Oceania

On the afternoon of 3 October 2022, a Pilatus Britten-Norman Islander BN2A-21, registered VHWQA and operated by Torres Strait Air, was conducting a non-scheduled passenger air transport flight from Saibai Island Airport, Queensland (QLD) to Horn Island Airport, QLD. There was 1 pilot and 6 passengers (students) on board. About 19 km NE of Moa Island both engines began to surge. The pilot diverted towards Kubin Airport on Moa Island. As the aircraft passed to the south of the township of Saint Pauls, the pilot determined there was insufficient altitude remaining to reach the airport. As a result, the pilot conducted a forced landing on a road 7 km ENE of Kubin Airport. There were no reported injuries to the pilot or the passengers. The aircraft was substantially damaged.

The airplane was on a VFR charter flight from Kiunga Airport, Western Province to Tekin Airstrip, Sandaun Province, Papua New Guinea. During the landing roll aircraft sustained a left main landing gear assembly collapse and subsequent runway excursion. There were seven persons onboard: one pilot and six passengers. At 09:06, P2-BWC departed Kiunga Airport and arrived at Tekin circuit area at 09:40. The pilot established the aircraft on the final approach profile, he configured the aircraft for landing by fully extending the flaps and maintained an airspeed of about 80 knots (kts). The pilot also stated that he experienced a downdraft prior to touch down. The aircraft landed at 09:43 with an airspeed of 75 knots as recalled by the pilot. The aircraft touched down about 3m short of the airstrip edge boundary. The investigation determined that due to reduced damping effect of the oleo and/or the tyre of the left main landing gear, the landing gear attachment bolts sustained significant impact stress from the landing impact force and snapped, causing the gear assembly to collapse and separate from the aircraft. Subsequently, the left wing abruptly dropped, and the aircraft began veering to the left, towards the eastern edge of the airstrip. The aircraft continued veering to the left and subsequently the left wingtip struck the outer edge of the extended right-hand flap of P2-BWE, a wreckage of the same aircraft type owned and operated by NASL that was involved in a similar accident on 18 January 2022, causing P2-BWC to abruptly veer further left and skid across the airstrip boundary as the nose-wheel and right main wheel bogged into the ground. The pilot immediately shut down the engine and evacuated the passengers with the assistance of one of the Operator’s personnel who was also a passenger on board. There were no reported injuries and the aircraft sustained significant damage.

The airplane was conducting a single pilot VFR charter flight from Kiunga Airport, Western Province to Tekin Airstrip, Sandaun Province, Papua New Guinea when during the landing roll, the aircraft sustained a left Main Landing Gear (MLG) assembly collapse and subsequent runway excursion. There were eight persons onboard: one pilot and seven passengers. At 08:43, P2-BWE departed Kiunga Airport and arrived at Tekin Airstrip circuit at 09:18. The pilot then tracked towards the Northwest of the airstrip and made a left base turn for approach. The pilot stated that he established the aircraft on final approach with an airspeed of 120 kts. He subsequently configured the aircraft for landing; propeller pitch set to full fine, power set to maintain nominated approach speed, and full flap. The pilot indicated that he reduced airspeed while on approach and maintained an airspeed between 85 and 90 kts. As he flared the aircraft to land, the airspeed was between 75 to 80 kts. The touchdown speed, as he recalled, was 75 kts. The aircraft touched down two metres short of the designated landing threshold of runway18, which had an elevation of 15cm. Reviewing the flight records of the pilot, and from his interview, the AIC deduced that the pilot was not adequately familiar with Tekin Airstrip. The aircraft sustained substantial damaged. All the passengers and pilot evacuated the aircraft without injuries.

On 26 July 2020, at 12:46 local time (02:46 UTC), a Cessna 402C aircraft, registered VH-TSI collided with trees during an aborted take-off at an uncommissioned field near Papa-Lealea, about 16 nm North-West of Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea. The pilot, during interview with the AIC, stated that he departed at 09:30 that day from Mareeba Airport, Queensland Australia and tracked towards the North North-East with a planned track set slightly left of Jacksons International Airport, Port Moresby, National Capital District, Papua New Guinea. As the aircraft neared the Southern shoreline (within the Caution Bay area), he diverted left and began tracking towards the North West along the coast in order to avoid flying over villages in the area. He subsequently crossed over land before turning back to approach the intended landing field. As the aircraft approached to land, the outboard section of the left wing was clipped by a tree and separated from the aircraft. According to the pilot, he continued on with the approach and landed on the field at about 12:20. The pilot reported that he had flown to and within Papua New Guinea in the past and was familiar with the area and airspace. He confirmed that after departing Mareeba, he switched off the transponder. After shutting down the aircraft, the aircraft was refuelled with jerrycans full of fuel (AvGas) and loaded with cargo by persons waiting on the ground. The pilot reported that he estimated that a distance of 800 m would be required for the take-off. According to the pilot, at about 12:40, he lined up and commenced his take-off roll from the Southern end of the field. As the aircraft lifted off, he noticed that the airspeed indicator (ASI) was not working. He also observed that the aircraft was not achieving a positive rate of climb. He subsequently pulled the throttles back and manoeuvred the aircraft back towards the ground. The aircraft touched down with a speed that the pilot described as higher than normal, with about 400 m of usable field remaining. The aircraft continued off the end of the field and into the bushes clipping trees along the way until it came to rest. The pilot informed the AIC that he was the sole occupant of the aircraft, and sustained minor injuries as a result of the occurrence. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The investigation confirmed that the fire to the left wing and engine was a post-accident event and was deliberate. The pilot was later arrested and a load of 500 kilos of cocaine distributed in 28 bales was found at the scene.

On 24 April 2020 the pilot of a Pacific Aerospace Cresco 08-600 aircraft, registered ZK-LTK (the aeroplane), was conducting agricultural flight operations spreading superphosphate fertilizer on a farm in the Kourarau Hill area, near Masterton. The airstrip was a typical topdressing airstrip, with a downward slope and a left bend of about 5 degrees partway down the strip, in the direction of take-off. The ground at the end of the airstrip dropped sharply away to a valley that ran perpendicular to the direction of the airstrip. On the commencement of the third topdressing flight, witnesses reported, the aeroplane accelerated normally from the loading point. However, the aeroplane did not follow the direction of the airstrip around to the left, as it had done during the previous two flights. Instead, the aeroplane continued in a straight line from the load point and subsequently struck uneven terrain off to the right of the airstrip. The impact with the uneven terrain caused the right main undercarriage assembly to fracture off and damage the right wing and flap. The aeroplane descended into the valley, striking a tree with the right-hand wing, then continued across the valley floor and impacted the far side of the valley, coming to rest inverted. The aeroplane was destroyed by the impacts and a post-crash fire. The sole pilot occupant did not survive the accident sequence.

On 11 March 2020, a Cessna 404 aircraft, registered VH-OZO, was being operated by Air Connect Australia to conduct a passenger charter flight from Cairns to Lockhart River, Queensland. On board were the pilot and 4 passengers, and the flight was being conducted under the instrument flight rules (IFR). Consistent with the forecast, there were areas of cloud and rain that significantly reduced visibility at Lockhart River Airport. On descent, the pilot obtained the latest weather information from the airport’s automated weather information system (AWIS) and soon after commenced an area navigation (RNAV) global satellite system (GNSS) instrument approach to runway 30. The pilot conducted the first approach consistent with the recommended (3°) constant descent profile, and the aircraft kept descending through the minimum descent altitude (MDA) of 730 ft and passed the missed approach point (MAPt). At about 400 ft, the pilot commenced a missed approach. After conducting the missed approach, the pilot immediately commenced a second RNAV GNSS approach to runway 30. During this approach, the pilot commenced descent from 3,500 ft about 2.7 NM prior to the intermediate fix (or 12.7 NM prior to the MAPt). The descent was flown at about a normal 3° flight path, although about 1,000 ft below the recommended descent profile. While continuing on this descent profile, the aircraft descended below the MDA. It then kept descending until it collided with terrain 6.4 km (3.5 NM) short of the runway. The pilot and 4 passengers were fatally injured, and the aircraft was destroyed.

At about 1205, while B137 was overhead the Adaminaby fire-ground, and about the same time the SAD logged the birddog rejection, B134 departed Richmond as initial attack. On board were the PIC, the copilot and flight engineer. In response to the draft report, the RFS provided excerpts from the state operations controller (SOC) log. An entry was written in the log by the SOC following the accident. The SOC noted having been advised that the birddog had indicated it was ‘not safe to fly’ and that B137 was not returning to the area until the conditions had eased. However, B134 would continue with the PIC to make the ‘decision of safety of bombing operations’. The RFS advised the ATSB that the SOC had the authority to cancel B134’s tasking, but instead allowed it to proceed, with the intention of gathering additional intelligence to assist in determining whether further aerial operations would proceed. The RFS further reported that this indicated an ongoing intelligence gathering and assessment process by the SOC. At about 1235, while returning to Richmond, the PIC of B137 heard the PIC of B134 on the Canberra approach frequency, and contacted them via their designated operating frequency. At that time, B134 was about 112 km north-east of Adaminaby, en route to the fire-ground. In this conversation, the PIC of B137 informed them of the actual conditions and that they would not be returning to Adaminaby. The PIC of B137 reported that they could not recall the specific details of the call, but that the conversation included that they were ‘getting crazy winds’ and ‘you can go take a look’ ’but I am not going back’. It was also noted that the PIC of B134 had asked several questions. It was reported by the majority of the operator’s pilots that, despite receiving information from another pilot, they would have also continued with the tasking under these circumstances, to assess the conditions themselves. At about 1242, the crew of B134 contacted air traffic control to advise them of the coordinates they would be working at, provide an ‘ops normal’ call time, and confirm there was no reported instrument flight rules aircraft in the area. About 5 minutes later, the Richmond ABM also attempted to contact the crew of B134 to confirm ‘ops normal’, firstly by radio, and then by text to the PIC’s mobile phone, but did not receive a response. The automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) data showed that, after arriving at the Adaminaby fire-ground at about 1251, the crew of B134 completed several circuits at about 2,000 ft AGL. At about 1255, the crew advised the Cooma ARO that it was too smoky and windy to complete a retardant drop at that location. The Cooma ARO then provided the crew with the approximate coordinates of the Good Good fire, about 58 km to the east of Adaminaby. The ARO further indicated that they had no specific requirements, but they could look for targets of opportunity, with the objective of conducting structure and property protection near Peak View. At about 1259, the crew of B134 contacted air traffic control to advise that they had been re-tasked to the Good Good fire-ground, and provided updated coordinates. At about the same time, the RFS ground firefighters at the Good Good fire-ground, near Feeney’s Road in Peak View, contacted the Cooma FCC and requested additional assets for property protection. They were advised that a LAT would be passing overhead in about 10 minutes. The firefighters acknowledged the intention of a LAT retardant drop and advised the Cooma FCC they would wait in open country on Feeney’s Road, clear of any properties targeted for protection. At about 1307, B134 arrived overhead the drop area. The drop area was located to the east of a ridgeline, with the fire on the western side of the ridgeline. The aircraft’s recorded track data (SkyTrac) showed that the crew conducted 3 left circuits, at about 1,500 ft, 500 ft and 1,000 ft AGL respectively, prior to commencing the drop circuit. At about 1312, after conducting about 2 circuits, they advised the Cooma ARO of their intention to complete multiple drops on the eastern side of the Good Good fire, and that they would advise the coordinates after the first delivery. At 1315:15, a partial retardant drop was conducted on a heading of about 190°, at about 190 ft AGL (3,600 ft above mean sea level). During the drop, about 1,200 US gallons (4,500 L) of fire retardant was released over a period of about 2 seconds. A ground speed of 144 kt was recorded at the time of the drop. A witness video taken by ground fire-fighters captured the drop and showed the aircraft immediately after the drop in an initial left turn with a positive rate of climb, before it became obscured by smoke. While being intermittently obscured by smoke, the aircraft climbed to about 330 ft AGL (3,770 ft above mean sea level). At about this time, ATSB analysis of the video showed that the aircraft was rolling from about 18° left angle of bank to about a 6° right angle of bank. Following this, the aircraft descended and about 17 seconds after the completion of the partial retardant drop, it was seen at a very low height above the ground, in a slight left bank. Video analysis and accident site examination showed there was no further (emergency) drop of retardant. Throughout this period, the recorded groundspeed increased slightly to a maximum of 151 kt. Shortly after, there was a significant left roll just prior to ground impact. At about 1315:37, the aircraft collided with terrain and a post-impact fuel-fed fire ensued. The 3 crew were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed. A review of the Airservices Australia audio recording of the applicable air traffic control frequency found no distress calls were received by controllers prior to the impact.

On 14 December 2019, at 1046 Eastern Standard Time, an Angel Aircraft Corporation Model 44 aircraft, registered VH-IAZ, commenced taxiing at Mareeba Airport, Queensland. On board the aircraft were two pilots. The pilot in the left seat (‘the pilot’) owned the aircraft and was undertaking a flight review, which was being conducted by the Grade 1 flight instructor in the right seat (‘the instructor’). The planned flight was to operate in the local area, as a private flight and under visual flight rules. As the aircraft taxied towards the runway intersection, the pilot broadcast on the common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF) that VH-IAZ was taxiing for runway 28. The pilot made another broadcast when entering and backtracking the runway, then at 1058, broadcast that the aircraft had commenced the take-off roll. Witnesses who heard the aircraft during the take-off reported that it sounded like one of the engines was hesitating and misfiring. An aircraft maintainer who observed the aircraft take off, reported seeing black sooty smoke trailing from the right engine. The maintainer then watched the aircraft climb slowly and turn right towards the north. Another witness who heard the aircraft in flight soon afterwards, reported that it sounded normal for that aircraft, which had a distinctive sound because the engines’ exhaust gases pass through the propellers. Once airborne, the pilot broadcast that they were ‘making a low-level right-hand turn and then climbing up to not above 4,500 [feet] for the south-west training area.’ About 2 minutes later, the instructor broadcast that they were just to the west of the airfield in the training area at 2,500 ft and on climb to 4,000 ft, and communicated with a helicopter pilot operating in the area. After 8 minutes in the training area, the pilot broadcast that they were inbound to the aerodrome. At 1112, the aircraft’s final transmission was broadcast by the pilot, advising that they were joining the crosswind circuit leg for runway 28. Witnesses then saw the aircraft touch down on the runway and continue to take off again, consistent with a ‘touch-and-go’ manoeuvre, and heard one engine ‘splutter’ as the aircraft climbed to an estimated 100–150 ft above ground level. At about 1115, the aircraft was observed overhead a banana plantation beyond the end of the runway, banked to the right in a descending turn, before it suddenly rolled right. Witnesses observed the right wing drop to near vertical and the aircraft impacted terrain in a cornfield. Both pilots were fatally injured and the aircraft was destroyed.

On 8 December 2018, the pilot of a Pilatus Britten-Norman BN2A-20 Islander, registered VH-OBL and operated by Airlines of Tasmania, was conducting a positioning flight under the visual flight rules from Cambridge Airport to the Bathurst Harbour aeroplane landing area (ALA), Tasmania. The aircraft departed Cambridge at about 0748 Eastern Daylight-saving Time and was scheduled to arrive at Bathurst Harbour about 0830 to pick up five passengers for the return flight. The passengers were part of a conservation project that flew to south-west Tasmania regularly, and it was the pilot’s only flight for that day. Automatic dependent surveillance broadcast (ADS-B) position and altitude data (refer to the section titled Recorded information) showed the aircraft tracked to the south-west towards Bathurst Harbour (Figure 1). At about 0816, the aircraft approached a gap in the Arthur Range known as ‘the portals’. The portals are a saddle (lowest area) between the Eastern and Western Arthur Range, and was an optional route that Airlines of Tasmania used between Cambridge and Bathurst Harbour when the cloud base prevented flight over the mountain range. After passing through the portals, the aircraft proceeded to conduct a number of turns below the height of the surrounding highest terrain. The final data point recorded was at about At about 0829, the Australian Maritime Safety Authority received advice that an emergency locator transmitter allocated to VH-OBL had activated. They subsequently advised the Tasmanian Police and the aircraft operator of the activation, and initiated search and rescue efforts. The rescue efforts included two helicopters and a Challenger 604 search and rescue jet aircraft. The Challenger arrived over the emergency locator transmitter signal location at around 0925, however, due to cloud cover the crew were unable to visually identify the precise location of VH-OBL. A police rescue helicopter arrived at the search area at about 1030. The pilot of that helicopter reported observing cloud covering the eastern side of the Western Arthur Range, and described a wall of cloud with its base sitting on the bottom of the west portal. Multiple attempts were made throughout the day to locate the accident site, however, due to low-level cloud, and fluctuating weather conditions, the search and rescue operation was unable to confirm visual location of the aircraft until about 1900. The aircraft wreckage was found in mountainous terrain of the Western Arthur Range in the Southwest National Park (Figure 2) . The search and rescue crew assessed that the accident was unlikely to have been survivable. The helicopter crew considered winching personnel to the site, however, due to a number of risks, including potential for cloud reforming, the time of day and lighting, and other hazards associated with the mountainous location, the helicopter departed the area. The aircraft wreckage was accessed the following day, when it was confirmed that the pilot was fatally injured.

On 28 September 2018, at 23:24:19 UTC2 (09:24 local time), a Boeing 737-8BK aircraft, registered P2-PXE (PXE), operated by Air Niugini Limited, was on a scheduled passenger flight number PX073, from Pohnpei to Chuuk, in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) when, during its final approach, the aircraft impacted the water of the Chuuk Lagoon, about 1,500 ft (460 m) short of the runway 04 threshold. The aircraft deflected across the water several times before it settled in the water and turned clockwise through 210 deg and drifted 460 ft (140 m) south east of the runway 04 extended centreline, with the nose of the aircraft pointing about 265°. The pilot in command (PIC) was the pilot flying, and the copilot was the support/monitoring pilot. An Aircraft Maintenance Engineer occupied the cockpit jump seat. The engineer videoed the final approach on his iPhone, which predominantly showed the cockpit instruments. Local boaters rescued 28 passengers and two cabin crew from the left over-wing exits. Two cabin crew, the two pilots and the engineer were rescued by local boaters from the forward door 1L. One life raft was launched from the left aft over-wing exit by cabin crew CC5 with the assistance of a passenger. The US Navy divers rescued six passengers and four cabin crew and the Load Master from the right aft over-wing exit. All injured passengers were evacuated from the left over-wing exits. One passenger was fatally injured, and local divers located his body in the aircraft three days after the accident. The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia commenced the investigation and on 14th February 2019 delegated the whole of the investigation to the PNG Accident Investigation Commission. The investigation determined that the flight crew’s level of compliance with Air Niugini Standard Operating Procedures Manual (SOPM) was not at a standard that would promote safe aircraft operations. The PIC intended to conduct an RNAV GPS approach to runway 04 at Chuuk International Airport and briefed the copilot accordingly. The descent and approach were initially conducted in Visual Meteorological Conditions (VMC), but from 546 ft (600 ft)4 the aircraft was flown in Instrument Meteorological Conditions (IMC). The flight crew did not adhere to Air Niugini SOPM and the approach and pre-landing checklists. The RNAV (GPS) Rwy 04 Approach chart procedure was not adequately briefed. The RNAV approach specified a flight path descent angle guide of 3º. The aircraft was flown at a high rate of descent and a steep variable flight path angle averaging 4.5º during the approach, with lateral over-controlling; the approach was unstabilised. The Flight Data Recorder (FDR) recorded a total of 17 Enhanced Ground Proximity Warning System (EGPWS) alerts, specifically eight “Sink Rate” and nine “Glideslope”. The recorded information from the Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) showed that a total of 14 EGPWS aural alerts sounded after passing the Minimum Descent Altitude (MDA), between 307 ft (364 ft) and the impact point. A “100 ft” advisory was annunciated, in accordance with design standards, overriding one of the “Glideslope” aural alert. The other aural alerts were seven “Glideslope” and six “Sink Rate”. The investigation observed that the flight crew disregarded the alerts, and did not acknowledge the “minimums” and 100 ft alerts; a symptom of fixation and channelised attention. The crew were fixated on cues associated with the landing and control inputs due to the extension of 40° flap. Both pilots were not situationally aware and did not recognise the developing significant unsafe condition during the approach after passing the Missed Approach Point (MAP) when the aircraft entered a storm cell and heavy rain. The weather radar on the PIC’s Navigation Display showed a large red area indicating a storm cell immediately after the MAP, between the MAP and the runway. The copilot as the support/monitoring pilot was ineffective and was oblivious to the rapidly unfolding unsafe situation. He did not recognise the significant unsafe condition and therefore did not realise the need to challenge the PIC and take control of the aircraft, as required by the Air Niugini SOPM. The Air Niugini SOPM instructs a non-flying pilot to take control of the aircraft from the flying pilot, and restore a safe flight condition, when an unsafe condition continues to be uncorrected. The records showed that the copilot had been checked in the Simulator for EGPWS Alert (Terrain) however there was no evidence of simulator check sessions covering the vital actions and responses required to retrieve a perceived or real situation that might compromise the safe operation of the aircraft. Specifically sustained unstabilised approach below 1,000 ft amsl in IMC. The PIC did not conduct the missed approach at the MAP despite the criteria required for visually continuing the approach not being met, including visually acquiring the runway or the PAPI. The PIC did not conduct a go around after passing the MAP and subsequently the MDA although:
• The aircraft had entered IMC;
• the approach was unstable;
• the glideslope indicator on the Primary Flight Display (PFD) was showing a rapid glideslope deviation from a half-dot low to 2-dots high within 9 seconds after passing the MDA;
• the rate of descent high (more than 1,000 ft/min) and increasing;
• there were EGPWS Sink Rate and Glideslope aural alerts; and
• the EGPWS visual PULL UP warning message was displayed on the PFD.
The report highlights that deviations from recommended practice and SOPs are a potential hazard, particularly during the approach and landing phase of flight, and increase the risk of approach and landing accidents. It also highlights that crew coordination is less than effective if crew members do not work together as an integrated team. Support crew members have a duty and responsibility to ensure that the safety of a flight is not compromised by non-compliance with SOPs, standard phraseology and recommended practices. The investigation found that the Civil Aviation Safety Authority of PNG (CASA PNG) policy and procedures of accepting manuals rather than approving manuals, while in accordance with the Civil Aviation Rules requirements, placed a burden of responsibility on CASA PNG as the State Regulator to ensure accuracy and that safety standards are met. In accepting the Air Niugini manuals, CASA PNG did not meet the high standard of evidence-based assessment required for safety assurance, resulting in numerous deficiencies and errors in the Air Niugini Operational, Technical, and Safety manuals as noted in this report and the associated Safety Recommendations. The report includes a number of recommendations made by the AIC, with the intention of enhancing the safety of flight (See Part 4 of this report). It is important to note that none of the safety deficiencies brought to the attention of Air Niugini caused the accident. However, in accordance with Annex 13 Standards, identified safety deficiencies and concerns must be raised with the persons or organisations best placed to take safety action. Unless safety action is taken to address the identified safety deficiencies, death or injury might result in a future accident. The AIC notes that Air Niugini Limited took prompt action to address all safety deficiencies identified by the AIC in the 12 Safety Recommendations issued to Air Niugini, in an average time of 23 days. The quickest safety action being taken by Air Niugini was in 6 days. The AIC has closed all 12 Safety Recommendations issued to Air Niugini Limited. One safety concern prompting an AIC Safety Recommendation was issued to Honeywell Aerospace and the US FAA. The safety deficiency/concern that prompted this Safety Recommendation may have been a contributing factor in this accident. The PNG AIC is in continued discussion with the US NTSB, Honeywell, Boeing and US FAA. This recommendation is the subject of ongoing research and the AIC Recommendation will remain ACTIVE pending the results of that research.