Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
APenNameAndThatA

Fatal Accident Rate of Angel Flights Seven Times Higher than Other Private Flights

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, kaz3g said:

Sorry Turbs but strongly disagree with your generalised statement.

 

Many CPLs have indeed undergone significant extra training and accumulated considerable experience, including in decision-making. But a number haven’t and we read about the consequences.

 

There are also many PPLs, including a few former RPT captains, who have accumulated a lot of the necessary. I likewise accept there is a probably larger number which hasn’t. 

 

I think the correct marker for Angel Flight is a sufficient level of training and experience, utilised in a suitably equipped aircraft.

 

The licence doesn’t make the pilot.

Former RPT Captains will have CPL, or if they let it laps, CPL training completed, commercial type operations completed.

 

The difficulty with "sufficient level of training and experience, utilised in a suitably equipped aircraft" is that the statement is subjective, like telling a person walking along a cliff edge to "be careful"  Some think they are being careful, but don't know the edge is unstable.

 

My reason for suggesting CPL is that the pilot is qualified for commercial-type operations under pressure whereas the PPL cuts out at a fairly low level of demonstration of skills, particularly in regard to Met, Nav and P&O, and no demonstration of commercial type pressures.

 

I would agree that an organisation could come up with a level of extra training of a PPL to handle operations under pressure, and a higher level of Met, Nav, P&O, but you would still have the CPL hanging over your head as the benchmark for safety.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, kaz3g said:

Was that the CPL in the Aero Commander who met Mt Disappointment in a hurry? RIP.

The only thing I found in the ATSB reports re Mt Disappointment was a collision in 2016, but it was a UAV; Lockheed Martin Stalker.

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, turboplanner said:

The only thing I found in the ATSB reports re Mt Disappointment was a collision in 2016, but it was a UAV; Lockheed Martin Stalker.

 

 

 


https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/death-pair-flew-despite-warnings/story-e6frf7kx-1111114089902?sv=f82e3ff6473b6feb64857ad9c06f0c2e

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sensation from the Herald Sun  article, and not much fact  and  the plane met turbulence in an area somewhat known for it. Turbulence is warned of on many forecasts and this plane is known for it's structural issues in the wing, but was probably well inspected. Steve Nott was a Rockwell Commander specialist. I might be thick but I can't see how this has much bearing on the point under discussion where the plane is operated under conditions beyond the qualifications and skills of the pilot at the take off stage where the problem was evident. Visible low cloud.  and the "regular" operators had chosen not to conduct operations .Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My comments about the role of the specialist was not about how he should have been based at Mount Gambier, but whether he should have been flexible enough to move the appointment a few days to allow for bad flying weather.

Maybe he would have agreed to the move, but he was not asked. 

If they had all known that bad flying weather would be accepted as a reason to move an appointment just a few days and not wait another year,  there would have been less pressure on the pilot to make his unwise decision to press ahead with the flight.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"Get-there-itis" is a common factor in many aircraft crashes. It's all related to good judgement, and good judgement comes from experience and good training.

As the old saying goes, "good judgement comes from experience, which comes from poor judgement".

 

But the other factor is the human factor of personality. Too many people suffer from poor judgement simply because of their personality traits - which traits can be very difficult to counter.

In the hard-rock underground mining industry, an exceptionally-risky industry where good judgement and adherence to important safety rules and regulations is the difference between life and death, researchers have identified the "risk-taking mentality", as a primary feature of hard-rock mining deaths. And the "risk-taking mentality" is directly correlated with the individuals personality traits.

 

These type of people regularly ignore rules and regulations that are designed to prevent death, because they're in a constant hurry, they consider they have "better knowledge than the people who set the rules", and they indulge in dangerous "short-cuts" to achieve a result, because they are intent on fast results.

 

No better example of this type of personality exists, than the PIC who destroyed the Metroliner at Lockhart River. Despite being a supposedly experienced and capable pilot, his downfall was his constant risk-taking and "short-cut" mentality.

These people are known to enjoy "living on the edge". That may be an acceptable approach for adventurers who love "pushing the boundaries" - but it's an unacceptable approach when other peoples lives are in their hands.

 

I can recall discussion centred around how Qantas used to source its pilots mostly from the RAAF. But RAAF pilots are taught to take risks continuously - the exact opposite of RPT aviation.

As a result, the ex-RAAF pilots had to undergo extensive re-training with Qantas to take no risks, the exact opposite of how they were originally trained.

 

Angel Flight would be best served by simply weeding out the risk-taking variety of pilot, by simple examination of the professionalism of their chosen pilots, and the attitude of their approach towards flying management.

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If ever there was a country where aviation has a place it must be Australia. It's largely barren  and hostile to survival, sparsely settled and very BIG. In the past ,inland and remote areas were subsidised for aviation services. There's no way around that if you want the service to exist for the remote areas, but it's always been contentious with alleged hand outs happening etc or you get operators struggling with costs and cutting corners and making headlines occasionally. When WOOL was literally a goldmine, Cockeys had their own Cessna's, and there where more Rolls Royces in Tamworth than Toorak.

   Medical specialists are in large demand, and IF you miss an appointment it's often months before you can be slotted back in. You can't even get doctors to go to places outside the cities. Being realistic with good roads any trip under 300 Kms you might as well NOT fly with all the fuss and carry on at both ends. EVEN RPT can have disruptions. Look at the strong Westerlies that  reduce Kingsford Smith (SYDNEY) to about1/4 of normal traffic and places like Kalgoorlie are often closed completely  for a day or so with occasional low clouds and heavy rain. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Good thoughts onetrack. There's some similarity between the Lockhart River and the Mt Erebus incident. ONLY as regards  not having a Precise and reliable indication of terrain height on the track you are on. and NEVER rely on only ONE indication of an "essential to know" situation like fuel quantity, height and track keeping, or having a take off or landing clearance too. In the services it was a"complete the mission" thing to a point and Make a decision MAN . (even If it's a wrong one) Don't procrastinate!.  Bit hard to believe isn't it?

   By the way my background is not ex service except in a very mild way but I flew with a group who were predominantly ex service . Pretty good blokes too.  mostly.  (once they got to trust you). Nev

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes Nev, the use of aircraft has declined as roads have got better. A good example is Hermannsburg near Alice Springs.

These days, the airfield is overgrown as the 40k is easier handled by a car.

But as regards the availability of doctors in the country, I will disagree that it is inevitable at all.

We could graduate as many doctors as you could imagine. Their scarcity is entirely contrived .

I was once on a committee which wanted to enable some more " straight A" students to be enabled to go into medicine but we were stymied by the Commonwealth who were wanting to reduce their medibank payments, as well as funding to  the universities.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, facthunter said:

Sensation from the Herald Sun  article, and not much fact  and  the plane met turbulence in an area somewhat known for it. Turbulence is warned of on many forecasts and this plane is known for it's structural issues in the wing, but was probably well inspected. Steve Nott was a Rockwell Commander specialist. I might be thick but I can't see how this has much bearing on the point under discussion where the plane is operated under conditions beyond the qualifications and skills of the pilot at the take off stage where the problem was evident. Visible low cloud.  and the "regular" operators had chosen not to conduct operations .Nev

An example of a CPL who entered foul weather conditions that he knew about beforehand and took his passenger with him.

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

Yes Nev, the use of aircraft has declined as roads have got better. A good example is Hermannsburg near Alice Springs.

These days, the airfield is overgrown as the 40k is easier handled by a car.

But as regards the availability of doctors in the country, I will disagree that it is inevitable at all.

We could graduate as many doctors as you could imagine. Their scarcity is entirely contrived .

I was once on a committee which wanted to enable some more " straight A" students to be enabled to go into medicine but we were stymied by the Commonwealth who were wanting to reduce their medibank payments, as well as funding to  the universities.

That is exactly what happened. The government deliberately restricted the number of medical students in Australia to reduce costs. When that blew up, we imported a huge number of international doctors. 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, APenNameAndThatA said:

That is exactly what happened. The government deliberately restricted the number of medical students in Australia to reduce costs. When that blew up, we imported a huge number of international doctors. 

Was it the government  or was it the AMA ?  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Thruster88 said:

Was it the government  or was it the AMA ?  

Mmm. Far too complex for simple answers. 

 

In the 1980s (when I was a medical student) they didn’t really cut numbers. 

What they didn’t do was increase them in line with the rapid increase in population.

At the same time they accepted dodgy advice that hospitals would be less needed as people got healthier in the new age of technology and they cut hospital bed numbers and dropped the number of positions for doctors in the hospitals. 

 

Then Too late, they realised they  had to actually increase bed numbers but by then there was a shortage of doctors at all levels - but especially junior doctors because large numbers of junior doctors could not get jobs here and had left Australia and had gone overseas. ( particularly to Britain and Ireland because there was still the perception that to be seen as a serious contender for specialist training here you had to have been working in Britain for at least some time. 

 

 

The decisions about hospital bed  and patient numbers and thus doctors numbers  to treat them was due to a complex interaction  with state governments Health departments ( who pay for hospitals and also who limit the numbers of jobs for doctors in those hospitals), Doctors Groups( the AMA and others (eg Doctors Reform Society in those days) specialist and GP colleges and consumer groups who all had varying inputs into attempting to predict future needs.

 

( I know there’s often theory that the AMA is in control of this but it’s just conspiracy theorists. The AMA is just a union and has less that 1/3 of doctors as members. I’ve never been a member and in my 20 person practice only 3 are members.  They carry no power or capacity to enforce things against the people with the purse strings -(ie: the state government) . Their entire clout comes from presentation of statistically justifiable and rational opinion. If they talked rot the governments would pay them no heed as they have no say over more than 2/3 of doctors) and definitely not over hospital employed doctors who have to sign contracts dictating what they can and can’t say and do. 

 

It was the attempts to predict the future hospital and medical manpower needs that was a dismal failure. That’s also a couple books worth in its own right. 

 

Essentially the then lack of Australian junior doctors resulted in a huge influx of overseas trained doctors ( paradoxically mostly from Britain where the NHS was  in disarray and where heaps of Australians were doing there what the poms were doing here!)

 

Now  it’s a free for all with just about every university has a medical school and there are as good as no limits on student numbers. Universities get their funding by having students on the roll call so they go to great lengths to make more places and keep them there till they get out the far end of the sausage machine. so now there’s a glut. A medical student having completed the uni training can’t just go into practice. They have to get a job in a hospital as an intern to be supervised through another minimum of a year before they can be registered. So if you can’t get an intern job. You are unemployed. 

 

Now there are no guarantees that a student will get a job when they graduate and the university gets their funding by getting these students through despite  no job for them. 

 

 

In fact it’s now almost a guarantee that some intern doctors will miss out on a job when they graduate. Nearly a million $ of community money wasted on getting them through to go on the dole at the end. 

 

Its been  like many human endeavours - a pendulum  that swings first one end toward disaster then back to the middle and looking good to overshoot the other way to equal disaster. Hopefully the usual pattern will be followed and eventually it will settle somewhere in the middle. I just hope it’s soon because I’m getting to the age where I’m gonna need a better functioning health system and at present it’s pretty scary. 

 

 

 

 

Edited by Jaba-who
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen 40 years of industry, government and universities trying to predict the demand for mining and geology professionals. They don’t just get it wrong, they get it 180 degrees wrong consistently.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

I have seen 40 years of industry, government and universities trying to predict the demand for mining and geology professionals. They don’t just get it wrong, they get it 180 degrees wrong consistently.

Yep. Usually they employ consultancy firms who have no skin in the game and who direct their findings toward the answer they know will be best accepted by government and this usually involves the answer that will cost the least in the beginning. 

In the end it’s often  the most expensive because the cheapest one fails then there’s the cost of extracting the disaster then the cost of implementing the proper program that should have been done in the first place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was once told by a very successful consultant that the secret was to tell the person paying you just what they wanted to hear.

Then they employ you again next time.

A common thing was when they wanted to get rid of an executive... what you do is employ a consulting firm who recommend that this guy be axed, dressed up in corporate-speak of course and disguised as a reorganization.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, onetrack said:

Angel Flight would be best served by simply weeding out the risk-taking variety of pilot, by simple examination of the professionalism of their chosen pilots, and the attitude of their approach towards flying management.

While I agree with this in principle, unless the inflexibility of the medical system is addressed as Bruce says, one of the biggest risks still exists. Perceived pressure, from a group that could be flexible , but won't.

 

21 hours ago, onetrack said:

I can recall discussion centred around how Qantas used to source its pilots mostly from the RAAF. But RAAF pilots are taught to take risks continuously - the exact opposite of RPT aviation.

As a result, the ex-RAAF pilots had to undergo extensive re-training with Qantas to take no risks, the exact opposite of how they were originally trained.

On a less serious note, I reckon that would be the opposite now.....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow! That is a pretty serious criticism and news that a motion to tell CASA to back off is in train.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, pmccarthy said:

Wow! That is a pretty serious criticism and news that a motion to tell CASA to back off is in train.

Senator Rex Patrick quote:

“CASA has an over-regulation issue, so much so that the Government is progressing a bill through the Parliament that legally requires CASA to treat safety as primary, but be mindful of the need to maintain a healthy industry”

 

That’s what Rex says, not necessarily what the bill will say, but regardless, that’s basically what the industry has been requesting for a long time, so not unexpected.

 

I wouldn’t go as far as giving the statement a wow or inferring it is a bill to tell CASA to back off, because CASA will always have a legal obligation in respect to the Aviation regulations.

 

Quote attributed in Daniel Keane’s ABC News story to the Angel Flight CEO:

“…no mention of ATSB’s failure to investigate the circumstances leading up to the accident prior to the arrival at Mount Gambier….”

 

This is the link to the final ATSB Report

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776600/ao-2017-069_final.pdf

 

She may be referring to something before this final sector of the inbound flight, but this is what happened according to ATSB during the approach and landing:

 

 

Ref ATSB AO-2017-069  Figure 2

Note that there’s no evidence of a rectangular circuit pattern.

 

…after approaching the airport, made a series of turns at about 200’ AGL..

..conducted a go round after touching down on Runway 36…..climb back into cloud….

…called going round for Runway 24…….landed on 29

 

 

 

This and the subsequent take-off on 24 may well get a lot more scrutiny if the family decide to sue.

 

 

WDYTMtrack.JPG
Edited by turboplanner

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CASA does have an over regulation issue. It's what they rely on, almost to the exclusion of all else, to manage aviation, in the non RPT areas.

     The issues were not related to maintenance and the inappropriate "dodgy" statistics  were bound to be criticised. Angel Flight and CASA should be looking at the same issues of technique, (sticking to rules and standards)  skill levels and motivation/pressures to go, in substandard weather relating to this incident and pilot firstly and then investigate if it's a common situation later( if appropriate). Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole of Australian government has an over regulation problem. I don’t know why CASA would be different. When their rules don’t have the desired result they usually make the same rules more stringent then wonder why nothing changes.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...