Chieftain down in SA

[Bladeangle]

From the ABC website...

Plane crashes in paddock but pair escapes injury

Two people have walked away from a light plane that crash-landed in a paddock south of Adelaide.

The twin-engine Piper was forced to make an emergency landing one kilometre from the Aldinga airfield about 11:30am.

The plane's wheels were not down and it landed on its belly in the paddock north of Colville Road after a short flight.

Two people were on-board and police say the pair appears to have escaped injury but may be suffering from shock.

Paramedics at the scene are assessing them.

[Desert Flower]

While the Adelaide Advertiser website says it was a twin-engine Piper , it shows a picture of what appears to be a small ultralight (Jabiru etc) upside down in a paddock! :ugh:

DF.

[Capt Fathom]

ABC site shows a picture of a Navajo/Chieftain on it's belly in a paddock!

ABC News (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/plane-crashes-in-field-at-aldinga/5225280)

Looks like The Advertiser has updated it's photo!

Advertiser (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/two-people-aboard-light-plane-that-crashed-near-aldinga-airfield-walk-away-uninjured/story-fni6uo1m-1226812943068)

[Desert Flower]

I wonder if it's the same Chieftain that ran into some trouble last year - VH-OFF?

DF.

[VH-XXX]

Excellent photography of the crash scene by the ABC :ok:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/5225272-3x2-340x227.jpg

Plane crashes in paddock but pair escapes injury - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-01-29/light-plane-crash-near-aldinga/5225022)

[Howard Hughes]

Two people on board? Training flight?

[RobShan]

If appears to be the same paint job as VH-OFF.

Photos: Piper PA-31-310 Navajo C Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Piper-PA-31-310-Navajo/2263593/L/)


http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/3/9/5/2263593.jpg

[Bounceferret]

Adelaide Advertiser
"The plane's engines are identical to those which failed on a Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain which crashed into Spencer Gulf in 2000, killing eight people."

Wow! Which genius made that connection?? :ugh:

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

A local pilot said the plane's call sign - VH-OFF - had also been spray painted to stop media identifying the aircraft.

"They had an engine cutout on takeoff," the man said.

"I'm a pilot and these things happen. It's a fact of life that accidents happen - it's lucky that this time the two people are fine.

"This is the same plane that couldn't get a wheel to lock down and tipped on its wing at Adelaide Airport not long ago.

"You can see that they sprayed the rego numbers out with a spray can."

Photos taken by The Advertiser show the registration call sign on the plane's tail to be covered in black spray-paint.


Numpty.


The plane's engines are identical to those which failed on a Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain which crashed into Spencer Gulf in 2000, killing eight people.

No they're not. They're 40hp short. Next thing will be the calls for an investigation "due to facts uncovered by this reporter about the safety of these engines, which, unbeknownst to the public, are fitted to roughly half of the GA twin engine aircraft fleet!":ugh:

Fools.

[Desert Flower]

Wow! Which genius made that connection??

Yeah - was wondering that myself. Anyway it's now been confirmed that it was VH-OFF, like I thought.

DF.

[Bankstown Boy]

No ... You don't understand ... I've got it now!

Whyalla was 'cause they were using -A2C's!

[sarc-off]

[onetrack]

Here's a better article with more pics - and yes, it's VH-OFF. Seems like someone is very touchy about aircraft ID??

No Cookies | The Advertiser (http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/south-australia/two-people-aboard-light-plane-that-crashed-near-aldinga-airfield-walk-away-uninjured/story-fni6uo1m-1226812943068)

[The Green Goblin]

EFATO?

Aren't these supposed to be able to climb out on one engine?

:)

[Ixixly]

The Green Goblin, you looking for a nomination for "Best joke of the year"? :E

[Jabawocky]

From the ABC, the only text with the photo says;The twin-engine Piper crashed in an Aldinga paddock, narrowly missing a vineyard.

Struth....thank heavens for that. Vineyards are sacred in SA. :}

[Old Akro]

Props are pretty beaten up for engine failure

[Ixixly]

Also... 2 questions come to mind after seeing the latest pictures:

1. Why if they had the failure at only 50ft why are the gears retracted? I know, some people are going to tell me "Son, you always get the gears up as soon as bloody possible incase you have an engine failure so it'll perform better.." But this doesn't seem to have assisted at all!

2. I'm no expert, but if an engine had failed completely, wouldn't one of those propellers be looking a bit less bent? Looks like all 3 props on both engines are pretty badly bent, I was under the impression this signified a reasonable amount of power.

As The Green Goblin mentioned, one of these SHOULD be able to maintain or even climb with an engine out...hehehe... but surely with only 2 people onboard and what appears to be a decent amount of power still available to them, they should have been able to at least climb to 500ft and make a turn back to the field? Feels like there's a bit more to this than just an EFATO.

Also, I'm assuming the Journos were onto this pretty quickly which makes it really impressive how quickly they got themselves a can of black spray paint!! Or were they carrying some in the kit for just such a situation? :E

*EDIT*

Huh, interesting, just read the ATSB report, apparently the Pilot opted to Raise the gear after he felt a yaw to the left and power surges, so this could explain why he may have had extra power towards the end and why the gear was up.

[Creampuff]

I’ve never heard of anyone spraying over aircraft rego numbers after a prang.

I wonder what possessed whoever did it to think it was a good idea. And where did they get the paint from? :confused:

Extraordinary. :eek:

[Bladeangle]

One operator I used to work for had a crash kit back at base, included black garbage bags, duct tape etc to cover rego.

Wonder if there was too much air in the aux's.

[Mail-man]

Really cream puff?

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/thai-airways-tries-logo-cover-up-after-a330-300-skids-off-runway/story-e6frg6so-1226715235550

[Creampuff]

So someone under no immediate pressure came to the considered conclusion that covering up the aircraft’s rego would be an important and effective after-accident action?

By any chance was this idea announced with those immortal words: “I have a cunning plan!”?

[Mail-man]

A previous operator I worked for had it in an "emergency response plan"

[Howard Hughes]

I’ve never heard of anyone spraying over aircraft rego numbers after a prang.
This is a very normal practice, more about keeping the company name out of the papers rather than the aircraft rego! :ok:

[Creampuff]

So how many minutes do these operators naively hope the aircraft’s rego and the operator’s identity will remain unpublished on e.g. PPRUNE, the ATSB website .... :eek:

[aroa]

Puffy...many moons ago a Bushies "Metro" out of Emerald, descended "gently" into a field just after t/o on a dark, wet night. Lucky pilot, not so for his undies!

As soon as or before it was dragged back to the field all was obliterated with white paint.
Who was the only Metro operator into EML in those days.?.. Bushies.
The most heard Q at the field ...Why did Bushies paint their Metro white?

Cant imagine what the management thought they were hiding. Probably got more publicity about the painting out of, than the actual accident itself

After the paint was barely dry..out came a HUGE disc cutter..Bbzzzzt....and Bushies metro was no more.!

[Creampuff]

Just goes to show that the human genius for stupidity is almost infinite! :D

[Arm out the window]

"The plane's engines are identical to those which failed on a Whyalla Airlines Piper Chieftain which crashed into Spencer Gulf in 2000, killing eight people."


"The plane was equipped with wings, as was the Concorde aircraft that crashed in France some years ago killing all on board in a fiery crash."

[onetrack]

The Chieftains owner has just applied for a replacement slightly-modified aircraft rego, to better reflect his current business aims ... :E

http://oi61.tinypic.com/x1afwh.jpg

[peterc005]

My bet is that the fuel tank selector switch was incorrectly set.

Not the first time a Chieftain has lost power on takeoff because of this,

[Creampuff]

To what do you attribute the rather large bends, aligned with but opposite to the direction of rotation, of all three blades of both propellers? :confused:

[Howard Hughes]

My bet is that the fuel tank selector switch was incorrectly set.That was my first thought too!

Only have a few hundred hours on Navajos, but seem to remember it is very easy to do! ;)

[Creampuff]

So run me through why you've discounted the possibility of a wheels-up landing. :confused:

[peterc005]

Obviously the props were spinning when it hit the ground.

About ten years ago a client at work operated a Chieftain to visit remote sites, until one had a forced landing in a paddock a 1km from takeoff. Turned out the fuel switch was in the wrong position. The client subsequently bought a King Air.

[Creampuff]

And were all three blades of both propellors on that Chieftain bent almost double, aligned with but in the opposite direction to the normal direction of rotation? :confused:

[Two_dogs]

Looks like a PA-31-310 Navajo, not PA-31-350 Chieftain

Creamie, Your double posting of the directional rotational damage suggests you know the answer. What would cause the props to be bent in the wrong rotational sense? I opened the image and flipped it horizontally, the props are now bent in the correct rotational sense. However the pax door is now on the wrong side of the aircraft. :}


I cannot think of any reasonable explanation…

[Desert Flower]

To what do you attribute the rather large bends, aligned with but opposite to the direction of rotation, of all three blades of both propellers?

Could be because they were feathered!

DF.

[onetrack]

Two dogs, you just might be right.

VH-OFF | Flickr - Photo Sharing! (http://www.flickr.com/photos/68213027@N02/8423418974/)

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

How many people don't know the difference between a Chieftain (agreed, initially marketed as a Navajo II, then the Chieftain, but counter rotating props and one extra window up the side) and the base model Navajo (same direction of rotation and only four windows)?

This aircraft was a -310 Navajo. The media can be excused for fcuking it up, but many "experts" here don't seem to know the diff.

On the topic of the prop damage, while not professing to be an ATSB investigator, the left appears feathered (hard to tell on the right) and while feathered, but not shut down could be a conclusion, the direction of the bends might be better attributed to touching down with no significant power (props bend back) and then the hubs finishing thier travel into feather after the damage.:confused:

(ps, before refering to onetrack's picture above, it has been mirrored)
nb. Posted before I saw CP, 2D or OT's posts if it seems like I'm reitterating.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

And the 'Winner' is......#28.....

Mr ONETRACK!!!

:ok::ok:


Creamy - That has been the 'SOP' for many years.
The first time I can remember is an 'Air India' B707 shortfalling - microburst (?) - due TS activity into Bombay (?), many many many years ago - and the man who painted out the 'company colours' got a BIG MENTION in despatches....

And some $$$'s....

The SLF may remember the incident, but without the 'Technicolour' pics, they 'soon fergit' the culprit, and so, 'Sales' are not compromised....well not for long anyway....

Cheers :):)

p.s. And...TKS to 1 TRK, the TROO prefix of G/A in OZ has been displayed for ALL to see!!!
'FUK' - vice 'VH' = HOW CASA views the G/A Multi Million $$ Industry in OUR COUNTRY!!!
:yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk::yuk:

[Arnold E]

So run me through why you've discounted the possibility of a wheels-up landingBecause they were taking off .:ugh:

[VH-FTS]

Unfortunately painting over logos or the rego can result in what's known as the Streisand effect...

[Desert Flower]

This aircraft was a -310 Navajo.

Are you absolutely sure about that? The CASA aircraft register has it as a PA-31 - not a PA-31-310.

VH OFF
Power Driven Aeroplane with TRICYCLE-RETRACTABLE landing gear
2 Piston engines

Manufacturer: PIPER AIRCRAFT CORP
Model: PA-31
Serial number: 31-7812064
Aircraft first registered in Australia: 01 November 1985
Year of manufacture: 1978

Full Registration
Registration holder as of 02 May 2006
LUCAS, David
PO Box 143
BRIGHTON SA 5048
AUSTRALIA
Registered operator as of 02 May 2006
LUCAS, David
PO Box 143
BRIGHTON SA 5048
AUSTRALIA

DF.

[27/09]

Google PA 31-7812064.

You will see all the references are for Piper Navajo C PA31-310 which is the non counter rotation version. The counter rotating versions were 325 HP.

[Two_dogs]

DF,

They are all PA-31 aircraft, variants were; (Source Wikipedia)

PA-31 NavajoInitial production version, also known unofficially as the PA-31-310.[/URL]

PA-31-300 NavajoVariant of the Navajo with normally aspirated engines; 14 built. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31_Navajo#cite_note-A20SO-10)

PA-31 Navajo BMarketing name for 1971 improved variant with 310 hp (231 kW) Lycoming TIO-540-E turbo-charged piston engines, new airconditioning and optional pilot access door and optional wide utility door.

PA-31 Navajo CMarketing name for 1974 improved variant with 310 hp (231 kW) Lycoming TIO-540-A2C engines and other minor improvements.

PA-31P Pressurized NavajoPressurized version of the PA-31 Navajo, powered by two 425-hp (317-kW) Lycoming TIGO-541-E1A piston engines.[URL="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31_Navajo#cite_note-A8EA-12"] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31_Navajo#cite_note-peperell-3)

PA-31-325 NavajoReferred to as the "Navajo C/R" for Counter Rotating; variant of Navajo with counter-rotating propellers introduced with the PA-31-350 Chieftain. 325 hp (242 kW) Lycoming TIO-540 / LTIO-540 engines PA-31-350 ChieftainStretched version of the Navajo with more powerful 350-hp (261-kW) engines that rotate in opposite directions (a Lycoming TIO-540 and a Lycoming LTIO-540) to eliminate critical engine issues. PA-31P-350 MojavePiston-engined variant of the PA-31T1 Cheyenne I; 50 aircraft built.

PA-31-350T1020Also known as the T1020/T-1020; variant of the PA-31-350 Chieftain optimised for commuter airline use, with less baggage and fuel capacity and increased seating capacity (nine passengers). First flight September 25, 1981. 21 built.

PA-31T3Also known as the T1040/T-1040; turboprop-powered airliner with fuselage of the PA-31-350T1020, and wings, tail and Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-11 engines of PA-31T Cheyenne. First flight July 17, 1981. 24 built.

PA-31-353Experimental version of PA-31-350; two built


Even if both props were feathered, surely they would still be rotating in the correct sense unless stopped. Even then, the angle of incidence to the direction of travel should still be positive with regard to the normal rotation direction. A yawing moment (nose left) might account for the opposite rotational damage?

Creamie, do I get a Chocolate Frog?

[Horatio Leafblower]

DF you will notice that ALL Navajos and Chieftains have a serial number of 31-YYMMxxx

The YY is the year of manufacture and the next 2 digits indicate the model.

Check out VH-IXP or VH-WAD or VH-NMP for example

31-80 52 185
31-75 52 018
31-78 52 149 respectively

...so there ya go!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

Bazinga.
As 27/09 sez and look at the pics, count the windows and look at the props.

Have you actually flown one, DF?
Check. Cheiftains go on the casa register as PA-31-350s.

Yeah I'm sure.:cool:

[A37575]

Aren't these supposed to be able to climb out on one engine?


It all depends. If it was a training flight and the instructor cut a mixture to simulate engine failure but failed to re-start quickly and set zero thrust on the simulated failed engine, the drag from the windmilling prop would prevent any reasonable climb

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

What about the one that went in off East Point in Darwin a few years back. Not even half full and couldn't maintain height.

They only need to meet the climb requirements under iSA conditions.:cool:

[601]

I would have thought a Chieftain with a chopped and shorten fuselage would have no problems on one engine.:rolleyes:

[Two_dogs]

Neither Navajo nor Chieftain is my favourite piston twin. I was told by a very old hand in the game that if one got low and slow in a Chieftain, do not add a little power, add it all, as the time taken to overcome the drag and accelerate is much greater than the time to decelerate to VMC..., or some such.

I once saw a Chieftain conducting training at Eulo, south west Queensland, in the winter, about 5 deg C, and 1030 mb., well above ISA conditions. I'm assuming it was training a training flight as the pax got off and then the two crew (one old fart and one young buck) got back in and took off. I watched them conduct circuit work including asymmetric approach and go-rounds.

The poor old thing was still descending in the go-round 2 out of 3 times at training weights. Pilot mishandling... not likely.

Realistically, most GA pilots get to train in this scenario one per year, at training weights, and they know it's about to happen. They (we) still sweat profusely. In the real event, in an average 40 year old piston conducting charter, I think the best scenario may just be land straight ahead. Not to say it can't be done, just unlikely to have a positive outcome at near MTOW.

I hope to never be in that situation. One has to follow the mandated initial actions, whilst it may just be worsening the situation. Fortunately all of my 'abnormal situations' have occurred at altitude. :D


.

[CB Hunter]

601, it is shorter, but also has less power.

If it was Aux fuel tank selection then that could have un- ported the fuel, then regained power as it lowered the nose and landed, it would explain the engine delivering power on impact/landing - as one previous post suggested.

The Chieftain does have counter rotating props, as correctly mentioned before. The Navajo does however have conventional rotating props (and if it was VH-OFF as shown in the pic by RobShan - it is clearly visible).
And if I read correctly before, the report was a yaw to the left (ABC Report) meaning the loss of the critical engine.

If it was indeed only at 50 ft, it may be still between blue line and red line (depending on pilot technique).
The Pa-31 manuals require the Prop to be feathered before retracting the gear in the case of an engine failure during take-off. This is because of the significant increase in drag when the flipper doors open to retract the gear.

So one scenario could have been the loss of the critical engine, retraction of gear with prop wind-milling, increasing drag beyond a point where flight could continue.

Food for thought.....

[Creampuff]

Creamie, do I get a Chocolate Frog?2Dogs, I don’t know anything about any Piper aircraft! My apologies if my questions gave the impression that I know some esoteric technical fact that provides a vital clue about what model aircraft OFF may be! (But you’re welcome to a Choccie Frog…) :ok:Because they were taking offWho sez, Arnold? :confused:Unfortunately painting over logos or the rego can result in what's known as the Streisand effect...Ya got that right! :D

I’m still completely amazed that any intelligent human being could think it will do anything other than draw extra attention and energy to finding out and publishing the rego and identity of the operator!

And then there’s the teensy problem that the registration holder for the aircraft commits an offence if the registration markings are not legible (CASR 45.085) …

[VH-XXX]

Allegedly lost a degree of power to one engine at about 100ft after takeoff at which point the wheels were retracted and a suitable place was found to put her down.... :oh:

[43Inches]

Neither Navajo nor Chieftain is my favourite piston twin. I was told by a very old hand in the game that if one got low and slow in a Chieftain, do not add a little power, add it all, as the time taken to overcome the drag and accelerate is much greater than the time to decelerate to VMC..., or some such.


Once you are single engine below blue line in any PA31 you will probably need to trade altitude for an increase in airspeed. The aircraft develops very high drag below that speed and is very evident at high weight the time it takes to accelerate from rotate to blue line on two engines, then from that point it pretty much climbs at the same rate for the next 40 kts.

If an engine fails early on below blue line you are in a very nasty place, however with two on board (assuming no freight) it should be able to accelerate if the aircraft is cleaned up fast. This all depends on what rotate speed you use and what sort of terrain you have to accelerate over.

Windmilling prop and you have no chance of climb.

Last time I did training in a PA31-350 we had 2 on board, full fuel and ballast and the aircraft climbed at 500fpm on one engine on an ISA +5 day.

I know directly of two occasions where a chieftain engine has failed just after take off and the pilot has managed to climb to circuit height and return for a safe landing. Both with more than 2 on board in ISA +10 or worse.

the poor old thing was still descending in the go-round 2 out of 3 times at training weights. Pilot mishandling... not likely.

This shows a big problem with the particular aircraft if it was not pilot error and the aircraft did not eventually climb. The reason for a single engine committal height is so you can use that altitude to clean up and accelerate back to blue line and climb away. If you are below that height you land no matter what due to lack of performance.

Full power on the Navajo engines is regulated by the density controllers, if these are not adjusted regularly for seasonal atmospheric changes you could be running at far less than maximum power at full throttle. Also small things like the rigging of gear doors can have a big influence on performance so good maintenance is essential.

[Wally Mk2]

I think plenty can learn from these incidents via PPrune, ya just gotta take most of it cautiously . With these old airframes now well & truly worn the original certification for SE capability would be dubious at best. Remember the cost of operating one of these old girls is enormous, there's little money to be made in this mugs game & it's usually at the expense of two things, money paid to the driver & maintenance, the less the better in both cases for the owner.

When ever I flew one of these old beasts a 100 yrs ago I always had a plan if I lost a fan below circuit height & that involved heading for an open area to guts it & 'IF' I was able to maintain height on the way to said resting place then that would have been plan B, to get back & land on the black bit. With this plan in mind at least I had the location already picked & wasn't confronted with sh1t it's going down where am I gunna put this piece of junk!! Worked for me on all piston eng machines, Turbines a diff story especially the 31T, loved that machine you had power to spare in the same airframe:-)
One day out of Roxby Downs late in the day temp up around 40 degs with a full load of grubby smelly engineers heading back to 'Port a Gutta' when I took off selected the gear up the gear just sat there refusing to retract, the result was pretty much full power around the circuit to land only pulling the power off on short final, scared the crap out of me! If I had have lost even a magneto I was dirt fodder! These airframes are bloody dangerous, lucky they where built like tanks from day one !




Wmk2

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

And then there’s the teensy problem that the registration holder for the aircraft commits an offence if the registration markings are not legible (CASR 45.085) …

So is CASA going to start hanging around paint shops waiting to ping full resprays now?:}

[Horatio Leafblower]

if these are not adjusted regularly for seasonal atmospheric changes

I had a long-time Chieftain engineer tell me that he will not set the density controllers to provide more than 40-42" because "If your pilots have a cold day they will blow the pots off". :hmm:

POH says 49" max power :confused:

[VH-XXX]

A brave man or woman would remove a rego at the crash site. If they had time to spray that out, what else did they tamper with?

[43Inches]

I had a long-time Chieftain engineer tell me that he will not set the density controllers to provide more than 40-42" because "If your pilots have a cold day they will blow the pots off".

Never heard that one and if I did I would refuse to fly the aircraft as any single engine performance will be woefull. Correct power adjustment for the Chieftain for full power at sea level, ISA conditions would be around 43 inches. Not many places in Australia would come in under ISA conditions for most of the year.

Setting 40 Inches is effectively running the engine at 95% power at full throttle and that's if its ISA. ISA+ and who knows how much power you are losing.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I would refuse to fly the aircraft as any single engine performance will be woefull.

Yeah the ensuing conversation was fairly to-the-point :ok:

[Old Akro]

Never heard that one and if I did I would refuse to fly the aircraft as any single engine performance will be woefull.

This rumour has been around for a while. I think enough people have mentioned it to give it some credibility - at least with particular operatores and / or LAME's.

It was given as a potential factor in the Canley Vale crash and the reason the Mojave couldn't maintain height on one engine. Of course this was never investigated by the ATSB who incorrectly applied wind vectors to radar based ground speed to conclude the pilot had inadequate airspeed control.

Setting the waste gates correctly is time consuming and should involve a flight test climb to altitude. I suspect many LAME's just skip this part and make a conservative setting or presume the last guy set them correctly.

[43Inches]

Another issue regarding performance is the environmental envelope on the PA31. The manufacturers P-Charts for take-off and single engine performance go up to 36c at sea level and fall away with altitude, just allowing ISA +20 operation. After an accident in the US where a Navajo did not maintain height after a failure at altitude with sea level temps of 39c the NTSB and FAA made a point that the aircraft was operating outside of its certified limits and performance can not be guaranteed. The lines ending on the charts signified the temperature limits of certified performance.

[601]

601, it is shorter, but also has less power.

CB Hunter

Just trying to have a dig at all the "know it alls" who keep referring to the aircraft as a Chieftain.

Count the windows:=

[43Inches]

Setting the waste gates correctly is time consuming and should involve a flight test climb to altitude.

You don't actually set the waste gates in the Navajo. There is a setting screw on the density controller that sets maximum manifold pressure for full throttle. It is set by measuring compressor discharge temperature and ensuring actual manifold pressure is within a range for that temp.

The density controller governs maximum power available.

The differential controllers maintain set power when below maximum.

[Pinky the pilot]

Count the windows

First thing I did when seeing the photo.:=

Note that the Advertiser report stated that the a/c concerned had previously been involved in a landing incident, late last year.

Wonder just how much damage to the airframe the latest incident will have done. Also hate to think what this will do to the insurance premiums!:eek:

[onetrack]

VH-XXX is correct with his question about blacking out the rego. The very move is indicative of a serious flaw in the owners personality traits - as in a need to hide already-obvious items, when things go wrong, or questions might be asked.

It's a childish, immature trait - just as kids produce blatant lies we can see through instantly, when they're obviously guilty of a transgression they know they shouldn't have done.

It's obvious the owner of VH-OFF is fearful of many other previously-hidden aviation transgressions being found out, and he wants no scrutiny from anyone, in case they're found.
Unfortunately, he needs to man-up and understand that with owning an aircraft, there comes a great degree of scrutiny and a need to be squeaky-clean - because that scrutiny he may be constantly trying to avoid, will eventually fall upon him out of left field - and uncover every failing, large or small, that he has desperately tried to hide, for so long.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

I had a long-time Chieftain engineer tell me that he will not set the density controllers to provide more than 40-42" because "If your pilots have a cold day they will blow the pots off".

I found most set around 44".

Navajo I was flying the other day only got 40" on takeoff (43" redline).

Overboost will also occur if the oil hasn't warmed up sufficiently.

Isn't anyone taught to observe manifold pressures as power is increased on takeoff anymore!?!!:rolleyes:

Go the GSIO's!:E

[717tech]

Be aware that OFF is (was? ) available for cross hire to other (select ) pilots / companies who met the criteria for insurance, currency, experience, etc, etc.

Are you sure about that?

[Old Akro]

Are you sure about that?

Show me a twin and I'll show you an owner who will accept hire fees from a trusted pilot.

[Karunch]

That particular owner (& the pilot flying that day) is not one of the ones needing to subsidise his aircraft ownership.

Covering the registration is likely to have been to ensure his other aviation interest (the commercial one) does not come under scrutiny. The work it does receives greater scrutiny than Casa provides.

Covering a company logo post accident is one thing, having an employee blank the registration may well be a breach of the regs.

[BPA]

The ATSB have confirmd the rego is VH-OFF.

[Desert Flower]

The ATSB have confirmd the rego is VH-OFF.

No kidding! :rolleyes:

DF.

[Two_dogs]

And then there’s the teensy problem that the registration holder for the aircraft commits an offence if the registration markings are not legible (CASR 45.085) … Covering a company logo post accident is one thing, having an employee blank the registration may well be a breach of the regs. I'm far too lazy to look up either the CASR or Regs, but would assume both reference an aircraft which is actually in flight. The only "gotcha" would be whatever references interference with an aircraft post accident?

.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

While 45.085 says the marking should be legible, CASR 45.035 (Requirements for Markings) actually says;
(1) Except as Division 45.B.2 allows otherwise, an Australian aircraft, whenever it is operated, must bear as many sets of its markings as is required by whichever is applicable of regulations 45.045, 45.050, 45.055 and 45.060.


The argument could be put forward that this aircraft, immediately after coming to rest, was at the time in fact not being operated?:E

Always thought the painters would probably beat the rescue crews to the aircraft in an airline's ideal post accident scenario.:}

[Arnold E]

It's obvious the owner of VH-OFF is fearful of many other previously-hidden aviation transgressions being found out, and he wants no scrutiny from anyone, in case they're found.

Big call from someone who does not know who blacked out the rego or the reason it was done. Was not done by employee of the owner.

[gerry111]

QF "disguise" their retired aircraft before they head for storage or parting out at Victorville, CA. By painting the white roo red...

A thread killer, I rather suspect. :uhoh:

[Creampuff]

The argument could be put forward that this aircraft, immediately after coming to rest, was at the time in fact not being operated?Good point!

That would mean everyone can cover up their rego after shutting down after each flight. Might keep some of those pesky landing fee hunters at bay … :E

Gerry111: If you know Qantas are doing it, it just goes to show that it doesn’t work!

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

That would mean everyone can cover up their rego after shutting down after each flight.

Cripes! Is the cover on my Cirrus actually illegal now?:eek:

[27/09]

Gee you Aussies get anal about some petty things.

Let's face it it's not airworthy, it cannot fly, who cares what state the rego is in?

A bit of black paint like this doesn't hide the aircrafts identity from those that need to know. It would be different if they tried to remove the data plate.

Come on guys worry about some important stuff.

[TOUCH-AND-GO]

Come on guys worry about some important stuff.

Booze and babes :}

[mostlytossas]

No sheep......he's a Kiwi

[onetrack]

Arnold E - Well, it would be interesting to hear of just one good justifiable reason to black out a rego after a crash. It just seems like "ar$e-covering" and deviousness to me. After all, 98% of the population today now have a phone with them at all times, that's capable of good pics - and those phone owners are ready and willing to share pics of exciting happenings, worldwide, at a moments notice. :hmm:

[Arnold E]

It just seems like "ar$e-covering" and deviousness to me

Once again, big call, young fella thought he was doing the right thing, nothing more than that.:rolleyes:

[Desert Flower]

Once again, big call, young fella thought he was doing the right thing, nothing more than that.

If he came up with the idea on his own - big worry. If someone put him up to it - even bigger worry!

DF.

[onetrack]

Arnold, your answer doesn't address my question, so I guess this means there's no good justifiable reason to cover up the rego, at any time?
So - you're effectively saying, "it seemed like a good idea at the time"? IMO, the move would only make any accident investigator suspicious, and possibly indulge in even more intense scrutiny of the whole scenario. :hmm:

[KRviator]

Arnold E - Well, it would be interesting to hear of just one good justifiable reason to black out a rego after a crash. It just seems like "ar$e-covering" and deviousness to me.Well, given the CASA rego database is public-access (and don't get me started on that...), if I am out flying my RV and prang it, I don't want some journo finding my name and address, and either rocking up on the doorstep or calling the missus asking how she feels having her hubby in a plane crash when I haven't told her yet.

For company-owned aircraft, perhaps they don't want the media on their doorstep or hounding the office girl for a comment. Both understandable to me.

[Creampuff]

But it doesn't work....

[RobShan]

While the person covering the Rego probably thought they were helping, the problem is, their actions have now attracted attention, additional to the crash, both in this forum and in the mainstream media.

So now when the journo fronts, after asking How come this plane keeps crashing? They get to ask, How come you tried to cover it up? (I'm trying to think like a journalist with the questions.)

[Old Akro]

Make note to self. Use white paint to cover rego, not black.

My understanding is that it was a nice very very low time privately owned Chieftan which has a history of only one other incident which was with a previous owner.

Blacking out the rego has backfired, but I've acted as spokesman for accidents twice to draw the press away from those directly involved and its a very unpleasant thing. I have full sympathy for whoever has tried to keep the aircraft identity low key.

[RobShan]

I'm not sure hiding the Rego in anyway will help in this day and age. ATSB published the details within hours and asking around the aerodrome by a reporter will almost certainly yield the details. And there is the danger, as noted by a previous poster, of the Streisand Effect (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect).

The strategy of getting someone to talk to the press is likely to work far better.

This reminds me of the QF1 runway overrun at Bangkok, where Qantas released photos of the left side of the aircraft to the press, saved the media going out to take photos. They may taken photos of the right side of the aircraft, where the real damage was.

By the way I think the questions I postulated are insensitive and inflammatory, but this is how much of the media works.

[cattletruck]

Unfortunately painting over logos or the rego can result in what's known as the Streisand effect...

Is that not being able to see over the nose?

Or running an oxygen rich mixture?

Or putting on excess baggage as you age?

A simple quip of "no comment" is what the media deserve for being oversubscibed to the trough that feeds them.

[Desert Flower]

My understanding is that it was a nice very very low time privately owned Chieftan which has a history of only one other incident which was with a previous owner.

Don't know how many hours are on it or how nice it is (or should that be was? ;)) but:

A: Its year of manufacture was 1978, so I doubt if it was low time. I can remember this aircraft from back in my Air BP days at YLEC over 20 years ago. It used to be based in Darwin then.
B: As previously pointed out it's a Navajo not a Chieftain.
C: It is the same aircraft that made a heavy landing at Adelaide Airport on November 2 last year, when the undercarriage of the plane collapsed upon landing, & still has the same owner.

DF.

[717tech]

OFF is a relatively low time Navajo.

[Arnold E]

A: Its year of manufacture was 1978, so I doubt if it was low time. It is low time for a Navajo and it is a realy nice aircraft. Has been owned by current owner for many years.
Also cannot understand the angst that has been caused by a young lad blacking out the call sign. Yeah, maybe you are right about modern social media making this act unnessesary, but hey, what the heck, he is a young lad that thought he was helping. There was nothing sinister in the act. I think some of you people need to take a Bex and have a good lie down. No wonder GA is in the state it is in.:rolleyes:
By the way, I would be more than happy to employ this young lad and have him work on my aeroplane

[Creampuff]

But it doesn't work.

Shooting the messengers won't change that.

[Arnold E]

But it doesn't work.

Shooting the messengers won't change that.

So what are you saying, I dont understand?? Read the post.:ugh:

[Howard Hughes]

But it doesn't work.
Sure it's not as important now that we have social media, but if it stops one lazy person from Googling the rego, then I would say it has worked. Only suggestion, spray it the same colour as the aircraft! ;)

[Munz]

Was flying the Sharkie run past YADG when OFF went down. This explains the flurry of media helicopters that arrived at the field shortly after...

[Desert Flower]

Also cannot understand the angst that has been caused by a young lad blacking out the call sign.

Because it smacks of shonky business, that's why! It makes people wonder what else is being covered up.

DF.

[Arnold E]

Because it smacks of shonky business,

Bullsh*t.........

[No Hoper]

It makes people wonder what else is being covered up.
Always rely on PPrune to construe a consiracy out of a stuff up

[tmpffisch]

Because it smacks of shonky business, that's why! It makes people wonder what else is being covered up.

I worked for an operator where this was standard practice. It's not that they were wanting to cover ANYTHING up, it's that they didn't want media photos of their crashed plane with their logo visible, in 5 or 10 years after the incident was a distant memory.

[Ixixly]

Looks like Peterc005 and CB Hunter may win the ribbon for this one, just having a look at the ATSB website and the Investigation is now titled "Fuel starvation and forced landing involving PA31, VH-OFF near Aldinga ALA, South Australia on 29 January 2014".

Might be a timely reminder for all those flying Chieftains and Navajos and the many other aircraft that susceptible to this kind of simple error around the country to be extra diligent, be safe out there boys and girls!!

[peterc005]

If it is fuel starvation due to mis-management of the fuel system, it's not the first time it's happened.

Not a hard thing to do and a valuable lesson for others.

The fact that this scenario has been repeated a number of times suggests that Piper should have paid more attention to the pilot ergonomics of the fuel selector system.

My son is coming up thru the ranks and I tell him that this sort of thing will happen to him one day in the hope it will avoid complacency. The place where he does his training are very strict about procedures and check lists, which is probably a good thing.

[porch monkey]

Fuel management doesn't get much simpler than a PA-31. You can't really blame the manufacturer for user incompetence.

[onetrack]

I gather the Piper fuel selector valves have a degree of notoriety for failure?
I'm not familiar with the precise setup on VH-OFF - but a mate (now deceased due to age) claimed he had a fuel selector valve failure on his Cherokee around about 1986-87, which resulted in fuel starvation and engine stoppage, and an emergency set-down on the highway between Kalgoorlie and Coolgardie.
Unfortunately, despite making a pretty faultless dead-stick landing, he clobbered a roadside sign and took off a sizeable portion of a wing, resulting in some pretty major damage. No-one was hurt.
He claimed the valve was sent off for testing and failed twice in 4000 cycles. I'm not sure if that really was the story - and the valve really was faulty - or if he was making it up and he was personally responsible for the crash by neglecting to select the correct tank.
He was inclined to be a little loose with the truth, so I have my doubts about his version. However, I note that fuel selector valve failures, valve leakage, and valve corrosion, feature in a number of Piper discussions and accident reports - without the addition of pilot error in fuel valve selection.

[Tinstaafl]

It can't be considered difficult to take off & land on the mains, and use aux. for cruise. It's common to many types. Even if the valve failed as the selector passed through 'off', you should still be able to get fuel to that engine thanks to the pressure x-feed system.

[Ixixly]

It's the simple things that often catch people out Tinstaafl. Last minute charter has come in, pushing last light, boss and client are both getting impatient so you grab the aircraft, bundle your passengers aboard and get going deciding "Stuff the checklist, I'm in a hurry and I've done this a hundred times!" Only to feel that wretched sinking feeling in your stomach as you get 50ft above the ground, the engines start coughing and you realise you forgot to change back to mains after doing a X-Feed check!!

Just out of curiosity and I promise I'm not trying to cast doubts or blame or anything just purely curious. If an aircraft is known to have problems with Takeoff And/or Landing on the Aux Tanks, for example the climb/descent attitude causes the fuel lines to become uncovered, and the refueller has added the fuel that was meant to go to your Mains into your Aux instead so therefore the required fuel is now solely located in your Aux with your Mains being just about bone dry and you go to take off and have an engine failure due to the Mains being empty and the Aux being full, would the ATSB consider that Fuel Starvation because you had adequate fuel but just not in the selected tank or Fuel Exhaustion because the fuel you had in the Aux wouldn't have been useable for the Takeoff anyway?

[porch monkey]

It's a simple check in a PA-31. What they would consider if you did stuff it up as you describe is say you failed in your primary task. Fuel sufficient and correct for your flight. P.I.C responsibility. You aren't flying a C150 anymore. It just really isn't that hard to ensure selectors correct and sufficient fuel.:ugh:

[Tinstaafl]

The only way to check x-feed in a PA31 is to switch x-feed 'on' and then switch that engine's selector to 'off'. You would have to do that, in turn, for each engine. No way am I going to be switching fuel off between engine start & take-off. Checking for freedom of movement during a pre-flight, however...

[Ixixly]

My apologies, I wasn't very clear in my last post but I wasn't being specific to the PA-31 in that example as I have 0 time on that aircraft. As with my previous post before that one I was trying for a more generalised "Slow down, take your time, don't get rushed and make silly mistakes" sort of example!!

Sorry for the confusion :8 and yes I am entirely aware that this particular situation with VH-OFF could very well be a mechanical error that couldn't be detected by anyone prior to it happening but I always like to think it's never a bad thing to make sure people aren't lapsing into complacency!

[Wally Mk2]

A little trick I always disciplined myself with on any twin I flew mainly 'cause I flew so many diff twins was fiddle with, play with & select whatever you need on any fuel selector BEFORE you started the donks. That way from start up to take off any engine (especially high powered units) would have showed signs of the life being brought to halt due my dumb thumbs!:-)

Wmk2

[717tech]

Good advice there Wally.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

If an aircraft is known to have problems with Takeoff And/or Landing on the Aux Tanks, for example the climb/descent attitude causes the fuel lines to become uncovered, and the refueller has added the fuel that was meant to go to your Mains into your Aux instead so therefore the required fuel is now solely located in your Aux with your Mains being just about bone dry and you go to take off and have an engine failure due to the Mains being empty and the Aux being full, would the ATSB consider that Fuel Starvation because you had adequate fuel but just not in the selected tank or Fuel Exhaustion because the fuel you had in the Aux wouldn't have been useable for the Takeoff anyway?

In the PA31's case, the limitation in the flight manual that says DO NOT TAKE OFF WITH LESS THAN 1/4 FULL MAINS may be your undoing.:E
I've had refuellers remove fuel because the wrong aircraft (mine) was overfilled (oops, wrong Baron). Took two hours under the wing in 38 deg heat, but it was either that or be overweight.

As for checking x-feeds, what's wrong with getting into the habit of confirming your fuel (by PHYSICALLY confirming selector position) every time you line up?
Lights (strobes), Camera (xpdr), ACTION (fuel). Nothing like getting into good habits early.

[Tinstaafl]

When I'm cleared for take off, or start to cross the holding point, I have a habit of checking the killer items: pumps, icing protection, flap, trim, engine controls (mixt, RPM & cowl flap as appropriate) & fuel selectors. It's as habitual with me as advancing the throttle to take off.