C172 Down on Middle Island

[Captain Nomad]

Middle Island plane crash: One person dead, three airlifted to hospital - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-10/plane-crashed-central-queensland-gladstone-eurimbula/8172434)

[muffman]

Was flying through the ATC sectors near this shortly after it happened today. Well done to the controller on 124.1/119.55 for coordinating the numerous rescue aircraft and accurately relaying messages between the various parties. It was a confronting listen but calmly handled and he didn't miss a beat with the other aircraft on frequency either. A job very well done.

[Frank Arouet]

What sort of tourism activities?

[Squawk7700]

Doesn't it say that they take campers to the island?

[Ultralights]

Investigation: AO-2017-005 - Collision with terrain involving Cessna C172M, VH-WTQ, near Agnes Water, Queensland, on 10 January 2017 (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-005/)

[Desert Flower]

Wow - what a mess. Surprised there was only one fatality.

DF.

[Jenna Talia]

Where does it say CFIT? :ugh:

[Sunfish]

Beaches usually have cross winds and a soft sand patch can ruin your day. The aircraft looks to me like it cartwheeled into a dune. What a sad outcome.

[growahead]

From the latest photo on the ABC website, it looks like the aircraft may have come through the scrub from the land side, perpendicular to the beach, then slid/crashed down the dune. The operative word here is MAY, just putting a possible scenario out there.
Prop looks like it wasn't producing much thrust, if any.

[Capt Fathom]

Actually, it looks like the initial impact/touchdown point at the waterline.
It was also quite noticeable in one of the media videos.

[kaz3g]

Middle Island plane crash: Engine failure likely cause - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-11/plane-crash-middle-island-forensic-investigation-continues/8174608)

[Frank Arouet]

ATSB Initial: AO-2017-005.


Type of operation: General Aviation Unknown.

[Ultralights]

Where does it say CFIT?
who said it was a CFIT? ATSB report stated collision with terrain.

[Rotor Work]

Reading this story, Bruce your a hero as well.
RW


From Western times

http://http://www.westerntimes.com.au/news/afraid-plane-owner-reveals-moments-fatal-crash/3130730/ (http://www.westerntimes.com.au/news/afraid-plane-owner-reveals-moments-fatal-crash/3130730/)

IN AN exclusive interview with The Observer, owner of 1770 Castaway Bruce Rhoades hailed his "best mate" Les 'Woody' Woodall a hero after the plane he was flying crashed into the sand at Middle Island.

The crash left a 29-year-old UK woman dead and two others in critical condition, including Woody, who was taken to the Intensive Care Unit at Bundaberg Hospital with head, chest and spinal injuries.

[aroa]

Courier Mail has the busted aircraft as a Cirrus SR 22. Aint never seen a strutted Cirrus yet.
Dont these dopey journalists know that all aircraft that crash are Cessnas !

[Desert Flower]

Courier Mail has the busted aircraft as a Cirrus SR 22. Aint never seen a strutted Cirrus yet.
I've never seen a high wing Cirrus either!

[rioncentu]

A quick pootube search of Agnes Water Flights or 1770 flights will show you what these flights generally get up to.

[Squawk7700]

A quick pootube search of Agnes Water Flights or 1770 flights will show you what these flights generally get up to.

I'm pretty sure I know exactly what you are referring to here. Do you think that is appropriate and or relevant here ?

[rioncentu]

Yes squawk I think it is relevant as 2 separate posts earlier above discussed/asked what sort of tourist activities are being done and I was simply answering those posts.

[Desert Flower]

Yes squawk I think it is relevant as 2 separate posts earlier above discussed/asked what sort of tourist activities are being done and I was simply answering those posts.
I haven't looked at the videos, but regardless of "what these flights generally get up to" I don't believe they have any relevance to the accident in question.

DF.

[Frank Arouet]

I do.

(More characters needed to post reply)... so "characters" are the operative word.


EDIT to add: There are "compliant" characters and "protected" characters and then just "characters" and sometimes just "operators".

[Desert Flower]

I do.

(More characters needed to post reply)... so "characters" are the operative word.


EDIT to add: There are "compliant" characters and "protected" characters and then just "characters" and sometimes just "operators".
So you believe that what they generally get up to contributed to the engine failure in this accident?

DF.

[Cloudee]

So you believe that what they generally get up to contributed to the engine failure in this accident?

DF.
The ATSB often refer to engine failure in the initial report when , I presume, they have evidence of such. They have not done so on this occasion so far. The report was updated today, still no mention of engine failure.

[Squawk7700]

The pilot quoted engine failure to the media (allegedly).

[Jenna Talia]

Where does it say CFIT? who said it was a CFIT? ATSB report stated collision with terrain.

Ultralights - Sorry about the confusion as my post was a response to another peterc005 gem, which he has since deleted.

It looks to me like engine failure, a low level turn to make it onto the beach followed by a stall during a probable steep turn.

[Squawk7700]

If you watch what's in the links posted above, the pilot said that he was going to put it down on the edge of the water but was concerned about drowning his passengers so headed for the land instead and whacked the dunes.

[Jenna Talia]

You are right, but I thought for such extensive damage to occur would have involved a low level drop, followed by a cartwheel.

[Frank Arouet]

Desert Flower: No.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I haven't looked at the videos, but regardless of "what these flights generally get up to" I don't believe they have any relevance to the accident in question.

DF.

https://youtu.be/7kh9_ZfJpWw
I got to 20s. That was enough.

[rioncentu]

Hmm yeah you reckon you would edit out the cardboard box ingestion!

I hadn't seen that one.

[Cloudee]

https://youtu.be/0718hzji20s


The antics posted online do amaze sometimes.

[Squawk7700]

https://youtu.be/0718hzji20s


The antics posted online do amaze sometimes.

I'm fairly certain that action was taken regarding the contents of afore mentioned video. It was discussed on here previously.

[Ultralights]

theres quite a few vids like that

[Cloudee]

Seems like CASA may have acted. From the 1770 charter web page.
27Jan17: 1770 Castaway regret to advise that we have cancelled all tours until further notice. We have only been given the advice today & apologize to all customers for cancelling their much anticipated experience. Currently booked passengers are to contact their travel agent in regards to refunds or if you have booked directly with us, then contact us directly.

[Cloudee]

Final report out. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-005/

[Sunfish]

Carry out a landing inspection in a landing direction. Good idea.

[gchriste]

Wow what a depressing report. So many bad actions and carelessness and I am only 25 pages in 😟

[Runaway Gun]

It's also very sad that Bruce (the Chief Pilot) passed away only last month.

[j3pipercub]

I thought the paragrahs about missing recording devices was...interesting.

[Capt Fathom]

It’s frustrating when the ATSB gets bogged down with these things. Does it make any difference to the investigation? Maybe!
Do they need to even mention it in the report? No. It has no bearing on the accident and makes no difference to me as a reader.
The ATSB seem to get easily distracted!

[currawong]

"The reason for the sudden and total engine power loss could not be determined."

What are we paying these people for again?

[desert goat]

"The reason for the sudden and total engine power loss could not be determined."

What are we paying these people for again?

I reckon a few of us could hazard a pretty good guess what caused that engine to quit. But as you say, we shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be their job, not ours. But with 129 pages in the report, you'd think they could have spared a paragraph to discuss how the carby float bowl ended up dry. I'll just leave that there.

[LKinnon]

The crash was a predictable outcome of a dangerously run operation.

[Lead Balloon]

So why was it authorised by an AOC?

[Capt Fathom]

The crash was a predictable outcome of a dangerously run operation.
I missed that bit in the ATSB report! What page was that on please?

[BigPapi]

The crash was a predictable outcome of a dangerously run operation.

If only CASA and ATSB had your insight. They'd save themselves a lot of time and trouble.

[currawong]

Wonder why, this occurred on this flight...

Why not on one of the many, many flights that preceded it, that were operated more or less identically?

[Checkboard]

Although the operator’s primary activity since July 2009 was passenger transport flights to beach aeroplane landing areas (ALAs), regulatory oversight by the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) had not examined the operator’s procedures and practices for conducting flight operations at these ALAs. (From the report)
What on earth were CASA inspecting, then? Eight years of doing this and not a question from CASA?

[Sunfish]

(From the report)
What on earth were CASA inspecting, then? Eight years of doing this and not a question from CASA?

Says it all, really.

I’m sure the paperwork was all in order though.

[KRviator]

I reckon a few of us could hazard a pretty good guess what caused that engine to quit. But as you say, we shouldn't have to. It's supposed to be their job, not ours. But with 129 pages in the report, you'd think they could have spared a paragraph to discuss how the carby float bowl ended up dry. I'll just leave that there.

They did - kinda sorta... Obviously negating the fact that a negative-G bunt would introduce fuel air into the lines at both tank inlets simultaneously. We each have our own theories, but Occams razor still applies.
It is possible that the en route manoeuvres being conducted during the flight briefly unported one of the fuel tanks, resulting in air feeding into the fuel line from that tank. However, all of the available evidence indicates that the fuel selector was selected to both tanks during the flight, and air being fed into the engine from one side should not have led to a total power loss. In addition, the en route manoeuvres stopped about 80 seconds prior to the total engine power loss. Overall, it seems very unlikely that the en route manoeuvres could have introduced sufficient air into the engine from both fuel tanks at the same time, resulting in an engine power loss, particularly one occurring so long after the manoeuvres ceased.However, in <0G, you are not introducing air into one side only. You are introducing it into both sides simultaneously. And with the fuel onboard at the time of the accident estimated to be between 46L and 73L or as low as 23L a side from a capacity of 79.5 or less than 30% capacity worst case (TO fuel 53L total) or 45% best case (TO fuel 80L) there is an awful lot of ullage in which to unport the fuel inlet...Granted the ATSB feels it is an unlikely cause, but they also think it unlikely it introduce air in the first place yet provide no other plausible explanation as to how the carb ended up bone dry, particularly when they are at pains to say they were careful during its' removal to ensure any remaining liquid was not lost.

Have a look at the graph on page 106, Aerobatics in the period 1034:20-1035:30 before a pushover with another bunt at 1036:15 that peaked at 750'. The engine failed 80 seconds later at 60' . What the expected fuel flow in that descent was is not addressed vs a comparison to the amount the lines from the tank inlets can hold to see if flow-required > fuel in lines or vice versa. They do say the engine will stop in 9 seconds if you turn off the fuel valve with the engine at full power, but you have twice, maybe three times the fuel valve->engine distance compared to the tank -> fuel valve distance and he wasn't descending at full power...

Contrary to both regulatory requirements and the operator’s written procedures, the baggage and camp supplies in the aircraft were not restrained by any means.Not to mention common sense. One of many wilful violations it would appear.

In this case, both the chief pilot and the pilot of the accident flight believed the passengers and baggage was such that VH-WTQ was loaded well below its maximum take-off weight (MTOW). However, a detailed review of the available information found that the aircraft was at least 17 kg over its MTOW, and the pilots had underestimated the weight of the passengers and the baggage. The available evidence also indicates that the operator’s other aircraft (VH-JER), flown by the chief pilot, was loaded above its MTOW on the first flight of the day.

Guidance material from CASA released in 1990 advised against the practice of using standard weights for aircraft with less than seven seats, and it advocated for the use of accurate weights. CASA had also specifically advised the operator during a site inspection in 2015 against the practice of using standard weights, and the chief pilot had replied in writing that in future the operator’s pilots would weigh all passengers and baggage. Unfortunately, that did not occur.Why not? Again, the culture there seemed to be one of wilful disregard to those rules and procedures they deemed irrelevant.

More than a decade ago, in 2007, when Mr Rhoades worked for another company, CASA grounded him which resulted in him pleading guilty in the Magistrates Court to four charges. He was directed to undertake theory and flight examinations to demonstrate that he had the necessary knowledge and skill to continue to hold those licences.

He pleaded guilty to administrative issues with his pilot's log book and maintenance sheets. He also pleaded guilty to a charge of unauthorised commercial operations. Mr Rhoades said he did charter flights but the company he worked for did not have a charter licence, something Mr Rhoades said he did not know and rectified once alerted.

He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed. He said he never did it again and has had a clean slate up until the 2017 plane crash.
Source article (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal-plane-crash/10396812)So, CAsA grounded him a decade ago for record "issues" and to get his licence back he has to undergo theory and practical re-certification yet the CP of an operation "keeps the MR of an aircraft in his car", and permits a pilot from his operation to fly an aircraft without the MR in the aircraft? Every pilot knows one of the things that must be carried on an aircraft is the MR... :rolleyes::=

If only CASA and ATSB had your insight. They'd save themselves a lot of time and trouble.CAsA might cop a lot of sh1t - including some from me - but they can't help people that won't help themselves. They pointed out issues in that operation, the CP said "Oh, sorry, I'll fix it, we won't do it again!" and as soon as the FOI is out of sight, they go straight back to their old ways. And like it or not, this is the predictable result of tom-foolery in an aircraft not designed for it, coupled with an indifferent attitude to the rules. Have a look at some of the commentary about this mob's videos discussed here and on other forums previously - as early as 2011!

Wonder why, this occurred on this flight...

Why not on one of the many, many flights that preceded it, that were operated more or less identically?The same could be said about any aviation accident. Why did the ADIRS fail when it did on QF72? Why did 1549 hit birds when every other airliner flew through them, both before and since? Why did BA038 suffer dual engine rollback on short final when it had only ever affected one engine until then? One small hole in the cheese lined up with this one - but the report isn't robust enough to find that slice of cheese to prevent other asshats from repeating this mistake.

There are very few new ways to kill yourself in aviation. People just don't want to learn from other's and keep repeating the same ones...

[Sunfish]

Part of the alleged “attitude “ problem may have been the original four charges - all but one being administrative matters and the last - passenger touching controls is not necessarily dangerous. Could these have fostered a “rules are BS” attitude?

In many automotive circles, the road rules are regarded as nothing more than revenue raising. Could this be the same thing?

From my memory, the Cessna fuel lines are about AN6. These are going to trap decent sized bubbles for a while.

[currawong]

Anyone else been able to find any reference to the primer in the fuel system analysis?

[Sunfish]

Didn’t think of that.........

[Bravo Delta]

Sad event, Just a fcuk up. Crap report.

[Checkboard]

He also let a tourist get a photo touching the controls mid-flight, which is not allowed.
Not allowed? I know there is a requirement to instruct passengers in a control seat not to interfere with controls - but I've never seen a rule prohibiting the pilot from allowing them to touch the controls.

As to the report - they looked and couldn't find anything. What else are they to say? That lack of speculation doesn't make it a crap report.

In terms of speculation, and looking at the conduct of the operation, it's just as likely that the pilot was attempting a "Bob Hoover" landing. 125 knots at sixty feet, pull the mixture and pull up for a glide reversal and landing. Ta Da!

[currawong]

Not allowed? I know there is a requirement to instruct passengers in a control seat not to interfere with controls - but I've never seen a rule prohibiting the pilot from allowing them to touch the controls.

As to the report - they looked and couldn't find anything. What else are they to say? That lack of speculation doesn't make it a crap report.

In terms of speculation, and looking at the conduct of the operation, it's just as likely that the pilot was attempting a "Bob Hoover" landing. 125 knots at sixty feet, pull the mixture and pull up for a glide reversal and landing. Ta Da!

CAR 1988 228 "Unauthorised persons not to manipulate controls" (manipulate - to handle or use)

The report was comprehensive, as was the evidence.

Yet there are omissions.

Which is a pity, as they obviously put a lot of work into it.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

If the pilot allows them to touch, does that make it "authorised"? Is that not how "Trial" flights work?

[BigPapi]

If the pilot allows them to touch, does that make it "authorised"? Is that not how "Trial" flights work?

"Trial" flights are instructional. There are no passengers onboard, each person is considered a member of the operating crew. One an instructor, the other a student, authorised to operate the aircraft.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

authorised to operate the aircraft.
By who? The PIC?

[BigPapi]

By who? The PIC?

Yes. Because they are a member of the operating crew. They are not a passenger, as would be the case for a scenic flight.

An instructors privileges allow them to authorize someone who does not hold a license (i.e. a student pilot, NOT a passenger) to operate an aircraft.

[Lead Balloon]

Interesting theory, BP.

Any regulatory reference to support your opinion that a punter can walk off the street and be transformed into “operating crew” qualified to manipulate the controls of a training aircraft?

[BigPapi]

Interesting theory, BP.

Any regulatory reference to support your opinion that a punter can walk off the street and be transformed into “operating crew” qualified to manipulate the controls of a training aircraft?

...how else do you think flight training is delivered? If what you're asking is, can your punter walk into a flight school and go for a lesson and use the controls? **** yes!

Can the same punter as a passenger on a charter flight sit in a control seat and operate the controls? **** no!

​"qualified" and "authorised" are pretty distinct terms.

​​​​​​

[Lead Balloon]

So it’s ok if the person doesn’t have an ASIC/AVID and doesn’t have a medical certificate?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just wanting regulatory references.

[BigPapi]

So it’s ok if the person doesn’t have an ASIC/AVID and doesn’t have a medical certificate?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just wanting regulatory references.

Yes to both, a medical is required prior to solo flight however.

You'll have to wait for reg. References, I'm on my mobile sorry.

[Traffic_Is_Er_Was]

Can the same punter as a passenger on a charter flight sit in a control seat and operate the controls?
What if the pilot also holds an instructors rating?

[Cloudee]

Yes to both, a medical is required prior to solo flight however.

You'll have to wait for reg. References, I'm on my mobile sorry.
Part 61.112 and 61.113

[BigPapi]

What if the pilot also holds an instructors rating?

As long as they're operating under an approved Part 141/142 operation then sure (or operating independently as per 61T).

Otherwise, no.

[jonkster]

So it’s ok if the person doesn’t have an ASIC/AVID and doesn’t have a medical certificate?

I’m not saying you’re wrong. Just wanting regulatory references.

61.1165 Privileges of flight instructor ratings
(g) under Subdivision 61.A.3.1 (Student pilots), to approve a
person to pilot an aircraft, including for a solo flight;

61.112 Flying as a student pilot
(1) Subject to regulations 61.113 to 61.115, a person who does not
hold a pilot licence is authorised to pilot an aircraft if:
(a) the pilot in command of the aircraft is a flight instructor and
the flight is for the purpose of the person receiving flight
training; or
(b) the flight is for a flight test for a pilot licence, or a rating or
endorsement on a pilot licence, for the person; or
(c) the flight is:
(i) approved by, and conducted under the supervision of, a
flight instructor authorised by a Part 141 or 142 operator
to conduct the supervision; and
(ii) conducted under the VFR; and
(iii) conducted in accordance with the flight instructor’s
approval.

Regulation 61.113
(3) For subparagraphs (1)(c)(i) and (2)(c)(i), a flight is conducted
under the supervision of a flight instructor if the instructor:
(a) provides guidance to the person in relation to the flight; and
(b) during the flight:
(i) is on board the aircraft; or
(ii) is at the aerodrome from which the flight began; or
(iii) is flying within 15 nautical miles of the aerodrome
reference point for the aerodrome from which the flight
began; and
(c) can be contacted during the flight by radio or other electronic
means.
(4) For regulations 61.405 to 61.415 (which are about medical
requirements), piloting an aircraft in accordance with
subregulation (3) does not constitute the exercise of the privileges
of a pilot licence.
Note:
A person authorised to pilot an aircraft by this regulation is a student
pilot: see Part 1 of the Dictionary.


Re ASIC/AVID: there is no longer a student pilot licence, so students will not hold a licence:
CASR 61.117
(1) CASA may, by written notice given to a student pilot, require the
student pilot to provide evidence of his or her identity in
accordance with paragraph 6.57(1)(a) of the Aviation Transport
Security Regulations 2005.
(2) The student pilot commits an offence if:
(a) CASA has not told the student pilot, in writing, that he or she
has complied with the requirement; and
(b) the student pilots an aircraft.

(ie you don't have to have an identity document but must provide one if they write to you and you don't show them and fly as a student)

61.118 Production of medical certificates etc. and identification—
student pilots

1) CASA may direct a student pilot to produce any or all of the
following documents for inspection by CASA:.
(a) unless the student pilot holds a medical exemption to conduct
a solo flight—the student pilot’s medical certificate or
recreational aviation medical practitioner’s certificate;
(b) a document that includes a photograph of the student pilot
showing the student’s full face and his or her head and
shoulders:
(i) that was issued within the previous 10 years by the
government, or a government authority, of:
(A) the Commonwealth or a State or Territory; or
(B) a foreign country, or a state or province
(however described) of a foreign country; and
(ii) that has not expired or been cancelled.
.2) The student pilot commits an offence if:
(a) CASA directs the student pilot to produce a document under
subregulation (1); and
(b) the student pilot does not produce the document before the
earlier of the following:
(i) when the student pilot next conducts a solo flight;
(ii) within 7 days after the direction is given.

The identification could be a driver's licence, passport etc - doesn't have to be an AVID or ASIC and only needs to be provided if CASA asks for it, it is not mandatory to be carried.

[Lead Balloon]

Thanks cloudee and jonkster. I generally avoid reading Part 61.

[KRviator]

And now one of the surviving passengers is attempting to sue CAsA. I don't think she'll succeed but it might shed some light onto the failings going on at Fort Fumble...

UK student who suffered a traumatic brain injury in a light plane crash that killed another passenger has launched a multi-million-dollar negligence lawsuit against Australia's civil aviation watchdog.Key points:

A 29-year-old British backpacker was killed in the 2017 crash
One of the survivors is suing CASA for not ensuring the company's operations were safe
The lawsuit alleges CASA had received complaints about the operator doing "near-aerobatic manoeuvres"



Hannah O'Dowd was 21 and studying abroad in Melbourne when the four-seater Cessna 172M charter flight she boarded in Agnes Water came down on a beach on Middle Island (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-10/plane-crashed-central-queensland-gladstone-eurimbula/8172434), south of Gladstone, on January 10, 2017.

The crash claimed the life of a 29-year-old British backpacker, while three others, including the pilot and Ms O'Dowd, suffered serious injuries.

Almost three years after being brought out of an induced coma, Ms O'Dowd and her parents have launched a multi-million-dollar lawsuit against the Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) in the Supreme Court of Queensland, accusing it of negligence.

Among the allegations are that the watchdog failed "to put in place reasonable steps to prevent or regulate the flight being conducted in a dangerous, unconventional, unreasonable and unsafe manner".An investigation by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB), released last year (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2017/aair/ao-2017-005/), found the pilot was inspecting the beach for landing when the aircraft's engine suddenly, and totally, lost power at approximately 60ft (18 metres).

"Under significant time pressure, the pilot elected to conduct a significant left turn to the beach at a very low height. Although he believed it to be the safest option under the circumstances, it was inconsistent with standard training and guidance to land within 30 (degrees) either side of straight ahead following an engine failure at a low height," the report said. "During the continued left turn toward the beach, the aircraft did not have sufficient performance to avoid a collision with terrain, and it impacted terrain with little or no control and a significant descent rate."

Though the ATSB was unable to pinpoint the reason behind the power loss, it did find the operator's "procedures and practices for conducting airborne inspections" didn't effectively manage such risk when flying at a low height.

The O'Dowd family alleges the crash happened as a result of the "unconventional and unsafe manner the aircraft was operated". "(CASA) owed a duty to members of the public (including Ms O'Dowd) to take all reasonable care to ensure that Wyndham Aviation conducted its operations in compliance with the Act," the statement of claim said.

They also said CASA had received "numerous complaints" to do with "near-aerobatic manoeuvres" on Wyndham Aviation flights and did site inspections in 2011 and 2015. But CASA failed to conduct a detailed examination into these manoeuvres "in circumstances where it knew, or ought to have known, of such conduct," the statement of claim alleged.

In its final report, the ATSB said Wyndham Aviation had previously advertised that their flights involved some manoeuvres to give passengers "thrills or excitement" — with consent forms provided — but both the chief pilot and the pilot from the accident believed none were aerobatic and were instead within the limits. The investigating body reviewed the video footage from the accident flight and found one of the turns could have briefly been classified as an aerobatic manoeuvre.

Ultimately, the performance of near-aerobatic (and potential aerobatic) manoeuvres on the accident flight occurred a significant time before the engine power loss," the report said. "Although these manoeuvres may have unported one of the fuel tanks during the en-route phase, there was insufficient evidence to conclude that they contributed to the subsequent engine power loss during the airborne ALA inspection."

A 7.30/Fairfax report in 2018 also said the pilot who was flying the plane that crashed had no incidents on his record (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-29/dying-pilot-tries-to-clear-his-name-after-fatal-plane-crash/10396812) and they understood he was allowed to reapply for his pilot's licence following the CASA investigation as part of a confidential settlement.

The ATSB also recommended that CASA improve its procedures and guidance for "scoping surveillance events".Blog detailed Hannah's road to recovery
Ms O'Dowd is seeking approximately $3 million, including about $174,000 in general damages and more than $2 million for future economic loss. She claimed she suffered injuries including fractures, a traumatic brain injury, and a minor stroke from the crash, spent about 10 days in an induced coma, and underwent numerous surgeries.

The statement of claim said her ongoing cognitive difficulties will impair her ability at work. According to the court claim, Ms O'Dowd's parents are also each seeking damages — not less than $750,000 — for the nervous shock and personal injuries they say they've suffered since being told their daughter had been involved in a plane crash.

The now-24-year-old has blogged extensively before about her recovery, including how as an adult she never expected to re-live "firsts" — such as "first steps, first words, first day at university".

In one blog post in December 2017, she paid tribute to her friend, Joss, who didn't survive the crash.

She said they met each other while travelling. "She has made me appreciate all the good things about this world so much more," she wrote. "I could spend hours and hours considering what if things had been different. She didn't sit around and wait to think back 'what if'. She was the type of person who knew what she wanted and wasn't afraid to go and get it.

"I'm so glad that for the time we spent together. I will endeavour to do her proud. She had so much life left to live."

In another post, she revealed that soon after she was allowed to return to the UK with her parents, her mother found out she had breast cancer. "My Mum was treated in the same hospital as me, just a different building," she wrote.

"The porters and ambulance drivers there were rather confused as we were each driven one day as a patient, and another day as a visitor/guardian.

"My Dad had the impossible task of supporting a daughter through half a year of hospitalisation and a wife through breast cancer treatment. But my Dad made the impossible, possible." Ms O'Dowd went on to write a play, titled Unknown, about the trauma her friends and family went through in the wake of her accident.

It was performed at the University of Exeter's Drama Festival in 2018, as well as last year's Edinburgh Festival Fringe.

CASA is yet to file a defence and has declined to comment on the lawsuit

Source (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-01-18/uk-exchange-student-sues-civil-aviation-authority-for-damages/11872540)

[Vag277]

....and what would have been the reaction if CASA had shut them down?

[KRviator]

....and what would have been the reaction if CASA had shut them down?Probably one of quiet relief - as unlike the JQ video debacle - this mob had a documented history of rulebreaking, and general arse-hattery that had already resulted in formal complaints to CAsA in 2007, 2009 2012 and 2015.

[Sunfish]

So CASA shuts down Glen Buckley’s APTA while leaving Sore aviation and this mob untouched? barring absolute and total incompetence on the part of the regulator, The simplest explanation is that money is changing hands, but of course that wouldn’t happen in Australia would it? How many other “incomprehensible” decisions are there where old mate gets the benefit of the doubt while the quadrios and Jameses are publicly crucified.

The rules of Weberian (prussian) bureaucracy as modified by Westminster ,were enacted just to stop this ****ty behavior.

Can the Auditor general/ ICAC or whatever please rule this out?

[Lead Balloon]

There is no Federal ICAC. The fact that there is bi-partisan resistance to the establishment of one demonstrates why it’s required.

[KRviator]

The fact that there is bi-partisan resistance to the establishment of one demonstrates why it’s required.Never have truer words been spoken on these boards...

[aroa]

And therein lies the problem...OUR PROBLEM. NO FEDERAL ICAC. Nobody with TEETH to turn to when you do suffer closure on a whim, (abuse of power), or by askance of a competitor company (cronyism and corruption).
And when you have CAsA engaging in serious illegalities to protect their staff who have commited crimes, proven under the Crimes Act 1914 by the AFP ...where do you go.?
The State police are shy, disinterested, suffering from institutional sloth or whatever, so that goes nowhere
The Ombudsman can 'reccomend' and CAsA can give the finger.
The AAT is a WOFTAM. And 99% of Pollywafflers have NOT the faintest knowlege of , or interest in GA
Which means that the CAsA Soviet, the free-range chook of an 'agency' (sic- very sick) that has no Miniscule control, no oversighting body and thus is a Law unto Itself.
And is headed up by liars, perjurers, perverters of the course of justice and good old plain bull****ters eg the Corporate Spinmiester.. Anything goes with these people.

[PatrickF]

Pilot charged today.

I can't post links.
PatrickF

[Cloudee]

https://www.4ro.com.au/news/local-news/129810-charges-follow-fatal-plane-crash-agnes-water

Detectives from Gladstone Criminal Investigation Branch have charged the pilot of a plane that crashed near Agnes Water in 2017, resulting in the death a female passenger.

The incident involving a private aircraft happened at around 11am on January 10 on the eastern side of Middle Island.

A 29-year-old woman from the United Kingdom was pronounced deceased at the scene.

A 21-year-old female Irish national sustained critical injuries and a 13-year-old male passenger was transported to Rockhampton Hospital with minor injuries.

The 67-year-old male pilot was also seriously injured.

Ongoing investigations by Gladstone CIB, with the assistance of the Civil Aviation Safety Authority, led to the arrest today of the 67-year-old man.

He has been charged with one count of dangerous operation of a vehicle causing death and one count of grievous bodily harm and is due to appear in Bundaberg Magistrates Court on May 11.

[0ttoL]

Pilot charged today.

I can't post links.
PatrickF

Here's one that doesn't require a subscription:
https://au.news.yahoo.com/qld-pilot-charged-over-death-uk-tourist-051803641--spt.html

[Lead Balloon]

Wonderful.

Simply wonderful.

I wonder which of the objects of the criminal law will be served by this prosecution.

[Cloudee]

Wonderful.

Simply wonderful.

I wonder which of the objects of the criminal law will be served by this prosecution.

Well, if he is guilty as charged, could it be retribution and deterrence? Clearly the police have have a suspicion an offence has been committed. Sounds like they have relied on advice from CASA though. At least he will be tried in a proper court of law if the prosecution proceeds.

[Checklist Charlie]

Oh dear, just what we need, plod getting involved in aviation and CAsA assisting. What a pairing.

Criminalisation of aviation safety has worked wonders in Palmeston (NZ) and Scotland (cant remember the place).
Mind you it seems to work wonders in those jurisdictions of legal brilliance like Iran, the old Yugoslavia, China and North Korea etc

All that might be achieved is some petty retribution, a most unfortunate outcome that adds absolutely nothing to the promotion of aviation safety or safety itself.

CC

[Lead Balloon]

What caused the engine failure?

[chimbu warrior]

Criminalisation of aviation safety has worked wonders in New Plymouth (NZ)

Surely you mean Palmerston?

[Sunfish]

Very sad for all concerned.

[thorn bird]

I vaguely recall a similar incident some years ago in NSW, a Cessna 180 out west I think, where an engine failure after take off resulted in a fatal crash.
NSW police charged the pilot with manslaughter.
I'm pretty sure the prosecution failed, but the cost of defence had very severe financial implications for the pilot concerned.
It is very sad Sunny, nobody wins except the lawyers.