot chose to take off on a downwind runway and had an accident.

 

So far in this thread:

• According to a witness the pilot has said it was all his fault.
• Several people have blamed bad training or operating skills
• Chamberlains reported that in the Ferris wheel accident the Judge found the duty of care breach by the Council at 65% and by the pilot at 35%

You can flog the pilot in the Shepparton case if you want, doesn't worry me, but I'm on his side; I wouldn't necessarily blame him 100%.

 

Of course there's no point in comparing the total Ferris wheel case with this one because that case is a lot more complicated and in some areas different however, if you want to be thorough you have to look at all aspects.

 

Since then the RAA Accident and Incident report has been published, saying "At take=off partial power loss was experienced and resulting in loss of control"  which agrees with what the media reported, so that's an additional factor.

 

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Another reminder that, before takeoff, we all need to have a plan for if the noise stops. During Covid, my flying horizons narrowed enormously. Familiarity leads to complacency…

Some runways don’t give many options.

 

 

[Garfly]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

Is circuit control prohibited in CTAF regulations?

I would say so:

 

"AIP GEN 3.4

Universal communications (UNICOM) is a non-ATS communications service to improve the information normally available about a non-controlled aerodrome.

The primary function of the frequency used for UNICOM services where the frequency is the CTAF is to give pilots the means to make standard positional broadcasts when operating in the vicinity of the aerodrome. Participation in UNICOM services must not inhibit the transmission of standard positional broadcasts.

Participation in UNICOM services relates to the exchange of messages concerning:

• fuel requirements
• estimated times of arrival and departure
• aerodrome information
• maintenance and servicing of aircraft, including the ordering of parts and materials urgently required
• passenger requirements
• unscheduled landings to be made by aircraft
• general weather reports
• basic information on traffic.

This information is available to all aircraft during the times when the UNICOM  is operating.

Weather reports, other than simple factual statements about the weather, may not be provided by UNICOM operators unless they are properly authorised to make weather observations under CAR 120.

The UNICOM operator is solely responsible for the accuracy of any information passed to an aircraft, while the use of information obtained from a UNICOM is at the discretion of the pilot in command.

Stations providing a UNICOM service must be licensed by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Detailed information regarding the licensing and use of equipment may be obtained by contacting ACMA in the appropriate state or territory capital city.

UNICOM operators must comply with the requirements of CAR 83 (2).

 

The CAA in NZ spell it out this way (AC139-12)

 

A UNICOM service is a basic aerodrome information service: it is not an Air Traffic Service.

 

Pilots of both IFR and VFR aircraft retain full responsibility for the operation of their aircraft.

 

Pilots need to decide on their acceptance or rejection of the information provided, the use of the information, and for the continuing safety of their aircraft. 

 

[RossK]

You are saying 

6 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

I've already mentioned once that my reason for posting the Chamberains summary related just to the similarity of a pilot choosing to land on a downwind runway, and their report on how the judge viewed his breach of duty of care; in particular in choosing not to use the Duty Runway which was in use, and landing on the downwind runway, and deciding to go round, and not being able to make altitude he had an accident.

 

In the Shepparton case the Pilot chose to take off on a downwind runway and had an accident.

 

So far in this thread:

• According to a witness the pilot has said it was all his fault.
• Several people have blamed bad training or operating skills
• Chamberlains reported that in the Ferris wheel accident the Judge found the duty of care breach by the Council at 65% and by the pilot at 35%

You can flog the pilot in the Shepparton case if you want, doesn't worry me, but I'm on his side; I wouldn't necessarily blame him 100%.

 

Of course there's no point in comparing the total Ferris wheel case with this one because that case is a lot more complicated and in some areas different however, if you want to be thorough you have to look at all aspects.

 

Since then the RAA Accident and Incident report has been published, saying "At take=off partial power loss was experienced and resulting in loss of control"  which agrees with what the media reported, so that's an additional factor.

 

 

 

You are saying the Shep pilot's not completely at fault, yet that's not what the Chamberlain report suggests, if you think it does, go back to year 9 comprehension and try again.

The council got slugged 65% for putting the Ferris wheel in the way, the pilot 35% for his airmanship. This is for damages to another party, not the pilot.

The Old Bar pilot got nothing because he was at fault for his own injuries for mishandling the go-around - "the harm suffered was a materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liberty Act".

Even though the council put the Ferris wheel in the way - in the obstacle clearance splay of the runway, they were not held accountable for any harm the pilot incurred - because, I'll say it again, from the reference you sourced, "the harm suffered was a materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liberty Act".

 

The Shep pilot is in the same position, he is 100% responsible for any harm he incurred due to the activity he undertook, not the council, duty manager, responsibe persons or anyone else you want to blame.

 

And I'm not trying to flog the Shepparton pilot (I wish him all the best and am glad that he's OK), I'm trying to point out that you are wrong if you think anyone else bears any liability in this incident.

 

And with that, I'm done, I'm sure you will reply to prove that you are right, as you always are! Go for it.

[peterg]

27 minutes ago, RossK said:

And with that, I'm done, I'm sure you will reply to prove that you are right, as you always are! Go for it.

 

Couldn't agree more - the guy is a pain with not enough to do. In that regard, he is not on his own.

 

Not sure which Law School he dreamt he went to but it sure as hell wasn't any I attended - unless of course the bar has been lowered to ground level.

 

Bar - bugger - shouldn't have used that word

[djpacro]

31 minutes ago, Garfly said:

A UNICOM service is a basic aerodrome information service: it is not an Air Traffic Service.

 

The next level up at a non-controlled aerodrome is a certified air/ground radio service (CA/GRS) per https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/advisory-circular-139-d-02-guidelines-certified-air-ground-radio-services.pdf

 

 

[MattP]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

You can flog the pilot in the Shepparton case if you want, doesn't worry me, but I'm on his side; I wouldn't necessarily blame him 100%.

There's a difference here in blame vs responsibility and intent.

 

Nobody is suggesting old mate got up and thought about how he could find another un original way to bend an airframe but he did accept the rather big responsibility of being pic and as a result made some choices in that capacity that contributed to the outcome quite significantly.  

 

Given the update posted before about Efato, this suggests not handling that situation or the takeoff appropriately for whatever reason.

 

The question then becomes why and what can we all learn from this to ensure it doesn't happen to us?

 

 

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, RossK said:

You are saying the Shep pilot's not completely at fault, yet that's not what the Chamberlain report suggests, if you think it does, go back to year 9 comprehension and try again.

The Chamberlains report clearly says the Pilot was just 35% at fault.

 

1 hour ago, RossK said:

The council got slugged 65% for putting the Ferris wheel in the way, the pilot 35% for his airmanship. This is for damages to another party, not the pilot.

Correct: the Plaintiff sued the Council and the Pilot,

However, note the decision was NOT just based on the Ferris wheel, but also on THE OPERATION OF THE AIRSTRIP which you omitted to mention - that is the subject we were discussing.

 

The decision was spelled out in the Chamberlains link earlier"

"DECISION

The Supreme Court of New South Wales found that the risk of harm was clearly foreseeable and ought to have been known to the local council.

The local council was negligent in the approval of the festival, the location of the Ferris wheel and the operation of the airstrip.

Damages were awarded in the total sum of $1,513,023. The council successfully cross claimed against the pilot, with his contribution assessed at 35%."

 

This section of the decision relates to the Pilot's suit against the Council, which we were not discussing because it's not relevant.

 

"The Pilot’s claim against the council, however, was unsuccessful, and the court held that the harm suffered was the materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liability Act."

 

1 hour ago, RossK said:

The Old Bar pilot got nothing because he was at fault for his own injuries for mishandling the go-around - "the harm suffered was a materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liberty Act".

Nothing to do with the comparison I posted and explained - This relates to the suit against the Council by the Pilot.

1 hour ago, RossK said:

Even though the council put the Ferris wheel in the way - in the obstacle clearance splay of the runway, they were not held accountable for any harm the pilot incurred - because, I'll say it again, from the reference you sourced, "the harm suffered was a materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liberty Act".

Nothing to do with the comparison I posted and explained - This relates to the suit against the Council by the Pilot.

 

[Not related to a comparison of downwind landing/takeoff operations between the two Airfields, but maybe very interesting for RAA pilots, the Judge's decision to award nothing to the Pilot quoting S5L.

We've discussed the label on the instrument panel several times in relation to Liability to a passenger who would not be expected to understand the difference between the safety of an airliner or RA aircraft, but the Pilot's qualifications may have had an impact on the case. Not saying it did, but I'll have a look at the transcrsipt.]

 

 

 

1 hour ago, RossK said:

The Shep pilot is in the same position, he is 100% responsible for any harm he incurred due to the activity he undertook, not the council, duty manager, responsibe persons or anyone else you want to blame.

The Ferris wheel Pilot was found to be only 35% responsible injuries to the Plaintiff for his decision to land on the downwind runway as spelled out in the above Report statement.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Old Bar pilot got nothing because he was at fault for his own injuries for mishandling the go-around "the harm suffered was a materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liberty Act".

Nothing to do with the comparison I posted and explained - This relates to the suit against the Council by the Pilot.

 

 

Even though the council put the Ferris wheel in the way – in the obstacle clearance splay of the runway, they were not held accountable for any harm the pilot incurred – because, I’ll say it again, from the reference you sourced, “the harm suffered was a materialisation of an obvious risk of a dangerous recreational activity, as found in s 5L of the Civil Liberty Act”.

Nothing to do with the comparison I posted and explained - this relates to the suit against the Council by the pilot.

 

 

The Shep pilot is in the same position, he is 100% responsible for any harm he incurred due to the activity he undertook, not the council, duty manager, responsibe persons or anyone else you want to blame.

As we saw in the Chamberlains report both the Pilot and Council shared responsibility, 65% Council, 35% Pilot.

 

 

 

 

[Flightrite]

Oh brother, spare us!

[turboplanner]

35 minutes ago, Flightrite said:

Oh brother, spare us!

...from a 3/4 page report in plain English?

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

I would say so:

 

"AIP GEN 3.4

Universal communications (UNICOM) is a non-ATS communications service to improve the information normally available about a non-controlled aerodrome.

My comments relate to the layers of responsibility we fly in:

1. RAA regulations

2. CASA and Airservices regulations

3. Duty of care

 

Just looking at CTAFS with Unicom, I would suggest:

 

 

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

• aerodrome information

Would allow Unicom to advise much the same as ATIS

 

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

• general weather reports

CASA has specifications on this, but a change of runway or dity runway can be advised within the aerodrome informnation section.

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

• basic information on traffic.

This is also permitted

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

The UNICOM operator is solely responsible for the accuracy of any information passed to an aircraft, while the use of information obtained from a UNICOM is at the discretion of the pilot in command.

It looks like CASA has already decided the Responsible Person, and covered the Unicom person.

 

3 hours ago, Garfly said:

 

The CAA in NZ spell it out this way (AC139-12)

NZ is not applicable to this discussion because they have a liability scheme whereas we in Australia are responsible directly for our actions.

 

 

"A UNICOM service is a basic aerodrome information service: it is not an Air Traffic Service."        

 

An ATIS broadcast is aerodrome information.

 

 

Pilots of both IFR and VFR aircraft retain full responsibility for the operation of their aircraft.

 

Pilots need to decide on their acceptance or rejection of the information provided, the use of the information, and for the continuing safety of their aircraft. 

 

RPT Pilots, Operational requirements - don't have to accept it.

 

SUMMARY

It would seem for a CTAF with Unicom that the Responsible Person has already been nomiated and Runway Changes could be broadcast just as ATIS does "Information Alpha, Bravo, Charlie etc.

[turboplanner]

3 hours ago, djpacro said:

The next level up at a non-controlled aerodrome is a certified air/ground radio service (CA/GRS) per https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2021-08/advisory-circular-139-d-02-guidelines-certified-air-ground-radio-services.pdf

 

 

"2.1 Operated by CA/GRO (Certified Air/Ground Radio Operator)"

Fits the requirement for a Responsible Person

 

"2.2 CA/CRS (Certified Air/Ground Services).......voluntary"

The service is documented ready to go.

In terms of Public Liability, "Voluntary" or "Guideline" indicates it's a good idea to have one unless you are protected by something else.

 

I looked at Garfly's CTAF with Unicom, and that also appears to have been set up to cover duty of care responsibilty for communications with aircraft.

 

 

[clouddancer]

9 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

From the RAAus accident and incident section

6/2/2022	Shepparton Airfield	VIC	Arion	Lightning	Jabiru	3300A	STATUS: Under review EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: At take-off, partial power loss was experie...
STATUS: Under review EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: At take-off, partial power loss was experienced and resulting in a loss of control with a left wing drop/stall. The aircraft left wing tip and nose collided with ground

 

My observations,

 

Pilot error almost never happens to RAAus pilots. It is the good old "gust of wind" or some mechanical issue that causes the broken aircraft. 

 

The report writer in head office suger coats everything. I guess they don't want to alarm the member$. I don't think this helps anyone.  

The report states “under review” I don’t think this is anything more than the pilot’s report, not the outcome.

[kgwilson]

Partial power Loss. Well that's new. If true it should have made landing even easier. I think the actual witness report provides a more accurate description and it includes an interview with the pilot at the scene.

[facthunter]

The responsibility rests with the PIC for choice of runway. (or the safety of any other clearance) Even at a Controlled aerodrome with Tower and ATC  the runway "offered" should be refused if it's considered operationally unsuitable by the Pilot. A good example of this was Avalon Airshow in the early 70's when (3)Jabiru's landed downwind and damaged their nosewheels. The examination of the circumstances concluded the pilots should have required a change of runway IF it wasn't OK. '

  That is the situation with all clearances, legally. Whether it was reasonable to expect People unfamiliar with control procedures to BE confident enough to do that was another matter and I strongly expressed that view. at the time to the authorities in person. The PIC is the "Master of the Vessel" in an absolute safety consideration aspect. The ONLY time that doesn't apply is in a Highjack situation, where the security people take over everything and start shooting. Nev

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The responsibility rests with the PIC for choice of runway. (or the safety of any other clearance) Even at a Controlled aerodrome with Tower and ATC  the runway "offered" should be refused if it's considered operationally unsuitable by the Pilot. A good example of this was Avalon Airshow in the early 70's when (3)Jabiru's landed downwind and damaged their nosewheels. The examination of the circumstances concluded the pilots should have required a change of runway IF it wasn't OK. '

  That is the situation with all clearances, legally. Whether it was reasonable to expect People unfamiliar with control procedures to BE confident enough to do that was another matter and I strongly expressed that view. at the time to the authorities in person. The PIC is the "Master of the Vessel" in an absolute safety consideration aspect. The ONLY time that doesn't apply is in a Highjack situation, where the security people take over everything and start shooting. Nev

In the context of flying responsibility layers Airservices/CASA standards/RAA exemptions and rules/public liability, where do you think the duty of care rests in Public Liability?

[facthunter]

I'm giving you the facts. I don't make the rules. If you think about it, It can't be otherwise.  Nev

[MattP]

I thought the in command bit was pretty clearly defined both in training and in the regs. Personally it was re enforced by my instructors many times regardless of being at ctaf, tower etc. 

 

Also afaik there are no raa regs per say, casa let them administer their patch as a raao under the casr's.

 

Either way not sure that anyone's passengers take flight with us under the belief we're only 35% responsible for their lives.

 

 

[turboplanner]

33 minutes ago, facthunter said:

I'm giving you the facts. I don't make the rules. If you think about it, It can't be otherwise.  Nev

The facts you gave us for the Jab nosewheels were correct for the Airservices/CASA layers.

That's exactly as you say, the PICs could have called up and refused the runway, so no issues with that at all.

 

However I asked about the Public Liability layer, which these days applies to everything we do.

 

In not refusing the runway, a reasonably forseeable risk occurred, and the PICs had the responsibility to eliminate it, so they opened themselves to being sued if anyone had been injured.

[turboplanner]

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

I thought the in command bit was pretty clearly defined both in training and in the regs. Personally it was re enforced by my instructors many times regardless of being at ctaf, tower etc. 

 

Also afaik there are no raa regs per say, casa let them administer their patch as a raao under the casr's.

Before RAA, we flew to prescriptive regulations; if we breached them we were fined.

RAA was give exemptions to some of those regulations so RA fly under exemptions and the rules of the self administering body.

 

On top of that, based on State Regulations, if you do something that might have a reasonably forseeable risk, it's your responsibility to eliminate it. So, as an example forget to put the fuel cap on, and don't pick it up in your preflight checks. 

12 minutes ago, MattP said:

 

Either way not sure that anyone's passengers take flight with us under the belief we're only 35% responsible for their lives.

That could be any figure; a judge decides that based on the evidence. If, for example you phone ahead, check the ERSA etc, land correctly, then slam into an obscured trench across the runway (which also didn't have white crosses etc) and someone is badly injured, the judge might find the airport owner 100% responsible.

[kgwilson]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

The responsibility rests with the PIC for choice of runway. (or the safety of any other clearance) Even at a Controlled aerodrome with Tower and ATC  the runway "offered" should be refused if it's considered operationally unsuitable by the Pilot. A good example of this was Avalon Airshow in the early 70's when (3)Jabiru's landed downwind and damaged their nosewheels. The examination of the circumstances concluded the pilots should have required a change of runway IF it wasn't OK. '

  

I presume early 70s was a typo. There weren't any Jabirus around then.

[kgwilson]

On 10/02/2022 at 12:05 PM, Thruster88 said:

From the RAAus accident and incident section

6/2/2022	Shepparton Airfield	VIC	Arion	Lightning	Jabiru	3300A	STATUS: Under review EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: At take-off, partial power loss was experie...
STATUS: Under review EXTRACT FROM REPORT SUBMISSION: At take-off, partial power loss was experienced and resulting in a loss of control with a left wing drop/stall. The aircraft left wing tip and nose collided with ground

 

My observations,

 

Pilot error almost never happens to RAAus pilots. It is the good old "gust of wind" or some mechanical issue that causes the broken aircraft. 

 

The report writer in head office suger coats everything. I guess they don't want to alarm the member$. I don't think this helps anyone.  

From the photographs the right wing is more severely damaged that the left. The report as written to date looks like a crock especially after reading Thexders report and he witnessed the event and interviewed the pilot.

Edited February 11, 2022 by kgwilson

[F10]

Taking off downwind, we’ll sometimes there’s a reason (runway slope being one), but if you do, increase your rotation speed or lift off speed accordingly.  One thing I like about glass fibre or composite, it sure is strong! Probably why he could walk away.