Thread: Melbourne plane crash that killed five blamed on 'catastrophic engine failure'

Twin-engine aircraft had just taken off from Essendon airport when it ploughed into a shopping centre

A plane that crashed into a shopping centre near Essendon airport in Melbourne, killing four US tourists and their Australian pilot, had a “catastrophic engine failure” shortly after takeoff, police have said.

The twin-engine aircraft, which issued a mayday shortly after leaving the airport about 9am on Tuesday, was taking the tourists to King Island to play golf.

“The pilot unfortunately attempted to return to Essendon but has crashed into the DFO at Essendon Fields,” a police assistant commissioner, Stephen Leane, told reporters.

Leane said none of the staff at Direct Factory Outlets – which was not yet open to the public – had been injured. “Looking at the fireball, it is incredibly lucky that no one was at the back of those stores or in the car park of the stores that no one was even hurt,” he said.

The US embassy has confirmed that four American citizens were killed.

The state premier, Daniel Andrews, said it was the worst civil aviation disaster in Victoria for 30 years, and commended the work of emergency service personnel who attended the scene.

Essendon airport and the DFO centre have been closed to allow for investigations by the coroner and the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. Only police, ambulance, and firefighting planes, which are based at Essendon, were given clearance to fly. Debris-strewn lanes of the Tullamarine Freeway were also closed to traffic.

Authorities confirmed earlier that the plane was a commercial charter flight bound for the island in the Bass Strait. The Beechcraft Super King Airplane, owned by Myjet, had been hired by Corporate and Leisure Travel.

The state’s emergency management commissioner, Craig Lapsley, said psychological support would be provided to emergency services personnel and witnesses to the crash, saying the government had “learned a lot from Bourke Street” about managing trauma. Counselling services were offered in the wake of last month’s Bourke Street tragedy, which led to the deaths of six people.

The fireball sent one of the aircraft’s wheels on to the Tullamarine Freeway, Fairfax Radio reported, and police closed the Tullamarine and Calder freeways as a plume of black smoke covered the area.

Witnesses said on Twitter they had seen a large explosion followed by a plume of black smoke.

A caller to ABC Melbourne, Jason, said he was in a taxi when he looked out the window and saw the plane.

“I saw this plane coming in really low and fast. It went just behind the barriers so I couldn’t see the impact but when it hit the building there was a massive fireball,” he told ABC 774.

“I could feel the heat through the window of the taxi, and then a wheel, it looked like a plane wheel, bounced on the road and hit the front of the taxi as we were driving along. We kept driving and there was big fireball behind us.”

A woman who dropped her daughter off at the Spotlight store in the shopping complex on Tuesday morning told Fairfax Radio her daughter had said the store was on fire but that all staff were unharmed.

The opposition leader, Bill Shorten, tweeted his condolences.

Debris from the crash was found up to 100 metres away, Seven News reported.

Aviation safety investigators have begun examining the wreckage. The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has sent four investigators – one from Brisbane and three from Canberra – to examine the crash site.

“It will be very difficult because the aircraft was carrying a great amount of fuel, because it was starting a flight, so there’s a lot of gas and a lot of fire,” said a University of South Australia aviation lecturer, Dr Douglas Drury.

Drury said the King Air plane was highly regarded by pilots: “The King Air is a very robust aircraft. It’s been in operation for a number of years, flown thousands of hours around the globe. It’s a trusted aircraft.”

Residents of King Island have been left shaken by the crash. “Because we all fly, it shakes us,” said the mayor, Duncan McFie.

He said golf tourism was “critically important” to the island of fewer than 2,000 people, and in the past 12 to 18 months, with the opening of two new courses, it had become an international golfing destination.

https://www.theguardian.com/australi...hopping-centre

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

had a “catastrophic engine failure” shortly after takeoff....

Yeah, I'd call engine failure on a plane that's in the air, "catastrophic."

Darn Mussie terrorists!

Not that easy, and dont be silly Pizza, many engine failures are overcome by competent pilots. The most recent was this one. Both engines failed from multiple bird strikes.

Catastrophic engine failure at 30 metres over a heavily populated area.

Really up shit creek from then on. It's a miracle only the plane's occupants perished.

Twins are certified for take-off with single engine failure. Something doesn't seem right...double engine failure? Or mis-handling of the emergency, which is more than possible with lots happening and very little time to think.

Originally Posted by stroller

Darn Mussie terrorists!

Only white folks deaths, regardless of number, are worthy and of any value regarding random news.

Originally Posted by Troy

Twins are certified for take-off with single engine failure. Something doesn't seem right...double engine failure? Or mis-handling of the emergency, which is more than possible with lots happening and very little time to think.

Trouble is if you aren't able to feather the prop, you might as well be flying with one wing.

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Only white folks deaths, regardless of number, are worthy and of any value regarding random news.

That would be because if random news covered totally preventable deaths of people in countries where the locals continuously find endless ways to kill themselves through their own ignorance and sheer stupidity - to the point where they clearly don't care so why should anyone else - their wouldn't be enough hours in the day to cover 0.02% of them.

5 people die in a plane crash in Australia makes news around the world, dozens die daily on Thai roads, many of them way too young for such a fate, and maybe a few make the local news. Think about why that is...

Originally Posted by Headworx

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Only white folks deaths, regardless of number, are worthy and of any value regarding random news.

That would be because if random news covered totally preventable deaths of people in countries where the locals continuously find endless ways to kill themselves through their own ignorance and sheer stupidity - to the point where they clearly don't care so why should anyone else - their wouldn't be enough hours in the day to cover 0.02% of them.

5 people die in a plane crash in Australia makes news around the world, dozens die daily on Thai roads, many of them way too young for such a fate, and maybe a few make the local news. Think about why that is...

Exactly. When a nation turns almost a blind eye to probably dozens of kids getting killed on motosais monthly, and it continues to happen, it is no longer news.

Poor bastards just ran out of time.

This is my home town. I used to teach dozens of King Island kids, they fly to the mainland twice a term. This is a big deal. FUCK YOU JEFF YOUBDUMB CVNT

Originally Posted by kingwilly

This is my home town. I used to teach dozens of King Island kids, they fly to the mainland twice a term. This is a big deal. FUCK YOU JEFF YOUBDUMB CVNT

Yeah but um weren't there like 4 Americans on there that died and zero "Island Kids"

Originally Posted by thaimeme

Originally Posted by stroller

Darn Mussie terrorists!

Only white folks deaths, regardless of number, are worthy and of any value regarding random news.

FOJ.....

Originally Posted by Slick

Yeah but um weren't there like 4 Americans on there that died and zero "Island Kids"

You didn't read the article, did you?

Originally Posted by harrybarracuda

Residents of King Island have been left shaken by the crash. “Because we all fly, it shakes us,” said the mayor, Duncan McFie.

Twins are certified for take-off with single engine failure

Not quite right ... an engine failure AFTER take-off should be possible. However, at low altitude things become problematic - there is a period after leaving the runway when the aircraft may still be accelerating towards its climb out safety speed. An engine failure at this stage leaves you few options.
Though turning back to the airfield is the instinctive reaction, it produces its own problems as banking reduces the effective lift. In this case the failure (LH engine) occurred at only 100ft or so above the runway, with insufficient distance to land straight ahead. Apparently there was no auto-feather on this aeroplane, so the aircraft tended to turn to the left - at low speed rudder effectiveness reduces and it would be difficult to keep straight. Speed, altitude and time ran out ...

^ Pretty sure I was right the first time...

Up to V1, an engine failure means aborted Take-off.

After V1 aircraft is certified to be able to accelerate to minimum control speed, take-off and climb without having to reduce power on available engines and without heading change. That is, rudder must be powerful enough to remove adverse yaw effects. Auto feather is mandatory on aircraft that cannot climb out with engine unfeathered and I am pretty sure it is a no-go item for the King Air B200.

I have known of a 4 engine military aircraft losing 3 engines on take-off. Luckily one of the 3 was still producing power and T/O was out to sea at a climb of 100'/min. It took quite a while before it managed an RTB....

I think I may have misinterpreted your original statement as taking-off with OEI!!
There has been some talk that the autofeather may have been disabled by the engine failure. This aircraft had four bladed props, so, yes, autofeather must be serviceable.

Luckily one of the 3 was still producing power and T/O was out to sea at a climb of 100'/min. It took quite a while before it managed an RTB....

Thank goodness for earth curvature ...

Originally Posted by Troy

Twins are certified for take-off with single engine failure. Something doesn't seem right...double engine failure? Or mis-handling of the emergency, which is more than possible with lots happening and very little time to think.

I think that only applies to large passenger planes, or so I was taught in flight school, small 2 engine planes are not certified and usually cannot fly on one engine, the dead engine becomes a drag.

" The reason is simple. Most light twins (for the purpose of this article, those under 6,000 pounds gross weight and/or with a stall speed of 61 knots or less) lose about 80 percent or more of their power when an engine fails, rather than the 50 percent one would expect. That 80 percent or more power loss is why, under certain conditions, a light twin may only have enough power after an engine failure for the pilot to pick a spot for an emergency landing. The aircraft may not have enough power to hold altitude or fly safely on only one engine."
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-sa...single-vs-twin

Originally Posted by BobR

Originally Posted by Troy

Twins are certified for take-off with single engine failure. Something doesn't seem right...double engine failure? Or mis-handling of the emergency, which is more than possible with lots happening and very little time to think.

I think that only applies to large passenger planes, or so I was taught in flight school, small 2 engine planes are not certified and usually cannot fly on one engine, the dead engine becomes a drag.

" The reason is simple. Most light twins (for the purpose of this article, those under 6,000 pounds gross weight and/or with a stall speed of 61 knots or less) lose about 80 percent or more of their power when an engine fails, rather than the 50 percent one would expect. That 80 percent or more power loss is why, under certain conditions, a light twin may only have enough power after an engine failure for the pilot to pick a spot for an emergency landing. The aircraft may not have enough power to hold altitude or fly safely on only one engine."
https://www.aopa.org/training-and-sa...single-vs-twin

And not a lot of suitable spots available to him I gather.

Shame there wasn't a big fuck off river handy.

This aircraft was flying air transport operations under CAR Pt.25 (same as FAR Pt.25). Engine failure after take-off requires positive rate of climb. Max weight is 12,500lb (5700kg).

One of the problems is that the airports are privatised now so they are building large commercial buildings around the edge and if a plane is in trouble they have nowhere
with open land to attempt a crash landing.

Originally Posted by reddog

One of the problems is that the airports are privatised now so they are building large commercial buildings around the edge and if a plane is in trouble they have nowhere
with open land to attempt a crash landing.

This isn't just commercial buildings, it's a dense residential area. Excuse the pun but it was an accident waiting to happen.



Having said that I'm not sure about that flight path.