Missing Ultralight in Nth Qld

[flie43]

Our local club also held a PETS course for the wives. Initially the 7 of them all were just saying we are only doing this for our hubbies and were not really interested. But after lesson no 1 they were all chatting about there flights like young kids. They loved it.My wife completed hers up to pre solo stage and was landing a C172 on her own without a problem. Fantastic idea and a course that every club should run for both the safety pilot aspect and also for the enjoyment of your co-pilot

 

Terry

 

 

[Guest J430]

I think it is the pilots responsibility (in general and not related to this case) to make sure he/she is fit enough to undertake the said flight.

Darren.....good point and if the information I heard is in fact accurate......some folk should have stopped this.

 

Easy for me to say.

 

As fo training family members I am all for it!

 

J

 

On my way to Horn island WX permitting!

 

 

[bushpilot]

I also dont like speculation - but it is important that we all know about 'cause and affect' outcomes on as many incidents & accidents as possible. It's all about lessons learned.

 

I dont think it's sensible to wait 18 months for results of 'official investigations'. As soon as verifiable facts are known, it is not wrong for them to be shared with the fraternity - by my reckoning..

 

And deep-felt condolences to the families impacted here; I think we can all relate to what they must be dealing with...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Flyer 40

 

that is a pretty responsible thing completing that course. do you think it would be a good idea to keep a prompt card in the cockpit to help her along if she ever has to put the training into effect.

 

I think AOPA also cover this subject.

 

This type of accident if it was indeed pilot incapacitation occurs every year or so.

 

Now that ultralight aircraft are really just lightweight versions of popular GA aircraft that are with their fully equipped panels high cruise speeds ect can be flown with a self assessment for a medical. Wonder how many ex GA pilots are out there flying RAAus aircraft after flunking their medical and not being honest about their dodgy ticker?

 

I belive that if you fly ANY aircraft that is passenger capable, that is capable of rapidly increasing your workload and anxiety level then consideration should be given to the operators health and some sort of medical be obtained, even if there is the chance of dropping in the doctor's office.

 

As for going on a trip with a bunch of friends then have an accident caused by a pilot who was feeling a bit crook on departure. then say that one of the others should have prevented him from taking off is a bit unfair on those who were travelling with him. They had their own workloads to deal with. Plus who is going to throw the trip into caos by telling someone to stay put whilst everyone else moves on.

 

Medicals, they will come for new GA .

 

Ozzie

 

 

[Guest airsick]

I hope nobodys going to suggest full private pilot medicals for Rec av pilots ?

No, I am not. I still get a medical as I have my PPL but even if I didn't I think I would be getting a regular check up to make sure. We seem to think it is ok to accept the need for training that makes us 'experts' in aviation so we can fly safely but then accept a non-expert view (our own) on our health. Personally I think it is prudent to get a real opinion every now and then. I for one would hate to think that I inadvertantly put someone elses life at risk because I made a bad call.

 

A non aviation reader of this thread might think full medicals were a good idea :hittinghead:

I don't think they are a bad idea. It is the over regulation and high costs that CASA impose on the poor pilot that is a bad idea.

 

 

[Guest airsick]

Leave it alone.Its no different to driving a car down the freeway in opposite directions at a rate of km/hr.

Except that in a car if you get into some sort of difficulty there is a 'reasonable' chance of pulling over anywhere in a few seconds without taking out another car, your passengers, a pedestrian or any other innocent bystander.

 

I am not advocating compulsory medicals or encouraging a system like the one that exists in GA but running around saying I am fit to fly is one thing. Being sure is another.

 

How can getting a check up hurt? Some might argue that it costs $100's and that could clock me up a few extra hours. I argue that yes, it could cost $100's but it might save not only my life but my passengers too.

 

Don't you think you owe it to your passengers to be sure you are fit to fly?

 

 

[Guest Flyer40]

Flyer 40that is a pretty responsible thing completing that course. do you think it would be a good idea to keep a prompt card in the cockpit to help her along if she ever has to put the training into effect.

That's an option. But I'm lucky that she likes to be involved with the flight which keeps her up to speed. I think the PETS course helped in that regard by making her more comfortable with the equipment. She's not just a passenger anymore. Her desire to participate has led to her ability to use ERSA and read charts to anticipate the next frequency and have it waiting in the standby window for me. All I have to do now is check it. Having her involved doesn't just relieve some boredom and lessen my workload, there's a potential safety benefit.

 

Droning along one day I popped a question out of the blue - what's the emergency transponder code? 7700 she said. Gotta be happy with that.

 

I think our main concern, and something you can't really train for, would be how she dealt with the panic and fear if I carked it while airborne. Medical emergencies are scary enough, doing first aid in a cockpit is worse, but add to that trying to fly a plane when you're not a pilot. You just can't prepare for it.

 

This is yet another issue that leads me to thinking that of all the possible options for mittigating this risk, BRS would be the best.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There are pilots out there in RA who choose to fly only with themselves on-board, one of which was very well known for this reason. Everyone knew he was doing it but it was within the spirit of the regs. I can't complain because I'm in good health at my age, however you owe it to yourself and your passengers to make sure you are A-OK when you have passengers on board if you think there might be a problem. I'm not impressed when people say otherwise. Flying is not like driving a car, there are far greater consequences.

 

 

[Matt]

knowing full well you are fit enough for a flight? Leave it alone.

How do you assess that? If a medical professional had declared you unfit to fly, how do you rationalise declaring yourself fit to fly?

 

I must admit to being somewhat perplexed by the reluctance of people to undergo a regular medical. We gladly accept that our aircraft are required to undergo periodic inspections 50/100 hourly, we accept TBO's and the like, we do daily inspections, yet there seems to be reluctance to apply the same theory to ourselves...despite our form being a far more complex gadget than any aircraft.

 

Personally I'm a supporter of appropriate medicals for all aircrew - whether commercial or recreational (where recreational = non-commercial, not just RAA), especially if you are taking passengers.

 

 

[Yenn]

A good friend of mine, with a commercial licence, had a fatal heart attack while sailing. When i asked the DAME why my friends medical did not pick up a problem? The reply was that there is no way they can predict heart attacks. Given that the most dangerous situation for a passenger is for the pilot to have a heart attack I question the validity of the medical examination. I also know for a fact that there are RAAus pilots, who changed from GA because they were afraid of losing their medical.

 

As far as training your loved ones to land the plane, some would say that the only people who can do that are qualified instructors, which leads me to wonder why so many people are crashing cars, now that nearly all driving instruction is done by professionals rather than fathers or boyfriends.

 

 

[spacesage]

Guys,

 

Flying is dangerous.

 

Those who chose to do it have the ultimate freedom of flight, but also the ultimate responsibility of their own safety and the safety of others, both in the aircraft and on the ground. They must also bear the weight of responsibility of the consequences of being killed or incapacitated, to them and their families.

 

There are no silver bullets here, self regulation and responsibility are the only way to ensure the maximum safety.

 

And there is no such thing as perfectly "safe".

 

But there is such a thing as "unlucky". We don't know what happened to these poor people. We can try rationilize why, but it is a circular argument, there is no soultion to all these questions.

 

I have enough problems dealing with these issues to keep me out of the air. I am struggling to weigh it all up and make sense, but what is becoming clear is that what we do is dangerous and has risk.

 

Until I work it out and have some answers I can't fly again.

 

 

[wags]

An interesting thread this one. Having experienced what can best be described as a "major medical event" many years ago and then overcome the ongoing health related problems, I now submit myself to rigorous medical monitoring on a six monthly basis so that I know for sure where my health is at. I want to save me first and if that leads to better safety for others, so be it.

 

To those of us that believe compulsory medicals are an answer I can offer details of a number of occassions whereby pilots underwent CASA Class 1 Medicals (stress test and all) only to fall over with a massive heart attack within 36 hours of being given a clean bill of health. Why are people hell-bent on following the CASA path?

 

No Medico can tell you how you are going to be, they can only tell you how you are at that moment in time and by reviewing your particular risk factors make an assessment of your ongoing prospects. They cannot prevent that ultimate event taking place, but they can offer advice as to how to lower your risk. I personally want to lower my own risk factors and that's why I take health monitoring seriously.

 

As to spouse flying - my wife is currently undergoing flying training to RAAus standards so that I always have that "safety pilot" along for the ride. At first it was daunting for her but now she is more enthusiastic than I can ever remember being!

 

If Murphy strikes she wants to know she can confidentally handle the aircraft and not only save herself, she can also prevent others becoming involved because of an impending accident and she might just help me get somewhere to save my life. That makes the decision for your spouse learning to fly a "no brainer" in my mind.

 

Let me add one last point - there is a huge difference in training and flying from the LHS. Flying from the RHS is a whole new ball game if you haven't done it before, let alone cope with the anxiety and stress of a loved one turning purple or whatever in the LHS if they are the one flying at the time. If you want a true "safety pilot" along for the ride get them time in the RHS - flying with a qualified instructor. It will not only give them great confidence but it will also lessen your concerns immensely.

 

RAAus has the right recipe with our operations, but no matter what they put in place how do they ensure pilots approach the game with respect and the correct attitude? There will always be a cowboy or two out there unfortunately.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

There are those out there with medical problems, eg, heart disease, poor eyesight and diabetes. They are fit enough to drive a car and therefore fit enough to fly RA-Aus. Because there's nothing stopping them (like not having a medical), they will continue to fly. Your call as to whether it's safe or not.

 

BTW - This all now has nothing to do with the thread.

 

 

[Guest pelorus32]

Guys,Flying is dangerous.

 

Those who chose to do it have the ultimate freedom of flight, but also the ultimate responsibility of their own safety and the safety of others, both in the aircraft and on the ground. They must also bear the weight of responsibility of the consequences of being killed or incapacitated, to them and their families.

 

There are no silver bullets here, self regulation and responsibility are the only way to ensure the maximum safety.

 

And there is no such thing as perfectly "safe".

 

But there is such a thing as "unlucky". We don't know what happened to these poor people. We can try rationilize why, but it is a circular argument, there is no soultion to all these questions.

 

I have enough problems dealing with these issues to keep me out of the air. I am struggling to weigh it all up and make sense, but what is becoming clear is that what we do is dangerous and has risk.

 

Until I work it out and have some answers I can't fly again.

G'day Spacesage,

 

please take what I say here as being said with the greatest respect for your position. You are obviously someone who is interested in flying but who is finding it hard to rationalise the risks.

 

For me this conversation comes about not only about whether I will fly (more on that later) but about how I feel about my 16 year old daughter flying. It is also coloured by the death of a cousin this year in a mid-air and also witnessing other accidents and a death during my flying life.

 

I choose to fly with a keen knowledge that my safety and the safety of others is in my hands. It is my responsibility. I can have an impact on my safety and the safety of others by my skills, knowledge and attitudes. I work hard to make sure that those three things are up to scratch and indeed are always subject to critical appraisal and improvement. I also try to influence others to fly safely and to build skill. I know that it is quite possible to die doing what we do but I believe that the privilege of flight can be attained safely enough to not cause me concern.

 

This conversation is much harder when you watch your just-16 year old daughter fly solo for the first time. How will you ever live with yourself if something happens? But the thing is that worry is not what makes the difference - except in one way (see below). What makes the difference is that she is well trained, disciplined, has a good safe attitude and is current, knowledgeable and focused. I can be comfortable that I have ticked those boxes by making sure she gets the right training with the right people and by helping to instill the right attitudes. What I can't do is to take away her love of flying and her desire to do it. So even though my heart is sometimes in my mouth I simply do my best to ensure that she has all the tools to keep her safe.

 

The value that she has got out of flying in terms of her belief in her ability to do something complex and demanding and the sheer joy that she gets out of doing this is a huge positive. She could as easily die crossing the road or through a random act of street violence. Alternatively she could do something really stupid like parachute jumping!!

 

The one thing that worry can do however is to paralyse us. If we are so worried that it affects our performance then we shouldn't fly. But that must be a rare thing.

 

I'm a firm believer in doing everything that you can to be safe and then getting on with a full and happy life, for me flying is an integral part of that. YMMV.

 

Best wishes and I hope you resolve it.

 

Regards

 

Mike

 

 

[Mazda]

I know of a pilot who died from a heart attack not long after his CASA medical too. It does happen.

 

If you have people flying with you regularly I think it would be a good idea for them to have a bit of training! I'm fortunate in that my OH wouldn't have a problem landing or dealing with emergencies.

 

Other pax don't know what to do. One thing I like to tell them in the pax briefing is where the radio PTT button is, so at least they could talk in plain English to someone if there was a problem, plus a basic "this makes it go up, this makes it go down, this makes it turn."

 

It's not a substitute for training, it's just in hope that they would be able to keep it in the air and call for help - then hopefully someone could talk them down.

 

It could be difficult for them to find somewhere to land though. Not everything has a transponder, and not everywhere has radar coverage anyway.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

I am going to chime in here just a little with some views and personal facts.

 

 

I think the thread is good in terms of helpful general discussion coming from it, as long as people realise the thread is now way ‘off topic’ and is not speculation on the recent tragic loss of two people.

 

 

Paul Middleton wrote a few years ago as part of his column in the RAAus magazine that his two greatest general flying fears were a catastrophic in-flight airframe failure and a totally incapacitating medical event when flying in command.

 

 

I am totally in agreement with those views as I am sure are most high time pilots who have been at it for very many years and are now aging.

 

 

In the former situation I have become increasingly conscious that while I continue to fly then I am each time rolling the dice with Lady Fate – simply on the probability odds of something unforeseen happening.

 

 

This situation can be countered by very good levels of Airworthiness knowledge and practice coupled with equally high levels of situational awareness and prediction that applied experience can bring (or may be learnt if you listen) – but – the high timers have normally had at least a few brushes with the unpleasant to know that there is no warning and it may have nothing to do with an individual skills situation.

 

 

A good friend of mine was killed many years ago at an air display when he sustained a bilateral failure of both mainplanes (the wings came right off the thing) while engaged in an outside loop. That was not his fault. A spanner had been left in a sealed compartment at the aircraft’s time of construction 20 years earlier, the negative G broke it loose from where it was wedged, and it promptly jammed the controls. How do you deal with that?

 

 

The medical issue is however a bit different. For aging pilots who can expect health deterioration, or younger pilots who have reason to believe they may be infirm, then it comes down to a combination of regulation v’s sound exercise of personal responsibility.

 

 

I have all the time in the world for sensible medical requirements that are practical and give reasonable freedoms. I have no time for people who knowingly abuse those freedoms and fly either knowing that a serious medical event is a distinct possibility, or do not have sensible check-ups to establish if any such condition is developing.

 

 

On the other hand this bloody ‘holier than thou’ regulation can be ridiculous when applied to people whose only flying is inherently far safer than driving to work!

 

 

A couple of personal examples. On one of my medical reviews I got a big fail because of blood in the urine sample. The DAME was not concerned about it and passed me. CASA failed me and insisted that I have both liver and kidney specialist examinations. That cost me over $500 and driving time (that I could not afford), both passed me so CASA then passed me. I had to do that because I could not run my RAAus flying school without the medical! It transpired that I had a passing ‘bug’ at the time of the examination.

 

 

But what made me really wild was when I rang the senior medical honcho in Canberra to ask what the hell they thought they were doing – and got the response “I am terribly concerned about your cancer!†I had just had a very thorough cancer scan only a month before as part of my precautionary health care and had been cleared!

 

 

But the giddy limit was the eyes. Since being a child I have been long sighted in one eye and short sighted in the other. This gives me superb binocular vision and at age 64 I do not need glasses for ANYTHING! Furthermore my eyes have not changed for decades – they are the same each examination. Yet each medical CASA failed me and sent me to an optometrist.

 

 

Each time I was examined the result was the same and I got my medical passed. It got to the point that the optometrist kept a letter on his computer and just changed the date! But it all cost more money and time.

 

 

However, I do have a very serious eye problem that is not covered by the CASA requirements. If you have a normal vision deficiency and have to wear glasses then you are obliged to carry a spare pair when flying – right? I am blind as a bat in normal sunlight and HAVE to wear sunglasses most of the time! I am certainly not safe to fly without them – a legacy of too many years of glare flying in low cloud and poor visibility – let alone have to carry a spare pair, yet have superb night vision. Yet CASA do not have this as part of any examination? Probably a bit difficult to do in a surgery so why bother!

 

 

Does not make a great deal of sense does it? So perhaps there is consequent contempt for regulation and people are only too eager to do what suits themselves.

 

 

For myself? I still fly but really only do test flying these days so I am on the high table rolling the dice with Lady Fate! So if the odds go up then so must the precautions. Any flying is really down to risk management – responsibly applied.

 

 

Just some thoughts.

 

 

Aye

 

 

Tony

 

 

[Bidgee]

I have not seen any reference to it lately but at least one school at Camden used to offer a "spouse" course teaching them the basics so they could take control in case of pilot incapacitation. Sounds like a great idea to me !

Temora has a similar progam running

 

http://www.temoraaeroclub.com/tft/pope.htm

 

 

[Yenn]

If you go to the doctor for a check up to see if you are fit enough to fly, for your own peace of mind, what will he do?

 

From my experience the doctors of today have very little knowledge of fitness, they are more interested in sickness and just going to them may constitute a health hazard.

 

In case you doubt my word I asked a doctor what sort of worms could cause an allergic reaction of hives in my wife. He had wanted a faecal sample. He suggested tape worms and ring worm. The reaction was actually caused by a doctor prescribing an anti-biotic to prevent her getting Lyme disease. We had to find that out for ourselves by going on the net and finding possible side effects.

 

Lyme disease is so rare in this part of the world that it need not be considered in the case of tick bite, and ring worm is a fungus. So I don't have faith in doctors, especially young ones and non English speaking as first language. Unfortunately Aussie doctors are as rare as hens teeth.

 

 

[chris]

All

 

just to bring a fact back into the accident in Charters towers. Clives wife Jannet could talk on the radio and had a headset on at the time. She had been chatting, talking on the radio all the way up on the trip to the others in the other aircraft. What happened, happend to both, that's why the RAA are doing a thorough investigation. The facts will come out, we as pilots will learn and hopefully be safer.

 

Chris.

 

 

[jcamp]

Unfortunately Aussie doctors are as rare as hens teeth.

Blame that twerp Blewitt. As he was blowing out Health costs by getting hordes of administrators on the payroll he announced the way to save money was less doctors. So he cut the number of medical places in uni's.

 

 

[Ewen McPhee]

From my experience the doctors of today have very little knowledge of fitness, they are more interested in sickness and just going to them may constitute a health hazard.

I love it --><--

 

 

How does RA Aus publish accident data?

 

I see the cases on the ATSB site are easily accessable for review and education.

 

 

[jacmiles]

Ewan,i to would like to know where to find accident results so we can learn from our mistakes.

 

Yenn,I happen to know some very,very good doctors.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I wouldn't get your hopes up too much as there have been any new reports published for nearly 3 years but a very limited number can be found here http://www.raa.asn.au/accidentreports/index.html

 

John

 

 

[Guest 120knots]

Now that two friends have gone to their rest I feel compelled to express an observation of this thread.

 

On 14/7/08, bloated with self-righteousness, J430 spouted his/her speculative reasoning for the cause of this tragedy, reportedly based on hearsay. To his/her credit High Plains Drifter pointed this fact out but that was met with more self-righteous bluster from J430.

 

It is arguable that J430 could be in legal violation for such speculation prior to or during a coronial inquest. However, there is no doubt that J430 is guilty of very poor manners indeed.

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

self righteousness....pot....kettle....black......thanks for coming!

 

 

 

P.s as has rightly been said, if we wait for the official outcome we will:-

 

a) wait for years

 

b) likely never understand what it is due to lack of publication

 

 

Whether J430 was insensitive or not, the thread then turned to a very constructive outcome which had us all thinking about training of some level for those we drag along with us. How can that be anything but good?

 

 

It may well be that you are too emotionally attached. I found nothing offensive in what was said. At no stage did he purport anything to be other than speculation......

 

 

If I auger in, I give permission for others to speculate to their hearts content, as long as its constructive. Maybe, like organ donation this is something we need on our certificate to keep the sand bound Ostrich fraternity at bay.