fly_tornado Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 could have been anything that caused the engine failure, its an old engine Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
onetrack Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Almost two hours flying time, maybe doing touch and go, could be out of fuel..... One would trust the bloke was careful enough to keep track of just how much fuel he had left - but it's certainly happened before. As a previous poster noted, the upright, seemingly undamaged prop blade would appear to indicate an engine not rotating upon impact. Now, whether he had definitely had engine failure - tried to make it to the highway, and failed - or he purposely switched the engine off, intending to practise a dead-stick landing on the highway - and stalled it before he reached the highway - is just pure speculation on my part. "Practising touch-and-goes" would appear to be a factor here. He could have been at a low level, practising for a touch-and-go on the highway, and the engine failed at a height and speed that was all too low for recovery. The initial plan to practise touch-and-goes at the airstrip seemed to have been modified, as he was 15kms away from the airstrip. Pilot dies in Qld ultralight crash 18 months after losing daughter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M61A1 Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 could have been anything that caused the engine failure, its an old engine Have you seen the logbooks? how do you know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 21, 2018 Author Share Posted January 21, 2018 you just have to trust me on this one 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted January 21, 2018 Share Posted January 21, 2018 Education beats an enforcement system based on strict liability.Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 What a mess this whole Ra-Aus thing is. It is incredible that so many people...including instructors...have no idea of the rules regarding their operations. Incredible and a very sure sign that things are still far from okay in my opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 What a mess this whole Ra-Aus thing is. It is incredible that so many people...including instructors...have no idea of the rules regarding their operations. Incredible and a very sure sign that things are still far from okay in my opinion. What a mess this whole Ra-Aus thing is. It is incredible that so many people...including instructors...have no idea of the rules regarding their operations. Incredible and a very sure sign that things are still far from okay in my opinion. Nothing new in this, I recall when I was first learning to fly in 1988 pilots would stand around at my flying club arguing about exactly what the rules were. The limit was 500 feet but the airfield owner insisted that circuits be done at 800 feet. Most of us just got on with flying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 What a mess this whole Ra-Aus thing is. It is incredible that so many people...including instructors...have no idea of the rules regarding their operations. Incredible and a very sure sign that things are still far from okay in my opinion. That’s a bit of an over statement in my opinion. Plenty of argument in GA schools over the interpretation of part 61. Makes RAAus look pretty good in comparison. This would be a pretty rare issue. Not too many students have their own single seat aircraft. I’ll be interested in the detail if it ever comes out. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gravity Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Nothing new in this, I recall when I was first learning to fly in 1988 pilots would stand around at my flying club arguing about exactly what the rules were. The limit was 500 feet but the airfield owner insisted that circuits be done at 800 feet. Most of us just got on with flying. That's just the way it is when you get so many egos all in the one room. Flying is inherently attractive to a certain kind of person and often the wrong type of person! As far as regs go? Well when you have an authority who are clueless, divided & morally corrupt then there will always be confusion. Part 61, part 141 are two examples that have left the GA industry in tatters! If it where not for RA then hardly anyone would fly as a hobby/interest but by reading these pages there seems to be of confusion even at the bottom of the ladder! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Camel Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 What a mess this whole Ra-Aus thing is. It is incredible that so many people...including instructors...have no idea of the rules regarding their operations. Incredible and a very sure sign that things are still far from okay in my opinion. I suggest things are a lot better than your suggesting ! Unfortunately some people want to bend rules ! My travels have seen a few cowboys but generally pretty good ! I think RAA is being very helpful and supportive of their schools and the GA schools that do RAA too shows the system works. The RAA schools are the way all GA school would like to operate ! The system is good ! I’m very happy the way things are run ! People who take risks or break rules will always be about to have a problem ! 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 Nothing new in this, I recall when I was first learning to fly in 1988 pilots would stand around at my flying club arguing about exactly what the rules were. The limit was 500 feet but the airfield owner insisted that circuits be done at 800 feet. Most of us just got on with flying. I think your dates are a bit out. The 500ft rule was lifted to 5000ft with the release of 95.10 Rev2 which IIRC came out in 1984/5. By 1986 95.25 two seat trainers, Gemini, Lightwing and Drifter, were in use and they had never been limited to 500ft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
octave Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 I think your dates are a bit out. The 500ft rule was lifted to 5000ft with the release of 95.10 Rev2 which IIRC came out in 1984/5. By 1986 95.25 two seat trainers, Gemini, Lightwing and Drifter, were in use and they had never been limited to 500ft. I believe the height was lifted to 5000 feet in 1990 Australian powered recreational aviation history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Head in the clouds Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 I believe the height was lifted to 5000 feet in 1990 Australian powered recreational aviation history Well, there are a lot of anomalies in that so called history. In places I think they confuse 101.55 with 95.25 and 95.55, but whatever ... I think the height was lifted to 5000ft shortly after the HORSCOTS report came out, which was in 1987, in fact I think the height was lifted with the release of 101.55 (or was it 95.55??) in early 1988, to allow legal two seat training at a sensible height. But there was certainly a lot of confusion about it. Perhaps in reality it was only legal to fly two seaters higher, and 95.10 were still at 500ft. Not many complied with it anyway, as you said. Certainly, in accordance with the first Ops Manual, which came out in 1986 when Bill Dinsmore was employed as the first Ops Manager, in our schools we were required to operate training flights at 'above 500ft, below 5000ft'. I completed Bill's course at Toogoolawah in 1987 after which my interim CFI Approval was finally ratified. He even took us up for incipient spin training in a Lightwing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 RAAus said yesterday that there was not enough evidence yet for them to make any comment about the cause of this accident. I assume that RAAus would have more info than anyone on this forum, also that they are actively looking for anything that could be found to pass on to to make flying safer. Am I making the wrong assumption about RAAus. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 RAAus said yesterday that there was not enough evidence yet for them to make any comment about the cause of this accident.I assume that RAAus would have more info than anyone on this forum, also that they are actively looking for anything that could be found to pass on to to make flying safer. Am I making the wrong assumption about RAAus. I don't think so; there doesn't seem to be any physical evidence in the photos, so this might be a difficult one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ave8rr Posted January 24, 2018 Share Posted January 24, 2018 I am sure RAAus Ops/Tech staff read these forums. They could have clarified the use of 95.10 aircraft for solo training. I doubt anything more will be said by RAAus re this accident until the Coroner has had his say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fly_tornado Posted January 24, 2018 Author Share Posted January 24, 2018 it takes time and money to investigate an accident Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 RAAus do not approve of these forums and rarely partisipate. I saw on the news a photo of the student standing in front of a Jabiru if he trained in that and then did solo flying in a single seat Flightstar then that could cause the accident. Way too many people don't realize the difference between those two types of aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 I am sure RAAus Ops/Tech staff read these forums. They could have clarified the use of 95.10 aircraft for solo training. I doubt anything more will be said by RAAus re this accident until the Coroner has had his say. Well their words were “routine training flight” so that should clear that up. (I think that was their wording anyway, memory isn’t foolproof though) If it hadn’t been a legal flight I am sure we would have been warned appropriately. 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 If that was a legal flight that would mean the the rules have changed because it certainly was not legal years ago. I have not been able to find the paperwork stating this. In my view if that was a legal flight RAAus has a serious problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Why Tech? Do you know the ins and outs of this particular pilot? I would say if RAA have said it was a routine training flight then they probably have a better idea of the circumstances than you and me. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Teckair Posted January 25, 2018 Share Posted January 25, 2018 Why Tech? Do you know the ins and outs of this particular pilot?I would say if RAA have said it was a routine training flight then they probably have a better idea of the circumstances than you and me. No I don't know about the pilot except he is now deceased and appears to have been training in a 95.10. I would be astounded if that was legal. I think it has already been pointed out on this thread it is not. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bats Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 "I saw on the news....", fertile ground for highly suspect speculation right there, right up with "his ex-wife said!" Unfortunately, despite what you see on Aircrash Investigations, it isn't always possible to reduce an accident to a neat cause and preventative action. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 you just have to trust me on this one FT you are a #@$%wit ,,,the engine was a fully reconditioned 503 [not447] with less hrs then your [plastic] tonka truck you play with....................... 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bull Posted January 28, 2018 Share Posted January 28, 2018 I think your dates are a bit out. The 500ft rule was lifted to 5000ft with the release of 95.10 Rev2 which IIRC came out in 1984/5. By 1986 95.25 two seat trainers, Gemini, Lightwing and Drifter, were in use and they had never been limited to 500ft. Octave was talking about ga training 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