Accidents - Domestic

Story here..

Quote:No survivors after light plane crashes in paddock near Mount Gambier

A pilot and two passengers have died when a light aircraft crashed just north of Mount Gambier in South Australia's south-east.

The plane crashed into a paddock near the intersection of Walker and Sunnybrae roads, in Suttontown, just before 10:30am.

Police said there were no survivors.

The wreckage of the aircraft was smouldering when emergency crews first arrived.

The Country Fire Service said the plane was extensively damaged.

There was thick fog around the area before the crash delaying Mount Gambier flights from Adelaide and Melbourne.

Four Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigators are on their way to Mount Gambier to help local investigators.

"The team will be examining the site and wreckage, gathering any recorded data and interviewing any witnesses," the ATSB said in a statement.

The ATSB said the plane involved was a TB10 Tobago.

Walker Road remains closed to traffic between Hinton Road and Sunnybrae Road.
Reply

(06-28-2017, 04:10 PM)Cap\n Wannabe Wrote:  Story here..

Quote:No survivors after light plane crashes in paddock near Mount Gambier
Updated 22 minutes ago

Wed 28 Jun 2017, 3:52pm
[Image: 8659214-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: The plane crashed into a paddock north of Mount Gambier. (ABC South East SA: Kate Hill)

A pilot and two passengers have died when a light aircraft crashed just north of Mount Gambier in South Australia's south-east.

The plane crashed into a paddock near the intersection of Walker and Sunnybrae roads, in Suttontown, just before 10:30am.

Police said there were no survivors.

The wreckage of the aircraft was smouldering when emergency crews first arrived.

[Image: 8659440-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: There was thick fog around the area before the plane crashed not far from Mount Gambier airport. (ABC South East: Kate Hill)

The Country Fire Service said the plane was extensively damaged.

There was thick fog around the area before the crash delaying Mount Gambier flights from Adelaide and Melbourne.

Four Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigators are on their way to Mount Gambier to help local investigators.

"The team will be examining the site and wreckage, gathering any recorded data and interviewing any witnesses," the ATSB said in a statement.

The ATSB said the plane involved was a TB10 Tobago.

Walker Road remains closed to traffic between Hinton Road and Sunnybrae Road.

[Image: 8659368-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Police have closed off traffic after a light plane crash near Mount Gambier's airport. (ABC South East: Kate Hill)

&.. via the Adelaide Advertiser:

Quote:Plane crash at Suttontown, near Mount Gambier

THREE people have died in a plane crash in the state’s south-east.

Emergency services were called to Suttontown, near Mount Gambier, in response to reports that a small aircraft had crashed about 10.30am.

The plane, a Tobago TB10, came down in a field near the intersection of Sunnybrae and Walker roads.

Three people who were on board the plane have died.

It is the second fatal light-plane crash in South Australia in two months, with three people dying in a crash in Renmark in late May.

[Image: ed33e1736e421ef3e66eecde90e5a1d3?width=650]A small plane has crashed at Suttontown near Mt Gambier. Picture: Frank Monger

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is sending a four-person team to the crash site to investigate the incident.

The team is coming from Canberra and is expected to arrive later this afternoon.

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority says the plane was a single-engined Tobago, but it’s unclear what the nature of the flight was.

A Country Fire Service spokeswoman said the plane had been “extensively damaged”.
Walker Road has been closed to traffic between Hinton Road and Sunnybrae Road.

An activity log for the plane, which was built in 1992, showed it was scheduled to fly from Mount Gambier Airport to Adelaide Airport at 9.50am.

It was due to arrive at Adelaide Airport just before 11.30am.

[Image: 80c0992a4df0ba947e4da7c545ec7953?width=650]
Emergency services at the scene of the plane crash at Suttontown, near Mount Gambier. Picture: Frank Monger

[Image: 5624f159f5bd41b133d85d23c9a931a9?width=650]The flight path of VH-YTM before its crash at Suttontown, near Mount Gambier just, before 10.30am on Wednesday. Source: FlightAware

It was then expected to fly from there to Murray Bridge at 12.10pm.

A Mount Gambier flying school has offered its condolences to family and friends of those killed in the crash.

Gambi Air Flying School posted on its Facebook page that its neither aircraft, students nor instructors were involved in the tragedy.

“Such a tragic event and our heartfelt condolences go out to the family and friends of those on board the aircraft,” the school posted.

Today’s fatal crash comes just weeks after three people were killed in a Rossair light aircraft crash near Renmark airport in late May.

The plane came down in scrubland 4km west of the Renmark Aerodrome, in the Cooltong Conservation Park, during a training flight about 4.30pm.

That crash claimed the lives of Rossair chief pilot Martin Scott, 48, retraining pilot Paul Daw, 65 and Civil Aviation Safety Authority officer Stephen Guerin, 56.

Rossair immediately grounded all flights in the wake of the disaster, pending investigations.

Part of the wreckage were transported to Adelaide for further investigation and a preliminary report by the Air Transport Safety Bureau was expected within a month.

But the exact cause of the crash may take up to a year.

The Rossair crash was South Australia’s worst air disaster since eight people on board a Whyalla Airlines flight were killed when it crashed into the Spencer Gulf, on May 31, 2000.

MORE TO COME

&.. from the ATSB investigation webpage:

Quote:Collision with terrain involving SOCATA TB-10 Tobago, VH-YTM, near Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia, on 28 June 2017
 
Investigation number: AO-2017-069
Investigation status: Active
 
[Image: progress_0.png] Summary

The ATSB is investigating a fatal aircraft accident involving a SOCATA TB-10 Tobago aircraft, registered VH-YTM, that occurred about 3km south-west of Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia on 28 June 2017.

The aircraft collided with terrain. The pilot and two passengers were fatally injured.

The ATSB has deployed a team of four investigators to the accident site with expertise that includes aircraft engineering, technical and human factors.

While on site the team will be examining the site and wreckage, gathering any recorded data, and interviewing any witnesses.

The ATSB will provide an update on its website outlining the facts of the accident within 30 days.
 
General details

Date: 28 June 2017
 
Investigation status: Active
 
Time: 10:30 CST
 
Investigation type: Occurrence Investigation
 
Location   (show map): 3 km south-west of Mount Gambier Airport
 
Occurrence type: Collision with terrain
 
State: South Australia
 
Occurrence category: Accident
 
Report status: Pending
 
Highest injury level: Fatal
 
Expected completion: December 2017
 
Aircraft details

Aircraft manufacturer: S.O.C.A.T.A.-Groupe Aerospatiale
 
Aircraft model: TB-10
 
Aircraft registration: VH-YTM
 
Serial number: 1518
 
Type of operation: Private
 
Sector: Piston
 
Damage to aircraft: Substantial
 
 
 
 
[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 28 June 2017

RIP & condolences to NOK - Angel


MTF... Cool
Reply

ATSB update REX inflight prop loss investigation - Rolleyes

Via ASN... Wink

Quote:ATSB issues investigation update of Saab 340B in-flight loss of propeller incident

27 June 2017
The ATSB issued an update of their investigation into the in-flight loss of a Saab 340B propeller in March 2017.

Since the occurrence, the ATSB has been working closely with the engine manufacturer, GE Aviation, in order to establish the factors that led to cracking and fracture of the main propeller shaft from the Regional Express (REX)-operated SAAB 340B aircraft, VH-NRX.
The engine manufacturer’s preliminary metallurgical analysis of the fractured shaft has identified that fatigue cracking in the propeller main shaft originated within a dowel pin bore that was located on the forward face of the propeller flange from the propeller reduction gearbox (PGB). Their analysis indicates that the initiation of fatigue cracking within the hub flange may be associated with a combination of factors that include:
  • the accumulation of significant operational hours for each propeller reduction gearbox
  • the development of pitting corrosion damage within the dowel pin bore and at the front face of the propeller flange
  • progressive wear and subsequent surface damage of the hub flange at stress-critical regions surrounding the dowel pin.

GE Aviation have released two service bulletins (SBs) to help understand the potential fleet risk for fatigue cracking in other CT7 PGB main propeller shafts.


More information:
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

From the ABC:-

One of the reasons I miss the old Air Safety Digest (ASD) is that it never failed to provide a timely reminder to both old and new generations of airmen (I do include the ladies in the honorific title ‘airmen’) of the old killers – Carby ice for example; VFR into IMC; all the ‘traditional’ killers of aircraft and crew and some ‘new’ wrinkles in the old rules which govern that mysterious ethos ‘airmanship’. Fuel injection, GPS, auto pilots which work, cool head sets which take away the noise, no requirement for position reports, radio generated landing bills and a solid belief that ‘our’ engine will never quit; all lull us into a ‘false’ sense of security; a cocoon of belief that all will turn out well in the end, the legislation assures us of this – we are all so much ‘safer’ now .

And yet the grim reaper still earns a crust from the same old traps. Murphy has never resigned and continues to enjoy his law.  But then; and not be mawkish, perhaps fate is the hunter after all. Don’t know – who’s to say you won’t get out of bed, feeling great and fall over the cat – land on your head and it’s lights out. Be careful, but not afraid; there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but very few old, bold pilots.

Enough said: “set ‘em up here barkeep, we shall drink a quiet toast to those gone before us, to await our arrival".

"Beud 'iidhanak" - Selah.
Reply

(06-28-2017, 07:08 PM)P7_TOM Wrote:  From the ABC:-

One of the reasons I miss the old Air Safety Digest (ASD) is that it never failed to provide a timely reminder to both old and new generations of airmen (I do include the ladies in the honorific title ‘airmen’) of the old killers – Carby ice for example; VFR into IMC; all the ‘traditional’ killers of aircraft and crew and some ‘new’ wrinkles in the old rules which govern that mysterious ethos ‘airmanship’. Fuel injection, GPS, auto pilots which work, cool head sets which take away the noise, no requirement for position reports, radio generated landing bills and a solid belief that ‘our’ engine will never quit; all lull us into a ‘false’ sense of security; a cocoon of belief that all will turn out well in the end, the legislation assures us of this – we are all so much ‘safer’ now .

And yet the grim reaper still earns a crust from the same old traps. Murphy has never resigned and continues to enjoy his law.  But then; and not be mawkish, perhaps fate is the hunter after all. Don’t know – who’s to say you won’t get out of bed, feeling great and fall over the cat – land on your head and it’s lights out. Be careful, but not afraid; there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but very few old, bold pilots.

Enough said: “set ‘em up here barkeep, we shall drink a quiet toast to those gone before us, to await our arrival".

"Beud 'iidhanak" - Selah.

Update: Doomed flight may have been an Angel Flight mission.

Via the Oz.. Angel  

Quote:Three people dead in light plane crash

[Image: cffbea7d95aa36335e2836e098feef20?width=650]The wreckage of a light plane that crashed in Suttontown. Picture: Matt Loxton
  • Meredith Booth, Michael Owen
  • The Australian
  • 7:38PM June 28, 2017
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/30516814f413e39639e1d8a8f9493a05/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]
A teenage girl, her mother and a 78-year-old pilot have died after their four-seater plane crashed in foggy, cold and wet conditions minutes after takeoff in regional South Australia.

The crash happened this morning about 3km southwest of Mount Gambier Airport, in the state’s agricultural southeast.

[Image: 4dd2bef198fdce22d1db4ba9d3d744d0]Pilot Grant Gilbert. Picture: Facebook

The pilot and owner, understood to be businessman Grant Gilbert of Mount Barker, an Adelaide Hills community 35km southeast of the capital, was taking the Mount Gambier locals, a 43-year-old woman and her 16-year-old daughter, to Adelaide when they died on impact minutes after takeoff around 10.24am.

The girl is believed to be a student from Grant High School in Mount Gambier.

Records show Mr Gilbert became the licence holder and voluntary operator of the 25-year-old single-engine plane in February 2014, using it predominantly for trips between Adelaide and South Australian regional centres Mount Gambier, Port Lincoln and Murray Bridge.

It is understood he was a dedicated Angel Flight Australia volunteer who flew country people to non-emergency city medical appointments.

Early reports today said the French-made Tobago TB10 aircraft flew an erratic path shortly after its scheduled takeoff at 9.50am, before crashing nose-first and somersaulting after impact to the base of a hill in a paddock.

[Image: 79be0939ad41e7c520ef1d47caa83a32]Flight path of VH-YTM before crashing at Suttontown. Picture: FlightAware

Limestone Coast Detective Superintendent Grant Moyle said the purpose of today’s flight was unknown but would have an impact on the local community.

South Australian Treasurer Tom Koutsantonis said on his Twitter feed: “Terrible news in our state’s South East. God rest them.”

Supt Moyle said there was no fire at the crash site, in a paddock near the intersection of Walker and Sunnybrae roads at Suttontown, 435km southeast of Adelaide.

Police said they had not yet spoken to any witnesses who may have seen the crash.

“Plane crashes are tragic no matter where they occur but it certainly will have an impact on the whole community down here in the Mount,’’ Supt Moyle said.

Some next of kin had been advised and Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators were due to arrive at the site tonight, he said.

[Image: 99d781d4a78a79a8ab8e6d6fc4b2ff8c]
Three people have been killed after a plane crashed near Mount Gambier Airport in South Australia.
[img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/news/content/v2/057b9ffba47c2f02b10a7f5fac73e59e?t_product=video&t_template=../video/player[/img]
Flight logs show the plane had been destined to arrive at Adelaide Airport at 11.30am before a further scheduled flight to Murray Bridge at 12.10pm.

It is the second serious plane crash in South Australia in as many months, with the ATSB still investigating the cause of the Rossair plane crash near Renmark Aerodrome in May that killed three experienced pilots Martin Scott, 48, retraining pilot Paul Daw, 65 and Civil Aviation Safety Authority officer Stephen Guerin, 56.

The Rossair crash was South Australia’s worst air disaster since eight people on board a Whyalla Airlines flight were killed when it crashed into the Spencer Gulf, on May 31, 2000.

ATSB expected their investigation into the Mount Gambier crash to take five months.

Very, very, sad - RIP Sad
Reply

(06-28-2017, 09:33 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Update: Doomed flight may have been an Angel Flight mission.

Via the Oz.. Angel  

Quote:Three people dead in light plane crash

[Image: cffbea7d95aa36335e2836e098feef20?width=650]The wreckage of a light plane that crashed in Suttontown. Picture: Matt Loxton
  • Meredith Booth, Michael Owen
  • The Australian
  • 7:38PM June 28, 2017
    [img=0x0]https://i1.wp.com/pixel.tcog.cp1.news.com.au/track/component/author/30516814f413e39639e1d8a8f9493a05/?esi=true&t_product=the-australian&t_template=s3/austemp-article_common/vertical/author/widget&td_bio=false[/img]

Update 29/06/17: Angel Flight confirmed & ATSB Media alert.

Via the ABC News online:

Quote:Mount Gambier plane crash: Investigators sifting through wreckage after three killed

Updated 20 minutes ago Thu 29 Jun 2017, 10:48amdeos

Video: Investigators are combing through the plane wreckage. (ABC News)

A light plane which crashed yesterday, killing three people just north of Mount Gambier, was a charity flight on its way to Adelaide.

The victims were 78-year-old Adelaide Hills man, Grant Gilbert, who was flying the aircraft, and a 16-year-old girl and her 43-year-old mother — Emily and Tracy Redding from Mount Gambier, in South Australia's south-east.

Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) investigators arrived at the scene this morning where the Angel Flight crashed.

The plane, a TB10 Tobago, took off from the nearby airport just after 10:00am yesterday and the first report of the crash at Suttontown about three kilometres away came at 10:24am.

ATSB said the investigators were experts in aircraft engineering, technical and human factors and would examine the site, wreckage, gather any recorded data and interview any witnesses.

[Image: 8662496-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Tracy and Emily Redding were on a charity flight to Adelaide for medical treatment when the plane crashed. (Facebook)

Planes crashed during foggy conditions

Police said conditions were foggy and wet in the area at the time of the crash.

[Image: 8662674-1x1-340x340.jpg]
Photo: Mount Gambier pilot Grant Gilbert was known to be an enthusiastic philanthropist. (Supplied: Facebook)

Angel Flight is a charity which coordinates non-emergency flights to help country people reach medical treatment and appointments. The service has volunteer pilots and drivers.
The Redding family issued a statement, thanking police, emergency services and staff at Grant High School for their "sympathy and empathy in dealing with family members at this difficult time".

"Our thoughts are also with the family and friends of the pilot, who was a dedicated and tireless volunteer who also lost his life in this tragic incident," the statement said.

"We know that an event such as this will affect many members of the communities of Mount Gambier and Mount Barker and hope that anyone affected by it will seek support from family, friends or support services."

Mr Gilbert became the licence holder and operator of the single-engine plane in 2014 and often flew it between Adelaide, Mount Gambier and Port Lincoln.

Liberal MP for Heysen Isobel Redmond described Mr Gilbert as a businessman with "unbounded energy" who had a community focus.

Quote:"He was always there to help," she said.

"So although it is such a tragic circumstance, it is typical of Grant that he would have been so far away from home and he must have gone very early in the morning or the night before or something to do that flight at his own expense for such a worth while cause.

[Image: 8661150-3x2-340x227.jpg]
Photo:
Lights were used at the scene of the crash overnight. (ABC News: Chris McLoughlin)


"It will take a long time for the community in the Hills to come to terms with such a tragic loss."

State Opposition Leader Steven Marshall said he knew the pilot for more than a decade.

"I think the side of Grant that many people didn't see was his wonderful philanthropic work," Mr Marshall said.

"He was a great community leader and he'll be sorely missed by the people of Mt Barker and people right across this state."

It is not the first time an Angel Flight has been involved in an accident.

In 2011 three people died after a flight between Essendon Airport and Nhill in Victoria crashed near Horsham.

The ATSB found the most likely cause of that crash was poor visibility.

[Image: 8662464-3x2-700x467.jpg] Photo: Crash investigators are working at the scene of the plane crash. (ABC News: Christopher McLoughlin)


Via the ATSB media minion:

Quote:Media briefing on fatal aviation accident near Mount Gambier, South Australia 

Date: 29 June 2017

ATSB Investigator Laura Henwood will provide an on-site media briefing at 2 PM (ACST) Thursday, 29 June 2017, at the intersection of Sunnybrae Road and Walker Road, Suttontown, South Australia.Three people died when a SOCATA TB-10 Tobago aircraft, registered VH-YTM, collided with terrain at 10.30 am on Wednesday 28 June 2017. The accident occurred about 3km south-west of Mount Gambier Airport.The briefing will outline the known facts of the accident, the investigation team’s on-site activities and the investigation process.

ATSB investigation AO-2017-069

Who: ATSB Investigator Laura Henwood

Where: The intersection of Sunnybrae Road and Walker Road, Suttontown, SA.

When: 2 PM ACST, Thursday 29 June 2017

Media contact: 1800 020 616 
[Image: share.png][Image: feedback.png]

Last update 29 June 2017


MTF...P2  Angel
Reply

Final report of VH-PXD fatal accident released.

Via the ATSB: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2016-006/

Quote:What happened

On the morning of 29 January 2016, a Piper Aircraft Corp PA-28 aircraft, registered VH-PXD, was on a private flight from Moorabbin Airport, Victoria to King Island, Tasmania. After passing over Point Lonsdale, the aircraft entered an area of low visibility. The pilot conducted a 180° turn and initially tracked back towards Point Lonsdale, before heading south over the ocean. After about 2 minutes, the aircraft was again turned right before entering a rapid descent. The aircraft impacted the water at 1227 Eastern Daylight-saving time, 6.6 km south-west of Point Lonsdale. All four occupants of the aircraft were fatally injured.

What the ATSB found

The ATSB found that continuation of the flight beyond Point Lonsdale, and towards an area of low visibility conditions, was likely influenced by the inherent challenges of assessing those conditions.

The ATSB also found that due to the presence of low cloud and rain, the pilot probably experienced a loss of visual cues and became spatially disorientated, leading to a loss of control and impact with the water. The risk of a loss of control in the conditions was increased by the pilot’s lack of instrument flying proficiency.

Safety message

Pre-flight planning needs to include consideration of not only the conditions on departure, but at all stages of the flight. This informs the decision of whether to depart and allows for prior consideration of alternative actions in the case of deteriorating weather, such as returning or diverting.

It is always possible that the actual weather conditions will be different to those forecast. Pilots conducting a flight under the visual flight rules make every effort to avoid areas of low visibility and plan for unforeseen eventualities. However, this is dependent on the pilot perceiving the risks of the situation, which is not inherently easy. Education and training in the practical application of meteorological principles has been shown to enhance pilots’ ability to recognise and respond to deteriorating weather conditions.

The ATSB cautions that, on entering an area of reduced visual cues, the risk of experiencing spatial disorientation and a loss of control is high, measuring from between 60 to 178 seconds from the time of entering the area of low visibility. This risk is highest for those without proficiency or recent experience in instrument flying. Requesting assistance from air traffic control can increase the chances of re-establishing visual cues.

Via the Age:
Quote:June 29 2017 - 6:53PM
[/url]
[url=http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/180-seconds-to-tragedy-fatal-point-lonsdale-crash-blamed-on-poor-visibility-20170628-gx0v4b.html]180 seconds to tragedy: Fatal Point Lonsdale crash blamed on poor visibility

  • Tom Cowie
All up it took just three minutes.

That's how much time elapsed between a light plane entering an area of low cloud over Point Lonsdale and finally plunging into the water, killing all four people on board. 

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] The wreckage of the plane that crashed near Point Lonsdale. Photo: Paul Jeffers  

Experienced aviators Daniel Flinn, Donald Hateley, Ian Chamberlain and Dianne Bradley were killed on January 29 last year when a 1967 Piper PA-28 Cherokee plummeted into the ocean without making a distress call.

Nearly 18 months after the crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released its report into what happened during the tragic flight.

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] A photo of the plane taken many years before the crash.  Photo: ATSB  

But after all that time one key fact still eludes investigators: the identity of the pilot. 

While three of the people on board the plane held pilot licences, the bureau said it failed to uncover any definitive evidence as to which one was in command when it went down. 

The final flight of the plane registered VH-PXD began at 12.03pm, when it left Moorabbin Airport for King Island. The pilot made a radio transmission about 12.09pm reporting on cloud conditions over the suburb of Carrum.

Eighteen minutes later the plane had crashed into water, 6.6 kilometres south-west of Point Lonsdale.

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] A CCTV image from Port of Melbourne cameras facing east across the water from Point Lonsdale show the weather conditions.  Photo: ATSB  

Reduced visibility due to low cloud and rain was the likely cause of the crash, the bureau found.

This led to the pilot experiencing "spatial disorientation", a perilous and often fatal condition that results in loss of perspective from the horizon.

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] Donald Hateley, who died in the plane crash. Photo: supplied  

According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, spatial disorientation occurs when "your senses are telling you something that isn't true – typically that you are flying straight and level when in fact you are in a spiral dive". 

Analysis of the plane's final flight path shows it made several sweeping turns
after passing over Point Lonsdale before a final steepening and rapidly descending turn as the plane hit trouble. 

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] A memorial image at Point Lonsdale Lighthouse for Ian Chamberlain and Dianne Bradley. Photo: Justin McManus  

The series of left and right turns may have been an effort by the pilot to avoid cloud and improve visibility, the safety bureau said. However, the turns could also have contributed to the effects of spatial disorientation.

"The time from PXD entering the area of low visibility to impacting the water was about 180 seconds," the report said. 

Witnesses fishing in the vicinity of Point Lonsdale at the time told the bureau they heard an aircraft pass nearby at what they interpreted to be a "very low altitude".

"Due to the low cloud and visibility in the area they could not initially see the aircraft. The witnesses recalled that, a few minutes later, they saw the aircraft just before it impacted the water," the report said.

"It appeared to be in a nose-down, right wing-low attitude and the engine sounded as though it was producing power."

No one on board the plane was qualified to fly using instruments like GPS and the flight was being conducted according to visual cues.

The group was flying as part of a loosely organised group of Royal Victorian Aero Club members attending the Festival of King Island and the final day of horse racing for the summer.

Another pilot who left for King Island before VH-PXD returned because of reduced visibility near Point Lonsdale, believing it was caused by nearby storms. Two pilots who left after the doomed plane continued to King Island, although they also reported reduced visibility.

The bureau said it was unable to establish whether the people on board the crash plane were fully aware of the deteriorating weather they were flying into. 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Preliminary report for VH-XMJ, the Cessna 441 that crashed at Renmark, was published today..
Quote:Preliminary report published: 30 June 2017

At about 1503 CST[1] on 30 May 2017, Cessna 441 Conquest aircraft, registered VH-XMJ (XMJ), and operated by Rossair Charter, departed Adelaide International Airport, for Renmark Airport, South Australia.

On-board were:
  • an inductee pilot undergoing a proficiency check, flying from the front left control seat
  • the chief pilot conducting the proficiency check, and under assessment for the company training and checking role for Cessna 441 aircraft, seated in the front right control seat
  • a flying operations inspector from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, observing and assessing the flight from the first passenger seat directly behind the two control seats.
Each occupant was qualified to operate the Cessna 441.

On departure, XMJ climbed to about 17,000 ft above mean sea level, and was cleared by air traffic control (ATC) to a tracking waypoint RENWB, which was the commencement of the Renmark runway 07[2] RNAV-Z GNSS[3] approach. The pilot of XMJ was then cleared to descend, and notified ATC that they intended to carry out airwork in the Renmark area. The pilot further advised that they would call ATC again on the completion of the airwork, or at the latest by 1615. No further transmissions from XMJ were recorded on the area frequency and the aircraft left radar coverage as it descended towards waypoint RENWB.

The common traffic advisory frequency used for air to air communications in the vicinity of Renmark Airport recorded several further transmissions from XMJ as the crew conducted practice holding patterns, and a practice runway 07 RNAV GNSS approach. At the completion of the approach, the aircraft circled for the opposite runway and landed on runway 25, before backtracking the runway and lining up ready for departure. Although outside radar coverage, position and altitude information continued to be transmitted via OzRunways[4], operating on an iPad in the aircraft. The weather information recorded at Renmark around this time was clear skies, south-to-south westerly winds of about 9 kt, and a temperature of 13°C.

At 1614, the common traffic advisory frequency recorded a transmission from the pilot of XMJ stating that they would shortly depart Renmark using runway 25 to conduct further airwork in the circuit area of the runway. A witness at the airport reported that, prior to the take‑off roll, the aircraft was briefly held stationary in the lined‑up position with the engines operating at significant power. The take-off roll was described as normal however, the witness looked away before the aircraft became airborne.

Figure 1: Position information of VH-XMJ as the aircraft circled and landed on runway 25 (depicted in red), before backtracking and departing (depicted in green).
[Image: ao2017057_figure-1.jpg?width=463]
Source: OzRunways

Position and altitude information obtained from OzRunways showed the aircraft maintained runway heading until reaching about 400 ft, before veering to the right of the extended runway centreline. The aircraft continued to climb to about 700 ft prior to levelling off for about 30 seconds, and then descending to about 600 ft. The information ceased 5 seconds later, about 60 seconds after take-off. The last recorded information had the aircraft at an altitude of 600 ft, and 22 degrees to the right of the runway extended centreline. The aircraft wreckage was located 228 m to the north-west of the last recorded position, about 3 km from the take-off point.

Figure 2: Altitude information of VH-XMJ – (each vertical line represents 5 seconds)
[Image: ao2017057_figure-2.jpg?width=463]
Source: OzRunways

On-site examination of the wreckage and surrounding ground markings indicated that the aircraft impacted terrain in a very steep (almost vertical) nose‑down attitude, and came to rest facing back towards the departure runway. The horizontal and vertical tail surfaces and empennage separated from the main cabin directly behind the rear pressure bulkhead, and the cockpit and instrument panel were extensively damaged. The remaining aircraft cabin had separated from the wing. The left hand propeller blades separated at the propeller hub. The right hand propeller blade tips separated, however the blades remained attached to the hub. A strong smell and presence of jet fuel was evident at the accident site, however there was no evidence of fire. The aircraft was not equipped with a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder, nor was it required to be.
Both engine, gearbox and propeller assemblies, along with several other components and documentation, were removed from the accident site for further examination by the ATSB.

The investigation is continuing and will include examination of:
  • recovered components and available electronic data
  • aircraft, operator, and maintenance documentation and procedures
  • flight crew information
  • flight manoeuvres being carried out during the check flight and flight characteristics of the aircraft
  • aircraft weight and balance
  • risk assessments carried out when planning the flight
  • previous research, and similar occurrences.

Unfortunately, I don't know how to get the two images to appear in the quote above...I'm sure one of you gents will be able to help with that..

P2 - There you go Cap'n Wannabe... Wink

Ps Strange how they continue to put out preliminary reports/updates etc. without any fanfare.. Undecided
Reply

(06-29-2017, 08:30 PM)Peetwo Wrote:  Final report of VH-PXD fatal accident released.

Via the ATSB: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/inv...-2016-006/

Quote:What happened

On the morning of 29 January 2016, a Piper Aircraft Corp PA-28 aircraft, registered VH-PXD, was on a private flight from Moorabbin Airport, Victoria to King Island, Tasmania. After passing over Point Lonsdale, the aircraft entered an area of low visibility. The pilot conducted a 180° turn and initially tracked back towards Point Lonsdale, before heading south over the ocean. After about 2 minutes, the aircraft was again turned right before entering a rapid descent. The aircraft impacted the water at 1227 Eastern Daylight-saving time, 6.6 km south-west of Point Lonsdale. All four occupants of the aircraft were fatally injured.

What the ATSB found

The ATSB found that continuation of the flight beyond Point Lonsdale, and towards an area of low visibility conditions, was likely influenced by the inherent challenges of assessing those conditions.

The ATSB also found that due to the presence of low cloud and rain, the pilot probably experienced a loss of visual cues and became spatially disorientated, leading to a loss of control and impact with the water. The risk of a loss of control in the conditions was increased by the pilot’s lack of instrument flying proficiency.

Safety message

Pre-flight planning needs to include consideration of not only the conditions on departure, but at all stages of the flight. This informs the decision of whether to depart and allows for prior consideration of alternative actions in the case of deteriorating weather, such as returning or diverting.

It is always possible that the actual weather conditions will be different to those forecast. Pilots conducting a flight under the visual flight rules make every effort to avoid areas of low visibility and plan for unforeseen eventualities. However, this is dependent on the pilot perceiving the risks of the situation, which is not inherently easy. Education and training in the practical application of meteorological principles has been shown to enhance pilots’ ability to recognise and respond to deteriorating weather conditions.

The ATSB cautions that, on entering an area of reduced visual cues, the risk of experiencing spatial disorientation and a loss of control is high, measuring from between 60 to 178 seconds from the time of entering the area of low visibility. This risk is highest for those without proficiency or recent experience in instrument flying. Requesting assistance from air traffic control can increase the chances of re-establishing visual cues.

Via the Age:
Quote:June 29 2017 - 6:53PM
[/url]
[url=http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/180-seconds-to-tragedy-fatal-point-lonsdale-crash-blamed-on-poor-visibility-20170628-gx0v4b.html]180 seconds to tragedy: Fatal Point Lonsdale crash blamed on poor visibility

  • Tom Cowie
All up it took just three minutes.

That's how much time elapsed between a light plane entering an area of low cloud over Point Lonsdale and finally plunging into the water, killing all four people on board. 

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] The wreckage of the plane that crashed near Point Lonsdale. Photo: Paul Jeffers  

Experienced aviators Daniel Flinn, Donald Hateley, Ian Chamberlain and Dianne Bradley were killed on January 29 last year when a 1967 Piper PA-28 Cherokee plummeted into the ocean without making a distress call.

Nearly 18 months after the crash, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau has released its report into what happened during the tragic flight.

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] A photo of the plane taken many years before the crash.  Photo: ATSB  

But after all that time one key fact still eludes investigators: the identity of the pilot. 

While three of the people on board the plane held pilot licences, the bureau said it failed to uncover any definitive evidence as to which one was in command when it went down. 

The final flight of the plane registered VH-PXD began at 12.03pm, when it left Moorabbin Airport for King Island. The pilot made a radio transmission about 12.09pm reporting on cloud conditions over the suburb of Carrum.

Eighteen minutes later the plane had crashed into water, 6.6 kilometres south-west of Point Lonsdale.

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] A CCTV image from Port of Melbourne cameras facing east across the water from Point Lonsdale show the weather conditions.  Photo: ATSB  

Reduced visibility due to low cloud and rain was the likely cause of the crash, the bureau found.

This led to the pilot experiencing "spatial disorientation", a perilous and often fatal condition that results in loss of perspective from the horizon.

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] Donald Hateley, who died in the plane crash. Photo: supplied  

According to the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, spatial disorientation occurs when "your senses are telling you something that isn't true – typically that you are flying straight and level when in fact you are in a spiral dive". 

Analysis of the plane's final flight path shows it made several sweeping turns
after passing over Point Lonsdale before a final steepening and rapidly descending turn as the plane hit trouble. 

[Image: 1498726426760.jpg] A memorial image at Point Lonsdale Lighthouse for Ian Chamberlain and Dianne Bradley. Photo: Justin McManus  

The series of left and right turns may have been an effort by the pilot to avoid cloud and improve visibility, the safety bureau said. However, the turns could also have contributed to the effects of spatial disorientation.

"The time from PXD entering the area of low visibility to impacting the water was about 180 seconds," the report said. 

Witnesses fishing in the vicinity of Point Lonsdale at the time told the bureau they heard an aircraft pass nearby at what they interpreted to be a "very low altitude".

"Due to the low cloud and visibility in the area they could not initially see the aircraft. The witnesses recalled that, a few minutes later, they saw the aircraft just before it impacted the water," the report said.

"It appeared to be in a nose-down, right wing-low attitude and the engine sounded as though it was producing power."

No one on board the plane was qualified to fly using instruments like GPS and the flight was being conducted according to visual cues.

The group was flying as part of a loosely organised group of Royal Victorian Aero Club members attending the Festival of King Island and the final day of horse racing for the summer.

Another pilot who left for King Island before VH-PXD returned because of reduced visibility near Point Lonsdale, believing it was caused by nearby storms. Two pilots who left after the doomed plane continued to King Island, although they also reported reduced visibility.

The bureau said it was unable to establish whether the people on board the crash plane were fully aware of the deteriorating weather they were flying into. 

For the record in Oz Flying's LMH, I note Hitch's excellent comments on this tragic reoccurrence accident:

Quote:...As I sit here typing I am listening to the start-up sounds of a Piper Archer. The pilot and family are heading off for what they expect will be an enjoyable flight along the Victorian coast. In January last year, I am sure someone at Moorabbin listened to a Cherokee 235 burst into life as it set off on a leisurely flight to King Island. Only that flight wasn't so leisurely; the pilot and crew encountered poor visibility south of Barwon Heads and the result was the worst possible outcome. It has to frustrate both CASA and the ATSB that pilots continue to push the limits of visual flight, only to find that if they cross that limit there is no coming back. It happened again this week near Mount Gambier. Why do we keep doing this? Do we think we are better pilots than we really are? Are we not adequately trained in reading weather conditions? I don't think even the ATSB has answers regardless of all the messages they and CASA send out. That Piper Archer has just rolled on the runway blessed with much more amenable weather conditions than PXD had, and several airports en route. I look forward to seeing them again in a few hours...

Read more at http://www.australianflying.com.au/the-l...zC9lT6F.99

Well said that man... Wink

 
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

Two hammers - one nail.

Hitch hits the nail, fair and square;

“I don't think even the ATSB has answers regardless of all the messages they and CASA send out.”

as did TOM.


Quote:One of the reasons I miss the old Air Safety Digest (ASD) is that it never failed to provide a timely reminder to both old and new generations of airmen (I do include the ladies in the honorific title ‘airmen’) of the old killers – Carby ice for example; VFR into IMC; all the ‘traditional’ killers of aircraft and crew and some ‘new’ wrinkles in the old rules which govern that mysterious ethos ‘airmanship’. Fuel injection, GPS, auto pilots which work, cool head sets which take away the noise, no requirement for position reports, radio generated landing bills and a solid belief that ‘our’ engine will never quit; all lull us into a ‘false’ sense of security; a cocoon of belief that all will turn out well in the end, the legislation assures us of this – we are all so much ‘safer’ now.

And yet the grim reaper still earns a crust from the same old traps. Murphy has never resigned and continues to enjoy his law.  But then; and not be mawkish, perhaps fate is the hunter after all. Don’t know – who’s to say you won’t get out of bed, feeling great and fall over the cat – land on your head and it’s lights out. Be careful, but not afraid; there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but very few old, bold pilots.


Enough said: “set ‘em up here barkeep, we shall drink a quiet toast to those gone before us, to await our arrival".


Got me thinking - . One of the tragic repercussions of ATSB and CASA loosing ‘street cred’ is that ‘safety messages’ don’t get delivered. The ATSB gobbleldy-gook, beyond reason reports are dismissed out of hand – the lack of respect for FOI and their prattling produce lip service and serve only to pave a way to ‘get around’ their anally retentive pronouncement on what is ‘safe’ - for them. Perhaps there’s a real, vital role for the ‘Alphabet Soup Groups’ to play here. A crowd like AOPA or similar could provide some of the old ‘Crash Comic’ tales; “I learnt about Flying from that – as part of a news letter – or even a BBQ night and a short lecture, with Q&A on the selected subject. Don’t reckon it would cost a lot – these days through ‘conference’ hook up’s – like Skype – I reckon two or three flying schools or clubs could participate. Even the esteemed Australian Flying could reproduce some of the oldies but goodies. A proactive stand to real safety, in the real world, by real people with credibility needs to be taken. We are loosing too many to the old killers.

There – I feel better having got that off my chest.

Toot - Right then, back to my knitting –toot.
Reply

From the SBG:-

Which brings to item last; sadly we have had yet another fatal accident. Too early to tell for certain if the latest was a VFR into IMC incident; but it serves as a stark reminder of the perils associated with such an excursion. There has been furious debate, spread over many decades on how best to reduce this repeating statistic.  It is an old killer, always present, the dangers well known. You can take your pick of practical solutions – there are many on offer. But clearly ‘regulatory’ penalties and punishment don’t work, much has been written of the ‘psychological’ reasons for pushing your luck; volumes have been published on what’s best to do and what’s not; yet the statistics, world wide, show no reduction. We’ve all done it – junior to senior; yet the only folk not tempted are those who have done it, survived and sworn never to do it again. One instructor, definitely of the ‘old school’ and decades ago, used to take his students into cloud and ‘time’ how long they lasted; not long was the answer.

[Image: ntsb-presents-weatherwise-20-638.jpg?cb=1371136363]

So much depends on ‘other’ factors that it is almost impossible to determine how long it takes to become ‘disoriented’ and once the holes in that famous cheese start to line up – the outcome is in the lap of the gods. “Just don’t do it” shout the purists – but what of the accidental encounter, the unintentional: or, what of the old trap, that of letting the door behind you close, of always having an escape route and somewhere to go, when trumps turn to dog-pooh? Don’t know the answer and I’ve never heard a complete solution. Seven families have been left grieving. ATSB and CASA do what they can – in their own way, they do and it is not their fault. The advent of GPS and reliable auto pilots create a false sense of security; perhaps these should be removed from the basic training syllabus. Situational awareness is an imperative – contact with the reality of what’s ahead, behind and around the corner; in your own hands and on your own head. I’ll leave it there; for I have no solution to offer, no silver bullet; just our condolences to those left behind.


Quote:P7 - One of the reasons I miss the old Air Safety Digest (ASD) is that it never failed to provide a timely reminder to both old and new generations of airmen (I do include the ladies in the honorific title ‘airmen’) of the old killers – Carby ice for example; VFR into IMC; all the ‘traditional’ killers of aircraft and crew and some ‘new’ wrinkles in the old rules which govern that mysterious ethos ‘airmanship’. Fuel injection, GPS, auto pilots which work, cool head sets which take away the noise, no requirement for position reports, radio generated landing bills and a solid belief that ‘our’ engine will never quit; all lull us into a ‘false’ sense of security; a cocoon of belief that all will turn out well in the end, the legislation assures us of this – we are all so much ‘safer’ now

And yet the grim reaper still earns a crust from the same old traps. Murphy has never resigned and continues to enjoy his law.  But then; and not be mawkish, perhaps fate is the hunter after all. Don’t know – who’s to say you won’t get out of bed, feeling great and fall over the cat – land on your head and it’s lights out. Be careful, but not afraid; there are old pilots and there are bold pilots, but very few old, bold pilots.

Quote:CW -
What sticks out to me, in terms of my flight training, is the lip service given to basic instrument training. I really don't think that 2 hours under the hood, where you can still see outside the cockpit if you tilt your head just so, is good enough for a PPL, and likewise 10 hours for a CPL.

Most sausage-factory flying schools will cancel a VFR nav if the conditions are marginal - I say why not launch, and make the go/no-go decision in the air? So you may not achieve the objectives, flying from your home base to various waypoints around the place, BUT you get exposed to something a little more real, I would think.

Why don't instructors take their students into cloud and let them figure things out for themselves (at a safe height)? We do the same for stalling - one of the things I told my students was that you should never stall an aircraft by accident, but then we went out and did it deliberately. Why not with *real* IMC?



Quote:TB - Its interesting to note that in the USA almost 80% of private pilots hold instrument ratings, against around 20% in Australia. An instrument rating in the USA does not carry the very expensive impedimentof the costs of unrealistic over regulation nor recurrency requirements imposed upon the holder of an IF rating in Australia.

Its very simple to gauge a comparison of cost between the US and Australia.
A simple brows around charter operators in the US reveals that their hourly charge out rate, i.e. cost plus profit, is way less than the operating cost of the same aircraft in Australia. This would suggest that the cost of operating in the US, no matter if its private or commercial is cheaper than Australia,way cheaper.

It is not to much of a stretch to assume that if flying is cheaper in the US because the regulatory burden does not soak up vast amounts of money, private pilots get to fly more and are therefore far more "current" than their Australian brethren. The old axiom "Practice makes Perfect" I believe is so true.
I'd love to see some statistical comparisons between the average hours per year for a US private pilot against an Australian PPL.

Its very difficult to regulate nor educate against inadvertent or deliberate entry into IMC by private pilots. Far better to make it attractive and cost effective for them to up skill with sensible regulation
Reply

P7 also mentioned 'carby ice' . The Tobago engine mark and model are not quoted in the ATSB blurb - but I seem to remember they used the carburetor 'O' (opposed) 360 version. This was a cold, damp (foggy?) morning - if the aircraft had developed carb ice - that may be another explanation. Although it's hard to see just how CI formed at TOff power. Too many forgotten lessons, must have a read up.

There, quick memory jog - certain condition serious ice possible at 'any' power setting.

Murphy never rests - what a scenario - VFR into IMC  and Carby ice to boot. Im not suggesting this is what happened - not at all - but Golly, it makes you think - I hope.

Toot - toot.
Reply

As way of an update and in relevance to the discussion, I note the following article courtesy of the Adelaide Advertiser:

Quote:SA News

The Advertiser learns pilot of tragic Angel flight didn’t have accreditation for foggy conditions

Mitch Mott, Mount Gambier, The Advertiser
June 29, 2017 11:16pm

VETERAN pilot Grant Gilbert did not possess the proper accreditations to take off in foggy and cloudy conditions which enveloped Mount Gambier at the time of Wednesday’s tragic plane crash, The Advertiser has learnt.

Mr Gilbert is understood not to have been accredited with an “instrument flight rules rating” which a pilot would have required to fly in poor visibility.

The 78-year old pilot, based in the Adelaide Hills, was volunteering his time to take teenager Emily Redding and her mother Tracy on an Angel Flight from Mount Gambier to Adelaide about 10am Wednesday.

[Image: 1e536b7b4bd9fd7c0b33dcebaa3428f6?width=316]
Pilot Grant Gilbert. Picture: Facebook

Australian Transport Safety Bureau investigators on Thursday scoured the wreckage of the Socata TB-10 Tobago aircraft, which crashed in a paddock about 3km from the airport.

The ill-fated Angel Flight took off in what were described as “foggy, wet and cold” conditions, which grounded flights by commercial airline Regional Express.

While Mr Gilbert was accredited to take off, fly and land in conditions of clear visibility or broken cloud cover, The Advertiser understands he was not permitted to do so in fog, heavy cloud cover, or at night.

Mr Gilbert would have needed instrument flight rules, or IFR accreditation, to show he was trained and tested in flying in such conditions by using only the instruments within the aircraft.

Most commercial pilots have the advanced accreditation, which is often costly and requires aircraft be equipped with tested and up to date navigational instruments.
ATSB senior investigator Laura Henwood said a “no blame” approach would be taken during the probe and its findings would be used to improve transport safety.

“Shortly after take off from Mount Gambier, the aircraft made a left turn and impacted the terrain ... witnesses reported seeing fog in the area at the time,” she said.

[Image: 3556f50c11579d3b5e1eeb1d29a57a43?width=650]ATSB investigators and Major Crash Police examining the scene of the crash in Suttontown. Picture: MATT LOXTON

Ms Henwood said investigators would remain on scene for “a number of days” and refused to speculate on the circumstances of the crash.

“We will also examine other factors such as pilot experience, the airworthiness of the aircraft, weather conditions and the co-ordinations of the charity flight,” she said.
Local resident Chantelle Paterson did not see the crash herself, but her three-year-old son Alick remarked “plane falls Mum” as they walked to playgroup at the time of the tragedy.

“My son kept telling me he saw a falling plane,” she said. “I didn’t believe him until later that day when we found out and I realised what he was trying to tell me.”
Any other eyewitnesses should call the ATSB on 1800 020 616.
MTF...P2  Cool
Reply

Idle speculation:

Or; second coffee ruminations if you like: Curious, I went to the UP to see what ‘information’ was available on the Mount Gambier accident – bad mistake; ‘nuff said. Having time to trawl through the media was also a mistake. Speculation and discussion in the pub, between friends is always a result of an accident; but honestly, the way some of the media set about reporting is beyond the pale. No matter, but – if we are going to speculate, let’s have a real look-see at what we have available. My turn and I am more than willing to stand corrected – for I have no actual or factual knowledge to work with – however. 

[Image: 79be0939ad41e7c520ef1d47caa83a32?width=1024]

“Early reports today said the French-made Tobago TB10 aircraft flew an erratic path shortly after its scheduled takeoff at 9.50am, before crashing nose-first and somersaulting after impact to the base of a hill in a paddock.”

‘Erratic path” quote got me thinking – looking at the FA track – could you call the flight path ‘erratic”? Speculator – does the track look more like an attempt to return to land? Hard to tell but; it opens up some options for discussion - other than ‘disorientation’. The initial leg looks to have been shaped ‘left’ of centre line  - perhaps to avoid a patch of low cloud or even toward a ‘hole’ – there is no altitude or distance data provided – bugger all topography - not even a scale, so it is difficult to gauge – .

Google Map

The Mount Burr Road is roughly aligned with the initial flight path, the first right turn was started crossing a road and finished pointing at a ‘junction’ – 6.4 Kms -  Rocky Camp Range Road which heads directly toward town. The next turn we see is a right turn to a NW heading, which would approximate the track toward Adelaide. Not too much in the way of an ‘erratic’ flight path there so far. In fact it is what you could reasonably expect a pilot under the VFR to do in ‘murky’ weather. Airborne – road for tracking – junction – town – set course. Use 90 kts as CLIAS the junction is about 3 nms – say two minutes @ say 350 fpm – call it 700 feet when the turn toward town is made. Add another minute to establish NW track and you have at least 1000 feet – or should have. Looking at the limited met data I have – it is possible to speculate – reasonably so, that the aircraft was actually clear of cloud and in sight of ground. So far so good –

Then we note the right turn - back toward the aerodrome – Why? Can we assume the aircraft was descending from this point?  Lets give it the benefit and say it was; the aircraft continues and crosses the departure track (the road) – airport sighted? Left turn next, still descending – trying to return to the confines of the airfield? The promulgated ‘flight path’ raises some questions which need to be answered. Was the pilot attempting a ‘split ass’ turn past a cloud/fog bank to regain a centre line landing? Did the aircraft ‘stall’ during the turn? Was control lost as part of heart failure? In short, there are ‘several’ unexplained, valid reasons for this accident – VFR into IMC being one – 'singular’ candidate.

We may never know; the ATSB will have access to data we do not. But I would like the flight explained from that last right turn to impact. Engine failure; heart attack; carb ice; bad fuel; bird through windscreen; door open; passenger sick; structural failure? The contact configuration will be of interest – flaps, power setting etc.

The word, ‘erratic’ raises my hackles; the sensationalist press creating more harm than good – again. We know there was a fatal accident; we know there are questions about the weather but after that – we know SFA; not really. But if folk insist on speculating – can we please have a little logic thrown in with the pitch forks and torches. Mind you, I’d love to be able to hold the notion that ATSB will do a proper job on this and the report will be of value – I digress.

Toot toot.

Now this is what I'd call 'erratic'.

Quote:[Image: 932220-be953ac4-5c5f-11e5-8de3-ef21996958ae.jpg]

Too close for comfort. Source: TheAustralian
Reply

The lad has a couple of good points there. Near as I could I traced the flight path over a print out of the ‘Google map’; to push the limits of speculation – you could almost imagine the aircraft trying to land on the main runway – height and speed permitting – 'base leg' for 29 and 36 were within strike of the final contact point.

[Image: airport.jpg]

VFR into IMC always gets the juices flowing; but, we don’t know whether this was the case. No harm done ‘banging’ the old drum; it needs a tune up once a while – but that flight path opens the doors wide. As always, best to wait for the troops on the ground, investigating to draw their facts together and see what ‘may’ or may not have happened. We could sure do without the idiot press – WTF has “Mummy a plane ( aircraft or aeroplane; please) is falling” got to do with anything – except padding for very a thin story line. Curse this type of reporting.

Darts, draught ale, warm fire and intelligent company – we shall, no doubt, discuss the event.
Reply

Point of order M’lud.

“My son kept telling me he saw a falling plane,” she said.

If the wretched, ignored child could ‘see’ an aircraft ‘falling’ – perhaps it was not in cloud –

Did anyone see or hear the total flight time mentioned anywhere? Can’t seem to find it -

The lady speaking to the media on behalf of ATSB seemed like a practical sort; we must hope that she leaves no stone unturned to discover what happened here.

Toot - toot.
Reply

You have to laugh – no other option.

Honest answers required – how many actually read though this latest piece offered by the -  ATSB - on an RFDS Be20 which finished up in the dirt; not the hanger. The pathetic report is bad enough; but, when the English language is assaulted in support of a load of rubbish, not even billed as an attempt at comedy; it’s time to ask serious questions. We wait and wait for the ‘lessons’ and the advice; we pay for this essential safety ‘service’; hells bells, we even try not to second guess the ‘expert’ tin kickers.

Candidate for quote of the month – HERE – from the UP; close call but it has my vote.

But, for me at least; the biggest guffaw for a long time came from this trite statement:-

What's been done as a result.

As a result of this occurrence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) intends to take steps to refresh industry and CASA officers’ knowledge of particular terms and concepts within the flight crew licencing regulations to remove any doubt that might exist as to their interpretation and applicability.

The operator has undertaken to take safety actions in the areas of pilot recruitment, training and checking, aircraft and systems, safety and quality assurance, and communications.

Perhaps Carmody can elaborate – or; better yet,  start firing people; beginning with those who write the ridiculous aberrations called ‘rules’ which we all must learn to avoid. Lead Balloon Look Left (one you owe me) is a close QoM second with a gem in a nutshell – “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” – just the way CASA like it – depending on whether the moon is in Venus or Uranus.

FWIW – the whole thing gave me a laugh.

Toot– toot; chuckle – and one for luck - toot.
Reply

(07-07-2017, 07:39 PM)kharon Wrote:  You have to laugh – no other option.

Honest answers required – how many actually read though this latest piece offered by the -  ATSB - on an RFDS Be20 which finished up in the dirt; not the hanger. The pathetic report is bad enough; but, when the English language is assaulted in support of a load of rubbish, not even billed as an attempt at comedy; it’s time to ask serious questions. We wait and wait for the ‘lessons’ and the advice; we pay for this essential safety ‘service’; hells bells, we even try not to second guess the ‘expert’ tin kickers.

Candidate for quote of the month – HERE – from the UP; close call but it has my vote.

But, for me at least; the biggest guffaw for a long time came from this trite statement:-

What's been done as a result.

As a result of this occurrence, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) intends to take steps to refresh industry and CASA officers’ knowledge of particular terms and concepts within the flight crew licencing regulations to remove any doubt that might exist as to their interpretation and applicability.

The operator has undertaken to take safety actions in the areas of pilot recruitment, training and checking, aircraft and systems, safety and quality assurance, and communications.

Perhaps Carmody can elaborate – or; better yet,  start firing people; beginning with those who write the ridiculous aberrations called ‘rules’ which we all must learn to avoid. Lead Balloon Look Left (one you owe me)  is a close QoM second with a gem in a nutshell – “damned if you do and damned if you don’t” – just the way CASA like it – depending on whether the moon is in Venus or Uranus.

FWIW – the whole thing gave me a laugh.

Toot– toot; chuckle – and one for luck - toot.

The other Aunty on this embarrassing report - Blush

Quote:Royal Flying Doctor Service knew of potential fault in fire system that contributed to crash landing: Investigation

ABC Broken Hill
By Declan Gooch

Posted about an hour ago Tue 11 Jul 2017, 5:38pm
[Image: 8698574-3x2-340x227.png]
Photo:
The Royal Flying Doctor Service plane that crash landed at Moomba in December 2016. (Supplied: Moomba Airport/ATSB)


The Royal Flying Doctor Service (RFDS) says it is reviewing its training regime and accepts the findings of an investigation into the crash landing of an aircraft in outback South Australia.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has published its report on the incident, which happened at the gas fields town of Moomba in December.

The Broken Hill-based Beechcraft King Air B200 aeroplane was approaching the airstrip when an engine fire warning incorrectly came on.

The pilot shut down the left engine in response to the warning, following an established checklist, but forgot to feather the propeller blades — where the blades are rotated to an edge-on angle to the airflow to reduce drag.

The remaining operational engine was unable to generate enough thrust to safely land the aircraft, which hit the ground in the sand next to the airstrip and was severely damaged.

There were no injuries.

The ATSB said the RFDS had been alerted to the possibility of false fire warnings by a safety bulletin from Beechcraft in 1995.

RFDS accepts investigation findings

RFDS south-eastern section chief executive Greg Sam said the organisation accepted the findings.

"Because we train our own pilots, part of our routine training program was to equip pilots to manage with alarms, whether they be false or accurate," he said.

"Indeed we were confident that the pilot training should be such that it can manage that situation.

Quote:"Having said that, between 2003 and 2005, we had [four] reports [of false alarms] across our entire fleet, but nothing since 2005 occurred, so there was a period of some six or seven years where there had been no false alerts."

Mr Sam said there were no aircraft in the fleet that still used the fire warning system in question.

"With regard to … how we treat service bulletins and notifications, I think our safety systems now are a lot more robust in terms of how we look for these types of bulletins," he said.

Pilot's training not compliant

The ATSB found the pilot received a tailored training program by the RFDS that took into account his or her experience with a different version of the Beechcraft King Air with another operator, and advice from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

However, the ATSB said that did not cover all the elements required under safety regulations.

Mr Sam said he accepted that was the case and the RFDS would pay closer attention to pilots' past training.

"[We will look] further back into individual pilots' training history, and how does that translate to our requirements both in a practical sense … but there's also the issue of how that lines up with the requirements under regulation," he said.

But Mr Sam said that was unlikely to have contributed to the crash landing.

"The issue of feathering is very much a standard procedure, it's what's called a memory procedure … and to some degree that stands outside issues of [training].

"We don't believe the issues raised in terms of [training] would have made any difference given the circumstances that occurred for this particular event."

The pilot hesitated during the procedure for responding to an engine fire warning and forgot to feather the propeller blades, the ATSB said, because of doubt over the warning's accuracy.

The pilot has since left the RFDS, and the aeroplane has been replaced.

This bit..

 ..But Mr Sam said that was unlikely to have contributed to the crash landing.

"The issue of feathering is very much a standard procedure, it's what's called a memory procedure … and to some degree that stands outside issues of [training].


"We don't believe the issues raised in terms of [training] would have made any difference given the circumstances that occurred for this particular event."

...says it all for me. The RFDS are kindly, with tongue in cheek, allowing the ATSB to PC their way around the fact that the pilot cocked up... Rolleyes


MTF...P2 Tongue
Reply

VH-YTM prelim report released - Angel  

Via the ATSB website:
Quote:Preliminary report:
At about 0800 Central Standard Time[1] on 28 June 2017, a SOCATA TB-10 aircraft, registered VH-YTM (YTM), departed Murray Bridge Airport for Mount Gambier Airport, South Australia.

Position and altitude information obtained from OzRunways[2] showed that the aircraft’s inbound path (Figure 1) from Murray Bridge was straight and at an altitude of about 4,500 ft. At about 42 km north-north-west of Mount Gambier Airport, the altitude decreased and there was a significant deviation from the direct route. Several manoeuvres were then made at low altitude in the vicinity of the airport, including a possible attempted landing on runway 36. After a series of low level turns, the aircraft landed on runway 29 at about 1008.

Figure 1: Approach path of VH-YTM showing the initial deviations from the direct flight path on the left, and the series of low level turns prior to landing on runway 29 on the right
[Image: ao2017069_figure-1.jpg?width=463]
Source: Google Earth and OzRunways, annotated by ATSB

The pilot then refuelled the aircraft and boarded two passengers, to conduct a flight to Adelaide arranged by the charity Angel Flight Australia.[3] The flight was to be conducted as a private flight under visual flight rules (VFR).

Witnesses in the vicinity of Mount Gambier Airport reported fog in the area at the time of landing and take-off. Similarly, CCTV footage showed the fog and reduced visibility conditions at the airport at the time of landing and take-off.

OzRunways data (Figure 2) and CCTV footage showed the aircraft took off from runway 24 at about 1020. Just after take-off, YTM veered to the left of the runway, at an altitude of approximately 300 ft above mean sea level (AMSL). The aircraft reached a maximum altitude of about 500 ft, 45 seconds after take-off. The last recorded information, about 65 seconds after take-off, showed the aircraft at an altitude of 400 ft.

A number of witnesses heard a loud bang, consistent with the aircraft’s impact with terrain.

Figure 2: Flight path of VH-YTM after departing runway 24 at Mount Gambier Airport, where each vertical line represents 5 seconds, and an indication of the wreckage location
[Image: figure-2.jpg?width=670&height=447.2292191435768]
Source: Google Earth and OzRunways, annotated by ATSB

Transmissions from the pilot of YTM on approach and take-off were recorded on the common traffic advisory frequency for Mount Gambier Airport. However, no emergency call was recorded. The aircraft was not equipped with a flight data recorder or cockpit voice recorder, nor was it required.

Minutes after impact the aircraft was found by witnesses passing the accident site, and emergency services responded to the scene shortly thereafter. The aircraft wreckage was located 212 m south of the last recorded position, just over 2 km from the departure runway (Figure 2). The pilot and two passengers were fatally injured and the aircraft destroyed.

On-site examination of the wreckage and surrounding ground markings (Figure 3) indicated that the aircraft impacted terrain at approximately 30° from vertical, in an inverted attitude. The engine and propeller were located at the initial impact point. The fuselage and remainder of the aircraft had detached from the engine at the firewall, and came to rest in an upright position about 10 m beyond the engine, with the tail and wings attached. The wings had sustained significant impact damage to the leading edge. A strong smell and presence of fuel was evident at the accident site, however there was no evidence of fire. The aircraft did not have an emergency locator transmitter fitted, nor was it required. A portable locator beacon was found in the cockpit, but had not been activated.

Figure 3: Accident site looking north-west, showing the engine and propeller location alongside the left and right wing impact marks, about 10 m from the main wreckage, which is upright and facing in a north-north-easterly direction

[Image: figure-3.jpg?width=670&height=221.4406779661017]
Source: ATSB
Several components and documentation were removed from the accident site for further examination by the ATSB.

The investigation is continuing and will include examination of the following:
  • recovered components and available electronic data
  • aircraft maintenance documentation
  • weather conditions
  • pilot qualifications and experience
  • coordination and planning of the charity flight
  • the use of private flights for the transfer of passengers for non-emergency medical reasons
  • similar occurrences.
MTF...P2 Cool
Reply

When I saw the accident report, I was surprised.  The flight path shown in the report doesn't quite match the one in post #182, 185, and 194 - there's more to it than what's in the report.  If you look at that flight path, they take off from the runway, make a huge right turn to the town south of the airport, then head back towards the airport, whereas the ATSB path has them taking off then crashing almost immediately.

This is the image of the FR24 flightpath from the day of the accident..
[Image: qWMX8yy.jpg]

And this is the image of the ATSB flightpath from the report..
[Image: QUyo4lk.jpg]

As they say in the ads.....compare the pair..

Spot On Mr PB,-  agreed.  -("K").
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)