Ultralight crash north of Grafton 12/12/23

[KRviator]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

So  what should be done about it? We ALL think "It won't Happen to ME"   Nev

No no, I know damn well it won't happen to me!

Because I don't go hot-dogging at low level trying to show I'm ace of the base by flying low level down a river, or flying 15m AGL down an outback highway to impress my 2 equally stupid pilot mates who don't call me out on such risk-taking behaviour. And until we all call this type of flying out for what it is, it'll keep happening. We can pussy foot around accidents as much as we want, but doing so hasn't, doesn't and won't achieve any meaningful reduction in these kinds of antics until we say "Mate, that's not cool, that's just dumb, keep it up and I'll be the asrehole who'll make the call to CAsA if only to save you from yourself!".

Flying is inherently risky, even I'll admit that, but logic and self-preservation dictates tipping the odds in your favour wherever you can. How do you do that? Chuck an EFIS or Dyon D3 in, so you're equipped for IMC even if you only ever fly VFR. Train with an instructor to maintain S&L and do a 180* turn on instruments. Develop personal minimums more conservative than the VFR alternate minima. Plan via known-good terrain and overhead airports, even if it'll take you an extra couple minutes a leg. Use Flight Following. IF you are planning on an outlanding, use all available information to plan the flight then fly the plan! In this case, the wire ol' mate hit was clearly marked on the relevant map if he'd bothered to look.

And for fuxake, don't go low spontaneously unless you're taking off or landing at an approved airport...

 

21 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

Anyone know the pilots name yet ?

 

Daily Telegraph has just come out and named him as Lane Kokshoorn and his 10YO son. Behind a paywall so I can't link the full article.

Edited December 13, 2023 by KRviator

[Markdun]

23 hours ago, KRviator said:

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" - George Santayana

KR, the one thing (& maybe the only thing) we learn from history is that people don’t learn from history.  Sorry I don’t have a source other than my in house university professor who did an undergraduate degree in history many years ago and who gets very cranky at naive economists (which is nearly all of them) who ignore economic history.

[NT5224]

Hi folks! 
 

This tragedy afflicting a fellow aviator is all the worse due to the death of a young child… condolences to the family and friends of this fellow pilot and passenger.

 

That said, there are a few basic questions that can be asked around the circumstances of this accident. As previously noted, barring a loss of power flight into wires away from an aviation landing area would imply flight below 500ft AGL. Yes, that river bank looks pretty smooth and potentially landable. But deliberately carrying a young child into such a potentially dangerous situation would be more than just poor airmanship,  it would be bad adulthood ( I won’t say parenthood because we don’t know the relationship between pilot and child).

 

This has been a disaster. Flying is risky and we all do what we can to mitigate those risks for ourselves, for  our fellow pilots, our passengers and those on the ground.

 

Hopefully more will be learned about this tragedy and the lessons of it will be shared.

 

cheers 

 

Alan 

[spenaroo]

not that it makes a difference,

But anyone know what the laws are in the USA about low flying.
see a ton of youtubers flying low though canyons etc...

does this normalize the behavior here?

[RossK]

4 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

not that it makes a difference,

But anyone know what the laws are in the USA about low flying.
see a ton of youtubers flying low though canyons etc...

does this normalize the behavior here?

Yes, they have rules similar to ours.

Google "Trent Palmer vs FAA" - enlightening and frightening at the same time.

[turboplanner]

6 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

not that it makes a difference,

But anyone know what the laws are in the USA about low flying.
see a ton of youtubers flying low though canyons etc...

does this normalize the behavior here?

Yes; younger people are going to social media for their information more than ever before, and pretty much all of these posts don't report the risk level. I haven't checked for a long long time but when I did I found Americans killed themselves at a rate way above us not just as you would expect with ten times our population, but with a much greater percentage of population.

 

We can get a better idea of risk if we stick to studying people flying in Australia under Australian regulations in Australian numbers, doing what Australians do, i.e. most of the victims with a history of ignoring the safety rules.

 

If CASA stuck to printing the rules in plain English and left the legal phrases to the lawyers, a lot more people would know what the current rules are.

 

If they explained why the rule existed, with examples of how many people had been inkured/killed trying that particular stunt, a lot more people would know safe conduct from reckless conduct.

 

[BrendAn]

4 hours ago, TomJ said:

Last thing I want to do is add to any speculation at this time, so please take this as an innocent question from which I can learn and nothing more...

 

I completed my 3-axis Microlight pilot licence a few years ago in the UK. A standard part of training for that was in cross-country navigation, and I needed to successfully complete 2 cross-country navigation flights. This was part of the *basic* licence requirements. And of course, navigation training had a heavy component in flight route planning including identifying all potential obstacles (antennae, power lines etc). 

 

But I notice that cross-country navigation seems to be an "add-on" for RAAus. Does the *basic* RAAus include the sort of flight path planning that the BMAA in the UK includes?

 

Not implying this has anything to do with this particular incident.

The basic certificate in raaus limits you to 25 nm from the airfield you take off from.  The navigation endorsement requires several hours more training and a cross-country nav exercise. This aircraft was a long way from home so would have to have the endorsement to fly legally. 

Edited December 13, 2023 by BrendAn

[NT5224]

31 minutes ago, spenaroo said:

not that it makes a difference,

But anyone know what the laws are in the USA about low flying.
see a ton of youtubers flying low though canyons etc...

does this normalize the behavior here?

I didn’t want to say it…but somebody flying a Highlander STOL  at low level down a shale river bed. You don’t need to be Trent Palmer to see where this was going…

 

I love watching Trent’s videos. He seems a great pilot and obviously has great video production skills -but I would never fly that way myself. I live out bush and fly from a strip on my own property with a STOL aircraft.
 

I was doing a Flight Review a couple of years ago and the bloke says to me “lets go down to below 500ft to practice low flying. I bet you do that all the time at your place”

 

I flew the 172 down to just above the trees  and told the bloke “I never do this at my place or anywhere else, it’s nuts!” I go low over the trees when I land and that’s the only time I want to do it…. It’s actually pretty scary when you think about.

 

Alan 

[turboplanner]

5 minutes ago, NT5224 said:

I flew the 172 down to just above the trees  and told the bloke “I never do this at my place or anywhere else, it’s nuts!” I go low over the trees when I land and that’s the only time I want to do it…. It’s actually pretty scary when you think about.

 

We had the motor home out in the outback one year and the major creek was up.

There were about four 4WDs stopped at the bank discussing whether they could get through.

I walked the creek twice and found a stable crossing route, went across and came back to 13 video cameras from the extra vehicles that had arrived, so we formed a big and noticeable cluster. A 172 from a well known Station whose pilot was also well known for getting into trouble appeared and started to do beat ups; probably 5 or 6. He started out at tree top level then got down under the gidgee trees with the wheels in the grass. The tourists thought it was amazing flying, but I was waiting for the crack of a limb.

[kgwilson]

Getting back to this unfortunate crash it has been reported that the aircraft was flying low along the river and the occupants were waving to kayakers paddling there. As I said the surrounding land is relatively flat but there will be power lines that cross the river given the number of farms in the area. Hitting these cross river power lines would have resulted in a crash on the river flat gravel or in the river so it is a reasonable guess that while his attention was distracted by flying low & waving at kayakers, the power lines appeared very quickly and there was not enough time, height or power to avoid them.

[skippydiesel]

Altitude = safety.

 

As much as possible, fly at an altitude, relative to the terrain, that will allow you the chance of gliding to a potentially survivable landing.

[turboplanner]

Just now, skippydiesel said:

Altitude = safety.

 

As much as possible, fly at an altitude, relative to the terrain, that will allow you the chance of gliding to a potentially survivable landing.

Yes, in fact what made recreational flying acceptable was that principal combined with a very low stall speed, so any upset which ended in a glide to earth would only produce minor injuries.

[peterg]

I'm thinking a lot of you guys wouldn't enjoy ridge soaring or thermalling in a gaggle in a glider - neither of these activities is  inherently unsafe or lead to disaster if done properly and common sense prevails. 

 

What we're talking about in this thread is a pilot who is experienced (flys big stuff) who has demonstrated a lack of common sense which he and his pax are usually protected from by virtue of controls/systems/redundancy.

[kgwilson]

I flew hang gliders for 20 years and I remember in a competition there were heaps of us in a single thermal. In those days (1980s) we didn't carry radios & relied on see and avoid plus always thermalling in the same direction. I had no idea how many were in the gaggle until I got back from the competition & saw a polaroid photo taken from the ground of 18 gliders in that thermal. I could see the gliders below but none above & that was the same for everyone. I didn't feel stressed or concerned about a mid air at all. Everyone just respected the airspace of others.

[kgwilson]

1 hour ago, NT5224 said:

I didn’t want to say it…but somebody flying a Highlander STOL  at low level down a shale river bed. You don’t need to be Trent Palmer to see where this was going…

 

I love watching Trent’s videos. He seems a great pilot and obviously has great video production skills -but I would never fly that way myself. I live out bush and fly from a strip on my own property with a STOL aircraft.
 

I was doing a Flight Review a couple of years ago and the bloke says to me “lets go down to below 500ft to practice low flying. I bet you do that all the time at your place”

 

I flew the 172 down to just above the trees  and told the bloke “I never do this at my place or anywhere else, it’s nuts!” I go low over the trees when I land and that’s the only time I want to do it…. It’s actually pretty scary when you think about.

 

Alan 

Not only scary but stupid. Any problem, failure to see an obstacle or lack of power and a myriad of other things and you are toast. But of course this would never happen to me.

[onetrack]

Geez, the bloke was a B787 Captain!! You'd think, of all people, he would be most aware of the risks of low flying. This would have to be a case of total complacency, where "familarity breeds contempt".

 

https://bizjetjobs.com/pilots/lanekokshoorn/

[danny_galaga]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

Geez, the bloke was a B787 Captain!! You'd think, of all people, he would be most aware of the risks of low flying. This would have to be a case of total complacency, where "familarity breeds contempt".

 

https://bizjetjobs.com/pilots/lanekokshoorn/

And helicopter pilot. 

[alf jessup]

A Highlander STOL bush plane, a river, what could possibly go wrong?

Yeah I know don’t summarise but really?

Biggest issue we have here in aviation is everyone thinks it always happens to someone else.

Well someone’s surname changed instantly to someone else.

A very sad outcome for the families of the deceased.

Edited December 13, 2023 by alf jessup

[facthunter]

30 is young to be Captain of a BIG Jet.  Airline flying is disciplined and restrictive Understandably. The cowboys of the past are hopefully weeded out. Flying planes like this one is encouraged these days by a lot of progressive Management. Long Haul you might only get 2 landings a month and they might end up an autoland.. Log Haul is something I couldn't take for Long. In Flying you make your OWN luck Mostly but short changing on training has never been a satisfactory process.  The stall training we get is  a good example of minimal and totally inadequate. Pilots should never experience an unintended stall if they are trained adequately and on the ball. There are more clues than a stall warning. Are you a pilot or just along for the ride?  A lot of RAAus and private people never get additional or up grade training  Nev

[Garfly]

21 hours ago, spenaroo said:

not that it makes a difference,

But anyone know what the laws are in the USA about low flying.

I believe this is the relevant rule in the US:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119#:~:text=An altitude of 500 feet,vessel%2C vehicle%2C or structure.

 

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

 

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.  ///  .....  etc.

 

 

 

 

 

[Student Pilot]

21 hours ago, turboplanner said:

 

If CASA stuck to printing the rules in plain English and left the legal phrases to the lawyers, a lot more people would know what the current rules are.

 

If they explained why the rule existed, with examples of how many people had been inkured/killed trying that particular stunt, a lot more people would know safe conduct from reckless conduct.

 

Wholeheartedly agree but that is much too simple for CASA, why put something in 50 words when you can use 5000 along with penalty points and punishment for non compliance.
 

There is no hope, CASA will only be happy when no GA aircraft are flying only then will flying be safe. 45 years flying for a living and dealing with CASA has just got worse and worse, CASA is to be avoided at all costs.

[Student Pilot]

54 minutes ago, Garfly said:

I believe this is the relevant rule in the US:

 

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.119#:~:text=An altitude of 500 feet,vessel%2C vehicle%2C or structure.

 

§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.

 

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.  ///  .....  etc.

 

 

 

 

 

Good afternoon Captain Garry. How many words does it take the relevant Australian rule/law/ regulation to say the same thing? Are the legal consequences similar in both countries?  I can't be bothered looking it up I am enjoying the day too much.

[facthunter]

Nobody I know who is in the Game has a good word for them. (And this statement doesn't make me a CASA basher, Turbs so don't rev that one up. I'm JUST one of the messengers.)  Nev

[BrendAn]

3 hours ago, facthunter said:

30 is young to be Captain of a BIG Jet.  Airline flying is disciplined and restrictive Understandably. The cowboys of the past are hopefully weeded out. Flying planes like this one is encouraged these days by a lot of progressive Management. Long Haul you might only get 2 landings a month and they might end up an autoland.. Log Haul is something I couldn't take for Long. In Flying you make your OWN luck Mostly but short changing on training has never been a satisfactory process.  The stall training we get is  a good example of minimal and totally inadequate. Pilots should never experience an unintended stall if they are trained adequately and on the ball. There are more clues than a stall warning. Are you a pilot or just along for the ride?  A lot of RAAus and private people never get additional or up grade training  Nev

lots of young girls driving jets these days

[danny_galaga]

11 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

lots of young girls driving jets these days

It's the age, not the sex that fact Hunter is questioning