Originally Posted by
Maoraigh1
Landing a low inertia wood-and-fabric tailwheel aircraft with a gusting crosswind, do not consider the approach stable until two tiedowns are secured, or the aircraft is partly in the hangar.
Especially on tarmac, and when the crosswind element is above the manufacturer's demonstrated limit.
The stabilised approach is a high inertia procedure.
Basically yes. But there was no gusting crosswind involved in this accident. And a gusting crosswind is also a factor when landing a tranport category aircraft. If the approach is not stabilised at 1000, 500 or 200 feet (whatever one's "gate" is set at) it will not result in a safe landing. Some kind of landing maybe, but a good landing is always the result of a good approach (don't know who said that, but it could have been the Wright brothers).
Anyway, in the end the verdict is spoken by a judge and jury who base it on testimonials from experts (among them pilots and other aviation professionals as in this case). Therefore we must never forget that the aircraft we operate, be it for work or leisure, can pose a substantial risk to innocent bystanders at any time. Which means that we have to apply more than "normal" care all the time when we fly. It can not be that others have to suffer the rest of their lives because of our passion. If I would have called as an expert to testify before this court I would then have said exactly what that ex 747 captain did. If you are fast and high you go around. You don't fly into Ferris wheels instead. If "negligence" ever had a meaning then it is exactly that.