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 31st May 2021, 11:03
  #101 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: not where I want to be
Posts: 279
A small point:

Parliament has the power to enact legislation within a sovereign country.

Typically it will do this via Acts, which themselves may give rise to regulations, which can define rules, and may make reference to various other national and international documentation.

It is not uncommon to say in enacting legislation that where there is conflict between another document and that Act, that the Act is the authoritative document. Likewise with regulations.

Now I've no time left to devote to this today, and have conducted nil research, but I suspect you'd find that if any ASTM documentation is referred to in any Australian legislation it will be in an advisory role, and in any case cannot (or at least should not) trump the right of Parliament to enact legislation within Australia. Thus CAO 20.16.3 probably remains the authoritative source on this matter.

Quite apart from that one would need to see the detail of any ASTM documentation to determine exactly what it says on this, and whether it is relevant to matter at hand.



First_Principal is offline  
Old 31st May 2021, 11:32
  #102 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,074
20.16.3 simply does not apply.

The link posted earlier effectively says that an Australian Registered Aircraft has a VH on the side.



Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 31st May 2021, 11:35
  #103 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,074



https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...g-provider.pdf
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 31st May 2021, 22:52
  #104 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Cab of a Freight Train
Age: 38
Posts: 820
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
You didn’t look very hard because it’s written on the same page that you posted the link to.

An Australian Registered Aircraft has “VH” on the side.
UUmm, I actually quoted that specific line in my post above???

Nonetheless, I wouldn't put too much faith in a CAsA document that does not include references. You'll also note from that document we've both linked to that it says:
Originally Posted by CASA
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course, you must have logged the minimum flight times, specified in the regulations, in registered or recognised aircraft of the same category. For example, to obtain a CPL(A), you must have at least 140 hours of flight time in registered or recognised aeroplanes. Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft.
And when you look at those two definitions in CAA(3)you get:
"state aircraft" means:
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.

"Contracting State" means a foreign country that is a party to the Chicago Convention.

So, if RAAus is not a State Aircraft and it certainly isn't registered in a foreign country, how is it that that document says you can claim your hours in RAAus, as they're "Recognised Aircraft"?
KRviator is online now  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 00:03
  #105 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by mcoates View Post
Damm, i was using voice recognition on the phone. I actually said "dribble" I don't even know the word Diatribe ?
Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.
Head..er..wind is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 02:36
  #106 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2021
Location: Earth
Posts: 1
Red face Welcome to Australia

Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.
nomeowsonguard is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 03:27
  #107 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2016
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 56
Originally Posted by Head..er..wind View Post
Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.
Precedence would indicate he is a person of little integrity, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. And even if he does provide it I would frankly have serious doubts about its legitimacy
Ia8825 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 05:53
  #108 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 216
I was thinking the same thing nomeowsonguar..! A guy and his wife (and baby) are flying along, have engine trouble, put it down safely on a beach and all walk away unharmed. A good effort for which he should be congratulated.
Who gives a stuff about all the nonsense being proffered regarding numbers on board. This has nothing to do with what caused the engine to fail. I'm more interested in what caused that. Or maybe the child was fiddling with the mixture control when daddy wasn't looking..?
IFEZ is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 06:27
  #109 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by CASA
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course,
You keep quoting something that is not relevant.

You can not count Raaus hours towards an integrated 150 hour CPL course - it’s says that clearly.

You can only use them towards the 200 hour course in an agreement between CASA and Raaus.

Whilst this isn’t entirely relevant to the discussion, it does have a level of relevance because it demonstrates yet again that Raaus aircraft are not Australian registered aircraft, to the point that Raaus had to get CASA to accept to use the hours towards a CPL and ATPL for total aeronautical experience.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 06:43
  #110 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by Head..er..wind View Post
Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.
The relevant regulations have already been posted, multiple times, including screen captures from the CASA website.

I also rang RAAus myself like Michael did and was advised that what I’ve been writing is correct in reference to the carriage of passengers, the registration of Raaus aircraft in terms of the discussion above and how the specific CAO referenced does not apply.

What will it take to make you believe… a letter from CASA with CASA letterhead, an email or a name?

Just because nothing specifically says that an Raaus aircraft is not recognised, doesn’t automatically make it recognised.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 08:14
  #111 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,773
Originally Posted by nomeowsonguard View Post
Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.
Hear! Hear!

A successful forced or precautionary landing. (Not sure which, yet.) Well done the pilot.

Then pages of arguments and regulatory dross that only show what a complete waste of time and money the regulatory ‘reform’ program has been.

RAAus and CASA will have their opinions about whether a baby could lawfully be carried on the aircraft. The fact that they have to be asked or quoted in the first place demonstrates what a shit show the ‘rules’ are.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 09:00
  #112 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 33
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
The relevant regulations have already been posted, multiple times, including screen captures from the CASA website.

I also rang RAAus myself like Michael did and was advised that what I’ve been writing is correct in reference to the carriage of passengers, the registration of Raaus aircraft in terms of the discussion above and how the specific CAO referenced does not apply.

What will it take to make you believe… a letter from CASA with CASA letterhead, an email or a name?

Just because nothing specifically says that an Raaus aircraft is not recognised, doesn’t automatically make it recognised.
If you read what I said it should be obvious what is required.......what the regulations say. So far I am merely waiting, as a few are, for Michael to provide the written regulations he keeps referring to. Would have thought that was pretty simple to do. If you recall he’s the one who has made claims that others, myself included, have asked for him to reference. Simple.

Head..er..wind is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 10:32
  #113 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,074
Report from Raaus.


The aircraft took off from Bankstown for a private flight to the northern beaches. About 10 minutes before the incident, they started to fly up the coast, the fuel pressure started to fluctuate and drop and then would increase, the pilot turned the fuel pump on and changed the tank immediately. This did not change the fuel pressure reading, other than this there were no abnormalities. As the aircraft was climbing from 1000ft back to 2400ft to head back to Bankstown, approx. 20 seconds after full power the engine started to drop/ increase/ drop/ increase in RPM. The engine did not stop, but was not operating as normal. The pilot turned back EAST towards the coast and conducted a forced landing on the beach.

Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 10:39
  #114 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: The wrong time zone...
Posts: 744
The discussion in this thread is the reason we have the ridiculous legalese we have in this industry. We complain about it, but as evidenced by the vitriol and sputum within a thread like this, apparently we deserve it.
josephfeatherweight is offline  
Old 1st Jun 2021, 11:19
  #115 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,773
Originally Posted by Squawk7700 View Post
Report from Raaus.


The aircraft took off from Bankstown for a private flight to the northern beaches. About 10 minutes before the incident, they started to fly up the coast, the fuel pressure started to fluctuate and drop and then would increase, the pilot turned the fuel pump on and changed the tank immediately. This did not change the fuel pressure reading, other than this there were no abnormalities. As the aircraft was climbing from 1000ft back to 2400ft to head back to Bankstown, approx. 20 seconds after full power the engine started to drop/ increase/ drop/ increase in RPM. The engine did not stop, but was not operating as normal. The pilot turned back EAST towards the coast and conducted a forced landing on the beach.
Sounds “precautionary” rather than “forced” to me, but who’d know and maybe the difference may not be understood these days.
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2021, 00:21
  #116 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Perth, WA
Age: 61
Posts: 14
When all of this is wound up, the pilot will have either been slapped around for having an adult and child on board as well as himself or wandered off without a problem. If it turns out that the current regs actually allow this but they shouldn't, they'll be changed. If they don't allow it his first born will be handed over to the CASA gods.
At least they are all alive to have the argument.
Simples!
sagesau is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2021, 01:55
  #117 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now officially on Life's scrap heap, now being an Age Pensioner and not liking it one little bit! I'd rather be flying but in the meantime still continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 67
Posts: 2,736
Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.
Wot Leady said in post #111. I really despair at the seemingly now obligatory practice of criticising each and every action taken by some Pilot who finds him/herself in an unfortunate situation.

And sagesau says it best.
At least they are all alive to have the argument.
Simples!
IMHO, the most important thing of the whole episode.

Really think this thread has run its course, M'self.

Last edited by Pinky the pilot; 2nd Jun 2021 at 04:46. Reason: Typo
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2021, 02:30
  #118 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 57
Good judgement was shown by the pilot in turning back to the beach instead of pushing on over the city to reach Bankstown. Good airmanship skills were demonstrated in a near perfect approach and touch down. There will be a few armchair critics who could not have pulled off that landing. How many of us have practiced a forced or precautionary landing in the last six months, especially if we are flying multiple types with different glide characteristics. There was probably more damage done to the gear legs dragging the aircraft through the soft sand than from the actual landing.

Again well done the pilot and I agree with Pinky, time to give the thread a rest until there is an official comment of the cause of the engine surging, which is of greater interest than the current thread drift.
Ndegi is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2021, 04:19
  #119 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Sydney
Posts: 386
Originally Posted by IFEZ View Post
I was thinking the same thing nomeowsonguar..! A guy and his wife (and baby) are flying along, have engine trouble, put it down safely on a beach and all walk away unharmed. A good effort for which he should be congratulated.
Who gives a stuff about all the nonsense being proffered regarding numbers on board. This has nothing to do with what caused the engine to fail. I'm more interested in what caused that. Or maybe the child was fiddling with the mixture control when daddy wasn't looking..?
I think what happened was whilst refueling, his wife was filling the baby bottle upwind. Clearly some of the powdered baby formula has been blown into the fuel tank and subsequently blocked the fuel filter. Sputter sputter..
Foxxster is offline  
Old 2nd Jun 2021, 07:13
  #120 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,074
Originally Posted by Foxxster View Post
I think what happened was whilst refueling, his wife was filling the baby bottle upwind. Clearly some of the powdered baby formula has been blown into the fuel tank and subsequently blocked the fuel filter. Sputter sputter..
Without wanting to be disrespectful, maybe the issue was caused by the natural milk delivery system, the way nature intended.
Squawk7700 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.