Karren

Best news report of a light aircraft accident I have EVER seen. Factual and reasonably unsensationalistic. Actually, the media did a pretty good job for once, perhaps upside down isn’t accurate, but I think we can all see that, and the aircraft did hit trees before hitting the ground, the aircraft has hit trees and has yet to hit the ground , so that means it hit trees before hitting the ground. The passenger is also a qualified pilot, not just a passenger, and finally, they were not trying to land at Yarram, they were trying to land in the open field just beyond the trees. The pilot’s only crime was to misjudge the aircraft’s gliding ability with a dead engine... and who really knows how well their aircraft will glide with a stopped prop? I know I wouldn’t. Stretching the glide leads to stall spin loss of control at low level. The best thing the pilot did was NOT try to stretch the glide. A controlled impact with trees is much better than a stall spin impact with the ground. Finally, we do not know what altitude they were at when the engine failed, we do not know the wind direction, the weather or any number of details that may have led the crew to believe that the paddock they were aiming for was their best choice. So please don’t judge what you think you know, just hope that the next light aircraft accident that hits the media results in a similar successful outcome. The aeroplane can be replaced, the lives can not.

Actually, the ATSB DOES investigate recreational aircraft accidents, or provide technical support, if they are contacted. The problem is that RAAus is responsible for investigating the accidents for aircraft THEY administer, so unless they ask for assistance, ATSB generally won’t get involved, and in a lot of cases RAAus culture is to avoid getting the “big boys” involved. In fact, unless there is serious injury or a fatality, I suspect that most RAAus accidents/incidents are swept under the carpet by the aircraft owner/pilot. This also happens in GA at a recreational level. I know of 3 GA accidents in recent history that have resulted in total loss of aircraft, one was a fatality the other 2 resulted in no significant pilot injury. Two are being investigated, the third is not. The difference is that ATSB were not contacted about the third accident.

LOL, yep, but the amount varies, and Cherokees are notorious for it... Surprisingly, it is Cessna that came up with "Land-o-matic"

Actually, at 11:10 in the video the pilot says he normally flies a 172... definitely not first lesson then. However, a very stressful situation for him and the entire team reacted well. Yep, a C150/152 is probably one of the best aircraft you could have in this situation, possibly only bettered by a Cherokee with a wider track and a bit more cushioning from ground effect. Outstanding job by everyone involved though. I hope the instructor is ok, I suspect he will find it hard to keep his licence... seizures can be difficult to diagnose definitively, and while he may never have another it will still be a question mark against him for the rest of his career if he has a career left...

Very sad

NTSB finds fatigue failure led to trainer crash | Flight Safety Australia Metal does fatigue. The above accident happened to a fully certified, well maintained, production aircraft. This is actually frightening. The airframe was built in 2007 and had 7900 hours. The left aileron appears to be unpainted. It was a Piper Arrow, so not a basic trainer used by inept ham fisted individuals leainging basic flying skills... The wing departed the airframe in the circuit pattern. No amount of flying skill would save a pilot in this situation Build to plans, future owners of your aircraft will appreciate it, and DO NOT GO OUTSIDE DESIGN LIMITS! Please.

I think The problem is that some want the freedom we had when we were basically left alone to fly around our own padocks and do what we liked as long as we kept below 500’ and didn’t cross the road. We have grown up and many “ultralight” (how many just cringed) aircraft play with the big guys, some are more capable than basic GA trainers, and we want more flying opportunities and the ability to do things our forebears never dreamed of. That means we need to be more responsible as a group which leads to some believing we are loosing our freedom. Maintaining a minimum standard, and proving you are at that minimum standard, is essential, and paying an instructor for his time and skill, is an accepted part of this. If you are unhappy at having to pay for your instructor to check you aren’t going to kill you self doing something stupid, perhaps you would like to work for a day for no pay? Be glad if you can find an instructor happy to do a BFR in your aircraft, accept the opportunity to learn more about flying, and don’t be stingy. $140 for a BFR is probably one of the smaller bills you will have to pay for your Aviation hobby.