Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Forced Landing on Collaroy Beach NSW

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

Forced Landing on Collaroy Beach NSW

Old 28th May 2021, 08:56
  #41 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 287
I now have it in writing from the RA-Aus but I need to seek the author's permission to publish to third party and in particular to the forum. I will happily do that when permission is granted
mcoates is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 08:59
  #42 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 38
Posts: 790
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
What a useless aircraft! 2 x 70 kg's crew and 15 litres of fuel. Based on that, you wouldn't even be able to fit a tie-down kit.
You're right, assuming I needed to take a second adult. But that wasn't the mission I built it for, I built it as a high-speed single seater that I could also take one of my kids with, until they got too heavy. 155Kg gave the option of: me + 4h of fuel, or Me + Mini-Me + 2 hrs fuel, and that was perfectly adequate until the kids grew up, then it was re-registered VH- as she remains today.

In the 4 years under RAAus administration, I flew with a second adult twice. Once with a colleague & pilot mate who was dying of cancer and weighed about 45kg wringing wet, we did a loop from Caloundra - Gympie and back with all of 30L on board, the other was 6 months later to scatter his ashes from the RV, with a 20 minute lap from Caloundra with his 60kg wife, who had flown GA hundreds of times and understood it well enough to accept & ignore the low fuel alarms on the Dynon

Originally Posted by Squawk7700
No wonder they tried to stop you... it doesn't pass the sniff test and based on history of other operators that put RV's on the register, they frequently flew over-weight, so I'm not surprised they did what they did.
The point is, what they think they are allowed to do, and what they have a legal obligation to do, or are allowed to do are not always the same. There is no practical difference between an RV-9 and a J230 with its' 760Kg MTOW, yet I've never heard of a Jab causing the angst an RV does with RAAus....

Originally Posted by Squawk7700
Are you suggesting that you never flew that aircraft over 600 kg's?
To the best of my knowledge, no, not once. I didn't need to.
KRviator is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 09:02
  #43 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by sagesau View Post
Unfortunately we live in a society that continues to insist on making increasingly complex and expensive legislation because of an obsession by some to operate in a loop hole. What we need is legislation that defines an intent rather than an action then we'd only need one piece of legalise, "don't be a smartarse".
[edit] I hereby plead guilty
I don't think that is really the issue at all, and I believe legally the intent of legislation is a consideration, but then it cant really override the letter of the law. Intent can really only truly be understood by the person who drafted the law, and if this forum proves anything it is that people with different backgrounds are always going to interpret laws slightly differently.

However if we have ever wondered why people push aircraft into bad situations then this forum probably demonstrates part of the issue, as everything gets analysed by the peanut gallery who like to pretend they are saints who have never breached any laws at any point in their life. The point everyone is arguing over here is so technical as to be essentially irrelevant, but hey, I guess we all have to find something to be outraged by...

And to MCoates, no, I wasnt the pilot, and don't know the pilot.
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 09:10
  #44 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,058
Jabs only weigh 350-370kg empty which is why thereís no angst caused.

The issue with them registering an RV9 as a 2 seater is that once itís in the system itís hard to get it out, especially once it changes hands. If you donít fly it overnight, the next guy probably will, as has happened before. They have to draw the line somewhere and or work to a formulae. Problem being that if they implement a formulae, it wonít please everyone and next theyíll be trying to withdraw rego on a converted 150 or a Colt or something and the cycle begins again.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 10:23
  #45 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,718
POB

(Caveat - I'm not an RAA person.)

I would have expected that 20.16.3.12.2 and 20.16.3.13.2(2) should be relevant to the infant ?

My take is that the first requirement precludes the carriage ?
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 11:10
  #46 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 1,490
Wow, so much angst over 2 + kid. And only 2 seats...shock horror and dismay. Wtf !
Looks like their practical solution to me. Can’t just lock the kid in the car while you go off flying.
Dad plus Mum plus kid, and restrained in her seat belt... and within weight limits...so what.
Successful forced landing ...all good.

Is this country so bound up in bureaucratic bs that people can’t make their own decisions anymore.
Yes in spades. Commonsense and practicality are not allowed, Obviously.
aroa is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 11:11
  #47 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 287
Originally Posted by KRviator View Post
the other was 6 months later to scatter his ashes from the RV,.
Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go again
mcoates is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 11:22
  #48 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by aroa View Post
Wow, so much angst over 2 + kid. And only 2 seats...shock horror and dismay. Wtf !
Looks like their practical solution to me. Canít just lock the kid in the car while you go off flying.
Dad plus Mum plus kid, and restrained in her seat belt... and within weight limits...so what.
Successful forced landing ...all good.

Is this country so bound up in bureaucratic bs that people canít make their own decisions anymore.
Yes in spades. Commonsense and practicality are not allowed, Obviously.
Your common sense approach has no place here. The dumb thing is if it had a VH rego on the side it wouldnít even be an argument (Iím sure the peanut gallery could still find something to criticise him for) so itís not like what he did was some reckless breach of the rules putting lives at risk. In fact no one can actually tell either way if any rule has been breached... it seems like some GA vs RA pissing contest to me...
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 20:42
  #49 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 1998
Location: Ex-pat Aussie in the UK
Posts: 5,331
I now have it in writing from the RA-Aus but I need to seek the author's permission to publish to third party and in particular to the forum. I will happily do that when permission is granted
No one here is going to give a stuff, unless that written advice includes a reference to some form of legislation - that you don't understand that is ... amusing.

Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go again
Wow. Way to show lack of empathy dude. How do you rate on the sociopath scale??


I would have expected that 20.16.3.12.2 and 20.16.3.13.2(2) should be relevant to the infant ?
Originally Posted by CAO 20.16.3.12.2
12.2 The number of passengers carried in an aircraft for which an emergency evacuation demonstration is not required may exceed the number of approved passenger seats fitted in the aircraft only if the excess number of passengers:

(a) has been approved by CASA; or

(b) does not exceed the number specified in column 2 of the following table opposite the number of passenger seats specified in column 1;

and the excess passengers are infants or children:

Table

Column 1
No. of passenger seats


Column 2
No. of excess passengers


2-6 ... 1
I don't see a problem there. Two seats, one excess passenger allowed.

Originally Posted by CAO 20.16.3.13.2(
(2) When an infant is carried in the arms or on the lap of a passenger in accordance with subparagraph 13.2 (1) the seat belt, when required to be worn, shall be fastened around the passengers carrying or nursing the infant, but not around the infant.
I don't see any problem there, either??
Checkboard is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 21:50
  #50 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,058
Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldnít come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 22:13
  #51 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldnít come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?
Very valid question, and I canít find a definitive answer either way. Like most of our regulations itís written vaguely enough that casa will always have a way to hang you if they feel like it.
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 23:03
  #52 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 6,718
I don't see a problem there. Two seats, one excess passenger allowed.
I don't see any problem there, either??


Perhaps I should have been a little more expansive in my previous post.

(a) 20.16.3.12.2(b) specifies 2-6 passenger seats in the first entry of the table. 20.16.3.2 (definitions) specifies that a passenger is a person who is not a crew member, ergo passenger seats exclude crew seats and, a 2-seat aircraft presents a problem ? While I don't know the original logic for the Order's requirement, I would speculate that it had to do with a potential for interference with, or obstruction of, a second set of controls ?

(b) the reference to 20.16.3.13.2(2) was to draw attention to the requirement that an infant held on the lap of a passenger should not be restrained by the passenger's seat belt. This is a very dangerous practice considering crashworthiness and just about guarantees the infant's death in the event of significant decelerations during a mishap. The only sensible way to carry an infant is in an automotive car seat for which CASA has some airworthiness rules in place. I presume that the rule is for the reasonable benefit of airline carriage, although some airlines will provide for a baby seat on request.

Sometimes, the regulatory devil is in the nitty gritty detail. Putting aside the usual gratuitous, throwaway comments sprinkled throughout the thread, my concerns related to various comments including some in posts 11, 15, 16, 21.


Honest question, is the pilot seat also a passenger seat, meaning that the table above wouldnít come into effect unless the aircraft had 3 seats, or is every seat in an aircraft a passenger seat?
Very valid question, and I canít find a definitive answer either way. Like most of our regulations itís written vaguely enough that casa will always have a way to hang you if they feel like it.


Refer definitions.

The main thing of interest, of course, is that the folk in the aircraft were unharmed by the mishap.

john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 28th May 2021, 23:48
  #53 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bendigo, Australia
Age: 73
Posts: 96
The main thing of interest, of course, is why is it on the beach?

Obviously it was the baby's fault!

(Thanks John, for your reasoned information)
DeRated is offline  
Old 29th May 2021, 00:04
  #54 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,058
Originally Posted by DeRated View Post
The main thing of interest, of course, is why is it on the beach?

Obviously it was the baby's fault!

(Thanks John, for your reasoned information)
Good question! Thereís a heap of talk about this incident and I donít think Iíve even seen anyone mention or question what happened to the engine; fuel or otherwiseÖ itís all about the baby.

It was noted that it was ďminorĒ engine failure, so presumably partial power loss.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 29th May 2021, 02:28
  #55 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2021
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Pretty clear from a quick glance at the CAO that an extra passenger was prohibited in this scenario ie the Tecnam has one pilot seat and one passenger seat.

Whats the point of the regs if we just pick and choose which ones to comply with?
StallsDeep is offline  
Old 29th May 2021, 13:59
  #56 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 544
I have seen restraints that attach to a passengers seat belt and restrain the infant or baby. Since the restraint attaches to the belt it is the belt restraining the infant and not the adults arms, nor is the infant between the adult and the seat belt, which could crush them.



visibility3miles is online now  
Old 30th May 2021, 01:36
  #57 (permalink)  
See and avoid
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 544
I wonder if weight and balance is the issue when you discuss how many passengers should be on board rather than arguing if a baby, if properly strapped in, was the major concern.

Some adults carry more than the weight of a baby in their beer gut, yet I don’t see many weight scales at small airports.
visibility3miles is online now  
Old 30th May 2021, 02:31
  #58 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,305
Would love to see some of you lot in a court case:
You: "Your honor, my interpretation of the law is that what I did is allowed"
Judge: "Were you told by a delegate of the authority that your interpretation is wrong?"
You: "Yes your honor but once again, I don't think they were correct so I did it anyway"
Judge: "Mmmmhmm, well, whilst this was a complete waste of everyone's time, at least you made it quick, you're guilty"
Ixixly is offline  
Old 30th May 2021, 02:36
  #59 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 478
Originally Posted by Ixixly View Post
Judge: "Were you told by a delegate of the authority that your interpretation is wrong?"
I don't think judges work that way either. They tend to look at what the actual regulations say. not opinions - even if they are opinions of a delegate of the authority.

andrewr is offline  
Old 30th May 2021, 04:11
  #60 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,305
Originally Posted by andrewr View Post
I don't think judges work that way either. They tend to look at what the actual regulations say. not opinions - even if they are opinions of a delegate of the authority.
Yeah, admittedly I was being a bit facetious but you get the point, you'd be a brave person in this particular case to go out with 3 POB knowing a delegate has said otherwise just because you believe in your interpretation.
Ixixly is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.