Light aircraft in water off Curl Curl

[turboplanner]

You could see the sections flexing under water.

 

Martinj, that might require a detailed analysis.

 

Someone made a clever analysis on prune, after looking up the Lightwing specs, that the trip from Ballina and headwinds exhausted fuel, but after looking at the same figures I would have said he had ample fuel reserve for the trip.

 

Probably a lesson in there for all of us to do more practice on forced landings. I've certainly screwed up my calls a number of times and screwed up glide speed once. He couldn't spit out where he was and he didn't say how many people on board, but this would have been shock which will hit us all. If you practice over and over, particularly after a layoff, it does come out all by itself. Even ATC and other aircraft were caught out with the sudden shock also.

 

 

[Tex]

From 1000' I thought he did very well to make the calls he did with more important things to think about ...

 

 

[Spin]

Agreed on the fuel issue Turbo, I didn't want to get into slanging match with some of the famous know it alls, but 118l usable, coupled to a 912 that is going get through 20l an hour at worst suggested that he would have had plenty left even at a ground speed of around 85kt. Thinking about it he probably picked the wrong aircraft specs!

 

A great pity the pilot wasn't able to give out a position, I understand there were 2 Blackhawks, one of them winch equipped not far ahead of him - that may just have made the difference, but I'd not bet on doing any better myself, especially if not familiar with the minor landmarks. I've had engine failure a bit higher than him and whilst I reckon I did ok on the "aviate" component, I cringe a bit at the "communicate", blithley assured atc that I was not declaring an emrgency as I could glide to a suitable field:blush:

 

I'm not pointing fingers, however purely on the basis of probablities, I'd be more concerned with reports (true?) that the aircraft was returning from a visit to the factory for maintenance.

 

I saw some of the news footage too and agree that it appeared to me that the aircraft had gone in hard - the fueselage had fractured behind the cockpit and it seemed as if at least one wing had also partially separated at the root. Attached a small photo which illustrates this.

 

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

I've had engine failure a bit higher than him and whilst I reckon I did ok on the "aviate" component, I cringe a bit at the "communicate", blithley assured atc that I was not declaring an emrgency as I could glide to a suitable field:blush:

Don't ever worry about declaring an emergency, you can always downgrade later if the situation improves.

 

I saw some of the news footage too and agree that it appeared to me that the aircraft had gone in hard - the fueselage had fractured behind the cockpit and it seemed as if at least one wing had also partially separated at the root.

I was amazed at how little damage there was to the aircraft.

 

 

[Spin]

Gotta love a post that starts, I don't want to speculate and then proceeds to throw up exactly that:roflmao:. The original post was prompted by a ppruner who appeared to conclude that the aircraft couldn't have flown the intended route without running out, which is clearly BS - yeah I read the specs too and full tanks may have required some creative weight management - I mean an RA aircraft has never taken off overweight has it?

 

HH, couldn't agree more re the emergency declaration - I will say in my defence that I had around 27/8 hours total time and was on my first solo cross country for my PPL when the engine decided to go on strike. I remember my biggest issue was gathering the courage to announce that I was deviating from my flight plan, it never occurred to me that I wouldn't land successfully. I would hope that 15 yrs later with a few more hours under the belt I may do a little better. Hope never to find out though.

 

I am not sure that I agree re the "how little damage". I've seen a ditched aircraft underwater and any number of photographs of others and those that ditched rather than crashing into the water at speed, were all virtually intact - one lost the cowling and others had a few minor panels missing, eg. oil inspection panel and a luggage door. The Lightwing on the other hand has virtually nothing that lines up the way it started out - rear fuselage is twisted to one side and rotated through 30 odd degrees and both wings don't seem to line up with the centre section any more. The video also seemed to show the various bits flexing too and fro.

 

All academic now anyway, some poor bugger "summoned the sum total of his knowledge and skill" and didn't make it. I'll definitely be giving ditching a lot more thought before flying Victor One or the similar coastal routes around the Gold Coast and Moreton Bay islands - I particularly liked Mozartmerv's example briefing in the companion thread.

 

 

[winsor68]

I wonder whether the 180 degree turn described by onlookers was a deliberate turn or whether the aircraft was stalled? I guess we will find out in time.

 

 

[turboplanner]

There are two conflicting stories; one a turnback and spiral, the other a turn to the left perhaps because he wasn't going to make it over the point to the beach, then a 45 deg dive.

 

Both reports involve turning with no power, which almost none of us have experienced - we always get a little shove from the idling prop.

 

 

[Methusala]

I understand, and I could be wrong on this point, that the Victor 1 air route is restricted to 500ft. This gives no chance for a glide to the shore. Some places the cliffs are much higher than this. A friend told me that he was once vectored many miles from the shore line abeam Sydney. The Air Services must surely be gambling with peoples lives if they insist that no more airspace can be spared. I would never choose to fly this route! Don

 

 

[winsor68]

If this is the case let's hope there is a coroner's inquest and this all comes out. Perhaps Airservices should be held accountable?

 

 

[Teckair]

I understand, and I could be wrong on this point, that the Victor 1 air route is restricted to 500ft. This gives no chance for a glide to the shore. Some places the cliffs are much higher than this. A friend told me that he was once vectored many miles from the shore line abeam Sydney. The Air Services must surely be gambling with peoples lives if they insist that no more airspace can be spared. I would never choose to fly this route! Don

Exactly, there lies the problem, in that situation you have no way out and you are gambling with your life on nothing going wrong.

Richard.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Cam, id much prefer to take my chances with a ditching than an engine failure over the city on the other (inland route) , when u actually fly the route, have a look around and ask yourself, where would I go if the music stopped now.

 

 

[Spin]

I'll second that wholeheartedly - I haven't flown Victor 1 yet, but there are plenty of urban areas, not to mention bushland where airspace considerations make you fly lower than you might otherwise. I know I always breathe a slight sigh of relief leaving Archerfield to the east at 1,000' , when I get to within gliding distance of the turf farm - before that it would be roads, back yards or a factory roof if the music stopped.

 

More generally, be careful what you wish for - Victor One is a fantastic facility that I intend using in the future - no-one is forced to go that way, so let's not put ideas about closing it in the authorities heads. Whether through bad luck or poor judgement, this pilot didn't survive, but a ditching isn't inevitably fatal, indeed in an RA aircraft with its low stall speed it should be survivable. I'll admit that trikes worry me though, I always used to eye that sharp edged tube in front of me and wonder how to avoid meeting it if the worst happened.

 

 

[Tex]

There are two conflicting stories; one a turnback and spiral, the other a turn to the left perhaps because he wasn't going to make it over the point to the beach, then a 45 deg dive.Both reports involve turning with no power, which almost none of us have experienced - we always get a little shove from the idling prop.

Assuming he was travelling south there is not much to turn back for. The beach ahead appears as the best option. Turn was either to navigate around headland or stall / spin trying to extend glide by raising the nose. Obviously a hard task to point the nose at the water and/or rocks...

 

'Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can'.

 

 

[Tomo]

'Fly the aircraft as far into the crash as you can'.

You must of had the same instructor as me! :thumb_up:

 

 

[Tex]

You must of had the same instructor as me! :thumb_up:

I did Tomo but it was a different Bob who said that first... Hoover

 

 

[Teckair]

Cam, id much prefer to take my chances with a ditching than an engine failure over the city on the other (inland route) , when u actually fly the route, have a look around and ask yourself, where would I go if the music stopped now.

You shouldn't be flying over either of those sort of places, you are supposed to be able to glide clear of built up areas and when over water be able to reach land in case of an engine failure. Ditching in water or crashing into built up areas are not appropriate options. If people keep doing this sort of thing then RAAus will not continue on in the format that it currently is.

 

 

[Tex]

You can fly over water with out glide to land if wearing a life jacket.

 

 

[turboplanner]

I did Tomo but it was a different Bob who said that first... Hoover

And did he do that!, over and over and over again!

 

 

[Tex]

He certainly has credibility!

 

 

[Teckair]

You can fly over water with out glide to land if wearing a life jacket.

Maybe but how many people are wearing one? Common sense tells me that is not a good idea anyway, trying to get the seat belt undone in an upturned sinking aircraft with the buoyancy vest trying to push you through the floor, not nice!!!

 

 

[kaz3g]

Maybe but how many people are wearing one? Common sense tells me that is not a good idea anyway, trying to get the seat belt undone in an upturned sinking aircraft with the buoyancy vest trying to push you through the floor, not nice!!!

Aviation lifejackets are not buoyancy vests and are not normally inflated inside the aircraft.

 

kaz

 

 

[kgwilson]

You don't inflate the lifejacket until you are outside the aircraft. This would not have helped in this situation as it would appear from the condition of the aircraft that it hit the water very hard with the engine and cabin areas absorbing the most of the inertia. In a ditching, so long as you can keep the aircraft from flipping over stalling it along a wave line it will often float for some time allowing time to get out.

 

 

[Guest Howard Hughes]

Maybe but how many people are wearing one? Common sense tells me that is not a good idea anyway

If all of a sudden you need it, try putting a life jacket on while wearing a seatbelt and managing an engine failure! We do this as part of our EP training, the good thing is from 27,000 feet you have about 35+ minutes to get your life jacket on, even so I have seen more than one person end up with jacket and seat belt entwined unable to egress the aircraft and that is without the pressure of a real emergency to contend with.

If you fly out of gliding distance from land (below 2000 feet) you are required to wear your life jacket as per CAO 20.11, section 5.1.7

 

Military pilots, EMS and Police helo pilots all wear them as part of their standard gear, yet in civilian aviation we seem to give scant thought to the potential consequences.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Teckair, plenty of aircraft are operating in the areas we are discussing. RAA included. How else are we meant to transit sydney? or should we all be confined to the backwaters, over tiger country. Out of sight out of mind? There are areas one could technically glide to in the sydney lanes (although I wouldn't like to try), and as others have quoted, there is provisions in the regs for over water flights.

 

If your worried about us loosing freedoms, how about not inferring (in an open public forum) that people aren't being compliant.

 

 

[mkennard]

I just flew victor 1 yesterday, over curl curl as well but not to gawk at the sight but I usually take a friend on that flight purely because it's spectacular. I always make sure we have vests on since that's the last thing I want to be thinking about at the time.

 

As for people saying they wouldn't do victor 1 because of the risk, I disagree. Flying is a risk and getting your head into gear being ready is a part of the training. I want to be ready in the mind but I don't want to fly thinking I'm going to die every time I go up, I want to enjoy my flying and being prepared for an emergency is a part of that, knowing when not to fly but the sound of this thread makes it sound like doing that sort of flying is looking for trouble. Don't know how to put it into words but flying ahead of the plane and enjoying the flight is much better than thinking that every flight you are going to die.

 

I hope I conveyed what I was thinking.