Glider flights on trial

Wednesday, 2 December 2020

The forecast promised some cloud and light 10-15 knot winds – beaut weather for soaring.

Kamal and Kusum Pasha were up from Wellington for Queen’s Birthday weekend and had decided to try out gliding.

Like most of New Zealand’s 22 gliding bases, Taupō Gliding Club offers trial flights. For $220, you get 20-30 minutes of flying up to 5000ft, and “amazing views over Taupō”.

Their pilot Tony Budd – a 78-year-old volunteer instructor and veteran flier – would have given the couple a safety briefing and signed them up to the club for three months. Then it was up and away, with Kamal, in the sleek two-seater Schleicher ASK21, its four-car-length wingspan coasting on the thermals overhead.

**READ MORE:

* Communities grieving for pilot, woman killed in Taupō glider crash

* 'Unnecessary' and costly paperwork closed Omarama gliding business, director says

* 'Reasonably experienced' pilot killed in glider crash near Twizel

* Families mourn glider crash victims

**

Then it was 41-year-old Kusum’s turn. But something went wrong.

Eight months earlier Gliding New Zealand had sent a reminder to clubs that trial flights were to encourage new members, and should not be advertised as joy rides or “scenic”. The Civil Aviation Authority wanted to make sure they weren’t becoming a “back door” way of taking commercial flights, the advisory said.

It’s not known why the Pashas took those trial flights – whether they wanted a blast of adventure on a long weekend holiday, or whether they planned to take up the sport and join a club 380km from their home.

But at 2.45pm, whatever plans they had were erased, as police were told a glider had crashed into the green hulk of 1088m-high Mt Tauhara, about 3km from the launch airfield.

The crash killed both Budd and Kusum Pasha. Sunday, May 31, 2020 will be etched in history as the day of what is believed to be New Zealand’s first fatal glider trial flight.

Answers will be slow coming, with Transport Accident Investigation Commission (TAIC) reports currently taking 18-24 months.

The pilot’s age raises the possibility of a medical crisis. There’s also the spectre of equipment failure or rough air, although veteran glider pilot Doug Yarrall, who has flown in the area since the 50s, says it’s docile country for gliding.

One question that may not be answered by the TAIC investigation, is whether this was a legitimate trial flight.

But it’s that question that is critical both for the clubs running them and for the country’s only commercial gliding business, Glide Omarama. It has just shut up shop, partly because it was told its trial flights were not bona fide and the business needed to upgrade to a set of rules it and Gliding New Zealand consider unworkable.

WHEN IS A TRIAL FLIGHT NOT A TRIAL FLIGHT?

Kaikohe Gliding Club charges $100 for a 20-30 minute trial flight. If you haven’t paid in advance, we don’t have anything fancy like eftpos, the club warns.

Manawatū offers three options, priced from $125-$250. The “Super trial flight” lasts 30-40 minutes, while the mile high option promises “unprecedented views”.

Nestled in the spectacular alpine landscape around St Arnaud, Nelson Lakes Gliding Club boasts a longdrop loo, but bring your own coffee. It offers only a $200, 3-flight intropack. “It takes at least 2-3 flights before most people can get a better understanding of the sport and a true sense if gliding is for them,” the website notes.

But further south, trial flight marketing sounds a lot less like a member recruitment scheme. Canterbury Gliding Club offers flights via BookMe, for $395. It’s “only 40 minutes from Christchurch International airport”, the blurb says.

A review from Kathy from New Zealand notes she might join the club, following her five-star flight. But there are also reviews from Oliver from Germany, Lubos from Czech Republic, Thomas from Belgium, and Anthony from New Caledonia.

At Glide Omarama, trial flight options were certainly soaring. The 30-minute valley explorer took off at $386, the 60-minute mountain adventure set you back $525, or you could enjoy a “dramatic soaring adventure deep into our mountains” with the 5-hour-long, $1735 high alpine spectacular. Happy customers from the Philippines, Sydney, Britain and Germany waxed lyrical in reviews.

Faced with the extreme variation in experiences being touted as trial flights, the CAA got out its red pen. The reason it cares is that trial flights are exempt from the much tougher safety rules introduced for adventure aviation operators, in November 2011.

They were brought in following international outcry about New Zealand’s apparently lax adventure tourism regulations, after a spate of deaths, including a parachuting plane crash that killed nine people at Fox Glacier in 2010.

In a 2019 letter to Glide Omarama, Civil Aviation Authority deputy director of general aviation Steve Moore said trial flights should be for New Zealand residents only. They should be designed to attract members to the club running the flights, “or, at the very least, another club in New Zealand”.

CAA would not say whether it considered the Taupō flight to be a legitimate trial flight, as investigations are continuing.

Taupō Gliding Club says the flight was carried out under Gliding New Zealand rules but would not answer further questions, including saying how many trial flights it ran in 2019, and what percentage resulted in new memberships.

Canterbury Gliding Club president Mike Oakley, who also runs a commercial ballooning business, says trial flights are not a money spinner for his club. (Financial records show they brought in $4700 in 2019.) They do one or two a day at weekends, with volunteer instructors. It’s about putting idle gliders to good use, and attracting people to the sport, he says.

Oakley doesn’t know where all the passengers are from. They do fly foreigners, but some return and join up.

“You can’t say to someone, just because you come from overseas you’re not going to join the club.”

Where the lines became blurred, Oakley says, was when operators started offering hours-long “trial flights” into the mountains.

“That's not what we're about … You could say there’s a bit of a grey area there, but it’s very clear from our club’s point of view exactly what we do. It’s a trial instructional flight. That’s what it’s always been.”

Gliding New Zealand president Steve Wallace reckons the trial flight system is working fine, and clubs know the rules. The wide spectrum of options is not surprising, as flight length and altitude depend on the gliding location.

Trial flights are essential, because they're the only way clubs get new members, Wallace says.

In March 2014, the CAA’s Steve Moore had told Glide Omarama that its operation – which then included about 600 yearly trial flights – could continue without adventure aviation certification. But only if they did not expand their business model “to include tourist or scenic type flights”.

Since then, trial flight numbers at the globally renowned gliding base have ballooned to 1350.

In a December 2019 letter, Moore finally put his foot down, after a spot check of Glide Omarama the previous month revealed “serious departures from rules requirements”.

Taking up tourists was “not within the spirit” of the rules and pilots were being paid despite not having commercial licences, Moore wrote. Glide Omarama should review its marketing and restrict trial flights to New Zealand residents interested in taking up gliding, he said.

But former Glide Omarama owner Gavin Wills says not being able to take foreign tourists on trial flights created the ridiculous situation where he could train overseas pilots at his soaring school, but could not take those same people on a trial flight.

“We are all waiting to see whether the accident in the North Island is considered a bona fide trial flight, or whether they consider it to be a commercial operation. We are holding our breaths, really.”

In 2013, CAA told Wills it had received complaints that “a small number” of operators were offering adventure aviation under the guise of trial flights. However, CAA failed to find details of other non-compliant clubs, or any enforcement action taken.

WHAT’S THE ALTERNATIVE?

There are 25 adventure aviation businesses certified under the 2011 regulations, known as Part 115. None fly gliders.

Wills and Gliding NZ’s Steve Wallace argue that’s because the Part 115 regulations are unworkable for their sport and out of step with global rules.

“Gliding is a round peg and the regulations are a square hole,” Wallace says.

The certification process requires operators to write an “exposition” document covering all their operations, which is reviewed by CAA staff at $284 an hour. For gliding, that covers glider alone, glider being towed by tow plane and tow plane alone.

All glider pilots also need the most rigorous, class 1, medical and have to sit a commercial pilot’s licence designed for motorised planes.

In its original submission on the 2011 law, Gliding New Zealand said the proposal was “not acceptable for gliding, because it would impose significant additional costs to a very small number of operators without any significant benefits to the public … Part 115, as it applies to gliding, is a ‘solution looking for a problem’.”

The organisation argued it should be able to certify commercial glider pilots itself, instead of them having to sit power plane exams with mostly irrelevant questions. They should also need only a class 2 medical, rather than a class 1.

That would match the rules for hang gliding and paragliding, which also take only one passenger.

In Europe, commercial glider pilots need a class 2 medical and operators need only sign a one-page declaration to run commercial flights.

The gliding requirements were “clearly disproportionate”, Gliding New Zealand argued. It reiterated its case in a petition last year.

CAA argues that gliding rules are tougher, because hang gliding and paragliding flights are brief, low intensity and short distance, while glider flights are “at considerable height, longer duration and complexity”.

Wills estimated getting certified would cost him more than $90,000, including writing documentation and getting commercial licences and class 1 medicals for his 12 glider pilots.

With a single passenger already having to foot the bill for a glider pilot, tow pilot and ground crew, that’s untenable, Wills says.

But Moore told Wills that operators could not just “circumvent the rule requirements because they believe it is expensive or inconvenient to comply”.

“The cost of certification is the straw that breaks the donkey’s back,” Wills says. “I agree that cost is not an excuse. But if it’s too expensive, we won't become compliant.”

CAA says Wills’ certification estimate is exaggerated. Wills disagrees.

“I have got 21 people. Eleven gliders and three tow planes. My exposition would be around 400 pages. My costs are entirely reasonable.”

Other operators have also bemoaned the costs of the adventure aviation certification.

Angus Tapper, who runs Coronet Peak Tandems paragliding and hang gliding, says the CAA’s hourly rate is excessive. Getting recertified for five years cost him more than $10,000.

“I would hate to think what it would cost to start out now. You are completely at the mercy of CAA and how much time they spend.”

While the certification system helps keep out cowboys, Tapper believes gliding could work under the same rules as hang gliding and paragliding.

It cost Oakley $23,000 to keep his two balloons floating over Canterbury for another five years. He agrees regulation is necessary, but if the cost continues soaring, he’ll consider giving up.

He also believes commercial gliding flights could be managed by Gliding New Zealand.

CAA arguably won its battle with Wills – Glide Omarama is no longer offering trial flights to tourists. That’s because it’s not flying at all.

At 72, Wills – a 50-year pioneer of adventure tourism who set up Alpine Guides at Mt Cook – had had enough of fighting.

It’s certainly not a win for the 21 laid-off staff, or the tiny Mackenzie Country community the business helped support.

The Taupō tragedy raises important questions about what constitutes a trial flight, and whether those rules are being followed. But there must also be a workable commercial alternative to give Kiwis and tourists the chance to safely soar over our stunning landscapes.

Gliding NZ’s Steve Wallace says the fact no gliding businesses are certified as adventure aviation operators speaks volumes about the system.

“If it was possible, somebody would have done it by now. But if we can get some of the changes made that we've been asking for for a long time, then it may be possible.”

HOW OLD IS TOO OLD TO FLY?

At 78, Tony Budd had white hair and 45 years of gliding experience. We need to talk about ageing pilots, some interviewees say.

But age is a taboo subject when it comes to flying. Air New Zealand pilots once had to retire at 55, then 60. That was overthrown in court when human rights legislation outlawed retirement rules as ageist.

Commercial airline pilots have to stop flying internationally at 65. European rules state glider pilots over 70 should not be involved in commercial flights. But there are no flying age limits within New Zealand.

Doug Yarrall says that's as it should be. The 88-year-old former gliding world altitude record holder finally surrendered the controls in March. He'd been working as an instructor at the Wairarapa Aero Club for nine years. He just liked teaching people.

He was a gym junkie and had a medical every 12 months. He can still fly, but he was slowing down and figured he’d get out before he was kicked out.

“I don’t think age has got anything to do with it. I’ve flown with people of all ages, teaching them to fly both gliders and power planes. I think it’s up to the individual. The odd one shouldn't even be there,” he laughs.

David Powell once flew with a pilot whose brain was clearly tripping up. The aviation medicine specialist was undergoing a competence check, before flying a friend’s plane in Australia. His 70-something instructor became disoriented taxiing at an unfamiliar airfield at night.

“It was a graphic illustration of where the decline had just begun to impact on his performance …You could see the stress mounting. By then I was pretty comfortable in myself so I was fine. But I certainly wasn’t relying on him for keeping me safe.”

Powell says the risks of ageing pilots fall into three categories. The first is a major medical event, such as heart attack, stroke or seizure. But that’s rare in flight.

Then there’s the decline of the senses – by 65, your field of vision can narrow from 190 degrees to 140 degrees. Hearing loss is also common.

The “big one” is subtle cognitive decline, Powell says. Flying requires rapid mental switching, from one task to another, but thinking speed falls by about 20 per cent by your 40s and by about half by your 60s. But you can compensate for that with experience.

The problem is brains decline at different rates and different times.

“You can have one 75-year-old who is fantastic and alongside them a 55-year-old who really isn’t too great already. So therefore how do you assess this?”

Regular medicals are usually touted as the answer, but they don’t measure brain power. It’s easier to test that in real-world environments, such as in simulator assessments for commercial pilots.

“It’s a tricky one, but you just can’t mount a scientific case for an age-based cutoff. So it’s very difficult to support anything that isn’t a performance based measurement.”

The murky rules

Stuff asked CAA which of the following would disqualify a glider flight from being considered a trial flight. CAA said it could not respond as “the necessary operational context” was missing. That’s despite its deputy director-general of general aviation previously saying they should be for New Zealand residents only and should not be promoted as scenic.

• A flight time of more than 60 minutes.

• Carrying a paying passenger who does not live in the same region as the gliding club.

• Carrying a paying passenger who does not live in New Zealand.

• A flight conducted by a paid pilot

• A flight cost of more than $200

• A flight altitude of more than 3000ft

• A flight promoted as 'scenic' or with 'fantastic views'

• A flight that includes 'loops'.

• A flight with an instructor aged over 70