Too many accidents

[facthunter]

I tried. nev

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Well I must say it's a nice day here skulking about at the bottom end of the gene pool!

 

 

[facthunter]

I didn't know a gene pool had a bottom. It is a "pool" in a different sense. He might be referring to bottom feeders, and the food chain. Nev

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Remember that in any pool, the scum is on the top.

 

Can someone fix the spelling in the title of this thread? It's driving me crazy.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

Can someone fix the spelling in the title of this thread? It's driving me crazy.

Me too; kept quiet thinking I was the only pedant here.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Do you mean the grammar?

 

 

[alf jessup]

Sunfish,

 

Seen as though you weren't a pilot at the time and knew no better I will retract my statement about you being an unsafe pilot.

 

But not all to happy about your comment about all us rec pilots being at the bottom of the gene pool in regards to flying.

 

I will also rectract my statement about not talking to you in the future as I most probably will if it is worthy of a reply and not in a degrading manner.

 

Everyone who shares the skies has equal rights from an A380 captain right down to a PPG pilot which I might add are probably one of the safest forms of flying.

 

Cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Do you mean the grammar?

No, I mean spelling.

If your argument is that the incorrect word was used, that's not a grammatical error, that's a malapropism.

 

In order to be an effective smartarse, one should probably begin by being smart.

 

 

[DGL Fox]

OMG:groan: let's all go back to skool..what sort of forum is this again???

 

 

[Admin]

Can someone fix the spelling in the title of this thread? It's driving me crazy.

Fixed!

 

 

[slartibartfast]

Fixed!

I hope you're kidding Ian.

 

 

[Yenn]

I don't care where I am in the gene pool, but I do reserve the right to pass judgement on what people say. I don't exercise a right to comment on other people, just keep it to myself. I took the gene pool comment as a bit of fun, nothing malicious.

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

Starts in games, ends in tears....

 

 

[Guest SAJabiruflyer]

Alf:But not to forget the issue. RAA attracts the shallow end of the Gene pool, apart from all those lovely people in Jabirus and Virus, etc How are you going to excrete the crap?

Tornado: "Tough Love" might be a very good idea - and keep more people alive.

That reads better, less arrogant and dried-grape-like if you were to say "Like every organisation in all walks of life, RAA attracts some members from the shallow end of the Gene pool, apart from all those lovely people in Jabirus and Virus, etc How are you going to excrete the crap?

 

 

[Phil Perry]

No, I mean spelling.If your argument is that the incorrect word was used, that's not a grammatical error, that's a malapropism.

In order to be an effective smartarse, one should probably begin by being smart.

1) Is this the five minute argument,. . . or the full half hour ?? ( Apologies to Monty Python )

 

2) Could a digital malapropism be described as a syntax error, or just fingertrouble ?

 

Back to topic ??

 

Phil

 

 

[slartibartfast]

2) Could a digital malapropism be described as a syntax error, or just fingertrouble ?

Phil, you got massive points for the python reference. But digital malapropism=finger trouble? I'm still ROFLing.

That's too clever.

 

What was the topic again?

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Dan3111 made my case:

 

have been flying since late 1980'' . There was the odd ultralight pilot death year to year but rare we new the pliot but we saw a **** load of crashs every weekend which never made it to the news as a lot of flying was done out of paddocks. I have seen props come off ,wheels come off , planes that have stall turned into the ground seen them fly throw power lines and fences ground loop list goes on . The two stroke motor,s of the elary days stopped many times a year weather you liked it or no as they had points and bad cooling etc . But all those weekend after weekend of thrills and spill,s some how the pliots walked way out of the dust storm they made with there smash you never saw a fire after impacted .

 

........and now Dan is worried that slicker, heavier machines seem to cause more fatalities. I wouldn't be surprised at all if the mindset he depicted in his quote continues among some, but obviously not all RAA members.

 

To put that another way, "thrills and spills" are not a valid reason for aviation. How is RAA going to weed out those that think that way? Yes, GA has cowboys but there are administrative procedures for removing them even if they do fail spectacularly as in the apparent case of one Mt. Hempel.

 

And as a final note, No Mr. Baker, you cannot have my name and phone number and in all my time on the internet no one has ever asked for it. Are you lot that thin skinned? Says a lot really.

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Furthermore the ATSB has just issued a report on VH registered amateur built aircraft. While RAA is excluded, it suggests to me that there is a very steep learning curve involved in flying these aircraft and that engine problems and loss of control are responsible for a large proportion of the accidents.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4104579/AR-2007-043%282%29%20FINAL.pdf

 

I would assume that the same might be true for RAA registered aircraft. Our own experience was that we had three accidents involvling Evector sportstars and finally realised that they were not a machine for Ab Initio training and could be a handful for anyone in a crosswind, so we got rid of them.

 

FWIW I'm building a high wing aircraft and I'm probably going to use the new Rotax 912 iS.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Furthermore the ATSB has just issued a report on VH registered amateur built aircraft. While RAA is excluded, it suggests to me that there is a very steep learning curve involved in flying these aircraft and that engine problems and loss of control are responsible for a large proportion of the accidents.http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4104579/AR-2007-043(2) FINAL.pdf

 

I would assume that the same might be true for RAA registered aircraft. Our own experience was that we had three accidents involvling Evector sportstars and finally realised that they were not a machine for Ab Initio training and could be a handful for anyone in a crosswind, so we got rid of them.

 

FWIW I'm building a high wing aircraft and I'm probably going to use the new Rotax 912 iS.

Hi Sunfish. . . .

 

Our school hase 1 ( one ) Evector Eurostar ( same aircraft as the sportstar in OZ, ) and my mate Mick Smith ( 4,000 Hour CFI ) would be a bit perplexed re your comments that the aircraft is unsuitable for Ab Inits.

 

He has trained lots and lots and lots od students in this aircraft, from Ab Initio, as there isn't another aircraft available for the purpose at our small Club. . . he has ammassed over 1700 hours in the same airframe with no crashes, incidents, fender-benders or anything at all. It uses the Rotax 912 80 HP engine, which has been regularly serviced and has never repeat never failed in use.

 

The aircraft had to be returned to the Czech factory for a spar mod, where they had purchased crap aluminium parts from some joint in Russia, but apart from this, which was a mandatory A/D, he has had no operational issues with the machine.

 

Perhaps you could be more careful when making unguarded comments about a particular type and then generalising the lot as rubbish. . . .

 

Just a thought mate... and no offence intended.

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Phil we had Three Sportstars, for a while. Please understand that they were a delight to fly. They were also beautifully built. However they weren't rugged enough on the ground for us ham fisted Aussies.

 

The first one got bent in a heavy landing by a newly qualified Commercial pilot. He took a Sportstar on a trip to Darwin (1500 nautical miles) and back to build hours. I'm not sure how he did it but the lightweight LSA can develop very very high sink rates when you close the throttle because it has such low inertia and I suspect that is what caught him.

 

The Second was a real pearler. A gentleman with rather large feet was undergoing instruction on the Sportstar. At the commencement of the takeoff roll he managed to put his left foot on the left rudder pedal but managed to put his right foot on the left rudder pedal of the right hand set. Of course as he started to drift a little left, he countered with "right" rudder only to make things worse. Then his alarmed instructor told him to apply "a bootfull" of right ruddder with predictable results. The right gear failed and down she went with the prop beating itself to death. No injuries thank God.

 

The Third I don't remember the cause, but the Two remaining ended up with gravel rash on the wing tips and aileron corners from landing crosswind. The Twelve knot limit is just too low. The gear legs are too short and furthermore you run out of aileron authority at 1.3 Vs. I almost got caught myself.

 

The result was that we purchased Three second hand C152's out of the States and renovated them.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

OK, the first two incidents you described were really TRAINING issues,. . . . these things are NOT designed like Russian military aircraft, ie, they will not survive being thrown down a flight of concrete steps, and the fact that one of the students was an ex-commercial driver doesn't really figure, as these are STILL conversion training issues. Very light aircraft are exactly what it says on the box,. . . . Very Light.

 

I've always wondered why someone doesn't design an aeroplane for PURE training, ie, one that will withstand a 3G bounced landing, with no structural deformation, as I'm sure every instructor will agree that if you don't allow a newbie the odd "Hardish" landing, then he'll do it himself accidentally. . . . and I'm sure that with your experiences you probably made the right choice with the purchase of some 152s, as these were tested originally to withstand a static drop from a height of thirty feet, there are very FEW if any LSA types which are built to a similar standard, . . .they CAN'T be, as the weight of construction would preclude this. SO. . . . . . . what do we do about it then ?. . . maybe, better, or more switched on instructors ??? a clearer understanding of the limits and quirks dispayed by particular students ?

 

So is the issue better training, . . . ? or cast Iron aeroplanes ??

 

I don't have the answer to this one. . .

 

Phil

 

 

[Guest sunfish]

Yes Phil, all training issues. I totally agree. The Sportstar is a nice aircraft, but given our club environment we couldn't get them to work. We needed something more rugged where the consequences of the inevitable mistakes weren't so bad.

 

One or Two bullet proof trainers exist in the military.

 

In our case the tempo of training and the weather can give you an unholy mix. Moorrabin Airport is close to the Bay and we can and occasionally experience Fifteen to Seventeen knot crosswinds and considerable turbulence at any time of the year. My experience was that Ab Initio training only ceased when the wind was gusting around 30 knots - although one day like that I went up for the "fly backwards" trick in a C150.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

One other thing about converting "Commercial" pilots to lighter machines . . . . I have, over some years, been involved in this task and in nearly ALL cases, I got the standard response when telling the guy something of " I know,. . . I know" but the thing is that they bloody well DON'T !

 

A lot of them assume that, because they've been there,. . .done that,. . .flown this. . .flown that. . . that you are trying to show them something which to them is obvious. and that you are failing to respect their high ranking commercial experience. And a lot of instructors fall for this. It's all bull. If the person does NOT display a straightforward understanding of the concept you are trying your best to convey, then either, he isn't listening. OR he thinks he's better than you anyway and you are belittling hs vast experience and/or wasting his time. Been there. . . seen that, sadly, on numerous occasions.

 

The "Inertia" or, actually , lack thereof, with lighter flying machines, appears to be one of the main problems I've encountered when checkriding ex-heavy pilots. It REALY DOES take them quite a while to get into the saddle in this regard, and this should be considered and recognised by any instructor worth his salt.

 

However, if the instructor has never flown a B747, or Airbus A380, then it CAN be difficult to see the situation from the other side ! ! ! ! !

 

And I always like to be FAIR ! ! !

 

Phil

 

 

[David Isaac]

The C150/2 series would have to be the closest to bullet proof on the civilian register. I have seen them stalled form 30', bounced, yawed from damn near wing tip to wing tip and they mostly still remain airworthy. The one stalled from 30' was pulled off the line, inspection plates removed, nothing found in need of repair and immediately put back on the line. The great thing about them is you can let a student make a mistake and the only thing that will 'feel' the consequences is the student and a wincing instructor ... LOL.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Phil, you got massive points for the python reference. But digital malapropism=finger trouble? I'm still ROFLing.That's too clever.

What was the topic again?

Errrr,. . . . . I think it was, no wait, . . .was it, er, ang on, I know,. . . . .I think it was summat about, er,. . . a propensity of unplanned and possibly undesireable interfaces with the ground and / or other solid objects not conducive to the sensible survival of lightweight flying apparatus and contents or summat like that,. or, I could be wrong. . . .