Queensland

The ATSB found that the dual engine speed fluctuations and associated power loss was probably the result of fuel starvation. The mechanism was not conclusively determined, however it was identified that the pilot did not operate the aircraft's fuel system in accordance with the aircraft flight manual, and that the configuration and location of the aircraft’s fuel controls and tank quantity gauges were probably not conducive to rapid and accurate interpretation. The aircraft manufacturer released a service letter in June 2022 that detailed an optional modification to centralize the fuel system controls and gauges, however this modification was not fitted to VH-WQA. The ATSB considered that these factors increased the risk of inadvertent fuel tank selection.

The accident was the consequence of a controlled flight into terrain.
The following contributing factors were identified:
• While the pilot was operating in the vicinity of Lockhart River Airport, there were areas of cloud and rain that significantly reduced visibility and increased the risk of controlled flight into terrain.
In particular, the aircraft probably entered areas of significantly reduced visibility during the second approach.
• After an area navigation (RNAV) global satellite system (GNSS) approach to runway 30 and missed approach, the pilot immediately conducted another approach to the same runway that was on a similar gradient to the recommended descent profile but displaced about 1,000 ft below that profile. While continuing on this descent profile, the aircraft descended below a segment minimum safe altitude and the minimum descent altitude, then kept descending until the collision with terrain about 6 km before the runway threshold.
• Although the exact reasons for the aircraft being significantly below the recommended descent profile and the continued descent below the minimum descent altitude could not be determined, it was evident that the pilot did not effectively monitor the aircraft’s altitude and descent rate for an extended period.
• When passing the final approach fix (FAF), the aircraft’s lateral position was at about full-scale deflection on the course deviation indicator (CDI), and it then exceeded full-scale deflection for
an extended period. In accordance with the operator’s stabilized approach procedures, a missed approach should have been conducted if the aircraft exceeded half full-scale deflection at the FAF, however a missed approach was not conducted.
• The pilot was probably experiencing a very high workload during periods of the second approach. In addition to the normal high workload associated with a single pilot hand flying an approach in instrument meteorological conditions, the pilot’s workload was elevated due to conducting an immediate entry into the second approach, conducting the approach in a different manner to their normal method, the need to correct lateral tracking deviations throughout the approach, and higher than appropriate speeds in the final approach segment.
• The aircraft was not fitted with a terrain avoidance and warning system (TAWS). Such a system would have provided visual and aural alerts to the pilot of the approaching terrain for an extended period, reducing the risk of controlled flight into terrain.
• Although the aircraft was fitted with a GPS/navigational system suitable for an area navigation (RNAV) global satellite system (GNSS) approach and other non-precision approaches, it was not fitted with a system that provided vertical guidance information, which would have explicitly indicated that the aircraft was well below the recommended descent profile. Although the operator had specified a flight profile for a straight-in approaches and stabilized approach criteria in its operations manual, and encouraged the use of stabilized approaches, there were limitations with the design of these procedures. In addition, there were limitations with other risk controls for minimizing the risk of controlled flight into terrain (CFIT), including no procedures or guidance for the use of the terrain awareness function on the aircraft’s GNS 430W GPS/navigational units and limited monitoring of the conduct of line operations.

Other factors that increased risk:
• Although an applicable height of 1,000 ft for stabilized approach criteria in instrument meteorological conditions has been widely recommended by organizations such as the International Civil Aviation Organization for over 20 years, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority had not provided formal guidance information to Australian operators regarding the content of stabilized approach criteria. (Safety issue)
• The Australian requirements for installing a terrain avoidance and warning system (TAWS) were less than those of other comparable countries for some types of small aeroplanes conducting air transport operations, and the requirements were not consistent with International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) standards and recommended practices. More specifically, although there was a TAWS requirement in Australia for turbine-engine aeroplanes carrying 10 or more passengers under the instrument flight rules:
- There was no requirement for piston-engine aeroplanes to be fitted with a TAWS, even though this was an ICAO standard for such aeroplanes authorized to carry 10 or more passengers, and this standard had been adopted as a requirement in many comparable countries.
- There was no requirement for turbine-engine aeroplanes authorized to carry 6–9 passengers to be fitted with a TAWS, even though this had been an ICAO recommended practice since 2007, and this recommended practice had been adopted as a requirement in many comparable countries. (Safety Issue)

Other findings:
• The forecast weather at Lockhart River for the time of the aircraft’s arrival required the pilot to plan for 60 minutes holding or diversion to an alternate aerodrome. The aircraft had sufficient fuel for that purpose; and the aircraft had sufficient fuel to conduct the flight from Cairns to Lockhart River and return, with additional fuel for holding on both sectors if required.
• There was no evidence of any organizational or commercial pressure to conduct the flight to Lockhart River or to complete the flight once to commenced.
• Based on the available evidence, it is very unlikely that the pilot was incapacitated or impaired during the flight.
• There was no evidence of any aircraft system or mechanical anomalies that would have directly influenced the accident. However, as a consequence of extensive aircraft damage, it was not possible to be conclusive about the aircraft’s serviceability.
• The aircraft was fitted with Garmin GNS 430W GPS/navigational units that could be configured to provide visual (but not aural) terrain alerts. However, it could not be determined whether the
terrain awareness function was selected on during the accident flight.

Contributing factors:
• The flight instructor very likely conducted a simulated engine failure after take-off in environmental conditions and a configuration in which the aircraft was unable to maintain altitude with one engine inoperative.
• Having not acted quickly to restore power to the simulated inoperative engine, the pilots did not reduce power and land ahead (in accordance with the Airplane Flight Manual procedure) before the combination of low airspeed and bank angle resulted in a loss of directional control at a height too low to recover.
• The instructor had very limited experience with the aircraft type, and with limited preparation for the flight, was likely unaware of the landing gear and flap retraction time and the extent of their influence on performance with one engine inoperative.

Other factors that increased risk:
• The pilot had not flown for 3 years prior to the accident flight, which likely resulted in a decay in skills at managing tasks such as an engine failure after take-off and in decision-making ability. The absence of flying practice before the flight review probably affected the pilot’s ability to manage the asymmetric low-level flight.
• The aircraft had not been flown for more than 2 years and had not been stored in accordance with the airframe and engine manufacturers’ recommendations. This very likely resulted in some of the right engine cylinders running with excessive fuel to air ratio for complete combustion and may also have reduced the expected service life of both engines’ components.
• The right-side altimeter was probably set to an incorrect barometric pressure, resulting in it over-reading the aircraft’s altitude by about 90 ft.

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the collision with terrain involving amphibian Cessna Aircraft Company C208 Caravan aircraft, registered VH-WTY that occurred at Chance Bay, 11 km north-east of Hamilton Island airport, Queensland, on 28 January 2016. These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual.
Contributing factors:
- The aircraft's initial touches with water were past the nominated decision point and beyond the northern boundary of the ALA, which reduced the safety margins available for a successful water landing or go-around.
- The pilot initiated a go-around without using all available power and the optimal speed, turned towards higher terrain and placed the aircraft in a down-wind situation, which ultimately resulted in the collision with terrain.
Other findings:
- The aircraft was equipped with lap-sash seatbelts, which have been demonstrated to reduce injury, and the use of emergency beacons and satellite phone facilitated a timely response to the accident.

From the evidence available, the following findings are made with respect to the visual flight rules into instrument meteorological conditions accident involving de Havilland Aircraft Pty Ltd DH-84 Dragon, registered VH-UXG, that occurred 36 km south-west of Gympie, Queensland, on 1 October 2012. These findings should not be read as apportioning blame or liability to any particular organisation or individual. Safety issues, or system problems, are highlighted in bold to emphasize their importance. A safety issue is an event or condition that increases safety risk and (a) can reasonably be regarded as having the potential to adversely affect the safety of future operations, and (b) is a characteristic of an organisation or a system, rather than a characteristic of a specific individual, or characteristic of an operating environment at a specific point in time.
Contributing factors:
- The pilot unintentionally entered instrument meteorological conditions and was unable to reattain and maintain visual conditions.
- It is likely that the pilot became spatially disoriented and lost control due to a combination of factors such as the absence of a visible horizon, cumulative workload, stress and/or distraction.
Other factors that increased risk:
- Though it probably did not have a significant bearing on the event, the aircraft was almost certainly above its maximum take-off weight (MTOW) on take-off, and around the MTOW at the time of the accident.
- Though airborne search and rescue service providers were regularly tasked to provide assistance to pilots in distress, there was limited specific guidance on the conduct of such assistance. Other findings:
- The aircraft wreckage was not located for 2 days as the search was hindered by difficult local weather conditions and terrain, and the cessation of the aircraft’s emergency beacon due to impact damage.