SA Airlink J41 crash
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If a J41 is a Perf A aircraft then yes, it should fly on one engine.
British Midland had an aircraft carrier landing scenario on their 737 simulator at EMA.
It was a quite realisitc experience, save only for the absence of the spashes.
British Midland had an aircraft carrier landing scenario on their 737 simulator at EMA.
It was a quite realisitc experience, save only for the absence of the spashes.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 3rd rock
Age: 59
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I spoke to an engineer who was at the crash site shortly after the unfortunate incident who confirmed that the number 1 start lever was in cutoff. What puzzles me is that failing a dual engine failure, how did the aircraft end up only 400m from the upwind threshold? I have never flown a J41 but all the turbo-prop/ jet aircraft I have flown instruct you not to take any action bar cancelling the fire bell until at least at 400ft. What is Airlink's policy? Everyone is quick to call hero because no one was killed, but what if sop's weren’t followed and the wrong engine was shut down. We will know soon enough. Just as well the aircraft was not full of passengers.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am amazed how quickly the peanut gallery are talking about shutting down the wrong engine. There is NOTHING to suggest that the #1 engine was shut down by the crew IN FLIGHT. The engine #1 is clearly NOT in feather.
The fact that the condition level is in Feather/cut off but the blades are not indicates that it was done after the aircraft was on the ground. I think a pretty smart move if ur avoiding a subsequent fire.
Leave the conclusions to the accident board. They will have the FDR/CVR.
The fact that the condition level is in Feather/cut off but the blades are not indicates that it was done after the aircraft was on the ground. I think a pretty smart move if ur avoiding a subsequent fire.
Leave the conclusions to the accident board. They will have the FDR/CVR.
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Hilton, Sheraton or Marriott
Posts: 1,817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bergie, to be accurate the school fence is around 1,428 meters from the upwind threshold - the aircraft struck the ground around 1,375 meters from the same datum and came to a stop around 1,445 meters upwind of the threshold. Total ground distance around of around 70 meters. Thanks to the pallisade arrestor barrier and what (I believe) will be shown to be a relatively low forward speed.
Originally Posted by titaniumspoon
... 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...
For example, FlightSafety's motto is "Train to Proficiency". By this, they mean that as long as a candidate is making progress, the candidate will be given as much training as they require in order to achieve proficiency. No additional charge is ever made for this. I think FlightSafety has learned a few things about pilot training in the 60 years that they have been in the business.
There is not a correlation between the length of time required to achieve proficiency and the skill or competency of an individual pilot. Adults learn at different rates - some absorb verbal information quickly, others need an opportunity to practice things "hands on". Further, outside influences such as family stress, pressures of relocation, anxiety related to a new job, etc. can all have a detrimental effect on how rapidly the candidate reaches proficiency.
I've hired a lot of pilots, and I've trained a lot of pilots, and my experience has been that how quickly (or slowly) they complete their training program is generally not indicative of how they will perform once they are out on the line.
If any air carrier introduces a policy that says "Once we select you, we'll give you as much sim training as you need to become proficient and meet standards, and we'll give you as much line training as you need to become proficient and meet standards" - hey, that's a darn good thing for system safety. It takes a lot of pressure off the candidate, and it assures the candidate that the organization will not compromise standards just to stay within a budget.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: 3rd rock
Age: 59
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks 4Holer. Grow up Avi8tor, this is a rumour network and I will call it as I see it. If what YOU are now speculating is to hold any water then why was the no 2 condition lever not in cutoff? Judging by the extent of their injuries the crew must of shut down the no1 motor prior to receiving their disabilitating injuries, which in all probability were inflicted when they hit the concrete wall. (if it was the crew who moved the lever)
Only speculation Avi8or, the facts will be revealed.
Only speculation Avi8or, the facts will be revealed.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: viewing from above
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airlink captain Alistair Freeman was held responsible for a serious plane crash when he nose-dived into a house four years ago.
But his SA Airlink boss said this is "irrelevant" to the Heritage Day crash in Durban.
After the August 2005 crash, Freeman would have been legally grounded for two years. Airlink CEO Rodger Foster said he joined the staff in June last year as a first officer and was recently promoted to captain.
Freeman is in a critical condition
Freeman is in a critical condition after the SA Airlink flight he was commanding crash-landed in the grounds of a Durban school on Heritage Day, seriously injuring first officer Sonja Bierman, flight attendant Rodelle Oosthuizen and Durban Solid
Waste street cleaner Abraham Mthethwa. All are still in intensive care.
Freeman's face is badly injured. "It's going to take quite a long time before he can speak, a long time," said Foster.
Bierman may be transferred to a Joburg hospital soon.
Oosthuizen is in significant pain from spinal injuries and is due to have an operation today, while Mthethwa is stable.
Foster said they were eligible for disability benefits immediately. The airline hopes for their full recovery, but it's possible they may not fly again.
'It's not an uncommon mistake'
A previously unpublicised Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) report uncovered by The Star concluded that pilot error was the "probable cause" of Freeman's 2005 crash, in which he ploughed a twin-engine Britten-Norman Islander charter plane carrying a family, including two children, through the roof of a Durban house.
All six in the plane were injured. The house was empty.
Freeman had multiple fractures and passenger Gerhard Huber dislocated his hip.
Reporting on the probable cause, the CAA said: "The pilot employed an incorrect go-around technique and took inappropriate action during the emergency situation, which aggravated the situation."
It said "prevalent carburettor icing" and Freeman's "lack of experience" with the aircraft type - six of his 950 flying hours - contributed.
In the minutes before the 2005 accident, as he was coming in to land, Freeman told air traffic control that he had engine problems so was going around again. But the accident report later said that the flight and engine controls were "satisfactory", and "both engines performed satisfactorily".
Media reports at the time said Huber alerted Freeman that something was wrong before the plane "veered off course" and crashed through the roof into the living room of Alwyn Field's house.
Yesterday Field, who still lives in his extensively rebuilt house and is now known to his friends as "Airfield", said his insurance paid for the rebuilding and he was told this cost was claimed back from the aviation insurance.
Field expressed sympathy for Freeman. "He's lucky to be alive, poor man. Who survives two air crashes?"
Yesterday, Foster said he wasn't aware of details of that accident and insisted Freeman was a proficient pilot.
"It is irrelevant from our perspective. We don't judge him or select him on the basis of his past history." He confirmed that Freeman would have had to disclose the crash in his CV.
Foster yesterday stressed that the company had a "good idea" of what had caused the Heritage Day crash and maintained that Freeman's earlier crash had "no bearing" on it.
"We have a very good idea of what went wrong and all we're looking for is the corroboration," Foster said.
Airlink is waiting for the data from the two black boxes to be analysed.
Foster said one of the two engines of the 14-year-old SA Airlink aircraft lost power - but did not cut out completely - but that this alone should not have caused the crash.
"It's not a double-engine failure. It's supposed to fly on one engine. Then the question is: why didn't it?
"We have to look at all of the facts surrounding that. We don't have those facts.
"There is a big black hole at the moment. That black hole will be filled by the data that comes out of the black boxes," Foster said.
He said an accident was usually not caused by a single thing but a convergence of several problems.
"But we do not suspect further mechanical failure," he said.
"We think it's simple. We think the outcome will be quickly established."
There have been reports that other pilots saw smoke from one of SA8911's engines and alerted them.
Because the Airlink flight was warned of smoke from an engine, Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.
"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.
But his SA Airlink boss said this is "irrelevant" to the Heritage Day crash in Durban.
After the August 2005 crash, Freeman would have been legally grounded for two years. Airlink CEO Rodger Foster said he joined the staff in June last year as a first officer and was recently promoted to captain.
Freeman is in a critical condition
Freeman is in a critical condition after the SA Airlink flight he was commanding crash-landed in the grounds of a Durban school on Heritage Day, seriously injuring first officer Sonja Bierman, flight attendant Rodelle Oosthuizen and Durban Solid
Waste street cleaner Abraham Mthethwa. All are still in intensive care.
Freeman's face is badly injured. "It's going to take quite a long time before he can speak, a long time," said Foster.
Bierman may be transferred to a Joburg hospital soon.
Oosthuizen is in significant pain from spinal injuries and is due to have an operation today, while Mthethwa is stable.
Foster said they were eligible for disability benefits immediately. The airline hopes for their full recovery, but it's possible they may not fly again.
'It's not an uncommon mistake'
A previously unpublicised Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) report uncovered by The Star concluded that pilot error was the "probable cause" of Freeman's 2005 crash, in which he ploughed a twin-engine Britten-Norman Islander charter plane carrying a family, including two children, through the roof of a Durban house.
All six in the plane were injured. The house was empty.
Freeman had multiple fractures and passenger Gerhard Huber dislocated his hip.
Reporting on the probable cause, the CAA said: "The pilot employed an incorrect go-around technique and took inappropriate action during the emergency situation, which aggravated the situation."
It said "prevalent carburettor icing" and Freeman's "lack of experience" with the aircraft type - six of his 950 flying hours - contributed.
In the minutes before the 2005 accident, as he was coming in to land, Freeman told air traffic control that he had engine problems so was going around again. But the accident report later said that the flight and engine controls were "satisfactory", and "both engines performed satisfactorily".
Media reports at the time said Huber alerted Freeman that something was wrong before the plane "veered off course" and crashed through the roof into the living room of Alwyn Field's house.
Yesterday Field, who still lives in his extensively rebuilt house and is now known to his friends as "Airfield", said his insurance paid for the rebuilding and he was told this cost was claimed back from the aviation insurance.
Field expressed sympathy for Freeman. "He's lucky to be alive, poor man. Who survives two air crashes?"
Yesterday, Foster said he wasn't aware of details of that accident and insisted Freeman was a proficient pilot.
"It is irrelevant from our perspective. We don't judge him or select him on the basis of his past history." He confirmed that Freeman would have had to disclose the crash in his CV.
Foster yesterday stressed that the company had a "good idea" of what had caused the Heritage Day crash and maintained that Freeman's earlier crash had "no bearing" on it.
"We have a very good idea of what went wrong and all we're looking for is the corroboration," Foster said.
Airlink is waiting for the data from the two black boxes to be analysed.
Foster said one of the two engines of the 14-year-old SA Airlink aircraft lost power - but did not cut out completely - but that this alone should not have caused the crash.
"It's not a double-engine failure. It's supposed to fly on one engine. Then the question is: why didn't it?
"We have to look at all of the facts surrounding that. We don't have those facts.
"There is a big black hole at the moment. That black hole will be filled by the data that comes out of the black boxes," Foster said.
He said an accident was usually not caused by a single thing but a convergence of several problems.
"But we do not suspect further mechanical failure," he said.
"We think it's simple. We think the outcome will be quickly established."
There have been reports that other pilots saw smoke from one of SA8911's engines and alerted them.
Because the Airlink flight was warned of smoke from an engine, Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.
"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Germany
Age: 76
Posts: 1,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to having an engine failure the certification standards require that that a pilot of "average ability" should be able to control an aircraft following an engine failure. It is not such a big deal to lose an engine, assuming everything else goes as it should.
I just wanted to point that out, since it may come across to some reading this that there's some doubt about being able to fly a J41 on one engine. That is a requirement for such an aircraft to be acceptable for public transport.
You have nominated speeds which give you a safety margin so that you should be able to either safely stop or else fly away after having one engine fail. If you follow the correct procedures then you are reasonably sure of being able to safely operate free of the risk of a serious accident.
Here, obviously, more went wrong than just losing one engine but what exactly happened will have to be made clear by an investigation. There isn't much point in trying to guess what that is without all the facts, particularly the data from the so-called black boxes, one that records the flight values and one that records what the crew said and, secondarily, various sounds produced by power settings, switch selections, etcetera.
It usually takes about a year to a year and-a-half for the final report to be released because it is a painstaking process. Meanwhile people want answers immediately to the question of why a particular accident happened but it is impossible to do that. To point to a control being in a certain position, for instance: was it set in flight or was it moved afterwards? Only the Flight Data Recorder can answer that question for certain.
I just wanted to point that out, since it may come across to some reading this that there's some doubt about being able to fly a J41 on one engine. That is a requirement for such an aircraft to be acceptable for public transport.
You have nominated speeds which give you a safety margin so that you should be able to either safely stop or else fly away after having one engine fail. If you follow the correct procedures then you are reasonably sure of being able to safely operate free of the risk of a serious accident.
Here, obviously, more went wrong than just losing one engine but what exactly happened will have to be made clear by an investigation. There isn't much point in trying to guess what that is without all the facts, particularly the data from the so-called black boxes, one that records the flight values and one that records what the crew said and, secondarily, various sounds produced by power settings, switch selections, etcetera.
It usually takes about a year to a year and-a-half for the final report to be released because it is a painstaking process. Meanwhile people want answers immediately to the question of why a particular accident happened but it is impossible to do that. To point to a control being in a certain position, for instance: was it set in flight or was it moved afterwards? Only the Flight Data Recorder can answer that question for certain.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: moon
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Will the J41 fly on 1 engine?
Answer: yes. In my experience anyway.
But just because it will fly on one engine it does not mean the SA crew are at fault in any way. Many mechanical things could have gone wrong on the day which will hopefully come out in the investigation.
As a part of endorsement training in the simulator, the engine failure was reasonably docile.
Full rudder was not required to maintain dirrectional control with the failure occuring at V1 and at MTOW. (don't remember the elevation of the aerodrome, temp at 25 deg C )
The final check ride was conducted in the aircraft. Again a V1 cut was even easier to control. This time only 2 persons on board and approx 3000 pounds of fuel, so take off weight only approx 8200kg. (elevation 1000' and temp 20 deg C) The engine failure was simulated by closing the power lever, not actually shutting down the engine so the prop was windmilling, not feathered.
(BAE have said on the J41 an engine at flight idle will create slightly more drag than a feathered prop, but it does depend on actual engine rigging and what the figure of flight idle actually is. I have seen anywhere between 5-19% Tq)
I now conduct check and training on said aircraft and also use the above method for simulating the engine failure. Out of a runway at 2000 feet with temp 30 deg C, I expect to see a rate of climb of approx 1000 feet per minute at 8200kg.
Last week I did this for a brand new FO straight out of the simulator with little previous multi engine experience. He was achieving well over 500 feet per minute from initial failure at V1, and once the Phase 1 Memory Items had been completed, the aircraft in trim and climbing at V2, the rate of climb had exceeded 1500 feet per minute. ( Elevation 2000', Temp 15 Deg C, TOW 8200kg)
Again, This by no means the SA crew were at fault in any way!
I am not trying to place blame anywhere, just answer the question that has been asked a number of times.
Best wishes to the crew, their families and the company.
Zip.
But just because it will fly on one engine it does not mean the SA crew are at fault in any way. Many mechanical things could have gone wrong on the day which will hopefully come out in the investigation.
As a part of endorsement training in the simulator, the engine failure was reasonably docile.
Full rudder was not required to maintain dirrectional control with the failure occuring at V1 and at MTOW. (don't remember the elevation of the aerodrome, temp at 25 deg C )
The final check ride was conducted in the aircraft. Again a V1 cut was even easier to control. This time only 2 persons on board and approx 3000 pounds of fuel, so take off weight only approx 8200kg. (elevation 1000' and temp 20 deg C) The engine failure was simulated by closing the power lever, not actually shutting down the engine so the prop was windmilling, not feathered.
(BAE have said on the J41 an engine at flight idle will create slightly more drag than a feathered prop, but it does depend on actual engine rigging and what the figure of flight idle actually is. I have seen anywhere between 5-19% Tq)
I now conduct check and training on said aircraft and also use the above method for simulating the engine failure. Out of a runway at 2000 feet with temp 30 deg C, I expect to see a rate of climb of approx 1000 feet per minute at 8200kg.
Last week I did this for a brand new FO straight out of the simulator with little previous multi engine experience. He was achieving well over 500 feet per minute from initial failure at V1, and once the Phase 1 Memory Items had been completed, the aircraft in trim and climbing at V2, the rate of climb had exceeded 1500 feet per minute. ( Elevation 2000', Temp 15 Deg C, TOW 8200kg)
Again, This by no means the SA crew were at fault in any way!
I am not trying to place blame anywhere, just answer the question that has been asked a number of times.
Best wishes to the crew, their families and the company.
Zip.
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Down the airway.
Posts: 689
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two statements from Airlink below?
I say that to shut down the wrong engine is not a common mistake. I also make to say that if an airline boss thinks that it is, he must be looking to his training captains to see that it is not.
For the first statement-I disregard that option.
It is remarkable that the skill and expertise of the pilots was such that in
this emergency they were able to pilot their aircraft to avoid contact with
members of the public and buildings and that a major catastrophe was
averted. Pilots are specifically trained for engine "power loss on takeoff"
emergencies, and clearly this training has played its role.
Because the Airlink flight was warned of smoke from an engine, Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.
"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.
I say that to shut down the wrong engine is not a common mistake. I also make to say that if an airline boss thinks that it is, he must be looking to his training captains to see that it is not.
For the first statement-I disregard that option.
It is remarkable that the skill and expertise of the pilots was such that in
this emergency they were able to pilot their aircraft to avoid contact with
members of the public and buildings and that a major catastrophe was
averted. Pilots are specifically trained for engine "power loss on takeoff"
emergencies, and clearly this training has played its role.
Because the Airlink flight was warned of smoke from an engine, Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.
"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Foster agreed it was possible they turned off the wrong engine in error.
"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.
"It's not an uncommon mistake," he said.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: South Africa
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Okay fellows! Just to wind it back in
The facts that we have are:
1) Witnesses saw smoke from #2 engine. So, it is more than reasonable to assume this was a “bad engine”
2) At the crash site, #2 was delivering power and #1 was not and neither was its propeller feathered.
The state of #1 engine/propeller has only a number of possibilities
a) #1 engine failed and did not auto feather
b) #1 engine was shut down incorrectly and did not feather
Whatever the case is, it is highly unlikely that flight could have been sustained for any longer than it was due to the drag from the prop and possibly lower power from #2
I know that a lot of people including myself are hoping that possibility a) will be the outcome for the sake of the crew but in all probability what are the chances.
In any event, assuming the worst possibility and in that short space of time the crew had to react, they did well.
Good luck to them and a speedy recovery to all who were injured
The facts that we have are:
1) Witnesses saw smoke from #2 engine. So, it is more than reasonable to assume this was a “bad engine”
2) At the crash site, #2 was delivering power and #1 was not and neither was its propeller feathered.
The state of #1 engine/propeller has only a number of possibilities
a) #1 engine failed and did not auto feather
b) #1 engine was shut down incorrectly and did not feather
Whatever the case is, it is highly unlikely that flight could have been sustained for any longer than it was due to the drag from the prop and possibly lower power from #2
I know that a lot of people including myself are hoping that possibility a) will be the outcome for the sake of the crew but in all probability what are the chances.
In any event, assuming the worst possibility and in that short space of time the crew had to react, they did well.
Good luck to them and a speedy recovery to all who were injured
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
****EDITED due to rubbish content.*****
I agree, series of events and possible multiple failures lead to this prang. What I meant to say is that I dont normally believe in multipile failures. Old age and booze again.....
Usually accidents have a primary cause with contributing factors, but in this case I am not so sure.
I do second your call on giving them the 'benefit of the doubt'.
Thank you sir, I do appriciate the vote of confidence.
I agree, series of events and possible multiple failures lead to this prang. What I meant to say is that I dont normally believe in multipile failures. Old age and booze again.....
Usually accidents have a primary cause with contributing factors, but in this case I am not so sure. I do second your call on giving them the 'benefit of the doubt'.
PS: Avi8tor knows more about J41's than most of us.
Last edited by Avi8tor; 1st Oct 2009 at 05:56.
@Avi8tor
The "...error chain..." you are referring to is commonly called the 'Swiss Cheese Model' in aviation circles.... And it is always a chain of events that, when aligned, will cause a disaster.
I agree with Foster.
The "...error chain..." you are referring to is commonly called the 'Swiss Cheese Model' in aviation circles.... And it is always a chain of events that, when aligned, will cause a disaster.
I agree with Foster.
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Dubai
Age: 56
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#2 looks NTS'd to me. So not convinced of how much power it was putting out. But I do agree, a small output would explain why no auto feather. Seem to remember that the auto-feather is activated at 45% RPM.
a) it didn't NTS either, why?
b)only 2 ways to shut it down, 'stop' button which would have lead to it NTS'ing or feather/shut off with the condition lever. ie, it would have feathered.
Whats more, it from the lack for blade damage, it looks like it was not rotating. Any ideas on how u stop a none feathered prop in flight?
After nearly a week, I still have heard no good explainations for this prang. I am afraid its a 30 day wait till the prelim report is out. Glad the UK CAA AAIB are gonna reconstruct the CVR/FDR.
I hope the crew get their 5c worth too. Glad to see that looks like everybody will pull through.
The state of #1 engine/propeller has only a number of possibilities
a) #1 engine failed and did not auto feather
b) #1 engine was shut down incorrectly and did not feather
a) #1 engine failed and did not auto feather
b) #1 engine was shut down incorrectly and did not feather
b)only 2 ways to shut it down, 'stop' button which would have lead to it NTS'ing or feather/shut off with the condition lever. ie, it would have feathered.
Whats more, it from the lack for blade damage, it looks like it was not rotating. Any ideas on how u stop a none feathered prop in flight?
After nearly a week, I still have heard no good explainations for this prang. I am afraid its a 30 day wait till the prelim report is out. Glad the UK CAA AAIB are gonna reconstruct the CVR/FDR.
I hope the crew get their 5c worth too. Glad to see that looks like everybody will pull through.
Last edited by Avi8tor; 1st Oct 2009 at 06:05.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Africa
Age: 44
Posts: 237
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why ferry?
Sorry, dof question allert! but to trace what lead up to this all, why was this a/c empty in the first place? was it a mx flight? is there a mx base in Durban? and had it just come out of mx? or was it going to JNB for MX? If so what work was done on it or what work was going to be done on it? Was it carrying snags that could only be fixed in JNB? It just seems odd to me that this a/c was empty in the first place? Or do airlines often do positioning flights?
Wishing a speedy recovery to the crew and unlucky municipal worker
Dog
Wishing a speedy recovery to the crew and unlucky municipal worker
Dog