Cessna Aircraft Company 182B, VH-PDK

History of the flight

The pilot of the Cessna 182B Skylane (C182), with one passenger
on board, departed Leongatha aerodrome in Victoria at about 1530
Eastern Standard Time (EST). The pilot planned the private flight
in accordance with the visual flight rules to track coastal to
Moruya and then via the Araluen Valley to 'Turalla', a private
property located approximately 3 km northwest of Bungendore, NSW.
The aircraft carried sufficient fuel for the flight.

Witnesses reported that, at about 1755, the aircraft overflew a
property belonging to a relative of the pilot 3 km to the southeast
of Bungendore, at about 500 ft AGL. That relative had been
nominated as the responsible person to hold and cancel the
nominated SARTIME of 1820. The aircraft was then observed to track
west towards the Kings Highway, at a low level, and make a right
turn to join a wide left base for the grass airstrip located at
'Turalla'. The airstrip was aligned approximately 305 degrees M.
The aircraft was observed to turn left onto final approach at about
50-80 ft AGL. Witnesses reported that all turns were made using
about 45 degrees angle of bank. Witnesses also observed the
aircraft to be buffeted by gusting winds.

The weather at the time was reported by witnesses to be clear
conditions with some upper level cloud. Winds were strong and
blustery, from the west and northwest. A Bureau of Meteorology
assessment of the weather indicated gusty north-westerly winds
backing to the west after the passage of a front, which had
occurred earlier in the day. The general wind structure lent itself
to at least moderate turbulence and the strong possibility of lee
waves and strong downslope winds.

While on short final, the aircraft was observed to make a steep
climb towards a downwind position, turning to the right using 60-80
degrees angle of bank. It was then observed to lose altitude
rapidly. It turned through about 295 degrees before impacting the
ground approximately 300 m east-north-east of the airstrip
threshold. The aircraft struck the ground at a 60-80 degree nose
down, left wing low, attitude on a heading of about 240 degrees M.
The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and post-impact
fire.

Injuries to persons

The passenger was fatally injured. Autopsy and toxicological
tests conducted on the passenger revealed a low level of carbon
monoxide in the blood. Medical opinion indicated that death
occurred prior to the commencement of the post-impact fire. The
pilot was seriously injured and survived the accident for 68 days
before succumbing to the effects of his injuries.

Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation,
Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation, defined a fatal
injury as an injury that resulted in death within 30 days of the
date of an accident.

Wreckage and impact information

A post-impact fire consumed the cockpit area. The extent of the
fire damage precluded a productive examination of the cockpit,
controls and instruments. Many of the alloyed components had been
reduced to a molten state. Examination of the wreckage indicated
that at the time of impact the aircraft was not configured for
landing. The wing flaps were set to the retracted position. The
engine was removed from the accident site for technical
examination. The examination determined that the engine was capable
of normal operation prior to impact and that it was producing power
at the time of impact. Nothing was found during the investigation
to suggest that mechanical failure of any part of the aircraft
could have contributed to the accident.

Personnel Information

The pilot held a current private pilot's licence, was endorsed
on the aircraft type and familiar with the landing area. A review
of the pilot's personal flying logbook indicated that he had
accumulated in excess of 340 hours total time, most of which were
accrued on the occurrence aircraft. Four days prior to the
accident, the pilot had satisfactorily completed a biennial flight
review. The pilot held a valid Class 2 Aviation Medical
Certificate. The pilot had just completed a short hiking holiday
and there was no evidence to indicate any physical or psychological
conditions that may have adversely affected his ability to pilot
the aircraft.

Landing area

The landing area at Turalla was inspected after the accident.
With the exception of a centrally located windsock, there were no
aerodrome markings to detail the exact location and dimensions of
the airstrip. There was evidence of recent aircraft use on the
grass strip. The landing distance available was approximately 800
m, orientated approximately 305 degrees M. There was no evidence to
indicate that livestock had been grazing on the paddock that
contained the airstrip in the past month. A north-south ridgeline
was located approximately 1 km to the west of the airstrip. At the
time of the accident, the sun was setting in the west and was
visible above the horizon.

Previous occurrence at the airstrip

One of the pilot's brothers and a sister were fatally injured in
a separate aircraft accident (Bureau of Air Safety Investigation
Report No. BO/199603734) in the vicinity of the same airstrip in
1996, when similar wind conditions were experienced. On that
occasion, the Cessna U206F (C206) aircraft was climbing on
departure from Turalla when the pilot turned left onto downwind.
The C206 stalled at a height from which it was not possible to
recover.

The weather conditions at the time of the accident were
favourable to the development of lee waves and strong downslope
winds in the vicinity of the airstrip.
The aircraft banked steeply out of wind, while at low airspeed
and a low height.
The aircraft stalled at an altitude from which recovery by the
pilot was not considered possible and control of the aircraft was
lost.

Witnesses observed the C182 at low altitude on approach to
Turalla. Their reports that the wings were rocking from side to
side were consistent with the turbulence that may have been
produced in the lee of the escarpment by the strong wind. Down
draughts and rotor turbulence could have resulted from the vigorous
airflow at right angles to the escarpment, immediately to the west
of the airstrip, and existed for a considerable distance downwind
of the escarpment.

An approach to land in those conditions should not have placed
any exceptional demand on the pilot's skill. The strip was aligned
nearly into wind and the pilot was familiar with both the airstrip
and the aircraft. The pilot had probably flown from the airstrip in
similar conditions previously and should have been aware of the
potential for turbulence and down draughts. The landing distance
available was more than adequate for the aircraft type.

In turbulent conditions a pilot can elect to use less than
maximum flap, or even no flap for the approach and landing. In a
strong headwind, this would not significantly increase the
aircraft's landing distance. Using less than full flap on the C182
can improve aircraft handling in turbulence. However, using less
flap at lower airspeeds and higher angles of bank, significantly
increases the aircraft stall speed.

Although the reason the approach was discontinued was unable to
be determined, it was possible that the approach became unstable in
the turbulence with airspeed fluctuations. The pilot appeared to
have turned right to initiate a low-level circuit. Familiarity with
the airstrip and anticipating turbulence in the lee of the
escarpment may have been the reason that the pilot initiated a
right turn rather than climbing straight ahead, which could have
placed the aircraft into an area of increased turbulence. The
direction of turn was consistent also with the pilot turning away
from the glare of the setting sun. The pilot's memory of his
siblings' accident may have influenced the decision-making process
to make a rapid escape from the area of turbulence.

Witnesses reported that the aircraft's angle of bank was between
60 and 80 degrees when the approach was discontinued. There was no
apparent reason for a steep turn to be made. There was no necessity
for the pilot to rapidly make another approach and landing. There
were adequate margins for both daylight and fuel.

The altitude at which the aircraft was seen to be operating
would probably not have been sufficient to allow recovery from a
stall, even with a pilot proficient in the technique. It was also
possible that at the extreme angles of bank, a sudden loss of lift
resulting from windshear or turbulence, or a rapid retraction of
the manually operated flaps, could have placed the aircraft in a
stalled condition from which recovery would have been unlikely at
such a low height.

The pilot of the Cessna 182B Skylane (C182), with one passenger
on board, departed Leongatha aerodrome in Victoria at about 1530
Eastern Standard Time (EST). The pilot planned the private flight
in accordance with the visual flight rules to track coastal to
Moruya and then via the Araluen Valley to 'Turalla', a private
property located approximately 3 km northwest of Bungendore, NSW.
The aircraft carried sufficient fuel for the flight.

Witnesses reported that, at about 1755, the aircraft overflew a
property belonging to a relative of the pilot 3 km to the southeast
of Bungendore, at about 500 ft AGL. That relative had been
nominated as the responsible person to hold and cancel the
nominated SARTIME of 1820. The aircraft was then observed to track
west towards the Kings Highway, at a low level, and make a right
turn to join a wide left base for the grass airstrip located at
'Turalla'. The airstrip was aligned approximately 305 degrees M.
The aircraft was observed to turn left onto final approach at about
50-80 ft AGL. Witnesses reported that all turns were made using
about 45 degrees angle of bank. Witnesses also observed the
aircraft to be buffeted by gusting winds.

The weather at the time was reported by witnesses to be clear
conditions with some upper level cloud. Winds were strong and
blustery, from the west and northwest. A Bureau of Meteorology
assessment of the weather indicated gusty north-westerly winds
backing to the west after the passage of a front, which had
occurred earlier in the day. The general wind structure lent itself
to at least moderate turbulence and the strong possibility of lee
waves and strong downslope winds.

While on short final, the aircraft was observed to make a steep
climb towards a downwind position, turning to the right using 60-80
degrees angle of bank. It was then observed to lose altitude
rapidly. It turned through about 295 degrees before impacting the
ground approximately 300 m east-north-east of the airstrip
threshold. The aircraft struck the ground at a 60-80 degree nose
down, left wing low, attitude on a heading of about 240 degrees M.
The aircraft was destroyed by impact forces and post-impact
fire.