Jump to content

Recommended Posts

IDIOT- DEFINED - a stupid person. -a person of low intelligence

 

OR 

Idiot, from the Greek idios ("private" or "one's own"), is the oldest of these words, and has been in continual use since the 14th century. Over the years idiot has taken on a number of meanings, ranging from "an ignorant or unschooled person" to "jester, professional fool" to "Stimpy" (of "Ren and" fame).

Link to post
Share on other sites

A bit like reading about our RAAF personal sent to fly P40s to Papua New Guinea to fight japs after learning in tigers and low powered trainers. In the book 44 days it was mentioned several were lost on way up coast within hours of takeoff, training had consisted of go read the manual and taxi around.

the true pressures on RAAF pilots were probably much higher than the guy just wanting to have a nice toy, but results the same.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

According to Wikipedia "The M600 has 600 hp (447 kW) and a price tag of $2.82 million."  Presumably that's $US.

Looks like it might be back to the 172 to practice a few more crosswind landings.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, ClintonB said:

A bit like reading about our RAAF personal sent to fly P40s to Papua New Guinea to fight japs after learning in tigers and low powered trainers. In the book 44 days it was mentioned several were lost on way up coast within hours of takeoff, training had consisted of go read the manual and taxi around.

the true pressures on RAAF pilots were probably much higher than the guy just wanting to have a nice toy, but results the same.

Clinton I’d like to read more about those P-40s. They appear in my mum’s war diaries- she was an aircraft observer and her account of 52 Kitty Hawks flying north is quite stirring, coming after months of defeats and ominous news about how close the enemy was getting.

 

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

The main factor in the accident is simply pure, breathtaking arrogance coupled with a "know-it-all" attitude. It seems to be amplified when the owner is extremely wealthy.

 

But breathtaking arrogance, and "know-it-all" attitudes, are not the preserve of the ultra-rich, it affects every level of society.

 

 

Edited by onetrack
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Old Koreelah said:

Clinton I’d like to read more about those P-40s. They appear in my mum’s war diaries- she was an aircraft observer and her account of 52 Kitty Hawks flying north is quite stirring, coming after months of defeats and ominous news about how close the enemy was getting.

 

My uncle flew Kittyhawks in PNG, sadly he's passed away. He was only 18 at the time and I recall him saying, in about 1965, that he was "sh1t scared the whole time".

  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cooperplace said:

My uncle flew Kittyhawks in PNG, sadly he's passed away. He was only 18 at the time and I recall him saying, in about 1965, that he was "sh1t scared the whole time".

One memorable report of the fighting at Milne Bay: the enemy was so close to the airfield that the P-40s were strafing them before they had time to retract their wheels.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My uncle passed in 2001; when I was younger I never appreciated what he and my father did in the war. Also they didn't want to talk about it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The breaking of nose wheels is a common occurrence in cheap aircraft, why can't rich people have a go.

 

Screenshot_20210601-050023_Facebook.jpg

  • Haha 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 03/06/2021 at 11:41 AM, Old Koreelah said:

One memorable report of the fighting at Milne Bay: the enemy was so close to the airfield that the P-40s were strafing them before they had time to retract their wheels.

 

That's almost certainly no exaggeration as all 3 of the Milne Bay airstrips align with the Bay N & S coasts for the reason that there isn't enough 'flat' land at the head of the Bay which would allow N - S direction takeoffs. Add to this a line of steep mountains on the N side over which an approach would be more than hazardous.  I flew in/out of Gurney several times during 1967-1970 in both C185s and in PA-23-250 Aztecs. Taking off into the east, ie toward the water, the Aztec wheels had barely retracted when we were over water.  The runway was totally 'Marsden' matting in the 60's, but had sunken in places, and made the most frightening rattle under the aircraft. I always had visions of those steel sheets unhooking, and ripping the tyres to shreds. Happily, they stayed locked up - just as the Allied airstrip builders originally fitted them in 1942.  The weather in the Milne Bay area is usually atrocious - low ceilings, rains every day, and that hasn't changed in the interim since WW2.

PNG-Milne_map.gif

PNG-modern day Gurney airport milnebay.jpg

Marsten matting ex WW2.jpg

PNG - Milne Bay 1943 Gurney strip.jpg

  • Like 2
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

And now to add some actual discussion of the facts rather than bashing people because they have money.  

I have read another commentary that says of the small number of M600s built ( if I recall it’s less than a hundred built  about 10 % have had runway excursions in crosswind landings some with pilots with thousands of hours. 
Apparently the linkage of the nose wheel is such that in a strong  crosswind performing a crossed  controls crosswind technique  landing ( ie. wings into the wind and Rudder DOWNWIND) the nose wheel is linked to turn the same direction as the rudder will take the aircraft. No surprise there it’s a common set up. However, the M600 apparently has a greater angle of the wheel than many other aircraft. When aircraft touches down using cross controls technique unless you are into it quickly the wheels are lined up to take you off the runway in the downwind side. 
So required technique is when mains are on the ground keep the nose off and then with immaculate precision judge the dynamic situation of applying opposite rudder to counter the effect of the wind without the balance of the ailerons. Apparently a really tricky feat in that aircraft. 
 

he apparently transitioned from C172s  where the nose wheel doesn’t have this effect at all. 

  • Informative 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Jaba-who said:

 

he apparently transitioned from C172s  where the nose wheel doesn’t have this effect at all.

Yes, not only a low hours pilot, but his transition training must have been inadequate if it didn't include crosswind ops. Surely this would have been covered?  Much less likely to happen in Australia where a signoff by an instructor implies that the endorsee or checked pilot has met the 'general competency' rule. This rule also catches people who have not conducted/experienced, an adequate BFR/AFR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I clearly agree that he was inexperienced and that inexperience got the better of him. but also feel that there’s a lot of jealousy and “that’ll teach you to be rich!!” in amongst the commentary. Personally I think the discussion should revolve around the aviation issues. 
 

so he has the money and decides to buy his dream plane at the beginning of his flying life. That’s not unreasonable, many many pilots buy the best they can afford at the beginning which for most  happens to be a 40 year old Cessna. Low hour pilots ding up their  ol’ 152s and none of us calls them arrogant or questions the fact they can afford a plane, of any sort, over their neighbour who can’t afford a new car.
 

Remembering that if a  Cessna driver has a ding all the non pilots in society  say exactly the same about us  - rich arrogant [email protected]&$“@d deserve everything they get!!  
 

I’ve  been a bit stunned at the level of venom thrown at him on forums from fellow pilots. Also stunned at the ridiculous inferences piled on top of him for other facets in his flight. His aircraft was uninsured - that was enough to have some  claim he should have his licence taken off him! 
He flew part of the flight legally and safely above 10,000 feet on oxygen. That Obviously made him a total idiot, according to some apparently. 
 

He didn’t attend the factory training program at the factory but was trained at his home field by an instructor who HAD  done it. That apparently means he’s an an arrogant  fool.
 

Im a bit saddened but don’t really expect more. The saying is that “Pilots eat their young!”  

 
 

Edited by Jaba-who
  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, poteroo said:

Yes, not only a low hours pilot, but his transition training must have been inadequate if it didn't include crosswind ops. Surely this would have been covered?  Much less likely to happen in Australia where a signoff by an instructor implies that the endorsee or checked pilot has met the 'general competency' rule. This rule also catches people who have not conducted/experienced, an adequate BFR/AFR.

I disagree. Adequate  Cross wind  training doesn’t stop you ever having a cross wind landing accident ( speaking from experience).
All it takes is things being a bit different to the conditions in the days of training and even small deficiencies that would never be called inadequate training can rear up and bite you. 
Mine was lots of Cross wind training at normal airfields but on the day to land at an airport which has rows of trees alongside the runway with the threshold being in a hollow creating rolling turbulence as well as cross wind, and a wind sock only  at the far end of the runway out in the open which always shows a completely different wind to what’s at the threshold. All very different to a training airport. 

The logic of saying training was clearly deficient because an accident occurred is that all training is thus deficient if any aircraft has a crash which they do all the time. Careful with that that’s feeding right into CASA closing us all down.  

Edited by Jaba-who
  • Agree 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

My thoughts below for what they're worth.

I don't think it's unreasonable to agree inexperience was the cause of the accident. Putting aside the "rich boy deserves it" (which I don't believe is fair), he was legal. 

 

However in Australia to get a driver license for a car you need 200 hours experience. This experience is not to teach you how to drive a car, anyone can drive a car with a few hours of practice. It's more around the situational awareness, reading other drivers, learning to drive to the conditions etc. After the Learning permit another 2 years of restricted driving eg. limited passengers, no high performance cars. etc.

 

This goes to my point. He was perfectly legal and within his rights to fly what he did, but lacked the experience of a high performance A/C. If it were me and cash wasn't an obstacle, I would hire an instructor to be with me for the first 200 - 300 hours of flying this plane and get a professional opinion to confirm I were competent on my own before doing so. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
34 minutes ago, flyingbaz said:

My thoughts below for what they're worth.

I don't think it's unreasonable to agree inexperience was the cause of the accident. Putting aside the "rich boy deserves it" (which I don't believe is fair), he was legal. 

 

However in Australia to get a driver license for a car you need 200 hours experience. This experience is not to teach you how to drive a car, anyone can drive a car with a few hours of practice. It's more around the situational awareness, reading other drivers, learning to drive to the conditions etc. After the Learning permit another 2 years of restricted driving eg. limited passengers, no high performance cars. etc.

 

This goes to my point. He was perfectly legal and within his rights to fly what he did, but lacked the experience of a high performance A/C. If it were me and cash wasn't an obstacle, I would hire an instructor to be with me for the first 200 - 300 hours of flying this plane and get a professional opinion to confirm I were competent on my own before doing so. 

I agree. If it were me I would done as you suggest. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Jaba-who said:

And now to add some actual discussion of the facts rather than bashing people because they have money.  

I have read another commentary that says of the small number of M600s built ( if I recall it’s less than a hundred built  about 10 % have had runway excursions in crosswind landings some with pilots with thousands of hours. 
Apparently the linkage of the nose wheel is such that in a strong  crosswind performing a crossed  controls crosswind technique  landing ( ie. wings into the wind and Rudder DOWNWIND) the nose wheel is linked to turn the same direction as the rudder will take the aircraft. No surprise there it’s a common set up. However, the M600 apparently has a greater angle of the wheel than many other aircraft. When aircraft touches down using cross controls technique unless you are into it quickly the wheels are lined up to take you off the runway in the downwind side. 
So required technique is when mains are on the ground keep the nose off and then with immaculate precision judge the dynamic situation of applying opposite rudder to counter the effect of the wind without the balance of the ailerons. Apparently a really tricky feat in that aircraft. 
 

he apparently transitioned from C172s  where the nose wheel doesn’t have this effect at all. 

Piper training technique is Crab into wind coming down, flare, boot it around straight as you touch, and you can land with the nose wheel straight 10/10.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyone can have an accident, and being rich is not a crime, but at the very least I think this shows an astonishing degree of overconfidence given his limited experience and skill level. Sending someone else to take the factory offered training instead of making the effort to go himself doesn't say much for his attitude either.  Fortunately he just bent the plane and didn't kill anyone. 

 

 

 

  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

What annoys me is the pilot saying there was a fault in the aircraft. Control continuity to the nose wheel was found. 11 knots reported by the weather station is nothing for a nose wheel aircraft of this size and speed. Aircraft insurance is high and becoming increasingly hard to obtain because of these types of pilot "errors",  yes I realise this pilot did not have insurance because he could not get it. When cessna fitted a nose wheel to the C170 in 1956 to create the 172 they called it Land-O-Matic for good reason.  

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
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...