Guest ozzie Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 I'll know these guys all jumping into the Masters Games. Minor bruises hopefully. http://www.9news.com.au/national/2015/10/02/15/30/light-plane-forced-to-make-emergency-landing-in-middle-of-adelaide-racecourse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted October 2, 2015 Share Posted October 2, 2015 Once upon a time it was not uncommon for people to fly in to the races...sigh. It was even normal to land in paddocks without getting the PTB upset. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ungrounded Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-01-28/skydiving-cessna-crash-landed-in-adelaide-when-fuel-ran-out-atsb/7121110 https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2015/aair/ao-2015-115.aspx Fuel exhaustion apparently. Two fuel dip-sticks in the aircraft with different calibration marks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 According to that report, it took off at 1331 with 110 L of fuel on board, and ran out at 1425. Even if it was using 40 L/hr, he would have only used 36L. So if this is simply running out of fuel, then he got the fuel content on board seriously wrong. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Ejected from aircraft? No single point restraints worn by jumpers? And why did pilot insist on jumpers staying with aircraft when a non airport landing was obvious. Bad calls right from start of sortie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted January 28, 2016 Share Posted January 28, 2016 Ejected from aircraft? No single point restraints worn by jumpers? And why did pilot insist on jumpers staying with aircraft when a non airport landing was obvious. Bad calls right from start of sortie. not to mention running out of fuel. I struggle with him not dumping the jumpers. The glide approach and non-powered landing would be easier with the reduced weight, among other things. What's really scary is the actual landing site. I had a good walk around it. He cleared a 3-storey building by what must have been inches, and then by extraordinary good luck there was a gap in the very solid steel fence that -I'm fairly sure- he glided through. On either side of this gap are 75mm steel posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted January 29, 2016 Share Posted January 29, 2016 Lots of questions about the compliance state of the aircraft. quick check shows the aircraft owner operates the tandem operation and is the SA member of the APF board. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RobS2107 Posted January 31, 2016 Share Posted January 31, 2016 According to that report, it took off at 1331 with 110 L of fuel on board, and ran out at 1425. Even if it was using 40 L/hr, he would have only used 36L. So if this is simply running out of fuel, then he got the fuel content on board seriously wrong. The report also mentions the operator uses both 10L and 20L dipsticks, there is a possibility it was dipped with a 10L stick and calculated as 20L hence only about 55L fuel. The same aircraft was involved in a fuel starvation accident in 2011 where the investigation found that there was probably more than one dipstick in use. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PA. Posted February 1, 2016 Share Posted February 1, 2016 So some dipstick stuck the wrong dipstick in the hole more than once. 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