RAAus with 3 POB?
 

Bingo 45 crashed with a pilot in 60's, passenger in 30's, and a child on board:eek:

Non fatal as far as reported.

What is going on here?

Surely this is not true.

Yep, them's there numbers on them wings.

Plane crash near Brandy Creek | Whitsundays News | Local News in Whitsundays | Whitsunday Times

http://media.apnonline.com.au/65.1/i...orweb_t325.jpg

Note that "experienced" doesn't mean "safe", or "legally compliant" :hmm:

Three people (two-place limit for RAA aircraft, and the Bingo 45 only has two seats) and full of fuel (450kg MTOW, 250-270kg Basic wt, 72 litres (50 kg) fuel capacity)? No wonder it didn't get airborne! :ugh:

With an RAA 19-xxxx registration:

My good friend at RAAus is going to need a massive pay rise to justify the workload. :uhoh:

Keep up the good work ZT, those making life difficult will soon run out. Hopefully.:eek:

.....hey 'jabadabadoo' I told ya's that single eng planes are dangerous!:E
I luved the neighbors comments re had the nose in the air trying to get more power!:)


Wmk2

In defence of the 450 mtow if that is correct, that would be a carry over of the European registration system, thus the aircraft in theory would be capable of much more, potentially 544 or 600 mtow. Not that that makes it right if it is the case of course...

Wally, was in a twin on the weekend, full up, I suggested to the pilot that it might be unable to maintain height on one (old) engine. He replied, "and how is that different to any other Piper with only one engine?"

Oh dear, I heard a rumour that he rego expired in 2008.

'xxx' I have heard the same saying some years ago & thought good point:)

I used to fly an old sh*t box 'Sneca' 1 years ago & whilst overhead the city of Melb doing a scenic one of the donks began to backfire so I reduced power so something just above idle & the old girl wouldn't maintain height even well under gross weight. The only difference from that plane to a SE Piper (for Eg) was I had a slower drift down rate,enuf to get back to EN....pheww!!!!
Thread drift I know:-)
I know little of the RAA Reg's but like ALL levels of aviation the rules get stretched!


Wmk2

Not quite correct:

So if the aircraft was designed in Europe (which it was) to the European spec, then it was designed to a MTOW of 450 kg. Just because the Australian class allows 600kg - it doesn't mean that the aircraft was designed to that higher limit! :ugh:

Had the manufacturer designed the aircraft to a higher limit, then the Australian regs would allow that limit - as that isn't the case, it indicates that 450 kg is the max the manufacturer allowed for.

My understanding of the Bingo is it is a Savannah (MTOW 560kg in Aus) with a HKS 700E (60hp) rather than a 80 or 100hp rotax. This probably means the 450kg limit applies.

Ohh dear...... The RAA register is not necessarily up to date and accurate, but it looks like this aircraft would have been first registered in May 2005. By virtue of the fact the rego either side. The next in sequence is the same type.

Now where is 4329 ?

Perhaps it has recently been inspected by a L2 mechanic and reregistered, and I hope so. Otherwise it seems like my previous comments will be horribly close to the truth.

Again, a sad reflection on all of us who fly anything lighter than a Boeing or Airbus, even if undeservedly as we all know. The great number of RAA pilots have every reason to be even more pi$$ed off with our fellow " pilots" if that word can be used.:(

.


Hmmm... seems some thrive on the misery of others..:hmm:







.

I think what you mean, is other peoples stupidity. They are very different.

Lets clear this up, THIS WAS NOT RA Aus It was yet another red neck abusing the privelige of flight.

Un registered, probably un licensed, certainly illegal.

So why even debate the issues, it was clearly wrong.

And gravity sorted it out !!!!

this is listed in the cancelled rego section,,,,another d!ckhead off to explain himself! The only thing that is a plus for this bloke,,,he didn't kill anyone!

19-4329 Icp Srl Bingo 20/10/2005 X 20/10/2008

T28D, while I can appreciate where you are coming from I believe this is an RA Aus matter. I am not saying it is their fault but they will certainly be part of the solution.

I know we don't see all the accidents reported. However we have had at least two events reported, and in a reasonably high profile manner.... both involving innocent children.
Mr F Wheel and then our boat buzzing chump.... both with questions hanging over licences and registrations.

This appears to me, at this stage at least, to be yet another. This time a child injured in a crash with possibly an unlicenced pilot in a unregistered machine.
The media will pick up on this one. CASA will be forced to react, naturally.

It is Friday afternoon.... if I had a microlight I would be flying this afternoon. Anything could happen this afternoon.
:rolleyes:

These guys are not doing anyone any favours. All have lost machines and they were probably not in accidents per se.
I am sure their actions have brought the whole fraternity under closer scrutiny. Most of us will not enjoy that.

T28D

I do not see how that post clears anything up.

Well it was once, and as close as you can get. So what do you call an unregistered car and driver? Not a car driver?

Fact is that we know the rules and the minor techincal differences, most don't. Print the news article and ask three or four of your neighbours? See what they think.

100% agree there :ok:

With twice the engines, you have twice the chance of an engine failure! ;)

Thanks Bas, I'd never thought of it like that.

The question is, what are we going to do about it?

Certainly, "better training" isn't going to do it.

Maybe do psych evaluations early on in flying training and if they say this person might do this kind of stuff, cease training and blacklist them?

When registrations lapse, send out inspectors to hide in the bushes and see if the aircraft is being flown or not?

Make aircraft (parts) dealers report "suspicious" purchases of spare parts?

Stupid is as stupid does and just like more people have the ability to afford flight with affordable RA-Aus aircraft and training, naturally, you also get more stupid people.

The only thing to stop it is people dobbing others in, regardless of the organisation the originally registered with.

Pilots have been playing up and carving holes in the ground since day dot, I doubt it will ever be free of yahoos,,,,the only way to change the culture is from the inside,,we need to grow the balls to confront other pilots when behavior is crook and make it our business when we see stuff on the field that's wrong, RAAus has made it mandatory for yearly rego labels to be displayed on the left side of the windscreen , we all have a vested interest in taking notice of whether the aircraft around us are compliant .
We all have our bad pilot stories ,but how many can honestly say they've had the guts to say something , anonymous forums don't count though, no matter how often the rules are cut and pasted !

CASAs reaction to this once the media hits on about it will be very interesting to see...has RA-Aus made a comment/statement yet?

I am curious. Operating under the delegation, whose responsibility is it to prosecute illegal behavior? CASA or RAAus? I would suspect it would remain with CASA. The big question is how do you effectively police lapsed registration? It would be heavy handed to advocate seizure of aircraft to prevent illegal flight and many here would decry the intrusion. It seems we have an aviation problem, not just an RAAus issue. How do we effectively weed out the attitude of "she'll be right, I can defy the law because I don't like it" short of the Darwinian method?

Crescent, it's CASA's responsibility through the legal system by making recommendations to the DPP etc. RA-Aus don't have the ability to apply penalties and won't take on legal proceedings as they are simply an administrative body working as a delegate of CASA. As stated earlier, if it is unregistered then it RA-Aus has no responsibility for the aircraft or operator, it may as well have never been registered.

Thanks for the clarity XXX. I think baswell summed up the issue nicely as well.

Another one un-registered and probably un-licenced. CASA and the DPP need to make a very strong statement and put this person who risked the lives of 2 others (including a child of 3 who cannot assess risk), and let the court send them to the pokey for a few months.

These clowns are giving everyone a bad name and a bad taste in our mouths.

Pardon me for being dumb on the RAA stuff, but why is it necessary to reregister aircraft in RAA? My C172 has been on the register since 1967 without much if any interference from the CASA save for the changes to the operator / owner status a few years back .....

Admin Income

Seems to me there is a lot of difference between an unregistered car and an unregistered "flying machine"

If the car bingles the legislation relies on and falls back to the Nominal Defender, no such safety net in aviation outside normal registration and insurance cover.

Well it was once, and as close as you can get. So what do you call an unregistered car and driver? Not a car driver?

JABAW There is a lot of difference in the potential outcome, having said tht I stand by what I said before, this is not a RAA matter, they should distance themselves from this, it is a legal nightmare potentially.

Who actually has the legal running, I suspect the police are the appropriate authority.

Unlawful use of a vehicle ???

Av,

If you hold an RAA ticket you can only fly an RAA aircraft. If you hold a PPL you cannot fly a RAA aircraft unless you hold a RAA License.

As stated "IF" it is unregistered and "IF" the pilot is unlicensed then it is NOT a issue to be delt with by RAA and CASA is responsible for action.

Sadly you cannot stop people from buying things that they are not qualified for use. Hence a 10 Year Old can buy a car!

As stated by others the problem here is Joe Public keep seeing small aircraft crashing thinking what a dangerous activity it is!!!! This means more pressure to shut airfields and regulate our activities.

For my two cents worth if you see something not right = report it. You don't have to give your name!!!!

Jim

T28

I agree from a legal breach of laws, this is not an RAA matter, what you are saying is correct, but the greater overall problem can't be handed to the police to solve now can it. The public perception is another dimension to the problem.

You keep looking at the past tense so to speak, the illegal actions of a moron, the rest of us have a problem here, including you, and that is what next, what comes after....

Sure there is not much you can do with the morons on earth, but how you limit their effect on the rest of us is where the future work needs to be done.

If you don't give your name, CASA won't act, because there is no-one in court to stand up and give evidence, unless you can convince them to try and catch the offender themselves but given that they generally don't work on weekends it's unlikely to happen. Been there, done that.

This is part of a post from another forum written by the L2 that did the check of the aircraft.

I'd like to assure you all that 19-4329 was registered, as I did an UACR on the aircraft in August of 2011 for re-registration.

The RAA database is out of date. If this is the case then it will be an RAA incident requiring action from both the RAA and most likely CASA.

Jim

Jabaw,

You keep looking at the past tense so to speak, the illegal actions of a moron, the rest of us have a problem here, including you, and that is what next, what comes after....

For good reason, the past is certain, the future ???? my chrystal ball is not working well, someone probably peed in it and it is all cloudy.

Fact is no matter what those of us who sit on the compliant side of the ledger might want or even need, those who choose to act vicariously will always stress the "system".

It is always difficult to determine "guilt" when there is no clear regulatory lead to statutory breach.

In this case the most appropriate statutory body to deal with the matter is the State Police Force.

CASA are so far away from this it will be a stretch for them, RAA are probably righteous observers, but the reality is the Aviation Community may well feel snookered, and that is life !!!

Funny enough we are close to agreement than many would think.

What is unusual is that your crystal ball is so cloudy, normally you speak with clarity of your crystal ball.

Again I stress that while this may or may not be a registered RAA problem, it actually ends up being an RAA and GA problem. You can pontificate as much as you like, reality is not any specific facts we debate here, it is all about public perception.

All round the world commercial pax jet operaters allow the carriage of a "Lap Child"

---------------------------------------------------------


Amazing how this prang has been blown out of all proportion just to feed the agenda of some..:hmm:

...apparently the pilot is a bad boy because he were flying an unregistered aircraft... though maybe it is registered. Waiting to get some facts just dont matter to some......








.

Require a photo/inspection of the registration either removed from the aircraft, or painted out? Shows the RAAus have "disowned" it, and makes it obvious if it taxies out that it isn't legal.

I am sure this is not the case.

Passenger aircraft may have seats, restraint systems etc that are approved and that allow the carriage of a lap child.
The airlines are subject to the requirements of the regulators, just like all other operators. The regulator issues the 'permits' or 'permissions'.
From my experience in airlines, the child restraints were provided in the passenger cabin, - I have not seen an instance of provision to carry a child in the cockpit.

I realise you are not suggesting a child could be sitting on the co-pilot's lap but that is getting more akin to this accident.
The investigators will be looking into seating, possibility of control restrictions, weight and balance etc.
Having the three occupants may indeed have been a causal factor.

To suggest it is ok to carry a child as airlines are permitted to do it is mischievous at least, possibly verging on naivety.


Regarding the lapsed registration, yes, - there does appear to be an issue there.
While we are now seeing reports that the Maintenance was carried out and the registration renewed in August, it may only complicate the issue.

RA Aus records will be under scrutiny... I believe they show the machine was not registered from 2008.

How does that sit with the neighbours comments to the media ?

Ok, he may have a second aircraft on his property.

Many media reports were suggesting the mother and child were in critical conditions. This guy has done this to his aircraft and family, you have to feel for them.
Somehow I have the feeling that a thorough investigation will not affect his personal situation so much.
Any outcome will have more far reaching consequences across the aviation community. If the aircraft was on the RA Aus register does that then bring that organisation back into the equation ?

Aircraft register cancellations (xhtml w3c 12/09)

I can foresee a few letters being posted in the coming weeks.
I am sure some owners will not enjoy writing their replies.

From the link Baron posted...
Over 130 aircraft deregistered in 2010 alone, and similar numbers most years going back? Some will be cancelled, would most be "not renewed"?

Begs the question, why so many, what is happening with them all now? Would it be possible for RAAus to publish non-renewals monthly so that a flyers buddys can give them a reminder if they see one that they know listed.

Getting a little carried away...

Seems it was probably registered.
Suffered some kind of engine failure.
A child was onboard, either restrained or unrestrained.
Family in hospital, hopefully all ok.
RA-Aus database is out of date on web as website hasn't been updated yet.
RA-Aus rego isn't cheap and is renewed annually.
Probably won't go to jail for having child on board, slap on wrist perhaps.
Child restraints are available for GA, seen them in RV's etc.

Say again
 

No matter how well meaning, organised and competent the industry is, public perceptions are what will, eventually provoke some form of knee jerk reaction from Government. It will not be 'tea, biccy's and a quiet chat'.

The public are seeing pranged aircraft, frightened people watching and kids being hurt or potentially killed.

A front foot position needs to be adopted to prevent this getting out of hand; get proactive. Provide the people in authority with solutions to this situation, so they can go away comfortable, then when the cat does go down the intake, they will not be asked difficult, awkward questions at election time.

$00.20 AUD.