Light plane crash south west of Sydney 24 Jan 2024.

[farri]

Heartbreaking details emerge after teen pilot killed in plane crash near Sydney | 7NEWS

[RFguy]

from the article. "Aircraft engineer Peter Marosszeky" says you need 25 hours at 16yo . that's a crock of sh1t.  Many kids  go solo 8 to 16 hours and dont fall out of the sky.  It's the old guys that need  lots of hours.   Now, the instructor's  appraisal and evaluation, that is something different. I'd done quite a few glide approaches, and simulated engine failures  (including upwind )  by the time I had my first solo, so I was prepared for  say, an engine failure in circuit. 

 

Edited January 26 by RFguy

[FlyingVizsla]

The report is incorrect in some respects.  He would not have been going solo for his RPC in a VH plane.  I suspect he did his RPC because he could start earlier and was then transitioning to VH & PPL and would have had flights with his instructor in the C172.  He would have lots more flying experience in ultralights.  My money is on a catastrophic failure, like the seat rolling back just when turning base (instinct is to pull on the yoke as it rolls back) and then into a nose high stall.  Something like that.  So sad for the young man.

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, FlyingVizsla said:

The report is incorrect in some respects.  He would not have been going solo for his RPC in a VH plane.  I suspect he did his RPC because he could start earlier and was then transitioning to VH & PPL and would have had flights with his instructor in the C172.  He would have lots more flying experience in ultralights.  My money is on a catastrophic failure, like the seat rolling back just when turning base (instinct is to pull on the yoke as it rolls back) and then into a nose high stall.  Something like that.  So sad for the young man.

You're possibly right about the seat, but there's already another thread going which conflicts with this one indicating he was qualified in RA and starting training in GA, hence flying the Cessna.

Edited January 26 by turboplanner

[FlyingVizsla]

1 minute ago, turboplanner said:

he was qualified in RA and starting training in GA

That's what I was saying.  The report makes out he had never flown solo before and had very little flying experience.  It looks like he had more than the usual PPL soloist. 

 

I don't know all the background to this, so I am only speculating that this was a highly motivated lad who (possibly) came from a flying background, who was aiming for a career as a pilot, was moving through RPC, to PPL to CPL as quickly as able.  At least ATSB will be thorough and we will get some answers.

[old man emu]

In another thread here, someone suggested that it may have been something so simple as the seat becoming unlocked and sliding back. If the pilot had accrued the 40 hours in RAA types before going over to the C-172, one could surmise that those hours were in a Jabiru. That aircraft doesn't have the adjustable seat positioning that the C-172 has. Could the cause have been the simple failure to ensure that the seat was locked to the support rails? 

[turboplanner]

4 minutes ago, old man emu said:

In another thread here, someone suggested that it may have been something so simple as the seat becoming unlocked and sliding back. If the pilot had accrued the 40 hours in RAA types before going over to the C-172, one could surmise that those hours were in a Jabiru. That aircraft doesn't have the adjustable seat positioning that the C-172 has. Could the cause have been the simple failure to ensure that the seat was locked to the support rails? 

Yes it could. I've been in one a few times and never given the seat lock a thought. From previous investigation reports the seat generally slides back in the climb out and you are left with nothing to grab or reach, so loss of control is earlier in the circuit than this one. From other discussions its sounding like a possible issue with the aircraft.

[FlyingVizsla]

As a Cessna owner, I remember an AD (years ago) about seat pins after several accidents and near misses.  The issue should have been "fixed", but it is a mechanism that is simple and easy to use.  You pull the pin, roll the seat forward and release the pin and wiggle to let the pin align with the seat rail holes.  Being short, the seat was full forward for me and I had Seat on my checklist to ensure the pin had engaged.

 

I still think it was something with the aircraft.  I feel for the Instructor, LAME, Flying School, family and others who will be under scrutiny and are asking themselves if they should have done more.

[Thruster88]

Very unlikely the seat slid back. All Cessnas have a secondary seat stop fitted now. Checking this and the seat rails is done at each annual. ADSB data shows the aircraft pitching down not up.

[kgwilson]

I've had a C172 seat rail give way on me nearly 30 years ago & that was on climb out so the seat just went straight back. I was lucky. I grabbed at the padded part of the panel & managed to  get the nose down. in this case I can't see this as a cause given he was turning on to base so would be S&L or even descending.

[onetrack]

Teenagers brains are still only half developed, as evidenced by their often stupid behaviour. They have fast reflexes, but are extraordinarily impulsive. In addition, they lack experience and maturity which better enables rapid assessment of impending danger.

It's speculation, pure and simple, but the crash could have been caused by the teenager dropping his phone onto the floor of the aircraft and making a grab for it, or an extended attempt to recover it, and losing control right at a critical moment, when 100% attention was required for flying the aircraft.

[turboplanner]

54 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Teenagers brains are still only half developed, as evidenced by their often stupid behaviour. They have fast reflexes, but are extraordinarily impulsive. In addition, they lack experience and maturity which better enables rapid assessment of impending danger.

It's speculation, pure and simple, but the crash could have been caused by the teenager dropping his phone onto the floor of the aircraft and making a grab for it, or an extended attempt to recover it, and losing control right at a critical moment, when 100% attention was required for flying the aircraft.

Quite possible, that's another thing to look for in the wreckage. 

[old man emu]

Let's give the poor kid a bit of credit. He's supposed to have had 40 hours experience, and it's pretty sure that he had soloed in another type long before this. While I could see a teenager of today on a very first solo being likely to want to Tik Tok the flight, this young person would probably be a bit blase about a flight that could possibly have been a simple type endorsement sort of flight. Afterall, how many of us have gained experience in a more simple plane like a basic C-172, then later trained for an CSU/Retractable endorsement?  You do the training with the instructor who confirms that you know how to push and pull the levers correctly, then the instructor sends you off for a couple of hours of circuits and bumps to get more practice.

 

My money is on something simple going amiss, like the seat coming loose. There's plenty of places for forced landings around that airport if there was a need for one due to power loss.

[FlyingVizsla]

As a teenager, he is more likely to have video going to record the solo for the social media feed and to critique the experience.  If so, ATSB will have some more to work with.

[old man emu]

1 minute ago, FlyingVizsla said:

As a teenager, he is more likely to have video going to record the solo for the social media feed and to critique the experience.  

While that statement is likely to be statistically correct, there will always be outriders in the data used to determine the statistical distribution. Those outriders range from "not bloody likely" to be videoing, to "never do anything without videoing" 

 

I don't know who the person was, but, based on the person's reported previous aeronautical experience, I think they'll find his phone back in the briefing room.

[kgwilson]

 A first solo is one circuit only. Some instructors may approve more I don't know but one is normal. This however was not a first solo, it was just a first solo on type. This was though on the first circuit solo for this person in this type.. i do hope that the cause is established as from data provided so far it was not the classic stall turn on to base or final. I reckon it is more likely to be a mechanical or some airframe issue than something the pilot did.

[Litespeed]

I agree, more likely a airframe issue or possibly a engine or prop failure.

 

Looking at the crash site, he came in fast and fairly steep. The tracks on the ground are short for a simple engine out, but it's still in a straight line. It doesn't appear a turn stall or a power off stall.

 

I could be wrong, either way truly tragic for all.

 

I give the young bloke the benefit of doubt and hope they find the actual cause.

 

At least it's GA so the ATSB will have to investigate.

 

Bloody awful,  RIP

[Thruster88]

At the commencement of the base turn the adsb data is showing 79 knots ground speed and 1500 baro altitude. Shortly after plus 50 knots and 800 feet lost.

 

[RFguy]

Fortunately, being VH- , the aircraft maint records will be combed over , the aircraft inspected within an inch of its life etc etc

 

and the wind at the time 3:10pm local  was ... dunno cant see back that far, suspect (S) easterly component.  Instructor would not send him  up if it was appreciably windy. 

 

For the crash to have happened there, smells of base turn stall spin. if he's had engine trouble surely he'd head back toward the RWY downwind ?

over the ground there he was only 700 ' above it.  airport is at  250' .  I've never done a circuit at Camden , are their optical / ground proximity tricks that play with your perception  in the hills down that corner ?

 

Can't really comment further until maintenance/condition info  produced.  

 

[skippydiesel]

Seems to me that that is an extraordinarily wide/long circuit - the pilot may have been having problems quite early on in the flight

[RFguy]

Possible skippy  that he had a big NE tail wind?  hence ending up with a very deep downwind  if he was not lookin gback at the strip ?  (and resulting low airspeed even though 79 kts ground speed, but that would be a 30 kts tailwind to have a '172 run out of lift in cruise, well more than that because the aircraft would have been low in weight so perhaps 35kts tail   , not sure I buy that, instructor wouldnt send him up in the wind) .  so, no I am begginning not to buy the stall spin cause.  unless he got disorientated, distracted started looking  around and didnt take care of the ASI....

Edited January 27 by RFguy

[KRviator]

Quote

and the wind at the time 3:10pm local  was ... dunno cant see back that far, suspect (S) easterly component.  Instructor would not send him  up if it was appreciably windy. 

The 1500 Camden AWIS a few minutes prior to the accident was out of the northwest at 9 gusting 13, so almost direct crosswind (Though the BoM records now show it as 8 knots, not a meaningful change really, but I note it on the grounds of accuracy). That being the case, GS would be almost identical to IAS on the downwind leg, if not slightly lower than indicated. Given there's no reduction of GS to anything resembling stall speed for a lightweight 172, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he didn't stall it or spin in. Compare the ADS-B data here with that from the Gundaroo prang, they're markedly different.

It's a weird one, it almost looks like the beginning of a spiral dive, but I can't begin to fathom what would cause that at the base turn. 

Quote

Seems to me that that is an extraordinarily wide/long circuit - the pilot may have been having problems quite early on in the flight

 

ADS-B Exchange shows it to be within 150m or so of two previous circuits conducted by the same plane earlier that morning. Not sure if it was the same student or not, but I'm wondering if they turn Crosswind early due to a noise abatement restriction on overflying Wivenhoe Village, so rather than 500' upwind, turn, climb to 1,000, turn, they turn early causing a longer-than-normal crosswind leg, pushing the downwind leg further away from the runway than would normally be the case. Any Camden-based folks able to comment?

One thing I did note was he was 200' high throughout his downwind leg. ERSA says 1,300' but he flew downwind at 1,500.

[turboplanner]

Note from the first photo of Post #1 how he hit the ground then how far he skidded  indicating substantial momentum in the hit - finish direction.

[Roundsounds]

1 hour ago, KRviator said:

The 1500 Camden AWIS a few minutes prior to the accident was out of the northwest at 9 gusting 13, so almost direct crosswind (Though the BoM records now show it as 8 knots, not a meaningful change really, but I note it on the grounds of accuracy). That being the case, GS would be almost identical to IAS on the downwind leg, if not slightly lower than indicated. Given there's no reduction of GS to anything resembling stall speed for a lightweight 172, I'm going to go out on a limb and say he didn't stall it or spin in. Compare the ADS-B data here with that from the Gundaroo prang, they're markedly different.

It's a weird one, it almost looks like the beginning of a spiral dive, but I can't begin to fathom what would cause that at the base turn. 

ADS-B Exchange shows it to be within 150m or so of two previous circuits conducted by the same plane earlier that morning. Not sure if it was the same student or not, but I'm wondering if they turn Crosswind early due to a noise abatement restriction on overflying Wivenhoe Village, so rather than 500' upwind, turn, climb to 1,000, turn, they turn early causing a longer-than-normal crosswind leg, pushing the downwind leg further away from the runway than would normally be the case. Any Camden-based folks able to comment?

One thing I did note was he was 200' high throughout his downwind leg. ERSA says 1,300' but he flew downwind at 1,500.

You do realise the ADSB returns are based on pressure height? The QNH at 3pm was 1007, therefore you need to take approx 180’ off the ADSB pressure height return to get an altitude.

[RFguy]

KG  said :  "One thing I did note was he was 200' high throughout his downwind leg. ERSA says 1,300' but he flew downwind at 1,500."

BUT !  But that's just baro pressure, not adjusted for QNH. either he didnt have is altimeter QNH corrected or the QNH departed substantially from the calibrated). In a transponder, you dont tell it what the QNH is of course.  It assumes ISA for altitude 

 

I dont know ith Flight Radar etc adjust for local QNH like ATC radar screens do.