Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[fly_tornado]

Flying low to the ground seems to be incredibly dangerous, microbursts and wind shear scare me more than anything.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Maybe we should all give the Ferris Wheel Incident a break until we get the Final ATSB Report.

 

Alan.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Maybe we should all give the Ferris Wheel Incident a break until we get the Final ATSB Report.Alan.

Good idea Alan.Time for me to move on I think.

 

 

[johnm]

Nevertheless its still good we can talk about this incident - the subject IS sensitive ........................... judging by all the posts and views on the subject.

 

Talking and reading about such things must be helpful ......... and be a learning process in itself

 

Any thing relevant we say will no doubt be in the ATSB report - otherwise the report may / could be deficient (and no doubt ............................. all that will be discussed again in this forum .................... with the final report)

 

I'd like to ask - 'judging by the photo of the ferris wheel I'd give it the ferris wheel a 10000 radius and say a 20000 diameter - that equates to about say a Maximum 60 - 70 feet. In relation to the the strip - was the ferris wheel on high or low ground ?'

 

Have not heard this fact discussed

 

JM

 

 

[turboplanner]

Maybe we should all give the Ferris Wheel Incident a break until we get the Final ATSB Report.Alan.

Alan, we know where you stand on this, and you're suggesting censorship. Already plenty of safety lessons have been learned from this thread, and I don't doubt there will be more to come.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Flying low to the ground seems to be incredibly dangerous, microbursts and wind shear scare me more than anything.

Well yes and no....

The term "dangerous" has no dimensions and is thus meaningless except as a note of caution. Having said that, there are additional risks at low level and there is less margin for recovering from some pilot errors. It all comes back to threat-error analysis, which most people do to some degree, albeit they may not put a name to the process. You mentioned one aspect of this in another post:

 

...Did you ever do any EFATO training?...

In EFATO training, we are taught to examine an unfamiliar aerodrome as we approach it and identify where we would land if an EFATO occurred. It is much easier to map it out while looking at the runways from the air, where you can see and evaluate obstacles and alternate landing areas. That is one area of threat-error analysis.

Microbursts present a very significant risk profile and the best management tactic is to see, identify and avoid them. As we don't fly in IMC, Microbursts are usually detectable visually, and thus allows a suitable distance to be maintained. While wind shear is usually not visible, you can often predict its presence, when for instance there are significant differences between the wind strength and direction between circuit height and ground level.

 

In evaluating risk, it is a two dimensional matrix. One one axis we examine likelihood of occurrence and on the other, likely consequences. A high liklihood may not be perturbing, if the consequences are trivial or able to be managed. On the other hand, a risk that is likely to occur occasionally, may be quite perturbing if the consequences are significant enough, like death or serious injury.

 

Each person has to evaluate what risk profile they are prepared to accept. Unfortunately some accept significant risk profiles without alanysis or realisation. That is where training has to address the identification and assessment of risks, together with management strategies.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Maybe we should all give the Ferris Wheel Incident a break until we get the Final ATSB Report.Alan.

why? this is a case of pilot error. no report is really going to explain why a pilot makes a series of bad decisions. If you want to you can go back to the start of paul's flying career and ask if his training really equipped him for dealing with this sort of situation. Chances are it didn't.

 

You know the rule landing is 1% of flying and 40% of accidents.

 

 

[68volksy]

Pretty sure the ATSB won't be quoting anything said on this forum. If anything's raised they may not have thought of it might get some thought but i'm pretty sure everything on here's pretty standard stuff so far.

 

The report quotes the ferris wheel as 60 feet high - i'd like to know if it was on ground level with the strip also though.

 

Also - anyone out there actually know what an "appropriate" splay for this type of runway is? My quick read of the Manual of Standards for Runway code 1 Aerodromes talks of a take-off "zone" which starts 30 metres after the end of the runway and extends for a total of 1600 metres at a 5% slope. Who can do the math to determine how high that "zone" is at a point 160m after the end of the runway?

 

For the sideways limits it talks of a length of 60 metres (starting 30 metres out) at a 10% divergence - now I can see why the old maths teacher kept telling me trigonometry would be important some day...

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

The location were the ferris wheel was sitting was a metre or so below the runway height.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

one thing that keeps popping into thought is did the pilot ever get out of 'red line' Lifted off to slow and never let the aircraft accelerate to climb speed?

 

 

[rankamateur]

Pretty sure the ATSB won't be quoting anything said on this forum. If anything's raised they may not have thought of it might get some thought but i'm pretty sure everything on here's pretty standard stuff so far.The report quotes the ferris wheel as 60 feet high - i'd like to know if it was on ground level with the strip also though.

 

Also - anyone out there actually know what an "appropriate" splay for this type of runway is? My quick read of the Manual of Standards for Runway code 1 Aerodromes talks of a take-off "zone" which starts 30 metres after the end of the runway and extends for a total of 1600 metres at a 5% slope. Who can do the math to determine how high that "zone" is at a point 160m after the end of the runway?

 

For the sideways limits it talks of a length of 60 metres (starting 30 metres out) at a 10% divergence - now I can see why the old maths teacher kept telling me trigonometry would be important some day...

Edit - My post contributed nothing useful to the discussion.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Alan, we know where you stand on this, and you're suggesting censorship. Already plenty of safety lessons have been learned from this thread, and I don't doubt there will be more to come.

You assume to know where I stand on this (speculation again) and I am not suggesting censorship (speculation once again), I stand by my very simple post which is of course just my opinion.

 

Alan.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

Also - anyone out there actually know what an "appropriate" splay for this type of runway is? My quick read of the Manual of Standards for Runway code 1 Aerodromes talks of a take-off "zone" which starts 30 metres after the end of the runway and extends for a total of 1600 metres at a 5% slope. Who can do the math to determine how high that "zone" is at a point 160m after the end of the runway?

For the sideways limits it talks of a length of 60 metres (starting 30 metres out) at a 10% divergence - now I can see why the old maths teacher kept telling me trigonometry would be important some day...

You don't need trig. 5% is a 1 in 20 slope. 160/20 = 8 metres.

 

 

[Guernsey]

why? this is a case of pilot error. no report is really going to explain why a pilot makes a series of bad decisions. If you want to you can go back to the start of paul's flying career and ask if his training really equipped him for dealing with this sort of situation. Chances are it didn't.You know the rule landing is 1% of flying and 40% of accidents.

Even the best trained pilots make bad decisions sometimes but when the accident report is printed it usually de-identifies the pilot, so do we continue to highlight the errors that

 

Paul made. I'm sure the incident has taught him some very valuable lessons without our input.

 

 

[Guernsey]

Thanks Turbz ...

No one escapes some level of responsibility in what has been 'discovered' including RA Aus, so we need to collectively be problem solvers here, not problem makers, our sector depends on it. We all need to survive this including Paul, Gary Morgan and RA Aus.

 

Lessons have been identified, we need to move forward with the solutions and in all this debacle thankfully no one was hurt.

You are correct David no one was hurt physically but I wonder how much hurt mentally is being suffered by the above people as we continue to lay blame and criticise.

 

Alan.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Alan,

 

I think constructive discussion is good value given that there are some very unusual factors that impacted on the pilots actions that day and I think my position of sympathy for Paul is understood.

 

There are some very valuable points on this accident, none any less significant than the ALA issues. So in relation to the ALA and putting any piloting errors aside, please allow me to put up some interesting information.

 

Below is the image from the CASA ALA publication for single engined centre thrustline aircraft not exceeding 2000Kgs. This would be about the limit for Old Bar and the dimensions appropriate for Old Bar. Note the runway and runway strip dimensions and the 5% (1:20) splay requirements.

 

The ATSB report stated that the Ferris wheel was 34 metres East of the runway centre line and 161 metres from the threshold and that the gross height of the Ferris Wheel was 20 metres AGL. I know that the elevation at the base of the Ferris wheel was approximately 1 to 2 metres conservatively below the elevation of the runway, so lets say the Ferris wheel was 18 metres above the runway elevation.

 

Now the consideration is this : Is a 18 metre high obstacle 34 metres from the centre line and 161 metres out from the threshold within the splay?

 

Someone do the maths and advise us please. I believe it is in the splay, therefore an obstruction and therefore a very foolish place to place it. EDIT: I have redone the calcs; at 5% (1 in 20); in a distance of 161 metres from the threshold the physical splay is 8.05 metres, add the 8.05 metres to the edge of the flyover area which is 30 metres from the centre line and you have 38 metres ... so the Ferris Wheel IS in the splay and worse, it protrudes approximately 10 metres into the vertical clearance requirement of the slope on the splay which is required to be clear of objects above a 5% slope.

 

Why was this little gem of information missing from the ATSB preliminary report???

 

So maybe the Festival organisers have a case to answer after all.

 

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hmm image did not display? How do I make it display guys?

 

OK I inserted it as a word document and seems to have worked

 

(I have updated the post to show the image - Ian) Clever man ... thanks mate

 

 

[pete8862]

The aircraft in question is one I have been thinking about building, there has been alot said on this forum about them, I still think they are a very good aircraft & will be getting my kit under way early next year. The way it stood up to the crash has impressed me, the other problems that have come up have just given me a few more things that I will make sure are built better on my plane.

 

Pete

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I don't think there is any issue with the design of the plane. Although, a Ferris wheel is probably the safest thing you could hit.

 

 

[av8vfr]

a Ferris wheel is probably the safest thing you could hit

My money would be on a cloud.... (joke)

 

 

[David Isaac]

Guys, I have edited my post at #421. Check it out ... it is not good, check my calcs and tell me if I am wrong please.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Guys, I have edited my post at #421. Check it out ... it is not good, check my calcs and tell me if I am wrong please.

Depending how many if any want to sue, the usual procedure is the shotgun approach, everyone who played a part on that fateful day will be a defendant.

 

Someone or some people had a duty of care not to place the ferris wheel in the splay. If it wasn't there it could not have been hit that day regardless of whether the Sierra was doing cartwheels at the time.

 

HOWEVER, there's that tantalising mention several times of cone markers being on the field........where?........what for?.........if it was for a displaced threshold the ferris wheel gets off.

 

 

[David Isaac]

......HOWEVER, there's that tantalising mention several times of cone markers being on the field........where?........what for?.........if it was for a displaced threshold the ferris wheel gets off.

Indeed, and if it was displaced, that information would have been available when asking permission to land ... but we speculate again. No one has said the threshold was displaced and the ATSB report referenced the Ferris Wheel position relative the threshold and did not mention it was displaced. Then again the ATSB report said nothing of an obstruction ... could they have missed that major point???

 

 

[rankamateur]

Guys, I have edited my post at #421. Check it out ... it is not good, check my calcs and tell me if I am wrong please.

I am not going to argue with you, you are the pilot!!!

 

 

[Tomo]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but blaming the ferris wheel is a bit like blaming the tree that you backed into with the car isn't it?

 

(No offence intended by this comment)