Rotorwork Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 From ABC Not good http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-07-29/a-man27s-died-in-light-plane-crash-near-deniliquin/6656850?section=nsw A man has died in a light plane crash near Deniliquin today. Police say emergency services were called at 11am to a property off the Wanganella-Moulamein road, 40 kilometres north of Deniliquin. Police from the Deniliquin Local Area Command and paramedics located the body of the pilot, the only occupant, who had died at the scene. Police have notified the air safety investigator. Witnesses or anyone with information about the crash should contact Deniliquin Police or Crimestoppers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 A tragic loss to aviation as well as the motor sport community Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 GA or RAA??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jabiruken Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 So sad, Ra-Aus :-( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Not again ... what the hell is happening out there. What on earth are we doing so wrong that the penalties are so high? So damn tragic. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ultralights Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 a combination of regulation saturation, and a shortage of decent training in advanced aircraft control from career orientated instructors. 1 5 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slb Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Awful to hear of another accident. Condolences to family and friends. Does anyone know what aircraft it was? Is Jill back from Oshkosh? I know Darren is still away, so not sure who would be attending from RA-Aus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Litespeed Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Damn, I am so sorry to hear that. My Condolences to his Family and Friends. Please everybody stay safe in the air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asmol Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 According to the CASA report it was a Savage CUB involved in 'mustering operations'. Owner only had the aircraft for 3-4 days after buying second hand. RIP and as said on another website. 'Say hello to Brocky for us' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 You have your answer there Ultralights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Dear God, I hope the poor soul had proper training and approvals for mustering. Loitering around at low level and low speed is fatal without proper training. This will serve as a real wake up call, hopefully. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 a combination of regulation saturation, and a shortage of decent training in advanced aircraft control from career orientated instructors. You reckon reducing the number of regulations will improve the accident rate? Perhaps indeed there are too many regulations and don't for a minute think that I am advocating more (I am not). But consider this: I fly for a major airline in my day job. We have the bejeezus regulated out of us. Honestly, if you wanted to know the hoops I have to jump through every year it would make you cry. On my company iPad there are 30 procedural, technical and regulatory publications (the longest of which is 2,200 pages and takes up nearly 80 MB of memory in a compressed PDF format) excluding CARs and CAOs which I am required to have an in-depth knowledge of. Yet our accident rate over several decades is almost zero. How then, is an accident rate linked to "regulation saturation"? Seriously, you don't understand how lucky you are when it comes to freedom from regulation - it actually feels quite liberating for me to hop in my little Experimental plane on the weekend and go for a private fly. Yet still you fall out of the sky at somewhat alarming rates. Why? 1 3 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Training, training, training, ... combined with the ability to learn, learn, learn. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 yes droll - I know of a commercial pilot in airlines who was seriously considering stopping flying ............... to avoid the tedious red tape and procedural stuff - just a nice 8 to 5 job .......... nothing else to do outside those hours as to the cause of crashes - well its because ............................. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rankamateur Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Training, training, training, ... combined with the ability to learn, learn, learn. Too many of us don't know what we don't know. I think the CFI conference system may be the beginning of the solution, if the sub standard schools rub shoulders with the real ones, they may either give it away or lift their game. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poteroo Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 a combination of regulation saturation, and a shortage of decent training in advanced aircraft control from career orientated instructors. Probably not the thread in which to have a debate about the adequacy of training, or the competencies of instructors generally. I think we should transfer over to the 'training' section and expand there. That's not to say that I agree, or that it isn't important. At the professional end of the industry, we are being regulated to exasperation, we are suffering regulation fatigue,(Part 61 is the last straw for many), and yet we seem unable to influence the accident or the fatality rates. Poteroo. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank marriott Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Without reference to this particular incident (I don't know enough about it to make an informed comment), there is sufficient or more then sufficient regulations to achieve safe flying operations. Compliance is another matter. The attitude to rules by too many is staggering combined with, in many cases, simply not knowing or understanding. It might be time to rethink the standard required to be issued with a PC. Given that anyone can jump in a 100+kt aircraft, fly up to 10,000 ft with an endurance of around 5hrs, it could be argued that a PPL standard is required. Some believe the PC standard is up to PPL status - well I wouldn't even enter a debate on that, just look at the different attitudes of various schools to upgrading to an RPL. Maybe the LP & HP restrictions might need to be revisited, even though they have just been removed. Certainly the average "standard" and "attitude" to flying needs a close look. Without presuming to have the answers it is easy to see some glaring deficiencies. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Other commenters here are on the right track. The regulatory regime is a consequence, not a cause. I'd even agree that it's an adverse consequence. I'd also agree that, by and large, it's not always a good answer to reducing accident rates. Talk about regulation, my licence (which must be up to date by regulation) and annual medical (which must be up to date by regulation) must be produced (by regulation) at each and every simulator check (which are regulatory requirements) 4 times per year (by regulation), and also on every annual Line/Route Check (required by regulation) to be inspected by a Check and Training Captain (endorsed by regulation) who must thumb through it and check on each occasion that I still have my type endorsement (by regulation) printed in it, my instrument rating (by regulation) printed in it, the appropriate navaid endorsements (by regulation) printed in it, the appropriate aircraft characteristic endorsements (by regulation) printed in it, that it is signed by me (required by regulation), that I have the appropriate ICAO language proficiency endorsement (by regulation), that my medical is valid (by regulation) and it is signed and stamped by a DAME (by regulation). That is only the licence check! We haven't even started in the simulator yet. By the letter of the law, if I don't pass the licence check, I can't pass the simulator session and I am taken offline, no matter how much Chuck Yeager prowess I might demonstrate that day! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 29, 2015 Share Posted July 29, 2015 Ultralight aircraft can easily get into situations where a higher than normal level of skill is required to operate safely. Most GA planes have the bugs ironed out of them and are bigger and operate in more STANDARD areas. I believe the standard has been dumbed down to make it cheaper but MORE training is not necessarily the answer. Different emphasis on some things might be looked into. Awareness can come with experience provided your luck doesn't run out before you gain the experience. Also, One does not know what one doesn't know. You might say" I don't wish to do more than just potter along and fly serenely", but weather can change that . A gust of wind or turbulence near trees or buildings or a sea breeze coming through in the afternoon or a flat tire discovered the hard way, on landing. A pilot should be aware of his/her limitations and not put the plane into situations where they are exceeded. A lot of the prangs will be as a result of false belief in one's invincibility. It needs an acknowledgement that all this can happen to YOU, IF you relax your standard of vigilance and relapse into a slack performance, or just trust to luck when thinking would have made the alarm bells ring.. you are setting yourself up for it. Don't show off... You might just show how stupid you are. Do effective checks even if you have thousands of hours. Always THINK AEROPLANE when near one...Nev 3 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 Other commenters here are on the right track. The regulatory regime is a consequence, not a cause. I'd even agree that it's an adverse consequence. I'd also agree that, by and large, it's not always a good answer to reducing accident rates.Talk about regulation, my licence (which must be up to date by regulation) and annual medical (which must be up to date by regulation) must be produced (by regulation) at each and every simulator check (which are regulatory requirements) 4 times per year (by regulation), and also on every annual Line/Route Check (required by regulation) to be inspected by a Check and Training Captain (endorsed by regulation) who must thumb through it and check on each occasion that I still have my type endorsement (by regulation) printed in it, my instrument rating (by regulation) printed in it, the appropriate navaid endorsements (by regulation) printed in it, the appropriate aircraft characteristic endorsements (by regulation) printed in it, that it is signed by me (required by regulation), that I have the appropriate ICAO language proficiency endorsement (by regulation), that my medical is valid (by regulation) and it is signed and stamped by a DAME (by regulation). That is only the licence check! We haven't even started in the simulator yet. By the letter of the law, if I don't pass the licence check, I can't pass the simulator session and I am taken offline, no matter how much Chuck Yeager prowess I might demonstrate that day! I have to wonder how much a person would get paid to jump through so many hoops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest asmol Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It gets worse, The pilot was also a racing car driver, another website says he was in a bad accident recently and was banned from racing at an event this weekend because of injuries. Well in my opinion, if a sporting body has banned you from racing cars then what the hell are you doing flying ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It gets worse, The pilot was also a racing car driver, another website says he was in a bad accident recently and was banned from racing at an event this weekend because of injuries.Well in my opinion, if a sporting body has banned you from racing cars then what the hell are you doing flying ? Well that would depend on the injuries, competitive road racing is a bit different to rec flying. If he was still fit enough to drive (as in not competitively but just normal driving) then there would not be a problem. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 It gets worse, The pilot was also a racing car driver, another website says he was in a bad accident recently and was banned from racing at an event this weekend because of injuries.Well in my opinion, if a sporting body has banned you from racing cars then what the hell are you doing flying ? That's a big call Amsol especially without 100% of the facts. There is a number of reasons why he could be deemed unfit to race ( I know I have been there after a bad crash) none of which had any effect on my capabilities to drive to work everyday, fly or anything else. Some of the rules in which CAMS rule on fitness due to injury have nothing to do with other activities 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BLA82 Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 A example of my comment above is a "Probability to do further damage" if a driver is evolved in a high speed accident he can be fine now, but have another straight away without the body having time to repair itself and who knows what could happen. I'm sure flying a RA Aircraft the body is not going to be subjected to anything close to the forces of a racing accident and If it does your health is probably the least of your concerns. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Isaac Posted July 30, 2015 Share Posted July 30, 2015 I have found out who this poor soul was. He was a personal friend of a personal friend of mine. I have not met him but I know who he is, he was only 54 years of age. He is well respected in the motorsport field and was a very experienced GA pilot who flew his GA aircraft weekly between his very large rural holdings. Very sad, it is said it was his first flight in his new RAA registered Cub. A tragic outcome to what should have been years more of enjoyable flying. 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