68volksy

I thought from previous posts it was (and now is again) being used in a flying school.

RA-Aus has certainly come a long way from its inception in the ultralight/rag-and-tube days without anybody looking too closely at things. While there's been a lot of people pushing for further and faster limits for RA-Aus, there's been very little discussion of the appropriateness of the regulatory framework to such advances in aircraft design and capability. The major failures of the regulatory framework highlighted in this investigation could well be the impetus for such a discussion to take place.

I wonder if there would be as much interest in the airframe/riveting issues if the aircraft was an owner-build... I think their could be issues with the fact it was a "factory-built" and the government has allowed ab-initio training to take place and people to charge good money for it. Also an issue they could latch onto is why such an aircraft was allowed to overfly a public gathering. Their has been next to no interest into all the single-aircraft RA-Aus accidents over the years, even those where people perished, however this accident, where no-one sustained any injuries, could well be the most damaging for the fraternity...

I don't think the ferris wheel location really contributed that much to this accident. The fact the plane was below 60ft and 160m from the threshold is a much more significant contributing factor in my view. It's pure speculation but I think it highly probable the Council could have moved the ferris wheel based on feedback from the general public. How often do we hear statements of "The plane almost knocked my chimney off it was so low" when we know full well the plane was well above that? Not hard to imagine similar statements being made in this instance and Council reacting accordingly.

It's just the ATSB way I think - they look at any and all possibilities. Each thing individually might not be significant but they all contribute to the picture that will be painted. I think the investigators would be more than a little frustrated with the simple things that they couldn't tick off - Pilot licence (School didn't exist) and wrong serial numbers on the Registration. I imagine these would be the first things for any and all accidents no matter what form of transport. Not a good look for the RA-Aus fraternity - especially if the root cause of this accident could be a simple matter of landing with a tail-wind and/or making the go-around decision too late...

Preliminary report out today: http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3525311/ao2011126_prelim.pdf

You're quite right Turbo - the final report will have the full detail. From past ATSB reports they'll go a fair way further than any RA-Aus investigation has ever gone is more my point. They should look at aircraft construction, sign-offs, compliance with standards, maintenance, licensing of pilot, training of pilot, council sign-off, ferris wheel operator risk assessments and the list goes on. If there's been a deviation in any of these areas they'll then look further i'd hope. If there's been a deviation and the reports comes from the Federal body there's generally a bit of commotion (although whether it results in anything is probably for the gods of bureaucracy to determine).

From my understanding they have the jurisdiction to investigate any and all aircraft accidents however they do not have to investigate all aircraft accidents. They've simply chosen in the past not to investigate. I'd say this one was elevated a bit simply due to the accident involving members of the public. With the level of detail they go to in their investigations and the fact they're the Federal body (not just state coroners courts) it should draw a good picture of the state of the Recreational industry at the moment.

Report from ATSB on this one is due out at any time now. Could make a very interesting read i'd imagine with the number of rocks they turn over in their investigations. Will it be be the first time for the ATSB investigators preparing a full report on an RA-Aus accident?

A good point of contact might be Teraya Miller or Albert Fleming at CASA also? They're the NSW Aviation Safety Advisors and travel the state talking to all the operators up to Qantaslink/Rex. Their contact details are on this website: http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_91317 . You'll see details for the advisors all around the country also. These guys are the "friendly" side of CASA - they have no delegations or anything and are employed purely in an advisory/educational role. They should at least be able to provide some clues as to where to start looking and are very approachable.

Personally i live by the mantra of "never use a large word when an exiguous one will do"...

I don't see any useful purpose to the "Prof Avius" material. The primary outcome of the article to someone in the early stages of learning or thinking about learning is nothing other than confusion and misinformation. The sheer number of fantastical illusions that some people (including myself) come up with in the first few lessons always provides amusement and this has just provided one more to throw into the mix. I very strongly agree that instructors should have a forum for discussions about training techniques and methods however I do not think the RA-Aus magazine is the tool for this discussion to take place. The CFI conference at Safeskies and the consistent growth in attendance numbers is something that RA-Aus should be taking note of very closely. Can't be too hard to organise a couple of day long conference purely for Instructors to get together. I agree with David10's statement about the magazine's implied authority and can see that a student who has read that article will now have the niggling thought in the back of their head that every landing should be a full-stop.

I do love playing Devlis Advocate... Good on Qantas for not pigeon-holing India! Just because they're currently a third-world country doesn't mean the people that live there are without intelligence or common sense. I think that a student that comes out of India through a school setup by Qantas will be considerably better trained than any of the kids of rich parents who come out here and pay top dollar. There's a billion people over there - imagine the quality of talent you'd be able to pull from a pool of that number if it wasn't only the kids of parents rich enough to send them overseas to study that you had to choose from! Add that to the fact that Qantas could probably afford to provide absolutely free training to only the best over there compared to the cost of training over here. Could even find some kids from here might head over there - it'll probably be a considerable amount cheaper than getting your commercial licence over here. They have that new Indian Mahindra aircraft they'll probably be able to access very cost-effectively also. Also 20 years from now will very likely see India and China as far and away the most highly trafficked airways in the world.

Any news on what caused the stoppage as yet?

Argument was money would be spent planting trees and landscaping which would attract more people. There might be some validity in the "we'll provide more services" argument I suppose but in my view it's very short-sighted. Most of the land-holders out there already have access to toilets and drinking water so the question in my mind is what else are they getting for the extra money each year?

Now that I like! Qantas shareholders however...

I read somewhere a little while back that it should be you, the pilot, that you're trying to line up on the centre line and not necessarily the aircraft. Helped very much in the first dozen hours or so. Most of the small aircraft we fly you're only going to be a foot or so off the centre line when you touch down - your right elbow sits pretty much in the middle of the aircraft. The single/tandem seaters this is a no-brainer. If you line up those big white dotted lines and then extend them towards you they should hit you right between the eyes. That said there's been many a time i've come to understand why they make runways considerably wider than an aircrafts undercarriage!

Can you imagine if they broadcast a story for every single car/motorcyle accident in the country where all occupants walked away without any injuries? Getting sick of the "falling out of the sky" statement from the media but what can we do?

Meeting was on today. Quick post for those who care. Landing fees and fees for parking outdoors (for the 1 aircraft that does) have remained largely unchanged. Very big point of stating that the fees for Recreational Aircraft will now be collected which I agree with however the only way of doing this could be quite confrontational i'd imagine. Big change is the imposition of "access charges" for those who own land with airside frontage who want access to the airport. Calculated at $6.64 (plus GST) per square metre of land with frontage plus extra if connected to septic system. I feel very sorry for anyone who owns land out there as its value would have just plummeted. Minimum lot size out there is 400 square metres which means their "rates" just increased by $2,921.60. On an average land value of $40,000 for these small lots its a big increase. Council rates will not change either. Todays speaker made a very strong argument that charging people more would result in more people coming and a better result for everyone. I'm sure there are others like myself who see a slight flaw in that logic? For those with aircraft hangered in other peoples hangers it's now a matter of waiting for the hanger owners to decide whether they'll pay or not. Feel sorry for the owners of aircraft that can't be left outdoors as they'll have no option but to move. The hanger where many of these smaller craft are kept (about 20 or so) looks to be up for over $40,000 per annum and todays statement was 'if anyone doesn't pay there will be a fence erected around their hanger'. Closest airfield is probably going to now be crookwell (Council sounds like they'd be happy to build them a hanger) for these guys or down to Cooma for the guys from Canberra.

In the Warrior I was taught first stage of flap as part of downwind checks. Second stage after the turn to base and after decreasing throttle. Then set for 80 knots (which i've found is pretty much impossible to miss with revs at 1800rpm and almost full forward trim). Third stage after turning final with full forward trim and you're sitting on 70 knots at 1800rpm. This pretty much has me hitting the threshold (still working on smoothing out that flare...) in anything up to about 15 knots headwind with only minor adjustments to pitch/power. Warrior flaps deploy at around 100kts so extending on downwind doesn't affect things too much. Teraya and Mike always seem to throw in some distraction or other to mess all this up though and get me out of the comfort zone which I suppose is a good thing...

Preliminary report now released. Looks like it could be an open/shut case of pilot error... http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-100.aspx

Does it look like a DC3 to anyone else?

I'd heard a couple of stories about amateur built GA's over the past couple of years that made me think there might be some similarities come to light between those incidents and RA-Aus incidents and my sentence in brackets should have had a question mark. Has anybody found the official statistic for deaths/serious accidents in RA-Aus aircraft yet?

Hi Bandit, If you're a fan of the statistics you have probably already found the ATSB summary report for the past 10 years: http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2011/ar2011020.aspx A good summary of operations. The Private/Business years 2006-2008 which had fatal accidents in the double digits are a little frightening however it's good to see only 3 fatal accidents occurred during 2010.

The ATSB guy was involved in the training of the Police aviation investigators and is a very reliable source. I always find it funny when they say "RA-Aus will investigate" as from my understanding they have no training or expertise in accident investigation. The NSW Police only have 1 or 2 trained investigators who have found themselves with quite a heavy workload of late by the sound of it.