Ultralight plane crash Hunter Valley

[Teckair]

Nev I just noticed I had accidentally given you a creative and have withdrawn it.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Someone hit a person on the ground with a powered parachute and broke their neck is the only one I can think of. Jabirus flying over built up areas seems risky to me.

Errr. . . . .we have quite a few Jabiru powered aircraft in the UK. . . .some of them fitted into Jabiru airframes. . . . but no matter,. . . .that's another story. . . .

 

In the UK . . .it is permissable to fly a "Microlight" or "LSA" type aircraft over a built up area, providing the pilot maintains a vertical displacement of 1000 feet minimum above the houses. . . . . nobody really WANTS to do this unless landing,. . or departing from an airfield where this scenario is impossible to avoid. . . . .thus far, ( unless I've missed something ) we have only had ONE reported case of these aircraft crashing into a built up area at all . . . . . the aircraft landed in someone's front garden following an efato,. . .minor injuries and no one injured on the ground. . . . surely, this risk applies to anyone flying a single powerplant flying machine anywhere. . . . . .Statistically,. . .in the UK, anyway. . . lots more G.A. aeroplanes have flown into houses / general built up areas in the past. . . .

 

I don't see why the comment has any relevance in this thread. . . . which is about a SINGLE INSTANCE of a fatal air accident. . . . . the fact that the aircraft failed to hit a number of innocent people is not really relevant,. . .anywhay, if they were eating at an airfield, then they are partially complicit,. . .I mean,. . .who in their right mind would hang around a place where planes are like ly to fall out of the sky onto your head. . . . ?

 

I truly hope that, in the fullness of time, . . .when the details of this particular incident become common knowledge, that the"regulators" do not suffer from jerking knees and come up with yet another rule. . . . . . .

 

The more you fly,. . . . .( or do ANYTHING) . . .then statistically,. . .no matter HOW HARD YOU REGULATE,. . . . the more times something will go wrong with it. Maybe we should BAN everything,. . . then NOBODY will ever get hurt. . . .?

 

 

[dutchroll]

I truly hope that, in the fullness of time, . . .when the details of this particular incident become common knowledge, that the"regulators" do not suffer from jerking knees and come up with yet another rule. . . . . . .

I do too.

 

The more you fly,. . . . .( or do ANYTHING) . . .then statistically,. . .no matter HOW HARD YOU REGULATE,. . . . the more times something will go wrong with it. Maybe we should BAN everything,. . . then NOBODY will ever get hurt. . . .?

50 years ago that statement might've been pretty true, but not anymore.

Qantas mainline (ie, excluding Jetstar, Qlink etc) flies 2,400 flights per week or nearly 350 flights per day. Its accident rate is close to zero, and its accident fatality rate actually is zero. How many flights a week do microlights and LSAs fly and what are their accident rates?

 

So just try using the "regulating us like commercial aviation won't change things" argument against someone backed by those stats and see how far you get! **I'm not arguing that you should be regulated like commercial aviation - I'm cautioning you against using the argument you seem to be favouring, and especially don't try pulling that one on the regulators themselves. ;)

 

 

[winsor68]

I am a family member and it was extremely easy to sign up and get access to these posts after hearing through friends what was being said.

You need to find some better "friends" Charmaine.

 

 

[SDQDI]

 

They had a few in their early days Dutchy but as it says they got rated as the worlds safest airline in 2014. But I still don't think over regulation is the answer, treating rec flying with the same ferociousness that commercial gets would be stupid IMHO

 

We are still way off topic though..

 

Short S.23 Empire flying boat VH-ABB, which crashed in 1944.

 

While Qantas has never had a fatal jet airliner accident, the Australian national airline suffered several losses in its early days before the widespread adoption of the jet engine in civilian aviation.[1] These were mainly biplanes or flying boats servicing routes inQueensland and New Guinea.[2] The incidents between 1942 and 1944 were during World War II, when Qantas Empire Airways operated on behalf of the military.[3] While strictly speaking not accidents, the shooting down of G-AETZ and G-AEUH is included for completeness. In 2014, Qantas was rated the world's safest airline by Airline Ratings.[4]

 

Date Location Aircraft type Registration Description Aboard Fatalities References

 

24 March 1927 Tambo,Australia Airco (later de Havilland) DH.9C G-AUED Stalled at low altitude on approach to land. Pilot Alan Douglas Davidson 3 3 [5][6]

 

4 September 1928 Adelaide Hills,Australia de Havilland DH.50J G-AUHI Following a tour carrying Sir John Salmond, aircraft departed Adelaide piloted byC. W. A. Scott with engineer as passenger; lost control in cloud during attempt to cross the Adelaide Hills and aircraft crashed and caught fire killing the engineer. See C. W. A. Scott's DH.50J Hermes, fatal crash. 2 1 [7]

 

3 October 1934 Near Winton,Australia de Havilland DH.50A VH-UHE Crashed after in-flight loss of control, possibly stalled at low altitude in dusty low-visibility conditions. 3 3 [8]

 

15 November 1934 NearLongreach,Australia de Havilland DH.86 VH-USG Crashed on its delivery flight from England to Brisbane after in-flight loss of control, probably due to the type'sdesign deficiencies. 4 4 [9][10][11][12][13]

 

30 January 1942 Timor Sea offKupang Short S.23 Empire Flying Boat G-AEUH Shot down by Japanese aircraft; ex-Qantas VH-ABD, owned by Imperial Airwaysand operated by Qantas. 18 13 [3][14][15]

 

20 February 1942 Brisbane,Australia de Havilland DH.86 VH-USE Lost control after take-off in stormy weather, possibly broke up in flight (tail fin found a mile from the crash site). 9 9 [16][17][18][19]

 

28 February 1942 Between Tjilatjap, Netherlands East Indies and Broome, Australia Short S.23 Empire Flying Boat G-AETZ Nicknamed "Circe"

 

Shot down by Japanese aircraft; owned by Imperial Airways and operated by Qantas. 20 20 [20]

 

22 April 1943 Gulf of Papuaoff Port Moresby,Papua Short S.23 Empire Flying Boat VH-ADU Stalled in flare and broke up during emergency landing in open water in poor weather. 31 13 [15][21]

 

26 November 1943 Port Moresby,Papua Lockheed C-56B Lodestar 42-68348 Struck hill after take-off;USAAF aircraft operated by Qantas for Allied Directorate of Air Transport. 15 15 [22][23]

 

11 October 1944 Rose Bay,Sydney,Australia Short S.23 Empire Flying Boat VH-ABB On final approach with one engine shut-down, stalled 3 metres (10 ft) above the water and hull ruptured on impact. 30 1 [15][24][25]

 

23 March 1946 Indian Ocean Avro Lancastrian G-AGLX Aircraft disappeared betweenColombo and the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, cause unknown; aircraft owned byBOAC and operated by both airlines on Sydney-London services (BOAC crews operated London-Karachiand Qantas crews Karachi-Sydney). 10 10 [26][27]

 

16 July 1951 Huon Gulf nearLae, Papua New Guinea de Havilland Australia DHA-3 Drover VH-EBQ Crashed in sea after centre propeller failure. 7 7 [28]

 

 

[Aldo]

Dutch

 

Two pretty extreme ends of the spectrum there QF & U/L but we should be able to get somewhere near zero on the accident rate with U/L.

 

At the airline & commercial GA end of the spectrum you can regulate people into submission because if you don't comply you don't have a job, the U/L end of the spectrum is a little more difficult.

 

Regulation is the framework around which we should educate pilots, part of that education should be policing of the regulations and enforcement such as loss of licence for pilots who don't comply this would start to get most people to pull their heads in.

 

For that to happen recreational & private GA pilots need to start reporting unsafe/dangerous activities, we all see these happen but how many of us actually make the report (I would say not many as it is generally someone you know or a friend) and yes the old story "if they are a friend you will report them as you will be doing them a favour and possibly saving their life" the trouble is not too many people being reported actually see it this way.

 

The best way is to sit your friend down and say hey listen John what you are doing up there from my perspective looks pretty dangerous (and I have done this on many occasions) the trouble is they generally don't listen or don't understand.

 

So if the above is true then our training system is breaking down or is not to the standard that it should be (I'm not having a go at the instructors here) but I did have a (recreational ) student ask me recently if it was normal for an instructor to take a student into cloud to show them how difficult it is to know where you are (this was done in a RA training aircraft) I nearly fell off my chair.

 

Aldo

 

 

[dutchroll]

I understand what you're all saying, but I was really discussing the effect of civil aviation regulation in a sort of direct response to Phil's post, and SDQDI you are referring to accidents in years where there was very little of that at all. Mentioning wartime accidents which occurred well before the rise in enforceable civil aviation standards kind of reinforces the point I was making. The Chicago Convention didn't even occur until 1944, wasn't enforced until 1947, and it was much later still before any significant aviation regulations really came into play in the western world.

 

I did also state (with two asterisks no less!) that I wasn't arguing to treat Rec flying the same as Commercial. Honestly....it's there.....go and read the post again. Trust me, you don't want to do four assessed sim rides a year in a Foxbat simulator!

 

The point: there's been plenty of talk on this thread about "we don't need no stinkin' regulation". Ok, I totally understand that and agree that excessive regulation as a consequence of the accident rate could easily see the demise of rec aviation. I don't want that neither does anyone else here. But just don't make the argument that aviation regulatory regimes haven't been effective in reducing accident rates in the face of vastly increased flying rates, or you'll lose comprehensively. That's all I was saying. Maybe focus on the "we solemnly undertake to improve things, and we will show you that we can do this without more civil regulations" side of it?

 

There's a massive chasm of difference between coming out and saying "we don't want your regulations, go away, get stuffed!" and "hey we know there are issues and we'll show you that we can address these without cramming more stuff onto the Commlaw website".

 

 

[Aldo]

Why? And it is not "open to anyone". The forum owner can permit or deny anyone he so chooses. The same as any internet forum. IF only one person modifies their behaviour or double-checks something and finds an error or omission, then these discussions have served a purpose. And, from personal experience in another industry, they do achieve that.And if you hadn't, you wouldn't be any the wiser....Yet here you are, based on what you had "heard".

 

That has yet to be determined and disclosed officially. You're more than welcome to rebut any claims the media make - in the media. Would you like their details?

 

Good luck with that.

 

So, besides being a family member, what is your direct involvement in this accident?

 

Harsh comments? Perhaps, but as a mod on another forum, I am personally sick to death of family and friends signing up to forums and newsgroups following an accident, then attacking or threatening those who are trying to discuss things.

 

You need to find some better "friends" Charmaine.

Guys

 

Really are we trying to p1ss this person off and test the waters here.

 

Aldo

 

 

[facthunter]

Airlines SELECT their pilots from a pool of many and they are tested twice a year and are generally multi crew multi engined aircraft, mostly in controlled airspace with company support on operational matters ( sometimes unhelpful BUT..) fuellers are there and mechanical support. The aircraft is worth hundreds of millions and the best the world can provide. Imposed costs can be passed on

 

The recreational flier selects him/her self by walking in the door. He can design build service and fly his own plane all over Australia using fuel from an outback servo He can only carry one non paying and "informed" passenger. Its supposed to be fun because he doesn't get paid to do it. Commercial operations (other than flying training) don't happen (legally).

 

WE don't actually have a scary rate of deaths in RAAus. (There are 2 women killed each week by people they know). Around 11,000 in medical circumstances errors.. Considering the environment we operate in are we much worse than GA?

 

Also without inferring anything relating to specific cases, generally, HOW safe you are is very much up to you, and how you do things.

 

LOTS of REGULATION will improve safety. People will leave the sport in droves and Australia will be consigned to the backwaters of development in basic aviation and flying training. Nev

 

 

[rankamateur]

as a mod on another forum, I am personally sick to death of family and friends signing up to forums and newsgroups following an accident, then attacking or threatening those who are trying to discuss things.

This bit might have been enough to get the message across?

 

 

[DonRamsay]

. . . if they were eating at an airfield, then they are partially complicit,. . .I mean,. . .who in their right mind would hang around a place where planes are like ly to fall out of the sky onto your head. . . . ? . . .

They were at a cafe that was not within the environs of the airport and in a tourist area. Also, the aircraft came down closer to half a kilometre from the cafe than the 10 metres reported by some of the media - fact!

 

 

[Teckair]

Maybe we should BAN everything,. .

Yeah including people posting their thoughts on forums.

 

 

[Teckair]

Errr. . . . .we have quite a few Jabiru powered aircraft in the UK. . . .some of them fitted into Jabiru airframes. . . . but no matter,. . . .that's another story. . . .In the UK . . .it is permissable to fly a "Microlight" or "LSA" type aircraft over a built up area, providing the pilot maintains a vertical displacement of 1000 feet minimum above the houses. . . . . nobody really WANTS to do this unless landing,. . or departing from an airfield where this scenario is impossible to avoid. . . . .thus far, ( unless I've missed something ) we have only had ONE reported case of these aircraft crashing into a built up area at all . . . . . the aircraft landed in someone's front garden following an efato,. . .minor injuries and no one injured on the ground. . . . surely, this risk applies to anyone flying a single powerplant flying machine anywhere. . . . . .Statistically,. . .in the UK, anyway. . . lots more G.A. aeroplanes have flown into houses / general built up areas in the past. . . .

 

I don't see why the comment has any relevance in this thread. . . . which is about a SINGLE INSTANCE of a fatal air accident. . . . . the fact that the aircraft failed to hit a number of innocent people is not really relevant,. . .anywhay, if they were eating at an airfield, then they are partially complicit,. . .I mean,. . .who in their right mind would hang around a place where planes are like ly to fall out of the sky onto your head. . . . ?

 

I truly hope that, in the fullness of time, . . .when the details of this particular incident become common knowledge, that the"regulators" do not suffer from jerking knees and come up with yet another rule. . . . . . .

 

The more you fly,. . . . .( or do ANYTHING) . . .then statistically,. . .no matter HOW HARD YOU REGULATE,. . . . the more times something will go wrong with it. Maybe we should BAN everything,. . . then NOBODY will ever get hurt. . . .?

Phil I see many posts by you that I think are irrelevant including one where you said you were 'just baiting', go and attack someone else.

.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

A person close to the pilot has asked you guys to lay off this discussion.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Damn it FT. I hate having to agree with you.

 

A person close to the pilot has asked you guys to lay off this discussion.

[rankamateur]

Damn it FT. I hate having to agree with you.

Mark the calendar.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

A person close to the pilot has asked you guys to lay off this discussion.

We would never discuss accidents if we did this every time. Just keep the discussion non personal and respectful.

 

 

[farri]

LOTS of REGULATION will improve safety. People will leave the sport in droves and Australia will be consigned to the backwaters of development in basic aviation and flying training. Nev

Nev, Has that statement come out the way you intended?

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes Frank. If no one flies it will be safe. The planes will all be on the ground or on poles.. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

We would never discuss accidents if we did this every time. Just keep the discussion non personal and respectful.

I think we can discuss the outcomes of the investigation once it's finalized, respect the wishes of the friends and family of the pilot.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I think we can discuss the outcomes of the investigation once it's finalized, respect the wishes of the friends and family of the pilot.

You have commented over 200 times on accidents, what makes this one different? Refer to post #123.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

I understand what you're all saying, but I was really discussing the effect of civil aviation regulation in a sort of direct response to Phil's post, and SDQDI you are referring to accidents in years where there was very little of that at all. Mentioning wartime accidents which occurred well before the rise in enforceable civil aviation standards kind of reinforces the point I was making. The Chicago Convention didn't even occur until 1944, wasn't enforced until 1947, and it was much later still before any significant aviation regulations really came into play in the western world.I did also state (with two asterisks no less!) that I wasn't arguing to treat Rec flying the same as Commercial. Honestly....it's there.....go and read the post again. Trust me, you don't want to do four assessed sim rides a year in a Foxbat simulator!

 

The point: there's been plenty of talk on this thread about "we don't need no stinkin' regulation". Ok, I totally understand that and agree that excessive regulation as a consequence of the accident rate could easily see the demise of rec aviation. I don't want that neither does anyone else here. But just don't make the argument that aviation regulatory regimes haven't been effective in reducing accident rates in the face of vastly increased flying rates, or you'll lose comprehensively. That's all I was saying. Maybe focus on the "we solemnly undertake to improve things, and we will show you that we can do this without more civil regulations" side of it?

 

There's a massive chasm of difference between coming out and saying "we don't want your regulations, go away, get stuffed!" and "hey we know there are issues and we'll show you that we can address these without cramming more stuff onto the Commlaw website".

Dutch. . . .

 

there isn't a "Tongue pressed slightly into cheek" key on this machine,. . .this is sometimes the trouble with text messages.

 

Teckair. . . . . No "Attack" intended . . . . .head firmly pulled in. . . . . .Will try to be more relevant in future. Thanks for the heads up.

 

Kind regards,

 

Phil

 

 

[Teckair]

I think we can discuss the outcomes of the investigation once it's finalized

What planet do you live on?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Gentlemen...I believe this post is done.....mods ?......

 

 

[old man emu]

Gentlemen...I believe this post is done.....mods ?......

I quite agree. I've just read right through this topic and, apart from its having stated the obvious that the media has cocked it up, I haven't seen any fact that has advanced our knowledge of this incident beyond the name of the pilot, and time and place of the incident.

 

After the first couple of posts, (and with the exception of expressions of condolence) the thread has drowned in a sea of vitriol. Perhaps we should call a halt to the discussion until there are some confirmed facts.

 

My only thought is that a ballistic parachute might not deploy well enough to protect an airplane at low altitude in an EFOT.

 

OME