light plane crash in Wangaratta, northeastern Victoria, this morning.

[Guest jabiru]

A pilot in his 70s and his male passenger have walked away from a light plane crash in Wangaratta, northeastern Victoria, this morning.

 

The plane crashed from three metres in the air when taking-off from Wangaratta Airport about 10.30am.

 

While the two men managed to walk away, the plane was destroyed when it burst into flames and caused a grassfire.

 

The pilot was taken to hospital for observation, an Ambulance Victoria spokesman said.

 

It's understood engine failure caused the right wing of plane to hit the ground when landing, causing the aircraft to spin.

 

With AAP

 

© Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2016

 

Read more at Two people walk away from plane crash in regional Victoria

 

 

[Oscar]

Great that there are no injuries.

 

An Esqual... engine unknown, but Esquals were distributed by a Bert Flood company, so possibly a Rotax. However, they also accepted Jab. engines.

 

The strip at Wangaratta is 1640 metres, from ERSA. The Esqual publicity says t/o to 15 metres obstacle, 138 metres: less than half that of a Foxbat A22! ( I personally believe that is utter BS, but then I am a cynic). BUT: if it is correct, then there would have been well more than 1K of strip on which to put down. The landing distance in the Esqual PR blurb - from over a 15 metres obstacle - is 200 metres (also less than a Foxbat).

 

SO: why does an engine failure at 3 metres off the deck, with maybe 5 times the potential required landing distance directly in front of it, result in a major crash landing ending in a ball of flame?

 

The mop-up of this, with the health hazards of combusted carbon fibre, will not be cheap.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Great that there are no injuries.An Esqual... engine unknown, but Esquals were distributed by a Bert Flood company, so possibly a Rotax. However, they also accepted Jab. engines.

 

The strip at Wangaratta is 1640 metres, from ERSA. The Esqual publicity says t/o to 15 metres obstacle, 138 metres: less than half that of a Foxbat A22! ( I personally believe that is utter BS, but then I am a cynic). BUT: if it is correct, then there would have been well more than 1K of strip on which to put down. The landing distance in the Esqual PR blurb - from over a 15 metres obstacle - is 200 metres (also less than a Foxbat).

 

SO: why does an engine failure at 3 metres off the deck, with maybe 5 times the potential required landing distance directly in front of it, result in a major crash landing ending in a ball of flame?

 

The mop-up of this, with the health hazards of combusted carbon fibre, will not be cheap.

First thing to do in an engine failure is get the nose down to maintain airspeed. At three metres and possibly just above the stall you would want bloody quick reactions and even then once the nose is down you are heading for the ground which is only 3 metres away. Yep I can see the potential for a major crash. Guy probably would have had more chance at 100' but then I wasn't there so I am only guessing.

 

 

[red750]

This looks like the plane involved, rego ending 44 recently in Aviation Advertiser.

 

 

 

[Oscar]

Geoff: this may well display my lack of experience of power flying, but at 3 metres, I am putting the nose down to gain airspeed...

 

 

[Piet Fil]

From the Aviation Advertiser ad ... It had a Rotax 100hp engine with around 130hrs on it.

 

 

[Geoff13]

Oscar I am not going to switch my engine off to check but I would suspect that most of our RAA aircraft, a total power loss at 3 mteres would have you on the ground well before you had time to react. In most cases you would be in ground effect building airspeed.

 

 

[Kyle Communications]

ABC interview with the pax ...he said they lifted off and the wing dropped and they crashed...no mention of any engine failure...most likely hauled it off the ground 2 up

 

 

[gibby]

Great that there are no injuries.An Esqual... engine unknown, but Esquals were distributed by a Bert Flood company, so possibly a Rotax. However, they also accepted Jab. engines.

 

The strip at Wangaratta is 1640 metres, from ERSA. The Esqual publicity says t/o to 15 metres obstacle, 138 metres: less than half that of a Foxbat A22! ( I personally believe that is utter BS, but then I am a cynic). BUT: if it is correct, then there would have been well more than 1K of strip on which to put down. The landing distance in the Esqual PR blurb - from over a 15 metres obstacle - is 200 metres (also less than a Foxbat).

 

SO: why does an engine failure at 3 metres off the deck, with maybe 5 times the potential required landing distance directly in front of it, result in a major crash landing ending in a ball of flame?

 

The mop-up of this, with the health hazards of combusted carbon fibre, will not be cheap.

Runway 27, grass 530m, aircraft was about 130m from end of runway, passenger was a big guy, over 100kg, I did not see the accident but did see the result. Rotax powered and yep nothing to salvage (maybe a strobe light)

 

 

[gibby]

ABC interview with the pax ...he said they lifted off and the wing dropped and they crashed...no mention of any engine failure...most likely hauled it off the ground 2 up

There was talk of a fuel problem earlier (unconfirmed report) but if that was the case why would you take up a passenger of a short ruway

 

 

[gibby]

Great that there are no injuries.An Esqual... engine unknown, but Esquals were distributed by a Bert Flood company, so possibly a Rotax. However, they also accepted Jab. engines.

 

The strip at Wangaratta is 1640 metres, from ERSA. The Esqual publicity says t/o to 15 metres obstacle, 138 metres: less than half that of a Foxbat A22! ( I personally believe that is utter BS, but then I am a cynic). BUT: if it is correct, then there would have been well more than 1K of strip on which to put down. The landing distance in the Esqual PR blurb - from over a 15 metres obstacle - is 200 metres (also less than a Foxbat).

 

SO: why does an engine failure at 3 metres off the deck, with maybe 5 times the potential required landing distance directly in front of it, result in a major crash landing ending in a ball of flame?

 

The mop-up of this, with the health hazards of combusted carbon fibre, will not be cheap.

Runway 27, grass 530m, there was about 120m of runway left

 

 

[SSCBD]

If above is correct - at three meters above ground - engine failure - with wing down - it seems stalled - in ground effect - nothing you could really do. Pan cake in - stick back - not forward. You start to run out of elevator authority

 

Its one where guessing what happened above at the moment, till all the real fact come in.

 

My humble opinion.

 

 

[Blueadventures]

Runway 27, grass 530m, aircraft was about 130m from end of runway, passenger was a big guy, over 100kg, I did not see the accident but did see the result. Rotax powered and yep nothing to salvage (maybe a strobe light)

What was in front at 130 meters that he would have had to get up and over? a fence , scrub ?

 

 

[gibby]

Yes there is a fence and then probably 300 to 400 meters there are power lines, beyond the runway the terrain has a slight incline. Words from the passenger is that the engine was still at full power when they came to rest and no mention of failure

 

 

[facthunter]

Could be a willy willy. They are always around. You don't see them unless dust or cut grass, leaves indicate their presence. Nev

 

 

[Yenn]

How about we wait for some real information. This sort of thing should not happen with anything other than a meteorological event or a mechanical failure and I don't mean engine failure.

 

 

[gibby]

Could be a willy willy. They are always around. You don't see them unless dust or cut grass, leaves indicate their presence. Nev

Maybe a little early in the morning for a willy willy

 

 

[gibby]

How about we wait for some real information. This sort of thing should not happen with anything other than a meteorological event or a mechanical failure and I don't mean engine failure.

You will be waiting a while, Raa and no injuries so the word is no investigation. There was a fly in at YWGT on Sunday and quite a few aircraft which were parked at the start of runway 27 so I doubt whether his takeoff roll started at the full length of the runway and the fence gets bigger quickly at takeoff speed

 

 

[Jabiru7252]

He was probably in 'WTF mode" between the engine failure and hitting the ground. The WTF mode lasts a few seconds and it sounds like he did not have a few seconds to act. Even the best of us have WTF mode when things fly to bits.

 

 

[SDQDI]

He was probably in 'WTF mode" between the engine failure and hitting the ground. The WTF mode lasts a few seconds and it sounds like he did not have a few seconds to act. Even the best of us have WTF mode when things fly to bits.

There seems to be a couple of posts that say there was NOT an engine failure, no doubt there was still a wtf mode but maybe not due to lack of engine power.

 

 

[facthunter]

IF you don't have an engine failure you have an airspeed problem, generally, when a plane drops a wing. It could be other things like an assymetrical flap failure. If it's all burnt it makes it much harder to determine. . Normal climb out speeds have a good margin above stall and unless you have a near obstacle to clear you can always climb a bit faster without losing much rate of climb. You will reduce the angle though. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

Sounds like a W&B issue.

 

 

[Nobags]

Could "it" have been an accelerated stall?

 

 

[Mike Borgelt]

We are all familiar with the concept of take off safety speed aren't we? Do you know what it so for your aircraft at various weights?

 

 

[turboplanner]

We are all familiar with the concept of take off safety speed aren't we? Do you know what it so for your aircraft at various weights?

And we do our sums to ensure we have enough runway for the fuel, load, altitude and temperature don't we.