Unfortunately a fatal crash near Maitland Airport 17/5/20

[Thruster88]

Amateur built is the third largest manufacturer on the VH register. Cessna 3560, Piper 1813, Amateur built 1631. A search for amateur built in the ATSB data base revealed that they crash for all the same reasons as their factory built cousins, incorrect construction is not a factor. Loss of control (stalling) is the single biggest issue, this is sometimes associated with engine issues. As a pilot of a high drag low inertia aircraft maintenance of airspeed is the first, third, fifth item in the memory emergency check list.

[Butch]

Every A/C you step into comes under that category, the hand of man built every plane ever designed/built!

That's true but not every home kit builder is component at being a structural engineer, auto electrician, mechanic, plumber and quality controller at the one time.

 

Being a farmer I do all of these things , but I realize I'm a master of none . I've had plenty of F... ups, all on the ground none at 2,000 ft....lol.

Edited May 18, 2020 by Butch

[kgwilson]

As said here I feel more comfortable flying my own built and maintained aircraft than any other. I kept a detailed build log with over 1000 photos cross referenced to the log. Like everyone I made mistakes and had to redo certain bits, all recorded. I know every rivet, nut, bolt, wire, connector and flaws in my paint job that no-one else seems to be able to see.

 

I have also seen some truly awful home builts. No attention to detail, allignment etc, often covered in trim tabs all fighting against one another. These aircraft seem to get offloaded quickly and then sit in hangars deteriorating for years. As a retired engineer I have to know everything is as close to perfect as possible. During my build I rang the designer & asked him what a specific measurement should be. The answer was "Dunno I've never measured it".

 

My aircraft flies straight hands off in level flight. I have no trim tabs anywhere on the airframe.

[old man emu]

All this extra has made it a labour intensive project

 

Pardon me, but who did the pre-purchase inspection of the aircraft? If a pre-purchase identified all the problems you mention, then the list would have been a great bargaining chip to reduce the asking price. After all, if you've had to spend money to rectify problems, then you don't need to shell out that money in the purchase price.

 

I find it interesting in reading through this thread that many of you have mentioned the involvement of a LAME, but no one has mentioned an L2, 3 or 4 as being involved in the maintenance. Does that mean that the certifying criteria for a RAAus maintenance approval is sub-standard?

[ClintonB]

Pardon me, but who did the pre-purchase inspection of the aircraft? If a pre-purchase identified all the problems you mention, then the list would have been a great bargaining chip to reduce the asking price. After all, if you've had to spend money to rectify problems, then you don't need to shell out that money in the purchase price.

 

I find it interesting in reading through this thread that many of you have mentioned the involvement of a LAME, but no one has mentioned an L2, 3 or 4 as being involved in the maintenance. Does that mean that the certifying criteria for a RAAus maintenance approval is sub-standard?

Mate of Seller is simple answer. I did try to PM you but would not let me. it had an oops message.

cheers

clinton

[Thruster88]

 

I find it interesting in reading through this thread that many of you have mentioned the involvement of a LAME, but no one has mentioned an L2, 3 or 4 as being involved in the maintenance. Does that mean that the certifying criteria for a RAAus maintenance approval is sub-standard?

 

I don't understand the question.

[old man emu]

I don't understand the question.

 

What I mean was, that since people are saying that LAMEs are doing the maintenance, or identifying and repairing faults, Why are they not also mentioning persons approved by RAAus to conduct maintenance on aircraft not their own. Does that mean that people are not as confident of RAAus -approved maintainers than they are of CASA approved ones?

 

Not that I mean to be casting slurs on RAAus-approved maintainers.

[facthunter]

You'd probably be better off with someone who had built one or who KNOWS the Marque. The AUF used to reprint AC 43,13-1B/2A "acceptable methods, techniques and Practices AIRCRAFT INSPECTIONS REPAIR & ALTERATIONS. A US FAA publication that adequately covers most of what the title suggests.

In all my time with AUF, RAAus the ability to repair and service MY own plane is paramount.. It's not compulsory If you want someone to do it for you that should also be available within the system and be fit for purpose. Nev

[Yenn]

The first flight after maintenance is in my opinion a test flight. I have not had problems after my own maintenance, but back in the day when I used to hire, I found many discrepancies after a plane had been in maintenance.

One I flew and was sent for maintenance had an engine failure on take off, after that maintenance was supposedly done. It was a failed exhaust valve in a C172.

[Flightrite]

I work side by side with a LAME, but of both worlds?

[facthunter]

Maintenance is to check and or rectify a reported fault or perform time ex part changes (like Plugs filters etc).. Hopefully the fault is rectified but even if that is so the plane is then substantially only in the condition it was before the fault happened The majority of it is untouched. and may still have imminent faults undetected. Careless procedures can create risk during any maintenance process, Like being called to the Phone in the middle of a complex process or things like a shift change done badly as far as continuity is concerned. Yes often post work being performed, things can be not as they should be. It doesn't have to be that way and should NOT be if proper process is adhered to.. Nev

[boleropilot]

We will never have military type circuits. There's a few reasons why we have traditional circuits apart from allowing multiple A/C to be able to join the Std circuit at the same time from diff directions one other main reason is being able to locate another A/C in the circuit from their position report especially whilst waiting at the holding point.

Can't see why it can't be done - if I'm turning onto base other pilots will look to that area and expect me to be there - they don't expect to see me doing a perfect little ninety degree turn and then straighten up - same goes for my call to say I am turning onto final - they will see me in a descending turn towards the runway and in a few seconds they will see me lined up with the runway. From my experience I have to say that it's unlikely to find an aircraft where they say they are, even in the circuit.

 

I know of pilots that deliberately move the aircraft offline immediately after liftoff to give them a better chance of getting back to the 'field if it gets quiet suddenly and as long as they have enough height to get back safely, it works for me...and them

 

I understand the 'military' turn after downwind can't be used at busy airfields, especially those with numerous training aircraft present. At the sort of 'field a lot of us fly at, for me it's a safer procedure and one I will follow IF I ever get the chance to slip the surly bonds once more

 

BP

[M61A1]

one other main reason is being able to locate another A/C in the circuit from their position report especially whilst waiting at the holding point.

That theory goes out the window when you find others reporting downwind and they're 3 miles out from the field or reporting base and 3 miles out or more but flying a LSA rather than a 747. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be isolated occurrences. Someone is teaching people this stuff.

[Flightrite]

That theory goes out the window when you find others reporting downwind and they're 3 miles out from the field or reporting base and 3 miles out or more but flying a LSA rather than a 747. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be isolated occurrences. Someone is teaching people this stuff.

 

That's a different story. You will always get idiots in planes who make it up as they go! Airmanship is a rare thing these days!

[jackc]

That theory goes out the window when you find others reporting downwind and they're 3 miles out from the field or reporting base and 3 miles out or more but flying a LSA rather than a 747. Unfortunately it doesn't seem to be isolated occurrences. Someone is teaching people this stuff.

You are probably lucky that some have radios!!

[turboplanner]

A couple of things to note from the report on the Steve Cohen design on another thread.

 

1. Steve Cohen describes is as Homebuilt.

 

2. The considerable thrust moment above the CG at the higher power settings, and immediately on power loss.

This is what produces the sudden nose-up in these designs. It's not an issue if you have been trained for it and are on the ball, and may have no relationship to this accident, but worthwhile noting. In the past, when Endorsements were mandatory, this would have formed part of the specific training. Now that Endorsements have been discontinued there's less PL onlus on Instructors, CFIs and Owners, but someone can just step into one of these straight out of a Drifter, Jab etc and not be aware of the different handling required.

[M61A1]

You are probably lucky that some have radios!!

That was pretty much the point....The radio becomes almost useless when the say they are somewhere the aren't.

[M61A1]

A couple of things to note from the report on the Steve Cohen design on another thread.

 

1. Steve Cohen describes is as Homebuilt.

 

2. The considerable thrust moment above the CG at the higher power settings, and immediately on power loss.

This is what produces the sudden nose-up in these designs. It's not an issue if you have been trained for it and are on the ball, and may have no relationship to this accident, but worthwhile noting. In the past, when Endorsements were mandatory, this would have formed part of the specific training. Now that Endorsements have been discontinued there's less PL onlus on Instructors, CFIs and Owners, but someone can just step into one of these straight out of a Drifter, Jab etc and not be aware of the different handling required.

The Drifter probably isn't a good example for your point. It has significant attitude changes with power for he same reasons. Why do you need to be trained for it? it should be quite obvious before you plonk your arxe in the cockpit. If it's not at that stage it should be after flying for 10 minutes.

[facthunter]

What is obvious to some has to be 'hammered' to apply for others. That engine configuration MUST have significant pitch consequences with power changes. Trim to need a bit of back stick pressure is desired also.. IF you relax and the nose rises that's not a good thing. Nev

[turboplanner]

The Drifter probably isn't a good example for your point. It has significant attitude changes with power for he same reasons. Why do you need to be trained for it? it should be quite obvious before you plonk your arxe in the cockpit. If it's not at that stage it should be after flying for 10 minutes.

Yes, probably a bad example.

Because of the string of pitch up fatalities of flying boats with this engine pod configuration it may be that the aircraft is rigged to fly at normal engine settings without a major retrim requirement. I just don't know, but I've experienced a pitch up in a J170 after I forgot to dump full fap on a T&G and that took me a couple of seconds to get my head around and fix so I'd be a lot worse in one of these getting into it cold without some endorsement training.

[facthunter]

The higher powered Cessna hi wings are the same with the full flap position, when you do a go around as are jets with the engines under the wings.. Maybe power off approaches are not normal for sea planes were the U/c is just an afterthought and on water you don't want a high ROD. Nev.

[Old Koreelah]

I guess aligning the thrust line with the centreline of the aircraft is an ideal; I believe that was one advantage of Willy Messerschmidt having the 109 prop lower than the Spitfire, etc.

Pretty hard to design a single engine flying boat without putting the prop up high.

[Flightrite]

Much better design, would barely notice pitch change???

[Head in the clouds]

About 30yrs ago I flew an Osprey 2 quite a bit, around 25-30hrs IIRC. Contrary to expectations it displayed virtually no pitch change between full power and zero power. At the time we concluded it was due to two main factors -

 

1. The elevators were quite heavy and either not mass-balanced or only partially so, consequently as power was reduced the slipstream effect was also reduced and that allowed the elevators to move down under their own weight and so prevent the expected pitch-up.

 

2. Although the hs/elevators were of cruciform design, they were still below the majority of the accelerated flow of the slipstream and so as power was applied and the slipstream increased, the accelerated air caused a lower pressure region above the elevators, drawing them up into that region and that compensated for the pitch-down tendency caused by the high thrust line.

 

Having said that, of the many types I have flown, I think the Osprey 2 was the most potentially dangerous of them - it seemed to spend all its time trying to catch you out. Very small performance envelope, high stall speed, vicious wing-drop in the stall at anything except idle power and, as Pylon alluded to earlier, required careful loading checks to ensure CG was within required range.

[facthunter]

Planes landing on water do present design difficulties they normally must fly with an aerodynamic down load on the horizontal stab and elevators to offset the drag acting well below the thrust line. This dynamic load has to be supported by the mainplanes causing extra drag. You can (if you are game ) make the plane tail heavy but that causes stability issues. Nev