RAAus with 3 POB?

[squawk6969]

Bingo 45 crashed with a pilot in 60's, passenger in 30's, and a child on board

Non fatal as far as reported.

What is going on here?

Surely this is not true.

[VH-XXX]

Yep, them's there numbers on them wings.

Plane crash near Brandy Creek | Whitsundays News | Local News in Whitsundays | Whitsunday Times

[Checkboard]

"He [the pilot] would fly regularly when the weather was suitable and was a very experinced pilot."

Whitsunday Police Station officer in charge senior sergeant Steve O'Connell said the plane was full of fuel and was thankful that it didn't catch fire.

Note that "experienced" doesn't mean "safe", or "legally compliant"

Three people (two-place limit for RAA aircraft, and the Bingo 45 only has two seats) and full of fuel (450kg MTOW, 250-270kg Basic wt, 72 litres (50 kg) fuel capacity)? No wonder it didn't get airborne!

With an RAA 19-xxxx registration:

...maximum two places. The aircraft need not be designed to an approved standard, or constructed from certified type materials, and can be of any origin...

... There is no requirement that the aircraft be built under supervision. A pre-cover/pre-closure inspection is highly recommended, and there must be a pre-flight final inspection, observed by RA-Aus/CASA authorised inspectors, but that final inspection does not determine airworthiness — the owner/builder must accept entire responsibility for that...

...the aircraft must carry a cockpit placard warning that the aircraft is not required to comply with the safety regulations for standard aircraft and persons (passengers) fly in it at their own risk.

[Jabawocky]

My good friend at RAAus is going to need a massive pay rise to justify the workload.

Keep up the good work ZT, those making life difficult will soon run out. Hopefully.

[Wally Mk2]

.....hey 'jabadabadoo' I told ya's that single eng planes are dangerous!
I luved the neighbors comments re had the nose in the air trying to get more power!


Wmk2

[VH-XXX]

In defence of the 450 mtow if that is correct, that would be a carry over of the European registration system, thus the aircraft in theory would be capable of much more, potentially 544 or 600 mtow. Not that that makes it right if it is the case of course...

Wally, was in a twin on the weekend, full up, I suggested to the pilot that it might be unable to maintain height on one (old) engine. He replied, "and how is that different to any other Piper with only one engine?"

Oh dear, I heard a rumour that he rego expired in 2008.

[Wally Mk2]

'xxx' I have heard the same saying some years ago & thought good point

I used to fly an old sh*t box 'Sneca' 1 years ago & whilst overhead the city of Melb doing a scenic one of the donks began to backfire so I reduced power so something just above idle & the old girl wouldn't maintain height even well under gross weight. The only difference from that plane to a SE Piper (for Eg) was I had a slower drift down rate,enuf to get back to EN....pheww!!!!
Thread drift I know:-)
I know little of the RAA Reg's but like ALL levels of aviation the rules get stretched!


Wmk2

[Checkboard]

that would be a carry over of the European registration system, thus the aircraft in theory would be capable of much more, potentially 544 or 600 mtow.

Not quite correct:

European countries certify their aircraft to an European ultralight standard of 450 kg or 472.5 kg (the 22.5 kg is the addition for a parachute recovery system). If imported into Australia and registered with an RAAO, that organisation has no choice but to limit the aircraft to 450 kg/472.5 kg MTOW even though the class regulatory limit might be 600 kg.

So if the aircraft was designed in Europe (which it was) to the European spec, then it was designed to a MTOW of 450 kg. Just because the Australian class allows 600kg - it doesn't mean that the aircraft was designed to that higher limit!

Had the manufacturer designed the aircraft to a higher limit, then the Australian regs would allow that limit - as that isn't the case, it indicates that 450 kg is the max the manufacturer allowed for.

[Deaf]

My understanding of the Bingo is it is a Savannah (MTOW 560kg in Aus) with a HKS 700E (60hp) rather than a 80 or 100hp rotax. This probably means the 450kg limit applies.

[Jabawocky]

Ohh dear...... The RAA register is not necessarily up to date and accurate, but it looks like this aircraft would have been first registered in May 2005. By virtue of the fact the rego either side. The next in sequence is the same type.

19-4296 Icp Srl Savannah 18/03/2005 F
19-4299 Icp Srl Savannah 23/03/2005 F
19-4301 Europa Aircraft Europa Classic 23/03/2005 F
19-4302 Jabiru Aircraft J230 B 24/03/2005 F
19-4303 Thomasson Thomasson A 30/03/2005 F
19-4307 Skyranger V-fun 31/03/2005 F
19-4309 Capella Aircraft Javelin 31/03/2005 F
19-4317 Kitfox Iv 13/04/2005 F
19-4318 Rand Kar Kr2-s 19/04/2005 F
19-4319 Jabiru Aircraft S P 19/05/2005 F
19-4320 Jabiru Aircraft J160 19/04/2005 F
19-4321 Rand Kar Kr 2 19/04/2005 F
19-4322 Icp Srl Savannah 19/04/2005 F
19-4327 Homebuilt Dual 28/04/2005 F
19-4330 Icp Srl Savannah Bingo 3/05/2005 F
19-4333 Rand Kar X Air 5/05/2005 F
19-4334 Jabiru Aircraft Sp 4 5/05/2005 F
19-4337 Challenger 2 Standard 13/05/2005 F
19-4339 Jabiru Aircraft J230 16/05/2005 F
19-4340 ICP SRL Savannah 16/05/2005 F
19-4342 Fantasy Air Allegro 24/05/2005 F

Now where is 4329 ?

Perhaps it has recently been inspected by a L2 mechanic and reregistered, and I hope so. Otherwise it seems like my previous comments will be horribly close to the truth.

Again, a sad reflection on all of us who fly anything lighter than a Boeing or Airbus, even if undeservedly as we all know. The great number of RAA pilots have every reason to be even more pi$$ed off with our fellow " pilots" if that word can be used.

[Flying Binghi]

.


Hmmm... seems some thrive on the misery of others..







.

[VH-XXX]

I think what you mean, is other peoples stupidity. They are very different.

[T28D]

Lets clear this up, THIS WAS NOT RA Aus It was yet another red neck abusing the privelige of flight.

Un registered, probably un licensed, certainly illegal.

So why even debate the issues, it was clearly wrong.

And gravity sorted it out !!!!

[metalman2]

this is listed in the cancelled rego section,,,,another d!ckhead off to explain himself! The only thing that is a plus for this bloke,,,he didn't kill anyone!

19-4329 Icp Srl Bingo 20/10/2005 X 20/10/2008

[baron_beeza]

T28D, while I can appreciate where you are coming from I believe this is an RA Aus matter. I am not saying it is their fault but they will certainly be part of the solution.

I know we don't see all the accidents reported. However we have had at least two events reported, and in a reasonably high profile manner.... both involving innocent children.
Mr F Wheel and then our boat buzzing chump.... both with questions hanging over licences and registrations.

This appears to me, at this stage at least, to be yet another. This time a child injured in a crash with possibly an unlicenced pilot in a unregistered machine.
The media will pick up on this one. CASA will be forced to react, naturally.

It is Friday afternoon.... if I had a microlight I would be flying this afternoon. Anything could happen this afternoon.


These guys are not doing anyone any favours. All have lost machines and they were probably not in accidents per se.
I am sure their actions have brought the whole fraternity under closer scrutiny. Most of us will not enjoy that.

[Jabawocky]

T28D

I do not see how that post clears anything up.

THIS WAS NOT RA Aus

Well it was once, and as close as you can get. So what do you call an unregistered car and driver? Not a car driver?

Fact is that we know the rules and the minor techincal differences, most don't. Print the news article and ask three or four of your neighbours? See what they think.

It was yet another red neck abusing the privelige of flight.

100% agree there

[baswell]

and how is that different to any other Piper with only one engine?

With twice the engines, you have twice the chance of an engine failure!

[VH-XXX]

With twice the engines, you have twice the chance of an engine failure!

Thanks Bas, I'd never thought of it like that.

[baswell]

THIS WAS NOT RA Aus

Well it was once, and as close as you can get.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Certainly, "better training" isn't going to do it.

Maybe do psych evaluations early on in flying training and if they say this person might do this kind of stuff, cease training and blacklist them?

When registrations lapse, send out inspectors to hide in the bushes and see if the aircraft is being flown or not?

Make aircraft (parts) dealers report "suspicious" purchases of spare parts?

Stupid is as stupid does and just like more people have the ability to afford flight with affordable RA-Aus aircraft and training, naturally, you also get more stupid people.

The only thing to stop it is people dobbing others in, regardless of the organisation the originally registered with.

[metalman2]

Pilots have been playing up and carving holes in the ground since day dot, I doubt it will ever be free of yahoos,,,,the only way to change the culture is from the inside,,we need to grow the balls to confront other pilots when behavior is crook and make it our business when we see stuff on the field that's wrong, RAAus has made it mandatory for yearly rego labels to be displayed on the left side of the windscreen , we all have a vested interest in taking notice of whether the aircraft around us are compliant .
We all have our bad pilot stories ,but how many can honestly say they've had the guts to say something , anonymous forums don't count though, no matter how often the rules are cut and pasted !