Guest Maj Millard Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 So whats wrong with a fast pass down the runway in a replica Spitfire at 50' for chris sake. (post #37) It was his runway I'm sure, and I don't recall seeing any rule that says you have to land. Maybe as PIC he decided to fly through, and not land. Exercising his privilages no doubt. It's moments and sounds like that which make aviation, good on him I say !..............Maj.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pookemon Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 So whats wrong with a fast pass down the runway in a replica Spitfire at 50' for chris sake. (post #37) It was his runway I'm sure, and I don't recall seeing any rule that says you have to land. Maybe as PIC he decided to fly through, and not land. Exercising his privilages no doubt. It's moments and sounds like that which make aviation, good on him I say !..............Maj.. Agreed Maj. It's all very well to say whether or not you think it's right - but it's perfectly within the rules AFAIK. Heck, I did it pre-solo as part of my training (albeit in a Gazelle - so it was a much, much longer low pass). From the descriptions above sounds like the airspeed dropped off too much, combined with the left roll caused a tip stall. I've been told a few times that model spitty's are prone to tip stalls, maybe that extends right up to 80% scale (though I seem to remember hearing that full scale suffer from it too). That combined with pushing the flight envelope a little too far would result in a tragedy like this. Prayers for the Family and Witnesses. RIP to someone that loved Aviating. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 So whats wrong with a fast pass down the runway in a replica Spitfire at 50' for chris sake. (post #37) It was his runway I'm sure, and I don't recall seeing any rule that says you have to land. Maybe as PIC he decided to fly through, and not land. Exercising his privilages no doubt. It's moments and sounds like that which make aviation, good on him I say !..............Maj.. You will find that this is a breach of CARs unless it's part of an approved display sequence and/or you have the appropriate low flying approvals. Sorry. (and ask me how I know) It doesn't matter a hoot whose runway or land you're flying over. It is relevant what configuration the aircraft is in when you're doing it. The only reason I still have a licence is because I was in the military at the time and thus not technically bound by CARs, however the formal military investigation covered all of this stuff quite extensively. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 ...... (and ask me how I know)........ So from your profile im guessing it was either something you did in a 767 or the Pitts....... Im guessing it wasnt the former.... Dont see too many of those while watching and waiting at mascot...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 So from your profile im guessing it was either something you did in a 767 or the Pitts....... Im guessing it wasnt the former.... Dont see too many of those while watching and waiting at mascot...... No it was something I did in my military life in a military aircraft, but in a civilian environment at the time. Had I done the same thing in a civilian aircraft (thus being required to adhere to the CARs), I would most likely have lost my licence. It wasn't dangerous as such, but it was foolish and hot-headed. A long time ago! I escaped with a relatively light military punishment after some lobbying from my immediate superiors. However the guy who convened the formal investigation originally wanted to pretty much cut my balls off. Just to clarify, it's called unauthorised low flying, and it doesn't matter where you do it. It's still unauthorised. I realise it happens a lot, but I'm just pointing out that people who are going to bust the rules should at least know which rules they're busting. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I don't usually comment on accidents and above all, I wasn't there however, looking at the crash site in relation to the airfield and in particular the runway on Google Maps it would appear that he was passed his turning point from base onto finals. This may account for him trying to tighten the turn to line up with the runway. Just a thought. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I don't usually comment on accidents and above all, I wasn't there however, looking at the crash site in relation to the airfield and in particular the runway on Google Maps it would appear that he was passed his turning point from base onto finals. This may account for him trying to tighten the turn to line up with the runway.Just a thought. The boys said he flew along 03L for his pass then was making a 180 turn back on to 21R when he spun it. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XP503 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 This site says it was structural, right wing failed??? http://www.aircentre.com.au/newsdesk/current/news/wk3.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 This site says it was structural, right wing failed???http://www.aircentre.com.au/newsdesk/current/news/wk3.htm they seem to have based that on an eyewitness statement. The post-crash photos aren't clear, and there is a tree on the right side of the plane, and the stub of the wing is there, up the point where that tree is. So it seems, from the photos in the newspaper, that the right wing sheared maybe a foot or two from the fuselage on impact with a tree on the ground. Can't tell from the photo if the remainder of the wing is where this scenario would place it: on the other side of the tree. I suggest that there isn't good evidence for the wing failure theory, at least from the publicly available pics. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compulsion Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If I knew how to put a photo on here I would post a photo of the aircraft seconds before the crash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If I knew how to put a photo on here I would post a photo of the aircraft seconds before the crash. compulsion, as an eyewitness, do you have any comment re the "wing failure" theory? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 dutchroll,..... So if I do a Wallaby clearing run down our airstrip (a required manouver for a safe landing I can assure you !) I am in breach of a safety regulation ??....Try landing with about 30 of them jumping all over the strip in front of you aircraft, in all directions instead. That then would definitly endanger my life, and that of any innocent passenger sitting besides me at the time, and certainly endanger the continued airworthiness of my aircraft. Stupid unnecessary, and unflexable rules like the ones you describe, is why this country remains in a backward slide to the rest of the world !...............................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WTE_Sikshoota Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 This site says it was structural, right wing failed??? Hello All David, the quote "structural, right wing failed???" is not correct. I was at the accident site today and I can let you know that the starboard wing remained solidly attached at the wing root & via the two upper & lower hinge pin points. The port wing however showed a degree of structural damage, some of which was in the region of the upper & lower hinge pin points (the cause of which is still under investigation by the ATSB). Condolences to the Pilots family & friends. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compulsion Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I have contacted the police today and offered my account of what I saw and photos taken just prior to the accident. I have my opinion on what happened and why but it is exactly that. Only my opinion. I have read of an explosion just before. I have read of structural failure. I have read that the aircraft was performing aerobatics. All in my opinion are wrong. As I have said this is only MY opinion. The thing that is certain is we have lost another aviator and that is a tragedy. There is another air show coming up in a few weeks in the Barossa Valley. I will have to decide if I still want to attend. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
airangel Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 You will find that this is a breach of CARs unless it's part of an approved display sequence and/or you have the appropriate low flying approvals. Sorry. (and ask me how I know)It doesn't matter a hoot whose runway or land you're flying over. It is relevant what configuration the aircraft is in when you're doing it. The only reason I still have a licence is because I was in the military at the time and thus not technically bound by CARs, however the formal military investigation covered all of this stuff quite extensively. Remember.....It was an Airshow!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 I have contacted the police today and offered my account of what I saw and photos taken just prior to the accident. I have my opinion on what happened and why but it is exactly that. Only my opinion. I have read of an explosion just before. I have read of structural failure. I have read that the aircraft was performing aerobatics. All in my opinion are wrong. As I have said this is only MY opinion. The thing that is certain is we have lost another aviator and that is a tragedy. There is another air show coming up in a few weeks in the Barossa Valley. I will have to decide if I still want to attend. I would certainly not wish to have ever witnessed what you did mate. I won't even bother to ask how you're sleeping of late. However, i'd seriously listen to Motz's wise words, because sadly he's experienced what you went through first hand. Try and keep your chin up. Kind regards Planey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
XP503 Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If I knew how to put a photo on here I would post a photo of the aircraft seconds before the crash. That would be interesting to see. Posting photos is very simple, can you try? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Remember.....It was an Airshow!! If you look back through the posts I think you'll find they were talking about an event the day before at a private airstrip. What someone does at an approved airshow display is a different thing. That also applies if it was a practice routine for that display, but as soon as your display or practice routine is finished, you're bound by the same rules as everyone else. I don't want to offend friends and relatives, but there is no subtle way of putting it. It's a breach of CARs (the way it was described). I'd personally find it somewhat disturbing to have to get on a pilot forum and explain to people what CAR 157 means. Don't misconstrue this though - I'm not saying this had any bearing on the accident at all. I'm not even saying it was necessarily "unsafe". However the point was raised by another poster and he was carpeted for it. The gist of what the poster was getting at was quite correct. I'm sorry to have to say that, but that is the reality. Even amateur pilots still need to know the rules. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 If I knew how to put a photo on here I would post a photo of the aircraft seconds before the crash. There is a video on how to do it Compulsion: http://www.recreationalflying.com/threads/any-site-problems-site-support.21638/#post-153899 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
REastwood Posted March 18, 2013 Share Posted March 18, 2013 Dutchroll & Maj: I reckon CAR 157 (4)(e) covers a fair bit. Clearing animals of a runway is certainly a part of the landing process. Also sometimes it is required to conduct a low pass to make sure the undercarriage is retracted properly or a ground observer to check. Sometimes you do a low pass to check the crosswind etc. etc. I have been told by someone who was there that the aircraft did a left orbit, then a right orbit and it was during the right orbit that it stalled. Does any body know the exact time it happened as it might appear on WebTrack - the Air Services radar page? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 So what's the minimum height for a Go-around? I have had ATC tell me to go around just after I have started the landing flare. They saw a dog running across the runway that I didn't. Was this illegal? Should I have landed as I was below a certain height above the runway? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 So what's the minimum height for a Go-around? I have had ATC tell me to go around just after I have started the landing flare. They saw a dog running across the runway that I didn't. Was this illegal? Should I have landed as I was below a certain height above the runway? Come on. Read the CAR. Here's the link: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s157.html 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Captain Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 On the Low-Pass/Missed Approach matter, it has become fairly common at Fly-Ins in my experience. It happened regularly at SAAA's Wings Over Wagga and at Natfly on occasions over recent years. Anyone who is demonstrating an aircraft, and is so inclined, calls a missed approach then does a hoon fast low pass down the runway, usually followed by a pull-up at some point, with no real attempt to climb out once the missed approach is called. I've been in the right seat for a couple and they are great fun, but nobody can ever convince me that they are not a hoon ............... and are less safe. I'll run a sweep on the rego numbers of the guys that will do it at Temora this year if you like. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Nah, not necessary. I love airshow flypasts and for all I know it might be part of their approved display (it often is). Though calling for a "missed approach".... that's lame. Call it what it is, or call it nothing at all. There are eyewitnesses and probably video anyway! They're going to look someone straight in the eye and say "oh yeah that's a standard missed approach, didn't you hear me on the radio?" Jeepers.... I'm not going to run crying to CASA (heck I don't even like CASA!), but I start getting disturbed when people don't understand the rules they're busting. Even more so if busting them becomes ho-hum routine. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herm Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Just to add some more detail on the wing situation. It was one of my friends that attended the site to lift the aircraft from its resting position. My friend owns a lifting and towing service for large vehicles and was called to this job. He phoned me whilst he was at the site, and I can clearly advise that their was no visible signs of wing failure at all. Wings were in pretty good shape as well as the tail section. I do understand that my friend is not a pilot, it does seem based on conversation at the site that the stall turn event is likely to be the most plausible evaluation of the cause. Very Sad Outcome and I feel for all the family members and those who witnessed the even. Mardy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts