Fatal Crash at Taree

[kgwilson]

Garry Morgan called me to advise that there has been a fatal crash at Taree this afternoon. It is believed the pilot is around 70 years of age and was flying a heavily modified single seat Super Diamond. It is understood that he (and Ra-Aus) had been warned on a number occasions of the impending problems but seemingly these were ignored.

 

See http://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/story/1451094/fatal-ultralight-crash-near-taree/?cs=1467

 

My sympathy is extended to his family and loved ones.

 

 

[cooperplace]

Everyone is of course very sad to hear this news. But do the above posts suggest that pilots over 70 shouldn't be flying?

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

Not sure how you made that jump.......my understanding on reading was that the "Heavily modified design was perhaps not as conducive to good aviation as the unmodified design was.....

 

Andy

 

 

[dazza 38]

Not sure how you made that jump.......my understanding on reading was that the "Heavily modified design was perhaps not as conducive to good aviation as the unmodified design was.....Andy

That is the way I read it as well.

And my condolences as well to the family & friends.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Either way a very sad outcome for all concerned. Too many of these happening lately, we have a duty to try and put an end to the number of fatalities among us.

 

 

[BIG BUBBLE]

Garry Morgan called me to advise that there has been a fatal crash at Taree this afternoon. It is believed the pilot is around 70 years of age and was flying a heavily modified single seat Super Diamond. It is understood that he (and Ra-Aus) had been warned on a number occasions of the impending problems but seemingly these were ignored.See http://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/story/1451094/fatal-ultralight-crash-near-taree/?cs=1467

 

My sympathy is extended to his family and loved ones.

" It is understood that he (and Ra-Aus) had been warned on a number occasions of the impending problems but seemingly these were ignored."

 

Dont know why this had to be posted- What is that ment to imply? [moderated - hostility]

 

 

[cooperplace]

Not sure how you made that jump.......my understanding on reading was that the "Heavily modified design was perhaps not as conducive to good aviation as the unmodified design was.....Andy

the original post is vague: "pilot around 70.......impending problems" seems to suggest an age issue? My sympathy to all near and dear to the pilot, and hopefully the facts will emerge soon.

 

 

[planedriver]

"Hells Bells" not again. Yet another really sad story to read on these forums.

 

I still cannot comprehend why when there is a sad occurence like this, that we never seem to get a report as to the possible cause, and everything seems to get brushed under the carpet, rarely to be heard of again.

 

There will always be a few well-intentioned speculators who may not have the full story, but in so many cases, there are other knowlegable flyers close to the scene, who may not be too far from the truth with what has happened.

 

There seems to be so much official secrecy over these events with the RAA, but if an initial report said the throttle cable stuck or a rudder cable appears to have broken, however, further investigations need to be made, many pilots could check these things a bit closer, which may possibly prevent a re-occurence.

 

"Maybe" being the operative word, is not directly pointing a finger of blame to any manufacturer or faulty component, it is simply stating a possibility which if notified in a timely fashion, could possibly save the life of one of our mates, or even ourselves.

 

One hell of a lot more needs to be done to overcome this issue, or, am I wrong?

 

My condolences go out to all those suffering a loss, and to the pilot RIP.

 

 

[ahlocks]

Several posts moderated or removed. Keep it civil folks or the thread gets locked.

 

 

[damkia]

" It is understood that he (and Ra-Aus) had been warned on a number occasions of the impending problems but seemingly these were ignored."Dont know why this had to be posted- What is that ment to imply?

It has been noted that there was one particular constructor of an aircraft that was not following the instructions given to them by the manufacturer, nor following them as required by the E-LSA regulations. This is that aircraft. This is that constructor.

The manufacturer as far as I know was the one that notified the RA-Aus of the construction deficiencies, and also notified the constructor. The constructor continued to ignore all warnings about the construction deficiencies.

 

Condolences to the family and friends.

 

("deficiency" = non-standard construction or unauthorised alteration)

 

 

[kgwilson]

Whether a constructor builds an aircraft to his/her own design, a specific design from plans or from a kit, the responsibility ultimately lies with the constructor for build quality, any modifications, additional features/functions or deleted features/functions. The aircraft is called "Amateur Built" under section 3.3.1 of the RA-Aus technical manual.

 

Whether the constructor is technically capable with sufficient knowledge of aeronautics is not a consideration. The above section of the technical manual is full of "It is advisable" and It is recommended" statements but has few actual directives other than a build log, minimum equipment levels, weight and performance limits, final inspection, placards etc. This provides the builder the freedom he needs to ensure the aircraft he wants, can be built. I would not like to see such freedoms diminished.

 

If the constructor decides to make changes that are considered as construction deficiencies by the designer or kit supplier and is advised of such, there is little anyone can do given the provisions of section 3.3.1.

 

The risk to the constructor increases exponentially with every deficiency noted. The designer/supplier is exercising his duty of care with the advice given of such deficiencies but is legally unable to do anything more other than report the situation to RA-Aus. Alarm bells must then ring loud and clear. If no action is taken, tragedies such as we have seen may occur. The result is the ultimate sacrifice of the constructor/pilot, loss and grief to family and friends and further erosion of the already poor safety image of the Recreational Flying community by the general public.

 

I believe that RA-Aus must take the lead in such situations. It has a duty of care to the constructor/member, to the rest of the Recreational Flying community and ultimately to CASA who have provided RA-Aus with the authority for self regulation.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Terrible outcome for bad workmanship.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I thought the initial post was pretty clear.

 

Both individuals and self-regulating groups must take responsibility for their actions, or it will eventually be forced upon them by Government regulators and they will cease to exist as such.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hypothetically speaking if a constructor of an aircraft makes 'unapproved' modifications to a kit supplied by a reputable manufacturer and on adverse advice from that manufacturer, chooses to ignore the advice, there is nothing the manufacturer or any authority can do. Perhaps one remedy may be a refusal to register such an aircraft by the authority under rules that allow them to refuse registration if indeed such rules exist under amateur built category.

 

There will always be individuals who ignore sound advice at their peril. It is simply not possible to legislate to protect any 'fool' from his own folly.

 

Young men tragically take risks that sometimes take their lives from us, we have all know someone who has done this. Life is risky in the pursuit of adventure and even more so for those who refuse to be mentored.

 

Lives lost under these circumstances cannot be 'saved' by legislation ... the consequences are the colateral damage of life and (mis)adventure.

 

I make no connection with my statements and the tragedy that ocurred in Taree, we have no information as to what caused that accident. I make my statements in response to the notion that legislation could fix this problem. None of us know all that we need to know and there is substantial merit in taking competent advice when building, maintaining and flying aircraft.

 

 

[metalman]

My condolences to the pilots family, it would be a painful time and I wish you all the support you need at this time

 

As for building his own plane I hope we never see this right taken away , sadly it hasn't worked out well in this instance but in this over regulated country there is very little we can do without the government holding our hand ( or tieing them up), good bad or ugly we have the right to experiment with flying machines and its a good thing, aviation would be in the dark ages without the experimenters, for all who want more regation, really, think about what your asking for!

 

 

[billwoodmason]

Was this accident caused by a structural failure?. By the nature of the preceding posts you would draw that conclusion. Does anyone actually know?. Surely no-one on this site would presume so without prior knowledge. Regardless of the cause I offer my sincere condolences to all close family and friends. RIP.

 

 

[Mr Mal]

Sad that the first post for a lost aviator - intimated he was at fault in some way for his untimely demise, which I offer sincere condolences for. I wonder if Cessna call to make the same intimations when one of 'their' birds go down?

 

If there were such problems with the plane maybe the manufacturer of the kit could have phoned RA-AUS and cancelled or changed the rego on the aircraft like he has done to others without their knowledge (of which I have first hand experience) ........... considering the previous history of the manufacturer and their involvement in another well known aircraft incident it would have been wiser to not post those comments.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Lets NOT go down that path shall we; the incident is sad enough without descending into this type of innuendo. Perhaps the initial comment was a little unwise, but for the record both the manufacturer and the RAA were aware of the allegations made and attempts were made by both parties to resolve them. Lets leave it at that shall we and let the investigation unearth the real cause.

 

For the record, the 'other'; infamous accident was NOT caused by any defect or quality problem with the aircraft, so lets leave the manufacturer out of this, he has had enough grief with this whole debacle, he needs to be allowed to get on with improving his systems and being a manufacturer.

 

 

[BIG BUBBLE]

It has been noted that there was one particular constructor of an aircraft that was not following the instructions given to them by the manufacturer, nor following them as required by the E-LSA regulations. This is that aircraft. This is that constructor.The manufacturer as far as I know was the one that notified the RA-Aus of the construction deficiencies, and also notified the constructor. The constructor continued to ignore all warnings about the construction deficiencies.

 

Condolences to the family and friends.

 

("deficiency" = non-standard construction or unauthorised alteration)

Wow didnt know a single seat 19 registered plane was covered by E-LSA! I'll have to look it up.

You say "AS FAR AS I KNOW"- Or should it be- "What I've been told". But by who and for what reason?

 

I knew the aircraft, I knew the constructor. But I don't know the exact cause of the crash

 

My point was the pilot had only just passed away and already people with all this"inside knowledge" were having a sly dig . As I said anything could of happened. The implications that it was bound to happen due to either age of the pilot or the fact that he modified

 

version of a kit plane was the cause of the accident is at this moment completely baseless.

 

No good giving condolences after throwing knives- you should be ashamed of yourselves

 

 

[Admin]

ENOUGH...

 

You may start another thread with condolences to the family and friends but please, no finger pointing...Please read the site rules which state:

 

3. Accidents and Incidents

 

1. Comments, discussions etc on any accident or incident will only take place in the designated forum titled "Accidents & Incidents".
    
    
   
2. Accidents and Incidents posts are to be made with consideration to them being a learning tool for the betterment of all forum members
    
    
   
3. No conclusions shall be made on the cause of any accident.
    
    
   
4. No allocation of personal blame shall be made directly or indirectly at any person.
    
    
   
5. Possible causes, or contributory factors, of an accident may be explored and opinion given based on the poster’s demonstrated reasons for giving such opinion.
    
    
   
6. All posts shall be sensible of the feelings of family and friends and expressed accordingly.
    
    
   
7. Strict moderation will be applied to all posts to ensure these rules are adhered to.