motzartmerv

You are right, it doesn’t apply to Ross, but was raised by the RAA in the coroners report. In my view, a hand washing exercise. “ we didn’t teach him that”

Yes Nev. we all know the textbook responses, and if I could stress a point it would be that the textbook doesn’t always work. It didn’t in this case, Ross knew better than most what happens when you don’t control the acft POST EFATO. I actually interviewed Ross on camera for over an hour, discussing exactly this scenario ( only months before his accident )His understanding and knowledge of the problems was very strong, and he had some very hard and fast rules of thumb and rote disciplines, particularly when testing aircraft. And he still got bitten. I have 2 issues. 1. The engine failure was not investigated . A coroner doesn’t have tk explain what happened, only what the cause and manner of death was. The ‘speculation ‘by the Raa investigations he mentioned was not accepted, nor should it be. 2. The theme mentioned in the report regarding ‘ normal procedures and syllabus items’ post engine failure was not a fair reflection of the situation and is a massive issue that should be looked into. The Raa can’t just keep saying “ that’s not how we teach our pilots “ it obviously IS how we train our pilots, because it keeps happening. The whole matter needs a thorough rethink, we can do better, but we never will if we keep pussy footing around the subjects and using throw away lines in corners court like “ the pilot flew contrary to the training syllabus” In a just culture the ‘system’ is looked at first!! Something I have NEVER seen happen in any investigation into a mates death in an RAA machine. For which I’m afraid the list is starting to get too long!! Rant over

Nothing good happens quickly for sure, but the coroners report in this case is 18 months Nev. The NTSB is the American version of our ATSB, and has a sizeable budget, and of course they can’t investigate every accident. But a fatal accident involving an engine failure of a major brand, installed in thousands of aircraft in Australia should surely warrant some further investigation? How expensive could it be to pull an engine out of the ground and strip it? I have had engines removed and stripped in half a day! Secondly, there are potential learning outcomes being over looked regarding the actions post the engine failure which all pilots could benefit from of handled correctly. The non technical skills aspects and dare I say, failures, are major factors in almost all serious and fatal accidents in this class. If we as the pilot body just accept the reality of the situation and say ‘ it is how it is’ then nothing will ever change. Saying we ‘may never know’ is far from an acceptable reason to not look for the answer !!

Yes Pete. It was not in good shape that’s for sure. Have you seen the size of circuit board they used to catch the Lockerbie bomber ? The size of a 5 cent piece. my point is you don’t know what you will find, and I would argue leaving the engine in the ground where it came to rest is leaving potential causes out in the paddock. Recall how CASA reacted a few years ago to an engine manufacturer, on the strength of no fatal accidents. Here is a fatal accident with a question mark over the engine, and its left in the paddock? I just feel pretty let down to be honest. It’s been years, and nothing has come of it.

I remember seeing something on Wayne’s accident, but nothing from Ross’s. That’s not to say there wasn’t one, but the standard RAA version is pretty limited in anything useful to other pilots. Being an engine failure resulting in a fatal, one would think something substantial would follow. At least removing the engine from the crater would be a good start ? I believe rotax engines are fitted to more than a few aircraft in Australia.

Was a horrible time. Disappointing investigation followed also, I recall visiting the scene after the investigation on the wreck was completed, and the engine was still half buried in the ground where it came to rest. Miss you mate ?

Get well soon Tim, so we can continue our ‘chat’... Hopefully now with a little more, insight ?

Wow. Who dug this 10 year old thread up?

Just.... why??

Because some people don't report their issues, which makes it easy for the manufacturer to claim that you are the only one to have the problem.

I would suggest that cracks in a new windscreen is far from "normal" and would be considered a deviance. The resulting failure certainly leads one to think the stop drilling was a bandaid that did not work. Normalization of deviance is not only applied to the operator, but the manufacturer also if they were prepared to allow stop drilling in a new windscreen as a means.

Pre existing cracks. Classic example of "normalisation of deviance" it seems.

:buddies:Cheers Roscoe.

The problem is, everyone with a ticket suddenly becomes an instructor and the quality of responses diminishes within a few posts. I very rarely if ever offer advice to students in public anymore.

Its all about Data. Data used to help manufacturers, maintainers, operators and pilots have a better understanding of possible issues and failures of their machines. Defect reports are another way of doing it without the need for the IRM, or RRM route. Defect reports to the RAA help gain a clearer picture of whats happening out there. Nobody benefits if nothing is ever said or done about these problems.

Not even going to justify that rediculous statement with a response. I will however be happy to guide you to the regulations regarding reportable matters if you like, we wouldn't want you getting in any trouble mate

Calm down frank. we aren't talking about emptying a fuel bowl. But if you run out of fusl, it is a reportable incident, would you like the link to the Reg? Engine failures are mandatory also, know anynone that has had an engine failure and not reported it frank? I do, wink bloody wink old son;)

Absolutely. Especially then :)

Bruce, you are required to report this, regardless of what the cause was. Suggest you make a report now, better late than never :)

And here in lies the reason I stop posting here.

Bruce. The phantom 3 used in this video weighs about 1.5 kilos. The normal ball peon hammer you have in your shed weighs 1kg. Imagine your wife is driving down the freeway and someone drops a hammer from the bridge onto her windscreen. Is that an acceptable risk? Phantom in flight failures are much much much more likely than bein hit by lightening. The risk this drone pilot posed to the general public is NOT acceptable. Not by anybody who understands them and certainly not by casa. If we could ban lightening strikes over populated areas we would ;)

We train all over Aus :) In Melbourne tomorrow, Perth next week, Back to Sydney after that.

Sure did. We have CASA approval to issue drone licences (RePL). We issued 350 in the first year, so one could say it went somewhere haha

I disagree there mate. Flying drones over populated areas, roads etc is a huge risk to the general public, hence there are nasty consequences if caught doing it. The difference between the idiot drone pilot and the manned aircraft idiot is the manned aircraft idiot will generally know what rules he is breaking. You need no training , certification, anything at all to become an idiot drone pilot. Just slip down to Harvey Norman, buy yourself a drone, launch it over a busy highway and wallaa', a dikhead drone pilot is born.,

Ps. Mind you, after that accident and the fallout that followed, I always find myself taking off with my right hand grasped firmly around the collar on the throttle- a fixed point on the dash so i can support my weight ( ever increasing ) should the seat roll back.