Why is it that pilots on this site are so eager to eat their own? I remember the thread about that poor kid in Namibia with the c210 that broke up in mid-air, half the posts where from other pilots certain that he was doing aileron rolls and deserved what he got. Someone even posted some story that the indigo track log proved he was doing aerobatics. That turned out to be bullshit. And now people suspect that this pilot, who by all accounts was very experienced and conservative, negligently caused an accident that resulted in 9 people burning to death including himself. From what little information is available it looks to me that he did the best that could be done in an extremely bad situation and in the end he wasn't lucky. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
It's one thing to hear this crap from ambulance chasing lawyers and hack journalists, but i suspect the mathematically challenged pilots whining on PPRuNe about overweight caravans, short runways, or whether or not CAA Bots approved an ape conversion?? would necessarily do any better when their engine packs up after take off.
I don't know but wouldn't want to have to try it again though, not matter how many engines. That's got absolutely nothing to do with anything anyway. But there's much less criticism of any individual going on here than you'd perhaps choose to read into the posts. General discussions of aspects involving aviation failures, whether human or mechanical, require a process which involves both man and machine and to leap at discussion and call it criticism is a weak form of debate. At this stage it's not reasonable to speculate on pilot negligence. It might though, be relevant, intelligent or even amusing to establish on the forum whether the aircraft was certified to fly commercially with such a conversion. That's surely a fact that should be of interest to pilots as well as to the CAA? No doubt any inquiry will consider the details sufficient to enable it to determine that the aircraft was flown within its envelope. That would also then be a determined fact which might or might not reflect on the pilot who should be innocent, if only for the sake of his family, until whenever and if ever it is shown that he was not.
You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about weight, which in this case is irrelevant. From all of the (admittedly limited) information that we have the aircraft took off and climbed successfully so weight was NOT the cause.
There is no evidence available to us to suggest that the aircraft was not operated within its limits, nor is there any evidence to suggest that anyone (including the pilot) did anything which contributed to the accident.
The pilot was highly experienced and was known for his carefull safety attitude.
The evidence suggests an engine failure, possibly including an engine fire, shortly after takeoff. The causes of this failure are subject to investigation and would almost certainly be of a complex technical nature.
Please stop speculating and wait for the official report, it can often take over a year for a complex investigation to be completed especially in cases where the engine and possibly other items have to be shipped to the manufacturer for investigation. If there were any safety related information available it would have been released as an interim report suggesting any actions to prevent a recurrance.
Any comments which might infer blame are at best unhelpfull and contrary to the fundamental principle that everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
Capt Livingston-I would be surprised if much progress is being made on an investigation. Personally I think a few people in Maun are hoping that all this will blow over so that everyone can carry on as normal. This whole accident has been swept under the carpet yet many people couldn't see it coming or did but nothing was done. Wonder what will become of Moremi Air?
Please stop speculating and wait for the official report, it can often take over a year for a complex investigation to be completed especially in cases where the engine and possibly other items have to be shipped to the manufacturer for investigation.
From my experience I agree with you both. Also I am sure that we all agree that examining the engine should be taking top priority. Why then did the unit sit in for Maun for so long after it was recovered? Also, why is it now in Johannesburg, untouched, instead of with the manufacturer?
I agree that the majority in Maun will hope that this is forgotten. This cannot happen for the sake of the pilot and the families. Not to mention Air Safety! Operators of this aircraft need to know what happened. The publishing of the report will bring this accident back into the limelight. The sooner it happens the better even if it is just an interim report.
As for Moremi Air, I think Exascot has it right - a re-branding. It will not be the first time after an operator's record has been blemished.
So we cannot take it upon ourselves to explore the performance of the day and look at the aircraft's ability to operate legally, but some of us can sit here and make passing comments about having too many persons on board and when someone (FlyingHam - I think) addresses the weight issue with seemingly new information (if it can be confirmed) you say the aircraft/pilot was not looking at the WAT tables or hypothosizing he didn't.
Are you not possibly sullying someone's reputation postmortem, and now not willing to do the work that could disprove your comments??
Anyone else want to pick up where Cheetah seems unable to?
An aircraft's ability to operate legally is not in question and anyone is at liberty to explore any avenue of research that they might wish. There's a certain degree of what appears to be emotive misinterpretation, deliberate or unintentional, of previous posts flitting around, as in the misconstruing of #103 for example. All pilots are always inherently innocent of everything of course; but I should think it a reasonable argument, in the abstract subject of aerodynamics with no relation to this incident, that weight, which of course may be disregarded in this case, could play a small part, aerodynamically, in what happens to an aircraft once it has become airborne and before it reaches the ground surface again no matter the number of engines on the machine. So let me now try synthesize things in the specific rather than the general. It has not been the intention to impugn the pilot involved in this incident and I am quite happy to apologize to his memory if previous comments have been misinterpreted.
If MAUW is an acronym for maximum all up weight then does this 'structural' limit permit the pilot to disregard the parameters that would usually determine WAT limits and all the usual utterly boring tables and graphs that appear in the back of most POHs and which, generally speaking, serve to reduce the MAUW according to the specific conditions of the day and location?
That sounds pretty specific to me, not least because you posted it in a thread about a specific accident involving a specific pilot. It also manages to sound very critical and condescending, but I guess that could be just another example of "emotive misinterpretation."
Maybe there would be fewer misinterpretations if you moved your ruminations and bloviations on abstract aerodynamic theory to a thread that isn't about real dead people?
No I do not think Mr. Cheetah should remove the comments he made. The apology he made should be enough and maybe an edit to that post for clarification.
People who remove things after they have posted them tend to look like children in grade school getting a "do over" to make everything look right.
All of us (most anyway) are both professional pilot's and adults and therefore we must take responsibility for what we say and do - even in this forum.
Just like the media we should be held to some measure of accountability - if at very least by ourselves as people and realizing that one unfortunate day "it could" be us on the spot. Either trying to defend ourselves after an accident or having our family read and listen to people comment on our alleged actions.
In short let us stick to research to support facts. If you are going to comment do the research and present the facts! Therefore removing a post only serves to limit the damage to the person posting it. Take the hit and think twice next time.
Mr Cheetah has no intention of removing his posts which, as reference to #47 and #64 (I haven't a clue who poor old Martin was (RIP) so disregard him in what follows.) should indicate, were directed in general rather than with reference to any specific pilot. Those who have a problem in comprehending that should perhaps look to their own psychometric capabilities and their ability to think rationally out of the box and in the context of the big picture. If that last comment is construed as being critical and condescending then please accept the assurance that perhaps it is so intended.
Just so you know lilflyboy, the reason I would like to crush the weight issue is if you let people rattle on about a subject for long enough then all it is that other's think about - esspecially the naive/ignorant - is "was the aircraft too heavy". Yes we understand it got airborne and flew 500 meters, but some people just like to spice up the mix by adding variables without facts. I do not believe the aircraft was too heavy.
But some like Mr. Cheetah and too a lesser extent Tango 24 with his - no 11 out of Xaxakana, need to be set straight.
Cheetah you can reference #47 & 64 all you want. As Posts to clarify these as General Discussion - you have been condescending all along and you have come as close to stating AKD operated outside its limits without saying so. We have all been speaking about "this accident" so making out like this is general discussion time at Group Therapy does not let you off the hook - nor do your comments let Martin's memory off the hook. Example's:
Start with #52 where you give reference that a pilot would call the office. I wouldn't call anyone as lilflyboy said just dump the luggage and let the office sort it out later. Hence the phrase -Pilot In Command - PPL stuff. Does not matter what the office says to me, if I have said "no" the aircraft is not getting airborne until I am happy with it, so speaking to the office is a form of redundancy other than to sort out options. In addition who cares or expects a pat on the back for anything other than Safe & Professional pilot each and every day and even then that is what he/she signed on for so the employer should expect nothing less.
Then there is #90 where you feign midgets all around. Funny; but they do get all sizes there (as most of us do everywhere) and not all Europeans/Americans are obese or worse. Asian's are prone to traveling these days too if we are going to be blatantly stereotypical (and today I feel like it). Therefore the number of people is not the issue their combined weights are and that is what pilot's must deal with the WEIGHT issue;at all airstrips. If that is a problem I hear they are hiring at SPUR. EFATO leaves few options in most bush operations - the pilot needs to make the best of it and if they don't like that go to the airlines and fly seal to seal or get a twin job somewhere (something with some power - not one of those Maun Islander's anyway)
Then #101; condescending or a state the obvious competition. You decide.
1. Yes CAAB would need to approve the Mod for the aircraft or the Operator could not put it on the aircraft. Most of us do not work in the DRC. With
the approval comes the amendment to the POH and none of this would
happen without amended SOP's, (although I am not sure what they are
amending in the aircraft's operation) 2. It is not a hypothetical weight increase of 312 lbs - the Mod
provides the increase so it is, how do they say - REALITY! 3. No it does not allow "him" (wonder who you meant by this) to disregard anything in the POH - Not even those inexperienced and over- managed pilots (#42) are allowed to do that. Part of the responsibility of being a Commercial Pilot (I think). 4. WAT tables do not limit the weight of the aircraft. The PIC does that using
various tools (including the POH and its tables) Good pilots can determine
this pretty accurately by looking at people and their bags but in the end
we should all use the POH. Let us continue to understand who is in charge
of the aircraft
You have implied that on the day with the APE II conversion that with 11 people (probably Midgets) this C208B (not AKD - as this is General Discussion) might have operated out of its window. See ragdragger post.
Now your sensibilities have been hurt because you have been called on it. Well I am sorry for that; anyone else sorry as well?
Last edited by Flyingharry; 22nd Dec 2011 at 09:34.
I have been given an electronic C208B POH and will attempt to present some figures. As asked before does anyone have the Temperature and QNH for the day of the accident?
On another note, Captain Livingston, just wondering - do you think CAAB would allow a re-branding of Moremi Air, after all prior to this they have had 4 other accidents and on the surface their safety mentality seems to raise some questions. Surely someone should be looking at the management of the operation?
If a rebranding of Moremi Air means that the company name is changed in order to conceal an apparently accident filled past history from the public, isn't that the same sort of thing as fraud? It'd go down well with the tourists wouldn't it? The CAA should perhaps be careful before they place themselves in a position where they could be tarnished with that brush? Perhaps it's possible that criminal liability on the part of a government agency could attach to condoning such a deceit? Maybe that's all too American an interpretation but then, as so many of the delta tourists are rich Americans one wouldn't really want that sort of story splashed all over the NYT would one? As for QNH and temperature on the day is it possible that Maun ATC could provide their details for the time spans involved or could one contact the CAA in Gaberone which might be able to provide details from their pending inquiry data portfolio?)
(Edited to ensure freedom from condescension and criticism. Not edited for sarcasm or ironic content.
I completely agree with you that re-branding to hide an accident history is dishonesty. The Director's and operating officers of the company (Ops Manager, Chief Pilot, and Safety Officer) are in the hot seat wherever they go after this anyway provided some long term negligence is proved (excluding AKD which sounds a lot like a mechanical); having said that to run a poor operation (management constantly losing aircraft) won't endear them to future employers. I was just wondering if CAAB would allow such a rebranding.
Last edited by flying ham; 24th Dec 2011 at 14:04.
ok, watching from the sidelines, and I'm ignoring politics. I'm also ignoring for the moment the inflight fire theory. On the wrong day with the wrong payload it is perfectly possible to get airborne into the wrong side of the drag curve, and you will stay there. Put enough foliage through what the reverse flow can't handle, you will have flames. For what it is worth, I have been there in a far more powerful aircraft where all the performance data said it would fly: it did, but for a critical few seconds couldn't quite make up it's mind. As an observer to this I would advise nobody to push a " it couldn't be that way" scenario until all the facts are on the table.
History in our line of business demonstrates repeatedly that the random sometimes causes the unthinkable.
Teddy, it was never a issue of being overweight. The weight issue was bought forward as it being an issue of not having enough performance in getting out of that strip in the runway available. There is also a escape route to the right of the runway if needed. IE getting behind the drag curve.
As for flying ham's question. I can remember the temperature of the day was around 32 degrees. Give or take a few degrees. Peak of the day was 36 degrees. It was not that at that time of the day.
The QNH I cannot remember. But a web search shows the QNH of around 1015. It usually drops during the day by one or so each hour after 10am.
My estimate puts the planes weight at 8020lbs. 32 Degrees, say a QNH of around 1011, with approximately 5kts of headwind. A quick guess would put that at around 680-700m for a 50ft barrier?
WAT TABLE CALCULATIONS (please check for accuracy)
These are my calculations @40 degrees Centigrade (or below) using the tables provided for a Short Field Technique (with Cargo Pod installed). PA’s of 2000’ & 4000’ are there to shown interpolation and provide variations for the possible PA for the day.
lilflyboy reported to me as approximately 5 knots. Never-the-less I have not included a wind component even though it will reduce the figures below.
PA Gd. Roll/50’ in meters dry/grs Tq <1865 By-pass Gd. Roll/50’ ob
2000 1910/3400 579/1030 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 720/1281 m
2500 751/1351 m
2750 771/1386 m
3000’ 2100’/3768’ 636/1142 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 791/1420 m
3500’ 827/1489 m
4000’ 2290’/4135’ 694/1253 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 863/1558 m
2000 1660/2910 503/882 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 626/1097 m
2500 657/1154 m
2750 672/1183 m
3000’ 1820’/3210’ 552/973 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 687/1211 m
3500’ 717/1268 m
4000’ 1980’/3510’ 600/1064 x 1.15 x 1.03 x 1.05 = 747/1324 m
8525lbs (between the above figures)
2750’ = 722/1285 m
3000’ = 739/1316 m
3500’ = 772/1379 m
Keep in mind that the aircraft (according to the sources I spoke to ) did not have the APE III conversion and therefore had to be 8500 lbs (or less) on arrival at Xakanaka (Landing weight limit).
As above you add 15% (dry/grass), another 3% in case full Torque was not used, another 5% if the Separator was in by-pass.
This is for a Standard C208B. I could not get a hold of a POH for a Van with the APE II conversion.Someone please check these, but these figures indicate that even a standard Van could get out of this strip easily which is listed at 840 meters usable.
Now down to the W&B I guess.
Last edited by flying ham; 25th Dec 2011 at 07:06.