SA Airlink J41 crash
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A friend of mine told me he saw a picture taken in the cockpit after the crash. Landing gear lever in up position, number 1 engine fuel lever in cut-off and number two fuel lever in idle. Have heard that the right engine may have been on fire during/after take-off.
Despite these observations, even if they are 100% true and indicative of what occured, I reserve all judgement until the investigation is done. Levers could have been bumped by personnel involved in the rescue of the crew.
What does makes sense to me is the state of the number 2 engine - Obvious fire which fire dept. had to douse with foam on the ground (supporting rumours of smoke/fire coming out of the right engine after take-off), props all bent as they still had a turning force applied upon ground impact (observation of fuel condition lever postion supports this).
What doesn't make sense to me is the state of the number 1 engine. Props not bent, indicating they were not turning on ground impact (supported by picture observation of fuel condition lever in cut-off). But why then were the props not in the fully feathered position? Was there a multi-system failure?
Possibly the crew shut-down number 1 on purpose because of severe controlling difficulties after extreme and unanticipated yaw, making the right choice in ditching to avert a bigger disaster? The scenarios are endless in nature. Whatever the scenario, they did a hot job of making the field. Am happy to hear, via the news media, that all seem to be recovering, albeit in various stages of difficulty.
Despite these observations, even if they are 100% true and indicative of what occured, I reserve all judgement until the investigation is done. Levers could have been bumped by personnel involved in the rescue of the crew.
What does makes sense to me is the state of the number 2 engine - Obvious fire which fire dept. had to douse with foam on the ground (supporting rumours of smoke/fire coming out of the right engine after take-off), props all bent as they still had a turning force applied upon ground impact (observation of fuel condition lever postion supports this).
What doesn't make sense to me is the state of the number 1 engine. Props not bent, indicating they were not turning on ground impact (supported by picture observation of fuel condition lever in cut-off). But why then were the props not in the fully feathered position? Was there a multi-system failure?
Possibly the crew shut-down number 1 on purpose because of severe controlling difficulties after extreme and unanticipated yaw, making the right choice in ditching to avert a bigger disaster? The scenarios are endless in nature. Whatever the scenario, they did a hot job of making the field. Am happy to hear, via the news media, that all seem to be recovering, albeit in various stages of difficulty.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Southampton
Age: 78
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi
As I am quite familiar with the J41 systems I can tell that a TPE will still run on avgas but as far as I know there is no pressure refuling possible with avgas so unless they did overwing refueling it would appear almost impossible.
As to the autofeather it is only active as long as the APR switch is armed.
I have seen quite a few cases were the prop is not featering when pulling the condition lever to "stop and feather" and I have made BAe and Honeywell awere of the lack of test procedures in the A/C MM and engine MM.
As to the smoke from at least one engine, we do have lots of turbine air-oil seals going bad and also turbinr lubrication pipe cracking causing a massive oil leak with loads of smoke and an inflight shutdown to follow
As I am quite familiar with the J41 systems I can tell that a TPE will still run on avgas but as far as I know there is no pressure refuling possible with avgas so unless they did overwing refueling it would appear almost impossible.
As to the autofeather it is only active as long as the APR switch is armed.
I have seen quite a few cases were the prop is not featering when pulling the condition lever to "stop and feather" and I have made BAe and Honeywell awere of the lack of test procedures in the A/C MM and engine MM.
As to the smoke from at least one engine, we do have lots of turbine air-oil seals going bad and also turbinr lubrication pipe cracking causing a massive oil leak with loads of smoke and an inflight shutdown to follow
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Aaronjerry.
As people are talking about AVGAS, I think it is important to note that I heard from someone who spoke to refuelling company at FADN that the J41 was refuelled with JET A1 after it arrived from Pietermaritzburg the night before.
As people are talking about AVGAS, I think it is important to note that I heard from someone who spoke to refuelling company at FADN that the J41 was refuelled with JET A1 after it arrived from Pietermaritzburg the night before.
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Fort Lauderdale
Age: 57
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
May the injured enjoy a speedy and complete recovery.
I await the results of the investigation with anticipation. In Mr AF's last neighbourhood event in the greater Durban area he acted with neither skill nor professionalism. He managed to crash a servicable aircraft because he forgot the carb heat. Even worse, loss of control preceded impact.
Its easy enough to go through the list of the possible/probable events that followed this J41's final lift off. It would take a real jaw dropper to exonerate him. Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.
If ALPA's primary purpose is, as suggested here, to protect fellow airman from the unreasonable harshness of reality then I am sure we can expect them to stand accountable every time one of their subjects fails to miss the earth reliably.
AF, please read this, and please reconsider you career choice. You and those that have crashed with you are alive due to luck. Quit before that luck runs out.
The damage to Air links reputation and negative publicity for aviation in general is a loss for the entire industry.
I await the results of the investigation with anticipation. In Mr AF's last neighbourhood event in the greater Durban area he acted with neither skill nor professionalism. He managed to crash a servicable aircraft because he forgot the carb heat. Even worse, loss of control preceded impact.
Its easy enough to go through the list of the possible/probable events that followed this J41's final lift off. It would take a real jaw dropper to exonerate him. Certainly not impossible, but unlikely.
If ALPA's primary purpose is, as suggested here, to protect fellow airman from the unreasonable harshness of reality then I am sure we can expect them to stand accountable every time one of their subjects fails to miss the earth reliably.
AF, please read this, and please reconsider you career choice. You and those that have crashed with you are alive due to luck. Quit before that luck runs out.
The damage to Air links reputation and negative publicity for aviation in general is a loss for the entire industry.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: KwaZulu Natal
Age: 65
Posts: 136
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ Fuzzy Lager,
That is the kind of Bulls**t response that has to be (unfortunately) expected here.
Obviously his training and that of the first officer in forced landings has paid off greatly here with extremely little destruction or damage to local surrounds in a highly populated residential and industrial area.
Yes, the investigation report will let us know what happened...but
until then I suggest that you be careful with your choice of words and accusations.
JSP
That is the kind of Bulls**t response that has to be (unfortunately) expected here.
Obviously his training and that of the first officer in forced landings has paid off greatly here with extremely little destruction or damage to local surrounds in a highly populated residential and industrial area.
Yes, the investigation report will let us know what happened...but
If ALPA's primary purpose is, as suggested here, to protect fellow airman from the unreasonable harshness of reality then I am sure we can expect them to stand accountable every time one of their subjects fails to miss the earth reliably.
AF, please read this, and please reconsider you career choice. You and those that have crashed with you are alive due to luck. Quit before that luck runs out.
AF, please read this, and please reconsider you career choice. You and those that have crashed with you are alive due to luck. Quit before that luck runs out.
JSP
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I cannot remember ever having practised a forced landing when training in a Perf A aircraft although I once ran a B737 off the deck of an aircraft carrier at east Midlands.
The successful landing of flight 1549 was one of the aspects that made the landing so exceptional but the cause of that necessity was catastrophic failure. Was this Airlink accident caused by catastrophic failure of both engines or the loss of only one engine at (possibly I think) much less than MTOW.
Just because the aircraft has propellers does not mean that its certification in terms of performance is any less rigorous in terms of flight profile than that of an A 320. This is something which does not seem to be understood by some who have written on these pages.
One would not like to speculate as to the cause of the crash but we can possibly to ask how much more serious it would have been had the aircraft been loaded with passengers and baggage. Airlink were very fortunate that it was not and it would not do to see the inquiry any less rigorously pursued than it should be because no member of the travelling public as opposed to staff member, were injured or killed.
The successful landing of flight 1549 was one of the aspects that made the landing so exceptional but the cause of that necessity was catastrophic failure. Was this Airlink accident caused by catastrophic failure of both engines or the loss of only one engine at (possibly I think) much less than MTOW.
Just because the aircraft has propellers does not mean that its certification in terms of performance is any less rigorous in terms of flight profile than that of an A 320. This is something which does not seem to be understood by some who have written on these pages.
One would not like to speculate as to the cause of the crash but we can possibly to ask how much more serious it would have been had the aircraft been loaded with passengers and baggage. Airlink were very fortunate that it was not and it would not do to see the inquiry any less rigorously pursued than it should be because no member of the travelling public as opposed to staff member, were injured or killed.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be judged at the pearly gates by Saint Peter has nothing on walking through the minefield of judgmental aviation.
Chocolate starfish like Fuzzy Lager must be one of the many perfect aviation aces that lurk at just about every airport. You have so much to say and only because fortune has smiled upon you, that I promise you.
Never mind I am sure one day Saint Peter will bow before you as you float the red carpet as he mumbles under his breath ‘Look out Boss there’s a new judge in town!’
Chocolate starfish like Fuzzy Lager must be one of the many perfect aviation aces that lurk at just about every airport. You have so much to say and only because fortune has smiled upon you, that I promise you.
Never mind I am sure one day Saint Peter will bow before you as you float the red carpet as he mumbles under his breath ‘Look out Boss there’s a new judge in town!’
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A question for the J41 drivers:
Assuming failure of the critical engine and the prop auto-feather system:
- Would the yaw be containable with reasonable force at V2 with the operating engine at TO power?
- Would the aircraft be able to maintain altitude in take-off config? - my guess would be it would be able to considering the light loading and low density altitude, even with the prop unfeathered.
Assuming failure of the critical engine and the prop auto-feather system:
- Would the yaw be containable with reasonable force at V2 with the operating engine at TO power?
- Would the aircraft be able to maintain altitude in take-off config? - my guess would be it would be able to considering the light loading and low density altitude, even with the prop unfeathered.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Hotels everywhere
Posts: 217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think that the effort of the captain to make it to a "field" without taking out a few houses / local residents was heroic to say the least.
Any person will try and manipulate the controls of a vehicle in such a way that they will avoid hitting a house.
At least the second time around they will - as in this case.
Helmet on......
Originally Posted by Woof etc
...Assuming failure of the critical engine and the prop auto-feather system:
- Would the yaw be containable with reasonable force at V2 with the operating engine at TO power?
- Would the aircraft be able to maintain altitude in take-off config?
- Would the yaw be containable with reasonable force at V2 with the operating engine at TO power?
- Would the aircraft be able to maintain altitude in take-off config?
I have never flown a Jetstream, and I have no knowledge of that aircraft at all. I have, however, over 5,000 hours experience giving instruction in full-motion twin turboprop simulators, and based on that experience, I'll try to answer your question in a generic manner (meaning, not speaking to this specific accident).
You asked if "yaw would be containable with reasonable force". I don't think force is really the issue. The most important issue when dealing with an engine failure in the takeoff phase of flight is to maintain airspeed - ideally, to keep airspeed close to V2 or Vyse (which one it is depends on the certification basis of the aircraft), and at the very least, to keep airspeed above Vmc.
As airspeed degrades, the amount of force required to fully deflect the rudder and ailerons decreases. So do the chances of being able to successfully recover from the engine failure at takeoff. A twin that has only one operating engine has a very narrow speed range within which it will climb, and if too much kinetic energy is lost and there is no potential energy (altitude) available, the chances of increasing the airspeed back to that V2 or Vyse target - an essential prerequsite to climb or even level flight - become very remote.
In other words, it's not the yaw from the windmilling engine that is the problem, it is the degradation in airspeed that arises from the windmilling engine that is the problem.
As to your question about maintaining altitude in takeoff configuration, I am not aware of any twin turboprops that can maintain altitude with only one engine operating in the takeoff configuration (gear down) and the failed engine windmilling.
Again, I want to emphasize that I am not speaking to the circumstances of this particular accident, I'm speaking in general terms about twin turboprops.
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: R.S.A.
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the enquiry should find (Heaven forbid!) that it was in fact pilot error, and I am not in ANY way, shape or form saying it is, should the captain be allowed to continue his career in aviation? When do you draw the line?
If you have demonstrated on 2 occasions after comprehensive flight training (J41 Convex) that you are ill equipped to pilot an aircraft under circumstances that you get tought to deal with, should the authorities not at very least review your position as PIC?
And again, this is a hypathetical question, not aimed at the Captain of the downed J41... More of a point to ponder.
If you have demonstrated on 2 occasions after comprehensive flight training (J41 Convex) that you are ill equipped to pilot an aircraft under circumstances that you get tought to deal with, should the authorities not at very least review your position as PIC?
And again, this is a hypathetical question, not aimed at the Captain of the downed J41... More of a point to ponder.
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: South Africa
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For sure Dash431, I think that would be an intelligent process should this be the case. I would go one step further. If incompetence is an issue it is unlikely it occurred briefly before joining Airlink and briefly after the PIC training program.
So if incompetence were the consistent factor here I would say the instructor responsible for signing this person out is therefore not competent in assessing ability, and his instructors rating should to be revoked.
The pilots responsible for completing line training should also be questioned as to there lack of input into this supposed incompetence. If these pilots accepted him as he was then they must be at this same standard and therefore should be taken for further training.
There are safety steps put in place in aviation to catch incompetence and clearly if this were the case they have all been missed and Airlink should answer as to how this happened.
So if incompetence were the consistent factor here I would say the instructor responsible for signing this person out is therefore not competent in assessing ability, and his instructors rating should to be revoked.
The pilots responsible for completing line training should also be questioned as to there lack of input into this supposed incompetence. If these pilots accepted him as he was then they must be at this same standard and therefore should be taken for further training.
There are safety steps put in place in aviation to catch incompetence and clearly if this were the case they have all been missed and Airlink should answer as to how this happened.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: BlueYonder
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You comment on the assumption thatthe training received from Airlink is suitable......is it? furthermore the rostering of crew does not take into account the relative inexperience of either crew member or in some instances both. Airlink are blaise to this and continue regardless. The investigation needs to go further than this particular incident
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: "The sand pit"
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airline Standards
My sources who are at Link at the moment, tell me that some time back, about 1 to 2 years now, the selection of pilots at Link was not going according to RF’s master plan: they were finding it difficult to source good quality material who were prepared to work for Link. Many said they will be there for the interview and simply never arrived for said interview. Others said they don’t work for charities. Not enough incentive.
Subsequently, senior management, now under the auspices of the venerable JVJ gave orders to take anyone who complies with the legal minimum requirements. Re-visit members who have failed the previous selections. Change the minimum requirements.
Many airlines will ask one particularly significant question: “Have you ever been involved in an accident before?”
Now let’s not jump to ANY conclusions, but another quirk of Link under the new management is: If he or she battles in the sim, give extra sessions. The pilot has been selected and has cost money already, hence- “Make it work.”
Further, if he or she battles with line training: give extra sectors, make it work.
Some of the then instructors were loath to sign out certain candidates, be it sim or line, they were subsequently ‘shifted away’. Not players.
Another standard that His Royal Highness a.k.a. JVJ had changed was the amount of experience a pilot needed to get command. I.e. Command time, Total time and Time on type. All made ~ less.
I have family that fly on Link regularly and I am happy, till now. I think positive change is required to put Link back where it has always been!
Subsequently, senior management, now under the auspices of the venerable JVJ gave orders to take anyone who complies with the legal minimum requirements. Re-visit members who have failed the previous selections. Change the minimum requirements.
Many airlines will ask one particularly significant question: “Have you ever been involved in an accident before?”
Now let’s not jump to ANY conclusions, but another quirk of Link under the new management is: If he or she battles in the sim, give extra sessions. The pilot has been selected and has cost money already, hence- “Make it work.”
Further, if he or she battles with line training: give extra sectors, make it work.
Some of the then instructors were loath to sign out certain candidates, be it sim or line, they were subsequently ‘shifted away’. Not players.
Another standard that His Royal Highness a.k.a. JVJ had changed was the amount of experience a pilot needed to get command. I.e. Command time, Total time and Time on type. All made ~ less.
I have family that fly on Link regularly and I am happy, till now. I think positive change is required to put Link back where it has always been!
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Still looking for a place
Posts: 351
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Experience
I believe the captain had got his command two weeks before the unfortunate incident........what was the FO's experience.
Another thing, everyone is assuming the the captain be the hero in this incident..........who was to say the young lady was not the hero of the day.
Look at her injuries.....broken ankles.....maybe from the rudder pedals.....broken wrists....maybe from the control column.
I think with the minimal facial injuries, one could assume that she was wearing her shoulder harness...(something I learnt in a Kudu incident that is essential and not macho).
As far as Fuzzy Lager goes, I think he was just stating his feelings as he obviously does know quite a few other things that have not been voiced here.....although, his choice of wording may not be the right choice given the day...
My question.....can a J41 fly on one engine????.....
I must say, I think the hostie had the worst ride not knowing what was going on.
Goffel.
Another thing, everyone is assuming the the captain be the hero in this incident..........who was to say the young lady was not the hero of the day.
Look at her injuries.....broken ankles.....maybe from the rudder pedals.....broken wrists....maybe from the control column.
I think with the minimal facial injuries, one could assume that she was wearing her shoulder harness...(something I learnt in a Kudu incident that is essential and not macho).
As far as Fuzzy Lager goes, I think he was just stating his feelings as he obviously does know quite a few other things that have not been voiced here.....although, his choice of wording may not be the right choice given the day...
My question.....can a J41 fly on one engine????.....
I must say, I think the hostie had the worst ride not knowing what was going on.
Goffel.