Orchid Beach Airstrip, Fraser Island

[SSCBD]

Me, like many before have had a lot of "in your face" bad moments and nearly all pilots suck it up as training....I suppose it might be the aviation environment and it is all a learning curve even after 500hrs but.....I feel every time a safety issue is raised more restrictions are placed on pilots so that less new members have the privilege of free flight.. Surely it is a better place today than 30yrs ago when I started?? Am I wrong??

Here is you answer - 30 years ago we had only one seat and you could just kill yourself, today you have the unknowing pax who really has no idea with those big "dear eyes" thinking the driver even with low hours is competent and skilled.

However anyone today that wants to try the nasty widow maker toys back then please go ahead, all with zero two seat training and just so under powered and see how many good old bold pilots survive.

 

Also please define your statement of - the privilege of free flight?

 

 

[ryan4321]

Well I might be an idiot but atleast I got my idiot-self, my passenger and my Jabiru in and out of orchid beach safely.Ryan, if your intention of posting on here really was to make others aware of the strips current condition you could of said something a little more tactful like...

 

"Hey guys just went into Orchid Beach today. The grass is a little long from recent rain, excercise a little extra caution at the moment. The owners are probably just waiting for the strip to harden up again before they run a big heavy tractor and slasher on it."

Yes - you are completely right bedwa38. I should have been more tactful with my initial post, it was in the heat of the moment and words used were too harsh.

 

If you however feel strongly about an issue you should not sit on your hands. Hopefully you will agree with this. I have had other pilots confirming this issue in direct communication / private messages (who no longer post on here which I understand now) who have very recently had to take off here with much difficulty... 'feet on the ground' pilots so to speak.

 

The best thing to come from all of this is for the strip owners to realise their duty of care as fee taking strip owners and realise the conundrum pilots have (in a not so perfect world when decisions are not always robotic / emotionless like they are in the training scenario) when landing here in this current state. Pilots do get the 'get-home-itis' so we should be real and ensure the environment is not to blame when there is an easy fix.

 

They will not shut it down, this is melodramatic speculation and as long as they have a commercial store here making sales from incoming pilots paying their landing fees, this will continue (and it should - this is no ones goal to be shutting it down). A standard needs to be set and the caretaker needs to more vigilant in mowing or at least mow a narrow section lower for take off. Simple. If not, access it as unservicable until it is mowed to an acceptable length (long grass due to recent rain (at this time) is no excuse again, the ground was hard so there was no excuse to not have mowed it). Friends also took off 1 day after it was mowed and they used the whole runway, so again, they are simply not mowing low enough.

 

It's too late for 'I told you so' when someone gets hurt so better to save face and note it or the alternative is not great. It can be a challenging strip, but it shouldn't be pushing the limits this much. You can find a million excuses as to why ones decision making / training or technique should be better, but when you experience something so obviously set up for problems it needs to be said. Some will disagree but you can't please all.

 

 

[farri]

I feel every time a safety issue is raised more restrictions are placed on pilots so that less new members have the privilege of free flight.

As I see it, the safety issue here should be about the condition, Orchid Beach Airstrip, is kept in and offered to the general flying public, not about whether a pilot made the wrong call, to use it! That`s a separate issue.

 

Surely it is a better place today than 30yrs ago when I started?? Am I wrong??

To me, better or worse, right and wrong is relative to the objective! What is the objective here?....If the objective is to make a better and safer airstrip, then, the airstrip needs to be kept in the appropriate condition for the aircraft using it!

 

True story: Way back in the mid eighties, a lot of guys were wanting to learn to fly Ultralight Aircraft! I`d made myself a strip and as there were no other strips in our area, I made it available to anyone wanting to use it!....I`d given permission to a guy, who was trying to teach himself to fly his Gyro Copter! unfortunately! he crashed it on the strip and was fatally injured.

 

Here lies the decision to be made by any private airstrip owner!.... As a private owner of 3 strips, do I make my strips available to any pilot, regardless of experience and hours flown and any type of aircraft, or, do I only allow certain pilots and certain types of aircraft, to use it?

 

Frank,

 

 

[johnm]

don't know if the following would actually work for an ultralight .................. but just read a book where pilot in an ag plane (big feet) landed on a tight coastal paddock (to do some fishing)

 

before takeoff he ran up and down the strip a few times to flatten long grass and had a marked take off run

 

......................... might not work with skinny tyres - worth a thought and a go though ?

 

 

[ryan4321]

don't know if the following would actually work for an ultralight .................. but just read a book where pilot in an ag plane (big feet) landed on a tight coastal paddock (to do some fishing)before takeoff he ran up and down the strip a few times to flatten long grass and had a marked take off run

 

......................... might not work with skinny tyres - worth a thought and a go though ?

Thanks John for that - it could work, but you will have to be super accurate to keep this line taking off again. Orchid is really bumpy too so the risk (for me) would have been a prop strike bumping up and down at slow speeds to get this to potentially work. Might suit a flatter field though maybe :-)

 

 

[kasper]

don't know if the following would actually work for an ultralight .................. but just read a book where pilot in an ag plane (big feet) landed on a tight coastal paddock (to do some fishing)before takeoff he ran up and down the strip a few times to flatten long grass and had a marked take off run

 

......................... might not work with skinny tyres - worth a thought and a go though ?

Been there done that - Flightstart twin star flying as 95.10 single seater - wing tank unported on one side making it all go quiet - landed in a mates paddock full of 3ft high dead/dry thistles and 1-2ft live grass - ground roll was minimal. After sorting out fuel issue used my size 8's to stomp on about 100m of thistles and grass and then took off ... not a happy bunny but it can work

 

 

[farri]

don't know if the following would actually work for an ultralight

And there`s the Crux of the issue!...Each aircraft type, pilot experience and ability, varies, therefore, it is not possible to exactly predict the outcome! It is for the PIC to have a thorough understanding and acceptance, of their ability and the performance and limitations of their aircraft, to make the decision and act accordingly.

 

Edit: A while back, I read that a guy wanted to fly his Ultralight to the very center of Australia! He worked it out as accurately as he could then flew out there. On arriving, he did a low level pass over the area he wanted to land on and he said that there`d been rain in the area and the ground appeared too soft to land and he wasn`t sure if he could take off again, yet he decided to land, fortunately, he was able to take off again!

 

Frank.

 

 

[johnm]

when crossing the street you can never predict the outcome - you have a fair idea though

 

if you had 2 paddocks - one with shorter or flattened grass - the other long - the choice would be easy

 

you could try a takeoff roll - in the 1st 50m you would know if things were looking OK

 

 

[farri]

Pretty much correct John but are we talking about improving a situation at Orchid Beach Airstrip or crossing the street?....Doesn`t make any difference to me because I`m not likely to ever use that airstrip but some of the pilots here without the knowledge and/or the experience to know any better, might learn something from the more experienced, as long as it isn`t BS.

 

Frank,

 

 

[SSCBD]

As I see it, the safety issue here should be about the condition, Orchid Beach Airstrip, is kept in and offered to the general flying public, not about whether a pilot made the wrong call, to use it! That`s a separate issue.

 

To me, better or worse, right and wrong is relative to the objective! What is the objective here?....If the objective is to make a better and safer airstrip, then, the airstrip needs to be kept in the appropriate condition for the aircraft using it!

 

True story: Way back in the mid eighties, a lot of guys were wanting to learn to fly Ultralight Aircraft! I`d made myself a strip and as there were no other strips in our area, I made it available to anyone wanting to use it!....I`d given permission to a guy, who was trying to teach himself to fly his Gyro Copter! unfortunately! he crashed it on the strip and was fatally injured.

 

Here lies the decision to be made by any private airstrip owner!.... As a private owner of 3 strips, do I make my strips available to any pilot, regardless of experience and hours flown and any type of aircraft, or, do I only allow certain pilots and certain types of aircraft, to use it?

 

Frank,

"Do I allow certain pilots to use it"

Yes Frank Me. And in my old age and with my failing skill level I might need all three of them. As I have had my RAA BFR by a CFI approve me literally in 3 mins and 27 seconds - exactly one circuit. And I did not know this CFI from a bar of soap. Love some of the standards these days.

 

However, I believe that the polite and correct thing should be for most pilots is to call to ahead and ask condition, like most people do in the back blocks especially after rain on PVT grass strips as common courtesy. I also admit to also just landing on any strip without asking to find a tree when needed and blasting off again.

 

Going on a tangent - So some common sense and liability laws have to change, or we will all end up looking at aircraft on the ground only and not flying - that's the real problem I am so sad to say.

 

Two distinct problems here with this thread - one argument the grass should of been controlled and cut, but (exactly how high was it?? have not read the height. And - The pilot should have aborted - TWO distinct errors is see here. So if all here are the judge and jury which is the guilty verdict going too. PICK One only.

 

However common sense and liability laws are at the far ends of each other these days, I am sad to say.

 

Another open ended question, why are the liability laws so stupid?. Why cant I hit someone over the head if he is breaking into my house at night???? and I get charged with killing him if I do, or do I get my throat cut and then complain after. The law seems to me these days are on the crims and minority's side and not the citizen who is trying to do the right thing. The system is broken!

 

 

[johnm]

I'll furnish you with an 'agree' Frank

 

Ryan4321 has alerted us in any case ................ we are all the better for it

 

 

[frank marriott]

The law seems to me these days are on the crims and minority's side and not the citizen who is trying to do the right thing. The system is broken!

The answer is in "politics" but I won't go there on a flying forum as it only produces individual rants - right V left etc - and achieves nothing.

 

 

[farri]

"Do I allow certain pilots to use it"Yes Frank Me. And in my old age and with my failing skill level I might need all three of them. As I have had my RAA BFR by a CFI approve me literally in 3 mins and 27 seconds - exactly one circuit. And I did not know this CFI from a bar of soap. Love some of the standards these days.

Yeah, no problem SSCBD, cause I know I can teach you a thing or two! ...LOL.

 

Frank.

 

 

[DrZoos]

Orchid is very rough, we bent a leg landing there...

 

 

[David Isaac]

Orchid is very rough, we bent a leg landing there...

When Zoos?

 

 

[Aldo]

As I have had my RAA BFR by a CFI approve me literally in 3 mins and 27 seconds - exactly one circuit. And I did not know this CFI from a bar of soap. Love some of the standards these days.

SSCBD

 

And if you accepted the sign off on your BFR as described above you are just perpetuating and accepting the low standard, what you should have done (and maybe you did) was report this pitifully low standard which is bringing RAA into disrepute. Not to mention you have more than likely alerted CASA to this low standard by posting it on an Internet forum, not a bad thing really.

 

Two distinct problems here with this thread - one argument the grass should of been controlled and cut, but (exactly how high was it?? have not read the height. And - The pilot should have aborted - TWO distinct errors is see here. So if all here are the judge and jury which is the guilty verdict going too. PICK One only.

Two distinct answers also.

 

1. The operator/owner is charging landing fees and as such assumes responsibility for the condition of the landing area
    
    
   
2. The PIC has the final call as to whether the landing/take off area is suitable for their operations
    
    
   

 

 

In this case with a low hour low experience pilot 20/20 hindsight will be his best learning and he probably won't make the same mistake again

 

Did the pilot make the wrong decision - yes, will he do it again probably not, the best learning is a good scare, was the situation as bad as it was made out to be (I wasn't there so I'm not able to say), is he the one most at fault, probably yes and maybe not, the operator should provide a surface suitable for operations.

 

Aldo

 

 

[DrZoos]

When Zoos?

About 12 months ago.

 

 

[DrZoos]

About 12 months ago.

[Head in the clouds]

Two distinct answers also.

 

1. The operator/owner is charging landing fees and as such assumes responsibility for the condition of the landing area
    
    
   
2. The PIC has the final call as to whether the landing/take off area is suitable for their operations
    
    
   

I don't agree with your first answer - the owner doesn't have any idea what kind of aircraft will be flown in, nor what experience the pilot might have. A Bearhawk with 1m(39") diameter Alaskan Bushwheels and an experienced pilot could land and take-off half a dozen times along that strip even if the grass was never mown. A Jabiru with a novice at the controls probably shouldn't ever go near the place even if the grass was 50mm long.

I don't know of any reference whatever, in the Regs, CAAPs or Orders which suggests that anyone other than the PIC is ever responsible for any 'circumstance' of the operation of the aircraft, and most particularly that of take-off and landing.

 

Did the pilot make the wrong decision ..... is he the one most at fault, probably yes and maybe not, the operator should provide a surface suitable for operations.

I can't agree with this either, it's not up to the 'operator' to provide anything in particular. The fact is - the strip is there, you can use it if you choose to, and if you choose to - then you pay a fee for the privilege.

 

This thread and the one about Ozkosh at Narromine (the part where SIAs were being discussed) show that some rec pilots lack Regulatory knowledge in vital areas.

 

Anyone who isn't quite sure might do well to refresh themselves about the definition of Aircraft Landing Areas (ALAs) and pilot responsibilities in regard of them. Whilst doing so they might like to search for any references to anyone other the PIC being responsible for anything - though that part of it will prove to be a rather fruitless search ...

 

From the CARs, Volume3, Part 9, Division 8, Regulation 92, note the relevant word 'circumstances' -

 

92 Use of aerodromes

 

 

 

(1) A person must not land an aircraft on, or engage in conduct that causes an aircraft to take off from, a place that does not satisfy one or more of the following requirements:

 

 

 

(a) the place is an aerodrome established under the Air Navigation Regulations;

 

 

 

(b) the use of the place as an aerodrome is authorised by a certificate granted, or registration, under Part 139 of CASR;

 

 

 

© the place is an aerodrome for which an arrangement under section 20 of the Act is in force and the use of the aerodrome by aircraft engaged in civil air navigation is authorised by CASA under that section;

 

 

 

(d) the place (not being a place referred to in paragraph (a), (b) or ©) is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking‑off of aircraft;

 

 

 

and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take‑off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take‑off from, the place in safety.

 

 

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

 

 

(2) CASA may, in relation to an aerodrome, issue directions relating to the safety of air navigation.

 

 

 

(3) A person must not contravene a direction.

 

 

 

Penalty: 25 penalty units.

 

 

 

(4) An offence against subregulation (1) or (3) is an offence of strict liability.

 

 

 

Note: For strict liability, see section 6.1 of the Criminal Code.

 

I have attached the relevant CAAP (92-1) which provides the slightly more plain-speak interpretation.

 

Note the Introductory PURPOSE -

 

Civil Aviation Regulation 92 (1) states that: “An aircraft shall not land at, or take-off from, any place unless: ...

 

 

 

(d) the place....is suitable for use as an aerodrome for the purposes of the landing and taking-off of aircraft; and, having regard to all the circumstances of the proposed landing or take-off (including the prevailing weather conditions), the aircraft can land at, or take-off from, the place in safety.”

 

 

 

Regulation 92 (1) does not specify the method of determining which “circumstances”, other than the prevailing weather conditions, should be considered in any particular case. These matters are the responsibility of the pilot in command and, in some circumstances, are shared with the aircraft operator.

 

 

 

These guidelines set out factors that may be used to determine the suitability of a place for the landing and taking-off of aeroplanes. Experience has shown that, in most cases, application of these guidelines will enable a take-off or landing to be completed safely, provided that the pilot in command:

 

 

 

(a) has sound piloting skills; and

 

(b) displays sound airmanship.

 

The bold above is my addition - note that the PIC and in some cases also the aircraft operator (usually in Commercial Ops where an Air Service Licence/Air Operator's Certificate is in force i.e. the Company the pilot is flying for) hold the responsibility - there's never any mention of the operator of the airport or airfield having any responsibility regarding the operations of aircraft from that facility. That means that every time you're at the controls, whatever happens is on your head, if you end up in the bunker there's no value in trying to point the finger at the greenkeeper ... so to speak.

 

92_1.pdf

 

92_1.pdf

 

92_1.pdf

[David Isaac]

It about time Rec pilots took a good look in the mirror around these issues.

 

First you must have permission to land at any ALA. Secondly YOU as PIC are responsible to determine whether your aircraft and your skill level are suitable for the field AND its condition. If it has long grass ... your call. If it has ruts and dips ... your call. The owner MAY advise you of the condition of the strip, but ultimately it is your decision as PIC.

 

Just because it is an ALA does NOT mean it is suitable for all aircraft. You must know your aircraft landing and takeoff performance requirements and if 'short field' techniques are required (which is what most P chart lengths are based on), whether you are current on these techniques and then determine whether any ALA and its condition are legal for YOUR aircraft. I have heard bugga all on proper 'short field' techniques on this forum in years. It would appear most REC pilots do glide approaches and some exclusively. Not knowing and practicing 'Short field' techniques could get you in trouble one day when you are in the habit of using all of the 1000 metres at your local bitumen strip.

 

You prang ... you explain to the insurer; no one else. You right the aircraft off; you will be paying out of your own pocket. I have a friend who found that out the hard way.

 

Wake up and understand the regs. We don't get exemptions from all regs as REC pilots.

 

 

[djpacro]

A good primer on airfield distance performance factors in Flight Safety Magazine of May-June 2001

 

https://www.casa.gov.au/file/108561/download?token=MtT8dFkc

 

 

[dsam]

It about time Rec pilots took a good look in the mirror around these issues.

David, I've kept silent (until now) about this event, preferring to let others assess and discuss the errors of others in comparison with one's own piloting skills - all part of improving one's own skills, long term.

 

In my opinion, we are all able to learn from our own mistakes, and from those of others. What I take particular objection to is the assertion that because a pilot is "recreational" then they must necessarily be inadequate or less committed to safety - not true in my experience....

 

In any group of people, there are good and bad achievers. Let's not cast aspersions so casually. Instead, let's endeavour to learn from other people when they share incidents, and not focus on who to vilify.

 

Yes, I agree completely, that the pilot has the ultimate responsibility for a safe outcome, and that a piloting mistake probably occurred in this incident. We are all human (professional or recreational). If we are reckless in finding blame, the sharing of incidents will stop, and the better long-term outcome of learning will be lost (to the detriment of all).

 

 

[David Isaac]

David, I've kept silent (until now) about this event, preferring to let others assess and discuss the errors of others in comparison with one's own piloting skills - all part of improving one's own skills, long term.In my opinion, we are all able to learn from our own mistakes, and from those of others. What I take particular objection to is the assertion that because a pilot is "recreational" then they must necessarily be inadequate or less committed to safety - not true in my experience....

Dsam, it was certainly not my intention and I did NOT assert that ALL recreational pilots are not committed to safety. My assertion is that there are a large number of REC pilots who were not adequately taught in particular on PIC responsibilities at ALAs and the associated risks. That was the assertion I was most certainly making. I have made that assertion based on many comments on this matter on this forum over several years and even some of the comments by experienced pilots on this particular thread. Head in the clouds summed it up well in his post #119.

 

In any group of people, there are good and bad achievers. Let's not cast aspersions so casually. Instead, let's endeavour to learn from other people when they share incidents, and not focus on who to vilify.

I don't intent to vilify anyone and indeed did NOT. I made a very clear statement about the failings of many REC pilots in this particular area, specifically NOT vilifying any individual. Ryan is certainly NOT alone in his experience and many pilots have learned this lesson the hard way including a personal friend of mine who lived to tell the story after righting off an aircraft in a South Australian Vineyard many years ago.

 

Yes, I agree completely, that the pilot has the ultimate responsibility for a safe outcome, and that a piloting mistake probably occurred in this incident. We are all human (professional or recreational). If we are reckless in finding blame, the sharing of incidents will stop, and the better long-term outcome of learning will be lost (to the detriment of all).

There was NO recklessness in any component of my post in relation to apportioning blame. My post was a clear plea for all ALL REC pilots to wake up in this area and take responsibility for their actions so we don't have to read about more statistics.We all make mistakes and we can all learn, my post is a plea to learn and understand our responsibilities in this area. I also learn from well posted material and advice.

 

 

[dsam]

My post was a clear plea for all ALL REC pilots to wake up in this area and take responsibility for their actions so we don't have to read about more statistics/QUOTE][/i]

We probably agree on more than we disagree, though I think your plea would have been better received if you said "All Pilots" not ALL REC pilots.

 

Aviation in all its aspects can be very unforgiving, and everyone can benefit from a reflective appreciation of a (thankfully non-fatal) incident. In this instance, singling out a particular regulatory category of aviator, (rather than simply alluding to inexperience) was the prime motivation of my response.

 

Dave

[Aldo]

I don't agree with your first answer - the owner doesn't have any idea what kind of aircraft will be flown in, nor what experience the pilot might have

HIC

 

You don't have to agree with either answer, but as Orchid Beach is PPR and I have been there many times in various aircraft I always ring to confirm that the strip is open whether there has been any rain lately because if there has not it will be quite soft underfoot and what the length of the grass is, this is my responsibility as PIC (if I arrive overhead and it looks like crap it is also my decision to continue or not). The owner should ask what type and what experience you have.

 

At the end of the day it is the PIC's responsibility as to whether he/she continues or not, but if you have rang, asked the correct questions and received the right answers it is very difficult from afar to determine if the answers were in fact incorrect.

 

I'm in no way saying that this was the case in this situation as I along with everyone else on this thread apart from one wasn't there on that day but as he was on the ground he should have been able to determine the conditions. It may well be the case that with such limited experience it may not have been as close as he thought.

 

If I was an owner/operator of a PPR strip and charging landing fees I would not like to be in court defending a charge if I had told the pilot that all was good when in fact it may not have been. I'm not a lawyer but if I was the complainant I would have a very good barrister and I suspect I might win.

 

As far as I'm aware as soon as you charge for anything you become responsible in some way.

 

Regards

 

Aldo