Plane crash Chelsea?
Right-you-are Perspective. Spluttering engines on fire don't climb to 3,300ft in 3.5 NM or less.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: australia
Posts: 1,044
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the pilot was had a stoke or heart attack that will not be to hard to find. Atsb have one thing on there side on this accident and that is the aircraft didn't catch on fire and one would think that they will be able to recover if not most but all of the aircraft.
If it has had a bird strike there will be evidence of that which should be easy to find as we'll. but the main thing is no fire and there fore no lost evidence
If it has had a bird strike there will be evidence of that which should be easy to find as we'll. but the main thing is no fire and there fore no lost evidence
What was burning if the aircraft wasn't, the house?
Chelsea plane crash: Plane ?nosedives? and hits houses | News.com.au
Not destroyed by fire but pretty much melted.
Not destroyed by fire but pretty much melted.
ATSB Update
Originally Posted by The ATSB
History of the flight
On 14 October 2014, at 1321 Eastern Daylight-saving time,[1] the pilot of an amateur‑built Van’s RV-6A aircraft, registered VH-JON and being operated in the ‘Experimental Category’, reported taxiing for a local flight at Moorabbin Airport, Victoria. The aircraft was subsequently cleared by air traffic control for take-off from runway 17 Right at 1323 and to maintain runway heading to depart the control zone to the south. The aircraft was then observed on Airservices Australia surveillance radar climbing to 2,900 ft above mean sea level (AMSL) and tracking southbound via the coast, in accordance with the published departure procedures for Moorabbin Airport. After 1326:07 no further radar returns were received from the aircraft.
The aircraft was observed by witnesses descending rapidly before impacting the ground next to a house in the suburb of Chelsea, 8 km to the south of Moorabbin. The aircraft was destroyed by the impact and the pilot was fatally injured.
There were a number of small post-impact fires started by the accident that were subsequently extinguished by members of the public and the fire brigade. A number of houses and several cars also sustained significant damage as a result of the accident.
Pilot information
The pilot held commercial and private flight crew licences with an aeroplane category rating. The licences were endorsed with single- and multi-engine class ratings and design feature endorsements for manual propeller-pitch-control and retractable undercarriage. The licences were also endorsed with instrument flight with 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional instrument approach privileges and night visual flight operational ratings. Both ratings were restricted to single-engine aircraft.
The pilot held a current class 2 medical certificate, which meant that the pilot could only exercise the privileges of a private pilot licence. The certificate included restrictions that distance vision correction was to be worn by the pilot and reading vision correction was to be available while exercising the privileges of the licence. The pilot last underwent an aviation medical examination 12 days prior to the accident. During that examination the pilot reported a total of 1,659 flying hours, with 17 hours flown in the last 6 months.
It was reported that the pilot appeared to be well rested in the 72 hours prior to the accident. No medical or other issues were reported to family members by the pilot in that period.
Aircraft information
Civil Aviation Safety Authority records indicated that the aircraft was constructed in 1999. It was first registered as an amateur-built aircraft in 2003 by the pilot, who was also the registered owner and operator.
A search of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) occurrence database revealed that the aircraft was involved in two previous accidents. In 2007, the aircraft sustained an engine failure and damage during the resultant forced landing. The Honda V6 engine that was installed at the time was reportedly removed and a new Lycoming IO‑360 aircraft engine installed in its place. It was also reported that the damage was repaired and the aircraft returned to flying status.
The aircraft was again damaged during a landing accident in 2010 when the nose wheel collapsed and the propeller contacted the ground while the engine was running. The engine was reportedly replaced with another Lycoming IO‑360 engine, the damage repaired and the aircraft returned to flying status.
The aircraft was also reported to have been involved in an incident approximately 1 month prior to this October 2014 accident, when an engine fire occurred whilst the aircraft was taxiing at Moorabbin. The fire was extinguished with the assistance of other persons. It was reported that the engine and associated areas of the aircraft were inspected by the pilot, who reported to friends that there appeared to be no damage as a result of the fire.
Aircraft refuelling
None of the mobile refuelling agencies at Moorabbin reported supplying fuel to the aircraft on the day of the accident.
The Dynon EMS-D120 engine monitoring system fitted to the aircraft recorded data relating to the total amount of fuel on board (see the section titled Onboard recording devices). The last system-recorded date of an increase in the amount of fuel on board coincided with the last recorded date that the pilot purchased fuel (AVGAS 100 low-lead) from a self‑service bowser at Moorabbin.
The EMS-D120 data showed that the aircraft completed three separate flights over a period of about a month after that refuelling, totalling 2.1 hours. This did not include the accident flight.
Weather information
The weather conditions at the time were reported to include a moderate to strong southerly wind at 17 kt, with some mid-level cloud in the area. Visibility was reported to be greater than 10 km. These conditions were consistent with the forecasts for Moorabbin and the greater Melbourne area.
Communications
Examination of the recorded air traffic control radio transmissions for Moorabbin Tower and the associated flight information service frequency to the south of Moorabbin revealed no emergency broadcast from the pilot. There was no evidence of any partial transmissions, open‑microphone transmissions[2] or over-transmissions[3] during the flight.
Aircraft wreckage information
Wreckage examination
The aircraft impacted a house fence and adjoining laneway in a significant nose-down attitude at high speed. The initial impact was to the left wing, which indicated a left wing‑down attitude of about 10° at the time. Witness marks on the fence indicated a descent angle of about 35°.
The aircraft commenced breaking up after the initial impact, with the left wing remaining at the initial impact point and the remainder of the aircraft continuing along the laneway. The propeller and engine separated from the fuselage and came to rest approximately 48 m and 68 m respectively from the point of impact.
The vertical and horizontal tail surfaces also separated from the fuselage and from each other and were located along the wreckage trail. The right wing and remainder of the fuselage came to rest approximately 95 m from the impact point but remained largely intact.
The remainder of the aircraft, including the cockpit, was destroyed during the impact sequence. Items associated with the aircraft were located in the laneway up to 130 m from the point of impact.
All flight controls and major aircraft components, including the cockpit canopy, were identified at the accident site.
Examination of the fuselage revealed considerable oil coating on the external surfaces. Oil was also found on the upper surface of the right wing and right horizontal stabiliser (Figure 1). There was very little oil coating on the left horizontal stabiliser and none on the left wing. Examination of recovered fragments of the cockpit canopy also showed oil coating on their internal and external surfaces.
Figure 1: Horizontal stabilisers displaying right stabiliser oil coating
Source: ATSB
The engine and propeller were recovered for later technical examination under the supervision of the ATSB.
Recovered items
A number of aviation-related items were reported recovered at distances of up to 3 km from the accident site by members of the public and handed in to Victoria Police (Figure 2). These items included the pilot’s flight crew licence and aviation medical certificate, an aircraft pitot cover and warning flag, a flight bag, an En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA)[4] and a very high frequency (VHF) handheld transceiver and antenna.
Figure 2: Location of recovered aviation-related items relative to the accident site
Source: ATSB
Recorded information
Onboard recording devices
A number of electronic devices were recovered from the aircraft wreckage with the capability to record in-flight data. These included two Garmin global positioning system (GPS) units, a Dynon EFIS-D100 electronic flight information system and a Dynon EMS‑D120 engine monitoring system.
GPS units
Initial examination of the GPS units revealed significant damage. Further detailed examination is required to establish if any data can be recovered from either GPS.
EFIS-D100
Examination of the EFIS-D100 unit revealed that it was not configured for data logging. No relevant data was recovered from this unit.
EMS-D120
The EMS-D120 unit logged data from the accident flight. This included the aircraft’s GPS ground track and derived ground speed (Figure 3). When compared to the recorded radar data, the GPS ground track was consistent with the aircraft’s recorded radar track. No altitude or airspeed information was logged by the unit.
A number of engine operating parameters were also recorded by the EMS-D120.These parameters revealed that the engine appeared to be performing normally during the take‑off, climb to altitude and short cruise period. Work is ongoing to explain a decrease in the engine oil pressure about 7 seconds before the end of the recorded data.
The last valid data logged was time stamped at 1326:00.[5] The corresponding GPS position showed the aircraft approximately 640 m to the north of the accident site at that time.
Figure 3: Recovered data from the EMS-D120
Source: ATSB
Closed-circuit television footage
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of the aircraft as it taxied at Moorabbin that day revealed no apparent anomalies with the aircraft. The aircraft’s cockpit canopy was in the lowered position at that time.
Other CCTV security cameras at Chelsea captured the last seconds of the flight. Analysis of that footage confirmed a steep nose-down flight path and an aircraft speed of approximately 200 kt (370 km/hr) leading up to the impact with terrain.
Radar data
Examination of the recorded radar data showed the aircraft climbing out of Moorabbin on runway heading at 1323:53. Twenty-eight valid radar returns were recorded for the aircraft, which was transmitting radar transponder code 3000.[6] The last valid return was at 1326:07 and indicated an altitude of 2,500 ft. Other traffic in the vicinity was detected by radar at altitudes as low as 1,100 ft.
Further investigation
The investigation is continuing and will include examination of the:
On 14 October 2014, at 1321 Eastern Daylight-saving time,[1] the pilot of an amateur‑built Van’s RV-6A aircraft, registered VH-JON and being operated in the ‘Experimental Category’, reported taxiing for a local flight at Moorabbin Airport, Victoria. The aircraft was subsequently cleared by air traffic control for take-off from runway 17 Right at 1323 and to maintain runway heading to depart the control zone to the south. The aircraft was then observed on Airservices Australia surveillance radar climbing to 2,900 ft above mean sea level (AMSL) and tracking southbound via the coast, in accordance with the published departure procedures for Moorabbin Airport. After 1326:07 no further radar returns were received from the aircraft.
The aircraft was observed by witnesses descending rapidly before impacting the ground next to a house in the suburb of Chelsea, 8 km to the south of Moorabbin. The aircraft was destroyed by the impact and the pilot was fatally injured.
There were a number of small post-impact fires started by the accident that were subsequently extinguished by members of the public and the fire brigade. A number of houses and several cars also sustained significant damage as a result of the accident.
Pilot information
The pilot held commercial and private flight crew licences with an aeroplane category rating. The licences were endorsed with single- and multi-engine class ratings and design feature endorsements for manual propeller-pitch-control and retractable undercarriage. The licences were also endorsed with instrument flight with 3-dimensional and 2-dimensional instrument approach privileges and night visual flight operational ratings. Both ratings were restricted to single-engine aircraft.
The pilot held a current class 2 medical certificate, which meant that the pilot could only exercise the privileges of a private pilot licence. The certificate included restrictions that distance vision correction was to be worn by the pilot and reading vision correction was to be available while exercising the privileges of the licence. The pilot last underwent an aviation medical examination 12 days prior to the accident. During that examination the pilot reported a total of 1,659 flying hours, with 17 hours flown in the last 6 months.
It was reported that the pilot appeared to be well rested in the 72 hours prior to the accident. No medical or other issues were reported to family members by the pilot in that period.
Aircraft information
Civil Aviation Safety Authority records indicated that the aircraft was constructed in 1999. It was first registered as an amateur-built aircraft in 2003 by the pilot, who was also the registered owner and operator.
A search of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) occurrence database revealed that the aircraft was involved in two previous accidents. In 2007, the aircraft sustained an engine failure and damage during the resultant forced landing. The Honda V6 engine that was installed at the time was reportedly removed and a new Lycoming IO‑360 aircraft engine installed in its place. It was also reported that the damage was repaired and the aircraft returned to flying status.
The aircraft was again damaged during a landing accident in 2010 when the nose wheel collapsed and the propeller contacted the ground while the engine was running. The engine was reportedly replaced with another Lycoming IO‑360 engine, the damage repaired and the aircraft returned to flying status.
The aircraft was also reported to have been involved in an incident approximately 1 month prior to this October 2014 accident, when an engine fire occurred whilst the aircraft was taxiing at Moorabbin. The fire was extinguished with the assistance of other persons. It was reported that the engine and associated areas of the aircraft were inspected by the pilot, who reported to friends that there appeared to be no damage as a result of the fire.
Aircraft refuelling
None of the mobile refuelling agencies at Moorabbin reported supplying fuel to the aircraft on the day of the accident.
The Dynon EMS-D120 engine monitoring system fitted to the aircraft recorded data relating to the total amount of fuel on board (see the section titled Onboard recording devices). The last system-recorded date of an increase in the amount of fuel on board coincided with the last recorded date that the pilot purchased fuel (AVGAS 100 low-lead) from a self‑service bowser at Moorabbin.
The EMS-D120 data showed that the aircraft completed three separate flights over a period of about a month after that refuelling, totalling 2.1 hours. This did not include the accident flight.
Weather information
The weather conditions at the time were reported to include a moderate to strong southerly wind at 17 kt, with some mid-level cloud in the area. Visibility was reported to be greater than 10 km. These conditions were consistent with the forecasts for Moorabbin and the greater Melbourne area.
Communications
Examination of the recorded air traffic control radio transmissions for Moorabbin Tower and the associated flight information service frequency to the south of Moorabbin revealed no emergency broadcast from the pilot. There was no evidence of any partial transmissions, open‑microphone transmissions[2] or over-transmissions[3] during the flight.
Aircraft wreckage information
Wreckage examination
The aircraft impacted a house fence and adjoining laneway in a significant nose-down attitude at high speed. The initial impact was to the left wing, which indicated a left wing‑down attitude of about 10° at the time. Witness marks on the fence indicated a descent angle of about 35°.
The aircraft commenced breaking up after the initial impact, with the left wing remaining at the initial impact point and the remainder of the aircraft continuing along the laneway. The propeller and engine separated from the fuselage and came to rest approximately 48 m and 68 m respectively from the point of impact.
The vertical and horizontal tail surfaces also separated from the fuselage and from each other and were located along the wreckage trail. The right wing and remainder of the fuselage came to rest approximately 95 m from the impact point but remained largely intact.
The remainder of the aircraft, including the cockpit, was destroyed during the impact sequence. Items associated with the aircraft were located in the laneway up to 130 m from the point of impact.
All flight controls and major aircraft components, including the cockpit canopy, were identified at the accident site.
Examination of the fuselage revealed considerable oil coating on the external surfaces. Oil was also found on the upper surface of the right wing and right horizontal stabiliser (Figure 1). There was very little oil coating on the left horizontal stabiliser and none on the left wing. Examination of recovered fragments of the cockpit canopy also showed oil coating on their internal and external surfaces.
Figure 1: Horizontal stabilisers displaying right stabiliser oil coating
Source: ATSB
The engine and propeller were recovered for later technical examination under the supervision of the ATSB.
Recovered items
A number of aviation-related items were reported recovered at distances of up to 3 km from the accident site by members of the public and handed in to Victoria Police (Figure 2). These items included the pilot’s flight crew licence and aviation medical certificate, an aircraft pitot cover and warning flag, a flight bag, an En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA)[4] and a very high frequency (VHF) handheld transceiver and antenna.
Figure 2: Location of recovered aviation-related items relative to the accident site
Source: ATSB
Recorded information
Onboard recording devices
A number of electronic devices were recovered from the aircraft wreckage with the capability to record in-flight data. These included two Garmin global positioning system (GPS) units, a Dynon EFIS-D100 electronic flight information system and a Dynon EMS‑D120 engine monitoring system.
GPS units
Initial examination of the GPS units revealed significant damage. Further detailed examination is required to establish if any data can be recovered from either GPS.
EFIS-D100
Examination of the EFIS-D100 unit revealed that it was not configured for data logging. No relevant data was recovered from this unit.
EMS-D120
The EMS-D120 unit logged data from the accident flight. This included the aircraft’s GPS ground track and derived ground speed (Figure 3). When compared to the recorded radar data, the GPS ground track was consistent with the aircraft’s recorded radar track. No altitude or airspeed information was logged by the unit.
A number of engine operating parameters were also recorded by the EMS-D120.These parameters revealed that the engine appeared to be performing normally during the take‑off, climb to altitude and short cruise period. Work is ongoing to explain a decrease in the engine oil pressure about 7 seconds before the end of the recorded data.
The last valid data logged was time stamped at 1326:00.[5] The corresponding GPS position showed the aircraft approximately 640 m to the north of the accident site at that time.
Figure 3: Recovered data from the EMS-D120
Source: ATSB
Closed-circuit television footage
Closed-circuit television (CCTV) footage of the aircraft as it taxied at Moorabbin that day revealed no apparent anomalies with the aircraft. The aircraft’s cockpit canopy was in the lowered position at that time.
Other CCTV security cameras at Chelsea captured the last seconds of the flight. Analysis of that footage confirmed a steep nose-down flight path and an aircraft speed of approximately 200 kt (370 km/hr) leading up to the impact with terrain.
Radar data
Examination of the recorded radar data showed the aircraft climbing out of Moorabbin on runway heading at 1323:53. Twenty-eight valid radar returns were recorded for the aircraft, which was transmitting radar transponder code 3000.[6] The last valid return was at 1326:07 and indicated an altitude of 2,500 ft. Other traffic in the vicinity was detected by radar at altitudes as low as 1,100 ft.
Further investigation
The investigation is continuing and will include examination of the:
- engine and propeller
- cockpit canopy locking mechanisms in a number of similar aircraft
- construction, maintenance and repair history of the aircraft
- viability of recovering additional data from the accident‑damaged GPS units
- radar data from a number of additional radar heads to determine if any further returns were recorded from the aircraft
- pilot’s medical and flying history.
Interesting preliminary report and quite a few nuggets of information in there, thanks for posting it.
If I'm reading this right, the engine sprung an oil leak and the canopy was opened up possibly due to smoke in the cockpit? I only say that because one would assume that you could control the aircraft safely with oil coming up from the front of the canopy and opening the canopy would be of no benefit.
As for how a handheld radio and a flight bag both of a reasonable mass and weight could end up such a distance away from the crash site, did the aircraft roll inverted? It's a pity the other dynon wasn't logging.
If I'm reading this right, the engine sprung an oil leak and the canopy was opened up possibly due to smoke in the cockpit? I only say that because one would assume that you could control the aircraft safely with oil coming up from the front of the canopy and opening the canopy would be of no benefit.
As for how a handheld radio and a flight bag both of a reasonable mass and weight could end up such a distance away from the crash site, did the aircraft roll inverted? It's a pity the other dynon wasn't logging.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: YMMB
Age: 58
Posts: 703
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting point.
After a couple of seconds inverted the oil pressure would drop and it's likely some oil would be lost from the engine. This might also explain why contents of the plane were found a distance from the crash site.
The fact that there were no transmissions may also mean pilot incapacitation.
After a couple of seconds inverted the oil pressure would drop and it's likely some oil would be lost from the engine. This might also explain why contents of the plane were found a distance from the crash site.
The fact that there were no transmissions may also mean pilot incapacitation.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Squawky
You may be onto it. There was allegedly an engine bay fire prior to this? Damaged hose unnoticed? Subsequent failure of the hose could be a possibility.
Even still, many pilots have had oil up the windscreen and oil smoke in the cabin, to crash it like that so far inland and away from the water? Hard to understand but possible.
Looks like a good report might follow. I hope they publish the data.
You may be onto it. There was allegedly an engine bay fire prior to this? Damaged hose unnoticed? Subsequent failure of the hose could be a possibility.
Even still, many pilots have had oil up the windscreen and oil smoke in the cabin, to crash it like that so far inland and away from the water? Hard to understand but possible.
Looks like a good report might follow. I hope they publish the data.
On a side note Jabba it's great to see so many reports of crashes with Dynons or similar avionics fitted. It makes for a very quick initial analysis of the crash and will significantly reduce the cost of investigations as often the data tells the whole story. Long gone will be the trolling through witness statements and trying to piece together facts from scerics of information.
When you live....
it's great to see so many reports of crashes with Dynons or similar avionics fitted
Bit like the fireman who told the news it was lucky that the crashed plane had run out of fuel because otherwise there might have been a fire...
UTR
You know what I mean.
Everyone says aviation is behind the 8 ball in Australia but we are quickly ending up with a fleet of aircraft with some funky recording equipment installed; as good as black boxes. The automotive sector needs to catch up.
Roll for fun? Doubt it. The oil on the canopy is a key sign.
Everyone says aviation is behind the 8 ball in Australia but we are quickly ending up with a fleet of aircraft with some funky recording equipment installed; as good as black boxes. The automotive sector needs to catch up.
Roll for fun? Doubt it. The oil on the canopy is a key sign.
Last edited by Squawk7700; 4th Dec 2014 at 04:19.
I've had one for years, you'd be amazed what I've caught on it. Straight to YouTube. Actually, perhaps you wouldn't be surprised, there's a lot of tossers on the road especially this guy in a red Corvette I saw the other day, probably having a mid-life crisis. Some take their videos to the cop shop when they record illegal things however I don't think I'll end up doing that; they probably *love* people bringing in their dash can videos.
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Roll for fun? Doubt it. The oil on the canopy is a key sign.
But oil all over the right hand side of the aircraft, right to the tail and empennage, that to me, indicates a major failure somewhere, and possible damage to the airframe from high speed engine components flying all directions..
but then again, a bit of oil can go a long way....
Forget about a "roll for fun". The Chelsea area is part of the corridor into and out of YMMB. No sane pilot will be doing anything other than looking for traffic all the way to Carrum which is past Chelsea.
I think the state of the engine will tell ATSB something.
I think the state of the engine will tell ATSB something.