Light plane flips at Moorabbin airport, trapping pilot

[Desert Flower]

The pilot of a light plane was trapped after the aircraft flipped at an airport in Melbourne's southeast.

Emergency services were called to Moorabbin Airport just before 10am to find the training aircraft on its roof.

The pilot, believed to be aged in his 20s, was trapped inside and crews established a foam hose line as a precaution while the MFB set him free.

https://images.7news.com.au/publication/C-601973/38d61f63514f5af93506b09d9c9cb2433996ac78.png?imwidth=650&impolicy=sevennews_v2

Emergency services were called to Moorabbin Airport just before 10am to find the training aircraft on its roof. Credit: 7NEWS The pilot was seen being loaded into an ambulance just before 10.30am.

He has been taken to The Alfred Hospital in a serious condition.

DF.

[mcoates]

Reported on news media to be a Bristell from "Soar Aviation"

[Squawk7700]

I heard someone was seen under the wreckage shortly after, trying to read the VDO to work out how much to charge the student for that flight.

[MikeHatter732]

What a truly cooked operator that this company is.

Saw a fellow Soar Technam take off for Essendon as the Bristell lies upside down surrounded in emergency vehicles.

There is no time to suspend the operation, more money has to flow into old mate's wallet!

[mcoates]

"I heard someone was seen under the wreckage shortly after, trying to read the VDO to work out how much to charge the student for that flight."

now thats funny !

[UnderneathTheRadar]

I heard someone was seen under the wreckage shortly after, trying to read the VDO to work out how much to charge the student for that flight.

They'll add .3 for the taxi time saved.....

[Clare Prop]

Hope the stude is OK.

Re the VDO, Remember who is paying for those flights, it's us mug taxpayers topping up Mr Young Rich List's millions through the VET system. We've paid for our flying... now we have to pay him for theirs.

[0ttoL]

That looks to be taxiway Echo 2 just off runway 13L (to the right in the photo) about half way down the runway.
OR 17L is to the left of the photo, but much closer to the threshold

[Squawk7700]

Hope the stude is OK.

Re the VDO, Remember who is paying for those flights, it's us mug taxpayers topping up Mr Young Rich List's millions through the VET system. We've paid for our flying... now we have to pay him for theirs.

It’s a loan from the government that the student pays back once they earn $45,881 gross. It even includes interest, so in some ways, the government is actually profiting from the students, assuming that one day they actually more than $45,881.

I don’t know anyone of my crowd that haven’t paid back their loans.

[Clare Prop]

I know how it works...plus there has been plenty of discussion about it on other threads here. It doesn't charge interest but is index linked. There has already been one AAT decision to refund these loans and I understand there are several more cases being considered. Those refunds aren't going to come from the school owner's pocket, are they?

[Squawk7700]

Those refunds aren't going to come from the school owner's pocket, are they?

Absolutely they will, or the associated education provider.

The Government won’t be handing out millions with no strings attached !

[Stretch06]

It’s a loan from the government that the student pays back once they earn $45,881 gross. It even includes interest, so in some ways, the government is actually profiting from the students, assuming that one day they actually more than $45,881.

I don’t know anyone of my crowd that haven’t paid back their loans.

Slight thread drift.... but I know many ex students who still have it hanging over their heads and will do for many many years to come. Not to mention the ones that left the country and now don't pay it back at all (unless they return and pay Aussie Tax at some point in their future).

[Squawk7700]

Slight thread drift.... but I know many ex students who still have it hanging over their heads and will do for many many years to come. Not to mention the ones that left the country and now don't pay it back at all (unless they return and pay Aussie Tax at some point in their future).

Was discussing this today with some colleagues. Certain countries (particularly Asian ones) don’t allow dual citizenship so it’s not all that common for them to leave the country and not come back. This is because you can only get the loan as a permanent resident.

As the student pilot put in that post on the other thread about this, many of the students were are older age guys with half-decent jobs, looking to change careers and many have families.... generally not the type to get up and run away.

[umop apisdn]

Slight thread drift.... but I know many ex students who still have it hanging over their heads and will do for many many years to come. Not to mention the ones that left the country and now don't pay it back at all (unless they return and pay Aussie Tax at some point in their future).
International students can't get FEE HELP. It's now a rule that you must repay your loan no matter where you live.

[The name is Porter]

So what is it now? Three Bristells in the last two years or so, all in Victoria.

I hope the young chap is ok.

[Clare Prop]

There is a link to an article on the "rich list" thread that states that 98% of the students were relying on VET funding. From memory about 20 were going to the AAT about getting a refund.

[LKinnon]

Are there any more details about the actual crash incident?

[Deceiver]

Without going too much into the hearsay, I've heard that the pilot was not supposed to be flying this plane for a number of reasons. This could get VERY interesting for Soar.

[Ixixly]

Yeah...can anyone comment on how this yellow tweety bird found itself in this predicament?

Also, love it when they say Emergency Services "Found" it on its roof, like they turned up for something unrelated, "Oh, bob, check that out, you think that thing is meant to be on it's roof over there? Guess we better go check on it?"

[Egipps]

Click for the ATSB report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-071/)

“The ATSB is investigating the collision with terrain involving a Bristell S-LSA aircraft, registered VH-YVF, at Moorabbin Airport, Victoria, which occurred at about 0950 on 12 December 2019.

During final approach for a touch and go landing, the aircraft is reported to have pitched up steeply and yawed resulting in collision with terrain. The pilot, the only person on board, was seriously injured. The aircraft was substantially damaged.

As part of the investigation, the ATSB will examine the accident site and the aircraft wreckage, interview air traffic control and other relevant personnel, and conduct data recovery.

A report will be released at the end of the investigation. Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant stakeholders so appropriate and timely safety action can be taken.”

[IFEZ]

Maybe a mishandled go around..? Or completely misjudged how high off the ground he was after ballooning it and stalled it in..? Wonder if there's any footage of the event..? Guess it will all come out in the wash after interviewing the pilot. Another black mark against Soar though.

[aroa]

Did the ATSB and its siamese twin CAsA issue any "critical safety issue" notification regarding the Angel Flight accidents???
. Yep.! Go by bus, dont fly ,and maintain that Pvt a/c better. Brilliant thinking...NOT

[Okihara]

Ouch, poor kid. Hope he/she'll be fine.

There have really been an eyebrow-raising number of incidents involving Bristells and this school.
Not exactly the kind of stats you'd read in the article of "Flight school owner makes the rich list...".

[spektrum]

It’s a loan from the government that the student pays back once they earn $45,881 gross. It even includes interest, so in some ways, the government is actually profiting from the students, assuming that one day they actually more than $45,881.

I don’t know anyone of my crowd that haven’t paid back their loans.

I would take a stab that only 50% of Soar graduates at best will ever find employment. One reputable flying business owner here has voiced that he would never employ someone at Soar and I don't think he is the only one.

When it comes to this school and Fee-HELP the tax payer is at a loss. Guaranteed.

[Cat3508]

As reported on Chan 9 News " Bristell aricraft - a single engine ultralight plan”, this is the actual spelling which I have copied.

[Squawk7700]

When it comes to this school and Fee-HELP the tax payer is at a loss. Guaranteed.

Why would that be? It’s a simple financing arrangement between the student and the government.

[Sunfish]

There is an element of moral hazard in vet fee help. The supplier is not incentivized to be competitive and the repayment responsibility is far in the future for the customer. Hence places like SOAR and many others in different industries.

[Clare Prop]

The government don't put it in the students' pockets.

[poteroo]

Did I correctly read a recent article on the full extent of student loans as being around $60bn? It was further stated that 'the government' expected 30% of loans to default. That's a lot of taxpayer dollars. I realise that pilot loans are pro
bably a small % of this, but, is there such a desperate shortage of Commercial Pilots about? Not from what I hear.
happy days,

[Squawk7700]

If you think it costs a lot to train in this system to be a pilot, imagine what it costs to become a doctor.

[Clare Prop]

Sqauwk the VET loan available to pilots is the same as a medical, vet or dentistry student. $150 grand. It should cost half that to get a CPL. A doctor/vet/dentist is more likely to get a well paid career under way soon after graduating and isn't reliant on a Class 1 medical. They also have slightly stricter entry requirements.

[Squawk7700]

Sqauwk the VET loan available to pilots is the same as a medical, vet or dentistry student. $150 grand. It should cost half that to get a CPL. A doctor/vet/dentist is more likely to get a well paid career under way soon after graduating and isn't reliant on a Class 1 medical. They also have slightly stricter entry requirements.

Being a university graduate I am acutely aware of how the system works thanks, along with the job prospects of each of the streams.

[Okihara]

Sqauwk the VET loan available to pilots is the same as a medical, vet or dentistry student. $150 grand. It should cost half that to get a CPL. A doctor/vet/dentist is more likely to get a well paid career under way soon after graduating and isn't reliant on a Class 1 medical. They also have slightly stricter entry requirements.

In fact, most recent medical graduate won't be earning all that much for at least another few years until they complete their training.

[Forced Labor]

When is CASA finally going to pull the AOC of this organisation.

[blakemc]

Sqauwk the VET loan available to pilots is the same as a medical, vet or dentistry student. $150 grand. It should cost half that to get a CPL. career
It does cost half of that for a CPL... they’re charging around $80k

[Egipps]

Without going too much into the hearsay, I've heard that the pilot was not supposed to be flying this plane for a number of reasons. This could get VERY interesting for Soar.
Think without more information you've already gone into the hearsay.

[Egipps]

Saw a fellow Soar Technam take off for Essendon as the Bristell lies upside down surrounded in emergency vehicles.


Thought they closed the airport straight after the accident? Was the Tecnam already at the holding point for the other runway?

[LKinnon]

Any more information on what actually happened with the accident?

Sounds like loss of control and a stall doing touch and goes, but anything specific?

[GoFlyAviation]

At GoFly Online, we have some thoughts on this subject and recently wrote a blog on the subject of why VET fee needs to change.

[Clare Prop]

That was a great blog. One thing I've noticed is the disparity in ATAR scores required for the other courses that will allow them to borrow that much money. Two are 99 and one is 95. However for this course....Entry Requirements

You must:

hold a CASA Class 1 Medical Certificate (see medical requirements)
hold an Aviation Security Identity Card (ASIC)
be at least 18 years of age once the Commercial Pilot Licence is issued
To assist prospective students to determine whether a course is suitable and appropriate for the individual needs, will assess all students’ language, literacy and numeracy and digital literacy by asking you to undertake a self-assessment review prior to the enrolment.=left

[wheels_down]

Perhaps it might be for the better good of just abandoning all aviation fee help related schemes and be done with it. Yes that will result in places like this becoming non existent but it appears it’s just too much hard work keeping it alive.

[Forced Labor]

Without going too much into the hearsay, I've heard that the pilot was not supposed to be flying this plane for a number of reasons

Does SOAR Aviation allow RA AUS pilots to fly VH registered aircraft ? Is it legally possible for this to occur ?

This pilot has suffered very severe injuries - the specific details are best not discussed here, but I hope there is at last some immediate accountability or show cause action from CASA, directed at both SOAR Aviation and also RA AUS regarding the certification process for Bristell aircraft.

Does the number of serious accidents with SOAR Aviation Bristell aircraft reflect on its' suitability and/or the quality of training delivered by the organisation? Either way, to quote an extract from Shakespeare's Hamlet, 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'

[Squawk7700]

Does SOAR Aviation allow RA AUS pilots to fly VH registered aircraft ? Is it legally possible for this to occur ?

directed at both SOAR Aviation and also RA AUS regarding the certification process for Bristell aircraft.


No, an Raaus only pilot can not fly a GA registered aircraft.

Raaus or Soar do not certify aircraft. The aircraft appears to have a type certificate from overseas that has been accepted in Australia by Raaus https://www.bristell.com/certificates

You can’t blame a botched landing on the certification of the aircraft when thousands of other Bristell landings have taken place successfully prior.

[Deceiver]

This pilot has suffered very severe injuries - the specific details are best not discussed here, but I hope there is at last some immediate accountability or show cause action from CASA, directed at both SOAR Aviation and also RA AUS regarding the certification process for Bristell aircraft.
RAAus shouldn't come into this at all. This is on Soar, as well as the student.

The injuries the student sustained are horrific, and Soar are, no doubt, looking down the barrel of a gun now.

[Des Dimona]

I can't find details of any other flying training organisation that has such a recent history of multiple accidents in the one aircraft type.

If everyone is so convinced there is no problem with the aircraft, what safety management systems that are supposed to mitigate and manage risk at SOAR aviation were in place? Because, clearly, they were unable to prevent these accidents from occurring?

[Squawk7700]

Watch this space!

[Clare Prop]

Pitch and yaw consistent with sudden application of power...looks like a badly handled go around leading to loss of control. Poor guy.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2019/aair/ao-2019-071/

[Centaurus]

Pitch and yaw consistent with sudden application of power...looks like a badly handled go around leading to loss of control. Poor guy.

It is rare that ab-initio students are taught go arounds close to or at the flare. Most go arounds are from 200 feet. A very low altitude low energy go around at low airspeed (inadvertent low airspeed or otherwise), can be significantly different in terms of rudder use to prevent yaw as power is increased, to the same event at 200 feet at airspeeds well in excess of Vref.

In most light aircraft (C152 for example), unless the pilot applies immediate sufficient rudder to stop the yaw as the nose is raised into the initial full flap climbing attitude, there is danger of loss of directional control and entry into an incipient spin. This can be critical if initial flap retraction is delayed or different to the manufacturer’s recommended procedure. For sometimes wrongly perceived safety reasons, it is common that a company go-around SOP is often taught at training schools in preference to the manufacturer’s POH advice.

. The go around from the flare is a critical test of flying skill because of the high drag, low airspeed and yawing situation. Students who have had insufficient practice at this manoeuvre before first solo are ill-equipped to be aware of its dangers. Often they are taught a generic go around procedure rather than the procedure recommended in the manufacturer's POH. The procedure should initially be taught at a safe altitude until proficient; rather than thrown in for good measure (if at all) at the flare and at speeds below Vref for the aircraft type.

Newly graduated instructors are often inexperienced in total flying hours and real world flying experience. Some may be apprehensive of very low altitude full flap low energy go-arounds simply because they were not taught properly in their own ab initio days - nor on instructor course. In turn, they may not be sufficiently competent to demonstrate this manoeuvre to their student. Often, instructors are reluctant to demonstrate a manoeuvre because they feel guilty about taking up the students hands-on flying time. Talking someone through a manoeuvre is no substitute for a well flown demonstration. A picture is worth a thousand words.

At a safe altitude and before first solo, students should be taught a go-around under the hood. This prepares the student for an event where it may be raining and forward vision is momentarily lost during the flare. In addition, students should be taught how to safely recover to land off a bounced landing by applying sufficient power to cushion the bounce. Certainly this is important before first solo where bounced landings are not uncommon.

It is generally safer and requires less skill, for a student to recover from a bounced landing and land ahead (all things being equal with regards to remaining length of landing area) rather than risk a low energy low speed go around with full flap where strong yaw on application of full power has the potential to lead to loss of directional control. New instructors need to be certified competent in the teaching of these manoeuvres before being let loose on ab initio student pilots. At present, it is a case of the blind teaching the blind.

Assuming a contributory cause of this accident is found to include improper go-around procedures, then it may have been prevented if the student had been taught the correct method of going around at low altitude in the first place. That said, being taught correctly doesn't always guarantee a student will follow that teaching in the heat of the moment.

Lack of standardisation can be a problem at flying schools that employ many instructors. Lack of supervision of new instructors is often the case. Experienced (Grade One) instructors tend to concentrate on CPL or IFR training rather than regularly fly with ab-initio students. This can lead to missed opportunities for quality assurance checks on new instructors.






________________________________

[thunderbird five]

Here's something to ponder:
Let's say a trainee pilot happens to have an ARN and a CASA Basic class 2 medical.
Let's say they have two identical LSA aircraft there, one RAAus, one VH.
Let's say the trainee's instructor is dual rated RAAus/GA
Let's say the training records are identical for RAAus or VH for that school.
Given that there is no such thing as a student licence any more, what would be stopping an RAAus trainee doing the odd flight - even solo - in a VH aircraft if all those ducks lined up nicely?

[Sunfish]

Regarding low speed low altitude go around, thanks Centaurus, I’ve never been taught that either. I know it was responsible for a friends crash luckily he and family were Mostly OK.

next flight we we will practice at altitude.

[Squawk7700]

Regarding low speed low altitude go around, thanks Centaurus, I’ve never been taught that either. I know it was responsible for a friends crash luckily he and family were Mostly OK.

next flight we we will practice at altitude.

Is that also what happened when you bent the firewall on the 172 at Moorabbin?

[Squawk7700]

Here's something to ponder:
Let's say a trainee pilot happens to have an ARN and a CASA Basic class 2 medical.
Let's say they have two identical LSA aircraft there, one RAAus, one VH.
Let's say the trainee's instructor is dual rated RAAus/GA
Let's say the training records are identical for RAAus or VH for that school.
Given that there is no such thing as a student licence any more, what would be stopping an RAAus trainee doing the odd flight - even solo - in a VH aircraft if all those ducks lined up nicely?

I was aware of that when I posted and deliberately put an “Raaus only” pilot, so I shouldn’t have said “no“ sorry.

Dual training schools generally get their students to get a medical straight up so they know if they are going to be able to get the class 1 or 2 in the future, rather than waste money on training they can’t use. Add that to the ARN which they will later need and an asic card etc, then as you say you are a dual org capable pilot as long as you’re a financial member of Raaus. Therefore a student pilot can fly either aircraft.

[The name is Porter]

Tik Tok, Tik Toc.................

[Arctaurus]

Tik Tok, Tik Toc.................

I doubt that most people understand what you are saying and that's the problem.

[The name is Porter]

Sorry, it's more in relation to my previous comments,

It'll become public shortly.

[Sunfish]

Is that also what happened when you bent the firewall on the 172 at Moorabbin?


‘No. That was courtesy of less than adequate training regarding V ref. Certain flying schools have a habit of adding ten knots to manufacturer recommended approach and landing speeds. This is not always a good idea.

[Sunfish]

What happened to my mate, he had just bought the aircraft and the transition training he did covered everything except a go around. When he executed his he was caught off guard by the amount of right rudder required to keep the 210 straight.

The flight was part of a private holiday tour with four adults and two children in the aircraft. The pilot was conducting an approach to land at a property airstrip. There was a headwing of about 20 kts on final approach and he was maintaining an airspeed of 80 kts. When the aircraft descended below the tree line just before landing it entered an area of windshear. The pilot noted an increase in speed at this time and said that the aircraft bounced a number of times after the initial touchdown. He then elected to go around, applied full engine power, and retracted the flaps from 30 to 20 degrees. He then became concerned about clearing trees to the left of the strip as the aircraft had veered left during the go-around. The aircraft subsequently collided with the trees and impacted the ground heavily. The pilot and one passenger sustained minor injuries. There was no reported problem with the engine or the aircraft during the go-around. Post-accident examination of the aircraft indicated that, at impact, the flaps were in the process of retracting, and the landing gear was down.

[TXU]

The best part about this thread is that SOAR are paying for ads promoting their course within it ... wooopsie

You couldn't make this stuff up.

[BigPapi]

‘No. That was courtesy of less than adequate training regarding V ref. Certain flying schools have a habit of adding ten knots to manufacturer recommended approach and landing speeds. This is not always a good idea.


Don't forget, add 5 knots for a buffer.

Then another 5 knots if it's turbulent. And it's it's turbulent, don't use full flap, add another 5 knots for that. And if there's a crosswind, add 5 knots for that. And if it's gusting, don't forget to add half the gust factor!! All of that should quite comfortably bring in a 172 at 90 knots over the fence :}

[Clare Prop]

So what are they actually teaching in Effects of Controls, Stalling and Missed Approaches ?

[roundsounds]

I can’t find go-arounds in the RAAus RPC syllabus.

[The name is Porter]

Then another 5 knots if it's turbulent. And it's it's turbulent, don't use full flap, add another 5 knots for that. And if there's a crosswind, add 5 knots for that. And if it's gusting, don't forget to add half the gust factor!! All of that should quite comfortably bring in a 172 at 90 knots over the fence

Australian Aviation at it's finest.

[Denied Justice]

Also, don't forget to take away the number you first thought of......

Might be okay for jet aircraft with 140 kt approach speeds, but adding 5 kt multiples here and there on aircraft with very low approach speeds can be fraught with danger.

[BigPapi]

In case it wasn't bleedingly obvious, that was a piss take.

Unfortunately however it is indicative of the mentality of some.

[junior.VH-LFA]

https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1241x1441/a0b86400_46f2_4869_a64f_bbb6f02bd90f_3a8eabaca3d240e90f9a59a 68381dd48e05e7760.jpeg

[Squawk7700]

C h e c k m a t e.

[The name is Porter]

No!!! Really??? Say it isn't so???

I wonder who else will appear on the ASQA website tomorrow???

Ohhhh, IBAC, what have you to say?

****'s getting real now.

cnuts in aviation getting what's coming to them???

Say it isn't so ;-)

[junior.VH-LFA]

This is poetry in motion.

[BigPapi]

Well, this might as well get it's own thread

[Dangly Bits]

Porter you were spot on!

I hope the REAL reasons for this are made public.

I feel for the Staff and Students.

[The name is Porter]

I hope the REAL reasons for this are made public.

Dangly, They will be! This is only the start. You can expect the newest member of a certain list to be on a new list, a court list ;-)

There are other frauds on the list now, one at a time.

[Clare Prop]

Meanwhile any news of the poor student who was injured?

[Cloudee]

Report out. Amazing. https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5779659/ao-2019-071-final.pdf What the ATSB foundThe ATSB found that the pilot commenced a go‑around at low level when the aircraft deviated from the runway centreline in crosswind conditions. During the go‑around, the aircraft aerodynamically stalled and commenced a spin.

It was also identified that the student pilot did not have the necessary qualifications and skills to safely operate the Bristell solo.

Finally, the required Soar Aviation solo flight dispatch procedures were not followed. As a result, it was not identified that the student pilot was not authorised for, nor met the required competencies, to conduct the flight.

[ysbkpilot]

Pretty hard to blame the school when a bloke who isn’t qualified to fly and is too thick to realise it just grabs the keys and heads off for a burn

[Ixixly]

Pretty hard to blame the school when a bloke who isn’t qualified to fly and is too thick to realise it just grabs the keys and heads off for a burn

Pretty easy to lay a large chunk of blame on them, why was it so easy for any Student to grab the keys and go for a burn? This wasn't some early morning flight before any admin or instructors were around to monitor. How was he able to book this into their system? Why did he mention in the report that he was told "You're good to go" by his Instructor? Why was it not clearly stated from the previous debrief that he was not ready for solo as they "don't usually say that, it is clear from the debrief"? Why did he continue even though he felt uncomfortable and didn't feel he could bring this to an instructor?

[Framcicles]

Might be able to shed some light on this - I passed my CPL there early 2020...

The keys have always been in the aircraft folder, was like this since day dot. Had never heard any issues prior to this one of other students grabbing an aircraft without permission (although I once grabbed YWM instead of YWN and we didn’t pick up on it until after the flight).

Scuttlebutt at the time is scheduling made a human error and swapped him out from a Vixen to a Bristell while working on the schedules.

In terms of progression, I was given a flight schedule at the start of my CPL which did have 3 famil flights to be completed. Majority of my debriefs (I have some copies still) usually end with “next flight xxx”. However was pretty aware of the next flight anyway.

The general process for getting ready and being signed out was - Grab folder (had keys, MR, dipstick) go and preflight plane. Either before or after this do all your flight planning, then fill out necessary paperwork (you had to fill out a risk matrix for each solo, regardless of where you were in the syllabus). Once that’s all done you have to grab an instructor and depending on the matrix you grabbed a grade 1/2/3 and they checked. Licence, Medical, MR, planning, ASIC, Matrix, W&B, your hours on type (cant remember if anything else). Then once they were happy they signed the matrix and then despatched you on the system. Post flight you also needed to see an instructor to discuss any issues.

From my perspective I never had an issue speaking up to someone and at that stage the chief instructor was very approachable.

Apologise for any poor formatting/grammar. On my phone typing this!

[Squawk7700]

I’m impressed that you were one of the lucky ones that actually got a CPL from there!

[Centaurus]

I felt the ATSB report lacked investigative depth. It was also damned annoying trying to read the politically correct "they or their" instead of "he". "He" being the student of course. Nothing worse than jarring grammar.

One way or another the student botched the very low altitude go around. It begged the question had he ever had the manoeuvre demonstrated to him? Why did he fail to counter the yaw and pitch up associated with a full power low energy go-around in the Bristell? There was nothing in the report that indicated the manufacturer's recommended go-around procedure compared with the procedure the student was taught to use.

Was there much difference (if any) between the Bristell arcraft manufacturer's recommended go-around procedure and the go-around procedure for the previous type he had been flying?

Did the investigator ask each SOAR instructor what procedure they taught ? You can bet some adhere to the manufacturer's published procedure while others have their own personal ideas. If there was no such advice in the POH why didn't CASA airworthiness notice this when the Bristell was approved for student training?

Seems to me the ATSB report missed the opportunity to check the standardisation of go-around procedures by simply asking all the flying school students at Soar and not just a sample. Understandably, much of the ATSB report was about administrative failings of SOAR operations. It is just a pity that more attention was not paid to the actual aircraft handling side of the accident.

A low altitude low energy go-around can be a demanding manoeuvre in any aircraft. Particularly for a student pilot. Experience has shown few instructors are competent at teaching the manoeuvre. Moreover, inexperienced instructors can be quite apprehensive of demonstrating the sequence - if at all.

If, as claimed in the report, some instructors said the Bristell would drop a wing in the stall, then could this be an airworthiness issue? After all, there are certification rules that govern wing drop tolerances.

Even if little is learned from this accident, I would plead ATSB to trash its adherence to Public Service political correctness in future reports and use normal Queen's English grammar. It makes official reports easier to read.

[Mach1Muppet]

Did the investigator ask each SOAR instructor what procedure they taught ? You can bet some adhere to the manufacturer's published procedure while others have their own personal ideas. If there was no such advice in the POH why didn't CASA airworthiness notice this when the Bristell was approved for student training?.


Was thinking just that, the student was in the wrong but the main cause was the unsuccessful go around

[Framcicles]

Did the investigator ask each SOAR instructor what procedure they taught ? You can bet some adhere to the manufacturer's published procedure while others have their own personal ideas. If there was no such advice in the POH why didn't CASA airworthiness notice this when the Bristell was approved for student training?

Seems to me the ATSB report missed the opportunity to check the standardisation of go-around procedures by simply asking all the flying school students at Soar and not just a sample. Understandably, much of the ATSB report was about administrative failings of SOAR operations. It is just a pity that more attention was not paid to the actual aircraft handling side of the accident.


I cant comment on the Vixen, I was put on the Bristell from the start. However what I was taught is almost the same as the POH. I was taught - Full power, Pitch for 66, Trim as necessary (if you were trimmed for approach you really needed to trim ASAP, I could imagine this had an effect on the situation). Once speed was stable and clear of obstacles, remove first stage of flap, Pitch 66, Trim and same process once stable remove last stage of flaps (standard approach was 2 stages of flap).

POH is as follows;
Balked Landing (Go around) 1. Throttle - full power (max.5800 rpm) 2. Wing flaps - extend as needed 3. Trim - adjust as needed 4. Wing flaps - retract at height of 150 ft after reaching 120 km/h (65 KIAS) 5. Trim - adjust 6. Repeat circuit pattern and landing

[David J Pilkington]

why didn't CASA airworthiness notice this when the Bristell was approved for student training?That doesn't happen. However, CASA knew that the type was used for incipient spin training per their Part 61 requirements yet was not approved for intentional spins and did nought about it.

If, as claimed in the report, some instructors said the Bristell would drop a wing in the stall, then could this be an airworthiness issue? After all, there are certification rules that govern wing drop tolerances.Not really, the requirement is for the test pilot to be able to prevent the wing drop exceeding specified amounts - that is test pilot, not just an instructor let alone a student pilot.

[Centaurus]

POH is as follows;
Balked Landing (Go around) 1. Throttle - full power (max.5800 rpm) 2. Wing flaps - extend as needed 3. Trim - adjust as needed 4. Wing flaps - retract at height of 150 ft after reaching 120 km/h (65 KIAS) 5. Trim - adjust 6. Repeat circuit pattern and landing

Seems a perculiarly written go-around procedure. Is that a manufacturer's POH or a flying school document? Extending flap in a go-around is most odd. Similarly all this advice about trimming doesn't sound like a manufacturer's language as trimming should be normal airmanship? Also use of 150 ft seems a bit dodgy when most height restrictions are in whole numbers e.g. 200 feet. As for "Repeat circuit pattern and landing" what a strange addition to a go-around procedure that is?

Not really, the requirement is for the test pilot to be able to prevent the wing drop exceeding specified amounts - that is test pilot, not just an instructor let alone a student pilot.

What is the specified limit of amount of wing drop (if any) at the point of stall for LSA certification requirements? Non LSA types? it shouldn't be a case of how cunning a test pilot is to prevent a wing drop. Either an aeroplane drops a wing at point of stall or it doesn't.

Is this at idle power? if not, how much power has to be used to meet certification requirements? Seems to me a grey area when it comes to LSA certification as against non LSA types.

David J Pilkington is online now Report Post (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=11039552)

[David J Pilkington]

Either an aeroplane drops a wing at point of stall or it doesn't.Quite a few configurations and flight states to consider, for example
https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/453x759/lsastallreqts_4c0214804bcfb6255534b661efbb4d1ff8406be1.png
Of course there was that error in the crew moment arms back then so the actual CG was further aft than determined by the POH.

Is this at idle power? if not, how much power has to be used to meet certification requirements? Seems to me a grey area when it comes to LSA certification as against non LSA types.Not a grey area at all as it seems to me that the requirements are quite clear.

David J Pilkington is online now Report Post (https://www.pprune.org/report.php?p=11039552)Feel free.

[Framcicles]

Seems a perculiarly written go-around procedure. Is that a manufacturer's POH or a flying school document? Extending flap in a go-around is most odd. Similarly all this advice about trimming doesn't sound like a manufacturer's language as trimming should be normal airmanship? Also use of 150 ft seems a bit dodgy when most height restrictions are in whole numbers e.g. 200 feet. As for "Repeat circuit pattern and landing" what a strange addition to a go-around

Copy pasted direct from the POH.

[Framcicles]

I’m impressed that you were one of the lucky ones that actually got a CPL from there!

Got a good theory instructor (Kris K) who not only was a wealth of knowledge, but straightened me out to get my priorities right. Also finished at a time when the big glut of students passed, we all got along and were determined to finish. Also finished bang on my allotted hours, so wasn’t forced to pay overs like a lot of students.

[Centaurus]

Not a grey area at all as it seems to me that the requirements are quite clear.
Thanks David. That certainly clears things up for me.

[David J Pilkington]

Thanks David. That certainly clears things up for me. FAA AC 23-8C, the FAR 23 Flight Test Guide is also a good read.

[Ardo196]

Be interesting to see if these findings play a role in the class action.

What's the latest rumour in regards to the Class Action against BHI/Soar? everything's gone really quiet on that front, did the mediation in March go ahead?

[Okihara]

Foxbat bashing has been soarly missed.

[SBrommers]

Centaurus, I like everything you say. In my experience a go around from the flare or a bounce usually needs considerable forward stick force as power is applied and airspeed is regained. Quickly followed by adjustment of trim and flap. I doubt this is ever taught.

[43Inches]

POH is as follows;
Balked Landing (Go around) 1. Throttle - full power (max.5800 rpm) 2. Wing flaps - extend as needed 3. Trim - adjust as needed 4. Wing flaps - retract at height of 150 ft after reaching 120 km/h (65 KIAS) 5. Trim - adjust 6. Repeat circuit pattern and landing

This does make some sense to me as being a little more prescriptive for novice pilots. Everywhere I've worked at has had bounce and balloon recovery as part of its syllabus pre-solo. One operator had a strict go-around on bounce/balloon policy, due to the threat of tail strike or prop strike from students trying a second attempt on landing. The same operator also had the students recite a go-around procedure of "Going around, full power, right rudder" as the aircraft had a nasty yaw at low speed,full power application (high power, short tail). Reminding pilots to trim, is a constant thing instructors do, this still happens well into some pilots careers. Pretty sure some airline sim instructors have had to remind some quite high time pilots to trim during approaches and go-rounds, I've heard it in many a debrief.

I once witnessed a student conduct 4 go-rounds during a first solo and then land perfectly, he just didn't feel happy with the first few attempts. I had a student on second solo once have crosswind increase slightly above his comfort level, so he went around, and requested the crossing runway to land. It might be assumed a pilot has airmanship, but if an aircraft has a sneaky bite to it, why not include it in the procedure. The wing flaps extend part is the more peculiar statement, but I don't know this type.

The additive "Repeat circuit pattern and landing" says to me, don't attempt to save the landing, just do another circuit. I was never a fan of teaching students to catch balloons/bounces and try to land extending landing distance and increasing the chances of mishaps. Go-round should be part of a solo check as much as each landing is.

[Roj approved]

Pretty sure some airline sim instructors have had to remind some quite high time pilots to trim during approaches and go-rounds, I've heard it in many a debrief.[/color]

Going from A320 to B787, had to learn how to use Pitch trim all over again😂😂