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.