Reports of a light aircraft down in Blue Mountains
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mark__ said: The engine didn't fail and it wasn't fuel exhaustion.
Last edited by VH-XXX; 14th May 2014 at 23:52.
Perhaps a play on words.
Fuel Starvation V Fuel Exhaustion.
Fuel starvation - fuel on board but empty tank selected
Fuel exhaustion - No fuel on on board
Perhaps fuel starvation was the problem
Fuel Starvation V Fuel Exhaustion.
Fuel starvation - fuel on board but empty tank selected
Fuel exhaustion - No fuel on on board
Perhaps fuel starvation was the problem
Demonstrating a stall with potential client ...
Surely.
PS Mark: Be very careful, the original and each changed version of your post will be copied somewhere.
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: adelaide australia
Posts: 272
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be interesting to hear the thoughts about the use of the BRS from someone who has actually been faced with the situation of a forced landing off an airfield.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it would be interesting to hear the thoughts about the use of the BRS from someone who has actually been faced with the situation of a forced landing off an airfield.
Second one was over an area with good landing options, but that was stressful enough as it was. Over tiger country I wouldn't hesitate, you don't have any other options. Self preservation kicks in and you do what you need to and use all avaialble options.
It's an interesting point to ponder as I now know of three aircraft that crashed with fatalities that HAD BRS fitted, but they never used it.
One had landing options, one had limited options and the other had no options for a safe landing (had airframe damage)... but it was left untouched.
It's because 'Mike__' asserted, in this thread, that the aircraft did not suffer fuel exhaustion or starvation or any kind of engine or other mechanical failure, but instead that the pilot was demonstrating stall recovery. Unsuccessfully.
Then the posts disappeared.
The insurers and the regulators will be extraordinarily interested to know whether 'Mike__' was merely a troll spreading ignorant speculation, or someone who was on board the aircraft or someone who has spoken to someone who was on board the aircraft.
Given the disappearance of the posts, the conversation will be difficult either way.
I have made no comment about the use of the chute.
I expressed extraordinary alarm at 'Mike__'s now-deleted assertion about the circumstances that led to the use of the chute. For the pilot's sake, I hope 'Mike__' is an uninformed troll.
Then the posts disappeared.
The insurers and the regulators will be extraordinarily interested to know whether 'Mike__' was merely a troll spreading ignorant speculation, or someone who was on board the aircraft or someone who has spoken to someone who was on board the aircraft.
Given the disappearance of the posts, the conversation will be difficult either way.
I have made no comment about the use of the chute.
I expressed extraordinary alarm at 'Mike__'s now-deleted assertion about the circumstances that led to the use of the chute. For the pilot's sake, I hope 'Mike__' is an uninformed troll.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is a rumour network after all...
Let's say hypothetically that it was a botched stall recovery, so be it, there are multiple passengers as witness so it's not like the pilot is going to try and cover it up. Good work that they are all safe and well. If it was that, the insurance company are hardly going to blame the pilot.
As I hear far too often at work.... It is what it is.
PS: it is widely known what happened in this incident. Dig harder and you shall find
Let's say hypothetically that it was a botched stall recovery, so be it, there are multiple passengers as witness so it's not like the pilot is going to try and cover it up. Good work that they are all safe and well. If it was that, the insurance company are hardly going to blame the pilot.
As I hear far too often at work.... It is what it is.
PS: it is widely known what happened in this incident. Dig harder and you shall find
Is a deliberate stall a manoeuvre that one is allowed to do, in that aircraft, with passengers on board? Lots of contracts of insurance have exclusion clauses ...
Is a deliberate stall, in that aircraft, something sensibly done over that terrain?
Is an ostensibly experienced and competent pilot's inability to recover an aircraft from a stall something that might be of interest to the certifying authority?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Is a deliberate stall, in that aircraft, something sensibly done over that terrain?
Is an ostensibly experienced and competent pilot's inability to recover an aircraft from a stall something that might be of interest to the certifying authority?
Hypothetically speaking, of course.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't see anything in the regs about the legal number of passengers when stalling. True about terrain though however nobody ever sets out to deliberately crash when they get up in the morning. Remember the terrain is irrelevant in the Cirrus because spin recovery is via CAPS. I would offer the ocean as an exclusion to that; perhaps don't try stalling one over water.
Praise the lord, or is that "Mr Smith"
Creampuff
Being a Mormon wouldn't you have rather had nil deployed chutes so that you could pothumously baptise them?
It is an 'N' registered aircraft, maybe their afterlife insurance was covered prior to the stall demo.
Being a Mormon wouldn't you have rather had nil deployed chutes so that you could pothumously baptise them?
It is an 'N' registered aircraft, maybe their afterlife insurance was covered prior to the stall demo.
Lead Balloon,
With the greatest of respect, I think that your comments are rather silly.
I don't see how one's religious beliefs or otherwise are relevent to this aviation forum.
But I'm happy to tell you that I'm an athiest.
Creampuff may be an athiest too, for all that I know? But that is none of my business nor yours.
With the greatest of respect, I think that your comments are rather silly.
I don't see how one's religious beliefs or otherwise are relevent to this aviation forum.
But I'm happy to tell you that I'm an athiest.
Creampuff may be an athiest too, for all that I know? But that is none of my business nor yours.
I'm guessing the "front seat passenger" won't be buying a Cirrus then?
Thanks for the link bentleg, makes for interesting reading, not the best day in the office
. Couple of things stood out, there seemed to be some confusion about the respective roles of the front seat occupants and quite a lot was made by the pax of the lack of any safety briefing. I guess you carry on as you were taught, but I am not a fan of some airline style spiel covering everything from flight level to which field you're going to park the thing in if the music stops after takeoff. The basics are important though, including making it clear who is PIC in these circumstances.
That red handle in the Cirrus creates a bit of an issue too, whilst it would be nice for a pax to be able to save everyone if the pilot keels over, it would be a tad disappointing to have someone yank it just because unexpected turbulence frightened them.
Thanks for the link bentleg, makes for interesting reading, not the best day in the office
. Couple of things stood out, there seemed to be some confusion about the respective roles of the front seat occupants and quite a lot was made by the pax of the lack of any safety briefing. I guess you carry on as you were taught, but I am not a fan of some airline style spiel covering everything from flight level to which field you're going to park the thing in if the music stops after takeoff. The basics are important though, including making it clear who is PIC in these circumstances.That red handle in the Cirrus creates a bit of an issue too, whilst it would be nice for a pax to be able to save everyone if the pilot keels over, it would be a tad disappointing to have someone yank it just because unexpected turbulence frightened them.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PIC then took control of the aircraft and stated ‘watch this’
As the rate of rotation to the right slowed, the passenger in the front seat felt the PIC apply right
rudder, and the aircraft again accelerated rotating to the right
rudder, and the aircraft again accelerated rotating to the right
from the POH.
The aircraft is not approved for spins, and has not been tested or certified for spin recovery
characteristics
characteristics
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: Next door to the wrong neighbours
Posts: 243
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Watch this". Ominous words....
"The aircraft was overhead high voltage powerlines..." Front seat passenger must have felt relief to have narrowly avoided death when the CAPS operated only to be presented with it again.
"The aircraft was overhead high voltage powerlines..." Front seat passenger must have felt relief to have narrowly avoided death when the CAPS operated only to be presented with it again.