Runway overshoot at Oxford. (Merged).

[rollright129]

Anyone know anything about the light aircraft that apparently overshot the r/w at EGTK this pm after an aborted t/o?

[fly-half]

Yes, you are correct, it went off the end of runway 19 and into the hedges after engine failure on take-off. Seneca G-BEAG, 3 POB, no injuries. No point in speculating what happened until all the facts are known but it is business as usual at Oxford today.

[witchdoctor]

Oops a daisy! That must have made things a little exciting down at the traffic lights.

There must be easier ways of upgrading the fleet to Seneca V's surely?;)

[BoeingMEL]

Overshoot = missed approach! Surely this was an over-run? bm

[Ally Minium]

Overshoot is a term that has not been used to describe "go-arounds" for years now.

It is accepted parlance for "overshoot" to mean "running off the end into the dirt".

[John Green]

I work opposite from Oxford Airport. I was coming along the road on test drive with the apprentice in the car, as we started to speed up out of the thirty sign a sore the hedge row move and a white nose of a aircraft appear through the hedge in the distrance. I slowed down because I wasn`t to sure what was happening. Once I`d got closer I saw that It was one of Oxford Aviations aircraft at an angle through the hedge. The people jumped out rather quickly as you`d imagine. From what I sore and position of the plane I believe it must have had a number 1 engine failure and as we all know PA34`s are rubbish on only one engine, its decend very slowly if your lucky :ok:. The slightly worrying thing was half of oxfordshires emergency services were all stood around it scratching there heads. So if anyone else needed them tuff s:mad: t

[Regis Potter]

No John, I didn't know PA34's are rubbish on one engine & besides which engine is the No.1 ? Are you sure it wasn't a B747 ?

If you are unlucky enough to suffer an engine failure on takeoff, the procedure is to abort or land back on if sufficient runway available. Suggests that there was just insufficient in this case.

Anyone know who the instructor was ?

[LowNSlow]

RP No.1 is usually the engine furthest from the cockpit on the port side. Doesn't matter whether it's an 8 engined B-52, a 6 engined Antonov 226, a 4 engined 747 or a 2 engined Seneca. The only time the rule doesn't apply is in a Cessna 336/7 push me pull you where No. 1 engine is the one at the back :D

PS There isn't a light twin around that is "good" on one engine....Unless you classify a Beech King Air as a light twin.....

[FougaMagister]

LowNSlow - the Cessna 310 II isn't bad at all on one engine - you still have 275 shp to work on. I remember doing single-engine work at COV last year, and it was still going up (albeit slowly) with four of us onboard!

Cheers

[englishal]

Turbo charged PA34's are ok on one engine, 2 up, though I'm sure I'd do the same and put it back down ASAP [rather than do a frankieDetorie]. A Seneca I and forget it, you ARE going down :D

[LowNSlow]

Sorry chaps by good I meant a reasonable rate of climb (500 fpm +) with a reasonable load (say 3 bods and half full baggage). I can't think of any "light" twin that can meet these specs. Most will maintain height and climb when at altitude but there are damn few you'd want to continue a take off on one engine unless you REALLY had no choice (and half of nice flat Norfolk in front of you).

The Twin Com I used to fly (and it was a good 'un until she was parked in a field where there wasn't a runway...) could just about get 400 ish fpm two up with less than half tanks from low level (with one engine producing "zero thrust" but not shut down!!!). Ahh, memories.......

[witchdoctor]

Assuming things haven't changed in the last 12 months, most of the twin fleet at Oxford are Seneca II's, with the modular courses using the slightly more powerful Seneca III.

I don't recall many problems with assymetric handling in the II with full fuel and 3 up (standard training mode), and I'm a big chap too. Some of the airframes better than others for one-engined climbs, but all of them able to maintain altitude without a problem. Can't remember if G-BEAG was one of the better ones.

Never had one go on the t/o roll though. I'm sure it got a little exciting for a moment or two!

[Another_CFI]

LowNSlow, You were lucky to get 400fpm from the Twin Com. I did a CofA air test on a Twin Com just over a week ago at 50lb below MTOW and temperature ISA+2, so hardly hot, and on the single engine climb I achieved 136fpm average during the 5 minute climb. On checking the figures after the flight the scheduled figures worked out at 130fpm, hardly startling, but at least I squeezed an extra 6fpm out of it!

What would it do just after takeoff with the gear still down? I venture to suggest that it is going down, though slightly slower than a single with an engine failure.

[LowNSlow]

Another_CFI we were well below MTOW!!!!

[tmmorris]

Overshoot is still current military terminology for go-around - just as they call a touch-and-go a roller, and finals (with an S) is a curved path, and they have a position called initials, and all sorts of other confusing stuff.

I'm very grateful to 6AEF for allowing me to learn all of that before I went to a military field under my own steam...

Tim

[Regis Potter]

LowNSlow

My remark (albeit derogatory) was merely suggesting that normally, for basic training purposes we refer to the powerplants as left or right. Makes the teaching/learning process a little easier e.g. Left leg dead, Left engine dead etc... Easier than Left leg, No.1 engine I suggest ? But I do take your point, I was merely being facetious.

[plain jane]

Can't say too much at the mo as incident is still under investigation but certainly doesn't look like an engine failure... more like a brake failure and Oxford doing the usual of trying to pin it on somebody ie. the pilot, instead of finding out the cause of the problem and preventing it happening again. Luckily nobody was hurt this time, but had this happened to a less experienced instructor,who knows....?

[fly-half]

Just wanted to clear things up here - there was a problem on the take-off run and the instructor took control to bring the aircraft to a halt on the runway - just unlucky it didn't stop in time and of course, none of us know if we could have done a better job! I saw G-BEAG in the hangar and its starboard wing was very badly damaged at the end and at its mid-point as well as its nose - looks like it may not be repaired but it is still early days.

Another point you guys may wish to know is that in order to achieve good single-engine performance in a climb, we use 89 knots with the Senecas at Oxford. Also, Vmca is 76 knots whcih is the speed at around which we take-off which the manufacturer says we should be able to achieve control if something was to go wrong. The runway on which the incident took place was RWY19 and most of the departures start their take-off roll at the point of its intersection with RWY29. This means that we usually miss out the first quarter of the runway for take-off. Also, we hardly ever use full-power on take-off but this is always factored into our performance calculations. Perhaps this may change after the investigation but it is still seen as adequate.

Oh and we don't use the two Seneca IIIs for any student training anymore. If you see anyone flying one out of Oxford then it is most likely to be a couple of instructors using it for a recurrency flight.

[fly-half]

There's a discussion regarding this in "Private Flying" section under "Runway overshoot at Oxford". Hope this helps.

[FlyingForFun]

We hardly ever use full-power on take-off but this is always factored into our performance calculationsDoes the POH for this type include data for taking off with less than full power? I wasn't aware that any light aircraft manufacturer published this data.

FFF
----------------

[fly-half]

Instead of 40"MAP we use 35"MAP, not much of a difference really - it's an acceptable practise as published in the POH and the OPS Manual. As I said, we factor it into our performance calculations as well.

[FlyingForFun]

It's an acceptable practise as published in the POH and the OPS ManualDidn't know that. Can't really see any problem with it as long as it's a published procedure.

Of course, JAR OPS requires an aircraft to be able to stop before the end of the runway if take-off is aborted before V1, regardless of whether reduced power is being used, but there is no such requirement for private/training flights (otherwise a lot of short runways would find themselves not being used very much!) so going off the end of the runway will always be a concern for an aborted take-off. Thankfully, no one hurt from the sound of things, which isn't actually that surprising since I assume it would have been a low-speed impact. Obviously difficult to form an opinion without all the facts, but from those facts that we do have it seems as if everyone did everything right.

FFF
---------------

[Flyin'Dutch']

Take it that the reduction in performance due to the lower MP is not that great considering that most operations are well below MTOW.

Still may have made a difference in this case.

FD

[englishal]

Not wishing to criticise...but in a Seneca II I would always use full power [39"- 40"of MP] on take off, just to get well clear of the ground. If I had an engine failure then it makes it more likely of either getting back down and stopping well before out of runway or continuing T/O... [if obviously out of runway]

Does this reduction in MP really make a difference to engine life ?I guess it is used to prevent students on training flights from overboosting?

EA

[witchdoctor]

Sorry bud, but as far as I recall the 35" MAP is actually the figure recommended in the POH and used on the performance graphs as supplied with the POH.

Nothing can stop students from overboosting the MAP as I well know.:O

Got a nice lecture from the CFI at OAT about it too, which I still haven't forgotten.;)

[englishal]

From the Seneca II POH:-

Takeoff:

"The normally recommended procedure for sea level take off is to advance the throttle until a manifold pressure of 39" of Hg is indicated at 2575 RPM........Overboost lights will light at 39.8 " Hg, DO NOT EXCEED 40" MP...............Apply throttle smoothly until 40" manifold pressure is obtained.....etc etc....."

Can't see anywhere where it mentions 35" of Hg MP....

EA:D

[pmcadams]

I think some of you are a little missled.

The defintion of a go-around, means that you let the aircraft drift to the deadside if there is one, or the none operating side of the circuit for what you are flying.

Overshoot is still used by military controllers, and considering a proportion of us use military services(LARS) we could do with knowing what it means. It is similar to go-around, but rather than drifiting to deadside, you perform the manouvre straight down the centreline, generally to an assigned altitude.

Military use both terms as its important due to some airfields needing u to fly the centreline due to helicoptors operating in great numbers, as happens at shawbury!

Hope that clears up understanding, but if your visiting one of these fields be sure to check the AIP for the missed approach procedure as it will be stated in there.

Paul