C172 down near Camden - one fatality
 

https://www.9news.com.au/national/fl...0-9387e5c96888

appears to have happened downwind in the circuit

Reports of first Solo, however just speculation. Absolute tragedy, RIP.

It would appear it has occurred just prior to the base turn. Looking at the FR24 data, doesn’t appear to have stalled. Looks like getting configured for the base turn, you can see the speed pull back from 90-80 knots. Still maintaining a relatively normal downwind heading. Appears like a spiral dive or somewhat?

It was Altocap's C172S VH-CPQ - no other details.

ATC can be heard on LiveATC - YSCN archive at 04:10 UTC.

ATC indicated it was a first solo to the pilot who located the accident site.

Technically it was the young fella's first solo in VH aircraft. He had over 40 hours as I recall it in RA aircraft and was cleared solo in them. He had come to CN today for his check and solo clearance from Altocap.
I'm a bit shook up myself coz we were chatting in the crew room just prior to our both heading off to go flying. Then I get back and hear this...so sad.

Seems a bit odd it was up to other circuit traffic to spot a missing (GA) first solo. I'd assume the students instructor would've been watching with a hawks eye?

The instructor would be on the ground. An eye in the sky would be far more useful.

Relying an airspeed to indicate a stall is a major flaw. A tight turn and unbalanced flight can also result in an unrecoverable stall - regardless of a Groundspeed indication.

If this was his first solo as reported then clearly he was not ready to be sent solo. After all he did not even get around the circuit let alone attempt a landing. I also have concerns that he attempted it in a C172 and not something a bit lighter such as a C150 given he came from RAaus . Sixteen is very young to be rushed through to GA. I think the flying school snd the instructor who cleared him will have a bit of explaining to do and rightfully so. Unfortunately for them but our thoughts should be with the family who put their trust in that school.

Incredibly sad.
I logged lots of happy hours in that aircraft back in the day.

The engine is still warm, we have no idea what happened yet!

We have no idea what happened, for all we know there could have been structural failure. Blaming anyone at this point is just silly.

As for being rushed through to GA, 10s of thousands of pilots have gone solo in Cessna 172 types, many 1000s being teenagers with far less hours than what is reported in this scenario.

At about the same age I did my first flight in a 172, with similar experience, after an hour with an instructor I flew at max weight with 3 mates around the training area.

Whatever happened it was a very rare event during a solo in what is a benign training aircraft type.

How absolutely heartbreaking for all involved. You can only imagine how George and the authorising instructor must feel today - never mind the student's family. I can't begin to imagine how crushing that would be.
So very very sad.

That's a bit rough I think.

If the reported 40H under RAAus are accurate, that implies he already held an RPC and (I'm speculating here) was upgrading to either an R or PPL - so he has likely already gone solo and presumably passed his RPC flight test. I feel for both the instructor and the pilots family, as parents we naturally want to keep our kids safe, but also not restrict them from broadening their horizons. Sadly, sometimes they don't come home from it.:(

Indeed. This one makes me think of the 19 year old who lost her life on a solo navex in a 172 west of Melbourne a few years back following an issue with the trim system. There were lots of learnings out of that one but it's still very sad and should be a reminder to all that it's very easy to blame the pilot in the absence of detailed information. :(

Many kids do their first solo in a 172, it's a perfectly suitable training aircraft. George at Altocap is a great guy and it's hard to imagine one of his planes could have had a mechanical failure that would have brought it down so quickly. Also hard to imagine someone with (allegedly) 40+ hours could manage to cock things up so badly. Medical episode? I'm really scratching my head on this. No matter the why or wherefore, it will be hard felt within the close knit flying community at Camden. Very tragic for all concerned.

Would be interesting to hear from someone around performance characteristics from transitioning RAus to a GA machine. Assuming they held a RPC, so likely only 0-10 hours in a VH machine.

I've flown, drifters, skyfox, lightwing and jabirus, they all have the same controls and if anything more vices than GA trainers. If you know how to fly, you know how to fly...

I did exactly that. I had 500 hours in Gazelle's / Eurofox and stepped into a 172. The nose attitude in the 172 is so much lower and they climb much slower, like a Mack truck compared to a sports car. Had I been left un-instructed, I may have got dangerously slow on my first takeoff climb!

I agree. A tragic event such as this is always so sad for those of us in the aviation fraternity - and of course even more so to those closer to the people directly involved.

It somehow seems to hit especially hard if you've been a pilot or even passenger in the aircraft involved. There is a kind of sad poetic nostalgia to be experienced here, and I've been affected by it a few times - once after a C-210 accident where all aboard perished; I had been in the RH seat of that aircraft only a few days before, and had hand flown most of the more simple part of the route. The others were the loss of a couple gliders in which I had logged up quite a few hours in my own solo adventures. Deepest sympathy to all involved.

Track doesn’t indicate any serious angle of bank. Track was slightly to the left at the end, but doesn’t reflect much of a bank of all.

As above, does come across as strange. I don’t think someone at this level would have any understanding of the AP, or have ever been shown. Fiddling with the AP is another issue, I hope that isn’t the case, and I fail to see why one would even play with it on a simply circuit.

All I can think of here is something was amiss with the aircraft itself.

Flaps, one went down not the other?

Looks to have gone from circuit height to the ground in about 8 seconds at more than 10,000 fpm. I'm thinking structural failure?
So sad for the young lad and his family

If flaps were extended then suffered a cable failure it could cause a roll. The right flap is driven directly by an actuator rod connected to the flap motor and the left flap by a cable to a crank then an actuator rod. If the cable failed the left flap could retract because of air loads. Still all speculation. Lets wait for the investigation shall we?

But in the mean time, I’ll have my say anyway! :ugh:

There are always some who say we shouldn’t speculate, that is understandable, but this is a network of pilots so it’s not ghoulish to discuss it, always keeping in mind that journos could be reading and what is written here is more credible than some of the rubbish they dream up.

There’s a massive telltale sign in the picture… it’s the large swathe that has been cut across the paddock. It is not at all reflective of the recent crashes of the Cirrus and Tecnam and the damage is not indicative of a stall / spin with limited forward travel as the wings appear have been level at impact.

Wild speculation on my behalf, however the damage looks to be high speed and at a high rate of descent. Is a high speed stall in the usual sense possible in a 172?

talking about journalists - on this morning's abc news for Australia day we are going to have an 'aerial fly past' over the Sydney Harbour - nearly as good as he was shot and 'killed fataly' by police - or he was "innundated'by smoke -
I hope Keith Williams can do something about his journalists & their command of the Engllish language.

It can be done, but it would be like flying aerobatics. Nothing in the data provided suggests that.

The timing here is very interesting. I’m not overly familiar with the many models of 172, is 10% Flap able to be pulled on downwind above 80
knots?

It appears they had started the base turn, or perhaps they didn’t. The Flap comment above is an option when looking at the track, however that would indicate they had applied flap while maintaining a downwind heading. Flap asymmetry would become a startle issue for most low hour pilots, full aileron correction will be required almost immediately, with the corresponding reduction in flaps in the other. A couple of seconds lost in startle will become very troublesome, you will be in a violent roll before you know it.

I doubt that applying 10% flap on downwind would cause such roll/loss of control if the left cable failed. Heavy flap application which I would expect once established base, is an option.

https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune....d54c45b8b.jpeg

The low speed on the ADSB is a red-herring because if it was hypothetically diving steeply to get to the suggested descent rate, the airspeed would not increase significantly on the ADSB feed.

It wreaks of some kind of stall/spin, however the swathe and condition of the wreckage mostly disagrees. It’s interesting. I’m guessing a 16 year old on a first solo may have been recording on a GoPro.

As an ex Camden controller from many years ago I would have to say that downwind leg doesn’t look right, wouldn’t be obvious from the tower but it looks like the pilot was distracted by something based on the track. Terrible event and my condolences to all affected, I have a 15 year old looking at flying as soon as possible and I need to remind myself this is a rare event.

Yes, 10 degrees at under 110kts or so, therefore everything appeared to be tracking as one would have expected... until it didn't.

I disagree. To me the positional data available from FR24 puts his final moments well within the usual place for a turn onto base. Also the swath cut into the field by the plane suggests he was essentially aligned with base when he went down. I just don't see how he lost 1500 feet in a matter of seconds.

Unrelated, but I heard on the news the student pilot had been with Altocap for around a month, so I'd assume he'd done a least a few hours in the 172. If the alleged 40 odd hours with RAaus is correct, then he shouldn't have had any issue completing the circuit. Surely there must be more to the story than simply pilot error. I sincerely hope the investigation leads to a concrete conclusion.

Was it G1000 equipped like the other aircraft they have that is/are?

No………..

And in most. if not all cases I would submit.

Steady on there chief. Considering no one knows what happened yet, that’s some pretty heavy comments to be making, especially towards the instructor/s involved.

I’m sure there’s plenty of 16 year olds out there who would disagree with you regarding your concerns about them flying a C172 🙄

First up im a newbie and this tragedy brought me here.

Condolences to the families and all those involved.

For what it is worth I was trained in that aircraft and it was a good one when it was at airborne, I liked it.
Having had a brief look at the flight tracking info on this accident it makes little sense to me and we will wait for the investigation.
With the flap issue pointed out in this post by Deaf that does make some sense, i was taught based on my memory, after downwind do a gumps check abeam the runway, set 1500 rpm, 10deg of flaps, trim wait for 80 knots or 45deg to runway and turn base.
It would seem whatever befell this poor student would have happened somewhere when I was trained about when flaps 10 were selected.
This is all without evidence of course and not worth much but I felt compelled to share.

Now the way I read those two (consecutive btw) posts from page 1, indicates to me that the Accident victim had over 40 hours in RA aircraft but was on his first solo in a VH registered A/C.

The wreckage was spotted and reported by another Pilot who happened to be on his first solo in any aircraft!

Now can we stick to the facts and stop slagging any Instructors etc?

Oh and BTW, Re flying at a young age; I had my first solo in a Glider (An Es 52 Kookaburra Mk 4) off a winch launch at age 15. I would suggest that flying a Glider can be just as 'complicated' as a C172.