Bats

Probably prompted by the Jab twin of which there is at least one in Aus. 2 by 4 cyl engines, bolted onto a J430 firewall, with the appropriate fairing. Otherwise I suppose someone may want to experiment with multiple electric motors, but overall I wouldn't have thought there was much call for the category.

Gawd I'm starting to feel old, it's all very laudable wanting to stop people from killing themselves, but the layers of cotton wool are starting to smother too. Where do we draw the line - mandate medicals for all (not 100% effective anyway), compulsory BRS, compulsory helmets, compulsory fire proof clothing, the list goes on... All would improve the odds of surviving in some circumstances, but do you really want Big Brother insisting? I don't. The bottom line is that as pointed out in several posts above, RAAus accidents are investigated, just not always by the ATSB and the findings aren't published in the same way. It takes a small amount of effort on the individual's part though to read forums such as this, read the coroner's report if there is the remotest chance it may have a bearing on your operation, read the notices RA-Aus put out as referred to by Flying Vizla - the information is out there, just not spoon fed, so exercise a little personal responsibility and initiative, and seek it out. In any event, the ATSB aren't some all seeing, all knowing clan of wizards either. Some of their reports have been less than brilliant and many have vociferously disagreed with their findings. Does the Great Jabiru Furball of 2015 ring any bells? To expand on what I said in an earlier post, if I spear my tandem recumbent bicycle into the scenery at 100 and plenty, scribbling myself and AN Other - do we really need the ATSB to investigate and decide that I was riding like a goose, or that my home-brewed braking system was held together with cable ties and wishful thinking? I'd suggest not. Why then is private aviation so different?

I'm open to correction, but my impression is that ATSB don't even investigate every GA accident thanks to budgetary and manpower constraints . Their focus is predominately on commercial operations, although they do sometimes stick their oar in when there is a potential systemic problem in private ops. I have to say that I can live with that approach, if I were to scribble myself thanks to a car or boating accident, I wouldn't expect any more than the police looking into it and presenting their findings to the coroner.

The age old debate; probably best to step away from the discussion if you're too close to the personalities involved. Picking fights with other members who are conducting a perfectly civil and reasonable discussion seldom ends well and certainly does nothing to damp down speculation.

Murdoch's minions aren't alone in having a political barrow to push and unfortunately even if a writer has a good grasp on the subject, the piece still has to pass by the editor and/or sub-editor who will mangle it to suit the prevailing narrative and space available, and then my particular beef, will slap a catchy headline on top that may or will often not reflect the general sense of the content, but will serve as clickbait. This in the full knowledge that a large number of readers will read nothing more than the expanded headline and treat that "knowledge" as the final word on the subject. I'm tempted to blame twitter for the phenomenon, but I suspect they just exploited an existing mindset.

From the horses mouth, not the other end that the journos seem to use; Investigation: AO-2017-013 - Collision with water involving Grumman American Aviation Corp G-73, registered VH-CQA, 10 km WSW of Perth Airport, Western Australia on 26 January 2017

I take it our new friend has some connection to the incident...? Might explain the slightly thin skin, but I'd be a little shy of throwing stones "uninformed and dramatic claims" I think were the words used, when I hadn't addressed the issue of the machine going farming. If swerving off the runway was intentional, then that's even stranger.

Word has it, it was a "loss of directional control" during the take-off run; took to the grass and the gear cried enough.

Doubtless a cost-saving measure by the Wellcamp proprietors; after all everything from global warming on down is apparently their fault...

With respect CP, dealing with journalists in relation to something fact driven and generally not sensational, is a very different matter to feeding the frenzy that is the latest headline or newsclip. In the latter instance the old maxim of; "don't let the facts get in the way of a good story" holds sway and I have quietly watched on as a spokesperson delivered a factual and unemotional statement and then made the mistake of answering a few repetitive questions at the end. A sound bite from one of these made for a lurid headline which was almost 180 degrees opposed to the content of his statement and as far as Joe Public is concerned, that is about all they'll absorb and remember.

I'm not sure that this is a fight RA-Aus should be part of, too easy to use them as a distraction and harp on the fact that their members cannot use Essendon anyway. As far as AOPA goes, it is a bit of a case of damned if you do and damned if you don't; a couple of people have already got up the spokesman for apparently agreeing that the airfield should be shut (he didn't, but by only quoting part of the response it appears that he did). Notwithstanding our media apologists, those grubs tend to have a predetermined agenda, invariably one which will generate the maximum attention if not outrage and unless you are savvy to their ways, you'll find yourself looking more than a little silly. The best response is a carefully considered, written statement, in which case selective quoting is easily refuted.

The ABC were rabbiting on about a Beechworth when I turned on and seemed more interested in explaining how Essendon was completely surrounded by suburbia and therefore a dangerous place...., so I'm afraid they got bundled with the rest of the rabble in my book.

Ugh, our beloved media are once again covering themselves in glory, frantically trying to fill in the blanks, whilst providing wall to wall coverage, containing the bare minimum of fact. The usual "aviation experts" have rushed to offer opinions; aided and abetted by every anti-Essendon campaigner with an agenda to push. Grubs!

Within reason, I'll generally go along with whatever an instructor prefers, some tend to have fairly fixed ideas on what's best. Even if they don't convert me to their way of thinking, I feel it sharpens up your flying to try new things and different methods of doing things. I quite agree though, the best instructors are those who suggest alternatives, demonstrate them, but ultimately allow a pilot to stick with what they are most comfortable with (with the usual provisos of safety, the POH etc). I'm thinking here more of the AFR or conversion scenario, than ab initio instruction. Eg in RA Aus types my preference remains for a glide approach, but having originally trained under the GA system, I'm quite happy to do a powered approach if an instructor prefers that it be done that way.

I've had instructors pushing both methods at various times. Having given it quite a bit of thought and discussed it with people who are cleverer than me, I've decided that the only time a "convert speed to altitude" pull would be worth it, is in something fast and heavy, flying low. Military or possibly crop spraying in other words. A little bugsmasher just doesn't have the energy to make it worthwhile, if I'm low I'm likely to be fairly slow too and in deflecting controls, plus the additional drag from the G increase, I'd be throwing precious energy away, for minimal return. In all the successful practice forced landings and 2 real emergencies I've dealt with, I arrived at my chosen field with a little extra height in my pocket and slipped, added flap as necessary, S turned etc to get down to the desired approach path, so the extra 100' say would be largely irrelevant. I think I'd generally get more benefit from holding the nose level as the speed bleeds away and lowering to maintain best glide, a more natural (to me) approach. Any major control deflection would be better invested in turning toward safety. As for the difference between a windmilling prop and a deadstick - I can't say I found it that significant in the types I've tried it in - plus I tend to be quite focussed on training and although a stationary prop does add a layer of pressure, I'm hard on myself if I don't perform properly so a PFL isn't just a jolly little romp for me.

The photo of the aircraft standing on it's wheels is a little misleading - the report states that it was found standing on its nose in the field and the state of the prop tends to bear that out. I think if I parked my Tiger on its nose, I'd probably admit to crashing it.

Lots of very informative posts here - at least there doesn't seem to be the same attachment to downwind turn theory as some over at the wrinkled plum have. I suspect that a majority of pilots pay close attention to an incident like this, not because they are ghouls or want to outdo the ATSB, but because learning to fly is a never ending process and even if a particular post later proves incorrect in relation to the incident at hand, the discussion can highlight gaps in your own knowledge or root out misconceptions that lurk in the aviation undergrowth.

I know things get a little heated when it's close to home, but with respect trying to differentiate a wheels up, from a crash landing is akin to picking the fly droppings from the pepper. Whether it was landed wheels up by accident or with foreknowledge of a problem, it remains an accident. Sad to see, but at least this one ended well - I've looked at the big heavy warbirds more than once and thought that a forced landing etc would be a major concern to me, there is a lot more energy to scrub off with them, compared to an LSA type.

Nothing quite so judgmental as someone who knows just a little bit about aviation. You know the type, Raybans on head, ASIC prominently displayed on chest and newly minted SPL in pocket. "My instructor said....!" Those of us who have been around a little longer have hopefully outgrown the phase to some extent and come to realize just how little we know and just how skillful some pilots are. I know I still marvel at ag pilots, mustering pilots and many others who do things which to the uninitiated can appear risky or even reckless.

I'm afraid I have to disagree, Frank. It is not for an airfield operator to determine what aircraft can land or take-off there - they don't have performance charts for every possible visitor, they provide information about available length, surface and any hazards, thereafter it is up to the pilot to determine suitability. It's called Pilot in COMMAND (my emphasis) for a reason. As virtually every other poster has said, our complainant has over-estimated the performance combination of skill and aircraft, has not exercised adequate airmanship and nearly brought himself undone. Mistakes happen, but where I do have an issue; he is not taking onboard what posters far more experienced than himself (or me for that matter) are saying. That attitude normally features in an ATSB report sooner than later, unfortunately.

As Confucius say; "Deja Poo".

Oh lovely, after I spent some time finding an image I liked, cropping to fit the square format, resizing to fit the site requirement, someone goes and bollixes it up for me. I give up....

Ah I tried, we seem to have an incurable case here.

Seems we're talking at cross purposes; an interpretation of the law as it stands vs outrage at what the law has become. Personally, as with much of our aviation law, I'd as soon see us adopt the NZ approach to personal injury rather than the bastardised, US centric morass we are digging ourselves into. Unfortunately society being what it is, we have become all too accustomed to "compo" as some magical balm to sooth hurt. Truly amazing just how unlucky some people can be once you start digging....

An old, old story, but quite well told here. Some of you who have done ATC tours may have heard a tape featuring a Jab, somewhere in NSW from memory, that did something similar. I Learned About Flying From That: Asking For Help