Compulsion Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Hi Herm you are still around. Hope to catch up soon. I will be at YGAW Sunday. I have to do some work to 7314 before Easter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 The boys said he flew along 03L for his pass then was making a 180 turn back on to 21R when he spun it. If that is correct it would have involved a fairly steep turn to to do a 180 and get back onto the same runway. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compulsion Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 This was about 2 minutes before the accident on downwind passing the end of the airfield. 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 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 ?? No, in my opinion. If a low pass to get the roos off the strip is necessary to land, then it is necessary to do that in order to land. Perfectly reasonable. Stupid unnecessary, and unflexable rules like the ones you describe.......... CAR 157 is a rule which prohibits unauthorised low flying below 500ft, except under necessary circumstances like weather avoidance, landing, go-arounds, mustering, ag flying, displays, low flying training, helicopter operations, etc. You simply cannot be serious when you say that it is "stupid", "unnecessary", and "inflexible". If you want to test this in court, go ahead and roll the dice. I'm sure the Magistrate will be impressed after the litany of low-flying accidents over many decades is described to them. .....is why this country remains in a backward slide to the rest of the world ! Ahem......that statement is more than a little melodramatic. Virtually all other civilised countries have similar civil aviation rules. Somalia doesn't, if I recall. It's possible Sierra Leone doesn't either (though it does have a Ministry of Transport). Perhaps we are in a backwards slide compared to those countries? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Quote; dutchroll.... CAR 157 is a rule which prohibits unauthorised low flying below 500ft, except under necessary circumstances like weather avoidance, landing, go-arounds, mustering, ag flying, displays, low flying training, helicopter operations, etc. You simply cannot be serious when you say that it is "stupid", "unnecessary", and "inflexible". If you want to test this in court, go ahead and roll the dice. I'm sure the Magistrate will be impressed after the litany of low-flying accidents over many decades is described to them. Ok, on the above I'd say the pilot in question performing his 50' pass down the runway, is covered in this particular circumstance by two of the above IE: Displays....practising for his forthcoming display, and 2..low flying training....as above. He was simply getting real familiar and current with his aircraft prior to that planned display, as one would expect. Quote; dutchroll...... Ahem......that statement is more than a little melodramatic. Dutchroll; As a B767 driver I would imagine you may have operated in US airspace under FAA flight rules ?..Or are you simply doing Qantas freight runs up to Honkers ?...straight North-South...not even any jetlag. If you have operated in the US, you would surley (don't call me surley!) be very familiar with just how antiquated, (by comparison) our CASA controlled system is. The FAA regulations are contained in one book (FARs), whilst our current stack of out of date regulations stacks a meter and a half high !..and growing. And remember also, they do more movements in one day over there, than we would do in this country in one year !!...Even the Kiwis can now boast a more operatable airspace system than we have atm...............................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru7252 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 a spectator is quoted in the newspaper as saying that a wing gave way........ anyone know anything about this? I saw the thing go in, did not see anything to indicate that at all, unless the wing came off at the last second when the plane went behind the trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru7252 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Can any one tell me the engine horse power of the replica spitfire? It seems to me that they were designed for a 2000 hp engine, ie all engine, small wing, which would make them susceptible to a stall with a smaller hp engine going slow. Your thoughts?Condolences to the pilots family... 2000 hp - does the REAL spitfire have 2000 hp under the hood? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben87r Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 2000 hp - does the REAL spitfire have 2000 hp under the hood? AND MORE!! Think they got up to 2300? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 2000 hp - does the REAL spitfire have 2000 hp under the hood? they must have gone like stink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
planedriver Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 2000 hp - does the REAL spitfire have 2000 hp under the hood? The Mk 24 with the Griffin 85, had a two stage supercharger and pumped out a massive 2120hp at 12,250ft. The second stage enabled it to climb to it's service ceiling of 43,000ft and 454MPH flat chat. As the Rolls Royce salesman would say--------- "If you have to ask about the fuel consumption? I'm sorry Sir, but can't really afford one, you'd better stick with the Jabby 2200 motor" 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru Phil Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Summary It was reported that the aircraft had finished a flying display at Parafield Airport and was positioning for landing. Shortly after, the aircraft was observed descending vertically towards the ground. The aircraft impacted the ground and was destroyed. The pilot was fatally injured. The ATSB has deployed three investigators, with specialisations in engineering and aircraft operations. They have already begun work at the accident site. Over the next few days they will examine the wreckage and accident site, interview witnesses, collect maintenance and pilot records and examine any relevant recorded air traffic control radio and radar data. The investigators are seeking witness reports including any video footage that might assist the investigation. Witnesses can call the ATSB on 1800 020 616. The investigation is continuing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jabiru7252 Posted March 19, 2013 Share Posted March 19, 2013 Well I am sure that plane (4/5th replica) does not need 2000hp. I have crawled in, over and under it in the past and it's actually not that big. I saw a video where one was fitted with a v8 but this one as mentioned previously had a V6 fitted. It sure sounded sweet. I had a look at the crash site this morning as it is just around the corner and a few hundred meters from home. Still wreckage there. We have here near the airport a stupid woman who complains relentlessly about Parafield and the aeroplanes. I wonder what she will come up with in the local rag about this sad event. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jamel Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Would it have been the pilots choice to turn straight back after his pass or ATC? I wonder if a normal circuit would have provided more safety, especially seeing as the operation was over a built up area? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Would it have been the pilots choice to turn straight back after his pass or ATC? I wonder if a normal circuit would have provided more safety, especially seeing as the operation was over a built up area? Dunno about the particular situation.But a Pilot has the last say, if he/she feels that a ATC instuction is going to be in the pilots mind unsafe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 You say something like" negative .. REQUIRE (whatever procedure) into wind landing, larger turn etc". It must be justifiable. It is the pilot's responsibility to operate the aircraft in the most safe manner. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 Actually the word "unable" will do the trick...they'll find something else pretty quick, when the balls in their court.......................................Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin Posted March 20, 2013 Share Posted March 20, 2013 I think this thread has run its course...any specific discussion points could be done by threads dedicated to that. Everyone here at Recreational Flying sends their condolences to the Pilot's family and friends 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts