Lord Howe Island accident
 

Ok, who crashed their Kingair at Lord Howe Island? It’s still sitting there next to the runway in a bad state.

Nice weather...

New rpt mob out of port mac. They off to a bad start one would say.

Anyone got a photo? Or more details of what went wrong?

Believe hit prop and took off one wing or badly broken. Old snot box. 1981 b200. Think bb 998 13000plus ex nz airforce

The KingAir out of Port Maquarie looks to have got there and back today no worries according to FR24 and FlightAware.

It’s not the same one - different operator.

Word filtering through the King Air had CB's en route, approach turbulence on both runways and then wind shear on landing.

Is a RPT King Air required to carry return fuel

Folks,
In other words, a normal day at Lord Howe.
Tootle pip!!

I don't know when this accident occurred, but there is nothing on the ATSB website about it.

just like there is nothing about the aircraft that burned to ash after a crash on landing at YMAA over the weekend. Lack of resources in Canberra ?

Hard landing resulting in unplanned bent bits.

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4473/...30de7462_z.jpg

https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4479/...4887c7e5_z.jpg

That'll buff out...

Folks,
With that amount of structural damage, (including what you can't see, but it will be there) it will be interesting to see what the insurance company does.
Tootle pip!!

It will be shipped out, cut up (and shipped out) or repaired onsite and flown out. Those are the options. Either way, it will leave the island. Each of those options will be of a similar level of expenditure.

Don’ t think that will be repairable on Lord Howe Island, more likely shipped out on the barge to Port Macquarie, along with the rest of the scrap from the Island.

Might be the photo, but the nacelle look likes it sitting a bit lower than normal.

Article in today's Weekend Australian titled "Weather report ban linked to air crash".

Not linked by the ATSB or CASA though.

Article says that the airport operator removed contact details (for UNICOM?) from ERSA due to CASA not renewing someone's "licence to provide detailed weather observations to pilots unless he spent $20,000 on a meteorological training course".

Here you go Cap'n.

2:00amANTHONY KLAN
Restrictions on weather information to incoming flights on Lord Howe has been linked to an *accident.

Weather report restriction linked to Lord Howe air crash

An intervention by the aviation safety regulator restricting a veteran harbour master from providing crucial weather information to incoming flights at Lord Howe Island has been linked to a serious *accident.

Clive Wilson has intricate knowledge of the treacherous weather patterns and cross winds on the remote island and for decades radioed this knowledge to incoming flights. His volunteer work was encouraged by airlines, the RAAF and air ambulance services.

But three years ago the Civil Aviation Safety Authority told Mr Wilson, who had been manning the radio since 1956, it would not renew his licence to provide detailed weather observations to pilots unless he spent $20,000 on a meteorological training course.

On Friday morning last week a 13-seater twin-turboprop King Air 200 carrying five people was seriously damaged when it ploughed into the tarmac, *destroying a propeller and damaging a wing, in an accident so *serious experts said the plane would most likely have to be *returned to the mainland by ship to be repaired.

The previous evening, in similar weather, a medical evacuation flight radioed Mr Wilson for *advice and was told it was too dangerous to land.

It circled for more than an hour before returning to the mainland.

Unlike air force and medevac pilots, many flight operators — including Port Macquarie-based Eastern Air Services, which had been flying the King Air commercially into Lord Howe since *December — no longer radio Mr Wilson for advice on conditions on the ground.

Mr Wilson said this was in part because many pilots were no longer aware he provided the service — his name and contact details were removed from the *region’s pilot guide at the insistence of the Lord Howe Island airport administration amid the spat with CASA.

“That morning (of the accident) the wind was gusting up to 50 knots and my respectful advice would have been abandon what you are doing and go home,” Mr Wilson told The Weekend Australian yesterday.

“My normal conversation in those circumstances would have been ‘the conditions are difficult and unpredictable and there is a high-level of risk in attempting to approach Lord Howe under these conditions’.”

Former Qantas pilot Bill Hamilton said the action by CASA was a “textbook case of mindless bureaucracy trumping common sense” and it was “putting lives at risk”.

“Almost all of the rest of the world would see Clive’s efforts as essential but we’re a country where compliance with ratbag regulations take precedence over commonsense,” Mr Hamilton said.

An Australian Transport *Safety Bureau spokesman confirmed a King Air 200 turboprop aircraft had lost control and had been involved in an accident on Lord Howe Island at 7.20am on October 27.

“During final approach, the aircraft encountered a strong downdraft, resulting in a hard landing with substantial damage to the right wing and propeller,” the spokesman said.

“The ATSB reviewed the incident and is not investigating.”

There were five people on board, none of whom was injured.

A CASA spokesman said the regulator would not investigate as it usually only reviewed accidents that were more serious — where injuries or deaths had occurred as a result of systemic mechanical or other problems.

Eastern Air Services did not return calls yesterday.

On its website the company was advertising seven-day holiday packages from Port Macquarie to Lord Howe Island — aboard the King Air 200 — *between October and December from $1199 twin-share.

And they have the hide to call themselves "Safety Authorities"

Funny how they've decided not Investigate it ey? This should be made a bigger deal of, perhaps start to expose their idiotic drive to increase regulations and remove the use of common sense!

CAsA - hang your heads!

So what we see is

A prop - new


A engine inspection


Stub wing extensive repair


Disassemble for barge ferry


Re assemble after repairs


Unless it is massively over insured it will be a write off.

Typical idiotic bureaucracy.

Clive use to give weather and sea reports to my dad when he flew the Sandringhams to Lord Howe in the early 70's.

As someone who has intimated knowledge of the vagaries of Lord Howe weather Clive is someone who I'd trust for an accurate appraisal.

Instead we have a forecast that at best is an estimate by someone who has never been to Lord Howe.

If I was the operator I'd have just called Clive and asked what was happening.

If I was a betting man, that is what I would back as the outcome, I gather it is already a rather elderly airframe.
Tootle pip!!

Huh???
A little bit early to be drinking Lead one🍷🍺🍺🍻🍸
Tootle pip.

Sorry about the digital dysfunction (aka finger trouble) in my last post. And no, I can't even blame the turps (sadly), just not paying attention.

As to the AIC being withdrawn, what ADO Nonsense 2.0 evolves will be interesting, as what really needs to happen is that most of the regulation that has caused the problem should be repealed, and a hugely simplifies and brief AC (Advisory Circular) written, covering how to establish a simple GPS position, and send it to Airservices.

Say, for example, it must be a Registered Surveyor, who must fill in FormXXX and post/fax/email/SMS to "the address at the top of the page".

As a "general rule" (used as an English expression, not a request for another regulation with a Strict Liability 50 penalty points hit) a change need only be submitted when something changes, not an annual event.

Don't hold your breath.

Tootle pip!!

Actually the way insurance mobs work,is that if it's over insured, it's replaced with another elderly aircraft, and if it's under-insured, you get paid out.

In this case if it's paid out you need to add the salvage costs on top but it's still got some value in parting it out so it won't be a total financial loss.

I know of one aircraft brought for around $80,000 insured for I think $150,000 or $170,000. It crashed and was paid out full amount.


Another insured for around $200,000 was written off and offer was made to replace it with another aircraft. That offer was rejected by the owner and was fully paid out - but the owner was then responsible for the salvage.


Another brought for $170,000 insured for $200,000 and paid out full $200,000.


It would appear there is some salvage value to this aircraft.

I'm a bit confused as to what the ATSB chooses to investigate. Are they not investigating this because there were no fatalities? Because this could have easily been an accident where there were.

Even if the operator and the pilot were doing everything correctly, then any investigation of this would have been a good study on lessons learned and how improvements can be made. After all in a lot of the travel magazines Lord Howe Island is touted as a place to go and the QF flights are always pretty full, so smaller charter operators are looking to go there and they may not have much experience if any with the place.

Unfortunately I think this aircraft will be broken up and will make it's way back on a barge, as these photos only show a small amount of the damage.

If the operator and crew had done everything correctly, then maybe they could write an article for one of the Aviation magazines here in Australia and share the lessons that they learned from this experience.

If the operator and crew had done everything correctly, then maybe they could write an article for one of the Aviation magazines here in Australia and share the lessons that they learned from this experience.

Yup, Lord Howe is a very challenging destination, especially when the wind doth blow. Always wise to take Clives advice, when he was allowed to give it. Wonder how many necks he's saved over the years, probably mine a couple of times when he convinced me discretion was the better part of valour.

If it is UNDER insured the underwriter may deduct the amount it is under correct value from the pay out, standard insurance market policy.

I remember going out to LHI before the windy point wind was on the AWIS but you could talk to the BOM meteorologist on the radio, but was told while visiting the office there on one occasion that CAsA has told them (BOM) to stop using the radio as they did not hold a valid radio licence and could not talk to aircraft. Once again a great safety outcome from the regulator. At least they put the windy point data onto the AWIS after that.

This is a disgrace.

Has it been deliberately ignored because an investigation may implicate the regulator?

Is this reporting strategy worse or better than the Westwind debacle? Two different ATSB techniques to the same problem.

I’ve been wondering when bureaucratic red tape was finally going to materialise into an actual prang.

That makes no sense, you mean OVER insured.

I wonder if there is any connection between the then CASA officer that issued the edict to the LHI harbour master to stop passing weather to aircraft(until he completed a course) and anybody now working in a senior position at the ATSB?

Might just explain why the Bureau has declined to investigate this 'occurrence'.

I suspect you can stop wondering Slippery Pete.

CC

Sticky, he means UNDER insured. The thieving ba$tards claim that you are a "co-insurer" if the item is under insured so you bear a part of the risk. Nice little catch, isn't it?

Folks,
Mustfa is quite correct on co-insurance.

You MUST understand the details of the insurance, particularly if you are the pilot or hire an aircraft.

The "default" in many (most?) Australian aircraft insurance policies also allows to insurer to pursue the pilot (not being an employee) for recovery of its loss, having paid out the insured.

As I recall, aviation insurance is legally exempted from most insurance consumer protection standards required by law.

Tootle pip!!

Definitely not, stickwiththetruth, there is no penalty in being over insured, being under insured means you are paying less premium than you should and can incur a penalty. You will find the answers amongst this lot: https://www.google.com.au/search?sou....0.Vua8ohP6jWw

Well there is actually... there are at least two ways that you can get burnt:

1. The aircraft can be replaced with one of market value, thus you never get the "extra" $$ that it was insured for and you end up with something not as good as what you had.

2. If the damage is incurred by a third party, the third party insurance company may refuse to pay the full amount that you are insured for, because you were over insured... and why should they pay higher than market value?

On the flip side, if you're under insured and a third party writes off your plane, your insurance company can request market value for your aircraft which is a win for you. That being said, it sounds good, but rarely does it happen because usually it's the pilot of your aircraft that damages it.

So, we're all going to focus on the Insurance side of things as opposed to ATSB not moving on this to help cover their buddies asses over at CASA?

The blame a few posts above points the finger at not having someone to provide a met service. Sorry, but that wasn’t what caused the accident. If the wind was indeed up to 50kts as reported, it would have been on the AWIS. Why the need to continue attempts to land in such windy conditions? What was the fuel state that pushed the crew towards this decision? Was there enough to go back to the mainland?

If the rumour I’ve heard is true, I’m amazed the ATSB and CASA are not concerned! Didn’t we learn the lessons from the Norfolk Island ditching about having a suitable alternate up our sleeve?

This org is trying to get an rpt for this route. Questions need to be asked before this is granted. There seems to be a lot of un answered questions at tnis point.