Garfly

In the video, Juan Browne talks about the typical pilot error of ruddering the nose around, hoping to increase turn rate in tight situations. But I don't think he's saying, for sure, that that's what happened here, though he seems to come close.

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20221027-0 https://fireaviation.com/2022/10/27/air-tanker-crash-in-italy-kills-two/

Looks like our Thruster88 might have been barking up the right tree!

Today's update:

Yeah, and as they say in this BEA (ATSB French style) video the slower a chopper is moving the more dangerous its wake. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHqN7PQraMs&t=4s

Here's Jason Miller on the same incident:

Here is the re-posting of the original video by Blancolirio:

FAA Emergency AD: https://drs.faa.gov/browse/excelExternalWindow/DRSDOCID139391948320221005002535.0001 EXCERPT [click for full rez] : FAA Under Scrutiny for Timing of DHC-3 AD Transport Canada issued a similar airworthiness directive more than four years ago. https://www.flyingmag.com/faa-under-scrutiny-for-timing-of-dhc-3-ad/

Sorry, it must have been taken down for some reason. It was a regular Blancolirio video. It will probably re-emerge. Here is Kathryn's Report of the same incident: http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2022/09/de-havilland-canada-dhc-3t-turbine.html And here is one pertinent comment from the Blancolirio video: Mark P 2 hours ago Good video! As a young design engineer working at a major aircraft manufacturer, I had a friend ( older and more experience than me) who was in charge of the flutter model wind tunnel testing of the YC-15. One day he stopped by my desk and suggested I follow him to go watch a video of one of their tests. As I watched the video, they incrementally increased the wind speed while sending the horizontal stabilizer a "pulse" (literally pull a string that was attached to it) simulating a gust or other similar disturbance. Finally at one critical speed, the tail failed almost instantly. I couldn't actually see the flutter because it happened so quickly. When he re-ran the video in slow motion, we saw the pulse deflect the stab upward, and then it cycled down and up for about 2 or 3 diverging cycles, and then failed completely. Absolutely NO chance for pilot intervention. The results of this test had already resulted in design changes to stiffen the tail, so the first vehicle rolled out with the stronger tail already in place. That moment was one that will remain in memory and it gave me great respect for flutter for the remainder of my 43 year design career.

If you still have no luck, the OzRwys Support team is very helpful and quick to respond. [email protected]

PenName, you're jousting with a straw-man who's not there. Mark is saying no such thing. Anyway, on the subject of experts disagreeing on circuit etiquette and "airmanship" take a look at this recent hard-talk between two prominent YT instructors in the US - Dan Gryder and Jason Miller. The relevant bit is from 07:00 to 36:00.

This is from a 2016 issue of Plane and Pilot: Top 10 Rules Of Thumb Piloting an aircraft requires decision and precision. Quick references to the basics can make both easier. https://www.planeandpilotmag.com/article/top-10-rules-of-thumb/#:~:text=If you haven't heard,an abort is in order.

Yeah, you'd be wise to abandon any testing above, say, 10K DA.

Yeah, I don't think it'd apply particularly well in this case. The uneven slope and variable surface of the 'runway', alone, would make it unreliable. But still, just having any such performance/acceleration check in mind - on any unusual take-off - ought to give pause enough, you'd think. If I was ever so adventurous as that chap, I'd try a solo take-off first and then assess if any more load was feasible and safe. Maybe helped by another rule-of-thumb: For a given situation, for every 10% increase in T.O weight you need 20% more T.O distance. I'm not sure how reliable that one is, either, but one could confirm it, for one's own a/c, experimentally by taking note of two max performance take-off runs (in identical conditions) one with, and one without a load - an instructor, say. The numbers could be extrapolated to roughly prove (or not) the rule, no?

Juan Browne on the 50/70 rule:

Few, if any, doubt it.

Oh, aye ... "All the world is queer save thee and me, and even thou art a little queer."

https://au.news.yahoo.com/pilot-crashes-into-ocean-while-trying-warn-surfer-of-giant-shark-221716311.html

What had he done wrong, exactly?

A very straightforward scenario and a very smart PIC. Warning not waving. Too late.

But also potentially, possibly, about bending a rule to save a life.

Sure it is. Which is why Pprune had a long, impassioned thread on the subject a while back, running the gamut from the 'very straightforward' brigade to posters of the 'very complicated' persuasion. Never the 'twain shall meet. ;- ) https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/501671-mercy-flights.html

Hmmm ... visions of would-be rescuees bleeding-out as our scrupulously law abiding aviator attempts to get through on the blower to announce his 'declaration'. But I seem to remember reading that even the old Mercy Flight declaration no longer pertains; that it's now covered under the broader category of a May Day call. Not sure. Something to clarify. In either case, lives could well be hanging in the balance due dodgy radio comms. And given the Air Law joys of strict liability the judge may have to discount any kind of common sense defence. Heck, you might even get done, at the same time, for failing to render assistance. Catch 91.

Mercy flight? (Are they a thing any more?)