Moorabbin Emergency

[runway16]

A report from a friend that there was an emergency at Moorabbin around 11.30 today.

Any info?

[Framcicles]

Nose gear collapse in Tecnam Twin - VH-OWW. Have heard everyone is ok.

[Munz]

Yet another one for Soar!

[peterc005]

Seems to be popular to beat up on Soar but you're got to admit their marketing is years ahead of any other flying school in the country.

On a Saturday afternoon there seems to be more cars parked outside Soar than in the MCG car park on a match day. I've never flown there but they do seem more accessible and approachable than some other crusty old flight schools that hav'nt changed their business models since the C172 was first flown.

I've copied ideas from their website and Social Media marketing for my own (non-aviation) business.

[From a distance]

Perhaps Soar needs to concentrate more resources in to substance over marketing. Ultimately you need to decide what you want to be. A training institute for aviators or have a slick marketing presence.
Not saying the two are mutually exclusive but easy to focus on one at the expense of the other. Basic airmanship hasn't changed for decades and has kept many aviating safely for a long time. Something the so called crusty flight schools have intiuatively understood and excelled at.

[Okihara]

@peterc005: I'm conflicted. Their marketing is perhaps more polished than that of other flight schools (although others are catching up) but all I see when I browse their homepage are attractive rates to fool new students into thinking that they'll save money on their training. I've spoken to a number of their former instructors who told me of their practices to increase flight times and repeat lessons. No offence but when I see the marketing going around this school, I think they should seriously expand into the $20-a-slice smashed avocado business. Green and yellow make a good combination too.

[zanthrus]

I am probably the first to beat up on SOAR having had dealings with their shonky owner Neel K, but I am certain in this case that it is simply that the aircraft concerned is a lemon.

VH OWW is serial number 20 so an early build air frame. In its previous life at AAA in QLD it had numerous gear problems and engine issues, missing flap hinges, etc.
The P2006T Tecnam twin is just not built strong enough for use in a flight training school. Gear cycle is 22 seconds from down to up or up to down. Really lightly built for a twin and not a very durable aircraft.

[Squawk7700]

Gear cycle is 22 seconds from down to up or up to down.

Jeez, that has to be close to a record !

[Capt Fathom]

Jeez, that has to be close to a record !


It does? In what respect?

[Squawk7700]

22 seconds for the gear cycle seems like a very long time.

[drpixie]

22 seconds for the gear cycle seems like a very long time.
Really long time when you're thinking "Hmmm ... should I have gone around?"

[Okihara]

I'm all for bagging out Soar, who doesn't hate seeing a yellow kite in the circuit, but yet another accident from Oxford this week!
What? Today?

[runway16]

From the SOAR Facebook website.

Things not right in the Soar camp. CASA said to be involved. The subject of GoPro cameras and and facebook clips cam up.

And SOAR still advertise that they are the safest.

https://scontent.fmel7-1.fna.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-1/p50x50/14657325_1286158314749661_8770755710027998965_n.jpg?_nc_cat= 111&_nc_ht=scontent.fmel7-1.fna&oh=151ba7ff47a630201ada72ee670c7f77&oe=5C4C0240 (https://www.facebook.com/soaraviation/?ref=nf&__tn__=%3C-R&eid=ARBOdCxHrPz4bAbJG7NEAbXaHxjqXcSHQe0tszpAnriZlofEQQ0d51gF Mxz6nUX-3gvm2tCXqdFc__jS&hc_ref=ARTXjrmFGg_X3avd4Hr-3qywZ992jxsv3fJcJlbhFm4LXGZ2GPaSOMn7kULYPizrt4s&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARC-FlTzzklrIy3DdbCS9iqseEHn_AWFHpXZPLzf8J5k0lC-09vwpqWf7Igg0g4qF6Vrx1Gelitk08Y6u3HQebClO6Dhv0P9tn58wg4uWDkD c5_DV4dwwZcTDF7wYH0UywYuMhveK0wtXoGHy53n-_Vq5RnYDeJHiAJpaUL4WfRWmlC952dUIBIlr2X6D5XYLkIqKEKEsNM1yzQd9 mZwfMUMML4)Soar Aviation (https://www.facebook.com/soaraviation/?__tn__=kC-R&eid=ARCBEnZKJT9be3lw3fASs9b_fh4QGdO3kggL0UJReG82pqeY6-UJKox4uzF9ItkaI3Oi8D7V7IN5lO9X&hc_ref=ARTR9NuW3SbhPecj3T_UERY00kSfPDB_JNEmAMAf9xzjZHvqQLnuJ X_-2OOnUjYRRxo&fref=nf&__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARC-FlTzzklrIy3DdbCS9iqseEHn_AWFHpXZPLzf8J5k0lC-09vwpqWf7Igg0g4qF6Vrx1Gelitk08Y6u3HQebClO6Dhv0P9tn58wg4uWDkD c5_DV4dwwZcTDF7wYH0UywYuMhveK0wtXoGHy53n-_Vq5RnYDeJHiAJpaUL4WfRWmlC952dUIBIlr2X6D5XYLkIqKEKEsNM1yzQd9 mZwfMUMML4)

October 5 at 4:44 PM · On behalf of Soar Aviation, the incident that occurred at Stawell has activated a comprehensive emergency response, which involves grounding all our fleet across all bases. Soar Aviation and emergency response teams have incident response management and procedures in place in the event of an incident of this nature.

Soar Aviation’s priority is the safety and security of our employees, students, visitors, and those involved in the incident. Privacy laws limit our ability to provide any additional information.

As more information is available we will be providing updates through our website www.soar.edu.au (http://www.soar.edu.au/?fbclid=IwAR1PtvzWltqEszO9rykiuv2RYEd0TDERz3M3RrQir04FhE2glG cF1cPnHec)

and facebook.com/soaraviation (https://facebook.com/soaraviation?__xts__%5B0%5D=68.ARC-FlTzzklrIy3DdbCS9iqseEHn_AWFHpXZPLzf8J5k0lC-09vwpqWf7Igg0g4qF6Vrx1Gelitk08Y6u3HQebClO6Dhv0P9tn58wg4uWDkD c5_DV4dwwZcTDF7wYH0UywYuMhveK0wtXoGHy53n-_Vq5RnYDeJHiAJpaUL4WfRWmlC952dUIBIlr2X6D5XYLkIqKEKEsNM1yzQd9 mZwfMUMML4&__tn__=-UK-R)
We respectfully ask for privacy for all those involved whilst we investigate the incident.

[0ttoL]

I was at Moorabbin last Saturday (great weather) and the lack of activity at Soar was very apparent. I wondered what was happening. The Stawell accident was a Bristelle and they have plenty of other types. Something more "systemic"?

[Squawk7700]

Seems a bit strange as they were flying the same aircraft type, the day after the crash. Perhaps they have found something since - remember the crew is around to discuss it this time so perhaps they have uncovered something. Seemingly no reason to ground the Foxbats, so does sound like some kind of organisational. We shall soon see.

[RHSandLovingIt]

The P2006T Tecnam twin is just not built strong enough for use in a flight training school. Gear cycle is 22 seconds from down to up or up to down. Really lightly built for a twin and not a very durable aircraft.
22 seconds for the gear cycle seems like a very long time.
I did pretty much all of my initial issue MEIR training in a P2006T... The gear cycle time (while fairly long) is considerably less than 22 seconds... it's more like 10 or 11... did you mean a complete cycle from up to down and back up (or vice versa)? :confused: or the emergency extension? (for which the POH says: "The emergency landing gear extension operation takes about 20 sec.")

The main issue I had was that, at the time I was flying it, Vlo and Vle for the P2006T were only 93 kias :eek: :ouch: (This was later "re-certified" to ~122 kias I believe)... That and it had no electric ground fans like the Partenavia (only ram air vents), which meant flying in summer could get a bit unpleasant if you were sitting on the ground (until I bought a cigarette lighter port powered fan from Super Cheap :})

Personally, I thought it was fine for flight training.

[Framcicles]

Implemented a new FSO - everyone grounded over the weekend to allow new training for the instructors.

Students have to complete a stalling exercise every three months. This time more thorough (lots of new configurations/positions to recover from to remain current with the school) of the aircraft than has been previously asked of them.

[Centaurus]

This time more thorough (lots of new configurations/positions to recover from
Now, that's really asking for trouble. Before the type was approved for training, presumably the aircraft was tested for its stall characteristics by a qualified test pilot - not just any Grade One flying instructor. If the prototype proved bad news at stalling, then the problem is picked up during its certification testing and rectified.

Most LSA's have benign stalling characteristics. You have to put them into the most unlikely and may I say unrealistic attitudes to coax the aircraft into a situation where recovery is risky. In so doing, it is all too easy to over-stress the airframe through ham-fisted or lead footed attempts to induce a wing drop at the point of stall so the box can be ticked.
Some instructors love showing off by tossing an aircraft into frightening attitudes to tick the box on stall recoveries. Amateur pilot maintenance won't pick up airframe or engine mounts hidden stress.


If the rules (aka the syllabus of training designed by a flying school) require demonstration (for example) of competency at recovery from a wing drop at the point of stall, I have no problem with that; but do it on an aerobatic type certified and stressed for the job; not an aircraft that is designed and demonstrated to have benign stall characteristics. The 737 is such an aircraft but we don't throw a 737 all over the sky and stamping on full rudder to induce a wing drop. Nor do Boeing test pilots I bet.

Some instructors are apprehensive about teaching stalling and stall recovery. Even though the stall may be benign. The usual briefing blurb includes saying the aircraft will experience buffeting of the tail surfaces as a precursor to the stall warning. This leads to the advice that the pilot should initiate stall recovery as soon as buffeting or the stall warning occurs. If the stall is benign - meaning the aircraft waffles gently nose high even with the stick hard back - then it is poor instructor technique to deliberately fake a stall to the student by using harsh and uncoordinated control movements (inordinately excess rudder, aileron and elevator) that would never be used in real life

In fact, with most modern light aircraft and that includes LSA's ,there is rarely a discernible buffet prior to the stall. But you can bet the new instructor will "patter" the approach to the stall and include comment "can you feel the buffet now?" when there is no buffet. It is far more honest for the instructor to brief a student that on this particular aircraft (insert type) there is no buffet prior to the stall.

Wartime aircraft were often different. Their stalling characteristics could vary significantly. The original flying instructors handbook published by the then Department of Civil Aviation warned that use of instant aileron to pick up a wing drop occurring at the point of stall could often cause the aircraft to enter an incipient spin. That point is still taught at some civilian flying schools 75 years later, where instructors still teach use of rudder to pick up a dropped wing. This is incorrect interpretation of the original advice.
It may be of historical interest to some to compare the stalling characteristics of the wartime Mustang versus today's Cessna 172 and its ilk.
For example: The following extract is from RAAF Publication No. 780 dated August 1946 Pilot's Notes for Mustang .

Para. 46. Stalling. "With fuselage tank full or half full, there is no buffeting to give warning of the approaching stall, but a series of stick reversals occurs just above stalling speed; at the stall the right wing drops sharply, and unless immediate recovery action is taken, a spin may develop. the stick must be moved firmly forward for recovery.
The aircraft sinks rapidly as stalling speed is approached. If the stick is held back at the stall, a wing will drop very rapidly and the aircraft will become inverted. Power on spins should never be intentionally performed. As many as five or six turns may be made after recovery action and 9000 -10,000 feet lost."

[zanthrus]

Rhsandlovingit. The gear cycle time I quoted was for that particular airframe VH-OWW. I timed it several times Feb 2016 in Qld at its former home to Soar. Something definitely wrong with that aircraft. I had to do 5 flights to finish a students MEA Class Rating Flight Test due to failures we experienced with the gear on this aircraft. Other P2006T aircraft may be better as you describe, they could hardly be worse I reckon!

[Okihara]

Out of curiosity, why isn't the recovery from stalls induced from higher load factors during turns at low speeds taught? This appears to me as a situation that most pilots will more likely encounter than the usual clean and approach configuration stalls. That's especially true in some LSA where stalls require so much back pressure that you'd really wonder how anyone could get to that point without doing it willingly.

[djpil]

Now, that's really asking for trouble. Before the type was approved for training, presumably the aircraft was tested for its stall characteristics by a qualified test pilot - not just any Grade One flying instructor. If the prototype proved bad news at stalling, then the problem is picked up during its certification testing and rectified. ... The Cessna Skycatcher is a classic example of this at http://www.flighttestsafety.org/images/stories/workshop/2010/07-Sky_Catcher_Flight_Test_Spin_Testing.ppt

The FAA notes in their AC 61-67, Stall and Spin Awareness Training, that "Normal category airplanes are not approved for the performance of acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, and are placarded against intentional spins. However, to provide a margin of safety when recovery from a stall is delayed, normal category airplanes are tested during certification and must be able to recover from a one turn spin or a 3-second spin, whichever takes longer, in not more than one additional turn with the controls used in the manner normally used for recovery or demonstrate the airplane’s resistance to spins." LSA requirements are similar to FAR 23 normal category.

Worthwhile considering the meaning of this stuff:
- placarded against intentional spins .... to provide a margin of safety when recovery from a stall is delayed .... that is a significant statement
- Part 61 requires incipient spin training for an RPL but nowhere does CASA define an incipient spin .... personally, I'd take the FAA definition but just my opinion
- if an aircraft is placarded against intentional spins - is it approved for training of incipient spins?

If the rules (aka the syllabus of training designed by a flying school) require demonstration (for example) of competency at recovery from a wing drop at the point of stall, I have no problem with that; but do it on an aerobatic type certified and stressed for the job; not an aircraft that is designed and demonstrated to have benign stall characteristics.I can only agree per my above comments - although Utility Category with approval for intentional spins.

The original flying instructors handbook published by the then Department of Civil Aviation warned that use of instant aileron to pick up a wing drop occurring at the point of stall could often cause the aircraft to enter an incipient spin. That point is still taught at some civilian flying schools 75 years later, where instructors still teach use of rudder to pick up a dropped wing. This is incorrect interpretation of the original advice. It is instructive to read the current CASA Flight Instructor Manual - see both chapters on stalls and spins then compare that with the FAA's new Chapter 4 of the Pilot Flying Handbook at https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/media/06_afh_ch4.pdf

Out of curiosity, why isn't the recovery from stalls induced from higher load factors during turns at low speeds taught?Take a look at the stall exercises required by Part 61 ... still a good question.

Some instructors are apprehensive about teaching stalling and stall recovery. I wonder how many schools and instructors do the required stall training exercises per Part 61?

[jonkster]

Out of curiosity, why isn't the recovery from stalls induced from higher load factors during turns at low speeds taught? This appears to me as a situation that most pilots will more likely encounter than the usual clean and approach configuration stalls. That's especially true in some LSA where stalls require so much back pressure that you'd really wonder how anyone could get to that point without doing it willingly.

In the MOS, stalls need to be able to be recovered in straight and level flight, climbing, descending and turning. Students should also be able to recover from an incipient spin (which in aircraft that can spin, is not a recovery the instant the aircraft starts to roll and yaw as it stalls).

I suspect that doesn't always happen, particularly when instructors have come through a system where stalling has not been well taught and they go on to propagate their reticence to the next crop of instructors and the cycle continues and the effect spreads wider through the pilot community.

(I would also think that if a school operates an ab-initio aircraft that may have an out of the run of the mill trait when it stalls, handling or mitigating techniques/operating procedures for that should be taught. It sounds on a cursory read that this may well be what is being now implemented in the organisation discussed, which I think is a responsible action).

[Centaurus]

In the MOS, stalls need to be able to be recovered in straight and level flight, climbing, descending and turning.

The descending stall requirement seems a bit unnecessary. If the aircraft is descending wings level as on final approach, presumably one raises the nose to reduce speed and facilitate the stall and therefore you are not descending anymore.

Now try descending again with the intention of banking at the same time and it is likely to finish up in a steep spiral dive with ever increasing airspeed. Good way to exceed g limits and over stress the airframe.
OK I'll go along with a climbing turn stall and associated recovery action. But cannot see the point of a descending turning stall. Certainly not a requirement in jet transport simulators so why in a Cessna series singles or LSA?

[jonkster]

Now try descending again with the intention of banking at the same time and it is likely to finish up in a steep spiral dive with ever increasing airspeed. Good way to exceed g limits and over stress the airframe.
OK I'll go along with a climbing turn stall and associated recovery action. But cannot see the point of a descending turning stall. Certainly not a requirement in jet transport simulators so why in a Cessna series singles or LSA?

I tend to teach it as an imagined scenario where the student is trying to turn onto final in a forced landing or in a PS&L in really low cloudbase. I describe the situation beforehand and how it will involve mishandling the controls and how this might happen in real life.

In the exercise I try and set it up so the student needs to turn significantly and describe the situation as where they may feel nervous about banking the aircraft low to the ground so they start over ruddering. I then explain they are coming in short and try to 'stretch' the approach by pulling back until it stalls. If I get it right we are now set up in a pro-spin configuration or at least one that will encourage a stall that rotates and bites a bit. (Depends on aircraft to how easy this is to do). We then look at the altitude loss after recovering.

Obviously this done at altitude (we set an imaginary altitude for ground level). I want to encourage them to avoid unbalanced turns caused by ground-shyness, to recognise the control inputs that will cause the aircraft to bite and to show how an increase in stall speed in turns is typically discussed for level turns but it actually depends on G not necessarily angle of bank.


I suspect such a scenario explains a number of base turn stall spin accidents so want to encourage students to avoid falling into that trap.

[roundsounds]

I tend to teach it as an imagined scenario where the student is trying to turn onto final in a forced landing or in a PS&L in really low cloudbase. I describe the situation beforehand and how it will involve mishandling the controls and how this might happen in real life.

In the exercise I try and set it up so the student needs to turn significantly and describe the situation as where they may feel nervous about banking the aircraft low to the ground so they start over ruddering. I then explain they are coming in short and try to 'stretch' the approach by pulling back until it stalls. If I get it right we are now set up in a pro-spin configuration or at least one that will encourage a stall that rotates and bites a bit. (Depends on aircraft to how easy this is to do). We then look at the altitude loss after recovering.

Obviously this done at altitude (we set an imaginary altitude for ground level). I want to encourage them to avoid unbalanced turns caused by ground-shyness, to recognise the control inputs that will cause the aircraft to bite and to show how an increase in stall speed in turns is typically discussed for level turns but it actually depends on G not necessarily angle of bank.


I suspect such a scenario explains a number of base turn stall spin accidents so want to encourage students to avoid falling into that trap.
fantastic!
i was starting to think I was the only one doing this. The “traditional” methods are a waste of time

[RHSandLovingIt]

Rhsandlovingit. The gear cycle time I quoted was for that particular airframe VH-OWW. I timed it several times Feb 2016 in Qld at its former home to Soar. Something definitely wrong with that aircraft. I had to do 5 flights to finish a students MEA Class Rating Flight Test due to failures we experienced with the gear on this aircraft. Other P2006T aircraft may be better as you describe, they could hardly be worse I reckon!
In that case... I would definitely agree that something was not right with that particular airframe... never experienced gear travel times like that! :eek: :bored: :ooh: :ouch:

[Horatio Leafblower]

fantastic!
i was starting to think I was the only one doing this.
RoundSounds... that means there's at least 6 of us doing this (You + Jonkster+ me & my band of merry people)

[Sunfish]

never was taught recovery except from straight and level. Djpil had me do a stall and recovery from a climbing turn. scared the crap out of me doing it, but turned out to be a non event. So much isn’t taught.

[Des Dimona]

Seems to be popular to beat up on Soar but you're got to admit their marketing is years ahead of any other flying school in the country.

... so is their incident/accident rate

[zanthrus]

Des OH SNAP!

[nonsense]

Something appears to have happened at Moorabbin this morning; a helicopter (not visible on FR24) was hovering around the south side of the airport for an hour from just after 9am to just after 10am. Multiple sirens heard early on.

VH-LCE (Tasfast air freight) took off at 10am; normal activity seems to have resumed about 10:15am.

At 10:30am the VicRoads traffic website still shows:Lower Dandenong RoadZoom (https://traffic.vicroads.vic.gov.au/incidents/3318288)Near: Mcswain Street , Parkdale
Traffic Alert

Emergency Incident
One lane closed both directions near Allandale Road as emergency crews respond to an incident. Allow extra time. Centre Dandenong Road an alternative between Boundary and Warrigal roads.Started: 03/12/2018 9:02am

Updated at: 03/12/2018 9:07am

[nonsense]

Not an aviation incident; The Age reports:Firefighters rescue man stuck in drain in Mentone "Crews received the call just after 8:30am this morning with more than 20 firefighters including aerial appliances being utilised,"
https://www.theage.com.au/national/victoria/firefighters-rescue-man-stuck-in-drain-in-mentone-20181203-p50jsm.html

[Squawk7700]

With reference to the 22 second gear time....

Scroll through to 5m15sec

https://youtu.be/JAay9v2oZKs

I estimate 30 seconds for a gear cycle !



Ps climb rate of 300fpm with 2 Pob doesn’t sound amazing for this 4 seater and climbing to 3,000ft at 75 knots, she ain’t a rocket ship!

[machtuk]

That's scary!:-)

[zanthrus]

Re post #34 video. If you note the pilots call out for gear up the video is at 5:17. When the last main gear is visibly fully retracted the video time is 5:37. So 20 secs give or take a couple to make the micro switches and close the cycle. My own estimate was 22 sec as personally timed whilst I was flying VH-OWW on several occasions.