Moruya crash 19/12/19

[RatsoreA]

Two people pulled out in serious condition and choppered to hospital from Moruya on the NSW south coast. Any more info?

[mcoates]

There you go.... "a single-engine Cessna jet crashed" or

"Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said a Cessna C210 engine failed while it was cruising and the aircraft hit the ground."

[Stickshift3000]

Social media reports that the engine failed at 16,000’, 20 nm out from Moruya. The turbine powered 210 was flying from Bankstown to Tasmania.

[Des Dimona]

N registered P210 Silver Eagle has been in Australia for a few weeks - N210BA

[PoppaJo]

Socials say they went for 04 then came in too high so repositioned for 18. Was still high so went for 36. Seems quite messy but at least they put it down upwind of 18 and didn’t try a last minute low level turn toward 36 which in most cases ends up fatal.


https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/606x624/d0f42851_6682_4e4f_8349_043419c154e2_3ad9a1ea30aed07850438f0 d74fc7ef68d64d428.jpeg

[gerry111]

Perhaps swotting up on sideslips may be a good thing?

[RickNRoll]

There you go.... "a single-engine Cessna jet crashed" or

"Civil Aviation Safety Authority spokesman Peter Gibson said a Cessna C210 engine failed while it was cruising and the aircraft hit the ground."

It started off as a twin but finished up as a single.

[aroa]

Single, no engine ...where would the "Cororate Spokesperson" (sic...very sick !) expect it to go ? Lagrange Point ?

[Squawk7700]

Pilot must be seriously due for an AFR if they can’t pull off a glide approach with that much altitude available, like seriously.

[ravan]

Pilot must be seriously due for an AFR if they can’t pull off a glide approach with that much altitude available, like seriously.
What he said!

[Rashid Bacon]

I guess it's easy to be an armchair critic

[Flying Bear]

The below is possibly not causal to today’s accident, but it could very well be - so here goes!

Maybe the pilot’s last several AFR’s were in twins - FR in which also count for the CR SEA... therefore no requirement for competence to be demonstrated (or maintained) in forced landings without engine power.

But, of course, what are the chances...?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Australian CASA, who designed that absurd state of affairs...

End of cynical narrative...

I wish a speedy recovery to those on board.

[machtuk]

They where damned lucky they had land to glide to never lone an airport! SE over that stretch of water is a gamble! Glad they got down safely....phew!

[Cxmeron]

I posted this elsewhere but I'll copy and paste it here:

Before the speculation runs too rampant as it has elsewhere... (Please avoid judgement also, the pilot and passenger were airlifted to Canberra Hospital, the last thing they need right now is negative thoughts).

The facts are:
The flight was from Bankstown to Cambridge (Hobart) cruising at FL160. Approx 20nm past Moruya the engine failed, they were losing 1000fpm. The aircraft was pressurised, it was a P210N model. The aircraft had a turboprop, not piston motor. From this height they were able to make it back to Moruya, but had about 2 minutes at most near the airport to assess the situation/airfield and make their decision (which in the heat of the moment would go very quickly, and keep in mind a normal circuit does take around 6 minutes). They chose to attempt an approach onto 04, however were too high and too close so quickly switched to a circuit onto 18, unfortunately they weren't able to make the final turn and instead of attempting a low level steep turn they chose to put it down straight ahead into the overshoot scrub. The wind throughout the day was gusting to around 40kts and it was hot (so people were at the beach).

Moruya can be a tricky airfield, it does have its characteristics that can catch people off guard, an example being unexpected sink near the river, and when it's windy it can be a challenge due to the terrain & mechanical turbulence.

Given the amount of practice forced landings I've done at Moruya, I think the pilot has done a good job under pressure and whatever decisions they thought were right has ultimately saved their lives (and that's all that matters, aircraft can be replaced), although they probably will be spending Christmas in Canberra Hospital. Hoping they have a speedy recovery.

[roundsounds]

The below is possibly not causal to today’s accident, but it could very well be - so here goes!

Maybe the pilot’s last several AFR’s were in twins - FR in which also count for the CR SEA... therefore no requirement for competence to be demonstrated (or maintained) in forced landings without engine power.

But, of course, what are the chances...?

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you the Australian CASA, who designed that absurd state of affairs...

End of cynical narrative...

I wish a speedy recovery to those on board.

this was a US registered aircraft which has only been in the country for a matter of weeks. Don’t think that one can be attributed to CASA. Having said that, the system is cactus.

[Capt Fathom]

SE over that stretch of water is a gamble!


If they have flown from the USA, I doubt they’d consider a quick hop over Bass Strait daunting!

[Flying Bear]

this was a US registered aircraft which has only been in the country for a matter of weeks. Don’t think that one can be attributed to CASA. Having said that, the system is cactus.

Quite right, Roundsounds. It is unlikely the pilot was an Aussie, but nevertheless my point still stands - it has long baffled me that a pilot who completes all their periodic assessments in a twin never has to demonstrate the ability to judge a FLWOP - but is still okay for singles in this country (and probably others).

I note that the “general competency” rule possibly covers this - but many pilots don’t know that they are not competent enough until they get caught out.

Not looking to make flying even more onerous, but this is a real issue that will pop up from time to time and it always looks bad for our industry when the pilot of a single is not able to stick a forced landing - especially when there is an airport right there.

[Peter Fanelli]

Not the first time that one has crashed.

[Subversive1]

Quite right, Roundsounds. It is unlikely the pilot was an Aussie, but nevertheless my point still stands - it has long baffled me that a pilot who completes all their periodic assessments in a twin never has to demonstrate the ability to judge a FLWOP - but is still okay for singles in this country (and probably others).

I note that the “general competency” rule possibly covers this - but many pilots don’t know that they are not competent enough until they get caught out.

Not looking to make flying even more onerous, but this is a real issue that will pop up from time to time and it always looks bad for our industry when the pilot of a single is not able to stick a forced landing - especially when there is an airport right there.

At some point, in my humble opinion, this becomes the responsibility of the individual. The system is already too onerous and it's unlikely that requiring an AFR for each class rating would have much real effect on outcomes anyway. I fly everyday and occasionally undershoot a glide. Conditions are often different in the last 200 feet or so, particularly on the coast. That said, they did have quite a bit of height to manoeuvre.

[Aussie Bob]

At some point, in my humble opinion, this becomes the responsibility of the individual. The system is already too onerous and it's unlikely that requiring an AFR for each class rating would have much real effect on outcomes anyway.

Thank you Subversive, I totally agree. As long as some of you folk keep pushing for regulation, the bigger the rool book will get. It is already past huge. There is also a huge difference between pulling off a simulated engine failure and facing the real deal. This cannot be simulated. Take responsibility for yourselves good people, legislation will not save you.

[The name is Porter]

As long as some of you folk keep pushing for regulation, the bigger the rool book will get. It is already past huge.

In every facet of Australian life, this is the case. It's putrid beyond repair, nanny state.

[Arctaurus]

In every facet of life in this country, the nanny state prevails. Rules just can't fix everything.

[sms777]

Photos anyone? I want to be first with the "It will buff out" comment.....

[RatsoreA]

Photos anyone? I want to be first with the "It will buff out" comment.....

I have seen the photos, but am unable to post them, but your comment is spot on!!! 😝

[Squawk7700]

https://cimg1.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/750x1334/img_0967_a657118a1cfd2d755b1d2f31c83264b11e9e438e.png

[cowl flaps]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1024x682/cessna_n210ba_6b8da3aa606ffcd9c005186f08ce152b620d6c8b.jpg
And in an unbent state.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Sorry '777' ,

I justa don'ta thinka itsa gunna make it...…This time.......

Cheeerrrsss….

[Squawk7700]

Apparently it’s was on some kind of around the world trip.

[Centaurus]

it has long baffled me that a pilot who completes all their periodic assessments in a twin never has to demonstrate the ability to judge a FLWOP –And that is quite true for multi-engine jet transport full flight simulators where you can't hurt yourself if you prang.

For example the Boeing 737 Quick Reference Handbook covers the case of Loss of Thrust on Both Engines. It then tells you to try and start one of the engines. There is no further advice on what to do if neither engine starts.

While the airline simulator is the perfect vehicle for practicing dead-stick landings including ditching, you won't find those profiles in any type rating simulator training syllabus. No shortage of autopilot coupled approaches though..

[Roj approved]

For example the Boeing 737 Quick Reference Handbook covers the case of Loss of Thrust on Both Engines. It then tells you to try and start one of the engines. There is no further advice on what to do if neither engine starts.

On the 3 Jet types I’ve flown, 320, 787, E-jet the “All Engine /Dual Engine Fail/ Loss of Thrust on Both Engines” procedure has a branch to Forced Landing or Ditching if relight is unsuccessful, are you sure the 737 doesn’t have that Centaurus?

It’s a Probability thing, although in more recent times we have seen 2, Sully and the Russians, these are very low occurrence events, and the money available for training is deemed to be better spent on other failures.

[john_tullamarine]

I think C's point is that it doesn't take all that much effort, time, or money.

For instance, both of us have used such training to expose pilots to the cardboard replica of the real failure to good result. I can recall very clearly, one series of training sessions with some Chinese military crews - didn't matter what the failure was or where it occurred (within commonsense) they all nailed the forced landing onto the runway.

The techniques used varied considerably .. but they all nailed it just fine. Certainly demonstrated that it is not a case of one size fits all .. the pilot just needs to keep his cool, plan things sensibly and in keeping with the time available ... and just get on with it.

[BEACH KING]

On the 3 Jet types I’ve flown, 320, 787, E-jet the “All Engine /Dual Engine Fail/ Loss of Thrust on Both Engines” procedure has a branch to Forced Landing or Ditching if relight is unsuccessful, are you sure the 737 doesn’t have that Centaurus?

It’s a Probability thing, although in more recent times we have seen 2, Sully and the Russians, these are very low occurrence events, and the money available for training is deemed to be better spent on other failures.
Probably add Guruda 421 to that list. IMO an equal or greater save than Sully.

[Centaurus]

Probably add Guruda 421 to that list. IMO an equal or greater save than Sully.

Agree. Good description here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Garuda_Indonesia_Flight_421
Please excuse slight thread drift, but talking about forced landings, here In brief is the description of what happened to Garuda Flight 421. At least Sully was VMC the whole time which helped him see where he was landing (ditching).

: While descending IMC, the Garuda 737 penetrates a supercell thunderstorm with tops 75,000. Radar later found to be poorly maintained giving spurious or no returns. . Blinding rain causes flameout both engines around 19,000 feet. Unbeknown to crew, the aircraft battery has been badly maintained causing complete electrical failure the moment the crew try to start the APU - in IMC the whole time - the total electrical failure causes failure of standby artificial horizon - miraculously the 737 exits cloud just as the standby AH gives up the ghost - again good fortune smiles as they spot a winding river in the jungle below. With no engines means no hydraulics and that means no flaps. Successfully ditches at 185 knots flapless with the only casualty a flight attendant who unfortunately is caught at the back of the aircraft and drowns.

If ever this sort of scenario was ever tried in a simulator the crew would be entitled to say "Rubbish! it would never happen." Yet thunderstorm penetrations happen all over the world every day but fortunately not with that combination of circumstances.

Yet handling a dead stick landing from high altitude is not a mandatory sequence during simulator training while millions of dollars are wasted on UPRT in simulators, including the time and cost of modifying software for an exercise which can be adequately trained in 45 minutes by a competent instructor.
Rant over..

[aroa]

Im somewhat perplexed ( and saddened) that two experienced twin pilots with the failure of both*, let the aeroplane get away from them having failed to maintain airspeed for crash landing straight ahead.
* having seen the t/o and pp climb and turn to the corn field , this very noisy a/c was suddenly on silent, final fatal glide and loss of control..
I do hope ATSB will determine what went wrong to cause it all..

Ref the 210..In gliding circuit if you a too close in, and high , move out./ away from the strip. If seeming too far out, move in closer. If low on approach stuff the nose down and convert height to speed/momentum, if too high side-slip to wipe it off. Gliders have airbrakes for that.
Most power pilots dont have "no power" ops experience, or even any idea the aircraft glide ratio.

[Runaway Gun]

If low on approach stuff the nose down and convert height to speed/momentum

How does that work, if you are already at your best glide speed?

[Capt Fathom]

Is there a link with the Mareeba and Moruya accidents?

[Aussie Bob]

Some armchair experts on this thread ....

[aroa]

If yre at best glide speed and yr aiming point / threshold continues to rise, then you are going to arrive short. By converting height for speed / momentum you,ll get there. Go to a gliding club and get a demo...you,ll be amazed.

There was talk of forced landings off a glide approach and twin power failures..mba was both..?., wrongly, albeit at very low level.

[zac21]

If yre at best glide speed and yr aiming point / threshold continues to rise, then you are going to arrive short. By converting height for speed / momentum you,ll get there.

Bob's right !

[Capn Bloggs]

How are you going to convert speed to height if you're already at Best Glide Speed? Surely by slowing down your descent angle will increase (apart from the small yug effect when you pull back; "momentum" in a bug smasher??)? Now, if you were deliberately descending at faster than Best Glide, I could understand adjusting the aim point by slowing down. But if you don't have the capacity to slow down because you're already at Best Glide...

[Fly Aiprt]

How are you going to convert speed to height if you're already at Best Glide Speed? Surely by slowing down your descent angle will increase (apart from the small yug effect when you pull back; "momentum" in a bug smasher??)? Now, if you were deliberately descending at faster than Best Glide, I could understand adjusting the aim point by slowing down. But if you don't have the capacity to slow down because you're already at Best Glide...

I'd agree that if you're a bit low on approach, you'll be better off lowering the nose to convert height to speed. You'll then enter ground effect with better chances that the extended hold off will allow you to plant the wheels farther.
Regularly demonstrating the above flying and teaching mandatory dead stick techniques to PPL's.

[Cloudee]

If yre at best glide speed and yr aiming point / threshold continues to rise, then you are going to arrive short. By converting height for speed / momentum you,ll get there. Go to a gliding club and get a demo...you,ll be amazed.

You’ve got to ask yourself, why is this valuable piece of advice not in the emergency procedures section in the POH for every GA aircraft? I think I can guess why.

[Capt Fathom]

I'd agree that if you're a bit low on approach, you'll be better off lowering the nose to convert height to speed. You'll then enter ground effect with better chances that the extended hold off will allow you to plant the wheels farther.

Regularly demonstrating the above flying and teaching mandatory dead stick techniques to PPL's.

Not sure how you would do that?
You would have to have two identically configured aircraft starting at the exact same point in space, flying the two different profiles at the same time to see who went furtherest.

[desert goat]

I don't want to comment on the Moruya accident because I wasn't in the aeroplane at the time and therefore don't have the first clue what happened or why. I'm not going to sit here and armchair judge a fellow pilot. But the concept of pushing into ground effect when you realise you are undershooting on short final is valid under some circumstances.

The first of these videos illustrates a scenario like aroa is alluding to, where the aircraft is low and slow, running out of energy and falling short without any spare airspeed. The second shows a more exagerated situation with plenty of energy to spare which probably didn't result in any better overall glide performance from the starting point, but it does illustrate just how dramatic the reduction in induced drag is.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=dsgrI74jJek

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=xTUkwP4noGY

It's not about being "better" than best glide speed. Overall, it isn't. The gain comes from the fact that in the initial pushover, the wing is unloaded with next to no induced drag for a few seconds, which gives you a small boost in momentum. Since the transition into ground effect from this pushover at this late stage in the approach takes only a few seconds, the higher parasite drag from the dive above best glide speed affacts you for only a small portion of the total remaining flight time and hence you get a net gain. It's not something to use as a standard approach plan, but it can be a useful dirty trick that you can pull if you realise that you're falling short and have nothing else left that you can do. The effect is more pronounced with high aspect ratio wings (e.g. gliders) but it works to an extent on any aircraft, more so if the prop is stationary (or at least, in coarse pitch) and not windmilling. Whether it's enough to be worth while depends on the specific aircraft type and configuration.

But again, I don't think it is all that helpful to speculate on why the guys in the 210 didn't make the field. Sometimes, sh!t happens. I'm pretty sure they didn't crash themselves into a tree for our entertainment, and in any case there could have been (and probably were) any number of distractions going on that we don't know about. Real world emergencies have a way of being a bit more full-on than the nice neat canned practice forced landing scenarios that most people base their supposed expertise on. So here's to just wishing them well for a swift recovery.

[Fly Aiprt]

Not sure how you would do that?
You would have to have two identically configured aircraft starting at the exact same point in space, flying the two different profiles at the same time to see who went furtherest.

With experience and practice, one is able to consistently judge and achieve a rather precise aiming point.
Sudent pilots are required to be able to judge whether they are grossly under or overshooting.
Noting the aiming point is not where the wheels will make contact with ground, there is also some judgement at play managing the hold-off before touchdown.

[Centaurus]

If you can see on mid final that it looks like being a close thing, consider retracting the flap from full flap (if that is what you already had) to half flap. There may be a slight nose down pitch change but providing your approach speed is under control that is easy to counteract. With most light aircraft there is only 3-5 knots difference in stall speed between full and half flap but the reduction in drag can be significant.

[john_tullamarine]

Not to mention another useful trick (assuming it hasn't been referred to earlier) with a single engine aircraft (ie non-feathering constant speed prop) is to pull full coarse on the pitch control to reduce ROD. Pitch control makes for a very effective drag brake - we used it routinely on parachute ops in years gone by.

[Petropavlovsk]

I was under the impression that this Cessna C210 was a turbine engine modified aircraft with a Allison B17B engine or similar model engine in which case full feathering is not normally available in flight, only upon engine shutdown. (oil pressure)
Perhaps it would be the same engine STC as the A36 Bonanza modification.
Johnson & Johnson in the USA operate or at least used to, a Nomad on floats at the bosses lake house. This aircraft had modified engines so that full feathering was available with engines running on the ground/water.

[megan]

I was under the impression that this Cessna C210 was a turbine engine modified aircraft with a Allison B17B engine or similar model engine in which case full feathering is not normally available in flight, only upon engine shutdown. (oil pressure)The engine failed on this B17 powered 210, ergo the prop would be feathered Petro.

[zanthrus]

Too much drag ie non feathered prop was not the issue here. The issue appears ( from the Flightradar24 track pic) to have been too much energy and not enough drag or judgment most likely both.

[grusa]

plane was sold to Thailand some months ago, kept n-registered, owner a ppl with 200hrs total. intention, commute Thailand-Australia.

[megan]

Too much drag ie non feathered prop was not the issue here. The issue appears ( from the Flightradar24 track pic) to have been too much energy and not enough drag or judgment most likely bothI'm told Caravan guys have been caught out by the glide performance when the fan stops, generally overshooting.

[zac21]

I'm told Caravan guys have been caught out by the glide performance when the fan stops, generally overshooting.

[On 14 January 2010, a Cessna Aircraft Co. 208B Caravan, registered VH-NTQ, was en-route from Broome to Koolan Island, Western Australia (WA) at an altitude of about 9,500 ft, when the pilot noticed a drop in the engine torque indication, with a corresponding drop in the engine oil pressure indication. The pilot diverted to the nearest airstrip, which was Beagle Bay, WA. The pilot shut the engine down when the low oil pressure warning light illuminated and conducted a landing at Beagle Bay airstrip. The aircraft overran the airstrip, coming to rest upside down after impacting a mound of dirt. The aircraft was seriously damaged. The pilot, who was the only occupant, sustained minor injuries.]

[Duck Pilot]

There was also another Caravan accident in PNG, where the engine failed and the pilot done a really good job of getting the aircraft onto a short grass runway and the aircraft overrun the airstrip and ended up in a river. I think the aircraft was P2-SAH, the report is on the PNG AIC website I believe.

Sadly there was a fatality due to the evacuation in the river, however the pilot done an executional job getting the aircraft onto an airstrip, given where he was at the time the engine failed.

Ps, Zac I think the accident you are referring to happened at Broome - I maybe incorrect.

[megan]

Beagle Bay Duck.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-003/

[Capt Fathom]

There was also the PC-12 that returned to Derby (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2010/aair/ao-2010-006/) following an engine failure during climb.

[Duck Pilot]

Thanks Megan, got mixed up with another incident involving a Caravan.

[Rule303]

Well said, as it turns out I was the PIC.

Still no word on why the Allison 250 B17 failed, but all the normal stuff has been ruled out, we just copped the one in a million and a bit hours lottery.

Your comments were spot on, the only thing to add was that there was a R44 working on the field that provided wind info dictating the change to 18, but we couldn’t sight it on first pass so decided we had enough height to go around again.

Your comment about sink rate over the river makes a lot of sense given what happened.

We arrived overhead on first pass at almost 9000ft, a little too high to slip in. :rolleyes:

After a complete circuit where we could not see the R44 who had reported being on 18, we started a left downwind for 18 at a little over 1500ft. Unfortunately, on the base turn the wind was far more gusty down low and significantly reduced our ground speed, so by the time we turned final, the choice was Flaps up and increase speed to try and make 18, or go as slow as possible without stalling to put her in with the least amount of energy.

I chose the latter, and my passenger walked away, and I got off easy with some broken bones.

After reviewing the flight logs, I probably should have told the local traffic to bugger off and put her down on 18 on the first circuit, but hindsight only works after the event, and I will happily take the final result any day of the week.

ATC, the Australian Army and the emergency services could not have been more helpful, and thanks to the docs at Canberra hospital for putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.