Aircraft down in Canley Vale

[Trojan1981]

Just on Sunrise, crashed in a school.

I hope all are Ok. It doesn't look good:(

Edit: Two confirmed dead.

[Power]

both people on board reported deceased...

[Barry Bernoulli]

The guy in the traffic chopper on Sunrise claims that they heard the aircraft on the radio being offered a choice of Richmond or Bankstown for recovery. That is inconsistent with the EFATO theory.

[bizzybody]

according to webtrak, the aircraft got the richmond and turned around to come back..... pa31

[Trojan1981]

Just been informed it was Airtex. Poor blokes.:(

[tiger19]

according to webtrack, PA31 for YBAF, condolences to the family of the deceased.

[Jabawocky]

PA31........Both Engines failed?:hmm:

[OhForSure]

Can confirm it was an Airtex Chieftain. RIP.

[bentleg]

According to ATSB -
The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) was advised of an aircraft accident involving a Piper Aircraft Mojave aircraft, registered VH-PGW, this morning. The aircraft had two pilots on board and had recently departed from Bankstown Aerodrome, New South Wales. The pilot reported to air traffic control that the aircraft had sustained an engine failure and would be returning to Bankstown. Shortly after the aircraft impacted terrain in the vicinity of Canley Vale Road and Sackville Roads, Canley Vale Heights.

------


Just been informed it was Airtex.

I think it was Airtex that operated the Metro VH-OZA that went in (for as yet unresolved reasons (http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2008/AAIR/pdf/AO2008026_InterimFactual.pdf)) off Mascot in April 2008.

[Trojan1981]

One Pilot and one passenger. Male and female. A horrible situation.
:(

[das Uber Soldat]

I knew the pilot and I think everyone knew the nurse.

This is just no good.

[I spy]

Herald Sun website now says "NSW Ambulance spokesman confirmed a single death and said five children were taken to Liverpool Hospital with minor injuries and shock."

Still not good :{

[steve-sydney]

Sydney Plane Crash | Canley Vale | Two Dead (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/we-have-to-put-it-down-on-the-road-pilot-tells-control-seconds-before-fatal-crash-20100615-yasn.html?autostart=1)

This link has a recording of the pilot talking to Sydney radar. Not sure if it is appropriate to post it here. If so, please remove.

[Annihilannic]

Is it a freaky coincidence that this is the very plane pictured on Wikipedia as an example of a Mojave, or were there very few of the 50 manufactured still flying:

Piper PA-31 Navajo - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31_Navajo)

:sad:

[DUXNUTZ]

Sucks. Thought with the colder weather just maybe it would buy you some time to ditch. A pa31 with one inop is one thing but wasn't this reported as a mohave? I thought Mohave's had turbines on them????

[GAFA]

No turbines just pressurisation.

[Barry Bernoulli]

Navaho, Chieftan, Mohave, all PA-31 variants.

Mohave is PA-31P-350.

[Toruk Macto]

Just heard the tape of the radio calls and he sounded calm , looks as he nearly got to the field. If 1 POB then at that weight, on 1 eng ????? Tragedy.

RIP

[RatsoreA]

The mojave also has a different wingspan and is heavier.

My thoughts go out to the families of those involved and those at Airtex.

[The Green Goblin]

Can someone PM me the name of the Pilot if available? I have friends there :{

Not another one......

GG

[rioncentu]

Also just heard the recording of what was presumably the live ATC feed available over the net.

These are a bit of interest to listen to normally but man when something like this is out in the public domain it is very sobering indeed.

May they rest in peace.

Condolences to the families involved.

[Engineer_aus]

Sydney Plane Crash | Canley Vale | Two Dead (http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/we-have-to-put-it-down-on-the-road-pilot-tells-control-seconds-before-fatal-crash-20100615-yasn.html?autostart=1)

Recording on the link provided.

[sms777]

I know lots of people at Airtex and one of my close friends normally flies that Mojave is not answering his phone :{
Could someone please PM me at least the initials of the pilot involved

RIP

[aditya104]

Airtex Aviation general manager Dieter Siewert said the pilot, Andrew Wilson, 28.....................

[aviator777]

Just heard the tape of the radio calls and he sounded calm

True to his style and character.

A great staff member, and friend.

I am in disbelief

[The Green Goblin]

Thanks to all those who pm'd me, my fears were confirmed........

Great bloke, very professional, he had an air of seriousness about him in a kind and gentle way. Always did a good job when thrown in the deep end. To say we are all shocked is an understatement.

If only he had gotten that phone call when they said they were going to call, he may not have been flying for that company this day. Those who knew him will know what I am talking about.

I can't believe your phone is still ringing. I shudder to think where it is :{

If your last actions are the reason why the kids are still with us, then good job mate.

Another name in my logbook that has gone to the big sky to fly forever.

[Capt Kremin]

Obviously a terrible tragedy. I guess the obvious question is what happened that would stop a lightly loaded twin, flying on a cold morning, from being able to maintain altitude?

I can only think of one thing, but best not to feed any journalistic trolling I suppose. Just a terrible day for friends and relatives.

[VH-XXX]

From Airliners.net (C) Phil Vabre

http://cdn-www.airliners.net/aviation-photos/middle/4/3/7/1289734.jpg

[Homesick-Angel]

700 people a year die worldwide in aeroplane accidents, 3000 a day worldwide on our roads. Keep it in perspective.

Well said GG..

I too have listened to the recording, and everybody involved before during and after the incident should be congratulated and commended on the professionalism shown.
I cant imagine how hard it must be to continue on working efficiently after such an incident.

[markis10]

Mojave is a piston version of the Cheyenne to answer the earlier question re Turboprop.


As an Ex BK controller my thoughts are with all involved.

[Kermit750]

No Speculation guys, sounds like he did a hell of a job and almost got it down safe. Its a hell of an aircraft to fly with two runningm let alone one. He certainly had his work cut out and seemed bloody well composed.

You almost pulled it off mate. So sorry it went pear shaped. Hats off!

[multi_engined]

I suggest we stop speculating about what caused the crash and let the air investigators do their job and wait for their report.

A great pilot has been lost and I cannot help to imagine the tragedy this has brought especially to four young childeren. RIP.

[ZEEBEE]

Multi-Engined

A great pilot has been lost and I cannot help to imagine the tragedy this has brought especially to four young childeren. RIP.

Agreed. A tragedy in every way.


I suggest we stop speculating about what caused the crash and let the air investigators do their job and wait for their report.

That's what this forum is for...pontificating will not stop it.
It doesn't look like the investigators will have much to work with, sadly.

[VH-XXX]

I haven't read any speculation yet!

I'd be surprised if anyone had anything that could be relevant anyway without being there.

[EJECT EJECT]

I'm not normally one to post in this type of thread unless I know the pilot involved, but listening to the radio replay from the flight I felt compelled to say that the way in which this pilot conducted himself in an extremely trying and dangerous situation was exemplary. Regardless of any speculation or implication, it is obvious this pilot was a true professional.

Sometimes it all just goes against you.

My condolences to all involved.

EJ

[Tidbinbilla]

Yes, and folks this is a thread to share information about the crash. Please do not treat this as a condolence thread.

TID.

[The Truckie]

Sad day for the friends and family.

Isn't it time that professional flying was now done in safer, newer turbine machines rather than clapped out heaps of junk that should have been retired 10+ years ago. Everyone that flies them know that there is no performance left in these airframes when performance is needed in the heat of an undesirable situation.

[Ultralights]

Would YHOX have been an option if it were not a construction site it is now?

[Lancelot37]

Two believed dead in light plane crash in Canley Vale | The Daily Telegraph (http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/light-plane-crashes-into-home/story-e6freuy9-1225879735383)

[bushy]

Truckie
What information is that statement based on? Do you have evidence of this?

[Xeptu]

I remember when the Mojave was introduced into OZ, I thought at the time it was an impressive machine, but never got the opportunity to fly one and dont know anything about it's performance capability as compared to the Chieftain. The Chieftain isnt a real flash performer with an engine out, but with two people on board and full fuel it will fly away albeit not impressively. I'm curious as I'm sure we all are as to why this aircraft didnt. Would there be any pruners out there with sufficient experience on type to make judgement between the two types performance expectations. We know in the Aero Medical game that aircraft weight can sometimes blow out a bit due to some equipment that gets carried that's not listed as part of standard equipment load. I am aware that that can be quite a surprise come re-weight time.

For now for the same loading how does the Mojave perform as compared to the Chieftain.

[rioncentu]

Interesting that on one news report tonight, one witness said the landing gear came down then it hit the wires.

The news footage made it look like a decent wide street.

Perhaps he came VERY close to pulling off a landing.

Sounds like he sure tried his hardest to do so.

[RatsoreA]

The Mojave is based on the Chieftain, with several differences.

The Mojave has a greater wingspan, and is some 500Kgs heavier empty.

Same power as a standard cheiftain, but has about 75-100Kgs higher MTOW.

The aero-med equipment installed + full fuel + crew/nurse and it is not even close to a "lightly loaded twin".

Whilst the chieftain is difficult to fly asymetrically, the Mojave is that much more again.

Just the facts.

[chode1984]

Truckie
What information is that statement based on? Do you have evidence of this?

I remember when I did my PA31 endorsement and we were doing a one engine go around, the thing was still sinking at 400 feet so we powered the other engine up to save making an unplanned landing. Horrible machines.

[NugZ]

Im not one to usually say anything but i would like to think that if i am in the same situation, i would say what the problem was or could be. You may say he didnt have time to say much but listening to the tape, i think he could have been a little more discriptive in what was happening to the aircraft. Hes a hero for not crashing into houses but i hope we all learn from this and that is if you dont say anything, no one will ever find out.

[cowl flaps]

For what it's worth, I was just looking at google maps of the area & there is an Avenel Park just to the side of his track back to BK. It appears to be be about 1000 feet from the NW to the SE corner. About the heading he was flying. Maybe landing with the legs up, it may have been long enough.

[teresa green]

Did not know this pilot, but cannot but be impressed by his demeanor and his coolness, certainly a loss to the industry and off course, new calls will be now started to get rid of Bankstown, (especially by the developers.) I never get used to the loss of fine young pilots, none of us do, and there have been too many in my lifetime. Peace young fella.

[Superfly Slick Dick]

Apparently, according to a person on the ground, the undercarriage was extended.

Godspeed Andrew, you truly have your wings now.

[The Truckie]

Any pilot that flies any big piston twin knows these are bad performers on one donk. The live engine will take you to the crash sight.
The other day I saw one of their Chieftains out and about with a chunk the size of a cc out of the leading edge of the prop.
Remember the manual of stats on these aircraft are based on brand new aircraft, new props, new donks and a very experienced test pilot at the controls.
These aircraft are well overdue to be taken over by turbine aircraft that still can deliver performance when needed.

[Wally Mk2]

It boils down to money where old twins are concerned. The cost of buying a turbine twin to replace an old clapped out '31' is so much more that it's simply not economical & the latter word is business driven. The cost of one turbine engine blown thru either poor handling or just bad luck is alone the cost of a couple of good "31's" (if they are still about).
The old 402's & 31's have done a great job & still do to some degree but there is no solution other than to close up most G/A operators than operate them to increase safety & we know that ain't gunna happen!. Now whether you believe that to be the safest option or the silliest is personal belief.
Twin turbines still hit the deck along with pretty much brand new transport cat A/C you won't stop it all together it's just that ALL A/C have their places & ALL are predicated on COST. Nobody is gunna be running around in a brand new twin turbine with 4 people just purely for safety reasons (commercial wise that is)
Sadly we shall be back here in the future to again re-visit these 'events' that come all too often.


Wmk2

[GADRIVR]

"In this day and age, in a country as wealthy as Australia, do we need to be flying fare paying pax and government contracts in 30-35 five year old piston aircraft?

The true morons in this episode and stupid waste of life are the Government arseholes that screw operators for the lowest price contracts. "

And that, in a nutshell, is why families and friends are grieving right now. Until the Mining companies, Area Health services, Large corporates and so on are made aware of the risks as well as the consequences inherent in travelling in the clapped out old moll we call the "piston engined fleet" here in this country, it will continue to happen on an ever increasing basis.

Nasty business.

As an aside, me and a few workmates have been approached by the usual suspects to give comment on the accident. Didn't say much to them however I must admit that the media types were very respectful and unobtrusive in speaking to ourselves and others around the field.
Amazing!

[hadagutful]

Well said Owen Stanley......I do detect some anger and frustration and well justified, this government and previous have treated GA with contempt and it's about time they realised the value of this sector of aviation. They bleed the industry with useless over regulation and impose totally unnecessary costs.

It is just disgusting that aviation is now buried in some mega department and not given the economic importance it deserves. It has devolved from the days of DCA and when it was a distinct department.

Anyway, condolences to the families of the deceased, another sad day for aviation.

[Kwod]

SPOT ON GADRIVR. There should be an education program to agencies and the general public on the performance (or lack there of) of older aircraft and let them make their own decisions.

[buggaluggs]

With all due respect to those who have past on.

Unable to make the rwy from 12 miles and 1500', with 2 on board..... Hmmmm... sure the Mojave is not a sparkling performer on one donk, but that should be doable. Methinks there's more to the story than meets the eye ... And yes I have flown them.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

The Chieftain isnt a real flash performer with an engine out, but with two people on board and full fuel it will fly away albeit not impressively. I'm curious as I'm sure we all are as to why this aircraft didnt.

I'm sure the accident at East Point, Darwin, last year is a good example of FAR 23 aircraft not performing well when away from STANDARD CONDITIONS, which is what they are certified under. As pointed out by other posters, these aircraft are certified when new and with test pilots doing the job.

It is not until you move onto FAR 25 design regs that PERFORMANCE, not control, is guaranteed.

[TBM-Legend]

another fine chap lost and please don't forget the other crew member. [mother of four].

The industry race to the bottom has been driven by government and bigger company contracts all based on the lowest price without any regard to what has been purchased.

Bank runners/night freighters [light]/general charter all required to operate 20-30 year old clunkers...to meet the price model.

Wake up chaps the answer is in our hands if we don't continue to underbid.

RIP those poor soles...

[Kermit750]

Buggalugs,

Where does your height and distance come from? Sounds specific enough that you know where the failure occured?

Ive been looking at the maps trying to think how things went. Even if he faced a total loss of one... considering he would not have been much higher than 1000' outbound from Bankstown? Height loss in the initial clean up and 180 degree turn. The site is within 3 miles of Bankstown. I imagine he was only losing 100 feet a minute, at most.

With my modest Mojave experience, I would think he did a damn fine job even if he had partial power on one. He was just so agonizingly close.

How many losses have Airtex had, now? Was the YSSY Metro the last?

[Air Ace]

"The industry race to the bottom has been driven by government and bigger company contracts all based on the lowest price without any regard to what has been purchased."

An absurd statement really. All purchasing contracts - building construction, supply of parts and equipment, supply of transport services etc - are based on the lowest price, whether Government or private enterprise.

If you have a problem with the age, quality or performance of the Australian GA fleet, take it up with the operators, most of whom happily indulge in a race to the bottom, selling a commodity for less than it's cost.

I've seen far older commercial GA aircraft operating in the USA, UK, Europe and New Zealand.

Obviously that particular aircraft had performed perhaps thousands of departures previously without the same result. How about you leave the technical investigation with those competent to comment at the ATSB?

"ok, is there any pilots out there who think pa31s perfomance on one engine is safe?"

Another absurd statement. You think this is Australia's first engine failure in a PA31? Also, I don't believe the ATSB has yet determined this accident is the result of a single engine failure?? If it was an engine failure I'm inclined to think the pilot would have declared the failure in his transmissions? (I have not listened to the tapes, nor am I interested in speculation.)

[buggaluggs]

Kermit

If you listen to the LiveATC recording, he calls " 12 miles to run, and 1 thousand 5 hundred' " and is told to join straight in for 11. Assuming he doing around 120kts, all he needs is a sink rate less than about 250 ft/min. But sadly it sounds like it was higher, and he was out of height just over 5 minutes later..:(

[muffman]

The engine let go at 7 grand N of YSRI. Turned direct BK upon the failure.

[Kermit750]

Roger Buggs,

I only heard the ATC extracts from Tele. Great to hear him so composed. Didnt care to hear much more of that.

Sad stuff.

[wombat_keeper]

Its been obvious for many years that there needs to be well directed investment in renewing the nations G.A fleet.
Government departments and private enterprise systematically screwing down GA operators have had their part in shaping the industry into what it is today.
However that being said what's stopping operators from getting together and actively standing up for, and working towards a better future ?
Where was AFAP or AOPA today reassuring the traveling public and dismissing the ridiculous comments aired by the media ?
If this was a road transport accident the transport workers union would be defending those involved from trial by media.
You so called captains of the industry need to pull your head in and understand
that without a united stance you'll achieve nothing.

[Air Ace]

Government departments and private enterprise systematically screwing down GA operators have had their part in shaping the industry into what it is today.

Same happens in every industry, building, hospitality, retail, engineering etc. It is part of commerce world wide. I don't see those industries in decline? :confused: :confused:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re post no. 64.........

Too many questions forming here........And yes, it is very sad.

(Post referred to renumbered - as some appear to have been removed)
The question is - Why not YSRI or even Schofields I wonder? Were they not visible due fog?

[GADRIVR]

"The industry race to the bottom has been driven by government and bigger company contracts all based on the lowest price without any regard to what has been purchased."

"An absurd statement really. All purchasing contracts - building construction, supply of parts and equipment, supply of transport services etc - are based on the lowest price, whether Government or private enterprise."

Air Ace,
Not an absurd comment at all. I've been involved in tendering government contracts outside of aviation and a lot of the time price is not the major consideration.
However with Fixed Wing Non Emergency transport, a lot of the time there is no contract per se but rather a "preferred supplier" or "approved supplier" status... sometimes. Price (as you've correctly asserted) seems to indeed be the major driver in deciding who gets those gigs.

"If you have a problem with the age, quality or performance of the Australian GA fleet, take it up with the operators, most of whom happily indulge in a race to the bottom, selling a commodity for less than it's cost."

Dunno about "happily indulge" mate! All of the decent operators would love to have modern turbines performing the job. A few are actually pursuing that option as we speak however they are running up against other operators who really do ride the ragged edge financially as it were. I'd predict though that over the next few months, regardless of the accident investigation result, you'll see small jets starting to replace the pistons. Small steps eh?

"How about you leave the technical investigation with those competent to comment at the ATSB? "

Fair and correct comment. However if you're been around this particular segment of the industry you'd have noticed a distinct ground swell of opinion that is of the view that turbines are the way to go. Not much more expensive on a trip by trip basis but a heck of a lot safer and efficient. If this awful situation leads to a sea change... good.

I'd just like to go to work and operate an aircraft that isn't the same age as me. Not asking too much is it?:ok:

[Kermit750]

Just as in any other industry, a customer will always go for the cheapest option. Especially if they are ignorant to the quality of each suppliers product. Naturally Competitors will drop prices incrementally until either they win the majority of the market, there competitors go broke, or in the case of G.A. all operators go broke together.

Australia has about 5 major hubs with 5 different price schedules for the same work. Why do some operators maintain high prices, still get the work, and in turn maintain aircraft better than the next guy and enjoy better safety records.

It cant happen overnight, but wouldnt it be nice if everyone got together and said if you want to hire a light piston in this country you will have to pay. Im sure Turbines would become an option then.

But of course, we would all struggle to spend our Airline Level Salaries and I would be as Naive as ever.

[GADRIVR]

Always nice to dream Kermit....... you're halfway there then!

[wombat_keeper]

I hear what your saying air ace.
Yet i think its fair to say that the industries you have mentioned aren't quite the same as aviation.
For a start they are day to day easily seen and understood by the average person , the retail sector for instance is the largest employer in the nation and well represented by industry groups and various levels of government intervention.
Retail is seen to carry financial and political clout.

Aviation on the other hand is the complete opposite.

As can be seen by the ridiculous comments and opinions that the average joe's of this world including journilists see fit to make.
Anyone with a passing interest in aviation knows the unique challenges facing the future of G.A.

My question is why is there no unity amongst G.A operators to stand up to the government like other industries do ? :ugh:

[aditya104]

Would YHOX have been an option if it were not a construction site it is now?


http://archive-server.liveatc.net/ysbk/YSBK-Twr-Jun-14-2010-2200Z.mp3
Audio link from liveatc.

[Sunfish]

No one sells safety. No government has any interest in any form of aviation other than RPT, except as a source of tax revenue or land for property development.

My sympathies are also with the company and all its staff who will now be put through the wringer in a CASA audit.

[Rich-Fine-Green]

While i'm not going to speculate on the flying merits of a PA31 on one engine...

ON the subject of getting more modern aircraft into Australia;

A change in the Tax depreciation for aircraft for go a long way towards encouraging investment in new aircraft.
The current rate is 10%.
33% would generate some outside investment in newer aircraft.
(The USA currently has 70% first year depreciation).

[Air Ace]

GADRIVR

The move to GA turbine aircraft began many years ago - it is not some new innovation. From my 40 plus years in the aviation industry, I clearly recall the introduction of Twin Otter, Bandeirante, Metro, Mitsubsihi, Aerocommander, Cessna and other turbine and turbo jet aircraft from the early 1970s.

People with short memories seem to suggest only twin piston engine aircraft are involved in accidents similar to yesterdays accident. My memory of the last two similar accidents discussed on these forums involved a Westwind at Norfolk Island and a Brasilia in Darwin.

I suspect there is little difference in the accident record of twin piston engine aircraft, versus twin turbine powered aircraft, considering the hours and sectors flown, despite generally a difference in pilot experience levels between piston engine and turbine powered aircraft.

I'll wait for an informed, competent report from the ATSB before drawing any conclusions.

The USA currently has 70% first year depreciation

And despite a significantly larger GA industry and a regulator whose mandate includes promotion of aviation, the US air charter industry is still full 30 plus year old of round engine Beech 18s, DC3s, DC4s, and Queenairs, Cessna 400 series, Piper twins etc.

[Jabawocky]

Agreed Air Ace

This could be a perfectly healty specimen, only to be taken out by something simple....like 50% JetA1 in the tanks.......or any number of otherwise crazy things. Iced up fuel vents, bugs in fuel vents....who knows how many things could get you airborne and slowly cripple your performance.

Was YSRI fogged in or something? No doubt he considered it and believed he could make YSBK with no problem.

With 7000' from Nth of YSRI, why would it not make it overhead YSBK at a good height on one engine? ATC would give him the airspace.

A few things not adding up here.

J:sad:

[Dogimed]

With 7000' from Nth of YSRI, why would it not make it overhead YSBK at a good height on one engine? ATC would give him the airspace.

Good point.

Would he have decended as per normal requirements for entry into BK?


Dog

[GADRIVR]

Air Ace,
I've not drawn any conclusions at all in relation to Andrew and Kaths unfortunate demise. You're perfectly correct, leave the investigation and conclusion drawing to the experts.

I'd put forward the notion, that if a patient had been onboard, the noise levels would be one hell of a lot louder from the media, general public and government sectors.

I've flown this type of work before. I can tell you quite confidently that both myself and my workmates aren't overly thrilled flying these museum pieces... period.

There's no need for them to be in the air anymore. The reasons as to why we aren't flying more modern hardware have been covered in other posts.

These aircraft don't cut the mustard climbwise assymetrically. They don't cut the mustard maintenance wise. They are rubbish.
I'm gathering from your posts that there's no good reason for getting these aircraft removed from the industry.
I disagree.. strongly.

[Looking]

"Quote:
700 people a year die worldwide in aeroplane accidents, 3000 a day worldwide on our roads. Keep it in perspective.

Well said GG.."

The moment we accept 700 deaths per year as ok, will be the moment we loose the concept of safety. We must strive to achieve 0 deaths, 0 injuries and 0 incidents. Only those statistics should be seen as being accecptable. We should never compare injury statistics to make them sound good or accecptable, only ever compare them to 0 deaths, 0 injuries and 0 incidents. Then you have it "in perspective".

[The Green Goblin]

Every aeroplane has a place in the industry.

The Piper PA31 series has proved itself many times throughout it's long history. You can't go on a witch hunt against all of the series because of this. It's akin to killing all the great whites after a human attack. I enjoyed my time in them, I also always had a what if up my sleeve and a plan c.

Flying aeroplanes is about risk management. Perhaps there are things Andrew could have done better given hindsight, perhaps the engineers could have tried harder, perhaps the operator could have spent the extra money on that non essential maintenance, perhaps, perhaps. You could go around in circles all day. In aviation as a Pilot in these aeroplanes you need to make a decision straight away in a situation like this and hope it's the right one. You don't have the luxury of sitting on your hands with guaranteed performance and a second crew member to run the PILOT model. There is no what if, you run with it and make it work. You're either drinking beers that night, or your mates are.

I'm looking forward to the report so I can understand what happened. It's a bloody shame these aeroplanes don't have FDRs and CVRs as the feeling I get from some of these accident reports on GA aeroplanes are based on what the investigator would like to assume happened, to keep everything tidy in their own mind.

It's pretty easy to draw conclusions from the initial facts we have, we also know a PA31 won't maintain 7000 feet on one engine so a drift down was assured. We also know you are going to be working pretty hard in one of these aeroplanes if you have an EFATO prior to the 4th takeoff segment. Lightly loaded it should have got it's wits approaching around 3000 feet to a very manageable sink rate.

Let's also remember that that second engine on a piston twin is not a get out of jail free card. (it's usually sold to the general public as such) It gives you options and most of the time extends your glide to somewhere suitable to land. You can't expect something from it that it was not designed for and then be upset when the inevitable happens. Such is the nature of the beast.

The report will be interesting reading.

[Air Ace]

Air ace, this guy was clearly level headed and capable of handling the aircraft on one engine. The problem is the aircraft does not have the performance on one engune.

Assuming an air worthy, serviceable PA31 of any flavour has an engine failure are you suggesting yesterday's accident is the inevitable outcome? This is not the first engine failure in a PA31 series aircraft and I am also aware of another PA31P engine failure in Australia many years ago, which had a different outcome.

Piper PA-31P-350 Mojave at Max Gross 7,200 pounds:
Rate Of Climb: 1220 fpm
Ceiling: 26500 ft
Rate of Climb (One Engine): 255 fpm
Ceiling (One Engine): 14300 ft

Sorry, but I do not accept your:
"....this aeroplane cannot perform on one engine and is dangerous."

I'll wait for the competent, authoritive ATSB report for the causal events which may have contributed to yesterdays accident. I am sure there were more issues, considerations, events or decisions involved, than a single engine failure.

[Kermit750]

Let's also remember that that second engine on a piston twin is not a get out of jail free card. (it's usually sold to the general public as such) It gives you options and most of the time extends your glide to somewhere suitable to land. You can't expect something from it that it was not designed for and then be upset when the inevitable happens. Such is the nature of the beast.

Good point... In practice. We all know, on some types the thing just wont perform on one. But every single one of their AFM's prescribe at least positive rate of climb at sea level on one, and ability to maintain 5000' on one.

I remember the PA-31 figure at MTOW is something like 50' per minute. Gear up, Configured, Feathered etc. etc. Its the perfect world scenario that rarely exists, bar at the Piper test field on the day of manufacture. The Mojave (PGW included) always felt damn sluggish, even on two.

When doing Initial Multi Training or specifically Chieftain Endorsements, I'd always encouraged guys to look at the reality, that one engine at weight in a Chieftain is deadly and a controlled, forced landing straight ahead, beats an attempt to demonstrate the theory that light twins fly on one every time.

As twin pilots we get rammed with all the theory of Assymetric Flight, and quite often forget the practicality of the aged machines we fly around Aus. I dont know where the answer lies but I hope we can all learn something out of this tragic accident.

[The Green Goblin]

this aeroplane cannot perform on one engine and is dangerous

So by that rational all single engine aeroplanes are dangerous too?

As for making decisions straight away, you need to get that idea out of your head, quick decisions only if you have to but if you have time to sit on your hands then you should do.

An engine failure in a piston twin is an act now affair and i'll defend that. If you errr you are losing time you could be acting towards a recovery.

There is a time and a place for sitting on your hands (multi crew jet/turboprop ops) minor system failures in piston aeroplanes etc. This wasn't one of them. Press the nearest airfield function of your GPS, pick the closest and most suitable airfield and go there quickly! This was what I am implying if you read into my post.

[ga_trojan]

If CASA want to get serious they should ban IFR piston engine charter.The only reason that these aircraft keep flying is because companies are allowed to fly them by the government. It is ultimately about money. Piston twins are the cheapest form of transport available. If they were no longer available, people would be forced into a Kingair, which is safer.

I remember coming home fuming one day after flying a bunch of mining folk around in a good condition but 30 year old piston twin. These guys had just come back from a trip to China. Curious about the GA scene over there I ask them what aircraft they chartered in China. 'Oh we usually get a Learjet' was the reply. This is coming from a company who haggles about price regularly I ask why then when in Australia do these same people fly around in piston twins. 'Oh because in China that's all that's available.'

Yet here we were in Australia, working in a multi multi billion dollar industry, spinning the roulette wheel when these guys could easily afford a kingair, and only flew in a piston twin because it was cheap and were allowed to fly.

How many more charter piston twins do we need to crash in this country before we start looking at moving the GA industry into the 21st century?

[Air Ace]

How many more charter piston twins do we need to crash in this country before we start looking at moving the GA industry into the 21st century?

Or more likely, look closely at operator philosophy, maintenance standards and most importantly, pilot training?

It may surprise you ga_trojan, but I suspect the King Air statistical accident record in Australia is not much better, and possibly worse than the PA31 series, comparing the number of airframes that have operated here.

Without giving Australian King Air fatal accidents too much thought, I remember King Air 200 at Adavale; King Air 200 into the sea wall at Sydney; King Air 200 VH-SKC that flew itself across Australia and the King Air C90 at Toowoomba. I'm sure there are a number more that have slipped my mind.

[GADRIVR]

Air Ace... those points too. But at the end of the day, it's about the aircrafts ability to do the job when the crud hits the fan. Bit pointless quoting book figures when they were only relevant decades ago

I would ask this question of you and others. Would you be willing to put your loved ones on a Mojave this morning?

Me personally... nope. Call in the RFDS or AMBOs.
By the way... you seem to be slipping into conjecture about the cause of the accident. Just a thought.
:ok:

[Air Ace]

Would you be willing to put your loved ones on a Mojave this morning?

Yes.

...you seem to be slipping into conjecture about the cause of the accident.

Nope. Just keeping an open mind until an authoritive Report is published.

[MTOW]

I'm not familiar with the Mojave. Can anyone say whether its engines have fuel injectors or carbys?

[ZEEBEE]

Whilst I think that PA31 Nevergo is intrinsically dangerous with the single gear driven magnetos, something here doesn't stack up.

From 7000 ft Nth of RI the options should have been pretty comfortable unless RI was fogged out (which does happen).

In fact, if he had an engine out near RI, he was actually REQUIRED to put down at the closest suitable airport and that would have been RI I would have thought.

Certainly he was by all accounts a professional pilot and his demeanor in the last few seconds implies that, but somehow a situation that should have been manageable went sour. That's sad.

A colleague here in PH with a C404 would have been delighted to have had the same options a few years ago.

[Kermit750]

Would you be willing to put your loved ones on a Mojave this morning?

Not in a million years!

[Air Ace]

MTOW.
PA-31P-350 Mojave - Two 260kW (350hp) Lycoming TIO-540-V2AD turbocharged and fuel injected flat six piston engines driving three blade constant speed Hartzell propellers.

ZEEBEE.
At last someone is thinking.

[Kermit750]

Zeebee,

Im not sure how long you've been in the game, but Im sure you're aware how easy it is to judge someone in Hindsight. Usually a good idea to form your own opinion and let it dictate your own operating principles, but definitely not voice them like that the day after a fatal.

Ive been in exactly the same situation and I carried on to Bankstown knowing I was familiar, I had altitude and I could make a constant descent all the way to final. I back Andrews decision completely, although unfortunately the outcome was not a good one.

NEAREST SUITABLE is not quite as specificic as you may think.

[43Inches]

Assuming an air worthy, serviceable PA31 of any flavour has an engine failure are you suggesting yesterday's accident is the inevitable outcome?

Having practiced full feather shut downs in the Chieftain/Navajo I think some of these comments are pretty far from the mark. Have returned to land with one close to idle due to a prop malfunction at close to max weight. There were a number of operators who had in flight shut downs during the crankshaft plague who were able to fly to the nearest aerodrome (or further) and land. The performance is not great but it should climb, let alone maintain level. If your PA31 failed to climb or maintain altitude clean on one engine at low level there is something wrong.

Report it get it fixed before someone has a real problem and relies on that performance.

CAO 20.7.4


8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the following configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
(c) remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power;
(d) airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.

8.2 Multi-engined aeroplanes (other than those specified in paragraph 8.1) must have the ability to maintain height at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere in the configuration specified in subparagraphs 8.1 (a), (b), (c) and (d).


If it can climb at 1% it can maintain altitude at that height. If the aircraft can not achieve this at max structural weight the take-off weight must be reduced.

Light twin aircraft have a higher accident rate, piston or turbine, due to the nature of the operations.

[GAFA]

15 years ago I lost a turbocharger on the left hand engine in a PA31 (with vortex kit) on climb about 500' from RWY29 at Bankstown whilst on a Bankrun (morning DEP). With one good engine and no turbochager on the left the aircraft barely climbed. After that experience I can see losing one completely could/would give you no climb performance.

Does anyone know if the Mojave can be fitted with the vortex kit (like all other PA31's), giving it an increased take off weight?

[dogcharlietree]

I'll wait for the competent, authoritive ATSB report

Some pilots are still waiting for "the competent, authoritive ATSB"
Don't be lulled into the false assumption that because they are a government authority that they are competent. :=

competent |ˈkämpətənt|
adjective
having the necessary ability, knowledge, or skill to do something successfully

[goin'flyin]

Can anyone advise how far Nth of RIC he was when the engine failed?

I was just listening to the ATC tape archive, and his initial call on return to YSBK was "12nm to run @ 1,500ft". Seeing he was (apparently) at 7,000 when the engine let go, and it's only 22 nm straight line from RIC to BK, that seems to me to be a significant amount of height loss in not a lot of miles. The numbers just don't add up to me.

EDIT: I have never flown a Mojave, but have observed them depart BK numerous times. They do appear to confirm the "curvature of the earth" rule during the initial climb at least.

[bentleg]

Singles are safer as they glide better, land slower and don't fly in cloud.


When a single has an engine failure the pilot has only one option, look for somewhere to land. In some cases a twin pilot take the same option. There are many cases where a twin pilot has "pushed the envelope" trying to get to a field when the better option might have been look for somewhere to land. (Easy to say with hindsight)

I am talking general philosophy and am not making any judgement on this accident. I await the formal report with interest.

PS - Singles do fly in cloud.

[The Green Goblin]

Green Goblin; you are wrong.
when an engine fails you control the aircraft, carry out the emergency checklist (from memory usually) as per the aircraft's applicable manual, ie. set max power, reconfigure the airframe if applicable. When the aircraft is trimmed and checklists are complete, you then start to make decisions based on your location, performance etc. This cision process must not be unnecessarily rushed.

Singles are safer as they glide better, land slower and don't fly in cloud.

You're a twit mate, seriously think about it.......isn't it obvious you do these things? These should be done by rote.

You need to adapt to your situation. If you are nice and high and you ascertain you have a bit of margin up your sleeve do some problem solving (whilst you have made a decision to divert etc) If not i.e EFATO, do your instant recall stuff, secure it, brief the punters and get her down.

I don't want to get into a pissing contest with you, we could go in circles all day. You can blindly fly in a straight line following your checklists and playing airline pilot. I'll be pointing it somewhere safe straight away with Plan A, B and C all ready to go while I'm doing phase 2 items problem solving and taking stock.

[tea & bikkies]

As mentioned in an earlier post, things do not add up here. There had to be other factors that led to this terrible accident. It does not appear to be a clear cut case of clinical engine failure, followed by prop feathering given the dire situation Andrew was faced with. At this stage it has not been determined whether the "failed" engine was indeed able to be featherd due to the nature of the problem. Furthermore it has not been determined whether the "good" engine was developing max power, for whatever the reason. Obviously he was faced with a diabolical situation, credit where credit is due.

T&B

[elche]

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet but...

A bloke playing golf at the Fairfield golf course saw the plane fly over head at around 400ft with the right engine feathered and the left engine running rough.

I heard the bloke on 2GB. He is a pilot and aircraft owner at BK.

[K3nnyboy]

I am sure the pilot did the job with the best of his ability, knowing how stressful it'd be if it happens to myself. Proud of him cos no one was hurt on ground!!

One thing that got me though (if I get caught up in the same situation) was that even if RIC was in fog, would any of you guys consider ILS at RIC, knowing there's gonna be low vis upon arrival; with clouds being below the DA?? :rolleyes:

[capt.mofo]

Sorry - where is the report that he lost an engine? I didn't come across this anywhere - did he report this to ATC?

As for aging GA twin pistons in charter - are they safe. The immediate question has to yes. They were thought to have been at some point in time otherwise they would not be allowed to operate. Are they safer than newer modern turbine aircraft - of course not.

Do we see Kevin 747 riding pistons? Or the NSW state premier give up her chartered Twin Turbines for a Twin piston? NSW Premier Kristina Keneally slated for $4m spending spree | News.com.au (http://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-premier-kristina-keneally-slated-for-4m-spending-spree/story-e6frfkvr-1225872973282)
Perhaps if the government had to use them then the laws might be changed.

The fact is where cost is an issue the cheapest option ALWAYS wins. (Unless your an asylam seeker Private VIP jets transport asylum seekers (http://www.theage.com.au/national/private-vip-jets-transport-asylum-seekers-20100511-uuz4.html))

To those involved my deepest sympathies. And to all my fellow pilots out there be careful! Especially if the aircraft is older than you!

[capt.mofo]

Kennyboy -One thing that got me though (if I get caught up in the same situation) was that even if RIC was in fog, would any of you guys consider ILS at RIC, knowing there's gonna be low vis upon arrival; with clouds being below the DA??

No - I would take a field that I could see anyday. 200 odd feet off the deck with no vis on a single engine is not the place you want to be - EVER.

[Willie Nelson]

I used to fly these "warbirds" and I am of the thinking that once the wheels and flaps are up then you do all that you were trained to do ie.

Mixture up pitch up power up gear up flap up, dead leg dead engine etc.

But this is obviously only going to buy you some time in these antiquated beasts. It sounds like he had enough time to at least confirm that the aircraft was trimmed and set up correctly for assy. flight and when he could see this was not working he went to plan B. It just so happened that plan B unfolded over suburbia and not a racetrack as the tower suggested.

I listened to the ATC transmission and my heart broke. :(

[Mail-man]

I just caught news update where they were discussing imposing a curfew on BK 7pm to 7am. Did this tragic incident have anything to do with night ops or are these aircraft noise protestors seizing on this incident to further their cause. If that's the case they should be ashamed.

This is an awful situation, but as a twin piston driver of an aircraft older than me, it does have me reevaluating my EFATO and in cruise procedures so that events like this won't happen to me. It's just sad to need reminders like these. :(

[LegallyBlonde]

Re post #106

I too heard that call on 2GB, and another from a woman (but can't remember exactly where she was), who said she saw and heard the aircraft, one of the engines was 'spluttering' but then picked up and she thought 'thank goodness'

Agree the ATC tapes were heartbreaking. As another poster commented and I agree with her - 'seen too many young men go too soon over a lot of years'

Somewhere on the transcript Richmond was mentioned and ruled out due to fog.

Almost 30 years since working at BK, still makes me feel sick to the stomach, memories of hearing the air raid siren go and thinking, who is it, will they be ok.

Hoxton and Schofields are gone. BK looking more like a strip mall than an airport, governments won't be satisfied until there are blocks of units built between the runways.

The rot started with Whitlam and co in the 1970's, when DCA became DOT (Dept of Trucks) - overseen by a Minister who couldn't have grown a choko vine over an outside dunny.

The only good thing that Comrade Gough introduced was a 40% investment allowance so at least a few new aircraft appeared on charter and training lines.

Thoughts with the families and colleagues of those lost yesterday. :-(
'High Flight'
LB

[PA39]

The s/e performance figures are based om a NEW aircraft with NEW engines, NEW props, no flakey paint or leading edge dings, flown by a factory test pilot for certification purposes. In the real world.......forget 'em. at MAUW its usually all downhill at blue line. Plus TIO540's have had a crankshaft AD....for breakage, maybe this guy was faced with double engine failure????

[Jabawocky]

There is a time and a place for sitting on your hands (multi crew jet/turboprop ops) minor system failures in piston aeroplanes etc. This wasn't one of them. Press the nearest airfield function of your GPS, pick the closest and most suitable airfield and go there quickly! This was what I am implying if you read into my post.Yes and as I have said before, Something does not add up.

7000' over the North of Richmond you would think on one engine it would make it. However when did the second one start malfunctioning? If it was not long after Richmond even in fog flying the ILS, staying runway aligned, closing the throttle and flaring even in low to no vis beats the crash of yesterday.

Capt.mofo seems to think otherwise but a small accident on a large runway beats the suburbs every day.

Wwould need to see the METAR's, a radar trace and the whole radio chat to comment any further.

When ever I read these threads I always ask.........what would I do if faced with this.

We can't bring them back but we can learn.

[Gribble150]

"I just caught news update where they were discussing imposing a curfew on BK 7pm to 7am. Did this tragic incident have anything to do with night ops or are these aircraft noise protestors seizing on this incident to further their cause. If that's the case they should be ashamed."

I remember years ago when a modified 4wd ran over a young toddler out the front of Windsor McDonalds and was fatally injured. The media circus surrounding that ended up with modification laws being further restricted on offroad vehicles despite the fact that she could have been hit by a Mazda 121 and still been killed.

Unfortunately when people are very passionate about a particular cause they will grasp at any straw if they believe it will give them a result in their favour. The media doesnt help at all. This morning on 2ue, Steve Leibman (sp?) interviewed Dick Smith and all the questions directed to Dick had the best part of SFA to do with this particular accident. To Dicks credit I think he tried his hardest to get the right point accross but Steve just wailed on with a bunch of crap. I dont think Steve is an idiot or shock jock, more like an ill informed journo.

But lets not forget, 2 people are dead, and we all need to stop speculating on what has gone wrong, even if the ATSB, CASA and whatever other acronyms you can add to that list are incompetent at least they will have a report with hands on facts rather than a bunch of armchair experts on a 'rumour network' putting their 2 cents in. I barely have my GFPT so im in no position to comment on the scratchy details that are doing the rounds. The closest ive ever been to piloting a twin engine is sitting in the front toilet of an A320 taking a crap.

Ill wait for the accredited experts opinion first. May the world be a safer place for it.

[LegallyBlonde]

I just caught news update where they were discussing imposing a curfew on BK 7pm to 7am. Did this tragic incident have anything to do with night ops or are these aircraft noise protestors seizing on this incident to further their cause. If that's the case they should be ashamed.



What these clowns haven't considered - including Mr Jon Hillman who is STILL carrying on his crusade to close YSBK - is that the scenario isn't going to change if BK closed and the aircraft departed YSSY. EFATO is what it is. Everyone living near the airport moved there after it was an airport.

Or perhaps as someone commented this arvo on 2GB, maybe they want to build airports on an island somewhere in Botany Bay and only fly over water. :ugh:

[Wallsofchina]

Gribble, you were pretty close to piloting the 320, based on my recent experiences.

[K3nnyboy]

just listened to the recording, it's really heart breaking for me, even I don't know the pilot......just sad to see/hear a fellow in the industry get involved in trouble.

By the way, who's VH-WYS, just done a search on CASA it's a Robby 44, possible news reporter??:suspect: They were requesting to over fly the scene after the accident.

[puff]

ATN traffic chopper kenny. He took the pics that ended up in seven. When he returns to BK you can hear him ask to stay airborne to stream the pics to seven before landing.

[drop bear ten]

There are two things that a piston aircraft does not like:

Water and/or JETA1 in the fuel system. What are the refuelling arrangements at BK?


RIP

[Jabawocky]

hmmmmmmmm............ one of my concerns too. Happened before with a similar result, not always a fiery fatal, but none the less its happened before.

[Stationair8]

The Mojave was not approved for the VG kits.
The MTOW on a VG Chieftain is 3368 kgs which is the same as the Mojave MTOW.

[capt.mofo]

Jaba,

I'd like to see how you flare an aircraft in no vis with no radar altimeter, an altimeter that can be out by 75ft on a QNH that can give you at least another 30ft variable. ILS is called a precision approach for a reason - you need precise control of your aircraft to fly one. In this sad occasion and from all reports the poor pilot did not have a controllable aircraft in the sense that would be required to fly an ILS. And last time I checked richmond was suburbia.

Any pilots goal in this situation would be no casulaties - I doubt your solution would provide that.

I havn't instructed in a while now but I am sure they still teach you how to glide into a field and not how to flare off an ILS in fog on 1 or no engines.

[DUXNUTZ]

One thing that got me though (if I get caught up in the same situation) was that even if RIC was in fog, would any of you guys consider ILS at RIC, knowing there's gonna be low vis upon arrival; with clouds being below the DA??

I immedialtely thought about the ILS. Flown many an approach to minimums, well even CAT II and would take the fogged in approach. Follow the glideslope till you see something.... its an emergency after all. Get the thing on the ground. Richmond has more than enough runway.
An ILS is easy to do one inop provided you can maintain altitude to begin with.

Nobody really knows the situation in this instance and we'll have to wait for the findings of the investigation but i would have been real tempted by that piece of pavement below me if i flew over KSRI

[capt.mofo]

Sure. If you 'do' see something at the end of the approach and as a last resort. But most of sydney basin had no visability issues. I'd take a field i can see or an airport i thought I could make that had no fog reported.

[Capt Fathom]

I can't think why anyone, flying a light GA twin with an engine shutdown (and not a CAT II airliner), would contemplate an ILS in fog when they can remain in VMC and descend to a nearby airport that is VMC.

Even IFR pilots like to see where they are going!

[Miraz]

Fog shouldn't have been an issue...I was in the area half an hour or so earlier and no obvious visibility issues around YSRI that I could see.

20/20 hindsight makes Richmond look like the better plan - probably not such an easy assessment at the time, especially if multiple problems kept making the situation worse over the course of a few minutes.

My sympathies to all of those closely involved, a tragic waste.

[Jabawocky]

That depends on how bad you think the fog is compared to how good you thought your chances were at making the field with height to spare.

As it turns out a foggy ILS may have been a better option.

As for Capts' Mofo and Fathom, you no doubt have far greater experience than I do, but that does not mean that I do not have a valid option, and one that plenty of professional pilots would also elect to take.

Like those folk who had a dummy spit at the idea of descending below the minima on a GPS runway aligned (and with RAD ALT) at Norfolk .....well folks he did bust the minima in the end didn't he....and nobody remembers that.

All I say is you need to think about your options and not allways the textbook ones as they may not be the best option if a few small things go sour.

For me, fog at YAMB with an ILS or YBAF, hazy and at 8am lots of traffic on roads and houses and industrial area, or AMB with lots of paddocks and an ILS with a big runway and a chance of seeing it even if below the DA.

This is a side issue....why does a twin not make 20+ miles from 7000' with some power left? :confused:

Miraz...multiple problems making things worse....well if so and YSRI is close...go there cleared or not. If they only happened closer to YSBK, well that is bad luck in your faith of a twin, but that re-enforces the idea of nearest available...which would have been YSRI.

I am not for one minute stabbing this poor guy in the back after the event, so do not take offence, as Green Goblin and I both know of late what those close to the dead pilot feel, any of my posts here are about what would I do....and if that helps a discussion that may help me or some new youngster one day, all the better. Some good has to come from all the bad.

[Jetjr]

Guys maybe he had intermittant problems and not major failure
Engine coughs a bit, comes good, decides to return, things pick up and look OK, so plans normal approach and descent to Bankstown.
Maybe no one, including pilot, recognised how serious the problem was until well beyond Richmond and then was too late to change plans.
Maybe lost all power gradually in last few minutes.

Anyway its all speculation, very sad but we can learn from it

[Dogimed]

All I say is you need to think about your options and not allways the textbook ones as they may not be the best option if a few small things go sour.

Wise words... .. and it comes down to training and experience..



Dog

[The Green Goblin]

You can see why he went to BK, familiarity, didn't need the charts out, company base for aeroplane recovery etc etc.

If he went to Richmond no doubt the powers that be would have been a tad upset at why he couldn't fly a twin engine aeroplane to Bankstown no matter what spin you put on performance etc etc.

I just hope the investigation goes his way. It's been on my mind constantly for two days now.

Quote:
All I say is you need to think about your options and not allways the textbook ones as they may not be the best option if a few small things go sour.
Wise words... .. and it comes down to training and experience..

Dog

I agree, careful though the nazis would rather you crash reading a checklist than use some common sense!

[Howard Hughes]

This is a side issue....why does a twin not make 20+ miles from 7000' with some power left?
Based on the eyewitness accounts, shut down the wrong engine perhaps? If an engine was surging, it would be possible to misidentify the failed engine and it wouldn't be the first time.

What was the VIS like at the time? I get the feeling from the ATC tapes that there was at the very least haze, and more than likely fog/mist.

[tea & bikkies]

Thank you, and welcome to the forum....By the way, I happened to see on the news coverage this evening one of the props was featherd, evidently from eyewitness reports the other one was not running to well either.

[PLovett]

MPGiles,

PA 31 goes OK on 1

If I have correctly read the quotes from some of the witnesses to the last moments of the flight, it sounds as though there were problems with both engines.

Since I heard of this crash the one thing that has nagged me is why a PA31P with only 2 on board and probably full tanks and stretcher kit could not maintain altitude if there was only a single engine problem or failure.

However a double engine problem could well account for the outcome.

[Jabawocky]

OK...bit more info.

Fog not an issue, and yes he may have opted for familiar and avoiding the scorne of landing at SRI, but at least you can walk away saying get F:mad: under your breath.

I also feel that he may have tried to be "gentlemanly" and stay out of CTA for the last bit as the folk in Sydney seem to scare off folk so much it becomes hard not to descend early rather than arrive over the field at say 4000'. Then when he wanted more from what he had left...12 miles 1500'...he did not have it.

As for wrong engine.........good point but ohhh dear! :uhoh:

[Ultralights]

news reports tonight are bandying around fuel contamination... so might have had one shut down, and the other losing power not long after...

disclaimer, it came from a journalist...

[Pilotette]

Yeah, there definitely seems to be a belief (amongst journos) that there may have been Jet A1 involved. If this is the case, to think that such a preventable mistake could have caused the loss of 2 lives is almost unbearable.

AW, even in the short time I knew you, you were a true gentleman and professional. :(

[Grogmonster]

Well I have waited and read all of the previous posts. Here are some facts guys. I have personally experienced a total and complete engine failure in a Chieftain. It happened shortly after departure at approximately 1500 ft AGL in clear cool weather at this time of the year. I was at MTOW with 9 POB. Once I got over the shock and feathered it the aircraft flew fine at 135 KTS. I was even able to reduce power so as not to cook the remaining engine. I can confirm that it easily maintained height as in my hurry to sort things out I forgot to turn back towards the runway until approx 6 miles out. I was very lucky and I know it. Bottom line a Chieftain will fly on one. Having said that I have not flown the type concerned but as previously discussed at 7000 ft over YSRI something must have badly went wrong for it not to be able to return to YSBK.

My point is that there must have been some other contributing factor as Jabawocky pointed out. I firmly believe that this will come out in the investigation. It may have been fuel contamination, both engines. It may have been the pilot's decision to remain OCTA hence giving away valuable altitude staying under SY CTA. I suspect that was a contributing factor and if so my heart goes out to him. He was obviously a well liked professional operator and even though I did not know him I feel a deep sense of loss. I hope for his sake that we can all learn something from this once the facts come out. Fly safe guys.

Groggy

[FJ44]

Grogmonster, what elevation was your departure field?

I've had a similar experience with slightly different results.
MTOW departure, 9 POB in a PA-31 but from a field over 3000' AMSL, with a very cold OAT luckily. The engine let go at about 100 AGL and was secured and feathered by 700' AGL. From that point on the performance was not positive at all, but thankfully the RoD was only about 200 feet per min. There was no way that the aircraft was going to climb and a constant descent via the circuit back to the runway was only just possible with the gear coming out over the fence just before touch down.

Below is an incident involving a PA-31P that diverted from Young to BK after an engine failure and shutdown (at FL170) and there was plenty of performance available...

http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2005/AAIR/pdf/aair200502231_001.pdf

[The Green Goblin]

Why oh why would you try and stay under control steps when you are having engine problems?????????

6:1 profile in a PA31 will give you a TOD of 42NM at 7000 feet. I'd assume he had both the engines at a decent power setting, maybe one feathered and was aiming for the 1000 feet target. I heard him on LIVE ATC requesting immediate return to Bankstown and descent to 1000 feet. When he powered up perhaps she just kept going when the new problems presented themselves. He couldn't have been more than 20 mile out when he turned back so he would have needed 1000 feet a minute or so to get back in to Bankstown.

[Andy_RR]

The engine let go at about 100 AGL and was secured and feathered by 700' AGL. From that point on the performance was not positive at all, but thankfully the RoD was only about 200 feet per min. There was no way that the aircraft was going to climb...

That's not making a lot of sense to me, FJ. You made 500' whilst cleaning up after an EFATO, but thereafter there was no more climb rate in it? Was it falling terrain that gave you height? How did you manage to return to the field at 200' RoD?

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

Listening to that very sobering audio I must say that I do not know how the Controller managed to stay on the job in the minutes after the crash; professionalism I suppose.

Well done to him.

FRQ CB

[Jabawocky]

Its a bit different but plenty of cars/4wds have had a petrol and diesel blend in both engine types....and they run for a while, and some better than others.

Time will tell no doubt. I know of cases happening at the hunter valley and I think the whitsundays recently. So its not uncommon for the aircraft to get airborne, and if multiple tanks are used, you could get further from home.

[ftrplt]

If he went to Richmond no doubt the powers that be would have been a tad upset at why he couldn't fly a twin engine aeroplane to Bankstown no matter what spin you put on performance etc etc.


I dont think you did Green Goblin, but if you are implying the RAAF would be upset at a civvy arriving with difficulties - bollox! I hope his employers wouldn't either??

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

When I did my initial Instrument Rating I remember one of the other students going from Perth (school PH based) to Rottnest Island and shutting one of the Duchess' engines down as part of the training.

They were unable to get the engine restarted and elected to return to PH assymetric. An uneventful single engine landing was completed.

Did the PIC make the right decision? If by returning to PH and saving the company a costly retrieval we might think of the "commercial considerations" and say yes; if they'd crashed we'd all say no.

Is this the dilema which faced Andrew?

FRQ CB

[GADRIVR]

Great.... go out for a day....come home, switch on the computer and another Norfolk Island thread fiasco is starting.
Guys, have a little respect.
People who worked closely with Andrew and Kath will be reading. Keep the conjecture to a minimum eh?
There's a good chance the press will be following as well.
Mods....you lot keeping track?
:*

[remoak]

I agree with others, there is more to this than meets the eye, it just doesn't add up to me.

if there was Jet A1 in the tanks, it would have been in the bottom so hard to see how he got to 7000'.

Everyone is saying how professional the guy was. That being the case, I am wondering why he didn't shout "Mayday", state the nature of the emergency, and so on. I am also left wondering why he went for the road and not that big bit of grass, but hey, hindsight is easy and not really fair on the poor guy... but those questions must be asked.

Many are repeating the standard mantra, "wait for the report". Sure, we shouldn't jump to conclusions... but what do you seriously expect it to say? It might establish the cause of the failure(s), but it won't explain what the pilot was thinking, which is what really matters in this case. Having just got back into GA after many years in the airlines, I am struck by the lack of discipline, professionalism and experience in the GA world. Not to say that GA pilots are bad pilots, more that they simply don't have the depth of training that allows those qualities to fully develop. Some of the stuff I have seen in recent months in GA makes my toes curl. A lot of these guys are taught, or required, to cut corners - it's actually quite criminal.

That's why I wonder why he didn't just yell "mayday" and take vectors from 7000 feet. With that much altitude to play with, it shouldn't have been an issue to have made a safe landing - although it does seem that he was very unlucky not to successfully make the road.

Anyway... RIP.

[Homesick-Angel]

So a bit of the speculation so far

Fuel contamination or wrong fuel?
Pushing on due to commercial pressures?
Secondary problems happening after the initial issue and by then he was too low to recover?
Trying to Stay clear of CTA?
A mixture of all these things?

Who knows yet.

Lets face it.From all reports this guy was a fine young pilot, and you only need to listen to the tape to hear how calm he was under a stressful situation(although i never heard a mayday call on the ATC recording?)..I doubt very much that this guy would have descended below a safe height had he known the problem was that bad earlier although as already mentioned it may not have been until he tried to mantain height after the descent that he found himself in the sh1t and it is possible that a secondary issue sprung up upon trying to apply more power or with some other change of setting..

I take news reports with a grain of salt, but the Australian today had done more research than any of the others in regards to the nature of the flight etc, and in that report it was stated that he had been cleared to RI if he wanted it and that they could accept him in no probs, but at that stage he obviously didn't think that he needed it and chose the well trodden well known field..Time will tell if that's all waffle or not and if it isn't then what a crucial decision it was to push on.A decision Im sure all of us have faced at some point or another..

Its amazing how many of these situations people walk away from and then one just goes really really bad.Very sad indeed...

Not to say that GA pilots are bad pilots, more that they simply don't have the depth of training that allows those qualities to fully develop. I agree, but what your not taking into account is that the specialist training you receive in an airline is a very expensive process, and from what Ive heard it isn't that easy to start out as an airline captain and end up as a grade 3 instructor.There is a process of starting out and learning as you go on the job, and maybe there needs to be more government support to make sure all pilots going for a CPL gets the opportunity to have some of that specialist training at the governments expense, but I still think that time is the key in regards to experience.You just cant stuff 10 years of flying experiences into 2.

How would you see that training being instilled?

[Tee Emm]

Many years ago at Essendon, a Victorian Aerial Ambulance Cessna 402 lost an engine shortly after lift off. It had difficulty maintaining height and about a minute after take off it reached Vmca and flicked and spun in killing all aboard. The failed engine propeller was not feathered before impact which is probably why the climb performance was limited. The policy of the company (the chief pilot was in the accident aircraft) was all instrument rating tests and recurrent training involving simulated engine failures were conducted in the company Cessna 310. The chief pilot did not want to use the Cessna 402 because in his opinion the 402 engines needed lots of careful engine handling whereas those of the Cessna 310 were more robust. It was a cost thing.

It would instructive to know if company recurrency training in the Mojave involved asymmetric flight or if another type was used for this purpose.

[dogcharlietree]

A couple of points from an old aviator;
1) Yes, I certainly would have CONSIDERED going into Richmond. I would even consider a full ILS to touchdown. Any pilot who has not practiced an ILS in the sim (or even your home PC) to touchdown in zero viz is not fair dinkum. It is so easy to reduce your ROD at the appropriate height. It's not hard. Try it. You will surprise yourself.
Hey, You have acres and acres of FLAT ground on and around the runway.
2) I would have also implemented a drift down procedure as altitude and airspeed are imperative. Stuff the ducking under the steps crap.
3) Nobody has mentioned the infamous phrase "COMMERCIAL PRESSURE".
I can imagine that this pilot would have been hearing the words of DS saying, that he has cost the company $xxxx by landing at Richmond.
This is a very real scenario.
4) This guy tried REALLY HARD. Unfortunately, I think he may have lacked the experience necessary to make alternative decisions.

[puff]

Sadly in GA the training and procedures that the airline boys have just ain't there - when GA pilots have to deal with an engine failure - they have a better chance of it happening than on an airliner - have less performance - have to do it by themselves - and may not have practised for it for 11 months, and then not in that model or even type of aircraft. IF a pilot is to make a mistake in these circumstances - one has to ask as a 'fallible' human being - is it asking too much to expect someone to perform perfectly - when we have had so little ongoing training to deal with it - when the margins for performance are just so thin ?

Big difference between doing an initial twin in something like a light good condition low time BE58 that goes fine on 1 - do a quick endorsement on a PA31 - do your renewal on a BE58 again - then having an engine failure for real 3 years later on a heavy PA31-350P with 2 tired engines, bad paint and old props ! Imagine in an airline being endorsed on the 737 and 767 - but doing your renewal and engine failures during sim sessions on the 767 but flying the line on the 737 ?

Throw in commercial pressure as dogcharlietree of the boss going off at you because you didn't do what he might have done and you have one situation I wouldn't have wanted to be in !

[tipsy2]

I see mention here about fuel contamination and JetA1.

In the days of real aviation safety publications (the ASD) there was an article regarding the refueling confusion with JetA1 of an aircraft with "Turbo" decals on the engine cowls. It seems as though the refueller saw Turbo and thought Turbine and delivered the wrong fuel.

I believe fuel nozzles and refuelling ports were 're-engineered' so that only the correct nozzle would go into the fuel tank.

tipsy

[404 Titan]

Last time I looked an engine failure in a twin requires a diversion to the nearest suitable airport, which may not necessarily be the nearest airport. Item such as an airports infrastructure, weather, navaids/approaches, ATC, the pilot’s familiarity with the airport, etc should all be carefully considered by the pilot in command before determining the suitability of an airport for a diversion.

[Jabawocky]

Tipsy

That is correct, but I have it first hand from the Caboolture refueller...Yes I am serious, that there are many non standard (illegal?) nozzles around, including the one mentioned in my previous post.

Jet fuel contamination is a long shot, but a very real thing....still to this day.

[Trojan1981]

I don't know how much experience comes into this. It is very much decision making process. Compared to many people on this forum I do not have a lot of Piloting experience, as pre 2005 most of my flying experience was as a mil and civil aircrewman.

I don't wish to critisize the Pilot at all. I wonder whether the aircraft was intentionaly decended to 1500ft at 12 nm or was the aircraft simply unable to maintain altitude even this far out.
This would be something I imagine you would want to find out early so you ca make an immediate decision. Something like; if your aircraft is not maintaining altitude below 5000ft then an immediate landing is the way to go. If it is then stay high and proceed home, decending over the field. This gives you more options if the good engine quits.

It is such a horrible situation. There are many suitable areas to put down in an emergency in NW Sydney: YSRI, M7, Schofields, open areas of land with no powerlines. It is better to have a broken aircraft and no job than to risk dying.
For some of you more experienced PA-31 pilots out there, if you had to put down on a road (other than a motorway) would it be wheels up or down?

[Miraz]

Lots of folk seem to be speculating based on what they have heard on the Bankstown tower tape. The previous 8 minutes on the Syd Center tape provide a little more insight into the developing situation.

[Rojer Wilco]

Lots of folk seem to be speculating based on what they have heard on the Bankstown tower tape. The previous 8 minutes on the Syd Center tape provide a little more insight into the developing situation.

Where can we hear that? I'd be most interested.

For some of you more experienced PA-31 pilots out there, if you had to put down on a road (other than a motorway) would it be wheels up or down?

I'm a PA-31 driver. Would I land a PA-31 wheels up on a road? Nope.

Would I land a PA-31 on a golf course that I was flying so low over, witnesses could tell if my props were feathered? Darn tootin... BTW - Gear up, idle cut-off, full fine, master off.

I mean no disrespect to Andrew, he's sadly missed. I have little doubt he was heading back to Bankstown because of commercial pressures. Experienced pilot for his age no doubt, but maybe lacking in life experience to know when to tell the boss "I wasn't prepared to risk it" and chance having to find a new job, rather than chance having to make a distant field on one engine.

[Dogimed]

GADRIVR, spot on! Don't forget the friends who knew him well!
He was a great mate to the end, RIP A.W.

No offence to GADRIVR, Cookie7 and friends intended as I'm sure your hurting..

But please dont read the thread if it upsets you. This as was the other thread, a very valuable tool for pilots to learn some more airmanship, unfortunately at the cost of a life in this instance, but nonetheless, people more removed than you can learn by listening to honest opinions regarding possible decisions made and results obtained.

In all seriousness, after I lost a friend (pilot) a few years back, I stayed the hell away from Pprune until I was ready to read what people wrote.. Perhaps avoid these discussions until your not hurting so much.

Dog

[Miraz]

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/yssy/AU-Sat-Jun-14-2010-2130Z.mp3 - Starts 22 minutes into the recording

Edited to fix the link

[urkidnme]

****This is absolutely by no means suggestive of what may have went wrong here,simply adding into a discussion of what can occur,may be contributing to a similar situation and generally good advise......repeat,by no means has absolutely anything to do with this particular occurance****


One post touched on the topic of performance training and ongoing currency so I felt a need to add something that has been bothering me.

When a young pilot does his training there seems to be little ongoing emergency training,if any at all in some cases.
Adding to this there are also authorised testing officers out there,that conduct IFR renewals with NO assymetric checks conducted,a couple of circuits,one approach and she'll be right........I know it is being done so if youre one of those casa delegates then hang your headset up! your task is not to save the young person or his company a few $$ in aircraft time,its to save his life!
Do you care to ask them before making a decision to not risk your own butt how long has it been since they have conducted an EFATO? one in climb or cruise? do you ask if they would feel confident enough to handle that situation without all the other variables thrown in? :=
Sadly,very sadly, this is occuring and you,as the young pilots, are placed in a very dangerous situation. Its really not enough that you may be only doing these checks one a year,but to then not have done them at all for how long?
I shudder when I hear some of the stories......You have all heard the stories,you have all sat and compared renewals,you know what I am saying......
Please pay respect for the licence you have been given and get your own insurance each year by doing the checks,if the officer isnt willing then go to someone that is.If your employer insists you do it with Jo Blogg then you insist Jo Blogg do his job. This is good insurance for the company,for the industry,for your parents,for your friends,for the passengers and for you!
To get to this level you have worked soooooo hard,you have lived off 2 minute noodles,watched your other non aviation mates buy the latest holden commodore,drank the cheapest beer from cans,ate the dominos pizza on tuesdays,you deserve to get through to the next stage in life,you have earned it......goodluck young aviators! :ok:

[Desert Flower]

I'd be surprised if it made it to 7,000ft with JetA in the tanks.

VH-XXX, my thoughts exactly. While at first I did wonder about the possibilty of a misfuelling, when I heard that the aircraft had got to 7,000 & 12 miles out then that theory seems unlikely. Many years ago there was the misfuelling of a Cheiftain at Moomba - it didn't get very far off the ground before everything went pear shaped.

DF.

[emzw55]

I mean no disrespect to Andrew, he's sadly missed. I have little doubt he was heading back to Bankstown because of commercial pressures. Experienced pilot for his age no doubt, but maybe lacking in life experience to know when to tell the boss "I wasn't prepared to risk it" and chance having to find a new job, rather than chance having to make a distant field on one engine.

That's the part which made it interesting reading the SMH article i posted earlier - commercial pressures - and having to find a new job - well that article suggested he was moving on to bigger and better things soon anyway :confused:

[White and Fluffy]

It would be good to know if company recurrency training in the Mojave involved asymmetric flight or if another type was used for this purpose.

Unfortunately a lot of GA companies do not have any form of check and training or currency/type training. At most the pilot would have completed an instrument renewal in the last 12 months. If he was a casual pilot he probably had to source this himself and hence may have completed it in a small training twin. This requires little asymmetric flying and is usually conducted halfway through an approach when the aircraft is already on descent and close to the airport.

After the last few turbo prop incidents CASA has clamped down on the use of simulators for asymmetric and ongoing training. I think it is time that this philosophy flowed down into GA. There are many good, inexpensive simulators that can replicate a variety of GA twins on the market.

Most airline C&T scenarios (LOFT) place a large emphasis on the decision making processes. Unfortunately GA training seems to focus on dealing with an emergency and not the subsequent decisions. The CASA requirement to include Threat and Error Management (TEM) has gone part way to help, however, is poorly implemented by instructors. Most briefs and scenario that I have seen discussed at flying schools are based on avoiding a Threat or Error, which is part of the process. They also need to teach pilots how to make appropriate decisions after a Threat or Error has eventuated.

[aviator777]

Would also like to hear the centre frequency.

Couldn't sleep over this in the early hours of the morning, and was looking for the preceeding transcript. Couldn't find dialogue with centre but in the earlier tower tape, an aircraft was held due to.... a Chieftain returning with an "emergency". With what information are people making statements that an emergency wasn't declared?

I have faith that Andrew did his utmost, something doesn't add up, and I hope that information will be found to support this.

Andrew had the strength of character to put life before commercial factors.

[Miraz]

I've posted the link to the relevant tape, this is a rough transcript.

I've included the time of the first call on the tower frequency so that those who have heard the tower tape have some continuity in the time line.


Syd Center
7:52 - PGW - We're just turning round sir, we've got a few problems here
7:52 - Center - Everything OK?
7:52 - PGW - Not at the moment, we're just turning round to Bankstown thankyou
7:52 - Center - Roger maintain 5000ft, Richmond available if emergency conditions exist
7:52 - PGW - Standby
7:53 - PGW - We've got an engine issue, we've shut one down and returning to Bankstown
7:53 - Center - Roger, track back to Bankstown
7:54 - Center - Will you require any services on your arrival ?
7:54 - PGW - Not sure at the moment, just dealing with it
7:54 - Center - Descend to 2500
7:54 - PGW - 2500
7:55 - Center - Are you able to maintain height, if not Richmond 2 miles south of you at this time
7:55 - PGW - Ah, we're just on descent at this time… (difficult to make out exactly)
7:56 - Center - Bankstown advise services will be in attendance for your arrival
7:56 - PGW - Wondering if we can confirm 11C available?
7:56 - Center - Track Direct for 11C final, 11C available with two knots downwind
7:57 - PGW - Thanks do you have a heading for us?
7:57 - Center - It's a left turn by 10 or 12 degrees
7:57 - PGW - Left 10-12 degrees
7:58 - Center - Continue descent as required, confirm visual
7:58 - PGW - We have visual at the moment
7:58 - Center - Roger, continue descent as required

BSK Tower
8:00 - PGW - 12 miles to run, 1500

[CoftC]

I think commercial pressure/losing his job would have been the FURTHEST thing from his mind at the time?

The decision to return to Bankstown would normally be a logical/reasonable option (but not discounting Richmond) due to familiarity and expecting the aircraft to have the performance to at least drift down to Bankstown, which normally it should (until maybe subsequent engine troubles on the good engine?)

[VH-XXX]

Didn't the Whyalla Chieftain continue on AND BEGIN the over-water part of the flight on one engine when the "easier" option was to simply turn back which was of shorter distance? (commercial pressure related)

[Desert Flower]

I believe fuel nozzles and refuelling ports were 're-engineered' so that only the correct nozzle would go into the fuel tank.

That was a suggestion only, however the onus was on the aircraft owner to do it. The same with grade decals - it could be suggested to the aircraft owner that they apply them but that's all. BP had a policy whereby if no grade decals were present then the pilot had to fill in a fuel order form before the refuelling could take place.

DF.

[Desert Flower]

That is correct, but I have it first hand from the Caboolture refueller...Yes I am serious, that there are many non standard (illegal?) nozzles around,

Not just the Caboolture refueller Jaba! I had them too, for the simple reason the dedicated JetA1 nozzle with the "wings" or "lugs" on the sides would not fit into some of the helicopters.

DF.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Question;
Theoretical only - no assumptions made;

I wonder, if an acft was refuelled just prior to flight, with an incorrect fuel, I would expect the fuels to mix as described, and the 'problem' to be immediately apparent..or not too long after engine start?
(Fuel in lines etc considered)

Or, if it was fuelled earlier and left - say overnight - which would allow the fuels to settle / separate, then I wonder how far the flight may progress until the problem showed?

[Desert Flower]

Interesting thoughts Griffo. I never conducted any tests to see how well the two mixed, although I did conduct some tests to see how well sugar dissolves in both aviation fuel & super petrol. It doesn't!

DF.

[dogcharlietree]

I think commercial pressure/losing his job would have been the FURTHEST thing from his mind at the time?


That is a very ill-informed statement.
There have been NUMEROUS accidents where this has been a major factor.
Here's one;
www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.pdf

expecting the aircraft to have the performance to at least drift down to Bankstown

But he DID NOT DRIFTDOWN!

[oneday_soon]

VH-XXX
Didn't the Whyalla Chieftain continue on AND BEGIN the over-water part of the flight on one engine when the "easier" option was to simply turn back which was of shorter distance? (commercial pressure related)

Spot on. I fear the same has happened again. The poor chap that passed away with the Whyalla accident had been told off previously for putting down with one - eng dead at a nearby airport when on route bewteen Adl and Whyalla. When I say dead, a piston had gone through the cowling in that instance.

[Horatio Leafblower]

I have had an in-flight shutdown in a Chieftain with 5POB and full fuel, roughly overhead Richmond, at 5,000'.

I didn't have to add power to the good engine to "drift down" to Bankstown. I clearly remember not declaring a mayday for fear of having 4 media helicopters formating on me at a time when I had some other things to worry about. :ugh:

Like most of the others, I reckon there's a lot more to this than just a simple engine failure :( :suspect:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Thankyou Miraz for your transcript.

Interesting in that the pilot was 'suggested' Richmond twice.......

Oh that it had been a better outcome.

I guess most would have made it back to BK OK, but if 'other' problems arose, then that's the 'gamble' on one engine.

[bentleg]

Interesting in that the pilot was 'suggested' Richmond twice.......


Earlier in this thread it was suggested by some that Richmond was fogged in and an ILS approach busting the minima was appropriate. ATC says in the Centre transcript "Richmond is available" which implies it wasn't fogged. Do we know what conditons were like at Richmond at that time?

[404 Titan]

Tee Emm

Airport suitability is a very subjective thing especially when it comes to a pilot’s familiarity with it. Obviously the more experienced the PIC the less of an issue this is.

Regarding the BA 744 that actually departed LAX, even though I will concede in my opinion it is just a tad further than I would like to fly on three, there is no requirement as I am sure you are aware for a four engine jet to divert to the nearest suitable airport in the event of an engine shut down. Personally I would have diverted to JFK (A major hub for BA) to then have all the pax protected on the numerous BA flights a day and the large BA engineering team there to change the engine. I recall back in the mid 90’s a CX 742 CS → BN suffering an engine failure on rotation out of CS. The aircraft continued onto BN but the captain later decided to divert to Sydney because QF had a spare engine there and all the resources to change it. CASA started asking questions why the aircraft didn’t return to CS but were soon reminded of the requirements for a four engine jet to divert in the event of an engine shut down in flight.

[Rojer Wilco]

Has anyone else noticed a disparity between the audio from Sydney radar and BK TWR? Andrew never actually panned, but YSBK tower says "PAN acknowledged".

There was no doubt in ATC's mind that PGW had an engine gone. I'm sure if Andrew had even hinted at it, that ATC would have specifically asked him if he wanted to declare an emergency.

[mention1]

We may never know the answer here. Some points:

The Mojave doesn't have the inboard / outboard fuel tank selections that have brought down Chieftains in the past. Is this true?
Piston engines usually fail "a little bit" as opposed to turbines that often fails spectacularly.
GA pilots are taught to stay away from military bases lest a flock of F/A 18's descend on you.
CTA steps should always be avoided too, lest a flock of FOI's descend on you.
I believe an ILS into low cloud/fog and an airport unfamiliar would be a low priority.
I believe that an incorrect fuel management selection (selectors or pumps) would be unlikely as demonstarted by AW's calm nature on the radio and the initial abundance of altitude.
The sequence where they went from full power to - "we've shut one down" to - being unable to maintain altitude points to a gradual and near complete power loss which seems to point to a fuel contamination.

This crash has upset me, but not nearly as much as the families involved.

Does any one know the approximate flight time? And was Richmond fogged in?

[nitpicker330]

With my 30 year Aviation experience I would humbly suggest any Engine failure on a twin ( PA31 or B777 ) warrants a Mayday call. Besides, you can always downgrade later if you wish. Some places around the world don't understand Pan anyway!!

[Capt Fathom]

I have little doubt he was heading back to Bankstown because of commercial pressures.

You have amazing mind powers that no one else has! :rolleyes:

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Re Roger Wilco -
"Has anyone else noticed a disparity between the audio from Sydney radar and BK TWR? Andrew never actually panned, but YSBK tower says "PAN acknowledged".
There was no doubt in ATC's mind that PGW had an engine gone. I'm sure if Andrew had even hinted at it, that ATC would have specifically asked him if he wanted to declare an emergency."


ATS staff would not normally refer to an emergency as a 'PAN' unless the call was made by the pilot.
The 'normal' for any situation is for ATS to 'Declare the appropriate phase of SAR for the incident'.
i.e. Upon becoming aware that the safety of the acft or its occupants may be in danger, the ATS staff would 'Declare' an Uncertainty Phase, or Alert Phase, or Distress Phase (1 of 3) - whichever the level of info gained warranted.
The 'degree' of the situation would dictate the facilities which may be required.

Only the guy in BK Twr could answer for sure, but that "PAN Acknowledged" to SY Centre MAY have been a 'local phrase' for acknowledging the 'INCERFA' or 'ALERFA' if that's what was 'declared' by SY Centre.
We all have used 'colloqualisms' at times - instead of what is 'in the book' - The important point is that it was acknowledged.

The 'Phase Declaration' is not normally conveyed to the pilot - he has enough to worry about.

A 'Current' ATCer may be able to confirm this is still the case.....
Its been a while now...

[puff]

Re the decleration of PAN PAN - at least where I did my MECIR, with some of (in my opinion) best ME instructors in Oz was deal with the failure - Re-plan (LSALT, fuel and performance) and PAN PAN call.

These calls were also made to be readout to the instructor as if they were a call to centre. At least as far as I was taught - engine failure or power loss in a twin = PAN PAN call. The Pan Pan call from doing this is in my memory like a phase 1.

I called Pan Pan once with rough running engine on a single - no complaints, questions or critisism from anyone for doing it, why the fear?

[Jabawocky]

YSRI was not fogged in,
in fact practise ILS were being conducted at the time in VMC.

The PAN was not made as far as I heard on the CEN and TWR tape. Maybe one was jammed in somewhere but my guess is the CEN ATC told the TWR and it was an assumed PAN.

Fog was not an issue.......and he was offered it.


EDIT....What I should have tped was "Fog was not an issue and he was offered YSRI and declined"

[strim]

Sounds like a surging engine in the background on first call to centre.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

I called Pan Pan once with rough running engine on a single - no complaints, questions or critisism from anyone for doing it, why the fear?

I have had the Emergency Services out on four occassions over 30 years. For none of them did I use PAN or MAYDAY (although I would not hesitate to do so if necessary).

On each occassion I was asked by ATC "Do you wish to declare and emergency". For three I answered "Yes", and for the fourth I answered "Not at this time" - to which the ATC guy (Tower) replied, "Well I'll get them out anyway"!

On each occassion the assistance I received from ATC was first class, and never any question later about whether or not I should have done this or that.

I recall that the Aviation Safety Digest used to discuss issues like this and those of us who had the privilage to read that publication were able to rationalise what we might do when faced with these sorts of senarios. I have no doubt that this type of pre-thinking is an aid to quick decision making when the poo hits the fan.

Dr :8

[Jabawocky]

Puff

In my opionion an incident like the one at BK this week was cause for a MAYDAY. Not even a PAN PAN. maybe we need a beer or two to sort this one out;).

Interesting confirmation of what I believed the definitions of distress calls are...from wiki.
In radiotelephone communications (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiotelephone), a call of pan-pan[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan#cite_note-TCMS-0) (pronounced /ˈpæn ˈpæn/ (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:IPA_for_English)) is used to signify that there is an urgency on board a boat (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boat), ship (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship), aircraft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aircraft) or other vehicle (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vehicle) but that, for the time being at least, there is no immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan#cite_note-1) This is referred to as a state of urgency. This is distinct from a Mayday (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayday_%28distress_signal%29) call, which means that there is imminent danger to life or to the continued viability of the vessel itself.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pan-pan#cite_note-2) Thus "pan-pan" informs potential rescuers (including emergency services and other craft in the area) that a safety problem exists whereas "Mayday" will call upon them to drop all other activities and immediately initiate a rescue attempt.Here is what a B757 crew did when they cooked a chook on takeoff. No PAN's or ahh tower we have a bit of a problem here.....it was full blown proper MAYDAY-MAYDAY. They do not have to end in a smoking hole to justify using the words.


<object width="480" height="385"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/EReN9K9qWvQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/EReN9K9qWvQ&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="480" height="385"></embed></object>

J:ok:

[Yara-ma-yha-who]

7:55 - Center - Are you able to maintain height, if not Richmond 2 miles south of you at this time
7:55 - PGW - Ah, we're just on descent at this time… (difficult to make out exactly)I think he said "Ah, we're just on a slow descent at the moment".

[Capt Fathom]

No PAN's or ahh tower we have a bit of a problem here.....it was full blown proper MAYDAY-MAYDAY.

Australia is one of the few countries in the world that uses the PAN call.
Most others just use MAYDAY only .... and some countries will question/ignore that!

[Trojan1981]

I have no doubt that this type of pre-thinking is an aid to quick decision making when the poo hits the fan.
:ok:
Makes a huge difference.

[Rojer Wilco]

Ditto. I've had an in flight emergency of quite a serious nature but never called 'Mayday'. There was an almost (now) comical moment when I broke out of cloud at YSRI (coincidently) after being vectored to final and saw a bunch of emergency services vehicles in front of me on the ground with lights flashing etc.

I was by myself in a small twin.

"Oh wow... something big must be going on here" I thought. A few moments passed, now locked on short final... "oh crap... they're here for me".

Yep, it's the last thing on your mind.

YSRI was my nearest. I didn't even consider going anywhere else.

[MALT68]

This PA31 crash is truly sad, but I believe that there is much more to this than meets the eye. Perhaps a PAN call was made. Why did he land on the road, when the open space of the school oval was next to the road? Let's wait for the ATSB investigation.

When doing my multi-eng training, for EFATO I was taught, fly the a/c, get it to the blue line, the phase one actions (mixture up, pitch up, power up, gear up, flap up, dead-leg, dead engine, confirm with throttle, fix or feather-FEATHER, raise the dead), to check performance, look for fire, if able to declare emergency.

I was flying a BE76 Duchess from Parafield to Kingscote many years ago, day private VFR (ca. 1998). I was over the Gulf of St. Vincent in controlled airspace before the halfway point of the trip. I had the alternator on the left engine fail, engine still going OK. I went through all the trouble shooting but couldn't get it back online. I first of all aviated, navigated then communicated.
Call me conservative, I called a PAN to Adelaide Approach and returned to Parafield, for many reasons, I didn't know if was something more seriously wrong with the left engine about to happen (i.e. the alternator going might have just been the start) also, I wanted to reduce electrical load, so I turned off all but one radio and the transponder, plus I wanted to have enough electricity to get the gear down and operate the flaps. Obviously, I was in controlled airspace and wanted to change the direction I was going too (thought I had better let them know..).
The ATC guys were great, they asked if I was able to maintain altitude and I was cleared to track back to YPPF via PAL, they asked me to report crossing the coast. And when I was ready to descend.
Handed over to YPPF tower no worries and given a straight in approach.

Subsequently found that the voltage regulator had blown.

[Unhinged]

Just to clarify a couple of things that have been said earlier:

In an emergency the pilot in command may act as necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. There is no requirement to actually declare an emergency before you act to save the aircraft, even if you are in controlled airspace and have to break the rules to do so. (CAR 100, et al)

CAR 20.6 Section 3.2 specifically allows the pilot in command of an aircraft with an engine shut down, to proceed to an aerodrome of their choice rather than the nearest suitable aerodrome, if they deem it safe and operationally acceptable.

[Jarule]

Hi all,
In case I can be of any help I was PIC of the Mojave mentioned in "assymetric's" post. I was at FL170 somewhere south west of Young and, as it happens, Kathy was my flight nurse, we also had a patient on board.
It was a catostrophic failure of the left engine. After carrying out my engine out drills I informed ATC of my predicament (I think I declared a pan), requested a descent to 10,000' and told them I'd get back to them when I'd decided what to do. When the failure occured I applied some rudder and put the AP in VS mode to maintain airspeed and drifted down to 10,000', the auto pilot didn't even disconnect. By the way I had decided on ten thousand because I wasn't sure if I could remain pressurised on one engine. I found that slightly increasing the power on the good engine was adequate to maintain 10,000' so I opted to fly to bankstown. I requested a track direct to bankstown, airspace and traffic were never an issue I tracked and decended as I needed merely informing ATC of my intentions. Of course I passed many adequate airfields along the way but the aircraft performed well and I never had a doubt that we wouldn't make BK.
You may ask why go all the way to BK? Why not? This, as far as I was concerned, was a non normal situation and not an emergency.
I was asked a number of times by ATC if I required the services on standby at BK fro my arrival, I said no until the last time because on consideration I thought I may do something dumb trying to taxi the Mojave on one donk, if anyone hase ever tried you would understand. The rest of the flight was uneventful and no I couldnt' taxi on one donk, they had to bring a tug to the runway.

All of this time I comunicated with Kathy keeping her informed of my intentions and she continued her job unquestioningly caring for her patient.

I have tried to remain factual I my post so apologies if I have waffled on in places but this incident has affected me, firstly because Kathy was a good friend and like many of you she has flown with me on numerous occasions. Kathy was a wonderful lady commited to her Job and her family. She will be missed. I did not know the pilot, however, from reading some of the above posts he sounds like a professional young man trying to do his job in difficult circumstances.

My deepest condolances to both families.

[Jamair]

I will await the ATSB report with interest....but there is something way wrong that this aircraft couldn't maintain height on one engine.:confused: At two nm per thousand feet of altitude it should nearly be able to GLIDE that distance (15nm/7000") with BOTH shut down.

Can anyone clarify the nature of this operation? I thought the RFDS had the NSW Ambulance aeromed contract. Was this a private air ambulance thing?

[jet_hatstand]

but my guess is the CEN ATC told the TWR and it was an assumed PAN. You guess correct.

[Pinky the pilot]

In an emergency the pilot in command may act as necessary to ensure the safety of the aircraft and its occupants. There is no requirement to actually declare an emergency before you act to save the aircraft, even if you are in controlled airspace and have to break the rules to do so. (CAR 100, et al)

CAR 20.6 Section 3.2 specifically allows the pilot in command of an aircraft with an engine shut down, to proceed to an aerodrome of their choice rather than the nearest suitable aerodrome, if they deem it safe and operationally acceptable.

Unhinged; Quite correct.:ok: I still quite clearly remember having a certain Instructor with the initials TK informing me of the above on numerous occasions during my CPL and MEIFR training.

Generally amidst a fairly thick smoke haze and high volume setting!:}

His point was that you were to get the aircraft back on the ground, as safely and quickly as possible using your own discretion, and argue about any regulation or disregard thereof afterwards, generally over a beer or three.

Sometimes however, it does not have a happy ending. That, regrettably, is something that is of occasion part of aviation.:sad:

[davidgrant]

Gentlemen to say I am appalled is an understatement.
Some of the posts I have read are honest attempts to seek the truth, which I applaud, where perhaps all of us may learn something from this tragic incident, but there seems to be developing a preponderance of " legends in their own minds" pontificating on this tragedy.
Mods. I do apologise but I think this has gone far enough.
Andrew turned up on my door step around three years ago, a green young kid from the NT. My wife and I took him in and over time he became our adopted son in Sydney.
I was involved in a lot of Andrews initial training on multi aircraft. Did he receive proper and complete asymmetric training?...damned right he did..and not just the old power up clean up..an awful lot of scenario based training with the "what if question" thrown in, he was practiced and he was PROFICIENT.and well aware of the limitations of normal category airplanes.
I can honestly say I have never struck a more professional safety concious young pilot in the 45 odd years I've been in aviation.
During his first year or so in Sydney I had many calls from him out in the "Bush" asking for advise on what he should do or should not do, with a little leading he always came to the right conclusion, he never compromised safety, which made him somewhat unpopular with a few of the operations people, but the flight nurses all preferred to fly with him.
If any of you self appointed experts imagine for a moment that over the past few days and sleepless nights I havnt gone over and over in my mind if there anything I missed, was there anything I should have imparted to him then your deluding yourselves, I have, and probably will for a long time.
To you pontificating buffoons from the airline Fraternity...Yeah I agree Airline training is great for training monkeys..I spent twenty odd years in long haul airlines,all over the world. How dare you critisise GA and how dare you speculate on Andrews handling of this incident, you were not there, Andrew was, and he called it as he saw it.
My wife is a flight nurse, she flew with Andrew many times, would I allow her to fly with him again if he was here...damned right I would..long before I'd let her on an airline with some of you lot

[VH-XXX]

There are literally dozen of aeromedical flights daily by private contractors, not unlike those National Patient Transport non-emergency ambulances you seendriving around for example. They are not required to meet the same standards as RFDS operations in terms of procedures and aircraft type because they are not the same thing.

The frustrating thing is that with no engines it possibly would have made it however you don't always assume it's not going to fly on one on the way back.

[blacklabel]

don't know the pilot or the operator. By the looks of things he had no options but to put it down. It's a **** part of town for a forced landing plus the haze equals not good.

Why did the engine ( or engines ) fail is what i really want to find out. I'm not an expert but fuel contamination is all i can think of

bless there souls

[Noeyedear]

My condolences to family and friends affected by this tragedy.

A few years ago (ok, around 16) I had to be specifically endorsed to fly the Mojave. The type endorsement was designated PA31L and I had to do it in spite of considerable PA31-350, PA31-310 and pressurised turbo-prop experience.

And frankly, it made sense once I read the AFM and flew the aircraft. The Mojave was, in my opinion, and that of the regulator, of sufficient differences to require specific training.

Suddenly, around 7 or 8 years ago (?), that requirement disappeared and subsequently, PA31L disappeared from my licence. It was deemed that a PA31 endorsement and a pressurisation endorsement, possibly on an entirely different aircraft, entitled you to hop in and fly this aircraft. With no additional training.

I'd like to ask, what risk assessment was done on this decision?

What do other pilots, who have flown both types, think?

I have always thought it was a little laissez-faire of CASA to remove the requirement for specific training. It was a different aircraft in many ways.

This is open speculation, but what has happened could indeed have its roots in training deficiencies arising from poor regulation and poor risk management.

Whatever this young man's rationale was for not accepting YSRI when offered cannot be known (mens era?) but the reality is that he called on the sum total of his knowledge and made a decision. That the decision can subsequently be shown to be flawed is not stupidity, it is tragedy.

We should look for every possible reason as to why he made this decision. Would other pilots of similar experience, training and operating within the same corporate culture, have made the same decision?

And I don"t believe the answer comes down to any single individual who trained him. We work within a system.

Someone wrote, "Human error does not occur within a vacuum, but within systems that either foster it, or resist it...."

The worst part is, that for those who are left behind, this'll never go away.

and for that, I'm truly sorry.

[Rojer Wilco]

There's no doubt that someone had convinced Andrew (somewhere in his training or checks) that he could get the thing back to YSBK, going down the steps.

Turns out that was bad advice.

There's little doubt that he had heard some company stories that indicated that you could bring in a Mojave with an engine down from FL17 with 140 to run

So. If you've lost an engine with 140 to run, and you think you know why you've lost the donk, and if you're damn sure that whatever cost you one engine won't cost you the other, and you're passing a string of ideal landing spots, and you think you're fine to cruise for another 45 (or so) minutes, risking your own life and those on board, then God Bless You.

BTW - Was this the incident with VH-IGW?

[GADRIVR]

Guys,
Enough is enough.
If we were standing in a bar, with David and others who knew Andrew and Kath within earshot, would these conversations be occuring? More than likely not.
Tactless, uninformed and at times moronic statements of imagined fact that are now in the public domain. Not as vicious as the crud Dom James (Norfolk Island ditching) had to put up with but then again, Andrew and Kath didn't have a previous media profile... and thank God for that! The vultures here would be into them big time and a whole lot earlier if that were the case.
To say Dave is an experienced and ethical operator is an understatment. Nice fella and a gentleman to boot.
There is some good info here... but not a lot.
The press has again started quoting posts from this website as fact. Didn't see that one coming did we kiddies!?
Again... how about a little respect and tact people?
Regards,
Pissed off Drivr.:mad::ugh:
PS. Mods...thoughts?

[Flyer517]

Someone mentioned in an earlier post that there seemed to be sounds of a surging engine in the background on the centre recording. There certainly is a similar sound but it seems a little regular to be a surging engine; maybe some sort of alarm? Is it recognisable to anyone familar with a Mojave?

On a broader note, I have to admit that having operated out of BK for almost 20 years, my greatest fear has been losing the donk over suburbia. The only choices are ****ty ones. In this case, if you headed back to BK thinking you had one you could rely on (and this is a reasonable assumption), then when number 2 went over the 'burbs you would have very few options left. It is very easy to be wise in hindsight, but he would have been in a very lonely position right then. That he maintained his professionalism and dignity is truly incredible.

Having said all that, Andrew and Kathy obviously had a lot of friends here and to them and their families, my sincerest condolences.

[morno]

Jamair,
My knowledge of the way patient transfers in NSW is limited, but what I do know is it's nothing short of incompetence on the behalf of the NSW Government and NSW Health.

Unlike in QLD and many other states where if a patient is transferred by air, it comes out of the state budget, NSW Health takes it out of the budget of the Health District where the patient is being flown from.

So, why get an expensive RFDS/Air Ambulance flight for a non-urgent (and their definition of 'non-urgent' is sometimes to be questioned too), when they can just contract a much cheaper charter company to do it for them? As a result, you have numerous charter companies running around in these old Chieftain's/Baron's/Mohave's and whatever else they can conjur up, doing patient transfers.

I have no doubt the level of professionalism this gentlemen possessed and displayed, was nothing short of exemplary. But I think the NSW Government and NSW Health need to look at how they go about doing and funding these patient transfers, in light of this accident.

It's sad that it may take this tragic accident, for the powers that be, to ponder whether it's such a good idea doing things the way they do, when it's quite clear there are better ways right from the outset.

morno

[Neptunus Rex]

davidgrant - Bravo sir, bravo

[multi_engined]

It amazes me that people are still questioning andrews training and how he handled the situation when as stated before nobody here was on the aircraft.

I think people are forgetting that two people died in this accident, whoever rated this thread five star is a f*%&ing moron

[Tidbinbilla]

Certain posts have been removed (for various reasons). The aim is to try and keep this thread reasonable and keep personalities out of it.

I'd take this opportunity to remind you that the PM function is there for a reason. Please don't clog the thread with questions or statements which could otherwise be directed between yourselves personally (and privately).

Thanks, TID.

[remoak]

davidgrant - Boo sir, boo

I'm sure it is just grief speaking, but you comments are well wide of the mark and can't go unchallenged.

I have been involved in airline training for many years, and we do not train monkeys.

Mostly, what we do is take GA pilots, strip out all the bad habits and dodgy practices, and teach them how to operate as part of a team, to a high professional standard. One of the qualities we instill is the ability to know when to say "no".

How dare we criticise GA? More like, how dare you NOT criticise GA, for that is where the worst side of aviation is most frequently seen, where the most accidents happen, and where the most pressure is applied to young pilots to do silly things.

In this case, I'd be the first to say that Andrew (who I do not know in any way) did his very best in a difficult situation. However, despite the training you gave him, the end result was tragic and from what I can tell, probably did not need to be.

And to imply that because an airline pilot might be less than effusive in his praise of this young man, he is therefore dangerous, is a step way to far.

Hopefully it only the grief talking... but if not... you should be ashamed.

[puff]

david - firstly I think most here would agree with the fact that as hard and horrible this accident is that it sounds as if you provided him with a high level of training, accidents do happen and I don't think it helps anyone beating yourself up about what more you could have done.

Andrew seems to have had an excellent reputation as both a top bloke, and a fantastic pilot, and I don't think anyone will ever take that away. I think more to the point and 'spirit' of these threads is for everyone to try to understand what happened, and IF mistakes were made so that others can learn and put these lessons away in their toolkit so that if a similar situation happens they can perhaps produce a different outcome.

We may be pilots, but firstly we are HUMAN, and sadly humans do (and i'm NOT saying he did) make mistakes. There are literally hundreds of highly skilled pilots that are no longer with us, that sadly in the heat of the moment made mistakes, does that make them bad people not worthy of our sadness of their loss - hell no - but lets not let their ultimate sacrafice amount to nothing. I know a few of them no longer with us and I know them well enough that if you could talk to them now they would be saying 'why did I do that, I should have done XXX', hindsight is an amazing thing, it can't help those involved but it MAY help others avoid it after learning from it. Learn from the mistakes from others, because you will never live long enough to make them all yourself ! Isn't that the purpose of accidents investigations ?

Something no one else has mentioned is that there is no shame in talking to professionals about grief in these situations, it doesn't make you less of a man(or woman) to talk to someone, it's never easy to cope with the loss of a family member or close friend, there is no SOP for grief, some people deal with it better than others.

[Old Akro]

This thread is a bit like watching a train wreck. Its horrible, but I can't look away.

I'm guessing that guys who fly twins have a "there but for the grace of god..." shudder going down their spines. I think we want to know what happened because we're all secretly wondering if we could have done any better.

It seems to me that the guys who fly singles just don't quite understand what it would be like and we're seeing all the old wives tales about twins being trotted out. I think that flying a twin with an engine shut down can never be understood until you've done it. No amount of reading or hangar flying will help.

Its worth the reminder that the Whyalla accident had the pilot crucified for piloting error for some time before the truth about mechanical problems came out.

I'm prepared to assume as a starting point that the pilot was competent and intelligent. He had an issue at good altitude that should have been straightforward to deal with. At that height, I suspect I would have elected to go to home base where you know the area well and there are friendly LAME's etc. He would have known all the landmarks so navigating would have been one less thing to think about. As has been pointed out, climb performance on a single engine is irrelevant because what he really needed was a moderate descent rate. He probably only needed 55% - 65% power on the remaining engine to make Bankstown.

For the Mayday pedants, in my view, the main reason the call is required is to get the attention of ATC. In this case he clearly already had ATC's full attention. There has been extensive discussion of this subject on another pprune thread regarding the recent JFK emergency incident. In many countries (notably the US) there is no requirement to make a formal mayday call to declare an emergency. In this incident, the point at which the line was crossed to declare an emergency, it seems to me that ATC were already handling it as such, so it was essentially redundant. The radio call that would have changed the outcome of this flight does not exist.

It looks like something else has transpired after the pilot shut down an engine to turn this from a difficult situation to a full blown emergency. I'm guessing that by the time this manifested itself and the poor guy processed the new information that he had rapidly diminishing options.

Something very unusual has happened to cause loss of power to both engines. Too much air in the tanks or fueling with JetA1 are the common reasons that we jump to. Both will be quickly determined by the ATSB. JetA1 has an sg of about 0.8 and Avgas about .72, so its heavier. But Avgas & JetA do dissolve quickly, except on the other hand fuel does not mix well in tanks. It tends to stratify. In-ground tanks (eg service stations) do not mix different fuel octane ratings well for example. How well it mixes will be determined by the tank plumbing. If its like other Pipers with hoses interlinking tanks, it might take a while to mix enough to upset the engines. Spark ignition engines will tolerate a level of Jet A / Diesel / Kero. The old side valve low compression car engines (ie Ford Prefect) would run on kero happily once they were hot. Its all too complex to speculate.

At the end of the day, I know I would have done better - except when I'm alone when I worry if I would have done as well.

I've had an engine failure on takeoff in a single and a rough running engine in a single at altitude at night returning to Melbourne. I now mainly fly twins and I'm not prepared to judge the pilot. I really want the ATSB to do a good job of investigating this accident quickly so I can see if there are lessons. In the meantime I just hope I don't suffer the same circumstances.

[Jabawocky]

GADRIVER

What do you mean? Not as vicious as the crud Dom James (Norfolk Island ditching) had to put up with but then again, Andrew and Kath didn't have a previous media profile... and thank God for that!

Mr James deserved a lot of stick, Andrew Wilson does not. Mr James created his dilema one way or another, and then could have done a whole heap of things better to minimise the risks. Mr Wilson it would seem was pretty much under control and did not make a bunch of really dumb decissions. he did make some poor ones as it turns out by not taking YSRI.

Mr James and his pax are alive. Mr Wilson and his pax are dead.

Talk about an injustice, how unfair is that. And don't turn that around to read the folk at Norfolk should have died either, you know thats not what I mean.

So....in summary there is no comparrison, Mr James deserved all the stick he got.

[remoak]

It also occurs to me that trainers can tend to agonise over whether we they did enough, whether we properly prepared our trainee. This has been mentioned already in this thread.

Having thought about this many times over the 20 or so years I have been training pilots, I have come to the conclusion that the mechanical process of handling an emergency is usually not the culprit - it tends to be more the subsequent decision-making, once the initial adrenalin rush has subsided a bit. "OMG I gotta get it down" turns into "well maybe if I do this or do that, I can get it back to base" and all the standard GA pressures start to operate (real and imagined). Having been back in GA for just a few weeks, I am already shocked at the pressures that exist to cut corners, and how readily my new colleagues submit to them.

In this case, I think that the pilot's initial handling of the emergency was probably exemplary, the radio calls demonstrate a level of confidence in the outcome, the details (like the lack of a mayday call) are largely irrelevant, but the eventual outcome doesn't seem to stack up when you consider the preceding events.

I guess my point is that safe flying is all about judgement, a skill that is learned, and unfortunately a skill that can also be subverted. No trainer can be held, or hold themselves, responsible for the decisions an ex-trainee makes.

Personally, I take the view that a light twin with a failed engine is essentially a glider. If you treat it like that, you minimise the requirement to exercise supreme skill in controlling a marginal aircraft in the worst possible circumstance. You might not make it quite as far, but your chances of meeting the ground under control are greatly enhanced.

[chickoroll]

regarding the fuel theory- if the fuel was contaminated with jetA1, why did no other aircraft have problems that day? if it did recive fuel out of a truck wouldnt they of realised it was jetA1 before fueling any aircraft? i say this becouse, they test the truck every morning before they fuel the first aircraft of the day, as i do work out of bk and have seen them do it. and if the aircraft received fuel from a bowser, most certantly other aircraft would of had problems. stop me if im wrong i know they would test for water etc but wouldnt they know the differance in colour when they would of pulled a sample???.

[Jabawocky]

chickroll

This is a bit of thread drift, but there have been numerous occassions in recent years, so yes it does happen, either wrong bowser or wrong truck.

I could tell a very funny story about Qld Police doing a similar thing to a Landcruiser (Speed Camera) and the Toyota dealer enjoyed every minute of it, telling them they could have it back Monday.....:} they were not amsued. Even more so when my brother suggested he should not release the vehicle as it was ILLEGAL due to roadworty issues from modifications not being recorded and plated. :=

Time will tell if it was a fuel issue. As someone has said already, if the cause of the problem is not perfectly clear....like pistons hanging off and oil everywhere, and you are 100% sure the other one will be fine for a short while, best to park it at the nearest strip.

J

[whoooop1991]

GADRIVR,

In regards to your last post, not only is the media getting quotes off pprune, but the animals are hunting down anything they can on facebook... WITHOUT PERMISSION.

[The Green Goblin]

Has anyone got any links to these stories?

I have got a few pms from media but told them all to get nicked! It would be a slap in Willows face if I commented even with something good as no doubt it would be twisted to suit their own agenda..

GG

[chickoroll]

sorry i dont understand what you mean by this is a thread drift?, there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.

I dont want to P__ anyone off as this is a sensitive topic but, reading the threads ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.

what im saying is only one aircraft had a problem that day, a very serious one.

if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.

[VH-XXX]

CAR 20.6 Section 3.2 specifically allows the pilot in command of an aircraft with an engine shut down, to proceed to an aerodrome of their choice rather than the nearest suitable aerodrome, if they deem it safe and operationally acceptable.

Thanks for that quote.


Its worth the reminder that the Whyalla accident had the pilot crucified for piloting error for some time before the truth about mechanical problems came out.


Old Akro, the Whyalla accident was caused by CAR20.6 Section 3.2, not the pilot and not the crankshaft. This ridiculous regulation caused the aircraft to begin the over-water segment on one engine.

If 20.6 section 3.2 did not allow a pilot to chose an alternate airfield to return to then a number of lives would not have been lost.

Reminds me of the Duchess that left Essendon for Latrobe Valley and lost an engine. Could have stopped at Lilydale on the way but didn't for the reasons of 20.6 3.2. When they arrived at LTV they found that the engine had run out of the fuel and the second one only had a few litres left. If that stupid rule didn't exist, the aircraft would have refuelled at Lilydale and continued in complete safety (or at least as safe as a Duchess can be) PS might have some airfields wrong in that story.

[GADRIVR]

Jabawocky,
I'm not going to comment on young Doms predicament one way or the other. I'm not an accident investigator looking at a piece of paper with all the contributing factors that led to that situation occurring and his part in it.
I'm not going to comment on Andrews predicament as again, I'm not holding a piece of paper with all the contributing factors that led to that situation occuring and his part in it.
That goes also for the specific organisations that employed these blokes as well as the organisations that employed them previously with cultures that exist there. Happy to talk generics though.
Do I have an opinion?.............yep, you bet!
If you want to discuss it via PM, more than happy to. I'm no different than anybody else in wanting to know what happened. I don't want my family to suffer what the families of these people have gone through. There's been some decent stuff here...not a lot but it's there none the less.
I will not however watch people who, for obvious and less obvious reasons cannot defend themselves, be ripped up on a public forum. It just aint right. It just aint fair. It just aint the done thing.

I'll say this again, and hopefully for the last time.
Show some respect and tact guys.
Mods...again?

[remoak]

there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.

There HAVE been numerous posts SPECULATING about the POSSIBILITY that fuel MAY have been an issue. There have been an equal number pouring cold water on that one...

ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.

...and almost certainly the WRONG one... think about it for a minute.


if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.

Why? We are talking about mis-fuelling, not bad fuel per se.

There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation.

Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.

That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue.

[Arnold E]

Mr Wilson it would seem was pretty much under control and did not make a bunch of really dumb decissions.
Might be right Jabba, but not proven at this stage.

[GADRIVR]

Remoak,

"Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.

That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue."

Merely a matter of opinion then.
The answers to the first two sentences with direct and indirect causes then give you the answer to the third in part...I would think. However, I could say the reverse. They're all interelated at an educated guess.
It seems you've already made up your mind methinks.

"There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation."

No problem with the second point. The first however makes me shake my head in wonder at this point.

[remoak]

The answers to the first two sentences with direct and indirect causes then give you the answer to the third in part...I would think. However, I could say the reverse. They're all interelated at an educated guess.I'm sorry but you are basically wrong. The outcome is in no way predicated on the original event.

I am absolutely certain that, if handed an aircraft at 7000 feet only a couple of miles from a suitable aerodrome, with no weather issues and in clear conditions, I could safely land it there. I'm sure you could too. Just close both throttles and enjoy the glide... because you have plenty of time.

The problems start when other considerations come into play, like, for example, returning to a particular airport, safeguarding one's job, and so on.

It reminds me of the crash of Charles Church and his Spitfire. He suffered a partial engine failure and elected to return to the field, trying to save the aircraft. He flew over several perfectly good fields on the way to airport... on the way to which he stalled, spun, crashed and died. An utterly pointless death. I was there and saw it.

When whatever failure happened in this most recent case, a landing with no further damage was perfectly possible. From there, the possible outcomes become progressively worse until you get to the end result that we now have. Which outcome happens is solely down to the decisions made after the failure (unless the failure results in an unrecoverable loss of control right at the very beginning). Those decisions are in turn influenced by the factors mentioned above.

Most pilots get that it is about maintaining control at all times, and always having options. That is where experience counts.

No problem with the second point. The first however makes me shake my head in wonder at this point. I refer you to post 195 and 200 (and others).

[GADRIVR]

Remoak,
I'm aware of the post. Your answer to David was in my opinion was, at best arrogant and uncaring. Please pull your head in.
Regards,
Drivr

[VK2TVK]

Well, I'm going to wait for the ATSB report. That is all.

[remoak]

Please pull your head in.

And wallow in sentimentality while ignoring reality? No thanks. No wonder the mods don't want this turned into a condolences thread.

Well, I'm going to wait for the ATSB report. That is all.

Good for you. It won't tell you why the event ended as it did, but yes it is the politically correct thing to do...

[Jabawocky]

Quote:
there has been numerous post saying that there has been jetA1 pumped into the tanks, or the fuel was a factor.
There HAVE been numerous posts SPECULATING about the POSSIBILITY that fuel MAY have been an issue. There have been an equal number pouring cold water on that one...

Quote:
ppl think that fuel is to blame or a factor, which to me seems like the easiest chioice.
...and almost certainly the WRONG one... think about it for a minute.

Quote:
if fuel was it, well i think that there should of been at least 20 droping out of the sky that day. more than one aircraft took off from bk, and a few of them would have recieved fuel from the same supplier.
Why? We are talking about mis-fuelling, not bad fuel per se.

There are two things wrong with this thread. One is the copious amount of over-wrought emotion, the other is the amount of mindless and ill-informed speculation.

Why the engine failed isn't the issue. Whether the other one had a problem isn't the issue either. The real issue is why it was not possible to safely land the aircraft from 7000 feet, with a variety of possible landing venues available, plenty of time, and plenty of help available.

That's the only issue that I'm interested in finding answers to. The rest is interesting but ultimately not the core issue.

What more can you say. :D

GADRIVER
Would rather debate it over a beer some time, but for the moment I think the above post sums it up pretty well.

I never knew Andrew, but I bet right now if he was able to log in and post from the grave he would also say..."YSRI was the better choice, buggered if I know why I did not take it."

Yes its all very easy in hindsight, but the very point of us discussing this is so that maybe 8 out of 10 future problems in the air end in :) and not :{. There will always be another accident like Andrews, unfortunately good people like him, like Shane Whitbread, will make a mistake. It might be me next....it might be you, the idea here is to help keep the number of mistakes the minority. Unfortunately as posted by Owen Stanley a lot of late the training does not give you ALL the tools required.

I just watched a video which I suggest YOU ALL watch. not about aviation, but about driving on the roads. Some of what MS talks about applies to a avaiation training accident near YCAB recently. The rest is just good info. It makes you think.

It makes you think...........

Sunday Night Videos - Yahoo!7 TV (http://au.tv.yahoo.com/sunday-night/video/-/watch/20309503/)

I am not sure how close you are to any of the pilots concerned that you want to protect their honour....at least as far as I know on pprune I am as close as anyone to the Whitbread family .......None of this is about being politically correct, or having a soft spot....its about learning all we can about helping prevent our loved ones, your loved ones, having to experience the same thing.

I do not see any of this being about "knifing someone" after they have gone. Even if we discuss things that are plausable but did not happen, and may be disproved in the ATSB report.... we are all still better for it.

I say this with all sincerity, and not just to you, as we seem to be having the debate, but to anyone who feels discussing these kind of accidents freely is not in good taste.

Fly Safe everyone.

J:ok:

[Xcel]

I was trying to avoid most of the bull$hit speculation and news on this very very sad event... like many close to him I am hurting - there are some regular readers of this forum who were very close to this fantastic gentleman. I know this thread isnt here for this - but for his family and friends my sincere condolences...

Remoak I have to agree with Gadrivr. Emotions aside your response was truely arrogant.

Like many I dare not say that he made a mistake, but unlike some I care not to speculate. There are numerous persons, trained to do so, working on this as we speak. It is all well and good to learn from the mistakes of others, but it is just downright wrong to throw stones and wildly speculate about something that only one person (at this stage) was privvy to the details of.

At the time, with what information and feedback from the aircraft that Andrew had, he made a series of decisions. In this instance I firmly believe that he would of made the correct ones. Doing everything he could, with what he was given.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing- but in this instance he won't get that chance.

Some may never see an engine fail inflight - I have personally been at the controls for 3. All of them the chips fell my way. 2 of them i continued - 1 of them i didnt get a choice. The most recent of my engine failures was put down to fuel contamination. Recent maintenance to fix a leak in the fuel tank had made the sealant from the wet wing come away and create a sludge. This of course blocked the pickup and filters, starving the engine of fuel. Decided to fix not feather - attempted restart - engine restarted with surging - x-fed it and flew home. Each step was planned and happened based on myposition, experience and feedback from the aircraft at the time.

The only facts you know from this accident are: that he was on one engine - he planned a return to Bankstown - something else has occured or become apparent not allowing this to happen, resulting in a tragic loss.

We don't know the cause or extent of the failure.
We don't know the reason in his inabilty to maintain height after descent.
We don't even know if there weren't multiple failures.

We do know he was in control of the situation upto the landing.
We do know he attempted a landing on a road.

Everything else is speculation and requires investigation. He had reasons for his actions and we just don't know enough to draw conclusions...

Granted learning from this could save someones life. But given the wrong information could prove catastrophic as well... in my case above if i turned my twin into a glider I would of wrecked a perfectly good aeroplane, when all i needed to do was not run on that tank. EDFP fails - oh dont switch on the boost pump i readon pprune i need to glide into tiger country or suburbia. Speculation and misinformation is just as dangerous i feel.

Rightly so people want answers... and this will happen in due course. Personal attacks and questions of integrity of this fine young aviator however shouldn't come into question.

I did stay off pprune until I thought I was ready... Still not there yet, but sparing a thought for those on the emotional rollercoaster right now. They will return here, and rest assured the one emotion following grief will be anger...

So please, the ony reason for this drawn out reply is that you keep it clean guys...

cheers,
Rob

[remoak]

but it is just downright wrong to throw stones

Nobody here is throwing stones.

In this instance I firmly believe that he would of made the correct ones. Doing everything he could, with what he was given.

How do you know?

We do know he was in control of the situation upto the landing.

He was in control of the situation until he realised he wasn't going to make Bankstown. After that, he was reacting to changing circumstances.

Personal attacks and questions of integrity of this fine young aviator however shouldn't come into question.

There are no personal attacks here. There are no questions regarding his integrity here either. If you think that, you have utterly mis-read most of the thread.

I'm sure he was a great guy and respected and well trained and conscientious, and quite probably the sort of guy I would have employed when I was doing that stuff for airlines. None of that is in question.

The ONLY question that I have in all this, is why, from 7000 feet more or less over Richmond, he ended up where he did.

The refusal of some folk to recognise that as a valid question is quite depressing.

[Xcel]

Dont add tone or temper to this post as it is a genuine response...

Nobody here is throwing stones

reread your post to Dave and GA. Not pissing match just genuine concerns.

How do you know?

I don't. Hence the statement provided was my belief in his ability, as I believe was stated.

After that, he was reacting to changing circumstances.

The whole event was continually changing circumstances... from 7000' to 0'.
If it was clear cut we probably wouldnt be on here discussing it.

If you think that, you have utterly mis-read most of the thread.

perhaps.

The ONLY question that I have in all this, is why, from 7000 feet more or less over Richmond, he ended up where he did.

The refusal of some folk to recognise that as a valid question is quite depressing.

Granted a fair question. We know from the radio that he went from 7000' somewhere near richmond to 1500' at 3nm, in a descent that could only be described as controlled (no radio transmissions - no help required). To then requiring immediate help and not being able to maintain height from 3nm and to attempt to land on a road. The problem as I see it may have manifested itself after Richmond was outside of the decision making process.

why the event ended as it did

Would it have ended the same if he circled Richmond to lose the 7000' in a controlled manner. Only for perhaps the same event to occur in which the aircraft became unable to maintain height and crashed in a street in Richmond instead of Canley Vale.

Would he have even been able to understand the true magnitude of the problem he was facing? Until the cause of the failure/s and event/s that followed is established then everything is speculation and every question you ask will only open more doors. Even for one as straightforward as yours...

Perhaps i'm being naive but i don't think any of this helps until the simple parts of the equation can be put together.

cheers,
Rob

[Deaf]

For the benefit of the journo's a factor (one the holes in the swiss cheese) is this


7:54 - Center - Descend to 2500
7:54 - PGW - 2500

Pilot In Command means just that, Center is not in command. A response of
"ABC will maintain 5000" is the decision of the PIC and Center/ATC's job is to clear the path.

3 useless things Fuel in bowser, runway behind you and altitude above you.

[Dangly Bits]

Quick question folks.

Was Richmond fogged in?

Someone may have answered this already but I can't find it.

Thanks
DB

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Try post no. 122.....

[remoak]

reread your post to Dave and GA. Not pissing match just genuine concerns.

I say again - nobody is (or has been) throwing stones. Perhaps you could enlighten me if you think that is the case. You seem to have entirely missed the slur on airline pilots that I was responding to.

I don't. Hence the statement provided was my belief in his ability, as I believe was stated.

OK then WHY do you BELIEVE that? Genuine question.

The whole event was continually changing circumstances... from 7000' to 0'.
If it was clear cut we probably wouldnt be on here discussing it.

Not really. If he had elected to go into Richmond, there is little doubt that he would have made it easily, as previously suggested. It was the attempt to get to Bankstown that turned a drama into a crisis - quite possibly as a result of a further failure, and again nobody is laying blame. Something clearly went very wrong in the final stages of the flight as from what I can tell, he should have easily made it to Bankstown. Those are the changing circumstances I am referring to. Have a look at that road in Google Earth - it isn't very wide and I doubt I could manage to miss all the power poles and cables that he faced. it was clearly a last desperate attempt to get down safely.

Would it have ended the same if he circled Richmond to lose the 7000' in a controlled manner. Only for perhaps the same event to occur in which the aircraft became unable to maintain height and crashed in a street in Richmond instead of Canley Vale.

Personally, no I don't think so. It's a long runway and there is no need to stray far from it during the descent. Even a second engine failure with a failure to feather shouldn't be too much of an issue in that situation.

Perhaps i'm being naive but i don't think any of this helps until the simple parts of the equation can be put together

It helps because irrespective of what the failure might have been, it highlights the decision-making process and possibly a whole raft of cultural issues. It may possibly make some young GA pilot think to himself "right, if that ever happens to me, I'm not leaving a perfectly good runway in favour of a distant one for whatever reason - I'm getting myself and my passengers on the ground in the safest possible way" - and who knows, that might save lives. To me, that is worthwhile.

[aditya104]

7:30 AM 1034 hPa 1.9 kilometers
8am 0.5km vis

source History : Weather Underground (http://www.wunderground.com/history/airport/YSRI/2010/6/14/DailyHistory.html?req_city=Richmond+(Military)&req_state=NW&req_statename=New+South+Wales)

I wish there was a separate thread for the investigators(speculators) :confused: friends of the pilot Andrew are still in disbelief =(

[Wally Mk2]

This thread is getting quite messy but I guess we are talking about two peoples lives here (mainly Andrews) & the reason/s as to why it ended hence emotions are 'running' this thread..
Essentially we ALL have a little bit of "Andrew" in us meaning commercial pressure even a small amount is ever present in the back of our minds & not just with pilots either. Truckies for Eg make some really poor decisions (IE speeding) to get the job done, I'm sure if truckies had NO commercial pressure on them then they would be sitting in the L/H lane doing 20 clicks listening to C&W!:),we've all done that,sped that is.
Whether we make the correct decision in such cases as this is wholly dependent on how reactionary you are & yr ability to think under pressure. I would say that Andrew on the day made his decision in good faith to continue based purely on being presented with a situation that few ever experience, an in flight engine malfunction. Whether it was the right decision is why we are here debating about it. Unlike a Sim you can't just 'freeze' time & think about yr situation for a while using some level of hindsight to end up with the best outcome Andrew's 'clock' was 'ticking' regardless of his decision/s & there in lies the biggest challenge for ALL of us, to make a decision based ONLY on safety not allowing any other external forces no matter how big they are to 'divert' you from that main focus.
Humans will go on doing this just like Andrew did for ever & day & there's nothing we can do to stop it all together!

Wmk2, forever learns from others.

[wasathangi]

Tojan....Feel good about yourself in putting this post up, first thing in the A.M of the accident?

Then to top it off, "ALL" of you that replied had to dig in and spill your own ego's, lack of knowledge and cold remarks to a very sad situation.....

Pull your heads in. Wait for the ATSB report through official channels not PPRUNE......

MODERATORS...

REQUEST YOU SHUT DOWN THIS THREAD.

WASA.

,

[bluesky300]

Like most of the others who have contributed to this thread I am focused on learning about the decision making process that took the aeroplane from overhead richmond to a forced landing in a street. I am looking for the weakness in my own decisions that could and might put me in the same position if I am in the same situation. That's all. Remoak's post was unfortunate, but many of his are in that category.

And I hereby grant complete and unrestricted approval to all of you out there to discuss, criticise, tear apart and generally pontificate about me in the event that I ever become a hole in the ground in the hope that you might save the next guy.

[VH-XXX]

This thread should NOT be shut down. Some of us are learning from it and it could save lives in the future.

[mmhbtower]

xcel

7000 at 11m north of YSRI and 0 at 3.1m YSBK

if you are going to present info as fact then get them right!

[Jabawocky]

Deaf
For the benefit of the journo's a factor (one the holes in the swiss cheese) is this

Quote:
7:54 - Center - Descend to 2500
7:54 - PGW - 2500
Pilot In Command means just that, Center is not in command. A response of
"ABC will maintain 5000" is the decision of the PIC and Center/ATC's job is to clear the path.

3 useless things Fuel in bowser, runway behind you and altitude above you.

I hope you are not trying to aportion blame on the ATC by selectively using some truths. Facts in Isolation can do that, just like the AGW brigade.

Lets look at the whole transcript, and you will see that ATC were not advised of a PAN, MAYDAY or even the words DECLARING AN EMERGENCY, no matter which way you say it. So he gets cleared to A025.....so what...he can used all the airspace from initial height to 2500....there was no height/time or distance requirement. The pilot elected to create minimal fuss, even when ATC prompted him, as it turns out the CEN guy spoke to the BK TWR guy and effectively declared it an emergency....becuase he could sense it really was one.

Syd Center
7:52 - PGW - We're just turning round sir, we've got a few problems here
7:52 - Center - Everything OK?
7:52 - PGW - Not at the moment, we're just turning round to Bankstown thankyou
7:52 - Center - Roger maintain 5000ft, Richmond available if emergency conditions exist
7:52 - PGW - Standby
7:53 - PGW - We've got an engine issue, we've shut one down and returning to Bankstown
7:53 - Center - Roger, track back to Bankstown
7:54 - Center - Will you require any services on your arrival ?
7:54 - PGW - Not sure at the moment, just dealing with it
7:54 - Center - Descend to 2500
7:54 - PGW - 2500
7:55 - Center - Are you able to maintain height, if not Richmond 2 miles south of you at this time
7:55 - PGW - Ah, we're just on descent at this time… (difficult to make out exactly)
7:56 - Center - Bankstown advise services will be in attendance for your arrival
7:56 - PGW - Wondering if we can confirm 11C available?
7:56 - Center - Track Direct for 11C final, 11C available with two knots downwind
7:57 - PGW - Thanks do you have a heading for us?
7:57 - Center - It's a left turn by 10 or 12 degrees
7:57 - PGW - Left 10-12 degrees
7:58 - Center - Continue descent as required, confirm visual
7:58 - PGW - We have visual at the moment
7:58 - Center - Roger, continue descent as required

BSK Tower
8:00 - PGW - 12 miles to run, 1500

[sagan]

I hope that controller is on if I ever have a major problem in flight.

[Xeptu]

Human factors are complex and widely varied. Human behaviour varies by the same exposure to various situations or events. Training and particularly experience modifys that behaviour in a more expected way.

In all likelihood this was his very first real life engine failure. there is an element of disbelief or uncertainty in his transmissions, however he overcomes this and does what he was trained to do, I'll speculate a little and say he elected an engine shut down because it was running rough as opposed to a catastrophic failure where he would was compelled to.

This creates a different mind set, "have I done the right thing" mentality and it stays with you for the rest of the event, its not an easy thing the first time to make a decision and execute that decision in full confidence.

At this point the engine is secure and a decent is initiated to bankstown, fair and reasonable decision "if" you are certain you still have one good engine and why wouldn't it be. reduced power running normally until you get to
1500' and apply power to maintain altitude when you discover that ones not performing either. What goes through your head, not two dodgy engines but oh my god I have shut down the wrong engine and thrown all my altitude away already. Doubt has set in and confidence is rapidly deminishing, then the realisation "I'm out of options, all rationale is lost at this point and the error chain just gets longer. This is where simulators, if for nothing else, train that human behaviour, but you have to be allowed to do it and make those mistakes before you can learn from them and ultimately train that behaviour, experience and exposure will provide for enough brain space to deal with more complex variables.

[puff]

Another subtle issue to consider was another PA31 that lost an engine out of port macquarie whereby when he secured the engine the a/c wouldn't perform on one -(after losing the engine in IMC and descending thru LSALT on descent IMC), they were lucky to have a nearby runway, after they landed they discovered that the flaps at 0 weren't fully retracted, thus creating enough drag that it wouldn't perform. There was an article about this in flight safety magazine, and the a/c was flown by a highly experienced pilot.

Agreed sagan - if they are readers thumbs up to both the centre controller and BK tower - in what is the 'worst' day scenario for a controller as well you 2 both conducted yourself with total professionalism and provided a fantastic support to the pilot. I've got friends in BK that when hearing the recording commented that the centre controller is always a top operator.

[DickyPearse]

I hope you are not trying to aportion blame on the ATC by selectively using some truths.


I didn't read the post that way.

A question has previously been raised as to whether the pilot made the concious decision to descend in order to avoid the steps and reach the standard reporting height for BK or whether the rate of decent was dictated by the damaged equipment. With hindsight, the first choice would be YSRI, the second would be to maintain all height available on the return to YSBK and then descend to land.

The exact decision making process will never be known but it is important to discuss for the benefit of the next pilot placed in similar circumstances - as hard as it may be for the friends of the unlucky pilot to witness.

[VH-XXX]

The ATSB report will say at the very end something like:

"It is unknown why the pilot elected to fly to Bankstown when Richmond was available."

1 line item. 2 needless fatalities.

[davidgrant]

Mr Remoak, or perhaps you would prefer " Captain" as your Title.
I congratulate you, it would appear you are the "Oracle" of all that is aviation.
An old and revered aviator once said to me.
" when you THINK you know it all....give it up and do something else"
Hmmm.
From your lofty position of " Knowledge" You cast dispertions on the standards, professional ethics and judgement of a fellow aviator... based on...??? err...fact??, Its almost as if you were there.
Fact.
Met reports from Ysri... at the time indicated that vis may...and I dont know because I wasnt there....may have been down to as low as 0.5 Kilometers... A GA pilot would maybe consider not exactly ideal conditions to conduct an approach even with both engines running, maybe an airline pilot annointed by their superior training and sound judgement would have had no problem with that at all.
Fact
From the AAFM for the PA-31P... "In flight shutdown of an inoperative engine".. at the completion of the checklists states "Land as soon as Practical" which sort of implies to a pilot that it might be a good idea to have a good think about just where I'm going to put this thing.... But I wasnt there, I wasnt looking out the window trying to make judgements about what the weather acually was, someone else was, and he made his judgement based on what he saw, but then unfortunately GA pilots are not blessed with the instincts of an airline pilot to see into the future
Fact
Andrew had not long left Bankstown, he knew the conditions were Cavok there, and it was just a short distance away, his machine was under control and performing as it should, so he made a judgement.
Funnily enough only a short while ago and airline pilot was faced with the same scenario in almost the same position. He diverted to KSA. Would you have been as critical of him if he had have experienced what Andrew did?

To be honest Sir, you sound like a pompous, arrogant, self opinionated Ass.

With regard to GA and airline, another great Philosopher once said
" Let he without sin cast the first stone".

I'd really appreciate it if you would keep your conjecture to yourself and let the experts discover the facts and let others get on with grieving for the loss of a fine young man, a skillful and concientious pilot, one thing you never could have taught him was how to say NO...that was intrinsic in his training.

[swh]

Was Richmond fogged in?

The metars for YSRI are not conclusive, with a no temp/dew point split, and light wind, they may have had fog patches in the area.

Pretty hard to second guess a pilots decision, only they were there at the time, and would have made the best decision they could have with the information and time available.

He would have also had a right to expect, like we all do, that engine and prop failures “behave” themselves like we are trained to think when we do our training. However history is littered with cases where the expected turns out to be the unexpected.

Knowing what it takes to get a gig like flying a PA-31 out of BK, the guy must have had numerous people who have checked him out in the past, had good normal engine handling skills, and no doubt passed 5 or so instrument renewals and various twin ratings. He would have been on top of the pile waiting to get an airline gig.

He would have been a good operator, and knowing the sort of standard that GA aircraft are kept in Australia, this would not have been the first incident he would have had to deal with. I think it would interesting to see the previous MR entries, it may contain a smoking gun.

If anything, I think this pilot would represent an "above average" standard of handling skill on that aircraft compared to people less experienced in GA, or airline folks that are no longer used to single pilot IFR.

Until we know what he was up against, like many accidents a secondary problem may have been lurking and only showed its ugly head when he had few other options. What sounded like a gear warning horn in the background on several of his transmissions got me thinking ...



SA 15/06/2010 00:00->

METAR YSRI 150000Z AUTO 13003KT 9999NDV // ////// 09/09 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 23:30->

METAR YSRI 142330Z AUTO 00000KT 9999NDV // ////// 08/07 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 23:24->

SPECI YSRI 142324Z AUTO 00000KT 9999NDV // ////// 08/08 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 23:00->

METAR YSRI 142300Z AUTO 00000KT 1600NDV // ////// 06/06 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 23:00->

SPECI YSRI 142300Z AUTO 00000KT 1600NDV // ////// 06/06 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 22:30->

METAR YSRI 142230Z AUTO 00000KT 0600NDV // ////// 05/05 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 22:30->

SPECI YSRI 142230Z AUTO 00000KT 0600NDV // ////// 05/05 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 22:00->

METAR YSRI 142200Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 04/04 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 22:00->

SPECI YSRI 142200Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 04/04 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 21:30->

METAR YSRI 142130Z AUTO 00000KT 0150NDV // ////// 04/04 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 21:30->

SPECI YSRI 142130Z AUTO 00000KT 0150NDV // ////// 04/04 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 21:00->

METAR YSRI 142100Z AUTO 00000KT 0100NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 21:00->

SPECI YSRI 142100Z AUTO 00000KT 0100NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 20:30->

SPECI YSRI 142030Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 20:30->

METAR YSRI 142030Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 20:00->

METAR YSRI 142000Z AUTO 00000KT 0150NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 20:00->

SPECI YSRI 142000Z AUTO 00000KT 0150NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 19:30->

SPECI YSRI 141930Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SA 14/06/2010 19:30->

METAR YSRI 141930Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SP 14/06/2010 19:00->

SPECI YSRI 141900Z AUTO 08001KT 1400NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SA 14/06/2010 19:00->

METAR YSRI 141900Z AUTO 08001KT 1400NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SP 14/06/2010 18:30->

SPECI YSRI 141830Z AUTO 00000KT 0700NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SA 14/06/2010 18:30->

METAR YSRI 141830Z AUTO 00000KT 0700NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SP 14/06/2010 18:00->

SPECI YSRI 141800Z AUTO 00000KT 0450NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

SA 14/06/2010 18:00->

METAR YSRI 141800Z AUTO 00000KT 0450NDV // ////// 03/03 Q1032=

[tric]

Quite a few posts contain phrases like "let's leave it to the ATSB" or "don't speculate" etc. Isn't that what PPrune is here for? I can understand some people getting upset if they knew the people involved in this tragedy, but at the end of the day, this is what people do. If it may upset you then don't click on the thread. It is not rocket science, if you don't like sand....don't go to the beach.:ugh:

[Jamair]

I'm still trying to get my head around an operational / organisational question - if I understand the answer from morno and others, unsuspecting patients in the NSW hospital system can be air-transferred from place to place by the lowest bidder?

So despite having RFDS as a contracted service provider to NSW ambulance, using new and late model twin turbine King Airs with all the mod cons, crew with minimums of ATPL, 3000+ hours and 5+ CIR renewals; patients (and medical staff) are still moved about in 30+ yr old, tired, piston-powered light twins, run by the lowest bidder? Is that right?

WTF??

[remoak]

Mr Remoak, or perhaps you would prefer " Captain" as your Title.
I congratulate you, it would appear you are the "Oracle" of all that is aviation.

You know, it's pretty sad that the best you can do in discussing this accident is to make personal attacks. But, whatever. Feel free to dump on me if it makes you feel better.

From your lofty position of " Knowledge" You cast dispertions on the standards, professional ethics and judgement of a fellow aviator... based on...???

I think the word you are looking for is "aspersions", but to answer your question: as a wise old aviator once told ME, if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a duck. Which is another way of saying that the standards and culture in GA are well known to feature certain common traits, no matter what part of the world you might happen to be in. One of those traits is a preoccupation with saving money at all costs, and a significant amount of pressure on young, inexperienced pilots to "do the right thing" and always think primarily of the company when making operational decisions. Not all GA companies are like that, but the majority definitely are. Most of them will never spell out their operational preferences directly, but all GA pilots understand what is expected of them and all, to some extent, "play the game".

Now in the (reputable) airline world, as you SHOULD know, the predominant training is to ALWAYS consider safety first and operational expediency as a secondary (but still important) consideration. Commanders are absolved of the responsibility to always consider the bottom line when making decisions.

Now going back to this accident, all the information so far seems to indicate that the weather at Richmond was fine. So...

at the completion of the checklists states "Land as soon as Practical" which sort of implies to a pilot that it might be a good idea to have a good think about just where I'm going to put this thing.... But I wasnt there, I wasnt looking out the window trying to make judgements about what the weather acually was, someone else was, and he made his judgement based on what he saw, but then unfortunately GA pilots are not blessed with the instincts of an airline pilot to see into the future

Once again, leaving aside the insults (exactly when did I ever insult you...?), if he had been following that checklist item, there is only one option, and that was right below him.

Funnily enough, the most important things I ever learned didn't come from the airline world, they came from GA... one of them was that maintaining control is everything, and the other was that if you think that you may be running out of options, find the nearest decent-sized place to set down and accept that you might damage the aircraft. Damage is better than death in my book.

Andrew had not long left Bankstown, he knew the conditions were Cavok there, and it was just a short distance away, his machine was under control and performing as it should, so he made a judgement.

His machine was clearly NOT performing as it should, and he was clearly not close enough to Bankstown to make it safely. It may well have been that a further problem sealed his fate, but if he had taken the safest option, none of that would have mattered. I do absolutely accept that he was probably caught out by something that he wasn't expecting... but as I said... if you take the airport right underneath you, a successful outcome is virtually 100% assured. What possible reason could there be NOT to do so, other than operational expediency or commercial pressure?

To be honest Sir, you sound like a pompous, arrogant, self opinionated Ass.

It is somewhat sad to me that can't look at this from a professional standpoint, and instead are clearly led by your emotions and a desire to sling insults. Hope it makes you feel better.

With regard to GA and airline, another great Philosopher once said
" Let he without sin cast the first stone".

No, it wasn't a philosopher, it was Jesus Christ in John 8:7, and it has nothing to do with GA or airlines. In fact, as you should know, airline safety DEMANDS that sinners not only cast the first stone (usually at themselves) but that without an open and forthright culture, safety can never flourish - which is another reason why GA has the reputation it generally does.

I'd really appreciate it if you would keep your conjecture to yourself and let the experts discover the facts and let others get on with grieving for the loss of a fine young man

No, I don't think I will. This not a forum for grieving, it a place for professional pilots to discuss matters of interest to pilots. If your emotional state is such that discussions of that nature offend you, you really need to keep away from this thread until you are in a better mental place.

Knowing what it takes to get a gig like flying a PA-31 out of BK, the guy must have had numerous people who have checked him out in the past, had good normal engine handling skills, and no doubt passed 5 or so instrument renewals and various twin ratings. He would have been on top of the pile waiting to get an airline gig.

NOWHERE has ANYBODY called his skill into question. This is not about skill, it's about JUDGEMENT. Nobody is directly questioning that either, but there are a number of questions that need answers, and you won't get them from any investigation.

If it may upset you then don't click on the thread. It is not rocket science, if you don't like sand....don't go to the beach

Precisely.

I've had issues in the past with remoak (http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif) but you need to READ and UNDERSTAND what he is SAYING.

He is attempting to discuss (in his own unique style!)

Geez not you too... :confused:

All I am doing is asking questions. I haven't made any judgements and don't intend to. It's just that the questions offend some people, probably because they are afraid of the answers. Ah well... that's people I guess.

[prospector]

remoak,

Well handled, right amount of restraint with obvious insights to the points raised.

[sagan]

Remoak,

Earlier you said

'I am absolutely certain that, if handed an aircraft at 7000 feet only a couple of miles from a suitable aerodrome, with no weather issues and in clear conditions, I could safely land it there. I'm sure you could too. Just close both throttles and enjoy the glide... because you have plenty of time.'

I realise these were put up after your post

SPECI YSRI 142200Z AUTO 00000KT 0200NDV // ////// 04/04 Q1033=

SA 14/06/2010 21:30->

METAR YSRI 142130Z AUTO 00000KT 0150NDV // ////// 04/04 Q1033=

SP 14/06/2010 21:30->


Am I missing something here ?

[The Green Goblin]

Remoak, while I have had my differences of opinion with you in the past and have been waiting here to stick the knife in to you or waiting for you to hang yourself, having known Willow, your last post pretty much sums up what I've been thinking.

If only he took Richmond :{

5000-7000ft at 20 odd mile out, I can see why he took Bankstown. (You could also hear it in his voice when offered Richmond, he had Bankstown already planned) I probably in the same situation would have done the same thing at that stage in my flying.

Sometimes in this game when you have a plan in your head and your mental capacity is at it's limits flying, dealing with the failure, passengers and ATC it's pretty hard to change your course of action particularly if you have not found any reason to doubt it.

I think the moral of the story is land ASAP and let the company figure the rest out later. At least then your only consideration will be how to taxi it on one engine and what to tell ops! I hope something good will come of this mess or someone will remember Andrew when they have an engine failure and act accordingly. The regs are written in blood, just hope it's never your own.

Tread carefully guys.

[GADRIVR]

David,

It's obvious at this stage that dear Remoak is utterly incapable of admitting that he may have been out of line. I still shake my head in wonder at stupidity of his comments directed towards you.

Some of his ideas may have a bit merit, the majority have not.

GA in New Zealand is a bit of a basket case. Largish country, small population, low amount of funds being directed to the CAA will lead to the problems he has described with young pilots (assuming that his comments that on young pilots in NZ are true!!). A fairly large amount of accidents, particulary in the rotary fleet over there would seem to back up his assertions.

I find it interesting however that he has decided to use his understanding and view of another countrys GA sector issues and applied them to Australia.
:confused:

No doubt he'll dissect my comments, check the spelling and grammar etc to the nth degree and prove once again that he is indeed the all knowing God of things aviation.:E ( Remoak, please don't compare yourself to Chuck Yeager or his way of doing things as you have previously in another thread, that was embarassing;))

Remoak.... I don't have any probs with people expressing views, (as long as they are FACTUAL) big fan of the concept really. I DO have a problem with kicking a bloke when he's down. It's that simple really.

Again, try to pay Andrew and Kath a little respect as well as the industry over here you play not part in. SURELY you learn't the meaning of that word in the airline world?

Looking forward to your reply

Regards,
Drivr

[remoak]

Sagan

Am I missing something here ?

Posts 122, 130, 173 and 181 all seem to suggest that fog was not an issue, as does the fact that the controller offered it. Not sure why the auto wx report says what it does.

Green Goblin

I think the moral of the story is land ASAP and let the company figure the rest out later.

My point exactly.

I'll give you a chance to put the knife in on another thread... :ok:

GADRIVR

I find it interesting however that he has decided to use his understanding and view of another countrys GA sector issues and applied them to Australia.

You need to get out more, mate. I have been involved in GA in NZ, the UK, the USA and Europe. I hold JAA/EASA, FAA, NZ and - yes - Australian licences. If you think that the problems of GA are not common across all those countries, you know precisely squat about the subject.

No doubt he'll dissect my comments, check the spelling and grammar etc to the nth degree and prove once again that he is indeed the all knowing God of things aviation.http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/evil.gif ( Remoak, please don't compare yourself to Chuck Yeager or his way of doing things as you have previously in another thread, that was embarassinghttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/wink2.gif)

What is it with you guys? You can't argue the issues on their merit, so you just stick the boot in. Very professional.

I DO have a problem with kicking a bloke when he's down. It's that simple really.

Please show me anywhere where I have done that. In fact, I have been extremely careful NOT to do it.

Maybe he was a mate of yours, and you just can't handle the possibility that he may have made a mistake - I don't know. But I DO know that the personal insults that I have received from you and your mate Dave are way out of line, and do more to disrespect the memory of the lost pilot (and his passenger) than anything I have said.

Why don't you try and get a grip on your emotions before you post again?

[Xeptu]

Remoak, I was about to reply but you beat me to it, I have read through all your posts and unless I missed something or the offending post has been removed, I dont see anything wrong with what you have said or the reasoning behind that, so far I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

Sadly there are some that knew this pilot personally and are clearly effected by emotion. Guys if you are one of those you'd be doing yourself a favour to take a break and stay out of pprune for awhile.

There are a number of others that appear to be onto it too but havnt been as obvious as remoak.

[ForkTailedDrKiller]

Remoak, I was about to reply but you beat me to it, I have read through all your posts and unless I missed something or the offending post has been removed, I dont see anything wrong with what you have said or the reasoning behind that, so far I agree with pretty much everything you have said.

Ditto!

Dr :8