Skydiving plane crashes near Geelong 20/10/2023

[red750]

A skydiving plane with 17 persons on board has crashed near Geelong this morning. Two people treated for non-life threatening injuries. Limited info, but from the chopper video, it appears that the engine of the blue high winged aircraft had almost been ripped off. Could not identify aircraft type.

[IBob]

PAC 750-XL?

Initial reports say it ran off the runway.

Edited October 19, 2023 by IBob

[onetrack]

VH-UMV, a Cessna 208, PT6A powered. This time, it actually was a Cessna!  6 Pax taken to hospital with non-life-threatening injuries.

 

https://www.bay939.com.au/local-news/investigation-into-aircraft-failure/

 

The same aircraft suffered engine failure on 31/12/2009 at Cairns, when compressor turbine blades failed. It had been fitted with aftermarket compressor turbine blades that were restricted in their application, and not approved for use in that engine variant.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-005

 

Edited October 20, 2023 by onetrack

[cooperplace]

Skydiving operations scare me. Do they wear seatbelts? The passenger seats would have been removed to fit 17, which seems a lot for a 208.

Well done to the pilot.

Edited October 20, 2023 by cooperplace

[red750]

Interesting reading those two reports linked in Onetrack's post that both engine failures occurred passing through 12,500 ft.

[onetrack]

The engine failure event mentioned in both links is the same engine failure event.

[cooperplace]

It was reported elsewhere that they were at 500 ft. If at 12.500 they would probably dump the cargo, and would have plenty of time to set up a nice landing on the strip, as happened at Cairns in 2009.

[facthunter]

Meat Bombing IS scary. There's no seats and they used to hang out on the strut of a C-182. It's all part of the scene.  Nev

[onetrack]

Error correction to my post above. Powerplant of this particular aircraft is a Honeywell TPE331, not a PT6A.

[IBob]

27 minutes ago, facthunter said:

Meat Bombing IS scary. There's no seats and they used to hang out on the strut of a C-182. It's all part of the scene.  Nev

Furthermore, the load forms a scrum at the back of the pilot's seat to get the weight forward for takeoff....then shifts back and sits on the floor once the pilot gives the nod.
Or that's how it used to be......it's been a long while now..........)

[cooperplace]

21 minutes ago, IBob said:

 the load forms a scrum at the back of the pilot's seat to get the weight forward for takeoff....then shifts back and sits on the floor

Maybe that's what caused this crash? We don't know it to be an engine failure do we? The TPE331 is said to be very reliable.

 

Is this what caused the 2010 Fox Glacier crash? The more I hear about skydiving the more it scares me. There seems to be a different mindset in skydiving, too much left to chance.

[onetrack]

ABC News has updated the injury list to 7. One man in his 30's suffered serious upper body injuries and was flown to the Alfred Hospital in Melbourne, while 6 others were taken to a hospital in Geelong.

3 of this group of 6 have "serious" injuries and 3 more are being "assessed" for their level of injury.

 

Pax reported hearing a loud bang and the engine lost power. They apparently did not have enough altitude to consider parachuting out of the aircraft.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-10-20/plane-incident-at-barwon-heads/103001134

[IBob]

1 hour ago, cooperplace said:

Maybe that's what caused this crash? We don't know it to be an engine failure do we? The TPE331 is said to be very reliable.

 

Is this what caused the 2010 Fox Glacier crash? The more I hear about skydiving the more it scares me. There seems to be a different mindset in skydiving, too much left to chance.

We don't know.

NZ TAIC stuffed up their investigation, then had the wreckage buried just 3 days after the accident. Their conclusions were strongly challenged as time went by, and they eventually revised their position, saying that they were unable to establish the cause. Unfortunately, because the wreckage was bulldozed and buried, it was not possible to examine the controls etc when it was finally later exhumed.
A bad situation and one that left a very bad taste too.

[IBob]

Having said all that, Cooperplace, skydiving has never been particularly hazardous, principally because the jumper is intensely focused on what they are doing. It used to be said that you were more likely to get wiped out driving to the DZ than at the DZ, that was true.  And it is far safer now than it was back then, due to greatly  improved equipment design, reliability and ease of operation.

It does, however, suffer the same problem as aviation: when something does go wrong, it is all over the media.
And we will continue to see accidents. Though I am reliably informed that most of those nowadays are not freefall: they are jumpers under open and fully functioning high performance canopies who misjudge their landings.
 

[cooperplace]

Hi Bob,

Thanks, all good to know. You're right about the media. Years ago I attended the Swiss national 'diving championships and was impressed at how they could put one foot precisely on the target. However I have no desire to leap out of a perfectly good aircraft.

 

I would like to know how everyone is restrained during takeoff. Cheers

 

[IBob]

Cooperplace, I have not been involved in the sport for many years, so cannot claim to be well informed.

So far as I know, jumpers are (still) not restrained during takeoff. The principal reason for this would be that the seats are usually stripped out of the aircraft with the jumpers sitting on the floor. And I would think seat belts would cause more problems than they would prevent, the risk being damage, disturbance or snagging of the jump gear.

[cooperplace]

28 minutes ago, IBob said:

 

So far as I know, jumpers are (still) not restrained during takeoff.

That's what I was worried you'd say. I'd hate to be a pilot of one of these, knowing all 16 jumpers are hanging on by their fingernails. And if one comes loose they might dislodge the rest. This is what I thought happened in 2010, but I thought, surely this sport can't be that haphazard.

Edited October 20, 2023 by cooperplace

[facthunter]

The pilot is the biggest dill. Handling a plane close to stall and with massive drag on one side requiring a lot of rudder.  You can't have seat belts when there are NO seats. The only seat in the Plane is the pilot's. Jumpers get high on the risk and drive home at  a great speed just like people who have been to a car race do.  Nev

[IBob]

41 minutes ago, facthunter said:

The pilot is the biggest dill. Handling a plane close to stall and with massive drag on one side requiring a lot of rudder.  You can't have seat belts when there are NO seats. The only seat in the Plane is the pilot's. Jumpers get high on the risk and drive home at  a great speed just like people who have been to a car race do.  Nev

There I have to disagree with you, Nev.
It's a common if dated misconception that skydivers do what they do for the 'thrill'. They don't. They do it for the pure pleasure of flying.
The jumpers I knew came from all walks of life, and most were not risk takers: the odds were quite calculated.

I'm not sure what the physiological effects are, but I can certainly say one effect is to put many of life's minor problems and setbacks into perspective.
And after a good day, I would drive home at a very leisurely rate... many other jumpers I knew, In Australia and NZ, did the same.

PS the same happens for me now with flying: I find myself driving home at not much above my STOL over the fence speed.......)

[facthunter]

It's what I experienced. They were a different breed, and the women showed less fear than the men. They probably wouldn't know the name of the Pilot or care. AS long as you got them up and got down as quickly as possible. (Cheaply) you could be anybody.  Nev

[IBob]

At least we got to sit inside, Cooperplace..............)

[IBob]

I'm not convinced by the guy hanging off the prop.........seems a bit over the top. This is the image I was actually looking for:

[facthunter]

They are both.  feasible, The top one has the controls in about the right position. Neither plane would be easy to fly. The absence of slipstream effect is a bit  hard to account for on The lower one.  Nev

[onetrack]

They're both faked photos. What would they be hanging onto, to be able to stay there in a 120 kt slipstream? Nothing, the fuselage doesn't have convenient handles on it, it's smooth. Anyone who's been in a 120 kt slipstream knows what a massive buffeting you get. 

[facthunter]

It would be near stall slipstream a bit over 1/2 what you quote.. Nev