Ultralight puts down in Banks Strait, Tasmania

[coljones]

I prefer to see jail terms for violent crimes and serious offences.Others can be punished in other ways.

I agree it was foolhardy to take the flight, but don't see it as a malicious intent against something or someone.

You may well find a lack of malicious intent in quite a few cases of manslaughter but that doesn't necessarily mean that those found guilty shouldn't get a custodial sentence.

 

 

[facthunter]

Oscar I rarely disagree with you but every U'L pilot should be able to safely fly a circuit WITHOUT an ASI. I'm not suggesting you should intentionally do it and set out on a long over water flight without one (if that is the case),but it's a skill all flyers of "basic " aircraft should be able to cope with. I would expect they might err on the side of safety on the approach and carry a few knots, and expect a bit more runway would be used. Mud from wasps or an insect in the Pitot tube, water etc can render the instrument useless. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Nev, I agree - but in a circuit ( in my limited experience, being almost all gliders.). you have familiar clues as to what the wind is etc. Over water, I suspect it's a whole lot different: as a yachtsman, I am familiar with differentiating wind direction from wave/swell direction, but I'd not like to have to try to make 'informed' decisions in an emergency situation.

 

 

[turboplanner]

You do have (hopefully) a rev counter, so if the attitude is normal and the revs are normal, you should fall into about the same cruise speed, then there's the sound of the engine.

 

Then, on a long flight, when you'r tired, if you haven't made a practice of pushing the envelope in exaggerated turns, pull ups, wing overs, and complex moves, your body will be conditioned, in normal (cautious normal) flight to feel that fluffy handling that precedes the drop, so anything's possible, bout no way should you set out to cross Bass Strait in something like this.

 

 

[alf jessup]

People with a lot of experience should know that at a certain power setting in cruise with the normal attitude for level flight for an aircraft they are familiar with the cruise speed should be almost smack on even with the pitot blocked and airspeed not working

 

Landing should not be an issue either as the approach attitude profile out the window looking at the runway should be within +- 5 knots if they are familiar with it clean or with flaps

 

It does pay to absorb your surroundings ie attitudes of the aircraft in different stages of flight when you fly and not just sit there fat dumb and happy relying on your instruments solely

 

 

[kasper]

My two cents - if you have been signed off to fly a thruster at all you damn well should have a good enough 'picture' of where the horizon is at any flying speed AND a reasonable memory of what the engine sounds like at various settings ... if you cannot fly without any instruments when you are in VMC you really do not belong in the airspace shared with any aircraft and definitely should never have a passenger endo.

 

Basic aircraft handling skills really need to be taught before you get your certificate. Used to be the way in both AUF and GA when I was instructing and if people are being signed off without basic skills I am worried.

 

The worst crime he did was destroy a lovely old T500 - for that suspended sentence should mean strung up in the rafters of the hangar for a day to think about what he did.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Instruments required for flight under the V.F.R.

 

ASI, ALT, compass & watch.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Like many I am sure, I have found myself without an ASI due to wasp. I got a fright at first, then realised I was very comfortable with rpm and attitude and landed normally.

 

 

[kasper]

Instruments required for flight under the V.F.R.ASI, ALT, compass & watch.

Quick question - cite the requirement

CAO 20.18 applies to Australian registered aircraft to set instrument minima but Reg 8 limits the aircraft register to that held by CASA ie only to VH- reg

 

My understanding is that CAO controlled ultralights are not within the requirements of CASA on this area ...

 

 

[facthunter]

Some of us should try a few circuits then with no airspeed indication. Attitude and power (for a given weight) will give the same airspeed result and losing or gaining ALTITUDE. height is potential energy. Velocity is kinetic energy. With a fixed pitch prop, and a given power setting RPM will respond to airspeed a bit. Wind.... If you are trying to judge your speed by how it appears from the groundspeed it can always mislead you. Plenty of instances of that bringing people unstuck even when they have an ASI.. Nev

 

 

[GraemeK]

... if you cannot fly without any instruments when you are in VMC you really do not belong in the airspace ...

One of the most useful exercises in my training in the Jab was several consecutive circuits with the entire panel covered the whole time - instructor would ask me to tell him when I reached correct speed (climb/cruise/approach/etc) or altitude (circuit) and he'd sneak a look to confirm.

 

I found it surprising how close I could get (of course, in a very familiar circuit, but still).

 

I'm even more surprised to learn that it seems people are not taught this as part of their training.

 

 

[GraemeK]

I reckon that's unsafe!

Pretty safe in a familiar circuit I would have thought. With an instructor with billions of hours in that plane in that circuit ...

 

At least I hope if I ever find myself without an ASI I won't panic, fearing immediate death.

 

 

[frank marriott]

Quick question - cite the requirementCAO 20.18 applies to Australian registered aircraft to set instrument minima but Reg 8 limits the aircraft register to that held by CASA ie only to VH- reg

My understanding is that CAO controlled ultralights are not within the requirements of CASA on this area ...

Kasper you are probably right - I was going from memory and probably that came from CAO 20.18 as I was only flying GA at the time.

My comment was more about without these minimum instruments one cannot comply with the VFR rules. I am not talking about flying around a paddock but mixing with other aircraft up to 10,000 feet. Training with various instruments "failed" is normal (or at least I hope so) but that is a different situation IMO to taking off with a known unserviceableity in primary instruments.

 

 

[kasper]

Kasper you are probably right - I was going from memory and probably that came from CAO 20.18 as I was only flying GA at the time.My comment was more about without these minimum instruments one cannot comply with the VFR rules. I am not talking about flying around a paddock but mixing with other aircraft up to 10,000 feet. Training with various instruments "failed" is normal (or at least I hope so) but that is a different situation IMO to taking off with a known unserviceableity in primary instruments.

So my trike with no fixed instruments (engine or flight) should be limited to the paddock?

I have a wrist altimeter, a compass in the knee bag with the map, a hand held radio patched into the helmet and a wrist watch ... add in a chinagraph on a string for note taking on the knee bag and I am set for flight ... worked perfectly well in and around London in the UK with a heck of a lot more airspace and 737's to worry about than here in the new england ... and even flew that set up international on a flight plan into and out of France ... and the radio was only legally needed for the international flight.

 

People really so seem to be very attached to LOTS of instruments and electrical boxes. Whilst I do LOVE lots of instruments and black boxes (I love my boys toys as much as the next) but when I am flying I am perfectly happy (and should be so) in flying pretty much bu sight out of the cockpit alone without much inside looking.

 

 

[kasper]

That's all fair enough, as they say each to their own:-) But would you buy a car that was equipped with little like the old 50's model VW that had virtually no gauges not even a fuel gauge? I know I wouldn't, I like a mixed bag of stuff to keep me 'feeling' safe:-)

but the VWs then came with a reserve tank ... when it stopped you just turned the tap and you and half an hour to go ;-)

 

 

[M61A1]

People really so seem to be very attached to LOTS of instruments and electrical boxes. Whilst I do LOVE lots of instruments and black boxes (I love my boys toys as much as the next) but when I am flying I am perfectly happy (and should be so) in flying pretty much bu sight out of the cockpit alone without much inside looking.

Not only are they attached to them...a lot of them want them made mandatory. I think a lot of them are just attached to rules, lots of them. There seems to be a type attracted to aviation that cannot function without being directly guided by laws (and I don't mean the laws of physic). Without them they seem to be unable to make a decision, probably because that will mean they have to wear some of the responsibility of that decision.

 

 

[facthunter]

I like the way you have put that. Rules don't cover every event and you may cloud your better judgement if you think just following them will cover the situation. If you read that I'm recommending not following rules by saying what I have, you haven't thought it through enough. The law of gravity and Newtons laws of motion , covering energy and aerodynamics are what is important. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I recently read a very good article by an AH-64 pilot who had tail rotor failure in Afghanistan. Both crew walked away and the aircraft recovered because they used what they called "adaptive thinking" rather than "conditioned thinking". They claim that had they done exactly as they had been trained to do, they would most likely been killed and the aircraft destroyed..

 

 

[facthunter]

Even under line training/ checking it's not the same as on your own. You are trying to please the other person and get a good report (or pass) When the $#!t hits the fan you find the "loneliness of command" because the "buck stops with YOU. and how you react makes the difference. Until then you don't really know, and you don't know how it will be next time either.. Some people go their whole career without any real scary events. Others have a different experience. It's the way the cookie crumbles. Do as you are trained to do works well. in most situations that have been anticipated, but not all problems present as BOOK type situations. example. IF you had two low oil pressure indications, would you shut down both engines, one or neither. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

A quote from the Ah-64 article...Real aircraft failures never manifest in the clean way they do in simulator emergency sorties.

 

 

[coljones]

You can either take the training you have had and bend it to suit your situation or you can be untrained in anything and be caught like a rabbit in the spot light.

 

I have a fear that this discussion is heading in the direction of "professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the Arc".

 

Scully was highly trained and that training informed about where he should and shouldn't go.

 

 

[M61A1]

You can either take the training you have had and bend it to suit your situation or you can be untrained in anything and be caught like a rabbit in the spot light. I have a fear that this discussion is heading in the direction of "professionals built the Titanic, amateurs built the Arc".

 

Scully was highly trained and that training informed about where he should and shouldn't go.

I have no problem with proper training, however, our current crap legal environment here in Australia is more likely to make people rigidly adhere to a regulation that might actually kill them, than think for themselves about a solution that will save them for fear of legal retribution.

I work in defence aviation, and I see people all the time that are more worried about being crucified for not adhering to a process, than achieving a good outcome.

 

In the past, I have had some training that was outside the scope of the regs, and I am in one piece because of that.

 

Inflexibility is a killer, but all we seem to do is become more rigid.

 

 

[facthunter]

The are frightened to allow initiative. They can't control it and it scares them. That's why they have this STUPID penalty system with strict liability that no one should have to operate under. It's BS and DANGEROUS. proper training costs money and needs skills to pass it on. That's too hard, so just threaten everybody with fines and gaol terms and look as if you are doing something. Australia The "Clever Country" Ha Ha. Believe that if you are a moron. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

Nev. You are so cynical, but that makes two of us. What a state this country is getting into.

 

 

[The Baron]

These guys had all the required safety gear to do the flight and I do not believe it was fool hardy of them to attempt the crossing just because it was a 2 stroke, a 4 stroke can fail as easy as a 2 banger, so all our 100+kt plastic fantastic with the ever reliable 4 stroke in them is not immune from failing.Fool hardy to me is if these 2 intrepid aviators departed with no life jackets/safety gear, no epirb ect, yeah they could have worn an immersion suit for the crossing but they didn't, they were smart enough to contact EM service on the way down , they activated the epirb and they survived the ordeal which is a good outcome.

 

The engine doesn't know if it is over water or mountains, they were just unlucky they had a failure and had to ditch, they may have also been lucky that the failure wasn't over bush on the way to the water.

 

Fool hardy pilots to me are the ones that do beat ups over mates places to show off, scud run, and fly at tree top level.

 

Would I attempt the crossing in my plane, yeah I would knowing full well the risks if she was to go down, but I would be no different to these guys and have all the safety equipment required for the crossing but still hoping my trusty 912 would keep on going.

 

My 2 bob on it

 

Alf

I am with you all the way Alf