onetrack

I've done a fair amount of cropping, and I can identify crops pretty rapidly, and I can tell you this much -  the spot where that aircraft is lying isn't oil seed rape (or canola) - it's actually wheat.

Another fine example of journalism accuracy at its best. I'll wager the journalist wouldn't be able to identify any crop accurately.

Floscan offer a fuel pressure flow dampener that smoothes out pressure pulsations.

http://www.floscan.com/html/blue/accessorydetail.php?aid=98

Just mind-blowing scenery. 12,000 feet elevation would make me start to feel a bit faint or crook. All I can think of is - how did they get the earthmoving equipment in there, to build the airstrip?

That wasn't a dive, it was a vertical fall with no control systems inputs. It looks like a rock falling out of the sky. That scenario has to be a major in-flight breakup. 

I don't reckon that aircraft fell from 12,000 feet, or some of the skydivers would have survived by jumping. The reports are, that it crashed not long after takeoff.

There are witness reports that some of the skydivers tried to jump, but the aircraft was too low for their parachutes to open.

Perhaps the witness reports were wrong, and what they saw was simply bodies being flung from the falling aircraft, as it disintegrated.

What is interesting is the aircraft is reported to have "undergone inspection" only 3 weeks ago, and no problems, or potential problems were found. Obviously, that inspection was inadequate.

The ATSB is going to get involved in the investigation, because of the fact that it's an Australian-built aircraft - and no doubt the Swedish aviation authorities will be wanting to know a lot more about the Airvan.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/15/skydiving-plane-crash-kills-all-nine-on-board

https://www.thelocal.se/20190715/what-we-know-about-the-fatal-plane-crash-in-northern-sweden-so-far

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/aussies-to-help-investigate-deadly-swedish-plane-crash/news-story/eef19defb0dde9955a7ddc9b928c6a98

I can't really put my finger on it, but the Xenforo page layout was better. Maybe a wider margin, and slightly different colours, and a slightly different menu layout - but I think the Xenforo layout, fonts, and colours, were superior.

+1 for the Xenforo look-alike scheme. A good scheme has pastel colours, rather than strong bold colours that are hard on the eyes, particularly where there's a number of strong colours providing very sharp contrast.

Rubber degrades with age and the effect of sunlight, and the small percentage of ozone in the air. Even if kept in dark conditions, rubber components still slowly degrade, by hardening and losing strength.

5 years is a regularly recommended changeover period for critical rubberised components, you might be able to run them for 10 years, if they're kept in dark, covered conditions. I'd say replace them.

WW1 was actually worse for terrible war surplus waste. At the end of WW1, the RAF owned 22,000 aircraft!

Quite a number of the Sopwiths in late 1918 still had zero hours on them, and these new aircraft were scrapped without ever leaving the ground.

Of the 22,647 aircraft the RAF owned in late 1918, more than 80% went for scrap.

Pushing the boundaries of your piloting skills by attempting a borderline VFR flight into complete darkness is the only glaring reason for John Kennedy Jr's fatal crash. The Kennedys were famous for risky behaviour.

The NTSB conducted a thorough enquiry and concluded that the crash was due to the pilots "failure to maintain control of the airplane during a descent over water at night, which was a result of spatial disorientation".

That is an investigation carried out by experts, who also look for evidence of possible foul play in crashes.

Even JKj's last instructor advised he wasn't yet ready for instrument evaluation, and needed additional training. He stated that JKj had the ability to fly to Martha's vineyard at the time of the flight, only if a visible horizon existed.

Any faintly visible horizon JK Junior might have had, vanished during his descent, due to haze and the blending of dark water, dark land, and dark night.

He chose to fly without filing a flight plan, he originally planned to take off in good light at 18:00Hrs but did not depart until 20:39Hrs, more than 30 mins after sunset.

In addition, the final nail in his coffin was his decision to fly the route over 30 miles of water and then descend over water at night, whilst approaching the coastline.

In hazy conditions, at night, with no IFR qualification, JK jr simply flew far beyond his skills level. As with so many fatal crash pilots, they think they're more skilled than they are.

This ATSB report is 15 yrs old now, but even in 2004, the safety of light helicopters, and Robbies in particular, was no worse than any of the other heavier or more commercial versions.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/36750/Light_utility_helico.pdf

One has to remember that Robbies are bought in big numbers, often flown to their limits in conditions that are regularly extreme, and owned and operated by rural property owners and employees, who quite often have a cavalier approach to aviation.

The helicopter played a major part in every area of the Vietnam War and the UH-1 demonstrated a robustness and reliability that was nothing short of incredible. Chickenhawk is still my favourite read. 

The history of the Kennedys is one of constant tragedies, but a lot of them were self-generated, because they pushed the boundaries of life to the limit. Even JFK himself almost didn't make it, during WW2.

One would suspect the Kennedy Curse was the karmic comeback for Joe Kennedys ruthless, unethical and totally corrupt behaviour.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_curse

OME - That's a great piece of historic filmwork, thanks for posting the link. Bit of a shame it wasn't in colour.

There's some fairly "leisurely" rates of climb with those old girls! Was that a fuel-saving move, or was that de-rigeur for aircraft of the era?

They really ramped up the differences with the number of horses and traps in use! I find it hard to believe there were still numbers of people using horses and traps in 1950. In the 1930's, yes, but not 1950.

I'll wager the huge amount of WW2 surplus aircraft made a big difference to aviation in Australia after the War. It certainly did, as regards trucks, jeeps, machinery and equipment.

I can recall reading of Stuart tanks going for £10 ($20) each at the Disposal Commissions Sales in 1947. 1950 was the first year since 1941 that fuel rationing still wasn't in place - along with price controls - but tyres were still in short supply.

As for houses, I bet most people  do minor plumbing and electrical things themselves, even if this is illegal

 

All too true, and it's not confined to electrical and plumbing, there's a lot of construction work and additions that are not building law compliant, nor are they approved by council.

But the problems start when there's an accident, or a failure of major concern. About then, is when the ordure hits the rotating blades, and the authorities are looking for the person responsible.

Thus, the reason for going over properties that you propose purchasing, very carefully.

In W.A. (not sure about other States), an electrician is now fully responsible for everything in an area he has worked in - even if he only opened up a manhole in the ceiling to fit a smoke alarm.

He/She is then deemed responsible for all wiring in the roof cavity, as he is supposed to have checked it all out, and made sure it was all compliant.

This has to be complete BS, I don't know how this can be enforced in a court of law - and I don't recall knowing of any recent cases where it has arisen.

The original installer needs to bear the burden of responsibility, not some poor bugger who came along later, and who didn't have time to, or couldn't inspect, every single item installed in the roof.

I understand our training systems are in a parlous state, and it's not getting any better. Many good, manual-job-training institutions, have been discarded in Govt reshuffles.

Govts are always looking to offload training responsibility onto businesses and organisations, and businesses are reluctant to train people unless there is great benefit to them, or some type of Govt subsidy for the training.

Apprenticeships are difficult to get, and mechanics and fitters are becoming merely component replacers, rather than good troubleshooters with excellent diagnostic skills.

Hook up the diagnostic computer or the code reader, and it'll tell you what's wrong, you don't need diagnostic skills or full understanding. It's not helped by manufacturers adding engineering complexity onto complexity every year. 

The simple problem is, that there are less and less people interested in fixing anything any more, as the years progress. So the trainers are retiring, and their skills are not being sought, nor passed on.

We baby boomers did our training courses and gained extensive experience in repairing all manner of things - and we were taught by master mechanics, and technicians with major skills sets.

The younger generations see no need to repair anything, it's, "rip out the offending major component and install a new one - or dump the whole thing, and buy a complete new unit".

It's hardly helped by the fact that the manufacturers have reduced costs so extensively, the cost to carry out major repair to items, is often simply uneconomic.

I don't know what the answer is, it's a very complex situation, but it's not getting any better. To me, there appears to be a concerted effort to dumb down the nation, with automated systems appearing everywhere - and aviation won't be spared from that, either.

I go to a lot of auctions, and I'm stunned that driving skills are dumbed down so much today, that the auction houses post signs, warning employees and auction buyers, that certain vehicles have manual transmissions, and special skill and training are required to operate those vehicles. 

Compressed air contains a lot of moisture, I think perhaps that might have been the concern, not the fact that air is dangerous in empty fuel tanks.

Millions of petrol vehicles drive around daily with half-full to near-empty petrol tanks, and they don't blow up - even though there's electrical wiring in petrol tanks, associated with senders, and in recent times, electric pumps, inside the tank.

You only need 3 to 5psi to move fuel from the ground up into tanks above the level of the container or tank.

4WD suppliers sell a jerrycan attachment to lift fuel into 4WD's from jerrycans, using compressed air (search for "Tanami pump"). 

There's never been any fires from that arrangement that I've ever heard of, or known about. You're more likely to have a fire start due to static from synthetic textiles in clothing.

But fires do start from spillage caused by overflowing tanks. That's where the real risk is. You must always ensure that there's no sources of ignition with 20M of any refuelling operation. That means checking ANY potential ignition source.

I've personally seen the Mobil fuel depot in Norseman, W.A., burn completely to the ground (in 1975) when a caravanner decided to refuel his petrol-powered car at a bowser in the depot, with his caravan attached.

Unfortunately, he forgot that his gas fridge was still running in his caravan, when he refuelled. He overfilled the car's tank, the spill ran under the 'van, the fumes rose or blew into the 'van - and WHOOMPH! - the whole lot went up.

They couldn't get the fire out in the car and 'van with the small ready-to-hand extinguishers, and the fire spread to the entire depot. I could see the smoke from 60kms away, and that made me check it out.

My local Golden Fleece agent use to use a little single cylinder Petter-diesel-powered portable fuel pump, to pump petrol from the bulk tanks on the tray of his truck to my above-ground (4500 litre) petrol tank.

But the oil companies stopped using this technique, because they had a few fires when the overhead tank overflowed, and the petrol splashed back down onto the Petter pumps exhaust system, and ignited.

So they changed the system to ensure that all overhead petrol pumping was only to be done by truck PTO-powered pumps.

I find it bizarre that you can " own " a plane and yet you are not allowed to do your own maintenance and servicing of your own property.

Bruce - Strictly speaking; aircraft, along with millions of other manufactured articles, are not "property". They are "chattels", not fixed to the ground, and able to be moved and repositioned at will.

When we own motorised equipment of any type, there is a duty of care attached to that equipment, that says we must take reasonable steps and precautions to ensure that innocent parties are not injured, killed, or suffer loss due to our carelessness in operating and maintaining that motorised equipment. 

I own cars and trucks and plant and equipment, yet I am responsible for the safe operation and conscientious maintenance of those items.

There are current laws that apply to me to ensure that maintenance and repair on those (non-aviation) items is carried out by "qualified persons".

I don't think aircraft are a lot different to any other motorised equipment in those respects. The simple fact remains, aircraft need to repaired and maintained by people who have demonstrated that they have the necessary skills to repair and maintain aircraft.

If you think you should be allowed to repair and maintain your aircraft without proving to anyone that you can do so competently, then I'm afraid your thought processes are not in line with the laws and regulations of the country in general.

I understand that what you're complaining about, is that a full LAME course and qualification, is not really necessary to repair and maintain RAAus aircraft.

As such, I'd respectfully suggest you would be well-advised to pursue legal and regulatory changes to develop a new level of lower R&M qualification (than LAME), that would only be applicable to privately-owned RAAus aircraft.

Kiter - The link below should provide what you need.

https://www.crc.id.au/xplane/charts/ERSA-2019-MAY-23/Marree (YMRE) FAC.pdf

KRviator, how do you touch down smoothly and accurately in the dark, in your RAAus aircraft, if you don't have landing lights fitted?

I don't recall seeing any LL's fitted to any RAAus aircraft, but I was under the impression that they're a pretty necessary part of landing accurately in the dark?

This whole discussion is centred around one blokes stupidity and failure to carry out a diversion or a precautionary landing when he (should have) realised he wasn't going to make Leigh Creek in daylight.

He could have even picked a local road to land on, in a pinch, it's not like there's lots of traffic or infrastructure out there, that he'd have to try and avoid.

There's simply no need to even try and produce a scenario where you'd try land in the dark, or in cloud or fog, simply because you failed to carry out a diversion or precautionary landing, as a matter of common sense.

I never cease to be amazed at how "getthereitis" takes overwhelming precedence in so many pilots minds, when running late, when it appears common sense is totally ignored.

I think perhaps the helicopter haters above, have failed to inform themselves of the reasons behind this Robbie crash - it was a wirestrike. Pilot error, pure and simple, nothing to do with Robbie reliability.

Very sizeable numbers of Robbie crashes can be sheeted home to cowboy operation.

Typically, the bloke in the N.W. of W.A. who decided he could ignore the factory recommended rotor life and decided on his own bat he could double the recommended rotor life. He paid for that decision with his life.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-031/

Can't help but think as good as that looks it might give some people a false sense of security. I really don't think that would be a great back up plan.

 

Yes, when you read the number of aviation forum reports, where pilots have reported electronic screens simply going black, or producing major display faults, it gives one the realisation that electronic screens are far from 100% trustworthy, and it certainly is a wise move to ensure that you have adequate skills to be able to continue to fly safely, without 100% reliance on a screen display.

I often wonder if the high density of the very cold water that Sully landed on, and the water smoothness, was the critical difference between a successful outcome, and a disastrous one.

I'm comparing his landing to the less-than-successful Ethiopian Airlines Flight 961 which ditched into shallow seawater off the Comoros Islands in 1996, when it ran out of fuel after being hijacked.

Despite the Ethiopian Captains best efforts, the 767 broke up rapidly on touchdown, and the majority of the passengers perished.

I would hazard a guess that if the Ethiopian Captain had managed to keep his wings level on touchdown, instead of dropping a wing, it might have helped more people survive - but that's easy to say when you weren't there, and fighting a loss of power and trying to avoid a stall and wing drop.

Yes, he still lives in the same suburb, it's just moved to Afghanistan. 

Last night I'd apparently moved to Canada - but today, it appears I'm back in Perth. Thank the Good Lord for that, I have no desire to live in Canada, the place is way too cold for this little Black Duck.

rhtrudder - Yes, the charging/lighting coils need to be tested for resistance, and the wiring checked for an internal break, which is not visible. Here's a link to an excellent UK site which offers a wealth of information on Rotaxes.

Scroll down to "lighting coil test".

http://www.aerofixaviation.co.uk/rotaxducatidcdiignitionsystemtesting.shtml 

Blueadventures - The answer to your question is in Section 1.14 of the relevant Chapter Twelve of CASA's aerodrome lighting regulations.

The PAL system reflects unbelievable, and totally unnecessary, technical and legislative intricacy, which is the hallmark of CASA.

https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/aerodromes/rpa/chap12.pdf

Well, as the saying goes - any crash you can walk away from, is a good one! What better place to crash, than an airstrip?! 

A later report says he flipped it, and the aircraft also caught fire? He's a lucky lad, then.

Poteroo - The rumour is, that despite "being in a hurry to Leave William Creek", the crash pilot did some Lake sightseeing on the way to Leigh Creek.

Thus, "the hurry to leave William Creek" is likely due to the crash pilot thinking he could squeeze in some Lake sightseeing, and still arrive at Leigh Creek on sunset.

So that explains the seemingly excessive flight time and slow flight speed from William Creek to Leigh Creek.

It's reliably reported a Mayday was called in just prior to crashing, thus the pilot was obviously in deep trouble, and had realised it.

Overall a terribly tragic and completely avoidable crash - even if the crash cause is found to be fuel exhaustion, rather than spatial disorientation. Both situations would have been easily avoidable with better judgement and planning.