SA Airlink J41 crash

[JeanJacquesBurnel]

Airlink J41 has just crashed shortly after takeoff off 06 at Durban International. Airframe last reported as intact...

[JeanJacquesBurnel]

OK Some more info... Inbound Comair flight has reported the airframe somewhat intact near Mondi Paper. *apparently* an engine failure on take off. The SAX flight lined up behind them tried to warn them of excessive smoke coming from their engines on the take off run, but an ATC transmission interrupted their warning and they don't believe the Link crew heard the warning. *apparently*

Ok its starting to come out on the wires...

Plane crashes into Durban school: News24: SouthAfrica: News (http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/8742775e9ab24213a0aa163f1ca14c01/24-09-2009-08-59/Plane_crashes_into_Durban_school)

The paramedics are trying to rescue the pilots. They are trapped in the airplane..

[DropTheDunlops]

Only 2 crew on board as aircraft was on a positioning flight from Durban Intl to Pietermartizburg.

[divinehover]

Good luck Chap's. Holding thumbs for all involved.

[JeanJacquesBurnel]

Only 2 crew on board as aircraft was on a positioning flight from Durban Intl to Pietermartizburg.

Local news is reporting 4. No Hosty on board?

[Avi8tor]

I truly hope all are OK. A sad time indeed. I have a good friend who is a capt on the DBN pool.

If anybody has details, please pvt me

[Avi8tor]

Just heard from back in SA, aircraft is in two. 3 Crew on board. Airlifted to hospital.

Hope you all walk away to fly another day. All the ex link guys in the gulf are pulling for you all.

[ChiyaWena]

The aircraft seemed to 'make' a school field. Plus/minus 1 mile from the end of 06 and about 40 degrees to the right of centerline. It seems that the crew went for the field and if that's the case they did a FANTASTIC job putting the plane down where they did. Judging from the point of impact and skidmarks. We saw the crash site from the air and it was pretty much the only flat open ground in a built up area.

Wish all involved a speedy recovery.

[divinehover]

I hope these guys are ALPA-SA members. They are going to need the support the organisation offers.

[nugpot]

You guys think they lost both? I assumed that a Jetstream could fly on one, especially one without pax.

[i-Robot]

ALPA-SA has a Critical Incident Resonse Programme (CIRP) to deal with these unfortunate situations.

The majority of aircraft accidents stem from poor management decisions at some point in the chain....

[Tin-Tin]

Perhaps they shut down the wrong engine? Did they retract the gear?

[Juliet Sierra Papa]

Here is a link to some pics. Plane crashes into school 24-09-09 (http://gallery.iol.co.za/v/iolnews/Plane+crashes+into+school+24-09-09/)

JSP.

[FFFrentit]

Photos on News24.com indicate that number one engine was shut down with the prop feathered and number two was still rotating but at idle / low power at touchdown. Landing gear was retracted.

Ndebele sends recovery wishes: News24: SouthAfrica: News (http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/e001f6cd7cd14b3f98cfbde96c705004/24-09-2009%2011-53/Ndebele_sends_recovery_wishes)

[Irene]

Spoke to a mate on the scene. Crash site 1.5 DME from DNV, from initial impact to stop was about 200 metres, J41 came to a stop about 80 metres before school buildings. Apparently crew did an unbelievable job of putting the J41 down in such a small area, missing houses by less than 10 metres and making the field. One person with moderate injuries on the ground (taken by ambulance), one hosty with moderate injuries (taken by helicopter), one female co-pilot with moderate injuries (taken by helicopter) and one male captain with severe injuries (taken by helicopter). Crew were entrapped in cockpit for at least 2 hours before wreckage could be cleared. Left props appeared to be feathered before impact, right props bent and twisted indicating power on during impact. Airframe broken in 3 places but still joined.

Holding the right thoughts for all involved. These things seem to affect not just those in the aircraft at the time but all pilots, especially those in Link.

[spinolla9]

First, thankfully no-one was killed in this accident and hope that all make a speedy recovery. I suggest the first thing they do is get lawyers.

Questions, how is it that an empty aircraft cannot continue climb with one engine operating at sea level.

Maybe now the CAA will take a good long hard and forensic audit of all aspects of that Airlink operation and have the likes on JVJ and RF on public display to answer for themselves.:mad:

[Avi8tor]

Left props appeared to be feathered before impact, Not so sure on that 1.

Not to speculate, but man this pic tells a thousand words.

Ndebele sends recovery wishes: News24: SouthAfrica: News (http://www.news24.com/Content/SouthAfrica/News/1059/e001f6cd7cd14b3f98cfbde96c705004/24-09-2009%2011-53/Ndebele_sends_recovery_wishes)

That looks to me as if the blades on number 1 didn't go to feather. J41's as with all TPE engines have the NTS (Neg torque Sensing) and in the case of a J41 auto feather.

Looks like they were dragging an unfeatheredable engine. A totally amazing feat of flying and airmanship to get it on the ground in 1 piece and in the only open spot.

[putt for dough]

Sad news. Speedy recovery to all involved!

[stevenarcher1987]

Does anyone now the pilot name?

[Christo]

From avcom

Captain : Allister Freeman
Co-pilot : Sonja Bierman
Hostie : Rudele Oosthuizen.

[Jetjock330]

Can anyone pin point the accident site on Google?

[HansFlyer]

Can anyone pin point the accident site on Google?

It is on Avcom:

www.avcom.co.za (http://www.avcom.co.za)

I just can't get it copied here?

HF

[Romeo E.T.]

http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=67905http://www.avcom.co.za/phpBB3/download/file.php?id=67904

hope this works

[Leftfoot]

I was at the airport and watched this aircraft take off.

On the runway it was in my opinion spewing way more light grey smoke that Ive previously seen on these aircraft. Then about 2-3 seconds after take off later there was a largeish puff of black smoke....then it disappeared from my view.

In light of the fact that this aircraft was full of fuel and that everyone is out and stable.....KUDOS to the pilot!!!:ok:

[bond7]

SA Airlink J41 crash pics (http://avherald.com/h?article=4203d155) ... Thank God there were no fatalities!

[Madbob]

Leftfoot, thanks for the feedback. I would be interested to know if the aircraft had been recently re-fuelled at Durban. I would be speculating here (this is after all a rumour forum) but would Avgas in a turboprop designed for Jet A1 cause the symptoms you describe?

MB

[Capetonian]

Just heard on the news that the crew are all in a stable condition. Capt. being operated on for a broken ankle and other relatively minor injuries. Didn't get the other details.

[i-Robot]

Once the dust settles, it's going to be interesting to see how the company, manufacturer, and authorities start distancing themselves from the pilots.

The captain of the BA 777 that pranged on short final, is currently unemployed! Even after being labelled a hero for saving all those lives.

Luckily the Link co-pilot is an ALPA-SA member though...

[4HolerPoler]

Captain was the same guy who was carried out of this Islander after a miraculous escape following an attempt to beat the VMCA curve at another airport in Durban a few years ago.

http://img387.imageshack.us/img387/1308/whoputthatthere226iy.jpg

Lucky guy.

[snotneus]

I just hope that the prang wasn't because they paniced after identifying the engine failure.

[AirwayBlocker]

JOHANNESBURG - Airlink would like to provide an update on the status of
its positioning flight (ferry flight), SA 8911 from Durban to
Pietermaritzburg which was involved in an accident at 08h00 on Thursday 24
September 2009 . There were no passengers on board and no fatalities.

Our three crew members and a bystander on the ground are in hospital in
Durban receiving medical attention for their injuries.

1. Flight Attendant Rodelle Oosthuizen sustained facial and back
injuries. She is stable and will be operated on today.

2. Capt Alistair Freeman sustained multiple injuries including facial
fractures, broken ribs and ankle and a suspected punctured lung. He is
still critical but stable and will be operated on his legs today, once the
facial swelling has reduced his facial fractures will be attended to.

3. First Officer Sonja Bierman also sustained multiple injuries. She is
in a stable condition and currently under sedation. She has broken both her ankles and a hand and has sustained fractures in the pelvic area and chest. Her ankles were operated on successfully yesterday.

4. The member of the public, Mr Abraham Mthethwa sustained leg
fractures and will be operated on today, He is critical but in a stable
condition.

5. Airlink can confirm that the wreckage of the aircraft has been
released to Airlink's on-site technical team, who are working closely with
the South African Civil Aviation authority in its investigation of the
accident. The digital flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have
been retrieved and will be analyzed. The original equipment manufacturer
BAE SYSTEMS PLC has dispatched a team of technical experts to assist with the investigation should they be required by the SACAA.

Airlink executive management is at the hospital to support the Family and
loved ones and the injured personnel. Airlink can also confirm that trauma
counseling for the Family members has been arranged for today.

The aircraft a Jetstream 41 (29 seats) departed from Durban International
Airport and shortly after take-off declared an emergency. It had been
reported on the active Air Traffic Control radio channel by other pilots and
air traffic controllers that smoke was seen coming from one of the engines. The crew then reported that they had encountered engine loss of power and they declared an emergency.

The aircraft ditched approx 400 m off the Airport. It appears that the crew was executing a forced emergency landing. They had selected a small open field in the built up area which was clearly not adequate for this purpose. The aircraft impacted a concrete palisade fence and columns and came to rest on the sports field of Merebank High school in the Bluff area.

It is remarkable that the skill and expertise of the pilots was such that in
this emergency they were able to pilot their aircraft to avoid contact with
members of the public and buildings and that a major catastrophe was
averted. Pilots are specifically trained for engine "power loss on takeoff"
emergencies, and clearly this training has played its role. As luck would
have it, due to it being a public holiday, there were no learners at school
at the time.

Airlink has taken care of the travel and hotel accommodation arrangements for immediate family to be at the side of their loved ones.

Airlink advises that its scheduled air services have not been disrupted .
Operations continue as normal.

Journalists should call 082 854 1988 for further information.

Issued for Airlink
KARIN MURRAY

[Avi8tor]

Man!!! That Islander is trashed. Lucky boy

[dash431]

One can only hope the Islander wasnt a prelude to this accident, and that something extraordinary occured that made this aircraft go down. The turbo-prop aircraft I am familiar with will fly perfectly well on Avgas though... Does anyone know if there is a restriction on the use of Avgas in the J41? I'm left pondering the thought of a possible dual engine failure.
Reason being the aircraft should be able to sustain level flight for long enough for a proficient crew after identifying an engine-out, to monitor Auto-feather, and if need be, manually feather said failed engine. The only reason I can therefore think of (barring pilot error) for the left hand engine not to have been feathered by the crew, is that they lost both, and therefore had to focus all efforts on a forced landing.
Can any J41 rated pilots please shed some light as to the performance characteristics of the J41 on one engine, with the inoperative windmilling...?

Good luck to the crew... hope they recover quickly.

D431

[nugpot]

The only way to get AVGAS in your a/c at DUR is to physically taxi up to the AVGAS pump and fill it up. All the trucks and the underground pressure points handle only Jet A1.

[Tiddly Eater]

Islander ZS-PCJ


PROBABLE CAUSE: "The pilot employed a incorrect go-around technique and took inappropriate actions during the emergency situation, which aggravated the situation.
Contributory Factors:
(i). Prevalent carburettor icing probability conditions for any power setting.
(ii). Lack of experience of the pilot on the aircraft type."

[Tin-Tin]

Heard that the no 2 engine was smoking on the take off run.If you look at the pictures you can appreciate that the no 1 engine was not feathered and clearly not generating power. The no 2 engine was still generating partial power.I sincerely hope they did not shut the wrong engine down..We can only speculate until the investigation is over..:bored:

[Der absolute Hammer]

Airlink can confirm that the wreckage of the aircraft has been
released to Airlink's on-site technical team, who are working closely with
the South African Civil Aviation authority in its investigation of the
accident. The digital flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder have
been retrieved and will be analyzed. The original equipment manufacturer
BAE SYSTEMS PLC has dispatched a team of technical experts to assist with the investigation should they be required by the SACAA.

It's that last little bit about should they be required that might cause the sceptical a little unease. Is there any possibility that BAE would not be required to assist?
The even more sceptical might question why the wreckage had been released to Airlink engineers ( presumably) before the manufacturers crash team had arrived.

[Jetjock330]

What would the procedure be after and engine fail in Airlink on the Jetsteam 41? In our airline, the pilot flying (PF) confirms and reduces the thrust lever of the affected engine, and then the PNF will continue the ECAM action and confirm and cut the engine master, as per ECAM. (A330/A340)

Who confirms and hands on feathers a dead engine in Airlink?

[bianchi]

The last time I flew a multi-engine,multi crew turbo prop, the"feather" of the "dead engine" manually was done by the pilot NOT flying after confirmation af the pilot Flying that he or she agrees that the correct( or shall I say"the dead")engine was identified before the pilot NOT flying feathers the engine( This procedure I would would like to believe is standard practice in all multi crew enviroments) whether it's a turbo prop or a jet, you DON'T just shut down systems( pull fuel handles or disconnnect generators etc) without the other party's( other pilots agreement with you on the situation) ! Just my humble 2 cents on this.

I think the crew did a very good job on this !! Wishing them all a speedy recovery,including the poor chap on the ground .

[LJP]

Again Al, Kathy, Shannon, Dylan and I have you at the absolute forefront of our prayers. TO YOU, YOUR CREW, YOUR BEAUTIFUL FAMILIES, we wish you only the best.

Lindsay

[J'Mac]

Speedy recovery to the crew

[V1... Ooops]

It's that last little bit ["BAE SYSTEMS PLC has dispatched a team of technical experts to assist] about should they be required that might cause the skeptical a little unease. Is there any possibility that BAE would not be required to assist?

ICAO Annex 13 very thoroughly documents the protocol and etiquette associated with accident investigations. In the context of your question above, the regulatory authority of the state of manufacture (in this case, the UK) has the right to have an 'accredited representative' observe the accident investigation, but this right is rarely invoked. More commonly, the state in which the accident takes place (in this case, South Africa) will contact the state of manufacture and ask them to send appropriate specialists to assist with the investigation. These representatives are then offered accreditation by the state leading the investigation.

In other words - it is almost a sure thing that the UK CAA informally phoned the SA CAA and said "May we help you in any way with this?" and the SA CAA said "Yes, we would be grateful if you could sent some experts from the manufacturer".

That's how things normally go.

[Carrier]

Quote: “ICAO Annex 13 very thoroughly documents the protocol and etiquette associated with accident investigations.”

That applies in the first world. This happened in Africa. There are numerous crashes throughout the continent that have never been properly investigated and explained. Here are two examples:

http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/341537-b1900-missing-congo-11.html

http://www.pprune.org/african-aviation/314016-prang-livingstone-c210-september-2004-a.html

[reptile]

To the guys using this accident to punt ALPA - shame on you.

It's time you get off your high horse and face a couple of facts, suitcaseman. I'm not sure why you have a problem with ALPA-SA, but consider the following:

1. Despite the fact that Alistair is not an ALPA member, the ALPA Exco has already contacted his family and assured them that a close eye will be kept on proceedings and that they should feel free to contact them at any stage should they require assistance.

2. ALPA has been formally invited by CAA to participate in the accident investigation. The ALPA accident analysis expert has already been dispatched and will be a full participant in proceedings. This gentleman will ensure, amongst other things, that the CVR and FDR data may only be used for investigative purposes and not for punitive conclusions against the crew.

3. A support team was assembled by ALPA shortly after the accident and dispatched to Durban to ensure that all the needs of the crew are met (including the injured flight attendant).

4. An ALPA CIRP specialist will arrive in DUR on Monday to provide trauma counselling to the family and friends of the crew involved in this tragedy.

5. As soon as their condition improves, ALPA will be assisting the crew with their written statements. This is invaluable since many pilots have in the past inadvertently shot themselves in the feet when providing written statements to the investigating authority.

So far from simply “punting ALPA”, as you have so eloquently put it suitcaseman, those who’ve mentioned ALPA are right on the mark. This is classic example why any and all pilots should be members of an organisation like ALPA and not simply any old trade union. Their support and industry influence ranges much, much further than simply negotiating salary increases. Alistair and Sonja will need a lot of support in months to come, and I can assure you they have the best possible team behind them to provide the assistance they require.

[Cave Troll]

Guys don't make this thread about the good or bad points of ALPA. It is supposed to be here to help and support our fellow aviators be they guilty of screwing up or not. It is not supposed to be about whether or not ALPA screwed people over or not. There are other forums for that.

To the crew involved all the best and a speedy recovery

ct

[reptile]

Your whole argument is based on seriously flawed facts. ALPA never screwed any members out of money - the Airlink Pilots Association Exco was flawed and made some very bad decisions. The Exco, keep in mind, were elected by Airlink pilots from their own ranks.

You are giving some very, very bad advice to young pilots reading these forums. What you fail to realize is that they need not have done anything wrong to still get the short end of the stick. Procedural errors by the investigating authority, a poorly worded statement by the pilots and a host of other potential pitfalls has the potential to get innocent crew into a heap of trouble. This is where a dedicated aviation association can, an will, save your but.

You are fairly dim if you believe for one second that any other labour union (and I am not referring to only Solidarity) has the experience, expertise and general know-how to give you the help you need in the event of a serious aircraft accident. There is simply no debate on this point. Period.

The First Officer is an ALPA member and getting her moneys’ worth. The captain is not an ALPA member, and far from forcing help down his throat, ALPA has OFFERED their assistance.

Your knight in shining amour analogy is very poetic, but fails to hide the fact that you are dim whit with an ax to grind. As mentioned previously, your advice is not only ill informed but is potentially damaging. Since it is considered poor sport to engage in a battle of wits with an opponent that is clearly unarmed, I will no longer debate this issue with you. Let’s wait and see how things unfold in the future.


Back to accident thread.

[Avi8tor]

I am not sure that this is the thread to hash up the ALPA debate.

I have said it before, unions are only as commited as the membership. The memebership at the time, decided to fight for self interest, not a principle. Management had already won on the divide and rule concept.

The outcome was a given failure.

Back to the thread.

The failed engine would have NTS'd and then auto-feathered had it failed to relight. The Fight would have lasted less than a minute, the crash site was less than 1.5nm from point of rotation. I dont see this as a 'wrong engine' issue. The crew's sim training would have precluded that.

I also dont see this as a straight engine out. The blade damage suggests something very strange. It can be seen clearly in the pics that #2 engine, the engine that had reported smoke, was turning under power at impact. # 1 is NOT feathered, but undamaged, as if stationary.

I dont even want to speculate what went wrong.

[skyshark]

Given Airlink Management's reputation for intimidation, bullying, lies and deception I find it very strange that the CAA would release the wreck of the aircraft to Airlink.:mad:

Regardless of whatever union the crew are represented by, I suggest the first thing they do is engage attorney's

[unablereqnavperf]

suitcaseman,

it is far better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove the element of doubt!

I have never and will never be a union man as far as T+c's are concerned however as many have said in the situation this crew now find themselves they need all the help and support they can get. This would not be the time to drag up old failed industrial arguments!

There are two possible senarios here, one something went wrong that made the aircraft unflyable in which case the crew done a great job saving their lives and the lives of others on the ground or, two the crew screwed up the engine out drill and the aircraft fell out of the sky.( however they still managed to ease the scale of the disaster).

If senario one is proven the crew have nothing to worry about but some support from other proffesionals on their side will still be welcome. However if senario two is proven then the crew will need a lot of help indeed and if I were in this situation I would certainly welcome support from fellow proffesionals regardless.

No pilot ever comes out of incidents like this unscathed and even if they are proved blamless( I for one certainly hope this is the case ) they will still need help to rebuild themselves and their careers if thery are to ever fly again!

This is not a time to selfishly air your own dirty laundry but a time for reflection and to thank our lucky stars that we are not the one laying in hospital beds feeling the pain and mental anguish that these fellow aviators are going through.

I wish them a speedy recovery and sincerely hope that the investigation results go their way.

[Maurice Chavez]

reptile,

Be careful, the almighty and knowingly suitcase man might send one of his alter ego's on to you, he usually does when he can't win his argument.

Glad to hear ALPA is involved in the crash probe and sure is nice of them offering assistance to non ALPA members.

Let's see what the outcome will be in due time.

[4HolerPoler]

suitcase & the rep are taking a well earned rest in the cooler - they'll be back in a few days.

Please try & keep this discussion/ debate level-headed without invoking personal insults.

4HP

[Cave Troll]

Now hopefully that the children have been sent out the room we can get this thread back to what it is supposed to be about i.e. the Link crash.

ct

[rattex4U]

U send them peolpe to the cooler, but yourself posting a pic of the islander. Don't you think your a tattle tail for doing so?...look people look, and see what else this pilot has done wrong!!!!!!!

The guy is in hospital, give a chap a chance man! :rolleyes:

TT? - Nope - he pranged the Islander through his inept handling of a single-engine approach and but for the grace of God no-one died. I am entitled to my opinions as you are to yours. After the mechanical failure on the J41 something went seriously wrong for them to prang - I'll wait for the enquiry and am not suggesting anything.

If you choose to continue baiting me do it by PM please. 4HP

[divinehover]

Suitcaseman you are a fool. So little fact, so much flawed opinion.

DH

[V1... Ooops]

[referring to ICAO Annex 13 protocols]...That applies in the first world. This happened in Africa.

Hi Carrier:

I hear what you are saying, but, don't confuse 'process' with 'outcomes'. The processes in the ICAO annexes are generally followed by everyone, regardless of the capabilities or level of development of the regulatory agencies in various countries. The results (outcomes) of any accident investigation will depend on the capabilities of the country that is the lead agency.

Further, if the lead agency submits findings that any one of the accredited representatives disagree with, each accredited representative has the right to file a dissent. For example, if the lead agency is Country A, and they publish a finding that says "the aircraft fell out of the sky because the Gods were angry", and the accredited representative from the country of manufacture (or country of registration, or a state that had a citizen on that flight as a passenger) disagrees, they can file a dissent saying "We believe the aircraft fell out of the sky because it was covered with ice", or "because it ran out of fuel", or "because the engine failed", as the case may be.

If you would like to see an excellent example of this dissention process in actual practice, look up the report of the investigation into the Concorde take-off accident in France about 10 years ago.

Having said all that, the process can break down entirely if the lead agency does not file a report at all. This is what appears to have happened (to date) in the case of the South African B-1900 that crashed in the DRC - one of the examples you cited.

[jumbo1]

Firstly and most importantly wishes to the crew for a speedy recovery.

Whatever the reason for the engine problems they didn't have much time to do much about it and in my opinion did a great job averting disaster.

Having been an ex ALPA member and involved in the CIRP programme now assisting all involved in this accident, I can only mention how important it is that all available assistance is given to these crews and their families. It is totally irrelevant which union they belong to - it's not about the unions, it's about assisting fellow aviators in distress. It is vital that they are protected not only from the media, who we all know love to sensationalize things and will happily quote out of context, but also any other interested parties who may wish to apportion blame away from themselves. The accident investigation will determine what actually happened, not fellow aviators, media, armchair critics, airline management etc.
Cirp will provide our colleagues with the legal guidelines they need as well as counselling for them and their families which is absolutely vital for all concerned. A little statistic - in the US more than 80% of pilots involved in accident/serious incidents who did NOT get counselling ended up losing their jobs. Post traumatic stress is serious! Just remember one thing - next time it could be you involved. Believe me you will then be grateful for all the support you can get.
I have personally been involved with 2 incidents where pilots and their families have received CIRP support and have seen first hand the benefit of it.
Good luck to the crew. My best wishes to you all and to everyone assisting them, ALPA, fellow colleagues and friends - thank you for standing by your colleagues in a time of need. It's what makes this profession worthwhile.
Rgds
Jumbo

[Flyboy737]

Firstly my best wishes to all the injured parties.
We were parked in DUR at A1 while the accident was playing off behind us.
It was a extremely powerless feeling that rolled over my crew and myself to witness this tragedy. We reported to ATC the the A/C appeared "fairly intact" as we climbed out. As crew we had to focus on the task at hand, but our minds were with the crew of Link 911, with 2 t/o's and landings ahead for the day. We were unaware at the time of the outcome. We were reminded how quickly things can go wrong.

As we all are aware it had been raining in DUR before 8 that morning. We landed just after the rain. Earlier in the forum the “situation that could make the JS41 impassible to fly” is contemplated.
My question to the forum is: How would contamination of the fuel (say water) affect the JS41.
I do not wish to speculate about the quality of the fuel – please. This is merely a question because of the earlier rain.

[Flyboy737]

From the CAA website -

MEDIA STATEMENT
Durban, Thursday 24 September 2009.
An SA Airlink Jetstream 41 Turboprop aircraft, carrying 3 passengers, experienced engine
problems after take off from Durban International Airport this morning. The aircraft was
unable to maintain altitude and the crew attempted to land on a sports field of a local
school at a suburb just 3km north east of the airport. The aircraft had diverted from
Pietermaritzburg on Wednesday evening due to bad weather.
The flight being undertaken was a positioning flight back to Pietermaritzburg with no
paying passengers onboard. The aircraft impacted a concrete fence which caused
damage to the cockpit, severely injuring the two pilots. The flight attendant on board was
also taken to hospital with suspected back or neck injuries. A municipal worker on the
ground was also injured by the aircraft and was taken to hospital. Fortunately, no fire
erupted as a result of the crash, even though the aircraft has been extensively damaged.
Rescue and firefighting teams were on the scene within minutes, but it took two and a half
hours to extract the last crewmember from the cockpit, without causing further injuries.
Senior representatives from the Civil Aviation Authority and the Department of Transport
who happened to be in Durban, were on the scene within 30 minutes and an accident
investigation team was also dispatched from Johannesburg.
The SA Police Services responsible for securing the wreckage quickly cordoned off the
area, to ensure that evidence critical to the accident investigation would not be tempered
with by those at the scene.
A preliminary accident report will be released in due course by the Chief Investigator.
- ends -
SA Civil Aviation Authority
Private Bag X73
Halfway House
1685
Tel: (011) 545 1000
Fax: (011) 545 1201
Website: CAA Website (http://www.caa.co.za)

[Jetjock330]

Does anyone know if they retracted the gear at all and if it was lowered before impact, or was the not retracted at all?

The airborne time was extremely short and single engine flight with gear down would be extremely difficult.

[davidjh]

Sad to hear that a J41, which has given Link (and others) such good service, has crashed. Kudos to the crew for managing to put the aircraft down in a reletively open area. Kudos to the J41 for not bursting into flames as this would more than likely have resulted in a tragic outcome. My hope for a speedy recovery to all injured.

[Irene]

A friend of mine told me he saw a picture taken in the cockpit after the crash. Landing gear lever in up position, number 1 engine fuel lever in cut-off and number two fuel lever in idle. Have heard that the right engine may have been on fire during/after take-off.

Despite these observations, even if they are 100% true and indicative of what occured, I reserve all judgement until the investigation is done. Levers could have been bumped by personnel involved in the rescue of the crew.

What does makes sense to me is the state of the number 2 engine - Obvious fire which fire dept. had to douse with foam on the ground (supporting rumours of smoke/fire coming out of the right engine after take-off), props all bent as they still had a turning force applied upon ground impact (observation of fuel condition lever postion supports this).

What doesn't make sense to me is the state of the number 1 engine. Props not bent, indicating they were not turning on ground impact (supported by picture observation of fuel condition lever in cut-off). But why then were the props not in the fully feathered position? Was there a multi-system failure?

Possibly the crew shut-down number 1 on purpose because of severe controlling difficulties after extreme and unanticipated yaw, making the right choice in ditching to avert a bigger disaster? The scenarios are endless in nature. Whatever the scenario, they did a hot job of making the field. Am happy to hear, via the news media, that all seem to be recovering, albeit in various stages of difficulty.

[Aaronjerry]

Hi
As I am quite familiar with the J41 systems I can tell that a TPE will still run on avgas but as far as I know there is no pressure refuling possible with avgas so unless they did overwing refueling it would appear almost impossible.

As to the autofeather it is only active as long as the APR switch is armed.

I have seen quite a few cases were the prop is not featering when pulling the condition lever to "stop and feather" and I have made BAe and Honeywell awere of the lack of test procedures in the A/C MM and engine MM.
As to the smoke from at least one engine, we do have lots of turbine air-oil seals going bad and also turbinr lubrication pipe cracking causing a massive oil leak with loads of smoke and an inflight shutdown to follow

[Irene]

Thanks Aaronjerry.

As people are talking about AVGAS, I think it is important to note that I heard from someone who spoke to refuelling company at FADN that the J41 was refuelled with JET A1 after it arrived from Pietermaritzburg the night before.

[Fuzzy Lager]

May the injured enjoy a speedy and complete recovery.

I await the results of the investigation with anticipation. In Mr AF's last neighbourhood event in the greater Durban area he acted with neither skill nor professionalism. He managed to crash a servicable aircraft because he forgot the carb heat. Even worse, loss of control preceded impact.

Its easy enough to go through the list of the possible/probable events that followed this J41's final lift off. It would take a real jaw dropper to exonerate him. Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.

If ALPA's primary purpose is, as suggested here, to protect fellow airman from the unreasonable harshness of reality then I am sure we can expect them to stand accountable every time one of their subjects fails to miss the earth reliably.

AF, please read this, and please reconsider you career choice. You and those that have crashed with you are alive due to luck. Quit before that luck runs out.

The damage to Air links reputation and negative publicity for aviation in general is a loss for the entire industry.

[LJP]

I hope to be there Fuzzy Lager, when you see your self opinionated ass.

[Juliet Sierra Papa]

@ Fuzzy Lager,

That is the kind of Bulls**t response that has to be (unfortunately) expected here. :ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

Obviously his training and that of the first officer in forced landings has paid off greatly here with extremely little destruction or damage to local surrounds in a highly populated residential and industrial area.

Yes, the investigation report will let us know what happened...but


If ALPA's primary purpose is, as suggested here, to protect fellow airman from the unreasonable harshness of reality then I am sure we can expect them to stand accountable every time one of their subjects fails to miss the earth reliably.

AF, please read this, and please reconsider you career choice. You and those that have crashed with you are alive due to luck. Quit before that luck runs out.



until then I suggest that you be careful with your choice of words and accusations.

JSP

[Fuzzy Lager]

Ja, what a great success, just like last time.

[Der absolute Hammer]

I cannot remember ever having practised a forced landing when training in a Perf A aircraft although I once ran a B737 off the deck of an aircraft carrier at east Midlands.
The successful landing of flight 1549 was one of the aspects that made the landing so exceptional but the cause of that necessity was catastrophic failure. Was this Airlink accident caused by catastrophic failure of both engines or the loss of only one engine at (possibly I think) much less than MTOW.
Just because the aircraft has propellers does not mean that its certification in terms of performance is any less rigorous in terms of flight profile than that of an A 320. This is something which does not seem to be understood by some who have written on these pages.
One would not like to speculate as to the cause of the crash but we can possibly to ask how much more serious it would have been had the aircraft been loaded with passengers and baggage. Airlink were very fortunate that it was not and it would not do to see the inquiry any less rigorously pursued than it should be because no member of the travelling public as opposed to staff member, were injured or killed.

[V1... Ooops]

...although I once ran a B737 off the deck of an aircraft carrier at east Midlands...
Eh ? ? ? Did I read that right?

[V1... Ooops]

Ah - now I understand - you didn't mean "aircraft carrier" literally...

(took a while for the coin to drop)

[oompilot]

To be judged at the pearly gates by Saint Peter has nothing on walking through the minefield of judgmental aviation.

Chocolate starfish like Fuzzy Lager must be one of the many perfect aviation aces that lurk at just about every airport. You have so much to say and only because fortune has smiled upon you, that I promise you.
Never mind I am sure one day Saint Peter will bow before you as you float the red carpet as he mumbles under his breath ‘Look out Boss there’s a new judge in town!’

[Woof etc]

A question for the J41 drivers:

Assuming failure of the critical engine and the prop auto-feather system:

- Would the yaw be containable with reasonable force at V2 with the operating engine at TO power?

- Would the aircraft be able to maintain altitude in take-off config? - my guess would be it would be able to considering the light loading and low density altitude, even with the prop unfeathered.

[SIC]

I think that the effort of the captain to make it to a "field" without taking out a few houses / local residents was heroic to say the least.

Some around here are seriously confusing heroism with the basic will to live/survive.
Any person will try and manipulate the controls of a vehicle in such a way that they will avoid hitting a house.

At least the second time around they will - as in this case.:ouch:

Helmet on......

[DASHER 8]

J41 has counter rotating props.
No Crit Eng

[V1... Ooops]

...Assuming failure of the critical engine and the prop auto-feather system:

- Would the yaw be containable with reasonable force at V2 with the operating engine at TO power?

- Would the aircraft be able to maintain altitude in take-off config?

Hello Woof:

I have never flown a Jetstream, and I have no knowledge of that aircraft at all. I have, however, over 5,000 hours experience giving instruction in full-motion twin turboprop simulators, and based on that experience, I'll try to answer your question in a generic manner (meaning, not speaking to this specific accident).

You asked if "yaw would be containable with reasonable force". I don't think force is really the issue. The most important issue when dealing with an engine failure in the takeoff phase of flight is to maintain airspeed - ideally, to keep airspeed close to V2 or Vyse (which one it is depends on the certification basis of the aircraft), and at the very least, to keep airspeed above Vmc.

As airspeed degrades, the amount of force required to fully deflect the rudder and ailerons decreases. So do the chances of being able to successfully recover from the engine failure at takeoff. A twin that has only one operating engine has a very narrow speed range within which it will climb, and if too much kinetic energy is lost and there is no potential energy (altitude) available, the chances of increasing the airspeed back to that V2 or Vyse target - an essential prerequsite to climb or even level flight - become very remote.

In other words, it's not the yaw from the windmilling engine that is the problem, it is the degradation in airspeed that arises from the windmilling engine that is the problem.

As to your question about maintaining altitude in takeoff configuration, I am not aware of any twin turboprops that can maintain altitude with only one engine operating in the takeoff configuration (gear down) and the failed engine windmilling.

Again, I want to emphasize that I am not speaking to the circumstances of this particular accident, I'm speaking in general terms about twin turboprops.

[dash431]

If the enquiry should find (Heaven forbid!) that it was in fact pilot error, and I am not in ANY way, shape or form saying it is, should the captain be allowed to continue his career in aviation? When do you draw the line?
If you have demonstrated on 2 occasions after comprehensive flight training (J41 Convex) that you are ill equipped to pilot an aircraft under circumstances that you get tought to deal with, should the authorities not at very least review your position as PIC?

And again, this is a hypathetical question, not aimed at the Captain of the downed J41... More of a point to ponder.

[oompilot]

For sure Dash431, I think that would be an intelligent process should this be the case. I would go one step further. If incompetence is an issue it is unlikely it occurred briefly before joining Airlink and briefly after the PIC training program.
So if incompetence were the consistent factor here I would say the instructor responsible for signing this person out is therefore not competent in assessing ability, and his instructors rating should to be revoked.
The pilots responsible for completing line training should also be questioned as to there lack of input into this supposed incompetence. If these pilots accepted him as he was then they must be at this same standard and therefore should be taken for further training.
There are safety steps put in place in aviation to catch incompetence and clearly if this were the case they have all been missed and Airlink should answer as to how this happened.

[skyshark]

You comment on the assumption thatthe training received from Airlink is suitable......is it? furthermore the rostering of crew does not take into account the relative inexperience of either crew member or in some instances both. Airlink are blaise to this and continue regardless. The investigation needs to go further than this particular incident

[titaniumspoon]

My sources who are at Link at the moment, tell me that some time back, about 1 to 2 years now, the selection of pilots at Link was not going according to RF’s master plan: they were finding it difficult to source good quality material who were prepared to work for Link. Many said they will be there for the interview and simply never arrived for said interview. Others said they don’t work for charities. Not enough incentive.:ugh:
Subsequently, senior management, now under the auspices of the venerable JVJ gave orders to take anyone who complies with the legal minimum requirements. Re-visit members who have failed the previous selections. Change the minimum requirements.:=
Many airlines will ask one particularly significant question: “Have you ever been involved in an accident before?”:rolleyes:
Now let’s not jump to ANY conclusions, but another quirk of Link under the new management is: If he or she battles in the sim, give extra sessions. The pilot has been selected and has cost money already, hence- “Make it work.”
Further, if he or she battles with line training: give extra sectors, make it work.
Some of the then instructors were loath to sign out certain candidates, be it sim or line, they were subsequently ‘shifted away’. Not players.
Another standard that His Royal Highness a.k.a. JVJ had changed was the amount of experience a pilot needed to get command. I.e. Command time, Total time and Time on type. All made ~ less.
I have family that fly on Link regularly and I am happy, till now. I think positive change is required to put Link back where it has always been!:ok:

[Goffel]

I believe the captain had got his command two weeks before the unfortunate incident........what was the FO's experience.

Another thing, everyone is assuming the the captain be the hero in this incident..........who was to say the young lady was not the hero of the day.

Look at her injuries.....broken ankles.....maybe from the rudder pedals.....broken wrists....maybe from the control column.

I think with the minimal facial injuries, one could assume that she was wearing her shoulder harness...(something I learnt in a Kudu incident that is essential and not macho).

As far as Fuzzy Lager goes, I think he was just stating his feelings as he obviously does know quite a few other things that have not been voiced here.....although, his choice of wording may not be the right choice given the day...

My question.....can a J41 fly on one engine????.....

I must say, I think the hostie had the worst ride not knowing what was going on.

Goffel.

[Der absolute Hammer]

If a J41 is a Perf A aircraft then yes, it should fly on one engine.
British Midland had an aircraft carrier landing scenario on their 737 simulator at EMA.
It was a quite realisitc experience, save only for the absence of the spashes.

[Bergie]

I spoke to an engineer who was at the crash site shortly after the unfortunate incident who confirmed that the number 1 start lever was in cutoff. What puzzles me is that failing a dual engine failure, how did the aircraft end up only 400m from the upwind threshold? I have never flown a J41 but all the turbo-prop/ jet aircraft I have flown instruct you not to take any action bar cancelling the fire bell until at least at 400ft. What is Airlink's policy? Everyone is quick to call hero because no one was killed, but what if sop's weren’t followed and the wrong engine was shut down. We will know soon enough. Just as well the aircraft was not full of passengers.

[Avi8tor]

I am amazed how quickly the peanut gallery are talking about shutting down the wrong engine. There is NOTHING to suggest that the #1 engine was shut down by the crew IN FLIGHT. The engine #1 is clearly NOT in feather.

The fact that the condition level is in Feather/cut off but the blades are not indicates that it was done after the aircraft was on the ground. I think a pretty smart move if ur avoiding a subsequent fire.

Leave the conclusions to the accident board. They will have the FDR/CVR.

[4HolerPoler]

Bergie, to be accurate the school fence is around 1,428 meters from the upwind threshold - the aircraft struck the ground around 1,375 meters from the same datum and came to a stop around 1,445 meters upwind of the threshold. Total ground distance around of around 70 meters. Thanks to the pallisade arrestor barrier and what (I believe) will be shown to be a relatively low forward speed.

[Goffel]

They hit the bank before hitting the fence.......that was what caused the initial cockpit damage.

[V1... Ooops]

... If he or she battles in the sim, give extra sessions. The pilot has been selected and has cost money already, hence- “Make it work.” Further, if he or she battles with line training: give extra sectors, make it work...

I think your comments (quoted above) are scurrilous.

For example, FlightSafety's motto is "Train to Proficiency". By this, they mean that as long as a candidate is making progress, the candidate will be given as much training as they require in order to achieve proficiency. No additional charge is ever made for this. I think FlightSafety has learned a few things about pilot training in the 60 years that they have been in the business.

There is not a correlation between the length of time required to achieve proficiency and the skill or competency of an individual pilot. Adults learn at different rates - some absorb verbal information quickly, others need an opportunity to practice things "hands on". Further, outside influences such as family stress, pressures of relocation, anxiety related to a new job, etc. can all have a detrimental effect on how rapidly the candidate reaches proficiency.

I've hired a lot of pilots, and I've trained a lot of pilots, and my experience has been that how quickly (or slowly) they complete their training program is generally not indicative of how they will perform once they are out on the line.

If any air carrier introduces a policy that says "Once we select you, we'll give you as much sim training as you need to become proficient and meet standards, and we'll give you as much line training as you need to become proficient and meet standards" - hey, that's a darn good thing for system safety. It takes a lot of pressure off the candidate, and it assures the candidate that the organization will not compromise standards just to stay within a budget.

[Bergie]

Thanks 4Holer. Grow up Avi8tor, this is a rumour network and I will call it as I see it. If what YOU are now speculating is to hold any water then why was the no 2 condition lever not in cutoff? Judging by the extent of their injuries the crew must of shut down the no1 motor prior to receiving their disabilitating injuries, which in all probability were inflicted when they hit the concrete wall. (if it was the crew who moved the lever)
Only speculation Avi8or, the facts will be revealed. :cool:

[Tin-Tin]

Airlink captain Alistair Freeman was held responsible for a serious plane crash when he nose-dived into a house four years ago.

But his SA Airlink boss said this is "irrelevant" to the Heritage Day crash in Durban.

After the August 2005 crash, Freeman would have been legally grounded for two years. Airlink CEO Rodger Foster said he joined the staff in June last year as a first officer and was recently promoted to captain.


Freeman is in a critical condition

Freeman is in a critical condition after the SA Airlink flight he was commanding crash-landed in the grounds of a Durban school on Heritage Day, seriously injuring first officer Sonja Bierman, flight attendant Rodelle Oosthuizen and Durban Solid

Waste street cleaner Abraham Mthethwa. All are still in intensive care.


Freeman's face is badly injured. "It's going to take quite a long time before he can speak, a long time," said Foster.


Bierman may be transferred to a Joburg hospital soon.

Oosthuizen is in significant pain from spinal injuries and is due to have an operation today, while Mthethwa is stable.

Foster said they were eligible for disability benefits immediately. The airline hopes for their full recovery, but it's possible they may not fly again.


'It's not an uncommon mistake'

A previously unpublicised Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) report uncovered by The Star concluded that pilot error was the "probable cause" of Freeman's 2005 crash, in which he ploughed a twin-engine Britten-Norman Islander charter plane carrying a family, including two children, through the roof of a Durban house.

All six in the plane were injured. The house was empty.

Freeman had multiple fractures and passenger Gerhard Huber dislocated his hip.

Reporting on the probable cause, the CAA said: "The pilot employed an incorrect go-around technique and took inappropriate action during the emergency situation, which aggravated the situation."

It said "prevalent carburettor icing" and Freeman's "lack of experience" with the aircraft type - six of his 950 flying hours - contributed.

In the minutes before the 2005 accident, as he was coming in to land, Freeman told air traffic control that he had engine problems so was going around again. But the accident report later said that the flight and engine controls were "satisfactory", and "both engines performed satisfactorily".

Media reports at the time said Huber alerted Freeman that something was wrong before the plane "veered off course" and crashed through the roof into the living room of Alwyn Field's house.

Yesterday Field, who still lives in his extensively rebuilt house and is now known to his friends as "Airfield", said his insurance paid for the rebuilding and he was told this cost was claimed back from the aviation insurance.

Field expressed sympathy for Freeman. "He's lucky to be alive, poor man. Who survives two air crashes?"

Yesterday, Foster said he wasn't aware of details of that accident and insisted Freeman was a proficient pilot.

"It is irrelevant from our perspective. We don't judge him or select him on the basis of his past history." He confirmed that Freeman would have had to disclose the crash in his CV.

Foster yesterday stressed that the company had a "good idea" of what had caused the Heritage Day crash and maintained that Freeman's earlier crash had "no bearing" on it.

"We have a very good idea of what went wrong and all we're looking for is the corroboration," Foster said.

Airlink is waiting for the data from the two black boxes to be analysed.

Foster said one of the two engines of the 14-year-old SA Airlink aircraft lost power - but did not cut out completely - but that this alone should not have caused the crash.

"It's not a double-engine failure. It's supposed to fly on one engine. Then the question is: why didn't it?

"We have to look at all of the facts surrounding that. We don't have those facts.

"There is a big black hole at the moment. That black hole will be filled by the data that comes out of the black boxes," Foster said.

He said an accident was usually not caused by a single thing but a convergence of several problems.

"But we do not suspect further mechanical failure," he said.

"We think it's simple. We think the outcome will be quickly established."

There have been reports that other pilots saw smoke from one of SA8911's engines and alerted them.

Because the Airlink flight was warned of smoke from an engine, Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.

"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.

[chuks]

As to having an engine failure the certification standards require that that a pilot of "average ability" should be able to control an aircraft following an engine failure. It is not such a big deal to lose an engine, assuming everything else goes as it should.

I just wanted to point that out, since it may come across to some reading this that there's some doubt about being able to fly a J41 on one engine. That is a requirement for such an aircraft to be acceptable for public transport.

You have nominated speeds which give you a safety margin so that you should be able to either safely stop or else fly away after having one engine fail. If you follow the correct procedures then you are reasonably sure of being able to safely operate free of the risk of a serious accident.

Here, obviously, more went wrong than just losing one engine but what exactly happened will have to be made clear by an investigation. There isn't much point in trying to guess what that is without all the facts, particularly the data from the so-called black boxes, one that records the flight values and one that records what the crew said and, secondarily, various sounds produced by power settings, switch selections, etcetera.

It usually takes about a year to a year and-a-half for the final report to be released because it is a painstaking process. Meanwhile people want answers immediately to the question of why a particular accident happened but it is impossible to do that. To point to a control being in a certain position, for instance: was it set in flight or was it moved afterwards? Only the Flight Data Recorder can answer that question for certain.

[zip69]

Answer: yes. In my experience anyway.

But just because it will fly on one engine it does not mean the SA crew are at fault in any way. Many mechanical things could have gone wrong on the day which will hopefully come out in the investigation.

As a part of endorsement training in the simulator, the engine failure was reasonably docile.

Full rudder was not required to maintain dirrectional control with the failure occuring at V1 and at MTOW. (don't remember the elevation of the aerodrome, temp at 25 deg C )

The final check ride was conducted in the aircraft. Again a V1 cut was even easier to control. This time only 2 persons on board and approx 3000 pounds of fuel, so take off weight only approx 8200kg. (elevation 1000' and temp 20 deg C) The engine failure was simulated by closing the power lever, not actually shutting down the engine so the prop was windmilling, not feathered.

(BAE have said on the J41 an engine at flight idle will create slightly more drag than a feathered prop, but it does depend on actual engine rigging and what the figure of flight idle actually is. I have seen anywhere between 5-19% Tq)

I now conduct check and training on said aircraft and also use the above method for simulating the engine failure. Out of a runway at 2000 feet with temp 30 deg C, I expect to see a rate of climb of approx 1000 feet per minute at 8200kg.

Last week I did this for a brand new FO straight out of the simulator with little previous multi engine experience. He was achieving well over 500 feet per minute from initial failure at V1, and once the Phase 1 Memory Items had been completed, the aircraft in trim and climbing at V2, the rate of climb had exceeded 1500 feet per minute. ( Elevation 2000', Temp 15 Deg C, TOW 8200kg)

Again, This by no means the SA crew were at fault in any way!

I am not trying to place blame anywhere, just answer the question that has been asked a number of times.

Best wishes to the crew, their families and the company.

Zip.

[Der absolute Hammer]

Two statements from Airlink below?
I say that to shut down the wrong engine is not a common mistake. I also make to say that if an airline boss thinks that it is, he must be looking to his training captains to see that it is not.
For the first statement-I disregard that option.



It is remarkable that the skill and expertise of the pilots was such that in
this emergency they were able to pilot their aircraft to avoid contact with
members of the public and buildings and that a major catastrophe was
averted. Pilots are specifically trained for engine "power loss on takeoff"
emergencies, and clearly this training has played its role.


Because the Airlink flight was warned of smoke from an engine, Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.

"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.

[Avi8tor]

Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.

"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.

I actually like the guy. But man sometimes he shoots off his mouth way before he loads his brain.

[i-Robot]

...sometimes he shoots off his mouth way before he loads his brain

Sounds exactly like someone we've all become too familiar with on these forums...'ey Avi8tor :hmm:

[Avi8tor]

Ah....the peanut gallery.....u have to love them. Nothing of valve to add, so they get personal.

I remember in grade 4.....

[Sniff Dog]

Okay fellows! Just to wind it back in

The facts that we have are:

1) Witnesses saw smoke from #2 engine. So, it is more than reasonable to assume this was a “bad engine”
2) At the crash site, #2 was delivering power and #1 was not and neither was its propeller feathered.

The state of #1 engine/propeller has only a number of possibilities
a) #1 engine failed and did not auto feather
b) #1 engine was shut down incorrectly and did not feather

Whatever the case is, it is highly unlikely that flight could have been sustained for any longer than it was due to the drag from the prop and possibly lower power from #2

I know that a lot of people including myself are hoping that possibility a) will be the outcome for the sake of the crew but in all probability what are the chances.
In any event, assuming the worst possibility and in that short space of time the crew had to react, they did well.

Good luck to them and a speedy recovery to all who were injured

[Der absolute Hammer]

There must be certain of similarities as well with the J32?
NTS/APR etc and so on and of course, training drills.

[Avi8tor]

****EDITED due to rubbish content.*****

I agree, series of events and possible multiple failures lead to this prang. What I meant to say is that I dont normally believe in multipile failures. Old age and booze again.....:confused: Usually accidents have a primary cause with contributing factors, but in this case I am not so sure.

I do second your call on giving them the 'benefit of the doubt'.

PS: Avi8tor knows more about J41's than most of us.
Thank you sir, I do appriciate the vote of confidence.

[Desert Dawg]

@Avi8tor

The "...error chain..." you are referring to is commonly called the 'Swiss Cheese Model' in aviation circles.... And it is always a chain of events that, when aligned, will cause a disaster.

I agree with Foster.

[Avi8tor]

#2 looks NTS'd to me. So not convinced of how much power it was putting out. But I do agree, a small output would explain why no auto feather. Seem to remember that the auto-feather is activated at 45% RPM.

The state of #1 engine/propeller has only a number of possibilities
a) #1 engine failed and did not auto feather
b) #1 engine was shut down incorrectly and did not feather

a) it didn't NTS either, why?
b)only 2 ways to shut it down, 'stop' button which would have lead to it NTS'ing or feather/shut off with the condition lever. ie, it would have feathered.

Whats more, it from the lack for blade damage, it looks like it was not rotating. Any ideas on how u stop a none feathered prop in flight?

After nearly a week, I still have heard no good explainations for this prang. I am afraid its a 30 day wait till the prelim report is out. Glad the UK CAA AAIB are gonna reconstruct the CVR/FDR.

I hope the crew get their 5c worth too. Glad to see that looks like everybody will pull through. :D:D:D

[Contract Dog]

Sorry, dof question allert! but to trace what lead up to this all, why was this a/c empty in the first place? was it a mx flight? is there a mx base in Durban? and had it just come out of mx? or was it going to JNB for MX? If so what work was done on it or what work was going to be done on it? Was it carrying snags that could only be fixed in JNB? It just seems odd to me that this a/c was empty in the first place? Or do airlines often do positioning flights?

Wishing a speedy recovery to the crew and unlucky municipal worker

Dog

[AirwayBlocker]

To answer contractdog's question.

The aircraft was supposed to have nightstopped at Maritzburg the night before but was unable to land due to weather at the field. They diverted to Durban. The passengers were bussed through to Maritzburg.

The aircraft was returning to Maritzburg the following morning to pick up the schedule again.

It had nothing to do with maintenance.

[big buddah]

No 2 engine rear turbine seal failed, hence the smoke on the t/o roll.
There are now two scenarios :
1) As the a/c crashed at 1.4nm and any crew who has had a complete oil loss will now the will not stop working instantly. There would have been plenty time to sort the problem out or straight engine failure. Unless with turbine seal failure lead to instant internal failure. The J41 is able to fly away with one engine NTS'ing not feathered etc specially with a/c empty at sea level. The may have been struggling to keep it straight hence the crash is to the right of centre line but should have flown away?
The only thing to think about then is they thought they were losing or couldn't control the a/c and decided on a controlled crash. Leading them into shutting the No.1 engine done. (But if the prop is feathered and stationary this doesn't stack up as it takes a good 30-45 sec for a -14 engine prop to stop?)

2) They shut the wrong one down?

[Sniff Dog]

Avi8tor
Appologies.That was a bit ambiguous I meant for point b) The crew, in error shut down #1. But you have raised a question which may be relevant. Does the auto feather function work in flight when the stop switch is pushed?

Also the NTS function from what I understand is a rapid cyclic movement of the blade angle towards feather and then a reduction of the blade angle the opposite way. All this to reduce the drag, and in so doing, would, I imagine reduce the rotational velocity of the prop.
This could account for the condition of #1 prop.
Having said that, even if #1 prop was not in NTS mode and simply just wind milling, I am not too sure how much damage would be caused.

Supposing it was, as has been speculated, a turbine seal that caused smoke from #2.
This I understand is symptomatic. By RF’s own admission, Link has a history of these occurrences leading to engine shut downs. These as we hear are not necessary instantaneous
What is to say that #2 was in NTS mode at the time it impacted the ground. Looks pretty mangled to me as if there was a lot of power on at the time, so much so that it would be almost impossible to ascertain anything without analysing the FDR data.
Just another “blade angle”

Regards

S.D.

[Carrier]

Quote: “For example, FlightSafety's motto is "Train to Proficiency". By this, they mean that as long as a candidate is making progress, the candidate will be given as much training as they require in order to achieve proficiency. No additional charge is ever made for this. I think FlightSafety has learned a few things about pilot training in the 60 years that they have been in the business.”

That may have been the situation in the past but it is certainly not correct now. FlightSafety now includes for a restricted number of hours in its courses and anything extra is definitely charged for. A recent quote from FlightSafety states:
“ Any additional hourly simulator training needed for course completion will be separately billed at the hourly price listed below.” The additional hourly price quoted for the simulator for that particular course is US$1,145 per hour with an additional US$265 per hour Crew Partner Fee if required.
There is a conflict of interest here. If business is slow, as in a recession, then it would be in the training company’s financial interest to ensure that as many students as possible need extra training that can be billed for. Individual ab initio flight instructors who are paid on an hourly rate by flight schools also sometimes resort to ensuring that students require extra training. One day back in the last century in Ontario the WX was too bad for student flying so one instructor actually gave a student an extra lesson in taxiing to keep the funds flowing. Fortunately the people who resort to these tricks are few and far between. Most instructors are honest and do their best to get students through at a fair rate of progress. However, I was surprised to discover that a leading training organisation would put itself in a conflict of interest position where such suspicions could fall upon it.

[Concerned Flyer]

I have learnt a lot reading this forum and hope you can help me. My questions are, if your family member/s had to fly and only this airline was available, would you let them fly? If you had the choice of having to fly or drive for business, what would you do? Hasn't this accident been a long time in the coming?

[snotneus]

I have never met a pilot who wants to crash. Personally I find your question an insult to my proffesionalism. Just because an aircraft crashes does not mean that it is a long time coming. The J41 is a safe aircraft. I have sent my family on it often and will tomorrow. if your accountant makes a mistake, does not mean he is a bad accountant or should not be trusted. if a car crashes does everybody get rid of that type? you newspaper people should stop over sensationalising aviation.

[nugpot]

The Prelim Report is out on the CAA's website:

CAA Website (http://www.caa.co.za) here (http://www.caa.co.za/press_files/2009/Preliminary%20Report%20-%20Merebank%20Durban%20SA%20Airlink%20Crash%20-%20fv.pdf)

[Jetjock330]

Anyone able to post the report. Unable to get past the link on the CAA website, nothing loads.

[Champagne Lover]

MEDIA STATEMENT 2 OCTOBER 2009
STATUS REPORT: INVESTIGATION INTO THE CAUSE OF AN ACCIDENT INVOLVING
A JETSTREAM 41 AIRCRAFT SHORTLY AFTER TAKE OFF FROM DURBAN
INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT ON 24 SEPTEMBER 2009
The objective of an accident investigation is to establish the cause (s) of the accident and
to take steps to prevent a further occurrence. As such the objective is not to apportion
blame or liability.
The purpose of this investigation is therefore to ensure that the investigation is conducted
in the most effective and comprehensive way to establish the cause(s). The investigation
team is committed to adhering to the International Provisions defined in Annex 13 to the
Convention on International Civil Aviation, of which South Africa is a signatory.
To date no evidence has been identified that requires the Commissioner for Civil Aviation
(CCA) to implement any action, such as the prohibition of further flight by Jetstream
aircraft, nor to suspend any approvals granted to the operator.
Passengers can continue to make use of South African operators with confidence in that
their safety is being overseen to the best of its ability by the South African Civil Aviation
Authority (SACAA).
The process followed to date and in future is in compliance with internationally accepted
practices. On arrival at the accident scene, the team of accident investigators, commenced
with the onsite investigation which included the photographing and video-taping of the
accident site and wreckage. It should be noted that the first priority following an accident is
to render assistance to injured parties. The investigators will await completion of this
process prior to taking control of the accident site, so as not to interfere with any rescue
operation.
Following completion of the initial assessment and documenting of the accident site, a
decision was made to remove the wreckage to a hanger at Johannesburg, where a more
detailed investigation and strip down of selected components could be made. This had
been done with the support and cooperation of the operator.
SA Civil Aviation Authority
Private Bag X73
Halfway House
1685
Tel: (011) 545 1000
Fax: (011) 545 1201
Website: CAA Website (http://www.caa.co.za)
2
The South African investigation team has since been joined by an Accredited
Representative (AR) from the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) of the United
Kingdom, who is being assisted by Advisors from the AIIB and the aircraft manufacturer.
The National Transportation Board (NTSB) of the United States of America (USA) has
nominated a non-travelling AR, but with an Advisor from the engine manufacturer on site.
Actions taken to date include:
· The aircraft wreckage is being examined in detail for defects and to exclude factors
that are not relevant to the cause of the accident;
· The Cockpit Voice Recorder (CVR) and Digital Flight Data Recorder (DFDR) have
been hand carried to the AAIB facilities in the UK and data has been successfully
downloaded. Both recorders were fully functional and data retrieved is of good
quality;
· The Air Traffic Control recordings have been obtained and are being transcribed
and analyzed;
· The engines have been removed from the airframe and will be shipped to the
manufacturer in the USA where they will be stripped down in the presence and
under supervision of the Investigators, accredited representatives, advisors and
observers from the operator;
· Compilation and review of relevant records in respect of the aircraft maintenance,
operational and crew records is ongoing.
Factual information obtained to date can be summarised as follows:
· Aircraft design and certification requirements for a multiple-engine aircraft are that it
should be able to continue take-off once passing the decision speed, climb, fly en
route and continue to a landing, should one engine become inoperative. This is
demonstrated during the aircraft certification process at maximum take-off mass.
· The Jetstream 41 aircraft requires an operating crew of two pilots and meets all of
the required certification criteria for a twin-engined turboprop aircraft, even at its
maximum certificated mass.
· It is a requirement that pilots be trained and competent to take-off, fly, and land such
aircraft with one engine inoperative. Pilots are required to maintain competency and
are assessed a minimum of every six months to ensure that such competency is
maintained.
· Operators define standard operating procedures (SOPs) which pilots are to follow
during the various emergencies that may occur. Such competency is again verified
during an actual flight test or in a simulator.
· Smoke was observed to originate from the no. 2 or right-hand engine during the
take-off roll and ATC advised the crew accordingly. This was only transmitted to the
pilot during take-off rotation, thus excluding the possibility of rejecting the take-off.
Duration of the take-off roll was about 18 seconds.
3
· The no.2 or right-hand engine failed on rotation and a power reduction occurred on
the no. 1 engine as the aircraft climbed to about 450 ft. above sea level.
· The aircraft was seen to climb and thereafter descend and impact terrain. (Total
time from start of the take-off roll until impact was about 50 seconds);
· Rescue and fire-fighting services responded appropriately;
· The three crew members on board received injuries to various degrees of severity
and a member of the public was also injured at the accident site;
· Investigators have as yet to interview the crew members and the bystander, due to
their medical conditions.
With reference to the above factual information, the aircraft’s mass was such that it should
have been able to have continued to climb and return to land on one engine. It is therefore
necessary to address the following factors that may shed further light as to the cause of the
accident:
· The reason for the power reduction experienced on the no.1 engine, which will
include continued analysis of the DFDR and CVR information;
· Analysis of any human factor aspects, such as whether the power reduction on
engine No. 1 resulted from an incorrect identification of the failed engine, or a
decision to land the aircraft as soon as possible, or other factors unknown at this
time, that necessitated a deviation from standard operating procedures to continue
the flight on one engine;
· Verification that the no.1 engine had in fact been serviceable throughout the flight by
means of a strip-down examination;
· Strip-down of the no 2. engine to establish the cause of this engine’s failure.
The investigation will be ongoing with participation by the accredited parties.
The Aircraft Accident and Incident Investigation Division (AIID) of the South African Civil
Aviation Authority (SACAA) wishes to acknowledge and thank the above participants and
the operator for their assistance and services rendered to date.
It is trusted that the investigation will lead to the introduction of corrective actions, should
any deficiencies be identified, to ensure the continued safety of passengers transported in
South African airspace and on South African aircraft.
-ENDSAbout
the SACAA:
The South African Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) was established on 1 October 1998 following
the enactment of the South African Civil Aviation Authority Act, No.40, in September of the same
year. The SACAA promotes and maintains a safe, secure and sustainable civil aviation
environment, by regulating and overseeing the functioning and development of the industry in an
efficient, cost-effective, and customer-friendly manner according to international standards.

[Der absolute Hammer]

Smoke was observed to originate from the no. 2 or right-hand engine during the
take-off roll

and

The no.2 or right-hand engine failed on rotation ?

The two statements are not compatible. An engine on fire can still produce take off thrust and there are many simulator scenarios, certainly within a 50 second period where, at rotation, you would leave a fire warning alone, apart from cancelling the devastatingly irritating bell, and fly the aircraft instead-normal drills until 400 feet.
If it has not auto feathered at that point in the take off and the fire is not catastrophic, it can be a fire drill not a failure drill.


This (the smoke information) was only transmitted to the
pilot during take-off rotation, thus excluding the possibility of rejecting the take-off.
Duration of the take-off roll was about 18 seconds.

Is ATC now going to be drawn in to the blame game? It is not their responsibility to point out that the engine needs a de coke.

From the armchair and, permit me to say, as a Jestream pilot with many hours on Garret/NTS/etc equipped aircraft, let me say that the initial hypothetical conclusions are absolutely inescapable in this accident.
Someone must regularily remind Airlink of their extreme good fortune. They have 'got away' with this because their were no passengers on board. Had the aircraft even had less fuel but more pax, to conform to MTOW/Performance TOWs-it would have had for sure some serious fatalities on its books to explain. Airlink has possibly-and I say only possibly with care-been given an opportunity to review all its training procedures with great attention. It is now its responsibility now to ensure that all its standards are reviewed, tightened up (there is always room for that) and perfected. Also perhaps some rostering procedures might need examination-but that is a differenc bottle of stale beer.

I imagine that the aircraft was on lease from BAES, which explains their involvement. The aircraft is certified in Perf A. BAES will be very desirous of ensuring that such certification is not put in danger. It would be very bad for their passenger customer airlines if that happened.

Whatever - There is a great deal for everyone to learn from this accident. so hop to it and do so!

[Avi8tor]

I am really glad that the SACAA has accepted the help of the AAIB.

An engine on fire can still produce take off thrust and there are many simulator scenarios, certainly within a 50 second period where, at rotation, you would leave a fire warning alone, apart from cancelling the devastatingly irritating bell, and fly the aircraft instead-normal drills until 400 feet.Nobody said it was on fire. The theory is that it lost a rear turbine seal, smoke was from oil in the exhaust.

such as whether the power reduction on engine No. 1 resulted from an incorrect identification of the failed engine, or a decision to land the aircraft as soon as possible, or other factors unknown at this time, that necessitated a deviation from standard operating procedures to continue the flight on one engine
If you reduce the power on the good engine, and the aircraft starts to head for terra firma, you increase it again. Why you do the verification with the thrust lever. But come to think about it, I have never demostrated that in the sim.

Might be a worthwhile 5min spent in the sim, any thoughts?

[Der absolute Hammer]

Avi8tor
Nobody said it was on fire. The theory is that it lost a rear turbine seal, smoke was from oil in the exhaust.

If that is the case then the pilot still had take off power on two engines?
Below 400ft, why play around with power levers when the aircraft is equipped with auto feather and is a Perf A machine, It is capable of performing within the limitations of the Perf A envelope . Too many people are writing about the J41 as though it were a King Air 200 or an aircraft not certified in Perf A- as though it was a feline urinatory excretion machine.


Edit bit..

Do nothing below 400ft except silence the Fire Bell as applicable!

[Cardinal Puff]

...And grip the seat cushion a little tighter with your sphincter.....

[Cousin it.]

An engine flame out = negative torque, prop windmills and tries to turn the engine = large drag.:sad: The hydraulic NTS system lets prop move to an increased blade angle = less drag.:ok:

Negative torque ceases when windmilling engine drives prop again = NTS operation stops.

NTS system will not fully feather the prop it must be done by the PILOT if unable or doesn't want to relight the engine.

Feathering: "NTS/auto feather system gives prop feather operation together with an engine shutdown but only available when APR is armed" (which it always is as per SOP's and check list item)

[i-Robot]

If the #1 engine was shut down, why did it not feather. And if #2 was producing power, why was it feathered? This is what is indicated in the crash photos as well.

[Der absolute Hammer]

An excellent summation of the complex system and thank you for it !
As I can remember from the J32, there was one switch for the APR which, with both airlines for which I have had the doubtful pleasure of flying that not very aerodynamic wings goblin, was usually disconnected. As a matter of the fact, i do not remember that APR use figured much an any checklist . I cannot also remember whether APR was fitted on the original Astazu engined J31 - at least one was still flying from Cranfield quite recently.
Be such as it may, there is an article in today's Star newspaper which says that the SA CAA and the UK AIB are more or less saying that pilot error was the cause of the crash and that the operating engine suffereed a sudden loss of power. The article also says that ATC quite correctly informed the cockpit as to the engine that was smoking on rotation.
It will be seen in the future what any full results may be and it appears that no one had yet spoken (officially anyway) to the pilots who are still not well.
However-if pilot error is proved in this case -there would seem to be errors made in principle in regard to EFATO handling on that type of performance aircraft.
A shame and a worry for all concerned but I repeat the maxim-at the great risk of being shot down-do nothing until 400ft except silence the fire bell; segment climbs and all that stuff, which do not really apply to light twins but do apply to the category of aircraft in which the J41 finds itself.

[V1... Ooops]

There is a reasonably thoughtful article about this accident on the Flight International website - click here (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2009/10/03/333065/airlink-crash-inquiry-raises-possibility-of-wrong-engine-shut-down.html).

[titaniumspoon]

Roger Coppid;
Quote:
is there iny info out there about the comparison between incidents such as deep/short/hard landings, stick-shakes, over-speeds, over-banking, bank angle on landing both with or without the use of automation.
Yes, all these events and more would be in an airline's FOQA/FDA/FDM (as the term might be) Program.

These are serious events which, if seen in trends, are precursors to an accident. The intent of a flight data monitoring program is to learn about these events and take preventative measures before an accident occurs.

But FOQA data must be used intelligently and with great integrity and comprehension to deliver on its promise of enhanced flight safety.

I have learned that senior management of a large airline has stated to its flight data people that the long landings being reported on the B777 are the result of its "big wing". Such a view is, in my opinion, an enabling one, excusing long landings, for whatever conceivable reason.

One supposes that the corollary to that view is, (because the wing is what it is), there is therefore nothing to be done and landings over 3000 to 4000ft down the runway are somehow acceptable (normalizing the deviance). The other excuse offered is, the runways that B777's typically use are "long".

Such a response (or denial) to the flight data places the organization at undue risk and subsequent liabilities because the "accident was in the data" before it occurred. The QANTAS overrun at Bangkok years ago is one example. The organization changed as a result of the accident and has championed flight data analysis as a primary preventative safety tool; in my opinion, QANTAS is a fine example of a learning organization which has been able to balance economics with safety.

Flight data monitoring programs will tell the airline if there are stick-shaker events which go unreported, hard landings, over-banking, (> 35deg), overspeeds and how the automation performs in comparison with manual flight.

Critically, the data derived from the QARs must be believed, (that is not always the case), kept confidential but never used to police or punish pilots. Ninety-nine percent of flight safety is about "what", not "who".

A "distributed archive" program was begun in the US some time ago, where de-identified flight data was made available to various airlines under a desire to share data to enhance safety. The idea was to see if carriers were experiencing the same issues. I don't know the present status of the program but such an approach, (very difficult to implement - those involve did a huge amount of work over a long time) goes directly to your question about industry experience.

FOQA programs are expensive to start and maintain, and the argument from the beancounters is always, "what does it produce that justifies the cost?" I have actually been told that the flight safety department was a "profit center" under some corporate business models. Such an approach reveals a high degree of ignorance first about aviation and second about how flight safety work is done. Some think that wearing reflective vests on the ramp is "doing flight safety" while others that I know have a full comprehension of the safety tools available to them, know their worth and are willing to invest the time and resources.

As always, the CEO leads and his or her "knights", (managers) will ride out and do and say exactly what the CEO wants. So if the CEO is ignorant about how to do aviation safety, the organization will likely be ignorant. All safety people have had experience pushing rope at one time or another. Some organizations learn by honest assessment of their strengths and weaknesses, others take their long-term success for granted, ostensibly waiting until an accident to teach them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
If the shoe fits, wear it!:hmm:

[eish]

For those of you who love RF dearly - check out today's Sunday Times REVIEW section (So Many Questions) where Chris Barron asked RF a few questions on Link's pilot selection criteria

[newcrew]

one of my IF renewals was done on a king air 200 sim (an aircraft i am still yrs later not rated on ) - interesting given i was flying a JS 41 for sa airlink at the time

fly safe

[birrddog]

Pilot Alister Freeman succumbed to his injuries on October 7.

Only found out today when I saw a news release today that the flight attendantSonja Bierman was released from hospital, and the bystander that got hit by the aircraft was scheduled for release later today.

[beechbum]

Sonja Bierman was the co-pilot...........!

[birrddog]

yes, you are correct. Thanks for pointing it out.

Cut-n-paste-itis...

It was Rudelle Oosthuizen that was released.

[Romeo E.T.]

Beechbum....why are you surprised

[spongebathbob]

There's alot of talk about the number 1 and number 2 engine on this Jetstream...correct me if i'm wrong is it not called a LEFT and RIGHT engine on a twin aircraft. When the fire bell blurts as load as it can does it not say LEFT ENGINE FIRE, RIGHT ENGINE FIRE or does it say NUMBER 1 ENGINE FIRE, NUMBER 2 ENGINE FIRE. Maybe on a 4 engine aircraft as the number 2 engine on a 4 engine aircraft is on the LEFT wing? MMMMM something to think about.

[ZFT]

Can anyone translate the last post? Blurts as load!!!!

[AirwayBlocker]

To quote spongebathbob

There's alot of talk about the number 1 and number 2 engine on this Jetstream...correct me if i'm wrong ...

You are wrong! So completely wrong it is actually scary.

ZFT, I think 'blurts as load' translates to 'blurts out loud'.

I believe the post from spongebathbob was written in 'Idiot'.

[Cave Troll]

Spongebathbob please stop being so pedantic and rediculous. If you are a pilot {which I doubt} surely you would know how many engines your aircraft has and where they are! I fly a 4 engine aircraft and I know I have 2 under each wing. You would think that would be covered on the first lesson on your technical lectures. Besides calling the engines by number is far more professional as opposed to "left" and "right". This is a ridiculous point made by you considering the nature of this thread.

ct

[transducer]

Left or right/no. 1 or no. 2 varies from type to type and is established by the manufacturer as what is the best. A Dash-8 uses the no. 1 and no. 2 philosophy and even has a 1 and 2 painted on the power and condition levers. From the same manufacturer the CRJ uses the left and right philosophy.

[snotneus]

Actually spungbob is not that wrong.
The Jetstream does not refere to #1 or #2 but left or right. Be it engine, genie.
But having said that, still makes no difference.

[Der absolute Hammer]

The left or the right for the cabin crew?
That depends from whose angle you are speaking.
In a turbo liner with the hostess with her back to the cockpit door, her right is the Captain's left.
Port and Starboard are the only two words that so specifically describe the left and the right of an aircraft as to be unequivocal.

[Juliet Sierra Papa]

In a turbo liner with the hostess with her back to the cockpit door, her right is the Captain's left.
Port and Starboard are the only two words that so specifically describe the left and the right of an aircraft as to be unequivocal.

Do I understand you to mean Port / left can be confused with each other...:ugh::ugh:

JSP

[gravity enemy]

Spongebathbob please stop being so pedantic and rediculous. If you are a pilot {which I doubt} surely you would know how many engines your aircraft has and where they are!

Why is it that when someone writes a comment, which is perceived to be incorrect there will always be a few 'I-am-a-real-pilot-therefore-I-know-better-than-you' type of people, who have to force their way in a personal fashion as if this is some sort of a massive genitalia measuring competition. My 4 year old nephew can tell you how many engines an aircraft has and where left and right is. Contrary to your belief you don't need to be a pilot to know this.

Spare some thought thinking about the more than 99% of aircraft types which you have not flown. As for spongebathbob, he is in fact right. Also he was not speculating anything regarding this event.

My apologies to everyone for going off-topic. I hope everyone recovers quickly.

[V1... Ooops]

I don't want to jump into the fight (above) about "who is right" and "who is wrong", however, from a human factors perspective, it appears to me that it would make a whole lot of sense if the manufacturers of twin engine aircraft standardized on "right and left" as the nomenclature for engines.

The aircraft I specialize in (Twin Otter) uses right and left, however the Dash 8 - also a DH product - uses 1 and 2. Perhaps this is because DH produced the 4 engine Dash 7 in between these two, and they didn't think too carefully about the nomenclature when they did the labelling for the Dash 8.

"Port and Starboard" are terms that seem to slowly be evolving into archaic words - we inherited them from the nautical world, and few new pilots who do not have previous nautical experience are familiar with the terms. On the other hand, everyone knows what left and right refer to. The flight attendents are likely familiar with which side of the plane is left and which side is right, regardless of which way they may be facing when they are seated.

[Der absolute Hammer]

I do not think that there is really a right and a wrong here, any more than left is wrong or right is right. However, I remember reading the report on an F27 situation ex LBA some years ago.
Just after airborne,below 400ft, the no 1 engine fire bell went off. The crew dealt with the emergency as per the SOPs and the checklist and returned for a landing at LBA. The Captain instructed the forward cabin crew, via the intercom telephone, to evacuate the aircraft through the right hand side. I do not remember reading the exact words used but the intention, obviously enough, was to evacuate on the side away from the engine which was or had been (for real) on fire. May I say just that there was some confusion and that initially the aircraft was evacuated towards the left hand side, port side, no 1 engine - in any event, the engine that had been or still was on fire.
With hindsight 20/20 perhaps the Captain should have called the No 1 up to the cockpit and pointedingly told her to evacuate through THAT side. But then we all know how wonderful hindsight is especially when the heat is in the kitchen.
The only point here surely, is not to pick holes in the phraseology of others but to find or determine a phraseology which removes ambiguity and improves safety.
In the old nautical days, port used to be called larboard but it was changed to port to remove exactly that sort of ambiguity of which we speak. It seems that even in these pages of Pprune this might be difficult and so I make the following suggestion based upon history and its precedents.
When in the winter of 1778/9 the troops of George Washington were encamped at Valley Forge, many of them were farm boy recruits who did not know their left from the right. Drilling was a problem and so it was got around by tying a bundle of hay to the left boot and one of the straw to the right boot. Every farm boy know hay from straw and so left/right march became hay/straw march. I think that nudes airbrushed on the inside of the cabin would do very well. We could have black nude on the left and white nude on the right-therefore staying with the political correct. Evacuate through the black nude or the white nude would get rid of any confusion I expect.

[SKYTORT]

Pilots are such WA---ERS.

I am stunned to see that a group of pilots who have the responsibility of flying the public around safely, actually argue about something as dumb and stupid as engine NUMBER ONE or TWO, or is it left or right?

WWWWWWWWWTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTTFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF??????? ????!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

For years I have not read PPRUNE until I heard about this accident - Nothing has changed.

We have, and always will, step on each other to be the better pilot. Maverick and Iceman are real after all...

Did Goose die because Maverick lost NUMBER ONE, TWO, left, right, or both engines...I guess I will have to watch the movie again because now I am so confused!

[Cave Troll]

SKYTORT we are not all wa...kers. Well some of us have to be as we are away from home so much and the local talent is well, not good for the health.

As for Maveric and Goose's engine out it was the Right/Number 2/ Starboard engine.

Now go away for a few more years will you!

ct

[Fuzzy Lager]

Skytort you are a legend, thanks for the laugh.

Agree on all points.

[jammydonut]

A Port or Starboard and ability to count is as dumb a discussion as flashing Green or Red lights are a warning.

[skyloone]

"Evacuate using all available exits". This little phrase will save your bacon. More than one lawyer has looked over it. As a pilot you will not always know the status at each exit point. Its up to the pax to decide if its available or not. Sounds harsh but hey..... this is what the worlds come to. Because woe betide you tell a pax to jump into a fire by suggesting a course of exit..!

[titaniumspoon]

On the 23rd September 2009 a part 121 public-transport aircraft normally used for for an airline scedule crashes.
It is now half way through November of said year, still no incling of what happened????
My ear close to the SACAA tell me this is one of the most spectacular cover-ups to ever happen, world-wide!! Air France/ Kenyan eat your hearts out, you can't hold a candle to this!
The hull is complete, albeit broken. The FDR is in perfect condition. The CVR is in perfect condition. One of the pilots has survived. The cabin attendant survived. Unluckily for him, the pilot died from his injuries and now cannot defend himself, if required.
Eye witnesses were present watching the a/c take off and climb away.(or not :sad:) The ATCs were present.
Subsequently the engines were immediately sent to the manufacturer as well as the propellers for analysis.
There was no fire to damage and hide any evidence.
This should be a bench-mark analysis of an aircraft crash, with all the relevant factors fully dissected and analysed!
Whar the hell is going on?? !!!!!

[Maurice Chavez]

My ear close to the SACAA tell me this is one of the most spectacular cover-ups to ever happen, world-wide!! Air France/ Kenyan eat your hearts out, you can't hold a candle to this!Isn't SA known for these practices, does the Helderberg ring a bell??

[snotneus]

Ag please, you consiracy theorists make me sick. An accident report can take up to 2 years to be published. Atleast wait a year before crying wolf.

[ab33t]

Another pelican brief

[Maurice Chavez]

Ag please, you consiracy theorists make me sick. An accident report can take up to 2 years to be published. Atleast wait a year before crying wolf.Moenie worry nie, I'm not crying wolf, but knowing our wonderful CAA, it will be a cover up, just like most of the prangs in the country....

[Goffel]

MC......hate to burst your bubble, but the accident department is not actually part of CAA......it is a side devision, which in the near future, I believe, will have nothing to do with CAA.

So if you would be so kind as to point the fingers elsewhere and not at the CAA......even they get side-stepped.

[newcrew]

Plane spins off PE runway
Wed, 18 Nov 2009 17:00
An SA Airlink aircraft with 29 passengers on board left the runway at the Port Elizabeth airport on Wednesday afternoon, paramedics said.
None of passengers or the crew members on board were injured, said Netcare 911 spokesperson Jeff Wicks said.
"They've all been safely extricated from the plane by ACSA firefighters and shuttled to the arrivals area," said Wicks.
He said the plane, bound for East London, left the runway on take off.
"Passengers insist that as the plane rumbled down the runway and gathered speed they heard a loud noise from the left of the plane and it spun violently and skidded into the grass," said Wicks.
"Besides being visibly shaken all passengers and the crew are in good health."

[Whenwe]

which in the near future, I believe, will have nothing to do with CAA.

I wonder why?

Whilst in the past it functioned very well, ALL under the Department of Transport. Those WERE better days, and the sky's a little safer!

[CM100]

I am amazed that no one has asked why it took just under 3 hours to extricate the most seriously injured person ?

[Contract Dog]

Triage

Advanced triage

In advanced triage, doctors may decide that some seriously injured people should not receive advanced care because they are unlikely to survive. Advanced care will be used on patients with less severe injuries. Because treatment is intentionally withheld from patients with certain injuries, advanced triage has ethical implications. It is used to divert scarce resources away from patients with little chance of survival in order to increase the chances of survival of others who are more likely to survive.

Dog

[AirwayBlocker]

CM100,

you said,


Durban J 41 Accident - Pilot Extrication
I am amazed that no one has asked why it took just under 3 hours to extricate the most seriously injured person ?

Are you asking the question or are you hoping someone will ask so that you can answer it for us?

[CM100]

Contract Dog

Extrication and triage are very different and occur in the order stated.

AirwayBlocker

I am hoping someone who was there could provide some insight.

[Gyro Nut]

Heard that Allister's fingers were jammed between the cockpit window and the dash, and they had to decide on the accident scene whether or not to amputate some of his fingers before they could get him out. In the end it sounds like he did loose some fingers, not that it matters now.:(

[Tabitha Freeman]

Fuzzy Lager: "he acted with neither skill nor professionalism"

Never judge someone till you truly know them deeply and have walked a mile in their shoes!!!

Hope you never experience a engine failure - wonder how you would react!

[Cardinal Puff]

Chances are he has experienced one.

There are procedures to be followed in the event of an engine failure. This particular case appears to be a shutdown and handover of control that may not have been strictly according to SOPs, from what I read here.

Walking a mile in anyone's shoes has no bearing on this. Even good guys get it wrong occasionally.

[Fuzzy Lager]

Tabitha,

I have indeed suffered an engine failure, and under far more trying circumstances.

I am not judging the man, I am judging the flying abilities of the man. The decisions he made whilst flying an Islander nearly 5 years ago had direct impact on my life so I feel entitled to do so.

My condolences on your loss.