Crash at Boonah Golf Course 14/01/2024

[facthunter]

You will get used to the world going around you after a while and the recovery will feel like you are now going in the opposite direction. IF I'm not the one doing them, I'll get sick after about 5 in a row on a hot day. Some planes will fall out of a spin if you don't hold it in by stick right back . Nev

Edited January 19 by facthunter
expand

[djpacro]

Nothing to do with the accident, just a general comment after reading some posts here.

 

From CASA’s Part 61 MOS for an RPL, required knowledge is:

”Differentiate between a spin and a spiral dive in a light aeroplane and describe the standard recovery technique from each.”

 

A flight examiner told me recently that he failed two new flight instructor candidates because their preprepared briefing to him incorrectly described the spin recovery method. They obviously hadn’t bothered to look at the relevant section of the POH for the aeroplane they were flying. Nor had they taken any notice of the cockpit placard on spin recovery. They had accepted what they picked up from someone else.

 

In my opinion one of the the best (and free) references as a source of that Part 61 MOS knowledge requirement is https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/06_afh_ch5.pdf

[Reynard]

The POH of my aircraft mentions the potential risk of fire in carby Rotax-powered aircraft from spinning the aircraft.

[danny_galaga]

BLA82 is right, we are getting way off track. I'm guilty of that too. There are a number of us here that knew one or both pilots personally.

 

I myself am disheartened enough it's giving me pause to give up altogether.

 

Dave wouldn't want anyone to stop flying though.

 

He would always ask me how I was going with my build. I was looking forward to the day I could say to him 'its done!' 

 

I can't tell him that now. But I wouldn't want to disappoint him by quitting now.

[FlyBoy1960]

1 hour ago, Reynard said:

The POH of my aircraft mentions the potential risk of fire in carby Rotax-powered aircraft from spinning the aircraft.

There are Rotax powered aircraft approved/certified for spinning and spin training. 

 

What aircraft manual is it in ?

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, Reynard said:

The POH of my aircraft mentions the potential risk of fire in carby Rotax-powered aircraft from spinning the aircraft.

Is that because the carbs are mounted on top .

[BrendAn]

35 minutes ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

There are Rotax powered aircraft approved/certified for spinning and spin training. 

 

What aircraft manual is it in ?

Maybe with fuel injected models

[Reynard]

1 hour ago, FlyBoy1960 said:

There are Rotax powered aircraft approved/certified for spinning and spin training. 

 

What aircraft manual is it in ?

FK9.

it states….

”Stalls (especially with power on), spins and all manoeuvres with zero or negative g-load, must be avoided under all circumstances, these manoeuvres may cause a fire, especially when using Rotax engines with carburettors.”

It goes on to state “aerobatic manoeuvres, including spins, bank angles greater than 60 degrees…..are prohibited.“  Despite this, all FK aircraft have also been tested regarding their spin characteristics.

……” flying into stalls on purpose must be avoided and recovery procedures have to be performed immediately”

 

It clearly makes sense to abide by the POH, but during demonstration, the aircraft has very benign stall characteristics.

Edited January 19 by Reynard

[facthunter]

So do C-172's and people spin them in at times.  Real stalls don't happen like the demonstrated ones. The usual stall demo and box tick is close to useless. History shows a lot happen in a descending turn with the nose below the horizon.   IF you experience an unintended stall. Take it seriously and revisit what's going on and rectify it. It's NOT something everybody does and you, (and your PAX) might not be so LUCKY the next time. A Stall is a wing angle of attack of about 14 degrees, not a pitch angle of any specific amount Learn how to "Unload" the wing and stall stick position for each configuration . Pilot's STALL planes.  When the nose drops they pull the stick back "instinctively" and pick up the low wing with Aileron when they are too slow for it to work.  Nev

Edited January 20 by facthunter
more content.

[jackc]

On 18/1/2024 at 12:48 PM, 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.

 

I was under the impression that RAAus had to do investigation under Part 149? 
If RAAus don’t do investigations on crashes, yet we must abide by their regulations, and be subject to investigation for breaches?

Call me confused?  

[turboplanner]

34 minutes ago, jackc said:

I was under the impression that RAAus had to do investigation under Part 149? 
If RAAus don’t do investigations on crashes, yet we must abide by their regulations, and be subject to investigation for breaches?

Call me confused?  

No one has stepped up to built the extensive structure into the constitution, so no point whining.

[jackc]

32 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

No one has stepped up to built the extensive structure into the constitution, so no point whining.

Turbo, was my statement correct?  If it is and you intimate it’s in the too hard basket? 
Maybe CASA need to make RAAus get it done?  
Organisations need to get on the job to at least make an effort to meet their obligations and inform the membership of their progress? 

[turboplanner]

31 minutes ago, jackc said:

Turbo, was my statement correct?  If it is and you intimate it’s in the too hard basket? 
Maybe CASA need to make RAAus get it done?  
Organisations need to get on the job to at least make an effort to meet their obligations and inform the membership of their progress? 

We've covered this ground before; the only reason RA Aircraft are flying is because it's the policy of Commonwealth and State Governments to offload public liability costs off themselves and on to the participants in sports, so CASA are unlikely to be silly enough to march in and start issuing orders. If they did they would reassume liability for those orders but with out the control they have on GA aircraft and pilots.

 

It's not a too hard basket, just bone laziness and other agendas.

 

It's the members that have to get on and do it.

[danny_galaga]

https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/topic/39585-here-you-can-talk-about-insurance/#comment-558631

[turboplanner]

5 hours ago, danny_galaga said:

https://www.recreationalflying.com/forums/topic/39585-here-you-can-talk-about-insurance/#comment-558631

What we are talking about at present is nothing to do with insurance, but has relevance to accidents similar to this one, so it's timely to address the issues.

Edited January 20 by turboplanner

[Area-51]

You cannot expect any Qualitative level of Continual Improvement in any venture unless select data sets are identified and established, monitored, analysed, and learnings extracted from outcomes and distinctions made. Target outcomes need to also be identified at the very beginning.

 

Without any formal investigation of both tragic and survived events any changes of operational policy will be inadequately implemented as the actual cause has not been sufficiently identified and is therefore left to speculation; this very post is a prime example of speculation.

 

Without any matrix available toward identifying all cause outcomes the possibility of unknown unknowns being discovered is "zero". The impact of this is "incorrectly aligned policy" being implemented. The outcome of this is "ineffective policy".

 

The above is not directed at RaAus. It is merely industry accepted knowledge of how the operational policy of a project affects the target outcomes from a Facilities perspective.

 

if the only Input is "aircraft incident, fatal", or, "aircraft incident, non fatal", then that is all there is to work with for developing operational policy upon.

 

Flying aircraft can always, but often is not, fatal.

 

The legacy of something positive and meaningful coming out of this tragedy would be a good outcome.

[danny_galaga]

4 hours ago, turboplanner said:

What we are talking about at present is nothing to do with insurance, but has relevance to accidents similar to this one, so it's timely to address the issues.

It seems to me you could say the same things in every single ra Aus crash thread, so why not have a dedicated thread for that subject instead of starting the debate afresh in each crash thread? 

[turboplanner]

42 minutes ago, danny_galaga said:

It seems to me you could say the same things in every single ra Aus crash thread, so why not have a dedicated thread for that subject instead of starting the debate afresh in each crash thread? 

We have a dedicated thread for Public Liability, but this discussion is on accident investigation. It is neater to have separate subjects in dedicated threads so it’s all together, but that’s not the way people post, and history shows that when people try to manipulate the discussion the posts die down to next to nothing for months

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RFguy]

I learned spiral dives , how you get in one, and how to recognize them and  terminate them.  wings level and throttle to idle ...

Pretty basic stuff.  Not recognizing them will ensure a quick trip to the  obituary columns.

and I learned and practiced how to hold the airplane in a 60 deg banked 360 deg  turn nose correct attitude holding altitude  and hit your own wake. That was a pass....

 

Edited January 21 by RFguy

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, RFguy said:

I learned spiral dives , how you get in one, and how to recognize them and  terminate them.  wings level and throttle to idle ...

Pretty basic stuff.  Not recognizing them will ensure a quick trip to the  obituary columns.

and I learned and practiced how to hold the airplane in a 60 deg banked 360 deg  turn nose correct attitude holding altitude  and hit your own wake. That was a pass....

 

That would have been in GA where you fly aircraft with thousands of hours design time and more sophisticated build.

 

Aerobatics (flight over 60 degrees, spins and spiral dives) is not permitted in RA so the window and design targets are less critical and people with no previous experience can build an aircaft and fly it. I can remember a well-known horse racing personality going to SA to buy an "Ultralight" in the days of AUF. The owner took him up, the wings clapped and they both died; so the margins between what was smart and what got you killed have come down from those regular mishaps.

 

The current situation is that pretty much everyone flying doesn't remember those days and is not given the big picture, which is not to go near a stall, not to go near a spin, not to go near a Sprial dive and what's left is pretty safe, but just in case you lost an engine and weren't able to find a place to force land, when you hit the fence, tree or building it would be at less than 45 kts and you would most likely survive. Under those conditions we got freedom to fly cheaply.

[BlueSkies]

Firstly this accident is a real tragedy for everyone in the Boonah and extended aviation families. I’ve flown with Dave for >40 years and it’s quite hard to believe. 
 

I was in Boonah at the time and the operating runway was 04. Gliding operations were also taking place from that runway. 

Talk of base turn stalls don’t fit. 
 

 

 
 

 

 

[jackc]

18 hours ago, turboplanner said:

We've covered this ground before; the only reason RA Aircraft are flying is because it's the policy of Commonwealth and State Governments to offload public liability costs off themselves and on to the participants in sports, so CASA are unlikely to be silly enough to march in and start issuing orders. If they did they would reassume liability for those orders but with out the control they have on GA aircraft and pilots.

 

It's not a too hard basket, just bone laziness and other agendas.

 

It's the members that have to get on and do it.

So in that case members have to solve the problem about RAAus investigation incidents and crashes?   Has not CASA delegated this requirement under Part 149? For RAAus to undertake this work? 

[turboplanner]

41 minutes ago, jackc said:

So in that case members have to solve the problem about RAAus investigation incidents and crashes?   Has not CASA delegated this requirement under Part 149? For RAAus to undertake this work? 

Members of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. had a Committee of Management which could have been tasked to draw up the necessary clauses in the Constitution to add Compliance, Enforcement, Natural Justice etc. or they could have done it by presenting a draft to Members for a Member vote. When the Clauses were approved and the Powers emended RAA Inc was ready to start making decisions. The COM could then have appointed the necessary Officials. No real problem there.

 

However the people with the Agenda to concentrate the power into a few positions by converting to a Limited Company means that if the Members wanted to avoid a disaster theoretically caused by behaviour, or shortcomings in management, the Members would first have to deal with the process to get their powers back by reverting to an Incorporated body, or RAA Ltd would have to decide to go through the process of adding the extra functions and powers.

 

That's the context under which the Members can solve compliance with Part 148.

 

 

Edited January 21 by turboplanner

[turboplanner]

1 hour ago, BlueSkies said:

Firstly this accident is a real tragedy for everyone in the Boonah and extended aviation families. I’ve flown with Dave for >40 years and it’s quite hard to believe. 
 

I was in Boonah at the time and the operating runway was 04. Gliding operations were also taking place from that runway. 

Talk of base turn stalls don’t fit. 

 

If the operating runway was 04 and that's the direction they were going, then my earlier scenario of them being at the turning point of Final for 22 was wrong. We know that they hit the ground at that point which is the entrance to the Golf Club but they would have been on climb out on 04.

[jackc]

56 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Members of Recreational Aviation Australia Inc. had a Committee of Management which could have been tasked to draw up the necessary clauses in the Constitution to add Compliance, Enforcement, Natural Justice etc. or they could have done it by presenting a draft to Members for a Member vote. When the Clauses were approved and the Powers emended RAA Inc was ready to start making decisions. The COM could then have appointed the necessary Officials. No real problem there.

 

However the people with the Agenda to concentrate the power into a few positions by converting to a Limited Company means that if the Members wanted to avoid a disaster theoretically caused by behaviour, or shortcomings in management, the Members would first have to deal with the process to get their powers back by reverting to an Incorporated body, or RAA Ltd would have to decide to go through the process of adding the extra functions and powers.

 

That's the context under which I mentioned the Members. can solve compliance with Part 148.

 

 

And what if CASA put the pressure on RAAus to attend to this situation?

Can only hide under a rock for so long?