C208 Crash Hawaii

[Boeingdream]

Not sure where to post this, but amazing footage and great job done by the pilot.

ABC News Releases Exclusive Footage Of Hawaii Plane Crash | Everything That Matters (http://sourcefed.com/abc-news-releases-exclusive-footage-of-hawaii-plane-crash/)

[500N]

The lady (can't remember her name, Robyn I think it is) a bit sensationalist,
calling it "spiralling in" :rolleyes:. Looked straight and level to me.

[megle2]

Umm, just watched it the once

There was a fatality in this ditching, fortunately the rest got out ok

I can see this video as a valuable training aid

Was anybody wearing a life jacket prior to splash down
Didn't hear a brace call, maybe there was, the pax in clear view certainly was not in a brace position

and so on

[aussieflyboy]

What is the brace position in a caravan?? It would be interesting to know if any of the passengers accidentally clipped the life jacket around the outside of the shoulder strap and therefore tied themselves to the aircraft

[Sarcs]

Goes to show why recordings, be it video, audio (CVR) or ectm/FDR, can be truly invaluable to accident/incident investigation...:D
{Comment: Which again makes a mockery of the non-retrieval of VH-NGA's CVR/FDR..:ugh:}

The following is a link for the NTSB prelim report for this accident:WPR14FA068 (http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20131211X33313&key=1)

Having had personal experience with suffering a catastrophic engine failure overwater in a PT6 driven Van*, this part of the text from the prelim report brings back vivid memories..:{: The pilot stated that shortly after takeoff, a loud bang was heard and there was a total loss of power. Will be interesting to see if operating in a high saline environment was contributory to the catastrophic engine failure??:cool:

*{Note: Fortunately our engine failure occurred in the climb at about 5,500 ft which allowed us to be able to glide and safely land on a beach. Consequently the beach was re-named Caravan park beach or the van park..:ok:}

[deadcut]

Wouldn't comp washes prevent those kind of problems while operating by the sea?

[VH-XXX]

The fatality actually occurred post exit so nobody was stuck inside the aircraft. The cause of death is unknown at this time, aka heart attack or similar.

The terminology regarding salt water is "salt laden" environment and yes Deadcut that is one of the purposes of performing the compressor wash. I've seen *arguments* between what constitutes a salt laden environment; Moorabbin no, King Island yes.

[Desert Flower]

Just saw a video on TV taken by one of the passengers. They were NOT wearing lifejackets - they were scrambling for them as it hit the water.

DF.

[tmpffisch]

What is the brace position in a caravan?? It would be interesting to know if any of the passengers accidentally clipped the life jacket around the outside of the shoulder strap and therefore tied themselves to the aircraft

With lap/sash seatbelts, it's sitting straight & upright, not your typical airliner brace position.

Tough for an EFATO for the pilot to brief passengers in time to don lifejackets; that said, there's probably a large percentage of non-compliance to inflating the jackets prior to exiting the cabin.

Otherwise, everything they've written about ditching caravan's looks correct; ditches very nicely and sits in the water tail high; for quite a while.

[Piano Man]

Quote:
What is the brace position in a caravan?? It would be interesting to know if any of the passengers accidentally clipped the life jacket around the outside of the shoulder strap and therefore tied themselves to the aircraft


As previously said sit upright and straight with the inertia real seat belts. For our operation the life jackets must be worn at all times, I wonder if the same thing applies in the states. Even with two dirty great big floats beneath the machine, people are still shocked when they are made to wear a life jacket.

As per the PT6 maintenance schedule, we need to comp wash every day as we are operating off shore (and yet alone landing in the salt).

[No Hoper]

It would appear that Comp Wash won't prevent sulfidization of the CT blades.
As well as Comp Wash P&WC call up a CT wash after flight in Salt Laden air.
There is an ATSB report on UZU's caravan that would seem relevant to this accident as well as a recent crash in Papua.

[aviatorhi]

I've flown in and out of that airport numerous times personally and based on the location of their ditching they were airborne most likely less than one minute before they were coming back down, in that short amount of time the pilot was more than likely focusing on setting it down in the best possible way and trying to get word out rather than yelling back at the PAX about life jackets.

They were also extremely lucky in having the ocean conditions they did on that day, normally the north short of Molokai sees 10+ foot waves, the fact that the ocean was almost perfectly calm saved their lives.

[Sarcs]

Obviously too early to say whether sulphidation was a factor causal to this accident but it is a factor the NTSB will surely explore given the environment the aircraft was operating in.

Here is the incident report from the 1998 VH-URT engine failure for those interested: Cessna Aircraft Company 208B, VH-URT (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/1998/aair/aair199803389.aspx)

From the Safety Action section it can be seen that the URT incident was instrumental to CAsA issuing AD/PT6A/28:

Following the incident, the Civil Aviation Safety Authority issued the following directions to the operator:
Conduct daily water washing of the compressor and compressor turbine, after the last flight of the day when operating in a salt laden environment,
Conduct engine condition trend monitoring (ECTM) in accordance with the procedures detailed in CASA Airworthiness Advisory Circular 6-29 Amdt-1, and
Conduct boroscope inspections of the compressor turbine at intervals not to exceed 110 hours time in service, or alternatively conduct datailed hot end inspections at intervals not exceeding 750 hours time-in-service.
In addition to these directions, CASA issued Airworthiness Directive AD/PT6A/28 applicable to all PT6A series engines installed in single-engine aircraft. This airworthiness directive detailed the requirements listed above as well as requiring all operators to carry out a visual inspection of the compressor turbine blades for evidence of sulphidation, and to continue to carry out engine compressor turbine washing in accordance with the procedures detailed in the applicable Pratt and Whitney Canada maintenance manual.

CASA also published an article in the November 1998 issue of the CASA magazine Flight Safety Australia, which outlined the circumstances of the incident, and explained sulphidation, its causes, and preventative measures.
And here is a link to the Flight Safety November 1998 story mentioned (pg 7): Engine Trouble (http://www.casa.gov.au/wcmswr/_assets/main/fsa/1998/nov/whatww.pdf)

However there is a factor in the Uzu incident that both FF & the bureau failed to pick up on, perhaps best described in a Torres post from a closed thread in 2003 titled CASA in the news Important Urgent - Insight on SBS on Thursday night (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/96197-casa-news-important-urgent-insight-sbs-thursday-night.html#post932724)
...:E :Ah, yes, our Caravan engine failure and the Director of CASA flying the aircraft on another occasion. http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

I'm actually please you raised those points:

1 The PT6A-114A engine was being maintained totally in accordance with Pratt & Whitneys requirements to use "pottable water" for compressor washes. It wasn't until a subsequent laboratory test of the Horn Island water supply that it was found to contain totally unacceptable levels of heavy metals and silica. Yes, I'm guilty. But didn't the pilot do a great job landing at Badu! We had the first beach side Caravan park in the Torres Strait! http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif

& at post #38 (http://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/96197-casa-news-important-urgent-insight-sbs-thursday-night-2.html#post935465):

But the cause of the problem was mineral build up on the CT Blades from using Horn Island tap water, knowing the island was heavily mineralised (there is a gold mine and significant mineral deposits on the island) we didn't "tweak" to the fact the treated water may not be "potable". (I don't recall exact details of the analysis, but do recall the silica content was 18 times the acceptable level.)
On the Creamy & Torres by-play, the DAS/CEO issues & the Fort Fumble critique...well some things never change..:rolleyes:

But I digress back to the thread...:ok:

[Lasiorhinus]

What a perfect example of how to take a selfie...

http://media.khon2.com/photo/2014/01/09/12_1389312816717_5128734_ver1.0_640_480.jpg

[No Hoper]

Thanks for the link sarcs, BTW were you in the RH or LH seat?
Contrary to Torres' belief the comp wash water does not effectively flush the Turbine blades. P&WC do not recommend leaving overnight but have advised that is better than not at all.

[Compylot]

Umm, just watched it the once

There was a fatality in this ditching, fortunately the rest got out ok

I can see this video as a valuable training aid

Was anybody wearing a life jacket prior to splash down
Didn't hear a brace call, maybe there was, the pax in clear view certainly was not in a brace position

and so on.

Umm, very interesting to read your astutely onanistic and extraneous critique of the pilot in said video.

You must of been mumbling and cursing the whole way through.

and so on.

[Turbine27]

What more could any pilot who has "stared death in the face-and walked away" wish for than a literary defence from Compylot?

[hoggsnortrupert]

I am sure the bean counters have allowed for this scenario in the single engine over water/single engine IFR whilst involved with fare paying passengers:

Had one in PNG recently as well and that was over land!

Pucker factor! whats that? OHH thats right, when we lost a FCU on a PT6-34 equipped DHC-6 Nadi/Rotuma,(lots of big blue wet stuff below) and we had another noise maker, wasnt an issue:(still had a crease in my undies though):

The industry makes me want to vomit!:
:mad:
HR:

[5-in-50]

Was that a stall warning horn or GPWS sounding at around 100ft?

Is it procedure in a C208 to ditch 5-10kts above stall IAS?

[Piano Man]

Sounds just like the stall warning. For the water conditions it is a saving grace the aircraft didn't flip.

[zac21]

"The industry makes me want to vomit!:

HR. ????????? :mad::mad::mad:

[Boeingdream]

I think he is referring to the fact that these days single engine aircraft are being used in place where in the past it would be reserved for twin engines.

Money > Safety

[hoggsnortrupert]

Boeing dream: You are an enlightened soul::ok:

HR:

[lilflyboy262...2]

@HR

So where is it safe to operate a single engine plane? Only over wide open plains or within gliding distances of airfields?

Aviation isn't a public government funded service like a bus route. So on low passenger routes how can you justify running a twotter over a van or porter into mountainous strips?
You can do it, but as a business you won't make any money at all.

You can go on about single engine this and that. But people get killed by poorly managed single engine events in twins.
And then we get into more people being killed in CFIT and other human factors related incidents than engine failures in single engine aircraft.

[hoggsnortrupert]

lilflyboy262...2:(So where is it safe to operate a single engine plane? Only over wide open plains or within gliding distances of airfields?)

1st: They single engine Turbine has its place:

A- Private operations where ever you want to go:
B-Commercial passenger ops, Anywhere an engine out is not going to get you wet, or put you into hills:
C- As for commercial viability, have a look at the increase in regulatory operator compliance and associated costs over the last 20 years? it hasnt made things any safer in my opinion, and I guess we dont have the amount of scud running accidents of yesteryear, but the cost to the operator has increased very substantially indeed:
D- with regard to C above, in my opinion, based on my experience, the quality of maintenance has not improved, but the compliance box ticking has:

Now! the modern jet/ turbine engines are bloody reliable, no question:

1-Lilflyboy262...2 Can you tell me what an engine failure is? and! Have you ever had an engine failure? I have:

Over the years I have had one Thrust failure on a piston Tri-engine type,
Two Thrust failures on twin PT-6 equipment, and one engine fire and shutdown on PT-6 equipment:

So: without any doubt what so ever, despite the reliability of todays turbine engines, Failures do occur:

You have the choice as to where you wish to be when the noise stops:

Now back to my question: this is for Lilflyboy262...2, (so please play along folks) what is an engine failure? :ok:

HR:

[Square Bear]

I don't see that the usage of single turbine over twin turbine as being purely driven by "The Industry".

I see it as mostly driven by what the punters are willing to spend.

IMO lilflyboy262...2 sums it up well.

[lilflyboy262...2]

Fortunately HR, I have only had one engine shut down event in a PT6. And that was with a King Air and the fuel bypass line breaking on take-off. We decided to shut down to avoid a fire.
But that is beside the point, and really, irrelevant.

You can say that they should be limited to flat lands only, but what happens if the engine quits over a wooded area and you can't glide clear? Or over a built up area?
Why is it ok to take 12 people in a caravan on a private op where ever you want to go, but not commercially? Is there suddenly more responsibility on the captain to keep the people safe if they have paid to be there over being invited?

Commercial Viability? I'm sorry, but how is running a twin turbine going to be cheaper than running something like a van?
Initial purchase, running cost, maintenance, insurance, two crew instead of one. It's all a lot more. And then if you aren't putting bums on seats, how are you going to offset that cost?

Again, I go back to my mountainous terrain stuff.
The twin otters cannot operate at max capacity out of these strips. Is the solution to try and run them at half, or one third capacity, when a caravan can get in and out easily, and economically?

How about when one donk quits on the twin otter. What is its maximum ceiling when it is fully loaded? The Mountains that I am flying in at the moment are 16,000ft. Is that any safer than a caravan?

Without aircraft like the Caravan, these communities will lose their lifelines to the outside world. It really is that simple.

Am I advocating that we should do away with twins and fly single engine aircraft everywhere? No, of course not.
There is always going to be the argument that 2 engines are better than 1, but then again, 4 engines are better than 2. And 8 are better than 4.

And for as long as there are single engine aircraft, these incidents are always going to happen.
All we can hope for is that accidents like this one are not caused by something as simple as poor maintenance and corner cutting in the name of cost saving.

[hoggsnortrupert]

Fortunately HR, I have only had one engine shut down event in a PT6. And that was with a King Air and the fuel bypass line breaking on take-off. We decided to shut down to avoid a fire.
But that is beside the point, and really, irrelevant.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No it is not irrelevant, and neither is it beside the point! Failures occur for lots of reasons, poor metal castings, poor bearing casting, metal fatigue (ie your fuel bypass), P&W determine an engine failure (as per their P&W rep) as to the engine core or its internal parts failing, the times failures occur due to broken FUEL LINES, FCUs, Governors, etc etc, do not count towards their reliability figures>( as per their representatives, statement)
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can say that they should be limited to flat lands only, but what happens if the engine quits over a wooded area and you can't glide clear? Or over a built up area
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------No that is not what I said, I said Pvt ops fly it where ever you want:
As for paid passenger transport ops I feel that single engine ops should be such that passengers are never in the situation where they are going to have to swim, or crash land into hills or mountains, if that means you determine such as your reply, that is your opinion:
(bear in mind this,! I said you have the choice over what you are when it goes silent, remember this)
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why is it ok to take 12 people in a caravan on a private op where ever you want to go, but not commercially? Is there suddenly more responsibility on the captain to keep the people safe if they have paid to be there over being invited?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Read the above, TWO TURBINES are better than one, and as such for the larger part they remove the finality of such an event in a single engine machine:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Commercial Viability? I'm sorry, but how is running a twin turbine going to be cheaper than running something like a van?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I did not say a twin is cheaper to operate than a single, it is very much the opposite, unless one cares to match say a PC12 against a 400 Otter! What I was alluding to was the operator switch to single engine types being cheaper, as the compliance costs for all types have risen dramatically, if this makes it cost recoverable/more profit margin for them to operate single turbine then they do, but it is nothing to do with punter choice, it is an evolution of commercial business by Cessna, PAC,Pilatus etc, to market their machines under the guise that they are as safe or safer than a twin turbine which is wrong! Why is it wrong, you have stated you have had a fuel line rupture or break on a K/air, if you are in your single over the water or in the mountains it all becomes rather murky doesn’t it? From my point of view in my years I have had three occasions to fly on one when the other has gone quiet, so are you saying that at 60 yrs of age I should have to accept that, lets see 16000hrs well 14000hrs +/-? multi turbine dived by 3 gives me an event every 4666.6666 hrs: to say I run the risk of dying and missing my grand kids grow up every soften is abhorrent in the least:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
initial purchase, running cost, maintenance, insurance, two crew instead of one. It's all a lot more. And then if you aren't putting bums on seats, how are you going to offset that cost?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You increase the ticket price!!!
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, I go back to my mountainous terrain stuff.
Yes mountainous stuff, big clumps of Cumulo Granite, I have lost (and it would not be correct to place their names, and I regarded all as better than me, RB(1980)-EL(1998)-JM(1995) (all year ISH) MB-(2008) and these are just the ones all with more time than I, that flew into MOUNTAINS, in their own field of very extensive operations:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The twin otters cannot operate at max capacity out of these strips. Is the solution to try and run them at half, or one third capacity, when a caravan can get in and out easily, and economically?
This is circumspect, it depends where and how far you have to carry the punters, and they have in years gone by at weights done by a rather thick pencil with out any issues:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How about when one donk quits on the twin otter. What is its maximum ceiling when it is fully loaded? The Mountains that I am flying in at the moment are 16,000ft. Is that any safer than a caravan?
Ask my old 58 year old Nepalease mate now on the A320, he had on quit on this strip (16000) on take off at circa 60 kts!! by a fuel line breaking, he was trained for such, and kept the nose down full noise and up to the red line on the T5, & trundled off the edge and stuck the nose down, bought the pwr back and landed uneventfully with all safe, I presume you are in the same neck of the woods if you operate into this strip, as it is the only strip I know of at 16000ft? so ask some of the OLD hands or traffic staff about “S”:
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Without aircraft like the Caravan, these communities will lose their lifelines to the outside world. It really is that simple.
This statement is correct in regards to an operating Caravan, but if it was to be replaced by a turbine twin then they have lost nothing, but wait until Joe public starts to become educated into the ways of single engine crashes and the tide may turn:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Am I advocating that we should do away with twins and fly single engine aircraft everywhere? No, of course not.
There is always going to be the argument that 2 engines are better than 1, but then again, 4 engines are better than 2. And 8 are better than 4.
Look if you are an enlightened under 35 year old, having been trained at a university in the ways of airline flying and the evolution of accepted single engine turbine operations then I am farting against thunder!
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
And for as long as there are single engine aircraft, these incidents are always going to happen.
Yes, a simple drive /quil shaft to the fuel pump, or oil pump, or a poorly overhauled part, etc etc:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
All we can hope for is that accidents like this one are not caused by something as simple as poor maintenance and corner cutting in the name of cost saving.
This is just a small part of it, maybe it was metal fatigue of the Fuel line:
I don’t know any more, I am not allowed to use my experience, and when I do/ we do (my generation), it is always invariably challenged by a young inexperienced university flight school trained F/O that thinks otherwise, yet ask their opinion on an issue and they correctly use the C/L, but on the odd time when its not in the QRH they have nothing to say while in the air, but on the ground they get very brave and knowledgable:
As I said, the industry makes me want to vomit:
Flying I cant beat it, but upon my shuffling off this mortal coil of granite and ocean and my impending recyclement, I shall ask to come back as a heroin addict, or just maybe a WW1 or WW2 pilot!!!!!
OVER and OUT:
H/Snort:
(now I am going to cuddle my blanket and drink my Scotch while I wait for them to feed me) yeah right::eek:

[lilflyboy262...2]

HR, I wrote quite a long reply to you but in the end I just deleted it.

Its a shame when you start looking down on someone due to their age and background, of which you know nothing about.
There's no point discussing this topic as you are obviously set in your opinions and unwilling to look at any points of view.

Yes, in an engine failure there is only one way to go once it happens. A good pilot will always leave himself an option B, or at least have a plan of attack if it does stop making noise.
Sometimes twin engine aircraft can give you a false sense of security. And that can get you into much worse situations.

I wish we could fly twins everywhere. Actually I wish we could fly 4 engined aircraft everywhere. I also wish that money didn't matter in this world and that the cost of gas wasn't as high as what it was.

The truth is, a lot of these places that single engine aircraft like the van, porters, quests or 750's are operating out of, aren't exactly flush with cash.
Papua, Papua New Guinea, Nepal, and across most of Africa.
Money available + terrain not suitable for airports big enough to handle most twin turbines.... what tool is available to do the job?
Also, other than the twin otter, what plane is available to do the same jobs that the above mentioned singles can do?
Try and get your hands on a good twin otter these days....

[hoggsnortrupert]

QUOTE:Its a shame when you start looking down on someone due to their age and background, of which you know nothing about.
There's no point discussing this topic as you are obviously set in your opinions and unwilling to look at any points of view.

NOT SOME ONE :ugh::ugh::ugh:::: A GENERALIZATION OF TO-DAYS INDUSTRY, AND UNIVERSITY TRAINED INVARIABLY YOUNG F/O's::eek::eek:

Like you?:

Want a refurbished 1981 300 series 28,500 hr DHC-6 equipped with dash 34's?

It will cost you $4.6 mil::I can deliver it next week to where ever you want it!

HR:

[deadcut]

The industry makes me want to vomit!:
http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif
HR:

Leave then. Nobody is forcing you to fly single engined aircraft.
I'd fly on a single engined van vs a clapped out piston twin anyday.