Plane crashes at Redcliffe in North Brisbane

[SSCBD]

SSCBD, sorry, my apologies. Thought this thread was about a 172 that crashed at Redcliffe.

That's fine Pearo - all good - fly well.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

in all the flights I've flown in and out of Redcliffe and that's been in every thing from tail-dragger Skyfox to twins... I can't ever recall a time when the wind was ever straight down the runway.. and if it was at one end.. it certainly wasn't at the other end.. so if you get complacent or inattentive.......

 

 

[GAFA]

The Tiger Month that operates joyflights out of Redcliffe flipped this afternoon towards the end of it's landing roll.

 

 

[dunlopdangler]

and there you go!!

 

 

[ian00798]

Read the POH, that is the correct advice on landing in crosswinds.

Fully agree, and it works with any aircraft, be it RA or GA. The POH was developed by test pilots, try many different techniques and methods to find out what techniques will give results that can be repeated by the average quality pilot. I suspect very few on here have the skills or training to be a test pilot, so as a general rule we should follow the word of the professionals. Considering the looks I have received from some people when I mention the POH though, I think there are some pilots that don't even know what it is, let alone read it.

 

 

[Pearo]

Had a look at IVW yesterday. Its been pulled down for repairs. Only real damage is too the prop (and of course that means the engine has to be replaced) and the left outer wingtip. Prop, engine and wing have been removed for repair/replacement. Under carriage all looks good, but I am guessing will be stripped down and checked at some point. Pilot (singular) walked away with no injuries.

 

 

[Yenn]

Some of us here actually wroote the POH of their plane. Does that make them experts.

 

Iv'e been a test pilot, but don't really feel like an expert.

 

 

[djpacro]

Wingtip strike often requires replacement of wooden spars.

 

 

[ian00798]

I'm assuming you are talking about a home built aircraft, in which case you were by definition the test pilot. If you built it, you are extremely familiar with its systems, hence you are qualified to write the POH. You then go and do a 25-40 hour test program where you are a test pilot effectively. I would assume you had a reasonable idea of the performance specs for the aircraft, possibly had even flown a similar aircraft before, and then you did a lot of the testing at heights that gave you some margin for error. That's a bit different to somebody grabbing a 172 and then saying stuff it, I don't like the way the test pilot says I should fly this, I'm going to do it my way. As soon as you enter that area, you are a test pilot. All the performance figures etc in the POH are no longer valid. Possibly something you may get away with, but if your going to try it, probably not a decision you should make on the spur of the moment, you really need to do a proper risk analysis on that kind of thing.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Take a parachute

 

 

[ian00798]

When I flew the CT4 I did. It didn't make me feel that much safer. Even the ejection seat in the PC9 wasn't a magic bullet for that. For the parachute, just think what's involved in jumping out. You have to unstrap, open the door/canopy against the slipstream, get yourself out of the cockpit, jump from the cockpit area without hitting any part of the aircraft on the way down and without getting snagged and then hopefully your parachute decides to work today. That's assuming your in an aircraft that is somewhat under control. If it's spinning etc then you have other forces to fight against. I would work on the assumption that if you weren't above 3000ft parachuting may not end too well either. Even in the PC9 we had to have 60 knots forward speed with no rate of descent/bank angle to eject at zero feet, and that was with the knowledge that if there was any wind it was going to hurt on landing.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Ian, that's why some have more grey hair than others. And we used slim packs that were going to hurt no matter what, with wind or not.

 

 

[ian00798]

I'm 27 and have more grey hairs than I want. It's what happens when you have a radar screen and busy VFR airports.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Have never seen ATC spill their coffee jumping off their chair. (smile)

 

 

[facthunter]

The tower stays safely anchored to the ground and never crashes and burns. Nev

 

 

[Bennyboy320]

The tower stays safely anchored to the ground and never crashes and burns.

Unless you're a controller at one of the Tokyo towers that nearly got cleaned up by a certain Asian airline a few years ago, they were banned from Japan for a year I recall, another of the NEVER fly with airlines that are unfortunately out numbering the safe ones.

 

 

[ian00798]

Melbourne tower was nearly wiped out many years ago by and aircraft doing an NDB approach to rwy 09

 

 

[Pearo]

Some of us here actually wroote the POH of their plane. Does that make them experts.Iv'e been a test pilot, but don't really feel like an expert.

But do you feel qualified to pass judgement on the most produced 60 year old aircraft?

 

 

[Yenn]

Yes I will pass judgment on the 60 year old aircraft, if you are referring to the C150. Great plane, safe, reliable, good for learners. I would rather fly something else, but it will do if nothing else is available.

 

 

[Pearo]

Yes I will pass judgment on the 60 year old aircraft, if you are referring to the C150. Great plane, safe, reliable, good for learners. I would rather fly something else, but it will do if nothing else is available.

Nope, the 172 as per the one that was responsible for this post.

 

First one made in 1955 and something like 43000+ built to date.

 

 

[ian00798]

Great plane, safe, reliable, good for learners.

In all fairness, that also applies to the C172, and to an extent even the C182, although the C182 may not be great for really new learners. Actually, a lot of the RAA aircraft are probably better for initial training, very basic low inertia stick and rudder aircraft, with very few gadgets to distract from the task of flying the aircraft. It's generally easy to teach competent pilots how to use a CSU, retractable undercarriage, flaps, cowl flaps and advanced avionics, but it can be very difficult to teach a 100 hour pilot to use the rudder when they have been able to get away with it because the c172 is very forgiving in that aspect.

 

 

[Pearo]

She is back online

 

 

Took IVW for a run today, flying like it was when it was brand new. Engine only has a couple of hours on it, so run in duties which sucks a bit.. Went Redcliffe, Caloundra, Kingaroy Redcliffe. Been a good 6 months since I flew this plane, forgot how lively it is! Cant remember the name of the mob that did the repairs (should know, been up there now, they are at Caloundra) but they have done an excellent job.

 

 

[shafs64]

good to see. and nice hub caps