Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[facthunter]

'Airsows " are dangerous. Pigs do fly. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

..................... There's a group of volunteers who maintain the airstrip at their own cost and effort ..................It is this group, from whom you seek permission to fly in. ........

This is the group that I would hope would be protected in this debacle. This group are volunteers and they are not the Festival organising committee and they are not the local Council. Some of the members are aviators and I believe others are not. Hopefully this group had at least lodged objections to the Ferris wheel location, this we will know in time.I will say it again ... Old Bar is a beautiful place and the airfield is idyllically located, the only obstructions I was aware of were the light poles on the adjacent playing field that impact on the transitional slope parallel with the runway, which are clearly marked by red and white spiraling stripes up the full length of each pole. The Ferris wheel was of course not normally there, it was a temporary obstruction during the three day festival.

 

I hope this incident does not affect the long term operation of the airfield. If that happened it would be a terrible shame.

 

 

[Guest ptbaa]

Good morning

 

I've been following this site for some time and have enjoyed the infomation. This is my first post and I have a couple of questions and would also like to add my 2 cent

 

Firstly thank god no one was seriously injured in this ACCIDENT

 

Is it correct that Morgan Aeroworks and several other 24 regoed planes are grounded ?

 

After reading the report as all of you have that the aircraft was not at fault ?

 

Has the pilot been suspended ?

 

I would be terriable if this accident causes the demise of a regional Australian aircraft builder and maybe even the RA-A

 

As far as i can see this was pilot error not the plane or the feris wheel ,it didnt jump out in front.

 

I was at Old Bar that day and hope this isnt the end of the festival or the airfeild.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Firstly ptbaa, welcome to our forum and congratulations on your first post.

 

I will attempt to provide partial answers to your questions based on what I believe is information in the public domain at this present time with the obvious disclaimer that these are just my observations and opinions and should not be relied upon for accuracy.

 

The final ATSB report will without doubt in due course answer all our questions.

 

......... Is it correct that Morgan Aeroworks and several other 24 regoed planes are grounded ?

Due to an administrative anomaly that became evident following the initial investigation, a number of 24 registered aircraft were missing some paperwork, these aircraft were temporarily grounded while the paperwork was retrieved. This in no way implies that the aircraft were not airworthy. I believe that many of these aircraft are now flying again.

After reading the report as all of you have that the aircraft was not at fault ?

The ATSB report at this stage is in its preliminary form and investigations are ongoing by the ATSB, but you are correct in that at this stage it does not appear from the preliminary report that any aircraft fault contributed to the accident.

Has the pilot been suspended ?

We know the pilot has been interviewed by several authorities and we know the ATSB preliminary report states that investigations are continuing. The Pilots current certificate status is not a matter of public record and is appropriately a matter between the authorities and the pilot only.

I would be terriable if this accident causes the demise of a regional Australian aircraft builder and maybe even the RA-A

I think that is highly unlikely, some of the good things that will come out of this are perhaps a tighter surveillance scheme on behalf of RA Aus. I know RA Aus are working closely with CASA to improve issues of governance and what has come out of this incident will only strengthen the RA Aus resolve.

 

As far as i can see this was pilot error not the plane or the feris wheel ,it didnt jump out in front.

I believe this is a complex incident because there are several related and unrelated aspects to it. In layman's terms there are direct causal factors, indirect causal factors and unrelated factors that have been discovered as a result of the accident.In an attempt to explain what I mean, perhaps I could suggest that the pilots actions in the late go around decision meant that he was very low on the go around, normally in a clear departure splay he would not have collided with anything and although it would have been observed by spectators as a very spectacular and potentially concerning action, there would have been no collision.

 

Then there is the discussion you would have seen in this thread as to whether the Ferris Wheel should have been permitted where it was and that is another issue that is a causal factor in this accident. It gets even more complicated because if there is a known obstruction in an airfield approach and departure splay, it should either be notified to incoming aircraft or the threshold (those cone markers that mark the end of the runway) should be displaced (moved back) to effectively clear the obstruction on the splay.

 

But none of these requirements are in the regulations, they are simply guidelines, so pilots must make themselves aware which then brings in another issue that you may have also seen as to whether the pilot was advised about the obstruction on the day and there appears to be considerable doubt that he was advised. However, regulations ultimately put the responsibility on the pilot for the safe operation of the flight under his / her command.

 

You would have also seen discussion on the issue of permission to use the airfield and I think that has now been established that in fact Morgan Aeroworks did have specific permission that day to use the airfield.

 

I was at Old Bar that day and hope this isnt the end of the festival or the airfeild.

I very much doubt that it will be the end of the festival because part of the festivals theme is celebrating the heritage value of the airfield. There is no reason why the event cannot continue with the airfield active as long as the splay is maintained clear of obstructions. There has after all been no incident up until this one and accidents can and do happen.So as you can see, no conclusions can be drawn from this until the final report is out, but there are certainly many lessons we can extract from the information and discussion on this forum to date. As you so ably put "thank God no one was seriously injured".

 

 

[Litespeed]

'Airsows " are dangerous. Pigs do fly. Sorry, I couldn't resist. Nev

Not anymore Nev, they canned the F111......................

 

Oh...........Polair.........................

 

 

[Litespeed]

Hi David-

 

from your above message - you say it appears that Morgan had permission on the day. Was this just for Gary Morgan or did it extend to the pilots who flew his aircraft?

 

Is that correct? and if so where they informed of the obstruction and its nature in the splay?

 

Were any other pilots given such a warning and how was it worded?

 

Were all pilots that sought permission given the warning and indeed the same warning?

 

Or where they just asked what aircraft they had and given permission?

 

I am not sure you may know- but others might.

 

Thanks

 

Phil

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hi David-from your above message - you say it appears that Morgan had permission on the day. Was this just for Gary Morgan or did it extend to the pilots who flew his aircraft?

 

Is that correct? and if so where they informed of the obstruction and its nature in the splay?

 

Were any other pilots given such a warning and how was it worded?

 

Were all pilots that sought permission given the warning and indeed the same warning?

 

Or where they just asked what aircraft they had and given permission?

 

I am not sure you may know- but others might.

All good questions Phil and questions I have also asked.

This I do know and that is that Morgan Aeroworks were invited to put their aircraft on display at Old Bar as part of the festival and that the pilot that flew the Sierra that day was taking the aircraft to Old Bar on behalf of Gary for that purpose, so there is no doubt they had permission. I was also informed that no warning was given of the obstruction at the time.

 

It would be interesting to see how many pilots who flew into Old Bar or who intended to fly in actually asked for permission and obtained any condition report. I suspect that not too many would have asked given the generally accepted invite to the festival. Of course even with a generally accepted invite to aviation enthusiasts, it does not in any way remove a pilots responsibility under Regulation 92 to ensure he can conduct his flight safely. Of course the fact few comply with the regulations is seldom an issue until something like this happens.

 

Quoting from the Civil Aviation Advisory Publication: Guidelines for Aeroplane Landing Areas:

 

"Civil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.”

 

Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator.

 

The ALA guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command:

 

(a) has sound piloting skills; and

 

(b) displays sound airmanship. "

 

There may be some on on this forum who did obtain permission for that day and maybe they would be prepared to come on and tell us what advice if any they were given.

 

 

[Guest ptbaa]

Thanks for the welcome

 

No trying to be a smart@#% but should you do a fly over a field that your wanting to land and check not only the windsocks but any obsticles? the feris wheel was not a small item. It seems general basics were ignored or mayby the pressure to land with such a large crowd was to much

 

 

[Guernsey]

Hi ptbaa I realize that this forum has now 488 posts which are a lot to read, but if you work your way through them I am sure you will find all the answers you need.

 

Best of luck reading them all.

 

Alan.

 

 

[68volksy]

From all the above this seems to boil down to the specific legal requirements for the use of an ALA. There are a lot of ifs and buts however I think this might be the real focal point. I see no way that a general public invitation to attend the airfield on the day could possibly waive any requirement to gain airfield operator approval. An invitation to use does not waive a responsibility to make use in the correct manner.

 

Once the legal requirements for the ALA are established in black and white then i'd imagine you can move to the next step. If the black and white says "Pilots must obtain approval" then it's a question of whether this was done or not. There would be legal precedent no doubt regarding whether an invitation to attend fulfills the responsibility to gain approval - common sense says that it does not in my view. If i were to receive an invitation to go for a free joy flight one day it would not mean I can just jump in the plane at any time and go - I think I would still need the permission of the pilot/owner to board their aircraft.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That would be a bit like putting the cow dung and the milk in the same bucket.

 

There are two separate themes, which would be handled by two completely separate groups of people and would be handled in completely separate arenas and separate timescales, the second usually taking about 7 years to cycle:

 

1 Issues of compliance with prescriptive regulations

 

2 Issues of public liability

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

... If the black and white says "Pilots must obtain approval" then it's a question of whether this was done or not.....

Both items answered by the preliminary report. The water has been muddied by the suggestions that "Morgan Aeroworks" had been invited to display their aircraft at the airfield, during the festival and that the pilot was flying it in for that purpose, on behalf of said Aeroworks. Such an invitation would appear to be specific and thus constitute permission. Whether any information about the strip condition and obstacles was provided and if provided, passed on to the pilot is not in the preliminary report and has not been posited. That said, if the pilot had been informed about the ferris wheel, he would surely have looked for it and seen it, which is contrary to the information in the preliminary report.

 

I suspect that there will be a lot of changes in the way people seek and obtain permission to fly into private ALAs after this investigation completes. The scenario seems to highlight a lack of general knowledge in the area. There are lessons emerging about responsibilities and potential liability on the part of all parties.

 

I'm not sure if anyone is aware of Federal OHS harmonisation legislation that is to become effective on new year's day 2012. I've just had a briefing on it and it will cast a wider net than current state based legislation. There are some states that have not yet signed up to the new federal legislation, so in some states there may be a choice of legislation depending on whether the business operates within a state or across state boundaries. The concept of an "employer" has been changed to "PCBU" (Person Conducting a Business Undertaking) and the emphasis is changed from compliance to proactive prevention. If you cannot prove the latter, then you are guilty (more laws of strict liability).

 

 

[David Isaac]

Volksy this might help clarify some regulatory issues for discussion.

 

The Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 92-1 (1) ‘GUIDELINES FOR AEROPLANE LANDING AREAS’ is an advisory document, not a Civil Aviation Regulation. There is no regulatory basis for the ALA recommended dimensions.

 

BUT and it is a big BUT …

 

The ALA guideline publication quotes Civil Aviation Regulation 92(1).

 

Quoting from the ALA Guidelines Publication:

 

"PURPOSECivil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.” Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator.

These guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command:

 

(a) has sound piloting skills; and

 

(b) displays sound airmanship. "

There is a clear regulatory obligation on the pilot to determine his own competency and display airmanship to ensure the safe operations of the flight.There may be no regulatory basis specifically on the ALA guidelines, but be aware of your aircraft insurance exclusions. There is normally a question like “do you always operate into and out of ALAs? …”, in your insurance declaration. Most standard insurance policies exclude claims arising from accidents at non ALAs (even though that may not be a specific exclusion) unless you have added them to your policy. This is more relevant to aircraft you hire and then use at a non ALA to land and takeoff. Have an accident there and you may find you are not covered.

 

'One way' strips are definitely not included in standard policies and you would have difficulty complying with Regulation 92 (1) unless you could prove you had the necessary experience and competency. AG pilots obviously have a higher level of experience and competency for one way strips and lots more horsepower in any case. Remember there is NO go around option on a 'One way' strip.

 

Most ALAs are privately owned and obtaining permission is completely relevant otherwise you are technically trespassing. Obtaining permission would also be a means of establishing strip details, condition and relevant obstructions if any. Not obtaining permission may be one way of establishing the pilot was NOT aware of the conditions and one way of arguing that safe operations were not determined before the flight. Flying into an ALA at which you have no idea of the condition probably finds you fowl of the regulations, in particular 92 (1) above in any case.

 

Remember the pilot is always responsible for the safe operation of his / her aircraft and could be at any time called to account as to how the safety of the intended flight was assessed.

 

EDITED 13/12/11: added extra words for clarity.

 

 

[winsor68]

I reckon I won't hire and fly until this is sorted out... I wouldn't want to stuff up and find myself open to all this pap... can't help but feel this pilot is in part a victim in all this mess that is Ra-Aus "administration"... and there but for the grace of God goes so many of us...

 

 

[68volksy]

Such an invitation would appear to be specific and thus constitute permission.

I don't agree that a specific invitation constitutes permission. If i were to receive an invitation to a dinner at another nations embassy it does not give me approval to simply march on in.

 

 

[68volksy]

Thanks David - I had a feeling it was a grey area we're wandering into with the ALA question. Would I be correct in concluding that it seems to come down to the fact that, whilst it is listed as an approved "Landing Area", it carries very similar requirements to operating at a private airstrip? If so it moves the goal-posts quite a distance - if this incident had occurred at a private strip there would be no discussion of the ferris wheel placement...

 

 

[David Isaac]

I reckon I won't hire and fly until this is sorted out... I wouldn't want to stuff up and find myself open to all this pap... can't help but feel this pilot is in part a victim in all this mess that is Ra-Aus "administration"... and there but for the grace of God goes so many of us...

Don,

This has nothing to do with RA Aus administration.

 

Generically speaking, this has everything to do with the quality of training in both RAA and GA, pilot knowledge of obligations to conduct a safe flight and pilot knowledge of regulations.

 

The focus point here is a pilots knowledge and obligations of operating the aircraft safely.

 

Not really rocket science when you think about it. Why would you fly into any airstrip unless you knew its dimensions, orientation, elevation, obstructions (if any) and temperature?????

 

EDITED 13/12/2011: For clarity.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I agree with David. If you are hiring an aircraft for a cross country flight, many CFI's would insist on a full briefing of any proposed "rural" airstrips. It's an operations thing not an administrative thing, and RAA cannot be looking over the CFI's shoulder every day of every week, and shouldn't be expected to.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Thanks David - I had a feeling it was a grey area we're wandering into with the ALA question. Would I be correct in concluding that it seems to come down to the fact that, whilst it is listed as an approved "Landing Area", it carries very similar requirements to operating at a private airstrip? If so it moves the goal-posts quite a distance - if this incident had occurred at a private strip there would be no discussion of the ferris wheel placement...

A small correction Volksy if you will allow me ... it is NOT an 'approved' landing area it is 'Aeroplane' landing area, although if it meets the CASA publication for ALA dimensions it is 'deemed' approved; a bit of a play on words.

Yes, a private airstrip can be an ALA and often is and the same guidelines and regulations apply. A word of caution, many private airstrips don't meet ALA requirements, many are 'one way' and a pilot operates into and out of them at their own risk. If a 'one way' strip is your own and you are reasonably skilled you may well be able to argue competency in its use and thereby establish that your operations into and out of it are safe.

 

Old Bar is an ALA in the same sense as a private airstrip and several Council airfields are in fact ALAs such as Warnervale and Cessnock as just two examples of many.

 

EDITED 13/12/2011: for clarity

 

 

[68volksy]

I'm all for corrections - there'd be little fun in life if there wasn't anything left to learn!

 

 

[David Isaac]

I don't agree that a specific invitation constitutes permission. If i were to receive an invitation to a dinner at another nations embassy it does not give me approval to simply march on in.

Hi Volksy, on rereading your post did you mean to say a 'general' invitation instead of 'specific'? Because the way I would understand a 'specific' invitation to use an ALA is that would be permission, however, a pilot still has an arguable obligation to obtain details. Two separate issues, one being permission and the second obtaining details. Your thoughts?

 

 

[68volksy]

I think the invitation is simply an invitation and does not imply actual permission. Even a specific invitation. Like an invitation to attend a dinner party doesn't automatically allow entry to the hosts house.

 

In this case there appear to be some generally accepted (legal?) requirements to gaining entry to the site (the ALA requirements). The host in this instance was no doubt aware of this and I think they'd be safe in assuming the guest (pilot) was aware of this also. I don't think an invitation to attend removes the obligation to enter the site in the correct manner.

 

Be interesting to hear if any of the pilots arriving that day contacted the ALA operator prior to arrival and if they did what they were told.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Don't know if this applies here but in contract law a contract consists of an offer and an acceptance of that offer, whether in writing or verbal.

 

 

[68volksy]

Not sure that applies here... If it were to apply could you argue that implied in any contract would be an adherence to legal requirements (whatever they might be)? In the absence of any contract terms in this case, if a contract were in place, the general legal/regulatory framework would require the ALA requirements to be met as part of that contract in my view.

 

 

[Guest davidh10]

I think there is some confusion, still, about ALAs. Any airfield may be an ALA if it complies with the ALA recommendations. There's nothing that says it is specifically public or private. It could be either...even a farm strip could be built to comply and therefore be described as an ALA.

 

My understanding (without having read the standards or regulations) is that there's four classes of non-military airstrips:-

 

1. Registered. Complies with the requirements for this class and IS Registered.
    
    
   
2. Certified. Complies with the requirements for this class and IS Certified.
    
    
   
3. ALA. Complies with the recommendations for this class.
    
    
   
4. "the rest". Does not comply with any of the above class requirements.
    
    
   

 

 

From the preliminary report; "Special local procedures for use at Old Bar were published online and in airfield guides. That included advice that the airstrip satisfied the requirements of Civil Aviation Advisory Publication 92-1 (1) - Guidelines for Aeroplane Landing Areas, with the exception of the transitional surfaces."

 

In other words, Old Bar did not comply with ALA recommendations and as such should not be referred to as an ALA. It was, however a valid way of describing the airstrip, although as we have seen, this description has resulted in a lot of people thinking it was an ALA.

 

I think the invitation is simply an invitation and does not imply actual permission. Even a specific invitation. Like an invitation to attend a dinner party doesn't automatically allow entry to the hosts house....

The analogy is interesting, but still fuzzy! A specific invitation may not expect the recipient to walk straight into the house, but they would be expected to enter upon the property. For a BBQ, they may walk around the house into the back yard. It is not uncommon in the country for people to leave the front door unlocked, and for expected visitors to simply announce themselves as they enter.

I'd argue that in the house visiting scenario, the expected behaviour is not straight forward or necessarily the same for all guests. For an airfield, I would expect a specific invitation to be permission.

 

If I was to invite you come and visit so my family and friends can view your car, does it matter who drives the car?

 

As stated by David I, this does not obviate the driver from obtaining the information to enable decisions about safety.

 

In this case, the pilot had landed on the same runway at Old Bar, two weeks previously, so may have thought he was in possession of all the local conditions information. A 'reasonable person" would not expect anyone to place a ferris wheel inside the transitional surface. On the other hand, the obstacle landscape does change. For instance there are current NOTAMS about a temporary crane in line with a runway at Shepparton.

 

Also, the pilot is reported to have: "He also indicated that he had checked the NOTAMS and determined that there were no problems in conducting the flight."

 

Given that he had to look up Old Bar in the "Country Airstrips Directory" it might have been reasonable to think that it was an airstrip that does not issue NOTAMS. A quick verification from NAIPS causes me to wonder how that satisfied the statement made:

 

WEATHER INFORMATION

 

-------------------

 

NOTAM INFORMATION

 

-----------------

 

A NOTAM service is not provided for the following requested locations:

 

OLD BAR (YOBR)