nickduncs84

Where did you find this, Nic?

I just saw this...

in regard to 19 registered aircraft, there seems to be a perception that anything goes and that you can do what you like. Well, you can to a point but be very careful with your statements to your insurer. But I’m not insured you say. Yes you are if you are RAA registered then you have passenger liability cover and third party property cover through your registration. If you claim on your registration that you are fitted with a Jabiru engine and you have modified the engine then you are making a false declaration. So if your passenger is hurt for any reason your insurance claim could be void and possibly your public liability cover could be void as well. Remember, if you change the engine in any way, then it is no longer a “Jabiru” engine and you should state that to your insurer and to the RAA. The automotive industry is very hard on claimants who have modified their vehicles in any way. There are many legal precedents on this issue. By this I mean, water- cooled heads supplied by Rotec, components supplied by Camit, various electronic fuel injection systems, unapproved propellers, the list goes on. If any of these items are installed on your engine you can no longer claim to have a “Jabiru” engine so in fact you are now accepting a legal liability for your engine and this could cost you everything. It would be fair to Jabiru if you returned the data plate when you have modified your engine and it would also be fair to Jabiru if the RAA did not register these aircraft as a Jabiru. If you fit a Lycoming engine in to an experimental aircraft, Lycoming require you to return the data plate.In conclusion, I suggest you leave the research and development to Jabiru. If you do want to be an entrepreneur, then try building your own engine from a clean sheet of paper. Don’t fiddle with somebody else’s product.

The whole thing is very odd.

But thankfully they do hey, would be interesting watching you teach yourself to fly.

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.

I witnessed a plane accident that killed 5 people 150 metres from where I was standing . At the inquest because I had no Aeronautical experience I said that the plane crashed and it seemed like the pilot was giving it all he could .Now I realize what actually happened, a power stall. All of you experts need to realize people don't make things up, they just don't understand what has happened.

 

Put you all in a situation where you haven't the faintest what has happened and you to might make a statement that sound ridiculous to the well informed,

 

It is easy to be an expert , but it's hard to be humble ,

 

cheer,s Butch

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

It is a zenith.It was the battery.

 

It will likely be flown off the paddock by tomorrow.

 

The Chronicle has updated its story, no more mention of a crash.

 

By "taxied" the witness was referring to the landing roll.

 

What I consider a pathetic failure to properly fact check, by too many journalists, generally, shits me.

 

The utterly irrelevant reference to the change in engine "pitch" is quite amusing.

 

Has there been any reportage of aviation related matters that were actually reported correctly in the first instance? Like, even one?

Ideally a vehicle at each end facing each other

I've actually had a look to see if I can find some evidence that AoA indicators actually have done anything positive for the crash statistics but can't find anything that shows they do - do you have a reference?Instead of an instrument that shows your AoA, meaning you have to be looking at it at the time that things all start to go wrong, wouldn't a stall horn like those fitted to just about every GA plane be a better option? Cheap as chips and couldn't be lighter, just a tiny flap of aly on the wing's stalling stagnation point connected to a micro-switch and a buzzer.

 

The thing is, as Frank was intimating, none of these things actually work, you have to learn to fly the plane safely using attitude instead. At times of stress the brain shuts out all these instrument and buzzer type of warnings - watch the video below and see how long and how loud this warning keeps going off and the pilot still didn't notice it - it's a classic example of why you should use checks rather than warning systems -

 

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

"The facts suggest that pilots of all levels of experience have been killing themselves in stall accidents since the beginning of time".???? I don't accept that generalisation but hey, if that's what you believe, and another instrument will change that, buy 2 incase one breaks down, whatever you're happy with.

"For example installing an AoA indicator will help to reduce your chance of a stall / spin accident"

I do wonder in these days of gimmicks & toys so readily available if the basis of VFR flying is being lost by some people. Head outside and fly an attitude not make believe IFR. I assume in light aircraft people are still being taught to fly a circuit with the ASI covered? What happens if a bug flies down the pitot tube, it does happen (I accept not regularly).

 

Head outside, fly an attitude, confirm with instruments and enjoy your flying. It is not a computer sim. or IFR.

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.

The same question could and should be asked of any driver you choose to get into a Motor vehicle with and go cruising down the freeway. How do you know the competency of the driver, how much sleep he has had, whether he is on drugs or not, or his mental capacity. You will be travelling down the open highway or freeway at closing speeds of up to 220kph and passing within a metre of oncoming traffic.

There is a BIG difference between what I've outlined and scaring your passengers, and you should never do that.

There's a lot of truth in what you say Nick.Personal risk assessment? I wonder how that would be assessed? A lot of the most dangerous people I know. would check with others what is involved and just give the required answers to tick the box. If the real test produced a "Dangerous as Hell" answer they would be proud of it, and wear it as a badge of honour. Nev

While we are at it have you got anyt other freedoms you are not using this week that you would like to handover as well, the nanny state will take as many as you are prepared to part with!

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.

Just as a matter of interest guys, where do you normally obtain your weather reports before flying?

http://resources2.news.com.au/images/2014/06/26/1226967/467326-03594ea8-fccf-11e3-b7fb-39adc31fbaaa.jpg

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.

Nic, It was Rowland flats airfield wasn't it? The crash happened just slightly north of Rowland flats. As I recall Truro Flats isn't privately owned? also Rowland flats, in regards to that specific airfield is anything but flat.......to the east the ground climbs up the hill (for the runway length and increasing in angle the further east of the strip you go) and most aircraft will need to turn left or right relatively soon on take off to the east.....My experience there is that wind allowing, a take-off to the west is preferable....And none of the above possibly relates to this exact crash...just my personal experiences at that airfield

 

Andy

condolences to the family off those involvedassumptions by some as to what might have happened bloody well shut up unless you have facts neil

Both wings are with the wreckage if you bother to look, what is detached are the flaps

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