Coroner's Findings - microlight incident 2005

[hihosland]

Cloudsuck did say

 

"it matters little whether you are in a 530 kg aircraft doing 95 knots

 

etc."

 

the point is that it does matter and it matters a lot.

 

We have our RAA exemptions as a result of a perception that our aircraft will/can cause minimal damage/injury to other parties. Sure you can die in a 200kg 50 kt aircraft but you are most unlikely to take out a school with one.

 

The 600kg aircraft at 105kts is a different story all together with a potential for damage orders of magnitude over and above that of the rag and tubers.

 

I see that in order to insure against the damage caused by the 600kg recreational aircraft the regulators will take away many of the benefits that we enjoy within the RAA movement.

 

 

[Guest TOSGcentral]

Cloudsuck wrote:

 

 

“It matters little whether you are in a 530 kg aircraft doing 95 knots or a 600 kg aircraft doing 105 knots. The ground is hard and the human body can not withstand a sudden change in velocity of 50 kph. It is unsurvivable. It is just a silly argument used by rag and tubers.â€

 

 

I believe that we all need to be clear that this debate is NOT tribal war amongst ourselves. It is not silly arguments! It is very much the physics of the structure upon which the ultalight movement was founded and our freedoms granted. Since then some clever bunnies have been steadily levering away until we (or an increasing part of the movement) is no longer ultralights but is obviously GA!

 

 

It is also about what Coroners are actually saying and these people have the power to mandate situations that will have far reaching consequences – whether we agree or not!

 

 

Eastmeg wrote:

 

 

“…….Of course not, the driver is the one who is held liable.â€

 

 

Quite right! But what else happens? Get a few clowns in a short space of time and it is an ‘emergency situation’! The offenders are dealt with and so is everyone else by ordered police blitzs via radar, RBT, vehicle inspections and all the rest of what just goes to making a normal person’s day a bit more miserable!

 

 

Now will some of you people wake up to reality. We are not talking about ‘what should be happening’ but ‘what is happening’.

 

 

Let us play a game of ‘Let’s Suppose’. Let us suppose that some Pollie (or senior Department Official) decides to try this out and make a name for themselves! Let us suppose they conduct a whirlwind tour around Brisbane area on airframe inspections. Do you understand what that means?

 

 

In three days they could hit – Caboolture, Redcliffe, Caloundra, Kilcoy, Watts Bridge, two outfits around Coominya, Gatton, Boonah, Kooralbyn, and also Gympie which could be worth a visit! Probably about 200 ultralights. Nothing special – just superficial airframe inspections and check the log books – but how many do you think would come out with a clean sheet and how many would come out as disasters?

 

 

I do not care how well cared for an aircraft is – you can always find something wrong with it or its paperwork ‘on the day’. Does not matter if it is minor (because there would be a lot major believe me) you are either right or you are wrong when an inquiry is mounted.

 

 

That may well apply to GA as well but GA is not being examined – WE are!

 

 

Sound fanciful? Ever seen it? I have or at least a transistorized version!

 

 

At Watts we had a Regional Sports Inspector and two CASA Airworthiness Heavyweights do a totally illegal and snap inspection on one hangar. Fortunately they picked on a Thruster and terrorized the low time owner. He dragged me into it for assistance.

 

 

That was not too difficult and I was able to point out that all three were wrong, the aircraft had just finished a factory original rebuild and was totally kosher with its paperwork immaculate – BUT – they had without authorisation or permission entered into private property and put their hands on a private machine – something I would be delighted to explore with their superiors while demonstrating their lack of competence on type. They backed off at the speed of sound!

 

 

But how often do you have backup like that around on call and what would a major cover inspection uncover?

 

 

I am not saying that would happen. What I am saying is do not dine out on ‘what should be’ but take a very hard look at ‘what is and could be proven’.

 

 

Make no mistake this scenario is now getting very serious indeed and we could well lose the lot. What is for sure is that RAAus has no convincing answers that they can come up with in the short term. There may be some to stop an overall mandate but it would be cute in the doing.

 

 

[Guest brentc]

For the interest of readers HGFA mandate biennial inspections, however these are performed by another HGFA member / pilot, not a mechanic. It's a 'peer' type review system. They also have other rules, for example the CFI can deputise a pilot with 100 hours for the purpose of conducting TIF's.

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I have a question on this, that perhaps a L2 or otherwise technical person can answer.One of the findings in the report suggested a Bettsometer be included with every aircraft sold.

Now, being a spring-based item, whats to stop them losing calibration over time, thereby affecting their accuracy? Do they require recalibration during their lifespan?

The internal spring is at its natural length for 99.9999% of the time and I can't imagine even the most ham fisted owner being likely to over stretch it when the bettsometer is used - even a brand new sail would tear first. Theres no mention in the instructions (at least of the model I have) of any need for recalibration

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

For the interest of readers HGFA mandate biennial inspections, however these are performed by another HGFA member / pilot, not a mechanic. It's a 'peer' type review system. They also have other rules, for example the CFI can deputise a pilot with 100 hours for the purpose of conducting TIF's.

Apologies for correcting you again Brent ;-)

 

AFAIK the HGFA mandated inspections are quinquennial (every 5 years) and the owner can do them but they have to sign accepting full responsibility on the rego certificate.

 

Also Flight Experience Instructors (who are limited to conducting TIF's) have to complete an HGFA approved course and then apply through the organisation. There is nothing in the ops manual which allows CFI to simply deputise a pilot to do a TIF whatever their experience.

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest brentc]

To correct you in return John, it's been bi-ennial for some time now I am led to believe and I've been of this belief for atleast 3 years.

 

I note that even the Coroner doesn't know the exact date so I wonder where this is documented if at all.

 

"It appears the HGFA required five yearly inspections of aircraft and this

 

 

 

changed to a biennial inspection but I am unable to determine that this is in

 

 

 

fact the history of the inspection regime and if so when the biennial

 

 

 

inspections were introduced."

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As for the - HGFA Approved course. It's a joke and allows a minimum of 100 hour pilot to conduct TIF's. I saw it all happen in an operation at a 'flying school' if you can call this particular one that. It was soon shutdown when things went wrong and the deputised instructors did some stupid things. I use the term deputised very loosely in that they are not instructors in the true sense like in RA-Aus.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I see that you are noted as operating an XT. Perhaps your experience with FTF's of the HGFA have been different to mine so I'll leave it at that.

 

 

[eastmeg2]

John,

 

HGFA mandated inspections are when the aircraft reaches 5 years of age, then every 2 years after that and the owner (L1) can do them and must sign the inspection papers.

 

Not sure about now, but back in 2001 as a student pilot was told 200 hours as PIC was required before one could apply for a TIF rating.

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

 

 

[Spriteah]

Ok so as guessed this has caused lots of constructive chats.

 

One thing that I believe needs to be gained from the conversation is that if you observe an L2 do something that is not suitable. And what I mean is if you believe they are not competent at the tasks they are performing as a member of the RAA you have an obligation to report the actions to RAA.

 

We are a self governing body. That means we look after each other. Pass it on and let the RAA look into it.....

 

Cloud if I saw someone straightening a leg with a hammer I would have sent an email that evening and expressed my concern directly to RAA OPs and Tech Manager. I would also have spoken with the owner of the plane and suggest that it is not structurally safe.

 

We will remain unregulated (compared to GA) only if we run a safe ship so to speak.

 

Jim........

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

I see that you are noted as operating an XT. Perhaps your experience with FTF's of the HGFA have been different to mine so I'll leave it at that.

My XT is RAAus registered & I have no experience of FTF's with HGFA. The requirements I quoted came from their ops manual which can be accessed at HGFA - Hang Gliding Federation of Australia. If they aren't being followed then its the individuals concerned who deserve condemnation.

 

"7.8.1a.1 Requirements for Issue

 

An applicant for the issue of a Weightshift Microlighting Flight Experience Instructor Certificate shall:

 

(a) hold a valid HGFA Weightshift Microlight Pilot Certificate;

 

(b) hold a valid Weightshift Microlighting Passenger Carrying Endorsement;

 

© have undergone a Flight Experience InstructorTraining Course which is recognised by HGFA; and

 

(d) forward a completed application form and the appropriate fee to HGFA.

 

7.8.1a.2 Aeronautical Experience

 

Prior to commencing an HGFA Flight Experience Instructor training course and undergoing assessment for the issue of a Flight Instructor Certificate, an applicant shall:

 

(a) have completed a minimum of 200 hours flying experience as pilot in command in weightshift microlights over a period of at least twelve months from WM Pilot Certificate issue; or

 

(b) have completed a minimum of 100 hours flying experience with a minimum of 500 flights as pilot in command in weightshift microlights over a period of at least twelve months from WM Pilot Certificate issue "

 

 

[Guest Crezzi]

John,HGFA mandated inspections are when the aircraft reaches 5 years of age, then every 2 years after that and the owner (L1) can do them and must sign the inspection papers.

 

Not sure about now, but back in 2001 as a student pilot was told 200 hours as PIC was required before one could apply for a TIF rating.

 

Cheers,

 

Glen

Interestingly the ops manual simply states

 

"9.7 Periodic Inspections

 

After each five years of service, all HGFA registered weightshift microlights must undergo an airworthiness inspection conducted in accordance with HGFA inspection

 

guidelines."

 

I guess this explains the coroners confusion which Brent highlighted (& mine !)

 

Cheers

 

John

 

 

[Guest Rocko]

We are a self governing body. That means we look after each other. Pass it on and let the RAA look into it.....

Cloud if I saw someone straightening a leg with a hammer I would have sent an email that evening and expressed my concern directly to RAA OPs and Tech Manager. I would also have spoken with the owner of the plane and suggest that it is not structurally safe.

 

We will remain unregulated (compared to GA) only if we run a safe ship so to speak.

 

Jim........

Had a sitation a few years ago, which I won't go into in depth, where I encountered what I considered a very serious situation related to a fibreglass fuel tank dissolving in non-ethanol fuel, blocking the fuel lines and filters, as well as clogging the carby jets. The factory refused to admit any fault, even when accosted with a formal report from BP Technical, and following complaints from another aircraft owner I had communications with of experiencing an identical problem. The factory said "dirty fuel". Garbage. The report was quite comprehensive on what the contaminant was...dissolved resin gel.

 

Since I felt the situation wasn't being handled seriously, I forwarded a full report to the RAA technical office. I never heard a word about it since, and I doubt anything was ever done concerning it.

 

I think the RAA are a great organisation, with a great bunch of competent and willing staff. However, they're obviously underfunded, and stretched to the limits at times, so their resources obviously aren't always there when problems exist.

 

Would I bother again? I'd have a good word to the aircraft owner, and the strip owner if it was hangared there, but probably not, no.