Thread: Reports of a large air tanker crash in NSW

Originally Posted by travelrover

Just an observation, today most of the aerial assets do not have their transponders enabled so you can track via Flightradar24 which is unusual

Flightradar24 and a few other trackers have a service where the AIS is not broadcast to their sites. Kind of like a silent number.

All other aircraft can see the AIS signal.

I can see the transponders as we have the system here (pre-filter).

Originally Posted by Hugh Jars

I was sent a video that is alleged to be of the last 30 seconds or so of flight. I'm sceptical of it's veracity, but looking at the flightpath it appears there is either some discontinuity or 'editing'. There seems to be a sudden, unexplained loss of altitude between the time aircraft is in or behind the smoke between it and the person shooting the video, and the fireball, which appears to be well below the projected flightpath.

The only explanation I can think of is a stall or windshear (if the video is authentic).

The pictures of the crash site show a very long scar on the ground with the surviving empennage aligned with it, suggesting a substantial forward speed with the aircraft impacting the ground with a low descent rate relative to the ground (which looks like an uphill slope in the pictures). This is not consistent with a stalled condition, which would result in a high rate of descent and low forward speed, although it could be the aftermath of recovery from a stall. Which in turn could be the result of wind shear.

But wind shear does not necessarily result in a stall - the reaction to a stall warning as wind shear reduced airspeed would be to lower the nose to prevent a stall, which in the circumstances could easily put the aircraft in an unrecoverable position.

There are other possible causes - power loss, for whatever reason (and one item published is that the fuel loaded for the flight is to be tested), or misjudgement by the aircrew, but neither of these seem to me as likely as wind shear.

A video was made, but made private, according to this article. It also says the aircraft veered to the left before crashing. Don't know the significance of that.


Haunting footage captures the final moments of a doomed US water-bomber before it crashed and burst into flames - killing three hero firefighters battling Australia's bushfires

I cannot see the Video, only stills from it, I assume. Why would it be dropping Retardant that far away from the fire & not even close?

Was it an Emergency Dump because of a possible problem?

Originally Posted by JDNSW

The pictures of the crash site show a very long scar on the ground with the surviving empennage aligned with it, suggesting a substantial forward speed with the aircraft impacting the ground with a low descent rate relative to the ground (which looks like an uphill slope in the pictures). This is not consistent with a stalled condition, which would result in a high rate of descent and low forward speed, although it could be the aftermath of recovery from a stall. Which in turn could be the result of wind shear.

Don't forget your basic aerodynamics, JD. The wing can stall at any speed, once the critical AoA is exceeded. In a small aircraft, (with such a narrow operating weight and speed range), it's easier to relate the stall to a given airspeed for simplicity sake. But the principal's the same. I used to demonstrate this to students during training, by inducing the stall warning at high speed (usually in a descent in a lighty). It was rewarding to see the trainee experience a lightbulb moment after the demo.

In the type I operate, we do 'approach to stall' recoveries (in the simulator). The advantage we have is aural/visual warnings, stick-shaker, and "John Howard's Eyebrows" (PLI on the attitude indicator). I've had stall warnings during recovery at near VMO/MMO. The key is to always respect the warning and initiate recovery immediately.

So, the size of the witness marks on the ground can't really be used to determine whether the wing was stalled. All it tells us is the aircraft touched down at a particular groundspeed - the wing may or may not have been stalled, and the aircraft may, or may not have been in a windshear beyond the performance capability of the aircraft with the height the aircraft was above the ground when encountered.

Originally Posted by 4bee

I cannot see the Video, only stills from it, I assume. Why would it be dropping Retardant that far away from the fire & not even close?

Was it an Emergency Dump because of a possible problem?

Could be. But retardant can be tactically dispensed ahead of the fire front to slow its progress in that direction...

Thanks J, I did ponder that before I posted. From what I could see the foreground looked fairly clear of "burnables" & it did appear to be a long way out.

It appears this particular system doesn't have an "Emergency Drop" as do some other systems so it means a drop is not instantaneous, & it can only do an "Operational Drop" (my term) which takes longer to jettison & if one is in strife then seconds count.


John Howard's Eyebrows indeed.

Also John Howard's head bumps hair growth.

When 'er indoors gives me a haircut I tell her that I do not want a "John Howard".

Obviously any of the above is possible - just the aircraft certainly cam down in a relatively flat configuration with a lot of forward speed.

I saw the video and has Hugh Jars observed the aircraft crashed well below the projected flight path that the aircraft was on as it went into the smoke.

The video showed the aircraft coming in for its bombing run (no sign of a bird dog aircraft), did the drop OK and started the climbout with a positive climb but then seems to fly into the smoke and then crashes a few seconds later. Whether the aircraft actually flew into the smoke or was just obscured is not clear.

While the pilots were very experienced - a danger spot is where a pilot has to change from visual flight to instrument flight particularly if the aircraft is climbing rapidly and combined with a high work load situatiion - disorientation can occur where the pilot thinks they are climbing higher than they are and the nose is lowered. Unlikely with such highly trained pilots but does happen.

Tracker Crash - HMAS Melbourne 1975

"On 10 February 1975, during an attempted deck landing on HMAS Melbourne at night, the pilot became disorientated after lifting off after a touch and go (bolter where an arrester wire was missed), and then slowly descended into the water (whilst suffering spatial disorientation) rather than climb away in usual easy fashion. All four crew members escaped uninjured to be picked up by HMAS Melbourne boat."

That is just another scenario if the aircraft did fly into the smoke and the pilot became disorientated in the transition from visual to instruments - unlikely but possible.

My thoughts on the video.

Garry