turboplanner Posted January 21 Posted January 21 6 minutes ago, jackc said: And what if CASA put the pressure on RAAus to attend to this situation? Can only hide under a rock for so long? Well I've read the 2010 documents; many people haven't; but they are key documents making things clear. When you're managing an operation where others have a duty of care, then it's not that smart to come in issuing orders because then if something happens, it was under your instruction. I've handled that situation in the past by conducting Audits and reporting the results to the independent self administering Association which then made the decision to remove the risk.
jackc Posted January 21 Posted January 21 51 minutes ago, turboplanner said: Well I've read the 2010 documents; many people haven't; but they are key documents making things clear. When you're managing an operation where others have a duty of care, then it's not that smart to come in issuing orders because then if something happens, it was under your instruction. I've handled that situation in the past by conducting Audits and reporting the results to the independent self administering Association which then made the decision to remove the risk. In which case RAAus does nothing and the members never get to see results of any investigations etc. Best we could ever see is a statement on incidents/crashes etc from RAAus and nothing more. A summary of opinions and safety suggestions will be it, nothing more.
turboplanner Posted January 21 Posted January 21 30 minutes ago, jackc said: In which case RAAus does nothing and the members never get to see results of any investigations etc. Best we could ever see is a statement on incidents/crashes etc from RAAus and nothing more. A summary of opinions and safety suggestions will be it, nothing more. They won't be doing nothing if someone cruises into the wrong circuit witout bothering with a radio call and hits a Dash 8.
facthunter Posted January 21 Posted January 21 In THAT event IT would be investigated because of it's significance. It's COST that limits investigation of all incidents. RAAus doesn't and never could afford the resources to do it. Nev 1
jackc Posted January 21 Posted January 21 53 minutes ago, facthunter said: In THAT event IT would be investigated because of it's significance. It's COST that limits investigation of all incidents. RAAus doesn't and never could afford the resources to do it. Nev Well, I guess we wait and see if it is?
facthunter Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Who has hit a dash 8? . It will be evaluated in the way ATSB does it. They are INDEPENDANT. IF it's not done, the police will with, RAAus help if needed.. Nev
landrover Posted January 22 Posted January 22 Please guys respect the topic this was about fatal plane crash at Boonah The forum should of been about condolences and leaning. start a another topic if you are lonely and want to talk about shit 1 3 1
dlegg Posted January 22 Posted January 22 In Loving Memory of Dave Briffa Please join us as we say goodbye and celebrate the wonderful life and memories of our beloved Dave Briffa. Service details: 10 AM Thursday 1 February Location: Catalyst Church 142 Pine Mountain Rd Brassall Immediate family: Caleb and Jane Nathaniel, Mel, and Ivy Daniel, Jo, and Grace Wake details: Dave was well known and loved by many aviation enthusiasts, and we expect a lot of his friends will want to say farewell at the place he loved to be, Boonah Airfield. Date: 3 February (weather permitting) there will be confirmation of this date closer to the day or if we need to move the date due to weather, we will let you know and provide an alternate date. Please Note: Even if the 3 February is a sunny day, if we have had rainy weather leading up to the day, the runway may be unserviceable, and the event will need to be postponed. Location: Via Ultimate Aero 269 Boonah Rathdowney Road, Dugandan QLD 4310 Fly in or drive in: • From midday onward. • Fly past salute for our missing man 3:00pm Catering: Please bring a plate to share and a chair will help, BYO drinks and glassware. (a picnic set might be a good idea) Wake function will include: • Flying activity and static display • Photos on big screen – Please send in your favorite photo of Dave so we can include it in the photos. • Opportunity to tell stories about our personal memories with Dave, including from Di and the family. • Dave wished for a casting ceremony, which we will perform on the day. There will also be A Fly past salute for our missing man. 3 2
turboplanner Posted January 22 Posted January 22 1 hour ago, landrover said: Please guys respect the topic this was about fatal plane crash at Boonah The forum should of been about condolences and leaning. start a another topic if you are lonely and want to talk about shit If you want to grieve, a better way would be to go to the funerals, talk to other pilots etc; we can't save them, but we can save others and have done so in the past. In some cases there have been strings of deaths, only stopped after, for example someone finding that a particular modification to a particular model of aircraft was allowing Carbon Monoxide into the cabin. In this case virtually nothing is known publicly, yet two experienced pilots were on board and you would think one could take over from the other. If you go back through the threads on fatal accidents you'll find that people start to talk about similar accidents where the actual cause WAS found and future lives were saved. We've had the mother of a deceased joing in with quite a few posts after one accident and it helped her to understand what had happened structurally to the aircraft. Those discussions allow newer pilots to learn about potential hazards faster and perhaps save their lives in the future, but amongst that people do stray off at times and the thread usually winds down until there's more news. We have a set of rules for these threads. 1 1 1
Jim McDowall Posted January 23 Posted January 23 On the subject of why a Part 149 organisation or its agents/ officers should not get involved in accident investigation the submission of Commodore A.R. (Drew) McKinnie, RANR to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/115_a_mckinnie_29_jan_2014_redacted.pdf , particularly pages 5 and 6, instructive 1 1
turboplanner Posted January 23 Posted January 23 8 hours ago, Jim McDowall said: On the subject of why a Part 149 organisation or its agents/ officers should not get involved in accident investigation the submission of Commodore A.R. (Drew) McKinnie, RANR to the Aviation Safety Regulation Review Panel https://www.infrastructure.gov.au/sites/default/files/migrated/aviation/asrr/submissions/files/115_a_mckinnie_29_jan_2014_redacted.pdf , particularly pages 5 and 6, instructive Very good find. He has an excellent grasp of the big picture, and while he is confirming the same limitations as we see; The Police assisting the Coroner, RAA assisting Police and The Coroner making the Report (which often doesn't extend to hat caused the crash) he is looking for a way to do that. On Page 5, Para 2 he makes an assertion of "performing in lieu" with "as if I were an ATSB Officer or delegate" Page 5, Para 3 Subsections (5) and (4) the "Special Investigators" are still within the Commonwealth Government, so no benefit to us. Page 5, Para 5 This is exactly the same situation when RAA officers also assist Police and Coroner. That's not surprising since we are also an SAAO. Page 5, Para 6 This is the same as we've said on this site, however he sees the obligation a lot more complex that RAA does. Page 6, Para 1 He's steering clear of direct investigation reports to an outside party due to lack of protection.
F10 Posted January 23 Posted January 23 All fatal accidents are tragic, but this one I find particularly disturbing in that what could possibly have caught out two experienced pilots? Is there any reported structural/control failure? It does look like a stall/autorotation-spin scenario, judging by the wreck pattern. All the parts are there it seems, so nothing failed or broke off the airframe in flight. I flew a P92 on my last flight review. Nice aircraft, easy to fly and the wing likes to fly! Speed control on a flapless approach tricky and if you come in a bit hot, she will float forever. Some of my thoughts: Was it a sideslip? Cessnas flight manuals warn about side slip with full flap. The flap increases downwash on the tailplane. You counter this by pushing forward and the aircraft tends to pitch nose down with full flap. If you sideslip by booting in a lot of rudder, the yaw can cause the downwash to be displaced, to now miss the tailplane. The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. Not good if on short final. When you stall the tailplane is not stalled. As the aircraft falls away, in a stall, the tailplane will pitch the nose down, aiding recovery. This will also happen in an autorotation. In an autorotation, if you just let go, the aircraft will recover. Two important provisors here: 1: Keep ailerons neutral and 2: you MUST get the power off. Power on pitch up is not what you want here. But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go. Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. If you have a rearward CofG, uneven fuel loads in tip tanks, this can radically change aircraft recovery characteristics. Hence the two recent USA light twin asymmetric VMC stall spin incidents, both aircraft having a third person in the back (rearward CofG) and pushing the VMC speed exercise into the stall speed region. Juan Brown gives good advice here. Instructors should restrict student rudder input, to ensure VMC is reached above the stall speed! So if this was a stall spin, this aircraft to me, should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? The PC9M would get out of most knots, by just unloading and thereby un-stalling the wings. It has no option but to fly again. So it is baffling to figure out what may have caught these two experienced guys out? Trim runaway, yes, but at low speed, on approach, most trim systems should be designed to be overpowered by the pilot? With trim runaways, priority is to slow down, to reduce the trim force. Nose up runaway, go into a steep turn, to help sort it. Nose down, more challenging, slowing down is key. But yes, trim runaways are a hazard. It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! Very sad, two people lost and a nice aircraft. Frustrating-tragic..... 1
turboplanner Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) 26 minutes ago, F10 said: All fatal accidents are tragic, but this one I find particularly disturbing in that what could possibly have caught out two experienced pilots? Is there any reported structural/control failure? It does look like a stall/autorotation-spin scenario, judging by the wreck pattern. All the parts are there it seems, so nothing failed or broke off the airframe in flight. I flew a P92 on my last flight review. Nice aircraft, easy to fly and the wing likes to fly! Speed control on a flapless approach tricky and if you come in a bit hot, she will float forever. Some of my thoughts: Was it a sideslip? Cessnas flight manuals warn about side slip with full flap. The flap increases downwash on the tailplane. You counter this by pushing forward and the aircraft tends to pitch nose down with full flap. If you sideslip by booting in a lot of rudder, the yaw can cause the downwash to be displaced, to now miss the tailplane. The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. Not good if on short final. When you stall the tailplane is not stalled. As the aircraft falls away, in a stall, the tailplane will pitch the nose down, aiding recovery. This will also happen in an autorotation. In an autorotation, if you just let go, the aircraft will recover. Two important provisors here: 1: Keep ailerons neutral and 2: you MUST get the power off. Power on pitch up is not what you want here. But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go. Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. If you have a rearward CofG, uneven fuel loads in tip tanks, this can radically change aircraft recovery characteristics. Hence the two recent USA light twin asymmetric VMC stall spin incidents, both aircraft having a third person in the back (rearward CofG) and pushing the VMC speed exercise into the stall speed region. Juan Brown gives good advice here. Instructors should restrict student rudder input, to ensure VMC is reached above the stall speed! So if this was a stall spin, this aircraft to me, should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? The PC9M would get out of most knots, by just unloading and thereby un-stalling the wings. It has no option but to fly again. So it is baffling to figure out what may have caught these two experienced guys out? Trim runaway, yes, but at low speed, on approach, most trim systems should be designed to be overpowered by the pilot? With trim runaways, priority is to slow down, to reduce the trim force. Nose up runaway, go into a steep turn, to help sort it. Nose down, more challenging, slowing down is key. But yes, trim runaways are a hazard. It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! Very sad, two people lost and a nice aircraft. Frustrating-tragic..... The latest information is that they took off on 04. The crash site was the Golf Club gate which is 1500 metres off the end of the 04 runway pretty much in a straight line. What are your thoughts with those dynamics? Edited January 24 by turboplanner
djpacro Posted January 24 Posted January 24 Quote .... The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. .... There are differences between the variants of the 172. Does any variant state "difficult to control"? Quote .... As the aircraft falls away, in a stall, the tailplane will pitch the nose down, aiding recovery. This will also happen in an autorotation. In an autorotation, if you just let go, the aircraft will recover. ..... But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go. At the start of the autorotation. Autorotation results in a nose up pitching moment - the greater the moments of inertia (as you stated) the greater the nose up pitcnhing moment. Quote ... Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. ..... ..... should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? ...... Yes, pilots are familiar with the need to hold pro-spin controls for their practice spins. Easy to recover like that in the early part of an incipient spin. Doesn't always happen like the usual practice spin. I can get the usually docile Decathlon to snap into a spin with little warning and be in an established, flattening spin extremely quickly - no chance of recovery by closing the throttle and centralising the controls. Quote ... It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! ..... I would be very surprised to see the USA organisation take much of an interest. 1
F10 Posted January 24 Posted January 24 Well if it was on take off, they could still have stalled autorotated? occurring power on would aggravate the situation. Power on also masks stall symptoms (no more light buffet). My mistake, ATSB. Disagree with nose up pitch in Autorotation. Pitch up caused by full back stick being held. Relax back pressure in an autorotation or spin. nose will tend to pitch down. Yes, in a fully developed spin, moments of inertia in roll pitch and yaw, may have built up to an extent, so that the aircraft will not recover if "letting go" and can be difficult if not unable to recover, even with correct recovery action. An aircraft that won't recover should not be certified in my opinion. I should have mentioned there are moment of inertia differences in an incipient and fully developed spin. Autorotation always proceeds a fully developed spin. Most aircraft considered in a fully developed (stable rates of yaw, roll and pitch) spin after 3-4 turns. Don't know the Decathlon, but I find it interesting the spin flattens. Should only occur with power on. I have spun plenty in Harvards and the PC9M. Even a Harvard will recover almost instantly from an autorotation, if power off and centralize controls. Making sure if anything, stick is at or slightly fwd of neutral. Any back stick will hold it in the stall/inhibit recovery. No, didn't mean to suggest flight manual says "difficult to control", was referring to what a pilot said after experiencing this. 1 1
derekliston Posted January 24 Posted January 24 I really think we shouldn’t speculate but I will. Experienced pilots or not, it is beginning to sound like the engine failure, impossible turn scenario. I have known of several pilots of great experience who have died doing what they told others not to attempt! Tragic whatever the circumstance and whatever the error, aviation doesn’t forgive easily!
dlegg Posted January 24 Posted January 24 You're right. You shouldn't speculate. They hadn't just taken off. 1
derekliston Posted January 24 Posted January 24 54 minutes ago, dlegg said: You're right. You shouldn't speculate. They hadn't just taken off. That is not what it says further up! Just taken off on 04 and the crash site was 1500 metres straight ahead?? 2
dlegg Posted January 24 Posted January 24 It was noted that 04 was active runway, what makes you think they had just taken off?
derekliston Posted January 24 Posted January 24 8 minutes ago, dlegg said: It was noted that 04 was active runway, what makes you think they had just taken off? Because that is what it said??? Or at least that is how I read it! If ATSB and RAAus don’t investigate, how will we ever know the cause?
turboplanner Posted January 24 Posted January 24 4 minutes ago, Jabiru7252 said: what what what what? If 04 is the active runway you take off on 04.
BrendAn Posted January 24 Posted January 24 9 hours ago, F10 said: All fatal accidents are tragic, but this one I find particularly disturbing in that what could possibly have caught out two experienced pilots? Is there any reported structural/control failure? It does look like a stall/autorotation-spin scenario, judging by the wreck pattern. All the parts are there it seems, so nothing failed or broke off the airframe in flight. I flew a P92 on my last flight review. Nice aircraft, easy to fly and the wing likes to fly! Speed control on a flapless approach tricky and if you come in a bit hot, she will float forever. Some of my thoughts: Was it a sideslip? Cessnas flight manuals warn about side slip with full flap. The flap increases downwash on the tailplane. You counter this by pushing forward and the aircraft tends to pitch nose down with full flap. If you sideslip by booting in a lot of rudder, the yaw can cause the downwash to be displaced, to now miss the tailplane. The flight manual warns this can cause a sudden excessive nose down pitch, difficult to control. Not good if on short final. When you stall the tailplane is not stalled. As the aircraft falls away, in a stall, the tailplane will pitch the nose down, aiding recovery. This will also happen in an autorotation. In an autorotation, if you just let go, the aircraft will recover. Two important provisors here: 1: Keep ailerons neutral and 2: you MUST get the power off. Power on pitch up is not what you want here. But most GA aircraft will recover if you just let go. Most stable aircraft have to be forced to spin, by holding full pro spin control deflections. If you have a rearward CofG, uneven fuel loads in tip tanks, this can radically change aircraft recovery characteristics. Hence the two recent USA light twin asymmetric VMC stall spin incidents, both aircraft having a third person in the back (rearward CofG) and pushing the VMC speed exercise into the stall speed region. Juan Brown gives good advice here. Instructors should restrict student rudder input, to ensure VMC is reached above the stall speed! So if this was a stall spin, this aircraft to me, should have recovered very quickly by just unloading and a shot of opposite rudder? The PC9M would get out of most knots, by just unloading and thereby un-stalling the wings. It has no option but to fly again. So it is baffling to figure out what may have caught these two experienced guys out? Trim runaway, yes, but at low speed, on approach, most trim systems should be designed to be overpowered by the pilot? With trim runaways, priority is to slow down, to reduce the trim force. Nose up runaway, go into a steep turn, to help sort it. Nose down, more challenging, slowing down is key. But yes, trim runaways are a hazard. It is a pity the NTSB will not investigate! Very sad, two people lost and a nice aircraft. Frustrating-tragic..... the p92 on a full flap approach slows up awfully quick if not watching it and the stall is a sudden wing drop. i am only a learner but most of its been in p92s.
Blueadventures Posted January 24 Posted January 24 (edited) On Bush Flyers Downunder (Facelokk) (Book) they are saying performed touch and go just before incident and also have some flight aware data images posted and seems maybe an engine failure type contributing factor. Not conformed of course and posted to be somewhat helpful. Edited January 24 by Blueadventures 1 2
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now