Well done all concerned !

[emfrat]

http://www.qt.com.au/news/video-skydivers-...z-lake/2504097/

[Ian Warren]

Love to hear the pilots story how he got out

[Charl]

More and more, I am thinking a parachute is a desirable piece of kit when boarding a Pacific Aerospace aircraft!

QUOTE

The inquiry would focus on identifying what occurred and why, the TAIC said, as well as any lessons or recommendations which could be taken from the crash to prevent similar incidents in the future.[/quote]
I do wonder also: what is it the TAIC investigators do, that takes 18 months for them to produce a report... hope there's not another crash in that time, before said lessons can be learned.

[emfrat]

QUOTE (Ian Warren @ Jan 7 2015,5:13 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Love to hear the pilots story how he got out

Well, at 4000' with the 'chutists exiting two by two, he would have had a fair bit of time. Apparently it was the pilot who landed in the Blackberry bush - shoulda bought an Android, eh?

@Charl - a fair point, but of course if they race to get the report out, and thereby come to the wrong conclusion, that is a lot worse.

Personally, I just don't understand this urge to jump out of perfectly good aircraft, for a pastime

[Charl]

QUOTE (emfrat @ Jan 7 2015,9:12 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

but of course if they race to get the report out, and thereby come to the wrong conclusion, that is a lot worse.

I'm all for not jumping the gun.
The comment is made because I genuinely don't know what it is they do...
It translates to 41 man-(erm, person-) days.
The actual writing of the report might at a stretch take 2 days.
You could possibly scratch-build a Cresco engine and maybe even a Cresco, in the remaining 39!

So, I'd be interested to know how the time is allocated - just a longstanding curiosity.

[Bazza]

Paid by the hour.....?

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE

Love to hear the pilots story how he got out[/quote]
According to somebody he "ejected" so yeah can't wait for the details

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (SA227 @ Jan 8 2015,9:44 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to somebody he "ejected" so yeah can't wait for the details

I don't know enough about PAC parachute planes but its a long way to that back door with no one driving in that situation... it is going to be interesting to hear his story.

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE

I don't know enough about PAC parachute planes but its a long way to that back door with no one driving in that situation... it is going to be interesting to hear his story.[/quote]
Info from a non type rated pilot who went for a ride in the accident aircraft 2 weeks ago. You pull one handle and the whole pilot door is detached from the aircraft. Then it's just a matter getting out and missing the wing and tailplane as you "eject"

[Ian Warren]

I'm sure the pilot must train for the event even so guess they were all lucky, interesting to hear from Ardypilot Andy and see if there are mods done to the Cessna's he flew for the jump schools.

[cowpatz]

I am surprise the pilot bailed out. Of course I'm not privy to all the facts but the XL750 would land "slightly faster than a walking pace" so why abandon it and chance the perils of a low altitude jump from the pilots position? Very easy to hook up on the tail plane.
Still they are all safe so the outcome was good.

[deeknow]

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Jan 8 2015,11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am surprise the pilot bailed out.

One of the "eye witnesses" said they heard a sort of cough, splutter, bang from the airplane, maybe the pilot thought she was gonna go up in smoke?

[steelsporran]

I'm just surprised that so far as I know, the media hasn't yet linked it to the Fox Glacier crash.

[chopper_nut]

If people had been killed then they would have made a connection

QUOTE (cowpatz @ Jan 7 2015,11:41 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I am surprise the pilot bailed out. Of course I'm not privy to all the facts but the XL750 would land "slightly faster than a walking pace" so why abandon it and chance the perils of a low altitude jump from the pilots position? Very easy to hook up on the tail plane.
Still they are all safe so the outcome was good.

If he wasn't wearing a helmet, which he wouldn't have been, then the chances of getting knocked out in the accident go up dramatically (the reason I ALWAYS wear a helmet now). Going into the water and then getting knocked out would most likely have been fatal. Agreed that it would have been a fairly smooth impact given the low landing speed of the 750.

[goingboeing]

when i was flying para ops I had a trim runaway and very nearly abandoned ship at 13,000 ft but i had just enough control over it to bring it down safely I guess at 4k any decision you make is pretty critical in terms of space available and the distance required to deploy chute, they are as far from base jumping gear as you can get. if you have a sputtering/coughing engine that low you would definitely consider jumping instead of a ditching because the outcome would likely be safer. I cant comment because I havn't had to do it but usually you would look at a forced landing over bailing however if it is a control issue then id be out quick as a flash. also the pilot rigs are essentially a one use wonder ie no reserve and no ability to steer them (same as a ww2 round canopy.)

In any case full credit to all involved and aircraft can be replaced humans can't. I know a few of the guys there personally and I sure they handles it the best they could

[Ian Warren]

QUOTE (goingboeing @ Jan 8 2015,6:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

also the pilot rigs are essentially a one use wonder ie no reserve and no ability to steer them (same as a ww2 round canopy.)

Thanks James, the dose give a better insight, just on the drivers chute alone.

When I went up as an observer, the chute did not have a secondary, required to have one on .. that's back 1984/85 and over Wigram.

[ardypilot]

I personally take a pinch of salt with anything that the mainstream journos cobbled together on day one, but the Herald have since amended their 4000ft reports to say:

QUOTE

All were forced to abandon the plane at 2000ft, before it crashed in to the lake near Rotongaio Bay shortly before midday yesterday.[/quote]

QUOTE

He said the major risk had been the low altitude -- parachutes were usually opened at 5000ft, but as the plane plummeted towards the lake, the group had no choice but to jump from less than 2000ft.[/quote]

Looking at the crash site, its about 3 miles off the end of runway 17, which I'm proposing may have been the active with a bit of a pesudo-sea breeze blowing off the lake. 2000ft AGL at the location (bearing mind NZAP is already 1300ft AMSL) sounds plausible for a loaded P750 going in that direction.

Tandems usually open at 5000 and take a few seconds to fully inflate. The lowest I ever threw a sport jumper out was around 2200 from memory, they had thousands of jumps logged and told me afterwards that they were bricking it from that low! For all on board to escape injury having exited at that height really surprised me, particularly the PIC who had zero jumps himself and was fresh on the Pac! It'll be highly interesting to hear the cause of engine stoppage once the reports get released.

Last edited by ardypilot on Fri Jan 09, 2015 9:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

ardypilot

NZFF Pro

 

Joined: Wed Apr 26, 2006 10:01 am

Posts: 6802

Location: Auckland

Top

[Ian Warren]

Thanks Andy for the extra info, I was thinking more about how the pilot got out ... love to hear the stories as well from the ones in tandem - the customers .. they have kept that side very quiet at the mo as well.

[jpreou]

OK, as a pilot and 20 year skydiver (instructor and tandem), time for my 2c.

Yes 2000ft is low for a tandem. But, it is quite normal for a sport jumper, except here in NZ where everyone is scared of low altitude. In the UK 2000ft was normal and only when faster parachutes become the norm did people start deploying earlier. The legal limit for an open parachute was 2000ft for an awful long time, and I have personally left an aircraft at a lot lower than that.

I too am uncertain why the pilot got out and I'd like to hear his story; after all *all* pilots, without exception, are taught forced landings after engine failure; the only two reasons I can think of are structural failure or some other issue that renders the a/c uncontrollable, or fire. Otherwise, why not follow the training you receive in *every* a/c type conversion you do and land that sucker; yes, even in the lake (anyone recall the Cherokee in Raglan recently?).

I won't believe anything the media say and I will sooner or later get the story from my colleagues in the skydiving community. Hell the media and eye witnesses can't agree on anything. Was it 4000ft or 2000ft? Did the skydivers land in the water or on the land; not really a contestable fact, and yet there are conflicting reports even there.

I think the guys did a great job and since the outcome was all safe then it was a good outcome. I do wonder what would be said if the a/c "went the other way" after the pilot left and ploughed itself into holiday makers though....

[chopper_nut]

QUOTE (jpreou @ Jan 8 2015,10:26 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I do wonder what would be said if the a/c "went the other way" after the pilot left and ploughed itself into holiday makers though....

I did think that myself.