Teckair

quote "I wonder if that student knew the risk he was taking?

"

 

A statement that implies a judgement of the instructor that I feel should not be made without a lot more information than is available at this time.

Students by virtue of being students don't know a lot of things. They trust the Instructor and the system. Nev

It gives you the greater chance though, if you avoid tiger country and don't pretend your engine will never stop. If people want to take that risk though, I'm fine with that. They need to accept the consequences when it does happen.

Downunder, Just using this part of your post to make my point.If instructors are teaching, "if the engine stops you look for a suitable place to land", then in my opinion, that is incorrect and should be changed: once the engine has stopped or it isn`t developing enough power and a forced landing can`t be avoided, it may be too late to find a suitable place and there may be none.

 

The greatest chance of pulling off a successful forced landing is to be prepared and that means having a spot picked out, before it is required, not after.

 

Frank.

Well done by the ultralight pilot.

I was responding to someone asking if I had a vested interest and not you. The comment about misuse of the truth was aimed at various posts on the thread.

I wasn't referring to you with that comment.

Do you have a vested interest in the sale or operation of drones?

Nev please stop misquoting me most on these forums does not mean everyone.

A Phantom style drone weights about 1.5 kg and in wrong place at the wrong time would be deadly to most aircraft. I think this is well understood by most on these forums.

A soft edged dent is not a drone strike. I don't agree they are not a hazard to aircraft, particularly U/Ls .Try being in a hailstorm. Even one a golf ball size will impress you though I don't know what the terminal velocity of one is. Most damage in hail is at the leading edges, so the plane's speed has a lot to do with that. The drone could be coming towards you so it is the closing speed that determines the energy. Nev

As in politics and religion people believe what they want to believe. This thread is a classic example a dent that looked nothing like what a drone would make no evidence all that it was a drone but still people thought that was what happened.

Seems to me that people focus on the rotary 'Phantom' style of drone. The fixed wing variety can roam much further afield:

 

I was departing Bankstown at 1000ft today and just outside the boundary there was a drone flying at our altitude maybe 200 metres away. My passenger who is a 747 captain (reliable witness ?) also saw it when I pointed it out. I reported it to the tower. They are out there

ATSB confirmed it was a wildlife strike, SUPRISE SUPRISE.On 11 July 2017, a SOCATA TB-10 Tobago aircraft collided with an object at approximately 6.30pm during its final approach at Parafield Airport in South Australia.

 

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) commenced an investigation and swabs were taken of the damaged area on the leading edge of the right wing. Those swabs were tested for DNA by the Australian Museum, and the results have established that the object struck was a grey-headed flying fox.

 

This finding is consistent with the known behaviours of flying foxes, who can travel up to 50 kilometres from their roosts to feed at night.

 

As a result of this evidence, the ATSB is discontinuing its investigation, concluding the cause of the incident was wildlife strike.

 

Chief Commissioner Greg Hood said wildlife strike was the most common occurrence reported to the ATSB.

 

“Last year there was a total of 1954 incidents and accidents involving aircraft collisions with wildlife reported to the ATSB. Our research has found that bats and flying foxes, swallows and martins, kites, and lapwings and plovers are the most commonly struck type of flying animal.

 

“We will continue to provide information to pilots, aerodrome and airline operators, regulators, and other aviation industry participants on managing the risks associated with bird and animal strikes as part of our focus on improving transport safety.”

 

The Chief Commissioner also acknowledged the work of the Australian Centre for Wildlife Genomics within the Australian Museum in analysing the samples and delivering its final report to the ATSB.

Certainly suggesting/accusing the pilot of making a false report is a big step - think civil liability.

Nothing is impossible but the number of unbelievable drone reports have not helped. How does this person know this was a drone? If it was a drone then that would be a very serious problem that needs to be assessed. It would appear to me drone reports are made up in an effort to get them banned.

Nor is there any evidence that it was hanger rash, wind sock pole, a take your pick. I would say that the statements made by the pilot were evidence, just unsubstantiated. There is sufficient evidence around about the negligent use of drones for a collision with a drone to remain part of the theory.

You wouldn't know what happened hangar rash, wind sock pole, take your pick there is no evidence that it was a drone.

They are paranoid about drones.

Sounds like more fake news.

How do they know it was a drone? They just made that up.

I did see a Jabiru and am fairly sure it was a 2 seater because it was some years ago I can't be certain about the rego but I thought it was RRAus.

To clarify my position, I am suggesting that all Angel flights that operate with GA PPL pilots of any age, be two pilot operation.

This is not the first time this has happened and it won't be the last sadly. The big question is why? We all know not to do it but it still happens maybe he felt pressure to carry on in the circumstances.