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

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

×