Partnavia crash at Rottnest Island
Grandpa Aerotart
Appology accepted
When I write on these subjects in pprune it is based on long experience...and I absolutely stand by what I write.
It is a mistake to assume that those of us who went before had some sort of nirvana like version of GA in our day or that we all flew these aircraft when they were shiny and new...certainly I flew some shiny new aircraft in my youth...but most were as old and worn as anything you see these days. Often our maintenance was really good but sometimes it was abismal
Through 7000 hrs GA (every minute of which I loved) and 5000+ airline and corporate jet I think it is safe to say I have seen most wrinkles and more than my share of truly stupid, incompetent pilots and truly nasty, dishonest management.
No one has found a new way to crash for well over 60 years..it's just the same old ways trotted out again and again.
In have lost close to 40 friends killed in GA accidents in the 26 years I have been flying. That was why I took the attitude I took to training and to some, actually most, but not all, of the management I have experienced. I have paid a higher price than most for my approach to the responsibilities of being a trainer, checker or management pilot....to the extent that I will never again accept a management pilot position.
When not even CASA is interested in safety you just give up and do the best you can in your operation and let others worry about such things.
Every year a handful of CPs get sacked when CASA refuses to support them against missmanagement...i will never put myself, or my family, in that position again.
When I write on these subjects in pprune it is based on long experience...and I absolutely stand by what I write.
It is a mistake to assume that those of us who went before had some sort of nirvana like version of GA in our day or that we all flew these aircraft when they were shiny and new...certainly I flew some shiny new aircraft in my youth...but most were as old and worn as anything you see these days. Often our maintenance was really good but sometimes it was abismal
Through 7000 hrs GA (every minute of which I loved) and 5000+ airline and corporate jet I think it is safe to say I have seen most wrinkles and more than my share of truly stupid, incompetent pilots and truly nasty, dishonest management.
No one has found a new way to crash for well over 60 years..it's just the same old ways trotted out again and again.
In have lost close to 40 friends killed in GA accidents in the 26 years I have been flying. That was why I took the attitude I took to training and to some, actually most, but not all, of the management I have experienced. I have paid a higher price than most for my approach to the responsibilities of being a trainer, checker or management pilot....to the extent that I will never again accept a management pilot position.
When not even CASA is interested in safety you just give up and do the best you can in your operation and let others worry about such things.
Every year a handful of CPs get sacked when CASA refuses to support them against missmanagement...i will never put myself, or my family, in that position again.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mutley, reality thanks.
Lets get the manuals out and see what each type could do out of Rottness.
Queen Air, B58, Duchess, Cieftain, Navajo, Seminole, C404 / 402 / 340 / 310 / 303, Ac500 Aerostar ect all without vortex generator mods.
To keep it simple lets go with 15 degree's, Mtow and efato after gear / flap retraction.
From this we can progress to the effects of elev temp ect.
Then we can plot whether we could get back around to land or go to Perth to land.
This will help those who are flying twins older than them selves.
Lets get the manuals out and see what each type could do out of Rottness.
Queen Air, B58, Duchess, Cieftain, Navajo, Seminole, C404 / 402 / 340 / 310 / 303, Ac500 Aerostar ect all without vortex generator mods.
To keep it simple lets go with 15 degree's, Mtow and efato after gear / flap retraction.
From this we can progress to the effects of elev temp ect.
Then we can plot whether we could get back around to land or go to Perth to land.
This will help those who are flying twins older than them selves.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
....the piece of sh!t descended continuously toward a point which, fortunately, was beyond the threshold of the nearest runway. At about 500' AMSL when a landing appeared to be assured, it was still showing no sign of levelling out and achieving the performance (climb) the manual promised..
Di
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Max weight?
Muttly
Empty weight for a P68 is about 1325 kg, and max TO is 1960 kg. (Max landing weight is less than that)
So if you had "yourself and five fat guys, like you" that's about 660 kg. I presume you had some fuel.
Looks like you exceeded both the max take off weight, and the max landing weight.
No wonder the poor thing did not want to fly on one.
I would not really blame Mussolini.
Empty weight for a P68 is about 1325 kg, and max TO is 1960 kg. (Max landing weight is less than that)
So if you had "yourself and five fat guys, like you" that's about 660 kg. I presume you had some fuel.
Looks like you exceeded both the max take off weight, and the max landing weight.
No wonder the poor thing did not want to fly on one.
I would not really blame Mussolini.
Baron driver, thanks, some facts to start with.
By memory I thought the 58 was 284 fpm at ISA so 290 at 20 sounds right.
The Baron had a greater R of C than the P68 so he didn't have much to play with.
Ok how about the other types.
By memory I thought the 58 was 284 fpm at ISA so 290 at 20 sounds right.
The Baron had a greater R of C than the P68 so he didn't have much to play with.
Ok how about the other types.
What was the lesson learned?
I had been following this thread years ago (because I am an interested P68 driver out of YPJT). And slightly surprised why nothing more than a summary report was issued by the ATSB given that there was a hull loss and six seriously injured people. I feel there has not been any clear education about what happened. Quiet and polite questions about lessons to be learned have drawn a blank.
In the summary: "the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight", could have a multitude of causes, from mishandling by the PIC through to mechanical problems, or even meteorological factors. Was there ever a take home message?
I have flown into and out of Rottnest (YRTI) many many times in the P68, I am also a glider pilot, and former dinghy racer, so I am very aware of micrometeorology. You need to be aware of the local factors at YRTI (RWY 27/09). There is a low range of sand hills less than 0.3 km to the south of the strip, and these can produce quite marked mechanical turbulence on short final to RWY 27, and also on initial climb-out on RWY 27 when a howling southerly sea breeze is blowing (known as the "Fremantle Doctor", can blow in excess of 25 knots and usually comes from 240 deg and then backs to 190 as the afternoon progresses). Max demonstrated crosswind for the P68 is 25 kts. I have landed at YRTI in conditions approaching max crosswind on RWY 27, you have to be switched on, it is a bumpy ride, and reject the approach sooner rather than later.
My own conservative personal minimums for the P68 is not loading more than max landing weight (yes it is different from MTOW) when going to Rotto, and paying close attention to the loading envelope, you have to load the P68 from back to front, otherwise the C of G is too far forward. Know the expected SE performance for the day and plan for that in your take off safety brief. Use the POH, it is actually your friend. If the forecast weather exceeds the handling parameters of the a/c, don't go. Much better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Date 12/11/2006
ATSB Ref #: 200606756
Category: Accident
Location: Rottnest Island, Aerodrome WA
Type: Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A P.68 (was VH-IYK)
Operation: Private
Op subtype: Unknown
Airspace: CTAF
Class:G
Summary: During the takeoff from runway 27 in crosswind conditions, the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight. The aircraft was destroyed when it impacted water during the forced landing.
YRTI Map reference:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-32..../data=!3m1!1e3
Stay safe and well everyone!
In the summary: "the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight", could have a multitude of causes, from mishandling by the PIC through to mechanical problems, or even meteorological factors. Was there ever a take home message?
I have flown into and out of Rottnest (YRTI) many many times in the P68, I am also a glider pilot, and former dinghy racer, so I am very aware of micrometeorology. You need to be aware of the local factors at YRTI (RWY 27/09). There is a low range of sand hills less than 0.3 km to the south of the strip, and these can produce quite marked mechanical turbulence on short final to RWY 27, and also on initial climb-out on RWY 27 when a howling southerly sea breeze is blowing (known as the "Fremantle Doctor", can blow in excess of 25 knots and usually comes from 240 deg and then backs to 190 as the afternoon progresses). Max demonstrated crosswind for the P68 is 25 kts. I have landed at YRTI in conditions approaching max crosswind on RWY 27, you have to be switched on, it is a bumpy ride, and reject the approach sooner rather than later.
My own conservative personal minimums for the P68 is not loading more than max landing weight (yes it is different from MTOW) when going to Rotto, and paying close attention to the loading envelope, you have to load the P68 from back to front, otherwise the C of G is too far forward. Know the expected SE performance for the day and plan for that in your take off safety brief. Use the POH, it is actually your friend. If the forecast weather exceeds the handling parameters of the a/c, don't go. Much better to be on the ground wishing you were in the air, rather than being in the air wishing you were on the ground.
Date 12/11/2006
ATSB Ref #: 200606756
Category: Accident
Location: Rottnest Island, Aerodrome WA
Type: Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A P.68 (was VH-IYK)
Operation: Private
Op subtype: Unknown
Airspace: CTAF
Class:G
Summary: During the takeoff from runway 27 in crosswind conditions, the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight. The aircraft was destroyed when it impacted water during the forced landing.
YRTI Map reference:
https://www.google.com.au/maps/@-32..../data=!3m1!1e3
Stay safe and well everyone!
P68. Rottnest
Two things that involve the P68.
One is that they have a 25 kt crosswind limit. High.
Two they require some 20 degrees of flap to take off otherwise they stick to the runway.
One is that they have a 25 kt crosswind limit. High.
Two they require some 20 degrees of flap to take off otherwise they stick to the runway.
Shortly after takeoff from Rottnest Island Airport, while in initial climb, the twin engine aircraft suffered a bird strike and crashed in a salt lake located near the airport. The aircraft was destroyed upon impact and all six occupants were injured.
I know nothing about this event - just Googled the above.
Thread resurrection aside I was surprised to find that a less than cursory search of the ATSB site revealed nothing at all about this.
As a potential user of a P68 it'd be good to know if this was just another result of the P68's infamous fuel system, a bird strike, or something else that I could learn from? With all due respect to baaa, without something from the ATSB I'm not all that enlightened...
FP.
As a potential user of a P68 it'd be good to know if this was just another result of the P68's infamous fuel system, a bird strike, or something else that I could learn from? With all due respect to baaa, without something from the ATSB I'm not all that enlightened...
FP.
without something from the ATSB I'm not all that enlightened...
Hi All,
The accident we are talking about was not a bird strike (Date 12/11/2006 ATSB Ref #: 200606756 "During the takeoff from runway 27 in crosswind conditions, the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight. The aircraft was destroyed when it impacted water during the forced landing.").
It is still not clear why the aircraft was "unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight". Taken on face value suggests some form of power plant failure, but why? The causes are multudinous. Mixtures set incorrectly? Prop pitch set incorrectly? Plug fouling? Fuel pump failure? Was the fuel boost pump on? Were phase one checks followed when the EFATO occurred? (This would've sorted out any mixture or prop problems). If there were six on board, was it in C of G? Was the plane above MTOW? How full were the tanks? Doing rapid changes in heading whilst taxying with less than 1/4 tanks can lead to fuel starvation because the fuel line ports become uncovered as the fuel sloshes about in the tanks. This is documented in the POH.
There have been two other incidents of P.68 involved in bird-strike at YRTI (25-Oct-2005 ATSB #: 200505499 and 23-Dec-2005 ATSB #: 200506892). The information on the link provided by #110 is incorrect: (please don't refer to: https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/cras...ottnest-island).
From #109: "Two they require some 20 degrees of flap to take off otherwise they stick to the runway."
With due respect, I disagree. The take off flap for the P68 is 1st stage at 15 deg, no more. I have found the handling characteristics of the P68 to be very docile. When trimmed correctly for take off, it is no more sticky than anything else I've flown. Also helps if you load the P68 correctly. Climbs away nicely on two engines.
I also found something in #66 to be interesting about adding 10 kts to the blue line speed as a decision point, my main concern about that is that it delays your decision so you are further down the runway and have less stopping options in front of you. I would much rather reject a take-off earlier in the piece. I know about speed decay, I have done winch launching with launch failure in gliders!
WRT #112 "I'm not surprised by that statement, given the excessive time normally taken by the ATSB to now issue reports, and the standard of those reports." I think that 16 years is long even for ATSB standards.
The accident we are talking about was not a bird strike (Date 12/11/2006 ATSB Ref #: 200606756 "During the takeoff from runway 27 in crosswind conditions, the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight. The aircraft was destroyed when it impacted water during the forced landing.").
It is still not clear why the aircraft was "unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight". Taken on face value suggests some form of power plant failure, but why? The causes are multudinous. Mixtures set incorrectly? Prop pitch set incorrectly? Plug fouling? Fuel pump failure? Was the fuel boost pump on? Were phase one checks followed when the EFATO occurred? (This would've sorted out any mixture or prop problems). If there were six on board, was it in C of G? Was the plane above MTOW? How full were the tanks? Doing rapid changes in heading whilst taxying with less than 1/4 tanks can lead to fuel starvation because the fuel line ports become uncovered as the fuel sloshes about in the tanks. This is documented in the POH.
There have been two other incidents of P.68 involved in bird-strike at YRTI (25-Oct-2005 ATSB #: 200505499 and 23-Dec-2005 ATSB #: 200506892). The information on the link provided by #110 is incorrect: (please don't refer to: https://www.baaa-acro.com/crash/cras...ottnest-island).
From #109: "Two they require some 20 degrees of flap to take off otherwise they stick to the runway."
With due respect, I disagree. The take off flap for the P68 is 1st stage at 15 deg, no more. I have found the handling characteristics of the P68 to be very docile. When trimmed correctly for take off, it is no more sticky than anything else I've flown. Also helps if you load the P68 correctly. Climbs away nicely on two engines.
I also found something in #66 to be interesting about adding 10 kts to the blue line speed as a decision point, my main concern about that is that it delays your decision so you are further down the runway and have less stopping options in front of you. I would much rather reject a take-off earlier in the piece. I know about speed decay, I have done winch launching with launch failure in gliders!
WRT #112 "I'm not surprised by that statement, given the excessive time normally taken by the ATSB to now issue reports, and the standard of those reports." I think that 16 years is long even for ATSB standards.
MALT68, where did you find the info below?
It doesn't show up in an ATSB search. Nor do the birdstrike incidents you mentioned!
It doesn't show up in an ATSB search. Nor do the birdstrike incidents you mentioned!
Date 12/11/2006
ATSB Ref #: 200606756
Category: Accident
Location: Rottnest Island, Aerodrome WA
Type: Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A P.68 (was VH-IYK)
Operation: Private
Op subtype: Unknown
Airspace: CTAF
Class:G
Summary: During the takeoff from runway 27 in crosswind conditions, the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight. The aircraft was destroyed when it impacted water during the forced landing.
ATSB Ref #: 200606756
Category: Accident
Location: Rottnest Island, Aerodrome WA
Type: Partenavia Costruzioni Aeronautiche S.p.A P.68 (was VH-IYK)
Operation: Private
Op subtype: Unknown
Airspace: CTAF
Class:G
Summary: During the takeoff from runway 27 in crosswind conditions, the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight. The aircraft was destroyed when it impacted water during the forced landing.
Hi Capt Fathom, no worries,
I found the data here: (ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database: Detailed Data Search)
ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database: Detailed Data Search
I used the filter terms:
Filter by state, airport or location: Rottnest Island Aerodrome
I used a 25 km radius of search.
Date of search: 01/01/2000 until present.
Generates an excel spreadsheet for you to review/search at leisure.
I hope this was helpful. 👍
I found the data here: (ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database: Detailed Data Search)
ATSB National Aviation Occurrence Database: Detailed Data Search
I used the filter terms:
Filter by state, airport or location: Rottnest Island Aerodrome
I used a 25 km radius of search.
Date of search: 01/01/2000 until present.
Generates an excel spreadsheet for you to review/search at leisure.
I hope this was helpful. 👍
Personally I have found that blue line plus 10kts works well in most situations. Thoughts anyone?
also found something in #66 to be interesting about adding 10 kts to the blue line speed as a decision point, my main concern about that is that it delays your decision so you are further down the runway and have less stopping options in front of you. I would much rather reject a take-off earlier in the piece. I know about speed decay, I have done winch launching with launch failure in gliders!
Thanks Lookleft (@ #116),
I am sure that if you got a whole load of light twin drivers in one room, debates about decision points for EFATO would rage. Agreed the "WTF is happening?" factor is another rich vein of discussion. I believe that being paranoid (think Murphy's law) during the take off and having an appropriate take off safety brief is very helpful. No doubt there is another thread about this waiting to be resurrected. Sorry for thread drift here...
Nevertheless, is anyone any the wiser as to what happened to VH-IYK to result in "the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight"?
I am sure that if you got a whole load of light twin drivers in one room, debates about decision points for EFATO would rage. Agreed the "WTF is happening?" factor is another rich vein of discussion. I believe that being paranoid (think Murphy's law) during the take off and having an appropriate take off safety brief is very helpful. No doubt there is another thread about this waiting to be resurrected. Sorry for thread drift here...
Nevertheless, is anyone any the wiser as to what happened to VH-IYK to result in "the aircraft was unable to generate sufficient power to sustain flight"?
