DHC Beaver down in Hawkesbury
Only 17,576 total registration marks available based on 3 letters - with 15,718 actually issued and 504 on the "list of available marks" that can be allocated or reserved "today".
Only 17,576 total registration marks available based on 3 letters - with 15,718 actually issued and 504 on the "list of available marks" that can be allocated or reserved "today".
Join Date: Jul 2017
Location: Sydney
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So, now the report appears to be due by the end of the 3rd quarter 2020, and the status has retrogressed from external review to internal review. Sounds more serious than a power on stall and the deceased pilot attempting to make "the impossible turn".
"ATSB reveals pilot of Sydney Seaplanes crash was likely incapacitated by carbon monoxide in the cabin of Beaver floatplane. Six people killed when plane crashed into Jerusalem Bay on Dec 31, 2017"
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
https://www.atsb.gov.au/media/news-i...e-in-aircraft/
Appears on the ATSB site
And the updated report 3 July 2020:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2017-118/
Appears on the ATSB site
And the updated report 3 July 2020:
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2017-118/
Last edited by 0ttoL; 3rd Jul 2020 at 02:17. Reason: Updated
If that is so, must have been a massive inflow of carbon monoxide to lncapacitate the pilot in such a short time. from T/O to unfortunate splash down. Beaver has windows? What about the blood results? And for the passengers as well.
A overwhelming stench of exhaust fumes in the cabin would cause the pilot to quit the T/O ,surely.
1c or 2c worth?
A overwhelming stench of exhaust fumes in the cabin would cause the pilot to quit the T/O ,surely.
1c or 2c worth?
Initial reports that leaked out into the wild very early on, spoke of a video or photos of the pilot had been found where he was slumped over the controls.
The explanation at at the was the part about the passenger having inadvertently done this which seemed far fetched.
The explanation at at the was the part about the passenger having inadvertently done this which seemed far fetched.
Years ago I purchased a proper CO detector. I did that because my research showed that by the time those ubiquitous ‘dot’ cards stuck to the dashboard turn black, you’re likely already blacked/blacking out yourself. Further, many leaks start small - pinholes in exhaust systems that develop into cracks and other engine bay/firewall defects - and these create low CO levels in the cockpit that can nonetheless be detected by a proper CO detector before deleterious effects arise.
I was alarmed - literally - at the amount of CO that sometimes entered the aircraft during taxi, depending on wind direction and speed. And that was with windows open (in fact - that may have been the / one of the path/s of entry) and without smelling any strong exhaust smells. I’m talking levels at which protracted exposure would likely result in deleterious effects.
My eventual practise was to leave the detector switched off during taxi and take off, to avoid the distractions, and turn it on during the cruise. (The ‘off the shelf’ item did no have an on/off switch. I added that myself.) Fortunately it always read/s a big fat 0 in the cruise. I figured that the risk of a defect developing to ‘bad’ between a landing and the next taxi, take off and climb to cruise were lower than the risk arising from distractions from the alarm.
The combination of protracted exposure on the ground combined with ongoing exposure in the air due to aircraft defects? Not good. (My inexpert guess is that a pilot’s pulse rate and metabolism are running a bit faster in the initial phases of a flight than sightseeing passengers after a nice lunch...)
Modern and effective CO detectors are cheap insurance, folks.
I was alarmed - literally - at the amount of CO that sometimes entered the aircraft during taxi, depending on wind direction and speed. And that was with windows open (in fact - that may have been the / one of the path/s of entry) and without smelling any strong exhaust smells. I’m talking levels at which protracted exposure would likely result in deleterious effects.
My eventual practise was to leave the detector switched off during taxi and take off, to avoid the distractions, and turn it on during the cruise. (The ‘off the shelf’ item did no have an on/off switch. I added that myself.) Fortunately it always read/s a big fat 0 in the cruise. I figured that the risk of a defect developing to ‘bad’ between a landing and the next taxi, take off and climb to cruise were lower than the risk arising from distractions from the alarm.
The combination of protracted exposure on the ground combined with ongoing exposure in the air due to aircraft defects? Not good. (My inexpert guess is that a pilot’s pulse rate and metabolism are running a bit faster in the initial phases of a flight than sightseeing passengers after a nice lunch...)
Modern and effective CO detectors are cheap insurance, folks.
Carbon Monoxide poisoning leading to a total incapacitation after only several minutes in the air?
Anything is possible I guess, but I’m certainly sceptical.
Interesting development in the absence of any other cause?
Anything is possible I guess, but I’m certainly sceptical.
Interesting development in the absence of any other cause?
Perhaps he wasn't totally incapacitated but sufficiently affected to make a serious error of judgement, by turning into Jerusalem Bay?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
I haven't read the report to see how many sectors the pilot had flown that day. CO binds extremely extremely well to haemoglobin preventing the transfer of oxygen. Once it's in your bloodstream it takes ages to wash out.
... the pilot had conducted seven flights in VH-NOO. This included two short scenic flights over Sydney Harbour, four flights to/from Cottage Point, and one positioning flight without passengers from Cottage Point to Rose Bay. The accident flight was a return flight to Rose Bay.
The photograph of the engine exhaust collector-ring showed a pre‑accident crack that had been further propagated by the crash. There was sufficient discolouration around the crack to suggest that exhaust gases had been escaping for some time.
Interestingly the report says blood tests showed 'the pilot and two of the passengers had elevated levels of CO'. The pilot I could understand; the two passengers strikes me as odd. Forensically the first question you'd want resolved is were any of them smokers; given the details recounted about the pilot it's unlikely he was.
Other pilots must have been flying NOO. I'd be interested to hear if anyone was complaining about headaches. CO poisoning is not entirely innocuous - a dull but persistent headache is a very commonly experienced early symptom.
Last edited by MickG0105; 3rd Jul 2020 at 23:30. Reason: Correction to number of flights that day
https://www.aviationconsumer.com/saf...-experts-best/
Ours has the Experts (an earlier model than the 2016 in that article). It would consistently beep during taxi at a very low concentration level so have been looking for something different.
Ours has the Experts (an earlier model than the 2016 in that article). It would consistently beep during taxi at a very low concentration level so have been looking for something different.
Ozbiggles, I imagine it wouldn’t be too hard to model it. You know the pilots flight and duty history. Half life is apparently 3-4 hours. >30% produces serious symptoms. I don’t know the uptake mechanism and numbers, but I’m sure the aeromedical types can model it, at least to decide if it’s a possible cause - in the sense of calculating how big the leak would have had to be. Are we talking pinholes or bigger cracks?
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Australia
Posts: 358
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ozbiggles, I imagine it wouldn’t be too hard to model it. You know the pilots flight and duty history. Half life is apparently 3-4 hours. >30% produces serious symptoms. I don’t know the uptake mechanism and numbers, but I’m sure the aeromedical types can model it, at least to decide if it’s a possible cause - in the sense of calculating how big the leak would have had to be. Are we talking pinholes or bigger cracks?