Never ceases to amaze me how quickly some people will squeal pilot error. How the hell does anyone know at this point??? It may or may not be, but let's wait for the official word.

I've been there - the last thing the families need is people placing blame on the deceased -who is not here to defend himself. So have some decency and shut the hell up. :*

Sky

CDF..... CDF?.... Common Dog F*ck??
 

Get some and come back to us...............

In regard to the airstrip, I was there two weeks ago.

A 1400m long runway, 18m wide and fenced. The effective length is about 1200m due to obstacles at either end.

The strip does not meet the RFDS basic requirements because the distance between the side fences is only 30m. There should be a runway 15m wide with a surrounding area suitable to taxi over without damage and a futher 15m followed by a fly over area of 7.5m.

In addition the runway is off centre. ie the centre line is 10m from the northern fence and 20m from the southern side. That would put a C421 wing tip about 3m from the fence.

We walked the strip and threw dozens of rocks ( some very sharp ) off the strip however once you were about 150m from either end the strip surface was quite good. The rough area was due to power application prop blast for take off.

The windsock at the north western corner is right by the threshold and infringes the approach path.

The terrain around the airstrip, while hilly, was ok. They use right hand circuits landing to the east.

Management informed us that there had been a Lear Jet there recently. If this was true I would be very surprised. I don't think the Management realise the danger in what they are saying.

These are the airstrip details. They may have nothing to do with the accident.

I am amazed that the local charter companies go in and out daily knowing that the strip does not meet basic requirements. Where is their safety management?

RSO, that strip is quite nice (especially the length) compared to some of the strips to the south and east of Darwin that all the DN operators go into regularly. I'm not saying that they should or shouldnt, just pointing out that their "safety management" normally goes along the lines of " if you can clear the trees with both donks going, it's good."

Q?
 

If the strip doesnt meet requirements then would these companies be insured if something untoward occurred?

The crash has been notified to the Swiss Civil Aviation Authority (http://www.bfu.admin.ch/common/pdf/HB-LRW) and the entry has been deleted from the Swiss immatriculation registry since the aircraft has been destroyed. It was still registered two days ago and showed the following:

HB-LRW; Type CE 421C; Year of construction 1979; S/N 421C0633, Seats: 8

The owner was a construction entrepreneur in the French-speaking part of Switzerland. I'm not naming him, since I don't know if he was flying the plane on that day.

Whoever were the victims, may they rest in peace.

And the minimum strip requirements are? :hmm:

As Stallie says. There's a world of differences between:

* Regulatory requirements

* CASA recommendations ie CAAP xyz about ALAs

* operator chosen limits

Assuming you are operating something larger than a Baron I have found that by using the RFDS minimum requirements when discussing ALA's on properties you get the best reponse from the Owners. They are unlikely to dismiss the RFDS as a creditable source.

You have got to start somewhere.

Having said all that we do go into strips that don't meet the RFDS standards but they are generally close. They don't have a fence a couple metres off the wing tip and a wind sock in the way.

El Questro is a icon type location attracting a wide variation of aircraft, the public and every chance that the RFSD may need to go there so you would expect it to be of a higher standard.

Don't forget the Manager thinks its ok for a Lear Jet.

Of course "safety management" is what you make of it.