Textron Aviation Inc. 172S accident at About 21 km south-south-east of Melbourne Airport, Victoria, 22 Jan 2026 (VH-KOJ)

Accident narrative

Both the Cessna 172 (172) and Cirrus SR22 were operating under night visual flight rules (NVFR) in class C airspace while conducting orbits of the Melbourne central business district (CBD). A clearance from air traffic control (ATC) was required to undertake the orbits, but separation between NVFR traffic remained the responsibility of the pilot in command of each aircraft. While ATC was not responsible for providing separation, they did provide traffic information to both the pilot of the SR22 and the student and instructor on board the 172. Additionally, both aircraft were fitted with a traffic alerting system (TAS), which presented traffic information and further enhanced alerted see and avoid activities.The pilot of the SR22 received an ATC clearance to orbit the CBD and follow the 172, which they understood. They advised ATC they would slow down to remain behind the 172, which they had on the TAS and visually acquired. However, although the indicated airspeed (IAS) of the SR22 reduced from 152 kt to 121 kt (momentarily) after obtaining the clearance to conduct the orbits, it remained significantly faster than the 172. During that time, the IAS of the 172 remained between 85‍–‍97 kt. While the SR22 had a higher normal operating airspeed than the 172, it was able to match the speed of the 172 during the orbit with flaps retracted. As the orbit progressed, both aircraft encountered a headwind and the SR22 pilot became aware that the 172 appeared to slow down relative to their own aircraft. In response, they elected to widen their orbit, however the separation between the 2 aircraft further reduced due to the higher groundspeed of the SR22. The pilot of the SR22 then recalled hearing ATC issue a clearance to the 172 to track from overhead the Melbourne Cricket Ground (MCG) to Williamstown, which facilitated a southerly exit from the orbit. As the 172 overflew the MCG and turned towards Williamstown, the student and instructor on board the 172 received a traffic alert on their TAS. At that time the distance between the 2 aircraft had reduced to 1.3 km. The instructor determined that the traffic was the SR22, also conducting Melbourne CBD orbits, and assessed that no conflict existed. Given the traffic information for the SR22 provided by ATC, and the instructor’s previous experience with TAS, it was likely reasonable for the instructor to believe the SR22 was following ATC instructions and would remain behind the 172. The SR22 pilot also received a traffic alert on their TAS, but at that time they had the 172 sighted and were attempting to understand the visual traffic picture. Had the pilot observed the relative position of the aircraft indicated on the TAS, this may have aided their situation awareness and provided an earlier indication of the relative positions of the aircraft and the reducing lateral spacing. After the 172 began tracking towards Williamstown and the SR22 proceeded with the orbit to the south of the Melbourne CBD, the groundspeed differential between the 2 aircraft increased to 60 kt. This was a result of the relative airspeeds of the aircraft and the SR22 encountering a tailwind, while the 172 was still experiencing a headwind. The wide orbit of the SR22, in combination with the groundspeed differential and departure track of the 172, resulted in the flight paths converging.Moments before the flight paths intersected, the student and instructor on board the 172 observed the SR22 behind the left-wing strut flying directly towards them. The pilot of the SR22 also observed that the 172 became stationary in their windshield, and they assessed that both aircraft were on a collision course.In response, the pilot of the SR22 took avoiding action by initiating a descent while they continued turning right toward the north. Having observed the SR22 descending, the instructor in the 172 initiated a climb while maintaining a relatively consistent heading and IAS. In this instance, the 172 had the ‘right of way’, as it was positioned to the right of the SR22 prior to the flight paths intersecting, and the instructor’s actions were consistent with the right of way rules if there was a collision risk. The SR22 subsequently passed behind the 172 with 46 m horizontal and 99 ft vertical separation.Although the traffic situation display used by Essendon Tower presented the radar positions of both aircraft, the system did not provide collision alerting. Additionally, both aircraft were located about 14 km away from the control tower at Essendon Airport, making it highly unlikely that the tower controller would have been able to visually detect the converging flight paths. Contributing factorThe Cirrus SR22 pilot did not maintain adequate spacing to the slower preceding Cessna 172 while both aircraft were conducting orbits at night over Melbourne, resulting in a near collision when the Cessna 172 departed the orbit and the flight paths intersected.