Crash at JNB this morning [Archive]

freightboss

5th Nov 2001, 12:35

As you know by now, the aircraft that went down, was a C406 Caravan II. According to newspaper reports, the owner of the a/c is of the opinion that it was"hopelessly" overloaded. People at the scene were mentioning car spares and newspapers.

And yes, apparently one of the engines was not delivering full power on take-off. Rumours also state that the pilots were forced to fly the a/c by the operator.

Ring a bell anybody?? Rand Airport 1999??

Why do pilots do this? To build hours? Not worth it...

I really hope that this one will not be swept under the table and that the guilty parties will be nailed for this one. :mad:

BMM389EC

5th Nov 2001, 22:06

Not sure about the accuracy of everything I've heard but it seems that on the engine that failed the auto feather was not working and the live engine was producing less power than it was supposed to. Also, apparently it is the same opperator as the Chieftan out of Rand in 99. In incidents like this there are always a lot of stories running around but if this does turn out to be the case then I truly hope that the man in charge is not allowed to have anything to do with aviation in SA again. He got off lightly after the Rand incident in my opinion.

exjet

6th Nov 2001, 03:26

This Windhoek freight run seems to have a rather bad track record, I recall a King Air 200 in the early 1990's(93-94?) to add to the fatal crashes on this run.

taa

6th Nov 2001, 18:34

Interesting comments re " rand Airport " Same person. Here are the facts. Empty weight of aircraft = 5210 lbs " declared cargo 2376 lbs, fuel 3200 lbs 3 crew 510 lbs all this = 11296 lbs Gross weight 9800. 1500 lbs over weight. ATC states the aircraft accelerated very slowly. At the point of rotation at the END of r/w 21 Left, the aircraft was doing 80 knots. Atc pressed crash button but then aircraft achieved 85 knots, 300 feet and then disapeared off radar. Load Master for operator unloaded two aircraft that week because of C of G propblems which was visable to him as a lay-man. If there was an engine problem , why didn't the pilot shut down ? remember there were 3 pilots on board.

gofor

6th Nov 2001, 19:43

Check the facts? 1500 pounds overgross(only you know where you got this from)? Crash alarm from ATC? 85 knots? I see you do not question maintanance and neither do I -yet- just get the facts straight -like the pilots of this acft(OIG) have mentioned it was in a shocking condition (How can an operator allow for this!). Atc did not see the acft crash or press the crash alarm "Atc pressed crash button but then aircraft achieved 85 knots" BS. :mad: ATC were not aware of an incident until the acft disappered off radar at a very low altitude - reportedly 150'AGL. If the acft was overloaded, I doubt by 1500lbs. Don't question "3 pilots on board" in '87 +- 6 pilots on a B200 crashed at FAGM - # pilots is not relevent here(one was a passenger)or any mudslinging. My most sincere condolances to friends, family and ATC who knew or were involved in this most tragic occurance where I can only state that something went horribly wrong (catastrophic) and was a result of 'possibly' a major falure.

freightboss

6th Nov 2001, 22:42

The owner of the aircraft stated in a Sunday newspaper that the pilot knew the aircraft well. If that was the case, why did the pilot not pick-up that the a/c was not performing as advertised? If he did pick it up, why did he not abort the take-off.

Because if he did abort the take-off, he would have been fired, and his name blackballed in the industry.

I have spoken to various pilots who worked for this outfit, and according to them this was ops normal - "You don't want to fly - I'll get someone else, and oh yes, you'll not fly again in this town..."

This is obviously no excuse, but it says something for the state of mind of the pilot.

OVERLOADED - FOR SURE
POORLY MAINTAINED - FOR SURE
UNSERVICEABLE - MOST DEFINITE

I hope these guys get nailed.... :mad: :mad:

Vref + 10

7th Nov 2001, 14:21

I read with real sadness about another freighter going in at Rand. Awhile ago I was approached by a young friend to speak to CAA about this very thing, the overloading, bad maintenance etc etc, the reason I was asked was that if the young pilot said anything he would be fired. So, I called CAA, the answer: We cannot do anything because as you know we are a private concern and could be taken to court and sued if nothing was found and the flight delayed. My response to that was to ask if it was going to take another accident to get anything done about these murderers. We all know who these guys are, the scumbags, but there will always be some youngster who will want to fly and generally do it for the hours. Speak to all the pilots out there, they have all done it and are the lucky ones to have survived. :mad: :confused:

taa

7th Nov 2001, 18:15

Thanks for that. When the aircraft was owned by the prvious operating company, you are right, it was a nightmare. However susequent to that in excess of R300000-00 with a reputable Namibian co. getting the aircraft in to shape. It had also just had 2 hot section inspections some 20 hours prior. Both engines were inspected by P+W because it was suspected that ther was FOD. Both engines got a clean bill of health and the HSI completed. It seems however that there was a report by one pilot that the right engine was down on power, achieving only 110o pounds. In my humble opinion, this could have been one of the contributing factors to the spin. ATC info was given by ATC. I share your opinion that we hope that the operators sink fast. try this one for size, I have on my desk the weight and balance data taken out of the aircraft. It reports an empty weight of 4767 lbs. CAA's copy says 5210 lbs. ??????????? out of the factory standard config with no seats, is 5100+-. Perhaps the operator put the aircraft on diet. I have the ops manual and weight and balance of one of the other Van II's, it has also gone on diet weighing in at a mere 4646 lbs. The operator has been more than economical with the truth in everything it has done, it has now a new portfolio... W+B Art. for your info VMCA is 90 kts on this aircraft at gross. The sad side is that the guilty parties will walk away with a slap on the wrists unless this is made very public and once the rest on the facts are available... believe me heads are going to roll if I can. To lose 3 lives is tragic. Aircraft we can replace. The cargo will be weighed tomorrow and the weight advertised here. Having seen what was on board, I think there are a couple of shocks coming. My humble opinion is that we may find this aircraft over 1500 lbs ! null

Nacnac

8th Nov 2001, 10:32

I have filled in on the Windhoek freight run as a pilot and aircraft owner for the past six years and it has been a dogshow every night. I believe one of the problems has to do with the rights to operate between JSA and ERS/WDH. The aircraft has to be below 5700kg. Every night there must be about five aircraft fighting the headwinds west. C208, C406, Metro, BE20. One or two of them even have to land at WDH, backtrack and then take off again to fulfil some conditions. Is this normal? Recently an operator tried to put a larger aircraft on the route, but this only lasted a few weeks before they had to pull out on some technicality. I think that the CAA or whoever should lighten up and allow one larger aircraft to do a route it was designed for. I don't know of any aircraft below 5700kg that is happy with a flight of 3h30 or longer with a full load. The other night one of the C208s took nearly 5 hours with the headwinds. If operators are forced to use this type of aircraft on the route, there will always be problems. One problem with a larger aircraft is that there will be two pilots flying the route instead of 10. Complaints will always be kept to a minimum until there is a disaster like on Satuday morning.

I was surprised that the unfortunate pilot had so much experience on the type. I don't believe that a pilot with that kind of experience is "forced" to fly. I have seen pilots with low time and a fresh rating that will fly anything, but the blame for this lies partly with their ego. When everything runs smoothly the operator is being mean by not letting him lose in an aircraft he knows(?) he can fly. He will assure the operator that "He can do the job, even if others can't" When something goes wrong, he was forced to fly an aircraft he didn't want to.

Let an aircraft that was designed to fly the route do the job and stop the nightly circus that has claimed more than enough lives

taa

9th Nov 2001, 17:52

P+W crash specialists have just completed the tear down of the engines on the Van II. The aircraft crashed with FULL POWER ON BOTH!!!

BMM389EC

9th Nov 2001, 19:45

Might not have been literally forced to fly as a low houred pilot might have, but never the less if it's your job you don't always have the option. Maybe he had'nt been able to find another job, coupled with financial commitments means no other options but to fly. It's not always as simple as simply refusing to fly.

taa

10th Nov 2001, 11:58

The reality ! Would you blow your brains out for a thousand bucks ? rw 21L is some 3400m long. Half way down, 1200m , you are not accelerating, 3/4 the way down you still have not reached VMC, options over and you rotate below VMC for normal gross weight scenario, but, for 1000 minimum over gross, what then becomes the correct VMC ? Anybody who has flown the aircraft knows what a good machine it is. overloaded, it only requires a max of 500m. I have in excess of 1000 hours on the aircraft and have flown it overloaded on numerous occasions. My opinion is that this aircraft is going to weigh out at over 2000lbs over gross, and that is CRIMINAL. I saw the cargo and I will eat my hat if it was 1080 kgs as stated in the weighing report.

CAACHIEF

11th Nov 2001, 16:07

As professional pilots one would hope that our primary interest would be in determining the cause of this unfortunate accident and hopefully taking steps to avoid its occurance.

We should also be mindful of the pain facing the relatives and friends of the pilots who died in this accident and avoid the undue maligning of the dead.

There have been numerous hints at factors which those of you familiar with this operation have suggested, may have contributed to this accident.

The CAA would greatly appreciate your cooperation in providing us with all information, including the operational context, which may explain how this tragic event came about, and hopefully we will have the basis for instituting measures which will obviate against its recurrence.

Please do contact the accident investigator-in-charge on 082 809 2424 or contact the Commissioner for Civil Aviation. Your input will be treated with full confidentiallity.

4granted

11th Nov 2001, 23:13

Now thats nice to see!

Spool-up

12th Nov 2001, 10:44

CAABOSS, that is the sort of reaction we need to see from you guys.

Keep up the contact!

Ernesto

12th Nov 2001, 16:59

Tigerseye, so you have "1000 hours on the aircraft and have flown it overloaded on numerous occasions"

This tells me a lot about you. My opinion is that this was also a CRIMINAL act. Or is there a point where an aircraft deliberately operated overweight suddenly becomes criminal ? Please enlighten us, would you ? One reason laws are made is to prevent the innocent from the stupid and reckless.

There is never a need to operate an aircraft overweight unless a really serious security or other similar reason exists. To do it because the boss insists is asking for trouble, maybe not for you, but for the poor s*d who takes the aircraft after your brilliant airmanship and the others on board of course.

The golden rule about operating an aircraft overweight is : Don't do it. Just because you get away with it does not mean you are safe or clever.

That is the reality.

Think about it, please.

freightboss

12th Nov 2001, 17:10

CAABOSS,

Yes, all is good and well... What is being done about the Rand-prang nearly two years ago. Although I am glad to hear that the CAA actually won the case against the operator in question, what now. What type of action can/may the CAA take against these guys? Does the CAA intend to forge ahead with action or is it going to be allowed to fizzle out in the hope that memories will be blunted in a year or two?

Some thing to chew on: How about operators/pilots/instructors being made to attend some sort of seminar, course or the like as part of the renewal process for operators and pilot licenses. Typical issues could include such things as overweight ops or any other aspect that is relevant to flying? Awareness campaigns for pilots/operators? Set standards and enforce them, its the only way we'll be able to make our skies safe.

And thank you, its good to see the CAA actually coming out of the blocks...You've got those scales - use them.

CAACHIEF

13th Nov 2001, 03:23

The CAA took what action is possible in terms of its legal mandate - shut the operator down. As for further legal action, I understand that this is in process and that the action of the CAA will form part of the case against this operator.

Educational seminars - yes. WE in fact did conduct a round of such seminars in June in Johannesburg, Cape Town, Durban and PE as advertised on the CAA web site. We also plan more focussed ones on the problem areas such as fuel management and overweight, etc in 2002.

Enforcement: CAA officers have met some of our heavies on the taxiway with our scales, resulting in one operator being shut down until they demonstrated commitment and plans to comply.

Ultimately such enforcement action requires cooperation from those in the industry who know. We cannot post officers at every airport at 2-3 am waiting for the reckless, presurized soul and the mentally challenged.

freightboss

13th Nov 2001, 23:30

Yes, mentally challenged. Maybe it will also help to do the odd flight check with these guys en route. I understand that the the larger operators such as SAA, Comair and the likes are being checked quite regularly. What about the little guy?

At least the big guns have the financial means to keep their crews trained. Its the little guy that worries me. To save they skimp on training and maintenance. By the way good on you for grounding Oh Gee Why. About time the owner got taken to task for allowing an aircraft in such a state of disrepair to fly. One less a/c to worry about...

Chuck Ellsworth

14th Nov 2001, 04:12

I can't believe that any professional pilot would be stupid enough to state he has flown any airplane over weight on many occasions. No wonder the industry is in such deplorable condition when pilots will fly in violation of the rules of safety.

Maybe the CAA should look at enforcement action against anyone who admits to such blatant disregard to not only safety but disregard for his license and his obligation to insure safety for the rest of us who are professionals.

As to operators who prey on the stupidity of some pilots there may be another method of dealing with them, like a car jacking some night in J- Berg?
...........................................
:D The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no. :D

126.9

14th Nov 2001, 18:18

I've said it all along: the South African CAA are the most pro-active I've come accross. I hold licences issued in South Africa, Holland and Switzerland. I also have at one time or another, held UK and Mauritian Validations. None of these Authorities are as approachable as the SA CAA. I still keep my SA ATPL valid by submitting my JAA tests and medicals.

Good work folks!

freightboss

14th Nov 2001, 22:03

Our CAA may be pro-active, but its still not enough. As far as I can ascertain, there are only one or two guys doing the ****ty work. I can imagine that visiting an airport in the middle of winter in the dead of night can not be a pleasurable experience.

Apparently there are only about 15 inspectors in the CAA that are available to cover the whole of SA, or Africa now with the prolifiration of ZS a/c on the continent. With most of them being close to or over 60, I cannot see more of them ending up in the field.

There are many operators that believe that they are untouchable outside the borders of the RSA. I wonder how many of these operators are correctly licensed for the type of operations they are doing. Are they being monitored? Does the CAA know about these guys?

As for Tigerseye, you must really be very brave or very stupid... Think about it... :p

taa

19th Nov 2001, 14:29

If you have ever ferried aircraft then you will know what I am talking about. I have ferried a number of Van II's. Aircraft being ferried from the USA, for example, are sometimes " legally " as much as 25% overwieght. It has nothing to do with being a " smartA...." Working with overloaded aircraft requires very careful loading and as I understand it, the C of G was way back on this aircraft. Apparently, it was porposing after lift off [ which could indicate an aft C of A.]

slapfaan

19th Nov 2001, 17:56

Anyone who knows the names of the guys who perished in this unfortunate crash - names/surnames...?

freightboss

19th Nov 2001, 18:38

Slapfaan, try the SACAA site at caa.co.za and look in the media release menu. If I am not mistaken, the names were given there.

Tigerseye, there is no way that you can say that an overloaded is "legal". Its not on. An yes, you have to be carefull when you load an aircraft. What you are trying to say that its in order to sometimes fly overweight. When is it not? When we have a F406 digging a hole for itself? I still maintain that only stupid pilots fly overweight aircraft, and in the same breath, only callous loadmasters will load an aircraft overweight - because they know they don't have to fly in it. If you ask me, that loadmaster should be charged with murder or at the least manslaughter. :p

GlueBall

19th Nov 2001, 23:56

Flying heavy jets thousands of hours for many years, I have encountered occasional flights where the jet wouldn't climb to flight planned altitude. Reason: The jet had more payload than advertised! Simple mistakes can be made by cargo agents, loaders and Forwarders. Upon landing, a report was made and all the cargo pallets were re-weighed. On one occasion it was found that the jet was 11,000 Lbs over Gross at takeoff. It was comforting to know that the airplane could handle the overload without serious consequences. Nevertheless, any overload deteriorates the built-in performance safety margin of any airplane, especially in the case of an engine failure. Upon further investigation, it was found that the weight of several interline cargo pallets had been recorded in Kg instead of being converted to Lbs. A serious mistake, but no criminal intent. Some airport operators, as for example at Santa-Fe-De-Bogota, Colombia, direct at random outbound airplanes unto a scale for gross weight verification. The airport authority in fact checks the operators' weight and balance data by ordering the outbound airplane to taxi unto a special ramp with a built-in scale. It takes only 5 minutes extra taxi time and it is a good secondary Gross Weight verification. As at JNB, BOG also is a high altitude airport{8355 feet) with rising terrain in all quadrants. Not a kind place to be Over Gross! :cool: