Tex Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 That is all I have ATM.... Report of 'Light Aircraft' on fire near Gatton (Qld) from Twitter feed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Tragically it Appears to be fatal CHRIS MCMAHON THE COURIER-MAIL MARCH 02, 2014 7:56AM A PLANE has crashed on Princes Road at Gatton, west of Ipswich, this morning. The plane is believed to have crashed into an embankment about 7.20am and caught on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted March 1, 2014 Share Posted March 1, 2014 Police confirmed one male deceased. Rip 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tex Posted March 1, 2014 Author Share Posted March 1, 2014 That is the Gatton Airpark I know a few people out there... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 I hope it isn't true about how I heard it happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 An RV type aircraft that impacted the bank after a pass down the runway at around 7 am. Condolences to the gentleman s family..............Maj... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Sad to heat RIP Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete8862 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Does anyone know if this fellow lived at the air park Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 yes he lived at the park…his name was said on the Ch 10 news Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kyle Communications Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Ch 7 said his name is John Sawtelder I think they said 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pete8862 Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Just heard who it was, John was a very nice guy, my heart goes out to his family he will be missed 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted March 2, 2014 Share Posted March 2, 2014 Regardless of how, very sad to hear, especially to family and friends. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-035.aspx Regardless of how nice a guy he is reputed to have been, this makes me angry. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It doesn't shed a nice light on it does it. And seems to say he had been flying it for a couple of years without the appropriate licence. I guess the fact it was totally avoidable and shouldnt have happened makes it a worse loss in a way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Yeah it's stuff like this which RAAus has to really crack down on. This report is now permanently on the public record with "Experimental" and "Recreational Aviation Australia" splashed all over it. CASA knows about it as does everyone else. It's not flattering. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 "The ATSB did not identify any organisational or systemic issues that contributed to the development of the accident or that might adversely affect the future safety of aviation operations and assessed that no safety issues would be identified through further investigation. On that basis, the ATSB has decided to discontinue its investigation." I don't think you can blame that one on the RAA dutchroll seems the ATSB don't, and they did quiet pointedly allocate the blame. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It was a VH aircraft what has RAAus got to do with it. This is a CASA problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 A self induced accident, no insurance for his family, just the trauma of cleaning up the mess he left behind. that's so tough on his family. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It was a VH aircraft what has RAAus got to do with it. This is a CASA problem. It was an RAAus licensed pilot. This implies that he was RAAus trained. That an RAAus licensed and trained pilot was flying a type for which he was not qualified, and for the icing on the cake was doing something really stupid, makes it become an RAAus issue to consider whether RAAus likes it or not. This is not the same thing as directly "blaming" the RAAus. This is saying "hey, one of your boys killed himself doing something both illegal and dumb". I would think that the safety people within the organisation would take a look at this and say "well even if we don't mention it directly, it would be nice if our people learn some lessons from this". At least that's what any other aircraft safety organisation would do. You can't just wash away the issues of pilots trained in your own organisation by saying "oh yeah well the aircraft wasn't registered to us so none of that matters". The SAAA doesn't do it. The EAA doesn't do it. The big boys don't do it. A CASA problem? The cause of the accident had nothing to do with the aircraft type and had everything to do with the "pilot in command". That it was VH registered was incidental! And CASA may well make it your problem if that type of thing continues to happen! 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Maj Millard Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Even if we wanted to the RAA has no durisdiction over an accident involving a VH registered aircraft. Of course our ops people would make note of the fact that the pilot held an RAA certificate Additionally. But basically it was a non VH licensed pilot flying a VH registered aircraft = Illegal operation....fully in CASAs ballpark as I see it..............Maj.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Ah yes OK. I get the point. "What our certified and trained pilots do is nothing to do with us". Very good. Carry on. This is not going to end well for you if that same attitude is persisted with over time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Geoff13 Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 He held a Casa Student Pilot licence for the aircraft that he was flying but was not authorised to fly as PIC. We can hardly hold RAA responsible. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Andys@coffs Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It was an RAAus licensed pilot. This implies that he was RAAus trained.That an RAAus licensed and trained pilot was flying a type for which he was not qualified, and for the icing on the cake was doing something really stupid, makes it become an RAAus issue to consider whether RAAus likes it or not. This is not the same thing as directly "blaming" the RAAus. This is saying "hey, one of your boys killed himself doing something both illegal and dumb". I would think that the safety people within the organisation would take a look at this and say "well even if we don't mention it directly, it would be nice if our people learn some lessons from this". At least that's what any other aircraft safety organisation would do. You can't just wash away the issues of pilots trained in your own organisation by saying "oh yeah well the aircraft wasn't registered to us so none of that matters". The SAAA doesn't do it. The EAA doesn't do it. The big boys don't do it. A CASA problem? The cause of the accident had nothing to do with the aircraft type and had everything to do with the "pilot in command". That it was VH registered was incidental! And CASA may well make it your problem if that type of thing continues to happen! Dutchroll If I hold a License to drive a car, and I end up illegally driving a truck then the issue is me, not the authority in charge of car licenses, nor the authority in charge of truck licenses (assuming they were different) Anything that suggests the problem lies anywhere but with me is sugar coated BS or blame shifting.......I doubt I would find a single RAAus member in my area that would hold any thoughts that its perfectly acceptable for an RAAus certificate holder to drive a VH registered aircraft with that certificate and therefore I have to assume he knew and broke the rules. The question that should be asked of local aviators (and I care not for their breed) is, who else was aware that he was doing this and did nothing about it. Anyway that's my opinion......As a follow on, lets say that, wrongly in my view, RAAus puts its hand up and says yep it was us, its our responsibility, then what exactly would you have them do? Do we need more legislation? clearly there isn't enough in CASA already? more training? in what exactly, how to break rules and not get caught? Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cooda Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 It could be argued that his RA-Aus (and GA) training had failed to instil in him a reasonable level of respect for the laws governing flying in this country. And having him identified as holding a Pilot's Certificate in a report that very few people will read is not great PR for RA-Aus. But the registration of ownership of the aircraft is a CASA matter. The illegal operation of that aircraft by an unlicensed person is a CASA matter. And, by no stretch of the imagination, is teaching or carrying out aerobatics (legal or not) a RA-Aus matter. CASA has maintained full responsibility for that activity. Nevertheless, good bloke or not, it might prove useful for our magazine to run an article on the sanctions he might have received, had he survived. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 16, 2014 Share Posted July 16, 2014 Yeah it's stuff like this which RAAus has to really crack down on. This report is now permanently on the public record with "Experimental" and "Recreational Aviation Australia" splashed all over it. CASA knows about it as does everyone else. It's not flattering. This is all dutchroll said before all the bristles came up and yet again people did their very best to promote letting other people continue their unsafe activities. I've mentioned a number of times that all the people involved in advising, helping, employing, training etc. someone to the point where he is doing something and comes unstuck may well have a duty of care, so RAA, and RAA instructors could well be a defendant if there is a claim. It has nothing to do with jurisdiction and nothing to do with current registration, and nothing to do with current licensing - it's all about who had the duty of care in creating this pilot. Hopefully there will not be a claim, and dutchroll is being very responsible suggesting that RAA crack down on this type of uncontrolled behaviour, particularly since it has been openly boasted about on this and other forums. It doesn't matter which branch of recreational aviation it's happening at the time, apart from the risk of big lawsuits, authorities are beaten up by Ministers to clamp down. 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