The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Ferris Wheel crash at Old Bar

Old 29th Nov 2011, 01:02
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Ferris Wheel crash at Old Bar

Well the initial report is out now, and there appear to be some serious questions to be asked.

Investigation: AO-2011-126 - Collision with terrain - Cheetah Sierra 200 aircraft, 24-7634, Old Bar Airstrip, New South Wales, 1 October 2011
AMEandCPL is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 03:09
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 7,070
With reference to the images provided, what brain dead moron:

1. Allowed a plastic automotive fuel filter to be used, let alone located forward of the firewall?

2. Used plastic cable ties in lieu of metal hose clips to secure a fuel line to a fuel filter and pump?

3. Tied electrical wiring to fuel lines?

4. Misdrilled, Ovalised and rewelded holes in what appears to be a control column? The visibly bent threaded rod end bearing I will charitably attribute to crash damage.

5. Failed to provide chafe protection for a brake line exiting the fuselage?

6. Failed to meet any form of edge distance limit on fitting a fibreglass fairing?

What have I missed? What a piece of crap.
Sunfish is online now  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 04:00
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,142
Fortunately.. by pure a$re.. 3 good things came out of this accident
No fire, no fatalites ... and the poster of the year !
I near fell off my chair laughing!
Brilliant!!!
aroa is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 04:03
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
And this was a factory built aircraft!! Although the serial number did not match the registration .

That's OK, because the pilot received his training from, and had his RA-Aus certificate issued on the basis of an organisation that didn't exist in the records of the RAA
AMEandCPL is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 04:14
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,488
I think this bloke is properly faaaaaarked,
morno is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 05:21
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
Sunfish

I remember VH-XXX telling me once ages ago.....do not ever get in one of those, or let anyone you care about in one of those aforementioned contraptions.

I think what you have found was only part of the reason, the rest had something to do with very poor handling qualities

Perhaps that played a part in the overall scene?

morno......Summed it up well there Would you like to expand on your opinion?


PS : Can you believe a 2+2 RAA registered aircraft? No Way, Morgan Aeroworks - Cougar
Sure it could be 4 seats but two removed......but what a misleading website. Check out the Vertical stab and rudder, all on a 110 knot machine. Crosswind limit?
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 05:36
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Sydney
Age: 55
Posts: 1,521
Without condoning the quality of the aircraft in any way - what difference did all this have regarding the crash!
He HIT a F685665ng FERRIS WHEEL on the SECOND circuit!

It would have made no difference if he was in a well built RV9 or a Baron.
Tankengine is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 06:05
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,050
so was it a strong ferris wheel, or poorly built aircraft that ensured the wheel didnt topple over?
Ultralights is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 07:28
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,488
morno......Summed it up well there Would you like to expand on your opinion?
Certainly.

From the Prelim ATSB Report, it appears that:
  • The PIC appears to have been not properly licenced
  • The Aircraft appears to have not been registered
  • The PIC landed downwind
  • The PIC "appears" to be telling fibs during his statement (note - I can only base that opinion on the very different evidence that has appeared as witness statements and videos)
  • The PIC did not seek approval from the aerodrome operator to operate at the aerodrome
  • The PIC did not seek information on obstacles etc. from the aerodrome operator
Overall, it appears the PIC really didn't have a clue.

The pilot reported overflying the Old Bar Airstrip and, after checking the windsock and assessing that there was no wind, electing to enter the downwind leg of the circuit for what he described as ‘the southern runway’. When questioned further, the pilot could not identify the strip directions at Old Bar, explaining that it was appropriate to use the terms ‘from the north or south’ when making circuit entry radio calls.
Really? I must remember that one next time I go join the circuit somewhere.

It appears that a ton of bricks is about to come down on this gentlemen by ways of possible law suits and possible prosecution.

morno

Disclaimer - The above opinion is based solely on the information provided by the ATSB report and does not have any basis upon information of my own knowledge.
morno is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 07:41
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: WA
Posts: 1,209
In a statement to the NSW Police, the pilot reported arriving at the Old Bar Airstrip and conducting a touch-and-go landing to assess the condition of the airstrip and the local conditions.
I thought a touch and go was to practice landings, not to assess conditions of an ALA?
YPJT is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 07:42
  #11 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 13
Sure, the defective aircraft didn't cause the crash on this occasion.

There are a bunch of other factors at play though:
- The pilot wwas trained and tested by a person/organisation that was not on the RA-Aus list of approved flight training facilities.

- Despite this, RA-Aus issued a flight crew certificate.

- The pilot elected to land (probably) downwind, despite other aircraft landing in the opposite direction. A downwind landing would certainly help to explain the long touchdown, the apparent poor braking performance, and the poor climb performance on go-around. The pilot's explanation was that he landed in the same direction on another day.

- The pilot failed to see a 20m high ferris wheel on his overfly of the strip, on the first approach with touch and go, and on his final approach and go-around. The ferris wheel was 161m from the end of the runway and 34m from the centreline, and was brightly painted. Of course we don't know about his eyesight standard as this is not examined for the issue of a certificate.

- The pilot either didn't check or didn't comprehend the airfield information for Old Bar, as he didn't acknowledge the known obstacles, and didn't obtain permission for landing.

- The pilot's account to the ATSB varied significantly from his account to the police, and to the witness observations.

- The pilot either didn't check or didn't comprehend the weather forecast as the wind at Taree was similar to the reported wind at Old Bar.

It certainly looks like the holes really lined up here. The very first, and very big hole was the failure of the training and certification system of RA-Aus. Who knows what he was taught prior to the issue of the certificate.

It was really just monumentally lucky that he hit an unoccupied part of the wheel, that the wheel didn't tip over, that there was no fire, and that he didn't hit anyone or anything else - particularly given the fact that he never made it to more than about 15m above the crowd.
AMEandCPL is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 08:58
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
UL

That is true to your form Funny, and rather accurately judged

Let's say the wheel did not look that robust.

I bet your Savvy is not built like that
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 09:16
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 79
...and the guy didn't even win one of those big fluffy toys in the photo!
Chu Mai Huang is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 09:32
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
Morno

Seems it was re-registered the day before, beside the point.

RAA is heavily populated with a lot of good operators, many current airline pilots, you name it. Trouble is there are a great number who do not treat aviation with the respect it deserves.

Too much of the ....I want my freedoms, I want to do it my way, and to heck with rules, airmanship and the laws of physics.

We have too many rules in this country and they are all too complex, and often the reason is that due to morons like this chap, the owner, and the builder we get lumped with more and more regulation to stop these folk from killing themselves.

I have said this before, when you hear of folk getting a BFR done just because he turned up, well that is the value placed on the privilege, and the way it will be treated.

Education is lacking. And this applies to GA as well, go back to the engine thread for example.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 10:01
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Cambodia
Posts: 79
So, serious question - will the good regulator CASA be suspending RAAus operations (admin functions) pending investigation, like they would with any other outfit?
Chu Mai Huang is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 10:10
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: 3rd rock from the sun
Posts: 1,488
Jaba,
Registered even with the wrong plate on the airframe?

I'm not an expert on RAA, so my knowledge in that area is quite lacking.
morno is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 10:20
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 50
Posts: 6,879
Hmmm well that could be a clerical error by RAA but you are right. It did not match.

It is likely that a clerical error by RAA would not be viewed by any court as the aircraft not being registered. But could this be just the beginning of something worse? Probably not, but who knows.

What a Charlie foxtrot all round.
Jabawocky is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 10:27
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 109
So, serious question - will the good regulator CASA be suspending RAAus operations (admin functions) pending investigation, like they would with any other outfit?
Hey great one
the report raises more questions than it answers ,but lets put the boot in with a half arsed attitude!!!!
like they would with any other outfit?
like who ? Hempel,,,transair,,,,there's plenty of shoddy operators around who are still going ,maybe when some dumbass hits the ground in an unairworthy GA aircraft we should call for CASA ops to be suspended ,they are after all running the safety side of aviation,,,
metalman2 is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 10:29
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 69
Posts: 1,318
And this was a factory built aircraft!!
Is that correct, that this was a factory built aircraft??, the bleedin' rivit lines are not even straight, let alone edge distance, far out (double) and the other stuff, gawd may the saints preserve us.
Arnold E is offline  
Old 29th Nov 2011, 11:59
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Not Syderknee
Posts: 993
the bleedin' rivit lines are not even straight, let alone edge distance
So it could have been put together at the Boeing Factory with the 737-800s then?
rmcdonal is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.