The occurrence

On 15 October 2023, the pilot, who was the sole occupant, of a Cessna 172M, registered VH-JUA and operated by Air Gold Coast, was conducting a private flight from Gold Coast Airport, Queensland to Murwillumbah, New South Wales.

The aircraft departed Gold Coast Airport at 1100 local time, tracked directly to Murwillumbah Airport and joined the circuit on the downwind leg for runway 01.[1] During the final approach, the pilot estimated that the aircraft was approximately 300–350 ft crossing the threshold, and elected to conduct a go-around.

The pilot started to configure the aircraft for the go-around and recalled selecting the carburettor heat to OFF. When midfield over the runway, the pilot applied full throttle; however, the pilot stated that the engine did not respond with adequate power. The pilot recalled checking that the fuel mixture was rich, master switch was selected to ON, magnetos were selected to BOTH and again ensured the carburettor heat was selected to OFF. The pilot did not verify the engine RPM due to the high workload at the time.

The pilot assessed that the aircraft had insufficient power to climb, and there was insufficient runway remaining to land. They advised that turning around to land on the reciprocal runway was not an option due to the aircraft being at a low height.

Concerned about the possibility of a stall,[2] the pilot advised they decided to keep the flaps at 40 degrees to maintain as much lift as possible and to reduce the stall speed.

The pilot raised the aircraft’s nose to climb over buildings located past the end of the runway, however, this resulted in the speed reducing, and the pilot felt the aircraft begin to buffet[3] in response to an approaching stall. In response, the pilot lowered the nose and selected a field about 1 km to the north of the airport, to conduct a forced landing.

The pilot recalled maintaining control of the aircraft during the landing sequence and commencing a long flare before landing hard, resulting in substantial damage to the aircraft.

The pilot selected the master and magnetos switches to OFF and exited the aircraft unassisted, sustaining only a minor injury from the shoulder strap of the seatbelt they were wearing.

Context

Aircraft

The Cessna 172 was manufactured in the United States in 1976 and registered in Australia in 1989. It was an all-metal high wing aircraft with a Lycoming O-320-D2J piston engine. The operator advised that VH-JUA had an airframe total time of 14,158 hours and the engine had 2,668.4 hours since overhaul. They further advised it had flown 18.4 hours since the last 100-hour inspection, and there were no outstanding maintenance items at the time of the incident.

The post-accident engineering inspection did not reveal any faults with the engine.

Pilot

The pilot obtained a recreational pilot licence in January 2023 and at the time of the accident they had accumulated 107 hours of aeronautical experience, with about 72 hours of that in the accident aircraft. 41 of those hours were in command. The pilot had conducted regular dual and solo flights with the operator since obtaining their licence. However, prior to the accident flight, it had been 121 days since the pilot’s last flight.

Witness

An experienced pilot, who was standing outside a hangar adjacent to the mid-point of the runway, observed the aircraft fly along the runway at approximately 100 ft. The witness advised that the engine sounded as though it was running at a low power setting as it flew along the runway.

At approximately halfway down the runway, adjacent to where the witness was standing, the witness observed the aircraft nose being pushed down, which the witness believed was an attempt to land. Shortly after, they observed the aircraft pitch up and they heard a bang or ‘pop’ sound from the aircraft’s engine which they advised sounded like the throttle was pushed forward too quickly.

Meteorology

Wind

The following weather details were obtained from the Bureau of Meteorology, and taken from the nearest observation station, Gold Coast, Queensland:

Table 1: Weather details

These observations were consistent with both the pilot and witness’s recollections that wind conditions were light and northerly. The pilot stated that there was not much difference between the indicated airspeed and groundspeed on the day and did not consider that the wind had any adverse effect. As such, wind speed and direction were not considered a factor in the accident.

Carburettor icing conditions

The CASA carburettor icing probability chart predicted that serious carburettor icing at descent power was probable (Figure 1). The pilot stated that the engine was performing as expected throughout the approach. However, any loss of power associated with carburettor icing may not have been noticed at low power settings during an approach.

Figure 1: CASA carburettor icing probability chart

Source: CASA annotated by ATSB

Aerodrome information

The Airservices En Route Supplement Australia (ERSA) records Murwillumbah with an elevation of 18ft and runway 01 1,045 m in length.

Recorded data

Data for the flight was obtained from OzRunways, which recorded the aircraft’s location, altitude and speed at 5 second intervals throughout the flight.

When altitude information is transmitted to OzRunways it is truncated to 100 ft increments. This means that the recorded altitude of the aircraft is within a 100 ft altitude band between the altitude recorded and the next 100 ft increment. Altitudes between 0 and 99 ft will be displayed as 0, 100 and 199ft will be displayed as 100 ft and so on.  

Taking into account the terrain elevation, the data showed the aircraft crossing the threshold below 80 ft above ground level (AGL) at 58 kts ground speed. The aircraft maintained approximately the same speed and altitude until about halfway down the runway.

The aircraft then commenced a climb, to a maximum height of between 200–280 ft, maintaining approximately 60 kts, before descending towards the cane field (Figure 2).

Figure 2: VH-JUA go-around at Murwillumbah Runway 01

Source: Google Earth with OzRunways data annotated by the ATSB

Go-around procedures

The Pilot’s Operating Handbook for the Cessna 172M states that the procedure for a go-around or 'balked landing' was:

• Throttle – full open
• Carburettor heat – cold
• Wing flaps – 20°
• Airspeed – 55 kt
• Wing flaps – retract slowly

On most aeroplanes the use of full flaps creates large amounts of drag and impairs climb performance. The FAA airplane flying handbook Chapter 9: Approaches and landings stated that:

In addition, the handbook stated that:

Accident site

The ATSB did not attend the accident site and therefore did not conduct a detailed inspection of the wreckage. However, photographs of the site were provided to the ATSB (Figures 3 and 4).

These photographs showed evidence of:

• QNH subscale was set to the 1017 hPa
• flaps extended to approximately 40 degrees
• damage to the left wingtip, fuselage and right wing
• nose and right main landing gear collapsed
• engine pushed to the right
• a nose-wheel steering towbar on the front right seat of the aircraft

The operator advised that the aircraft had full fuel prior to the departure and approximately 70 l of fuel was recovered from the fuel tanks after the accident.

Figure 3: Photos of the aircraft at the accident site

Source: Operator annotated by ATSB

Figure 4: Nose-wheel steering towbar unrestrained in the cockpit

Photograph of the inside of the aircraft after the accident showed the nose-wheel steering towbar on the front passenger seat.

Source: NSW Police annotated by ATSB

The Civil Aviation Safety Regulations 91.600 state that ‘cargo must not be carried in a place where the cargo may damage, obstruct or cause the failure of a control or obstruct or restrict access to an emergency exit’.

While it could not be determined where the towbar was stored prior to the commencement of the flight, the operator’s standard procedure is to put the tow bar under the seat or to be covered by the net in the rear baggage compartment.   

Safety analysis

The pilot advised that the aircraft was high on the approach and consequently they conducted a go-around. A go-around is a normal flight manoeuvre and is recommended when a pilot is not comfortable with an approach and as such it was appropriate that the pilot elected to conduct the procedure. However, consistent with the witness’s observations, the flight data indicated that the approach was stable, and that the descent stopped at less than 80 ft above the threshold, which placed the aircraft in a good position to land. It could not be determined why the pilot believed they were at 300–350 ft at this time.

The data further indicates that the aircraft started climbing, consistent with the commencement of a go-around, about half-way down the runway rather than over the threshold as recalled by the pilot.

During the go-around, the pilot advised that the engine did not produce full power. The ATSB could not verify this as there was no recorded data for engine parameters.

However, as the aircraft was able to maintain speed and height across the runway and subsequently climb with full flap, and no faults were found during the engine inspection, it is unlikely that the engine had any mechanical issues or any significant carburettor icing.  

The witness’s account of the engine making a loud ‘bang’ as the engine power was applied is consistent with an abrupt forward movement of the throttle, which may have resulted in the engine faltering momentarily.

It is likely that the pilot’s decision to maintain full flap (40 degrees), which creates a large amount of drag and impaired climb performance, resulted in the pilot’s perception that the engine was not performing adequately.

While the nose-wheel steering towbar did not adversely affect the flight or injure the pilot, loose items in the cockpit or baggage area can jam flight controls and become dangerous projectiles and may cause serious injuries during an abrupt stop, turbulence or an accident sequence. Further, they can hinder an emergency evacuation.  

Findings

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the collision with terrain involving Cessna 172M, VH-JUA, 1km north-east of Murwillumbah, New South Wales on 15 October 2023:

Contributing factors

• During the go-around, it is likely the aircraft was incorrectly configured resulting in reduced climb performance.

Other factors that increased risk

• The unrestrained object in the aircraft increased the risk of serious injury to the pilot.

Safety actions

Safety action by Air Gold Coast

Since the accident, the operator has taken the following safety actions:

• updated quick reference handbooks (QRH) to be clearer on balked landings (go-around) procedures.
• issued an information circular to students and private hire pilots reminding them of the importance to secure cockpit cargo.
• updated the private hiring agreements with regard to tighter recency requirements.

Sources and submissions

Sources of information

The sources of information during the investigation included the:

• pilot of the accident flight
• operator
• accident witnesses
• recorded data from OzRunways
• NSW Police

References

Cessna 1972, Pilot’s Operating Handbook, Cessna 176 Skyhawk, model 172M

Federal Aviation Administration, 2022, Airplane Flying Handbook, Chapter 9 – approaches and landings’.

Submissions

Under section 26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, the ATSB may provide a draft report, on a confidential basis, to any person whom the ATSB considers appropriate. That section allows a person receiving a draft report to make submissions to the ATSB about the draft report.

A draft of this report was provided to the following directly involved parties:

• Pilot of the accident flight
• Air Gold Coast Pty Ltd
• Witness
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority

Submissions were received from:

• Air Gold Coast Pty Ltd

The submission was reviewed and, where considered appropriate, the text of the report was amended accordingly.

Purpose of safety investigations The objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through: identifying safety issues and facilitating safety action to address those issues providing information about occurrences and their associated safety factors to facilitate learning within the transport industry. It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action. Terminology An explanation of terminology used in ATSB investigation reports is available here. This includes terms such as occurrence, contributing factor, other factor that increased risk, and safety issue. Publishing information Released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 Published by: Australian Transport Safety Bureau © Commonwealth of Australia 2024 Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this report publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms, ATSB logo, and photos and graphics in which a third party holds copyright, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. The ATSB’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau Copyright in material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations. Where you wish to use their material, you will need to contact them directly.

Preliminary report released 22 December 2023

This investigation is being conducted under the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 by Victoria’s Chief Investigator, Transport Safety under an agreement with the Chief Commissioner of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. This preliminary report details factual information established in the investigation’s early evidence collection phase and has been prepared to provide timely information to the industry and public. Preliminary reports contain no analysis or findings, which will be detailed in the investigation’s final report. The information contained in this preliminary report is released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003. 

The occurrence

Prior to the incident

At about 1900 local time on 5 October 2023, the night shift crew (the coxswain[1] and deckhand) of the pilot launch PV Corsair reported on duty at the launch wharf in Queenscliff harbour. They were informed by the pilot despatch office that their first job that evening was to pick up the pilot from the outbound container ship MV Rio Grande. After preparing the launch for service, they waited in the crew quarters at the launch station.

Later that evening, Rio Grande departed Melbourne with a pilot on board. It would transit Port Phillip before departing through Port Phillip Heads (the Heads).[2] Once the ship was clear of the entrance,[3] the pilot would disembark onto the pilot launch and be transported back to the pilot station at Queenscliff.

At about 2230, the pilot called the launch crew and advised them that Rio Grande was expected to be at the Heads at about 2300. The coxswain of Corsair reported the weather conditions to the pilot and advised that they would rendezvous with Rio Grande about 2 nautical miles (NM) [4] offshore and to the south-west of the entrance, in relatively calmer water away from the main ebb tide. It was agreed that Rio Grande would create a lee on its starboard side for the launch to come alongside to retrieve the pilot.

The grounding

At about 2252, Corsair met Rio Grande just inside the entrance as they proceeded outbound. At that time there was a strong ebb tide of about 5.6 knots[5] and the height of tide was about 0.6 m above the charted depth. The wind was from the south-south-west direction at an average speed of 22 knots with gusts of up to 26 knots.[6] The recorded wave height outside the Heads was about 2.4 m.[7]

Soon after passing Point Lonsdale, Rio Grande altered its course to starboard, to keep the wind and the sea on its port side, creating a lee on the starboard side to allow the pilot launch to come alongside.

At about 2306, the pilot disembarked into the pilot launch and soon after, from a position about 2.3 NM south-west of Point Lonsdale, Corsair commenced heading back to the entrance on a course of about 070º[8] and at a speed of about 24 knots (Figure 1).[9]

Figure 1: The track of PV Corsair for pilot transfer from Rio Grande

The figure also shows the tracks of PV Corsair through the Heads on its previous trip.

Source: Ports Victoria with annotations by the Office of the Chief Investigator

At about 2310, Corsair was about 1.4 NM south-west from Point Lonsdale when it commenced a slow alteration in course to port. At about 2312, when about 205º and 0.54 NM from Point Lonsdale, the launch steadied on a course of about 051º and its speed was still about 24 knots.

At about 2313 Corsair entered the shallow water surrounding the reef and ran aground. The launch came to rest in a rock pool about 500 m from Point Lonsdale.

Following the grounding

Several calls were made from Corsair seeking assistance, the first by mobile phone to the crew of the sister launch, PV Nepean. A Mayday distress broadcast was subsequently transmitted from Corsair on VHF radio. The distress call was heard by Ports Victoria Vessel Traffic Services (VTS) which contacted the Victoria Police Search and Rescue Squad. Victoria Police then activated the Australian Volunteer Coast Guard at Queenscliff, the Southern Peninsula Rescue Squad at Blairgowrie, and its own rescue response team. Several vessels responded to the emergency and the three occupants of Corsair were subsequently brought aboard the Coast Guard vessel at about 0132 on 6 October. They were uninjured.

The pilot launch was destroyed on the reef during the night and the debris recovered the following day.

Context

Location

Port Phillip Heads

Port Phillip Heads, also known as The Heads or The Rip, is a narrow waterway that connects Port Phillip to Bass Strait and is the only access for ships visiting the ports of Melbourne and Geelong (Figure 2).

Figure 2: Port Phillip Heads and entrance channels

Source: Crawfords Mariners Atlas. Royal Australian Navy charts © 1997 Commonwealth of Australia with annotations by the Office of the Chief Investigator

There are five designated channels for larger ships to use when transiting the Heads. From east to west, they are Outer Eastern Channel (10.1 m depth), Eastern Ship Channel (11.9 m), Great Ship Channel (17.0 m), Western Ship Channel (11.4 m), and Outer Western Channel (10.3 m). At the entrance to Port Philip, the combined width of these shipping channels is about 740 m and the western edge of the Outer Western Channel is about 1480 m from Point Lonsdale.

West of the Outer West Channel lies the Small Craft Channel, which was used by smaller boats, fishing vessels and the pilot launches. The channel ran between Yellowtail Rock and Lonsdale Rock (Figure 2).[10] The defined western edge of the channel was about 50 m off Yellowtail rock. The width of the channel at that section was about 300 m and its depth between 5 and 10 m.

Point Lonsdale Reef

Point Lonsdale Reef is an outcrop of flat-topped rocks extending up to about 540 m south-east of Point Lonsdale (Figure 3). The extent of the reef’s exposure and its visibility varies with tide and sea conditions.

Figure 3: Point Lonsdale Reef

Point Lonsdale Reef photographed from Point Lonsdale the day after the grounding.

Source: Elstone Diving Services Pty Ltd

Locations for pilot transfer

The designated pilot boarding ground was 5 NM south-west of the entrance however pilots could disembark outbound ships between 2 and 5 NM to seaward of the entrance. Pilots usually boarded inbound ships between 5 and 8 NM from the entrance.

Port Phillip Sea Pilots

Corsair was owned and operated by Port Phillip Sea Pilots (PPSP). The company was established in Victoria in June 1839 and was licensed to provide pilotage services in the Victorian ports of Melbourne, Geelong, Hastings and Corner Inlet and it also provided relief pilots to the Port of Portland pilotage service. PPSP had 24 active pilots.

The pilot despatch office (pilot station) was located in Queenscliff. The organisation had two dedicated pilot launches (PV Corsair and PV Nepean) stationed at Queenscliff for the transfer of pilots to/from the pilot boarding grounds outside the entrance.

PV Corsair

The pilot launch Corsair was a dedicated pilot transfer vessel of monohull design constructed in 2014 by Hart Marine in Mornington, Victoria (Figure 4). It had an overall length of 18.55 m, breadth of 5.5 m, depth of 2.3 m and a loaded draught of about 1.55 m. Propulsion was by two Cummins QSK 19-M marine diesel engines of 597 kW at 2100 rpm, each driving a fixed pitch propellor. The launch had a maximum speed of about 30 knots.

Figure 4: PV Nepean, the sister vessel of PV Corsair

Source: Office of the Chief Investigator

The launch was used primarily for pilot transfers, transporting pilots to/from the PPSP pilot despatch station at Queenscliff. It was occasionally engaged in relief work at the other pilotage areas within Port Phillip and Westernport.

PV Corsair was registered with the Australian Maritime Safety Authority (AMSA) as a domestic commercial vessel (DCV). At the time of the incident, it had a Certificate of Survey issued on 6 October 2020 valid until 28 May 2025 and a Certificate of Operations valid until 2 September 2024. The certificates permitted Corsair to operate as a pilot vessel, with a total crew of two and carrying up to 6 special personnel.[11] The crew on board at the time of the incident were appropriately qualified to operate Corsair.

The launch was fitted with a central navigational console with two navigation screens, one on each side of the conning position (Figure 5). The screen to the right of the conning position was set to display the electronic charting system and the screen to the left had the radar display. The depth sounder was connected to the charting display. All navigational equipment was reported to be operational at the time of the incident.

Figure 5: PV Corsair navigation equipment demonstrated on PV Nepean

Source: Office of the Chief Investigator

Further investigation

To date, the ATSB has:

• interviewed relevant personnel including the crew of the pilot launch
• conducted relevant vessel inspections
• examined recordings of the pilot launch track on this and previous transits of the Heads
• reviewed recordings of relevant communications

The investigation is continuing and will include further examination of:

• the operation of the pilot launch including bridge resource management
• relevant safety management systems
• vessel data recordings

Should a critical safety issue be identified during the course of the investigation, the ATSB will immediately notify relevant parties so appropriate and timely safety action can be taken.

A final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation.

Purpose of safety investigations The objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through: identifying safety issues and facilitating safety action to address those issues providing information about occurrences and their associated safety factors to facilitate learning within the transport industry. It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action. Terminology An explanation of terminology used in ATSB investigation reports is available here. This includes terms such as occurrence, contributing factor, other factor that increased risk, and safety issue. Publishing information  Released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 Published by: Australian Transport Safety Bureau © Commonwealth of Australia 2023 Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this report publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms, ATSB logo, and photos and graphics in which a third party holds copyright, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. The ATSB’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau Copyright in material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations. Where you wish to use their material, you will need to contact them directly.

[1] Consistent with the operator’s terminology, the master of Corsair is referred to in this report as its coxswain.

[2] Port Phillip Heads is defined as the waters between an imaginary line drawn between Shortland Bluff and Point Nepean, and the seaward limits of an imaginary line consisting the arc of a circle with a radius of 3 nautical miles centred on Point Lonsdale.

[3] The ‘entrance’ to Port Phillip is demarcated by an imaginary line drawn between Point Lonsdale and Point Nepean.

[4] 1 nautical mile (nm) is 1,852 km or 1852 m.

[5] 1 knot is 1.852 km/h.

[6] Recorded at Point Lonsdale Light House.

[7] Significant wave height recorded by a wave buoy located about 3.5 NM south-east of the entrance.

[8] All bearings and course headings are measured clockwise from the True north (000º).

[9] The passage of PV Corsair was recorded by Melbourne Vessel Traffic Services (VTS).

[10] These rocks were not exposed features and were well below the low water mark. The charted depth at Lonsdale Rock was 6.1 m and the depth at Yellowtail Rock 1.7 m.

[11] “Special personnel” means all persons who are not passengers or members of the crew or children of under one year of age and who are carried on board in connection with the special purpose of that ship or because of special work being carried out aboard that ship.

Accident flight details

On 3 October 2023, a Cirrus Design Corporation SR22 aircraft, registered VH-MSF, was operated on a private flight from Redcliffe, Queensland, to Armidale, New South Wales, and then on to Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, the following day.  

On 6 October 2023, the return sectors were planned to operate from Canberra to Armidale, with a planned return to Redcliffe. On board the aircraft were the pilot and 3 passengers. 

At about 0648 local time, the pilot submitted an instrument flight rules[1] flight plan to Airservices Australia to fly from Canberra to Armidale with an estimated departure time of 1430. The flight planned track was via waypoint[2] ‘CULIN’ (about 31 km west of Goulburn) and Scone, New South Wales, at a cruising altitude of 10,000 ft above mean sea level (AMSL), using RNP 2[3] navigation performance. The lowest safe altitude from Canberra to CULIN was 4,600 ft. While there was no published instrument flight rules route from CULIN to Scone and from Scone to Armidale, the pilot’s flight planning software application provided a lowest safe altitude of 6,000 ft from CULIN to Scone and 6,300 ft from Scone to Armidale using RNP 2 performance. 

On contact with Canberra ground air traffic control at 1422, the pilot was provided an airways clearance to track to Armidale via their flight planned route at 10,000 ft.

At about 1437, the aircraft departed Canberra Airport. Soon after take-off, the pilot was transferred to, and established radio communication with, the approach controller, reporting that they were on climb through 3,400 ft (to their assigned cruise altitude) and turning left onto their assigned radar heading of 070°. A short time later, the controller instructed the pilot to turn left onto a heading of 010° and the pilot completed readback of the instruction. About 1 minute 30 seconds later (at about 1442), the controller cleared the pilot to resume their own navigation and track direct to waypoint CULIN. The pilot completed readback of that instruction, which was the last transmission received from the pilot. All transmissions made by the pilot were clear and concise. Flight data showed that the aircraft turned 5° to the left of the direct track to waypoint CULIN. 

During the flight, data was being transmitted by the aircraft’s automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) equipment.[4] A review of that data indicated that the aircraft was climbing through about 7,000 ft AMSL as it turned to track towards CULIN. During that turn, the ground speed increased, over a period of about 30 seconds, from about 110 kt (204 km/h) to 135 kt (250 km/h).

Climbing above 7,500 ft, the data indicated the aircraft’s ground speed had started to reduce, at an approximately linear rate, with a reduction of about 22 kt (41 km/h) over a 65‑second period. At that time, the data showed a relatively constant rate of climb generally between 550–750 ft/min.

Passing through 8,300 ft, the somewhat linear flight track altered to an onset of heading, altitude and airspeed variations. The ADS-B data indicated the ground speed then started to increase as the aircraft entered a slight descent. Over the next 4 minutes, the aircraft’s track varied up to 35° and the ground speed fluctuated between 93 kt and 121 kt (172–224 km/h). During this period, the altitude was generally increasing, although at a varying rate, with shorter periods where the altitude and reported rate of altitude change indicated that the aircraft had started to descend. 

The ADS-B data showed that, at about 12 minutes into the flight, the aircraft descended by about 250 ft, increased speed by about 13 kts and then climbed at a rate up to about 1,500 ft/min. While in that climb, the airspeed reduced significantly and from a calculated pressure altitude of 9,946 ft, at 1448:37, the aircraft departed controlled flight and descended rapidly towards the ground. For more details on the aircraft’s movements refer to the Recorded information section. About 44 seconds after the onset of the departure from controlled flight, the aircraft collided with terrain (at a ground elevation of about 2,250 ft) and was destroyed by impact forces and a post-impact fire. All occupants were fatally injured. An eyewitness was the first responder on the scene and notified emergency services. 

Figure 1 illustrates the ground track of the aircraft departing Canberra while assigned radar vectors and the direct track to CULIN. 

Figure 1: Ground track of VH-MSF (in blue) from take-off to the accident site

The aircraft ground track overlaid on this map is referenced to a latitude and longitude grid aligned to true north. The headings assigned by air traffic control are referenced to magnetic north. In the Canberra region, magnetic north is about 12° less than true north. An aircraft’s ground track relevant to the assigned heading can also be affected by wind. Source: OpenStreetMap with ADS-B data from Airservices Australia and aggregated ADS-B data from FlyRealTraffic.com, annotated by the ATSB

Witness observations

Figure 2 and Table 1 show the witness locations and observations along the aircraft’s flight path; earwitnesses reported hearing aircraft engine noises and 2 eyewitnesses reported seeing the aircraft in its final moments before the impact with terrain.

Four independent ear witnesses (1 through 4 in Table 1) in the local area where the aircraft was climbing through about 8,000 ft described hearing a rough running or surging (revs increasing and decreasing) light aircraft engine, which was likely to be VH-MSF. Another 2 earwitnesses located closer to the accident site reported hearing varying engine sounds (5 and 8 in Table 1).

Two eyewitnesses (6 and 7 in Table 1) in the local area of the accident site described seeing the aircraft at a low altitude, descending rapidly with its nose pitched down and rotating like a corkscrew (spiral descent). One of these witnesses stated that they heard the aircraft approaching with the engine noise fluctuating[5] and the engine running during the descent, but went quiet just before impact. The other eyewitness was seated on a tractor with the engine running and did not hear the aircraft engine. 

Table 1: Ear and eyewitnesses summaries with reference to Figure 2

Figure 2 shows the aircraft flight track, and the location of each ear/eyewitnesses summarised in Table 1.

Figure 2: Aircraft flight path with ear and eyewitnesses’ locations

Source: Google Earth, with ADS-B data from Airservices Australia, annotated by the ATSB

Context

Pilot information

The pilot held a valid private pilot licence (aeroplane), issued in 1985 (re-issued as a Civil Aviation Safety Regulations Part 61 licence in August 2016), and class ratings for single‑ and multi‑engine aeroplanes. The pilot was initially issued with a command instrument rating for single‑engine aeroplanes in 1987 and their most recent flight review, on 29 August 2023, was an instrument rating proficiency check with an endorsement for multi-engine aeroplanes. 

Insurance documentation indicated that the pilot had accumulated about 800 hours total flying experience, with about 180 hours in Cirrus SR22 aircraft, including 12.5 hours in VH‑MSF. The owner of VH-MSF had conducted several flights with the pilot and described them as being a good and careful pilot with no problems entering cloud and utilising the instruments. 

Aircraft information

General information

VH-MSF was a Cirrus Design Corporation SR22 low-wing aircraft with 4 seats and a fuel‑injected piston engine driving a constant speed 3‑blade propeller. It had a ballistic parachute system (Cirrus airframe parachute system – CAPS) fitted as standard. The aircraft was fitted with a cabin and windshield heating system, which utilised warm air ducted from the engine exhaust shroud.

The aircraft (S/N 0153) was manufactured in the United States in 2002 as a G1 model. It was purchased by the owner in the United States and first placed on the Australian aircraft register in 2017. It was issued a standard certificate of airworthiness in the normal category. Since then, it had been operated by its owner for private use, community service flights and had been leased to other private pilots (Figure 3).

Figure 3: Cirrus Design Corporation SR22, registered VH-MSF

Source: Aircraft owner

Aircraft maintenance

The current maintenance release was on board the aircraft and was destroyed. A carbon copy of the maintenance release was provided by the aircraft maintainer. It showed that the required 100‑hour/annual inspection was conducted and a maintenance release was issued on 9 November 2022 at an aircraft time-in-service of 2,558.9 flight hours. Inspection of the maintenance release copy, aircraft logbook and worksheet records showed there were 2 items of maintenance that were past their calendar due date. They were a standby compass calibration and an outside air temperature/clock back-up battery replacement, both due about 2 months before the accident. The aircraft owner advised that the overdue maintenance items were an oversight. 

The aircraft was certified for use in the private category and for instrument flight rules (IFR) operations. Maintenance documentation showed that the CAPS was inspected, and the parachute and rocket motor assemblies were replaced due to time expiry in January 2023. At the time of the accident flight, the airframe, engine and propeller had accumulated the following hours:

• airframe – 2,635.5 hours total time-in-service
• engine – 1,192.0 hours’ time since overhaul
• propeller – 133.3 hours’ time since overhaul. 

It was reported that, in September 2023, the aircraft was hard to start, and the starter motor was replaced, which resolved the issue. The aircraft owner also advised that, in the days prior to the accident flight the pilot had reported that the power lever was stiff to operate. In response to this, the owner checked the lever and determined that the reason for the stiffness was due to the friction adjustment, which had been wound up to a high friction setting. Following readjustment, when the friction was wound off, the power lever was free to move with no issues. 

Two and 3 days prior to the accident, post-flight at Armidale and Canberra, the pilot had reported to their family and the owner that the aircraft had operated with no issues. The ATSB did not identify any maintenance issues that may have contributed to the accident. 

Flight instrumentation

There were 6 primary flight instruments fitted to the aircraft. They were the airspeed indicator, attitude indicator, altitude indicator, turn coordinator, heading indicator, and vertical speed indicator (Figure 4). The aircraft was fitted with a Sandia SAI-340 model attitude indicator, which also incorporated airspeed, altitude and slip indicators. The unit contained a rechargeable battery capable of providing continued operation in the event of aircraft electrical failure. Maintenance documentation showed that the attitude indicator had been replaced in 2018 with a repaired model that had a software upgrade to include the addition of a vertical speed function. 

Figure 4: VH-MSF flight instruments with Sandia attitude indicator top centre

Source: Aircraft owner

The United States Federal Aviation Administration issued an emergency airworthiness directive (AD), AD‑2020‑18‑51, for Sandia attitude indicators in 2020. That directive stated the applicability as being for Sandia attitude indicator part number 306171‑10 and 306171‑20. These attitude indicators may be marked as Bendix King Model KI‑300 or Sandia Model SAI‑340A. They may be installed on aircraft certificated in any category. It also stated that the AD was prompted by reports of 54 failed attitude indicators, which produced erroneous attitude data to the pilot and autopilot, if equipped. The FAA issued the AD to prevent aeronautical decision-making based on erroneous attitude information, which may result in loss of control of the aircraft.

The attitude indicator fitted to VH-MSF was the Sandia SAI-340, part number 306171-00, which was outside the applicability of the emergency AD. Further, the aircraft owner reported that the attitude indicator had not had any issues since it was installed in 2018.

Electric trim control system 

The aircraft was fitted with an electric pitch, roll and rudder trim system. Electric trim buttons for pitch and roll were located on the top of each control yoke, while the rudder trim switch was mounted in the console next to the wing flap control switch. 

The SR22 Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) stated that the pitch trim could be controlled by manually moving the switch forward, which would initiate nose‑down trim and moving the switch aft would initiate nose-up trim. This occurred via an electric motor, which changed the neutral position of the spring cartridge attached to the elevator control horn. The pitch trim also provided a secondary means of pitch control in the event of a primary pitch control failure not involving a jammed elevator. The electric pitch trim was used by the autopilot.

For roll trim, moving the switch left would initiate a left-wing-down trim and moving the switch right would initiate a right-wing-down trim. The trim also provided a secondary means of roll control in the event of a failure with the primary roll control system not involving jammed ailerons. The electric roll trim was also used by the autopilot. The rudder trim was not connected to the autopilot.

Autopilot

The aircraft was equipped with a 2-axis (pitch and roll) S-TEC-55X autopilot system that received roll axis control inputs from an integral electric turn coordinator and altitude information from an altitude transducer connected to the pitot-static system. A multifunction control panel was fitted above the altitude indicator, which provided mode selection, disengage, and turn command functions. The autopilot controller or a button on each control yoke handle could be used to disengage the autopilot. The autopilot features included:

• roll stabilisation
• turn command
• navigation localiser and GPS tracking
• altitude hold
• vertical speed
• GPS steering (GPSS) for smoother turns onto a course or during course tracking.

The limitations section of the SR22 POH stipulated that the autopilot should be disconnected when moderate to severe turbulence was experienced.

According to the aircraft owner, when either the altitude hold or vertical speed modes were selected, the autopilot would not disengage automatically. Also, when in these modes and the flight controls were manually manipulated, the system would apply trim in the opposite direction to maintain the selected altitude or vertical speed. 

Electric trim and autopilot failure

The POH indicated that, any failure or malfunction of the electric trim or autopilot could be overridden by manually manipulating the control yoke. Further, if a trim runaway occurred, the pilot was to de‑energise the circuit by pulling the circuit breaker (PITCH TRIM, ROLL TRIM, or AUTOPILOT) and land as soon as the conditions permitted.

Icing protection system

The United States Federal Aviation Administration approved the Cirrus SR22 for flight into icing conditions in 2009 based on the introduction of an optional anti-ice system for the wings, windshield, propeller, vertical and horizontal stabiliser leading edges and the stall warning system. This was known as a FIKI (flight into known icing) approval. The accident aircraft was manufactured in 2002, which predated the FIKI approved modification, and the owner confirmed there was no anti-icing system fitted. Further, pilots were required to undergo an online Cirrus training course in icing awareness and use of the FIKI fitted to the SR22 aircraft before the system could be utilised. The manufacturer confirmed that the pilot of VH-MSF had not undergone that training. 

VH-MSF was fitted with windshield defrost, pitot heat[6] and an alternate induction air system, which offered some protection against windshield, pitot and engine air intake icing. Each of those items had to be manually selected on by the pilot as required. According to the SR22 POH, the pitot heat was to be turned on for flight into instrument meteorological conditions, flight into visible moisture, or whenever ambient temperatures were 5 °C or less. 

Stall warning system

The aircraft was equipped with an electro-pneumatic stall warning system to provide audible warning of an approach to aerodynamic stall.[7] When a slight negative pressure was sensed by the pressure switch from an inlet in the wing leading edge, a warning horn activated. The warning sounded at approximately 5 kt above the stall with full flaps and power off in wings level flight and at slightly greater margins in turning and accelerated flight.

Cirrus airframe parachute system 

The Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) was designed to lower the aircraft and its occupants to the ground in the event of a life‐threatening emergency where activation was determined to be safer than continued flight and landing. The system consisted of the following primary components: 

• parachute
• solid-propellant rocket to deploy the parachute
• rocket activation handle and cable
• harness embedded in the fuselage structure. 

The parachute and rocket were located in the empennage behind the rear baggage compartment. The rocket activation handle was mounted in a cabin ceiling enclosure between the 2 front seats and the cable was routed through the cabin ceiling and angled towards the left side of the CAPS compartment. 

A safety pin with a remove before flight flag was fitted to the activation handle when operating on the ground. Part of a pilot’s pre-flight checks included a requirement to remove the safety pin prior to engine start. To initiate the CAPS, the pilot was to remove the access cover on the ceiling and pull the rocket activation handle out and down (Figure 5). Movement of the cable compressed the igniter steel spring and cocked the plunger. When one half inch of plunger travel was reached, the primary booster was ignited, which then ignited a secondary booster and the rocket motor. 

Figure 5: Activation handle (top left) and parachute system as fitted to the aircraft

Source: Cirrus Design Corporation, annotated by the ATSB

For aircraft with an electronic ignition for the booster (as was fitted to VH-MSF), both aircraft batteries were connected to the system and either could actuate the booster in response to cable movement. Once ignited, the rocket impacted and dis-bonded the parachute compartment cover situated behind the rear cabin window and pulled the deployment bag from the enclosure. The deployment bag then staged the suspension line deployment and inflation of the parachute.

Meteorological information

Accessing weather information

On the morning of the accident, the pilot submitted a location briefing request at 0615 to the National Aeronautical Information Processing System[8] (NAIPS), which included Canberra and Armidale Airports. This was followed by 5 area briefing requests between 0622 and 0635, which included meteorology information, notices and advisories (NOTAMs),[9] and charts. This would have provided the pilot with the New South Wales east (NSW-E) graphical area forecast (GAF) and the NSW grid point wind and temperature (GPWT) charts. 

At 1105, the pilot submitted another NAIPS area briefing request for the same weather information requested previously. This was the pilot’s last briefing request to NAIPS.

Bureau of Meteorology

Initial weather forecast

When the pilot submitted their flight plan at 0648, the current NSW GPWT chart was issued at 0454 and valid from 1100. Canberra was located near the intersection of 4 areas on the chart. Interpolation of the data between these 4 areas indicated the freezing level was forecast to be about 5,500 ft above mean sea level. The current NSW‑E GAF was issued at 0302 and valid from 1000 to 1600, which included the pilot’s planned departure time of 1430. Canberra was in subdivision C1 of area C on the GAF, which included the following weather:

• broken[10] stratocumulus cloud from 2,000 ft to 7,000 ft in C1 until 1600
• scattered drizzle in C1 with visibility reduced to 3,000 m and overcast stratocumulus cloud from 1,000 ft to 8,000 ft
• a freezing level[11] of 4,000 ft in the south and 7,000 ft in the north [Canberra was centrally located within the south region].

The remarks field on the GAF provided additional information of operational relevance and included:

• cloud above the freezing level implied moderate icing[12]
• stratocumulus cloud implied moderate turbulence.

The estimated freezing level of 5,500 ft at Canberra and forecast broken stratocumulus from 2,000 ft to 7,000 ft, indicated an icing layer of about 1,500 ft overhead Canberra. Armidale was in area B, which included broken cumulus/stratocumulus cloud from 6,000 ft to 9,000 ft from 1300, and a freezing level of 9,000 ft.

Subsequent weather forecast

When the pilot submitted their last NAIPS area briefing request at 1105, the current NSW GPWT chart was issued at 0559 and valid from 1400. It indicated the freezing level overhead Canberra was forecast to be at about 7,000 ft with south‑westerly winds increasing from 6 kt at 5,000 ft to 19 kt at 10,000 ft. The NSW-E GAF was issued at 0913 and valid for the period 1000-1600. Canberra and the accident site were in the south of subdivision D1 of area D. The forecast for area D included the following conditions relevant to the pilot’s departure time of 1430:

visibility greater than 10 km, scattered cumulus/stratocumulus cloud from 5,000 ft to 8,000 ft, with broken tops to 10,000 ft in D1/D2 – the Bureau of Meteorology advised the ATSB that this should be interpreted as being broken cumulus/stratocumulus cloud from 5,000 ft to 10,000 ft in D1/D2

• visibility reduced to 3,000 m in isolated showers of rain, with broken stratus cloud from 1,500 ft to 4,000 ft and broken cumulus/stratocumulus cloud from 4,000 ft to above 10,000 ft
• freezing level of 5,000 ft in the south and 8,000 ft in the north of area D.

The remarks field stated:

• cloud above the freezing level implied moderate icing
• cumulus and stratocumulus cloud implied moderate turbulence.

The estimated freezing level of 7,000 ft at Canberra and forecast broken cumulus/stratocumulus from 5,000 ft to 10,000 ft indicated the forecast depth of the icing layer overhead Canberra had increased to 3,000 ft. Figure 6 depicts the NSW-E GAF, current at the time of the pilot’s last NAIPS area briefing request. Information relevant to the flight is labelled and highlighted. This forecast included a freezing level of 9,000 ft for the area containing Scone (area B) and a freezing level of above 10,000 ft for the area containing the destination of Armidale (area A).

Figure 6: Graphical area forecast for New South Wales – East

Source: Bureau of Meteorology, annotated by the ATSB 

Assessment of the local conditions

The ATSB requested an analysis of the weather conditions by the Bureau of Meteorology applicable to the aircraft’s track. The following is a summary of that analysis:

Satellite observations at 0400Z [1500 local time] indicated that the IR [infrared] cloud top temperature was ‑7°C which corresponds to a cloud top height of 10,000 ft…Taking the base and cloud top estimates, this gives a depth of cloud of approximately 3,000ft.

The weather conditions observed for the area between Canberra and the accident site were consistent with the forecasts for the afternoon of 6 October 2023. The cloud cover was scattered to broken cumulus/stratocumulus, with a freezing level at approximately 7000ft. Cumulus and stratocumulus cloud were forecast on the GAF and observed on satellite imagery. Showers were forecast and observed over the ranges to the north and northeast of Canberra, including just north of the accident site at 0349Z [1449 local time]. 

These conditions would have been conducive to moderate icing conditions (most likely of the clear icing type) between approximately 7000ft to 10,000ft above mean sea level. The severity of any icing experienced would depend on how long the aircraft is in the cloud layer between these heights, however, the existence and/or type of airframe icing is very difficult to verify, particularly with the absence of any aircraft icing reports from the area at the time. 

Based on Himawari-9 satellite imagery and observations from the aerological diagram at Wagga there is high confidence of moderate icing within the cumulus and stratocumulus field that extended across the Canberra region on 6/10/2023. This is consistent with forecast cloud and weather referenced on the NSW-E GAFs and reinforces the GAF statement (noted on all GAF issued by the Bureau of Meteorology) of "CLD ABV FZLVL implies MOD ICE".

Weather observations

Canberra Airport automatic terminal information service

When the pilot contacted Canberra ground air traffic control for an airways clearance, they reported receipt of the automatic terminal information service[13] ‘Golf’. The recording for information ‘Golf’ stated the following regarding the current weather conditions at Canberra Airport:

Expect instrument approach runway 17, wind 200° 8 kt, visibility greater than 10 km, cloud few 3,000 ft scattered 3,500 ft,[14] temperature 18, QNH[15] 1025. 

Camera footage of cloud cover at Canberra Airport

A fixed camera was located about 1.3 km to the west of Canberra Airport showing an aspect to the north-north-east. The footage, coupled with other stills taken around the time the aircraft took off to the south and then tracked to the north-north-east, showed broken cumulous/stratocumulus cloud as per the forecast (Figure 7, taken at 1439).

Figure 7: Footage taken near Canberra Airport with a north-north-east aspect at 1439 

Source: Aus Web Cams/myairportcams.com  

First responders

Shortly after the accident occurred, first responders took a video around the aircraft in the hope that it could assist with the investigation into the accident. Consistent with the forecast, that video showed broken cloud overhead the accident site to the south-west, which was the direction the aircraft had come from (Figure 8).

Figure 8: Video image taken shortly after the accident viewed to the south-west

Source: Supplied  

Pilot report of weather

The pilot of a Cirrus SR22T aircraft fitted with a flight into known icing (FIKI) kit was conducting an IFR flight from Wagga to Moruya, New South Wales, via Canberra on the day of the accident, flight planned at 9,000 ft. The pilot recalled using the anti-icing fluid, first to the west of Canberra when the aircraft was in the tops of the clouds at 9,000 ft. The pilot requested and received a clearance from air traffic control to climb to 10,000 ft to clear the cloud. They turned the anti-icing off and passed overhead Canberra at about 1358 (about 50 minutes prior to the accident) where they entered higher level cumulus cloud. The pilot then turned the anti-icing on again for the leg from Canberra to Moruya. 

The pilot observed ice build-up on the aircraft in areas that did not receive the anti-icing fluid directly but did not notice any icing on the wings or any loss of engine performance. The pilot reduced the power and speed for turbulence penetration during the trip and assessed their aircraft was experiencing light icing. They also commented that it would have built up rapidly on an aircraft without an anti-icing system. 

The pilot was able to recall one prior experience of icing when on descent into Moruya from Dubbo in their previous SR22, which was not fitted with a FIKI kit. The pilot reported that the ice built up quickly on the wings for about 2,000 ft but dissipated rapidly when the aircraft entered warmer air. They did not notice any loss of engine performance but acknowledged they were using a low power setting for the descent.

Airline flight data

A Virgin Australia Boeing 737-800 aircraft, callsign Velocity 1690, transited and descended through airspace and altitude bands close to the outbound flight track of VH‑MSF and at a similar time.

Velocity 1690 was being operated on a flight from the Gold Coast, Queensland, to Canberra with a landing time of 1445:26, about 4 minutes prior to the accident. Runway 17 was the active runway and Velocity 1690 approached Canberra from the north. On descent, at 1437:03, the aircraft data recorded the engine anti-icing system (ENG COWL ANTI-ICE) being turned on by the flight crew at an altitude of 10,144 ft and an outside air temperature (OAT) of −6.2°C (6°C total air temperature (TAT)).[16] The operator reported that the flight crew could not provide a detailed recollection of the approach but that the selection of the anti-ice would be consistent with the aircraft in cloud above the freezing level during the descent. At 1439:35, the flight crew turned the engine anti-icing off at 6,848 ft and an OAT of 0.2°C (10.5°C TAT). Figure 9 depicts the approach flight path of Velocity 1690 with the times, altitudes and temperatures when the engine anti-icing was turned on and off. The flight path of VH-MSF includes the positions that corresponded with the altitude band (shown in red) in which Velocity 1690 used engine anti‑icing.

Figure 9: Relative positions of Velocity 1690 and VH-MSF

Source: Google Earth and Virgin Australia, annotated by the ATSB

ATSB review of satellite imagery

Introduction

The Bureau of Meteorology provided the ATSB access to various satellite imagery of the Canberra region during the afternoon of the accident, which had been processed from the geostationary satellites Himawari-8 and 9, operated by the Japanese Meteorological Agency. Imaging sensors carried on board the satellite would make progressive scans of the Earth’s full disk at 10-minute intervals. 

Cloud coverage

Figure 10 is the enhanced visible satellite image showing cloud coverage for the Canberra region for the 10-minute acquisition period commencing 1440, which was the closest image relative to the time of the accident. The areas of cloud are represented by the lighter pixels, where the darker pixels are areas without (or with less) cloud coverage. This image is overlaid with VH-MSF’s flight track, the direct track to waypoint CULIN, the estimated position and time the aircraft climbed through the 0°C estimated freezing level (at about 14:43 and 7,000 ft).[17] It also showed the aircraft’s position at 8,000 ft where flight path variations commence in relation to cloud coverage. 

While this shows cloud coverage along parts of the aircraft’s track, it does not provide information about the depth of the cloud or the height of the cloud tops, and whether those tops were above or below the aircraft’s operating altitude. 

Figure 10: VH-MSF track (in red) overlaid on an enhanced visible satellite image, taken close to the time of the accident

Source: Bureau of Meteorology and Japan Meteorological Agency, modified by the ATSB

Temperature of reflective surfaces

To assist with the estimation of cloud heights in the vicinity of the aircraft’s flight path, the Himawari‑8 and 9 RGB infrared enhancement image[18] was reviewed for the same period commencing at 1440. For the infrared images, the colour of the pixels is an indicator of the average temperature of the reflecting surface measured by the infrared imaging sensors. 

The lighter coloured pixels represent lower temperature (colder) reflecting surfaces and could reasonably be used to infer higher cloud tops in those regions. The darker pixels were consistent with warmer average temperatures of the reflecting surfaces and could suggest lower cloud tops in those areas. Based on the infrared images, the Bureau of Meteorology assessed the cloud conditions as being scattered to broken with a 3,000 ft cloud band between 7,000 and 10,000 ft, with moderate clear icing likely when in cloud from 7,000 ft.

Figure 11 shows a temperature scale, the flight path, times and altitudes with the position of the aircraft at an estimated freezing level of 7,000 ft. It also shows the point at which the aircraft flight path variations commence and the lighter grey areas indicating cloud tops at 10,000 ft. Based on the infrared image, it was considered likely that the aircraft entered cloud above the freezing level. However, the exact amount of time the aircraft spent in cloud could not be determined.

Figure 11: VH-MSF track overlaid on RGB infrared enhancement image, taken close to the time of the accident

Source: Bureau of Meteorology and Japan Meteorological Agency, modified by the ATSB

Comparison with the airline flight data

The infrared imagery for VH-MSF (Figure 11) was compared with the imagery applicable to the Boeing 737-800 (acquisition period commencing 1430) and the corresponding altitude and temperature data for when this aircraft likely entered cloud during descent into Canberra. This indicated that the lightest coloured pixels in the image represented average temperatures of about −6 °C, with the tops of the reflecting surfaces (clouds) being about 10,000 ft as per the forecast.

Recorded information

General information

The aircraft’s Avidyne multi-function display and EMax engine monitoring system had been significantly damaged by the post-impact fire. Technical assessment and X-ray images of the unit’s compact flash data storage card showed considerable thermal damage, which precluded recovery of onboard recorded data. The aircraft was not equipped with a data transfer unit and recoverable data module, which was available as a fitted option in later models of Cirrus aircraft. Therefore, no onboard recording devices were available for data download to assist the investigation.

Flight data performance assessment

The ATSB obtained digital data that had been broadcast by the aircraft’s automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B)[19] equipment and which had been recorded by Airservices Australia and other flight tracking websites.[20] That data included information about the aircraft’s position, ground track, ground speed and altitude.

The ADS-B data transmitted by the aircraft did not include parameters such as airspeed, altitude rate of change, heading or temperature. However, the transmitted data could be integrated with other sources of information (such as wind velocity, air temperature and atmospheric pressure), to derive estimates for other relevant performance data. For the purpose of analysing the ADS-B data and to derive estimates of the aircraft’s calibrated airspeed (CAS)[21] during the accident flight, wind and temperature data was obtained from several sources, which included: 

• the Bureau of Meteorology’s NSW GPWT chart, valid from 1400, providing wind and temperature forecast data in 1.5 by 1.5° grids
• the Bureau of Meteorology’s vertical wind profiler observations (averaged over the preceding 30-minute observation period) for Canberra Airport, issued 1430 and 1500
• wind and temperature information from the Boeing 737-800 (Velocity 1690) flight data when transiting through the airspace north of Canberra and passing close abeam the accident site about 10 minutes prior
• the United States National Centres for Environmental Prediction global forecast system and global data assimilation system in 0.25 by 0.25° grids, valid at 1400.

Evaluation of those sources demonstrated a reasonable correlation between datasets, particularly during the latter stages of the climb and immediately prior to the departure from controlled flight. For the main analysis task, the investigation used the Canberra Airport vertical wind profiler observations, and the wind velocity and temperature data recorded for Velocity 1690. The estimate for CAS was derived from ADS-B recorded ground speed and ground track, using the sources for wind velocity (from Velocity 1690 data and vertical wind profiler observations), and recorded atmospheric pressure at Canberra Airport and temperature (from Velocity 1690 data). 

Further, this information, along with published aircraft performance data was used to determine the required engine power and propellor thrust to meet the performance seen in the recorded data. However, due to the limitations of ADS-B broadcast data (such as position errors, recording resolution, and broadcast dropouts) and at times dynamic manoeuvring of the aircraft, the aircraft trajectory and power required analysis was indeterminate for much of the aircraft’s flight.

Figure 12 depicts the ADS-B data for the accident flight, together with an estimate of the aircraft’s airspeed. The initial climb was conducted on reasonably stable headings and climb rates at airspeeds that were estimated to be generally between 85 kt and 105 kt CAS, to an altitude of about 7,000 ft above mean sea level. At one point during this climb, at about 1441 when approaching 6,000 ft, the aircraft appeared to have passed through an area of rising air (Figure 12 ‘vertical air movement’). This was evidenced by the aircraft substantially exceeding the POH published maximum rate of climb performance while the aircraft additionally accelerated slightly. 

At 1442:08, the air traffic controller cleared the pilot to resume their own navigation and track direct to CULIN, where the estimated airspeed increased to about 115 kt. At 1443, the airspeed began to progressively reduce as the aircraft continued to climb. For a full‑page view of Figure 12 refer to Appendix A.

The following provides a summary of the data (in sections A to G, as annotated on Figure 12 and Figure 13) from just prior to passing through 8,000 ft until the departure from controlled flight:

• A: Over a period of about 90 seconds, the airspeed reduced by about 25 kt at a relatively linear rate.
• B: Climbing through 8,300 ft, the airspeed continued to reduce, with a reduction of about 20 kt occurring over a 15‑second period. The aircraft was estimated to have slowed to around 72 kt, which was 5 kt above the calculated stall speed for the flight.
• C: The airspeed recovered slightly but, 40 seconds later, the airspeed reduced again to an estimated 70 kt. During this time, the aircraft was passing overhead several witnesses who had reported hearing unusual revving or stuttering from an aircraft engine.
• D: The aircraft then accelerated to the best rate of climb speed for about 45 seconds, and the altitude increased by almost 800 ft. This also included what appeared to be a controlled turn (based on a relatively constant turn radius) to the right, changing heading by about 35° (as shown on Figure 1 and Figure 2).
• E: At 1447:20, the aircraft entered a final period of unstable flight. The aircraft decelerated from 100 kt to 94 kt while the climb rate reduced to zero.
• F: The airspeed then further decreased by 11 kt, before the aircraft descended 250 ft and recovered to an estimated airspeed of 96 kt. A power required analysis suggested the speed loss and descent were possibly conducted with low or idle power, or due to a downdraft.
• G: Over the next 30 seconds, the recorded data showed that the aircraft then climbed above the best rate of climb to about 1,500 ft/min while the airspeed reduced. 

At 1448:31–33, about 12 minutes after take-off from Canberra, the aircraft reached a maximum altitude of 9,946 ft at an airspeed of 71 kt. Following this, the flight data showed the aircraft’s airspeed and altitude declined, and rapidly so from 1448:37. The descent rate increased to 13,000 ft/min, the ground speed reduced to less than 32 kt and became erratic, and the aircraft track aligned somewhat with the estimated wind direction, all of which indicated the aircraft had likely entered a spin.[22] As the aircraft passed through about 8,000 ft, the rate of descent started to reduce, which was indicative of the increased drag from an increasing air density as the aircraft descended. When the aircraft had reached ground level the descent rate had reduced to around 10,000 ft/min.

Figure 12: Aggregated ADS-B altitude data for VH-MSF, together with estimated airspeed (CAS)

Source: ATSB, using ADS-B data aggregated from Airservices Australia and FlyRealTraffic.com 

Figure 13 depicts the aircraft’s flight track looking back along the flight path with A through G labelled to the relevant sections of the flight as shown in Figure 12. As the aircraft climbed through 8,300 ft, the somewhat linear flight track changed, with heading, altitude and airspeed variations commencing.

Figure 13: Aggregated ADS-B data for VH-MSF, looking back along the flight path

Source: Google Earth, with ADS-B data from Airservices Australia and aggregated ADS-B data from FlyRealTraffic.com, annotated by the ATSB

Performance comparison between flights

Figure 14 illustrates ADS-B altitude data from initial climb to about 10,000 ft for the accident flight and the 2 prior flights (on 3 and 4 October 2023)[23] conducted by the pilot in VH-MSF. The data showed the aircraft climb performance for the accident flight was initially similar or better than the prior flights. During the period of flight path variations, the aircraft performance reduced, potentially due to manoeuvring, but then momentarily returned to comparable performance after passing 9,000 ft.

Figure 14: Comparison of ADS-B altitude data for the accident and 2 prior flights

Flight start times have been adjusted to allow for comparison. Source: ATSB, using ADS-B data aggregated from Airservices Australia and FlyRealTraffic.com 

The manufacturer was provided a copy of the flight track data for assessment. That assessment was conducted by one of their senior investigators and a senior test pilot. While no definitive conclusions were able to be made based on the data provided, the manufacturer indicated that the aircraft had slowed, aerodynamically stalled and, after a short period of time, entered into a spin.   

Wreckage and impact information

Site and wreckage

The aircraft came to rest in an open field adjacent to a dam wall with a 10° downward slope towards the right wing. Although post-impact fire damage precluded examination of a significant proportion of the aircraft, inspection of the site and wreckage showed (Figure 15 and Figure 16):

• The impact marks and wreckage distribution indicated that the aircraft impacted with terrain upright, with a slight nose low attitude and no forward momentum. Although the impact evidence was indicative of a spin, it was difficult to ascertain the spin direction.
• All of the aircraft extremities (wings and tail section) were accounted for and there was no evidence of an in-flight break‑up.
• There were no identified structural defects in the evidence available.
• All flight controls systems were inspected to the degree possible with no pre-accident defects identified.
• The flap actuator was identified within the wreckage and was in the flap zero position.
• The fuel selector was tested and assessed to be in the right tank position.
• The fuel tank caps were located and found secured in the filler point opening of each fuel tank.
• The engine cowl was located forward of the aircraft outside the fire zone. It did not have any residue to indicate an in-flight loss of oil.
• Due to the destruction of the wreckage, cockpit switch settings and circuit breakers, flight/engine control, autopilot or trim positions were unable to be determined.
• The engine power lever and mixture control positions could not be determined. 

Figure 15: Overview of the accident site and remaining wreckage

Source: ATSB

Figure 16: Aircraft wreckage viewed from the rear showing downslope to the right 

Source: ATSB

The cabin heat position was unable to be ascertained, and the engine exhaust and shroud that was utilised for cabin heat was removed so that the exhaust could be examined for pre‑impact defects. No cracks or pre-impact defects were identified in the exhaust that may have led to carbon monoxide[24] being introduced into the cabin by an exhaust leak.

Cirrus aircraft parachute system

The CAPS fuselage cover was located adjacent to the wreckage, but outside the fire zone. Inspection of the cover showed an impact mark on the internal surface at the rocket head location. The cover did not display any thermal or smoke damage (Figure 17). The parachute deployment rocket was not in its original position and was located about 3 m to the right of the fuselage and had dispensed its propellent. The cover and rocket position indicated that the rocket had deployed due to ground impact forces before the post-impact fire had initiated.

The parachute was located in its normal fitted position, remaining in its pack. After an extensive search throughout the remaining wreckage, the parachute deployment handle and safety pin could not be located. Therefore, the ATSB could not establish if an attempt was made to deploy the parachute in-flight.

Figure 17: CAPS external cover showing internal impact mark

Source: ATSB

Propeller and engine examinations

Propeller 

The propeller was partially buried at the front of the aircraft. The propeller flange had separated from the engine crankshaft and remained attached to the propeller hub. Two of the 3 propeller blades (Figure 18, blades A and B) were undamaged and showed no signs that they had passed through the ground during the impact with terrain. 

Figure 18: Propeller as found at the accident site

Source: ATSB

Propeller blade C was buried in the earth directly under the hub and showed some signs of rotational scoring, some leading-edge gouges, and slight chordwise twisting. A fracture surface at the base of the blade was from back bending overload as a result of the impact with terrain (Figure 19).

Site photographs of the propeller and fractured crankshaft were examined further and blade C was physically examined at the ATSB’s technical facilities in Canberra to determine the level of engine power being produced at the time of impact. The materials failure analysis identified that the propeller hub had fractured from the engine crankshaft at the propeller flange, in a manner consistent with ductile overstress due to bending. The examination determined that propeller blade C exhibited minor compound bending through its section and had a slight twist at the blade tip. Chordwise gouging observed on the front face of the blade was a characteristic of propeller rotation.

With respect to the engine power output, typically, windmilling or an engine at idle power will stop very rapidly when the propeller blades contact the ground. There is often minimal ground entry and little to no distortion to the blade sections. In this case, when blade C entered the ground, the propeller stopped suddenly. Therefore, the ATSB’s analysis concluded that, while there were some signatures that would indicate that the propeller was rotating at the time of impact, there was no evidence of appreciable power being produced by the engine. Rather, the damage to the propeller blades indicated that the engine was operating at low power when it impacted terrain.

Figure 19: Blade C as recovered from the accident site

Source: ATSB 

Propeller governor

The propeller governor remained attached to the engine. Impact and fire damage precluded functional testing. The governor was disassembled and inspected at the ATSB’s technical facilities with no pre-impact defects identified.

Engine 

The engine was removed from the accident site and taken to an approved engine overhaul facility for disassembly and inspection under the supervision of the ATSB. Sections of the engine were consumed by the intense post-impact fire, which precluded functional testing of specific areas such as the ignition and fuel systems. 

The oil filler cap was secured to the crankcase fill adapter. The engine and accessories were completely disassembled. The engine was found to be mechanically sound, with the crankcase section intact and all the cylinders present and securely mounted to the crankcase. No defects were identified in any of the cylinder assemblies that may have provided an indication of a malfunction contributing to a loss of engine power. There was no distress of the main or connecting rod bearings due to oil starvation or loss.

The engine sump was pushed upwards during the impact with terrain, bringing it in contact with the cam shaft drive gear. That contact perforated the sump with gear teeth impressions, indicating that the engine camshaft was not rotating and the engine had stopped by the time the imprints were made (Figure 20).

Figure 20: Camshaft drive gear and impressions made in the engine sump

Source: ATSB

Medical and pathological information

General information

The pilot held a class 2 aviation medical certificate valid to 22 October 2023, with 2 restrictions. These were a requirement for reading and distance vision correction to be worn while flying and that a continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) machine be used for the sleep period before flying. 

The pilot’s last Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) required medical assessment was conducted on 22 October 2021. That documented assessment showed that the pilot had:

• been prescribed medication for high cholesterol for over 10 years
• an electrocardiogram stress test (heart trace) in 2016 with nil issues reported
• their appendix removed in 1980
• a computed tomography (CT) angiogram and CT calcium test in 2019 with nil issues reported
• a CT chest X-ray in 2019, which was all clear
• blood tests in 2016, 2017, 2019 and 2021
• a sleep study performed in 2016, which resulted in the use of a CPAP machine (details below). 

In 2016, the pilot was identified with moderately severe obstructive sleep apnoea and used a CPAP machine to manage that condition. Downloaded CPAP data showed that the pilot was consistently using the CPAP machine. It was reported that the pilot had their CPAP machine with them during the trip to Canberra and given the previous continuous use it was concluded that the pilot likely utilised the machine during the trip, including the night prior to the accident. 

The pilot was reported to have been well rested and had consumed a salmon bowl meal from a local restaurant about 1 hour before the flight. In general, the pilot was reported by their family to be fit and healthy with no known illnesses.

Post-mortem and toxicology results

A full post-mortem[25] of the pilot was conducted. The pilot received extensive thermal injury as a result of the post-impact fire and multiple other injuries from the accident. 

The pathologist noted that the pilot had a right coronary artery angulation with an ostium (opening of the artery) that had a slit-like appearance. They stated that it is a rare congenital coronary artery anomaly that, in most cases, does not present with clinical symptoms and may be considered an incidental post-mortem finding in asymptomatic patients. In approximately 20% of cases, the anomaly may result in symptoms such as angina (chest pain), dyspnoea (shortness of breath), syncope (fainting), myocardial ischaemia (reduced blood flow to the heart), ventricular fibrillation (irregular heart rhythm), and sudden death. According to the literature, symptoms generated by congenital coronary artery anomalies are predominantly associated with athlete patients or after intense physical exercise and are rarely present in sedentary individuals.

Toxicology testing was conducted to detect common therapeutic medicines and illicit drug use, and these tests were found to be negative for all substances. The toxicology report noted that a low, insignificant blood alcohol concentration was detected that may have been attributed to post‑mortem decomposition changes (0.006 g per 100 mL). A carbon monoxide saturation level of 2% was also detected in the pilot’s blood, but the report stated that this did not suggest that carbon monoxide poisoning contributed to the accident and death, nor did it suggest a significant survival period after the impact. As previously discussed in ATSB investigation AO‑2017‑118, the physical symptoms and cognitive effects of carbon monoxide exposure generally start to occur at levels of around 10%. 

In their concluding remarks the pathologist stated that:

No definite answer can be provided based on the post-mortem findings alone regarding whether the possible sudden incapacitation of the pilot may have contributed to the aviation fatalities. The post‑mortem findings must be correlated carefully with all other available evidence, not least the findings arising from examination of the scene and other relevant evidence as unearthed by detective officers and other investigative authorities.

Specialist medical assessment

Due to the circumstances of the accident and the indeterminate results of the pilot’s post‑mortem, the ATSB requested the assistance of a specialist doctor of forensic pathology to assess the information obtained by the ATSB, which included:

• post-mortem and toxicology report
• the sequence of events detailed in the ATSB preliminary report
• CASA medical records relating to the pilot
• Medicare and pharmaceutical benefits scheme records relating to the pilot
• compliance and therapy report for the pilot’s ResMed Airsense 10 Elite CPAP machine.

A summary of the specialist’s assessment of the information provided was as follows:

• The pilot sustained fatal injuries due to the impact with terrain prior to the post-impact fire.
• The blood alcohol level detected was from a sub-optimal sample taken from the chest cavity (often the only choice with severe trauma). Although alcohol consumption could not be ruled out, it was entirely possible that the alcohol was produced post-mortem and could be expected under the given circumstances.
• The pilot was known to take rosuvastatin medication for high cholesterol treatment. The drug was not detected in the pilot’s toxicology results and is generally not detectable in routine screening. While it could not be determined if the medication was in the pilot’s blood, the drug would not be expected to have a psychoactive effect or cause incapacitation.
• Regarding the identified 3 heart abnormalities in the pilot’s post-mortem, the specialist indicated that:
  • In the case of the right coronary artery angulation, the specialist indicated that it is an anatomical abnormality in 2% of hearts where one of the 2 main blood vessels suppling the heart muscle is abnormally angled at its origin from the aorta and often presents as a slit‑like opening (as was the case with this pilot), as opposed to the normal opening, which has a round profile. In the majority of cases, it is considered an incidental finding of no clinical significance. In a small percentage of cases, this abnormality is determined to be a cause for heart muscle abnormalities, including the development of cardiac arrhythmias, scarring of heart muscle, and potentially incapacitation and death. It was noted that the pilot had a CT coronary angiogram performed in January 2019, which was reported to be normal. It was considered likely that had a coronary artery abnormality been a clinically significant issue at the time it would have been identified. Also, an absence of fibrosis (scarring) or other changes typical of chronic ischaemia in the distribution of the right coronary artery argues against this being clinically significant in this case.   
  • The second heart abnormality identified was the narrowing of the left anterior descending coronary artery without obvious atherosclerosis. It was considered likely that post‑accident heat effect caused the change rather than natural disease. It was noted again that the pilot had a CT scan in 2019 that was reported as normal, and it would be unlikely that coronary artery disease would have progressed to the extent of being capable of causing incapacitation in that time period.
  • The third heart abnormality identified was contraction banding in association with lacerations of the heart muscle and was seen in areas supplied by widely patent coronary arteries such as the right coronary artery. In the absence of other indicators, it was considered likely that the contraction banding was a result of the aircraft accident rather than incapacitation due to cardiac disease.
• The specialist advised that many natural medical conditions that can result in pilot incapacitation would generally not be detectable from a post-mortem, especially where there have been very extensive injuries, and therefore could not be ruled out. Examples of such conditions include the pilot losing their corrective eyewear at a critical time, the pilot having a coughing fit, the development of many gastrointestinal illnesses including diarrhoea, vomiting, and stomach cramps, and diverse conditions such as fainting spells, kidney stone passage and cardiac arrhythmias.

In conclusion, the specialist stated that it was unlikely that natural disease caused or contributed to the events leading up to the accident. There were no indications of toxicological abnormalities causing incapacitation and/or death. In common with many aircraft accident fatalities, a definitive comment in relation to cause of death could not be made in this case.

Operational information 

Icing conditions

The limitations section of the POH stated ‘Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited’. The abnormal procedures section stipulated that, if a pilot inadvertently entered icing conditions, the following abnormal checklist procedure for Inadvertent Icing Encounter was to be applied:

1. Pitot Heat…ON

2. Exit icing conditions. Turn back or change altitude.

3. Cabin Heat…MAXIMUM

4. Windshield Defrost…FULL OPEN

5. Alternate Induction Air…ON

The use of alternate induction air was described further in the emergency procedure for Engine Partial Power Loss as follows:

A gradual loss of manifold pressure and eventual engine roughness may result from the formation of intake ice. Opening the alternate engine air will provide air for engine operation if the normal source is blocked or the air filter is iced over.

Aerodynamic stall

A wing generates lift as a result of the pressure differential created by airflow over the wing’s surface. The angle between the incoming or relative air flow and wing chord is known as the angle of attack (AoA). As the AoA increases, lift increases up to a certain angle, known as the critical AoA. At this point, the airflow over the upper surface of the wing becomes separated. This condition is referred to as an aerodynamic stall (or simply a stall) and results in a significant loss of lift and an increase in drag. Due to the sudden reduction in lift from the wing and rearward movement of the centre of lift, typically an uncommanded aircraft nose-down pitch results. 

Most general aviation aircraft typically have a critical AoA of around 16°. This critical AoA can be exceeded at any airspeed, any (pitch) attitude and any power setting. However, as most small aircraft are not fitted with an AoA indicator, the AoA at which the stall occurs may be referenced to an airspeed.

A loss of altitude also occurs during the recovery from a stall and it is possible to stall with insufficient height above the ground to recover. The POH stated that the altitude loss during a wings level stall may be 250 ft or more.

The Cirrus SR22 performance data showed that, at the maximum weight of 3,400 lbs (1,542 kg) with 0° bank angle and flaps full up, the power-off stall speeds at the forward and aft centre of gravity limits were 70 kt and 68 kt (indicated airspeed) respectively. The calibrated airspeed (CAS) for each limit was 1 kt less than the indicated.

The stall speed was calculated for a mid-centre of gravity position and corrected for an operating weight of 3,300 lb (1,497 kg), generally representative of the accident flight is mid centre of gravity given the take-off weight was close to the maximum take-off weight. The estimated stall speed was 68 kt (indicated) and 67 kt CAS. 

The POH normal procedure for stalls stated:

SR22 stall characteristics are conventional. Power-off stalls may be accompanied by a slight nose bobbing if full aft stick is held. Power-on stalls are marked by a high sink rate at full aft stick.

…

When practicing stalls at altitude, as the airspeed is slowly reduced, you will notice a slight airframe buffet and hear the stall speed warning horn sound between 5 and 10 knots before the stall. Normally, the stall is marked by a gentle nose drop and the wings can easily be held level or in the bank with coordinated use of the ailerons and rudder. Upon stall warning in flight, recovery is accomplished by immediately reducing back pressure [on the control yoke] to maintain safe airspeed, adding power if necessary and rolling wings level with coordinated use of the controls.

Spins

A spin can result when an aircraft simultaneously stalls and yaws.[26] A spin is characterised by the aircraft following a downward, corkscrew path and requires significantly more altitude for recovery compared to a wings level stall (Federal Aviation Administration, 2021).

The limitations section of the POH stated ‘Aerobatic manoeuvres, including spins, are prohibited’. The emergency procedures stipulated that the SR22 was not approved for spins and had not been tested or certified for spin recovery characteristics. The only approved and demonstrated method of spin recovery was the activation of the CAPS (refer to the section titled Cirrus aircraft parachute system deployment). Specifically, the POH stated:

If, at the stall, the controls are misapplied and abused accelerated inputs are made to the elevator, rudder and/or ailerons, an abrupt wing drop may be felt and a spiral or spin may be entered. In some cases, it may be difficult to determine if the aircraft has entered a spiral or the beginning of a spin. 

…

In all cases, if the aircraft enters an unusual attitude from which recovery is not expected before ground impact, immediate deployment of the CAPS is required. 

…

The minimum demonstrated altitude loss for a CAPS deployment from a one turn spin is 920 feet. Activation at higher altitudes provides enhanced safety margins for parachute recoveries. Do not waste time and altitude trying to recover from a spiral/spin before activating CAPS.

Wood and Sweginnis (2006), Aircraft Accident Investigation – 2nd edition, provides the following description of the wreckage from an aircraft that had spun into the ground, with reference to Figure 21:

There is little or no evidence of forward motion. Although the fuselage probably impacted at a steep nose down attitude [spins can be anywhere between nose up, flat, but most commonly nose down], it is likely that there is evidence of a wing tip striking the ground before the nose. The down-going wing will normally strike the ground before the up-going wing, providing one clue as to the direction of the spin. Both the fuselage and the wings will probably have damage which reflects both a high sink rate and yaw. Tall thin objects on the ground, like trees and fence posts, are likely to penetrate the airplane almost from bottom to top, reflecting the almost vertical trajectory of the airplane. Undamaged objects may be found immediately behind the trailing edges, again indicating the vertical path of the airplane.

Figure 21: Example wreckage pattern from a spin 

Source: Wood and Sweginnis (2006)

Cirrus aircraft parachute system deployment 

Procedures for deployment

For the deployment of the CAPS, the POH stated:

*Warning*

CAPS deployment is expected to result in loss of the airframe and, depending upon adverse external factors such as high deployment speeds, low altitude, rough terrain or high wind conditions, may result in severe injury or death to the occupants. Because of this, CAPS should only be activated when any other means of handling the emergency would not protect the occupants from serious injury. 

*Caution*

Expected impact in a fully stabilized deployment is the equivalent to a drop from approximately 13 feet.

*Note*

Several possible scenarios in which the activation of the CAPS would be appropriate are discussed in section 10 – Safety information of this handbook. These include:

 - Mid-air collisions

 - Structural failure

 - Loss of control

 - Landing in inhospitable terrain

 - Pilot incapacitation.

The POH also noted that the maximum demonstrated deployment speed was 133 kt (indicated airspeed). Once a decision was made to deploy the CAPS, the airspeed should be reduced to the minimum possible, the mixture should be moved to cutoff, the activation handle cover should be removed and the handle pulled down with both hands. Pull forces up to, or exceeding, 45 lbs (20 kg) may be required. After deployment, the fuel selector, fuel boost pump, battery and alternator master switch and ignition switches were to be turned off and the emergency locator transmitter turned on.

In regard to a CAPS deployment altitude, the POH indicated that:

No minimum altitude for deployment has been set. This is because the actual altitude loss during a particular deployment depends upon the airplane’s airspeed, altitude and attitude at deployment as well as other environmental factors. In all cases, however, the chances of a successful deployment increase with altitude. As a guideline, the demonstrated altitude loss from entry into a one-turn spin until under a stabilized parachute is 920 feet. Altitude loss from level flight deployments has been demonstrated at less than 400 feet. With these numbers in mind it might be useful to keep 2,000 feet AGL in mind as a cut-off decision altitude. Above 2,000 feet, there would normally be time to systematically assess and address the aircraft emergency. Below 2,000 feet, the decision to activate the CAPS has to come almost immediately in order to maximize the possibility of successful deployment. At any altitude, once the CAPS is determined to be the only alternative available for saving the aircraft occupants, deploy the system without delay.

Cirrus, in its guidance document CAPS Guide to the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System, advised that, while the POH noted a maximum demonstrated deployment speed, it was possible for the parachute to withstand deployments at higher speeds. The guide provided examples where the CAPS had been deployed at speeds up to 187 kt (indicated airspeed) with a successful outcome. The guidance reiterated that the maximum demonstrated speed was not intended to be a limitation. 

Cirrus also encouraged pilots to conduct a take-off briefing that incorporated when to activate the CAPS, as well as the inclusion of a passenger briefing that included the use of the CAPS. The briefing should include: 

 - Engage the autopilot using the level button (if equipped)

 - Attempt to revive the pilot

 - Follow the deployment procedures detailed on the CAPS placard 

 - Prepare for CAPS touchdown

 - Follow egress procedures

The ATSB could not confirm what take-off or passenger briefings were undertaken by the pilot on the day of the accident. Further, nor could it be determined with certainty that the passenger seated adjacent to the pilot would have had the physical capability to undertake the required actions if they had received the briefing on the use of the CAPS. 

Deployment history

At the time of writing this report, the aircraft manufacturer reported that there had been 126 in‑flight CAPS deployments. They also stated that there had been 3 CAPS anomalies where the parachute failed to deploy. A recent issue where the rocket did not deploy was related to a batch of rocket motor initiating devices (squibs) manufactured in 2015 and 2016 that would not fully ignite. There was a mandatory service bulletin to have those squibs replaced. The squib on VH‑MSF was replaced when the parachute assembly was replaced in its entirety in January 2023.

The ATSB reviewed several aircraft accident reports, which indicated that there had been a number of CAPS deployments above the maximum recommended indicated airspeed of 133 kt resulting in an overload and separation of the chute from the aircraft. Further, there have been a number of documented accidents where the parachute had not been deployed in‑flight but had ground impact initiations of the rocket. 

Loss of control

The POH safety information section listed potential reasons for a loss of control and an associated response to such a situation:

Loss of control may result from many situations, such as: a control system failure (disconnected or jammed controls); severe wake turbulence, severe turbulence causing upset, severe airframe icing, or sustained pilot disorientation caused by vertigo or panic; or a spiral/ spin. If loss of control occurs, determine if the airplane can be recovered. If control cannot be regained, the CAPS should be activated. This decision should be made prior to your pre-determined decision altitude (2,000’ AGL).

Engine issue in-flight

In the event of an engine failure in-flight, the POH emergency procedure checklist stipulated:

If the engine fails at altitude, pitch as necessary to establish best glide speed. While gliding toward a suitable landing area, attempt to identify the cause of the failure and correct it. If altitude or terrain does not permit a safe landing, CAPS deployment may be required. 

The emergency procedures section of the POH detailed that, for a partial engine power loss, indications of such include fluctuating revolutions per minute, reduced or fluctuating manifold pressure, low oil pressure, high oil temperature, and a rough-sounding or rough-running engine. 

The procedure required that, if a partial engine failure permitted level flight, land at a suitable airfield as soon as the conditions allowed. If the conditions did not permit safe level flight, use partial power as necessary to set up a forced landing pattern over a suitable landing field. It was also advised that a pilot should be prepared for a complete engine failure and consider CAPS deployment if a suitable landing site was not available. 

To troubleshoot, the POH advised to select the fuel boost pump on, switch fuel tanks, check the engine controls, and cycle the ignition switch left and right to ensure both magnetos were working. Select alternate induction air on, as a gradual loss of manifold pressure and eventual engine roughness may result from the formation of intake ice. Opening the alternate engine air would provide air for engine operation if the normal source was blocked or the air filter was iced over.

Fuel uplift

The aircraft had a total fuel capacity of 318 L (159 L per wing tank) as stipulated in the POH. According to fuel company records, the aircraft was refuelled on 5 October 2023 (one day prior to the accident) at about midday with 110 L of Avgas from a fuel bowser at Canberra Airport. The fuel remaining in each tank before the refuelling commenced was unable to be determined. However, the fuel uplift was close to the estimated fuel consumption of 118 L for the previous flight from Armidale to Canberra. The estimated fuel consumption from Canberra to the accident site was 22 L. 

As part of the Canberra Airport fuel company procedures, a sample of fuel was tested for clarity and water content on the morning the aircraft was refuelled and on the afternoon of the accident, with no issues identified. Several other aircraft utilised the same batch of fuel with no issues reported. Therefore, fuel quality and quantity was not considered to be a factor in the accident. 

Weight and balance 

The aircraft load data sheet indicated that the empty weight was recorded as 1,045 kg and the gross weight limit for the SR22 was 1,542 kg. For the purpose of calculating the weight and balance for the accident flight, the ATSB assumed full fuel and used average weights for each of the occupants and their luggage, based on 4 separate estimates provided by their relatives. This produced an estimated engine start weight of 1,494 kg, which was 48 kg below the gross weight limit. The centre of gravity was within limits for the entirety of the flight. 

Flight into icing

Bureau of Meteorology pilot guidance on icing conditions

The accumulation of ice on an aircraft is ‘one of the most significant hazards to the safe and efficient operation of aircraft as it can reduce aircraft performance in a number of ways’ (Bureau of Meteorology, 2015). This includes:

• increased stall speed of the aircraft by increasing its weight with the accumulation of ice
• difficulty operating control surfaces and landing gear
• increased drag and decreased lift due to ice accumulation on the airframe (tests have shown that icing no thicker or rougher than a piece of coarse sandpaper can reduce lift by 30% and increase drag by 40%)
• engine power reductions (intake and carburettor icing)
• propeller vibrations due to ice accumulation on the blades
• errors in instrument readings of airspeed, altitude and vertical speed due to ice contaminated pitot static systems
• interference with communications systems (icing on antennas)
• reduced visibility due to icing on the windshield and side windows.

The Bureau of Meteorology aviation weather services brochure titled Hazardous Weather Phenomena – Airframe Icing has informative content for pilots. Included in that brochure was a depiction of the icing environment and the various levels of icing risk based on temperature and water content. As shown in the icing environment depiction (Figure 22), aircraft operating within the 0 to −10°C higher risk range if/when in cloud could experience clear ice conditions. 

Figure 22: Icing environment depiction

Source: Bureau of Meteorology 

The Bureau of Meteorology classifies icing severity as trace, light, moderate or severe. Moderate icing (as identified on the VH-MSF flight route) means the rate of accumulation is such that even short encounters become potentially hazardous, and the use of de‑icing/anti‑icing equipment or a diversion is necessary. An area forecast will include any expectation of moderate or severe icing, while a SIGMET[27] is only required when severe icing is predicted.   

There are 4 types of icing which are clear, rime, mixed ice (a combination of clear and rime icing) and hoar frost. Clear ice is formed when supercooled water droplets impact the aircraft. As the droplets freeze, heat is released, slowing the freezing process. This causes some of the water droplets to flow back over the exposed surfaces and freeze as clear ice. Therefore, clear ice tends to cover a large area of the aircraft and can disrupt the airflow and affect the performance of the aircraft. Clear ice forms most readily in temperatures between 0 ºC and −10ºC but can occur, with reduced intensity, at lower temperatures.

Impact of icing on aircraft performance

Baars et al. (2010) conducted research titled A review on the impact of icing on aircraft stability and control. The research stated that:

Structural ice formation on leading edges of wings and control surfaces initiate significant regions of unsteady flow. This change in performance of the lifting surfaces can result in a major change in the handling of aircraft; the aircraft may stall at higher speeds, the stall angle of attack may decrease and irreversible upset events can be initiated.

In the period of 1990-2000, a total of 3,230 aircraft accidents were recorded by the Air Safety Foundation. Twelve percent of those were related to icing.

…

Studies on ice-related accidents of small general aviation aircraft have revealed that in many cases even the most experienced pilots have less than 5 to 8 minutes to escape the harmful icing conditions before their aircraft experience violent upsets. This suggests that in cruise the accumulation of ice, and its effect on stability of aircraft, remain mostly unobserved. Upon changing the attitude of the aircraft, the formation of ice induces unsteady flow phenomena capable of upsetting the aircraft in a catastrophic manner.

United States Federal Aviation Administration – Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions

The purpose of the United States Federal Aviation Administration’s advisory circular AC 91‑74B, Pilot Guide: Flight in Icing Conditions, was to provide pilots with a convenient reference guide on the principal factors related to flight in icing conditions and the location of additional information in related publications. It included the following information:

Flight planning

If an aircraft is not certificated for flight in icing conditions, each flight should be planned carefully so that icing conditions are avoided…In the event of an inadvertent icing encounter, the pilot should take appropriate action to exit the conditions immediately, coordinating with ATC [air traffic control] as necessary, and declaring an emergency.

Effects of icing on unprotected wings

…The ice causes an increase in drag, which the pilot detects as a loss in airspeed or an increase in the power required to maintain the same airspeed. (The drag increase is also due to ice on other parts of the aircraft). The longer the encounter, the greater the drag increase; even with increased power, it may not be possible to maintain airspeed. If the aircraft has relatively limited power (as is the case with many aircraft with no ice protection), it may soon approach stall speed and a dangerous situation. 

Effects of icing on critical systems

Because contamination of the wing reduces lift, even an operational, ice-free stall warning system may be ineffective because the wing will stall at a lower AOA [angle of attack] due to ice on the airfoil. Heated or unheated, if the wing is contaminated in any way, an AOA will become unreliable. The stall onset would occur prior to activation of stall warning devices leading to a potential pitch or roll upset. It is imperative that pilots maintain airspeed and monitor AOA closely when in icing conditions.

Induction icing

Fuel-injected aircraft engines usually are less vulnerable to icing, but still can be affected if the engine’s air source becomes blocked with ice. Manufacturers provide an alternate air source that may be selected in case the normal system malfunctions.

Moderate icing accretion rate

…

The rate of accumulation is such that anything more than a short encounter is potentially hazardous. A representative accretion rate for reference purposes is 1 to 3 inches (2.5 to 7.5 cm) per hour on the unprotected part of the outer wing. The pilot should consider exiting the condition as soon as possible.

General advice 

Avoidance - The pilot of an aircraft that is not certificated for flight in icing conditions should avoid all icing conditions. This guide provides guidance on how to do this, and on how to exit icing conditions promptly and safely should they be inadvertently encountered. 

Vigilance - The pilot of an aircraft that is certificated for flight in icing conditions can safely operate in the conditions for which the aircraft was evaluated during the certification process, but should never become complacent about icing. Even short encounters with small amounts of rough icing can be very hazardous. 

Guidance - The pilot should be familiar with all information in the AFM [airplane flight manual] or POH concerning flight in icing conditions and follow it carefully. Of particular importance are proper operation of ice protection systems and adherence to minimum airspeeds during or after flight in icing conditions. Monitor airspeed, pitch attitude, and do not rely on the airplane’s autopilot or stall warning system in icing conditions. There are some icing conditions for which no aircraft is evaluated in the certification process, such as SLD [supercooled large droplets] conditions within or below clouds, and flight in these conditions can be very hazardous. The pilot should be familiar with any information in the AFM or POH relating to these conditions, including aircraft-specific cues for recognizing these hazardous conditions.

Cirrus SR22 flight in known icing conditions information

Although not fitted to VH-MSF, the approval and specifications for FIKI (flight into known icing) were reviewed as they provided specific guidance for icing on the Cirrus SR22.

The approved POH and airplane flight manual supplement for the FIKI system recommended that the minimum airspeed for flight into known icing conditions was 95 kt (indicated airspeed). The emergency procedures section contained the following information when discussing an observed or suspected failure of the anti-ice system:

An unobserved failure may be indicated by a decrease in airspeed, anomalous handling characteristics, or airframe vibrations.

Note: Significant loss in cruise or climb performance may be an indication of propeller ice accretions that are not visible to the naked eye. Operation of the engine at 2700 RPM [revolutions per minute] will help shed ice in severe icing conditions.

The performance section of the FIKI supplement further stated:

Airplane performance and stall speeds without ice accumulation are essentially unchanged with the installation of the Ice Protection System. Significant climb and cruise performance degradation, range reduction, as well as buffet and stall speed increase can be expected if ice accumulates on the airframe.

Propeller icing

The adverse effects of propeller icing have been explored for several decades, which included the United States National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics producing a report in 1950 (NACA TN 2212), on the subject of The effects of ice formation on propeller performance. Its report included the following observations:

 - when a propeller accumulates ice, the resulting changes in propeller performance are reflected in corresponding changes in aircraft performance

 - the combined action of centrifugal force and kinetic heating resulting from an increase in propeller rotational speed is often effective in reducing the extent of the ice accumulation

 - thus, it appears that in operation of unprotected or inadequately protected propellers in icing conditions, periodic attempts should be made to throw off the accretions by increasing propeller speed.

The propeller manufacturer for VH-MSF, Hartzell, stated on its website that ‘ice typically appears on propeller blades before it forms on the wings, so it’s important to address propeller icing as quickly as possible’. While the NACA (1950) report and the Cirrus FIKI supplement both indicated that increasing the propeller speed was a technique to address propeller icing, another similar technique, published as an online instructional video, was to cycle the propeller lever forwards and backwards. This would vary the propeller blade angle and propeller speed to promote shedding of ice. As the Cirrus aircraft combine the propeller pitch control and engine power control in one lever, the use of propeller blade angle and rotational speed changes to shed ice would be accompanied by associated engine power changes. The ATSB was unable to establish if the pilot was aware of these techniques to remove ice accumulation on the propeller. 

Related occurrences

There have been a number of loss of control accidents involving Cirrus SR22 aircraft with contributors including flight in icing conditions, autopilot control issues, pilot incapacitation and loss of control during stall demonstration to name a few. A varied sample of those events is listed below from the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) and the ATSB.

NTSB investigation (ATL06LA035) 

While climbing on autopilot, the airplane entered clouds at 5,000 ft at an airspeed of 120 kt. Upon reaching 7,000 ft, the airplane encountered icing conditions. The pilot informed air traffic control and requested a clearance to climb to 9,000 ft, which was approved. As the airplane reached the cloud tops at 8,000 ft when in visual flight conditions, the airplane began to buffet. The pilot looked at the airspeed indicator and it showed 80 kt. The airplane subsequently aerodynamically stalled, started to spin and re‑entered instrument flight conditions. The pilot deployed the ballistic parachute system and informed the air traffic controller of his actions. The airplane descended under the parachute canopy into the trees.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be:

The pilot’s inadequate pre-flight planning, failure to obtain a current weather briefing, and his decision to operate the airplane into known icing outside the airplanes certification standards resulting in the aircraft accumulating ice, loss of airspeed, an inadvertent stall/spin and subsequent collision with trees. 

NTSB investigation (ERA20LA129) 

While conducting an instrument landing system approach, the airplane flew through the localizer course, and as it passed outside of the outer edge of the localizer, the autopilot turned off. The pilot could not recall turning the autopilot off, and the reason for the autopilot turning off could not be determined from the available evidence. Over the next minute, a series of altitude excursions occurred during which the airplane repeatedly climbed and descended. The pilot reported that, when he added power, he had difficulty maintaining control of the airplane and that it was unstable. Subsequently, the pilot sensed that he was fighting the airplane and in an unusual attitude, he deployed the airframe’s parachute system. The airplane descended under canopy and touched down in the backyard of a house.

While off course with the autopilot engaged and the vertical speed mode selected, the pilot likely applied and held pitch control input that was sensed by the autopilot auto trim system as an out‑of-trim condition. The autopilot auto trim system responded by trimming the airplane, resulting in the corresponding altitude excursions.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of the accident to be:

The pilot’s incorrect use of the autopilot while approaching the initial approach fix and his subsequent improper primary pitch control input while a pitch mode of the autopilot was engaged, which resulted in pitch excursions and subsequent departure from controlled flight.

NTSB investigation (NYC05LA110)  

The airplane was in cruise flight at 3,000 ft when the pilot experienced a seizure and lost consciousness. When the pilot awakened, the airplane was in a high-speed descent. In addition, the pilot felt disoriented and numbness in his right leg. The pilot recovered from the descent at an altitude of about 1,700 ft and elected to deploy the CAPS. The airplane descended via the parachute and impacted in a river. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the underside of the composite fuselage. The pilot sustained a fractured vertebra and was able to egress from the airplane before it sank. Subsequent medical examinations on the pilot revealed the presence of a brain tumour.

The NTSB determined the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:

The pilot's physiological condition, which resulted in his incapacitation during the flight, and subsequent loss of aircraft control.

ATSB investigation (AO-2013-126) 

The aircraft was being operated on a private flight from Archerfield to Kingaroy, Queensland, with the pilot and one passenger on board. On approach to Kingaroy, at about 500 ft above ground level, the pilot extended the flaps and, shortly after, disconnected the autopilot (AP). Upon disconnecting the autopilot, the pilot reported that the aircraft pitched-up violently due to trim runaway. 

The AP pitch trim was trimming the aircraft for a nose-up position, even though the AP was disconnected. This required the pilot to use a large amount of forward physical force to maintain stable flight. The pilot attempted to resolve the problem several times by pressing and holding the autopilot disconnect switch located on the control yoke, however, this had no effect. 

The pilot then conducted a go-around. They then used the manual electric trim (MET) hat switch located on the control yoke, in an attempt to trim the aircraft nose-down. As the pilot was using the MET to trim the aircraft, which was going against the AP pitch trim runaway, the trim adjusted at a slow rate. 

The pilot was able to regain sufficient control of the aircraft and land safely at Kingaroy. The pilot reported that, upon parking the aircraft and after releasing the MET, the pitch trim was at full nose‑up deflection.

ATSB investigation AO-2014-083

When at about 6,000 ft above ground level, the pilot in command (PIC) was demonstrating the aircraft stall and recovery to a prospective purchaser of the aircraft. They selected 50% flap, rolled the aircraft into a left turn at about 25° angle of bank, reduced the power to idle, and raised the nose. As the aircraft approached the stall, the PIC pointed to the vertical speed indicator. As they did this, the right wing dropped rapidly, and the aircraft entered a spin to the right. The PIC reported that, at this time, they performed their normal recovery procedure for this manoeuvre. 

The passenger in the front seat reported that, on about the third rotation of the spin, the PIC said ‘I’m sorry’, and realised that the PIC had lost control of the aircraft. 

When at about 2,000 ft, the PIC was unsure whether they had enough height remaining to recover control of the aircraft, so they successfully deployed the CAPS, and the aircraft came to rest in a residential backyard. All 3 occupants were uninjured.

Downloaded flight data indicated that the aircraft stalled at an indicated airspeed of 62 kt and the vertical descent rate in the spin increased to a maximum of 14,000 ft/min before the parachute was deployed. 

Safety analysis

Introduction

Flight track data showed that, about 12 minutes after take-off and during the climb phase of the flight from Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, to Armidale, New South Wales, VH‑MSF departed controlled flight and entered a rapid descent just prior to reaching the planned cruising level of 10,000 ft. The aircraft subsequently impacted with terrain. The 4 occupants were fatally injured, and a post-impact fire destroyed the aircraft.

This analysis will consider the events leading up to the departure from controlled flight and the possible explanations for this. It will also consider why the pilot did not recover the aircraft from the rapid descent and the forecast and actual meteorological conditions along the aircraft’s flight track.

Aerodynamic stall 

Consistent with the 2 previous flights, the aircraft’s flight tracking data showed a normal, stable take-off and climb out of Canberra Airport towards Armidale until about 7,000 ft above mean sea level. This suggested that the pilot may have been using the aircraft’s autopilot system. Also, up to this point, all radio exchanges between the pilot and air traffic control were clear and readback correctly. 

Climbing through about 8,300 ft, the flight track data changed from a relatively steady state to variations in heading, altitude and airspeed. This suggested that the aircraft had likely changed from operating with the autopilot on to manually controlled flight. Potential reasons for this change may have included the avoidance of cloud, turbulence or issues with the autopilot. It was around this time that 4 independent witnesses located below the aircraft’s flight track reported that an aircraft obscured by cloud could be heard making engine surging sounds (see Possible explanations for the contributing factors below for further explanation).

Over the next couple of minutes, while the general trajectory of the aircraft remained in a climb, the aircraft slowed to almost the stall speed on 2 occasions. If working as designed, the stall warning system should have sounded when the aircraft’s airspeed deteriorated to about 5 kt above the stall speed, alerting the pilot to an impending stall condition. Additionally, as a precursor to the stall, a slight buffet might have been felt by the pilot through the airframe. The pilot’s operating handbook (POH) stipulated that, when the stall warning sounds, recovery was accomplished by immediately reducing back pressure on the control yoke to reduce the angle of attack, maintain a safe airspeed, and add power as required. Following these 2 occasions, the flight data showed a slight descent and an increase in airspeed, which may have been representative of a possible pre-stall recovery and then the climb continued.

Following a descent, the performance data indicated a climb rate of up to about 1,500 ft/min and the airspeed decreased from an estimated 96 kt to 70 kt past the point of a pre-stall recovery. At a maximum altitude of 9,946 ft, the airspeed and altitude rapidly decreased, which was consistent with the aircraft aerodynamically stalling and departing controlled flight. 

Recovery actions

The POH procedure for a recovery from an aerodynamic stall required the pilot to reduce back pressure on the control yoke to un-stall the wings and apply power, as necessary, to accelerate the aircraft. However, the flight data showed that, following the stall at about 9,900 ft, the rate of descent increased to about 13,000 ft/min, which was inconsistent with a stall recovery. While descending through around 8,000 ft, the ground speed reduced while the variations in the track became larger, and the rate of descent started to reduce towards 10,000 ft/min by ground level. This, combined with the witness observations, wreckage examination, and manufacturer’s assessment of the flight data, indicated the aircraft had likely entered a spin before the impact with terrain.

The POH stipulated that, following a loss of control when recovery may not be possible, the Cirrus airframe parachute system (CAPS) should be used. The POH further indicated that the only method of recovery from a spin was to deploy the CAPS. The decision to activate the CAPS should be made prior to an altitude of 2,000 ft above ground level. The POH also suggested that when no other survivable options were available, the CAPS should be activated regardless of altitude. That said, the ATSB considered there was adequate time (about 44 seconds) to deploy the CAPS following the departure from controlled flight. However, the inspection of the wreckage indicated that the CAPS had not deployed in-flight, but rather due to ground impact forces. That examination also found that the pre‑deployment procedure of shutting down the engine was not conducted.

It was also determined that a deployment failure was unlikely given the system’s recent replacement, high reliability and the ground impact initiation of the rocket. Therefore, the ATSB was unable to ascertain why the aircraft was not recovered from the stall or if an attempt was made to deploy the CAPS in-flight.

Possible explanations for the contributing factors 

The flight data showed aircraft performance and handling that was beyond what was considered normal, particularly the maintained climb at reducing airspeed leading to the stall. As such, the following section will discuss several scenarios that were considered by the ATSB, which may explain the stall and subsequent loss of control, with no recovery action taken. Those factors include whether there was an aircraft issue, if the pilot had some level of incapacitation, or if in‑flight icing was experienced. 

Aircraft issue

There were no reported problems with the aircraft on the 2 flights in the days that preceded the accident. A review of the maintenance documentation revealed 2 items of maintenance that were overdue, which were the standby compass calibration and an outside air temperature/clock back-up battery replacement. However, neither of those items were of significance and should not have contributed to the loss of control. All major aircraft components were identified in the general area of the accident site with an in-flight failure of the airframe structure ruled out. While the post‑impact fire prevented examination of a significant proportion of the aircraft, an inspection of the remaining aircraft structure and flight controls did not identify any pre-accident anomalies. 

There have been previous occurrences related to the autopilot and pitch trim systems. However, in this case, the position of the relevant switches and trim could not be established due to the extent of damage. 

Witnesses reported hearing surging or a rough running engine along the aircraft flight path in the minutes prior to the departure from controlled flight. If the sound heard was from VH‑MSF, this could potentially suggest an engine issue or alternatively, the pilot manipulating the engine power lever. There were also short periods in the flight track that indicated possible power reductions and loss of altitude, but the general trajectory of the aircraft remained in a climb until the aerodynamic stall. 

The engine was disassembled and inspected by the ATSB with no pre-impact mechanical defects identified. The inspection of the propeller damage and crankshaft fracture indicated evidence that the engine was running at low power when it impacted with terrain, although the ATSB was unable to ascertain if the engine controls were set at a low power setting (matching the observed propeller damage). It was also noted that no radio call was received from the pilot advising of a problem, nor had they attempted a diversion to a nearby airfield or return to Canberra, which would be expected if an aircraft issue was experienced. 

Therefore, while there were no observable indications of an issue, due to the limited remaining aircraft structure and systems that were available for inspection, an unidentified mechanical failure or anomaly could not be discounted. 

Pilot incapacitation

Partial or complete incapacitation can adversely affect a pilot’s psychological and/or physiological capacity to operate an aircraft. Research has shown that pilot incapacitation occurs for a variety of reasons including acute medical conditions (such as food poisoning and gastroenteritis) and pre‑existing medical conditions (such as heart disease, leading to a heart attack). While pilot incapacitation in general aviation accounted for only 13% of all reported occurrences between 2010 and 2014, 70% of those influenced flight operations, namely a return to the departure aerodrome or in the worst case, a collision with terrain (ATSB, 2016). In this accident, indicators of a potential incapacitation were:

• the absence of radio calls to indicate a problem or phase of distress
• the lack of stall recovery actions with ample altitude and time to recover
• the non-use of the CAPS as a procedural recovery action when there was sufficient altitude for deployment. 

The pilot’s post-mortem identified a heart anomaly, however, it was noted that in most cases symptoms do not present. Overall, the post-mortem report concluded that the cause of death was undetermined and that an assessment should be made in consideration of the other available evidence to determine if sudden incapacitation may have contributed to the accident. 

Therefore, to further examine the possibility of an incapacitating event, the ATSB requested the assistance of an independent doctor of forensic pathology to undertake an assessment of the pilot’s post‑mortem, toxicology and medical history. However, that assessment did not identify any underlying medical conditions, natural disease or toxicological abnormalities that could have led to an incapacitation event. 

In addition, records indicated the pilot consistently used a continuous positive airway pressure machine to manage sleep apnoea. As the pilot had taken the machine on their trip, it was likely that they had used it the night before the accident. Also, it was noted that the pilot had lunch just prior to departure, and as the research has shown, gastroenteritis related incapacitation can occur and therefore could not be discounted. 

Further, there was no evidence to suggest that the pilot's general health on the day of the accident was degraded. Similarly, the pilot was reported to be fit and healthy and had no identified health conditions that were not being appropriately treated. Consequently, there was insufficient evidence to determine if incapacitation was a contributing factor. That said, medical incapacitation can result for many reasons that may have been undetectable in the post-mortem, toxicology and review of the available medical information.

Icing conditions

The subsequent graphical area forecast accessed by the pilot, which was valid for the flight, indicated broken cloud was expected from 5,000 ft to 10,000 ft along the aircraft’s flight path after departing Canberra. The Bureau of Meteorology’s post-accident analysis concluded that the actual conditions experienced were consistent with the forecast conditions. This analysis estimated a cloud depth of 3,000 ft, with a top height of 10,000 ft, which was the pilot’s nominated cruising altitude. The ATSB’s analysis of the satellite imagery also showed cloud coverage along parts of the aircraft’s track. Likewise, the camera footage and automatic terminal information service at Canberra, and video from first responders at the accident site also noted cloud in the vicinity.

The Bureau of Meteorology’s analysis also determined an approximate freezing level of 7,000 ft. On that basis, it was concluded that the conditions would have been conducive to moderate icing between about 7,000 ft and 10,000 ft, when in cloud. The presence of icing was consistent with pilot observations and data from other aircraft operating in the vicinity of Canberra. The pilot of another Cirrus aircraft reported using the icing protection system when operating at about 9,000 ft. Likewise, the flight data from Velocity 1690 showed that, on descent, the engine anti-ice system had been used from about 10,000 ft down to 7,000 ft, indicating the aircraft was operating in cloud above the freezing level during that time. Therefore, considering the flight path and cruising altitude, VH-MSF likely entered cloud at some point during the flight and was subject to icing conditions. 

Operations in icing conditions can lead to performance degradation and changes in aircraft handling due to ice accretion on the wings and control surfaces, and a reduction in engine power due to blocked engine air intakes and ice‑affected propeller blades. It can also result in erroneous airspeed and altitude information due to blocked pitot static systems, loss of visibility due to ice on the windshield, render a stall warning system ineffective, and weaken radio signals due to ice accretion on antennas. 

The propeller will likely accumulate ice faster than the airframe and there are techniques for shedding propeller ice, which involve increasing the propeller speed and varying the propeller blade angle. In the Cirrus SR22 aircraft, the propeller lever is combined with the engine power lever and therefore the use of propeller speed and blade angle variations to shed ice would be accompanied by engine power changes. While this technique might have produced the engine power fluctuations heard by witnesses, who were located where the aircraft’s flight path was above the freezing level, the ATSB was unable to determine if the pilot was aware of this technique.

Consistent with the United States Federal Aviation Administration’s guidance, the POH stipulated that, when icing was encountered, the pilot should immediately exit icing conditions by turning back or changing altitude. However, the flight data showed that, overall, the aircraft continued to climb toward the cruising altitude. Also, while there were some variations in the aircraft’s track with a more observable change up to 35° later in the flight, there was no indication of a turnback towards Canberra. Likewise, there was no radio call received from the pilot advising of an intention to change altitude, divert from track or turnback due to icing. Although it was noted that icing has the potential to interfere with communication systems.

The POH also stated that a gradual loss of engine manifold pressure and eventual engine roughness due to intake icing could result, like what was heard by witnesses. However, the ATSB was unable to ascertain if the change in engine sound was from the pilot manipulating the engine control or uncommanded surging of the engine. Despite this, and as previously noted, there was no radio call received from the pilot advising of an engine issue nor was there an attempted diversion or return.

The Federal Aviation Administration’s guidance also indicated that, in moderate icing, a representative accretion rate for reference purposes was about 2.5 to 7.5 cm per hour on the outer wing. If the aircraft was in cloud for the entire period above the freezing level, the maximum amount of time spent in icing conditions before the loss of control would have been about 5 minutes. Therefore, a worst-case scenario was that the aircraft’s outer wings accumulated between 2.1 mm to 6.2 mm of ice. That said, satellite imagery with a flight track overlay showed some flight above the freezing level was likely to have been clear of cloud. Therefore, it was likely that the amount of time spent in icing conditions was less than 5 minutes. However, the exact amount of time spent in these conditions was unable to be determined due to the dynamic nature of the cloud on the day of the accident and the 10‑minute capture between local area satellite images. 

When about 1,000 ft above the freezing level, the heading, altitude and airspeed variations had commenced, which might suggest performance effects from icing or cloud avoidance. However, the general trajectory of the aircraft was a climb up to the point of the stall. Also, the aircraft went through a period of about 45 seconds where it achieved the best rate of climb, which was about 1 minute and 30 seconds before the stall. That rate of climb would likely be unachievable if the aircraft had significant icing accretion.  Further, as shown in the SR22 ice accretion accident example in this report, if an aircraft was affected by ice the stall speed for the aircraft would likely be much higher than the normal stall speed.  

In summary, icing may explain the rough running engine, the variations observed in the flight data, and reduction in airspeed to the point of a stall. However, from the available evidence, it could not be established with a reasonable degree of probability that the aircraft experienced icing for a duration sufficient to result in performance degradation or other known icing issues and, therefore, contributed to the accident. Also, experiencing icing did not explain why the CAPS was not deployed following the loss of control and entry into a spin.  

Flight plan

On the morning of the accident, the pilot lodged an instrument flight rules plan with a cruising altitude of 10,000 ft. Canberra Airport was within an area that had a forecast for broken cloud with a layer of moderate icing present below the pilot’s planned cruising altitude. At the time the pilot submitted the flight plan, the cloud tops along the planned route from Canberra to waypoint CULIN were forecast to be 7,000 ft and the layer of icing was expected to be about 1,500 ft deep with the top 3,000 ft below the planned cruising level. However, when the pilot checked the weather later in the morning the cloud tops were forecast to reach 10,000 ft and the icing layer was expected to be about 3,000 ft deep, which could only be avoided if the aircraft remained clear of the broken cloud. The aircraft was not fitted with anti‑icing equipment and was prohibited from operating in icing conditions. Therefore, the only way for the pilot to ensure that icing conditions would be avoided (if they did not amend their planned flight track) was to avoid flying the aircraft in cloud at those levels where icing was forecast.

Noting the lowest safe altitude from Canberra to CULIN was 4,600 ft, the pilot had the opportunity to amend their flight plan to fly this sector at 6,000 ft, below the freezing level. Alternatively, before departing Canberra, the pilot could have requested from air traffic control either a change of cruising altitude and/or a change in track. Likewise, a clearance to manoeuvre left or right of the planned track, or to climb or descend clear of cloud if icing became an issue after take-off, was a possibility. Neither of those options occurred and while the satellite imagery, and recorded images from Canberra and the accident site, indicated there were patches of clear sky, it was considered unlikely that the pilot was able to avoid all cloud above the freezing level. 

Noting that the aircraft would have likely been subject to moderate turbulence during the climb, it was possible the pilot was expecting smooth and clear flying conditions on top of the cloud at 10,000 ft. While this might have been a consideration for the pilot’s plan, it could not be confirmed if that was the reason. Despite this, and as discussed above, the ATSB was unable to determine if the aircraft experienced icing to an extent that affected performance and handling. 

However, aircraft flying through cloud in sub-freezing temperatures are likely to experience some degree of icing. Operating in these conditions in aircraft that are prohibited from doing so increases the risk of a loss of control event leading to an accident. A pilot can reduce the chance of icing becoming an issue by selecting appropriate routes during the flight planning stage. 

Findings

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the loss of control and collision with terrain involving Cirrus SR22, VH-MSF, near Gundaroo, New South Wales, on 6 October 2023. 

Contributing factors

• When approaching 10,000 ft above mean sea level, the aircraft climb rate increased significantly combined with a decreasing airspeed, resulting in an aerodynamic stall and departure from controlled flight.
• Following the loss of control, for undetermined reasons, an aerodynamic stall recovery did not occur nor was the Cirrus aircraft parachute system deployed before the impact with terrain.

Other factors that increased risk

• The flight was planned and flown through forecast moderate icing conditions from about 7,000 ft in an aircraft that was prohibited from operating in those conditions. It was therefore likely that the aircraft encountered icing, however, there was insufficient evidence to determine if it was at a level sufficient to affect aircraft performance and/or handling.

Glossary

Sources and submissions

Sources of information

The sources of information during the investigation included:

• Cirrus Design Corporation
• the aircraft owner
• the maintenance organisation
• witnesses
• Airservices Australia
• Bureau of Meteorology
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority
• forensic pathology specialist
• NSW Police Force
• United States National Transportation Safety Board.

References

Australian Transport Safety Bureau. (2016). Pilot incapacitation occurrences 2010-2014 (AR‑2015-096).

Baars, W.J., Stearman, R.O. & Tinney, C.E. (2010). A review on the Impact of Icing on Aircraft Stability and Control. ASD Journal (2010), 2(1), 35-52.

Bureau of Meteorology. (2015). Hazardous weather phenomena – airframe Icing. www.bom.gov.au/aviation/knowledge-centre

Cirrus Aircraft Corporation (2013) CAPS Guide to the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System. 

Federal Aviation Administration. (2021). Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-3C). https://www.faa.gov/sites/faa.gov/files/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/airplane_handbook/00_afh_full.pdf

National Transportation Safety Board. (2022). Investigation ERA20LA129 - Autopilot issue and loss of control - Cirrus SR22 – Conway, South Carolina USA – March 17, 2020. https://data.ntsb.gov

National Transportation Safety Board. (2006). Investigation ATL06LA035 - Icing conditions and loss of control - Cirrus SR22 – Childersburg, Alabama USA. https://data.ntsb.gov 

National Transportation Safety Board. (2006). Investigation NYC05LA110 - Pilot incapacitation and loss of control - Cirrus SR22 - Haverstraw, New York USA – June 30, 2005. https://data.ntsb.gov

Wood and Sweginnis. (2006). Aircraft Accident Investigation – 2nd edition. Endeavour Books.

Submissions

Under section 26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, the ATSB may provide a draft report, on a confidential basis, to any person whom the ATSB considers appropriate. That section allows a person receiving a draft report to make submissions to the ATSB about the draft report. 

A draft of this report was provided to the following directly involved parties:

• Cirrus Design Corporation
• aircraft owner
• maintenance organisation
• Bureau of Meteorology
• Airservices Australia
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority
• forensic pathology specialist
• United States National Transportation Safety Board.

Submissions were received from the:

• aircraft owner
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority
• Bureau of Meteorology.

The submissions were reviewed and, where considered appropriate, the text of the report was amended accordingly.

Appendix A

VH-MSF aggregated ADS-B altitude data for the accident flight, together with the estimated airspeed.

This image depicts selected ADS-B data and derived estimates of calibrated airspeed and altitude for VH-MSF during the accident flight. The airspeed has been estimated using data from a Boeing 737 descending into Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, a short time prior to the accident. Source: ATSB, using ADS-B data aggregated from Airservices Australia and FlyRealTraffic.com 

Purpose of safety investigations The objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through:  identifying safety issues and facilitating safety action to address those issues providing information about occurrences and their associated safety factors to facilitate learning within the transport industry. It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action. About ATSB reports ATSB investigation reports are organised with regard to international standards or instruments, as applicable, and with ATSB procedures and guidelines. Reports must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. An explanation of terminology used in ATSB investigation reports is available here. This includes terms such as occurrence, contributing factor, other factor that increased risk, and safety issue. Publishing information Released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 Published by: Australian Transport Safety Bureau © Commonwealth of Australia 2025   Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this report publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, ATSB logo, and photos and graphics in which a third party holds copyright, this report is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International licence. The CC BY 4.0 licence enables you to distribute, remix, adapt, and build upon our material in any medium or format, so long as attribution is given to the Australian Transport Safety Bureau.  Copyright in material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations. Where you wish to use their material, you will need to contact them directly.

The investigation

The occurrence

On the afternoon of 8 October 2023, at a time that could not be established precisely, a Cessna 172N, registered VH-RSB, took off from private property near Merriton, South Australia for a private flight with the pilot and one passenger on board. It was reported that the pilot may have intended to fly to Kangaroo Island, about 1.9 flying hours away, but the actual destination(s) or route could not be confirmed.

At about 1612, the aircraft arrived back at the property and was heading west, in line with a pre‑prepared runway, when it struck a single‑wire aerial powerline about 8.5 m (28 ft) above ground level. During the accident sequence the powerline ruptured the fuel tank in the right wing. The aircraft collided with terrain and an intense fuel-fed fire broke out.

A local resident and a nearby driver hurried to the accident site and removed the pilot and passenger from the wreckage. Both rescuers sustained non‑life-threatening burns as a result. The passenger had been fatally injured and the pilot later succumbed to injuries. The aircraft was destroyed.

Context

Pilot information

Around 2020, the pilot commenced flying training with Recreational Aviation Australia (RAAus) before attaining a Civil Aviation Safety Regulation Part 61 recreational pilot licence in May 2023 with a class rating for single engine aeroplanes. The pilot held a valid class 2 civil aviation medical certificate with no restrictions and was not required to wear vision correction when flying. 

The pilot had reportedly accumulated about 15 hours flight time in VH-RSB since taking ownership in June 2023. Their exact aeronautical experience could not be established as the logbook was on board the aircraft and was destroyed. The pilot had no reported significant medical conditions, and a toxicology and post-mortem examination report was not available at the time of publication. 

Aircraft information

The Cessna 172N is a high‑wing, all-metal, unpressurised aircraft with a fixed landing gear. VH‑RSB had a single, Lycoming O‑320‑H2AD reciprocating piston engine driving a fixed‑pitch propeller. VH-RSB was manufactured in 1980 and was first registered in Australia in the same year. 

The aircraft had long periods of inactivity since 2019 and the pilot had been the registration holder since 9 June 2023. In 2019 the aircraft was flown twice, and the previous owner advised the aircraft was run occasionally (without flying) to maintain the engine.

A periodic inspection and minor maintenance tasks were carried out in July 2023. The total hours flown since that time could not be determined accurately as the maintenance release was destroyed in the post-impact fire. Recorded data from OzRunways[1] showed that the aircraft had flown at least 5.9 hours, but this service was not used on all flights (see Recorded data). In conjunction with the OzRunways data and interviews conducted during the investigation, it was estimated the aircraft had flown about 15 hours since its periodic inspection.

Meteorological information

At 1610, about 2 minutes before the accident, a BoM automatic weather station at Port Pirie, 35 km north of the collision location, recorded the surface wind as 12 kt gusting to 16 kt from 236° true, temperature 24°C, and dew point 1°C. There was no detected cloud or reduced visibility at the nearest weather station with that capability (Whyalla Airport, 74 km north‑west of the accident site).

The burn pattern of a small grass fire that ignited at the accident site shortly after the aircraft collided with terrain indicated the local surface wind at the time was likely from the southwest.

Willy‑willies[2] were reported to be common in the area and were observed at the accident site by ATSB investigators in similar weather conditions to the time of the accident on the days following the accident.

Runway information

The runway was a private strip on the aircraft owner’s land and they lived less than 1km away. To prepare the runway, the aircraft owner had slashed crops in a relatively flat section of open farmland (Figure 1). It ran in an east–west direction adjacent to a fence line and was about 700 m in length. There were vehicle track marks running the length of the runway, and it was otherwise unmarked. 

Figure 1: Runway looking west

Image source: ATSB.

The extents of the runway were not clearly visible during the post-accident survey, and are illustrated in the following figures as an indication of its approximate location (Figure 1 and Figure 2).

Figure 2: Runway overview

Powerlines are highlighted in green.

Image source: Lookupandlive.com.au, annotated by the ATSB.

At the time of the accident there were cattle grazing in the paddock, though it is not known if they were in the vicinity of the runway. The terrain around the runway was also relatively flat, open farmland, and there was reportedly another runway prepared in the same paddock running north‍–‍south.

The 19 kV powerlines in the vicinity of the eastern threshold of the runway were of the single-wire earth return (SWER) type. The powerline was estimated to be at a height of 8‍–‍8.5 m (26‍–‍28 ft) at the point of impact.

Civil Aviation Safety Authority (CASA) Advisory Circular AC 91‑02 v1.2 Guidelines for aeroplanes with MTOW not exceeding 5700 kg - suitable places to take off and land (Civil Aviation Safety Authority, 2022) recommends that pilots have a thorough awareness of the obstacles in the approach and climb‑out flight paths. The ATSB estimated that an aircraft heading west with a typical approach angle of 3° would be in conflict with the powerline at any touchdown point less than about 162 m from it. To be at least 15 m (50 ft) clear of the powerline during landing, the touchdown point would need to be at least 453 m from the powerline, leaving about 420 m of runway for the landing roll. 

Powerline markers had been fitted to each of the 4 powerlines about 4 m from the pole nearest to the accident site (Figure 3). The markers were marine buoys that had been repurposed as powerline markers. Originally, they would have been bright red, but had faded considerably (Figure 4).

The owner of this infrastructure, SA Power Networks, advised the line markers had been installed in November 2000. They were installed to alert helicopter pilots flying along a powerline for annual pre‑bushfire patrols to the presence of another powerline crossing above or below.

As the runway was not a certified aerodrome or authorised landing area, there was no requirement within the applicable aviation regulations, Australian Standards or elsewhere to mark the powerlines for pilots using the runway.

Figure 3: Accident site and location of powerlines

Image source: Lookupandlive.com.au, annotated by the ATSB.

Figure 4: Powerline markers

Image source: ATSB, SA Power Networks, annotated by the ATSB.

The pilot was very familiar with the property and the position of the powerlines and had flown from the runway about 4 or 5 times in VH-RSB. In about June 2023, the pilot had previously indicated an intention to use the part of the runway that was opposite to the wires and so was not concerned about the wires.

Recorded data

The pilot intermittently used OzRunways for flight and navigation information. The available data showed a flight in July 2023 from Port Lincoln to a neighbour’s property near the owner’s home (the accident site). In August 2023 the aircraft flew from the same neighbour’s property to Kangaroo Island, South Australia, and returned the following day to the neighbour’s property. 

The available data also showed a flight in September 2023 where the aircraft took off and landed 3 times from the owner’s runway (the accident site) and flying in the vicinity (mainly circuits). On these flights, the aircraft always landed heading east. On one occasion it took off to the east, over the powerlines.

There was no OzRunways data for the flight from the neighbour’s property to the owner’s runway, for the accident flight on 8 October 2023, or any other flights.

Wreckage information

The aircraft’s cabin, wings, and fuselage were severely damaged by the intense post‑impact fire, limiting the extent to which pre-impact defects could be identified (Figure 5). However, from the evidence available:

• the wreckage position, damage to the left wing strut, and the marks from the powerline on the propeller, engine cowl, and right wing was consistent with the aircraft striking the oblique powerline heading west
• the aircraft impacted terrain steeply and inverted, probably right wing and engine first
• the propeller had indications that the engine was running at low power at the time of impact 
• the flap actuator extension was consistent with a flap setting of 10° (see Cessna 172N flap settings).

Figure 5: VH-RSB at the accident site

Image source: ATSB.

Survival aspects

When assessing whether an aircraft accident is survivable, a number of aspects are considered, including:

• occupant restraints
• forces imparted on the aircraft occupants
• liveable space inside the aircraft being maintained
• post‑impact fire.

It could not be determined whether the occupants were wearing the aircraft’s upper torso restraints. However, ATSB analysis indicated that the level of deceleration exerted on the occupants of VH-RSB during the collision with terrain was likely to result in serious or fatal injuries. Additionally, the fire significantly reduced the likelihood of the accident being survivable.

Additional information

Cessna 172N flap settings

The Cessna 172N flap system includes a single flap actuator located in the right wing. When a flap setting (0°, 10°, 20°, 30°, or 40°) is selected by the pilot, a jackscrew is driven by an electric motor to that setting.

The normal procedures in the pilot’s operating handbook (POH) for the Cessna 172N state that the flaps should be up (0°) for take‑off, however the approved take‑off range is 0°−10°. For landing, POH states that the flaps can be set as desired and suggests 0°−10° for airspeeds less than 110 kt indicated airspeed (KIAS) and 10°−40° for airspeeds less than 85 KIAS.

Cessna 172N take-off and landing information

Take-off and landing distances for a Cessna 172N vary with a number of factors including the local temperature, wind direction and speed, the elevation of the landing area, and the aircraft’s weight. At sea level, about 290 m can be required for the take-off roll (with additional distance required for obstacle clearance), and the landing roll distance can be around 172 m.

Aerial operations around overhead powerlines

The 2013 ATSB educational publication Avoidable Accidents No. 2: Wirestrikes involving known wires: A manageable aerial agriculture hazard (AR-2011-028) noted that:

…many pilots report that it is almost impossible to see a wire by itself.

Research has shown that it takes between 5.5 and 12.5 seconds for an object to be detected, recognised as a hazard, a decision made on an action, then for that action to be initiated, and the aircraft to respond to that action. Thus, given the inherent difficulty in visually detecting a powerline and the travelling speed of the aircraft, in most cases you will not have enough time to avoid a powerline by the time it can be seen.

The ability of pilots to detect powerlines depends on the physical aspects of the wire, such as the spacing of power poles and the sag of the wire, the orientation of the wire, and the effect of weather (especially visibility). In many cases, the powerline and/or the power pole will blend into the background vegetation or will be obscured by trees etc.

The publication also detailed a number of wirestrikes where aircraft struck a powerline that was known to the pilot. The publication outlines a number of strategies developed by the Aerial Application Association of Australia (AAAA) to help manage the risks associated with aerial operations around overhead powerlines. Regarding aircraft approaching oblique powerlines (as was the case on the accident flight, see Figure 6), the AAAA pilot’s manual states:

Crossing a line of wires at an oblique angle [compared to at a right angle] provides a slower rate of closure with the line as a whole and will allow more time to see it. However, the actual speed of crossing a point directly ahead will of course be the same as if it were crossed at right angles.

The danger here is that the pilot’s preoccupation with this point may lead to a lack of appreciation of the fact that the aircraft’s wing tip will reach the point directly ahead of it slightly earlier. In other words, the pilot may base his [sic] judgement on the wrong section of the wire.

…

A crossing at right angles is to be preferred wherever possible as this reduces the danger area to the thickness of the wire.

Figure 6: Likely approach of VH-RSB to the powerline

Image source: ATSB, based on a diagram from Aerial Application Association of Australia.

Visual illusions associated with sloping terrain

About 4.5 km to the west of the accident site and runway, the terrain rises up from relatively flat, open farmland to a ridgeline (Figure 7).

As outlined in the US Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) publication AM-400-00/1 – Spatial Disorientation Visual Illusions (Federal Aviation Administration, 2011), runways that are positioned on up- or down‑sloping terrain can produce a visual illusion during the approach to landing. For down‑sloping runways, it can result in the pilot believing their approach is low, pitching up, and inadvertently making a steeper approach. Conversely, for up‑sloping runways, it can result in the pilot believing their approach is high, pitching down, and inadvertently making a shallower approach.

This can be more pronounced if the up‑slope occurs beyond the runway. Pilots may unknowingly move their perception of the horizon toward the top of the rising terrain and create the same visual illusion as an up‑sloping runway, resulting in a shallower approach (Previc and others 2004).

Figure 7: Terrain to the west of the runway

Image source: ATSB.

Safety analysis

Wirestrike

The post‑impact fire limited the extent to which any pre‑impact defects could be identified. However, the available evidence indicates the aircraft was very likely heading west on approach to land when it came into contact with the powerline. Evidence supporting this included:

• the wind direction (as evidenced by the burn direction of the post‑accident fire in the paddock) favoured a landing in that direction 
• the indications that the engine was running at a low power setting as would be expected for a final approach to land
• the flaps were extended to a landing setting
• the height of the aircraft when it struck the powerline, which was likely too low for an effective visual inspection of the runway
• the position of the wreckage.

While it could not be established if the pilot had landed on the runway in a westerly direction in the past, the pilot was familiar with the property, the runway and the position of the powerline. Powerlines, especially single wires, are difficult to see from the air, and the pilot likely lost awareness of the powerline and then did not see it when on final approach.

The visual illusions associated with sloping terrain can also occur with up‑sloping terrain in the distance. In this case, the rising terrain beyond the runway could produce this visual illusion. Had this occurred, the pilot may have mistakenly corrected to a shallower approach, putting the aircraft in conflict with the powerline.

Willy-willies were reportedly common in the area and may have been present on the day of the accident. While they can pose a threat to light aircraft and helicopters during low-level operations (such as take‑off and landing), there was no way to determine if a willy-willy was a factor in the accident. In any case, however, the aircraft’s approach path would not have been a sufficient distance from the powerline to assure separation in the event of even a small deviation.

Runway position and powerline marking

The runway was about 700 m long, more than twice the take-off and landing distances required for a Cessna 172N. Moving the runway’s eastern threshold away from the powerline would have reduced the chance of conflict. Even with the existing threshold location, using the end furthest from the powerline for take-off and landing would have reduced the risk of potential conflict.

Recorded data from a day in the month before the accident indicated that the pilot may have intended to reduce the risk of wirestrike when operating from the runway: on that day, 5 of the 6 landings and take-offs used the runway end opposite the wire (and the only exception was a take‑off, which typically provides more clearance over a hazard than a landing the opposite way). However, pilots can forget about hazards, and the thresholds of the runway were not marked, so a pilot could inadvertently revert their aim point for a landing to the east to the start of the runway, putting the aircraft in potential conflict with the powerline.

While there were no powerline markers in line with the runway, the markers adjacent to the nearby pole could alert or remind a pilot to the presence of the powerline. However, their original purpose was to alert pilots flying along a powerline to the presence of another powerline crossing above or below, rather than for a pilot using the runway, and their visibility and location was not optimal for landing on the runway in their locations.

Further, the powerline’s oblique orientation relative to the runway can also increase the chance of a pilot misjudging the point where the aircraft was in conflict, increasing the risk of a wirestrike.

Findings

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the wirestrike and collision with terrain involving Cessna 172N, VH-RSB, near Merriton, South Australia on 8 October 2023.

Contributing factors

• The pilot likely lost awareness of and did not see the aerial powerline during approach to land.
• The runway was positioned near an oblique powerline, and the powerline was not marked in a manner sufficient to enhance visibility of the wire to pilots using the runway.

Sources and submissions

Sources of information

The sources of information during the investigation included:

• Aerial Application Association of Australia
• Airservices Australia
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority
• SA Power Networks
• South Australia Police
• maintenance organisation for VH-RSB
• accident witnesses
• recorded data from OzRunways.

References

Australian Transport Safety Bureau 2006, Aviation Research and Analysis Report B2005/0055 Wire-strike Accidents in General Aviation: Data Analysis 1994 to 2004.

Aerial Agriculture Association of Australia 2011, Aerial Application Pilots Manual (3^rd edition).

Civil Aviation Safety Authority 2022, AC 91‑02 v1.2 – Guidelines for aeroplanes with MTOW not exceeding 5700 kg - suitable places to take off and land.

Federal Aviation Administration AM‑400‑00/1 Spatial Disorientation Visual Illusions, rev. 2/11. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration.

Previc FH 2004 ‘Visual illusions in flight’, in FH Previc & R Ercoline (Eds) Spatial disorientation in aviation, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston VA.

Submissions

Under section 26 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003, the ATSB may provide a draft report, on a confidential basis, to any person whom the ATSB considers appropriate. That section allows a person receiving a draft report to make submissions to the ATSB about the draft report. 

A draft of this report was provided to the following directly involved parties:

• SA Power Networks
• Civil Aviation Safety Authority.

There were no submissions received.

Purpose of safety investigations The objective of a safety investigation is to enhance transport safety. This is done through:  identifying safety issues and facilitating safety action to address those issues providing information about occurrences and their associated safety factors to facilitate learning within the transport industry. It is not a function of the ATSB to apportion blame or provide a means for determining liability. At the same time, an investigation report must include factual material of sufficient weight to support the analysis and findings. At all times the ATSB endeavours to balance the use of material that could imply adverse comment with the need to properly explain what happened, and why, in a fair and unbiased manner. The ATSB does not investigate for the purpose of taking administrative, regulatory or criminal action. Terminology An explanation of terminology used in ATSB investigation reports is available here. This includes terms such as occurrence, contributing factor, other factor that increased risk, and safety issue. Publishing information Released in accordance with section 25 of the Transport Safety Investigation Act 2003 Published by: Australian Transport Safety Bureau © Commonwealth of Australia 2024 Ownership of intellectual property rights in this publication Unless otherwise noted, copyright (and any other intellectual property rights, if any) in this report publication is owned by the Commonwealth of Australia. Creative Commons licence With the exception of the Coat of Arms, ATSB logo, and photos and graphics in which a third party holds copyright, this publication is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia licence. Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia Licence is a standard form licence agreement that allows you to copy, distribute, transmit and adapt this publication provided that you attribute the work. The ATSB’s preference is that you attribute this publication (and any material sourced from it) using the following wording: Source: Australian Transport Safety Bureau Copyright in material obtained from other agencies, private individuals or organisations, belongs to those agencies, individuals or organisations. Where you wish to use their material, you will need to contact them directly.