BrendAn

our club cfi would have been doing the delivery i think. he is in the photo

Makes sense. It gets really rough once you get out of shelter at rotto.

I always thought floatplanes could not handle crosswinds. That they always take off directly into the wind. Is this correct.

Home Database Investigation Statistics Contact us About Home » ASN Aviation Safety WikiBase Date: Thursday 28 January 2016 Time: 15:18 Type: Cessna 208 Caravan I Owner/operator: Hamilton Island Air Registration: VH-WTY MSN: 20800522 Year of manufacture: 2010 Total airframe hrs: 1510 hours Engine model: Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-114 Fatalities: Fatalities: 0 / Occupants: 11 Other fatalities: 0 Aircraft damage: Substantial, written off Category: Accident Location: Chance Bay, Whitsunday Island, QLD - Australia Phase: Landing Nature: Passenger Departure airport: Hamilton Island Airport, QLD (HTI/YBHM) Destination airport: Chance Bay, Whitsunday Island, QLD Investigating agency: ATSB Confidence Rating: Accident investigation report completed and information captured Narrative: The pilot of a Cessna 208 Caravan amphibian aircraft, registered VH-WTY was conducting a series of charter flights in the Whitsunday region of Queensland, Australia. The pilot was conducting his third flight of the day when the aircraft departed Hamilton Island Airport at about 14:15 local time with 10 passengers on board. The tour included a scenic flight over the Great Barrier Reef for about 50 minutes before heading to Chance Bay, on the south-east tip of Whitsunday Island, about 11 km north east of Hamilton Island Airport. Following a water landing at Chance Bay, the group was to spend 90 minutes at the beach before a short flight back to Hamilton Island. The tour was originally planned to include a landing at Whitehaven Beach, however wind conditions at the time required the water landing be altered to Chance Bay. The aircraft approach Whitsunday Island from the north and conduct an orbit about 2 km north of Whitehaven Beach at about 15:10, before heading toward Whitehaven Beach. It flew over the southern end of Whitehaven Beach and the strip of land that separates it from Chance Bay. The pilot advised that he flew over the western end of Chance Bays main beach in order to conduct a visual pre-landing check of the bay. The pilot noted the positions of various vessels moored in the bay to determine the best taxi path to the beach. During this fly-over, the pilot also noted the sea state and observed evidence of wind gusts on the water surface. The pilot then initiated a right downwind turn toward the landing area. The approach was from the south with the intent to land in the most suitable location within the designated landing area and then taxi to the beach. The pilot reported setting up for landing at about 50 ft above the water and then delayed the landing in order to fly through an observed wind gust. Passenger video footage indicated that, during the subsequent landing, WTY bounced three times on the surface of the water. After the second bounce, with WTY getting closer to the beach and terrain, the pilot increased engine power and initiated a go-around. The third bounce, which occurred almost immediately after the second, was the most pronounced and resulted in the aircraft rebounding about 30 to 50 ft above the water. While increasing power, the pilot perceived that the torque was indicating red, suggesting an over-torque for the selected propeller configuration. Noticing that the climb performance was less than expected with the flaps at 30°, the pilot stopped increasing power and reduced the flap to 20°. As the aircraft climbed straight ahead towards a saddle, climb performance was still below the pilots expectations and he assessed that WTY would not clear the terrain. In response, the pilot turned right to avoid the surrounding rising terrain. The aircraft clipped trees during this turn, before colliding with terrain and coming to rest in dense scrub about 150 m from the eastern end of the main beach, near the top of the ridge. The pilot promptly advised the passengers to exit and move away from the aircraft. Some of the 11 people on board suffered minor injuries but all were able to quickly leave the aircraft. There was no post-impact fire. Contributing factors - The aircraft's initial touches with water were past the nominated decision point and beyond the northern boundary of the ALA, which reduced the safety margins available for a successful water landing or go-around. - The pilot initiated a go-around without using all available power and the optimal speed, turned towards higher terrain and placed the aircraft in a down-wind situation, which ultimately resulted in the collision with terrain. Other findings - The aircraft was equipped with lap-sash seatbelts, which have been demonstrated to reduce injury, and the use of emergency beacons and satellite phone facilitated a timely response to the accident

pre float days

didn't realise skippys plane was so big.😊

Sending DM now. Darren is his name. Great bloke. Does parachutes,hot air balloons and aerochutes.

i know someone who can check your chute but he doesn't do the rocket .

It's only plugging off a cabin heat ducting .

part 103 gives access to aircraft like this.

https://www.bing.com/ck/a?!&&p=8dfe4ad8c3f0b7c59487e5045f636ae84e745a11bb261dcf336318c78e0ba412JmltdHM9MTczNjEyMTYwMA&ptn=3&ver=2&hsh=4&fclid=3fb660a2-cc63-62fe-19da-75a5cdb663f5&psq=merlin+lite+part+103&u=a1aHR0cHM6Ly9ieWRhbmpvaG5zb24uY29tL21lcmxpbi1saXRlLW5ldy1hbGwtbWV0YWwtZnVsbHktZW5jbG9zZWQtZGVsdXhlLXBhcnQtMTAzLXVsdHJhbGlnaHQv&ntb=1

A couple of days ago you put up a brilliant post. Now you have gone back to being deflection turbo. Tell everyone they are wrong but never explain yourself.

The people in raaus that were pushing for it have all been let go over the years. That's what I have heard anyway.

From what I have been told, casa want the faa part 103 rule here. It completely takes away any responsibility from them . Michael monk jumping up and down on the tv demanding investigations may help 103 come to fruition here.

Casa part 103 is a different thing altogether. Just uses the same number .

You can fly a hummelbird anywhere but here. Is our sky different.

The uk now have the ssdr category. Single seat deregulated. I assume that might be there version of p103.

This subject has been getting kicked about the group for a long time. There are some of us who would like to fly under the faa part 103 rules in Australia. Turbo keeps saying we already have it . I would like turbo or someone to explain this. I really hope it's true because it would open the door to affordable flying like in the auf days.

Ok. I agree this thread should get back on topic. How about we start another thread and you tell us about this part 103 equivalent you keep talking about.

Turbo gave the membership cost for the sporting shooters association.😁. Handy to know I suppose

Turbo is convinced we have it but won't elaborate

Why can't you just answer a question.

More rubbish. These posts seem to be more about your ego and trying to show your intellectual superiority to us lowly commoners. Wtf has the sporting shooters association got to do with flying. Show me the equivalent of part 103. Are you an raaus member. I doubt it.

Well that tells me nothing . There is no equivalent except in your mind.

Raaus are dead against bringing it in because they are afraid of losing members and their money. But it would only be a small group that would switch anyway.