sea-plane crash hawkesbury river nsw

[Oscar]

Again, with respect to everybody, the RAA training syllabus is in no way relevant to this thread. A good topic, but not for here.

 

 

[facthunter]

They would not put a LL on my endorsement when I was a senior instructor under RAAus unless I had pupils who were going to NEED. it ie mustering even though I had it on a CPL and had instructed it in GA .Also had low level Bad weather ( tight at circling minimum) (VFR) circuits on B727 on Ist ATPL. and they ae TIGHT. You're on slope not above circling minima, day or night as applicable.

 

Being in the syllabus I would suggest is "when approved" I tried hard, as I wanted to keep doing what I had been doing, and think its BS. to not cover it. How do you inspect a strip at low level for "off field" landing assessment?. We are breaching our duty of care here by NOT bringing people up to a suitable standard to cope with what they might be reasonably expected to occasionally encounter. A go around is one situation where this is necessary to get right or encountering a gust that upsets your approach.. Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Sorry Oscar, I don't agree, this time. The possible elements of this tragic accident we are discussing has everything to do with low level circumstances. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Nev: I agree entirely, that LL expertise had almost everything to do with this situation. But: RAA can hardly be linked with training/bfr for a Beaver pilot, surely?

 

 

[SDQDI]

Nev: I agree entirely, that LL expertise had almost everything to do with this situation. But: RAA can hardly be linked with training/bfr for a Beaver pilot, surely?

Well the RAA specifics probably don’t have anything to do with but at the same time they might have everything to do with it.

The dangers of LL have similar results for a RAA or ga pilot and if (obviously I don’t know about this particular crash so am speaking generally) it is something that can kill experienced pilots then I think us recreational pilots should be even more aware of it. If talking about it causes one more person to do a little low level instructed flying then I am all for talking about it in every thread.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Well the RAA specifics probably don’t have anything to do with but at the same time they might have everything to do with it.The dangers of LL have similar results for a RAA or ga pilot and if (obviously I don’t know about this particular crash so am speaking generally) it is something that can kill experienced pilots then I think us recreational pilots should be even more aware of it. If talking about it causes one more person to do a little low level instructed flying then I am all for talking about it in every thread.

.....or avoids doing a little low level flying.....

 

 

[facthunter]

We share the same wind, and other effects, Oscar no matter what plane we fly. A plane is a plane is a plane. None run on rails.. All are subject to the vagaries of the wind. ALL pilots must cope when the situation arises. Not ALL will be recoverable. Good training gives a fighting chance. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

We share the same wind, and other effects, Oscar no matter what plane we fly. A plane is a plane is a plane. None run on rails.. All are subject to the vagaries of the wind. ALL pilots must cope when the situation arises. Not ALL will be recoverable. Good training gives a fighting chance. Nev

True but not valid; a tiny amount if training in a very low hour pilot is not going to bullet proof him her for life, but constant training at legal altitudes, backed up by the same message in theory training HAS consistently produced a LOWER incidence of fatalities. If you fly for a hobby an repeat that training you’re way safer than if you have a couple of hours of specialised training which continues to disappear into the past. The big question, after the many comments on the terrain in this incident is “Would I, with my training, put myself in this pisition? If the answer is “No” , you won’t be in this location. Total avoidance of a known risk situation gives 100% guarantee it’s not going to kill you.

 

 

[poteroo]

Having every instructor proficient in LL and teaching every student some basic competencies,I believe, might just save a few lives. I have read a few examples of forced landings where it would appear that the aircraft was mishandled in close proximity to the ground, resulting at best, in destruction of the aircraft and at worst, death or injury to the crew.

In an ideal world - yes, a good idea, and yes, it would save lives. But,this just isn't possible. Not many instructors are keen to indulge in LL flight, let alone training another pilot. Unless you've legally mustered, or flown ag, LL training is going to prove a challenge to most instructors. In addition to that, there exists in the minds of our regulators in Canberra, a strong aversion to LL training - 'because it will inspire pilots to indulge in LL beat ups and other illegal activities' (There is no safety evidence of this - in fact most of the LL accidents involve untrained pilots). However, these same bureaucrats are strongly in favour of pilots being given several hours of instrument flying - 'because it may save their lives should they enter non-VMC weather and need to climb up and fly out of it to safety'

 

The question that needs to be asked is - don't we need some of both in our training?

 

As far as I'm concerned, the primary reason for a pilot, (RAAus or GA), wishing to learn LL skills is to improve safety. It's farcical to be preventing pilots from learning (safety improving) skills when the organisation, (RAAus), is busy spending funds, with banging-the-drum about safety. It seriously is one of the elephants-in-the-room.

 

Before some bright spark twigs that I do LL training - yes, I do, and I'm damned well qualified to do it, but I don't expect all instructors to have it forced upon them. Just allow those pilots who wish to improve their skills, to obtain the training from wherever they can without all this BS about 'reasons'. It should be self-evident to all pilots.

 

happy days,

 

 

[SDQDI]

.....or avoids doing a little low level flying.....

So never take off? You can avoid the low level flight after takeoff by not taking off but once you have taken off and got up to altitude you WILL be forced to do some more low level flight eventually.

Just saying don't fly low is simplistic and totally misses the point.

 

 

[spacesailor]

LLF.

 

Was featured by a Hummel pilot, doing a great but dangerous flight along a road & river with His/Her wings looking vertical on some of the turns.

 

At times it seemed it was below tree-top height. ( couldn't get URL).

 

Tried again,

 

:

 

 

:AND UNDER a Bridge !

spacesailor

 

 

[turboplanner]

So never take off? You can avoid the low level flight after takeoff by not taking off but once you have taken off and got up to altitude you WILL be forced to do some more low level flight eventually.Just saying don't fly low is simplistic and totally misses the point.

Yes, don’t take off and you can’t stall, or hit a mountain, or run out of fuel. You’ve got the general point of Avoidance Risk Management.

This is a forum; there's not enough time to expand on training that works.

 

If you do take off, yes you will have a short period of low level flight on the way up and a short period on landing, but in those two cases you will, or ought to have been trained to be flying straight ahead with the wings level, so there will be none of the issues being discussed in earlier posts.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Well technically you can run out of fuel without taking off..................

 

But as for fly straight on takeoff and landing, I think that no matter how careful you fly there will always be a potential for having to turn even a little at low level.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Technically you can......

 

Technically you have been trained for Rate 1 turns before solo.

 

 

[M61A1]

.....or avoids doing a little low level flying.....

So, how does that help your average pilot who has an engine fail, has chosen to be somewhere where he can land, then finds out that he's completely out of his depth having to manoeuvre at low level for the first time without power? Taking off and landing don't count as LL as far as I'm concerned, as no manoeuvring is done.

My experience is that LL is very intimidating for a short while, but I'm glad I had the experience when I had an engine fail.

 

From some of the incident reports that I have seen, things may have ended a lot better for a few people if their first engine fail wasn't their first LL.

 

 

[facthunter]

Saying getting into a low flying adverse situation is " Your Choice " in not valid. No one says a few sessions gives you lifelong protection either but It does change your view on things permanently and you build on that. Your attitude changes. You set yourself a standard..

 

Not training people in some facet of flying because they might do silly things is presumptuous, a cop out and not based on facts. They will (IF that's the people they are ) do silly things not knowing the dangers anyhow, regardless and being incapable of coping (untrained) will often end up badly. Every pilot who crashes because he/she wasn't well enough trained is a blot on the system. The system has failed them. As I see it that's the present situation. I've been bloody lucky to have got the opportunities I got to learn and it's saved my life at least 3 times. The idea that " what I know is my business and it's your job to find out for yourself" is not on.. Not part of aviation. as it should be. People who decide the limit of what should be taught are playing GOD. You produce people who think they are there when they are well short of it. The truth is you never actually get "there" where there is no more to learn. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Saying getting into a low flying adverse situation is " Your Choice " in not valid. No one says a few sessions gives you lifelong protection either but It does change your view on things permanently and you build on that. Your attitude changes. You set yourself a standard..Not training people in some facet of flying because they might do silly things is presumptuous, a cop out and not based on facts. They will (IF that's the people they are ) do silly things not knowing the dangers anyhow, regardless and being incapable of coping (untrained) will often end up badly. Every pilot who crashes because he/she wasn't well enough trained is a blot on the system. The system has failed them. As I see it that's the present situation. I've been bloody lucky to have got the opportunities I got to learn and it's saved my life at least 3 times. The idea that " what I know is my business and it's your job to find out for yourself" is not on.. Not part of aviation. as it should be. People who decide the limit of what should be taught are playing GOD. You produce people who think they are there when they are well short of it. The truth is you never actually get "there" where there is no more to learn. Nev

Great dream; but the reality is not there, so you can’t do it in RA, so instead of sowing dissent, you have to work within what can be done, and what is being done and what has the statistics to back it up.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So, how does that help your average pilot who has an engine fail, has chosen to be somewhere where he can land, then finds out that he's completely out of his depth having to manoeuvre at low level for the first time without power? Taking off and landing don't count as LL as far as I'm concerned, as no manoeuvring is done.My experience is that LL is very intimidating for a short while, but I'm glad I had the experience when I had an engine fail.

From some of the incident reports that I have seen, things may have ended a lot better for a few people if their first engine fail wasn't their first LL.

Picking Caractacus Potts scenarios isn't going to help anyone. Clearly your Instructor hasn't bothered to teach you safe forced landings, or you haven't bothered to absorb what he was saying because you are taught to do, or should be, forced landings based on the second check item "Pick a field" and limit the approach to straight in or relatively flat turns which you are qualified to do. I think we all know what you are trying to do, and it isn't legal so go try to fool someone else. If you want to know why it isn't legal, go back to the accident statistics of the 300' days.

 

 

[M61A1]

Picking Caractacus Potts scenarios isn't going to help anyone. Clearly your Instructor hasn't bothered to teach you safe forced landings, or you haven't bothered to absorb what he was saying because you are taught to do, or should be, forced landings based on the second check item "Pick a field" and limit the approach to straight in or relatively flat turns which you are qualified to do. I think we all know what you are trying to do, and it isn't legal so go try to fool someone else. If you want to know why it isn't legal, go back to the accident statistics of the 300' days.

That attitude is exactly why our fatality rate is as high as it is, and it's the same on our roads, we're too focused on the wrong things and we outlaw things that could be saving lives.

If it's a "Caractacus Potts" scenario, why does it seem to rear it's head fairly regularly? Also, most other countries allow low level flight, yet their accident rate is no higher, our's is certainly no lower. Your justification is completely invalid.

 

 

[facthunter]

We are getting a lot of instances of thermal based gusty winds and mini twisters as well as mechanical turbulence from tree rows and shed/ Hangars orographic terrain and sea breeze effects. Your sterile choice option is not a real feature of ultralight flying. Many coastal areas have known sea breeze effects affecting aviation at certain times of the day.. A go around is a very critical area of low level flying. that every pilot should be able to execute at a moment s notice safely as we encourage it if the approach isn't satisfactory./safe to land from. Nev.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are getting a lot of instances of thermal based gusty winds and mini twisters as well as mechanical turbulence from tree rows and shed/ Hangars orographic terrain and sea breeze effects. Your sterile choice option is not a real feature of ultralight flying. Many coastal areas have known sea breeze effects affecting aviation at certain times of the day.. A go around is a very critical area of low level flying. that every pilot should be able to execute at a moment s notice safely as we encourage it if the approach isn't satisfactory./safe to land from. Nev.

I can't believe I'm reading this; are you REALLY suggesting students are not being taught how to conduct a go round, and how to handle crosswinds?

 

 

[turboplanner]

That attitude is exactly why our fatality rate is as high as it is, and it's the same on our roads, we're too focused on the wrong things and we outlaw things that could be saving lives.If it's a "Caractacus Potts" scenario, why does it seem to rear it's head fairly regularly? Also, most other countries allow low level flight, yet their accident rate is no higher, our's is certainly no lower. Your justification is completely invalid.

You'll be able to back this up with fatality figures then.

 

 

[facthunter]

The point I'm trying to make is that is a critical low level manoeuver you have to get right. and needs the skills taught in low level flight. What you are doing is putting a slant I never intended on things I say. Very selective and often out of context. For example a go around because you floated too far because the wind had become a tail wind while you were in the training area. There's plenty of pilots who have never done a downwind landing and will probably fly too slow on approach when they do one in anger. and tend to do the same on go around with a down wind at low level (AS MANY WOULD DO). I've sent students solo (not initial) no radio when the runway became unsuitable due a wind change, when they were out in the training area, and being somewhat concerned as to how they would interpret the changes when they returned.. Nev

 

 

[Blueadventures]

The point I'm trying to make is that is a critical low level manoeuver you have to get right. and needs the skills taught in low level flight. What you are doing is putting a slant I never intended on things I say. Very selective and often out of context. For example a go around because you floated too far because the wind had become a tail wind while you were in the training area. There's plenty of pilots who have never done a downwind landing and will probably fly too slow on approach when they do one in anger. and tend to do the same on go around with a down wind at low level (AS MANY WOULD DO). I've sent students solo (not initial) no radio when the runway became unsuitable due a wind change, when they were out in the training area, and being somewhat concerned as to how they would interpret the changes when they returned.. Nev

Agree. My earlier comment about my bfr being due soon (not far off now) was to develop / improve my skill and awareness at low level flying and in hilly wind effected areas that would be usefull accessing tight short airstrips and during any emergancy or precautionary landings I need to do. Particularly tight turns in strong wind down low, re being on the upwind side of the turn and then the down wind side of the turn and also tight turns low within hills in rising ground level. (During my training I had to maintain position over a point in storng wind but we were not down low so did not experience the visual distractions that occur down low) Perhaps a new endorsement called say advanced reduced circuit training clould be considered as the skill has merit at improving skills and therefore safer flying. I know I would benefit from some instruction in this area from some one who is a better skilled pilot in this skill. Cheers Mike

 

 

[facthunter]

I like your idea of getting it. I used to do it LL in RAAus under a CFIs direction so HE was the boss initially. I have NO DOUBT as to the benefits from doing it. As in all things your understanding of what is actually going on is paramount. The visual bad cues, feeling of skidding and groundspeed variations giving illusions of being slow /fast. . Flying in valleys, towards rising terrain possible wind hazards with mountains.. Leaving room to turn if you have to etc. you can read about, best from people who fly or have flown in Alaska and PNG where it's very necessary to survive.. Talk to Poteroo. Nev