Australian Transport Safety Bureau

Call Directions Website

Australian Transport Safety Bureau Australia's national transport safety investigator for aviation, marine and rail. Australia's national transport safety investigator.

We improve transport safety for the greatest public benefit through independent investigations and influencing safety action.

An ATSB occurrence brief details an AS 350 helicopter's collision with terrain at Hunter Falls, on Queensland's Cape Yor...
27/10/2026

An ATSB occurrence brief details an AS 350 helicopter's collision with terrain at Hunter Falls, on Queensland's Cape York.

--What happened--
On the morning of 21 August 2026, the pilot prepared a Eurocopter AS 350 helicopter for a personal transport flight, under the day visual flight rules,[1] from a private property to the Hunter Falls in the Jardine River National Park, Queensland. The pilot completed a pre‑flight inspection which included a visual check of a minor blade repair which was undertaken during a recent periodic inspection. Since the repair, the helicopter had flown about 21 hours without incident and the pilot recalled that no defects were observed with the repair during the inspection.

The flight departed at about 1200 local time with the pilot and 3 passengers on board. After arriving at Hunter Falls the pilot conducted an orbit of the easternmost falls. While manoeuvring the helicopter towards the westernmost falls they detected a mild vibration through the cyclic.[2] Conscious of the recent repair, the pilot thought it prudent to conduct a precautionary landing to check the helicopter for the source of the vibration. The falls were surrounded by vegetation with limited suitable areas for a landing, however one such site was identified at the top of the westernmost falls (Figure 1).

To expedite the landing, the pilot elected to conduct a downwind approach to the clear area at the top of the western falls. The pilot recalled this required additional control inputs to manage the tailwind, however they did not experience any difficulty maintaining control.

As the helicopter approached the landing site the pilot assessed there was enough room to land and that the main rotors would pass clear of the trees. However, at about 5 ft above the ground, the main rotor blades contacted a small tree and the helicopter began to buck fore and aft, and side to side, edging towards the rock ledge of the waterfall. The pilot shifted their focus to landing as soon as possible while managing the oscillating and erratic movements of the helicopter in close proximity to trees. After placing the skids on the rocky surface, the helicopter tail swung counter-clockwise coming to rest against a small tree (Figure 2). The occupants of the helicopter were uninjured. The helicopter sustained significant damage to the main rotor blades and tail rotor blades, with minor damage to the lower section of the vertical stabiliser and the right horizontal stabiliser.

--Safety message--
Precautionary landings in response to abnormal indications often require the pilot to land as soon as possible. When flying over bushland, the first suitable location may be an unfamiliar, unprepared and confined landing site. A full assessment of the site may not always be possible, especially when managing a technical fault. While the main rotor clearance was misjudged on this occasion, the prompt decision‑making of the pilot ensured the flight was terminated before the abnormal indications could progress to a potentially more serious condition.

CASA guidance in Advisory Circular AC 91-29 Guidelines for helicopters – suitable places to take off and land provides recommended minimum standard safety margins for the selection of and operation at confined landing sites:https://www.casa.gov.au/sites/default/files/2022-07/advisory-circular-91-29-guidelines-for-helicopters-suitable-places-to-take-off-and-land.pdf

[1] Visual flight rules (VFR): a set of regulations that permit a pilot to operate an aircraft only in weather conditions generally clear enough to allow the pilot to see where the aircraft is going

[2] Cyclic: a primary helicopter flight control that is similar to an aircraft control column. Cyclic input tilts the main rotor

--About this report--
Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

An ATSB occurrence brief details a loss of control and runway excursion involving a Cessna 172 at Murwillumbah, NSW.--Wh...
23/10/2026

An ATSB occurrence brief details a loss of control and runway excursion involving a Cessna 172 at Murwillumbah, NSW.

--What happened--
On the morning of 26 September 2026, a student pilot and instructor on board a Cessna 172R set out to conduct a flight check at 0830 local time. The aircraft departed Gold Coast Airport, Queensland, for Murwillumbah Airfield, New South Wales, to carry out circuits as part of the check.

At approximately 0838 local, the aircraft arrived overhead the airfield and joined the circuit intending to conduct a touch-and-go[1] on runway 19, a grass landing strip. The landing distance available at Murwillumbah on runway 19 was 800 m due to a 245 m displaced threshold[2] (Figure 1).

During the first circuit, the aircraft touched down approximately halfway down the runway. At some point during the ground roll, the decision was made to abort the touch-and-go (take-off) and the pilot flying applied brakes. Upon braking, the crew immediately noticed the aircraft failed to slow down and recognised the aircraft had begun to skid. The aircraft wheels had lost traction, and the crew had lost effective control as the aircraft continued to skid. The aircraft subsequently exited the end of runway 19 and collided into a ditch off the end of the runway.

The aircraft sustained substantial damage, and both occupants received various minor injuries.

It was reported by the crew that the aircraft appeared high and fast on final approach which contributed to the delayed touchdown, therefore reducing the distance available to stop the aircraft.

--Safety message--
Unstable approaches are a common precursor to runway overruns. Pilots must consider conducting an early go-around when the speed and height of the aircraft become undesirable on approach. Go-arounds are a key defence to prevent fast and long landings that reduce the landing distance available for the aircraft to be safely stopped.

Brake lockup is another risk that can lead to a loss of control during the ground roll and subsequent overrun. When the braking force applied by the pilot exceeds the tyres’ traction to the surface, the wheels may stop turning, leading to the aircraft entering a skidding state. Unsealed grass runways offer less traction, therefore increasing the risk of brake lock up.

[1] Touch-and-go: a manoeuvre in which an aircraft conducts an approach, touches the runway, and immediately takes off again.

[2] Threshold: the beginning portion of the runway useable for landing.

--About this report--
Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

A new ATSB occurrence brief details a rejected take-off and runway excursion involving a Cessna 182 at Coffs Harbour Air...
22/10/2026

A new ATSB occurrence brief details a rejected take-off and runway excursion involving a Cessna 182 at Coffs Harbour Airport, NSW.

--What happened--
On the morning of 2 August 2026, a Cessna 182P was conducting skydiving operations out of Coffs Harbour, New South Wales, with 2 pilots and 4 passengers on board. The pilot in command (PIC) was undergoing parachuting familiarisation instruction under the supervision of a safety pilot.

The PIC reported that during the take-off roll, the aircraft accelerated to the published take-off speed of 60 kt and they began applying back pressure to the control column to raise the nose and allow the aircraft to become airborne. They then observed that the aircraft did not become airborne as expected and the airspeed had stabilised at approximately 65 kt. The PIC then momentarily reduced back pressure on the control column to allow the airspeed to increase, before applying more back pressure as instructed by the safety pilot.

As the PIC believed that the aircraft had still not become airborne and considered that there was a significant risk of a stall at low altitude if the take-off was continued, they decided to reject the take-off at an airspeed of about 82 kt with approximately 180 m of runway remaining. The PIC immediately reduced the power and applied maximum braking. The main landing gear wheels locked up and the aircraft exited the paved runway surface and continued onto the grass overrun area. After departing the runway, the main nose landing gear collapsed and the propeller struck the ground, with the aircraft subsequently coming to a stop. The aircraft sustained substantial damage and 2 passengers received minor injuries.

--Safety action--
The operator has advised the ATSB that their training manual has been revised to include a requirement for pilots undergoing familiarisation instruction at Coffs Harbour to use the longer of the 2 available runways to provide an increased margin of safety in the event that a high‑speed rejected take‑off is required.

--Safety message--
The inclusion of threat and error management (TEM) in the pre-flight briefing can assist pilots with reducing the risk of an accident or serious incident when aircraft performance is not as expected.

A key example is highlighted in the UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA)’s publication Rejected Take Offs, which encourages pilots to establish a pre-determined ‘stop or continue’ decision point as part of their pre-flight preparation. This is particularly useful in situations where there is a level of unfamiliarity in relation to the aircraft or operation type, or aerodrome: https://www.caa.co.uk/publication/download/20079

The Civil Aviation Safety Authority has published guidance material on mitigating the risk of a runway excursion: https://www.casa.gov.au/resources-and-education/publications-and-resources/video/explaining-rules-avoiding-runway-excursions

Airservices Australia has also published guidance material in the form of a Runway Safety Checklist which can be used by both pilots and operators to assess the effectiveness of standard operating procedures in managing the risk of a runway excursion during both take-off and landing:https://www.airservicesaustralia.com/wp-content/uploads/Runway-Safety-Checklist-complete.pdf

--About this report--
Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

📷: Google

An ATSB occurrence brief details a depressurisation event involving a Beechcraft 1900 twin turboprop airliner, 80 km fro...
19/10/2026

An ATSB occurrence brief details a depressurisation event involving a Beechcraft 1900 twin turboprop airliner, 80 km from Perth Airport.

--What happened--
On the morning of 20 August 2026 a Beechcraft 1900D, operating under the instrument flight rules (IFR), with 2 flight crew and 10 passengers on board, departed Perth, Western Australia, on a non-scheduled passenger transport flight to a regional aircraft landing area (ALA).

The weather at Perth Airport at the time of the occurrence was 5 kt wind from the east, greater than 10 km visibility, and cloud cover was few[1] at 3,400ft and broken at 5,600 ft.

After the departure from Perth, as the aircraft climbed and approached flight level (FL) 210, the flight crew heard a loud bang immediately followed by the rapid depressurisation of the cabin (Figure 1).

The flight crew donned oxygen masks, established communications with one another then commenced an immediate descent to FL100.[2] A MAYDAY call was made to air traffic control (ATC) and the flight crew advised ATC that they had experienced a rapid depressurisation and were commencing an emergency descent. The flight crew then actioned the relevant checklists.

After levelling off at FL100, the flight crew advised ATC that they were returning to Perth Airport, at which point ATC then cleared the aircraft to descend further to 9,000 ft.

Once at 9,000 ft, the flight crew removed their oxygen masks and commenced preparation for a return to Perth, including advising passengers that it was safe to remove their oxygen masks.

During this time the flight crew also identified the reason for the depressurisation was a ruptured cabin window.

Whilst inbound to Perth the pilots downgraded the MAYDAY to a PAN-PAN[3] call and advised ATC that no assistance was required on arrival. They then flew a normal arrival into Perth, followed by a safe landing. No injuries were reported by the passengers or pilots, and no medical assistance was required.

Following the occurrence the operator inspected the aircraft and established that the single-pane right-hand side window at seat 7C had failed. Seat 7C was unoccupied for this flight.

The operator suspected a crack in the window pane had resulted in it failing in‑flight. Most of the window was not recovered however its outer edge remained in place (Figure 2).

The associated window frame that forms part of the aircraft fuselage was found to be serviceable.

The failed window was replaced, and as a precautionary measure, all remaining cabin windows on the aircraft were also replaced. The associated window frames were inspected and found to be serviceable.

During this activity, the removed window panes were inspected for defects. A crack was identified in another window on the right-hand side of the aircraft, localised to the window’s inner region. A third window was found to have a crack in its outer edge.

--Safety action--
The operator removed, inspected and replaced all the cabin windows in the aircraft.

--Safety message--
This incident provides a positive example of the importance of effective training and procedures in responding to an in-flight emergency.

In this instance, faced with a depressurisation event that required an immediate response, the flight crew responded decisively and appropriately in accordance with their training and procedures.

Additionally, although not evaluated by the ATSB for relevance to this occurrence, a similar event, involving the failure of a cabin window on the right-hand side of the fuselage occurred in South Africa on 22 October 2018. The South African Civil Aviation Authority’s investigation report into this accident made a recommendation for inspections to be carried out on all cabin windows in Beechcraft 1900D aircraft:https://caasanwebsitestorage.blob.core.windows.net/accidents-and-incidents-reports-new/1224.pdf

[1] Cloud cover is reported using words that denote the extent of the cover: ‘few’ indicates that up to a quarter of the sky is covered, and ‘broken’ indicates that more than half to almost all the sky is covered.

[2] An altitude where supplementary oxygen is not required.

[3] In the event of an in-flight emergency, pilots call ‘MAYDAY’ or ‘PAN-PAN’ to air traffic control to alert controllers to the severity of the incident. A ‘mayday’ call indicates an aircraft is in grave and imminent danger and requires immediate assistance. A ‘pan’ call is used to describe a less urgent situation but one that still requires attention from air traffic control.

--About this report--
Decisions regarding whether to conduct an investigation, and the scope of an investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no investigation has been conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow-up information in order to produce a short summary report, and allow for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

An ATSB occurrence brief details a runway excursion involving a Yak-52 light aircraft at Whitsunday (Shute Harbour) Airp...
16/10/2026

An ATSB occurrence brief details a runway excursion involving a Yak-52 light aircraft at Whitsunday (Shute Harbour) Airport, in Queensland.

--What happened--
On the afternoon of 5 July 2026, a Yakovlev Aircraft Factories YAK-52 ex-military aircraft was being prepared for a private solo familiarisation flight from Whitsunday Airport (Shute Harbour), Queensland. The pilot advised that the intention was to exercise the aircraft’s engine through normal operation and to conduct practice aerobatics.

Following the pilot’s routine daily pre-flight inspection, the aircraft departed Shute Harbour with a maximum expected flight duration of 50 minutes. The pilot reported the approach to Shute Harbour airport runway 14 was normal and recalled confirming ‘three greens’ and ‘barber poles out’ indications[1] for safe extension of the landing gear.

Upon touchdown, the pilot recalled that the aircraft began porpoising[2] and wobbling laterally, before veering to the left. Unable to control the directional change with braking, the aircraft left the runway edge, crossed the eastern taxiway and struck an electrical junction box (pillar box) before coming to rest in a drainage ditch (Figure 1).

The pilot, who was uninjured, immediately shut down the aircraft’s fuel, electrical, oil and air systems before safely evacuating. The pilot recalled observing the left main landing gear had collapsed and the corresponding barber pole indicator lowered as they were leaving the aircraft.

The pilot reported that at no stage did they touch or inadvertently move the landing gear selector during the landing roll or subsequent runway excursion. A supplied picture of the cockpit configuration taken after the aircraft came to rest (Figure 2) showed the landing gear selector in the down and locked position and the flap selector in the lowered position.

--Engineering examination--
The YAK-52 aircraft employs pneumatic systems for many aircraft functions, including landing gear extension and retraction. When extended, the landing gear is locked in place by a mechanism within the actuation ram; the gear is released for retraction by air pressure supplied by a pilot-operated selector in the cockpit.

Following recovery of the aircraft, the operator removed and shipped the left main landing gear actuation assembly to the aircraft’s maintenance provider for examination and testing. The assembly was found to be in good operational condition, with no evidence of defects or damage that would have prevented the gear leg from locking into position. Tests confirmed the locking mechanism worked as required, locking down positively and releasing smoothly.

The ATSB was advised that no other components from the aircraft’s landing gear assemblies or rigging had been examined following the aircraft’s recovery and the factors contributing to the collapse of the aircraft’s left main landing gear remained unidentified.

--Safety message--
In this instance, while there was no reported evidence to suggest that the left main landing gear collapse and subsequent runway excursion had resulted from any pilot action, the aircraft type has a history of unintended gear retraction during landing and ground operation.

In many instances these occurrences have been attributed to the cockpit design, which places the landing gear selector lever immediately adjacent to 2 indicator lamps that report the aircraft’s wing flap position (raised/lowered). While the flap selector lever is located to the pilot’s left, the co-location of the flap indicators and landing gear selector creates an ergonomic risk that pilots may unintentionally raise the landing gear when intending to raise the flaps after landing.

The following occurrences are examples of those that have been associated with inadvertent landing gear retraction in the YAK‑52:

LY-AKF, 3 October 1999, AAIB:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422fa26ed915d13710007a3/dft_avsafety_pdf_500706.pdf

LY-AHF, 24 July 2001, AAIU:https://aaiu.ie/sites/default/files/report-attachments/12825-REPORT_2002_014-0.PDF

G-CBMD, 3 May 2014, AAIB:https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5422fdb3e5274a13140008ed/Yak-52_G-CBMD_08-14.pdf

G-LYFA, 22 September 2025, Aviation Safety Network: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/566953

[1] The YAK-52 aircraft provides 2 independent landing gear position indicating systems – the conventional, electrically‑operated red/green indicator lamps within the cockpit, and separate external, mechanically-operated red and white striped poles (barber poles) that extend from the corresponding upper wing surfaces when the landing gear is lowered.

[2] Porpoising is an informal term used to describe the repeated upward and downward movement of the aircraft about the pitch axis during the landing process.

--About this report--
Decisions regarding whether to investigate a safety occurrence, and the scope of any investigation, are based on many factors, including the level of safety benefit likely to be obtained from an investigation. For this occurrence, no ATSB investigation was conducted and the ATSB did not verify the accuracy of the information provided. A brief description has been written using information supplied in the notification and any follow‑up information, producing a short summary report allowing for greater industry awareness of potential safety issues and possible safety actions.

Address

Canberra City, ACT

Opening Hours

Monday 9am - 5pm
Tuesday 9am - 5pm
Wednesday 9am - 5pm
Thursday 9am - 5pm
Friday 9am - 5pm

Telephone

+611800020616

Website

Alerts

Be the first to know and let us send you an email when Australian Transport Safety Bureau posts news and promotions. Your email address will not be used for any other purpose, and you can unsubscribe at any time.

Shortcuts

Share

Category

Nearby government services

Other Government Organizations in Canberra City

Show All