Bats

https://www.rt.com/news/336185-boeing-crash-dubai-rostov/

 

Nasty.

 

 

I'm not very familiar with the graphic, strange looking altitude trace over the final hour though?

 

 

I'm a big believer in learning to fly out near the edges of the envelope, including low level, however there is a big difference between planned LL, engine delivering the requisite number of ponies - and reefing an unfamiliar aircraft into a steep descending (of necessity) turn through 270 degrees. At less than 1,000' agl this isn't very different to trying to turn back from an efato and we all know how many of those end in tears. Fine and well if there is no other option, provided you have the necessary kinetic energy to roll level and arrest the descent, but here there appeared to be other better options. I say unfamiliar because from my reading of the blog entry, he had only 4 hours on the newly built aircraft when he set off on the final flight.

 

 

Reading his blog entry, the suction on the fuel cap at his previous stop was a big red flag, had he but realised it. I've done the same - fortunately in a tinnie and the rush of air into the tank when I opened up to see if my fuel had been swiped, was a giveaway. A blocked breather can and does stop engines.

 

 

Quite agree SDQDI, not sure I'd be quite so public about my own stuff ups. I have had an engine failure, in some ways fortunately very early in my flying life when the lessons were still fresh. My point was more that what could have been a fairly easy deadstick even if downwind, became rather sticky from the point he turned in too close to the field.

 

 

I'd be very disappointed if #4 above made the list, no engine runs without fuel and that is an issue regularly addressed by CASA and the ATSB. If it is suggested that only Jab accidents from fuel causes are included in the study, then that is where we part company - alfoil headgear isn't a good match for my complexion. As for the lead fouling involving "a large number of aircraft", must say it isn't something I was aware of, despite flying from there on a fairly regular basis over that period, just not in Jabirus any longer.

 

 

Ouch! He put himself in a bad spot once he turned base too early, I'd have slipped aggressively and tried for the original field and direction. That turn looked rather sketchy from early on and as discussed around here before, you can lose an alarming amount of height in a 270 deg turn.

 

 

Hi Bruce, I don't pretend to have all the answers - and given the (anecdotally) strange distribution of failures, it is quite possible that the general run of failure modes isn't applicable to your operation. Hope so for your sake. In my case I was flying a school aircraft and had to rely on the hope that everyone else was as meticulous as my instructors were and I certainly tried to be. I was reminded when discussing this with a colleague, that the school had a second engine failure subsequent to my involvement there and has since moved over to Continental and Rotax powered aircraft.

 

Red herring re fuel facthunter, it came from the same tanker that every other piston engine aircraft at Acherfield uses.

 

 

The difficulty I have with the arguments advanced for Jabiru not being as prone to failure as the figures would suggest, is that the assumptions all run one way. ie if poor operational practice, incorrect fuel choice etc are bringing Jabiru undone at a rate of 1 in 10 over the study period, then how is it that Lycontasaurus and Rotax operators aren't breaking their engines at anything like the same rate?

 

The fact is that the figures in the ATSB report, have confirmed what many pilots had already perceived, that Jabiru engines were failing at a much higher rate than the competition. Disclosure, I started training on a J170 and quite enjoyed it, although the poor ergonomics annoyed me, but I was spooked by a friends (Jabiru) engine failure and hangar talk, and began reconsidering my choice, particularly as the airfield had poor prospects for a forced landing in several directions. Not long after, the school's J170 suffered an engine failure - fortunately away from the field and over an open area, this despite the school being very particular about engine operation, to an extent that I have never witnessed since. I am well aware that one swallow does not a Summer make, but frankly the leaps and contortions of logic offered up by those seeking to dismiss the ATSB report, haven't done anything to dispel my scepticism.

 

 

$130K + plenty hours to bolt together - you'd want to be pretty keen on having something unusual to fly around the cabbage patch! Spectacular video though, one of the best night time aerobatic shows I've seen.

 

 

Yeah fortunately I haven't had to resort to that - the fact that someone isn't prepared to offer a sound bite that can be mangled to suit is generally sufficient deterrent. I have stipulated the right to edit in the past, but it wasn't well received and has been refused too. My position is that I'd rather not be quoted than misquoted and given that by the time something reaches editor level, there is generally more concern over producing an attention grabbing headline, than the truth, I prefer to stay clear. At least that way they cannot validly trot out the old, declined/refused to comment chestnut.

 

 

Oh I dunno, we were all celebrating International Womans Day recently by offering rides, here we have three who have not merely puttered around as passengers, but risen to the top of their profession - as pilots.

 

 

Oh dear, school's out again. I suppose we can shelve discussion until mum tucks them in tonight.

 

 

Good idea, although my experience with other forums has been that 4 gets replaced with "Someone refers the poster to the forum rules" and 5 follows regardless. Those who are emotionally invested in a point of view often believe that they are justified in dispensing with polite debate. I think I've made my viewpoint clear in the recent thread, the alternative is something insipid and largely valueless as a learning exercise i.m.o. A case in point is the otherwise excellent Vansairforce site which absolutely bans accident discussion. Forget learning anything from another's misfortune, you need to trawl through other forums for that, where the posters may not (don't) have the same level of expertise and familiarity with the aircraft concerned. Shades of, "those who ignore history's lessons are condemned to repeat its mistakes".

 

 

Thanks for the heads up, Peter. I enjoyed the first one and seeing more familiar territory was interesting. Like most of these things it's meant for a general rather than specialist audience, but some great scenery. - Note to self, add Beaver on a short island strip to your bucket list!

 

 

So Stevie old fruit, it's ok for you to pontificate about dust devils and Cessnas, but no-one else may have an opinion? Glad we cleared that up.

 

Now moving right along, did the local news actually add anything of value to what we know of the accident? Touching on what was referred to previously, ie the media getting the story all crossed up and misquoting people, after a little past angst in dealing with them, I now have a firm rule for media questions - they put their questions to me via email and I immediately respond in the same fashion, offering to clarify any points they don't understand and with a little rider that any misquoting or unsupported inferences WILL result in a complaint to the Aus Press Council. Generally it's all too much trouble and they leave me alone.

 

 

What a hoot!

 

 

You may be right - although given that it comes from our friend who finds it acceptable to dismiss condolences and a reasoned argument as "utter rubbish", that may be overly charitable.

 

 

A 'funny' on a post discussing a fatal and expressing condolences? Pretty much a new low I'd say.

 

About all our esteemed meeja have been able to dig up so far are vague references to dust devils and that the deceased were filming for a reality TV program, believed to be an overseas version of the Amazing Race. If true, there should at least be footage available to assist in the investigation - have to say though the presence of cameras has brought more than one good pilot undone. Dust Devils are a real menace, although I would have expected one to be visible in the paddock where the trike came to rest.

 

 

RIP fellow aviators - no one sets off on a joyflight thinking they may not come home.

 

The debate about discussing accidents (speculating) rages on all forums whenever friends are involved. I'm firmly on the "discuss away" side of the debate - and yes I have lost close friends in flying accidents. It hurts like buggery, but the best advice I can give is, if you find it upsetting, give the forums a break for a while. A lot of useful gen comes to the fore in post accident discussions, whether it ultimately proves related to the accident or not. 12 months time when the report comes out, the circumstances are blurred in most people's minds and it just doesn't have the same impact.

 

 

Give it away Oscar, the only obsession on display here is yours. Very strange logic in pedalling your favourite bike, then immediately demanding an end to "agenda driven cr&p" - downright disrespectful in the circumstances I'd suggest.

 

 

I suspect that the 1 in 36 includes Rotax 2 strokes, which are anecdotally more prone to failure than the 91- series. I don't know of a common theme with the 4 stroke Rotax failures, my quick and unscientific snap survey turned up things like lifters, fuel pump and a carbie mounting. Other than modified (turbo etc) versions, hard work and high revs don't seem to be implicated, but I'm happy to be corrected.

 

 

Well I guess you poke the bear for long enough and it will eventually retaliate. Everyone from parliamentarians to forum members had been putting the boot into CASA and by extension the ATSB for supposedly getting it so wrong about the Jabiru failure rate; it seems that there is your reply. The usual apologists will no doubt be getting ready to rubbish the report and anyone who dares to comment contrary to their belief system, so I don't expect that there will be an end to hostilities any time soon.

 

 

Try using it from a tablet

Don't have one handy, but tried my phone and I'd say the site hasn't been optimised for devices other than computers - from my lay perspective that is. I have to say though, there are many worse sites and I don't get the hate campaign.

 

 

That would depend on whether the online version is user friendly. This one certainly is not.

:typing:What is it exactly that makes this one difficult to use? I normally get there via the RA-Aus site and it takes me straight to the RA aircraft for sale, newest listings at the top - and I'm no internet genius.