BOLLOCKS!
I may, on occasion – get a little testy; grumpy even; but, rarely 'angry'. This latest ATSB report has sparked that anger. It is yet another risible, pathetic, anaemic response, which completely betrays the 'purpose' principal and tenets of accident investigation. Shame on them who wrote it and on those as let it be published.
“Solo training flight stall-spin accident highlights the potential consequences of deviating from safety-critical procedures and regulations.”
NO! – it bloody well ain't. In fact 'truth' is so far removed from that line of bull-shit, it beggars any notion that ATSB have the first blind clue about the 'accident' or the radical cause.
Item 1 – the student could not manage the 'cross-wind' – all 12 kts of it?. Question – then who sent him solo without the 'skill' demanded (by law) to manage the simple task of keeping an aircraft 'on the runway'? Bog standard crosswind landing – mismanaged – then why was he solo? What was the wind and what was the cross-wind component?
"The crosswind component at the time of the loss of control was calculated to be about 13 kt, accounting for the observed 15 kt gust. The Moorabbin automatic terminal information service was advising of a 12 kt crosswind at that time and the student pilot reported noting this during the flight."
ATSB -“aware that they hadn’t received any crosswind or stall training”.
I expect most professional pilots, those who hold the 'single engine land' endorsement, treat it with the caution due. Insurance and those from whom an aircraft is hired do not. No stranger can waltz into a FBO and simply 'hire' an aircraft. Not going to happen; not in the real world at least. Now, we need to take one more step forward to understand why not.
Consider this: 'Single engine – Land'. Sounds great don't it; SDA to do with the lethal, 'legal' and 'insurance' realities' of attempting to exercise that blanket endorsement. For all involved.
Way – way, back in history, (when the earth was soft and the sky was misty) as a junior hanger rat; I had (mostly through luck) picked up some tail wheel expedience. Did this qualify me to for the 'big guns' – i.e. the P51 Mustang.
Of course not: not in a million. Even for practical (safe/economical) use the useful Cessna workhorse range – 172, 177, 180, 182, 206, 207, 210 – you needed to 'how' to operate 'that' aircraft.
So, what's my point – well it is a simple one. The Bristell is essentially as 'specialised' an aircraft (in it's own way) as is the Mustang is.
The questions that ATSB failed (miserably) to answer are:-
1 – When the Bristell is on short final – where is the elevator trim set?
2 – When 'Go-around' power is applied at low 'energy' which way will the aircraft 'yaw'?
3 - When 'Go-around' power is applied at low 'energy' which way will the aircraft ' Pitch' ?
4 – Had the pilot been trained to anticipate the aircraft response in this configuration and situation?
5 – Had the pilot been specifically briefed on the effect of slip stream torgue; pitch trim changes, ground effect, crosswind effect and the rapidity at which all four 'effects' can occur, with a rapid increase in power??
6 – What are the 'company' limitations' relating to authorising solo flight in forecast cross wind conditions; and, what are the minimum requirements set down for 'approval' to conduct solo flight in crosswind conditions? (a) Did the pilot meet these requirements?
7 – What are the company 'minimum' (in -house) requirements of type experience before authorisation for 'solo' flight on a 'unique' aircraft.
These may not be 'legal' requirements – but; common or garden sense should have been expected from the instructor who 'authorised' this event. The Mustang was a demanding aircraft; the instructor who showed me 'the ropes' was a 'demanding' man. I asked him why one day – his reply – succinct and accurate – “I can't afford the flowers for your funereal - learn to 'operate' this individual aircraft – 'properly' – (not all the same) or; don't bother to become a 'professional pilot'.
Could I/ would I jump into a Bristell tomorrow and deal with a miserable 12 Kt crosswind without some 'training'? NO: I bloody well would not - and neither should you.
Totally 'over' ATSB pissing about the Daisy patch. The minister may be held in thrall by 'RA Oz' – but we who grieve the loss or injury of young, inexperienced pilots and the degradation of safety standards - ain't.
![[Image: single-frothy-pint-beer-burning-600w-483277990.jpg]](https://image.shutterstock.com/image-photo/single-frothy-pint-beer-burning-600w-483277990.jpg)
I may, on occasion – get a little testy; grumpy even; but, rarely 'angry'. This latest ATSB report has sparked that anger. It is yet another risible, pathetic, anaemic response, which completely betrays the 'purpose' principal and tenets of accident investigation. Shame on them who wrote it and on those as let it be published.
“Solo training flight stall-spin accident highlights the potential consequences of deviating from safety-critical procedures and regulations.”
NO! – it bloody well ain't. In fact 'truth' is so far removed from that line of bull-shit, it beggars any notion that ATSB have the first blind clue about the 'accident' or the radical cause.
Item 1 – the student could not manage the 'cross-wind' – all 12 kts of it?. Question – then who sent him solo without the 'skill' demanded (by law) to manage the simple task of keeping an aircraft 'on the runway'? Bog standard crosswind landing – mismanaged – then why was he solo? What was the wind and what was the cross-wind component?
"The crosswind component at the time of the loss of control was calculated to be about 13 kt, accounting for the observed 15 kt gust. The Moorabbin automatic terminal information service was advising of a 12 kt crosswind at that time and the student pilot reported noting this during the flight."
ATSB -“aware that they hadn’t received any crosswind or stall training”.
I expect most professional pilots, those who hold the 'single engine land' endorsement, treat it with the caution due. Insurance and those from whom an aircraft is hired do not. No stranger can waltz into a FBO and simply 'hire' an aircraft. Not going to happen; not in the real world at least. Now, we need to take one more step forward to understand why not.
Consider this: 'Single engine – Land'. Sounds great don't it; SDA to do with the lethal, 'legal' and 'insurance' realities' of attempting to exercise that blanket endorsement. For all involved.
Way – way, back in history, (when the earth was soft and the sky was misty) as a junior hanger rat; I had (mostly through luck) picked up some tail wheel expedience. Did this qualify me to for the 'big guns' – i.e. the P51 Mustang.
Of course not: not in a million. Even for practical (safe/economical) use the useful Cessna workhorse range – 172, 177, 180, 182, 206, 207, 210 – you needed to 'how' to operate 'that' aircraft.
So, what's my point – well it is a simple one. The Bristell is essentially as 'specialised' an aircraft (in it's own way) as is the Mustang is.
The questions that ATSB failed (miserably) to answer are:-
1 – When the Bristell is on short final – where is the elevator trim set?
2 – When 'Go-around' power is applied at low 'energy' which way will the aircraft 'yaw'?
3 - When 'Go-around' power is applied at low 'energy' which way will the aircraft ' Pitch' ?
4 – Had the pilot been trained to anticipate the aircraft response in this configuration and situation?
5 – Had the pilot been specifically briefed on the effect of slip stream torgue; pitch trim changes, ground effect, crosswind effect and the rapidity at which all four 'effects' can occur, with a rapid increase in power??
6 – What are the 'company' limitations' relating to authorising solo flight in forecast cross wind conditions; and, what are the minimum requirements set down for 'approval' to conduct solo flight in crosswind conditions? (a) Did the pilot meet these requirements?
7 – What are the company 'minimum' (in -house) requirements of type experience before authorisation for 'solo' flight on a 'unique' aircraft.
These may not be 'legal' requirements – but; common or garden sense should have been expected from the instructor who 'authorised' this event. The Mustang was a demanding aircraft; the instructor who showed me 'the ropes' was a 'demanding' man. I asked him why one day – his reply – succinct and accurate – “I can't afford the flowers for your funereal - learn to 'operate' this individual aircraft – 'properly' – (not all the same) or; don't bother to become a 'professional pilot'.
Could I/ would I jump into a Bristell tomorrow and deal with a miserable 12 Kt crosswind without some 'training'? NO: I bloody well would not - and neither should you.
Totally 'over' ATSB pissing about the Daisy patch. The minister may be held in thrall by 'RA Oz' – but we who grieve the loss or injury of young, inexperienced pilots and the degradation of safety standards - ain't.