Crash at SunShine coast.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: SCOTLAND
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Lookleft
Why is there a picture of a Jetstream 41 in the SAR snapshot?
My guess (in the best tradition of PPRuNe) is that any initial visual search - if there was one - failed because it looks from the footage seen on the news reports, that the 150 went in almost vertically into a substantial batch of trees. That being the case it probably would not have been readily visible unless the search a/c flew right over the top of the impact site, and the observers were looking straight down - an usual probability. The Challenger probably has specialist equipment to detect either the beacon (if it was operational and active), or some other means of honing in on the site. The track for the Challenger suggests a methodical search with multiple passes over the signal source - whatever it was - and eventually where all the lines intersect - that will probably be the location of what you are looking for. Whatever the speculation here, the tragic event leaves us all with a heavy heart and a deep sadness for the loss of two fellow aviators, and the implications for their families and friends. Profound sympathy to all affected.
Originally Posted by LapSap
What surprised me is that they had to send a Challenger (?!!) from Essendon (?!!!) to search for it? Serious?
The report leans toward the MB method being used first, which seems probable when looking at the instructors history with the method, lack of experience with the 150. I do recall the 150/152 however won’t self recover with the MB. Valuable time likely lost.
I’ve read a report a while back, similar situation, however a poorly performed PARE technique as they didn’t apply forward pressure, something which would actually delay the recover in other aircraft the pilots normally flew, so they actually didn’t do that until the ground was getting closer. Naturally the recovery came when they did that, as it should, well it’s in the POH after all. They didn’t know the aircraft. Aircraft was a 150.
Really shows how important it is to know your aircraft, the aircraft of the day you are flying not something else from yesterday.
I’ve read a report a while back, similar situation, however a poorly performed PARE technique as they didn’t apply forward pressure, something which would actually delay the recover in other aircraft the pilots normally flew, so they actually didn’t do that until the ground was getting closer. Naturally the recovery came when they did that, as it should, well it’s in the POH after all. They didn’t know the aircraft. Aircraft was a 150.
Really shows how important it is to know your aircraft, the aircraft of the day you are flying not something else from yesterday.
Last edited by PoppaJo; 13th Aug 2022 at 14:32.
A very good reminder that when practicing non normal items near the edge of the envelope that every aircraft is slightly different. We can generalise on normal operations when flying from A to B in light aircraft and apply techniques for normal control that fit across the board. However when dealing with non normal/advanced scenarios it's extremely important to know that aircraft type and its characteristics. The C150 explicitly states to move the control column briskly forward to break the stall, and even then it can take a rotation to come out so needs patience. Then there's issues if you do these things outside the W&B envelope, which both scenarios described in the report are above MTOW, you are into test pilot territory then. This then comes down to how important is spin recovery for the average pilot, the recovery techniques taught are only for the aircraft that it's practiced in. It's much better to teach avoidance of the zone where these problems occur as once you get close to these edges each aircraft will behave differently, even to the point that weight and balance, power, config, rain, ice, insects, damage, etc can all make the aircraft behave differently around the stall.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 103
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm guessing this incident also influenced the decision to change sections of the Part 61 MOS Sched 2, previously section A5.2 was something to the effect of "recover from incipient spin", now A5.2 just states "Avoid Spin".
Always was silly to require spin recovery techniques when 99% of the GA fleet are not approved to intentionally spin. Better to just practice stalling in various configs and power settings, attitudes and ensure the student is quite competent in controlling the aircraft in a way that does not promote spinning or loss of control.
Can't say I've ever entered an unintentional spin, and I'm no Chuck Yeager, if I can fly 10k+ hours and never accidentally enter a spin I'm pretty sure most pilots can achieve the same feat. Most GA types are designed to resist entry to a spin if you fly them well away from the edges. If you are flying something that readily enters a spin for random reasons, no doubt, get some training in spins. None of the 100s of students I've trained have crashed or died from spinning either, maybe they are all just very lucky like me. Keep the focus on real problems, like don't push VFR into IFR, or push into any conditions that outmatch your abilities etc etc.
It’s worth keeping in mind that as per the report the pilot under instruction (and his fellow aero club member who was waiting on the ground) were both licenced pilots who were doing an aerobatic endorsement with a contracted pilot who had no aerobatic time logged in an A150.
It’s likely only thanks to this other aerobatic endorsement student that we have an idea of what is likely to have happened. Both had written down 1. MB 2. PARE and the instructor had said on the ground that they’d be trying both methods.
It’s likely only thanks to this other aerobatic endorsement student that we have an idea of what is likely to have happened. Both had written down 1. MB 2. PARE and the instructor had said on the ground that they’d be trying both methods.
There's also no evidence to state they didn't try the POH recovery first either. So it's pure speculation that the accident is the result of MB or PARE technique. That is key to remember its just a possibility that instructor used MB first as some form of demonstration. The ATSB is just highlighting the issues with one size fits all emergency procedures as opposed to POH procedure and also the dangers inherent in spin training. I've had the pleasure of spinning C152As, Airtourers and a few others there's always some quirk you have to be careful of, from min/max fuel levels to recovery technique to CoG limits. I've heard a few myths like 'all aircraft can be spun and recovered', well there's a few dead test pilots out there that might say otherwise, I think most wear personal chutes or the aircraft has some form of recovery chute fitted these days during spin testing.
Originally Posted by 43Inches
The ATSB is just highlighting the issues with one size fits all emergency procedures as opposed to POH procedure and also the dangers inherent in spin training
"But...But...We've always done it that way."
Says Beechcraft:
The manufacturer reported that the data was consistent with expected airplane response when power on one engine is reduced to idle with takeoff power on the other engine, a bank is not immediately established toward the operating engine, a significant sideslip is allowed to develop, and the airspeed is allowed to decay below about 120 KIAS
The key takeaway from this is to know what is to be done for the aircraft you're flying on the day. If you're going to be practicing non-normals, look at the books yourself - you cannot always trust an instructor to know what to do, or to do the right thing. Trust - but verify...
Thread Starter
And once again it is demonstrated that people die because for this type of activity, when all sorts of things can… and do go wrong, nobody is wearing a parachute. Even very experienced aerobatic pilots have come fatally undone for this very reason.
Originally Posted by 43Inches
There's also no evidence to state they didn't try the POH recovery first either. So it's pure speculation that the accident is the result of MB or PARE technique. That is key to remember its just a possibility that instructor used MB first as some form of demonstration. The ATSB is just highlighting the issues with one size fits all emergency procedures as opposed to POH procedure and also the dangers inherent in spin training. I've had the pleasure of spinning C152As, Airtourers and a few others there's always some quirk you have to be careful of, from min/max fuel levels to recovery technique to CoG limits. I've heard a few myths like 'all aircraft can be spun and recovered', well there's a few dead test pilots out there that might say otherwise, I think most wear personal chutes or the aircraft has some form of recovery chute fitted these days during spin testing.
Originally Posted by aroa
And once again it is demonstrated that people die because for this type of activity, when all sorts of things can… and do go wrong, nobody is wearing a parachute. Even very experienced aerobatic pilots have come fatally undone for this very reason.
In short Magnum, no. Aerobatics take hours and hours of practice and this means years for most people. An aerobatics endorsement, at least in my book is to teach you the basics so you can recover safely when you loose control. There are only 4 aerobatic manoeuvres, (some say 5), everything else is a combination of these 4. Like most stuff taught to beginners in aviation, it is often the inexperienced doing the basic teaching.
In order for a parachute to work in most aircraft there needs to be a method of jettisoning the doors. I think the 150 Aerobat has this. An awesome little aeroplane, but rather limited by weight. Parachutes are heavy, need repacking and checking regularly and would substantially add to the cost of basic aerobatics training. A great idea, yes indeed! Provided by basic aerobatics instructors, no.
Once you have the basic endorsement you need to practice, practice practice, then get a really experienced aerobatics pilot for personal tuition. there are several offering this, Matt Hall springs to mind. Then you most definitely will be wearing a parachute! You will also be flying something far more advanced than a 150 :-)
If I was into aerobatics I would buy my own parachute and keep it up to spec.
In order for a parachute to work in most aircraft there needs to be a method of jettisoning the doors. I think the 150 Aerobat has this. An awesome little aeroplane, but rather limited by weight. Parachutes are heavy, need repacking and checking regularly and would substantially add to the cost of basic aerobatics training. A great idea, yes indeed! Provided by basic aerobatics instructors, no.
Once you have the basic endorsement you need to practice, practice practice, then get a really experienced aerobatics pilot for personal tuition. there are several offering this, Matt Hall springs to mind. Then you most definitely will be wearing a parachute! You will also be flying something far more advanced than a 150 :-)
If I was into aerobatics I would buy my own parachute and keep it up to spec.
Originally Posted by MagnumPI
Serious question, please don’t shoot me down. I’ve been considering doing an aerobatics endo, does anyone use parachutes? Is it common or practically unheard of except in competitions and the like…?
If you are going to wear a parachute you need adequate training in its use plus the discipline of using it as briefed. Egress procedures must be rehearsed every flight.
To avoid jumping out of a perfectly good aeroplane then you would need to do the training exercises high enough above your hard deck. Hard deck consideration needs to consider the type of aircraft and the time required for two people to get out.
Read the article on page 7 here https://www.iac.org/files/magazines/SA_2011_05.pdf
In a Decathlon the instructor has to get the student to eject the door, student to get out first and then the instructor - that can use up a lot of altitude. I am aware of two fatal acccidents where parachutes have been used - in both cases only one person got out and the other did not.
In something like a Pitts my briefing is something like: I will say "bail out" three times and on the third time I won't be there. I am aware of fatal accidents where there had been sufficient height but the pilot left the decision too late.
Another consideration is weight and CG. Most aerobatic aircraft are fairly tight for useful load and some can be tight for loading within the allowable CG range.
Pay your money and take your pick.
https://www.airshows.aero/GetDoc/1470
You’re special, 43”:
So you interpret evidence of what people were briefed as being the 2 techniques that would be tried during a flight as being completely irrelevant to the question as to whether a 3rd technique was tried first?
In your vast experience of intentional spinning, on how many occasions did you take out the POH during flight to brief yourself on what it said about recovery, as your first preparation for the event?
There's also no evidence to state they didn't try the POH recovery first either. So it's pure speculation that the accident is the result of MB or PARE technique.
In your vast experience of intentional spinning, on how many occasions did you take out the POH during flight to brief yourself on what it said about recovery, as your first preparation for the event?
