Crash at SunShine coast.
 

Ticker message on ABC . No specific details but 2 fatalities.

VH-CYO Cessna 150M Aerobat, Sunshine Coast Aero Club.

Was originally in Cairns with Cape York Air (1995). Ex Port Moresby Aero Club.

It led a charmed life.............

RIP - thoughts to the families affected.

CYO was the plane I did my first solo in. Started my training in Cairns with Cape York Air just before they shut it down. I thought I recognised the rego.

Pilot named and more info here. https://www.9news.com.au/national/tw...5-68a87bc091f9

The link at post #2 says search commenced at 5.30pm. The 9 news link says the aircraft took off at 11.03 am and crashed 18 minutes later. It was located at about 9 pm that evening.

If the reports are correct it took a very long time to commence a search.

Engine failure or weather issue?

Structural failure ?

It is an Aerobat, perhaps a manoeuvre went wrong.

I just love the way the reporter is walking through the bush, only metres from the wreckage, disturbing who knows what during that process, probably well before investigators have arrived..... I can just imagine, "let's drag this part of the wreckage over here for a background to give a better shot"

you would think the police would have more control of the accident site to keep these media people out.

Condolences to everyone that knew these pilots.

What surprised me is that they had to send a Challenger (?!!) from Essendon (?!!!) to search for it? Serious?

I am sure if it was one of your family members missing, you would want everything thrown into the search

A day at the beach, and a bit of warming respite from the Melbourne winter for the crew. Can't say I blame them for kicking the tires and lighting the fires and shooting up to the Sunny Coast.

But on a serious note, this is not a remote area. There are multiple SAR helicopters in the area. One really can't see the value of sending a jet up there.

Not sure about the others but I'm surprised as well, not that a Challenger was put onto it but that it had to come from Melbourne, was there NOTHING else closer in the area that could respond sooner?

Wasn't there another search going on for a missing diver?
That would require helicopters, I'd think.

1.5hrs for the Challenger to get there. It seemed to go straight to the right spot according to the ADSB track.
Would that have been due to an ELT? I hope so.
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....f9da892fb.jpeg

Pretty disgraceful if you ask me.

Where did the 18 minutes come from??

Most likely after reviewing the flight data from mode C or ADSB, or the 18 minutes came from the location where the aircraft was found compared to the departure point.

Next there will be questions asked about why it wasn’t noticed and the usual arguments will come out.

No SARTIME. They weren’t reported missing until after 3

Both persons on board were licensed pilots. I hope that the ATSB find a conclusive cause of this accident.

Condolences to the families and friends of both pilots.

Why is there a picture of a Jetstream 41 in the SAR snapshot?

Could the huge time between crash to deploying SAR resources be avoided if they had left a company SAR letting someone know they would be out for an hour doing aeros (extremely unlikely to divert or change plans of the flight), and to start checking up on their safety within 10-20 minutes of the SAR expiring?

I'm guilty of setting useless SARTIMES (i.e. always at last light, thinking "I might divert or decide to go somewhere else, or walk into town for lunch without reception") but this accident has highlighted the importance of putting some serious thought behind when I set my SARTIME. I think company / responsible person is the way to go - not having to access clunky NAIPS, and not having that worry about sitting on the couch at home with your phone in your bag meanwhile the Challenger is gearing up.

p.s. QPS website said they identified location of the crash via phone triangulation. would hope it was an ELT though....

Probably the same reason one gets a photo of a 737 when tracking a Robbie

Flight Radar glitch maybe. Both planes have same reg - the J41 has sat in Humberside for years though, for spares I think.

My guess (in the best tradition of PPRuNe) is that any initial visual search - if there was one - failed because it looks from the footage seen on the news reports, that the 150 went in almost vertically into a substantial batch of trees. That being the case it probably would not have been readily visible unless the search a/c flew right over the top of the impact site, and the observers were looking straight down - an usual probability. The Challenger probably has specialist equipment to detect either the beacon (if it was operational and active), or some other means of honing in on the site. The track for the Challenger suggests a methodical search with multiple passes over the signal source - whatever it was - and eventually where all the lines intersect - that will probably be the location of what you are looking for. Whatever the speculation here, the tragic event leaves us all with a heavy heart and a deep sadness for the loss of two fellow aviators, and the implications for their families and friends. Profound sympathy to all affected.

You will find everything you need to know here. National Search and Rescue Manual

Report is out - link here.

Interestingly a Safety Advisory Notice has also been posted.

Report makes for sobering reading. Very sad.

The report leans toward the MB method being used first, which seems probable when looking at the instructors history with the method, lack of experience with the 150. I do recall the 150/152 however won’t self recover with the MB. Valuable time likely lost.

I’ve read a report a while back, similar situation, however a poorly performed PARE technique as they didn’t apply forward pressure, something which would actually delay the recover in other aircraft the pilots normally flew, so they actually didn’t do that until the ground was getting closer. Naturally the recovery came when they did that, as it should, well it’s in the POH after all. They didn’t know the aircraft. Aircraft was a 150.

Really shows how important it is to know your aircraft, the aircraft of the day you are flying not something else from yesterday.

A very good reminder that when practicing non normal items near the edge of the envelope that every aircraft is slightly different. We can generalise on normal operations when flying from A to B in light aircraft and apply techniques for normal control that fit across the board. However when dealing with non normal/advanced scenarios it's extremely important to know that aircraft type and its characteristics. The C150 explicitly states to move the control column briskly forward to break the stall, and even then it can take a rotation to come out so needs patience. Then there's issues if you do these things outside the W&B envelope, which both scenarios described in the report are above MTOW, you are into test pilot territory then. This then comes down to how important is spin recovery for the average pilot, the recovery techniques taught are only for the aircraft that it's practiced in. It's much better to teach avoidance of the zone where these problems occur as once you get close to these edges each aircraft will behave differently, even to the point that weight and balance, power, config, rain, ice, insects, damage, etc can all make the aircraft behave differently around the stall.

I'm guessing this incident also influenced the decision to change sections of the Part 61 MOS Sched 2, previously section A5.2 was something to the effect of "recover from incipient spin", now A5.2 just states "Avoid Spin".

Always was silly to require spin recovery techniques when 99% of the GA fleet are not approved to intentionally spin. Better to just practice stalling in various configs and power settings, attitudes and ensure the student is quite competent in controlling the aircraft in a way that does not promote spinning or loss of control.

But what does one do when a spin is entered despite what the POH says?

Can't say I've ever entered an unintentional spin, and I'm no Chuck Yeager, if I can fly 10k+ hours and never accidentally enter a spin I'm pretty sure most pilots can achieve the same feat. Most GA types are designed to resist entry to a spin if you fly them well away from the edges. If you are flying something that readily enters a spin for random reasons, no doubt, get some training in spins. None of the 100s of students I've trained have crashed or died from spinning either, maybe they are all just very lucky like me. Keep the focus on real problems, like don't push VFR into IFR, or push into any conditions that outmatch your abilities etc etc.

It’s worth keeping in mind that as per the report the pilot under instruction (and his fellow aero club member who was waiting on the ground) were both licenced pilots who were doing an aerobatic endorsement with a contracted pilot who had no aerobatic time logged in an A150.

It’s likely only thanks to this other aerobatic endorsement student that we have an idea of what is likely to have happened. Both had written down 1. MB 2. PARE and the instructor had said on the ground that they’d be trying both methods.

There's also no evidence to state they didn't try the POH recovery first either. So it's pure speculation that the accident is the result of MB or PARE technique. That is key to remember its just a possibility that instructor used MB first as some form of demonstration. The ATSB is just highlighting the issues with one size fits all emergency procedures as opposed to POH procedure and also the dangers inherent in spin training. I've had the pleasure of spinning C152As, Airtourers and a few others there's always some quirk you have to be careful of, from min/max fuel levels to recovery technique to CoG limits. I've heard a few myths like 'all aircraft can be spun and recovered', well there's a few dead test pilots out there that might say otherwise, I think most wear personal chutes or the aircraft has some form of recovery chute fitted these days during spin testing.

A very salient point that is often forgotten. Several years ago a B1900 got very out-of-sorts practicing EFATO's out of Williamtown. The Instructor decided to ignore both CAsA-approved instructions and the POH that both said "To simulate an engine failure, set Zero Thrust". Said PIC goes to Flight Idle and wonders why they are now 30* off runway heading and descending through 110RA.

"But...But...We've always done it that way."

Says Beechcraft:
The manufacturer reported that the data was consistent with expected airplane response when power on one engine is reduced to idle with takeoff power on the other engine, a bank is not immediately established toward the operating engine, a significant sideslip is allowed to develop, and the airspeed is allowed to decay below about 120 KIAS

The key takeaway from this is to know what is to be done for the aircraft you're flying on the day. If you're going to be practicing non-normals, look at the books yourself - you cannot always trust an instructor to know what to do, or to do the right thing. Trust - but verify...

And once again it is demonstrated that people die because for this type of activity, when all sorts of things can… and do go wrong, nobody is wearing a parachute. Even very experienced aerobatic pilots have come fatally undone for this very reason.

Agree with what you’ve said, although would point out that the evidence from the other student in the same endorsement ‘course’ on the same day showed that they were to learn/demonstrate MB first, then PARE…backed up by notes that were taken by both students. This would suggest that it is likely that the reason for being unable to recover initially is because they were using MB, although sadly we will never really know. The report suggests that they may have been effecting a recover given the type of impact but ran out of height to get there.

Serious question, please don’t shoot me down. I’ve been considering doing an aerobatics endo, does anyone use parachutes? Is it common or practically unheard of except in competitions and the like…?

In short Magnum, no. Aerobatics take hours and hours of practice and this means years for most people. An aerobatics endorsement, at least in my book is to teach you the basics so you can recover safely when you loose control. There are only 4 aerobatic manoeuvres, (some say 5), everything else is a combination of these 4. Like most stuff taught to beginners in aviation, it is often the inexperienced doing the basic teaching.

In order for a parachute to work in most aircraft there needs to be a method of jettisoning the doors. I think the 150 Aerobat has this. An awesome little aeroplane, but rather limited by weight. Parachutes are heavy, need repacking and checking regularly and would substantially add to the cost of basic aerobatics training. A great idea, yes indeed! Provided by basic aerobatics instructors, no.

Once you have the basic endorsement you need to practice, practice practice, then get a really experienced aerobatics pilot for personal tuition. there are several offering this, Matt Hall springs to mind. Then you most definitely will be wearing a parachute! You will also be flying something far more advanced than a 150 :-)

If I was into aerobatics I would buy my own parachute and keep it up to spec.