Bluey

I tossed a coin when I turned 55.........Road bike or RAA licence !I think I made the right choice choosing RAA, it's up to me how safe I choose to be.

 

Flying has lots of dangers , most of them you have the choice to avoided if you follow the rules , stay within your limits and don't end up in a place that your training and experience can't handle.

 

It's a lot safer than riding down the road and being T boned by a car that didn't see you !

 

Life's short, fly safe its all good,

 

cheer's Butch

The statistics don't in any way justify this claim. Think of 30 people you know who drive cars, how many are dead? I bet the answer is most likely zero.

The risks are clearly much greater than any form of road transport. I'd also like to add that most of the recent fatalities involved safe pilots not Cowboys.

My sincere condolences go out to Ray's family and all of his friends. This is another very sad day.

Bluey.

Lets not assume pilot error in this case. The pilot did seek and get support when transitioning from his previous wing and the current one. Also, he flew it regularly and had built up at least 20 hrs and probably significantly more on the arrow wing in short time before the tragedy. He also, regularly flew with much more experienced pilots who also fly arrow wings.

The incident in this case has two possible causes:

1. Pilot incapacitation

2. Structural failure

Pilot error is unlikely given eyewitness accounts of the event.

That is all I am willing to say at this time.

A thorough investigation needs to occur to help identify the likely cause. Whether this is even possible is yet to be seen. Let's hope for all our sakes a definite cause can be found.

33 years for about 100 fatalities makes about 3 fatalities/year not 33. That's still 3 too many.

My sincere condolences to the families of the victims. Our thoughts are with you during this very difficult time.

The safest way is to insert the nozzle into the tank and be sure that the nozzle is in contact with the wall of the tank just like refueling your car. This way if a spark accurs inside the tank nothing happens. The fuel air mixture in the tank will prevent combustion unless the tank is empty or nearly so.

As for drilling holes and inserting conducting elements, I am skeptical as to their effectiveness. This is because fuel would have to come into direct contact with such elements to discharge. Fuel not in contact is going to remain charged and flowing fuel will acquire charge.

Bluey.

A static build up will only occur if the atmospheric conditions allow it. That is, humidity is low, generally below 50%. Plastic cannot be grounded. The fuel funnels when used in combination with a drum and spout is a problem. Don't forget the fuel itself will build up a charge as it swirls in the funnel during refueling. Don't assume it's always the plastic.

A good practice would be to spray water to the outside of your plastic drum before refueling. At least this way you'll elliminate one possible source. Alternatively, don't refill when the air is that dry. You're asking for trouble.

I had a fire about a year ago during NSW bushfires. I was lucky!

Bluey

Spoke to the gyro instructor the other day who is pretty certain turbulence had nothing to do with the accident. Apparently the pilot flew from somewhere up on the escarpment to begin with. He also stated that the conditions on the day would have been fine for a gyro. I can confirm that I've seen gyros operating out of YWOL with westerlies gusting to more than 25kts on the ground.

I think that there is more of a chance of jesus being resurrected than anybody being found alive from that aircraft.

The B777 like any other modern Boeing will blare very loudly at you if cabin alt goes above 10,000' and there's no indication that the warning system was inoperative. Plus it then would've kept flying on its programmed route with unconscious crew and passengers until within radar range of the Vietnamese/Chinese mainland. I don't see a slow decompression as more plausible than some type of unlawful interference at this point.

From the grapevine....Someone I know has been asked to write a supposition on what occurred... I note clearly this is complete hypothesis, based on general knowledge of the industry, assumptions and thoughts. I don't have any details on the accuracy of these statements, however it seems feasible to me...

 

Boeing had issued a notice of stress fractures on the top of the fuselage (around the aerial?). Malaysia Airlines chose to not act on the advice as it was not a compulsory notice.

 

The supposition is , this part of the aircraft gave way resulting in slow but steady decompression, this also dislodged the GPS and comms for radar identification, thus the airplane 'disappeared'.

 

Auto pilot, without GPS, did it's best to fly on but slowly and surely dove the plane into the ocean some many hours from it's last known/reported position. Guess is to the East, as to the West it probably would have been picked up again on radar, and/or hit land.

 

Because of slow and gradual decompression, both crew and passengers lulled into a slow, progressive sleep. The plane flew on for some hours until it hit the ocean and has sunk, some thousands of miles from the current search area.

 

A hypothesis, nothing more.

 

Ramjet.

The engines running for 4 more hours is being disputed by Boeing as fact! This claim has not been disproved. From what I can tell the Malaysians don't know what's going on and probably shouldn't be in charge of the search.

On a good day JORN can see Singapore. On a good day.

The primary return relies on being painted by ground radar. The range of that would be in the order of 100nm for Malaysia. Beyond that the aircraft would be invisible unless military radar was operating in the area. It would have appeared on other radar north of Malaysia if it had continued flying in that direction.

If the plane had continued on auto pilot it would most likely have popped up on primary radar somewhere. As far as anyone knows right now it didn't crash. Or at least if it did crash it's probably nowhere near where they are looking. It may never be found if it is in water.

Malaysians are denying the plane flew for a total of 5 hours. Many bizarre claims have now appeared in the media. Debris seen by Chinese satellites turned out to be boats tied together. No sign of an aircraft. Does anyone know what is going on?

This is a weird one. No mayday call to me says that a catastrophic failure with in flight breakup is a real possibility. Yet that would surely lead to debris spread over a wide area. Yet no debris has been found other than an oil slick. Very strange. Deepest condolences to all affected.

I think they are developing a new pod too...

Bluey.

Anyone know about a new airborne wing? Apparently due early in 2014. Rumour has it that it's smaller and faster than an arrow.

Bluey.

Can't say I do Bluey, your was an Airborne also wasn't it. Contact the Tech manager when back in the office, he may be able to discuss the report with you.............Cheers Ross

It's unusual that nobody is aware of this incident as the triking community is pretty tight.

Bluey.

Hi all, I came across an article in the pilots notes of the RAAUS magazine of another static induced trike fire while refuelling. It is similar to mine except I wasn't burnt and they used an earth from the outset. Does anyone know anything about it?

Bluey.

Hello Blue,I'm not really sure what you mean by the question 'is it just a case of home builts being over represented'

I can think of four accidents involving loss of rotor control through the detachment of the cyclic to the rotor head at some point along the control system. 3 of which were fatal. One was a home built, one was a kit built and two were factory built. There were differing reason for the loss of control which I won't go into.

 

Hopefully the investigation will uncover the reason for this accident.

I've recently made inquiries into the feasability of converting to gyros from trikes and have been wondering about the safety aspects. While every instructor I've spoken to has vouched for their safety, historical records seem to suggest that they can be quite a handful at times.

Thanks for the reply Rob. It does seem as though there have been quite a few accidents in gyros over the years where people have just been passengers. Is it just a case of home builds being over represented?

Bluey

Very sad and condolences to the family and friends.We need to remember though 45 odd people will die on roads in the coming days and week. 50 odd people will drown. Thousands will die from sitting on the couch too much and thousands will die from smoking and alcohol. Many will die from work related stress. And those that dont work will die faster from socio economic causes.

Life is dangerous, not flying.

While flying may be safe when all is going well, it is not all that safe when things go wrong. Many variables can determine the outcome. The terrain below you plays a critical part as we all know.

It is also likely and quite reasonable to conclude that some types of aircraft are more difficult in an emergency than others. I wonder where gyros fit in here?

Last light in Adelaide was around 20:30 on the day. So not an issue.

I just read this whole thread and I have a few observations that I think are worth mentioning."i was recently certificated" - involved here are two firefighting helicopters and by requirement they are crewed by the most experienced pilots there are so the pilot of each probably has 10,000 command hours or more. The light plane was flown by a new pilot who has only recently been allowed to fly unsupervised and was flying an aircraft with which he was not at all familiar since he had only purchased it about a fortnight ago. In this case the helicopter pilot is likely to be pretty calm and collected and the light plane pilot is likely to have a relatively high workload.

 

"he was accelerating and climbing toward the runway.......I realized i could not turn right in case he stopped" - helicopters don't just suddenly stop except in a manoeuvre called a 'quickstop' in which case he would do the avoiding, no one else would need to do anything.

 

"so i turned sharp to the left" - to avoid a potential conflict you are supposed to turn right.

 

"He took no evasive action at all" - perhaps he didn't need to, or perhaps he did and you didn't see it, you said you lost sight of him ...

 

"They didn't learn from the situation" - I bet they did, at least to learn that amateur pilots in small planes might turn left when they should have turned right.

 

"What i learned from it was take evasive action as early as possible" - yup, that's what your instructor would have been teaching.

 

"In hindsight going right would have been better" - Yes, most likely, especially since you were headed 030 and he was 270 so, if there had actually been a risk of collision, i.e. the law of constant bearing was satisfied, by turning left you had to turn through 120 degrees before you were parallel to him and no longer risking crashing into him whereas had you turned right you only had to turn a few degrees to pass behind him.

 

"maybe up to say 12 people in the back ( huge) but the had say around 3 - 6 pob judging from subsequent days take off" - not sure how you can judge how many people were in a helicopter from how many they had in it a few days later ... but based on that you're saying a 14 seater was generally flown with two crew and between one and four pax?

 

"I know they have limited fuel etc etc so dont want to wait around" - how do you know how much fuel they had? If they were virtually empty of pax they might well have been full of fuel, surely?

 

"but this guy clearly didnt even look or listen" - I think this is a very offensive statement. Are you seriously suggesting that this highly experienced professional pilot didn't look or listen? How do you know that? You are the one who didn't see the unfolding situation and it would appear that when you noticed him moving you may have made some unfounded assumptions. In another thread Poteroo pointed out that you owed this helicopter pilot an apology for presumptuous comments you made then ...

 

"And i think this case is why they should never be allowed to cross the active runway" - special procedures for helicopter operations have been developed and refined over decades, based on their special needs and capabilities. They work well. Familiarising yourself with the differences in helicopters' (and other types of airspace users') procedures will help you to assimilate with them more smoothly and cause you less alarm when you interact with them during their normal operations.

 

"i heard the first one clearly. I didnt hear the second one clearly but he did call" - it's well known that you can hear things more easily while not concentrating on other matters, the first would have transmitted while you were on downwind and not especially busy, the second while you were on short final and doing your checks, setting up your landing, at which time you would have been much busier than previously ...

 

"i probably could have landed and taxi under him or behind him" - if you were already at 50ft on climb and in your hindsight you feel you probably could have landed under him it doesn't sound like you were quite as close together as some of the description of this event suggests.

 

"but prob would have got flipped by his turbulence" - only if he was hovering, not if he was moving, again more familiarity with helicopters would reduce your concerns about them.

 

"Lucky the cessna was tied down because it was bouncing off the ground from the draft" - that would have been worthy of a video post!

 

"but i had no idea what he was doing at that stage" - Because you lost sight of him. If you had turned right in accordance with your training and the regulations then you wouldn't have lost sight of him and would have known exactly what he was doing and where he was and so been able to be certain to avoid him rather than hoping you were doing so. That is the main reason we turn right, because the command seat is the left seat, so when we turn right we keep each other in view. Helicopters often have the right seat as command seat because it is easier to let go the collective while hovering to adjust frequencies, than fly the cyclic with your knees but helicopters have excellent all-round view so they can see you just fine from either seat.

 

"I could see the left seat pilots shocked face looking at me..." - that's not too surprising really, he would most likely have been wondering what the hell you were doing turning left to parallel his flightpath and bring yourself into conflict with him by doing so. Keep in mind that if the "left seat pilot" was looking at you the helicopter probably had two crew members on watch since the likelihood is that the command seat is on the RHS.

 

"i would never have guessed the 2 nd one would have gone the way he did" - Why not? You say the previous one departed that way, I would think it would be very likely the next would do the same, they would hardly be expected to leave in random directions.

 

"but he should have looked, heard me turn downwind and base..." - I'm sure he would have looked, and heard you, and with his experienced judgement probably departed with plenty of room to spare. To you it may have seemed close but you probably have less information on which to judge his aircraft's performance, than he does. There is another thing to factor into this. We all feel affronted when someone steps into space that we perceive as 'ours'. By being on final approach and having declared your intentions you would most likely have mentally 'taken possession' of the runway - you were on short final, so the runway was 'yours'. Suddenly this alien machine (most people who don't fly helicopters have an unreasonable dislike and suspicion of them) intrudes into your space, so of course you feel affronted. Perhaps that made you continue with your intentions when in fact a quiet voice was telling you that you'd feel safer if you turned right early, or just powered on and went around? Who knows, but from your (increasingly breathless) descriptions it does seem as if the more you've thought about it after the event the more you've got yourself worked up about it.

 

"So it was just a stuff up by the pic of the chopper" - in your relatively inexperienced opinion. Have you wondered what he thought of your part in it?

 

"they are just being reckless / inconsiderate / dangerous as a matter of routine" - In your previous mention of this in another thread you also called them "morons". As Poteroo pointed out, you are talking about Australia's most experienced helicopter pilots who are very likely to be instructors as well and who are selected for this work because they not only have very high airtime but they have also demonstrated that they can work reliably and safely in highly dangerous and pressured situations. Only the best of the best are selected because without their hours and safety record they cannot get insurance for that kind of work. They would be unlikely to make basic mistakes when departing airports.

 

"airport manager interviewed me and decided it was best if he spoke with the other pilot and not me" - none of his business as motz said. If you had taken the time to speak with the pilot during the ensuing week of operations that you mentioned you might have learned a bit about helicopter operations that would stand you in good stead for the future.

 

Having lodged your report and since it involves a Commercial operation it will have to cross quite a number of desks and the pilot of the helicopter will be asked for his version of events. That could make interesting reading but sadly we'll probably not get to see it here. You may well be asked to explain your reasons for making a left turn when faced with a perceived conflict and had it turned out badly the blame would have rested with you since you departed from the correct procedure. Your former CFI may well be asked about what he teaches in regard of collision avoidance too, and this at a time when our FTFs are already under scrutiny. I'm not saying that is a bad thing but anything that brings question to our training standards is unfortunate.

 

"An eye witness that saw the whole thing and has 30 years airport exp said it was the closest thing he has seen" - if this fellow ends up being questioned as a result of any investigation that follows on from your report I wonder whether he would say that it would have been closer if you'd turned right, or if in fact it was the left turn that brought you closer together. If you draw out the relative flightpaths on a piece of paper, and assuming that there was a closing constant bearing condition initially, then your left turn brings you much closer together than a right turn ever could have regardless of height differences. Since you were approaching each other at an angle of 120 degrees the only way that a left turn could end up with you further away from each other than a right turn would have, is if there was never a closing constant bearing condition in the first place, and hence never a risk of collision.

 

Dr Zoos, none of this is intended as a criticism of you, I've spent the time on this in the hope that lessons are learnt, as one of your posts mentioned. We all make mistakes at times and whether it was you or the chopper pilot matters little in the scheme of it.

 

"These guys live on adrenalin and can become very fixated on the task at the end of the flight, perhaps to the detriment of their thinking processes about getting there" - sorry Kaz3g, I normally agree with what you post but in my experience this is not so, you must have been crewing with the exceptions rather than the norm. An excess of adrenalin is the last thing you need if you want to do rotary airwork and also live a long time.

 

Ozzie - yes helicopters generally do follow standard reduced height circuit procedures whenever appropriate but hover-taxying is usually minimised since it is hard on the machinery. At other times helicopters may choose to use special procedures that don't always appear logical to fixed-wing operators but which have perfectly good and safe reasons for rotary wing operations. In many cases the onus for safety and separation will fall onto the rotary operator at times when they are not using standard procedures.

Bluey.