C210 down Groote Eylandt

[Alice Kiwican]

According to ABC news a C210 has crashed onto a road near the airport after suffering engine issues on take off.
5 pax and 1 pilot onboard. 4 taken to clinic in serious condition

[717tech]

here's the ABC article (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-06-16/plane-crashes-near-groote-eylandt-airport-nt-serious-injuries/102490264)

[Kaptin M]

According to ABC news a C210 has crashed onto a road near the airport after suffering engine issues on take off.
5 pax and 1 pilot onboard. 4 taken to clinic in serious condition
The young pilot did an amazing job of guiding the 210 clear of trees to bring the aircraft down into a clear area.
unfortunately a culvert in the clear area caused the Cessna to flip over inverted at the end of its forced landing.

[Capt Fathom]

so when is said operator going to come out and say something... second one in 6 months now.

Maybe when they themselves know what has happened?

[Kaptin M]

G’day Stallie - it’s been a week or 2 😎

[OZFURYFAN]

G’day Stallie - it’s been a week or 2 😎
Any more info or pics??

[Global Aviator]

Crickets…………….

Surely there is some info on what happened?

Hope all are recovering well.

[PoppaJo]

Considering the remote location and the fact the forced landing was on a private mining site I wouldn’t expect too many details to come out, this will likely be a wait until the report comes out event.

Pretty much all 210 accidents in the NT are weather related, this one does not appear to be.

Regardless, second in 6 months, KA will be under the microscope. Not great.

[Bend alot]

Considering the remote location and the fact the forced landing was on a private mining site I wouldn’t expect too many details to come out, this will likely be a wait until the report comes out event.

Pretty much all 210 accidents in the NT are weather related, this one does not appear to be.

Regardless, second in 6 months, KA will be under the microscope. Not great.

Not sure on that.

HGZ think threw a counter weight pilot got badly injured, ZAC Ran out of fuel same mine site ended up in the tailings dam, A few down clowning around at other out posts (fatal from memory), A few screwed up landings ending in trees.

[Global Aviator]

Bump!

[PoppaJo]

The ATSB has released a small summary, partial engine loss is mentioned. Seems to refer that the landing was not perhaps a forced landing as such.

You will get one hell of a fright in a fully loaded 210 with partial power if one tries a 180, especially just airborne.


The ATSB is investigating a partial engine power loss and collision with terrain, involving a Cessna Aircraft Company 210L, registered VH-FTM, near Groote Eylandt Airport, NT on 16 June 2023.It was reported that during take-off from Groote Eylandt Airport, the engine lost partial power and the pilot attempted to return the aircraft to the airport. During approach, the aircraft collided with terrain and came to rest inverted. There were 5 passengers and 1 pilot onboard the aircraft. Four passengers received serious injuries while the pilot and 1 passenger had minor injuries. The aircraft sustained substantial damage. The investigation is continuing.

[Duck Pilot]

I wouldn’t be surprised that a lot of the accidents and serious incidents these days, are directly related to the current skills shortage both in engineering and flight crew. Not blaming the operator, it’s the way the industry is these days.

I know it’s happening in the airlines, particularly the regionals and I’d expect it’s worse for the GA operators in the remote areas.

About time the state/territory and federal governments step up and do something positive to assist. Some of CASA’s decisions don’t help either, eg the restrictions with regards to Mabuiag and Darnley Island airstrips.

[gordonfvckingramsay]

I wouldn’t be surprised that a lot of the accidents and serious incidents these days, are directly related to the current skills shortage both in engineering and flight crew. Not blaming the operator, it’s the way the industry is these days.

I know it’s happening in the airlines, particularly the regionals and I’d expect it’s worse for the GA operators in the remote areas.

About time the state/territory and federal governments step up and do something positive to assist. Some of CASA’s decisions don’t help either, eg the restrictions with regards to Mabuiag and Darnley Island airstrips.

If you’re right, and I believe you are, how long til one of the majors see the chickens coming home to roost? The skills loss in this country is huge but I think the biggest threat is the lack of up and coming skill coupled with the belief that the lack of hull losses equals safety…it doesn’t, it equals a lack of accidents, very different things. CASA need to start acting as a parent to the aviation industry and not a best friend.

Hope all on this accident make a full recovery.

[Duck Pilot]

If you’re right, and I believe you are, how long til one of the majors see the chickens coming home to roost? The skills loss in this country is huge but I think the biggest threat is the lack of up and coming skill coupled with the belief that the lack of hull losses equals safety…it doesn’t, it equals a lack of accidents, very different things. CASA need to start acting as a parent to the aviation industry and not a best friend.

Hope all on this accident make a full recovery.

It’s very disappointing that I’m not the only person thinking the same way.

What I have suggested are extremely real hazards/risks to the current environment within the aviation arena in Australia.

Any pilot or engineer who has good and applicable experience that can be validated/confirmed, and obviously licensed should be paid accordingly in the current climate.

[Clare Prop]

All that happens is the government throws money at schools who produce an increasing supply of pilots with the barest minimums of skills, instead of making VET loans available for existing pilots to upskill. CASA keep approving these places to operate and so the gravy train keeps chuffing along. There is a massive amount of taxpayers' money being funnelled into a select few pockets and it's not likely to change..

A follow-the-bouncing-ball CPL course in a capital city is not good preparation for these sorts of ops but these days seems to be the only option available to a lot of trainees.

The EFATO turn back never ends well. I hope they all make a full recovery.

[PoppaJo]

I was speaking to a charter owner from Kununurra recently, his frustration with many of these pump n dump VET schools down south is they are teaching the wrong skills. He said they all rock up on his doorstep with most time conducted in a Diamond, 150hrs and obviously very little tropics, dirt experience. Many then struggle to check to line in a 206/210.

The EFATO turn back never ends well. I hope they all make a full recovery.
That is probably another thread in itself, and has been discussed countless times in previous reports from the bureau.

[Bend alot]

One of FTM's better landings here then!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45aiP7tF8EE&t=1s

[First_Principal]

... The EFATO turn back never ends well...

In general I'd agree, but the usually clear decision to land ahead may be somewhat clouded when you've got some altitude and the engine is developing partial power (and, maybe, particularly crappy options out the front window).

Sometimes you make an experiential decision that if it came off you'd be lauded for, but if it doesn't you're vilified. It's not clear from what I've read so far that the latter would be warranted here, although I accept there may be a back story we're not privy to. While some might put this outcome down to [poor] skills training I wonder if we'd be better off discussing the partial power issue and how to deal with that? I'm not sure it's been well taught anywhere, let alone recently; no doubt we have all done EFATO practice for no engine, but what about 75%, 50%, 25% power? What to do then?

FP.

[Clare Prop]

In general I'd agree, but the usually clear decision to land ahead may be somewhat clouded when you've got some altitude and the engine is developing partial power (and, maybe, particularly crappy options out the front window).

Sometimes you make an experiential decision that if it came off you'd be lauded for, but if it doesn't you're vilified. It's not clear from what I've read so far that the latter would be warranted here, although I accept there may be a back story we're not privy to. While some might put this outcome down to [poor] skills training I wonder if we'd be better off discussing the partial power issue and how to deal with that? I'm not sure it's been well taught anywhere, let alone recently; no doubt we have all done EFATO practice for no engine, but what about 75%, 50%, 25% power? What to do then?

FP.
It's also very possible the ATSB have got it completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

[PiperCameron]

While some might put this outcome down to [poor] skills training I wonder if we'd be better off discussing the partial power issue and how to deal with that? I'm not sure it's been well taught anywhere, let alone recently; no doubt we have all done EFATO practice for no engine, but what about 75%, 50%, 25% power? What to do then?

Do what Bob Hoover says: "...fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.". Simples.

[megan]

One of FTM's better landings here thenAs good as FTM's on Casuarina Beach that tore the nose wheel out, complete power loss with 6 POB, well done Lass.

[Bend alot]

As good as FTM's on Casuarina Beach that tore the nose wheel out, complete power loss with 6 POB, well done Lass.
Only out done by the "landing" of OKG by the same company at the time ( NOT KA for either - Was BA) - That Lad got very luck & all pax, far more than the beach landing.

A sky diver on the beach disputed the " complete loss of power" not saying there was no power loss, but engine noise was heard by him on approach to the beach.

Well neither will grace the skies again I expect.

I am still amazed any in OKG survived that landing. Sorry for the drift.

[Stationair8]

Good old FTM, flew that in 1989, nice low time C210.

I think it was owned by Merv Fowler and leased to Kakadu Bob.

[Duck Pilot]

EFATO and a turn back will always end up in death.

I lost a very good mate who attempted that many years ago in a V Tail Bonanza (VH-CHX) at Ballarat back in 92.

[172heavy]

EFATO and a turn back will always end up in death.

I lost a very good mate who attempted that many years ago in a V Tail Bonanza (VH-CHX) at Ballarat back in 92.
Sorry to hear the loss of your good mate.

The turn back can and does work if you're above a certain height and have climbed out at the correct speed. My last single engine job taught all pilots turn backs in both VMC and IMC conditions and they worked everytime but you need to fly the numbers, have quick reaction times with a solid knowledge base of stall speeds/glide speeds and load factor effects on the those speeds in a turns for your specific aircraft.

[Duck Pilot]

Correction to my last, the accident occurred in 96.

The report is gut wrenching https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/216

Possible sabotage caused the accident that was not proven to my knowledge.

[First_Principal]

Duck Pilot, that is indeed a tragedy :(

However I cannot agree with your earlier comment "EFATO and a turn back will always end up in death" as I have personal knowledge of successful returns.

In these returns the engine failures were of a partial nature. One involved completely losing a pot in a 172 resulting in, I suggest, ~60-70% power (assuming some mechanical drag from the useless piston/cylinder). It was a warm but not hot day, the a/c was two up, and the pilot completed a successful reversal at about 300-400 ft and landed back on the 2000' runway with a moderate tail wind.

There are also published examples of successful returns with less, or no, engine power.

For the avoidance of doubt this post absolutely isn't about advocating a return to the field following complete engine failure at low altitude; I expect we all know what we should do in that case. What I am really interested in, as earlier alluded, is the decision making process when you have partial power, and the training (or lack of it) around this process along with the subsequent path to the ground. It's my view that this is a worthwhile discussion to have, and one that has the potential to save lives.

To that end I've described a known successful return at something a little less than 3/4 power on a standard day with a moderately laden aircraft. The pilot made the decision to return based on their experience and factors of the time, but what would that decision have been if there was only, say, 50% power, or the aircraft was heavily loaded? Perhaps more important is what the outcome might have been for a pilot with less experience and no training for such events? Clearly each situation will be different, and I don't believe you could have a hard 'rule' on what to do, but it is something that could receive more attention and which is trainable to some degree.

When I say trainable, here's some possible examples:


try reducing power to see at what point the a/c can no longer maintain altitude
in a climb reduce power to (say) 60% and complete a 180deg turn and note the altitude loss/control-ability
discuss the various factors that might affect such a decision and, if possible, trial these
trial landing (obviously where safely possible) with a tail wind and note/discuss the results vis-à-vis into wind approach/landing

I don't claim any particular knowledge in this regard, although I have carried out all of the above (at an appropriate height!), so perhaps those who are in a training role or have much more experience than me may be able to offer comment as to whether there is merit in this, or not?

FP.

[Flying Bear]

FP - there is merit in training for it.

The most difficult thing to train for is the judgement required to decide whether the manouevre is viable or not... this is best achieved with scenario-based exercises as you suggest.

The main pinch points are the underpinning knowledge of aerodynamics required (ie high AoA flight, stalled stick position, best glide performance (ie AoA more so than speed) & the nexus between them), followed by the specific aircraft handling skills required (ability to select a control position that causes CLmax for the gliding / low power turn, the appropriate AoB & the immediate transition from high AoA flight to best glide once the turn is completed). Make no mistake, the aircraft handling required during a turnback must be "on point". Additionally, the maturity to cease the manouevre during the execution if it becomes apparent that it is not going to be successful - roll wings level & retain control to landing.

Like all things, with training & practice it can be understood to the point where it can become one of the tools legitimately available in the event of a power loss after take-off. It can be safely trained for. However, it is not the only solution, nor is it advisable in all situations - the poor decision-making or handling is where it goes wrong. As an industry, we set people up for failure on this when we don't train for it & then at some point they give it a go when it needs to count...

For mine, I am still here today as a result of successfully executing a turnback following a complete engine failure after take-off over a populated area.

[PiperCameron]

FP - there is merit in training for it.

The most difficult thing to train for is the judgement required to decide whether the manouevre is viable or not... this is best achieved with scenario-based exercises as you suggest.

In many ways, a partial power situation can be more deadly than a full engine-out - the reason being that a short period of Startle is replaced first by Disbelief followed up by Uncertainty often all the way into the crash. That's one reason many instructors (mine anyways years ago), and many training aircraft POH by the way, teach students to pull the power and glide it in just as soon as you reasonably can.

Yes, there certainly is merit in training for it.

[Global Aviator]

Back on the thread, anything else on the 210 on Groote?

[Clare Prop]

In many ways, a partial power situation can be more deadly than a full engine-out - the reason being that a short period of Startle is replaced first by Disbelief followed up by Uncertainty often all the way into the crash. That's one reason many instructors (mine anyways years ago), and many training aircraft POH by the way, teach students to pull the power and glide it in just as soon as you reasonably can.

Yes, there certainly is merit in training for it.
Absolutely, a demo at altitude of a engine going from idle to full power with glide trim is something we include in stall recovery lessons. In some cases it could quickly lead to loss of control in pitch and yaw.

[PoppaJo]

Back on the thread, anything else on the 210 on Groote?

NT News ran a story yesterday. (https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/northern-territory/anindilyakwa-land-council-employees-survive-horror-single-engine-plane-crash/news-story/671ca76c77301a023142109a080f0fd7) Two things to note was the passengers comments re multi bounced landing, and obviously the below photo, which I will attach due to paywall. Looks like they landed on some uneven, rough ground then sadly came off that rising off the road, when looking at that undercarriage damage.

https://cimg2.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/650x1000/1688021177_b635888d6da33692bb9f2d09d23fb1eee2a83599.jpeg

[43Inches]

Saying EFATO turn backs never work is like saying you will always close both throttles on a light twin if it had an EFATO. In order to successfully complete a turn back you really need to have trained for it and know you have excess glide capacity to firstly turn around, and easily make it back to the field and land with a tail wind. Otherwise you are better picking a place ahead and into wind where you can impact at a much slower pace in control. Just like in the case of the light twin continuing following an engine failure just after take-off, do the vitals, clean it up, see if it climbs, if it does, why land in the scrub, if it doesn't do it to a rate that is safe, close the throttles and land into wind under control... Of course many factors will affect either, type, weight, wind, conditions etc etc.... I doubt a 206 pilot would be trained to turn back unless in exceptional circumstance, big piston singles don't like to glide or even fly with low power. Bonanza and Lance/Saratoga glide like lead bricks so I can't imagine ever a situation where a turnback would work without some decent deity helping you out.

PS the threat is not all whether the aircraft 'can' turn around and land, but more is the pilot able to do this without panicking and stalling trying to drag the aircraft around at low speed, then entering a stall spin, LOC and crash out of control.

I can 100% guarantee that CASA could not give a **** how a pilots licence is funded, so long as the training is conducted in accordance with the MOS, so why should they reject their operations? It's only a gravy train if you're not on it right?

I doubt CASA even knows what rubbish is in the MOS these days, they just assume everyone complies and that the pilots were trained to a competent standard, after all the student signed they were trained in everything didn't they?

All the MOS are so full of holes and contradictions you wouldn't be able to hold anyone to account with a decent lawyer at your back.

[PoppaJo]

So a question for those 206/210 operators on here. Do you train your pilots for turn backs? Generally interested to hear an answer.

Was something we did in the 90s. Certainly was valuable training and reinforced while the 210 fully loaded at low heights is certainly a brick, the training was more designed around what is and isn’t possible in a few different scenarios. Just airborne, fully loaded, a 180 wasn’t an option. Certainly at other heights it was an option, after a bit of practice.

[compressor stall]

Remembering the ill fated Hammo turn back that "caused" the DAMP regs to come into force....

[lucille]

Which company practices turn backs? Everyone stresses minimising thermal shocks and maximising engine life. Engine cuts at T/O power are an anathema to the mindset of every charter operator. And besides after 500+ hours on type, you get a feel for what an aircraft will or won’t do.

But, I guess these days with 500 hours in a 210, you’ll get Virgin or Qantas banging on your door with a start date. 🤣 So no one has any useful experience within a company. How times have changed!

In 8+ years of working in the piston engine world, I cannot recall any of my peers experiencing engine failures. No doubt they happened somewhere in the country but in the 70’s there was no social media for us to fixate on the minutiae.

[Capt Fathom]

Remembering the ill fated Hammo turn back that "caused" the DAMP regs to come into force....

There was a similar accident at Brampton Island involving a Cherokee 6 suffering an engine failure very soon after takeoff. Aircraft ditched straight ahead and everyone swam away!

[PoppaJo]

Prelim Report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/AO-2023-028_Prelim.pdf) has been released.

Vapour lock? I recall the FAA in the 90s released some info about that in regards to specific 210s.

Obviously not a great result in regards to the forced landing attempt, no idea what the landing intention here was. I am sure the PIC won't need to tell everyone it wasn't their finest hour, startle might have caught this person out considering they are what appears fresh CPL, sounds like a WTF is the aircraft doing, and what do I do sort of thing. Not great landing at those speeds with flap retracted. Very lucky they all made it out alive.

[Kaptin M]

Prelim Report (https://www.atsb.gov.au/sites/default/files/2023-08/AO-2023-028_Prelim.pdf) has been released.

Vapour lock? I recall the FAA in the 90s released some info about that in regards to specific 210s.

Obviously not a great result in regards to the forced landing attempt, no idea what the landing intention here was. I am sure the PIC won't need to tell everyone it wasn't their finest hour, startle might have caught this person out considering they are what appears fresh CPL, sounds like a WTF is the aircraft doing, and what do I do sort of thing. Not great landing at those speeds with flap retracted. Very lucky they all made it out alive.

”It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. ”
That function is left to PPRuNers❗️

The C210 has a history of vaporisation of fuel in the system, first advised by Cessna in 1979.
Saw a video of pax who were on FTM at the time, and they stated that they were lucky the pilot landed in a clear area, and not in the (huge) trees, or the sea.

A good mate of mine - highly experienced - succumbed to his injuries after attempting a turnback following an EFATO at YCAB.

”partial” power loss means the remaining power is totally unreliable, and could suddenly quit - the best option is going to be it is restored, but if that did happen, it’s still going to be a return to land to find out wtf went wrong.

A bounced landing on a mining road - who would have thought 🤣

[PoppaJo]

”
Saw a video of pax who were on FTM at the time, and they stated that they were lucky the pilot landed in a clear area, and not in the (huge) trees, or the sea
I get that.

But what’s the first question the CP will ask you in this one? You were on a close right base for 28, why didn’t you pull the power, apply flap and land on 28? Instead they went on some bizarre low level, no flap, track alongside the runway, over buildings, that put them on the road upside down, and landing at 90kts.

If you look at the descent point here on the report, you could not pick a more perfect spot for a 28 glide approach. It was all lined up perfectly.

They got it down, and made it out alive, that’s the main thing, sure, but we all know many CPs won’t accept what went on here, considering they were set up perfectly for a glide approach for 28.

Perhaps it’s the operator and its training? Who knows. All forms part of the investigation.

I think there is two parts to this, the engine issue and the forced landing attempt.

[43Inches]

I get that.

But what’s the first question the CP will ask you in this one? You were on a close right base for 28, why didn’t you pull the power, apply flap and land on 28? Instead they went on some bizarre low level, no flap, track alongside the runway, over buildings, that put them on the road upside down, and landing at 90kts.

If you look at the descent point here on the report, you could not pick a more perfect spot for a 28 glide approach. It was all lined up perfectly.

They got it down, and made it out alive, that’s the main thing, sure, but we all know many CPs won’t accept what went on here, considering they were set up perfectly for a glide approach for 28.

Perhaps it’s the operator and its training? Who knows. All forms part of the investigation.

I think there is two parts to this, the engine issue and the forced landing attempt.

Have to agree there, almost 2km of runway, only 400 ft on a close base, full flap and idle should have made an easy landing with lots of runway to spare. Will be very interested to see what comes out of the final report as to why they flew that path.

On partial engine failures, they can be worse than a full failure, as you can get stuck between whether you need to land, or have enough to make it somewhere better. As said above, once an engine has lost some of it's power to a component failure, how likely is that it will lose more power progressively or suddenly. I know of several partial failures that have ended up off runway as the engine progressively lost more power the longer they were airborne. I usually threw a partial failure at a student in the form of saying that they had x amount of power, and they had to come up with a plan to deal with it. I was never looking for an exact procedure, apart from following the same engine failure trouble checks and looking for somewhere to land as soon as possible, knowing it could lose all power very quickly. It was more to prove an engine 'failure' does not always mean total power loss, but you can still use the same checks to try and restore power. Sometimes after they had planned to fly to x, i'd pull the power to idle and say, 'it just quit', turning it into a regular PFL.

[Sid Departure]

I think this young pilot did an amazing job.
This pilot didn’t have the luxury of thinking over a few days of the best course of action.
He only had time to make ONE decision and he made the right one.
I’m a 24,000 hour pilot and I think this 300 hour pilot did an exceptional job.
I hope he’s back in the air continuing his career.

[PoppaJo]

This pilot didn’t have the luxury of thinking over a few days of the best course of action.

You shouldn’t need to.

You are at 400ft on a base leg with a 2km piece of runway to your right, with no assumed engine power.

What do you do?

[43Inches]

He only had time to make ONE decision and he made the right one.

I think the data showed the decision to be 'left' initially, and then 'right when they tried to line up with the side of the runway. Did they make the correct decision? Probably not, looks like they decided to turn back, but forgot to decide when to slow down and take flap, just because the outcome is safe does not mean it was a good decision. I could be speeding, skid off the road, bounce off several trees and survive with no injuries, did any of my decisions save me?

I don't think this was an 'amazing' feat of aviating, but it was enough.

I reckon if he had landed without incident on the runway the language would be 'he did what he was trained for'. So I can't see how missing the runway completely is somehow 'amazing'.