Royal Vic aero club warrior crash landing Moorabbin Airport
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good photos there RSG, thanks for sharing.
nicoz, can you confirm whether the KKW event was due to a dodgy dipstick (as previously mentioned) or was it something other?
Anything as to the how/why yet?
Was it actually at night (darkness) or is that just what the media have been saying?
'tis a long way from the threshold!
Bring on the anti-MB w&nkers.......
nicoz, can you confirm whether the KKW event was due to a dodgy dipstick (as previously mentioned) or was it something other?
Anything as to the how/why yet?
Was it actually at night (darkness) or is that just what the media have been saying?
'tis a long way from the threshold!
Bring on the anti-MB w&nkers.......
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: melb
Posts: 60
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps the trees were a better option than the road?
Ive lost cont of the number of crashes at Moorabbin in the last 12 months, I think thats number 6 including choppers.
Its all music to MAC ears. They have no intention of keeping the airport long term, despite what the Government says. Its just a matter of time before it goes to housing. The land is worth tens of millions. The factories put on the land so far, the loss of the public golf course, the often unmanned tower, the poorly manned tower, the hysterical residents, the pilots that cant understand english and the those who are increasingly operating out of hours all spell doom.
Its just a matter of time.
Ive lost cont of the number of crashes at Moorabbin in the last 12 months, I think thats number 6 including choppers.
Its all music to MAC ears. They have no intention of keeping the airport long term, despite what the Government says. Its just a matter of time before it goes to housing. The land is worth tens of millions. The factories put on the land so far, the loss of the public golf course, the often unmanned tower, the poorly manned tower, the hysterical residents, the pilots that cant understand english and the those who are increasingly operating out of hours all spell doom.
Its just a matter of time.
Join Date: May 2009
Location: melbourne
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Decided to take some family up with me today for their first time in a seminole...not exactly encouraging for them to see a plane parked in the rough just before we took off! Spoke with the guys at MFS about it, they thought the PIC may have been aiming for the beginning of the runway and not the threshold...hence the threshold. If the PIC made an incident report and took responsibility as pilot error ATSB wont need to investigate...im assuming it is the owners responsibility to have it removed?
P.S. Very glad to hear that he walked away
P.S. Very glad to hear that he walked away
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Talk it UP..!
Don't talk it down ..or you WILL lose it..!!
Airports should all be Heritage Listed, gazetted as National Parks, or made a Public Facility Required To Be Provided for a sub-division to GO AHEAD..
Don't talk it down ..or you WILL lose it..!!
Airports should all be Heritage Listed, gazetted as National Parks, or made a Public Facility Required To Be Provided for a sub-division to GO AHEAD..
Yes, C150 accident due to incorrect fuel dipstick. ... But in saying that too, the pilots were not aare of the correct fuel tank size and range, different from other 150's there ... so a loop of errors!
Mickk - I tend to agree with you there - don't think they will have that as a dual direction dual runway airport in the next 10 years ... Unless the government regains control again. There's writing all over the wall with old buildings, and no expansion allowed like other airports.
Mickk - I tend to agree with you there - don't think they will have that as a dual direction dual runway airport in the next 10 years ... Unless the government regains control again. There's writing all over the wall with old buildings, and no expansion allowed like other airports.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ramrod,
would you care to get your facts totally clear in relation the to clubs mid-air at YCEM ??
Pointing this accident directly at the club, smells similar to the standards of news reporting we see everyday and cringe at.
Fact, the YCEM accident, the club aircraft was doing circuits, at the published circuit altitude.
Fact, both aircraft had instructors on board.
Fact, the second aircraft was a local, and fully familiar with YCEM and operations at that field.
Fact, the club aircraft was essentially hit from behind.
To say this accident represents something wrong in the club, suggests your lack of knowledge in the structure of the club, or how it has changed for the better in recent years.
Cheers
Jas
would you care to get your facts totally clear in relation the to clubs mid-air at YCEM ??
Pointing this accident directly at the club, smells similar to the standards of news reporting we see everyday and cringe at.
Fact, the YCEM accident, the club aircraft was doing circuits, at the published circuit altitude.
Fact, both aircraft had instructors on board.
Fact, the second aircraft was a local, and fully familiar with YCEM and operations at that field.
Fact, the club aircraft was essentially hit from behind.
To say this accident represents something wrong in the club, suggests your lack of knowledge in the structure of the club, or how it has changed for the better in recent years.
Cheers
Jas
jas24:
mostly correct - except that the instructor in the RVAC aircraft admitted he was above circuit height (1500ft) but didn't know by how much (!!), the instructor in the other aircraft (BZA) reckoned he was not below the required 2000ft for overflying, and the radar had them at 2000ft. Even allowing that the radar fix was unlikely to be accurate, the evidence suggests UMB was 500ft high.
mostly correct - except that the instructor in the RVAC aircraft admitted he was above circuit height (1500ft) but didn't know by how much (!!), the instructor in the other aircraft (BZA) reckoned he was not below the required 2000ft for overflying, and the radar had them at 2000ft. Even allowing that the radar fix was unlikely to be accurate, the evidence suggests UMB was 500ft high.
triton, thank you for posting that.
jas, before jumping down my throat, my I suggest that you re-read the ATSB report into the YCEM accident?
Here: 200506443
Leading edge damage does not suggest an impact from behind!
Yes 'essentially' as you mentioned jas, but at the time of impact the other aircraft was in front of UMB, but on a crossing path from the right.
See the photo for the damage, scary. Looking out your window to see that would be frightening- good job bringing the plane down safely.
Note what the report states about the RVAC aircraft:
"The instructor reported that as the aircraft proceeded on the downwind leg of the circuit, he was concentrating on assisting the student to maintain the correct spacing and orientation in the circuit and that the aircraft was 'a few hundred feet above circuit height'."
"Radar altitude data was not available for UMB until about one minute after the aircraft appeared to have collided, by which time the UMB was decending through 1,400 ft AMSL. " (YCEM circuit altitude is 1,500ft).
Note what is said about the other aircraft:
"Airservices Australia radar data indicated that as BZA overflew the Coldstream circuit area the aircraft was descending. The minimum recorded radar altitude was 2,000 ft AMSL, which was the displayed altitude at the time of the collision" (which is the published overfly altitude. Ok it was descending, but at the time of impact it seems that it was at/above the correct altitude.)
I'm not trying to apportion blame here, the above is from the ATSB. Yes both aircraft had instructors on board, 4 sets of eyes and someone SHOULD have seen the other. But the reality is that the RVAC aircraft was high, the instructor was not monitoring his student's altitude which is especially critical in the circuit- as displayed by the end result in this case!
I have not posted lies, only highlighted factual events in relation to recent history. I could have posted the recent history of another operator, but what would the point of that be? I have also learnt from responses to my post, such as KKW's dodgy dipstick being a major rather than just 'running out'.
I don't see anyone having a go at brown_magpie, the original poster, for his comment that CGT was the same as involved in the fatal MB mid-air..
Sunfish, so are you admitting that the KKW incident did happen, despite basically calling me a liar in your response to my initial post?
As alluded to by another poster, the crew did not know the differences in that aircraft compared to the other aircraft. Why could this be so- who knows? Could it be the Club didnt publish and emphasise the differences? Could it be just simple forgetfulness? In hindsight things could have been done differently (like making/calibrating a new dipstick when the Club bought it- but the benefit of incidents like these is the learning experience).
Feel free to read into what I have stated and post your own assumptions on what you think I mean................ That is what we all love about this place.
jas, before jumping down my throat, my I suggest that you re-read the ATSB report into the YCEM accident?
Here: 200506443
Leading edge damage does not suggest an impact from behind!
Yes 'essentially' as you mentioned jas, but at the time of impact the other aircraft was in front of UMB, but on a crossing path from the right.
See the photo for the damage, scary. Looking out your window to see that would be frightening- good job bringing the plane down safely.
Note what the report states about the RVAC aircraft:
"The instructor reported that as the aircraft proceeded on the downwind leg of the circuit, he was concentrating on assisting the student to maintain the correct spacing and orientation in the circuit and that the aircraft was 'a few hundred feet above circuit height'."
"Radar altitude data was not available for UMB until about one minute after the aircraft appeared to have collided, by which time the UMB was decending through 1,400 ft AMSL. " (YCEM circuit altitude is 1,500ft).
Note what is said about the other aircraft:
"Airservices Australia radar data indicated that as BZA overflew the Coldstream circuit area the aircraft was descending. The minimum recorded radar altitude was 2,000 ft AMSL, which was the displayed altitude at the time of the collision" (which is the published overfly altitude. Ok it was descending, but at the time of impact it seems that it was at/above the correct altitude.)
I'm not trying to apportion blame here, the above is from the ATSB. Yes both aircraft had instructors on board, 4 sets of eyes and someone SHOULD have seen the other. But the reality is that the RVAC aircraft was high, the instructor was not monitoring his student's altitude which is especially critical in the circuit- as displayed by the end result in this case!
I have not posted lies, only highlighted factual events in relation to recent history. I could have posted the recent history of another operator, but what would the point of that be? I have also learnt from responses to my post, such as KKW's dodgy dipstick being a major rather than just 'running out'.
I don't see anyone having a go at brown_magpie, the original poster, for his comment that CGT was the same as involved in the fatal MB mid-air..
Sunfish, so are you admitting that the KKW incident did happen, despite basically calling me a liar in your response to my initial post?
As alluded to by another poster, the crew did not know the differences in that aircraft compared to the other aircraft. Why could this be so- who knows? Could it be the Club didnt publish and emphasise the differences? Could it be just simple forgetfulness? In hindsight things could have been done differently (like making/calibrating a new dipstick when the Club bought it- but the benefit of incidents like these is the learning experience).
Feel free to read into what I have stated and post your own assumptions on what you think I mean................ That is what we all love about this place.
I was instructing in CGT at RVAC 20 years ago - and it wasn't young then!
CGT is from my memory; "Grandfathers Axe". I'm not sure if it has had a spar replacement or not. In any case it served me well.
Ramrod:
I am calling you a malevolent troll, make no mistake about that.
KKW was an incident no one could have foreseen unless one wants to assume every aircraft needs to have its dipstick recalibrated when it is purchased. Specifically, you might like to look up the concept of "useable fuel" and also the weight and balance figures for a C150. If that is foreign to you, as I expect it is, I won't help you.
The forced landing in a quarry was a mechanical failure. You might like to look up the term "infant mortality" as it applies to mechanical systems.
Two mid air collisions are of indeterminate origin.
Last weeks event was of an indeterminate nature.
As I happen to have built one system for monitoring safety performance of an airline that more than satisfied CASA's (predecessors ) requirements (in fact defined CASA's requirements), I am qualified to speak on this matter and you obviously are not.
If RVAC had a history of incidents of particular type, for example departing the runway, as other schools have had, that are statistically significant, then one may reach a conclusion about the school. No such conclusion has ever been,and can ever be, reached about RVAC, nor have I ever noticed anything that would lead to such a conclusion. This of course is not to say that things are perfect. We have all had that "gotcha" moment, me included.
Since the pilot in this case was a young and sprightly Seventy Two, and is unlikely to be an "Ab Initio" student for which the club is responsible, your comments are completely off target and I will let readers guess your motivation.
Ramrod:
Sunfish, so are you admitting that the KKW incident did happen, despite basically calling me a liar in your response to my initial post?
As alluded to by another poster, the crew did not know the differences in that aircraft compared to the other aircraft. Why could this be so- who knows? Could it be the Club didnt publish and emphasise the differences? Could it be just simple forgetfulness? In hindsight things could have been done differently (like making/calibrating a new dipstick when the Club bought it- but the benefit of incidents like these is the learning experience).
As alluded to by another poster, the crew did not know the differences in that aircraft compared to the other aircraft. Why could this be so- who knows? Could it be the Club didnt publish and emphasise the differences? Could it be just simple forgetfulness? In hindsight things could have been done differently (like making/calibrating a new dipstick when the Club bought it- but the benefit of incidents like these is the learning experience).
KKW was an incident no one could have foreseen unless one wants to assume every aircraft needs to have its dipstick recalibrated when it is purchased. Specifically, you might like to look up the concept of "useable fuel" and also the weight and balance figures for a C150. If that is foreign to you, as I expect it is, I won't help you.
The forced landing in a quarry was a mechanical failure. You might like to look up the term "infant mortality" as it applies to mechanical systems.
Two mid air collisions are of indeterminate origin.
Last weeks event was of an indeterminate nature.
As I happen to have built one system for monitoring safety performance of an airline that more than satisfied CASA's (predecessors ) requirements (in fact defined CASA's requirements), I am qualified to speak on this matter and you obviously are not.
If RVAC had a history of incidents of particular type, for example departing the runway, as other schools have had, that are statistically significant, then one may reach a conclusion about the school. No such conclusion has ever been,and can ever be, reached about RVAC, nor have I ever noticed anything that would lead to such a conclusion. This of course is not to say that things are perfect. We have all had that "gotcha" moment, me included.
Since the pilot in this case was a young and sprightly Seventy Two, and is unlikely to be an "Ab Initio" student for which the club is responsible, your comments are completely off target and I will let readers guess your motivation.
Last edited by Sunfish; 5th Apr 2010 at 11:17.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: what should be capital of Oz
Age: 68
Posts: 183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You might like to look up the term "infant mortality" as it applies to mechanical systems.
A newly overhauled engine shouldn't fail in such a manner. No, it simply shouldn't fail in any manner. Unless, of course a dodgy job was done.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have worked in the industry as a LAME for about 30 years...
I am surprised, staggered indeed that pilots don't seem to be aware of the most dangerous period in the life of a piston engine.
A show of hands perhaps;
a). At TBO
b). Within the first 50 hours TSO
I know it is hijacking the thread somewhat but possibly a good time to give the subject some airing.
I always thought it was relevant, and important.
I am surprised, staggered indeed that pilots don't seem to be aware of the most dangerous period in the life of a piston engine.
A show of hands perhaps;
a). At TBO
b). Within the first 50 hours TSO
I know it is hijacking the thread somewhat but possibly a good time to give the subject some airing.
I always thought it was relevant, and important.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 429
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fact, the YCEM accident, the club aircraft was doing circuits, at the published circuit altitude.
Fact, both aircraft had instructors on board.
Fact, the second aircraft was a local, and fully familiar with YCEM and operations at that field.
Fact, the club aircraft was essentially hit from behind.
Fact, both aircraft had instructors on board.
Fact, the second aircraft was a local, and fully familiar with YCEM and operations at that field.
Fact, the club aircraft was essentially hit from behind.
I dont think there are any issues with the club, I've done a lot of flying there and have recommended them on many occasions. For the most part the school is very good and have a very good knowledge base in their senior instructors.
Beeza I think you'll find most older pilots will know that there is no worse flight than the first flight out of maint. Personally I hate picking up a plane fresh out of maint and I trust our engineers implicitly.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 396
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
small number of new parts will fail after minimal use.
Possibly substitute "may" for "will" to make it a realistic statement.