Partnavia crash at Rottnest Island
 

Hello folks,

Was just wandering if anyone had any information about the crash that just happened at YRTI. The aircraft was a Partnavia VH-IYK belonging to the aeroplane company.

There were 6 pob and all walked away (thank god:D ), although you wouldnt think that if you saw the aeroplane. Speculation is that there was either an engine failure or something went wrong with the T/O or Lndg as there was a very strong crosswind.

Lemel:confused:

Lot of wind.
 

Wind may only be a contributing factor. Looking at the wind speed for today on Rottnest, they did not excees the crosswind limits for the Partnavia.

After seeing the wreckage its amazing how they survived. According to reports, some of the pax were thrown out upon impact and walked away.

Where have you seen the images? People at our club were talking about this.... the pilot is known to us. I don't want to speculate what happened, just curious to see what they managed to walk away from. Thank heavens they could.

Saw the pictures on the Channel 10 news tonight in Perth. The comments made about the passengers being thrown clear of the aircraft are not surprising when you see the footage. From the very brief images I saw the aircraft wings were basically torn off or at least very folded back.

Great that everyone got out OK. When you look at it though its amazing they did.

Not sure what the actual conditions were today, however landed there in a Bonanza the other week on runway 27 and it was a real handful. Lots of windsheer and howling cross wind.

Feel for the pilot though. Not something you want to go home and lament about for hours on end.

Made the Nine News, decent amount of footage.
Crush a coke can, chop it in half and mangle it some more. Add some twisted wings to the side and you have what is left of poor IYK. :uhoh: :\

I cannot believe everyone walked away. :eek: :ok: Reports say four people were thrown clear while two were cut out of the wreckage.

So now with security fences and controlled access airside, anyone throw some light on how the media crews were able to be positioned near the Rescue helipad. Calls to JAH for ground staff were unanswered - oh that's right they're all busy working out how to close Jandakot and move it elsewhere.

Glad to see everyone ok and the only casulty is a busted airframe.:ok:

Heard the pilot of Rescue 65 complain (rightly so too) over the radio to the tower about the "in your face camera crew" :yuk:

Not much Jandakot Tower could do about it, they told the pilot to get out and tell the camera crew to go away.

So much for the airside security at YPJT, not to mention simple professional courtesy.

Glad everyone got out alright ...what a mess!

Z!

....and from the ABC's website this morning the immortal words: "Police are yet to determine the cause of the crash.":ugh: Glad everyone is OK.

If you can not go through, go over
 

So now with security fences and controlled access airside, anyone throw some light on how the media crews were able to be positioned near the Rescue helipad.




Just land your helicopter inside the fence and you are set.

Well done to the pilot for getting a safe outcome for all inside. I understand all are out of hospital.

Back at YPJT I heard SMC asking if there were any JAH vehicles on frequency (unlikely on a Sunday) and the exchange as reported above, plus RFDS Med 1 taxiing for Rottnest. I saw what looked like a camera crew at the helipad outside the Jandakot Helicopters hangar, also two ambulances on the helipad but at a safe distance, and a Shell truck on the dirt road.

Didn't see any news choppers at the normal helicopter parking area, I guess they would have been at Rottnest. So I too wonder how the camera crew got in? And if they realised how stupid it was to get that close to a chopper that big? Ghouls.

Thank god we still have an airport and emergency services. For now, anyway.

[quote=Charlie Foxtrot India;2960059]Well done to the pilot for getting a safe outcome for all inside.

CFI

You must be kidding. :confused: Have you read how mangled the aircraft was after this excursion? How is it to the credit of the pilot that some of the passengers were thrown clear during the crash and others had to be cut out of the mangled mess?

Besides which - it might have been the pilot's fault that the crash occurred? Ever think of that? :ugh:

Di

SMH has a photo with their news story here.

So....they snuck into the airside area behind an ambulance.... Classy!

Its never the pilot fault :ok:

I mean... god dammit... those people better buy themselves a lottery ticket.... I mean GOD DAMN....

Hmmm...
 

For those of you who 'like' to assume that it is always the pilots' fault, a couple of brief extracts from the SMH story, previously linked above by Pseudonym...

and:
A bit too soon to be 'pointing the bone' methinks. Seems that congratulations to the pilot may yet be well in order, and that we are all lucky that he survived and will be able to tell us what he faced in the hope that we may extract some valuable lessons from his experience.

A little more circumspection and tact may be appropriate in some posts...

kiwiblue,

Fair enough.

Just to be clear, I was not saying it was the pilot's fault.

I was just making the point that he's not a hero for telling everyone to hold on, and for the fact that he and his passengers were lucky enough to have survived this prang.

You guys................. geeze

Di :rolleyes:

Fair enough kiwiblue....but as someone who has been flying (PN68s included) for a very long time I tend to ponder the possible ways a twin engined aircraft can end up in a lake.

It isn't a long list :ugh:

It's like seeing a SS Holden wrapped around a light pole at 0300 on a rainy saturday morning....you just tend to know it wasn't mechanical failure.:hmm:

Chimbu c does the Partnavia have a fuel tank ON/OFF selector?

Im not a pilot, yet, but i heard that the pilot was a young one... you oculd possibly link a young pilot to the hoon behaviour on the roads but this is an aircraft. I would like to see a twin engire do a dohnut.. :P
Why would a young pilot do something which can risk his life and career as a pilot, after forking out al that money, by doing something stupid and causing a crash. I think that he would have been extra careful in this procedures to make sure somethingl ike this neverhappens.. but hey...it does.
Like people say, you have the same amount of chance crashing a plane than it is winning the lottery, but people win the lottery all the time :P

Ciao

Agreed Chimbu, not a long list of things that can cause EFATO in a light-twin, many of them finger-trouble related. The crash I recently referred to in another thread was just that. Reading between the lines, he may have been out of his depth in the situation he found himself in. Regardless, once he realised he was going to return to terra firma, it reads as though he handled the situation as well as he could. This will certainly be an interesting crash to follow, as the facts become available.

I recall an accident quite a few years ago where Bonanza crashed on take off. After initially lifting off it failed to stay airborne and subsequently hit trees rupturing the fuel tanks with resultant fuel fire. The aircraft eventually came to rest in a creek but my recollection (which may be somewhat rusty!) is that the occupants escaped.

The press praised the skill of the pilot for steering the aircraft into the creek where the water extinguished the fire.

Subsequently came out that the aircraft was overloaded and out of its rear C of G !!

The moral of this story - in many cases the final outcome of an incident like this is pure luck!

R:cool:

I discount what I read in the media link above completely...the comments made by witnesses as to various aspects of what may or may not have been done by the chap at the controls are pure speculation.

I look at the picture of the wreck and ask myself, controlled ditching?

Doesn't look like.

Lucky?

Incredibly so.:uhoh:

LJones...17 years of age. I suggest you do some internet research (I know you probably can't work a Library:ok: )on the the psycology of teenage/early 20s males....and then re evaluate your post for breathless naivety:ok:

It may have nothing to do with this accident but it might save your life...forewarned is forearmed.

Hey LJones,

Don't take offence at Chuckles comments. He just wishes he was your age again!!! (So do I for that matter)

Anyway - I think he was referring more to the inexperience of the pilot (possibly?), not necessarilly suggesting he was being irresponsible in any way.

Cheers,

Di :ok:

They're on the roof. Where CC used to have his throttles! :}

I can't say what happened because I wasn't there. The only thing I would have done differently was not cram five of my mates into a partie on a hot day (well, any day :\). Add rotto's crosswind and wearshear and it would make for an interesting to+ldg!! Whether or not that had a bearing on the outcome we may never know and to say it played a part in the crash would be speculation on my behalf.
The pilot is an instructor at JT worked for at least two schools down there in his time. I can't say whether he was or wasn't experienced enough to be flying a twin but as said by kiwiblue this will certainly be an interesting crash to follow.

I actually thought the aeroplane company sold IYK back in april/may this year. I could have sworn I saw it advertised in "tarmac"? :confused:

I wish I was 17 again?

You've got to be joking...I barely survived it the first time around:E

I was not suggesting in any way shape or form that the pilot involved was being irresponsible with his life and those of his passengers...although it is infinitely more likely than mechanical 'double engine failure':ugh:

LJones' post just reeked of the naivety that I see all the time in the male friends of my 17 year old daughter....thankfully more rarely from her:ugh:

A 17 year old male (and I am certain I was the same) is just about the dumbest lifeform on this planet....with the possible exception of an 18 yr old:ok:

That is why I taught my daughter to drive at an early age and bought her a nice car...so she never has to get in a car driven by a teenage/20s male driver.:ugh:

I'm no pilot, but are'nt they a bit hard to reach from inside the cockpit?

Di :\

Maybe, but fuel management is the flight engineer's job. That's why they have raincoats!! :} :E
They're inside the cabin, above and to the right of the pilot's head. :p

Just an observation of the photo - seems a lot of flap on. Applied for the landing (crash) or taking off with that amount applied? Seems like more than required for a short T/O. What say you Chimbu?

Point taken chuckles... and for that comment about 17 year olds being the bumbest lifeform is just a tad neive itself dont you think. have you met every 17 year old, and plus i can name plenty of successful 17 year olds...
every one is entitiles to there opinion...

LJ - in forty years time you will look back on your last post and laugh at the naivety expressed. Certainly there are smart 17 year olds but they have not yet had the tempering that comes with lifes experiences and from which comes wisdom (hopefully). The youth forget that all us oldies have been there and done that and those of us who are honest with ourselves will readily admit when we were 17 we were about the dumbest life form on earth. We thought we knew it all and the oldies were the dumbest life form on earth. How little we knew.

I don't have any time in the Vatican Cessna, but surely with an EFATO and six bums on board the good engine will only take you to the crash site.:uhoh:

LJ
 

Quit while you're "ahead" mate... (and "dumbest" is spelt with a "d") :ok:

LJones,

In the immortal (for me anyway!) words of TBMJ, on reflecting upon the naivete of Youth:

"I was young and foolish then, I feel old and foolish now"


I see young kids come to our flying school - great motor skills, but ZERO maturity, wisdom or patience. Insurance companies know it...........my car costs me less to insure than a ****bucket old commodore would cost an 18 year old (and my car is worth about 25x the Holden) - why?....cos I'm older now.

....... cynicism is nothing more than informed optimism.....PHTR 2006.

And I'm certainly a cynic. It comes with age.

BTW, I'm not 100 years old, only 38 ;)

PHTR

?? ok
I know im :mad: aswell because i have a $2,500 car and it costs me over $100 a month to insure it... i just dont think people should stereotype young people because of previous incidents... thats my thought...lets leave it at that and move on to the main point of the thread...the crach at rottnest not the crash between ideas.

Re the flaps.

I noticed that in the photo too but chose to ignore it...unless I could look at the selector position and the damage, if any, to the actuator torque tubes I would never suggest it as a possible contributing factor.

Having said that...and as general discussion point only...a PN68 should be able to fly quite nicely on one even loaded to the gunnels...that is if it is flown properly.

At MTOW and a hot day use of anything more than approach flaps at any time would be asking for trouble...particularly from an innexperienced pilot.

As a thought excercise say he was on one engine and did actually select full flaps, either intentionally or accidentally (a mate died near 20 years ago in a BN2 when the flaps failed to retract from landing to approach on a real assy go around in bad weather...because he didn't hold the switch long enough)...and just say the description of the witness was accurate...that they descended gradually and then 'suddenly' went nose first into that water.

To my mind, and I am not infering any of this actually happened at Rottnest, this would be a fairly classic, 'normal' if you like, crash.

Engine failure not handled well and stalling into the water in the subsequent ditching because the pilot has not the skills to fly an assy circuit at a few 100 feet...terrain not an issue, nor DA.

Lets face it...the only other reason a twin ends up like that one is double engine 'failure' and stalling into the water...the picture and description of 'flipping over' and 'tearing apart' (demonstrably true from the piccy) indicates something other than a controlled ditching with partial power.

If the 'double engine failure' is fuel related..and lets be honest that is usually (99.9% of the time?) how two engines fail together...then to my mind that is NOT a double engine 'failure'...it is the system functioning exactly as designed:ugh:

LJones...good to see you're making an effort with the written word in your last post...if you want to be a pilot then attention to detail in everything you do is a basic pre requisite. Your first posts looked as though they had been written by a nine year old.:D

Just a few more capital letters, the odd appostrophe and knowing the difference between crash and clash and you're on your way.

BTW Youngsters are not categorised by a 'few incidents'...it's more like an over powering wave of adrenaline fuelled stupidity.

And I did not categorise 'all 17 year olds' as the dumbest creatures on god's green earth but merely all 17 year old males:ok:

I do accept that that could be construed as somewhat 'over the top' and appologise unreservedly to the 2% of 17 year old males I have maligned:ok:

Gidday Chuck - Gawd, is she THAT old already........

The Partial Aviator will most certainly continue to aviate on one fan with a full load - if you manage it how it is designed to be managed, as per the POH. Jeez, you don't even have to worry about the gear.....down and welded. I did my intial twin on it some years back and part of the program was a fully loaded assy missed approach (it don't take much ballast with full tanks to reach MTOW). It doesn't climb like a rocket, but it does climb.

I seem to recall a Part Banana prang a couple years ago - maybe in EnZed - where the pilot couldn't physically move the fuel selectors to acheive crossfeed (they're on the cockpit ceiling, rather than the roof) because they were frozen in place from lack of use. Good reason for those fuel selector checks on the runup checklist.

And a 'suddun pitch down' surely does sound like a stall.......

Anywho, I guess the ATSB eport will fill in the gaps currently being speculated on.

PS - statistical evidence proves beyond question that the second most dangerous thing on the road is an under-25 male driver. The MOST dangerous thing you can do on the road is be a passenger in a car driven by an under-25 male at night.

Likewise CC, I looked at the photo, couldn't see too much of anything that suggested 'controlled' either. But I still choose to give the guy the benefit of the doubt, until the facts become known and perhaps remove even that. A courtesy not often enough extended in this area IMO... and certainly to the point of my original post in this thread.

Twice now CC I notice you refer to a
I have reviewed all I can find here and in the SMH article and can find no mention of same... is there more information available somewhere?

Nope..and I stress I was talking generally rather than specifically about this crash.

It is just top of my very short list of ways to end up in the water in a twin.

Hey LJ what school did you go to? Its just I want to make sure my kids don't go there. Cheers.:rolleyes: