MERGED: Skydive 206 down at Tooradin

[VH-XXX]

All pax out ok with some broken bones. Our thought are with the pilot who has been trapped in the aircraft for over 2 hours and is yet to be freed.

EF-ATO.

[Fly_by_wire]

Was it EUW??

[VH-XXX]

Yep.



There is talk that it was landing and they didn't perform the drop. Time will tell.

[Lancair70]

:sad: Not good.

Keep us posted if u get more news please.

EDIT:
A PILOT and five skydivers have been rescued following a light plane crash in southeastern Victoria.

The pilot, a man in his 50s, was trapped for almost two hours after the plane went down about 2.20pm (AEDT) after taking off from the nearby Tooradin Airfield, an Ambulance Victoria spokesman said.
Emergency crews had to wade in water sometimes up to waist-deep to reach the plane, which was semi-submerged in a creek.
The pilot was treated in the cabin before crews extricated him and he was flown to the Royal Melbourne Hospital with leg fractures.
A male passenger in his 20s was also flown to The Alfred Hospital for pelvic injuries.
The other passengers were taken by police helicopter to the airfield where they were treated for mild hypothermia and skin irritation caused by aviation fuel, the spokesman said.

Two were later taken to Dandenong Hospital and another two were taken to The Alfred Hospital suffering mild hypothermia, shock and skin irritation caused by aviation fuel.

A paramedic was also treated for mild hypothermia.
The Country Fire Authority has set up a decontamination unit at the airfield to treat emergency crews for the effects of aviation fuel.


Read more: Six rescued in light plane crash | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/national/six-rescued-in-light-plane-crash/story-e6frfku9-1226161993641#ixzz1aBE0cqiS)

[VH-XXX]

Sorry should have said earlier, it's in the news now, pilot possibly two fractured legs. Surely the aircraft will retire after this one, those machines have nine lives!

[propblast]

Just saw this on the news.

Glad there was no fatalities. Wishing all a speedy recovery.

Six rescued from Vic light plane crash (http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8357387/six-rescued-in-light-plane-crash-in-vic)

[Fondair]

Clearly the case of a skydive aircraft being mistreated by pilots to the point of failure.

[Lancair70]

How so clearly ?

Or did I just bite on a wind up ?

[peterc005]

This seems to be the best article so far:

Six cheat death in Tooradin plane crash | Herald Sun (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/six-cheat-death-in-tooradin-plane-crash/story-fn7x8me2-1226161891719)

Seems the plane was returning to land because there were too many clouds to land.

The C206 requires the pilot to select Left OR Right tank. The report mentions Avgas being spilt. Wonder if he had the correct tank selected?

[lilflyboy262]

There is a bit of an issue with C206's that not many people who fly them seem to remember.

If you have less than 1/4 in a tank, any sustained turn for longer than 1min can lead to fuel starvation. A nice slow decent from the drop height circling over the field, issue wouldn't present itself until feeding in power again.

There have been a few accidents where after the aircraft has been retrieved and engine bench tested, it has been found to be running with no issues. The pilots have then sworn until they are blue in the face that they had fuel in both tanks.
Also been a few cases where the boys have run a tank dry as well :}

Just a theory anyway....

[peterc005]

That makes a lot of sense. I understand parachute jump planes carry minimal fuel to carry other load and maybe the margins were pushed too far this time.

Would be interesting to see pictures of the propeller and whether it was making power on impact.

[Lancair70]

The sustained turn and fuel starvation sounds very plausible. Ive not done a lot in C206 but the C182 will suffer the same too if fuel is very low, as it can be flying meatbombs. One other point that came to my mind is just how different a C206 is on approach full of meatbombs compared to the normally empty and very light condtion the pilot normally finds on approach. ??

[Jabawocky]

Low fuel level............ball not in the middle....... :uhoh:

Cough splutter :eek:

Quite possible....search ATSB for similar events, just like this one

Investigation: 200402049 - Cessna Aircraft Company U206A, VH-OWA (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2004/aair/aair200402049.aspx)

[VH-XXX]

They are not meat-bombs, they are Sky-Divers or Parachutists. Meatbombers is somewhat disrespectful.

[Brian Abraham]

Meatbombers is somewhat disrespectfulAgreed. Many are of the opinion that the most dangerous part of the sport is the ride in the elevator. With the record to hand, both here and overseas, you have to admit there might be more than a grain of truth in the belief.

[Horatio Leafblower]

They are not meat-bombs, they are Sky-Divers or Parachutists. Meatbombers is somewhat disrespectful.

Absolutely. As a pilot I have always found meatbombs and Parrot-shooters to be the paragon of courtesy and respect and they deserve exactly the same treatment in return.

[Aerodynamisist]

After a having flown few 100 loads of skydivers I generally refer to them as meat bombs only when I'm being nice.

[Jabawocky]

Surely fuel pickup would only be an issue if the ball isn't in the middle....? Hey you are picking this up really quick :ok:

Of course my black ball is actually white....and its often in the middle.........as it swings from left to right :E

Actually being serious for a moment, when faced with such a low tank level it would be wise to skid the aircraft slightly to keep all the fuel where you want it I would think. Having not had critically low fuel on arrival it has not been something I had to do.

[cavok123]

You guys crack me up!! As soon as one person says fuel, everyone reckons that's the problem. How would it be low fuel if they climbed up but not allthe way due cloud, so they wouldn't of burn all intended fuel therefore would have excess remaining.

Could it be that the pilot had not been experienced with a heavy load on landing where this time the skydivers didnt jump as usually the pilot has a light load.

[Jabawocky]

We are not here to write the report. That is for the ATSB! :}

We are just chewing the fat over what might or might not have been.....or once may have been......This is PPRUNE :ok:

[Hempy]

They are not meat-bombs, they are Sky-Divers or Parachutists. Meatbombers is somewhat disrespectful.
Absolutely. As a pilot I have always found meatbombs and Parrot-shooters to be the paragon of courtesy and respect and they deserve exactly the same treatment in return.

I laughed out loud :ok:

[VH-XXX]

Could it be that the pilot had not been experienced with a heavy load on landing

He seemed to manage the "heavy" landing ok 30 minutes earlier :ugh:


Cavok, you crack me up - you criticise everyone for being a fuel expert, but then offer advice suggesting that the pilot can't land a "heavy" aeroplane :ugh::ugh:

[Lancair70]

I have many many loads and many to come flying skydivers, I have the utmost respect for them.
AFAIK they dont find the term meatbomb offensive, but I have many friends in the industry so Ill ask before using the term again.

XXX, it was I who first suggested the heavy aircraft on landing scenario. Ive witnessed it. Pilots who have flown lots of loads always landing light, then get caught having to land full and make a heavy landing, or comment to me after how it caught them out low on power on final etc and how different it is. The difference is a C182 at MTOW or just under on landing versus one that is almost below the listed ZFW due to the missing interior and low fuel.

Now that its been mentioned he handled one earlier, that rules out that. Puts it back to a power issue.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Last load of the day was always:

"Centre, lawn darts away, left FL145, thanks for the help, see you next time"

UTR

[lilflyboy262]

Cavok, please read my original suggestion.

A sustained turn for longer than 1 min with less than 1/4 of a tank can lead to fuel starvation. If he had 1/4 in each tank, that would add up to around 1hr 20mins of fuel on board. PLEANTY enough to do the drop with legal reserves.

Drop plane climbs to altitude, Does not change tanks at all, cannot drop the (politically correct) parachutists, and begins a nice circling decent to the field.
Feed in the power as you come onto finals, engine tries to take fuel that isnt there and fails. With 6 PoB on board, minus luggage and seats but packing parachutes, the plane would be near MAUW, and glide performance is crap.
At that altitude, and rightly so, rather than fluffing around trying to start an engine and end up somewhere worse. Shut off and prepare for the worst.
In the manual, it states that the plane should be on the fullest tank for landing. If the engine does cut, changing tanks will not suffice in getting restarted, fuel pump has to be on as well.

[VH-XXX]

Feed in the power as you come onto finals,

Power was fed on as the aircraft was on downwind. Next guess please.

[framer]

I would have thought there would be power on all of the way down in a 206. Not so?

[lilflyboy262]

Meh, just a guess.
From reading that accident report, seems it can take a while for the engine to cut. If power was put in on the downwind leg... could reason that the engine would cut after turning base or finals.

Just a thought that was worth exploring.

[VH-XXX]

Sorry I should have worded that a little better. There was power on downwind and I wasn't suggesting that was the first time that power was added. I have no idea on that and would not speculate. My point was that it didn't glide down to a straight-in approach and have no power when it was needed.

[jas24zzk]

You guys crack me up!! As soon as one person says fuel, everyone reckons that's the problem. How would it be low fuel if they climbed up but not allthe way due cloud, so they wouldn't of burn all intended fuel therefore would have excess remaining.

Ably responded to with..

We are not here to write the report. That is for the ATSB!

We are just chewing the fat over what might or might not have been.....or once may have been......This is PPRuNe

Quite correct Jaba,
i've seen this type of 'shut up' comment mentioned before. And I thought then as I do now, what is the difference between us discussing it here or at the local aero club/qaintarse caviar lounge???

I could think of only one difference...no aeroplanes within 100m. (do i hear muppetry??)

---------------------------------
BOT.

Not being familiar with the 206, discussion i had with someone was that he didn't have the selector on both. (is that an option on the 206..that one in particular??)
The other comment, is that particular 206 is cleared to fly with the doors removed, and part of that requirement is that the pilot is in a multi-point harness, and that many pilots cannot reach the fuel selector. (thoughts?)(btw, if you watch the interview with the spokesman, you will see the a/c doors leaning on the hangar wall behind him)

My own thought was that with the fuel level being so low (who knows how long he swanned around trying to drop) can the nose down position (not bad flying technique) uncover the pickups in a 206?? This guy may have made a straight in, and those big 6's being as thirsty as they are, i doubt you would have 60 seconds of fuel in the lines. maybe 20........(based on experience...a 351 cube cleveland with a 600 holley and 3/8th fuel line runs for about 1.5 minutes at idle with the fuel supply cut off), so how long for a 500+ cube with a large power setting??

Reading the reports, it certainly wasn't a fuel exhaustion issue(the rescue teams were treated for avgas immersion), but perhaps a starvation problem??

Cheers big ears

Jas

[Horatio Leafblower]

Fuel on the U206 is LEFT/OFF/RIGHT ie: you pass through "off" to change tanks.

Trying to pass the magnifying glass over this particular aspect of the prang via PPRuNe is pointless and - honestly - does it REALLY contribute to the body of pilot knowledge out there? :confused:

I have long been a PPRUNe speculator on prangs but maybe I'm getting older or something.... it's going to be one of a group of causes, we all know what those causes are. History tells us that for every 100 pilots who learn something from this (or any other prang) there will be 1 who repeats it.

Maybe I'll just shuffle off into the PPRuNe-set and STFU :rolleyes:

[Jabawocky]

Nahhh Leafie, keep it going.

You are right in what you say :ok:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

If the engine does cut, changing tanks will not suffice in getting restarted, fuel pump has to be on as well.

Quick tip for those who may need to read their flight manual more often, you also have to advance the throttle around halfway to switch the fuel pump into the high flow condition.:ok:

[propblast]

First off, for those that took offence to the term meatbombs, Im sorry. My parachutist mates dont get offended when I call them that and worse so I didnt think many pilots on here would. Just like i dont get offended when they start making comments about the size of my watch.:}

On a more relevent note. Any of the speculation on here could be true. Lack of fuel? Sure maybe, but there was fuel in the water after.
of balance in the turn and starved the pick ups of fuel?? Sounds plausible
Not used to landing heavy??? Yeah, possible. So he landed like that just before? Doesn't mean that he cant EFF it up the second time.
Maybe the engine actually did just sh*t itself guys? Not the first time it's happend.

Heres one from left field. What if it was a control issue?? Maybe the skydivers down the back got sick of leaning forward and sat down and rested on the baggage shelf, that would go very close to putting a 206 out of balance. I can see it now, slowing down on approach, guys sit back, nose goes up, pilot pushes forward, nose keeps going up, WTF?? power up (so nose up more), flaps already full, behind the drag curve, cant power out, stall (sorry, plankie isnt here) into the trees.

What if he did change to the fullest tank on the way down? To a tank that had heaps of fuel in there. But just think, everything was happening a bit quick, he had a full load which was different and was concentrating on that, didnt quiet notice that the selector didnt go into the detent. Fuel starvation that way?

Whatever happend, all survived which is the most important thing. That allows us to speculate more freely without feeling as though someone may get offended.

[Lancair70]

Propblast, what you describe in your 3rd paragraph above is very plausible.
I have experienced a rearward CofG change in a C206. Took off OK, pax moved some items in flight to parcel rack, no change in a/c performance, as fuel burnt off CofG moved further aft, on arrival in circuit area 2.5hrs later and taking 10 flap, I had elevator control issues (porpoising) removed flap and increased speed, had pax move stuff fwd. Applied flap again and had control issues, elected to land flapless at higher speed, everything ok. After landing, for my own curiosity, I weighed everything and everyone and found at current fuel load, the CofG was "JUST" over the rear limit. We had some bags posted home from where we were.
If a skydiver had turned around, that could place 80kg about 2 feet further aft with a light fuel load ? ? Ive had skydivers turn around, like they were preparing to exit on jump run, whilst on decent to land, ALWAYS tell them to sit down facing backwards for safety reasons in the event of a sudden stop, but rearward CofG change is another very good reason for them to stay seated.

[metalman2]

I too have quite a few mates who I regularly call meatbombs, so far no-one has dragged me outside for offending them,,,,of course I once called them "dirt darts" and you should have seen the sh@t hit the fan,
as for the 206 stack,,,I missed it ,I was at least 40 miles away so I have no idea what happen,:p

[Buster Hyman]

Some interesting pics of the rescue operation here...

Tooradin plane crash - CFA Connect (http://www.cfaconnect.net.au/news/tooradin-plane-crash.html)

[VH-XXX]

Thanks Buster. Sobering pictures of what could have been.

Needless to say if the tide had been in it could have been good-bye to most of them on board.

[Fondair]

Clearly the pilot had the fuel selector in the wrong position. Noobie error.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

Wow - when did the ATSB start reporting accident findings on pprune and so succinctly...

[Mike Litoris]

Clearly the pilot had the fuel selector in the wrong position.

Where has it been officially stated that this was the case? (or were you a check pilot on the flight and happen to see the pilot error, if any, occur first hand?)

Noobie error.
???? The PIC has been regularly flying aircraft for this organisation for at least the last two years.

Get your facts straight Fondair.

Yet another two incorrect statements by an ignorant, arrogant "pilot/aviation expert". :mad:

[Jabawocky]

We seem to be under a troll attack, the new cyber jihad has hit prune :uhoh:

[zappalin]

Whoa whoa whoa Jaba, careful with that jihad word and aviation!

I like to think of them as kamakazis.

[VH-XXX]

Just looked at the photos, they had the Navy there, what the??

Police
CFA
SES
Ambulance x 5
Navy
EPA
Polair Dauphine
Helimed Bell 212
4 x news ground crews
3 x news helicopters
Numerous newspaper reporters

What an expensive outing!

[Buster Hyman]

Perhaps the creek was considered enough of a water body to call the Navy in xxx?

[VH-XXX]

At least maybe until the tide went out :rolleyes:

[PA31flyer]

Surely the fuel selector won't be the issue as the flight would be so short that the Plane would have sufficient fuel quantity in the selected tank.