Coulson 737 down in Australia - Feb6 2023

[goldeneagle]

Two crew apparently 'walked away' with only minior injuries.

https://simpleflying.com/coulson-aviati ... 737-crash/

[Dias]

Respect to all firefighter pilots that do a very dangerous job for all our benefit.

[Eric Janson]

The altitude trace shows the second pass being flown at a lower altitude than the first. Not sure if this is accurate data or not.

From personal experience - a few degrees of pitch change can easily give you 1000'/min climb or descent. Pretty easy to lose altitude if not paying close attention to pitch.

Operating this aircraft low to the ground isn't something I'd feel comfortable doing.

I guess the report will clarify what happened.

[medi-whacked]

Sounds like CFIT. (again)

[‘Bob’]

It’s Australia so it’s soy fit.

It’s hard to avoid the ground when it’s above you.

[Maynard]

It’s Australia so it’s soy fit.

It’s hard to avoid the ground when it’s above you.

Soy-feet

[Meatservo]

It’s Australia so it’s soy fit.

It’s hard to avoid the ground when it’s above you.

Soy-feet

No, that's New Zealand.

[Eric Janson]

An interesting look at this crash using the report issued by Australian ATSB.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/in ... o-2023-008

- 1800 ft/min rate of descent 100 feet off the ground with low airspeed and idle thrust isn't going to end well!

[W5]

The dreaded: "Ran out of altitude, airspeed and ideas all at the same time"

[Big Pistons Forever]

That's why I loved the Alison 501 powered tankers. Instant thrust as soon as you pushed up the power levers. If he had been flying an CV580 or Electra they would have gotten way with it even with the flight profile approaching to the drop.

[Donald]

The airframe had barely 170 hours on it from the completion of conversion to the accident. I wonder what the accident crew experience level was for jet aircraft in firefighting ops. Would they have operated the Bae-146 previously in that role?

[co-joe]

During the second drop, Bomber 139 descended through 400 ft altitude (80 ft radio height) at about 110 kt computed airspeed[8] and 30% N1 (engines at high idle)[9] as the retardant line was extended downslope (Figure 2). The captain started to advance the throttle levers about 2 seconds before the aircraft’s rate of descent peaked at about 1,800 ft/min and started to pitch the nose up.

The nose up pitch preceded the acceleration of the engines, resulting in a reversal of the rate of descent, but also a decay of the airspeed. The captain then announced ’fly airplane’ followed immediately, at about 1614,[10] by the activation of the stick shaker[11] and an abrupt vertical acceleration associated with the aircraft impacting a ridgeline at an elevation of about 222 ft at 104 kt computed airspeed with the engines at 85-89% N1.

So they briefed a 400' minimum altitude, but continued down to 80', at 1800'/min, at flight idle and flap 40, into rising terrain? That doesn't sound well planned or executed at all on the Captain's part.

The co-pilot did not announce any deviations during the drop and accident sequence and later reported their focus of attention was likely on the airspeed indicator and radio altimeter

And the PM sounds like they didn't help their skipper at all. No airspeed call, no sink rate call, and no altitude calls of any kind? Having no idea about LAT ops, is there no stable approach criteria for a drop at all? Is 1800'/min ok if required?