6 die in Germiston air crash

[flyboy2]

21/10/2008 09:20 - (SA)
Johannesburg - Six people were killed when an aircraft crashed in Germiston shortly after taking off from the Rand Airport east of Johannesburg on Tuesday.

The Saratoga aircraft took off at 08:10 and about 2km into their journey to Ficksburg in the eastern Free State the pilot called in to request an emergency landing, said airport manager Anton Kruger.

However, the aircraft broke up and burst into flames as it came down behind the Germiston Raceway.

Six people were registered on the flight manifest.

Civil Aviation Authorities were on their way to the scene of the crash.

SAPA
Source:- 6 die in Germiston air crash: South Africa: News: News24 (http://www.news24.com/News24/South_Africa/News/0,,2-7-1442_2413179,00.html)

[GULF69]

anyone got a reg of the plane? I have met some Saratoga owners...:(

[Romeo E.T.]

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=44606&t=1

[RobertMB]

Very sad news....

Involved aircraft is Piper PA-32R-300 "Lance" ZS-JZF (c/n 32R-7780024)

Best regards,

Robert

[putt for dough]

Rand must have the worst track record with regards
to light a/c crashing in its proximity in JNB and surrounding areas :\
Maybe the CAA should do some more audits at the
AMO's, flight schools etc. Something is clearly wrong there.

RIP.

[flux]

pfd,

I think it has more to do with the location.

[RyanCpt]

6 people in a Saratoga (Especially an old one like that) at Rands elevation???? RIP

[Plutovee]

The time has come for the CAA to stop writing law books that doesnt make sense to anyone and start enforcing their presence at airports that could have avoided this yet another tragic accident.

I support your call. 5400ft, single engine, allegedly fuel for 5 hrs and 1/5 - do the maths.

RIP:{

[RobinB]

Interesting comment re CAA etc - at the risk of offering an uninformed opinion - I am not a pilot, just an enthusiastic spotter/photographer - and assuming no catastropic reason for the incident (poss of power etc), would not the pilot have "done the maths" and not contemplated such a flight in the first place ? In other words, hot and high, six up with 5hrs of fuel may be asking to much from the kite - What would CAA do differently in your opinion ? Also, I agree with other comments Rand does seem to have more than an "acceptable" (not that any incident should be "acceptable") series of shunts/incidents - would be an interesting stat to see what percentage is "Rand's share". Tragic. I'm willing to bet Deloitte relook their travel policy - heavy price to pay, unfortunatly. :sad:

[G_Chopper_P]

The latest i have heard is that there is a possibility the plane was close to or over weight. it had a full load of fuel and a witness who saw the plane takeoff said it seemed to "battle" to get airborn. hope CAA will get to the bottem of this soon

[rudder hard over]

I was surprised to find that one or two senior instructors/DE's are passing on bad habits to fresh com/PPL pilots. Now, I am not by any means knocking instructors/DE's in general as they are usualy on the ball and do an outstanding job, however, there is one or two instructors/DE's teaching that if the aircraft doesn't sit on it's tail with the nose in the air, then it is with in mass and balance limits, trim limits. This may lead to new pilots skipping the mass and balance, load and trim sheet for the type aircraft being flown. Instructors/DE's play a vital role in teaching the correct way. Please, as I said this is not an attack on DE's by any means, just a casual observation. There is sadly no substitute for the load sheet, be it a heavy jet or a light aircraft.

[highflyer17]

I heard that eye witnesses said they thought the aircraft was doing an acrobatic act

[unablereqnavperf]

Most probably it was spinning into the ground due to being overweight and stalling!

[Jamex]

Aircraft in question was a Lance. What I would like clarity on though is the fact that this particular aircraft had a twin turbo set-up installed. Is this an approved mod? Anybody know? I saw the wreckage on a trailer at Wonderboom in fron of Proavs hangar on Wednesday last week. Only part of the aircraft left over is the engine and it had two turbo's fitted.

[FlyItLikeARental]

Affirm Jamex, it was equipped with the twin turbo setup. Flew it about 3-4 years ago, and it pulled like a freight train. IMHO turbo failure could have caused this unfortunate incident.

[Hobgoblin]

Anyone know what the weather was on the date in question? I was wondering what the Density Altitude would have been, and whether a Lance with a twin turbo setup would have been able to take off regardless in the circumstances (i.e. 6 pax and 5hrs+ fuel onboard seems to me a tad heavy). Any idea of the power output in such a setup?

[OneDay21]

From what i understand it has a 300HP engine, twin turbo or not, if it was fully loaded at rands altitude it would have had trouble...

[Hobgoblin]

Hmm, yes I thought a fully loaded light aircraft would struggle to get airborne at Rand. Just thought that maybe the PIC was under the impression that the aeroplane would be able to do it, and therefore did not worry about having such a full load. What a pity.

[JetPark]

Same thought actuallly crossed my mind when hearing about this. I remember giving myself a fright many many years ago departing Rand for Port Elizabeth in a light twin with full fuel - and I was alone with no baggage!!! From that day onwards when departing out of Rand, I did my homework VERY carefully! It goes without saying that I never tried my luck with full fuel and full pax in the same aicraft! RIP.

[John R81]

And 4 colleagues of mine were amongst the passengers

RIP

[126,7]

Which runway were they using at Rand? If you are flying full fuel plus pax off runway 29 with 300hp, it should be ok. The steep downhill slope helps enormously during the take off run and the carrier style end of the runway is a plus too. If they were using that runway and still encountered problems, I reckon it was something technical.

[flux]

It might have been a tech. It was possibly an error of judgement. I got away with it, so did you.................. never forget!

[I.R.PIRATE]

It was off 35. used most of the runway, then hauled it off, into a back side of the curve state, and never recovered.

Those trees at the end become beeg when you end up rotating near the papis on 17.

[Der absolute Hammer]

Rwy 35! Had to be with racecourse.
Not as bad as it is in the passed with some mine dumps now gone.
Uphill slope for take off?
Many have died off 35.
It should be prohibited for t/o.
Crosswind on 29 always better than head into climb out on 35.
Some times have flown night circuits on 35. Not nice one bit!

[OneDay21]

35 has a slight downslope if i rememeber correctly..
Surely slope would have helped him get off the ground but climbing must have been difficult. Maybe a stall then secondary stall..
Then again if turbo failed he was in trouble.
Then again i am not the CAA and we will find out what trully happened when they release the report.
OneDAy

[Hobgoblin]

Listening to the transcript of the radio transmission with ATC one can hear the stall warning in the background.

If an aircraft is too heavy, the runway slope and ground effect can assist it in getting airborne. Then, once the runway surface stops and the aircraft starts climbing out of ground effect, there is insufficient lift to maintain the climb, and also unfortunately in the case of Rand airport, insufficient altitude. Trying to turn anywhere would require even more lift, when you already have too little. Not an enviable position to be in.

[WhinerLiner]

Wasn't there a fatal accident in a PA28 off the same runway at the same airport just a few months back under similar circumstances?

That runway should be closed for departures.

[12109BYLAS]

Whinerliner wrote:

That runway should be closed for departures.

I think, this will not really help. No runway may cause a crash. This dragical incidents were results of pilots-errors and/or insufficient airmanship. Or how shall we call an overweight take-off in hot'n high conditions else?
As long pilots believe, they can operate an aircraft outside the physical limits against better knowledge, such accidents are inevitable.

[Jamex]

Der absolute Hammer wrote "Rwy 35! Had to be with racecourse.
Not as bad as it is in the passed with some mine dumps now gone."

Racecourse is now gone. Was changed into car race track a few years ago but then owners sold to property developers and the place is now a building site. Used to be a good option with EFATO off of 35 but, with new developments going up the option in future will be "pick a warehouse"!! Not nice at all.

[Stratojet]

All valid points, however I think closing a runway (ie.Rwy35) when literally thousands of aircraft have departed safely from that runway is not much of a solution.
The PIC should have reviewed the weight/balance data and made a go/no go decision. This however is something that has been ignored at peril in the past (Chieftain a few years back, C172 etc), and can be difficult when faced with keeping your job.
This is where the SACAA should be more involved, ensuring pilots are protected from employers when making these critical decisions.
An over weight a/c flying out of ground effect is comparable to an "in limits" single experiencing partial, or complete, engine failure.
Weight is relatively unimportant at this stage (unlike twins), yes...a higher stall speed, higher ROD etc, but you still have only ONE option:
If it won't fly (negative ROC and/or approaching the stall) a forced landing, as close to straight ahead as possible, is the ONLY option.
Irrespective of terrain, building site etc...
Do not attempt to turn back, a stall/spin WILL kill you!