Mallard Down in Perth

[industry insider]

A Mallard just crashed into the Swan River in Perth. I just saw it happen. Turning from downwind to tight left base lining up for a landing. It looked too slow, turn got steep and in it went, almost wingtip first, it's hot, busy and crowded.

[KRviator]

Story - with decent video surprisingly - available on the PerthNow (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/australia-day-plane-crashes-into-swan-river/news-story/760d5746febf7985ab1cb9d033feeece) website.

[RAD_ALT_ALIVE]

Looks like a Grumman Mallard has spun into the Swan River at Skyshow.

Very sad images on online media.

[onetrack]

The crash happened in front of tens of thousands of spectators gathering for the Australia Day fireworks display; which fireworks are launched from barges on the Swan River.

Not sure if the weather had a hand in the aircraft performance here, it has been an absolutely stinker of a day, with Perth recording a maximum of 42°C at 14:09Hrs and the temperature still on 39° at 17:00Hrs, around the time of the crash.

News media is now reporting the pilot is deceased. Certainly didn't appear to be a survivable crash, and the aircraft has been totally destroyed. The Swan is quite shallow in the area, he would have impacted the river bed.

[meloz]

I think you'll find that it's VH-CQA.

[logansi]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/C3Fog6VVUAEH350.jpg:large

[SonofCoco]

Looks bad. Thoughts with the crew and families and all the witnesses. Very traumatic.

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34277136/plane-crashes-into-swan-river-before-australia-day-sky-show/#page1

[onetrack]

Reports are that there were 2POB, and neither have surfaced, so it can be presumed that there are 2 fatalities.

Thank goodness they didn't crash into a pile of boats, the Swan River is normally bumper-to-bumper with boats at this time of day, on Australia Day.

Tonights Australia Day celebrations and fireworks show in Perth have reportedly been cancelled due to the crash.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Unfortunately, 2 fatalities reported.

Ch 7 NEWS just announcing that the traditional fireworks display for tonight on the Swan River has been cancelled due to the crash / WA Police refer.

Sad all around.......

[Car RAMROD]

7 and Perth Now reporting that police have confirmed 2 fatalities.

[meloz]

I think you will find it is VH-CQA.

[spinex]

Ah bugger it! Happened about the same time as I was posting a photo of the aircraft, taken down at Evans Head. I've just had friends from WA confirm that CQA was listed on the display program and it didn't appear to be a turbine, so...

[BPA]

As stated above it's Vh-CQA, a privalety owned Mallard based on the east coast.

[The Voice]

Griffo, gidday sorry it's in these circumstances ..

[Avtrician]

Just reported on 7News that both occupants have died, Skyworks display has been cancelled.

[Ida down]

7 and Perth Now reporting that police have confirmed 2 fatalities.Dreadful business. Both passed away. It effects all pilots and aircrew, at a loss like this.

[RenegadeMan]

Reasonable coverage on this site:
https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/light-plane-crashes-in-swan-river-ng-b88367876z

[Ultralights]

just watched quite a few vids of the incident, and from reports, no engine issues, but looks like a G stall while trying to tighten up the turn at low level. other witneses reporting he was getting close to edge of the display box, and tightened the turn to avoid going outside of the box.

[Squawk7700]

That is certainly some confronting and graphic footage. Such a terrible shame and end to what would have been a great day for everyone.

[aussie027]

Very hot 43C day here in Perth,

All comments above correct. Seen the footage shot from behind the turn, looked like a descending turn, steepened up part way through., then left wingtip water contact and cartwheel/ break up. No dramatic attitude changes or sudden movements visible in the clips Ive seen so far.
Bloody tragic. :{

[ricardian]

Thousands of stunned witnesses watched on in horror as the plane nose-dived into the waterway after 5pm local time on Thursday. (https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/34277136/plane-crashes-into-swan-river-before-australia-day-sky-show/#page1)

[Skystar320]

Very hot 43C day here in Perth,


Only made it to 42

[Mimpe]

Saw the low level turn
Very sad.

[Icarus2001]

the Swan River is normally bumper-to-bumper with boats at this time of day, on Australia Day.

Actually no, every year there is a clear area in the centre boats are East and West near the causeway and the narrows. The centre is ALWAYS clear for the fireworks and the air display, given all the land areas are covered with spectators, the river is the landing area in the event of an engine failure.

I agree that they were lucky to not overshoot on to the spectator craft, which is why air displays are not OVER crowds.

This looks more like a stall spin though but will wait and hear.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

No wurries Voice......ALWAYS a pleasure....VERY SAD occasion though...

:(

[Dawn Patrol]

Very hard to see. My home town. Fellow float pilot. Very sad.

[Despot 78]

The Flying Program for the day listed "Unusual Aircraft Landing And Take Off From Perth Water" for the Mallard. This may possibly explain the descending, turning manoeuvre as positioning to land.
I didn't witness the impact, but when he came down the river past me just prior he was already quite low.

[The Wawa Zone]

See the track and links on https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20170126-0

The box was reported as 1500m x 3000m ? This would have been ok for aircraft doing aero displays and flypasts, but this was a water landing, ie., a circuit or a straight in. He did a circuit. A box 1500m wide itself is just about his (105kias?) base turn diameter, if so then he would have been unable to line up inside the box in a normal circuit and it didn't look like he was flying a teardrop ?
Displays are a unique set of circumstances that need everything planned.

[ShyTorque]

Tragic, what a sad end to what should have been a great day for everyone.

[Desert Flower]

As stated above it's Vh-CQA, a privalety owned Mallard based on the east coast.
Said on TV this morning that the pilot & family had just relocated from Qld to Perth. Three young children now without both parents.

DF.

[TBM-Legend]

RIP Peter and your wife...

Great aviation enthusiast too...

[flyinkiwi]

Australia Day will never be the same for those 3 kids. An awful tragedy.

RIP

[Duck Pilot]

Tragic event, my thoughts and prayers go to the two people who lost their lives and their families and friends.

Sadly I believe the long term effects of this accident will further restrict future such displays in Australia. I wouldn't be surprised that all floatplane operations from the Swan River will be banned by the local authorities.

[On Reserves]

See the track and links on https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20170126-0

The box was reported as 1500m x 3000m ? This would have been ok for aircraft doing aero displays and flypasts, but this was a water landing, ie., a circuit or a straight in. He did a circuit. A box 1500m wide itself is just about his (105kias?) base turn diameter, if so then he would have been unable to line up inside the box in a normal circuit and it didn't look like he was flying a teardrop ?
Displays are a unique set of circumstances that need everything planned.

I was watching the display, the accident aircraft appeared to be turning base for a touch and go similar to the grand caravan float plane which had just done the same.
Appeared to be stall and wing drop...
Very sad for the family and aviation community.

[RHLMcG]

Not likely, I guess. Was Peter around, say, early to mid-70s and ex-AN ?

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

See link in post 21 above.....

Pilot reported as being age 52, Ch 7 News site.

[The Wawa Zone]

Also from another video, you can see he was turning into a low 30 degree sun angle and with a 15Kt (?) tail wind elongating his base turn - neither of which would have helped his situational awareness.

[Old Fella]

Significantly, slow and low tight turn, increasing bank angle and flaps up would have not helped. Numerous previous similar accidents have occurred over the years in many varied types. Indeed a sad event.

[megle2]

RIP Peter

Very sad, there is a interview with Peter in Down Under Aviation News
See if I can find a link, try this
https://downunderaviationnews.wordpress.com/interview-with-peter-lynch/

[Pappa Smurf]

His 3 children still have their mother .He was separated and had his partner with him

[601]

I wonder if there was a camera in the aircraft recording the the approach.

[B772]

RHLMcG

Definitely not the ex AN Peter Lynch

[Dora-9]

Definitely not the ex AN Peter Lynch

The Quiet Achiever would be in his mid 70's by now.

[Desert Flower]

https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/crash-pilot-named-as-businessman-peter-lynch-ng-b88367981z

[Handswing]

Turning was lesson five in the syllabus when I taught flying.
I hope you young instructors can show the clips to your students.
My condolences to the family and friends of the departed.
Another sad day for flying.

[flopter]

Some older vids of the plane.. certainly well decked out inside. Obviously, there Was a cockpit camera mounted inside at some stage, maybe they'll find one.

https://www.youtube.com/user/PedroMallard/videos?shelf_id=0&view=0&sort=dd

[ContactMeNow]

A tragic event for the victims and for all who witnessed it on the day. No doubt something they will all never forget.

For airshows and the like, one would have thought it would be limited to essential crew only. Not too sure if the PIC's partner was part of the crew or just tagging along as a passenger?

[Clare Prop]

Why bother with an investigation when local "expert" GT already has the answers, eg he "may have perceived a threat from another plane and put the plane into a steep turn to avoid a potential collision" :ugh:

RIP

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Got a link to that quote?
Is that really what he said???

[PoppaJo]

Was skeptical of the above GT sarcasm but nope he did say it. :ugh:

Perth Australia Day plane crash: Seaplane ?stalled before crash? | Perth Now (http://www.perthnow.com.au/news/western-australia/perth-australia-day-plane-crash-seaplane-stalled-before-crash/news-story/72d6830c5c8f1b0aad8a7c7214794c39)

[weloveseaplanes]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7yxv5eaddQ

[ShyTorque]

From photographic and video evidence it does appear that the aircraft stalled in the turn to the left and an attempt was made to recover with use of aileron.

Obviously, not many have experienced stalling in the turn in a Grumman Mallard. I wonder how the type handles in those circumstances.

[Tarq57]

Obviously, not many have experienced stalling in the turn in a Grumman Mallard. I wonder how the type handles in those circumstances.
It would appear to roll further into the turn while rapidly increasing its descent.

[Duck Pilot]

Low level turn with a fair bit of downwind in a very heavy draggy piston radial twin in +40 degree temperatures isn't a good thing for performance. Haven't done the figures, however at a guess the pressure altitude would be at least 3000 feet! Couple that with any kind of substantial downwind below 500 feet in a low level turn will always result in something nasty.

[Pinky the pilot]

It would appear to roll further into the turn while rapidly increasing its descent.

Does not any aircraft do much the same, given the same circumstances?:confused::hmm:

Duck Pilot; Well said.

[Duck Pilot]

Thanks Pinky!!! I'm no flying instructor, but I know a lot about aircraft performance thanks to my 15 years flying in PNG. I've nearly killed myself at least 5 times that I can remember in Twin Otters and in one particular Bandit due to my lack of knowledge that come from inexperience.

Lots of lessons to be learnt from this very tragic accident.

[nose,cabin]

Red bull air race

Similar situation with downwind sea breeze in a steep turn.
Density altitude is ISA plus 27 degrees is well over 3000feet.

Even without external events, not known, ie engine fail or traffic or birds etc and trying to comply with restrictive boundary limitations.

The Reason "Swiss cheese model" aligned a few holes.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6rR68OIpcX4

[theheadmaster]

There is a difference between 'gusty conditions' and 'turning downwind'. Turning 'downwind' in a constant airmass with a fixed angle of bank is going to have the same performance impact as turning with the same angle of bank in a non-moving airmass. The ground track will, however, be different. Perception of groundtrack can cause a pilot to over-bank when turning downwind, causing problems. This is different from the mis-conception that you will 'lose airspeed turning downwind'.

Reminded me of the 1994 B52 crash due to nose drop in a steep turn.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Avation writer Geoffrey Thomas said the crash appeared to have been the result of what he described as a “classic stall” which occurred when the pilot made a sharp left turn at speed that was too slow.

“It appears to be a stall, where there is not enough airspeed over the wings to support the plane or the air over the wings has been disturbed and the lift is destroyed,” Thomas said.

Take note everyone. It has been determined that stalls are no longer caused by exceeding the critical angle of attack, but may also be now contributed to by spoilers...

[nose,cabin]

"Turning 'downwind' in a constant airmass with a fixed angle of bank is going to have the same performance impact as turning with the same angle of bank in a non-moving airmass"

Please consider this as I have witnessed this many times. Ie holding in very strong winds.
I reduced angle of bank to prevent excessive IAS loss.

Ground speed heading west is IAS minus wind. ( the Perth Westerly, sea breeze can be quite strong in high temperature days)

Ground speed heading east is IAS plus wind.
Inertia must be increased quickly therefore IAS will drop until ground speed equals IAS plus wind.
Sometimes this requires over a 50 knot increase in a short time.

[The Wawa Zone]

Yes, and the effect is gross weight dependent. Another hole in the cheese.
Aside from the aerodynamics, was the Mallard sequence in the display planned, documented and reviewed by a Display Committee ? A circuit, landing and takeoff sounds a simple thing compared to other's formations and aeros in the box, but in hindsight it would seem not. Were his two previous descents below 500' attempts to land or just part of the show, and if the former was there a Coordinator on the ground with a radio to tell him to go home when it became obvious (on the last downwind leg) that things were getting out of hand in terms of turn radius v. box boundary ?
Things like that are ultimately going to be ATSB questions relating to CASA oversight of air displays.

[ShyTorque]

It would appear to roll further into the turn while rapidly increasing its descent.

That's the obvious answer, if you can be certain that the aircraft was actually stalled. However, I was rather thinking about stall warning signs, such as buffeting, and the correct actions to be taken. I don't think there can be many types, if any, where use of aileron can help recover the situation.

[Tarq57]

Sorry, I understand where you were coming from, now.
I was being a bit obtuse.

[RenegadeMan]

"Turning 'downwind' in a constant airmass with a fixed angle of bank is going to have the same performance impact as turning with the same angle of bank in a non-moving airmass"

Please consider this as I have witnessed this many times. Ie holding in very strong winds.
I reduced angle of bank to prevent excessive IAS loss.

Ground speed heading west is IAS minus wind. ( the Perth Westerly, sea breeze can be quite strong in high temperature days)

Ground speed heading east is IAS plus wind.
Inertia must be increased quickly therefore IAS will drop until ground speed equals IAS plus wind.
Sometimes this requires over a 50 knot increase in a short time.

Mmm....

This sounds suspiciously like you're heading into the oh-so-classic argument I've seen posted on various flying forums over the decades that goes something like "Well if you want to avoid a stall always make sure you turn into the wind, not away from it..."

This thinking that there's a difference in aircraft performance turning upwind versus downwind and that the aircraft's momentum needs to be taken into account when considering turning upwind or downwind is one of those fallacies that just keeps popping up again and again and I've seen some pilots swear black and blue that it's definitely something to be mindful of and keep in your tool bag of tricks.

As the first poster said "Turning 'downwind' in a constant airmass with a fixed angle of bank is going to have the same performance impact as turning with the same angle of bank in a non-moving airmass". That is absolutely factual. All that differs between flying in a constant moving airmass (i.e. wind) versus flying in completely still conditions is the aircraft's track across the ground. Momentum has nothing to do with the aircraft's airspeed and performance and (in a "constant moving airmass" i.e. we're not talking about gusts, wind shear or turbulence) a turn downwind is absolutely equal to a turn upwind and involves no difference to airspeed.

Accident's of this nature can often be attributed in part to the actions of the pilot in regards to their perception of movement over the terrain, especially at such a low level. In a turn from any direction whilst travelling downwind the aircraft is going to appear to be not changing its course rapidly enough (in reference to its position over the ground) and this is often when a pilot starts pulling excessive levels of bank to correct and attempt to achieve the desired turn radius. This accident is probably very similar to many one reads about where a pilot's turning from base to final on approach with a strong cross-wind that's causing them to overshoot during the turn. There have probably been hundreds, if not thousands of these accidents since flying started. Pilot overshoots turn, and banks further and further trying to stop the overshoot then, with their airspeed already low for the approach and their angle of attack high, they stall and spin in.

What's particularly disheartening is that it's clear from the many photographs and videos no flaps were deployed. On a 40º+ day, which (as a previous poster has noted) would have involved a density altitude in the thousands, to be flying low and slow in a strong wind (in a relatively large aircraft for the "box" it needed to remain in) and to be attempting to do that without the extra lift flaps would have provided does seem to be asking for trouble.

My condolences to the friends and families of the pilot and his passenger too. Having spent some years operating a floating hull aircraft myself and having spent a lot of time flying low and slow down close to the water, I know just how easily this type of accident can happen. "But for the grace of God...."

[Checkboard]

"Turning 'downwind' in a constant airmass with a fixed angle of bank is going to have the same performance impact as turning with the same angle of bank in a non-moving airmass"

Please consider this as I have witnessed this many times. Ie holding in very strong winds.
I reduced angle of bank to prevent excessive IAS loss.

Ground speed heading west is IAS minus wind. ( the Perth Westerly, sea breeze can be quite strong in high temperature days)

Ground speed heading east is IAS plus wind.
Inertia must be increased quickly therefore IAS will drop until ground speed equals IAS plus wind.
Sometimes this requires over a 50 knot increase in a short time.
An article for you to read:
Dragons of the downwind turn - Australian Flying (http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/dragons-of-the-downwind-turn)

[Maisk Rotum]

Turning downwind in a stiff wind relative to the aircraft's indicated IAS, be it in a Mallard or a 747 is akin to a windshear event. Simple inertia. A320 I flew, somewhat between those two weights of aircraft, on full automatics gave me an 'airspeed low' warning doing just that several times in my short time on the plastic fantastic. Gentlemen and ladies this is real threat, forget CRM threats, even helicopters have the same problem. Not saying this is the cause of the sadly fatal accident-simply commenting on a previous poster.

[RV6JOY]

What seems to have been missed is that to recover from the incipient spin one would normally have input hard right rudder reduced aileron and stopped the turn. In his situation the pilot did not have that option as that would have put him out over the crowd at best or into the city, even worse. He had no option but to continue the turn and accept the consequences.
While getting into the situation in the first place was not good, ultimately he may have sacrificed himself and his crew to save other lives. RIP

[AerocatS2A]

"Turning 'downwind' in a constant airmass with a fixed angle of bank is going to have the same performance impact as turning with the same angle of bank in a non-moving airmass"

Please consider this as I have witnessed this many times. Ie holding in very strong winds.
I reduced angle of bank to prevent excessive IAS loss.

Ground speed heading west is IAS minus wind. ( the Perth Westerly, sea breeze can be quite strong in high temperature days)

Ground speed heading east is IAS plus wind.
Inertia must be increased quickly therefore IAS will drop until ground speed equals IAS plus wind.
Sometimes this requires over a 50 knot increase in a short time.
This is completely wrong. Steady movement of an airmass over the earth has no effect on the aircraft moving through the air. You are confusing two frames of reference, the ground reference and the air reference. Airspeed is measured with reference to the air only and any talk of groundspeed is irrelevant.

There is a danger with low level turns in strong winds associated with visual illusions, but performance remains the same.

[ramble on]

Loss of performance descending from higher speed "free stream" winds experienced at 500' on downwind on a hot, windy day into disturbed and varying friction layer winds close to the ground..

Normal wind shear.

Even a hot and windy day at Perth airport is nasty enough. There are obvious gust pocket ripples on the footage of the Swan River.

[theheadmaster]

Thanks RenegadeMan, you have saved me a whole bunch of typing. I agree completely.

For those that think this is a 'momentum' issue I offer the following:

Momentum is a vector value. The formula is p=mv, p being inertia, m being mass, v being velocity. In our example mass is constant.

Nil wind, aircraft 100 knots, turning through 180 degrees, the velocity change is 100 knots forward to 100 knots in the reverse direction (both airspeed and ground speed), so a 200 knot vector change.

If you are going from a 50 knot headwind to a 50 knot tailwind, the airspeed change is still 100 knots ahead to 100 knots in the opposite direction. So, 200 knots velocity change. If you want to work in grounspeed, it will be 50 knots (100 kts airspeed less 50 kts headwind) to 150 knot in the opposite direction (100 kts plus tailwind of 50 kts). So, the velocity change is still 200 kts, the exact same value as nil wind. As mass is constant and velocity change is the same, the change in inertia is identical in both cases.

[Lookleft]

The video reminded me a bit of this accident. Very different in size of aircraft but similar in outcome.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=182AepOJjMs

[Eclan]

The Headmaster, you defeated yourself with your own argument. Velocity is about groundspeed, not airspeed. Inertia does indeed need to be considered and is a problem at low altitude because it is exacerbated by the unrelated but relevant issue of perception as well as the lack of recovery space if it goes wrong. Third factor: inexperience.

At normal turn rates and altitudes it is simply not noticed but combine the other factors and it is a definite threat.

[Squawk7700]

I read 120 hours experience on type. I can't help but feel that this is relevant along with recency which we are not aware of.

[Capn Bloggs]

And another:

qJ2we7EB3Qs

Hmm... Prune not displaying youtube video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJ2we7EB3Qs

[CBR205]

And another:

qJ2we7EB3Qs

That one was sheer stupidity. If you read the accident report it is almost like the captain was trying to crash it disregarding many operating rules to try and make a better display.

[Capn Bloggs]

The common trait is the nose dropping, unnoticed, during an increasing-bank turn with no apparent attempt to roll off the bank. You may well be right by saying "and make a better display" but the fact is none of those pilots realised it until it was too late (Perth Mallard full-right roll control on impact).

Crash of a Grumman G-73 Mallard in Perth: 2 killed | B3A Aircraft Accidents Archives (http://www.baaa-acro.com/2017/archives/crash-of-a-grumman-g-73-mallard-in-perth-2-killed/)

[X35B]

It appears an approach made downwind, then a 180 turn at low altitude, aussie flags in video show a strongish wind, so if there was a couple of shear levels which is possible, then once the turn started it was game over, the aircraft was unfortunately lost.

From reading the manual it appears this is a beast that is not to be taken for granted and will bite the unwary and careless.

The pax would have been terrified in her last moments, unfortunately.

While there are no data recorders, enough video footage, to do a frame by frame analysis and work out if there was a Shear event or two.

The turn at low altitude was never a good idea.

[AerocatS2A]

The Headmaster, you defeated yourself with your own argument. Velocity is about groundspeed, not airspeed. Inertia does indeed need to be considered and is a problem at low altitude because it is exacerbated by the unrelated but relevant issue of perception as well as the lack of recovery space if it goes wrong. Third factor: inexperience.

At normal turn rates and altitudes it is simply not noticed but combine the other factors and it is a definite threat.
Velocity is speed and direction, i.e. a vector. It can be groundspeed, airspeed, or anything else you choose but you must keep your frame of reference consistent. The Headmaster is correct.

[CBR205]

The common trait is the nose dropping, unnoticed, during an increasing-bank turn with no apparent attempt to roll off the bank. You may well be right by saying "and make a better display" but the fact is none of those pilots realised it until it was too late (Perth Mallard full-right roll control on impact).

Crash of a Grumman G-73 Mallard in Perth: 2 killed | B3A Aircraft Accidents Archives (http://www.baaa-acro.com/2017/archives/crash-of-a-grumman-g-73-mallard-in-perth-2-killed/)
The common trait is the nose dropping, unnoticed, during an increasing-bank turn with no apparent attempt to roll off the bank. You may well be right by saying "and make a better display" but the fact is none of those pilots realised it until it was too late (Perth Mallard full-right roll control on impact).



I was referring to the C-17 crash. There were numerous operational violations being made my the pilot in that instance. It was basically a repeat performance of the Bud Holland B-52 crash 20+ years earlier.

[Blake777]

I wasn't there, but Flight radar track is interesting inasmuch he had completed one circuit and was coming back for another with touchdown. The box is not marked obviously but coming in with much tighter turn required for second pass.

Anyone who was there have comments?

http://https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-cqa#c464eb9

[Blake777]

Different kettle of fish regarding type and purpose, but very sad coming days after Colin Barnett's breathless launch of seaplane tours to splash down in Swan River.

http://https://au.news.yahoo.com/wa/a/34252238/seaplanes-depart-perth-to-boost-wa-winery-tourism/#page1

[nose,cabin]

Headmaster
"So, the velocity change is still 200 kts"

I totally agree , but if say rate 2 turn ie 30 seconds the time available to accelerate this heavy mass is too short.
That is my experience, many times, especially in jetstream holding patterns.

[Icarus2001]

Amazing that so many people STILL get confused by airspeed and groundspeed...read the article and stop spouting rubbish that others believe and repeat.

The bottom line is FORGET about groundspeed, the wing does not care about it.

However pilot perception CAN be influenced by changing groundspeed leading to PILOT INDUCED issues.

An article for you to read:
Dragons of the downwind turn - Australian Flying
http://www.australianflying.com.au/news/dragons-of-the-downwind-turn

[airdualbleedfault]

Having made around 5000 turns onto base in aircraft from 2t to 70t, up to 30 AoB, in conditions that have given me a sudden tailwind, I call BS on all the speed and wind theories. I'm sticking with stalling AoA (possibly combined with low IAS) being exceeded and more than happy to eat humble pie if this turns out to be wrong.

[theheadmaster]

Headmaster
"So, the velocity change is still 200 kts"

I totally agree , but if say rate 2 turn ie 30 seconds the time available to accelerate this heavy mass is too short.
That is my experience, many times, especially in jetstream holding patterns.

So, a rate 2 turn gives a constant rate of change of heading. As stated in my examples above, it is still a velocity change of 200 knots over 30 seconds for both cases. Inertia is the same. Rate of change of direction relative to the air mass is exactly the same.

As for holding, I am not aware of what system you use in that aircraft. All aircraft I have flown for the last 20 years have FMS and fly a ground track - not constant angle of bank. This is why there are speed variations - variations in rate of turn to make good the ground track.

[PLovett]

From what I have seen from the various video clips of the crash, it would appear to be very similar to the B52 crash at Fairchild AFB in Washington where the crash was attributed to cross controls and a lower wing stall. I have also seen a video of another crash in the US, this time of a Cessna at an air show which did exactly the same thing.

[Icarus2001]

All aircraft I have flown for the last 20 years have FMS and fly a ground track - not constant angle of bank.

Really? The in the jets I have flown the FMS flys over the holding fixed then rate one outbound, the "width" of the hold being determined by wind effect. Then the outbound leg is determined either by time or leg length in the FMS, the inbound turn varies with wind but not over rate one so can lead to an overshoot and re intercept of the inbound. Admittedly the better ones do vary heading outbound to allow for wind effect to intercept inbound cleanly, therefore not tracking parallel.

None of this made one bit of difference to the viability of airflow over the wing, even with 100 knot crosswind.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Just heard on ABC news (can't be arsed linking quote, trust me I'm as reliable as Facebook) that the investigation will/may take up to a year to determine the cause. Really? That long?

[Bull at a Gate]

Text messages show that pilot was concerned about temperature and lack of wind

Swan River plane crash: Perth cancels Skyworks (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/swan-river-plane-crash-victims-remembered-as-perth-cancels-future-skyworks/news-story/7739b37eeca81cdc5bc471b1824ada73)

[Capn Bloggs]

The in the jets I have flown the FMS flys over the holding fixed then rate one outbound, the "width" of the hold being determined by wind effect. Then the outbound leg is determined either by time or leg length in the FMS, the inbound turn varies with wind but not over rate one
That doesn't make sense (and certainly doesn't happen on my jalopy). If you have a hundred knot headwind into the HP, the outbound cannot be Rate 1 as there would be no chance of turning inbound anywhere near the HP inbound track.

The outbound turn into a headwind can be way less than rate 1 (sometimes only 5°) because it needs to go wider to allow for the tailwind on the inbound turn.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

For those who still believe in the old turning downwind furphy, despite the best efforts of the headmaster et al: Have a think about what happens if you fly constant-AOB orbits in a jet at higher levels in a steady 100 kt jetstream. Does the jet just go round and round at pretty much constant IAS, or does it alternate between stalling and overspeeding as it turns in and out of the wind?

[The Wawa Zone]

http://www.baaa-acro.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/VH-CQA-1.jpg

[Icarus2001]

That doesn't make sense (and certainly doesn't happen on my jalopy). If you have a hundred knot headwind into the HP, the outbound cannot be Rate 1 as there would be no chance of turning inbound anywhere near the HP inbound track.

The outbound turn into a headwind can be way less than rate 1 (sometimes only 5°) because it needs to go wider to allow for the tailwind on the inbound turn

As is sometimes the case, you are absolutely correct. I meant to say, MAX of rate one, often lower.

The point being NOT a ground track as suggested above.

(PS I know YOU get this A)

[X35B]

Looking at that pix just before impact. Thank you -- The Wawa Zone.
Rudder Neutral.
Elevators Neutral.
Flaps - Not Down
Aileron - Set for Left Turn ?

Ahead of the Pilot what happened apparently.

[Virtually There]

Ailerons full hard right.

[onetrack]

One can only guess if the low level and surface winds had any impact on the aircraft involved, which factor could possibly have been a negative one in the conditions leading to the crash.
The nearest surface weather-measuring site to the crash site, is at Melville Water, at Inner Dolphin Pylon.
This weather-measuring point is about 2kms from the crash site, and would give a good indication of the surface winds on Perth Water. The crash occurred on the SE end of Perth Water.

Inner Dolphin Pylon (http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/95620)

Melville Water is the next large stretch of open water in the Swan River, just downstream of the Narrows Bridge.
Perth Water is the open stretch of water opposite Perth city, where the Mallard was intending to land.

At the time of the crash (approx 17:00Hrs local time), the surface wind at Melville Water was from the SW at 12kts, gusting to 14 kts.
At the previous 16:30Hrs reading, the wind was WSW at 14kts, gusting to 17Kts - and at 17:30Hrs, the wind was from the SW at 11Kts, gusting to 13Kts.

Normally, in Summer, a strong SW sea breeze blows across Perth and its suburbs in the afternoons, usually appearing between 11:00Hrs and 14:00Hrs.
On Australia Day, because of a strong low pressure trough located over Perth city and suburbs, the sea breeze was very weak, resulting in only a very modest breeze.

The aircraft was initially heading approximately SE and banked around to the NE, which is when the stall/port wing drop, is first observable and highly noticeable.

This effectively means the aircraft would possibly have been flying SE with a very modest crosswind, but running into a very modest tailwind on the left turn.

It's entirely likely the left turn, which changed the airflow from crosswind to tailwind, along with reduced airspeed in the bank, led to the port wing stall, and the resultant unrecoverable situation.

Latest Capital City Observations Melville Water (http://www.bom.gov.au/products/IDW60901/IDW60901.95620.shtml)

A screenshot of the relevant Melville Water readings around the time of the crash. Unfortunately, a number of the measurements readings from this site, were inoperative at the time.

https://s28.postimg.org/s24v1wfd9/Melville_Water.jpg

[framer]

737-Ng FCOM
The FMC computes holding patterns with constant radius turns based on current winds and FMC commanded airspeed. The pattern size is limited to FAA or ICAO protected airspace. In LNAV, the AFDS tracks the holding pattern using up to a 30 degree bank angle. Strong winds or airspeed in excess of FAA or ICAO entry speeds may result in the airplane flying outside the protected airspace.
Other types will no doubt be different. There are other protections not mentioned above as well, ie, it's not going to throw you into a 30 AOB at FL 410 ISA +15 !
Personally I think the argument is about inertia not momentum and we are actually talking about windshear.
Do the mathematical calculations still produce the same result if we hypothesise the turn taking only one second? I think they do, if you have faith in them we could jimmy up a 100knot negative windshear over one second and gather some data for the equations :)
( meant in a funny way, not an antagonising way )
Obviously 100kt negative windshear will see something happen, if you drag it out over a two minute hold entry then the results are benign.
Anyway, I may be wrong so I'd like to see the calculations done for one second rather than two minutes.
Cheers.

[mikeyg1972]

Anyone know what the effect of hitting the water would have had on the props? Would hitting the water have the same effect as and on land where prop blades tend to bend back significantly when hitting the ground under high power settings?
Images on the West Australian website today showing the recovery of the aircraft show no apparent damage to the props on one engine and only a slight bend to one prop blade on the other engine.


https://thewest.com.au/news/wa/plane-remains-in-swan-river-after-fatal-crash-that-caused-australia-day-fireworks-cancellation-ng-b88367962z


Is this an indication that the engines weren't producing power at the time of the accident?

[onetrack]

One of the better videos I've seen of the Mallard crash - the initial video, taken by someone standing on the SE foreshore of Perth Water.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryPnJ-Tj4ME

[Squawk7700]

It's entirely likely the left turn, which changed the airflow from crosswind to tailwind, along with reduced airspeed in the bank, led to the port wing stall, and the resultant unrecoverable situation.

Isn't this an example of what everyone has been saying earlier in this thread is complete BS?

The aircraft doesn't care if it's blowing 300 knots, it just flies merrily along its' way.

What does matter is if a pilot tries to get to a certain spot to land and misjudges their base and final turn due to the ground track, and ends up turning too tight in order to make the intended landing point.

[Cloudee]

It's entirely likely the left turn, which changed the airflow from crosswind to tailwind, along with reduced airspeed in the bank, led to the port wing stall, and the resultant unrecoverable situation.


Are you a pilot? If so, you will need to sit your theory again.

[john_tullamarine]

The video reminded me a bit of this accident. Very different in size of aircraft but similar in outcome.

Yes, the physics probably will be shown to be similar.

However, probably not all that reasonable to compare the Perth mishap with Holland's cowboy attitudes. While the one, possibly, will prove to involve an unfortunate degree of inexperience ... the other pilot, while having considerable experience, led spades in wilful stupidity which proved to be trumps on the day.

Dr Kern's article (http://sbfpd.org/uploads/3/0/9/6/3096011/darker_shades_of_blue.pdf) is worth a read, I think.

While I'm not overly interested in buying into reruns of the downwind turn arguments, the presence/absence of horizontal/vertical shear is very relevant and is, I suspect, a major cause of much of the confusion. It is worth noting that the albatross exploits the latter consideration most competently.

[Squawk7700]

Are you a pilot? If so, you will need to sit your theory again.

Thanks, I know I'm very tired today, however I thought what I was reading contained zero elements of fact!

[Mish A]

Low and slow turns with an upwind carry a risk of a visual perception that the pilot needs to increase bank to complete a "normal" turn over ground. This is because the visual pilot is seeing landmarks pass by close to the aircraft telling them that the turn isn't meeting expectations Not being a pilot that's ever considered landing on the wet stuff is this visual perception still relevant over water where I presume it would be different due to lack of moving landmarks.

[onetrack]

The aircraft doesn't care if it's blowing 300 knots, it just flies merrily along its' way.But if that 300kts wind turns from a crosswind to a tailwind, within the space of a few seconds, you would expect some small alteration in the aircrafts flying position? Such as a loss of height?
In the initial video above, I see a Mallard travelling at a fairly steady altitude up until 17 seconds. At 18 seconds, it's losing altitude. At 19 seconds, the port wing is dropping dramatically. At 21 seconds, it's unrecoverable, due to a lack of altitude.

What is difficult to see in the video (due to the angle of videoing), is if the loss of altitude and port wing drop, is purely attributable to increased AOA, or loss of airspeed, due to initially flying too close to stall.

[Lead Balloon]

Errrrm....onetrack... when flying, an aircraft is always flying into a 'headwind' equal to TAS...

[Squawk7700]

OneTrack, are you a qualified pilot, be it RA-Aus, GA or otherwise? I'm curious...

Because if you are... then this has not been explained to you in a way in which you have understood it and I would suggest that you speak to an instructor for further clarification.

The aircraft will fly the same through the air regardless of whether it is flying in zero wind, or 300 knots.

[onetrack]

No, I'm not a pilot, or I would have that on my profile. I did take out basic pilot studies many years ago, but never completed them, due to other commitments.

[Styx75]

So would not turning into a tailwind exhibit the same symptoms of windshear?

[Lead Balloon]

What does "turning into a tailwind" mean?

If the wind is a constant velocity an aircraft in the air never turns into a tailwind. The wind will affect the aircraft's groundspeed and track depending on which way the aircraft is heading, but the aircraft's TAS is not affected by the wind.

Now if it's a 300 kt northerly at 200' and a 300 kt southerly at 100', the aircraft will be destroyed on descent...

[Squawk7700]

No, I'm not a pilot, or I would have that on my profile. I did take out basic pilot studies many years ago, but never completed them, due to other commitments.

Thanks for your honesty.

It doesn't matter which way the aircraft is travelling in the 300knot wind, it simply flies normally as every *molecule* of air is moving at the same speed so the airframe is none the wiser.

What screws things up is when the pilot tries to get to a specific point on the ground or point of reference to be at by a certain altitude and with the 300 knots of wind, it will be extremely difficult to judge, therefore a pilot may pull a much steeper turn than normal to get to that point in time. Speed may also be reduced to allow the aircraft to make the point, which can result in a stall. The aircraft needs to be flown fully within its documented flight parameters, regardless of the wind speed.

[ruprecht]

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour.
It's orbiting at 19 miles a second, so it's reckoned,
The sun that is the source of all our power.
Now the sun, and you and me, and all the stars that we can see,
Are moving at a million miles a day,
In the outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour,
Of a galaxy we call the Milky Way.

.....and I don't feel any of it no matter which way I turn. :hmm:

[bradleygolding]

Onetrack.

16 seconds into that video the ailerons are already going right.

Steve

[Icarus2001]

Low and slow turns with an upwind

Really? An upwind?

[onetrack]

Squawk7700, thanks for your patience and explanation. I'm happy to have my lack of knowledge/understanding exposed and discussed, if it means only one pilot is saved from making a fatal error anytime in the future. We all learn by discussion and demonstration, and one should never stop learning.

What is of concern, of course, is that Peter Lynch was a supposedly fully qualified and experienced pilot - yet he managed to stoof his aircraft in, with what appears to be a very basic flying error.
I'm hazarding a guess that he didn't have low-level flying training and qualifications? - which, if true, leads to a lot more questions, as to why he was allowed to fly into the Skyworks display? :(

[Clare Prop]

What is required to get approval for a display of this type? Or was he just showcasing the aircraft? It does seem a pretty small area for an aircraft of that size to be manoeuvring in, and no escape route in the event of something going wrong such as becoming assymetric.

[wiggy]

Without wishing to comment in specifics of the accident :


I'm hazarding a guess that he didn't have low-level flying training and qualifications?

FWIW the dangers/differences between upwind and downwind turns at low level were regarded as so significant that they used to be taught or at least demonstrated by (UK) Central Flying School instructors as part of the first low level flying lesson on a light piston aircraft , I'd guess/hope it's still taught elsewhere. As someone has already pointed out the major threat was regarded as trying to tighten a downwind turn or "wrap a turn up" to overfly a ground datum.

[Lead Balloon]

Oh gawd, here we go.

More approvals and training and qualifications and regulations? To land an amphibious aircraft on the water?

The ways in which pilots usually "stoof in" are well known. And those ways are usually "very basic" errors. Perhaps education, education and more education about the lessons that have been learned over and over would be a more effective solution.

[Led Zep]

This article makes interesting claims.

"...Mr Lynch had also been battling with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to allow him to fly in the Australia Day air show right up until the 11th hour.The approval was finally granted on January 24 and a delighted Mr Lynch left a voice message on Mr McCormack’s phone that day saying: “Guess what mate, I got my type rating and everything through from CASA... and I am pretty happy about that as it means I will be in the show.”

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/plane-crash-pilot-shared-concerned-texts-with-friend-hours-before-fatal-plunge/news-story/089ebbe48e43bd45508edcf2e0e4d645)

:bored:

[Pinky the pilot]

One question; Is anyone who has posted on this thread an Ag Pilot? Or has anyone a low level endorsement?:confused:

I'm almost tempted to say not!

[Capn Bloggs]

Oh gawd, here we go.

More approvals and training and qualifications and regulations?
Given what happened on the 26th at Perth and depending on what the investigation finds, that sounds like a good idea...

[Lead Balloon]

So far as I am aware, the people who died in this tragedy haven't been buried yet. And the ATSB has yet to investigate the accident and produce a report.

Maybe a lesson for everyone to learn is: Take a deep breath. Then take another deep breath. Then wait.

Just my crap contribution...

[spinex]

"...Mr Lynch had also been battling with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to allow him to fly in the Australia Day air show right up until the 11th hour.The approval was finally granted on January 24 and a delighted Mr Lynch left a voice message on Mr McCormack’s phone that day saying: “Guess what mate, I got my type rating and everything through from CASA... and I am pretty happy about that as it means I will be in the show.”

No Cookies | Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/national/plane-crash-pilot-shared-concerned-texts-with-friend-hours-before-fatal-plunge/news-story/089ebbe48e43bd45508edcf2e0e4d645)

And there's a perfect example of why you don't go running off at the mouth to the press.:mad: They WILL twist what you say so as to make it sound as dramatic as possible and you can be assured it won't be to your ultimate benefit.

[gerry111]

Someone suggested that continuation theory of flight training might be a good idea.

Clearly there's quite a few of us here that have forgotten lots, since doing our BAK's.

So how about this? Find people who can write easy to read, factual articles in a printed magazine on safe airmanship? And perhaps call it the 'Aviation Safety Digest'.

Yes, I know.. That could never happen today. RIP Mac Job.

[laardvark]

One question; Is anyone who has posted on this thread an Ag Pilot? Or has anyone a low level endorsement?:confused:

I'm almost tempted to say not!
i'm sure that most pilots here have done close approaches .
i have a low level end' .

[Flying Binghi]

Via Islandlad: ...I read alot of cr@p on PPRuNe and have been a contributer to said cr@p but when it comes to aviation i continue to learn because there are many VERY qualified and skilled pilots on here. If one young/old/inexperienced/overconfident pilot - i have been all of them - thinks twice and...

Yep, lota crapola about..:hmm: ...and now we got the buttock smoke blowers trying to elicit comment..:hmm:

Them "qualified and skilled" pilots tend to wait for a written accident investigation report so they can make an educated comment.








.

[snoop doggy dog]

Condolences to family and friends :(

Low level endorsement training provides skills and knowledge, better enabling one to appreciate a lot of potential errors/ threats that will/ may come ones way. Every day is different, even at the same place no doubt. Weather, sun, obstacles, fauna, traffic and a myriad factors. Having an excess of altitude &/or speed &/or power needs constant consideration, or just not being there at all, if the conditions on the day determine this so. Low level endorsement trains skills to counteract stall at low level, but these skills mostly help when all else is considered and the aircraft's performance on the day is understood too.

Let's see what the accident investigation comes up with...

An avoided unfortunate accident :(

[suninmyeyes]

This is for those who believe that despite a constant wind the aircraft has to accelerate through the air when it turns downwind:


Imagine a 747 flying along at 500 knots. Now imagine a model aeroplane flying around that passenger cabin at 10 knots. Are you trying to tell me that when the model is facing the back of the plane and turns towards the front it suddenly has a 500 knot tailwind? And are you trying to tell me that there is a difference aerodynamically between the model flying towards the nose of the aircraft and turning towards the tail compared to flying towards the tail and turning towards the nose?


So if you agree there is no difference then imagine the 747 flying in a parcel of air that moving along at a constant 100 knots. It is the same effect. The aircraft is blissfully unaware of the steady wind, the airspeed stays constant whether it turns into wind or downwind.

[HarleyD]

As a (non-current) AG pilot with, maybe, a couple of hundred thousand low level, low speed turns and twenty thousand low level base turns to land at minimum speed, in every conceivable up/cross/down wind combination, I am utterly positive that the whole 'parcel of air so no effect of wind' theory is absolute BS. Steady state equations prove nothing, it is a dynamic shear event and you can pontificate to your heart's content but it won't change reality.

I just deleted a long winded explanation as those unbelievers will never be convinced and will spout 'proof' long and loud, believe what you want, I have my own opinion, and supporting evidence, you are welcome to yours. Mine works for me.

HD

[fujii]

Flying Binghi, there is nothing illicit about trying to elicit comment.

[X35B]

Ailerons full hard right.

That is doom.

This will further place drag exacerbating the stall.

Full Rudder. Stick forward to max and back. Power on. Someone will tell me if this is wrong :)

For a tired sport pilot a big ask in three seconds.

Even for a wary pilot who had done spin training last week might not be fast enough.

Flying with friends can be a distraction as well, girlfriend even more so.

[Penny Washers]

Suninmyeyes and all those others - you are not only wrong but you are dangerously wrong. People do crash because they do not allow for the effects of turning downwind.

Here are three instances which may bring it home to you:

Model aircraft circling in free flight always rear up and often stall as they turn into wind when near the ground. If they turn out of wind, then they lose height. Their airspeed does not remain constant, due to the effects of inertia. The effect is noticeable near the ground but, oddly, not when they are ten feet or more above it.

If you hang a weight on a piece of string in a car travelling at a constant speed, it will hang straight. If the car suddenly lurches off in a different direction, the weight will move due to its inertia. The effect is there even though the car's speed remains the same.

This happened to me: I was landing a Chipmunk at a farm strip in a crosswind. The circuit direction was such that my groundspeed on base leg was high. When I turned final, I found that the aircraft speed was too high to get into the short strip. This happened twice despite my controlling the base leg airspeed carefully. So I flew the circuit in the other direction, so that my groundspeed on base leg was then quite low. I got in easily from that circuit. Note the large difference in inertia involved.

So much for an aircraft 'always flying in a bubble of air and never changing speed.' Of course it does - and it can be a killer if it is not allowed for.

[Sunfish]

Penny ????????

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Penny, in that case, why don't airliners alternately stall and overspeed as they circle in a 100 kt jetstream? Why does the wind have no effect on a fighter manoeuvring at max performance on the light buffet? And how could a U2 ever turn in any sort of wind, when it's operating with only a 4 kt buffer between the stall and MMO?

[AerocatS2A]

Please don't spread ignorance Penny Washers.

1. The effect is noticeable near the ground but, oddly, not when they are ten feet or more above it.

This should be a really big clue that what you are seeing is not a result of changing directions in a steadily moving airmass but either from changing wind conditions (turbulence/shear) close to the ground or visual illusions from trying to fly an aircraft with reference to the ground.

2. The car example is just completely irrelevant.

3. What happened to you in the chippy is you got suckered in by illusions.

[Duck Pilot]

Why did the pilot allow himself to get into to a situation where he lost control of his aeroplane, there is evidence to suggest that he was concerned about the weather conditions, why did he elect to continue on? These are the questions that we as a pilot group/industry must be asking, and reflect on our own experiences. Forget the ATSB and CASA they will just do what they normally do. Who cares about ailerons being here there and everywhere and temperatures and ground speeds - we know all that. The aircraft should never have been put into an out of control situation.

CFIT, VMC into IMC, overloading aircraft, operating aircraft with known un-servicabilities that render it un-airworthy, busting CTA and the list goes on and on. The crux of the issue is pilot discipline. Sadly flight standards have significantly dropped right throughout the entire pilot group IMHO. We can point our fingers at regulators, governments and a myriad of other organisations and individuals, however we as individuals are always accountable for our own personal discipline.

[jack11111]

The misunderstanding of how a aircraft moves through an air mass by some aviators on this board is stunning and breath-taking.

[mickjoebill]

The aircraft will fly the same through the air regardless of whether it is flying in zero wind, or 300 knots.

What has stuck with me from my ppl training is that we fly in "parcels of air". That "parcel of air" can be moving both latterally and or vertically.
The thing that matters is keeping an air speed that delivers lift in this "parcel of air".

Doesn't matter which way it is moving, just make sure you are properly flying within it!

If you do a constant bank 360 degree turns in the parcel of air you'll be fine, but the parcel of air will move ( with you in it) you across the ground.

The notion of "upwind" and "downwind" are irrelevant in respect to maintaining lift in the "parcel of air".

Avoiding weather conditions where the "parcel of air" rapidly descends is advisable.

A takeoff in a "parcel of air" that is moving in the same direction as the runway is not advisable as it uses more runway to accelerate up to a speed where the airspeed over wings is enough to create lift.
I've found that visualising this "parcel" is a useful aid in communicating the risks of low level operations to TV and film production staff.


Mickjoebill

[terminus mos]

Duck, you are right as II said

The accident sequence of events started with some unfortunate decision making and approach planning after the first landing attempt.

The first attempt should have been the trigger for going home.

[Capn Bloggs]

The first attempt should have been the trigger for going home.
The first attempt appeared to be caused by a traffic conflict, not poor positioning. I don't see that as a reason to give it away, provided there was a backup plan for a circuit... Have a look at the Perth Webtrak starting at 1658.

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Penny,

You were possibly fast on final, because your ROD on base was not appropriate for the wind conditions. With the 'tailwind' on base, I'll bet you were high on final and pushed the nose down to regain your profile, leaving you fast.
When you flew the base turn with the 'headwind' on base, you arrived at the start of final on the correct slope, and were able to fly final at the appropriate speed. If you don't check you finals 'window' you may not have perceived the aspect.

[Duck Pilot]

Should have never have taken off, text messages to another person seeking advice on the performance of the aircraft in the know conditions clearly indicates that the pilot was concerned. External factors potentially an influence on the decision to give it a go? High profile public event, can't tell me that the pilot may not have felt some pressure to do the display.

[The name is Porter]

Can someone post the contents of the telegraph article, can't see it behind a pay wall.

[X35B]

“My biggest concern is how hot it is today and the lack of wind,” Mr Lynch said in the message.

“Perth gets very hot compared to back east I’ve noticed.”

Mr McCormack, who runs Red Baron Seaplanes, said Mr Lynch had also been battling with the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to allow him to fly in the Australia Day air show right up until the 11th hour.

The approval was finally granted on January 24 and a delighted Mr Lynch left a voice message on Mr McCormack’s phone that day saying: “Guess what mate, I got my type rating and everything through from CASA... and I am pretty happy about that as it means I will be in the show.”

Ms Cakrawati was also nervous about the flight and had originally intended to stay on the ground, before changing her mind at the last minute.

She told friends on social media earlier in the day that she was: “Super excited yet nervous. I can do it, wish me luck.”

Unable to copy texts which are a graphic, unfortunately.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Nobody has yet mentioned the optical illusion of the 'apparent slip' and the 'apparent skid' when turning from
(a) Upwind to downwind, and
(b) Downwind to upwind,
at LOW level.

Turning from downwind to upwind, for example, the aircraft is 'carried' by the wind in the sideways direction during the turn (Drift), in the direction of the wind, so the track made good (TMG) over the ground is elongated in the direction of the wind, downstream.

The illusion to the pilot looking out of the window at his intended landing area, is therefore that the aircraft is 'skidding' out of the turn, in relation to the ground.

The "obvious" 'cure' is to tighten the turn.... Not good.

The real 'cure' is to keep checking the Turn and Balance (Bat & Ball) and to keep that ball in the centre whilst continuing the balanced turn, at a given angle of bank.

If its still going 'pear shaped' into getting where you wanted to position the aircraft, then a 'go around' is the best cure and start again, taking the wind into full account next time.

The 'illusion' is the fatal flaw, ask any 'croppie'.

(Not intended to 'preach', but simply to explain to some here, the physics v the illusion v the 'various airspeed arguments'.
The airspeed (IAS) remains constant by the way, for a given rate of turn in a given wind, at a given altitude, gusts and wind shear / inertia excluded.....Groundspeed (GS) should never be confused with airspeed (IAS).

[megan]

It's difficult to believe the stand some take on turning with wind blowing, certainly not pilots, one would hope. Flying helicopters in the offshore world it was not uncommon to have 60 knots of wind when taking off from a platform. Climb speed in our particular aircraft was 75 knots and the turn to downwind while holding climb speed was visually spectacular if not seen previously. The point is, the aircraft doesn't care what the wind is, and if you are flying by reference to instruments you would have no idea what the strength of the wind is, or indeed, if there is any wind, save for the fact that you already have 60 knots airspeed prior to commencement of the take off.

[laardvark]

So far as I am aware, the people who died in this tragedy haven't been buried yet. And the ATSB has yet to investigate the accident and produce a report.

Maybe a lesson for everyone to learn is: Take a deep breath. Then take another deep breath. Then wait.

Just my crap contribution...
this being a 'rumour' forum i interpret that as a clearance to speculate .
there are moderators who will remove posts when they deem it necessary so the self appointed policemen may stand down .
we all wait for official conclusions but in the meantime i want to hear others observations and opinions .
as an actual pilot with low level experience I chose not to post , until now , as I simply had nothing to add .
I did hear on the 9 news last night that the crash site water depth was only 1.5m .

[p.j.m]

Can someone post the contents of the telegraph article, can't see it behind a pay wall.
https://i.imgur.com/FTwLxe5.jpg

[Old Farang]

Interesting to read the comments quoted by Mack McCormack in the post from the Daily Telegraph. He is the owner of the Grumman Albatross VH-NMO, that he had spent months trying to get through the red tape to operate in WA. He actually moved the aircraft to the eastern states on 22nd December 2016, after giving up trying to get approval.

Not sure if Mack is endorsed on seaplanes, but I used to go to work in the South China Sea on his aircraft when it operated out of Singapore back in the 1980s. It was flown by friend and legendary seaplane pilot
Bryan McCook(RIP). The Albatross is a bigger version of the Mallard.

I am a former helicopter pilot and used to always ride in the jump seat with Bryan, and even with his vast experience it was obvious that those aircraft are unforgiving, and in old parlance a "handful", especially on approach and water landing.

RIP to those lost, and I hope that some good comes out of this tragic event, that as with many accidents, it was the culmination of a series of small mistakes that should have been avoided.

[Flying Binghi]

Via laardvark:
...this being a 'rumour' forum i interpret that as a clearance to speculate .
there are moderators who will remove posts when they deem it necessary so the self appointed policemen may stand down .
we all wait for official conclusions but in the meantime i want to hear others observations and opinions .
as an actual pilot with low level experience I chose not to post , until now , as I simply had nothing to add .
I did hear on the 9 news last night that the crash site water depth was only 1.5m.


Crikey!..:ooh: 1.5m of water is a flight safety hazard. I've learnt sumthing from this thread.......:hmm:

laardvark, insulting posters with the "self appointed policemen" comment don't help your case. There are some around here who just don't want to see crapola written about a fellow pilot who can no longer defend themselves.

...And I to am "an actual pilot with low level experience" ...or is that a low level of experience..:hmm:






.

[Pinky the pilot]

Griffo;:ok::ok::ok::ok:

[laardvark]

ok the policeman bit was too much . apologies .
i know experience is relative . my log says 8500 TT .
approx 4000hrs below 500' agl in light twins doing survey work .
you be the judge .

[Flyer069]

One question; Is anyone who has posted on this thread an Ag Pilot? Or has anyone a low level endorsement?:confused:

I'm almost tempted to say not!

I am a 14,000 hour Agpilot 4,000 hour float plane pilot , most of you guys scare me with your theories on flying. I hope none of you are instructors.

[Icarus2001]

Shut it down mods.

[Aviater]

I never understood the point of an anonymous pissing contest.

[The Wawa Zone]

It was only a matter of time before the 'downwind turn' issue was 'raised'....
Yes it has an effect depending on gross weight, but the pilot's real problem was the crosswind drift elongating the base turn into the far side of the box and causing a right skid visual illusion** probably leading to a steeping bank angle/tighter turn. Turning into the sun at low level was a basic error as it reduced his visual inputs. Had he flown a right hand tear drop out of the sun with the wind reducing his base turn diameter then he might have made it. Those text messages don't imply any Plan B existed.
My previous questions - was his planning required / documented for the display organiser, was there or should there have been a display coordinator/pilot with a radio ready to pull the plug on anything that began to unravel, and just how far will ATSB go in recommending changes to the way CASA oversees air displays ?

No, don't shut it down and don't piss.

[Squawk7700]

There's no need to shut the thread down - it has been informative and educational.

If someone here wakes up to the issue of upwind and downwind turns (or whatever it was that they didn't understand prior) and it makes them a safer pilot, I amongst others will sleep more happily.

[Lead Balloon]

The thread should probably now be locked, it having run the usual Downunda course.

1. Pilot's judgment and skills criticised before he's been buried. Tick.

2. Cause of the accident diagnosed before the wreckage has been removed. Tick.

3. Calls for more regulatory intervention. Tick.

4. My logbook's thicker than your logbook competitions. Tick.

And you people wonder why you're the regulator's playing and governments couldn't care a toss about the health of the aviation sector. :yuk:

[bradleygolding]

Like I said in my earlier post, 16 seconds into the video he is already applying right aileron, and that's a fair time before the actual crash. So things are going awry quite early on in the turn?

The accident was in a very public place and I suspect that there is some much better footage of the lead up to the accident around and accessible to CASA for the inquiry. Until any of that comes to light in a public forum I don't see that there is much more to be gained here.

Steve

[nojwod]

The last video posted above indicates to me that the pilot was likely the unfortunate victim of circumstance rather than poor technique. Although the lack of flaps in the final turn does appear to be at odds with recommended practice.

In that video the engines can be heard throttling down prior to the aircraft entering a very conservative left bank (maybe 10 degrees). Towards the middle of the turn, the bank angle is increased to maybe 15 to 20 degrees, and that's when the stall set in and the aircraft could not be recovered.

Hardly looks like a foolhardy manoeuvre to me, more likely a combination of temperatures and a possible wind shear or gust turning a manouevre the pilot had done many times before into an accident.

[Clare Prop]

http://www.grummanmallard.com/Mallard/Documents_files/Airplane%20Flight%20Manual.pdf

[Band a Lot]

Ok lets wait for the ATSB report!

No black boxes, video evidence is out clearly showing prior flight and crash.

ATSB when no video, obtains its evidence from Joe Public and remains of aircraft if any and aircraft pilot records when no boxes.

ATSB are not 100% correct and it is only often a opinion of a possible cause - for this in almost any crash we wait 1 year.

For this alone ATSB lose much credibility, but funniest of all is Pro Pilots will then place comment on said ATSB reports (after the experts will all information and data have concluded the report) these said pilots have largest watches of all.

The Mallard stalled, no report of engine inconsistencies ("Pilots" on here witnessed the crash) sadly Pilot error claimed his life and his girlfriend. It was not his intention but he caused the accident to happen.

My condolences to family/s in particular his and her kids.

[Capn Bloggs]

LB, if you don't like the thread don't read it.

[bolthead]

Don't know about it being an illusion. Basic physics would suggest if you have to do a 180 degree turn in a restricted space, turning into the wind is going to be much more comfortable then turning with it.

[Duck Pilot]

I'm sure there is a lot of still images and video footage taken from all angles that will never be given to the authorities for review.

Agree with Leadie, time to lock the thread - Enough has been said in relation to this accident for the time being. Who cares who is right or wrong in terms of what caused this tragic accident, we need to be cognisant of the fact that what we professionals post here could be quoted and manipulated in the media or other forums without our consent. It's occurred before, with Pprune being mentioned in newsprint.

Certainly open up another thread relating to the dangers of aircraft performance degradation in high OAT temperatures, however this accident doesn't need to be mentioned.

[Band a Lot]

"cognisant of the fact"

R stands for rumor if you were not aware.

Give a good reason it should be closed. This was a lucky crash 10,s of 1,000s were in his flying area. All innocent when he lost control - or you have evidence he has control?

It was a lucky crash in numbers NOT killed, and that also needs to be acknowledged.

[Tankengine]

All fatal accidents are tragic, as are losses of rare aircraft.:uhoh:
There is a lot of visual info to form opinions here.
I suggest that anyone here flying "heavy" light aircraft really do some quality training (including stalls, turning stalls and VMCA training) and back that up with lots of practice and currency. (Within your own limitations with plenty of air room)
There is a trend here. :( (FTDK's username is a clue.):sad:

[Icarus2001]

This was a lucky crash 10,s of 1,000s were in his flying area. All innocent when he lost control - or you have evidence he has control?

It was a lucky crash in numbers NOT killed, and that also needs to be acknowledged.

Do you have any idea what it takes to get CASA or any aviation authority to approve an air display?

After the Shoreham crash in 2015 in the UK there is a great deal of focus about NOT flying over the crowd.

The area that the air display is in is clear of people and the single engine aircraft can use that as a forced landing area.

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/22a2aebf85b774910fe1d68d2e6a5b84?width=650

http://cdn.newsapi.com.au/image/v1/5c569728dc9ed268d6895d339677487f?width=650

http://www.transport.wa.gov.au/images-content/MAC_I_SkyworksMap17.jpg

[601]

I'm sure there is a lot of still images and video footage taken from all angles that will never be given to the authorities for review.

From what is posted on the web from previous flights, I would be very surprised that no video was taken from inside the cockpit. I am sure that the ATSB would have the wherewithal to recover any video taken.

As for the approvals, if the following is correct reporting of what CASA said, what was the pilot actually approved to do. The following, as normal from CASA, is very ambiguous, or was it intentional by the CASA spokesperson.



"All aircraft operating as part of the air display sought and received approval from the Civil Aviation Safety Authority to do so," CASA said in the statement.

"Under the regulations, except during take-off and landing, or where specifically approved as part of the program of events, the minimum height at which any aircraft may operate is 500 feet above ground level.

"Air displays over built up (suburban) areas, public gatherings and vessels on the surface of a body of water are not normally approved."

Did CASA approved the event overall and then give each pilot specific approval as part of the overall approval?

I did Riverfire in Brisbane a long time ago. The approval from CASA was straight in and out. No turns below 1500 feet except to follow the river.

[Band a Lot]

Yep got a rare aircraft in Australia only 2 of these large radials on AU rego.

It always depends on what CASA person and office that approve things - opinons vary greatly within CASA.

[flywatcher]

Too much aircraft, not enough pilot

[YPJT]

The latest news article shows an instagram photo allegedly by the pilot's partner
Swan River plane crash Instagram video inside the aircraft (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wish-me-luck-swan-river-plane-crash-victims-final-moments-inside-aircraft-captured-on-video/news-story/70e4b606d560fee459d17229cd69d5c2)
That her hand is on the controls is sure to raise some questions.

[The name is Porter]

Thanks p.j.m. & X35B :ok:

[Clare Prop]

Video footage seems to show her on the controls on the right side and then sitting on the left side Swan River plane crash Instagram video inside the aircraft (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wish-me-luck-swan-river-plane-crash-victims-final-moments-inside-aircraft-captured-on-video/news-story/70e4b606d560fee459d17229cd69d5c2)

[Pontius]

That her hand is on the controls is sure to raise some questions.

Really don't see why it should and comments like that just smack of unnecessary scaremongering. Previous videos show him allowing his son to have a bit of hands-on but there's absolutely no way he'd have been stupid enough to allow his partner to be flying it during the 'display' or the approach.

Judging by some of the comments on this thread I'm surprised some of the 'pilots' here are able to fly a circuit, given the dreaded turn from downwind, into wind. FFS don't you do that on most occasions every time you land?

My uncalled-for, tuppence worth: Seems to me a case of a skidding turn and, as witnessed by the video, an attempt to recover that skid by trying to roll right, instead of applying right rudder. Down goes the left aileron, up goes the angle of attack on that wing (not helped by it being the 'inside, slower' wing of the turn), left wing stalls and Robert is your uncle with, unfortunately, not enough height to recover.

[Clare Prop]

Ref. CAR 228

[Clare Prop]

AC 91-060 para 6.13
https://www.casa.gov.au/file/146296/download?token=bdikAdlu

[The Wawa Zone]

"That her hand is on the controls is sure to raise some questions."

That she seemed to be in the left seat, presumably being coaxed along what was actually an unflyble circuit from the downwind leg, is sure to raise some questions, although it may provide some answers as well.

[Airbubba]

Video footage seems to show her on the controls on the right side and then sitting on the left side Swan River plane crash Instagram video inside the aircraft (http://www.news.com.au/national/western-australia/wish-me-luck-swan-river-plane-crash-victims-final-moments-inside-aircraft-captured-on-video/news-story/70e4b606d560fee459d17229cd69d5c2)

I'd be a little cautious on assuming that she swapped seats.

On many phones, when you swap cameras to selfie mode, the video is reversed to a mirror image.

See:

https://www.quora.com/Why-are-selfie-pictures-mirror-images-while-rear-camera-images-are-not

[allthecoolnamesarego]

Looks like Ms Cakrawati has here left hand on the right yoke. Have a look at a Mallard's controls to see that the left wheel doesn't have the yoke arm attached on the left side, the right hand yoke does though.

You guys should join the ATSB.......jeeez

http://www.airliners.net/photo/Untitled/Grumman-G-73-Mallard/338541

[down3gr33ns]

At 0:39 into the video, the Grumman symbol on the yoke appears the correct way round. Looks like the right side of the yoke for that and the reasons in the preceding post.

[ACMS]

Is it just me or am I the only one that doesn't want to watch her video.....

[Capn Bloggs]

On many phones, when you swap cameras to selfie mode, the video is reversed to a mirror image
When you're looking at the screen taking the shot/video it is, but when you look at the finished product, it is as though someone took a shot of you. That is, the orientation is correct. Take a selfie with some text on your shirt: it comes out correctly when you view the image.

[Vincent Chase]

As flyer69 said, I hope none of you preaching the downwind turn being no different are instructors and I hope any prospective pilots reading this don't get it into their heads thinking this.

It might not be relevant to the tragedy in question but there is a reason we try to get as much out of the hopper as possible and make the first turn into wind before having to turn downwind. I reinforced the point to myself after spending 6 weeks in a wheelchair following a downwind turn in which ambition exceeded ability. If you haven't flown a heavy ag plane then you don't know what you don't know.

[9 lives]

There's lots of talk about this accident, and turns, with varying reference to wind. I'm not a Mallard pilot, nor am I familiar with Perth, but to inform myself a little, I did some Google Earth measuring of the flying display area before commenting here. Presuming that is was the intention of the pilot to avoid flying over land (built up areas) as depicted in the flying display graphic kindly posted, let's consider dimensions:

The water area depicted on the graphic equates roughly to the runway and infield dimensions of an airport with one 8000 foot runway, and a bisecting crossing 4500 foot runway. Let alone an aircraft the size [and lesser maneuverability] of the Mallard, would it be considered normal flight operations to fly a circuit inside the infield of an airport of these dimensions? I think not - that would be unusual flying. Possible, but unusual.

Perhaps this pilot practiced the turn at a place of similar dimensions, to get used to what most anyone would consider tight maneuvering. I have no idea. I know that water flying can dramatically alter perception of space for maneuvering - it can look like there's room, but there's not that much. This is a major teaching point when I train flying boat pilots.

I train that a water landing is preceded with one or more reconnaissance passes, with consideration for dimensions, the approach, hazards, and the possible affect of wind. I wonder if this pilot had the opportunity to fly some practice or reconnaissance passes before landing.

It is certain that he, as any of us would, maneuvered so as to avoid overflight of crowds or even shore. Once it started going bad, tightening the turn was not going to fix it. He had already run out of room for maneuvering within the normal flying characteristics of that 'plane. I fly light floatplanes and flying boats, and what I see in that video would worry me for maneuvering a light seaplane, let alone the larger Mallard.

I can imagine that this pilot felt pressure to perform with his aircraft, and further would not want to disappoint his passenger. He pressed further into a maneuver than perhaps he had the practice, performance and maneuverability with which to complete it.

The facts will come out, but in the mean time, discussion of what is evident so far can benefit all pilots in reminding that when maneuvering close to the ground/landing in a non aerodrome environment, extra awareness and caution are needed to assure that the required minimum space is available, and that there is an escape plan if the maneuver is going wrong. This video will become an element of my training, with the obvious aspects discussed, even before a formal investigation report is written. Anything we do to make pilots think is good.

[Virtually There]

The "parcel of air" theory is all good and well until that parcel of air gusts, wanes, rises, sinks, sheers, or otherwise changes direction and speed - usually close to the ground. Gravity is a constant. Wind is not. That parcel of air you are moving in can also move around you. A 10kt gust on tailwind loses 10kt over the wing - instantly, and for a brief moment, due to inertia. Your ASI doesn't lie.

The reason for caution turning upwind or downwind (even if that happens to be crosswind) is because that's the direction the wind is likely to gust or drop off - leaving you in the poo if you are low and slow and in a turn losing lift.

We all know this, so I'm not sure why the argument.

[The Wawa Zone]

Well, the 'good' news is that the reason the thing stopped so rapidly is that it hit the bottom; its only a couple of meters deep there so the bodies would have been trapped where they sat, and that will resolve the question.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

At headmaster et al flat earthers - the earth is rotating at a speed at the equator of about 900 kts. Lucky when when we change direction and walk East to West, our momentum doesn't change by 900 kts worth. :ugh:


CHANGING DIRECTION WITH A CONSTANT BANK ANGLE IN A CONSTANT AIRMASS DOES NOT CHANGE THE LIFT ON A WING

L= 1/2 CL rho V^2 S

The V in that ole formula is not Groundspeed.

[Lookleft]

If you are too tight, too low and too slow when trying to land whether it be on water or land you will crash. The decision making leading up to it may come from overconfidence or inexperience but physics and gravity will ultimately decide your fate and unfortunately, those seated next to you.

[megan]

The "parcel of air" theory is all good and well until that parcel of air gusts, wanes, rises, sinks, sheers, or otherwise changes direction and speed.....The reason for caution turning upwind or downwind (even if that happens to be crosswind) is because that's the direction the wind is likely to gust or drop off - leaving you in the poo if you are low and slow and in a turn losing lift.Who in the world would be low and slow and turning? Crop dusters and others who have low level endorsements and are aware of the pitfalls aside. In any case I would assume an aviator would ensure that he keeps airspeed well in hand, and not nibbling on, or close to the stall if low level. Who spends their time in manoeuvring flight below 500'? He/she may well use the "Flight Safety Foundation" recommendations for approach speeds as a basis.

Wind Conditions
The wind correction provides an additional stall margin for airspeed excursions caused by turbulence and wind shear. Depending on aircraft manufacturers and aircraft models, the wind correction is defined using different methods, such as the following:

• Half of the steady headwind component plus the entire gust value, limited to a maximum value (usually 20 knots);
• One-third of the tower-reported average wind velocity or the gust velocity, whichever is higher, limited to a maximum value (usually 15 knots); or,
• A graphical assessment based on the tower-reported wind velocity and wind angle, limited to a maximum value (usually 15 knots).

https://flightsafety.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/alar_bn8-2-apprspeed.pdf

[ChrisJ800]

Who in the world would be low and slow and turning?

Glider pilots sometimes do when scratching for low down thermals especially in comps. Circling in a bumpy thermal at 2-300 feet is sometimes necessary to avoid a field landing. Of course the landing field is picked when below 2000 feet just in case the thermal doesn't work!

[zac21]

Capt Rex,,

Please read this:

As flyer69 said, I hope none of you preaching the downwind turn being no different are instructors and I hope any prospective pilots reading this don't get it into their heads thinking this.

It might not be relevant to the tragedy in question but there is a reason we try to get as much out of the hopper as possible and make the first turn into wind before having to turn downwind. I reinforced the point to myself after spending 6 weeks in a wheelchair following a downwind turn in which ambition exceeded ability. If you haven't flown a heavy ag plane then you don't know what you don't know.

[sms777]

Step Turn
Thank you for your post. No one else seemed to notice but in my opinion it is the most sensible and informative post i have read since the beginning. I have been following this accident report with interest and as others pointed out professional pilots will wait until the investigation is completed before criticising a fellow pilot's actions. I have done many years of outback flying in similar sized twins but thankfully a lot more forgiving then the Mallard which I don't know much about besides listening to others with more experience on type. What I can see on the videos is quiet obvious as to what happenned which has been summed up by Steep Turn and and some other more seasoned pilots.
For now I will sit back and wait for the final report....
RIP P.L. and partner.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Zac 21 - flown lots of stuff in military low level much heavier than an ag plane at airfield with high elevations and Density alts.

I'm sorry you had a prang, but it wasn't caused by turning into a tailwind. It was caused by you focusing (I'm guessing) on a ground feature and letting the angle of attack increase to the stall point.

[Tarq57]

Is it just me or am I the only one that doesn't want to watch her video..... I hear ya.

[currawong]

This has been done to death before but here goes -

Do your steep turn at altitude - downwind.

Wow - nothing happens.

:rolleyes:

There is no wild arse stall spin crash scenario awaiting those that try it.

Try it at low level, ignore the ground going past in an unusual fashion - same result.

[Capt Fathom]

I think this thread has well and truely past its use by date.

RIP to Peter Lynch and his partner. They were both aviation enthusiasts who paid the ultimate price for what they loved!

[onetrack]

Step Turn - thank you for your lucid, well written and informative piece, with the final sentence saying it all.

[Pastor of Muppets]

If a wing/aeroplane "doesn't care about the moving air mass" Why is windshear a big deal?
Could it be that a parcel of air could change its speed or direction faster than a heavy aeroplane can? Does a sailboat instantly travel at the same speed of every wind-gust? Would a light sailboat adopt ambient wind conditions faster than a heavy sailboat? Does a sailor or balloon pilot never feel the "wind in their hair"? (Gust in their hair)

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

If a wing/aeroplane "doesn't care about the moving air mass" Why is windshear a big deal?


It cares about the moving air mass - that's what it's flying relative to. If the moving air mass suddenly changes its speed or direction, it cares about that too. It just doesn't care about the Earth, the Sun, the distant parts of the universe, or the fact that you've just flown over SHEED and are turning into a northerly to land at Melbourne.

[zzodr]

Yup.
If the wind is blowing strong enough, you can fly backwards like a Super Cub can for example.
You can do a 180deg turn no problem. But if the wind died off suddenly, and you were low, well then things could get interesting.

[Airbubba]

When you're looking at the screen taking the shot/video it is, but when you look at the finished product, it is as though someone took a shot of you. That is, the orientation is correct. Take a selfie with some text on your shirt: it comes out correctly when you view the image.

It works that way on some phones but not others. You can easily find examples of reversed text in selfie videos on Facebook and YouTube.

[Blake777]

To return to the accident itself, a comment from a poster who was actually there and saw the plane's movements, and replied to a question I put, has been deleted.

I was commenting on the FR24 track, in which the original circuit apparently included an unsuccessful attempt at splashdown. Upon go round, the Mallard approaches on a track slightly north of his earlier circuit, giving much less room to successfully execute the turn and touchdown in the prescribed box.

I'm a little puzzled as to why he would have given himself less leeway on the second attempt? If he was unsuccessful on the first attempt at splashdown, how on earth did he think increasing the difficulty of the manoeuvre would improve things? It does not seem to allow for this beast's performance capabilities within the parameters prescribed unless he was a stunt pilot from way back. Low+slow+attempted tighter circuit than previous+shallow water = disaster? Plus girlfriend in cockpit+pressure for a big occasion performance. All a recipe for a catastrophe waiting to happen, it appears.

Very sad for the loss, and for the crowds witnessing. RIP to Peter and girlfriend. A tragedy for FMG also.

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-cqa/#c464eb9

Thanks for correction Air Bubba. Flight Aware not quite as conclusive.

[Airbubba]

You might want to edit that FR24 link.

See if this one works:

https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/vh-cqa/#c464eb9

FlightAware has this plot:

VH-CQA 26-Jan-2017 YSEN - YXRP FlightAware (http://flightaware.com/live/flight/VHCQA/history/20170126/0828Z/YSEN/YXRP)

[flopter]

I am a 14,000 hour Agpilot 4,000 hour float plane pilot , most of you guys scare me with your theories on flying. I hope none of you are instructors.
Finally.. Someone with Real Life flight Experience at AG low level and Float Plane. Please share and elaborate Your Thoughts Flyer069.

[FlexibleResponse]

An aircraft's response to changing wind is dependent on the inertial mass and drag of the aircraft.

A light aircraft will respond quickly to adapt to changes in the velocity of the air mass (through wind changes or maneuvering in a constant air mass) and a heavy aircraft will take longer.

Inertial mass is space/time dependent for frame of reference.

However, on the other hand, the kinetic energy of an aircraft flying at 100 knots IAS into wind will be lower than the kinetic energy of the same aircraft flying downwind at 100 knots, in RELATION to the EARTH.

The increase in kinetic energy required to change from flying into wind to flying downwind takes time and is dependent on the inertial mass and drag of the aircraft.

[sablatnic]

Downwind turn / upwind turn!
Just want to say, that during the many hours I have been flying gliders I have never felt anything different turning upwind or downwind!
(Gliders - you know them when you see them - absurdly long winged things with ridiculous adverse yaw problems, which spend most of their time circling a few knots above stalling).
Went to flying models when I lost my medical to some kidney problem, and the models haven't heard about downwind turn problems either, not even free flight models, which also fly very close to stall.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

A light aircraft will respond quickly to adapt to changes in the velocity of the air mass (through wind changes or maneuvering in a constant air mass)

Manoeuvring in a constant air mass isn't a change in the velocity of the air mass.


However, on the other hand, the kinetic energy of an aircraft flying at 100 knots IAS into wind will be lower than the kinetic energy of the same aircraft flying downwind at 100 knots, in RELATION to the EARTH.

The increase in kinetic energy required to change from flying into wind to flying downwind takes time and is dependent on the inertial mass and drag of the aircraft.

Sorry, you're confusing your frames of reference. Otherwise it'd be incredibly difficult to reverse direction when walking down the aisle of a moving train.

But there have been so many examples in the last few pages showing why the downwind turn thing is a myth - all completely ignored by the true believers - there's probably no point bringing up any more.

[9 lives]

why the downwind turn thing is a myth

In the context of a turn toward final approach for landing, might that be because it is uncommon for pilots to elect for a downwind landing? So turns progressing toward the final approach would most often be more and more into the wind in most circumstances?

Surely if a pilot were aware that a downwind landing were inevitable, they would greatly increase their allowance for speed and space. The approach turns I saw on the video were not being flown with a demonstrated concern for the possible effects encountering downwind conditions for final approach and landing.

Sure, a turn out of the wind could affect the plane's handling. But not so much as flying a low altitude progressively tightening turn, with slow and possibly decreasing airspeed, and low awareness of an impending unsymmetrical stall.

[jack11111]

Last time I checked, when I'm doing steep turns at altitude, my airspeed seems to remain constant.


I'm so thankful nobody stuck that "downwind turn peril" in my mind when I was learning to fly...seems like it is hard to shake off.

[X35B]

Long before the event, Pilot and Co-pilot and Some Wiser Heads get together to do a Risk Assessment.

1st is that the Grumman Mallard that has sent many fine souls off to first name terms with God. This may or may not be of concern. But if this is a machine that does not tolerate errors gladly then that is a matter to be considered.

2nd is that people die at Airshows in many ways. Is there an opportunity for this to happen?

Consider doing some time to address the stall at low altitude. Both pilot and co-pilot spending time in a cockpit of a sailplane doing endless turns on the edge of a stall, might prove useful.

Have a plan and be wary of the stall at low altitude. Do a few hours in the air learning how this beast behaves at a reasonable height. Learn how to recover and definitely learn how to pick up a stalling wing. Get your co-pilot up to speed on going full throttle with propellers to low pitch. Be ready to get out of trouble.

Learn the ancient and honorable art of sideslipping.

Practice landing somewhere else which is like the area you are to land in if possible.

Ask some questions like: Where are the windsocks to be located?

Is there enough room for a safe circuit ?

Ask yourself, why did all those airshow crashes happen and is this going to be more of the same?

Leave the passengers at home.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Step Turn - Sure, a turn out of the wind could affect the plane's handling.
:ugh:

I Don't even want to know what you mean by that.

a turn out of the wind? :confused::confused:

FFS if you are on a travelator, walking and close your eyes and stop walking and walk backwards you are not going to feel any different acceleration than when you are walking forwards.

[framer]

The problem here is that one lot are talking about a theoretical perfect parcel of air and the other lot are talking about real life. In the travelator example above for example, what would happen if some sections of the travelator were moving faster than others and some were even moving vertically? Every now and then some people, depending on their walking skills would fall over :)

[9 lives]

a turn out of the wind? :confused::confused:

Let me help....

If you takeoff and climb into a brisk wind, maintaining a constant airspeed, so far so good. If you then turn downwind, it will be necessary to accelerate relative to earth, to maintain that airspeed. Sure, the downwind will assist with that, but before it does, you will have suffered an indicated airspeed loss, which may affect handling, depending upon how close to stall speed (Vx speed range) you were while climbing into the wind. This can be evident as stall warning as you turn out of wind, I have experienced this and demonstrated it many times during training, when altitude was ample. This is a "gotcha" for seaplane pilots, who may be trying to turn away from rising ground after a confined area takeoff. Increasing wind intensity encountered climbing up out of terrain can also be a factor.

It is certainly a hazard known to helicopter pilots, as the helicopter can come back out of translation, and require more power to maintain altitude, combined with affects upon control. Certainly if you're climbing out at Vy+, or in cruise speed, the affects of turning out of wind are probably negligible. It's the low speed maneuvering where the hazard presents itself.

I'm not suggesting that this was a factor in the Mallard accident, as I presume that the pilot was turning into wind, so as to land into wind, so things just get better when that happens. Though, I do not know the wind conditions experienced by this pilot.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re 'Sure, the downwind will assist with that, but before it does, you will have suffered an indicated airspeed loss,'

And, 'This can be evident as stall warning as you turn out of wind,'


God, Give me strength......... I'll say my prayers before I go to bed....honestly.....

No cheers:ugh:
NOPE !! NONE at ALL.. !!

[josephfeatherweight]

If you then turn downwind, it will be necessary to accelerate relative to earth, to maintain that airspeed. Sure, the downwind will assist with that, but before it does, you will have suffered an indicated airspeed loss, which may affect handling, depending upon how close to stall spee
Singularly the most inaccurate claptrap I have read on PPRUNE and I've read a lot...

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Framer- I talking about a constant parcel if air, not a wind shear situation. That is what we are taking about in the upwind/downwind situation. Ie you have 25 kts of wind and you change your direction while in that 25 Kt wind stream. I know you know the deal but Step Turn on the other hand - :ugh:

Step Turn is from Canada - The northern hemispere has Trump physics to deal with.

[Capn Rex Havoc]

Framer if you are moving on one travelator that is travelling in one direction than decide to step onto an adjacent one that is travelling in the opposite direction then yes - you will definitely have acceleration issues.

That is the same if you are flying in an airmass that is a constant headwind then you descend into an airmass that is travelling in the opposite direction. That is called wind shear.

I am giving Step Turn the benefit here and perhaps he is describing taking off and climbing from one wind condition and flying into a tailwind condition. Then you will lose performance.

Eg Taking off out of Tehran - 10 Kts head wind, passing through 500 ft AGL you encounter 25 Kts Tail wind - Then your performance descreases.

[Pinky the pilot]

Griffo and josephfeathreweight; Gentlemen; You have just witnessed unequivocal proof of a theory I have had for quite some time now.:hmm:

The website known as the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, is no longer dominated by Professional Pilots!:eek::sad::mad:

No-one who has gone through all the theory courses and examinations required to gain even the basic CPL of the 1980s would come up with some of the rubbish I have read on this thread!:mad::mad:

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

No-one who has gone through all the theory courses and examinations required to gain even the basic CPL of the 1980s would come up with some of the rubbish I have read on this thread!:mad::mad:


You'd think so, Pinky, but I've heard this sort of nonsense from 20000-hr veterans of the industry. And if you point out that absolutely nothing happened to the IAS when we were flying orbits in a 50 kt wind only 10 minutes earlier, you get met with either blank incomprehension or '"But that was different.."

[John Eacott]

Griffo and josephfeathreweight; Gentlemen; You have just witnessed unequivocal proof of a theory I have had for quite some time now.:hmm:

The website known as the Professional Pilots Rumour Network, is no longer dominated by Professional Pilots!

Never was, never will be.

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

[Vincent Chase]

For clarity, my post was talking about high inertia, low airspeed situations namely pulling off a crop and trying to turn air speed into height while at the same time trying to coax the light bar into cooperating. My ability might be a factor more so than anything else but I swear I can put the stick in a different place for my first few into wind turns than I can for a down wind turn without the aircraft telling me it's not happy. Would be interested to hear about others experiences with buffet or wing drop for into wind v down wind particularly in a 502.

I learnt my lesson about respecting the wind at low level the hard way but got away with my life, unfortunately the mallard occupants didn't. Stay safe all.

[currawong]

Vincent, your scenario is different.

You are describing a climbing turn.

Also, when you turn downwind in your racetrack, your groundspeed is greater, requiring you to pull harder to make your line.

This is what catches people.

May I recommend the "Handbook for Agricultural Pilots" by HR Quantick.

Perhaps hard to get hold of now.

There is a whole section on turns in wind. It is science.

[Capn Bloggs]

It works that way on some phones but not others. You can easily find examples of reversed text in selfie videos on Facebook and YouTube.
I stand corrected. Does seem like a silly idea to me but I can save my selfies "around the wrong way" if I set the camera to do so. So the "video" may not be so...

[Desert Flower]

Framer- I talking about a constant parcel if air, not a wind shear situation. That is what we are taking about in the upwind/downwind situation. Ie you have 25 kts of wind and you change your direction while in that 25 Kt wind stream. I know you know the deal but Step Turn on the other hand - :ugh:

Step Turn is from Canada - The northern hemispere has Trump physics to deal with.
Ah, but Trump isn't the President of Canada - Trudeau is!

DF.

[itsnotthatbloodyhard]

Vincent, apart from your climbing turn bleeding off airspeed, and the natural tendency to want to pull the turn tighter as you get blown downwind, there's also the fact that the wind tends to increase as you get away from the ground. So with your climbing downwind turn, you quite possibly experienced an increasing tailwind, which is a genuine, nonmythical hazard when your margins are already thin.

[Icarus2001]

but I can save my selfies Photos or it did not happen. :p

[Pontius]

How can you get caught out by such 'massive' wind changes, Vincent, when the whole idea of going crop spraying at dawn, early evening or even night is to avoid the strong winds which are going to muck up your application? I might imagine that the torque from a relatively big prop could lead to favouring turning one way or the other (and that obviously becomes more significant as you slow down in the climb) but if the ball's in the middle and you don't exceed Clmax, then she's going to keep flying, downwind, 'upwind' (as someone previously wrote) or crosswind........especially in the zephyrs that are normal for a 502 doing its job.

[The Wawa Zone]

The people here having nasty turns for the worst when turning downwind are confusing the alleged perils of that with the real effect, dependent on gross weight, of climbing or descending through a wind shear whether turning or not. A 'turn' within a moving mass of air will have no effect on KIAS.

This guy died because he ran out of airspeed, due to trying to mishandle the aircraft out of a situation caused by his poor planning. He flew through numerous holes in the cheese to get there, including the lack of supervision by the airshow management; after all it was only a planned circuit, landing, water taxi and takeoff/departure so what could possibly go wrong ?

[Airbubba]

I stand corrected. Does seem like a silly idea to me but I can save my selfies "around the wrong way" if I set the camera to do so. So the "video" may not be so...

New versions of the Apple mobile phone software seem to record and play correctly as you said but in the Android world some selfie video still seems to be reversed. From discussions on user forums it seems that it may even vary with the phone used.

And, in the context of this mishap, the selfie video seems to me to be mirrored in the mobile phone video posted earlier. I'm not absolutely sure but I don't think Ms. Cakrawati was in the left seat for some of the video as some people here surmised.

Also, the video clip from Instagram linked above appears to be a second generation video of the original playing on a mobile phone recorded by another phone. If you look closely, you can see the reflection of the second phone being held above the screen of the phone playing the video.

[X35B]

This guy died because he ran out of airspeed, due to trying to mishandle the aircraft out of a situation caused by his poor planning.

Nice Summary from The Wawa Zone.

Critical to the incident was that in the video, it appears that there were three seconds more or less when the pilot had warning of what was to come and did not recognise what was happening.

Everything being said about wind means little unfortunately as the aircraft stalled, incipient spin, then on entry to the water was in a fully developed spin.

While those ancient engines would have coughed up a furball or three with indignation at being pushed to full throttle, that would most likely have saved the day once the wings were levelled.

The point where the accident happened was the use of aileron to start a turn, the wing dropped and more aileron was used in my opinion. Aileron drag then dug the hole and the aircraft and pilot fell in.

Safety Modeling http://patientsafetyed.duhs.duke.edu/module_e/swiss_cheese.html

[Dagegen]

No-one who has gone through all the theory courses and examinations required to gain even the basic CPL of the 1980s would come up with some of the rubbish I have read on this thread!:mad::mad:

A certain gentleman I know who used to run theory courses in the 80s tends to agree with you.

Although, he did comment that "the downwind myth has been around for a long time, probably as long as people have been flying".

I'd never heard of it before! :E

[Sandy Reith]

Oh gawd, here we go.

More approvals and training and qualifications and regulations? To land an amphibious aircraft on the water?

The ways in which pilots usually "stoof in" are well known. And those ways are usually "very basic" errors. Perhaps education, education and more education about the lessons that have been learned over and over would be a more effective solution.
I agree with LB's sentiments but would add that in an airshow or demonstration environment all participants could be expected to have had thorough briefings with those experienced personnel who would be in charge of proceedings. Those briefings would take into account all the various physical and and other risk factors that have been canvassed in this thread. This may well have taken place and no judgement should be given until all the facts are carefully considered.
Irrespective of this particular occurrence, unfortunately in this country the general pattern in a shrinking GA scene is a lack of experience coupled with diminished practice of procedures that can mitigate the risk of such destructive accidents. It has been said that CASA doesn't believe that our GA industry is sufficiently mature for more devolved responsibility and hence our extraordinary nth degree prescriptive rules. This patronising and government knows best attitude is proving to be counter productive.

[Dora-9]

The point where the accident happened was the use of aileron to start a turn,

So, X35B, how else do you initiate a turn?

[zzodr]

Let me help....
It is certainly a hazard known to helicopter pilots, as the helicopter can come back out of translation, and require more power to maintain altitude, combined with affects upon control. Certainly if you're climbing out at Vy+, or in cruise speed, the affects of turning out of wind are probably negligible. It's the low speed maneuvering where the hazard presents itself.


This does not happen in real life. I have never EVER had a helicopter drop out of translational lift on me because of turning downwind, even in a slow orbit of a ground object.

The only danger here is the increase in groundspeed, so your reference point is now sliding past the window faster, which gives you a tendency to pull aft cyclic to slow down. You cause the drop through translation, not the wind.

There is still the same relative airflow over the rotor disc, upwind, downwind, crosswind, base.. the helicopter does not care.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hi Dora,.....

First, you open the window and stick your hand out to,

(a) Signal your intent of turning, and,
(b) To create more drag on the side you wish to turn into of course....

:p

(Well, that's as good a response as I've read 'ere so far....Mind, you, I have absolutely no idea of how you do it in a pressurised aeroplane......)

[Clare Prop]

Looking at the size of the display box, how did anyone think a 5700 MTOW kg aeroplane could fit into that area?

[Old Farang]

This does not happen in real life. I have never EVER had a helicopter drop out of translational lift on me because of turning downwind, even in a slow orbit of a ground object.

The only danger here is the increase in groundspeed, so your reference point is now sliding past the window faster, which gives you a tendency to pull aft cyclic to slow down. You cause the drop through translation, not the wind.

There is still the same relative airflow over the rotor disc, upwind, downwind, crosswind, base.. the helicopter does not care.
Yes, as an old but not bold, former helicopter pilot, I have to agree with this. But there are helicopter pilots that do perpetuate the myth.

[X35B]

The point where the accident happened was the use of aileron to start a turn, so far so good, the wing dropped, opps, and more aileron was used, bad voodoo ...

I trust that makes sense. :)

[bradleygolding]

X35B

I think you mean

......and then opposite aileron was applied ....


Steve

[Ultralights]

opposite aileron? wouldn't cause a problem, unless you have stalled the wing..

[X35B]

Conceded.

Another point to make is the aileron goes to mushy feel which further adds to the distress and confusion, rather than triggering an alert that a stall then spin is about one or two seconds away.

Sadly this pilot was just not aware of what was happening and the alerts that were being supplied were not registering.

Forgive my inability to express myself here, but there was enough indication, that something needed to be done and the pilot just did not twig, forgive that expression, that all sorts of hell was less than five seconds away, unless he took prompt corrective action.

unless you have stalled the wing.. exactly. Now the opposite aileron instead lifting the wing as it normally does, further slows that wing increasing the stall and wing drop. The pilot is going a bit fuzzy in the head and doubts what is happening is real, the aileron is mushy and does not work which further adds to the fuzz. If the pilot goes to full extent with aileron, that makes the wing drop further .. by now ... the pilot is confused and sadly doomed by the unexpected.

Which I suppose leads to my previous of doing training with flying near the stall for a hour or three with gliders and doing a few dozen spins ... thus a stall will be instantly recognised and corrected.

[Dora-9]

Another point to make is the aileron goes to mushy feel which further adds to the distress and confusion, rather than triggering an alert that a stall then spin is about one or two seconds away.

If you've got full aileron applied in an attempt to prevent the roll, therefore it's against the stops - so how can it be "mushy"?

Could I also suggest that flying a glider near the stall would be very different situation to a heavier and highly wing loaded type such as the Mallard?

[Capt Fathom]

So many posters here with psychic powers!

Sadly this pilot was just not aware of what was happening and the alerts that were being supplied were not registering:rolleyes:

The ATSB will be contacting you soon!

[blind pew]

There is a very important demonstration for glider pilots who winch.
Nose up 40 degrees.
simulated cable break.
nose to recovery attitude of 30 degrees nose down.
initiate turn without waiting for airspeed to recover using aileron and balancing rudder whilst looking over your shoulder at the airfield.
Add more rudder to "increase" the turn rate.
Nose starts dropping
Heave back on stick
Still killing pilots but not so many as part of the annual flying checks in the UK.

As to ground speed verses airspeed...spun a paraglider three times now on a steep slope with the wind partially across the slope giving both upwind and downwind beats added to wind gradient....and I've got fifty years of flying...there but the grace of Dog...

[JEM60]

Said this before on another thread. The Americans have/had a saying.''Watch him spin, watch him burn, he took off bank in a low speed turn''.
Ha this effect demonstrated to me in a T.21 Sedburgh when I was in the Air Training Corps in England. When I went on to a PPL I NEVER forgot that demonstration.
ULTRALIGHT. It WILL stall the wing if already very close to the stall!.

[flywatcher]

JEM60, I was taught that when I was very young, it was then, "hold off bank in a gliding turn and you will surely crash and burn." I believe it related to the fact that the Austers, Tigers and Chipmunks all had Gypsy engines turning back to front from modern engines. Also some of the Auster variants had heavy wooden cruise props, one of which I recall, mk 3? would smartly turn sharply if you closed the throttle without leading with a lot of rudder. You would have to try very hard to get into trouble but I suppose the possibility existed that you could end up with crossed controls at low level combined with a windshear. I was young and silly then and I am still here, so it couldn't have been too bad but all of those old sayings obviously existed because someone had died proving them.

[X35B]

A few accidents of note https://aviation-safety.net/database/types/Grumman-G-73-Mallard/statistics

Total of crashes: 15
Total of fatalities: 59
Worst crash: Dec 19, 2005 with 20 fatalities

From http://www.baaa-acro.com/

ATSB - Collision with water involving Grumman American Aviation Corp G-73, registered VH-CQA, 10 km WSW of Perth Airport, Western Australia on 26 January 2017

Investigation Title - Nothing much at present.

[FlexibleResponse]

An aircraft's response to changing wind is dependent on the inertial mass and drag of the aircraft.

A light aircraft will respond quickly to adapt to changes in the velocity of the air mass (through wind changes or maneuvering in a constant air mass) and a heavy aircraft will take longer.

Inertial mass is space/time dependent for frame of reference.

However, on the other hand, the kinetic energy of an aircraft flying at 100 knots IAS into wind will be lower than the kinetic energy of the same aircraft flying downwind at 100 knots, in RELATION to the EARTH.

The increase in kinetic energy required to change from flying into wind to flying downwind takes time and is dependent on the inertial mass and drag of the aircraft.

Perhaps I should say mass and density instead of mass and drag...but you will appreciate the relationship between the two.

The answer to the downwind turn lies in whether the aircraft has high mass and high density at one end of the scale or has low mass and low density at the other end of the scale.

Consider a rubber-band-powered balsa wood toy aircraft of a few grams turning downwind...yep, no easily measurable change in IAS. But a huge change in groundspeed.

Now consider a ballistic bullet fired in a straight line through a multitude of wind velocity changes. When the bullet experiences a headwind or a tail wind change, does the IAS of the bullet remain fairly constant or does the groundspeed remained constant?

Those who have experienced operating high mass and high density aircraft at low airspeed and rapid maneuvering at low altitude in high winds have a tale to tell...but only to those who might listen.

Vincent Chase's comments about his flying in a fully loaded cropduster indicate that he has experienced the phenomena causing him to crash. But he survived and has learned the bitter lesson of the downwind turn. He has a tale to tell...but only to those who might listen.

Good luck to the other Sky Gods.

In a previous life I use to drop bombs using a manual aiming system. The bombs pretty much fell to earth in accordance with the laws of Newton.

Unfortunately, the air mass velocity at the altitude at which they were released was always different from the many changes in wind velocity that the bomb saw on the way down. This would cause the bomb to miss the target. Therefore we had to compensate with an offset aim point by calculating an average wind velocity.

The offset was determined by applying the average wind velocity to the drift acceptance factor of the weapon. Heavy and high density weapons had a smaller drift acceptance factor than lighter and low density weapons which were obviously more affected by wind velocity changes.

Be careful when you think that you know everything about aviation...

[sagesau]

I'm not really convinced that the aircraft in question was looking to bomb anything but I'm option to a reasonable argument.