Ultralight Lost Near YGLB
Definitely a Sting unfortunately, this following was a blanket email from another forum:
"Been in contact with AUSSAR tonight and we are looking for a Sting from Goulburn (NSW) that went flying this afternoon and didnt come home, 2 POB....
AUSSAR want to know if you can put a special email out to the members and ask if anyone within about 200 miles of Goulburn saw the aircraft late this afternoon (it took off from Goulburn at 2 PM NSW time...
They may have been in the areas from Bathurst to Temora, Woolongong to Merrimbula and Cooma
Aussar's contact number is 1800 815 257.
They have asked that planes dont go looking for them because it may disrupt the search they are planing for daybreak with big aircraft."
"Been in contact with AUSSAR tonight and we are looking for a Sting from Goulburn (NSW) that went flying this afternoon and didnt come home, 2 POB....
AUSSAR want to know if you can put a special email out to the members and ask if anyone within about 200 miles of Goulburn saw the aircraft late this afternoon (it took off from Goulburn at 2 PM NSW time...
They may have been in the areas from Bathurst to Temora, Woolongong to Merrimbula and Cooma
Aussar's contact number is 1800 815 257.
They have asked that planes dont go looking for them because it may disrupt the search they are planing for daybreak with big aircraft."
What a sad, sad turn of events. For me,this just reinforces the same old message. Plan the flight, tell someone where you are going and when you are coming back and fly the plan. Even if its just a jolly, it only takes a couple of secs on the phone.
Incidentally, the search area would have been somewhere in the vicinty of 125600nm2. All for the sake of a phone call or a note.
I must not be a topic in a crash comic!
Last edited by OZBUSDRIVER; 7th Jan 2007 at 14:22.
"I hope that that the ATSB investigate this properly rather than just the RA-Aus as this one might need a close look given that it was a certified aircraft with a good record to date".
Not sure what VH XXX means by "certified" but the Sting is registered as an ultralight in Australia and as such ATSB will not normally get involved. The RA Aus Tech people are competent for the task and have backup through Rotax and others.
Sunfish, water not immediately critical with a Rotax, usually time to get down. Fuel and oil very important.
Not sure what VH XXX means by "certified" but the Sting is registered as an ultralight in Australia and as such ATSB will not normally get involved. The RA Aus Tech people are competent for the task and have backup through Rotax and others.
Sunfish, water not immediately critical with a Rotax, usually time to get down. Fuel and oil very important.
terrible accident, i'm intrigued as to what the final report will be, its not like there is a shortage of fields to land in out there near GLB. I find the lack of evidence of foward speed to be the most interesting, from memory the SR22 comes down at 1700 fpm with the parachute. Whilst I have no idea what this a/c descends at, thats still a 'big' accident by anyones imagination.
das Uber Soldat, I'll clarify me previous post...
"Aircraft was descending into a field on the lee side of a large hill with an approximate 30 knot tailwind.
The aircraft clipped trees as it approached the selected landing field. Some wreckage was found near trees quite a distance away, possibly the engine.
The chute either was deployed very late in the piece or upon impact and because of the 30 knot winds, the aircraft was dragged quite a distance further into the open field, thus making it look like a forced landing gone wrong on the face of it."
Probably in the wrong place at the wrong time so to speak. I would expect that the results will say what many other results say on the RA-Aus website - that the aircraft should have been flying at an altitude that allowed the pilot to find a suitable place to land in the event of an engine failure.
"Aircraft was descending into a field on the lee side of a large hill with an approximate 30 knot tailwind.
The aircraft clipped trees as it approached the selected landing field. Some wreckage was found near trees quite a distance away, possibly the engine.
The chute either was deployed very late in the piece or upon impact and because of the 30 knot winds, the aircraft was dragged quite a distance further into the open field, thus making it look like a forced landing gone wrong on the face of it."
Probably in the wrong place at the wrong time so to speak. I would expect that the results will say what many other results say on the RA-Aus website - that the aircraft should have been flying at an altitude that allowed the pilot to find a suitable place to land in the event of an engine failure.
Crankshaft failure was the cause
According to reports the engine failed due to crankshaft failure. From everything available it seems the terrain was their undoing, rather than any lack of ability or planning.
Another unreliable source tells me an expert opinion was given to the coroner that, had the aircraft been a Cessna/Beech/Piper, Nev and his mate would still be with us.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: NZ
Age: 72
Posts: 205
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another unreliable source tells me an expert opinion was given to the coroner that, had the aircraft been a Cessna/Beech/Piper, Nev and his mate would still be with us.
interesting read, especially about the aircraft history and supplier
