VH-AFZ Accident Warnervale NSW
 

Good Outcome
Fly Safe

R W

From ABC

Pilot and passenger escape with minor injuries after light plane crash at Warnervale - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Two men have walked away with minor injuries after a light plane crash on the New South Wales Central Coast.
Emergency services were called to an industrial park off Burnet Road at Warnervale around 10:15am (AEST), following reports of a crash.
The pilot and a passenger were freed from the wreckage and treated by paramedics.
Central Coast Aero Club manager Andrew Smith said the plane was at the end of a trip from Dubbo to Warnervale when it encountered trouble.
"They were at I think about 6,000 feet, started to descend and at some point on the descent the engine's failed," he said.
"And they've done what they've been taught to do, selected best glide speed, headed for the airport and decided to land short of it because they weren't going to make it.
"And handled it very, very well, and they're both safe, which is the important part."
A crime scene has been established with specialist aviation investigators to attend.
Investigations are continuing.

Unlucky. Any suggestions of causes?

A crime scene has been established? That engine could be facing numerous charges for failing.

From Central Coast Aero Club News August 2013:

Magneto issues? Bad earth?

Carb ice would be an easy guess, particularly with an O-200 involved.

Fuel exhaustion? Dubbo is a fair way

Very very fortunate and a good outcome. We've had enough deaths this year.

Not enough go juice ??
Failed after start of descent. Tank pick ups uncovered ?

Isnt certification great, would be nice to get a modern radio fitted easily..

as for the engine, im guessing carby ice. dubbo isnt out of the range of a 152

Its a 150 not a 152 and with two people, (if they were both adults) I doubt you can depart with full tanks. Dubbo may well be out of range in that case, and was it straight line? I doubt it.

It takes me 2 hrs to get from Bankstown to Dubbo at 85 kts a distance of 159Nm
Its 157Nm from Dubbo to Warnervale direct.. so pretty much the same distance, i think well in the range of a C150, and with the prevailing winds being westerly, might also help. dont forget it managed to get there in the first place.

Few things spring to mind. The mention of carby ice is possible if there was enough moisture around.

Interesting point about on descent, The common training at flying schools is to go full rich on descent, and pulling the throttle back. To lessen the impact of icing during the descent, leave the mixture as lean as possible.

For those who have instrumented their carbs and experimented with this you will know what I mean. It is a significant contributor.

The little O-TCM's are great ice machines. :ooh:

G`day Jaba,

Certainly not at the school where I did my training! However, that was 30 years ago!:ooh:

Glad to hear it :ok:

The funny thing is at the end of an approach when everything is at its coolest including exhaust heat sources, the going full rich even then makes you more ice prone than leaving it well alone. :ooh:

Please, pleeeeease tell me that they are not teaching people to do this!

:ugh::ugh:

Jesus wept!

Sadly yes.

the only time i have ever had carby ice in a rotax 912, has been on long descent from 8500ft to sea level in winter.. and those things are nearly impossible to ice up!

It does make you despair Atlas, doesn`t it?

For the record, I later briefly flew Chieftains on a casual basis for the owner of my old Flying School and full rich mixture was only selected after descent, on downwind for the landing runway as part of the pre-landing checks.

I was taught this by the Owner right from the start, even when I did my CPL training in (deep breath, makes sign to ward off evil eye, throws salt over shoulder) a Seneca 1.:eek::eek:

I still adhere to that rule.

When you are paying by the hour it should always be a powered descent! There's no need for an airline-style coasting money-saving approach.

Why?

added content

Ummm because it's faster and you are less likely to shock cool and have all the problems talked about in this thread ...

VH-Cheer Up: nothing to do with magnetos or a bad earth, the radio was genuinely faulty and was finally replaced with with a properly functioning one some time ago.

AFZ had long range fuel tanks so endurance wouldn't have been too much of a problem, though I doubt they would have been able to completely fill them with 2 POB as it would be over MTOW.

Wait - there is more. The common training at flying schools is to pick up a dropped wing with rudder at the point of stall:eek:.

So many blatantly faulty techniques taught at flying schools and that hasn't change for decades. It all starts from the CFI with lack of supervision of his flying instructor staff.

Wasn't that little gem, combined with an 'aggressive' overuse of the rudder determined the cause of a vertical stab separation from an A300 following a wake turb encounter in US some years back? I think it was around 2000-2001.

I think pilot training was also a contributing factor.

From someone who was involved in the investigation from the outset, I can tell you fuel wasn't a problem. It was 1.7 hrs oil clock flight time back from Dubbo to the eventual landing in the paddock. A good Westerly on the day.
As far as all the slander over mixture usage and how all of we instructors are inept individuals with no idea - all i can say is that the Central Coast Aero Club teach correct technique, consistent with good practice. This does not mean going full rich prior to descent from 7,500'.
The pilot on the day admitted the descent was left a little late, and a very low power setting was used. The pilot was private hiring the aircraft and wasn't trained at Warnervale.
The conclusion as to what went awry may be drawn from that statement.
I personally have video evidence of the engine being started and run on recovery back to the airport - so no mechanical issue.
Whatever the cause, the pilots on board executed a well controlled landing into what can only be described as swampland. The aircraft overturned at low speed at the end of the landing roll after the nosewheel dug in and collapsed.
Both pilots completely unharmed and a good result considering.

Thanks for the informative update, Sir Instructalot. I think though, that you are confusing general comment on some of the strange things taught around the countryside, with criticism directed at your aero club. Unless that is, you subscribe to the view that an instructor's rating confers a cloak of infallibility on the holder?

The FDR should be able to provide information as to why the engine stopped. Lets wait till the results are published. Any landing you can walk away from...

Re " The FDR should be able to provide information as to why the engine stopped "

A C-150M fitted with a "FDR"....? On a 'O-200?'

That would be nice....! If it had one of those 'JPI' thingys, that would be better....

Some might think that the 'evidence' would have melted by now.....

Oh dear!
Cheers :ok:

Not at all spinex, I am the first to admit that we all, as humans, are fallible - me no doubt more than most;)
There appeared to be a developing consensus though of a certain amount of blame being laid at the door of the instructing sector in general. I thought it would be unfair that the local Flying school become tarred with the brush that was provided by the select few (who appear in any sector of our industry) who use incorrect technique or otherwise lower the standards of our great profession.
I think the term 'pulling the throttle back' is accurate on descent. Pulling it all the way back? Not too clever of course.
I suspect that almost all instructors out there (I'm desperately hoping) understand the risks of excessively low power settings coupled with rich mixtures and cool temps. It is preached ad nauseum in all the text books and exams...
Anyway, as I said - perhaps poor technique initiated the problem, but decent training contributed to a good outcome in the end.

Training
 

To Centaurus' point:

During my PPL training in the early 90s I studied the theory at TAFE. It was repeatedly drummed in to us (by a number of ex-airline and military pilots) to pick up a wing with the rudder at the point of the stall.

As far as practical application of this, I have never been taught anything else by any instructor (various schools but always at YSBK) in every company type check or flight review to do otherwise. There has always been a strong reminder to never use the ailerons near a stall either. This is mainly in high wing Cessna and Piper Cherokee variants.

I never touched the mixture control during my training until well in to my first cross country (at the instructor's direction). And I was never allowed to use anything more than 2,300 rpm in cruise, irrespective of altitude. I did most cross countries in Piper Archers and thought they all cruised at around 90 knots!

I did question some of this "wisdom" but the general response was, "our airplane, our rules", particularly if you want to pass the test.

It wasn't until I had completed my PPL and was let loose alone that I started to learn this "wisdom" was lacking. And it took a while for me to feel comfortable flying airplanes to the book figures rather than what I had been taught.

Even now I'm astounded by how this was almost absolutely consistent across every instructor I flew with.

Don't get me started about the "avoid anything other than kilometres of bitumen at all costs" rules either!

I'll stand by to be flayed by those who know more than me, but the recovery technique in the C150 POH has exactly what Centaurus is saying NOT to do. And that's what I was taught as well. When practicing stalls, especially with power & flap, in the event of a wing drop (ie incipient spin), the recovery is :-


- Close throttle
- Ailerons neutral
- Full opposite rudder to stop yaw
- Controls forward to break the stall
- Roll wings level, recover from dive etc etc


So which part of that is incorrect..?


Regarding descending, I think Sir Instrucalot has it right, in that pulling the throttle back, or lets call it reducing power, is the correct thing to do, just not TOO far back, which it seems happened here due to leaving their descent too late. When commencing a descent, its poor airmanship to leave the cruise power setting and simply 'shove' the nose down in a fixed pitch prop C150, you'll end up with the ASI in the yellow arc most likely. Better to reduce power to say 2000RPM, lower the nose slightly and set up a descent rate between 300-500fpm. Of course if you've left your descent too late....well...you'll be needing a lower power setting which will put you past the green arc on the tacho, so best you pull the carby heat knob out!


I agree with Flyer517 regarding mixture control and instruction in its use. Its not taught very well at all in a lot of schools, especially in basic aircraft like C152/172, PA28's etc. I was taught very early on in my nav training that you should in fact go full rich before changing altitude, including starting a descent. The reason given, was that as we descended the mixture could become so lean, we would risk all sorts of nasty things happening to the engine! A lot of nonsense but oh well, you live & learn!

my initial PPL instructors were all ex military, and not one, (same school) suggested using rudder at the point of stall, my current instructor still teaches similar as i was taught in the 80's at the stall, first action.. regardless of wing drop, or not, is Unstall the aircraft. release back pressure, (not push it either) to gt the wing flying, then roll out of the wing drop, and recover to desired attitude. i was reprimanded until i could do it without losing 50 ft if the wing dropped, or 10 ft in a straight and level stall.

i still practice regularly to this day...

I fly two different aircraft (vintage/military trainer) that have a flange on the throttle that richens the adjacent mixture lever when the throttle is moved back (in these aircraft, mixture lever back equals 'rich'). Obviously the designers wanted a richer mixture for descent.

A third radial type I fly, the flight manual expressly says mixture rich for descent.

Is the engine handling issue being discussed applicable to opposed engines only? I have very little experience so far with these and would like to be educated.

It's no wonder the pilot had to close the throttle to get down.

Look at this photo...

Photo: VH-AFZ (CN: 15078867) Private Cessna 150M by Ben Writer - benwriterphotography.com Photoid: 6201514 - JetPhotos.Net

The power in this O-200 is tremendous!

Why not just properly, whilst still in the cruise, calculate a TOD point using a 500FPM rate of descent and upon reaching it, set the descent whilst maintaining cruise RPM?

That is all I have even done in any a/c with a fixed pitch prop! Never ever had any problem with the ASI getting too high.

At the risk of splitting hairs Pinky, in a fixed-pitch aircraft, when commencing a descent, the throttle will have to be retarded to a certain degree to keep RPM constant as you unload the prop. But yes, in a C150 at 500fpm at around 75% power you would have a TAS of probably around 105kts. Not overly excessive.

Pinky, just realised you only mentioned keeping the RPM constant - no mention of throttle position changes. Please disregard;)

People mentioning use of rudder at stall to pick up a wing.
As I see it there are two different things being discussed as the same thing which they are not.

Assuming in my example a wing drop to the left, from a straight and level slow decelerated stall,

Option 1. Using slight opposite rudder to prevent further wing drop.
Option 2. Using lots of opposite rudder to pick up the dropped wing to wings level.

Option 1. is the correct thing to do, you are only preventing further wing drop by yawing the aircraft slightly thereby decreasing the local AOA on the dropped wing and restoring some lift. :ok:

Option 2. is too extreme. Whilst it is true by STRONGLY yawing with opposite rudder you will pick up the wing, you will almost certainly decelerate the other wing changing the RAF and increasing AOA creating a possible wing drop to the right. In addition, if you have forgotten to release your stick back pressure you now have the perfect set up to enter a rapid spin to the right! :eek:

Remember even if you do nothing else, simply releasing the elevator back pressure by moving the stick approx 1-2 inches forward is enough to un-stall the wings and the aircraft will accelerate and fly out of the stall.

Power addition minimises height loss by accelerating the aircraft more quickly.

When you un-stall by moving the stick 1-2 inches forward the aircraft un-stalls and the wing drop will stop. When you have a safe airspeed above the stall you can simply roll level with aileron. :)

Cool Man!:ok:

So is everyone saying that the recommended spin recovery procedure in Cessnas C150 POH is wrong and should be ignored..? Is that wise..? What other parts of it are considered wrong..? I Just looked it up to refresh my memory and it clearly states FULL opposite rudder.

Full opposite rudder to stop YAW. This does not mean picking up the wing.