dutchroll

There's only one major airline here with pilots on leave without pay at Emirates. I don't recall the guy personally, but the name sounded vaguely familiar.

That's bizarre. If that's truly the sequence of events, there's a possibility of miscommunication and/or indecision between the flying pilot and non-flying pilot. Or.....landing perhaps was heavy enough to do severe damage and they elected to go-around but immediately realised the severity of the damage and pulled the thrust off halfway through the go-around actions. But that doesn't make sense either. You either go around or you don't. If you go around and realise there's a gear leg half dangling off the plane or other warnings going off, as long as the plane is actually flying, you just stick with it. Sort it out in the air and prepare yourself for another even more awkward landing. This will be an interesting investigation for sure. And yeah I'l bet the pilots don't have jobs anymore even if it ends up not being their fault. Emirates operate under UAE law, where workplace laws and protections are non-existent.

Yes it is. But we know few people pay close attention to it.

First Officer was pretty experienced Aussie pilot (7000 hours) I believe. Video of passengers opening lockers to get their bags while the plane is burning, yet again. You know, you really don't have much time to get out in an evacuation like that, and if your wheelie bag obstructs an exit or tears an escape slide on the way down, there could be severe consequences of your actions, all for the sake of taking your toothbrush and sunnies.

I didn't say they were irrational all the time. The act of killing yourself is not a rational act no matter which way you look at it. Pretty much by definition, making preparations to deliberately cause your own death is not a rational thing to do, ie, it's not a logical thought process to decide the world or anybody in it is actually better off without you. In reality it's largely untrue, and suicide normally causes immense distress for others. This does not mean the same person can't be rational at other times or think rationally when doing everyday things. You can be both rational and irrational in quick succession. I like to think I'm rational, but every once in a while I pause and silently say to myself "what the bloody hell was I thinking there?"

Suicidal people are not rational during the time they're preparing and committing it. I have no idea why he'd never want to be found, except that it seems he didn't. Maybe he wanted to frustrate the hell out of his company? Or certain other people?

I've always had the opinion that it was a quite deliberate act by one of the pilots. You can't get a big modern jet to change course like that and fly for hours without very deliberate pilot intervention.

^^Wot Windsor said. There were two Pitts Model 12s flying in the Cessnock-Maitland area that day. Now there is only one which is mine, though as an aside there is one which flew some years back and is now in relative disrepair at Luskintyre in the corner of a dusty hangar, and there is one being built in Perth which I'm sure will fly within the next year or 2. I didn't know there had been an accident until my phone started continually ringing. However, I was familiar with that particular aircraft and its original builder and I knew someone had bought it and was being trained to fly it somewhere nearby. I don't think for his experience level and background it was ever a wise purchase, but it's a free world. The cockpit photos in the report are of my fully intact and serviceable Model 12 in the hangar, with my grotty Redback boots on the rudder pedals. I didn't realise they planned to ask me to sit in it to demo the controls and seating. Had I realised they were going to publish them in the final report, I would've dressed better that day! It was an interesting day. The investigators were tight lipped about what they had found at the time, understandably, but were quite pleasant to chat to. They were interested in my opinions of low time pilots in high performance aircraft, the flight characteristics of the aircraft, and a few other things. We chatted and I showed them around the plane for a couple of hours. It was from that visit that they determined an un-soloed front seat harness could potentially foul the rudders, however my opinion is that it likely had no bearing on the end result.

I'd argue the prime problem was attempting aerobatic manoeuvres he hadn't been trained and assessed to competency in and which, when botched, can have significant ramifications. It's quite conceivable that he still might have spun it in from 8000ft, given that in his last training report he was unable to recover from a deliberate inverted spin under instruction and was considered not ready for solo aeros. Lack of height sure didn't help though.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5771037/ao-2015-074-final.pdf Well, I don't have a gag on me anymore. Aside from the nice photos the accident investigators took of the inside of my plane, the report is pretty much as I expected. We keep seeing this time and time again. I told someone recently who was looking at getting one of these: it's a wonderful aeroplane which like any other Pitts type does everything you tell it to. It's also great fun to fly. However it is a very high performance aerobatic biplane and if you have a rush of blood to the head and exceed your capabilities, you might be in trouble. Findings From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the collision with terrain involving a Pitts Model 12, registered VH-JDZ, which occurred about 8 km south-west of Maitland Airport, New South Wales on 8 July 2015. These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual. Contributing factors • Control of the aircraft was lost during a vertical manoeuvre that was likely entered at an altitude lower than that required and the aircraft was not recovered before impact with terrain. Other factors that increased risk • The pilot conducted low-level flight and aerobatic manoeuvres despite not holding the appropriate authorisations, significantly increasing the risk of an accident. • The pilot used non-prescribed medication and herbal supplements without informing their doctor and Designated Aviation Medical Examiner, removing a protection against pilot incapacitation. • Uncertified and unauthorised maintenance was carried out on VH-JDZ, which increased the risk that a technical issue would affect the safety of the aircraft and those on board. • Industry interpretation of the regulations regarding the maintenance of amateur-built experimental aircraft was varied, increasing risk associated with the maintenance of those aircraft. Other findings • The front seat buckles were found unsecured and, although unable to be determined if they were not secured correctly as part of the standard pre-flight preparation for solo flight, or they may have undone as a consequence of the impact sequence, any insecurity during aerobatic manoeuvres has implications for flight control fouling.

How in the heck did he get himself into that situation in an amphibian? I just want to know! And it's time for him to run out and buy a lottery ticket....

Yes the final approach is the final approach! Obviously a lot of good support from the right seat guy is critical too - not much different in principle to the airlines.

Another much more recent, but still pretty good landing.......

The GRT EIS is hugely popular in the USA. They have sold something like 25,000 (twenty five thousand!) of these things. I considered it for my plane (it is the "recommended" engine monitor although you can customise the panel to whatever one you want) and discounted it on the basis that the user interface is pretty ancient and there were much easier to read, though more expensive, units available. However if you're short of panel space it is considered a very reliable and capable unit. I'm reconsidering the EIS for a panel upgrade, but linked to one of their new HXr displays. The guys I know with Pitts Model 12s who have the EIS have no issues with it at all, though looking at banks of numbers and getting to know the many pages of submenus takes a little getting used to. MGL units are good as far as I know but support can be a bit hit and miss. I've never heard of support problems from GRT.

Not photoshopped. Cargolux B747-8 freighter takeoff (empty) from Paine Field on a delivery flight. - two Cargolux VPs for safety were in the cockpit - internal safety investigation concluded "the position of the aircraft was excessive and unstable at times and was not compatible with aviation safety" - internal email from Cargolux CEO stating that the aircraft could've crashed had the pilot not managed to regain control at the last moment - pilot no longer flying with Cargolux - one of the Cargolux VPs in the cockpit took an enforced "break" for 6 months following a letter of apology to management I've read a lot of commentary from people who clearly have never laid hands on the controls of a big swept wing jet who reckon it was skilful and perfectly safe. That's crap. Any idiot can do it, and it's not perfectly safe at all.

....not to mention that France is one of very few countries in the world that has been completely surrounded by enemies hell bent on invading it for the last thousand years. They've had their ups and downs, but I reckon they've done ok, all things considered. If anyone truly believes a US carrier was going to use its catering facilities to feed 3000 tsunami victims 3 meals a day, produce several thousand gallons of fresh drinking water for the tsunami victims every day, and treat several hundred of them every day in its internal hospital facilities, they seriously need their head read. But yes they would provide some degree of disaster relief, and that is very nice of them to get to Indonesia after everyone else (including Australia). 'Well, when I came ashore at Gold Beach on D-Day in 1944 to help liberate this country, I couldn't find a single Frenchman to show a passport to." Sort of funny I guess. But it's also pretty flippant, obnoxious and arrogant when you consider the sacrifice of a lot of French people during the German occupation. Many of them paid with their lives, murdered ruthlessly by the Gestapo, etc. A lot just tried to survive as their country was totally overtaken by a vastly superior military force which destroyed all others opposing them at the time. It was easy for the British. They just fled at Dunkirk, saved by the tyranny of living on an island back in the day when overseas invasions were not just a matter of sending a fleet of C-17 transports directly to the war zone. Not so easy for the people who were left behind!

If the pilots decide to evacuate on the ground it is initiated by checklist. The checklist on both Boeing and Airbus always calls for engine shutdown prior to activating the evacuation alarm or making an evacuation PA. There should be no engines running when passengers start down the slides if the crew have followed ground evacuation procedures correctly. It has been reported only a day ago that the investigators have narrowed in on the fuel/oil heat exchanger as the prime suspect.

Possibly they thought indications they had in the cockpit were not severe enough to warrant a shutdown for whatever reason. There are unconfirmed reports that the indications they had may not have truly indicated the severity of the problem. If that was the case, the decision to keep it running might be justified. The fire on the ground was obviously pretty severe though. I think they were a bit lucky to get away with it. Even if the fuel was pouring out of the right engine, the entire left side of the aircraft was available for evacuation and if you have a fuel fed fire, how long do you have before things get really bad and you start getting char-grilled? Nobody knows, so betting on it seems strange to me. Then again, another factor in deciding to evacuate is that you have to trust the training and ability of your flight attendants not to open their exit when all they can see is flames in the window, and not to send passengers down a slide into burning fuel. I would trust ours not to do that, but I can't speak for others. SIA will paint it as a complete success, but it's going to lead to interesting discussions in training sessions at other airlines!

I believe they came back with thrust reduced to idle. In a Boeing, fulling the engine fire handle, or moving the fuel control switch to cutoff, will close the spar valve and prevent any fuel flow to the engine. This doesn't solve the problem of a fuel leak in the wing area, but if it's in any of the engine plumbing including the first & second stage fuel pumps, the fuel/oil heat exchanger, etc, it will cutoff the fuel leak.

Yes. If the engine is shutdown in flight, fuel will be cutoff at the spar valve. My understanding is that this engine was not shutdown.

Happy snaps of the SIA B777 aftermath. Word on the street is that it was actually leaking fuel which ignited upon landing.

I wasn't after a concession, Pearo. It's just that I'm trying to make clear that the circumstances and result do not make sense to me, no matter which way I look at it. . Maybe the investigation will prove the course of action was brilliant. In which case I will continue my long aviation learning curve. Then again......maybe it won't!

Yeah seriously, if your wing is profusely burning, you don't need to be f***ing around. As I said before, even with fuel dumping there is a bucketload of fuel remaining in that wing. It's no good saying "oh well you can throw a match into a pool of aviation turbine fuel on the ground and it won't catch fire". That friggin' well doesn't apply if you have a spectacular oil fire burning at the time! It's SIA though. I'll be pleasantly surprised if we see the full investigation results.

....from abandoning ship too soon when half of it was on fire and the evacuation was onto dry land?

Yeah if you do the sums with pounds per square inch, or kg per square cm, or whatever, you'll find that it doesn't take much cabin pressure to make opening an exit highly improbable. For the uninitiated, all cabin doors (including the power-assisted main ones) require an inwards movement before they can be opened. This is why it's not possible for a cabin door to "blow" outwards unless there is a major structural failure, in which case you're screwed anyway. Cargo doors are not designed the same way. They can (and will) blow outwards if the locking mechanisms fail.