Light plane flips at Moorabbin airport, trapping pilot
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Asia
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps it might be for the better good of just abandoning all aviation fee help related schemes and be done with it. Yes that will result in places like this becoming non existent but it appears it’s just too much hard work keeping it alive.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: Around Here
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Without going too much into the hearsay, I've heard that the pilot was not supposed to be flying this plane for a number of reasons
This pilot has suffered very severe injuries - the specific details are best not discussed here, but I hope there is at last some immediate accountability or show cause action from CASA, directed at both SOAR Aviation and also RA AUS regarding the certification process for Bristell aircraft.
Does the number of serious accidents with SOAR Aviation Bristell aircraft reflect on its' suitability and/or the quality of training delivered by the organisation? Either way, to quote an extract from Shakespeare's Hamlet, 'something is rotten in the state of Denmark'
Last edited by Forced Labor; 18th Dec 2019 at 20:08.
Raaus or Soar do not certify aircraft. The aircraft appears to have a type certificate from overseas that has been accepted in Australia by Raaus https://www.bristell.com/certificates
You can’t blame a botched landing on the certification of the aircraft when thousands of other Bristell landings have taken place successfully prior.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Launceston
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This pilot has suffered very severe injuries - the specific details are best not discussed here, but I hope there is at last some immediate accountability or show cause action from CASA, directed at both SOAR Aviation and also RA AUS regarding the certification process for Bristell aircraft.
The injuries the student sustained are horrific, and Soar are, no doubt, looking down the barrel of a gun now.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: East of Eden
Posts: 101
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can't find details of any other flying training organisation that has such a recent history of multiple accidents in the one aircraft type.
If everyone is so convinced there is no problem with the aircraft, what safety management systems that are supposed to mitigate and manage risk at SOAR aviation were in place? Because, clearly, they were unable to prevent these accidents from occurring?
If everyone is so convinced there is no problem with the aircraft, what safety management systems that are supposed to mitigate and manage risk at SOAR aviation were in place? Because, clearly, they were unable to prevent these accidents from occurring?
Watch this space!
Pitch and yaw consistent with sudden application of power...looks like a badly handled go around leading to loss of control. Poor guy.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2019-071/
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2019-071/
Pitch and yaw consistent with sudden application of power...looks like a badly handled go around leading to loss of control. Poor guy.
In most light aircraft (C152 for example), unless the pilot applies immediate sufficient rudder to stop the yaw as the nose is raised into the initial full flap climbing attitude, there is danger of loss of directional control and entry into an incipient spin. This can be critical if initial flap retraction is delayed or different to the manufacturer’s recommended procedure. For sometimes wrongly perceived safety reasons, it is common that a company go-around SOP is often taught at training schools in preference to the manufacturer’s POH advice.
. The go around from the flare is a critical test of flying skill because of the high drag, low airspeed and yawing situation. Students who have had insufficient practice at this manoeuvre before first solo are ill-equipped to be aware of its dangers. Often they are taught a generic go around procedure rather than the procedure recommended in the manufacturer's POH. The procedure should initially be taught at a safe altitude until proficient; rather than thrown in for good measure (if at all) at the flare and at speeds below Vref for the aircraft type.
Newly graduated instructors are often inexperienced in total flying hours and real world flying experience. Some may be apprehensive of very low altitude full flap low energy go-arounds simply because they were not taught properly in their own ab initio days - nor on instructor course. In turn, they may not be sufficiently competent to demonstrate this manoeuvre to their student. Often, instructors are reluctant to demonstrate a manoeuvre because they feel guilty about taking up the students hands-on flying time. Talking someone through a manoeuvre is no substitute for a well flown demonstration. A picture is worth a thousand words.
At a safe altitude and before first solo, students should be taught a go-around under the hood. This prepares the student for an event where it may be raining and forward vision is momentarily lost during the flare. In addition, students should be taught how to safely recover to land off a bounced landing by applying sufficient power to cushion the bounce. Certainly this is important before first solo where bounced landings are not uncommon.
It is generally safer and requires less skill, for a student to recover from a bounced landing and land ahead (all things being equal with regards to remaining length of landing area) rather than risk a low energy low speed go around with full flap where strong yaw on application of full power has the potential to lead to loss of directional control. New instructors need to be certified competent in the teaching of these manoeuvres before being let loose on ab initio student pilots. At present, it is a case of the blind teaching the blind.
Assuming a contributory cause of this accident is found to include improper go-around procedures, then it may have been prevented if the student had been taught the correct method of going around at low altitude in the first place. That said, being taught correctly doesn't always guarantee a student will follow that teaching in the heat of the moment.
Lack of standardisation can be a problem at flying schools that employ many instructors. Lack of supervision of new instructors is often the case. Experienced (Grade One) instructors tend to concentrate on CPL or IFR training rather than regularly fly with ab-initio students. This can lead to missed opportunities for quality assurance checks on new instructors.
________________________________
Last edited by Centaurus; 20th Dec 2019 at 04:27.
Here's something to ponder:
Let's say a trainee pilot happens to have an ARN and a CASA Basic class 2 medical.
Let's say they have two identical LSA aircraft there, one RAAus, one VH.
Let's say the trainee's instructor is dual rated RAAus/GA
Let's say the training records are identical for RAAus or VH for that school.
Given that there is no such thing as a student licence any more, what would be stopping an RAAus trainee doing the odd flight - even solo - in a VH aircraft if all those ducks lined up nicely?
Let's say a trainee pilot happens to have an ARN and a CASA Basic class 2 medical.
Let's say they have two identical LSA aircraft there, one RAAus, one VH.
Let's say the trainee's instructor is dual rated RAAus/GA
Let's say the training records are identical for RAAus or VH for that school.
Given that there is no such thing as a student licence any more, what would be stopping an RAAus trainee doing the odd flight - even solo - in a VH aircraft if all those ducks lined up nicely?
Regarding low speed low altitude go around, thanks Centaurus, I’ve never been taught that either. I know it was responsible for a friends crash luckily he and family were Mostly OK.
next flight we we will practice at altitude.
next flight we we will practice at altitude.
Is that also what happened when you bent the firewall on the 172 at Moorabbin?
Here's something to ponder:
Let's say a trainee pilot happens to have an ARN and a CASA Basic class 2 medical.
Let's say they have two identical LSA aircraft there, one RAAus, one VH.
Let's say the trainee's instructor is dual rated RAAus/GA
Let's say the training records are identical for RAAus or VH for that school.
Given that there is no such thing as a student licence any more, what would be stopping an RAAus trainee doing the odd flight - even solo - in a VH aircraft if all those ducks lined up nicely?
Let's say a trainee pilot happens to have an ARN and a CASA Basic class 2 medical.
Let's say they have two identical LSA aircraft there, one RAAus, one VH.
Let's say the trainee's instructor is dual rated RAAus/GA
Let's say the training records are identical for RAAus or VH for that school.
Given that there is no such thing as a student licence any more, what would be stopping an RAAus trainee doing the odd flight - even solo - in a VH aircraft if all those ducks lined up nicely?
Dual training schools generally get their students to get a medical straight up so they know if they are going to be able to get the class 1 or 2 in the future, rather than waste money on training they can’t use. Add that to the ARN which they will later need and an asic card etc, then as you say you are a dual org capable pilot as long as you’re a financial member of Raaus. Therefore a student pilot can fly either aircraft.
‘No. That was courtesy of less than adequate training regarding V ref. Certain flying schools have a habit of adding ten knots to manufacturer recommended approach and landing speeds. This is not always a good idea.
Last edited by Sunfish; 20th Dec 2019 at 21:32.
What happened to my mate, he had just bought the aircraft and the transition training he did covered everything except a go around. When he executed his he was caught off guard by the amount of right rudder required to keep the 210 straight.
The flight was part of a private holiday tour with four adults and two children in the aircraft. The pilot was conducting an approach to land at a property airstrip. There was a headwing of about 20 kts on final approach and he was maintaining an airspeed of 80 kts. When the aircraft descended below the tree line just before landing it entered an area of windshear. The pilot noted an increase in speed at this time and said that the aircraft bounced a number of times after the initial touchdown. He then elected to go around, applied full engine power, and retracted the flaps from 30 to 20 degrees. He then became concerned about clearing trees to the left of the strip as the aircraft had veered left during the go-around. The aircraft subsequently collided with the trees and impacted the ground heavily. The pilot and one passenger sustained minor injuries. There was no reported problem with the engine or the aircraft during the go-around. Post-accident examination of the aircraft indicated that, at impact, the flaps were in the process of retracting, and the landing gear was down.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't forget, add 5 knots for a buffer.
Then another 5 knots if it's turbulent. And it's it's turbulent, don't use full flap, add another 5 knots for that. And if there's a crosswind, add 5 knots for that. And if it's gusting, don't forget to add half the gust factor!! All of that should quite comfortably bring in a 172 at 90 knots over the fence
So what are they actually teaching in Effects of Controls, Stalling and Missed Approaches ?