RAA fatality near Emerald

[Gravity]

My eyes are outside the cabin looking for a suitable landing site proportional to the height I am flying at. Up high say over 3000' agl it's not so often but terrain dependant, down at 500' my head is on a swivel constantly & I'm only ever behind a Lycoming these days.

 

 

[turboplanner]

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.

Fueled by the M61A1 arguments, this is starting to remind me of A.P. Herbet's TV series "Misleading Cases" where, although Alfred Haddock is always guilty, he pleads his case and against all odds is found to be innocent. A typical example is where he is travelling on the wrong side of a flooded road and collides with a fire truck. From memory, he finds an obscure definition of a waterway being of a certain depth, and maintains he was correctly navigating on the starboard side of the road. It also reminds me of the early seat belt arguments, where a situation could always be found where a seat belt would cost a life instead of saving it; despite which, the seat belt law remains the biggest road toll reducing action, ever.

Regardless of what you might think, you have a set of regulations you have to comply with, and these are based on reducing the injury and fatality rate.

 

 

[SDQDI]

So are you saying LL training is a silly idea Turbs?

 

It is accessible to all if they want it, I have started mine with RAA I just have to get myself organised to finish it.

 

I would say that even the little I have done has shown me how inadequate I am. Certainly an eye opener that imo we all should go through. Has it made me a cowboy? Well truthfully I have probably always been the cowboy type and if anything it has made me less likely to do silly LL flying.

 

As for practicing engine outs to 500ft, that is nearly laughable. It would be like the roads and maritime driving inspector testing your parallel parking skills by driving past the spaces and telling them which one you were going to use then having it ticked off.

 

 

[farri]

Fueled by the M61A1 arguments, this is starting to remind me of A.P. Herbet's TV series

I`m not fueled by anyone and you`re entitled to your opinions, regardless of what they remind you of.

 

Please tell me if you`ve ever instructed in an Ultralight aircraft and if you have had any engine failure in any Ultralight you`ve been flying and walked away from!...I talk from the experience of both scenarios.

 

It`s a pity you don`t stick to the subject being discussed instead of giving some BS example, such as you have in your post I`ve quoted from,

 

Frank.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I`m not fueled by anyone and you`re entitled to your opinions, regardless of what they remind you of.Please tell me if you`ve ever instructed in an Ultralight aircraft and if you have had any engine failure in any Ultralight you`ve been flying and walked away from!...I talk from the experience of both scenarios.

Frank.

The answers are no and no.

This thread is not about your level of skills or teaching; it relates to someone who is no longer with us, and what might have happened here.

 

 

[farri]

The answers are no and no.This thread is not about your level of skills or teaching; it relates to someone who is no longer with us, and what might have happened here.

Who said it was about my level of skill? Certainly not I! Again an assumption you have dreamed up.One thing you are absolutely correct about though is what this thread is about, so why not contribute something positive to it!

 

I`ve simply tried to show that training for engine failure in an Ultralight and for Ultralight pilots, pulling out at 500` agl is a joke because as we all know, it`s only the last bit at the bottom that does the damage.

 

Oh! By the way! why am I not surprised you reply to my question would be "no and no"

 

Frank.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So are you saying LL training is a silly idea Turbs?It is accessible to all if they want it, I have started mine with RAA I just have to get myself organised to finish it.

I would say that even the little I have done has shown me how inadequate I am. Certainly an eye opener that imo we all should go through. Has it made me a cowboy? Well truthfully I have probably always been the cowboy type and if anything it has made me less likely to do silly LL flying.

No I'm not, see post #123

With your aircraft, I think it's a great idea because of your aircraft's STOL performance, and the situations you could get into.

 

Would I take the next step and mandate LL into the training syllabus? No it would add substantially to the cost of getting a Certificate, would require substantially more training for instructor qualifications, and with the current training for speeds, maintaining Rate 1 (30 deg) turns, landing straight ahead or with minimum deviations, and simple forced landing checks, a newly qualified pilot will have a reasonable level of subconscious/ reactionary skills which will have about the same outcome, or better, than someone who did a couple of hours LL five years ago, and

 

now has to remember what he was told, as the aircraft is going down.

 

If you take a look at the Quicksilver accident on another thread, it shows how quickly things cross from being routine, as trained, to unrecoverable.

 

The accident history of RAA/AUF doesn't show a lot of fatalities from slamming into power lines, fences and trees while trying to thread a path at low level; it all seems to go wrong higher up.

 

Again, in summary, I'm not against LL training, and there is a pathway for you to do it legally.; that of course being quite different to saying "Well since I was trained, I can now fly below 500 feet.

 

As for practicing engine outs to 500ft, that is nearly laughable. It would be like the roads and maritime driving inspector testing your parallel parking skills by driving past the spaces and telling them which one you were going to use then having it ticked off.

I suspect there's not a steady toll of ground damage, aircraft damage, injuries and fatalities, aside from the correct comparison being testing for taxying and parking skills of an aircraft vs a car, and let's not forget that an RA aircraft was written off in a taxying collision with a hangar not so long ago.

Regardless of that there are regulations for forced landing practice.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Who said it was about my level of skill? Certainly not I! Again an assumption you have dreamed up.One thing you are absolutely correct about though is what this thread is about, so why not contribute something positive to it!I`ve simply tried to show that training for engine failure in an Ultralight and for Ultralight pilots, pulling out at 500` agl is a joke because as we all know, it`s only the last bit at the bottom that does the damage.

Oh! By the way! why am I not surprised you reply to my question would be "no and no"

 

Frank.

Good arguments, so how do you handle your obligation to the regulations.

 

 

[M61A1]

Regardless of what you might think, you have a set of regulations you have to comply with, and these are based on reducing the injury and fatality rate.

Yes Turbo we have a set of regulations, but I don't believe they are based on reducing fatality rates. All I have suggested is that some slightly different training ( not more, just different) may actually reduce fatality rates. I base this on my own experiences and several accident reports I have seen. I'm not suggesting that we should all fly around at tree top level in defiance of regs, that said I do think that our LL regs are unnecessary.

I don't expect anything better from our government it has been quite clear for many years that they aren't interested in our safety, whether we fly or drive. If they were really concerned they might actually look at some different ideas because the ones they've been using in my lifetime have made FA difference, and I suspect even been a contributing factor in many cases. I don't believe for one minute that any of these pricks can actually see the damage they've done.

 

I like to use "adaptive thinking", that is , I will obey their rules, right up to the point where it might kill me.

 

 

[Methusala]

My esteemed CFI years ago remarked that it took an ultralight pilot to teach him the really safe method of precautionary landings. This was not to do a pass at 500ft and a second pass at 250. No, it was to do a pass at twice treetop height and a second at 1/2 that height. The first pass you could see powerlines from above and the second you got a really good look at the terrain you were about to land on. Don (I have had actual experience of engine failures and survived the landing)

 

 

[farri]

Good arguments, so how do you handle your obligation to the regulations.

In case you missed it, I made the point in my above post #124 that I began instructing legally from my own property when we were only legal to 500`, agl.

 

From memory, I retired from instructing around 15 years ago for several reasons, one of them being I didn`t agree with the direction Ultralight training was heading.

 

As for my obligations to the regulations, that`s my business but I`m not going to agree on any regulation that I believe is not improving the safety of Ultralight pilots, just to appease the system...So there you have it, no more to be said.

 

Frank.

 

 

[farri]

A precautionary landing is completely different to an engine failure where you are forced to land, like it or not and it`s how you land that determines the final outcome.

 

From experience, I just don`t agree or believe that instructing someone on engine failure in the latest, you beaut, high-performance LSA and pulling out at 500` agl is going to prepare them for an engine failure in a 95-10 Ultralight or any other high-drag, low-momentum Ultralight.

 

I`m not suggesting engine failure training be carried out all the way to runway, at a busy public aerodrome, what I am suggesting is that training for high- drag, low-momentum Ultralights be carried out in a high-drag, low-momentum aircraft, where the training can be carried out, all the way to a full stop on the runway.

 

Frank.

 

 

[facthunter]

Being familiar with an aerodrome makes it less effective or even NOT realistic training for a forced landing. You won't know the height of the forced landing field accurately in reality nor have any of the familiar features you use to judge your circuit at your home field. which many have gotten used to. Fly your circuits referring to the strip and how it looks to you and you will be better off, at other places. Nev

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Dear God, 7 pages of mostly off topic drivel. Turbs wants to regress to the bad old days (let's have lots of and yet more rules), nobody seems to know the rules (probably because they re too complex as is to be expected from that mini CASA formerly known as RAAus), medical causes are speculated on without evidence (want to keep that State Driver's Licence medical guys?) and we know there won't be a proper investigation.

 

Some years ago a BD-4 (VH Experimental homebuilt) crashed and burned up near Monto. The police investigated. I took the trouble to make contact as I own the same type and had met the pilot of the crashed one. I could tell them a couple of things to look for but they never got back to me.

 

A safety culture and a rules culture are different things.

 

M61A1 is right, the government doesn't care about you or your safety. They only care about their continuing ability to loot the wealth of the Australian people. Hence their rules culture.

 

 

[M61A1]

 

A safety culture and a rules culture are different things.

 

[turboplanner]

Dear God, 7 pages of mostly off topic drivel.

If you'd read those 7 pages more carefully, you may not have made the comments you did.

At this stage, there is no official cause of the accident, and most have stayed away from it, but the off topic discussions often produce good information - no different to a seminar where 90% of the discussion will not me of much use, but the other 10% will stay with you for life. Maybe it is drivel for someone who makes instruments for glider; I don't know.

 

Turbs wants to regress to the bad old days (let's have lots of and yet more rules)

Maybe you didn't understand what I was saying, which was neither a wish to revert to the bad old days, and nor to have lots and lots more rules.

What I did say was that in spite of some people's theories there were rules in place which had to be followed whether you like it or not.

 

Those rules can be democratically changed, reduced or increased, but that's not part of this discussion.

 

It's possible (not proven or even probable) this crash cause may involve adherence to rules, and if that's the case the focus will come on, probably, a single rule, and possibly the current attitude of pilots to rules.

 

nobody seems to know the rules (probably because they re too complex as is to be expected from that mini CASA formerly known as RAAus)

You're welcome to enlighten us on which rule would apply in this accident.

 

medical causes are speculated on without evidence (want to keep that State Driver's Licence medical guys?)

You can categorically rule a medical episode out right now?

Any chance of a medical episode would also be investigated in a similar GA accident, so I'm not sure what you are insinuating there; do you think you could cover it up? or that in a GA accident a medical episode wouldn't be investigated?

 

and we know there won't be a proper investigation.

I have never had any reason to doubt the professionalism of any RAA/Police investigation, ever

The issue is that the RAA/Police/Coroner chain doesn't usually give us a "cause of accident" based report, which an ATSB investigation does, which is usually more useful for training than a "cause of death" report. And we know the reason ATSB can only selectively review accidents is cost.

 

Some years ago a BD-4 (VH Experimental homebuilt) crashed and burned up near Monto. The police investigated. I took the trouble to make contact as I own the same type and had met the pilot of the crashed one. I could tell them a couple of things to look for but they never got back to me.

That's just the way things are. The authorities collect evidence, which you may have, check it's relevance to the event. It may go into the brief/final evidence document, it may be found to be significant evidence, but there's only one feedback, and that's the final decision by ATSB or the Coroner. So you did your duty, and they accepted your information.

 

A safety culture and a rules culture are different things.

What are these things?

 

M61A1 is right, the government doesn't care about you or your safety. They only care about their continuing ability to loot the wealth of the Australian people. Hence their rules culture.

RAA is a self-administering body; the first Constitution I saw consisted partly of Model Rules, which were a simple framework provided by the ACT Department of Justice, which stressed there was no obligation to adhere to the Model Rules, Associations were free to make up their own. The RAA Constitution had been extensively modified.

I would expect any rules involved in this accident would be RAA rules, self-proclaimed, and self-administered by the Company.

 

So where the government's care or non care are involved, or where their looting of us is involved in this crash, I'd be fascinated to find out.

 

 

[rotor]

Condolences to family and friends - RIP

 

Lots of off topic here - inappropriate! A new thread should have been opened to discuss rules and regs!

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

Turbs, the RAAus derives ALL its powers from the government. Without those who would bother to join?

 

 

[biggles]

Turbs, the RAAus derives ALL its powers from the government. Without those who would bother to join?

I think the indemnity provided to members in the event of an accident/incident would be an obvious one Mike . Without membership, many would probably 'wing it', In the same way as many drive unregistered and unlicensed vehicles with little regard to the consequences...... Bob

 

 

[kasper]

I think the indemnity provided to members in the event of an accident/incident would be an obvious one Mike . Without membership, many would probably 'wing it', In the same way as many drive unregistered and unlicensed vehicles with little regard to the consequences...... Bob

Yes ... but ...

Third party person property at $10m and passenger at $250k is what I get coverage for at $400pa if I only reg and fly my two seater and costs go up from there if I put a single seater back into reg.

 

Given my operating limits prevent me legally flying over heavily built up areas to attempt to do $10m of damage to others and I’m an old school AUF aircraft owner so mine all arrive at whatever I hit at around 30knts the actual risk that is priced into the insurance will not actually be huge ...

 

Hmmm wonder what a stand alone insurance policy for this cover might cost?

 

If I value everything RAAus to do me at around $0.05 per annum - and these days that’s a high valuation to me - I think I might like the option of 1 off reg fee to govt and be left alone

 

 

[biggles]

Yes ... but ...Third party person property at $10m and passenger at $250k is what I get coverage for at $400pa if I only reg and fly my two seater and costs go up from there if I put a single seater back into reg.

 

Given my operating limits prevent me legally flying over heavily built up areas to attempt to do $10m of damage to others and I’m an old school AUF aircraft owner so mine all arrive at whatever I hit at around 30knts the actual risk that is priced into the insurance will not actually be huge ...

 

Hmmm wonder what a stand alone insurance policy for this cover might cost?

 

If I value everything RAAus to do me at around $0.05 per annum - and these days that’s a high valuation to me - I think I might like the option of 1 off reg fee to govt and be left alone

Don't forget the $1m Hangarkeepers (Tenants) Liability provided also , that alone costs many hundreds of dollars for non RAAus members . A further 100,000 liability cover if you have a vehicle airside is also provided. Remember that the cover is provided to members, not the aircraft they are flying, you may be flying you mate's Tecnam ! ...... Bob

 

 

[kasper]

Don't forget the $1m Hangarkeepers (Tenants) Liability provided also , that alone costs many hundreds of dollars for non RAAus members . A further 100,000 liability cover if you have a vehicle airside is also provided. Remember that the cover is provided to members, not the aircraft they are flying, you may be flying you mate's Tecnam ! ...... Bob

Yes the indemnity insurance attaches to me as pilot. But for me I have a paddock. A shed. A nice collection of old aircraft I enjoy and if I were to put all into registration in a year I’m up for near on $800 before I pull the starter chord.

None of my are very valuable. But are starting to look expensive given I no longer perceive there to me any value to me of the RAAus itself - a very VERY different proposition from 30 years ago when I was a member of the AUF years before I learned to fly.

 

 

[onetrack]

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

FT seems to have totally missed the fact, that this bloke took off around 0600hrs, and crashed at around 0750hrs.

The BOM recording station temperature records for Emerald state that the minimum temperature on January 14th was 26.2°C and the maximum temperature for that day was 42.0°C.

 

The minimum is usually recorded just around daybreak - and the records state the temperature at 0900hrs was 32.1°C.

 

As a result, this bloke would have been encountering temperatures around 26°C - 30°C during his flight period. Not exactly what you'd consider, temperatures high enough to cause engine failure.

 

It's entirely possible he did incur an engine failure - but if he did, extreme temperatures whilst he was airborne, certainly wasn't the reason for it.

 

Extreme temperatures encountered during previous flying operations certainly may have been a factor in any possible engine failure.

 

Emerald, Qld - Daily Weather Observations

 

 

[fly_tornado]

you're nitpicking but continue

 

 

[JG3]

FT seems to have totally missed the fact, that this bloke took off around 0600hrs, and crashed at around 0750hrs.

Almost two hours flying time, maybe doing touch and go, could be out of fuel.....