A sad ending to 2017

Float Plane Crash Sydney

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/light-plane-crashes-on-hawkesbury-river-with-up-to-six-people-on-board/news-story/76ca6845b9b206cff8ed3712ccadfe22?utm_source=Daily%20Telegraph&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=152916301
This looks bad. Float planes frequently service Cottage Point on the Hawkesbury river system,especially an upmarket restaurant, from Sydney. Reports are of 6 on board (?pilot + 5 pax),an oil slick, some debris, but no persons seen. Police and Marine Rescue boats attending. This is a popular waterway, many landings and takeoffs. Does not look good.
Another Report:http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-12-31/sea-plane-has-crashed-into-the-hawkesbury-river-nsw/9295610
Water depth is around 16-18M. It is an area we frequently pass through, as recently as last weekend.

I heard this on the news this AM. Please keep us posted on any new developments.

FlyWright said:

I heard this on the news this AM. Please keep us posted on any new developments.

Click to expand...

Here is a news update:Hawkesbury River seaplane crash: Officials work to recover wreckage as investigation continues - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
At this stage not a lot of clarity on cause. The plane had taken off and gained height, presumably into a nor-east sea breeze which can be quite strong. Maps and reports suggest it crashed in Jerusalem Bay which is to port of the main waterway of Cowan Waters where planes normally land and take off, but eye witness reports are of a sharp turn to starboard and then into the water. The waterway is bordered by sandstone cliffs, it is fjord like, with not a lot of room to maneuver before climbing above land height, which often takes the seaplanes some time.
I`ve never seen a seaplane in or over Jerusalem Bay,if it was something odd was occurring, or the report is wrong. There seems to be a suggestion of an attempt at an emergency landing attempt, implying a problem onboard. The wreckage may be raised today.
Very sad,it seems 4 UK visitors, an 11yo boy, and pilot lost. This is a well established busy professional seaplane service of which I`ve heard nothing negative. Time will tell,but it has cast a shadow over a popular waterway in the picturesque Hawkesbury River/Broken Bay waters.

Yesterday I was on my boat tucked up in a little bay taking a break from the usual New Year's Eve revelers when a sea plane passed by after picking up an English family from a nearby waterfront restaurant in the National Park.

The plane was probably 100' or so off the water and banked left into the next bay.Nobody knows yet what happened, however the plane nosedived into the water and sank immediately. All six on board were killed, including an 11 year old girl. The bay is narrow with steep sides and a water depth of 6o odd feet, it sank quickly, they really never stood a chance.

All this happened so quickly on a lovely warm summers day, in what seemed to me very good flying conditions. The pilot was a well experienced Canadian with 10,000 hours of flying under his belt.

It is so very sad.

From the Beeb:-

The chief executive of catering giant Compass Group has died in a New Year's Eve seaplane crash near Sydney alongside his two sons, fiancée and her daughter, his firm has said.
Richard Cousins died after the plane plunged into a river 30 miles (50km) north of Sydney. Mr Cousins, 58, died alongside Emma Bowden, 48, her 11-year-old daughter, and his sons, William, 25, and Edward, 23, police have said. The Australian pilot was also killed. Police in Australia have named the pilot as Gareth Morgan, 44.

The crash happened at about 15.10 local time (04.10 GMT) on Sunday, New South Wales Police said.

BBC correspondent Phil Mercer said the family were believed to be returning to Sydney from an exclusive waterfront restaurant in Jerusalem Bay on New Year's Eve when the plane crashed. Mr Cousins had been chief executive of the Surrey-based Compass Group - thought to be the largest food service company in the world - since 2006. He was due to leave his role in March and retire from the group in September.

'A tragic accident'

Paul Walsh, Compass chairman, said the firm was "deeply shocked and saddened" by his death.

"The thoughts of everyone at Compass are with Richard's family and friends, and we extend our deepest sympathies to them," he said. "It has been a great privilege to know Richard personally and to work with him for the last few years. Richard was known and respected for his great humanity and a no-nonsense style that transformed Compass into one of Britain's leading companies."

The crash involved a single-engine DHC-2 Beaver Seaplane Detective Superintendent Mark Hutchings, head of the New South Wales marine area command, said: "These people had come over on holiday to one of the most beautiful parts of the world and for this to happen at a place like this is just tragic," he told a press conference. "We would like to extend our sincere condolences to the family and friends of those people that perished." He added: "This can only be described as a tragic accident, and our hearts go out to them."

Plane 'sunk rapidly'

Eyewitnesses said the aircraft turned sharply to the right shortly after taking off, before crashing. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) said the plane "sunk rapidly" after crashing into the river. Police divers were flown to the scene, and all six bodies were recovered on Sunday evening.

"The sequence of events leading up to the accident are not yet understood," the ATSB said.

The single-engine aircraft belonged to sightseeing flight company Sydney Seaplanes, which offers scenic flights over local tourist attractions. Aaron Shaw, managing director of Sydney Seaplanes, said: "We do not yet know the cause of the accident." He said everyone at the firm was "deeply shocked by this incident", adding: "We have suspended all operations until further notice."

The UK Foreign Office has said consular officials are in contact with local authorities and staff are "ready to provide consular assistance".

A full load of passengers, floats and a sharp bank quickly after takeoff and before the plane was going very fast sounds like an opportunity to stall and fall out of the sky. Very sad for all involved.

Experienced pilots make mistakes sometimes.

https://www.flyingmag.com/ntsb-releases-final-report-in-fatal-icon-a5-accident

I agree. It's one of the things I was taught not to do by my flight instructor. There's not enough time to recover in a situation like that. Very sad. My condolences go out to the family and friends of all that were lost.

DHC2 had an AD for elevator corrosion issues.
Over the years a number of hw defects causing loss of elevator control in various planes. Beaver should be in decent condition for analysis.

Hi Andy
We were in America's bay the day before with 300+ others LOL and I said to my wife #### he is struggling to get up must have been 2 meters off the water for a very long time .
We have seen this sea plane take off and land a 1000 times in the past and this was the first time I commented .?????
Very sad but I also wondered why he went up Jerusalem Bay with cliffs on both sides and a cliff at the end 600meters from where he turned opposite Pinta Bay ????? strange ??? I have my own opinion but !!

Cross reference with this thread:http://www.trawlerforum.com/forums/s51/float-plane-crash-sydney-36275.html.
Gaston,very interesting,I wondered if the reference to crashing IN Jerusalem Bay was an error, as I`d never seen a plane in there. Your info is that it was, and deep in, as far as Pinta Bay. That`s really odd. Taking the scenic aspect too far, or a control issue?
Reports today are of testing the fuel supply at the Sydney base, said to be just routine, but ...? I`ve heard no report of engine function status before/at the time of the crash. I heard an interview with someone on a houseboat who saw it happen and went to the crash site as it was sinking, even tried to open a door, but no suggestion the engine was not running, or otherwise.
I can`t distinguish between the fleet planes, but have also observed very slow climb rates after takeoff. We spent Christmas in Little Jerusalem, and dinghied to Pinta,chatted with people on an IG32.

When he passed us he was not more than 50-100' off the water, and the left hand sweep into Jerusalem Bay was about 500 meters further on, not much time to gain height.

Gaston, as you say Jerusalem Bay is not an ideal spot to be without some altitude. Bruce, the plane definitely went down a fair way into Jerusalem, not sure if it was as far as Pinta, but it wouldn't have been far short from what I saw in regard to police and rescue vessels on Monday morning on my way back to the club.

Andy G said:

...Bruce, the plane definitely went down a fair way into Jerusalem, not sure if it was as far as Pinta, but it wouldn't have been far short from what I saw in regard to police and rescue vessels on Monday morning on my way back to the club.

Click to expand...

That`s interesting Andy. Never seen a seaplane venture down there, narrow and high sided, no easy escape route if something goes wrong.There may well be a story as to "why" it went there, and a nexus, when something awful like this ensues.

Friends confirmed directly off Pinta Bay about center ???? Yes very strange place to be .

gaston said:

Friends confirmed directly off Pinta Bay about center ???? Yes very strange place to be .

Click to expand...

First thing you learn about mountain flying is never fly in the center; always as close as possible to the downwind side.

Just pulled this off Google Earth. Says the elevation of Cowan is 220 meters. Where would he have departed?

AlaskaProf said:

First thing you learn about mountain flying is never fly in the center; always as close as possible to the downwind side.

Just pulled this off Google Earth. Says the elevation of Cowan is 220 meters. Where would he have departed?

Click to expand...

Depending on wind direction Cottage Point or Top right corner


OK NE wind so would have been from Cottage Point then left turn

AlaskaProf said:

First thing you learn about mountain flying is never fly in the center; always as close as possible to the downwind side.

Just pulled this off Google Earth. Says the elevation of Cowan is 220 meters. Where would he have departed?

Click to expand...

Cottage Point, where the restaurant the pax lunched. Take off is to the east, in NE breeze.So, why were they in Jerusalem Bay,and how did they get in there? Were they already in trouble? Did some sightseeing lead them into trouble? Lots of questions.
Here is an interesting report. A number of boats were on the scene quickly. These guys got a line on the plane and as they couldn`t get at the doors attempted to drag it to shallow water. The plane being way heavier than their boat, they had no success, fortunate perhaps the boat was not dragged under.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...k=e74ecc4e0d1c6a27d1b14e3904af1cd9-1514931758

BruceK said:

Cottage Point, where the restaurant the pax lunched. Take off is to the east, in NE breeze.So,
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/n...k=e74ecc4e0d1c6a27d1b14e3904af1cd9-1514931758

Click to expand...

Story has a pay-wall unfortunately.

Around here, most of the commercially operated Beavers have been upgraded to turbine-power, 675 to 850hp, but if this was an R-985, 450 hp original, six people would have been a full load; lunch trip probably means no significant baggage, but fuel load is the unknown.

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.

Reports are the operator does out of water inspections every 100 hours and rebuilds engines at 1100 hrs instead of a stipulated 1200 hrs. Engine reported as having flown 200 hours since rebuild. I`ve seen no info on engine type.
There is discussion whether the plane has a turning stall warning on the dash. Reports say such a warning became mandatory several years ago in Canada. The pilot was Canadian, 9000 hours on float planes, 10000hrs altogether, in his second period of employment with operators,maybe 4-5 years+ total. Doubt he`d need a sign on the dashboard to tell him the plane`s limitations.
The question remains, why in Jerusalem Bay and turning at Pinta. Pinta has a relatively wide opening to Jerusalem, which could be attractive for a plane to execute a turn.
Pinta is a desirable quiet bay due to remoteness from the main waterway. 3 National Parks moorings, space for one boat to anchor in the mouth of the bay and for one further up the bay in shoaling water. Boats also anchor where Jerusalem shallows towards its head, depth discourages anchoring elsewhere.

BruceK said:

rebuilds engines at 1100 hrs instead of a stipulated 1200 hrs. ...

There is discussion whether the plane has a turning stall warning on the dash. Reports say such a warning became mandatory several years ago in Canada.

Click to expand...

Definitely the 450 hp version. Turbines have much longer time-between-overhaul.

Not sure what a "turning" stall warner would look like, but there are a number of circumstances in which a stall warner (which likely would have been installed) would give little or even no warning. For example if installed on the wing which is on the outside of the turn, it may think all is well, while the other wing has just quit flying.

Further, the pilot knows that, at least in level, non-turning flight, there is a margin between the audible warning and the onset of the stall. If he's turning, the margin diminishes dramatically.If he has already initiated a turn from the wrong point and knows that if he rolls out of the turn, to silence the warning and avoid the stall, the terrain is right in front of him, he has a Hobson's choice, indeed.

Or as Tom Waits says: "Two dead ends and still you gotta choose."

Just looked through Canadian airworthiness regs, and they are very similar to US. No mention of a "turning" device and in fact, require no warning device if the airplane's flight characteristics provide sufficient warning. Here's some relevant text:

523.207 Stall Warning

(c) During the stall tests required by 523.201(b) and 523.203(a)(1), the stall warning must begin at a speed exceeding the stalling speed by a margin of not less than 5 knots and must continue until the stall occurs.

...not germaine...

(e) During the stall tests required by 523.203(a)(2), the stall warning must begin sufficiently in advance of the stall for the stall to be averted by pilot action taken after the stall warning first occurs.

The difference between paragraphs c. and e. above pertain to non-turning and turning flight.

Sorry if all this seems a bit pedantic, but after all, I am a pedant.

Hi Laurie here


This is my local water way and we are in this area every week .Iv been told there is very good footage that wont be made public it was handed to police the boater didnt want the footage been made public and dosnt need the money that could be made .

As a pilot like a lot of you here, I feel sad with ANY aircraft accident and we try to figure out what went wrong so we can learn from the accident. Most accidents, boats, planes and cars are caused by human errors, most likely the person doing the "driving".

It's a shame to see a bunch of folks go down and not survive, especially if it's a charter where the standards are higher than private flying.

We'll probably not know what the cause was for a while, if ever. My heart goes out to the victims and their families.

Flown three times in single-engine aircraft (Montana, New Mexico, and SF Bay Area). Never felt secure, but the rides were an employment necessity (just part of the job and without extra compensation). Why some people feel more secure in a single-engine (as opposed to multi-engine) aircraft over a single-engine boat befuddles me.

markpierce said:

Flown three times in single-engine aircraft (Montana, New Mexico, and SF Bay Area). Never felt secure, but the rides were an employment necessity (just part of the job and without extra compensation). Why some people feel more secure in a single-engine (as opposed to multi-engine) aircraft over a single-engine boat befuddles me.

Click to expand...

Mark,

Well, if you look at the stats, the safety record is about the same. If you go down and crash, your survivability is about 4 times better in a single. But the twin is more likely to fly you home, but only with a well trained and current pilot.

The stats only get better when you get into turboprops and jets, but still not significantly better with a twin.

Now, a four engine jet, it's pretty good.

http://www.hrrzi.com/2018/01/seaplane-vh-n00.html

R.I.P. to the souls lost.

markpierce said:

Flown three times in single-engine aircraft (Montana, New Mexico, and SF Bay Area). Never felt secure, but the rides were an employment necessity (just part of the job and without extra compensation). Why some people feel more secure in a single-engine (as opposed to multi-engine) aircraft over a single-engine boat befuddles me.

Click to expand...

Slower speeds = better survivability odds and better glide ration on some smaller planes. Always felt safer on smaller planes but I was usually the pilot. Being in control can give one a sense of safety, it may be a false sense of safety sometimes. All of this is from my perspective.

Why some people feel more secure in a single-engine (as opposed to multi-engine) aircraft over a single-engine boat befuddles me.

Click to expand...

ben2go said:

Slower speeds = better survivability odds and better glide ration on some smaller planes. ... it may be a false sense of safety sometimes. All of this is from my perspective.

Click to expand...

It's almost impossible to do a factual or statistical comparison of the 1-engine vs. 2-engine conundrum because one very critical factor is always uncounted.

loss-of-engine in a single often leads to a reportable "crash" or forced landing with heavy damage, sometimes fatal.

loss-of-engine in a twin sometimes leads to a reportable event, which if it occurs, is more likely to be fatal for the reasons you cite, plus some others relating to mission flown. ...and, of course, the added issue of controlability of asymmetrical thrust.

But the gap in the data, which is immeasurable, but may be statistically very significant is the number of loss-of-engine events in a twin which results in the aircraft feathering the dead engine, continuing to an appropriate destination with no further damage to passengers and crew other than the massive hole in the owner's wallet. There are no reports required nor even a place in the statistics for a report for this type of event.

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.[/QUOTE]

gaston said:

... 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

Click to expand...

Tailwind has absolutely nothing to do with lift, but effects turning radius and thus can be significant factor as pilot tightens turn to avoid terrain which appears to approach more rapidly than anticipated.