Merged: Replica Spitfire Gympie crash

[onetrack]

The news services are running hot with reports of a replica Supermarine Spitfire going down about 10kms South of Gympie, QLD, at around 15:50 hrs this afternoon.

The pilot is deceased. He apparently wasn't a local, and neither was the plane, according to reports. Does anyone have confirmation of the registration?

Pilot Of Spitfire Dies In Gympie Plane Crash (http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/pilot-dies-in-plane-crash-near-gympie-20101022-16xoi.html?from=brisbanetimes_sb)

Supermarine Aircraft - About The Mk 26 (http://www.supermarineaircraft.com/Aboutold.htm)

[Nil defects]

Pilot killed in war bird crash
From: AAP October 22, 2010 6:40PM

A RESTORED war bird has crashed in central Queensland, killing the pilot.

The plane, which is believed to be a replica Spitfire, came down in a paddock off Lagoon Pocket Road, about 10km south of Gympie, just before 4pm (AEST), police said.

The only occupant, a male, was killed.

No other details are known at this stage.


RIP

[Ned Parsnip]

A RESTORED war bird has crashed in central Queensland, killing the pilot.

The plane, which is believed to be a replica Spitfire, Yes - 3/4 scale replica - not really a warbird.

http://media.apnonline.com.au/img/media/images/2010/10/22/spitfire_fct962x592x23_t325.jpg

[Checklist Charlie]

ATTN, Australian
From AAP (Arse About Printers!!!!)

War bird........No
A RESTORED War bird......No

A scale replica........Yes

Try this link
Man, 60, killed in Spitfire crash | National News | Breaking National News in Australia | The Sunshine Coast Daily (http://www.sunshinecoastdaily.com.au/story/2010/10/22/plane-crashes-near-gympie/)

CC

[RJM]

Man, 60, killed in Spitfire crash
22nd October 2010
A 60-YEAR-OLD man is dead after a plane crash near the Kybong airfield in Queensland, Australia.
The aircraft, believed to be a light plane came down on Lagoon Pocket Road just before 4pm.
Emergency services were enroute to the crash site.
There were reports the plane was a three-quarter replica Spitfire aircraft.

[500N]

Pilot dies in plane crash near Gympie Tony Moore

October 22, 2010 - 6:31PM
The pilot of a replica Spitfire plane has died when the aircraft crashed near Gympie just before 4pm this afternoon.
The pilot of a replica Spitfire plane has died when the aircraft crashed near Gympie just before 4pm this afternoon.
The Spitfire crashed in a field on Lagoon Pocket Road, about 10 kilometres south of Gympie, at about 3.50pm.
Police confirmed there was one male pilot, believed to be in his sixties, in the three-quarter sized replica Spitfire when it crashed.
Advertisement: Story continues below
Ambulance crews arrived at the crash site to find he had died.
Crews said there was no evidence of fire but the replica plane had received extensive nose damage during the crash.
The light plane crashed about one kilometre from houses, an emergency services spokeswoman said.
Ray Gresham, who lives 800 metres from Gympie Airport at Kybong, was watching the pilot doing circuits of the airport immediately before he crashed.
“It’s a three-quarter Spitfire , but it is not a local plane and he is not a local pilot,” Mr Gresham said.
“He is apparently in his sixties, the pilot.”
Mr Gresham said the pilot was doing practice circuits immediately before he crashed.
“Yeah, he wasn’t doing anything unusual. He wasn’t doing any aerobatics or anything that I was aware of,” he said.
“He certainly wasn’t doing any aerobatics or anything silly as far as I was concerned. It just seems he stalled it.”
He said he had been told the pilot had “fuelled up” before he had taken off.

[The Green Goblin]

“He certainly wasn’t doing any aerobatics or anything silly as far as I was concerned. It just seems he stalled it."


It seems Planky is back :p

RIP

[nightmode]

Saddened to hear of this one, the guy was a true gentleman.

[Arnold E]

Any idea what engine was in this particular machine?

[sprocket check]

Is that the one thatwas for sale in Gympie?

[rosssmith]

Do you have the rego or name...thanks

[Fris B. Fairing]

Aircraft was on the RAA register 19-4024.

Brisbane Sunday Mail this morning reports that police are still trying to identify the pilot.

[onetrack]

This particular Supermarine was powered by the GM Isuzu quad cam V6.

JetPhotos.Net Photo » 19-4024 (CN: 019) Private Spitfire Mk.XXVI by Robert Frola (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6454977&nseq=2)

JetPhotos.Net Photo » 19-4024 (CN: 019) Private Spitfire Mk.XXVI by Robert Frola (http://jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=6461651&nseq=6)

Judging by the level, pancaked position, it seems fair to assume that a low level stall was the reason behind the crash. Whether that was because of pilot error, or powerplant failure, remains to be seen.

http://www.wattsbridge.com.au/pdfs/qua_june2010.pdf

[captwawa]

sad to hear the news, rip B

[Gegenbeispiel]

It was an Isuzu 6-cyl, I think.

[Gegenbeispiel]

Gympie Times has reported that the pilot has been identified.

I found out from his family and colleagues on Sunday. A very sad loss, he was a wonderful friend and a brilliant colleague and mentor. RIP.

Gympie Times also reports that this was the first flight after maintenance at Gympie.

[VH-XXX]

The engine is an Isuzu built 3.5 litre alloy V6 as fitted a few years back in the Holden Rodeo in Australia. It was quite a powerful engine when it was released and used a lot of fuel. The engine was not a success in Australia and was dropped not long after as there were a significant number of them with piston slapping and out of round cylinders.

To put it into perspective, a mate who was teaching automotive at TAFE had a contact at Holden who asked if he wanted some engines for his students to work on. He agreed and the day after a day of annual leave he returned to find 284 warranty returned engines from GM Aust of which 282 were petrol and 2 were diesel. It was not uncommon for owners to have 3 replacement engines by 120,000kms on their vehicles.

GM put it down to differences in environmental factors between Japan and Australia :ugh:

That being said, a different story in the Spitfire. Fitted with a custom manufactured dual ignition system which was originally developed for the UK market where dual ignition is mandatory for aircraft. Also fitted with a belt drive unit.

Correctly configured, the engine was so smooth you could almost literally balance a $2 coin on it's end on the engine whilst it was running.


These are general comments and have nothing to do with the cause of the crash.

[onetrack]

From the Sunshine Coast Daily -

A MAN killed in a plane crash near Gympie last week was Tiger Moth acrobatic pilot Barry Uscinski.
The 75-year-old man’s name was released by police yesterday.

Doctor Uscinski was a former Brisbane man who moved to Cambridge, England, in 1966.
He was a research staff member at Christ’s College and had a keen interest in submarines.

Dr Uscinski was one of the few licensed in the UK to perform acrobatics in a Tiger Moth.

The replica Spitfire had been undergoing repairs on its landing equipment at Kybong before the crash.

Dr Uscinski was a regular at Watts Bridge Memorial Airfield at Toogoolawah, 41 kilometres south-west of Kilcoy.

The Gympie Times article... Spitfire crash victim identified | Gympie News | Local News in Gympie | Gympie Times (http://www.gympietimes.com.au/story/2010/10/26/spitfire-crash-victim-barry-uscinski-plane/)


With a pilot age of 75, one has to place some kind of rapidly-incurred, age-related health condition, as high on the list for the reason for the crash. This is not to infer that Prof Uscinski was unfit... it's just that the chances of a stroke, heart attack, or any one of a dozen disabling health events, are more likely to occur at an advanced age.

The pilot was highly experienced, and had aerobatic skills, so it certainly doesn't appear to be a case of piloting inexperience being the cause of the crash.

The maintenance was on the landing gear, not the engine. The aircraft was first registered in December 2003, and it appears that no previous problems have been recorded or identified, as regards the engine or airframe.

There doesn't seem to be any real concern about the Isuzu V6's reliability when reworked as an aircraft engine. It appears there have been no reported engine failures, or engine concerns, in the replica Spitfire engines.
Mike Sullivans workmanship and thoroughness appears to be beyond suspicion. After all, he has had the replica certified in numerous countries... and not 3rd world countries, either.

I have been told the engines are produced by Honda for Isuzu. I cannot verify this. I am surprised at the high number of automotive engine rejections as indicated by VH-XXX.
90% of Japanese automotive engines are now produced in factories that are populated largely by assembly robots. In numerous cases, engines are assembled 100% by robots. This reduces assembly problems to a very low level.

However, the problem remains with high-volume production tooling, whereby wear on tooling has to be very carefully scrutinised, or tolerances commence to go out of spec. When this happens on large-scale production, all engines suffer from tolerance problems.

I was under the impression the high cost of the aircraft engine is related to total dis-assembly, and hand re-assembly... with blueprinting and modification of the engine, the main aim, to meet the more rigorous requirements of aircraft useage. Component balancing to much tighter levels than automotive requirements is high on the list... as is checking of all components for meeting precise specifications. Few people realise how many automotive engines are often assembled with components that barely meet specifications.

I was told a story about Holden engine assembly, many years ago... and have never been able to determine the story as true, or urban legend. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
The story goes that the Holden engine assembly line had a bloke checking component specs, and colour-marking them accordingly.
This gent doing the specification measuring was reputed to have had three colored chalks. Green, yellow, and red.

Green-chalked components fell into the ideal levels of meeting specifications. These components went into Export engines. Yellow-chalked components just met specifications. These components went into local production, private-sale vehicles. Red-chalked components were outside specifications, but could be passed with a shove. These components were installed in company fleet, and Govt-order vehicles... :suspect:

True or not? I don't know... but one things for sure... if we actually saw what happened when our beloved automotive motors were assembled in the factories, we would quite likely be appalled... :suspect:

[Andy_RR]

...the high cost of the aircraft engine is related to total dis-assembly, and hand re-assembly... with blueprinting and modification of the engine, the main aim, to meet the more rigorous requirements of aircraft useage. Component balancing to much tighter levels than automotive requirements is high on the list... as is checking of all components for meeting precise specifications.


This and most of what followed is a load of rot!

Aero engines are expensive because:

1 - of lawyers and the illogic of joint and several liability
2 - the extremely low production volumes
3 - because they can be.

The aero engne industry could learn a lot from the automotive sector if it weren't for the scoundrel lawyers getting in the way of progress!

[Sunfish]

Onetrack:

However, the problem remains with high-volume production tooling, whereby wear on tooling has to be very carefully scrutinised, or tolerances commence to go out of spec. When this happens on large-scale production, all engines suffer from tolerance problems.

I was under the impression the high cost of the aircraft engine is related to total dis-assembly, and hand re-assembly... with blueprinting and modification of the engine, the main aim, to meet the more rigorous requirements of aircraft useage. Component balancing to much tighter levels than automotive requirements is high on the list... as is checking of all components for meeting precise specifications. Few people realise how many automotive engines are often assembled with components that barely meet specifications.

I was told a story about Holden engine assembly, many years ago... and have never been able to determine the story as true, or urban legend. I wouldn't be surprised if it was true.
The story goes that the Holden engine assembly line had a bloke checking component specs, and colour-marking them accordingly.
This gent doing the specification measuring was reputed to have had three colored chalks. Green, yellow, and red.

Green-chalked components fell into the ideal levels of meeting specifications. These components went into Export engines. Yellow-chalked components just met specifications. These components went into local production, private-sale vehicles. Red-chalked components were outside specifications, but could be passed with a shove. These components were installed in company fleet, and Govt-order vehicles...

True or not? I don't know... but one things for sure... if we actually saw what happened when our beloved automotive motors were assembled in the factories, we would quite likely be appalled...


1. Production tooling doesn't "wear" like that any more. Furthermore statistical quality control has been in place for at least Forty years in Japan and any out of tolerance condition will be picked up by trend monitoring long before it causes problems.

The problems with the engines may well be due to environmental factors or design issues, such as coping with Australias hot summers. Be aware that most Japanese cars have an infinite number of variations to suit local markets, right down to the level of dust sealing applied. It could easily be that the engine concerned did not have a cooling system that could cope, or the torque curve of the engine was not matched to the gearbox and vehicle weight. You put a free revving engine in a situation where it can't rev and guess what happens?

2. Regarding the colour marking of parts on the Holden assembly line, what was seen was most probably correct, however the interpretation was most probably wrong. Where extra tight tolerances are required, for example con rod bearings and mains, we often use selective assembly.

While each component is within tolerance (say + or - 1 ), we measure each one individually and grade it within say three bands eg; Nominal -1, Nominal, Nominal +1. - mark them with your red white and blue chalks.

Measure the mating components the same way and mark them accordingly. By matching our components that both have tolerance bands of + or - 1, we can reduce the spread of tolerance on assembled units from 4 units to 2 units.


Of course if your process doesn't put out equal spreads between bands, you can end up with some head scratching engineering guesstimates to make.

My summer job one year was to sort out all this stuff for Medical gas fittings at the old CIG.

[Gegenbeispiel]

Just wanted to correct the news piece quoted by onetrack:

Dr Uscinski was a member of the research staff - a senior research associate - at Cambridge's Dept. of Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics. He was not associated with Christ's College, apart from maybe having supervised students there, AFAIK but was a former fellow of King's and Clare Colleges.

He will be very greatly missed. RIP.

[Up-into-the-air]

Barry Uninski was cleared of blame by the Coroner in a finding at Maroochydore.

The Coroner was scathing of casa [again]

The Coroners brief was as follows:

1. The findings required by s. 45(2) of the Coroners Act 2003; namely the identity of the deceased person, when, where and how he died and what caused his death;
2. The adequacy of the maintenance, repairs and testing of the aircraft, which had been conducted prior to the deceased’s final test flight;
3. The adequacy of the weight/balance and ‘best glide / stall speed’ information provided to the deceased for the aircraft; and
4. Whether any recommendations can be made to reduce the likelihood of deaths occurring in similar circumstances or otherwise contribute to public health and safety or the administration of justice.
22-Oct-10 GYMPIE

The Gympie Times article reported on the accident. (http://www.qt.com.au/news/dead-pilot-cleared-of-blame-by-coroner/2499744/)

Dead pilot cleared of blame by coroner

http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/account/avatars/female_generic_ct40x40.png

agorrie (http://www.qt.com.au/profile/agorrie/) | 2nd Jan 2015 6:22 AM



AUSTRALIA'S air safety and crash investigation systems failed at almost every level when an innocent pilot was falsely blamed for a fatal Mary Valley plane crash, a Gympie Coroner has found.


Coroner Maxine Baldwin's findings, delivered in Maroochydore on Monday, were scathing of processes adopted by authorities ranging from Gympie police to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.
Mrs Baldwin found too many people had accepted the word of the aircraft's manufacturer, who had lied about its weight to minimise registration costs.


Police had relied too heavily on investigations by others, the coroner found. Those others had not carried out good enough investigations.


One of those who accepted the manufacturer's advice was an engineer who had modified the aircraft's balance without knowing its true weight - about 200kg more than that shown on registration documents.

[Lucky Six]

When is someone going to be held to account? Something the new DAS should address.

Safe Flying

[Squawk7700]

With all due respect to the deceased and the Coroner, I don't buy this for a second.

Presumably the figures were modified initially so as to allow RA-Aus registration however we are led to believe that somehow the aircraft was assembled and NOT weighed? The builder must have known the actual weight was too high and the weighing records and weight and balance calculation followed to reflect this.

I would like to see the full transcripts.

Unless perhaps it was sold second hand and the new owner and maintenance providers were unaware of the actual weight of the aircraft.

Edit: Got it, I suspect the pilot was not the builder or owner.

[Draggertail]

The second last recommendation from the coroner was. "CASA should review its expectations of RA-Aus and conduct random audits"


More pain for RAAus or perhaps this was one of the drivers for the recent CASA audits.

[onetrack]

(The Coroner) Mrs Baldwin was scathing about the evidence of aircraft manufacturing chief executive Michael O'Sullivan, of Supermarine Aircraft Pty Ltd.

She said he had covered up the aircraft's excessive weight with "knowingly falsified documents" so he could register the plane under the less stringent requirements of Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus), which administered registrations of ultra light and light sports aircraft.

Mrs Baldwin recommended RA-Aus introduce a system of random checks on registration information and impose exemplary punishment on Mr O'Sullivan.

CASA should review its expectations of RA-Aus and conduct random audits. And police should improve procedures to ensure better security for exhibits, she also recommended.I'm no lawyer, but I suspect that "knowingly falsifying documents" that leads to an innocent persons death will produce accountability in a civil law court.
As far as criminal punishment goes, what is the current penalty for forging aircraft weight documents in an RA-Aus setting? Nothing? If so, then criminal penalties need to be introduced for such falsification.
I have always been intrigued as to how stringent the weight checks are for RA-Aus aircraft. Not very, so it appears.

[Squawk7700]

UL, that is not correct. Happy to chat about it via PM. Don't believe everything that you hear from the messiah.

Onetrack, there were two aircraft uncovered during the CASA audit of RA-Aus as having falsified weights, from memory they were C150's. As a result, the Australian Federal Police were engaged to investigate and act against the owners of the aircraft.

[Oracle1]

I think you will find that if a direct correlation exists between a falsified weight and a death from spinning in because of an incorrect stall speed it is firmly in the realms of criminal negligence. The problem will lie in the criminal burden of proof that this was the actual cause. Haven't read the Coroners report or seen a recommendation for charges. As usual it will fall back on the civil burden of proof and the deceased's family will be left to slug it out with the no win no pay rape you brigade.

My memory is a little dim now but I think the J400 starts to skirt that boundary of stall speed vs weight at Gross in the 19 category, relying on so called flight tests to determine the observed stall speed. CASA has been ruthless during its recent audits with bull**** weights and RAA. Signed for a few reweighs caught in the audit where the original numbers were total bull****. As for C-150's being allowed into the category the Tech Manager at the time should have just held a gun to his own head, how fu@%ing dum was that?

At the end of the day you just cant beat Darwin's law, there are numerous examples of belt driven re-drives killing, and I am willing to bet that wing was slippery and had a nasty break at the stall.

[Up-into-the-air]

The following is from the atsb website on data snet to RAAus:

http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/gympie-replica-spitfire-atsb-ae2010098.pdf

MTF

[Tankengine]

Is it just me, or is it that almost every time someone goes out and kills themselves through miss handling of an aircraft there is a rash of "ohh no, it must be the aircraft":*

A difference in stall speed due to a bit of weight should make no difference to flying it, does nobody actually feel what an aircraft is doing these days?:ugh:

[Jetjr]

I understand the legal side but
Being over its RAA max weight didnt cause the accident

Seems to be saying if it were differently registered it wouldnt have happened?

Stall speed often doesnt rise nearly as fast with weight as many believe.
The J400, mentioned above, gains just 3 kts stall speed when going from 544kg to 700kg

[Pinky the pilot]

does nobody actually feel what an aircraft is doing these days?

Does make one think now, does it not?:hmm:

[spinex]

I take it one would have to apply directly to the court for access to the coroner's report?

If the local paper has reported on the contents accurately and not just cherry picked a few extracts for the sake of a story, this seems to be yet another example of a coroner letting the technical issues slip through her fingers and instead prefer to find a smoking gun in a supposed inaccurate weight provided. Never mind establishing a factual basis between the overweight condition and the accident.

What they seemed to miss is that although there MAY have been some figure fudging to get the aircraft in under the RA Aus 600kg weight limit, the specs I have on the 80% scale aircraft state a MAUW of 810kg. Given that the aircraft doesn't know it has numbers instead of a VH rego, the extra 200kg is irrelevant. As for an engineer designing modifications without an actual W&B - I have my doubts if it was anything that would alter weight or controls.

Oh and UL, to support what Squawkie said, there is a lot more to the story re the other coroners report than what the odd bottom feeder would have you believe. Aside from anything else, there too the alleged inaccuracy had squat to do with the actual cause of the engine stoppage. For some reason an over developed sense of self importance is fairly common amongst those drawn to serve as coroners - the little tin god complex, a colleague who spends quite a bit of time there, calls it.:}

[peterc005]

The additional weight will increase the stall speed.

Possibly the POH stated a stall speed < 45 kt for RAA compliance, but the actual stall speed was greater.

[Draggertail]

Spinex, what you say may well be true. But don't forget the same legal system may be used by the relatives to sue. I would not like to be a person who signed any false documents to get RAAus rego.


The coroners reports in Queensland are usually published on the Coroner's website soon after release.

[rutan around]

Does anyone know whether or not the accident aircraft was fitted with an audible stall warning device. If it was it doesn't matter much what the placarded speed says. The aircraft would be yelling at you to do something about it's current situation.

[27/09]

Jetjr
Stall speed often doesnt rise nearly as fast with weight as many believe.
The J400, mentioned above, gains just 3 kts stall speed when going from 544kg to 700kg

The figures for the J400 don't quite add up.

From their website, 544 kg - 45 kts stall, 700 kg - 48 kts stall.

Stall speed increases by the square root of the load factor.

544 kg to 700 kg represents a load factor increase of 1.285.

The square root of 1.285 X 45 kts = 51 knots, - a 6 knot increase, double what's quoted.

[Dora-9]

The additional weight will increase the stall speed.
Now there's a statement of the bleeding obvious!

[Oracle1]

Is it just me, or is it that almost every time someone goes out and kills themselves through miss handling of an aircraft there is a rash of "ohh no, it must be the aircraft"

A difference in stall speed due to a bit of weight should make no difference to flying it, does nobody actually feel what an aircraft is doing these days?

Totally agree the training regime is totally inadequate when it comes to the bottom of the envelope! Go there sometime its enlightening! However there has to be recognition that changing to a new type can be lethal if you are under prepared.


I understand the legal side but
Being over its RAA max weight didnt cause the accident

Seems to be saying if it were differently registered it wouldnt have happened?


Why don't we just print whatever stall speed we want in the flight manual shall we, that way when we jump in an unfamiliar type we will be able to plan our approach with precision. Certification has its merits.


The figures for the J400 don't quite add up.

From their website, 544 kg - 45 kts stall, 700 kg - 48 kts stall.

Stall speed increases by the square root of the load factor.

544 kg to 700 kg represents a load factor increase of 1.285.

The square root of 1.285 X 45 kts = 51 knots, - a 6 knot increase, double what's quoted.


Thankyou 27/09, you just cant beat the math.

[Andy_RR]

Maybe Jabiru quote the maximum allowable stall speed for the 544kg class to give themselves some legal wiggle room. 48kts at 700kg is 42.3kts at 544kg. The extra two-and-a-bit knots padding might be legally useful in the RAAus environment

[spinex]

Draggertail - , what you say may well be true. But don't forget the same legal system may be used by the relatives to sue. I would not like to be a person who signed any false documents to get RAAus rego.

Agreed and that's why I'm a bit fussy about what I sign, however there is quite a long way to go from the ramblings of a coronial report, to establishing a causal connection and legal liability in a civil case.

Thanks for the reminder re the reports, I went looking on the list and it hasn't been put up yet. What I did find a few lines down however, was the report into Garry Sweetnam's accident in the Zenith off the Gold Coast. In that case at least RA Aus were complimented on their professionalism in the investigation (despite this being a VH rego).

[27/09]

Maybe Jabiru quote the maximum allowable stall speed for the 544kg class to give themselves some legal wiggle room. 48kts at 700kg is 42.3kts at 544kg. The extra two-and-a-bit knots padding might be legally useful in the RAAus environment

Why would they do that?

[Squawk7700]

As much as 48 looks incorrect, in GA world the stall speed should be verified during initial test flying, however this is near on impossible in a Jabiru as it specifically states in the POH that high angles of attack will affect greatly the IAS. Figures are a guide only and will be affected as a result of the individual build process.

Doesn't help much, just muddies the waters further.

[Up-into-the-air]

The report is available now and has been downloaded to:

Coroners report - Uscinski-20141229 (http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/cif-uscinski-20141229.pdf)

and comments at: http://vocasupport.com/gympie-coroners-report-released-today/

[Sunfish]

.......and thus the GA/RA segment of the Australian Aviation industry shoots itself in the foot yet again.

[spinex]

What a pile of steaming horse manure!

No-one comes out of that smelling very good and in that I specifically include the coroner who seems to have a bad case of the cultural cringe. Obviously hick local instructors would have no hope of teaching a man of quicksilver intellect, oh and problems in the approach and landing phase are obviously irrelevant to circuits that by witness accounts were 1, hammerheaded - go around, 2. too fast - go around, 3. crowded self behind another aircraft, stalled and spun on base to final turn.

As for moving batteries and chucking lead in the tail ("he had trouble getting the tail up initially and thought the aircraft needed more weight in the tail to help it":ugh: all without the benefit of a proper, documented weight and balance.....

[Draggertail]

Agree Spinex. Having read through the report it appears likely a stall/spin on final because the pilot tried to maintain distance behind a slower aircraft. Coroner appears to be swayed by the references given by people who were not there because of their titles. Coroner could have used independent aviation expert for some sound advice.


The fact that this opened a can of worms for RAAus and the manufacturer is incidental to the crash. No one comes out of this smelling of roses except perhaps the RAAus CFI who did not give the eminent professor an RAAus certificate after 25 hours of training because he was having trouble on approach and landing!

[Kharon]

Interesting transcript though, just get settled into a pattern and the game changes. Had to read through it a couple of times and several passages more again. Everyone got a corner. But, from a risk mitigation perspective, the messages are clear enough.

That said, I find both the Beard and Soutter analysis of what happened (or may have happened) to be persuasive and refreshing, given the mix of previous statements. You can imagine it easily, tight behind a slower aircraft, slowing it all down to follow and then a distraction (engine, electrical or ancillary system) if the engine was misbehaving, the option to go-around could be taken out of play. It's a problem, but I'm not certain that 'S' turns while wrestling with the emergency gear at low speed was a solution; perhaps the 'manoeuvring' was no more than an effort to land to the side of the runway, in an effort to evade the Auster. Don't know. Then we don't know, not for certain that there was an actual issue with the gear or flaps or engine, it's just not clearly stated. Beard and Soutter allude to a strong possibility of mechanical problems, but do not commit to absolutely. Good effort from both though, given the constraints and lack of official assistance.....

"Mr de Vere noted in his statement that Dr Uscinski’s aircraft was following his Auster aircraft at a considerable distance apart and much lower. He did a mental calculation at the time that the extremely slow speed which his aircraft normally flies at, combined with the much faster speed that Dr Uscinski’s aircraft would need to remain airborne, would have resulted in the Dr Uscinski’s aircraft closing in significantly on his aircraft as it turned from base to final. He was of the opinion that Dr Uscinski was probably performing an ‘S’ shaped manoeuvre to give the Auster time to exit the runway, which is quite normal in the circumstances."

Can someone help with a question: I thought that any airframe power-plant combination would come with a clearly defined, published CG range and a method of determining whether the CG was within that range before flight and likely to stay within that range for the duration, at very least for certification purposes. I'm intrigued by the apparent lack of any related documentation.

There's much made of the alleged 'over-weight' specification but little data on where that weight would act, throughout the flight envelope. Given that the 'original' manufacturers weight specification was used for certification the fact that it was 'not within category' seems a little 'off', sure it was 'heavy' for the cat but was it heavier than the certification weight?

Sorry, don't mean to bang on, but this area of the transcript keeps troubling my curiosity bump. One of the reason I ask is there is mention of lead ballast and batteries being shuffled about, seemingly without any mathematical calculation being made as to the effect of shifting the CG in a series of educated guesses. Flying a 'little' out of the CG range is not too big a deal, but once the CG is located outside of sensible limits, things can and do go wrong.

"Mr Soutter said that in addition to the weight issue, was the balance issue. With reference to the Flight Manual, this aircraft would have had adverse handling characteristics with 8.1kg of tail ballast and a battery which had been moved aft of its original position. Dr Uscinski would have found it very difficult to control the aircraft in pitch and direction as a result, particularly at approach speeds. When it is taken into account he would have been deliberately flying slower as a result of the tasks at hand, then the weight and balance issues would have been a major contributing factor to the loss of control of the aircraft."

Anyway, it's hard to find a real quarrel with the 'Findings', but it's an interesting study of human frailties and the way the ever present, devious holes in that famous cheese can all line up.

[Kharon]

I have cherry picked the following quotes from AO-2013-051 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/4548260/ao-2013-051_final.pdf)as they answer some of the questions which the Uscinski coroners report omitted. I expect those answers are in the 'reports' tabled, but without being able to see them, my curiosity bump is driving me nuts. There are some interesting parallels, not only in relation to the accident; but to the reports and findings.

Spitfire - Fatal #1.

By now the pilot had turned right and the Spitfire was near the extended runway centreline and 1 km from the runway threshold at a slow speed. A left turn was then observed and, soon after, a wing dropped and the aircraft entered a steep descent. The aircraft crashed in a factory car park, fatally injuring the pilot and substantially damaging the aircraft.

The aircraft was prone to aerodynamically stall with little or no aerodynamic precursors and it was not fitted with a stall warning device, increasing the risk of inadvertent stall.

Maximum take-off weight for non-aerobatic flight was 810 kg.

Operating data provided for the aircraft type listed the stall speed with wing flap retracted as 54 kt, and with wing flap and landing gear extended as 45 kt (assuming 1 g flight).

At the time he noted that in the landing configuration, after initial slight buffeting and hesitation, the left wing dropped suddenly. He also noted that normal recovery techniques were effective

Shortly after the stall testing, the owner conducted in-flight calibration of the airspeed indicator using reciprocal courses with GPS ground speed data and found that the indicator was under-reading by about 8 kt. On that basis, the owner recorded the actual stall speeds as 63 kt with wing flap and landing gear retracted, and 57 kt with them extended.

The replica Spitfire kit manufacturer advised that their test pilots had found the aircraft type to be stable at low speeds and that a wing drop would only occur if left or right aileron was applied. Under flight test conditions, the average height loss during stall recovery was reported to be 200 ft.

Spitfire-Fatal #2.

"Mr Soutter noted that from the time of manufacture, the aircraft was overweight for the RA-Aus category it was assigned to. He said this would have resulted in a situation, which required the aircraft to be flown at speeds other than those prescribed in the aircraft’s Flight Manual". WTF?

Was this data in reports? :call it an apple or call it an orange, but the stall speed (range) is the stall speed, is the stall speed.

With reference to the Flight Manual, this aircraft would have had adverse handling characteristics with 8.1kg of tail ballast and a battery which had been moved aft of its original position.

Theoretically correct, but where - roughly – was the CG and what was the real weight at the time. Should there not be at least a back of a matchbox calculation to support the assertion?.. Was this data contained in the reports provided the coroner? Was there a table or graph to show the basic weights; or, where the CG was located, the usual stuff BEW + whatever v MTOW: ATOW : MLW v ALW with the CG 'defined' as being @ between X-Y. Curious thing, even if it was guestimated it would resolve some of the issues...Forget the smoke about 'category', the questions unanswered are, was the aircraft (a) over MTOW weight or (b) out of CG?. Seems to me this matters, has anyone worked this out?; is it in one of the reports?.

With this being the second fatal, making two out of 17 (<12%) aircraft I find it disconcerting that the ATSB said:-

"The ATSB noted that the complete decoding / detection / deciphering of the parameters was outside the scope of their assistance to the RA Aus investigation, so it was not performed."

Has there been an owners and pilots pow-wow with some serious discussion related to mitigating the risk of this event reoccurring?, have both ATSB and CASA contributed expert advice to that discussion?

Just asking and no, I don't have a dog in this fight but; it appears 'prima facie', that the reports are 'fluffy', padded and no real risk mitigation strategy has been provided. Well, not in the documents I've read at least. I expect the RA-Aus troops have got it all sorted out and I'm just suffering from chronic curiosity – again.

Right then, back to my knitting.

[spinex]

You know, in reading through all of that, including re-reading the Parafield report, I still haven't seen anything which makes me think that the copper nor RA-Aus got it wrong in the first place.

Take an aircraft that is a little unforgiving at the edges of the envelope, plus an older pilot who may have lost some of his earlier, finer abilities and throw in a couple of gremlins whether they be traffic, weather or mechanical issues and you end up with a good recipe for a cock up.

Yes, shining a bright light into dark corners has revealed some less than desireable critters scuttling about, but they didn't crash that aircraft. I've seen some, who should know better, wittering on about a cascading series of failures making the aircraft unflyable, but I'm afraid anyone who flies behind an auto-conversion or on a homebuilt retract set up, should be able to deadstick the contraption on its belly.

Risk mitigation? Short of demanding some sort of advanced rating with annual reviews (not .4 in a Cub!) for not so top guns wanting to play with demanding toys, I don't really know. I'd hope that if I'm ever in a position to buy myself that sort of toy, that I would be left alone to play and maybe gladden the heart of the odd bystander.