Aircraft down Lancefield Vic

[anjum_jabiru]

...And people think flying is dangerous.

 

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-16/five-dead-after-horror-night-on-victoria-roads/7331994

 

 

[shafs64]

Cars have nothing on motorcycle's

 

 

[dsam]

I know what the reg requires, but the question is whether I need to demonstrate that I did comply, or whether CASA need to prove that did not comply...........This is probably not an argument that you want to have during an actual ramp check. It would be much better to have the ramp check guidance material reflect the information you are actually legally required to provide, rather than a CASA wish list.

Perhaps RA-Aus legal "department" need to produce our own ramp-check glossy brochure specific to our own category(s) detailing our legal rights and responsibilities during a ramp check.

It could set out what CASA can and cannot require, so aviators can avoid being victimised by belligerent and poorly informed CASA officials. Our brochure could be waived in their faces whenever required at fly-ins etc.

 

That way the official is grappling with an organisation, not an individual pilot.

 

 

[Oscar]

With respect to everybody who has contributed to the discussion on ramp checks etc. - this has veered so far off the thread, that it should (and usefully) be placed on another thread. It is an important matter for discussion, but it progresses understanding of the possible causes of this tragic accident not one whit.

 

IF - and I stress that - this aircraft had a W&B issue that caused it to go into an unrecoverable flat spin from a presumably normal training sequence (and the Instructor concerned had such vast experience that it is hard to imagine that he would have allowed an exceptional situation), then surely the focus needs to be on the factors that caused it to be in that condition. It was a originally a one-off, 914-engined version modified from the model that had been tested for compliance with the spin recovery requirements, that had been subsequently returned apparently to a 'normal' specification, 912-engined, model. The 912-engined model is, I believe, routinely used for training and I am not aware of any problems with them.

 

This thread needs to examine and deliver information, when it becomes available, as to why this specific aircraft apparently got into the situation that led to a tragic crash. I use the word 'tragic' here, in the sense that by all reports to date, it is suggested that the flight was a routine, low-risk training flight with both the Instructor and the trainee experienced pilots - not some high-risk episode. It was not some 'take-off after last light', or 'fly into IMC conditions' episode.

 

There are some very serious questions to be answered (and we may never get all the answers). But - those questions are NOT ones resolved by debate on ramp-check issues. Can the Administrator please move the 'Ramp-check' debate to an appropriate thread of its own, and return this thread to examination of the relevant issues?

 

 

[dutchroll]

On that topic, I would be very interested to know if whoever investigates it can get a good CoG estimate.

 

It would seem unlikely based on the apparent reputation of the pilot that he would deliberately put the aircraft in such a situation. So the million dollar question is, why did it inadvertently get into it?

 

 

[BLA82]

Cars have nothing on motorcycle's

More like bikes have no hope around cars with dipsh:censored: drivers

 

 

[M61A1]

More like bikes have no hope around cars with dipsh:censored: drivers

It is an unfortunate reality that the majority of bike fatalities are single vehicle. I love sports bikes but the boy racers just make it worse for us all.

 

 

[shafs64]

being a sports bike rider i would have to agree.