PDA

View Full Version : AIRCRAFT DOWN NEAR MARYBOROUGH?


Pomypilot
30th Nov 2011, 01:23
Can anyone shed a light on this please? I used to work a Hervey Bay, a lot of folks there....need to know?

rioncentu
30th Nov 2011, 01:40
Mundubbera by the look of it.

Gee there's a guy who's in and out of there all the time in a 182RG. I wonder.....

Pomypilot
30th Nov 2011, 01:45
Mmmm, I have been looking but no news really apart from two people confirmed. :( I have phoned around but no one knows anything.

Desert Flower
30th Nov 2011, 02:11
From the Adelaide Advertiser:

Two killed in fiery crash-landing

TWO people have now been confirmed dead after a plane crash-landed and burst into flames in regional Queensland this morning.
Around 7.40am (AEST), a single-engine plane crash-landed into a sports field adjacent to Mundubbera airport, about 200km west of Maryborough.

It was engulfed in fire upon impact, claiming the life of the pilot and another occupant.

An emergency services spokeswoman said there were explosions from the plane that set alight nearby grassland.

Fire fighters have brought the blaze under control and are working to make the area safe.

It is believed the airport has been shut down and additional police are on their way to the scene from Maryborough.
DF.

baron_beeza
30th Nov 2011, 03:14
Two killed in as plane explodes into flames at Mundubbera | Courier Mail (http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/queensland/two-killed-in-fiery-crash-landing-at-mundubbera/story-e6freoof-1226209867442)

Pomypilot
30th Nov 2011, 03:51
Thanks Baron. Sad news.

TBM-Legend
30th Nov 2011, 05:36
Cessna 206 from Monto..

RIP guys..

Wanderin_dave
30th Nov 2011, 07:16
Are you sure TBM? The fin looks Beech to me, maybe Piper, but not C206.

Regardless; RIP and thoughts with the families involved. :(

metalman2
30th Nov 2011, 07:18
had quick ring around this morning, got a lot of mates in the area, always sad for everyone involved, glad it wasn't anyone I know personally though!

Frank Arouet
30th Nov 2011, 08:26
BD 4 with two Monto Doctors.

So sad. RIP.

TBM-Legend
30th Nov 2011, 10:23
Sorry about the type. I was quoting from the news.

Very sad indeed...

Jabawocky
30th Nov 2011, 11:15
Media are useless...........

A C206 mentioned here on pprune, then its in the media.

Mentioned now as a BD4 but all the BeeDee's I can track down up here are not this one as best I can tell. Media also report 2 x RFDS doctors....as far as we can tell there are not Dr's as pilots (husband/wife).

I wonder what the story will actually be. Sorry not story, the truth!

TBM-Legend
30th Nov 2011, 20:30
A C206 mentioned here on PPRuNe, then its in the media.

other way round. The Courier Mail in Brisbane quoted the type and that they were RFDS doctors. This didn't come from pprune.

Jabawocky
30th Nov 2011, 20:36
Are you sure, when I saw it posted as a C206, I then went to the news article to look at the photo of the tail. The story still said nothing about aircraft type or Dr's.

The courier mail story was updated a couple of times throughout the day.

If it was a BD why would the media say a C206, most folk could not tell a 172 from a 206.

Trent 972
30th Nov 2011, 20:45
I also read the Courier 'online' and it was reported as 2 RFDS doctors in a Cessna 206 according to the Courier (at that time), as TBM says.
And the truth will set you free.
Won't happen by reading Rupert's papers.

Frank Arouet
30th Nov 2011, 21:11
They are not RFDS. Mate talked with him on the weekend when he brought the BD4 and put it in a local's hangar.

Analysing media reports is like trying to understand chook scratchings.

BPH63
1st Dec 2011, 03:19
This appears to be a bit more accurate:
Doctors killed in plane crash | Bundaberg News | Breaking News in Bundaberg | Bundaberg News Mail (http://www.news-mail.com.au/story/2011/11/30/two-dead-plane-crash/)

YMRYFlyer
1st Dec 2011, 03:24
It was a Bede BD4, VH-UWY.

I dont know if they were RFDS or not, but Dr Dan Rainolds was a Hyperbaric Physician and his wife/partner was a General Physician.

Ando1Bar
1st Dec 2011, 06:28
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau told the NewsMail it would not be investigating.


Is this true, or another misquote? Why would the ATSB not investigate?

peterc005
1st Dec 2011, 06:35
I guess the ATSB is more interested in commercial flights.

stevep64
1st Dec 2011, 06:59
From the ATSB website.

Aviation broad hierarchy

In applying these guidelines, the ATSB will allocate its resources in line with the following broad hierarchy of operation types:
1. Passenger transport - large aircraft.
2. Passenger transport - small aircraft:
- RPT and charter on small aircraft
- humanitarian aerial work (for example, RFDS, SAR flights).
3. Commercial (that is, fare paying) recreation (for example, joy flights).
4. Aerial work with participating passengers (for example, news reporters, geological surveys).
5. Flying training.
6. Other aerial work:
- non-passenger carrying aerial work (for example, agriculture, cargo)
- private transport/personal business.
7. High risk personal recreation/sports aviation/experimental aircraft operations.


I can think of a couple of crashes that fit into number 3 that never got investigated, including a dual fatality. I'd have thought anything fatal would be investigated, or do the cops have a specialist air crash department? :rolleyes:

amos2
1st Dec 2011, 07:03
The stats on doctors who kill themselves in light a/c accidents is rather high, and has been for the last 40 yrs. One has to ask why!
Some info from the CASA would be helpful to address this problem!

Desert Flower
1st Dec 2011, 07:13
Is this true, or another misquote? Why would the ATSB not investigate?

I could be wrong, but as far as I know they investigate all accidents where some has died. The exception is ultralight registered aircraft.

DF.

peterc005
1st Dec 2011, 07:34
Nope. ATSB rarely investigate GA crashes where there is only one person on board.

I guess they figured the BD4 was an Experimental aircraft with two pilots on board and there was little to be gained from investigating the crash.

stevep64
1st Dec 2011, 08:15
Desert Flower, they don't.
I wonder if they spin the bottle at ATSB and, if it points at the wall, they don't investigate.

Lookleft
1st Dec 2011, 09:54
pterc has got it in one. The ATSB function is to enhance Transport safety of which aviation is one mode. If they consider that there is no safety lesson to be gained from the crash of a homebuilt then they won't investigate and it becomes the responsibility of the state police. There are some exceptions such as the Glasair accident in BN but due to the high performance of that type of homebuilt it was considered that lessons could be learnt. The ATSB is not the Coroner and is not required to investigate every GA fatality.

Dogimed
1st Dec 2011, 09:55
SteveP

I think you'll find they are massively understaffed and under resourced and have to limit where they spend their time. One would assume the A380 is still taking up a fair chunk of resources at the moment.

Also Canley vale would be a drain on the staff...

Perhaps petition for more funding for the ATSB?

Dog

stevep64
1st Dec 2011, 10:13
Dogimed,
My thoughts exactly.

Kharon
1st Dec 2011, 18:29
The Senate enquiry into Pilot training etc. accepted and published the ATSB submission. You have to feel for the guys, its worth a read if you can find it.


Resources for 70 investigations against 8300 odd acknowledged 'safety issues'. That's got to be worth a Royal Commission. Stand alone. All the safety spin in the world and not a feather to fly with.

blackhand
1st Dec 2011, 19:45
Well fcku me with a pineapple and call me rooted, Kharon et al you can find a conspiracy anywhere.
The state police investigate accidental death - the ATSB has no requirement to.

rutan around
1st Dec 2011, 21:15
Most home-builts are not inherently dangerous, but just like store-bought aircraft they require proper training and thorough systems knowledge to be flown safely. They are not dangerous - just different. Sensible people don't jump from, say, a Bonanza to a Cessna 210 without thoroughly studying handling notes, fuel systems, emergency procedures, etc. The same should apply when buying a home-built. An additional problem is that unlike store-boughts, no 2 home-builts are the same, even when they are the same type, due to individual choice during the building process.

Now I have no idea why UWY crashed. Lycoming changed the crank shaft formula? Victim of a nation-wide fuel contamination? Inferior engine bearing material? Below is a link to just one of the thousand possibilities. BD4s have no wing dihedral. The bottom of the fuel tank is flat.

RE: [BD4] Fuel flow inhibited from Ken on 2005-09-05 (BD-4 Archive) (http://bd-4.org/bd-4_2000_archive/11736.html)

Cheers, RA