NT C210
Realistically, I cannot see this being a full size adult coffin if there were 2 POB. My question would be was it netted down or strapped, and as they were going to YELD they would have been carrying the detached seats plus gear for the YELD base (because you always have some stuff to take out to YELD) and all that should have been tied/netted as well.
..Waiting for the ATSB report.
rutan - a loose 205L drum ??? Where was that ?
..Waiting for the ATSB report.
rutan - a loose 205L drum ??? Where was that ?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has to be a record for pprune for the cause of the crash to be determined!
Despite terrential rains and adverse forecasts, a moving coffin is being blamed??? Surely they take all kinds of freight daily and it could move at any time??? Is it that it's a coffin that makes it a game changer???
Despite terrential rains and adverse forecasts, a moving coffin is being blamed??? Surely they take all kinds of freight daily and it could move at any time??? Is it that it's a coffin that makes it a game changer???
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This has to be a record for pprune for the cause of the crash to be determined!
Despite terrential rains and adverse forecasts, a moving coffin is being blamed??? Surely they take all kinds of freight daily and it could move at any time??? Is it that it's a coffin that makes it a game changer???
Despite terrential rains and adverse forecasts, a moving coffin is being blamed??? Surely they take all kinds of freight daily and it could move at any time??? Is it that it's a coffin that makes it a game changer???
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not a coffin!
ABC news reporting today that they were carrying a body bag. NOT A COFFIN.
You don't know what you're talking about. The "flat" attitude indicates the aircraft was either stalled, or had lost its wings.
Given the reports of the distance between the wings and the fuselage, plus the appearance of the wings, it would strongly appear that the wings had separated from the aircraft.
The "flat" attitude just happened to be the attitude at the time of impact with the ground. Prior to that, the body would have been tumbling.
The main evidence that the coffin wasn't involved is that the aircraft impacted flat ie parallel with the ground.
Given the reports of the distance between the wings and the fuselage, plus the appearance of the wings, it would strongly appear that the wings had separated from the aircraft.
The "flat" attitude just happened to be the attitude at the time of impact with the ground. Prior to that, the body would have been tumbling.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unsecured drum accident was a long time ago and I'm fairly sure it was in the states. Guy was only going a couple of farms away , didn't have the co-pilot seat in and didn't worry about tying the drum for a short trip. It appears that on descent the drum slid forward against the starboard control column which steepened the descent...... try pushing a full 205 litre drum uphill with one arm.
Yair I've only ever seen a picture of a C210. I'm sure I'll get lucky and learn from your vast wisdom and experience.
I'll read with great interest your explanation of how the cabin came to be 600mm high if the fuselage hit belly first without the wings weight there to crush it.
No one has said whether the aircraft impacted upside down or right way up or where or how the wings separated from the rest of the aircraft. Typically in over speed wing separations in C210s the wing breaks off at the intersection of the flap and aileron in the DOWNWARD mode. Perhaps our resident expert on coffin causing catastrophes will explain why this is so.
You don't know what you're talking about.
I'll read with great interest your explanation of how the cabin came to be 600mm high if the fuselage hit belly first without the wings weight there to crush it.
No one has said whether the aircraft impacted upside down or right way up or where or how the wings separated from the rest of the aircraft. Typically in over speed wing separations in C210s the wing breaks off at the intersection of the flap and aileron in the DOWNWARD mode. Perhaps our resident expert on coffin causing catastrophes will explain why this is so.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 325
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.ferrarichat.com/forum/th...id-air.548488/
Join Date: May 2004
Location: 'Stralia!
Age: 47
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This won't be the first time a 210 has flown in one end of some bad Wx and come out the other side without a wing or two...
VH-WBZ
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2011-160.aspx
I am by no means saying this is the case in this situation, but looking at the rain on the ground and the BoM information at the time, it certainly doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility or probability. Regardless of how, still a tough outcome for all concerned...
VH-WBZ
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...-2011-160.aspx
I am by no means saying this is the case in this situation, but looking at the rain on the ground and the BoM information at the time, it certainly doesn't seem beyond the realms of possibility or probability. Regardless of how, still a tough outcome for all concerned...
If both wings separated from the aircraft in flight - we have a big problem.
Other than corrosion (pre SID's) the only other 210 maybe wing break up in flight was one in Africa either Namibia or Botswana from memory.
In my opinion I would take a 210 wing over a 206 wing in bad weather, flown within the POH limits or as close as possible given the conditions.
I wont post the pix the other poster wanted to see here, but after a few posts I think I can PM you a link.
Other than corrosion (pre SID's) the only other 210 maybe wing break up in flight was one in Africa either Namibia or Botswana from memory.
In my opinion I would take a 210 wing over a 206 wing in bad weather, flown within the POH limits or as close as possible given the conditions.
I wont post the pix the other poster wanted to see here, but after a few posts I think I can PM you a link.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Body bag or coffin; I don't think either would haver been involved in bringing down this aircraft. I have flown both and they are easy to secure so that they don't move and Air Frontier has had enough experience in transporting deceased to ensure it was done properly.
What is not clear is whether there were two persons and the deceased on board or only the pilot and deceased. I suspect the latter as it would be very difficult to get a coffin into a C210 and keep the R/H front seat.
Should weather be the culprit in this crash then the flight routing should be looked at. I found during my time in the top end that the afternoon cells liked to play out along the points of land and that by going offshore you could more easily get around them. However, there can be a real danger in getting under the cloud shelf of an approaching cell. The turbulence can be mind-boggling even though you are not in cloud and can be a trap for young players.
Whatever the cause, I hope the ATSB does a proper investigation as there will be lessons to be learnt for the other young aviators struggling to gain hours who are the likely candidates for this sort of charter. My condolences to the family of the pilot who will now be struggling to understand how their son could come to such a sudden death.
What is not clear is whether there were two persons and the deceased on board or only the pilot and deceased. I suspect the latter as it would be very difficult to get a coffin into a C210 and keep the R/H front seat.
Should weather be the culprit in this crash then the flight routing should be looked at. I found during my time in the top end that the afternoon cells liked to play out along the points of land and that by going offshore you could more easily get around them. However, there can be a real danger in getting under the cloud shelf of an approaching cell. The turbulence can be mind-boggling even though you are not in cloud and can be a trap for young players.
Whatever the cause, I hope the ATSB does a proper investigation as there will be lessons to be learnt for the other young aviators struggling to gain hours who are the likely candidates for this sort of charter. My condolences to the family of the pilot who will now be struggling to understand how their son could come to such a sudden death.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is impossible to determine probable cause until all available information is collected.
In the meantime pilots who work in the north in the wet season should be very wary of entering cloud when imbedded thunder storms are forecast unless you have lots of good gear that can see how active the cloud ahead is. You should NEVER go near, or worse under the anvil of a developed thunder head. You need to be several miles clear. If an ATC direction is heading you into danger TELL them. They know it's not always clear skies and I've always found them very good at finding you a safer route.
If you're in a C210 and suddenly find yourself in virtually uncontrollable turbulence immediately put the gear down. Don't worry about the gear extension speed. It's only there to protect the gear doors. Better to lose the doors than the whole plane. DON'T use flap. The wing is stronger with them up.
The drag of the gear makes it harder for the aircraft to do sudden excursions beyond VNE. C210s have a lot of washout in their wings which gives them benign stalling characteristics but at high speed the wing tips have a negative angle of attack. As the aircraft goes beyond VNE more of the outer end of the wing has a negative angle of attack thus putting a large downwards force on on that outer portion. Too much speed or a combination of high speed and a sudden up aileron control input can take the download beyond the wings design envelope and it snaps off downwards (not up as is often thought) at the point where the flap and aileron meet. This is why it is so important to keep the speed under control as much as is possible in the virtually,if not completely uncontrollable conditions storms can dish up.
In the meantime pilots who work in the north in the wet season should be very wary of entering cloud when imbedded thunder storms are forecast unless you have lots of good gear that can see how active the cloud ahead is. You should NEVER go near, or worse under the anvil of a developed thunder head. You need to be several miles clear. If an ATC direction is heading you into danger TELL them. They know it's not always clear skies and I've always found them very good at finding you a safer route.
If you're in a C210 and suddenly find yourself in virtually uncontrollable turbulence immediately put the gear down. Don't worry about the gear extension speed. It's only there to protect the gear doors. Better to lose the doors than the whole plane. DON'T use flap. The wing is stronger with them up.
The drag of the gear makes it harder for the aircraft to do sudden excursions beyond VNE. C210s have a lot of washout in their wings which gives them benign stalling characteristics but at high speed the wing tips have a negative angle of attack. As the aircraft goes beyond VNE more of the outer end of the wing has a negative angle of attack thus putting a large downwards force on on that outer portion. Too much speed or a combination of high speed and a sudden up aileron control input can take the download beyond the wings design envelope and it snaps off downwards (not up as is often thought) at the point where the flap and aileron meet. This is why it is so important to keep the speed under control as much as is possible in the virtually,if not completely uncontrollable conditions storms can dish up.
And when you get to the stage that Rutan is talking about, all that you are doing is trying to keep the wings level and the speed around Va, which means correcting the rolls before they get to 45 deg and setting pitch/power at whatever you know gives you a climb at Va. All that is summed up in one phrase 'protect the AH' because if that topples due to big rolls or pitches then you are history - with the amount of water flowing into the pitot system and turbulent air movement overwhelming the alternate static system, and needle/ball momentum preventing accurate indications anyway, your chances of flying partial panel are zero, the AH is all you have, and heading is a distant memory. 
Anyway, lets wait for the report.
Anyway, lets wait for the report.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The C210A and and all C210s before the C210G have struts. When the 210s became strutless and there were a number of accidents where a wing was lost Hangar Rat engineers without ever leaving the bar quickly came up with the conclusion that strutless C210 wings were not as strong as the older ones with struts.
Real Engineers after carefully collating ALL the information discovered that actually the strutless wings are stronger than the C210 wings with struts.
The problem turned out to be that the strutless models are cleaner with respect to drag and when things start to go pear shaped less time elapsed before the aircraft was beyond VNE.
This meant the pilot had less time to sort out whatever was going on in the cockpit before disaster struck.
A lot of attention was given to higher proficiency in instrument flying as well as recommending dumping the gear before thing got out of hand.
The number of accidents decreased but it seems that some of the old knowledge is not being passed on to the next generation of pilots.
Real Engineers after carefully collating ALL the information discovered that actually the strutless wings are stronger than the C210 wings with struts.
The problem turned out to be that the strutless models are cleaner with respect to drag and when things start to go pear shaped less time elapsed before the aircraft was beyond VNE.
This meant the pilot had less time to sort out whatever was going on in the cockpit before disaster struck.
A lot of attention was given to higher proficiency in instrument flying as well as recommending dumping the gear before thing got out of hand.
The number of accidents decreased but it seems that some of the old knowledge is not being passed on to the next generation of pilots.
Wise words Rutan. The myth was probably perpetuated when people see the size of the bolts holding the wings on.
The C210 is not a docile beast. I remember after 50 hours on type thinking I was flying it well. Then after 500 hours on type realising how rough I was at 50. It's not hard to pole around the sky, but it's not easy to nail your desired airspeed to the knot. Which is probably why some operators demand more than bare CPL / 200 hours before flying a C210. On the surface it's an overgrown 172, but comes with some gotchas. (No inference here intended wrt the experience/ability of the pilot in this accident).
By a tragic coincidence (if media reports are true) the crash in Albany same on the same day is also being reported in ABC as a C210 and its wreckage is spread over several hectares.
In my my time belting around the NT and Arnhem Land in a 210, I usually stayed low late in the day in the buildup. Except for the escarpment there's not much to hit and except in really monsoonal trough times, the clouds are not normally on the ground. If they are, then you don't want to be anywhere near it anyway down low or up high.
Don't get suckered into the "Territory VFR" normalisation of deviance. A subject for another thread....
The C210 is not a docile beast. I remember after 50 hours on type thinking I was flying it well. Then after 500 hours on type realising how rough I was at 50. It's not hard to pole around the sky, but it's not easy to nail your desired airspeed to the knot. Which is probably why some operators demand more than bare CPL / 200 hours before flying a C210. On the surface it's an overgrown 172, but comes with some gotchas. (No inference here intended wrt the experience/ability of the pilot in this accident).
By a tragic coincidence (if media reports are true) the crash in Albany same on the same day is also being reported in ABC as a C210 and its wreckage is spread over several hectares.
In my my time belting around the NT and Arnhem Land in a 210, I usually stayed low late in the day in the buildup. Except for the escarpment there's not much to hit and except in really monsoonal trough times, the clouds are not normally on the ground. If they are, then you don't want to be anywhere near it anyway down low or up high.
Don't get suckered into the "Territory VFR" normalisation of deviance. A subject for another thread....
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wise words Rutan Around. That sort of knowledge is unlikely to be passed on in detail these days.
StickWithTheTruth, the C210 accident from Merimbula you may be thinking of was due to entering icing conditions over the ranges enroute to Albury.
The C210 inflight breakup that you are probabaly thinking of was N of Roma in VH-WBZ. Reading the report and findings of the wreckage is interesting in the fact that the wreckage including departed wing sections were all located within a 350m area and the fuselage was relatively level on impact although slightly nose down with a right roll.
PLovett, it's definitely been confirmed that there were 2 pilots onboard. No Cookies | NT News
The question that has been raised in investigations many times before raises its ugly head again. Are 2 pilots better than 1 when assessing adverse weather?
Compressor Stall, you mention staying low in the afternoon during the buildup due cloud level etc, this is what I have always done too. You're also generally unlikely to outclimb the bumps at this time of year anyway.
Interesting to note that the LiveATC recordings reveals that VH-HWY received clearance to climb to 9500' and eventually got clearance to deviate up to 20nm right of route. It's unclear but unlikely that they managed to reach 9500' before it went pearshaped but also disturbing that there was no mayday transmitted, whatever happened must have happened quickly.
StickWithTheTruth, the C210 accident from Merimbula you may be thinking of was due to entering icing conditions over the ranges enroute to Albury.
The C210 inflight breakup that you are probabaly thinking of was N of Roma in VH-WBZ. Reading the report and findings of the wreckage is interesting in the fact that the wreckage including departed wing sections were all located within a 350m area and the fuselage was relatively level on impact although slightly nose down with a right roll.
PLovett, it's definitely been confirmed that there were 2 pilots onboard. No Cookies | NT News
The question that has been raised in investigations many times before raises its ugly head again. Are 2 pilots better than 1 when assessing adverse weather?
Compressor Stall, you mention staying low in the afternoon during the buildup due cloud level etc, this is what I have always done too. You're also generally unlikely to outclimb the bumps at this time of year anyway.
Interesting to note that the LiveATC recordings reveals that VH-HWY received clearance to climb to 9500' and eventually got clearance to deviate up to 20nm right of route. It's unclear but unlikely that they managed to reach 9500' before it went pearshaped but also disturbing that there was no mayday transmitted, whatever happened must have happened quickly.
Two other factors may have played a part here if the wings departed in flight.
Rolling G reduces structural G limits usually by around 25% and the C210 has low, normal G limits. Remembering not to apply aileron whilst pulling G is much harder than it sounds in the confusion of a thunderstorm and the ground looming up.
Second, in many wing failures during unusual attitude recovery caused by a microburst related to a Cb, hitting a sudden windshear whilst G or rolling G is applied dramatically increases the odds of wing failure. Sudden windshear is common around Cbs.
Also, the negative G limits are very low for this type and in a Cb could be easily exceeded.
The RAAF to my knowledge has lost at least six aircraft (Winjeels. Macchis and Sabres) when these unusual combinations have occurred. Even with a lot of training, it's a difficult situation to survive.
Staying away from Cbs has always been the first priority. As pointed out earlier, even Scott Crossfield could not handle it.
Rolling G reduces structural G limits usually by around 25% and the C210 has low, normal G limits. Remembering not to apply aileron whilst pulling G is much harder than it sounds in the confusion of a thunderstorm and the ground looming up.
Second, in many wing failures during unusual attitude recovery caused by a microburst related to a Cb, hitting a sudden windshear whilst G or rolling G is applied dramatically increases the odds of wing failure. Sudden windshear is common around Cbs.
Also, the negative G limits are very low for this type and in a Cb could be easily exceeded.
The RAAF to my knowledge has lost at least six aircraft (Winjeels. Macchis and Sabres) when these unusual combinations have occurred. Even with a lot of training, it's a difficult situation to survive.
Staying away from Cbs has always been the first priority. As pointed out earlier, even Scott Crossfield could not handle it.