Seaplane crash jumpinpin. 26/01/2023

[BrendAn]

Crew ok. Suspect float attachment failure.

[red750]

This image snapped from video on the Ch 7 News taken by a bystander. Report stated the plane had just taken off.

 

[derekliston]

Looked like a wingdrop stall from the video on the news. It said kit-built but didn’t say what?

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, derekliston said:

Looked like a wingdrop stall from the video on the news. It said kit-built but didn’t say what?

Someone on the group I got that post from seemed to know all about it. He said it was fresh out of an annual and a float mount came apart. But I have no idea if he was correct or not.

[BrendAn]

Everyone’s ok, just out of annual, left float fuse mount failure.                                     This is the post I was talking about.

Edited January 26, 2023 by BrendAn

[derekliston]

11 minutes ago, BrendAn said:

Everyone’s ok, just out of annual, left float fuse mount failure.                                     This is the post I was talking about.

If you watch the news video, the plane leaves the water, the nose pitches up, the left wing drops and contacts the water, the plane then cartwheels in! Pure surmise but my guess would be the float detaching would be caused by, rather than the cause ofthe crash?

[derekliston]

The video of the take-off and crash is on the 9 news site! Worth a look, but until I hear otherwise I’ll keep my opinion. I have personal experience almost identical although not a seaplane.

[onetrack]

The float is still attached as he leaves the water - but the wing drop right after getting airborne, puts the wingtip into the water! - so I'm agreement with Dereks assessment!

 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/seaplane-crash-jumpinpin-north-stradbroke-island-queensland/7f2756c8-3b98-4625-a7b6-442ec650bd44

[BrendAn]

7 minutes ago, derekliston said:

The video of the take-off and crash is on the 9 news site! Worth a look, but until I hear otherwise I’ll keep my opinion. I have personal experience almost identical although not a seaplane.

I agree. I have just reposted from bush flyers. I have no opinion because I don't know . 

[Thruster88]

There is no doubt, it was a departure stall. Cannot fault this reporter,  correctly described type of aircraft and operation.

 

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/seaplane-crashes-at-north-stradbroke-island-20230126-p5cfph.html

 

 

[BrendAn]

1 hour ago, Thruster88 said:

There is no doubt, it was a departure stall. Cannot fault this reporter,  correctly described type of aircraft and operation.

 

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/seaplane-crashes-at-north-stradbroke-island-20230126-p5cfph.html

 

 

I asked again about the floats and was told there was a float mount failure, neither float detached from the aircraft but the broken/ seperated mount connection is what started his troubles . It will be interesting to see what happened.

[derekliston]

I can’t discern from the video what type this is? News said kit-built but no further definition?

[BrendAn]

26 minutes ago, derekliston said:

I can’t discern from the video what type this is? News said kit-built but no further definition?

Rans s7.   

Edited January 26, 2023 by BrendAn

[440032]

It went swimming as VH-DAB. Rans S7S with Zenith floats. It did have a go-pro mount on the fin I know, (because I made it.)

WET is a new S21 on floats, coming soon.

[BrendAn]

9 minutes ago, 440032 said:

It went swimming as VH-DAB. Rans S7S with Zenith floats. It did have a go-pro mount on the fin I know, (because I made it.)

WET is a new S21 on floats, coming soon.

Yes. I read it was now dab

[old man emu]

It's definitely WET now.

[facthunter]

Ending up immersed in salt water means it's really a write off. If it's not further damaged in the extrication the corrosion will be still be hard to control.    Nev

[facthunter]

Operating in the environment is nearly as bad. Be a different matter solely off a  a freshwater lake..  Nev

[FlyBoy1960]

I think it will fly again. It showed on the news the recovery and the wings were in proper wing stands, the fuselage was slung properly by the wing lift points and it was loaded onto a barge and sailed away.

 

The care taken during the recovery leads me to believe it will fly again another day

[facthunter]

They'll have to get busy quickly.   Nev

[BrendAn]

Would have thought the fuselage and floats are about all that can be recovered. All wiring ,electronics and engine will be replaced for a start. Dunk a car in freshwater and it's an instant write off. Wouldn't aircraft insurance have even stricter guidelines.

[facthunter]

Damaged car wrecks have value for the good parts. Being in floods etc don't help having good parts.  The insurance will seek a settlement with the Insurer which may include keeping the wreck. What is done thereafter is not the Insurer's concern. The damage and event should be recorded in the relevant log books and details of the repair process. You can't write Nil Damage History.   Nev

[onetrack]

For light road vehicles, there's an online document readily available that determines whether a car is a Statutory Write Off or a Repairable Write Off. The write-off criteria are strict and carefully delineated. 

There is also an identical document and write-off criteria for Heavy Vehicles.

 

If a damaged vehicle is determined by an insurance assessor as being an SWO, it goes on a SWO register, and can never be road-registered in any Australian jurisdiction ever again. An RWO is also registered on the SWO register, and is classed as repairable, but it must be inspected and passed as safe, before being re-registered.

 

Light Vehicles, write-off criteria - https://austroads.com.au/publications/registration-and-licensing/ap-g89-19

 

Heavy Vehicles, write-off criteria  - https://austroads.com.au/publications/registration-and-licensing/ap-g90-19

 

I really am quite amazed that similar criteria and procedures haven't been developed for aircraft. In the case of a Light Vehicle, being submerged in any type of water above the level of the doorsills (for any period), immediately makes that vehicle an SWO.

The reason for this is based purely on safety reasons, in that many vehicles contain safety systems, ECU's, and electronic sensors that are located at floor level, and immersion can seriously degrade their operation, and thus pose a major threat to important safety systems not operating correctly, in the event of a crash.

 

"Water damage criteria

Where the internal cabin of a vehicle is inundated with any water (fresh, salt and/or brackish water) such that the internal cabin water level rises above the level of the inner door sill for any period, the vehicle is to be classified as an SWO."

 

Edited January 29, 2023 by onetrack

[Old Koreelah]

Useful info, OT. Sounds like WA regulations are more stringent than NSW.

My wife’s car recently reached the end of it’s life, so she’s looking for a small safe, reliable used car. 
Checking a couple of likely bargains on REVS revealed they had flood damage. Not interested.

[onetrack]

Old K, those Statutory and Repairable Write Off criteria are applied evenly across all States, AFAIK. The whole aim was to standardise damage criteria across the Nation, and to defeat the "fly-by-nighters" who were good at patching unrepairable wrecks in backyard workshops in one State, and then selling the patched-up vehicle in another State. It's also designed to hamper re-birthing of stolen vehicles.

 

I've heard of people selling vehicles who had their vehicles VIN plate stolen (chiselled off) while they were distracted by dealing with the thiefs compatriots. The VIN plates of written-off vehicles used to be gold to re-birthers, not so now.