Forced Landing Marree 14/11/2010

[GyroOz]

MFS: *CFSRES INC023 14/11/10 11:42,RESPOND Aircraft Light,MARREE CFS,MARREE MAP 0 0 0 TG,LIGHT AIRCRAFT WITH 8POB DOWN 25KM SE OF,MARREE, LEIGH CREEK & MARREE SAPOL ATTEN,DING,LCRK00 LCK029
CFS Leigh Creek Response

MFS: RE INC23 FROM CANBERRA S&R FORCED LANDING ALL 8 PERSON SPOTTED FROM AIR LOOK ALL OKAY
CFS Leigh Creek Response 11:56

I dont have google earth so dunno what the terrain is like out that way but the ELT position is 29 DEG 47.07 MIN S,138 DEG 17.47 E

:ok: Well done to the Pilot.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

From G/E,

Looks to be about 15nm bearing 125 deg from Marree - a nice rather large sandy river bed appears to be available.

Could be 'well judged that man'......:D

Cheers:ok:

[Desert Flower]

a nice rather large sandy river bed appears to be available.

I put the co-ordinates into GE & yes it does look like it's smack in the middle of a creek bed.

DF.

[Paul Alfred]

Excellent news all POB Ok :ok:

[Desert Flower]

MKK - another one of Airtex's. Heard this one & OZP tracking YBHI-YMRE Thursday night when there were a lot of thunderstorms in the area.

DF.

[dragon man]

Engine failure after take off couldnt maintain altitude i believe.

[Arnold E]

another one of Airtex's.
Is there any left.:eek:

[Desert Flower]

Engine failure after take off couldnt maintain altitude i believe.

Surprised that he continued on in that case, but better than turning around I guess!

DF.

[Mr.Buzzy]

MKK.... Sheeesh that old bus was a tired old bus 15 years ago!

I thought it would have long been turned into coke cans.

Then again after a fresh dulux restoration, who cares anymore?

Nice work to the crew that found it though!:ok:



bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Into the sandy river / creek bed......

With or 'sans' the 'Dunlops' I wonder.....

Salvageable...or....

Check out the two photos of 'desert art' at
29deg 37min 25.88 S
137deg 32min 32.12E....:}

Those Beech's are a looong waaay from the beach!!
Nice 'clean' airframes though ...nil corrosion...stored in a very dry climate....used to be flown only on Sundays by a l'il ole Dr fella (Witch/which dr??)...suit 'handyman'.... :eek:

[Peter Fanelli]

Best use I've seen for a couple of Bonanzas

:E

[Desert Flower]

With or 'sans' the 'Dunlops' I wonder.....

Wondering the same thing myself. With a sandy creek bed, would there be a risk of wheels digging in & flipping it if they were down?

DF.

[PLovett]

Heard this one & OZP tracking YBHI-YMRE

Gordon Bennet! OZP is old enough to be drawing a pension and they are still bashing it around doing Lake Eyre scenics. :ugh:

Wouldn't like to be flying it at night in stormy weather though. Too many nasty things to run into without any warning. :uhoh:

[bigairbus]

Was it a duel engine failure? Somthing I got told off a mate who working inthe area.

[mikewil]

does anyone have any opinions on the number of twin engine GA aircraft operating in australia which are in bad enough shape to not be able to climb at the required engine out rate (or even maintain altitude) after suffering a single engine failure?

there seems to be a significant number of twin engined aircraft getting into serious trouble after suffering a single engine failure...

[The Green Goblin]

does anyone have any opinions on the number of twin engine GA aircraft operating in australia which are in bad enough shape to not be able to climb at the required engine out rate (or even maintain altitude) after suffering a single engine failure?

there seems to be a significant number of twin engined aircraft getting into serious trouble after suffering a single engine failure...

Pretty much all of them :ouch:

The second engine in a piston twin will take you to the crash site!

[Desert Flower]

Gordon Bennet! OZP is old enough to be drawing a pension and they are still bashing it around doing Lake Eyre scenics.

All Chieftains fit into that category!

Wouldn't like to be flying it at night in stormy weather though.

T'was late afternoon/early evening, but with the weather in the area at the time it was as good as night. Reckon they would have needed the runway lighting on for sure!

DF.

[Desert Flower]

The second engine in a piston twin will take you to the crash site!

And these old s**tboxes are fitted with VG kits too. Reckon VG kits are like having a 4WD - they just take you that much further out before you go that much further down!

DF.

[kimwestt]

single engine failure -
does anyone have any opinions on the number of twin engine GA aircraft operating in australia which are in bad enough shape to not be able to climb at the required engine out rate (or even maintain altitude) after suffering a single engine failure?
there seems to be a significant number of twin engined aircraft getting into serious trouble after suffering a single engine failure...

you sound very much like one of the sensationalist journos looking for someone to beat up. obviously a question by an ill informed not to mention uneducated @##$%&*!!

[mikewil]

8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument
Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must
have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1%
at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following
configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
Issue 4: 8 December 2004
Amdt No. 212
SECTION 20.7.4 -4-
Issue 4
(c) remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power;
(d) airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.


the regulations are very clear, i dont understand what you mean by looking for someone to beat up.

is it unreasonable to expect a charter aircraft to be airworthy?

[The Green Goblin]

mikewill,

The second engine in a piston twin was never meant or designed to be a get out of jail card. It was just designed to give you more options (prolong a glide, under ideal conditions, perhaps a positive rate after takeoff etc). Think of the aircraft as having one engine that is divided into two power plants.

Transport category aircraft (>5700 kg) are designed and mandated under legislation to perform on one engine. This is subject however to correct technique being utilized (especially a turboprop).

If you want to write a story, I suggest researching cadet schemes and low hour inexperienced Pilots occupying right seats of airliners. This is far more dangerous than a conservative Pilot flying a piston twin engine aircraft, who understands and plans for its limitations.

EDIT:

I see you have posted the legislation for light piston aeroplanes. The 1% climb gradient and maintaining altitude on one engine at 5000 feet etc is performed in a brand new aeroplane, with brand new engines, by a test Pilot with sound technique in ISA conditions (sea level, 15 degrees etc)

It is not performed in a 30 year old airframe (think Holden Kingswood) with a low time Pilot in Australian summer conditions.

If you consider a PA31 with a blue line of 106KIAS, at 1% that is 106 feet per minute. It will travel roughly 10NM by the time it reaches 1000 feet. The protection of an aerodrome for a CAT B aeroplane is only 2.66nm from the runway threshhold. It will generally not be able to climb to the 25MSA or the LSALT with that type of climb performance in the safe zone with factory new performance, let alone a 30 year old aeroplane!

[mikewil]

totally agree on the cadetship opinion green goblin,

and you do bring up a good point about the ability to climb to the MSA, however what you say about 30 year old aeroplanes not being able to perform is still concerning... the regulations dont state that the 1% climb gradient only applies to brand new aeroplanes with brand new engines.

while of course a brand new aeroplane is going to perform better than a clapped out one, this doesnt mean that the clapped out one is exempt from meeting the minimum performance requirements required by CASA. I would have thought that an aeroplane, while not expected to perform as well as it did when it was new, would still be required to perform to the minumum standards required by the law. do you agree?

[The Green Goblin]

mikewil

An aeroplane is like a car. The initial production units are used as test beds for certification. Once the type has proved it can meet legislative requirements, it is given the rubber stamp and certified in that locality.

It does not have to re-prove that it can meet these parametres, just like your car does not have to be tested for ongoing crash worthiness, emissions or safety features. A Holden Kingswood would not pass modern crash and emission standards, but under a grandfather clause, is still eligible to be driven on our roads. Aeroplanes are the same. They were certified many years ago, would probably not pass certification if they had to be certified today and are not subjected to ongoing performance assessments (like your car).

A Pilot, is trained, and paid, to understand the limitations of the aeroplane, plan for the worst and operate the aeroplane in a safe and efficient manner. That is what our job entails.

GG

[Jarule]

mikewil,
Good point about enroute climb performance.....consider this.

In Aus an aircraft must meet the required enroute climb performance to be granted a CofA. However it is not a requirement for each aircraft to demonstrate this, only first of type on the register!

I remember..many moons ago back in the UK, I owened a single engine 1971 four seat retractable tourer and every 3 years it had to demonstrate, demonstrate(repeated for effect), its certified climb performance to renew it's CofA, and all this for a private CofA. Imagine the requirements for a M/E charter CofA. I am not familiar with the current UK CAA requirements but I'll bet they are not relaxed.

This seems very tough and expensive to comply with, and it was, but what cost is safety? Is the UK over regulated or are we under regulated? and another point, If you think a PPL or CPL is expensive here, compare the cost of UK General aviation to ours?

J

[The Green Goblin]

I'll also add the 1% climb gradient and 5000 feet certification requirements are assessed under ISA.

If you use the POH and wind up the temp to a mid 30s Australian summer temp or a typical northern Australia day - you will see negative rates of climb even in a brand new aeroplane.

If you as a journalist a concerned about this, what aviation in Australia needs is increased depreciation rates on aircraft. It will then become economical to replace them on a more regular basis, as it is now, aeroplanes hold their value and a 1970s aeroplane is still worth the cost of a house in many cases.

GG

[morno]

Green Goblin,
Fair crack of the whip mate, I don't think mikewil is looking for a story. He asks a very sensible question which is becoming a real concern now. I feel very lucky that I never suffered an engine failure after take off in a piston twin, because unless I was empty, I highly doubt I would have been able to do anything other than put it down at the next available field.

Why is there seperate standards in this country for RPT and Charter categories? You're still a paying passenger if you're on a charter flight, so why should the rules instantly change?

Agreed that it is a big problem in that the fleet is now becoming a disgrace age wise. You're 1975 model Chieftain is now 35 years old!!

morno

[onetrack]

Morno - I don't see any logic in your argument about age. There are sizeable numbers of older aircraft still operating satisfactorily, and there is no reason they should not be. As all critical aircraft components are required to be inspected and overhauled regularly, why should age come into it?

Maintenance quality and pilot experience are the factors that regularly appear high on the list in aircrash summaries. As GG has outlined neatly, a well-trained, competent pilot in charge of an old aircraft is a far superior option, as compared to a trainee in a brand-new aircraft.

The PIC of this particular aircraft has demonstrated highly competent skills in being able to get his fully-loaded, crippled aircraft, back onto the deck in one piece, with no injuries or fatalities, and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.

All too often, engine failure shortly after takeoff results in a stall and the inevitable fatalities, when a PIC makes poor choices. In many cases, those poor choices can be sheeted home to lack of pilot skills and inadequate training.

[morno]

The PIC of this particular aircraft has demonstrated highly competent skills in being able to get his fully-loaded, crippled aircraft, back onto the deck in one piece, with no injuries or fatalities, and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship.

Yes, he did avoid fatalities (doesn't say that anyone avoided injuries though does it?), but why should it be acceptable that a multi-engine aircraft in this day and age, can't make a return to land at the airfield? Why is it ok that we accept a landing anywhere other than an airfield in this situation?

I see age as a major issue onetrack. No matter how good the maintenance, no matter how experienced the pilot in some circumstances, these aircraft rarely will perform as they were designed to in 1975. A bit of a twist here, small bend there, a patch on the airframe from some previous corrossion or other damage, years and years of operating in constant thermal turbulence (who says all the pilots who have flown them always brought the aircraft back to turbulence penetration speed?), all adds up enough to not get performance from these airframes.

Unfortunately, until we have a regulator and a government who see's this as an issue, there'll be no support for new airframes and the downward spiral of GA will continue.

morno

[RatsoreA]

I agree with you onetrack.

Not trying to talk myself up, having climbed a PA31 with 6POB, full mains and full bags, during a January afternoon at Lightening Ridge with one engine lost at 400 and still got it to climb to 1000 (slowly!) and turn around and land, I am convinced that age on a properly maintained aircraft should have minimal input into the end scenario.

A simple fact of life is that mechanical devices fail, sometimes even after best preventative maintanence has been applied. Ask QANTAS at the moment, I think they have some perspective on that. It is not in anyway limited to ANY type of aircraft or in most cases age. There are obviously execptions to every rule!! :rolleyes:

and he needs to be lauded for his excellent airmanship. I agree, and airmanship is one of the most important part of any operation that takes to sky, be it student/private/charter/rpt/whatever.

Disclaimer - I am not saying that I am awesome and everyone else that didn't is sh#t because of the above incident, I am only sharing my personal experience. Flame retardant suit on.

[The Green Goblin]

Morno,

You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed.

A transport category aeroplane is bigger, faster and holds more people, therefore a riverbed, field or beach is not an option for a forced landing. With this in mind, the aeroplane requires performance with the loss of an engine as an off field landing will not generally be successful.

I still don't get why people bag the piston twins about not performing on one engine and condemn them to being 'unsafe' yet think a single engine aeroplane is perfectly acceptable. A piston twin may climb on one engine after takeoff in the right conditions or it may maintain altitude. The chances are however it won't, and a prudent Pilot would have briefed the scenario before take off, or studied the enroute aerodromes and terrain in the event of a significant failure.

[bushy]

And the airliners that fly around this country have flown about three times as many hours as the 35 year old chieftain has.
There is much wisdom (and some nonsense) on this thread.
In the days of the two airline policy two mining company people were so important that they could not fly with the same airline. But when they got to Alice Springs they got out of the two separate airliners and got into a single pilot chieftain to fly to the mine site. It seems their importance diminished when there was money involved.

Morno, if legal requirements for charter wre the same as for RPT then GA would hardly exist and developement of this country would only occur near the coast. GA is just as important to this country as the airlines are. (except on the coast.) We have not built the raods yet.

But you have a valid point. The public does not know. An AOC looks very similar whether it is for a Boeing service or a 172.

There should be an AOC for a"light aircraft service" so the public knows what they are going to fly in. And they should be able to sell seats, publish schedules and advertise (without hiding it).

CASA have shut down many charter companies for purely commercial (not safety) reasons. I don't believe they have the right to do this. They are supposed to be a safety authority.

[bushy]

Has anyone ever wondered why the RFDS can operate light aircraft safely in outback Australia, using modern aircraft and paying fair wages when much of the GA industry does not?

Is there a level playing field? Can other operators do what the RFDS does?
Why aren't GA operators still using new aeroplanes?

How many wealthy GA operators are there?
Why aren't GA operators using nice new aeroplanes and paying good wages.

Think about it!! Don't just bitch about everything in GA, think about why it is like it is and how it can be improved.

[Old Akro]

The world would be a better place if guys like MikeWill put time into reading texts instead of reading CASA rules. We know almost nothing about the incident, other than the pilot did his job well. There may have been other associated problems or weather or any number of things that caused the pilot to select landing immediately as the best option. Do some homework and ask informed questions.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
I wish more of you would read what The Green Goblin is saying, or better still, get a copy of CAR3/FAR 23 and see what the standards are, as printed.

The old saw: A light twin is a single with twice the chance of engine failure, is very close to the truth.

Somebody will correct me if I am wrong, but;

(1) the 1% positive gradient etc., applied under the old Australia certification rules, repealed in 1998, and;
(2) Only applied to IFR operation ---- early Aztec were "6" seat VFR. "5" seat IFR.

For all current aircraft, read the certified Manufacturer's AFM, as specified in the aircraft's TCDS ---- often called the POH --- a legal document, that will tell you what the current certified performance is supposed to be!!

Tootle pip!!

[morno]

You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed

Then why is there a rule which says they must? And why must be demonstrate it (with a near empty aircraft) in such things as base checks, MECIR renewals etc.?

Bushy I do agree, GA is a vitally important part of outback Australia. I worked in it for several years so I have first hand experience. However I still think that until we have a government and regulator who understand this and who also understand that the way forward is not with 30-40 year old airframes, it's only going to get worse.

morno

[dhavillandpilot]

whoooop1991 do you have an agenda I wonder??? Based in PMQ. You don't fly Pa31's for another "air ambulance" operator by any chance?

Why all the inuendo?

Lets get the facts straight the aircraft had been aquired by another company not associated with the Airtex group, it was operated by a company outside NSW.

With regard to the maintenace organisation they had CASA over last week for a through Audit AGAIN, with nothing found?

You may find that the cause of this incident has nothing to do with Airtex, the owner or the operating company - but a fourth party.

Discussion is good, but your statements simply are in the same vein as CASA's role as policeman and Judge all rolled up into one.

[osmosis]

Mikewil,
Your question on a professional pilot's network will only get the answers it deserves. And it doesn't deserve much on here. The GG and other old fossils in previous posts have pretty much summed it up but you should really do some reading of your own. The POH of a light twin would be a good start. You don't have to even get out of your seat to get one, google. Read.

[Rose_Thorns]

= Piss poor performance.

A couple of 'hard' facts for the bar room barristers.

a) Departed with a crook mag.

b) Mag fixed.

c) Conducted run up - mag problem noted and heard by 'other' airmen.

d) Took off any way.

e) No trouble check conducted.

f) Landed in a creek bed (in a f234g creek bed out there) with Dunlop's down. It beggars belief.

g) Ignored a fully serviceable bituminous road 1.5 off track.

h) Even in 1976 there was never, not ever a claim made that a brand new aircraft could make it OEI, except to the crash site!!.

Who taught them this rubbish and more to the point, who signed them out to line???.

Trouble check (spark, fuel or air). Rule 101.

Forced landing preparation . Rule 102.

Don't launch with a crook mag, lesson 99 pre solo .:ugh:

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
You have completely missed the point of a piston multi engine aeroplane below <5700kg. They were never designed nor intended to perform on one engine. The second engine was merely there to give you 'more options' and that philosophy has never changed
Then why is there a rule which says they must? And why must be demonstrate it (with a near empty aircraft) in such things as base checks, MECIR renewals etc.?

Because in a light aeroplane (minimum fuel) with Pilot and ATO onboard it will probably climb. It will also climb under ideal conditions as per their certification.

In regards to proficiency checks and renewals, It is a required skill when flying a multi engine aeroplane that you must be able to suffer an engine failure, control the initial heading and maintain overall control of the aeroplane, run the drills, adopt Vyse (or V2 depending on type) and assess the performance (climb to circuit height, negative climb rate close throttles and land ahead etc). You must also be able to demonstrate enroute assymetric handling when flying a multi engine aeroplane. Just because in all probability the aeroplane may not perform, does not excuse the Pilot to not be able to control the aeroplane and fly it according to the situation. There are also other situations which may cause it to go assymetric, such as a prop overspeed/CSU failure, Turbo failure, mag failure, partial engine failure etc.

I think you are starting to clutch at straws morno. Don't expect something from a machine that was never meant to deliver it. I'd suggest making plans for its limitations, rather than one day shaking your head because you are descending wondering why.....

[Horatio Leafblower]

Can someone please explain to me where in CAO 20.7.4 it says anything about aircraft certification?

The Order spells out the performance required of a CHTR aircraft:

8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument
Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must
have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1%
at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following
configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
(c) remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power;
(d) airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.

No exemptions made for age or pilot skill. If you, as PIC, operated the aircraft in a weight/Temp/Pressure Height situation such that it did not meet these criteria, bend over, son. :=

If your company failed to have a system in place that ensured you only departed within the limits defined in CAO 20.7.4, the your Chief Pilot should be bending over too.

Green Goblin if these rules mysteriously don't apply anymore, why am I asked at every MECIR renewal how to re-calculate approach minimas if the ambient conditions won't deliver the required performance?

THIRDLY where did MikeWil say he was a journo? :confused:

[Desert Flower]

Lets get the facts straight the aircraft had been aquired by another company not associated with the Airtex group, it was operated by a company outside NSW.

Then why does the CASA egister list it as:

MKK PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP PA-31 PA-31-350 31-7652068 3175 2 TEXTRON LYCOMING Piston TIO-540-J2BD Gasoline Full Registration MELREAM PTY LIMITED 79 Bettington Rd OATLANDS NSW 2117 AUSTRALIA 22-Jul-10 AVTEX AIR SERVICES PTY LTD Locked Bag 10 GEORGES HALL NSW 2198 AUSTRALIA 22-Jul-10 29-Jun-76 TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE Power Driven Aeroplane Normal HARTZELL PROPELLERS HC-E3YR-2A A20SO UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 1976

Avtex/Airtex are one & the same as far as I know.

Landed in a creek bed (in a f234g creek bed out there) with Dunlop's down. It beggars belief.

Yep the Frome creek to be exact, which was running only a few days ago! Dunlops were down. Was told today by the brother of the property owner that it ended up on that one wheel broke off. They are apparently going to remove the engines & leave the rest where it is.

Ignored a fully serviceable bituminous road 1.5 off track.

Nope - bitumen doesn't go up that far! Both the coppers & the local SES (who are a bunch of w*****s) got bogged.

DF.

[Deaf]

8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument
Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must
have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1%
at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following
configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
(c) remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power;
(d) airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.8

What /Temp/Pressure Height situation do they mean by standard atmosphere

[Lasiorhinus]

What /Temp/Pressure Height situation do they mean by standard atmosphere

International Standard Atmosphere - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Atmosphere)

[dhavillandpilot]

whoooop1991 you keept getting it wrong.

Heron Airlines Travel Pty is a totally seperate entity from Airtex/Avtex. Do a compnay search.

The reality is Heron Airlines is the one that choses the aircraft and operator.

They have been using a variety of operators including Do228's from Melbourne, Beech 1900's from Malaysia, Metro II's from Sydney and approxiametly 5 different operators/aircraft in the Chieftain category.

As such they have provided employment for a large number of pilots etc in an industry that has been in decline for the last 20 years.

[Horatio Leafblower]

DEAF

What /Temp/Pressure Height situation do they mean by standard atmosphere?

I see your point - however I read that as meaning a pressure height of 5,000'.

You will also note, reading the CAO in its entirety, that it states an aircraft must be loaded in such a way that it can comply with the stated performance requirements.

Selective quoting, or reading paras in isolation, will always lead to misinterpretation :=

Again, Part 20 of the CAOs does not deal with aircraft certification. CAO 20.7.4 specifically deals with the performance required for Multi-engine aircraft aircraft operating AWK and CHTR and Single-engine aircraft operating RPT.

[Captain707]

Don't Heron and Airtex have the same owner? :confused:

[The Green Goblin]

Green Goblin if these rules mysteriously don't apply anymore, why am I asked at every MECIR renewal how to re-calculate approach minimas if the ambient conditions won't deliver the required performance?

I have never seen an RTOW/WAT style chart drawn up for a piston twin, so as to ensure it can climb at the required gradient on takeoff which is what we are debating.

I would hazard a guess that if these types of charts were mandated, an aeroplane such as a PA31 would never leave the ground with more than a passenger and full mains when the temp was ISA +. Generally the only consideration is the MTOW and MLW and how much distance will be required for the takeoff and landing.

It is prudent planning to add to the minima to ensure the 2.5% climb gradient is satisfied in an instrument approach, and it would be foolhardy not too (especially in IMC on one donk!). If you are in VMC in the takeoff component the option is always there to put her down straight ahead (terrain depending).

It would be foolhardy to even leave the MSA in IMC on one engine in a piston twin, most of the time you will have buckleys of making the missed approach altitude, and if you commenced the approach - you'd want to be pretty sure you were going to get in!

[morno]

So again, I'm left asking, why, if most multi-engine piston aircraft can't comply with most of the rules OR do half the things which 99% of operators do with them already (ie. bringing them down to minima's, when they become incapable of conducting the missed approach on one engine), are they still permitted to be used in charter?

morno

[The Green Goblin]

So again, I'm left asking, why, if most multi-engine piston aircraft can't comply with most of the rules OR do half the things which 99% of operators do with them already (ie. bringing them down to minima's, when they become incapable of conducting the missed approach on one engine), are they still permitted to be used in charter?

morno

The only time you would increase the landing minima is if you are already on one donk. The rest of the time the instrument minima will be utilised.

Multi engine piston aircraft can comply with the requirements in certain conditions as per their certification. The rest is up to the Pilot to make sound decisions and compromise between safety and commercial considerations. Remember these GA aeroplanes are the lifeblood of the bush and are essential infrastructure. Without being able to take the payloads, the services will grind to a halt, and GA in Australia will be dealt the final death blow.

I'll add another dynamic to the equation, yeah a piston twin may have trouble complying with missed approach climb gradients in certain conditions and may not climb after an EFATO. A PC12 or C208 (among others) are certified to fly IFR charter. They will sure as hell not make any climb gradients with the loss of an engine.........:{ (calling Captain Wally)

[UnderneathTheRadar]

It would be foolhardy to even leave the MSA in IMC on one engine in a piston twin, most of the time you will have buckleys of making the missed approach altitude, and if you commenced the approach - you'd want to be pretty sure you were going to get in!

So what else would you do? Circle at MSA until making sure you had no engines left then using the SE options? Bugger off to somewhere else praying that whatever caused the first to fail wasn't about to happen to the other?

[The Green Goblin]

Quote:
It would be foolhardy to even leave the MSA in IMC on one engine in a piston twin, most of the time you will have buckleys of making the missed approach altitude, and if you commenced the approach - you'd want to be pretty sure you were going to get in!
So what else would you do? Circle at MSA until making sure you had no engines left then using the SE options? Bugger off to somewhere else praying that whatever caused the first to fail wasn't about to happen to the other?

That is what you are paid the big dollars for :p and why you are called a Pilot!

I could tell you what I would do, but you should make the decision on the facts at hand, the situation, and any other variable that would require consideration.

[Kharon]

The photo's clearly show BOTH props on the fine pitch stops.

Both pitch levers at the full forward position.

Avtex did not fix or fit the magneto.

The PIC was not Airtex trained.

Airtex had a run on turbo charger failures and associated gremlins last year (about 1 a month). All landed safely on a RUNWAY.

Go figure.

PS. Good operators restrict MTOW for PA 31 (etc) to an ASDA regulated weight and the PIC always ensures that 20.7 requirements can be met; pre departure.

[Dangly Bits]

This is Avetx/Airtex/Skymaster that had the fatal at Bankstown? The one CASA tried to ground? The one at the AAT? Is this the same company? What am I missing here?

[morno]

GG,
I don't think I'm expressing my point well enough. Yes, I know that these aircraft ARE the lifeblood of remote Australia and yes I know that if they couldn't use them anymore, it'd be one of the final blow's to GA in Australia.

My point which I will acknowledge that I probably haven't made it clear enough if at all (poor brain had a hard weekend), is when will the Australian government realise how important GA is to remote Australia, and provide the support that is needed, to rid us of these old and decrepid aircraft that are flat out complying with any sort of requirements when the proverbial hits the fan?

If they provided support, then there'd be more opportunity for those who want to (ie. those who think that safety comes before under cutting the bloke next door) invest in new aircraft to do so. And whilst many won't agree (single vs twin, here we go), a nice new or near new C208 or PC-12, is a lot safer than an old Chieftain or C402. I have a lot of hours in PC-12's, but also have a lot of hours in numerous twins (both piston and turbine) and I have no problems at all, admitting that despite the one engine in front of me, I feel safer in a newer turbine single, than I did in piston twins. Flown correctly, a turbine single will provide you with just as many options when the donk fails, as what you would when your piston twin has one fail (with similar loads).

morno

[The Green Goblin]

Well morno, thats a better response than those who have pointed at the regs and stated, 'it has to achieve bla bla bla, therefore it shall'

These are the types who have never flown larger cabin twins and mainly jaunt our flying schools with three (and sometimes four) stripes on their shoulders.

Yeah A Duchess or Seneca/Seminole usually do pretty well on one engine in multi engine training, hell I've even done 60 AOB turns in a Duchess towards the dead engine, and it worked. These training types are a far cry from your average commercial twin.

As for your sentiments regarding updating equipment morno, I suspect there are more factors present than meets the eye.

Imagine all the money tied up with these old twins which are worth a fair bit of money. Most operators would go broke, or the finance companies would be heavily stung if they were legislated against over night.

The best option as I stated earlier would be higher rates of depreciation and tax benefits using new equipment. A regulator who believes in GA would also be a good start!

[Simon Pieman]

Heron nothing to do with Airtex !!!! That is the biggest porkie that I have heard this year.
You say that Heron decides which operator to use, what rubbish.
Die Fuhrer decides that, you moron.
Airtex catering, Airtex telephones, Airtex financing, Airtex car parking, Airtex departure terminal, etc, etc. .
Airtex aircraft 100% of the time until the troubles.
Wonder under what circumstances DS inherited/bought the business from the original owner?
The CASA policy document in relation to Closed Charter and Interposed Entities is interesting reading.
:8

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Hey Kharon,

Any chance of a few photos..??

Just curious is all....:ok:

p.s. A 'rhetorical' question......if it was 'banging away' from the T/O roll,
I wonder why he passed over the long straight road..??

(Yeah...I KNOW he's busy...)
Like I said, just curious......:ok:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Well morno, thats a better response than those who have pointed at the regs and stated, 'it has to achieve bla bla bla, therefore it shall'

These are the types who have never flown larger cabin twins and mainly jaunt our flying schools with three (and sometimes four) stripes on their shoulders.

...and yeah I've got plenty of Chieftain time and C421 time. Thanks. :rolleyes:

Simon Pieman

Wonder under what circumstances DS inherited/bought the business from the original owner?

I was talking to JI a couple of months ago when Luftex was first suspended. Amusingly, he seemed keen to infer that he still owned Heron. :D

He asked for some quotes on various runs but from what I can tell, he's still the same old JI from 10 years ago when I last did work for him :ugh:

[kimwestt]

Hi I don't know who Simon P is but he/she is spot on the money - JI is the manager only - I guess you could ask DS or any of the ops people there. Yeah - JI is still the same as he was 10 years ago. You need large grains of salt!
I think I might have been there when DS took over Heron.
Soooooo............

[sms777]

All I can say is poor old MKK:{
I have spent well over 100 hours in the old girl flying Heron tours all over Oz, never missed a beat. Leaked water everywhere in heavy cloud, door seal screamed for mercy, crew door popped open on nearly every takeoff but got me to my next port every time.(Maybe it was my expert piloting) Anyways I will miss the old girl. I just hope someone will salvage her in one piece and give her a decent burial.
As for the rest of you experts, Airtex, Avtex, Wingaway, Heron Airlines all owned by the same person. The very same person whom has been around longer than any of you experts can remember and has given many of us the chance to succeed in our dreams of becoming a professional pilot. Ex Airtex pilots have been recognised all over the country and fly for major airlines today and proud of their achivements.
I do not worship DS, he is a tough man always been hard to put up with but he always been a teacher of discipline like most men of his background. So before you blame him for these unfortunate events, do your research and get your facts straight.
Over and out.

[Jabawocky]

I have spent well over 100 hours in the old girl flying Heron tours all over Oz, never missed a beat. Leaked water everywhere in heavy cloud, door seal screamed for mercy, crew door popped open on nearly every takeoff but got me to my next port every time.

Well that depicts a high quality GA fleet :hmm:

[sms777]

That was my point Jabba!
Like the cars you drive in QLD. Full of rust, doors falling off, windshield cracked....but mechanically sound and will always get you there. :E

[kimwestt]

Yep - you are spot on the money - very tough but very fair. His word is his absolute bond, and you can take that to the bank. Maybe others have let him down.

[Desert Flower]

Saw it this morning. They were in the process of removing the engines, & the insurance guy was looking at everything. Right main is some 200 metres back behind the final stopping point, where it hit a small sand ridge. Looking at the country back behind the aircraft, I could only shake my head in disbelief & say he was damn lucky he made it out into the open!

DF.

[Clearedtoreenter]

& the insurance guy was looking at everything.

Someone might be not too unhappy - that thing must have been depreciated to nothing decades ago.

[Desert Flower]

Heard from the landowner yesterday that the hull is still on his property, & has had a foot of water through it. :ugh:

DF.

[Desert Flower]

Its made its way back to Bankstown finally... on a truck bed. Just needs some buffing out and should be good to go

Blimey - it left here about a month or more ago!

DF.

[Centaurus]

Full of rust, doors falling off, windshield cracked

And of course, like a true professional charter pilot, you entered every one of those defects in the maintenance release, and other defects too:ok: