slb

He also said the biggest killer at the moment is electronics Whatever you have in the cockpit, learn everything you can about it. Also, know how to fly your aircraft without it!

The day after the crash I went to the "Was it Really Worth it" seminar. I had no idea who was giving the talk, but it turned out to be Greg Feith, ex NTSB (as seen on TV on high profile accidents) The first thing he said was; Who has heard about yesterdays accident? He went on to give details of what had happened and asked us all to consider the cause. Turned us all into investigators right there, without anyone seeing the crash site. Fantastic talk. Obviously (as he stated) we have to wait for the authorities to complete thier findings but he didn't see any reason not to discuss and learn from possible causes. Human Factors. Following the Air Traffic Controllers directions without allowing for aircraft limitations. Summary: He should have flown the aircraft and completed a go-around instead. If in doubt, level wings and fly the aircraft out of there.

I think there is a 3rd over here, but not sure if it is Katie, as I haven't bumped into any of them yet. The forums are good and the action is great, so much to see .... Was awful this morning as we saw the crash from a distance just as we were waiting for the internal bus. Huge fire ball. So glad to hear that everyone got out although one is still critical, I hear. Seeing it, even from a distance was terrible.

I am not sure about this accident being HGFA. It is not mentioned in the HGFA accidents/incidents and I thought I had read somewhere that RAA Ops were on their way to SA to investigate, but can't find any reference to this.

John This is incorrect as the Trike was not on take-off, nor did it hit a powerline.

Agree with you Nev. In particular because in some of the recent accidents BRS were fitted, but not deployed ....

Well I for one am wishing the new RA-Aus Training Co-ordinator the best and hope he can come up with something workable for everyone. I do not benchmark. Both organisations are trying their best and as it has been said on previous posts, "we all fly .... regardless of what we fly". I will get back to reading my SkySailor magazine (that's the magazine from the Hang Gliding Federation of Australia) and my Sport Pilot magazine and will try very hard not to compare them ....

Mmm ..... not sure what you are trying to imply. The thread is about training on all aircraft and what RA-Aus have in mind for the future i.e. the L1s, L2s as well as (possibly) flying schools, not trikes in particular. Sport Pilot magazine however had two different articles that didn't add up. So, I'm not sure why you would have a problem with pointing out that RA-Aus are advertising for a full-time Training co-ordinator and that the HGFA have been conducting courses for their members which include hands-on training (which is what someone in this thread suggested the RA-Aus should do)

skiing

Are you saying the RA-Aus would not be able to match what the HGFA are doing? because I think they should be able to, certainly if they have a full-time person to plan it all out.

Optimistic? Yes, I am. I hope RA-Aus will also make it non-compulsory for these upcoming courses. The article sounds as though it will be coming in for both L1 and L2s, so a lot of members will be involved.

Yes, the HGFA has been doing this for 3 years now for their Weightshift and its proved to be popular. The course is not compulsory though, so those who want to have the information pay to attend. They have had a few going back for a refresher course, which they don't charge for, but I understand everyone enjoys the course and comes away much better informed and current.

I agree with you Yenn. Those that are doing everything right and abide by the rules, have a good attitude and keep up themselves informed of new things shouldn't need to be re-trained. After all they are flying and maintaining their aircraft correctly. I am just not sure what the RA-Aus can do about those that are either ignorant of the facts or have a bad attitude i.e. refuse to keep themselves up to date - how do they determine who they are? Also how would they know what the problem is and how would they correct the situation? A possible solution may be to start afresh from the bottom i.e. new people coming in. Get the good attitude right from the start (initial training) and hope that eventually it will spread out from there.

oops. The above was on Page 13 but on page 45 ... (from the Ops team talking about accidents) CAN WE PREVENT THEM? How can RA-Aus, as an organisation, prevent these accidents from recurring? We could lay down more rules and require a load more training in human factors and decision making. But these measures would be met with resentment and would probably not achieve their purpose. Mandating more training for 9,500 flying members, in an effort to change the behaviour of a few, is not effective. Ultimately RA-Aus can only do so much. The responsibility, as it has always been, rests with the pilot. If you choose to operate in high risk areas, with or without appropriate training, the outcome is boringly sadly predictable. The same article states that out of 40 fatal accidents .... " ... and five mechanical failures including overstressing the airframe or poor maintenance." which means that most were not maintenance related.

From July Sport Pilot: TRAINING PLANS BY M ICHAEL L INKE CEO RA-Aus is to appoint a training co-ordinator. As part of a new commitment to training, a recruitment process is underway to find someone to oversee a strategic approach to training delivery. For many years RA-Aus has dabbled at the edges with training. We delivered a safety first program some years ago, began offering human factors training and provided an online testing tool for L1 assessment. Over the coming 12 months, our focus will be on our maintainers at the L1 and L2 level and human factors will again come into the spotlight. We will also work with flight training schools to tap into training needs and deliver training to our members in areas of the greatest need. Keep an eye on Sport Pilot and our e-news for more. So it will be primarily maintenance related, for both L1 and L2's.

Yes, I have just checked the website and it is indeed red!! (maybe all their Aviation oils are going to be red?)

Also, don't forget to read the information: WARNING: DO NOT use AeroShell Oil Sport Plus 4 in engines that are designed to use Ashless Dispersant aviation piston engine oils such as AeroShell W Oils. This includes aircooled Teledyne Continental Motors, Textron Lycoming and Jabiru engines. I thought the AeroShell Sport was black with an orange label and the AeroShell W100 was red bottle (a single grade ashless dispersant oil)?

Thank you for you honesty Poteroo. It just seems to be particularly hard to find out what actually happened. We all know that if a film crew happened to be filming in the area and caught something on tape, then it may not reflect the whole truth i.e. depending on camera angles, even editing etc. So I am just wondering whether RAA had actual facts, or whether it was perceived ..... therefore they acted.

Hi Poteroo - I have not seen the video of the incident, but was he actually flying high speed and downwind? I ask because I heard that he was flying coastal, so I am not sure of the rules about landing on the 'sea' when flying along the coastline ... is there anyone on this forum who has a waterborne endorsement who can answer?

From the FAA Weightshift Control Aircraft Flying Handbook: Weight and Loading Weight and loading must be considered before each flight. Do not exceed the maximum gross weight as specified in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH). The balance of the pilot, passenger, fuel, and baggage is usually not an issue, but must be reviewed in the POH for the specific make/model since some may have balance limitations. The fore and aft carriage attachment to the wing hang point must be within the limits as specified in the POH for weight and loading of the carriage. Always follow the POH performance limitations. From the ©AirBorne WindSports Pty. Ltd.: PILOT HANDBOOK - EDGE SERIES MICROLIGHTS 5 WEIGHT and BALANCE This aircraft must only be flown solo from the front seat. No ballast is required if the pilot weight is above 65 kg. If the pilot weight is below 65 kg it may be necessary to carry ballast in water bags. Ensure the bags are watertight and safely secured in flight. All aircraft operations may be carried out whilst solo, as when the aircraft is flown dual. With lighter aircraft AUW the full-power setting may have to be reduced to get a safe climb angle after lift off. The wings have three attachment points on the universal bracket. The forward setting will increase the trim speed and the aft setting will decrease trim speed. The variation of attachment point has been designed to allow the pilot to pre-select the centre of gravity position prior to flight. Under normal operations the trike base should be attached to the wing in the middle position. The rearward trim position must be used with MTOW of 340kg or less. In flight the only noticeable difference is the control bar pitch pressure, which increases as the hang point is moved rearward. The fuel capacity must always be considered when measuring the AUW of the aircraft. Remember that fuel is measured at 0.7 kg per litre and may slightly alter the aircraft’s performance during take off and landing. You have to fly iaw the Manufacturer's Pilot Operating Handbook for the aircraft you fly. Weighshift Aircraft may have a choice of hang-points although, as stated above, the middle position is normally used. In training you are advised not to move this position and later, only if you know what you are doing. Nevertheless, the CoG is self-correcting.... and all we have to calculate is AUW. Note: the specific weight of fuel is more correct in this manual

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't he need to make a low pass first, prior to thinking of landing on any strip of water?

Anyone know what the RA-Aus rule ares? Looking through the media there was a GA amphibian operating in the area in previous years but he moved south for better (smoother) conditions. He had Council permission to operate a scenic flight business from just off the beach, so I am just curious to know what the difference is?

Nothing in the HGFA 2015 Workbook ....

"........said he was attempting to make a landing on the water, which required him to come in low, but he had changed his mind about landing and he pulled out of the manoeuvre because of the conditions". What are the regulations concerning where a waterborne aircraft may, or may not, take off and land? Sounds like he was in an amphibian and flying over water .... to land?

Well said, Butch Maybe there should be a Weightshift smiley as well ??