C210 down Groote Eylandt
 

According to ABC news a C210 has crashed onto a road near the airport after suffering engine issues on take off.
5 pax and 1 pilot onboard. 4 taken to clinic in serious condition

The young pilot did an amazing job of guiding the 210 clear of trees to bring the aircraft down into a clear area.
unfortunately a culvert in the clear area caused the Cessna to flip over inverted at the end of its forced landing.

Maybe when they themselves know what has happened?

G’day Stallie - it’s been a week or 2 😎

Any more info or pics??

Crickets…………….

Surely there is some info on what happened?

Hope all are recovering well.

Considering the remote location and the fact the forced landing was on a private mining site I wouldn’t expect too many details to come out, this will likely be a wait until the report comes out event.

Pretty much all 210 accidents in the NT are weather related, this one does not appear to be.

Regardless, second in 6 months, KA will be under the microscope. Not great.

Not sure on that.

HGZ think threw a counter weight pilot got badly injured, ZAC Ran out of fuel same mine site ended up in the tailings dam, A few down clowning around at other out posts (fatal from memory), A few screwed up landings ending in trees.

Bump!

The ATSB has released a small summary, partial engine loss is mentioned. Seems to refer that the landing was not perhaps a forced landing as such.

You will get one hell of a fright in a fully loaded 210 with partial power if one tries a 180, especially just airborne.

I wouldn’t be surprised that a lot of the accidents and serious incidents these days, are directly related to the current skills shortage both in engineering and flight crew. Not blaming the operator, it’s the way the industry is these days.

I know it’s happening in the airlines, particularly the regionals and I’d expect it’s worse for the GA operators in the remote areas.

About time the state/territory and federal governments step up and do something positive to assist. Some of CASA’s decisions don’t help either, eg the restrictions with regards to Mabuiag and Darnley Island airstrips.

If you’re right, and I believe you are, how long til one of the majors see the chickens coming home to roost? The skills loss in this country is huge but I think the biggest threat is the lack of up and coming skill coupled with the belief that the lack of hull losses equals safety…it doesn’t, it equals a lack of accidents, very different things. CASA need to start acting as a parent to the aviation industry and not a best friend.

Hope all on this accident make a full recovery.

It’s very disappointing that I’m not the only person thinking the same way.

What I have suggested are extremely real hazards/risks to the current environment within the aviation arena in Australia.

Any pilot or engineer who has good and applicable experience that can be validated/confirmed, and obviously licensed should be paid accordingly in the current climate.

All that happens is the government throws money at schools who produce an increasing supply of pilots with the barest minimums of skills, instead of making VET loans available for existing pilots to upskill. CASA keep approving these places to operate and so the gravy train keeps chuffing along. There is a massive amount of taxpayers' money being funnelled into a select few pockets and it's not likely to change..

A follow-the-bouncing-ball CPL course in a capital city is not good preparation for these sorts of ops but these days seems to be the only option available to a lot of trainees.

The EFATO turn back never ends well. I hope they all make a full recovery.

I was speaking to a charter owner from Kununurra recently, his frustration with many of these pump n dump VET schools down south is they are teaching the wrong skills. He said they all rock up on his doorstep with most time conducted in a Diamond, 150hrs and obviously very little tropics, dirt experience. Many then struggle to check to line in a 206/210.

That is probably another thread in itself, and has been discussed countless times in previous reports from the bureau.

One of FTM's better landings here then!

In general I'd agree, but the usually clear decision to land ahead may be somewhat clouded when you've got some altitude and the engine is developing partial power (and, maybe, particularly crappy options out the front window).

Sometimes you make an experiential decision that if it came off you'd be lauded for, but if it doesn't you're vilified. It's not clear from what I've read so far that the latter would be warranted here, although I accept there may be a back story we're not privy to. While some might put this outcome down to [poor] skills training I wonder if we'd be better off discussing the partial power issue and how to deal with that? I'm not sure it's been well taught anywhere, let alone recently; no doubt we have all done EFATO practice for no engine, but what about 75%, 50%, 25% power? What to do then?

FP.

It's also very possible the ATSB have got it completely wrong. It wouldn't be the first time.

Do what Bob Hoover says: "...fly the thing as far into the crash as possible.". Simples.