Light aircraft crash off Hoek van Holland, 05-06-2022

[Starship]

Several media report aircraft crash in Pistoolhaven.

https://www.nu.nl/binnenland/6204874/vl ... erdam.html

[f4phantom]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/279012

[frank kramer]

Not strictly a EHRD-related item. According to Dutch media, a part of the wreck was recovered with a registration that did not ring a bell at the airport. Apparently, a light aircraft on its way from Germany to France.

[Key]

This accident, in the Dutch news this evening, concerns Dyn'Aéro MCR-01 EC-ZAF (still to be officially confirmed, but a source of mine does so - thanks). Aviation Safety Network reports: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/279012 .

Erik

Edit: I had not noticed the topic in the EHRD forum (where this does not belong, IMHO). Topics merged now.

[pjotrtje]

Still weird that, even though the AIP says to keep RTM APP informed when in that area (partly for reasons like this), they appear to haven’t done that. Dutch Mil Info or Amsterdam Info apparently also were not in contact with them?

[Key]

That is indeed the info I got as well. Appears to be an ill-prepared flight that ended in disaster. Very sad.

Erik

[r.e.hendriks]

Still weird that, even though the AIP says to keep RTM APP informed when in that area (partly for reasons like this), they appear to haven’t done that. Dutch Mil Info or Amsterdam Info apparently also were not in contact with them?

So what is weird? Rotterdam TMA 1 is between 1500ft AMSL and FL055. Below that it is G-airspace, so not mandatory to contact Dutch Mil Info or Amsterdam Info.

Despite that it is not really smart not to call any Flight Info Station, when transiting Dutch airspace from/to foreign airfields. Especially in the kind of weather we had today.

[Key]

Weird is that the plane flew through controlled airspace, including the Schiphol TMA, without ATC contact. Info from reliable source.

Erik

[RobertMB]

About one and a halve hour earlier there was ATC contact with Eelde TWR and Dutch Mil when Dyn'Aéro MCR-01 EC-ZAF was crossing the middle part of Drenthe. The pilot reported transponder problems and the aircraft was not shown on ADS-B.

Greetz Robert

[Key]

According to an ATC recording online, ECZAF contacted EHGG TWR at 14.49UT/16.49LT. The timing of the recording matches FR24's playback of IFR traffic, also on the frequency, to within 1 or 2 minutes. TWR initially gave ECZAF a stand-by, most likely to retrieve its flight plan info.
ECZAF confirmed being a VFR flight and reported to be at 5000ft, which is not a valid altitude in Dutch airspace: transition altitude to flight levels is 3500ft for VFR traffic here. In Germany 5000ft is valid however (TA is 5000' there) and based on a given cruising speed of 160kts and the timings hereafter, ECZAF was still in German airspace at that time.
TWR gave ECZAF approval to proceed as requested, with flt info service (there was no relevant traffic for them). Later on, TWR advised ECZAF a few times that mode S was not showing, which was no problem but just for info, and confirmed mode C and A (7000) were received. ECZAF's transmissions were unintelligible on the recording at that time.

ECZAF left Eelde airspace at 15.09UT=17.09LT. At the mentioned cruising speed and the easterly wind, the plane should have travelled at least 55NM during that time, probably more. The longest straight line through the Eelde TMA measures 43NM, hence the earlier conclusion of ECZAF contacting EHGG well in advance, over Germany (which is perfectly OK if not needed there anymore). A track roughly east to west, probably around heading 260, is most likely. This is based on the flight routing through the Eelde TMA from Husum to Buno, just south of Paris, and later observations of its position. It appears ECZAF avoided the open water of the Wadden Sea off Cuxhaven. I have other info confirming it's speed was clearly in excess of 130kts.

Upon leaving, TWR advised ECZAF to contact Dutch Mil on 132.350 which the pilot asked to repeat. TWR did so but pilot read back 135.350, which TWR missed (only double clicked the mike which is generally concerned as 'OK'). A recording of the advised Dutch Mil frequency reveals no contact with ECZAF and as far as known now, it had no contact with any ATC/ATS station anymore. Nevertheless, ECZAF was observed around FL60 near Enkhuizen and at 3000ft near Uitgeest, meaning it was crossing the Schiphol TMA without approval. Based on its speed it must have entered the TMA no later than 15.20UT/17.20LT and reached the coast north of IJmuiden some 10 minutes after that. Around this time, Schiphol turned its runway combination around from landing 36C and departing 09 to landing 27 & departing 24. I have not inquired if this had to do with ECZAF or just the weather. After reaching the coast, it would have been another 10 to 15 minutes for ECZAF to Hoek van Holland, which is what ASN surmised as well: the crash likely happened around 15.40UT/17.40LT.

Its route had ECZAF fly around the worst of the showers over NL at that time, and with a tailwind all the way - so far, so good. The first sign of things not being 100% OK could be the small transponder problem in the Eelde TMA. Apparently not having the frequency for Dutch Mil was perhaps a second sign. Common causes for the latter would be a less-than-perfect flight preparation or failure to stay ahead of things due to distraction (the Xpdr problem, perhaps a broader electrical problem?). Obviously, this is all speculation at this time.

Along the coast, the weather must have deteriorated, and as the EHRD weather info shows it was indeed becoming extremely marginal for VFR flight. The only legal way to do so would have been for ECZAF to fly below 1500ft and at 140kts maximum, based on the EHRD wx reports - apart from having to deal with CB's with accompanying wind shifts and turbulence. Under EASA specification CS-23 it is possible to certify certain Ultra Light Aircraft for IFR flight, but I have no idea if ECZAF was so and if the crew was IFR rated. Either way, things were definitely not going well anymore during the last 20-30 minutes of the flight, judging by the airspace infringement in the Schiphol TMA.

The airframe was quite a traveler, being or having been based at Tenerife-North and visiting the Bergen (Norway) fly-in early May this year. It was or has been for sale (photos showing a non-IFR panel, but could be another plane). Based on its observed positions, the flight would have been around 500NM long, which would be near maximum range with full payload (2 POB, close to max. fuel, probably some luggage). The way it was proceeding, ECZAF should have reached its destination well within the daylight period, if nothing had gone wrong. The pilot seemed to have a French accent. Hopefully at least the deceased will be found.


Erik

[bigfoot]

Still a mistery how it eventually ended up in the water. I think situational awareness will be a key factor.

When I heared about it inmedially thought of this accident: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/145865

I think the tides around that suspected crash time were close to slack. So the debris didn't travel far.
I could imagine (speculate) that during that that rain storm, locally, the cloud base could have been lower than published.
On the Landtong van Rozenburg they are constructing new windmills. I think these have a tipheigth of 175 m (~500ft). If there was a real colission i would have expected already news or information of damage to those windmills.
Mayby a very last moment sighting might have confused the unfortunate pilots even more in a already dificult situation.

[Nilsb89]

the suspected route is approximately this one.



Plane crashed a bit west of the centre of the Beerkanaal.

On that course the highest obstacle would have been the Low and High light. Those are situated on the bit of land between the nieuwe waterweg and calandkanaal. 2 coastal lights with a height of approximately 33 and 44 meters. (both did not get hit)

Weather of at the time of the crash was poor. Heavy rain showers with a visibility of around 800 to 1000 meters. Shortly after weather cleared and no sign of any crash site was visible.

On average this visibility between 1700 and 1800LT was between 3000 and 7000 meters. With the visibility dropping to well below 1000 meters in showers. Wind was around 6kts at the time in Hook of Holland no big spikes where registered.

[Key]

Additional info pieced together from several sources (in short because it's late):
- Info has emerged from Norway that the occupants were a father and his son, confirmed missing. ECZAF was partly based at Bergen, where they lived, and said to be regularly flying between Norway and Spain, where the owner-pilot had a second house. Not stated whether that is Tenerife indeed. It was also said that the pilot had been told to expect adverse weather enroute.
- A police helicopter (ZXP04, EC135 PHPXD) was launched from Schiphol to intercept the plane that caused the airspace infringement, crossing the Schiphol TMA without radio contact. ZXP04 took off from EHAM at 15.45UT/17.45LT and was directed by TWR towards 'the target', indicating it was not known or at least uncertain at EHAM at the time what the ID of the 'intruder' was. ZXP04 was unable to catch up with the target before it left the vicinity of EHAM airspace and its mission was aborted.
- TWR reported 'the target' was not flying in a straight line and its altitude was between 900 and 1200ft at the time. ZXP04 reported a cloud base of 600ft with patches at 500ft over the southern part of Haarlemmermeer at the same time. ECZAF may have been dodging clouds at low speed, in order to maintain legal VFR flight, as explained before. This must have been rather unnerving.
- From recorded radio traffic and ZXP04's adsb track, it can be surmised that ECZAF, which was the target almost without a doubt, was over Katwijk at 15.49UT/17.49LT and close to Scheveningen four minutes later. This is faster than TWR's estimate of roughly 100kts over the ground, but TWR stated they had no real means to determine this. It is consistent with ZXP04 being unable to catch up. If ECZAF maintained that speed and kept following the coast, the crash time must have been very close to 15.58UT/17.58LT, so some 20 minutes later than we thought.

Erik

[Key]

Some elaboration to the above:

• At 15.47UT/17.47LT, TWR reported the target was approaching Noordwijk at 900ft. This was the lowest target position mentioned during the 8 minutes of the attempted intercept.

• At 15.49UT/17.49LT, TWR indicated, by relative position to ZXP04, the target was over Katwijk and estimated its ground speed slightly less than 100kts. This matches the position reports as it amounts to the nearly 3.5NM ECZAF apparently covered in two minutes.
  ZXP04 reported its own GS as 114kts (adsb track says 113, very accurate) with IAS 120, so a slight headwind and consistent with the EHAM weather at the time.

• At 15.53UT/17.53LT, TWR described a target position in the vicinity of Scheveningen. At that time, ZXP04 was not gaining on it anymore. This again matches the target's calculated GS, now based on some 8NM in four minutes: around 120kts.

When working with a police flight, there are generally two reasons for ATC to refer to anything as 'the target': either the nature of the target should not be broadcast on a radio channel that anyone can monitor, or its identification is not known. We may assume the latter was the case here.

In retrospect, a radar track was available to trace the TMA-intruding light aircraft back to Groningen and before. That would have been sufficient to identify it and contact the pilot later on and review the incident, in order to avoid repetition (specific and perhaps in general) and keep safety at a very high level for all. We can be sure this track is now part of the accident investigation.
However, at the time, this was not known with Schiphol ATC. Light aircraft outside controlled airspace are not actively monitored, there is no reason for that. Schiphol APP must have just seen an airplane with mode A+C (likely code 7000, plus altitude) enter the TMA and no-one knew at that moment which flight it was. Calls on various frequencies will not have resulted in contact, hence the try to catch up by helo. The airspace infringement was serious enough to attempt that intercept, in case it would turn out there was no other way to identify the plane afterwards (i.e. transponder signal lost before landing and origin of track not traceable either).


Thoughts for now:

Based on available info, ECZAF was used by its Norwegian pilot for long international VFR flights with a controlled international airport as a home base (Bergen - ENBR/BGO). This implies a certain level of competence. My initial impression of an 'ill-prepared flight' may well have been wrong.
That said, a working Mode S transponder is mandatory almost everywhere for motorised VFR flight and certainly on ECZAF's route. Theoretically, we do not even know if it had one, although it likely did. I have not been able to find its signal on adsb-playbacks between ENBR and the crash site for 5 June, while others do show.

The most likely scenario to me is that of an electrical problem, in combination with the rapidly deteriorating weather. A failing mode S could have been the first indication. The pilot not being in contact with any station after EHGG makes me suspect there was a radio failure as well. Such a comm failure may have led to the pilot wanting to avoid controlled airspace and, moreover, avoid landing at a controlled airport. There have been no reports of ECZAF squawking 7600. We do not know what instrumentation still worked.

Eventually, the flight could have ended up in IMC conditions (low cloud/heavy rain shower) despite the pilot's efforts. A VFR pilot has an extremely hard time trying not to get disoriented without enough visibility and loss of control can happen. This was a very light aircraft too, highly effected by air movements around it. It seems to have been a high-energy crash, as just some debris were found; Rijnmond.nl has a photo. This makes loss of control more likely than an attempted emergency landing - but both are possible. However, why try to land on water after flying along a beach for 20 minutes?

Other catching details:
- Maintaining altitude and speed that indeed fit the tightest conditions for legal VFR along the coast at that time.
- Flying somewhat lower and slower near Noordwijk than further on: looking for Langevelderslag, or just a coincidence or surveillance inaccuracy?
- Indeed not divering to EHAM or EHRD, possibly trying for EHMZ if the suspected problems indeed existed.

This is an animation of my estimate at the flight's progression combined with the shower activity. Base images (C) Buienradar of course:



It is extra tragic to see that apparently, ECZAF almost made it through the worst of the weather when it crashed.
Again, PLEASE DO NOTE that much of the above is speculation, there is little confirmed information available.

[Bennie]

Thorough analysis, Erik!
Be advised that although your animation shows the aircraft possibly having reached the end of the zone with the most intense precipitation this not necessarily imply VFR conditions ahead...