One Dead in Northland plane crash
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maun, Botswana
Age: 37
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You generally don't stir up thought by being rude. Wether you stated "not to sound rude" or anything, you still did.
For a C206 not to get airbourne in that length of strip, well the alarm bells are ringing.
The weight and balance of a 206 is simple.
Can you close the doors? Yes. Check, weight is ok.
When you push tail down, does it come back up? Yes. Check, Balance is fine.
40 degree heat on a sand runway and they will get airbourne and climb. (May have to raise the collective a bit to get airbourne)
But the are impressive doing a beat-up. They make a good noise. Purely for scaring the zebra and such off the runway though...
For a C206 not to get airbourne in that length of strip, well the alarm bells are ringing.
The weight and balance of a 206 is simple.
Can you close the doors? Yes. Check, weight is ok.
When you push tail down, does it come back up? Yes. Check, Balance is fine.
40 degree heat on a sand runway and they will get airbourne and climb. (May have to raise the collective a bit to get airbourne)
But the are impressive doing a beat-up. They make a good noise. Purely for scaring the zebra and such off the runway though...
Ya must be going a bit troppo there seeing zebras and collectives in a C206!
Unless of course ya flyin a Bell in Africa. I'd be a little worried though if a saw you pushing down on the tail for w&b purposes (in a B206)
Unless of course ya flyin a Bell in Africa. I'd be a little worried though if a saw you pushing down on the tail for w&b purposes (in a B206)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The weight and balance of a 206 is simple.
Can you close the doors? Yes. Check, weight is ok.
When you push tail down, does it come back up? Yes. Check, Balance is fine.
Can you close the doors? Yes. Check, weight is ok.
When you push tail down, does it come back up? Yes. Check, Balance is fine.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd take it on face value until otherwise advised.
Temporary Strip
Wind gust on takeoff
Hit a vehicle
Have some of us not been there before? (as in this situation)
Temporary strip - Skinny and bumpy driveway into a property
Wind gust on takeoff - a bit of turbulence over the trees
Hit a vehicle - strayed off a bit to the side on liftoff due to the wind and hit the vehicle with loved ones that was watching us depart.
and tragedy strikes...
Not a far fetched story at all.
Temporary Strip
Wind gust on takeoff
Hit a vehicle
Have some of us not been there before? (as in this situation)
Temporary strip - Skinny and bumpy driveway into a property
Wind gust on takeoff - a bit of turbulence over the trees
Hit a vehicle - strayed off a bit to the side on liftoff due to the wind and hit the vehicle with loved ones that was watching us depart.
and tragedy strikes...
Not a far fetched story at all.
Baron Beeza, the DC3 at Loki was a good example, got some photos somewhere taken by Mark S (with the 748). Assume other ref was to the white buff?
Last edited by Ndegi; 18th Mar 2010 at 12:55.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maun, Botswana
Age: 37
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not troppo, just in Botswana at the moment...
Raising the collective is a little harder to imagine in a 206 than in the Airvan. There is that little lever in the airvan on your right hand side, reach down, grab it, lift it up a notch and you get off the ground no worries. Well at least high enough to clear the fence/van.
Quick! Retentive PPLers go tell the 250hr C-cat instructor what you have just learnt!
XXX, the story sounds good, but the accident happened 200m after takeoff.
A empty 206, even with full tanks and a bag or 2 is going to clear that no hassles whatsoever.
Im doing that in conditions with a density altitude of close to 8000ft and overweight, we clear trees much higher than a van.
Out at One Tree Point/ Ruakaka where that accident happened, the performance is at sea level.
No I'm not trying to sound like a godlike pilot at all, personally I think that the witness statements may be trying to cover up what has unfolded or creative media.
The way the plane is smashed up looks like a high speed impact, not something at around 60kts.
Its either mechanical (Which will soon come out) or human error.
But I do agree with you in one point. It is a tragedy. And I feel truely sorry for the family. I've met the guy a few times and he was a decent bloke.
We all make mistakes, unfortunatly, aviation isnt forgiving when that chain of events does come to play.
Raising the collective is a little harder to imagine in a 206 than in the Airvan. There is that little lever in the airvan on your right hand side, reach down, grab it, lift it up a notch and you get off the ground no worries. Well at least high enough to clear the fence/van.
Quick! Retentive PPLers go tell the 250hr C-cat instructor what you have just learnt!
XXX, the story sounds good, but the accident happened 200m after takeoff.
A empty 206, even with full tanks and a bag or 2 is going to clear that no hassles whatsoever.
Im doing that in conditions with a density altitude of close to 8000ft and overweight, we clear trees much higher than a van.
Out at One Tree Point/ Ruakaka where that accident happened, the performance is at sea level.
No I'm not trying to sound like a godlike pilot at all, personally I think that the witness statements may be trying to cover up what has unfolded or creative media.
The way the plane is smashed up looks like a high speed impact, not something at around 60kts.
Its either mechanical (Which will soon come out) or human error.
But I do agree with you in one point. It is a tragedy. And I feel truely sorry for the family. I've met the guy a few times and he was a decent bloke.
We all make mistakes, unfortunatly, aviation isnt forgiving when that chain of events does come to play.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
XXX
Yeah OK now explain how the aircraft travelling 200m before hitting anything fits in with your theory... Not a lot of trees about at One Tree Point either (which is where it happened).
But yeah, other than that...
I'm in trouble again, aren't I...?
Yeah OK now explain how the aircraft travelling 200m before hitting anything fits in with your theory... Not a lot of trees about at One Tree Point either (which is where it happened).
But yeah, other than that...
I'm in trouble again, aren't I...?
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Baron Beeza, the DC3 at Loki was a good example, got some photos somewhere taken by Mark S (with the 748). Assume other ref was to the white buff?
http://www.pprune.org/aviation-histo...sh-1992-a.html
YouTube - Fatal plane crash - DH4 Caribou with controls locked
The two accidents that came to mind.. when I believed that the media were talking about a YAK involvement. Probably not so relevant with a C206 that it turned out to be the following day.
The DC3 at Loki rotated, became airborne, then drifted off the centre line taking out several aircraft parked down the side of the strip. My memory has one, a Twin Otter with the crew in place engines running, - they were clipped which removed the top of the cockpit. Was it them or the DC3 that had to have the engines extinguished by the fire truck ? (It was a PT6 DC3).
I was involved with the White Buffalo about that time, also with Trident and the King Air's.
I may be able to find some photos here on the internet.
Last edited by baron_beeza; 19th Mar 2010 at 03:59.
GG, were you using Loading System KILO when flying the 207's???
You no you got a tad carried away when an Airvan falls on it's arse.........
Preliminary Report out
Preliminary Report
ZK-SKT Collision with Vehicle, Marsden Cove
12 March 2010
Abstract
At 1457 hours New Zealand Daylight Time on 12 March 2010 ZK-SKT, a Cessna U206G,
took off from a private airstrip at the Marsden Cove housing development for a flight to North
Shore Aerodrome, conducted under visual flight rules. The aircraft had no significant load
onboard and the pilot was the only occupant. Shortly after the aircraft lifted off from the
ground, it was seen to continue to fly straight ahead at an altitude of between four to ten feet
above the ground. After travelling approximately 180 metres beyond the end of the airstrip at
this altitude, the right wing tip collided with a van parked on an access track. The aircraft was
destroyed and the pilot received fatal injuries.
Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North Shore
Aerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove. The accident flight was the last in a series
of three flights that day.
At approximately 1430 hours, the site manager gave the pilot a lift to the aircraft situated at
the airstrip on the Marsden Cove housing development. After ensuring that the airstrip was
clear, the Site Manager parked his van beyond the end of the airstrip.
The Site Manager saw the aircraft lift off normally, but it did not continue to climb away.
The aircraft flew parallel with the ground and was seen to build speed with no change in the
engine note, which appeared to be at full takeoff power. The aircraft continued to follow the
airstrip heading close to the ground and when it was close to a van parked 180 metres from
the end of the airstrip it “pulled up and banked” whereby the right wing tip struck the bonnet
of the van, windscreen and drivers side roof pillar. The aircraft crashed 50 metres beyond the
van in a paddock adjacent to the access track and was consumed by fire.
The occupants of the van were uninjured but the pilot did not survive the accident.
Injuries to persons
The pilot received fatal injuries.
Pilot information
The pilot held a Part 61 Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplane) issued in May 2008. He had a
total of approximately 300 hours flying experience at the time of the accident of which
approximately 100 hours was on type. The pilot had a current Class II Medical Certificate at
the time of the accident.
Weather conditions
On the day of the accident gusty south-westerly winds prevailed, which led to mechanical
turbulence, particularly around the airstrip due to its geographical location and topography. It
was estimated that the wind was approximately 20 knots gusting to 30 knots from the
direction of 200 degrees magnetic which was approximately from 20 degrees left of the
centreline of the airstrip.
Wreckage and impact information
The right wingtip and aileron immediately separated from the aircraft after the collision with
the van. The aircraft continued to fly for over 50 metres beyond the van, striking an earth
bank with the right wing and finally coming to rest inverted, engulfed in flames in a paddock
adjacent to the access track immediately beyond the earth bank. The engine and both wings
separated from the fuselage and the adaptor flange sheared away from the crankshaft
separating the propeller from the engine. There was evidence that this was a high speed
impact with the engine producing significant power output when the propeller struck the
ground.
Most of the centre fuselage was consumed by fire. Pre-impact flight control integrity was
established as far as possible at the accident site. The accident was not survivable.
Ongoing investigation activities
The investigation is continuing and will include examination of:
• The aircraft’s maintenance history
• Post mortem report
• The pilot’s background and experience
• Prevailing weather conditions at the airstrip
• Possible human factors that might have influenced the pilot’s decision making.
If any person has information which may assist with the investigation of this accident then
they may contact the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand at [email protected] CAA
accident investigations are conducted in accordance with ICAO guidelines. The sole objective
of such investigations is the prevention of accidents by determining the contributing factors or
causes and then implementing appropriate preventive measures - in other words restoring
safety margins to provide an acceptable level of risk.
The focus of CAA safety investigations is to establish the causes of the accident on the
balance of probability. Accident investigations do not always identify one dominant or
‘proximate’ cause. Often, an aviation accident is the last event in a chain of several events or
factors, each of which may contribute to a greater or lesser degree, to the final outcome.
ZK-SKT Collision with Vehicle, Marsden Cove
12 March 2010
Abstract
At 1457 hours New Zealand Daylight Time on 12 March 2010 ZK-SKT, a Cessna U206G,
took off from a private airstrip at the Marsden Cove housing development for a flight to North
Shore Aerodrome, conducted under visual flight rules. The aircraft had no significant load
onboard and the pilot was the only occupant. Shortly after the aircraft lifted off from the
ground, it was seen to continue to fly straight ahead at an altitude of between four to ten feet
above the ground. After travelling approximately 180 metres beyond the end of the airstrip at
this altitude, the right wing tip collided with a van parked on an access track. The aircraft was
destroyed and the pilot received fatal injuries.
Factual Information
The purpose of the flight was for the pilot to return to his home base at North Shore
Aerodrome after a business trip to Marsden Cove. The accident flight was the last in a series
of three flights that day.
At approximately 1430 hours, the site manager gave the pilot a lift to the aircraft situated at
the airstrip on the Marsden Cove housing development. After ensuring that the airstrip was
clear, the Site Manager parked his van beyond the end of the airstrip.
The Site Manager saw the aircraft lift off normally, but it did not continue to climb away.
The aircraft flew parallel with the ground and was seen to build speed with no change in the
engine note, which appeared to be at full takeoff power. The aircraft continued to follow the
airstrip heading close to the ground and when it was close to a van parked 180 metres from
the end of the airstrip it “pulled up and banked” whereby the right wing tip struck the bonnet
of the van, windscreen and drivers side roof pillar. The aircraft crashed 50 metres beyond the
van in a paddock adjacent to the access track and was consumed by fire.
The occupants of the van were uninjured but the pilot did not survive the accident.
Injuries to persons
The pilot received fatal injuries.
Pilot information
The pilot held a Part 61 Private Pilot’s Licence (Aeroplane) issued in May 2008. He had a
total of approximately 300 hours flying experience at the time of the accident of which
approximately 100 hours was on type. The pilot had a current Class II Medical Certificate at
the time of the accident.
Weather conditions
On the day of the accident gusty south-westerly winds prevailed, which led to mechanical
turbulence, particularly around the airstrip due to its geographical location and topography. It
was estimated that the wind was approximately 20 knots gusting to 30 knots from the
direction of 200 degrees magnetic which was approximately from 20 degrees left of the
centreline of the airstrip.
Wreckage and impact information
The right wingtip and aileron immediately separated from the aircraft after the collision with
the van. The aircraft continued to fly for over 50 metres beyond the van, striking an earth
bank with the right wing and finally coming to rest inverted, engulfed in flames in a paddock
adjacent to the access track immediately beyond the earth bank. The engine and both wings
separated from the fuselage and the adaptor flange sheared away from the crankshaft
separating the propeller from the engine. There was evidence that this was a high speed
impact with the engine producing significant power output when the propeller struck the
ground.
Most of the centre fuselage was consumed by fire. Pre-impact flight control integrity was
established as far as possible at the accident site. The accident was not survivable.
Ongoing investigation activities
The investigation is continuing and will include examination of:
• The aircraft’s maintenance history
• Post mortem report
• The pilot’s background and experience
• Prevailing weather conditions at the airstrip
• Possible human factors that might have influenced the pilot’s decision making.
If any person has information which may assist with the investigation of this accident then
they may contact the Civil Aviation Authority of New Zealand at [email protected] CAA
accident investigations are conducted in accordance with ICAO guidelines. The sole objective
of such investigations is the prevention of accidents by determining the contributing factors or
causes and then implementing appropriate preventive measures - in other words restoring
safety margins to provide an acceptable level of risk.
The focus of CAA safety investigations is to establish the causes of the accident on the
balance of probability. Accident investigations do not always identify one dominant or
‘proximate’ cause. Often, an aviation accident is the last event in a chain of several events or
factors, each of which may contribute to a greater or lesser degree, to the final outcome.
The sole objective of the investigation of an accident or incident shall be the
prevention of
accidents and incidents. It is not the purpose of this activity to apportion blame or liability
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It would be interesting to know what position his flaps were in.. There is a possibility that the pilot raised the flaps as airspeed was increasing whilst on a low run down the strip resulting in a little sink which combined with a bit of mechanical turbulence could have contributed to the result.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: NZ
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ZK850 I honestly think the flaps were in the Phucked position along with the fuselarge and the airframe when it hit the ground.
A light 206 with full pwr doing a beatup down a strip till the end and pulling up is the best feeling in the world next to doing the same thing in a P51 mustang,
However when there is a van on the field at the end and one misjudges the wing to van clearance we can debate untill the cows come home....
The facts are: beatup, hit van, crash burn die..
Does anyone disagree?
A light 206 with full pwr doing a beatup down a strip till the end and pulling up is the best feeling in the world next to doing the same thing in a P51 mustang,
However when there is a van on the field at the end and one misjudges the wing to van clearance we can debate untill the cows come home....
The facts are: beatup, hit van, crash burn die..
Does anyone disagree?
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree at all in fact I think you are probably right. But the question I raised was that surely the investigators should be able to tell what stage the flaps were set at and that it is a possibly he chose a bad time / place / height to raise them.
At 300 odd hours some people are playing around with different methods e.t.c more so than any other stage in their flying? (please feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.)
Bloody tragic.
At 300 odd hours some people are playing around with different methods e.t.c more so than any other stage in their flying? (please feel free to correct me if you think I am wrong.)
Bloody tragic.
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Nz
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't disagree at all in fact I think you are probably right. I was just saying that surely the investigators could tell what stage the flaps were set.
Assuming he used some flap for take off it is conceivable that the pilot chose a poor time / place / height to raise his flaps.
However you are probably right in saying that being that light would not have made much difference.
At 300 odd hours it might be fair to say that people are starting to experiment with different ways of operating aircraft more so than any other stage in their flying? ( please correct me if you think I am wrong.)
Bloody tragic
Assuming he used some flap for take off it is conceivable that the pilot chose a poor time / place / height to raise his flaps.
However you are probably right in saying that being that light would not have made much difference.
At 300 odd hours it might be fair to say that people are starting to experiment with different ways of operating aircraft more so than any other stage in their flying? ( please correct me if you think I am wrong.)
Bloody tragic
Guest
Posts: n/a
850
There's experimenting and then there's getting airbourne, flying parallel to the ground towards people you know and then pulling up, turning. The 300hrs is the inexperience in judging 1. the distance from wingtip to obstacle and 2. doing this at all. Unfortunately we all go through this stage.
There's experimenting and then there's getting airbourne, flying parallel to the ground towards people you know and then pulling up, turning. The 300hrs is the inexperience in judging 1. the distance from wingtip to obstacle and 2. doing this at all. Unfortunately we all go through this stage.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PHucked up a beatup, black and white.