Admin Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 This is not looking good if it is as described by the News...3 people onboard... In the Aircraft Pilots News Section: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/ultralight-plane-crashes-in-north-queensland.33612/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robinsm Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Was it an ultralight with 3 people on board? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlyingVizsla Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 The news story is here: http://www.whitsundaytimes.com.au/story/2012/01/19/plane-crash-near-brandy-creek/ The rego 19-4329 is clear in the photo. As mentioned on the Aircraft Pilots thread, the aircraft is a Savannah Bingo 45 and is not on the RAAus rego list (which is a year out of date). The article says there was a pilot, passenger and child on board. Sue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Is this another, dare I say ... here we go again, another flagrant breach of the rules with 3 x POB? This is the sort of thing that implies we ultralighters can't live by the rules. Not true of the majority of course, but nevertheless the public only see the bad stuff. Very disappointing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Can I say a swear!!!! Seriously... heck!!! That poor kid! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 Its amazing what this intranet will tell you... http://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=141949 <--- that was quick. http://www.auf.asn.au/admin/registration_cancelled_expiry_sequence.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So it potentially gets worse does it??? As at 30/01/2011 the aircraft was not registered; has it been registered since given our web records are one year out of date? Definitely NOT the kind of publicity we need if it is established the aircraft was not registered, it is bad enough with three POB! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 So it potentially gets worse does it???As at 30/01/2011 the aircraft was not registered; has it been registered since given our web records are one year out of date? Definitely NOT the kind of publicity we need if it is established the aircraft was not registered, it is bad enough with three POB! On the RAA doc that I looked at from Win's post (header info page 1) it said that it was produced in 2009 so I dont think we can yet claim it wasnt registered at the time it flew...... Its hard to understand why the doc is so far out of date....but I know that has been discussed before Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 He posted two docs and the latest was 30/01/2011 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted January 19, 2012 Share Posted January 19, 2012 With the (published) register 12 months out of date, we can't be sure that the aircraft has not been re registered in the meantime. I emailed the RAA CEO and Office a month or two back re out of date info (register amongst other things) on the web site and have YET to receive a REPLY. It's making the new RPL look better. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 He posted two docs and the latest was 30/01/2011 Ohh Bugger!! I though he had the benefit of time on his side.. I guess technically he still does but its only 1 year not 3. Win, why dont you take down the old one, it doesnt add anything and clearly idiots like me can be easily confussed... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Methusala Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 This is a real eye opener to me! I wonder what happened to all of those aircraft? Surely they are not all gathering dust in the back of a shed? Just sayin'. Don Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 I'll bet that is exactly where many will be Don, in the back of some old shed somewhere, especially the 95-10 ones. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bullrout Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Which is a bloody shame ,the sport of ultralighting has evolved[died]into sport aviation not a good outcome. ps just because the motor car was ,better ,faster ,go farther, than the horse does,nt stop millions of people who ride horses for fun............................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Which is a bloody shame ,the sport of ultralighting has evolved[died]into sport aviation not a good outcome. ps just because the motor car was ,better ,faster ,go farther, than the horse does,nt stop millions of people who ride horses for fun............................................ Or to put that another way:- The fact that millions ride horsses for fun did absolutely nothing to prevent the mass adoption of the automobile over the horse. It was noted that of the millions who rode horses for fun almost all of them also had a car truely giving them the best of both worlds Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 This is a real eye opener to me! I wonder what happened to all of those aircraft? Surely they are not all gathering dust in the back of a shed? Just sayin'. Don Well one of them is mine, and its sitting in a shed waiting for me to come up with a new 582 for it. The "Expert" that repaired it after a sieze. bored it out twice using up the oversiozed piston allowance, and it still siezed again. When I have a spare $6k I'll consider getting it back to working..... I spent about $700 less than the cost of a new 582 and ended up with nothing. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bullrout Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Andy we all make these bad decisions some time ....like trying to get back into true ultralights ,you know retraining to fly a 5grand aircraft for fun-------------150 phr---twice the cost of aircraft just to be legal in the sport pilot world!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!and then not be trained correctly [high drag/low inertia] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bullrout Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Andy that is so true , but you dont have to pay the same as your car rego to go for a ride!! And you still dont need a licence to ride a horse........................................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Andy, did you find out why the seizures happened and was that on your trike? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted January 20, 2012 Share Posted January 20, 2012 Andy, did you find out why the seizures happened and was that on your trike? No I didnt, and yes it was. To be honest by the time I worked out that the "expert" approach was 1) Engine siezed restore.2) Goto step 1) it was too late to ask for what I thought was obvious, which was some primary fault finding as to why their was a problem in the first case. My first clue which I foolishly ignored was on asking why first time around I did not get any answer that was definitive and was told in effect "sh$t happens sometimes" I had been told that he was good and really new his stuff, owning a VW car engine overhaul busines..... Anyway, when the new one goes in all support systems (such as oil injection, fuel pumps etc etc) will be fully overhauled and up to speed. I'll be doing the work myself. The only problem with that approach is that Im sorta a bit over 2 strokes...but the 912 based trikes are, to me, too expensive for what they are. Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
deltacharlie Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 Can I say a swear!!!! Seriously... heck!!!That poor kid! By the injuries it looks like the kid may not have been properly restrained. I suppose the only saving grace is that most members of the public would not know the a/c was overloaded, but of course CASA will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 21, 2012 Share Posted January 21, 2012 No I didnt, and yes it was.To be honest by the time I worked out that the "expert" approach was 1) Engine siezed restore.2) Goto step 1) it was too late to ask for what I thought was obvious, which was some primary fault finding as to why their was a problem in the first case. My first clue which I foolishly ignored was on asking why first time around I did not get any answer that was definitive and was told in effect "sh$t happens sometimes" I had been told that he was good and really new his stuff, owning a VW car engine overhaul busines..... Anyway, when the new one goes in all support systems (such as oil injection, fuel pumps etc etc) will be fully overhauled and up to speed. I'll be doing the work myself. The only problem with that approach is that Im sorta a bit over 2 strokes...but the 912 based trikes are, to me, too expensive for what they are. Andy To be honest I think two stroke engines are way better than many people give credit. I do not have any myself these days but over the years I did a lot of flying with them and found if treated right they were as good as a four stroke. You may already know these things but just in case you don't I will make some suggestions. Oil injection is probably the way to go otherwise you have to really mix the oil with the petrol very thoroughly. Warm your engine up well before take off to avoid cold seizures. I personally always descended with the throttle at idle and warmed the engine every 500 ft ( you have to be careful not to cool your engine too much and then require power as that can result in a cold seizure ) descending with part throttle can also cause a seizure. Monitor your EGTs even though I never did this myself as the aircraft I flew never had EGT gauges. Never lean the fuel / air mixture unless you know for sure it is necessary, it is better to use a bit of extra fuel than have seized up engines. Always use the manufacturers oil / petrol mix ratio, some people put more oil in thinking it will be better for the engine, but the opposite is the case. Hope this is of assistance to you or any other two stroke flyers out there. Richard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Brandon Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I suppose the only saving grace is that most members of the public would not know the a/c was overloaded, but of course CASA will. Well I doubt that mtow was exceeded so the aircraft was probably not overloaded. Also CASA made a ruling some time ago that defined the number of excess passengers (i.e. infants/children) that may be carried for various numbers of seats and for a two-place aircraft it is one, so I don't see that the pilot has broken any CASA ruling. Also CAO 95.55 limits the number of aircraft places to two, not the number of souls on board. I don't think the RA-Aus ops manual says anything about carrying only one passenger. So I can't see any RA-Aus rule being broken. If the police consider an inadequate restraint system was used then they might take civil action, but most officers would believe that the pilot has more than enough grief to cope with. So all in all, I don't believe any aviation laws were broken and the sky will not fall on RA-Aus. cheers John Brandon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 Well I doubt that mtow was exceeded so the aircraft was probably not overloaded. Also CASA made a ruling some time ago that defined the number of excess passengers (i.e. infants/children) that may be carried for various numbers of seats and for a two-place aircraft it is one, so I don't see that the pilot has broken any CASA ruling.Also CAO 95.55 limits the number of aircraft places to two, not the number of souls on board. I don't think the RA-Aus ops manual says anything about carrying only one passenger. So I can't see any RA-Aus rule being broken. If the police consider an inadequate restraint system was used then they might take civil action, but most officers would believe that the pilot has more than enough grief to cope with. So all in all, I don't believe any aviation laws were broken and the sky will not fall on RA-Aus. You are kidding aren't you John. We know that in a GA aircraft two children can be seated in a single adult seat where they don't exceed the weight of an adult passenger and provided they are adequately restrained in accordance with CAAP 235-2(1) and the aircraft does not exceed balance or weight limitations ... but .. we had all been of the belief that RA Aus requirements were clearly a maximum of two POB, not a maximum of two seats. Are you certain on what you have just posted? If what you have suggested is correct this changes a lot of engraved perception. Perhaps this pilot was of the same view you have shared. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 22, 2012 Share Posted January 22, 2012 I think we are getting to the root of the problem... 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