Bunbury accident 1 March 2024

[turboplanner]

Just now, onetrack said:

And once again, the Police refer to the aircraft as, "homemade"!!   

Was it a factory build?

[onetrack]

No, the bloke built it from a kit. So, yes, I guess this makes the aircraft "homemade", to the average numpty.

 

Re the ID, the official records state it was a CH-801, so it appears it was a 

 

[Marty_d]

Might have decided 4 seats were more useful.

[onetrack]

The West Australian newspaper produced the following information;

 

"In a statement issued on Saturday, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was still “gathering further information regarding the accident.”

“As reported to the ATSB, the aircraft veered to the left after take-off before colliding with the ground,” the statement said.

“The ATSB will assess the circumstances of the accident to determine whether conducting an investigation has the potential to lead to new safety learnings.”

 

"Veered to the left after take-off" seems indicative of a gust from the prevailing strong ESE/SE wind, on the day of the crash.

 

[FergieFlyer]

To the contributors of this post I am pretty disgusted.  I can assure you that I am live and well and my Zenith 750 Cruzer (vh-8ct) still yet to be completed is safely sitting in my hangar.  To place the name of a deceased person on this website is totally unacceptable.  To get it wrong is even worse.   This post has caused my family and myself major stress.  This will be reported to the controller of this website.  Never post this type of information unless you are 100% certain of the facts, and never under any circumstances report a name.  Shame on the lot of you.

 

For the record, the aircraft that went down was a Zenith 801 and was built and flown by a friend of mine, and right now this is a difficult time.

 

 

[onetrack]

The information I posted came directly from a CASA webpage, it is publically available information. To rage about "placing the name of a deceased person" on a website smacks of some kind of superstition.

Deceased persons names are on this website every week. The pilots name is public knowledge, and all close relatives of the deceased would be notified by now. 

 

If you want to rage at anyone, rage at CASA for supplying incorrect public records. There are always discussions held about aircraft crashes, to try and determine what went wrong.

To try and shut down crash discussions simply because you're grieving for a family member or friend who is deceased as a result of any crash, is not a sustainable position.

I guess you also want to shut down CH7 and CH9 for reporting the crash, and showing video of the pilot being transported by emergency services?

Posters in the thread have expressed their sadness about the crash, and the loss of a fellow pilot. If just one inexperienced pilot learns something from the discussion, the discussion is worth it.

[FergieFlyer]

I suspect about the accident you did not get that from a casa website but from the Aviation Safety Network which is just individuals posting what this like.  That information has now been corrected.  But your reply says it all.

[BrendAn]

24 minutes ago, FergieFlyer said:

To the contributors of this post I am pretty disgusted.  I can assure you that I am live and well and my Zenith 750 Cruzer (vh-8ct) still yet to be completed is safely sitting in my hangar.  To place the name of a deceased person on this website is totally unacceptable.  To get it wrong is even worse.   This post has caused my family and myself major stress.  This will be reported to the controller of this website.  Never post this type of information unless you are 100% certain of the facts, and never under any circumstances report a name.  Shame on the lot of you.

 

For the record, the aircraft that went down was a Zenith 801 and was built and flown by a friend of mine, and right now this is a difficult time.

 

 

rediculous carry on. if you read the posts you know there was nothing but compassion for the pilot involved. the facts were as reported by casa and the news channels.

[FergieFlyer]

The news channels did not report my name, but you did.  By all means report about the accident but reporting the deceased name particularly when you get it wrong, does nothing for aviation safety.   The fact you did not even offer an apology for what you did says it all.

[RFguy]

surely those rectangular  square cornered  windows are no good for high cycle count airframe pressurization cycles? 

[saccani]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:00 PM, onetrack said:

No, the bloke built it from a kit. So, yes, I guess this makes the aircraft "homemade", to the average numpty.

 

Re the ID, the official records state it was a CH-801, so it appears it was a 

 

Home made is *exactly* what it was, the owner built it and obtained an amateur built experimental airworthiness certificate on that basis. 

[saccani]

On 5/3/2024 at 5:19 PM, onetrack said:

The West Australian newspaper produced the following information;

 

"In a statement issued on Saturday, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau said it was still “gathering further information regarding the accident.”

“As reported to the ATSB, the aircraft veered to the left after take-off before colliding with the ground,” the statement said.

“The ATSB will assess the circumstances of the accident to determine whether conducting an investigation has the potential to lead to new safety learnings.”

 

"Veered to the left after take-off" seems indicative of a gust from the prevailing strong ESE/SE wind, on the day of the crash.

 

A reliable witness on the aerodrome states that it didn’t get above 200 feet and appeared to lose power.  At that distance he could not hear the engine.  Crosswind was estimated at 8 knots from the right, but he observed the aircraft making a left turn.  Shortly after, it appeared that the aircraft stalled with a left wing drop, before he lost sight of it below the tree line.  Impact was near the boundary fence of a turf farm, which may have been an attractive landing spot.  The paddock at the end of the runway is a little rough, but the witness felt straight ahead or a right turn into wind offered best odds.  The left turn increased ground speed, whilst if the turf farm was the object, the glide may have been stretched, resulting in the calamitous outcome of departing controlled flight and landing in the same paddock with a higher ground speed.

 

Another reliable witness reported that there was no flaperon washout.  These aircraft don’t normally drop a wing on stall, even with aileron application.  Removal of washout makes a wing drop on stall more likely.

 

This aircraft type has unconventional handling and usually has no break in a power off stall, retaining control but quickly developing a 3 to 6 knot sink rate.

 

The aircraft was fitted with a modified O-360 using non-integrated electronic ignition and fuel injection.  A carburettor was retained as an alternate fuel system.  I believe attention should be directed to these modifications and also as to whether or not a five minute full power test was conducted to verify satisfactory fuel flow.  Shorter tests often fail to reveal inadequate fuel flow rates, particularly if a header tank is used.  A

[facthunter]

Flaperon equipped aircraft should be a separate endorsement I believe. They definitely fly different. I used to think they were a good idea but NOW do not. OK if you have a lot of hours and are a "rudder positive' pilot. At the low level achieved there could easily have been windshear when changing level or just moving above the terrain. Any control application causes extra drag as does turbulence. Operating slow makes it more exaggerated.  as you're more critical with margins...   Nev

[saccani]

On 5/3/2024 at 7:58 PM, FergieFlyer said:

The news channels did not report my name, but you did.  By all means report about the accident but reporting the deceased name particularly when you get it wrong, does nothing for aviation safety.   The fact you did not even offer an apology for what you did says it all.

On the contrary, reporting the name of an incident pilot (regardless of their survival) does do something for aviation safety.  It allows relevant information to be found and allows a quick assessment of the likelihood of an incident being of  a widely relevant technical nature to be assessed.  However, this can also be counter productive to self reporting etc… Knowing the name of the pilot, who had previously removed flaperon washout on another aircraft he built suggested that he might have done so again, which is directly related to the dreadful outcome of this crash - it then enables me to directly advise *you* not to do so, if you were contemplating this.  
 

Your emotional outbursts, on the other hand, really do contribute nothing to air safety and might even reduce it by stifling reasoned debate and reasonable speculation.  You have attacked all contributors indiscriminately.

 

I think everyone here is both sympathetic and empathetic to the lost pilot - who really is identified in pubic records -  because we can see ourselves in the same place.  This is very different from disrespecting the dead.

 

I am extremely sorry for what happened to him.  I am also mindful of how upsetting it might be to be falsely reported dead.  

[facthunter]

A lot of pilots think/ believe accidents only happen to "other People" To know what really happened you have to be THERE or have experienced similar occurrences. I'd err on the side of not publishing names unless the people associated with it are OK with it. which I would think is not often. Nev

Edited March 30 by facthunter

[saccani]

2 hours ago, facthunter said:

Flaperon equipped aircraft should be a separate endorsement I believe. They definitely fly different. I used to think they were a good idea but NOW do not. OK if you have a lot of hours and are a "rudder positive' pilot. At the low level achieved there could easily have been windshear when changing level or just moving above the terrain. Any control application causes extra drag as does turbulence. Operating slow makes it more exaggerated.  as you're more critical with margins...   Nev

I don’t want to dispute your view about design feature endorsement, I would say that it doesn’t necessarily feel that different to me.  But all of the STOL CH 700 and 800 series have very different handling to typical aircraft, particularly with flap down.  Part of this is from interaction of flaperon and rudder control systems, part from having no fin, part from the slats.

It wasn’t for nothing that after flight test CASA required the deletion of flap functions (reverting to ailerons) when certifying the Skyfox.

 

I suspect that adverse yaw from roll inputs is what has put you off flaperons.  That isn’t inherently there, it can be removed with careful design, notably with differential aileron, but most small aircraft designers put a higher priority on weight control.

 

In this case, obstruction windshear might have been helpful, reducing the tailwind.

 

I guess one takeaway from this might be to emphasise the importance of the pre-takeoff self brief in formulating a plan of action before it is needed, taking note of the conditions of the day and what force landing options there are.  That sets you up for success, instead of having to think about it later.

 

I’m not suggesting the pilot neglected this, I’m simply reminded of the benefits -  and that I haven’t been getting as much from them as I can.  

[facthunter]

As an instructor I  flew whatever came my way. I have to except stuff I can see is very badly made, designed or serviced.. I don't even like the frise ailerons on the Citabria. it's stupid and counterintuitive on an aerobatic plane . Self briefing  every take-off is supposed to be done but people get lazy and cut corners and the best of intentions don't always prevail. I've encountered " air conditions" I've been very fortunate to survive on a whole manner of aircraft. Mostly frontal or with sea breezes overcoming a prevailing wind in the other direction. Flown through fully developed cyclones the BEST way that caused no worry,  Orographic winds that lifted a DC4 3000 feet with power at idle  to keep the speed safe in TAssie in the middle of a COLD night. %' of ice when NIL Icing was largely writ on the weather forecast..

  Ordinary ailerons  are very differential  with the UP one being UP 3 times as much as the other is  down . lift provided by flaps or ailerons is  a little lift for a lot of drag for most of them.

 ADVERSE  YAW with Flaperons is always there when the flap is extended much at all. Then you have NO UP flap on any side. Just varying degrees of DOWN flap on both sides. I can't see how this is not evident to you.. I've yet to have an inadvertent stall or damage a plane. but I've had more than my share of mechanical failures which I got (and get) quite annoyed by because they were all caused by someone not doing THEIR job right . Flying doesn't forgive.. much  You have to get the substantial operation right.. 

[Thruster88]

19 hours ago, saccani said:

 

 

The aircraft was fitted with a modified O-360 using non-integrated electronic ignition and fuel injection.  A carburettor was retained as an alternate fuel system.  I believe attention should be directed to these modifications and also as to whether or not a five minute full power test was conducted to verify satisfactory fuel flow.  Shorter tests often fail to reveal inadequate fuel flow rates, particularly if a header tank is used.  A

I do not understand why people want to mess with the well proven systems on Lycoming engines.

[facthunter]

No shortage of people who think the Makers Know Nothing. The 0-360 is now probably the most widely used  engine of choice  in that HP range where people want to fly, not fiddle. ..   Nev

[kgwilson]

Just as there are pilots and aircraft owners, there are pilots and pilot fiddlers. If it ain't broke don't fix it. This has nothing to do with maintenance. One bloke at our airfield fixed his aircraft every week. Initially I took some interest and asked about the problem and the result was usually some vague response about a strange noise or something not feeling right. Once he reckoned the engine had a miss that only he could detect. Several others including me couldn't detect anything.

 

The odd thing was that he ended up having a forced landing (while on a BFR with an instructor) as the glass delaminated from the timber prop. Preflight checks will often detect the beginnings of delamination (it did for me) so the fiddling did not seem to be related to preventative maintenance anyway.

[facthunter]

One fellow I recall would Marvel at what I picked up on preflights. If there's nothing to see you won't see anything but you have to know what you are looking for. Better to FIND it then than FEEL the effect of it Later.  WHEN I   was Paxing out of Sydney one time, the Operating  Captain  told us we would have to disembark and  via the Aerobridge Board the Aeroplane alongside. I heard a Pax say. "Look at THAT"! He's JUST found something wrong with THIS plane and is Now looking to find something wrong with THAT plane.  As IF you sure don't want that happening. God we are Late already.  nev

[saccani]

On 02/03/2024 at 12:15 PM, 440032 said:

The BUN runway is 07, almost a direct crosswind all day 15-20 knots.

The factory crosswind capability is quoted as 'remarkable'.

Speaking just on what the aircraft can do, 'Runway 16 is on the short side, but you should see how wide it is'.  Flaps up stall is 37 knots @ 818 kg (you would likely have less than that for a first flight), flaps down is 30 knots. TOSS with flaps is 36 knots.  One wrinkle is that your ASI may very well be reading zero with a high rate of climb when you start off.  With these kinds of aircraft, you can point them into the wind described and takeoff in about half the width of 07, get to TOSS almost immediately, then crab along 07.  Demonstrated crosswind capability (not limit) in the conventional sense is 25 knots.  Landings are a little trickier, as you have to allow for a likely shear in most fields and be careful to kick the rudder to match your ground path, not the runway centreline, then adjust your path to remain on the runway.  Although in most cases, you could just full stop into wind across the runway, then taxi as required.  Of course, you crab as required to maintain extended centreline and the circuit so that other traffic can easily understand where you are going.   

 

 

Edited April 7 by saccani
Defect in interface inserted unrelated image to post.

[Methusala]

The Kitfox 1 we owned was equipped with flaperons. I quickly learned never to activate the 'flap' feature on this plane. Roll control suffered to a frightening extent and it was never necessary to modify the final approach path anyway. It virtually landed itself in normal into wind conditions.

Edited April 8 by Methusala

[facthunter]

Nice in the air but teaching landings in the Kitfox was a bit  stressful if the student wasn't up to it. The Gazelle must be the easiest plane to fly that there is. but has  a tricycleU/C Just don't overspeed the 85 Kots figure when pulling any"G" They used to have "Instructors Conferences" at Narromine where these things were brought up for discussion. Very useful I reckon.. At least One had the wings come off.. That occurrence was thoroughly researched and they could then continue to fly safely (As long as people KNOW about it.). SPIRALS are prohibited in RAAus  Probably because of these fatalities. Nev

Edited April 8 by facthunter

[saccani]

On the technical side of this crash, I reported that a reliable witness stated that there was no washout on the mishap aircraft's flaperons.  Having followed up on this, I now know that this witness was in error and this has to be corrected.  The aircraft was built with washout in the flaperons, so a removal of washout did not play a part in the reported left wing drop.