Glib spin and Horse-Pooh.
CHAIR: Mr Monahan, just to go on from that, did I understand correctly that you just said that most accidents in the private aviation space happened as a result of reduced maintenance or—
Mr Monahan : No—
CHAIR: poor maintenance? Could you just explain your answer.
Mr Monahan : What I'm saying is that the accidents that happen through each sector of aviation have different themes. The No. 1 across the world, globally, is controlled flight into terrain.
Wiki - “A controlled flight into terrain (CFIT, usually pronounced cee-fit) is an accident in which an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, is unintentionally flown into the ground, a mountain, a body of water or an obstacle. In a typical CFIT scenario, the crew is unaware of the impending disaster until it is too late”
BOTH the AF fatal accident involved Uncontrolled collision – i.e. the pilot lost control, (a crash) the collision a result of ‘loss of control’ due to spatial disorientation. Monahan further compounds the felony stating:-
Monahan - “That is flying into weather when you're not qualified, and what qualifies that.”
Patently misleading, as at the time of the collision, the pilot was clearly not in control. The following is (IMO) a deliberate deception, through use of mixed definitions related to two distinct and very different events. Loss of control in flight (Section 5 / p4) claimed more lives than CFIT. Many, many more than any mechanical issue.
Monahan – “That is the biggest accident, and the biggest killer of people. That's the first place you look. So you try to find ways to address the most likely case of mishaps in the future for a particular sector or cohort of pilots. That's the discussion.
Two clearly defined type of accident combined to support a denial of the real problem. For a classic CFIT see the ATSB report into the recent event in Tasmania. For a classic ‘loss of control in flight’ see ATSB Mt Gambier report.
The ‘discussion’ should be focused on answering the age old question:
![[Image: ao2017-069_taxi_1170.jpg]](https://australianaviation.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/ao2017-069_taxi_1170.jpg)
What made the VFR pilot decide to attempt operations in the existing weather conditions?
CASA can wriggle and dance all they like; paper the entire planet with fatuous rules; but until they get a real handle on preventing VFR pilots tackling clearly visible IMC, then the problem will simply persist. There are solutions available which may not eradicate the recurrent events, but may reduce the incidences. They could begin with basic flight training – the current system is (IMO) counter productive – designed for auditing comfort through ‘tick-a-box’ paperwork – miles of it. This, stand alone has the potential to seed a future accident.
The type of Mumbo-Jumbo Aleck, Monahan and Crawford use to avoid dealing with root causes is mind numbing, the product of knee jerk, arse covering ‘do nothing’ just to make it appear they are on the ball.
The Senators need substantive submissions from which ‘real’ questions may be asked. The AF inquiry provides a perfect platform to have the questions raised and answered.
Get on with it; talk is cheap - Ale cost real money. Handing over.
Toot – toot.
CHAIR: Mr Monahan, just to go on from that, did I understand correctly that you just said that most accidents in the private aviation space happened as a result of reduced maintenance or—
Mr Monahan : No—
CHAIR: poor maintenance? Could you just explain your answer.
Mr Monahan : What I'm saying is that the accidents that happen through each sector of aviation have different themes. The No. 1 across the world, globally, is controlled flight into terrain.
Wiki - “A controlled flight into terrain (CFIT, usually pronounced cee-fit) is an accident in which an airworthy aircraft, under pilot control, is unintentionally flown into the ground, a mountain, a body of water or an obstacle. In a typical CFIT scenario, the crew is unaware of the impending disaster until it is too late”
BOTH the AF fatal accident involved Uncontrolled collision – i.e. the pilot lost control, (a crash) the collision a result of ‘loss of control’ due to spatial disorientation. Monahan further compounds the felony stating:-
Monahan - “That is flying into weather when you're not qualified, and what qualifies that.”
Patently misleading, as at the time of the collision, the pilot was clearly not in control. The following is (IMO) a deliberate deception, through use of mixed definitions related to two distinct and very different events. Loss of control in flight (Section 5 / p4) claimed more lives than CFIT. Many, many more than any mechanical issue.
Monahan – “That is the biggest accident, and the biggest killer of people. That's the first place you look. So you try to find ways to address the most likely case of mishaps in the future for a particular sector or cohort of pilots. That's the discussion.
Two clearly defined type of accident combined to support a denial of the real problem. For a classic CFIT see the ATSB report into the recent event in Tasmania. For a classic ‘loss of control in flight’ see ATSB Mt Gambier report.
The ‘discussion’ should be focused on answering the age old question:
What made the VFR pilot decide to attempt operations in the existing weather conditions?
CASA can wriggle and dance all they like; paper the entire planet with fatuous rules; but until they get a real handle on preventing VFR pilots tackling clearly visible IMC, then the problem will simply persist. There are solutions available which may not eradicate the recurrent events, but may reduce the incidences. They could begin with basic flight training – the current system is (IMO) counter productive – designed for auditing comfort through ‘tick-a-box’ paperwork – miles of it. This, stand alone has the potential to seed a future accident.
The type of Mumbo-Jumbo Aleck, Monahan and Crawford use to avoid dealing with root causes is mind numbing, the product of knee jerk, arse covering ‘do nothing’ just to make it appear they are on the ball.
The Senators need substantive submissions from which ‘real’ questions may be asked. The AF inquiry provides a perfect platform to have the questions raised and answered.
Get on with it; talk is cheap - Ale cost real money. Handing over.
Toot – toot.