2006 Willowbank 206 crash
2006 Willowbank 206 crash
Hey Guys,
Subject was debated quite a bit at the time - take some time to read the coronors report which brings up some very good points IMHO in relation to regulation of the parachute industry
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Willowbank20081124.pdf
Subject was debated quite a bit at the time - take some time to read the coronors report which brings up some very good points IMHO in relation to regulation of the parachute industry
http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/Willowbank20081124.pdf
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Certainly interesting......
And this bit
So is it commercial or not? 
J
And this bit
The evidence in this case shows that customers of the Brisbane Skydiving Centre were charged a single fee for a tandem parachute jump. The fee included temporary membership of the APF, the provision of parachuting equipment, a pre-flight briefing from a parachuting instructor, the services of a tandem master and carriage in an aircraft to reach the jump height.
I have no doubt that part of the fee paid by tandem jumpers is for the air carriage to the jump height - this is why they are charged more if they jump from higher. Accordingly I am of the view a court could conclude tandem jumpers are passengers carried for reward and CASA has misinterpreted the legislation when determining such activities can be carried on without an AOC.
I have no doubt that part of the fee paid by tandem jumpers is for the air carriage to the jump height - this is why they are charged more if they jump from higher. Accordingly I am of the view a court could conclude tandem jumpers are passengers carried for reward and CASA has misinterpreted the legislation when determining such activities can be carried on without an AOC.
J
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Doh, you beat me to that paragraph by 20 mins. How about this one - it goes with yours.
"I am of the view the decision of CASA not to require commercial parachuting operators to hold an AOC is connected with the deaths investigated by this inquest. "
"I am of the view the decision of CASA not to require commercial parachuting operators to hold an AOC is connected with the deaths investigated by this inquest. "
commenced operating at Aratula on the Darling Downs in 1982
One would hope the rest of the report is more factual than that statement!
I am sure that Alan Cunningham would not consider Aratula to be on the Darling Downs!
Apparently, in 2006 and 2008 amendments were made to the CASA Day (VFR) syllabus – aeroplanes that have resulted in partial EFATO training being included in student training. This raises the question of such training for pilots licensed before that time.
That is not how I remember it!
Dr
Last edited by ForkTailedDrKiller; 21st Jan 2009 at 10:54.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YLIL on my days off
Age: 50
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Slight thread drift but in reply to the Dr...
Our CFI/ATO back in the 90's was notorious in PPL and CPL exams for the following - if a spoken-out-loud EFATO action checklist ("if I have an engine failure before taking off...if after takeoff...reduce power, land straight ahead, etc.) was not heard while sitting at the threshold or holding point he would pull the mixture on the pilot during the takeoff roll (early and at a safe distance). Scared the shizen out of those caught not being EFATO aware.
Our CFI/ATO back in the 90's was notorious in PPL and CPL exams for the following - if a spoken-out-loud EFATO action checklist ("if I have an engine failure before taking off...if after takeoff...reduce power, land straight ahead, etc.) was not heard while sitting at the threshold or holding point he would pull the mixture on the pilot during the takeoff roll (early and at a safe distance). Scared the shizen out of those caught not being EFATO aware.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Watch this space I guess............
Conclusions
A court could conclude the occupants of the incident aircraft, other than the pilot and the tandem masters, were passengers who were to be carried for reward from the airstrip to the jump site. Accordingly, I consider CASA misapplied the provisions of the CAA s27 and CAR206 when it concluded that the Brisbane Skydiving Centre and other similar operators could offer tandem jumps to members of the public without holding an AOC.
Conclusions
A court could conclude the occupants of the incident aircraft, other than the pilot and the tandem masters, were passengers who were to be carried for reward from the airstrip to the jump site. Accordingly, I consider CASA misapplied the provisions of the CAA s27 and CAR206 when it concluded that the Brisbane Skydiving Centre and other similar operators could offer tandem jumps to members of the public without holding an AOC.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The relevant legislation requires a contract for carriage of the passenger "...between a place in Queensland and another place in Queensland." Section 4(1) of Queenslands Civil Aviation (Carriers' Liability) Act 1964
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...ala1964327.txt
Surely if the contract is to carry a passenger from Willowbank and let them jump out of the aircraft at "jump height" before the aircraft then lands back at Willowbank - is not such a contract for carriage???
What is the postcode of "Jump Height" anyway?
Di
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/q...ala1964327.txt
Surely if the contract is to carry a passenger from Willowbank and let them jump out of the aircraft at "jump height" before the aircraft then lands back at Willowbank - is not such a contract for carriage???
What is the postcode of "Jump Height" anyway?
Di
Skydiving ops requiring an AOC?
About bloody time!
An airstrip in Queensland is certainly "a place in Queensland".
Is 14,000 feet above that same airstrip "a place in Queensland"? Airspace comes under Federal jurisdiction, not State.
About bloody time!
An airstrip in Queensland is certainly "a place in Queensland".
Is 14,000 feet above that same airstrip "a place in Queensland"? Airspace comes under Federal jurisdiction, not State.
Last edited by Lasiorhinus; 21st Jan 2009 at 02:42.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lasiorhinus
About bloody time!
Bring it on!!!
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: YLIL on my days off
Age: 50
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's covered under the Warbird ops in a similar (but different) way.
262AM states you can carry paying public (with a CPL of course) on an adventure operation as long as the operation takes-off and lands at the same aerodrome.
Without an AOC.
262AM states you can carry paying public (with a CPL of course) on an adventure operation as long as the operation takes-off and lands at the same aerodrome.
Without an AOC.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
EFATO training was still in vogue when I learnt....albeit in a different century to the Dr 
And I do mentally review it every takeoff and sometimes out loud....just for good measure!
In fact when I first learned to fly the subliminal message left me thinking most engines fail every 50 hours....... or so it seemed!
J
PS as for geography I wondered that too........but figured he must be better educated than me given his position, but it seems I may be wrong!
And I do mentally review it every takeoff and sometimes out loud....just for good measure!
In fact when I first learned to fly the subliminal message left me thinking most engines fail every 50 hours....... or so it seemed!
J
PS as for geography I wondered that too........but figured he must be better educated than me given his position, but it seems I may be wrong!
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: YBBN
Posts: 1,022
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My instructors tend to pull the throttle at about 200-300 ft to see how I react, then when they say "OK" then I can push it back in and keep climbing.
They get antsy at me if i forget the pre-takeoff briefing... rightly so.
They get antsy at me if i forget the pre-takeoff briefing... rightly so.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My instructors tend to pull the throttle at about 200-300 ft to see how I react, then when they say "OK" then I can push it back in and keep climbing
Far better to wait until a higher more suitable altitude where there is sufficient time for not only the student to select a suitable forced landing field but also to conduct essential safety checks depending on the aircraft type. It also gives the instructor sufficient time to evaluate the students actions so that a meaningful assessment of his skills can be made. And it also gives a fighting chance of regaining power if the engine fails to pick up during throttle opening. Throttle linkages have been known to break with jerky or rough handling by the instructor or student - especially when rapidly closing or opening the throttle as in simulated engine failure. Good threat and error management would dictate a safe altitude before closing a throttle in a single engine aircraft to simulate engine failure.
Think about this one on a similar subject:
It is common for some instructors to cut the mixture control in a twin to simulate engine failure after take off. They claim this is more realistic than using a closed throttle. They conveniently disregard the risk involved with a mixture cut that the engine may not restart and thus the pilot is left with a windmilling prop at low airspeed and altitude.
Yet, ask anyone why not cut the mixture on a single engine aircraft (rather than the throttle closure) to simulate an engine failure after take off?
Their answer would be unprintable, but generally it would be obvious there is a perceived danger of the engine not starting when mixture was re-introduced. Yet pilots are still happy to risk a failed start on a twin following a mixture cut simulated engine failure. Strange logic?
Last edited by A37575; 21st Jan 2009 at 12:05.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: I fly because it releases my mind from the tyranny of petty things
Age: 52
Posts: 187
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have yet to hear of a twin instructor pull the mixture to simulate an engine failure.
It is downright dangerous and the reasons why have been known for decades.
Every twin i have flown also states in the flight manual not to do it.
If someone is telling you to do this, walk away.
It is downright dangerous and the reasons why have been known for decades.
Every twin i have flown also states in the flight manual not to do it.
If someone is telling you to do this, walk away.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: the back of my falcoon
Age: 41
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
twin instructor pulled the mixture to simulate an engine failure.
Join Date: Dec 1999
Location: I prefer to remain north of a direct line BNE-ADL
Age: 49
Posts: 1,286
Likes: 0
Received 33 Likes
on
10 Posts
I disagree regarding no one uses mixture etc for a single engine aircraft, I regulary turned off the fuel valve discretely thus delaying the failure by 10 secs or so to give the students a real unexpected failure. Don't get me wrong never EFATO though lol, always at a high altitude. EFATO always the throttle and at least have 400ft or so otherwise cant really do much else but push the nose down then add power. Regarding mixture use for engine failures I beg to differ although my GA days were in mid to late 90's I never heard of anyone using a throttle for engine failures, has it changed now that the throttle is always used? I cant see a difference personally, whether its throttle or mixture, yes a throttle linkage could break, so could a mixture linkage? the props turning spark plugs firing as soon as you re-introduce fuel by mixture it fires, the chance of it not firing are the same as if you used the throttle. Fully feathered landings are way more dangerous, in those cases you dont have the engine full stop. Anyway I dont have an opinion either way whats more correct just wondering if its true that no one uses mixture anymore?
Isn't it a known fact that there are more fatalities from this 'sort' of training than actual engine failures?
Granted, for either single or twins, mixture cuts are unaccceptable at low level, but if you are worried about the engine not starting when fuel is reintroduced, there are bigger issues at play.
Seneca 1 Manual Operating Tip 15:
Experience has shown that the training advantage gained by pulling a mixture control or turning off the fuel to simulate engine failure at low altitude is not worth the risk assumed. Therefore, it is recommended that instead of using either of these procedures to simulate loss of power at low altitude, the throttle be retarded slowly to idle position.
A37575,
Archerfield procedures where Pyro trains (not my AD) have a "Code 1" request where you can simulate EFATO as long as recovery is made with enough room before the airfield fence (essentially). I'm sure you can do this with 1400m on the main runway. The idea of a practise EFATO with my students is to have a suitable area available and see if the student can exercise the judgement and actions necessary to make the selected zone (or another suitable one if they so choose) under a pressure situation. In my view there is definitely benefit to be gained from this exercise. If your throttle is at risk of breaking from being advanced and retarded I think you need to find a new LAME. Can you qoute the source?
It is common for some instructors
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL350
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a sad state of affairs that people had to be killed before anything is to be done about the lack of regulation at commercial DZs.
I always found it incredible that the operators advertise tandem jumps with scenic views etc yet they are not required to have an AOC & Chief Pilot. Everything about some of these places is the very definition of a commercial operation. The flight to height is a charter in every sense of the word and should be regulated as such.
An absolute failure on CASA's behalf (in my opinion)
I always found it incredible that the operators advertise tandem jumps with scenic views etc yet they are not required to have an AOC & Chief Pilot. Everything about some of these places is the very definition of a commercial operation. The flight to height is a charter in every sense of the word and should be regulated as such.
An absolute failure on CASA's behalf (in my opinion)
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Northern NSW
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Full marks to the Coroner for a lucid interpretation. That about puts the lid on it, for me. CASA now has no choice but to require AOCs for skydive, or risk being sued for millions if there is a future accident, which sadly will almost inevitably occur. Priority number one for the new bloke, I'd say.
I think the mixture has been used to simulate engine failure on every MECIR I have ever done! But then I have only ever flown with highly experienced ME Instructors. Can't say it has ever caused me any concern.
How do you realistically test whether someone verifies which engine has failed if that throttle is already pulled back?
EFATO
1) Identify - dead leg, dead engine
2) Verify - yes, I am right cause that throttle is already closed
3) Feather - same side as the already closed throttle
If anyone ever turned the fuel off on me - I would belt them with something and tell them, "don't f*cking touch that" - then land at the nearest aerodrome and tell them to get the f*ck out of my aeroplane!
Dr
How do you realistically test whether someone verifies which engine has failed if that throttle is already pulled back?
EFATO
1) Identify - dead leg, dead engine
2) Verify - yes, I am right cause that throttle is already closed
3) Feather - same side as the already closed throttle
If anyone ever turned the fuel off on me - I would belt them with something and tell them, "don't f*cking touch that" - then land at the nearest aerodrome and tell them to get the f*ck out of my aeroplane!
Dr