A sad ending to 2017

gaston said:

Ok as i now see it talking to other's there on the day left Cottage point struggling to get up turned into Jerusalem Bay but now with a tail wind and no lift turned right before Pinta but stalled Dropped 100meters nose first massive crash on impact .


As I said as I see it

Using Pinta Bay as the reported site, he travelled about 3500 meters, including the takeoff run, which could have easily been 1000, depending on the wind and surface conditions. The width of the channel at the headlands bracketing Pinta Bay is 250-300 meters, a bit more if you ride the shore, and any NE wind would help. Enough for a well-executed turn, but not much margin and probably not do-able from anything like mid-channel.

Reports of the aircraft falling off on the right wing seem significant.

Click to expand...

[/QUOTE]We were in Little Jerusalem the day of the retrieval. Fortunately the News helos avoided each other, the terrain, and the water. Today the seaplanes were operating again,we had a good view of them slowly climbing as they follow the river east.
Neither me or anyone I`ve talked with ever saw a seaplane in Jerusalem Bay. My thoughts are something was wrong before heading in there. Maybe continuing on was deemed the worse option, due to approaching terrain and a slow climb rate, than turning into Jerusalem. Accidents often have more than one causal component. The "runway" is not dedicated, it is shared with vessels of all kinds. Lots of possibilities, including the plane may not have entered Jerusalem Bay direct from the take off route.
Australia is quite good at aircraft incident inquiries( possible exception of the Pel Air Ambulance ditching off Lord Howe Island).

Bruce, Pel Air crashed off Norfolk Island, I was there at the time. (and there now)
Agree with you about the investigation though - it left a lot to be desired!

Thanks D.Duck. The Pel Air pilot sure got hung out to dry, more of a hero imo. And the Norfolk Islanders were heroes too, going to the rescue.
I read today the seaplane operator still has flights suspended, but there were seaplanes operating in the area Thurs and yesterday. Maybe someone filled the gap, the restaurant would have been hurting.
There are reports the plane was a rebuild from a badly crashed crop dusting aircraft. Not that it necessarily makes a difference, just another possible factor.

BruceK said:

Thanks D.Duck. The Pel Air pilot sure got hung out to dry, more of a hero imo. And the Norfolk Islanders were heroes too, going to the rescue.
I read today the seaplane operator still has flights suspended, but there were seaplanes operating in the area Thurs and yesterday. Maybe someone filled the gap, the restaurant would have been hurting.
There are reports the plane was a rebuild from a badly crashed crop dusting aircraft. Not that it necessarily makes a difference, just another possible factor.

Click to expand...

You cant re register a car in Australia that has been written off with little as 10% damage but you can rebuild a aircraft WT#????? Some things I just cant understand with Australia same as you can go to jail for not having a fishing license but can come to this country without a passport and the Government will house and feed you .
Would I step in a aircraft knowing it was a rebuild NO WAY

Laurie, there is a category of an economic write off by insurer when you can seek permission to repair in NSW, I think you touched on that. Other states may be less strict. Sometimes it costs the insurer less to pay out and not repair, but the vehicle may be eminently repairable.
I heard the 747 Qantas pranged so badly in Bangkok should have been written off unrepairable but Qantas wanted it repaired so they did not have such an incident on their record, and it was repaired. Either of us could have flown on it(except I rarely if ever fly Qantas, esp long haul).

gaston said:

Some things I just cant understand with Australia .. .
Would I step in a aircraft knowing it was a rebuild NO WAY

Click to expand...

An airplane designed in 1945 which has been out of production for more than than 50 years is almost certain to be a "rebuild".

Rebuilding DeHaviland airplanes is a real industry in Washington and Alaska. You can spend a couple million for some models, although the one pictured above is more like 400K, US. Somewhat less in present condition.

Here's a "rebuilt '67" for US$ 1.9 million

In regard to what constitutes a 'write off' that is purely based on how much it costs to rebuild verses what it would be worth after the rebuild, and that is the insurance companies call.Anything can be rebuilt, it's just a matter of money, as Bruce's post about the Qantas B747 illustrates.

I have no idea what may have caused the accident, all I can say that i saw the plane about 50-100 feet off the water after it became airborne from Cottage Point Restaurant, everything sounded normal, this was about 500 meters before it made its fateful turn into Jerusalem Bay. It could not have been more than 30 seconds after that before the plane reached its impact point.

From what I have seen through the media those young guys in the fishing boats that desperately tried to tow the plane into shallow water before it sunk, & also dived down to try to open the plane door were exceptional. I hope someone is keeping an eye on them because that must have been devastating, knowing there were people inside that plane and their efforts were in vain.

Not understanding rebuilt aircraft is understandable.

I flew in Korean War vintage aircraft that some had WWII many time rebuilt engines in them with the USCG.

One C131 Sanaritan had an engine recovered from a F4 Corsair shot down in the Pacific.

Considering the mission....the USCGs safety record is phenominal.

Its usually not about the airplane itself.

Andy, as you say, the takeoff was indeed the norm. No one onboard can tell an Inquiry why the plane entered the Jerusalem Bay "finger". Several possibilities, perhaps a qualified "balance of probabilities" conclusion to the "why" question.
And yes,those young men who tried to help the stricken plane are heroes. It obviously weighed more than their alumin(i)um boat, they did all they could to help.
(40-45C in Sydney today,now cowering in the aircon).

Those "old" Beavers are the workhorse of the Gulf Islands here in BC. Though designed in the 40s and production by De Haviland ceased in the 50s, most of them are relatively young. All it takes to build a new Beaver is the proper use of original serial numbered parts. I flew on one from Campbell River to Owikeno a few yrs ago. It had 55 hours on it at the time. The story I got from the pilot was that the builders, a Victoria BC Co., had located a Beaver in Pakistan that had never been assembled, brought the crates of parts home to Victoria, took the required parts with the serial numbers from the crates and built that brand new Beaver around them. Though a Beaver it had a turbo engine, so was longer in the nose, and an extra row of seating to use up that extra power, so longer in the fuselage. It carried wheels and floats, so could handle whatever the destination required.
Many more have flown many thousands of hours, but like the old axe that has had 15 new handles and 8 new heads, are still the original old Beaver and have many more thousands of hours in them.

koliver said:

Those "old" Beavers are the workhorse of the Gulf Islands here in BC. Though designed in the 40s and production by De Haviland ceased in the 50s, .

Click to expand...

Last one in 1967, with a total run of 1657, according to Wikipedia.

The Sydney Seaplanes company recommenced flights today, using Cessna aircraft. Not using their remaining De Havilland similar to the one lost,pending the Inquiry findings. Air crash inquiries move slowly here,may take as long as a year.

This is the ABC Network report issued today. It refers to an Interim Inquiry Report, but it is cluttered with comment making it difficult to distinguish Report from other material.
Sydney Seaplane crash pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable', says boss - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
The comment about a sharp turn seems to relate to a turn made immediately before the crash, not an inexplicable prior left turn off the main waterway into Jerusalem Bay. Along with others on TF I have never seen a seaplane enter Jerusalem Bay, I suspect that is key to resolving the Inquiry. At this stage the Inquiry is reported as seeking more crash witness information, and discovering what the plane did between landing at Cottage Pt. and picking up the doomed pax.

I found this news article,it repeats some previous reporting but contains a much better crash location pic, and illustrates the surrounding areas a number of Aussie TFers frequent. You can see the steep sided almost fjord like features of the river,how well preserved it is despite being 20 miles N of a city of 5 million,and how untouched it remains. It`s why we love cruising and being there.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...k=21c04c99cdd608038aae1a565e92b39b-1517642787

Seems to have a pay wall.

AlaskaProf said:

Seems to have a pay wall.

Click to expand...

I was able to read it, but I subscribe to the wretched excuse for a newspaper. Short of publishing my login here,which I`d better not,I can`t fix it. Unfortunate, it was informative,but sadly not "free".

Does this work? Looks like it, see how descriptive the illustration is:

Here`s an update news report: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw...n-focus-of-investigation-20181220-p50ncl.html.
Compare the different flight path now revealed using a passengers photos, to that shown in post 47 above. The plane was following a not uncommon take off path, but made a sharp unusual turn back, before tracking up Jerusalem Bay to the crash site opposite Pinta Bay.
In fairness,some time ago,gaston flagged that the Inquiry was looking at possible medical issues following autopsy.
It seems,despite its years, the plane was in well maintained serviceable condition.

Just found this on the ABC News Site. A long time coming and still not final. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07...lane-fatal-crash-in-hawkesbury-river/12419706

Summarizing, in case the article is unavailable later, apparently there was evidence of carbon monoxide poisoning in pilot/passengers. Missing bolts in the firewall were noted as leaving holes where the CO might have entered. Apparently there was no CO detector, which might have given warning.

(So Mark, you were right that this may not have happened if it had twin engines, but not for the reason of having a "spare" engine for mechanical difficulty.)

Good thought Frosty.
Interestingly, Gaston(an engineer), said (with delightful vagueness, prior to taking up "Paint Scraping") that he understood those onboard were likely dead before the plane hit the water. Gaston knew a thing or two.
Something similar happened with early VW Beetles. A warm air supply for the cabin was constructed around an exhaust manifold. A leak in the manifold could blend CO2 into the air, hey presto, sleepy occupants. Not the best heat exchanger.

A News report of the final results of the Inquiry.
As expected, the cause was carbon monoxide poisoning of the pilot. It`s unclear when the plane was last serviced, but the Operators are lining up the Maintenance Engineers.
Photos taken by a passenger were very useful to the Inquiry.

Hopefully some good comes out of it in future prevention. A CO2 detector is an obvious step. Not combing a cracked defective exhaust with holes in the firewall speaks for itself. I wonder how the plane flew from Sydney to Cottage Point without incident, and why the issue only materialized immediately after take off for the post lunch return flight. And, when it was last serviced.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-01...-sydney-seaplane-crash-jerusalem-bay/13102834