One Dead in Northland plane crash
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Remoak you naughty naughty boy! 
Back in March you would have been ill-informed naive and speculating to say the least. And you know that is not allowed on PPRUNE 
J
Quite right. Funny, most of us figured that out back in March. Always nice when a report confirms the blindingly obvious...
J
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was indeed accused of being those things. But then PPRuNe has always been a haven for the anally retentive and irretrievably dense side of the aviation fraternity...
I can't wait to read the report about the Brasilia that speared in during a training exercise, and the RNZAF Iroquois that flew into a hill on Anzac day... pilot error both (although we mustn't say such things, oh no... I mean, they were such nice chaps etc etc...)
I can't wait to read the report about the Brasilia that speared in during a training exercise, and the RNZAF Iroquois that flew into a hill on Anzac day... pilot error both (although we mustn't say such things, oh no... I mean, they were such nice chaps etc etc...)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah I think my problem with that would be that some accidents (like flying an Iroquois into the side of a hill when there was absolutely no reason to be that low in the first place), are not so much bad airmanship as rampant stupidity. OK, well how about "hitting a pocket of stupidity" then...
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sometimes all is not what it seems
A Cessna 206 failed to climb after takeoff at Wrotham Park, Nth Qld, a few years ago. Also a pilot fatal, pax survived.
Some speculation that the controls may have jammed or a control lock not removed, not substantiated, definitely was not a beat up.
199904898
Has anyone considered a similar possibility, rather than an unsubstantiated beat up?
A Cessna 206 failed to climb after takeoff at Wrotham Park, Nth Qld, a few years ago. Also a pilot fatal, pax survived.
Some speculation that the controls may have jammed or a control lock not removed, not substantiated, definitely was not a beat up.
199904898
Has anyone considered a similar possibility, rather than an unsubstantiated beat up?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe
It was the third flight of the day, highly unlikely that an external gust lock was involved. Read the report, it is pretty obviously not a control lock issue. He got airborne, carried out a level acceleration at a high power setting, and when he got to the van he pulled up and banked.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... guess what it is.
There are virtually no similarities between the two accidents, other than them both happening just after takeoff.
It was the third flight of the day, highly unlikely that an external gust lock was involved. Read the report, it is pretty obviously not a control lock issue. He got airborne, carried out a level acceleration at a high power setting, and when he got to the van he pulled up and banked.
If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... guess what it is.
There are virtually no similarities between the two accidents, other than them both happening just after takeoff.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak
I read the report, no mention of 3rd flight, the pilot was dropped off, he took off, did not climb
and then performed a pull up manoeuvre during which he struck the stationary van.
From your input, you were a witness to the accident and thus will help in the investigation.
I read the report, no mention of 3rd flight, the pilot was dropped off, he took off, did not climb
and then performed a pull up manoeuvre during which he struck the stationary van.
From your input, you were a witness to the accident and thus will help in the investigation.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe
You may wish to actually, you know, READ the report:
(My bolding)
frigatebird
Nope, not used as an insult, more an accurate assessment of someone's character...
(Wikipedia, but close enough for our purposes.)
In this context, people who will not make the mental leap required to assess the available evidence and form a sensible conclusion, but who insist on an official report (the seeking of order and tidiness) before accepting that conclusion (stubbornness and perfectionism).
Not to say that official reports are bad or unnecessary, simply that they normally confirm what most people conclude very shortly after an accident. Only rarely (particularly in simple light aircraft) is the cause of an accident not immediately obvious.
There is probably also an element of not wanting to admit a fellow pilot screwed up, as it reflects badly on our own capacity for error or poor judgement. However, as the airline industry has learned the hard way, a rapid acceptance of an accident's likely cause enhances safety, as it allows equally rapid corrective action to be taken.
In this case, we have a relatively inexperienced pilot who also enjoys engaging in competitive motorsport and other high-risk activities. We have an aircraft that accelerates rapidly at a high power setting while being held down near the ground (which you would have to do quite deliberately, a stuck gust lock won't do it, and in any case the aircraft would naturally pitch up as speed increases if the controls were jammed - try it yourself sometime at a safe altitude), and then performs a pull-up and bank just as it reaches the van. Any normal person would add two and two and arrive at the correct conclusion. The anally retentive person would refuse to accept that conclusion until "somebody in authority" confirms it, for the reasons noted above.
You may wish to actually, you know, READ the report:
Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North Shore
Aerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove. The accident flight was the last in a series of three flights that day.
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North Shore
Aerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove. The accident flight was the last in a series of three flights that day.
frigatebird
Nope, not used as an insult, more an accurate assessment of someone's character...
In Freudian psychology, the anal stage is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development. This is a time when an infant's attention moves from oral stimulation to anal stimulation (usually the bowels but occasionally the bladder), usually synchronous with learning to control their excretory functions, a time of toilet training. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period of time may develop "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control, as well as a generalized interest in collecting, possessing, and retaining objects.
If these qualities continue into later life, the person is said to be "anal retentive".
The Anal retentive personality is stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. The person is generally stubborn and perfectionist.
If these qualities continue into later life, the person is said to be "anal retentive".
The Anal retentive personality is stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. The person is generally stubborn and perfectionist.
In this context, people who will not make the mental leap required to assess the available evidence and form a sensible conclusion, but who insist on an official report (the seeking of order and tidiness) before accepting that conclusion (stubbornness and perfectionism).
Not to say that official reports are bad or unnecessary, simply that they normally confirm what most people conclude very shortly after an accident. Only rarely (particularly in simple light aircraft) is the cause of an accident not immediately obvious.
There is probably also an element of not wanting to admit a fellow pilot screwed up, as it reflects badly on our own capacity for error or poor judgement. However, as the airline industry has learned the hard way, a rapid acceptance of an accident's likely cause enhances safety, as it allows equally rapid corrective action to be taken.
In this case, we have a relatively inexperienced pilot who also enjoys engaging in competitive motorsport and other high-risk activities. We have an aircraft that accelerates rapidly at a high power setting while being held down near the ground (which you would have to do quite deliberately, a stuck gust lock won't do it, and in any case the aircraft would naturally pitch up as speed increases if the controls were jammed - try it yourself sometime at a safe altitude), and then performs a pull-up and bank just as it reaches the van. Any normal person would add two and two and arrive at the correct conclusion. The anally retentive person would refuse to accept that conclusion until "somebody in authority" confirms it, for the reasons noted above.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks for that..
Never had Wikipedia to define it when I read about Freud and Jung and their interpretations and early studies, and conflicting theories, all those years ago..
(Don't use it today either, just work things out based on my own assessments, and avoid all the bull...t spin.)
Never had Wikipedia to define it when I read about Freud and Jung and their interpretations and early studies, and conflicting theories, all those years ago..
(Don't use it today either, just work things out based on my own assessments, and avoid all the bull...t spin.)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No probs... I was wondering if you were reading a different report!
I too spent more hours than I care to remember in lecture theatres learning about Freud and Jung, and of course Miller and the others... sending rats insane in an effort to get them to press the correct button... ah those were the days!
I have a friend who is a Jungian analyst in Hollywood, California. He has endless streams of minor starlets through his office with the usual crop of Californian issues. He listens politely, smiles sweetly and tells them to get the hell over themselves. He's rich. So much for Jung...
I too spent more hours than I care to remember in lecture theatres learning about Freud and Jung, and of course Miller and the others... sending rats insane in an effort to get them to press the correct button... ah those were the days!
I have a friend who is a Jungian analyst in Hollywood, California. He has endless streams of minor starlets through his office with the usual crop of Californian issues. He listens politely, smiles sweetly and tells them to get the hell over themselves. He's rich. So much for Jung...
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak
Yes, I am Anal Retentive and possibly Obsessive Compulsive,
I am advised by some medical examiners that these are reasonably common and desirable traits in professional pilots.
seems it helps with adherence to checklists and SOP's.
anyway, yes the report states that it was the 3rd flight of the day.
Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North ShoreAerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove.
The accident flight was the last in a series of three flights that day.
At approximately 1430 hours, the site manager gave the pilot a lift to the aircraft situated at the airstrip on the Marsden Cove housing development.
After ensuring that the airstrip was clear, the Site Manager parked his van beyond the end of the airstrip.
At 1457 hours New Zealand Daylight Time on 12 March 2010 ZK-SKT, a Cessna U206G,
took off from a private airstrip at the Marsden Cove housing development for a flight to NorthShore Aerodrome, conducted under visual flight rules
The 1st flight may have been the flight from North Shore to somewhere else prior to arrival at Marsden Cove.
no idea where the 2nd flight flight occurred.
For the 3rd flight, aircraft had been parked at Marsden Cove and at approx 14:30 the pilot was dropped off at the airfield.
27 minutes later it was all over (14:57). Seems a reasonable amount of time to preflight, start up, taxi and take off for the last time.(3rd flight).
Did you observe all three flights, or just the 3rd?
Yes, he may have performed a beat up that went wrong, as you imply, "it is obvious".
Regardless, for a whole lot of reasons, an investigation and a finding are necessary for the Coroner,
the insurance company and other affected parties etc.
When you give your witness statement that also will be taken into account and assist in the findings.
The Whyalla Air disaster was subject to many experts prejudging, blaming fuel quantity, fuel quality etc with even Dick Smith
and various politicians prejudging the investigation.
Everyone was dumbfounded when an emerging fault in Lycoming crankshafts was eventually found to be the cause.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
You most probably will be found to be correct in your assumption, but surely there is a place for a proper investigation.
This is not a witchcraft trial, it is an investigation of an accident that may be obvious, but still deserving of due process.
I have lost friends in accidents, and felt that human factors contributed, yet still awaited the findings in case I was wrong.
There are no new accidents in aviation, they have all been amply demonstrated before.
Low flying, beat ups and "watch this" are usually testosterone induced aberrations that often end in tragedy.
We all are painfully aware of this.
Yes, I am Anal Retentive and possibly Obsessive Compulsive,
I am advised by some medical examiners that these are reasonably common and desirable traits in professional pilots.
seems it helps with adherence to checklists and SOP's.
anyway, yes the report states that it was the 3rd flight of the day.
Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North ShoreAerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove.
The accident flight was the last in a series of three flights that day.
At approximately 1430 hours, the site manager gave the pilot a lift to the aircraft situated at the airstrip on the Marsden Cove housing development.
After ensuring that the airstrip was clear, the Site Manager parked his van beyond the end of the airstrip.
At 1457 hours New Zealand Daylight Time on 12 March 2010 ZK-SKT, a Cessna U206G,
took off from a private airstrip at the Marsden Cove housing development for a flight to NorthShore Aerodrome, conducted under visual flight rules
The 1st flight may have been the flight from North Shore to somewhere else prior to arrival at Marsden Cove.
no idea where the 2nd flight flight occurred.
For the 3rd flight, aircraft had been parked at Marsden Cove and at approx 14:30 the pilot was dropped off at the airfield.
27 minutes later it was all over (14:57). Seems a reasonable amount of time to preflight, start up, taxi and take off for the last time.(3rd flight).
Did you observe all three flights, or just the 3rd?
Yes, he may have performed a beat up that went wrong, as you imply, "it is obvious".
Regardless, for a whole lot of reasons, an investigation and a finding are necessary for the Coroner,
the insurance company and other affected parties etc.
When you give your witness statement that also will be taken into account and assist in the findings.
The Whyalla Air disaster was subject to many experts prejudging, blaming fuel quantity, fuel quality etc with even Dick Smith
and various politicians prejudging the investigation.
Everyone was dumbfounded when an emerging fault in Lycoming crankshafts was eventually found to be the cause.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.
You most probably will be found to be correct in your assumption, but surely there is a place for a proper investigation.
This is not a witchcraft trial, it is an investigation of an accident that may be obvious, but still deserving of due process.
I have lost friends in accidents, and felt that human factors contributed, yet still awaited the findings in case I was wrong.
There are no new accidents in aviation, they have all been amply demonstrated before.
Low flying, beat ups and "watch this" are usually testosterone induced aberrations that often end in tragedy.
We all are painfully aware of this.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mainframe
Well I wouldn't have said so, but as you did... ;-)
Speaking as someone who nearly ended up in a career in psychology instead of flying, I can tell you that those traits are not common or desirable in professional pilots. Focusing obsessively on minutia mitigates against seeing the big picture, which is essential for professional pilots.
So why does the report say "The wreckage examination did not reveal any pre-impact technical defect that may have contributed to the accident"?
Even if the engine lost power due to a crankshaft failure, from the report it appears that the reason the aircraft was lost was that the pilot failed to maintain control and crashed. What is the first thing that you learn as a student pilot?
It was the loss of control, not an engine failure, that killed this pilot. An engine failure might have been a contributing factor, but any pilot who can't pull off an EFATO reasonably successfully shouldn't be flying. It doesn't exactly look like challenging terrain.
As I have already said, I have no issues with investigations. I just don't need one to tell me what is obvious.
Is that not a good reason to call a spade a spade, without waiting a year or more for a report? On an accident that will be largely forgotten by then? And no opportunity for the general pilot population to learn from it?
Yes, I am Anal Retentive and possibly Obsessive Compulsive,
I am advised by some medical examiners that these are reasonably common and desirable traits in professional pilots.
I am advised by some medical examiners that these are reasonably common and desirable traits in professional pilots.
Speaking as someone who nearly ended up in a career in psychology instead of flying, I can tell you that those traits are not common or desirable in professional pilots. Focusing obsessively on minutia mitigates against seeing the big picture, which is essential for professional pilots.
Everyone was dumbfounded when an emerging fault in Lycoming crankshafts was eventually found to be the cause.
Even if the engine lost power due to a crankshaft failure, from the report it appears that the reason the aircraft was lost was that the pilot failed to maintain control and crashed. What is the first thing that you learn as a student pilot?
It was the loss of control, not an engine failure, that killed this pilot. An engine failure might have been a contributing factor, but any pilot who can't pull off an EFATO reasonably successfully shouldn't be flying. It doesn't exactly look like challenging terrain.
You most probably will be found to be correct in your assumption, but surely there is a place for a proper investigation.
Low flying, beat ups and "watch this" are usually testosterone induced aberrations that often end in tragedy.
We all are painfully aware of this.
We all are painfully aware of this.
Guest
Posts: n/a
remoak,
In the Whyalla accident it was a double engine failure, how and why is still a matter for conjecture. The ATSB report was overturned by the coroners investigation and report.
What the coroners aviation qualifications were, as compared to the ATSB members I do not know.
One engine only was blamed on crankshaft failure, the engines were reported I believe to be running too lean on climb, in accordance with company sops, and overheated sections of the first engine, leading to the failure of that engine.
So here we can take a pick based on personal experience, the ATSB report, or the ruling by the coroner.
In the Whyalla accident it was a double engine failure, how and why is still a matter for conjecture. The ATSB report was overturned by the coroners investigation and report.
What the coroners aviation qualifications were, as compared to the ATSB members I do not know.
One engine only was blamed on crankshaft failure, the engines were reported I believe to be running too lean on climb, in accordance with company sops, and overheated sections of the first engine, leading to the failure of that engine.
So here we can take a pick based on personal experience, the ATSB report, or the ruling by the coroner.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
The ATSB report was such a laugh ....except it was not a laughing matter.
Company SOP's and climb fuel flows were clearly the issue not those in the ATSB report.
here is a lift from an article that was much closer to the mark.
Company SOP's and climb fuel flows were clearly the issue not those in the ATSB report.
here is a lift from an article that was much closer to the mark.
In December, 2001, the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, similar to the U.S.'s NTSB) published one of the worst accident reports I can remember reading. In my opinion, the ATSB has taken junk science, pure speculation and profound ignorance to levels seldom before seen. They have not only perpetuated "Old Wives' Tales," but they have invented a few new ones. I'm afraid we'll be hearing about "lead oxybromide deposits" for all eternity. As best I can tell, that term seems to have been INVENTED in this accident report. (Try a search on the Internet for "lead oxybromide"!)
My main complaints about the ATSB report are:
My main complaints about the ATSB report are:
- The ATSB makes "lead oxybromide" deposits the central focus of the accident, when it is very unlikely that ANY "deposits" played ANY role in the accident;
- The ATSB seems to leave the impression that the rich side of peak EGT is the only safe mixture setting to use; and
- The "probable cause" is nowhere to be found in the voluminous 150-page report.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hold on a minute... are you guys suggesting that the accident report, which as we all know is an unimpeachable document which is above reproach and the only possible authority on why an accident happened - might be flawed? I mean, are you even allowed to SUGGEST that on these fora?
Actually I'm not surprised. As I have said before, the majority of "accident investigators" are previously inexperienced pilots or engineers who just do the Cranfield six week course and, viola, they are accident investigators! The reality is that they generally simply follow a script, generating screeds of data (ie pages in the report) that, while possibly useful for completeness, shed no light at all on why an accident actually happened. Only the very smart, or very experienced ones ever come up with anything particularly clever or revealing, and the report you mentioned seems to be a case in point.
This Northland accident is as close to an open and shut case as you will ever see, partly because we all know what the guy was up to, but even if he wasn't and it was a result of windshear, sunspots, global warming or the butterfly effect, no evidence will ever be found to prove it.
Rich playboy + powerful toys + giant ego + lack of self-control = big smoking hole in the ground.
It's not as if it was the first time...
Actually I'm not surprised. As I have said before, the majority of "accident investigators" are previously inexperienced pilots or engineers who just do the Cranfield six week course and, viola, they are accident investigators! The reality is that they generally simply follow a script, generating screeds of data (ie pages in the report) that, while possibly useful for completeness, shed no light at all on why an accident actually happened. Only the very smart, or very experienced ones ever come up with anything particularly clever or revealing, and the report you mentioned seems to be a case in point.
This Northland accident is as close to an open and shut case as you will ever see, partly because we all know what the guy was up to, but even if he wasn't and it was a result of windshear, sunspots, global warming or the butterfly effect, no evidence will ever be found to prove it.
Rich playboy + powerful toys + giant ego + lack of self-control = big smoking hole in the ground.
It's not as if it was the first time...
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
