C172 down near Camden - one fatality

[bentleg]

https://www.9news.com.au/national/fl...0-9387e5c96888 (https://www.9news.com.au/national/flying-school-lightplane-crashes-in-new-south-wales/12bea97b-c6e0-4be0-a630-9387e5c96888)

appears to have happened downwind in the circuit

[nomess]

Reports of first Solo, however just speculation. Absolute tragedy, RIP.

It would appear it has occurred just prior to the base turn. Looking at the FR24 data, doesn’t appear to have stalled. Looks like getting configured for the base turn, you can see the speed pull back from 90-80 knots. Still maintaining a relatively normal downwind heading. Appears like a spiral dive or somewhat?

[bentleg]

It was Altocap's C172S VH-CPQ - no other details.

ATC can be heard on LiveATC - YSCN archive at 04:10 UTC.

[roundsounds]

Reports of first Solo, however just speculation. Absolute tragedy, RIP.


ATC indicated it was a first solo to the pilot who located the accident site.

[mustafagander]

Technically it was the young fella's first solo in VH aircraft. He had over 40 hours as I recall it in RA aircraft and was cleared solo in them. He had come to CN today for his check and solo clearance from Altocap.
I'm a bit shook up myself coz we were chatting in the crew room just prior to our both heading off to go flying. Then I get back and hear this...so sad.

[Styx75]

Seems a bit odd it was up to other circuit traffic to spot a missing (GA) first solo. I'd assume the students instructor would've been watching with a hawks eye?

[Squawk7700]

Seems a bit odd it was up to other circuit traffic to spot a missing (GA) first solo. I'd assume the students instructor would've been watching with a hawks eye?

The instructor would be on the ground. An eye in the sky would be far more useful.

[Runaway Gun]

Relying an airspeed to indicate a stall is a major flaw. A tight turn and unbalanced flight can also result in an unrecoverable stall - regardless of a Groundspeed indication.

[mostlytossas]

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo. After all he did not even get around the circuit let alone attempt a landing. I also have concerns that he attempted it in a C172 and not something a bit lighter such as a C150 given he came from RAaus . Sixteen is very young to be rushed through to GA. I think the flying school snd the instructor who cleared him will have a bit of explaining to do and rightfully so. Unfortunately for them but our thoughts should be with the family who put their trust in that school.

[On Track]

Incredibly sad.
I logged lots of happy hours in that aircraft back in the day.

[Squawk7700]

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo.

The engine is still warm, we have no idea what happened yet!

[Lost in Saigon]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/351125

[43Inches]

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo. After all he did not even get around the circuit let alone attempt a landing. I also have concerns that he attempted it in a C172 and not something a bit lighter such as a C150 given he came from RAaus . Sixteen is very young to be rushed through to GA. I think the flying school snd the instructor who cleared him will have a bit of explaining to do and rightfully so. Unfortunately for them but our thoughts should be with the family who put their trust in that school.

We have no idea what happened, for all we know there could have been structural failure. Blaming anyone at this point is just silly.

As for being rushed through to GA, 10s of thousands of pilots have gone solo in Cessna 172 types, many 1000s being teenagers with far less hours than what is reported in this scenario.

At about the same age I did my first flight in a 172, with similar experience, after an hour with an instructor I flew at max weight with 3 mates around the training area.

Whatever happened it was a very rare event during a solo in what is a benign training aircraft type.

[Horatio Leafblower]

How absolutely heartbreaking for all involved. You can only imagine how George and the authorising instructor must feel today - never mind the student's family. I can't begin to imagine how crushing that would be.
So very very sad.

[KRviator]

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo. That's a bit rough I think.

If the reported 40H under RAAus are accurate, that implies he already held an RPC and (I'm speculating here) was upgrading to either an R or PPL - so he has likely already gone solo and presumably passed his RPC flight test. I feel for both the instructor and the pilots family, as parents we naturally want to keep our kids safe, but also not restrict them from broadening their horizons. Sadly, sometimes they don't come home from it.:(

[PiperCameron]

That's a bit rough I think.

If the reported 40H under RAAus are accurate, that implies he already held an RPC and (I'm speculating here) was upgrading to either an R or PPL - so he has likely already gone solo and presumably passed his RPC flight test. I feel for both the instructor and the pilots family, as parents we naturally want to keep our kids safe, but also not restrict them from broadening their horizons. Sadly, sometimes they don't come home from it.:(

Indeed. This one makes me think of the 19 year old who lost her life on a solo navex in a 172 west of Melbourne a few years back following an issue with the trim system. There were lots of learnings out of that one but it's still very sad and should be a reminder to all that it's very easy to blame the pilot in the absence of detailed information. :(

[jonas64]

Many kids do their first solo in a 172, it's a perfectly suitable training aircraft. George at Altocap is a great guy and it's hard to imagine one of his planes could have had a mechanical failure that would have brought it down so quickly. Also hard to imagine someone with (allegedly) 40+ hours could manage to cock things up so badly. Medical episode? I'm really scratching my head on this. No matter the why or wherefore, it will be hard felt within the close knit flying community at Camden. Very tragic for all concerned.

[nomess]

Would be interesting to hear from someone around performance characteristics from transitioning RAus to a GA machine. Assuming they held a RPC, so likely only 0-10 hours in a VH machine.

[43Inches]

Would be interesting to hear from someone around performance characteristics from transitioning RAus to a GA machine. Assuming they held a RPC, so likely only 0-10 hours in a VH machine.

I've flown, drifters, skyfox, lightwing and jabirus, they all have the same controls and if anything more vices than GA trainers. If you know how to fly, you know how to fly...

[Squawk7700]

Would be interesting to hear from someone around performance characteristics from transitioning RAus to a GA machine. Assuming they held a RPC, so likely only 0-10 hours in a VH machine.

I did exactly that. I had 500 hours in Gazelle's / Eurofox and stepped into a 172. The nose attitude in the 172 is so much lower and they climb much slower, like a Mack truck compared to a sports car. Had I been left un-instructed, I may have got dangerously slow on my first takeoff climb!

[FullOppositeRudder]

Incredibly sad.
I logged lots of happy hours in that aircraft back in the day.

I agree. A tragic event such as this is always so sad for those of us in the aviation fraternity - and of course even more so to those closer to the people directly involved.

It somehow seems to hit especially hard if you've been a pilot or even passenger in the aircraft involved. There is a kind of sad poetic nostalgia to be experienced here, and I've been affected by it a few times - once after a C-210 accident where all aboard perished; I had been in the RH seat of that aircraft only a few days before, and had hand flown most of the more simple part of the route. The others were the loss of a couple gliders in which I had logged up quite a few hours in my own solo adventures. Deepest sympathy to all involved.

[nomess]

Relying an airspeed to indicate a stall is a major flaw. A tight turn and unbalanced flight can also result in an unrecoverable stall - regardless of a Groundspeed indication.
Track doesn’t indicate any serious angle of bank. Track was slightly to the left at the end, but doesn’t reflect much of a bank of all.

As above, does come across as strange. I don’t think someone at this level would have any understanding of the AP, or have ever been shown. Fiddling with the AP is another issue, I hope that isn’t the case, and I fail to see why one would even play with it on a simply circuit.

All I can think of here is something was amiss with the aircraft itself.

[Deaf]

Track doesn’t indicate any serious angle of bank. Track was slightly to the left at the end, but doesn’t reflect much of a bank of all.

As above, does come across as strange. I don’t think someone at this level would have any understanding of the AP, or have ever been shown. Fiddling with the AP is another issue, I hope that isn’t the case, and I fail to see why one would even play with it on a simply circuit.

All I can think of here is something was amiss with the aircraft itself.

Flaps, one went down not the other?

[Clare Prop]

Looks to have gone from circuit height to the ground in about 8 seconds at more than 10,000 fpm. I'm thinking structural failure?
So sad for the young lad and his family

[MalcolmReynolds]

If flaps were extended then suffered a cable failure it could cause a roll. The right flap is driven directly by an actuator rod connected to the flap motor and the left flap by a cable to a crank then an actuator rod. If the cable failed the left flap could retract because of air loads. Still all speculation. Lets wait for the investigation shall we?

[Capt Fathom]

Let’s wait for the investigation shall we?

But in the mean time, I’ll have my say anyway! :ugh:

[Clare Prop]

There are always some who say we shouldn’t speculate, that is understandable, but this is a network of pilots so it’s not ghoulish to discuss it, always keeping in mind that journos could be reading and what is written here is more credible than some of the rubbish they dream up.

[Squawk7700]

There’s a massive telltale sign in the picture… it’s the large swathe that has been cut across the paddock. It is not at all reflective of the recent crashes of the Cirrus and Tecnam and the damage is not indicative of a stall / spin with limited forward travel as the wings appear have been level at impact.

Wild speculation on my behalf, however the damage looks to be high speed and at a high rate of descent. Is a high speed stall in the usual sense possible in a 172?

[XP-72]

talking about journalists - on this morning's abc news for Australia day we are going to have an 'aerial fly past' over the Sydney Harbour - nearly as good as he was shot and 'killed fataly' by police - or he was "innundated'by smoke -
I hope Keith Williams can do something about his journalists & their command of the Engllish language.

[nomess]

Wild speculation on my behalf, however the damage looks to be high speed and at a high rate of descent. Is a high speed stall in the usual sense possible in a 172?

It can be done, but it would be like flying aerobatics. Nothing in the data provided suggests that.

The timing here is very interesting. I’m not overly familiar with the many models of 172, is 10% Flap able to be pulled on downwind above 80
knots?

It appears they had started the base turn, or perhaps they didn’t. The Flap comment above is an option when looking at the track, however that would indicate they had applied flap while maintaining a downwind heading. Flap asymmetry would become a startle issue for most low hour pilots, full aileron correction will be required almost immediately, with the corresponding reduction in flaps in the other. A couple of seconds lost in startle will become very troublesome, you will be in a violent roll before you know it.

I doubt that applying 10% flap on downwind would cause such roll/loss of control if the left cable failed. Heavy flap application which I would expect once established base, is an option.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1139x673/img_3510_49a176531f3333d3a62b4d3575a8958d54c45b8b.jpeg

[Squawk7700]

The low speed on the ADSB is a red-herring because if it was hypothetically diving steeply to get to the suggested descent rate, the airspeed would not increase significantly on the ADSB feed.

It wreaks of some kind of stall/spin, however the swathe and condition of the wreckage mostly disagrees. It’s interesting. I’m guessing a 16 year old on a first solo may have been recording on a GoPro.

[markis10]

As an ex Camden controller from many years ago I would have to say that downwind leg doesn’t look right, wouldn’t be obvious from the tower but it looks like the pilot was distracted by something based on the track. Terrible event and my condolences to all affected, I have a 15 year old looking at flying as soon as possible and I need to remind myself this is a rare event.

[jonas64]

The timing here is very interesting. I’m not overly familiar with the many models of 172, is 10% Flap able to be pulled on downwind above 80 knots?

Yes, 10 degrees at under 110kts or so, therefore everything appeared to be tracking as one would have expected... until it didn't.

[jonas64]

As an ex Camden controller from many years ago I would have to say that downwind leg doesn’t look right.

I disagree. To me the positional data available from FR24 puts his final moments well within the usual place for a turn onto base. Also the swath cut into the field by the plane suggests he was essentially aligned with base when he went down. I just don't see how he lost 1500 feet in a matter of seconds.

Unrelated, but I heard on the news the student pilot had been with Altocap for around a month, so I'd assume he'd done a least a few hours in the 172. If the alleged 40 odd hours with RAaus is correct, then he shouldn't have had any issue completing the circuit. Surely there must be more to the story than simply pilot error. I sincerely hope the investigation leads to a concrete conclusion.

[Squawk7700]

Was it G1000 equipped like the other aircraft they have that is/are?

[bentleg]

Was it G1000 equipped

No………..

[Pinky the pilot]

always keeping in mind that journos could be reading and what is written here is more credible than some of the rubbish they dream up.

And in most. if not all cases I would submit.

[maverick22]

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo. After all he did not even get around the circuit let alone attempt a landing. I also have concerns that he attempted it in a C172 and not something a bit lighter such as a C150 given he came from RAaus . Sixteen is very young to be rushed through to GA. I think the flying school snd the instructor who cleared him will have a bit of explaining to do and rightfully so. Unfortunately for them but our thoughts should be with the family who put their trust in that school.

Steady on there chief. Considering no one knows what happened yet, that’s some pretty heavy comments to be making, especially towards the instructor/s involved.

I’m sure there’s plenty of 16 year olds out there who would disagree with you regarding your concerns about them flying a C172 🙄

[pinenut]

First up im a newbie and this tragedy brought me here.

Condolences to the families and all those involved.

For what it is worth I was trained in that aircraft and it was a good one when it was at airborne, I liked it.
Having had a brief look at the flight tracking info on this accident it makes little sense to me and we will wait for the investigation.
With the flap issue pointed out in this post by Deaf that does make some sense, i was taught based on my memory, after downwind do a gumps check abeam the runway, set 1500 rpm, 10deg of flaps, trim wait for 80 knots or 45deg to runway and turn base.
It would seem whatever befell this poor student would have happened somewhere when I was trained about when flaps 10 were selected.
This is all without evidence of course and not worth much but I felt compelled to share.

[Pinky the pilot]

ATC indicated it was a first solo to the pilot who located the accident site.


Technically it was the young fella's first solo in VH aircraft. He had over 40 hours as I recall it in RA aircraft and was cleared solo in them. He had come to CN today for his check and solo clearance from Altocap.

Now the way I read those two (consecutive btw) posts from page 1, indicates to me that the Accident victim had over 40 hours in RA aircraft but was on his first solo in a VH registered A/C.

The wreckage was spotted and reported by another Pilot who happened to be on his first solo in any aircraft!

Now can we stick to the facts and stop slagging any Instructors etc?

Oh and BTW, Re flying at a young age; I had my first solo in a Glider (An Es 52 Kookaburra Mk 4) off a winch launch at age 15. I would suggest that flying a Glider can be just as 'complicated' as a C172.

[roundsounds]

Now the way I read those two (consecutive btw) posts from page 1, indicates to me that the Accident victim had over 40 hours in RA aircraft but was on his first solo in a VH registered A/C.

The wreckage was spotted and reported by another Pilot who happened to be on his first solo in any aircraft!

Now can we stick to the facts and stop slagging any Instructors etc?

The only other aircraft in the circuit at the time were both dual, VH-BMX and VH-DLB. Maybe get your facts right?

[roundsounds]

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo. After all he did not even get around the circuit let alone attempt a landing. I also have concerns that he attempted it in a C172 and not something a bit lighter such as a C150 given he came from RAaus . Sixteen is very young to be rushed through to GA. I think the flying school snd the instructor who cleared him will have a bit of explaining to do and rightfully so. Unfortunately for them but our thoughts should be with the family who put their trust in that school.

I suspect there will more to this accident than a lot of people are suggesting. Images indicate the aircraft hit the ground at high speed and wings level.

[BronteExperimental]

There are always some who say we shouldn’t speculate, that is understandable, but this is a network of pilots so it’s not ghoulish to discuss it, always keeping in mind that journos could be reading and what is written here is more credible than some of the rubbish they dream up.

Journos don’t GAF. Good chance that’s not even an actual person writing the copy in the next 12m.
AI can only improve aviation journalism IMHO. Artificial is better than zero.
This will never rate a mention in the press again until there’s a catalyst like an ATSB report or abhorrently because of the family being of some titillating public interest - both of which will probably get a better chance of being quoted than any speculation here.

[Squawk7700]

I suspect there will more to this accident than a lot of people are suggesting. Images indicate the aircraft hit the ground at high speed and wings level.

Wings level inverted? (is being suggested elsewhere)

[FlyHighLittleOne]

I hope you all don't mind a random interjection, I stumbled across this forum looking at articles frustrated at the incorrect information and saw people not judging him for his age or ability, just the accident. It was a really nice change to what's been around, so thank you. I know absolutely nothing about planes, just this young man. Very very well.
Everyone seems to be interested in this accident and as enthusiasts and professionals I can appreciate the desire for speculation about what happened, even if I don't fully understand them.

Whilst it was his first solo with the flight school, he'd been up in his first solo almost 2 years previously. He was almost an exact month off that anniversary actually. He was young, and only a week out from his 17th birthday so he had been up in the air for just shy of 3 years. I know you all know what it takes to get up there and you might not think he had enough to do it but I can tell you that kid worked harder than any person I have ever seen anywhere and deserved so much more life than he got. He was an absolute pleasure to know, and pride and joy in my life.

[nomess]

Not sure about wings level impact, does seem like some level of bank was involved, the ground impact has a trail prior to what is a larger impact area, left wing has potentially impacted first. The differences in damage to each wing would also allude to more stress potential being on the left.

Really is quite strange. The track flown isn’t anything volatile. Just a continued start of a light base turn, and it remains that way. Recent investigations with flap asymmetry events has obvious heavy track changes, nothing really here indicates any large deviation from starting a normal base turn. Loose seat is another possibility. Started the turn, seat went back, down it went. Would explain why it remained in the base turn.

[Squawk7700]

Not sure about wings level impact, does seem like some level of bank was involved, the ground impact has a trail prior to what is a larger impact area, left wing has potentially impacted first. The differences in damage to each wing would also allude to more stress potential being on the left.


You’re summary feels right, perhaps a wing has hit, possibly the nose has hit at that large initial impact area and it’s skidded along from there and rolled up at the end. It doesn’t feel like a stock stall / spin, it’s like it was recovered too late from a spin and skidded along with a shallower descent angle and only rolled up at the end versus a spin where it compresses from top to bottom on impact. I’m not speculating as such, but am wondering how on earth the skid mark could be so long and wide at the same time.

[bentleg]

My take, pure speculation of course. Slowed down too much for base turn, stalled and attempted recovery. Insufficient altitude. Hit ground at speed as he tried to level out from the dive. We shall have to wait for ATSB to tell us what really happened.

[KRviator]

Last downwind ADS-B report had him S&L at 80Kts, with almost direct crosswind (NW at 9G13 - so GS would be virtually identical to IAS). I'm not seeing anything close to a stall from the ADS-B data. It's almost like the beginnings of a spiral dive - but WTF would trigger that at the base turnpoint?!?

Here's the replay (https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=7c0c4c&lat=-34.032&lon=150.669&zoom=14.0&showTrace=2024-01-24&timestamp=1706069279) from ADS-B Exchange

[nomess]

It's almost like the beginnings of a spiral dive - but WTF would trigger that at the base turnpoint?!?

There is something unique about what has happened here and I don’t believe we will find out for a while. It’s clear the PIC had very little control once they started the base turn. Something happened. It wasn’t a steep turn. The speed looks good.

It’s almost as if the PIC didn’t have hands on the controls once that turn started, or that was nil control response for whatever reason. Did something impact the windscreen? Did the seat slide back? Obviously serious structural/cable failure is another. Age is young, medical issues would be extremely unlikely.

[43Inches]

It’s almost as if the PIC didn’t have hands on the controls once that turn started, or that was nil control response for whatever reason. Did something impact the windscreen? Did the seat slide back? Obviously serious structural/cable failure is another. Age is young, medical issues would be extremely unlikely.

Everything you have mentioned are "unlikely" events. While increased age brings increased chance of medical events there is never a stage in your life where a stroke/cardiac event, seizure, severe reaction to substance, blackout, etc etc could not happen. So unlikely as it may be, it is still possible at any age to be a factor and medical screening even for commercial pilots is not going to pick up most hidden things that might incapacitate you unless you have regular symptoms presenting prior.

I would consider a medical episode as likely as something hitting the windscreen. You could also say that structural failure of any kind is extremely unlikely given the conditions on the day, the aircraft is a common, reliable type, maintained to standards with regular inspections. Seat failure is extremely unlikely as the ADSB tracks don't show a pitch up to stall, unless they let go of the controls with the aircraft very out of trim, nose down. A stall is extremely unlikely because the speed seems too high, even with a significant pull up event, again which would show on the tracks. A spiral dive is extremely unlikely as the track does not indicate a turning spiral, and so on. Engine failure/fuel exhaustion is unlikely because they did not attempt to glide.

However just because something is very unlikely, does not mean it can not happen, especially when the event is an extremely unlikely event in itself. Also there is a lot of reliance on the track plots being accurate, at this point we have next to no idea what happened between turning downwind and it ending in a mess in the field, let alone come to any conclusions about what has happened.

[Pinky the pilot]

The only other aircraft in the circuit at the time were both dual, VH-BMX and VH-DLB. Maybe get your facts right?

Fine, roundsounds. My post was my understanding of the event as I understood it, reading from the previous posts.

Obviously you have information that the previous posts did not convey sufficiently.

ATC indicated it was a first solo to the pilot who located the accident site.

So did I misinterpret the above post. Which was yours, no?:confused: (Post #4 page 1)

[LostOnHoth]

The news stories say the pilot “made a request to land three minutes into the flight” but that would be perfectly normal on a first solo when you’re just doing a single circuit and requesting landing clearance on downwind. I haven’t heard the ATC recordings so don’t know whether this radio call was a regular downwind call or an intended emergency call without the maydays or pan pans. If there was engine trouble on downwind leg requiring immediate landing rather than completing the circuit the track doesn’t show any turn towards the runway or change to best glide.

[LookinDown]

Accidents are rarely the result of a single threat or error but an accumulation.
Just surmising about the possibility of an adverse negative G reaction following something like a bird strike or seating failure or such. This would depend on exposure during the previous training.
Not a lot of recovery height from a base turn if the initial appropriate response wasn't instinctive

LD

[jonas64]

I haven’t heard the ATC recordings so don’t know whether this radio call was a regular downwind call or an intended emergency call without the maydays or pan pans

It was a completely normal "downwind fullstop" call, and according to the available ADS-B data, it appears the pilot initiated the turn on to base at the expected point. In fact, I flew directly over the wreckage yesterday as I was in the circuit to land on 06. I would surmise that only a loss of control resulting in a spin could have eaten up so much height so quickly. I fear it will be some time before the ATSB can tell us what really happened, and why.

[Clare Prop]

Yes, I had a bird strike on a turn onto final once and it gave me a hell of a startle and sudden attitude change, luckily it was on the end of the wing so not too much adverse effect on the handling and we got down safely, but I agree that a bird strike or a seat rail failure could possibly lead to an event like this.

[Squawk7700]

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-13015013/amp/Camden-plane-crash-Haunting-video-emerges-boy-pilot-16-died-identity-revealed-school-hit-tragedies.html


Lots of details released about the young pilot here.

[Clinton McKenzie]

It was a completely normal "downwind fullstop" call, and according to the available ADS-B data, it appears the pilot initiated the turn on to base at the expected point.

Yes, I had a bird strike on a turn onto final once and it gave me a hell of a startle and sudden attitude change, luckily it was on the end of the wing so not too much adverse effect on the handling and we got down safely, but I agree that a bird strike or a seat rail failure could possibly lead to an event like this.Hopefully that will put paid to any further speculation about mental illness/sudden incapacitation due medical condition.

I never cease to be amazed at the fact that a pilot's worst enemy is other pilots. Why any pilot would think it's a good idea to stoke the CASA AvMed fire of intrusion and destruction is beyond me.

And that's setting aside the abject absence of any thought or sympathy for the deceased pilot's family and friends.

[43Inches]

It was a completely normal "downwind fullstop" call, and according to the available ADS-B data, it appears the pilot initiated the turn on to base at the expected point.

Except from the track indications there is no evidence to say they were commencing a turn, that's all pure speculation. (The curve at the end of the tracking is whilst the aircraft is in rapid descent).

All we know is that they made a normal downwind call, after that the downwind leg appeared normal, and something went terribly wrong in the place we would be expecting them to be thinking about turning base.

I'll add that the plots indicate over 1 minute from the start of downwind to where things seem to have departed normal, a lot can happen in 1 minute of aviation, or nothing may have happened until the split second it departed controlled flight.

I still struggle to see a link to seat rail failure unless the trim was extremely nose down and the pilot let go of the controls. Even if there was a sudden seat rail failure, on downwind in level flight, its hardly going to propel the seat backwards in the same manner as just after lift off whilst accelerating in the climb. But who knows, anything is possible.

[43Inches]

Hopefully that will put paid to any further speculation about mental illness/sudden incapacitation due medical condition.

I never cease to be amazed at the fact that a pilot's worst enemy is other pilots. Why any pilot would think it's a good idea to stoke the CASA AvMed fire of intrusion and destruction is beyond me.

I find there's two parts to speculating on medical conditions and mental health as well. One is the obvious negative that certain bodies seem to over-react to conditions that have no real daily threat to aviation, AvMed tends to take an iron fist and checklist that stereotypes conditions when every case is different, meaning milder cases that pose no threat can be treated as if they are the severe version putting the individual under duress that will probably only worsen the situation (especially in mental health cases). I really favor that an individuals own specialists are the best at deciding if somebody is a fit and proper person for certain duties, AvMed should only provide guidance to the health professionals as to what conditions aviation will expose the individual to and ask them to assess them based on that and offer advice.

The second is the most important reason I agree with controlled investigation and speculation over medical cases. Highlighting how a lot of conditions can sneak up on you in life and become life threatening because you just have not heard of it, or failed to get those minor niggles checked out, or are too macho/embarrassed to see a doctor, especially in regard to mental health. Talking about things normalizes it, making it easier for individuals to seek help. Remember that regardless of how AvMed reacts, your health and well being comes first.

That being said, to automatically jump at 'mental health' issues as a cause in any incident/accident, without reason, is just stupid and harmful to those involved and their friends and family.

If you do have any sort of mental health issues, including just feeling down or stressed on a regular basis, talk it through with friends and family, and if needed see a professional.

I split this into a separate response as it has nothing to do with my thoughts on this accident.

[Clinton McKenzie]

But you did say this:While increased age brings increased chance of medical events there is never a stage in your life where a stroke/cardiac event, seizure, severe reaction to substance, blackout, etc etc could not happen. So unlikely as it may be, it is still possible at any age to be a factor and medical screening even for commercial pilots is not going to pick up most hidden things that might incapacitate you unless you have regular symptoms presenting prior.

I would consider a medical episode as likely as something hitting the windscreen.Someone of your claimed experience should be able to provide a long list of maintenance / airworthiness issues of which you are aware, first-hand, that have created safety risks. That list will be much longer than the list of aviation accidents and incidents of which you are aware, first-hand, caused by the sudden incapacitation of the pilot.

I could fill an entire thread with details of the various creative ways in which LAMEs have made attempts on my life - inadvertently I hope - over the last four decades. Accidents or incidents of which I am aware caused by sudden incapacitation of the pilot? None first-hand. I know of a couple of holders of Class 1 medical certificates who died suddenly of undiagnosed medical conditions, but not in circumstances that caused an aviation accident or incident.

[jonas64]

Except from the track indications there is no evidence to say they were commencing a turn, that's all pure speculation. (The curve at the end of the tracking is whilst the aircraft is in rapid descent).

I'll add that the plots indicate over 1 minute from the start of downwind to where things seem to have departed normal, a lot can happen in 1 minute of aviation, or nothing may have happened until the split second it departed controlled flight.


Does it make a big difference whether the pilot had actually commenced the turn or was merely preparing to turn (which clearly he was going by the drop in airspeed prior the point at which the turn was expected). Either way the point at which he was either commencing the turn or was about to do so, is where something went horribly wrong.

[43Inches]

But you did say this:Someone of your claimed experience should be able to provide a long list of maintenance / airworthiness issues of which you are aware, first-hand, that have created safety risks. That list will be much longer than the list of aviation accidents and incidents of which you are aware, first-hand, caused by the sudden incapacitation of the pilot.

I could fill an entire thread with details of the various creative ways in which LAMEs have made attempts on my life - inadvertently I hope - over the last four decades. Accidents or incidents of which I am aware caused by sudden incapacitation of the pilot? None first-hand. I know of a couple of holders of Class 1 medical certificates who died suddenly of undiagnosed medical conditions, but not in circumstances that caused an aviation accident or incident.

The most infamous would have to be Captain Key, and BEA flight 548, but that was related to an accident many years ago. Whilst there was no way to understand how much of an impact his incapacitation had on the situation it does also prove having an additional 3 crew in the cockpit didn't alter the outcome. There has been a number of incidents of incapacitation of commercial pilots in two crew scenarios of recent history, but not accidents. There has been many cases of mental health issues leading to crashes, probably more than incapacitation leading to accidents. I think there are a number of events in the US each year, but small in context. PS AvMed will have all the US data anyway, so it's nothing new to them.

Comparing the list to catastrophic structural/mechanical failures is probably similar, the chance of catastrophic failure of the airframe leading to loss of an aircraft is very rare. Most crashes are pilot error these days, that is loss of control or CFIT, a reasonably serviceable airplane flown into the ground. I would include mishandling basic failures, like engine or instrument failure as pilot error, unless again it caused something catastrophic to occur.

In this case we see something that happened very fast and caused the aircraft to lose height very rapidly and impact the ground at high speed. Could be severe airframe failure, could be incapacitation (that includes a bird/drone hitting the plane/pilot), could have been severe miss handling. Who knows, ATSB may never find the key evidence or they might, there might be witnesses, camera evidence and so on. It might just end in an educated guess by the ATSB as to what happened here. At least any extreme medical episode should show in postmortem examination, and structural failure should leave clues.

BTW most incapacitation I'm aware of in commercial operations have not been traditional things that will ground you, mostly food/gut related, severe cramps/pain one at least was an un-diagnosed diabetic. I know of several pilots that have had cardiac events a few in flight, they were all able to land and seek help.

The sad thing is that diagnosed individuals that are managing the condition are the least risk, but tend to get put through the hoops every medical. It's the hidden cases that are threats, or those poorly managing it, like the Daylesford driver that's up for a lot of legal pain. It would be better handled if it was just required that you give notice to your health professionals that youa re a pilot, and only if they consider you a risk should they have to contact AvMed.

[Ngineer]

Not saying that this happened in this instance, but one thing I am starting to notice is that there are a lot of new gen pilots who are taking photos/vids of their flights for social media and family. I sometimes wonder about the possibilities of distraction when this occurs using a phone and not a GoPro device, and if it will create a new avenue of safety issues within the aviation industry

[43Inches]

Does it make a big difference whether the pilot had actually commenced the turn or was merely preparing to turn (which clearly he was going by the drop in airspeed prior the point at which the turn was expected). Either way the point at which he was either commencing the turn or was about to do so, is where something went horribly wrong.

No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.

[PiperCameron]

No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.

I know we shouldn't speculate, but isn't that what this form is for?

Having said that I tend to agree with what Bentleg posted above. Depending entirely upon what he was flying in his time at RAAus and given that many LSA's have low-speed stall characteristics, it's quite possible he simply got too slow down-wind.. and then deploying flaps whilst looking for the runway under the wing was all it took to spin in. Base turn can a busy time for low-time pilots in new-to-them aircraft. Of course asymmetric flap (and subsequent "WTF is happening??") could do it too and is one reason many instructors teach never to lower flaps in a turn.

[nomess]

No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.
Valid point. The timing is around a base leg, so sure that’s the assumption that most will jump to. But it could just be a case of timing making it look like it was connected to a base turn, when it wasn’t. The bank was to the left. This bank could commenced while on downwind for all we know, completely unrelated to a base turn. If anything, I would expect any major issues to occur during the turn on final or established base.

The speed reduction mid downwind would line up with 10% of flap being deployed. Such will not cause loss of control from any cable failure. I’d expect a bank to the left, but nothing too volatile. Even for the most inexperienced, I would still expect a wings level control input for such a bank, didn’t seem to happen here, track is fairly constant on a left heading until impact. Obviously other questions to be asked if flap wasn’t the cause of that speed bleed on downwind.

[jonas64]

No it doesn't but some of the statements made earlier were asserting like it was a known fact that the aircraft was turning or starting to turn base at the time. Hence my comment that there is no evidence yet that a base turn was in process or about to be commenced at the time. The location is just in the vicinity of where we would expect the base turn to occur. I also see the (ground) speed was gradually decreasing for most of the downwind leg, there does not appear to be any sudden decrease to indicate they were about to do anything.

I disagree with the speed decreasing on "most of the downwind leg", as it was a fairly constant 90kts for around the middle third, but certainly agree that it's impossible to draw any concrete conclusions from the data available. The fact that the last communication with tower on the downwind leg was normal (and was likely made late downwind), and there is nothing that sticks out in the data to suggest that anything was amiss until the point where the pilot did or would turn to base, makes me suspect that all was more than likely well up until this point in time.

In response to any posts suggesting that mental health might have played a role in this, I don't believe that for a second. Something sudden has happened that the pilot has been unable to or has incorrectly responded to. I don't think it's a run of the mill 'pilot error' scenario, and so I don't believe we'll get answers any time soon. My only hope is that the ATSB can come to a clear cut conclusion for all concerned. In the meantime, my thoughts and prayers are with all involved.

[Jenna Talia]

A drone through the windscreen?

I’ve had one very close call.

[PiperCameron]

A drone through the windscreen?

I’ve had one very close call.

Like bird strike, size does matter. Little ones, usually no big deal (other than a code brown).. but big ones are quite another story and evidence/remains should be obvious to first responders/ATSB.

[Clare Prop]

Like bird strike, size does matter. Little ones, usually no big deal (other than perhaps a resultant code brown).. but big ones are another story and evidence/remains should be quite obvious to first responders/ATSB.
Depends where it hits. I have seen drones in the Jandakot circuit area, as well as inbound points like Powerhouse and Canning Bridge.

I hit a Bin Chicken turning final in a Tomahawk, no significant control issues as it was right at the tip but substantial damage. Plus blood and feathers which I'm sure the investigators would be looking for

[SuperStinker]

Seems a bit odd it was up to other circuit traffic to spot a missing (GA) first solo. I'd assume the students instructor would've been watching with a hawks eye?
I’m not sure why you find it odd, ATC was clearly asking for a location on the accident site, I’m assuming to direct emergency services.

[SuperStinker]

As an ex Camden controller from many years ago I would have to say that downwind leg doesn’t look right, wouldn’t be obvious from the tower but it looks like the pilot was distracted by something based on the track. Terrible event and my condolences to all affected, I have a 15 year old looking at flying as soon as possible and I need to remind myself this is a rare event.
In what respects does it not look right? I know they have radar so they would have been able to see any deviation.

[bentleg]

In what respects dose it not look right? I know ther has radar so they would have been able to see any deviation.

To me the track looked wider than normal - further from the runway - not unusual for a beginner

[jonas64]

To me the track looked wider than normal - further from the runway - not unusual for a beginner

Student pilots are told to keep the river on their left on the downwind, so pretty well a bang on track if you ask me. To be honest, I've seen a lot of people far wider!

[Styx75]

I’m not sure why you find it odd, ATC was clearly asking for a location on the accident site, I’m assuming to direct emergency services.

The spotter aircraft asked Tower for the 172's position, the tower responded that they were unsure. That's not what I find odd though, tower isnt required to watch every aircraft every second.

What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).

​​​​​

[nomess]

What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).

​​​​​
Do we know that however? They could have been on the ramp watching, without a portable scanner in hand. It will prove important to the investigation if the instructor was on the ramp watching, who then noted the downfall, as the GA ramp area has a direct view around the downwind/base leg.

Whilst I don’t know any that would head back inside during a first solo with eyes away, you certainly wouldn’t do it for a 15/16 year old. They are a child and you have a duty of care whilst they are in your hands.

[Styx75]

Do we know that however? They could have been on the ramp watching, without a portable scanner in hand.
Airband radio I think you mean, a scanner is of little use to a supervising instructor. If the instructor was there with a radio, we would've heard some chatter I'd wager. Which makes me think either they weren't there or forgot to take a radio.
​​
Most instructors at Camden (10 odd years ago) would get tower permission to stand near the runway side of the 24 runup bays, which are about mid runway. Prime viewing spot for the whole circuit.

They are a child and you have a duty of care whilst they are in your hands.
​​​​​Thats my thinking, hence why I find it odd...

[43Inches]

Direct supervision of solo activities, that is student pilots operating solo flights is all about the pre-flight activities. The supervising person is responsible to ensure the weather is adequate, the aircraft is serviceable and fueled, and that the student is capable of the flight and competent and understands the limitations of the exercise (one circuit, several, what to practice etc). Once the instructor jumps out of the aircraft the student becomes "PIC" of the solo flight and then is responsible as such for the flight. There is not much at all the instructor can do, or is responsible for once the student embarks on the solo journey. Any questions from that point will be back to the initial responsibility of whether the student was capable and competent to conduct that flight as "PIC".

As far as monitoring of the in flight portion, you just have to be on hand. It's probably a good idea to monitor the student visually on first solo, but subsequent solos, area solos etc, what are you going to do? It would not be legal to use a hand held radio on tower frequency, and would just cause confusion. These days you could follow the aircraft on flight tracking programs, but that is not required. If an aircraft is overdue you would contact ATC and try to find if it's safe.

Whilst I don’t know any that would head back inside during a first solo with eyes away, you certainly wouldn’t do it for a 15/16 year old. They are a child and you have a duty of care whilst they are in your hands.

No such thing as 'child' pilots, aviation regards a child as not yet 13 years old. Duty of care in regard to solo flights is the same and does not change if the applicant is 16 or 65. The main difference is under 18 the persons guardian(s) may have to provide consent to the activity. Generally legal supervision of minors is required for those under 13 years old, however this does vary between states some allow lower ages. School children traveling together have different rules and so on. Above that and the minor can travel and move around without a legal guardian and no one else will be held responsible for their safety.

Also it is commonly allowed for a 15-18 year old to be legally responsible for a younger child that would normally be considered too young to travel.

[Styx75]

Direct supervision of solo activities, that is student pilots operating solo flights is all about the pre-flight activities. The supervising person is responsible to ensure the weather is adequate, the aircraft is serviceable and fueled, and that the student is capable of the flight and competent and understands the limitations of the exercise (one circuit, several, what to practice etc). Once the instructor jumps out of the aircraft the student becomes "PIC" of the solo flight and then is responsible as such for the flight. There is not much at all the instructor can do, or is responsible for once the student embarks on the solo journey. Any questions from that point will be back to the initial responsibility of whether the student was capable and competent to conduct that flight as "PIC".

As far as monitoring of the in flight portion, you just have to be on hand. It's probably a good idea to monitor the student visually on first solo, but subsequent solos, area solos etc, what are you going to do? It would not be legal to use a hand held radio on tower frequency, and would just cause confusion. These days you could follow the aircraft on flight tracking programs, but that is not required. If an aircraft is overdue you would contact ATC and try to find if it's safe.



No such thing as 'child' pilots, aviation regards a child as not yet 13 years old. Duty of care in regard to solo flights is the same and does not change if the applicant is 16 or 65. The main difference is under 18 the persons guardian(s) may have to provide consent to the activity. Generally legal supervision of minors is required for those under 13 years old, however this does vary between states some allow lower ages. School children traveling together have different rules and so on. Above that and the minor can travel and move around without a legal guardian and no one else will be held responsible for their safety.

Also it is commonly allowed for a 15-18 year old to be legally responsible for a younger child that would normally be considered too young to travel.

I disagree with pretty much all of what you've written there. I'm not sure what the particular licensing was in this case; but generally if an instructor is sending an unlicensed pilot on a solo, they will bear the brunt of the responsibility for its outcome. More so if civil proceedings commence. An instructor can't just wipe their hands of responsibility when they exit the aircraft.

And there is a lot a supervising instructor can do, like I listed in previous post. There are ways to talk to a solo student in CTA: ask the tower to relay a msg, ask the twr if you can speak directly to the aircraft. If your the type worried about using a handheld radio, get yourself an AROC. But if your timely advice turns an accident into an incident, or incident into a non-event, nothing is going to happen. Now in a CTAF, where personalities try to dictate right of way, comms with your solo student can be essential.

And the biggest reason to be supervising a solo student: if something does happen, when the police come knocking, or the atsb, or the kids parents; you'll be able to give an account of what actually happened. As the authorising instructor, that'll be a lot better then saying "I was in the tea room when...". Same goes for your weird statement about minors. They are considered minors, and if you as an instructor arnt considering your elevated duty of care given your position of authority, you shouldn't be sending minors on a solo. Or instructing them at all. Be dammed if the regs don't say so specifically; they don't tell you not to call people of the internet idiots but I do that too.

[43Inches]

I disagree with pretty much all of what you've written there. I'm not sure what the particular licensing was in this case; but generally if an instructor is sending an unlicensed pilot on a solo, they will bear the brunt of the responsibility for its outcome. More so if civil proceedings commence. An instructor can't just wipe their hands of responsibility when they exit the aircraft.

And there is a lot a supervising instructor can do, like I listed in previous post. There are ways to talk to a solo student in CTA: ask the tower to relay a msg, ask the twr if you can speak directly to the aircraft. If your the type worried about using a handheld radio, get yourself an AROC. But if your timely advice turns an accident into an incident, or incident into a non-event, nothing is going to happen. Now in a CTAF, where personalities try to dictate right of way, comms with your solo student can be essential.

And the biggest reason to be supervising a solo student: if something does happen, when the police come knocking, or the atsb, or the kids parents; you'll be able to give an account of what actually happened. As the authorising instructor, that'll be a lot better then saying "I was in the tea room when...". Same goes for your weird statement about minors. They are considered minors, and if you as an instructor arnt considering your elevated duty of care given your position of authority, you shouldn't be sending minors on a solo. Or instructing them at all. Be dammed if the regs don't say so specifically; they don't tell you not to call people of the internet idiots but I do that too.

While Operations manuals will vary, it will specify exactly what a supervising pilot will be required to do. What a supervising pilot has to do and what they should do will be specific, what you think they should do is not relevant.

The whole idea of competency based training was that when accidents happen the training file will show what has and has not been taught. The student is required to countersign completed lessons and this shows acceptance of the assessment of their standard. In this case there would be recognition of prior learning/experience, in line with the regulations allowing it and that training also accounted for. Generally above about 15 years of age is an acceptable age to accept responsibility for ones own life. Hence why employment, learning to drive and various other competency based adult activities are allowed.

As I said above the only difference for a person under the age of 18 would be possibly a letter from the parent or guardian approving the activity and signed that they and the participant are aware of the risks and dangers.

So in short once the instructor is satisfied that the student is ready (CBT completed and assessment done), and the student has accepted they are ready (training documents signed) the legalities are done. The supervising instructors only real responsibility then is to ensure that the flight takes place in conditions that the pilot is capable of handling. That is the supervising instructors duty of care.

This was covered in another thread. There have been cases where this has been tested, and the outcome found as above. The law permits a person of 14 years of age to hold a student certificate, you can go solo at 15 years of age and hold licences from 16 years of age. All this talk of duty of care, is taken care of within the required laws. Unless the instructor does something else that is illegal with a person under the age of 18 unrelated to aviation then there is no other duty of care issue in regard to flying training. In any case there are many other things of similar nature that you could get in trouble with persons over the age of 18, so if that is your worry, then don't instruct at all. There's a whole different problem if you were to offer some sort of accommodation aside from simple flight training.

PS the same ATSB/CASA/Police will come knocking for the same reasons if it was a partner, son, father, mother, etc etc over the age of 18 if there was any sniff of negligence.

BTW I have sent a lot of first solos, triple digits of them, if I ever thought that they would need assistance in the circuit then I would not send them. I have watched them all conduct the circuit, to completion, never once have I needed to contact them or intervene in any way. Some were between 16 and 18 years old, I was never worried or in doubt of their capabilities when I jumped out, much less worried about any legal complication.

[Styx75]

While Operations manuals will vary, it will specify exactly what a supervising pilot will be required to do. What a supervising pilot has to do and what they should do will be specific, what you think they should do is not relevant.

The whole idea of competency based training was that when accidents happen the training file will show what has and has not been taught. The student is required to countersign completed lessons and this shows acceptance of the assessment of their standard. In this case there would be recognition of prior learning/experience, in line with the regulations allowing it and that training also accounted for. Generally above about 15 years of age is an acceptable age to accept responsibility for ones own life. Hence why employment, learning to drive and various other competency based adult activities are allowed.

As I said above the only difference for a person under the age of 18 would be possibly a letter from the parent or guardian approving the activity and signed that they and the participant are aware of the risks and dangers.

So in short once the instructor is satisfied that the student is ready (CBT completed and assessment done), and the student has accepted they are ready (training documents signed) the legalities are done. The supervising instructors only real responsibility then is to ensure that the flight takes place in conditions that the pilot is capable of handling. That is the supervising instructors duty of care.

This was covered in another thread. There have been cases where this has been tested, and the outcome found as above. The law permits a person of 14 years of age to hold a student certificate, you can go solo at 15 years of age and hold licences from 16 years of age. All this talk of duty of care, is taken care of within the required laws. Unless the instructor does something else that is illegal with a person under the age of 18 unrelated to aviation then there is no other duty of care issue in regard to flying training. In any case there are many other things of similar nature that you could get in trouble with persons over the age of 18, so if that is your worry, then don't instruct at all. There's a whole different problem if you were to offer some sort of accommodation aside from simple flight training.

PS the same ATSB/CASA/Police will come knocking for the same reasons if it was a partner, son, father, mother, etc etc over the age of 18 if there was any sniff of negligence.

Just so we're on the same page, are you trying to say an instructor doesn't need to or should not have to stand and supervise a circuit solo student with a radio? Cause all I've been saying is they should. Even if it's not specifically stated in their ops manual.

[43Inches]

Just so we're on the same page, are you trying to say an instructor doesn't need to or should not have to stand and supervise a circuit solo student with a radio? Cause all I've been saying is they should. Even if it's not specifically stated in their ops manual.

Never heard of any rule requiring a radio be held while observing solos. Maybe its something new, maybe its an ops manual requirement for a particular school.

Direct supervision has always been a loose rule when it comes to flying activities, like direct supervision of a junior instructor or area solo student whilst they are out in the training area, beyond ground based radio contact.

In any case this was at a towered airport, with ATC. Unauthorized use to broadcast on a handheld radio might slap you with other legal issues if you tried to communicate.

BTW what do you think the legal difference is between a first solo and subsequent solo circuits? Is there a different level of competency required for the later, a different level of supervision, different duty of care? I just remember signing off candidates for solo circuit operations and then area solo operations with operational limitations if required. The only reason the first one is a single circuit is more just the emotional side, however I have seen first solo students get carried away and do several when an instructor was not clear about doing one only, or do a go around or two before landing due to being unhappy with the approach. If it was the case a student was doing something abnormal or taking too long, then there would be more than enough time to jump in another aircraft and use its radio.

I'll add that the FAA does not require, but recommends a radio be 'at hand' during solo operations. That could mean access to another aircraft radio, or a registered base station, but not an unregistered hand held.

[43Inches]

One other question I'd have to ask, is it actually legal to use a hand held radio to transmit on CTAF frequency, without it being approved for such purpose. The requirements governing use of Aeronautical Mobile Stations seems to say you can not.

[zegnaangelo]

One other question I'd have to ask, is it actually legal to use a hand held radio to transmit on CTAF frequency, without it being approved for such purpose. The requirements governing use of Aeronautical Mobile Stations seems to say you can not.

i thought ppl(a) and by definition anyone above should automatically have a license to transmit on an aeronautical frequency?

[Checkboard]

I never had a handheld radio sending students solo, because I never thought to bring one on a session of circuits in the aircraft, and mostly I would send a student solo after a session of circuits - that is, it was rarely a specific "solo check".

[gerry111]

Flying a first solo circuit with one's instructor on the radio offering advice, completely defeats the purpose.

[Squawk7700]

Here’s a video that appears to show what happens when the student has gone solo and the instructor is on a handheld (presumably) and the student can’t hear the instructor when things went pear-shaped.

https://youtu.be/uVXjsMz9Gao?si=VZfPnAhtiCj1gEJD

[Mach E Avelli]

Flying a first solo circuit with one's instructor on the radio offering advice, completely defeats the purpose.
And if the instructor even vaguely thinks it will be necessary then the student is not ready for solo, so that calls into question the instructor’s judgment.
Although in the video above it seems that the student had a panic attack. It would be interesting to know what someone in that situation would do if there was no radio contact available. Would survival instinct eventually prevail?

[jonas64]

And if the instructor even vaguely thinks it will be necessary then the student is not ready for solo, so that calls into question the instructor’s judgment.
Although in the video above it seems that the student had a panic attack. It would be interesting to know what someone in that situation would do if there was no radio contact available. Would survival instinct eventually prevail?

No radio contact at all is one thing, but when you're able to contact tower (as was the case in this topic), that's something entirely different. Camden is essentially a training airport, and I have no doubt if there was anything even remotely amiss on a first solo, the student pilot would have no qualms in contacting tower for advice. The pilot in this case didn't do that, and all communications with tower were normal, so I think it's safe to assume that had the instructor been in radio contact with the pilot (or watching events unfold from the tarmac with a set of binoculars), it would have made absolutely no difference whatsoever. Whatever went wrong, did so quickly.

[Mach E Avelli]

Back to the origin of this thread - the onset of whatever happened here was so rapid that it’s unlikely anyone would have been able to offer advice by radio.
As for the legality or otherwise of handheld radios in aviation, should an emergency occur and the best means of communication not be ‘approved’ for the purpose, it matters not. But a student flying solo shouldn’t know that the instructor is eavesdropping on the radio.

[PiperCameron]

But a student flying solo shouldn’t know that the instructor is eavesdropping on the radio.

Why on earth not?!? After First Solo, you'd hope the instructor has enough confidence in the student's ability that they aren't going to come to grief, but if we're speaking of the first time a student pilot has been on their own in an aircraft - it's a really freaky big deal! In my experience at Moorabbin, most instructors will do exactly that. If they can't hear communications between the student and the tower (and perhaps note the level of calmness, professionalism or otherwise in their voice) how are they supposed to do a proper and complete debrief? Just take the student's word for it?? Seriously..

From then on, I'm sure the instructor has more important things to do (paperwork, get coffee for the CFI..) than be bothered listening in on the radio.

[43Inches]

i thought ppl(a) and by definition anyone above should automatically have a license to transmit on an aeronautical frequency?

You have to be careful what the AROC or similar approves you to do, it is quite specific about allowing you to operate Aircraft Station radios, that is radios fitted to registered aircraft. The rules between radio use on GA vs RAA is also different, the radio transmitter itself has to be approved and compliant with Australian rules and Aeronautical Mobile Stations as opposed to Aircraft Stations have more limitations of what frequencies can be used. The rules have recently been modified as well for drone operators who need to monitor frequencies when flying drones near airports, restricted areas, and emergency events. It's quite one thing to monitor a frequency, and another to broadcast on it. I think in Australia we gloss over the radio approvals section as the old FROL, now AROC, was a pen exercise, and aircraft that are Australian registered operating within Australia do not have to carry the Radio approval paperwork. Foreign aircraft operating within Australia do have to carry radio paperwork.

The way I read the Aeronautical Mobile Station rules, is that you can operate the radio only on certain frequencies, as listed in the regulations. There is a major difference in the wording where Aircraft stations are allowed to use all AIP frequencies as published, where AMS are only allowed to use the AIP ones 'published from time to time'. PS a handheld comes under the rules for Aeronautical Mobile Stations, as well as a lot of other aircraft that carry radios that are not CASA registered Aircraft, cars etc...

Why on earth not?!? After First Solo, you'd hope the instructor has enough confidence in the student's ability that they aren't going to come to grief, but if we're speaking of the first time a student pilot has been on their own in an aircraft - it's a really freaky big deal! In my experience at Moorabbin, most instructors will do exactly that. If they can't hear communications between the student and the tower (and perhaps note the level of calmness, professionalism or otherwise in their voice) how are they supposed to do a proper and complete debrief? Just take the student's word for it?? Seriously..

The tower is trained to deal with various abnormal scenarios such as VFR into IMC, lost students, and other scenarios. At least in the old days the tower crew were quite experienced and could easily handle a student in trouble. I know Moorabbin tower will contact the school of any aircraft that does something significantly unusual, whether on a solo or not. There will be three radio exchanges between the tower and student on a solo, all brief. Take-off, downwind and clear to land, and then most likely a congratulations after landing. most students will sound a little stressed on the radio.

To be honest if you feel you have to stare at your student like a hawk the whole way round a first solo you probably are too much of a stress pot to be an instructor, or you feel you sent them too early and are somehow willing them around, rather than confident and trust the student to do what they were trained.

[Squawk7700]

Where I come from, when the instructor walks out with the hand-held you know full well that someone is about to go solo.

If he’s carrying it in the lesson and you haven’t been solo yet, guess what!

[43Inches]

Where I come from, when the instructor walks out with the hand-held you know full well that someone is about to go solo.

If he’s carrying it in the lesson and you haven’t been solo yet, guess what!

That sounds like a school specific thing, I've never carried a hand held in instructional activities, or during solo supervision. The school's all had a base radio approved for the purpose however in the ops area. The only time I've used a 'hand held' as such was one strapped to an ultralight on ultralight frequencies, which I plugged headsets into, which came under the AMS regulations.

PS not all hand held airband radios are approved for use on Australian frequencies.

BTW I'm not sure the instructor helped that much in that video, probably even spooked the student a bit by being on frequency.

[43Inches]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2000/aair/aair200004070

Here's a good example of an accident that was partly caused when a station on CTAF witnessed two aircraft in close proximity and told the aircraft (non directed) to 'go-round'. The lower, leading aircraft complied and climbed into the upper aircraft which had not responded. Luckily both pilots survived, because Grobs are built like tanks.

Without directed information to de-conflict the situation ie, tell the upper aircraft to go-round first, then you can make a situation worse than if they had just landed and hit each other on the runway. And random extra voices on the radio can get in the way of critical communication, which is why I'm not a fan at all of having extra radios on the ground putting in their two cents. Remembering that and hand helds have very limited range and you could be over-transmitting others approaching the aerodrome without knowing.

[jonas64]

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2000/aair/aair200004070. And random extra voices on the radio can get in the way of critical communication, which is why I'm not a fan at all of having extra radios on the ground putting in their two cents. Remembering that and hand helds have very limited range and you could be over-transmitting others approaching the aerodrome without knowing.

I completely agree, especially in reference to the topic at Camden, which is (during the day when solos would be attempted) a controlled aerodrome. Leave the tower to do its job, and if the need for an instructor arises the tower will make contact and set it up. Random people suddenly coming onto the airwaves is an absolute recipe for disaster!

[Deaf]

Once the XXX happened would the instructor:
- identified the problem
-identified the solution
-communicated a best guess solution

In time

[Mach E Avelli]

Drifting and dragging….I prefer not to speculate, but in this case will go out on a limb and say pilot error was extremely unlikely.
If the instructor was watching the flight (as one would hope) there should be a reliable witness.

[Clare Prop]

The instructor would need to have very good eyesight

[Mach E Avelli]

The instructor would need to have very good eyesight
Point taken. Back in my day we did much tighter circuits than is current practice.
But I’m suggesting that if the aircraft flight path changed rapidly on base leg, an experienced observer could offer some insight other than the usual “it plummeted “ crap we get from the media.

[Horatio Leafblower]

Clare even at my age and stage of advanced decrepitude I can see an aircraft on downwind turning base.
...you have a couple of years on me though! :E

[Clare Prop]

Yes, but you're not likely to be able to see what causes a loss of control from that distance.

[Mach E Avelli]

Yes, but you're not likely to be able to see what causes a loss of control from that distance.
Clare, if you were an ATSB investigator and a credible witness said that it rolled rapidly, or pitched down almost instantaneously, which parts of the wreckage would you be particularly interested in?

[Clare Prop]

I'd be looking for structural/cable failure of the wings or flap actuators in the first instance and tailplane in the second, as well as evidence of blood or feathers or bits of drone. But my point is I wouldn't be able to see that as a supervising instructor on the ground on an aircraft on late downwind, plus I have zero training in accident investigation so not qualified to answer that with any kind of authority..

[SuperStinker]

The spotter aircraft asked Tower for the 172's position, the tower responded that they were unsure. That's not what I find odd though, tower isnt required to watch every aircraft every second.

What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).

​​​​​
he was monitoring from the runup bay (as evidenced by the towers approval to do so). he did have a radio (as evidenced by his transmission). also the tower gave the 172s position as "follow the 172 turning base", it was in answer to a second transmission when the position could not be established.

[jonas64]

he was monitoring from the runup bay (as evidenced by the towers approval to do so). he did have a radio (as evidenced by his transmission).

Indeed, was monitoring and only spoke when spoken to, which is precisely as it should be.

[jonas64]

Preliminary report is up.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-002

[Squawk7700]

That’s going to be an interesting one when they release the final report.

There are only a limited number of ways to get an aircraft to 10,000 fpm descent rate at 130 knots.

[Seabreeze]

Some quick sums For what they are worth.

Falling under gravity alone from 1000 ft. v^2 = 2gs ( = 2*9.8*305= 6000 approx), so v=77 m/s
whereas 1000 ft/min = 305/60 = 51 m/s vertical speed.

So the aircraft was indeed coming down at an incredible vertical speed, not a lot less than free fall, although apparently under power.

Also 130 kt= 130/1.944 = 69 m/s (horizontal speed)

Pythagoras gives TAS approaching ground level as
TAS= sqrt(51^2 + 69^2) = sqrt(2601 + 4761) =sqrt(7362) = 87.2 m/s = 173 kt ( approx).

and approaching at angle arctan(51/69)=arctan(0.74) = 36.5 degrees from horizontal.

SB

[Squawk7700]

Good calculations. I knew the IAS/TAS would be high but hadn't tried to calculate it. The fact that it's not a true 130 knots from the ADSB can be quite deceiving on first glance until you realise it's going down as well.

[zegnaangelo]

reading the preliminary report, it really feels / sounds like a mystery.

[Global Aviator]

It’s probably been discussed above somewhere but this was not a typical 1st solo. 51 hours flight time, including 4 hours solo in the Gazelle RAAus.

I am not an instructor. I just thought this to be an interesting point.The student pilot held a Class 2 aviation medical certificate and a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilot certificate[6] (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-002#_ftn6) issued late June 2023.The student pilot had accumulated 51.3 hours experience on this certificate, including 37.1 hours in a Skyfox Gazelle.[7] (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-002#_ftn7) The pilot had also completed 4.1 hours of solo flight under the RAAus certificate.

[zegnaangelo]

And in the report he was said to have exceptional handling ability...

[blackburn]

Did the aircraft have an Auto PIlot that the student may have experimented with and found himself in the same situation as the young lady in Western Victoria (VH-ZEW) some years ago?

[Squawk7700]

It’s probably been discussed above somewhere but this was not a typical 1st solo. 51 hours flight time, including 4 hours solo in the Gazelle RAAus.

I am not an instructor. I just thought this to be an interesting point.The student pilot held a Class 2 aviation medical certificate and a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilot certificate[6] (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-002#_ftn6) issued late June 2023.The student pilot had accumulated 51.3 hours experience on this certificate, including 37.1 hours in a Skyfox Gazelle.[7] (https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2024/report/ao-2024-002#_ftn7) The pilot had also completed 4.1 hours of solo flight under the RAAus certificate.

I personally went from a Skyfox Gazelle to a 172. I had my RAAUS certificate and after about 3.5 hours in a 172 I got my PPL.

I found the 172 very easy to fly with the exception of having to climb out a bit shallower than I was used to as the speed washed off more quickly than I was used to. It was a very simple conversion. I can't help but feel that he was experienced enough to be able to fly that aircraft.

172 drivers - To hit 170+ knots with a 10,000fpm descent rate, at 35 degrees dive with 1 stage of flaps applied from 1,000ft AGL, I'm assuming you'd practically need full power, would that be correct?

I'm also wondering why eye witnesses said that the engine sounded like it was over-revving, just after he lowered flaps, presumably about to turn onto base!

[Capt Fathom]

The aircraft trajectory is leading me to a very unsavoury conclusion! I hope I’m wrong.

[nomess]

The aircraft trajectory is leading me to a very unsavoury conclusion! I hope I’m wrong.
Seems to be alluding to PIC induced reading the report, not aircraft. Whatever that means, and in what capacity, and why, remains to be seen.

[OZBUSDRIVER]

10500fpm descent equates to 103kts vertical.

[jonas64]

The aircraft trajectory is leading me to a very unsavoury conclusion! I hope I’m wrong.

Personally I would consider vasovagal syncope before I'd consider anything more sinister. If someone was predisposed (perhaps unknowingly) to this during stressful or emotional situations, the final stages of your first solo circuit could potentially be a trigger. Granted the student pilot had flown solo in ultralights, but still...

[KRviator]

Personally I would consider vasovagal syncope before I'd consider anything more sinister. If someone was predisposed (perhaps unknowingly) to this during stressful or emotional situations, the final stages of your first solo circuit could potentially be a trigger. Granted the student pilot had flown solo in ultralights, but still...I wouldn't.

A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.

[jonas64]

I wouldn't.

A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.

What part of my statement implies that there could not have been any input from the pilot, unintentional though it may be?

[nomess]

I wouldn't.

A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.

The data at the time had the discussion focused around some form of serious structural failure. I think that was warranted given some of the numbers. They have now sort of ruled that out, no abnormalities found. So what are the other options? It’s essentially just nose down full power into the hills.

It’s hard to see an eager young lad like this drive it into the ground on purpose. I understand we do not know the ins and out of this person’s life. This wasn’t the first time he had been solo.

However it’s quite a task trying to work out how he ended up in that situation with the investigators saying all systems seemed ok.

[43Inches]

I personally went from a Skyfox Gazelle to a 172. I had my RAAUS certificate and after about 3.5 hours in a 172 I got my PPL.

I found the 172 very easy to fly with the exception of having to climb out a bit shallower than I was used to as the speed washed off more quickly than I was used to. It was a very simple conversion. I can't help but feel that he was experienced enough to be able to fly that aircraft.

172 drivers - To hit 170+ knots with a 10,000fpm descent rate, at 35 degrees dive with 1 stage of flaps applied from 1,000ft AGL, I'm assuming you'd practically need full power, would that be correct?

I'm also wondering why eye witnesses said that the engine sounded like it was over-revving, just after he lowered flaps, presumably about to turn onto base!

The report also notes he had 6.1 hours on 172s, which in the old days some good students would be solo in a 172 without any other flying experience at all. Still a lot of mystery about this occurrence before I come to any personal conclusions, why the flap setting? Showed an intention to turn a normal base. Wings level 60 degree nose down, why there, why then. Structural/mechanical failure seems less likely, as all components found on site, still, control issues, trim.. who knows. I hope they can find the answers in good time for the family and those involved.

[nomess]

A S model should have 10 degrees available I below 110. Shouldn’t really need it for circuits unless wanting to slow down for traffic, but is common for instructors to get students to apply late downwind.

This is a tough one and will be interesting to see if they can get any answers

[pinenut]

Did the aircraft have an Auto PIlot that the student may have experimented with and found himself in the same situation as the young lady in Western Victoria (VH-ZEW) some years ago?
I did fly that aircraft havde about 20 hours in it, unless its avionics have been updated recently it had a single axis bendix 140 from memory, only did roll as far as i remember. just the five buttons no, up down.

[Lead Balloon]

Experimenting with the autopilot while doing the first solo circuit in an aircraft of the type?

Maybe the pilot was crocheting a scarf as well.

Not as monumentally stupid as suggesting a deliberate act, but getting close.

[pinenut]

Experimenting with the autopilot while doing the first solo circuit in an aircraft of the type?

Maybe the pilot was crocheting a scarf as well.

Not as monumentally stupid as suggesting a deliberate act, but getting close.

Should have clarified what i was trying to say to the other post, was that even if he did fiddle with the AP though very unlikely, It didn't as far as im aware have any control over pitch anyway so fails to explain the nose down attitude.

I do hope we get some answers from the full investigation but the lack of structural failure and control continuity, does leave not many explinations for the flight path the aircraft took to its resting place.

[Lead Balloon]

[T]he lack of structural failure and control continuity.So you construe the fact that ATSB found all the bits in one place as conclusive of a serviceable flight control system and structural integrity? Big call.

[pinenut]

So you construe the fact that ATSB found all the bits in one place as conclusive of a serviceable flight control system and structural integrity? Big call.
We will wait for the full investigation to tell just exactly what happened, with a second read possibly i read too much into the prelim report.
I also did my solo in that aircraft so it hits close to home i suppose, all very tragic.
feel very sorry for the family.

[43Inches]

Some interesting things to note from the ATSB report that hasn't been talked about;The investigation is continuing and will include:


review and examination of aircraft components and other items recovered from the accident site
review of aircraft, pilot and operator documentation
further analysis of flight path information from CCTV recordings and flight data.

The aircraft and it's components are still being investigated, so they have not ruled out aircraft issues as a cause as yet. They have stated they found everything at the crash site, so no parts departed in flight, and flight control continuity just suggests that the controls were connected at the time. I doubt they could have found out whether they were working as intended as yet given the state of the wreckage.

There must be recordings of at least some part of the accident captured on CCTV or such, thankfully not in public yet.

From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?

[pinenut]

Some interesting things to note from the ATSB report that hasn't been talked about;

The aircraft and it's components are still being investigated, so they have not ruled out aircraft issues as a cause as yet. They have stated they found everything at the crash site, so no parts departed in flight, and flight control continuity just suggests that the controls were connected at the time. I doubt they could have found out whether they were working as intended as yet given the state of the wreckage.

There must be recordings of at least some part of the accident captured on CCTV or such, thankfully not in public yet.

From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?

Manual Trim.

[jonas64]

From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?

No, it did not.

[Lookleft]

Not as monumentally stupid as suggesting a deliberate act, but getting close.

A deliberate act would, from the descent profile, to be something that should be considered. Why is the possibility of suicide immediately discarded just because its an unpalatable scenario although very difficult to ascertain.

​​​​​​​So you construe the fact that ATSB found all the bits in one place as conclusive of a serviceable flight control system and structural integrity? Big call.


Not really a big call at all. The ATSB stated :

​​​​​​​Pre-impact flight control continuity was established and wing flaps[8] were assessed to have been extended but set at less than 10°[9] at the time of impact.

Its a 172 nothing complicated about it. All the control surfaces arrived at the point of impact and those control surfaces were attached by the necessary wires to the point at which they are controlled. If the flight controls were rigged incorrectly then it would have become apparent during the previous circuits with the instructor. Once again the final descent profile at high power suggests that a flight control problem would not be the main focus of the investigation. There is no precedent for a training aeroplane in the circuit to simply plummet to the ground at a high power and high RoD unless it is being made to do so.

This is a rumour network after all so what do you think (without being stupid of course),might have led to the accident Clinton?

[43Inches]

A deliberate act would, from the descent profile, to be something that should be considered. Why is the possibility of suicide immediately discarded just because its an unpalatable scenario although very difficult to ascertain.


Be careful when you say some are discarding it. This sort of speculation has a huge impact on the family and friends of those involved, in any accident it's a possible cause, some more so than others, but it really is insensitive to others to call it out until the family has time to process it. It's similar to releasing names and such of those involved before next of kin have been notified. If it turns out that the speculation is right, great, you win the ego battle of who was correct, if it turns out such speculation is wrong, the family/friends just went through months/years of wondering what they could have done to stop it for nothing.

If the flight controls were rigged incorrectly then it would have become apparent during the previous circuits with the instructor.

Continuity only means the wires run from A to B. That does not rule out a jam or some other factor. It still does not sit with me that you would take flap to turn base for a normal landing and then suddenly push forward, why bother taking flap?

[Clinton McKenzie]

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/640x480/spot_the_problem_000b2ab73820e5f6f4aba4ac20d196413d55875d.jp g
Spot the problem.
A deliberate act would, from the descent profile, to be something that should be considered. Why is the possibility of suicide immediately discarded just because its an unpalatable scenario although very difficult to ascertain.



Not really a big call at all. The ATSB stated :



Its a 172 nothing complicated about it. All the control surfaces arrived at the point of impact and those control surfaces were attached by the necessary wires to the point at which they are controlled. If the flight controls were rigged incorrectly then it would have become apparent during the previous circuits with the instructor. Once again the final descent profile at high power suggests that a flight control problem would not be the main focus of the investigation. There is no precedent for a training aeroplane in the circuit to simply plummet to the ground at a high power and high RoD unless it is being made to do so.

This is a rumour network after all so what do you think (without being stupid of course),might have led to the accident Clinton?I learnt, long ago, that pilots’ worst enemies are pilots, Lookleft. Across the spectrum from industrial relations to aviation medicine, there’s an endless supply of pilots ready and willing to throw themselves and their colleagues under the bus and plenty of people happy to run them over.

When pilots leap to the keyboard to suggest that incidents like the one the subject of this thread were suicide by the pilot – or, in other threads, leap to the keyboard to suggest pilot incapacitation was the cause of incidents – all that does is add fuel to the Avmed fire. A credulous public calls out to be saved – from pilots – and Avmed is always very happy to answer that call. The suggestions must be credible because they’re coming from pilots.

Try – just for a moment – to put yourself in the position of the pilot who died in this tragedy, and of the family and friends of that pilot, and imagine that you weren’t suicidal and something else caused the tragedy. How do you feel when contemplating the fact that other pilots have no compunction in suggesting that you deliberately speared the aircraft and yourself into the ground?

There used to be the quaint view that almost all incidents were the product of a number of factors – the Swiss cheese metaphor. We supposedly grew out of the ‘blame the pilot’ attitude. But what do we frequently get on PPRuNe? Pilots leaping to the keyboard to blame the pilot, alone.

You and others quote passages from ATSB reports as if they are holy writ and ASTB has never produced a work of fiction either because of a lack of competence or for expediency. You must have the attention span of a goldfish. And everyone’s an expert on 172s.

People who rule out maintenance induced failure, based just on what you quoted and the fact that the aircraft had been flying before it crashed, evidently haven’t been the owners of aircraft and learnt the many creative ways in which maintenance personnel can line up holes in the Swiss cheese. I’ll just relate one example out of many over the decades, to try to make my point.

I owned a Bonanza that became the subject of CASA’s mandatory control cable meddling AD. I paid $10,000 to have the perfectly serviceable and rigged control cables replaced. I subsequently discovered that one of the ruddervator cables had been rigged around the fuel drain stub under the fuel selector. That cable was rubbing directly against the metal stub. I’ll dig up a photo and post it.

Evidently, the person who did the cable replacement did so negligently. Evidently, the required independent inspection was either not carried out at all or was carried out negligently. Evidently, the person who did the test flight failed to perform, or performed negligently, the required pre-flight inspection. All signed off, good to go (with a $10,000 invoice).

That Bonanza could have flown another 1,000 hours. Or maybe just 10. Or maybe just 1. But when something eventually went wrong, it would have gone very badly for the unfortunate pilot in the seat at the time. My educated guess is that the cable would have eventually sawn through the side of the fuel drain stub, resulting in immediate drawing of air rather than fuel into the EDP and, therefore, causing fuel starvation and engine failure. The consequent sudden change in ruddervator cable tension would cause ‘something’ very strange to happen. What – who’d know without doing an actual test. But muggins in the left front seat could have found themselves in a very dangerous situation, very suddenly. And if that aircraft had speared in, all those control cables would probably still have been connected to their control surfaces.

I could go on, for pages, describing the various creative attempts on my life by maintenance personnel, but won’t for now.

But for all of the pilots out there who think it’s a good idea to leap to the keyboard to suggest pilot-alone causes for incidents: You are your own worst enemies. When it’s your turn to be micro-managed by Avmed or have a hatchet job done on you in some investigation, you’ll hopefully finally understand why.

[Lookleft]

Thanks for the reply and the seriousness of the content. I know very well what an errant Bonanza can do and you can read my story in the Flight Safety magazine under the "Fear for Lunch" title. In my scenario and I imagine the worst case of your scenario, the flight profile was sufficiently concerning that the Tower went for the crash button several times. My point about this accident is the descent profile. Even if the student had the unfortunate situation of a control failure, the descent profile would not make it plummet to the ground at a high power setting. The simple fact is that suicide is the leading cause of death in Australia for males under the age of 35. Avmed don't need Pprune to develop another stupid test to assess a persons mental health. On one medical I stated that I was tired but put down that I had flown 500 hours in the past 6 months thinking they might make the connection. No I had to go and do a sleep apnea test before my medical was renewed. Suicide can't be discounted as a cause but it also can't be discussed in hushed tones because it is considered taboo. Pilots are just another cohort of the wider community and the stats apply to them just as much as anyone else.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Just a couple of points in reply to a (very well argued) post, Lookleft.

First, from my perspective, none of what you said justifies pilots throwing other pilots under the bus. There are plenty of others out there willing - some of them paid - to do that. If this tragedy turns out to be caused by the pilot alone, let those others show it to be true.

Secondly, you say:My point about this accident is the descent profile. Even if the student had the unfortunate situation of a control failure, the descent profile would not make it plummet to the ground at a high power setting.Do you know, for example, what happens when a throttle cable breaks or disconnects from the carby on a 172 of the model involved in this tragedy?

My point is that your point merely begs the question. You assume that the pilot had control over the engine's power. There are recorded circumstances in which a broken or disconnected throttle cable results in the carbie going to the 'default' wide open throttle. We are talking about a first solo in a 172 only 1,000 AGL and the first few seconds of any fault manifesting itself will almost invariably be overtaken by sensory overload - the HSM. The 'muscle memory' CFMM won't stop an engine that's at WOT because the throttle cable's disconnected or broken. When was the last time a student pilot practised dealing with an engine stuck at full power? (I anticipate that some Monday Morning Quarterback will suggest just pulling the mixture, but we're here talking about the first solo in a 172 at 1,000' AGL.)

In my decades of experience in aircraft maintenance, there have been many occasions on which multiple problems arose from just one random fault (or just one tool left in the wrong place, or just one seat rail not engaged, or just one pair of wires transposed in a plug, or just one air vent that dropped out of the roof, or...). That control cable sawing away at the fuel stub on the Bonanza example could have - if the stub had finally sawn off - resulted in the nose pitching immediately down and the pilot at only 1,000 AGL not being able to do anything about it in time - or even at all depending on what the change in rigging tension may have on the ruddervators - while the engine was still running before the air made it to the EDP.

[Lookleft]

When people ask me if I am ever afraid of flying I always reply yes...when I fly an aircraft that has just come out of maintenance. I don't disagree that there are a lot of things that can bring an aircraft down but there are very few completely random events that haven't occurred before that result in a sudden dive to the ground. I am not throwing yet another pilot under the bus but deliberate action of the pilot cannot be immediately discarded because society doesn't know how to deal with it.

Have a read of this article and you might see that it is not just a "blame the pilot" mentality: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-news/air-transport/2024-03-04/tackling-aviations-mental-health-paradox

In your scenario of the throttle cable, a sudden application of full power without any corresponding control input would lead to the nose pitching up and would result in a vary different descent profile i.e. the aircraft would probably enter a stall at full power with a sudden wing drop.

[Clinton McKenzie]

I evidently failed to make clear that a single, random event can cause multiple problems. I asked a question about your understanding of the consequences of the specific scenario of the throttle cable on the engine fitted to this aircraft breaking or becoming disconnected, simply to try to make clear that just because an engine was at 'high power' on impact does not prove the pilot deliberately set it to and left it at 'high power'.

The human mind naturally dichotomises: 'this' OR 'that' happened. But, in reality, 'this' AND 'that' (AND even another thing) could have happened.

Stating the fact that deliberate action of the pilot cannot be immediately discarded as a matter of principle is, in my mind, no justification for pilots actively speculating, publicly, that it was the cause in fact. I've raised the issue of pilots presuming the description "professional" before, and pointed out that the members of true professions do not engage in public criticism or public negative speculation about their colleagues. It brings the entire profession into disrepute because the members' opinions on the subject are perceived as having greater weight and authority. As I said earlier, there are already plenty of people out there ready and willing (and in some cases remunerated) to find fault in pilots. Their colleagues don't need to 'pile on'.

[Lookleft]

I've raised the issue of pilots presuming the description "professional" before, and pointed out that the members of true professions do not engage in public criticism or public negative speculation about their colleagues. It brings the entire profession into disrepute because the members' opinions on the subject are perceived as having greater weight and authority. As I said earlier, there are already plenty of people out there ready and willing (and in some cases remunerated) to find fault in pilots. Their colleagues don't need to 'pile on'.

Because the members of "true professions" are such pillars of society. Professions such as lawyers I would imagine or accountants even. You profess such distaste of pilots piling on yet here you are posting day in day out. I imagine most professional pilots will learn to live with your disapproval. Training aircraft simply don't nose over and impact the ground at high descent rates with high power settings. If they did then they would be grounded immediately by the flying schools that operate them. You can come up with any number of possible combinations of airframe or engine failure which may have lead to that accident but the simple, albeit distressing, explanation that it was deliberate also fits the evidence.

If there is a mechanical fault then my apologies to the family will be unreserved. If the report states that it was not able to determine the cause of the accident then that will not bring closure for them either.

[Clinton McKenzie]

Can you quote a post in which I've criticised the operational judgements of any pilot? I post here "day in day out", so you should be able to grab some low hanging fruit.

I don't have a "distaste for pilots" in principle. I'm on their side. I just despair at the fact that they're their own worst enemies.

And you'll hang your hat on what the ATSB report says? Hmmm.If the report states that it was not able to determine the cause of the accident then that will not bring closure for [the family] either.Indeed.

Especially when 'professional' pilots have been speculating in the way you and others have.

[jonas64]

You can come up with any number of possible combinations of airframe or engine failure which may have lead to that accident but the simple, albeit distressing, explanation that it was deliberate also fits the evidence.

I think everybody here knows this, but out of respect for all those involved I don't think it's really appropriate to discuss it, much less make the assertion that it is the most likely scenario.

Without any additional information forthcoming, I think best we wait for the outcome of the investigation.