iscover
A Piper PA-28 involved in a near miss with two F-35s at RAAF Base Tindal during last year’s Outback Air Race had lost electrical power, the ATSB has said.
In its report into the incident on 28 August 2025, the safety watchdog noted that the PA-28, VH-TKX, had neither a functioning radio nor transponder due to a broken alternator, and was communicating with other pilots in the race via a group chat on the way to Tindal.
This content is available exclusively to Australian Aviation members.
A monthly membership is only $5.99 or save with our annual plans.
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
- Unlimited access to all Australian Aviation digital content
- Access to the Australian Aviation app
- Australian Aviation quarterly print & digital magazines
- Access to In Focus reports every month on our website
- Access to our Behind the Lens photo galleries and other exclusive content
- Daily news updates via our email bulletin
According to the ATSB, a licensed aircraft maintenance engineer (LAME) at Daly Waters had advised the pilot, who had noticed a tripped circuit breaker, that the alternator was “unserviceable” and could be repaired at Tindal, the destination for the following leg of the race.
“The LAME subsequently charged the aircraft’s battery and encouraged the pilot to conduct the flight, without assessing the time the battery could supply the aircraft with electrical power,” ATSB Chief Commissioner Angus Mitchell said.
“Further, despite the heightened potential for a loss of electrical power, the pilot did not conduct contingency planning prior to taking off for Tindal.”
En route to Tindal, the aircraft lost electrical power and the pilot was unable to communicate using the aircraft’s radio. In addition, the aircraft’s transponder ceased transmitting, and could no longer be detected by air traffic control.
The pilot and passenger also reported being unable to call air traffic control on a mobile phone, due to noise levels in the cockpit, however they were in communication with members of an air race group chat using a mobile device.
The report details communications on the group chat, and how other members made contact with Tindal air traffic control, which advised it was unsafe for the PA-28 to land at Tindal due to the level of traffic, and that the PA-28 should hold outside controlled airspace or land at the nearby Homebush Park airfield.
However, the PA-28 occupants responded in the group chat that they were not landing at Homebush Park and instead were tracking direct to Tindal.
In a subsequent exchange on the group chat, a different member of the chat asked if the PA-28 occupants wanted them to declare a PAN, to which the PA-28 responded that they did. The PA‑28 pilot later advised that as they considered that a PAN had been declared on their behalf, they thought that other traffic would be cleared from their planned flight path.
However, none of the Tindal air traffic controllers recalled a PAN being declared on behalf of the PA-28.
“The investigation found that the pilot did not divert to the closest airport or follow advice to remain outside controlled airspace, and instead the aircraft was climbed into controlled airspace without the required clearance, and continued to land at Tindal,” said Mitchell.
As the PA-28 was approaching Tindal, two RAAF F-35 jets were returning to Tindal in formation, with their pilots unaware of the PA-28.
“When the second F-35 turned onto final approach, the PA-28 also joined final in close proximity, with separation between the 2 aircraft reducing to 72 m laterally and 25 ft – about 7.6 metres – vertically,” said Mitchell.
The PA-28 pilot then manoeuvred their aircraft to the right to increase separation, while continuing towards the runway. Both aircraft landed without further incident.
“This incident serves to highlight the importance of pilots conduct contingency planning prior to flight if there is an increased risk of an abnormal event and, in the case of such an event, to follow published emergency procedures to ensure their actions align with air traffic control expectations,” Mr Mitchell said.
The investigation report also stresses the importance of clear communication between maintenance personnel and pilots – and noted the LAME had not recorded the alternator issue or maintenance activity on the aircraft’s maintenance release.
“Recording of defects and subsequent maintenance actions on the maintenance release is central to ensure all parties share a common understanding of identified faults, the possible or anticipated in-flight effects, and their impact on the overall airworthiness of the aircraft,” said Mitchell.
