Captaincoop

I just don't think we should condemn the pilot before the facts are known. Yes it may well be what we all suspect, but at least give the poor bugger the benefit of the doubt. I don't follow what you are saying re windshear? It occurs at any level as you know, and if one were flying low and slow near the stall then undershoot or a sudden loss of airspeed is going to tip the scales against you? Unless you mean you have to be changing altitude to encounter windshear? Im sure you would have encountered undershoot shear (be it straight and level or even in tightish turn) on a windy day?

Quite right. Temperature affects take off performance (weight and or distance) but once airborne stall IAS remains the same. Engine power is decreased abut at low level like that there would still be plenty of power available.

My point is that ALL possibilities must be considered. Those are just some of the things that need to be looked at rather than making a decision based on just looking at the video (which of course will help) As a qualified air accident investigator, I can say that there are many things to be looked at besides the "apparent" obvious stall. As for low level wind shear in the depicted photo, that is way past the point at which I am referring. I meant that it is one POSSIBLILITY that the aircraft encountered undershoot shear leading to the flight path in the frame you have chosen. Out of the hundreds of approaches I have flown into Perth, (in daylight) it is very rare I have not experienced low level overshoot and undershoot shear. The altitude at which the aircraft appears to stall looks to be 250-300ft if that. Right where the shear is common. The early info is the it was hot and gusty on the day. As any multi engine pilot knows, full (or worse partial) engine failure on the inboard engine is very hard to recognise, particularly if there is strong drift at low level. At that level in a high drag aircraft, identifying the dead engine when already flying slowly in the few seconds he has may simply prove too late, particularly if the aircraft is close to VMCA and so far back on the drag curve. I've have found it difficult to identify the failing engine at 200ft with full flap at approach speed, and that was on a straight in approach, in a turn it's even worse. If , however, you feel you have the whole thing sorted, ring ATSB and see what they say

That's right.........Isn't RJW asking about using them in flight? Cartage of the battery is different. There may be some differences for private flying but I can't find any reference for it. It's all ICAO D.G.'s far as I know, but I'm happy to be enlightened if someone finds a reference in the regs or elsewhere.

There is a legal limit to the size battery you can carry. work out the watt hours of your battery

I want one

Certainly has all the hallmarks of a stall but one thing you never do in accident investigation is jump to conclusions. Left engine failure or partial failure (critical engine), control problem, pilot incapacitation, low level wind shear....so many possibilities to consider and yes a stall in the turn is just one of them. Let's wait for the examination of the wreckage before we jump to the good ol "pilot error" conclusion do you think?

Quite right!

Only six minutes but if you didn't check the RAIM and you were flying in the high country and didn't know how to map read because GPS is so reliable, I'd say six minutes would be a very long time

Yeah that makes sense and 100 is a good figure for quick calculations off the top of ones head. 60nm = 0.6 =36 minutes...perfect!

Fair enough. We all use GPS nowadays. I have 5 for cross country and charts! The beauty of Avmap or Ozrunways is you don't (or shouldn't) need the GPS to be working. You still have the (digital) charts. Of course if the GPS sat system does fail (unlikely or very unlucky) or you are out of RAIM (I'm sure you check that as part of your preflight planning) then 100 GPS devices wouldn't help with positive position fix! That's why map reading skills are still basic airmanship. I guess not planning for winds is ok if you never leave home without full tanks. I would have thought to do it that way would make more sense to plan on a lower TAS (like 90kts) to allow for unexpected winds then update enroute. Trouble is as I see it, with such slow speeds little wind is needed to have a large percentage effect on your ground speed. Like if you encounter a 22 knot headwind, there goes 20% more fuel than you banked on.

Really? What is your TAS?

Don't bother with that, just choose the chart for your flight and its self explanatory

Where is your flight plan from/to and at what level. I'll try it with my OR

When you say the GPS is spot on within seconds, is that from top of climb or enroute, because it constantly updates itself? I'm sure it is accurate at top of climb for a short flight of a couple of hundred miles (in Australia) What winds do you use for planning purposes?