Thexder

You know what, I've just realised that you are right and I get the feeling you always have been right and always will be right. You know more about the crash and culpability than I ever could... Heck I only witnessed it with 10 other pilots and spoke to the actual pilot of the crash. What the hero would I know. Lord turboplanner, I submit to your superior intellect and judgement. Case closed.

You know what, I've just realised that you are right and I get the feeling you always have been right and always will be right. You know more about the crash and culpability than I ever could... Heck I only witnessed it with 10 other pilots and spoke to the actual pilot of the crash. What the hero would I know. Lord turboplanner, I submit to your superior intellect and judgement. Case closed.

You know what, I've just realised that you are right and I get the feeling you always have been right and always will be right. You know more about the crash and culpability than I ever could... Heck I only witnessed it with 10 other pilots and spoke to the actual pilot of the crash. What the hero would I know. Lord turboplanner, I submit to your superior intellect and judgement. Case closed.

Yes it is still taught on PPL (not sure about RAaus). I've taken off plenty of times with a tailwind... Downhill runway, rising terrain, more usable runway, no trees or powerlines etc etc.

To be honest, the pilot taking rwy 18 at Shepparton with a 5kt quartering tailwind was not a terrible decision. Shepparton's runway 36 has virtually no safe landing zone in the event of an emergency/engine out. Rwy 18 has plenty of safe landing options. 5kt tail wind toward open paddocks instead of 5kt headwind into a housing estate is not a terrible decision... Unless you stall due to lack of airspeed...but 5kt is not a deal breaker.

I'll meet you at Mt Beauty airport and watch you take off with a 5kt headilwind on runway 14....into steep climbing terrain. No thanks, 5kt tailwind and taking rwy 32 is the correct decision. So tailwind is not always a poor decision.

Again, I was there at the time, I am a member of the club that runs out of this council owned airport. This is not a controlled airport, so that means pilots use their discretion as to any decision they make. No one was in charge of the airport, that's not how it works. Earlier planes were using runway 18 to land as the wind was light and variable, but technically it was favouring 36. I would say this pilot just followed what other people did earlier and decided to use 18 (I'm speculating here). The ERSA actually says that 18 is preferred in nil wind and this is because there are few safe places to land in the event of an engine out when taking off on 36 due to housing developments. Once again this is one of those crashes where no single one factor caused it, it was a combination of many individual decisions and actions (the Swiss cheese analogy)

He could have had poor training, maybe he wasn't even compliant with his Biannual Flight Review (BFR) who knows, but simply blaming poor training is not correct. One could have had perfect training, but became complacent or even totally negligent due to poor attitude, but that isn't poor training. It seems he only purchased the plane ~7 months before the crash and in that time it looks like it was re-painted with other internal works done, so you may be correct in that he lacked adequate competency for the aircraft type. That is not poor training necessarily, as he may not have had a single lesson in the aircraft. That is poor attitude and decision making, not poor training. Many pilots stall aircraft, for a variety of reasons, but poor training is very very rarely ever a causal factor. Stress is usually the most common fact and I would suggest this may also be the case in this accident. New aircraft, yawing to the left on take-off roll, stressed he pulled back too far on the stick and stalled.....On the internet 2 days later, it's an easy fix. Push the nose down and gather airspeed. In the reality of the moment, they guy made an obvious mistake and luckily he didn't pay the ultimate price.

I'm sorry, but poor decision making is not poor training. A pilot choosing the wrong runway or choosing not to abort a take-off is not poor training, it is poor decision making. The pilot would likely have known how to recover a stall, this is basic 101 training, but in the moment he may have panicked and make a poor decision. This is not poor training.

It possibly was a significant factor in this case, if he took off prematurely, but generally taking off with a 5 knot tailwind on a 1,298m runway should not be a significant contributing factor. As a general rule I would just increase my rotation speed by the tailwind component, lift off gently, keep the nose lower to get more air over the wings and generate more lift. This really shouldn't have been a major factor, but probably was given his apparent slow airspeed and abrupt pulling back of the elevators....another one of those chain of events rather than any single one factor.

In my personal opinion, its not the lack of training, its that pilots are human and therefore make mistakes, become complacent and start to bend the rules....I've seen many 1,000+ hour pilots do silly things because "I've got a thousand hours and the rules don't apply to me". I've seen guys take-off 20kg over weight because "I've got a big engine and she'll lift anything" when they haven't considered the forces on the plane during turbulence, or guys think the yellow arc on the ASI is the turbulence penetration speed.

When you say "facts" do you mean like Facebook fact checker facts, or facts from someone who was there, witnessed the crash and spoke to the pilot confirming exactly what happened?

Settle princess...that time of the month?

It turns out that not everyone who fly's a plane can fly a plane......

Ironically, there was a car show on at the airfield with 50+ classic cars on display....no doubt this very discussion was had by the car boffins who witnessed it.