Accident Tyagarah Air Strip NSW

[Guest asmol]

Seems this trike was loaded to the roof as the trike was taking off for a trip to Alice Springs, it could have been overloaded or an unstable load that caused the accident. (this first hand from a guy helping the clean-up)

 

 

[kasper]

Seems this trike was loaded to the roof as the trike was taking off for a trip to Alice Springs, it could have been overloaded or an unstable load that caused the accident. (this first hand from a guy helping the clean-up)

No actual knowledge of this aircraft or accident behind this post BUT

- trikes loads on the trike do not significantly impact on controlability - we are not CofG impacted because we are hang point managed with loads physically limited to a short range of displacement from the hang point and those loads (even passengers) are generally not material in terms of moving the bar position.

 

- this trike apparently crashed with only 1 occupant and is a two seat trike ... a lot of camping gear by volume etc is required to add back the actual weight capacity of the second seat especially when added to the disposable load available between two seat filled with people and the MTOW

 

Basic thing is that what looks to be an excess amount of load may not in fact be in excess of the MTOW and in particular weightshift are very insensitive to load in terms of control as the hang point and resritcted range of places to put loads means that CofG is practically never an issue impacting control.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well in this case, being an Instructor, there will be W&B sheets.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Well in this case, being an Instructor, there will be W&B sheets.

Time will tell Turbo

 

 

[Guest asmol]

I wasn't suggesting anything wrong by the pilot, perhaps some of the camping gear came loose and he lost the prop blade reducing climb, perhaps the load affected airflow around the trike base and reduced thrust of the prop (just guessing) all i can say was that he was carrying a lot of gear onboard and perhaps that played a role in the outcome, maybe it didn't, but maybe it did and if it did perhaps there are some lessons that can be learned by other trike pilots to reduce the chances of the same happening again.

 

 

[ev17ifly2]

How did we get to W&B and overloading issues with regard to this tragedy ? Initial report mentions wind gusts and how the trike was effected.

 

Asmol - I suggest you avail yourself of a good tech book on weight shift flight before post again as your ignorance on the subject is glaring.

 

 

[kasper]

Well in this case, being an Instructor, there will be W&B sheets.

You really do not understand weightshift - you do not do balance calcs as they are inappropriate and not ever used even as part of aircraft certification programmes.

 

So long as it was under MTOW and everything secure in a trike its pedal to the metal and fly.

 

And to be clear - the rolling on the floor laughing has absolutely NOTHING to do with the tragedy of the death - its entirely related to the absurdity of suggesting W&B calcs for a trike

 

 

[turboplanner]

Know a bit about W&B and thrust lines Kasper?

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Last nights NBN news had an interview with two witnesses that saw the accident. A father and son who where there for the sons tandem skydive. The father had actually videoed the take off until the trike went out of site while his son was in the air. The son said he was looking down ( i assume they where under canopy) and the trike banked steeply and the right wing was flapping. So could it be possible a structual failure may be in play here. Giving reliability of whuffo witnesses and clever editors it could be a reason for an experienced instructor to come to grief. There was no comment from the drop zone staff.

 

 

[Pearo]

I tossed a coin when I turned 55.........Road bike or RAA licence !I think I made the right choice choosing RAA, it's up to me how safe I choose to be.

 

Flying has lots of dangers , most of them you have the choice to avoided if you follow the rules , stay within your limits and don't end up in a place that your training and experience can't handle.

 

It's a lot safer than riding down the road and being T boned by a car that didn't see you !

 

Life's short, fly safe its all good,

 

cheer's Butch

Actually, flying and riding are not much difference. Both are inherently risky, but with a skilled operator both are equally as safe.

 

Let me take you phrase, and edit it a bit.

 

Riding has lots of dangers , most of them you have the choice to avoided if you follow the rules , stay within your limits and don't end up in a place that your training and experience can't handle.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

I don't know Ray but hearing he is an experienced instructor pilot makes it all the sadder. There is not much that can go wrong with a trike that would not result in a catastrophic break up. No control cables to jam and they fly fine with an engine out. I'm thinking a nedical problem. My condolences to his family and friends.

The young bloke under canopy saying he saw one wing flapping changed things a bit - trike wings don't flap unless something has let go in the structure.

 

 

[Butch]

Actually, flying and riding are not much difference. Both are inherently risky, but with a skilled operator both are equally as safe.Let me take you phrase, and edit it a bit.

 

Riding has lots of dangers , most of them you have the choice to avoided if you follow the rules , stay within your limits and don't end up in a place that your training and experience can't handle

True Pearo,

 

I have been on bikes all my life, but not road bikes.

 

I had the choice to buy a bike capable of 200 plus ks per hr with no instruction on how to ride it, or learn how to fly an aeroplane .

 

I'm sure if I had tried hard enough I could get training in how to safely ride on a high powered bike.

 

My point was that you don't get to fly any aircraft till you prove you have the skills to safely control and pilot it.

 

With bikes all you need is 12 months on L plates and you can ride a Formula 1 road bike.

 

I had a friend that came off his bike between 150 and 200 ks.....lucky to be alive.

 

When I asked him why he was going so fast he replied that he didn't realize how dangerous it was and thought he was a better rider than he actually was.

 

I think it's up to the individual to stay safe,

 

cheers Butch

 

 

[kasper]

Know a bit about W&B and thrust lines Kasper?

Yes.

 

 

[turboplanner]

In that case you'll be able to explain what you are claiming, with some figures, so we understand what you mean.

 

 

[Keenaviator]

Tubs,

 

A 3 axis aircraft is like a see saw while a trike is like a swing. You can use figures to calculate the cg of a see saw but doesn't matter how you load a swing within its weight limits because gravity ensures it will always be directly below the Hang Point.

 

Loz

 

 

[Soleair]

And the resulting change in thrust line will be minimal due to the change in 'angle of dangle' also being minimal. And well within the pitch control ability of the pilot.

 

Bruce

 

 

[rankamateur]

Tubs,A 3 axis aircraft is like a see saw while a trike is like a swing. You can use figures to calculate the cg of a see saw but doesn't matter how you load a swing within its weight limits because gravity ensures it will always be directly below the Hang Point.

Loz

See saws and swings...Now a three year old can even understand what you meant.

 

 

[kasper]

And the resulting change in thrust line will be minimal due to the change in 'angle of dangle' also being minimal. And well within the pitch control ability of the pilot.

Bruce

Yep, and the reason the pitch change of the trike is so minimal is that you have thrust changes measured in the ten's of KG trying to displace upwards of 350kg of trike/people/petrol that is also being resisted by the air acting on the rather unstreamined lot.

Swing through and hang position are minimally impacted by throttle in modern trikes ... the design places the thrust line of the prop through the vertical and lateral centre of drag for the trike and given its attached under the wing by a solid beam/mast power is not really a practical impact on control feel.

 

But to round out this bit remember that in a weightshift you are in a trike that is tagging along under a flying wing at the hang point that is effectively the CofG and CofL of the wing. Trim speed and control bar positions are much more impacted by shifting the hang point than having 1 or 2people or even MTOW in the trike.

 

 

[Kununurra]

I have for some time seen on this forum the comparison between riding a motorcycle and flying.

 

I have done both however a lot more riding than flying maybe that is why I just don't get how the 2 can be compared? Please help me out here.

 

Flying is mostly in the air .......riding is mostly on the ground.......there is no structural issues with overspeeding just the trouble you get into when the police catch you once again on the ground......VNE will cause major issues when flying if done for any length of time once again in the air.

 

To steer a bike it is weight shift to steer a plane you use controls.

 

To fly a plane if you have an accident you have people who will crusify you before they know all the facts.

 

Ok now I see the resemblance.

 

Cheers

 

 

[BLA82]

Kununurra the rate of sphincter clinching is also similar during a near miss

 

 

[turboplanner]

Yep, and the reason the pitch change of the trike is so minimal is that you have thrust changes measured in the ten's of KG trying to displace upwards of 350kg of trike/people/petrol that is also being resisted by the air acting on the rather unstreamlined lot.Swing through and hang position are minimally impacted by throttle in modern trikes ... the design places the thrust line of the prop through the vertical and lateral centre of drag for the trike and given its attached under the wing by a solid beam/mast power is not really a practical impact on control feel.

 

But to round out this bit remember that in a weightshift you are in a trike that is tagging along under a flying wing at the hang point that is effectively the CofG and CofL of the wing. Trim speed and control bar positions are much more impacted by shifting the hang point than having 1 or 2people or even MTOW in the trike.

Firstly, this discussion does not imply the subject trike was overloaded, or was not weight and balance compliant before takeoff. RAA would be investigating those issues.

 

Secondly Civil Aviation Regulation 233/235 requires both weight and balance calculations before flight, hence my comment in #28, and I would still expect those to be found.

 

I'll try to upload copies of CAR 233 and 235 below, but if this fails I'll try to find another way.

 

If you have taken off and ignored all the aspects of CARs 233 and 235, you'd be up for about$42,000.00 in fines, and the charges are strict liability.

 

I'm happy to be corrected, but I've seen no exemption to CAR 233 or CAR 235 for the pilots of trikes.

 

So W&B calculations have to be done regardless of what personal opinion you might have.

 

Weight Calculation:

 

CAR 233, 235 spell out the MTOW, or less, and among CAR 235 specifications are reductions for (e) altitude, (f) aerodrome dimensions at TO and landing points (5) landing weight.

 

The weight calculation is for the specific flight.

 

Another reason for calculating the total weight prior to takeoff, is that if it is exceeded, all the issues associated with overloading a wing can come into play in terms of control, and particularly if the weather is gusty or bumpy, structural wing failure.

 

Balance Calculation

 

As someone said, even a three year old can understand the principle of hanging on a swing, and the manufacturer decides the COG point for the pivot, which remains constant, so there's nothing the pilot can do about that, as people have mentioned.

 

However, if you move weights forward in the suspended component, it will swing nose down until it reaches equilibrium, but the prop thrust is then directed above the mean level.

 

If you move weights back the suspended component will swing nose up until it reaches equilibrium, but the prop thrust is then directed below the mean level.

 

The thrust of the propellor is minute compared to the weight of the trike, and just shows how little thrust is needed to push an aircraft through the air, but if you change the angle of the prop compared to the angle of travel, you can lose a percentage of this minute thrust - the same effect as losing power.

 

You didn't give me any figures Kasper, so I can't calculate a safe envelope, so the question is whether this change is insignificant, as you, without figures, suggest, or are there safe limits to balance.

 

In fact there are, so you are not going to get any exemption to doing balance calculations.

 

I'm looking at a Type Certificate for a Trike right now, and it specifies:

 

Max fuel: 58 kg

 

Minimum Oil: 2.1 kg

 

Max Pilot and Passenger: 200 kg

 

Front Seat Person Mass range: 55 - 100 kg

 

Rear Seat Person Mass maximum: 100 kg

 

Max Baggage under front seat storage: 4 kg

 

That's enough to allow you to do the calculation, quickly too, and record it, to meet your CASA233,235 obligations, for operations with a maximum baggage of 4 kg only, but it's unsatisfactory manufacturer information to be able to do the calculation for tool boxes, fuel drums etc.

 

The manufacturer seat masses are based on a human body COG which is relatively close to the squab, so you can't go loading the forward part of the seat base, or the floor in front of the seats without more precise data.

 

The posts in this thread, and the manufacturer data indicates to me that some pilots may not be aware that calculations are mandatory with heavy penalties.

 

S3991.docx

 

S3992.docx

 

S3991.docx

 

S3992.docx

 

S3991.docx

S3992.docx

[Guest Crezzi]

CAR235 - "The pilot in command must ensure that the load of an aircraft throughout a flight shall be so distributed that the centre of gravity of the aircraft falls within the limitations specified in its certificate of

 

airworthiness or its flight manual"

 

The first trike manual I picked at random states "Centre of gravity limits are not critical on the base of a flex wing microlight. Having the trike unit attached to the wing from a single universal bracket, variations of cockpit loading and fuel loading cannot influence the aircraft’s balance. "

 

The same POH also includes a Fuel Load calculator which goes up to the combined maximum front & rear occupant weights and includes up to 20kg "additional equipment".

 

John

 

PS When you are in a hole - stop digging !

 

 

[kasper]

Firstly, this discussion does not imply the subject trike was overloaded, or was not weight and balance compliant before takeoff. RAA would be investigating those issues.Secondly Civil Aviation Regulation 233/235 requires both weight and balance calculations before flight, hence my comment in #28, and I would still expect those to be found.

 

I'll try to upload copies of CAR 233 and 235 below, but if this fails I'll try to find another way.

 

If you have taken off and ignored all the aspects of CARs 233 and 235, you'd be up for about$42,000.00 in fines, and the charges are strict liability.

 

I'm happy to be corrected, but I've seen no exemption to CAR 233 or CAR 235 for the pilots of trikes.

 

So W&B calculations have to be done regardless of what personal opinion you might have.

 

Weight Calculation:

 

CAR 233, 235 spell out the MTOW, or less, and among CAR 235 specifications are reductions for (e) altitude, (f) aerodrome dimensions at TO and landing points (5) landing weight.

 

The weight calculation is for the specific flight.

 

Another reason for calculating the total weight prior to takeoff, is that if it is exceeded, all the issues associated with overloading a wing can come into play in terms of control, and particularly if the weather is gusty or bumpy, structural wing failure.

 

Balance Calculation

 

As someone said, even a three year old can understand the principle of hanging on a swing, and the manufacturer decides the COG point for the pivot, which remains constant, so there's nothing the pilot can do about that, as people have mentioned.

 

However, if you move weights forward in the suspended component, it will swing nose down until it reaches equilibrium, but the prop thrust is then directed above the mean level.

 

If you move weights back the suspended component will swing nose up until it reaches equilibrium, but the prop thrust is then directed below the mean level.

 

The thrust of the propellor is minute compared to the weight of the trike, and just shows how little thrust is needed to push an aircraft through the air, but if you change the angle of the prop compared to the angle of travel, you can lose a percentage of this minute thrust - the same effect as losing power.

 

You didn't give me any figures Kasper, so I can't calculate a safe envelope, so the question is whether this change is insignificant, as you, without figures, suggest, or are there safe limits to balance.

 

In fact there are, so you are not going to get any exemption to doing balance calculations.

 

I'm looking at a Type Certificate for a Trike right now, and it specifies:

 

Max fuel: 58 kg

 

Minimum Oil: 2.1 kg

 

Max Pilot and Passenger: 200 kg

 

Front Seat Person Mass range: 55 - 100 kg

 

Rear Seat Person Mass maximum: 100 kg

 

Max Baggage under front seat storage: 4 kg

 

That's enough to allow you to do the calculation, quickly too, and record it, to meet your CASA233,235 obligations, for operations with a maximum baggage of 4 kg only, but it's unsatisfactory manufacturer information to be able to do the calculation for tool boxes, fuel drums etc.

 

The manufacturer seat masses are based on a human body COG which is relatively close to the squab, so you can't go loading the forward part of the seat base, or the floor in front of the seats without more precise data.

 

The posts in this thread, and the manufacturer data indicates to me that some pilots may not be aware that calculations are mandatory with heavy penalties.

Yes and no.

Yes we are subject to R233 and R235 BUT

 

No, unless there is a determination relating to the aircraft of a CofG by CASA they operationally do not apply ... and CAO95.32 aircraft have no determinations of CofG for certified aircraft let alone homebuilts. The fundamental disconnect between the operation of weightshift and W&B to check CofG is known to CASA and is probably known to RAA Tech given my discussions with them. And whilst not applicable here as the aircraft that crashed was 95.32 certified 95.10 aircraft , regardless of being 3axis of Weightshift or combined controls etc has NOT a chance of ever having a W&B requirement by R233 because that requires CASA to individually assess each aircraft and make a determination ... and then the owner as the design holder can go and change things that move the validity of any calc ... so even if CASA wanted to they will not in this area have issue.

 

Stepping through to dot i and cross t...

 

CAR233 as it applies to aircraft W&B required CASA to have made a determination determination as to method of CofG calc and MTOW, Factually in relation to weightshift aircraft there is no determination in relation to CofG which is why I rofl at suggestions that W&B calcs exist.

 

In relation to CAO95.32 weightshift aircraft the determination under CAR233 that we are subject to is the greater of the certified MTOW per the manufacture and approval under 95.32 or the mass as declared by any homebuilder of a CAO 95.32 aircraft subject to the highest MTOW allowable as determined by CAO95.32 para 1 being somewhere up to 650kg determined by stall speed.

 

Factually to satisfy R233 we in a CAO93.32 weightshift need to determined that we are under the MTOW as stated on either the type approval of the aircraft under CASA CAO95.32 or whatever MTOW we have determined applicable to a homebuilt 95.32 that allows us to remain under the 600/650kg MTOW and remain within 45kts stall

 

Pointing out the load allowances for an aircraft under weightshift will NOT allow a W&B calc. because here is a fundamental flaw in doing so ... my actual CofG in relation to the wing MUST move and be variable ... thats how I actually control the aircraft.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Guys,

 

Just a little bit of info.

 

I just met Richard Tabaka and his mate at Innamincka after they landed, Ray was supposed to catch up with them at Alice Springs and have now cut their trip short to get home and are here and will be overnighting, they are devastated at the loss of Ray.

 

As being an ex triker I went up to the airport as I saw a couple of trikes on the strip on my way back in from out in the field

 

I have not me Richard before but knew who it was through viewing the Byron Bay Microlight website over the years, he had quite an astonish look on his face when I said your Richard Tabaka aren't you, I explained to him I knew the face through his website and that I was an ex triker.

 

Just about to print off an area forecast for them for there trip tomorrow (Thargomindah, Cunnamulla & St George)

 

Lets wish them safe travels on their way home.

 

Cheers

 

Alf

 

 

[turboplanner]

CAR235 - "The pilot in command must ensure that the load of an aircraft throughout a flight shall be so distributed that the centre of gravity of the aircraft falls within the limitations specified in its certificate ofairworthiness or its flight manual"

The first trike manual I picked at random states "Centre of gravity limits are not critical on the base of a flex wing microlight. Having the trike unit attached to the wing from a single universal bracket, variations of cockpit loading and fuel loading cannot influence the aircraft’s balance. "

 

The same POH also includes a Fuel Load calculator which goes up to the combined maximum front & rear occupant weights and includes up to 20kg "additional equipment".

 

John

 

PS When you are in a hole - stop digging !

Maybe you didn't understand my post; what you are referring to there is the CoG of the wing load, which, as we agree is fixed at the pivot point.

 

The trike manual's statement probably should have said "aerofoil's balance, because it then goes on to include a fuel load calculator which is also what I referred to.

 

If you think you can get away without filling out calculations based on that Fuel Load calculator, you're dreaming.