Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
27 minutes ago, BurnieM said:

We are still back to how did his instructor recommend him for cross country endorsement and how did RAAus approve him with minimal training and no prior cross country experience.

 

Yes, this was poor decision making from the pilot.

We also have a systematic failure. At least I hope it is a systematic failure as the alternative is far worse.

 

 

I could understand the office missing a point or two; but the instructor has heaps of contact time with the student so no excuse IMO.  And any coverup is unacceptable and seems will be dealt with.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted
5 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I wonder what is going to happen to raaus after this. One person I know is concerned about having a job after casa decides what to do .

There is even talk of something like part 103 coming in. Single seaters fly with full responsibility for themselves un licenesed.  

Would that mean 2 seat go under casa  ?.

No they don't.

Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

No they don't.

what does no they don't mean

Edited by BrendAn
Posted
2 hours ago, Love to fly said:

Pilot, local to Mt Beauty, has said he left during a lull in the weather. Blue sky was visible. Guessing he thought he could get out safely. 

not according to the pilot interviewed on the news or the airfield manager.

  • Informative 1
Posted

some of the posts from when it h

  • red750Well-known member
  • Moderators
  • Aircraft: Former Pilot - PA-28, B23, B35
  • Location: Vermont Victoria
  • Country: Australia

Said to be near Tallangatta. Weather in Victoria is rain, thunderstorms, hail. Number on board not known.

appened.

Posted
  • rd. jabiru 2200a
  • Location: Gippsland
  • Country: Australia
  On 18/09/2022 at 7:12 PM, walrus said:

The weather today in North Eastern Victoria has been putrid.

Same in Gippsland . Blew a gale

Posted (edited)

From Mt Beauty in the direction NW must climb over the range extending from Bogong towards Murray Valley. Hume dam and heavy wooded ridges till Tumut Valley then Murrumbidgee. All unfriendly. How was this anything but the poorest decision. I remember the weather over SW NSW was foul.

We cannot excuse poor planning regardless of errors in regulation or regulator personell. Black is black, not white or even grey.

Edited by Methusala
  • Like 1
  • Informative 2
Posted

the licensors actions (RAA) have to be held too account - that is the licensors risk & justification in charging those regular annual fees - whether its a person or a plane ..................... (some heavy ones (planes) in RAA I believe)

 

that is what the parties; that have suffered a loss; are trying to extract

 

consider if the pilot had no next of kin (a loner or a hermit with a flying bug) .................. the lawyer firm would never have been contacted ............. this discussion would have probably never taken place ..................... an irony there

  • Informative 2
Posted
21 hours ago, BrendAn said:

I wonder what is going to happen to raaus after this. One person I know is concerned about having a job after casa decides what to do .

There is even talk of something like part 103 coming in. Single seaters fly with full responsibility for themselves un licenesed.  

Would that mean 2 seat go under casa  ?.

Let me say this…..anything will be possible, another hearing is schedules, at a possible cost to RAA of $200,000 legal to add to their existing $400,000.

But it’s not close to ending, as ANOTHER investigation is pending, and the WHOLE of RAA hierarchy will be part of that.  
From what I already know, I would allege the end is near 🤢🤢

Posted
5 minutes ago, jackc said:

Let me say this…..anything will be possible, another hearing is schedules, at a possible cost to RAA of $200,000 legal to add to their existing $400,000.

But it’s not close to ending, as ANOTHER investigation is pending, and the WHOLE of RAA hierarchy will be part of that.  
From what I already know, I would allege the end is near 🤢🤢

Yes. What I said about part 103 is because casa have wanted it for years. Raaus have always been against it. I think there definitely changes coming. Just have to wait and see what form they take.

Posted
3 minutes ago, jackc said:

Let me say this…..anything will be possible, another hearing is schedules, at a possible cost to RAA of $200,000 legal to add to their existing $400,000.

But it’s not close to ending, as ANOTHER investigation is pending, and the WHOLE of RAA hierarchy will be part of that.  
From what I already know, I would allege the end is near 🤢🤢

Another hearing?? Coroner's Inquest finding was delivered last Friday. With some costs, quantum to be determined, awarded against RAAUS. Recommendations mafe by the Coroner included a review by CASA of RAAUS. There will undoubtedly be civil action against RAAUS given the findings. But 'another' hearing already scheduled and costed? 🤔 Tell us more

Posted
2 minutes ago, Love to fly said:

Another hearing?? Coroner's Inquest finding was delivered last Friday. With some costs, quantum to be determined, awarded against RAAUS. Recommendations mafe by the Coroner included a review by CASA of RAAUS. There will undoubtedly be civil action against RAAUS given the findings. But 'another' hearing already scheduled and costed? 🤔 Tell us more

I can’t right now, it was the subject of a longish phone call, I had this morning. 👍

Besides one has to be careful what one says here. Suffice to say, that some people in RAA will need to put their armour plated suits on 

Posted
5 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

Yes. What I said about part 103 is because casa have wanted it for years. Raaus have always been against it. I think there definitely changes coming. Just have to wait and see what form they take.

SAAA will fit in somewhere as plans are being made by them, and CASA has already been part of that.  

  • Informative 1
Posted
9 minutes ago, jackc said:

I can’t right now, it was the subject of a longish phone call, I had this morning. 👍

Besides one has to be careful what one says here. Suffice to say, that some people in RAA will need to put their armour plated suits on 

Given some were named on Friday by the Coroner, and referrals were made to the DPP.. 

Posted
7 minutes ago, Love to fly said:

Given some were named on Friday by the Coroner, and referrals were made to the DPP.. 

That’s only the start of it. There is ANOTHER investigation coming 

  • Informative 1
Posted

I don't know if there is such a thing but maybe there is a cross-country endorsement for paragliders.

 

If this chap had his cross-country endorsement then that would have been accepted by the RA-Aus because they have a recognition approval from other sports aviation associations.

 

Just like if you migrated from the old HGFA, you could come into RA-Aus, and they would accept your cross-country, your pilot certificate and other ratings automatically.

 

Perhaps they just automatically accepted the pilots cross-country endorsement ratings from his previous experience regardless of whether you thought it was appropriate or otherwise.

Posted

There certainly is XC endorsements for hang gliding & paragliders have traveled long distances. The performance envelope is the issue. Only in good weather and flying down wind in ridge lift or between thermals.

  • Informative 2
Posted
2 hours ago, Love to fly said:

Cross country in an unpowered paraglider? Hmm, I've no idea but an interesting concept.  

They have FAI records approaching crazy kms !    They are slow BUT can certainly travel some distances given the right conditions.   Hence my comments about a cross country endorsement

 

612 km

The distance record for paragliding was broken by Sébastien Kayrouz on 19 June 2021. He flew 612 km in a straight-line flight in Texas. The flight was made at a speed of 60 km/h and at an altitude of between 1000 and 2000 metres

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted (edited)
On 16/02/2025 at 1:39 PM, Love to fly said:

Pilot, local to Mt Beauty, has said he left during a lull in the weather. Blue sky was visible. Guessing he thought he could get out safely. 

51. 52. Mark Bland is an experienced pilot and a member of the Mount Beauty Airport Committee. He had planned to fly that morning but noted that the weather forecasts suggested it was unsuitable for recreational flying. The weather radar had shown rain across the state and strong winds at altitude. Mr Bland saw Mr Farrell’s aircraft take off from Mount Beauty – Runway 3232 to the north. He was surprised by this considering the prevailing weather. Although it wasn’t raining at the time of take-off, there was still low cloud on the ridges and hills surrounding the Kiewa Valley and he estimated the cloud base was 2,000 to 3,000 ft “at best”.33'

 

a vfr pilot taking off with a 2000 ft cloud base.

 

 

Edited by BrendAn
Posted

"a vfr pilot taking off with a 2000 ft cloud base."

 

Not an issue , IF (?) he is able to maintain 500 ft clear of surface.

 

 

Posted (edited)

Mt Beauty is in a valley surrounded by higher terrain.

 

"Mr Bland also recalled that Tawonga Gap was in cloud. The lookout at Tawonga Gap is approximately 550 metres (1,800 ft) above Mount Beauty airport. Reference to these landmarks supports the lower end of the range of Mr Bland’s estimated height of the cloud base and I am satisfied the lower height of 2,000 ft “at best” is more likely. "

 

The coroners report is pretty damning of RAAus

Edited by T510

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...