Crash at Caiguna today 16/12/22.

[BrendAn]

Condolences to the family of the pilot and his friends. 

[onetrack]

Quote

I guess Perth is 5 or 6 hours away (not checked distance).  Must have been comfortable to do that leg again.

I've got a figure of 477 NM between Perth and Caiguna (although I'd guess Serpentine, as the major RA base close to Perth, would have been his destination). With strong E/SE winds this time of year, it would be a quick trip.

 

Thanks to Ultralights for the "on-the-spot" information, and it's sad to hear he was virtually the last person the Jab pilot spoke to. I wish to extend my condolences to the pilots family and friends.

 

However, we're all still in the dark, as to the primary reason behind the crash.

Did the "poor condition" of the aircraft result in an EFATO? - or was the primary reason for the crash, simply due to unfavourable WX conditions, that led to LOC on takeoff?

 

There are many mechanical issues that could have developed as a result of a delaminated prop. It sounds like the pilot had lost confidence in his aircraft to provide reliable performance, and taking off again without the confidence provided by a complete mechanical checkover, is not something that anyone should be risking.

[JC4]

5 hours ago, onetrack said:

There are many mechanical issues that could have developed as a result of a delaminated prop. It sounds like the pilot had lost confidence in his aircraft to provide reliable performance, and taking off again without the confidence provided by a complete mechanical checkover, is not something that anyone should be risking.

Keep in mind the J160 took off fine, same hp and similar weight. the difference was that he kept flying into the wind to gain altitude before turning crosswind. The SK turned early at low altitude, basically a tailwind (15-20kts) because the wind came from ESE. I keep wondering if those mechanical repairs was done correctly or if something was overlooked, not sure if we’ll know without a proper investigation, and I guess we’re not going to get one? 

[turboplanner]

3 minutes ago, JC4 said:

Keep in mind the J160 took off fine, same hp and similar weight. the difference was that he kept flying into the wind to gain altitude before turning crosswind. The SK turned early at low altitude, basically a tailwind (15-20kts) because the wind came from ESE. I keep wondering if those mechanical repairs was done correctly or if something was overlooked, not sure if we’ll know without a proper investigation, and I guess we’re not going to get one? 

What makes you say that?

 

[onetrack]

The isolation of the crash position is not conducive to the carrying out of a thorough investigation. 

[onetrack]

Quote

The SK turned early at low altitude

Isn't this manoueuvre also referred to as "the impossible turn"? With a suspect, seemingly aged powerplant, with a recent delaminated prop episode, why would you risk a turn at low altitude right after takeoff?

[poteroo]

48 minutes ago, onetrack said:

Isn't this manoueuvre also referred to as "the impossible turn"? With a suspect, seemingly aged powerplant, with a recent delaminated prop episode, why would you risk a turn at low altitude right after takeoff?

No, the so called 'impossible'  turn is through 180° back to the runway. 

 

The safest turn from upwind is into wind. Forget about always going left. You can  sensibly call 'making RH turn after takeoff'  on Multicom and that would be understood by anyone. 

 

What price reducing risk?

[Thruster88]

From the information we have there may be similarities with this accident.

 

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2016/aair/ao-2016-112

 

Mechanical turbulence, stress etc.

 

As Poteroo said, it would have been prudent to keep the nose pointing into wind while climbing to an altitude that would have allowed for a turn back into wind in the event of an engine failure.

 

With a 20knot wind we have the choice of landing that aircraft at 25 or 65 knots of ground speed. There is 7 times the energy in the down wind landing option, not good. 

[Yenn]

What is this talk of of keeping the nose into the wind. Once you are airborn, you are flying in a block of air which is travelling at wind speed. Forget the ground beneath you it will only befuddle the pilots who do not understand how they fly.

[turboplanner]

10 minutes ago, Yenn said:

What is this talk of of keeping the nose into the wind. Once you are airborn, you are flying in a block of air which is travelling at wind speed. Forget the ground beneath you it will only befuddle the pilots who do not understand how they fly.

Correct while you're flying, but if the engine stops and you're going to come down in some rough stuff better to come down into wind, than risk getting having turned downwind, which supports the rule "EFATO = MAX 30 degrees either way"

[FlyBoy1960]

15 minutes ago, Yenn said:

What is this talk of of keeping the nose into the wind. Once you are airborn, you are flying in a block of air which is travelling at wind speed. Forget the ground beneath you it will only befuddle the pilots who do not understand how they fly.

Yes it shows just how little people really understand, its the most basic part of your training but people just dont understand

[facthunter]

Very few have done many down wind landings in their training and it's not the best time to learn when you're doing it for real. This is a general comment. WE don't know what applied here. Near the ground expect some windshear in the lower levels. Higher you are closer to freestream and near the ground dependent on roughness and shrub a lesser headwind effect. Reverse effect when descending. Landing INTO a strong headwind lessens the energy you  must dissipate by a large amount due to the LOWER groundspeed

[Thruster88]

58 minutes ago, Yenn said:

What is this talk of of keeping the nose into the wind. Once you are airborn, you are flying in a block of air which is travelling at wind speed. Forget the ground beneath you it will only befuddle the pilots who do not understand how they fly.

I totally agree the aircraft doesn't care about turning down wind. There is no such thing as the down wind turn stall,

Aircraft can turn down wind with total safety.

 

What does matter is flying down wind in dodgy aircraft in strong wind with insufficient altitude to get the aircraft turned back into wind for a landing following loss of thrust.

 

PS the down wind turn is a myth. Hope this is clear enough.  

 

 

[facthunter]

Apart from the windshear and the visual illusions, Yes.

[onetrack]

We have not been told which direction the Jabiru SK that crashed took off in. One would presume that he took off to the NE, because that direction provides a far less vegetated area, for a less-eventful forced landing - even though that direction takes the aircraft nearly over the roadhouse, and associated buildings.

If he took off to the SW, then that direction contains much more heavy vegetation, including some sizeable mallee trees - which would make a forced landing much less survivable.

Regardless, the prevailing wind was almost at 90° to the airstrip, which meant that to turn into the wind, to try and gain altitude, would involve a turn of 90°.

But at the end of the day, with all the signs the engine power output was far less than acceptable (lack of altitude gain) - then a turn of any type, with the associated increased power requirement, or loss of airspeed, is the last thing he should have been doing.

He could have taken off to the NE - and if the altitude gain was completely unsatisfactory - there's no reason why he could not have made a successful forced landing without turning, into a large area that contains little more than low shrubs.

 

Edited December 19, 2022 by onetrack

[kiwiaviator]

Has anyone seen any official release of the pilots name? I can't find anything including WAPOL media releases? (NOTE If you know the pilots name and it hasn't been released officially, please don't post on here)

[onetrack]

I have not discovered anywhere, where the deceased pilots name has been publically released.

[onetrack]

I have just discovered that the West Australian newspaper updated its article about the crash, to state that the aircraft "took off in a Westerly direction". This means he departed in a South Westerly direction, and over the heavier type of vegetation in every direction in front of him - thus making any forced landing highly problematic.

 

I fail to understand a lot of the decisions made by this pilot, it seems that nearly every decision he made, was wrong - apart from the initial decision to abandon the ferry flight.

[turboplanner]

44 minutes ago, onetrack said:

I have just discovered that the West Australian newspaper updated its article about the crash, to state that the aircraft "took off in a Westerly direction". This means he departed in a South Westerly direction, and over the heavier type of vegetation in every direction in front of him - thus making any forced landing highly problematic.

 

I fail to understand a lot of the decisions made by this pilot, it seems that nearly every decision he made, was wrong - apart from the initial decision to abandon the ferry flight.

North of Caiguna/strip is open country, south is scrub and dangerous, so I wouldn't be planning any circuits over the scrub. Photo xCaiguna shows the strip and Highway, xOpen is the land north of the highway, xscrub is south of the highway. The definition is not good enough to decide whether the Open area is landable, but it would only be about 30 degrees from the takeoff line.

 

(The strip is in the picture, one of the patches just SW of the roadhouse.)

Edited December 19, 2022 by turboplanner

[kgwilson]

It is a pretty decent strip of 1265 metres according to Mr Google. The best place to land is on the Eyre highway or to the North where there is no scrub. To the South West though there are quite a few clear patches. One is about 3km from the runway and is about 1100 metres long in the same direction as the runway. If you had some height this would be quite possible but without it in this direction your choices are very limited.

[Garfly]

2 hours ago, onetrack said:

Regardless, the prevailing wind was almost at 90° to the airstrip, which meant that to turn into the wind, to try and gain altitude, would involve a turn of 90°.

But this comes back to Yenn's objection.  I have to say, I'm not familiar with the principle of turning 'into the wind' - once airborne - to gain altitude.  I'd have thought that once you're in the wind, there's no turning into the wind.

[RFguy]

***...If once airborne, you turn into the wind (if say, 30 deg left of the TO roll + runway direction) , your ground speed will be minimized, and thus distance from  the strip will be minimized.  And , if you decide not to turn around (for whatever reason) and choose to go straight ahead, the track into the wind  will result in the lowest ground speed when you touch down , so it might hurt less.

 

There are of course many variables. Generally we'll not deviate from the runway heading until at least 500 feet, and of course never turn counter circuit direction < 1500' .  So the above is a 'special case'. Anyhow cannot plan for EFATO so good reason to KNOW what the wind direction is on TO roll.

Edited December 19, 2022 by RFguy

[facthunter]

EFATO general advice  is to not turn unless into a more headwind situation and /or avoid major obstacles and don't lose control of the aircraft.  Nev

Edited December 19, 2022 by facthunter

[Blueadventures]

5 minutes ago, RFguy said:

***EFATO....If once airborne, you turn into the wind (if say, 30 deg left of the TO roll + runway direction) , your ground speed will be minimized, and thus distance from  the strip will be minimized.  And , if you decide not to turn around (for whatever reason) and choose to go straight ahead, the track into the wind  will result in the lowest ground speed when you touch down , so it might hurt less.

 

There are of course many variables. Generally we'll all not deviate from the runway heading until at least 500 feet, and of course never turn counter circuit direction < 1500' .  So the above is a 'special case'

Agree, had started to write same, thanks.  Where we get a hint is when airborne with moderate crosswind and no correction made into wind you drift the direction the wind is blowing to.   Usually experience this early in learning when the conditions exist.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Blueadventures

[Thruster88]

11 minutes ago, Garfly said:

But this comes back to Yenn's objection.  I have to say, I'm not familiar with the principle of turning 'into the wind' - once airborne - to gain altitude.  I'd have thought that once you're in the wind, there's no turning into the wind.

It is not to gain altitude, that doesn't happen although an increased climb gradient will result. My comment was based on the assumption that both aircraft took off on 04 with the wind SE and turned left one normally and the accident aircraft very low. If flying an aircraft you had little confidence in you would be thinking of maximizing your chances if a forced landing was required by flying straight  or turning right in to the very strong wind until gaining sufficient altitude to allow manoeuvring.  

 

 

 

.