Light aircraft accident near Melbourne

[Teckair]

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.

I wonder if that student knew the risk he was taking?

 

 

[facthunter]

Students by virtue of being students don't know a lot of things. They trust the Instructor and the system. Nev

 

 

[Teckair]

Students by virtue of being students don't know a lot of things. They trust the Instructor and the system. Nev

I won't comment on the instructor but system is promoting and allowing this style of aircraft. If someone I knew was getting in an aircraft like that I would suggest don't do it. In my view the risk is too high when a student is killed it is not appropriate to say if people want to take the risk that is their choice.

 

 

[hihosland]

quote "

 

I wonder if that student knew the risk he was taking?

 

"

 

A statement that implies a judgement of the instructor that I feel should not be made without a lot more information than is available at this time.

 

 

[Teckair]

quote "I wonder if that student knew the risk he was taking?

"

 

A statement that implies a judgement of the instructor that I feel should not be made without a lot more information than is available at this time.

You can read into it what you like I have made it clear my comments were not about the instructor but the aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

I'm just stating the chain of responsibility. In the instruction situation the student is not the pilot in command unless "acting in command under supervision" where the situation is a bit more blurred. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

I wonder if that student knew the risk he was taking?

Wouldn't need to be a genius to understand that in a lightly built aircraft is not not going to fare well in an argument with terrain or trees.

That's about the only issue I have with the slick , expensive machines (and some that are neither).....they're only safe if nothing goes wrong.

 

I would consider though, that having a LL component in the basic RFC might reduce the likelihood of stalling close to the ground.

 

DJP (I think)commented earlier about not being below 500 feet for practise engine failures, while legal, it doesn't really teach you much in my opinion. I did some training with a LL rated instructor some time ago, who did forced landings down to about 2 feet. It opened my eyes a lot about being competent close to the ground. I would even venture to say, it may have saved my arxe.

 

 

[Oscar]

You can read into it what you like I have made it clear my comments were not about the instructor but the aircraft.

We can hope that the Instructor will not only recover well, but be able to provide an accurate account of the circumstances.

 

It is not unreasonable to question the aircraft concerned in any accident, as it adds to the store of community knowledge. As has been well-expressed in this thread by some very, very experienced and competent pilots, knowledge of the particular characteristics of the aircraft you are flying may be the difference between a whoopsy turning into an 'Oh SH1T' or merely a 'Phew'.. or even better, consciously avoiding the 'Whoopsy' moment altogether.

 

A Chipmunk is a classic example of this: a major training aircraft, used for spin training, but requiring a very specific spin recovery technique. I have NO experience of them myself, but a family member trained on one, and I haven't even thought about asking him if spin-training on, say, a C152 Aerobat and then applying that would work on a Chipmunk; I believe I know the answer.

 

In the case of this accident - based on the impact evidence - and the case of the Piper Sport near Bundy, (also based on the impact evidence), there appears to be a valid question as to whether the 'arrival' was due to a flat spin. We need to hear from the Instructor in the case of the Bristell, in the absence of reliable eye-witnesses.

 

The Bristell POH ( and I am not sure if the version I have seen is current), indicates clearly, simply and unambiguously:

 

There is no an uncontrollable tendency of the airplane to enter into a spin provided the normal piloting techniques are used.

 

Unintentional spin recovery technique:

 

1. Throttle - idle

 

2. Lateral control - ailerons neutralized

 

3. Rudder pedals - full opposite rudder

 

4. Rudder pedals - neutralize rudder immediately when rotation stops

 

5. Longitudinal control - neutralize or push forward and recovery dive.

 

Apart from the sequencing - I would have thought 'stick forward' should come at either no 3 or no 4 - it's very standard 'normal piloting technique'.

 

Assuming that in this case, the Bristell was not adversely loaded aft of the rear c/g., the Instructor had no reason to believe that any 'normal' training exercise would have presented a problem. A flat spin takes some time to develop - at least several rotations, I believe - the aircraft has to develop sufficient rotational momentum that centrifugal effect overcomes the drag of the vertical surfaces.

 

We would all be precipitate in coming to any conclusions here, and the Instructor's evidence may well be crucial. However, I suggest that it is way too soon to dismiss concerns about the aircraft and load the cause of the accident solely on the Instructor.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Could have been in a spin; but there are a couple of statements referring to witnesses seeing smoke coming from the aircraft, and I would have expected the witness to also comment on the unusual attitude of the aircraft if that was the case.

 

 

[Gibbo]

LH wing had a 60-70 degree bend some 40-50cm from the tip. Wing root on LHS had seperated on the leading edge.

 

RH wing looked normal.

 

That was a five second look as I was piss bolting out of there.

 

 

[biggles]

For those interested, this is the aircraft to which I refer in post #77.....Bob

 

 

 

[Yenn]

I was always under the impression that a flat spin took some time to develope. I know it does with the Chipmunk as I have done it, so many years ago that I can't remember the exact recovery sequence for a normal or flat spin. I do remember that it uses a lot of height to recover though.

 

My idea to preclude the spin on final or base legs is to use the rudder earlier and more aggresively if there is any dropping of a wing. this of course may not work on what you fly, but for an RV or a Corby starlet it does work. Given that the Starlet doesn't have flaps I am often cross controlled on final, slipping in to steepen the approach. Rudder control is the answer.

 

 

[djpacro]

I was always under the impression that a flat spin took some time to develope.....

Not necessarily. Unintentional spin entries that I demonstrate are well on their way to a flat spin from the go. Even that is gentlemanly compared to a botched stall turn in a Pitts.Perhaps the best example for this thread is the Grumman AA-1 which will go flat without aggravation by the pilot in a couple of turns - check out the NASA videos. The Pazmany PL-2 is similar. Both are unrecoverable.

 

....doesn't have flaps I am often cross controlled on final, slipping in to steepen the approach.

Good. An exercise I include is a stall in a sideslip with full rudder.

[Gibbo]

Im going to wait for the report. I can think of a dozen things.

 

 

[phonetic]

ballistic parachute recovery system, the best $6k & 10kgs you can invest in ??

 

 

[facthunter]

That's ONE answer. Don't make it compulsory though..Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

ballistic parachute recovery system, the best $6k & 10kgs you can invest in ??

I'd be willing to bet that it wont help you one bit on a base to final stall/spin.

 

 

[SDQDI]

I'd be willing to bet that it wont help you one bit on a base to final stall/spin.

I would have to agree, not because the brs wouldn't work below 500feet because some of them do but because if a pilot is far enough behind to get to the stall spin stage then the reaction time for pulling the chute would not be instant which it would have to be to be effective.

As for Bristels I think the local one here at yqdi has a brs so I wouldn't be surprised if they all did.

 

 

[djpacro]

Im going to wait for the report.....

yep, I should've put my last post in the other thread. Hopefully there is a report as the pilot's story explaining the mayday calls and the data extracted from the electronic gizmos should be very enlightening.

[phonetic]

Old saying you only throttle back to Vso only above 3000 or below 3 feet AGL

 

 

[facthunter]

Maybe in some of our more critical planes go a bit higher than 3,000 and lower than 3. Nev

 

 

[hihosland]

My simplistic understanding is that the relatively low momentum of our UL aircraft was a fundamental consideration that resulted in us being granted exemptions from various regulations.

 

The newer faster aircraft are compromising that consideration.

 

Perhaps in order to keep CASA hands off ultralights there ought to be a max cruise speed included in the definition of the UL class.

 

The faster aircraft would then fall into a classification similar to GA experimental.

 

 

[facthunter]

The below 45 knot stall requirement is supposed to cover this. This can be achieved with flaps and other lift enhancers. Earlier design linked this to wing loading (roughly). Higher cruise speeds push up against design criteria becoming more strict Flutter structural fatigue inspections etc. Outlandings become less of a practical option. Engines are expected to be failure proof.

 

If you don't fly over populous areas this isn't such a problem. ALL single engine planes have a problem there potentially. I believe no U/L has ever killed people on the ground, but could be corrected.

 

If WE become the NEW GA (There should have been a vote on that. It's a Quantum leap) I think we will need a NEW RAAUS, because we are deliberately different by choice for simplicity, cost and relaxation of regulation. As the song goes" you don't know what you've got till it's gone". Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

The 45kt stall is a joke really. I can get the Corby to stall at less than 45kts, but to use 58.5kts as an approach speed would be stupid in my opinion and that is Vs X 1.3.

 

 

[facthunter]

The stall is specified. Power off, most forward C of G.Permitted in the POH. That is the configuration producing the required figure. Nev