View Full Version : C152 crashes at YSBK all OK!
Ultralights
11th Sep 2005, 07:30
Just seen on the local TV, live pics from Bankstown, A C152, lost power after take off, on runway 29L, and crashed into cars parked outside the Sydney Skydiving centre. the damage looked severe, but fortunatly Both on board only recieved Minor injuries.
good to hear (and see) both are Ok..
fullflaps
11th Sep 2005, 08:07
Seven news said three people, in a C152!
I can see the problem now.......
FF:ok:
planemad_bk
11th Sep 2005, 09:22
Does anyone know the rego/company it was from?
NAMPS
11th Sep 2005, 10:00
I think it was SLC. Most folks who fly out of BK will know the company.
OpsNormal
11th Sep 2005, 12:21
SLC was a C185 seaplane that stacked a few years back (don't start me on about the pr*** who wrote it off). As far as I am aware, that rego hasn't been re-issued.
Stiff Under Carriage
11th Sep 2005, 13:16
To me on the Perth news, it looked like a 'Mintie', those Sydney locals will know who I am talking about, can anyone confirm.
Cheers, SUC
vee1-rotate
11th Sep 2005, 13:46
aircraft involved was C172 VH-CLS, from Basair...
kiwiman
11th Sep 2005, 23:53
The SMH reported that an airport spokesman stated the cause of this incident was "Pilot Error" in this morning's edition. Very early to make this assessment - is there any evidence to support this?
The Messiah
12th Sep 2005, 00:10
Yes there is loads of evidence. One crashed aeroplane that was being driven by a pilot at the time of the crash, therefore it has to be pilot error.
rmcdonal
12th Sep 2005, 00:29
It's allways pilot error. Some has to be to blame. :sad: I hate it when they jump on this sort of stuff. :mad:
Ultralights
12th Sep 2005, 07:20
SMH stated the cause was engine failure after take off.
ready2go
12th Sep 2005, 08:22
Anyone got picture? Heard this wasn't the 1st time for CLS already...
i think it was an engine failure..then CLS stall...
planemad_bk
12th Sep 2005, 11:57
CLS, apparently appeared to be climbing normally then encountered a wing drop....so obviously stalled. Glad to see everyones ok and surprisingly enough the cabin looks relatively undamaged. Could have been a lot worse.
kiwiman
13th Sep 2005, 04:26
Ultralights
I am currently looking at the article in the SMH on Monday. It does indeed say "engine failure". However it goes on to note that an airport spokesman said it was pilot error - as per my earlier post.
DUXNUTZ
13th Sep 2005, 05:03
Got some time in CLS, lovely lady. Hope they have enough sticky tape!
K3nnyboy
13th Sep 2005, 06:45
back-seated CLS before, damn didn't get a chance to fly it yet...
If anyone has this (http://www.aviationtheory.net.au/fltrules.html) at home, check out the cover pic bottom left.
Blamping
15th Sep 2005, 00:45
Poor old Basair!?! I'm told they had 9 incidents last year including a very serious BE76 prang during training - also directly attributed to pilot error (stupidity).
Found the article and reproduced below. Occupants are very fortunate indeed.
BC.
------------------------------------------
On the nose: plane's narrow escape
By Jordan Baker
September 12, 2005
Three men on board a light aircraft escaped without injury when their plane hit a fence, flipped and then collided with a parked car at Bankstown Airport yesterday.
The men, in their mid-20s, were pulled from the Cessna, which ended up nose down, by people in a nearby hanger.
Phil Onis, director of Sydney Skydiving, heard a bang and rushed to help the men on board, who had just taken off for an afternoon flight over Sydney. "They bounced a couple of times and went through a fence and ended up nose down on top of a car," he said. "They just said they had an engine failure."
When asked if they had bruises and scratches, he said: "Not even that. It was just a bit of shock, they were OK. There was fuel leakage but we sprayed a bit of foam around; we had the fire hose ready. They were very lucky."
One witness, Mark Byatt, told Channel Nine: "Our back was turned to it, we were running, obviously. We were right in the path of it."
An airport spokesman said pilot error was to blame.
Ambulance officers were called to the airport but the men did not need to be taken to hospital.
Air safety officials were investigating the incident, which occurred near a control tower at about 3.50pm, police said.
Source: AAP (http://smh.com.au/articles/2005/09/11/1126377205196.html)
aerocom
15th Sep 2005, 09:32
Blamping
From time past in YSBK this company is a joke. It seems Money Money Money is what its all about. The training seems to be at a average standard and the instructors do well within there confines. But where things are lacking is the supervision of students and junior instructors. I have in the past recommended that people to go learn elsewhere. Having watched one of there aircraft stall over a runway and spud in from 100ft I am not impressed at all, considering this was a student with a grade 2 at the controlsin nil wind cavok conditions. This latest incident has still to have the reason why investigated and well done to the PIC if it was a genuine failure. You did well when the outlook looks bad.
If this
"...said they had an engine failure."
is true, then they did well.
But why don't we wait until this
Air safety officials were investigating the incident
is complete until we start pointing fingers.
Oh, that's right, we don't have to because Barry Blimp from the BAC said
An airport spokesman said pilot error was to blame.
:rolleyes:
ready2go
20th Sep 2005, 06:20
It seems Money Money Money is what its all about.
Well I suppose the whole Basair is about doing business right? Just like any other company out there, including other flying schools.
I suppose if Basair spend more $$ on fixing the a/c instead of doing all the advertisement. It would save them alot of trouble !?!
planemad_bk
20th Sep 2005, 15:30
Aerocom, unfortunately you're dead right on that one. Sad to see that a relatively big school treats their customers like the maintenance on their planes.
Ready2go..your last sentence is also on the $$ (excuse the pun). Unfortunate....great instructing there, but when it comes to dealing with people they've got no idea. I wouldn't send my dog to train at that "school".
kiwi chick
21st Sep 2005, 01:24
Well, I have an issue with the whole "Pilot Error" thing!
I had a crash, engine failure after take-off simulation which during the overshoot, turned into the real thing.
What happened? My student turned the fuel off.
So - Pilot Error or Engine Failure? Technically I was PIC but I was NOT the one who turned the fuel off, so who's error was it?!
:hmm:
kiwi
sir.pratt
21st Sep 2005, 02:30
'technically'???
who pulled the power in the first place? i'd suggest if you did not know what the outcome was going to be prior to doing so, then you shouldn't have done it!
Sqwark Standby
21st Sep 2005, 10:17
Hate to be an alarmist but:
THERE WOULD NOT BE ONE FLYING TRAINING ORGANISATION IN AUSTRALIA THAT IS NOT DRIVEN IN SOME WAY BY $$$! Simple truth is that's why they do it..............end of story!:ok:
The guy from Sydney Sky divers who was first to the scene found the fuel selector in the OFF position...in the middle. There is no 'both' on this one. Guess they'd been flying a 182 most recently and didn't bother to check the difference
K3nnyboy
22nd Sep 2005, 14:25
Fuel selector in off pos.?
mm...hang on a minute, onyl flown the 172 twice during my study, but im pretty sure it's got a both selector switch.....somebody plz correct me if im wrong.....
also, if the selector was in off postition,how coudl the plane took off at the first place?
regarding the oney matter, well...i guess that's wat doing a business is all about? ;P
Atlas Shrugged
23rd Sep 2005, 01:26
Technically I was PIC but I was NOT the one who turned the fuel off"Technically" has nothing whatsoever to do with it.
You were pilot in command and YOU were solely responsible for the operation and safety of the aircraft during flight time
I wonder why he turned the fuel off and why you didn't notice and correct it?
kiwione
25th Sep 2005, 09:54
FYI I can confirm that the fuel cock was turned off
FYI I can confirm that the Cessna 152 model with the ability to seat 4 pax is indeed known as a C172
FYI I can neither confirm nor deny the aircraft suffered an EFATO
Why do I know this?
I turned the cock off myself as I commenced the investigation into the accident plus I wait for engineering reports plus I don't speculate like certain others plus I don't begrudge a good company from attracting customers who recognise a good operation.
If you have a beef about an operation, be a man/woman and front the Chief Pilot privately, he can even do your MECIR renewal and heaven forbid, you might learn something:D :D