Tomohawk Trainer down in North Island

[dudduddud]

http://media.nzherald.co.nz/webcontent/image/jpg/plane_220x14725789.jpg

Crash survivors critically injured - chopper pilot

By Edward Gay NZ Herald

6:02 PM Monday Jul 12, 2010


Two men are in a critical condition and "pretty banged up" after their plane collided with the side of a mountain in the Ruahine Ranges near Palmerston North this afternoon.

Square Trust Rescue Helicopter pilot Fergus MacLachlan said he was first called in at about 1pm after a beacon signal was picked up, which "usually turns out to be nothing".

But within five minutes, Mr McLachlan's crew spotted a light aircraft wedged between two trees on the side of a hill in rugged terrain.

"The two trees were the only thing that was holding them there," he said.

"When we first got there we saw one person waving. Once we saw that person waving, we knew at least one person was alive. Prior to that, we weren't so sure."

As a pilot, Mr McLachlan said it was always a relief to see a survivor "because it could be you one day".

Mr McLachlan decided to drop two crew members into a dry stream bed nearby because of the rugged terrain and likelihood of there being spilled fuel nearby.

He said the paramedic and other crew member had a 20-minute walk through scrub that was chest high.

Mr McLachlan said his helicopter winched one of the injured plane crew aboard and took him to hospital before calling for a second rescue helicopter.

Asked about the men's conditions, Mr McLachlan said they were "pretty banged up, with broken bones at least".

He said both men would have multiple fractures and were in a critical condition.

Rescue Coordination Centre search and rescue officer Chris Wilson said it appeared the plane had made a forced landing after encountering difficulties.

"The aircraft is relatively intact and it is belly-down, so in the correct position," she told Radio New Zealand.

"The rescue helicopter pilot said that the pilot of the light aircraft did a great job in getting the aircraft down so well in such steep country."

A 5km no-fly zone has been established around the crash site.

The Department of Labour has been informed and the Civil Aviation Authority is investigating.

- with NZPA

[sleemanj]

Clearer image and updates here
'Amazing anyone alive' - national | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3911321/Rescuers-surprised-at-finding-plane-crash-survivors)

[remoak]

Civil Aviation Authority spokeswoman Emma Peel said a team led by experienced investigator Steve Walker would begin its investigation today.
"They've got to get onto the scene and start looking at the terrain, and the position of aircraft in relation to the terrain, and whether there's skid marks on the snow," she said.
Could someone please point to the snow in that picture? Or explain how an aircraft wedged between two trees could have left skid marks in it? And what did Steed have to say about it?

Our tax dollars hard at work...

It was either luck or skill that the plane had landed upright. Both men would have had control of it. "The student was saying, 'I have failed my check ride'." He should probably get an honorary pass for surviving so well...

[27/09]

And what did Steed have to say about it? Now your age is starting to show.

[Bastardos]

I have found that the length of the skidmarks in the underpants usually can tell a lot about an accident :uhoh:

[Indianzz]

The NZCAA and a 60's UK Fantasy Drama, now thats what I call perfect synergy.....................

Now what could NZ Airways be paired with??:rolleyes:

[remoak]

Now what could NZ Airways be paired with??:rolleyes:The Prisoner (Patrick McGoohan)

"I am not a number... I am a free man..."

[latewings]

Engine failure ruled out as cause of plane crash - National - NZ Herald News (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10658570)

[kiwi chick]

Does anyone know who the instructor is yet?

Hmmm yes I'm struggling to see any snow too. I'm a little skeptical when they say how well the student landed it - what instructor with 4 years experience would let their student land it?!

[Aerozepplin]

Trainee pilot's parents tell of nightmare | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/3915873/Trainee-pilots-parents-tell-of-nightmare)

The names of those involved in the above story...

[prospector]

Much more to come, no engine failure, witness observed aircraft low level in valley. Wx apparently CAVU, what exercise involves low level in valley? especially in Commercial X country check flight. Who was demonstrating what to who?? Looks more like a semi controlled crash then any sort of landing.

[remoak]

Simulated bad wx low flying that went wrong? A little bit of mountain flying that went wrong?

Two pilots with no recollection of events... ah well.

Sounds like the witness will be the only explanation!

Even so... "we must wait for the report"... :rolleyes::ugh::}

[Jabawocky]

Demonstration of mountain waves???......full power, full back....crunch! :eek:

[dudduddud]

It's part of the 'lost procedures' of the commercial cross-country. The student is blindfolded while the instructor flys low into a hilly area and tries to disorient the student. The blindfold is then removed and the student is required to find their location without going above a certain altitude, which usually keeps them pretty low in teh valley, or whatever.

It's a bit of valley flying, map reading and bad weather handling all rolled into one.

[prospector]

That must be the most stupid "exercise" I have ever heard of. The point is not to get yourself in that situation in the first place. Surely that is what should be being taught. I would imagine even very experienced aeroplane drivers faced with that situation, being blindfolded and led into the valley,of what? could embarass themselves very rapidly.

What happened in this case? they tried it with the instructor blindfolded to for a bit of reality??.

[remoak]

More to the point - great weather around there last few days - why ever let it develop to the point where the only option was hitting trees? Surely the object of the exercise is aviate, navigate, communicate? Communication being optional in this case...

Not likely to be any wave Jaba, the lower North Island is in the grip of a nice fat high that has meant clear skies and no wind for the last three days...

[dudduddud]

I think that the exercise is a valid one. This is one of the areas where commercial imperatives may override common sense and no amount of preventitive training can truely combat that.

And I don't think these guys just fly down into any old valley. You'd think they'd take all the usual precautions for low flying like checking for wires, making sure there is a way out (before he flys too far up that skinny bit I'll get him to turn around, sort of thing). I guess sometimes you just get caught out.

[prospector]

What commercial imperative could ever overide common sense??

Is this valley where they ended up a designated low flying area?

If not what is the legal minimum altitude What should common sense tell you, especially in an overpowered two up Tomahawk, what your minimum altitude should be in mountainous, or even big hills terrain.

[Three Blader]

Forget this overated mountain flying Hu Ha that we have all heard of in the past few months, and concentrate on Threat and Error mangement and of course good old common sense

[prospector]

" commercial imperatives may override common sense "

Would you say "Commercial Imperatives" were involved in the Erebus event??? is that any explanation for not using common sense at all times??

[remoak]

There is NO case for allowing commercial imperatives to over-ride common sense... never has been, and certainly never should be for anyone who has "commercial" on their licence.

Anyone who thinks commercial imperatives should EVER over-ride common sense should have their licence forcibly removed from them, and never be allowed to fly again.

[cficare]

Some words from dudduddud........

"I think that the exercise is a valid one."

I don't

" I guess sometimes you just get caught out."

..so..to lose an a/c and crew every now and then is OK????

[remoak]

It's a valid exercise if carried out in a safe manner, knowing what to do if you get lost is worth the effort... BUT it has to be done safely (like learning instrument flying or whatever).

There is absolutely no excuse for getting "caught out" when on a CPL x-country flight test in superb weather... none at all.

Unfortunately, some over-confident, relatively low-hour instructors like to push the envelope a bit, for all the usual (stupid) reasons.

Not saying that happened here though, as always "we must wait for the report..." :D:rolleyes::ugh:

[dudduddud]

I never said that commercial imperatives should be allowed to override common sense. I'm just saying that it does happen and this is why it is part of the syllabus (I think. I don't really know because I am not an instructor).

"..so..to lose an a/c and crew every now and then is OK????"

I guess I'm not really defending the crew more the exercise. Perhaps they were pushing the envelope? Who knows? Maybe they were being careless or neglectful? Aviation is terrible unforgiving.

Of course I don't think it's OK to lose planes and crew but flying is a risky business. How does that saying go?

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

Thats a fearsome long bow you're trying to draw there prospector -not every incident in aviation can or should be related to Erebus.

It strikes me that there are two previous incidents that may (or may not!) bear some thought in relation to this. Think of the Moke Lake region, close to Lake Wakatipu; think of two Cessna 172's in that area and the results of the advanced training being conducted in both of those circumstances. Then think about this one.

Anything strike you?

It's a valid exercise if carried out in a safe manner...

Concur, with the addition of: ...when conducted by appropriately trained, competent and current instructors -at an appropriate level and in an appropriate location.

[prospector]

No, its not a risky business, if the laws of physics, against which there is no appeal, are complied with. Any so called accident, either an error of ommission or commission by someone in the chain, is caused by not applying these laws. Any "accident" that is likely to happen in the future has already happened in the past, and been disected and the lessons learnt promulgated.

If people choose not to learn from history, then as it is said, history will repeat itself.

" Thats a fearsome long bow you're trying to draw there prospector -not every incident in aviation can or should be related to Erebus."

In the context, whether commercial imperatives over rule common sense I do believe it is a good example, given the grief that the only crew that diverted to the alternate route, due weather, were subjected to.

[dudduddud]

I'd call anything where you die if you mess it up a 'risky business'.

[PA39]

On Soap Box
Mmm....its ok to say "you should never get in that position".....anyone with any sort of experience knows how easy it can happen. I ALWAYS taught survival techniques outside of that pathetic Day VFR syllabus (taught to robots and monkeys). Yes i simulated a clagged in situation where the student must make a command decision to turn back, PSL, or "press on". Yeah we were down below the legal limit, yeah we were canyon flying and following rivers,yeah we were breaking all the rules, but by golly our students knew how to survive the worst situations. We often flew them inadvertently into IMC when they were in a jam with absolutely no way out but through it, to experience the absolute isolation, anxiety and yes, fear and to understand never to go there. If by chance (good chance) they did find themselves in that situation sometime down the track they have been there before and know how to get out of it in a controlled situation. Hundreds of students to CPL, many now flying in the airlines, and we never lost a student. These people ALWAYS call me and thank me for the survival training we offered. Flying training today is all about litigation avoidance not flying skills or common sense. The majority of Instructors I know have never spun an aeroplane!! They do there wizz bang course, pay their $$ and then ask me to show them how to spin and recover!! I feel for these Instructors.... Its ALL about training.

Off soap box!

[prospector]

"anyone with any sort of experience knows how easy it can happen."

Agreed, and agree with the rest of your post, but, if you want to break the rules you have to be extra careful, and to put a student in a position where even the instructor cannot save the day is taking a risk to far.

[remoak]

(on my own soap box)

You don't ever need to "break all the rules" to properly instruct these things - you are much better off teaching principles than specific cases. Yes, it can be helpful for students to experience the gritty end of aviation, but by breaking rules to do so you are merely reinforcing to them that rules can be broken at will, and that the end justifies the means. Proper decision-making and technique are not taught merely by placing your student in ever more difficult real-life situations.

I have known way too many instructors, most of whom don't want to be instructors in the first place, who get bored and try and spice up their day by inventing ever more difficult scenarios to test their students. Most of the time, it isn't necessary at all - a reversal turn, for example, doesn't have to be flown in the tight confines of a narrow valley to be flown accurately and safely. Some might say that the lesson is not learned properly unless there is an element of risk and "sphincter-tightening", but I'm afraid that theory of instruction was disproved many years ago. That is why airlines train in simulators.

I agree with Prospector - if you train that way, sooner or later you are going to get in too deep and then people die. It's an old GA mentality that seems especially prevalent in Australia and NZ.

As far as spin training goes, I have done a bunch of spinning in several different types... but, guess what... in over ten thousand hours, I have never come close to an inadvertent spin, nor is it likely I ever would in the course of normal flying activities. Why? Because I know better... common sense. Most people that do get caught out like that normally stall and spin at a level too low to allow a recovery. The Americans figured that one out back in the '70s and stopped mandating spin training, because they rightly concluded that prevention was better than the cure. Now we could debate that one until the cows come home, and I can see it from both sides, but frankly being able to demonstrate a spin recovery doesn't make you a better pilot - but not getting into that position in the first place most certainly does.

(steps off soapbox but keeps it handy for rebuttal)

[buggaluggs]

PA39
I agree, the teaching of these exercises, is absolutely valid. As with everything in aviation it involves risk management. Is it more dangerous for the trainee not to know what to do when “sh!t happens”, than it is to train them in relatively realistic but still controlled conditions? I firmly believe that a healthy respect for the weather should be instilled in all trainees, ideally through having seen some ‘marginal’ though still legal, conditions while under supervision. However, it is the instructors job to decide where the line between educational, and downright dangerous is drawn. This also comes with experience on the instructors part.

What happened on this day? As remoak said, we’ll have to wait for the report. However, having spent more than a few hours in the bad weather configuration in this machine, normally with the trainee furiously trying to figure out which way up the map is! I know from personal experience that the instructor must also be playing close attention to his own situational awareness, while the student has a high workload and limited excess capacity. Sometimes ‘sh!t happens’ while you’re training for sh’t to happen!!


As for spin training, I feel it is an essential part on the instructors course. Most instructors have had a 'moment' at some stage teaching advanced stalling, especially on the Pa38. At the CPL level and below it's more debatable as to whether a safety pro or con.


It’s a hell of a start to the young trainee’s career, I do hope they both make a full recovery, and get back on the horse.

[PA39]

Remoak....sometimes it is beter to "bend" the rules and to stay alive than to stick to the rules and become a statistic. Perhaps i could have used a better choice of words "Bend' in leu of "Break". I agree it is only the realm of extremely experienced and qualified Instructors....as it should be. Sorry mate but in 35 yrs and 14k+ hrs and a lot of that as CFI I can tell you students do get themselves into spins. The stall spin situation is very real and it usually occurs at low level.....overshoot turn onto final.

Anyhow....to each his own.

By the way i can give examples of studens going out to practise stalls only to inadvertently go into a spin.....our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....some people, read "schools" prohibit solo stall practise....Jesus forbid!! You can teach a monkey to fly but you can't teach him commonsense.....applies to some people.

[buggaluggs]

With all due respect, if you spin from the base to final turn, knowing how to recover is probably not going to do much for you..... maintain thy airspeed,least the earth arise and smite thee.

[PA39]

Of course you can...you don't have to be a Bob Hoover.....just well trained on the pedals. :). Now this is going to create some cntroversy. I had better be silent B4 i get myself into strife!! Good Luck.

[dudduddud]

Difference between spin training and flying into bad weather is that an unscrupulous boss wont try and pressure a pilot into stalling and spinning. He will try and pressure a pilot into flying in potentially bad weather conditions because that is how they make money.

[NazgulAir]

our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....
<ON SOAP BOX>

The old (UK CAA) syllabus that was current when I did my pre-solo training prescribed that a student must demonstrate the ability to recover from a spin in either direction. I see nothing wrong with teaching students what can happen at the slow flying end of the envelope and beyond, and what to do about it in case it does. But with the advent of the then-modern Pilot-Maker fleets it was decided such training is no longer necessary in the ordinary syllabus.

So now a lot of pilots fly happily without ever getting close to that particular edge. Even if the instructor theoretically knows the recovery procedure, it isn't the basic skill it should have been. Can a perfunctory exercise, performed to satisfy a minute part of an advanced syllabus, in circumstances well removed from the extreme conditions that are likely to confront a pilot with an unintentional spin, replace the learning value that its pre-solo placement in the original syllabus had, become as much an integral part of a pilot's basic skills? I'd say it cannot.

Is spin training irrelevant when you're only slowing down for a landing and you'll be too low to do anything about a spin? Wouldn't it be useful under any circumstance? Sooner or later you might find yourself suddenly confronted with nastiness that drives you beyond your nice-and-cozy normal envelope where the difference between a crash and a recovery may be your basic skills.

<OFF SOAP BOX>

[remoak]

PA39

sometimes it is beter to "bend" the rules and to stay alive than to stick to the rules and become a statistic

Sure... if you are flying for real and you get caught out... no argument. Of course if you had actually stuck to the rules, you probably wouldn't be in that situation to start with, but still, no argument.

But when TRAINING it is completely unnecessary, in fact it is counter-productive for the reasons stated.

Sorry mate but in 35 yrs and 14k+ hrs and a lot of that as CFI I can tell you students do get themselves into spins. The stall spin situation is very real and it usually occurs at low level.....overshoot turn onto final.


If they do, and certainly over here in Godzone I can't remember the last time there was a stall/spin accident that killed someone, most modern aircraft are generally docile enough that just relaxing your grip is enough to get you out of trouble. But in any case, I'm not against spin training, I did it and so did all my students. It certainly didn't do us any harm, even if it was the other instruction I gave them (ie how to avoid ever getting into that situation) that did them the most good.

our students were always trained for full spin recovery (not in the PPL syllabus) before being allowed solo for stall practise.....some people, read "schools" prohibit solo stall practise....Jesus forbid!!

Yes I'm completely with you on that one! The PPL syllabus should only ever be used as a minimum possible standard. Good instructors will always train way beyond that.

Also agree that a stall/incipient spin on the base turn should be recoverable relatively easily, although you will probably be pretty low by the time you get it climbing again... fully developed spin? Maybe... maybe not.

Is spin training irrelevant when you're only slowing down for a landing and you'll be too low to do anything about a spin? Wouldn't it be useful under any circumstance? Sooner or later you might find yourself suddenly confronted with nastiness that drives you beyond your nice-and-cozy normal envelope where the difference between a crash and a recovery may be your basic skills.

A good example of which would be an inadvertent icing encounter and the effect it has on stall speed... not to mention an accelerated stall, which some panic'ed PPLs have encountered.

Paradoxically, I found my stall awareness became more finely tuned when flying jets (coffin corner and all that).

I also had the distinct pleasure of learning how to fly in gliders. We used to sit in the wave off Kapiti, up around 10,000 feet, for hours at a time, and only came down when it started getting dark. Just for fun, we used to spin down from 10K to circuit height... fun times. Spinning became second nature... a worthwhile experience.

[Bastardos]

Regarding spinning, I was doing my PPL training around eight years ago. Neither I or other students went out and practised solo stalls - usually they would say that they have but all they did was some local crusing. I think that we were all fearful of it going wrong and not havng the instructor there for us.

When I did my tiger moth and subsquent chipmunk rating, I underwent extensive spin training before I was even sent solo. Now I even enjoy spinning, but the big thing is that a stall (and its variants) do not concern me. I have found that people who are jittery about stalling, once they get some spinning out the way, they are more confident about stalling and deal with them a lot better

The tiger is easy to recover and usually results in a height loss of less than 500ft (I recall 300ft being the norm), whereas the chipmunk you had to really get it time to recover.

With the requirement for slow flight now being in the BFR, will we see more stall related incidents?

[Biggles78]

How did this thread go from a PA38 landing in some trees to a spinning discussion and TE901 rating a mention? I only ask because the first 2 reply posts suffered the fate of the heavy hand of the moderator, possibly because it went off topic but I guess spinning and the Antarctic are on topic.

Some years ago, a PA28 from Canterbury Aero Club was badly parked on the side of a hill somewhere between NZCH and NZGM (if I remember correctly). The Instructor (who was wearing high nylon content trousers) was badly very burned on the legs (due to the melting nature of the inappropriate uniform pants) but walked some 20km+ in mountainous terrain to get help since (again from memory) the student was unable to walk.

They were flying through the valleys and end up in a one where they were unable to climb or turn out of it. Now this thread and some of the contributors will babble on about the inappropriate low level training, poor airmanship, low time inexperienced instructors, commercial aspects etc etc were the cause. However it was later revealed that the CHART was at fault. It had been drawn WRONG and showed that the valley was open at the far end.

No pilot error, no exercise gone wrong, nothing except an error on a chart.

Remoak, you sound like a fairly sensible pilot and obviously have experience flying in and above the "hilly" areas of the North Island. How do they compare with the same sort of terrain in the alps on the Mainland? Having done all my training around NZCH, I am not familiar with the mountainous areas of the North Island but I can imagine that it is going to be much the same as where I flew since it is after all part of the same mountain range. Therefore, a similar problem could have been a contributing factor.

Can't remember reading anything about the weather but if there was turbulance then during a couple of heavy bounces the "navigation finger" could easily slip and point to the wrong valley.

One would hope that errors do not exist in todays charts especialy with all the electronics zipping round only a couple of hundred miles above us.

[conflict alert]

Remoak said

certainly over here in Godzone I can't remember the last time there was a stall/spin accident that killed someone

PA38 ZKUSA Paraparaumu on final approach Jan 2003 - entered unintentional spin - student pilot killed.

PA31 ZKTZC Fielding on base leg turning final Dec 2002 - one engine shut down - left controlled flight - pilot and (son I think) killed.

C310 ZKKIM Queenstown on departure 1997 - climbing turn after departure - left controlled flight - pilot and all pax killed (can't remember the number.)

Thats 3 off the top of my head.

Just remembered the Frouga jet (scuse the spelling) that spun into the water at Thames a few years ago - 2 killed

[NZFlyingKiwi]

Pretty sure there was also a Tiger Moth at Taumarunui a few years ago, in addition to the ones you mentioned above.

[remoak]

Conflict alert

All those happened while I was overseas, which explains why I didn't know! ZK-USA is fair enough, the others aren't really relevant as they are more to do with the mishandling of the engine failure than a simple inattention to airspeed - remember the context of the discussion is student pilots and training. The Fouga was a loss of control after entering cloud, nothing to do with stalling (it was in a spiral dive when it impacted the Firth of Thames).

The Tiger Moth stalled while performing a climbing turn during a competition.

Biggles78

They were flying through the valleys and end up in a one where they were unable to climb or turn out of it. Now this thread and some of the contributors will babble on about the inappropriate low level training, poor airmanship, low time inexperienced instructors, commercial aspects etc etc were the cause. However it was later revealed that the CHART was at fault. It had been drawn WRONG and showed that the valley was open at the far end.

Well, I for one do not fly around in confined valleys while reading a map! You look out the front and make sure that you always have an escape route, even if that means a reversal turn. What you absolutely DON'T do is continue down what is clearly a blind valley past the point where you can't get out of it. The map is used for overall situational awareness and planning, sure, but that's it (well that's how I do it, anyway).

I am not familiar with the mountainous areas of the North Island but I can imagine that it is going to be much the same as where I flew since it is after all part of the same mountain range. Therefore, a similar problem could have been a contributing factor.

It's similar, not as high and not as extensive of course, but mountain ranges are mountain ranges pretty much everywhere, and the same rules apply.

Can't remember reading anything about the weather but if there was turbulance then during a couple of heavy bounces the "navigation finger" could easily slip and point to the wrong valley.


There was a big high sitting over the area, perfect cloudless blue skies and virtually no wind.

I hear what you are saying about the dud chart, but really flying around in valleys is all about local knowledge, and always making sure you have an escape route. Airmanship, in other words.

[VH-VIN]

If we have pilots flying low level up a valley reading a map..... talk about the blind leading the blind. As someone who does allot of mountain flying training with our well trainied CPLs I can see how they can get into trouble, its hard to believe they could in a big valley on a perfect day but let me tell you, they have no idea, its not thier fault, just bad training. Be nice if they were taught to land and take off properly as well, thats another story!!!

[conflict alert]

Remoak said

the others aren't really relevant as they are more to do with the mishandling of the engine failure than a simple inattention to airspeed

Occurrence Report Details
Report Details
Investigation 97-002
Cessna 310Q ZK-KIM, loss of control after take-off, near Queenstown Aerodrome, 3 January 1997
On Friday 3 January 1997, at 1357 hours, Cessna 310Q aeroplane ZK-KIM, on a private flight to Ardmore, was turning after take-off from Queenstown when it entered a spin or spiral dive which led to a collision with the ground. The pilot and all five passengers were killed.

The position of the Remarkables Range, in relation to runway 14, restricted the space available and precluded a normal visual horizon reference for the pilot during the turn.

Inadvertent mishandling of the aircraft by the pilot probably resulted from his inexperience and lack of mountain flying skills. Misloading could have adversely affected the handling qualities of the aircraft.

No engine mishandling there

[conflict alert]

There was a big high sitting over the area, perfect cloudless blue skies and virtually no wind.

Think NR were reporting some showers in the vicinity and there was an easterly flow at the time albeit not much puff but puff none the less.

[conflict alert]

Occurrence Report Details
Report Details
Investigation 90-005T
Piper PA 38 ZK-KVM, collision with terrain while low flying, Pohangina Valley, 24 November 1990
The pilot was one of a group of seventh formers camping in the vicinity of a local airstrip. He and a friend left the group in the afternoon to hire an aircraft. Returning to the area, he flew two passes over the airstrip from the north east before making a third low level flight from the west up the centre-line toward his classmates on the ground. Just before reaching them he turned the aircraft to enter the valley of the Matanganui stream. Shortly afterwards witnesses observed the aircraft in a wing-over manoevre and saw it nose-dive out of sight, followed by the sound of an impact. The passenger was killed and the pilot seriously injured in the accident.

Similar place - pilot ran out of room in the turn and resorted to a wing over.

This current accident also occurred in the 'Pohangina Valley' area and it was also reported that the occupants were initially placed at a 'christian camp'. (camp mentioned above?)

you can follow the Pohangina River from the west side of the ranges NE to the eastern side of the ranges. Although I haven't personally flown this route I presume it would be a good one to practice valley flying as it gets you from one side of the ranges to the other - part of the CPL criteria? The river branches early on on the western side and the branch leads to a dead end. If you take the wrong turn - eventually hill blocking way!!

[remoak]

No engine mishandling there

Sorry, meant to say "they are more to do with the mishandling of the engine failure and spatial disorientation than a simple inattention to airspeed - remember the context of the discussion is student pilots and training."

In any case the Queenstown accident wasn't necessarily a stall and/or spin.

[conflict alert]

Remoak said

The Fouga was a loss of control after entering cloud, nothing to do with stalling (it was in a spiral dive when it impacted the Firth of Thames).

From the accident report -
ZK-FGA was fitted with the lower powered engines and the airspeed would have
decayed significantly during the climb. Given the consistency of witnesses’
recall, it is highly probable that once immersed in cloud the aircraft departed from
controlled flight and entered a spin. The relatively low altitude of the aircraft at
the time and retention of some of the fuel content in the tip-tanks then made
recovery a most unlikely task.

My bolding.

In any case the Queenstown accident wasn't necessarily a stall and/or spin.

From the accident report -
Cessna 310Q aeroplane ZK-KIM, on a private flight to Ardmore, was turning after take-off from Queenstown when it entered a spin or spiral dive which led to a collision with the ground.

My bolding. Your comment - Fair enough but having spoken to people that were witness to this accident, I would say 'spin'. Increased angle of bank while climbing......

Anyway - we digress

[conflict alert]

remember the context of the discussion is student pilots and training."

yes, but you did make the broad statement

certainly over here in Godzone I can't remember the last time there was a stall/spin accident that killed someone

and I just had to respond!

[Bastardos]

There have been two tiger fatalaties in the last several years from spinning and non recovery.

Taramanui as has been previously mentioned (which occured during climb out, false horizion, etc, etc) and another one in Canterbury probably three years ago. I have not seen the actual report on the second one, but one suspects that it was the classic decreasing airspeed on climb out, lets make a turn, oh sh!t... That particular pilot had delcined offers to engage in spin training.

Love the wandering off topic! :)

[henry crun]

conflict alert: I was under the impression the the only river (in that part of the world) to originate on the eastern side and go through the ranges to the west, is the Manawatu.

Can you tell me which map shows the Pohangina River going through the ranges to the eastern side ?.

[conflict alert]

try a VNC 1:250000 C2. Your correct it does split from a peak so not one continuous flow - however the 'continuation' of the flow from the split to the east appears to be in the same valley system. As previously mentioned, I have never flown this route so don't know if its suitable for practice of bad weather flying.

Post script
I just google earthed it, doesn't look very suitable in the latter stages. Looking at the lay of the land in the vicinity of the reported crash site - can't help but wonder Practice engine failure (undershot) anyway, time will tell.