User Name  
Password    



The Aviation Forum > Aviation > General Aviation > Less than ideal maiden?
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 01-12-2014, 07:39 PM   #1 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Ira NZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 18, 2003
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Posts: 3,951
Less than ideal maiden?

I think it's a Jabiru 230, microlight.

On the maiden flight, seems he had to make an emergency landing due to fuel issues. Transferred fuel from one wingtank to the other and then once police cleared the beach for him tried to take off again.

Plane crashes twice in one day at Martins Bay beach- New Zealand plane beach take-off fails - YouTube
__________________
'15000 atheists in London rioted after a blank sheet of paper was found on a cartoonist's desk'

If you pull back long enough.... Eventually, the houses will get bigger again.
Ira NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 11:04 AM   #2 (permalink)
TAF Moderator
 
Bluenose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 09, 2004
Location: Canada's East Coast
Posts: 6,169
Wow - that's got to be the worst decision making I've ever seen! After the first landing, where he struck both the prop (i.e. potential engine damage) and the wing (i.e. possible spar damage), he fixes the engine and then goes off again. Now maybe he did a visual inspection of the wing, but I would think a proper check would've taken longer than it showed him taking, and generally when the prop strikes anything (never mind when it's slammed into the ground!) there is supposed to be a complete engine inspection.

And then he thinks that nothing will happen when he takes off in moving water? Why on earth did he think that the digging in that happened on the landing wouldn't also happen on the take-off? I am just shaking my head over this one....

These guys are lucky to be unhurt, because it sures looks like a case for the Darwin Awards
__________________
Bluenose
TAF Moderator
Bluenose is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-14-2014, 11:51 AM   #3 (permalink)
Registered User
 
Ira NZ's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 18, 2003
Location: Upper Hutt, New Zealand
Posts: 3,951
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluenose View Post
Wow - that's got to be the worst decision making I've ever seen! After the first landing, where he struck both the prop (i.e. potential engine damage) and the wing (i.e. possible spar damage), he fixes the engine and then goes off again. Now maybe he did a visual inspection of the wing, but I would think a proper check would've taken longer than it showed him taking, and generally when the prop strikes anything (never mind when it's slammed into the ground!) there is supposed to be a complete engine inspection.

And then he thinks that nothing will happen when he takes off in moving water? Why on earth did he think that the digging in that happened on the landing wouldn't also happen on the take-off? I am just shaking my head over this one....

These guys are lucky to be unhurt, because it sures looks like a case for the Darwin Awards
Wait what? What landing? He landed without any damage, fixed the fuel issue(Which they show him working on the engine) then on take off as they show in the video broke the wing and prop, afterwards they threw the plane on a truck and drove it out.
__________________
'15000 atheists in London rioted after a blank sheet of paper was found on a cartoonist's desk'

If you pull back long enough.... Eventually, the houses will get bigger again.
Ira NZ is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2014, 06:09 AM   #4 (permalink)
TAF Moderator
 
Bluenose's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 09, 2004
Location: Canada's East Coast
Posts: 6,169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ira NZ View Post
Wait what? What landing? He landed without any damage, fixed the fuel issue(Which they show him working on the engine) then on take off as they show in the video broke the wing and prop, afterwards they threw the plane on a truck and drove it out.
Duh - okay, so I'm not too observant! With the announcer talking about crashing twice in one day and the "crash landing" that he'd made while they were showing the film footage of the take-off (and then backtracking to before that), I thought that they were showing the "first crash" and then them fixing it and then the second crash. Couldn't figure out how they flipped the plane like that and could still fly it out with only a few hours of work. But then again, I recall one of the local legends about a visiting pilot of a small twin that couldn't get the second engine started so he attempted a take-off with only one, since there is performance graphs for that and he figured he'd be okay. Truth is sometimes stranger than fiction... (but not in this case )
__________________
Bluenose
TAF Moderator
Bluenose is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share This Content

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:09 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 2002-2012 The Aviation Forum, All Rights ReservedAd Management plugin by RedTyger

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.1