[Peetwo]

A visitor and some stray thoughts.

Ramble warning - .

All was quiet; I worked steadily, seeking 'accuracy' rather than at 'speed' – no rush; lost within the work piece. The noise of tyres on gravel was met by the dogs getting interested – it was an old friend. I made coffee, broke out the forbidden biscuit tin – he chose a bench stool so, we sat at the workbench: well he sat. I was about to sharpen a plane blade and a chisel just before he arrived; the gear for that task is always close to hand, so while we chatted I put an edge on the steel. In a while (7 perhaps 8 minutes later); I too, sat on a bench stool. “How the “(!@#$%) did you do that? He asked. “What” say's I puzzled. I gave him the short version; been doing 'that' since the age of about seven in Grand- Papa's workshop – and do it on average about three times a day; it is a 'learned' skill in constant practice. After he departed; it got me thinking; which is the reason for this long ramble; there is a point (albeit) long winded. 

“I have only made this letter longer because I have not had the time to make it shorter."

Retention of 'skills' and of 'learning' – stuff to pass an exam and stuff that will keep you alive and get you home at night. (Gods willing, weather permitting). Morse code is a classic example, back in the day 10 WPM (received) was a requirement. An old mate was an ex RAF Navigator (among other qualifications) and radio Nav Guru. He reckoned that to 'learn' Morse, the best way was to send and receive. We jury rigged a key and 'beeper' and I spent what time I could spare learning to send. For many (many) years across much of this planet the 'skills' learned and the understanding of the vagaries of radio served me very well indeed. Same applies to plotting a radio bearing fix on a chart, VAR approaches  and many other now redundant skills. One of the best examples in the Gnomic Polar chart – a real head scratcher (or Stellar {Astro} Nav) another – until you finally 'get-it'. The point of all this is a 'skill' learned which is no longer in everyday day use may not be 'forgotten' but it is filed away in the basement. Yes, it truly served to widen the horizons and provided 'tools-of- trade' - rusty now, but, an essential part of the mindset when operating an aircraft. Flying is a thinking mans job, for careful folk, who work out the weather, plot and scheme to get a load on – legally – and maintain reserves – and work out the best way to beat the winds and weather.

“Any fool can know. The point is to understand.”

Twain underscores the point for me. I have now fully read the Vic. Coroners report _HERE_ into yet another RAAus fatal event. On several levels, it is worthy of serious consideration, given the number of fatal and serious 'event's' recorded over the last few years. Don't misunderstand me; I think it is brilliant that folk with a 'medical' issue or those who simply enjoy the freedoms of the sky without the constraints CASA impose and can toddle off for weekend without too much 'legal' anxiety. (Nuff said). But, it makes me wonder though; wonder about the 'depth' of retention of 'lessons' toward examination; which seem to be soon forgotten. For instance a 'short' happy-crappy meteorology self study exam does not, nor can it, ever provide a 'sound' basis for future operation in years to come. You need to have a handle on this stuff; a real grip. Picking up a forecast should be like picking up a chisel and sharpening it without too much effort, cursing or time. A 'quick' course and a multi clue exam paper fails; at every level to qualify. Not only that, but because it was 'cheaply' gained it is soon discounted and disregarded. I ain't advocating anything like the Brit ATPL Met exam – but the most valid reason for these continued excursions into IMC by VFR pilots smacks of a very convenient “not our fault” escape clause. Tick a box and get out of jail. Nice work if you can get it. I just feel a little sorry for those who did retain and apply the basic lessons and have great admiration for those who continued to study and apply that knowledge. No reason for RAAus pilots to become a known hazard to navigation, the knowledge offered must be retained, applied and its limitations understood. Phew – Ramble over in the hope that something can be done to reduce the accident rate.

“We learn from failure, not from success!”

Toot – toot.....

PS: UP thread link: https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-a...st11831212

KRviator

Quote:

Originally Posted by Squawk7700

Sadly CASA don’t accept anonymous reports.

Raaus would have though and immediately realised what was going on.

My wife won’t fly with me, but she is probably more worried about the wings falling off.

It’s a tough one, he met the standard as judged by the instructor, flying a Eurofox, so a medium difficulty aircraft, did a lot of landings and did some big cross countries.

Months later, flies into IMC. Many pilots take 10-20 years to do that and still manage to kill themselves.

That's the point though, innit?

RAAus are in the doo-doo for giving him his ticket when they shouldn't have, and then trying to cover up that fact. And if someone from RAAus isn't criminally prosecuted I'll be sorely disappointed... Based on ol' mates reported attitude, I'm not convinced any further, or any HF training, would have changed the outcome to a material degree. Fully qualified and experienced pilots have done the VFR-into-IMC before with tragic results, but this blokes attitude just seems to have bought forward the inevitable.

If you're gonna do it, get a decent EFIS & Autopilot, at least you'll stand a chance of surviving the encounter....

Plus a comment Jason Vee on FB:

Jason Vee

There appears to be way too much finger pointing here, especially towards the RAAus. Reminds me of a quote I heard recently from an African. The need for the Western countries to put up fences along rivers with a sign saying ‘Danger River’, whereas in Africa, they rely on persons using their common sense to avoid danger.

It appears this accident was the result of poor decision making by the pilot. Even if the pilot involved had completed a full 50 hour PPL training course, and passed, the accident would still have likely occurred.

Is everyone saying that he would not have gained his PPL if he had trained for it, based on his poor decision making, rather than ability to handle the aircraft during a PPL flight test?.

It seems the West is hell bent on blaming someone else, and embrace litigation, rather than require individuals to use rational thinking and common sense.

I will go out on a limb, and say, this accident would have still likely occurred, if this pilot had trained and passed a full 50 hour PPL training course.

Time to stop the finger pointing and litigation, and go back to better decision making, common sense, and operating within your own experience, training and limits.

I feel for the pilots family, but it was his decision as PIC to fly that day, in that aircraft, in those conditions, and if he had even less experience than a 50 hour trained PPL, then that raises even more questions on his decision that day.

And BM's reply to that...

Benjamin Morgan

I think that most aviators understand the ultimate responsibility of the pilot in command. That fact is really not in question - he should never have placed himself in the situation that he did. The PIC responsibility aside, the real substance of this issue and debate is exactly how someone with so little experience was ever issued an RAAus Pilot Certificate, which ultimately increased the PIC's confidence to go out and get himself killed? How did this slip through the system? It has highlighted serious safety deficiencies with the RAAus self-administration system and overall safety management of the recreational sector.