Spitfire down near Gympie

[Modest Pilot]

According to eyewitness this was not a turn back accident. Aircraft had completed some airwork and an approach and go round to check gear extention/retraction.

 

 

[Spin]

Thanks Modestpilot, as so often happens here one gneral comment lead to a discussion off at a tangent, hence our starting a new thread. Have there been any positive suggestions from witnesses as to what might have happened?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Coroner's report is out. Not good for the builder or RAAus.

 

http://www.qt.com.au/news/dead-pilot-cleared-of-blame-by-coroner/2499744/

 

 

[kaz3g]

, Spin has only quoted news paper reports, which is great.Frank excellent advice, take every accident , as it comes they have their own reasons for why they happen. I spent 6 days picking up what was left of A8-127 (F-111), in Guyra NSW when it crashed.It was amazing how the guys from ATSB, worked through the evidence. But it does take along time for the evidence to be written up and as Spin has said a sanitised form.

Hi Dazza

 

I tried to PM you but it doesn't seem to be working. I think A8-127 was the aircraft my good friend John Holt was killed in.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

;) Ok... I know your moped climbs pretty well while everything is working ok. My old Auster is no slouch, either. And it stalls around 15 knots slower with the barn doors open.But what happens if the fan stops at 700' AMSL on departure and there is nothing good to plonk down on save the ground you just left behind?

 

Do you crash straight ahead and deliberately break your aeroplane or turn back?

 

What if it happens at 600'... 500'...?

 

kaz

Straight ahead the only option....difference between a controlled arrival at slowish speed Vs an uncontrolled arrival after a stall at an unknown speed.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

so Maj is the RAA reviewing other supermarine aircraft to check compliance?

 

 

[dazza 38]

Hi DazzaI tried to PM you but it doesn't seem to be working. I think A8-127 was the aircraft my good friend John Holt was killed in.

 

Kaz

Hi Kaz, the aircrew of A8-127 was Pilot Jeremy McNess and Navigator Mark Cairns- Cowan.

John Holt died in A8-133 in 1977 after a bird strike.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

On the Supermarine Spitfire website ( http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/MK2680 ) the 80% replica aircraft, which this was I believe, has a MTOW of 810 kg. It had two seats and carried 150L of fuel. Generously assuming it could carry two 80kg pilots and full fuel of 108kg the empty weight would be about 542 kg. How this could have been even considered as an RAAus aircraft is hard to fathom.

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi Kaz, the aircrew of A8-127 was Pilot Jeremy McNess and Navigator Mark Cairns- Cowan.John Holt died in A8-133 in 1977 after a bird strike.

Thanks, Dazza

 

His death knocked everyone at the time. I knew his wife, parents and younger brother, David too. We all thought the world of John.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Downunder]

Quite possibly a number of aircraft were being registered "overweight" when there was an expectation that a 760Kg MTOW approval was imminent and only the formality of a signature was required. The RAA were talking it up in their mag.

 

Elections put it on hold, then the change of government and new ministers, etc snuffed out the candle....

 

 

[jetjr]

So did the weight cause the accident?

 

If it ws exp GA regd would it not have occurred?

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So did the weight cause the accident?If it ws exp GA regd would it not have occurred?

From the article, "One of those who accepted the manufacturer's advice was an engineer who had modified the aircraft's balance without knowing its true weight - about 200kg more than that shown on registration documents."

 

The coroner stated the weight was falsified to get RAAus rego, so no need to falsify the weight if GA registered.

 

If balance was affected by the modification based on the false weight and if the crash was related to this then I would not like to be the person who signed the paperwork.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

[One of those who accepted the manufacturer's advice was an engineer who had modified the aircraft's balance without knowing its true weight - about 200kg more than that shown on registration documents.]

 

Rule one that every engineer knows or should know is that you weigh the aircraft before and after any modifications. NEVER EVER rely on the aircraft's documentation.

 

 

[dazza 38]

There was a fair bit of dodgy $hit going on with the manufacturer, he high tailed it out of Australia to set up shop in the states. It didnt go down to well when one of his aircraft and mates ( test pilot) was doing aerobatics in a RAA registered example with Charlie Boorman as pax, then it ended up on the TV series By any means.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Full Coroner's report released.

 

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cif-uscinski-20141229.pdf

 

 

[facthunter]

Having read it I feel (as usual ) there are obvious errors in it. The pilot due to a chain of circumstances had little chance of controlling an aircraft , that was gradually developing faults due to a failing supply of electricity, that made it unflyable. The engine could not continue to run without electrical power. Perhaps it illustrates how easy it is for people to arrive at the convenient "pilot error" conclusion. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

From memory, there have been three fatals - all apparently stall/spin incidents - with S 26's in the last about three years, with two of them ending up on surburban streets. I think that represents about 10% of the Australian fleet?

 

 

[facthunter]

27% of all registered helicopters were written off a year in the 70's (in Australia). Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

I think everyone should read the full coroner' report. It is well thought through and has some lessons in it for all of us.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

looks like this story is continuing

 

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/who-or-what-killed-dr-barry-uscinski/2518928/

 

 

[turboplanner]

looks like this story is continuinghttp://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/who-or-what-killed-dr-barry-uscinski/2518928/

This will be very interesting in terms of the separate responsibilities of investigators (both Police and Regulators) and Coroner.

 

Often, the Coroner, who is looking for a cause of death can miss things which interest an investigator looking for the cause of the crash.

 

This case seems quite different, with the coroner getting much deeper into cause of crash than usual.

 

 

[johnm]

Apart from issues regarding the aircraft ............. on page 30 the coroner states that RA-Aus needs to implement better systems to identify aircraft that might not fit RA-Aus rego requirements (weight etc) - seems not many people were aware that the 544 kg weight limit was exceeded (plane weighed +750 kgs) ........................... RA-Aus relied on kg weight from the registration certificate

 

Also RA-Aus management changed (page 31) (an allegation of change) what the RA-Aus investigator said - if RA-Aus ever edit an investigators findings - it must be noted somewhere in the RA-Aus report

 

 

[facthunter]

The police have prime responsibility for these investigations. They don't even have to use the RAAus if they choose not to.

 

The person supplying the figures was certified to do GA . W&B.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yes, the Police have prime responsibility for RA, but RAA has responsibility to act (a) to ensure compliance) and (b) to correct a situation like that alleged. I think this was done.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes, the Police have prime responsibility for RA, but RAA has responsibility to act (a) to ensure compliance) and (b) to correct a situation like that alleged. I think this was done.

Yes, done, but not until after the horse had bolted!