Wirraway 1950 Beach Crash Inquest

[Rotor Work]

From ABC News

Inquest re-examines 1950 beach plane crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-04/inquest-re-examines-1950-beach-plane-crash/5068848)

The families of three children killed by a wayward plane on Queensland's Sunshine Coast 63 years ago hope a new coronial inquest will finally provide answers.
Another 14 people were injured when an RAAF Wirraway crashed at Maroochydore Beach in 1950.
The plane was on shark patrol when it slammed into the crowded beach in front of the surf club during the Christmas holidays.
Brian O'Connor is the brother of a crash victim and has long argued that an inquest in 1951 was not thorough enough.
This and subsequent inquiries failed to attribute blame, despite witness reports the plane was flying low and directly above the beach, against safety regulations.
Mr O'Connor has been pushing for the coronial inquest to be reopened.
A two-day hearing into the crash began today in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court.
Mr O'Conner gave evidence at the inquiry today.
He says the pilot should have been charged with negligence.
"I'd like them to acknowledge they didn't get it right," he said.
"The pilot caused the plane to crash and I'm just hoping that it will satisfy me and the others who lost their relatives.
"It appeared to me that the deaths of the children was held to be of little consequence and they'd prefer to do that rather than sully the name of the RAAF."
Queensland's Attorney-General Jarrod Bleijie says Mr O'Connor convinced him the inquest should be reviewed.
"A lot of the people have passed away since the accident but I think Brian and everyone else are going into this with a very open mind," he said.
"At least they get the chance now to put forward their view and they feel that they have been heard.
"If anything, I think that's why I've done it but at least serving the public interest these people who believe they haven't been heard, rightly or wrongly will have the opportunity now to be heard."
The findings are expected to be announced tomorrow.

[Paragraph377]

I truly and honestly wish Brian and others who were affected by this accident the very best and hope they receive closure. At least the ATSB won't be re-opening an investigation. It is accidents such as this that cause immense and immeasurable pain for the innocent. Whether the PIC is responsible or not I truly do not know, but I am not surprised by the lack of apparent transparency that took place considering the RAAF came in to question. Whenever a government, one of its departments or one of its employees or its own practises are part of or are the entire root cause of the accident they 'go to ground'.
This was just one case. Lockhart is another, and of course over the ditch we had Erebus.
One day even a government, one of its departments or one of its employees will be rightfully held to account for its actions, but probably not in my lifetime.

Lest we learn

[Lookleft]

Interesting that the relative has already determined that the pilot was at fault and probably won't be satisfied with any verdict other than that. I wonder what evidence is out there that leads him to that conclusion? The pilot survived so I wonder what his story was?

[Centaurus]

While one sympathises with the victims of that accident, it is equally important to keep the whole event in perspective and especially to avoid a witch-hunt against the pilot Flight lieutenant Herbert Thwaites who lost a leg in the crash.

.

Brian O'Connor is the brother of a crash victim and has long argued that an inquest in 1951 was not thorough enough.
This and subsequent inquiries failed to attribute blame, despite witness reports the plane was flying low and directly above the beach, against safety regulations.
Mr O'Connor has been pushing for the coronial inquest to be reopened.
A two-day hearing into the crash began today in the Maroochydore Magistrates Court.
Mr O'Conner gave evidence at the inquiry today.
He says the pilot should have been charged with negligence.
"I'd like them to acknowledge they didn't get it right," he said.
"The pilot caused the plane to crash and I'm just hoping that it will satisfy me and the others who lost their relatives.
"It appeared to me that the deaths of the children was held to be of little consequence and they'd prefer to do that rather than sully the name of the RAAF."

The aircraft was on an authorised shark patrol which, if sharks are spotted, requires the pilot to circle the position of any shark threatening swimmers. This inevitably involves steep turns at low altitude as the pilot has to keep the shark in sight and if swimmers see the aircraft turning tightly over one spot, then one assumes they will get out of the water as quickly as possible. In those days there was no air to ground communication between aircraft and lifesavers on the beach.

Newspaper reports at the time indicated a large shark was seen 50 yards from the beach threatening a group of swimmers who were outside the authorised beach area. Again the reports said the Wirraway circled tightly several times as the pilot attempted to pin-point the position of the shark to the threatened swimmers and to others in the immediate area. Other reports claimed that lifesavers were later unable to find the shark. That is not surprising since sharks do not normally hang around on the surface showing their fins in order that spotters can easily track them.
\
From all accounts the Wirraway stalled in a low level steep turn with insufficient height to recover.. From personal experience of those days, the Wirraway had violent stalling characteristics in a power on steep turn and would sometimes flick inverted. It was called a high speed stall and all Wirraway pilots would have experienced this in their training on Wirraways.

This would be exacerbated if the aircraft was being flown in the low level precautionary flight configuration with partial flap extended to allow better forward vision over the engine cowl and to lower the stalling speed.

The Wirraway took no prisoners and in fact was considered the ideal aircraft from which to graduate to the Mustang a more benign staller.

With a shark only 50 yards from the shoreline (if media reports were true), it was vital the pilot of the Wirraway keep the shark in sight and steep low level turns was the only option available to the pilot. Any wind over the water would only increase the well known illusion of extra speed or loss of speed in low level turns depending on the direction of turn and wind direction. Even PPL pilots today know this or should know if taught correctly.

Despite Mr O'Connor's obvious desire to nail both the pilot and the RAAF in general for the tragic results of this accident of 63 years ago, it smacks of vengeance rather than "closure" as his motive. The pilot suffered a grievous injury while doing his best to frighten away the shark and warn the nearby swimmers of impending danger to their lives. In doing so, the Wirraway, a sometimes vicious beast that has caught out many pilots, caught him unawares while he was looking outside of the cockpit to keep the shark in sight. From where I stand as a former flying instructor on Wirraways, I believe Flight Lieutenant Herb Thwaites was doing the best he could under the circumstances. Although his crash could be labelled as "Pilot Error" by the RAAF, there were extenuating circumstances.

One thing is certain. He was not hooning over the beaches as suggested by the OP. He was an experienced RAAF pilot flying a known handful of an aircraft called a Wirraway. Only those of my vintage who have flown Wirraways will understand what I mean.

Interestingly a similar accident happened at the RAAF Base at Point Cook many years ago where the flying instructor pilot of a Winjeel conducting dual instruction spotted a shark near the end of the Point Cook pier and close to swimmers. The pilot did a steep turn after spotting the shark and flicked upside down in a high speed stall. The aircraft crashed in shallow water injuring both pilots. The shark disappeared

[chimbu warrior]

From all accounts the Wirraway stalled in a low level steep turn with insufficient height to recover.. From personal experience of those days, the Wirraway had violent stalling characteristics in a power on steep turn and would sometimes flick inverted. It was called a high speed stall and all Wirraway pilots would have experienced this in their training on Wirraways.


A known issue with Wirraway's, and the pilot notes include cautions regarding the tendency to drop the left wing during the flare.

I too wonder whether it is worthwhile trying to solve such a mystery after such a long period of time.

[Allan L]

In the Maroochydore Magistrates Court today, coroner John Lock delivered his findings at a re-opened inquest.

He said the pilot committed an error of judgment that caused the crash.


Coroner rules pilot error caused 1950 Sunshine Coast crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/coroner-rules-pilot-error-caused-1950-sunshine-coast-crash/5071270)

[emeritus]

Wonder where the Coroner was getting his advice from, assuming he was not personally familiar with the flying characteristics of the Wirraway. An aircraft that was not really suitable for the exercise.

Emeritus.

[Lookleft]

Mr Lock also ruled the Wirraway was unsuitable for beach patrols as it was
prone to stalling during steep turns at low altitude and speed.


Supports what Centaurus said. If the aircraft was unsuitable for the task and the pilot was ordered to do it why does that make it pilot error? Really what has this achieved. I imagine the pilots family is now upset that their relative has been blamed for something that he was originally exonerated of.

[TBM-Legend]

Amazing how we want to castigate the pilot and others from the RAAF who are no longer with us and therefore unable to defend their reputations.

[triton140]

Wonder where the Coroner was getting his advice from ...

All in the Coroners Report (http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/215066/cif-wirraway-20131105.pdf).

Waste of resources if you ask me .....

[Fantome]

Decidedly an unsafe verdict, Mr Lock. The evidence that "the pilot committed an error of judgment" is entirely circumstantial. Add this one to the long list of
flawed or inadequate accident findings.

What's more there is no one today who can say "Hang on, I was there."
You may as well hypothesise that the descendants of James Cook RN have a case for compensation from the descendants of his Hawaiian slayer.

As Anne Welch said in her brilliant book 'Accidents Happen', the reasons for stuff ups are many and varied. Supposition is often unavoidable. People need to be more fatalistic. To be forever looking for the pseudo satisfaction implied by that silly catchword 'closure', combined with a fist full of compensatory dollars is one of the many indicators of a society in decline.


It was reported in the press recently that per capita, Australians are now more litigious that Americans. Meanwhile the law firms and the insurance industry grow fatter and fatter.

[RobShan]

A new finding on a tragic crash from another era.

ABC news report (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-05/coroner-rules-pilot-error-caused-1950-sunshine-coast-crash/5071270) Quoted below.

Coroner's report (http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/215066/cif-wirraway-20131105.pdf).

The wreckage of the RAAF Wirraway after it crashed on Maroochydore Beach in 1950.
PHOTO: The wreckage of the RAAF Wirraway after it crashed on Maroochydore Beach in 1950.
RELATED STORY: Inquest re-examines 1950 beach plane crash
MAP: Maroochydore 4558
A coroner has set aside the findings of previous inquiries into a beach plane crash on Queensland's Sunshine Coast more than 60 years ago.

An RAAF Wirraway single-engine plane was on a routine shark patrol when it crashed onto Maroochydore Beach in December 1950, killing three children and injuring 14 people.

Two coronial inquests in 1951 found the pilot was not negligent, despite witness reports from the time stating that he was flying too low, too slowly and directly above the beach.

One witness said the pilot was skylarking by flying dangerously low over crowds on the beach.

It was the pilot's first beach patrol flight.

In the Maroochydore Magistrates Court today, coroner John Lock delivered his findings at a re-opened inquest.

He said the pilot committed an error of judgment that caused the crash.

But Mr Lock said the Queensland Coroners Act prohibits him from making a finding of civil or criminal negligence.

Instead, he set aside the original ruling of no negligence by the pilot, who died in 1996.

Mr Lock also ruled the Wirraway was unsuitable for beach patrols as it was prone to stalling during steep turns at low altitude and speed.

[Jabawocky]

Mr Lock also ruled the Wirraway was unsuitable for beach patrols as it was prone to stalling during steep turns at low altitude and speed.

Edited due my reading both and mistakingly responding to the media misrepresentation.

My boo boo. :*

[compressor stall]

What did the coroner actually say?

Could the intent have been that the aircraft may have been unsuitable (less suitable perhaps) for low level patrols as it has a relatively high stall speed for that operation that requires low level turns etc.

A better aircraft may have been one with a lower stall speed.


Ps. I've no idea of a Wirraway's stall speed, (I'm sure many here do) but just trying to see through the fog of ignorant journo trying to paraphrase something he knows nothing about.

[Jungmeister]

What a very unfortunate accident. I was privileged to know Herb Thwaites when he was a Flight Test Officer with DCA (or it might have been DOT) in the 1970's at Parafield. He talked a bit about his RAAF flying and I didn't ever notice that he had lost a leg. I recall that he flew the USAF B47 for some reason, I think at Woomera. He also flew Meteors and Mustangs. He was just a nice guy doing a serious and responsible job, testing civilian Private and Commercial pilots for licence issue when I knew him. I certainly did not know anything about this accident.
For what it's worth just think about the affect it must have had on Herb. Obviously the person who has successfully forced this inquiry was also very much affected as were many others who were directly and indirectly involved.
Reading the full report, it is obvious that Herb was trying to indicate the location of the shark to the surf boat. That last turn was very steep and slow and the Wirraway flicked from a left bank to a right roll and hit the beach and killed people. It was certainly not a suitable aircraft for Shark Spotting operations. A Tiger Moth or an Auster would have been better.

[onetrack]

At the start of the coronial inquest on 20th February 1951, two lifesaver witnesses gave evidence that they saw nothing risky in the manner in which the plane was flown.
A police Detective Sgt. gave evidence at the inquest, and said, in his opinion, no blame for the crash could be attached to anyone.

21 Feb 1951 - WIRRAWAY CRASH AT MAROOCHYDORE INQUEST OPENED EV... (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/42708519)

An RAAF inquiry was held prior the coronial inquest. It is not known if the RAAF handed its findings to the coroner - but the inquest RAAF witness, was - not unexpectedly - very reserved about his opinion on the crash.

23 Feb 1951 - R.A.A.F. INQUIRY ON BEACH CRASH. (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50089435)

The coronial inquest completed in early March 1951 showed no criminal act was carried out by any person, and there were "no suspicious circumstances".

03 Mar 1951 - Shark patrol crash finding (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/50092263)

The families of the children killed, and the other people injured, were all compensated by satisfactory amounts of money, by 1950's standards.

10 Apr 1952 - BEACH CRASH Over £15,000 Compensation To 5 People (http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/124576821)

I have to agree with the previous posters who stated there is little benefit in re-opening this inquiry - except to benefit lawyers. There is nothing to be gained by re-opening an inquiry into a crash which was examined in detail, and conclusions gained that it was an accident that was not caused by the pilots negligent or dangerous behaviour.
I think Centaurus' explanation is really all that is needed. In hindsight, better training for the pilot when involved in low-level flying and shark-spotting, would have been highly advisable. Hindsight is always 20-20 vision.

A good pilot was caught out by a vicious handling trait of his aircraft, under conditions where perhaps he was distracted from 100% attention to aircraft control, to look for a shark.
I cannot see anything criminal, dangerous, or highly negligent in the pilots behaviour, and I believe it's a total waste of time and money to re-open an inquiry when many of the people concerned are dead and unable to contribute.

[Jabawocky]

Stallie, the coroner actually said this


It is reasonably clear the decision to use Defence aircraft for this particular surveillance duty was ill advised and perhaps influenced by political expediency. The Court has evidence from the RAAF and the current operators of surveillance aircraft as to the comprehensive safety and risk management approach now taken. Not unexpectedly times have well and truly moved on since 1950. It is unnecessary to make any comments or recommendations that would minimise such an event happening in the future.

I was reading other parts of the report and the news article and responded wrongly to the sentence above.......my mistake.

Damned media!

[triton140]

At the start of the coronial inquest on 20th February 1951, two lifesaver witnesses gave evidence that they saw nothing risky in the manner in which the plane was flown.
A police Detective Sgt. gave evidence at the inquest, and said, in his opinion, no blame for the crash could be attached to anyone.


What I find incredible was that, despite virtually all of the witnesses at the time stating there was nothing risky in the way the plane was flown, the inquest was reopened on the basis of the recollections of a few people more than 60 years on ...

As the Coroner observed, these recollections will have been tainted by discussions with other people, etc (not to mention the sheer passage of time, I'm buggered if I can remember much from the 50's) - you surely can't base anything on them! And most of them declined to give evidence at the inquest, so could not be tested.

As we know, even eyewitness accounts of aviation incidents taken at the time can be totally wrong!

Mind boggles ...

[compressor stall]

I hadn't seen the longer thread that this merged into. Looks like I was right for once!