Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 144
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Whether it's allowable or not, surely the purpose of recreational aviation is to get AWAY from the kids???

I always believed that a baby could be carried as a 3rd person as long as it was on the lap and does not interfere with controls. If I also believed that I can certainly understand the pilot having th

Well I guess he could say the child is a newborn and his wife went in to expedited labour when the engine failed, was born on descent to the forced landing cleaned up and dressed before touchdown.

Posted Images

Posted (edited)
1 minute ago, SSCBD said:

Three people- Baby?

Yeah ? RAA reg plane, 3 people?

 

Edit:  Great result though, well executed forced landing.

Edited by RossK
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder what the media means by "A minor engine failure" A failure is a failure so how can it be major or minor? But at least it wasn't described as a Cessna.

  • Like 4
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kgwilson said:

I wonder what the media means by "A minor engine failure" A failure is a failure so how can it be major or minor? But at least it wasn't described as a Cessna.

The ABC actually reported it as a Tecnam P2008 😲

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been hesitant at taking my children anymore, it is my choice to fly, if something goes wrong, I don't want to be responsible for hurting them or worse.

probably over cautious, 

It is good that this one came out well.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Great outcome given the area and options.  
 

However, not going to be a great outcome for the pilot if there were three people in an raaus registered aircraft...

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, SSCBD said:

Three people- Baby?

Mmmmm .. wonder if that’s why the pilot refused an interview 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

must of been fuel or engine related. Is rotax, so must be fuel system trouble related.
or.... running out of fuel in one of those  due to miscalculation is a pretty difficult effort .

 

still, did an excellent job on the beach. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I imagine he would be pushing very hard to get that baby back to where it came from to avoid The CASA !

 

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

This is now the second accident/incident I’m aware of where three people were on board an RAAus aircraft. 
There was a guy a couple of years ago had wife and a child onboard and crashed. Was discussed at length on this forum. Wonder what happened to him about that?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, RFguy said:

must of been fuel or engine related. Is rotax, so must be fuel system trouble related.
or.... running out of fuel in one of those  due to miscalculation is a pretty difficult effort .

 

still, did an excellent job on the beach. 


Rotax engine failure rate is 1.5 per 10000 hours flight time ( or so ATSB/CASA stated in their report from a few years ago). Why have you narrowed it down to fuel? 

  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Mmmmm .. wonder if that’s why the pilot refused an interview "

After the Princes Dia And Micheal Jackson interviews !.

why would anyone give an interview to Any reporter.

spacesailor

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Nope. They selected engine types specifically to decrease the incidence and Included only engines “comparable to the Jabiru “ as it was used to justify the restrictions placed on Janiru. 

Edited by Jaba-who
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Rotax do seem to  have their share of particular ignition electrical problems , and some alternator issues, moistures, insulation wear....  
..I dont think Rotax have that side of things quite right.

(I think Jab have the ignition side pretty well sorted).   

But a (912) rotax is not going to throw a piston if pushed into the red for an extended period. It'll just get hot.

 

anyway, we shall maybe see what happened to that Tecnam. 

 

Mice eat the electricals ? quite possible. More likely than dog eating homework.

Edited by RFguy
Link to post
Share on other sites

Any damage to the plane will probably have occurred by dragging it through the sand...

  • Agree 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

3 persons on board so the news describes. Lets assume that is true.

RAAus registered confirmed by the pics.

CAO 95.55 describes it's for 2 place aircraft. Was the aircraft a 2 place aircraft (places for only 2 people) Yes.(assume not modified with a third seat.)

RAAus Ops manual describes 2 seat aircraft. Was the aircraft a 2 seat aircraft? (seats for 2 people) Yes. (assume not modified with a third seat.)

See where I'm going with this?

Is there actually an RAAus rule about the number of passenger(s) you may take? i.e ONE. I can't find one, though it is probably there? Is it?

Interesting eh?

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites

Was having the same conversation this afternoon with someone, not sure on RAA specifics on passenger numbers but CAO 20.16.3 (11) does talk about infants being able to be carried on lap, and the usual rules on dual control and interference etc.

 

How you could sit in a P2008 or any of the Tecnam 2 seaters and have enough room for passenger and child on lap, and not interfere with controls would be something I'd love to see.

 

Assuming said person was very very slight.

 

Either way, I wouldn't like to be that guy if this turns out to be outside the rules, CASA would be the last of his problems once mum finds out.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well I guess he could say the child is a newborn and his wife went in to expedited labour when the engine failed, was born on descent to the forced landing cleaned up and dressed before touchdown.

Oh and the child aged a year through the experience of it all.

That should work?

Edited by alf jessup
  • Haha 8
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, 440032 said:

3 persons on board so the news describes. Lets assume that is true.

RAAus registered confirmed by the pics.

CAO 95.55 describes it's for 2 place aircraft. Was the aircraft a 2 place aircraft (places for only 2 people) Yes.(assume not modified with a third seat.)

RAAus Ops manual describes 2 seat aircraft. Was the aircraft a 2 seat aircraft? (seats for 2 people) Yes. (assume not modified with a third seat.)

See where I'm going with this?

Is there actually an RAAus rule about the number of passenger(s) you may take? i.e ONE. I can't find one, though it is probably there? Is it?

Interesting eh?

The aircraft is registered “23-xxxx” and is therefore a LSA. No modifications are allowed without approval from the manufacturer. We can assume from that, that it is a standard 2 seat aircraft.

Link to post
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

×
×
  • Create New...