Mallard Down in Perth

[Virtually There]

Now consider a ballistic bullet fired in a straight line through a multitude of wind velocity changes. When the bullet experiences a headwind or a tail wind change, does the IAS of the bullet remain fairly constant or does the groundspeed remained constant?
Neither. In target shooting, it's all about ballistic coefficient vs velocity - and nothing to do with mass.

Once fired, a projectile's BC (and longitudinal axis stability, which affects BC) - otherwise known as its drag profile - will determine how quickly its velocity and kinetic energy are lost, as its mass remains constant.

A headwind will cause the projectile to strike the target lower, as it has more air mass to cover, more time to reach the target, more time for drag and gravity to act. A tailwind will move the point of impact up. A crosswind will move the POI to the side and down, as it increases the distance the projectile must cover. In all scenarios, the groundspeed differs in relation to nil-wind conditions.

Compare two projectiles of equal mass and velocity, but high and low BC ("pointy" versus "blunt" bullets). The more aerodynamic projectile is less affected by wind (in all conditions), and it's POI does not shift as much . . . which, as you can see, has nothing to do with mass.

Neither does gravity, for that matter - if a feather were as aerodynamic as a bomb, they would both fall at the same speed.

Where I think some are getting confused with mass and inertia is in relation to changing constants.

Why is a turn into downwind at low level a potential hazard? Because of the wind-direction. No, not the direction of the constant air mass, but the direction of any gusts or other changes in wind velocity (vectors) which are more likely to happen close to the ground due to friction and other variables, and are generally (but not always) in line with the prevailing wind direction.

If you are turning into a constant tailwind at a constant airspeed, and that wind suddenly gusts, your airspeed will instantly decay in direct proportion to the suddenly increasing tailwind component (vector). This is where mass (inertia) affects how long it takes for airspeed to recover and stabilise.

An aircraft in a constant air mass will not suddenly change direction in relation to the earth if that air mass suddenly changes direction. It takes time for the aircraft to accelerate, decelerate or otherwise change direction in line with the new constant (vector) due to its inertia (which has everything to do with mass).

This is basic aerodynamics that we learned in PPL. Maybe we should all read some Bob Tait?

Bob Tait's Aviation Theory School - Wind Shear - Bob Tait's Aviation Theory School Forums (http://www.bobtait.com.au/forum/aerodynamics/4248-wind-shear)

[FlexibleResponse]

An aircraft in a constant air mass will not suddenly change direction in relation to the earth if that air mass suddenly changes direction. It takes time for the aircraft to accelerate, decelerate or otherwise change direction in line with the new constant (vector) due to its inertia (which has everything to do with mass).

Totally agree...

...and vice versa...a rapid air mass direction change...or a rapid aircraft direction change.

It takes time for the aircraft to accelerate, decelerate or otherwise change direction in line with the new constant (vector) due to its INERTIA (which has everything to do with MASS). ed. (my bold)

Thanks for the help in explaining.

Cheers!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re... it was then, "hold off bank in a gliding turn and you will surely crash and burn." I believe it related to the fact that the Austers, Tigers and Chipmunks all had Gypsy engines turning back to front from modern engines.

HA HA HA ...!!!

NO CHEERS....NOPE....NONE AT ALL...!!!

Wot utter B/S......:{:=:sad:

[Virtually There]

...and vice versa...a rapid air mass direction change...or a rapid aircraft direction change.
Except the aircraft eventually does change direction with the changing air mass, and not the other way around. After all, the air mass is supporting the aircraft - not vice versa.

Imagine a motorcycle being ridden in a straight line on an aircraft carrier. If the aircraft carrier turns left, so does the motorcycle (in relation to the earth) - even though it's still driving straight. Now, put the same motorcycle on a runway and ask the rider to make a left turn. The motorcycle again turns left (in relation to the earth) - but the runway hasn't moved.

In both cases, the rider feels centrifugal force as the motorcycle banks left due to their combined inertia and needs to use the same leaning force into the same rate of turn to remain astride - even when he's riding "straight".

So you'll forgive me if I don't fully understand what other forces are at work to change the direction (air speed) of an aircraft in a constant angle of bank in a constant air mass.

Assuming drag, lift, thrust and weight don't change in a constant turn (in a constant air mass and density), what other force is there to upset the lift-weight/drag-thrust equation to cause velocity (air speed) to suddenly change?

[flywatcher]

Thank you ExFSO for your thoughtful and well reasoned comment.

[compressor stall]

Neither does gravity, for that matter - if a feather were as aerodynamic as a bomb, they would both fall at the same speed.

So you have two bomb shaped objects of identical shape. One is made of graphene and filled with feather fibres (ie really light) the other normal alloys and explody-bits in the middle.

Both are dropped from a B1. Which hits the ground first?

[Awol57]

There is a great video on youtube of a feather and bowling ball being dropped in a vacuum and both falling at the exact same speed (as you would expect with no air resistance).

In your example CS that's a hard one to work out. With inertia, air resistance etc all factored in I suspect the heavier bomb first but I am not really sure.

[compressor stall]

Someone took me on on this subject after the MH17. If you have any doubt about which falls faster, get a basketball filled with concrete and a balloon the same size and roll them off a tabletop with your feet below. (Do this at home, not in a vacuum satellite testing silo with Brian Cox, nor on Mare Ibrium with David Scott).

But this is a digression from the real task at hand. I posted it as it does show that there are a lot of poor analogies, mistaken arguments and confused points scattered through this thread (not directed in particular about the poster above whom I quoted).

We've had standard turns in uniform parcels of air mixed with zoom climbing turns, windshear, non uniform air movement, gradient winds.

People talking about frames of reference, maybe, but its the terms of reference of the question that need clarifying before any answer.

You can't disprove the downwind turn theory (or lack of) in a uniform parcel of air by using examples of climbing turns in gradient wind.

[Freewheel]

Do FW students get taught to fly attitude in the same way as RW students?

Seems to have worked well in avoiding dropping out of ETL for all these years.....

[FlexibleResponse]

In my post #207, I said...

Inertial mass is space/time dependent for frame of reference.

In relation to the currently discussed vexing question of an aircraft turning downwind, I should really have said:

Inertial mass is earth/time dependent for frame of reference.

I hope I didn't annoy anyone out there who have an in-depth knowledge of the theory of Inertial Reference Units systems fitted to aircraft.

[Virtually There]

Quote:
Neither does gravity, for that matter - if a feather were as aerodynamic as a bomb, they would both fall at the same speed.So you have two bomb shaped objects of identical shape. One is made of graphene and filled with feather fibres (ie really light) the other normal alloys and explody-bits in the middle.

Both are dropped from a B1. Which hits the ground first?
I apologise for oversimplifying.

Ballistic Coefficient is the ratio of sectional density to coefficient (aerodynamic) form. It's effectively a combination of streamlining and inertia, which are both used to overcome the forces of wind resistance (friction). The reason a feather and a bowling ball both fall at the same rate in a vacuum is because gravity is a constant in relation to the earth's mass (9.8ms/s) acting on all atoms (regardless of mass): https://web.stanford.edu/dept/news/pr/99/atomgravity990825.html

Once wind resistance (friction) enters the fray, then something is needed to overcome that resistance for an object to continually accelerate at 9.8ms/s - an equal force to the opposing wind resistance.

A body in motion will not alter its course unless acted upon by an external force.

The body in motion has kinetic energy - 1/2 mass x velocity squared. Therefore, a proportional force is needed to slow its acceleration from 9.8 ms/s. That force increases as the kinetic energy of the object increases. However, the forces of wind resistance (friction) increase with air density (more atoms per equal volume = great frictional force) and the surface area of the moving object they are acting on. The square-cube law dictates that volume - and all other things being equal, mass - increases faster than surface area. So if two moving objects have the same density and form (both spherical, for example), the larger object will have more kinetic energy in relation to wind resistance. The same equation can be applied to two moving objects of the same form but different densities (mass/volume).

That answers your question as to why greater density of equal form can overcome the frictional forces of wind resistance when accelerated by the same force (gravity).

My question is, if two objects - regardless of size and mass - are moving within a constant air mass, and are not subject to wind resistance or any other physical force within that air mass, what force will cause those objects to alter their velocity?

[currawong]

Did anyone else here go out to the low flying area on a windy day and conduct "Constant radius turns about a fixed point on the ground" training as part of their CPL?

Apart from the obvious real life applications it was also a good way to train people to not kill themselves in the "air/ground interface".

You know, teach them not to be fooled into thinking their ground speed was actually their airspeed and other such strong illusions.

[P51D]

As usual, this has gone totally away from the very sad event that claimed 2 lives. If I was to take note of half the crap that is being spruiked on this thread I'd stop flying now and hand in my licence. One thing's for sure.... so many faceless experts, not all, and at least one admitted he wasn't a pilot, wonder how many others there are?

[Virtually There]

Inertial mass is earth/time dependent for frame of reference.
It's true that inertial mass can be framed in terms of the earth's rotational axis - I concede your point. However, both the aircraft and its supporting air mass are subject to the same forces (coriolis, centrifugal, gravitational), and are therefore in the same inertial frame of reference to the earth. To all intents, the supporting air mass is the frame of reference for the aircraft.

That aside, if I read correctly, what you are saying is that, as soon as an aircraft changes direction, there is a change in inertial frames of reference between the aircraft and its supporting air mass. If so, then that inertial change must be measurable in relation to the air mass, and therefore show up as a change in airspeed.

I do not doubt there is such a change.

But in terms of the measurable difference between the two frames of reference of the aircraft and air mass, is it enough to stall a wing?

We are talking about an aircraft flying at circuit speed at 1000', and not the Space Shuttle, after all.

[Virtually There]

ZI9T5m2eRJo

OK, megan posted this in another thread. IMO, it appears to be exactly what happened on Australia Day.

In defence of this thread, if we can't learn from others' mistakes, we're destined to make the same.

[ChrisJ800]

Did anyone else here go out to the low flying area on a windy day and conduct "Constant radius turns about a fixed point on the ground" training as part of their CPL?
Nope I cant recall doing that though my Oz CPL would have been back in the 80's. But did some glider thermalling at 200-300 feet sometimes in wind. Was only grounded once when allegedly below tree top height but I was a teenager back then. And the many glider cable break training flights were good practice for low level tight turns with wind to consider.

[currawong]

Chris I would imagine glider flying would give you an intimate knowledge of exactly what is actually going on.

That you or others have not come across this in the training phase certainly clears up some misconceptions I had.

Another exercise was to handrail along a line feature at low level (maybe a bit lower than 200ft this time) and become proficient at overcoming the lag in controls and inertia of the aircraft. Becomes quite apparent when you come to a bend in said line feature and try to follow it. Need to act a fair way ahead of time to make that bend.

[Pinky the pilot]

flywatcher; I suggest that you think very carefully about the main thrust re ExFSO Groffo's post.

hold off bank in a gliding turn and you will surely crash and burn." I believe it related to the fact that the Austers, Tigers and Chipmunks all had Gypsy engines turning back to front from modern engines.

What he was alluding to was the your proposition that the aforementioned engines rotating in the reverse to modern engines may have some significance.

The proposition is false! The direction of rotation of the engine has no significance! Or, as Griffo puts it; BS!

Griffo; I really wonder how many posters on this thread really are Pilots, let alone have CPL's!:hmm::ugh::*

And for reference; The old saying amongst WWII RAAF Pilot trainees went;
I saw him crash, I saw him burn! He held off bank in a Gliding turn!

Related to me many times by my late Father; 39814 Baum; Ronald Wilhelm, Warrant Officer 1, 461 Sqn RAAF. 1st Solo in DH 82 AN 624 August 9th 1943 at No 1 EFTS Parafield South Australia.

[sablatnic]

Never had a cpl, sorry, not even a ppl, but I used to have a glider pilot's license.
We were never taught to fly circles around a fixed point in strong wind, except we tried it, to show us that that wasn't the way to do it.
We were taught to fly constant bank and speed, and didn't feel the "downwind turn syndrome" no matter the speed or bank angle, which was just what the practice was all about, even though the wind was enough to "park" the K13, about 63 km/h. yes, we flew metric, it is close to 35 kts.
We didn't use winch start but a trusty Super Cub for launching.

[AerocatS2A]

Did anyone else here go out to the low flying area on a windy day and conduct "Constant radius turns about a fixed point on the ground" training as part of their CPL?

Apart from the obvious real life applications it was also a good way to train people to not kill themselves in the "air/ground interface".

You know, teach them not to be fooled into thinking their ground speed was actually their airspeed and other such strong illusions.

Yes, it was part of my training syllabus for either the NZ PPL or CPL (can't remember which). It was also part of the check ride. This was in the early 1990s.

We followed line features and flew constant radius turns at 200' as well as setting up for precautionary landings. All good fun and educational.

[AerocatS2A]

As usual, this has gone totally away from the very sad event that claimed 2 lives. If I was to take note of half the crap that is being spruiked on this thread I'd stop flying now and hand in my licence. One thing's for sure.... so many faceless experts, not all, and at least one admitted he wasn't a pilot, wonder how many others there are?

Ironically, P51D, you have not stated which side of the argument you support and you would probably find that both sides are reading your post, nodding sagely, and saying to themselves "yes, yes, quite right!" :ok:

All I would say is that those who believe that a turn from headwind to tailwind in a steady airmass (i.e., no gusts/turbulence/shear) will cause a loss of airspeed should be preparing their Nobel Prize acceptance speech because their assertion, based on only the best anecdotal "data" of course, invalidates all of the hard work that physicists have been doing for the last hundred years! Einstein would have been very interested to learn that one of his two main postulates on which he formulated the special theory of relativity, that the laws of physics are identical in all inertial frames of reference (i.e., that there is no preferred frame of reference), has been proved wrong by some half literate "pilots" on the internet.

[Virtually There]

No-one is saying the laws of physics change from one frame of reference to another. But there are forces that act on an inertial mass in relation to its position in reference to the earth (and other gravitational fields), so that when an aircraft changes direction in a constant air mass, the two inertial masses (air mass and aircraft) initially diverge in terms of reference. The sum of the difference can be calculated, but makes no appreciable difference to the air speed of an aircraft close to the earth's surface. That is my understanding.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Virtually There - But there are forces that act on an inertial mass in relation to its position in reference to the earth (and other gravitational fields), so that when an aircraft changes direction in a constant air mass, the two inertial masses (air mass and aircraft) initially diverge in terms of reference. The

There is not such thing as an INERTIAL MASS. :ugh: There is just MASS. Good ole Newton came up the relationship - F (Force) = M (mass) x A (acceleration).

(Einstein refined it for relativistic speeds to include a correction factor based on the speed of light)

You can chuck the Inertial term out the window, its bulls.t

Lift is the Force that keeps the wings aloft, and the same thing that generates the turn.

Lift (Force) is generated by the air moving over the wings. FULL STOP. In a steady state air mass, the aircraft wings do not know if that airmass is doing 0 knots or 200 kts relative to the ground.

You can do 360 deg orbits all day, clockwise and anti clockwise in a steady state jet stream and you will never see one iota of IAS difference when turning.

Its not that hard.

[flywatcher]

What he was alluding to was the your proposition that the aforementioned engines rotating in the reverse to modern engines may have some significance.
The proposition is false! The direction of rotation of the engine has no significance! Or, as Griffo puts it; BS!

Pinky, if you take off in a tail dragger with American engine, right rudder. If you take off in a early aircraft with Gipsy engine, left rudder. The fin is offset in opposite direction. In all over paddocks, circuits were left hand. Think about it before you call BS

Griffo; I really wonder how many posters on this thread really are Pilots, let alone have CPL's!http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/yeees.gif:ugh:http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/bah.gif

If you are implying I don't have a CPL I can assure you I have, with about 20,000 hr attached to it, some thousands at or below 200ft low speed small radius turns over fishing nets so I have a vague understanding of the effects of wind at low level.

Related to me many times by my late Father; 39814 Baum; Ronald Wilhelm, Warrant Officer 1, 461 Sqn RAAF. 1st Solo in DH 82 AN 624 August 9th 1943 at No 1 EFTS Parafield South Australia.

Related to me by my late father, first solo 1938, Cirrus Moth, Mascot, before my first landplane solo, Tiger Moth VH-AZP, Bairnsdale 1958

[Band a Lot]

Well I did not know that there was a requirement to have a minimum ppl but preferred Cpl to comment!

This high standing opinion of many pilots is what kills so many.

The amount of times over my +30 years in aviation I have been asked by very high time and including ATPL pilot , what does this do or how does this work on a basic system is amazing. Many tech logs/MR,s entries cleared with "tested no fault found" should also include "Pilot trained to use it properly".

It is simple, this Mallard stalled. There is no evidence of any external or mechanical factor that assisted in the stall. There are whiteness and video footage in abundance - The ATSB should not need a year to do this report.

P.S. sorry to all the PPL, CPL & ATPL holders that do know others in the industry also know how aircraft work and fly.

Condolences to those poor kids.

[The Wawa Zone]

As Clare Prop said "Looking at the size of the display box, how did anyone think a 5700 MTOW kg aeroplane could fit into that area? "

The pilot also appeared to obey the 600 meter rule for 'built up' areas, with his downwind track being well out over the water and further reducing his available space.
Questione: Would a PPL ever be trained to do a right hand tear drop timed circling approach, to enable a tighter radius by turning into wind, away from the obstructions in the CDB and away from the low sun ? Would the air display organiser want to see a plan including that, for what was probably one of the few low level displays (a landing) of the day ?

[megan]

I posted the following back at #147. Flying helicopters in the offshore world it was not uncommon to have 60 knots of wind when taking off from a platform. Climb speed in our particular aircraft was 75 knots and the turn to downwind while holding climb speed was visually spectacular if not seen previously. Ground speed went from 15 knots into wind to 135 knots downwind, all the while maintaining 75 knots IAS. The point is, the aircraft doesn't care what the wind is, and if you are flying by reference to instruments you would have no idea what the strength of the wind is, or indeed, if there is any wind, save for the fact that you already have 60 knots airspeed prior to commencement of the take off.

It was said :E that in sports mode you could make the turn at 60° of bank for a really spectacular visual illusion. The airspeed didn't move, and the ball remained centred. How can all this be? Where were all these inertial effects? Why didn't we crash and burn?

[Virtually There]

Virtually There -
But there are forces that act on an inertial mass in relation to its position in reference to the earth (and other gravitational fields), so that when an aircraft changes direction in a constant air mass, the two inertial masses (air mass and aircraft) initially diverge in terms of reference. The There is not such thing as an INERTIAL MASS. :ugh: There is just MASS. Good ole Newton came up the relationship - F (Force) = M (mass) x A (acceleration).

(Einstein refined it for relativistic speeds to include a correction factor based on the speed of light)

You can chuck the Inertial term out the window, its bulls.t

Lift is the Force that keeps the wings aloft, and the same thing that generates the turn.

Lift (Force) is generated by the air moving over the wings. FULL STOP. In a steady state air mass, the aircraft wings do not know if that airmass is doing 0 knots or 200 kts relative to the ground.

You can do 360 deg orbits all day, clockwise and anti clockwise in a steady state jet stream and you will never see one iota of IAS difference when turning.

Its not that hard.I'm not sure how to even answer that. If you don't understand the difference between a non-inertial (accelerating) mass and an inertial (moving or stationary, depending on frame of reference) mass, then it is likely me who will be :ugh: in trying to explain.

But here's the tip (if you don't know how to use Google - that's a good start): lift opposes gravity - gravity is a (relatively weak) force that acts on all mass and varies with the formula

Fg = M1M2m/R2

Where gravitational force is the sum of Mass 1 multiplied by Mass 2 multiplied by the gravitational constant (m = 6.67 x 10 to the minus-eleventh) divided by distance squared.

Note the "distance squared" part - any time Mass 1 and 2 diverge, the gravitational forces between them change exponentially.

Secondly, kinetic energy is relative to where it is being measured. That is to say, it is relative to the frame of reference.

If the frame of reference is Planet Earth - which is circling the sun at 30km/s, in a solar system travelling at 230km/s, in a galaxy moving at 5833km/s in a universe that may or may not be moving (we think it spins, hence why it is flat) - and you are flying along in your little 172 at 110kt (51m/s), what is your kinetic energy?

EK = 1/2m V2

How do you measure the velocity in the above equation without a frame of reference?

BTW, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd realise that I completely agree with everyone else that there is absolutely no discernible difference in airspeed (induced drag aside) when turning in any direction in a constant airmass . . . but that doesn't mean there is no difference. ;)

My argument with FlexibleResponse is that inertial frames of reference have no real bearing on air speed turning upwind, downwind or cross wind - the velocity change is so miniscule as to be insignificant

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Virtually there - I think we are virtually there on agreeing. Thank you, for clarifying your position.

BTW, if you'd actually read my posts, you'd realise that I completely agree with everyone else that there is absolutely no discernible difference in airspeed (induced drag aside) when turning in any direction in a constant airmass

This is the key point in this thread discussion.

"Masses have inertia", that is a better way to say it, then talk about "inertial masses". "Inertial frames of reference" is the best way of saying it.

. . but that doesn't mean there is no difference. Yes you are right. But the differences you are referring to are the ones due to relativity, and the relativistic adjustments aren't going to be the cause of a stall in a Mallard.


ps (I have a BSc in physics) :)

[Virtually There]

ps (I have a BSc in physics) :)
That's OK, I have a CPL :} That means I know more about physics than Newton. Apparently. After all, he never flew ;)

[fujii]

If you can't convince them with science, baffle them with bull****.

[Ultralights]

this thread is full of a lot of baffling!

[Band a Lot]

Does anyone know how sensitive the CSU is on the Mallard? or are they even in effect in this stage of the fatal flight?

Another thing to think about guys in all the fisiks classes, is the CSU is controlling a given RPM not an airspeed. In fact it don't give a rats about airspeed, nor air mass or wind direction. Also its changing many factors including drag and efficiency that directly effect aircraft speed both gs and ais depending on settings.

[flyag2]

As Clare Prop said "Looking at the size of the display box, how did anyone think a 5700 MTOW kg aeroplane could fit into that area? "

The pilot also appeared to obey the 600 meter rule for 'built up' areas, with his downwind track being well out over the water and further reducing his available space.
Questione: Would a PPL ever be trained to do a right hand tear drop timed circling approach, to enable a tighter radius by turning into wind, away from the obstructions in the CDB and away from the low sun ? Would the air display organiser want to see a plan including that, for what was probably one of the few low level displays (a landing) of the day ?
You do realize that there was to be a display this year as in previous years by aircraft that have a mtow of 7257kg. Just saying.

[Capn Bloggs]

You do realize that there was to be a display this year as in previous years by aircraft that have a mtow of 7257kg.
Manoeuvring inside the display box (Hawks/F18s excluded)? Don't torture us, what has a MTOW of 7257?

[onetrack]

That'd be the Air Tractor AT-802 of Dunns Aviation. I'm not so sure that the Air Tractor was confined to manoeuvring inside the display box.

Aviation WA - Australia Day - City of Perth air show 2017 (http://www.aviationwa.org.au/2017/01/20/australia-day-city-of-perth-air-show-2017/)

[The Wawa Zone]

Onetrack: 60 deg AOB / 2G turns will do it nicely if needed !
“Air show in a bucket” ... therein may lie a clue..

Flyag2: What were they doing ? See above. When you say 'was' I assume you mean that they cancelled the rest of the program after the prang ?http://cdn.pprune.org/images/smilies/piss_weak.gif

Laardvark: Complain to Clare, not I. However I suggest she was alluding to required approach speed, and the Mallard book infers using 105+ Kias around base which will take you over the Esplanade (at least) in a left turn.

[laardvark]

sincerest apologies - post removed .

[The Wawa Zone]

Put it back, cx'ing it cans the continuity :)

[Clare Prop]

Just mocking me for suggesting the display box may have been a bit small for an aircraft of that MTOW

[Lookleft]

Way back in the thread I think it was megan who posted a link to a Mallard flight manual. For all the Popular mechanic theorists arguing about downwind turns have a look at the procedures for landing and where the flaps should be. Also interesting is the intial approach speed and the final approach speed with the flaps down. If he forgot to put the flaps down and then tried to fly at the recommended final approach speed then the crash was inevitable. No extraordinary theory of physics required, just look at the evidence.

[currawong]

Valid point Lookleft.

There is enough photo evidence to determine that.

I just looked. Perhaps everyone should.

[X35B]

Is it possible to agree that the aircraft was in a fully developed spin just before entry to the water?

[autoflight]

Capn Rex Havoc, As far as it goes, you are correct, because you are likely to have a low turn rate at the TAS and traditional bank angle at jet stream altitudes.

[currawong]

Autoflight - of course he is right.

And the same is true a 80 deg bank at 300 ft. and whatever wind you care to nominate.

Where the turn rate is at the other end of the spectrum.

[LeadSled]

Headmaster, et al,
Thanks chaps, it is all so simple, and major airlines like Qantas have had it wrong for years, and wind shear doesn't effect an aircraft, and inertia effects don't count.
Ever heard of a Reference (constant) Groundspeed approach. Probably not.
I wonder why we have bothered with all that training for so many years, particularly to cope with micro-bursts, which are "only" an extreme change in wind velocity, which, in your world, doesn't effect the IAS, and therefor is of no relevance to aircraft performance.
Fortunately, I live in the real world, and have to deal with the real atmosphere, when I am flying real aeroplanes.
Tootle pip!!

PS: Your (not very) smart schoolboy physics reminds me of my old physics teacher, who conclusive demonstrated, on the blackboard, how a man -made satellite was not possible, I disputed his "reasoning" and mathematics and got tossed out of the class. About three weeks later, the USSR orbited Sputnik.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

LeadSled, could you please point out which posts said that wind shear, microbursts etc have no effect on IAS?

[Capn Bloggs]

LeadSled, could you please point out which posts said that wind shear, microbursts etc have no effect on IAS?
aka Leadsled, pull ya head in! :}

[Ultralights]

Is it possible to agree that the aircraft was in a fully developed spin just before entry to the water?
Fully developed spin? No. Incipient, yes.

Fully developed takes about 2 to 3 revolutions to stabilise

[Tankengine]

Fully developed spin? No. Incipient, yes.

Fully developed takes about 2 to 3 revolutions to stabilise

Most of these halfwits are too scared to stall yet alone spin. ;)
But it is OK, they can discuss downwind turns and windshear all day.

[Lookleft]

So the answer is no.

[glekichi]

Imagine a 150kt wind (constant airmass, no gusts or wind shear).
Imagine a hot air balloon sitting in that wind. A far as the pilot is concerned there is no 'wind'. It's completely calm sitting there in the balloon. The ground is rushing by at 150kts.
Imagine a Cessna doing orbits around the balloon.
The Cessna is also not feeling the 'wind', other than the 90kts or so that it's flying through the airmass at.
There is no increase or decrease in IAS as it completes the orbit - a nice round orbit completed with a constant angle of bank.
No falling out of the sky.

Yes, it's a bit of a mind bender the first time one thinks about it - hopefully at the PPL training stage.

That is the "downwind turn" concept regarding the visual illusion due to changes in the relative movement of the ground.

Wind changes and wind shear are a completely different issue.

[FGD135]

The Mallard wasn't "turning downwind", but was turning "into wind", was it not?

[Virtually There]

There was a sou'-wester (left crosswind), which meant he turned through true downwind on to base. It was also a bit gusty at the time. I live up the road from where it happened and we were on our way down to the river just prior to the accident.

[Ultralights]

The Mallard wasn't "turning downwind", but was turning "into wind", was it not?
relative to what? the ground? or the air he was flying in? if it was the air, it was neither up or downwind, but just a turn.

[autoflight]

There are quite a few on this thread who obviously think that flying in moving or stationary air is irrelevant to the flight of the aircraft. This is a reflection of what they have been taught and their opinion that very experienced low level pilots are idiots.
I was interested to read a reference to wind shear (highly relevant) and Regulated Ground Speed, a concept selected by significant airlines, mainly prior to glass cockpits. Certainly used by Ansett, TAA & Qantas.

[Bleve]

There are quite a few on this thread who obviously think that flying in moving or stationary air is irrelevant to the flight of the aircraft. This is a reflection of what they have been taught and their opinion that very experienced low level pilots are idiots.
I was interested to read a reference to wind shear (highly relevant) and Regulated Ground Speed, a concept selected by significant airlines, mainly prior to glass cockpits. Certainly used by Ansett, TAA & Qantas.

The problem is that people are comparing apples with oranges without realising it. The apple being constant wind (a steady state or inertial frame of reference). The orange is windshear (an accelerating or non-inertial frame of reference). The physics for describing motion in each is different.

[The Green Goblin]

An airbus has ground speed mini. It calculates the current wind compared to the tower wind and changes the approach speed to maintain a constant energy level with reference to the ground.

It works quite well in ordinary circumstances. It's a right pain in the backside in gusty strong wind conditions. Particularly if you're high and turning into a strong headwind on final.

As for physics, mallards and flaps. If you don't have a lot of experience, you have a lot of money and you buy an aeroplane which requires some experience, but lots of ongoing recurrency training - the result is you'll probably make a spectacle of yourself one way or another.

[FGD135]

The physics for describing motion in each is different.
Negative. The physics is the same for wind conditions.

[Runaway Gun]

Negative. The physics for one involves flying in a steady constant wind, the other case involves flying in variable winds.

[FGD135]

The physics are exactly the same, irrespective of whether there is no wind, there is a constant wind, or if the wind is gusting and variable.

The different winds makes for differing conditions, not different physics. The laws of motion are the same, therefore the physics must be too!

[Runaway Gun]

I think we are saying the same thing. But the scenarios are different. With different results.

[neville_nobody]

The confusion lies with relativity whether you are relative to the airmass or the ground.

You can have a 60kts indicated airspeed with the brakes parked going nowhere!

[Derfred]

Exactly, Nev.

The confusion from some low-level pilots arises from the fact that the aircraft only knows about the air-mass it is flying in, but the pilot can't see that air-mass, and so is navigating and assessing aircraft performance by reference to the ground.

Rate of climb or descent won't change whether turning upwind or downwind.

Angle of climb (relative to the ground) will change, and this is why the low-level pilot "feels" that his aircraft is under-performing or over-performing respectively.

Radius of turn (relative to the ground) will also be affected, hence tempting the untrained to increase angle of bank turning downwind, reducing aircraft performance potentially to the point of stall, simply attempting to achieve a ground-based goal.

These matters of physics should be compulsory learning for low-level endorsements, but obviously they are not.

Perhaps we have uncovered one reason for QF mandating Year 12 for it's applicants. Although I don't know that completing Year 12 necessarily prepares one to understand the above. It should be part of the pilot training syllabus for all pilots, and particular emphasis for low-level endorsements.

[Derfred]

A great thought experiment for the doubters goes as follows:

You are flying an aircraft in level flight at 60 knots in a 30 knot headwind.

You decide to fly an orbit, still in level flight, at 60 knots, at 30 degrees angle of bank.

You put in the 30 degrees angle of bank, and increase power to maintain your 60 knots. You also increase your pitch attitude to maintain your altitude.

During the complete orbit, will you have to change your power or pitch attitude due to the wind?

[Bleve]

The physics for describing motion in each is different.

Yes I poorly worded that statement. Physics is universal. What I meant to say is that the equations of motion are different. The classic example is the marble rolling across a frictionless rotating disc. Viewed from an inertial frame of reference it travels in a straight line at constant speed (Newton's First Law). But viewed from the non-inertial frame of reference (the rotating disc) it travels in a curved path. To describe the curved path a 'fictious' force (Coriolis) is invoked. Two very different equations of motion describing the same event.

[Dexta]

I think the missing link with all of the above is Time and Rate of Change. When doing a normal turn i.e 60secs to turn180deg (rate 1) or even 30secs for 180deg, the rate of change is comparatively slow so, in a steady mass of air, effectively reducing any inertial effects to zero (velocity vectors and all that). Whereas with wind shear and gusts the rate of change is rapid, over a couple of seconds, therefore mass and inertia will be more prevalent.
Certainly IF you could somehow manage to turn your aircraft 180deg in 2 seconds inertia would have an effect. And conversely if windshear/gusts occurred over 30-60 seconds you wouldn't really notice them.

[Lookleft]

Possibly the pilot was trying to work out the physics involved in a downwind turn and in the process completely forgot to put the flaps out which is more than likely what really caused the accident.:ugh:

[Sunfish]

would the mallard have a stall warning system?

[Derfred]

Possibly the pilot was trying to work out the physics involved in a downwind turn and in the process completely forgot to put the flaps out which is more than likely what really caused the accident

Sarcasm is the lowest form of wit, but who knows, you might be right.

The understanding of the physics of low flying takes place prior to one's flight.

The application of such physics happens in-flight.

There is a difference.

[Brian Abraham]

would the mallard have a stall warning system?None mentioned in the manual.

[Ultralights]

you dont need a specific stall warning system to know of an impending stall.

[Capn Bloggs]

I don't know about that, Ultralights. If you don't often go out and do stall refreshers in XXX type, how would you know? The reason stall warning systems are put in aeroplanes is so the pilot gets advance notice of what is about to/may happen. If you know your aeroplane really well, fair enough, but if you don't or if it is a vicious bugger, then...

Turning onto final... even the experts get it wrong... (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/01/fatal-accident-occurred-january-25-2017.html)

[dhavillandpilot]

I'd be very surprised that it didn't have a stall warning, unless specifically certified without.

The Heron and the Dove in original form didn't have stall warnings as they were specifically certified by the UK CAA without any.

[john_tullamarine]

Re artificial stall warnings .. it depends on the aircraft shake, rattle and roll characteristics.

Current light aircraft requirements at FAR 23.207 (http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=a762150f1fbb30c9329a7f9764a2ebb7&mc=true&node=se14.1.23_1207&rgn=div8).

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Aerostars don't have them

[oggers]

Re artificial stall warnings .. it depends on the aircraft shake, rattle and roll characteristics.

Yep. Eg C-152 requires a horn, PA-23 doesn't because it exhibits sufficient buffet.

[Cloudee]

I don't know about that, Ultralights. If you don't often go out and do stall refreshers in XXX type, how would you know? The reason stall warning systems are put in aeroplanes is so the pilot gets advance notice of what is about to/may happen. If you know your aeroplane really well, fair enough, but if you don't or if it is a vicious bugger, then...

Turning onto final... even the experts get it wrong... (http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/01/fatal-accident-occurred-january-25-2017.html)
The expert would have had a stall warning in his Cirrus, but apparently still managed to stall it.

[Brian Abraham]

Should anyone really, really want to know stall warning requirements, the type received certification September 8, 1947 under Transport Category, CAR 4a.

http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/8442f134f2d91efc86257a21005a337b/$FILE/A-783%20Rev%2010.pdf

Edited to add: Had a look, no requirement I could find.

[rich34glider]

Having just read all of this I think the elephant in the room, as evidenced by the full right aileron & neutral rudder deflections visible as the aircraft started to spin, is the lack of effective spin training in GA - something that gliding (my world) still does very well. It seems like there are several reasons why he got into the situation but essentially he failed to immediately recover from an incipient spin/wing drop when very low. Sad.

[djpil]

CAR 4a specifies compliance with CAR 4b for transport category flight test requirements ... takes time to find it all ....

[Clare Prop]

Training and stall warners aren't going to help you get out of a situation like that at that level. Disorientation would mean the pilot would possibly react inappropriately to visual and aural cues...if he saw or heard them. The series of decisions that took the aeroplane to that point are what caused the aeroplane to run out of numbers and stop flying.

[rich34glider]

I agree that it was probably a series of decisions/circumstances that got him there Clare Prop (as in just about every accident) but I think it's unfortunate that GA training organisations spend so little time training for an instinctive & correct recovery for just this kind of scenario. With early recovery actions (right rudder, forward stick - no aileron - & full power) this may well have been recoverable in my opinion .. but yes, much better to not get in the situation at all. Humans will always make errors - best to minimise the consequences with appropriate training.

[Sunfish]

Rich, conventional wisdom is that the practice of teaching stall/spin training caused more accidents, therefore it was removed from the PPL syllabus.

All you get is a demonstration with the admonition, "don't do this". The syllabus deliberately warns against teaching a student how to spin or practice a recovery apart from the "dancing on the rudder to pick up a dropped wing" BS.

I had to sign up for aeros to get taught to spin and recover. Still rusty on the process because there isn't an acrobatic aircraft for training within 100 miles of where I live.

[Rusty1970]

Rich, conventional wisdom is that the practice of teaching stall/spin training caused more accidents, therefore it was removed from the PPL syllabus.

All you get is a demonstration with the admonition, "don't do this". The syllabus deliberately warns against teaching a student how to spin or practice a recovery apart from the "dancing on the rudder to pick up a dropped wing" BS.

I had to sign up for aeros to get taught to spin and recover. Still rusty on the process because there isn't an acrobatic aircraft for training within 100 miles of where I live.
There are some interesting observations from driver training. You see the occasional A Current Affair story from some driver training organisation (or course with no commercial interest in the outcome...) saying "if only people were taught advanced driving techniques they'd know what to do if they lose control." Which on the face of it sounds sensible. Except that where it has been tried, from memory in Scandinavian countries, it had the opposite effect and fatal accidents actually went up. I understand mainly because it meant people learnt a skill then forgot in 3 months, but retained the overconfidence. Flying isn't driving of course and there is some opportunity to make people demonstrate the skills occasionally, but still...

[Tarq57]

I think the better 'conventional wisdom' is to practice how to avoid getting in the situation in the first place.

I knew someone who was terrified of stalling the aircraft. Their partner, a very experienced pilot, had her fly it at normal cruising height all the way from departure to destination (a ~50nm hop) with the stall warning on all the way, so she could actually feel what the aircraft was doing, and how it reacted as it got a bit slow. This meant it took an hour to make the flight, rather than the normal half.

She reckoned it was a more valuable exercise for her than going up and practicing fully developed stalls. There's still a big place to practice stalls, though, as an exercise in why not to loose control in this manner.

Perhaps skid training in cars should be carried out using a similar philosophy.

I'm with Clare Prop: It was the decision making and general handling that was flawed, probably by the time the aircraft made its stall onset clear it was too late to do much.

How many of us, having gained the license/rating, then spend time on an ongoing basis, to play around with the behaviour of the aircraft near the edge of its envelope? For a lot, I think time and $ constraints would probably limit this sort of ongoing practice.

[Clare Prop]

I was learning to fly (not in Australia) about the time that spinning was taken out of the syllabus and made optional. It was replaced by "slow flight awareness" pottering around right on the edge of the stall, horn blaring, keeping it in balance for a couple of hours from memory before you then did the fully developed stalls. People who wanted to do spinning went with the aeros instructor in the Chippy and did as as an aerobatic lesson.

Some interesting reading here:
An Evaluation of Stall/SpinAccidents in Canada 1999
http://www.richstowell.com/documents/Transport_Canada_TP13748E.pdf

In particular this part on Page 9 is relevant to this thread:
One feature that stands out in all except one of the 39 stall/spin accidents
examined is that knowing how to recover from the stall or spin was of no benefit to
the pilots in these circumstances. They stalled at altitudes so low that once the
stall developed, a serious accident was in progress.

[rich34glider]

I still reckon some correct and instinctive recovery action may have saved the day .. certainly trying to correct the wing drop with aileron and no rudder guaranteed it was going in. Stick & rudder flying, just like was taught back in the good old days when Mallards were built.

[rich34glider]

Even this Canadian research says "They (instructors) need to be able to teach their
students how to recover from these stalls as soon as the wing drops and before
autorotation develops" .. but everyone is saying the training is all too hard/not relevant .. confused!

[Tarq57]

I still reckon some correct and instinctive recovery action may have saved the day .. certainly trying to correct the wing drop with aileron and no rudder guaranteed it was going in. Stick & rudder flying, just like was taught back in the good old days when Mallards were built.

Even this Canadian research says "They (instructors) need to be able to teach their
students how to recover from these stalls as soon as the wing drops and before
autorotation develops" .. but everyone is saying the training is all too hard/not relevant .. confused!

I've done lots of stalls. Lots and lots. And a fair number of spins, in three different types, and I can't disagree with you. I used to practice stalls (and all sorts of other stuff) at least once a week, when I was flying lots. I was fortunate enough to be able to. I doubt the majority of pilots are able to maintain that level of currency.

I think, that in this kind of situation where there's been a stall/spin crash, that the pilots headspace was probably far enough away from what the aircraft was doing that the reaction time -even if stall recovery has been thoroughly taught - is likely to be excessive. By their very nature, it's clear these unintended events catch people by surprise.

I doubt that in this case recovery was possible once it was stalled. There may have been a brief opportunity before the wing started to drop, if the reaction had been correct and immediate. The out-of-spin aileron probably wasn't a mistake; it was more likely to have been a panic reaction, and by the time it was applied it was beyond recovery, anyway.

I believe that better training toward planning, and risk analysis regarding any proposed manouever, combined with some kind of resilience-against-surprise training might pay off better.

[Quagmeister]

Still haven't seen the CASA Final Report...
But, my inexperienced/low hours personal opinion is...
- From a Human Factors angle, they were in danger the instant his lady occupied a Front Seat.
The concern about OAT/ engine performance was a distraction that possibly over-occupied the owner's mind. Understood in marksmanship, the wind can affect the shooter, more-so than the projectile.

A Pilot (PM) in the RH seat would have noticed the airspeed, and "mentioned" it... and if the PF doesn't react properly & immediately.. take control.
- A CFI did that to me once... still have the Lesson embedded...and tinnitus.

Seriously, later when taught to spin a full aerobatic 'plane, I'd add a quick touch of aileron to deepen the inside wing's stall and positively establish the spin.

Just like he did, sadly.

[DHC4]

Report still not complete

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-013/

Updated: 25 January 2019

The investigation into the collision with water involving a Grumman American Aviation Corp G-73, VH-CQA, 10 km WSW of Perth Airport, Western Australia on 26 January 2017 is continuing.

The final report has completed the drafting phase and is now undergoing an internal review.

Final ATSB investigation reports undergo a rigorous internal review process to ensure the report findings adequately and accurately reflect the analysis of available evidence. Final investigation reports also undergo other technical and administrative reviews to ensure the reports meet national and international standards for transport safety investigations.

Following the completion of the internal review, the report will be sent to directly involved parties for comment before the report is finalised and published.

Currently, the anticipated completion and publication date of the final report is during the first quarter of 2019.

Should any safety issues be identified during any phase of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue.

[On eyre]

Wow - so first quarter 2019 - someone is gonna be busy in the next two weeks ��

[zanthrus]

Over two years and the buggars still haven’t finished a simple report? What the f@#k have the ATSB been doing?

[601]

administrative reviews
I was under the impression that analysis of available evidence was what was required in a report.
What input does "administration" have?

[Chronic Snoozer]

It shouldn't take two years to confirm what we already suspect. Dotting 'i's and crossing 't's means stuff all in the big picture which is what a report is about.

[VH-MLE]

In the forthcoming coronial inquest for which the ATSB report will form a key component, it's all about dotting i's & crossing t's...

[Squawk7700]

The NTSB appear to be quick at getting their reports out for the more simple incidents and they are also very quick to simply say “the pilot messed up” or
words to this effect. Perhaps Australia could take advice from them and grade the incidents accordingly.

[DHC4]

We are now into August and it is still in ‘Final report: Internal review’ phase. Wonder why this is taking so long, have they forgotten about their first quarter of 2019 anticipated completion date.

[Sandy Reith]

ATSB was created as an independent Commonwealth corporate body by then Minister Albanese in 2009. As soon as this came about ATSB began to take on the familiar characteristics of this type of government entity. CASA is the ‘perfect’ example of the type, the incentives have altered. Make work prevails; economy, efficiency and timelines suffer. A little off topic but as an excellent example the photo illustrates the results of the hands off approach, the broken model of governance that’s common to CASA and the ATSB. A model that is increasingly a feature of the Commonwealth Government as Ministers inappropriately distance themselves from responsibility. Probably we don’t pay Ministers enough, Mr. Carmody gets twice as much as his Minister so who is boss?
Why have we lost hundreds of flying schools and maintenance orgs?
https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/566x754/cb1b70bb_909a_47b6_b7c7_922c434ada8a_32131c408bd9b8ab555b5bd 65f0b011c0d6af4af.png
US:- $14.95 book with index. Start immediately with ins. rating, no grades 1,2,3.
. CASASTROPHE:- edited library, no index, $thousands, months or years, maybe permissible eventually, or maybe not like one well qualified instructor who put up $8000 ( flying school permission) application nearly four years ago, then gave up.
​​​​​​

[Sandy Reith]

In 2017 a few General Aviation types (and maybe others) including myself went to a conference at the Avalon Airshow to hear from Mr. Carmody head of CASA, Jason Harfield of Airservices and Greg Hood who is the head of ATSB. When Greg’s turn came to address us attendees he sported a hi-vis ATSB jacket and ran a video of the Mallard’s fatal last seconds as it plunged into the water. This video was on a loop and cycled there for us to see throughout the whole of Greg’s speech. Over and over again, surreal? Certainly bizarre say no more.

[roundsounds]

It should make interesting reading.

[Sandy Reith]

It should make interesting reading.
There’s not been any explanation for the full up elevator trim jacks position as discovered from the wreckage, none that I’ve seen to date. Certainly the current or previous official line about causation doesn’t seem plausible to some experienced Kingair pilots.

[DHC4]

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-11-19/australia-day-swan-river-fatal-plane-crash-atsb-final-report/11718076

An investigation into the fatal 2017 Australia Day plane crash in Perth's Swan River that killed a pilot and his girlfriend in front of thousands of onlookers has suggested pilot error and poor procedures were to blame for the accident.Key points:

The plane was taking part in an air show in front of thousands of people
It had completed two passes, but on the third it stalled at an "unrecoverable height"
A report found this third manoeuvre was against air show procedures



Pilot Peter Lynch, 52, and his girlfriend Endah Cakrawati, 30, died when their plane nose-dived into the Swan River during an air show (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-26/two-dead-in-australia-day-light-plane-crash-in-perth/8215720) ahead of the city's annual fireworks display.

Tens of thousands of people watched in horror as the Grumman G-73 Mallard flying boat banked sharply before crashing into the water.

A final report into the crash from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has called for improved approvals and oversight for air show displays.

The report found the Mallard was supposed to conduct two circuits over the water following a Cessna Caravan aircraft being flown by a pilot who had experience flying in the air show.

"Following the Caravan was intended as a risk mitigator against the Mallard pilot's unfamiliarity with display flying over the Swan River," the report said.

RIP Peter

[TWT]

Final report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776976/ao-2017-013_final.pdf)

[Clare Prop]

The report didn't mention the video posted to Instagram, which shows a woman's hands on the controls just before the crash, she also seems to start in the right seat then move to the left seat.

[Squawk7700]

The report didn't mention the video posted to Instagram, which shows a woman's hands on the controls just before the crash, she also seems to start in the right seat then move to the left seat.

Are you sure that was from the same day? Can you post the link here?

[Clare Prop]

Are you sure that was from the same day? Can you post the link here?

https://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wish-me-luck-swan-river-plane-crash-victims-final-moments-inside-aircraft-captured-on-video/news-story/70e4b606d560fee459d17229cd69d5c2

[Squawk7700]

The report didn't mention the video posted to Instagram, which shows a woman's hands on the controls just before the crash, she also seems to start in the right seat then move to the left seat.

I wouldn’t exactly call that video valid evidence, as long as that aircraft type can be flown from the right seat. She’s simply done her best to make it look like she is flying the aircraft, presumably for the enjoyment of her instagram fans.

[Clare Prop]

I would have thought that using this event to please followers on Instagram could be a contributing factor. I don't do Instagram but I understand there is a financial incentive to get your posts seen by as many people as possible? Maybe one more pass was needed to get the money shot? It shows she had her hands on the controls but had no qualifications to fly it and wasn't even supposed to be on board at all.

[Capt Fathom]

The PTT is on the Control Yoke.

[Grizzly Bare]

Why was the aircraft issued with a special CofA as "Experimental"?

[Vag277]

21.191 Experimental certificates

An experimental certificate may be issued for one or more of the following purposes:
(d) exhibition: for example exhibiting the aircraft’s flight capabilities, performance, or unusual characteristics at air shows, motion picture, television, and similar productions, and the maintenance of exhibition flight proficiency, including (for persons exhibiting aircraft) flying to and from such air shows and productions;

[Grizzly Bare]

Yes, of course it's legal to be experimental.
My question is why the aircraft was CHOSEN to be experimental?
Why was the aircraft chosen to be issued with an experimental CofA rather than a standard CofA? What advantage was the operator gaining by choosing to be experimental? Was there any difference in the maintenance actions undertaken as experimental that may have had a bearing on the crash?

[Egipps]

In 2017 a few General Aviation types (and maybe others) including myself went to a conference at the Avalon Airshow to hear from Mr. Carmody head of CASA, Jason Harfield of Airservices and Greg Hood who is the head of ATSB. When Greg’s turn came to address us attendees he sported a hi-vis ATSB jacket and ran a video of the Mallard’s fatal last seconds as it plunged into the water. This video was on a loop and cycled there for us to see throughout the whole of Greg’s speech. Over and over again, surreal? Certainly bizarre say no more.



Pretty sure the slideshow showed lots of accidents, not just that one. I was at the presentation by Mr Carmody and Mr Hood at Avalon that year. I requested, and received, a copy of it to play to our local club.

[Sandy Reith]

Pretty sure the slideshow showed lots of accidents, not just that one. I was at the presentation by Mr Carmody and Mr Hood at Avalon that year. I requested, and received, a copy of it to play to our local club.
As my father said “everything in moderation” and this simple idea should be followed in regard to inducing fear of flight by an excessive and unhealthy visualisation of accidents and the CASA policy of the slightest infringement of their thousands of ‘rules’ as being criminal offences.

In my 50 plus years in General Aviation as CFI and CP and as aircraft and airport owner operator it has become so obvious that the extraordinary emphasis on the nebulous concept of safety as being some sort of holy grail in itself has, at least in part, displaced the healthy enjoyment of flying and the satisfaction of honing one’s flying skills.
I’ve seen time and again the poor results in GA flying from this wrong psychological environment where the fear factor dominates and reserves of adrenaline have been lost before the flight. This then results in a tired and narrow mental focus to the numerous dynamic factors that might be in play, with inherent dangers, that then might overwhelm an overly stressed pilot.
In addition, the enormous additional expenses mandated by CASA onto a struggling GA industry, beset with the outcome of our poor dollar value, has meant that fewer hours flown by individuals means they are less current and less likely to maintain a good level of basic flying skills.
The whole regulatory and public administration of aviation in Australia is a huge disaster, we’ve lost hundreds of flying schools, and has cost thousands of jobs. This National scandal is driving our airlines to recruit pilots and engineers from overseas. Ring write contact your local MP and State Senators for change because the experimental governance of aviation (31 years) by an independent Commonwealth corporate body is an abject failure.

[B772]

Well said. Unfortunately you are swimming against the current trying to get the message to any politician.

[Lead Balloon]

...Ring write contact your local MP and State Senators for change because the experimental governance of aviation (31 years) by an independent Commonwealth corporate body is an abject failure.
You might get the message to some of them, but most of them wouldn't know what to do about it, Sandy.

Have a look at the whole page ad at page 7 of today's (Friday 22 November's) The Australian. The people who spent a sh*tload of money to pay for that ad have addressed it directly to only 3 politicians for a reason: that's how you get the attention of all of them.

No criticism of you, Sandy, but I'll bet folding money that you've spent most of your life voting for one or other of the major parties. (Happy to hand over the folding to you, but the point remains the same:) The comfy duopoly, and those who credulously perpetuate it by voting for them, are the primary problem.

The comfy duopoly means that a substantial number of politicians are now professional politicians with little-to-no experience doing anything productive, advised mostly by aspiring professional politicians and narrow interest group representatives, whose 'long game' - to the extent they have one - is self-preservation.

What do you think a bunch of concerned politicians would do? Shut CASA down? Then what? Australia still has to maintain the facade of compliance with the Chicago Convention (subject to voluminous notified differences of course). Set up a Department of Civil Aviation? Where to get the people to fill that department? Probably the same place from which they got the people to fill CASA after the CAA was shut down. And from where did they get people to fill the CAA, after the Department of Civil Aviation was shut down? The Department of Civil Aviation.

What politician would know what should replace CASA or how to build the replacement? They just turn to their advisers, who just turn to .... a hollowed out Department and CASA.

The minister responsible for the regulation of aviation and his advisers have an average 'shelf-life' of a couple of years. The shelf-life of those who run CASA? Decades. No contest.

[Hamley]

“CASA staff were present for the briefing conducted the night before the activity, in which the conduct of orbits was described.”

Report says CASA said they were unaware of intention to conduct orbits. What were the reps at the briefing being paid for?

[Sandy Reith]

Quote Hamley “CASA staff were present for the briefing conducted the night before the activity, in which the conduct of orbits was described.”

Report says CASA said they were unaware of intention to conduct orbits. What were the reps at the briefing being paid for?”

Could be a pivotal point, perhaps overlooked, and, as reported, that passengers were not supposed to be carried on airshow demonstration flights.
There can be a perfectly human nature factor of excitement in the unusual circumstances of an airshow where there’s a large audience. Hstory shows clearly that this factor coupled with unplanned manoeuvres can cause accidents. The Mustang loss years ago at an airshow at Mangalore for example, or a similar stall at Berwick (Vic) which claimed two lives for another example.
As for CASA’s involvement they could be a reserve of helpful advice and reminders of aspects to be guarded against. Unfortunately the wrong model of governance set up of CASA and the resultant distrust from years of mismanagement of the regulatory and administrative environment all conspire to thwart a reasonable and rational dialogue between government and the aviation industry.

in regard to Lead Ballon’s pessimism, which is most understandable, the governments we get are those that we vote for and much maligned politicians are ordinary Australians. The National sport of denigrating our representatives is just counterproductive, if as much effort went towards continually engaging with them we could be in a better position. Many have put to me the hopelessness of trying to influence our MPs, but we now have a number who are beginning to get the message as never before. Senators Susan McDonald and Rex Patrick are leaders in this and there are others. We should support them, ring write contact your local MP and State Senators with that message.

[Lead Balloon]

Senators Susan McDonald and Rex Patrick are leaders in this and there are others. We should support them, ring write contact your local MP and State Senators with that message.Indeed. Senator Susan McDonald even crossed the floor to support Senator Patrick's motion to disallow the CASA community service kneejerk.

But they lost.

Most of the Laborials voted against the motion, with their spokespersons expressing bipartisan trust in CASA.

And Senator McDonald may find herself being disendorsed if she makes a habit of crossing the floor (the Liberal policy of purportedly tolerating such behaviour, notwithstanding). The Laborials are about maintaining the comfy duopoly - sorry, I meant 'safety' - and that requires unity.

The only glimmer of hope is in voting the Laborials out. Even then, the people who replace them won't get anywhere unless they have an executable plan to dismember the regulatory Frankenstein and create something that isn't left to merely develop into yet another Frankenstein.