Port Lincoln accident

[Oscar]

Myself,I would happily choose a bad landing/controlled low speed flight into trees/terrain in a Jabiru over almost anything and certainly over a GA aircraft.

Possibly the best photo of the sort of crash damage that a Jabiru has protected the occupants in: Wedderburn, 2001, result: one badly sprained ankle, two occupants walked/hopped away.:

 

 

Rans RV6, VH-TXF, 2014, double fatality:

 

 

 

[facthunter]

There was a Jab that flew into the side of a container wasn't there? Also they usually are rebuildable. Nev

 

 

[Litespeed]

Possibly the best photo of the sort of crash damage that a Jabiru has protected the occupants in: Wedderburn, 2001, result: one badly sprained ankle, two occupants walked/hopped away.:

 

Rans RV6, VH-TXF, 2014, double fatality:

 

The Jabiru-

A excellent example of the aircraft taking the G loads and its self sacrifice of airframe to reduce the loads impacted into the cockpit.

 

Sadly the RV4 did not and fatality ensued. It obviously took some loads but not enough, no doubt the speed was probably higher as well.

 

 

[Nobody]

I don't necessarily think when comparing an RV-6 and a jabiru you need to remember the speed difference. A jabiru will be cruising about 115 knots and the RV-6 about 160. This means that when the unfortunate incident occurs the structure has to dissipate nearly double the energy. More if you account for the weight difference.

 

 

[Litespeed]

Nobody,

 

Yes, the RV6 will be going faster at cruise but we are talking about at near landing speeds. At landing speeds the differnce is all about the stall speed and the weight.

 

RV6 is 1600lbs and stalls at 55 mph clean.

 

J160 is 1180lbs and stalls 48 knots indicated with full flaps and 53 knts indicated clean.

 

Both as per manufacturers spec sheets.

 

The big difference is the weight and the design of the aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

If you hit something at cruise speed it's all over. You can't design, in a practical sense, for the deceleration involved. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

If you are flying over mountains or Bass Strait or forest and your engine stops then your chances are low. If your car blows a front right hand tyre or a tie rod lets go or you have a "microsleep" then you veer into the oncoming lane. It is all about the probability of the event. I am comfortable flying Bass Strait with a well-maintained Lycoming or a Continental or a Rotax 912 up front have done it several times. Have flown extensively over "designated remote areas" with survival gear and will do it again.

 

If you are using other engines, or are an amateur doing your own maintenance, then I can understand the concern and would not attempt these things with you. But I ride reasonably fast motorbikes, drive a classic sports car which doesn't have seat belts and fly over non-landable locations because I have confidence in the equipment and the maintenance.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Risk management or youse payes youse money and takes youse chances

 

 

[DrZoos]

I carry a small hammer mounted near my knee just incase i go inverted and need to smash the perspex to get out...give me a sliding canopy over a hinged one anyday in a low wing for just this reason...

 

Many will know this, but for others, The other huge factor in survivability is angle of impact...there are survivability charts with air speed and angle of impact and this angle plays a large part...i will try and find one and edit this post inserting it...

 

 

[Litespeed]

Last magazine had such a chart from memory.

 

The "life Hammer" is best as it has a tunsten tip and a blade to cut the webbing of seat belts.

 

 

[frank marriott]

If you are flying over mountains or Bass Strait or forest and your engine stops then your chances are low. If your car blows a front right hand tyre or a tie rod lets go or you have a "microsleep" then you veer into the oncoming lane. It is all about the probability of the event. I am comfortable flying Bass Strait with a well-maintained Lycoming or a Continental or a Rotax 912 up front have done it several times. Have flown extensively over "designated remote areas" with survival gear and will do it again.If you are using other engines, or are an amateur doing your own maintenance, then I can understand the concern and would not attempt these things with you. But I ride reasonably fast motorbikes, drive a classic sports car which doesn't have seat belts and fly over non-landable locations because I have confidence in the equipment and the maintenance.

PM I can accept what you say, but for Bass Strait, not for me - yes I have done it in a single, but I am not as adventurous as I age (well maybe in something like a C208) but I can accept the other bits.

 

 

[K-man]

Possibly the best photo of the sort of crash damage that a Jabiru has protected the occupants in: Wedderburn, 2001, result: one badly sprained ankle, two occupants walked/hopped away.:Rans RV6, VH-TXF, 2014, double fatality:

Unfortunately all is not what it seems. I agree totally about the Jab and the protection it gives but the RV accident may have been totally different circumstances. I don't know what has been released about that accident so I won't comment further other than to say that in similar circumstances the result in the Jab would most likely have been the same.

 

 

[nong]

It has been explained in previous threads that RV6 fuselage collapses the top cockpit ledge in compression.

 

This destroys shoulder restraint leading to blunt force trauma.

 

Then...and this is the tricky bit...the fuselage falls back into shape.

 

Jabs and Ag-Cats are your best shots in the survival stakes!

 

 

[forexjohnny]

Yes Jabs and Ag-Cats, well built aircraft that can take a hit and protect the occupants but the best shot in surviving a crash, not even close.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

The argument that you cannot fly over rough land is the same as saying you can't drive a car on roads with trees alongside them in case you run off the road.

Close, but not really a good analogy Sir, ( no offence intended ! ) . . . if your donkey gives up the ghost on a tree-lined highway, you don't actually HAVE to crash into the trees, . . . whereas gravity tends to have other ideas if said trees are situated beneath your dynamic aerial conveyance.

 

But I agree that avoiding Tigernasty areas of ground is fine, but it might impede your flying a bit if that surrounds / is the area where you happen to live. Designated remote areas are a different animal though of course, and more consideration would be prudent if THAT is where you live.

 

Who was it who said, "crash as slowly as you can,. . .into something soft and preferably relatively inexpensive "

 

. . . Low Energy Aviation - long may it prosper.

 

 

[facthunter]

Gossamer Albatross might be defined as, but for the occupant certainly not low energy. I saw it at the Science Museum Kensington. Most impressive. Nev.

 

 

[Garfly]

I don't think the 'driving the tree lined highway' analogy is to do with engine failures per se. It's about comparative risk perception, overall. In the case of highway driving, we regard trees flashing past to the left, speeding metal masses inches to our right as an acceptable risk - as 'prudent' - because we've normalised it. Objectively, flying a single engined aircraft over tiger country occasionally is probably less risky than driving the highways regularly. But it's not, by convention, viewed that way. Maybe our culture is still in awe of aviation.

 

The highway equivalent of the aerial engine failure is the blown-tyre or micro-sleep or split-second misjudgement.

 

In any case, when a car does lose power at speed, it's not the trees we need fear:

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-12/volkswagen-confirms-australian-car-recall/4747694