PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   Forced Landing on Collaroy Beach NSW (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/640682-forced-landing-collaroy-beach-nsw.html)

KRviator 30th May 2021 23:33


Originally Posted by mcoates (Post 11052943)
Damm, now your admitting to dropping something from an aircraft ??? Section 29.5 of the Civil Aviation Orders

Off we go again

You really are a flog, aren't you? Then again, I guess such a comment is to be expected from someone who was found by the NSW Coroner to have a "litany of dishonesty" and rulebreaking for your own pecuniary interests. Maybe that's why you can't understand the requirements for a legislative reference to your claims, you just go and do what you want anyway and to hell with the consequences...


Originally Posted by The NSW Coroner
One could be forgiven for doubting whether any maintenance or servicing was ever performed on the aircraft while owned by Coates. His record keeping was so appalling and to the extent that it existed at all, inaccurate, that we will never know. Very little if any of his two days oral evidence could be accepted other than his own admission as to his deceptive, or fraudulent dealings with RA Aus in relation to the registration of aircraft and use of unregistered aircraft, his ‘re-registering’ of an unregistered plane, his continued use of Czech registration in Australia in contravention of requirements, and his wrongful use of the serial number of an aircraft in Australia, on an aircraft in the USA. He compounded the litany of dishonesty by having prepared the Condition Report in August 2004 required for the sale to JG despite being prohibited from doing so by his pecuniary interest (i.e. ownership) of the aircraft on which the report was compiled, and further, without the qualification required to do so.

There is a strong likelihood that records which he did produce to the court were prepared for court production, and also that ‘Logs’ were not contemporaneous but may have been fictionally backdated to ensure a sale. He admitted that much of what was written by him in his Sting newsletters stretched the truth or were ‘sales puffery’ for marketing purposes.

<SNIP>

Similarly there were clear deficiencies in the Pilot Log Book and Aircraft Log Book completed by Mr Coates with respect to this aircraft. They failed to comply with the requirements for such records Source.

Now, moving on to toe substance of your post, having checked both CAO29.5 and the overarching regulation CAR150 prior to agreeing to not only doing it, but also spending a bucket load of time & $$ to design, build, install and flight-test an RV-9 specific cremains dispenser, I'm pretty confident I complied with the requirements. Of course, if you're alleging a breach of the CAR's or CAO29.5, I'm all ears.

Care to put such an allegation in writing here? Because as you can see, I freely admit to doing it...

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 00:01

—————————————————

The CAO’s are irrelevant in this instance, because Raaus aircraft are not considered Australian Registered Aircraft, therefore the extra passenger is not permitted.

Refer to ops manual for passenger limits etc.

—————————————————-

andrewr 31st May 2021 00:25


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11054329)
Refer to ops manual for passenger limits etc.

I did look for passenger limits in the ops manual, but only found seat limits. The most likely argument seems to be that CAO 20.16.3 doesn't apply to RAAUS, therefore section 13.2 which allows an infant to be carried on the lap does not apply and some other reg. that requires all passengers to occupy a seat and wear a seat belt/harness is the final word.

This whole idea of carrying a baby in your lap or having 2 children restrained by a single lap belt does seem to be very 1960s though (1950s maybe? Before my time anyway!)

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 01:10

It is hard because there are references being used including:

- 2 place aeroplane
- 2 seat aeroplane
- 2 passengers
- Control seat
- Passenger seats

KRviator 31st May 2021 01:34


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11054329)
The CAO’s are irrelevant in this instance, because Raaus aircraft are not considered Australian Registered Aircraft, therefore the extra passenger is not permitted.

I keep seeing this written, but have yet to see a reference as to why people believe it to be the case, so I went digging futher...From what I can tell, there is no definition of "Australian Registered Aircraft" to be found in the CAA or CAR's, however, the following appear:

From CAR(2) using "Register" as a search term:
"foreign aircraft " means an aircraft registered:
(a) in a Contracting State or in a foreign country other than a Contracting State; or
(b) under a joint registration plan or an international registration plan.

"military aircraft " means aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is being constructed for any part of the Defence Force), other than any aircraft that is registered under these Regulations as an Australian aircraft.

"power-assisted sailplane " means an aircraft that The Gliding Federation of Australia Incorporated has registered as a power-assisted sailplane.

From CAA(3)
"aircraft" means any machine or craft that can derive support in the atmosphere from the reactions of the air, other than the reactions of the air against the earth's surface.

"Australian aircraft" means:
(a) aircraft registered in Australia; and
(b) aircraft in Australian territory, other than foreign registered aircraft and state aircraft.
Note: Some references to Australian aircraft may be affected by the operation of section 4A.

<My note: The "registered" above hyperlinks to the below definition>
From CAA(30DS)
"register" means the register kept under section 30EG.

From CAA(30EG)
CASA must maintain a demerit points register
(1) CASA must maintain a register that records details necessary for, or directly relevant to, the administration of this Division.
(2) CASA must, if it becomes aware of it, correct any mistake, error or omission in the register.
(3) The regulations may provide for other matters in relation to the keeping of the register.

My understanding of the above is RAAus aircraft are deemed "Australian Aircraft", however the definition of "Register" in the Civil Aviation Act refers to CAA930EG), which deals CASA's demerit points system only, as the "administration of this Division" in turn refers exclusively to "this division", or "Division 2" which handles AOC's. I have yet to come across another definition of "Register" in the CAA or CAR. Anyone else able to find one?

As an aside - how bloody ludicrous is it that we have to go to this level of detail to work out if an aircraft with numbers on its' side is actually an "Australian Registered Aircraft"...

First_Principal 31st May 2021 01:37


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11054329)
—————————————————

The CAO’s are irrelevant in this instance, because Raaus aircraft are not considered Australian Registered Aircraft, therefore the extra passenger is not permitted.

—————————————————-

I've no desire to get into the finer points of Australian aviation law, however a little like the difference earlier noted between 'seats' and 'passengers' I point out that CAO 20.16.3 (s1) states it is applicable to "to all Australian registered aircraft".

This is not necessarily the same as "[only] all aircraft on the CASA Australian Civil Aircraft Register".

I see 23-1600 is on the RAAus as serial# 159. Serial# 159 may also have been registered as VH-OIP, but in any event it is clear that:

(1) The RAAus is an organisation domiciled in Australia
(2) The RAAus operates a public register of aircraft showing "registration status of an aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia"
(3) 23-1600, s/n 159 may be found on that register

Thus, while acknowledging there may be specific legislation or orders that say otherwise (but in the absence of clear evidence to the contrary), I'd advise caution around an assumption that 23-1600 - or indeed any similar craft - isn't covered by CAO 20.16.3.

megan 31st May 2021 01:42

RAAus documents here.

https://www.raa.asn.au/documents-and...ate-documents/

In a cursory look I'm unable to find any direct statement about the number of passengers that may be carried in a two seat aircraft, though they talk about "passenger" in the singular.

An example - NO PASSENGER IS TO BE FLOWN UNTIL SUCH TIME AS THE TECHNICAL MANAGER HAS ISSUED THE PERMIT TO FLY

Wonder if the required cockpit warning is a get out of jail card - WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK. THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT. CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT


Squawk7700 31st May 2021 01:55

CASA do not consider Raaus aircraft to be Australian Registered and CAO 20.16.3 clearly says that it only applies to Australian Registered Aircraft.

A similar situation exists around using an Raaus aircraft for an CPL and ATPL. You can troll through the regs and you will not find a reference to the hours counting towards a a CPL and ATPL unless the aircraft is Australian Registered. Therefore, how are pilots using their Raaus hours towards their CPL and ATPL? Because there is a letter floating around from CASA that says that CASA will recognise 50% of the hours being flown in an aircraft on the Raaus register.

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 02:00


Originally Posted by megan (Post 11054364)

Wonder if the required cockpit warning is a get out of jail card - WARNING PERSONS FLY IN THIS AIRCRAFT AT THEIR OWN RISK. THIS AIRCRAFT IS NOT OPERATED TO THE SAME SAFETY STANDARDS AS A NORMAL COMMERCIAL PASSENGER FLIGHT. CASA DOES NOT SET AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS FOR EXPERIMENTAL AIRCRAFT

That’s required for experimental aircraft in Raaus and GA, and yes, it’s a disclaimer for the purposes of liability.

First_Principal 31st May 2021 02:02

A little further comment:

s7.2 of CASA AC 21-41(0) states "...LSA are Australian aircraft as defined under the Act...", which is essentially what KRviator quoted while I was typing earlier. Note the Civil Aviation Act 1988 is not the same as various regulations that may ensue from it.

Although it may not necessarily be the case here, in the event of things that are not defined in legislation the Courts will often refer to the meaning of a word from the Oxford English Dictionary. That august book states that a 'register' can be "An official list or record of names or items.".

Thus, even if it's not defined in your Act or CAR's etc, I suggest there's little doubt on what it means - from which I would take the RAAus records to be a register of Australian aircraft (for the purpose of CAO 20.16.3).




First_Principal 31st May 2021 02:16

At the risk of further thread drift here I note that the New Zealand Civil Aviation Act (1990, and amendments) is a lot clearer on the matter of a register:

S2 Interpretation:

New Zealand Register of Aircraft means the register of that name that is established under section 73
New Zealand registered aircraft means any aircraft that is for the time being registered by the Director under section 6(1)(a)


I won't go on to replicate the various sections, I doubt it would add much to this discussion, but it's good to see some jurisdictions attempt to provide a reasonably comprehensive set of definitions...

KRviator 31st May 2021 02:22


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11054370)
A similar situation exists around using an Raaus aircraft for an CPL and ATPL. You can troll through the regs and you will not find a reference to the hours counting towards a a CPL and ATPL unless the aircraft is Australian Registered. Therefore, how are pilots using their Raaus hours towards their CPL and ATPL? Because there is a letter floating around from CASA that says that CASA will recognise 50% of the hours being flown in an aircraft on the Raaus register.

That may have been the case in days of old, but it is no longer current. From this document:

Originally Posted by CASA
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course, you must have logged the minimum flight times, specified in the regulations, in registered or recognised aircraft of the same category. For example, to obtain a CPL(A), you must have at least 140 hours of flight time in registered or recognised aeroplanes. Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft. Aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) are not VH registered aircraft.

Flight training in RAAus registered aircraft is not Part 141 or 142 flight training. Flight experience in RAAus registered aircraft can be used to meet the 200 hour CPL(A) requirement.

[My bold. I (still) cannot find a reference as to "Australian Registered Aircraft" beyond what I've written above.

EDIT: Found probably the closest thing I can see thus far:
From CASR 202.900
"registered" , in relation to an Australian aircraft, means:
(a) in the case of an aircraft to which Division 47.C.1 applies--registered under Division 47.C.1; or
(b) in the case of an aircraft to which Division 47.C.2 applies--registered under Division 47.C.2.

Now those two provisions relate to RPA's and the CASA Civil Aircraft Register, that being the case, so far as the CASR's are concerned, an "Australian Registered Aircraft" would be one with VH- on the side, however per CASR 200.014, RAAus aircraft operating under CAO95.55 are exempt from the CASR's, and that definition.
From CASR 200.014
Certain ultralight aeroplanes
An aeroplane to which Civil Aviation Order 95.55, as in force from time to time, applies is exempt from CASR (other than the excluded provisions) if the conditions in that Order are satisfied.

And, because I know someone will ask...
"excluded provisions" means all of the following:
(a) Part 1;
(b) Subpart 11.G;
(c) Part 39;
(d) Part 99;
(e) Part 149;
(f) Part 200.

So per CASR200.014, RAAus aircraft operating under CAO95.55 are exempt from the CASR's, bar the few listed above, however, the definition of Australian Registered Aircraft found in CASR202 is not one of those excluded provisions, thus rendering ops under CAO95.55 exempt from that definition.

So....What is an "Australian Registered Aircraft" so far as a CAO is concerned? Fuctifino!

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 04:21

Krviator, the link you posted clearly says that you can use RA type towards the higher classes but for the 200 hour route only.


› Flight training in RAAus registered aircraft is not Part 141 or 142 flight training. Flight experience in RAAus registered aircraft can be used to meet the 200 hour CPL(A) requireme

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 04:26

It also says:


Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of
an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft. Aircraft registered with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) are not VH registered aircraft.

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 04:29


Originally Posted by KRviator (Post 11054379)

So....What is an "Australian Registered Aircraft" so far as a CAO is concerned? Fuctifino!

You didn’t look very hard because it’s written on the same page that you posted the link to.

An Australian Registered Aircraft has “VH” on the side.

mcoates 31st May 2021 04:37

All this is confusing as hell, but it still doesn't get you around the fact that an LSA aircraft according to ASTM standards, can only have 2 persons on board. The rest of this is just diatribe.

First_Principal 31st May 2021 07:59


Originally Posted by mcoates (Post 11054414)
... The rest of this is just diatribe.

Pedantry (excessive concern with minor details and rules) perhaps, but diatribe (a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something), I think not...

mcoates 31st May 2021 09:42


Originally Posted by First_Principal (Post 11054472)
Pedantry (excessive concern with minor details and rules) perhaps, but diatribe (a forceful and bitter verbal attack against someone or something), I think not...


Damm, i was using voice recognition on the phone. I actually said "dribble" I don't even know the word Diatribe ?

David J Pilkington 31st May 2021 10:02


Originally Posted by mcoates (Post 11054414)
... the fact that an LSA aircraft according to ASTM standards, can only have 2 persons on board.

Looking through the ASTM standards referenced by CASA in AC21-42 for LSAs in Australia I don't see that requirement? All I see from CASA is "a maximum seating capacity of 2 persons" which has been discussed here.

mcoates 31st May 2021 10:20

Well.... ASTM standards have references for compliance. they will refer you to FAA document 8130.2J which has the definition BUT it also refers you to other CAO or FAR's or whatever they are called now

First_Principal 31st May 2021 11:03

A small point:

Parliament has the power to enact legislation within a sovereign country.

Typically it will do this via Acts, which themselves may give rise to regulations, which can define rules, and may make reference to various other national and international documentation.

It is not uncommon to say in enacting legislation that where there is conflict between another document and that Act, that the Act is the authoritative document. Likewise with regulations.

Now I've no time left to devote to this today, and have conducted nil research, but I suspect you'd find that if any ASTM documentation is referred to in any Australian legislation it will be in an advisory role, and in any case cannot (or at least should not) trump the right of Parliament to enact legislation within Australia. Thus CAO 20.16.3 probably remains the authoritative source on this matter.

Quite apart from that one would need to see the detail of any ASTM documentation to determine exactly what it says on this, and whether it is relevant to matter at hand.




Squawk7700 31st May 2021 11:32

20.16.3 simply does not apply.

The link posted earlier effectively says that an Australian Registered Aircraft has a VH on the side.


https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d6b3ddeed.jpeg

Squawk7700 31st May 2021 11:35

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....910023119.jpeg


https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/defaul...g-provider.pdf

KRviator 31st May 2021 22:52


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11054411)
You didn’t look very hard because it’s written on the same page that you posted the link to.

An Australian Registered Aircraft has “VH” on the side.

UUmm, I actually quoted that specific line in my post above???:rolleyes:

Nonetheless, I wouldn't put too much faith in a CAsA document that does not include references. You'll also note from that document we've both linked to that it says:

Originally Posted by CASA
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course, you must have logged the minimum flight times, specified in the regulations, in registered or recognised aircraft of the same category. For example, to obtain a CPL(A), you must have at least 140 hours of flight time in registered or recognised aeroplanes. Registered aircraft have a VH registration and recognised aircraft are either aircraft that are on the register of an ICAO Contracting State or a State aircraft.

And when you look at those two definitions in CAA(3)you get:
"state aircraft" means:
(a) aircraft of any part of the Defence Force (including any aircraft that is commanded by a member of that Force in the course of duties as such a member); and
(b) aircraft used in the military, customs or police services of a foreign country.

"Contracting State" means a foreign country that is a party to the Chicago Convention.

So, if RAAus is not a State Aircraft and it certainly isn't registered in a foreign country, how is it that that document says you can claim your hours in RAAus, as they're "Recognised Aircraft"?:=

Head..er..wind 1st Jun 2021 00:03


Originally Posted by mcoates (Post 11054528)
Damm, i was using voice recognition on the phone. I actually said "dribble" I don't even know the word Diatribe ?

Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.

nomeowsonguard 1st Jun 2021 02:36

Welcome to Australia
 
Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.

Ia8825 1st Jun 2021 03:27


Originally Posted by Head..er..wind (Post 11054920)
Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.

Precedence would indicate he is a person of little integrity, so I wouldn’t hold my breath. And even if he does provide it I would frankly have serious doubts about its legitimacy

IFEZ 1st Jun 2021 05:53

I was thinking the same thing nomeowsonguar..! A guy and his wife (and baby) are flying along, have engine trouble, put it down safely on a beach and all walk away unharmed. A good effort for which he should be congratulated.
Who gives a stuff about all the nonsense being proffered regarding numbers on board. This has nothing to do with what caused the engine to fail. I'm more interested in what caused that. Or maybe the child was fiddling with the mixture control when daddy wasn't looking..? :E

Squawk7700 1st Jun 2021 06:27


Originally Posted by CASA
Registered and recognised aircraft—if you are applying for a licence after completing an integrated training course,
You keep quoting something that is not relevant.

You can not count Raaus hours towards an integrated 150 hour CPL course - it’s says that clearly.

You can only use them towards the 200 hour course in an agreement between CASA and Raaus.

Whilst this isn’t entirely relevant to the discussion, it does have a level of relevance because it demonstrates yet again that Raaus aircraft are not Australian registered aircraft, to the point that Raaus had to get CASA to accept to use the hours towards a CPL and ATPL for total aeronautical experience.

Squawk7700 1st Jun 2021 06:43


Originally Posted by Head..er..wind (Post 11054920)
Michael, we’re still waiting for you to provide the written facts (the regulations, not someone’s opinion). The biggest dribble so far comes from you.

The relevant regulations have already been posted, multiple times, including screen captures from the CASA website.

I also rang RAAus myself like Michael did and was advised that what I’ve been writing is correct in reference to the carriage of passengers, the registration of Raaus aircraft in terms of the discussion above and how the specific CAO referenced does not apply.

What will it take to make you believe… a letter from CASA with CASA letterhead, an email or a name?

Just because nothing specifically says that an Raaus aircraft is not recognised, doesn’t automatically make it recognised.

Lead Balloon 1st Jun 2021 08:14


Originally Posted by nomeowsonguard (Post 11054957)
Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.

Hear! Hear!

A successful forced or precautionary landing. (Not sure which, yet.) Well done the pilot.

Then pages of arguments and regulatory dross that only show what a complete waste of time and money the regulatory ‘reform’ program has been.

RAAus and CASA will have their opinions about whether a baby could lawfully be carried on the aircraft. The fact that they have to be asked or quoted in the first place demonstrates what a shit show the ‘rules’ are.

Head..er..wind 1st Jun 2021 09:00


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11055050)
The relevant regulations have already been posted, multiple times, including screen captures from the CASA website.

I also rang RAAus myself like Michael did and was advised that what I’ve been writing is correct in reference to the carriage of passengers, the registration of Raaus aircraft in terms of the discussion above and how the specific CAO referenced does not apply.

What will it take to make you believe… a letter from CASA with CASA letterhead, an email or a name?

Just because nothing specifically says that an Raaus aircraft is not recognised, doesn’t automatically make it recognised.

If you read what I said it should be obvious what is required.......what the regulations say. So far I am merely waiting, as a few are, for Michael to provide the written regulations he keeps referring to. Would have thought that was pretty simple to do. If you recall he’s the one who has made claims that others, myself included, have asked for him to reference. Simple.


Squawk7700 1st Jun 2021 10:32

Report from Raaus.


The aircraft took off from Bankstown for a private flight to the northern beaches. About 10 minutes before the incident, they started to fly up the coast, the fuel pressure started to fluctuate and drop and then would increase, the pilot turned the fuel pump on and changed the tank immediately. This did not change the fuel pressure reading, other than this there were no abnormalities. As the aircraft was climbing from 1000ft back to 2400ft to head back to Bankstown, approx. 20 seconds after full power the engine started to drop/ increase/ drop/ increase in RPM. The engine did not stop, but was not operating as normal. The pilot turned back EAST towards the coast and conducted a forced landing on the beach.


josephfeatherweight 1st Jun 2021 10:39

The discussion in this thread is the reason we have the ridiculous legalese we have in this industry. We complain about it, but as evidenced by the vitriol and sputum within a thread like this, apparently we deserve it.

Lead Balloon 1st Jun 2021 11:19


Originally Posted by Squawk7700 (Post 11055172)
Report from Raaus.


The aircraft took off from Bankstown for a private flight to the northern beaches. About 10 minutes before the incident, they started to fly up the coast, the fuel pressure started to fluctuate and drop and then would increase, the pilot turned the fuel pump on and changed the tank immediately. This did not change the fuel pressure reading, other than this there were no abnormalities. As the aircraft was climbing from 1000ft back to 2400ft to head back to Bankstown, approx. 20 seconds after full power the engine started to drop/ increase/ drop/ increase in RPM. The engine did not stop, but was not operating as normal. The pilot turned back EAST towards the coast and conducted a forced landing on the beach.

Sounds “precautionary” rather than “forced” to me, but who’d know and maybe the difference may not be understood these days.

sagesau 2nd Jun 2021 00:21

When all of this is wound up, the pilot will have either been slapped around for having an adult and child on board as well as himself or wandered off without a problem. If it turns out that the current regs actually allow this but they shouldn't, they'll be changed. If they don't allow it his first born will be handed over to the CASA gods.
At least they are all alive to have the argument.
Simples!

Pinky the pilot 2nd Jun 2021 01:55


Clicked on this thread to read an interesting story about a forced landing on a beach. Instead it's descended (no pun intended) into a classic Australian fight to see what rules were broken. I love this country, but my word, the constant instinct to catch each other out over breaking the rules just depresses me. I fear Covid has only made the situation worse. God forbid I ever have an incident in aviation, I fear surviving almost as much as not making it, if all that awaits me is an army of scrutinising know-alls playing lawyer. I am constantly amazed how we advertise ourselves to the world as these laid back "take it easy mate" characters, yet do our best to legislate any fun and common sense out of every aspect of our lives. Glad to hear of happy outcome in this case.
Wot Leady said in post #111. I really despair at the seemingly now obligatory practice of criticising each and every action taken by some Pilot who finds him/herself in an unfortunate situation.:ugh:

And sagesau says it best.

At least they are all alive to have the argument.
Simples!
IMHO, the most important thing of the whole episode.

Really think this thread has run its course, M'self.

Ndegi 2nd Jun 2021 02:30

Good judgement was shown by the pilot in turning back to the beach instead of pushing on over the city to reach Bankstown. Good airmanship skills were demonstrated in a near perfect approach and touch down. There will be a few armchair critics who could not have pulled off that landing. How many of us have practiced a forced or precautionary landing in the last six months, especially if we are flying multiple types with different glide characteristics. There was probably more damage done to the gear legs dragging the aircraft through the soft sand than from the actual landing.

Again well done the pilot and I agree with Pinky, time to give the thread a rest until there is an official comment of the cause of the engine surging, which is of greater interest than the current thread drift.

Foxxster 2nd Jun 2021 04:19


Originally Posted by IFEZ (Post 11055013)
I was thinking the same thing nomeowsonguar..! A guy and his wife (and baby) are flying along, have engine trouble, put it down safely on a beach and all walk away unharmed. A good effort for which he should be congratulated.
Who gives a stuff about all the nonsense being proffered regarding numbers on board. This has nothing to do with what caused the engine to fail. I'm more interested in what caused that. Or maybe the child was fiddling with the mixture control when daddy wasn't looking..? :E

I think what happened was whilst refueling, his wife was filling the baby bottle upwind. Clearly some of the powdered baby formula has been blown into the fuel tank and subsequently blocked the fuel filter. Sputter sputter..

Squawk7700 2nd Jun 2021 07:13


Originally Posted by Foxxster (Post 11055598)
I think what happened was whilst refueling, his wife was filling the baby bottle upwind. Clearly some of the powdered baby formula has been blown into the fuel tank and subsequently blocked the fuel filter. Sputter sputter..

Without wanting to be disrespectful, maybe the issue was caused by the natural milk delivery system, the way nature intended.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:07.


Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.