walrus Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 Mr. Farrell was allegedly a skilled paraglider, the operative question then is; would he have launched his paraglider in those weather conditions? If not, why did he think that a VFR Jabiru would be successful? 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfGnome Posted January 29 Share Posted January 29 I’ve flown into that strip a few times. One way, surrounded by mountains on three sides. There’s no way you’d choose to fly out of there in bad weather. This wasn’t bad training; it was Darwinism in action. 🤨 4 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Looks like we haven't seen the full story on this, and there could have been some training issues, system issues and communication issues before this flight. Giving a person with paragliding experience a Recreational Pilot Licence after only five hours of assisted flight and one hour solo and no evidence of multiple Navexes or cross country theory modules like Radio, Nav, Met as ABC Radio News seems to have discovered certainly shocks me. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 Turbs, if that is all true, not sure how that passes muster at all, rather shocking- with the obvious consequences. I'd expect to see a lawsuit here . No doubt this is partially on the head of the instructor - he signed him off. I can't really beleive that RAAus would have approved this signoff. There's some missing information. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, RFguy said: Turbs, if that is all true, not sure how that passes muster at all, rather shocking- with the obvious consequences. I'd expect to see a lawsuit here . No doubt this is partially on the head of the instructor - he signed him off. I can't really beleive that RAAus would have approved this signoff. There's some missing information. Trying to find out if the Inquest is finished. Their search system is not very user friendly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blueadventures Posted February 6 Share Posted February 6 1 hour ago, RFguy said: Turbs, if that is all true, not sure how that passes muster at all, rather shocking- with the obvious consequences. I'd expect to see a lawsuit here . No doubt this is partially on the head of the instructor - he signed him off. I can't really beleive that RAAus would have approved this signoff. There's some missing information. I would expect his training was to a point in time when he did his solo and further training would have been required that included further solos then maybe x/c, Passenger etc. Wonder if he gained L1 ? Outside of any training he made a decision to fly. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 19 minutes ago, Blueadventures said: I would expect his training was to a point in time when he did his solo and further training would have been required that included further solos then maybe x/c, Passenger etc. Wonder if he gained L1 ? Outside of any training he made a decision to fly. That's not what was indicated, but let's make sure the Inquest has finished. 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Love to fly Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) Apparently them may have to 'restart' the inquest due to significant information being made available by RAAUS on Friday, the last day of the inquest. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-02-04/mathew-farrell-fiancee-system-failed-inquest-plane-crash/103414984 Edited February 7 by Love to fly add source Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 8 minutes ago, Love to fly said: Apparently them may have to 'restart' the inquest due to significant information being made available by RAAUS on Friday, the last day of the inquest. Yes, very troubling. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 7 hours ago, RFguy said: Turbs, if that is all true, not sure how that passes muster at all, rather shocking- with the obvious consequences. I'd expect to see a lawsuit here . No doubt this is partially on the head of the instructor - he signed him off. I can't really beleive that RAAus would have approved this signoff. There's some missing information. Geoff wood was the instructor. He had a stroke and passed away a few weeks ago. He has been training people for decades. I would imagine he had to be pretty confident in Matt's abilities to sign him off. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 2 minutes ago, BrendAn said: Geoff wood was the instructor. He had a stroke and passed away a few weeks ago. He has been training people for decades. I would imagine he had to be pretty confident in Matt's abilities to sign him off. There's just a bit of a problem specualting, since we don't know if the Inquest is finished; there was talk of it being extended and some subjects like that could be discussed or re-discussed so we have to be careful not to prejudice the outcome. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 36 minutes ago, turboplanner said: There's just a bit of a problem specualting, since we don't know if the Inquest is finished; there was talk of it being extended and some subjects like that could be discussed or re-discussed so we have to be careful not to prejudice the outcome. I am pretty sure my comment won't be used in court. And the fact that the instructor passed away is fact not speculation. No one seems to think the pilot made a stupid decision to fly in adverse weather. That's just common sense, not training. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 (edited) not necessarily. part of XC training is to experience changes in weather, scene, understand GAFs TAFs GPWTs etc That's why it takes a while to do and why there are several components to it. If he had not met that syllabus min XC hours- and not passed the XC-nav written exam, then he could have not possibly held the qual, so could only have flown when not permitted to fly if was more than 25nm from the departure AD. Was the crash more than 25nm beyond the AD ? I'm *guessing because its the only thing that makes sense * - is that he met pilot certificate requirements (conversion- which is straightforward) and got signed off on that.... And that the student had met all RAAUS requirements to fly within 25nm from the AD. Edited February 7 by RFguy 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 (edited) 4 minutes ago, RFguy said: not necessarily. part of XC training is to experience changes in weather, scene, understand GAFs TAFs GPWTs etc That's why it takes a while to do and why there are several components to it. If he had not met that syllabus min XC hours- and not passed the XC-nav written exam, then he could have not possibly held the qual, so could only have flown when not permitted to fly if was more than 25nm from the departure AD. I'm *guessing* that's what is at hand here, met pilot certificate requirements and got signed off on that, and that would mean instructor and student had met all requirements. It was only RPC wasn't it. Isn't xcountry another 10 hrs. And he was going to fly to Wollongong. Edited February 7 by BrendAn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RFguy Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 at least 10. most 10-25h. .... I can entirely beleive he was signed off as competent and met all requirements to acheive a RAAus PC, and then made up his own adventure, but that's probably what we should not discuss now, IE personality / poor decisions unless we discuss in general terms. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 Some don't know how much they don't know. IF at any time you think you know it ALL you begin to get more unsafe. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted February 7 Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, BrendAn said: I am pretty sure my comment won't be used in court. And the fact that the instructor passed away is fact not speculation. No one seems to think the pilot made a stupid decision to fly in adverse weather. That's just common sense, not training. As sure as I urge caution there's an outbreak of the reverse by people without knowing developments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrendAn Posted February 7 Author Share Posted February 7 1 hour ago, turboplanner said: As sure as I urge caution there's an outbreak of the reverse by people without knowing developments. This is nothing compared to some forums. The story is all over the net. Do you think I am making up the story about the instructor. I spoke to him a couple of months ago. 1 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