Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Pilot told a paramedic that a thermal/gust of wind caused him to stall shortly after take-off.

 

 

Posted

I don't know about LL practice - but some improvement in his judgement ability of when not to try getting airborne, due to weather conditions that are outside your aircrafts limits, might be the order of the day.

 

Going flying in an ultra-ultralight in gusty conditions, is on a par with putting out to sea in an 8 foot tinny in a 4 metre swell with a wind running against the swell.

 

It's interesting to see he suffered both head and ankle injuries in the crash. Those skinny fuselage rigs where you travel with your legs hanging outside the fuselage, has to be a design where you lose a leg, straight up, in any crash.

 

That bloke needs to buy a Lotto ticket while his luck still holds.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Posted

Light wing loading basic aircraft are for early morning /calm evening events like the very early type of aircraft were.. Hard way to find out the limit .The wind event that brought him undone might have been an isolated occurrence rather than a continuous state. Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted

I guess it's all about personal risk. What someone sees as safe another wouldn't ever go anywhere near such a machine. Flying is all about learning anyway, hope he has taken something away from this event other than keeping his life! Phew!!

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
I don't know about LL practice

That was just a joke related to the full moon/ fruit loop comments on the Beaver crash thread.

 

 

Posted

I learned a long time ago, longevity flying Ultralights requires knowing when not to fly and basically, that comes with experience, unfortunately, experience comes from doing and some don`t get a chance to learn from their mistakes, their first is their last.

 

After 35 years of flying Ultralights, so that I maintain my ability, I will fly in wind conditions unsuitable and dangerous to a novice pilot but I`ve learned when not to fly and will not fly just to find out if I can.

 

Frank.

 

 

  • Like 4
  • Agree 4
Posted

He's in the Maryborough (Qld) hospital with a deep gash to the leg and a piece out of his ankle. He's older than 68, so that would be partly why they made him do an overnighter. He is a forumite here, but hasn't contributed for a while.

 

Leg injuries would go with the territory with the Airbike; as you fly with legs & feet outside. He ended up in the backyard of the house across the road directly off the end of the Pacific Haven airstrip (9 Marina Drive, Pacific Haven). Otherwise he probably would have landed on the garden or just flown away.

 

There's a picture of that Airbike here Taildragger Heaven He's in the picture in post #66.

 

He was buying another plane, so sounds like he'll be back. 080_plane.gif.36548049f8f1bc4c332462aa4f981ffb.gif Get Well Soon!

 

 

  • Like 3
  • Informative 2
Posted
Pilot told a paramedic that a thermal/gust of wind caused him to stall shortly after take-off.

From taxi entry on 02 (southern end) to the crash point is 1138 metres......Would have thought he would be well high by then?

 

 

  • Agree 1
Posted
YOU build a safer plane and it's "wing-loading" stops the registration!.spacesailor

What do you mean?

 

 

Posted

The "Hummel-Bird" WAS on the 95-10 registry, (two cylinder single seat, good looking, efficient design)

 

and if Flying could stay there, If registered after a certain date, it gets the chop & needs a new rego, 94-19 or VH.

 

Check that registry now & see how many are left there.

 

spacesailor

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Helpful 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
The "Hummel-Bird" WAS on the 95-10 registry, (two cylinder single seat, good looking, efficient design)and if Flying could stay there, If registered after a certain date, it gets the chop & needs a new rego, 94-19 or VH.

Check that registry now & see how many are left there.

 

spacesailor

This was an Air Bike crash; have you posted in the wrong thread?

Apart from that, just recently there were suggestions from some that nothing was restricting the light end of RA, and people were just whining about rag and tube. I know the Hummel-Bird is not rag and tube, but would this be a good example where aircraft have been lost to RA (and their owners) without reasonable cause?

 

 

Posted

If registered before 1990 when wing load restriction on MTOW replaced empty wing loading the Hummel could be AUF registered.

 

Then for 8 years they were only able to go GA if you went 101.28 - nobody did that because it was horrid

 

Along came 95.55 in 98 and 19 reg became available for AUF registration without wing loading limits but with stall limits.

 

Basic comment today on the airbike leaves me scratching my head - nearly every 95.10 registered since 1998 COULD have been 19 reg if the builder chose to so long as they built it from scratch - any kit needs to be 19 reg

 

an airbike built today from plans that you chose to ‘modify’ to make your own design could go 10 or 19 reg.

 

 

Posted

Yes it was an Air Bike

 

But

 

Gravity said, "I guess it's all about personal risk. What someone sees as safe another wouldn't ever go anywhere near such a machine".

 

When I was building there was sixteen builder's also. all lost to RAA, by bureaucracy.

 

One went to the tip ?

 

spacesailor

 

 

Posted

ClearProp5.jpg.ac4ca4215cfd88f36c3a5c0ef318a843.jpg Kasper ,

 

What is the "wing-loading" on a VTO aircraft when hovering?.

 

It doesn't really matter, as Hummel-Birds can be used for Photo-shoots, as per (what you call the pic on left)

 

I can only dream I'm up with the eagles, as I run a couple of litres through the motor!.

 

spacesailor

 

clearprop.jpg.d3bf5a3c05a551ec2f115ddec3618f88.jpg

 

 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...