Case Posted February 23, 2007 Share Posted February 23, 2007 Two killed in Melbourne plane crash February 23, 2007 07:14pm Article from: AAP TWO people have been killed in a light plane crash in Melbourne's southeast. The plane crash-landed into a paddock shortly before 5.40pm (AEDT) today near McCormacks Road, Clyde North, a Country Fire Authority spokeswoman said. The plane caught fire after it crashed and two people were confirmed dead, the spokeswoman said. "The cause of the crash is unknown,'' she said. "The fire is now out and police are investigating the crash.'' ====================================================== On the radio the aircraft was described as a home built Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxamos Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 RV - 4 Crash Yes, it is another sad day. From what I read, in the Herald, it was an RV-4 that crashed. Here is the report from the Australian. Two killed in Melbourne plane crash <LI class=byline>By Julie Tullberg February 23, 2007 TWO men are dead after a light plane crashed on a farm south-east of Melbourne. A witness told police that pieces from the plane were flying off its body before it crashed into a paddock near Officer South Road in Clyde North about 5.40pm (AEDT) today. The men were thrown from the plane as it hit the ground and burst into flames, police said. Country Fire Authority (CFA) crews rushed to the scene just minutes after impact. "Initial assessments indicate that the plane exploded on impact and went up in flames,'' a police spokeswoman said. "It appears the two male occupants were ejected on impact. The men are yet to be formally identified and police are still to determine the flight path of the plane.'' A CFA spokeswoman said the cause of the crash was unknown. "The fire is now out and police are investigating the crash,'' she said. Clyde resident Tony Wilson said he did not hear the crash but said many planes, including those practising aerial stunts, were often in the area. "A lot of planes fly from the Tooradin airfield and the pilots perform acrobatics from out of there,'' he said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fred Bear Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Sorry to say journo that it is aerobatics not acrobatics. An aircraft is not a human body. Anyway, enough of that. RIP to the crew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brandon Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Sorry to be pedantic but 'acrobatic' IS the legal category for aircraft not aerobatic. Acrobatic is the term usually seen in US and Australian legislation, see Far23, AC21.4 etc etc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest brentc Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I don't know where people get their information. There has never been an aerobatic plane from Tooradin in that area. It's in the Moorabbin aerobatic training "box." It was almost 7 miles from Tooradin though, to the north. The crash site was not pretty and appeared to be unsurvivable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fred Bear Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 I was referring to this directly out of an encyclopaedia: Acrobatics (from Greek Akros, high and bat, walking) is one of the performing arts, and is also practiced as a sport. Acrobatics involves difficult feats of balance, agility and coordination. Nearly any performance or sport which involves full-body activity – especially in short, highly controlled bursts of activity – can be considered acrobatics, substantial overlap with dance, various sports such as diving and even religious practices. You may be right but I have never ever seen a company advertising 'acrobatic' joy flights. Aerobatic yes. I'm thinking the term acrobatic flights may be used a little more in the UK than here. Anyway, this is getting way off topic..again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiperlight Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 See CAAP 155-1(0) AEROBATICS January 2007: 2.1 Definitions and Terminology 2.1.1 Current regulations refer to 'acrobatic flight', however 'aerobatics' is a more specific term which is in widespread use and will be used in the proposed new CASRs Parts 91 (General Operating and Flight Rules) and 61 (Flight Crew Licensing). Therefore this CAAP will use the term 'aerobatics' in relation to 'acrobatic flight'. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Fred Bear Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 That's what I thought. Could start a new thread on this one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Longden Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 Good idea. Debate the factualities and actualities of legalities elsewhere. This thread is one of mourning. We have lost two fantastic people, and we need to pay our respects to them, their families and friends. Ben Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now