M61A1

Let me guess, you work at Oakey?

A gliding helicopter is an Autogyro !Don't the pilots know how to engage neutral gear ?

spacesailor

I have dealt with genuine ADHD cases before, as well as a lot that I believe were misdiagnosed (usually at the insistance of a parent that wasn't interested in proper parenting). Because of the misdiagnosed ones, I was very reluctant to believe that it was real, this changed when we had some kids in our care that we were really struggling with. After considerable research and discussion with a paediatrician, we accepted the reality. It is my understanding, that it is caused by low frontal lobe activity ( the bit where you think ahead-consequences), which is why prescribing a stimulant is often the course of action. It always bothered me that the uneducated ones, would make accusations about about the kids being "doped up", not the case, they were on speed. We found that small levels of dexamphetamine did wonders ( all cases need to be assessed individually), their education improved, you could really see the change where they actually thought ahead about what they were doing, rather than just perpetually reacting to the environment without considering the result. Another "feature" of ADHD, is they can become so focussed that all else around them may as well not exist. Neither of these attributes are going to help a pilot.

The legal people and I really don't see eye to eye ( I know it's pointless and frustrating to argue with them), as far as recreational aviation (and life in general) is concerned (my opinion only), I built/accepted the a/c, I maintained it, I learned to operate it, I flew it, regardless of what I do with that a/c ( as long as I do not endanger someone else or their property) is nobody's business but my own, and the risk is all mine. No other person should be responsible for my actions, excepting if I have paid them in some way to accept that risk. Yes I am aware that the law doesn't see it that way, and I operate accordingly. However, I would suggest that all pilots consider the laws of physics before the laws of the land.

I did read once about a fellow who believed that the laws of physics were able to be legislated, and was very upset that parliament would not legislate time travel.

Also , an internet post about the "rules" and "laws",- Rules can be bent, but the laws cannot, if you must bend the rules, it must be executed flawlessly, otherwise the laws may apply.

Stop me if I'm waffling.

For the rotary wing knockers

I am extremely appreciative of the factual evidence that has been brought out in the open.

What I struggle to get my little mind around in not just this case, but many, is, that despite legislation already in place prohibiting the behavior, they (magistrates/coroners) somehow think that making an extra rule that the same offenders (for want of a better term) will for some reason, decide that they will now follow that rule, despite disregard of the previous, or even worse, make another rule that makes someone else accountable for their (offender's) actions.

Something else to consider...... would proper spin training possibly prevented him from carrying out spins at too low an altitude? (as education,demonstrating altitude lost, recovery time, etc), as the reality is that spins can be safely carried out in the aircraft type used, just not legally. The aircraft doesn't know whether it's got VH or RAAus rego.

To get first hand facts YOU have to contact a board member, otherwise they are second hand facts. This message seems to be taking a while to get through.

For those who are not aware, trishok is Michael's mother.She very bravely came on here on the July 2010 thread "Drifter double fatality near Lismore" with some down to earth posts.

 

Her contribution this time puts another dimension on this crash.

 

From memory she was as interested as we were in trying to get right to the bottom of the sequences which occurred to ensure the same thing couldn't happen again.

 

Thanks Trish, ADHD gives us something more to think about.

That said, in order to reduce (I don't belive that you will ever fully prevent) this type of occurrence, the events must be viewed objectively without emotion, and the real causes identified. Since legislation prohibiting the behaviour was already in place, I just cannot see what good further legislation could achieve, without further harm to freedom of others.

Pretty sure that this accident involved the aircraft that was pretty sus in the condition dept and had been signed off in the condition report as OK when he bought it. if i remembered the disscussion correctly of the incident as previously dicussed on the forum. Even though the pilot was operating it outside the regs it is capable of aerobatics and should have stayed together. 50% of the contributing factors i'd have thought.

My question is, was he doing his own maintenance (or not), or employing someone else (paid or unpaid) to carry out the maintenance? As harsh as it sounds, if he was responsible for his own maintenance, and his flying ( several warnings & advice according posts here), surely we can safely say that he has chosen to ignore the laws of physics, and has paid the ultimate price via the laws of natural selection. My only real beef with the whole situation, is that some parts of society seem to feel that this reflects poorly on those who just happen to enjoy the same (recreational aviation, not flying foolishly), and that the regulations should be tightened, when reality is if the existing regulation had been adhered (or even just the laws of physics) to he would be alive. So what would be the point of creating new legislation to be ignored, other than to shift blame to someone still living after the fool kills themselves?

If you enjoyed that, you may also like Chuck Yeager's biography, unlike the movie, it's a really good read. I must admit, I quite liked his attitude to it all as well.

Hi AllJust removed my rudder and found significant wear on the top alum hinge bracket

The middle bracket worn but not as much

 

No significant wear on the bottom bracket

 

Anyone else had this problem ????

BTW people I was again speaking with one of the Ex board members this morning and I asked if he had been innundated with phone calls.............embarrasingly he advised that he'd had 5 calls.....yep I said 5............so to those that show concern and frustration that you dont have the details.......WTF are you doing asking those questions here and then NOT ringing and discussing with the people who can tell you straight as to what the issue is!!!!!please this is all waffle and hearsay on here at present......but the answer as to how you get it turned into FACT that you can believe has been said so many times..... pick up the phone and ring....

 

BTW it was suggested that Bill Cain is overseas at present. If he has his mobile he may be unhappy that you ring at his 1am in the morning, or that when global roaming he gets to pay global roaming rates for the phone call which in many cases could bankrupt a small 3rd world country..... so maybe there is a better option to use email in his case......

 

Andy

You are working on the assumption that you can find safe landing every time the engine disintegrates. Any ideas why 2 strokes fell off in popularity?

And perhaps that is why voter turn out is as poor as it is. Andy

I do understand that if one does not vote then they really have no right to complain about the direction things go.

That said, I'm willing to bet I'm one of many, who is a member only because it is a legal requirement for me to fly the only way I can afford to.

Another FT exclusive.Most of the rank and bloody file didn't even bother to VOTE!

Most of the rest didn't bother to even make basic phone calls do basic research.

 

It's very much self inflicted!

I've been a member(AUF/RAA) or around 14 years now, and this forum (member for a couple of months) is the only politics I've been exposed to. Is this just a storm in a teacup (or forum)? or is stuff really going down?

Please excuse my ignorence but what is anICJohn

Hi,try

www.flighthelmets.com.au

With a moniker like M61A1, you must be ex-military! I'm interested in where I can get the sort of helmet you describe, and the cost. I have a couple of good headsets so I'd rather integrate one of them in any helmet I use.Your comment about being unable to exit the cockpit after a prang are pertinent to us all. Ideally, as part part of my training, I should turn the aircraft upside down and practice opening the canopy and scrambling out. I imagine I could smash out the perspex and wriggle thru the opening, but let's hope I never to test out that theory!

Yeah, I'm ex military, but I was an armourer, not a pilot/crew, I still turn spanners & bash metal on military stuff though.

While I agree absolutely that the best protection is to avoid the accident completely, I have seen somewhere along the way, some documented evidence that head protection is not entirely stupid. The article referenced several cases where occupants had been killed (drowned/incinerated) because they were incapacitated due to head injury (unconcious), and unable to vacate the aircraft in a timely manner.

Personally, I use a military style helmet, it works for me in a Drifter because-

1.Head protection- worst case

2.Visor- eye protection with virtually unrestricted vision, instead of ski goggles

3.Hearing protection

4.Built in comms

Also my old military nomex flight suit ( dunno how flame resistant) is light weight and has zip up pockets all over it which is great in an open cockpit. (also prevents sunburn, those of you who have spent a while in a drifter in a t-shirt will know).

Mind you I am a very low hour pilot, and maybe things will change over time.

I think that it sums up like this. The majority of aircraft now under RAAus control have evolved faster than the RAAus.

"BUT I find the lack of knowledge of SOME newly qualified pilots under the RAA rules leaves a lot to be desired."Frank,

 

Not at all surprising, because I have ceased to be surprised at the lack of often quite basic knowledge in interviewing professional pilots for various purposes, either recruitment or audits.

 

When I find an instructor who has never done a full stalling sequence all the way through training, and has never does more than a very tentative approach to the stall, has never done spins and recovery, let alone aerobatics, and transfers his or her fear of more than the most basic maneuvers to the student, is it any wonder we have a standards problem. Look at the handling problems revealed in recent ATSB reports of airline incidents.

 

Our whole approach to the issue in Australia, is the heart of the problem ---- rather than teach an understanding of what the rules are (or should be) for, the conduct of our operations at the least achievable risk, in training the emphasis is on a style of rote learning to pass a style of examination which doesn't really examine knowledge, and after this hoop of fire is left behind, the attitude is very much "I've passed that exam, now I can forget it" ----. and forget it "they" do. One of my favorite general questions is to ask a candidate how they assess VFR conditions --- and I get a recitation of the table in the AIP ---- so I ask the question again in terms of;"OK, that's the numbers, but the question I asked is how do you assess VFR --- how do you apply the numbers??

 

By contrast, in US, Canada or the UK, source material is all plain text, not the underlying regulations, because the form of the regulations and style of instruction is all practical application of the "rules", not being able to effectively regurgitate actual legislation to answer (I'm talking GA here) very trickily worded multi-choice questions. There is nothing wrong with multi-choice questions as such, but what we do here departs a long, long way from the proper application of the educational theory that underpins multi-choice questions as a method of examination. When the "right" ( or least wrong) answer is only differentiated by the punctuation within the question, that is not a fair and reasonable question.

 

That we generally write rules in the negative doesn't help in easy understanding, I have seen many "show cause" letters from CASA that illustrate that CASA people have as much difficulty with the aviation law as she is writ, as the guys in the industry.

 

We started out re-writing the rules in 1996, plain language, written in the positive, have a look at Part 21, contrast it with the bulk of regulation.

 

By 1998, we had drafts of Part 91, General Operating and Flight Rules, which were even shorter than FAA Part 91, plus a whole lot more ---- but it all fell by the wayside, as Minister's and CASA senior management changed ---- we still haven't got a Part 91, but the latest draft is a real problem, just in size alone. And that is not the only problem, compared to the 1998 draft Part 91 that was almost ready for making.

 

I simply don't know if it will ever change in Australia, too many efforts have died along the way. Right now there is huge criticism of of (pick your own number) a 20+ year "regulatory reform program", but it has never been one continuous program, but multiple failed programs, as Ministers change, CASA senior management changes, and the influence of "industry" versus "bureaucracy" wax's and wanes. Most of the industry is pre-occupied just with survival, there is little enthusiasm for the idea of real reform, to catch up with what NZ did years ago, Canada more recently. The old Canadian rules were easy to work with, compared to Australia, the new Canadian rules are even easier, and arguably easier to work with than NZ.

 

Sadly, it is not just aviation that is, in Australia, over burdened with "rules", but what is the general public reaction every time there is some kind of kerfuffle?? --- "They should pass a rule against it" ---- and the pollies oblige.

 

How do we change the Australian psyche that sees more rules as the answer to almost every problem??? If "rules" were the answer, shouldn't we have a rule simply making human factors errors a criminal offence, with mandatory custodial sentences for breaches??

 

After all, ultimately 100% of aircraft accidents are human factors accidents ---- to quote Dan Maurino, long time ICAO safety guru, and co-author, with Professor James Reason, of the most important and influential books on aviation safety yet written.

 

Cheers,

I frequently find myself in utter dismay with the nightly "current affairs" type programs that show someone who has got themselves in a world of hurt, then wants legislation passed, then has the presenter asking "are we doing enough to stop this happening", when clearly there is no-one to blame but themselves.

Can anyone tell me who would be the closest L2? I'm in Oakey, near Toowoomba.

I will be wanting a condition report done soon, I am a L2, but RAAus won't let me do my own. Are people charging for condition reports these days?

A good point made here:If silicon is applied sparingly, it will level off the low spots or defects, and stop those niggling small oil leaks. However, from the photo posted here, it looks like the silicon was applied with a butter knife.

What gets me is that these surfaces should be made without low spots or defects, so the need for a filler is eliminated. Perhaps a bit more attention to quality control is required from this manufacturer.

 

OME

detonation/pinging is 2 (or possibly more) flame fronts meeting within the combustion chamber. one ignited by the plug, the other from hot carbon deposits, or compression in an excessivly lean mixture, to low an OCTANE rating, or other such as advanced timing

Explosion- a rapid expansion of matter (gas)

Detonation- total molecular disintegration -the rate is much higher from memory, upwards of 4000 metre/sec. (bear in mind this was 30 yrs ago)

In any case, it's destructive.

Can't say that I entirely agree with that. While aviation engines are indeed designed lighter (because they simply have to be to satisfy the performance vs weight equation) and do have more demand on them than the average car engine, they also frequently use higher quality components, and components subject to much more rigorous quality control procedures than automotive engines. It is rare for aviation engines to fail when they are treated and maintained well and have proper components fitted, considering the demands put on them. Now cut to my useless EF Falcon of many years ago, which was always regularly serviced, driven responsibly, and experienced a litany of costly failures throughout its life, the final one being its death knell.

Can't say that I entirely agree with that. While aviation engines are indeed designed lighter (because they simply have to be to satisfy the performance vs weight equation) and do have more demand on them than the average car engine, they also frequently use higher quality components, and components subject to much more rigorous quality control procedures than automotive engines. It is rare for aviation engines to fail when they are treated and maintained well and have proper components fitted, considering the demands put on them. Now cut to my useless EF Falcon of many years ago, which was always regularly serviced, driven responsibly, and experienced a litany of costly failures throughout its life, the final one being its death knell.