VH-PFT Recovered South East Tasmania
Thread Starter
VH-PFT Recovered South East Tasmania
Update from ABC with video footage of the Aircraft being loaded onto the Barge Kulanda
Sydney to Hobart plane crash: Sunken aircraft recovered, hauled onto barge - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The wreckage of a light plane that crashed into waters off Tasmania's south-east more than a week ago has been retrieved.The Cessna 172, which nose-dived into the sea near Cape Raoul on December 29, has been winched onto a barge that is now returning to Hobart.
The bodies of pilot Sam Langford, 29, and photographer Tim Jones, 61, are still inside the wreckage.
After crashing, the plane settled upside down on the seabed under 90 metres of water, which was beyond the operating depth of police divers.
Last Wednesday an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was used to thread rope around the plane's landing gear.
But after the plane was winched to a depth of 15 metres the rope snapped and it returned to the sea floor.
Calm conditions this morning allowed a second recovery attempt and the ROV was again used to attach a winching line.
The plane was capturing photographs of yachts racing in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race when it went down.
A number of yachts diverted from the race to offer assistance after seeing the plane go down.
The crash is being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Sydney to Hobart plane crash: Sunken aircraft recovered, hauled onto barge - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The wreckage of a light plane that crashed into waters off Tasmania's south-east more than a week ago has been retrieved.The Cessna 172, which nose-dived into the sea near Cape Raoul on December 29, has been winched onto a barge that is now returning to Hobart.
The bodies of pilot Sam Langford, 29, and photographer Tim Jones, 61, are still inside the wreckage.
After crashing, the plane settled upside down on the seabed under 90 metres of water, which was beyond the operating depth of police divers.
Last Wednesday an underwater remotely operated vehicle (ROV) was used to thread rope around the plane's landing gear.
But after the plane was winched to a depth of 15 metres the rope snapped and it returned to the sea floor.
Calm conditions this morning allowed a second recovery attempt and the ROV was again used to attach a winching line.
The plane was capturing photographs of yachts racing in the Sydney to Hobart Yacht Race when it went down.
A number of yachts diverted from the race to offer assistance after seeing the plane go down.
The crash is being investigated by the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Perth
Age: 41
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I was a friend of the photographer who died in the crash. He was a top bloke, and also my first boss, and didn't fire me when I turned up late for my first day at work because I was out flying. I didn't know the pilot personally. Both of them were too young to die.
Judging from the publicly-released photo taken just prior to the crash, the 172 was flying very low, probably under 100ft. Surely flying this low cannot be justified under almost any circumstances. I was recently flying Victor One (off the Sydney coast) at 500ft in a 172. I was distracted for just a few seconds with a map check and noticed I had dropped 100ft. That in itself was scary enough. I've always remembered John Freeman's words - descending below 500ft is entering the 'death zone'. It's not worth the risk.
Judging from the publicly-released photo taken just prior to the crash, the 172 was flying very low, probably under 100ft. Surely flying this low cannot be justified under almost any circumstances. I was recently flying Victor One (off the Sydney coast) at 500ft in a 172. I was distracted for just a few seconds with a map check and noticed I had dropped 100ft. That in itself was scary enough. I've always remembered John Freeman's words - descending below 500ft is entering the 'death zone'. It's not worth the risk.
Just for you DF my dear 
Buff
That outa buff out, bit of speed tape, good as new!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 172 VH-PFT
"The audio appears to be Jacinta Cooper, the Tasmanian skipper of Mistraal, contacting race control.
"Mayday, mayday, mayday. We have a plane in the water. Plane in the water at [coordinates] 43 14 147 50. This is Mistraal. Mistraal," she said.
Cooper and her husband Brett were completing their second Sydney to Hobart race, 20 years after their first attempt.
"We are approaching the plane, the plane is sinking," she said.
"Mistraal is standing by at the site.""
Sums it up pretty well:
CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 258 Flights over water
In summary:
"CIVIL AVIATION REGULATIONS 1988 - REG 258
Flights over water
(1) The pilot in command of the aircraft must not fly over water at a distance from land greater than the distance from which the aircraft could reach land if the engine, or, in the case of a multi-engined aircraft, the critical engine (being the engine the non-operation of which when the other engines are in operation gives the highest minimum speed at which the aircraft can be controlled) were inoperative.
Penalty: 10 penalty units."
The only part of the regulation that seems understated is the "Penalty". "10 penalty units" are insignificant when compared to drowning.
I am curious how high was the camera above the water, that took the photograph, from the deck of the ship and how far away was it?
I am curious which yacht the photographer was photographing from and which yacht was being photographed..
I am curious if there was any parallax.
I am curious about the distance of the camera operator for the Cessna 172.
I am curious what was the height of the yacht's mast.
I am curious about the surface winds direction and speed.
I am curious about the air density at that height above the water.
I am curious about the angle of bank.
I am curious about aircraft rudder trim setting and if any rudder was used and if the aircraft was in trim.
I am curious if the pilot had any training about ditching, as the aircraft is/was based on an island.
I am curious if the pilot had any forced landing training in a Cessna 172.
I am curious if the pilot ever had a Minimum Controllable Airspeed demonstration done and the effects of rudder or adverse yaw.
I am curious if the pilot ever had the 9:1 to possibly 12:1 Glide Ratio, of a Cessna 172, demonstrated to him.
I wonder if the pilot ever learned about Accelerated Stall.
I wonder where the pilot learned to fly and what the qualifications and overall experience were of his Instructor(s).
Imagine learning from someone using Instructing as a steppingstone, merely to build flying hours for his/her ATPL or next job or to get a chance at flying the next larger aircraft or a twin, for example. Oh, surely they know all the manoeuvers and the regulations, but do they know how to apply them, when it matters.
Compare what any pilots has learned and experienced, when he or she has 500 hours, 1,500 hours, 3,000 hours, 6,000 hours, 16,000 hours, for example.
This aircraft accident (with two fatalities) was preventable, from Sam's first flying lesson.
Last edited by FWRWATPLX2; 13th May 2015 at 08:20.
When you live....
If you're going to quote regulations, don't quote them out of context or only quote half.....
Otherwise you could make a motza standing at Wilsons Prom and Cape Otway writing down registrations......
I assume you've read the CASA approved Ops manual for the operator as well?
(3) It is a defence to a prosecution under subregulation (1) if the flight was:
(a) in accordance with directions issued by CASA; or
(a) in accordance with directions issued by CASA; or
I assume you've read the CASA approved Ops manual for the operator as well?
Most "accidents" are avoidable and this one was no different....
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re-read my post
UnderneathTheRadar If you're going to quote regulations, don't quote them out of context or only quote half.....
""Mayday, mayday, mayday. We have a plane in the water. Plane in the water at [coordinates] 43 14 147 50. This is Mistraal. Mistraal," she said.""
According to ATSB:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2014-192.aspx
"Initial inspection of the aircraft wreckage has not identified any mechanical failures that may have contributed to the accident. Damage to the aircraft structure confirmed that it impacted the water in a steep, nose-down attitude"
Take a look at the photo. Notice the height of the Cessna 172 above the water.
Play along with me, here:
How high is the yacht's mast? Guess. Approximately, 144 feet.
At the height above the water, the Cessna 172 was operating, maybe 250 feet (probably not), if the engine had a catastrophic failure the moment the photo was taken, how far would the aircraft be able to glide, straight ahead, assuming calm wind, 15°C, 1013.2 mb? Or, could it glide back and make a controlled ditching next to the yacht, in the photo?
How far could the Cessna 172 glide assuming a 10:1 ratio?
Next, plot 43:14S/147"50E.
How far off shore is that? Could the aircraft glide back to shore from that height above the water, if the engine failed?
How cold is the water? How long could a person survive in that water temperature, if the pilot and passenger had to ditch and stay afloat or could he and the 61 years old passenger swim that far or to the nearest yacht?
Using this very simple Risk Assessment in the Threat Error Management equation, does it matter what "the CASA approved Ops manual" says? You amaze me that you would even ask that question, "UnderneathTheRadar".
Typically, Ops Manuals tend to be more conservative than the regulations, though some can have some loose and ambiguous language.
The Pilot-in-Command is the Final Authority. He can always say, "Hell no! Too risky."
I guess I am calling into question the pilot's judgment. Why would the pilot fly that low over the water, that far off shore, in a single engine aircraft? I seriously doubt the CASA-approved Ops Manual would approve a single engine aeroplane flying that low over the water that far off shore, except for takeoff and approach to landing, Search and Rescue, Border Protection, Police work, et al.
Last edited by FWRWATPLX2; 13th May 2015 at 10:00. Reason: technical data
I am curious
Leave it to the experts, clearly you are not one.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Australia
Age: 34
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine failure? They were taking photos of boats.
It would have involved lots of turning, slow, sharp turning. I reckon it stalled.
Even the most novice of student could have at least ditched it at a landing attitude if indeed the engine had failed.
Yeah, we all make mistakes, and all the mistakes we make that don't kill us make us better. Unfortunately this one was just a bit too big
It would have involved lots of turning, slow, sharp turning. I reckon it stalled.
Even the most novice of student could have at least ditched it at a landing attitude if indeed the engine had failed.
Yeah, we all make mistakes, and all the mistakes we make that don't kill us make us better. Unfortunately this one was just a bit too big
To me the damage to the leading edges of the wings suggest that the a/c was in a nose down attitude when it hit the water.
That tends to indicate that it had stalled or stalled as a result of an engine failure.
However more qualified people than me will be applying their knowledge to the investigation.
Emeritus
That tends to indicate that it had stalled or stalled as a result of an engine failure.
However more qualified people than me will be applying their knowledge to the investigation.
Emeritus
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: .
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Resident Expert Bob the Aussie
Aussie Bob You appear to be asking questions that any pilot with a modicum of intelligence could work out without resorting to the internet.
You seem to hint at being an expert, Bob.
So, illuminate us.
How high was the camera above the water, that took the photograph, from the deck of the ship and how far away was it?
Was there any parallax?
What was the distance of the camera from the Cessna?
I mean I am trying to imply some benefit of the doubt.
What was the height of the yacht's mast? Quick research suggests the mast heights for those yachts are from 144 to just over 200 feet.
So, considering the camera height above sea level, parallax, distance, approximate mast height, what is the height of the Cessna 172 above the water?
Would you be there, that far off shore and that low, even if a CASA-approved Ops Manual suggests it is OK?
Would you consider lowering flaps in slow flight, before you yank and bank, hopefully in trim?
Would you consider the possible turbulence maybe even wake turbulence off that sail? What? Wake turbulence off a sail? Bet you never considered it, because it is not a wing, huh?
Are those convective clouds in the photo? I have a software program that enhances the photo, eliminating the haze.
As the aircraft appears straight and level, slightly nose high, what do you reckon the IAS or TAS was? Maybe 75 knots?
So, I was being generous to suggest the aircraft was 250 feet. If the yacht's mast height is 144 feet or just over 200 feet then, the Cessna 172 was approximately 100 feet above water, it would glide 1,000 feet, if a 10:1 ratio.
And, if a passenger asks you, "Bob, can you get closer?" or "Bob, can you get lower?" Would you, knowing all that you know about flying?
Would you consider the effect of the surface wind, maybe flying with a head wind to a 15 knot tail wind? Come on, Bob, would you land with a 10 or 15 knot tailwind?
What is the Air Density at 100 feet, 59°C, 1013.2mb and 0% Humidity, Bob?
How about changing just one variable, the humidity to 50% or 65%. How would that affect Air Density, Bob? Crap I live at just over 1,000 feet and the humidity in my house is 50%. So, how about over open sea, during the summer?
You suppose, Bob, that Air Density factors into the Lift Equation?
The accident photo clearly shows the right wing's leading edge is smashed flatter than the left wing, suggesting it impacted harder. If the engine was still operating, then what do suppose would cause that kind of damage?
Lend us your expertise, Bob. Maybe you taught him how to fly.
Last edited by FWRWATPLX2; 14th May 2015 at 05:34.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engaged in Aerial Work - that will take care of your altitude concerns.
AIP ENR 1.1-101 62.3 Will take care of your distance from land concerns.
So, Ops Manual notwithstanding, the flight looks legal.
Where are you going with this, just out of curiosity?
AIP ENR 1.1-101 62.3 Will take care of your distance from land concerns.
So, Ops Manual notwithstanding, the flight looks legal.
Where are you going with this, just out of curiosity?
When you live....
FWRWATPLX2
I got your pm and am unsurprised to learn you were acquainted with one of the victims given your strength of emotion on this. I feel for your loss but taking it out on those on this site is probably going to get this thread locked and remove sensible discussion about the accident.
Legal - probably - as you've been shown
Wise - depends
Tragic - yes
Unless I have understood wrongly, the photographer had done this same trip many times in the past - your comment that if I thought it was a good idea then I shouldn't fly a kite you should consider in that context.
I hope you can move on in time and really hope a sensible, useful investigation is completed and released so others can learn from what looks, from bleachers, like inexperience coupled with commercial pressure coupled with many other holes in the cheese to bring down a plane on a mission which it seems had done the same thing annually for many years.
UTR
I got your pm and am unsurprised to learn you were acquainted with one of the victims given your strength of emotion on this. I feel for your loss but taking it out on those on this site is probably going to get this thread locked and remove sensible discussion about the accident.
Legal - probably - as you've been shown
Wise - depends
Tragic - yes
Unless I have understood wrongly, the photographer had done this same trip many times in the past - your comment that if I thought it was a good idea then I shouldn't fly a kite you should consider in that context.
I hope you can move on in time and really hope a sensible, useful investigation is completed and released so others can learn from what looks, from bleachers, like inexperience coupled with commercial pressure coupled with many other holes in the cheese to bring down a plane on a mission which it seems had done the same thing annually for many years.
UTR
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FRWATPLX2
We all sympathise for your loss.
However, there are a raft of things that could have gone wrong on this occasion, none of which the investigation will be able to establish.
And, would the outcome have been any different in a multi? Or if a min alt of 500ft had been observed?
Probably not.
We all sympathise for your loss.
However, there are a raft of things that could have gone wrong on this occasion, none of which the investigation will be able to establish.
And, would the outcome have been any different in a multi? Or if a min alt of 500ft had been observed?
Probably not.
And therein lies the issue. Any flight in a light aircraft is inherently risky, add overwater operations, low altitude and less-than-perfect weather and the risks compound. Even a court recently ruled you accept the risks when you fly in a light aircraft...
That being said, whether or not you were emotionally connected to someone or not, trying to nitpick things like air density with a ridiculous 59*C or being arguing about the altitude to the nearest 1/4" isn't going to get you the answers you want and serves to only make you look like a **** particularly when you needlessly resort to childish personal attacks.
That being said, whether or not you were emotionally connected to someone or not, trying to nitpick things like air density with a ridiculous 59*C or being arguing about the altitude to the nearest 1/4" isn't going to get you the answers you want and serves to only make you look like a **** particularly when you needlessly resort to childish personal attacks.