Crash at Boonah Golf Course 14/01/2024

[Steve L]

15 hours ago, RocketShip said:

I have found the trim on the Tecnam came sometimes get mistaken for the push to talk button. If you have flown another aircraft with the PTT button in the same place as the Trim button on the Tecnam

you can mistakenly press the Trim button thinking you are pressing the PTT button when making a radio call. Especially when new to this type of Trim control, or haven't flown for awhile.When it happens it takes you by suprise and there is the delay for your brain to work it out. By then you have a very nose down attitude and you are fighting with the control column to keep the nose up. Someone with less experience could get into trouble.

It is something you will only do once. It gives you a bit of a fright. Have never been a fan of Trim buttons on top of the control column.

 

Spot on Markdun. In my case it was the main loom between the seats had 3 wires almost severed and the main battery cable had about 2mm deep plastic insulation wear. We found the cause was no insulation or conduit fitted around the loom where it came in contact with the sharp edges of the aluminium cross member’s. Those cross members also have 2-3mm deep gouges where the loom lays. The only way to access the the loom through the centre console is by borescope camera. These exposed cables occasionally caused trim changes while flying, once or twice on finals the attitude would change. If it had a full pitch down run away on finals I doubt it could be arrested. I still have the pictures and correspondence from Tecnam. 
I know it can’t happen but I would be interested to inspect the downed plane. 
Steve 

PS. I was referring to Markdun, 

Edited January 16 by Steve L

[turboplanner]

.

Edited January 16 by turboplanner

[turboplanner]

9 hours ago, Markdun said:

Turbo, I’d suggest you go read some texts on negligence. ‘Duty of care’ is just one element out of four (duty, breach of standard, damage but for breach, proximity) to prove the tort of negligence, and it’s probably the easiest to prove.  It’sa side issue as is the insurance payout and pilot’s liability. As Bill and Nev said it’s learning and safety that we should focus on, acknowledging that flying in light planes is inherently dangerous and risky and every flight when we successfully land we should celebrate the fact we have cheated death.

 

 The question I see is who reads the RAA incident reports and do they give you insights into how to deal with the inherent risks of flying?  I read them, but they give almost zero useful information.  Who reads corners reports, and what useful information do they give? I don’t, & from experience Coroner reports only respond to evidence presented to them (they aren’t investigative) and more frequently tailor  their reports to give comfort to surviving family (as you would expect as coroners are generally compassionate ppl). I also read ATSB reports,,, but they are very limited. I spend far more time watching Utube reports from channels such as Blancorilio on accident analysis, who occasionally includes Australian accidents. In my view that is a sad state of affairs: we really need better accident analysis and reporting.

What I've recommended several times here is for pilots to spend a couple of hours flying money to get some advice on their situation, then it will be comprehensive. The current sitation is that many pilots have no PL insurance cover and don't realise the financial risk.

Each State and Territory will be slightly different also. I'd be interested to get the name of the Act you've mentioned in NSW which changed things around 10 years ago.

While I agree that training, and not just training but compliance will reduce the risk of an incident, the intent by governments is you look after your own risk; the governments walked away. There's no government safety body for Waterslide Parks, and they were the ones with the biggest number of back injuries. Today the lifeguards with walkie talkies that regulated swimmers and all but stopped the injuries are gone and you'll just see cameras and vision activated gates quietly eliminating the collisions. There are no government bodies who control shooting, just elected officials on the range. There are no government bodies who control Motor Racing, just Associations who appoint their own Marshalls, apply their own sanctions and administer their own natural justice. In flying, CASA and ATSB reached the level of intrusion because of RPT and Charter where the Commonwealth Government saw an expectation that government would protect passengers. GA PPLs get the benefit of the ATSB investigation route more or less as a byproduct, but there are exceptions, one being Aerobatic pilots who are often not investigated.

Recreational Aviation is a sport and inherently operates at a lower level of construction and training, and yes, accident investigation and training, and also behaviour control lower the number of incidents, but so far in RA the structure for people to do this is yet to be inserted. Having stepped away from government "control" and therefore liability, State and Territory governments are very unlikely to step back in and reassume liability.

As for the placards offering total protection, we lost one case because we hadn't warned of inherent risks so we introduced written warnings at every track around Australia and lost $5 - $6 million in a case where one of the issues was that our wording did not include   xxx is dangerous, enter at own risk etc, "however if the owner is negligent you have the right to sue" so we added this all round Australia. The Promoter was deemed negligent because he had joined catch fence cables by overlapping the cables and using cable clamps, which allowed the cables to slip apart under a crash g force, which didn't comply with the Australia Standard which requires each cable to be looped back on itself.

 

[danny_galaga]

In regards insurance and politics, perhaps we could continue that discussion in a new thread?

[Methusala]

I frequently comment to my associates, 'There are 1,000,000 ways that an aeroplane can kill you! We haven't found them all yet.'

This is usually greeted with 'indulgent smiles' and shaking of heads.

This is another example of a wake up call. I agree with Mark that we are involved in a very serious and potentially dangerous activity. Beware of comlacency.

Edited January 17 by Methusala
ltypo

[Markdun]

Turbo, the NSW legislation is the Civil Liability Act.  Some law firms published summaries on the reforms u…the reforms were not liked much by law firms because it restricts rights to sue.  

All the States & the NT implemented the reforms but like the Road Code, each State has its own legislation and there will be some differences. The ACT under Labor Premier Stanhope sided with the lawyers and did not implement the reforms. The major changes were in relation to medical negligence and dangerous recreational activities.  

 

For medical negligence the big change was the displacement of Rogers v Whitaker and return to the ‘Bolam’ principle.  The Bolam principle in effect allows a doctor to avoid being found negligent if he can find one other doctor to say he would have done the same. This enables doctors to refuse or misleadingly fail to advise patients of material risks of procedures if the profession thinks patients don’t need to know, even when the patient specially requests for it. In NSW there is also a weird threshold that a patient must suffer a certain percentage of disability as a result of the medical misadventure to qualify for damages.

 

In regards to recreational activities the main change was for recreational activities that are obviously dangerous; things like rock climbing, parachuting, horse riding, motorbike racing, flying small aeroplanes and I suppose lawn bowls (which is the most dangerous sport to participate in as measured by deaths while engaged).  But what is ‘obviously dangerous’ is not easy to define, so the legislation provides a ‘belt plus braces’ solution that says a warning sign or a document signed by the plaintiff is determinative if there is any doubt about whether the activity is obviously dangerous.  I’m no expert on this, and I’d want to look very carefully at the legislation regarding commercial activities, but for non-commercial RAA flying, the pilot is very unlikely to be liable for injuries/death to a passenger.  Third parties outside the aeroplane (personal & property) is totally different.  The intention of the reforms was to make it clear that if you participate in dangerous recreational activities you assume the risks (& better profits for insurance companies of-course). And that is why RAA should stop the bullshit that flying is safe…it muddies the waters whether it’s obviously dangerous.  It’s not only just wrong, I also think we’d get a boost in membership if we told people it’s dangerous.

 

 I’ll finish with a legal case about placards/signs. A valet parking business has s large sign at its entrance that said words to the effect that it was not liable for any loss or damage to vehicles from negligence of its employees. The wording of sign was worked out by the company’s lawyers. A customer sued the company after his car was lost at the carpark. The facts showed that one of the employees gave the keys of the car to a member of a criminal gang involved in car theft.  The company lost the case and had to pay damages to the car owner because the loss was not from negligence but an intentional act.

[turboplanner]

44 minutes ago, Markdun said:

Turbo, the NSW legislation is the Civil Liability Act.  Some law firms published summaries on the reforms u…the reforms were not liked much by law firms because it restricts rights to sue.  

All the States & the NT implemented the reforms but like the Road Code, each State has its own legislation and there will be some differences. The ACT under Labor Premier Stanhope sided with the lawyers and did not implement the reforms. The major changes were in relation to medical negligence and dangerous recreational activities.  

 

For medical negligence the big change was the displacement of Rogers v Whitaker and return to the ‘Bolam’ principle.  The Bolam principle in effect allows a doctor to avoid being found negligent if he can find one other doctor to say he would have done the same. This enables doctors to refuse or misleadingly fail to advise patients of material risks of procedures if the profession thinks patients don’t need to know, even when the patient specially requests for it. In NSW there is also a weird threshold that a patient must suffer a certain percentage of disability as a result of the medical misadventure to qualify for damages.

 

In regards to recreational activities the main change was for recreational activities that are obviously dangerous; things like rock climbing, parachuting, horse riding, motorbike racing, flying small aeroplanes and I suppose lawn bowls (which is the most dangerous sport to participate in as measured by deaths while engaged).  But what is ‘obviously dangerous’ is not easy to define, so the legislation provides a ‘belt plus braces’ solution that says a warning sign or a document signed by the plaintiff is determinative if there is any doubt about whether the activity is obviously dangerous.  I’m no expert on this, and I’d want to look very carefully at the legislation regarding commercial activities, but for non-commercial RAA flying, the pilot is very unlikely to be liable for injuries/death to a passenger.  Third parties outside the aeroplane (personal & property) is totally different.  The intention of the reforms was to make it clear that if you participate in dangerous recreational activities you assume the risks (& better profits for insurance companies of-course). And that is why RAA should stop the bullshit that flying is safe…it muddies the waters whether it’s obviously dangerous.  It’s not only just wrong, I also think we’d get a boost in membership if we told people it’s dangerous.

 

 I’ll finish with a legal case about placards/signs. A valet parking business has s large sign at its entrance that said words to the effect that it was not liable for any loss or damage to vehicles from negligence of its employees. The wording of sign was worked out by the company’s lawyers. A customer sued the company after his car was lost at the carpark. The facts showed that one of the employees gave the keys of the car to a member of a criminal gang involved in car theft.  The company lost the case and had to pay damages to the car owner because the loss was not from negligence but an intentional act.

Very interesting with all those twists and turns, multiplied by the practice of settlements out of Court based on who was able to bluff best. Our lawyers settled most out of Court, so there was no final report and all but the few in the discussions got to know the deciding factor.

 

My message to pilots is to cover yourself with adequate insurance and read the conditions very carefully and then you don't have the worry about losing everything.

[danny_galaga]

https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=pfbid0c7jMiRxzwu7N1QSD5vkjprUx9eYBDwH1VHfrtnAHPNCdp2MQhJq15CY6xikEsEzul&id=100063710587260&mibextid=ZbWKwL

 

Some lovely tributes to Dave 

[Roundsounds]

On 16/1/2024 at 1:02 PM, BrendAn said:

i disagree. if you don't have a fear of stalls and spins you are probably over confident. my instructor was not as you say at all. i said the p92 full flap stalls scare me because of how sudden the wing drop is. done lots of stall training and that is the only one that i don't like. so please don't insult the instructor. he is a high hr commercial pilot as well as raaus.

Stalls / spins are just another manoeuvre, you need to be competent at recognising the onset and recovering before they develop. You also need to be competent at recovering from developed stalls / spins. Again I reinforce the need not to fear these manoeuvres, but respect them. 
At no time did I insult your instructor, my comment was a general one around how stall / spin training is conducted today and supported by accident stats.

Edited January 17 by Roundsounds

[BrendAn]

12 minutes ago, Roundsounds said:

Stalls / spins are just another manoeuvre, you need to be competent at recognising the onset and recovering before they develop. You also need to be competent at recovering from developed stalls / spins. Again I reinforce the need not to fear these manoeuvres, but respect them. 
At no time did I insult your instructor, my comment was a general one around how stall / spin training is conducted today and supported by accident stats.

stalls yes but spin training is not allowed in raaus

[Lightwing Bill]

ATSB Commissioner Angus Mitchel's resume states:

 

Mr Mitchell joins the ATSB from Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), where as General Manager he oversaw the safe and efficient movement of vessels into and out of Queensland’s 21 ports, and was responsible for compliance activities and safety investigations for Australia’s largest recreational maritime fleet.

 

MSQ investigates all maritime incidents including recreation boat accidents.  Which raises the question, why doesn't Angus support a similar accident investigation service for recreation aviation now that he is in charge of the ATSB?

 

The RA-Aus Board, Pip Spence CEO of CASA and ACM (ret) Mark Biskin chairman of the CASA Board were all asked if they would consider setting up a registration service and define a set of standards for private accident investigators.  RA-Aus Board said no, Mark passed the buck to Pip, Pip drifted off on a tangent.   

 

It's a CASA Board attitude problem.   The Board should never have agreed to Part 149 (sport and recreation organizations) without a specific requirement for accident investigation. 

 

RA-Aus and CASA pointing the finger at ATSB isn't productive.  Angus's ATSB "train set" is, with good reason, completely independent of Pip's CASA "train set" so we need to find another solution if Angus won't share his "train set".

 

 

The issue of accident investigation is important to those who fly in recreation and sport aircraft as well as to those we share the airspace with.   

 

Does Pip think the fare paying public, particularly those important ones up the front of commercial aircraft, will be pleased to know that CASA is contemplating allowing RA-Aus aircraft, with dodgy airworthiness and operated under a set of rules that are not monitored by formal feedback from accident reports, to operate in controlled airspace?  

 

One person can't change the status quo.   It will require the input of every recreation aviator to get RA-Aus and CASA to do something.   Our elected RA-Aus Board members should be doing this for us.  Unfortunately, the RA-Aus Board doesn't seem to understand the problem or be willing to engage with the membership to help find a solution to the problem.

 

Why don't you ask Michael Monck, RA-Aus Board chairman, if he thinks we need an accident investigation service, what he is doing to get one, and when he predicts that such a service will be available.   His email address is [email protected].   

 

The answer recently given to this question was that the Board appreciates the need for an accident service, and RA-Aus is talking to CASA and the minister about more funding for the ATSB.    On timing, RA-Aus had been "talking" to the Minister for over 4 years without a result.   Up until about 4 years ago it appears that RA-Aus was conducting accident investigations. 

 

I pay for my own public liability insurance and don't rely on the MLIP.   I also check that any aircraft I hire or have instruction in has comprehensive insurance before I get in it.    Unlike motor vehicles, aircraft are not required to have any insurance cover.   Unfortunately, due to the lack of accident investigation, I can't be sure of the airworthiness of my aircraft or the reliability of the procedures that i operate under.

 

That's it from me.   Thanks for reading this far.   Have a nice day.

 

[danny_galaga]

https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/topic/39585-here-you-can-talk-about-insurance/

[Thruster88]

On 16/01/2024 at 8:15 AM, RocketShip said:

I have found the trim on the Tecnam came sometimes get mistaken for the push to talk button. If you have flown another aircraft with the PTT button in the same place as the Trim button on the Tecnam

you can mistakenly press the Trim button thinking you are pressing the PTT button when making a radio call. Especially when new to this type of Trim control, or haven't flown for awhile.When it happens it takes you by suprise and there is the delay for your brain to work it out. By then you have a very nose down attitude and you are fighting with the control column to keep the nose up. Someone with less experience could get into trouble.

It is something you will only do once. It gives you a bit of a fright. Have never been a fan of Trim buttons on top of the control column.

 

I don't see runway elevator trim driving a tecnam or any LSA into the ground. Much bigger aircraft yes it has happened.  We have a P92 super eglet in the shop atm. It has electric elevator trim between the seats, nice logical rocker switch. Takes 12 seconds for full travel. 

 

My Musketeer also has a stabilator with trim/anti servo tab. For my own education I have wound on full trim (manual) to see what the resulting control force is like. Yes mildly scary, about 25-30 kg of force required to maintain level flight. The trim tab on the Musketeer is about 4 times larger and both aircraft fly at about the same speed.

 

 

[turboplanner]

6 hours ago, Lightwing Bill said:

ATSB Commissioner Angus Mitchel's resume states:

 

Mr Mitchell joins the ATSB from Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), where as General Manager he oversaw the safe and efficient movement of vessels into and out of Queensland’s 21 ports, and was responsible for compliance activities and safety investigations for Australia’s largest recreational maritime fleet.

 

MSQ investigates all maritime incidents including recreation boat accidents.  Which raises the question, why doesn't Angus support a similar accident investigation service for recreation aviation now that he is in charge of the ATSB?

 

The RA-Aus Board, Pip Spence CEO of CASA and ACM (ret) Mark Biskin chairman of the CASA Board were all asked if they would consider setting up a registration service and define a set of standards for private accident investigators.  RA-Aus Board said no, Mark passed the buck to Pip, Pip drifted off on a tangent.   

 

It's a CASA Board attitude problem.   The Board should never have agreed to Part 149 (sport and recreation organizations) without a specific requirement for accident investigation. 

 

RA-Aus and CASA pointing the finger at ATSB isn't productive.  Angus's ATSB "train set" is, with good reason, completely independent of Pip's CASA "train set" so we need to find another solution if Angus won't share his "train set".

 

 

The issue of accident investigation is important to those who fly in recreation and sport aircraft as well as to those we share the airspace with.   

 

Does Pip think the fare paying public, particularly those important ones up the front of commercial aircraft, will be pleased to know that CASA is contemplating allowing RA-Aus aircraft, with dodgy airworthiness and operated under a set of rules that are not monitored by formal feedback from accident reports, to operate in controlled airspace?  

 

One person can't change the status quo.   It will require the input of every recreation aviator to get RA-Aus and CASA to do something.   Our elected RA-Aus Board members should be doing this for us.  Unfortunately, the RA-Aus Board doesn't seem to understand the problem or be willing to engage with the membership to help find a solution to the problem.

 

Why don't you ask Michael Monck, RA-Aus Board chairman, if he thinks we need an accident investigation service, what he is doing to get one, and when he predicts that such a service will be available.   His email address is [email protected].   

 

The answer recently given to this question was that the Board appreciates the need for an accident service, and RA-Aus is talking to CASA and the minister about more funding for the ATSB.    On timing, RA-Aus had been "talking" to the Minister for over 4 years without a result.   Up until about 4 years ago it appears that RA-Aus was conducting accident investigations. 

 

I pay for my own public liability insurance and don't rely on the MLIP.   I also check that any aircraft I hire or have instruction in has comprehensive insurance before I get in it.    Unlike motor vehicles, aircraft are not required to have any insurance cover.   Unfortunately, due to the lack of accident investigation, I can't be sure of the airworthiness of my aircraft or the reliability of the procedures that i operate under.

 

That's it from me.   Thanks for reading this far.   Have a nice day.

 

ATSB have been given certain powers and exemptions for certan areas of aviation by the Commonwealth Government. Recreational Aviation Australia has not so there's not point in doing beat ups to try to get CASA to do things they don't have a charter for and no point in getting up Michael Monck or anyone else to do something they have no authority to do. 

 

The State and Territor Police do have the autority to investigate and provide evidence to the Coroner for RA accidents, and the Coroner has to power to make decisions. I recognise that the Coroner decides how a person died whereas we are pobably more interested in what caused the event, but no government is going to put a sizable budget into voluntary sporting activities carried on at a lower standard of safety than government backed activities. The likely outcome of going down that path is to move RA aircraft to Experimental, possibly a worse outcome rather than an improvement.

 

Accident investigation is not the guarantee standard for airworthiness of a Recreational Aviation aircraft. That come from assessing the design, materials, and construction of the aircraft and there are current standards for that. If you look at a very rough 10 RA fatalities per year over the past 15 years, very few have been airworthiness issues.

Having said all that, there are still ways for a Self Administering organisation to investigate accidents and then produce more general reports.

[Jabiru7252]

Stalls and spins were scary but I hated spiral dives. Did a few in the Tomahawk in the early 80s. Don't think anybody does them these days.

[danny_galaga]

6 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

Stalls and spins were scary but I hated spiral dives. Did a few in the Tomahawk in the early 80s. Don't think anybody does them these days.

Still do. I did spiral dives with Dave.

[leslloyd]

6 hours ago, Jabiru7252 said:

Stalls and spins were scary but I hated spiral dives. Did a few in the Tomahawk in the early 80s. Don't think anybody does them these days.

Go for a fly in a Glider,I was pretty apprehensive when my instructor told me we were going to do some spins on our next flight,turns out once that little ball of fear had departed i looked forward to doing them which led to PPL and an aerobatic endorsement.

[FlyBoy1960]

18 hours ago, Lightwing Bill said:

ATSB Commissioner Angus Mitchel's resume states:

 

Mr Mitchell joins the ATSB from Maritime Safety Queensland (MSQ), where as General Manager he oversaw the safe and efficient movement of vessels into and out of Queensland’s 21 ports, and was responsible for compliance activities and safety investigations for Australia’s largest recreational maritime fleet.

 

MSQ investigates all maritime incidents including recreation boat accidents.  Which raises the question, why doesn't Angus support a similar accident investigation service for recreation aviation now that he is in charge of the ATSB?

 

The RA-Aus Board, Pip Spence CEO of CASA and ACM (ret) Mark Biskin chairman of the CASA Board were all asked if they would consider setting up a registration service and define a set of standards for private accident investigators.  RA-Aus Board said no, Mark passed the buck to Pip, Pip drifted off on a tangent.   

 

It's a CASA Board attitude problem.   The Board should never have agreed to Part 149 (sport and recreation organizations) without a specific requirement for accident investigation. 

 

RA-Aus and CASA pointing the finger at ATSB isn't productive.  Angus's ATSB "train set" is, with good reason, completely independent of Pip's CASA "train set" so we need to find another solution if Angus won't share his "train set".

 

 

The issue of accident investigation is important to those who fly in recreation and sport aircraft as well as to those we share the airspace with.   

 

Does Pip think the fare paying public, particularly those important ones up the front of commercial aircraft, will be pleased to know that CASA is contemplating allowing RA-Aus aircraft, with dodgy airworthiness and operated under a set of rules that are not monitored by formal feedback from accident reports, to operate in controlled airspace?  

 

One person can't change the status quo.   It will require the input of every recreation aviator to get RA-Aus and CASA to do something.   Our elected RA-Aus Board members should be doing this for us.  Unfortunately, the RA-Aus Board doesn't seem to understand the problem or be willing to engage with the membership to help find a solution to the problem.

 

Why don't you ask Michael Monck, RA-Aus Board chairman, if he thinks we need an accident investigation service, what he is doing to get one, and when he predicts that such a service will be available.   His email address is [email protected].   

 

The answer recently given to this question was that the Board appreciates the need for an accident service, and RA-Aus is talking to CASA and the minister about more funding for the ATSB.    On timing, RA-Aus had been "talking" to the Minister for over 4 years without a result.   Up until about 4 years ago it appears that RA-Aus was conducting accident investigations. 

 

I pay for my own public liability insurance and don't rely on the MLIP.   I also check that any aircraft I hire or have instruction in has comprehensive insurance before I get in it.    Unlike motor vehicles, aircraft are not required to have any insurance cover.   Unfortunately, due to the lack of accident investigation, I can't be sure of the airworthiness of my aircraft or the reliability of the procedures that i operate under.

 

That's it from me.   Thanks for reading this far.   Have a nice day.

 

 

 

Bill Ginn, the RA-Aus won't do any investigations because of liability and lack of suitable training  and resources. They tried to get everyone trained up with the assistance of the ATSB which did some good, but then they couldn't utilise any of the resources they needed.

 

I also understand somebody took legal action against one of their findings/results and that was the end of it. From memory it was the importer of a low wing aircraft based out of Melbourne that had a run of fatal  accidents and the RA-Aus as part of the investigation found out that paperwork was fudged by the importer/manufacturer possibly contributing towards these accidents, but they were still taken to court by said importer claiming they were destroying his business etc.   (first-hand information from a board member)

 

I know personally that multiple claims have been paid by the RA-Aus policy.

 

You cannot ignore that fact, but you don't seem to understand that like any insurance claim it takes time, you can't crash today and get paid tomorrow.

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, danny_galaga said:

Still do. I did spiral dives with Dave.

Not in RA

[skippydiesel]

My apologies if I am repeating another earlier opinion: Why on earth  do small aircraft (like Tecnam) have electric trim? AND electric flaps.

This is an unnecessary complication/potential failure point in what should be a simple (KISS) aircraft. 

 

[mkennard]

3 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My apologies if I am repeating another earlier opinion: Why on earth  do small aircraft (like Tecnam) have electric trim? AND electric flaps.

This is an unnecessary complication/potential failure point in what should be a simple (KISS) aircraft. 

 

My Jab has electric flaps.

[Blueadventures]

4 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My apologies if I am repeating another earlier opinion: Why on earth  do small aircraft (like Tecnam) have electric trim? AND electric flaps.

This is an unnecessary complication/potential failure point in what should be a simple (KISS) aircraft. 

 

Many have them Jabiru, Bristelle have electric flap; Svannah's have electric trim.  Very common.

[turboplanner]

14 minutes ago, skippydiesel said:

My apologies if I am repeating another earlier opinion: Why on earth  do small aircraft (like Tecnam) have electric trim? AND electric flaps.

This is an unnecessary complication/potential failure point in what should be a simple (KISS) aircraft. 

 

Very good point skippy.

[facthunter]

Flap forces are such that NO UL needs more than manual flap actuation and also gives FEEL and quick response if there's any asymmetry or jambing,. What if you have an electrical problem?. It's a totally unnecessary complication with risks associated with it. Nev

[turboplanner]

35 minutes ago, mkennard said:

My Jab has electric flaps.

.....and it has nowhere near the controllability that an old Cherokee 140 has, and nowhere near the accuracy of tune, and the byproducts such as the 140 ability to jump a fence if it comes up too fast in a forced landing.

 

Edited January 18 by turboplanner