cooperplace Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 These guys are accuracy jumpers, that park was more than big enough for them. Even if they could not get into that park the hazards you state are minimum and 10 mters dia is all one needs. smaaler when the pressure is on. Have a look at that press release shows flightaware tracking of entire flight, shows 30 or more tight orbits directly overhead at around three grand. Jumpers are pissed that pilot would not let them out. But they played the game by the rules and stayed with the aircraft. Two payed the price for that. This incident will be discussed in full at the next APF meeting. rule changes coming. where is that press release visible? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 it is on page one but here again check half way down page for flight track note number of orbits http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/masters-games-aircraft-carrying-skydivers-makes-emergency-landing-in-victoria-park-in-adelaide-parklands/story-fni6uo1m-1227554312499 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted October 5, 2015 Share Posted October 5, 2015 it is on page one but here again check half way down page for flight track note number of orbitshttp://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/masters-games-aircraft-carrying-skydivers-makes-emergency-landing-in-victoria-park-in-adelaide-parklands/story-fni6uo1m-1227554312499 I'm confused: the Adelaide Now article shows it circling over Crafers, but posts here say that it circled over Vic Park. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 The following is from the ATSB website. Not too much doubt on why the engine stopped. "The ATSB is investigating a fuel exhaustion event involving a Cessna 182, VH-DNZ, at Adelaide, South Australia, on 2 October 2015. While conducting parachuting operations, the pilot declared a fuel emergency, and conducted a forced landing onto a raceway. The aircraft collided with terrain, resulting in substantial damage. Two passengers sustained serious injuries and two others were uninjured. The pilot sustained minor injuries. As part of the investigation, the ATSB will interview the pilot and gather additional information. A report will be released within several months." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cooperplace Posted October 6, 2015 Share Posted October 6, 2015 Thanks, yes that's pretty clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jakej Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 From hero to zero, not a good look & it impacts on aviation. I wonder if insurance pays for people who land/crash due fuel (or lack of) issues Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Dunno I would go straight to that conclusion, although responsibility goes to the PIC there could be some malfunction causing fuel loss. (I'm not suggesting this IS the case). If ever you will be compromised by compliance by an ATC instruction, you need to say so at the time. eg "UNABLE to comply . REQUIRE........... "..Nev 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 These guys are accuracy jumpers, ....... Jumpers are pissed that pilot would not let them out. Im sure he will get the judgement it seems he deserves...without knowing the specifics...it looks like very poor judgment at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 " Looks like", "seems" without "knowing". Best to wait. I hesitate to judge early as often there are things we don't know of. I did say often, not always. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrZoos Posted October 7, 2015 Share Posted October 7, 2015 Im hearing you, but in just discussing this rather than being judge and executioner, I have to say it would seem at 3700ft with a perfectly good parachute, id be livid we got hurt and not told to jump...that could so easily have been a hell of a lot worse for all those POB. If I was a highly trained jumper I would trust myself in a chute to land safer than a fully loaded 182 at 54 plus knots in an emergency off field landing anyday... It seems difficult to comprehend how such a landing was perceived safer than a jump. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 I think if I was an experienced jumper in an aircraft in trouble, and the PIC told me to sit tight... I'd tell him where to go and jump anyway. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 3700 ft over hills isn't 3700 feet. You do need rules. I'm not familiar with them but they exist, no doubt. It's for the controlling bodies to elaborate on this. The pilot can't restrain them physically but should certainly know IF and when, they are exiting. In an emergencey no doubt they do act individually. A failed engine in a plane that can glide for 5 minutes is not an emergency I would have thought. Not for people who do this sort of thing. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 True Nev, but a failed engine in an aircraft over a built up area with no proper harnesses for the passengers is quite different from one that's within easy glide back to the runway. Obviously without being there it's hard to question the PIC's orders, but it would be very tempting to bail out rather than trust his skill at shoehorning it in a small landing site. As Cooperplace said, he just avoided a 6-storey building and skimmed a fence by inches... all things being equal it would seem safer making the approach under a parachute. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 There was another fuel starvation forced landing in the west last year. This time left tank was empty but the right had 45 litres in it (ouch). It was a Cessna 210, not sure if they have a "both" postion like smaller Cessnas. See below. Good to learn from anothers misfortune. Notice this one is called a fuel starvation event as opposted to fuel exhaustion in the Adelaide incident. http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5354286/AO-2015-042 Final.pdf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Marty, I agree that staying in wasn't a smart move but there might have been better opportunities than over the original terrain. which is high and treed I think. There must have been some discussion on the way down. It's not as if it happened in an instant like 300' on take off.. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 As a VERY experienced jumper and aviator I can say that the area that the aircraft arrived in is larger than the experienced jumpers landing area at my old drop zone. The landing area that the accuracy jumpers use is only 20 meters in diameter. I would not be surprised if the pilot gets taken to court for refusing to let these guys out then hurting them. Cessnas can and do suck more fuel from one tank even when switched to both. And if you run that favored tank dry it will suck air and not the fuel left in the other tank. Once the air is in the line it will keep sucking air until you switch to the good tank and prime the air out of the lines. either buy boost pump or using the primer to get a start to get the fuel up to the mechanical pump. And don't believe that 'balanced flight' crap. you can't fly orbits for any length of time that good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Happyflyer Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Ozzie, I would think that if Cessna designed a system that sucked air if one tank ran dry, they would not have a both position due to the propensity for legal action in the US. Do you have any reference for that? The 182 flight manual says "the fuel selector should be in the 'both' position for take off, climb descent, landing and maneuvers that involve prolonged slip or skids. The left and right positions are reserved for level flight only." There is no mention of sucking air if one tank runs dry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kaz3g Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 It could have been vapour lock or another of any number of issues so we need to wait for the report to avoid impugning the poor pilot's skills at this early stage. But I can say that I saw a 206 glide in from a great height some years ago after which the pilot needed 20 litres in a gerrycan so he could vacate the strip. The skydivers ceased using that airfield shortly after and a lot of us pilot/owners were relieved when they did so. Kaz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Ozzie, I would think that if Cessna designed a system that sucked air if one tank ran dry, they would not have a both position due to the propensity for legal action in the US. Do you have any reference for that?The 182 flight manual says "the fuel selector should be in the 'both' position for take off, climb descent, landing and maneuvers that involve prolonged slip or skids. The left and right positions are reserved for level flight only." There is no mention of sucking air if one tank runs dry. Experience! Landing when an engine stopped after doing slow climbing continuous left turns to height and found one tank dry and all the fuel in the other. Another aircraft i have known it to happen to is the Nanchange. Mr Cessna could do with a couple inline check valves. Now have a think about what the fuel in the tanks is doing in a turn the amount of head pressure on the up wing tank and an uncovered pickup in the down wing tank will move fuel across to the lower tank with some going to the engine, the upwing tank will run out first then you suck air right up to the engine. getting the thing to restart means switching tans to stop the airsuck . Been there and have seen it happen to others. Both the clubs Cessnas did one a C185 and the other a C182. Never heard of a vapor lock happening on a running engine usually happens when you stop then try to restart when hot. At least it did on an old '36 flathead Ford Coupe i had once. Also both the 185 and the Arrow were real pr###ks to start when hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SDQDI Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 Ozzie the fuel won't transfer between sides unless the plane is being flown unbalanced, no matter how steep the turn if the skid ball is in the centre the tanks will drain evenly. Having said that, from what I hear, you don't have to have the skid ball off centre by a lot to have this problem. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2015 Share Posted October 8, 2015 That's true of any plane (or motorbike. unless you are leaning off it) IF you fly unbalanced you will vent fuel if your tanks are full in a plane. (Unless you have a very trick venting system). Ball in centre is balanced no matter what the angle of bank. As for getting air into the system... In some aircraft it will make it difficult to get the engine(s) running again. A well designed system has non return valves and you just select ALL and turn on the pumps and it will run till dry in all tanks. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 FH is half way to getting it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted October 9, 2015 Share Posted October 9, 2015 Semantics and fuel system nuances aside, it's historically pretty hard to dress up fuel starvation as anything but pilot error. 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 Confusing fuel starvation with fuel exhaustion? Two different things. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dutchroll Posted October 10, 2015 Share Posted October 10, 2015 I think most people probably know which facet of "no fuel getting to the engine" I meant. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now