|
Dr Barry J. Uscinski
Just wanted to correct the news piece quoted by onetrack:
Dr Uscinski was a member of the research staff - a senior research associate - at Cambridge's Dept. of Applied Maths and Theoretical Physics. He was not associated with Christ's College, apart from maybe having supervised students there, AFAIK but was a former fellow of King's and Clare Colleges. He will be very greatly missed. RIP. |
Coroner delivers verdict
Barry Uninski was cleared of blame by the Coroner in a finding at Maroochydore.
The Coroner was scathing of casa [again] The Coroners brief was as follows: 1. The findings required by s. 45(2) of the Coroners Act 2003; namely the identity of the deceased person, when, where and how he died and what caused his death; 2. The adequacy of the maintenance, repairs and testing of the aircraft, which had been conducted prior to the deceased’s final test flight; 3. The adequacy of the weight/balance and ‘best glide / stall speed’ information provided to the deceased for the aircraft; and 4. Whether any recommendations can be made to reduce the likelihood of deaths occurring in similar circumstances or otherwise contribute to public health and safety or the administration of justice. 22-Oct-10 GYMPIE The Gympie Times article reported on the accident. Dead pilot cleared of blame by coroner http://media.apnarm.net.au/img/accou...ic_ct40x40.png agorrie | 2nd Jan 2015 6:22 AM AUSTRALIA'S air safety and crash investigation systems failed at almost every level when an innocent pilot was falsely blamed for a fatal Mary Valley plane crash, a Gympie Coroner has found. Coroner Maxine Baldwin's findings, delivered in Maroochydore on Monday, were scathing of processes adopted by authorities ranging from Gympie police to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. Mrs Baldwin found too many people had accepted the word of the aircraft's manufacturer, who had lied about its weight to minimise registration costs. Police had relied too heavily on investigations by others, the coroner found. Those others had not carried out good enough investigations. One of those who accepted the manufacturer's advice was an engineer who had modified the aircraft's balance without knowing its true weight - about 200kg more than that shown on registration documents. |
Accountability
When is someone going to be held to account? Something the new DAS should address.
Safe Flying |
With all due respect to the deceased and the Coroner, I don't buy this for a second.
Presumably the figures were modified initially so as to allow RA-Aus registration however we are led to believe that somehow the aircraft was assembled and NOT weighed? The builder must have known the actual weight was too high and the weighing records and weight and balance calculation followed to reflect this. I would like to see the full transcripts. Unless perhaps it was sold second hand and the new owner and maintenance providers were unaware of the actual weight of the aircraft. Edit: Got it, I suspect the pilot was not the builder or owner. |
The second last recommendation from the coroner was. "CASA should review its expectations of RA-Aus and conduct random audits"
More pain for RAAus or perhaps this was one of the drivers for the recent CASA audits. |
(The Coroner) Mrs Baldwin was scathing about the evidence of aircraft manufacturing chief executive Michael O'Sullivan, of Supermarine Aircraft Pty Ltd. She said he had covered up the aircraft's excessive weight with "knowingly falsified documents" so he could register the plane under the less stringent requirements of Recreational Aviation Australia (RA-Aus), which administered registrations of ultra light and light sports aircraft. Mrs Baldwin recommended RA-Aus introduce a system of random checks on registration information and impose exemplary punishment on Mr O'Sullivan. CASA should review its expectations of RA-Aus and conduct random audits. And police should improve procedures to ensure better security for exhibits, she also recommended. As far as criminal punishment goes, what is the current penalty for forging aircraft weight documents in an RA-Aus setting? Nothing? If so, then criminal penalties need to be introduced for such falsification. I have always been intrigued as to how stringent the weight checks are for RA-Aus aircraft. Not very, so it appears. |
UL, that is not correct. Happy to chat about it via PM. Don't believe everything that you hear from the messiah.
Onetrack, there were two aircraft uncovered during the CASA audit of RA-Aus as having falsified weights, from memory they were C150's. As a result, the Australian Federal Police were engaged to investigate and act against the owners of the aircraft. |
Criminal Liability
I think you will find that if a direct correlation exists between a falsified weight and a death from spinning in because of an incorrect stall speed it is firmly in the realms of criminal negligence. The problem will lie in the criminal burden of proof that this was the actual cause. Haven't read the Coroners report or seen a recommendation for charges. As usual it will fall back on the civil burden of proof and the deceased's family will be left to slug it out with the no win no pay rape you brigade.
My memory is a little dim now but I think the J400 starts to skirt that boundary of stall speed vs weight at Gross in the 19 category, relying on so called flight tests to determine the observed stall speed. CASA has been ruthless during its recent audits with bull**** weights and RAA. Signed for a few reweighs caught in the audit where the original numbers were total bull****. As for C-150's being allowed into the category the Tech Manager at the time should have just held a gun to his own head, how fu@%ing dum was that? At the end of the day you just cant beat Darwin's law, there are numerous examples of belt driven re-drives killing, and I am willing to bet that wing was slippery and had a nasty break at the stall. |
Accident - ATSB data
The following is from the atsb website on data snet to RAAus:
http://vocasupport.com/wp-content/up...-ae2010098.pdf MTF |
Is it just me, or is it that almost every time someone goes out and kills themselves through miss handling of an aircraft there is a rash of "ohh no, it must be the aircraft":*
A difference in stall speed due to a bit of weight should make no difference to flying it, does nobody actually feel what an aircraft is doing these days?:ugh: |
I understand the legal side but
Being over its RAA max weight didnt cause the accident Seems to be saying if it were differently registered it wouldnt have happened? Stall speed often doesnt rise nearly as fast with weight as many believe. The J400, mentioned above, gains just 3 kts stall speed when going from 544kg to 700kg |
does nobody actually feel what an aircraft is doing these days? |
I take it one would have to apply directly to the court for access to the coroner's report?
If the local paper has reported on the contents accurately and not just cherry picked a few extracts for the sake of a story, this seems to be yet another example of a coroner letting the technical issues slip through her fingers and instead prefer to find a smoking gun in a supposed inaccurate weight provided. Never mind establishing a factual basis between the overweight condition and the accident. What they seemed to miss is that although there MAY have been some figure fudging to get the aircraft in under the RA Aus 600kg weight limit, the specs I have on the 80% scale aircraft state a MAUW of 810kg. Given that the aircraft doesn't know it has numbers instead of a VH rego, the extra 200kg is irrelevant. As for an engineer designing modifications without an actual W&B - I have my doubts if it was anything that would alter weight or controls. Oh and UL, to support what Squawkie said, there is a lot more to the story re the other coroners report than what the odd bottom feeder would have you believe. Aside from anything else, there too the alleged inaccuracy had squat to do with the actual cause of the engine stoppage. For some reason an over developed sense of self importance is fairly common amongst those drawn to serve as coroners - the little tin god complex, a colleague who spends quite a bit of time there, calls it.:} |
The additional weight will increase the stall speed.
Possibly the POH stated a stall speed < 45 kt for RAA compliance, but the actual stall speed was greater. |
Spinex, what you say may well be true. But don't forget the same legal system may be used by the relatives to sue. I would not like to be a person who signed any false documents to get RAAus rego.
The coroners reports in Queensland are usually published on the Coroner's website soon after release. |
Does anyone know whether or not the accident aircraft was fitted with an audible stall warning device. If it was it doesn't matter much what the placarded speed says. The aircraft would be yelling at you to do something about it's current situation.
|
Jetjr
Stall speed often doesnt rise nearly as fast with weight as many believe. The J400, mentioned above, gains just 3 kts stall speed when going from 544kg to 700kg From their website, 544 kg - 45 kts stall, 700 kg - 48 kts stall. Stall speed increases by the square root of the load factor. 544 kg to 700 kg represents a load factor increase of 1.285. The square root of 1.285 X 45 kts = 51 knots, - a 6 knot increase, double what's quoted. |
The additional weight will increase the stall speed. |
Valid Points
Is it just me, or is it that almost every time someone goes out and kills themselves through miss handling of an aircraft there is a rash of "ohh no, it must be the aircraft" A difference in stall speed due to a bit of weight should make no difference to flying it, does nobody actually feel what an aircraft is doing these days? I understand the legal side but Being over its RAA max weight didnt cause the accident Seems to be saying if it were differently registered it wouldnt have happened? The figures for the J400 don't quite add up. From their website, 544 kg - 45 kts stall, 700 kg - 48 kts stall. Stall speed increases by the square root of the load factor. 544 kg to 700 kg represents a load factor increase of 1.285. The square root of 1.285 X 45 kts = 51 knots, - a 6 knot increase, double what's quoted. Thankyou 27/09, you just cant beat the math. |
Maybe Jabiru quote the maximum allowable stall speed for the 544kg class to give themselves some legal wiggle room. 48kts at 700kg is 42.3kts at 544kg. The extra two-and-a-bit knots padding might be legally useful in the RAAus environment
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 21:25. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.