turboplanner

Who said it was about my level of skill? Certainly not I! Again an assumption you have dreamed up.One thing you are absolutely correct about though is what this thread is about, so why not contribute something positive to it!I`ve simply tried to show that training for engine failure in an Ultralight and for Ultralight pilots, pulling out at 500` agl is a joke because as we all know, it`s only the last bit at the bottom that does the damage.

Oh! By the way! why am I not surprised you reply to my question would be "no and no"

 

Frank.

So are you saying LL training is a silly idea Turbs?It is accessible to all if they want it, I have started mine with RAA I just have to get myself organised to finish it.

I would say that even the little I have done has shown me how inadequate I am. Certainly an eye opener that imo we all should go through. Has it made me a cowboy? Well truthfully I have probably always been the cowboy type and if anything it has made me less likely to do silly LL flying.

With your aircraft, I think it's a great idea because of your aircraft's STOL performance, and the situations you could get into.

Would I take the next step and mandate LL into the training syllabus? No it would add substantially to the cost of getting a Certificate, would require substantially more training for instructor qualifications, and with the current training for speeds, maintaining Rate 1 (30 deg) turns, landing straight ahead or with minimum deviations, and simple forced landing checks, a newly qualified pilot will have a reasonable level of subconscious/ reactionary skills which will have about the same outcome, or better, than someone who did a couple of hours LL five years ago, and

now has to remember what he was told, as the aircraft is going down.

If you take a look at the Quicksilver accident on another thread, it shows how quickly things cross from being routine, as trained, to unrecoverable.

The accident history of RAA/AUF doesn't show a lot of fatalities from slamming into power lines, fences and trees while trying to thread a path at low level; it all seems to go wrong higher up.

Again, in summary, I'm not against LL training, and there is a pathway for you to do it legally.; that of course being quite different to saying "Well since I was trained, I can now fly below 500 feet.

As for practicing engine outs to 500ft, that is nearly laughable. It would be like the roads and maritime driving inspector testing your parallel parking skills by driving past the spaces and telling them which one you were going to use then having it ticked off.

Regardless of that there are regulations for forced landing practice.

I`m not fueled by anyone and you`re entitled to your opinions, regardless of what they remind you of.Please tell me if you`ve ever instructed in an Ultralight aircraft and if you have had any engine failure in any Ultralight you`ve been flying and walked away from!...I talk from the experience of both scenarios.

Frank.

This thread is not about your level of skills or teaching; it relates to someone who is no longer with us, and what might have happened here.

That's a slightly bigger version of what I was thinking about; I've been out in one. With that flywheel and lower compression, starting doesn't look too bad.

That's a slightly bigger version of what I was thinking about; I've been out in one. With that flywheel and lower compression, starting doesn't look too bad.

I find it hard to agree to stop training for the accident you are trying to prevent because the very accident you are trying to prevent is occurring.What that says to me, is, " You can`t train to achieve the ability required to stop that accident occurring but hopefully, it won`t happen or if it does, you might be able to deal with it and survive". It also says to me, "The instructor is not capable of preventing the accident, in training".

 

Forgetting GA aircraft.

 

I had the advantage of beginning to instruct in the Drifter off my own property when we were only legal to 500` agl; Throughout the country, there had already been numerous fatal accidents resulting from engine failure and I believed this was unacceptable but I didn`t stop instructing on how to survive engine failure because I might get it wrong and cause the very accident I was trying to prevent, I put a lot of time and effort into instructing on how to get back onto the ground safely and that meant flying the aircraft all the way to landing back on the strip.

 

What is the point in training for engine failure and pulling out at 500` agl.?

 

Frank.

Regardless of what you might think, you have a set of regulations you have to comply with, and these are based on reducing the injury and fatality rate.

Sorry Turbs but they are here, and form a part of the "Whatever your problem is, society is to blame generation"' and are encouraged by a media blitz by numerous law firms roughly stating "That if you have had an accident or think you received the rough end of the pineapple from someone" then come and see us for compensation.I can get out of bed, sneeze, bend over, start a lawnmower and risk hurting my back. Why then (Using this case as an example) should a boat owner even be considered liable if a hirer injures his back in starting the 3 1/2hp motor of the boat?The current system would prosecute a case based on negligence by the owner as not providing the necessary training, inadequate supervision and a host of other reasons, when in simple terms it can happen to anyone at anytime.

 

In the meantime the owner goes bankrupt trying to defend himself.

How you could injure your back starting a 3 1/2 hp outboard, I wouldn't know, but again, you'd have to prove that the owner of that particular motor was negligent, and if it was exactly the same as a million other 3 1/2 hp outboards around the world, that would be some job.

Sorry Turbs but they are here, and form a part of the "Whatever your problem is, society is to blame generation"' and are encouraged by a media blitz by numerous law firms roughly stating "That if you have had an accident or think you received the rough end of the pineapple from someone" then come and see us for compensation.I can get out of bed, sneeze, bend over, start a lawnmower and risk hurting my back. Why then (Using this case as an example) should a boat owner even be considered liable if a hirer injures his back in starting the 3 1/2hp motor of the boat?

The current system would prosecute a case based on negligence by the owner as not providing the necessary training, inadequate supervision and a host of other reasons, when in simple terms it can happen to anyone at anytime.

 

In the meantime the owner goes bankrupt trying to defend himself.

Same as you don't see beer bottles lining the side of the highways any more; most people have lifted their game.

How you could injure your back starting a 3 1/2 hp outboard, I wouldn't know, but again, you'd have to prove that the owner of that particular motor was negligent, and if it was exactly the same as a million other 3 1/2 hp outboards around the world, that would be some job.

Turbs,It's just an overall summary of the situation.I lived in an era where we have gone from where safety was ruled by the Darwin Principal, where stupid people doing stupid things were weeded out by their actions to a situation where everything thing is "dumbed" down to the lowest level to protect and preserve those effected by the now defunked Darwin Principle.

 

One Result.

 

There used to be !00's of boat sheds up & down the coastline who used to rent out putt-putt boats for people to tour and explore the water ways, these are now gone because of liability issues, so it would seem that the current system recognizes that the "Average Joe" does not possess the intelligence to handle the situations that may arise in operating the said putt putt boat. .

 

Now the people who are survivors of this new system are breeding, and that's more of a worry.

Turbs,It's just an overall summary of the situation.

I lived in an era where we have gone from where safety was ruled by the Darwin Principal, where stupid people doing stupid things were weeded out by their actions to a situation where everything thing is "dumbed" down to the lowest level to protect and preserve those effected by the now defunked Darwin Principle.

 

One Result.

 

There used to be !00's of boat sheds up & down the coastline who used to rent out putt-putt boats for people to tour and explore the water ways, these are now gone because of liability issues, so it would seem that the current system recognizes that the "Average Joe" does not possess the intelligence to handle the situations that may arise in operating the said putt putt boat. .

 

Now the people who are survivors of this new system are breeding, and that's more of a worry.

The putt putts from memory were very low cost hire, but very limited in where you could go - you couldn't use them for fishing. The operation relied on them being left on the beach in a row overnight. I can recall one operator shutting down because of the cost of vandalism, so I suspect the market just changes and they went out of business like the city-fringe holiday towns. Maybe people were drowned and sued and won Ron, but just didn't make the headlines.

What I was talking about was loss of control in the final stages of a forced landing because they haven't spent any time handling an aircraft close to the ground. If pilots are stall/spinning from 1100 feet just because the fan stopped, things are worse than I thought.

As previously mentioned, I have had LL training, and the point I have tried to make is that until I had done it, I had no idea how intimidating it can be if you haven't done it before.

 

I tend to not fly away over stuff I can't land on or at least glide to, but paddocks without trees and power lines are just dreams. The confidence and ability to manoeuvre close to the ground can be the difference between life and death at worst and serious injury or walking away. The better shape that aircraft is in, the better shape you will be in, especially in our lightweight slippery little machines.

 

I must ask....have you ever had a real forced landing? I have, and I thank the instructor that advised me to do some LL training. My aircraft and I were completely undamaged (excepting the engine damage that caused it).

 

Also if picking a field is number 2 on your checklist, you are already behind the aircraft, that should have been picked before the engine stopped.

I had a forced landing (student) with a cable breakon a glider; landed straight ahead on the strip.

There's always 2 sides to a storyInsurance loophole leaves Bali scooter crash victim out of pocketRather than warn other tourists, a better result could be achieved by making tourists undergo a "Common Sense Test" before they try leave the country.

 

No Licence,No Helmet

It's always someone else's fault......... That's the Aussie Way.Here in Aus. This guy would just have to sue the bloke who hired him the bike to get a good result.

There's always 2 sides to a storyInsurance loophole leaves Bali scooter crash victim out of pocket

Rather than warn other tourists, a better result could be achieved by making tourists undergo a "Common Sense Test" before they try leave the country.

 

No Licence,No Helmet

It's always someone else's fault......... That's the Aussie Way.Here in Aus. This guy would just have to sue the bloke who hired him the bike to get a good result.

If you thought you could sue the hirer, you could try, but you would have to get over the hurdle of proving the hirer was negligent; something like a provable defective brake system.

It may come as a surprise, but most of the places I've trained in do engine failures down to the ground, but usually at their home strip, usually in the circuit area.I only know of two (in my vicinity) that that will ensure that you are competent down to the ground (1-2 feet) almost anywhere, where most will go around at 500 feet. It is my experience that this deprives you of the experience of having to handle the aircraft, power off, close to the ground, around trees and power lines.

There's nothing to stop you getting as many lessons as you like in LL with a qualified GA instructor.

There are good reasons forced landing practice below 500 feet was discontinued in GA; same reason or limiting single engine failures in twins to high altitude; people were being injured and killed when things went wrong, as they are much more likely to do when a failure occurs below 500 feet.

So you managed to find what I was talking about then?I suspect lack of LL awareness, poor handling close to the ground because it's all unfamiliar.

AUF incident reports used to feature a lot of engine failures with uneventful forced landings, but things have changed.

After my attendance of casa safety seminars over the last couple of years, I see nothing dissagree with in Gravity's comments.What's funny or ironic, is that the majority of the attendee's are one form or another of recreational pilot actively being pro-active about safety, yet I think there is a strong distain from casa about non-proffesional pilots....

And that’s the planes fault is it?

I like skippy's point about using your plane enough.Just like people pay for somebody to walk their dog, we should arrange for our planes to be flown if we can't or wont.

Taking a junior "partner" might be a good way to achieve this. How silly to have juniors unable to fly because they can't afford the hire costs when at the same airfield there are neglected planes getting very expensive rust from inactivity.

 

I'm going to think more on this as I'm getting old. Maybe Turbs can come up with a paperwork plan so you wouldn't go straight to jail if the other partner crashed and you had done the maintenance.

Sounds like a good idea; it would work best having the aircraft on line so it’s under supervision of the CFI. The GA line aircraft system seemed to break down on hires after the licence point involving touring and arguments over damage away from the field.

Engine failure shouldn’t kill you in any caseAircraft is fully controllable all the way to the ground

If you mess it up it’s not the aircrafts fault

If it looks like a duck.....you know the rest.

CASA would Luv to ground all GA A/C & deal with the RPT guys, far safer. Remember CASA's Moto......safe skies are M/T skies

Interesting article just found on Bush Flyers down Under, about the media's poor journalistic performance on the Hawkesbury Beaver crash -Plane Truths and Knee-jerk Reporting

Is that definitive turbo? I've never heard so many references to medical episodes being likely causes, it seems that just about every time there's a crash someone suggests a medical episode is the likely cause. So - are RAA, ATSB etc now looking at medical episodes as being the most likely factor "before other possibilities"?

In general, there are a lot of older people, retirees etc who have bought or built an aircraft on superannuation, so it's understandable that medical issues will feature in crashes more than they did in the 1970's etc.

However you raise a very important point.

In the case of heart attacks, I wonder how many were the RESULT of getting into serious difficulty rather than being the CAUSE of the accident?

Has anyone received an email from RAAus about this? Last year they were emailing out a few days after fatal accidents

Fact: the result was decided by 800 proxy votes solicited by a couple of people at our expense - admittedly those who gave the proxy votes had the opportunity to not do so, so they were legal votes.

1. If there was a substantial travel cost, this should have been approved by the board members prior to the travel taking place.

2. I assume two board members were involved in the travelling and any soliciting of proxy votes, and there were no employees involved.

3. To avoid any claims of vote stacking by proxies, there would have needed to be VERY clear, and correct, "for" and "against" cases.