Citation Biggin Crash any news on why yet ?

[Pace]

It is some time since the Citation 500 crash at Biggin. There was a very in conclusive initial report way back.

Since then nothing. Anyone with further information on the likely reason for this crash? or is it going to be one of those "we do not know why" scenarios

Pace

[Steak&Kidney_Pie]

Give the AAIB time, its a difficult one. Thats why its quiet!

[Pace]

As a 500 pilot I have a special interest in this one. There are rumours of some inherant design fault in the early 500 series and similar power loss situations which maybe just that rumours. But I would like to know.

My guess is that this one will be a 'don't know' but could have been abc which will leave us all in the dark.

Pace

[2604]

AAIB has told the family of at least one of the pilots that it will take up to 18 months (as they (the AAIB) would not release the flying log books)

[con-pilot]

Just to add that regarding the Citation 500 accident in Oklahoma City that occurred a few day prior to the one referred to here there has been no further information released as well. Both aircraft crashed in a very similar manner.

[Pace]

Yes and there are a total of 4 simular unexplained power loss accidents in the older 500s. I was told due to a design defect in old 500s.

18 months is not acceptable if the above is true for those of us flying them.

Pace

[frontlefthamster]

18 months is not acceptable if the above is true for those of us flying them.


Pace, do you think this is 18 months of kicking heels, long boozy lunches, and lazy afternoons sleeping it off? Or is this the estimate of a bunch of professional investigators trying to give an indication how long it might take to get to the bottom of an unusual accident with no recorded data and a severely burnt aircraft?

I'm sure the folk at Farnborough will be delighted to learn that you think their excellent work is done to such disappointing timescales...

[Pace]

I'm sure the folk at Farnborough will be delighted to learn that you think their excellent work is done to such disappointing timescales...



Why the agressive response? I am sure if you flew an old 500 and there is talk about four other unexplained power losses on old 500s a week might be too long for you never mind 18 months.

Pace

[frontlefthamster]

Well, I was rather taken aback by your expression of dissatisfaction with the speed at which these difficult things are done...

Defensive, to those good folk, I would say... Aggressive, no.

I understand your desire to know what happened, but with the information available, I suspect no-one will. If you have a theory, I'm sure that the AIB would love to hear it. Drop them an email, or make a call. Especially if there's any meat on the bone of your suggestions that you know what may have gone wrong...

I'm sure that they'll be delighted if you can help them get to the answers any more quickly!

[pattayapete]

Allegedly, a man from Sussex was arrested on charges of perverting the course of justice and appeared in court at the end of May, to be then bailed and case to resume in July/August

Detectives investigating a plane crash which killed five people have arrested a 34-year-old man on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.
The man, who is from Sussex, was taken in for questioning and released on bail while police carry out further inquiries.
A spokesman for the Metropolitan Police said the arrest was not in relation to the actual cause of the crash in Farnborough, Kent, last month.
The spokesman said: "As a result of enquiries into the Farnborough air crash on March 30, detectives from Bromley police have arrested a 34-year-old man from the Sussex area on suspicion of perverting the course of justice.
"The arrest is in relation to matters not connected to the actual cause of the crash."
Pilots Mike Roberts, 63, and Mike Chapman, 57, of Greenways Crescent, Shoreham, and passengers David Leslie, 54, Richard Lloyd, 63, and Christopher Allarton, 25, died when the privately-registered twin-engined jet plunged into a suburban cul-de-sac.
The Cessna Citation 1 plane destroyed a house and garage when it came down in Romsey Close and burst into flames.
The cause of the crash is still under investigation, with the Air Accident Investigation Branch (AAIB) due to release their initial findings later this week.
The man was bailed to return to a south London police station on May 29.

[EatMyShorts!]

Sorry for the question, but what does "perverting the course of justice" mean in plain words? I do not get it, since I am not a native English speaker. Thanks for any hints :)

[r44flyer]

EatMyShorts!... it means, specifically, many things. For example, lying to police, witholding evidence etc, basically anything to stop them doing their job properly and thus preventing justice from being served in a correct and proper fashion.

[EatMyShorts!]

Thanks for your reply! :ok: In other words: it is a very general statement and they do not give any information about what this person did. Alright...big secrets are out there! :ugh:

[Flintstone]

EMS.

Big secrets? Not necessarily. It's fairly normal for full details not to be released while a case is sub judice. The news article said he'd been bailed so it will all come out if/when the matter goes to Court.

Perverting the course of justice might, as r44flyer said, be one of many things. Perhaps someone close to the investigation telling lies or covering up. Then again it could just as easily be an attention seeking weirdo giving the authorities his 'eyewitness account' of the crash when he was nowhere near and just wanted someone to talk to.

Time will tell.

[EatMyShorts!]

Flinti, true! Well, let's see... I hope they will come up with a good explanation for that accident.

[Lost man standing]

EatMyShorts

The consensus of opinion I have heard is that the charges probably relate to the basis of the flight, not the cause of the accident. The aircraft was not registered in the EU, so it is very unlikely to have been a legitimate charter.

There are only two other options, a private flight or an illegal charter. The way people sometimes try to get away with illegal charters is by saying "he was a mate, he only paid me some of the costs to borrow my aircraft" (which people get away with sometimes). If not true, that might be considered perverting the course of justice, although only a court could decide of course.

[Pace]

>The consensus of opinion I have heard is that the charges probably relate to the basis of the flight, not the cause of the accident. The aircraft was not registered in the EU, so it is very unlikely to have been a legitimate charter.

There are only two other options, a private flight or an illegal charter. The way people sometimes try to get away with illegal charters is by saying "he was a mate, he only paid me some of the costs to borrow my aircraft" (which people get away with sometimes). If not true, that might be considered perverting the course of justice, although only a court could decide of course.>

Lost man standing

Why because it was not registered in the EU was it "very" unlikely to be a legitimate charter?
That implies that if it was registered in the EU it would be?
Dont really want to go down the legal and illegal charter arguement again check that previous thread but you can legitmately lease a private aircraft EU or Non EU and you can pay pilots to fly it for you.
A large proportion of business jets do that

Pace

[frontlefthamster]

Careful, PACE...

You might be arguing with people who know a LOT more than they're letting on!

[Cape Fear]

no doubt something to do with mulligan's lot 247 jet out of southend:rolleyes:

[NewTimer]

Seems to be a rumour in the a/c insurance world that they're not paying up on this one, which suggests there was something odd about the flight (if not the actual cause of the accident).

[Phil Brockwell]

IF, and I do clarify the IF the Insurance don't pay out the ramifications become huge.

For the Insurance guys not to pay out, they must have decided that something was against the terms of the cover, can anyone think of anything apart from illegal public transport?

There must be ambulance chasers waiting in the wings for this to be made public, as they say, "where there's blame there's a claim".

A few wealthy estates will be funding a huge law suit.

[Flintstone]

IF underwriters are repudiating the claim then it could be for a number of reasons with licencing or loading just for starters.

Let's wait for the official word shall we?

[African Drunk]

A long history of illegal public transport is what i hear.

[flynowpaylater]

A long history of illegal public transport is what i hear.

IF that is the case then what a shame that 5 people have to lose their lives in order for the authorities to do something more than lip service to stop illegal charters. When you hear of fines of £1500 and £500 it's no wonder it goes on in such abundance.

[Pace]

>A long history of illegal public transport is what i hear. <

I am not an aviation Lawyer or an insurance expert so would only imagine that there would have to be some sort of known grosse negligence for insurers to refuse to pay?

Again "illegal public charter" does not in itself mean unsafe flight.
I know of some private operations which are flown and operated to much higher standards than any AOC. Again we all know a few AOC operations which are run to very poor standards and some which are closed down.

Many private jets which are well run and operated do perfectly legal leasing arrangements. Maybe some AOC operators resent this as it reduces their own market and all the shouting is more about that than safety issues.

As an example Pilot 1 could fly on an FAA ATP in a N reg jet fully legally and safely. A few weeks later the reg could be changed. Still the same Jet still the same pilot but now technically illegal. There is no change in safety only a painting of numbers.

To deem a flight as "illegal charter" so thats the cause of the accident! I am sure in itself would not be enough, unless some Grosse and known negligence contributed to the crash and this can happen with private or AOC aircraft.

Would love to have an opinion from someone in law or insurance on this one?

Pace

[flynowpaylater]

Pace, I think you are missing the point here. No one is casting doubt over safety of corporate operations, but illegal public transport is basically a flight that fall short of the Corporate requirements, yet is not performed under an AOC.

I think we all agree that insurance companies won't pay out if there is any doubt about the legality of the flight or any other circumstances. If the flight was operated outside the law of the land, namely the ANO, then the underwriters will have a case not to pay out.

All in all, it could be a bit messy for quite a while.

[Phil Brockwell]

Our insurance certificate states that cover is only for legal operations, if the insurance companies are offered a way out of millions of outgoings they are going to take it. I can't see the insurers saying "OK, we don't have to pay, but we think it may have been safe so write the cheque"

I'll dig out the actual wording when I'm in the office on monday.

[Lost man standing]

PaceWhy because it was not registered in the EU was it "very" unlikely to be a legitimate charter?For a non-EU registered aircraft to be legally chartered between two EU airports would require one of two agreements. A non-EU operator might be given fifth-freedom rights within the EU. An EU operator might be given permission to use an aircraft not registered in their country of AOC issue. Both of these do happen, but are very rare, especially in GA. They are far less common than illegal charters, especialy for AOCs issued by or aircraft registered to authorites that don't have a strong regulatory reputation.That implies that if it was registered in the EU it would be?No it doesn't. It doesn't consider the idea of an EU-registered aircraft, because unless there is a very large conspiracy the aircraft was not EU-registered, so any discussion of EU-registered aircraft would not be relevant.Dont really want to go down the legal and illegal charter arguement again check that previous thread but you can legitmately lease a private aircraft EU or Non EU and you can pay pilots to fly it for you.
A large proportion of business jets do thatThat is a private flight, which was the other option I gave. I did not speculate on the likelihood of this.

The rumour I had heard was that money changed hands for this flight, covering all the costs with maybe some profit, i.e. it was a charter flight. Another rumour has now surfaced that the insurance will not be paid, which tends to support the first rumour, although of course one could be based on the other so it is by no means definitive.

On the subject of the insurance company, why should they pay out for a charter flight on a private insurance? If you told your car insurance company you were only going to drive for pleasure and commuting (a normal choice, the basis for my insurance) then crashed while driving for a job as a salesman would you expect to be paid out? You would be very disappointed, and gaina conviction for driving without insurance!

FLHamster

Indeed the company I work for has reported more than one organisation for illegal charters. The funniest could not actually be proved, so warning only to the offender. However the aircraft went tech, of course no contract so the "not-a-customer-really" ended up having to get himself home at his own expense. He admitted that total cost was greater than if he'd just come to us in the first place.

[His dudeness]

I find it particular amusing when an AOC holder uses a non AOC VP-C airplane crewed with 2 over 65 year old pilots to do their work, paid charter flights. I personally know of at least 3 such flights at a previous employer of mine.

However, the implications on insurance matters have nothing to do with the cause, which I´d like to know more about...

[Sir George Cayley]

Two small points to add.

Insurance Co Claims Managers' are assessed and rewarded on how much they save the underwriters, not by how much they pay out. :ok:

For Pace and others who fly early 500's

Generally, if the AAIB find evidence that points to something that needs addressing they let the affected know as soon as possible. The fact that you or your a/c owner have not been contacted via Cessna should (for the moment) be a comfort. Same as with the BA 777, no change in airworthiness or operations yet.

From a source who is reliable, look at how you operate; Perf A or other forms of handling?

Sir George Cayley

[Flintstone]

Sir George.

In which area of the insurance market is your expertise?

[IO540]

there would have to be some sort of known grosse negligence for insurers to refuse to pay?

A small point: insurance does cover negligence.

I have it on excellent authority that if an aviation insurer refuses to pay out, this would be only if the the flight was illegal even before it left the ground. Examples might be: invalid CofA (which could itself be several reasons e.g. an N-reg not owned by a US citizen), invalid pilot(s) license(s), licenses invalid on the aircraft reg, etc. The insurers do seem to pay out on overweight departures though. I haven't got a clue why (it is alleged) they are not paying out in this case.

Anybody who procures (owns or rents etc) a plane, any reg, can pay a CPL to fly him around, and this is legal everywhere, with no AOC required.

One problem area is where some people on board have no connection with the chappie who procured the plane. Then it becomes a charter. But this is a grey area because loads of corporate jets do sometimes carry somebody not working for the company; it would be quite normal to e.g. collect a customer and take him somewhere to show him your latest project...

[Sir George Cayley]

In my yoof I was an Insurance Broker.

ACII (Failed) I'll have you know.

Sir George

[Pace]

Thanks for all the expertice on insurance. I found it interesting that one contributor to this thread stated that insurance will pay out for an overweight takeoff? Surely an illegal flight?

To what level of illegality will they pay out? I am sure if you dig around enough there will be some scrap of information or lack of it which could techically deem a flight illegal AOC or Private.

If a flight that results in an accident can be found to be illegal does that mean no payout?

Lets take an AOC as private flights appear to be the focus for illegal flights in this thread.

An AOC operated aircraft crashes. The insurers discover that some piece of paperwork is missing or an element of maintenance or operation has been lacking.

The flight is now illegal. There is NO evidence that whatever was missing that technically made the flight illegal made any contribution to the accident. Do they not pay out in those circumstances?

There are and have been many instances of "legal" Air charter where something has not been done by the book and hence technically the flight could be deemed illegal.

I find it hard to fathom that technical illegality could stop a payment when it is proved that the reason for the crash had nothing to do whether the flight was techically legal or not but the cause of the crash was something that could have happened to an AOC or Private flight.

As in the example of overweight takeoffs which incidentely in a training Cessna 150 happen all the time the insurance will pay out although the flight was in all probability an illegal flight?

So an aircraft that takesoff into a flock of Birds, looses both engines and crashes but is then found to have not been legal AOC or private because it was 3 hrs over a maintenance check will NOT be covered by insurance?

Pace

[Flintstone]

Sir George.

Then you'll know as well as I do that insinuating that claims managers are encouraged to repudiate without cause is naughty and misleading. Not much different to the bloke in the pub perpetuating the myth that you have to exaggerate your claim because insurers will always beat you down anyway. Didn't work as a high street broker by any chance, did you? ;)

This rumour does not just say "Insurance companies. Not them again :rolleyes:". It says "There was something seriously wrong with this flight" which is a HUGE allegation to make without proof. In here it's just a few pixels and the subject of our attention for a couple of minutes. Out in the real world the sniff of the rumour alone will have enormous implications. Lives will be affected, grieving relatives thrown into doubt, reputations ruined. If it later transpires that the rumour was unfounded well, meh. It's just a forum right? No mud will stick.

My point is not aimed solely at you but your comment came at a time when I was contemplating making this post anyway. People should think a bit more before they post some things.





Pace. Any specific answers would depend very much on the specific wording of the insurance policy which is why I say there is no point deliberating 'what ifs' here. There are too many variables and too much missing information for anyone here to make a meaningful comment.

The principle of insurance is fairly straightforward though. There will be several sections of the policy covering the hull, passengers and liability to third parties in much the same way a fully comprehensive motor policy covers a car. Now let's say Joe Bloggs had a crash as the result of doing something stupid like drink/driving. His insurers would refuse to pay for the damage to his car. They would then seek to establish whether his passengers knew he was over the limit and if they did would seek to minimise their liability (payout) by suggesting that the passengers were partially responsible for their injuries. In short they knew he'd been drinking so should never have got into the car.

The part they could not avoid would be any claims from third parties ie, the owner of the house he crashed into. He had no control whatsoever over Joe's actions so should not be made to suffer. Of course, after paying him they might then decide to chase Joe for reimbursement but that's another long winded post all of its own.

In short folks can we stop going off on half-@rsed tangents when the knock on effects of 'just wondering' in a public forum can be so serious?


Flinty
ACII, ACILA (Not so much failed as lost interest)
Ex-Lloyd's claims broker, claims investigator and loss adjuster of 14 years experience in UK and overseas markets. By God it was dull.

[Pace]

Flintstone

Thanks for that information. I too hold that speculation is dangerous. For me and any pilot the cause whether mechanical, pilot error or a combination is all I am interested in so that we can avoid and learn.

Whether it was an illegal charter from that point of view is meaningless and irrelevant and would be in any conclusion it is only the cause that matters.

I am sure there are many who would love it to be illegal charter on a foreign state aircraft, badly run and operated because that then gives them ammunition to get rid of what they see as a thorn in their sides, but this has more to do with self preservation and protection than safety.

Pace

[TSandPSintheGREEN]

Well here we are, another year gone and do we know any more about the Biggin Air Crash? Politiek aside it would seem sensible to give some detail of the causes for those of us who fly similar aircraft day to day. Apologies if this is now public knowledge already, and if so, please can somebody post a link on here

Ta

TPG

[apruneuk]

There is an update on the AAIB website. Whilst cause has not yet been established the engines appear to have been undamaged prior to impact.

[sitigeltfel]

Formal report now released...

Air Accidents Investigation: 3/2010 VP-BGE Report Sections (http://www.aaib.gov.uk/publications/formal_reports/3_2010_vp_bge/3_2010_vp_bge_report_sections.cfm)

[Gulfstreamaviator]

I know we have been bitching at the delay, but this report has very very deep detail, and full analysis of the accident.

Thank you AAIB.

However the background still remains unclear. "The status of the flight".

glf

[shortfinals]

But despite its careful, thorough work, the AAIB still doesn't know why things happened like they did. They only know what happened, not why. There were no recorders of any kind on board.

The Board's call for CVR/FDR might get heard this time.

Good summary here: Mystery Citation crash revives calls for recorders on business jets (http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2010/05/21/342281/mystery-citation-crash-revives-calls-for-recorders-on-business.html)

[IO540]

To me, it reads like they interpreted the noise/vibration from the aircon system as an engine failure, shut down the suspect engine, but due to the damaged throttle assembly shut down both engines, and did not have enough time to restart either of them.

Or, they interpreted the noise/vibration from the aircon system as an engine failure, shut down one engine (not knowing which one it was that "was" making the noise), then (when the problem did not go away) they shut down the second one but before the first one restarted (which would seem a bizzare error) and the damaged throttle assembly is a redherring. And did not have enough time to restart either of them.

Does that make sense to CJ pilots here?

If both engines were OK after all, they could have just ignored the racket and landed back. Were they getting odd engine instrument indications?

[what next]

Hi!

Does that make sense to CJ pilots here?

I'm on standby today and had time to read the whole report, and yes it does. What I don't like in the report is the "engine restart drills" they talk about. If by "drills" they mean items to be performed from memory, then they are wrong: There are no memory items in the Citation checklist for engine restarts (unless the 500 is totally different from the 550 and 560 that I fly, but it's the same type rating, so I can't imagine). You are supposed to work through the checklist.

The same with engine shutdown due to vibration. No memory items / "drills". Follow the checklist. In case of engine fire there are memory items, but you aren't supposed to shut the engine down right away. You go to idle first and see what happens (could be the wrong engine or a bleed air leak). Very strange that they shut them down so quickly (at least the one with the working shutoff lever). In the report it says that no checklists were found in the wreckage. So they either did everything from memory (maybe confusing things with aircraft types they were more familiar with since the pilot in the left hand seat had only recently converted to the type?) or that the checklists burnt up.

Regards, Max

[Sepp]

True, the single engine restart checklist has no memory items for the 500, 550 or 560, but the two engine restart checklist does, and it's the same in all three cases:

Emergency restart - two engines:
(starred items are memory items)

*1 - IGNITION - Both ON
*2 - BOOST PUMPS - Both ON
*3 - THROTTLES - Idle
*4 - If alt. allows: AIRSPEED - increase to 200 KIAS
5 - FIREWALL SHUTOFF - check OPEN
6 - ANTI-ICE SWITCHES - all OFF
7 - If no start in 10 secs, either START BUTTON - press momentarily.

(I've left out the notes associated with the cx)

The Bravo cx is slightly different, in that only the first three items are memory items.

[Sir George Cayley]

Severe engine 'vibration' with associated problems identifying which one.

Does this not remind one of Kegworth to some extent?

The various thrust settings referred to in the report suggest to me that different power settings were being tried before a shutdown. Is that how others read it?

Sir George Cayley.

[NuName]

The ACM seems to have been the source of the vibration. Either engine would effect the bleed air being processed. If the fuel cut off could have been inadvertently selected on one engine, coupled with a change in the vibration, flying very low level, vibration still exists, wrong engine? Restart? The whole scenario is very alarming, even when sitting in front of the TV at home let alone being in that situation. I am sure they done all they could as competant pilots, they were trying to return to land. There is no evidence that the engines would not have got them there, unfortunately they did not have the information available to us now, a couple of years after the fact. Also, I don't care about the circumstances of the flight, not my business, and I do not think it has any direct bearing on the cause. Just sad to say bye to more good people.

[The Ancient Geek]

As I understand the report, the pilot got into a state of having both engines shut down due to a faulty thrust control (broken rivet).
The report highlights a relight procedure problem which can catch the unwary, it is only possible to relight one engine at a time and if the first relight has not fully completed any attempt to start relighting the second will cause BOTH to abort.
This seems rather :mad: daft to me, surely it would be more sensible to simply inhibit or delay the second relight until the first has completed ?.

[asdf1234]

Both pilots were qualified and licensed to operate the aircraft. By having a mentor pilot on-board the PIC showed himself to be safety aware. The report sees no need to mention the legalities of the operation of the flight which means that these factors had no relevance to the accident. By making safety rec 2010-15 it seems that the AAIB believe the aircraft manufacturer should do more to make pilots aware of the possibility of aborting engine restarts unintentionally.
As with all air accidents, this report shows that it is a sequence of unforeseen events that caused the loss. Had these events occurred uniquely or in isolation they would not have caused the aircraft to crash. Some may say that it was bad luck.

[what next]

Hello!

As I understand the report, the pilot got into a state of having both engines shut down due to a faulty thrust control (broken rivet).

That broken rivet only explains why the left hand engine might have been accidentally shut down, because it allowed the throttle lever to be moved past idle into cutoff. The right hand throttle lever did not show this fault, so shutdown of this engine must have been deliberate.

The report highlights a relight procedure problem which can catch the unwary, it is only possible to relight one engine at a time and if the first relight has not fully completed any attempt to start relighting the second will cause BOTH to abort.
This seems rather http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/censored.gif daft to me, surely it would be more sensible to simply inhibit or delay the second relight until the first has completed ?. I don't think it's daft as the same logic applies to other systems of the Citation as well, e.g. the fire extinguishers: That engine whose fire button is pressed _last_ will get the extinguishers. This is rehearsed numerous times during simulator courses in connection with aircraft evacuation with (suspected) engine fire.
And the same applies to the starters: Since the battery is not strong enough to operate both starters in parallel, the starter that was selected _last_ gets the current. This is taught in the initial type rating course.

Some may say that it was bad luck.Not their day. Whatever. But then we can save our money for future accident investigations, because some degree of bad luck (but there is no such thing as "luck" in the universe) is always involved in accidents. In a world filled with good luck alone, there would be no accidents, because however stupidly one behaves, the good luck will always save the day.

I think the report's conclusion is very valid, that all turbine powered aircraft (btw. why not _all_ aircraft, regardless of their means of propulsion?) should be equipped with data and voice recorders. Gadgets like the iPod show, that solid state recording devices can be mass-produced at very low prices, adding only a small amount to the cost of flying. Some intercoms already come with "clearance recorders" bulit into them. All that is needed is an increase of memory size for a two-figure amount in Dollars/Pounds/Euros.

In this case, the cause of the accident is not the unsuccessful restart of the engines, but the previous act of shutting them down. And only a voice recorder could tell us, why the crew decided to do that when they were already positioned on (right) downwind, flying slowly at very low level in good weather for a visual landing.

Happy landings,
max

[asdf1234]

The shut-down of both engines was obviously inadvertent. The PIC hears the vibrations and considers engine malfunction as the cause. Given his seating position it would be natural to try the left engine first. Retarding left engine first doesn't rectify the problem. Unknown to him he has cut-off fuel supply to left engine because missing rivet head doesn't stop the throttle lever at the idle stop. He reapplies full left hand power and retards right engine.Due to no bleed air entering the ACM vibration stops. Believing he has rectified the problem he cuts fuel to right hand engine. Now he discovers he has two inoperative engines. In the limited time available he has to decide which one to restart. High workload in the cockpit. Within the time available he has one chance to relight the correct engine and climb away from 150ft. On his own that would have been a true feat of airmanship, all decisions made in an instant.

Now add two crew. Does PIC delegate engine restart procedure to PM or does PM as the more experienced pilot take control? Did PM offer to retard right hand engine before PIC could tell him that he inadvertently closed down the left hand engine?

AAIB do not speculate on the two crew issue so we have to assume they give it no relevance.

In all honesty who could predict that a faulty bearing in an ACM could lead to two engines being shut down, one inadvertently, whilst flying at 1,000ft agl?

Bad luck does some times play a part in accidents. The correct response to this bad luck is to try and eliminate as much of it as possible for future flights which the AAIB report attempts to do with its safety recs.

[H Peacock]

In this case, the cause of the accident is not the unsuccessful restart of the engines, but the previous act of shutting them down. And only a voice recorder could tell us, why the crew decided to do that when they were already positioned on (right) downwind, flying slowly at very low level in good weather for a visual landing.

Clearly not a situation anyone would wish to be in, but why did they go so far downwind? They appear to have been so well placed to join downwind for 21R. Notwithstanding their decision to shut an engine down while still airborne to try to remove the vibration, had they concentrated on the 'aviating' bit first I doubt they would have died. Furthermore, they managed to fly away from an unpopulated area into a built-up area. So lucky that no one on the ground was killed.

[Trim Stab]

asdf1234:

Your possible scenario does make sense of the facts.

I noticed in reading the section on the pilots' experience that the co-pilot had no multi-crew training or experience, and was flying in a "mentor" role. He would also have little or no experience flying from the RHS in any aircraft, let alone the C500. I wonder whether this may also have contributed?

The "mentor" pilot might have felt an obligation to take over PF duties as the situation deteriorated. He might have then unexpectedly discovered that he couldn't reach the igniters, boost pumps starter buttons without unbuckling his seat belt, so would then have had to revert to relying on LHS to carry out those functions. I can imagine that crew co-operation could degenerate very quickly.

The AAIB did not discuss the lack of multi-crew experience of the mentor, but then I suppose this would have been out of their remit, given that the LHS pilot was licenced to operate the aircraft single-pilot.

FWIW, if flying in RHS as mentor pilot on light single-pilot jets, I think the emergency briefing needs to be carefully thought through. The simplistic PF/PNF division of responsibilities is not necessarily the best procedure if the PF is in the LHS but not very experienced on the aircraft.

[what next]

AAIB do not speculate on the two crew issue so we have to assume they give it no relevance.

Or that they have insufficient data to base their speculation on?

In all honesty who could predict that a faulty bearing in an ACM could lead to two engines being shut down...

In a way, Cessna has predicted this by not supplying any memory items/drills to be performed in case of (suspected) engine vibration. They want the pilot(s) to analyse the problem first according to the checklist before shutting anything down.

Like "Pilot A", I have flown piston twins for a long time before moving to the Citation (he had flown the Pa31 in the five or so years before getting type-rated on the Citation). With a piston twin, flying low and slow as they did, your only chance to get out of trouble is to shut down / feathering the malfunctioning engine as quickly as possible. Especially with some Pipers where a locking pin prevents the propeller from feathering once the RPM has dropped below a certain figure. Maybe this explains the haste with which the engine(s) was/were shut down? Without a voice recording, we will never know.

[HamishMcBush]

Spent some time last week reading the linked pdf of the AAIB report
BBC News - Missing rivet head 'caused Farnborough jet crash' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/8695987.stm)
I struggle to understand what happened - looks like there was an associated vibration that caused the pilots to shut down one engine, then the second engine was accidentally shut down possibly because of a missing rivet head, when they only intended to reduce its speed.
Would a pilot really shut down an engine totally because of suspected vibration without being 100% sure? Sounds sadly like a repeat of the BMI crash on the A1 from the ? 1980's ?

[Hotel Mode]

It was actually Biggin Hill airport involved. Farnborough was the locality it came down in. Not the same as the one of air show fame.

[ab33t]

Something so small , like the tape on the static ports of the airliner that went down.

[HamishMcBush]

Would/should you really shut down one engine not having 100% established the cause of vibration when you had only just got airborne and were so close to landing? Looks like shades of the BMI crash on the A1 all over again to me.... close down a good engine then something untoward shuts down the other one.
I also read the pdf of the AAIB Report in full on Friday-Saturday and the crash seems a total mystery to me. Did the ACM bearings really give up after just a minute or two into this flight, with no previous anomalies in the previous flight? Was one engine shut down totally within a few seconds of the vibrations being noticed? Worrying stuff, to me

[Thunderbug]

Hamish.

I think you are right about there being shades of Kegworth, but there are many significant differences.

The report has to use a lot of circumstantial evidence but it seems to suggest that a bearing failure on the (ACM) Air Cycle Machine caused significant vibration. The engine displays do not have VIB gauges, so trying to figure out the problem was always going to be difficult.

The ACM speed has a direct link to the engine thrust, so when a thrust lever was retarded, it probably led to a decrease in vibration. Confirmation bias possibly and R engine shutdown.

As the thrust on the L engine was reduced to enter the circuit, the fuel cutoff lever may have moved into the "cutoff" position due to the missing / failed rivet that allowed the lever to travel thought the cutoff gate unimpeded.

Double engine failure. Emergency checklist for double engine failure could have been clearer as attempts to start the 2nd engine too soon after a start attempt on the 1st results in the starters disengaging on both engines. If sufficiently accelerated the 1st engine may start (but at a slower rate) and the 2nd engine will have to be attempted again. It is suggested that a start could take 85sec to achieve a start to a point where full power would be available.

These guys seemed to have got the engines started, but the thrust available was not sufficient to power them out of the very low altitude they found themselves at (approx 100' below airfield level)

The report seem to emphasise the importance of flying at the best lift/drag speed to achieve the optimal time and distance available for dealing with the problem.

All in all these guys found themselves in a difficult position which then got worse & worse. I agree that shutting down an engine when not 100% certain is very questionable; but the report could only guess at what symptoms they were presented with that led them to that decision.

T'Bug

[IO540]

What is the procedure in a twin jet, if an engine problem is suspected?

In a single engine aircraft, you obviously continue flying under power, to the nearest plausible landing point, regardless of what the engine is doing (short of an engine fire, perhaps).

But in a twin, should one always attempt to idle / shut down one engine (one at a time, obviously) to see if a problem goes away?

I suppose, knowing nothing about these light jets, that the drawback of doing nothing (and treating it like the SE case, and returning to the airport under power) is that if an engine does have a real fault and disintegrates in an uncontained manner and shreds the control cables, you lose the tail control surfaces which is obviously very bad news, or maybe it could damage/ignite fuel lines. Otherwise, why would anybody want to shut down an engine at all?

I also do not understand the comments about the LHS being licensed to fly the aircraft alone. Judging from the passengers, this was "obviously" a charter flight, and all charters need 2 pilots for a jet. Was it not a charter flight, or is there some other factor there? What if the passengers did not pay for the flight but were carried for free?

[seaskimmer]

For jets shut down is the only option, sometimes if the jet just flames out with no associated 'bangs' or vibrations etc, then maybe go for a restart.
Not sure what to say about pistons, I had a partial failure with some vibration once but elected not to shut down and use what power it was giving to RTB asap, turned out to be a bent push rod/stuck valve ( in retrospect I would have shut down, I spent all that time doing that exercise on test and then come the day I didn't do as my training dictated.

[H Peacock]

For jets shut down is the only option....

Okay, I wasn't actually with them that fateful day, but when so close to a useable runway - perhaps 1500ft alt and almost downwind - then shutting an engine down was not the best idea. Can't believe they would have gone anywhere on one engine anyway, so land ASAP with the suspect engine at idle or a lower power.

I still fail to see why they ended up so far from Biggin Hill.

[DFC]

The question that arises in my mind is;

If this rivet was broken some time before the accident flight and this caused the throttle to bypass the gate, I am surprised that no one else experienced an unintended shutdown of the engine previously.

Most pilots I know place the throttles "solidly" in the idle position on landing. This ensures no excess residual thrust and (for those that have it reverse can be selected). Therefore if this rivet was missing for some flights the natural solid closing of the throttles when landing would have produced the same results as the closing of this throttle during the accident flight would it not?

In fact I would expect that the throtle was placed against the gate several times duting the taxi out on the final flight. Did it work perfectly on all those occasions but bupass the gate on the single occasion that it is closed (smoothly in best practice) as a result of suspected engine vibration?

I think that faced with unsure source of engine? vibration I would close one throttle and if that had no effect I would open that one again before closing the other.

As anyone who has flown the citation knows, even in a well trained multi-crew environment the RHS pilot can only monitor the LHS pilot's actions because most of the important switches are on that side of the cockpit. Therefore the best way in which the RHS "mentor" could have helped is fly the aircraft and maintain orientation to the runway or best forced landing area. This is what did not happen and the reason they traveled to an area that they did not want to fly to is that most probably no one was looking out the window.

[littco]

"Retarding left engine first doesn't rectify the problem. Unknown to him he has cut-off fuel supply to left engine because missing rivet head doesn't stop the throttle lever at the idle stop. He reapplies full left hand power and retards right engine.Due to no bleed air entering the ACM vibration stops. Believing he has rectified the problem he cuts fuel to right hand engine. Now he discovers he has two inoperative engines."

What your saying in a way it makes sense, but surely even if you only meant the left engine to go to idle but because of the missing rivet the engine shut down completely the master caution, hydraulic, fuel pump and generator lights would all flash pretty madly in your face as soon as the engine spooled down.

I could understand if it was the right hand engine they shut down first as a precaution as they believed this was the one causing the problem. When this didn't resolve the vibration they brought the throttle back on the left with the intention on only going to idle to see if this helped and then unfortunately found themselves with 2 engines shutdown .

What ever happened it was a very sad event.

[Feathers McGraw]

Something that I couldn't determine from the AAIB report is whether any other pilots that flew this aircraft experienced any difficulties with the left throttle/cut-off lever, I assume that AAIB would have traced back through the recent history of flights and found the relevant crews? Since there was evidence of witness marks on the lever due to collisions with the idle gate, someone must have known about this, and if it had been the operating crew you would expect them to have been extra careful with the thrust handling if that were the case.

[peterh337]

This (http://www.newsshopper.co.uk/news/top_stories/9579197.Ponzi_fraud_mastermind_owned_plane_in_Farnborough_ai r_crash/) may be of interest.

CORRUPT businessman Kautilya Nandan Pruthi, who duped celebrities, sports stars and hundreds of other victims out of £115 million in Britain's biggest "Ponzi" investment scam, owned the plane involved in the Farnborough air crash.
Indian-born Pruthi was labelled a "professional fraudster" as he was jailed for 14 years and six months at Southwark Crown Court, and told he faced deportation back to his home country following his jail term.
Pruthi owned the Cessna Citation 500 which crashed into a house in Romsey Close, Farnborough, after an engine shutdown on March 30, 2008.

[Pace]

Peter

I dont think who bought it had any impact on why it crashed! I flew that very aircraft before she was sold and in the previous owners hand she was well maintained and flew beautifully.

Pace