Crash-Cork Airport
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: england
Posts: 75
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BPF
Just to say that you are almost bang on but actually the decision to land or Go-around must be made BY Decision Altitude/height, not AT. Minor point but could result in more loss of height during the manoeuvre than ideal.
Just to say that you are almost bang on but actually the decision to land or Go-around must be made BY Decision Altitude/height, not AT. Minor point but could result in more loss of height during the manoeuvre than ideal.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: a galaxy far, far,away...
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I might be barking up completely the wrong tree, but don't the lower two bldes (lower in the pic, that it) look bent, suggesting the prop was spinning when it touched the ground?
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Bielefeld, Germany
Posts: 955
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Avenger, you think I am too hard on the speculators and chatterers on this thread. I guess you must enjoy reading this stuff. I don't.
My post is on p7. I pointed out what had been derived on the thread at that point. I pointed to Flight International, which had necessary further information.
Now we are on p14 and there is exactly one important new observation, thanks to Machaca, whose picture confirmed what Skipskatta wondered about on p10.
Meanwhile, there is speculation without end about the status of the ticket agent/carrier and what Manx attitudes to airline business mean. Go ahead by all means, but I would rather it were in a different thread, because there is no evidence that any of that had to do with the accident.
Well, I'll tell you my angle, since everyone else is telling us theirs. People have died violently. In my experience, people who have experienced the sights and smells of violent death do not around speculating on the competence or not of flight crew until enough is known for the accident to be more or less reconstructed. That category includes most people who have investigated accidents. I think if most of the contributors to this thread were to spend a year volunteering for the local fire brigade they wouldn't write the stuff that has appeared here.
One person has even posted a video of an instrument approach into Cork. Guess what? You don't see the runway until you can see the runway, and then you land! Just as thousands of pilots, professional and not, do all over the world every day. Do people on auto forums post videos of their trips to the supermarket?
The point is, Avenger, that there appears to be one group worse than pilots when it comes to eating their own. And that is spotters/hangers-on/aviation-"enthusiasts"/flight-simmers/pseudo-pilots/recent-PPRuNe-accident-thread-contributors. Enough to make one a vegan.
But I do have a tip for anyone else who is as impatient as myself. Should you look for the people who have demonstrated records in contributing information to this forum, such as Machaca and aterpster, and filter absolutely everyone else out, then you will likely get exactly the right information with far less effort.
My post is on p7. I pointed out what had been derived on the thread at that point. I pointed to Flight International, which had necessary further information.
Now we are on p14 and there is exactly one important new observation, thanks to Machaca, whose picture confirmed what Skipskatta wondered about on p10.
Meanwhile, there is speculation without end about the status of the ticket agent/carrier and what Manx attitudes to airline business mean. Go ahead by all means, but I would rather it were in a different thread, because there is no evidence that any of that had to do with the accident.
Well, I'll tell you my angle, since everyone else is telling us theirs. People have died violently. In my experience, people who have experienced the sights and smells of violent death do not around speculating on the competence or not of flight crew until enough is known for the accident to be more or less reconstructed. That category includes most people who have investigated accidents. I think if most of the contributors to this thread were to spend a year volunteering for the local fire brigade they wouldn't write the stuff that has appeared here.
One person has even posted a video of an instrument approach into Cork. Guess what? You don't see the runway until you can see the runway, and then you land! Just as thousands of pilots, professional and not, do all over the world every day. Do people on auto forums post videos of their trips to the supermarket?
The point is, Avenger, that there appears to be one group worse than pilots when it comes to eating their own. And that is spotters/hangers-on/aviation-"enthusiasts"/flight-simmers/pseudo-pilots/recent-PPRuNe-accident-thread-contributors. Enough to make one a vegan.
But I do have a tip for anyone else who is as impatient as myself. Should you look for the people who have demonstrated records in contributing information to this forum, such as Machaca and aterpster, and filter absolutely everyone else out, then you will likely get exactly the right information with far less effort.
Last edited by PBL; 11th Feb 2011 at 18:27.
In My Last Airline.
Incorrect, you are confusing a Decision Altitude with a Minimum Descent Altitude.
On a precision approach (ILS/MLS) the decision is made AT the DA, during the go around manoeuver a minor descent after the decision is made is expected and accounted for when the altitude is decided upon by governing authorities. This is why it's not uncommon for aircraft to lightly touch the tarmac during a go around from a CAT111B with Decision Alt Approach (which is often just 25ft above the tarmac).
On a Non Precision approach you have a Minimum Descent Altitude, which you may not descend below unless all the visual requirements for that approach are met.
Hope that helps.
Incorrect, you are confusing a Decision Altitude with a Minimum Descent Altitude.
On a precision approach (ILS/MLS) the decision is made AT the DA, during the go around manoeuver a minor descent after the decision is made is expected and accounted for when the altitude is decided upon by governing authorities. This is why it's not uncommon for aircraft to lightly touch the tarmac during a go around from a CAT111B with Decision Alt Approach (which is often just 25ft above the tarmac).
On a Non Precision approach you have a Minimum Descent Altitude, which you may not descend below unless all the visual requirements for that approach are met.
Hope that helps.
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Prop states
Originally Posted by aluminium persuader
I might be barking up completely the wrong tree, but don't the lower two bldes (lower in the pic, that it) look bent, suggesting the prop was spinning when it touched the ground?
Originally Posted by fantom
Hmm... if you bend it straight, it looks like it was feathered.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ladies & Gentlemen,
Having returned to this forum today after a break of approximately 7 years I have read through the posts with interest. I have lost 7 acquaintances/friends, who died in aircraft they were flying, and have twice been closely involved with the AAIB in investigations.
Much of the thread has been devoted to the minutiae of minima, but he stark reality exists that those in the terminal heard the crash and had no visual awareness of the cause.
The (all to short) flying career of the F/O is sadly reminiscent of one of the investigations I was involved with.
I have had the fortune, good or bad, to have had direct experience with small regional operators worldwide and have, 40 years since the start of my aviation career, come to the conclusion that as the size of operator diminishes, the commercial pressure on the crews often increases.
As I put it earlier, conjecture at this stage is certainly unwise, but a number of factors seem to indicate that the accident may have been avoidable.
Having returned to this forum today after a break of approximately 7 years I have read through the posts with interest. I have lost 7 acquaintances/friends, who died in aircraft they were flying, and have twice been closely involved with the AAIB in investigations.
Much of the thread has been devoted to the minutiae of minima, but he stark reality exists that those in the terminal heard the crash and had no visual awareness of the cause.
The (all to short) flying career of the F/O is sadly reminiscent of one of the investigations I was involved with.
I have had the fortune, good or bad, to have had direct experience with small regional operators worldwide and have, 40 years since the start of my aviation career, come to the conclusion that as the size of operator diminishes, the commercial pressure on the crews often increases.
As I put it earlier, conjecture at this stage is certainly unwise, but a number of factors seem to indicate that the accident may have been avoidable.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Oslo
Age: 59
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To further speculate - could this be the scenario: the airplane suffered a engine failure (feathers automaticly?) full power on the remaining engine, but speed under blue line, so it stalls and flips over/looses control close to the ground, the wing hits the ground flipping it over.
I know, an engine failure should be a simple task for a pilot. But high workload due to low visibility etc. could play a part?
I know, an engine failure should be a simple task for a pilot. But high workload due to low visibility etc. could play a part?
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
feather or not?
the prop/engines on the metroliner are garrett...just FYI, there is NO AUTOMATIC Feathering. There is a negative torque sensing system and when the engine fails, the prop blades move TOWARDS feather, but pilot action is required to COMPLETELY FEATHER.
I do think it is interesting to see the prop as it is, but at this moment I would not attempt to make too much out of it.
I've flow the metroliner into very, very foggy environments...foggiest in the USA. Good crew coordination, callouts of airspeed, sink rate, etc is vital, accurate instruments, proper trim and so many other things come into play.
Losing visual clues after DH / DA is a good reason , and a MUST , for a go around. but there is a bit of pucker factor.
I even wrote an article on the transition to visual and it is posted on the internet somewhere if you want to google, "transitioning to visual" you might find it.
I do think it is interesting to see the prop as it is, but at this moment I would not attempt to make too much out of it.
I've flow the metroliner into very, very foggy environments...foggiest in the USA. Good crew coordination, callouts of airspeed, sink rate, etc is vital, accurate instruments, proper trim and so many other things come into play.
Losing visual clues after DH / DA is a good reason , and a MUST , for a go around. but there is a bit of pucker factor.
I even wrote an article on the transition to visual and it is posted on the internet somewhere if you want to google, "transitioning to visual" you might find it.
In My Last Airline.
Incorrect, you are confusing a Decision Altitude with a Minimum Descent Altitude.
On a precision approach (ILS/MLS) the decision is made AT the DA, during the go around manoeuver a minor descent after the decision is made is expected and accounted for when the altitude is decided upon by governing authorities. This is why it's not uncommon for aircraft to lightly touch the tarmac during a go around from a CAT111B with Decision Alt Approach (which is often just 25ft above the tarmac).
On a Non Precision approach you have a Minimum Descent Altitude, which you may not descend below unless all the visual requirements for that approach are met.
Hope that helps.
Incorrect, you are confusing a Decision Altitude with a Minimum Descent Altitude.
On a precision approach (ILS/MLS) the decision is made AT the DA, during the go around manoeuver a minor descent after the decision is made is expected and accounted for when the altitude is decided upon by governing authorities. This is why it's not uncommon for aircraft to lightly touch the tarmac during a go around from a CAT111B with Decision Alt Approach (which is often just 25ft above the tarmac).
On a Non Precision approach you have a Minimum Descent Altitude, which you may not descend below unless all the visual requirements for that approach are met.
Hope that helps.
You can lecture me on IFR 101, as frankly I do not care, but I still think there is an opportunity today, for some good to come of this tragedy and that is to use it as reminder to not push low visibly Cat 1 approaches. If you have a problem with that message.....so be it
And BTW I am have 23 + yrs of commercial flying experience, what's your experience level ?
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyway i believe the FDR has gone to Dublin with the Irish authorities and the CVR is off to Farnborough with the AAIB.
Holedriller, PPRuNe has been inviting me to contribute a comment, or something - apparently they've been missing me while I've been watching this thread with some despair, or something.
But it's your contribution that has persuaded me to get off my patoosy - just to suggest that in your reading of
you seem to have missed WingoWango's post four up from yours
Do pay attention, double oh seven
But it's your contribution that has persuaded me to get off my patoosy - just to suggest that in your reading of
every page
Anyway i believe the FDR has gone to Dublin with the Irish authorities and the CVR is off to Farnborough with the AAIB. Hopefully it wont take long to provide some information that we can learn from.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Sussex/Ireland & 50' over the oggin
Posts: 70
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The photo in post No 267 would suggest that there was virtually no rotation of the port prop on impact, whereas previous photos of the stbd engine show blades sheared of indicating high power on impact.
As sevenstrokeroll has said the Garrett TPE 331 has a torque sensor which will cause the prop to move to a "torque feather" condition when the engine ceases to produce power, this is not a full feather, and the pilot must carry out feathering procedure to fully feather the prop.
I believe that the post impact condition of the props will prove a significant factor in determining the cause of this tragedy.
As sevenstrokeroll has said the Garrett TPE 331 has a torque sensor which will cause the prop to move to a "torque feather" condition when the engine ceases to produce power, this is not a full feather, and the pilot must carry out feathering procedure to fully feather the prop.
I believe that the post impact condition of the props will prove a significant factor in determining the cause of this tragedy.
Dog Tired
Hmm... if you bend it straight, it looks like it was feathered.
I don't know the Metroliner engines/props but, if the prop control system is anything like a simple system, it may be that the prop blades will go to the feather posn after loss of oil pressure. Ergo, they might have moved to the feather posn after the crash.
Just a thought.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAI
re: feather:..
negative torque sensing will drive the prop towards feather, but if positive torque returns (engine relight for example) the prop will return to a thrust position in accordance with engine torque.
now, how much? drag is greatly reduced but not as much as full feather.
this type of ''fixed shaft" turboprop would suffer huge drag if the prop remained in a thrust position and the engine was being driven by the prop...the plane would be uncontrollable...at least at normal speeds.
so, negative torque sensing.
understand the prop is begining to drive the engine and changes the pitch of the prop towards feather.
I wish I could give you a better answer...but think of it this way. IF the engines had been shut down normally, on the ground, the props would be ''on the locks'' and not anywhere near feather.
I think we would know more if the other prop were more visible
re: feather:..
negative torque sensing will drive the prop towards feather, but if positive torque returns (engine relight for example) the prop will return to a thrust position in accordance with engine torque.
now, how much? drag is greatly reduced but not as much as full feather.
this type of ''fixed shaft" turboprop would suffer huge drag if the prop remained in a thrust position and the engine was being driven by the prop...the plane would be uncontrollable...at least at normal speeds.
so, negative torque sensing.
understand the prop is begining to drive the engine and changes the pitch of the prop towards feather.
I wish I could give you a better answer...but think of it this way. IF the engines had been shut down normally, on the ground, the props would be ''on the locks'' and not anywhere near feather.
I think we would know more if the other prop were more visible
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
critical engine
hi wingowango
as you know, engine/prop rotation is the factor in determining a critical engine. (actually its the most adverse effect etc)
yes, this plane has a critical engine...both props turn in the same direction...no counter rotating props here.
as you know, engine/prop rotation is the factor in determining a critical engine. (actually its the most adverse effect etc)
yes, this plane has a critical engine...both props turn in the same direction...no counter rotating props here.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thank you island pilot. I prefer the garret to the pratt turboprop
though I prefer pratt jets to anything! ;-)
one more thing...the metroliner doesn't have crossfeed for fuel...it has a simple ""crossflow"" system...I am wondering if the crossflow had been opened and one tank went dry in uncoordinated flight...
this has to do with the plumbing for the fuel system...crossfeed means you can get fuel from one tank to the opposite engine
crossflow means you can move fuel from one tank, via gravity to the lower tank.
its been awhile since I flew this POS, and I shake my head at all the systems and the damn CLICK CLACKS for those of you in the know.
though I prefer pratt jets to anything! ;-)
one more thing...the metroliner doesn't have crossfeed for fuel...it has a simple ""crossflow"" system...I am wondering if the crossflow had been opened and one tank went dry in uncoordinated flight...
this has to do with the plumbing for the fuel system...crossfeed means you can get fuel from one tank to the opposite engine
crossflow means you can move fuel from one tank, via gravity to the lower tank.
its been awhile since I flew this POS, and I shake my head at all the systems and the damn CLICK CLACKS for those of you in the know.
Join Date: Apr 2000
Location: Isle of Man
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Honeywell (Garrett) TPE331 has a negative torque sensing sytem which will indeed partially feather the prop if a flameout occurs. Depending on the installation of the airframe manufacturer this can be backed up by a manual feathering procedure or a full autofeather system.
Regardless, being a single-shaft engine, it is necessary to lock the blades on flat pitch during shutdown to prevent excessive load during a subsequent start.
If the procedure to do this is not instigated by the crew (during an unscheduled shutdown) then the prop will go to the fully feathered position when oil pressure is lost.
Regardless, being a single-shaft engine, it is necessary to lock the blades on flat pitch during shutdown to prevent excessive load during a subsequent start.
If the procedure to do this is not instigated by the crew (during an unscheduled shutdown) then the prop will go to the fully feathered position when oil pressure is lost.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: fort sheridan, il
Posts: 1,656
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
wingowango
yes, just like any other US type prop engine that is non counter rotating...but I had to think for awhile as I've been on jets since 1988.
the right engine has more oomph, so if the left engine quits its a bit stickier...therefore losing the left engine is more critical
yes, just like any other US type prop engine that is non counter rotating...but I had to think for awhile as I've been on jets since 1988.
the right engine has more oomph, so if the left engine quits its a bit stickier...therefore losing the left engine is more critical
