Old Bar Ferris Wheel Incident

[turboplanner]

Getting caught in the net is not a good enough reason for lowering the boom on an individual and his enterprise, on its own..If there is a problem of this magnitude, it should have surfaced of it's own accord, in it's own time as a separate issue, without all the hype. Nev

Well in fact it did, months before, and someone I know knew about it and said "there are worse things happening than that" and fought tooth and nail on this forum to close down discusssion, not air dirty linen and bury it.

 

Inevitably the issue showed up, albeit not as a main cause of an accident.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I wonder what else is going to float to the surface.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Rather than Hijack this thread away from the contributing factors to this accident and discussion specific to this accident, why doesn't someone start another thread to discuss issues of concern across the industry where they may exist and what "we" the RAA community can do to contribute towards a solution.

 

We have all in the past been pretty adept at the criticism (myself included), but when there is a problem perceived or otherwise, how should we approach it with the manufacturer, operator or governing body? Should we just talk about it among ourselves (dare I say 'bag' the organisation) or should we constructively and proactively approach the organisation involved?

 

Could be an interesting and constructive thread, it should be; this is our industry.

 

 

[David Isaac]

I have just started a new thread here ... http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/issues-of-concern-across-the-industry-where-they-may-exist-and-what-we-the-raa-community-can-do-to.32508/

 

 

[bilby54]

Back on topic... an email from Morgan Aeroworks:Quote:

 

Also only here say by someone from CASA that a RAA aircraft used in a flying school will have to be maintained by a LAME or the aircraft manufacture.

 

End Quote

 

It never fails to amuse me the number of random acts of mouth opening that perpetrate from the annals of the CASA empire!! Get them to front up with the manufacturers of the Skyfox, Drifter and Thruster to maintain an aircraft at a remote school - we don't all live at Amberley or Point Cook!

 

The ATSB was called into this incident due to public and government pressure.

 

The ATSB has limited resources for investigations and if you read thier charter, it says amongst other things that it only investigates quote= "fatal and other accidents that are required to be investigated under international agreements, and also those it believes will yield the most useful safety knowledge - particularly for fare paying passenger operations" end quote.

 

It could be argued that the ferris wheel was a fare paying passenger 'device' so they had to investigate it. I do not know why it was not handled by the relavent workplace safety organisation that would have asked why the ferris wheel was there. Whether it is fair on us or not, the public have a thirty year old belief that ultralights are dangerous and we really need both us and our governing body to start changing that attitude.

[Guest davidh10]

I don't thinly it has anything to do with whether the ferris wheel ride cost money.

 

The ATSB owns every aviation accident site until they say otherwise, by passing the investigation to the state police.

 

Surely the reasons they decided to hold onto this one was due to the fact that it put ordinary members of the public at risk of death or serious injury.

 

Yes. There is an OHS components.ent, but first and foremost, it is an aviation accident.

 

Taking all the obvious aspects together, it is unsurprising that ATSB has decided to hang onto it. Even with just the preliminary information, we can see that there's lots of areas for improvement.

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

Just a few points. I built an early Cheetah and have pretty much nothing but praise for it, from a design point of view.

 

I was really suprised to see the defects in the Sierra, however:

 

The diverging rivet line: Not being an engineer, but having built one and being a carpenter with an eye for forces, I would say that in that case it was simply more important/desireable to have a straight line than to maximise strength of something that already had more than enough strength in it.

 

The brake lines: Correct me if I'm wrong, but the brake lines were nylon coming through aluminium, which would wear the aluminium before the brake line. If nothing else, it would be picked up in time in a service, or even a daily should keep an eye on brake lines.

 

Cable ties on the fuel lines: I'll admit that I did this as well. I used to be a small engines (lawnmowers etc) mechanic, and when I found out this trick from Garry, I thought it a really good idea. Mainly because if you go have a look at what is doing reliable service on you lawnmower for years with more vibration and more exposure to UV, then you'll see why I thought cable ties would work. And I have pulled the cable tied lines off, and its almost as hard as pipe clamps (had to cut the tie). I used metal between the tank and the switch, and in the engine bay, but as someone earlier pointed out, you see hoses with nothing but the barb to rely on.

 

Running the power to the fuel pump with the fuel line is also something that isn't a good idea, but I did it as well (the layout makes it too tempting)

 

The holes in the joystick suprised me. BUT take a closer look: there is no way this will fail. That's Chrome-Molly, the redundancy in strength there is ridiculous. Considering that there's never that much force on the stick.

 

Now, don't get me wrong. I would have expected a bit better quality, since I know Garry can do better, but what I'm saying: None of those faults were dangerous. Not to the point of "If you are the kind of person to do this, you shouldn't be allowed to build wheelbarrows, let alone aircraft".

 

Neither was the fact that the rego was a typo

 

Neither was the pilot in any more error than I (and I think most pilots) see and/or do regularly enough. (I was recently a passenger when we tried to land downwind 5 mins after t/o and tried twice before we realised wind had swung 180 degrees, but we just changed and called ourselves idiots)

 

Even the ferris wheel was not in a good spot but SHOULD have been avoided.

 

So to me, there's more bad luck than anything else, and I hate scapegoats.

 

I still whole-heartedly support the Morgan brand; the only thing worrying me when I fly is the motor.

 

Waiting for the full report for full judgement, but I'd like to see a bit of banding together to give Garry and family moral support and let the RAA and CASA know that if they want to f*ck someone over, RAA is already based in Fyshwick (red light area of Canberra).

 

 

[Bigglesworth]

All valid, and if I myself was doing an inspection, I would certainly give someone a rap over the knuckles for it.Its bad and potentially unsafe practises.

 

But what I'm saying is: the prelim report (especially when the media got hold of it) painted a picture of:

 

An illegally licensed pilot

 

flying a dodgily registered plane

 

that was full of defects and likely to fall out of the sky anyway

 

I'm not going to critisise the ATSB (not now, anyway) but the 2 issues are separate.

 

And I still maintain that while Garry should NOT have done any of the issues, it was not directly dangerous. The joystick was tig welded (localised heat) and there was a healthy margin of undisturbed metal on the sides of the tube. It should definately NOT have been done, but I one could stress test that, and my money is on it standing up to a more then healthy level.

 

A design philosophy in Garry's planes is to over-engineer to allow kit builders to make mistakes like that.

 

Bad practises, get your act together, Garry, and properly finish a job, BUT its not the fault, or the issue.

 

The email he sent out points out that he wasn't grounded for manufactuing defects, BUT FOR THE CHANGING OF A CATEGORY. After he invested time and money in the design, it wasn't allowed to used as designed. That's the screw over.

 

 

[Thruster87]

There is no way it will fail?? Sure it is chrome-moly tubing, how ever it has been welded, as you can clearly see in the picture on the ATSB report. Welded chrome-moly tubing can be extremely weak and brittle if not properly heat treated. Who is to say a student wouldn't end up using a quick control movement with force (maybe to avoid a bird? who knows) where it does in fact fail and literally snap off in their hands, leaving them up the creek without a paddle and some poor unfortunate people on the ground being hurt/killed too?

The reason 4130 tubing is used that it does not require heat treatment to maintain its strength [if proper joint design /gussets are used], only stress relieving if doing long continues welding which induces too much heat imput. cheers T87

 

 

[kaz3g]

I also now know that with the ATSB saying that the flying school for the pilot was non-approved is because all they did was go onto the RAA web site and looked to see if it was listed in the flight schools page of the RAA site and it wasn't. It has now been confirmed that the Flight School was approved and everything is above board in terms of pilot and flying school licensing.These are the problems with Forums, Posts and hearsay so hope you guys understand the issues that this site has in trying to administer the site properly so you guys are better informed and the Recreational Flying site is a respected source of information as best as can be humanly possible

Thanks for that update, Ian. It makes a significant difference to at least one aspect of the investigation concerning the bona fides of both the pilot and his instructor.

 

The report, the AWIS data and the pilot's own account all seem to suggest that he fell into the trap of landing downwind in conditions that were somewhat variable. On a relatively short strip, that inevitably leads to problesm for the unwary. The moral is to look at the sock, listen to the traffic and look at the sock again... and go around early if things don't look right

 

At my home airfield, the preference is for take-offs to the north because of power lines on rising ground in the middle distance to the south. So I occasionally find the Warrior and Cessna brigades landing with a small downwind component on 35 whereas I have to use 17 for obvious reasons. It's also not uncommon to have the sock on the western boundary pointing in a substantially different direction to the higher sock on the eastern boundary being a great demonstration of the effects of surface friction on wind direction (and shelter vs exposure).

 

kaz

 

 

[dazza 38]

True Kaz, at boonah yesterday there are 3 wind socks.They all show the wind as different directions.I was flying on 04, not alot of wind around.I did about 4 circuits on 04 and changed to 22.The CFI with a student with over 25000 hours (ex Airline Pilot)contacted me on the radio(they where in the training area coming back to the field) and said Daryl why are you changing the circuit direction.I said because I am getting pushed on turning final. Good enough for him.Thats good enough for me.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Moral of the story, Dont always beleive wind socks.They are effected by buildings etc.

 

 

[winsor68]

Ok... Going to go out on another limb here and say... Ra-AUS and the aircraft that have come about because of it are not GA aircraft (and thank god for that!@) and as regards Garry Morgans or Jim Bede or Burt Rutan or Paul Probernezki (is that how you spell it?) or Walk Wittman etc etc etc None of them were able to make the advances (however controversial in some circumstances) by looking at GA aircraft and practices and saying "Well I guess I can see a better way of doing something but I better do it the GA way or the sky may fall in..."

 

Just saying...

 

 

[dazza 38]

Im Bias but Richard VanGrunsven(Has made the best performing fixed pitch prop aircraft for the money.CS props make then even better.IMO it is the best aircraft I have flown (not for long though).I can see where the RV grin started from though.Some guys here own them.I hope me soon.

 

 

[Virago]

Do windsocks require calibration at regular intervals>

 

 

[dazza 38]

Do windsocks require calibration at regular intervals>

Err no.You know that.

 

 

[Virago]

I can visualize the windsock of the future ... just like those electronic traffic advisory signs but showing digital readouts of wind speed and direction ... better still, transmitted to a display in the cockpit.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Moral of the story, Dont always beleive wind socks.They are effected by buildings etc.

Dazz,

I don't think I would go as far as to state that; the wind sock will always indicate wind direction at its location and as Kaz has said it will be affected by ground / structure friction. If wind exists it will vary around any typical Australian airfield unless you are out in the middle of nowhere on a huge flat area. How many times have you had to crab in due a cross wind and then as you straighten and drop the wing, the cross wind component seems to diminish, usually due to sheltering and ground friction? That can happen often and sometimes I think multiple wind socks only serve to confuse the inexperienced.

 

After a while you get a feel for wind and if you are on late final and your ground speed appears higher than normal and there is some concern you can always go around. It is always better to go around and be sure, than persist and potentially create a problem for your self. The trick is to make the go around decision while you still have flying speed, once you are down and running out of runway, the problem increases exponentially as we saw happened at Old Bar that day.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ok... Going to go out on another limb here and say... Ra-AUS and the aircraft that have come about because of it are not GA aircraft (and thank god for that!@) and as regards Garry Morgans or Jim Bede or Burt Rutan or Paul Probernezki (is that how you spell it?) or Walk Wittman etc etc etc None of them were able to make the advances (however controversial in some circumstances) by looking at GA aircraft and practices and saying "Well I guess I can see a better way of doing something but I better do it the GA way or the sky may fall in..."Just saying...

If you really look at Burt Rutan's designs you will understand that they are not designed or built anything like the traditional GA way. Hell the guy paved the way for all these plastic parrots. He has been known for 'outside the square' techniques. As for 99% of everything else they are just modern versions of GA using modern day materials and construction. The only reason they are not classed as GA here are that someone divided up the lower weight limits. IE if it weighs less than a C152 weight we can let someone else look after them. While you are out on that limb start sawing away. RAA = pseudo GA or Middo's 'tomorrow the world' attitude.

 

 

[dazza 38]

Dazz,I don't think I would go as far as to state that; the wind sock will always indicate wind direction at its location and as Kaz has said it will be affected by ground / structure friction. If wind exists it will vary around any typical Australian airfield unless you are out in the middle of nowhere on a huge flat area. How many times have you had to crab in due a cross wind and then as you straighten and drop the wing, the cross wind component seems to diminish, usually due to sheltering and ground friction? That can happen often and sometimes I think multiple wind socks only serve to confuse the inexperienced.

After a while you get a feel for wind and if you are on late final and your ground speed appears higher than normal and there is some concern you can always go around. It is always better to go around and be sure, than persist and potentially create a problem for your self. The trick is to make the go around decision while you still have flying speed, once you are down and running out of runway, the problem increases exponentially as we saw happened at Old Bar that day.

I didnt state that a windsock will always indicate wind direction.As per the second paragraph, I did exactly that.I changed the circuit direction because I could feel the aircraft being pushed on base and on final.The wind sock stated otherwise. One was showing that 04 was into the wind.The other two where just hanging down.The main one cannot be trusted as there is now a dirty great big hangar built beside it.It is getting moved.The best wind indicator at BoonahIMO, is the Flying Tigers Australian Flag.Which is on a high flag pole.

 

 

[dazza 38]

I better add for clarity, because I can see possible confusion on what I stated.

 

At Boonah, the 3 wind socks pretty much always show different directions, due to buildings and trees etc. When landing on 04 , close to the ground, the landing area is protected by hangars on both sides of the strip.A little further down on the left hand side, there a trees, directly opposite the trees there is no obstructions.So pilots have to be weary of it.Sometimes whilst at that stage the aircraft will be just about to touch down.Sometimes depending on wind, easterly.You will get a x wind component all of a sudden because there is nothing to block the wind, but there is a slight hill.If you land long, at touch down further down the strip.Where the strip dips in the middle, thats the point where if alot of the time you get hit by a stronger x wind component from the right, because there is nothing at all in the way of the wind. I hope this makes sense.

 

 

[David Isaac]

It does Dazz, Please understand I wasn't having a go at you at all. Just pointing out that multiple wind socks will frequently give different readings due obstructions, but they do show the actual wind at their respective locations as you know from Boonah. Where a windsock is in a poor position and is particularly misleading there is an arguable 'duty of care' to remove it.

 

We only have one at Warnervale and that can be a little misleading at times. You just need to be on the ball and your feet if you know what I mean.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It does Dazz, Please understand I wasn't having a go at you at all. Just pointing out that multiple wind socks will frequently give different readings due obstructions, but they do show the actual wind at their respective locations as you know from Boonah. Where a windsock is in a poor position and is particularly misleading there is an arguable 'duty of care' to remove it.

Visiting aircraft will not be aware of this sort of thing, easily fixed by an hour's working bee.

 

 

[dazza 38]

It is getting moved.This week I think.Probably already done by now.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There you go, easy....and safer.