RAA fatality near Emerald

[facthunter]

Stretching the glide in that sort of plane is a WISH. not a real possibility and the country seems to be generally suitable for an off field landing.

 

Re the age etc Older people well watched are probably safer heart attack wise than younger unfit, unmedicated and unmonitored people. Being educated about your condition helps too. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

Engine failure will not cause the aircraft to crash (unless it's failure was so catastrophic that it damaged the airframe). It may a factor in the events leading up to, but it's not a cause.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The only reason I think the engine might be a factor is the age of the plane and the lack of maintenance training that comes with RAA RPCs. It's a dangerous combination, the unknown unknowns

 

 

[Geoff13]

Medical issue or not, it would be good to hear the facts from RAAus re the 95.10 Student / Pilot Certificate? issue. That would put straight some of the posts on this thread.

ave8rr

 

The best way to get a comment from RAA on that would be to email Ops and ask them.

 

 

[facthunter]

Useless speculation ft. "Old" doesn't mean it's a $#1theap. Cause at this stage is "UNKNOWN". 2 stroke engines CAN fail but so can a tow rope. or a bolt.. Engine failure is something you train for and unless you are over crocs or Houses it is not over for you, by any measure when it stops. Nev

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Yeah nah, it's an old engine, it's two stroke, emerald is pretty hot in summer. Its a recipe for an engine failure, especially if it's a 447

 

 

[facthunter]

The temperature difference between the engine and the ambient is what causes heat to travel. Another 15 degrees of engine temp as a consequence, would not have a great effect on an AIR cooled motor with a few proving hours or even quite a few hours. OAT doesn't bother them like it does a 912. or a 582 where you might need a bigger radiator because the radiator is only 100 degrees to ambient 45 and the engine is say 180/45. A bigger temp difference. The 447 is also fan cooled. Perhaps the fan belt broke? But that would be More speculation. No substitute for facts. Nev

 

 

[alf jessup]

I just thought that an engine failure is the most likely cause of the accident, if he was flying over salt bush country making an attempt to get to the highway seems an obvious course of action. Not everyone is an aircraft mechanic, its easy to overlook small fault in an aircraft if you haven't had a lot of exposure to them. Most people would rarely have any interactions with 20 year old machinery these days, so those old technologies aren't well known.

Engine failure shouldn’t kill you in any case

Aircraft is fully controllable all the way to the ground

 

If you mess it up it’s not the aircrafts fault

 

 

[fly_tornado]

The wreck looks like it was flying straight and level when he hit the ground. Reduces the likelihood of a loss of control or airframe failure.

 

 

[rankamateur]

We really are dumbing down the population.

But they had Eugenics back then to tidy up the bottom end of the population.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Engine failure shouldn’t kill you in any caseAircraft is fully controllable all the way to the ground

If you mess it up it’s not the aircrafts fault

History shows that’s often not the case; if it was you’d see a few broken legs and a lot of laughs. The design is for RA to glide slowly to minimise collision damage, but report after report indicates a stall or spin after the engine stops.

 

 

[alf jessup]

History shows that’s often not the case; if it was you’d see a few broken legs and a lot of laughs. The design is for RA to glide slowly to minimise collision damage, but report after report indicates a stall or spin after the engine stops.

And that’s the planes fault is it?

Maybe if pilots instead of sitting there fat dumb and happy for 2 years between BFR’s relying on their engine keeping on going actually practiced stuff they were taught in their training the stats might improve

 

I do something almost every flight in emergency procedures so I’m not startled and go in to panic mode when the noise up front decides to play up

 

Worked for me a few years back as I didn’t have o think about what I had to do came automatically fuel pump on, carb heat on other fuel tap on and set best glide speed

 

All I had to do was fly the plane for which I did

 

Adrenalin level up but at no stage panic

 

 

[turboplanner]

And that’s the planes fault is it?

No, it’s not. Maybe not enough hours of training to get the HF ingrained. I can’t complain about my RA instructors; efato right down to the cow turds, repeatedly by surprise normal forced landings, incipient spins, etc

 

 

[Methusala]

An aeroplane such as the Flightstar Pioneer is NOT at all challenging to fly. I haven't flown this type but have flown 2 & single seat Thrusters, Drifters, Mustangs, Jeeps, Robinson B1RDs, Tyro's etc. They are generally viceless, stable and having high drag are difficult to accelerate to high airspeed. The stall is usually a mush and they don't usually drop a wing quickly due to greater dihedral than higher performance a/c. Pilot incapacitation or some exaggerated panic response (perhaps PIO) is likely.

 

 

[facthunter]

There's a slight bend in the boom, indicating significant vertical descent in a flat attitude. At least at the time of ground contact with little forward speed. Nev

 

 

[M61A1]

History shows that’s often not the case; if it was you’d see a few broken legs and a lot of laughs. The design is for RA to glide slowly to minimise collision damage, but report after report indicates a stall or spin after the engine stops.

So you managed to find what I was talking about then?

I suspect lack of LL awareness, poor handling close to the ground because it's all unfamiliar.

 

AUF incident reports used to feature a lot of engine failures with uneventful forced landings, but things have changed.

 

 

[M61A1]

No, it’s not. Maybe not enough hours of training to get the HF ingrained. I can’t complain about my RA instructors; efato right down to the cow turds, repeatedly by surprise normal forced landings, incipient spins, etc

It may come as a surprise, but most of the places I've trained in do engine failures down to the ground, but usually at their home strip, usually in the circuit area.

I only know of two (in my vicinity) that that will ensure that you are competent down to the ground (1-2 feet) almost anywhere, where most will go around at 500 feet. It is my experience that this deprives you of the experience of having to handle the aircraft, power off, close to the ground, around trees and power lines.

 

 

[red750]

I learned GA at Moorabbin which had a training area down the Mornington Peninsula. There was a low flying area between Carrum Downs and Cranbourne, mainly farmland in those days. Most instructors would go down to about 250 ft, but I had one, an ex BOAC pilot, who took me down to fencetop height. You could clearly see the dandelions in the grass. Driving between Dandenong and Frankston, you would often see aircraft just above treetop height.

 

 

[dlegg]

It does look like engine failure. The prop in the vertical position is undamaged.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So you managed to find what I was talking about then?I suspect lack of LL awareness, poor handling close to the ground because it's all unfamiliar.

AUF incident reports used to feature a lot of engine failures with uneventful forced landings, but things have changed.

You were talking about LL, these reports are of failure to control the aircraft from cruise heights like 1100 feet.

 

 

[turboplanner]

It may come as a surprise, but most of the places I've trained in do engine failures down to the ground, but usually at their home strip, usually in the circuit area.I only know of two (in my vicinity) that that will ensure that you are competent down to the ground (1-2 feet) almost anywhere, where most will go around at 500 feet. It is my experience that this deprives you of the experience of having to handle the aircraft, power off, close to the ground, around trees and power lines.

If your forced landing checklist starts with; 1. Trim for (glide speed) 2. pick a field, and you are up at an altitude where you should be, then the field you picked will be free of trees and power lines you would have to fly around. If you stuffed up your choice, then close to the ground you will be close to, or at your round out speed, and unless half blind, will be able to make the slight deviations your were taught in normal training, and put the aircraft on the ground where you can steer it, ground loop it or take other evasive measures where, bar hitting a stump or log head on, or catching the undercarriage on the approach fence, you should be in the survivable injury area.

There's nothing to stop you getting as many lessons as you like in LL with a qualified GA instructor.

 

There are good reasons forced landing practice below 500 feet was discontinued in GA; same reason or limiting single engine failures in twins to high altitude; people were being injured and killed when things went wrong, as they are much more likely to do when a failure occurs below 500 feet.

 

 

[M61A1]

You were talking about LL, these reports are of failure to control the aircraft from cruise heights like 1100 feet.

What I was talking about was loss of control in the final stages of a forced landing because they haven't spent any time handling an aircraft close to the ground. If pilots are stall/spinning from 1100 feet just because the fan stopped, things are worse than I thought.

 

If your forced landing checklist starts with; 1. Trim for (glide speed) 2. pick a field, and you are up at an altitude where you should be, then the field you picked will be free of trees and power lines you would have to fly around. If you stuffed up your choice, then close to the ground you will be close to, or at your round out speed, and unless half blind, will be able to make the slight deviations your were taught in normal training, and put the aircraft on the ground where you can steer it, ground loop it or take other evasive measures where, bar hitting a stump or log head on, or catching the undercarriage on the approach fence, you should be in the survivable injury area.There's nothing to stop you getting as many lessons as you like in LL with a qualified GA instructor.

 

There are good reasons forced landing practice below 500 feet was discontinued in GA; same reason or limiting single engine failures in twins to high altitude; people were being injured and killed when things went wrong, as they are much more likely to do when a failure occurs below 500 feet.

As previously mentioned, I have had LL training, and the point I have tried to make is that until I had done it, I had no idea how intimidating it can be if you haven't done it before.

 

I tend to not fly away over stuff I can't land on or at least glide to, but paddocks without trees and power lines are just dreams. The confidence and ability to manoeuvre close to the ground can be the difference between life and death at worst and serious injury or walking away. The better shape that aircraft is in, the better shape you will be in, especially in our lightweight slippery little machines.

 

I must ask....have you ever had a real forced landing? I have, and I thank the instructor that advised me to do some LL training. My aircraft and I were completely undamaged (excepting the engine damage that caused it).

 

Also if picking a field is number 2 on your checklist, you are already behind the aircraft, that should have been picked before the engine stopped.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What I was talking about was loss of control in the final stages of a forced landing because they haven't spent any time handling an aircraft close to the ground. If pilots are stall/spinning from 1100 feet just because the fan stopped, things are worse than I thought.

As previously mentioned, I have had LL training, and the point I have tried to make is that until I had done it, I had no idea how intimidating it can be if you haven't done it before.

 

I tend to not fly away over stuff I can't land on or at least glide to, but paddocks without trees and power lines are just dreams. The confidence and ability to manoeuvre close to the ground can be the difference between life and death at worst and serious injury or walking away. The better shape that aircraft is in, the better shape you will be in, especially in our lightweight slippery little machines.

 

I must ask....have you ever had a real forced landing? I have, and I thank the instructor that advised me to do some LL training. My aircraft and I were completely undamaged (excepting the engine damage that caused it).

 

Also if picking a field is number 2 on your checklist, you are already behind the aircraft, that should have been picked before the engine stopped.

You're picking in and around answers; You have RAA rules to comply with, that's a good start; everyone has access to LL training if they wish.

I had a forced landing (student) with a cable breakon a glider; landed straight ahead on the strip.

 

 

[farri]

I find it hard to agree to stop training for the accident you are trying to prevent because the very accident you are trying to prevent is occurring.

 

What that says to me, is, " You can`t train to achieve the ability required to stop that accident occurring but hopefully, it won`t happen or if it does, you might be able to deal with it and survive". It also says to me, "The instructor is not capable of preventing the accident, in training".

 

Forgetting GA aircraft.

 

I had the advantage of beginning to instruct in the Drifter off my own property when we were only legal to 500` agl; Throughout the country, there had already been numerous fatal accidents resulting from engine failure and I believed this was unacceptable but I didn`t stop instructing on how to survive engine failure because I might get it wrong and cause the very accident I was trying to prevent, I put a lot of time and effort into instructing on how to get back onto the ground safely and that meant flying the aircraft all the way to landing back on the strip.

 

What is the point in training for engine failure and pulling out at 500` agl.?

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

It's not a convincing exercise IF the bit where it all happens is missing. The times you do it almost to the flare are the best.. You know where you would have touched down and what length remains to pull up. If you can't handle that what would you do if someone pulled onto the strip when you were on short final somewhere? That's something you can never rule out where people are holding with engines running near the runway.

 

Some training is almost too dangerous to be justified. Failing two engines on the same side before reaching 50 feet is absurd. Unlikely to happen in the real world but very critical in the extreme. I pointed out to the check Captain at the time that it would be a bad day indeed to get two failing exactly at the critical speed for each engine on the one side one after the other.. The FOOL didn't se the irony. The thrust asymmetry was 1900 horsepower and no hydraulic controls.. Nice to have done it and survived but stupid, really,. for the point Franco makes. The instructor has to be capable of managing it if the student doesn't get it right. that's the BIG responsibility of the Instructor. Not to allow that situation to happen

 

In a forced landing, provided sufficient speed is maintained and the aeroplane well controlled, the instructor can take over at any time. Two pairs of eyes are looking for danger items Birds etc. The area should be familiar to the instructor re features that might make it unsuitable, like power lines, topography too steep to climb away over and such . Nev