Safety (Lack of injury and death) is my prerequisite and priority

I was thinking there were Long-Ez aircraft RAA registered (a check only revealed several VariEze) and the new crop of carbon fibre aircraft have ranges qualifying them as touring aircraft. I didn't assess the other equipment like avionics, but expected their relentless miniturisation may have made it possible for small aircraft to be fully kitted.

No; I think I know what you are trying to do.

Why not go out to Launceston Airport, have a CFI show you the type of aircraft you would need, and you'll save a lot of time on false leads.

 

 

I've been involved in searches in Bass Straight. It can be a pretty wild place. Successful ditchings are rare I believe. in that area. There are some nice days and lots of otherwise. The jabiru twin probably won't fly on one engine at any real weight. Non feathering engine dictates that so you have double the chance of not making it.. If you have a "good glide" plane and can make altitude you could perhaps range to an island situation but landing without smashing the plane is not assured. You would probably need a clearance into controlled airspace for optimum height for cruise and perhaps require oxygen to be carried . Too Hard... As far as risk assessment? Why depend on an engine for so long? It's no worse than flying over heavily timbered country in the Alps with out enough height to glide clear but I suggest avoiding that also by using a small diversion, circling climb over departure point etc You MAKE your own luck pretty much. Don't come the "If you think like that you wouldn't get up in the morning" stuff. because it's not the real alternative to being careful.Things can turn pear shaped pretty fast in the flying game.. Nev

 

 

Don't come the "If you think like that you wouldn't get up in the morning" stuff. because it's not the real alternative to being careful.Things can turn pear shaped pretty fast in the flying game.

Sorry if it read like that Nev. I thought my post suggested doing nothing wasn't as attractive as real flying ! Must be more careful with posts, and including humour in serious posts:sorry: I am genuinely trying to establish some objective risk measures and data.

 

Why not go out to Launceston Airport, have a CFI show you the type of aircraft you would need, and you'll save a lot of time on false leads.

Yes TP, from the replies it seems GA and a GA aircraft is better for me. I was thinking some of the new LSA were higher performance and possibly safer than and an old Cessna 150. A lot of places I want to go include controlled airspace and Launceston is surrounded by controlled airspace.

 

Thanks to all, I will still pursue my risk assessing as it applies equally to GA. This has been a very useful exercise for me. I am as interested in aircraft as I am in flying so I will probably keep looking up false leads too

 

 

Jethro I'm not suggesting YOU would say that and I realise it could look that way for which I do apologise. It's a general comment I've frequently had used against a strong safety emphasis which I make NO apology for maintaining. I've lost more friends than I hope any of you ever do in aviation over the years. SAFE flying is still FUN flying, and you live to do more of it.. If people have a deathwish , some other hobby might be better for them as the rest of us pay with more regulation and public condemnation when the dare devils and cowboys go in.. Nev

 

 

Jethro your comment - At the present I can't see why your (SSCBD) Swiss Risen aircraft, correctly kitted and prepared, could not do it easily. Wouldn't you want to?

 

MY REPLY - Yes it would and so would the Pipistrel Virus SW with turbo Rotax – But they can now fly up to 25,000 ft ish (bloody cold and need oxy) – damm high.

 

AND regarding your comment on the Partenavia P.68 - "I have read about standard twins killing most typical GA pilots within a few minutes of engine failure due to their asymmetric thrust causing it to roll and power spin as I recall. It is really nasty to correct and single engine performance is marginal, so the risk reduction offered by a traditional twin barely outweighs their benefit for GA aircraft, and you pay double the engine bills."

 

IT’S A PUSSY CAT – compared to other twins. The asymmetric thrust problem is really easy and have always voiced my opinion getting a twin endo on the P68 is not a real example of twins single engine flying compared to some death traps out in GA. EG Piper Aerostar - love the plane - but it will kill you.

 

 

IT’S A PUSSY CAT – compared to other twins. The asymmetric thrust problem is really easy and have always voiced my opinion getting a twin endo on the P68 is not a real example of twins single engine flying compared to some death traps out in GA. EG Piper Aerostar - love the plane - but it will kill you.

I really must be careful with my post construction. I was in no way meaning to imply twin engine failure control difficulty was on the P68 or the Jab twin. I read the J432 is benign also. I raised it as something to factor into a risk assesment for people who think a twin solves the safety issue (like I used to, but probably no-one else on this site). The Cessna Skymaster configuration solves thrust assymetry, but puts all weight on the fuselage and places the aft prop in 'dirty' air which has noise, fatigue and efficiency... issues.

 

 

I was thinking some of the new LSA were higher performance and possibly safer than and an old Cessna 150. A lot of places I want to go include controlled airspace and Launceston is surrounded by controlled airspace.

I wouldn't think of starting under a Cessna 182 with suitable nav, radio, and I wouldn't go for "old" unless the aircraft is maintained to current condition.

I'm not sure what a new Cessna RG182 costs, but the 172 is around $350,000, and that's about the same as it always was in terms of average weekly wages. I'd be looking at hire rates on new units at the destinations.

 

 

The" Usual" Cessna configuration, Fixed gear and hi wing doesn't ditch well.. The bigger Continentals have had the occasional rocker failure. They are now CAST. unless somethings changed recently.

 

Probably one of the Superior Lycomings with about 100 hours on it and checked thoroughly is about as reliable as you get these days in a piston engine.. RV's have been all over the world with them... ALL twins can bite if you can't fly them well and you do need currency, if not stay with a single. That's why the Caravan etc is popular. Single with a reliable turboprop but that's out of most people's league.. Carbon cub should fit the bill. for bang around oiutback, quality and resale, if you are a tailwheel person.. Nev

 

 

But at the price of a carbon cub? Damn those are expensive.

 

Ole could build two aircraft for you and a heap of change

 

 

You can build them yourself and save 1/2 the cost.. They are pretty much recognized as at the peak of quality for this type of plane. I recommended consider AAK in Post #3. Aeroplanes are very variable, while sometimes looking much the same. People have different requirements and expectations. Nev

 

 

I wouldn't think of starting under a Cessna 182 with suitable nav, radio, and I wouldn't go for "old" unless the aircraft is maintained to current condition.I'm not sure what a new Cessna RG182 costs, but the 172 is around $350,000, and that's about the same as it always was in terms of average weekly wages. I'd be looking at hire rates on new units at the destinations.

Any ATSB accident reports that show the cause as old ?

 

GA are maintained by independent lame to current regs

 

Last new C182 RG was built in 1984

 

 

Any ATSB accident reports that show the cause as old ?

The thread is about someone wanting to cross Bass Strait to then fly to destinations around Australia, and Jethro suggested than an LA might be more reliable than an old Cessna 150.

I said I wouldn't start with less than a Cessna 182 RG, and I quoted his "old' in inverted commas, and I added the proviso "unless the aircraft is maintained to current condition"

 

If you want it to be at thesis level, the wording should be old, unless the aircraft is maintained to a level where all components are within as new tolerances.

 

I don't think you will find any ATSB reports listing the cause of a crash as "the aircraft was old", but you'll find plenty where a component has become unserviceable in flight, or failed during the flight due to exceeding its life cycle.

 

GA are maintained by independent lame to current regs

That's CASA's requirement, and the theory, but in practice that doesn't always happen. Just a few days ago I read about a Cessna which had been signed off for SIDS with corrosion areas not fixed, several instruments faulty, and one out of three radios working. I wouldn't want to hire that one past the taxying stage.

 

Last new C182 RG was built in 1984

Again, I was just replying to a post, not writing a thesis, and used a C182 RG, a well know aircraft, as a baseline on what I would use to cross Bass Strait.

Facthunter also mentioned that a high wing aircraft wasn't good for ditching.

 

So, if you both like I can change the wording to "mechanical and avionics specifications similar to, but in no way restricted to, and aircraft such as the Cessna 182 RG"

 

Since that's still just my opinion, we could go on forever.

 

The GA sector, badmouths its fleet by repeatedly referring to "40 year old aircraft", "60 year old aircraft" etc as if this was the norm, along with some of the RA people, so it's not surprising that someone doing research would not be affected by this and may come to the conclusion that a new RA aircraft may be more reliable than "old" GA aircraft, as if that industry was dying, and only using up old 1950s and 60s aircraft until they land on the scrap heap, but that's no different to the scene in the 1960s when many flying schools were still using tiger moths, and byplanes from the 30s.

 

So country airfields may be using those old Cessnas and Pipers for low volume reasons, but you'll find current model GA aircraft right round Australia in the capital cities.

 

Here's a chart of the current versions of the makes and models that peaked in popularity in the 60s and 70s. There are plenty of new manufacturers, but I'm just keeping this simple.

 

Cessna, Beechcraft and Hawker aircraft are now owned and manufactured by Textron: Home

 

Piper are still manufactured by the Piper company: Piper.com - Piper

 

Where the manufacturer has specified a limited application, such as "Trainer", I've noted it, and you'll see that today's Cessna 172 equivalent is listed as a Trainer, with a fixed prop, and the 182 equivalent, the Skylane has constant speed prop and cross country performance (which is where I was coming from in my comment to Jethro.

 

If you go on to the company websites and look at the Avionics Specifications for each model, it makes it much clearer which models would be suitable for Bass Strait (or outback Australia).

 

 

 

Cirrus have been very popular in recent years and would qualify as the new GA standard, at considerable cost.

 

The main problem with RAA planes is luggage capacity for touring, even when reliability is high. There are several that will cruise much faster than my Piper Archer and are just as reliable, but you can’t take much more than a toothbrush.

 

 

High airframe hours and corrosion are the major problem. Some aircraft are not well corrosion proofed and by going fast (good cruise speed) are worked hard in some areas. ie Turbulence when loaded. The C 210 ( and it's derivatives) is such one example. It's cruise speed is right into the turbulence penetration speed, so it's a bit iffy even when new. if you aren't sensitive to dynamic loading. .

 

Some critical Structural parts must be considered to be "lifed" at a certain stage whether the book specifies it or not. The centre section spar in a Chipmunk is lifed at 5,000 hours if the plane is aerobated (and they all were). Sea planes are stronger and better corrosion proofed but Aluminium and salt water don't combine well..

 

Well targeted thorough inspections are required to ensure safety. In general wings coming off planes is not that common, but I've seen plenty I just would not fly in. Experienced LAME's know where to look but you need to look hard or you miss finding it. My youngest fellow saw the trailing edge spar in a cherokee 6 that had the corrosion opened up, and after seeing that there's no way he will fly in your average GA plane at all.. I don't blame him. It's a sensible reaction to seeing something totally dangerous they had flown in to be given a 100 hourly..

 

As they age, the difference between a good plane and a death trap becomes wider. Much more variability. There are some excellent vintage planes flying that are as safe as the day they were made. In Fact when they are brand new they may have a few settling in issues, same as after a major service. Many engines aren't used frequently enough and become unsafe because of that.. The older engine and systems "experts" are sometimes long gone and the newer GURU's may be more esoteric than expert..

 

IF the previous pilot has done some unauthorized maneuvers, the plane may be unsafe (without inspection) as a result. Even a hard landing should be investigated before further flight.. Nev

 

 

Cirrus have been very popular in recent years and would qualify as the new GA standard, at considerable cost.

Cirrus and Lancair are both selling into that market. Both require a high standard of skills to operate efficiently and safety, and it's unfortunate that we best know them from the wallet orientated pilots dropping in from above. What struck me when I pulled the 2018 Cessna/Piper/Beechcraft data was the removal of the lower level aircraft, which people had come unstuck with on long trips, due to weather etc., and a training designation including C/S prop, but when you think about it, this would be a good path to being proficient in engine management before stepping into something like a Cirrus.

 

 

I could be wrong but I don't think there are any ATSB investigations in the last ten years that showed corrosion or metal fatigue caused the accident.

 

Cirrus is one aircraft that can guarantee a safe water landing if the wind is not to strong

 

 

I could be wrong but I don't think there are any ATSB investigations in the last ten years that showed corrosion or metal fatigue caused the accident.

Why the last 10 years?

 

Cirrus is one aircraft that can guarantee a safe water landing if the wind is not to strong

You certainly have to make a safe ditching, but then the aircraft sinks; the problem is recovering waterlogged people before they drown, die of hypothermia, or drift off and are not found; it's a time problem.

 

 

The concept it a great contender for a 'safe' Bass Strait crossing, hence my checking.Just Googled it and Jabiru J432, Twin Engine Aircraft seems to be it. One aircraft that caused a big flurry in 2013, but still awaiting South African type certification. It seems an SA build with nothing in Australia yet.

 

A Cri Cri version of the Partenavia P.68 is how I would describe it. Pity the engines need such HUGE cowling as they look ugly and must create 200% form drag IMHO. The performance figures look similar to a standard J430 so you are paying for safety. They claim asymmetrical thrust is not that of a traditional standard twin. I have read about standard twins killing most typical GA pilots within a few minutes of engine failure due to their asymmetric thrust causing it to roll and power spin as I recall. It is really nasty to correct and single engine performance is marginal, so the risk reduction offered by a traditional twin barely outweighs their benefit for GA aircraft, and you pay double the engine bills. Twice as many engine failures!

 

It would be great for Jabiru to make this a success as it would counter engine failure concerns and create its own niche aircraft market. Maybe Jabiru engine failure rates have dropped so a twin is less attractive and they are not pushing it to market. The low engine life many have experienced may count against it given that cost is doubled. I suspect many will not be a enthusiastic about it as me.

I've been to bundy and looked at the twin they have there and pushed Stiffy and Jamie about when they'll be selling the conversion kits etc. but seems they have been having trouble with vibrations and they aren't selling them....yet.

But I'm pretty keen to go that way.

 

 

Why would you do that Jaba. ? It won't fly well on one without being able to feather the dead one. I doubt it will ever be approved at any real weight here if at all. Many early Twins were similar. Miles Gemini, Miles monospar DH Dragon and Dragonfly even Avro Anson and many others. They weren't required to fly on one. The remaining engine extended the glide. Out of synch vibrations with engines on pods could be horrendous. It could have a (limited) trainer for assymetric flight future at very limited weights..

 

Re the airframe failure due cracks etc the was a Cessna single went in recently in the NT in stormy conditions with a wing detached . Nev

 

 

There were no pre-existing faults in the NT 210 according to the preliminary report AO-2017-102

 

 

Regarding the safety of Bass Strait crossings, I have done a return trip in my (LAME maintained) Eurofox. In my view it is just another form of "Tiger Country" In my case, I did the recommended track over Flinders Island (via Cliffy Island, Hogan Island, Deal Island then via Cape Portland or Waterhouse Island). Many of these islands are very rocky looking from above, and seem not viable for a good landing should the Rotax 912 fail.

 

Of course I did the recommended SKED reports at 15 minute intervals, at flew at high altitude (8500 & 9500) for best glide range - so only travelling in ideal weather helps here. Also mandatory was my life jacket & floating PLB, personal strobe, and for extra help, my SPOT locator, OzRunways tracking, and ADSB-out. With all of this, I still considered it a calculated risk and flew solo, not feeling I could put someone else at the same risk in my Eurofox.

 

I'm happy to report that my journey went just as I (carefully) planned, and was without incident. Being RA-Aus, I have no access to Class D at Launceston, so I had to track along the north coast to Devonport to re-fuel, making my journey much longer for no good reason. The regulations as they currently stand are very discriminatory towards RA-Aus pilots, forcing us low under CTA steps in rough tiger country, or preventing me having Class D access at Launceston when that would be shorter & safer for Bass Straight crossings.

 

I wish CASA would do as their name implies, and put RA-Aus pilot's safety ahead of their bureaucratic intransigence on CTA access/transit, but that rant never seems to get old for me...

 

 

The name of this thread is: Safety (Lack of injury and death) is my prerequisite and priority

 

Prerequisite: "a thing that is required as a prior condition for something else to happen or exist"

 

It follows that on this thread we should be talking about safety levels towards the top fifth percentile in aviation, rather than the "I survived despite the odds" exceptions.

 

The first time I ever heard of "tiger country" was when I started talking to RA people; In GA, where I hire aircraft, my CFIs insist on flight planning around any country unsuitable for a forced landing, FULL STOP, no exceptions. That does eliminate some destinations, and it does add flight time to others, but it also does allow a forced landing opportunity. Two people on this forum, Facthunter and Farri have consistently advised that you should never fly over something you can't land on, and that advice could save your life one day.

 

A number of people from time to time excuse themselves from this safety action by saying they "were only over tiger country for about 15 minutes".

 

The aircraft doesn't know that, and forced landings are made for many more reasons than an engine issue, fuel exhaustion, or flight planning mistake.

 

That 15 minutes covers about 25 Nautical Miles. A couple of months back a Pilot died at Moorabbin Airport, between a spacious golf course and the end of one of the main runways, maybe two or three hundred metres from touching down on the runway. ATSB has just ruled out engine failure as the cause of not making the runway or golf course.

 

In some quarters there seems to be a dyslexic misunderstanding of CASAs approach to ensure top 5th percentile protection around airports. The Visual Terminal Charts have been set in concrete for many decades to ensure the safety of airline passengers as their aircraft lets down for the terminal. Many times I have been on RPT aircraft on the VFR leg into Wynyard, where we were flying in about 500 feet above land to make the airport. Two Ansett pilots were prosecuted and convicted for making a Wynyard approach over the sea BELOW land level. That's the nature of northern Tasmania. Safe RA flight planning is simple; if you can't legally fly under the VTC steps (remembering the T stands for "Terminal", so very big and very fast aircraft could be in its legal space), then its a simple decision to stay away.

 

 

Why would you do that Jaba. ? It won't fly well on one without being able to feather the dead one. I doubt it will ever be approved at any real weight here if at all. Many early Twins were similar. Miles Gemini, Miles monospar DH Dragon and Dragonfly even Avro Anson and many others. They weren't required to fly on one. The remaining engine extended the glide. Out of synch vibrations with engines on pods could be horrendous. It could have a (limited) trainer for assymetric flight future at very limited weights..Re the airframe failure due cracks etc the was a Cessna single went in recently in the NT in stormy conditions with a wing detached . Nev

Not to mention looking ugly as sin (IMHO)

 

Bruce

 

 

While there may be no significant cracks it's unlikely to achieve the same ultimate destruction test figures a new one would have, Thruster 88.. There would have to be "some " corrosion and deterioration, even if not terribly obvious.. They were know for wing failure with aileron application at speed even when they were newer.. Nev

 

 

There were no pre-existing faults in the NT 210 according to the preliminary report AO-2017-102

From memory he was an experienced local pilot who flew into a severe local storm in the Darwin area.

The Cessna 210 has no wing struts to brace against rough conditions.

 

Coming from four pax fixed U/C, Fixed prop, and designed in the era before computers, I found the work load high in the circuit and hard to slow down.