PDA

View Full Version : Ferris Wheel crash at Old Bar


AMEandCPL
29th Nov 2011, 01:02
Well the initial report is out now, and there appear to be some serious questions to be asked.

Investigation: AO-2011-126 - Collision with terrain - Cheetah Sierra 200 aircraft, 24-7634, Old Bar Airstrip, New South Wales, 1 October 2011 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-126.aspx)

Sunfish
29th Nov 2011, 03:09
With reference to the images provided, what brain dead moron:

1. Allowed a plastic automotive fuel filter to be used, let alone located forward of the firewall?

2. Used plastic cable ties in lieu of metal hose clips to secure a fuel line to a fuel filter and pump?

3. Tied electrical wiring to fuel lines?

4. Misdrilled, Ovalised and rewelded holes in what appears to be a control column? The visibly bent threaded rod end bearing I will charitably attribute to crash damage.

5. Failed to provide chafe protection for a brake line exiting the fuselage?

6. Failed to meet any form of edge distance limit on fitting a fibreglass fairing?

What have I missed? What a piece of crap.

aroa
29th Nov 2011, 04:00
Fortunately.. by pure a$re.. 3 good things came out of this accident
No fire, no fatalites ... and the poster of the year ! :ok:
I near fell off my chair laughing!
Brilliant!!!

AMEandCPL
29th Nov 2011, 04:03
And this was a factory built aircraft!!:eek: Although the serial number did not match the registration :suspect:.

That's OK, because the pilot received his training from, and had his RA-Aus certificate issued on the basis of an organisation that didn't exist in the records of the RAA :ok:

morno
29th Nov 2011, 04:14
I think this bloke is properly faaaaaarked, :hmm:

Jabawocky
29th Nov 2011, 05:21
Sunfish

I remember VH-XXX telling me once ages ago.....do not ever get in one of those, or let anyone you care about in one of those aforementioned contraptions.

I think what you have found was only part of the reason, the rest had something to do with very poor handling qualities:eek:

Perhaps that played a part in the overall scene?

morno......Summed it up well there :uhoh: Would you like to expand on your opinion?


PS : Can you believe a 2+2 RAA registered aircraft? No Way, Morgan Aeroworks - Cougar (http://www.morganaeroworks.com.au/fourseat.html)
Sure it could be 4 seats but two removed......but what a misleading website. Check out the Vertical stab and rudder, all on a 110 knot machine. Crosswind limit? :hmm:

Tankengine
29th Nov 2011, 05:36
Without condoning the quality of the aircraft in any way :yuk: - what difference did all this have regarding the crash!
He HIT a F685665ng FERRIS WHEEL on the SECOND circuit!:ugh::ugh:

It would have made no difference if he was in a well built RV9 or a Baron.;)

Ultralights
29th Nov 2011, 06:05
so was it a strong ferris wheel, or poorly built aircraft that ensured the wheel didnt topple over?

morno
29th Nov 2011, 07:28
morno......Summed it up well there http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/worry.gif Would you like to expand on your opinion?Certainly.

From the Prelim ATSB Report, it appears that:


The PIC appears to have been not properly licenced
The Aircraft appears to have not been registered
The PIC landed downwind
The PIC "appears" to be telling fibs during his statement (note - I can only base that opinion on the very different evidence that has appeared as witness statements and videos)
The PIC did not seek approval from the aerodrome operator to operate at the aerodrome
The PIC did not seek information on obstacles etc. from the aerodrome operator

Overall, it appears the PIC really didn't have a clue.

The pilot reported overflying the Old Bar Airstrip and, after checking the windsock and assessing that there was no wind, electing to enter the downwind leg of the circuit for what he described as ‘the southern runway’. When questioned further, the pilot could not identify the strip directions at Old Bar, explaining that it was appropriate to use the terms ‘from the north or south’ when making circuit entry radio calls.Really? I must remember that one next time I go join the circuit somewhere.

It appears that a ton of bricks is about to come down on this gentlemen by ways of possible law suits and possible prosecution. :eek:

morno

Disclaimer - The above opinion is based solely on the information provided by the ATSB report and does not have any basis upon information of my own knowledge.

YPJT
29th Nov 2011, 07:41
In a statement to the NSW Police, the pilot reported arriving at the Old Bar Airstrip and conducting a touch-and-go landing to assess the condition of the airstrip and the local conditions. :eek: I thought a touch and go was to practice landings, not to assess conditions of an ALA?

AMEandCPL
29th Nov 2011, 07:42
Sure, the defective aircraft didn't cause the crash on this occasion.

There are a bunch of other factors at play though:
- The pilot wwas trained and tested by a person/organisation that was not on the RA-Aus list of approved flight training facilities.

- Despite this, RA-Aus issued a flight crew certificate.

- The pilot elected to land (probably) downwind, despite other aircraft landing in the opposite direction. A downwind landing would certainly help to explain the long touchdown, the apparent poor braking performance, and the poor climb performance on go-around. The pilot's explanation was that he landed in the same direction on another day.

- The pilot failed to see a 20m high ferris wheel on his overfly of the strip, on the first approach with touch and go, and on his final approach and go-around. The ferris wheel was 161m from the end of the runway and 34m from the centreline, and was brightly painted. Of course we don't know about his eyesight standard as this is not examined for the issue of a certificate.

- The pilot either didn't check or didn't comprehend the airfield information for Old Bar, as he didn't acknowledge the known obstacles, and didn't obtain permission for landing.

- The pilot's account to the ATSB varied significantly from his account to the police, and to the witness observations.

- The pilot either didn't check or didn't comprehend the weather forecast as the wind at Taree was similar to the reported wind at Old Bar.

It certainly looks like the holes really lined up here. The very first, and very big hole was the failure of the training and certification system of RA-Aus. Who knows what he was taught prior to the issue of the certificate.

It was really just monumentally lucky that he hit an unoccupied part of the wheel, that the wheel didn't tip over, that there was no fire, and that he didn't hit anyone or anything else - particularly given the fact that he never made it to more than about 15m above the crowd.

Jabawocky
29th Nov 2011, 08:58
UL

That is true to your form:ok: Funny, and rather accurately judged:D

Let's say the wheel did not look that robust.

I bet your Savvy is not built like that:)

Chu Mai Huang
29th Nov 2011, 09:16
...and the guy didn't even win one of those big fluffy toys in the photo!:E

Jabawocky
29th Nov 2011, 09:32
Morno

Seems it was re-registered the day before, beside the point.

RAA is heavily populated with a lot of good operators, many current airline pilots, you name it. Trouble is there are a great number who do not treat aviation with the respect it deserves.

Too much of the ....I want my freedoms, I want to do it my way, and to heck with rules, airmanship and the laws of physics.

We have too many rules in this country and they are all too complex, and often the reason is that due to morons like this chap, the owner, and the builder we get lumped with more and more regulation to stop these folk from killing themselves.

I have said this before, when you hear of folk getting a BFR done just because he turned up, well that is the value placed on the privilege, and the way it will be treated.

Education is lacking. And this applies to GA as well, go back to the engine thread for example.

Chu Mai Huang
29th Nov 2011, 10:01
So, serious question - will the good regulator CASA be suspending RAAus operations (admin functions) pending investigation, like they would with any other outfit?

morno
29th Nov 2011, 10:10
Jaba,
Registered even with the wrong plate on the airframe?

I'm not an expert on RAA, so my knowledge in that area is quite lacking.

Jabawocky
29th Nov 2011, 10:20
Hmmm well that could be a clerical error by RAA but you are right. It did not match.

It is likely that a clerical error by RAA would not be viewed by any court as the aircraft not being registered. But could this be just the beginning of something worse? Probably not, but who knows.

What a Charlie foxtrot all round.

metalman2
29th Nov 2011, 10:27
So, serious question - will the good regulator CASA be suspending RAAus operations (admin functions) pending investigation, like they would with any other outfit?

Hey great one:D
the report raises more questions than it answers ,but lets put the boot in with a half arsed attitude!!!!
like they would with any other outfit?
like who ? Hempel,,,transair,,,,there's plenty of shoddy operators around who are still going ,maybe when some dumbass hits the ground in an unairworthy GA aircraft we should call for CASA ops to be suspended ,they are after all running the safety side of aviation,,,

Arnold E
29th Nov 2011, 10:29
And this was a factory built aircraft!!:eek:

Is that correct, that this was a factory built aircraft??, the bleedin' rivit lines are not even straight, let alone edge distance, far out (double:eek::eek:) and the other stuff, gawd may the saints preserve us.

rmcdonal
29th Nov 2011, 11:59
the bleedin' rivit lines are not even straight, let alone edge distance So it could have been put together at the Boeing Factory with the 737-800s then? :E

Kharon
29th Nov 2011, 17:42
It was really just monumentally lucky that he hit an unoccupied part of the wheel, that the wheel didn't tip over, that there was no fire,

Must admit it was my first thought, top marks to the riggers and the designers. Is it F=MA, anyway, they gave the ferris wheel a fair old whallop.

Glad it was no worse.

- and, Morno thats Toasted and Farrqued. :D

Sunfish
29th Nov 2011, 20:35
...and we sit here and take CASA to task for its faults?????

Does anyone comprehend what will happen if a petition about CASA behaviour goes to Parliament?

All CASA has to do is produce this report and others like it to justify it's allegedly "heavy handed" approach. How stupid will pilots look then?

Can RAA clean up its act? Furthermore, what about the rest of the shonky Australian manufactured crap out there?

RatsoreA
29th Nov 2011, 20:44
Ferris wheel crash pilot Paul Cox under investigation over alleged false information | thetelegraph.com.au (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/ferris-wheel-crash-pilot-under-investigation/story-e6freuy9-1226209099915)

Ultralights
29th Nov 2011, 21:30
I bet your Savvy is not built like that
far from built like that, every hole has edge distanceat least! though i do have a few skin pins i need to send back to Bill! well, 3 actually, in hard to acess areas, but still a well built aircraft..equal if not better than the factory ones.. (savannah that is)

On the rego issue, sure its possible a clerical error could be to blame, though the staff in the RaAus office are usually pretty much on the ball,im thinking it could be more of the multiple car trailer, one rego plate/label trick...:=

metalman2
29th Nov 2011, 21:38
the wording
"A search of the RA-Aus listing of approved flight training facilities revealed no such training facility existed under that name."
could be just a name issue, not as sinister as it first sounds, but there's a lot of issues adding up in one incident!

Stikybeke
29th Nov 2011, 23:15
It's not in the preliminary report but I also heard that alot of the locals are angry that the PIC and his pax not only jumped the que but didn't have a ticket for the ride....

Stiky

aroa
30th Nov 2011, 00:17
Sunfish....
The un-airworthiness of one aeroplane could/will undoubtably be used as an example/ "safety" mallet, to bash politicians into submission about "safety, safety, safety"...and therefore CASA should be allowed to get on with saving the world from falling aeroplanes...BY WHATEVER MEANS IT TAKES. GIVE US THE UNFETTERED POWER,and leave the rest to us!

Nobody has an argument about dills in poorly built/maintained aeroplanes.Its a no brainer.

BUT...Piss poor regulations, many of which have sfa to do with safety, defamatory inputations,illegal actions, malicious and wrongful mistatements,
and all manner of bureaucratic buggery... at huge taxpayer expense, will go in to pursuing any small target about any issue, however insignificant. With NO safety outcomes.
The mega millions wasted by CASA on court cases and reg "re-writes"
is a national disgrace.
That CASA has been allowed to run amok for far too long,is also a national disgrace. But it has because there is NO oversighting mechanism to keep CASA on the path it is supposed to follow, with integrity, honesty, fairness and due process.

This petition is perhaps a chance to make parliamentarians finally aware of WTF has been going on, to hang our dirty CASA washing on their line.

We, the aviation people, demand change..it sure as hell can't continue as it is, to the great detriment to Aviation in this country.

Perhaps you havent been knifed by CASA....yet! Many people have and bear the scars today.

Change MUST occur, because if it doesnt in years? to come, we the people, will have to make it. Enough!

Checkboard
30th Nov 2011, 02:23
Hmmm ... ;)

http://i665.photobucket.com/albums/vv20/Checkboard/Attraction.jpg

Jabawocky
30th Nov 2011, 02:45
excuses, excuses....
Sunfish....
The un-airworthiness of one aeroplane could/will undoubtably be used as an example/ "safety" mallet, to bash politicians into submission about "safety, safety, safety"...and therefore CASA should be allowed to get on with saving the world from falling aeroplanes...BY WHATEVER MEANS IT TAKES. GIVE US THE UNFETTERED POWER,and leave the rest to us!

Nobody has an argument about dills in poorly built/maintained aeroplanes.Its a no brainer.

BUT...Piss poor regulations, many of which have sfa to do with safety, defamatory inputations,illegal actions, malicious and wrongful mistatements,
and all manner of bureaucratic buggery... at huge taxpayer expense, will go in to pursuing any small target about any issue, however insignificant. With NO safety outcomes.
The mega millions wasted by CASA on court cases and reg "re-writes"
is a national disgrace.
That CASA has been allowed to run amok for far too long,is also a national disgrace. But it has because there is NO oversighting mechanism to keep CASA on the path it is supposed to follow, with integrity, honesty, fairness and due process.

This petition is perhaps a chance to make parliamentarians finally aware of WTF has been going on, to hang our dirty CASA washing on their line.

We, the aviation people, demand change..it sure as hell can't continue as it is, to the great detriment to Aviation in this country.

Perhaps you havent been knifed by CASA....yet! Many people have and bear the scars today.

Change MUST occur, because if it doesnt in years? to come, we the people, will have to make it. Enough!


The problem is because of years and years sorry Decades of CASA abusing the industry instead of working side by side in it, many many folk have gone underground. We all hear of dodgy fix ups, dodgy ops, and in this case RAA has to some extent been a by product of folk trying to avoid the higher standards and cost. This is not to say RAA and all who sail in her are as bad. But what it has allowed in the last 10 or so years is for a subculture to develop. You can find evidence of this on "other forums" and it is not good.

Compare the workmanship in Arnold E's photos, to what you saw in the ATSB report, I am sure we will agree that his Experimental is a far better quality product that the ferris wheel ornament. In fact far better than most other aircraft on the VH register.

So what is the problem and the solution. :confused: Well here are my comments on another thread, some seemed to like them, I think they apply well here.
The problem is people view CASA just the same as a policeman in either of the following scenario's.

A: Small country town, local copper pulls you over for a few k's over, or answering a phone or something that in the circumstances was not dangerous, but against a rule. He says, young Jaba, that might be OK and safe here but in a school zone or somewhere else not so. How about you be more careful, if I see you do it again you might get a ticket. OK? Now scoot and be more careful. And by the way whats with that crack in your windscreen?

B: Big city copper, same infringement, copper books you, nasty tone, and then books you for a windscreen crak that happend 5k up the road because a truck illegally had an uncovered load, and then you get really pi$$ed.

So tel me which version do you see being the one likely to produce a better safety outcome? how would country copper have handled situation B, an educational talking to, and telling you to get mick the mechanic in town to replace your windscreen, and by the way I will talk to Troy the Truckie about covering his loads.

Now how does industry view CASA? Its a no brainer.

They need a major marketing makeover but first they need to improve their product.

BronteExperimental
30th Nov 2011, 07:59
You don't have to go too far to see plenty of "ferris wheel ornaments" in one place. Last time I flew to narromine, a good percentage exhibited similar if not worse construction quality. :eek:
(that said, there are some brilliant examples of foreign technological advancement as well)

It's hardly a subculture, it's in plain sight for everyone to see. Why else would you fly it to a flyin? :rolleyes:

This is not meant to be an RAA bash- I'm just upset that we are a bees dck from everyone being tarred with the same brush. Remember ABE builders enjoy their privileges via (instantly) revocable instruments of approval, and I guarantee you that the subtleties of RAA vs SAAA are totally lost on the ignorant public and their elected representative. :mad::mad:

BE
:mad:

Sunfish
30th Nov 2011, 19:04
Aroa, I feel your pain, but unfortunately CASA will hold up this report as an example of why it needs its unfettered powers - and the politicians will cave in yet again.

Sunfish
30th Nov 2011, 19:06
Morgan Aeroworks:

Aircraft Overview

The Cheetah is the cheapest 2 seat performance aircraft on the market today...anywhere! Based on similar building techniques to the single seat range of aircraft, the Cheetah is easy to build requiring no jigs. The Cheetah, like all of our aircraft, is Australian designed and made.



The generous 42 inch wide cockpit ensures long range comfort. The Cheetah features 3 large baggage compartments (0.95 cubic meters) to compliment those pilots that really like to load up and get away in comfort and style. With a 110Kt cruise and 95 litres of fuel on board the Cheetah is sure to get you where you want to go.



Once again Morgan Aeroworks brings to the market an economical aircraft that is not only a delight to fly, but also quick and easy to build.




Yeah, right.

Jabawocky
30th Nov 2011, 20:07
The 24-#### rego means factory built. Ok to train and hire:eek:

Are those fuel lines and fittings factory fit? If so I expect an emergency AD to sprout into our inboxes (for those who subscribe to AD's) some time very soon.:hmm:

AMEandCPL
30th Nov 2011, 20:13
The rego indicates factory built, and the report confirmed that this was supposed to be the case. Remember though that the registration did not correspond with the aircraft serial number. I guess there are 2 possibilities then. Either this is a particularly poor example of factory workmanship, or there has potentially been some creative numbering going on to allow a home built aircraft to be used for hire and training.

paulg
1st Dec 2011, 00:00
Is this aircraft available other than factory built? I can't see any kit option on the builders website. The factory is located at Taree. The factory does not seem to have denied being the builder. OK so we have a badly built aircraft with irregular and unclear registration. We have a pilot whose pilot certificate may not be in order. We have no explanation from any individual who might be able to clarify these irregularities. Why do they remain silent? Fear of criminal or civil liability maybe. Not a good look.

metalman2
1st Dec 2011, 00:10
apparently pilots cert is in the clear,,,,the aircraft builder,,,mmmmmm this will be interesting!

YMRYFlyer
1st Dec 2011, 03:35
Yes the aircraft involved was factory built. Yes you can get them in kit form, however then they wouldnt be 24-xxxx regoed. This aircraft was built and owned by the manufacturer/builder/factory guy.

Ted D Bear
1st Dec 2011, 05:42
Wow! If that's true, some of the photos out of the ATSB report will look great on his website! Can't wait to buy one :rolleyes:

Deaf
1st Dec 2011, 11:31
Remember being at xxx for lunch and going out to see a yyy on a sales mission. Approaching from behind I could see the ground through the canopy and cockpit. Initially thought he has picked on the idea of nosewheel retracting into the cockpit (helps with the old gear up landing problem).

Nope, I was looking at the ground through canopy and forward luggage compartment hatch past the rudder pedals – so if junk in the forward luggage compartment shifted things could get interesting.

Jamair
1st Dec 2011, 11:53
Those photos and the report are damning.

That said, last week I was fortunate enough to fly in two different kit planes (owner-built) that put many (most?) of the US Big Four factory efforts to shame for workmanship and quality of finish.

As an industry we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bathwater. The failings shown up in this event certainly need to be addressed but not with a knee-jerk reaction against all kit planes, home-builts or RAA generally.

Arnold E
2nd Dec 2011, 07:19
The failings shown up in this event certainly need to be addressed but not with a knee-jerk reaction against all kit planes, home-builts or RAA generally.

That is very true, however, this was a factory built plane, not homebuilt.
I would back the quality of my homebuilt against any factory built any day, but surely this must be investigated?

VH-XXX
2nd Dec 2011, 18:10
Haven't read the report yet as I'm super busy however it was inevitable that the LSA certification process was always going to fail in standards in comparison to the previous "full" certification, they simply aren't the same and leave too much in the hands of the manufacturer.

VH-XXX
3rd Dec 2011, 23:03
In defense of the builder the fuel filter is probably on the rear of the firewall as the engine facing side would likely be covered in aluminum or stainless steel or at least you would hope it was.

AMEandCPL
4th Dec 2011, 00:22
In defense of the builder the fuel filter is probably on the rear of the firewall as the engine facing side would likely be covered in aluminum or stainless steel or at least you would hope it was.

One would hope. Although one would also hope that the fuel lines wouldn't be held onto the filter with zip ties, or that the wiring wouldn't be zip-tied to the fuel line.

Jack Ranga
4th Dec 2011, 05:58
I would back the quality of my homebuilt against any factory built any day

Every rivet we stuffed up, we drilled out and replaced. With a factory built plane there is a percentage of rivets that can be 'average'

My aircraft is fully primed, priming is an 'option' for buyers from some manufacturers.

I would go further and say my 'homebuilt' is far superior in every area than any factory built. Hands down!

Arnold E
4th Dec 2011, 07:22
I would go further and say my 'homebuilt' is far superior in every area than any factory built. Hands down!

Me too.........

tnuc
4th Dec 2011, 09:55
Have seen some absolutely brilliant home built and experimental aircraft, and a fair share of absolute shockers as well.

major_tom
4th Dec 2011, 11:54
is it any wonder that RAA isnt in the same league as proper GA. I guess u can still give the engineer points for improvisation. :ok:

VH-XXX
4th Dec 2011, 13:03
If those rivets missed the fiberglass there I'd hate to think where else they missed the more important parts. I once saw an aircraft of a canine variety where the aileron control horn in the cabin was bolted to the airframe and the bolt holes in the fiberglass were only half into the fiberglass. Bit hard to explain other than it looked like the pic in the report posted here where the glass has torn away from the rivets as there was not enough "meat" around the bolt holes.

Wallsofchina
4th Dec 2011, 18:36
Major Tom, you mean you prefer cracked skins, extensive corrosion inside the wings, doors that don't close, windscreens that were great to see through in the 1970's, rigging bruises that make the aircraft fly sideways and one wing down, etc etc etc.

This isn't about RA vs GA or Kit VS Factory, it's about Responsible vs Irresponsible, and it is the irresponsible builders, instructors, and drivers we should be condemning.

Avgas172
5th Dec 2011, 06:51
Major Tom, you mean you prefer cracked skins, extensive corrosion inside the wings, doors that don't close, windscreens that were great to see through in the 1970's, rigging bruises that make the aircraft fly sideways and one wing down, etc etc etc.
Or a 45 year C172 with new flap tracks, engine, prop, rigging, cables, wheels, paint, plastics at 1/2 the price of a J230. it's all in the detail that the owner of the aircraft chooses to do IMO, you just have to have the love of it. :ok:

kaz3g
24th Dec 2011, 02:29
The driver held the appropriate certificate from an appropriate FTF and the rego situation was purely the mis-reading of an S as a 5. He had flown into Old Bar on previous occasions and most recently only a short interval before the day of the prang.. that much is now known.

The ferris wheel appears to have been erected within the splay of the ALA.

Ironically, a heavier and more strongly constructed aircraft may have done what was so luckily avoided here.

All food for thought.

kaz

paulg
22nd Apr 2014, 11:17
Inadequate training identified by investigation as a significant factor in this accident.

Aussie Bob
22nd Apr 2014, 20:36
Wow, well over two years have passed and someone has made a profound statement! I am impressed.

Ultralights
22nd Apr 2014, 23:37
the final report was released recently. doesnt paint a pretty picture about quite a few things, regardless of the aircraft quality.

Victa Bravo
22nd Apr 2014, 23:48
Ummmm blaming the training is like blaming the pub cause someone's pissed. I'm sorry but this nuffy took off with another life on board without doing any fuel checks, without ringing the aerodrome operator (PPR) and had to ask what runway he should use.

He then told the investigators that he thought he landed in the same spot as his touch and go when on the day he told the cops a different yarn.


Cowboy!!!!

Tarnished the name of anyone that has ever taken to the skies, in my opinion.

Regarless of what training anyone has had if I you don't have a healthy dose of self regulation(eg the tanks are full, oh ok I won't check them) then it should be a red flag straight away.

Sarcs
23rd Apr 2014, 00:10
Austen Tayshus..."How much can a koala bear??":ugh::ugh:

AO-2011-126 (http://atsb.gov.au/media/4888846/ao-2011-126_final.pdf)

Perhaps best summarised by PT with a Hempel parallel:Ferris Wheel plane crash not part of fun of the fair (http://blogs.crikey.com.au/planetalking/2014/04/22/ferris-wheel-plane-crash-not-part-of-fun-of-the-fair/)


This manages to be both serious, and funny, because no-one died. The ATSB has published its final report (http://atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2011/aair/ao-2011-126.aspx) into what appears to be the world’s only collision between a powered aircraft and a ferris wheel at a fun fair.
This is the ATSB summary of the crash at Old Bar Airstrip in NSW on in October 2011.What happened

On 1 October 2011, the pilot of a Morgan Aero Works Cheetah Sierra 200 aircraft (Sierra), registered 24-7634, was attempting to land at the Old Bar Airstrip after conducting a private flight from Taree Airport, New South Wales.

The pilot commenced a go-around after touching down. During the climb out the aircraft collided with a ferris wheel that was part of a group of amusements located at a beach festival, adjacent and to the south of the airstrip.

There were two persons on board the Sierra and four occupants of the ferris wheel at the time of the collision. There were no reported injuries from the occupants of the ferris wheel, and the passenger in the Sierra reported receiving a minor injury.

What the ATSB found

The ATSB found that the management of risk in relation to flight training operations by Recreational Aviation Australia Incorporated (RA-Aus) was adequate; however, it had been circumvented in a number of areas during the training of the pilot. That resulted in a pilot operating in the aviation environment who did not possess the required competencies to exercise the privileges of a private pilot certificate.

The ATSB also found that the approach to the management of risk by the Old Bar Beach Festival Committee, specifically relating to aviation operations at the beach festival, was ineffective and resulted in a level of risk that had the potential to impact on the objectives of the festival.
What’s been done as a result

RA-Aus have taken steps to ensure that the flight training facility that undertook the pilot’s training and its staff are aware of the requirements imposed upon them by the RA-Aus Operations Manual, and that RA-Aus staff at the facility have the required skills and knowledge to carry out flight training operations. The pilot underwent a flight review that established the need for additional training.

The festival and airstrip committees reported that in future the airstrip will be closed and aviation operations suspended when the festival is taking place.

Re-read the part of the paragraph that has been rendered in bold type.
Now ask yourself, what does a flying school that the ATSB says was adequate, and then goes on to say produced a totally inaquately trained pilot, have to do to get its authorisations to operate revoked?

This is another example of the comical behaviour of the ATSB in relation to public safety, even though, fortunately, no-one was killed. Less comical of course was CASA allowing an unfit pilot, Barry Hempel, to kill a member of the public on a joy flight near Brisbane because of its resolute inability to take its responsibilities for public safety seriously. When it comes to weasel words, as Don Watson famously called them, the ATSB and CASA are highly accomplished.

And don’t take my word for it, look up the report into the death Barry Hempel and his passenger Ross Lovell by the Queensland Coroner. The news of the day report is here (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/coroner-attacks-australia8217s-aviation-watchdog-saying-aerobatic-pilot-barry-hempel-should-not-have-flown/story-fnihsrf2-1226732895245), and the court document, which is the legally privileged basis for the Courier-Mail report, can be found in full here (http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/212517/cif-hempel-bi-lovell-ir-20131004.pdf). Weasel words indeed..:yuk::{

And for Easter hols amusement here is the very dry Don Watson:[YOUTUBE]The Invasion of Management Speak - Don Watson - YouTube (http://youtu.be/RsVTDz6sunA)

VH-XXX
23rd Apr 2014, 00:27
A lot more happened after this event than just a slap on the knuckles for the FTF which can only be a good thing.

If my memory serves me correctly, the aircraft manufacturer of this aircraft type had all of their factory built aircraft demoted from factory built LSA status, to amateur built, thus meaning that none of them could ever be used in a training environment ever again and a significant loss for the aircraft owners. I understand that this was due to the quality of construction identified in the ATSB report, not meeting ASTM standards.

Feel free to correct me if anyone knows more than I do on that above.

Dear ATSB, FYI this does not exist:
private pilot certificate
It is known as a "Pilot Certificate."

So basically, someone got a shortcut pilot certificate where it sounds like they skipped some parts of the training syllabus... however that happened, it happened... and RA-Aus gave the FTF a slight caining and all are on their merry way again. CASA didn't let the pilot fly, RA-Aus did, although it sounds like they were jibbed themselves.

andrewr
23rd Apr 2014, 01:04
In the context of this accident, the whole RAA flight training issue is a bit of a sideshow. I don't deny it needed examining, but it doesn't seem to have been a primary factor.

What would stop a well trained PPL or even CPL in a 172 having the same accident?

Would they not operate at a 540m airstrip, or would they never need to go around, or would they just not hit an unseen obstacle in the splay?

You can't tell me GA pilots never hit obstacles in the approach/departure areas of airfields.

The more relevant issue is the control of obstacles that might be erected around airfields by people who are not necessarily familiar with aviation.

There is a swap meet every year in Ballarat that operates in the old closed section of runway 36. What stops the organisers from deciding one year that a ferris wheel would be a good idea, erecting it one afternoon, and catching some student doing night flying that evening? Or just moving the raised toilet block to the fence closest to the runway and mounting some loudspeakers on top?

Non-pilots are not a good judge of these things. They look at the height, look at the runway and see that there's hundreds of metres available and think that's plenty of room (based on actual conversations).

topdrop
23rd Apr 2014, 01:31
That's why you ring up and get permission from the owner to use a private strip and at the same time discuss issues such as length, direction, surface condition, obstacles etc.

VH-XXX
23rd Apr 2014, 02:06
The reported purpose of the flight was to position the aircraft at the airstrip for a static display


It would seem that the pilot achieved his initial objective :ok:

andrewr
23rd Apr 2014, 02:40
That's why you ring up and get permission from the owner to use a private strip and at the same time discuss issues such as length, direction, surface condition, obstacles etc.

It would be interesting to know what if any information about the ferris wheel was provided to those pilots who did ring up for permission. I haven't been able to find that information in the report.

Sunfish
23rd Apr 2014, 03:28
Andrew, thats what NOTAMS are for....

currawong
23rd Apr 2014, 03:34
That's what your eyes are for...

:ugh:

Howard Hughes
23rd Apr 2014, 03:37
Andrew, thats what NOTAMS are for....
Old bar is not required to provide NOTAM's, that is why you are required to ring for permission/strip appraisal prior!

VH-XXX
23rd Apr 2014, 03:38
'tis the perils of being a sub 80 hour pilot with 2/3 of your hours being flown over 20 years earlier.

andrewr
23rd Apr 2014, 04:48
27.9 is not 2/3 of 79.4.

According to the report, he had done 28.6 hours dual with RAA, 22.9 solo.

When he received his pilot certificate (roughly equivalent to GFPT) he had done 16.5 Dual and 4.4 solo with RAA.

At a GA school, if someone came in with 25-30 hours including 5 solo 25 years ago, how many hours would you expect it to take to achieve GFPT?

16 hours dual doesn't sound out of the ballpark - especially at a regional airfield, rather than e.g. Moorabbin.

VH-XXX
23rd Apr 2014, 05:30
My apologies, I actually (obviously) meant to type 1/3 of the hours, not 2/3.

My point being that 80 hours isn't many given that 51.5 have been during the last 25 years.

andrewr
23rd Apr 2014, 07:15
50 hours isn't many. Nor is 80. But we have all been there.
While technically it was 50 hours in 23 years, it was also 50 hours in 7 months... which gives a slightly different slant.

I'm not trying to defend obvious deficiencies, but some of the statements been made are somewhat misleading.

outlandishoutlanding
26th Feb 2016, 03:17
The driver held the appropriate certificate from an appropriate FTF and the rego situation was purely the mis-reading of an S as a 5. He had flown into Old Bar on previous occasions and most recently only a short interval before the day of the prang.. that much is now known.


Kaz3g,

From https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/g/files/net351/f/_assets/main/lib100096/foi-ef12-10136.pdf (CASA audit files of RAAus), on page 45, it says:

The ... (ATSB) requested registration details of this aircraft <redacted> from RA-Aus at the time of the accident and it was found that the aircraft was not registered at the time.

mcoates
11th Mar 2019, 10:26
This case is now in court today in Sydney, good video footage of the plane crashing into the ferris wheel

https://www.9news.com.au/2019/03/11/19/41/news-nsw-plane-crashes-into-ferris-wheel-trapping-riders

spektrum
11th Mar 2019, 11:18
The moron pilot is suing the council. Laughable.

machtuk
11th Mar 2019, 12:00
Can't imagine the trauma those kids went thru! That clip was horrible to watch! ,
Wonder how much money will 'sooth' the pilots fears?

cowl flaps
11th Mar 2019, 13:44
Ferris Wheel,- what Ferris Wheel ?? :D

gileraguy
11th Mar 2019, 21:23
http://youtu.be/m_PeQCPq8QA?t=71

About a minute in, (tried to embed at time) you'll see the Ferris Wheel crash...

Squawk7700
11th Mar 2019, 22:20
That crash was a significant event in the life of RA-Aus and many things happened as a result.

- The aircraft type lost its LSA certification (approval).
- The manufacturer sold up and moved to NZ to build aircraft there, where he said that the regs are much better.
- Pilots had a great new bar discussion topic for months, if not years.

longrass
14th Mar 2019, 03:26
The reported purpose of the flight was to position the aircraft at the airstrip for a static display. This was at the request of the aircraft manufacturer. The display was associated with the Old Bar Beach Festival. The Old Bar Beach Festival was located in an area that surrounded and included the Old Bar Airstrip.

He certainly achieved the whole static display bit