• The Cessna 210 is not approved for intentional spinning, and its behaviour and recovery characteristics in a fully developed spin are unknown.(ATSB)
    The Cessna 210 is not approved for intentional spinning, and its behaviour and recovery characteristics in a fully developed spin are unknown.(ATSB)
Close×

An instructor was likely conducting spin recovery practice in an aircraft type that is not approved for intentional spinning, before a fatal accident off Goolwa, South Australia, an ATSB investigation has found.

The accident occurred on 6 February 2026, after a Cessna 210N departed Goolwa Airport with a flight instructor, a commercial pilot licence holder, and a passenger on board.

The flight was intended to give the commercial pilot experience in the aircraft under the supervision of the operator’s check and training instructor for Cessna aircraft.

About 12 minutes into the flight, radar data showed the aircraft at about 3,375 ft, before it began to descend rapidly.

Witnesses saw the aircraft in a steep spiral descent, and video footage showed it in a left spin, immediately before it collided with water.

The aircraft was destroyed and all three occupants were fatally injured.

The ATSB received multiple reports that the instructor had previously demonstrated spin recovery in the accident aircraft to pilots gaining Cessna 210 experience.

On the accident flight, the instructor likely initiated a spin so the commercial pilot could practise the recovery.

However, the Cessna 210 is not approved for intentional spinning, and its behaviour and recovery characteristics in a fully developed spin are unknown.

“The instructor had a history of spin activity violations in this aircraft, from which they had previously successfully recovered before the spin fully developed,” ATSB Chief Commissioner Angus Mitchell said.

“This likely gave the instructor the confidence to begin spins at progressively lower heights.”

The investigation found that the commercial pilot likely mishandled the recovery during the incipient, or early developing, stage of the spin.

The instructor did not intervene in time to prevent the spin becoming fully developed and recover the aircraft within the height available.

The instructor’s previous spin activity violations had not been reported to the aircraft operator or the Civil Aviation Safety Authority. As a result, no action was taken to prevent the activity.

“Other pilots who knew about the unauthorised spins were reluctant to report them, including because they felt powerless to act or believed it was not their responsibility,” Mr Mitchell said.

“This highlights the importance of designing and promoting reporting systems that recognise and address barriers to reporting unsafe flying practices.”

Read the final report: Loss of control and collision with water involving Cessna 210N, VH-RDH, 14 km south-east of Goolwa Airport, South Australia, on 6 February 2026

comments powered by Disqus