Idle speculation:
Or; second coffee ruminations if you like: Curious, I went to the UP to see what ‘information’ was available on the Mount Gambier accident – bad mistake; ‘nuff said. Having time to trawl through the media was also a mistake. Speculation and discussion in the pub, between friends is always a result of an accident; but honestly, the way some of the media set about reporting is beyond the pale. No matter, but – if we are going to speculate, let’s have a real look-see at what we have available. My turn and I am more than willing to stand corrected – for I have no actual or factual knowledge to work with – however.
“Early reports today said the French-made Tobago TB10 aircraft flew an erratic path shortly after its scheduled takeoff at 9.50am, before crashing nose-first and somersaulting after impact to the base of a hill in a paddock.”
‘Erratic path” quote got me thinking – looking at the FA track – could you call the flight path ‘erratic”? Speculator – does the track look more like an attempt to return to land? Hard to tell but; it opens up some options for discussion - other than ‘disorientation’. The initial leg looks to have been shaped ‘left’ of centre line - perhaps to avoid a patch of low cloud or even toward a ‘hole’ – there is no altitude or distance data provided – bugger all topography - not even a scale, so it is difficult to gauge – .
Google Map
The Mount Burr Road is roughly aligned with the initial flight path, the first right turn was started crossing a road and finished pointing at a ‘junction’ – 6.4 Kms - Rocky Camp Range Road which heads directly toward town. The next turn we see is a right turn to a NW heading, which would approximate the track toward Adelaide. Not too much in the way of an ‘erratic’ flight path there so far. In fact it is what you could reasonably expect a pilot under the VFR to do in ‘murky’ weather. Airborne – road for tracking – junction – town – set course. Use 90 kts as CLIAS the junction is about 3 nms – say two minutes @ say 350 fpm – call it 700 feet when the turn toward town is made. Add another minute to establish NW track and you have at least 1000 feet – or should have. Looking at the limited met data I have – it is possible to speculate – reasonably so, that the aircraft was actually clear of cloud and in sight of ground. So far so good –
Then we note the right turn - back toward the aerodrome – Why? Can we assume the aircraft was descending from this point? Lets give it the benefit and say it was; the aircraft continues and crosses the departure track (the road) – airport sighted? Left turn next, still descending – trying to return to the confines of the airfield? The promulgated ‘flight path’ raises some questions which need to be answered. Was the pilot attempting a ‘split ass’ turn past a cloud/fog bank to regain a centre line landing? Did the aircraft ‘stall’ during the turn? Was control lost as part of heart failure? In short, there are ‘several’ unexplained, valid reasons for this accident – VFR into IMC being one – 'singular’ candidate.
We may never know; the ATSB will have access to data we do not. But I would like the flight explained from that last right turn to impact. Engine failure; heart attack; carb ice; bad fuel; bird through windscreen; door open; passenger sick; structural failure? The contact configuration will be of interest – flaps, power setting etc.
The word, ‘erratic’ raises my hackles; the sensationalist press creating more harm than good – again. We know there was a fatal accident; we know there are questions about the weather but after that – we know SFA; not really. But if folk insist on speculating – can we please have a little logic thrown in with the pitch forks and torches. Mind you, I’d love to be able to hold the notion that ATSB will do a proper job on this and the report will be of value – I digress.
Toot toot.
Now this is what I'd call 'erratic'.
Or; second coffee ruminations if you like: Curious, I went to the UP to see what ‘information’ was available on the Mount Gambier accident – bad mistake; ‘nuff said. Having time to trawl through the media was also a mistake. Speculation and discussion in the pub, between friends is always a result of an accident; but honestly, the way some of the media set about reporting is beyond the pale. No matter, but – if we are going to speculate, let’s have a real look-see at what we have available. My turn and I am more than willing to stand corrected – for I have no actual or factual knowledge to work with – however.
“Early reports today said the French-made Tobago TB10 aircraft flew an erratic path shortly after its scheduled takeoff at 9.50am, before crashing nose-first and somersaulting after impact to the base of a hill in a paddock.”
‘Erratic path” quote got me thinking – looking at the FA track – could you call the flight path ‘erratic”? Speculator – does the track look more like an attempt to return to land? Hard to tell but; it opens up some options for discussion - other than ‘disorientation’. The initial leg looks to have been shaped ‘left’ of centre line - perhaps to avoid a patch of low cloud or even toward a ‘hole’ – there is no altitude or distance data provided – bugger all topography - not even a scale, so it is difficult to gauge – .
Google Map
The Mount Burr Road is roughly aligned with the initial flight path, the first right turn was started crossing a road and finished pointing at a ‘junction’ – 6.4 Kms - Rocky Camp Range Road which heads directly toward town. The next turn we see is a right turn to a NW heading, which would approximate the track toward Adelaide. Not too much in the way of an ‘erratic’ flight path there so far. In fact it is what you could reasonably expect a pilot under the VFR to do in ‘murky’ weather. Airborne – road for tracking – junction – town – set course. Use 90 kts as CLIAS the junction is about 3 nms – say two minutes @ say 350 fpm – call it 700 feet when the turn toward town is made. Add another minute to establish NW track and you have at least 1000 feet – or should have. Looking at the limited met data I have – it is possible to speculate – reasonably so, that the aircraft was actually clear of cloud and in sight of ground. So far so good –
Then we note the right turn - back toward the aerodrome – Why? Can we assume the aircraft was descending from this point? Lets give it the benefit and say it was; the aircraft continues and crosses the departure track (the road) – airport sighted? Left turn next, still descending – trying to return to the confines of the airfield? The promulgated ‘flight path’ raises some questions which need to be answered. Was the pilot attempting a ‘split ass’ turn past a cloud/fog bank to regain a centre line landing? Did the aircraft ‘stall’ during the turn? Was control lost as part of heart failure? In short, there are ‘several’ unexplained, valid reasons for this accident – VFR into IMC being one – 'singular’ candidate.
We may never know; the ATSB will have access to data we do not. But I would like the flight explained from that last right turn to impact. Engine failure; heart attack; carb ice; bad fuel; bird through windscreen; door open; passenger sick; structural failure? The contact configuration will be of interest – flaps, power setting etc.
The word, ‘erratic’ raises my hackles; the sensationalist press creating more harm than good – again. We know there was a fatal accident; we know there are questions about the weather but after that – we know SFA; not really. But if folk insist on speculating – can we please have a little logic thrown in with the pitch forks and torches. Mind you, I’d love to be able to hold the notion that ATSB will do a proper job on this and the report will be of value – I digress.
Toot toot.
Now this is what I'd call 'erratic'.
Quote:
Too close for comfort. Source: TheAustralian