Originally Posted by
Maoraigh1
Was there a fly-in associated with the carnival?
Had he phoned but not been warned about the ferris wheel?
Was he based at a long runway airfield?
Why would a small airfield not notam the carnival and ferris wheel?
Quite, and why I alluded to more being able to be done to avoid this by those on the ground. Also I think the following is relevant (taken from the table at s40 of the Court decision):
-The centre of the Ferris wheel was located inside a 5% lateral take-off clearance splay of the end of RWY17 by an estimated 2.7m with a maximum uncertainty of 1.7m.
-Based on an obstacle distance of 160.6m, a 5% vertical take-off slope gradient equates to a take-off elevation gain of 8.0m from the end of RWY17. The uncertainty in this elevation is 0.25m.
-The obstacle elevation of the Ferris wheel was located above a 5% vertical gradient clearance splay of the end of RWY17 by an estimated 7.9m with a maximum calculation uncertainty of 0.35m (0.1m +0.25m).
-The aircraft impact zone is coincident with the region of the Ferris wheel that falls within the required RWY 17/35 approach obstacle clear area; CASA Guideline92-1(1).
IOW it was foolish place to put the damned thing...
Last edited by First_Principal; 23rd Mar 2021 at 20:09.
Reason: Formatting