68volksy Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 You're quite right Turbo - the final report will have the full detail. From past ATSB reports they'll go a fair way further than any RA-Aus investigation has ever gone is more my point. They should look at aircraft construction, sign-offs, compliance with standards, maintenance, licensing of pilot, training of pilot, council sign-off, ferris wheel operator risk assessments and the list goes on. If there's been a deviation in any of these areas they'll then look further i'd hope. If there's been a deviation and the reports comes from the Federal body there's generally a bit of commotion (although whether it results in anything is probably for the gods of bureaucracy to determine). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I doubt the Ferris wheel was at fault Iggy. It was just going around and around in the same spot. (sorry) 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 I doubt the Ferris wheel was at fault Iggy. It was just going around and around in the same spot. (sorry) It was either in the splay or it wasn't. If it wasn't there are no issues If it was then someone had a duty of care to make sure it wasn't It might well be the wheel owner was told where to place it by the fair organizer etc. So if it was in the splay, the person(s) who placed it there could become co-defendents in any suit. I don't think the lawyers would need the ATSB report to prove whether it was in the splay or not, that one seems a very easy one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple Tubz, Old Bar is an ALA, the pilot is responsible entirely for his/her operations into and out of an ALA, including obtaining permission and making him/her self aware of any conditions that may affect operations. Even if the Ferris wheel was within the splay, the effect would be to displace the threshold and a pilot would still be responsible to ensure operation within the displaced effective operational length of the ALA. The pilot is solely responsible to ensure he/she can safely operate, including around any obstructions. In the application of 'common' sense, you cannot fly into a tree and then blame the tree for being there, especially when you should have known the tree was there and if you could not possibly avoid it you should not attempt to operate. Remember operations had been carried out all day at Old Bar. It has not been confirmed the Ferris wheel was in a hazardous position, notwithstanding putting the Ferris Wheel in that position may have been poor planning on behalf of the organisers. Some witnesses said that the trees were immediately behind the Ferris wheel and it was either the Ferris wheel or the trees that would have caught the aircraft one way or the other. One point to remember is that the ground on which the Ferris Wheel was located is several feet below the elevation of the runway strip at Old Bar, so the aircraft was really low and considerably past the threshold at the point of impact. Paul was really struggling to gain height, it must have been terrifying in the aircraft. I have operated in and out of Old Bar and I was there last year at the festival but not this time so I am uncertain about the exact placement, but it does not appear to be in the splay from the footage that I have seen. I had a personal friend who crashed an aircraft at a Winery ALA in SA many years ago and thankfully they all survived, my friend tried to pin the owner of the ALA because he alleged the ALA owner gave him incorrect information as to the operational length; to no avail. In the end he was responsible for his operations and he should have verified the length and condition and NOT taken off. So the hull insurer sued him for the hull loss .... at the time he lost his house over the issue. This is a poignant reminder to us all that we are liable for damage as the PIC if we make an error in judgement that occasions loss. In this case the RAA insurance will cover the Ferris wheel loss, but what about the damage to the aircraft ... who covers that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 In relation to a particular strip the splay would be the main factor. In the area of an aerodrome the height of a structure may need to be controlled/notified/notamed as well. I'm not sure of the specifics. relates to circling minima. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 21, 2011 Share Posted November 21, 2011 Unfortunately, it is not quite that simple Tubz,Old Bar is an ALA, the pilot is responsible entirely for his/her operations into and out of an ALA, including obtaining permission and making him/her self aware of any conditions that may affect operations. Even if the Ferris wheel was within the splay, the effect would be to displace the threshold and a pilot would still be responsible to ensure operation within the displaced effective operational length of the ALA. The pilot is solely responsible to ensure he/she can safely operate, including around any obstructions. In the application of 'common' sense, you cannot fly into a tree and then blame the tree for being there, especially when you should have known the tree was there and if you could not possibly avoid it you should not attempt to operate. Remember operations had been carried out all day at Old Bar. It has not been confirmed the Ferris wheel was in a hazardous position, notwithstanding putting the Ferris Wheel in that position may have been poor planning on behalf of the organisers. Some witnesses said that the trees were immediately behind the Ferris wheel and it was either the Ferris wheel or the trees that would have caught the aircraft one way or the other. One point to remember is that the ground on which the Ferris Wheel was located is several feet below the elevation of the runway strip at Old Bar, so the aircraft was really low and considerably past the threshold at the point of impact. Paul was really struggling to gain height, it must have been terrifying in the aircraft. I have operated in and out of Old Bar and I was there last year at the festival but not this time so I am uncertain about the exact placement, but it does not appear to be in the splay from the footage that I have seen. I had a personal friend who crashed an aircraft at a Winery ALA in SA many years ago and thankfully they all survived, my friend tried to pin the owner of the ALA because he alleged the ALA owner gave him incorrect information as to the operational length; to no avail. In the end he was responsible for his operations and he should have verified the length and condition and NOT taken off. So the hull insurer sued him for the hull loss .... at the time he lost his house over the issue. This is a poignant reminder to us all that we are liable for damage as the PIC if we make an error in judgement that occasions loss. In this case the RAA insurance will cover the Ferris wheel loss, but what about the damage to the aircraft ... who covers that? I specifically related my comments to the placement of the ferris wheel only, not the pilot's actions or decisions. You can't compare it to a tree, the ferris wheel was set up where an obstacle hadn't been before, so there is an element of surprise. "It has not been confirmed the Ferris wheel was in a hazardous position" Well it stopped an aircraft, but no, I wasn't arguing that, I was very specific in saying "it was either in the splay or it wasn't. If the person who decided the position of the Ferris wheel did put it in the splay, then it is likely he had a duty of care to warn any approaching aircraft of the displacement. There has been some mention of cones on the field, but no one has publicly confirmed whether they were displacement cones or the position. Sure the PIC had a set of rules to follow as well but the nature of these cases is the shotgun approach, everyone with any money gets an invitation. The aspects of why the aircraft was off the runway alignment and why it was so low could well be the key, but the only public information I've seen is the pilot's comment that he didn't see the ferris wheel, and that doesn't address these issues. Hopefully the ATSB will explain that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wayne T Mathews Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I for one am hoping that when the ATSB report comes out, there'll be enough information in it that it'll allow me to form an informed opinion... How's that for hmmm speak? Keep the sunny side up, Wayne. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 It's very good Wayne. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I specifically related my comments to the placement of the ferris wheel only, not the pilot's actions or decisions.You can't compare it to a tree, the ferris wheel was set up where an obstacle hadn't been before, so there is an element of surprise. "It has not been confirmed the Ferris wheel was in a hazardous position" Well it stopped an aircraft, but no, I wasn't arguing that, I was very specific in saying "it was either in the splay or it wasn't. If the person who decided the position of the Ferris wheel did put it in the splay, then it is likely he had a duty of care to warn any approaching aircraft of the displacement. There has been some mention of cones on the field, but no one has publicly confirmed whether they were displacement cones or the position. Sure the PIC had a set of rules to follow as well but the nature of these cases is the shotgun approach, everyone with any money gets an invitation. The aspects of why the aircraft was off the runway alignment and why it was so low could well be the key, but the only public information I've seen is the pilot's comment that he didn't see the ferris wheel, and that doesn't address these issues. Hopefully the ATSB will explain that. HH I am not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the complications in determining responsibility. I am simply talking about pilot responsibilities around ALAs and from some of what I see on this thread there is a lot of misconception about ALAs and pilot responsibility at ALAs. ALA operations were rammed home in my training as I mostly operated out of ALAs. Notams are not issued on ALAs, so the only way the pilot can get information on conditions is to contact the owner / operator. Legally a pilot intending to operate into an ALA MUST get permission to do so and that would be the time the owner would have the opportunity to advise of any obstructions, and that would be arguably the only obligation the owner has, the rest is up to the pilot. Some ALA owners require waivers to be signed before pilots operate into them. Did the owner / operator of the airfield adequatley discharge their duty of care in this instance???? This is a can of worms given their only opportunity to point out any obstruction would be via an enquiry of aviators intending to operate or by publishing it on the airfield website. There may not have been an obstruction as we specualte at this point. Just because an aircraft hits something does not mean it is an obstruction in the legal sense. The great pity of all this is that the operators of Old Bar airstrip are a trust formed to protect the heritage aspect of the Old Bar airstrip a World War relic which was recently threatened with closure. If this incident closes Old BAr we have all lost another very good airfield in a very idyllic location where you can land and taxi into the caravan park and walk less than one K into town. Old Bar is a delightful place with a pleasant ambiance about it. The festival attracts a lot of visitors by car and by air. Taking a reaction to this incident to the extreme ... would they close the main road into Old Bar if a car ran off the road into the crowd and killed or injured people ... not likely ; but will the reaction to this incident be that rational? Two good things about this incident are that no one was hurt and the ATSB are doing the investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 I for one am hoping that when the ATSB report comes out, there'll be enough information in it that it'll allow me to form an informed opinion... How's that for hmmm speak?Keep the sunny side up, Wayne. I'll do the same as I like to comment on facts. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 HH I am not disagreeing with you, just pointing out the complications in determining responsibility. I have had significant ramming home of ALA issues all my training as I mostly operated out of ALAs.Notams are not issued on ALAs, so the only way the pilot can get information on conditions is to contact the owner / operator. Legally a pilot intending to operate into an ALA MUST get permission to do so and that would be the time the owner would have the opportunity to advise of any obstructions, and that would be arguably the only obligation the owner has, the rest is up to the pilot. Some ALA owners require waivers to be signed before pilots operate into them. Did the owner / operator of the airfield adequatley discharge their duty of care in this instance???? We're talking hypothetically here, not necessarily about Old Bar. "must get permission" If a thief breaks into your property at night and breaks his ankle after falling into an unguarded drain which a person of reasonable intelligence would expect to be guarded, you'll be forking out somewhere between $40,000 and $80,000, so getting permission may avoid any CASA action on the pilot, but if permission wasn't obtained it doesn't absolve the owner of the land and the operator of the airfield in my opinion. Be wary of waivers, they help the owner/provider because they act as a warning, but you can't take away the right of a Plaintiff to sue. This is a can of worms given their only opportunity to point out any obstruction would be via an enquiry of aviators intending to operate or by publishing it on the airfield website. There may not have been an obstruction as we specualte at this point. Just because an aircraft hits something does not mean it is an obstruction in the legal sense. If a Ferris wheel is set up in the splay, then the people who caused it to be put there had an obligation to warn the airfield operator, and assuming it was feasible (in other words the remaining airstrip length was suitable for aircraft) the airfield operator then has an obligation to warn ANYONE who uses the airfield, and there is an appropriate foolproof way accepted to do this and that is by displaced threshold cone markers. ( Much the same as office buildings with open entrances have an obligation to put out cone markers when it rains, or rope them off). The great pity of all this is that the operators of Old Bar airstrip are a trust formed to protect the heritage aspect of the Old Bar airstrip a World War relic which was recently threatened with closure. If this incident closes Old Bar we have all lost another very good airfield in a very idyllic location where you can land and taxi into the caravan park and walk less than one K into town. I've never seen a case where an operation was "closed down". There are laws protecting the rights of people and businesses. What can happen is that repeated accidents leads to higher insurance premiums and some dangerous activities like sausage sizzles, water slides etc. often run by volunteers are forced out over time. In the case of Old Bar, there certainly has been mention of cone markers, just not where they were. Old Bar is a delightful place with a pleasant ambiance about it. The festival attracts a lot of visitors by car and by air. Taking a reaction to this incident to the extreme ... would they close the main road into Old Bar if a car ran off the road into the crowd and killed or injured people ... not likely ; but will the reaction to this incident be that rational? Prior to the mid 1980's in the prescriptive era something like this may have been able to happen, but as I've said I haven't since any instance in modern times Two good things about this incident are that no one was hurt and the ATSB are doing the investigation. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Yep, agree with that HH, it is a sad reflection on what appears to be an emerging litigious trend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 22, 2011 Share Posted November 22, 2011 Yep, agree with that HH, it is a sad reflection on what appears to be an emerging litigious trend. From an aircraft operator, or race car driver, or anyone into high adrenaline activities some behaviour modification is required to reduce the risks back to the level of say frequenting a pub or playing cricket or golf, but what I've found is the steps needed make a lot of sense. For example the first time I put on a safety harness and climbed a ladder, I found myself strung up a tree by the harness after a limb hung, then let go like a slingshot. More importantly what these regulations do is provide money for the victims. So if the person is young and made a quadriplegic by someone else's negligence they get several million so they can meet the cost of lifelong medical care and carers. So there are definitely two sides to the story. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Preliminary report out today: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3525311/ao2011126_prelim.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It's just the ATSB way I think - they look at any and all possibilities. Each thing individually might not be significant but they all contribute to the picture that will be painted. I think the investigators would be more than a little frustrated with the simple things that they couldn't tick off - Pilot licence (School didn't exist) and wrong serial numbers on the Registration. I imagine these would be the first things for any and all accidents no matter what form of transport. Not a good look for the RA-Aus fraternity - especially if the root cause of this accident could be a simple matter of landing with a tail-wind and/or making the go-around decision too late... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest davidh10 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It's just the ATSB way... Agree. Also it is ATSB's charter to prevent accidents, so they would be interested in anything that might give rise to a different accident under different circumstances. For a "factory built aircraft", there seem to be some fairly fundamental issues described, which could be areas for improvement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluey Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I still feel that the ferris wheel should never have been approved for that location in the first place. Especially given the short length of the old bar airstrip. The typical nose up attitude of a low wing aircraft like the Sierra on take off makes it impossible for the pilot to see obstacles in direct line with the aircraft. The fact that the ferris wheel had been placed in line with the runway in previous years indicates a problem with the councils risk assessment process. Moving the ferris wheel 34m to the left of centre line is still too small a margin for error. Relying on other people to not make a mistake is not good risk management. Bluey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
68volksy Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I don't think the ferris wheel location really contributed that much to this accident. The fact the plane was below 60ft and 160m from the threshold is a much more significant contributing factor in my view. It's pure speculation but I think it highly probable the Council could have moved the ferris wheel based on feedback from the general public. How often do we hear statements of "The plane almost knocked my chimney off it was so low" when we know full well the plane was well above that? Not hard to imagine similar statements being made in this instance and Council reacting accordingly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 That is a pretty damning report for Ra-Aus. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bluey Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 160m from the end of the runway is too close in my opinion. Especially for something that big. Yes, the aircraft did land too long and yes the pilot left his go around decission way too late but this can and does happen. A short runway together with a downwind landing and take off leaves reduced margins for error and in this case combined with an inexperienced pilot and poor aircraft performance resulted in a crash. I wonder if the council consulted any aviation experts when conducting the risk assessment? I bet they didn't! I bet they wish they had now. Bluey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 That report answers my post # 209. I have been involved in many accident/incident investigations. My view is that there are plenty of aspects of this event that give a lot to look into. Unless some are living in a world of "blissful ignorance" they should be a little anxious about their situation. I am tempted to say more but I will confine it to suggesting being open and truthfull, then something is learned from it. You won't put it over these guys, so don't make it worse by varying the story.( If that appeals to you.). It is unlikely that the defects had anything to do with the event, but it all gets caught up in the net, when something happens.. Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 It would appear that a lot of improvements in many areas can be made as a result of this accident, so whilst we would rather not have an accident, a lot of good will be gained from it and possible future accidents avoided. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 I'm afraid it's worse than that Alan. If you want to see what the other side thinks of us right now, have a look at the prune site. We are going to pay heavily for some time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 Yes I agree with you Turbs but I was refering more to what we could learn rather than what we could suffer as an organisation but I do see your concerns. Alan. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted November 29, 2011 Share Posted November 29, 2011 One thing that stands out here is that you have a quality investigation and a result out quite quickly and there is the opportunity to benefit from it. I would suspect that many incidents are not notified and no reports worthy of the name are forthcoming, normally. So NO benefit, of any consequence.. P prune would sound off in any case Turbo. Hardly a respected forum. The conclusion that I arrive at when I visit there is that most of the participants need a good Psychiatrist urgently and I hope they are not the people up front when next I fly. No aeroplane can guarantee to make a particular gradient on climb out. There can be factors like leaving the carb heat in the hot position or an engine fault ( like a hydraulic lifter not pumping up on a Continental 0-300, where even though there was 5 good cylinders left, it would not climb out of ground effect), so there should be a clearway in a splay area.). This only addresses the siting of the Ferris wheel. and trees etc There is a real grab-bag of issues here, which may be debated in due course. The more info the better that debate would be. The responsibilities could be sorted out by law. (That is the usual place and not always satisfactory). A useful thing I have used over the years to decide what is OK and what is NOT, is along the lines of;- HOW WOULD IT LOOK AT THE INQUIRY? That has a sobering effect. Nev 2 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