Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
Sign in to follow this  
farri

Engine Failure Does Not Cause A Fatal Accident In An Ultralight Aircraft!

Recommended Posts

You won't be able to get CASA to see any form of common sense. All I can suggest is if you feel that strongly about having access to class D airspace then get a full GA pilots license.

The idea the everytime a department puts in a rule and are stubborn about fixing it, give up and work around it or incur an unecessary expensive burden, especially when lives are at stake, is not the workings of democracy. Maybe RAAAus should enlist the assistance of AOPA, other GA representatives and even ATC representative bodies to help educate CASA that RAAus a/c and GA aircraft can mix comfortably and there are no turf wars (there may be a requirement to teh RAA Pilot Certificant to have a controlled airpace endorsement or just a flight radio telephony licence...) I am sure the RAAus boffins have thought about all of this...

 

 

  • Helpful 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea the everytime a department puts in a rule and are stubborn about fixing it, give up and work around it or incur an unecessary expensive burden, especially when lives are at stake, is not the workings of democracy. Maybe RAAAus should enlist the assistance of AOPA, other GA representatives and even ATC representative bodies to help educate CASA that RAAus a/c and GA aircraft can mix comfortably and there are no turf wars (there may be a requirement to teh RAA Pilot Certificant to have a controlled airpace endorsement or just a flight radio telephony licence...) I am sure the RAAus boffins have thought about all of this...

Good luck with that!

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jerry, I suspect CASA likes to build “Chinese Walls” GA, RPT, AOPA, RA-Aus, etc. That helps with divide and rule tactics.

 

I trust that RA-Aus have done all they could to move things along on this, but a revolving door of MP’s, Directors of Aviation Safety, and RA-Aus leadership have slowed it all down to glacial progress.

 

Currently, CASA hasn’t said NO, but they are taking their jolly sweet time finding a way to a conditional YES:angry:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And what would be next?

 

RPT, so RAA cert drivers can earn a few bob, or a living taking paying joy flights.

 

There has to be an end to what you can do with your RAA certification.

 

spacesailoir

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed, spacesailor. My flying is purely recreational. But I feel I ought to have reasonable freedom of navigation, and to do so in safety in my own recreational aircraft. Surely that’s not too much to ask? Why have regulation anomalies that send me into Tiger Country, for no good reason?

 

 

  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why have "wing-loading on a "safe" airframe when it already had been flying.

 

Sixteen potential aircraft stopped from joining the illustrious band of RAA homebuilt airplanes.

 

spacesailor

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[quote name='spacesailor']And what would be next? RPT, so RAA cert drivers can earn a few bob, or a living taking paying joy flights. There has to be an end to what you can do with your RAA certification. spacesailoir[/QUOTE] Whoa @spacesailor.! No one is suggesting that pilots on a RAA Cert are to suddenly extend to the realms of commercial flying, flying complex machines, etc. However, to deny an RAA cert pilot access to airpspace where the RAA pilot that can meet the procedural (rather than arbitrary bureaucratic) requirenments, particularly when artificially denying such access is, well criminal in my mind. Given that the rules are there because of the perceived (and possibly historical) unreliability of engines and lower level of training (in real terms, de minimis - who needs all that PPL theory as a PPL, anyway, so its the pract differencess only), then it seems an anomaly to me to send them over tiger country where if the poop stops the fan, then it's most likely curtains rather than allowing them to route over open pasture where they stand a better chance. By procedural, I mean they know how to use the radio, the radio has range, they should have a transponder (mode C as a minimum - are you guys requierd to use mode-s, yet?), they can naviate and the comply with ATC requirements. I name a few GA pilots that wouldn't meet all of the above criteria... As an FYI, PPLs here can take paying passengers on joyflights - or officially termed, "familiarisation" flights. They can't themselves be remunerated, but can operate under the auspices of a club of flying school... I think there is a max time limit and there has to be various declarations to the passengers.. Why PPLs can even be remunerated instructors here (to PPL level if they have CPL theory, otherwise to the equivalent to a RAA Pilto Cert)..
  • Agree 1
  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=""Jerry_Atrick"]Whoa @spacesailor.! No one is suggesting that pilots on a RAA Cert are to suddenly extend to the realms of commercial flying, flying complex machines, etc. However, to deny an RAA cert pilot access to airpspace where the RAA pilot that can meet the procedural (rather than arbitrary bureaucratic) requirements, particularly when artificially denying such access is, well criminal in my mind. Given that the rules are there because of the perceived (and possibly historical) unreliability of engines and lower level of training (in real terms, de minimis - who needs all that PPL theory as a PPL, anyway, so its the pract differencess only), then it seems an anomaly to me to send them over tiger country where if the poop stops the fan, then it's most likely curtains rather than allowing them to route over open pasture where they stand a better chance. [/QUOTE] RAA was never intended for cross-country flying in complex airspace regulated areas. For that, you get a PPL. If someone decided he wanted to go touring up the east coast of Australia, but either didn't do his homework on the Nav requirements, or decided to take the cheap route of getting a Recreational Pilot Certificate and bluffing his way through the airspace rules, that's his own problem. What is clouding the issue, is perhaps one or two FTFs pushing for exemption from D Class on financial grounds to allow them to train for both RPC and PPL. Sure the end result looks silly, but there's some logic in allowing training the way it's done The students then go outside that area with all the other RPC pilots, so they do get a saving in travel time and cost if they live in the City. Have a look at a few threads on this site where flight planning, nav radio are discussed, and you'll see the standard of Certificate pilots generally; you do need that PPL training, and particularly the culture of using that training; it is different. I'm not suggesting those who have been trained at places like Camden fall short; just that if someone wants to stir it up, the more likely action is an internal "Who the hell authorised these people to train RA pilots in this airpace", followed by a cancellation, rather than an opening up of D Class to all comers. A few RA people have commented on here that they are "forced" over tiger country of dangerous conditions by not being allowed to fly in these prohibited areas. They choose to risk their lives and do it instead of flight planning around it. Even with a PPL, one of things you soon learn when cross-country flying is that there are MANY obstacles to what looks like a carefree point to point flight.
  • Agree 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Has CASA ever given a reason why this archaic rule exists? In NZ back in the 80s I could fly my Hang Glider in controlled airspace (with prior permission) without a radio. All RA aircraft there have the same privilege although they require a transponder like everyone else. RA is not seen as different there. All aircraft are on the same register. Not so here. I agree with dsam it is the divide and rule principle designed to maintain absolute control & shore up their internal culture that no director has been able to shake.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Has CASA ever given a reason why this archaic rule exists? In NZ back in the 80s I could fly my Hang Glider in controlled airspace (with prior permission) without a radio. All RA aircraft there have the same privilege although they require a transponder like everyone else. RA is not seen as different there. All aircraft are on the same register. Not so here. I agree with dsam it is the divide and rule principle designed to maintain absolute control & shore up their internal culture that no director has been able to shake.

RPT and Commercial aircraft may be letting down in this space at high speed; very hard to see something like a Jab or Drifter or for than matter any 4 seat GA aircraft below you.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
very hard to see something like a Jab or Drifter or for than matter any 4 seat GA aircraft below you.

So Turbs are you saying non commercial GA should be banned from controlled airspace? Doesn't seem very practical.074_stirrer.gif.5dad7b21c959cf11ea13e4267b2e9bc0.gif

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let’s be clear on this. Nobody (least of all me) is advocating for CTA in slow, ill equipped aircraft, with cowboys at the stick. (BTW I was raised in Western Canada and some of my best friends were cowboys...real ones... they hate it when I speak poorly of them:thumb down:)

 

I believe the RA-Aus proposal sitting before CASA restricts aircraft type to HP category with suitable radio, Mode S transponder, navaids etc. Further, the endorsement would include PPL standard exams, CFI navex check-flights to a required standard - all of which would weed-out the cowboys.

 

I should be able to do all this in my own properly equipped and LAME maintained aircraft without duplicate licence and training regimes & costs.

 

 

  • Agree 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@turboplanner - many RAAus a/c are higher peformance or similar to GA.. a tired C150 would find it hard to keep up with a Jab and in a Warrior, I followed an RV7A to Italy - well he got there quite a few hours ahead of me. In the UK (well, all of Europe - not sure about the USA), LAA and European equivalents enjoy access to airspace and as I mentioned (at least in the UK) they can fly IFR and night if a) suitably equipped, b) the individual a/c is approved by the LAA and c) the pilot is certified IMCr (IR(R)) or night (for NVFR). Times move on and so does the tech. I recall in about the mid 90's taking a look at a Jab at Tocumwal, had about the same performance as a C150 (but one had to be a little more on the ball in a stall). My point is that if the a/c is capable and the pilot has sufficient training (not necessarily PPL - I watch youtube videos of RAAus people navigating fine over vast expanses of Aus - see @cscotthendry's - they're the bee's knees :thumb up:).. No reason why those a/c couldn't do a class D transit, ATC and RPT/Bizjets/charters movements allowing... There are many instances where a class of regulation is set and then progresses as tech progresses. In Europe, the lower end of the GA market has had the posterior fall out of it because of the advances in LAA.. All that expense is no longer worth it. Even I (who loves my PA28s and TB10s) am looking to move into the 21st century. [edit]Corrected a plethora of typos[/edit]
  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
  • Winner 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So Turbs are you saying non commercial GA should be banned from controlled airspace? Doesn't seem very practical.074_stirrer.gif.5dad7b21c959cf11ea13e4267b2e9bc0.gif

(a) I notice the stirring stick

 

(b) This is very different flying to what you do; a very high percentage of it it swivelling eyeballs, and instinctively knowing what action to take to avoid fast moving aircraft flown by the upper end of the Pilot pecking order, including instantly reacting to things like radio advice of a missed approach at 2 miles dme on the 125 radial at 300 knots, and know instantly where you are in relation to that flight path.

 

The currency required for this is probably about a flight very week or so if you want to be safe.

 

This would also be one of the areas where your PL Insurance needs to cover potentially multiple fatalities in case a Dash 8 connects with you and goes down.

 

It's definitely a different type of flying, even compared to an RA field with six in the circuit.

 

Following on from that, if the RAA discussions produce anything, the conditions are likely to push up prices compared to the RA situation now.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
[QUOTE=""Jerry_Atrick"]@turboplanner - many RAAus a/c are higher peformance or similar to GA.. a tired C150 would find it hard to keep up with a Jab and in a Warrior, I followed an RV7A to Italy - well he got there quite a few hours ahead of me. In the UK (well, all of Europe - not sure about the USA), LAA and European equivalents enjoy access to airspace and as I mentioned (at least in the UK) they can fly IFR and night if a) suitably equipped, b) the individual a/c is approved by the LAA and c) the pilot is certified IMCr (IR(R)) or night (for NVFR). Times move on and so does the tech. I recall in about the mid 90's taking a look at a Jab at Tocumwal, had about the same performance as a C150 (but one had to be a little more on the ball in a stall). My point is that if the a/c is capable and the pilot has sufficient training (not necessarily PPL - I watch youtube videos of RAAus people navigating fine over vast expanses of Aus - see @cscotthendry's - they're the bee's knees :thumb up:).. No reason why those a/c couldn't do a class D transit, ATC and RPT/Bizjets/charters movements allowing... There are many instances where a class of regulation is set and then progresses as tech progresses. In Europe, the lower end of the GA market has had the posterior fall out of it because of the advances in LAA.. All that expense is no longer worth it. Even I (who loves my PA28s and TB10s) am looking to move into the 21st century. [edit]Corrected a plethora of typos[/edit][/QUOTE] This thread is about something much simpler; a pilot flying along at say 1100 feet, the engine cuts, there's a beach below, but somehow the pilot gets his aircraft into a spin and dies. We seem to have gone on, without solving that source of multiple fatalities, to a wish list for more complex flying. The aircraft specification level is not a hard one; it has to meet certain criteria to be allowed in; if it does, it can enter. Its the specification which counts, not the make or model of aircraft.
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If my engine fails whilst tracking north up the beach on the east coast (albeit CTA transit) most likely I can land safely along that beach. If inconsistent regulations unnecessarily force me to navigate inland staying under CTA steps in cloudy mountainous terrain, that same engine failure will probably have a much less safe outcome. Thus the apparent thread drift.

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is about something much simpler; a pilot flying along at say 1100 feet, the engine cuts, there's a beach below, but somehow the pilot gets his aircraft into a spin and dies.We seem to have gone on, without solving that source of multiple fatalities, to a wish list for more complex flying.

 

The aircraft specification level is not a hard one; it has to meet certain criteria to be allowed in; if it does, it can enter. Its the specification which counts, not the make or model of aircraft.

We are talking different train tracks... I agree - there needs to be more training on low level flying an preseving one's life. As an example, I had not had 1 minute of low/slow training nor short field take offs/landings, yet in the GA world, I passed my PPL (twice)! It is forums like this where I have learned a lot (as well as my test flights - one in Aus and 1 here). But the track we are talking is denying access of RAAus pilots access to class D airspaces, especially when it would route them low over tiger country. The radiotelephony is simple, navigation is not that difficult.. If ATC can accommodate, they will give a clearance and any conditions; if not, one may orbit unitll they can get a clearance or re-route. There are many GA pilots that may struggle if they don't get an immediate clearance...

 

 

  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
This thread is about something much simpler; a pilot flying along at say 1100 feet, the engine cuts, there's a beach below, but somehow the pilot gets his aircraft into a spin and dies.We seem to have gone on, without solving that source of multiple fatalities, to a wish list for more complex flying.

 

The aircraft specification level is not a hard one; it has to meet certain criteria to be allowed in; if it does, it can enter. Its the specification which counts, not the make or model of aircraft.

How many of these engine fails have resulted in a stall/spin at 1100 feet? I was under the impression from several reports that the stall/spin was happening closer to the ground often on short final. Sometimes witnesses have made statements along the lines of " he seemed low over the trees, then pancaked/ rolled over and hit the ground"

 

I've not read any where they were over a beach at 1100 feet before they stalled, spun and died.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always said push for "transit rights". You are through the difficult (traffic wise) place and on your way. You only need to know how to orbit. If your radio quits you don't go. That's the way it is.. A lot of Controlled airspace is over country you don't want to be over.

 

As far as losing control of a plane when the engine quits??? Someone who signed that pilot out would have something to answer for..Not ALL people can be pilots. That's a fallacy put out by people who want to have more school flying hours done. A car IS easier to do the basics and the brakes stop it and you can park it, if you are tired or confused... Nev

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • More 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How many of these engine fails have resulted in a stall/spin at 1100 feet? I was under the impression from several reports that the stall/spin was happening closer to the ground often on short final. Sometimes witnesses have made statements along the lines of " he seemed low over the trees, then pancaked/ rolled over and hit the ground"I've not read any where they were over a beach at 1100 feet before they stalled, spun and died.

I was quoting a specific one where the pilot had the choice of the sea or the beach, but lost it, possibly due to panic. There are plenty of early witness reports of spins and stalls from heights; spins and stalls in the circuit, as well as ones in the final stages as you described. You could probably pick up a few by going through the accidents and incidents section.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We are talking different train tracks... I agree - there needs to be more training on low level flying an preseving one's life. As an example, I had not had 1 minute of low/slow training nor short field take offs/landings, yet in the GA world, I passed my PPL (twice)! It is forums like this where I have learned a lot (as well as my test flights - one in Aus and 1 here). But the track we are talking is denying access of RAAus pilots access to class D airspaces, especially when it would route them low over tiger country. The radiotelephony is simple, navigation is not that difficult.. If ATC can accommodate, they will give a clearance and any conditions; if not, one may orbit unitll they can get a clearance or re-route. There are many GA pilots that may struggle if they don't get an immediate clearance...

Just sticking to your comments on Class D, it has been there for a long time for good reason; if you want to fly through it, you need to meet certain aircraft specifications, and certain pilot qualifications. The situation is no different to IFR; you have to meet aircraft specifications, and pilot qualifications.

 

If you want to fly through Class D for any reason, there is noting to stop you training and doing it.

 

Why would you push to increase the training costs and aircraft specifications across the whole 9,000 members of RAA? whether they want it or not?

 

Having said that, RAA have said they are discussing CTA access for some time now. Whether they had a mandate to do that is a good question? Whether that will involve additional training up to PPL standard, with the associated hours and extra cost is another good question. Whether the RA aircraft will be required to have the same specification required, is another question.

 

However, those are questions which can, and should, be asked of RAA, rather that hijacking a thread about basic aircraft control which is costing lives.

 

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I was quoting a specific one where the pilot had the choice of the sea or the beach, but lost it, possibly due to panic. There are plenty of early witness reports of spins and stalls from heights; spins and stalls in the circuit, as well as ones in the final stages as you described. You could probably pick up a few by going through the accidents and incidents section.

Reaper Spins While Pilot Runs Checklist - AVweb flash Article

 

Could they have been distracted, like the above recent event?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The RAAus management have clearly indicated that CTA access was first on their list , before anything else was given attention. I don't know why they couldn't rub their tummy and pat their head at the same time, nor where any mandate had come from, other than it fitted the concept of "THE NEW GA" that was out and about.. .. Organisations that are expanding their Mantra tend to have a contest within by the staff to be where the "action" is. the day by day routine stuff is Passe and gets neglected. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

M61A1 we are dealing with a remote control there. and managing a situation as an autopilot would be. Certain modes have no protection against stalling or overspeeding.. Height lock (alt hold) or a fixed attitude. (pitch) are subject to Altitude limits or power loss/change problems or things like icing.. Nev

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
M61A1 we are dealing with a remote control there. and managing a situation as an autopilot would be. Certain modes have no protection against stalling or overspeeding.. Height lock (alt hold) or a fixed attitude. (pitch) are subject to Altitude limits or power loss/change problems or things like icing.. Nev

Yes,it was remotely piloted, however, the point is that the pilot became fixated on completing a checklist, rather than flying the aircraft. We aren't talking about a toy here, the Reaper has a wingspan of over 60 feet and carries 500lb GBUs and Hellfire missiles.

 

The reason I posted it was because of a possible link to being distracted by focusing on a checklist, possibly just as they were taught to do.

 

I'm sure you are familiar with "FLY THE AIRCRAFT"....

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...