Aircraft CRASHES into sea In front of horrified witnesses

The Runway Was Too Far Away

On April 20, 2023, Piper PA-28 VH-FEY was flying toward Jandakot Airport after the occupants had been in the Exmouth area to view the solar eclipse. The aircraft began experiencing intermittent engine-power problems while flying along the Western Australian coast.

Accident Facts

The pilot, Michelle Yeates, was carrying her 15-year-old son. When the power problem became more serious, the aircraft was only about 1,500 feet above the ground. The pilot assessed that Jandakot was too far away and began looking for a landing option.

Leighton Beach was nearby, but it was crowded. Rather than put the airplane onto the beach and risk people on the ground, she chose to ditch offshore, close enough to shore to minimize the swimming distance.

The Investigation Found a Fuel-Management Problem

The ATSB later concluded that the aircraft had left Carnarvon with the required fuel, but the pilot had not performed the regular fuel-quantity checks required by the applicable guidance or maintained a written record of fuel consumed from each tank.

The aircraft's separate fuel-tank selection was important. The ATSB concluded that intermittent engine-power problems probably resulted from insufficient fuel in the selected right tank. The left tank still contained usable fuel, but the pilot did not select it during the emergency.

This is why the event should not be described simply as an unexplained mechanical failure. Contemporary reporting initially described a suspected technical problem. The later ATSB investigation identified fuel management as the more likely explanation.

The Ditching Decision Protected People on the Ground

The pilot's decision was shaped by the environment below the airplane. Leighton Beach was occupied, and a landing there could have put people at risk. The ATSB record describes the pilot seeing people on the beach and deciding the beach was not workable.

The ocean therefore became the safer landing area. The aircraft was ditched close to shore, allowing both occupants to escape and swim approximately 50 metres to safety.

Police and contemporary news reports praised the outcome. Later ATSB findings add the technical explanation that was not available on the day of the crash.

Why the Intermittent Power Was Dangerous

Partial engine-power loss can be difficult because it creates uncertainty. The aircraft may still respond to throttle changes, and the pilot can believe that the engine is recovering. That can delay the transition to a complete-engine-failure mindset.

The ATSB specifically noted that intermittent or partial power loss is an ambiguous condition that can interfere with emergency-procedure execution. The investigation recommended preparing for complete power loss and following the applicable procedures to maximize the chance of recovery.

In VH-FEY, the final complete loss came only after the pilot had already rejected the beach and prepared for a water landing.

The Pilot Had to Decide Between the Beach and the Water

At approximately 1,000 feet, the pilot assessed the nearby options. The beach was close, but people were present. The ATSB reconstruction records that the pilot decided the beach was unworkable because of the people below.

That choice changed the risk calculation. A water landing carries serious aircraft and occupant risks, but a landing on a crowded beach could injure people who had no control over the emergency.

The pilot therefore chose the ocean and aimed to ditch as close to shore as practical. By the time the maneuver was complete, the engine had fully lost power and the propeller had stopped.

The Fuel Problem Was Hidden by the Intermittent Power

This is a subtle but important distinction: the aircraft was not simply empty. Usable fuel remained, but it was not being delivered to the engine through the selected tank.

The ATSB director said the “engine power issues probably occurred due to a lack of fuel in the selected right tank.”

The ATSB Findings Changed the Meaning of the Original Audio

Investigators found that the aircraft had departed with the required fuel but that the pilot's in-flight fuel monitoring did not meet the expected standard. The engine-power problem was probably associated with fuel starvation from the selected right tank.

That evolution is important for accident reporting. The first account explains what the pilot believed was happening; the later investigation explains what the evidence suggests actually happened. Both belong in the story, but the later and more authoritative finding must control the conclusion.

Conclusion

VH-FEY's ditching was ultimately a fuel-management accident with a remarkably disciplined landing decision. The engine problem began intermittently, the selected tank became unable to provide sufficient fuel and the aircraft eventually lost all power.

The pilot then chose the option that minimized risk to people below. The aircraft was lost, but the mother and son survived. The case is a strong example of how fuel monitoring, emergency preparation and ground-risk assessment can determine the outcome of an engine emergency.

Sources

• Video source (ATC/audio reconstruction)