light plane crash in Wangaratta, northeastern Victoria, this morning.

[Toady]

If this was a Jabiru most of you you be talking up the"not another Jabiru engine out" angle of it at great length without a thought for any other possible causes Here you are all trying to find alternative answers to why the plane crashed. The engine failed, that's what caused it and the engine was not a Jabiru.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

We are all familiar with the concept of take off safety speed aren't we? Do you know what it so for your aircraft at various weights?

I would suggest the answer to your question is no. No mention of it in the Sportstar POH. As I understand it Vtoss is to be achieved at 50 ft. As this aircraft apparently didn't get to 50 ft I'd say it's fairly irrelevant. Better to look out the front and make sure your nose doesn't go too high.

 

 

[SSCBD]

And we do our sums to ensure we have enough runway for the fuel, load, altitude and temperature don't we.

Hi Turbo, I was waiting for someone to go all PC.

the above has been quoted

 

Esqual t/o to 15 metres obstacle, 138 metres: required.

 

Now I fly like this, PRACTICILLY and operationally

 

1. I find out the max distance required for max weight for an aircraft, I am flying that day.

 

2. Have an idea in my head of what weight I am, full fuel or less

 

3. Takeoff wind direction (into wind to be specific for all those PC. )

 

4. Stick wet thumb out for temp

 

5. Look at the runway eg, is it more than 138 meters ? answer yes - then you are good to go. But I never had a 138 meter runway yet (unless sideways at mascot) Its always longer.

 

Now usually the sport aircraft always leaps or hops into the air anyway in ground effect. Say within the 138 meters quoted So I stick the nose down to build up airspeed anyway.

 

Then pull up (not hard) with excess airspeed anyway.

 

But I been doing this thing called flying for a few years and have not had a problem yet. Most of the other guys I fly with (yes they have a few hours too ) do the same for these RAA spot aircraft.

 

 

[SDQDI]

If this was a Jabiru most of you you be talking up the"not another Jabiru engine out" angle of it at great length without a thought for any other possible causes Here you are all trying to find alternative answers to why the plane crashed. The engine failed, that's what caused it and the engine was not a Jabiru.

Do you have a source for that Toady? It seems a couple of sources have said that it still had full power including the pax.

 

 

[Pearo]

I heard around the place that it was landing gear failure combined with blocked with static vent

 

 

[Geoffrey Wood]

I am based at Wangaratta. Take off was on 27.. Full length available as no aircraft were parked on the runway. (of course or it would not be used.)Only a fence at the west end to clear ,trees are approx. 150 mtrs past the fence. Rotax motor 100h.p., The press thinks a stall means the engine has stopped (motor vehicle mentality) this is where the engine fail report came from. Weather clear ,light wind from Sth west .No thermal activity early in the morning. Close to max TOW. I feel sorry for the owner pilot ,but also very happy pilot and Pax. were un injured. The fire truck was only minutes from my call. but carbon fibre and a load of fuel resulted in an intense and dangerous blaze. Yes all that is left is the port landing light and the elevator and rudder. The instruments all melted. To assist organizing the clean up we have called in removal experts and await their advice as burnt carbon fibre is worse than Asbestos. .

 

I suggest that stalling on take off in a fast thoroughbred aircraft is not the thing to do. Just lucky it stalled very low and avoided a cartwheel .CFI

 

 

[turboplanner]

27 is the short grass runway; higher rolling resistance.

 

 

 

[bull]

27 is the short grass runway; higher rolling resistance.[ATTACH=full]47153[/ATTACH]

So????

 

 

[Happyflyer]

So the aircraft was heavy, the wind was light from the SW and the choice of runways was a 530m grass runway to the west or a 1600m sealed runway to the south. The first was a very quick taxi the other a 1km back track. I wonder which choice we would have made... and which choice we would now make with what we have learnt from this? Hopefully I will take the longer runway.

 

 

[David Isaac]

So????

If you drive a bitumen thoroughbred and are used to hard long take off surfaces, you may not be used to the slower acceleration on grass and may be tempted to haul her off too soon especially as this grass runway was short compared to the bitumen one.

Not in any way implying that was the case here, but a not too uncommon phenomena where pilots are NOT used to the slower acceleration on grass. It has caught out a few GA pilots in the past and these slippery little suckers are not much different.

 

 

[Geoffrey Wood]

The runway was hard. no reason to stall.The runway length / choice did not cause this accident.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Yes. But the end coming up quickly increases the temptation to pull back on the stick too far and that will stall the aircraft and cause the accident.

 

 

[SSCBD]

You are grasping at straws.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Elevation 504 ft

 

 

[Happyflyer]

You are grasping at straws.

Thanks for the feed back. I would like to think that like you in post #12, I look at the information offered, use my experience and offer a contribution to the conversation. My humble opinion. (and I do try hard not to be dismissive of other opinions without reason)

 

 

[bull]

So the aircraft was heavy, the wind was light from the SW and the choice of runways was a 530m grass runway to the west or a 1600m sealed runway to the south. The first was a very quick taxi the other a 1km back track. I wonder which choice we would have made... and which choice we would now make with what we have learnt from this? Hopefully I will take the longer runway.

quoted takeoff distance138 mts so what happened to the other 392 mts of available runway???

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Well I think they did end up on the runway so they didn't use all of it. Could be the manufacturer fibbed just a little bit? There are many things that can extend the take off roll. Density altitude? Leisurely acceleration? 138 m quoted for sealed surface? Flaps or not? Maybe not quite full throttle? Carb heat on? Cruise or climb prop? Runway up slope? Remember the Russian pilot resting his feet on the brake causing a jet to crash and kill an ice hockey team?

 

 

[SSCBD]

Thanks for the feed back. I would like to think that like you in post #12, I look at the information offered, use my experience and offer a contribution to the conversation. My humble opinion. (and I do try hard not to be dismissive of other opinions without reason)

OK - everyone is grasping as straws - MEANS - YOU DONT HAVE THE FACTS OF WHAT HAPPENED - Everyone is guessing at what happened.

for example - 504 ft elevation - short hard grass - forgot flaps - Where are the FACTS.

 

I now see someone is guessing - the published takeoff length is wrong from the aircraft company. Really.

 

How about someone who knows the pilot call him up and ask what went wrong and get it from the horses mouth.

 

 

[Pearo]

How about someone who knows the pilot call him up and ask what went wrong and get it from the horses mouth.

It was defiantly a combination of wind shear and elevator failure.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Where are the FACTS.

Good question. With a broken system, it's not surprising that people looks at all the possibilities, rather than the specific cause.

The results can very useful; in this cause an eye opener on the training level on P&O showing people don't know what they don't know, and training is needed.

 

 

[Toady]

Do you have a source for that Toady? It seems a couple of sources have said that it still had full power including the pax.

I didn't know any more than anyone else did (at the time). I was merely having a jab(no pun intended but I''ll take it) at the general bias in discussion.