KRviator

The 1500 Camden AWIS a few minutes prior to the accident was out of the northwest at 9 gusting 13, so almost direct crosswind (Though the BoM records now show it as 8 knots, not a meaningful change really, but I note it on the grounds of accuracy). That being the case, GS would be almost identical to IAS on the downwind leg, if not slightly lower than indicated. Given there's no reduction of GS to anything resembling stall speed for a lightweight 172, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he didn't stall it or spin in. Compare the ADS-B data here with that from the Gundaroo prang, they're markedly different. It's a weird one, it almost looks like the beginning of a spiral dive, but I can't begin to fathom what would cause that at the base turn. ADS-B Exchange shows it to be within 150m or so of two previous circuits conducted by the same plane earlier that morning. Not sure if it was the same student or not, but I'm wondering if they turn Crosswind early due to a noise abatement restriction on overflying Wivenhoe Village, so rather than 500' upwind, turn, climb to 1,000, turn, they turn early causing a longer-than-normal crosswind leg, pushing the downwind leg further away from the runway than would normally be the case. Any Camden-based folks able to comment? One thing I did note was he was 200' high throughout his downwind leg. ERSA says 1,300' but he flew downwind at 1,500.

Something's not adding up for me... The reported wind at the time (1500L)was out of the northwest at 9G13, so almost direct crosswind for the runway (and downwind leg...) meaning GS is almost equal to KIAS. The last ADS-B return on the downwind had him doing 80Kts GS, before it increased to a reported 90 and beyond in a 3000FPM descent and entering a slight left turn. 80KIAS is way above the S&L stall speed of a light 172 - even cranking a load of bank you're going to need near 60* and about 2G to get close to stalling it at 80KIAS - and that kind of turn isn't reflective of the ADS-B track - especially when you compare that to the track of that Cirrus at Gundaroo you'll find they don't marry up insofar as a stall/spin accident. It looks more like that 172S prang out of Melbourne where the student lost the fight with the autopilot ALT HOLD mode - though why you'd be using the AP on a downwind leg on your first solo in a 172 I cannot fathom...

PPrune reports he had his RPC - or at least, 40 hours RAAus...) and this was his first solo in a VH registered aircraft.

No, it can't. Under S.27 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act, you cannot use an ATSB report as evidence in any criminal or civil proceedings. While it'll certainly help direct other investigators, I've always been under the impression they, along with things like NTSB reports, cannot be used in legal proceedings, simply for the fact that if they could be, people wouldn't be as open to what happened, to the detriment of overall safety. Coroners courts, yes, but that's it. Civil claims or if CAsA want to try to hang you from the yardarm for a violation? Nope.

I won't speculate on possible causes, but I will wholeheartedly agree with your comment above about Dave's patience and - I want to use the term ability, but that just suggests skill at a thing and doesn't quite cover it so I'm gonna invent the term instructorness to combine friendliness, ability, patience, knowledge and being a nice bloke to boot, made him an asset to learn from when I flew with him 15 years back. The first flight the KRviatrix made in a light plane was in Dave's Tecnam around the scenic rim too. With a little luck, there'll be a G3X or SkyView fitted from which some data may be extracted. Whether or not the police or RAAus will release that data to improve flight safety for the rest of us is the million dollar question.

That name rings a bell. I've a feeling I did a flight review with him several years back out of Boonah.

Best I can tell he is. And to top it off, he's revised his audio panel design as recently as 2022. Here's his 2022 article. Here's the link to his 2002 DIY audio panel one. And you'll need THIS PDF of the schematic too. Reading the article, it looks to be a multi-part series, but I cannot find the other sections. I think I still have some hardcopy KP magazines that far back, so if anyone wants to delve a little deeper into actually doing it, I can go have a look-see to find out if I have P2 / P3.

Jim Weir of Kitplanes fame did an article maaaaaaaaannnnnnnnnnnnyyyyyyyyy moons ago about DIY'ing your own audio panel, with any number of inputs you wanted. Damned if I can find it, but it was online as a PDF for eons, and it wouldn't take too much to import that into one of the PCB manufaturers online websites and have them spit out your very own PCB audio panel. I use JLC PCB for my prototypes and they've been reasonably priced and have a quick turnaround. I'll keep digging for the Kitplanes PDF in the meantime.

Except PS will block you from viewing their FB profile (and their for-sale posts they do) if you dare to ask too many curly questions about their listings...It may well be the vendor's who are supplying such info, but PS don't appear to be too proactive in vetting such info, or like being questioned. That being said, they do have a good and easy to use website!

No - NO - and #&$(% NO! While my search for the right 4-seater continues, I've had no end of problems communicating with brokers (though in the spirit of transparency, NC at LAS was by far, the best one...), but I've found brokers are typically useless at knowing the full details buyers want from the outset, and all that does is piss me off and shoo me away when they have to play ping-pong with the owner to get those details and then get back to me. I'm still waiting (after 2 months) for OH details of the prop fitted to a C205 that's still listed for sale, though with only 9HTR on the prop. If it can be overhauled, then fine, if it's been OH'd several times previously, it may be end-of-life so there's another $30K I need to factor in to the price. Does the broker care? Apparently not...Seller doesn't seem to be too concerned either, or they'd be pushing the broker to follow me up. Granted they insulate you from tyre-kickers, but I'd simply put an email down as your first point of contact, so you can reply in your own time. If, after several emails, you feel they're genuine, you can progress to voice calls. If not, add them to the spam folder. As part of the sale, I'd recommend you also do up a runout sheet showing the time remaining for various components and a detailed equipment list. This isn't such a huge thing if you're selling a Drifter, but if it's an RV-8 with G3X and autopilot, then it's something I'd want to see. Include that in your ad to save me as a buyer asking for it - and if you do decide to go with a broker, it can make their life easier as your spec sheet is already uploaded to the ad or ad text so there's not as much to-and-fro to get answers to buyers questions. If I'm spending north of $100K on anything I expect my questions to be answered promptly. If a broker can't - or won't - do that, there's always another opportunity, it just might take a bit longer, and that's the problem you face as a seller if you go through a broker. DIY'ing it leaves the ball in your hands, you're not reliant on anyone else.

Some (very) quick number crunching based on the MT410G 2 x CR123s that gives 6V at 1.4Ah - but remembering it's gotta keep on keeping on for at least 24h, so 1.4/24 gives 0.06A at 6V. Multiplied by two as there seems to be 2 x 2, so call it .12A at 6V. A bog-stock LM7806 voltage regulator from Jaycar will put out upto 1A - more than enough power for our needs. Add in a couple of capacitors on the +12V and +6V rails and you're in business. If that's all you've got running from your aircraft battery after you spear in, and assuming some generous losses in our little adapter circuit, you'll still have something like 160+ hours of transmit time from a standard PC680 battery. I would hope they'll have found you by then, especially with a GPS position given...

That's not a bad idea...It wouldn't take much to do I'd imagine, there's a swag of low-cost voltage regulators to step down 12V to the required voltage. I ended up finding the other post that mentions the batteries used, but I think @walrus has made a typo as the CR125 resolves to a 12V 5AH SLA, not a small lithium. Could be he meant CR123, but I'll take my MT410G apart maybe tomorrow and have a look-see and report back. EDIT: According to this datasheet there are 2 x 2 CR123A batteries in the MT410 series PLB's. When I pull mine apart, I'll grab some photos of the process in case anyone wants to follow suit and keep theirs as a backup with new batteries.

I have an out-of-date GME MT410G and recently replaced it with an ACR ResQLink 400, for no other reason than that's what I could get at BCF in a hurry. ISTR someone discovered the GME MT410G beacons take a standard size lithium battery but I can't find that post anymore. When I do find it, I'll simply replace the battery in the GME and keep it as my spare. Even though the battery is officially out-of-date it still tests good, so it still comes with us as a backup, and the ACR lives in my flying vest as the "must be carried" beacon.

That's a good point too, @turboplanner - LSALT... I'd never really bothered thinking about it till I did my XC endo, and the instructor wanted it on the NavLog - and it makes sense for my situation. I'm equipped to survive unintentional flight into IMC, so I still have it there in my paperwork. LSALT is useless if you don't have an attitude reference though, but if you do have an AH or EFIS, then it doesn't take much to skim along your track line and pick out the highest point for each leg, and add 500 to it to keep you safe if it goes to poo.

Those Max accidents had nowt to do with the autopilot though. Fighting the trim, yes, but not a mistrimmed (due to the AP) aircraft. The trim movements in the Max was a part of the flight control software to provide an increasing stick force gradient at increasing AOA - which is a certification requirement. In the Max, due to the positioning and size of the donk's, they couldn't achieve that aerodynamically, so decided to use the trim to bias the stick force, based on the single AoA sensor, with the result of it providing erroneous info, generated the "shit, we're approaching a stall" signal to the FCC, which trimmed down to increase the force to hold the nose up, thus simulating the certification requirement. Which is great if you're actually approaching a stall. Not so much if everything's normal bar the AoA data... From an RPT point of view, the closest that comes to mind is that Aeroflot A310 crash where the Captain's son managed to apply enough force to change from LNAV to CWS in roll eventually losing control of the aircraft while they tried to work out what the plane was doing.

Seems remarkably similar to the 172 out of Melbourne a few years back that flew into a hill. From the ATSB:

I would say no, for the simple reason there's no reason for them to have been marked previously. It's not really a navigable waterway, there's no runway nearby, and they're not higher than, or close to, that magic 500AGL such as crossing a valley or gap in the hills. From what @kgwilson indicates though, they're marked now, but that seems to be a common theme when a powerline is struck, simply to avoid any liability should they be struck a second time.

My -9A will be listed for $180-185K when I get around to it (or buy a 4-seater so I'm not grounded first!) - but to replace it as is would cost close to the $250K mark so it's not actually that unreasonable when viewed in context. And that's not even counting build time which we don't factor it! I was talking to a broker about a C205 that's for sale and they wanted $200K+ for it, with a prop that's due overhaul in less than 10 hours and only 100or so to run on the engine too. Never got a call back when I said now I realise it's DayVFR only, I'd only offer around the $120K mark,

The cable that's snapped looks to be part of the airport infrastructure, I can't imagine it being a users responsibility to provide the heavy steel cable that let go. Certainly though, it's the aircraft owners responsibility to provide the tackle to lash the aircraft to that heavy steel cable.

That ain't gonna be a cheap fix. And their insurer's gonna have fun with that assigning liability to the airport for failing to ensure the tiedowns were adequately maintained!

They do, but the point I was trying to make was if you change to RAAus, no matter what you fly, you have the benefit of the RAAus $20M liability insurance coverage, and so you can drop your own PL policy and save some $$ to offset the RAAus membership costs. I have full hull coverage so I don't know what a liability only policy would cost, but I would imagine it's more than a few hundred dollars, for $20M coverage.

And that trust is precisely why Vans has done so well, for so long. I didn't even sit in an RV before I plonked down my hard-earned for a complete RV-9 QB kit 10 years ago - such was the level of trust I had in both their cabin dimensions, payload, performance figures through to kit quality and build manual. And my RV performs almost exactly as Van said it would. How long it takes to get that level of trust back in the company is the is the big unknown. For my money, the suppliers will negotiate something that gets them a goodly percentage of their $$ back even if it means a bit of a loss, just to keep Vans in business, because that means more engines, props and avionics they'll sell. But the builders - what they'll decide to do, both those as creditors and those looking at building, will have a lot of soul-searching to do before we see Vans return to the juggernaut it once was.

There'd be some downsides I can see - namely the loss flight above 10,000 and at night if you currently do that. One possible bonus may be the RAAus $20M liability cover, which might offset the membership costs, depending how much your current insurance premiums are - which I can see going up next time for those of us with RV's!

The trust lost is going to be the biggest issue, I think - not the new kit prices. I paid, from memory, about $45,000USD for my RV-9A QB kit. That's the new price for a standard kit, so you could still build a -9 in Oz for under $120K AUD. It'll just take a second hand engine, basic avionics, and the seats from a Suzuki Swift (don't laugh - they're an awesome fit!)

No no, I know damn well it won't happen to me! Because I don't go hot-dogging at low level trying to show I'm ace of the base by flying low level down a river, or flying 15m AGL down an outback highway to impress my 2 equally stupid pilot mates who don't call me out on such risk-taking behaviour. And until we all call this type of flying out for what it is, it'll keep happening. We can pussy foot around accidents as much as we want, but doing so hasn't, doesn't and won't achieve any meaningful reduction in these kinds of antics until we say "Mate, that's not cool, that's just dumb, keep it up and I'll be the asrehole who'll make the call to CAsA if only to save you from yourself!". Flying is inherently risky, even I'll admit that, but logic and self-preservation dictates tipping the odds in your favour wherever you can. How do you do that? Chuck an EFIS or Dyon D3 in, so you're equipped for IMC even if you only ever fly VFR. Train with an instructor to maintain S&L and do a 180* turn on instruments. Develop personal minimums more conservative than the VFR alternate minima. Plan via known-good terrain and overhead airports, even if it'll take you an extra couple minutes a leg. Use Flight Following. IF you are planning on an outlanding, use all available information to plan the flight then fly the plan! In this case, the wire ol' mate hit was clearly marked on the relevant map if he'd bothered to look. And for fuxake, don't go low spontaneously unless you're taking off or landing at an approved airport... Daily Telegraph has just come out and named him as Lane Kokshoorn and his 10YO son. Behind a paywall so I can't link the full article.