View Full Version : Eagle Gear up Emergency Landing in WB

Blue Line
17th Jun 2007, 22:38
LATEST: A passenger aircraft has made a safe emergency landing at Blenheim's Woodbourne airport after sparking a full emergency with landing gear problems.
A Fire Service spokesman said the plane, with 15 passengers and two crew, had problems with its undercarriage.
It landed on its belly, screeching to a halt just outside the control tower just after 9am.
The badly damaged aircraft was sprayed with foam.
One passenger was taken to hospital for treatment.
The aircraft was an Air New Zealand Link plane on a flight from Timaru to Wellington when it diverted to Blenheim.
The passengers are receiving counselling from volunteers at the Royal New Zealand Air Force's air movements centre at the base.
The airport will be closed for two hours while cranes are brought in to remove the wreckage.
The aircraft was operated by Air New Zealand subsidiary Eagle Air.

Looks like the boys had a hard morning at the office. Well done lads getting it on the ground safely! :ok:

17th Jun 2007, 22:41
Story at NZHerald.co.nz (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/section/1/story.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10446360)

Good to see plane down safely and no-one injured...

17th Jun 2007, 22:44
Glad everyone's okay....

A crane and a BROOM were required to clean up the wreckage....

Note to AirNZ... next time, don't forget that Blenheim is home to some of the top aviation photographers in the country! :}

On a serious note, well done to the crew, everyone walked away!

Howard Hughes
17th Jun 2007, 22:47
What a spectacular picture, glad to hear evryones OK!

Are they carbon fibre blades?

17th Jun 2007, 22:59
Well done...

Hope no-one is missing a torch...

17th Jun 2007, 23:13
Good work from the crew,
That means wheels ups for their last three types with the Bandit in AA and a Metro in HN. Eagle has had some crap luck.

18th Jun 2007, 00:15
Well done buddy, You Are a star for landing the plane like that!

Cloud Cutter
18th Jun 2007, 00:43
I've always wondered what sort of mess the props would make, I guess now I know!

Sounds like a well managed situation, well done to all concerned.

18th Jun 2007, 01:00
It will buff out..........

Well done to all involved........Excellent job:ok:

18th Jun 2007, 01:17
Props are cheap compared to the massive cock-ups that can happen feathering props on short final.

17 bums = christ knows how many ambulance chasing lawyers

18th Jun 2007, 01:42
If something had of gone wrong

Capn Bloggs
18th Jun 2007, 01:50
Are they carbon fibre blades?
They were...

18th Jun 2007, 01:57
Damn ugliest Beechcraft ever built.

Glad to hear it Sir Pratt.

18th Jun 2007, 02:11
The owner of the photo should send it onto Airliners.net with the right exposure it could generate him/her some money.

A MAF pilot in Gove a few years back found out why you don't shut the engines down on short finals, as you may not glide as well as you thought you might and you might not make the runway :\

18th Jun 2007, 02:12
Eggzackery :D

18th Jun 2007, 02:21

Can't imagine how happy the folk beside the props were seeing blades hurtling off the hub.:eek:

Dobt reckon the skin of the beach is bullet proof...nor prop proof. I guess thats just lucky.

Glad to hear all is good for pax and crew.:ok:


18th Jun 2007, 02:25
Keeps you working Sir Pratt
Thats wot pilots is for.

Cloud Cutter
18th Jun 2007, 03:06

While I see where you're coming from, and yes the Metro was landed with props feathered aswell, this sort of situation is not the time to be deviating from QRH proceedure, which clearly states that no engines will be shut down or props feathered until after touchdown.

The skin of the 1900 is reinforced around the prop plane, except a small area where the windows are located.

18th Jun 2007, 03:13
As also posted in R & N http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3355472

18th Jun 2007, 03:19
Is that engine a gas coupled prop gear box thingy or direct drive?

18th Jun 2007, 03:25
Gas tinni, like all the PT6 engines...much the same engine as the PC12.

18th Jun 2007, 03:27
Ok tah...um... why doesnt it have proper metal propellors?

18th Jun 2007, 03:32
No idea, think all C and D models have composite props.

Cloud Cutter
18th Jun 2007, 03:39
Of course common sense comes into it if it's just a suspected indication problem, but I believe in this case (total loss of hydraulic fluid) there would have been no choice. If I understand the system correctly, the gear should have gravity fallen (to some extent) when a manual extension was attemped, and retracted again as the aircraft touched down, all though this doesn't seem backed up by the initial reports. Anyone see it or here exactly what happened?

Launchpad McQuack
18th Jun 2007, 03:49
Great effort on the crew's part...earned their coin for day, and some more :ok:

I know several Eagle Drivers from Blenheim, all top bokes - no idea who the crew were however at this stage...

18th Jun 2007, 04:07
Don't send this to the newspapers but gas coupled, not sure about the props but look composite by the way they are shatering. No idea

On Guard
18th Jun 2007, 04:45
Seems an odd design that you can only unlock the gear with hyd fluid. Why not install a manual cable to release the locks?? Unless the hyd backup is supposedly fail safe?

18th Jun 2007, 04:49
but NZWB is not short, and it's guys like me that have to replace both engines cause they had a prop strike while running...

Sorry if I've misconstrued you SirP but I bet that wasn't the biggest thing going through the Crews mind on short finals on a once in a career event...lets disregard the FCOM (or whatever a 1900 has) so we don't get picked apart on PPrune by an Engineer. :yuk:

Capt Fathom
18th Jun 2007, 04:51
Looks like the blades have come out of the hubs, not shattered.

Cloud Cutter
18th Jun 2007, 05:10
On Guard

There are no mechanical uplocks like other aircraft, the gear is held up by hydraulic pressure.


Thanks for the explanation, when you talk about unlocking, are you referring to a fluid lock? Or is there some major part of the system that they don't teach we at the pointy end about?

18th Jun 2007, 06:45
As a former Eagle motors 1900 driver, you follow the checklist, and that quite clearly calls for securing the engines after touchdown. That's what any professional pilot would do. It saves legal issues. Lives are more expensive than engines and all professional engineers respect this. I'm know that this airframe will operate again and Blenheim is a major Eagle engineering base so good team decisions made here. Bloody well done!

18th Jun 2007, 06:51
Small discussion here also, http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread.php?p=3355596&posted=1#post3355596
including a video link (TV3 News, mainly interviews with a few pax, but at least one bit of footage of the aircraft landing.)
Well done!

18th Jun 2007, 07:31
It would seem, by all reports that the crew handled that emergency very well indeed. Perhaps as a result of the high standards required in Eagle Checks, and command upgrades that so many have been mocking recently??

Just a thought...

18th Jun 2007, 07:44
XRNZAF.....their training should and would be no different to any one elses,,...lets get off the white horse here mate!!!

.....in saying that, my sentiments are like those of the rest...well done,and each and every crew does have to perform and perform well in these situations...it was a great result considering the situation....

18th Jun 2007, 08:26
I've never worked for this outfit, so I cannot, and therefore am not trying to compare Eagle Air's Check and Training to anyone elses. But I do have a regular flick through these forums and have recently noticed page after page of people bagging the place and bleating on about how the selection process would better suit a space shuttle than a 'glorified duchess'. Although I'm sure many of the concerns raised are valid, I can't help wondering if perhaps there might be some vindication today.

When things stop going to plan in ANY aeroplane regardless of size, speed, number of seats etc. I would expect (either as a passenger or pilot) that all crew members were the very best of the bunch put up for selection at the time of their intake. And that the check and training process they had been through should have been as stringent as possible.

Long story short, I don't think any operator should ever have to make excuses for setting the bar high. And I just think today was a good reminder of why.

Here endeth the rant. :oh:


18th Jun 2007, 09:52
Feathered/unfeathered argument.

An feathered prop is much more likely to dig into the ground on touch down than an unfeathered prop, which is much more likely to bend or break. There have been incidents in that past with conventional (aluminium) blades where a feathered prop has dug in causing the aircraft to flip over.

18th Jun 2007, 10:25
Rego is ZK-EAK or Echo Alpha KILLED. 'KILLED' has been a bit of a sh^t of a plane. It's had a number of hiccups and dramas in its time in service.
Got a BIG lightening strike in TG about a year ago that grounded it for a week there. Blew a hole in the tail, among many other things.

Great job from the guys today though - some might hope they killed 'KILLED'! :)

As an aside, who remembers the Bandit wheel that came off once lowerer causing the wheels up @ NZPM. Must be close to being 20 years ago?! They picked up the plane - was it FHX?? - dusted it off, threw on some new fairings, filed the props and flew it gear down, back to HN. And all about two days after!

From memory that was an engines off landing. And they laid foam that caused it to move around on the 'landing roll'!

Where is Capt Craig and F/O Lance these days?:ok:

18th Jun 2007, 10:35
27/09 I agree entirely!!!!
I have heard stories of engines being ripped off mounts or entire wings being destroyed and thus the airframe totalled all because a feathered prop dug into the runway (or earth if landing off runway).
Also in the case of a gear malfunction with the gear down for eg but maybe not locked ,if it does collapse entirely or 1 side or nose, if its turning and strikes it will bend or break on contact but if feathered a dig in or the much higher contact resistance will likely result in a total loss of what little directional control may be available and possibly result in a violent groundloop or overturn and cartwheel. :eek:

18th Jun 2007, 12:12
Sir.pratt; As a fare paying pax, I would be expecting the pilot to put it down in the safest possible manner, not the cheapest. :hmm:

18th Jun 2007, 19:25
would it be rude to say that the result was within design specifications?

18th Jun 2007, 20:16
Slight tangent, but if the blades were in feather and struck the ground, being composite, would they have broken off or dug in?

18th Jun 2007, 20:42
Quote RNZAF........When things stop going to plan in ANY aeroplane regardless of size, speed, number of seats etc. I would expect (either as a passenger or pilot) that all crew members were the very best of the bunch put up for selection at the time of their intake. And that the check and training process they had been through should have been as stringent as possible.!!!

Mate...that was well said and nothing short of what we all would expect...your point on the rantings is also accurate....but on this forum mate...look past the smoke,dont take it personal,and if you do...fire shots across the bow...most of it is in zest and fun....have a few x-RNZAF mates as well...always found it easy to pull their chains.....valid points for sure

Sir Pratt....great photo,s mate...must have a few connections.....noticed that side shot,the double layer skin and window designed to protect from ice shedding did a great ob.....I now this layer is designed to protect against ice,what about prop shed???.....flew a metro 3 once,lost the window when the ice shed but the fuselage stayed intact....double layed skin...

Quote Sprocket...."Sir.pratt; As a fare paying pax, I would be expecting the pilot to put it down in the safest possible manner, not the cheapest."

.....that is one of the strangest comments I ever heard :confused:

always inverted
18th Jun 2007, 20:47
1279, think you need to get your facts in order as "K" aint that bad and no it was not K that had the strike over tauranga, that was H. :\
Sprocket, I may be wrong but I am sure that the blades are designed to depart from the hub as they did in the event of a wheels up to prevent excess damage to the engine and possibility of digging in.

18th Jun 2007, 20:51
I think everyone wants to throw their 2 cents in. But at the end of the day the pilots followed their QRH and company procedures (and emergency is hardly the time to deviate from them) They landed that aircraft safely (anyone who watched it on the news pretty much textbook stuff) and no one was injured. So in my mind they did everything correctly. As as far as im concerned one can debate the props feathering non feathering for as long as one likes, but the proof is in the pudding, Aircraft is in remarkably good shape and everyone walked away.

You cant get better than that!!!!

Jack Sprat
18th Jun 2007, 22:29
The clowns on the TV news last night called it a crash landing. Crash landings aren't supposed to be as smooth and well done as that are they? I wonder what words they would dredge up for something nasty. Clowns.

18th Jun 2007, 22:35
Where is Capt Craig and F/O Lance these days?

"Mumbler" Mossman was flying for Freedom Air last time I spoke to him.

I don't know the other chap.

And the Controller who spotted the absence of wheels is in the land of Oz. :ok:


19th Jun 2007, 01:44
F/O lance became captain lance.. was off sick the last couple of years, recently returned (briefly) but is now in the big sandpit flying for Falcon.

19th Jun 2007, 02:47
how long to fix Sir Pratt?...if you don't mind me asking..roughly.

19th Jun 2007, 07:37
Whether or not it is procedure or possible to feather the props in this situation it was disturbing to see the still image with sections of props going in all directions.

It is a distinct concern at the thought of what night have happened if a section of one of the props had pierced the cabin.

19th Jun 2007, 08:49
any word on wot eagle are going to do in the meantime for a replacement aircraft..I.E delay heavy maintainece or the Vincent boys going to be doing some more work for Eagle??

always inverted
19th Jun 2007, 09:29
Some more work, does the charters ever stop. Pics on the staff website showed the blades impacted where they should have- on the reinforced area aroun 2a and 2f, even so they are composite blades and they fuse is probably been designed in such a way that if the props depart as they supposed to in the event, then the chance of the blades going through the side would be very slim. Also thats the whole point of composite materials, they are as sttong as hell but if they depart and hit the fuse they will shatter into smaller pieces, thus makes the even more safe and the fuse better able to take the impact.

Relatively minor damage to the underside of the a/c minus aerials and strakes and flaps etc...

Again a job well done to both crew involved.:ok:

19th Jun 2007, 12:04
I agree entirely ;)

19th Jun 2007, 12:06
...with #1AHRS that is

19th Jun 2007, 15:25
Sir pratt...great stuff mate,and I would say very accurate on our thiughts on repair etc.....for me the damage looks substantial.....the unseen damage lieshen they start pulling the skin off......the spa,s are what concern me....most A/C that have suffered this type of damage never fly the same....no matter how she,s rigged or trimmed ......bets of luck with it

for those of you ranting about the pilots capabilitiy.....unless youve pranged at least 3...like me,,....then bear with me....

Alaska(all on file with the NTSB)

(1)Hit Bull moose,C-207,Sewetkna...1982...major damage,no injuries
(2)Left Main ldg colapse on ldg,C-402,Cordova,minor damage,no injuries,lots of screaming
(3)Hit 10+ Canadian geese on T/O,Twin Otter,,minor injuries,major damage,lost both engines at 50ft,pranged the bitch off the end of the runway .....

.....not proud of this record at all,never had my licenses taken,FAA/NTSB detremined all accidents were...."the cost of doing buisness"

Did I do things right...dont know,dont remember,but do care....Im feckin alive,....so before you judge a bloke,s ability.........be real careful as YOUR day may come sooner than you think....PB

always inverted
19th Jun 2007, 20:30
My apology, I should have said looks relatively minor, given what happened to the aircraft. I would not dispute the damage uner the surface but all I was getting at was the fact that given they carried out a wheels up on a sealed runway the damage LOOKS relatively minor...
Does that make people a bit happier. Given the state of the other thread about Eagle I think not.

20th Jun 2007, 09:42
Always Inverted: Alright "K" aint that bad I suppose. But it isn't regarded as one of the better ones! Apols on getting K muddled with H in TG too. :O. Must be getting old!

Hey, does anyone want a bet how long it'll take before 'D' gets the photos posted here removed?? :hmm:

20th Jun 2007, 10:46
who cares he's doing a good job:ok: makes for interesting viewing by others who operate the same type.

so any clues on the cause of the mishap.

20th Jun 2007, 12:46
Toilet Service Door:confused:

Sticky Job:E


20th Jun 2007, 21:34
What do you think of these comments


My thoughts.

You rely on a lawyer for sound judgement when he/she advises you on legal matters.

You rely on an accountant for sound judgement when he/she advises you on financial matters.

You rely on a doctor for sound judgement when he/she advises you on medical matters.

You rely on an an pilot for sound judgement when he/she flies you.

The good doctor should stick with his area of expertise and not criticise the actions of a professional in an area he knows nothing about.

20th Jun 2007, 22:58
The guy doesn't know his arse from his elbow.....hes probably also an expert in bulls%it as well:hmm:

muttly's pigeon
20th Jun 2007, 23:24
Geez next someone will write an article about how WB has bad feng shway and should have gone somewhere with a runway direction of 33/15:rolleyes:

Prehaps the route guide could be ammended to list what cities have what surgeons on at what time but PLEASE...... I wont disagree that WN hospital would be better equipped than BHE but its not the ONLY factor involved and to say Blenheim was "the wrong call" ........:yuk:

Full credit to the boys who put it down :ok:

Also liked the comments from one of the pax that was interviewed along the lines of "oh yea we were a little nervous but what could you do? No, nobody one was screaming - this isint the states" :}

21st Jun 2007, 00:53
This chap Guy Gardiner is a misinformed crettin. If the WB incident was similar to the Sioux City DC10 event, then well, yes, divert to a place where there is ample facilities to cope with the expected casulaties. Stick to taking patients temperatures with ur rectal thermometer Dr GG.:ugh:

21st Jun 2007, 03:27
YEAH BOYZ....best not get upset over this one....there,s always a jurno(s) trying to make a name for themselves and selling science fiction to make a $$$$$......scare the shite out of the public,thats what these jokers do...why ruin a good,accurate story with the facts

Intesting subject on the diversion though....would like to know links policy on that....
For us,to divert, the decision must be made between the dispather and the Captain ,and they must concur.......this does not in any way take away the Capts authority,which is final.....but based on all the factors,it must be discussed and agreeded upon......diverting without consultation will get you some time at your favourite beach ...unless you have no choice.....hence the example given in the previous thread.....

Sir pratt.....once again mate...great photos mate....makes this thread easy to comment....the pictures dont lie..PB

Cloud Cutter
21st Jun 2007, 04:36
What a load of shite, how about doing the best you can to keep the risk of injury very low, rather than worrying unduely about the very unlikely event that it all goes horribly wrong.

Considering the layout of both airfields, it would be far safer to attempt any sort of abnormal landing at WB, than run the risk of sliding into one of the many obsticles, or ending up in the drink at WN. This doctor needs to stick to over-prescribing antibiotics, and leave the flying to the proffesionals.

21st Jun 2007, 06:26
yes but Pakeha Boy the FAA and NZCAA have rather different opinions on qualification or total lack thereof for flight despatchers. I suspect you enjoy a higher level of service from ops control than the old country :}

21st Jun 2007, 10:02
Dear Sir/Madam,

Regarding the article, "Diverting stricken plane wrong - doctors" by Ian Steward and Dan Hutchinson - The Press, I believe that the doctors involved have no basis nor understanding on any of the factors nor reasons for choosing to divert to Blenhiem instead of landing the aircraft in Wellington.

I am a pilot of a similar type of aircraft to the one involved, however I do not work for Air New Zealand nor Eagle Air.

Blenhiem was chosen in regards to several factors. The Air Traffic level at Blenhiem is much less than Wellington. Why risk putting further lives at risk with placing a aircraft in trouble into an already heavily congested area of airspace?
Wellington's runway is also bounded on both ends with the harbour. A undershoot or overshoot into the water would have a much bigger risk if the decision was taken to land at Wellignton. The outcome would have been unacceptable.

Blenhiem was the logical choice. Emergency helicopters and aircraft would have been on hand in Wellington to fly the injured to Wellington Hospital. This is less than a 30 minute flight.

Doctor Guy Gardiner has no experience in aeronautical decision making and this shows in his comments. He has no appreciation in the other factors involved in the landing of a damaged aircraft nor any appreication in the judgement used by the pilots in avoiding an accident and the use of his medical services in the first place.

Dr Gardiner's comments made my blood boil. :mad: A letter to the editor is in order I think.

He should stick to what he does best, playing golf and charging exhurbant prices and leave aeronautical decision making to the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions.

21st Jun 2007, 10:10

Good idea on the letter.

One point do you mean emergency helicopters and aircraft would have been on hand in Wellington or do you mean Blenheim?

21st Jun 2007, 10:18
I did mean Wellington, LifeFlight and Westpac have bases there and are on 24 hrs standby. If needed, they could have airlifted medical staff and supplies to Blenhiem on the way out.
They would have done a triage on the patients first if there was a big incident, sorting out the worst off to the best, treating accordingly. Then the aircraft could have flown them out to Wellington or Nelson as needed.
I also suspect that Base Woodbourne would also have good medical facilities, being a major RNZAF base..

21st Jun 2007, 10:32

Now I understand your reasoning. I might suggest your letter, if you send it, may need rewording, adding in your explanation from your second post.

I too wondered about the medical capabilities at Woodbourne.

21st Jun 2007, 14:08
I also suspect that Base Woodbourne would also have good medical facilities, being a major RNZAF base..

Essentially the same facilities you would find at your local medical center - one or 2 GPs (medical officers) and some medics.

21st Jun 2007, 22:21
Quote... "You rely on a lawyer for sound judgement when he/she advises you on legal matters.

You rely on an accountant for sound judgement when he/she advises you on financial matters.

You rely on a doctor for sound judgement when he/she advises you on medical matters.

You rely on an an pilot for sound judgement when he/she flies you.

The good doctor should stick with his area of expertise and not criticise the actions of a professional in an area he knows nothing about" ........

Are you guys not doing exactly what you are accusing the doctor of?

21st Jun 2007, 22:27
Are you guys not doing exactly what you are accusing the doctor of?


Lower Lobe....try reading the whole thread, and the story attached as a link :uhoh:

The Doctor is quite rightly getting both barrels on the basis that he questioned the decision to divert into Woodbourne...the article states that he feels it was the wrong decision.
What part of this is difficult to understand?

21st Jun 2007, 23:53

My point is that those posting here are upset at the thought of someone who is not a pilot telling or suggesting that the aircraft should of diverted to wellington instead of Blenheim.

Quote "He should stick to what he does best, playing golf and charging exhurbant prices and leave aeronautical decision making to the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions"

The important part of the quote is..."the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions"

His comments are made from a medical perspective and yours from a pilots perspective.

Are you telling us that pilots know more about medical procedures and capabilities at Blenheim medical facilities than the doctor does?

He was not telling you how to fly but made a comment on medical capabilities.

What part of talking about medical emergencies from a doctors point of view don't you understand.

Would it be the pilots at Blenheim trying to operate and save lives or the doctors at the hospital?

22nd Jun 2007, 01:14
(from the stuff article) Gardiner said Blenheim was "the wrong call"

Quite possible this reported comment is missing context. Highly likely, even. (Would reporters do such a thing?)

However, the way it is reported certainly indicates the good doctor is placing himself in the executive-decision making seat, which he is only qualified to do from the medical perspective.

22nd Jun 2007, 01:49
Markjoy....Exactly so.

The press have never been known to embellish or put a slant on a story....

Having said that,from a pilots point of view would you divert to another field if requested by medical authorities because of a lack of facilities or would continue and land regardless?

22nd Jun 2007, 01:50
hmmm... a bit of a Devils Advocate eh lowerlobe???

I agree with the sentiments here with regards the Dr's broadside through the media. The simple fact is, in this case, the 'better medical facilities' in NZWN were not required, as should be the case in a properly managed event like a fairly straight-forward wheels-up landing. I don't see a problem there at all. The decision was taken presumably after consultation between the tech crew and their ops department, that in that circumstance NZWB was the best option. I agree, for what it's worth. Were there complicating factors like the wheels-up landing being necessitated by airframe damage, on-board emergency (other than the wheels-up) or major systemic failure (again, other than the wheels-up) I'm confident the people involved would again have made the correct decision, with pax safety as a primary consideration and the availability of medical resources as anticipated a priority.

A few factors perhaps in favour of NZWB:

An 'easy' approach path in an area renowned for benign wx conditions -don't know what conditions were on the day though.
Disruption due a disabled aircraft on the runway: minimal
Ongoing operation at the airport: Available -Air2There and SoundsAir both reported in the media continuing into NZWB without disruption. That both operate C208 may have helped!
Proximity to appropriate engineering facilities
Proximity to facilities which enabled the pax to continue their disrupted travel: Again, Air2There and SoundsAir, along with other options.
Proximity to anticipated necessary medical facilities: appropriate to the circumstances.Now to the NZWN option which you seem to endorse:

An airport renowned (with good reason) for turbulence and in-flight upsets on approach -again, I don't know the conditions on the day. You need look no further than YouTube to see what can happen.
A single runway. The airport would have been closed until the aircraft was cleared at least, possibly longer if TAIC for example needed to conclude a scene examination.
Major disruption to Domestic, International and feeder flights, inconveniencing potentially thousands of travellers.
NZWN is a 'hub' airport on the main trunk. The entire national air transport network would have suffered at least some disruption as a consequence.The good Dr in question has taken it upon himself to fire a broadside at the professionalism of the flight-crew and others solely to make political capital for himself. To see that as anything more or less is giving the guy far more credit than he's due. As others have said, he should stick to what he knows.

I agree Cypher, a letter to the Editor is well indicated -but please, check your syntax and spelling before posting it -otherwise we all look like d!ckheads!!! Professionalism, appreciation and exorbitant might help your case. Keep in mind that professionalism extends beyond your actions in the cockpit too...

22nd Jun 2007, 02:06
Having said that,from a pilots point of view would you divert to another field if requested by medical authorities because of a lack of facilities or would continue and land regardless?

Far too simplistic lowerlobe. Given the option, I'm sure every one of us would put our aircraft wherever medical facilities are best in an emergency -were that the only deciding factor. Unfortunately that is almost never the case; often we will never have the option of making a decision where that factor even comes into consideration. We simply have to accept the circumstance we find ourself in and manage the events to the best of our ability. In other than extraordinary circumstances, I can't imagine the medical profession even having input into the disposition of an aircraft involved in a declared emergency.

Speeds high
22nd Jun 2007, 02:41
Surely the airfiled was selected so that Medical facililites would not be required. Sheesh.

22nd Jun 2007, 02:42
Lobe, as the previous posters have said the doctor in the article refers to the diversion being the wrong call. Had the wording been along the lines of "In his opinion" things may be different.

As one poster stated has the said doctor seen how close suburbia is to the fencline at WN or what lies of the end of either threshold???? One could also argue that putting down in WN would block the runway for the lifeflight metro preventing it getting in/out on any other op.
Flyby has spent too many sectors debating with T/C's the merits of diversions to A over B to end the list here.
Myself and im sure all the other boys/girls in this game for a living give WB the thumbs up :ok:

In anycase im sure what was quoted was at the least out of context and more likley a summary of what the jurno had interpreted.

22nd Jun 2007, 05:03
Interesting discussion, and the pilots seems to be not too impressed with the Doc's opinion.

To quote from the article:
Eagle Air, the company that operated the plane, said Blenheim was chosen as it was less busy than Wellington.
All other things being equal, fair enough. That said, had the other Wellington traffic divereted to, er, Blenheim (and other places) things wouldn't have been so busy in WLG.
Eagle Air general manager Doug Roberts defended the decision yesterday, saying the pilot had made his choice because there were Eagle engineers on the ground at Blenheim who could advise him on fixing the problem.
Wellington's airspace was "congested" and quieter Blenheim gave an uninterrupted opportunity to work on the problem.
Again - fair enough, all other things being equal.

And then we get:
The risk with a wheels-up landing was at the lower end of the scale and "medical facilities were lower down in the priorities", he said.
As it says, an admission that medical facilities in the event of it all going pear-shaped was less of a priority than having appropriate MX facilities in the vicinity.

As SLF I would hope that you guys up front, when selecting a site for an emergancy landing, would generally place the vicinity of doctors to fix me up somewhat higher on the list than engineers to fix the plane up.

Clearly there are other issues to consider (I can accept the weather at WLG, the issue of Wellington Harbour, houses nearby, etc) but these are not the issue the airlne is pushing (and there is always the 'how accurate is the journalism' angle to think about). I'm NOT categorically stating that the decision to land in Blenheim was the wrong one, but it's concerning as to what is being identified as the priorities.

Cloud Cutter
22nd Jun 2007, 06:58

Every landing involves calculated risk. Aviation is all about risk management. In this instance, the risk of injury was very low, and was just one of the factors taken into account in the decision making process. In this case, over-focussing on covering medical requirements in the unlikely event, may well have undermined the very mitigation of the risk of injury in the first place (ie. less suitable aerodrome).

Gear up landings are not unheard of. When managed properly, and without other complicating factors, they are not usually that dangerous (based on results).

22nd Jun 2007, 08:15

Nothing simplistic about my question at all.It requires a straight forward yes or no....

sir.pratt....I was on one of the first SP's into Wellington and it lived up to it's nickname with ease.

If you can land a SP in weather that sucked then a small twin should really not be a problem.

This was not my point however as Blenheim may well have been the best choice.

Which field was closer when the pilots realised they had a problem?

What was the weather like in Wellington at the time?

Perhaps the airline wanted to minimise media attention by landing at Blenheim? ...

Didn't work though but nah airlines would never think of that ...

My point was the indignation of some pilots at a doctor telling them what he thought.Thats fine as he was looking at it from a medical view point.

The part that made me laugh was these same pilots telling us that Blenheim was suitable and could handle any medical eventuality.

I imagine that the doctors would like the right of response at pilots telling them about medical capabilities.

Actually I have a mate that is have an MRI next week.I might tell him to save some money and get a pilot to give him an opinion.

There is no point talking about what happened after the safe and luckily uneventfull landing.The doctor was talking about what would have happened if it was the other way around from a medical view point.

As someone else said..
If you want tax advice see an accountant
If you want to find out about flying ask a pilot
If you want to talk about medical matters ask a doctor..not someone flying you to your destination

Cloud Cutter
22nd Jun 2007, 08:23
There is no point talking about what happened after the safe and luckily uneventfull landing.

With that single, split infinitive containing sentence, you sum up my point. Luck had very little to do with it. It was a well mangaged, wheels up landing, and was not overly dangerous.

It's not the doctor's comments regarding the medical capacity of Blenheim that are unfounded, but the lack of understanding that caused him to make them. Next we'll be avoiding landings at small towns, in marginal weather because the local medical facilities will be unable to cope if it all goes horribly wrong.

22nd Jun 2007, 08:37
cloudcutter..is this an English tutorial or a debate.

"Gear up landings are not unheard of. When managed properly, and without other complicating factors, they are not usually that dangerous (based on results)"

Now we have statistics and other complicating factors and even if you don't like to admit it, luck.

However,when it comes to injuries these are all meaningless.If you are injured you need fast and available medical attention not a risk analysis.

If ego's are taken out of the equation then accidents will be minimised. However, when you have people telling us that it all went swimmingly AFTER the event and telling doctors to buzz off it appears those ego's are still in play.

Cloud Cutter
22nd Jun 2007, 08:45
Sorry, I wasn't commenting on you grammer, just refering to the term 'luckily'.

I just don't think the risk of injury was high enough to warrent all this discussion about medical services. It's not as relevant as some of the other factors involved, and some people are placing far too much weight on it.

The only ego I can see at play here, is the good doctor's. He has made a loaded comment, well outside the bounds of his expertese. I personally have nothing to gain either way, so would consider myself impartial. This is a debate, and these are my opinions.

22nd Jun 2007, 08:57
Nothing simplistic about my question at all.It requires a straight forward yes or no....

Your question was and is overly simplistic. Read my post again, I answered you fully. IF you are a pilot, these are things you should already know and understand.

It's not the doctor's comments regarding the medical capacity of Blenheim that are unfounded, but the lack of understanding that caused him to make them. Next we'll be avoiding landings at small towns, in marginal weather because the local medical facilities will be unable to cope if it all goes horribly wrong.

Precisely. Rampant political correctness.

If ego's are taken out of the equation then accidents will be minimised. However, when you have people telling us that it all went swimmingly AFTER the event and telling doctors to buzz off it appears those ego's are still in play.

Certainly one ego appears to be still in-play... There is little to be gained endlessly 'Monday Quaterbacking' the decisions made in this circumstance. The event was handled appropriately by all concerned, with the only dissension after the fact by a medical professional's ill-considered media comments. It was a political ploy!!! lowerlobe, simply give it up. Your position is comprehensively debunked. Stop trying to defend the indefensible.

22nd Jun 2007, 09:04
So your telling me that the doctors comments were just a ploy to get better medical facilities in Blenheim......


Yeah OK Doctor

Ohh hang on I've got a stitch from laughing so hard....

22nd Jun 2007, 09:17
lowerlobe: you are a fool. I trust those few words are sufficiently short that you can understand them without misinterpretation or misrepresentation?

Nowhere have I suggested any such thing, other than the medical profession in NZ are particularly adept at manipulating public opinion via the media to suit whatever political end is their current 'flavour of the month'.

May I suggest that stitch go in your lip?

Blue Line
22nd Jun 2007, 10:11
This post seems to be going around in circles. Sure the medical facilities at WB aren't great but given the choice WB was the winner easy on that day.

I went over WB & Welly a couple of hours later & WB didnt have a cloud in the sky and hardly any wind.

Welly on the other hand was a typical Wellington day, I dont remember the wind off the top of my head but the cloud was certainly down enough to make you do at least the ILS.

Surely as profession pilots we know that as some of you other guys have said is certainly abnormal but by landing at woodbourne they certainly minimmized the risk than landing at Wellington that day.

Now if it had actually been a nice day at wellys, it could of been the better option. But I certainly would of done the same as the lads did with the weather conditions around that day as goign to wellington would of increased the risk alot more. But also another option that no one has mentioned, that I would certainly consider above wellington is Palmy. They have good hospitals and the runway is good aswell. Its just nomally the weather there is worse than wellington.

22nd Jun 2007, 18:48
Interesting stuff for sure...and as brofessional pilots,we are required to take all factors into account and that men would also include the opinions of the medical profession....they do not have Capts Authority but their opinions are valid input...whether you agree with them of not...

There is no reason for us not to listen to any of this....if in fact this situaton had turned to custard we would now be debating its very merits....the way in which it was presented(medical comments) has most of us thumbing our noses up at these jokers......it actually in the long run,I believe is a valid concern when "we" divert or go into an airport under emergency authority....is this landing going to be a "precautionary" ldg...where the outcome has minor consequences or is it an "emergency" ldg where the outcome is unknown.

Anytime Ive have an emergency its either one of the other....obviously...but in saying that....all factors must be considered and assesd unless time is of the essence and the bitch has to be put down now!!!

When diverting due to medical/other emergencies....one does not land at the nearest airport,you land at the most suitable airport....one that enhances your chances of a favourable outcome.....this, I believe in this situation was why the decision was made..... PB

22nd Jun 2007, 22:29
Not sure if this was covered as the thread is so long.the 1900's gear has 3 lines to each leg, 2 down 1 up, the 2nd downline is attached to the manual pump. the standard procedure for gear up is if NLG is unlocked land gear down if one MLG is unlocked land gear up to avoid digging in a wing. The gear is held in the up position by hydraulic pressure augmented with the accumulator. Landing gear is held in the down position by overcentre on the leg braces, and internal locking pins in the actuators. Motor shutoff occurs in the gear up position by a pressure switch that actuates @ approx 2775, and will cycle on at approx 2320, and in the down position by all 3 downlock mechanisms in series switches off the motor the gear motor will run until all gear are down/locked or by a 16 sec timer. Gear indication come from downlock mechanism/wheelwell switches and overcenter switches on the drag braces. If I missed anything please feel free to point it out. Flightsafety manual pg 15-4 1994 edition

23rd Jun 2007, 22:24
Can't understand the continued debate - it's a no-brainer. The crew did exactly the right thing, probably in consulation with plenty of other people. There are more than enough medical facilities in and around Woodbourne to handle the small number of people at risk, and other hospitals within easy flying distance. I'm sure the airfield would have been on full alert with more than enough resources standing by.

So many people are hell-bent on turning a drama into a crisis. It's like those who think that bits of prop might have penetrated the cabin... complete nonsense. With the engine at near enough to flight idle, the prop blades were always going to be going mostly backwards - the PT6 is a free turbine and so not nearly enough inertia to put a blade through the fuselage, especially a composite blade at idle.

As for the reasons to not choose Wellington, the only logical one is that it would have closed the airport for some time, quite unnecessarily. And maybe the possibility of more turbulence. The idea that the 1900 might somehow have either gone off the end of the runway, or so far off the side that it would have been anywhere near the airport fence, is far-fetched in the extreme...

Sorry, I wasn't commenting on you grammer

Does that mean we can't comment on your spelling...? Damn... ;)

25th Jun 2007, 00:19
I'll have to disagree. if you lose your centre/tfb what a/s should be held?

25th Jun 2007, 00:26
..shall we fetch the boxing gloves then???...........(my moneys on Sir Pratt)

26th Jun 2007, 02:23
180 kias as you will lose control/indications.
Flightsafety diagram 15-19 the only "shuttle valve" that can be seen is the hand pump dump valve. this opens with the first couple pumps with the emergency extension handle, allowing fluid trapped in the uplines to vent back to the power pack. the hand pump then pressurizes the emergency downlines. Oh the slower you are during emergency extension the easier it is to extend the nosegear
Will have to paraphrase the book but
1. reduce speed to 180 kts or less
2. pull landing gear motor relay cb
3. gear handle down
4. pump approx 80-100 strokes until gear indicates 3 green
* if gear will not lock down, pump until additional resistance is felt, do not stow handle, on final/landing continue pumping till pressure felt and down locks can be installed
That said I think we're both on the right track and though we both speak the queen's own, we may not speak the same language. I maybe wrong I've only got 6K on the bird

26th Jun 2007, 05:41
6000 hours on that thing... gawd... :yuk::yuk::yuk:

26th Jun 2007, 10:47
the only thing missed was the presence of a shuttle valve in the manual extension line, which needs one pump of the handle to overcome.

Rumour has it that the thronomister was not actuating the sphetzner valve with the correct sequence of ones and zeros!

26th Jun 2007, 11:08
Unfortunately the Pax seat on the other side of that dent is a write-off. They will never get the smell out of it.

26th Jun 2007, 23:27
my turn to call b-llshit. Don't know the FTL's in NZ but pretty sure even at 1200/yr that's more than 2 years. BTW welcome to Canada where 1000 hrs get's you a right seat caravan. Pilot shortage my arse. I guess from what you say the reservoir was cracked below the standpipe? Nice!!! Any Pix of the Damage can we expect an AD/SB

27th Jun 2007, 00:01
my turn to call b-llshit

Not so fast, piggy. You are making the dangerous assumption that sir.pratt is pilot... as opposed to, say, a ginger beer...

BTW he is right about the sometimes simplistic nature of pilot training notes. You can only understand how a system really works if you examine the maintenance manual system diagrams...

I always used to borrow a copy of the parts manual if I really wanted some in-depth info. Engineers are always throwing them away as updates arrive (usually on CD these days). you just need a copy of the reading software (such as Sapphire). Can be quite enlightening.

J Smith
27th Jun 2007, 01:56
Aircraft registration ZK EAK

27th Jun 2007, 23:54
Capt Craig in Freedom F/O Lance now Beach 1900 in the Sandpit somewhere.

28th Jun 2007, 03:39

29th Jun 2007, 03:26
yeah mate...looking at the video....the boys did well...:ok:

after 5 tuis....the boys did very well..:ok:

after 10 tui,s....the boys did extremely well indeed...:ok:

beautiful profile,on speed.....and the AOA on touchdown was nothing more than perfect.....

....wheres my sword...seems like a knighthood in in order

well done fellas..well done!!!!!

1st Jul 2007, 06:04
Talking to someone in the know yesterday, the aircraft is expected to be out for about 3 months, and are using Vincent Aviation AND Air National AND a Dash8(Sunday evenings only) to help out while the B1900 is being repaired. This is the second wheels up landing that I've witnessed at WB

6th Jul 2007, 19:14
you boys down country are keen putting photos on the net of the damage, can't imagine all being happy about it.

8th Jul 2007, 19:49
Quote....."to help out while the B1900 is being repaired."

well if this thing is going to be repaired rather than turned into tui cans...then the damage looks worse than it really is????

flew the A/B models.... I know they can take a bit of a pounding.... be interested to hear from the jokers that take the first flight to see how "twisted" she really is...

8th Jul 2007, 22:18
According to the internal Friday Flyer recently, EAK has been checked and passed on her alignment and is expected back on the line mid-late august.


Sir Pratt, has the GM-elect traced those photo's back to you yet?? A very subtle dig about un-authorised picture posting and blogging the previous friday flyer... have the hounds picked up the scent???