RAAF Crash East Sale

[VH-XXX]

Not much info yet.... what did we lose a PC9 ??

[ace4bar's girlfriend]

Just did a google search and found an article about a PC9 crash around 1515hrs local. Appears pilot(s?) ejected safely.

[Victor India]

RAAF PC9/A plane crashes near East Sale base | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/raaf-pc9a-plane-crashes-near-east-sale-base/story-e6frf7jo-1226058444298)

[cavok123]

the other day there were a few PC9's at Wagga doing low level work

[VH-XXX]

RAAF PC-9s grounded after crash | Australian Aviation Magazine (http://australianaviation.com.au/2011/05/raaf-pc-9s-grounded-after-crash/)

The Australian way... crash a plane, then GROUND all similar types :ok:

[bentleg]

At Avalon Airshow the Roulette team aircraft did not all have the big R on the tail. Three were from 2FTS Pearce. I was told that it was because all the higher engine time PC9's had been grounded because of an earlier engine incident.

Now there appears to be another incident..........

[osmosis]

I remember a CT4 having an engine failure and subsequent forced landing in a friend's paddock off Dunnings Rd just north of Pt Cook; back in the 80's if I recall correctly. No big deal then, no damage during landing as far as I know but a hell of a theatrical performance on behalf of RAAF personnel; armed guards around the aircraft for some time, a huge fuss with the property owner being told to effoff despite property damage and expensive animals nearby; bigger than Ben Hur I remember him saying, I don't recall him being to impressed.

Short video clips just now on ABC of military personnel wearing respirator gear while other individuals in civvies breathing al la naturale.

[Yobbo]

Is the engine a PT6 in the PC9 ?

[TBM-Legend]

It makes no difference re total time of aircraft. Engines/props are on a different overhaul schedule. Hours and cycles on the engine not the airframe dictate its condition. A 10,000 hours airframe can have a "0" time since overhaul engine for example.

[Wally Mk2]

Oh boy I could have a field day with this one.:E:E

On a side note I guess 'punching out' isn't optional when the ONLY fan goes quiet. I wonder if that decision ( to punch out) can be assessed at the time if the commander decides a controlled crash is an option, anyone know?



Wmk2

[VH-XXX]

From memory SOP's are to punch regardless, but I do wonder if there is a minimum. There is mention in this link of ejection at "only 300ft" which makes me wonder what the minimum is.

This is an interesting link:

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/Aircraft_by_Type/PC_9/pc_9_losses.htm

[ozbiggles]

If the prop doesn't/isn't feathered the thing sinks like a collins class (couldn't resist). Do you waste time deciding if you might make it ( and maybe get that decision wrong)or do you take a well rehearsed option.
I heard someone recalling a story of a RAF pilot I believe, who ejected.
The journo asked him just after the incident when did you make the decision to eject in this scenario?
The pilot replied 10 years ago.
The PC 9 is getting on, who cares if you chuck one away if it fails the makers warranty as long as the crew get out safely.

[Wally Mk2]

'OZ' I understand where ya comin' from re who cares about the airframe. I was more thinking about the risks associated with punching out. Am sure it ain't a walk in the park going along for a ride in one of those fast movin' seats!Am sure there has been many an injury created from leavin' da plane like that in a hurry:)
Anyway their safe that's the main thing.

Wmk2

[Captain Sand Dune]

As long as ejection is initated within the performance parameters of the particular seat installed, and correct seating posture is adopted the risks of injury should be minimal. Where you land is another matter! As a matter of procedure, all ejectees are immediately raced of to medical to get an X-ray.

[RENURPP]

and don't forget that once they abandon ship, its an out of control missile. How much consideration is given to people on the ground?

[Howard Hughes]

Lucky it wasn't a PC-12, where punching out isn't an option!:eek:

Oh I see Wally has already broached that topic!;)

[ozbiggles]

Hi Wal
My comments are just my own thoughts on the matter and not directed at any one (in this case!).
There is a ADF media release from today that now says the boys had departed, had an engine failure, turned back from some distance, tried to restart but it wouldn't and they were not in gliding distance so selected the Martin Baker let down option.
The PC 9 really isn't a good aircraft to try to force land on a paddock, particularly when you have another option. Bang seats have got better over the years and offer a much better option than a relatively high speed landing with narrowish tires and fuel tanks very close to the leading edge.
As for deciding where to leave vs whats on the ground all depends on the time/control you have over the situation. I imagine for those who have done it they tried to control the outcome as much as possible and its the first thing you would think of once you are on the ground.
I had my own policy regarding it but it may have varied in the real case!!!
As for the PT6, the PC9 ones get flogged but I do have awe for anyone who flies one without a bang seat!

[Ultralights]

Punching out in the event of an engine failure is SOP. part of that procedure, is to ensure the aircraft will cause minimal damage on the ground after you leave it. in otehrword, exercise good airmanship and make sure your aircraft is pointed somewhere safe when you pull the handle

[peuce]

Out of interest, I believe that all the PC-9 frames get rotated through 2FTS and the Roulettes ... to average out the usage.

[Jabawocky]

Hey Wally,

Just a few hours later I launched from YSGE to YRED......and it was dark! :uhoh:

And no ejection options:eek:

[jieunni]

Are the PC9s ejection system similar to the CT4Bs in that does one have to manually jump out of the aircraft?

[JustJoinedToSearch]

Do the RAAF PC9s have zero-zero seats? or would that be too new and expensive (by RAAF standards)

[BombsGone]

Jieunni, the PC9 has a light weight Martin baker ejection seat, in the CT4 you can open the canopy and jump out.
As for the PC12, it is designed to be crash worthy were as the PC9 was designed with the intention to eject rather than force land. Once the decision to eject is made, if you have any control over the aircrafts flight path the impact point of the aircraft is always a consideration. Common sense and good airmanship really.
The other major advantage of a bang seat is it works after a mid air as the roulettes have proved. The risk of a mid air was always a major concern in congested training airspace.
Finally they may look a bit Nancy to you using respirators at the crash site but the RAAF is justifiably gun shy on OH&S. They broke a lot of people working on F111s without proper PPE. If people aren't cautious were you work that doesn't make it right.

[eocvictim]

Crash footage on ABC looks... survivable... just. Pretty good for uncontrolled!

Wal, guaranteed 15G ejection or a worst possible 15G crash...

[Arm out the window]

0-60 seats in the PC-9, ie ground level with at least 60 kt.

[VH-XXX]

Here I was thinking that the solo Roulette routine over Albert Park a few weeks ago down to around 300 ft looked pretty cool..... I now realise how badly it could have gone wrong!

For the record, far more entertaining than the full Roulette formation, including stall turns.

[VH-XXX]

Hmmmm... I'm not sure if I agree about the survivability of this one!

Photos from 7 News.

Interesting the ejection pole things sticking up for the purposes of punching out the canopy, with the canopy frame still present.

Can barely even tell which part is the engine!


http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-1.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-2.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-3.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-4.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-5.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-6.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-7.JPG

[havick]

those 'ejection poles' that you mentioned are not there to break the canopy. The top of seat itself has two canopy breakers that makes the hole for the rest of the seat to follow (it's only perspex that the seat/occupant goes through).

The canopy stays on the aircraft and the top of the seat makes the hole for everything else to follow.

On hawks or other aircraft, the canopy itself has explosive chord in it to make the hole which is part of the ejection sequence when pulling the handle.

[Brian Abraham]

Just to clarify havicks post, the poles are rails upon which the seat rides up till clear of the airframe.

[VH-XXX]

I was going to ask that but had made that assumption.

[T28D]

The "poles" are actually the ejection "gun" the rails are part of the aircraft structure, the "gun" has progressive cartridges as it estends so the acceleration of the seat is positive but moderated to protect the spine of the pilot as much as possible.

[I spy]

Ahhhh....got to love the media. Channel 7 news update!
"Two pilots miraculously walked away when their Roulette crash landed...":ugh:

[fencehopper]

looks like this thing has landed in straight and level trim in a pretty clear looking paddock and got taken out by the fence. Maybe if they put the gear down before banging out it would be in one piece. Does the RAAF still have a gliding club? Shheeesh what a waste.
FH

[VH-XXX]

straight and level

Anything but, I would say!

There is supposed to be an engine on the front there somewhere but it's twisted off to the right.

It would be interesting to know the speed of impact.

[eocvictim]

The rear occupant would have walked away :} I didn't see those picies.

Still for a glider which would no doubt have stability issues after the canopy popped, without the gear and flaps oh, and NO PILOT its a pretty tidy mess! Not far off the van that over/undershot Beagle bay (which was a walk away). I know it goes against SOP but would have been interesting to see the result had they had gear, flaps structurally sound and a pilot.

[fencehopper]

Have a good look at it. The overhead shot from the rear show the wings main damage caused by the fence posts. no tip damage no twists. They are still attached to the airframe, just ripped open by the fence posts. The rear empanage is straight not twisted to one side so no sudden stop, very little 'canning' or bent up or down so no heavy bounce. All the main damage is caused by the engine tucking under and the airframe going over the top of it. So if it was up on it's wheels and someone driving good chance there would be bugger all damage. This landed it did not "crash" all the main damage seems to be caused during the slide not the initial impact.

[Tidbinbilla]

Seems we have plenty of armchair "experts" here....

[Gundog01]

Fencehopper, you seem to be suggesting the guys did the wrong thing by punching out. The aircraft is fitted with an ejection seat for this very reason so why not use it.

Hats off the to guys for making the correct call and departing from an aircraft which had given up it's right to exist.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Ebc_j400/pc9-6.JPG

I reckon that will buff right out! :E

Dr :8

[codenamejames]

Who goes first?

Being a tandem, I would guess that the rear pilot goes first so as not to throw debris on the other guy if it was the other way round - with the front pilot going first...?

Or is the sequence managed by the ejection system - that if one person punches out, both are ejected???

[VH-XXX]

Nice one Doc.

Tid - it's ok to speculate in this instance, nobody was hurt and technically we all own a piece of this aircraft so we all have in interest in what happened to it :ok:

The spacing doesn't seem correct for the fence post theory. The "tearing" damage at the root of the wings puts the posts at only a couple of metres apart.

Note in the following pic that the posts are actually outside the wing tips which is confusing.

It gives the impression that the barbed wire fence has "captured" the front of the aircraft and tore off the engine but there seems too much damage

My best guess, 15-20 degrees descent angle at 100 knots, landing almost right on the fence.

There also appears to be a lack of skid-marks but hard to tell from the photos. The only skid-marks may be in the pants of the flight crew.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-4.JPG

And this one? I think it would take more than a couple of fence posts to inflict that much damage!

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-7.JPG

[havick]

depends on whether command eject was selected or not, and if not then it just depends on who pulls the handle first.

with command eject selected on, then the ejection is sequenced to the seats don't leave at precisely the same time to avoid collision.

who knows what selection was made prior to taxiing.

[fencehopper]

No they did not do the 'wrong' thing. Boss says bang out so they have to look after their careers. To them there is no difference between this situation and a EFATO in a Hornet.
Me, as a two stroke warrior from way back it would be just a case of 'oh no, not again' and get on with it.
FH

[Hempy]

Seems we have plenty of armchair "experts" here....
Including moderators who assume it is their job to indiscriminately delete posts according to whim?

[C-change]

Looks like the outstanding perimeter security fence around East Sale did a very good job of stopping a terrorist attack ! ;) Well done that fence.

On a more serious note, DMO needs to save more money under SRP before the end of the financial year, so off to the hangar for a rebuild. :ok:

[Wally Mk2]

God you crack me up 'Dr':) ........."will Buff right out" !!!!:-) :ok:

'Hempy' ya won't win with the Mods, lost cause there buddy as they own the cricket set!

From the looks of things that airframe hit fairly flat on an acute angle downward 'cause if the donk had separated upon impact whilst the frame was still moving fast it wouldn't be anywhere near the main wreckage I'd say. It's a self contained crash site, looks to me where it hit in the first place it stayed or at least slid only a few mtrs & brought to a halt by the top secret RAAF barbed wire arrest-o-fence:-).Our taxes at work,lets all have a piece for a souvenir:-)

Wmk2

[VH-XXX]

:ok: Wal and I went to the same crash school. Who needs the ATSB when it's all been worked out on PPruNe)

(Where's old mate Planky (resident ATSB investigator) when you need him?)

[Brian Abraham]

The PC-9 Martin Baker seat and how it works

Specifications Mk 11 (SA11A)

Operating ceiling 40 000 ft
Minimum height/speed Zero/60 KIAS in near level attitude
Crew boarding mass range 60 to 126.7 kg
Crew size range Specific crew size range
Maximum Speed for ejection 400 KIAS
Parachute type GQ Type 1000 Mk2
Parachute deployment Drogue assisted
Drogue parachute type Yes
Drogue deployment Fired by cartridge generated gas Initiated by trip rod
Harness type Combined
Ejection seat operation type Ejection gun
Ejection gun Single
Ejection initiation Handle on seat pan initiates gas operated seat firing system
Automatic back-up unit No
Electronic Sequencer No
Barostatic time-release unit Fired by cartridge generated gas initiated by trip rod
Timers Drogue gun time delay, command delay breech
Seat adjustment Up/down Actuator operated 28 Vdc
Arm restraints Firing handle remains attached to seat pan to help prevent flailing
Leg restraints Yes, two garters
Oxygen supply Bottled emergency oxygen Connection for main oxygen supply
Personal survival pack Equipped for desert survival, manual deployment
Aircrew services No
Command ejection Yes
Canopy jettison No
Miniature detonating cord No
Canopy fracturing system Canopy breakers
Interseat sequencing system No

How it works

- Seat firing handle pulled causing seat initiation cartridge to fire
- Command firing initiated (if selected)
- Harness retraction unit operated
- Primary cartridge fires
- Top latches disengage, seat rises up rails, secondary cartridges fire progressively
- Canopy breakers shatter canopy
- Drogue gun time-delay mechanism initiated by trip rod
- Barostatic time-release unit (BTRU) initiated by trip rod
- Seat services and command ejection quick-disconnects disconnected
- Emergency oxygen supplied to aircrew
- Leg restraint lines restrain aircrew’s legs, lower attachments shear
- Drogue deploys after delay, to stabilise and decrease velocity of seat
- Barostatic time release unit monitors the altitude

- Above pre-determined altitude -
- Seat falls, stabilised by drogue
- Emergency oxygen supply continues

- Below pre-determined altitude -
- BTRU mechanism operates, cartridge fires (If BTRU fails manual deployment also available by pulling manual override handle)
- Drogue shackle freed
- Parachute mechanical lock freed
- Upper harness locks released
- Lower harness lock mechanism releases lower harness lugs, negative-g strap and leg restraint lines
- Aircrew momentarily held in seat by sticker straps

- Drogue extracts and deploys the main parachute canopy
- Main parachute canopy fully deploys and lifts aircrew and personal survival pack (PSP) from seat.
- Reaction to sticker clips ensures divergence of aircrew and seat
- PSP manually lowered on drop line below aircrew
- Normal parachute descent follows
- Manual opening of PSP

[VH-XXX]

Somewhat better than the old ones where you were guaranteed to lose your legs from below the knee!

[Arm out the window]

Only if you were a tall streak! I was fine, Macchis were made for little Italian-style bodies.

[peuce]

Will the RAAF count this as a hull loss?
Or will they send it to Singapore for repairs?

[ozbiggles]

Gold
The normal course of events is that some goochy training aids are made.
Some amusing mementos are presented to the crew.
The crew present the safety equipos (the guys who maintain the MB seats) a carton of beer.
And the crew get promoted!
The old saying is to get promoted in the RAAF you have to crash an aircraft or get charged.
These days I suggest there is less paperwork and tears in crashing a aircraft, strange but true.

[Arm out the window]

It's also worth noting the disproportionate number of Kiwis who have Cat 5'd our PC9s! Glad you're OK though Bruiser...

[VH-XXX]

RAAF Crash pilot speaks about ordeal | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/breaking-news/raaf-crash-pilot-speaks-about-ordeal/story-e6frf7jx-1226059604029)

Still recovering in hospital, doesnt look like the ejection was a walk in the park.

[nojwod]

fencehopper said: "looks like this thing has landed in straight and level trim in a pretty clear looking paddock and got taken out by the fence. Maybe if they put the gear down before banging out it would be in one piece. Does the RAAF still have a gliding club? Shheeesh what a waste."

Mate, if you can build a post and wire fence that will do that amount of damage to a PC-9 running into it, I've got several hundred security contracts I'd like to offer you, mostly for embassies and military organisations...

My bet is a normal nose down impact with a paddock as you'd expect, possible a large semi-flying bounce, being brought to an abrupt halt at the end by the fence, which was able to mangle the wings further and maybe push the already damaged nose off to the side.

Surviveable? Probably? Likelihood of accolades and congratualtions for not punching out? Zilch. More than likely, knowing Victoria's Worksafe and their ruthlessness and pattiness, the crew would have been charged with reckless endangerment of their lives.

Wasn't there a RAAF pilot years ago who managed to successfully glide a Sabre into a landing and save the aircraft, only to be carpeted for disobeying SOPs?

[dghob]

Any theories about there being no fire?
dghob

[Staticport]

Will these pilots fly again or will they lose their medical due to the forces of the ejection?

[DBTW]

These modern seats are really good. Of course the crew will fly again. Even with the old seats and with back damage, people still got to fly after recovering.

Glad the guys got out, that aeroplane doesn't look like it was flying very well anymore. Indeed, it looks as though for a moment a pair of highly qualified pilots needed a career change and became furniture removalists...just for a moment...

[InTheWeeds]

Wasn't there a RAAF pilot years ago who managed to successfully glide a Sabre into a landing and save the aircraft, only to be carpeted for disobeying SOPs?

Garry Cooper wrote the Book "Sock it to Me Baby: A FAC in Vietnam"

I love the crewroom critics. It's a shame to lose the jet, not a waste. The jet had bang seats, engine broke, couldnt make runway, crew punched out. A waste is 2 state funerals for two bodies strapped in serv ejection seats still attached to a busted PC9 1km short of a runway.

I wouldn't like to deadstick a PC9 into a field. But that's why I fly a chopper with 2 donks!

[Jamair]

NOJWOD: Wasn't there a RAAF pilot years ago who managed to successfully glide a Sabre into a landing and save the aircraft, only to be carpeted for disobeying SOPs? Garry Cooper, RAAF Mirage pilot, deadsticked a Mirage not once, but twice, saving the RAAF a bloody fortune.... and was thoroughly bollocked for his efforts.

Went the The Bad Place as an FAC in a Birddog, did some very bloody hairy stuff with the septics at zot feet on the two-way rifle range, then after leaving the RAAF became a 747 Captain. He retired as a Capt on Ansett 747s. Wrote an excellent book - 'Sock it to 'em Baby'.

[RadioSaigon]

A waste is 2 state funerals for two bodies strapped in serv ejection seats still attached to a busted PC9 1km short of a runway.

Well Spoken :ok:

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I recall an NZAF pilot dead-sticked a Skyhawk back into Ohakea - back in the 80's.

Dr :8

[JESSIE ELIZABETH]

Please see the attached site for the history of RNZAF A4 aircraft. Don't recall any deadstick landings into Ohakea.

New Zealand Serials - RNZAF McDonnell Douglas A-4K, TA-4K Skyhawk (http://www.adf-serials.com/nz-serials/nz6201.shtml)

[eocvictim]

But that's why I fly a chopper with 2 donks!

With 1 gearbox...

[Arnold E]

With 1 gearbox...

Love it, your the man:ok::ok::ok:

[InTheWeeds]

Yet to read of any catastrophic main rotor transmission failures on type so I keep the faith in Mr Sikorsy and his toys. :ok:

[Ultralights]

its not the main rotor gearbox im worried about, there are to more smaller ones down the back! only 1 has to go. :sad:

[Nil details]

Sure are plenty of armchair experts here

Not sure whether to cringe or laugh at some of the conclusions. If you have no idea, then you probably have......no idea :ugh:

BTW what are PC-9 SOP's?? Can't seem to find this mystical document anywhere.

[Victor India]

Nil,

Are you looking on the Defence Restricted Network?

VI

[InTheWeeds]

[QUOTE]its not the main rotor gearbox im worried about, there are to more smaller ones down the back! only 1 has to go[/

Tail rotor? Yeah in the case of a sheared tail rotor drive shaft or broken INT or TR gearbox it's auto time for sure. Still I'd much rather an auto than ejection.

[C-change]

Choice 1; Suffer engine failure, eject through canopy, hope parahute and all systems work, return to earth ok, spend some time in hospital recovering, eventually back to work.
Choice2; Suffer engine or gearbox failure etc, autorotate into carpark of local bowling club, let eveyone know you have landed safely, go and have a Schnooer or two.

I'm with In the weeds. ;)

[Arnold E]

Tail rotor? Yeah in the case of a sheared tail rotor drive shaft or broken INT or TR gearbox it's auto time for sure.Hmmm, I must admit that I am not a heli driver, but I would have thought you would still need a controllable tail rotor for a successful auto decent.:confused:

[VH-XXX]

I must admit that I am not a heli driver, but I would have thought you would still need a controllable tail rotor for a successful auto decent.

You aren't are you Arnold!

Putting it into fixed-wing terms for you Arnold, have you ever wondered why helicopters have a vertical fin? Have a think and get back to us before you embarrass yourself any more :oh:

http://www.blraerospace.com/images/sized/images/uploads/products/BLR-085-170x128.jpg

[InTheWeeds]

The tail rotor is only counteracting the torque effect. If you retard the PCLs in time, ie before the rotation fully develops then you should maintain some form of straight and level autorotational profile. As the blades are not driven by the engines rather they are driven aerodynamically (Factors A B C) there is very little torque effect.

On the hawk the cambered fin unloads the tail rotor in forward flight that also helps you out The art however, is the flare at the bottom.:p

[Centaurus]

Somewhat better than the old ones where you were guaranteed to lose your legs from below the knee!

And not forgetting the first single seat Vampires (no dual ones until later) did not have an ejection seat so no chance of getting cut off at the knees. Unless you had inadvertently found yourself in a compressibility dive, the pilot either jumped over the side and did a normal parachute descent or you tried your luck at a dead stick forced landing.

At least three RAAF pilots were killed in the 1949-50 period when they went in with their aircraft near Williamtown. They did not have ejection seats and were unable to abandon their aircraft due high speed. They were unable to pull out of high altitude dives after losing elevator effectiveness due shock waves associated with the installation of air intakes on the fuselage behind the canopy.

[Arnold E]

you embarrass yourself any more
I dont feel embarrassed at all
Thanks for the explanation InTheWeeds.:ok:

[T28D]

Well done "In the Weeds" good to see comentary from knowledgable folk.

[InTheWeeds]

No worries, happy to help :ok:

[Arm out the window]

Anyway, what's the goss on the cause of the engine failure?

[Stikybeke]

Some amusing mementos are presented to the crew. (As I recall, armament fitters drink Crownies !!!!!)

and ....add 2 x Martin Baker Tie pins to that.....

Well flown guys!!

Stiky
:ok:

[Joker89]

For the chopper Pilots who hijacked the thread you have to understand one fact. Flying helicopters is like masturbation, might be fun while your doing it but you don't tell your friends about it.

[Brian Abraham]

We learnt to fly on fixed wing and then graduated to helicopters - sorry thread drift but it couldn't go unchallenged.

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m56/babraham227/9.jpg

Hit with some ROD and didn't slide far.

[Milt]

Hey Centaurus

Worth saying something after your comments about those Mk 30 Vampires going in with a Mach tuck.
Those accounts of pilots diving in with the stick hard back had me thinking when preparing to test a Vulcan at the corner of its manoeuvre boundary - 2.5g, 420 KIAS and 0.98 IMN. A little excursion over 0.98 and we lost control as it pitched down with two pilots now pulling the stick hard back against the stops. I warned the crew that we were about to go under with relaxed back stick to come up the other side and a roll to right way up. Fortunately increasing air density gave us back some elevator control and the means to recover without negative g. Max IMN observed was 1.04+.

[InTheWeeds]

For the chopper Pilots who hijacked the thread you have to understand one fact. Flying helicopters is like masturbation, might be fun while your doing it but you don't tell your friends about it.



Yeah but unlike masturbation, not everyone is born with the skills required to fly a helicopter.

So we send them to FW...

[VH-XXX]

Good photo there BA. Looks like she hit pretty hard and bounced and ended up there. Appears to be a distinctive engine and wing marks at the first impact point. Wouldn't have wanted to be in it.

[fencehopper]

Great shot of the scene. Looks like the ditch and the fence gave it a good rattle. Good chance it was reasonbly intact before them. The impact divit looks very wings level. 10/10 for neat and tidy. Either way to eject or not, it must be a real rush to experience it. After all the noise of the hasty departure it would be very quiet under that GQ roundie.
FH

[Chronic Snoozer]

Who was it that said "Never fly an aircraft whose wings move faster than the fuselage"?

[Jamair]

Helicopters are for people who like to hover, and hovering is for people who like to fly but don't have anywhere to go......;)

Great pic of the site BA, really tells the impact story :ooh:

Now where can I source one of those seats for my PC12.......:E

[Wally Mk2]

God yr brave 'Jamair':E

'Snoozer' actually the wings of a plane move faster than the fuse many times during flight :ok:Especially in a V tail Bonanza where they are all over the sky like a mad Dr:E

'Brian' I think yr pix explains it all, tnxs for the shot:ok:


Wmk2

[Jamair]

Don't have a nosebleed there Wally :E day VFR only for that particular gig :p

Its the good Jaba I gots ta take me hat off to, jeez he's doin some serious night & IF in the Retard Vehicle :ooh:

[Arm out the window]

Who was it that said "Never fly an aircraft whose wings move faster than the fuselage"?

Probably Peter Plonker the Poofy Plank Pilot!!:)

[VH-XXX]

Don't knock choppers. How would a fixed wing have dropped me off at the in-laws 2 acre block a couple of weeks back???

PS: AWESOME AWESOME MACHINE, EX Vietnam Job.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/auf1.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/auf2.jpg

[Wally Mk2]

................easy 'xxx' just open da door & push yuz out!:E Emphasis on the 'drop':ok: Anyway so 'xxx' what's wif da Australian Ultralight Federation doin' usin' proper heli's?:)
We all better get back to the topic or the Mod/s will have another dummy spit:E

Wmk2

[VH-XXX]

RAA must have been taken.

Sorry, can't help myself. All it needs is the machine guns.

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/auf3.jpg