VH-PFT Recovered South East Tasmania

[Rotor Work]

Update from ABC with video footage of the Aircraft being loaded onto the Barge Kulanda

Sydney to Hobart plane crash: Sunken aircraft recovered, hauled onto barge - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-01-06/police-begin-second-attempt-to-recover-plane-crash-bodies/6002060?section=tas)
The wreckage of a light plane that crashed into waters off Tasmania's south-east more than a week ago has been retrieved.The Cessna 172, which nose-dived into the sea near Cape Raoul on December 29, has been winched onto a barge that is now returning to Hobart.
The bodies of pilot Sam Langford, 29, and photographer Tim Jones, 61, are still inside the wreckage.


After crashing, the plane settled upside down on the seabed under 90 metres of water, which was beyond the operating depth of police divers.
Last Wednesday an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was used to thread rope around the plane's landing gear.
But after the plane was winched to a depth of 15 metres the rope snapped and it returned to the sea floor.
Calm conditions this morning allowed a second recovery attempt and the ROV was again used to attach a winching line.
The plane was capturing photographs of yachts racing in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race when it went down.
A number of yachts diverted from the race to offer assistance after seeing the plane go down.
The crash is being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.

[GarySnail]

I was a friend of the photographer who died in the crash. He was a top bloke, and also my first boss, and didn't fire me when I turned up late for my first day at work because I was out flying. I didn't know the pilot personally. Both of them were too young to die.

Judging from the publicly-released photo taken just prior to the crash, the 172 was flying very low, probably under 100ft. Surely flying this low cannot be justified under almost any circumstances. I was recently flying Victor One (off the Sydney coast) at 500ft in a 172. I was distracted for just a few seconds with a map check and noticed I had dropped 100ft. That in itself was scary enough. I've always remembered John Freeman's words - descending below 500ft is entering the 'death zone'. It's not worth the risk.

[BlatantLiar]

descending below 500ft is entering the 'death zone'

Lets not get too animated.

[Lancair70]

It must be because this WAS a commercial operation that the aircraft has been recovered.
The infamous Hempel crash was in less deep water but never recovered!

[Desert Flower]

That photo is just a teensy bit big don't you think?! :ugh:

DF.

[Squawk7700]

Just for you DF my dear http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/heart.jpg

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pft.jpg

[Desert Flower]

Just for you DF my dear

Aww - thank you! :)

DF.

[Global Aviator]

That outa buff out, bit of speed tape, good as new!

[FWRWATPLX2]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5993306-3x2-940x627.jpg


"The audio appears to be Jacinta Cooper, the Tasmanian skipper of Mistraal, contacting race control.

"Mayday, mayday, mayday. We have a plane in the water. Plane in the water at [coordinates] 43 14 147 50. This is Mistraal. Mistraal," she said.

Cooper and her husband Brett were completing their second Sydney to Hobart race, 20 years after their first attempt.

"We are approaching the plane, the plane is sinking," she said.

"Mistraal is standing by at the site.""

Sums it up pretty well:

CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 258 Flights over water (http://www5.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_reg/car1988263/s258.html)

In summary:

"CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 258

Flights over water
(1) The pilot in command of the aircraft must not fly over water at a distance from land greater than the distance from which the aircraft could reach land if the engine, or, in the case of a multi-engined aircraft, the critical engine (being the engine the non-operation of which when the other engines are in operation gives the highest minimum speed at which the aircraft can be controlled) were inoperative.

Penalty: 10 penalty units."

The only part of the regulation that seems understated is the "Penalty". "10 penalty units" are insignificant when compared to drowning.

I am curious how high was the camera above the water, that took the photograph, from the deck of the ship and how far away was it?

I am curious which yacht the photographer was photographing from and which yacht was being photographed..

I am curious if there was any parallax.

I am curious about the distance of the camera operator for the Cessna 172.

I am curious what was the height of the yacht's mast.

I am curious about the surface winds direction and speed.

I am curious about the air density at that height above the water.

I am curious about the angle of bank.

I am curious about aircraft rudder trim setting and if any rudder was used and if the aircraft was in trim.

I am curious if the pilot had any training about ditching, as the aircraft is/was based on an island.

I am curious if the pilot had any forced landing training in a Cessna 172.

I am curious if the pilot ever had a Minimum Controllable Airspeed demonstration done and the effects of rudder or adverse yaw.

I am curious if the pilot ever had the 9:1 to possibly 12:1 Glide Ratio, of a Cessna 172, demonstrated to him.

I wonder if the pilot ever learned about Accelerated Stall.

I wonder where the pilot learned to fly and what the qualifications and overall experience were of his Instructor(s).

Imagine learning from someone using Instructing as a steppingstone, merely to build flying hours for his/her ATPL or next job or to get a chance at flying the next larger aircraft or a twin, for example. Oh, surely they know all the manoeuvers and the regulations, but do they know how to apply them, when it matters.

Compare what any pilots has learned and experienced, when he or she has 500 hours, 1,500 hours, 3,000 hours, 6,000 hours, 16,000 hours, for example.

This aircraft accident (with two fatalities) was preventable, from Sam's first flying lesson.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

If you're going to quote regulations, don't quote them out of context or only quote half.....

(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the flight was:
(a) in accordance with directions issued by CASA; or

Otherwise you could make a motza standing at Wilsons Prom and Cape Otway writing down registrations......

I assume you've read the CASA approved Ops manual for the operator as well?

[Squawk7700]

Most "accidents" are avoidable and this one was no different....

[FWRWATPLX2]

UnderneathTheRadar If you're going to quote regulations, don't quote them out of context or only quote half.....

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5993306-3x2-940x627.jpg

""Mayday, mayday, mayday. We have a plane in the water. Plane in the water at [coordinates] 43 14 147 50. This is Mistraal. Mistraal," she said.""

According to ATSB:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-192.aspx

"Initial inspection of the aircraft wreckage has not identified any mechanical failures that may have contributed to the accident. Damage to the aircraft structure confirmed that it impacted the water in a steep, nose-down attitude"

Take a look at the photo. Notice the height of the Cessna 172 above the water.

Play along with me, here:

How high is the yacht's mast? Guess. Approximately, 144 feet.

At the height above the water, the Cessna 172 was operating, maybe 250 feet (probably not), if the engine had a catastrophic failure the moment the photo was taken, how far would the aircraft be able to glide, straight ahead, assuming calm wind, 15°C, 1013.2 mb? Or, could it glide back and make a controlled ditching next to the yacht, in the photo?

How far could the Cessna 172 glide assuming a 10:1 ratio?

Next, plot 43:14S/147"50E.

How far off shore is that? Could the aircraft glide back to shore from that height above the water, if the engine failed?

How cold is the water? How long could a person survive in that water temperature, if the pilot and passenger had to ditch and stay afloat or could he and the 61 years old passenger swim that far or to the nearest yacht?

Using this very simple Risk Assessment in the Threat Error Management equation, does it matter what "the CASA approved Ops manual" says? You amaze me that you would even ask that question, "UnderneathTheRadar".

Typically, Ops Manuals tend to be more conservative than the regulations, though some can have some loose and ambiguous language.

The Pilot-in-Command is the Final Authority. He can always say, "Hell no! Too risky."

I guess I am calling into question the pilot's judgment. Why would the pilot fly that low over the water, that far off shore, in a single engine aircraft? I seriously doubt the CASA-approved Ops Manual would approve a single engine aeroplane flying that low over the water that far off shore, except for takeoff and approach to landing, Search and Rescue, Border Protection, Police work, et al.

[Aussie Bob]

I am curious

About so many things regarding one accident. Why don't you do us a favour and be curious elsewhere? You appear to be asking questions that any pilot with a modicum of intelligence could work out without resorting to the internet.

Leave it to the experts, clearly you are not one.

[Ilikeflying]

Engine failure? They were taking photos of boats.

It would have involved lots of turning, slow, sharp turning. I reckon it stalled.

Even the most novice of student could have at least ditched it at a landing attitude if indeed the engine had failed.

Yeah, we all make mistakes, and all the mistakes we make that don't kill us make us better. Unfortunately this one was just a bit too big :(

[emeritus]

To me the damage to the leading edges of the wings suggest that the a/c was in a nose down attitude when it hit the water.
That tends to indicate that it had stalled or stalled as a result of an engine failure.

However more qualified people than me will be applying their knowledge to the investigation.

Emeritus

[FWRWATPLX2]

Aussie Bob You appear to be asking questions that any pilot with a modicum of intelligence could work out without resorting to the internet.

I am guessing one pilot lacked the right stuff . . . Refer to the photo.

You seem to hint at being an expert, Bob.

So, illuminate us.

How high was the camera above the water, that took the photograph, from the deck of the ship and how far away was it?

Was there any parallax?

What was the distance of the camera from the Cessna?

I mean I am trying to imply some benefit of the doubt.

What was the height of the yacht's mast? Quick research suggests the mast heights for those yachts are from 144 to just over 200 feet.

So, considering the camera height above sea level, parallax, distance, approximate mast height, what is the height of the Cessna 172 above the water?

Would you be there, that far off shore and that low, even if a CASA-approved Ops Manual suggests it is OK?

Would you consider lowering flaps in slow flight, before you yank and bank, hopefully in trim?

Would you consider the possible turbulence maybe even wake turbulence off that sail? What? Wake turbulence off a sail? Bet you never considered it, because it is not a wing, huh?

Are those convective clouds in the photo? I have a software program that enhances the photo, eliminating the haze.

As the aircraft appears straight and level, slightly nose high, what do you reckon the IAS or TAS was? Maybe 75 knots?

So, I was being generous to suggest the aircraft was 250 feet. If the yacht's mast height is 144 feet or just over 200 feet then, the Cessna 172 was approximately 100 feet above water, it would glide 1,000 feet, if a 10:1 ratio.

And, if a passenger asks you, "Bob, can you get closer?" or "Bob, can you get lower?" Would you, knowing all that you know about flying?

Would you consider the effect of the surface wind, maybe flying with a head wind to a 15 knot tail wind? Come on, Bob, would you land with a 10 or 15 knot tailwind?

What is the Air Density at 100 feet, 59°C, 1013.2mb and 0% Humidity, Bob?

How about changing just one variable, the humidity to 50% or 65%. How would that affect Air Density, Bob? Crap I live at just over 1,000 feet and the humidity in my house is 50%. So, how about over open sea, during the summer?

You suppose, Bob, that Air Density factors into the Lift Equation?

The accident photo clearly shows the right wing's leading edge is smashed flatter than the left wing, suggesting it impacted harder. If the engine was still operating, then what do suppose would cause that kind of damage?

Lend us your expertise, Bob. Maybe you taught him how to fly.

[currawong]

Engaged in Aerial Work - that will take care of your altitude concerns.

AIP ENR 1.1-101 62.3 Will take care of your distance from land concerns.

So, Ops Manual notwithstanding, the flight looks legal.

Where are you going with this, just out of curiosity?

[UnderneathTheRadar]

FWRWATPLX2

I got your pm and am unsurprised to learn you were acquainted with one of the victims given your strength of emotion on this. I feel for your loss but taking it out on those on this site is probably going to get this thread locked and remove sensible discussion about the accident.

Legal - probably - as you've been shown
Wise - depends
Tragic - yes

Unless I have understood wrongly, the photographer had done this same trip many times in the past - your comment that if I thought it was a good idea then I shouldn't fly a kite you should consider in that context.

I hope you can move on in time and really hope a sensible, useful investigation is completed and released so others can learn from what looks, from bleachers, like inexperience coupled with commercial pressure coupled with many other holes in the cheese to bring down a plane on a mission which it seems had done the same thing annually for many years.


UTR

[currawong]

FRWATPLX2

We all sympathise for your loss.

However, there are a raft of things that could have gone wrong on this occasion, none of which the investigation will be able to establish.

And, would the outcome have been any different in a multi? Or if a min alt of 500ft had been observed?

Probably not.

[KRviator]

And therein lies the issue. Any flight in a light aircraft is inherently risky, add overwater operations, low altitude and less-than-perfect weather and the risks compound. Even a court recently ruled you accept the risks when you fly in a light aircraft...

That being said, whether or not you were emotionally connected to someone or not, trying to nitpick things like air density with a ridiculous 59*C or being arguing about the altitude to the nearest 1/4" isn't going to get you the answers you want and serves to only make you look like a **** particularly when you needlessly resort to childish personal attacks.

[Aussie Bob]

FRWATPLX2, I have let your post slide including your amusing play with words. Instead I have answered your PM.

What I will say though is that I don't need to answer any of your questions and doing so would be merely speculation. I don't normally comment on any accident thread, regret commenting on this one and am moving on. I hope you can too.

[601]

CASA-approved Ops Manual

I guess if people, who should know better, keep stating this, other people will think that it is correct.

approved - no
accepted - yes

[Homesick-Angel]

When someone loses their life, we naturally look for answers and often in places where there's no answer. We also look to blame and so it goes.

If you are directly/personally involved with this, best to stay away. Time will improve things.

This looks pretty straightforward to a distant observer, but il keep my opinions to myself other than to say that at that altitude you don't have time to recoverfrom anything either pilot induced or mechanical.

[currawong]

Thanks for the PM(s) FRW.

OK, I will bite. Don't talk to me about operating low level. I do little else. Not 50ft or 100ft, more like 10ft, all day every day and some nights. Risk assess that.

Things the ATSB will not be able to rule out may include things like -

Incapacitation of either crew member, subtle or sudden.

Inadvertent control input by the second crew member.

Inadvertent fouling of the controls by something mission specific.

Heck, they may have even taken an albatross through the windscreen for all we know.

I agree, the 172 is not an aircraft known to bite, so maybe something really did go wrong.

Sadly, we will likely never know.

Take solace, you are not the first person to know someone that has not come back.

[FWRWATPLX2]

currawong OK, I will bite. Don't talk to me about operating low level . . . more like 10ft, all day every day and some nights.


I would assume then you are:

flying a Cropduster?


Maybe Border Protection.
If so, hopefully the folks in the rusty boats will duck their heads, if you're flying at 10 feet above the water. Thus, I am guessing that would be a wee exaggeration. I have known a couple Border Protection guys who thought it was funny, citing the time they were flying a multi-engine turboprop, in known icing conditions (though they were unaware), couldn't figure out what the white stuff was flying by them, until they descended beneath the base of the clouds and saw snow on the hilltops, so not a lot of common sense, training, experience or background to be operating those aircraft types, to the point they would have never considered turning on the Engine Anti-ice, or Leading Edge De-icing Boots. I suppose that crew never heard about the American Eagle ATR crash, due to icing, 31 October 1994.


You are certainly not military . . . not at 10 feet, AGL or AHO.
I have flown my share of Low Level and lower still, at Nap-of-the-Earth, in formation flight, as well, long before there was a CASA Endorsement for it.


Possibly you are a UAV/Drone pilot?

Incapacitation of either crew member
One pilot and one passenger, who probably would have sense enough to pull back on the yoke, even at 100 feet above the water. So, not likely.

Inadvertent control input by the second crew member.
Sure, but even at 100 feet above the water, the pilot could easily elbow the passenger in the ribs and caution him, but it ended up nose down it the water after a turn.

Inadvertent fouling of the controls by something mission specific.
mission specific -?-This was a Cessna 172. Have you seen one? The passenger was flying with a digital camera. If the pilot got his headset stuck between the rudder pedals . . . hmmm, well, I think we can discount "mission specific".

even taken an albatross through the windscreen
I think the yachtees would have said so AND on close examination of the photo, not a bird in sight. So, not an albatross.

[Fantome]

. I don't normally comment on any accident thread, regret commenting on this one and am moving on. I hope you can too.



FRWATPLX2 - give it a rest please. ( and get yourself a simpler handle too)

and do not be so callow to be so rude to Aussie Bob

you should cease to post here if you cannot be more moderate

if you are grieving take that grief to some private place


NB It has been the norm for years for the planes and choppers covering the Sydney -Hobart to be frequently at mast head height


GT of the ABC crew was a past master too sad he and two others went west (elsewhere that was) were he here to comment on this thread he'd set a few idle speculators straight

[currawong]

FRW, quite happy to continue the conversation in the public forum.

Yes, crop dusting.

I like your resume. You're my hero now too.

Given your experience, I would have thought you would have come across this sort of thing before. Again, we all sympathize for your loss.

Yes, I have seen one. I used to work in them once.

Have you ever tried what you hypothesize in one?

Unlike all the different equipment you used to fly, these are pretty hard to crash.

Your last point is somewhat accurate in some quarters.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/service-inquiry-incident-involving-voyager-zz333-on-9-february-2014

But not unique.

[currawong]

FRW, again happy to continue in public.

I believe there is some common ground in our opinions.

We are perhaps looking from different angles.

It is difficult to see how this tragedy could occur, all things being considered.

But they do from time to time.

[Fantome]

I like your resume. You're my hero now too.

now there's another man of infinite jest, Horatio

our friend says that in fact he is not grieving -


No, not grieving. Just pissed of that it should have happened, at all.



Yes, I have seen one. I used to work in them once

. ....... playing piano in one of them?

[currawong]

Apologies, Fantome.

You are only seeing half of the conversation.

Given the tone I thought it best to keep it on the public side.

No, the "piano" either used to jump out or was towed around and around at 60 kts.

[Fantome]

no apols needed or sought .. . . . thank you anyway.. courtesy is catching.. sometimes. . . maybe

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

ATSB have released the report, makes an interesting read.

[spinex]

It does indeed, CLX - not a bad report as they go and pretty much a case of; it is what it is. As many a mustering pilot before now has found out, when you let her bite at low level, the chances are it ain't going to be pretty.

Of course, despite noting that even if the aircraft was at legal height (which it may well have been at the time of the stall), it was too low for recovery, the report does waffle on about SMS failures etc. - they can't help themselves but I'm inclined to chalk this one down on the fairly long list of pilots lost in pursuit of the perfect camera angle.

[Sunfish]

I watched the antics of a c172 off Matsuyker I. many years ago when I didn't have a PPL. I was crewing on the West Coaster leader at the time. The guy didn't quite get as low as mast level but it was below 500'. I was alarmed enough to remember it because the pilot was pulling what I now know were steep turns to keep us in view. if he had gone in, there was no one within 60 miles who could have attempted a rescue and certainly no smooth ground within gliding distance from his altitude.

[Capt Fathom]

there was no one within 60 miles who could have attempted a rescue
You were there!

[Sunfish]

Fathom. Aaaaaah! But we were racing!:E