Jump to content
  • Welcome to Recreational Flying!
    A compelling community experience for all aviators
    Intuitive, Social, Engaging...Registration is FREE.
    Register Log in
red750

Two dead in Mount Isa plane crash on Sunday

Recommended Posts

Two men have died in a plane crash in Queensland's north-west.

 

Police believe the Cessna 210, which is registered to a NSW company, crashed about 26 kilometres north-east of Mount Isa Airport on Sunday afternoon.

 

About 4.30pm, a rescue helicopter crew told police the plane's wreckage had been found after a distress beacon was activated.

 

"It is believed two men were on-board at the time of the incident and pronounced deceased at the scene," police said.

 

The forensic crash unit is helping the Australian Transport Safety Bureau with its investigation.

 

In a statement on Sunday night, the ATSB said the light plane had been conducting a survey flight when it had an accident.

 

Brisbane Times.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Media is reporting the aircraft was a Thompson avation geophysical survey company 210

Condolences to all who knew the crew

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know a bloke who had an engine fail at 200' in a C206 flying survey on a downwind run near Kalgoorlie. Just happened to be a dirt track in the right place at the right time..... and put it down without a scratch.

Sometimes you get lucky but not this time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Know a bloke who had an engine fail at 200' in a C206 flying survey on a downwind run near Kalgoorlie. Just happened to be a dirt track in the right place at the right time..... and put it down without a scratch.

Sometimes you get lucky but not this time.

So far there’’s nothing to say whether this is an engine failure gone wrong, fuel exhaustion, cloud, turbulence, hitting a tree, hill by accident etc. A C210 has quite a lot more work load and less time to do things than the basic C172 so it’s very easy to get behind the aircraft, particularly down low where prop pitch changes, gear etc were added work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So far there’’s nothing to say whether this is an engine failure gone wrong, fuel exhaustion, cloud, turbulence, hitting a tree, hill by accident etc. A C210 has quite a lot more work load and less time to do things than the basic C172 so it’s very easy to get behind the aircraft, particularly down low where prop pitch changes, gear etc were added work

Survey pilots are used to heavy workload. 210's are getting pretty long in the tooth and being heavily loaded with survey equipment and severe turbulence, my guess would be structural failure, depending on equipment 206 and 210 on survey are usually loaded over gross.

Survey should be flown with turbine aircraft not 40 year old worn out piston aircraft with 30,000+ hours and no aircon and cockpit temperatures of 45C+.

There are some modern machinery used for survey but not the norm

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Survey pilots are used to heavy workload. 210's are getting pretty long in the tooth and being heavily loaded with survey equipment and severe turbulence, my guess would be structural failure, depending on equipment 206 and 210 on survey are usually loaded over gross.

Survey should be flown with turbine aircraft not 40 year old worn out piston aircraft with 30,000+ hours and no aircon and cockpit temperatures of 45C+.

There are some modern machinery used for survey but not the norm

 

Very sad.

 

Zero information at the moment, so I would suggest that speculation is pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's usually too fast and too much aileron that brings them unstuck . They cruise at a high speed compared to the turbulence speeds. We are speculating if we get into details. If some of these are at 30,000 hours of airframe time I would say that's pushing your luck a bit as it's fairly thin tin so to speak. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Cessna 210 carry-through spar failure

 

 

The ATSB has published an update on its investigation into the collision with terrain of Cessna 210 VH-SUX near Mount Isa, Queensland, on 26 May.

 

alt=Right wing viewed from inboard end shttps://www.atsb.gov.au/media/5776401/ao2019026_update_wingspar_news.jpg[/img]

 

Evidence at the accident site indicated that the aircraft’s right wing had separated while in flight, resulting in a rapid loss of control and subsequent collision with terrain. The two pilots on board were fatally injured.

Subsequent technical examination confirmed the aircraft’s wing spar had fractured due to fatigue cracking, which reduced the spar’s structural integrity to the point where operational loads produced an overstress fracture.

“The ATSB has notified the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, the US National Transportation Safety Board, the aircraft manufacturer and operator of the initial finding of fatigue cracking with the wing spar carry-through structure,” ATSB Executive Director Nat Nagy said.

"The ATSB is working closely with those parties to ensure the continued safe operation of the the aircraft type."

The Cessna 210, which had been manufactured in 1976 and had accumulated over 12,000 flight hours, had been conducting a geological survey flight while flying at about 200 feet above ground level at the time of the accident.

The ATSB is working closely with those parties to ensure the continued safe operation of the the aircraft type.

The aircraft had been modified for geological survey work and had also been fitted with approved integral wing tip fuel tank and non-standard engine and propeller modifications.

“The ATSB notes that there is no evidence to indicate a connection between this accident and other recent investigations it has conducted involving this aircraft type,” Mr Nagy said.

  • Informative 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The ATSB notes that there is no evidence to indicate a connection between this accident and other recent investigations it has conducted involving this aircraft type,” Mr Nagy said.

 

I'm sure Mr Nagy needs to look into the ATSB files again! The Albany 210 crash involved a wing separation as did the Darwin 210 crash in TS conditions. If I remember correctly, there was an extensive discussion after both of these about the 210 being flown in rough air at way over its' Va speed. There are also more than a few accidents on the US NTSB records involving 210s and structural failure. Low level ops are more than likely to involve hours of continuous exposure to turbulence, often at IAS over or very near the Va speed. I'd be very apprehensive about flying a high hours, &/or, a 60s model 210 these days, especially on survey work - but I guess we become more risk averse with age.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm sure Mr Nagy needs to look into the ATSB files again! The Albany 210 crash involved a wing separation as did the Darwin 210 crash in TS conditions. If I remember correctly, there was an extensive discussion after both of these about the 210 being flown in rough air at way over its' Va speed. There are also more than a few accidents on the US NTSB records involving 210s and structural failure. Low level ops are more than likely to involve hours of continuous exposure to turbulence, often at IAS over or very near the Va speed. I'd be very apprehensive about flying a high hours, &/or, a 60s model 210 these days, especially on survey work - but I guess we become more risk averse with age.

The Albany and Darwin accident aircraft had no pre existing faults, this one did is what Mr Nagy is saying

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Albany and Darwin accident aircraft had no pre existing faults, this one did is what Mr Nagy is saying

Yes, I took it that a previous pilot had damaged the wing structure. Facthunter is correct. This is a complex aircraft requiring good management skills which can easily be flown outside it’s envelope. Unfortunately sometime people don’t report incidents or aerobatics and the next pilot and passengers pay the price. You could argue that a 206 would be a better choice but application doesn’t appear to be the cause here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss to understand this. Both previous accidents were due just to inflight forces - but this one was due solely to pre-existing damage from an earlier pilots' mismanagement? Please explain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm at a loss to understand this. Both previous accidents were due just to inflight forces - but this one was due solely to pre-existing damage from an earlier pilots' mismanagement? Please explain.

I fought anyone will confess now that this has happened.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I have to admit, and I am prepareed for the castigation, if it is a high-wing Cessna and it doesn't have struts, I don't get into it (unless aiframe hours are really low). But my petty prejudice is immaterial.. More people have sadly lost their lives and it has no doubt destroyed the lives of those left behind - my heartfelt condolences to them. But, there seems to be a pattern of higher houred strutless high wing Cessnas coming to grief through structural failure - is it time for the regulators to act?

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

I'm at a loss to understand this. Both previous accidents were due just to inflight forces - but this one was due solely to pre-existing damage from an earlier pilots' mismanagement? Please explain.

The cast aluminium spar carry through had a pre existing fatigue crack. I don't see this as being pilot induced. This aircraft spent half it's 12000 hours flying low level survey, we know the air is rough down low and normally smooth at cruise levels.

 

Pics here Investigation: AO-2019-026 - Collision with terrain involving Cessna 210, VH-SUX, 25 km NE Mount Isa Airport, Queensland on 26 May 2019

Edited by Thruster88

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wonder how much of a penalty in terms of speed , drag , range etc that struts would of added , I know the early 210's had them but they where a different aircraft , a lot is probably market driven with sleek look adding more sales and 10 knots faster than the competition etc ,

 

 

from AOPA site regarding looks , probably more to it though

 

"For 1967 the dowdy struts gave way to a new cantilever wing with 3 degrees of dihedral. Many pilots thought that these first strutless 210s looked funny, so Cessna reduced the dihedral angle by half for the 1969 model, necessitating a rudder-aileron interconnect to maintain suitable directional stability at low speeds. "

 

 

https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2014/11/crack-to-the-future/

 

"If you own a Cessna 210, you will still be able to fly your aircraft. The SIDs which look at the lower wing spar cap, if implemented into a proper maintenance program, will allow your aircraft to continue flying safely for up to 30,000 hours. It is a case of ‘do your inspection and get back to the future’. "

  • Informative 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In April 2012, Cessna received five reports from Australia about Cessna 210s detailing cracking in the wing spar. These 210s ranged from a (relatively) young 27-year-old to an elderly 39-year-old aircraft. In each case, severe cracking had occurred in the single main wing spar. This led the US Federal Aviation Administration to release an emergency airworthiness directive mandating an inspection of the lower wing spar cap to determine the spread of this problem. As a result of the mandatory inspection, two more instances of cracks were found in the 7000-plus Cessna 210 world-wide fleet. "

 

5 cracks in Australian 210s, just 2 in the rest of the world fleet?

That seems like very odd and disproportionate numbers???

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Plenty of aircraft fly with known cracks in critical areas. There has to be a system of inspections appropriate to the location and propagation of the cracks peculiar to and approved for that type of plane and how it's operated.. Aerobatic aircraft have a much tighter inspection schedule and lower life on critical structural components (and a "G" meter fitted), including such things as seats even. If an aircraft is over stressed such as a heavy landing, severe turbulence encounter in flight upset where normal loadings are exceeded, specific inspections are required before further flight unless a permit to fly is obtained essentially to ferry it somewhere for the purpose of inspecting further and repair. Even the strutted 210's had some problems. but generally they just got overloaded by maneuvering at above recommended speeds or entered severe turbulence areas. THEY tend to cruise at above turbulence penetration speeds. A lot of planes do. Nev

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"In April 2012, Cessna received five reports from Australia about Cessna 210s detailing cracking in the wing spar. These 210s ranged from a (relatively) young 27-year-old to an elderly 39-year-old aircraft. In each case, severe cracking had occurred in the single main wing spar. This led the US Federal Aviation Administration to release an emergency airworthiness directive mandating an inspection of the lower wing spar cap to determine the spread of this problem. As a result of the mandatory inspection, two more instances of cracks were found in the 7000-plus Cessna 210 world-wide fleet. "

 

5 cracks in Australian 210s, just 2 in the rest of the world fleet?

That seems like very odd and disproportionate numbers???

 

http://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/under/cessna210/CESSNA210-061.pdf

 

Cheers,

 

Jack.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest it's a failure to inspect and detect the crack(s) which eventually weaken the spar to the point where it fails under a relatively low load, that has occurred here. The carry through section is not dissimilar to any low wing unstrutted set up. and it's designed to meet the specified loads as much as a strutted wing is but the max load/stress areas are in a different place. The hours flown and type of work being done play a part in the deterioration of the structure. Corrosion is also a factor in some planes particularly those in a salt environment.. Not apparent here as far a I know. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would suggest it's a failure to inspect and detect the crack(s) which eventually weaken the spar to the point where it fails under a relatively low load, that has occurred here. The carry through section is not dissimilar to any low wing unstrutted set up. and it's designed to meet the specified loads as much as a strutted wing is but the max load/stress areas are in a different place. The hours flown and type of work being done play a part in the deterioration of the structure. Corrosion is also a factor in some planes particularly those in a salt environment.. Not apparent here as far a I know. Nev

Agree but the "engineers" at cessna have not made it easy for the AME by positioning these brackets at the exact location where the crack occurred.FB_IMG_1559982326697.thumb.jpg.f835f1c5fb9c665455b4edde3be33ad5.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's often the case where other structure has to be removed to inspect . Some spars, DHC-1 chipmink are lifed at 5000 hours unless the plane is not aerobated which ALL the training ones were. Centre section spar I'm referring to. Thin aluminium structures are not going to last forever when they are flexing. There's no fatigue life tests been done. On high life airframes in "lighter " built airframes, you are a test pilot. especially if the way it's used is more stressed than normal. In my previous post I said this setup is similar to the low wing but it's different in so much as you are limited by headroom and styling in a High wing for spar depth. Low wing much less so as you can go up into the seat area and the wing can be thicker near the root and look OK or even better than otherwise would be the case.. Nev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later for your post to be seen If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...