sea-plane crash hawkesbury river nsw

[APenNameAndThatA]

I see little point in pontificating or speculating as to what or what may not have happened, at least until there is something of substance reported on the occurrence.

I do: so the same thing doesn't happen to us. We can reflect on what flying choices we make.

 

The ABC news had a picture of a Cessna Caravan belonging to the company. I thought, "Holy crap, I would have bet my life on that being a safe plane". Of course, each time you step on board a plane you really do bet your life it will be safe... But it turns out it was an old piston single that crashed. *Possibly* because it was so old. I read somewhere that Cessna Caravans do not have good a safety record as you would expect because people take liberties with them. I have no clue if that is true.

 

 

[facthunter]

They crash because some event happened to them, not specifically because they are old or have a piston engine in them. The LIKELYHOOD of various types having events is related to many factors.. The age factor can be mitigated to some extent by well designed inspections and a suitable maintenance programme. It's also true that a jet engine far surpasses the reliability achieved by pistons probably by factor of 10. at least.. Running out of fuel cancels out that reliability advantage as does flying into a hill in cloud.. or a gaggle of geese. which jet engines don't like.. A piston prop might fare better in that case..

 

Any single has a bad engine out performance, A powered glider might be an exception. A twin that won't fly on one has double the chance of not getting there. Plus there is the handling problem with a twin when you lose one. If you are too slow you keep turning and rolling unless you speed up or close the other throttle.. A floatplane over water has a lot of aerodrome choice if the swell is OK. Many factors to consider. It's about probability.

 

The P&W PT-6 (in the caravan and many other good planes) was considered the epitome of reliability but neglect and overconfidence can cancel that out. The "she'll be right " syndrome at work.. Nev.

 

 

[APenNameAndThatA]

They crash because some event happened to them, not specifically because they are old or have a piston engine in them. The LIKELYHOOD of various types having events is related to many factors.. The age factor can be mitigated to some extent by well designed inspections and a suitable maintenance programme. It's also true that a jet engine far surpasses the reliability achieved by pistons probably by factor of 10. at least.. Running out of fuel cancels out that reliability advantage as does flying into a hill in cloud.. or a gaggle of geese. which jet engines don't like.. A piston prop might fare better in that case..Any single has a bad engine out performance, A powered glider might be an exception. A twin that won't fly on one has double the chance of not getting there. Plus there is the handling problem with a twin when you lose one. If you are too slow you keep turning and rolling unless you speed up or close the other throttle.. A floatplane over water has a lot of aerodrome choice if the swell is OK. Many factors to consider. It's about probability.

The P&W PT-6 (in the caravan and many other good planes) was considered the epitome of reliability but neglect and overconfidence can cancel that out. The "she'll be right " syndrome at work.. Nev.

The eyewitness said that the plane was flying "towards" them. I wonder if it lost power, attempted to prolong the glide while it turned away from people, and stalled in the turn.

 

 

[facthunter]

We can speculate on a lot of things. This is getting a lot of coverage so one can expect a through review of the facts. Nev

 

 

[gibby]

Statement from the CEO

 

Statement from Aaron Shaw, CEO -

 

Statement from Sydney Seaplanes regarding the aircraft incident at the Hawkesbury River, 31 December 2017

 

Yesterday there was a... tragic accident involving one of Sydney Seaplanes aircraft in the Hawkesbury River, north of Sydney. As we know all six people on the flight (5 passengers and 1 pilot) have lost their lives.

 

All at Sydney Seaplanes are deeply shocked by this incident and the resulting loss of life. We wish to pass on our heartfelt condolences to the Bowden and Cousins families and the family of our pilot Gareth Morgan who were tragically killed.

 

Gareth had worked for Sydney Seaplanes on two occasions, the first from 2011 to 2014, after which he went to fly seaplanes in the Maldives. He then returned to working for us in May 2017. He was an extremely experienced pilot, with over 10,000 hours total time, of which approximately 9,000 hours was seaplane time. On a personal level he was deeply respected and liked by me and all of the team here as a man and as a pilot. He flew my family and I to Palm Beach just before Christmas. We are devastated by his loss.

 

I have spoken to Gareth’s parents, who live in Canada and offered our deepest sympathies and we will support them in any way we can.

 

I would like to take this opportunity to thank the NSW Police and all that were involved in the recovery yesterday, this would have been a harrowing task and we are extremely grateful to them for their work.

 

Aaron Shaw

 

Managing Director

 

Sydney Seaplanes

 

 

[David Isaac]

Sobering when such gotcha moments can catch out such highly respected and experienced pilots. Terribly terribly sad.

 

 

[facthunter]

WE really don't know what happened. You can't rule out some kind of failure. Trim, control failure incapacitation. etc as examples but I don't wish to add to the speculation in any way. Nev

 

 

[Happyflyer]

We don't know it was a gotcha moment that caught out the pilot. Could have been structural failure that no one could save. Experienced or not.

 

 

[facthunter]

You have to give some credence to the hours flown in the type and the conditions applying to many of the flights. It's always been a decider with jobseekers for aviation positions. Not always justified but mostly it has some validity. The more aviation you've been exposed to the less you are surprised easily. Also you have survived a fair bit, It can't all be due to luck..Nev

 

 

[David Isaac]

By ‘gotcha’, I was not implying a specific cause, simply that whatever happened ‘gothim’. More a statement of the profound obvious really. Please don’t assume that I am implying any pilot error.

 

 

[facthunter]

I know you well enough David, to understand that. Nev

 

 

[Oscar]

I grew up sailing that area - from Bobbin Head, all around the Broken Bay / Cowan Creek / Smiths Creek and Pittwater area, for more than 60 years. The following is NOT in any way intended to be even supposition about anything of the circumstances.

 

It is NOT an area to be low and slow in anything; all the land surrounding the water rises very steeply from the water, until you get well into Broken Bay itself , at least opposite the mouth of the Hawkesbury river - almost a sort of mini-Fjord topography. The wind changes direction as it flows around the steep land; if competing in yacht racing, the knowledge of how the wind changes according to the land mass intervention is critical knowledge for your racing tactics. A quick look at Google Maps in Earth View of Cottage Point will give you an appreciation of the local terrain.

 

There used to be a 'seaplane' operation running Beavers from under Barranjoey Point. I do not recall any incidents from that operation. However, in 1998 a 185E went in near Berowra Waters Inn, with the loss of five lives and a Nomad also went in near there in 1987 after clipping a power line on a flight to the BWI, fortunately with no injuries.

 

Jerusalem Bay is directly north of the Cottage Point Inn, whereas the quickest flight path back to Rose Bay would have taken the plane ENE heading for Broken Bay. I do not know the prevailing wind at the time of T/O, but unless it was significant from the West, the T/O would have been roughly on a heading of about, maybe, 065/075. It is somewhat unlikely that Jerusalem Bay would have been under the 'most efficient' flight path.

 

.

 

 

[red750]

CNN International reporting a C208 Caravan crashed in Costa Rica killing 10 passengers and 2 crew.

 

 

[turboplanner]

10,000 hours, 9,000 in seaplanes.

 

 

[onetrack]

I got the impression from the aerial views of the region and the actual crash site, that the pilot was essentially flying up a creek into a valley that narrowed - and he made a right-hand turn within that valley, over the water.

 

This tends to suggests he was turning around within the creek valley walls - and as in so many similar crash scenarios, he misjudged the required distance for the turn, tightened the turn midway through, and stalled it.

 

There are some similarities here, to the Grumman Mallard seaplane crash at Perths Skyshow aerial demonstration in January 2017.

 

Myles Baptiste told the Nine Network he saw the plane flying towards him about 500 metres away when it hit the water.

“It made a tight right-hand turn, and as it actually turned around, the wings dipped and it nosedived straight into the water,” he said.

The video footage in the news article below tells us nothing, it could have been videoed minutes before the actual crash.

 

Victims of fatal seaplane crash named

 

 

[Phil Ward]

That is the most noteworthy post I have seen on here so far "on track" as it doesn't speculate it is a proper and sensible observation based on the facts known, you call it like it is.

 

Aeroplanes don't just dive out of control.........unless of course there is a major control surface operation failure which we all know is incredibly rare. The other most plausible factor is the pilot input has put the aeroplane into a circumstance that then caused it to dive out of control.

 

Therefore it is reasonable to consider Pilot incapacitation or error to be the most reasonable considerations for this accident.

 

We all know the aeroplane was flying straight and level at around 200 feet towards terrain as shown in the video footage,and "moments"later it had turned approx 180 degrees and nose dived into the water, as per witness account.

 

The impact point is not in doubt and is clearly close to the waters edge(where the terrain rises steeply). For the aeroplane to have impacted the water so close to a point under the point where it was previously flying straight and level can only suggest it had turned and dived sharply.

 

I have a question.......why it is it that when an experienced driver crashes his car through someone's front fence there is instant reports on why it happened,speed,loss of control,hit the wrong pedal,skid marks on the road,got distracted,fell asleep,talking on his phone etc.

 

It's never just "he was experienced" and then in a year,when the facts have been hidden behind "he was very experienced and we don't know what happened" the news is secretly released that the driver is found to have made a mistake.

 

 

[kgwilson]

I think it was reported that the pilot had made around 200 flights to and from that location. I'm sure the pilots plan would have been to continue the flight climbing out as he'd done numerous times before & head back to base. What caused the aircraft to make a turn resulting in this tragedy is the answer we need. High on my list are incapacitation or structural/control system fault. I think a basic piloting error would be very unlikely.

 

 

[facthunter]

You might notice I agreed to onetracks comments but I don't think it's for us to pass judgement on people here before all the facts are out. The Usual cry is "pilot error" within a short time. In Greece they still throw pilots of crashed planes in Gaol .

 

Sometimes they are ALLwrong. Often pilots are the worst infringers of the right to a fair go. Is this because they think mistakes are for other pilots and not them. Making the correct Guess/judgement may make you feel OK but the process is wrong. The court of public opinion is not the place to hang people Nev

 

 

[Phil Ward]

Those aircraft are incredibly well maintained, how many times have you heard of a control surface failure in the past KGWilson. Think about what we know which is my point,call it for what it is and let's not pretend that people don't make errors.

 

 

[facthunter]

Maintaining a seaplane in a salt water environment is a real challenge... Of course people make errors. That's a challenge too.

 

Regarding control surface failures. They do happen, but redundancy often saves the day, with good training. I've had spoiler float twice, elevator failure, two flap track events and a leading edge device not retract fully. This is just me so what about others ? These things DO happen.. Nev

 

 

[kgwilson]

Those aircraft are incredibly well maintained, how many times have you heard of a control surface failure in the past KGWilson. Think about what we know which is my point,call it for what it is and let's not pretend that people don't make errors.

There have been plenty. I had a stuck elevator on a C150 many years ago but still managed to get down OK. AD/General/87 (See The cable saga The cable saga | Flight Safety Australia ) Feb 2015 requires all cables more than 15 years old or of unidentifiable age to be removed & mutilated so they can never be used again. From 2012 to 2015 there were 61 cable unserviceabilities reported to CASA along with 4 cable separations.

 

 

[Yenn]

The cable saga has been updated. The day after I changed my cables CASA agreed that they could still remain in use if they were inspected.

 

As far as this crash is concerned it is obvious we do not have enough info to work it out ourselves. We can speculate on what could be the cause, or we can keep quiet. By speculating we open up ourselves to criticism from others and also showing how little we may understand of flying.

 

 

[Methusala]

Just seen a photo of the pilot. He was our pilot when we flew 2 1/2 years ago. So sad...

 

 

[Oscar]

Once again, this is not intended to be, even obliquely, any commentary on the pilot skills or judgement.

 

I have more than 20 years experience of sailing all the damn time in things ranging from an A-class racing catamaran to a 10-metre racing yacht and a 24-foot 'family yacht' - on which I and my children spent nearly 10 years enjoying NY Eve-plus, in that area. I was at Hallets Beach (the next bay around from Cottage point) BEFORE I was born (don't ask, Mother with a couple of glasses of Scotch as source). I have enjoyed NY Eve more than 10 times at Refuge Bay, and there are hundreds of boats everywhere around that area for NY Eve, it's almost magical..

 

The wind patterns in that area, are something that you cannot understand (let alone predict) unless you have years of experience of every situation. Intuition, or even 'common sense', just do not apply.

 

An example: the entrance to Refuge Bay - which is just east of Cottage Point. See: Google Maps > Refuge Bay

 

Look at the map in Satellite View for a better understanding of the topography.

 

If you look at the topography, you would expect the mid-point between the headlands to be the area of true wind. In fact, (and I have sailed that area literally hundreds of times), it is invariably a circle of dead air; in order to pass it, one adjusts one's track either to the West or the East close to the headlands depending on your desired track and the prevailing wind. Sail into the middle and you will stall in the water and slowly go through 360, or more.

 

The cleanest track for a T/O from Cottage Point is to head around 075 -080 for the wider area of the upper end of Broken Bay. From a T/O from Cottage Point, turning left into a valley that swiftly narrows and is surrounded by higher land from the north (in particular), invites encountering descending air, tumbling over the steep terrain and possibly inverting its direction due to curl-over the high-points. As an RFS person, I am very well experienced in judging wind direction from terrain features, and I have first-person experience of planning back-burns against the prevailing wind with reference to the local terrain.

 

With all respect to the competency of the pilot in this instance, I believe that it is impossible to get a comprehensive knowledge of the intricacies of the local wind patterns around that area by just a few minutes per flight. I personally would not fly anything there below around 500 feet, even with my knowledge of the area.

 

 

[nomadpete]

Yes, sailing teaches a lot about the swirls and Eddie's around terrain. Some are predictable, some are not. Also there are sometimes sudden gusts that interrupt the relatively stable Eddie's, capable of giving momentary radical changes to apparent airspeed. It would not take much to align the Swiss cheese unpleasantly, especially when flight path options are restricted by steeply rising ground.