sea-plane crash hawkesbury river nsw

[turboplanner]

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

I've been trained in crosswind touch and goes, flapless touch and goes, and downwind touch and goes; and in RA training it was drilled into me to watch the windsock, ESPECIALLY when it was hanging down; if it swung in the slightest, we changed circuit, so I would have no excuse for an overrun if I was forced to do a downwind landing. I realise we do come across RA instructors below that level, but that's matter for RAA to audit rather than trying to pretend that's LL.

 

 

[old man emu]

Sorry to insert a sidetrack here, but despite looking up Wikipedia and finding out that Caractacus Potts is a character in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, I cannot find an explanation of the term "Caractacus Potts scenario."

 

Could someone sut this sidetrack off by providing an explanation, then we can get back to the topic?

 

 

[M61A1]

Sorry to insert a sidetrack here, but despite looking up Wikipedia and finding out that Caractacus Potts is a character in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang, I cannot find an explanation of the term "Caractacus Potts scenario."Could someone sut this sidetrack off by providing an explanation, then we can get back to the topic?

That just means he thinks it's bullsh1t.

And yes, we could probably move the discussion to any of several other "accident and incidents" where someone stalled while carrying out a forced landing, or even the thread about Low Level endos.

 

 

[Awqward]

If you want to know why it isn't legal, go back to the accident statistics of the 300' days.

In the US and the UK there is no 500’ or even 300’ limit....Which covers around 75% of the world’s private pilots and I don’t think they have huge numbers of low flying accidents... in fact EASA set a 500’ limit but the UK filed a derogation meaning it doesn’t apply in the UK... So in Australia you’ll never (legally) know the joy of flying along a deserted coast at 10’ or even 100’...

 

(Btw, I have US, UK and Australian PPLs)

 

 

[poteroo]

And yes, we could probably move the discussion to any of several other "accident and incidents" where someone stalled while carrying out a forced landing, or even the thread about Low Level endos.

Agree - It would be a bit more relevant there. Your move.

 

 

[spacesailor]

"a critical low level manoeuver you have to get right"

 

Just a note, It took a lot of work to get Ultralight Aviation Up to a SAFE altitude,

 

Now you want to be back at the low flying that was said to be so dangerous !.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[Gravity]

In the US and the UK there is no 500’ or even 300’ limit....Which covers around 75% of the world’s private pilots and I don’t think they have huge numbers of low flying accidents... in fact EASA set a 500’ limit but the UK filed a derogation meaning it doesn’t apply in the UK... So in Australia you’ll never (legally) know the joy of flying along a deserted coast at 10’ or even 100’...(Btw, I have US, UK and Australian PPLs)

You wanna make a bet on that? I've seen plenty of a/c at zero feet along a deserted beach! Rules are like door locks they are only for honest thieves!!

 

 

[turboplanner]

You wanna make a bet on that? I've seen plenty of a/c at zero feet along a deserted beach! Rules are like door locks they are only for honest thieves!!

Fortunately they draw attention to themselves.

 

 

[M61A1]

"a critical low level manoeuver you have to get right"Just a note, It took a lot of work to get Ultralight Aviation Up to a SAFE altitude,

Now you want to be back at the low flying that was said to be so dangerous !.

 

spacesailor

Flying low wasn’t the dangerous bit, flying a very marginal aircraft without any instruction, I think is the dangerous part.

 

Fortunately they draw attention to themselves.

yes, they do draw attention, there is almost nowhere that you won’t be seen. That said, if the law allowed it, what is dangerous about LL along a deserted beach? Perfectly safe and legal in many other places. We’re just backward here.

[Gravity]

Flying low wasn’t the dangerous bit, flying a very marginal aircraft without any instruction, I think is the dangerous part.yes, they do draw attention, there is almost nowhere that you won’t be seen. That said, if the law allowed it, what is dangerous about LL along a deserted beach? Perfectly safe and legal in many other places. We’re just backward here.

Low flying along a beach is one of the most dangerous places you could do that stunt!

 

 

[spacesailor]

And over-policed.

 

spacesailor

 

 

[M61A1]

Low flying along a beach is one of the most dangerous places you could do that stunt!

To quote Pauline...."please explain?', Because if it's deserted, and you're not stupid about it, what is more dangerous? A long flat expanse of hard sand on the water line is a perfect runway.

And if it was legal, it's not really a stunt, as you're just cruising along pretty much straight and level.

 

 

[Gravity]

To quote Pauline...."please explain?', Because if it's deserted, and you're not stupid about it, what is more dangerous? A long flat expanse of hard sand on the water line is a perfect runway.And if it was legal, it's not really a stunt, as you're just cruising along pretty much straight and level.

You guys are missing the point about the dangers. When you fly professionally you look beyond the 'fun' aspect of flying as the dangers associated with low level flying especially over beaches & coastal areas are BIRDS!!

 

 

[M61A1]

You guys are missing the point about the dangers. When you fly professionally you look beyond the 'fun' aspect of flying as the dangers associated with low level flying especially over beaches & coastal areas are BIRDS!!

One might suggest that not all of us have fast moving aircraft, and that if it were permitted, the Drifter is probably the perfect aircraft for doing such things. At Drifter speeds, birds are easily seen and avoided. I imagine that things might be different in a faster aircraft.. I have no desire to fly professionally and remove the “fun”. Sounds soul destroying.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes, most self respecting birds can fly faster than you at Drifter speeds. Along the "right" beach you have a continuous alternate landing option. It's not too good for the plane, though. It's a high salt environment and the PR aspects are a problem in other than remote areas. You might even find someone in trouble and be able to assist.. Nev

 

 

[boleropilot]

two comments, make that three,

 

1. RIP the Beaver crash victims and blue skies and tailwinds forever for the pilot

 

2. A Drifter on floats crashed in the US when the tail came off in flight - the aircraft was in perfect condition and maintained scrupulously by the pilot - there was unseen corrosion inside the boom at the tail of the aircraft

 

3. Re. the LL discussion - I am lucky to have been taught by a true professional - I was taught how to aim right for the middle of two trees if I ended up in that situation on the ground with nowhere to go - if there was nowhere to go at all (which means I broke all the rules re. tiger country) I should select the perfect tree (rather than just say my goodbyes) and stall into the crown of it - and to this day I still hear his voice through my headset: "AIRSPEED!!!" - and that happens every single time I feel my airspeed has dropped off in a situation where I did not intend that to happen.

 

And I am about to get my Drifter back in the air after major maintenance - after much practice at Boonah and Roadvale (simulating the approaches I will have to fly here) I will be bringing 0455 home to Woolooman, to a 200 metre 'strip surrounded by hills...some LL coming up methinks...

 

BP

 

 

[boleropilot]

I was level at 1,500 feet over Lake Moogerah and I was passed by a pelican in a shallow dive.......perhaps he spotted a school of fish ?

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

Interesting article just found on Bush Flyers down Under, about the media's poor journalistic performance on the Hawkesbury Beaver crash -

 

Plane Truths and Knee-jerk Reporting

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interesting article just found on Bush Flyers down Under, about the media's poor journalistic performance on the Hawkesbury Beaver crash -Plane Truths and Knee-jerk Reporting

His own comments on what causes a stall in a turn were interesting.

 

 

[gibby]

Interesting article just found on Bush Flyers down Under, about the media's poor journalistic performance on the Hawkesbury Beaver crash -Plane Truths and Knee-jerk Reporting

He has some good points, to be so sure of what happened I would be interested to see how many hours he has done in a Beaver, and his qualifications on air crash investigations. He may be very qualified at google!

 

 

[Oscar]

His own comments on what causes a stall in a turn were interesting.

I believe that those comments would hold up against conventional wisdom, but perhaps it would be instructive if we could get a genuine, proven expert to provide more information. I know one, but he no longer contributes to this site; and I could suggest another who might: Keith Englesman, for many years, chief test pilot at CASA.

 

However, I return to my earlier comments: I believe that this accident occurred due to more factors than simply flight control. IF ATSB can deduce the actual flight path overlayed onto BOTH of the topography and an accurate analysis of the wind direction - especially the vertical wind path relative to the ground - it may well explain the pilot's actions.

 

Where - on the scale of responses - would you place a conscious decision to tighten a turn vs. obviously flying into the ground on the current flight path? I suggest that the former is - for an experienced and competent pilot, which appears to me to be evident from his experience and history - a 'last-ditch' attempt to mitigate the situation. Whereas the latter is a capitulation to the inevitable. I would take the former, personally speaking.

 

The concept of a 'black box' for every aircraft, of heavy-aircraft capability, is a furphy. However, there are a number of quite accessible aids to usable flight-recording. Most EFIS systems have GPS-encoded flight path information, and a simple 'dash-cam' camera - or a forward-facing Go-Pro - have recording capabilities to hard media that may provide recoverable information even from a water-based crash situation.

 

Speculation, at the moment, seems to me to be based on no actual concrete information. Hence, speculation on the accuracy of other's speculation (and of course, that includes my own), seems to me to be second-generation debased as to accuracy.

 

 

[Gravity]

It's human to speculate, we are all judgemental ( it's a human trait) especially when we as pilots have an interest in the subject. Plenty of highly professionally trained pilots have flown into terrain in perfectly serviceable machines for all sorts of reasons & they will continue to do so, fact of life as flying is a risk, calculated mostly but still a risk. I hope the ATSB can get to the bottom of this tragic event so that someone out there can learn from it.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

Interesting article just found on Bush Flyers down Under, about the media's poor journalistic performance on the Hawkesbury Beaver crash -Plane Truths and Knee-jerk Reporting

Below is a quote from the Plane Truths article.

As every pilot knows, there is an inherent relationship between speed, angle of bank and the load factor the airframe can withstand. The tighter the turn, the greater the angle of bank has to be, the more stress on the structure, particularly the wings. But because the wings are no longer horizontal, the lift generated by the inner (lower) wing is reduced, and that wing may stall.

 

1. The tighter the turn the greater the bank angle has to be. Not true. I can tighten a turn by turning at a slower airspeed for the same bank angle.

 

2. Because the wings are no longer hotizontal, the lift generated by the lower wing is reduced. Not true. In a level, balanced turn both wings lift equally. I can stall in a level turn with no wing drop. Try the same out of balance and you may regret it.

 

 

[facthunter]

Yes if there's less lift on one wing the plane will roll . The smallest radius turn will be at the lowest airspeed you can safely achieve. In some circumstances extending flap is the way to turn sharper. Nev

 

 

[Awqward]

Yes if there's less lift on one wing the plane will roll . The smallest radius turn will be at the lowest airspeed you can safely achieve. In some circumstances extending flap is the way to turn sharper. Nev

Exactly...it’s not the fact that the wings are no longer horizontal that causes the lower wing to stall first...it’s the fact that it has slightly lower airspeed because it is on the inside of the turn...