turboplanner Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Turbs that is the sort of trip I used to do in the 1970s. I would argue that the cost isn’t prohibitive today if you have already made the commitment to own say a C172 or PA28. Purchase cost, hangarage, annuals and depreciation are more or less fixed costs if there are several hundred hours to run on engine and prop. The only variable cost is fuel and oil. Say $80 an hour so a 25 hour trip will cost $2000. If the owner pilot shares cost with 3 pax then each pays $500. It is a lot of holiday for that price.I am not ignoring the fixed costs, just saying that a decision to take the trip is a decision to spend $500. You won’t get an experience like that going RPT. True, but the reason I've spent so much time on this one, is that regular Bass Strait crossings are part of the equation; a similar situation would occur for remote mainland cross country. I've made my trips in a PA 28, so I know you can cover three States in a day by hopping, but where it has been a disadvantage is where the weather pattern in Southern Queensland at the end of the day when you're tired and still working off the Moorabbin Met forecast becomes radically different, and has you making huge detours around visible storm cells and replanning your destination and alternates on the run to meet the endurance available. My calculations showed that on a share basis, I could buy something like a fully equipped Cherokee Six and get an overall cost per Nm down below a Jab with just two people, but the chilles heel in sharing is that many want to come, but few want to pay, and even fewer are available as a six pack. What you've done is decide to spend the capital cost and insurance, hangarage etc. and effectively treat it as a write off, getting some of it back again when you stop flying, or more if used AC prices rise as they have been doing. Nothing wrong with that, but alternatively if you invest that money at 10%, you'll have earned maybe $5,000 per year to spend on flying for the same money as you have tied up now. If you just want the thrill of that runway falling away, or you're happy flying around the circuit or training area, or the odd breakfast at a nearby town, hiring will be well inside that earnings budget. One guy I knew at Moorabbin flew on the smell of an oily rag by hiring an aircraft for 30 minutes of circuits once a week. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pmccarthy Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 I agree with all of that but if you can get les than 2% on fixed deposit you might as well own a plane! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Safety investigations & reports Hi Jethro If you go to the ATSB excellent web site and type bankstown into the quick search you will get about 150 results covering about 30 years in a high traffic area. Mechanical engine failure on these mostly continental and lycoming powered aircraft is almost nil. Most failures were fuel related, lack of, selection, contamination. If you were planning a trip to a strip that may be difficult, say like Mittagong the atsb is a good resource, just type mittagong into the quick find It's a shame the ATSB don't do numbered aircraft. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted July 19, 2018 Share Posted July 19, 2018 Atsb serch for bass strait shows low risk if you pilot correctly 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 The floor of most small planes is a lot stronger than the roof .There's more room for the carry through spar in a low wing .It will reduce your headroom in a high wing, where It's under your seat in a low wing. A strut is draggy but a very easy way to get strength. Some low Wings have struts in compression Cropdusters. Nev 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Atsb serch for bass strait shows low risk if you pilot correctly An ATSB for Bool Lagoon will show a lower risk than RPT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Jethro Belle.I suspect they have selected Cirrus separately because they have a BRS ( parachute system) and no other standard GA aircraft do. This would mean that potentially they have a safer profile. The task in Bass Strait is not to drop into the water; so far no one has survived, primarily because of the water temperature/weather/logistics of rescue so Cirrus falls back to the field, although you could comb through the BRS events and take out the obvious pilot error examples. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Belle Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 Wow, This is an active group who never sleeps, Thanks to for very good recent posts firming up my perceptions. Perhaps I should have made it a 182 with 3 pax, the Cherokee 180 will do it ok. The C172 comes up with lower crash statistics and if flown within its limits may be safer due to lower performance meaning lower impact kinetic energy equating to greater survivabilty. My reading is that the higher performance (and usual avionics) of the C182 will give a performance edge over RA and C150 level aircraft to deal with the Bass Straight flight mission, not that it is the lowest specification plane that can safely cross. The C182 offers top fifth percentile safety capability (that no-one has challenged this leads me to think there is general agreement) for the Bass Straight flight mission as Turboplanner succinctly puts it. The worse crash statistics for the C182 is due to higher average cruise velocities (flight hours need factoring for touring aircraft) and the more hazardous missions pilots attempt with them (My opinion about the situation and why I sought your input and how to meaningfully factor risk data). I was always thinking the turbocharged Rotax was an engine contender for a safe crossing (I think Jabiru are getting there too and would snap up a J400 at the price second hand ones are available, but ). I had not factored in the scary wing icing issue as low as 5000 ft I originate from mid-WA where higher = more comfortable. I need to look up some Canadian websites as they must routinely fly in icing conditions. IMHO aircraft not in the upper 5th percentile can safety fly Bass Straight, provided correct risk mitigation (as covered in several flights posted) are followed. These measures however mean the flights become an increasingly complicated logisitics exercise. 'Safe' crossing by a Thruster requires shadowing by a rescue helicopter capable of crossing in its own right, so it isn't an option for anything other than a one off challenge (IMHO) and not something I would ever do. IMHO Identifying a top 5th percentile capable aircraft for a given mission is a practicable way to quantify the amount or risk mitigation you will have to apply with any less capable aircraft (that is physically able) to bring the risk down to that level. Arguing about safe planes without defining a mission is meaningless, as the average crash rates show. The Sonerai World Record Plane - Robin Austin can do it, but the Sonerai option for me has been relegated to being a cost effective local flier (I like the Sonerai configuration, performance for the $ and strength, not for pushing the aerobatic limits and pylon racing (70% sure) which have created it). I was not planning bush strip flying, but bush landing ability is a clear safety advantage (as many have said), and I think some rollover protection (as several have said) and crashworthiness enhancementsto the Sonerai would be needed to achieve my risk level. Low wing aircraft haven't been given any 'airspace' in safety discussions that focus on crash worthiness (A position supported by first figure), but those who love them claim better primary safety in the form of better handling and ability to see other aircraft in turns (you fly away from aircraft below). The second figure shows how important seeing through your high wing is (more sun on the head ). In risk mitigation primary safety (avoiding the hazard) is the first step if reasonably practicable. Source: EAA forums ] source: ASTB Review of Midair Collisions True, but the reason I've spent so much time on this one, is that regular Bass Strait crossings are part of the equation; a similar situation would occur for remote mainland cross country. Yes the specifics and options you provided me have saved me hours and boosted my confidence about the way forward. In the first instance hiring GA is the best option for me due to Launceston controlled airspace, and being able to hire aircraft anywhere. Not my dream, I love browsing "aircraft for sale", but high level safety is my prerequisite, so I have to walk the walk. The other posts and conversations about the J430, diesel aero-engine in RA etc are fascinating studies for me in their own right. I have learn't the real reasons for their not being release and problems only insiders are privy too. You can't get that from web surfing I am taking a break to get myself some health, like Bruce has advised. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Belle Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 The task in Bass Strait is not to drop into the water; so far no one has survived, primarily because of the water temperature/weather/logistics of rescue so Cirrus falls back to the field, although you could comb through the BRS events and take out the obvious pilot error examples. Yes for this particular mission, but I dream of flying across land more than water and water is conrete hit at speed so they may keep you alive and able to exit the cockpit:thumb up: It clarified the reason for their game changingly good crash statistic. Jaba-who takes credit for 'clearing the waters' not me. Thanks Jaba Jethro Belle.I suspect they have selected Cirrus separately because they have a BRS ( parachute system) and no other standard GA aircraft do. This would mean that potentially they have a safer profile. Maybe the excellent in-house safety is because Cirrus use the chutes correctly? I assume that incorrect parachute deployment at the wrong time is a factor in crash outcomes. Are Cirrus pilots pulling their chutes when they should be emergency landing their planes? Anyone know a good ballistics chute assessment. I will read through the Crash north of Dubbo thread. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 You get this all down on the spreadsheet and you'll have to use macros Jethro. Some of the things you're getting into are conditional, ie the cross country aircraft is the safer one, but a pilot who doesn't follow training, or doesn't keep up currency will fall behind the aircraft and reduce its statistics. If you're not going to be one of those pilots that equation is then false and you're back with the cross-country spec. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 ATSB reports show only two engine failures in the Cirrus fleet in Australia, one due maintenance error and one self inflicted. Cirrus with known icing would be an excellent choice if renting for the bass strait mission turbo I don't understand the bool lagoon comment 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 I know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 If you care to explain it turbo I may look like a complete fool but I can live with that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crashley Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 The task in Bass Strait is not to drop into the water; so far no one has survived, primarily because of the water temperature/weather/logistics of rescue so Cirrus falls back to the field, although you could comb through the BRS events and take out the obvious pilot error examples. Pilot who ditched in Bass Strait denies flying recklessly Pilot who ditched ultra light plane in Bass Strait denies flying recklessly By Laura Beavis Updated about an hour ago Newcastle pilot Shayd Hector stands in front an ultralight plane owned by instructor Eugene Reid. PHOTO: Shayd Hector and his passenger were rescued after ditching in Bass Strait. (Facebook) MAP: Launceston 7250 The pilot of an ultra-light plane that ditched in Bass Strait in 2013 has denied flying recklessly and endangering his passenger. Shayd Hector, of Tingira Heights in New South Wales, pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure. Launceston magistrates court heard the offences allegedly took place near Bridport on October 28, 2013, endangering the life of Hector's passenger, Joel Nelson. The pair were rescued from the ocean near Waterhouse Island off the coast of north-east Tasmania in the hours after their plane crashed into the sea. They had been en route to Newcastle and told the media at the time that engine trouble forced them to ditch the plane. They said they felt lucky to be alive after surviving in the water for two hours by clinging to an inflatable mattress. The men also feared they would be attacked by sharks. They were uninjured apart from cuts and were treated for hypothermia. Hector was not in court and entered the pleas through his lawyer. He was ordered to return to court on June 17. 22 (permalink) Rotor Work Thread Starter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Australia Posts: 255 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 I would fly to tas in the Thruster before some other RAA types (engine reliability) . Mattress in the wings good wet suit, a safe ditching and exit would doable. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 I wouldn't see it as a good plane to ditch. Low wing retract with wheels up is generally best.. Big swells are an issue. If you hit a solid wave it's a sudden and damaging stop. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Pilot who ditched in Bass Strait denies flying recklesslyPilot who ditched ultra light plane in Bass Strait denies flying recklessly By Laura Beavis Updated about an hour ago Newcastle pilot Shayd Hector stands in front an ultralight plane owned by instructor Eugene Reid. PHOTO: Shayd Hector and his passenger were rescued after ditching in Bass Strait. (Facebook) MAP: Launceston 7250 The pilot of an ultra-light plane that ditched in Bass Strait in 2013 has denied flying recklessly and endangering his passenger. Shayd Hector, of Tingira Heights in New South Wales, pleaded not guilty to the reckless operation of an aircraft, flying without a licence and piloting an aircraft after having consumed alcohol within eight hours before departure. Launceston magistrates court heard the offences allegedly took place near Bridport on October 28, 2013, endangering the life of Hector's passenger, Joel Nelson. The pair were rescued from the ocean near Waterhouse Island off the coast of north-east Tasmania in the hours after their plane crashed into the sea. They had been en route to Newcastle and told the media at the time that engine trouble forced them to ditch the plane. They said they felt lucky to be alive after surviving in the water for two hours by clinging to an inflatable mattress. The men also feared they would be attacked by sharks. They were uninjured apart from cuts and were treated for hypothermia. Hector was not in court and entered the pleas through his lawyer. He was ordered to return to court on June 17. 22 (permalink) Rotor Work Thread Starter Join Date: May 2011 Location: Australia Posts: 255 . Waterhouse island is in Banks Strait; there's a map of Banks Strait in #24. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 If you care to explain it turbo I may look like a complete fool but I can live with that This thread is about the safest way to fly across Bass Strait for trips on the Mainland. I couldn't see the logic of your post about ATSB reports on Bankstown, or Mittagong, so I threw in Bool Lagoon where I've landed a Warrior and Arthur Schutt landed a 172, apparently showing that Bool Lagoon is safer than most RPT Airports. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Belle Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 I would fly to tas in the Thruster before some other RAA types (engine reliability) . Mattress in the wings good wet suit, a safe ditching and exit would doable. Point taken on-board regarding the engine and aircraft reliability, and thanks for the post. My reply is so that know-one starts flame wars taking it that you are proposing to do it. It represents zero (other ultralights are negative) on "suitability for mission" for what I have in mind. It gets zero only because it is physically possible on a good day with all going right. It has all been done anyway (and so has my reply). The problem is the logistics to get all the required support together to cover higher risk of ending in the drink. I agree that crashing into Bass Straight in a correctly prepared Thruster would be safer than in a C182 (IMHO). The point is it is Bass Straight that will kill, not the crash. Any injuries incurred would make your drowning even more awful. If pilots take the risk knowing other have to come and fish them out there is negative press like the recent event generated. Such actions are selfish at best on behalf of those who undertake them. It is like the single around the world yachtsmen/girls who cost us tax payers $100 000s to fish out of the oceans when their number comes up. Bushwalkers are regularly having to be saved by helicopter from the SW Wilderness for the same reason (totally unable and/or unprepared, but do it because they know they will be airlifted out: until it doesn't happen). If such actions didn't spoil it for everyone else, I doubt few would care. My risk assessments are so I am not the one applying Darwinian theory to empty the shallow end. I have flown in Thrusters and think they are safe for what they were designed. It is the mission (and pilots), not the aircraft that makes it unsafe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thruster88 Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Turbo my point about bankstown is that millions of movements have happened there in the last 30 years with almost no mechanical engine failures as shown by atsb investigations. Flying safely across bass strait is more about good piloting. If I had to cross the strait regularly it would be with a lycoming or continental Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Belle Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 Point taken on-board regarding the engine and aircraft reliability, and thanks for the post. ... Re-reading your post, I probably kneejerk over-responded. I agree some RAA engines are questionable. I recall one study of EAA engines that concluded they were overall less reliable than Continental and Lycoming, but the interesting number was the chance of internal engine failure was significantly less on automotive derivatives!!!! It is in line with opinions I have heard about the agricultural build (loose tolerances) that the GA engines had back then, making ultralight engines seem modern. I can't comment on the current engines. It may have simply been lower TBOs. If I re-find it, I will upload the link. I am not confident in VW engine derivatives myself, for no reason other than it was not reliable in my Kombi It is for that reason the Sonerai example I posted is a top example fitted with a Rotax engine and easily capable of crossing Bass Straight (oxygen fitted and everything). There are quality build VWs so owners please don't flame me. If I go that way for a local plane, I will check any VW build reliability statistics I can find, and the engine itself before proceeding. I suspect the risk may not low enough for me. Thanks for your posts which cover that data point I requested :-). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Belle Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 I wouldn't see it as a good plane to ditch. Low wing retract with wheels up is generally best.. Big swells are an issue. If you hit a solid wave it's a sudden and damaging stop. Nev So aircraft configuration for the best ditching survivability is the complete opposite of rough terrain forced landing . Is that right? Amphibians are high wing. Supports putting up with airlines and hiring the appropriate plane at destination! Any links or references so I can read up on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dsam Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Every ditching can be different, but I have heard that LSA high wing aircraft tend to nose-over and invert leaving you (and much of the rear fuselage) above the water so you can tumble out onto the (briefly) floating wing and not face an underwater escape from your harness and door. I certainly hoped that would be the case when I crossed Bass Strait, (should I encounter a major problem). 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jethro Belle Posted July 20, 2018 Author Share Posted July 20, 2018 Windmilling props worried me too pmc. The theory is that an UNSTALLED prop making negative thrust makes more backwards thrust than the drag from a stationary prop. Try to see this with an electric rc plane where you can adjust the rpm at will as well as stopping the prop. I've done this and tried to see the effect but find it hard to notice. But I still believe it is there. An Interesting observation Bruce. Don't windmilling propellers go 'flat out' without any retarding torque so they approach solid disk level drag (operating like an inefficient auto-gyro rotor because the camber is the wrong way). You are not replicating this freewheeling condition as I read it. If you are controlling speed from power on to power off (always power in, not resisting torque) the propeller (viewed as a lifting foil) will rotate through the air transitioning from thrust to zero lift (no-thrust) to negative lift (drag). The low speed negative lift (drag) will be less than for the equivalent thrust generated at those low revs with the aircraft stationary. If this is the case you would not see anything near disc equivalent drag levels, just a slightly worse than a stationary propeller drag. Because the design prop-wash velocity is a multiple of forward velocity, the zero lift transition will occurs at quite low revs. Also, a foil with a concave lift surface (if your propeller has both surfaces cambered) will fully separate from near the leading edge creating the same drag it would stopped. Purely theoretical speculation. I think you are demostrating that all but a freewheeling propeller generates drag similar to a locked unfeathered prop on aircraft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted July 20, 2018 Share Posted July 20, 2018 Jethro, amphibians especially floating hulls are (generally) high wing to keep the props (and wings) out of the water That's in a "normal operational" situation. Ditching is not a landing unless it's a smooth sea and you have a sea plane, Putting down on water, If you have an undercarriage sticking down you will nose over and go underwater or invert. . Landing on ground (Terra firma), the aim is to have energy absorbing "things" between you and the ground like extended gear etc. Any structure absorbs energy and slows you down more easily "gently" than having nothing there.. This is available in good training at appropriate levels of aircraft operation, like the services or larger aircraft commercial ops where you get the benefit of training based on analysis of all this from past events relevant to your operational environment. ie Extended Overwater operations. or off field landings as well as partially extended Undercarraige landings. There's a lot of experience to draw on out there that's well researched .. It's not part of a CPL or lesser syllabus. but that doesn't mean you shouldn't familiarize yourself with it if you are going to fly overwater . Nev 1 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