EFATO

[winsor68]

I take your point about the video pilot. Apparently there were reliable witnesses and a video at the Ross accident who say it was a turn back.

If the point of impact from the photo was correct...I can't see how it could be said it was a turn back. The wreckage was only just off to the side of the airstrip. The aircraft wouldn't have had time to have turned back. My guess is that it was an attempt at the cross strip...which appeared to witnesses to be a turn back when the wing dropped.?

 

 

[pmccarthy]

PHIL I remember when the Drover was taken out of service and replaced by the Beagle. You must have been a really young pilot back then.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

RIGHT READ THIS.

 

The pilot did a great job getting to a clear area, if he elected to keep flying on runway heading he would be dealing with tress and drainage ditches. He elected to head for his forced landing area before he lost all power. The out come was not as everyone would have wanted it because of the soft ground but was possibly far better than what may have been.

 

This was not a turn back, it was a turn to a better landing area.

 

I did not post this video so it could be compared with Ross's accident. Until his investigation is complete by the people doing the investigation no one on these forums knows what went on, so do not speculate or compare to this accident. Any future comments on Ross's accident should be made on Ross's thread.

 

Kindly keep emotions in check, any more and I'll ask Ian to lock this thread or remove it.

 

 

[biggles]

I recall questioning 2 eyewitnesses regarding a similar incident, I stress , not this incident . One was absolutely certain that the ... ' he turned right ', the other was absolutely certain .... ' he turned left ' . The investigators will do their job and report/ coordinate with the police . We will have to wait until the coroner delivers his findings , which may be with, or without, an inquest . In the meantime you can be certain that anything that may affect the safety of the members will be advised . So ,we can speculate all we like , but that's all it is .... 'speculation ' . The coroner's report may be months or years away, and even then the report may be restricted to certain parties . This is the way it is guys, so we need to settle down and be patient . Moreso,I doubt that any changes to this system are likely .... Bob

 

 

[Oscar]

In the opinion of a CASA-approved test pilot, who is familiar with (indeed, did certification tests upon) the early Lightwings, the elevator was seriously blanketed by separation due to the shape of the fuselage in the case of no power ( i.e. prop wash) and an attempted turn-back at low height and speed 'would be catastrophic'. There may be important information to be gleaned from the flight testing of the particular model involved as to wing-drop and recovery characteristics in a stall to separate 'turn-back' as a conscious decision of the pilot from 'stall response' as something outside the pilot's control - especially at less than 200 feet, as reported.

 

While I agree with those who say that proper analysis of any accident adds to the stock of knowledge which potentially helps those who continue to fly the model of aircraft, that analysis is NOT currently available - at least to the public. If there were observers with sufficient knowledge of flying and possibly a video that MAY reveal such things as elevator and rudder position immediately following the EFATO, then just perhaps we will be able to extract solid and useful information. Rudder and elevator input for an attempted turn-back vs. for a stall and wing-drop recovery, will be almost diametrically opposite.

 

There is also the possibility of mechanical failure compounding the situation of the engine stopping, where the emergency action required of the pilot over-stressed a component that was already seriously compromised but had escaped detection in pre-flight inspections. Early Lightwings are known for having (random) corrosion problems in the structural tubes and something as simple as replacement of a control-run pulley bracket with stainless or monel rivets could easily produce a critical weakness in a control run/ longeron tube.. With the damage evident to that aircraft, that will be hard if not impossible to find.

 

Crash investigation is an immensely technical and painstaking task. Those who say that RAA does not have the technical expertise to do really expert investigation, may well be correct in general - but I suggest that as in the case of the Moruya double-fatal crash into the sea, Darren Barnefield exhibited a very good level of investigative expertise. And Darren is, I am sure, someone well prepared to call in others with specific knowledge if he feels it would add to the sum of knowledge.

 

There is a very old adage that 'most accidents happen before take-off'. Sufficiently rigorous investigation can often determine that the mechanical failure, the powerplant malfunction etc. could have been detected by proper inspection / maintenance procedures. I suspect - but have NO evidence - that the closer to the ground the accident commences, the more likely that the 'accident happened before take-off'. Pilot competence / inadequacy may well either mitigate/compound the basic 'accident' circumstances.

 

Hopefully, ALL the circumstances relating to Ross Millard's death that CAN be determined, WILL be determined. Likely, there will be lessons for all of us.

 

However, at this time, very few of the circumstances are really known. I see people basing their 'analysis' of the accident on their evaluation of Ross Millard's expertise as an L2 and as a pilot. They may be correct, they may be incorrect. Others have an opposite evaluation.

 

WE DO NOT KNOW even all the observed and recorded facts. Hopefully, these will come out, in both the RAA investigation and the Coroner's report.

 

Even then, it is in practical terms a non sequitur that all the formal reports will fail to provide all of the answers. Having been somewhat closely involved in the Goulburn Sting crash follow-up, I was appalled that none of the reporting -including the Coroner's report- ever mentioned the absolutely terrible occupant safety ( or in fact, total lack of it) evidence of a Carbon Sting aircraft. The circumstances of the catastrophic failure of the Rotax engine were exhaustively documented; the duplicity and forgery of the records of the aircraft seller were extensively documented. Nowhere was it documented that the fact that the occupants did not survive a survivable impact in an aircraft with acceptable occupant safety: almost any GA aircraft, Jabiru's, and almost certainly other well-built RAA aircraft.

 

Allow Ross Millard to be farewelled with all of the goodwill to him that his friends deserve. As the 'facts' are discovered, the lessons from this accident will - hopefully - be absorbed by the Rec Av community for the benefit of all. Any judgement at this time is simply premature.

 

 

[Teckair]

I have issues with some of the comments in that post including it is on the wrong thread.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Ian it needs to be moved over please.

 

 

[winsor68]

Before the aircraft reached the limit of the ridiculous bank angle exhibited it passed a flat and open area...you can see it out the front screen at about the 36 second mark. Following the 36 second mark the pilot either stalled the right wing or deliberately manoeuvred the aircraft in an alarming manner in the circumstances.

 

The only reason I mentioned Ross' crash is to highlight the context of experienced aviators (like Ross) commenting on the pilots actions in a positive light...possibly being the reason said experienced aviators are still dying in "stall/spin" accidents despite all the training carried out to avoid these situations.

 

 

[facthunter]

There isn't much training carried out to avoid these types of accidents. At this point I have no idea of how and why the Plane did what. it did. Examining control positions from videos is an excellent method of analysis, but it doesn't tell WHY the control surface was in that position. Something could have failed. It might not have been pilot initiated. It's all very open (the issue) and intense fire can make examination harder. It's too easy to blame the pilot. I've always thrown that thought into the discussion. Nev

 

 

[docjell]

Hey Phil- I'm intellectually an uber- Luddite but have t confess that I DO love the new technology! GPS in the cockpit almost gave me a hard-on( OMG happy memories) . I. religiously go through all the legally required bullshit with flight plans etc but the REALbottom line is that my GPS combined with Ozrunways is an unbeatable safe combination and I believe has contributed massively to Aviation safety in Australia.. I was always afraid of getting lost I n the UK, and my recent review of the UK half mil map reminded me of how scary the UK airspace is!

 

Right or wrong if I have a radio( and I have two) then I can guarantee I know where I am and covnvey that Info to air traffic- usually to within a few metres! They are usually very happy.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Hey Phil- I'm intellectually an uber- Luddite but have t confess that I DO love the new technology! GPS in the cockpit almost gave me a hard-on( OMG happy memories) . I. religiously go through all the legally required ******** with flight plans etc but the REALbottom line is that my GPS combined with Ozrunways is an unbeatable safe combination and I believe has contributed massively to Aviation safety in Australia.. I was always afraid of getting lost I n the UK, and my recent review of the UK half mil map reminded me of how scary the UK airspace is!Right or wrong if I have a radio( and I have two) then I can guarantee I know where I am and covnvey that Info to air traffic- usually to within a few metres! They are usually very happy.

One problem with UK airspace ( apart from the fact that it is a bit on the "Busy" side. . .! ) is that various bits of it seem to alter in shape ans size quite often, useful little gaps closed up, lower vertical limits, etc. . . tongue removed from cheek, I am a tech hobbyist, amateur radio etc. . . I like playing with all the stuff; both aviation orientated and otherwise. . .. Wish I'd had a few satellites about, and a simple Garmin GPS 12 back in OZ in the 70s though . . . .much easier for sar postition reports than "Er,. . .West abeam Numerous sand ridges" eh ?. . .

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

Before the aircraft reached the limit of the ridiculous bank angle exhibited it passed a flat and open area...you can see it out the front screen at about the 36 second mark. Following the 36 second mark the pilot either stalled the right wing or deliberately manoeuvred the aircraft in an alarming manner in the circumstances. The only reason I mentioned Ross' crash is to highlight the context of experienced aviators (like Ross) commenting on the pilots actions in a positive light...possibly being the reason said experienced aviators are still dying in "stall/spin" accidents despite all the training carried out to avoid these situations.

Bit hard to land in an area you have passed. Not enough clear area ahead on the aircraft heading. Quite sure that if he could have landed straight ahead he would have done that. Steep turn was need to get to an area were clear roll out was available. in the end the roll out was near non existent. I'll say it again he did what he had to do and did it well. The steep turn was not a maintaining height turn rather a descending turn no chance of stall plenty of speed.

 

Thread closed as far as i am concerned. Move on.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I have issues with some of the comments in that post including it is on the wrong thread.

The wrong thread is the closest he's been all year.

 

 

[facthunter]

The plane Ross was flying was observed to behave is a certain manner. NO ONE knows for SURE what was the exact cause. I'm not prepared to make any judgement on it. There certainly seemed no reason for a turnback. I can't see any resemblance with the 206 or whatever it was, beyond each plane couldn't remain in the air The Cessna had some power but the popping had gone on for a long time, and he was trying to hold height to land on the best available area, which turned out to be the type the nosewheel wouldn't like.. Nev

 

 

[winsor68]

The plane Ross was flying was observed to behave is a certain manner. NO ONE knows for SURE what was the exact cause. I'm not prepared to make any judgement on it. There certainly seemed no reason for a turnback. I can't see any resemblance with the 206 or whatever it was, beyond each plane couldn't remain in the air The Cessna had some power but the popping had gone on for a long time, and he was trying to hold height to land on the best available area, which turned out to be the type the nosewheel wouldn't like.. Nev

I'm seeing plenty of semblance in the Human Factors area between the two accidents.

 

 

[winsor68]

I'm seeing plenty of semblance in the Human Factors area between the two accidents.

Correction....Between the two CRASHES.

 

 

[facthunter]

I respect you comments generally but seriously in this matter I can't see much connection that can definitely be established. Pilots are often not around to give their version of what happened . We know the results but not the causes. Nev

 

 

[Admin]

It has been requested to lock this thread due to the references to the Ross Millard accident. Please note that Ross's accident has not had any official release of information and the investigation is still underway.

 

I would like to see this thread continue as EFATO is an important subject for our safety however if there is one more reference to the Ross Millard accident in this thread I will oblige the request and lock this thread.

 

 

[winsor68]

I respect you comments generally but seriously in this matter I can't see much connection that can definitely be established. Pilots are often not around to give their version of what happened . We know the results but not the causes. Nev

I was referring to the human factors aspect displayed by the posters...in referring to the actions of the pilot in a positive note.

 

 

[skeptic36]

It is unbelievable, that a person sitting in their armchair, with the aid of the one directional view of a video camera can judge that pilots actions as anything but positive.

 

 

[Guest ozzie]

OK jig is up. This accident happened 12 months ago. Has been hashed pretty well on DZ.com.and diver driver.

 

I'll post up a google earth image of the crash site that is to the south of the departure runway of Sussex airport in New Jersey USA.

 

Not sure of the release date of the NTSB report but shows the cause. Broken valve springs.

 

Once you read the report and look at the image you will understand why he did what he did. you can clearly see the drainage ditch that tripped them up as well as the heavy tree line and creek directly ahead and to the right.

 

http://ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20141205X80248&ntsbno=ERA15LA071&akey=1

 

 

Crash site was just past the second dark line into the field just past what seems to be wheel tracks.

 

 

[Oscar]

Just looked at Google Maps; it seems to me that there were a number of options available from 1200 feet that wouldn't have placed a group of pax secured only by lap belts ( if I have that correctly) from potential injury in an overturn by running at 90 degrees to irrigation ditches.

 

 

[facthunter]

Really? Paddocks inevitably look smoother at height that at flare height when it's too late to change your plan. Nev

 

 

[Robbo]

The thing is, he managed to land with no major injurys or fatalities, in my opinion he did a good job.

 

We could sit here for days with the "could haves" but in the end no one was killed.

 

It is easy with the opinions but in reality none of us were there or even on board the aircraft so we know nothing and it looks easy after the fact but I am sure "any of us" can say I would have done this, but under stress is a big big difference.

 

I am sure all of us have never done a perfect forced landing everytime we practice it.

 

 

[Oscar]

Really? Paddocks inevitably look smoother at height that at flare height when it's too late to change your plan. Nev

Nev: irrigation ditches are pretty damn obvious - you'd know that. Been there, outlanded in same, knew where I needed to be pointed when I made a decision at 1000 feet that landing was the only option. I agree that any field looks flatter from topside, but a pattern of aligned ditches always says: 'ditches'.