Jump to content

Any news on Wedderburn aircraft accident 26/12/22.


Recommended Posts

I wonder if we started a campaign to get the Australian Press Council to take action against publications who defame aviation by publishing inaccurate and misleading material. Here is their very first principle:

 

Publications are free to publish as they wish by reporting facts and expressing opinions, provided they take reasonable steps to comply with the following Principles and the Council’s other Standards of Practice:

Accuracy and clarity

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.

2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, old man emu said:

I wonder if we started a campaign to get the Australian Press Council to take action against publications who defame aviation by publishing inaccurate and misleading material. Here is their very first principle:

 

Publications are free to publish as they wish by reporting facts and expressing opinions, provided they take reasonable steps to comply with the following Principles and the Council’s other Standards of Practice:

Accuracy and clarity

1. Ensure that factual material in news reports and elsewhere is accurate and not misleading, and is distinguishable from other material such as opinion.

2. Provide a correction or other adequate remedial action if published material is significantly inaccurate or misleading.

Unfortunately they make their own rules and woe betide any body/Govt/orgamnisation that goes against them.   The old saying the pen is mightier than the sword applies to them and remember, never let the facts get in the way of a good story.   Sorry to be making light of it but your proposal, albeit laudible,  seems to be an exercise at windmill tilting.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Interesting comments; were the latest "inaccuracies" made up by the press? Well "kit built" and "experimental" came direct from the Chief Commissioner of ATSB.  What are the press to do? Not write that? Make up something?

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

there is some sort of ICAO regulation where if an aircraft registered in the country crashes outside of that countries jurisdiction then it must be investigated by the country where the accident took place. The investigation is reimbursed by the CAA. In this case Australia would investigate the accident, draft up their findings along with an invoice and send it through for payment. This is why you will find 100% of foreign registered aircraft that crashed in Australia have an investigation into what happened. CASA use this as income generation

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, turboplanner said:

Well "kit built" and "experimental" came direct from the Chief Commissioner of ATSB.  What are the press to do? Not write that?

Precisely, not write that. Those terms are nomenclature within the industry, and are misleading if taken out of context with little or no understanding.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The worst aspect of that unfortunate accident is the choice of airfield.  A Glasair is quite a competently designed aeroplane. Quite a few of them used the more exotic Subaru motor and a very fancy redrive built in the USA. It had a few glitches  at least one stage and the motor does a lot of revs.  At least to ME anyhow.  I prefer things that Rumble rather than scream.  Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, red750 said:

Precisely, not write that. Those terms are nomenclature within the industry, and are misleading if taken out of context with little or no understanding.

The ATSB Commissioner should probably have been more alert to the media's general lack of aviation knowledge and the public's likely perception of homebuilt/kit aircraft, and provided the proper context which the press, hopefully, would have reported. 

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

This crash, without knowing the cause, is a black mark on experimental aircraft. The media reported it correctly as an Experimental, a home built aircraft. There is a lot of freedom in the experimental world. My experimental RV6a was built with all the same components and systems you would find in a FAR23 certified aircraft, I have total confidence in it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In any event, we will be getting professional advice on the circumstances surrounding this accident with the first report due in six weeks.

2 hours ago, red750 said:

Precisely, not write that. Those terms are nomenclature within the industry, and are misleading if taken out of context with little or no understanding.

The Journalist will probably have done 5 years University study before writing a story, but no journalist can be expected to identify what is description and what is nomenclature for every industry, ever following, every hobby. As we know if the journalist had taken the description from a firey or police officer that the aircraft was "one of those single engine Cessna things" the journalist would have been flogged for not having the correct nomenclature right down to making sure the correct wing variant was included, even though this was the first official story which the Chief Commission clearly pointed out.

 

And don't forget the Chief Commissioners words met OME's Rule Number 1.

The story has to be written for the Newspaper's audience and the general public judges aircraft safety by RPT standards.  

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What we are complaining of is not likely to rectify itself. To fly in something termed "EXPERIMENTAL" would appear to be foolhardy but it really means" Modified" from OEM condition.  Certified planes are not easily able to be modified legally even though the change may be a well designed IMPROVEMENT which adds to safety like a throttle friction nut or a better door catch or a guarded switch in a better location.. To the outsider the way some rules apply seems absurd.. LSA is just as restricted as the Certified category even though it's just a stop gap silly idea.   Nev

  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree Only the investigation of a fire initially became linked with a missing plane. It's ROUGH country. I don't blame the media all the time. The aviation game is full of little BS  things that  "Only pilots now the meaning of".  Clear, Plain language around PLANES wouldn't go  astray.  Nev

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We had a Glasair Sportsman (nose wheel, strutted, high wing) hangared at YSGR a few years ago. It had an injected Subaru engine. I think it was around 2.5 litres in cubic capacity. If this one had a similar engine then carb icing can be ruled out as a possible cause.

Edited by kgwilson
  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m told the aircraft attempted a downwind landing, bounced/wobbled several times and then powered up for a go-around with a very low turn. My interlocutor said the pilots held licences & were very experienced with heavy aircraft.  How accurate this info is, I don’t know, but it comes from an owner of an aircraft at Weddernurn.

  • Informative 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I note that the Glasair web site provides 3 engine options for the Sportsman. Lycoming IO-360 160HP, IO-390 210HP, & Continental CD-155 155HP Diesel. No mention of Subaru at all. There are 2 for sale on Planesales. Both have IO-390 210 HP engines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

The story has to be written for the Newspaper's audience and the general public judges aircraft safety by RPT standards.  

And that is the very thing that has been holding aviation back in Australia - scaremongering by the media by concentrating on the occasional incidents. If the meeja did the same with motor vehicles, we'd be riding horses still.

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Injury rates are pretty extreme for horse based recreation (for ppl & the horses), but lawn bowls and golf are the most deadly.

 

I think those of us involved in recreational aviation do it a disservice by perpetuating the lie that it’s a safe past-time.  Ra-aus would get heaps more members if they stressed the dangers of flying, that after each flight the great achievement felt by the pilot in cheating death etc etc, rather than, if you check these boxes it’s all very safe.

  • Agree 1
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...