One Dead in Northland plane crash

[Sqwark2000]

From NZ Herald: New Zealand's Latest News, Business, Sport, Weather, Travel, Technology, Entertainment, Politics, Finance, Health, Environment and Science (http://www.nzherald.co.nz) :

An aircraft pilot is dead after his plane apparently hit an occupied car in Northland this afternoon.

The crash happened about 3.55pm at One Tree Point, 6km northwest of Marsden Point and 38km southeast of Whangarei.

Ambulance northern communications team manager Ngaire Jones said one person died in the crash and three others were injured.

"The information we have is that the plane hit a car, and the three with moderate injuries were in the car," Ms Jones told NZPA.

Fire Service northern communications centre shift manager Megan Ruru said initial indications were that it was a light aircraft but that had not been confirmed.

The plane was totally ablaze and it had set off a scrub fire in the area which firefighters were trying to extinguish.

- NZPA

[toolowtoofast]

I see they have released the name - is he related to the family that creates canal lifestyle living at various beach resorts?

[baron_beeza]

Plane crash kills heir to an empire - national | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3443367/Plane-crash-kills-heir-to-an-empire)

[zk-abc]

yeah I have heard he is the son of the guy who runs Hopper developments. my condolences go to his family at this time.

[Mick.B]

Things that make you go Hmmmm.

[pilot2684]

Not to sound rude or anything, but What in the hell was he doing, flying the plane so close to the ground in the first place ????

How can a a flying aircraft get so low to clip vehicles? Come on, I'm sorry for raising the question but it seems daft. Read both reports and it says that the crash happened "...near a private airstrip".

What was he doing so low to cause an injury. Seems to me that the pilot got a lil too "macho" for the plane and bit him in the ass

[Takahe]

The Herald article (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10631782) says it was just after takeoff. Kind of hard to avoid being low at that point...

I'm sure the CAA report will have more details, but before anybody slams the guy, remember we don't know what happened and the press are notoriously bad at getting details right for this kind of thing. For example maybe he had an EFATO and lost control? If the only witnesses were in a moving car they may not have heard the engine noise stop.

Full marks to both news sites for not calling the plane a Cessna though.

[baron_beeza]

Yes, many questions I am sure....

Where was the vehicle ? on a road, the side of the strip, on the strip, moving or stationary.....

We have had similar before, - it will happen again.

Their first assumption was a mechanical fault in the plane, but there were strong wind gusts at the time, Mr Shanahan said.

Aircraft will always suffer from technical issues and of course we always have the wind.

[pilot2684]

But as I asked previously, Why was the aircraft in such close proximity to a) the ground) and b) the vehicle? If there were mechanical issues, why couldn't the pilot have done a PFL (if it was an ongoing problem) or a Forced landing, and put it somewhere AWAY from houses/trees/people/cars/honeybadgers?

Just a few things really don't make any sense in this situation

[baron_beeza]

Stace Hopper, 25, was killed instantly when his single engined Yak-52 crashed into a company Volkswagen van while taking off at the Hopper Developments airstrip at One Tree Point, 6km northwest of Marsden Point. The van's three occupants, including Stace's younger brother Gray, 24, suffered moderate injuries in the crash, which happened just before 4pm and left the plane engulfed in flames.

Crash kills Hopper family heir | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/news/3443507/Crash-kills-Hopper-family-heir)

[pilot2684]

Thankyou for clarification.

Still... Van on the field? on the active ?

[KING PIN]

very sad to hear about the loss but yea why was the van parked too close to the air strip and why was he flying so close to the ground.

feel free to correct me if i am wrong.

[j3pipercub]

Guys, just leave it alone for the time being, you are letting your imaginations lead you. It could have been many many different scenarios, some sinister, some pure fluke.

[pilot2684]

j3, True as it may seem that the imagination is guiding us, but the questions posed, from the information given, would be asked by NZ's governing body. It'd be nice to see what light could be shed on the situation.

It is sad to hear that he has died but what can we as professional pilots learn from what has happened. I for one do not drop below 500 ft AGL, unless i am on a stable approach going in for a landing / touch and go / low pass / the sort. Simple as that.

[Steve Zissou]

pilot2684 - pull your head in. The accident happened yesterday FFS! Of course he was in close proximity to the ground, he crashed. Maybe the vehicle was parked on/near the strip... Maybe you should wait till some facts come out or even better wait till the accident report is released.

What was he doing so low to cause an injury. Seems to me that the pilot got a lil too "macho" for the plane and bit him in the ass

Seems to me you should rule out a career as an accident investigator :ugh:

[j3pipercub]

Pilot2684, are you really 25?

[pilot2684]

Steve, I'm not stating this to be rude, as stated in the first post, but one has to question the pilots motives for A) Flying a plane that could have had "mechanical troubles", B) Taken off on a non clear runway or C) Flown so low that he clipped a Van. Until you see it from the other side, don't be telling people to "pull your head in"

J3 Yes I am

[RENURPP]

pilot2684
Surely you don't expect a sensible response to such stupid questions?one has to question the pilots motives for A) Flying a plane that could have had "mechanical troubles"
dick head, maybe he wasn't aware of the "mechanical problems, or maybe it didn't even have any. Maybe they only just developed, (failure).
Taken off on a non clear runway
Who said the runway wasn't clear?
Flown so low that he clipped a Van
Every time I take off I fly low, with the aim of getting higher. Dick head.don't be telling people to "pull your head in"

Pull your head in!

Surely you don't expect the facts to be available on PPRUNE? jeeeez, theres a town over there in NZ thats missing one of its idiots I think.

[baron_beeza]

Perhaps old enough to remember the DC3 at Lokichokio, or the Turboprop Caribou. That I can recall.
Many reasons for an aircraft loosing control on takeoff.

I think this will end up being a Swiss cheese model again somehow. As the wiser ones are saying,- time will tell...

[pilot2684]

RENURPP. One, I aint Kiwi and Two I stated things not to sound rude. I only asked things that ANY normal sane pilot would have asked themselves. I'm sorry that you continue to act like an all omnipotent and all knowing aviation god. Maybe you sir should come back down to earth

He hit the van ???? What's there to say that the runway wasn't clear?

As others have said time will tell. And I did in actual fact say "Thankyou for clarification"

[j3pipercub]

You should start acting your age then 2684

[ozaggie]

Your post's reek of the sensationalist garbage that one would expect from the ignorant or un-informed. Go back to your sandpit sonny and wait till I call you in for tea. The poor prick has only been gone a day and there is already some smart-arse pillorying him. You obviously have no respect for anything or anyone but your own self importance. 25 years old.... christ, you are acting like a ten year old in the schoolyard who caught the big boys smoking behind the shed.....

Rant over

OA

[pilot2684]

You all need to go back and read my posts again and not take things out of context, I wasn't blaming anyone just asked a few simple questions. You're the ones that need to pull your heads and learn how to read an understand someones post.

[EBCAU]

"One, I aint Kiwi......"


Thank you pilot2684. I feel a bit better now. :rolleyes:

[pilot2684]

OA

You act as if you have never broken any rule in your life. Rules have been there before I started flying, and I hope that your aviation career you haven't broken any. Rules are there to keep you safe, those rules have been written in blood. Those rules were written as a direct result of people dying.

"There are many bold pilots, There are many old pilots, But there aren't many OLD BOLD pilots"

Remember that one next time you decide to comment, saying it's "ok" to break rules :)

[sleemanj]

Not to sound rude or anything, but What in the hell was he doing, flying the plane so close to the ground in the first place ????

Perhaps you are inexperienced, but I'd expect most pilots to understand that taking off and landing are fairly important parts of the whole flying process, it may surprise you to know that these both happen close to the ground.

We would have to await a report to know more, but it would seem a fair possibility that this could likely be an unfortunate accident involving a private strip, which generally are not too long, a mechanical (power loss) or environmental (wind shear) factor that caused the aircraft to be lower "over the fence" on departure than would typically be desired, and potentially a vehicle driving down a road crossing the strip end at just the wrong time.

The aircraft was a YAK-52, we can assume subject further information that the pilot knew what he was doing, you don't just jump in a YAK and away you go.

In short,

I only asked things that ANY normal sane pilot would have asked

bollocks, any sane pilot can immediately see the myriad of simple circumstance which may have led to a tragic accident through no fault of the pilot.

[pilot2684]

Sleeman, Once again it was written "Thankyou for clarification". It could have ended there until the trollers believed it was ok to flame someone on pprune. Don't worry I have my flame retardant suit on.

As for the incident, yes we will wait and see. Theres nothing more we can do until then.

Also for the family, I am sorry for your loss, but from the information given at present that was the only deduction one can come up with. Nothing more. Call it "creative journalism" on the NZ's behalf.

[ozaggie]

"Rules are for the observance of fools and the guidance of wise men". A quote oft quoted by my late father, ( a 24000 hr pilot ) when railing against mindless beaurocracy. You dont know me, but with 11000 odd hrs Ag, 2000 of 'em in the dark on cotton, I can assure you I have picked up a healthy respect for low level flight and the pitfalls that await the unwary. The point that I make is that your line of questioning was so flawed as to be seen as ridiculous by most of the 'trollers', as you so disrespectfully refer, on this site. I am quite happy to continue this discourse if you wish to PM me

[Finn47]

Coming from the other side of the globe, I find it rather hard to understand the tone of the conversation here. A pilot just died in a crash and you go on like little kids.. well, it´s your privilege I suppose. Anyway, I´m off to the airport, we have our Antonov 2 on skis today and a fly-in to catch. Relax, folks, these things sometimes happen to the best of us and sometimes for the strangest of reasons, not all of our own making...

[pilot2684]

And OA you don't know me either. Thats what PPRuNe is all about. Anonymity. I didn't make any wise cracks about you. I was only asking to keep my own "personal minimums" high enough to keep me safe. If we can ALL learn from this maybe it wont happen again !

[remoak]

So anyway, back to the topic. From what was said on the news tonight, it is sounding like a high-speed beat-up, which would be pretty consistent with the standard "rich thrillseeker boys and their toys" profile. it would be incredibly difficult to hit the van if you weren't aiming in it's general direction, and the van didn't seem in any hurry to get out of the way. It seems likely that he was trying to do a beat-up and got caught out by windshear.

And before the inevitable sledging starts, no I'm not an accident investigator, just an old pilot who knows that if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

Also someone who has no problem with calling a spade a spade, unlike a lot of the precious, holier-than-thou types who like to post here.

But anyway, let's all look forward to the inevitable conclusion of the investigation... :rolleyes:

Oh, and as for this piece of crap...

Relax, folks, these things sometimes happen to the best of usNo. They don't.

And I just noticed this:

If we can ALL learn from this maybe it wont happen again !No chance. That is precisely WHY accidents like this happen over and over again... :ugh:

[AutopilotEngage]

There was some hearty winds around that day and a sigmet for severe turbulence below 6000 feet, in the area concerned. We had some wind shear on approach in tg. Huge mountain wave activity. Not ideal conditions but not too bad.

It will be interesting to find out what happened, or the best estimate as to what happened.

RIP

[Steve Zissou]

WHAT actually happened remoak?

(edited for following post) ... I realise what happened from reading the same news report as everyone else (an aircraft crashed into a stationary vehicle/the pilot died/it was windy) and unless remoak was there I know as much about what caused it as he does.

[toolowtoofast]

Pilot killed in Northland plane crash (00:38) | Breaking & Daily News, Sport & Weather | TV ONE, TV2 | TVNZ (http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/pilot-killed-in-northland-plane-crash-00-38-video-3413168)

[remoak]

Steve Zissou

WHAT actually happened remoak?As you SHOULD be able to tell from my use of phrases such as "from what was said" and "it seems likely", I wasn't there and didn't see what happened.

Having said that, there was more than one news report, and they all differed slightly. I suspect that the only person who will ever know exactly what happened is the unfortunate pilot.

Of course there will be an investigation, which will have very little more information to go on than is already in the public domain. The only real questions are whether there was a mechanical malfunction (which there doesn't appear to have been from the witness reports), what part the windy conditions might have played (possibly quite a lot, but we will never know for sure - and it seems unlikely that the aircraft couldn't have coped with any windshear), and whether the pilot was impaired or incapacitated.

So the investigation will be based mainly on informed deduction, or as it is more accurately known, a best guess.

The most important piece of information is what the pilot was trying to do at the time, which of course we will never know.

So at the end of the day, the only difference between the speculation here, and the slightly more informed speculation that will become the accident report, is the level of detail.

So you feel free to wait for the report. I'm happy to just read it when it comes out in a year or so, and confirm what I already think.

[SnotNoseJockey]

Talented heir dies as family's plane crashes - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10631940)

[Stifmeister]

Bhahahahahaha you guys crack me up.

Good on the news for getting the details correct, now they are saying a Cessna 206. Pic in Sunday star times is NOT a yak!

Apparently he got airborne and flew for 200m before crash
Yak 52, 200m airborne std climb = 200ft at least, tall van at that?
Brother in van watching takeoff = pilot do beatup over car? I would......
Yak52 = good performance plane
hitting car= not able to explain maybe low running along strip and got blown sideways into car, who knows.

Pic shows 206... so all that out the window

[remoak]

Why? The only difference would be the aircraft type... surely a 206 with one person on board could manage an initial rate of climb similar to a Yak? Surely a 206 can climb more than 10 feet after being airborne for 200m?

But no... we mustn't speculate... only accident investigators are smart enough to do that... :ugh:

[By George]

I think 'Remoak' has hit the nail on the head and I agree. It is polite to wait for the results of the investigation and not be too opinionated, but I have seen this all before and agree we will see it all again. I can still remember the P51 at the opening of the Bendigo airport and can still hear that awfull thump as it hit the ground. The Beagle Pup at Berwick is another. The reason you dont see so many C210's around these days is because all the young 'Aces' up North have turned them into scrap metal with their low level 'wingovers' and stall-turn demonstrations. The two most dangerous words in Aviation, "watch this!" Very sad but like VFR pilots boring tunnels into the hills how do you stop it.

[M14_P]

There is always one who has to remind everyone else how good his knowledge is of the rules.

I can tell you from having done a fair bit in the '52 that once you go through to full power and have the climb attitude set you can't see anything directly in front of you, a bit like a taildragger, so if the van crossed his path or was too close and there was a good crosswind he could have hit it without knowing it was in his path. It does sound a bit suss at this point but we don't know what exactly happened do we...
Who knows it may have been a Cessna, or a Skyhawk?

[Exaviator]

Gentleman,

From one who has undergone accident investigation training I would suggest that instead of hurling insults at each other you wait until ALL of the facts are known, not just those reported in the news papers, which we all know seldom get the facts right. Show a little more professionalism !

In the final analysis the cause of an accident is seldom that which has been put forward by so called arm chair experts, or as the media calls them "Sound Bites". :hmm:

[remoak]

As one who has also had some training in accident investigation (as an airline safety officer, not as a full-blown accident investigator), I can tell you that you may be correct in the airline environment, but in GA it is virtually always exactly what it looks like.

As I said above, there are very few questions to be answered in this case. There is no CVR/FDR/DFDR, just a very few witnesses (who have already stated for the media what they saw), a debris trail and a bunch of wreckage to check for mechanical malfunctions.

A real mystery...

[NZFlyingKiwi]

A more recent article here, which confirms it was definitely a 206 and not a Yak. (although it seemed pretty well confirmed already!)

'We couldn't get Stacey out' - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10632123)

Not much left... :(

[The Green Goblin]

Could be a classic case of the P factor rearing it's head if the gusting wind caused it to get airborne too early.

[Horatio Leafblower]

a classic case of the P factor rearing it's head if the gusting wind caused it to get airborne too early.

Mate I have searched the ATSB and NTSB databases for this phenomenon and have not found a single reference. Would I be using the wrong key words? :confused:

Personally I thought it might be a classic case of the Beat Up With Insufficient Speed caused by getting airborne before the frontal lobe was fully engaged... but what would I know.

Best not to speculate eh? :bored:

[remoak]

Could be a classic case of the P factor rearing it's head if the gusting wind caused it to get airborne too early.

In a 206? After it had flown 200m??? Don't think so.

Best not to speculate eh?

Nah, let's speculate, it's much more fun than being PC... :D:rolleyes:

[desmotronic]

remoak you are a disgrace

[ozaggie]

Remoak,,, promote yourself immediately, to the front of the crew bus....

[remoak]

remoak you are a disgrace

Yeah I get that a lot... yet strangely, I don't care. :}

[toolowtoofast]

wouldn't have thought an empty 206 would have had too much trouble getting out of - well - anywhere.

[slackie]

Do we know it was "empty"? 1 POB maybe, but was he carrying dad's digger blade in the back?? We don't even know the aircraft type with any certainty!!

I prefer to wait for the report...you can guarantee that the media haven't played all their "sound bites" and probably didn't and won't do a thorough job investigating all the angles...with all the aviation expertise at their disposal = sweet :mad: all - I mean how can you confuse a YK52 with a C206 - there's not much similar between the two except that they are aircraft made from metal!!

[remoak]

Don't know that much about the 206, but Plane and Pilot did an article about them back in 2005, which seems to reinforce most people's perception of the aircraft - emphasis is mine:

Stationairs have a deserved reputation as being tough birds capable of lifting pretty much anything that you can close the doors on, at or over gross. I’ve made my share of delivery flights in C-206s.The latest was in a new airplane that I picked up at the Cessna factory in Independence, Kan., and ferried to Bankstown, Sydney, Australia. Much of that flight was at 900 to 1,000 pounds over gross, operating under the special airworthiness certificate that comes with a ferry permit. If the handling was essentially truck-like and nothing happened very fast, at least the airplane hardly knew that it was nearly 30% over normal gross weight. (No, that’s not a suggestion that anyone should run right out and fly their C-206 over gross. It’s merely an example of what’s possible under special circumstances.)
---
Like most of the utility airplanes, however, you can trade fuel pounds for paying pounds pretty much at will without major concern for the CG. Download fuel load to 50 gallons, two hours plus reserve, and cabin payload jumps to 900 pounds, a more reasonable number for a heavy lifter. Working Cessna 206 Stationairs carry things as often as people, and with five seats removed, payload might even approach 1,000 pounds.


Doesn't sound like there's much you can put in the back that would mess you up that badly...

[The Green Goblin]

P Factor in a big single is the thrust being produced by the down going blades of the propeller being more than the upgoing blades. Combined with the slipstream causing yaw which compounds it futher.

Getting airborne too slow in a big single can cause you to run out of rudder and yaw to the left causing a mishap somewhere towards the end of the runway on the left side.

The same forces caused issues in big single engined warbirds on a go around if full power was applied to quickly.

[remoak]

What little P factor there is in a 206 is no problem for anyone with any experience on type. I've only flown it a few times, but it isn't an issue unless you are right back near the stall, and even then it's very mild.

It hasn't got a Merlin in the front FFS...

IO-540 - 300hp
Merlin - 1290hp (at takeoff)

[c100driver]

From the photo in the Hearld on Sunday, this is not a low energy impact. The wing has been ripped clean off, the strut is also been ripped from the fuse and is still attached to the wing. The leading edge is crushed from the station 100 rib to the wing tip almost back to the rear spar.

I have seen quite a few Cessna takeoff and landing accident aircraft in my time, and I would say that this is a very high energy impact to cause this sort of damage.

And the photo is a C206

[pilot2684]

Great to know that there are people who love to backstab :). Either way, I'm waiting on what happened with this accident. It's the report that will prove what I already assumed has happened.

Hows is the accommodation at beaches justapplhere ?

[j3pipercub]

Oh so NOW you're waiting for the report. Thanks at least for taking some advice.

[Fark'n'ell]

We don't even know the aircraft type with any certainty!!

NZCAA weekly accident reports. C206.

[The Green Goblin]

Pilotboy, no-one is backstabbing you, sometimes you've got to stop that mouth of yours flapping in the breeze.

Remember in aviation there is always someone who knows way more than you and sometimes they will not even say a thing.

I could make a crack about a P51 Mustang now, but i'll refrain :p

[pilot2684]

Yes j3 much to your disgust, I can read. And like I said before, I would just like to know what happened. That's all

GG, remember it was a Spitty :P. And I have never denied there are more people who know a ****load more than me. I, like alot of other people, have had to learn to take "constructive criticism"

Either way, I was ALWAYS waiting on the report. Nothing ever changed my stance on it. Just wanted to stir up some individual thought. We are all human and as such, we all have the right to an opinion. I was just stating mine :)

[lilflyboy262]

You generally don't stir up thought by being rude. Wether you stated "not to sound rude" or anything, you still did.

For a C206 not to get airbourne in that length of strip, well the alarm bells are ringing.

The weight and balance of a 206 is simple.
Can you close the doors? Yes. Check, weight is ok.
When you push tail down, does it come back up? Yes. Check, Balance is fine.
40 degree heat on a sand runway and they will get airbourne and climb. (May have to raise the collective a bit to get airbourne)

But the are impressive doing a beat-up. They make a good noise. Purely for scaring the zebra and such off the runway though...

[The Green Goblin]

Ya must be going a bit troppo there seeing zebras and collectives in a C206!

Unless of course ya flyin a Bell in Africa. I'd be a little worried though if a saw you pushing down on the tail for w&b purposes (in a B206)

[remoak]

The weight and balance of a 206 is simple.
Can you close the doors? Yes. Check, weight is ok.
When you push tail down, does it come back up? Yes. Check, Balance is fine.

Lol... now watch all the anally retentive PPL types on here get all horrified and huffy... :ok:

[pilot2684]

LOL remoak, well said. :)

[The Green Goblin]

In a C207 you had to get the boys to hold the tail until it started else it would drop :cool:

Don't even mention those C209s

[VH-XXX]

I'd take it on face value until otherwise advised.

Temporary Strip
Wind gust on takeoff
Hit a vehicle

Have some of us not been there before? (as in this situation)

Temporary strip - Skinny and bumpy driveway into a property
Wind gust on takeoff - a bit of turbulence over the trees
Hit a vehicle - strayed off a bit to the side on liftoff due to the wind and hit the vehicle with loved ones that was watching us depart.

and tragedy strikes...

Not a far fetched story at all.

[Ndegi]

Baron Beeza, the DC3 at Loki was a good example, got some photos somewhere taken by Mark S (with the 748). Assume other ref was to the white buff?

[lilflyboy262]

Not troppo, just in Botswana at the moment...
Raising the collective is a little harder to imagine in a 206 than in the Airvan. There is that little lever in the airvan on your right hand side, reach down, grab it, lift it up a notch and you get off the ground no worries. Well at least high enough to clear the fence/van.

Quick! Retentive PPLers go tell the 250hr C-cat instructor what you have just learnt!

XXX, the story sounds good, but the accident happened 200m after takeoff.
A empty 206, even with full tanks and a bag or 2 is going to clear that no hassles whatsoever.
Im doing that in conditions with a density altitude of close to 8000ft and overweight, we clear trees much higher than a van.
Out at One Tree Point/ Ruakaka where that accident happened, the performance is at sea level.
No I'm not trying to sound like a godlike pilot at all, personally I think that the witness statements may be trying to cover up what has unfolded or creative media.
The way the plane is smashed up looks like a high speed impact, not something at around 60kts.

Its either mechanical (Which will soon come out) or human error.

But I do agree with you in one point. It is a tragedy. And I feel truely sorry for the family. I've met the guy a few times and he was a decent bloke.
We all make mistakes, unfortunatly, aviation isnt forgiving when that chain of events does come to play.

[remoak]

XXX

Yeah OK now explain how the aircraft travelling 200m before hitting anything fits in with your theory... Not a lot of trees about at One Tree Point either (which is where it happened).

But yeah, other than that...

I'm in trouble again, aren't I...? :}

[j3pipercub]

GG, were you using Loading System KILO when flying the 207's???

[baron_beeza]

Baron Beeza, the DC3 at Loki was a good example, got some photos somewhere taken by Mark S (with the 748). Assume other ref was to the white buff?

The turbo-prop Caribou was the classic accident discussed here a few years ago.


http://www.pprune.org/aviation-history-nostalgia/187699-turbine-caribou-crash-1992-a.html

YouTube - Fatal plane crash - DH4 Caribou with controls locked (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YydkHy2P0dU)


The two accidents that came to mind.. when I believed that the media were talking about a YAK involvement. Probably not so relevant with a C206 that it turned out to be the following day.

The DC3 at Loki rotated, became airborne, then drifted off the centre line taking out several aircraft parked down the side of the strip. My memory has one, a Twin Otter with the crew in place engines running, - they were clipped which removed the top of the cockpit. Was it them or the DC3 that had to have the engines extinguished by the fire truck ? (It was a PT6 DC3).

I was involved with the White Buffalo about that time, also with Trident and the King Air's.
I may be able to find some photos here on the internet.

[The Green Goblin]

GG, were you using Loading System KILO when flying the 207's???

Is there any other loading system for them? :E

You no you got a tad carried away when an Airvan falls on it's arse.........:{

[c100driver]

Preliminary Report
ZK-SKT Collision with Vehicle, Marsden Cove
12 March 2010
Abstract
At 1457 hours New Zealand Daylight Time on 12 March 2010 ZK-SKT, a Cessna U206G,
took off from a private airstrip at the Marsden Cove housing development for a flight to North
Shore Aerodrome, conducted under visual flight rules. The aircraft had no significant load
onboard and the pilot was the only occupant. Shortly after the aircraft lifted off from the
ground, it was seen to continue to fly straight ahead at an altitude of between four to ten feet
above the ground. After travelling approximately 180 metres beyond the end of the airstrip at
this altitude, the right wing tip collided with a van parked on an access track. The aircraft was
destroyed and the pilot received fatal injuries.
Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North Shore
Aerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove. The accident flight was the last in a series
of three flights that day.
At approximately 1430 hours, the site manager gave the pilot a lift to the aircraft situated at
the airstrip on the Marsden Cove housing development. After ensuring that the airstrip was
clear, the Site Manager parked his van beyond the end of the airstrip.
The Site Manager saw the aircraft lift off normally, but it did not continue to climb away.
The aircraft flew parallel with the ground and was seen to build speed with no change in the
engine note, which appeared to be at full takeoff power. The aircraft continued to follow the
airstrip heading close to the ground and when it was close to a van parked 180 metres from
the end of the airstrip it “pulled up and banked” whereby the right wing tip struck the bonnet
of the van, windscreen and drivers side roof pillar. The aircraft crashed 50 metres beyond the
van in a paddock adjacent to the access track and was consumed by fire.
The occupants of the van were uninjured but the pilot did not survive the accident.
Injuries to persons
The pilot received fatal injuries.
Pilot information
The pilot held a Part 61 Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplane) issued in May 2008. He had a
total of approximately 300 hours flying experience at the time of the accident of which
approximately 100 hours was on type. The pilot had a current Class II Medical Certificate at
the time of the accident.
Weather conditions
On the day of the accident gusty south-westerly winds prevailed, which led to mechanical
turbulence, particularly around the airstrip due to its geographical location and topography. It
was estimated that the wind was approximately 20 knots gusting to 30 knots from the
direction of 200 degrees magnetic which was approximately from 20 degrees left of the
centreline of the airstrip.
Wreckage and impact information
The right wingtip and aileron immediately separated from the aircraft after the collision with
the van. The aircraft continued to fly for over 50 metres beyond the van, striking an earth
bank with the right wing and finally coming to rest inverted, engulfed in flames in a paddock
adjacent to the access track immediately beyond the earth bank. The engine and both wings
separated from the fuselage and the adaptor flange sheared away from the crankshaft
separating the propeller from the engine. There was evidence that this was a high speed
impact with the engine producing significant power output when the propeller struck the
ground.
Most of the centre fuselage was consumed by fire. Pre-impact flight control integrity was
established as far as possible at the accident site. The accident was not survivable.
Ongoing investigation activities
The investigation is continuing and will include examination of:
• The aircraft’s maintenance history
• Post mortem report
• The pilot’s background and experience
• Prevailing weather conditions at the airstrip
• Possible human factors that might have influenced the pilot’s decision making.
If any person has information which may assist with the investigation of this accident then
they may contact the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand at [email protected] CAA
accident investigations are conducted in accordance with ICAO guidelines. The sole objective
of such investigations is the prevention of accidents by determining the contributing factors or
causes and then implementing appropriate preventive measures - in other words restoring
safety margins to provide an acceptable level of risk.
The focus of CAA safety investigations is to establish the causes of the accident on the
balance of probability. Accident investigations do not always identify one dominant or
‘proximate’ cause. Often, an aviation accident is the last event in a chain of several events or
factors, each of which may contribute to a greater or lesser degree, to the final outcome.

The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the
prevention of
accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability

[Stifmeister]

PHucked up a beatup, black and white.

Richard cranium .:D

[zk850]

It would be interesting to know what position his flaps were in.. There is a possibility that the pilot raised the flaps as airspeed was increasing whilst on a low run down the strip resulting in a little sink which combined with a bit of mechanical turbulence could have contributed to the result.

[Stifmeister]

ZK850 I honestly think the flaps were in the Phucked position along with the fuselarge and the airframe when it hit the ground.

A light 206 with full pwr doing a beatup down a strip till the end and pulling up is the best feeling in the world next to doing the same thing in a P51 mustang, :ok:

However when there is a van on the field at the end and one misjudges the wing to van clearance we can debate untill the cows come home....

The facts are: beatup, hit van, crash burn die..

Does anyone disagree?

[zk850]

I don't disagree at all in fact I think you are probably right. But the question I raised was that surely the investigators should be able to tell what stage the flaps were set at and that it is a possibly he chose a bad time / place / height to raise them.

At 300 odd hours some people are playing around with different methods e.t.c more so than any other stage in their flying? (please feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.)

Bloody tragic.

[zk850]

I don't disagree at all in fact I think you are probably right. I was just saying that surely the investigators could tell what stage the flaps were set.

Assuming he used some flap for take off it is conceivable that the pilot chose a poor time / place / height to raise his flaps.

However you are probably right in saying that being that light would not have made much difference.

At 300 odd hours it might be fair to say that people are starting to experiment with different ways of operating aircraft more so than any other stage in their flying? ( please correct me if you think I am wrong.)

Bloody tragic

[conflict alert]

850

There's experimenting and then there's getting airbourne, flying parallel to the ground towards people you know and then pulling up, turning. The 300hrs is the inexperience in judging 1. the distance from wingtip to obstacle and 2. doing this at all. Unfortunately we all go through this stage.

[remoak]

PHucked up a beatup, black and white.

Quite right. Funny, most of us figured that out back in March. Always nice when a report confirms the blindingly obvious...

[Jabawocky]

Remoak you naughty naughty boy! :=

Quite right. Funny, most of us figured that out back in March. Always nice when a report confirms the blindingly obvious...

Back in March you would have been ill-informed naive and speculating to say the least. And you know that is not allowed on PPRUNE :}

J:ok:

[remoak]

I was indeed accused of being those things. But then PPRuNe has always been a haven for the anally retentive and irretrievably dense side of the aviation fraternity...

I can't wait to read the report about the Brasilia that speared in during a training exercise, and the RNZAF Iroquois that flew into a hill on Anzac day... pilot error both (although we mustn't say such things, oh no... I mean, they were such nice chaps etc etc...) :rolleyes::rolleyes::ugh:

[prospector]

Perhaps, rather then pilot error, which is so personal, it could be stated that the accidents were caused "By hitting a pocket of bad airmanship".

[remoak]

Yeah I think my problem with that would be that some accidents (like flying an Iroquois into the side of a hill when there was absolutely no reason to be that low in the first place), are not so much bad airmanship as rampant stupidity. OK, well how about "hitting a pocket of stupidity" then...

[Mainframe]

Sometimes all is not what it seems

A Cessna 206 failed to climb after takeoff at Wrotham Park, Nth Qld, a few years ago. Also a pilot fatal, pax survived.

Some speculation that the controls may have jammed or a control lock not removed, not substantiated, definitely was not a beat up.

199904898 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1999/aair/aair199904898.aspx)

Has anyone considered a similar possibility, rather than an unsubstantiated beat up?

[remoak]

Mainframe

It was the third flight of the day, highly unlikely that an external gust lock was involved. Read the report, it is pretty obviously not a control lock issue. He got airborne, carried out a level acceleration at a high power setting, and when he got to the van he pulled up and banked.

If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... guess what it is.

There are virtually no similarities between the two accidents, other than them both happening just after takeoff.

[Mainframe]

Remoak

I read the report, no mention of 3rd flight, the pilot was dropped off, he took off, did not climb
and then performed a pull up manoeuvre during which he struck the stationary van.

From your input, you were a witness to the accident and thus will help in the investigation.

[frigatebird]

Remoak
As you use it as an insult quite often here on Prune,.. what exactly do you mean when you use the term 'anally retentive' ..? :)

[remoak]

Mainframe

You may wish to actually, you know, READ the report:

Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North Shore
Aerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove. The accident flight was the last in a series of three flights that day. (My bolding)

frigatebird

Nope, not used as an insult, more an accurate assessment of someone's character... :)

In Freudian psychology, the anal stage is said to follow the oral stage of infant/early-childhood development. This is a time when an infant's attention moves from oral stimulation to anal stimulation (usually the bowels but occasionally the bladder), usually synchronous with learning to control their excretory functions, a time of toilet training. Freud theorized that children who experience conflicts during this period of time may develop "anal" personality traits, namely those associated with a child's efforts at excretory control: orderliness, stubbornness, a compulsion for control, as well as a generalized interest in collecting, possessing, and retaining objects.
If these qualities continue into later life, the person is said to be "anal retentive".

The Anal retentive personality is stingy, with a compulsive seeking of order and tidiness. The person is generally stubborn and perfectionist. (Wikipedia, but close enough for our purposes.)

In this context, people who will not make the mental leap required to assess the available evidence and form a sensible conclusion, but who insist on an official report (the seeking of order and tidiness) before accepting that conclusion (stubbornness and perfectionism).

Not to say that official reports are bad or unnecessary, simply that they normally confirm what most people conclude very shortly after an accident. Only rarely (particularly in simple light aircraft) is the cause of an accident not immediately obvious.

There is probably also an element of not wanting to admit a fellow pilot screwed up, as it reflects badly on our own capacity for error or poor judgement. However, as the airline industry has learned the hard way, a rapid acceptance of an accident's likely cause enhances safety, as it allows equally rapid corrective action to be taken.

In this case, we have a relatively inexperienced pilot who also enjoys engaging in competitive motorsport and other high-risk activities. We have an aircraft that accelerates rapidly at a high power setting while being held down near the ground (which you would have to do quite deliberately, a stuck gust lock won't do it, and in any case the aircraft would naturally pitch up as speed increases if the controls were jammed - try it yourself sometime at a safe altitude), and then performs a pull-up and bank just as it reaches the van. Any normal person would add two and two and arrive at the correct conclusion. The anally retentive person would refuse to accept that conclusion until "somebody in authority" confirms it, for the reasons noted above.

[frigatebird]

Thanks for that..:ok:

Never had Wikipedia to define it when I read about Freud and Jung and their interpretations and early studies, and conflicting theories, all those years ago.. :O

(Don't use it today either, just work things out based on my own assessments, and avoid all the bull...t spin.)

[remoak]

No probs... I was wondering if you were reading a different report! :}

I too spent more hours than I care to remember in lecture theatres learning about Freud and Jung, and of course Miller and the others... sending rats insane in an effort to get them to press the correct button... ah those were the days!

I have a friend who is a Jungian analyst in Hollywood, California. He has endless streams of minor starlets through his office with the usual crop of Californian issues. He listens politely, smiles sweetly and tells them to get the hell over themselves. He's rich. So much for Jung... ;)

[Mainframe]

Remoak

Yes, I am Anal Retentive and possibly Obsessive Compulsive,
I am advised by some medical examiners that these are reasonably common and desirable traits in professional pilots.

seems it helps with adherence to checklists and SOP's.

anyway, yes the report states that it was the 3rd flight of the day.

Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North ShoreAerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove.
The accident flight was the last in a series of three flights that day.

At approximately 1430 hours, the site manager gave the pilot a lift to the aircraft situated at the airstrip on the Marsden Cove housing development.
After ensuring that the airstrip was clear, the Site Manager parked his van beyond the end of the airstrip.

At 1457 hours New Zealand Daylight Time on 12 March 2010 ZK-SKT, a Cessna U206G,
took off from a private airstrip at the Marsden Cove housing development for a flight to NorthShore Aerodrome, conducted under visual flight rules

The 1st flight may have been the flight from North Shore to somewhere else prior to arrival at Marsden Cove.

no idea where the 2nd flight flight occurred.

For the 3rd flight, aircraft had been parked at Marsden Cove and at approx 14:30 the pilot was dropped off at the airfield.

27 minutes later it was all over (14:57). Seems a reasonable amount of time to preflight, start up, taxi and take off for the last time.(3rd flight).

Did you observe all three flights, or just the 3rd?

Yes, he may have performed a beat up that went wrong, as you imply, "it is obvious".

Regardless, for a whole lot of reasons, an investigation and a finding are necessary for the Coroner,
the insurance company and other affected parties etc.

When you give your witness statement that also will be taken into account and assist in the findings.

The Whyalla Air disaster was subject to many experts prejudging, blaming fuel quantity, fuel quality etc with even Dick Smith
and various politicians prejudging the investigation.

Everyone was dumbfounded when an emerging fault in Lycoming crankshafts was eventually found to be the cause.

Never let the truth get in the way of a good story.

You most probably will be found to be correct in your assumption, but surely there is a place for a proper investigation.

This is not a witchcraft trial, it is an investigation of an accident that may be obvious, but still deserving of due process.

I have lost friends in accidents, and felt that human factors contributed, yet still awaited the findings in case I was wrong.

There are no new accidents in aviation, they have all been amply demonstrated before.

Low flying, beat ups and "watch this" are usually testosterone induced aberrations that often end in tragedy.

We all are painfully aware of this.

[remoak]

Mainframe

Yes, I am Anal Retentive and possibly Obsessive Compulsive,
I am advised by some medical examiners that these are reasonably common and desirable traits in professional pilots.

Well I wouldn't have said so, but as you did... ;-)

Speaking as someone who nearly ended up in a career in psychology instead of flying, I can tell you that those traits are not common or desirable in professional pilots. Focusing obsessively on minutia mitigates against seeing the big picture, which is essential for professional pilots.

Everyone was dumbfounded when an emerging fault in Lycoming crankshafts was eventually found to be the cause.

So why does the report say "The wreckage examination did not reveal any pre-impact technical defect that may have contributed to the accident"?

Even if the engine lost power due to a crankshaft failure, from the report it appears that the reason the aircraft was lost was that the pilot failed to maintain control and crashed. What is the first thing that you learn as a student pilot?

It was the loss of control, not an engine failure, that killed this pilot. An engine failure might have been a contributing factor, but any pilot who can't pull off an EFATO reasonably successfully shouldn't be flying. It doesn't exactly look like challenging terrain.

You most probably will be found to be correct in your assumption, but surely there is a place for a proper investigation.

As I have already said, I have no issues with investigations. I just don't need one to tell me what is obvious.

Low flying, beat ups and "watch this" are usually testosterone induced aberrations that often end in tragedy.

We all are painfully aware of this.

Is that not a good reason to call a spade a spade, without waiting a year or more for a report? On an accident that will be largely forgotten by then? And no opportunity for the general pilot population to learn from it?

[prospector]

remoak,
In the Whyalla accident it was a double engine failure, how and why is still a matter for conjecture. The ATSB report was overturned by the coroners investigation and report.

What the coroners aviation qualifications were, as compared to the ATSB members I do not know.

One engine only was blamed on crankshaft failure, the engines were reported I believe to be running too lean on climb, in accordance with company sops, and overheated sections of the first engine, leading to the failure of that engine.

So here we can take a pick based on personal experience, the ATSB report, or the ruling by the coroner.

[Jabawocky]

The ATSB report was such a laugh ....except it was not a laughing matter.

Company SOP's and climb fuel flows were clearly the issue not those in the ATSB report.

here is a lift from an article that was much closer to the mark.

In December, 2001, the ATSB (Australian Transport Safety Bureau, similar to the U.S.'s NTSB) published one of the worst accident reports I can remember reading (http://www.atsb.gov.au/aviation/pdf/whyalla.pdf). In my opinion, the ATSB has taken junk science, pure speculation and profound ignorance to levels seldom before seen. They have not only perpetuated "Old Wives' Tales," but they have invented a few new ones. I'm afraid we'll be hearing about "lead oxybromide deposits" for all eternity. As best I can tell, that term seems to have been INVENTED in this accident report. (Try a search on the Internet for "lead oxybromide"!)
My main complaints about the ATSB report are:

The ATSB makes "lead oxybromide" deposits the central focus of the accident, when it is very unlikely that ANY "deposits" played ANY role in the accident;
The ATSB seems to leave the impression that the rich side of peak EGT is the only safe mixture setting to use; and
The "probable cause" is nowhere to be found in the voluminous 150-page report.

[remoak]

Hold on a minute... are you guys suggesting that the accident report, which as we all know is an unimpeachable document which is above reproach and the only possible authority on why an accident happened - might be flawed? I mean, are you even allowed to SUGGEST that on these fora? :=:=:=

Actually I'm not surprised. As I have said before, the majority of "accident investigators" are previously inexperienced pilots or engineers who just do the Cranfield six week course and, viola, they are accident investigators! The reality is that they generally simply follow a script, generating screeds of data (ie pages in the report) that, while possibly useful for completeness, shed no light at all on why an accident actually happened. Only the very smart, or very experienced ones ever come up with anything particularly clever or revealing, and the report you mentioned seems to be a case in point.

This Northland accident is as close to an open and shut case as you will ever see, partly because we all know what the guy was up to, but even if he wasn't and it was a result of windshear, sunspots, global warming or the butterfly effect, no evidence will ever be found to prove it.

Rich playboy + powerful toys + giant ego + lack of self-control = big smoking hole in the ground.

It's not as if it was the first time... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Corkey McFuz]

Jaba, was that one of Deakin's articles ?
Im sure I've read it once before, wouln't mind having another look...

[remoak]

Here you go...

Pelican's Perch: The Whyalla Report -- Junk Science? (http://www.airsafety.com.au/pelp0057.html)

[Corkey McFuz]

Thanks remoak. An interesting read indeed :eek:

[remoak]

Yeah... I have just been reading the various reports... doesn't exactly enhance your faith in CASA does it...

[remoak]

Yeah... sorry about that. No, not really.... ;)

After reading all the stuff about that accident, I doubt I'll ever trust an accident report again either!

[c100driver]

3. Conclusions
3.1 The pilot was appropriately licensed and rated for the flight.
3.2 The aircraft was in an airworthy condition prior to the accident and there was no
evidence to suggest that mechanical failure contributed to the accident.
3.3 There is no evidence to suggest that the pilot did not have control of the aircraft during the takeoff, or was in any way incapacitated at that time. The flight path of the aircraft suggests there was a conscious and deliberate decision by the pilot not to follow the normal climb profile after takeoff and to fly towards the van at low level.
3.4 It is unknown why the pilot did not follow the normal climb profile after takeoff. As the occupants of the van were known to the pilot it is reasonable to believe that the pilot may have flown the aircraft towards the van at low level, in order to perform a low pass or ‘fly by’ over the van. Such low flying would have been unnecessary and deemed to be ‘at risk behaviour’.
3.5 During a rolling pull-up manoeuvre the aircraft collided with the van. This collision was probably caused by the pilot misjudging his clearance from the van due to the combination of ‘blossom effect’ and the lowering of the right wing in the banked turn.
3.6 There was no evidence to suggest that environmental factors contributed to this accident.

Surprise Surprise! As most suspected its a duck!