Jump to content

Forced Landing - Victoria Park Racecourse


Recommended Posts

At about 2:30pm today a Cessna (yes it is actually a Cessna) skydiving aircraft made a forced landing in Victoria Park (where Clipsal is held) on the eastern fringe of the Adelaide CBD.

 

Looks like all OK but taken to hospital for observation.

 

Good outcome. Glad everybody is safe.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Sorry. Ozzie beat me by a couple of minutes.

It's all good Chris, it has happened plenty of times when two threads are created on the same issue at the same time with breaking news.

 

 

  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

The paper is now saying just a broken foot, still a nasty injury. I just visited the crash site and it's clear he came in from the east, must have narrowly missed the old Queen Vic hospital bdg, about 6 floors, cleared the fence by inches and hit the grass about 25m in from the fence, which is about 1.2m high. He then skidded about 55m in grass, crossing a a bitumen racetrack, and ended up in grass, between two small trees. One might have snapped off if the plane hit it, the other I'm not sure of.

 

According to the paper here he circled over the Adelaide Hills, reaching 3700ft, then descended towards his drop zone over the racecourse. It's all tiger country (hills or suburbia) until you reach the racecourse, so I suspect that the engine failure happened well before he reached the racecourse. If you were directly over the racecourse and had an engine failure, and some altitude, you'd choose a much larger open area some hundred of meters to the south of where he landed. They were incredibly lucky to clear the fence. This was very close to being extremely nasty.

 

It shows to me the importance of the rules around flying over built-up areas.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

the fence is 1.2m high and they hit the ground 19m after it. I paced it out. On the other side of the road from the fence is all 2-storey buildings. These guys all need to buy lottery tickets.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are all the prop tips bent back so far if the engine had stopped. If it were windmilling it wouldn't cause all tips to be bent so much, or would it?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Spoke to one of the guys in the other aircraft after they all got together for a beerbrief. Anyone who has flown jumpers in a Cessna for some time will understand what will happen to the fuel after flying one wing low for a period of time and after one tank runs dry just how hard it is to get fuel back to the engine without dropping the other wing and switching to the full tank. They were orbiting for quite some time so not sure (yet) if they actually ran out of fuel or the upwing tank just drained over to the low wing. I think there maybe a change in the op regs over who is in control in an emergency. Plenty of height and pilot who is legally in charge until jump run refused to allow anyone to exit. As a consequence they landed with over 200kgs that really didn't need to be in the aircraft and no doubt it contributed to the hard landing. Really glad no whuffos got cleaned up in it.

 

Yeah it is easy to sit back and bitch about it but seen this happen quite a few times over the last 40 years.

 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/masters-games-aircraft-carrying-skydivers-makes-emergency-landing-in-victoria-park-in-adelaide-parklands/story-fni6uo1m-1227554312499

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Upwind ? or higher doesn't matter, normally should be balanced. When you have them hanging out on the wheel and strut there is a lot of rudder but how quickly would the imbalance happen? and wouldn't it equalise just as quickly or do they sideslip even though Cessna don't recommend it with flaps extended. ( or didn't used to). Most of my "Droppings" were from Cessna's and never considered a fuel distribution problem.

 

Could have been caught out with the higher than normal weight for landing , especially if a confined space landing, which it was. and with structures around, maybe local mechanical turbulence. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fuel draining into the lower wing won't matter because the Cessna generally feeds from both. If you have left or right selected then the high wing can't cross feed. The guy informed ATC he was running low on fuel, then he asked for a landing at Adelaide and a couple of minutes later called mayday as he couldn't make Adelaide. He had been holding for 40 minutes. Draw your own conclusions.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Shouldn't be any imbalance due to wings not being level is a point being made. It's a bit basic (balanced flight.) Obviously doesn't carry a lot of fuel. Maybe that's the way they operate, and normally it might be adequate? They don't run well without fuel. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
The fuel draining into the lower wing won't matter because the Cessna generally feeds from both. If you have left or right selected then the high wing can't cross feed. The guy informed ATC he was running low on fuel, then he asked for a landing at Adelaide and a couple of minutes later called mayday as he couldn't make Adelaide. He had been holding for 40 minutes. Draw your own conclusions.

what a pity to hear this, the newspapers hailed him a hero

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

lazy flying after after 30 or so orbits? no matter how balanced you fly the fuel still seems to end up in the low wing. Also known for very minimum reserves as well.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day he/she made a good result of a bad situation. It may or may not have been of his/her own poor management but they did get it on the ground with unrestrained (most jump planes in my experience do not provide restraints for passengers but I may be wrong there) passengers mainly in one piece. Yes he/she may or may not have stuffed up or been less than perfect under pressure but the result with a panicky pilot could have been far worse.

 

What does intrigue me is that people who are willing to crucify AMSOL for the poor naming of another thread without facts are also happy to crucify this pilot without the facts

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Been in contact with those jumping at the Masters not a bunch of happy campers either. There is a mandatory CAO for the fitment of 'single point restraints' They must be worn on take off and landing and below 1000ft. So how did they fall out? One of the jumpers is ex CASA. So how easier would you find it to land deadstick if you could off load close to 350kgs of payload. Apparently the conversation on the way down was interesting.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I walk and cycle around Vic park racecourse all the time, and I can see areas there suited for an engine failure landing. My kids were cycling on the track that he skidded across the day before the crash. I practice engine failure from height occasionally. I understand how stressful it would be for the pilot, because even when I set it up the way I want it, and I have fuel in the tank and the engine idling, I'm breaking into a sweat as I'm trying for a forced landing. But to come in from the east, narrowly dodging a 6-floor building, the highest obstacle around, and skimming over 2-storey buildings, missing the fence by inches, these are choices that I struggle to understand.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Been in contact with those jumping at the Masters not a bunch of happy campers either. There is a mandatory CAO for the fitment of 'single point restraints' They must be worn on take off and landing and below 1000ft. So how did they fall out? One of the jumpers is ex CASA. So how easier would you find it to land deadstick if you could off load close to 350kgs of payload. Apparently the conversation on the way down was interesting.

I think a key question is exactly where the engine failure took place. If it happened en route to Vic park, then it makes sense. He can't offload jumpers onto suburbia: there's wires and light poles etc everywhere, so the decision would be to keep the jumpers on board and try to make it to Vic park, the only possible place for a forced landing. But if he lost power over Vic park, that's a different scenario. You would presume it a lot easier to deadstick land without the 300-350kg of payload. It would be expected to glide further.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It glides the same distance but faster. Helpful if you are into wind, where you could go a bit further. Unfortunately a faster landing speed is inevitable. You rarely land with chutists still aboard so the speed might not be as "normal" as otherwise. Nev

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think a key question is exactly where the engine failure took place. If it happened en route to Vic park, then it makes sense. He can't offload jumpers onto suburbia: there's wires and light poles etc everywhere, so the decision would be to keep the jumpers on board and try to make it to Vic park, the only possible place for a forced landing. But if he lost power over Vic park, that's a different scenario. You would presume it a lot easier to deadstick land without the 300-350kg of payload. It would be expected to glide further.

These guys are accuracy jumpers, that park was more than big enough for them. Even if they could not get into that park the hazards you state are minimum and 10 mters dia is all one needs. smaaler when the pressure is on. Have a look at that press release shows flightaware tracking of entire flight, shows 30 or more tight orbits directly overhead at around three grand. Jumpers are pissed that pilot would not let them out. But they played the game by the rules and stayed with the aircraft. Two payed the price for that. This incident will be discussed in full at the next APF meeting. rule changes coming.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
It glides the same distance but faster. Helpful if you are into wind, where you could go a bit further. Unfortunately a faster landing speed is inevitable. You rarely land with chutists still aboard so the speed might not be as "normal" as otherwise. Nev

Approach faster, touchdown faster, rollout longer, hit stuff harder.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...