Ultralight crashes, bursts into flames at Morwell

[peter]

My instructor only watched my first solo circuit after that he was in the training room at the end of a radio but never in visual range -- how can they keep visual contact when you are out in the training area doing airwork?

 

In fact I am fairly certain that there were times when my "supervisor" was in the air with another student.

 

 

[Guest browng]

Out of curiosity, how many here were taught to 'clear' the nose on final, indeed on any descent, by periodically lowering it and slightly weaving? I can honestly say that virtually no pilot I have flown with who was trained in (say) the last 10 years, does this anymore, and I can't for the life of me figure out why? I don't know what happened in this case and will not speculate, but clearing the nose is a simple precaution that can easily save lives.

 

 

[Deskpilot]

browng, dosn't help if the other a/c is below you

 

 

[Guest browng]

browng, dosn't help if the other a/c is below you

On the contrary, that is precisely where it does help, by lowering and weaving the nose a considerable increase in the visible area previously obscured by your own nose is gained. It is not a universal panacea, and will not help if the other aircraft is exactly underneath you, or approaching from behind, but properly clearing the nose will reveal any traffic even slightly in front and below. The instructors I know do teach clearing the nose in a PFL, but for some reason not a normal descent. As an aside, I suspect that the advent of flaps may have increased the chances of this kind of collision, before that when you routinely side-slipped, you got a good view (from the side window) of 'in front and below', in the angle between fuselage and leading edge.

 

 

[jimecho1]

I'm wondering if we're not rehashing arguments already put forward in cases of previous such incidents. Keeping a good lookout, clearing the nose, instructor's duties etc are all good practice, but they're all subject to human error.

 

Maybe a bit of electronic insurance should be taken out in the form of a small transmitter-receiver device which results in an audible / visual warning when the limited-range (maybe 200 metres) devices detect the presence of other such devices.

 

This sort of thing wouldn't help much if aircraft were converging along a horizontal line, but very possibly WOULD make a difference when two planes are descending / ascending towards each other vertically.

 

Expense? I have a Dick Smith FM transmitter I bought for sixty bucks a dozen years ago. It runs on a AAA battery and transmits over 100 metres. I'm sure receivers are even cheaper.

 

 

[Guest browng]

Maybe a bit of electronic insurance should be taken out in the form of a small transmitter-receiver device which results in an audible / visual warning when the limited-range (maybe 200 metres) devices detect the presence of other such devices.

Interesting idea that, maybe something like those reversing alarms fitted to some cars, but pointing directly downwards? What kind of range can they operate at? You can buy those in Dick Smiths for less than $100. (Yes, I am an electronics ignoramus). The problem would be getting something that didn't go off every time there was more than one aircraft in the circuit. It would have to point selectively downwards and ignore other aircraft. I'm not sure any of the other systems like FLARM, TCAS, PCAS, or ADS-B would be much use in the circuit. Any system that goes off routinely quickly gets ignored.

 

EDIT- How about a car reversing camera pointed downwards with a small screen on the panel? You can get those for peanuts now too.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

My car has one of those all round collision alarms as standard.

 

After two near rear-enders caused by me looking at what the buzzer and lights were telling me - the warning system gets turned off the moment I start the car.

 

HPD

 

 

[Deskpilot]

browng, I was thinking directly below or overtaking below. I was taught to lower the nose occasionally during climb out but not on descent.

 

 

[Guest browng]

browng, I was thinking directly below or overtaking below. I was taught to lower the nose occasionally during climb out but not on descent.

Yes, that seems to be the norm now.....I wonder why? There are other things that were once taught as standard but seem to have fallen by the wayside, e.g. gently but continuously moving the tail from side to side with rudder when coming 'over the hedge' in a taildragger, so as to have proactive control in yaw and not wait until a swing begins to develop before reacting. Another is 2-axis circuits, i.e with one control axis presumed to have failed, practicing one axis at a time until you can fly a safe circuit on any two. This too seems to have fallen into disuse, but it was once part of the basic curriculum.

 

 

[jimecho1]

True, HPD, but we're not talking about avoiding collisions in two dimensions. Cars don't move around above and below each other. I agree with you that collision / proximity warnings on cars are often worse than useless.

 

However, when sitting in an aircraft with wing and cabin blocking everything out but more-or-less straight ahead, an indication that there's an aircraft within two or three hundred metres could be a valuable warning.

 

Not so necessary in a Drifter, of course.

 

I'm not saying that VFR shouldn't be strictly adhered to, but human factors mean that there'll always be lapses. A little cheap insurance wouldn't hurt.

 

 

[jimecho1]

I'm as ignorant of electronics as anyone, Browng. However, I think the idea of a SHORT-range transmitter-receiver (with a range of as little as, say 100 metres), might be a lifesaver in conditions such as those in which the LV incident occurred.

 

100 metres is such a small distance. An aircraft flying that close to another aircraft simply shouldn't happen, unless in the circumstances of formation flying.

 

As a fairly ham-fisted and terrified student, I'd be extremely unhappy if someone was flying the circuit 100 metres from me - even if I could actually SEE the bugger.

 

 

[Yenn]

Electronic devices may work but there will always be a plane without one or with it inoperative, so they are not foolproof. In my case where would i put another gizmo?

 

Basically flying can be dangerous and we all know and accept that. The good pilot is always assessing the situation and weighing up the options.

 

 

[jimecho1]

With respect, Ian, nothing is foolproof, the "good pilot" least of all. If electronic close-proximity warnings were found to be viable, they would probably also be made compulsory. If this were to happen, the things would be about the size of a cigarette packet and wouldn't be THAT hard to accommodate. Assessing the situation of on-finals collisions, the options I weigh up would surely include everything reasonable to warn me that a GA aircraft with a wide nose might be dropping on me. I would also not be unhappy with the idea of that pilot becoming aware that I'm tooling along below him, unseen, in an ultralight.

 

As I mentioned in a previous post, I'm a ham-fisted and terrified learner and I'll be a hundred-and-fifty before I'm anything approaching a good pilot, but from my observations, there are a lot of me about.

 

Again, with respect, Ian, anything that will allow me to live to 150 should be considered.

 

 

[Aussie Steve]

"Quote Browng"

 

"As an aside, I suspect that the advent of flaps may have increased the chances of this kind of collision."

 

Brownie, the use of flaps not only reduces stall speed, it "lowers" the nose considerably for a much better view.

 

Side slipping is not an option for all Rec Aircraft. ie Jabiru. (the manual dosent say you cant, but it dosent say you can) the vertical stab is extremely light and flexible.I dont risk it.

 

But I digress.

 

We are all taught to produce a "Stable" approach.

 

And to be weaving all over the Final approach glide path souinds contrary to me.

 

But I do understand your view.

 

Steve.

 

 

[Guest browng]

We are all taught to produce a "Stable" approach.And to be weaving all over the Final approach glide path sounds contrary to me.

But I do understand your view.

 

Steve.

And I yours, but we share the sky with many different aircraft types, and some are simply incapable of a 'stable' approach without a significant downside. My J3, tandem and solo'd from the rear seat, has virtually NO forward visibility in the approach attitude, ergo a stable approach is a blind approach. There are several ways around this, my preferred option is a high and steeply slipped approach which gives me good visibility, in my Pitts I preferred a curved approach for the same reason. Yes a stable approach is the precursor to a good landing, but stability is relative to the type, you can't fly a Pitts with the glide angle of a brick like you fly a Jabiru, and vice versa, but it pays to be aware that what works for you may not work for the aircraft ahead or behind you, and I'm just saying that you must be prepared for that. And yes, I know flaps flatten the approach, but next time you are sitting in your cockpit, look out the left window at the angle between the nose and the wing root, now visualize the aircraft banked to the left, you will find almost nothing obscuring your view downwards. I'm not saying all types can be slipped, but those that can't are missing an important feature in my opinion.

 

 

[BigPete]

So......... when the close proximity device goes off ..... where is the other aircraft?

 

Do I go left or right, up or down - in other words how do I know which way to go?

 

 

[facthunter]

Where are you ?

 

You've said it in a nutshell Big Pete. Nev..

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi Pete. Well, if I was coming in on final, satisfyingly alone on the circuit, concentrating on a good landing, I'd be a bit shocked if my proximity alarm went off. No, I wouldn't know where the other plane was, but I'd be looking everywhere but into my inner child.

 

If a burglar alarm goes off, it doesn't tell you in a cultured voice that the burglar is stealing the cutlery from the dining-room cabinet. It just shrieks that there's a burglar SOMEWHERE in the house. That's when you call the missus to take the family shotgun downstairs while you call the police.

 

An alarm is just that - an alarm. In the case of aircraft, it simply tells you that there's traffic where you thought there was none. It makes you take a second look.

 

 

[facthunter]

Alarm response.

 

jimecho1 you have already said it. You would be "shocked" if your alarm went off under the circumstances you describe. Do you think that you would pull off as good a landing as you would otherwise. You've already said you'd be looking everywhere, I believe you. Who's flying the aeroplane?.. Nev

 

 

[Guest browng]

jimecho1 you have already said it. You would be "shocked" if your alarm went off under the circumstances you describe. Do you think that you would pull off as good a landing as you would otherwise.....

Ok, yes I am reverting to instinct and going off the idea of a downward pointing proximity alarm for the excellent reasons raised, but surely if you had one and it went off, the last thing the pilot would do is continue to a landing? He now knows, or at least suspects, that there is an aircraft directly beneath him, surely he would climb and do an orbit?

 

 

[Tony]

mirrors

 

Spitfire had a mirror covering 'six' on defence.

 

With our slow a/c some side 'canard' mirror can cover bottom/top.

 

Also a little window in the floor cannot hurt.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi Nev,

 

I'm not sure what you're asking. Are you saying it would be better not to know there's another plane close to you when you're landing?

 

As you're an experienced pilot, I'm sure you don't mean this.

 

What I'm trying to do is start a discussion about options. We all have a problem with uncontrolled airports, where, I believe, a huge portion of accidents occur - simply because our birds have to take off and land from them.

 

Browng's idea of a proximity alarm based on a car's is probably a better one than my own, as it does away with the necessity for the "other" aircraft to have a similar system installed. (I'm not sure how they work. It's either on a "radar" type principle or it's a detection system, picking up when there's a mass of metal near you. I'll look it up when I have my second coffee).

 

The thing is, insofar as in-flight collisions at uncontrolled airports go, we're not much better off today than we were twenty-five years ago. We need to talk about it.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Tony,

 

I believe you're quite right. Everything that brings sight to blind spots would be a help.

 

 

[Guest browng]

My Pitts had a Lexan floor for inverted flight, clear view to the ground with that baby, and a couple of seconds on the smoke switch and everybody knew where I was.:).

 

 

[jimecho1]

Maybe it's time designers took into account potential blind spots in their aircraft. Pitts may have other reasons to provide visibility, but the idea's worth considering. There are more and more transparent materials being developed, suitable for both rag-and-tube and for the new composites.

 

Remember the old sailboards? Those who sailed them very soon got together to pressure the makers for sails with a transparent patch through which to look for approaching "enemy" vessels.