Rough weather = rough translation.
That particular phrase is a journalistic version or 'distortion' of the ATSB 'words'. It assumes that the public is as ignorant as the journalist and cannot understand the differences set down between conditions suitable for 'visual' (not in cloud) as opposed to 'instrument' (in cloud) etc. The reporter is only as good as the 'explanation' given and, 'the report' offered
Neither party, (ATSB or media) seem to understand that the event aircraft was operated - deliberately - into an 'illegal' situation, by a pilot unqualified to enter a weather system which demand instrument flight proficiency. QED. When the weather is 'marginal' there is a point where a decision must be made; it is a 'yes' or no' answer; there can be no maybe.
There is also one item (of importance) which although subtle (IMO) matters. A commercial pilot licence qualification specifies (or used to) a minimum number of hours flight solely by reference to instruments; the ability to 'reverse' course (Rate 1 turn through 180') being seen as a mandatory prerequisite for licensing. Having made the decision to enter 'cloud' below a safe height the ability to extricate airframe and passengers from that cloud is an assumed given - or should be. Three serious errors mentioned, but not covered in detail by the ATSB press spiel Item one; entering cloud below a 'safe height'. Item two; the notion (unproven) that the reversal turn was made at a 'steep' bank angle. Item three: that loss of control - speed, bank angle and 'pitch' was 'unintended' implying unavoidable. It begs a question - why a 'commercial' qualified pilot cannot perform, on instruments, a simple 180' reversal turn. If not, why not? Just saying.
Toot - toot.
That particular phrase is a journalistic version or 'distortion' of the ATSB 'words'. It assumes that the public is as ignorant as the journalist and cannot understand the differences set down between conditions suitable for 'visual' (not in cloud) as opposed to 'instrument' (in cloud) etc. The reporter is only as good as the 'explanation' given and, 'the report' offered
Neither party, (ATSB or media) seem to understand that the event aircraft was operated - deliberately - into an 'illegal' situation, by a pilot unqualified to enter a weather system which demand instrument flight proficiency. QED. When the weather is 'marginal' there is a point where a decision must be made; it is a 'yes' or no' answer; there can be no maybe.
There is also one item (of importance) which although subtle (IMO) matters. A commercial pilot licence qualification specifies (or used to) a minimum number of hours flight solely by reference to instruments; the ability to 'reverse' course (Rate 1 turn through 180') being seen as a mandatory prerequisite for licensing. Having made the decision to enter 'cloud' below a safe height the ability to extricate airframe and passengers from that cloud is an assumed given - or should be. Three serious errors mentioned, but not covered in detail by the ATSB press spiel Item one; entering cloud below a 'safe height'. Item two; the notion (unproven) that the reversal turn was made at a 'steep' bank angle. Item three: that loss of control - speed, bank angle and 'pitch' was 'unintended' implying unavoidable. It begs a question - why a 'commercial' qualified pilot cannot perform, on instruments, a simple 180' reversal turn. If not, why not? Just saying.
Toot - toot.