C172 down near Camden - one fatality
Point taken. Back in my day we did much tighter circuits than is current practice.
But I’m suggesting that if the aircraft flight path changed rapidly on base leg, an experienced observer could offer some insight other than the usual “it plummeted “ crap we get from the media.
But I’m suggesting that if the aircraft flight path changed rapidly on base leg, an experienced observer could offer some insight other than the usual “it plummeted “ crap we get from the media.
The following 2 users liked this post by Mach E Avelli:
Clare even at my age and stage of advanced decrepitude I can see an aircraft on downwind turning base.
...you have a couple of years on me though!
...you have a couple of years on me though!
Yes, but you're not likely to be able to see what causes a loss of control from that distance.
The following users liked this post:
Clare, if you were an ATSB investigator and a credible witness said that it rolled rapidly, or pitched down almost instantaneously, which parts of the wreckage would you be particularly interested in?
The following users liked this post:
I'd be looking for structural/cable failure of the wings or flap actuators in the first instance and tailplane in the second, as well as evidence of blood or feathers or bits of drone. But my point is I wouldn't be able to see that as a supervising instructor on the ground on an aircraft on late downwind, plus I have zero training in accident investigation so not qualified to answer that with any kind of authority..
The spotter aircraft asked Tower for the 172's position, the tower responded that they were unsure. That's not what I find odd though, tower isnt required to watch every aircraft every second.
What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).
What I find odd was that the solo flight wasn't being directly supervised by the authorising instructor from the ground. Supervising solos allows an instructor to jump in with a timely bit of help when the situation calls for it. Or more negatively to give a first person response for any incident reports. Or just some general feedback to the student (a pat of the back or a shake of the hand builds a student's confidence).
The following users liked this post:
That’s going to be an interesting one when they release the final report.
There are only a limited number of ways to get an aircraft to 10,000 fpm descent rate at 130 knots.
There are only a limited number of ways to get an aircraft to 10,000 fpm descent rate at 130 knots.
Some quick sums For what they are worth.
Falling under gravity alone from 1000 ft. v^2 = 2gs ( = 2*9.8*305= 6000 approx), so v=77 m/s
whereas 1000 ft/min = 305/60 = 51 m/s vertical speed.
So the aircraft was indeed coming down at an incredible vertical speed, not a lot less than free fall, although apparently under power.
Also 130 kt= 130/1.944 = 69 m/s (horizontal speed)
Pythagoras gives TAS approaching ground level as
TAS= sqrt(51^2 + 69^2) = sqrt(2601 + 4761) =sqrt(7362) = 87.2 m/s = 173 kt ( approx).
and approaching at angle arctan(51/69)=arctan(0.74) = 36.5 degrees from horizontal.
SB
Falling under gravity alone from 1000 ft. v^2 = 2gs ( = 2*9.8*305= 6000 approx), so v=77 m/s
whereas 1000 ft/min = 305/60 = 51 m/s vertical speed.
So the aircraft was indeed coming down at an incredible vertical speed, not a lot less than free fall, although apparently under power.
Also 130 kt= 130/1.944 = 69 m/s (horizontal speed)
Pythagoras gives TAS approaching ground level as
TAS= sqrt(51^2 + 69^2) = sqrt(2601 + 4761) =sqrt(7362) = 87.2 m/s = 173 kt ( approx).
and approaching at angle arctan(51/69)=arctan(0.74) = 36.5 degrees from horizontal.
SB
Good calculations. I knew the IAS/TAS would be high but hadn't tried to calculate it. The fact that it's not a true 130 knots from the ADSB can be quite deceiving on first glance until you realise it's going down as well.
It’s probably been discussed above somewhere but this was not a typical 1st solo. 51 hours flight time, including 4 hours solo in the Gazelle RAAus.
I am not an instructor. I just thought this to be an interesting point.The student pilot held a Class 2 aviation medical certificate and a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilot certificate[6] issued late June 2023.The student pilot had accumulated 51.3 hours experience on this certificate, including 37.1 hours in a Skyfox Gazelle.[7] The pilot had also completed 4.1 hours of solo flight under the RAAus certificate.
I am not an instructor. I just thought this to be an interesting point.The student pilot held a Class 2 aviation medical certificate and a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilot certificate[6] issued late June 2023.The student pilot had accumulated 51.3 hours experience on this certificate, including 37.1 hours in a Skyfox Gazelle.[7] The pilot had also completed 4.1 hours of solo flight under the RAAus certificate.
Did the aircraft have an Auto PIlot that the student may have experimented with and found himself in the same situation as the young lady in Western Victoria (VH-ZEW) some years ago?
It’s probably been discussed above somewhere but this was not a typical 1st solo. 51 hours flight time, including 4 hours solo in the Gazelle RAAus.
I am not an instructor. I just thought this to be an interesting point.The student pilot held a Class 2 aviation medical certificate and a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilot certificate[6] issued late June 2023.The student pilot had accumulated 51.3 hours experience on this certificate, including 37.1 hours in a Skyfox Gazelle.[7] The pilot had also completed 4.1 hours of solo flight under the RAAus certificate.
I am not an instructor. I just thought this to be an interesting point.The student pilot held a Class 2 aviation medical certificate and a Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) pilot certificate[6] issued late June 2023.The student pilot had accumulated 51.3 hours experience on this certificate, including 37.1 hours in a Skyfox Gazelle.[7] The pilot had also completed 4.1 hours of solo flight under the RAAus certificate.
I found the 172 very easy to fly with the exception of having to climb out a bit shallower than I was used to as the speed washed off more quickly than I was used to. It was a very simple conversion. I can't help but feel that he was experienced enough to be able to fly that aircraft.
172 drivers - To hit 170+ knots with a 10,000fpm descent rate, at 35 degrees dive with 1 stage of flaps applied from 1,000ft AGL, I'm assuming you'd practically need full power, would that be correct?
I'm also wondering why eye witnesses said that the engine sounded like it was over-revving, just after he lowered flaps, presumably about to turn onto base!
The following 3 users liked this post by Capt Fathom:
The following users liked this post:
Personally I would consider vasovagal syncope before I'd consider anything more sinister. If someone was predisposed (perhaps unknowingly) to this during stressful or emotional situations, the final stages of your first solo circuit could potentially be a trigger. Granted the student pilot had flown solo in ultralights, but still...