Given what happened on the 26th at Perth and depending on what the investigation finds, that sounds like a good idea...

So far as I am aware, the people who died in this tragedy haven't been buried yet. And the ATSB has yet to investigate the accident and produce a report.

Maybe a lesson for everyone to learn is: Take a deep breath. Then take another deep breath. Then wait.

Just my crap contribution...

And there's a perfect example of why you don't go running off at the mouth to the press.:mad: They WILL twist what you say so as to make it sound as dramatic as possible and you can be assured it won't be to your ultimate benefit.

Someone suggested that continuation theory of flight training might be a good idea.

Clearly there's quite a few of us here that have forgotten lots, since doing our BAK's.

So how about this? Find people who can write easy to read, factual articles in a printed magazine on safe airmanship? And perhaps call it the 'Aviation Safety Digest'.

Yes, I know.. That could never happen today. RIP Mac Job.

i'm sure that most pilots here have done close approaches .
i have a low level end' .

Yep, lota crapola about..:hmm: ...and now we got the buttock smoke blowers trying to elicit comment..:hmm:

Them "qualified and skilled" pilots tend to wait for a written accident investigation report so they can make an educated comment.








.

Sad Day :(
 

Condolences to family and friends :(

Low level endorsement training provides skills and knowledge, better enabling one to appreciate a lot of potential errors/ threats that will/ may come ones way. Every day is different, even at the same place no doubt. Weather, sun, obstacles, fauna, traffic and a myriad factors. Having an excess of altitude &/or speed &/or power needs constant consideration, or just not being there at all, if the conditions on the day determine this so. Low level endorsement trains skills to counteract stall at low level, but these skills mostly help when all else is considered and the aircraft's performance on the day is understood too.

Let's see what the accident investigation comes up with...

An avoided unfortunate accident :(

This is for those who believe that despite a constant wind the aircraft has to accelerate through the air when it turns downwind:


Imagine a 747 flying along at 500 knots. Now imagine a model aeroplane flying around that passenger cabin at 10 knots. Are you trying to tell me that when the model is facing the back of the plane and turns towards the front it suddenly has a 500 knot tailwind? And are you trying to tell me that there is a difference aerodynamically between the model flying towards the nose of the aircraft and turning towards the tail compared to flying towards the tail and turning towards the nose?


So if you agree there is no difference then imagine the 747 flying in a parcel of air that moving along at a constant 100 knots. It is the same effect. The aircraft is blissfully unaware of the steady wind, the airspeed stays constant whether it turns into wind or downwind.

As a (non-current) AG pilot with, maybe, a couple of hundred thousand low level, low speed turns and twenty thousand low level base turns to land at minimum speed, in every conceivable up/cross/down wind combination, I am utterly positive that the whole 'parcel of air so no effect of wind' theory is absolute BS. Steady state equations prove nothing, it is a dynamic shear event and you can pontificate to your heart's content but it won't change reality.

I just deleted a long winded explanation as those unbelievers will never be convinced and will spout 'proof' long and loud, believe what you want, I have my own opinion, and supporting evidence, you are welcome to yours. Mine works for me.

HD

Flying Binghi, there is nothing illicit about trying to elicit comment.

That is doom.

This will further place drag exacerbating the stall.

Full Rudder. Stick forward to max and back. Power on. Someone will tell me if this is wrong :)

For a tired sport pilot a big ask in three seconds.

Even for a wary pilot who had done spin training last week might not be fast enough.

Flying with friends can be a distraction as well, girlfriend even more so.

Suninmyeyes and all those others - you are not only wrong but you are dangerously wrong. People do crash because they do not allow for the effects of turning downwind.

Here are three instances which may bring it home to you:

Model aircraft circling in free flight always rear up and often stall as they turn into wind when near the ground. If they turn out of wind, then they lose height. Their airspeed does not remain constant, due to the effects of inertia. The effect is noticeable near the ground but, oddly, not when they are ten feet or more above it.

If you hang a weight on a piece of string in a car travelling at a constant speed, it will hang straight. If the car suddenly lurches off in a different direction, the weight will move due to its inertia. The effect is there even though the car's speed remains the same.

This happened to me: I was landing a Chipmunk at a farm strip in a crosswind. The circuit direction was such that my groundspeed on base leg was high. When I turned final, I found that the aircraft speed was too high to get into the short strip. This happened twice despite my controlling the base leg airspeed carefully. So I flew the circuit in the other direction, so that my groundspeed on base leg was then quite low. I got in easily from that circuit. Note the large difference in inertia involved.

So much for an aircraft 'always flying in a bubble of air and never changing speed.' Of course it does - and it can be a killer if it is not allowed for.

Penny ????????

Penny, in that case, why don't airliners alternately stall and overspeed as they circle in a 100 kt jetstream? Why does the wind have no effect on a fighter manoeuvring at max performance on the light buffet? And how could a U2 ever turn in any sort of wind, when it's operating with only a 4 kt buffer between the stall and MMO?

Please don't spread ignorance Penny Washers.

1. This should be a really big clue that what you are seeing is not a result of changing directions in a steadily moving airmass but either from changing wind conditions (turbulence/shear) close to the ground or visual illusions from trying to fly an aircraft with reference to the ground.

2. The car example is just completely irrelevant.

3. What happened to you in the chippy is you got suckered in by illusions.

Wrong decision making.
 

Why did the pilot allow himself to get into to a situation where he lost control of his aeroplane, there is evidence to suggest that he was concerned about the weather conditions, why did he elect to continue on? These are the questions that we as a pilot group/industry must be asking, and reflect on our own experiences. Forget the ATSB and CASA they will just do what they normally do. Who cares about ailerons being here there and everywhere and temperatures and ground speeds - we know all that. The aircraft should never have been put into an out of control situation.

CFIT, VMC into IMC, overloading aircraft, operating aircraft with known un-servicabilities that render it un-airworthy, busting CTA and the list goes on and on. The crux of the issue is pilot discipline. Sadly flight standards have significantly dropped right throughout the entire pilot group IMHO. We can point our fingers at regulators, governments and a myriad of other organisations and individuals, however we as individuals are always accountable for our own personal discipline.

The misunderstanding of how a aircraft moves through an air mass by some aviators on this board is stunning and breath-taking.

What has stuck with me from my ppl training is that we fly in "parcels of air". That "parcel of air" can be moving both latterally and or vertically.
The thing that matters is keeping an air speed that delivers lift in this "parcel of air".

Doesn't matter which way it is moving, just make sure you are properly flying within it!

If you do a constant bank 360 degree turns in the parcel of air you'll be fine, but the parcel of air will move ( with you in it) you across the ground.

The notion of "upwind" and "downwind" are irrelevant in respect to maintaining lift in the "parcel of air".

Avoiding weather conditions where the "parcel of air" rapidly descends is advisable.

A takeoff in a "parcel of air" that is moving in the same direction as the runway is not advisable as it uses more runway to accelerate up to a speed where the airspeed over wings is enough to create lift.
I've found that visualising this "parcel" is a useful aid in communicating the risks of low level operations to TV and film production staff.


Mickjoebill

Duck, you are right as II said

The first attempt should have been the trigger for going home.

The first attempt appeared to be caused by a traffic conflict, not poor positioning. I don't see that as a reason to give it away, provided there was a backup plan for a circuit... Have a look at the Perth Webtrak starting at 1658.