A Cessna 150,VH-FPS, was being used to muster sheep near Dalgety
Downs Station. The pilot was communicating by radio with the ground
party and had called in one of the party to help with a mob of
sheep. A ground party member reported that the aircraft flew past
him at about 80-100 ft above the ground before commencing a sharp
turn to the right. During the turn the aircraft descended into the
ground and caught fire. The pilot received fatal injuries. There
was no evidence that the aircraft or engine had been affected by
any mechanical fault before colliding with the ground.
About two months prior to the accident, the pilot's employer had
arranged for the pilot to receive mustering endorsement training,
which included low flying. Subsequent to the accident, the company
that conducted the training reported that they had verbally advised
the employer that the mustering training could not be carried out,
and that only the low-flying portion of the endorsement had been
completed. The documentation provided by the training company to
the operator indicated that the pilot had only been given a low
flying approval. The pilot's low flying training had been conducted
in FPS. A review of the aircraft documentation indicated that the
hours flown during the training period had been insufficient to
permit both the completion of the low flying and stock-mustering
training. There was no evidence to indicate that the pilot had
completed aerial stock-mustering training.
Approval to conduct aerial stock mustering requires
certification that an applicant has completed both low flying and
aerial stock mustering training. The approval certificate at
appendix II of Civil Aviation Order (CAO) 29.10 was designed to
indicate that the applicant pilot had successfully completed the
required training, and qualified to conduct aerial stock mustering.
The approval certificate had two sections. The first section was to
record that the required low flying training had been completed.
The second section was to record that mustering training had been
completed and the applicant was competent to conduct mustering
operations.
The low flying approval certificate issued by the training
organisation may have been inappropriate because it was not derived
from the CAO current at the time, and because it recorded that the
pilot had only undergone low flying training. There was no
reference to stock-mustering training on the certificate used.
Therefore, the certificate could not have been considered a
stock-mustering approval. It appears that the operator did not
review the CAO under which the low flying approval was awarded. Had
he done so, it would have been evident that stock-mustering
endorsement training had not been certified and that the pilot was
not qualified to conduct stock-mustering operations.
The investigation could not determine why the aircraft descended
into the ground during the turn.
