C172 down near Camden - one fatality
Personally I would consider vasovagal syncope before I'd consider anything more sinister. If someone was predisposed (perhaps unknowingly) to this during stressful or emotional situations, the final stages of your first solo circuit could potentially be a trigger. Granted the student pilot had flown solo in ultralights, but still...
A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.
The following users liked this post:
I wouldn't.
A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.
A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.
Last edited by jonas64; 14th Mar 2024 at 04:30. Reason: Questions should end with a question mark.
I wouldn't.
A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.
A reasonably-trimmed aircraft - or even something that's not that well trimmed, doesn't pitch 30* nose down and accelerate beyond Vne in the absence of an external (pilot/CG shift/structural failure) input. It may change it's flight path slightly to hunt down it's desired 'trimmed-to' airspeed, no argument there, but not that much.
It’s hard to see an eager young lad like this drive it into the ground on purpose. I understand we do not know the ins and out of this person’s life. This wasn’t the first time he had been solo.
However it’s quite a task trying to work out how he ended up in that situation with the investigators saying all systems seemed ok.
I personally went from a Skyfox Gazelle to a 172. I had my RAAUS certificate and after about 3.5 hours in a 172 I got my PPL.
I found the 172 very easy to fly with the exception of having to climb out a bit shallower than I was used to as the speed washed off more quickly than I was used to. It was a very simple conversion. I can't help but feel that he was experienced enough to be able to fly that aircraft.
172 drivers - To hit 170+ knots with a 10,000fpm descent rate, at 35 degrees dive with 1 stage of flaps applied from 1,000ft AGL, I'm assuming you'd practically need full power, would that be correct?
I'm also wondering why eye witnesses said that the engine sounded like it was over-revving, just after he lowered flaps, presumably about to turn onto base!
I found the 172 very easy to fly with the exception of having to climb out a bit shallower than I was used to as the speed washed off more quickly than I was used to. It was a very simple conversion. I can't help but feel that he was experienced enough to be able to fly that aircraft.
172 drivers - To hit 170+ knots with a 10,000fpm descent rate, at 35 degrees dive with 1 stage of flaps applied from 1,000ft AGL, I'm assuming you'd practically need full power, would that be correct?
I'm also wondering why eye witnesses said that the engine sounded like it was over-revving, just after he lowered flaps, presumably about to turn onto base!
A S model should have 10 degrees available I below 110. Shouldn’t really need it for circuits unless wanting to slow down for traffic, but is common for instructors to get students to apply late downwind.
This is a tough one and will be interesting to see if they can get any answers
This is a tough one and will be interesting to see if they can get any answers
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I did fly that aircraft havde about 20 hours in it, unless its avionics have been updated recently it had a single axis bendix 140 from memory, only did roll as far as i remember. just the five buttons no, up down.
Experimenting with the autopilot while doing the first solo circuit in an aircraft of the type?
Maybe the pilot was crocheting a scarf as well.
Not as monumentally stupid as suggesting a deliberate act, but getting close.
Maybe the pilot was crocheting a scarf as well.
Not as monumentally stupid as suggesting a deliberate act, but getting close.
The following 2 users liked this post by Lead Balloon:
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I do hope we get some answers from the full investigation but the lack of structural failure and control continuity, does leave not many explinations for the flight path the aircraft took to its resting place.
[T]he lack of structural failure and control continuity.
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I also did my solo in that aircraft so it hits close to home i suppose, all very tragic.
feel very sorry for the family.
Some interesting things to note from the ATSB report that hasn't been talked about;
The aircraft and it's components are still being investigated, so they have not ruled out aircraft issues as a cause as yet. They have stated they found everything at the crash site, so no parts departed in flight, and flight control continuity just suggests that the controls were connected at the time. I doubt they could have found out whether they were working as intended as yet given the state of the wreckage.
There must be recordings of at least some part of the accident captured on CCTV or such, thankfully not in public yet.
From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?
The investigation is continuing and will include:
- review and examination of aircraft components and other items recovered from the accident site
- review of aircraft, pilot and operator documentation
- further analysis of flight path information from CCTV recordings and flight data.
There must be recordings of at least some part of the accident captured on CCTV or such, thankfully not in public yet.
From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?
The following users liked this post:
Join Date: Jan 2024
Location: Sydney
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some interesting things to note from the ATSB report that hasn't been talked about;
The aircraft and it's components are still being investigated, so they have not ruled out aircraft issues as a cause as yet. They have stated they found everything at the crash site, so no parts departed in flight, and flight control continuity just suggests that the controls were connected at the time. I doubt they could have found out whether they were working as intended as yet given the state of the wreckage.
There must be recordings of at least some part of the accident captured on CCTV or such, thankfully not in public yet.
From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?
The aircraft and it's components are still being investigated, so they have not ruled out aircraft issues as a cause as yet. They have stated they found everything at the crash site, so no parts departed in flight, and flight control continuity just suggests that the controls were connected at the time. I doubt they could have found out whether they were working as intended as yet given the state of the wreckage.
There must be recordings of at least some part of the accident captured on CCTV or such, thankfully not in public yet.
From those that have flown it, did the aircraft have electric trim?
Not as monumentally stupid as suggesting a deliberate act, but getting close.
So you construe the fact that ATSB found all the bits in one place as conclusive of a serviceable flight control system and structural integrity? Big call.
Pre-impact flight control continuity was established and wing flaps[8] were assessed to have been extended but set at less than 10°[9] at the time of impact.
This is a rumour network after all so what do you think (without being stupid of course),might have led to the accident Clinton?
A deliberate act would, from the descent profile, to be something that should be considered. Why is the possibility of suicide immediately discarded just because its an unpalatable scenario although very difficult to ascertain.
If the flight controls were rigged incorrectly then it would have become apparent during the previous circuits with the instructor.
The following users liked this post:
Spot the problem.
A deliberate act would, from the descent profile, to be something that should be considered. Why is the possibility of suicide immediately discarded just because its an unpalatable scenario although very difficult to ascertain.
Not really a big call at all. The ATSB stated :
Its a 172 nothing complicated about it. All the control surfaces arrived at the point of impact and those control surfaces were attached by the necessary wires to the point at which they are controlled. If the flight controls were rigged incorrectly then it would have become apparent during the previous circuits with the instructor. Once again the final descent profile at high power suggests that a flight control problem would not be the main focus of the investigation. There is no precedent for a training aeroplane in the circuit to simply plummet to the ground at a high power and high RoD unless it is being made to do so.
This is a rumour network after all so what do you think (without being stupid of course),might have led to the accident Clinton?
Not really a big call at all. The ATSB stated :
Its a 172 nothing complicated about it. All the control surfaces arrived at the point of impact and those control surfaces were attached by the necessary wires to the point at which they are controlled. If the flight controls were rigged incorrectly then it would have become apparent during the previous circuits with the instructor. Once again the final descent profile at high power suggests that a flight control problem would not be the main focus of the investigation. There is no precedent for a training aeroplane in the circuit to simply plummet to the ground at a high power and high RoD unless it is being made to do so.
This is a rumour network after all so what do you think (without being stupid of course),might have led to the accident Clinton?
When pilots leap to the keyboard to suggest that incidents like the one the subject of this thread were suicide by the pilot – or, in other threads, leap to the keyboard to suggest pilot incapacitation was the cause of incidents – all that does is add fuel to the Avmed fire. A credulous public calls out to be saved – from pilots – and Avmed is always very happy to answer that call. The suggestions must be credible because they’re coming from pilots.
Try – just for a moment – to put yourself in the position of the pilot who died in this tragedy, and of the family and friends of that pilot, and imagine that you weren’t suicidal and something else caused the tragedy. How do you feel when contemplating the fact that other pilots have no compunction in suggesting that you deliberately speared the aircraft and yourself into the ground?
There used to be the quaint view that almost all incidents were the product of a number of factors – the Swiss cheese metaphor. We supposedly grew out of the ‘blame the pilot’ attitude. But what do we frequently get on PPRuNe? Pilots leaping to the keyboard to blame the pilot, alone.
You and others quote passages from ATSB reports as if they are holy writ and ASTB has never produced a work of fiction either because of a lack of competence or for expediency. You must have the attention span of a goldfish. And everyone’s an expert on 172s.
People who rule out maintenance induced failure, based just on what you quoted and the fact that the aircraft had been flying before it crashed, evidently haven’t been the owners of aircraft and learnt the many creative ways in which maintenance personnel can line up holes in the Swiss cheese. I’ll just relate one example out of many over the decades, to try to make my point.
I owned a Bonanza that became the subject of CASA’s mandatory control cable meddling AD. I paid $10,000 to have the perfectly serviceable and rigged control cables replaced. I subsequently discovered that one of the ruddervator cables had been rigged around the fuel drain stub under the fuel selector. That cable was rubbing directly against the metal stub. I’ll dig up a photo and post it.
Evidently, the person who did the cable replacement did so negligently. Evidently, the required independent inspection was either not carried out at all or was carried out negligently. Evidently, the person who did the test flight failed to perform, or performed negligently, the required pre-flight inspection. All signed off, good to go (with a $10,000 invoice).
That Bonanza could have flown another 1,000 hours. Or maybe just 10. Or maybe just 1. But when something eventually went wrong, it would have gone very badly for the unfortunate pilot in the seat at the time. My educated guess is that the cable would have eventually sawn through the side of the fuel drain stub, resulting in immediate drawing of air rather than fuel into the EDP and, therefore, causing fuel starvation and engine failure. The consequent sudden change in ruddervator cable tension would cause ‘something’ very strange to happen. What – who’d know without doing an actual test. But muggins in the left front seat could have found themselves in a very dangerous situation, very suddenly. And if that aircraft had speared in, all those control cables would probably still have been connected to their control surfaces.
I could go on, for pages, describing the various creative attempts on my life by maintenance personnel, but won’t for now.
But for all of the pilots out there who think it’s a good idea to leap to the keyboard to suggest pilot-alone causes for incidents: You are your own worst enemies. When it’s your turn to be micro-managed by Avmed or have a hatchet job done on you in some investigation, you’ll hopefully finally understand why.
Last edited by Clinton McKenzie; 17th Mar 2024 at 00:53.
The following 2 users liked this post by Clinton McKenzie:
Thanks for the reply and the seriousness of the content. I know very well what an errant Bonanza can do and you can read my story in the Flight Safety magazine under the "Fear for Lunch" title. In my scenario and I imagine the worst case of your scenario, the flight profile was sufficiently concerning that the Tower went for the crash button several times. My point about this accident is the descent profile. Even if the student had the unfortunate situation of a control failure, the descent profile would not make it plummet to the ground at a high power setting. The simple fact is that suicide is the leading cause of death in Australia for males under the age of 35. Avmed don't need Pprune to develop another stupid test to assess a persons mental health. On one medical I stated that I was tired but put down that I had flown 500 hours in the past 6 months thinking they might make the connection. No I had to go and do a sleep apnea test before my medical was renewed. Suicide can't be discounted as a cause but it also can't be discussed in hushed tones because it is considered taboo. Pilots are just another cohort of the wider community and the stats apply to them just as much as anyone else.
Just a couple of points in reply to a (very well argued) post, Lookleft.
First, from my perspective, none of what you said justifies pilots throwing other pilots under the bus. There are plenty of others out there willing - some of them paid - to do that. If this tragedy turns out to be caused by the pilot alone, let those others show it to be true.
Secondly, you say:
Do you know, for example, what happens when a throttle cable breaks or disconnects from the carby on a 172 of the model involved in this tragedy?
My point is that your point merely begs the question. You assume that the pilot had control over the engine's power. There are recorded circumstances in which a broken or disconnected throttle cable results in the carbie going to the 'default' wide open throttle. We are talking about a first solo in a 172 only 1,000 AGL and the first few seconds of any fault manifesting itself will almost invariably be overtaken by sensory overload - the HSM. The 'muscle memory' CFMM won't stop an engine that's at WOT because the throttle cable's disconnected or broken. When was the last time a student pilot practised dealing with an engine stuck at full power? (I anticipate that some Monday Morning Quarterback will suggest just pulling the mixture, but we're here talking about the first solo in a 172 at 1,000' AGL.)
In my decades of experience in aircraft maintenance, there have been many occasions on which multiple problems arose from just one random fault (or just one tool left in the wrong place, or just one seat rail not engaged, or just one pair of wires transposed in a plug, or just one air vent that dropped out of the roof, or...). That control cable sawing away at the fuel stub on the Bonanza example could have - if the stub had finally sawn off - resulted in the nose pitching immediately down and the pilot at only 1,000 AGL not being able to do anything about it in time - or even at all depending on what the change in rigging tension may have on the ruddervators - while the engine was still running before the air made it to the EDP.
First, from my perspective, none of what you said justifies pilots throwing other pilots under the bus. There are plenty of others out there willing - some of them paid - to do that. If this tragedy turns out to be caused by the pilot alone, let those others show it to be true.
Secondly, you say:
My point about this accident is the descent profile. Even if the student had the unfortunate situation of a control failure, the descent profile would not make it plummet to the ground at a high power setting.
My point is that your point merely begs the question. You assume that the pilot had control over the engine's power. There are recorded circumstances in which a broken or disconnected throttle cable results in the carbie going to the 'default' wide open throttle. We are talking about a first solo in a 172 only 1,000 AGL and the first few seconds of any fault manifesting itself will almost invariably be overtaken by sensory overload - the HSM. The 'muscle memory' CFMM won't stop an engine that's at WOT because the throttle cable's disconnected or broken. When was the last time a student pilot practised dealing with an engine stuck at full power? (I anticipate that some Monday Morning Quarterback will suggest just pulling the mixture, but we're here talking about the first solo in a 172 at 1,000' AGL.)
In my decades of experience in aircraft maintenance, there have been many occasions on which multiple problems arose from just one random fault (or just one tool left in the wrong place, or just one seat rail not engaged, or just one pair of wires transposed in a plug, or just one air vent that dropped out of the roof, or...). That control cable sawing away at the fuel stub on the Bonanza example could have - if the stub had finally sawn off - resulted in the nose pitching immediately down and the pilot at only 1,000 AGL not being able to do anything about it in time - or even at all depending on what the change in rigging tension may have on the ruddervators - while the engine was still running before the air made it to the EDP.
When people ask me if I am ever afraid of flying I always reply yes...when I fly an aircraft that has just come out of maintenance. I don't disagree that there are a lot of things that can bring an aircraft down but there are very few completely random events that haven't occurred before that result in a sudden dive to the ground. I am not throwing yet another pilot under the bus but deliberate action of the pilot cannot be immediately discarded because society doesn't know how to deal with it.
Have a read of this article and you might see that it is not just a "blame the pilot" mentality: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...health-paradox
In your scenario of the throttle cable, a sudden application of full power without any corresponding control input would lead to the nose pitching up and would result in a vary different descent profile i.e. the aircraft would probably enter a stall at full power with a sudden wing drop.
Have a read of this article and you might see that it is not just a "blame the pilot" mentality: https://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...health-paradox
In your scenario of the throttle cable, a sudden application of full power without any corresponding control input would lead to the nose pitching up and would result in a vary different descent profile i.e. the aircraft would probably enter a stall at full power with a sudden wing drop.
I evidently failed to make clear that a single, random event can cause multiple problems. I asked a question about your understanding of the consequences of the specific scenario of the throttle cable on the engine fitted to this aircraft breaking or becoming disconnected, simply to try to make clear that just because an engine was at 'high power' on impact does not prove the pilot deliberately set it to and left it at 'high power'.
The human mind naturally dichotomises: 'this' OR 'that' happened. But, in reality, 'this' AND 'that' (AND even another thing) could have happened.
Stating the fact that deliberate action of the pilot cannot be immediately discarded as a matter of principle is, in my mind, no justification for pilots actively speculating, publicly, that it was the cause in fact. I've raised the issue of pilots presuming the description "professional" before, and pointed out that the members of true professions do not engage in public criticism or public negative speculation about their colleagues. It brings the entire profession into disrepute because the members' opinions on the subject are perceived as having greater weight and authority. As I said earlier, there are already plenty of people out there ready and willing (and in some cases remunerated) to find fault in pilots. Their colleagues don't need to 'pile on'.
The human mind naturally dichotomises: 'this' OR 'that' happened. But, in reality, 'this' AND 'that' (AND even another thing) could have happened.
Stating the fact that deliberate action of the pilot cannot be immediately discarded as a matter of principle is, in my mind, no justification for pilots actively speculating, publicly, that it was the cause in fact. I've raised the issue of pilots presuming the description "professional" before, and pointed out that the members of true professions do not engage in public criticism or public negative speculation about their colleagues. It brings the entire profession into disrepute because the members' opinions on the subject are perceived as having greater weight and authority. As I said earlier, there are already plenty of people out there ready and willing (and in some cases remunerated) to find fault in pilots. Their colleagues don't need to 'pile on'.
The following users liked this post: