nickduncs84

Java chat. Just posted

I just saw this... I love Jabs but this is a bit rich isn't it? It seems the only ones that don't accept the fact that there are problems with Jabiru engines are Jabiru. Don't they understand that the only reason these other companies and other engines exist is because theirs weren't up to scratch. And to talk of possible legal consequences of not using their products, what about the legal consequences when someone actually dies from a jab engine failure? The whole thing is very odd.

Don't think it was meant in the context of flying, or in the context of any profession where on the job training is the norm. By definition, the instructors are both teaching and doing!

I'd say slipping is an important skill to have mastered if you do ever have to deal with an engine failure. It's hard enough to hit the perfect spot in practice without slipping, let alone dealing with all the added elements in a real one. Best to aim high and use the slip to control your height I reckon. Good enough for that air Canada pilot who ran out of fuel in Gymlie, so good enough for me.

Yep it's not really the witnesses fault, for all the reasons you say. But you would expect the media to do a little more investigating before they publish dribble. There should be more of a focus on getting it right, instead of being first.

Just when I thought I was starting to understand the rules and regs around homebuilts, I came across this ad. I thought all homebuilts were classed as experimental??? I can just picture Bob and Dafydd shaking their heads in frustration as they read this.....sorry.... http://www.aircraftonline.com.au/product.php?id=1476

There was a GA plane make a forced landing in a paddock near YMBD recently. My CFI told me that any time someone mentions the word pan or mayday on the radio, the news choppers will arrive 15 minutes later. He also said that it's quite funny to watch the disappointment on the reporters face when they rock up to see a fully intact plane and not a drop of blood. Sure enough, 15 minutes later the channel 9 chopper rocked up. Within 15 minutes, they had posted an article which incorrectly stated that it was the flying school's plane that had 'crashed'. They even printed the name of the flying school. It's so pathetic it's almost laughable.

How about one at each end and then a chase car! reminds me of the guy that pulled the gear down while hanging out the sunroof. what could possibly go wrong!?

I don't think you're going to find any statistics, at least not in the short term. They are too few of them fitted to produce a significant data set. Here is a good balanced article which sums it up pretty well. http://www.avweb.com/blogs/insider/Not-Bullish-on-AoA-Indicators-Yet-220503-1.html

I agree generalisations are never that helpful, but there are plenty of safety seminars on stalls/spins many of which are online that make these points. Ie it's not only low hour pilots that stall /spin. But as you say, it's a generalisation.

Isn't the real question whether or not these gimmicks make flying safer or not? I agree that if you go over the top, you run the risk of being distracted from outside, where our attention should be, but at the same time we shouldn't ignore all new technology just because we didn't used to have it. The facts suggest that pilots of all levels of experience have been killing themselves in stall accidents since the beginning of time. There is also evidence that AoA indicators are an effective way of reducing these accidents. Isn't it that simple?

PM I think you've nailed my sentiments and I really wish it was more commonly discussed in such a way, especially in the media. It's so hard to communicate the real risk of travelling in a small plane when the only thing people know about small planes is based on the crash reports in the news. Even the risks that are seemingly hard to mitigate can he reduced. For example installing an AoA indicator will help to reduce your chance of a stall / spin accident. Having a BRS system can increase your odds in a number of scenarios where the odds are stacked against you. And of course, making a commitment to ongoing training and practice will help increase your odds versus the average pilot. We will never be able to fully mitigate each risk, but I agree that it's definitely possible to reduce the risk below driving on a highway.

True, but for a number of reasons, we're a little better trained to recognise the risk factors on the roads. There have been big campaigns for decades about the risks of drink driving and drugs, so if you get in the car with a drink driver, you should know better. Just look at the recent campaign against texting and driving for an example of the govt trying to make people aware of the risks of driving. Same with driving fast. If you're passenger is safety conscious, they will probably have something to say as you go past 200kmh. But with aviation, if you go to take off in a Jabiru from a 300m strip on a gusty day 100kg over MTOW, most passengers won't have any idea of the added risks they are assuming in such a situation.

I agree. The whole point of doing an in depth passenger briefing in my opinion is to reassure them, not scare them. I want them to know that I've done everything in my power to reduce the risk of the flight. That includes having good EFATO options, not flying in marginal weather, etc, etc. If your starting point is that on average you're 10x more likely to die in a small plane than a car, but you can reassure your passengers that 80% of light plane crashes are a result of x, y, z factors that we don't have on this flight, then you can effectively explain to them that the risk of having a crash has been reduced from 10x to 2x, a number that many would find acceptable. Of course you might want to explain it in a more reassuring way, but that's the nuts and bolts of it.

I agree, and I don't really have a problem with that. I don't have a problem with passengers taking on such risk either. The only problem I have is when the passenger doesn't know what they are getting into.

Yeah yeah I should have predicted that response and part of me agrees with you. I hate the nanny state bs as much as the next guy. At the same time there have been some pretty ordinary performances lately which there should be no excuse for. Not only does it result in innocent people getting killed, it's also great fuel for the media fuelled, small planes are the devil attitude that impacts all of us.

Every time we get in a plane, we know we are taking a risk and we accept that risk. At the same time, given that the vast majority of accidents are caused by human error, it follows that the risk involved in any given flight varies wildly, primarily because of the decisions that we either knowingly or unknowingly make. Assuming you have received sufficient training and aren't breaking any laws, there is nothing wrong with pilots having different risk profiles. What I do find to be rather disheartening is when a pilot dies because of a clear lack of training or respect for aviation. What I find to be absolutely heartbreaking is when innocent passengers die because they were unknowingly placed in a bad situation with a predictable outcome. Unfortunately, many of the people that will read this post probably aren't the ones that need it the most. If you're passionate enough about aviation to spend your spare time discussing it and helping others, I doubt any of this is news. But what about the other half? The ones who fly to get from A to B. The guys who see a plane as an airborne jet ski. Do we place enough of an emphasis on teaching pilots about the implications of their decisions and should there be a legal requirement for pilots to document and share their risk assessment with passengers? With all the regulation in aviation, much of which is actually counterproductive, you would think that based on the evidence, this is one area where we could use a little less freedom.

Yes you may well be right on both. Is there any way to get feedback from the insurance company on whether the risk profile has changed? The other questions is, if it's common amongst insurance companies to exclude recreational aviation, and we believe that the risk profile may be flawed, can Ra Aus work with one of the underwriters to come up with a solution? it would seem to me that if there was only one underwriter available for 10,000+ people it would be worthwhile for both parties..

General aviation in general is an issue for life insurance according to my accountant. It would have been less so if I had established the policy before I began my training, but getting a policy at this stage will apparently result in a big jump in premium. I'm guessing that insurance companies have complex risk profiling tools that look at the presence of a particular attribute and it's correlation to death. I doubt the model goes much deeper than the top line increase in probability of someone who is a pilot dying in a plane crash versus someone who isn't. To a certain extent, they probably have a fair point, as I'm sure the average pilot with average skills thinks that something about the way that they fly makes them less likely to crash than the average pilot. On the other hand, there's no doubt that training, attitude, aircraft, etc do impact on crash rates. At the end of the day, you can't blame the insurance companies, especially when the biggest factor (pilot attitude) is hard to model.

NAIPS via ozrunways. The new wx planner is great if you haven't seen it yet. I flew nearby the day of this accident and there was no way I was leaving the circuit. We have had the same sort of conditions in SA for a couple of weeks now. Low level cloud combined with large areas of surface fog in the mornings. Combined with the high winds, things were swirling around quite a bit. Certainly not a day for cross country flight, and I believe the area where the plane went down was even worse conditions and more challenging terrain.

Oh now I see it. If I had bothered to look at that photo, I would have clearly seen the two wings... In all seriousness, I'm not an engineer, so whether there is one wing or two in that photo isn't obvious to me, but if it is to you, then it would probably be more constructive to just say so. The Internet does strange things to people sometimes. Imagine you and I were standing at the scene next to each other discussing it and talk to me like you would then.

Yes sorry you're correct it was near Rowland Flats not Truro

I'm not assuming anything. I was just passing on the report from the news, which had more information than the link online. Given that there probably won't be any real investigation, I don't see the harm in people talking about incidents like this if it helps to get some clarification on what happened. I understand that it's a sensitive subject, especially given that it is so fresh, but part of flying safe is learning from accidents in the past. Given that the media are going to speculate on it anyway, what is the harm in people with real insight and knowledge discussing it?

Actually I was going off the news report, if you bothered to read....Seriously, what is with some of you people? How about you cheer up or maybe even give someone the benefit of the doubt before you hop up on your high horse and start beating your chest. ABC news report from the scene suggested that the wing had separated close to the ground and that the aircraft hit the ground at a steep angle. That's based on an eyewitness account and from speaking to the owner of Truro Flats airpark who was on the scene, so slightly more reliable than a reporter being on the scene and seeing a wing on the ground and assuming it fell off in the air

Wing separated apparently. Tecnam based at Lyndoch according to early reports. Any history of structural issues with Tecnams? Pretty scary stuff