RAAus legal matter

[Teckair]

There was even people on another thread suggesting that with some aircraft you can simply hold full back stick and the aircraft will float down to the ground in parachute fashion.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

I read many things on forums posted by those that have obtained a certificate or license to pilot an aircraft that leave me gobsmacked.

 

It is obvious that there are some serious faults in training. Glad i taught myself how to fly.

 

 

[facthunter]

If I hadn't seen it I would have doubted it too. but if you don't believe me, that means you consider me a liar, which I am not. . The rest of it somewhat qualified the manoeuver and I did not recommend it, It was also specific to a foxbat, so let's keep things in context shall we.?.

 

I am sure you wouldn't want to be quoted out of context. eh!.Nev

 

 

[slartibartfast]

The Smith and Guthrie coroner report is disappointing. All the stuff on engines and props was irrelevant. The pilot's failure to carry out a survivable forced landing was the real issue.The whole reason for our freedom from onerous GA type regulation is that our landing speeds are low enough that we can survive an engine failure. Yet we had a silly woman of a coroner hardly address the issue of the pilots not handling the engine-out landing, making silly excuses (downdrafts etc ) which if true would mean most glider landings would be crashes.

These guys in the plane were experienced? I bet they weren't at engine-out landings. They probably did the classic thing and panicked and stalled with the result that they hit nose-down in a fairly open area.

 

I know the aircraft was a Sting with a Rotax engine, but the first page of the Jabiru flight manual says that the aircraft is , like any single-engine aircraft, is to be operated where an engine failure can be tolerated.

 

Well this sure implies that the resultant landing be done properly, with a flair-out. Even if the wings are ripped off, this would be survivable. This survivability of controlled forced landings has been written up many times, and it all applies particularly well to RAAus planes with their slow landing speeds.

 

Bruce

Bruce, I don't mean to be harsh, but when the windscreen is covered in oil, it doesn't matter how experienced you are. It's not a good look to criticize dead people when you aren't in possession of all the facts.

In general, what you say is true. But applied to this accident, may well be unfair.

 

On the other hand, it doesn't explain why the BRS wasn't deployed until it hit the ground.

 

We may never have the whole picture on this one.

 

It may not have been covered in oil, but it is a detail I heard second hand.

 

 

[Teckair]

If I hadn't seen it I would have doubted it too. but if you don't believe me, that means you consider me a liar, which I am not. . The rest of it somewhat qualified the manoeuver and I did not recommend it, It was also specific to a foxbat, so let's keep things in context shall we.?.I am sure you wouldn't want to be quoted out of context. eh!.Nev

For that very reason I did not quote you and I do not think you are a lair. My post was not aimed at any one person, from memory there were 3 or more people all with different aircraft suggesting that manoeuvre could work.

 

 

[Teckair]

On from post 80 That bit got accidentally posted then I got interrupted here is more... I am not sure what you saw but I don't believe for a second you are making it up. I am not aware of any aircraft that I think would do that, my understanding is even parachutes have to be flared, certainly the Aerochute that I flew had to be flared to land in an acceptable manner. Even the Quicksilver MX with its very light wing loading will not do that. What you saw is a mystery to me but then so are many magician tricks. I am sorry but I just cannot see how a Foxbat could do that, I reckon if you did it from height it would end up in a spiral dive and rip the wings off.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Fair point Slarti. I have done many glider landings in paddocks over the years, but never with the screen covered in oil. I would think you would have to lose the top cowl as well as having a catastrophic engine break-up for this to happen.

 

On the subject of mush-down landings, us old guys who once had free-flight models will remember "dethermalisers" where the whole tailplane tilted up at 45 degrees and then the model reared up and then parachuted down on its wings. It sure wouldn't work with a Jabiru because of the the relative tailplane size and the lack of that much elevator. And even then it would come down real fast. This speed could be calculated quite easily, I'd be surprised if it were survivable.

 

Bruce

 

 

[facthunter]

It didn't flare, because it couldn't. It hit the ground flat at it's stabilised ROD and spread the U/C which appeared to recover to at least a normal appearance. I was about 500 feet from where it landed. near the upwind threshold at Benambra. ( Lake Omeo).. I assumed it was an engine failure, at about 250 ft, but it could have been a demonstration. Who knows?. I didn't enquire. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

On the other matter, Bruce , I understood the plane after the engine failure contacted the top of a tree while it was going downwind,( so this would have had it at a fairly high groundspeed). It then fell to the ground and I think the ballistic chute deployed then and the wind dragged the plane some distance. If I have this wrong , please correct me but that is what I recall from a report. There was another report on the condition of the crankshaft which had failed at the front flange due to a section of it breaking away where the other part is press fitted in. there was no way of determining the fit but the metalurgical analysis gave the metal spec and the heat treatment as OK. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

It didn't flare, because it couldn't. It hit the ground flat at it's stabilised ROD and spread the U/C which appeared to recover to at least a normal appearance. I was about 500 feet from where it landed. near the upwind threshold at Benambra. ( Lake Omeo).. I assumed it was an engine failure, at about 250 ft, but it could have been a demonstration. Who knows?. I didn't enquire. Nev

Still a mystery to me, normally when the wing stops flying the nose should drop.

 

 

[facthunter]

Could have something to do with slotted flaps and other boundary layer control devices. Might be paravaning rather that parachuting.. Nev

 

 

[Gentreau]

Could have something to do with slotted flaps and other boundary layer control devices. Might be paravaning rather that parachuting.. Nev

Like the Rallye "Tin parachutes" ?

 

http://www.pprune.org/private-flying/129643-flying-tin-parachute.html#post1332570

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Gosh Nev were you there? What an awful thing to see.

 

Here's what upset me on reading the coroner's report...

 

The pilot " responded appropriately and skilfully" to the engine failure but because of "unwanted speed...downdrafts.."the aircraft hit the ground nose first"

 

In the summary..."catastrophic engine failure and AS A RESULT hit the ground" (my capitals)

 

That coroner is a stupid and uneducated woman to have written those things. She needs to go for a glider flight and to study science instead of law for a bit.

 

She didn't say if the screen was covered with oil which if true does explain the crash somewhat.

 

Bruce

 

 

[David Isaac]

Still a mystery to me, normally when the wing stops flying the nose should drop.

Not always Richard,

Some designs go into a high sink rate and don't drop the nose if you hold the stick right back. Even a J3 Cub wont drop the nose with the stick hard back as long as you keep her straight with your feet. The J3 will descend in a falling leaf manner. I have done this personally, but cant recall the actual ROD. An aircraft with a specifically designed STOL wing with auto deploying slats will also allow a scarey high angle in the virtual stall such as a Rallye MS880B which I have also flown.

 

Ole Hartman's Hornet can be held with the stick hard back if you are strong enough (gets real heavy in the full stall) and the aircraft stays straight and just sinks. Letting a wing drop in this scenario will have you instantly in an incipient spin if you are stupid enough to hold the stick hard back. In a deliberate spin that is what we do except we introduce full rudder deflection and excite the wing drop at the same time as the stall (high sink rate) and hold full rudder deflection and full stick back until we wont to exit the spin.

 

The ROD would depend on the wing loading and all up weight. With big suspension like the Hornet and crush zones, I believe you could survive a descent like that. BUT I am definitely NOT ADVOCATING THAT.. It is just my perception and observation. Why would you do that when you can glide in and land normally except where there is nowhere to land.