|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 10, 2012 21:26:14 GMT 12
Turbulence broke microlight before fatal crashPublished: 8:08PM Tuesday April 10, 2012 Source: ONE News
Turbulence and downdraughts are being blamed for a fatal microlight crash in Abel Tasman National Park.
Pilot Alex Charles, 44, and Dutch tourist Steven Eckhardt were killed when their light aircraft crashed on a sightseeing trip in February 2009.
A Civil Aviation Authority report into the crash, published today, says it is most likely the plane suffered in-flight structural damage caused by a localised region of severe turbulence. It crashed into dense bush.
The report says Charles was aware the weather forecast had indicated a risk of turbulence, but had already completed three uneventful flights earlier in the day.
"It was likely the pilot had not expected those conditions to change, and had not altered his route accordingly," the report says.
Coroner C J Devonport is expected to announce several recommendations for the microlight industry when he releases the findings from his inquiry into the crash tomorrow.
Eleven people have been killed in microlights since April 2007, but this is the only one in the past five years involving a fare paying customer.
Charles had been flying microlights since 2002 and had worked at the Tasman Sky Adventures since it was founded in 2006. It was the company's first accident.
Eckhardt had been reportedly touring the country by motorcycle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 10, 2012 21:26:26 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by efliernz on Apr 11, 2012 8:07:38 GMT 12
What frustrates me in the coroners report was this statement:
Coroner Christopher Devonport said that microlights were "inherently dangerous" and noted a document Mr Eckhardt signed prior to the flight which stated the activity was hazardous and dangerous.
"There is an inherent and significant risk of injury, disability or death as a result of participation in such activity," the document stated.
The accident would have been avoided had the microlight not been in a situation its design wasn't equipped to cope with, Mr Devonport said.
You sign a waver for virtually every activity these days - I wonder what qualitfications the coroner has to make that statement. It looks like the pilots descision making on weather wasn't the best but with proper training, recreational flying (imho) isn't "inherently dangerous".
Pete
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Apr 11, 2012 9:34:35 GMT 12
I remember reading about a similar machine falling apart and killing the pilot in Queensland. It would have been about 3 or 4 years ago but the Coroner's report was shocking reading. The Stuff article has been amended but when read it earlier the type caught my eye, - Airborne Windsports Edge. www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/86786/cif-scholl-ph-20090127.pdfSome of the guys operating these machines in Aussie appear to be nothing more than cowboys. I read this report about the time we had the Ferris wheel incident, which in turn was followed by the one ditching in the lake. At least we now have the new CAA rule for Adventure aviation in NZ now. www.caa.govt.nz/Sport_and_Rec/part_115_info.htmTurbulence doesn't just happen either, a quick look at the wind direction would soon let you know where the problem areas are going to be. I can tell you now that an Easterly has a very strong effect on flying on the West Coast of the SI, much more so that the more common Nor'Westerly on the other side. Glider pilots would be by far the wisest when it comes to actually interpreting what is going on with the weather, some power pilot's have a pitiful knowledge. I think brought about, in part, with the preoccupation of trying to interpret code on a scrap of paper. I would have thought the microlight pilot should have had sufficient local knowledge. |
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Apr 11, 2012 17:08:49 GMT 12
Inherantly dangerous? Its safer than driving I would guess, and swimming too-wayyyy too many people drowning these days isnt there?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 11, 2012 18:08:18 GMT 12
On another tact here; if someone is charging paying customers for rides in a microlight, does the pilot have to have a commercial pilots' licence? And is the aircraft itself and the business subject to the same scrutiny and overseeing as, say, a charter airline?
|
|
|
|
Post by Bruce on Apr 11, 2012 18:53:14 GMT 12
Nowadays you can run a commercial microlight joyride operation under the new "Adventure Aviation" rules. Operators do have to have a quality control framework and licenses validated for such work. However, at the time of this accident the new rules were not in force, therefore the operation was actually illegal - CAA took quite an interest in it......
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave Homewood on Apr 11, 2012 19:32:50 GMT 12
Thanks Bruce. I was wondering about the legality of it, given that the Adventure Aviation rules were not yet in force.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardyakka on Apr 11, 2012 22:29:30 GMT 12
Hmmm... I don't know if the operation was "Illegal" per se. At the time of the accident there were no CAA rules that covered that type of operation. I guess it comes down to interpretation. If something is not expressly prohibited, does that mean it is permitted? If something is not expressly permitted, does that mean it is prohibited?
I guess there was enough gray area at that time. Part 115 was designed to fix that grayness.
Also, local knowledge of weather conditions is one thing, but having a paying customer waiting to go flying might cause even the most experienced & knowledgeable pilot to convince themselves that "It won't be that bad". Especially if previous flights have been ok.
|
|
|
|
Post by DragonflyDH90 on Apr 12, 2012 7:59:53 GMT 12
There was no gray area. To fly for hire or reward required a commercial pilots licence and to operate with an air transport certificate (either Part 135, 121, 125) which required a standard category CofA (no microlight has this) and is black and white in the Rules.
|
|
|
|
Post by hardyakka on Apr 12, 2012 9:16:49 GMT 12
The pilot did have a commercial pilots license. I think the gray area was around what type of operation it was. I can't find any record of a prosecution and the company is still operating so I think there must be grayness involved. Perhaps the accident report release may spur CAA into further work on the case. Who knows? www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_and_Incidents/Accident_Reports/ZK-DGZ_Fatal.pdf |
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Apr 12, 2012 10:03:58 GMT 12
I have been flying commercially in that area for over twenty years on and off. I cannot possibly see any 'grey' area. Sure the 'Adventure' aviation one has been around for at least twenty years and some here will remember how Phil McGuire got around that one with his Ag-Cat operation. Forming a club and selling members tee-shirts (with a free flight) has been around for at least that long. A CPL in itself means nothing, if anything you would expect the holder to have some knowledge of the rules. The microlight community seem to think otherwise. www.stuff.co.nz/nelson-mail/news/6723239/Rule-change-cited-in-crashI was out of the country when this one occurred and would have missed all the background to it. The lower the performance aircraft you are operating then the more you should understand the air currents and movements. Flying in the lee of hills is a mugs game. I can think of numerous cases in this country where guys have literally flown into the back of the hill. These guys didn't even do that, to remain in turbulence until the wings literally fall off must take determination. Irrespective of whether the conditions had been ok earlier you would have though the options were obvious. I don't see any pressure concerning the fare paying passenger being relevant, - we have all had to turn back at some stage in our flying career. The CAA must be about to release the findings on the loss of the Sky Arrow on the West Coast which occurred about the same time. I don't know much of that incident but I do know that the pilot had reported severe turbulence shortly before seemingly losing control of the machine. I have flown for an operator that stopped all operations onto the strip when the wind reached a certain direction. We are talking very experienced pilots and they did not stop due to poor vis, rain, wind, or low ceiling...... it was mechanical turbulence from a prominent hill some distance away. NZ is rather unique in that we have wind. I have flown in many countries that don't. Here we are generally very good with ground operations when the wind picks up. Taxiing and mooring of the aircraft are lessons well taught and heeded. Unfortunately some of the flying is not so professional. Taking a passenger into known turbulence during a famil flight really should be inexcusable. I accept the newspaper report mention clear skies etc, - against that I also saw mention of rotor. While rotor can be about on a cloudless day but it is never present unless you have wind aloft. Perhaps some of our better glider pilots should be conducting lecture tours around the country, - I much prefer the way they tackle cross country flying compared to our 'book' methods. Flying in NZ really IS different. Power pilots could learn much from their experiences. |
|
|
|
Post by hardyakka on Apr 12, 2012 12:43:09 GMT 12
I agree with you that the grey area isn't obvious. ...and I'm not taking a position of defending anything that they did. Just pointing out that the organizations involved (Tasman Sky Adventures and CAA) must have thought there was sufficient grey to allow the business to continue operating.
If CAA thought they were breaking Rules they would have done something about it. If Tasman were still flying they must have thought what they were doing was within the Rules.
Rightly or wrongly, there must have been sufficient grey for the situation to develop and continue. I actually applaud CAA and the industry for clearing up any assumed "greyness" by developing Part 115
|
|
|
|
Post by sleemanj on Apr 12, 2012 14:18:22 GMT 12
the new rules were not in force, therefore the operation was actually illegal - CAA took quite an interest in it...... Bzzzzt, incorrect (at the time). It was a very common misconception (by a lot of people who should have known FAR better!) Somebody who DID know the actual legal status was Rex Kenny, as you'd expect, and this is what he said in emailed reply to me dated 11 November 2009, long before Part 115 became reality (I had asked Rex to confirm my logic which led me to believe it was completely legal, since many people in let's say "high" positions within certain organisations were saying it wasn't). "[...] Part 1 excludes a microlight flight from the definition of air transport the 119/135 certificate is not required. So if you hold a CPL then hire and reward flights can be conducted. [...] Whilst it has taken some by surprise that the Motueka accident was legal the fact is that it was. " (emphasis mine) For the complete story, here is the regulatory framework procession at the time that leads to the fact that commercial A to A operations in a microlight were then permitted. Part 61 with no doubt requires that the pilot has a CPL, even in a microlight [61.5 (n) 1]. There is no hire or reward restriction in part 103 at all.Part 135 says... (a) Each holder of an air operator certificate shall ensure that each aircraft it uses in conducting an air transport operation has a current standard category airworthiness certificate. And from Part 1 we learn... Air transport operation means an operation for the carriage of passengers or goods by air for hire or reward except— ... (2) a sightseeing flight or joyride under VFR by day in—
...
(ii) a microlight aircraft in accordance with Part 103; or Naturally since Part 115 came in, this will have changed. |
|
|
|
Post by DragonflyDH90 on Apr 12, 2012 18:41:05 GMT 12
Oh well, wrong again I guess...
|
|
|
|
Post by jonesy on Apr 12, 2012 21:25:41 GMT 12
Another way around the "payment" for taking a ride is to offer a koha. Pretty sure its (as in most occasions) exempt from taxes, rules,regulations and any other form of beaurocracy! Try it sometime! ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by 701driver on Oct 20, 2012 21:18:00 GMT 12
hi barron beeza- that report into the sky arrow accident in the buller gorge is now out, turbulence not a factor. mechanical failure in the elevator link to the T tail, something we speculated from day one.
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 21, 2012 1:46:12 GMT 12
|
|
|
|
Post by baronbeeza on Oct 21, 2012 16:07:41 GMT 12
I was surprised to see turbulence not mentioned, I was under the impression that he was getting hammered.
That end fitting didn't just fail through the last quarter of it's thickness for no reason. There are some very serious unanswered questions in that report.
That control arm should normally just be a compression/tension member. They are referring to a left/Right cyclic fatigue.
Then there is evidence that both end fittings had failed through fatigue.
We then have reports that inspections of similar aircraft revealed no such fatigue damage.
Surely that is unusual and very telling..
The end fittings would normally terminate in a Rose bearing to give free movement throughout the range of travel. Had this control arm been binding ?
The other thing that caught my eye was that hammering damage on the lower surface of the elevator.
Many aircraft can reportedly be flown on the elevator trim in the event of a primary control failure. This aircraft was in a normal lightly loaded cruise configuration.
Correctly trimmed it should be able to be flown hands off.
Does the trim influence the control force on the cockpit side of the break ? ie springs etc like the Tomahawk as opposed to the tab seen on Cherokees and many Cessna singles.
You would like to think the elevator trim does indeed load the control surface itself. The rudder trim often does not but they are hardly comparable systems.
|
|
|
|
Post by 701driver on Oct 21, 2012 20:01:01 GMT 12
i will dig out some photos i have of SKA and check the trim system, i know it was electrical, operated from a rocker switch on the side stick.not sure whether it moved a tab on the elevator or applied a load to the control run. i was surprised how long it took for the accident report to surface. a sad event in any case,always rough on those left behind. also got to feel for nigel flying over such a scene and not being able to render asistance or know the fate of his friend.
|
|
