Air Safety

“Where and when, Frank?”

“Tomorrow afternoon. Bill Huxtable-Smith wants to take his family to their coast home for Easter. You just have to take them to Merimbula in the Seneca and come back on your own. How about it?”

“Eh. . . yes. . . sure!,” said David, hoping that Frank would not notice the hesitation in his voice, “Leave it to me. ”

“Good show. I’ll ask Bill to meet you at the aerodrome at 1400 tomorrow. ”

David was a little surprised by the reluctance he was feeling.

Once he would have leapt at the chance to clock up additional twin-charter time. The reasons weren’t hard to find. David hadn’t flown for almost 45 days and even though he now held a Commercial Pilots Licence and Class 1 Instrument Rating, he had only flown one IFR trip since his renewal and that was in good weather. In addition, while he now had almost 750 hours in his log, he had only been able to add some 1 O hours this year.

David was tired too. He had suffered a series of sleepless nights over the past fortnight because the twins were teething and his normal sanguine temperament had disappeared leaving him listless, irritable and readily upset.

And the Huxtable-Smith’s. Their last encounter had ended in an unseemly exchange of words about livestock straying onto Shire roads and “interfering little busybodies from the Council who ought to mind their own business. ” Huxtable-Smith was well known for his choler and impatient disregard of those he considered his social inferiors. David was such a person. Understandably David was hoping that the weather would be good on the morrow and for an uncomplicated trip.

The next morning he rang up his boss at the Council and asked for the day off “because the twins were a bit off!” Given the OK, he went out to Frank’s offices at the aerodrome after lunch and started to prepare for the flight.

He decided to fly West Wyalong/Canberra/Moruya/Merimbula and, one worry off his mind, the weather was fine. During the pre-flight only two problems arose; the HF radio and rotating beacon were both unserviceable. No worries, he rang Sydney and submitted a Private SARTIME flight as he knew he would be out of VHF range once he went below 5000′ at Moruya.

Huxtable-Smith and his wife and teenage daughter arrived late – as usual; and they didn’t depart West Wyalong until after 1500 hours local time but, given prevailing conditions, he would still arrive just before last light.

The flight to the coast was quite uneventful and indeed one could say quite pleasant seeing Huxtable-Smith seemed to be in reasonable humour. David felt that he hadn’t lost the touch and was actually enjoying himself and the scenery. Better than sitting in the office trying to locate the owners of stray cattle, sheep and horses and being abused by local farmers like the guy sitting in the right-hand seat, he thought.

As he turned south over Moruya he noticed that the Southeasterly winds which had slowed him down were also responsible for a cloud build-up against the coastal mountains. He descended to 1000′ over the coastline and gave his area broadcast on 124. 1 announcing his expected arrival at Merimbula at 25, just 15 minutes before last light.

Now the visibility was down to about 5kms due to smoke haze from the burning-off around Bermagui and the lateness of the day. He started to pay more attention and concentrate on accurate coastal navigation. He gave his 30 mile inbound call.

Now Huxtable-Smith really started to get up his nose. Huxtable-Smith started nagging him about what was to come of the threatened prosecution over the stray cattle. He wouldn’t let him get a word in and kept up the machine-gun attack about “clerks sticking to office work and keeping out of the paddocks”, a story he had heard so many times before.

He managed to break off the discussion as Merimbula Aerodrome came into view on the basis that he would resume the conversation after he had landed but now he had to complete a pre-landing check and get the aircraft on the ground by his SARTIME. To expedite his arrival he decided on a straight-in approach using runway 21. He had heard another aircraft reporting inbound to Merimbula earlier, but had not registered the details as Huxtable-Smith’s continuous whining had drowned out the exchange with Sydney Flight Service.

David had the Seneca lined up beautifully with runway 21 when all hell broke loose. A Fokker F27 with its Darts screaming suddenly appeared immediately above and overtook also on the short-final for 21. The separation must have only been about 50 feet and the turbulence required some deft movements of the controls to maintain directional control.

David executed a missed approach, joined the circuit, told Huxtable-Smith to “shut up” and broadcast a call that he was joining cross-wind for 21. The F27 had obviously not seen him as it was IFR and on an NDB approach and he contemplated saying nothing as who would know?

Of course, who else . . . Huxtable-Smith and it would be impossible to keep it quiet as old H-S was part-owner of a country newspaper.

So even before he had taxied alongside the F27, he had decided to complete and file an Air Safety Incident Report. He hoped he got the same understanding Investigator who he saw last time, but what about Flight Standards, they would surely be involved this time?

David came close to being the cause of a major fatal Regular Public Transport accident, something which Australia has not had the misfortune to experience since 1975 (Connair Heron at Cairns).

David’s mistakes:

The prime cause of this occurrence will be listed in the files at BASI as “pilot failed to keep adequate look-out; pilot did not maintain adequate listening watch; and did not execute a proper circuit”. All human factors which in Australia and overseas account for up to 75% of accidents and incidents.

However, the problem from a safety education perspective goes beyond these “prime causes”.

David’s attitude to his flying and his own capabilities left a lot to be desired on this occasion.

First, he didn’t “pre-flight” himself. Was he really fit to fly given his lack of recency, his anxious state about his flying and his obnoxious passenger and the fact that he was fatigued by his disturbed sleep. Under these circumstances, he should have declined the offer of the charter this time. Second, when he pre-flighted the aeroplane and found that the HF was u/s, he should not have agreed to accept the aeroplane and he breached the Regulations by conducting a Private SARTIME while engaged on a charter.

Third, David, despite his rather difficult relationship with Huxtable-Smith, should have asserted his rights as pilot-in-command and refused to take his mind off the task at hand; flying the aeroplane safely. If he had, he would have heard the Fokker’s 30 mile call and Sydney’s response that the Seneca was the traffic and that they were due to arrive at Merimbula only a minute apart. He would also have heard the F27 call joining the circuit. There is no excuse for not maintaining a listening watch although on a SARTIME. Similarly, he should have been conscious that whilst he was VFR other aircraft could be approaching the destination IFR to an uncontrolled aerodrome. Very few private pilots are conscious that they can come across APT flights OCTA.

Finally, although the Seneca’s rotating beacon was u/s, in the circumstances David found himself, he could have increased the chance of being seen by turning on other available lighting such as his navigation lights and landing light.

“See and be seen” places a responsibility on pilots but properly carried out provides a safe environment in which to fly. Neglect responsibility, and you increase the risks of the fatal midair collision.

Letters

Flight Standards Division welcomes letters raising safety issues. They should be addressed to “Air Safety”, Australian Aviation, PO Box 105, Weston Creek ACT 2611. The following letters have been received and answers obtained from the Division

WIMPY DOWNS ILLEGAL!

Sir,

I refer to the Air Safety article by Terry Walls which appeared in the January edition of “Australian Aviation”.

On p63 the slope of the strip at Wimpy Downs was reported as 2°. Now in percentage terms this slope represents approx 3. 5%.

Under the provisions for ALAs (VFG 81-4) the maximum allowable longitudinal grade between runway strip ends shall be 1 in 50 (ie. 2%). Hence the strip slope of Wimpy Downs was excessive and the use of the ALA was illegal in any case. This was the pilot’s first mistake!

Because ALA owners may often report strip slopes in degrees, I’m of the opinion that Mr Walls should have the error corrected and draw attention to the fact that the 2% maximum allowable represents only 1. 15°. Admittedly a reported 2° slope would not seem very significant to your average private pilot.

Lionel Taylor

North Carlton VIC

ANSWER: Quite right! Just as David didn’t relate the 2° slope to a gradient, Terry Walls admits that like so many other average GA pilots “out there” he didn’t check the legality of the operation because he was in a hurry to get David and Bev to Wimpy Downs for their delayed honeymoon. Mr Taylor raises a very valid point in saying that ALA owners often report slope in degrees and that pilots should be conscious of the need to relate this to gradient.

IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION

Sir,

The article by Paul Middleton, Department of Aviation, concerning David’s fraught and almost tragic trip was interesting, but it raises an issue which I am sure many pilots have some doubts about.

That is, the claim by the Department that there is an automatic immunity from any action when the pilot calls for assistance. I have seen this somewhere before (I think in the “Aviation Safety Digest”) but very few pilots either understand or, in fact, believe it. Could you explain in more detail? P Cornish Doncaster VIC

ANSWER: The Department’s first priority is without doubt SAFE flight. If an airborne pilot is in trouble for whatever reason, we would want to encourage the use of whatever help Flight Service of ATC can give. This is the reason for the so-called “immunity provisions”. Unless there has been a deliberate and contemptuous disregard for the law, there will be no punitive action taken against anyone who needs and requests help under these circumstances. The Department is aware that this is not fully understood by the pilot community, so it is planning to publish a full explanation in the July edition of the “Aviation Safety Digest”.

ADDITIONAL MISTAKES

Sir,

I have enjoyed the first two stories of David from West Wyalong and they have made me question my own skill levels, but I noticed two mistakes in the last article which need correcting. First, it was Goodooga and not Gulgong which was once voted the most boring town in NSW and I understand they are proud of it. Gulgong is the town on the $1O note. Second, there were no performance charts with the article although we were challenged to do the sums. John Williams Bexley NSW

ANSWER: Quite correct. The author was apprised of his dreadful error by a group of pilots he knows who had just recently returned from Gulgong after copy was submitted to the typesetter but prior to publication. It was decided to leave the mistake in to see whether anyone would notice. Congratulations. The author apologises to all the residents of the two towns involved. The performance charts were provided by the Department, but they were in a form that was not suitable for reproduction. We are sure that you obtained copies and did the calculations!

John Wood is an Examiner of Airmen in Flight Standards Division. He is a GA pilot with considerable experience (8500 hours). Before joining the Department in 1980 he was Chief Instructor of Nationwide Aviation Space Academy (now CATA) and a former commuter airline pilot. John has a long experience as a flight instructor dating back to 1968.