The Philosophy of Posting on this Forum

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I wish to grab a piece of this discussion that has arisen from the ‘Mouyra†thread – but it has nothing at all to do about the specific accident in question. I wish to invite comment about this forum and the method of using it without being tangled up with specific incidents.

 

 

The comments are generic regarding ‘investigations’ v’s ‘speculation’ – along with a bit on ‘eyewitness’ reports. This will probably be a fair sized post – again – as I am going to cover some actual crashes and address some of the failures and positives in both the reporting and observation opinion areas!

 

 

Firstly, and most importantly, ANY form of information regarding an accident can be useful and may be vital. This can (and I believe should) be extended to opinion from people who know what they are talking about or (despite their personal expertise standing) may have a piece of unique knowledge that could be important.

 

 

Equally, the overall situation must be tempered with responsible human decorum and respect for any deceased and the feelings of their families and friends – but this should not be inhibiting to valid comment if expressed adequately. It should also most definitely be stated as contributing opinion only and not expressed in an accusative form but rather one that invites consideration for practical objectives.

 

 

It may be too easy to say ‘leave it to the experts, that this should be investigated properly via formal enquiry’ etc etc – but we are going to take a detailed look at one of those very shortly below and it may shake you up a bit.

 

 

First though let us take two cases of eye-witness situations:

 

 

The first concerns half a dozen or so senior RAF officers (that is UK RAF) who were on a senior management course. None were below the rank of Squadron Leader. All had commanded their own squadrons and been involved with crash investigative Courts of Inquiry. All were highly personally qualified in a diversity of areas.

 

 

During the course, and with no warning, they were told that they were to watch a short film. They were given no further information. The film was of a four jet Vulcan V bomber coming unglued in the air and all five of the crew died.

 

 

This had been a well publicised happening, been filmed, and resulted in an extensive investigation that had been well published (at least under internal RAF security). There was no way that any of them would not have been aware of the circumstances as this was additionally serious . Fortunately the aircraft were not armed but this was in the middle of the Cold War and most of them were armed and you definitely did not want what they were carrying coming down in the UK Midlands even if the things would not have gone off! But for them it was just the surprise of witnessing a major crash with no foreknowledge that was practically available in the time available.

 

 

The film only lasted a couple of minutes and at the conclusion they were immediately told to write down what they had just seen as ‘eye witnesses’, only that and nothing more!

 

 

Not one account agreed with any of the others – they had all seen something different! You could not get more informed opinion than that, plus they had the facility of note pads so they could write their observations immediately and not a few hours later (tip here – if you are subjected to witnessing a ‘nasty’ than make every attempt to write down what you actually saw as soon as possible – go out of your way to do so as the mind plays tricks later as you attempt to rationalise something inherently repellent).

 

 

Now we will move to the other end of the spectrum. Again in the UK Midlands and a gliding field where a brand new, high performance glider had been brought in on loan for the UK National Championships. Naturally we all wanted to fly it.

 

 

I was instructing all day and could not get near it until later. When I did I had a pleasant flight and wanted to indulge myself in my favourite pastime of side slipping on approach. For some reason I did not and elected to really try out the approach aids for evaluation instead and it became just another nice flight but not of much account. It could have been a major event!

 

 

As we were packing up for the day and the three instructors present were having a run-down between ourselves – a very junior club member came up and asked to speak with us. He appeared uncomfortable and not at ease. You do not get a lower ‘form of life’ than he was. He had no RAF rank to speak of, had only a handful of total training flights to his credit, but he was fascinated with aviation and had learnt all that he could.

 

 

He stated that he had seen the ‘new’ aircraft being put through failed aerobatics at height – to the point that it was tail sliding in attempted loops. Now, you should not aerobat high performance soaring machines even if they are cleared for it. You definitely have a problem if you cannot even get near complete manoeuvres and should seek further training. You NEVER tail slide a glider!!!!

 

 

We had a chat with the pilot – a particularly obnoxious specimen anyway. He admitted to having done a few loops but said there was no problem. He looked uncomfortable. We turned on the hangar lights and looked at the aircraft.

 

 

With all the anti-drag fairings it was difficult to see vital bits, so we started taking it apart – just on the strength of a low level ‘opinion’ that we got some vibes from. The fin stern post was split top to bottom and the rudder was on the way off! If I had earlier side slipped the machine I would have lost the rudder entirely other than retaining it by the drive cables!

 

 

The aircraft was repaired by making a new stern post. The erring pilot had already been taken outside by one of our more ‘direct’ instructors who determined that something ‘physical’ was required as conventional teaching was evidently not sinking in. Those were early flight safety learning days for us and nothing like the niceties of these forums – but nobody had been actually hurt or an aircraft wrecked (other than the pilot who took a bit of time to recover and we never had a problem with again!)

 

 

The actual hero was just a low level person with high personal standards and the guts to express them and his concerns – and was heeded!

 

 

OK – let us move on to an actual fatal accident and the various dimensions that ensued.

 

 

In 1999 the front lift strut bracket on a Thruster two seater let go, took out the rear bracket also, the wing began folding up and snapped due to the restraint from the jury strut/flying wire attachment points. The aircraft went straight in, killing both the instructor and student.

 

 

This was a routine training flight and eye witnesses were able to confirm that conditions were calm, the aircraft was not being thrown about, and in fact it was just conducting a normal training circuit when it literally began falling apart!

 

 

This was grim indeed. Not just the fatals but also that the Thruster is built like a tank. There had been no prior major structural failures with them in flight despite the hundreds built and the tens of thousand flying hours done in them. Apart from one fatal accident in factory test flying this was the first actual ‘in service’ Thruster fatal (and with hindsight there have been none since)..

 

 

Initially, things got going swiftly and with a good working rapport between AUF and a most concerned TOSG (Thruster Operator Support Group). Rod Hewitt-Cook the (then) AUF Tech Manager got into gear and within days had an AD out that provided immediate protection to owners.

 

 

TOSG was doing its own normal thing and rummaging around in the background for opinion, close observation – anything that would shed some meaningful light.

 

 

Rod pulled his own strings and had a metal survey done on the failed parts. They allegedly had failed a long time before, were corrosion invaded, corrosion was apparently

 

already long established in the existing fatigue cracking that should have been evident on even a walk-around pre-flight inspection let alone a routine scheduled 50 hour service of the aircraft. Do any of you readers actually know what a Thruster lift strut bracket is? It is wildly over engineered for the purpose that it fulfils – they do not just ‘break’ in flight!

 

 

TOSG meantime had been told that allegedly there had been two prior occasions of severe trauma to the affected area when the aircraft had been in collision with solid objects. Such collisions would have reasonably distorted the wing brackets, yet the originals were still in place and could not have been re-fitted to a true geometry unless they had been ‘modified’ to do so. You do not ‘modify’ stainless steel fittings by cold bending except at your extreme peril!

 

 

None of this came out as it was hearsay. There were ‘sensibilities’ about the deceased and potential legal implications regarding possible defamation would have been of concern. But AUF had done its job and the matter was then sealed because it went under Coronial Inquiry and then nobody can say anything. One of those ‘official investigations’ that forum members are so fond of trotting out! There were also serious messages to owners of aircraft lacking in airworthiness skills that should have been underlined but now could not be!

 

 

Unfortunately this ‘official investigation’ was a disaster that hardly went noticed and took four years to come out with any findings.

 

 

The main finding was that the failed bracket was ‘non-CAO 95.25’ approved. Perhaps the factory had been a bit naughty with its sub contractors. Nevertheless the new order that came out from the Coroner centred around this.

 

 

The main issue was a radius of bending curve that could promote cracking. But the main identification point was that the bracket was seam welded together instead of being riveted, and by implication was a water collection source that would have promoted long standing and internal, out of view corrosion.

 

 

That is plausible but is actually unmitigated crap! I personally happen to own the Thruster Prototype. This is now 25 years old and has seam welded brackets – that are immaculate yet the aircraft has had a very hard life!

 

 

Many of the single seaters have seam welded brackets and date back nearly the same time – no failures despite some of the work demanded of them.

 

 

The very latest Thrusters (the T600s and probably the most certified ultralight aircraft in the world) also has seam welded brackets – no problems at all!

 

 

I would dearly like to get my hands on the person who fed a Coroner a lot of bull dust and obscured the main issues that really affect users!

 

 

Rod grounded all of the Thrusters overnight and we went through that. Then four years later the Coroner grounded them again – ALL of them – and there was no support forthcoming. I paid for a CAR35 Engineer Engineering Order so that no owner would not have a way out. I still do not have that expenditure back from the small mark-up I make on the supply of new approved components.

 

 

That is the level that your ‘official investigations’ can go to Sportsfans – so I suggest you think several times before quacking about people who have to be ‘approved’ and read into the above that some very approved people had to be involved in obscuring a salient airworthiness learning experience but also that the humblest of us can save lives if they have the nerve to come forward and are listened to!

 

 

 

So let us please, on these forums, not simply look upon them as a notification of an accident, but also as an expression of our own interest in the same thing not happening to ourselves and wishing to participate in some way of avoiding that happening.

 

 

But when going there let us also remember a sense of consideration and propriety to those affected personally.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Captain]

Tony

 

 

 

I support discussion of accidents on this forum and because we often do so on the same day or shortly thereafter, it must necessarily almost always involve some degree of "speculation".

 

 

 

I have no trouble with that, but with the caveat that all posts must be WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF GOOD TASTE.

 

 

 

And I have always found that this has been maintained well here due to the sensible moderation of Ian and Slarti and others with that power.

 

 

 

As you rightly note, the recent Gold Coast accident involved a frenzy here from those that were trying to shut down any comment at all, using plainly false logic about emails to the families.

 

 

 

Accidents & fatalities are tragic, and painful for some that are personally involved, but that is why God and King James invented the word "Accident".

 

 

 

The RV6 in Vic is one I will always remember, and one of our members posted some aerial shots which I found to be a good factual indication of what happened ........... but this type of thing always needs to pass the TASTE TEST and if it meets that, then it is OK by mine.

 

 

 

And for the record, if I ever "GO IN" (as some of our forum members have done) feel free to discuss it as much as you like for as long as you like. It might help someone else not to make the same mistake.

 

 

 

Regards Geoff

 

 

 

PS Some of your posts are longer than my whole attention span.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

I've got a bit of a problem with part of what you say Tony.

 

To save myself the typing, I'll post what I put in another thread -

 

Many years ago I was one of the first on the scene of a training fatality. The instructer survived. I did not witness the prang.

 

The wife and freinds of the deceased where still at the hanger when I got back from the prang. They were unaware of the acciedent. As I did not know them I said nothing.

 

Question; When I got back to the hanger, should I have started to idly speculate to others and the late pilots wife about what I thought caused the prang ? ... even later, when the wife knew of the acciedent, would I idly speculate to others in front of the late pilots wife ?

 

I dont know who reads this forum, so I assume the 'wife' could be reading this now.

 

'Trained' reporters with the media constantly make fools of them selves reporting and speculating on aircraft prangs - thats probably speculation enuf.

 

I wonder if some of the encouragement for this speculating isnt just to get more 'traffic' (posts) thru the forum ?

 

.

 

 

[Mazda]

I'm with Tony on this one. "Experts" are human like everyone else and mistakes can be made. Some of these things even end up in court with "expert witnesses" with opposing views!

 

Any discussion of ideas which could prevent another accident is most worthwhile.

 

 

[ahlocks]

I wonder if some of the encouragement for this speculating isnt just to get more 'traffic' (posts) thru the forum ?

.

What practical purpose would this serve?

 

 

[Captain]

I wonder if some of the encouragement for this speculating isnt just to get more 'traffic' (posts) thru the forum ?.

A ridiculous assertion on your part HPD ............... and an insult to the Moderators and other members.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

I posted a picture of an accident on a forum. It was read / seen by the ATSB and subsequently provided some very valuable information for the investigation. Later with my permission it was used as part of the ATSB accident report. My photos contained information missed when the police air wing took their professional (?) photos of the accident site.

 

I'm in 2 minds as to what should be posted / discussed on any forum, however I do believe it shouldn't be personal regarding the pilot. For example, the aircraft did a wing-over and crashed would be acceptable in my mind. Or perhaps something like, I heard that the propellor was vibrating so much from a friend that went for a fly in it, that that is probably the reason why the crank shaft broke.

 

Something like, 'I heard that he Joe Blow was always doing beat-ups and I heard he doesn't maintain his plane properly' would be something I consider inappropriate.

 

 

[antzx6r]

HPD's coment on the wife back at the field...

 

This is true to a certain extent. But technical discussion full stop would be hurtfull for a family member to "overhere", so the only remedy is to make the topic taboo thru the grieving period. This is unlikely to happen in any circumstance.

 

For instance in your own example, tact would hopefully prevent most from mouthing off so to speak. And the first thing on most sane persons minds would be to offer condolences and support. However you can't tell me that you spoke absolutly nothing of the accident for days after.

 

So I fully agree with Tony, discussion is good. Both for grieving and for future safety. Tact is the key however. So coments like 'another avoidable accident', even if true, are a bit strong for comment here. If you feel you need to get that kind of thing off your chest, pick your audience. Stick to things like 'sad to here of another respected aviator going down'.

 

And if you want to remind people of their role as a pilot. Try to use the information with positive intent instead of demeaning the actions of the deceased. ie. 'Remember, all the experience in the world does not give you a get out of jail free card. Keep those safety margins nice and comfortable. The unthinkable can happen to all of us. Gust in the wrong direction, sun in the eyes at the worst posible second etc. Be safe.

 

So like HPD says, these are open forums. Treat it like worst possible ears to here this are probably listening. Like you wouldn't discuss way a roo's head reacts to a 3030 shell with your 3 year old daughter in the room. It's just not on. But with the mates, you want to compare hardware and learn.

 

Thanks Tony, This is long overdue IMO.

 

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Hmmm..... Have a look at this well known video.

 

Imagine you were just a bystander at the perimeter fence watching those milatary types doing there usual wild thing.

 

As a bystander, what would you say caused this military arcraft to crash ?........

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmPC7LvPyFU

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

HPD Thank you for your post - as you reach for the nub of what we have to address, and reconcile here.

 

 

I appreciate the anguish and decisions that you made upon the day you mention. My day came when I was just 13 years old. I had by then already witnessed crashes and been kept away from them at the time. I had seen the aftermath of so many more.

 

 

On that horrible day a Hunter had gone in and I was again kept away. But later I went to the crash site, probably the curiosity of youth trying to get understanding, not I think some ghoulish fascination with death.

 

 

In my pottering about I came across a portion of the entrails of the pilot that had been missed by the crash crew. I was shocked and wanted to run away. Somehow I did not. Instead I sought out a member of the remaining crew. His advice was cold – just hang it on a fence son and we will get it later – so I went back and did that!

 

 

I knew nothing of the pilot’s wife, children, family, friends and what they would have thought about that. It was something they needed no part of, and they were not involved. Probably they later buried a coffin half full of sand to give it weight, and give them comfort.

 

 

What we sometimes have to bear may be heavy and it is not simply a case of respect for the dead or their grieving family/friend group, nor is it a legal issue of defamation that idle (or even informed) opinion and speculation can cause.

 

 

For those of us that continue it is also not ‘ghoulish fascination’ – it is a very real need to know what happened and why – so it does not happen to us. That is entirely natural and almost immediate!

 

 

We cannot just depend upon the appointed ‘experts’ and that legal process may take as long as years before findings are made known. Plus the appointment of the ‘experts’ may obscure the fact that they are anything but that and indeed have feet of clay!

 

 

What I am attempting to explore on this thread is how we do sensibly, and with taste, discuss tragic events that have more immediate meaning to all of us – without starting a forum flame war!.

 

 

That is why I invited discussion – but let us please keep it reasonably toned!

 

 

Aye

 

 

[antzx6r]

As an interesting follow on from Tonys first post, I've just finished reading an article in the latest issue of Pacific Flyer called "A Macchi has gone in". Very interesting read on this very same idea that the "Pro's" are not infallable and some times let ego's stand in the way of future safety.

 

Also interestingly somewhat similar to the caribou accident above.

 

As a side thought, I notice the pilot tries to turn the aircraft at the top of the climb (like a lazy 8 of sorts) my question is, being that an elevator problem is holding the aircraft in a constant nose high through the climb out, if he/she was to roll the wings over earlier could the aircraft be held in tight turn with full power till the problem is discovered and resolved. What is the prefered correction from this type of elevator malfunction (if there is one)?

 

Cheers,

 

Ant.

 

 

[Methusala]

Tony, as usual another masterful job. More power to your elbow! I have had the considerable benefit of much sage advice over the 24 hrs and, on reflection, I would not repeat my hasty conclusion simply to save some of the overreaction. Otherwise I once again feel indebted to our forum members for their considerate and moderating views. Regards, Don.

 

 

[Kelvin]

"Actual Hero with Guts" acknowledged.

 

So let us please, on these forums, not simply look upon them as a notification of an accident, but also as an expression of our own interest in the same thing not happening to ourselves and wishing to participate in some way of avoiding that happening.

Thanks Tony.:thumb_up:

My GA CFI crashed in a Lancair IV-T back in Dec 2002 and the final ATSB report came out Nov 2003. I concluded with his experience of 6500 hrs and 42 years in the Navy, there was no way was I going to return to flying. I changed my mind later when I found out it was an experimental aircraft. Had we a forum like this back then, someone would have mentioned that critical fact and probably I would not have tried to avoid 'the same thing happening to' me by staying grounded.

 

Kelvin (with a long way to go and prepared to participate)

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

OK Sportsfans,

 

 

We have had some good opinion expressed but this thread has gone a bit quiet which surprises me. I say that on the basis of some of the heated comments, and near conflict, given on so many other threads in the Accident and Incidents forum here.

 

 

That sort of conflict we can do without so we need a resolution between ourselves on a self-imposed ‘Terms of Conduct’ that is acceptable to the vast majority (while understanding that any group cannot satisfy every member and at least a little tolerance is in order!).

 

 

So I propose to now summarise this thread (so far) for general approval, but still leave it open to further comment and discussion if need be.

 

 

As I see it the main issue is that this particular forum can have a valid alerting function to it which may well be protective to current operators.

 

 

If an accident/incident happens all of us want to learn as much as we can from it to save ourselves going through the same experience.

 

 

This could happen generically (ie we seem to be having a trend of failed approaches so Operations needs to take a look at standards in that area) or, there seems to be rather a lot of failures of the Whiz Bang Mk2 Undercarriage (which could be either an Operational problem or could be an airframe weakness emerging that Tech Air should be interested in).

 

 

Given that initial notification is generally a very sketchy report that such and such has gone in there is immediate interest in ‘why’. Lacking detail the input then may tend towards just speculation. That can cause problems:

 

 

• Other pilots (especially those of the specific type) could be feeling threatened and have a positive need to know at least the context so that they may evaluate the risk factor to themselves that may be emerging.
   
   
  
• Speculation at the level of ‘I think such and such may have happened’ then results.
   
   
  
• Some or all of that speculation could be most hurtful to the family/friends of any deceased or injured persons involved.
   
   
  

 

 

We may then translate those three points into the following three points:

 

 

• We want to know why.
   
   
  
• Any family/friends should not be discomforted by non official statements.
   
   
  
• Nobody can say anything because we are not an official investigation.
   
   
  

 

 

There are ways of satisfying all three points.

 

 

• Initial reporting should be constrained to bald accounts of what is known actually happened.
   
   
  
• Eyewitness accounts are acceptable if reported on a bald basis of what was actually seen.
   
   
  
• Anyone who has valid contributory input is entitled to do so (ie a westerly wind on approach to that place is a bastard!) – or – ‘the Dart 17R sailplane rolls onto its back on spin entry and is not recoverable below 600’’
   
   
  
• Any comments made should be factual and bear in mind the sensibilities of other readers and therefore be in good taste that is considerate as well as socially acceptable.
   
   
  
• The last one on ‘official investigation’ I will now enlarge upon.
   
   
  

 

 

First of all let us be practical. The usual thing (in fatals) is that the situation is under Coronial Inquiry, therefore sub judice and NO comment can be made until the findings are forthcoming. That does NOT mean that NOTHING can be said at all – you just have to be careful about WHAT is said! Certainly the bare facts of the incident may be stated to protect others although no conclusions may be drawn.

 

 

I am sailing very close to the wind here and have to be careful – but this is how nasty it can get. Eight years ago an ultralight went in and killed two people. It was VERY nasty and led to a chain of circumstance that did no practical good for Flight Safety at all!

 

 

• Initially RAAus ordered the wreck to be immediately taken to the local dump (it was a large and sophisticated aircraft but not much was left of it).
   
   
  
• Two senior RAAus members talked to the police and convinced them that a detailed investigation should take place so they were given permission to retrieve the wreckage and examine it.
   
   
  
• That investigation within hours produced a multitude of problems of concern to us all.
   
   
  
• The aircraft had crashed on climb out after take-off. It was on fire before it hit the ground (eyewitness) and very unusual for an ultralight/low level GA machine (personal knowledge and experience on the actual aircraft).
   
   
  
• It was climbing abnormally slowly (reliable eyewitness).
   
   
  
• It had previously been refuelled with diesel by mistake, drained and refuelled but no purging of the tanks and fuel system (alleged but reliable). After the crash unknown substances were retrieved from what was left of the tanks and sent for analysis (outcome unknown).
   
   
  
• The aircraft had been privately purchased second hand by a relatively inexperienced pilot who had not been adequately converted to the aircraft – the previous owner was incapable of flying it adequately himself! (known personally)
   
   
  
• The impact was high vertical speed in a flat attitude not consistent with a usual stall at a low airspeed and there was a high probability the flaps (in an unexpected emergency straight after take off) had been shoved into reflex that stalls that type straight out at quite high speed! (impact evidence, injury and personal experience).
   
   
  
• The aircraft had not been adequately maintained if at all (alleged direct observation by other airfield users)
   
   
  
• The aircraft was consumed by fire on arrival and incinerated the occupants who would have at least been incapacitated by the impact if not already dead. (eye witness and post mortem).
   
   
  

 

 

Now there is a heap of valuable stuff in there that everyone can learn from and eight years later we have had nothing. As far as I know the Inquest is still open but could have been quietly closed down. There were other issues apparently on the police side which encouraged their interest – but that had nothing to do with aviation at all.

 

 

Nobody can say anything as it is an ‘official investigation’! It is Sub Judice! So other people potentially die through lack of learning from what happened! And I seriously doubt that anyone will learn anything from this (other than what I have indicated here)!

 

 

There is also the human side! I assure readers that I broke court etiquette at the initial hearing, stopped proceedings and directly addressed the assembled two families of the deceased who were having a very hard time of it all. I apologised for the coldness and bluntness of my testimony that would go contra to their grief and stated that I had to answer direct questions from their own lawyers. That was accepted by them and made me a bit more comfortable.

 

 

Two points in passing: 1. Be very careful of missing the small window of opportunity for valid comment before things are closed down legally tight. 2. Do not put too much credence in ‘official investigations’ – you may not get any valid results from them and they may take sufficient years that other people have already died or been injured as a result of the un-investigated cause in the meantime.

 

 

The initial reporting is an allied, but different, matter. Above all it requires taste and a sense of acceptable balance in the public domain.

 

 

So Sportsfans I wish to tender for your comment and approval the following regarding conduct and input on this forum. I suggest that we adopt the following as a ‘rules of reporting’ here:

 

 

• Report any and all accidents/incidents that you hear of here.
   
   
  
• Incidents (airworthiness or ops) are particularly valuable because they are ‘near accidents’ and those we can learn from most positively.
   
   
  
• Keep your comments to the facts – what you know, what you saw – do not speculate.
   
   
  
• If you have insight into local conditions or peculiarity of aircraft type then state them without drawing conclusions.
   
   
  
• Catagorise your report into an evident situation and I will list some of these to give you the idea in the Ops area:.
   
   
  

 

(A) Crash on the ground pre take off

 

(B) Crash shortly after take off

 

© Undershot intended landing area on approach.

 

(D) Crash on landing.

 

(E) Loss of control upper air.

 

(F) Apparent structural failure upper air

 

(G) Apparent structural failure upper air after observed manouvers

 

(H) Contact with ground in less than VFR conditions,

 

(I) Hit ground obstructions in VFR when should have been under normal control.

 

(J) Etc.

 

 

There are a lot more but can you see what I am driving at in initial reporting and the need to know by other users? All of us have the need to primarily know if an accident is likely to affect us. If (for example) an aircraft goes in during low level aerobatics at an air display, or cattle mustering below tree height – then (although we not know at the time if there was an airworthiness cause, or some kind of failure of the pilot that only a formal investigation may uncover) we do know that area is not one that we penetrate ourselves so are reasonably safe in our own operations and get some comfort from that.

 

 

Hearing that an aircraft fell apart in the sky (and we have had some incidences recently) is quite a different ball game and will worry everyone – Why?

 

 

Let us add to the why if we are able, but give ourselves more comfort from defined reporting if that is possible.

 

 

This is the ONLY forum in the world where this level can be explored – and it is up to all of us to make it work so that it is a valid tool.

 

 

I do not consider myself infallible. I have put forward suggestions. Anyone want to knock off the sharp edges? Does not matter let us have agreement and a new avenue into better Flight Safety.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

For me the "line" is the careful reporting of "facts". The difficulty being what are "facts"? One person will swear blind that they are in possession of the facts, yet ultimately they are not.

 

I have to be careful about how I say this, in order to not break some confidences:

 

A good friend of mine was involved in a very major and public accident. He wasn't a member of the flight crew, but was very experienced on the type and had a long history in aviation safety. The job of debriefing the crew fell to him. One of the crew was a friend of his.

 

After conducting the very comprehensive debrief he formed the view that it appeared that the crew were largely responsible for the accident.

 

The subsequent, substantial, ATSB investigation found that whilst the crew had made errors the major issues were systemic and driven by the operating environment at multiple levels.

 

The bottom line: a very experienced person acknowledges that his initial views - born out of unparalleled access to the "facts" were later shown to be wide of the mark in so far as where the locus of the problems primarily lay.

 

Yes by all means talk about it but please understand three things:

 

1. Despite being certain that you hold the facts, perhaps all of the facts, you may well be wrong;
    
    
   
2. Having personally been involved in this situation once this year (as family) and several times over the years please be aware that the relatives and friends may not feel the same way that you do about your "dispassionate pursuit of aviation safety";
    
    
   
3. Some accidents don't need discussion and speculation. Many mid-airs fall into this category.
    
    
   

 

 

Finally a request: Please, even if you think you know which accident I discussed here, or if you think you know some of the parties involved PLEASE REFRAIN FROM SAYING SO HERE ON THE FORUM.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Seal]

I agree that the reporting and discussion of incidents and accidents is a valuable function and the proposed guidelines seem reasonable to me. There may be a few changes I might make but I believe, for this to work, the KISS principle should hold and a discussion of the nuances of the wording would not lead anywhere useful.

 

As others have said, people need to be aware that information provided is often preliminary and that one persons facts are anothers fibs. Some mechanism to update threads as new information is developed, often months later, would be useful. That way the initial reporting could be refined and corrected in context. I have not yet thought through how this could be done.

 

I have two further guidelines for consideration:

 

1. Discussion and development of theories of actions and causes by third parties based on on the facts provided should be actively discouraged. We do not want entire edifices built by extrapolation from shaky information.

 

2. We agree that the prime purpose of the area is for information sharing and should be kept to that. Expressions of grief and condolence, no matter how heartfelt, do not belong here.

 

That may seem a little harsh at first reading but my motivation is precisely because of the sensitivities. People who may be personally involved should know that they are going to find an objective and perhaps upsetting discussion here which they can avoid if they wish and that they can find messages of a personal nature somewhere else on the forums. As things operate at present, families who may gain some small comfort from the thoughts of the RA community are required to also read through comment which they may rather avoid.

 

My thoughts for discussion.

 

Selwyn

 

 

[antzx6r]

Those are some heavy thoughts seal. We do have to remember that this is a community forum, not an accident investigation board. Some sentiment is needed. Discussion is good but treat the incident like it was a part of our family lost(which it is really).

 

True, we almost never have the facts completely correct, but then neither do ATSB. Only the supreme one knows exactly what happened. So give the pilot benfit of the doubt and discuss the situation and what you would have done, or what you've been told to do, etc. It's education we want here. Leave opinions of the pilots actions out of it. We don't really know what happened in that cockpit.

 

Seal is right in that some of what a family member might read here is going to be a bitter pill. But then death is a pretty distasteful pill on it's own. All you can do is be gentile. Spread the love people.

 

Ant

 

 

[Guest J430]

pelorus32

 

Your friends involvement in a multicrew company incident is a very valid point for such an environment. And this is worth considering.

 

Having said that ..... if I have an accident or incident it is most likely single pilot ops and no company processes etc to have a hand in it. You can be 99.9% sure it will be because I STUFFED UP, and thats often the harsh reality many do not like to hear.

 

I have long been of the opinion that its better to stick your hand up than hide from your mistakes, and others can learn from them.

 

Basically in many accidents, except one like the RAA crash off the Gold Coast recently where its likely to be a Pelican that downed it, it is usually the result of the owner/pilot stuffing up. "Sure the engine failed but he stalled it and spun in rather than land in the available paddock".

 

If you are reasonably sure what happened, and you have a view on what may have been the problem, what is the crime in saying so. Often the truth hurts.... but it is still the truth.

 

Someone was banned for saying that a famous aviators recent death "was a pretty stupid way to kill yourself".............and when the ATSB prelim report came out, thats effectively what they said too!

 

I do not think we should all hide behind sugar coatings when it comes to learning by others mistakes, after all they may have paid a hefty price for our education.

 

J:thumb_up:

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day J,

 

I take your point. What I was trying to say - in my usual longwinded fashion - is that even though you may think you have all the facts - as an onlooker - you may not have.

 

You are 100% right though that in our aircraft it is 99.9% likely that it will be "pilot error" and that the other 0.1% will be something else

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest airsick]

You are 100% right though that in our aircraft it is 99.9% likely that it will be "pilot error" and that the other 0.1% will be something else

66.4 per cent of all statistics are made up on the spot.

 

 

On the subject of the philosophy of of posting on this forum I think there are some skewed views. It seems that it is not OK to discuss like adults an incident or accident after it occurs but the same people with this view feel it is fine to flame and abuse those who do so.

 

A while back I posted some information on a certain accident involving a certain person (who I won't mention in fear of getting abused yet again) and all of a sudden it was a slinging match with most of it headed in my general direction. All of this despite the fact that I was quite open in admitting that the information was second hand and explicitly refused to speculate about the info (I did offer some specualtive views later but again, this was made clear).

 

I don't see the harm in discussing things here as long as it is done with a bit of decorum and common decency but next time you want to hurl abuse at some one via the public threads or PM think about the philosphy of posting on this forum.

 

And remember (yes, this is in reference to the above mentioned accident) no one is untouchable, not even YOU (or me!). If you have a ding and we can learn something from it then don't get angry when someone mentions it and don't cut them down either.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

G'day Airsick,

 

can we be clear please for the sake of other readers? I don't think that I posted in the other thread that you mentioned. It's possible to come away from your post above with a view that you are talking about me, inter alia.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Sorry Mike, wasn't aimed at you. Just a general comment about the seemingly contradictory behaviour that can be seen here (fortunately not too often).

 

The comments I received were mainly via PM and I won't discuss who it was (I don't see the point and quite frankly the individuals concerned know who they are and will just be further inflamed if I did). What I will say though is that you, Mike, were definitely not one of them. :)