Jump to content
Admin

Five bush pilot deaths within a month spur calls for improved training

Recommended Posts

On ‎12‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 3:33 PM, rotax618 said:

Before you start making blanket statements blaming these tragic accidents on poor training, it is wise to look at the circumstances of each accident. From all accounts at least 2 of those fatalities were the result of a structural failure of the aircraft, and without knowing the exact circumstances I think it is extremely presumptuous to apportion blame for any of the other accidents on the pilot’s training without knowing the exact cause.

Agree  Just to mention re post No 1 that the first Gyro accident in Orange (not the color orange) appears to have been an TAG airframe (folding mast feature)  problem.  See the ASRA website safety directive 2018/01 for details.

Edited by JEM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 9:54 AM, old man emu said:

How many AUF aircraft crashed into the ground, trees or power poles in the days they were limited to 300 ft AGL?

Heaps!

 

ironically, quite a few flying them survived (but broken) because they were so low and SLOW.

 

kaz

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 Quite a few crashes with serious back injuries  after engine failures. That's why the great emphasis on nosing forward when the engine goes quiet. Lotsa drag, cruises and climbs/glides at the same speed (almost).   Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/1/2018 at 6:27 AM, Old Koreelah said:

How many pilots fail a BFR?

Few of mine have been particulary demanding; more a box-ticking exercise to be gone thru as fast as possible.

 

If an instructor uses boxes as a checklist, that is just being through; if you're saying you should have failed and he was just ticking the boxes with an eye on the flight time, that would be a worry, but also he could be ticking the boxes where you demonstrated no risk, even though it might not be up to your extremely high standard. The combination of control manipulation and management of the aircraft combined with correct radio, aircraft placement in relation to the runway, and several different emergency scenarios will be challenging to someone who doesn't fly weekly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two comments, 1) Someone has suggested an annual ‘BFR’ that would make it an ‘AFR’ since the B in BFR means biennial! 2) I believe, certainly in the case of a PPL, you cannot ‘fail’ a BFR. The examiner can recommend further practice but cannot suspend your licence. Don’t know about RAAus though!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

... The combination of control manipulation and management of the aircraft combined with correct radio, aircraft placement in relation to the runway, and several different emergency scenarios will be challenging to someone who doesn't fly weekly.

Turbs I'm just saying that some BFR's have been far less rigorous than others.

Many of us don't have the luxury of flying regularly. There have been gaps of over a year in my logbook and as a result I've applied maximum focus when returning to the air- perhaps making me safer than if regular practice had lead to complacency.

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Old Koreelah said:

Turbs I'm just saying that some BFR's have been far less rigorous than others.

Many of us don't have the luxury of flying regularly. There have been gaps of over a year in my logbook and as a result I've applied maximum focus when returning to the air- perhaps making me safer than if regular practice had lead to complacency.

I'll normally hit the theory books again so I can give more attention to flying then pick an easy flight or two, and if I'm not happy go up with an instructor with instructions from him to be strict; in other words ease into it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, derekliston said:

Two comments, 1) Someone has suggested an annual ‘BFR’ that would make it an ‘AFR’ since the B in BFR means biennial! 2) I believe, certainly in the case of a PPL, you cannot ‘fail’ a BFR. The examiner can recommend further practice but cannot suspend your licence. Don’t know about RAAus though!

I guess that if an RAA instructor refuses to sign that a brf has been conducted/completed, and it has been 2 yrs or more since the last, you cannot fly....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/30/2018 at 2:04 AM, poteroo said:

We've touched on this 'recurrant training' subject before. It's a senstitive one, because while CASA talk-the-talk about continuing 'training', they baulk at recognising the need to have more training in lower level aircraft operation.  This carries through into RAAus, where we cannot train a pilot in any low level operations - unless they are going to use it on their property.

 

Now, I'd have thought that avoiding killing or injuring yourself and passengers, by having some low level skills, would be sufficient reason to have this allowed.  But no, within the regulators, there is a quite irrational fear that, because a pilot has been trained in low level ops, they will immediately become a low level flying hoon. My decades of experience say that it's the very opposite.

 

When pilots discover that it is a whole, new, and dynamic flight world below 500ft agl, they cease doing the stupid stuff.

 

I'm not suggesting that we train you to fly at spraying height, or fly under powerlines, or other professional skills: I'm for training to avoid stall/spin accidents, to handle rough air, to avoid collisions, to make safe avoidance manoeuvres, and to escape from low or lost visibility situations. We can train you to make safe inspections of strips or paddock locations, how to better assess surface conditions, how to scan properly and so on.

 

The sooner that RAAus, (and CASA), encourage pilots to undertake post RPC/RPL training in low level operating of aircraft - the better for our industry.

 

The old wives tales/ urban myths about how dangerous it is, and why nobody should operate down low - need to be buried.  The next obstacle will be..... 'there are no qualified training instructors.'  Well, unless CASA/RAAus make some moves in this area - there will be no experienced LL instructors left in the industry.  Now is the time to change things, and have the oldies train up a reasonable number of younger instructors before it's too late.

 

happy days,

 

We  in the UK do not really have a problem with this as there is virtually Zero Ag-flying left,. . .But I DO recall that my instructors in Australia, in the 1970s Bemoaned the attitude of the then DCA about Low Level Training.   They reckoned that DCA seemed to be stuffed full of Beaurocrats who had never flown at ANY level. . .so they simply did not understand the industry.   

 

Our CAA, I think is the only DECENT  Quango ( Quasi-Autonomous Non - Governmental Authority ) worth it's salt in the UK,. .. it seems to be populated by Pilots of all kinds, who REALLY DO understand what is required, and are quick to react to trends and situations in what they re regulating upon. . . . ( This is Serious Praise from Me, a large critic of MOST UK Government departments ! )  CAA has Spawned the Ubiquitous Air Accident Investigation Bureau ( A.A.I. B. )  which is world famous for it's forensic dissection of Air Accidents of all kinds . . .but that is just an offshoot of a group which employs SPECIALISTS IN THE FIELD,  Rather than bog standard civil servants. .   . . ( No disrespect to Civil Servants generally  BTW. . . )

 

Best of luck with your efforts Guys. . . . . I always found that the Aussie Government Generally made the Spanish and Greeks look really Helpful. . . .

Edited by Phil Perry
Several Typos.
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you rate the Brit Government at the moment Phil????

     As far as lower end of aviation here is concerned the gov't wouldn't even know it existed. It's buried in a folio of Transport and Infrastructure.  We don't really use our planes for transport. We re-create ourselves with them. Not exterminate ourselves or perpetuate crimes by flying them.. The "department/ authority"  want to ground us and  prevent us from  getting off the ground so we don't get hurt, working on the principle that a static exhibit won't kill you if there's a rope 20 feet away from it,   all around it and you are behind it, it can't hit you....  Nev

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where do you rate the Brit Government at the moment Phil????  ( Nev )

 

Lower than Whale $hit Nev,. . . .but not for reasons of Aviation Safety.   I won't start on Democracy here, wrong place.

 

As I've mentioned before on this subject, the Long time Regulations are being seriously relaxed with regard to Private Aviation.   Medicals especially, allowing Type 1 diabetics to fly as P1, after completing a short flight with an examiner to show that they can self inject safely whilst flying the aeroplane,.  and allowing pilots with other ailments such as Angina to fly. ( Under certain circumstances)  'Permits to Fly' being abrogated to 'User certification' with no oversight for Single seat types. . .ie, No Roadworthy at all, responsibility for safe operation being delegated to the aircraft owner.   Anyone can see that this cannot be regarded as sensible, knowing the varied spectrum of the various characters we have all known and met in this regard. . . OK, there's no passenger risk, but how 'bout the poor innocents on the ground if someone gets it wrong whilst flying a poorly maintained crapheap ? At our airfield, we have already had to expell at least seven owners for 1) flying like Twots and 2) Flying aircraft out of permit with Obvious problems, either mechanical or paperwork / license related. 

 

The insurance industry has already kicked back over this, unsurprisingly.   We shall see how it develops. It's hard not to be pessimistic though.

 

 

Edited by Phil Perry

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Phil Perry said:

Where do you rate the Brit Government at the moment Phil????  ( Nev )

 

Lower than Whale $hit Nev,. . . .but not for reasons of Aviation Safety.   I won't start on Democracy here, wrong place.

 

As I've mentioned before on this subject, the Long time Regulations are being seriously relaxed with regard to Private Aviation.   Medicals especially, allowing Type 1 diabetics to fly as P1, after completing a short flight with an examiner to show that they can self inject safely whilst flying the aeroplane,.  and allowing pilots with other ailments such as Angina to fly. ( Under certain circumstances)  'Permits to Fly' being abrogated to 'User certification' with no oversight for Single seat types. . .ie, No Roadworthy at all, responsibility for safe operation being delegated to the aircraft owner.   Anyone can see that this cannot be regarded as sensible, knowing the varied spectrum of the various characters we have all known and met in this regard. . . OK, there's no passenger risk, but how 'bout the poor innocents on the ground if someone gets it wrong whilst flying a poorly maintained crapheap ? At our airfield, we have already had to expell at least seven owners for 1) flying like Twots and 2) Flying aircraft out of permit with Obvious problems, either mechanical or paperwork / license related. 

 

The insurance industry has already kicked back over this, unsurprisingly.   We shall see how it develops. It's hard not to be pessimistic though.

 

 

Is the relaxation applying just to Recreational Aircraft Phil, or is it extending to what we'd call GA; Piper Ti Pacer, Cessna 150/152, C172 etc?

Interesting that you're self administering and sanctioning the laggers at local fields which is sould be happening here.

 

Given that the Donoghue V Stevenson case is a key component in the tort of negligence, similar to here, just as the participants get relaxed they start to realise they are the ones paying for their mistakes, and there can be a short period where insurance companies dump certain industries which are making too many claims, but as risk management kicks in affordable insurance comes back.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will re-check the current regs Turbo, lots of confusion and misinformation going on at the moment with all this EU transition stuff; some of it clearly at odds with itself.

 

AFAIK at the moment, without sorting through reams of reg updates, is that a Recreational pilot, on passing a GST  ( General Skills Test) applies for a National PPL  ( NPPL ) which applies only in the UK, but is recognised on the European mainland for visiting pilots.  The qualification allows flight in a Single Engine Piston ( NPPL/SEP ) type.  The Medical requirement for the issue of this licence is a SELF DECLARATION of fitness to fly, issued online with NO requirement for any countersignature by the Pilots own medical practitioner, which Was THE CASE A COUPLE OF YEARS BACK.

 

It was originally intended for MICROLIGHT owners, with an MTOW of 450 Kgs.  This is where it all gets complicated.  A pilot could train for a further 20 hours, in a heavier aircraft, such as a C-152 or similar, and achieve the 'SEP' Endorsement.  We have a Piper L-16 military spotter aircraft at our site,  and the owner is allowed to fly it on this NPPL/SEP, and has done for a year or so. . .with his old Aeronca 7AC Champ for many years prior to that, He has never held a GA PPL, nor ever completed a Class 2 Medical, but is deemed legal.  He uses the Online self Declaration system to renew his annual Medical.  PRIOR to this, he got hs GP to endorse his medical application by simply stating that he had no precondition which might cause loss of consiousness whilst flying ( Epilpsy, etc )  This, IMHO was a more sensible system, since your own doctor has access to your personal medical records.

 

Pilots having Type One Diabetes are 'SUPPOSED' to take a checkride with an examiner to demonstrate that they can Inject themselves whilst acting as P1 without detriment to the operation of the aircraft.   There is also a 'Body Mass Index' assessment, which is carried out on the ground without energizing the aircraft. This is to insure that FAT Buggers do not impede full rearwards travel of the pitch control with their beer bellies,  AND can bend forwards to reach various controls such as sidewall mounted fuel taps and rudder trim etc. . . ( Introduced following an incident, I forget where or why )  

 

The NPPL/SEP enables a pilot to fly types with an MTOW of 2,000 kgs, but without complex systems ( CS Prop / Retracts )  That's quite a big slice of the GA single fleet. 

 

I'll do some reading and report back if I find anything of note.

 

Edited by Phil Perry
additional info

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Phil Perry said:

 There is also a 'Body Mass Index' assessment, which is carried out on the ground without energizing the aircraft. This is to insure that FAT Buggers do not impede full rearwards travel of the pitch control with their beer bellies,  AND can bend forwards to reach various controls such as sidewall mounted fuel taps and rudder trim etc. . .

They would do very well to introduce such a test on motor vehicle operators here.....Many times I have seen massively obese people struggle to maintain control of a vehicle, because the wheel is rubbing on their gut and they have to turn the wheel with their right elbow out the window because there's no room inside.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That would generally be the case.....but if they must pursue things like "road safety" I'd rather they tackled actual causes than keep flogging  the same old things and getting the same old result.

There wouldn't need to be an actual law against obese drivers, just some cops astute enough to be able to identify when a driver is no longer able to adequately control their vehicle and apply existing laws.

Which essentially is my main bone of contention....genuinely dangerous behaviour gets ignored, while they focus on that which produces revenue with negligible improvement in safety.

  • Like 1

Share this post


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

Was the Jabiru in the first picture ( Ian's post ) associated with fatalities?  it looks as if the cabin area is intact .

WWW.NEWS.COM.AU

A couple has survived a plane crash after their aircraft plunged in the outback.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 When they "plunge" it's more serious. Gotta stop them plunging and it's past Penrith so it's really outback. Like Motorbikes leaning on corners. Gotta stop that too.. It's obviously dangerous. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

    Headline said “aircraft plummeted” ...... further adding to the ‘confusion’ .... Bob 😪

Edited by biggles
Mistake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×