Jump to content

Plane crash Glen Innes.


Recommended Posts

HGFA-registered weightshift microlight. Pilot and pax both deceased. No details as yet. I knew both of the people involved. I will refrain from posting further until investigation(s) and coronial inquest have been held.

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Helpful 1
  • Informative 2
  • Winner 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No apology here... this is for real, lost another .. two of my triking friends just yesterday... an Arrow strutted wing.

 

How many more Aussie trike pilots need to impact the ground, sustain injury, live a life of total care, or ultimately die with a friend, wife or child... and leave so many behind wondering.. WHY>!

 

We Aussie triking sport aviators have lost too many trikers, no matter if its a HGFA or RAA microlight.. nothing to do with it.. at the end of the day.. WHY.!

 

TIME for some answers, fact is, Australia has the highest fatality figures for trikes in the world.

 

IMHO - Stand to be corrected, more than 100 trike pilots/passengers, and friends, since 1982.. tell me different should you dis-agree!.

 

In comparison, most of EU - France, Germany, Italy, UK and a few smaller countries.. less than 50 fatalities for a similar period.. with over 15,000 microlight pilot operators registered in the EU.!

 

What tha..

 

Q: Why do we not have an order.. CAO 95.32 Standard, or similar, incl. Design Standard AD-32-1.. NAA, BCAR Section S, etc,.. that do not provide security in accountability for absolute integrity for in-flight safety, by the manufacturers we trust. Our support, our lives.. are offered without sacrifice, with our hard earned cash for safe aircraft to the suppliers of these machines.

 

Since mid 90's ... ONE single mandatory requirement for the majority of triking manufacturers across the world, especially Germany, France, UK & EU - all commercially manufactured wings - MUST comply/pass, recognised NAA - Aerodynamic Pitch Stability Test standards... simple.

 

In fact, hang glider manufacturers must comply with either the DHV or the USHGMA wing pitch standards, since 1983, or there abouts.

 

Today, we fly 70 knot rocket ships, without a tail, MTOW.. 475 kg.. 60 litres fuel, luggage and two people.. and we can operate almost anywhere across Australia.

 

Fantastic.. if you started flying flexwings in the 70's.. or just now... its affordable and should be safe... we expect to be safe if we make correct command decisions in the cockpit.

 

We have very good qualified instructors, both HGFA & RAA, so WHY are our friends flying into the ground, many more before and recently.. NOOSA, GLEN INNES, etc.etc.etc..

 

Actually, Australia .. one of few countries, has - NO AERODYNAMIC STABILTY COMPLIANCE STANDARD , (under CAO 95.32) for weight-shift Light Sport Aircraft - to identify, substantiate or confirm - flight path safety, pitch stability integrity or spiral recovery .. of the pointy bit, in the very un-predictable atmosphere we fly ! The twisted reflex SOFT WING... fitted to every trike.. around the globe.. since 1982.!

 

Sad news,. the kids of these beautiful parents, now live a life without their parents.. a very sad day... in need of an ANSWER.. WHY..!?

 

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The answer to flexwing flight stability safety.. repeatable, reliable, with reason.

 

In Germany - the world renown, DULV Pitch Stability testing vehicle - under test procedures - BioniX 13 wing..

 

So how safe is your wing in flight..?

 

Costs manufacturers.. heaps, booking a slot, testing, compliance proof - DULV Pitch Stability Certificate.

 

Very Simple.. there is no compromise on flight safety.

 

bionix-dulv-test-jpg.23464

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some good points AC. Time for a close look at the causes.

 

Your figures work out to 23 fatalities per year, and given that we wouldn't expect to hear much about HGFA crashes, most fatals make the news, so I think your figures may be too high.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You make some good points AC. Time for a close look at the causes.Your figures work out to 23 fatalities per year, and given that we wouldn't expect to hear much about HGFA crashes, most fatals make the news, so I think your figures may be too high.

Better get your calculator out, 100 deaths in 33 years.....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Check that.. Have archives for 36 fatal accidents as HGFA National Coach for Coronial Inquiry Reports.. up to about 1990.. been there done that.

 

Silence is good for the soul.. been quietly achieving aviation for 45 years now.. to have my friends leave this world with so much to offer, and kids without..

 

Your call mate.. appreciate your reply.

 

Investigate and offer us your valuable insight to.. - HOW many FATAL trike crashes in Australia since 1982..?

 

Thanks a bunch for those lost to a tragic accident in triking.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. calculator checks.. done!

 

33 years.. 3.3 deaths per year.. remarkable number really!

 

As stated, I do stand to be corrected.. no attack intended upon anyone, just WHY..!

 

Looking forward to know EXACTLY the number of trike deaths in Australia since 1982.???

 

Surely, we have (CAO 95.32) .. two Governing Sport Aviation Bodies, (RAA & HGFA) .. collating records, incl.,, CASA, ATSB.. Coronial & Police Reports,, the REAL information is available.

 

There is an answer to this simple question.

 

How many..? WHY..?!

 

Appreciation to anyone out there, to apply the efforts for us to know the answer to this one..?

 

I love flying flexwings,.. have done since 1974, kites, hang gliders and trikes.. for 14,000 flight hrs.

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some static info on flexwing testing methods.. EU Standards.. for trikes.

 

iFun 13 - Negative -3G Static Load Test - 2014

 

35142-ee66b6439aac92986e49cf1fca6552dd.jpg?1429013295

 

Pixel XC - +6G - Static Load Test

 

35143-ea603c05cec3040d40756e495e1b84e6.jpg?1429014397

 

iFun 13 - +6G Positive Static Load Test

 

35141-5ad4b9f49f071ffd39d7a5bd2656de83.jpg?1429013246

 

..combine this QCS practice method with a DULV Pitch Test Report... = ultimately a safer aircraft.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.. question: Anyone out there, got test procedure images, or info to substantiate what your trike manufacturer does to keep you.. SAFE. in the air..!?

Well any 2 seat aircraft coming out of a UK factory has been tested to BCARS ... and the manufacturer is a CAA overseen manufacturer with QA processes that exceed even Aircreation as they are not regulated as manufacturers in a similar way.

As for proven tests all UK manufacturers will have the same proof of static test covering ALL aspects of BCARS or the UK CAA will not issue the clearance to manufacture the aircraft. The manufacturers may choose not to distribute pictures of tests but to be allowed to manufacture and sell the aircraft the test has not only been done its been overseen and accepted by the CAA as full test ... with a pic from Aircreation spectacular as it may appear ... there is no independant validation that the load is in fact +6 or -3 as that picture may or may not be to that level of load. I am not saying it isn't its just that the present or absence of a pic is not determinative.

 

As for US or Australian manufacturers of flexwings they can go certified to a nominated standard like BCARS or they can ATSM for their LSA aircraft ... given that Airborne sell into the US with ATSM LSA and into the Australia with aircraft that meet 95.32 that requires a design standard I think I feel pretty comfy with the fact that the airframes are 1. structurally adequate and 2. capable of being flown safely throughout the flight envelope specified.

 

What I am more concerned with is the fact that the high performance flexwings have as a necessity far lower margins of stability to allow the performance.

 

- An old XL wing from 1986 does 45-50MPH and if you want to go faster you'll need gorilla strength to hold the out of trim load to get to 60

 

- swap over to a Raven wing from 1993 and its very low in pitch load right through to the VNE of 100MPH ... add the 912 trike to that wing and you cruise at 70 and 'pull' through to 85 with two fingers on the bar ... but at speed its still heavy in roll.

 

- move onto the Quik wing or the Airborne Arrow and gee, look at that, low force in ALL axis at nearly ALL speeds through to VNE

 

Upshot is a pilot can rarely get into trouble quickly in the XL, can get into trouble in speed in the Raven but can get into ALL sorts of trouble very quickly in all flight in the Arrow or Quik.

 

So I would say that safety comes not from the strength of the airframe BUT from the training of the pilots and the understanding of the wings they are flying ... do not hop out of an nice stable old 60mph wing that is rock solid in the air and expect to get under a modern very fast wing and get away with handling (or mishandling) you could in the old generation wing.

 

Same with 3axis ... a drifter and thruster is a marvelous planes ... but they are not the same level of speed-to-get-into-trouble you get with something like a Jabi or the high end plastic/metal fantastics that live in the ultralight category these days.

 

All loss of life is tragic.

 

I've lost friends and colleagues in accidents over the years ... but basic structural strength of the airframe was never really an issue, I'm afraid its generally been down to flying when they shouldm't have been, not getting way with something they had before or being surprised by something in a new plane that was fundamentally different from what they flew before.

 

 

  • Agree 2
  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kasper, you made some very good points about moving from a lower performance wing to a higher performance wing. This was the case as related to me about the accident in Noosa. Whether it was the cause, is yet to be determined.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Kasper, you made some very good points about moving from a lower performance wing to a higher performance wing. This was the case as related to me about the accident in Noosa. Whether it was the cause, is yet to be determined.

And the same at Glen Innes.

I believe we need to start categorising the different wings, and mandating a pilot endorsement on type.

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the same at Glen Innes.I believe we need to start categorising the different wings, and mandating a pilot endorsement on type.

So basically make RAA flexwings the same as GA ... no thanks, I would rather focus on training organisations and instructors ... its a rare thing that a pilot moves from very low to very high performance without the local instructors knowing and IF the training is such that people are aware that an old XL is not the same as an Arrow wing then that's half the battle.

I am confident that instructors will gladly help transition people across - not a lot of money to pay for an hour of flight training when you have already sunk thousands of $ into the new wing/aircraft and so long as pilots through their training are aware that there are differences in performance and handling and difference training can be useful = keep regulation light as possible and focus on why people are unaware of the issue.

 

We cannot regulate away stupidity, you cannot regulate away people who do not want to hear, but big sticks in the form of regulation should be the last port of call ... otherwise we may as well abandon Rec aviation and just all go GA and argue tooth and nail that we need to reduce regs there.

 

 

  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So basically make RAA flexwings the same as GA ... no thanks, I would rather focus on training organisations and instructors ... its a rare thing that a pilot moves from very low to very high performance without the local instructors knowing and IF the training is such that people are aware that an old XL is not the same as an Arrow wing then that's half the battle. I am confident that instructors will gladly help transition people across - not a lot of money to pay for an hour of flight training when you have already sunk thousands of $ into the new wing/aircraft and so long as pilots through their training are aware that there are differences in performance and handling and difference training can be useful = keep regulation light as possible and focus on why people are unaware of the issue.

 

We cannot regulate away stupidity, you cannot regulate away people who do not want to hear, but big sticks in the form of regulation should be the last port of call ... otherwise we may as well abandon Rec aviation and just all go GA and argue tooth and nail that we need to reduce regs there.

So, what went wrong in the two above mentioned tragedies?

If your system is going to work, what are you going to change. They say the one that went into the sea had just been professionaly rebuilt and a new wing fitted, why wasn't he given advice to have transition training? If he was why didn't he take it? At least one instructor new of the Glen Innes pilots intention to buy a higher performance trike, if nobody else new, I bet Airborne did. Perhaps they could put a warning notice on the outside of the box.

 

So do we tolerate a couple of fatalities a year and mark that down to people ignoring advice?

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, what went wrong in the two above mentioned tragedies?If your system is going to work, what are you going to change. They say the one that went into the sea had just been professionaly rebuilt and a new wing fitted, why wasn't he given advice to have transition training? If he was why didn't he take it? At least one instructor new of the Glen Innes pilots intention to buy a higher performance trike, if nobody else new, I bet Airborne did. Perhaps they could put a warning notice on the outside of the box.

So do we tolerate a couple of fatalities a year and mark that down to people ignoring advice?

Never tolerate a couple of fatalities a year ... but accept that even with the best systems in the world there will still be fatalities.

What has to change is the pilots as people and its going to be over time.

 

If a person is going to buy a high performance wing and fly it without conversion training then that is the end of it. Otherwise you end up with either a requirement to get high/low performance training and endorsement - who draws the line? and what is the determinant of high vs low? From personal experience the 'high performance' wings from Airbourne, P&M and Medway are all high performance in terms of speed but are still chalk and cheese on individual handling qualities and how quickly and in what areas you can get into trouble. So either you go for individual and every type endorsements (old GA) or you work on education that wings are different and difference training is advisable and available.

 

Now Airborne have 4 trikes and 3 wing currently for sale and according to the mix-n-match guide on their site there are 9 combinations permitted ... so there is 9 seperate endorsements if we go your way. Then you have P&M who have 3 trikes and over 7 wings ... not all in OZ i'll grant you but there are another 15+ possible combinations.

 

Then you go for the trikes that are 'kit' or homebuilt ... every one of those is not to one single standard ... do I need to train specifically on each of them?

 

My single seater is my design, I am the only person who has ever flown it and will be the only person who ever flies it ... but if you go all GA on my arse then I HAVE to get someone else to train me on it ... after i train them on it of course as I am the only person who has ever flown it ... and its 95.10 and I can/do play around with different wings and different engines and props ... I can plug and play across 3 wings and 4 engines just from whats sitting in the shed at home ... you going to say that I need to assemble all 12 combinations, get 'trained' and 'endorsed' on each ???

 

No, the reality is that short of abandoning Rec Aviation and putting everything into GA you have to go to the root cause of the issue and that is the pilots - focus on THEM and getting THEM to appreciate that all wings and trikes are not made the same ... other than that you have to kill off all kits and experimental 95.32 and all 95.10s.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Better get your calculator out, 100 deaths in 33 years.....

Sorry, brain creep its 3.1 deaths per year to the end of 2014

Still worth an examination, but reasonably consistent with 3 axis

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lets not assume pilot error in this case. The pilot did seek and get support when transitioning from his previous wing and the current one. Also, he flew it regularly and had built up at least 20 hrs and probably significantly more on the arrow wing in short time before the tragedy. He also, regularly flew with much more experienced pilots who also fly arrow wings.

 

The incident in this case has two possible causes:

 

1. Pilot incapacitation

 

2. Structural failure

 

Pilot error is unlikely given eyewitness accounts of the event.

 

That is all I am willing to say at this time.

 

A thorough investigation needs to occur to help identify the likely cause. Whether this is even possible is yet to be seen. Let's hope for all our sakes a definite cause can be found.

 

 

  • Informative 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wouldn't call the arrow a high performance wing, it was a fix for the SST and trims at 60 knots. Your high performance wings are 80 knots plus. I once heard Russel say that the arrow had the potential for 90 knots but the 80 horse engine just isn't enough so they have it hanging at just 60 knots. Another bloke I respect is Larry Mednick and he thinks the Arrow is the best wing airborne have ever done, a good all rounder. I've flown 5 different wings from a wizard 3 to a Quik R, each time I graduated I thought it was easier to fly. Scariest Wing for me was the slowest, the wizard was all over the shop in anything but the calmest of conditions, each time I graduated it got easier, the faster wings are less volatile, have better penetration in rough conditions and generally easier and more pleasurable to fly. I'm glad that I started out and got my grounding in the wiz as I reckon if if you can fly that you can fly anything.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Steve maybe you would have been better off posting your critique of wings elsewhere in the forum.I believe the funerals for the pilot and his passenger are being held this week.

I asked that this thread be split earlier, nothing happened.

If you're going to pay out on Stevie, then how about you go back and have a look at the blatant advertising by a site sponsor ( which is probably why the thread wasn't split)

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...