Swan river incident

[alf jessup]

I believe the second officer could see things were not right, but for cultural reasons declined to challenge his senior.I've never seen a bird crash. They seem to have developed a pretty good automatic landing system.

Culture has a lot to answer for then doesn't it

 

Hence why I only fly western culture airlines with western trained pilots

 

 

[facthunter]

OK Birds crash into my windows all the time. I've tried not cleaning them, (the windows) but it doesn't help. They are not the same ones that look in my car mirrors and crap all over it, unfortunately. One bird the other day hit a window and fell into a wheelbarrow dead as a dodo. Neat effort. I feel bad about the poor things doing that . Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

The ILS has a tracking (left right) of a track aspect and a glideslope (up and down). You can operate it without the glideslope if it's U/S or the threshold is displaced for works etc You back up your descent with height = 3x distance to run (in nm) x 10, (feet), minus aerodrome height above msl at ARP in feet. That gives you a 3 degree slope. Some clever person can correct me if I've boobed. But a formula like that is handy for avoiding crashing into something short of the runway. You also do a height and altimeter accuracy checks at the final approach point so it all makes sense when you get near the aerodrome Nev

 

 

[facthunter]

Eastern Culture is, the Captain cannot be wrong, cause he IS the Captain has all those bars on the epaulettes so is not challenged, even when you are about to die and in Australian culture , the captain is never right because he/she's to old and stupid wanting all those checks done, ( and doublechecking if they're not sure) and doesn't have the latest faultless mental logic the younger moderns do, who wish you'd die to let a good pilot (them) get in the left seat as quickly as possible. Nev

 

 

[Birdseye]

On the topic of the Mallard, according to the "West Australian" today he was about to make a touch and go. I've no idea of the type's SOP, but it doesn't appear to me from any video I've yet seen that he had any flap selected.

 

 

[kgwilson]

As far as the comments about how it smashed up so easily I can tell you that from my experience hitting water at speed straight on is like hitting concrete. There is some give in it but when an object hits it fast it cannot displace quickly enough. That coupled with the shallow depth gave them no chance IMHO. When I saw this on the TV news, my first thoughts were too slow, too low, wing drop stall, no chance of recovery. No information since has changed my mind. Sadly we have lost another experienced and dedicated sport aviator. Evans Head would not be the place it is today without him.

 

 

[facthunter]

Even smacking from one wave to another can damage the hull extensively. Few can handle rough water operations. A Walrus is one exception. Hitting water is hard and damaging. Bullets don't travel far underwater. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

Most likely a consequence of this......

One other thing I didn't mention previously was that in a wing-drop stall situation like this appears to be, the instinctive reaction is to apply opposite aileron, which will generally make the situation rapidly worsen. It's good to practice stalls like this at a safe altitude in aircraft prone to it so you learn to quickly recognise it (the Winjeel could violently drop a wing in a turning stall). On aircraft not prone to it, it's good to see the resistance of that aircraft to wing drop too. Obviously with an instructor until you're proficient and confident enough to practice yourself (if you want to do that).

I may be wrong here, but a family member learned to fly on Chipmunks. They required a lot of height and specific recovery techniques from spin entry; he was out practicing solo spin recovery in the training area outside Moorrabbin, and actually spun down between three C-47s of the RAAF traversing the training area with no radio calls to announce their presence. 'General' guidelines for manoeuvers need to be audited against the specific characteristics of the aircraft involved: the most-skilled pilot still cannot defeat the laws of physics. The classic B-52 crash at Fairchild is an exemplar here:

 

 

With all respect and sadness for the results of this incident, it appears to me (who has no claim whatsoever to expertise), that the turn entered had almost no chance of success at that height and in that restricted airspace - restricted because of a 'populated area' at the margins.. I see that CASA has come out with a statement that there was no clearance for flying at that altitude in that area.

 

As aviators, we generally have a love of 'showing off' to the general public. That is not ego, I believe, but a genuine desire to try to involve the public in the thrill of flight. However, there are so very many examples of airshow crashes that make headline news, that I ask: should we re-calibrate our perspective? Should we, as a group, factor in that our capability extends only so far and plan any demonstration flight accordingly?

 

 

[Beeteeen]

Looks to me all the holes in the cheese lined up......Hot weather, gusting tail wind, low speed, low level turn and bank......

Take out one of them and it might never have happened and no one would be the wiser as to how close it came......

I have hesitated to add to this thread; I am a low hours PPL and investigation of this tragic accident is best left to the experts. I have seen what may be the same contributing factors that were summed up in this ‘holes in the cheese’ comment. But I noticed something else, and something tells me to air it here in the hope that maybe we can share it if it’s relevant. I was taught that when you sufferer a wing drop your instinct needs to be to leave the ailerons neutral - an aileron on a stalled wing can’t help and, worse, it adds drag to that wing pulling it further into trouble, and you need to kick in a full boot load of opposite rudder. That helps pull the stalled wing forward and hopefully get it flying again. There is a photo on line taken from behind this aircraft in the instant before impact that suggests that there was full aileron deflection and a neutral rudder at that point. I also have no idea about the performance of this heavy aircraft and if any action could have recovered it at that height. We probably all practiced this recovery technique in training and had to demonstrate it in our license tests. I can’t say what I would do in such an emergency. This recovery technique at low altitude has to be instant and instinctive if it’s to be any use, and that instinct has to be developed to override the normal instinct to pick the wing up with aileron. I don’t know if it’s reinforced in AFRs but it should be.

 

This accident is tragic. I had a look at this aircraft at YSEN last week but I don’t know the crew as some of you do. I hesitate with this post because I’m not the experts, I don’t have the facts and I don’t wish to prejudge the investigation. I will post it because maybe there is something in what I think I have noticed that might be worth other’s comment, and potentially be beneficial to us here.

 

 

[IBob]

I may be wrong here, but a family member learned to fly on Chipmunks. They required a lot of height and specific recovery techniques from spin entry; he was out practicing solo spin recovery in the training area outside Moorrabbin, and actually spun down between three C-47s of the RAAF traversing the training area with no radio calls to announce their presence. 'General' guidelines for manoeuvers need to be audited against the specific characteristics of the aircraft involved: the most-skilled pilot still cannot defeat the laws of physics. The classic B-52 crash at Fairchild is an exemplar here:

Are there really "so very many examples of airshow crashes that make headline news"???

 

 

[rgmwa]

I can’t say what I would do in such an emergency.

I don't think you're the only one. Practising stall recovery is probably something most of us do regularly, but then you're in a situation where you're anticipating what's going to happen and are ready for it. In a case like this in hot conditions where you're low, slow, maybe the ball's off-centre and perhaps you're distracted by the event, it would be all too easy to put the wrong control inputs in when a wing drops unexpectedly. Not that it would probably have made any difference to the result in this case. Also in a plane of that size, I wonder how often you would go out and practice stall recognition and recovery.

 

rgmwa

 

 

[ClintonB]

Sad, 10 news just reported he texted friends that he expected poor performance from the the aircraft due to the heat. It's probably hard to tell yourself on such a nice day that it's a no go. Horrible to watch and know it's not going to recover.

 

 

[Happyflyer]

I don't think you're the only one. Practising stall recovery is probably something most of us do regularly, but then you're in a situation where you're anticipating what's going to happen and are ready for it. In a case like this in hot conditions where you're low, slow, maybe the ball's off-centre and perhaps you're distracted by the event, it would be all too easy to put the wrong control inputs in when a wing drops unexpectedly. Not that it would probably have made any difference to the result in this case. Also in a plane of that size, I wonder how often you would go out and practice stall recognition and recovery.rgmwa

Totally agree. The best thing you can do is not get in this situation in the first place. Recognise on base or downwind that the final turn is going to have to be too tight and you are too low and go around from that point. Hard to do for some pilots, especially if people are watching. Not saying it happened like this in Perth. Mechanical failure or medical issues have not been ruled out.

 

 

[facthunter]

Ibob, I would agree there are a notable number of demo's at airshows that go wrong. Low level is often a factor and often there are pax aboard. If you are doing low level aero's you don't carry Pax (in my view). I don't see this accident as being low level aeros.. You need height, speed or a bit of both. This plane had neither.

 

A roll at 100' can be quite safe and well within a plane's capacity, but there's little margin for error if the energy is not managed. Nev

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

OK Birds crash into my windows all the time...

Mine too Nev, but you can't hold this against birds; their nav system evolved before they encountered windows.

 

 

[SDQDI]

Was there any mid air collision? Or where they just very close? Or was it just camera angle? The plane taking off had what looked like a fair bank angle when they were close.

 

Even a near miss would be enough to elevate your heartrate and get your head too busy to concentrate on the basics.

 

 

[dutchroll]

I was taught that when you sufferer a wing drop your instinct needs to be to leave the ailerons neutral - an aileron on a stalled wing can’t help and, worse, it adds drag to that wing pulling it further into trouble...

The wing drops because it stalls before the other one. If you then apply opposite aileron in an attempt to correct the roll, you are applying "down" aileron on the low wing. This further increases the angle of attack of that already stalled wing, making the problem worse.

 

....and you need to kick in a full boot load of opposite rudder.

The aircraft will by this time be yawing in the direction of the low wing. You are now entering spin territory (but not quite actually in it). You don't necessarily want a "full boot load". You want enough to prevent the nose yawing any further. That might be a small amount, or it might be a lot. Either way, you want to "stop it getting worse".

These actions are done after the immediate initial actions for stall recovery.

 

In very quick succession you therefore need:

 

1. Simultaneously apply full power and lower the nose (ie, release the back pressure)

 

2. Apply rudder to prevent further yawing (ailerons neutral)

 

3. Level wings and recover.

 

In this case I agree with commenters that his altitude was such that it very quickly became unrecoverable. He would've had to recognise the incipient signs of a stall and initiate recovery quite early. I suspect there was a second or two of "startle factor" there which is all that's needed for a tragedy if you've got no altitude.

 

 

[gibby]

Was there any mid air collision? Or where they just very close? Or was it just camera angle? The plane taking off had what looked like a fair bank angle when they were close.Even a near miss would be enough to elevate your heartrate and get your head too busy to concentrate on the basics.

Nothing has been reported, it looked like the aircraft taking of took evasive action and banked sharply to the left. I am sure ATSB will have studied the vision and spoke to the other pilot involved

 

 

[poteroo]

Just a few comments - but not in respect of this accident.

 

In low level flying, (say 200-300ft agl, with a following wind of 10-15 kts, your ground speed can be quite confronting, especially if there are obstacles, (or limitations such as crowds or buildings), ahead that require a relatively tight turn. I notice many low level students try to reduce power,(and as a result, IAS), when flying with a 15-20 kt following wind. A low level instructors' duty is to teach them never to mistake groundspeed for flying speed.

 

In a low level, 'base' to final turn, with a following wind, there is a need to (1) begin the turn early to avoid displacement (2) extend your lift flap before the final turn - I'll extend full flap if it's onto a short final from say 200ft agl, (3) keep your nose down, and (4) use power to hold or increase IAS in the descending turn. The essential is to actually increase your airspeed so that the aircraft does not stall in the turn. Better to be low but flying with good command than to lose it without space for recovery. The early turn onto final ensures that a dynamic stall is avoided if the pilot loads up the wing in the turn: all because they are trying to avoid the further track displacement that happens with a following wind.

 

This means the aircraft is being flown fairly aggressively with lots of scenery above the panel - and many pilots develop 'ground rush' when this happens. This can be trained out for most. Prior planning, (the good old PPPPP acronym again), is your most important pilot input at low level: you need to visualise the turns in respect of the terrain and winds, well before having to fly the procedure. Good power management and a light touch on the controls which avoids developing much G loading in all the manoeuvres are important learnings. Last second changes of plan or activity are to be avoided.

 

Of course, all of the above must happen with the ball precisely in the middle. There's no place for out-of-balance flying at low level!

 

Trust this helps some of you. As I've said before: low level training is a very useful achievement and I'd encourage pilots to do some wherever there is a qualified instructor. Why not do part of it a s your BFR - it counts?

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

...These actions are done after the immediate initial actions for stall recovery.In very quick succession you therefore need:

 

1. Simultaneously apply full power and lower the nose (ie, release the back pressure)

 

2. Apply rudder to prevent further yawing (ailerons neutral)

 

3. Level wings and recover...

Dutch a good illustration of this technique is the video of Matt Hall's amazingly quick reactions to a wing hitting the water at the same venue. Despite being a poofteenth off the drink he did the opposite to what most of us would instinctively do, and recovered.

 

 

[Head in the clouds]

In the preceding posts I've read some excellent wisdom and descriptions of what is likely to have been the cause of this tragic, apparent stall/spin onto base/final.

 

As I see it, most of the comments appear to be likely to be right, but they don't offer a 'how to avoid it happening to me' without considerable thought being needed in a split second, which most of us wouldn't be quick enough to calculate and then have time to react correctly.

 

The 'formula' I use, and which I've described in greater detail on a previous thread, is 'avoid bottom rudder'... even if you're overshooting your centerline, for example.

 

It saves having to think about what you're actually doing when the sight picture doesn't look quite right.

 

Similarly when spinning, nowadays I don't waste time trying to work out which way I'm rotating. In an unexpected spin it could be very confusing and take too long to determine. So I just press the pedal in the direction that the earth appears to be going - sight picture thing again ... works for me anyway.

 

 

[Bernie Knight]

Thoughts are with his young family and friends. Truly a sad day.

 

 

[Captaincoop]

Certainly has all the hallmarks of a stall but one thing you never do in accident investigation is jump to conclusions. Left engine failure or partial failure (critical engine), control problem, pilot incapacitation, low level wind shear....so many possibilities to consider and yes a stall in the turn is just one of them. Let's wait for the examination of the wreckage before we jump to the good ol "pilot error" conclusion do you think?

 

 

[facthunter]

That plane would have had to have a lot of power on to avoid speed decay. "We" don't teach powered approaches. (The old guard don't usually but I'm young at heart, and still alive). The sharpest turn is with flap out =. More drag but slower speed permitted makes the radius of the turn less. If you can't descend, because you are already low, you need POWER on to stop speed dropping off and maybe lot's of it. There's no other way. Any bank on for a turn and your stall speed rises, drag increases. If you are practicing steep banked figure 8's. (which I strongly recommend) you will be applying power entering and reduce it leaving and levelling off. Anticipating it and have good control of airspeed at all times

 

With larger aircraft you do actual stalls on the conversion. Later "commercial" designs used in large numbers do it in sophisticated simulators which very closely replicate the real thing with dynamic motion and side vision etc.

 

Lower flown circuits do have the wind affecting your "feel" of speed and you may also feel you are skidding or slipping when you go crosswind. We "MUST" teach low level to all. Not just would be mustering pilots. You never know when you will be doing your next low circuit (or Part Of). Nev

 

 

[dutchroll]

low level wind shear....?

How would the flight path of the aircraft as depicted have taken him into low level windshear?

There's a lot of opposite (right) aileron in there, and no rudder. As I said earlier, instinctive, but very detrimental if the aircraft is stalled. If it was a left engine failure the immediate application of right rudder would be expected too, as any multi-engine pilot would know. Yet there is none.