At 15:56 on 28/10/2017 emergency services were called to the small rural town of John’s River, near Port Macquarie NSW, following a report of an aircraft crash just north of the town. The tail of the aircraft could be seen from the dual-lane highway nearby.
Photo by: George Canciani
Emergency services responded urgently to the scene. Shortly after their arrival it was confirmed that VH-JMW built in 1980, a twin engined, Cessna T310R (c/n 310R1802) had crashed, killing the two occupants on board. There was no fire, however fuel leaking from ruptured fuel tanks was foamed by attending fire units.
VH-JMW (owned by Burley Aircraft) had departed from Toowoomba (YTWB) in Queensland at 13:30, on a published flight plan to Taree (YTRE), NSW, but in fact it’s destination was to be a private airstrip at John’s River, a trip that should take 1 hour 25 minutes.
Photo by: Port Macquarie News
The trip was uneventful with a cruise altitude of 9,400 feet. At 15:51, on descending through 3,000 feet, the aircraft commenced a rapid descent of 1,200 to 1,500 fpm prior to crashing at 15:56. The flight plan supplied by FlightRadar24can be seen below.
The cause of the incident remains uncertain and officers from the Australian Transport Safety Bureau are investigating the incident. This page will be updated as detail is reported. A preliminary investigation report is expected to be released in about 30 days but a final report may take up to a year.
ATSB Report
SB is investigating an aircraft accident involving a Cessna 310R aircraft, registered VH-JMW, that occurred about 40 km SSW of Port Macquarie, NSW on 28 October 2017.
The aircraft collided with terrain, fatally injuring the two persons on board.
The ATSB deployed a team of four investigators to the accident site with expertise that includes aircraft operations, engineering and maintenance.
While on site, the team will be examining the site and wreckage, gathering any recorded data, and interviewing any witnesses.
The ATSB will release a preliminary investigation report in approximately 30 days. A final report into the accident may take approximately 12 months to complete.
However, should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify those affected and seek safety action to address the issue.
On 3 September, Air New Zealand took 50 children with critical medical conditions such as cancer and heart disease, and their caregivers, on the flight of a lifetime over New Zealand. The nearly three hour flight took the aircraft and its passengers on a 440 km long and 483 km wide heart-shaped journey across New Zealand.
Departing Auckland, the Air New Zealand 787-9 headed south, beginning its heart-shaped path west of Taharo. During the flight, MCs Adam and Eve from The Adam and Eve Show entertained the kids on board. Prior to departure the children enjoyed a waiata performed by Te Kura Kaupapa Māori ā-Rohe o Māngere school.
Flight Plan
We partnered with Air New Zealand to help reveal the flight path on Facebook Live as the flight made its way over New Zealand. The exact flight plan was kept secret to ensure the finished path would be a surprise for the guests on board and for those watching at home.
And just in case you’re wondering what a heart in the sky looks like on a flight plan, here’s the full route.
Spend time at a busy airport and you’ll likely see an aircraft go-around. Find out why airplanes go around and how the maneuver enhances safety.
Go-Around Terminology
Go-Around terminology can be confusing. There are a few terms different terms used (and misused), so let’s clear things up!
Go-Around
Go-around is the general term used when the decision is made to discontinue a landing. A go-around can be accomplished anywhere along the final approach course and even after the aircraft touches down on the runway.
After initiating a go-around, the crew will begin to climb the aircraft, following instructions of air traffic control. They may fly a published missed approach procedure (a charted route) that will guide them safely away from terrain and other air traffic.
“Go-around” is also the standard international terminology used for communication between pilots and controllers. Example: “Aerosavvy 101, zombies roaming the runway. Go-around.”
Why are they called Go-Arounds?
Aircraft at smaller airfields typically fly a rectangular traffic pattern (or circuit) around the runway in preparation for landing. If the pilot decides not to land, the aircraft climbs and rejoins the pattern to go around the circuit and make another approach. Although airliners rarely fly a traditional traffic pattern, the maneuver is still called a go-around.
Rejected or Balked (Baulked) Landing
A rejected landing is a go-around that begins at very low altitude after the pilot has made the decision to land.
In some cases, an aircraft will actually touch down on the runway during a rejected landing. There are situations where getting the aircraft back into the air is safer than completing the landing.
The terms rejected landing and balked (baulked in the UK) landing are essentially interchangeable. Usage and precise definitions vary by region. Aviation regulators (FAA, EASA, etc) and aircraft manufacturers use the term “balked landing” when discussing aircraft performance requirements during low altitude (or after touch down) go-arounds.
Other Go-Around Terminology
Navy aircraft use different terms for go-arounds and balked landings.
Wave Off – When the Landing Signal Officer orders a pilot not to land on the aircraft carrier, it’s called a wave off. Similar to when an air traffic controller orders an aircraft to go-around.
Bolter – A carrier landing attempt in which the tailhook fails to engage an arresting wire, requiring a go-around. This is similar to a balked landing.
Until a few years ago, U.K. Royal Air Force controllers would order a pilot to “Overshoot” when a go-around was necessary. A few pilots tell me that “overshoot” is occasionally heard in Canada. “Go-Around” is now the standard international phraseology.
Canadian air traffic controllers will sometimes say: “Pull up and go-around” when ordering an aircraft to go-around. I suspect the “pull up” part is an attempt to get the pilots moving in the right direction while they think about the go-around. 🙂
Here’s an interesting phraseology variant from the UK. When ordering a flight to go-around, controllers state: “AeroSavvy 101, go-around, I say again, go-around. Acknowledge.” The controllers want to make certain the pilots confirm and execute the maneuver.
Missed Approach
The term missed approach is often incorrectly used to describe a go-around. The terms are not interchangeable. A missed approach is a published instrument procedure that begins after the go-around is initiated.
When pilots fly an instrument approach to a runway, they follow a detailed route displayed on an approach chart. If the pilots are unable to land when reaching the runway, they perform a go-around. After initiating the go-around, the approach chart has a Missed Approach Procedure that guides the pilots safely away from the runway, terrain, and other air traffic.
If a crew needs to abandon an instrument approach, they will alert the controller: “Metropolis Tower, Aerosavvy 101 is going-around.” Tower will then provide guidance. They might give the crew a specific heading and altitude, or say “AeroSavvy 101, fly the published missed approach.” The latter instructs the crew to follow the published missed approach procedure on the chart.
The image below shows an approach chart for Singapore’s runway 20C. The image on the right is the same procedure displayed on a 767 navigation screen. The Missed Approach Procedure (MAP) is highlighted in yellow.
Singapore runway 20C approach chart and the same approach on the aircraft navigation screen. The missed approach procedure is highlighted in yellow. Click for larger image.
To summarize: When pilots on an instrument approach are unable to land, they will first initiate a go-around, then fly a published missed approach procedure or follow the controller’s instructions.
A Go-Around Is Not an Emergency
When pilots go-around, they are avoiding a potentially hazardous situation. Flight crews are encouraged to go-around any time they are uncomfortable with an approach or landing. There are no penalties or paperwork involved when a pilot chooses to discontinue an approach.
When in doubt, Go-Around!
Excellent guidance for every pilot, regardless of experience level and equipment.
Why Do Pilots Go-Around?
There are several reasons why a pilot or air traffic controller may want an aircraft to go-around.
Unstable approach – Most airlines require aircraft to be stabilized by 1000 feet (about 3 miles from the runway). A stabilized approach means the aircraft is at final approach speed and fully configured with landing gear and flaps extended. Studies have shown that unstable approaches are a causal factor in many landing accidents. If the aircraft isn’t stable by 1000 feet, a go-around is usually required.
Spacing/Separation – Air traffic controllers try to keep landing aircraft separated by 3-5 miles. This gives an aircraft enough time to land and exit the runway before the next aircraft lands. If spacing becomes too close, the tower controller can order a flight crew to go-around.
Stuff on the Runway – Ground vehicles, aircraft, trash, and even animals on a runway will cause pilots to go-around.
Aircraft Mechanical Problem – Although rare, a flight crew might discover a mechanical problem on final approach (perhaps a flap or landing gear issue). Going around will give the pilots time to troubleshoot the problem so they can return for a safe landing.
Weather Below Minimums – Instrument approaches often specify a decision altitude where the flight crew must be able to see the runway to land. If the pilots are unable to see the runway when the aircraft reaches decision altitude, a go-around is required.
Ugly, Nasty Weather – Gusty winds or turbulence can make landing a real challenge. Wind shear (sudden change in wind speed or direction) or other severe weather can cause a flight crew to initiate a go-around. Pilots use on-board weather radar and wind shear detection equipment to aid in making the land or go-around decision. Here is a video demonstrating predictive wind shear warning technology on a Boeing 767. Pilots test this equipment daily.
How Do Pilots Go-Around?
The go-around is a safe and smooth maneuver that airline pilots practice in the simulator. A go-around early in the approach phase will often go unnoticed by passengers.
Specific go-around procedures vary by airline and aircraft type. Different planes have different buttons, procedures, and terminology. The following is a generic go-around procedure for an AeroSavvy Airlines Boeing 767 (flown by our best crew).
The go-around begins 100 miles from the airport.
About 100 miles from the destination, a flight crew will do an approach briefing. They spend a few minutes reviewing airport-specific charts and procedures necessary for landing. Arrival routing, updated weather, runway conditions, and taxi routes are discussed.
The crew also reviews the go-around and missed approach procedure for the expected runway. We always plan for a go-around.
Let’s get out of here!
We’re on final approach and Metropolis Tower has cleared us to land. The runway lights are in sight!
As we descend below 200 feet, we hear our call sign on the radio:
“AeroSavvy 101, Metropolis Tower. Aircraft on the runway. Go-around. Fly the published missed approach.”
The crew responds: “Metropolis Tower, AeroSavvy 101 going around. Flying the published missed.”
Go-Around Procedure
A well-rehearsed, scripted procedure now takes place on the flight deck. The script is spoken out loud as the crew performs the actions.
PF=Pilot-Flying
PM=Pilot-Monitoring
🛫 PF: “Go-Around Thrust” The pilot-flying presses one of the go-around switches on the thrust levers. This signals the autothrottles to advance to go-around thrust and places the flight director in go-around mode to provide pitch guidance for the climb. The pilot-monitoring confirms the thrust levers advance to go-around power.
The pilot-flying (or autopilot) begins to pitch the aircraft up to begin the climb.
🛫 PF: “Flaps 20” Pilot-monitoring selects flaps 20. This retracts the flaps from the landing position to the go-around position.
🛫 PM: “Positive Rate” Pilot-monitoring confirms the aircraft is climbing and says “Positive Rate.”
🛫 PF: “Gear Up” Pilot-monitoring positions the gear handle up to raise the landing gear.
At 400 feet above ground, the pilot-flying calls: “LNAV” (pronounced el-nav). Pilot-monitoring activates the flight director system’s Lateral Navigation (LNAV) mode. This provides the pilot-flying (or autopilot) guidance to fly the programmed missed approach procedure.
At 1000 feet above ground, the pilot-flying accelerates the aircraft and calls for the flaps to be retracted.
That’s it! The crew will continue to fly the published missed approach procedure until the air traffic controller decides how to merge the aircraft back into arriving traffic. In most cases, controllers will immediately issue heading and altitude instructions.
This fun dance happens a few times every day at busy airports all over the world.
Here’s a 2-minute video demonstrating what a go-around looks like on a Boeing 757 & 767 Electronic Attitude Direction Indicator (EADI):
What does “TO/GA” mean?
Many high performance aircraft have a switch and/or thrust lever position labeled “TO/GA.” This odd assortment of letters is an acronym for TakeOff/Go-Around (pronounced “toga,” like the ancient Roman garment).
The exact function of the TO/GA switch varies on different aircraft models. In general, the dual-function TO/GA switch signals the autothrottles and flight director to provide takeoff thrust and guidance when on the runway, or go-around thrust and guidance when on an approach.
TO/GA PARTY!
Go-Around Switches and Thrust Lever Detents
Here’s an assortment of Go-Around and TO/GA buttons. Different aircraft manufacturers have different philosophies about the best way to trigger a go-around. Boeing, Embraer, Gulfstream, and a few others prefer a button or switch. Newer Airbus aircraft have a thrust lever detent (position) that triggers the go-around mode. Pilots are usually trained and assigned to one aircraft, so they don’t have to worry about getting confused. Although I fly both the Boeing 757 and 767, they have identical cockpits so the procedure and button positions are the same.
<
>
Boeing 737 MAX TO/GA Button
Go-Around From the Passenger Seat
The go-around is easy for the people in back. Many passengers don’t even realize they’ve done one! Here’s what to expect if your flight crew needs to perform a go-around:
Approaching the airport for landing, passengers usually hear a flight attendant chime (ding-ding) followed by an announcement to fasten seat belts and assure tray tables are in the upright position. If all goes well, the aircraft will land in the next 5-10 minutes.
If the flight crew needs to go-around, they won’t have time to tell the passengers (they’ll be quite busy). The first indication the aircraft is going-around is the sound of the engines increasing thrust. The aircraft will pitch up slightly and begin a shallow climb, followed by the sound of the gear being retracted. The crew will then retract some or all of the flaps.
The plane will make a few turns then fly 5-10 miles downwind before lining up with the runway for another approach. The flaps and landing gear will be extended back to landing configuration.
A go-around will add 15-30 minutes to the flight, depending on airport traffic. Think of it as a free sight-seeing excursion, courtesy of your airline!
Ken Hoke has been flying for over 30 years. He’s currently a Boeing 757 & 767 captain flying international routes for a package express airline. In his spare time, he writes AeroSavvy.com. Follow Ken on Twitter, Facebook,Instagram and YouTube.
Airbus launched the A380 a decade ago with high hopes for the rise of the super jumbo, but demand is dwindling. So what now for the future of the ultra-size market?
When Airbus first launched the A380 the marketing team at the European manufacturer had a field day. From bowling alleys to cinemas, the Super Jumbo was set to become the cruise ship of the skies. However, with the exception of First Class showers, bars and even a small art gallery, such innovations have been ignored by operators in return for maximising seating capacity to deliver the best economics to the airlines and comfort to passengers.
But far from its maximum capacity of 853 passengers, all the airlines to operate the type have decided upon three or four class arrangements seating around 500-500 passengers, with the most densely configured aircraft – one of a number of layouts for Emirates Airlines – providing 615-seats in a two-class offer. The lower-end of this market is also served by the Boeing 747-8I, the passenger variant stretch of the famous Jumbo Jet.
The demand for airliners in the ultra-sized market was always going to be small relative to other sectors, especially as developments with engine technology have allowed widebodied twins to fly as far, but significantly more efficiently than the four engined A380s and 747s. Airbus claimed a strong need for the Super Jumbo to support airport congestion and serve hub to hub markets.
Boeing agreed in principle, but disagreed on the size of the market in favour hub-buster smaller aircraft that would enable airlines to fly non-stop long-haul point-to-point services between non-hub airports, but still kept its toe in the water with the 747-8, which with a further extension to the upper deck of the aircraft added a further 50 seats versus the popular 747-400.
As we now enter the tenth year of A380 operations it is clear that the aircraft has not been the commercial success that Airbus hoped, although you certainly will not be hearing an executive of the company stating this publicly.
Since its entry into commercial service in October 2007 with Singapore Airlines, the manufacturer may have added to its backlog, but the almost all of these orders have come from repeat customers and the majority have been from the largest operator Emirates Airline. In fact over the past two years Airbus has added just two units to its backlog as Emirates has grown its overall commitment to 142 aircraft, of which more than 80 are already in service.
Only 13 airlines currently operate the A380, with nearing 200 aircraft now in service. The outstanding Airbus orderbook of around 120 aircraft includes orders that are unlikely to be fulfilled including aircraft for Virgin Atlantic Airways and additional commitments from existing customers such as Air France, Qantas and Singapore Airlines. All Nippon Airways (ANA) is the only new customer for the type with three aircraft due in 2019, although the orderbook does include aircraft with lessors Air Accord and Amedo that are yet to be placed.
A closer look at A380 operations shows that the aircraft has partly delivered on the Airbus promise of hub flying, with Dubai International, London Heathrow, Singapore Changi, Bangkok Suvarnabhumi and Sydney airports the largest gateways for A380 operations this winter. The aircraft has certainly allowed airlines to boost capacity on busy routes such as Emirates between Dubai and the UK, while British Airways and others have used the aircraft to merge two rotations into one and redeploy assets elsewhere.
However, it has become clear that for many airlines the aircraft is just too large to sustainably serve markets. An example is Malaysia Airlines which has already dropped the aircraft from the Kuala Lumpur – Paris market and will soon replace its remaining aircraft on the Kuala Lumpur – London route with smaller twin-engined aircraft.
The Asian carrier has been seeking to find new owners for its aircraft for a couple of years without success and with the slow sales of new aircraft and recent news that Singapore Airlines will not renew the lease of its first A380 when its ten-year deal expires next year, has led many analysts to suggest the end of the line for the Super Jumbo.
But is it really that bad when you consider the huge investments airports across the globe have made to handle the larger jets? Singapore Airlines has confirmed that although it will likely retire some of its early production A380s, it remains committed to the aircraft and still sees a role for the aircraft, particularly on high-demand routes to slot-constrained airports. Meanwhile, Emirates remains as committed as ever to the programme with its chief executive officer, Sir Tim Clark, stating recently that the world needs more A380s as airports get increasingly congested.
Malaysia Airlines may have even found a new market for the aircraft with chief executive officer, Peter Bellew, revealing at World Routes that Malaysia Airlines was in the process of establishing a sister airline venture that would take over the operation of its A380 fleet and operate them for specific missions (such as Hajj and Umrah) and on wet-lease agreements for other operators not wishing to fully commit to acquiring their own aircraft.
The former Ryanair executive has subsequently confirmed detailed discussions with Airbus over the proposal and is understood to be currently looking at configuration options to make these aircraft suitable to customers – this included maintaining their current 496-seat layout, a 605-seat two-class option and a 700-seat, all-Economy offer ahead of the launch of the new business.
“I think it if you take a five-to-six-year view of this, there is enough volume of very predictable movements of people related to religious pilgrimage and other short- and medium-term wet-lease use of these aircraft to probably sustain a fleet up to 20 aircraft globally,” he said.
Boeing may not have invested as heavily in the ultra-large sized aircraft market, but is witnessing the same demand issues as Airbus. Only Air China, Korean Air and Lufthansa have signed up to the 747-8I Intercontinental, the passenger version of the aircraft, and just 36 aircraft are in service. Interestingly two of these three operators are also customers for the A380.
With Airbus having dropped plans to produce a freighter variant of the A380, Boeing has been able to grow its 747-8 customer base, with over 70% of the 110 aircraft in service being dedicated freighter aircraft serving with the likes of AirBridgeCargo Airlines, Atlas Air, Cargolux, Cathay Pacific Cargo, Korean Air Cargo, Nippon Cargo Airlines, Saudia Cargo, SilkWay Airlines and Volga-Dnepr Airlines. A recent deal from UPS Airlines, originally a customer for the A380 freighter has guaranteed 747 production for at least a couple more years.
The Airbus A380 and Boeing 747-8I have shown their adaptability to serving different markets through the scheduled operations of their existing customers. During nine years of service the A380 has flown to 75 different airports, albeit many of these were special one-off promotional rotations from Emirates Airline. Meanwhile, the 747-8I has seen service in Africa, Asia, Europe and the Americas over the past 4+ years, most famously a special ‘Siegerflieger’ themed aircraft flying Germany back from Brazil after winning the 2014 Football World Cup.
The majority of A380 missions have been between hub airports with the three busiest routes for the aircraft linking the world’s two busiest international airports (Dubai International – London Heathrow) and on the Singapore Changi – London Heathrow and Dubai International – Bangkok Suvarnabhumi city pairs. The A380 and 747-8I have both also been used to meet high demand in short-haul markets with Air China and China Southern Airlines using the equipment heavily along the largest domestic corridors in mainland China.
This winter the Airbus A380 once again holds the right to operating the world’s longest regular scheduled service by distance after Emirates Airline introduced the type on its Dubai – Auckland non-stop service in late October, replacing the smaller 777. This route (at 14,193km) had replaced the Qantas Sydney – Dallas link (at 13,802) as the world’s longest, a route that has also been flown using an A380 since September 2014. The Super Jumbo will retain this record through to February 2017 when Qatar Airways inaugurates its own link to Auckland from Doha’s Hamad International Airport using a 777-200LR.
Interestingly, Doha will also become the destination of the shortest regular A380 scheduled service this winter after Emirates Airline introduces the type on one of its nine daily flights between Dubai and Qatari capital from December 1, 2016. At just 379km it may seem strange to use a long-range aircraft on such a route, but Emirates says it will allow it to meet peak morning demand on the route and supports wider long-haul fleet utilisation.
It is clear that market conditions and competition from other aircraft programmes has limited the need for ultra-large airliners such as the A380 and 747-8I. However, as the global industry continues its rapid growth and with airport congestion likely to remain and potentially further develop as a major constraint on the system, there could be a future rise in demand for these airliners.
There are certainly hub-to-hub markets that easily support such high-demand airliners and an increasing number of city pairs that could also support such aircraft. That is why both Airbus and Boeing are keeping their options open and, despite sales challenges, will be working hard to support demand for both new and secondhand equipment.
This article is sourced from an original feature by Richard Maslen that appeared in…ROUTES NEWS – ISSUE 7, 2016 – Click here to view the magazine.
On 21 February 2017, the pilot of a Beechcraft King Air B200, registered VH-ZCR, was conducting a flight from Essendon Airport, Victoria to King Island, Tasmania. On board were the pilot and four passengers. The weather was fine with a recorded wind speed of 5 kt (9 km/h) from the north‑north‑west and a temperature of 12 °C.
Witnesses familiar with the aircraft type reported that the take-off roll along runway 17[1] was longer than normal. After becoming airborne, the aircraft was observed to yaw[2] left. The aircraft performed a shallow climbing left turn while maintaining a relatively level pitch[3] and roll[4] attitude. Airservices Australia Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) data[5] indicated the aircraft reached a maximum height of approximately 160 ft above ground level while tracking in an arc to the left of the runway centreline (Figure 1). The aircraft subsequently collided with a building in the Essendon Airport retail precinct.
The pilot and passengers were fatally injured and the aircraft destroyed. Additionally, a number of people on the ground received minor injuries.
Figure 1: Aircraft track from Airservices Australia ADS-B data. All heights above ground level
Source: Google earth, modified by the ATSB
Wreckage and impact information
The aircraft collided with the roof of the building and associated concrete parapet before coming to rest in the building’s rear car park (Figures 2 and 3). Examination of the significantly fire- and impact‑damaged wreckage determined that, at impact the:
aircraft was configured with 10° of flap
landing gear was in the extended and locked position.
Examination of the building roof showed evidence of propeller slash marks and nose and main gear tyre marks (Figure 3). Those marks were consistent with the aircraft having significant left yaw and a slight left roll at initial impact.
Figure 2: Accident site overview
Source: Metropolitan Fire Brigade (Melbourne), modified by the ATSB
On-site examination of the wreckage did not identify any pre-existing faults with the aircraft that could have contributed to the accident.
The left and right engines separated from their mounts during the impact sequence. Both engines had varying degrees of fire and impact damage. The engines were removed from the accident site to a secure facility where they were disassembled and inspected by the ATSB with assistance from the engine manufacturer. That examination found that the cores of both engines were rotating and that there was no evidence of pre-impact failure of either engine’s internal components. However, a number of engine components were retained for further examination and testing.
The propellers separated from the engines during the impact sequence. Both propellers exhibited evidence of rotation and have been retained by the ATSB for detailed examination. The ATSB also retained several airframe components, documents and electronic devices for further examination.
Figure 3: Accident site building roof overview
Source: Metropolitan Fire Brigade (Melbourne), modified by the ATSB
Recorded information
Cockpit voice recorder
A Fairchild model A100S cockpit voice recorder (CVR), part number S100-0080-00 and serial number 01211, was fitted to the aircraft. This model of recorder uses solid-state memory to record cockpit audio and has a recording duration of 30 minutes. CVRs are designed on an ‘endless loop’ principle, where the oldest audio is continuously overwritten by the most recent audio. Apart from pilot speech and radio transmissions, CVRs can record control movements (for example flap and gear levers), switch activations, aural warnings and background sounds such as propeller and engine noise.
The aircraft’s fire‑damaged CVR was recovered from the accident site and transported to the ATSB’s technical facility in Canberra, Australian Capital Territory on 23 February 2017 for examination and download (Figure 4).
Figure 4: Comparison of an undamaged Fairchild model A100S CVR (top) with the CVR from VH-ZCR (bottom)
The CVR from VH-ZCR was disassembled and the memory board was removed from inside the crash-protected memory module. The memory board was undamaged (Figure 5).
The CVR was successfully downloaded however, no audio from the accident flight was recorded. All the recovered audio was from a previous flight on 3 January 2017. The ATSB is examining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to operate on the accident flight.
Air traffic control audio
Examination of the recorded air traffic control radio calls for Essendon Tower on 21 February 2017 revealed that, shortly after take-off, the pilot broadcast a MAYDAY call. The pilot repeated the word ‘MAYDAY’ seven times within that transmission. No additional information regarding the nature of the emergency was broadcast.
Further investigation
The investigation is continuing and will include:
examination of both propellers to determine the blade angles at impact, their pre-impact condition and to assess the impact damage
further examination of a number of retained engine and airframe components
further interviews with a number of witnesses and involved parties
further analysis of numerous witness reports
review of the aircraft’s maintenance and operational records
review of the meteorological conditions at the time
review of the approval process for the building that was struck by the aircraft
analysis of aircraft performance and other operational factors
review of the pilot’s medical and flying history
review of the operating processes and approvals
determining the reasons for the failure of the CVR to record during the accident flight
further analysis of recorded information, including:
– Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast data
– dash camera and other video footage provided by witnesses
– closed-circuit television video footage
– air traffic control audio recordings.
Identification of safety issues
Should any significant safety issues be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately bring those issues to the attention of the relevant authorities or organisations. This will allow those parties to develop safety action to address the safety issues. Details of such safety issues, and any safety action in response, will be published on the ATSB website at www.atsb.gov.au.
The information contained in this web update is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 and is derived from the initial investigation of the occurrence. Readers are cautioned that new evidence will become available as the investigation progresses that will enhance the ATSB’s understanding of the accident as outlined in this web update. As such, no analysis or findings are included in this update.
Yesterday we spoke of a possible scenario which resulted in the crash of a light aircraft shortly after leaving Essendon airport (YMES).
The original theory
When going through the checklist for a single engine failure, the pilot must ‘feather’ the engine/propeller of the failed engine, retract the undercarriage, and put the nose down for more level flight.
To “feather” a propeller means that the blades are turned such that their mid-to-outer section is aligned with airflow and they create minimal air resistance. This is done when the engine is shut down (or fails) so the propeller will create minimal drag.
A feathered propeller, minimising its profile to airflow
The landing gear is retracted also to minimise drag. These actions along with reducing the rate of climb, allow for the remaining engine to utilise maximum power to keep the aircraft in flight.
It is possible that none of this happened, it appears that either the pilot was not able to do this or he was prevented from running the engine failure checklist.
Industry experts believe the functionality of the plane’s auto-feathering feature, and how the engine was feathered, are the most crucial aspects of the crash.
It is possible the engine that failed did not auto-feather, or could not be feathered by the pilot. The result of the propeller not feathering correctly could have resulted in a windmilling propeller producing significant additional drag and have a deleterious effect on aircraft controllability.
A modified theory
There is a possibility of a second and possibly more immediate cause of the accident. However, before discussing this possible scenario, let’s have a quick look at take-off speeds in relation to engine failure.
V1 is the takeoff decision speed – if an engine failure occurs below this speed you abort or reject the takeoff (RTO). If engine failure occurs above this speed you must continue the takeoff.
Vr is the rotation speed – where the nose gear is raised off the runway surface but must allow the aircraft to accelerate to V2 before the aircraft reaches 35ft above the takeoff surface.
V2 is the takeoff safety speed – this minimum speed must be reached before the aircraft reaches 35ft above the takeoff surface with one engine inoperative.
Therefore if an engine failure occurs before V1, the takeoff roll is aborted.
If the engine failure occurred after V1 or Vr the takeoff was continued. However, if due to drag from a wind-milling (un-feathered) propeller, flaps extended and with the landing gear still extended, total power loss is not 50%, but can be as much as 80% even with the remaining engine operating at full power.
If the aircraft did not reach V2 it may not have enough airspeed to keep it airborne, eventually suffering a stall and crashing. The stall speed for a King Air B200 is 86 mph (75 knots, 139 km/h) IAS with flaps down.
In the video(s) of the incident, it appears that the landing gear was retracted, thus reducing drag.
Aviation experts are baffled as to what caused Tuesday’s fatal plane crash in Melbourne, as investigators continue to sift through the wreckage searching for clues.
Four American tourists on a golfing trip and the Australian pilot Max Quartermain died when their aircraft VH-ZCR, crashed shortly after take-off.
The plane, a Beechcraft King Air B200, was headed for King Island off Tasmania’s north coast, crashed into the roof of the nearby Essendon Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) shopping centre and exploded into flames.
Photo: Mike Fosberg
The DFO centre is closed indefinitely while the investigation is conducted, while Essendon Airport (YMES) – where the plane took off from – reopened Thursday morning.
The black box flight recorder from the plane is expected to arrive at Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) headquarters on Thursday.
The Australian Transit Safety Bureau (ATSB) raised conjecture Wednesday when it discovered several “interesting facets” to the accident, as specialists questioned what caused the “high performance” twin-engine aircraft to fail.
“That’s the big question, there’s no reason whatsoever why that plane could not have kept going,” aviation journalist Geoffrey Thomas told The New Daily.
“There should be no issue whatsoever, even if it’s fully loaded (full with passengers, fuel or cargo) with maintaining flight on one engine.”
According to the ABC, the plane had flown just five hours since its last maintenance check in January.
The flight recording website Flightradar24 lists no recorded flights for this aircraft since 4th February.
While investigations are still ongoing, there were several potential causes for an aircraft to lose power and go down.
Going through the checklist for this particular situation, he said a pilot must ‘feather’ the engine/propeller, retract the undercarriage, and put the nose down for a more levelled flight.
It appears for some reason none of this happened, it appears that either the pilot was not able to do this or he was prevented from running the engine failure check list.
The pilot should have been able to continue flying using one engine.
Industry experts believe the functionality of the plane’s auto-feathering feature, and how the engine was feathered, are the most crucial aspects of the crash.
It is possible the engine that failed did not auto-feather, or could not be feathered by the pilot. The result of not feathering correctly, it could have resulted in the windmilling propeller producing significant additional drag and have deleterious affect on aircraft controllability.
It’s not yet known if auto-feather was disabled, or could not be feathered by the pilot.
The sequence of events of the mayday call were also brought into question by Mr Thomas.
There are the three things the pilot must do when a problem arises; aviate – fly the plane, navigate – fly it in the right direction, and then communicate the problem.
It appears that the pilot communicated the problem almost instantaneously.”
It is unknown what communication was made during the mayday call.
‘Several factors leap out at you’: ATSB
The Australian Transit Safety Bureau’s chief commissioner Greg Hood said the agency had already found several clues to the crash.
“With any accident, particularly aviation accidents, we find that initially there are several factors that leap out at you,” Mr Hood told reporters on Wednesday.
“So whilst in the initial walk-through yesterday, the initial examination of records, we have discovered some interesting facets, we really need to gather all the evidence and conduct the analysis before we can say what caused the accident.
“I realise there is a lot of speculation.”
Mr Hood would not give any further detail but confirmed the plane is able to take off safely with one engine.
The ATSB said it would release a preliminary report about the crash in 27 days.
A Beechcraft King Air B200 (VH-ZCR) charter plane on take-off from Essendon airport (YMES) crashed into a Melbourne shopping complex Tuesday morning killing all five people on board and sparking a massive blaze.
The Beechcraft aircraft believed to be involved in this incident. Photo: Jetphotos.com/George Canciani
Victoria Police Assistant Commissioner Stephen Leane confirmed no one on board the plane survived the tragedy, but declined to give details of the victims.
Assistant Commissioner Leane said it is believed there were no fatalities apart from those in the plane. The Beechcraft King Air, five-person charter flight to King Island crashed soon after take off from Essendon Airport in the city’s north at 9:00 am.
The pilot was aged in his 60s and his four passengers were American tourists, Channel Seven reported.
The Advocate newspaper in Tasmania quoted a source on King Island as saying the plane was carrying golfers.
Victorian Premier Daniel Andrews refused to confirm any details of the passengers’ identities.
“We are currently reaching out to their families to provide them with the support that they need to try to comfort them at what must be just such a horrible moment,” he told a media conference.
Australian Corporate Jet Centres told the ABC the plane (shown above is now operated by boutique private charter flight operator Corporate and Leisure Aviation based at Essendon airport.
The plane called mayday as it was taking off and Victoria Police Superintendent Mick Frewen said it appeared to be affected by a “catastrophic engine failure”
The plane crashed into the back of two shops, Focus on Furniture and JB HiFi, he said.
Police are yet to release any details of possible casualties.
More than 16 fire crews fought to put out the blaze at the DFO factory outlet complex near Bulla Rd in Essendon Fields.
“It appears a light plane, which is a charter flight, has impacted the DFO [shopping centre] at Essendon Fields. “There’s also debris that’s been left on the [Tullamarine] freeway.”
Victorian Emergency Management Commissioner Craig Lapsley told a media conference Essendon Airport would be closed until further notice while the investigation into the cause of the crash get underway.
He said in-bound lanes of the Tullamarine Freeway would remain closed for a number of hours until that can be cleared and evidence collected evidence for the investigation.
An emergency services spokesman at the scene said motorists should avoid the area.
“Our advice to motorists is find an alternative route. We just want to make sure that’s preserved as much as possible,” he said.
“We are awaiting CASA advice and the Bureau of Air Safety.”
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has asked witnesses to the plane crash to call 1800 020 616 to help with its investigation.
Photo: Mike Fosberg
Fire Under control
A spokeswoman from the Metropolitan Fire Brigade said DFO fire was brought under control about 10:30 am.
It took about 56 fire fighters 90 minutes to bring the blaze, caused by the plane crash, under control, the MFB said.
“The fire has been brought under control and the incident has been handed over to Victoria Police.”
Mr Andrews praised the work of firefighters.
“This was a very complex and unpredictable fire, but our highly skilled trained firefighter efforts have done an outstanding job in extinguishing this blaze,” he said.
The shopping centre was yet to open, but the wellbeing of all staff at the complex has not been confirmed.
A spokesperson from furniture retailer Nick Scali confirmed the store was staffed at the time, but could not confirm whether any were affected.
Retailer Spotlight, a tenant at the DFO complex issued a statement confirming the aircraft crashed into its rear warehouse and that “all staff had been accounted for”.
A spokesperson from another tenant, Focus on Furniture, told The New Daily that no staff were at the store at the time of the crash.
JB HiFi and the Good Guys both confirmed all staff are accounted for.
‘It was shaking’
Nick Scali employee Grace Martin told The New Daily she was sitting outside the shopping complex when she saw the plane.
“I saw the plane flying across the top of the roof and it was shaking,” she said.
“I ran across to Dan Murphy’s. I heard the big bang and saw all the flames. This is just really sad.”
Nearby resident Max Paladino told The New Daily he ran over to the crash site workers from a nearby construction site to see if he could help.
“It was just adrenaline,” he said. “There was no way possible we could do anything.
The operator of an airport fire engine that ran a red light and killed three people in a crash has been ordered to pay $160,000 to the Commonwealth for breaching the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
Renowned architects Greg McNamara, his wife Lena Yali, and Kevin Taylor died when the fire truck, which was on its way to assist at a fire at Wyuna, collided with their car in Darwin in 2011.
The airport fire trucks occasionally assisted on jobs outside of the airport grounds.
Airservices Australia admitted fault in 2013 during a coronial inquest, and conceded the training provided to drivers was not adequate.
But the legal battles have continued, as federal workplace safety organisation Comcare launched additional action against Airservices Australia earlier this year.
They argued it breached the Occupational Health and Safety Act.
The main argument was that Airservices failed to give appropriate training to its employees and did not identify risks to its employees or other road users.
Justice John Reeves today handed down his judgment finding Airservices breached the act and ordered it to pay the fine.
Justice Reeves noted the “airport fire engine was much larger than the majority of other vehicles driven on public roads, and the potential for serious injury and damage if they come into collision with another vehicle or a pedestrian is obvious”.
Concorde, one of only two commercial supersonic jets ever created, may take to the skies again if an ambitious and dedicated crew of enthusiasts is successful in bringing it back from the dead. Club Concorde, as the group is called, is comprised of former pilots and frequent Concorde fliers and charterers that have kept the spirit of the plane alive over the years. The group now thinks it has enough cash in the bank from private investment to both open a Concorde tourist attraction in London and restore another Concorde for use in air shows and for private charters, according to a report in The Telegraph today.
Concorde, constructed by French aerospace company Aérospatiale and British Aircraft Corporation, was retired after 27 years of commercial service in 2003 due to a number of factors. Those included the plane’s only crash in 2000 and Airbus, the successor to Aérospatiale, ultimately deciding to stop maintenance on the aircraft. A handful of the planes have since become idle displays at airports in the United Kingdom and France. Concorde Club, with around £160 million, wants to purchase two planes located in Paris airports. The first would be turned into a £16-a-person tourist attraction near the London Eye ferris wheel on the waterfront of the River Thames. The proposed attraction would include a restaurant featuring meals originally served on Concorde flights.
Concorde (G-BOAF) – Photo provided by The Verge
Supersonic flights are gaining newfound momentum
The more ambitious initiative is to purchase the second plane, have it restored, and get it in the air once more. Concorde Club president Paul James is aiming to resume flights by 2019, while the tourist attraction would be opened around 2017 if all goes according to plan. British Airways and Air France have no plans to resume commercial Concorde flights, meaning it would likely cost quite a lot of money to grab a private ticket if and when the plane gets off the ground again.
There are a good number of near-flight-ready Concorde aircraft out there, making a Concorde revival more realistic than it sounds. Granted, groups in the past have tried and failed to revive Concorde. Helping the cause this time around are a number of other aviation companies that have begun toying with the idea of supersonic flights. Airbus is looking into a “Concorde Mark 2” supersonic jet that would ferry passengers between New York and London in an hour. Meanwhile, Boston-based Spike Aerospace’s S-512 supersonic jet project, which would encase the interior of a $80 million jet with curved displays, is supposed to enter the manufacturing phase by 2018.
George Brown is a decorated soldier and health professional and 40 year veteran in the field of emergency nursing and paramedical practice, both military and civilian areas. He has senior management positions in the delivery of paramedical services. Opinions expressed in these columns are solely those of the author and should not be construed as being those of any organization to which he may be connected.
He was born in the UK of Scottish ancestry from Aberdeen and a member of the Clan MacDougall. He is a member of the Macedonian community in Newcastle, and speaks fluent Macedonian. While this may seem a contradiction, it is his wife who is Macedonian, and as a result he embraced the Macedonian language and the Orthodox faith.
His interests include aviation and digital photography, and he always enjoys the opportunity to combine the two. Navigate to his Flickr site to see recent additions to his photo library.
Џорџ Браун е украсени војник и професионално здравствено лице и 40 годишен ветеран во областа на за итни случаи старечки и парамедицински пракса, двете воени и цивилни области. Тој има високи менаџерски позиции во испораката на парамедицински услуги. Мислењата изразени во овие колумни се исклучиво на авторот и не треба да се толкува како оние на било која организација тој може да биде поврзан.
Тој е роден во Велика Британија на шкотскиот потекло од Абердин и член на Kланот MacDougall. Тој е член на македонската заедница во Њукасл, и зборува течно македонски. Иако ова можеби изгледа контрадикција, тоа е неговата сопруга кој е македонски, и како резултат научил македонскиот јазик и ја примија православната вера.
Неговите интереси вклучуваат авијација и дигитална фотографија, и тој секогаш ужива во можност да се комбинираат двете. Отиди до неговиот Фликр сајт да видите последните дополнувања на неговата слика библиотека.
Discussion on the law that applies to or affects Australia's emergency services and emergency management, by Michael Eburn, PhD, Australian Lawyer. Email: meburn@australianemergencylaw.com
Oh, let's see...distinguished Gen-X'er, frustrated writer and mom living in the confines of a small town that thinks it's a big deal. And have I mentioned Walmart yet?
Navy aircraft use different terms for go-arounds and balked landings.
Ken Hoke has been flying for over 30 years. He’s currently a Boeing 757 & 767 captain flying international routes for a package express airline. In his spare time, he writes 
Words, By George! 