OK, if the cause is known, the sooner we have it the better for all. It would also be better for all if no one speculated on the cause of accidents, or at least only did so in private and not on public forums such as this. Better to wait for the official version.
Backing off now and going back into retirement. Cheers all.

Really? Have you informed the ATSB of this info? If you know what has happened and haven't given the ATSB the relevant info then you may committed an offence under the TSI Act.

Trying to stop speculation about accidents on Pprune is like trying to stop the tide coming in with a sand castle.

Why would you be trying to stop it, rumour and speculation is the intended purpose of this website. If you want serious discussion use the technical forums.

And on that note, i should point out that the collective global membership of Ppruners makes it the biggest aviation database of knowledge in the world and not just knowledge, observation and hands on experience as well. The guy that came up with the satellite plot for the final hours of MH370 is a pprune member. where else can you access a database of that magnitude.
What has the ATSB got, 3 individual investigators, subject to public service rules that are hopelessly overloaded.

speculation is necessary, speculation provides a path of enquiry that may lead to evidence, evidence that may not have been immediately obvious

A year today
 

RIP Max and passengers.








Meanwhile, the ATSB has "delayed" an investigation into development at Essendon and behind the scenes there is an ongoing finger pointing exercise relating to how YMEN has been certified given the infringement of the shopping centre into the airspace alongside both runway (but mostly 26). CEO of Essendon Fields on ABC radio this morning aiming both barrels at CASA - "They have certified the airport twice since privatisation".

Subject of interview with footage on ABC TV and news today...

Pilot's widow thanks aviation community on anniversary of fiery Essendon DFO plane crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


The sting is in the tail per Ron Bartsch:

"We can never ever compromise safety over commercial interests — detailed risk assessments of land use around airports will make sure that won't happen in the future."

Those of us who feel their local airport is being squeezed out by unrestricted development have to hope he is correct.


Kaz

This accident had nothing to do with the proximity of buildings.

Really Xeptu..? How can you make that assertion..? I would have thought that the fact they hit the building on the way down means it had something to do with the accident! Surely if the building wasn't there, Max may have had a chance to at least try to put it down on an open part of the field, but I guess we'll never know.


Thoughts and condolences to all the families involved in this tragedy. Hard to believe a year's gone by already.

Xeptu. Agreed.

It was hit the buildings or hit the freeway..

Both results sadly would be the same..

There has been a building on that location at Essendon since at least 1962 when the old DCA hangar was relocated there to serve as home for the Regional Transport Depot.

Regardless of what caused the accident, Ron has bought up a very valid point. Canberra is another example of how commercial realestate has encroached on areas that should be clear of buildings and structures. The day will come when an aircraft crashes into an airport located DFO which results in multiple fatalities on the ground.

Risk assessments? Who’s doing them, the kids at the local kindergarten by the looks of it...............

There was a runway excursion to the left, having entered from the right on a 45 metre wide runway in this class of aircraft is eyebrow raising in itself, there were at least two propeller strikes, (two runway lights down 60 metres apart), yet the takeoff was continued. Upon becoming airborne there was no attempt to fly the aircraft, the gear was not retracted, the engine was not shutdown and the propeller was not feathered. The pilot transmitted mayday for 5 of the 9 seconds of airborne time. so the questions remain, why, why and why

The question remains: Why are you so keen to attribute blame to the dead pilot.

Three questions in fact: why, why and why.

How about you change the way you look at the questions. that said we are human and not infallible, that is the whole purpose of standard operating procedure, to create expectation in order to minimise that fallibility, but at the end of the day, you are the pilot in command

Thanks for those insights into the bleeding obvious. I’ll write them down in the Big Book Of PPRuNe Wisdom.

Do you have any direct or indirect pecuniary or other interest in the parties who are arguing about who was the registered operator at the time of the accident, or in the organisation which performed maintenance on the aircraft?

No none at all not even remotely, how about you

None at all. That’s why I’m not speculating.

You must be speculating as a consequence of some misguided belief that you’re somehow making a positive contribution to aviation safety.

This conversation is difficult but necessary: You’re not.

A question from someone who has a complete disinterest in this sad event;

Is the quote above correct in its detail?:confused:

I'm not sure where you're coming from bud, my sole purpose these days is safety, in the hope that everyone goes home to their families. I am retired, I have trained many, I'm not a fan of bureaucracy, or bull**** politics, apart from those with mental health issues and deliberate acts, no-one sets out to have an accident, there's always a reason and just because you're an experienced pilot doesn't mean you're not the reason