Does anyone have more information on this NSW South Coast accident?

[turboplanner]

It looks like either a birdstrike, or something that would warrant ATSB to step in to me.

 

 

[David Isaac]

Hopefully because of the loss of two lives, they will be involved.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Im not aware of any ATSB involvement at this stage. Im not involved with the investigation tho, so im only going off hearsay from those close by.

 

The wreckage was recovered and the second pilot was also found. A little bit of good news for the family i spose.

 

There is a significant amount of pictures posted on a news site of the recovered wreckage which i wont link here, its not hard to find.

 

As expected, there isnt much we can go on, I looked over the pictures for hours locating the control surfaces etc, all of which I could see except for the rudder.

 

This doesnt mean much as far as it being missing, but it is significant in the fact all the flying surfaces seem to be located (bar the rudder)

 

The vertical stab seems relatively unscathed. I am confident that at least some educated guesses will come from the investigation.

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Because they CAN. .. It could always be worse Dafydd. It is good the wreckage is recovered. It MAY provide some answers. Nev

Well, speaking personally, I find it more constructive to chop a load of firewood, if there's nothing more apposite available. I would say, do not grieve that these men died; rejoice that they lived. Everything that lives must die; that is an inevitable fact. The wonderful thing is to have any existence at all. The statistical chance of being born means we have each won the most incredible lottery. We miss people we have known; and the price is high for those directly involved - but look at it the right way around.

Having conducted several accident investigations of fatal crashes myself, I've found it useful to document what definitely did NOT cause the accident. That acts to focus attention on a "short list" of possibilities - and it goes a long way to stopping irresponsible speculation.

 

We do not know whether there was an airworthiness problem or a piloting problem, or something else - but given the experience of the instructor, a piloting problem seems less likely. Hopefully, the investigation will clarify that. However, the classification of the aircraft puts it in the lowest safety category, and the significance of that needs to be recognised.

 

The fundamental point here is, I suggest, that the aircraft was a 50% rule experimental kit aircraft (under RAA 95.55.1.5, but in effect operating under the same philosophy as a VH aircraft under CASR 21.191(g)) . That means, flying in such an aircraft constitutes a voluntary assumption of risk; and since the crash occurred in NSW, it comes under the "hazardous recreational activity" legislative precedents. Both occupants presumably comprehended this. If you look at the appendices to CASA Advisory Circular 21.10, which explains the whole experimental aircraft scene quite comprehensively, you will find a risk analysis there (mainly focussed on the risk involved in the initial test flying). I would like to see that risk analysis extended somewhat so that it could give some indication of the risk according to the merit or otherwise of the aircraft; and that risk analysis score to be displayed on the mandatory notice that is required on all experimental aircraft.

 

 

[Teckair]

It looks like either a birdstrike, or something that would warrant ATSB to step in to me.

I thought the ATSB did not investigate RAAus accidents?

 

 

[facthunter]

I understand there is nothing to restrict them, but it is not "normal", if that means anything. Nev

 

 

[Guest Andys@coffs]

ATSB investigates what ATSB feels it needs to...... generally speaking it doesn't investigate RAAus accidents, but as we saw when the morgan collected the ferriswheel at old bar they can step in if that's what they want on the basis that there was a significant risk to large quantities of non participants, or it was widely reported and the general public might reasonably expect an investigation.....

 

Andy

 

 

[nickduncs84]

Pete, I too revisited the whole BRS thing after learning of this accident.

 

Well, speaking personally, I find it more constructive to chop a load of firewood, if there's nothing more apposite available. I would say, do not grieve that these men died; rejoice that they lived. Everything that lives must die; that is an inevitable fact. The wonderful thing is to have any existence at all. The statistical chance of being born means we have each won the most incredible lottery. We miss people we have known; and the price is high for those directly involved - but look at it the right way around.Having conducted several accident investigations of fatal crashes myself, I've found it useful to document what definitely did NOT cause the accident. That acts to focus attention on a "short list" of possibilities - and it goes a long way to stopping irresponsible speculation.

 

We do not know whether there was an airworthiness problem or a piloting problem, or something else - but given the experience of the instructor, a piloting problem seems less likely. Hopefully, the investigation will clarify that. However, the classification of the aircraft puts it in the lowest safety category, and the significance of that needs to be recognised.

 

The fundamental point here is, I suggest, that the aircraft was a 50% rule experimental kit aircraft (under RAA 95.55.1.5, but in effect operating under the same philosophy as a VH aircraft under CASR 21.191(g)) . That means, flying in such an aircraft constitutes a voluntary assumption of risk; and since the crash occurred in NSW, it comes under the "hazardous recreational activity" legislative precedents. Both occupants presumably comprehended this. If you look at the appendices to CASA Advisory Circular 21.10, which explains the whole experimental aircraft scene quite comprehensively, you will find a risk analysis there (mainly focussed on the risk involved in the initial test flying). I would like to see that risk analysis extended somewhat so that it could give some indication of the risk according to the merit or otherwise of the aircraft; and that risk analysis score to be displayed on the mandatory notice that is required on all experimental aircraft.

I think that idealistically, this would be a good idea, but in practice, it would get butchered to no end and the result would be detrimental to general aviation. There are just too many variables and not enough education to allow members of the public to make an informed decision. The whole thing would just scare people off.

 

In this case, what you are saying is only relevant if it was a structural failure that proves to be the cause. But what if it was a bird strike? A c150 in the same spot at the same time could suffer a similar fate. There are quite a few experimental which I consider to be safer than quite a few certified machines. So why scare people off experimentals, let's just scare them off all airplanes.

 

Let's suppose that one of the factors relates to the failure rate amongst the current fleet. So Vans are probably going to look pretty good compared to a newer company. But there are other factors that may or may not make their way into the analysis. For example many would think that a nose over in a Vans aircraft presents a risk that they aren't willing to take. Others would argue that it doesn't happen enough to make them worry. Another example is BRS. Some would argue that it mitigates some of the risks of flying. Others would argue that the behavioural changes brought on by having a BRS combined with the lack of training actually outweigh the benefit.

 

Then there are other risks that aren't often considered by the PIC let alone communicated to the people that would benefit (ie passengers). EFATO options, terrain considerations, short field landings where the consequence of an engine failure are greatly increased, etc, etc.

 

Point is, there are literally hundreds of things that we must consider before we go flying, and it's even more important when we are assuming responsibility for someone else's life. I had previously thought that enforceable risk disclosure could prevent many of the stupid accidents we see, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it was to me that this is one of those things you can't put a formula to. The best thing we can do is do the best job we can educating new pilots about the various risk factors. From there, it is up to each individual pilot to properly analyse the risk of each flight and regardless of their own risk profile, consider the wellbeing of their passengers above all else. For those of us with kids, it should be pretty easy. If if you wouldn't be comfortable with your child in the front seat next to you, then you shouldn't be doing it.

 

All of that being said, I'm sure that accidents like this make us all think and that's a good thing. I was actually looking at buying a factory built Morgan, but after reading the Old Bar report, there was enough in there for me to change my mind. Is that a fair to Morgan? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure Graham read the same report and I'm sure he was fully aware of the risks he was taking and was comfortable with his decision to fly. Would Graham have changed his mind if another Morgan had broken up in flight previously? I'm sure he would have at least thought about it, and I'm sure he would want you to do the same.

 

So go fly safely, whatever that means to you. Don't assume something won't happen to you and don't pass up an opportunity to learn something, even if does come via a tragedy such as this.

 

 

[facthunter]

Fair bit of good thinking there Nick. We all come to here from different positions. I was going to build a "modern and innovative" design but from a practical point of view I have settled into retro to a Taylorcraft or Aeronca with strength, type. Fire, structural failure, bird strikes or collision concern me more than most other possibilities. I try to not get into dangerous positions but you DO when instructing.. I'm not a ballistic chute person unless test flying where you should have a chute on anyhow. A ballistic chute only covers certain types of accidents. IF you were on fire it might be of less help.

 

I like a strong airframe,and prefer an aerobatic certified plane, though there is much more cost, overall. I also don't like full flying tails. I tolerate them on a Commanche if they are inspected often.

 

The Llewellyn's are professionals and have their approach to things, which may be critical of some U/L practices. I did say MAY, as they speak for themselves. Plenty of Airline types I have known won't fly U/L's but PLENTY DO and have done for years. I try to get as much from everybody as I can. They all have a point of view. I will just about give anything a go from the most basic to a jumbo and gliders are great, but they must not be junk, I like a fighting chance. Nev

 

 

[kaz3g]

Hi

 

Interesting analogy Motzartmerv but perhaps a little misleading ?Yes the odds of throwing a tail would be 50% but the probability of throwing 100 tails in a row is one in 1282051282051282051282051282051.3- that's right !

 

Odds relate to a single independant event whilst probability looks at the relationship of a series of events in this case 100 consecutive coin tosses. That's why we don't regularly see it on Anzac Day.

 

No offence intended,

 

Pete

Hi Pete

 

The correct answer is 1/2^100

 

or 1 in 1 267 650 600 228 229 401 496 703 205 376

 

It can't be anything other than an even integer. You need to do the multiplication again and check it.

 

Kaz

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Pete, I too revisited the whole BRS thing after learning of this accident.

I think that idealistically, this would be a good idea, but in practice, it would get butchered to no end and the result would be detrimental to general aviation. There are just too many variables and not enough education to allow members of the public to make an informed decision. The whole thing would just scare people off.

 

In this case, what you are saying is only relevant if it was a structural failure that proves to be the cause. But what if it was a bird strike? A c150 in the same spot at the same time could suffer a similar fate. There are quite a few experimental which I consider to be safer than quite a few certified machines. So why scare people off experimentals, let's just scare them off all airplanes.

 

Let's suppose that one of the factors relates to the failure rate amongst the current fleet. So Vans are probably going to look pretty good compared to a newer company. But there are other factors that may or may not make their way into the analysis. For example many would think that a nose over in a Vans aircraft presents a risk that they aren't willing to take. Others would argue that it doesn't happen enough to make them worry. Another example is BRS. Some would argue that it mitigates some of the risks of flying. Others would argue that the behavioural changes brought on by having a BRS combined with the lack of training actually outweigh the benefit.

 

Then there are other risks that aren't often considered by the PIC let alone communicated to the people that would benefit (ie passengers). EFATO options, terrain considerations, short field landings where the consequence of an engine failure are greatly increased, etc, etc.

 

Point is, there are literally hundreds of things that we must consider before we go flying, and it's even more important when we are assuming responsibility for someone else's life. I had previously thought that enforceable risk disclosure could prevent many of the stupid accidents we see, but the more I thought about it, the more obvious it was to me that this is one of those things you can't put a formula to. The best thing we can do is do the best job we can educating new pilots about the various risk factors. From there, it is up to each individual pilot to properly analyse the risk of each flight and regardless of their own risk profile, consider the wellbeing of their passengers above all else. For those of us with kids, it should be pretty easy. If if you wouldn't be comfortable with your child in the front seat next to you, then you shouldn't be doing it.

 

All of that being said, I'm sure that accidents like this make us all think and that's a good thing. I was actually looking at buying a factory built Morgan, but after reading the Old Bar report, there was enough in there for me to change my mind. Is that a fair to Morgan? Maybe, maybe not. I'm sure Graham read the same report and I'm sure he was fully aware of the risks he was taking and was comfortable with his decision to fly. Would Graham have changed his mind if another Morgan had broken up in flight previously? I'm sure he would have at least thought about it, and I'm sure he would want you to do the same.

 

So go fly safely, whatever that means to you. Don't assume something won't happen to you and don't pass up an opportunity to learn something, even if does come via a tragedy such as this.

Well, firstly, no, it's not only relevant to structural failure; would you consider, say, an aileron coming off due to flutter as a structural failure? But would you consider mass-balancing as a valid means of reducing the risk? Would you consider inadequate stick force per G as a structural issue? Or would you consider a reasonable value of stick force per G to be a risk-lowering factor for overloading the wings?

Almost all the flying I've done since 1998 has been under an experimental certificate. I'm in the process of setting up a personal aircraft for operation under an experimental certificate. However, in these cases I have had an intimate knowledge of exactly what went into those aircraft and exactly what their design limitations were; and I supervised the weighing and such things as the fuel system ground tests. I'm not afraid of flying an aircraft under an exp. Cert. under those circumstances. But you would not get me into an amateur-designed, amateur built aircraft with a double-barrel shotgun, unless I had that level of knowledge of it.

 

The normal aircraft design standards are minimum standards - and they are written in blood. With an experimental aircraft, you do not have to demonstrate to the steely-eyed representatives of CASA that it complies with those standards - but there's nothing wrong with using the standards as guidance material - in fact, it's downright stupid not to do so. They represent about eighty years of accumulated wisdom, boiled down.

 

I'm putting a motor on a Blanik. That means, I have to put a fuel system, and electrical system, and a powerplant system into it. So I'm using the design standard for powered gliders (JAR 22) as the guidance material. I'm writing a compliance summary as I go. I'll append that to the risk analysis that I must submit under CASA AC 21.10. Maybe it will have some bearing on the operational restrictions CASA will see fit to put on the experimental certificate.

 

A kit manufacturer could well do likewise, and if he does, it could allow an expert panel to express some opinion as to the potential risk level of his kit. It would, in fact, be in his interest to get a favourable risk analysis score.

 

I think the overall effect of something of this sort on the safety standard of 51% rule kits should be obvious.

 

 

[Sky Gazer]

Hi

 

Hi Pete

 

The correct answer is 1/2^100

 

or 1 in 1 267 650 600 228 229 401 496 703 205 376

 

It can't be anything other than an even integer. You need to do the multiplication again and check it.

 

Kaz

Touche Kaz,

 

You are correct -I just inverted the percentage value of 7.88861 x 10 to the 31st from excel and pasted it without rounding off.

 

But the point is clear while the odds may be 50% for an individual random event the probabililty of the sequence is Phenomenal and CERTAINLY not the same as 50/50.

 

Pete

 

Coin Toss.xlsx

 

Coin Toss.xlsx

 

Coin Toss.xlsx

[kaz3g]

Touche Kaz,You are correct -I just inverted the percentage value of 7.88861 x 10 to the 31st from excel and pasted it without rounding off.

 

But the point is clear while the odds may be 50% for an individual random event the probabililty of the sequence is Phenomenal and CERTAINLY not the same as 50/50.

 

Pete

I'm not clever enough to be able to work it out on excel...so I just used paper and flushed it afterwards.

 

Kaz.

 

 

[cooperplace]

a lot of the above is puzzling..........is structural failure likely to be the cause.......or not? or bird strike? or something else?

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

a lot of the above is puzzling..........is structural failure likely to be the cause.......or not? or bird strike? or something else?

Precisely what do you find puzzling? The cause is anybody's guess until the investigation report is published. All we know at this stage is that a very experienced instructor and the pilot undergoing a flight review, were killed, and that there was some unverified mention in the media the something was seen to "fall off the aeroplane". Could have been a bird, could have been a bit of the aircraft, could be somebody's imagination. To find out, you will just have to wait, like the rest of us.

However, the aircraft was registered under CAO 95.55.1.5, which means it has the same status as an experimental amateur built aircraft under CASR 21.191(g). This is explained in CASA AC 21.10, which you can find at www.casa.gov.au.

 

Here's a relevant extract from AC 21.10.

 

8. REGISTRATION AND MARKING

 

8.1 Prior to application for issue of the experimental certificate, the aircraft must be registered.

 

8.2 In addition to the nationality and aircraft registration marks, as required by CAR 1998 Part III, the following markings are also required:

 

(a) an aircraft registration identification plate must be attached to an accessible location near an entrance.

 

(b) an aircraft data plate with specific information imprinted on it must be fixed to the aircraft;

 

© the word “EXPERIMENTAL” must be displayed on the aircraft near each entrance (interior or exterior) to the cabin or cockpit in letters not less than 5

 

cm nor more than 15 cm in height. The letters should be in block capitals of a style that is conspicuous and legible, and easily read by each person entering

 

the aircraft; and

 

(d) for other than single seat aircraft, a warning placard must be displayed in the cabin or cockpit at a location in full view of all passengers, with the wording:

 

“WARNING

 

THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE

 

SAFETY REGULATIONS FOR STANDARD AIRCRAFT.

 

YOU FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT YOUR OWN RISK”

 

 

[fly_tornado]

a lot of the above is puzzling..........is structural failure likely to be the cause.......or not? or bird strike? or something else?

I don't know why the RAA president suggest it was a bird strike. seems a bit odd

 

 

[facthunter]

I've had quite a few bird strikes and a few near misses. The actuals were always near the water. (Coastal). I doubt he said it WAS a bird strike. Could have been is more likely. I certainly would not rule it out. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Whether it was a bird strike or structural failure, a medical issue or something else entirely is all just conjecture at this point. It seems all the flying surfaces were there other than the rudder & that may have been torn off by the impact with the water. Who knows? The investigation result is more likely to be an educated opinion rather than a detailed forensic analysis as in "Aircraft Accident Investigation" as the time, finance and resources available will not allow anything more.

 

 

[biggles]

The investigation result is more likely to be an educated opinion rather than a detailed forensic analysis as in "Aircraft Accident Investigation" as the time, finance and resources available will not allow anything more.

I'd have to disagree with that KGW. There would appear to be no point whatsoever in half-doing the job . The investigators give freely of their time , so that is not an issue and the costs are minimal other than perhaps accommodation and travelling . As regards "resources" we have support available from the ATSB , who have assisted in the past . We also have a very capable qualified engineer and accident investigator heading the investigation for RAAus .

 

Bob

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Whether it was a bird strike or structural failure, a medical issue or something else entirely is all just conjecture at this point. It seems all the flying surfaces were there other than the rudder & that may have been torn off by the impact with the water. Who knows? The investigation result is more likely to be an educated opinion rather than a detailed forensic analysis as in "Aircraft Accident Investigation" as the time, finance and resources available will not allow anything more.

Now, why would the rudder be torn off by impact with the water?

 

 

[kgwilson]

Now, why would the rudder be torn off by impact with the water?

Why not? From the photos everything is a mangled mess & ripped apart. The rudder may actually be there somewhere. I based that "It seems" statement on an earlier post & I had not seen the photos then. Anyway my next statement was "Who knows?"

 

 

[Dafydd Llewellyn]

Why not? From the photos everything is a mangled mess & ripped apart. Anyway my next statement was "Who knows?"

Well, it's a question I'd be asking, if I were the investigator and if the rudder is in fact missing. Too many "Ifs". Let's wait & see.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

I thought the ATSB did not investigate RAAus accidents?

Teckair, In the recently released inquiry report, one of the things recommended is that The ATSB should investigate RAA accidents with the same frequency as any other accident in this country......... Maj........

 

 

[Teckair]

Teckair, In the recently released inquiry report, one of the things recommended is that The ATSB should investigate RAA accidents with the same frequency as any other accident in this country......... Maj........

That would be great but I wonder do they have the resources to do that?

 

 

[facthunter]

I think that is the issue. Australia is large. Getting the resources there in a timely manner, whereas the police are normally there immediately, brings in an overlap of jurisdiction and duplication. Our aircraft don't usually involve a great number of people or involve a lot of damage to surroundings. These factors are some of the reasons we get relaxed rules (and costs). There might be some processes that regardless of who does it the information of the aircrafts's behaviour might be available. The blood and guts of it is cost and value for money. Once an accident has occurred, getting data with the aim of preventing future repetition of the occurrence is why the investigation is justified. IF the reason for the mishap is not determined with any degree of certainty, it is a waste of time. Nev