Light aircraft crash at Heck Field 27/01/26

[skippydiesel]

21 hours ago, cscotthendry said:

 

 

Additionally, low wing aircraft with bubble canopies are death traps. If you have to put an aircraft down on rough ground, there's a good likelihood it's going to end up on its back. There have been many outlandings where the occupants of these types of planes survived the crash and died in the post-crash fire because the plane was upside down and they couldn't get out.

I'm not claiming that's what happened here, but I've never liked that configuration, on safety grounds.

 

Flying is totally unforgiving of failures and mistakes. Why increase your chances of dying, just to save some $$$.

I understand your point of view but then all small aircraft pilots have made a conscious decision to take the increased risk of flying. Whats a little more/less risk between flying friends?

 

I agree buble canopies may trap the crashed, inverted, surviving crew, who may then succumbed to a  post crash fire.

 

A fire is not inevitable, if it does occur injured crew will be in a very unpleasant situaton, no matter the aircraft configuration.

 

It makes sense that high wing (built in role cage) aircraft are expected to be inherently safer in this regard - I wonder what the statistics say ???.

 

Countering the above, to some degree, is the reality that most aircraft that offer greater cruise speed, for a given power, are low to mid wing (there are a few exceptions). I am sure the aspiring aerodynamicists amongst us, can give the reason (s) for this.

 

Its not usually about savaging $$$, it about the "mission" objectives.😈

[facthunter]

I can't think of too many Mid wing Light aircraft. They are complex to build. Nev

[BrendAn]

2 hours ago, skippydiesel said:

I understand your point of view but then all small aircraft pilots have made a conscious decision to take the increased risk of flying. Whats a little more/less risk between flying friends?

 

I agree buble canopies may trap the crashed, inverted, surviving crew, who may then succumbed to a  post crash fire.

 

A fire is not inevitable, if it does occur injured crew will be in a very unpleasant situaton, no matter the aircraft configuration.

 

It makes sense that high wing (built in role cage) aircraft are expected to be inherently safer in this regard - I wonder what the statistics say ???.

 

Countering the above, to some degree, is the reality that most aircraft that offer greater cruise speed, for a given power, are low to mid wing (there are a few exceptions). I am sure the aspiring aerodynamicists amongst us, can give the reason (s) for this.

 

Its not usually about savaging $$$, it about the "mission" objectives.😈

maybe its the drag of the struts on high wings slows them compared to a low wing

[tillmanr]

There are a number of cantilever high wings. And yes they seem to benefit from the absence of wing struts. 

[cscotthendry]

11 hours ago, tillmanr said:

There are a number of cantilever high wings. And yes they seem to benefit from the absence of wing struts. 

And they benefit from inherent stability with the weight suspended below the wing, so no need for much dihedral for stability. They also benefit from extra ground clearance to the wing, which is very helpful in an outlanding. They also benefit from better view of the ground from aloft. IMO, I can stand on the ground and look up at clouds all day, but to get up high and see the “god's view” of the world is why I fly. Also, I sunburn very quickly here in Oz, so I naturally prefer to have a “roof” over my head.

Just my 2¢.

[Feet Samuels]

The acrylic used in most canopies filters out about 97% of UV. I don’t know of any glider pilot spending 6 or more hours recumbent in a glider cockpit who gets any more sunburned than when they strapped in hot yes, sunburned… not really. Probably the drag from the wing/fuselage join in a high wing aircraft is of more consequence to the reduced efficiency that a faired strut. There aren’t many efficient high wing aeroplanes that I can think of. 

[facthunter]

What about C-130's ATRs and F27s .Cessna Caravans." Probably" is not a  useful term if you are  designing something. Struts  ARE a good way to strengthen a wing and save weight  in the wing structure without a critical carry through spar restricting Headroom. and failing from fatigue.  Access to doors is easier in a HIGH wing , but making a retractable gear can be harder. Nev

[Feet Samuels]

By efficiency, I mean just that. L/d or whatever way you measure this aerodynamic value. You’re talking about utility. By probably, I am allowing for the fact that some very efficient aircraft are shoulder wing like a JS-3 but most are mid-wing with carefully faired joins between wing and fuselage. By efficiency, I mean flying from Broken Hill to Tamworth on 2 litres of fuel. I don’t know how else to measure it. Probably there are other ways. 

[facthunter]

You are bringing Gliders into the equation Todays gliders are extremely aerodynamic AND expensive. . Nev

[Feet Samuels]

Sorry, I'll butt out. I thought the discussion was about out-landings, bubble canopies, high or low wing, UV exposure etc. Gliders to encompass a fairly wide range from basic to high performance, self launchers and touring motor gliders. You can buy a basic glider starting about $15,000 and a motor glider for about $50,000 - I don't regard this as being expensive compared to LSA types.  

[turboplanner]

out-landings? 

[BrendAn]

15 minutes ago, Feet Samuels said:

Sorry, I'll butt out. I thought the discussion was about out-landings, bubble canopies, high or low wing, UV exposure etc. Gliders to encompass a fairly wide range from basic to high performance, self launchers and touring motor gliders. You can buy a basic glider starting about $15,000 and a motor glider for about $50,000 - I don't regard this as being expensive compared to LSA types.  

No need to butt out.  

[facthunter]

The thread topic IS VERY SPECIFIC in this instance. and is on going and involves Fatalities. Nev

[Bexx]

Survivability arguments are ubiquitous and apply to all aircraft in some form or another. 
RVs are also ubiquitous and by and large have an excellent safety record - including crash worthiness - for controlled forced landings. Not perfect, but they’re experimental after all. 

 

We all know the investigation is going to largely focus on power plant suitability, reliability, maintenance and compliance practices. That’s a deep rabbit hole. 
no need to go down the low wing vs high wing rabbit hole. 

[kgwilson]

An engine failure or significant power loss at only 30-50 feet in the air and nowhere but tree stumps and scrub ahead of you to land in gives you no time at all to make any decisions other than to flare as best you can & fly as far in to the crash as possible. Low wing, high wing, bubble canopy, isn't going to make much difference at all. In theory if you can see 2 tree stumps the fuselage may fit between that would be the best option to absorb energy with both wings being ripped off. The problem is lack of altitude and time to make decisions.

 

A planned long distance flight means a lot of fuel is on board along with 2 occupants plus any baggage so the all up weight is substantial. 

 

Luck or the lack of it plays the biggest part. If there had been no fuel leak and no fire the occupants may well have survived and possibly without significant injuries. However this was not the case. The ATSB investigation should get to the bottom of all the issues given the speed at which assistance arrived plus witness and video evidence of the incident.

[facthunter]

In such circumstances, FIRE is almost Guaranteed. Unfortunately. Safety Pylons were used in some Planes to Make egress easier and Maybe  a fire extinguisher and race car style Fuel Tanks. ALL cost and weight.  Nev

[BrendAn]

10 minutes ago, facthunter said:

In such circumstances, FIRE is almost Guaranteed. Unfortunately. Safety Pylons were used in some Planes to Make egress easier and Maybe  a fire extinguisher and race car style Fuel Tanks. ALL cost and weight.  Nev

What is a safety pylon

[facthunter]

 A solid bit of structure at the front, usually. of the canopy, capable of taking the weight of the Aircraft.  Nev

[BrendAn]

1 minute ago, facthunter said:

 A solid bit of structure at the front, usually. of the canopy, capable of taking the weight of the Aircraft.  Nev

Thanks nev. 

[ClintonB]

Regardless of what happened, we have lost 2 aviators. Just like motor cars, zero fatalities is not an option, because shit happens. 
hopefully something comes out of findings that may help someone else make a decision.

i am sitting at  a cross road. 2 aeroplanes and a decision do I want to fly again or take up a less risky hobby.

 

[clouddancer]

Hey ClintonB, while aviation is “inherently risky”, we can all take steps to reduce risk, and also need to remember the hundreds of thousands of hours safely flown in a year, privately and commercially.

Taking a risk based look at our personal flying habits, not just saying, “it’ll be right”, using resources like instructors and other pilots we trust, can help us stay safe.

Not accepting any dodgy aircraft maintenance, or taking shortcuts will also help.