Safety (Lack of injury and death) is my prerequisite and priority

[facthunter]

Turbs, People stopped hiring them out due over runs on landing and such. The early ones had struts (I think) the wings fail in twist when the aileron is involved excessively. They are a plane that actually gets you somewhere with a reasonable load. Nev

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Why would you do that Jaba. ? It won't fly well on one without being able to feather the dead one. I doubt it will ever be approved at any real weight here if at all. Many early Twins were similar.detached . Nev

That’s just extrapolating from ancient history and completely incomparable engines and aircraft.

 

The jab will climb on one engine. ( South African trials showed a 100 ft per minute climb with two up and 70 kg under MTOW. at ( I think it was 2000 ft but can’t recall for sure) but yes a slow descent at high altitude of 50 nm per 2000 ft (?whatever that relates to in ft per minute)

 

The jab engine stops windmilling when it stops. Essentially No extra drag from a stopped engine. No need to feather.

 

Max usable cargo weight with full fuel is 250 ish kg. So yep not a lot of weight to play with. But that’s as much as many two seat aircraft.

 

 

[facthunter]

Sorry you don't think my examples are valid.. You WILL have extra drag from a stopped engine and unfeathered prop and also more drag from the rudder correction required to counter the asymmetry. It probably needs a larger rudder than standard.as well. Your thrust line is now quite offset and you actually have a very bad aeroplane with one out in the average twin. I don't know of one modern conventional prop twin which would not have a feathering engine and usually cowl gills and retractable gear, as well. The engine out performance is going to be very marginal. and you will have to fly it right on the numbers. to stay in the air and control Yaw.. Nev

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A good discussion, to which I would add altitude as a consideration. I usually fly as high as I reasonable can to maximise the options in a glide. On a long trip I consider 8500 to 9500 good cruising altitudes. But some pilots never go that high. I met a pilot recently who said he had never taken his high performance GA plane above 4500. Being high reduces the exposure to tiger country because you can get clear of things that might get you if flying at 2000 ft above the terrain. It depends on wind of course. And lower is better for an electrical fire.

 

Single engine planes fly Bass Strait many days when the weather is suitable. There is a risk of mechanical failure in the time you are over water and beyond glide range, but it is like the risk of a ball joint failure or tyre blowout causing you to veer into incoming traffic. If it happens your goose is probably cooked but it is unlikely. It just seems worse in the aviation case.

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot depends on how much cloud is about, and the time of the year. In winter you could easily have airframe icing above 5000 feet in the southern parts and you aren't allowed to fly above continuous cloud. Flying higher makes it all look slower and you don't see detail like wind effect on water and dust. You do have a more effective glide range.

 

You have more chance of engine failure by far on take off at high power settings and you may have the wrong fuel selector settings. Sometimes you will just get airborne with an incorrect OFF setting.. That's happened numerous times in the past.. People seem to run out of fuel in the circuit these days. I don't get that really.??? You can have a fuel leak or flooding carburetter when you just won't achieve the planned range. on a longer leg. IF you think the gauges are going down a bit quick check the readings more often and get your passenger to confirm the readings also. The quicker you act in that case the better the outcome.( More options, go back, Divert). Direct sight gauge is most reliable unless the tanks are long and shallow. Rocking the wings can provide a better indication if down a bit

 

For Bass straight if you know your planes glide performance you can PLAN carefully so there's little or no place enroute at a level from where you can't make landfall but the kind of landing might not be to your liking especially if you end up injured in a remote and rocky area... Perhaps go with a group who can assist with information in cases of something going wrong. The way you approach the organising and planning will determine a better result. as is always the case.. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

A lot depends on how much cloud is about, and the time of the year. In winter you could easily have airframe icing above 5000 feet in the southern parts and you aren't allowed to fly above continuous cloud. Flying higher makes it all look slower and you don't see detail like wind effect on water and dust. You do have a more effective glide range.You have more chance of engine failure by far on take off at high power settings and you may have the wrong fuel selector settings. Sometimes you will just get airborne with an incorrect OFF setting.. That's happened numerous times in the past.. People seem to run out of fuel in the circuit these days. I don't get that really.??? You can have a fuel leak or flooding carburetter when you just won't achieve the planned range. on a longer leg. IF you think the gauges are going down a but quick check the readings more often and get your passenger to confirm the readings also. The quicker you act in that case the better the outcome.( More options, go back, Divert). Direct sight gauge is most reliable unless the tanks are long and shallow. Rocking the wings can provide a better indication if down a bit

For Bass straight if you know your planes glide performance you can PLAN carefully so there's little or no place enroute at a level from where you can't make landfall but the kind of landing might not be to your liking especially if you end up injured in a remote and rocky area... Perhaps go with a group who can assist with information in cases of something going wrong. The way you approach the organising and planning will determine a better result. as is always the case.. Nev

His prerequisite is to eliminate death and injury.

 

 

[SSCBD]

RISK - RISK -RISK what is your limit on Risk Flying. Is tiger country flying safer than flying over cold water?

 

Here is the simple truth - people will do what they want, even when THEY think its safe and they will make it hopefully. You cannot stop people from making decisions - legal or not. Flying tiger country or water or bad flying conditions.

 

It always will boil down to what risk the persons MINDSET is, on THAT day and time AND that mindset deems acceptable.

 

Sorry its not what you or I do, its what they do at the time.

 

I have watched commercial pilots flying RAA, doing stupid stuff they would never do commercially.

 

Understand this clearly no matter what - People have the right to kill themselves, it cant be stopped by rules and regs, - example a guy up here tried to commit suicide by driving a car into a concrete bridge pillar - however he did have his seatbelt on, and survived.

 

 

[facthunter]

I don't know what your point is SSCBD. Talking about it must help. If we have too many psychos and cowboys the rest of us suffer with rules and restrictions that make the game less attractive for the ones that do the right thing.. I'm not one for making more rules. The opposite actually. I prefer knowledge and skills rather than penalties and strict rules. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

RISK - RISK -RISK what is your limit on Risk Flying. Is tiger country flying safer than flying over cold water?Here is the simple truth - people will do what they want, even when THEY think its safe and they will make it hopefully. You cannot stop people from making decisions - legal or not. Flying tiger country or water or bad flying conditions.

 

It always will boil down to what risk the persons MINDSET is, on THAT day and time AND that mindset deems acceptable.

 

Sorry its not what you or I do, its what they do at the time.

 

I have watched commercial pilots flying RAA, doing stupid stuff they would never do commercially.

 

Understand this clearly no matter what - People have the right to kill themselves, it cant be stopped by rules and regs, - example a guy up here tried to commit suicide by driving a car into a concrete bridge pillar - however he did have his seatbelt on, and survived.

If you read the thread, Jethro is asking on behalf of himself, and he has positioned himself at the upper end of achieving a safe outcome.

What you are describing is very true, and I've kept a top ten list in my mind for a few years and have been correct about 6 of them, but based on his question and intent, I don't think he intends getting the safest aircraft he can, and then acting like a wanker.

 

 

[johnm]

The Cessna 210 has no wing struts to brace against rough conditions.

................. what about all them low wings without struts Turbo ?

 

 

[turboplanner]

................. what about all them low wings without struts Turbo ?

Good point, and I haven't looked at the differences in structure that closely. In theory if the wing structure is a box through the fuselage as it usually is for low wing, there shouldn't be any difference.

I was thinking of the difference between a 206 which is a 6 pax but has the struts and is often equated with a truck vs the 210 car.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Sorry you don't think my examples are valid.. You WILL have extra drag from a stopped engine and unfeathered prop and also more drag from the rudder correction required to counter the asymmetry. It probably needs a larger rudder than standard.as well. Your thrust line is now quite offset and you actually have a very bad aeroplane with one out in the average twin. I don't know of one modern conventional prop twin which would not have a feathering engine and usually cowl gills and retractable gear, as well. The engine out performance is going to be very marginal. and you will have to fly it right on the numbers. to stay in the air and control Yaw.. Nev

We are going way off topic for the thread - sorry about that.

But you’re giving examples of things that apply to some aircraft but don’t apply to this aircraft and saying because of these things therefore it won’t work.

 

When clearly it does work and clearly the factors you’ve quoted we’re tested for and the trials showed they don’t exist or don’t exist at the levels you’ve asserted.

 

I admit I haven’t flown in one, only looked at it on the ground. I can only go by the data, the published article already quoted and the information given to me by the designers and pilots who have flown it.

 

The facts stated by these are:

 

The aircraft climbs on one engine

 

The aircraft does not have a bigger tail

 

The engines are barely off centreline ( on small canards attached to the nose) and the asymmetric characteristics are quoted in the article as very benign.

 

There is about 250 kg usable weight after full fuel.

 

Engine out characteristics are a minimal discernible increase in drag on the dead engine side.

 

The prop stops dead when engine fails and do not ever windmill. Effect on drag is therefore reported as minimal.

 

The published test data is pretty much in direct contradiction to your assertions.

 

I can’t say anything more than that.

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are going way off topic for the thread - sorry about that.But you’re giving examples of things that apply to some aircraft but don’t apply to this aircraft and saying because of these things therefore it won’t work.

 

When clearly it does work and clearly the factors you’ve quoted we’re tested for and the trials showed they don’t exist or don’t exist at the levels you’ve asserted.

 

I admit I haven’t flown in one, only looked at it on the ground. I can only go by the data, the published article already quoted and the information given to me by the designers and pilots who have flown it.

 

The facts stated by these are:

 

The aircraft climbs on one engine

 

The aircraft does not have a bigger tail

 

The engines are barely off centreline ( on small canards attached to the nose) and the asymmetric characteristics are quoted in the article as very benign.

 

There is about 250 kg usable weight after full fuel.

 

Engine out characteristics are a minimal discernible increase in drag on the dead engine side.

 

The prop stops dead when engine fails and do not ever windmill. Effect on drag is therefore reported as minimal.

 

The published test data is pretty much in direct contradiction to your assertions.

 

I can’t say anything more than that.

[pmccarthy]

Surely whether a prop windmills or not has little effect on drag? The area presented to the airflow is the same.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

I am sick of all this safety stuff. The risks of flying are trivial to the risks we carry every day , mainly from health events.

 

In 50 years at my club, I have noticed that everybody dies. Nobody has ( in my time of 50 years) died from an anything to do with flying, well at least at Gawler .

 

And even if one or two had, they would be small in number compared to all those who have died from other causes.

 

Anybody who carries on about aviation safety who is themselves not doing everything possible health-wise ( diet and exercise) to avoid death is an idiot in my opinion. They are carrying on about tiny risks while ignoring the big ones.

 

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

Windmilling props worried me too pmc. The theory is that an UNSTALLED prop making negative thrust makes more backwards thrust than the drag from a stationary prop.

 

Try to see this with an electric rc plane where you can adjust the rpm at will as well as stopping the prop.

 

I've done this and tried to see the effect but find it hard to notice. But I still believe it is there.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I am sick of all this safety stuff. The risks of flying are trivial to the risks we carry every day , mainly from health events.In 50 years at my club, I have noticed that everybody dies. Nobody has ( in my time of 50 years) died from an anything to do with flying, well at least at Gawler .

And even if one or two had, they would be small in number compared to all those who have died from other causes.

 

Anybody who carries on about aviation safety who is themselves not doing everything possible health-wise ( diet and exercise) to avoid death is an idiot in my opinion. They are carrying on about tiny risks while ignoring the big ones.

What brought this on?; the OP was just looking for a safe way to cross Bass Strait. I’d be surprised if he’s interested on disturbing the dust of Gawler.

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Surely whether a prop windmills or not has little effect on drag? The area presented to the airflow is the same.

Depends on the rpm it generates.

 

As the prop starts from zero rpm and spins faster it begins to act as a flat disc rather than a thin blade. A stopped blade actually carries less resistance than does a spinning blade. And of course a feathered stopped blade carriesveven less resistance.

 

Most aircraft engines/props will free wheel and when they free wheel will often be of sufficient rpm to generate so much drag they will slow down the aircraft glide.

 

The gain in allowing freewheeling of course is that the engine can be started by diving. Not so a jab. The prop stops and apparently they can’t be restarted by diving. The compression is too high to allow the prop to turn.

 

Apparently ( I have never been game to) but apparently if you pull a jabiru back to idle ( about 850 rpm) and get settled at best speed glide then shut the engine off ( and change nothing else) the prop stops and it speeds up by about 5 - 10 knots.

 

 

[Jethro Belle]

Thank you to all for your helpful guidance:cheers:. I will respond to others later as I am busy in Canberra and did not expect such a response to my Just Landed post. It is great members take risk mitigation this seriously.

 

His prerequisite is to eliminate death and injury.

Being an Engineering I know you can not totally "eliminate" risk. I like the expression 'reasonably practicable' that will be familiar to anone expossed to OH&S Risk assessments (No I do not like Safety Officers who do not really understand risks, but go about making everyones life more difficult, and yes: what is 'reasonably practicable' is a cause of argument.). My budget is modest, so I will only be able to eliminate risk to a given level, and if that risk will override the enjoyment of flying: I will look at hiring aircraft, buy an aircraft share, or fly my simulator. Eliminating injury and death is a Goal (priority), not an expectation. The risk I can tolerate (still trying to get a handle on how to quantify it) will constitute a prerequisite in aircraft selection and flight mission assement. I am currently constructing my framework for processing the vast amount of disparate risk information that needs interpretive aggregation to make any sense of it (IMHO).

 

What I have researched so far (even research papers) do not provide correct impressions (IMHO). 100 000 hr NTSB crash statistics for the humble old (by old I meant old that I could afford, not unairworthy) C150 indicate it is safer than the C182 that I will use as a baseline risk aircraft for a 'safe' Bass Straight crossing. I am in no rush to purchase/build any aeroplane, as rushing is a slippery slope to compromising safety. My search so far revealed Diamond aircraft (evolved from LSA) have very impressive crash statistic relative to the C182 and I believe several RA piloted and maintained to GA standards could also. The risk they represent for a Bass Straight crossing mission is something different, which is what I understand Turboplanner is telling me.

 

I appreciate input from all because, although I may be hyper-adverse to a dip in the briney, all data points on a risk map are useful. My interest in mitigating aviation risk is broader than my own personal aeroplane and flying. I would not like anyone to not post because they think their 'risky' aircraft or flight may not be viewed as safe enough. What I am identifying from the postings are what people include in their aircraft and mission risk assessments and all postings have helped me get a feel for current practice.

 

I don't think he intends getting the safest aircraft he can, and then acting like a wanker.

Exactly. I will let members judge if I am the second . I very happily learn from others' mistakes. They have taken risks and done things wrong so I don't have to . I am privileged they share. I also understand the posts slamming stupid risk taking because everyone is subject to the additional regulations, costs, insurance difficulties and seeing another preson we care about die or worse. Differences is what we think is a stupid risk level and naivity about the risk level involved generates the heat, which is why I am seeking ways to systematically quantify it

 

 

[Jethro Belle]

Hi Bruce

 

I am sick of all this safety stuff. The risks of flying are trivial to the risks we carry every day , mainly from health events.In 50 years at my club, I have noticed that everybody dies. Nobody has ( in my time of 50 years) died from an anything to do with flying, well at least at Gawler .

And even if one or two had, they would be small in number compared to all those who have died from other causes.

 

Anybody who carries on about aviation safety who is themselves not doing everything possible health-wise ( diet and exercise) to avoid death is an idiot in my opinion. They are carrying on about tiny risks while ignoring the big ones.

Any spare houses, hangers and planes in Gawler for me to come and enjoy the safe flying and warmth? :cheezy grin:Is your Jab one of those in-house Cirrus A

models? Just kidding. You must have your risk mitigation well sorted up there. Can you share how you manage such an enviable safety record? That ultimately is what I am want to achieve.

 

 

Source: Why Cirrus - Operating Safely

 

Sorry I included (Injury and Dying) in my welcome post heading. I was trying to qualify what type of safety! My introduction to flying (Early ultralights) was a baptism of injuries and death and a lot of questionable flying, plus my understanding is that aircraft like the Sonerai sit towards the top end of accident statistics so it is high on my priorities. Add to that my friend ditched in his VH registered amphibian off Flinders Island, broke his back and nearly lost his wife, so Bass Straight concerns me. The boat across the weekend before last felt like we were hitting submerged containers the weather was so bad. I have been looking at crash statistics and it convinces me the GA flight risks crossing Bass Straight are greater than the domestic airlines:doh:.

 

If you mean't safe aircraft piloted correctly over safe terrain are much safer than riding a motorbike the above graphic confirms it. You are spot on about keeping fit and all the other risks. We can get preoccupied and lose sight of the game.

 

PS: The crash statistics for Cirrus that I have seen rate them as typical for GA. Cirrus seem to imply that In-house is properly maintained and operated which is a faceslap for Cirrus owners IMHO.

 

 

[Bernie]

The name of this thread is: Safety (Lack of injury and death) is my prerequisite and priorityPrerequisite: "a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist"

It follows that on this thread we should be talking about safety levels towards the top fifth percentile in aviation, rather than the "I survived despite the odds" exceptions.

 

The first time I ever heard of "tiger country" was when I started talking to RA people; In GA, where I hire aircraft, my CFIs insist on flight planning around any country unsuitable for a forced landing, FULL STOP, no exceptions. That does eliminate some destinations, and it does add flight time to others, but it also does allow a forced landing opportunity. Two people on this forum, Facthunter and Farri have consistently advised that you should never fly over something you can't land on, and that advice could save your life one day.

 

A number of people from time to time excuse themselves from this safety action by saying they "were only over tiger country for about 15 minutes".

 

The aircraft doesn't know that, and forced landings are made for many more reasons than an engine issue, fuel exhaustion, or flight planning mistake.

 

That 15 minutes covers about 25 Nautical Miles. A couple of months back a Pilot died at Moorabbin Airport, between a spacious golf course and the end of one of the main runways, maybe two or three hundred metres from touching down on the runway. ATSB has just ruled out engine failure as the cause of not making the runway or golf course.

 

In some quarters there seems to be a dyslexic misunderstanding of CASAs approach to ensure top 5th percentile protection around airports. The Visual Terminal Charts have been set in concrete for many decades to ensure the safety of airline passengers as their aircraft lets down for the terminal. Many times I have been on RPT aircraft on the VFR leg into Wynyard, where we were flying in about 500 feet above land to make the airport. Two Ansett pilots were prosecuted and convicted for making a Wynyard approach over the sea BELOW land level. That's the nature of northern Tasmania. Safe RA flight planning is simple; if you can't legally fly under the VTC steps (remembering the T stands for "Terminal", so very big and very fast aircraft could be in its legal space), then its a simple decision to stay away.

I would have thought Wynyard was at sea level I was there yesterday .

 

Bernie .

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Jethro Belle.

 

I suspect they have selected Cirrus separately because they have a BRS ( parachute system) and no other standard GA aircraft do. This would mean that potentially they have a safer profile.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Jethro, from what you are now saying, I see several options:

 

1. RPT across Bass Strait to Melbourne. Then you could hangar a Drifter and just go where you wanted in short hops, without the need for high level equipment.

 

2. Engines. For 25 years I was prohibited from flying in a single engine aircraft on business by my US employer. I did considerable research to try to be able to do business by flying myself around. There has always been a theory that two engines are safer than one, and I found there was some extra reliability, but that was primarily with CPL qualified pilots flying daily. For the rest of us, flying every week or two, every mistake in the book seemed to feature in the reports, to the point where, in the cross-country class, and I stress that category, single engine aircraft had a safer record. You mention safety statistics for a Cessna 150, but bear in mind they spend most of their life within sight of the home field. If you reduced the parameter to long distance remote area or over water flights you would find a different result.

 

Part of that different result comes back to the Avionics package required for safe operations.

 

People have gone back to the twin engine Jab like dogs going back to their breakfast, but I would be surprised if it had sufficient fuselage cross section to carry the Avionics required. As I understand, it was built by South Africans for their operations. Their distances are much smaller than ours - probably the longest at 754 Nm from Johannesburgh to Capetown, but most centres at 200 to 300. Even to surrounding countries, Gaborone, Botswana is 300, Harare is 600 etc. Their issue seems to be not having to stay on the ground away from safe towns.

 

In any case, for the reason I took some care to provide links and suggest looking at cross country aircraft, it doesn't take long to understand that for regular safe crossing of Bass Strait, the Avionics package is more important than the number of engines.

 

3. You're now mentioning limited finances, which probably eliminate a new aircraft anyway.

 

That leaves one option of a second hand purpose-built touring aircraft with formal frame reconditioning, such as SIDS completed and ready for a new life, and all components brought up to original tolerances. There are probably several hundred aircraft to choose from, and I'll leave you to search form prices, if you are really desperate to own your own.

 

4. Based on what you've said, I wouldn't recommend buying your own aircraft, unless you plan to do the trip weekly, monthly etc. because of too much capital being tied up for too little use.

 

I've flow up the Grand Canyon, after phoning up to book an aircraft the night I arrived, and having the keys thrown to me from the office next morning, and I can't remember the cost because it was petty cash. You would be amazed at how many hours you could hire for, for the cost of owning even a below-spec aircraft. Of course for Bass Strait you're going to require an above average equipment level and maintenance standard.

 

If you go that way, you can forget the stress and time required just to cross Bass Strait and get to Melbourne and home in any weather and take advantage of those safe steps in and out of Launceston. A popular trip for groups of students out of Moorabbin used to be Melbourne - Coober Pedy - Uluru - Alice - Darwin - Weipa - two or three GBR Island resorts - Melbourne, which would be cost-prohibitive today, but quite economical using a combination of RPT and local hire.

 

5. If you go down the hire path, and want to fly several times a month, i.e more like 200 hours per year than 50, and you still want to fly over Bass Strait, an IFR endorsement opens up a new level of safety, and many times more reliable travel without being stranded at the departure or destination points waiting for the weather to clear, Kilmore Gap to open up etc. After all that's what RPT pilots do. However the safety standard drops precipitously with lack of currency or attention to detail. Flight Planning is way more critical, with one of our departed friends leaving this world because he didn't set a LSALT path, and cruised happily into rising ground, and another case where a group flying from WA to Melbourne flew into virtually the only mountain in the way.

 

5. I think it's worth starting with what you really want to do in terms of locations and frequency, and as you can see there are several ways you can enjoy safe flying.

 

 

[pmccarthy]

Turbs that is the sort of trip I used to do in the 1970s. I would argue that the cost isn’t prohibitive today if you have already made the commitment to own say a C172 or PA28. Purchase cost, hangarage, annuals and depreciation are more or less fixed costs if there are several hundred hours to run on engine and prop. The only variable cost is fuel and oil. Say $80 an hour so a 25 hour trip will cost $2000. If the owner pilot shares cost with 3 pax then each pays $500. It is a lot of holiday for that price.

 

I am not ignoring the fixed costs, just saying that a decision to take the trip is a decision to spend $500. You won’t get an experience like that going RPT.

 

Perhaps I should have made it a 182 with 3 pax, the Cherokee 180 will do it ok.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I would have thought Wynyard was at sea level I was there yesterday .Bernie .

I think this may have been the incident: https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/25089/197303681.pdf

Wynyard Airport is at 60 feet AMSL

 

I pulled the contours for the town, which is at 126 feet amsl

 

The evidence was that he was approaching at 100 feet amsl - so 26 feet below the level of the town.

 

I used to fly into Wynyard about every three weeks by Ansett F27 and recall the coat as we crossed it as virtually a cliff, and we mostly approached on the western side.

 

There is a point just to the west of the airport 645 feet high, and east and west of it the coastal contours are from 321 to 450 feet

 

We used to mostly cross the coast to the west, and land into the east.

 

TFM appears to have been approaching slightly to the east, where the coastal contours off the end of the runway are 126 to 255 feet.

 

I'm was quite surprised to read the minimum safe altitude for that let down was 1200 feet. F27 windows were big, and I was training, and when you can see individual leaves and dogs with their coats blowing in the wind, you're probably below that, which was on lots of flights.

 

At our club we got the barrelling about not trying to imitate this, and at the same time I think the First Officer was given a black mark by our senior instructors, who were one step away from a right seat in an F27, for blurting out what he did.