Plane crash near Stawell

[Marty_d]

ABC is reporting a plane crash in Victoria.

 

Plane crashes at Black Range in Victoria's west

 

 

[pmccarthy]

A man is in a critical condition and another man has serious head injuries after a light plane crash near Stawell, in Victoria's west.

 

Police said both men's injuries were life threatening.

 

The plane crashed at Black Range about 12:45pm.

 

Witness Grant Harrison told the ABC he saw the plane falling and spinning before it disappeared behind trees.

 

"It was in a flat spin. Instead of flying forwards it was just falling like a leaf and spinning, but he just didn't come back up again," he said.

 

Ambulance Victoria said paramedics were treating the two men, who police believed were aged in their 40s, at the scene before flying them to hospital.

 

A map on the Emergency Management Victoria website placed the crash just east of the Stawell airport.

 

"The plane has come down in a fairly open location, surrounded by paddocks," Sergeant Pete Young told ABC Radio's Statewide Drive program.

 

"He's picked a location fairly well to come down.

 

"It's come down from a fairly good height."

 

He believed the two men were a trainee pilot and a pilot, though could not confirm they were on a training flight.

 

Victoria Police said the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was notified of the incident and the cause was being investigated.

 

According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA), the single-engine Bristell S-LSA plane was registered with Soar Aviation, a flight training school based in Moorabbin in Melbourne's south-east.

 

The company posted on Facebook that the incident "has activated a comprehensive emergency response, which involves grounding all our fleet across all bases".

 

"Soar Aviation and emergency response teams have incident response management and procedures in place in the event of an incident of this nature.

 

"Soar Aviation's priority is the safety and security of our employees, students, visitors, and those involved in the incident."

 

Sergeant Young said the plane had left from Moorabbin, though its destination was unknown.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Good aircraft those Bristell’s !!!

 

That is two now that have flat spun into the ground, something is not right with the design as they should be fully recoverable in all facets of flight.

 

And before you bag me out for knocking the brand, 4 witnessed it at Stawell airport who all fly and watched it unfold in front of their eyes, I’m good friends with one of them.

 

And yes I have flown one and didn’t like it, nowhere near as nice as my Tecnam Sierra, nice to look at but that is it for me.

 

Glad to hear these latest two are still with us and wish them a speedy recovery.

 

 

[Downunder]

It was only August last year when that one "went in"... Student died....

 

Pics look like it come down vertically as well...

 

 

[old man emu]

This picture shows the type of aircraft involved. Ignore the rego as it might not have been the one involved.

 

 

Just by looking at this aircraft, can anyone see how different it is from, say a Tecnam, that one would suspect that it couldn't be recovered from a flat spin?

 

 

 

[turboplanner]

This picture shows the type of aircraft involved. Ignore the rego as it might not have been the one involved.[ATTACH=full]62041[/ATTACH]

 

Just by looking at this aircraft, can anyone see how different it is from, say a Tecnam, that one would suspect that it couldn't be recovered from a flat spin?

 

[ATTACH=full]62042[/ATTACH]

Only a guess but wings are a long way back mask angle to rudder is quite low, and distance from wing to rear stabiliser is short.

 

 

[BlurE]

Firsly I do hope everyone recovers. I crawled through on of these Sour bristrells only a few weeks back. Very nice. Very roomy. VH registration which means RAA may not get involved.

 

I know some people here get very upset about speculation, and while I respect that, I know it does come from genuine concern and a desire to understand. With that in mind, I will say the following stressing that it is heresay and only speculation.

 

I heard a theory after last year's incident that a contributing factor may have been the chute, or lack there of. apparently the chute is forward of the firewall and obviously moves the CofG forward. Because chutes are mandatory in (at least in some) European countries this is the standard configuration that is tested. Of course in Australia the chute is an option. Without it the CofG goes back and ironically so do your options in an emergency. This theory came from a technical person who was requested at the scene. I also believe I know Alf witness and trust that person a a very reliable source. I can only imagine the terror for the poor occupants if this is correct.

 

Again I hope they are ok and wish them a speedy recovery.

 

 

[BlurE]

My thoughts also go out to the witnesses and responders.

 

Please be safe everyone.

 

 

[piecrust]

There is also another flat spin incident in Portugal. Both died on impact. Witnesses said it was spinning into trees.

 

 

[Roundsounds]

Interesting recovery technique, but no doubt developed as the result of Flight testing. The method of only making any pitch input after rotation stops is unusual, given the design of the tail I would have thought a pitch down would assist in providing airflow over the rudder and may be required to stop the rotation.

 

 

 

[Yenn]

OME that couple of pictures show why they may flat spin.

 

Assuming that the Cof G is about where the passengers sit, it is a long way forward to the motor weight and also a long way aft to the tailplane. Get it spinning and inertia will take some overcoming.

 

 

[facthunter]

The motor is further forward so will have some adverse effect towards a flatter spin attitude compared to the other aircraft but I wouldn't see it as a critical feature. The fin and rudder are large and the shielding of the rudder is better than some designs by a long way.. If the C of G is rear of optimum , for any reason, that doesn't help. Not mentioning the elevators till last could be a clue to the problem. if you hold entry control positions which would mean it wasn't intentional.. What is "recovery" dive. Is it a typo? Anyhow pulling the stick back is a natural action for the untrained if the nose drops so I'm not saying the spin was intentional.. Nev

 

 

[ave8rr]

We are seeing more of these type of accidents with LSA. Not enough design testing I would say and Instructors not being taught spin recovery. Don't forget about the Piper Sport in Bundy a few years back which was reported as being in a flat spin killing both instructor and student.

 

 

[Thruster88]

I heard a theory after last year's incident that a contributing factor may have been the chute, or lack there of. apparently the chute is forward of the firewall and obviously moves the CofG forward. Because chutes are mandatory in (at least in some) European countries this is the standard configuration that is tested. Of course in Australia the chute is an option. Without it the CofG goes back

 

The aft CofG limit would be the same for all bristles regardless of how they are equipped from the factory.

 

 

[alf jessup]

We are seeing more of these type of accidents with LSA. Not enough design testing I would say and Instructors not being taught spin recovery. Don't forget about the Piper Sport in Bundy a few years back which was reported as being in a flat spin killing both instructor and student.

ave8rr

Don’t quote me on this but the Piper sport and Bristell are both from the same designer I recall, same wing and other parts.

 

One must wonder why piper pulled the plug on the sport

 

Maybe in fear of litigation and getting sued for a design they were not happy about?

 

Only guessing here and my own opinion

 

 

[Birdseye]

Reality is that stall spin incidents may be fatal if the conditions are right (or is that wrong). The Piper Tomahawk was involved in a number of incidents, but if the correct recovery actions were applied and maintained, it would come out of the spin OK ( I have spinned a Tomahawk on more than one occasion). Some suggestions made at the time were that anti-spin recovery actions were not continued long enough, because people had become conditioned to aircraft like the Cherokee which would recover at the slightest hint of correct recovery actions. The failure to respond immediately lead people to try alternative methods, often to their cost.

 

I've no interest in hypothesizing as to what exactly happened in this event and I suggest that the speculators wait until there is something definitive.

 

 

[nathanc]

This picture shows the type of aircraft involved. Ignore the rego as it might not have been the one involved.[ATTACH=full]62041[/ATTACH]

 

Just by looking at this aircraft, can anyone see how different it is from, say a Tecnam, that one would suspect that it couldn't be recovered from a flat spin?

 

[ATTACH=full]62042[/ATTACH]

This is taken from Darrol Stinton's book "The Design of the Aeroplane" which might be of relevance or interest. Furthermore Stinton notes that spin damping is better when there is a deep rear fuselage and when there is rudder area beneath the tailplane and elevator. None of these are designed into many modern aircraft including the above as so many LSA type aircraft become very thin towards the real fuselage including this aircraft. Interestingly Stinton (perhaps controversially) writes in relation to the above quote "much of this design wisdom is being lost".

 

 

 

[Keenaviator]

The humble Jabiru gets another thumbs up from me in this topic.

 

 

[turboplanner]

Interestingly Stinton (perhaps controversially) writes in relation to the above quote "much of this design wisdom is being lost".

He's right; part of it could be the retirement of the designers who honed their skills in the unlimited budget days of WW2, part of it could be that the cheap Ultralights aircraft have nowhere near the hours spent in design by comparison with something like a Cherokee, part of is "contracting"; letting someone in a third world country do the design and development, then buying the aircraft cheap and putting a low mark up on it to sell to the lower end of the market, but much of it is that as a generation we just assume everything's going to be OK, and don't pay attention to the detail, and that's applying in our training facilities like Universities where someone did a stud and found 40% of the Courses produced skills which could not be used in industry.

 

 

[BlurE]

The aft CofG limit would be the same for all bristles regardless of how they are equipped from the factory

Good point. I am sure this is true, but if I ever spun a not-spin approved aircraft I think I would want to be as far forward in CofG as allowed.

 

I understand spin approved aircraft usually define a separate range for aerobatics or spinning. I seem to recall spinning a C152 is only allowed in the untility sub-envelope. I felt somewhat better doing (just a little) upset recovery training knowing that the aircraft was both light and forward - so if it really did get ugly I would hear "taking over" and all would be ok.

 

What I am trying to say is that while an aircraft might fly ok and be controllable at or near the aft limit, it may not necessarily be as easy to recover from an unintended state. I think that is probably a fair generalisation.

 

I acknowledge there are people here much, much more experienced and qualified to comment onspinning and spin recovery than I.

 

 

[BlurE]

Piper sport and Bristell are both from the same designer

I think the Roko is in there somewhere also?

 

 

[djpacro]

.... What I am trying to say is that while an aircraft might fly ok and be controllable at or near the aft limit, it may not necessarily be as easy to recover from an unintended state. I think that is probably a fair generalisation. ...

I agree.For example, from one of the forums I attended at Oshkosh this year:

 

 

Aft cg limit is commonly determined from compliance with spin recovery requirements.

 

Another point is that there are some aeroplanes around where, at aft cg, the stick position to hold a steady airspeed does not vary much so the term "stall stick position" is of little use as a cue.

 

As a comparison, the Decathlon spin doesn't vary much in behaviour between the forward and aft limits although at fwd cg it may tend to enter a spiral dive. Misuse of of aileron and/or power will flatten it regardless of cg; forward stick prior to rudder on recovery will steepen the nose down attitude (an accelerated spin) which can significantly delay the recovery.

 

 

[djpacro]

Interesting recovery technique, but no doubt developed as the result of Flight testing. The method of only making any pitch input after rotation stops is unusual, given the design of the tail I would have thought a pitch down would assist in providing airflow over the rudder and may be required to stop the rotation.

It is not the only aeroplane around with those instructions - the early Robin 2160 is another however the Robin has a very big rudder but when they went for American certification the FAA insisted on PARE to stop the spin per FAR 23.I'm certainly interested in seeing the spin test report for the Bristell. Even for types which are not approved for intentional spins the scope of testing is quite comprehensive.

 

Similar type to the Bristell:

 

 

 

 

[Roundsounds]

It is not the only aeroplane around with those instructions - the early Robin 2160 is another however the Robin has a very big rudder but when they went for American certification the FAA insisted on PARE to stop the spin per FAR 23.I'm certainly interested in seeing the spin test report for the Bristell. Even for types which are not approved for intentional spins the scope of testing is quite comprehensive.

 

Similar type to the Bristell:

 

[ATTACH]62073[/ATTACH][ATTACH]62074[/ATTACH]

The LSA POH seems to contain a different procedure...

 

 

[facthunter]

A lot of designs go for looks rather than effective rudder. A swept back rudder is BS on a subsonic plane. CofG position can transform a plane from docile stall to dangerous wing dropper. FAR 23 used to produce practical rules for design that eliminate crook aspects of design that creep in to the scene. WE have never done any analysis of bad flying characteristics of some plane s and WHY that would be so. You can just look at some aircraft and know they will have problems in the handling department. That is even without going into spins (considerations) To most pilots it's just academic. It won't happen to me cause I watch my airspeed sort of thing, and there's also accidents only happen to OTHER people syndrome.

 

I'm inclined also to question the POH for the Bristel recovery as printed above It should be questioned. Stalls, spins and spirals and unusual attitude recovery need much more attention in our flying training syllabus. If you don't KNOW whether you are in a spin or a spiral knowing "Roughly" how to recover from a spin won't do much for you. Most U/L pilots spend a lot of time at circuit height and you can't recover a spin from that position even if you are the Ace of the Base. The inclination to pull back on the stick when the ground is coming up is strong. Nev