68volksy

Hi Andy, It's just on an hour from the airport to the North side of Canberra and it's all dual carriageway. Fuel is from a bowser run by Aero Refuellers who I think do Coffs Harbour as well. The bowser uses only an aero refuellers swipe card 24 hours a day. If you don't have a swipe card you need to ring the guy who's trying to buy the airport - there used to be a $50 call-out fee but not sure if that still exists. The tiedown points were only put in a little while ago and the place hasn't been mown for quite a few months so they're pretty hard to find. There is one space i know of that is mown however it blocks the front of our hanger so it would be nice if it wasn't used. If it's your only option let me know and you should simply be able to push the plane back into the hanger for a couple of nights as there is currently a vacant space. Use caution if you want to use the grass strip also as the grass is getting very long. I believe it's now being referred to as "the hay paddock" rather than "runway 08/26...

Ignition's brought up a good option there - if you can do the CTA thing. Canberra's quite friendly and convenient. and any extra cost would be more than covered by fuel savings. They also provide convenient toilets and a nice little demountable building open at all times for GA pilots and passengers.

Dick drops into the Goulburn Aviation BBQ's every now and then. Hard life when you've got a Caravan for weekend "fun" flying! He's never extended an invitation that any of us really feel comfortable following up. The school owner Teraya has flown planes out there once or twice but that was purely on business matters... If there's a more bold soul out there they might like to test the waters?

Hi Andy, If you're after hanger space or anything for a couple of days let me know and I can chase up Tony Lammara who has hanger space out there also if you'd like. If you need a lift to or from Canberra I generally go from Goulburn to Canberra most Thursdays and would be happy to provide a lift. There's quite a few who come up from Canberra on Saturdays/Sundays also who'd be happy to provide a lift and also a guy with a new J230 out there who's up from Canberra a couple of days a week.

Not sure that applies here... If it were to apply could you argue that implied in any contract would be an adherence to legal requirements (whatever they might be)? In the absence of any contract terms in this case, if a contract were in place, the general legal/regulatory framework would require the ALA requirements to be met as part of that contract in my view.

I think the invitation is simply an invitation and does not imply actual permission. Even a specific invitation. Like an invitation to attend a dinner party doesn't automatically allow entry to the hosts house. In this case there appear to be some generally accepted (legal?) requirements to gaining entry to the site (the ALA requirements). The host in this instance was no doubt aware of this and I think they'd be safe in assuming the guest (pilot) was aware of this also. I don't think an invitation to attend removes the obligation to enter the site in the correct manner. Be interesting to hear if any of the pilots arriving that day contacted the ALA operator prior to arrival and if they did what they were told.

I'm all for corrections - there'd be little fun in life if there wasn't anything left to learn!

Thanks David - I had a feeling it was a grey area we're wandering into with the ALA question. Would I be correct in concluding that it seems to come down to the fact that, whilst it is listed as an approved "Landing Area", it carries very similar requirements to operating at a private airstrip? If so it moves the goal-posts quite a distance - if this incident had occurred at a private strip there would be no discussion of the ferris wheel placement...

I don't agree that a specific invitation constitutes permission. If i were to receive an invitation to a dinner at another nations embassy it does not give me approval to simply march on in.

From all the above this seems to boil down to the specific legal requirements for the use of an ALA. There are a lot of ifs and buts however I think this might be the real focal point. I see no way that a general public invitation to attend the airfield on the day could possibly waive any requirement to gain airfield operator approval. An invitation to use does not waive a responsibility to make use in the correct manner. Once the legal requirements for the ALA are established in black and white then i'd imagine you can move to the next step. If the black and white says "Pilots must obtain approval" then it's a question of whether this was done or not. There would be legal precedent no doubt regarding whether an invitation to attend fulfills the responsibility to gain approval - common sense says that it does not in my view. If i were to receive an invitation to go for a free joy flight one day it would not mean I can just jump in the plane at any time and go - I think I would still need the permission of the pilot/owner to board their aircraft.

Reflecting back on the discussion of ALA's and the requirements for their use it would seem that the ferris wheel being inside the splay of the "normal" strip doesn't really seem to have any bearing does it (I know I mentioned it but i'm working through the process)? If it was there then the ALA operator should have displaced the threshold or shut down the strip. Any pilot using the strip is then to seek permission from the ALA operator. It doesn't appear this permission was given? So i'm thinking Council might be clear and be looking more at the ALA operator and their communications. Council would probably have had a responsibility to communicate with the ALA operator but I suppose we'll have to wait until the investigation is complete to see if this was done. Might not be a positive thing for the small group of guys keeping that strip going.

Looks like there might be some culpability falling each and every direction with this one. The difference an ATSB investigation makes hey? Left to the media and/or RA-Aus it would have been put down to "The dangers of low flying" or some such simple thing and we'd all have forgotten about it... The Council will be punished for the ferris wheel placement, the manufacturer could get punished for the aircraft, the flying school could get punished for the standard of training, the pilot could get punished for poor decision making. What are the odds that RA-Aus is in line for any form of punishment for their part in the aircraft manufactire, pilot training and pilot standards? More to the point what could this punishment entail? If Council's going to get a roughing up due to their placement of the ferris wheel then RA-Aus should get a roughing up for their placement of the aircraft/pilot in the situation shouldn't it? Can they even be held responsible in this situation?

Pretty sure the ATSB won't be quoting anything said on this forum. If anything's raised they may not have thought of it might get some thought but i'm pretty sure everything on here's pretty standard stuff so far. The report quotes the ferris wheel as 60 feet high - i'd like to know if it was on ground level with the strip also though. Also - anyone out there actually know what an "appropriate" splay for this type of runway is? My quick read of the Manual of Standards for Runway code 1 Aerodromes talks of a take-off "zone" which starts 30 metres after the end of the runway and extends for a total of 1600 metres at a 5% slope. Who can do the math to determine how high that "zone" is at a point 160m after the end of the runway? For the sideways limits it talks of a length of 60 metres (starting 30 metres out) at a 10% divergence - now I can see why the old maths teacher kept telling me trigonometry would be important some day...

I agree wholeheartedly David and feel a great deal for the Morgan "family". They got very unlucky in my view - i'm quite certain almost all manufacturers of "factory" RA-Aus aircraft would have very similar issues. RA-Aus has had very little input or oversight over the years into these organisations and as such they've been left very much to their own devices to decide what is right and what is wrong. There doesn't appear to ever have been a push for any sort of industry group formed by the manufacturers to set a standard for themselves. It'd be pretty rare to even see the manufacturers talking to each other let alone discussing safe practices. They're also selling their aircraft to people who, let's face it, generally would rather be flying than trying to decide whether the rivets in the aircraft have been inserted correctly. It is sad that one manufacturer has had to be singled out by this instance rather than the industry taking care of its own to ensure such as this had never occurred. Maybe the remaining manufacturers out there might think of getting together to sponsor some sort of safety/quality group or individual? I'm a member of the Institute of Chartered Accountants and about 100 years ago they decided that it would be worthwhile to review each others work on occasion to ensure a certain standard of quality was being maintained by the profession. There's no valid reason the industry (or RA-Aus) couldn't commit to a similar undertaking.

The electrical wiring zip-tied to the fuel line is a great example of ignorance being bliss in my view. The aircraft was (and is?) being used in flying training according to previous posts - how many students would have pre-flighted that aircraft over its life-time and not picked that up as an issue? I must admit if I had noticed it and raised it (although to be honest I most likely wouldn't have noticed it) I would have taken my instructors word that it was fine and carried on. Now that it's been raised as a concern though i can rightly see why it should be avoided. I'll certainly have this in the back of my head from now on. I can't imagine how many things the ATSB would pick up on if they started looking at more and more Rec aircraft. They're coming from the GA/airline side where issues in aircraft design such as the ones in the prelim report would have been considered poor form probably 80 years ago! The aircraft in the prelim report aside it's hard to believe that over 100 years of aviation has resulted in some of the machines we all see flying around...

I quite like coming up with theories that "fit" the facts. I dare say everyone on here learns a great deal from doing so - there's always more than 1 way to skin a cat (or land an aircraft in a ferris wheel in this instance). There will of course be the actual facts that led to this particular accident but it's always interesting to hear of how others consider it might/could have happened. As far as i'm concerned the facts so far are stated in the official ATSB report. If they were to publish an amendment on the facts as stated then I would consider that amendment. The report is a preliminary report at this stage so there's still a heck of a lot more to be published. For now I quite like the discussions of possibilities that could have led to the accident - every possibility could be a chance for me to learn something more to keep myself out of trouble. The online forum is simply a chance to discuss possibilities outside of the realm of the "real" world. If I were to see someone's post on an online forum appear in a reputable newspaper or tv news then I would very much limit any and all discussions but this is extremely unlikely to occur due to the relative anonymity associated with these things.

All i'm saying is that if the employees of RA-Aus who are part of the investigating team couldn't find the training facility at the time and now, one day after the preliminary report is published they suddenly are able to, then there's a chance there's more to the statement. At the very least RA-Aus's systems have let them down. I think there'll be more investigation into the licensing and training questions.

There are at least two RA-Aus personnel involved in the investigation so not too sure the statement that the ATSB stuffed-up is 100% correct.

I thought from previous posts it was (and now is again) being used in a flying school.

RA-Aus has certainly come a long way from its inception in the ultralight/rag-and-tube days without anybody looking too closely at things. While there's been a lot of people pushing for further and faster limits for RA-Aus, there's been very little discussion of the appropriateness of the regulatory framework to such advances in aircraft design and capability. The major failures of the regulatory framework highlighted in this investigation could well be the impetus for such a discussion to take place.

I wonder if there would be as much interest in the airframe/riveting issues if the aircraft was an owner-build... I think their could be issues with the fact it was a "factory-built" and the government has allowed ab-initio training to take place and people to charge good money for it. Also an issue they could latch onto is why such an aircraft was allowed to overfly a public gathering. Their has been next to no interest into all the single-aircraft RA-Aus accidents over the years, even those where people perished, however this accident, where no-one sustained any injuries, could well be the most damaging for the fraternity...

I don't think the ferris wheel location really contributed that much to this accident. The fact the plane was below 60ft and 160m from the threshold is a much more significant contributing factor in my view. It's pure speculation but I think it highly probable the Council could have moved the ferris wheel based on feedback from the general public. How often do we hear statements of "The plane almost knocked my chimney off it was so low" when we know full well the plane was well above that? Not hard to imagine similar statements being made in this instance and Council reacting accordingly.

It's just the ATSB way I think - they look at any and all possibilities. Each thing individually might not be significant but they all contribute to the picture that will be painted. I think the investigators would be more than a little frustrated with the simple things that they couldn't tick off - Pilot licence (School didn't exist) and wrong serial numbers on the Registration. I imagine these would be the first things for any and all accidents no matter what form of transport. Not a good look for the RA-Aus fraternity - especially if the root cause of this accident could be a simple matter of landing with a tail-wind and/or making the go-around decision too late...

Preliminary report out today: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3525311/ao2011126_prelim.pdf