6 die in Germiston air crash
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: The frequency jungle
Posts: 975
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which runway were they using at Rand? If you are flying full fuel plus pax off runway 29 with 300hp, it should be ok. The steep downhill slope helps enormously during the take off run and the carrier style end of the runway is a plus too. If they were using that runway and still encountered problems, I reckon it was something technical.
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Your nearest Marriott
Posts: 1,127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was off 35. used most of the runway, then hauled it off, into a back side of the curve state, and never recovered.
Those trees at the end become beeg when you end up rotating near the papis on 17.
Those trees at the end become beeg when you end up rotating near the papis on 17.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rwy 35! Had to be with racecourse.
Not as bad as it is in the passed with some mine dumps now gone.
Uphill slope for take off?
Many have died off 35.
It should be prohibited for t/o.
Crosswind on 29 always better than head into climb out on 35.
Some times have flown night circuits on 35. Not nice one bit!
Not as bad as it is in the passed with some mine dumps now gone.
Uphill slope for take off?
Many have died off 35.
It should be prohibited for t/o.
Crosswind on 29 always better than head into climb out on 35.
Some times have flown night circuits on 35. Not nice one bit!
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: South Africa, johannesburg
Age: 36
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Downhill on 35
35 has a slight downslope if i rememeber correctly..
Surely slope would have helped him get off the ground but climbing must have been difficult. Maybe a stall then secondary stall..
Then again if turbo failed he was in trouble.
Then again i am not the CAA and we will find out what trully happened when they release the report.
OneDAy
Surely slope would have helped him get off the ground but climbing must have been difficult. Maybe a stall then secondary stall..
Then again if turbo failed he was in trouble.
Then again i am not the CAA and we will find out what trully happened when they release the report.
OneDAy
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Planet Oceana
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to the transcript of the radio transmission with ATC one can hear the stall warning in the background.
If an aircraft is too heavy, the runway slope and ground effect can assist it in getting airborne. Then, once the runway surface stops and the aircraft starts climbing out of ground effect, there is insufficient lift to maintain the climb, and also unfortunately in the case of Rand airport, insufficient altitude. Trying to turn anywhere would require even more lift, when you already have too little. Not an enviable position to be in.
If an aircraft is too heavy, the runway slope and ground effect can assist it in getting airborne. Then, once the runway surface stops and the aircraft starts climbing out of ground effect, there is insufficient lift to maintain the climb, and also unfortunately in the case of Rand airport, insufficient altitude. Trying to turn anywhere would require even more lift, when you already have too little. Not an enviable position to be in.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pretoria
Age: 52
Posts: 140
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wasn't there a fatal accident in a PA28 off the same runway at the same airport just a few months back under similar circumstances?
That runway should be closed for departures.
That runway should be closed for departures.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: short final
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whinerliner wrote:
That runway should be closed for departures.
I think, this will not really help. No runway may cause a crash. This dragical incidents were results of pilots-errors and/or insufficient airmanship. Or how shall we call an overweight take-off in hot'n high conditions else?
As long pilots believe, they can operate an aircraft outside the physical limits against better knowledge, such accidents are inevitable.
That runway should be closed for departures.
I think, this will not really help. No runway may cause a crash. This dragical incidents were results of pilots-errors and/or insufficient airmanship. Or how shall we call an overweight take-off in hot'n high conditions else?
As long pilots believe, they can operate an aircraft outside the physical limits against better knowledge, such accidents are inevitable.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Johannesburg, South Africa
Posts: 147
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Der absolute Hammer wrote "Rwy 35! Had to be with racecourse.
Not as bad as it is in the passed with some mine dumps now gone."
Racecourse is now gone. Was changed into car race track a few years ago but then owners sold to property developers and the place is now a building site. Used to be a good option with EFATO off of 35 but, with new developments going up the option in future will be "pick a warehouse"!! Not nice at all.
Not as bad as it is in the passed with some mine dumps now gone."
Racecourse is now gone. Was changed into car race track a few years ago but then owners sold to property developers and the place is now a building site. Used to be a good option with EFATO off of 35 but, with new developments going up the option in future will be "pick a warehouse"!! Not nice at all.
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Romania
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All valid points, however I think closing a runway (ie.Rwy35) when literally thousands of aircraft have departed safely from that runway is not much of a solution.
The PIC should have reviewed the weight/balance data and made a go/no go decision. This however is something that has been ignored at peril in the past (Chieftain a few years back, C172 etc), and can be difficult when faced with keeping your job.
This is where the SACAA should be more involved, ensuring pilots are protected from employers when making these critical decisions.
An over weight a/c flying out of ground effect is comparable to an "in limits" single experiencing partial, or complete, engine failure.
Weight is relatively unimportant at this stage (unlike twins), yes...a higher stall speed, higher ROD etc, but you still have only ONE option:
If it won't fly (negative ROC and/or approaching the stall) a forced landing, as close to straight ahead as possible, is the ONLY option.
Irrespective of terrain, building site etc...
Do not attempt to turn back, a stall/spin WILL kill you!
The PIC should have reviewed the weight/balance data and made a go/no go decision. This however is something that has been ignored at peril in the past (Chieftain a few years back, C172 etc), and can be difficult when faced with keeping your job.
This is where the SACAA should be more involved, ensuring pilots are protected from employers when making these critical decisions.
An over weight a/c flying out of ground effect is comparable to an "in limits" single experiencing partial, or complete, engine failure.
Weight is relatively unimportant at this stage (unlike twins), yes...a higher stall speed, higher ROD etc, but you still have only ONE option:
If it won't fly (negative ROC and/or approaching the stall) a forced landing, as close to straight ahead as possible, is the ONLY option.
Irrespective of terrain, building site etc...
Do not attempt to turn back, a stall/spin WILL kill you!
