As ‘the boys’ are hard into ‘research mode’, I even went to a BRB without ‘K’ : some of the duty has fallen to me. Could not refuse a polite request to look at the UP; “only the Hawkesbury fatal” they asked. So I did.
There are some six pages of ‘posts’ on topic – 197 posts last time I looked (and it is the last time), uncertain whether to laugh, cry; or, just ignore it all. Tried, real hard to ignore it- fail. There are some fairly articulate posts on how ‘stall’ tests are conducted – interesting enough, but of no practical; then there are the ‘others’. There is a ferocious debate about the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) – as if it matters a tinkers cuss what ‘paperwork’ was inboard the aircraft: really - does, that signify?
I found, on ‘Twitter’ courtesy of Dr K I Kourousis - a table which provides the ‘fatal’ statistics for the DHC-2 (Beaver).
Before the ‘Super Phosphate’ bounty was removed, the Beaver made a honest, albeit tough living as a ‘crop duster’. The aircraft were designed and built suited to task - not brutalised, they worked and worked hard, but the guys flying ‘em treated them as kindly as they could – given the nature of operations. The airframe was made to be ‘repaired’ and the robust engines were handled properly – short life for a pilot if the engine was abused. So, the Beaver worked for a living; not a cosseted hanger Queen, but a tough, working – agricultural implement (like a Volvo). Crop dusting is an elevated risk endeavour; not inherently dangerous - done correctly, but unforgiving of error. So, if you look at the matrix – it is easy enough to tell when ‘dusting’ phased out and ‘floats’ crept in. In short, in the right hands, the aircraft is a robust, air kindly workhorse. Properly maintained the simple, rugged design remains capable of many more years of work. You must remember that the Beaver is very much like my Grandfathers axe – my Father changed the head and I replaced the shaft. Safe, simple and utterly reliable – handled correctly.
Despite all the sound and fury only a couple have looked to a simple explanation of what occurred; not even to rule those elements out of contention. This was an experienced pilot, a ‘fit’ aircraft operating in almost perfect conditions within a familiar operational area. Can’t see the bloody AFM had much to do with it; or the ruddy ‘stall’ tests: or, the certification standards. Not yet. There may be a drone stuck in the windscreen; or a Gannett (diving at terminal velocity for a feed) – who knows. Let the ATSB do it’s work, speculate in the pub, bet beers on that; but why humiliate the profession with never ending humbug. Beats me.
Agree with ‘K’ - well done the NSW emergency services – once again. Good ain’t they– well done. We’d like to send a box of Choc Frogs – but people will talk.
There; duty done. “Yes please my dear, one more here will suffice – for the while”.
There are some six pages of ‘posts’ on topic – 197 posts last time I looked (and it is the last time), uncertain whether to laugh, cry; or, just ignore it all. Tried, real hard to ignore it- fail. There are some fairly articulate posts on how ‘stall’ tests are conducted – interesting enough, but of no practical; then there are the ‘others’. There is a ferocious debate about the Aircraft Flight Manual (AFM) – as if it matters a tinkers cuss what ‘paperwork’ was inboard the aircraft: really - does, that signify?
I found, on ‘Twitter’ courtesy of Dr K I Kourousis - a table which provides the ‘fatal’ statistics for the DHC-2 (Beaver).
Before the ‘Super Phosphate’ bounty was removed, the Beaver made a honest, albeit tough living as a ‘crop duster’. The aircraft were designed and built suited to task - not brutalised, they worked and worked hard, but the guys flying ‘em treated them as kindly as they could – given the nature of operations. The airframe was made to be ‘repaired’ and the robust engines were handled properly – short life for a pilot if the engine was abused. So, the Beaver worked for a living; not a cosseted hanger Queen, but a tough, working – agricultural implement (like a Volvo). Crop dusting is an elevated risk endeavour; not inherently dangerous - done correctly, but unforgiving of error. So, if you look at the matrix – it is easy enough to tell when ‘dusting’ phased out and ‘floats’ crept in. In short, in the right hands, the aircraft is a robust, air kindly workhorse. Properly maintained the simple, rugged design remains capable of many more years of work. You must remember that the Beaver is very much like my Grandfathers axe – my Father changed the head and I replaced the shaft. Safe, simple and utterly reliable – handled correctly.
Despite all the sound and fury only a couple have looked to a simple explanation of what occurred; not even to rule those elements out of contention. This was an experienced pilot, a ‘fit’ aircraft operating in almost perfect conditions within a familiar operational area. Can’t see the bloody AFM had much to do with it; or the ruddy ‘stall’ tests: or, the certification standards. Not yet. There may be a drone stuck in the windscreen; or a Gannett (diving at terminal velocity for a feed) – who knows. Let the ATSB do it’s work, speculate in the pub, bet beers on that; but why humiliate the profession with never ending humbug. Beats me.
Agree with ‘K’ - well done the NSW emergency services – once again. Good ain’t they– well done. We’d like to send a box of Choc Frogs – but people will talk.
There; duty done. “Yes please my dear, one more here will suffice – for the while”.