Air Charter crashes at Essendon

[gibby]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1431495320195356

 

Denzel on the main stream media, pretty well nails it!

 

Touch off topic but can explain media reactions

 

 

[BLA82]

Turbo there would be no benefit to RAAUS getting involved with this particular argument. All it will do is bring recreational aviation into the limelight and with piss poor reporting we know where that will end up

 

 

[Flying Officer Kite]

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1431495320195356Denzel on the main stream media, pretty well nails it!

 

Touch off topic but can explain media reactions

Should be compulsory viewing for today's pack of "Get it out first, to hell with the facts" so-called journos!

 

 

[fly_tornado]

I can't imagine Michael Linke adding any value to the discussion of air safety at all.

 

 

[Yenn]

After watching Ben Morgans interview, I am changing my mind about AOPA. I might even rejoin it.

 

What hsn't been pointed out here is that the plane was obviously trying to return to the airport to do a forced landing. If the pilot had known that he wouldn't make it, where else would he have tried to put down. As far as I can see it would have been suburbia, and that would probably have resulted in greater loss of life.

 

If the building had not been there it would have been a satisfactory farced landing, therefore the building upon aerodrome grounds is the direct cause of the 5 fatalities.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Yenn I think he had just taken off and from what I have seen even just from this thread he was NOT trying to get back to the airport but rather seemed to be aiming for the road.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Yenn I think he had just taken off and from what I have seen even just from this thread he was NOT trying to get back to the airport but rather seemed to be aiming for the road.

It would appear he had the craft straight, gliding and trying to get there, Freeway is 6 lanes wide where the on ramp joins and would have been tempting.

 

All conjecture though, we can't ever know.

 

 

[piecrust]

He did a great job under pressure. No fatalities on ground. This could have been far worse. No one knows the circumstances and the battle he had on his hands. Good glide slope, wings level till the end. Can't ask for anything more.

 

 

[dutchroll]

If the building had not been there it would have been a satisfactory farced landing, therefore the building upon aerodrome grounds is the direct cause of the 5 fatalities.

"Because the building they hit was there" is not a useful finding of cause of death.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Excellent discussion in the Australian today. As wheels were still down this was non recoverable other than land straight ahead.

 

 

[turboplanner]

"Because the building they hit was there" is not a useful finding of cause of death.

It's a very useful finding when looking at negligence on the part of the people responsible.

 

 

[facthunter]

Like a "certain" ferris wheel. I hope the location of such buildings (and large signage) on aerodromes gets the scrutiny it deserves. You have a "splay" at the end of each strip for obstacle consideration. Since planes lift off and may go around at various distances along the runway the idea of planes landing and taking of at/in veritable "canyons" flanked with buildings is absurd. Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

Has anyone actually determined that the building infringed the designated obstacle clearance plane of the departure runway?

 

Because I've seen a map showing the flight path of the aircraft and it seems unlikely to me.

 

If we then want to say "well all airports should have big cleared zones free of buildings or infrastructure just in case a twin engine aircraft with an engine failure certified to climb away on one engine can't do it and has to crash land instead" then you will shut down most major big city airports around the world.

 

Sullenberger would've crashed into the streets of New York in his A320 had there not happened to be a big river running through there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Has anyone actually determined that the building infringed the designated obstacle clearance plane of the departure runway?Because I've seen a map showing the flight path of the aircraft and it seems unlikely to me.

 

If we then want to say "well all airports should have big cleared zones free of buildings or infrastructure just in case a twin engine aircraft with an engine failure certified to climb away on one engine can't do it and has to crash land instead" then you will shut down most major big city airports around the world.

 

Sullenberger would've crashed into the streets of New York in his A320 had there not happened to be a big river running through there.

It's interesting that quite a number of people on this site regularly crucify the press and other media for getting the slightest aviation detail wrong, and yet when it comes to Planning or Public Liability Law, anything goes.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

The risk assessments in modern times are done in math and probability, not human lives.

[facthunter]

I'm not suggesting the "designated" obstacle considered splayed areas were infringed but having buildings situated where some of them ARE being erected is worse than having the "normal" fairly clear aerodrome surface within roughly a square perimeter of fairly flat surface. Only aircraft operating with reduced thrust or having a balanced field because of length/weight fit the splay considerations. If you got airborne earlier I was suggesting the reason for a splay happens earlier . It's like landing with a row of trees as close as legally permitted to the runway edge. Prefer not to have them that close.

 

And yes a plane such as these Beechcraft should be able to fly around on one engine and do an instrument approach if in the worst case, they elected to take off with the minimum permitted RVR and a low ceiling and a return would have to be by instruments. There's nothing particularly spectacular about that situation, and you might even have to carry an alternate. However there are some malfunctions where there may be above normal drag from the damaged engine, and the plane won't be able to perform as expected. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

It's a very useful finding when looking at negligence on the part of the people responsible.

I can only assume that what you meant by that was "it's very useful finding when you'd really rather blame someone else (and preferably with deeper pockets) than those actually responsible"

 

 

[turboplanner]

I can only assume that what you meant by that was "it's very useful finding when you'd really rather blame someone else (and preferably with deeper pockets) than those actually responsible"

That's a classic! It's got nothing to do with what I mean; please refer to #114

 

 

[facthunter]

I've been watching those signs and buildings going up for years and always felt they don't belong there. I understand Essendon Council was over ruled. The large signs and buildings didn't cause this accident primarily, but as I've said I don't believe it should have been allowed and I hope one outcome is to have much more scrutiny of this in the future. Nev

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

It was in the Adelaide paper that Essendon Council objected.

 

 

[red750]

The aerial view in my post #31 shows the proposed location of the hotel and private hospital planned for Essendon Fields in the lower left corner. These are well away from the runways.

 

Here are details and artists impressions of the private hospital:

 

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/new-300bed-private-hospital-to-built-at-essendon-fields-to-meet-bed-shortage-in-citys-northwest/news-story/f63d2bd5ce75678908b599019c59acd9

 

This link is to the home page for the hotel:

 

Melbourne Hotel | Home - Hyatt Place

 

 

[kaz3g]

It was in the Adelaide paper that Essendon Council objected.

It was my understanding that the did object but that the developer went ahead anyway because Council has no authority over Crown land. Commonwealth Department of Infrastructure was the responsible authority, I believe.

 

Kaz

 

 

[dutchroll]

It's a very useful finding when looking at negligence on the part of the people responsible.

So......you're trying to prove that people who allowed a building (not even a tall one) to be put somewhere in the vicinity of an airport (but not even on the direct flight path) were negligent, causing the death of passengers in a plane which crashed into it?

Well......hats off to the law firm which manages to succeed with that one.

 

 

[M61A1]

That's a classic! It's got nothing to do with what I mean; please refer to #114

I should be surprised that my local council hasn't been sued for leaving or planting trees near the road, where drivers can and do kill themselves and their passengers by driving into them.

If you want to worry about liability, why aren't we talking about why the engine failed and other factors like the aircraft being designed to be perfectly capable of climbing out on one engine?

 

 

[turboplanner]

So......you're trying to prove that people who allowed a building (not even a tall one) to be put somewhere in the vicinity of an airport (but not even on the direct flight path) were negligent, causing the death of passengers in a plane which crashed into it?Well......hats off to the law firm which manages to succeed with that one.

Don't worry about it; it will all work out.