KZ - Apparently he was once a baggage handler in Port Headland. I'm not aware of any other qualifications.

Condolences to family's and friends .
Is it %100 correct it was on take off or could it been a go around or missed approach off a practice instrument approach ?

ATC data was used for the last part of the recorded flight according to a web based tracker, at an altitude of 1250 meters (4100',) however, ATC coverage may extend a lot lower than that? Somebody else might be able to provide that information. ADSB is great for providing many paramaters such as velocity, altitude, rate of climb±, and track all timestamped in high definition creating a 3 dimensional picture of what is going on. This data would be of assistance in the investigation.

Would it be fair to suggest all check and training activities take place in a radar environment or airports that provide ADSB signal reception to ground level?


From Airservices Website
http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/v...5f7954532c.jpg

http://i692.photobucket.com/albums/v...000%20feet.jpg

Yes slippery pete I am speculating, it is however "educated" speculation, given the location, time of and disposition of the wreckage, it's difficult to imagine it's anything other than a stall/Vmca event for whatever reason.

That article is paywalled - and I've seen the sort of stuff he writes so I'm not paying to be annoyed.

The photos of the wreckage certainly look like a low forward velocity impact.


Did we get an answer on the FDR/CVR question? Given the 1980 manufacture date, if fitted they'd have to have been later additions. It's occurred to me in the past that my car is better equipped for post-accident investigation than a lot of GA aircraft, just by having a $100 dashcam.


I didn't know Martin - he came on to the SA aviation scene after I retired but I first met Paul when he was in his 20s and worked with Steve when I was with KD in the 1990s. They were aviators in the best senses of the word and really nice guys too. They'll all be missed.


There's a Wikipedia entry on the crash that a contributor from the UK has slated for deletion on the basis that the accident is of little significance and "light twins crash all the time". Firstly I think it's a mistake to equate a C441 with (say) a C310, secondly this is the first fatal accident for an operator with 50 years of safe operation under its belt and thirdly I think this may be the first ever loss of a civilian turbine aircraft in South Australia.

Why? Are they certified to a different standard?

I was talking about the level of significance of the loss of one (I don't think the Wikipedia entry should be deleted).

VH-FMN at Mount Gambier.

No idea, but the article I saw in the Advertiser today was utter drivel.

Having just read the ABC site, there is mention of a second wreckage site, but no details, so maybe it's not quite so straight forward.

Steve

Stallie is quite correct, apart from different engines they are certificated to exactly the same FAR Part 23 performance requirements.
Significant issues, in the single engine case they are ONLY required to demonstrate the maintenance of level flight 5,000ft in ISA, and, EFATO a "positive" rate of climb. "positive" rate being min 50fpm.
There is no 1st, 2nd, 3rd or 4th segment climb gradient requirements as for Part 25 Transport Category types. There is OEI information in the POH and operators/pilots would be wise to include this calculation in their pre TO considerations.
We had an accident with fatals in a 400 series type over here where the "highly experienced" pilot decided to turn back, I don't think he got much over 200ft.

Steve used to fly for me a good bloke and good pilot. RIP Steve.

CASA Tribute to Steve:

https://www.casa.gov.au/media-releas...stephen-guerin

Poor buggers.
I once had the pleasure of enjoying the company of one of these fellow aviators socially. A more humorous, informative, and engageable person would be hard to find.
It appears they perished enjoying their passion. Sad none the less.
Heartfelt condolences to family, acquaintances and friends.

Ref DF's query, aircraft are either State (military) or Australian (civil). RFDS will be on the Australian Register, ie civil aircraft.

It may only be required to demonstrate FAR23 criteria, but the Conquest is quite the rocket ship.

I doubt the certification minimum reflects the actual capability in this instance.

The conquest may be a rocket ship, but cock it up and it becomes a missile.
Its a FAR23 aircraft treat it as such.

Conquest can be a missile.
 

Quite so! And escape velocity is circa 25,000 kts, gravity and Newton therefore always wins.
My Conquest and Citation manuals are in a box somewhere in the garage, perhaps Leafblower could provide the OEI Climb rate for a MTOW and maybe lighter weights say half fuel for a C441 at Renmark.
From memory it might be from around 200fpm to higher when lighter but it won't be a startled gazelle and is only interesting unless you apply the actual climb gradient against the ERSA Runway Distance Supplement. This is a Requirement for Part 25 ops but not Part 23. Again my cranky memory suggests that the radio mast some miles to the West of Essendon R26 and the city skyscrapers off a take off to the South were real considerations. R21 at Perth has you busting through the Jandakot Airport circuit area at low level. Prove me incorrect if you wish. But remember the calls assume what could possibly go wrong.
I am surprised we are still having this discussion at this professional level. I gaurantee that for many of you a formal assessment of the EFATO runway and climb gradient performance against your regular destinations will bring a surprise. Regardless of whether it is a Part 23 piston or turboprop.
The reliability of these types is OK with the maintenance up to date but that doesn't protect you from a failure. A simulated EFATO, exercise if it must be performed, requires a very comprehensive plan and formal brief and the same detailed performance calculation as above as for normal ops and any eventualities.
QF's DeCrepignys experience in the very latest technology, what can possibly go wrong A380 even, is salutary and should be required reading.
Cessna also publish accelerate stop and go distances in the Manual, which properly interpreted can give you a means of applying a Claytons Part 25 profile alongside the calculated EFATO gradient.
It will of course be weight (not much) and or runway length (usually not enough) limited.
Unlike Part 25 equipment with the installed thrust and certification to meet day to day ops, Part 23 ops, which were never intended for fare paying pax in the first place, an EFATO is very serious high risk ****, more often than not mishandled, persistence simply takes you to the scene of the accident. The manufacturer says continued flight is the least attractive option and the least worst option directly in front of you is the best.
The regulator finally worked it out now requiring sims for the smaller turboprops and jets and the enlightened operators, like Leafblower, having protocols that recognise and mitigate the high risk. Yes sims cost if you have to travel but there is another even greater price.
40 year old complex airframe engine combinations are ripe with risk and failure potential. I used to sell these types new and operated them over many thousands of hours in charter when they were youngsters so I have a good handle on their potential weaknesses.
Let's see what the investigation produces but notwithstanding the experience and professional backgrounds involved I do hope we get a surprise.

so gaunty from a practical sense you would or would not fly the second segment

I offer the following with some reluctance. Without wishing to second-guess the crew, for I was not there, I have seen some crap on here (who'd a thought?) about what a Conquest can and cannot do.

My personal belief is that like the vast majority of accidents, this one too shall be largely due to the errors, misunderstandings, slips and other human failings of the very experienced and much loved people in the front. From the little I know of the background to this flight, I am of the opinion that it is the consequence of CASA bureaucracy and administrative intransigence rather than any innate failing of any of the 3 men, may they rest in peace.

Data at 1630 for 30/5/17 from Weatherzone.com.au
Performance data from AFM supplement for STC SA00487SE (GWI Phase I and II)

Renmark Elev 43'
QNH 1028.5 = Press ht -400' (say SL)
Temp 12.5

Assuming XMJ was at MTOW and had the VG Kit mod (cringes in anticipation of Gaunty's reaction to mention of VG kits)

Performance from the AFM gives a SE Climb rate of 648 fpm, which of course presupposes everything configured just so.

Stall Speed Flaps up/Gear Up 92 Kts, or 86 kt Flaps T/O
ASDR 3700' (1,127m)
Accelerate-Go 4340' (1322m)
Renmark is 1740m in length.

Takeoff Climb Gradient should be 3% at 100 KIAS, with gear DN and flaps TO (ie: 2nd Segment) . Wind was 8-12 kt SSW (maybe 4-6 kt headwind). RoC should be 300fpm.

OEI RoC 650 fpm @120kt with gear up, flap up, inop Feathered, 3-4 deg bank (ie: 4th segment). Usual Cessna subtractions provided of -300 fpm for Gear down, -200fpm for Flaps T/O, -800fpm FLaps LDG.

Nonetheless, that's a fair margin of performance before you start descending. By my reckoning that all exceeds the FAR25 requirements.

Some years ago when I did my C441 Endorsement with Flying Bear he asked what I had flown previously and I said that most of my recent multi was on a C404.
"Oh Good", he said, "The climb rate in a Conquest on ONE engine is very similar to that of a C404..." (My heart sank) "...on BOTH engines"

...and he was right.

While it is very nice to have all these simulators and things these days, I don't recall King Airs and Conquests dropping out of the sky 25 years ago when I was a young bloke. What has changed?

Gaunty, do you remember Conkys and King Airs falling out of the sky 25-30 years ago? They had simulators then. Why do you insist on simulators now?

I have strong views on this that I won't air here because I don't want people thinking I am judging the 3 good men lost this week.

...but the GA industry has to tighten things a bit and CASA has a role to play in funding and facilitating an investment in skills for the top layer of GA check & trainers.