No worries, private message me👍

lol first post.

True, however apparently accurate information.

All I’m hearing is structural / left wing

Are the four corners present at the crash site.

I don't recall seeing any news articles even showing photos of the crash site yet alone details that precise.

One of the victims has been named as 22YO American William Joseph Jennings. No details yet on the other two.

Here's the ATSB Investigation link: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...rt/ao-2023-053

Gulfstream 695A JetProp Commander, registered VH-HPY, about 30 NM south-east of Cloncurry

Doesn't say anything we don't know already.

ditto from engineers

Given the altitude it departed controlled flight from, it is conceivable that it exceeded structural limits in the dive and broke up on descent, so that does not necessarily mean it broke up prior to loss of control. That's if it broke up at all. There's a lot of information still to be released as to what happened.

ftom a very reliable source it was in one piece and plenty of fuel

Goes back to a question I asked earlier, does the 695A have Aux/mains setup? or just a single tank/interconnected tanks to engine with cross-feed.

Where are you going with that 43, what difference does it make.

If it was running on aux tanks and depressurized then it may have exhausted that tank short of the destination, resulting in an engine out, and there would be still significant mains fuel left, as mentioned above, Pilot is unconcious, cant correct and so on. If it had single tank to engine set up it would have enough endurance to fly well passed the destination. Which makes depressurization less likely.

Ah! I see, I think depressurization is unlikely, but I see your theory. I think we are both on the same page with respect to engine out. It should have been indicating about 160 kts, altitude locked should take about one minute to come back to 100 kts and stall. That's why I went straight to a training exercise gone wrong, thrust reduction but a very generous zero thrust to take 2 mins.

Training exercise gone wrong?

Was this a training flight or a Part 138 operation? If it was a 138 op and the pilot in the left seat was doing ICUS, why would the trainer in the right seat simulate or shut down an engine with another person in the back. Might explain if it was a CASA FOI in the back.

I'm not suggesting it was, it's just where why mind went to account for a 2 minute speed reduction to the stall. Perhaps I should have gone with partial engine failure, loss of significant torque.

All good speculation based on our individual experiences. Very healthy debate on a public forum by professionals.

We don’t know the circumstantial facts yet apart from the fact that the aeroplane crashed, for what reasons we don’t know.

You can get a full flight profile from the ADSB these days... in some cases, you could literally work out the cause of a crash before the fire is extinguished and has destroyed the evidence that remained.

Sincere apologies, I didn’t know this?

Maybe you should pass that information onto the federal government in order to prevent wasting taxpayers money on having the ATSB do aviation investigations.

Pprune is an absolute GREAT source of VALUABLE INFORMATION.

I now feel absolutely belittled by posting anything on this forum, I know absolutely nothing in comparison to some of the industry experts who post on this forum, particularly with me having 35 years experience in the industry as an engineer, pilot, regulator and aviation consultant…..

I’m just saying that the landscape has changed with the technology.

Nowadays you can quickly find a potential cause and head in that direction rather than analysing the element in a halogen lightbulb in order to determine if it was illuminated at impact. You probably can’t even do that any more with these fancy new LED’s.