Any news on Wedderburn aircraft accident 26/12/22.

[BrendAn]

3 minutes ago, Markdun said:

Injury rates are pretty extreme for horse based recreation (for ppl & the horses), but lawn bowls and golf are the most deadly.

 

I think those of us involved in recreational aviation do it a disservice by perpetuating the lie that it’s a safe past-time.  Ra-aus would get heaps more members if they stressed the dangers of flying, that after each flight the great achievement felt by the pilot in cheating death etc etc, rather than, if you check these boxes it’s all very safe.

Pretty negative attitude. Sounds like you need a new hobby

[old man emu]

11 hours ago, BrendAn said:

Pretty negative attitude. Sounds like you need a new hobby

Irony: The expression of one's meaning by using language that normally signifies the opposite, typically for humorous or emphatic effect.

[Carbon Canary]

13 hours ago, kgwilson said:

I note that the Glasair web site provides 3 engine options for the Sportsman. Lycoming IO-360 160HP, IO-390 210HP, & Continental CD-155 155HP Diesel. No mention of Subaru at all. There are 2 for sale on Planesales. Both have IO-390 210 HP engines.

The Subaru engine was similar to that used in the WRX.
Here is an article that can describe the aero Subaru engine better than me.

 

https://www.kitplanes.com/a-new-name-on-the-alternative-engine-block/

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, Carbon Canary said:

The Subaru engine was similar to that used in the WRX.
Here is an article that can describe the aero Subaru engine better than me.

 

https://www.kitplanes.com/a-new-name-on-the-alternative-engine-block/

I know of one Subaru conversion in an aeropup that cost 40k all up. Why bother when you can get a rotax for less than that. Or a Viking or UL. Unless it makes more power than the others can provide I guess.

[facthunter]

It does make more power, but my choice would be a boring but Proven Lycoming 360. if you just want to fly. I'm always of the opinion that a motor FOR an aeroplane needs to be built from scratch and not covered in Pipes and wires. Even how a motor is mounted counts for a lot.. Nev

[BrendAn]

6 minutes ago, facthunter said:

It does make more power, but my choice would be a boring but Proven Lycoming 360. if you just want to fly. I'm always of the opinion that a motor FOR an aeroplane needs to be built from scratch and not covered in Pipes and wires. Even how a motor is mounted counts for a lot.. Nev

And weight. Subarus are heavy when you add the redrive and all those pipes and wires.

[Methusala]

When I'm at the Men's shed, I tell them about going out in those really dangerous little planes to do some 'death stalls'.  That usually shuts them up.

[RFguy]

19 hours ago, Markdun said:

Injury rates are pretty extreme for horse based recreation (for ppl & the horses), but lawn bowls and golf are the most deadly.

 

I think those of us involved in recreational aviation do it a disservice by perpetuating the lie that it’s a safe past-time.  Ra-aus would get heaps more members if they stressed the dangers of flying, that after each flight the great achievement felt by the pilot in cheating death etc etc, rather than, if you check these boxes it’s all very safe.

Agreed.
RA-AUS's mantra of a  "A pilot in every home" is unrealistic and worst case misleading of the hazards in the hobby.

[turboplanner]

2 hours ago, RFguy said:

Agreed.
RA-AUS's mantra of a  "A pilot in every home" is unrealistic and worst case misleading of the hazards in the hobby.

RA fatalities are about 40 times more than driving a car based on missions, i.e. every time you get in one - if you just follow the average training and behaviour profile, but the good news is you can draatically reduce these odds by practical training and safety policy, e.g. if you didn't fly in to places like Wedderburn.

[old man emu]

33 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

f you didn't fly in to places like Wedderburn.

I don't even like driving to Wedderburn.

 

It is a shame to be bad-mouthing Wedderburn. The strip itself is in very good condition. The aviation community on the aerodrome keeps the place well presented. There is a lot of activity in the hangars and the social life is just about right.

 

The problem is that the strip is in the middle of rugged, tree-covered terrain and is crosswind to the prevailing winds. Those aren't roads around it. They are fire trails

[Roscoe]

1 hour ago, turboplanner said:

RA fatalities are about 40 times more than driving a car based on missions, i.e. every time you get in one - if you just follow the average training and behaviour profile, but the good news is you can draatically reduce these odds by practical training and safety policy, e.g. if you didn't fly in to places like Wedderburn.

Why are you critiscising Wedderburn?

Bankstown is a short distance away and is heavily built up right around it.

I dont understand your reasoning.

Bankstown is a training Airport and has been for many years.

[turboplanner]

36 minutes ago, Roscoe said:

Why are you critiscising Wedderburn?

Bankstown is a short distance away and is heavily built up right around it.

I dont understand your reasoning.

Bankstown is a training Airport and has been for many years.

Trees.

[Roscoe]

21 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Trees.

High density housing and Factories right on the boundaries of Bankstown.

Trees surrounding Wedderburn.

Are you implying that ops at Bankstown are dangerous?

Sorry, I still cannot understand your point.

[kgwilson]

Trees, houses, factories and thousands of other obstacles and hazards surround many aerodromes. You assess the risks and make decisions. If you aren't happy about the situation go somewhere else or don't fly. Those things don't bother me and obviously don't bother owners of all the aircraft at Wedderburn either

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, Roscoe said:

High density housing and Factories right on the boundaries of Bankstown.

Trees surrounding Wedderburn.

Are you implying that ops at Bankstown are dangerous?

Sorry, I still cannot understand your point.

We have to allow for an engine/component failure anywhere we fly. In the circuit area that has to be anywhere in the circuit.

 

I gave the fatality comparison between driving a car and flying a recreational aircraft based on what people do in each category now. Based on the decisions they make now which lead to the fatality rates that occur now (or to be precise 3 years ago).

 

i.e. exactly like kgwilson as said, and as he says, he's not bothered by his risk decisions, and a lot of other people are also not bothered by that difference between Driving a car and flying RA.

 

I said  you can draatically reduce these odds by practical training and safety policy.

 

Practical training might include commiting EFATO, Forced Landings, Precautionary Searches, Upsets to  subconscious response etc.

 

Safety policy is to remove the risk.

If you don't fly below 500 ft, you take yourself out of the regular group that dies each year after hitting a power line, shed, trees etc.

 

If you don't fly in any marginal weather, you take yourself out of the annual losses.

 

If you don't fly over land you can't land on without being killed, you take yourself out of that group.

 

And there are probably a few others that would bring YOUR RA flying up to the safety standard of driving a car.

 

However a policy needs to be something you will never break.

 

City airports area currently GA with just a few RA aircraft, so the engine failure rate is less, but there are options; Moorabbin has had many successful forced landings on golf courses, and from memory Bankstown had one on the trotting track, Melbourne has had one on Ferntree Gully Road.

 

Country Airports have embankments, ditches, creeks and trees.

Where there is a percentage of clear spaces, you can pick one, drop in and then ground loop if you have to after washing off speed. Where the tree cover is 100%, you could use the road rule of thumb, that saplings up to the diameter of your arm are probably not going to injure you, but above that you could be lucky and tip one with a wing, spinning the aircraft around and dissipating energy, but generally there's no way out.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[old man emu]

11 hours ago, Roscoe said:

Why are you critiscising Wedderburn?

My criticism relates to two things - the out-of-wind runway and no clear areas within the boundaries of the circuit. Those trees surrounding the runway are tall and old meaning that they don't provide any soft landing places. I agree that things are tight at Bankstown, but there are escape routes. 

 

Training at Bankstown? I'm afraid that ab initio fixed wing training will die out at Bankstown simply due to the policies of the landlord. Helicopter training is viable at Bankstown simply because of the open area in the north-east corner. 

 

It's a crying shame that there cannot be clearing done around Wedderburn. I don't cry out for the bulldozers to be brought in. Afterall, there is a population of healthy koalas in the area that need the trees to survive. It is what it is and will be long into the future. 

[Markdun]

Mmmm. I’m not flying to Wedderburn, but my airstrip south of Tarago is 745m long has trees, large..ish, on both sides 30-40m distance (15-20m from airstrip centreline) which gives reasonable clearance. It is oriented for the prevailing NW & SE winds.  In most cross wind situations the wind diverts to run down or up the runway, or it is effectively calm, once you are below the tree canopy.  The thing is you have to prepare for the windshear as you descend (or ascend) through a very short zone of turbulent air.  I generally add 5-10kts, and this means one generally has excess energy to dissipate once below the tree height on landing (& you land long), or on T/O you remain ‘tween the trees for longer to accelerate  resisting the urge to get away from the trees. I feel comfortable T/O & landing the Cygnet in 20kt x-wind, but by golly I wouldn’t try it in the Corby or the Jabiru despite their tiny wing spans.  I’m just saying trees are not always bad.  Any Pax, like sons’ latest girlfriends, need warning that landing looks daunting, particularly when you fly sideways to descend rapidly to get below the trees.

[facthunter]

Tomago airstrip near Hexham was like that. Always have to keep your wits about you in such places with winds.   Nev

[Bruce Tuncks]

SO....  if you do the right things ( Fly above 500 ft except landing and take-off, don't fly out of glide-range of a landable field, don't run out of fuel, do proper maintenance, and some other stuff i can't think of ) what is the risk compared with driving a car?

[Bruce Tuncks]

Using the radio properly was what I couldn't remember.

[mkennard]

16 minutes ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

SO....  if you do the right things ( Fly above 500 ft except landing and take-off, don't fly out of glide-range of a landable field, don't run out of fuel, do proper maintenance, and some other stuff i can't think of ) what is the risk compared with driving a car?

Well, out of Wedderburn. to the south or east is tiger country, to go west of Sydney is tiger country and we live in a 3D world where that extra dimension adds a lot more complexity and extra decision making compared to a car which is basically 2 dimensions.

[skippydiesel]

Yes I can confirm -

 

Exit/Entry to The Sydney Basin - North, East (Pacific Ocean) and West, has considerable risks. To the South there is relatively less risk, due to some open (cleared) country before getting to open Monaro grazing country

 

My practise has always been to fly at the maximum altitude consistent, with ATC limits. In practise this may be as low as 500ft AMSL (Victor1)  and as high as , cruise climb to, 7500 ft  (about 3000ft above terrain) despite this the "pucker" factor is very present and real or imagined engine note changes, gets the heart rate up very quickly.

 

I only mention this to show that, at times, the training we receive, not to cross "Tiger Country" (which in my mind includes large swathes of urban/city development) is rendered impractical, that is if you fly in/out of The Sydney Basin.

 

Wedderburn/Napper airfield is one of only two (3 if you count Mittagong) unrestricted airfields close to Sydney - its location, within a forest,  is regrettable but if you want to have your aircraft relatively close by, compromise on this safety challenge is your only option (like flying in/out of the Basin).

 

 

[Markdun]

Bruce, the thing is people are people; they make mistakes and forget things, underestimate risks, get sucked in to confirmation bias. etc etc. The consequences when flying are more severe. Crash a 1800kg car with a well designed steel cockpit protection at 80kph & you have an excellent chance of surviving.  Keeping in mind the kinetic energy to dissipate in a crash is 1/2mv**2, and compare that to crashing a 600kg aircraft  made out of aluminium foil or sticks and paper at 120kph or more... you have less chance.

 In my youth I did a fair bit of rock climbing & thought that was pretty safe. Then I did a season of mountaineering and found, unlike rock climbing, you really had to trade off protection for speed (to the top) to (a) successfully climb the peak; & (b) to avoid the bigger risk of warm afternoon ice avalanches killing you on descent.  I lost one friend on Mt Aspiring...avalanche on ascent.... something that you really cannot mitigate against except by not doing it.  And then a few months ago a kid in my son’s TAFE class was killed abseiling because he simply clipped onto a rope that wasn’t tied on, despite checks and second person checks.

I stand by my earlier statement that flying light aeroplanes is inherently dangerous; it is misleading and dishonest to represent it as a ‘safe’ recreational activity as Ra-aus do (& really why else do they carp on and on about safety if it was safe?); & we should accept that and learn to live or die with it, not ignore it, but always have it mind.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, Bruce Tuncks said:

SO....  if you do the right things ( Fly above 500 ft except landing and take-off, don't fly out of glide-range of a landable field, don't run out of fuel, do proper maintenance, and some other stuff i can't think of ) what is the risk compared with driving a car?

With a fatality rate of around 12 per year in RA prior to Covid, you could probably pull the causes out of the statistics one by and see quite accurately what your future might look like without too many changes  to what you were doing by comparison. Starting with 40 times as dangerous, it wouldn't surprise me if a lot of people could get the risk down to equal.

 

This is GA, but a couple of weeks ago I scoured through the ATSB fatalties looking for ditching fatalities. I only found one of those but was amazed by the number of fatal collisions, including one where two aircraft were taxying on the runway at Leongatha, a small town. CFIT numbers dominated the statistics, pobably 70% which makes you wonder how they all do it.

 

Edited January 2, 2023 by turboplanner