Light aircraft down at Moree.
 

Just heard fatal crash at Moree.

PLANE ACCIDENT CLAIMS FOUR LIVES

March 30, 2011

Four people are dead and two others are seriously injured following a light-plane crash at Moree.
A man, woman and two others were found dead inside the Cessna wreckage after is crashed in a paddock on Blueberry Road near the Moree airport shortly after 8pm tonight.
The Cessna had flown from Brisbane with six people onbaord.
A teenage girl and a man were freed from the light-plane and taken to Moree Hospital with serious injuries.
Police have established a crime scene and forensic specialists are on their way from Inverell.
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau have been notified and will begin investigations into the cause of the crash in the morning.

Oh crap that's bad news. I know a few 210s heading south for this weekend.

Any more details on the aircraft?

No sorry mate.
My thoughts go out to all family members. I'm so sorry to hear this.

Cherokee VH-LKI. Very little info at this stage.

It hasn't been a good run of late has it?

RIP

The media is saying "Cessna" but I believe it was a Piper Saratoga.
They think every light aircraft is a "Cessna"

PA-32R-301T Saratoga Turbo 1983 model.

http://images.smh.com.au/2011/03/30/...rash-420x0.jpg

FOUR people died and two others were seriously injured when a light plane crashed near a caravan park while attempting to land in northern NSW last night.

A man, woman and two other adults were found dead inside the wreckage of a six-seat, single-engine Cessna near Moree Airport shortly after 8pm.

The Cessna, which had flown from Brisbane, crashed in a paddock on Blueberry Road, Moree, two kilometres from the airport, and about 100 metres from Gwydir Caravan Park. Witnesses told police it had clipped a tree before crashing upside-down.

Police remain at the scene of a light-plane crash which left four people dead at Moree last night.

Shortly after 8pm, emergency services were called to a paddock on Blueberry Road near Moree Airport following reports the single engine plane with six people on board had crashed.

The Cessna crashed on approach to Moree Airport following a flight from Brewarrina. Early information suggesting the plane had flown from Brisbane was incorrect.

Local police, paramedics and officers from the NSW Fire Brigades and Rural Fire Service attended the crash site.

Two men and a woman, aged their 60s, and a woman, aged in her 20s, were found dead inside the wreckage.

A man, aged in his 40s and a 12-year-old girl, were taken to Moree Hospital with a range of critical injuries.

and

It was a Saratoga for a start......:ugh:

Bugger..... what a shame. If he / she departed Brewarrina yesterday then a Saratoga would be the likely type- it was the only other type there yesterday afternoon apart from me.

My condolances to their family and friends. Let's hope the two in hospital make a speedy recovery.

When I informed a Yahoo *Journalist* that the plane was in fact a Piper Saratogo, he asked me for the rego to verify.

I told him, in light of the fact that the deceased pilot's name had not been made public, I wasn't going to give the rego to him, as the owner may NOT have been the pilot flying at the time.

RIP

I hope the two injured make a speedy recovery

tinhorse
 

I watched this aircraft last night -entering downwind for RW19 Moree. The circuit height appeared right, and the turn onto base right distance out and standard. The turn onto final approach however appeared to be too low. The aircraft impacted the ground slightly over 500mtrs from RW19 threshold. From observation of the wreckage it would seem that little forward motion was involved as there is no discernible scattering. The night was clear but very dark. The remains of the aircraft are pretty much aligned with the centreline of RW19.The landing lights were on for all of the approach that I could see, and I have always found that except for short final, they were a hinderence and a distraction.

Hi Tinhorse,

sorry you had to witness the event. In my time in OZ aviation ( 37 yrs ), Ive seen a few, and as you well know its not a pleasant thing.

We can all guess, from your words, what probably happened.

Im sure you have already spoken to the Investigators,and thankfully, you can give them a very accurate account of the accident.

But please, please, please, dont say anything to those mindless bottom feeders that are journo's.
And Im sure you wont .
They surf this forum looking for bits n pieces to distort.
The well known family from Moree, who were involved, have enough to worry about, than have to read or listen to some spin doctor dribble that gets aired..

cheers mate, and thank you for your post.

Altitude and ROD must be closely monitored on final. I always had my students turn final not below 600' at night. I too feel for the poor souls. nasty accident.

My heart goes out to all involved in this tragic accident that i know is being felt across the entire Moree community. I knew the pilot quite well, i am lucky to have worked at his business back in 2003 before i left for uni. He was a very fair man who gave me a go when i couldn't find work, taught me so much and was a well respected figure in the community. He loved to fly whenever he had the opportunity. His aircraft was always well equipped and maintained. I'm shocked by this news.

He can fly as often as he likes now.

The rest of you fly safe, and tell your families you love them.

CV wise words.

Yes seems (if we can beleive anything from the media) that this involved 3 generations of 1 family.

Shocking stuff.

sad on all fronts.. enough said.

Moree is 700 ft amsl. Circuit height would be 1700 ft QNH. No visual approach slope guidance. Black night - black hole approach - Unless the pilot is very experienced and IFR rated, if going into this type of country airport it is all too easy to forget in the stress of a night approach, the actual height above terrain on base and final. For example 1000 ft QNH is only 300 ft above runway level.
That is why PAPI/VASIS is so vital at night as it is difficult to accurately judge the correct (safest) angle of approach.

Not saying this happened here in Moree but a warning to any pilot that operates in the outback on dark moonless nights. Especially without glide slope guidance.

When there is tragedy far from home most us want to learn from the incident, when it is close to home grieving and shock often turns us against the messenger.

There are both good and bad journalists and eyewitnesses.

A good journalist uses a reliable eyewitness to piece together an account of an incident so the rest of us can be informed.


Those who post a report of an incident on a forum, face book or twitter are undertaking the role of a journalist or at least an expert witness account.

So we are faced with either, doing nothing, posting hopefully accurate information ourselves or supporting good journalists in a hope they will piece together the skeleton facts of an incident.

No question that in some air accidents the most likely cause isn't always the actual cause, but getting reliable facts into the public domain helps prevent damaging misreporting.


Mickjoebill

No such thing. In 10 years I've never read an accurate aviation piece.

If you're not a pilot, get off the forum.

Landed over the wreckage today, then drove past going into town. So close to the field. I used to see this plane and it's owner regularly, always gave me a wave.

A37575 "it is all too easy to forget in the stress of a night approach, the actual height above terrain on base and final. For example 1000 ft QNH is only 300 ft above runway level."

No bloody way mate! It is something you can NEVER forget. We spent 25yrs flying mail runs in that western NSW country, all at night, all between 19.00 and 24:00+. The fellow flew that area all his flying life, he knew his altitudes by rote. If it is a dark night with no moonlight, without external cues, it is basically an IFR approach and landing. I would think that he was an instrument rated pilot flying a very well equipped aircraft that had a lapse of concentration due to fatigue, from what i read his initial point of departure was BN. It can happen to the best..and does! Nuff said from me, God rest their souls

Well you took the opportunity Baron

Hi Shrike, yes I did.

I now feel bad for posting on this thread. I will remove my comments aimed at Journalism, and aviation, and post under a new topic.

Hope it won't affect the continuity of this one... i am sure there is much more to come, - and more on topic than my ramblings.

~
 

Today's Adelaide Advertiser has it listed as a Piper jet! :ugh:

DF.

Geez I hope this was a pvt flight and not a "charter"

sorry to hear about it for all involved .....

Does get to be a black hole out there in some parts of the circuit at MOR

I think this accident will be found to be very similar to the Bonanza accident on Bathurst Island. Not sure if the Saratoga has four fuel tanks but possibly the fuel state was considered to be ok but given that there was no post impact fire I would think that fuel exhaustion is a real possibility.

Such a sad event. We all cringe when we hear/read such happenings.
Unfortunately whilst man & machine are interfaced we shall have such outcomes. Whether it be fuel related, mechanical related or even a body failure (heart attack for Eg) we can only hope we each learn from this as well as the many other events that will sadly follow. If it's straight out human error by way of height misjudgment for Eg then we need not judge here as we have ALL made errors.
Flying an aircraft at night in remotely lit area's or in IMC is inherently dangerous as we don't have that one feature we humans rely on so much, our vision beyond the cockpit.
Take care out there everyone whom find them selves in the same position, at night, low (as in the circuit) and with minimal outside cues.Watch that Alt, that Hdg that VSI like a hawk for even the most experienced of drivers out there can get caught by the night stalker!


Wmk2

It seems to be a common belief on here that when an aircraft crashes it will catch on fire if it has fuel on board. Not always so! particularly if it has simply flipped over or similar.

Very true but on this occasion the wing has separated from the fuselage which would probably expose fuel lines from the wing. The usual caveat applies about waiting for the final report but fuel starvation/exhaustion has been a regular cause of accidents in Australia.

ATSB Preliminary Report is available here.

WTF ... unless you are doing an approved IAL ... it is a Visual Approach ... fullstop.

and ...

WTF ... unless you are IFR Rated you'll prang in? Do we not have a NVFR Rating any more? Can't NVFR pilots land safely on a dark night? What's going on in this place ?

It's my understanding that NVFR was originally intended as a means of letting VFR aircraft get home a bit after last light, or launch a bit before first light.

As we all know, though, it's possible - probable even on a lot of nights - that flying at night can involve no visible horizon, not a lot of ground reference features and very limited attitude information outside from stars, ground lights, moonlit terrain or whatever.

My point is that for an adequate safety margin on many NVFR flights, you need to be as good at instrument flying as an IFR pilot - probably better at hand flying on instruments seeing as you probably won't have an autopilot.

So, peuce, the line between visual and instrument flying blurs significantly in the NVFR world as I'm sure you know. I'm not suggesting anything in particular about what happened in this Moree accident, but I know that I've flown on a lot of dark nights where some aspects of a circuit were far more instrument than visual.

However, I guess my point is .... a visual black hole approach is difficult for anyone. I don't see how being IFR rated makes it any easier or less disorienting.

It's not like there's an ILS at these places !

P.S. A NVFR pilot who regularly exercises that rating would arguably be safer at a black hole aerodrome than an IFR rated pilot, who infrequently flys at night.

There are so many variables here. It just makes me mad to read the rash generalisations from the armchair experts.

Fair enough.
Speaking of black holes, that picture from the preliminary report of the finals track, caravan park, a black gap and then the runway looks like a situation where the 'black hole' illusion where you fly over lights in the undershoot and, because the angle they subtend in your view gets bigger as you get closer to them, can subconsciously feel like you're getting high on approach slope, could possibly have been a player.

If there's one thing to take away from this regardless of how often you fly, be it NVFR or IFR, calling out the altitude to yourself and your passenger if you have one is an excellent way of avoiding this; simple and effective.

Saying to yourself, airport 300ft, I'm 800ft, I'm turning onto final at 500ft, I need to be at 300ft by one mile, call out 200ft, 100ft, etc, etc, you know what I mean. If you are too low you are going to realise pretty soon if you are deliberately calling out the altitude. Relying solely on visual aids simply doesn't always work, short of an approved approach lighting system. My 2 cents worth.

Excellent reply. In another life, this scribe flew 737's into black hole approaches into atolls in the South Pacific and Micronesia. No ILS and no VASIS and one could just imagine what it must have felt like to pilots landing on an aircraft carrier at night.

At 500 feet above airport elevation the copilot would look down at his instruments and call out the airspeed reading, altitude and rate of descent. The reason for this was the stable approach criteria. We pinched the idea from Ansett in those days. But there was another reason.

Below 500 feet, both pilots are concentrating on the appearance of the runway because with no glide slope guidance it was all too easy to misjudge the approach angle - especially through a rain swept windcreen where optical illusions caused by looking through water gave erroneous visual indications.

While non-standard, my personal preference under serious black hole conditions, was an additional final call from the PNF at 200 feet, of airspeed, ground speed, height and rate of descent. Something like: "200 feet..Bug plus five...Ground speed 135... Sink 700.

The reason for this was human factors. At 200 feet both pilots will probably be heads up - being a visual approach. Of course the PF is watching his own flight instruments carefully as well as the runway perspective. It is all too easy, however, for the pilot to concentrate on the runway perspective, correcting for drift and still miss an increasing change of airspeed and sink rate. At the same time, it is odd's on that the PNF is watching the runway with increasing interest with only 15 seconds to the flare. He too may miss an unexpected speed or sink rate trend.

By having the PNF go heads down momentarily at 200 feet to actually read out the airspeed and sink rate, then if the PF hasn't done it, then at least someone has. If through misjudgement, the PF has closed the thrust levers to less power than desirable for the conditions, at 200ft, even with idle thrust, (perish the thought on a 737), there is enough room for an immediate go-around and spool up.

Rate of descent in a light single engine type is easily changed with power. The problem crops up at night if the pilot inadvertently raises the nose a few degrees to stretch the glide as it were, and fails to note a rapid speed bleed. Next second, a stall warning sounds taking the pilot unawares and it is likely he instinctively pulls back on the stick close to the deck to prevent landing short. All this applies to a dark night black hole illusion where no visual glide slope aids are available.

In my mind that is why a deliberate heads down check of flight instruments at 200 ft, is a useful final check under the circumstances described, and still leave time for a go-around. A single pilot operation can adapt.

At almost ANY typical outback aerodrome the simple expedient of having -> ARP in the GPS and then multiplying the dist x 3 + elevation will stop you getting too high or low.

A quick glance down on final - 1.5nm to ARP that is 350' amsl...you should have 800' on the altimeter. If your IAS, power and ROD are all within tolerances you are looking good.

The chief pilot of one company that I worked for introduced a standard approach that he wanted all company pilots to use. It came from an old Ansett training manual and was basically a constant descent to a landing.

The initial point was at 10 miles to touchdown where the aircraft had to be at 3,000' AGL and approach flaps selected. Up to that point the aircraft had been descending at 500'/min. The descent rate was then adjusted to 5 x GS, the undercarriage was selected at 5 miles to touchdown and landing flaps at 1 mile. Basically, it was 300' for every mile from the 10 mile point.

This approach became second nature as it really worked well for the C402 I mainly flew but where it came into its own was when I was based at Tennant Creek where I often had to night visual approaches, sometimes in less than ideal weather. It really meant I didn't have to reinvent the wheel every time I did an approach; just watch the numbers between the GPS and the altimeter.

That is what a 3x profile is...300'/nm.

You can use it on base too with a little thought.

ATSB report.

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/3600179/ao2011043.pdf