Re the flaps.
I noticed that in the photo too but chose to ignore it...unless I could look at the selector position and the damage, if any, to the actuator torque tubes I would never suggest it as a possible contributing factor.
Having said that...and as general discussion point only...a PN68 should be able to fly quite nicely on one even loaded to the gunnels...that is if it is flown properly.
At MTOW and a hot day use of anything
more than approach flaps at any time would be asking for trouble...particularly from an innexperienced pilot.
As a thought excercise say he was on one engine and did actually select full flaps, either intentionally or accidentally (a mate died near 20 years ago in a BN2 when the flaps failed to retract from landing to approach on a real assy go around in bad weather...because he didn't hold the switch long enough)...and just say the description of the witness was accurate...that they descended gradually and then 'suddenly' went nose first into that water.
To my mind, and I am not infering any of this actually happened at Rottnest, this would be a fairly classic, 'normal' if you like, crash.
Engine failure not handled well and stalling into the water in the subsequent ditching because the pilot has not the skills to fly an assy circuit at a few 100 feet...terrain not an issue, nor DA.
Lets face it...the only other reason a twin ends up like that one is double engine 'failure' and stalling into the water...the picture and description of 'flipping over' and 'tearing apart' (demonstrably true from the piccy) indicates something other than a controlled ditching with partial power.
If the 'double engine failure' is fuel related..and lets be honest that is usually (99.9% of the time?) how two engines fail together...then to my mind that is NOT a double engine 'failure'...it is the system functioning exactly as designed
LJones...good to see you're making an effort with the written word in your last post...if you want to be a pilot then attention to detail in everything you do is a basic pre requisite. Your first posts looked as though they had been written by a nine year old.
Just a few more capital letters, the odd appostrophe and knowing the difference between crash and clash and you're on your way.
BTW Youngsters are not categorised by a 'few incidents'...it's more like an over powering wave of adrenaline fuelled stupidity.
And I did not categorise 'all 17 year olds' as the dumbest creatures on god's green earth but merely all 17 year old males
I do accept that that could be construed as somewhat 'over the top' and appologise unreservedly to the 2% of 17 year old males I have maligned