Survey aircraft crash, WA

[Johnny_56]

The West today reported at survey aircraft crashed on the Nullarbor yesterday (18/12 - i suppose).

Pilot apparently escaped with 'minor head injuries' and flown back to Perth with RFDS. Good to know he/she is ok'ish.

Anyone know any more info? the paper has doesnt have much.

[Towering Q]

I love this comment from the local paper...

"The pilot contacted a Qantas plane which was flying above, which then used its stronger on-board radio system to alert authorities to the crash."

Also, the media are all saying the RAC rescue helicopter was sent out. It was an R44 from Esperance.

And the Dornier didn't even rate a mention, despite being the first ones there, maybe their 'on-board radio system' wasn't good enough.:rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

if only he/she crashed at FL360 their radio may have been strong enough:rolleyes:

It was obviously strong enough to still work :ok:

[melbATC]

Cessna 206 I think the rego was VH-UTW but don't quote me on that.

Not sure of the cause of the crash but it went down in scrub approx 50nm east of Caiguna.

A distress beacon was detected followed some time later by a Qantas aircraft reporting hearing a Mayday call that was not heard in the centre.

The aircraft was not able to speak directly to atc due to vhf coverage in the area, overflying a/c were used as a relay.

[the wizard of auz]

That would put them into some of the crash friendly terrain around the bottom of Rawlinna Stations nightshade block, possibly the western end of Arubiddy. hopefully they wouldn't have suffered to much damage to the aircraft or occupants.

[Towering Q]

About 50km SE of Cocklebiddy Roadhouse, not far in from the coast.

Area covered in those 1-2m scrubby looking trees so the 206 wont be flying again.:sad:

Pilot had a laceration above the eye that needed a bit of sewing, but very fortunate given the state of the wreck.

[the wizard of auz]

AAh, South of the highway is not so crash friendly. Good that the crew got out with minor damage though. :ok: Was that Ibbo's 206?

[Hasherucf]

And the Dornier didn't even rate a mention, despite being the first ones there, maybe their 'on-board radio system' wasn't good enough

The Dornier made it that far without breaking down ?? :}

[Horatio Leafblower]

UTW would have to be UTS Geophysics wouldn't it?

[multime]

Lucky.
VERY LUCKY.
It wasn,t 50 ks out to sea.
In a 2 metre liferaft.?
Water temp 4c.
Shark infested waters.
Rescue - hurry up and wait.
Survivability NIL.
By all accounts pilot did a great job.
M

[Towering Q]

The Dornier made it that far without breaking down

They were airworking off Albany at the time.

[BAT74]

Give it a rest... the Dornier has not broken down on a task yet in 3 years. It was the crew that spotted the survivor and established comms. Not the RAC chopper.

Maybe you'll need the assistance from these guys one day! Well done Aero Rescue.

[Sour Kraut]

Christmas bonus und a command on ze vay for you batski!!:}

[cutter2]

Any idea who pilot is. Concern from across the Tasman as mates fly in Aussie on this type of op.

[aileron_69]

UTS wasnt the only ones that bid that contract. I think it was UTW that had a temperamental engine in Derby earlier this year.
I guess it just shows that even the newest gear isnt failproof, and sometimes bad stuff happens. Pilot is still alive and kicking so thats the main thing.

[Towering Q]

Pilot is fine. Fit enough for a Winny Blue before the Kalgoorlie SJA arrived to take him to KRH for a check-up.

Initials D.T. Nice bloke.


multime, agree with you about the sharks, but I think you would have to go alot further south to experience 4 degree water temps.

[Gabilian]

As mentioned by aileron 69, UTS were definitely not the only survey company to bid on the project. All the survey companied would have tendered on all areas released by GA last year and the surveys awarded primarily on price. If UTS quoted using single pistons as opposed to other companies tendering using other equipment then it was likely they won on price.

All the companies are desperate for work at the moment but hopefully they maintain their safety standards although it makes it difficult when other companies start dropping theirs. :=

As far as I am aware, UTW was actually flying an onshore section between Caiguna and Cocklebiddy although they were also flying offshore sections with single pistons as well, although, UTS are not the only company to do this. GPX had an incident in Horn Island early in the year with a C210, and in all likelihood this survey would have been offshore as well.

It would be interesting to see their Risk Assessments for these projects. It is a requirement of GA tenders that these be submitted with the tender documents and that the companies are members of IAGSA, although IAGSA is bit of a toothless tiger at the best of times.

[Murray Cod]

The Risk Assessment for Survey companies is reverse engineered.
You start at a risk outcome thats acceptable to the client and then work backwards through the matrix to "tidy up the paperwork".
Everyone wins.
MC

[MyNameIsIs]

Gabilian, would that C210 you mention happen to be KWW?

Said aircraft grinded its belly landing at HID- think I heard QF one day on Centre discussing it when they were inbound to Horn.
Word is that its common practice to pull gear CBs in the survey 210s; pump motor interfering with equipment or something. And it was subsequently forgotten.............
I recall a mate telling me it was doing East-West runs somewhere around Weipa up and down the Cape.

[slow n low]

You start at a risk outcome thats acceptable to the client and then work backwards through the matrix to "tidy up the paperwork"

Murray, understand where you guys are comming from, us mil guys have the same problem with getting an 'acceptable outcome' to satisfy comcare. Remember that you can either 'treat' the hazards or push it up further for some one else to 'accept' the risk. In this case the poor old pilot gets hung out to dry because the client turned a blind eye to the reality of the situation. I say call in the lawyers to go over the risk assessment and pull in both the draftee of the risk matrix and the client. The dirty bastards need to be made resposible too if the KNOW some poor bloke is being made to fly offshore in a single piston to do thier dirty work. Yes I know there are commercial realities but the guys at the top are not stupid. If they know full well the assessment is reverse engineered (course they do) make the f*#ckers pay for our safety...

GRRRRRRRR :suspect:

[cutter2]

Thanks toweringQ, if it the DT I know he's a good bloke, a good peddler. If anyone sees him, pass on Hi from Kiwis at NZHN.

[Gabilian]

MyNameIsIs,

I do not recall the registration of the aircraft, but heard a similar story to you regarding the cause therefore probably the same incident.

Murray Cod/slow n low,

What you say is indeed correct to a certian point. The severity and risk are inputted and if the resulting risk factor is not in the acceptable range, add some controls and bring it to a number that is. The trouble is that there is no quantitative data to back up the effectiveness of the controls put in place and the resultant risk factor.

Unfortunately, with the survey companies, upper management tend to have no aviation experience and it is left to the poor Chief Pilot and the pilot group to fight a battle where they are outside their weight division as they are typically going up against people higher the organisation then they are.

There are some companies that do it better then others.

[the air up there]

Unfortunately, with the survey companies, upper management tend to have no aviation experience and it is left to the poor Chief Pilot and the pilot group

Forget the pilot group. It is up to the chief pilot. The **** stops there. If you try and take it any further up, management will say, 'but the cp approved it". Which is the reason chief pilots are required. To ensure all laws and procedures are adhered to.

And I think you will find it's not just survey companies, or even GA, where the management group has no aviation experience.

[aileron_69]

This is all very well and good, but Surveying is a Dangeous Game, we all accept that, and live with it. Ag planes only have one engine, some piston. They fly in some far more inhospitable country than we do, especially in the mountainous areas.
I go out there in the morning knowing that I have plane with an engine on it that runs well, and has had all the money spent on it that it needs to keep it running as best as can humanly be done. As UTW's pilot found, sometimes thats not enough, but you live with it. He survived, others dont, thats just the way the cookie crumbles im afraid. I imagine they wouldnt pay us 90 grand a year to fly a 210/206 if it was perfectly safe and easy as pie. As far as the water thing goes, I would far rather fly out at sea (with a lifejacket on and a liferaft on board of course) than fly over 50 foot tall trees and in mountains with few escape routes.:ugh:

[Gabilian]

The air up there,

My reference to the Chief Pilot and the pilot group having to battle with management is not in respect to compliance with the Regulations or Operations Manual requirements. In my experience this is typically an easy argument to win.

It is assessing the risk a particular project presents. I am assuming that the operations that were conducted offshore complied with the requirements of CAO 20.11 in the fact that life-jackets were worn and a life-raft carried. But that does not necessarily make the operation safe. It all comes down to acceptable risk. This is typically a very subjective matter and requires very good debating/negotiating/argumentative skills, relevant statistics (very hard to come by within the low level environment with any decent population size to be meaningful depending on the argument being discussed) and unity within the pilot group amongst others.

I have witnessed several occasions where management will ask other pilots within the company about their willingness to conduct a survey that others have knocked back due to that individuals level of acceptable risk. When other companies perform a survey in aircraft that a Chief Pilot has deemed an unacceptable risk for the given conditions there is the potential for management to apply pressure on that particular Chief Pilot to alter their perception of acceptable risk. That pressure is intensified when management are aware that pilots within the group are agreeable to conduct the operation.

Not arguing that it is only present in survey operations. The geographical, terrain, vegetation and climatic variations that survey operations are conducted in make it very hard to have well defined policies and procedures in place to cover every scenario.

Aileron 69,

Agreed, survey does present additional/different hazards not experienced in other types of flying, but the flying does not necessarily have to be all that much more dangerous then experienced in other aviation activities. It all comes down to the companies’ level of acceptable risk and their willingness to adopt sensible and meaningful control measures. Your comparison with agricultural flying although closely assimilates with that of survey flying still has significant differences that should be noted.

Your average survey aircraft is typically not built to the same crashworthiness standards as a lot of your agricultural aircraft are. Stall speeds are typically slower then those of survey aircraft. Agricultural flying is flown over a smaller area then a lot of survey areas therefore the retention of obstacle location, escape paths etc. is generally better and meteorological conditions do not change significantly throughout an agricultural area. Although agricultural can be flown over some difficult terrain in general vegetation is not such an issue as some survey areas.

I will agree on one point, I would prefer to fly survey offshore (appropriately equipped and a lot more then the regulations mandate) then 50 foot trees in a single piston but I do not even allow the company to put me in a position to have to make that decision.

[ozaggie]

Might as well die with a guts full of seawater as a gum tree up yer a#se!!!

[Hasherucf]

Drowning is meant to be euphoric after your lungs have filled with water and there is less chance of a fire in the ocean .

Aileron 69,
I go out there in the morning knowing that I have plane with an engine on it that runs well, and has had all the money spent on it that it needs to keep it running as best as can humanly be done.

Unfortunately a lot of survey aircraft have extended periods of service in remote locations and probably don’t get the deep attention they deserve. Considering some 210/206 survey aircraft I have seen are pushing 20,000 hours they need some extra looking after.

[frigatebird]

Plenty of swearing in your first pos L.. You're off to a quick start here.. Trendy What..?

[Murray Cod]

I believe survey flying is as dangerous as you , or your company , want to make it.
Blasting off in a light twin into a wall of Darwin black clouds on a "must do "charter sounds a lot worse or at FL 200 in a 404 with a "problem".
With a well maintained shrike (used to be), a chief pilot with some kahuna's ( the good ones leave) and lots of experience (most the experienced people left or were sacked), I consider it safe.
I'm not convinced that 210's are safe , isn't there a turbulence penertration speed issue to prevent the wings clapping hands?
Gabilian - with regard to little or no stats
There's been a lot of accident over the years ( a lot just recently) and some important lessons esp regarding flying the hills , for survey crews but no publications , better ask IAGSA that one.
Better stick your feathers in your ears frigatebird , sounds like Lucerne is just getting wound up.
MC

[frigatebird]

Don't you worry about me, Cod. The scales fell from my eyes about SOME types in this industry a loooong time ago.. It's just the crudity of expression that gets typed here sometimes, and the English spelling, that diminishes the authors passion and message somewhat, - as I see it.

[aileron_69]

I'm not convinced that 210's are safe , isn't there a turbulence penertration speed issue to prevent the wings clapping hands?

Biggest problem with the 210, especially on survey is not the wings clapping hands as is commonly belived, but actually the tail coming loose. All that weight in the arse end has a nasty habit of assisting in the development of cracks down the back in the attachment points and I have even seen it in the bulkheads.

If only we could all have PACs (with better seats) to survey in....dreams are free

[the wizard of auz]

the wing attach points on the spars had a habit of working the rivets. I saw a few from a survey company being done a while back. scared the hell out of me. I haven't flown a 210 without breaking into a sweat since.

[multime]

90,000 grand a year.?
My lifetime acheivers award at Coles and Centerlink didn,t mention that.?
Just along hard road.
Yes it,s dangerous and perhaps the glamour of piston engine aircraft isn,t for the bus drivers, posers, or family man.
But love the challenge and satisfaction of real flying.

Regards
M
Well said Gabalian. Thanks

[Josh Cox]

Wiz, shut up mate.:}

[Gabilian]

Murray Cod,

IAGSA statistics in IAGSA own words are “woefully out of date”. According to their website:
• Operations and Safety Reviews (basically hours flown and accident/incident statistics according to a/c type i.e. single piston, multi piston etc): last published 2004, apparently statistics have not been collected since.
• Accident reports: last one published is August 2006
• Incident reports: last one published 2002

None of these cover the recent fatal accident in Australia or the recent ones overseas where I believe a lot of lessons could be learnt. Unfortunately what information you get through rumour or indeed reliable second hand information I think you would agree does not allow anyone to take away reliable and meaningful information to enhance the safety of the industry.

With a recent appointment of a new COO and talk of a Perth chapter hopefully thing can improve. You can only hope.

IHMO, IAGSA needs alot of work to get it where it should be.

[Lucerne]

Murray Cod, read all the posts written by Gabilian and you will learn something.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Slight Drift.... and from so long ago...

'Wiz' ya wudda just l u v e d 'KWW' mentioned eons ago....

The windscreen was full of internal cracks - and used to 'creak' horribly on descent -
so much so that one intrepid fella who, unfortunately is no longer with us - wrote in the 'Gripe Book' - not M/R mind you -

"Windscreen creaks on descent - frightens passengers - F#*KING TERRIFIES PILOT".

Had at least one new windscreen while I was around.

True Story. :ok::ok:

[aileron_69]

KWW is no longer bothering too many passengers as the remains of her slowly rusts away in the corner of Horn Island Airport :{

[thrustpig]

Hats off to you gentlemen. It was a great day when KP checked me out in the shrike at broken hill many moons ago. It saddens me the race to the bottom has spread so wide. Given the great advances in engine-airframe reliability, yet still the whine of affordable safety / profitability drones out the argument of truth. How many billions of barrels of oil, kimberlites' of diamonds etc are worth more survey widows?