Light aircraft accident near Melbourne

[ave8rr]

I join with everybody in condolences and sadness for the loss of life and severe injury to the aircraft's occupants.I hope that the accident investigation looks beyond the circumstances of the accident to also looking at occupant safety issues that may have contributed to the severity of the accident result.

 

I believe that this is something that warrants concern, given that the designer of the Bristell is also the designer of two of the three worst aircraft for accident safety in this report: http://www.jabiru.net.au/images/The Aviation Consumer - LSA Accidents.pdf - the CAW Sport Cruiser and the Evektor. Also the designer of the Piper Sports, that Piper removed from sale after very few were delivered to the market.

Oscar, It was a Piper Sport that was involved in the fatal accident (training) near Bundy a few years back.

It has been reported that that aircraft was most likely in a flat spin.

 

 

[biggles]

Oscar, It was a Piper Sport that was involved in the fatal accident (training) near Bundy a few years back.It has been reported that that aircraft was most likely in a flat spin.

........ and both the student and instructor were killed. I tried to obtain a copy of the Coroners findings, but it was restricted to close family members. The accident occurred on 19th March 2012 with the aircraft landing in a cane field 14 km NE of the Bundaberg Airport, with no apparent horizontal flight component. There does appear to be some similarities with this recent event ..... Bob

 

 

[Happyflyer]

........ and both the student and instructor were killed. I tried to obtain a copy of the Coroners findings, but it was restricted to close family members. The accident occurred on 19th March 2012 with the aircraft landing in a cane field 14 km NE of the Bundaberg Airport, with no apparent horizontal flight component. There does appear to be some similarities with this recent event ..... Bob

Pilot error blamed for Bundaberg crash in which two died

 

A PLANE crash in which two people died last year was caused by pilot error, a coronial investigation has found.

 

The flying instructor and his student died when the light aircraft they were flying smashed nose first into a North Bundaberg cane field in March 2012.

 

A spokeswoman for the Office of the State Coroner said thorough, independent investigations into the crash were undertaken by the Queensland Police Service and Recreational Aviation Australia.

 

"Both reports indicated pilot error was the cause of the incident," she said.

 

"Accordingly the coronial investigation has been concluded."

 

She said the families of the dead men had been informed of the findings.

 

"No further details shall be made available due to privacy consideration for the families involved," she said.

 

The two men who died in the crash were well-known Bundaberg man Hugh Kay, 71, and his 57-year-old student Keven Dickenson, from Gladstone.

 

 

[biggles]

Thanks for that HF, but I was mainly interested in how the Coroner came to that conclusion, after all most accidents/fatals are caused by 'pilot error' (human factors), so the press report really tells us nothing ..... Bob

 

 

[farri]

Generally the instructor "pulls"the engine to idle and the student finds, and then manoeuvres the aircraft into a pretend landing at a suitable place.......

Downunder, Just using this part of your post to make my point.

 

If instructors are teaching, "if the engine stops you look for a suitable place to land", then in my opinion, that is incorrect and should be changed: once the engine has stopped or it isn`t developing enough power and a forced landing can`t be avoided, it may be too late to find a suitable place and there may be none.

 

The greatest chance of pulling off a successful forced landing is to be prepared and that means having a spot picked out, before it is required, not after.

 

Frank.

 

 

[poteroo]

"spinning" was prominent in one report but not even mentioned in the other. If I assume both are correct then perhaps spinning up higher and recovered from the spin, anyway, we will know more before long, just that I take a keen interest in spinning having known a few who were killed near that spot.

It becomes a concern for RAAus if instructors are intentionally placing aircraft into a spin with students on board. We all know that spinning is prohibited in RAAus, even if you hold a GA licence with spin and full aeros approval. As few of us have any idea of the spin characteristics of all these 'new' RAAus aircraft - it seems most unwise to even try it. We're not test pilots. If by chance some of these 'new' aircraft have testing spin characteristics, do we really want to find out about them by design or accident? Recovering from a flat spin is damned difficult, and you need a lot of air below you. So, we unload the gear in the rear baggage area, and check the CG location with the fuel qty planned - making darned sure it's not very far aft before going out to do stalling and unusual attitude recoveries.

 

On another subject, (that of Coroners' Reports), I am unhappy to hear that reports can be restricted to only the families. I say that, not with disrespect to the families, but with concern for the greater learning of the pilot population. If we can't be trusted with perhaps quite valuable information, then the system of accident investigation is not operating in the manner to which it was originally intended?

 

 

[KRviator]

On another subject, (that of Coroners' Reports), I am unhappy to hear that reports can be restricted to only the families. I say that, not with disrespect to the families, but with concern for the greater learning of the pilot population. If we can't be trusted with perhaps quite valuable information, then the system of accident investigation is not operating in the manner to which it was originally intended?

I think there is a difference between the legal investigation conducted by the Coroner to determine the cause of death and the aviation accident investigation conducted by RAAus/ATSB to determine the cause of the accident. I don't mind so much if the Coronial investigation is not made public so long as the findings of the accident investigation are, to enable the rest of us to learn from them. Mind you, some of those Coroner's reports are interesting reading, like the Gympie Spitfire crash a few years ago when it was found there were blatant lies told about the weight to get it on the RAAus register - but in saying that, Coroner's don't investigate everything connected to a death unfortunately, and can sometimes misrepresent the at-fault party, as was found in the death of 3 kids on a train line in Brisbane a few years ago.

 

 

[SSCBD]

If you have an aircraft that is fairly easy to spin - you should for the sake of your own life do a GA spin endorsement. .

 

OR don't bloody well fly the plane that is outside YOUR envelope to fly - its only common sense. Get real training.

 

Fact - The piper tomahawk when it first arrived in AUS as a GA training aircraft killed a few students and instructors in USA as it can spin back then a drop of a hat. Later the tails started falling off or major cracks developed.

 

CASA made a requirement that all students flying the aircraft solo even training - had to be spin endorsed.

 

These days with some LSA aircraft I would personally recommend that pilots flying certain LSA types be GA endorsed in spins as its a hell of a rush your first time in a fully developed spin if your not. .

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes start with ALL RAAus instructors being fully trained in Unusual attitude recovery which MUST include (by definition) spin and spiral recognition and recovery. They can't safely operate planes under conditions encountered with instructing people UNLESS they can extricate the plane from whatever situation you might get into.

 

GA planes are certified/ designed to be benign in stall and spin characteristics. Ones that aren't get modified .

 

There are build by build variations in U/L's and they are not designed for the GA certified market, and some are quite quirky. They are smaller, harder to fly and more variable, in a general sense.

 

I wouldn't force ALL students to the same level perhaps but I would certainly strongly encourage it or make it mandatory for planes that carry more than the pilot. What you do with yourself is more up to you

 

Before 1963? ALL pilots did this stuff.. The only reason it ceased was the BIG 3 made planes that were not spin certified. The VICTA (which was aerobatic) got a beating by the importers of the big 3 so it went to New Zealand, to survive.

 

Nev

 

 

[Gibbo]

Sadly - I've discovered some legal aspects to what I did under the circumstances that could and may be likely cost me a fortune due to preexisting conditions.

 

............

 

Expensive 10 minutes in hell.

 

 

[SSCBD]

Sadly - I've discovered some legal aspects to what I did under the circumstances that could and may be likely cost me a fortune due to preexisting conditions.............

 

Expensive 10 minutes in hell.

?? Please expand if possible - don't understand your post.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't think he should and I wouldn't press the point. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Oscar, It was a Piper Sport that was involved in the fatal accident (training) near Bundy a few years back.It has been reported that that aircraft was most likely in a flat spin.

 

 

"spinning" was prominent in one report but not even mentioned in the other. If I assume both are correct then perhaps spinning up higher and recovered from the spin, anyway, we will know more before long, just that I take a keen interest in spinning having known a few who were killed near that spot.

DJP: I understand -from a very-well respected aircraft designer with thousands of his designs flying safely - that the Bristell has an aft c/g limit of 35% MAC. The best that a Jabiru can get is 28%, and Jabs have (since the original LSA55 design, anyway, and that was not unsafe) quite large tail-feathers.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Sadly - I've discovered some legal aspects to what I did under the circumstances that could and may be likely cost me a fortune due to preexisting conditions.............

 

Expensive 10 minutes in hell.

You rended first aid to the occupants, the end result probably would not of changed much had you not

Your human instinct to help kicked in and you should not be criticised for that

 

We as humans are not perfect, did you contribute to the mans death? I don't think so even if you moved him

 

Hindsight is a good thing after the fact

 

Head high Gibbo you did your best whether right or wrong

 

 

[turboplanner]

Would this be of help?

 

Good Samaritan protection - Wrongs Act

 

WRONGS ACT 1958 - SECT 31B Protection of good samaritans

 

 

[Love to fly]

Sadly - I've discovered some legal aspects to what I did under the circumstances that could and may be likely cost me a fortune due to preexisting conditions.............

 

Expensive 10 minutes in hell.

Hi there, I'm assuming (and you don't need to answer or provide any further information) that this relates to the pre-existing condition and insurance/workcover or similar. I hope it all gets sorted, and that you suffer no costs related to any exacerbation from helping at the crash site. Sad world if people have to analyse all these things before stepping up to help. Take care of yourself.

 

 

[Oscar]

This is an emotional response, not an informed one, so if I am wrong, can we all please stick to useful additional information and not get side-tracked into attacks?

 

I am not a current RAA member, so my understanding may be quite incorrect. However, i THINK that RAA rego - of which this aircraft was a holder - comes with Public Liability insurance?

 

I do not know the legal intricacies here, and doubtless lawyers would shoot me down in flames, but I would LIKE to believe that rendering first-response assistance to crash victims would be covered. Yes, that is a voluntary act and not causally connected to the actual accident. However, there are some precedents that I think could apply.

 

If you are a member of the RFS, SES, or VRA, then the organisational insurance picks up on your circumstances for attending an incident that was none of your making. As a volunteer, you have - I think - no legal requirement to render assistance.

 

There is a - possibly not enshrined in legislation - understanding that as a mariner, you are expected to render assistance if possible to another mariner in danger.

 

I hope that in this case, the RAA Public Liability insurance would apply. Obviously, the constraints of that insurance will be thrashed out by lawyers, but I will be VERY, VERY disappointed in RAA if it takes a combative position against a member who was trying to do the best he could for the poor buggers in dire straits following an accident.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Sadly - I've discovered some legal aspects to what I did under the circumstances that could and may be likely cost me a fortune due to preexisting conditions..

Presumption, and that is all it is, is the issue is you removing guy from aircraft. Hope it goes no further for you.

 

Sad world that this nonsense stops people from helping others, remember the guy pulling a guy from a burning car in Sydney years back and got sued for the alleged neck injuries it caused, a BURNING car FFS.

 

 

[djpacro]

It becomes a concern for RAAus if instructors are intentionally placing aircraft into a spin ...

just to clarify: no suggestion that it was intentional, if indeed there was a spin at all.

 

... As few of us have any idea of the spin characteristics of all these 'new' RAAus aircraft - it seems most unwise to even try it....

true of aeroplane which is not approved for intentional spins.Just heard that the instructor is out of intensive care.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

My only spin training was in Blanics and Twin Astir. That was last century. A good place to get some exposure, if spinning is still allowed in gliders.

 

 

[scre80]

My only spin training was in Blanics and Twin Astir. That was last century. A good place to get some exposure, if spinning is still allowed in gliders.

As far as I know spinning is still allowed in gliders. I did spins and unusual attitudes about 18months ago

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Unusual attitudes eh? Sounds kinky.

 

 

[Gibbo]

You rended first aid to the occupants, the end result probably would not of changed much had you notYour human instinct to help kicked in and you should not be criticised for that

We as humans are not perfect, did you contribute to the mans death? I don't think so even if you moved him

 

Hindsight is a good thing after the fact

 

Head high Gibbo you did your best whether right or wrong

I have no guilt. I pushed as hard as i could and beyond what I thought my skills were. ;)

 

My problem has arisen from an unfinished legal issue and potential conflicts of harm. RaAus maybe asked a few questions by the local member..

 

 

[Teckair]

Downunder, Just using this part of your post to make my point.If instructors are teaching, "if the engine stops you look for a suitable place to land", then in my opinion, that is incorrect and should be changed: once the engine has stopped or it isn`t developing enough power and a forced landing can`t be avoided, it may be too late to find a suitable place and there may be none.

 

The greatest chance of pulling off a successful forced landing is to be prepared and that means having a spot picked out, before it is required, not after.

 

Frank.

That is true Frank and works best with the type of aircraft the AUF was created for. The faster and more slippery a plane is the harder it is to do an emergency landing. I wouldn't even get in a plane like that if you have a engine failure not over the strip you have a real problem. Even if you get it down with out stalling it there is a real risk you will loose the nose wheel and end up inverted and trapped.

 

 

[M61A1]

That is true Frank and works best with the type of aircraft the AUF was created for. The faster and more slippery a plane is the harder it is to do an emergency landing. I wouldn't even get in a plane like that if you have a engine failure not over the strip you have a real problem. Even if you get it down with out stalling it there is a real risk you will loose the nose wheel and end up inverted and trapped.

It gives you the greater chance though, if you avoid tiger country and don't pretend your engine will never stop. If people want to take that risk though, I'm fine with that. They need to accept the consequences when it does happen.