From the Australian

A CESSNA aircraft has made an emergency landing on a fairway at a golf course in Melbourne's southeast.
Metropolitan Fire Brigade spokesman Trevor Woodward said the plane suffered engine failure and landed on the 12th fairway of the Capital Golf Course in Moorabbin about 12.20pm (AEST).

The golf course is opposite Moorabbin airport.

"Everything has happened very quickly," he said.

Two people on board the plane were uninjured and were checked by ambulance officers, Mr Woodward said.



Any more info on this?

Just been over the top. From above there is no eveidence of damage at all. The plane looks like it is merely parked out of the way. What ever caused it to end up there it looks like someone has done a nice job of getting it down in one piece.

With the water in Melb restrictions at the moment I'd had to pay for the damage that it might have done to the fairway or green... especially if that golf-course is the Crown Casino one!

A Royal Vic aircraft apparently.

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21539116-5005961,00.html

Apparently it got flown out later in the day... me smell a rat. How did it have an engine failure then fly out again? Then the news said that it was the second time that that particular aircraft has had a forced landing there... sounds a little odd. I know it can be expensive to get into that golf course but that is going a little too far.

Squawk,

I heard conflicting reports......... Apparently talk back radio were saying it was because it ran out of fuel.

I wonder if they packed their golf clubs?

No matter what the cause, pilot must be congratulated on a great forced landing. It doesn't matter how often you practise them, a real one (I imagine) must really be scarey. Well done to the pilot. Of course if it is fuel management problem.....

I've got no idea about how Moorabin's set out, but could it have been a practice EFATO gone wrong?

Singles are not allowed to do practice EFATO's at YMMB nor YMEN for that matter. I haven't heard it was a fuel problem, I suppose there are a few problems that could result in the aircraft being able to be flown out a matter of hours later, fuel being the first that pops into mind, but that doesn't discount others.

I can't think of any right now but I prefer to give the benieft of the doubt in the first instance :cool:

It's fairly easy to bump a switch or a tap and when you are that close to the ground and a nice smooth golf course looms......

If only All grass strips were as smooth as a golf course!

http://Pamuva1.smugmug.com/photos/94734873-M.jpg

not that i would know how smooth they are.....

hey, didn't a twin conduct a forced landing there a few years back? gees, you'd have to be pretty unlucky to have a double engine failure at the same time, i reckon ;)

Thank Goodness it was OK and all are well! C150's seem to be an endangered species these days.

It would be a great pity if the reason for the forced landing was hushed up. Often there is great value for pilots who fly that type of aircraft to get accurate feed-back which in turn enhances their safety awareness and that these unfortunate events can really happen to them too, and not always to the other fellow.
If this incident was a fuel exhaustion event, then did the instructor/student pilot rely primarily on fuel gauge readings before accepting the aircraft? We all know the poor serviceability of the fuel gauges on old aircraft. Were the fuel tanks dipped before departure and a fuel log kept? Was the fuel strainer thoroughly checked for water and sediment by inspecting the fuel in a clear glass container instead of just a cursory pull of the cable letting the fuel pour on the tarmac with no hope of checking for contaminent? Had the mixture been in rich for all its flying that day thus significantly increasing its planned fuel consumption?
Were the crew aware of the unsuable fuel in the Cessna 150/152 of 1.5 USG when operating towards the end of the endurance?
Of course the reason for the forced landing may not be a fuel problem. It could be many things. Certainly the forced landing appears to have been well executed. A lot of good can be gained by the pilot community in discussing these things on Pprune but it certainly helps to know what really happened.

Quote:

hey, didn't a twin conduct a forced landing there a few years back? gees, you'd have to be pretty unlucky to have a double engine failure at the same time, i reckon ;) Unquote

Yeah, VH-JON, Semenhole.

I noted on the vision shown by Channel Nine (still the one? Only if you like watching shit on free to air TV) that someone was peering into the fuel tanks. It flew out a short time later.

Herald Sun photo shows it was KKW, glad aircraft and occupants are all OK. A skillful landing. I guess someone or other will be busy writing the incident up:{

A37575,
after reading your kinda weird post on this thread I had a look at all the other threads you've started cause I was wondering if you are a journo.End result....I'm still not sure, are you a journo?
Sorry for thread creep.

after reading your kinda weird post on this thread
A37575 sees herself as the Agatha Christie of aviation. Keep it up, you might be on the right track!:ok:

Remember the rule you were taught "Don't believe the Gauges, believe the dipstick"?

My understanding is that the dipstick that came with the aircraft ( a recent purchase) is about eight litres out at low readings (25 odd litres and less). This is according to a complete drain and recalibration exercise.

The guys went to the circuit (17L) with 45 confirmed litres - plenty for an hour in the circuit (around 23 l/h) and a 45 minute reserve, or so they thought. In reality it would appear that the dipstick lied and they had something like an hours fuel and not much else.

The left tank drains first on this aircraft and it appears they unported the left tank turning base and final (for 17L this is over the golf course). It would appear that the engine surged and quit and the instructor elected to land on the fairway after deciding they may not be able to reach the threshold. After an excellent and highly professional landing by the instructor, there was 20L in the right tank and zilch in the left. Of course 30 minutes later (since the left wing was low on that part of the fairway) when dipped again by CFI there was now 20L in the left tank and nothing in the right. But of course these numbers come from a dodgy dipstick so the true figure may have been way down to unuseable fuel.

Add to that gauges calibrated in lbs and USG plus a calibration card in litres and pounds versus USG indicated which also appears wrong and you have a perfect recipe for a mess up.

I'm not sure if the people who made the dipstick didn't take into account unuseable fuel, or didn't realise that putting ten litres in the left tank without blocking the cross feed line when marking the stick is going to give you the wrong reading because the ten litre level will be "low" due to crossfeed of five litres into the right tank. Dipsticks I've used are assumed to be USEABLE fuel, not total fuel.

But then the left tank is vented but the right tank cap is also vented, and the gascolator feeds from both tanks, so the internal tank pressure dictates which tank empties first......

Anyway all these numbers and tecknikal terms make my head swim so I always fill everything to the brim and hope for the best because I know that then my bladder requires me to stop long before I run out of fuel.:}

Alls well that ends well, and its interesting watching a certain instructor keeping quite high over that golf course until he is in easy gliding distance of the threshold.