Aerochute Crash near Mackay

[Cosmick]

Fortunately Pilot and Public OK. now someone needs to kick the Pilot in the Butt.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-27/powered-parachute-crash-caught-on-video-mackay-pub/6649448

 

 

[turboplanner]

Not unusual behaviour for the PPC fraternity. One decided to land at our RC strip, took the president of the club for a "ride", caught a wheel in the fence on takeoff from the very narrow strip.

 

 

[Cosmick]

Not unusual behaviour for the PPC fraternity.

I take offence to that Turbs, this type of behavior from Pilots of any type is poor. Look back at all the Beat ups by REAL Pilots. Now you've seen first hand one PPC pilot do something wrong so ALL PPC Pilots are careless.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I didn't say all, I said the behaviour was not unusual. If you think that's too tough, get on the websites and You Tube and see for yourself.

 

 

[Teckair]

There is beat ups and then there is beat ups but that was down right stupid.

 

 

[fred cenko]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFIB1L3BPU

 

Have a look at this for skylarking .Some pilots come in all different forms.

 

 

[Teckair]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sjFIB1L3BPUHave a look at this for skylarking .Some pilots come in all different forms.

Yep you can't fix stupid.

 

 

[Nobody]

Yep you can't fix stupid.

...you have to wait for gravity to do that for you...

 

 

[M61A1]

I didn't say all, I said the behaviour was not unusual. If you think that's too tough, get on the websites and You Tube and see for yourself.

Until recently (if I understand correctly), for foot launched PPCs, the rules about lowest altitudes and separation were very different from other aircraft. With the disclaimer that "yes there are some dills out there", just because you saw them low and slow doesn't necessarily mean that they were breaking rules at the time.

 

 

[BLA82]

Dam he is lucky

 

 

[storchy neil]

Until recently (if I understand correctly), for foot launched PPCs, the rules about lowest altitudes and separation were very different from other aircraft. With the disclaimer that "yes there are some dills out there", just because you saw them low and slow doesn't necessarily mean that they were breaking rules at the time.

 

where in the hell did hear or read that bullxxxx by the way that is not a foot launched air craft

 

by what I have seen and heard there are definite 5 violation off flight

 

we are surrounded by idiots neil

 

 

[Teckair]

Until recently (if I understand correctly), for foot launched PPCs, the rules about lowest altitudes and separation were very different from other aircraft. With the disclaimer that "yes there are some dills out there", just because you saw them low and slow doesn't necessarily mean that they were breaking rules at the time.

This one was not foot launched and that act was inexcusable and the worsted publicity.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Until recently (if I understand correctly), for foot launched PPCs, the rules about lowest altitudes and separation were very different from other aircraft. With the disclaimer that "yes there are some dills out there", just because you saw them low and slow doesn't necessarily mean that they were breaking rules at the time.

You worry me at times M161A1; the incident in this thread shows someone flying on the deck OVER A CROWD, getting the power on way too late, and coming unstuck.

The other example I gave was a PPC landing on a radio controlled MODEL aircraft strip, where the strip length, width and fencing was never designed to be used for manned flight, then taking up an unsuspecting passenger.

 

I certainly didn't post about any foot launching and I didn't post about any low and slow flight, so throwing in a couple of red herrings isn't going to change the situation.

 

The report says this incident has been reported to ATSB so there will be more grief than if it was just RAA that found out about it.

 

 

[M61A1]

Until recently (if I understand correctly), for foot launched PPCs, the rules about lowest altitudes and separation were very different from other aircraft. With the disclaimer that "yes there are some dills out there", just because you saw them low and slow doesn't necessarily mean that they were breaking rules at the time.where in the hell did hear or read that bullxxxx by the way that is not a foot launched air craft

by what I have seen and heard there are definite 5 violation off flight

 

we are surrounded by idiots neil

I'm in no way suggesting that this particular incident is excusable, and yes I'm aware this was not a foot launched ppc, and for your own information, the it was HGFA ops manual that I read it in. The comment was specifically in regard to a previous comment about how common it was to see ppc's violating the rules. Yes, you are correct, we Are surrounded by idiots.

 

 

[M61A1]

You worry me at times M161A1; the incident in this thread shows someone flying on the deck OVER A CROWD, getting the power on way too late, and coming unstuck.The other example I gave was a PPC landing on a radio controlled MODEL aircraft strip, where the strip length, width and fencing was never designed to be used for manned flight, then taking up an unsuspecting passenger.

I certainly didn't post about any foot launching and I didn't post about any low and slow flight, so throwing in a couple of red herrings isn't going to change the situation.

 

The report says this incident has been reported to ATSB so there will be more grief than if it was just RAA that found out about it.

What you posted was about ppc's commonly doing the wrong thing. A lot of aviators assume that they (ppc's pilots) are breaking the law, when, in fact they legal, simply because they had a different set of rules.

I am in no way suggesting that this pilot's actions are in any way excusable, just suggesting that some of the things you thought were being done illegally may have actually been legal.

 

 

[Nobody]

Extract from the current HGFA manual on PPG rules below. I dont have the previous version available to check if it has changed recently...

 

5.1.4.2 Operations of Powered Paragliders & Powered Hang Gliders (PPG & PHG)

(a) PPG or PHG may only be flown at a height of less than 300 feet above ground level, if:

 

(i) the aircraft is in the course of taking off or landing; or

 

(ii) the aircraft is flying over land that is owned by, or under the control of, the pilot; or

 

(iii) the owner or occupier of the land (including the Crown), or an agent or employee of the owner or occupier, has given permission for the flight or flights to take place; or

 

(iv) the pilot of the aircraft is engaged in flight training and the craft is flying over a flight training area, over which the HGFA has been authorised for low flying.

 

(b) Subject to 5.1.4.2(a), a PPG or PHG can be flown at a height lower than 300 feet above ground level, but must be at a distance of at least 25 metres horizontally from:

 

(i) a public building (except with the permission, in writing, of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority and in accordance with the conditions specified in the permit,

 

(ii) a dwelling (except with the permission of the occupier),

 

(iii) persons not directly associated, except during launching / landing phases.

 

© Launch Phases: Operation closer than a horizontal distance of 25 metres from persons other than those persons directly associated with the operation of PPG or PHG is permitted provided those other persons are behind a line passing through the wing, at right angles to the direction of flight or intended direction of flight.

[Cosmick]

What we are all pis5ed off about is Pilots being stupid and in this case risking the lives of others. There is a set of rules and if everyone just followed them then the statistics would be a hell of a lot less than what we are seeing.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What you posted was about ppc's commonly doing the wrong thing. A lot of aviators assume that they (ppc's pilots) are breaking the law, when, in fact they legal, simply because they had a different set of rules.I am in no way suggesting that this pilot's actions are in any way excusable, just suggesting that some of the things you thought were being done illegally may have actually been legal.

Ah, I understand now, you mean the ones I saw in and out of IMC, apparently lost, wandering around the Moorabbin control area, or the ones that fly around the Carrum entry point into Moorabbin, or the one I saw flying blow tree level, or the ones I read about that WERE breaking the law - were those the ones?

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Dam he is lucky

I'd be surprised if there wern't some injuries there......

 

 

[Doug Evans]

I'd be surprised if there wern't some injuries there......

Just a quad bike with injuries .....

 

 

[dazza 38]

Just a quad bike with injuries .....

Talking about Quad bikes, did anybody here watch Landline on Sunday ? They were saying that there has been 200 deaths from quad bikes in 15 years here.

 

 

[turboplanner]

That's about one a month

 

 

[dazza 38]

That's about one a month

They want farmers to use side by side ATVs instead where they can.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Tossing lollies out for the kids. Bit silly flying over the crowd like that, shame the tree got in the way would have got away with it if not for that.

 

 

[Litespeed]

They want farmers to use side by side ATVs instead where they can.

Yep. Quad bikes are a big killer- unstable, high c of g, narrow track etc. I would never allow a child on one. But heaps of parents buy them for kids, but would never let them near a trail bike.

 

Farmers would be safer doing motorcross jumps while juggling a chainsaw and loaded shotgun.

 

Give me old modded VW with cage or small Suzuki 4wd anyday.

 

The machines they want them to move to are often more than a new car- expensive.