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.

Penny,

You were possibly fast on final, because your ROD on base was not appropriate for the wind conditions. With the 'tailwind' on base, I'll bet you were high on final and pushed the nose down to regain your profile, leaving you fast.
When you flew the base turn with the 'headwind' on base, you arrived at the start of final on the correct slope, and were able to fly final at the appropriate speed. If you don't check you finals 'window' you may not have perceived the aspect.

Should have never have taken off, text messages to another person seeking advice on the performance of the aircraft in the know conditions clearly indicates that the pilot was concerned. External factors potentially an influence on the decision to give it a go? High profile public event, can't tell me that the pilot may not have felt some pressure to do the display.

Can someone post the contents of the telegraph article, can't see it behind a pay wall.

Telegraph Grant Taylor, Rourke Walsh and Angela Pownall, News Corp Australia Network
 

“My biggest concern is how hot it is today and the lack of wind,” Mr Lynch said in the message.

“Perth gets very hot compared to back east I’ve noticed.”

Mr McCormack, who runs Red Baron Seaplanes, said Mr Lynch had also been battling with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to allow him to fly in the Australia Day air show right up until the 11th hour.

The approval was finally granted on January 24 and a delighted Mr Lynch left a voice message on Mr McCormack’s phone that day saying: “Guess what mate, I got my type rating and everything through from CASA... and I am pretty happy about that as it means I will be in the show.”

Ms Cakrawati was also nervous about the flight and had originally intended to stay on the ground, before changing her mind at the last minute.

She told friends on social media earlier in the day that she was: “Super excited yet nervous. I can do it, wish me luck.”

Unable to copy texts which are a graphic, unfortunately.

Nobody has yet mentioned the optical illusion of the 'apparent slip' and the 'apparent skid' when turning from
(a) Upwind to downwind, and
(b) Downwind to upwind,
at LOW level.

Turning from downwind to upwind, for example, the aircraft is 'carried' by the wind in the sideways direction during the turn (Drift), in the direction of the wind, so the track made good (TMG) over the ground is elongated in the direction of the wind, downstream.

The illusion to the pilot looking out of the window at his intended landing area, is therefore that the aircraft is 'skidding' out of the turn, in relation to the ground.

The "obvious" 'cure' is to tighten the turn.... Not good.

The real 'cure' is to keep checking the Turn and Balance (Bat & Ball) and to keep that ball in the centre whilst continuing the balanced turn, at a given angle of bank.

If its still going 'pear shaped' into getting where you wanted to position the aircraft, then a 'go around' is the best cure and start again, taking the wind into full account next time.

The 'illusion' is the fatal flaw, ask any 'croppie'.

(Not intended to 'preach', but simply to explain to some here, the physics v the illusion v the 'various airspeed arguments'.
The airspeed (IAS) remains constant by the way, for a given rate of turn in a given wind, at a given altitude, gusts and wind shear / inertia excluded.....Groundspeed (GS) should never be confused with airspeed (IAS).

It's difficult to believe the stand some take on turning with wind blowing, certainly not pilots, one would hope. Flying helicopters in the offshore world it was not uncommon to have 60 knots of wind when taking off from a platform. Climb speed in our particular aircraft was 75 knots and the turn to downwind while holding climb speed was visually spectacular if not seen previously. The point is, the aircraft doesn't care what the wind is, and if you are flying by reference to instruments you would have no idea what the strength of the wind is, or indeed, if there is any wind, save for the fact that you already have 60 knots airspeed prior to commencement of the take off.

this being a 'rumour' forum i interpret that as a clearance to speculate .
there are moderators who will remove posts when they deem it necessary so the self appointed policemen may stand down .
we all wait for official conclusions but in the meantime i want to hear others observations and opinions .
as an actual pilot with low level experience I chose not to post , until now , as I simply had nothing to add .
I did hear on the 9 news last night that the crash site water depth was only 1.5m .

Interesting to read the comments quoted by Mack McCormack in the post from the Daily Telegraph. He is the owner of the Grumman Albatross VH-NMO, that he had spent months trying to get through the red tape to operate in WA. He actually moved the aircraft to the eastern states on 22nd December 2016, after giving up trying to get approval.

Not sure if Mack is endorsed on seaplanes, but I used to go to work in the South China Sea on his aircraft when it operated out of Singapore back in the 1980s. It was flown by friend and legendary seaplane pilot
Bryan McCook(RIP). The Albatross is a bigger version of the Mallard.

I am a former helicopter pilot and used to always ride in the jump seat with Bryan, and even with his vast experience it was obvious that those aircraft are unforgiving, and in old parlance a "handful", especially on approach and water landing.

RIP to those lost, and I hope that some good comes out of this tragic event, that as with many accidents, it was the culmination of a series of small mistakes that should have been avoided.

Crikey!..:ooh: 1.5m of water is a flight safety hazard. I've learnt sumthing from this thread.......:hmm:

laardvark, insulting posters with the "self appointed policemen" comment don't help your case. There are some around here who just don't want to see crapola written about a fellow pilot who can no longer defend themselves.

...And I to am "an actual pilot with low level experience" ...or is that a low level of experience..:hmm:






.

Griffo;:ok::ok::ok::ok:

ok the policeman bit was too much . apologies .
i know experience is relative . my log says 8500 TT .
approx 4000hrs below 500' agl in light twins doing survey work .
you be the judge .

Mallard crash
 

I am a 14,000 hour Agpilot 4,000 hour float plane pilot , most of you guys scare me with your theories on flying. I hope none of you are instructors.

Shut it down mods.

I never understood the point of an anonymous pissing contest.

It was only a matter of time before the 'downwind turn' issue was 'raised'....
Yes it has an effect depending on gross weight, but the pilot's real problem was the crosswind drift elongating the base turn into the far side of the box and causing a right skid visual illusion** probably leading to a steeping bank angle/tighter turn. Turning into the sun at low level was a basic error as it reduced his visual inputs. Had he flown a right hand tear drop out of the sun with the wind reducing his base turn diameter then he might have made it. Those text messages don't imply any Plan B existed.
My previous questions - was his planning required / documented for the display organiser, was there or should there have been a display coordinator/pilot with a radio ready to pull the plug on anything that began to unravel, and just how far will ATSB go in recommending changes to the way CASA oversees air displays ?

No, don't shut it down and don't piss.

There's no need to shut the thread down - it has been informative and educational.

If someone here wakes up to the issue of upwind and downwind turns (or whatever it was that they didn't understand prior) and it makes them a safer pilot, I amongst others will sleep more happily.

The thread should probably now be locked, it having run the usual Downunda course.

1. Pilot's judgment and skills criticised before he's been buried. Tick.

2. Cause of the accident diagnosed before the wreckage has been removed. Tick.

3. Calls for more regulatory intervention. Tick.

4. My logbook's thicker than your logbook competitions. Tick.

And you people wonder why you're the regulator's playing and governments couldn't care a toss about the health of the aviation sector. :yuk:

Like I said in my earlier post, 16 seconds into the video he is already applying right aileron, and that's a fair time before the actual crash. So things are going awry quite early on in the turn?

The accident was in a very public place and I suspect that there is some much better footage of the lead up to the accident around and accessible to CASA for the inquiry. Until any of that comes to light in a public forum I don't see that there is much more to be gained here.

Steve

The last video posted above indicates to me that the pilot was likely the unfortunate victim of circumstance rather than poor technique. Although the lack of flaps in the final turn does appear to be at odds with recommended practice.

In that video the engines can be heard throttling down prior to the aircraft entering a very conservative left bank (maybe 10 degrees). Towards the middle of the turn, the bank angle is increased to maybe 15 to 20 degrees, and that's when the stall set in and the aircraft could not be recovered.

Hardly looks like a foolhardy manoeuvre to me, more likely a combination of temperatures and a possible wind shear or gust turning a manouevre the pilot had done many times before into an accident.