Small plane missing Victoria 18/09/22

[facthunter]

By making a few assumptions.   The bloke was a proven overconfident person with exceptional  demonstrated abilities. Most likely airframe icing brought the Plane down. . When you have ice the control, performance and stall speed change massively and the window can be obscured. I've had extreme icing in that area when NIL Icing was on the forecast. Extremely LUCKY to survive it in a DC 4. Had icing also West of Albury in a Mooney. Had  to descend fast. to warmer air..   Nev

[kgwilson]

I have just finished reading the report. It is as damning as it is eye opening. The lies and cover ups & the one person who tried to tell the truth was silenced. My summation of the pilot being over confident and lacking knowledge and judgement were proven correct but he had not been advised not to fly that day as had originally been suggested, he just went and did it surprising the 2 experienced pilots who were there to witness the takeoff.

 

As most of us suspected he should never have been issued an RPC and even worse an XC endorsement on the basis of his prior knowledge & experience & several RA-Aus senior staff are culpable, though only 1 remains at the helm. CASA needs to pull the place apart. How this even was allowed to happen shows a serious lack of professionalism and reliance on bad recommendations from a CFI that by all prior accounts had a good reputation. I feel sorry for his partner only being awarded a third of her costs given it was her determination that exposed the lies and cover ups. The lawyers are the only winners as is almost always the case anyway.

[facthunter]

 His Partner , More than anyone else KNEW what HE was like. HIS  flawed JUDGEMENT caused the event. No Amount of training could have ruled that out. THAT was the REAL CAUSE, was it not?  Nev

[Litespeed]

I think we must all agree,

 

The pilot was overconfident in his abilities and made a decision to fly that was poor and this would appear to have lead to a fatal incident.

 

His overconfidence was a result of his general personal attitude and grossly insufficient training, that would reasonably give a pilot a inflated sense of his abilities. Crucial X country and approx 15 hrs missed training, has led to a pilot having a very poor view of what he didn't know but should have or not providing sufficient weighting to the weather and decision making.

 

We can always blame the pilot, that's the easy part and leaves us with a smug " I would never do that" reaction.

 

I agree he should never have taken off and he had made a crucial decision to fly in poor conditions.

But did he have the training to form a safe decision on the day?

 

We may never know but he had been signed off as competent in all relevant areas of airmanship for a certificate to fly. Yes, ongoing skill development is expected but he had been cleared to be a pilot when missing a huge chunk of training and experience that forms our decision making skillset.

 

The instructor is not only responsible to ensure knowledge and skills are sufficient but to judge the attitude and aptitude of the training pilot for the crucial human factors.  

 

 

No training or trainer is perfect but the system needs to account for the humans involved, when followed the system tends to produce pilots safe enough for further experience and development.

 

The system failed because the humans involved from novice trainee to flight instructor to regulator,  never followed the intent of the system for safe training and flight operations.

 

The pilot should never had the opportunity to takeoff that day, he clearly was not sufficiently trained to have a certificate to fly. Would he have made that decision, if he had the full curriculum and hours needed to be considered competent as envisage in our training regs?

 

Would a complete 25hrs have meant his 'flying brain' had enough control over his ego to make the correct decision?

 

The behaviour of RAaus in this is indicative of the broken regulator and looms large in the overall factors leading to this tragedy.

 

We all talk about personal responsibility and I  agree he was overconfident and made a fatal decision to fly. He should never have been in that position due to training and approval failure.

 

We as a community and esp on the flying field  have a responsibility to each other as well.

 

Did anyone on that day try to talk the guy out of flying? Radio him and warn him of his dangerous folly?

Or did they just comment on his foolishness to mates?

 

He may have said rack off,  but may have seen the error he was making.

 

We can't outlaw idiots but we can certainly reduce the chances of fatal interactions with them as a society.

[skippydiesel]

Some  observations on human nature - in particular the male of our species (all?).

 

I know very little of the incident that forms the basis for this debate however I ask you to consider;

 

We are an inherently risk taking species.

Our stories, glorify the macho man.

Our courtship behaviour is often typified by displays of dairing. (look at me!)

Pilots of all levels are mostly male - do you need to ask why?

Motorcycle riders (of all ages) are mostly men - see above comment.

While intensive training (CPL?) will often modify, at least temporarily, risk taking behaviour/personalities, it is unlikly to be a permanent fix.

If you want to see videos of aviation risk taking & rule breaking - there are probably hundreds out there. This is classic (male) "look at me syndrome".

Males are far more likly to die prematurely than females, in large part due to the testosterone in our veins and the tacit expectations of society.

 

All modern societies spend a ridiculous amount of effort on trying to prevent male risk taking, instead of accommodating , redirecting and accepting the inevitable mortalities that ensue. Our supposedly primitive forebear were much better at managing our instincts.

 

I support any investigation that seeks to determine why an incident occured. Not so that an individual will necessarily be exonerated (or crucified) but that his (usually) actions can be seen in a holistic context.

 

From the little I have read (in this Thread) the dead man was on a mission to risk his life in many ways,  before his poor judgement finally caught up with him. The part that instructors/organisation's (RAA?) played is likly a minor one - this does not mean that systemic & personal errors were not made, from which lessons may be taken.😈

[BrendAn]

2 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

Some  observations on human nature - in particular the male of our species (all?).

 

I know very little of the incident that forms the basis for this debate however I ask you to consider;

 

We are an inherently risk taking species.

Our stories, glorify the macho man.

Our courtship behaviour is often typified by displays of dairing. (look at me!)

Pilots of all levels are mostly male - do you need to ask why?

Motorcycle riders (of all ages) are mostly men - see above comment.

While intensive training (CPL?) will often modify, at least temporarily, risk taking behaviour/personalities, it is unlikly to be a permanent fix.

If you want to see videos of aviation risk taking & rule breaking - there are probably hundreds out there. This is classic (male) "look at me syndrome".

Males are far more likly to die prematurely than females, in large part due to the testosterone in our veins and the tacit expectations of society.

 

All modern societies spend a ridiculous amount of effort on trying to prevent male risk taking, instead of accommodating , redirecting and accepting the inevitable mortalities that ensue. Our supposedly primitive forebear were much better at managing our instincts.

 

I support any investigation that seeks to determine why an incident occured. Not so that an individual will necessarily be exonerated (or crucified) but that his (usually) actions can be seen in a holistic context.

 

From the little I have read (in this Thread) the dead man was on a mission to risk his life in many ways,  before his poor judgement finally caught up with him. The part that instructors/organisation's (RAA?) played is likly a minor one - this does not mean that systemic & personal errors were not made, from which lessons may be taken.😈

Why are you commenting at the same time saying you know nothing about it and have read very little. Try reading the thread and coroners report then comment.

[BrendAn]

6 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

"a vfr pilot taking off with a 2000 ft cloud base."

 

Not an issue , IF (?) he is able to maintain 500 ft clear of surface.

 

 

your right . i was thinking of my training. raaus are not allowed to train unless the cloud base is above 3000 ft.

[skippydiesel]

9 hours ago, BrendAn said:

your right . i was thinking of my training. raaus are not allowed to train unless the cloud base is above 3000 ft.

Where does this 3000ft cloud base come from?  What of training from airfields at almost sea level?😈

[skippydiesel]

11 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Why are you commenting at the same time saying you know nothing about it and have read very little. Try reading the thread and coroners report then comment.

Simple - the thrust of this Thread seems to be about allocating blame - there are the pilots blamers and the system blamers.

I am not so intersted in the facts of the case , more the commentary from Forum members.

I am simply pointing out that the pilot had a history of indulging in activities that are inherently more risky than knitting.  

It is also likly there were some system failures, (instructor/RAA) which may be lessons that serve to modify the system (a good).

Coroners often reflect societal /political expectations - not suggesting corruption, just bias.

I think it likly that the pilot, once free of close supervision, would likly have done what he did sooner or later - he was a male!😈

[facthunter]

Not all males are like that. It's called "SELF DISCIPLINE" and IF you don't have it watch out. Sorry, you'd have to have self discipline to watch out, but you get the  drift.   Nev

[BrendAn]

4 hours ago, facthunter said:

Not all males are like that. It's called "SELF DISCIPLINE" and IF you don't have it watch out. Sorry, you'd have to have self discipline to watch out, but you get the  drift.   Nev

why did i get a caution over the cloudbase height

[BrendAn]

6 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

Where does this 3000ft cloud base come from?  What of training from airfields at almost sea level?😈

3000 ft agl.  probably because we train at 2500 ft

[facthunter]

Because it's NOT correct.  Why quote MY post when your reply has nothing to do with it?  Nev

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Because it's NOT correct.  Why quote MY post when your reply has nothing to do with it?  Nev

big deal. i just wanted to ask why .   i was waiting to go on a training flight at bairnsdale one day and the cloud was quite low. the instructor checked the awis and said if the cloud is below 3000ft we can't train.    

[Love to fly]

11 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

big deal. i just wanted to ask why .   i was waiting to go on a training flight at bairnsdale one day and the cloud was quite low. the instructor checked the awis and said if the cloud is below 3000ft we can't train.    

Were you not taught what the regulations are re distance from cloud, visibility etc?

[facthunter]

And that's your basis for saying no training Unless there's 3000ft cloudless ?

  At a place where there could be Arriving IFR aircraft THAT would be a fair  and reasonable thing to do. The Context is everything.  It's called "Situational Awareness". A "must have" for Pilots. Pity HE didn't communicate it to you. I think I would have. Nev

[BrendAn]

Just now, Love to fly said:

Were you not taught what the regulations are re distance from cloud, visibility etc?

 

2500 is the height we train at normally. with a 500 ft separation from cloud thats 3000ft.

would you prefer to  do stalls at 500 ft.

and i do need to brush up on everything. i haven't flown since september.

[BrendAn]

23 minutes ago, Love to fly said:

Were you not taught what the regulations are re distance from cloud, visibility etc?

yes, i am the only raaus student that was never taught anything.

[facthunter]

Don't worry Brendan. We'll get there. Nev

[BrendAn]

20 minutes ago, facthunter said:

And that's your basis for saying no training Unless there's 3000ft cloudless ?

  At a place where there could be Arriving IFR aircraft THAT would be a fair  and reasonable thing to do. The Context is everything.  It's called "Situational Awareness". A "must have" for Pilots. Pity HE didn't communicate it to you. I think I would have. Nev

did you teach raaus or ga, because i have never practised stalls below 2500 ft . not so far anyway.

[skippydiesel]

2 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

yes, i am the only raaus student that was never taught anything.

Naaa! your okay - you just needed to contextualise your cloud base no fly comment😈

[facthunter]

 Both including Low level and aerobatics. in GA.  A wide range of planes in the AUF/ RAAus field . Having Height is a good thing where its applicable.. . When you are a bit advanced Lower level smaller circuits MIGHT be a good thing to practice . Nev

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Don't worry Brendan. We'll get there. Nev

 

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

 Both including Low level and aerobatics. in GA.  A wide range of planes in the AUF/ RAAus field . Having Height is a good thing where its applicable.. . When you are a bit advanced Lower level smaller circuits MIGHT be a good thing to practice . Nev

2500 ft is the standard training height or why would 3 different instructors all use it. 

[BrendAn]

4 minutes ago, facthunter said:

 Both including Low level and aerobatics. in GA.  A wide range of planes in the AUF/ RAAus field . Having Height is a good thing where its applicable.. . When you are a bit advanced Lower level smaller circuits MIGHT be a good thing to practice . Nev

different aircraft though. the ones we train in now are mono planes. and they run on petrol not castor oil

[BurnieM]

Can we stay on topic ?

 

Instructors personal minimums and general macho male attitudes are not part of this thread.