not a thing.

Hot and thermally, yes. Not ideal for abinitio instruction by lunchtime on hot days, yes. But nothing that would cause one to question a light twin departing with 2 pob! Certainly nothing worse than a lot of the country.

RIP Scotty
the first day that my family moved into SC 18 in Saudia City Scotty walked across the road wearing a lava lava bearing a tray with a pitcher of ice cold beer and several glasses.
a real scallywag - loved his story of using a Migs exhaust to get #4 on his DC8 started as the Indians came over the hill

The Angel was departing off Runway 28...westerly , not north. Turned north. and thence tried for easterly..into oblivion. Very sad.
To me ...the big 'what if'...is... had his climb continued for another 200 mtrs, a right turn would have put him heading up the road...and a much safer arrival, at least for the occupants. Alas, not to be.
From that initial right turn is was unusually quieter., like reduced power on both...I heard no popping or banging of the exhausts...and all that hangs off the back.

Good question geeup..a bit like the Paradise dam, but only much smaller.
The once almost level all over the airfield land area, has now been over engineered to buggery with bloody great drains, a Suez canal with bund wall and dep culvert bear traps to snare passing a/c. Making the place more dangerous than it ever was.
Post completion of the project, the steep drop offs from the taxiway had to be re-done for a gentle slope, and the deep culverts ripped up and shifted further away. 1/2mil, 1 mil.$ ?..never mind plenty of tax dollars to throw around.

Very sad indeed. There has been a few fatalities out of Mareeba over the years.
Just out of curiosity.....what type of engines fitted to the Angel?

A decade or so I was asked to prepare a performance evaluation on the Angel aircraft for operations in PNG. I have been able to find the submission I made at the time and it was far from favourable for the aircraft type.
The single engine ceiling was approximately 3700' at ISA sea level. And that was with an airframe that did not have a HF radio or Van 5/X DME antennae installed and adding to the drag.
Essentially; it was a single engine aircraft at all times in the event of an engine failure. At the time the factory was unable to provide sufficient data to suggest the aircraft would maintain a 1% climb at 5,000 feet for IFR. Indeed for IFR take-off and go-around the MTOW had to reduced considerably for the aircraft to achieve the required climb gradients.
The bottom line was that in ISA +15 at Port Moresby there was no S/E climb available and one shudders to think what negative performance there would have been at Mt. Hagen, Chimbu and Goroka. Maintaining runway heading and banking the dead wing 5 degrees towards the live engine would have been paramount to success.
The aircraft may have appealed to those with a requirement for VFR, short inter island sea level Ops. Just take a look at the wing and the undercarriage; it would make you cringe. I don't know how many were constructed, sold, or now still exist. Even the ownership of the 'Type Certificate' may be questionable.

Many years ago the Piper PA-23 Apache, if fitted with the 150hp engines was CASA/DCA mandated as a single engine aircraft for the purposes of crossing Bass Strait from Victoria to Tasmania. Always via King or Flinders Island. The upgrade to 160 hpp made no real difference either. There was no S/E performance at anything but very light weights at ISA S/L The particular aircraft I use as that example was/is VH-FAD which had a short career in PNG before returning to Australia. The aircraft flew into power lines and survived whilst being owned and operated by Groupair at Berwick, Victoria. The aircraft had an aftermarket 'long nose' conversion which actually aided the performance ever so slightly. Not sure where the aircraft is now.

The "Angels" are now looking after the Angel occupants.

Dunno.....i would have thought a couple of 540's in a reasonable light airframe would have turned it into a space shuttle.

CAR 166A:
​​​​​​ (f) subject to subregulation (4), if the pilot takes off from the aerodrome, the pilot must maintain the same track from the take‑off until the aircraft is 500 feet above the terrain;

No mention of 100', 200', or 700'. (Subregulation (4) is an exception if a turn is necessary to avoid terrain.)

Nothing to do with the accident at the centre of this thread though - just clarifying the current legal (normal ops) standard.....

Aroa:

I trust you have made detailed written notes of the events. As the lead post you are very definitely going to be interviewed by Police and ATSB and you will get your day in Court with the Coroner, there is no escaping that!
Having been a lead witness in a previous fatal; trust me it's not a pleasant experience. Facts only and don't use words like 'maybe', 'approximately', 'possibly', or 'I think' etc etc as this will lead to protracted examination and cross examining, all adding up to stress..
You appear to be a "key" witness.

Fly safe!

ABC: Pilot William Scott-Bloxam killed in Mareeba crash remembered as a 'colourful character'.

OU... Thanks. I diected ATSB to my initial post and an ATSB guy turned up this a.m. for a few recorded questions.
What I didnt know before was that the take off I saw was the second.! At the other end of the strip there were a few people who saw and heard that all was not well with the engines, before and after the first short flight. !
The aircraft was telling them something...but they werent listening.