Forced landing near Bankstown

[kaz3g]

Woman escapes with minor injuries after plane crash near Bankstown Airport - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-04-02/bankstown-plane-crash-woman-escapes-with-minor-injuries/9610272)

[Ixixly]

Well guess I'll go ahead and say it, that one is NOT going to buff out!

Glad to hear the lady made it out relatively unscathed.

[jack11111]

400 liters of fuel (105.7 gallons)...I don't think so.

[Styx75]

400 liters of fuel...I don't think so.

Even more curious, liveatc had her transmission as "im out of petrol"

[sms777]

Good outcome. :D What's the point in blanking out the rego when it is clearly visible from the aerial shot?

[LeadSled]

Folks,
One might well ask why the gully where the aircraft wound up, including scrub, is there at all, it was not always the case.
Tootle pip!!

[roundsounds]

I’m pretty sure that’s the ditch behind the operators parking area with the company office in the background of some of the pics. Almost made it. (Assuming it was being operated by Bill as reported)

[Ozgrade3]

Is LMY still one of Bills, it seems ironic that the crash site is what 5m form it's parking spot. How can someoene miss a thousand acres of flat ground and put it in the only ditch in the airport.

[runway16]

Hmm! 400 Litres of fuel! And a six seater to boot.


CASA had better have a look at this obviously modified aircraft, or is it simply the quality of the media reporting ?


R16.

[MickG0105]

400 liters of fuel (105.7 gallons)...I don't think so.

I'd hazard a guess that the Australian reporter has assumed that the 77 gallon tank capacity was imperial gallons, which would give you 350 litres and then rounded it up for effect.

[Styx75]

I'd hazard a guess that the Australian reporter has assumed that the 77 gallon tank capacity was imperial gallons, which would give you 350 litres and then rounded it up for effect.

Or the reporter confussd 200L (rounded up from what, 180L) all up with 200L per wing tank...


Given reports are that an amount of fuel leaked, and pilot reported fuel exhaustion, im thinking a fuel source selector issue...

[LeadSled]

Folks,
How interesting, not one single further comment about the nature or origin of the hazard that has apparently done the damage.
Turning a blind eye??
Tootle pip!!

[sms777]

So, the conclusion is.....forgot about the fuel selector. " I am out of petrol". Let's put it down as close as possible to the office to save time putting the pieces together and it's close to the car park......:E
Like i said......Good outcome. :ok:

[StickWithTheTruth]

How interesting, not one single further comment about the nature or origin of the hazard that has apparently done the damage.
Turning a blind eye??

I don't think anyone cares!

[c_coder]

Can a high pitch angle (during takeoff) cause fuel starvation from an almost empty tank?

[Simplythebeast]

“Its not every day you fall out of the sky at 1,000 feet and walk away”
Great reporting.

[Avgas172]

“Its not every day you fall out of the sky at 1,000 feet and walk away”
Great reporting.
Yes you do it's called an approach and landing :suspect:

[logansi]

“Its not every day you fall out of the sky at 1,000 feet and walk away”
Great reporting.

I'll give them some slack it is what the paramedic said when interviewed.

Also ch.7 we really didn't need footage of you chasing her around the car park did we?

[currawong]

Maybe it was a "fall" rather than a glide.

Would explain why it didn't make the field from in the circuit.

[LeadSled]

I don't think anyone cares!

Sticky,
Which is a pretty good metaphor for the state of GA, and the inability of far too many in GA to pull together for the greater good, rather than tear each other apart.

Or, put another way: "Nobody cares that GA lost it last North/South in the Sydney basin, the direction of the strongest wind".

Because, if the 18/36 strip/runway was still there, that fence, gully and regrowth scrub would not have been there.

And a few other accidents at Bankstown would not have happened, since it went.

Forget the big picture, concentrate on the inconsequential.

Tootle pip!!

[gerry111]

Sticky,
Which is a pretty good metaphor for the state of GA, and the inability of far too many in GA to pull together for the greater good, rather than tear each other apart.Tootle pip!!

Goodness, LeadSled! Let's go back to the early 2000's and how AOPA was then. The massive egos that I saw at AOPA AGM's, were never going to be conducive to assist the "greater good". (And I reckon still haven't.)

[NAMPS]

So, from what I have ascertained from the article and this thread, the pilot had 400 litres of mogas in a 6 seater Warrior. Should be a no brainer for the ATSB.

[Lookleft]

So, from what I have ascertained from the article and this thread, the pilot had 400 litres of mogas in a 6 seater Warrior. Should be a no brainer for the ATSB.

No you are entirely wrong in your summation! The great aviation oracle LeadSled has spoken after leaving crumbs for the lesser mortals to follow. The real reason this accident occurred was the absence of a north-south runway! Forget the issue of fuel starvation/exhaustion and the "big picture" of ineffective training in fuel management, this accident happened because of a runway that no longer existed. The ATSB will definitely be hammered for not following that line of investigation.:ugh:

[LeadSled]

gerry111,
So, by your reckoning, back in 2000, Australian aviation would have been better off without Experimental Amateur Built (replacing the very restrictive AABA and the SAAA monopoly), Limited Category, etc, and the old AUF, now RAOz, being severely restricted to a very limited range of aircraft, with no 19- category, and none of the explosive growth to AUF/RAOz that brought??

That Australian light aviation would have been better of being confined to aircraft that complied with Australian unique airworthiness standards? With the huge expenses to modify every new aircraft to "Australian standards".

That we would have been better of not adopting US airworthiness standards by reference, but maintained our unique standards.

That we would be better continuing with all the huge costs, in money and time, of Australian "first of type" processes. Like whatever CASA was called then requiring Piper to do a whole different set of fatigue rig tests for a then new light twin, then ignoring the results anyway, and imposing severe Australian fatigue restrictions, anyway.

That we would have been better of without the PIFR?

That Qantas would have been better off with all the performance restrictions that crippled the range/payload of the B767's from medium length airfields, compared to their international competition.

All that (aka CASR Parts 21-35) ONLY went into law as a result of AOPA action, full stop. PIFR ONLY happened because of AOPA. If you want to believe otherwise, fill you boots, but it would just be another example of preferring personal blind prejudice over political and historical fact.

Or maybe you do believe the meek shall inherit the earth.

Back to the thread: The aircraft wound up in a man made ditch. Based on what I am told are credible graphics of the aircraft's flight path, if 18/36 had still been in existence, the pilot would have, or at least gone very close to, pulling off a successful forced landing, with no to much less damage to the aircraft and danger to the pilot.

And this is not so fanciful, many moons ago, I had an engine failure, dead cut, on takeoff on RW29, PA-28-235, magneto switch shorted out. I landed back on then RW05.

Tootle pip!!

PS: Look Left, feel better now??

[Lookleft]

Wow gerry you prodded the old silverback good and proper this time. The relevance deprivation is really kicking in. From what I saw on the TV right next to the ditch was a fair expanse of clear ground. That runway hasn't been there for years so any course of action should have been made with the current topography in mind.

I'm feeling very well thankyou for asking how about yourself?

[LeadSled]

Lookleft,
Clearly, gerry111 is into the "feel goods", the priority of "touchy freely", as opposed to achieving results.

Miss me for that, it is results that count, so, what is your answer, what is his answer, would GA, indeed Australian aviation in general, be better off without the results achieved by the derided "big egos" of AOPA.

Back to the thread: I have no doubt that where the aircraft wound up was fortuitous, rather than pre-planned, and under the circumstance, once the power was lost, I think the pilot did pretty damned good job. Very close by there is a much bigger gully, where the results might not have been quite so benign.

I make no comment about why power was lost, because I have no facts, on which to base a comment.

That does not alter the "facts and circumstances" of how 18/36 was lost, despite the explicit terms of the Commonwealth head lease, and the uncontested fact that YSBK as an airfield, as opposed to a development opportunity should still have 18/36.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I will suggest to the current AOPA President and CEO that, at any future AOPA AGM/EGM or similar AOPA functions, that "safe rooms" be provided, such that delicate flowers and wilting violets who suffer distress at being exposed to "big egos" can safely retreat, can safely withdraw from the verbal, visual or physical influence of such terrible people. Being exposed to achievers must be such a distressing experience for such people.

[Lookleft]

Well obviously the lauded big egos of AOPA weren't able to change the outcome of what happened to 18/36! From what I remember of the AOPA discussions on Pprune many years ago a lot of people were turned off AOPA because of the "big egos" and it lost a lot of its membership. A decline that has only recently been reversed because the current leadership is more interested in the issues facing its constituency rather than lots of stroking of their "big egos". It seemed to me that the AOPA leadership of old was made up of businessmen and Qantas pilots with too much time on their hands who wanted to strut the aviation stage wanting everyone to see how clever they were.

Back to the thread though it will be interesting to get some insight into the decision making process of the pilot. One thing I am certain of though is she won't be using the excuse of "But there used to be a runway here." That she walked away suggests she kept flying the aircraft all the way to a full stop which is very much to her credit.

[LeadSled]

Lookleft,
Still can't bring yourself to recognize the AOPA achievements of the era, can you, slagging off those brought about the results satisfies your ego. Just another case of that well known Australian affliction, the "tall poppy" syndrome.
Tootle pip!!

[sms777]

You two need to pull your heads in before this thread gets closed down. There is more discussion to be made regarding this incident before turning into political bullcrap like it it is heading.

[Lookleft]

Fair enough SMS, so what is your opinion on the absence of 18/36 as a cause? Personally I think its bollocks but I am interested in other opinions.:ok:

[glekichi]

Its not like she planned on a return to 18/36 in the event of a failure only to find it wasn’t there.

Plenty of single runway airports around the place, and you don’t add a second runway just in case someone wants to do a turn back.

Best comment is above. The fact she walked away is a testament to the fact she probably flew it right down to the ground, which likely saved her life.

Investigation will determine if a lack of fuel planning/awareness was the cause of this, and if, and rightly so, questions should be asked of the training.

[LeadSled]

Lookleft,
You just can't help yourself, can you??

NOBODY said the absence of 18/36 was a cause, but had it still been there, the outcome might have been very different.

Where the aircraft landed was originally part of the 18/36 flight strip, not a gully with re-growth scrub, --- You do understand that, do you??

The fact that the loss of 18/36, as the last N/S GA public runway in the Sydney basin, was, and to this day is, a safety issue is not disputed by anybody who seriously knows the area and the weather patterns, and the history, including subsequent accidents in crosswinds on 11/29.

Perhaps you think/thought the CASA "safety case" for closing 18/36 --- that in the event of a "southerly buster" blowing up, low time students could declare a Mayday and divert to 16/34 at YSSY was satisfactory "risk mitigation?

Tootle pip!!

[dhavillandpilot]

Divert to Sydney in the case of an emergency!!!!

I can just image it a Foxbat holding up 2 or 3 A380's then the pilot of the Foxbat quotes CASA's 18/36 safety justification as to why he shouldn't have to pay the landing fee.

And for the record there is a N/S runway in the Sydney Basin other than Mascot. Isn't the Oaks N to S

[LeadSled]

DHpilot,
That's what CASA said, I guess the documents are still public and available, they raised a storm at the time.

Re. the Oaks, and the EOL is?

And how would a low time student find the place in the middles a southerly (or any lousy weather) change, and it is far enough away to qualify as cross country time.

It is certainly not a suitable diversion (as Hoxton used to be) for a low time student at Bankstown.

Tootle pip!!

PS: For those of you who don't know, The Oaks is a delightful small privately owned strip, one of the last of the WWII dispersal strips, now much shortened, a few miles SW of Camden.

[dhavillandpilot]

The Oaks 854m

And the other is Wedderburn 950M 17/35

[LeadSled]

And the other is Wedderburn 950M 17/35

DHpilot,
Again, far too far away to be considered useful if the weather turns bad at YSBK, and is effectively PPO, although that doesn't matter in an emergency.

Indeed, it is doubtful if either really qualify as being in the Sydney Basin.
CASA did also mentions diversions to Cessnock and the central coast?? A low time student up "the lane" and over the hills when it turns bad??

"Safety is our first priority" --- "Safe Skies for ALL" ---- CASA.

I do trust all schools at Bankstown thoroughly brief all their pre-solo and other low time students on how to declare an emergency and divert to YSSY.

Tootle pip!!

PS: I well recall landing well after last light at YSBK one night, (because the place was closed due a gear up on one runway) in a daylight/VFR only aircraft --- myself very close to declaring an emergency due fuel state. Camden was out of the equation due weather.

[Lookleft]

So LS you lost the battle over 18/36 when you were part of the big ego stroking AOPA so now you are using this accident to go on and on and on and on about old history! DH gives you examples of where you are wrong and you still want to rehash old arguments. Why don't you do us all a favour and STFU.:ugh:

[sms777]

I think her last words on the transcript were " I lost it" and then scream. If that's the case I think she would have smacked it hard on the 18/36 runway if it was there. The outcome would have been severe spinal injury if not worse. She was damn lucky all the scrub cushioned the impact so she could walk away. That's my two cents.

[LeadSled]

sms777,
On that basis, we should completely rewrite CASR Part 139 to require the flight strips either side of runways to be dense re-growth scrub, as a safety measure??

Seriously, as a totally illogical post facto justification for something that should never have happened (neither AOPA, nor anybody else had any idea that a fundamental provision of the head lease was going to be breached, and that breech ignored, and as I recall, the rippers moved in late Christmas eve, or some such thing) sms777, you win the biscuit.

Will I tell any students in the future: " See that big paddock, head for the trees beside it, it will be safer" in a practice forced landing.

A forced landing in an overgrown gully is "safer" than on a prepared flight strip?? Mate, whatever your are smoking, it must be No.1 Good Sh*t.

Tootle pip!!

[sms777]

I don't think she aimed for that gully on purpose to cushion the impact. Maybe you should start smoking some of that crap I am on so you can read people's posts more clearly.
I am not going to reply to anymore of your useless posts.....go back and annoy someone else.....:yuk:

[LeadSled]

I don't think she aimed for that gully on purpose to cushion the impact
SMS777,
And nobody said she did.
If that's the case I think she would have smacked it hard on the 18/36 runway if it was there. The outcome would have been severe spinal injury if not worse. She was damn lucky all the scrub cushioned the impact so she could walk away. That's my two cents
It was you that said that it was safer, that the possibility of serious injuries would have been greater if she had landed on a prepared flight strip/runway.
Tootle pip!!

PS: As I said way back, I think she did a damned fine job, one she lost power.

[sms777]

Like I said myself earlier....good outcome. But lots of questions remaining which I would like answers now rather than wait two or so years till investigations completed. Why sudden loss of power in an a perfectly maintained aircraft which I know well? Why did she decide to turn back to the field 180 degrees after EFATO? Panic perhaps .....contrary to training practice never to do that unless sufficient height. I have read all posts and media reports carefully and all indicating that she was not in full control when she impacted the ground. It was pure luck that she ended up in the scrubs which saved her life.

[Lookleft]

Reads like a reasonable hypothesis sms777. Its a pity that LS has chosen the path of the typical bully of trying to belittle your comments and brow beat you with his self confessed superior knowledge.

[sms777]

Thanks Lookleft, I can assure you that LS has been removed from my Christmas gift list.
Tootle pip!!......my ass

[Who stole my meds]

Loving the professionalism guys, keep it up.

[LeanOfPeak]

Anyone know which leg of the circuit the pilot was on when power was lost? Mid to late crosswind I'd be turning back, but add some 'startle time' I'm not sure where on the field I'd end up.