Old Bar "Dreamcatcher" report leaked

[Jabiru Phil]

In the 50's in SA the law was that the police had to time you over 3/10th of a mile. Gave you some leaway to pass safely with out incuring a ticket.

 

Dont know when it changed from that, probably when radar guns were introduced.

 

Phil.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Ah those were the days. They also had a policy of 24 hours to identify the driver of a speeding car All I was doing this night was driving with a wide open exhaust and the highway latched on to the Ute. We flew up past the devil's elbow with two 200 litre drums of petrol sliding round the back, and over the top into Crafers where there was a traffic jam. Luckily the traffic was going just fast enough that the when the cops got our an ran after the ute they got left behind, so it was up a side rad, U turn and watch until they flashed past then back down into Adelaide and out towards Victor Harbour where we recognised the car of the Naracoorte cop who was on holidays. We pulled him over and asked what was the best thing to do. "They'll have the River blocked for you" he said, so go down to the Wellington Punt and cross there, then get out into the Lucindale scrub and stay there until I get back next week, and I'll deal with you then. And he did - new exhaust, new tyres, new paint, and threats haning over our heads for months.

 

 

[Jabiru Phil]

Yes, the good old days.

 

The cop cars were black FX holdens with the siren mounted on the mudguard, stood out like dogs ......

 

83 MPH max.

 

Going back a bit further in time, our local force were on push bikes with a whistle. you didnt need a straight out exhaust to not here it.

 

I remember driving on the Port Rooad once, speeding in the inside lane, when I was waved over by a cop on the outside curb. I got such a shock that I waved back.

 

 

[Guernsey]

[planet47]

Maybe he was a victim of a build up of circumstances - a bit like being a driver of a car that is below standard on below standard roads with some below standard driver training but you have a piece of plastic that says "you can do it" so ambition exceeds ability. Flame me!

 

 

[turboplanner]

No need to flame you, it seems to contain a bit of all of that.

 

For a start if the Ferris wheel hadn't been in the splay he wouldn't have hit it.

 

 

[planet47]

I wholeheartedly agree on that point

 

 

[turboplanner]

The intriguing thing is what his climb angle would have been if he hadn't been 2kg over weight. He only needed about 6 - 8 feet to clear the top bar.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Or if he had managed to keep straight he would have missed it completely. But he was legally entitled to be where he was and the Ferris Wheel wasn't.

 

 

[poteroo]

Or if he had managed to keep straight he would have missed it completely. But he was legally entitled to be where he was and the Ferris Wheel wasn't.

I suspect that the accident was in part due to the pilot 'freezing' during the go-round, and making no attempt to turn the aircraft at low level. Why? Fear of stalling, and fear of 'breaking the rules' is deeply ingrained in many pilots. When faced with a go-round or take-off toward high trees - they try to either outclimb them rather than make a low level 10-15 deg aob turn - usually upwind - and avoid the risky climb in the lee of obstacles. Have noticed this in many, many BFR's over the years. The aircraft is happily flying because it doesn't know it's down low and, in any case, it doesn't require much aob to avoid anything - provided you start early. happy days,

 

 

[Paul Cox]

The intriguing thing is what his climb angle would have been if he hadn't been 2kg over weight. He only needed about 6 - 8 feet to clear the top bar.

Hi Turbo

I was "NOT" over weight as I told the ASTB but they would not listen so I used their own figures against them and proved with the flight over I burnt the 2 kg of fuel anyway. The ATSB just didn’t listen.

 

Do the math yourself and work it out.

 

They are wrong!

 

And as I have said all along the plane didn’t falter.

 

The pilot stuffed up the landing. (Who hasn’t at some point?)

 

And the reason the pilot drifted to the left was because he was low and that section had none of the pollarded trees and open clear sky albeit overcast and with a silver Ferris wheel that blended into the background and a nose high attitude the plane was headed for open sky.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Well said Paul,

 

And the bonus was ... you survived to tell the tale.

 

Oh yes we have all stuffed up on occasions, I have in grand style, nearly got badly bitten by the Citabria twice, flew into cloud once ( I wrote a long account of that incident on this site), but thank God no one put a Ferris wheel in the splays at Warnervale.

 

The old saying comes to mind ..."There but for the grace of God go I ..."

 

 

[facthunter]

I was going to bring up the WHEN was it supposed to be overweight, because it doesn't take much to burn that off. You could often do it with extended warm up and taxi. Legally you are allowed to include taxi fuel. In fact IF you didn't and went on minimum you would not meet the flight fuel and statutory reserves.

 

If you get the speed a bit low the plane won't go well either and with having a slight downwind the wind gradient could have lost a bit of climb performance for you.. Nev

 

 

[metalman]

Hi TurboI was "NOT" over weight as I told the ASTB but they would not listen so I used their own figures against them and proved with the flight over I burnt the 2 kg of fuel anyway. The ATSB just didn’t listen.

Do the math yourself and work it out.

 

They are wrong!

 

And as I have said all along the plane didn’t falter.

 

The pilot stuffed up the landing. (Who hasn’t at some point?)

 

And the reason the pilot drifted to the left was because he was low and that section had none of the pollarded trees and open clear sky albeit overcast and with a silver Ferris wheel that blended into the background and a nose high attitude the plane was headed for open sky.

Just interested Paul , is the pilot still flying? I'd hate to see the desire die over one incident,

Matty

 

 

[kgwilson]

Just interested Paul , is the pilot still flying? I'd hate to see the desire die over one incident,Matty

Check out his avatar.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Matty, Paul is the pilot.

 

 

[Bob Llewellyn]

Hi TurboI was "NOT" over weight as I told the ASTB but they would not listen so I used their own figures against them and proved with the flight over I burnt the 2 kg of fuel anyway. The ATSB just didn’t listen.

Do the math yourself and work it out.

 

They are wrong!

 

And as I have said all along the plane didn’t falter.

 

The pilot stuffed up the landing. (Who hasn’t at some point?)

 

And the reason the pilot drifted to the left was because he was low and that section had none of the pollarded trees and open clear sky albeit overcast and with a silver Ferris wheel that blended into the background and a nose high attitude the plane was headed for open sky.

Hi Paul.

I've been involved in a couple of accident investigations, and it amazed me how determined people were to sieze on their first theories and ignore any evidence that negated it. Having seen an ATSB report on a Skyfox prang that blamed the 'fox for having a central stick, I'm not surprised that they couldn't count in your case. They don't have proper procedures, they wouldn't know the difference between a causal factor and an inappropriate response - or even an appropriate response. Your tax dollar at work.

 

ps in their safety rag a few years back, they stated that propellor twins need stronger tiedowns than singles, because they're heavier. In print. On the record. FFS!

 

 

[metalman]

I might be slow ,but I can lift heavy things