Float plane raised from the Hawkesbury.

[bob10]

What? A stall, caused by a down draft? Engine failure? showboating?. Will we ever know.

Seaplane wreckage recovered (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/seaplane-wreckage-recovered/ar-BBHQ8ba?ocid=spartandhp)

[LRT]

It’s going to be interesting to see the ATSB report on this tragic accident.

It does seem as though it wasn’t a planned emergency landing as there is no mention of doors being opened before the crash, which should be done when intentionally ditching to reduce the risk of being trapped.

The de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver is an excellent aircraft for this application with great Short Take Off & Landing (STOL) capability & is well suited to bush flying.

Although there’s concern about the plane having a crash in 1996, the aircraft inspectors are very thorough & wouldn’t have risked their license to declare a faulty aircraft airworthy.

Hawkesbury River seaplane crash: Craft once used as a crop duster and had been 'destroyed' - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2018-01-04/seaplane-crashed-hawkesbury-river-destroyed-20-years-ago/9303448)

[JDNSW]

The descriptions of the accident I have seen suggest that what happened was consistent with a stall/spin out of a steep turn at low level, which would have been unrecoverable. The pilot was very experienced in the type, which does make an error of judgement unlikely, but in executing a steep turn the margin for error can get pretty small, which is why these should not be done at low level, and it could be a case of sudden pilot incapacitation, or a mechanical failure such as a jamming or breaking control cable (which should never happen), or even a momentary drop in engine power.

Perhaps worth noting that (as standard) the DHC-2 has no stall warning device, and in a steep turn there would be very little warning from stick shake - the pilot would be relying only on experience, and may have cut the margin a bit close. Unless some sort of medical issue or mechanical failure can be found, it is difficult to see how there will be a clear result from the investigation, although if it can be shown that it was in fact executing a steep turn at low level, the pilot will undoubtedly be blamed.

I seem to remember that there was recently another seaplane accident on the Swan River in similar circumstances.

[PhilipA]

I wonder if some of the passengers decided to take photos out of one ide of the plane and shifted then centre of gravity very quickly.

Of course we will never know as they all were killed, so unless they find a physical reason it will be "pilot error"

[101RRS]

Engine was still running when it crashed - body still intact with engine area severely damaged - as John has said seems like a classic stall and nose first into the water. I am surprised that there is no stall warning system fitted but may have not been a lot of help when low and banking.

Garry

[JDNSW]

I'm not surprised about no stall warning - wasn't one on my Auster either, and it was similar vintage. I'm trying to remember whether there was one on the Victas I learnt to fly on - not sure.

[Hugh Jars]

I haven't been up that way in a long time. A lot of the places in the Hawkesbury have walls significantly higher than the river. I guess what I'm asking is how restrictive would the area where the plane pranged be for manoeuvring, in the case of, say - a go-around from low level?

I've been into some pretty tight places that needed a split-rrrse turn to escape in the event of a go-around from low level (I'm not a seaplane pilot). In some cases, a 180 deg turn.

[Fourgearsticks]

Beavers don’t have stall warning and don’t need one, they give early warning of a stall. I haven’t seen the video of this accident but those who have said looked like a classic stall/flick. 6 people in a Beaver on floats would be near gross, depending on fuel. Pilot was said to be very expirenced, most of his float time was twin Otters not Beavers.
Nearly all Beavers have previous crash history or have been rebuilt several times due corrosion, especially AG machines as this was. At one stage AA at Bankstown operated 65 Beavers from QLD to SA.

[Old Farang]

Not flown FW on floats, just helicopters. Is there much big bird life in that area? The sudden appearance of a large bird heading straight at you could have caused a sudden evasive input by the pilot, leading to a stall. RIP to the victims.

[JDNSW]

Beavers don’t have stall warning and don’t need one, they give early warning of a stall. ........


Early warning of a stall in a steep turn is probably too late. And that would apply whether there is a stall warning device or not. If it really was a stall out of a steep turn, the absence of a stall warning device is irrelevant.

[Geedublya]

I haven't been up that way in a long time. A lot of the places in the Hawkesbury have walls significantly higher than the river. I guess what I'm asking is how restrictive would the area where the plane pranged be for manoeuvring, in the case of, say - a go-around from low level?

I've been into some pretty tight places that needed a split-rrrse turn to escape in the event of a go-around from low level (I'm not a seaplane pilot). In some cases, a 180 deg turn.

If they took off to the north east (which is usual from what I observed) there is plenty of room on the river for maneuvering. If they went south west it gets very tight. Since they went down near Jerusalem Bay, it would appear they were headed north east.

[Fourgearsticks]

JD, in a steep turn in a Beaver there is ample warning of stall and time enough for corrective action.

[JDNSW]

Yet the last multi fatal in a Beaver (in Canada) mentioned in this story was attributed to this cause. There is a good reason why low level steep turns are the subject of strong warnings to new pilots - a hundred years of fatal accidents, stall warning or not.

[bob10]

Sydney Seaplane crash pilot's actions were 'totally inexplicable', says boss (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/sydney-seaplane-crash-pilots-actions-were-totally-inexplicable-says-boss/ar-BBIudcI?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartandhp)

[Geedublya]

It looks like he went the wrong way up a dead end and tried to do a low level 90 degree turn resulting in a stall. The question is why? Was it a simple navigation error or he went that way not realising that more altitude would be required than could be achieved.

[bob10]

It looks like he went the wrong way up a dead end and tried to do a low level 90 degree turn resulting in a stall. The question is why? Was it a simple navigation error or he went that way not realising that more altitude would be required than could be achieved.

That's it in a nutshell. I guess we'll never know.

Causes of death in Syd seaplane revealed (https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/causes-of-death-in-syd-seaplane-revealed/ar-BBJ3MXO?li=AAavLaF&ocid=spartandhp)

[Geedublya]

Engine fumes responsible for fatal Sydney seaplane crash in Hawkesbury River, ATSB says - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-03/atsb-report-on-sydney-seaplane-fatal-crash-in-hawkesbury-river/12419706)

I think this explains why they went the wrong way. Navigation error due to confusion induced by CO.

[Old Farang]

Engine fumes responsible for fatal Sydney seaplane crash in Hawkesbury River, ATSB says - ABC News (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-07-03/atsb-report-on-sydney-seaplane-fatal-crash-in-hawkesbury-river/12419706)

I think this explains why they went the wrong way. Navigation error due to confusion induced by CO.

Warning on carbon monoxide poisoning
Warning on carbon monoxide poisoning | Flight Safety Australia (https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2020/07/warning-on-carbon-monoxide-poisoning/)

CASA has issued an Airworthiness Bulletin (https://www.casa.gov.au/standard-page/recent-airworthiness-bulletins) today on preventing carbon monoxide poisoning in piston-engine aircraft.
This follows indications that the pilot of a float plane that crashed near Sydney in late 2017 may have been affected by carbon monoxide poisoning.

[superquag]

Does it take 2 years for a toxicology report to be done and presented ?

[JDNSW]

Reading the report, toxicology tests were only requested after all the other non-productive leads had been followed up.

These investigations are done very carefully and methodically, with procedures learned over the last century or so.

[Hugh Jars]

Does it take 2 years for a toxicology report to be done and presented ?
The ATSB is a dysfunctional and painfully slow government department.
Reports that should take weeks often drag out to months, or even years - as is the case here.

[p38arover]

Reading the report, toxicology tests were only requested after all the other non-productive leads had been followed up.

One would expect toxicology tests to be standard procedure.

[JDNSW]

One would expect toxicology tests to be standard procedure.

I'm guessing they are - but not for CO. Despite a long history of CO contributing to flying accidents.

[superquag]

It's all your fault (pilots) - We don't have enough serious and mysterious crashes to justify employing/$upporting more staff. [bigwhistle]

[superquag]

I'm guessing they are - but not for CO. Despite a long history of CO contributing to flying accidents.

And last Century, more than a few car crashes. - Back when exhaust systems seemed to have a shrt life, around 3 to 5 years in some cases (youthful experience)

[superquag]

One would expect toxicology tests to be standard procedure.

Nope, it seems... Here's 2 paragraphs lifted from the ATSB website. Note the timing... right at the end of things. Not only but also, they happened to pick a switched-on Consultant who made the suggestion...

“During the DRAFT review process for the investigation’s final report, the aviation medical specialist engaged by the ATSB recommended that carbon monoxide toxicology testing be undertaken on blood samples of the aircraft occupants,” said ATSB Chief Commissioner Greg Hood.

The results of that testing, provided to the ATSB in March 2020, indicated that the pilot and two of the passengers, whose post-mortem examinations established received fatal injuries sustained as a result of the impact sequence, had elevated levels of carbon monoxide."


That got them going, and they '...con$ulted widely with medical experts to fully understand those results'

- Took me 30 seconds to google 'Effects of carbon monoxide on pilots' = Carbon Monoxide Poisoning - AviationKnowledge (http://aviationknowledge.wikidot.com/aviation:carbon-monoxide-poisoning)


Some people are VERY lucky with cracked heaters, https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/CObroforweb.pdf
- in which there is a nice simple chart - to assist in their Understanding.

Apologies for ranting, but this was such a preventable fatality - and Probable Cause should have been discerned at the time of post-mortem. Two+ years ago.
My thoughts are for the Families.

[101RRS]

Irrespective of ATSB requirements, I would have thought such testing would have been standard under the State Coronial Post Mortem requirements as these would take priority

Garry

[Old Farang]

Seaplane report prompts exhaust gas warning


Seaplane report prompts exhaust gas warning | Flight Safety Australia (https://www.flightsafetyaustralia.com/2021/01/seaplane-report-prompts-exhaust-gas-warning/)

Carbon monoxide poisoned the pilot of the tourist seaplane that crashed in Jerusalem Bay, north of Sydney, on New Year’s Eve 2017, the Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) has found.

The ATSB report, issued today, found the pilot and passengers on the aircraft all had elevated levels of carboxyhaemoglobin in their blood, indicating exposure to carbon monoxide, a colourless, odourless gas created by combustion in engines that, when breathed, displaces oxygen in the bloodstream.

In response, the ATSB has called for the operators and owners of piston-engine aircraft to install active-warning carbon monoxide (CO) detectors (as opposed to colour-changing detection strips) or for pilots to carry a phone-sized personal electronic CO detector. The ATSB has recommended that CASA consider making active-warning CO detectors in piston-engine aircraft mandatory, particularly in passenger-carrying aircraft.