Too many accidents

[Gentreau]

You guys might find this data useful as a comparison.

 

It is called the Hawk Report and was compiled as part of the consultation for the design of the European flavour of the LSA (ELA).

 

They looked at different countries across Europe with differing regulations and tried to identify which regulations really had an impact.

 

The conclusion was, you probably guessed it, pilot training. Makes interesting reading if you've got time.

 

HAWK-Final Report 26 Nov 10.pdf

 

.

 

 

[REastwood]

A speculation that I have, and I have talked to a few people who have had engine failures, is that one of the differences between GA and RA-Aus is that there are a lot more Owner/Pilots in RA-Aus (and GA Experimental) than in GA (certified) and a few people have stated that they didn't want to damage their pride and joy when having to do a forced landing. This may very well lead to the problem of "stretching the glide" leading to a stall/spin, or a risky turn back to the airfield. If you are flying a "rental" it is more likely you are only thinking of you and your pax, and stuff the aircraft.

 

I heard an interesting stat when doing my NVFR, apparently in USA the death rate for single engine aircraft is lower at night than during the day. This was attributed to the fact that at night, because you cannot see much, you fly the aircraft into the ground, whilst during the day you might try to get somewhere and cause a stall/spin.

 

I was always told that if, during flight, you have a failure then the aircraft immediately belongs to the insurance company so there is no longer any need to try and save the aircraft just save yourself. It is better to hit a tree a 20-30 knots than the ground nose first at 70+ knots.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

I only just now got time to catch up and read this whole thread, some interesting stuff here. Just a couple of comments that I don't follow the background of -

 

We cop a lot of this from people who until they get into a small plane and fly it properly, ( like Dick smith) really should not make too much comment.

Nev, do you mean Dick Smith did, or didn't fly small planes? Does this refer to his time as head of DCA/CAA or something?

 

Slow/ light aircraft go from flying to fluttering more readily than GA aircraft around the stall speed, because wind gusts are proportionately more important and because they lack inertia.

PM - in this comment do you mean control surface flutter? I thought control surfaces fluttered at high speeds rather than near the stall speed, or are you referring to lighter aircraft just losing controllability near the stall?

 

 

[kgwilson]

It seems to be attributed to Captain A. G. Lamplugh, British Aviation Insurance Group, London. c. early 1930's.More info on Skygod.com

Fascinating, there are some great quotes on that site.

 

 

[facthunter]

HITC,Dick smith flies small and varied aircraft. trikes etc. Not referring to any particular time , but he was head of CASA at one stage as you would be aware. He met some internal resistamce there, but maybe they wanted to be unchanged in the way they did things. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

HITC,Dick smith flies small and varied aircraft. trikes etc. Not referring to any particular time , but he was head of CASA at one stage as you would be aware. He met some internal resistamce there, but maybe they wanted to be unchanged in the way they did things. Nev

Ah, I see what you mean, thanks. Always a controversial one but I've always found him a fascinating person. He certainly did come up against it, as I remember it he saw a massive cultural problem within the old DoA and was loudly critical which got him the loss of certain 'privileges'. His book which is now online Two years in the Aviation Hall of Doom is an absolute must-read for anyone who wants to know the inside story of DoA bureaucracy. Essentially he was told to put up or shut up and so he volunteered to re-structure the whole thing, got rid of the Dept of Aviation and formed a new QANGO (?) the Civil Aviation Authority.

 

While in the Kimberley I was chartered by Australian Geographic while Dick still owned it, to provide the helicopter service for the Search for the Anchors of The Beagle expedition. Dick flew his Citation in to a gravel strip on Sara Henderson's Bullo River Station where we were all billeted and from there I had the humbling task of flying him and the rest of the team around for the next couple of weeks in a Jetranger. We had some fairly tricky airwork and confined area landings to do and even though Dick had recently returned from his Round the World flight and the North Pole attempt in his Jetranger he was very generous about avoiding any flinching ... and he also gave me some very eye-opening accounts of some of his exploits both airborne and with CAA.

 

It is always interesting to see people's reactions to him at airports. Wherever he lands he takes the time to visit every hangar and say goodday to everyone and ask their opinions about all and sundry. If more personnel from Regulatory bodies did that they'd have far more fingers on the buttons. Even so, he didn't always get a good reaction, there are still a lot of folks out there that think it was better the way the old DoA ran things.

 

 

[Yenn]

Yes Dick is easy to get on with and also passionate about flying, but I wouldn't agree with all he was apparently trying to get changed in the dept. If he had had his way we would have been worse of I think.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

HITC I didn't mean control flutter, just that LSAs are less stable than heavier aircraft. Going from my 550kg LSA to a Piper Archer is like going from the Archer to a WW2 Harvard (for example, from experience). Heavier aircraft don't move about so much and I think are easier to fly and more predictable. Landing an Archer just requires pulling the throttle, holding off, letting the speed wash off and is settles gently. Try that in my Texan and it falls suddenly out of the sky from a few feet up, you have to fly it onto the ground with some power on. The power is also needed to keep enough airflow over the rudder. I suspect that in a forced landing I would do a much better job in the Archer. I suspect that I would be much more likely to stall/spin an LSA than a GA aircraft under the pressure of turning final for a forced landing, maybe trying to stretch the glide.

 

Some of the recent posters seem to be quite confident about making forced landings, but I think it may be misplaced confidence. That thinking could lead to flying with known defects, stretching fuel, flying in marginal VMC etc.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Good points PM. Reading the Morgan motorgliders thread the other day was the first I knew about RAA aircraft no longer being allowed to turn the engine off. (Note to self to read the whole ops manual again).

 

I have to admit to being horrified to learn that. When we were teaching in Drifters in the 1980s all students did most landings with no power above idle, and a dozen or so before solo fully dead stick from at least 1500 over the top.

 

I never found a plane that needed power for control effectiveness at any speed but they were more ultralightish back then with large tail volume. You're dead right their low inertia results in an abrupt stall if you don't watch your angle of attack though.

 

 

[facthunter]

U/Ls can lose speed quickly The light draggy ones lose it fast when the engine quits and this was the reason for the performance categories, and the emphasis on getting the nose down quickly so the speed doesn't decay ..

 

This phenomenon is not confined to the 'typical known draggy" aircraft only, as some other more slippery planes will do much the same when full flap is expended, (thereby changing them into a draggy aircraft) The tecnam Echo? is capable of this and at least one has been written off from a low level manoeuver where the speed dropped off quickly.

 

There is no doubt that attention to controlling airspeed is required to a higher degree with our planes, than with plane like a Beech Bonanza. I feel ultralights require a high skill level to have the control required in extreme situations. A good seat of the pants feel is needed to be developed as you can't fly it watching the ASI all the time. If a sink starts you have to react quickly. Adverse aileron effect is there too, to a geater extent than bigger stuff. Life wasn't meant to be easy eh! Nev

 

 

[Gentreau]

........When we were teaching in Drifters in the 1980s all students did most landings with no power above idle, and a dozen or so before solo fully dead stick from at least 1500 over the top.

Quite a lot of microlight instructors in France do the same, they teach a "microlight approach" which is done with engine on idle at 1.3xVs, aiming 1/3 along the runway, with the comensurate steep angle. Then just before the threshold they teach a gentle 'plunge' to increase speed before flaring over the threshold. I beleive this helps to reduce the chances of a sudden drop, as you arrive over the threshold a few feet off the ground with decent speed but wings level and the speed bleeding off. The other advantage it has, is if your judgement is out and you come up a bit short on approach, you just continue without the plunge.

 

.

 

 

[Gentreau]

.......I feel ultralights require a high skill level to have the control required in extreme situations. A good seat of the pants feel is needed to be developed as you can't fly it watching the ASI all the time. If a sink starts you have to react quickly. Adverse aileron effect is there too, to a geater extent than bigger stuff. Life wasn't meant to be easy eh! Nev

I had an interesting conversation with a French Air Force instructor a little while back. He had worked on initial assesment of candidatates for pilot training and told me that he had noticed a marked difference between candidates who had flown microlights and those who had only flown GA.

 

The difference he noted was in control finesse and feel for the aircraft.

 

+1 for the lightweights eh

 

.

 

 

[facthunter]

You need a double flare sometimes if you are fast with a commensurate high sink rate. The first one, a bit higher and not too much, gets you where you would be normally, ( speed and height) and the second is to make a nice contact with the field. Hope this makes sense.. Nev

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Yes, Gentreau, and also that speed increase when passing through the 1-200ft zone gets you through the wind gradient with sufficient airspeed left, which can be easy to forget under pressure.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

Good points PM. Reading the Morgan motorgliders thread the other day was the first I knew about RAA aircraft no longer being allowed to turn the engine off. (Note to self to read the whole ops manual again).

The restriction is only in the circuit area and dead stick is still allowed with a CFI on aboard.

Your "note to self" is still a good idea though ;-)

 

I have to admit to being horrified to learn that. When we were teaching in Drifters in the 1980s all students did most landings with no power above idle

AFAIK this is still the norm especially at schools with low momentum types

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

You guys might find this data useful as a comparison.It is called the Hawk Report and was compiled as part of the consultation for the design of the European flavour of the LSA (ELA).

They looked at different countries across Europe with differing regulations and tried to identify which regulations really had an impact.

 

The conclusion was, you probably guessed it, pilot training. Makes interesting reading if you've got time.

 

HAWK-Final Report 26 Nov 10.pdf

 

.

Thanks for this - an interesting read & pre-empted my conclusion too

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[M61A1]

A speculation that I have, and I have talked to a few people who have had engine failures, is that one of the differences between GA and RA-Aus is that there are a lot more Owner/Pilots in RA-Aus (and GA Experimental) than in GA (certified) and a few people have stated that they didn't want to damage their pride and joy when having to do a forced landing. This may very well lead to the problem of "stretching the glide" leading to a stall/spin, or a risky turn back to the airfield. If you are flying a "rental" it is more likely you are only thinking of you and your pax, and stuff the aircraft.I heard an interesting stat when doing my NVFR, apparently in USA the death rate for single engine aircraft is lower at night than during the day. This was attributed to the fact that at night, because you cannot see much, you fly the aircraft into the ground, whilst during the day you might try to get somewhere and cause a stall/spin.

I was always told that if, during flight, you have a failure then the aircraft immediately belongs to the insurance company so there is no longer any need to try and save the aircraft just save yourself. It is better to hit a tree a 20-30 knots than the ground nose first at 70+ knots.

I have heard this more than a few times........not sure I agree with it though. I generally think along the lines that the better condition my aircraft is in at the end of it, the better condition I am going to be in. So instead of choosing to rip my wings off on trees (which would be an obvious choice if it comes to that), I choose not to fly where I don't have a good chance of landing safely. I have made a couple of forced landings in my short flying history, and this concept seems to have paid off so far.

I have to wonder whether or not the fact that these flash factory built "safe" aircraft are flown more often in a manner that would suggest they will never fail, is a contributing factor in a higher fatality rate.

 

Of course, they inevitably do fail, and then we get the familiar outcome where someone gets hurt/killed then they or a relative wants to sue someone else because their factory built an unsafe aircraft or allowed an unsafe aircraft to be registered, not because they flew it in an unsafe manner. I recall reading many incidents in the old AUF mag involving engine failures that ended with "uneventful forced landing carried out, I don't see that much any more.(not even worded differently)

 

 

[M61A1]

Also, in regard to the earlier mentions the the "human factors" courses, I think that it is the "Australian way", to take a good idea and screw with it until it's worse than what you had before. This is not just relevant to RAAus, but other large organisations that I worked for in the aviation industry. "Human factors" could be a really useful tool, but the we implement such ideas ends up making it next to useless.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Why is it ok in RAAus to have forced landings? There seems to be a lot of it about. I don't think GA pilots have much experience of forced landings.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

To explain that comment further, when I was learning to fly a Drifter I accepted that the fan might stop and flew accordingly, but a modern factory built LSA if properly maintained ahold be just as reliable as a GA aircraft.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

To explain that comment further, when I was learning to fly a Drifter I accepted that the fan might stop and flew accordingly, but a modern factory built LSA if properly maintained ahold be just as reliable as a GA aircraft.

Being a four stroke should mean that it might stop less often than the two strokes in the Drifter you learnt in. But all engines stop sometime and you never know when that will be so you should still fly any aircraft like you were taught in the Drifter I.e. with a suitable outlanding site available IMHO.

 

 

[XP503]

To explain that comment further, when I was learning to fly a Drifter I accepted that the fan might stop and flew accordingly, but a modern factory built LSA if properly maintained ahold be just as reliable as a GA aircraft.

GA aircraft are just as ''unreliable'' as any aircraft since the Wright brothers. All pilots should take to the skies with a plan in place for when (not if) things go wrong, no matter what you are flying.

 

 

[poteroo]

Everyone points to pilot training as being the primary cause of the accident rate - but I think it needs some dissection. Can it be said that deficient primary training is the cause? Or, is it really due to lack of currency in emergency manoeuvres?

 

If you subscribe to the latter - then do you agree that going out for some 'solo' practice is nigh on useless because it's all played too safe, and too infrequently?

 

happy days,

 

 

[alf jessup]

Everyone points to pilot training as being the primary cause of the accident rate - but I think it needs some dissection. Can it be said that deficient primary training is the cause? Or, is it really due to lack of currency in emergency manoeuvres?If you subscribe to the latter - then do you agree that going out for some 'solo' practice is nigh on useless because it's all played too safe, and too infrequently?

happy days,

Poteroo,

 

I don't think it has much at all to do with training, more so attitude once you got your ticket and your out on your own.

 

Your taught how to fly the plane within it's limitations, your taught beat ups are not a smart thing to do, your taught everything to keep yourself safe while flying.

 

But once your out on your own it's your disciplined flying skills that keep you alive or not.

 

The human being is funny in the sense that we can do perfectly good at everything we do in life then all of a sudden we do something stupid, rash, dumb, lapse in concentration, silly whatever that we can pay for dearly.

 

Age old saying guns don't kill people, people kill people, cars don't crash people crash cars, same for planes and everything else in the human industrial world.

 

I don't as you don't or anyone else in the world know what any other persons next move is other than your own.

 

Same as flight training, your taught to do it safe and keep you alive, once the instructor is no longer there your life and your pax are in your hands and at the end of the day your outcome comes only down to this.

 

And practicing these skill taught to you should be continued throughout your life IMO

 

Hope you get to understand what I am trying to say and sorry for harping on.

 

Alf

 

 

[facthunter]

Cowboy attitude has a lot to do with it but I keep thinking the training can be at fault. Why do I think this? Well on quite a few occasions I have said to pilots . Why didn't you just do "so and so"? and the reply has been something like..." I didn't know you could do that". It can be a big revelation to fly with other pilots.....Don't forget the majority of Airline pilots have never spun an aeroplane, these days... Nev