Caravan Ran off runway at Caloundra

[redline1969]

From the last thread about the Caravan Crash at Caloundra. Someone has edited a post after it closed. Quite interesting.

It reads that the pilot claimed to have been distracted by another plane parked at the terminal. :hmm: :hmm:

Anyone know what the plane at the terminal was doing to distract him from his primary objective. You know, LANDING???

I just don't get how you can miss the whole runway. It's one thing to land long, but another thing to touch down after the end of the runway.


hmmmmm, can anyone help me on this one??
redline:ok:

[tipsy2]

I asked the same question on the original thread as well. Somehow the answer got lost in the myriad of "how to manage" the turbine/propellor combination responses.

Just how does one stuff up an approach and landing that finishes up 450 or so metres past the upwind end of a 700 metre dry bitumen runway (and knock down a 3 metre chain wire fence to boot)

"another plane (sic) parked at the terminal":\

There is NO terminal at Caloundra (toilet yes, terminal NO).

I wonder if "another plane parked at the terminal" is code for "I really stuffed that up"

tipsy:ok:

[Sir HC]

I was wondering the same thing myself. Me thinks someone spun a great story to the local newspaper reporter who took it hook, line and sinker. It was then posted here on Pprune and again taken as gospel by some. To be distracted as a single pilot in an emergency is one thing, but two pilots making a decision to carry out a simulated forced landing and then overshooting by around 60mts, please Woomera, let this go on a bit, surely there is more to this than what Senior Sargent Ken has to say about it.

[tipsy2]

RE: Newspaper Reports

The local very amateurish "Sunshine Coast Daily" was the word for word source quoted by other papers elsewhere.

This same SCD also had a report yesterday about the local RC aircraft club. That report claimed the club set a world record of some 57 secs to cover 10 laps of a 4 KM course.

Yep thats nearly 2400 kilometre per hour, PHEW:sad:

I think we can safely say "some of the press report is factual and some is not".

tipsy

[Full Noise]

There would have to be other factors here that we do not yet know about. The instructor is a very experienced well known gentleman, as was the student.
I remember there being a mod that came out for the C208 that was required for UK certification, that among other things meant some kind of additional "gate" on the power lever to get it forward of flight idle, I don't remember anything being modified or different about the prop lever. My memory is a bit scratchy, does any one else have any thing to add to which might have troubled them in unfeathering the prop? :confused:

[Freedom3]

Story is that the instructor was demonstrating a fully feathered approach and simply floated beyond the end of the runway. I know nil about Caravans but have been told that it takes about 10 seconds to come out of feather making it very difficult to have a last second change of mind.

[Gen Ties]

Full Noise

I think the "mod" you may be refering to is that the track for the conditon lever is covered by a strip of rubber (for want of a better description). I am not sure of the reason it is there, but effectively you are unable to visually see where the lever is in respect to the gate.

Re this incident, the instructer will carry the can but one wonders why there is not a standard to teach to.

Pub 47 was a standard for instructors, perhaps that needs to be reinvented.

[helldog]

Yep the prop does take a while to come out of feather. When I was in a real hurry I would push the power lever up after pushing the prop up and it would unfeather quicker, well as it seemed to me. Anyone else agree? But that was if the engine was kept going, normaly we would start at full fine.

[Zhaadum]

If this procedure is normally applied to achieve best glide range in the C208 then you would think the "INSTRUCTOR" would be familiar with it and skilled in its application including his JUDGEMENT of the approach.

Similar to the use of coarse pitch in a piston single glide approach, giving a bit less drag and more gliding range (a good thing methinks).

Surely this is simply a human factor of a misjudged approach? For any number of reasons, rushing, over-confidence, or simply an honest stuff up. We all make them from time to time BUT...an instructor demonstrating an emergency has a duty of care to avoid the exercise becoming a REAL emergency!

Of course I'm serious...and don't call me Shirley!

Z. :{

[HarveyGee]

As a matter of interest, this particular 208B is an FAA certificated job and does not have the British CAA kit, which among other things requires the rubber strips covering the quadrant slots (presumably to stop things dropping in, eg British coins or some such). The detents are visible on the FAA aircraft.

[Captain Starlight]

Folks, it doesn't matter, just heard a rumour that ATSB may not choose to investigate this insignificant little incident.
The subject is apparently closed and finished, regardless of everyone's knowledge of feather, low idle, high idle, rubber strips etc.
do as the guvmint has decreed, move on!
where's the taxi driver when he's really needed?

[Mainframe]

Starlight

Confirmed.

No latex gloves, no loss of RPT AOC, no cancelling of Chief Pilot approvals,

no cancelling of pilot's ratings and approvals.

(This is what the taxidriver did to their neighbour, lucky he's gone ?)

This is a new era, counselling and consoling instead of bastardry, no problems with that, it's how things can be handled.

It's called safety, not enforcement opportunity.

MF

[Chronic Snoozer]

So if I want to learn about this accident, in case there is a lesson in it for single turboprop instructors, where do I go? Isn't that part of a flying safety culture?

[AEIO-540]

RE: Newspaper Reports
This same SCD also had a report yesterday about the local RC aircraft club. That report claimed the club set a world record of some 57 secs to cover 10 laps of a 4 KM course.
Yep thats nearly 2400 kilometre per hour, PHEW:sad:
I think we can safely say "some of the press report is factual and some is not".
tipsy
Don’t know how you come up with your facts tipsy. My simple maths dose not get 2400km/hr
4000/57=70.175m/sec
70.175*60=4210.526m/min
4210.526*60=252631.57m/hr
252631.57/1000=252.63km/hr
Best not to say that the reporter was wrong for that story. It seems quite possible.:hmm:

[ftrplt]

thats all well and good but its 40 000m covered not 4 000m

[AEIO-540]

I have raced these aircraft myself and the ten laps = 4km as each lap is 400m.

[Keg]

'10 laps of a 4km course' is 40,000m.

Ten laps of a course that adds up to 4km is a slightly different thing.

The point is still proven though. The reporting of such events is hugely inaccurate! :E

[ftrplt]

400m lap certainly sounds better

[Mainframe]

Chronic,

check your PM's

[victor two]

Considering nobody was injured or killed, the damage is probably fairly minor, and the entire incident could be described as nothing more than a handling error....why then would the ATSB get together a team of investigators, burn up resources and rush to the scene? What great safety breach are they likely to uncover and what are the likely long term safety benefits to the australian transport industry by having a full suspension of licence and cancellation of all approvals to the operators by a government agency???

Maybe the ATSB should rush out with a full team of investigators and suspend everybody involved each and every time a road train has a fender bender on the pacific highway too.....

Some of you blokes are total hypocrites. You bleat like stuck pigs when the authorities get involved in the busiess of aviation and now you bleat when they don't get involved............I wonder why.

[peuce]

Victor Two,

I don't think that's what the previous posters were trying to say.

I think their point was ... we, those who haven't had such an incident, and don't want to ... would like to know what went wrong ... so we can learn from someone else's mistake.

Perhaps, there should be a process were, although the ATSB decide not to investigate a particular incident/accident, they can direct the Pilot to publish a "public confession" in an appropriate magazine/journal .. for the education of all .. and the soul clensing of the Pilot.

I'm being a bit silly, but seriously, a "This is what happened to me .." story would surely be beneficial to safety, without being punitive to the pilot.

[Chronic Snoozer]

Considering nobody was injured or killed, the damage is probably fairly minor, and the entire incident could be described as nothing more than a handling error....why then would the ATSB get together a team of investigators, burn up resources and rush to the scene?
Your comment regarding the incident being nothing more than a 'handling error' betrays may I say a lack of appreciation for a good 'safety culture'. I suggest a read of a good crash comic for an understanding of the range of factors which lead to an accident. By alluding to the fact that 'nobody was injured or killed', the implication is that this is the only thing that will prompt an investigation, in other words, we have to wait for a smoking hole in the ground before learning about a mistake that could save our own lives. Brilliant reactive strategy.
Learn from others mistakes as you won't live long enough to make them all yourself.
What great safety breach are they likely to uncover and what are the likely long term safety benefits to the australian transport industry by having a full suspension of licence and cancellation of all approvals to the operators by a government agency???
Noone is even intimating punitive action. Jumping the gun a bit there. But then if a regulation was broken then there's not much point having it if no investigation takes place.
Maybe the ATSB should rush out with a full team of investigators and suspend everybody involved each and every time a road train has a fender bender on the pacific highway too.....
Fatuous argument. Road accidents are far more common and the causes are well known. Authorities have campaigned for years to improve road safety based on thousands of accident investigations.
Some of you blokes are total hypocrites. You bleat like stuck pigs when the authorities get involved in the busiess of aviation and now you bleat when they don't get involved............I wonder why.
I wonder why too. A sound flying safety culture is a bit like being pregnant. You can't just be a little bit pregnant.

[victor two]

Snoozer,

You are obviously far more tuned into the issues in "GA safety culture" than I am but I am certainly confused as to what lesson can be learned by the whole industry based on the fact that a solitary light aircraft suffered some damage during a landing, which at the end of the day, is what happened.

But.... somehow I don't think the ATSB and CASA will be looking at this incident as a launch point for a over arching investiagtion into "safety culture" but I am happy to be proven wrong.

Please don't feel the need to repost my every comment with a detailed response to every sentence in future either. Unless you really want to. I don't come on this site to practice for the high school debating team or anything.

cheers

[VH-XXX]

From:

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/2006/pdf/aws030206.pdf


As part of the Cessna 208B (C208) endorsement
training, the crew conducted an engine failure with a
fully feathered glide approach to runway 05. The
approach was initially stable and on profile. Just prior
to turning final and the selection of the next stage of
flap, the crew heard the pilot of a de Havilland DH-82A
(Tiger Moth) report a partial engine failure after
departing runway 05. The Tiger Moth was observed to
be low and returning towards the field, possibly for
runway 23. The Tiger Moth subsequently landed on
runway 12. Consequently, the C208 crew delayed
selecting the last two stages of flap causing the
aircraft to be slightly high and fast. The aircraft was
below 500 ft when the full flap was selected. During
the landing roll, the aircraft overshot the runway and
went through the fence at the end. Emergency
services attended.

[tipsy2]

OK so that's the ATSB factual report.

Still doesn't explain why a missed approach wasn't initiated when they found themselves "High and Fast", a situation most reasonable people know as an indication that this was a seriously stuffed up approach.

I still can hear an old QFI berating me that if you want a good landing, do a good approach. The alternative is equally true.

tipsy