Ultralight crashes, bursts into flames at Morwell

[Guest browng]

How about one of those 'wide angle' overtaking mirrors on the U/C leg out near a wheel, angled to show beneath the A/C?

 

 

[Matt]

Back to the "road going" analogies, blind spots for trucks, busses, cars etc. are now being addressed with "gadgets" in the form of cameras, radars (reverse parking sensor is in essence a radar) and the like.

 

The reverse parking sensor concept has now been expanded and located on the front of the car to provide proximity detection and control - the last point on cars such as the new Mercs, Lexus etc. where cruise control is linked to the forward facing detectors to maintain distance from vehicle in front - getting closer to "auto pilot". We're also seeing cars fitted with infra red cameras and tv displays in the dash for the equivalent of "night vision" for better visibility in poor weather, darkness etc.

 

Why not similar concepts for aircraft? A camera mounted under the aircraft looking forward and down with a display in the cockpit? It will happen, might take another 10-20 years, but the "gadgets" we see in the car and airline cockpits today, we'll see in the recreational and sport aircraft in the future I'd expect..."rag and tube" types aside maybe :)

 

 

[jimecho1]

Browng's idea of a wide-angle or "fisheye" mirror is good, but the weakness is that the mirror is, indeed, wide-angle. As with such mirrors on a car, an object needs to be very close (maybe forty feet) to be seen, simply because the mirror distorts size. Even with that weakness, a wide-angle mirror would probably be effective looking UPWARD, with the "other" aircraft outlined against the sky. Looking DOWN might be a problem, as it would be hard to pick anything out against the background clutter, unless it was VERY close.

 

Matt's right. The things we consider gadgets today will eventually be modified to become compulsory additions to all aircraft. Car manufacturers - and many drivers - once objected to things like seatbelts, collapsible steering-wheels, bans on forward-pointing hood ornaments ... and yet all these things are compulsory today AND road deaths have halved.

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Advance apoligies for talking to the converted -

 

Some thoughts and ideas are well intentioned. The problem with new safety ideas (or rehash of old ones) is the cost - as in how much money.

 

A lot of RAAus pilots have come over from the far safer light GA aircraft - safer as in a higher safety certification for the aircraft and a more intense training regeime.

 

Many pilots simply can not afford to fly GA aircraft. The new LSA catagory is actualy a reduction in safety standards.

 

Every new safety idea that comes along (or resurected old idea) does not sound like much more of a cost impact, the trouble is ,once that new idea is setled in.... suddenly there is the next must have safety concept that doesnt really cost that much to implement...and on it goes.

 

The RAAus originated because of pilots who could not afford to fly and were prepared to take a higher risk profile.

 

Reductio ad Adsurdum, the safest aircraft is the one that doesnt fly.

 

If you dont like the risk...DRIVE.

 

HPD

 

 

[Guest browng]

If you dont like the risk...DRIVE.

Ooohh harsh......but true.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

The new LSA catagory is actualy a reduction in safety standards.

HPD

Interesting comment indeed! I don't necessarily agree. Aircraft manufacturers must meet certain standards in order to obtain certification to be qualified to manufacture aircraft under the LSA standard, however this doesn't necessarily mean a reduction in safety.

 

Do you think that the Cessna Skycatcher LSA will be less safe than an equivalent certified Cessna 152?

 

 

[Guest browng]

Do you think that the Cessna Skycatcher LSA will be less safe than an equivalent certified Cessna 152?

Ok, that statement on reduced standards stopped me dead too. I don't know the answer to the above question, but even the original certification standards did not prevent flawed aircraft getting a guernsey. The original C150 killed several people before they figured out that under certain conditions it didn't have the power to out-climb it's own flaps. The 150's 40deg of flap was reduced to 30deg for the C152 because of this. The PA-38 Tomahawk's GA(W)-1 Whitcomb airfoil was introduced just when recovery from the developed spin was dropped from the syllabus, a wing specifically designed to spin so recovery could be taught, guess what, the PA-38 has double the stall/spin fatality rate of any of its contemporaries. My little old J3 or a Tiger Moth with 70 years of AD's behind them probably wouldn't stand a chance of passing any current certification if introduced today, but more J3's have been built than any other aircraft ever. Somebody once said that a poor pilot in a good aircraft was much more lethal than a good pilot in a poor aircraft.....I tend to agree, training and experience above all....yeah, I know, back on my high horse, its getting lonely up here.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi HPD and Browng,

 

If I lash out ten to twenty grand for a three or two-axis aircraft (both uninsurable against air accidents) I'd be happy enough to pay a couple of hundred bucks for a gadget that might prevent a wreck.

 

Everyone who signs a release form and wraps an ultralight pod around himself is taking risks, but it's only common sense to minimise those risks.

 

BRS systems, for instance, are pretty pricey. I don't think I could afford a plane with a parachute on it. So, when the time comes to lay out my hard-earned, I'll probably settle for something reasonable that HASN'T a chute in preference to something I don't like that HAS one.

 

Of course, if I can afford something with both, I'll more-or-less happily pay for it.

 

But some sort of collision-avoidance system that costs maybe a couple of hundred bucks? If I haven't got it, I'll borrow it from the wife.

 

 

[BigPete]

If the device that detects another aircraft in close proximity was to give out a steady signal (tone) that would vary in pitch as you got closer or further away, it would give you a chance to "get away" from the other aircraft.

 

Simple but effective.

 

regards

 

 

[Guest browng]

If the device that detects another aircraft in close proximity was to give out a steady signal (tone) that would vary in pitch as you got closer or further away, it would give you a chance to "get away" from the other aircraft.Simple but effective.

 

regards

Just a thought, but since we are talking about an aircraft landing, surely at some time in every approach this (downward pointing) device will detect the ground and go off, I think it may well get irritating and be switched off or ignored. By the bye, both the FEDEX transport and Russian Charter flight that mid-aired over Germany had TCAS, it went off but it didn't stop the collision.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Hi Pete,

 

Good thinking. That sort of thing would probably be possible whether the system was a device-to-device system, or a standalone.

 

As for detecting the ground and getting annoying, If I'm that close to the ground, I'm prepared to be annoyed until I can land and switch the alarm off.

 

 

[jimecho1]

Of course, if such a device started with the VERY CLOSE tone and quickly faded down to a LONG WAY OFF tone, it'd probably mean your tail assembly has broken off.

 

(Chuckle)

 

 

[Guest High Plains Drifter]

Quote - Do you think that the Cessna Skycatcher LSA will be less safe than an equivalent certified Cessna 152?

 

Brentc,

 

I dont know the direct answer to that.

 

To the best of my knoweledge, the Cessna 152 can trace its type certificate back to the original 1946 Cessna 120/140. whether the 152s of 1978 to 1985 were built to meet the latest FAR's I dont know. I think if Cessna were to start building 152s again, they could be built near the same as the 78/85 152s - The new 172's, etc being a good example.

 

For Cessna to bring out an entirly new design, with out the LSA standard being in place, I imagine the aircraft would have to be built to the latest FAR's.

 

HPD

 

add-on, Bit of trivia - Just had a look through my 1995 Used Aircraft Guide - there is a quote of a NTSB study that found the Cessna 150 series has the lowest fatal crash rates of any two seat aircraft, at that time.

 

 

[facthunter]

TCAS.

 

Browng, because ONE of the aircraft went against the TCAS call, under the direction of an air traffic controller. The TCAS did what it was meant to do. Again ..In the right environment....Nev..

 

 

[Guest browng]

Browng, because ONE of the aircraft went against the TCAS call, under the direction of an air traffic controller. The TCAS did what it was meant to do. Again ..In the right environment....Nev..

Yes, I only mentioned it as it demonstrates that sadly technology cannot always overcome human error.

 

 

[gregrobertson]

There will be a service to celebrate the life of Don Ewart at the Gulwarra Heights Reception centre 370 Burke St. in Warragul next Monday (10th) at 11 am.

 

Don died tragicly last Saturday when his Avid and a Cessna 172 colided on final at Latrobe Valley airfield.

 

Don was a good friend and will be greatly missed by many.

 

Greg.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

For those that are interested - the ATSB preliminary report is available for this.

 

It contains pictures of both aircraft post crash.

 

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2007/AAIR/aair200707452.aspx

 

From my understanding there are some key facts that have not been included in the report that I can only assume will be included in the final report.

 

It also states that whilst a BRS Parachute system was fitted to the Avid it was incapable of being fired because the safety pin was still in it.

 

 

[Mazda]

It's terribly sad.

 

 

[Ben Longden]

Safe?

 

I agree... I would rather fly than drive anytime as its so much safer in the air and in the circuit than on the highway.

 

Ben