VH-PGW PA-31P-350 15 June 2010 Crash Investigation

[1a sound asleep]

http://www.atsb.gov.au/media/1576030/ao2010043_prelim.pdf

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau (ATSB) today released the preliminary factual report into the 15 June 2010 aircraft accident that killed a pilot and a flight nurse in Canley Vale, NSW.The report presents the facts of the accident gathered by the ATSB's initial investigation.
The investigation is continuing.

The ATSB will examine the recovered aircraft components, maintenance records and operational issues. Investigators will also review the operator's flight crew training records and conduct further analysis on the air traffic control radar and voice recordings.

A final report is expected to be released within 12 months of the accident.

The preliminary report tells nothing new. However it's a fair call to say that if the pilot had elected to land at Richmond they may not have reached the crash site.

I guess back to the old adage "Get the plane on the ground ASAP"

[PLovett]

I really hope that the ATSB is able to find the mechanical problems with this aircraft.

From the data shown the pilot had this aircraft in an approx. 1,000'/min descent which would seem to indicate that he was trying to get back on the ground in a hurry. If correct, it again raises the question of "why not Richmond?"

[404 Titan]

PLovett & 1a sound asleep

Why not Richmond? Maybe because it was considered unsuitable by the PIC.

From the preliminary report:

An AWS was also located at Richmond Aerodrome and the METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was calm, the OAT 4º C, the dewpoint was 4º C, the visibility was 200 m with vertical visibility information being unavailable, and the QNH was 1033 hPa. An air traffic controller who was on duty in Richmond control tower later stated that the weather conditions at the aerodrome when the aircraft was flying over the Richmond area included a clear sky with a shallow fog that reduced visibility at ground level to 300 m.

YSRI RWY 28 ILS
Performance Cat A&B
DA = 360ft + PEC 50ft = 410ft, Vis = 1.2 km (forcast QNH)
DA = 307ft + PEC 50ft = 357ft, Vis = 0.8 km (actual QNH)

[remoak]

All depends what "shallow fog" means in this context. The correct definition is " low-lying fog that does not obstruct horizontal visibility at a level 2 m (6 ft) or more above the surface of the earth." In other words it is less than 2m deep, possibly less than 1m deep. Hardly a good reason to pass the runway by, particularly as the runway would have been clearly visible from altitude through such a thin layer.

The fact that vertical visibility info was unavailable tells you that the fog layer was not deep enough to cover the sensor.

[1a sound asleep]

My feeling is the report may suggest that the pilot felt the need/duty/desire to return to Bankstown. Whether this is a real or perceived commercial pressure is another issue. In the real world nobody wants a bent a/c in their log book - whether it was your fault or not. Maybe that's something in aviation culture that needs changing. Certainly there are airlines that will not employ a pilot with any accident history, irrespective of the cause/outcome:(

The old saying ":sad:the second engine in a piston will only carry you to the crash site" somehow seems to fade after a few thousand twin hours.

In some ways it's not fair to critic what happened. BUT, I know everybody learns from investigations and I do hope there's a lesson in this at the end of the day

[404 Titan]

remoak

The problem is that the horizontal visibility was 300 metres at ground level up to 2 metres and 800 metres visibility is required from the Cat 1 DA of 357 ft with an actual QNH all the way down to the runway. Having experienced this type of fog in Anchorage a number of times and conducting auto lands off all of them, I wouldn’t recommend trying to manually land in these types of conditions unless your ass was on fire because of the insidious way the lack of horizontal visibility creeps up on you at the last minute. Unfortunately from what I gathered from the preliminary report I doubt the PIC realised his ass was on fire until it was far too late.

[100.above]

He should have declared atleast a pan call and stated he is drifting down on 1 engine at vyse, rather than descending rapidly to low altitudes to conform with ATC and being overconfident that his machine will have the desired performance when reaching his descent altitude.

[404 Titan]

1a sound asleep
The old saying "the second engine in a piston will only carry you to the crash site"I’ll leave that comment for others to debate, but suffice to say it is a myth and is certainly so regarding this case. The aircraft is certified to be able to maintain 5000 ft on one engine at MTOW in ISA conditions. On the day it was 11°C colder and 21hPa higher pressure than ISA and well below MTOW.

[404 Titan]

100.above

And how have you deduced this from the preliminary report?

[RatsoreA]

The preliminary report tells nothing new.

Exactly. And the kind of debate currently going on YSRI vs YSBK and why was what got this thread shut down last time...

There is only one person who knows why a return to BK was attempted, and everything else we can postulate here is a guess at best.

I am sure at the time that he thought the best course of action was BK. And i more than likely would have too. More facts (cause of initial failure, power available on remaining engine, A/C not having available height/airspeed/power to get off the back of the drag curve) are required before jumping to conclusions.

[404 Titan]

RatsoreA
The preliminary report tells nothing new.
Actually it does. We now know for certain where he was, what height he was at when he turned back, times, ROD, speeds, weather (forecast and actual), RT etc. All before was purely speculative at best and that is the reason it was closed down.

[RatsoreA]

RatsoreA

Quote:
The preliminary report tells nothing new.

Actually it does. We now know for certain where he was, what height he was at when he turned back, times, ROD, speeds, weather (forecast and actual), RT etc. All before was purely speculative at best and that is the reason it was closed down.

Well, yes, and no! :} And I am not suggesting this be shut down either.

It confirms what most were able to deduce with the little info we had previously. Yes, it certainly clears up the Wx/route/ROD/etc etc.

But I don't think a lot of those (newly highlighted and confirmed??!) facts weren't in contention on this forum.


Disclaimer - Just my opinion!

[Biggles78]

Could we PLEASE not have the idiot posts in this thread that resulted in the other one being locked.

I didn't know Andrew (or Kathy) but I hope that through the actions taken by Andrew this thread can be used so that we can all learn something and not end up with the same tragic result.

Why was the aircraft descending at such a rate? I do not know the PA31 but the ROD seems excessive.
Do you think the pilot may have been complying with ATC "instructions" and deliberately descended rather than "drift down" and maintain a height advantage?
0752:12 - ATC instructed the pilot to maintain 5,000 feet.
0754:35 - Soon after, ATC instructed the pilot to descend to 2,500 ft and advised that Richmond airport was two miles to the south of the aircraft if the pilot could not maintain height. The pilot advised that the aircraft was on a ‘slow descent’. At this time, the aircraft was descending through 4,700 ft with a groundspeed of 163 kts.
[I bolded the above]

Is 1,000 fpm considered a slow descent in this aircraft with one engine out?
Is the height lost during the turn back to Bankstown a reasonable amount to be expected during this time? (Engine checks, shutdown, secure engine etc)
What is the Blue Line speed on the PA31?
Several witnesses reported hearing a ‘spluttering’ engine sound. Could this spluttering sound have been caused by the throttle being closed for the landing? (keeping in mind that spluttering to us can mean something quite different to non aviators) Again I do not know this aircraft and how it behaves.

[Jamair]

I am still wondering why unsuspecting NSW Health patients are being transported by 30-odd year old light piston-powered twins, when NSW Ambulance (a division of NSW Health) has contracted RFDS with near-new twin-turbine Kingairs sitting at Sydney for that exact task.....?

The busted-arse old Chieftain etc might do the job cheaper, but what is the cost when something like this happens?

[PA39]

There's plenty of "should haves" in life. This poor little bugger didn't live to regret his.

[RatsoreA]

Biggles78 Could we PLEASE not have the idiot posts in this thread that resulted in the other one being locked.

You mean like this one -

Jamair I am still wondering why unsuspecting NSW Health patients are being transported by 30-odd year old light piston-powered twins, when NSW Ambulance (a division of NSW Health) has contracted RFDS with near-new twin-turbine Kingairs sitting at Sydney for that exact task.....?

The busted-arse old Chieftain etc might do the job cheaper, but what is the cost when something like this happens?

[404 Titan]

Jamair

The aircraft in question might have been 26 years old but it only had 6000 odd hours on the airframe. I wouldn’t call that busted arse. It probably had fewer hours on it than the average RFDS aircraft.

[Les Norton]

404 Titan wrote:


I’ll leave that comment for others to debate, but suffice to say it is a myth and is certainly so regarding this case. The aircraft is certified to be able to maintain 5000 ft on one engine at MTOW in ISA conditions. On the day it was 11°C colder and 21hPa higher pressure than ISA and well below MTOW.


Despite the fact that the process under which those aircraft were issued their Type Certification was conducted in excess of thirty plus years ago those airframes are getting very tired now, it very blatantly highlights that some other issue was in play at the time - one that may not have come to light yet.

Like many, I've had my own issues with Pa-31s, mine was minor compared to the one that took the life of Andrew and Karen, but it still struggled even with partial power on the bad one at near MTOW, and that was many, many years ago.

It would be interesting to see just how many aircraft retain their original certified performance these days, and in fact I feel it should be mandatory as part of CASA's ageing aircraft program for each effected airframe to have to re-demonstrate its continued compliance with its original certification standards in order to be re-issed an annual/MR.

RatsoreA, Jamair makes a very valid point. In this day and age there is no place for piston powered dung heaps in Government sponsored/paid for operations, to think otherwise is rather indicative of a Flat Earth mentality.

[Breeze01]

I have been following the developments in this crash as I was one of the witnesses who saw the plane when it first developed problems over Wilberforce and have a copy of the report released today. I don't have pilot or plane knowledge, but have some basic mechanical knowledge due to my line of work and observed things that I can't pinpoint or find answers for. Is it permissable for me to ask questions here to try and understand further what happened at my end?

[Jabawocky]

RatsoreA

I think many folk here would think that the post by Jamair has quite a lot of merrit. Unlike yours!

Despite the "shallow fog" and it must have been pretty light, others were doing ILS practice there just prior, what I have learned from this is, in a sick running single, or a engine out twin piston, take the ILS below you, be slightly high on the GS, and hold a stable approach even if its a very shallow fog, because a mostly in control touch down on a large wide runway trumps tracking over suburban Sydney every day.

Note to the above comment: in the case of an engine failing from an unknown fault (i.e may be fuel related for example, rather than oil up the cowls from a broken crank or rod), you need to assume that your remaining engine may not be a sure thing. If its a genuine engine failure and you are 100% sure the other will do the job, then fair enough. It is fair to say in this case neither these two points were clear cut.

No doubt some here will argue this.........

J:ok:

[Jabawocky]

Breeze01

Ask away, there will be a lot of folk here willing to help with good knowlege of the plane type concerned.

The debates that get going here will be interesting all the same!

[morno]

Being the one who alerted Jamair to the fact that these operations were being conducted, I am also asking questions of NSW Health as to WHY patients were being carried in these old aircraft, with "inexperienced" (in comparison to your average RFDS pilot) pilots flying, with no choice in the matter nor the facts, ie. You are not as safe in this aircraft, as you are in an Air Ambulance (RFDS) aircraft.

404, please think before opening mouth. This is a very very valid question that needs to be looked at following this accident.

morno

[Breeze01]

Removed due to my having been falsely accused of being associated with media.

[remoak]

404 Titan

The problem is that the horizontal visibility was 300 metres at ground level up to 2 metres and 800 metres visibility is required from the Cat 1 DA of 357 ft with an actual QNH all the way down to the runway.Utter the word "mayday" and that requirement goes out the window.

At the point that the wheels would have touched the runway, the pilot's eyes would have been well above 2m, so you point is pedantic at best - he would never have entered the shallow fog, only his undercarriage would have. The only consideration is slant vis, but with what was obviously radiation fog that was rapidly burning off, and a reported vis of 300m, there is no doubt at all that runway markings and lights would have been visible through the layer.

I have also had extensive experience of fog (in the UK, the home of fog), and the shallow stuff is generally not a problem. It's the stuff that forms in a layer 200-300 feet thick that will get you.

[cficare]

I agree remoak...

the only word I haven't heard mentioned to date is "mayday...mayday...mayday..."

[404 Titan]

Les Norton
Despite the fact that the process under which those aircraft were issued their Type Certification was conducted in excess of thirty plus years ago those airframes are getting very tired now
Define tired? Is it how old it is or how many hours on the airframe or a combination of both? A 26 year old airframe with only 6000 hours is well within the manufacturer’s tolerance of an airframes life cycle.

I’ve had three engine failures in light twins in my time and without exception they all performed as the manufacturer quoted in the POH. One of the aircraft (a BN2 with 10 POB) in PNG had 22k on the airframe and the others had 10k+. All occurred in the tropics in ISA+10-15 conditions.

morno

Define “inexperienced” or did you me “less experienced”. I could make the same derogatory comment to you but I won’t because it detracts from the debate at hand. For the record I actually don’t have a problem with Jamair’s post. I do have a problem with people labelling all piston twins as junk when that’s quite clearly not the case.

remoak

That can be debated until the cows come home and we would never reach a consensus here. My personal opinion is a Pan Pan call is generally more appropriate with an engine shutdown in a twin rather than a May Day call.

It is the PIC’s decision as to the relative suitability of an aerodrome for a division after an in-flight engine shut down. My guess is the PIC, considering the nature of the problem at the time decided BK was more suitable. This was probably reinforced by the fact he had just departed from there and knew the actual weather and the forecast for RIC was average and was also probably substantiated by what he saw outside his window.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing and I’m sure if the PIC had the chance to do it over again he would probably and I would hope do things differently. I think we all need to put ourselves in his shoes and imagine for a minute how we would have handled the situation knowing what he knew at the time rather than what we know now.

As for the shallow fog debate, let’s just agree to disagree. My experience has been that just as I’m flaring the visibility deteriorates substantially to the point it can be dangerous. Remember we are talking about fog here not mist and all that it entails with regards to horizontal visibility.

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

...a mostly in control touch down on a large wide runway trumps tracking over suburban Sydney every day...

Bl@@dy good call. :ok:

Finally, some sense.

[bushy]

There was something seriously wrong with this aircraft, or it's pilot. We do not yet know what.
This was not a Chieftain, it was a Mojave, and it was pressurised, and capable of maintaining about 15,000 ft with one engine inoperative. It had apparently flown only about 5,000 hours. Many of our airliners have flown about ten times that, or more. Many Chieftains have also flown much more than that. And also RFDS PC12's. The The NT Airmed Kingairs for the new top end contract are also "old".
I am saddened to see that some posts on here appear to to criticise the integrity of the operation, (dung heap etc) and by association, the people involved.
We must wait for more information before making any such statements.

[PA39]

Its not about the age of the aircraft but the hours it has on the airframe etc and the maintenance it has had.. i liken it to a 3 yr old cab with 400000k's on the clock.....

[Stationair8]

Blue line in the Mojave is 101kts.

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

G'Day Breeze,

What was your question?

And you may wish to consider that if you are a witness providing some 'official input' to ATSB into the enquiry, you may wish to retain your 'uncontaminated' recall of your interpretations and simply keep what you already have, fresh in your mind, as you may/may not - get 'sidetracked' here by some answers which may/may not be 'correct'........

Not all respondents are experts, IMHO........

Best Regards:ok:

[remoak]

My personal opinion is a Pan Pan call is generally more appropriate with an engine shutdown in a twin rather than a May Day call. Whatever, it doesn't really matter. A PAN is more correct but either will immediately remove any requirement for the PIC to observe any rule or procedure, which is the point I was making.

My guess is the PIC, considering the nature of the problem at the time decided BK was more suitable.Yes I think we all agree on that, the main debate is over whether you should EVER abandon a perfectly good runway underneath you for a more convenient one some distance away. I don't think that you should, simply because if you go for the one beneath you, the chances or crashing are very close to zero. If you go for the distant runway... you might make it, you might not. Why risk it? There is really only one answer to that question, and we all know what it is... and it starts with a "c"...

I think we all need to put ourselves in his shoes and imagine for a minute how we would have handled the situation knowing what he knew at the time rather than what we know now.My point is that it shouldn't even be a question of that. Prudence demands that you take the SAFEST POSSIBLE course of action AT ALL TIMES. If you always do that, none of this stuff ever needs to be discussed, and two people would be alive right now.

Remember we are talking about fog here not mist and all that it entails with regards to horizontal visibility. Mist is a complete no-brainer. Fog might be an issue if the vis was, say 50m, but it wasn't, it was 300m. You should be able to get a Mojave stopped in 300mm without too many problems. So what exactly is the issue? Even if - and it's a big if - you were to lose visual reference as you touched down, what is the worst that could happen? As opposed to what actually did happen in this accident? Even just watching the HSI should be enough to slow down safely without leaving the runway at Richmond... and that would only be necessary if you lost all visual reference... which simply won't happen in those conditions.

[KRUSTY 34]

I've been watching this topic fairly closely, and have resisted the urge to comment, mostly out of sensitivity to those involved. Hopefully what I have to say will not be constriued as "having a go", because that is sincerely not my intention.

I grew up not 500 metres from the crash site. I did nearly 10 years in G/A (mostly out of Bankstown), and accumilated about 1600 hours in PA31 aircraft with several operators. I can tell you now, I feel so sad about this whole episode that I almost want to cry!

As stated in the report, other information may come to light, and there for the grace of God..., but whether to land at RIC or not to land at RIC, IMHO appears to be a moot point. WHY, WHY, WHY, did the pilot sacrifice invaluable altitude rather than adopt a drift-down. I know it's easy to be an armchair critic, but I've had failures in PA31's and was taught early on: Initial actions, blue-line, power to maintain min ROD, declare a PAN, take stock. After the initial shock, that should reasonably take no longer than a minute, in that time he lost over 1200 feet!

I think it can be said that the pilot probably didn't realise the lack of performance available untill after his rapid (in anybody's language) descent from over 7000 feet down to 1500 feet at 12 miles BK! If he had taken stock, ie: ROD at blue-line with max power available on the "good" engine, he just may have discovered a "curve-ball" with at least some altitude to spare.

Engine failures, even in ageing G/A aircraft are still relatively rare, and perhaps there lies part of the problem. I now have the benefit of between 6-8 engine failures a year, both at altitude (failure management and performance/decision making), and EFATO's, (critical handling/performance/decision making) conducted over 4 sim sessions twice a year. Even so when it happens for real the initial reaction is usually "holy sh!te!" It's what you do subsequently of course that makes the difference.

I hope for the sake of the families and friends, and the wider aviation community, that some of the questions are eventually answered. As is the way with these things, maybe some changes to the way people are trained might help reduce the risks in the future.

[nojwod]

WHile there were points during the return to Bankstown where the aircraft descended at or close to 1000 fpm, for the most part the rate was more like 700 fpm, and after 3000' the rate slowed to 500fpm and then 300 fpm.

To my mind this indicates that the pilot was initially descending at a 'normal' rate towards 2500', with power in the 'good' engine reduced for the descent, and under a mistaken belief that power would be available to hold 2500' or descend as required slowly to 1000' prior to final once the airfield was in sight.

A perfectly normal and understandable response to an engine out in a relatively high performance twin. The aircraft failed to respond when asked for the expected power from the 'good' engine, and to my mind that must be considered to be the primary cause of this unfortunate accident.

[Jabawocky]

Agreed Krusty

On the last thread I posted a youtube video of the Thompsonfly 757....no sooner had it happend it was a MAYDAY and they were give whatever airspace they wanted.

Same could have happened here. If he still had enough performance from one engine to do better than blue line and not lose height, it would have been far better to do BK at 7000 approx and orbit in. ATC would have given it to him.

I see the report says filled with AVGAS, I wonder does this really rule out kero in the fuel?

[KRUSTY 34]

My point exactly nojwod. The aircraft I currently fly has far superior One Engine Inoperative performance to the Mojave, but if we lose an engine we Always adopt a driftdown with max continuous power on the "good" one. If we arrive over our intended point of landing at a much higher altitude than normal, then great. It's money in the bank.

Gidday Jaba'. I've only heard third hand that several other aircraft were filled from the same source without incident. Some-one in the know might be able to confirm however?

[FRQ Charlie Bravo]

I saw that too Jaba. I imagine that that was specifically put in there to clarify that this was not a case of the wrong fuel.

Of course I could be wrong but it does make sense.

For the ATCOs: What is the SOP for this scenario with respect to altitudes? If the pilot's not declared a PAN or MAYDAY do you still have to direct a descent if otherwise required (i.e. airspace you've no control over or priority traffic). (I say priority traffic as no emergency was declared in the case of my question.)

Anyway, lesson learnt. With a loss of performance maintain what you've got. Maybe an exception would be in IMC and upon spotting a hole good enough for a visual approach.

FRQ CB

[sparcap]

For those attacking the decision not to utilise Richmond, I would have most likely made the same decision. As such, I feel the denigration of those who cannot defend themselves is not righteous.

Granted I have very little local or type knowledge, though fog and fog are different animals. Conditions reported (though with best intentions), are often highly variable, with changes by the minute rather large at times.

I would not like to arrive in a marginal, committed situation, only to find nothing visible. So many times I have been wrong in my expectations with fog, it simply is an animal that commands respect. I do not enjoy playing with it, even with options.

The media reports today, reading far to much into the inital reports make me sick. You ignorant headline grabbing bastards.

[Jabawocky]

We are not attacking anyone not here to defend themselves. Questioning decissions maybe but none of us are calling him a reckless fool.


I would not like to arrive in a marginal, committed situation, only to find nothing visible.

No none of us would, but precission approach, in a controlled manner V crowded suburban streets, power/phone/cable TV wires everywhere at 200kph....NO WAY!

As for whatever the Media are doing.....why would you be surprised? You did sum that up quite well indeed :ok:

[PA39]

The Mojave is a great aircraft, just a little heavy. There is only one reason why the Mojave would not maintain height on one engine and that is if the operating engine was "sick". The pilot possibly guesstimated that he could reach YSBK on his descent.....he miscalculated, gee he was only 3nm from the threshold. he lost a lot of height in the turn which he couldn't regain.

Fog viz....well its bloody hard to land in fog, those that have had to be there understand where i am coming from. Landing in fog with a sick aircraft against the calculated chance of returning to and reaching base......it was his call. If the poor bugger had made it, there wouldn't be a post on here, but he didn't. A command decision with the cards stacked against you both ways.... is a very difficult one.

[Mainframe]

had a long think about things after reading the preliminary report.

There was a loss of power on one engine, possible technical cause / failure.

There are some human factors issues inside and outside the aircraft.

With regard to the technical issues, the investigation will be hindered by the degree of intense fire damage, yet some clues may emerge.

Was the aircraft given a quick circuit after the recently completed 50 hrly or was this the first flight after maintenance?

Nothing like a leak check after a maintenance test flight. Was the daily inspection unintentionally interrupted and maybe an oil cap left off?

Was there an engine driven fuel pump failure and vital actions taken to switch on the electric fuel boost pumps to restore fuel flow?
We may never know because the switches are plastic and there was a fire.

Was the engine developing any power or was it shut down regardless.

Given that it seems the prop was feathered,
it must have been shut down before the RPM decayed to the RPM below which the pitch locks would have engaged to prevent feather.

ATSB will do their best to sort out the technical issues despite the fire damage.

The human factors side:
Loss of an engine in a twin engined aircraft removes the aircraft from the "Ops Normal" status.

Presented with an abnormal situation, a PAN call would have alerted ATC that there was an emergency potentially developing. A PAN call was not made.

This may have prevented the following happening:



Soon after, ATC instructed the pilot to descend to 2,500 ft
and advised that Richmond airport was two miles to the south of the aircraft if the pilot could not maintain height.


As other posters have commented, if it was the intention to get back to base at Bankstown, rather than attempt a landing at Richmond,
maintaining as much altitude as possible in a drift down till overhead Bankstown could have made a difference.

We all have the luxury of hindsight, and plenty of unpressured time to think out all the possible options in the comfort of our home or workplace,
with a cup of coffe nearby.

The PiC had the deck stacked against him and not much time or performance to explore options.

And yes, I have been in a similar scenario in a GA twin with a broken crankshaft. I made the PAN call and ATC responded very professionally.

I did not abdicate command of the aircraft, I communicated my intentions and flew my revised plan.
I drifted down to 6,000 ft and then was able to hold that until overhead a suitable aerodrome, then circled down and landed.

Good luck, good recurrent training and plenty of experience helped ensure a satisfactory outcome.

The TSIO 540 will run for a limited time at maximum power, then it will start to melt things, but needs about 10 to 15 minutes to do so.

The Whyalla Air Chieftain managed 15 minutes at Max Power on one before it finally gave up.

I still have faith that ATSB will come through with a factual report, although they did invoke junk science in the Whyalla report.

(Whyalla was ultimately found to have been one of many Lycomings suffering a broken crankshaft due to manufacturing changes.)

Keep the discussion going, regretably it won't help the deceased, but may prompt awareness and thinking that may save your own life in the future.

MF

[43Inches]

As Krusty has already pointed out after any loss of power (reduced power in a single or powerplant loss in a twin) you should find out how much performance you actually have. Set maximum continuous power, maintain altitude and if speed reduces to blue line (or best rate in a single) then allow the aircraft to descend and see what capabilities you have. This will be the best case scenario understanding that as gear, flap etc are added performance will suffer.

I use what i learn from this to ascertain the seriousness of the situation. If the aircraft can maintain safe altitude on the power available PAN call and land at nearest suitable (safe) aerodrome. If the aircraft can not maintain a safe altitude when the book says it should then an immediate MAYDAY is required with landing at the nearest available airport/clear area etc... With a piston like the PA31 there is additional management of the live engine to worry about with mixture and temperature control being critical if a longer flight on one engine is to be considered.

Never assume any multi-engined aircraft will maintain height or perform to book figures after a failure, jets and turbo-props included as history has proven time and again.

[Fly-by-Desire]

I'm surprised no one else has seemed to considered this, what if the prop wasnt feathered, but seized with the engine failure? I'm thinking one engine performace would go out the window pretty fast, the report didnt confirm that it was feathered yet, just that one of the props wasnt turning from witness reports.

[buggaluggs]

Another option is that the engine that was shut down wasn't in fact the failed one, this was masked by the power reduction for descent, and only became apparent when power was increased again to try and maintain height. Just a theory, but it certainly would not be unprecedented, in fact I know of another Mojave engine failure where exactly this happened. Luckily he got it restarted!

[KRUSTY 34]

Gidday PA39,

0 feet at 3 nm but 1500 at 12 nm, when if on profile he should have been at around 4000! Sadly the die had been cast, you can see it in the inexorable decline back to vyse, and then below!!! but still no mayday! Of course a Mayday at that stage would have been academic, but it begs the question, just when did the pilot realise he didn't have performance on the "good" engine?

As I said, it just makes me want to cry. For the record, I probably would have headed to BK as well, especially if I had several thousand feet up my sleeve, and certainly if the Wx at RIC was suspect.

The decision not to adopt a driftdown as part of the initial action may have been the last or perhaps the second last hole in the cheese. Where I work, we don't have a choice. Fail to adopt a driftdown in a sim exercise and you run the risk of being stood down. On the surface it may seem that this policy is overly ridgid. I even find myself rolling my eyes at some of the more pedantic procedures, but they're enforced for a reason, and they've been developed on the back of previous accident statistics.

Does the PIC have the right to deviate from these procedures? Absolutely, but you need to have a good reason (taking stock). We all need a starting point when the **** hits the fan. In the heat of battle, we as human beings can sometimes jump to a less than optimun course of action. If pilots are trained to imediately adopt the safest course of action, then they will be in a better position to exploit that advantage when something else crops up. I know from my own training in G/A, there was the minimum Regulatory requirement, and then, if you were lucky, the initiatives of the training processes of your subsequent employers. If people learn from this, then hopefully Andrew and Kathy would not have gone down in vain.

[RatsoreA]

Bushy (post 28), 404 Titan (post 26),

You have summed up exactly what I was going to reply to in Jamairs post about the usefulness of piston twins in aeromed.

The line about 'tired old airframes from 30 years ago, certified back in the day' gets trotted out far to often, and nobody that has brung it out has defined why this is the case. An aircraft with 6000 hours would more than likely be on near new engines (assuming tbo 2000hrs) and the engineering tolerances in the airframe would not be so far gone to cause a negative climb performance. If you can explain to me why this should be the case, I am very willing to listen.

There are aeromed Kingairs out there with 20,000+ hours on them. And yet, Kingairs are able to crash just as poorly as anything that leaves the ground.

I have had a failure in a chieftain 700' high after takeoff with 6 pob, baggage and full mains in north west NSW in january in the rain, and the aircraft performed exactly as I expected. Once securing the engine, it was able to climb straight ahead until reaching 1000' where i returned for an uneventful landing.

In a perfect world with no financial constraints, I am sure that the government charged with transporting patients around the state for whatever reason would love to have everyone ferried around in the latest turbine/turboprop offering from Rayethon/Piaggio/Cessna/Pilatus/whoever but nobody in the government and the private sector can do that. The RFDS are a charity (one also well funded by the government) and mostly concern themselves with Pri-1's (yes, I know they do much more!). Pri-2/3's are sometimes carried by them and by other private sector companies charged with that duty by the state government. Much like the ambo's in sydney, there are also private companies driving around lesser (older/slower/lower medical equipment levels) 'patient transfer' vans that have government contracts.

I cannot say it better than bushy - I am saddened to see that some posts on here appear to to criticise the integrity of the operation, (dung heap etc) and by association, the people involved.

[morno]

RatSore,
I don't think the NSW Government is bleeding with financial stress (correct me if I'm wrong, been a few years since I lived there). And it's more the WAY they are funding the aeromed side of NSW Health which is causing these transfers to happen in the way they are.

I am open to correction, but I have a family member involved in the scene, so I believe my info is quite correct.

When a patient requires transfer by air, the cost of the transfer is taken out of the budget of the health district where the patient is being taken from. So, as has been said, why do it the expensive way of RFDS'ing (Air Ambulance) the patient out, when a cheaper means of some charter company arriving in a Baron or a Chieftain for example, can be sourced?

As far as I know, this is the ONLY state where this occurs! What an absolute disgrace.

This is not the fault of the patient, it's not the fault of the nurses at the local hospitals, it's not the fault of the managers of the health districts, it is the fault of the bosses of NSW Health!

404 Titan,
Yes, that's probably the better way of wording it. Less Experienced, as opposed to Inexperienced.

morno

[RatsoreA]

When a patient requires transfer by air, the cost of the transfer is taken out of the budget of the health district where the patient is being taken from.

I think that's correct. But it would still be funded from the one state dept.

I don't think the NSW Government is bleeding with financial stress (correct me if I'm wrong, been a few years since I lived there).

You know what, I am going to have to jump in and correct you there!

The reason they are not bleeding is because they have been bled out! NSW health have anyway. My other half is a senior nurse (Nursing Unit Manager) and they have to bring their own cutlery to work, cos the dept can't afford disposable plastic knives and forks! Staff cutbacks, training budgets have up and disappeared. The doc's and nurses are all being forced to do more with less.

As I said, in my perfect world, if I scraped my knee out in the bush, the state government would rush a team of specialists out to my location in the lastest Avanti to patch me up. Whether we like it or not, everything has a cost to it, and the government will continue to apply the cost/benefit analysis to it.

All that aside, I still believe that a 6000hr Mojave is suitable for this job. I wouldn't be sending a busted old s$@tbox to do it (VH-SAO?!) but if the aircraft is not fit for flying paitent transfers, then in reality, it is not fit to fly full stop! The purpose of the flight and payload often has little bearing on why something went bad (overloading/DG/show-boating/etc aside, before everyone flames me!!) If PGW was full of the same weight of stuffed animals it wouldn't have made a difference.

Disclaimer - Just my opinion!

PS -

As far as I know, this is the ONLY state where this occurs!

That I don't know about. They were due to pick up the patient at YBAF and transfer them to Albury? Not sure who would foot the bill in that case?

[Nuthinondaclock]

I don't think we can yet conclude that the pilot was actually 'throwing away altitude' to comply with ATC as has been suggested. If you read the sequence it states all the level clearances for descent as they were given, but the aircraft was already below the previous nominal altitude. It may be a case of the ATC clearance being given reprospectively as he had already descended through the previous cleared level. In other words ATC may have been watching the descent and just giving him the airspace so he didn't have to worry about the traffic/terrain at that point. I can't conclude whether the descent was dictated by lack of aircraft performance or by a decision of the pilot.

If I had no doubt about my aircraft's ability to hold height I wouldn't commit to an engine out landing in fog when there's an better airport a short distance away.

Conversely if I had an aircraft which was definately unable to maintain altitude I would then be very interested in a nearby runway even if it did have fog.

The variable of performance would be very much what determined my decision.

Piston twins do have very real performance limitations but for a simple failure and shutdown even if it wasn't performing I'd be thinking a descent rate of approx 200 fpm with everything secured, not the 800-1000 fpm we had here. (I've got just short of 2000 hours in Chieftains, albeit a long time ago.) Perhaps the failure was NOT so simple. I still think there is more to this than we know yet.

More info needed.............

[404 Titan]

morno

Both NSW and QLD are in the largest financial mess since the Great Depression. Mix in corruption and incompetence and is it any wonder they are in the mess they are in.

[KRUSTY 34]

Have a look at the speeds Nuthinondaclock. Not untill the A/C levelled off at 1500 feet and 12 miles did the speed even come within a bulls roar of vyse! If vyse was adopted from the biginning, the ROD would have to have been less, and probably significantly less.

I realise from ATC data that they were groundspeeds, but lets say vyse was adopted from the beginning and the A/C was experiencing a 50-60 knot tailwind at altitude. If the IAS was at or around vyse and the ROD's were around 700-1000 FPM then I would suggest in a PA31 you are essentially a glider, and any rational person would have told ATC such.

Whilst I agree that more info is needed, I cannot for the life of me conclude anything other than the pilot did in fact throw away altitude.

Hopefully the investigation may determine why?

[Breeze01]

Removed due to having been falsely accused of being associated with the media. Thank you to those who may have understood what I saw and heard that day but this being the internet, I could protest my honesty about my employment until I am blue in the face and get nowhere.

[100.above]

Additionally the tracking the aircraft took was not as direct as could have been, would have been wiser to request direct tracking to final approach for bk, and when approaching abeam RIC, after assessing performance output of the aircraft vs wx decision to continue or a turn onto the ILS as appropriate. I think if the remaining engine had a problem he also would have reported it so and as stated by krusty the ground speeds and rates of descent are fairly conclusive to the aircraft not being at vyse and the pilot descending to conform to ATC requests, anticipating the performance of his ship to be sufficient. Unfortunately bottom of descent is the worst place to find out where you stand performance wise.

[PA39]

Oh Dear, this will be controversial....VYSE is best S/E ROC.....why would you wish to climb? Keeping clear of VMCA to maintain altitude is more important. He wanted to MAINTAIN altitude, not gain altitude. My point being, blue line is a book figure only, in reality it may not give you the best ROC or in this case ROD. Nurse the "good engine, don't flog it to death. MCP for extended periods in a 31 is inviting trouble. Doesn't take long for everything to go into the red. Look, this bloke had enough hours in them to know what goes on.....something was amiss with the live engine. It was all downhill for him. I reckon his fate was sealed very early in the situation.

FWIW, I have often failed outboard engines while turning inbound in a non precision approach and was always flabbergasted why some people applied full power (parrot fashion) to the live engine and adopt vyse.... and commence a climb....when in fact they are on approach and want the thing to go down!! Most of the time in the melee they end up in no mans land at some ungodly altitude when in fact the rwy was almost in front of them and not far away. Different circumstances call for different reactions.

Good posts Krusty!

[KRUSTY 34]

Thanks for the endorsement PA39, but I think you're missing my point.

The Mojave will not maintain 7000 feet one engine at 165 Knots! If the "good engine" was performing correctly, then I agree that vyse would possibly create a climb, and I stress possibly. The time however to find out if the "good engine" is indeed good is whilst you have altitude to spare, assuming the sitution occurs at alitude as this one did.

A drift down should be at vyse. Vyse may not be required however to maintain height, but you must move towards vyse in order to determine the performance available. Also, I don't believe his fate was sealed from the beginning if the "good engine" was crook from the start. A performance check (vyse and MCP on the live engine) would have given him the information he needed to conduct a low power/glide aproach to RIC or even time to pick a more suitable landing place than Canley Vale road!

As far as having enough hours to know what's going on with the live engine? Very subjective statement I'm afraid. I like to think that the hours I had on that type, and my years of subsequent experience has helped me realise that it's not over untill it's off an chocked.

Tragically for this pilot and his passenger, the lesson, if he were to have learnt from it, has come at the ultimate price.

[remoak]

KRUSTY 34

I cannot for the life of me conclude anything other than the pilot did in fact throw away altitude.

I would have to agree. And it makes some sense - if you believe that you are in an aircraft that should easily maintain at least say, 1000' altitude on one engine, nowhere near max gross, with no weather issues. He was probably convinced that he would have no problems reaching Bankstown... so in that situation, it isn't entirely surprising that he would do so.

PA39

VYSE is best S/E ROC.....why would you wish to climb?

You don't... but you do need to establish that you can if you need to (missed approach for example). In any case it is close to the most efficient speed for the driftdown.

My point being, blue line is a book figure only, in reality it may not give you the best ROC or in this case ROD.

It will always be closer than anything else you can come up with in an emergency - that's why they put that nice easy blue line there!

Nurse the "good engine, don't flog it to death. MCP for extended periods in a 31 is inviting trouble. Doesn't take long for everything to go into the red.

Well maybe, but no all that relevant as all he had to do was descend... no need for MCP in the situation he was in (until it was too late, anyway).

something was amiss with the live engine. It was all downhill for him. I reckon his fate was sealed very early in the situation.


That's really the only explanation that makes any sense... however it begs the question, why didn't he recognise the problem earlier and carry out a controlled forced landing? There are plenty of big green spaces along his track that would have been fine... better than trying to land on a narrow road filled with obstructions. He seems to have left it far too late to accept that he wasn't going to make Bankstown... and that was what got him (them) in the end.

[PA39]

Remoak and Krusty...good posts! points taken. Out of interest Whats the service ceiling for the Mojave on one? What altitude is it REQUIRED as per regs to be able to maintain on one engine??

When i said that he had enough hours to know whats going on i meant that he should have known his aircraft and its capabilities in all configurations and maybe situations.

Good on ya krusty....no charge for the endorsement (you're funny Muriel!)

Best regards to you both

[Nuthinondaclock]

G'day Krusty,

I'm not saying definatively that what I suggested occured I'm just pointing out that I believe it's too early to make hard conclusions. I saw the speeds and yes it is obvious that in the later stages of the flight they had run out of 'cash in the hand' and 'money in the bank'. Was the seriousness of the lack of performance not realised until too late or did the failure escalate. We don't know whether he was trying to deal with a significant controllability issue which may be good reason not to slow to Vyse or even what the specific failure was.

That he had problems holding a vector to final could again suggest controllability issues or equally have been to remain VMC or find a suitable forced landing area. Or it could be something else that none of us have even thought of. What I'm again getting at is that we only have a very small amount of information to go on and what I have seen repeatedly with many accident investigations is that there is usually much more to the event than is initially thought.

Look, maybe he did make an error of judgement in not realising the seriousness of the situation. If so we'll find out in good time but I hate seeing a bloke being pre-judged with insufficent info, particularly when he's not around to defend himself.

100.above,

I agree a reassesment passing RIC would be a top idea. Reassesment of a decision if circumstances change is always appropriate. As I said above I still don't agree that we can yet concluded that the descent was to conform to ATC, more so since the ATC assigned levels were given after he had already descended in all the given examples in the initial report.

[Wally Mk2]

Hopefully the investigation team to this sad event can get to the bottom of it quickly & with exact reasons so we can all learn from this.

Some good posts here so maybe we are all learning already.

What we train for & what we do in an actual situation can at times be totally different. I know of guys with 1000's of hrs on type get in a Sim for their 6 monthly check & shut down the wrong engine. Not saying this is the case here just an observation as to how we humans behave under duress.
Why we do something totally opposite to what we know is unknown & I reckon we shall never fully understand the human mind.
I've seen/heard of guys who have an engine fire (under Sim conditions) thrash around like a shark out of water just after T/of to shut down the engine. Shear madness! What you end up with is a high risk of shutting down the wrong donk, going from a fire with both engines still turning & climbing close to normal to a SE operation at low ALT on now one donk still with the fire! Just some Eg's how we can all react under stress.
This particular case where the Mojave lost an engine for whatever reason ended in tragedy thru like all accidents do it's a chain of events.
Okay what we seem to know so far is that the A/C started out with around 7000 ft left with one engine still running most likely fully serviceable at first. Whether that engine deteriorated during the next few minutes is still unknown. As has been mentioned here Vyse is just a book figure used under ideal conditions etc. It's for want of a better word the best L/D ratio to clb an A/C on one donk. Seeing as Alt wasn't a consideration here meaning that the guy was well above terrain the use of any excess pwr was needed only for maintaining level flt or to reduce the ROD to a Min. The A/C's grnd Spd as mentioned in the prem report was all over the place so no constant Spd was maintained during the subsequent decent for whatever reason this was probably the guys downfall. Something was amiss there.
More known facts. It's fairly obvious that given the dist to run to BK the height at the start of the sequence it was very doable but we don't have ALL the facts here yet.
With one engine left & quite possibly failing due the continuous high pwr setting left the pilot with a higher ROD than expected, this situation would have been overwhelming to him am sure, would have been to all of us.
Was Rich an option? Sure but going past Rich was I would say probably a good idea due wx...AT THE TIME, he made that decision right there & then, no turning back. I bet most of us would have done exactly the same thing, continue on 'cause remember at the time he was still high & not in a no win situation.
He would have had some commercial pressure on him ( nature of the beast) even if personal as in he wanted to get back to BK for reasons we shall never know so BK was the only destination he would have had in his mind, again AT THE TIME.
The guy didn't express the severe nature of the emergency thru a Mayday call, this usually means two things. He's fairly confident that he was going to make it or he was overwhelmed with what was going on under his ass & simply was prioritizing the situation meaning aviate nav & comms. We all 'default' to some level of handling a risky scenario.
When it became obvious that he wasn't going to make BK then raw instincts kick in. Bugga the rules & or trying to save face if indeed he was even thinking that but like him we are again all human so where am I going to put this thing down. At that very point in time when the situation became B&W (crash was minutes away) the stress levels & decision making went haywire, would for all of us especially in GA where training isn't as often or thorough as the Airlines
Now faced with a failing other engine (at a guess) & very low airspeed & very low Alt this guy just went along for the ride to the very end. I'm not saying he didn't keep trying to land safely but faced with virtually zero safe options we would all under the same circumstances just be part of the blur that he was faced with. This event would have been accelerating beyond belief at this point in time!
Nobody will ever know what this guy was thinking during the whole event other than what we know thru R/T etc but it must have been surreal for him & I gotta feel for the guy as he is no diff than the rest of us, fallible to all the things that we humans do under duress.
Right or wrong we all make mistakes in an ideal world we would be perfect specimens but aviation is one frontier that is far from perfect meaning we have to adapt & do what we can AT THE TIME:0).

We all await the last page to this story, the story for these two that is now closed so we can 'read' it learn from it to make our book of life last longer.


Wmk2

[KRUSTY 34]

Ahmen Wal'.

As I said, It's enough to make me want to cry. R.I.P. Andrew and Kathy. There but for the grace of God go I!

[rioncentu]

Well said Wally.

[remoak]

Wally Mk2

Sorry, I have to rant a bit...

fallible to all the things that we humans do under duress.

I understand where you are coming from, and I get the sentiment, but part of me says "no".

That is the part where men and women who aspire to be pilots, and become responsible for the lives of others, are held to a higher standard (and should hold themselves to a higher standard as well). Nobody is perfect, but as the old saying goes, "to an even greater degree than the sea, it (aviation) is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect".

If you read "The Right Stuff", you will gain some insights into how the test pilot/astronaut fraternity dealt with mistakes, errors and ultimately the deaths of many of their peers. There were very analytical in their approach to accidents, submerging their emotions to arrive at a correct conclusion as to a probable cause.

Unfortunately, what tends to happen in GA is a lot of hand-wringing, a lot of excuse-making, and a lot of "there but for the grace of God go I".

In this case, no matter what happened to the "good" engine, there was always an opportunity to put this aircraft down safely, maybe not in the best place from a commercial point of view, but safely nevertheless.

We who are professionals should call the outcome what it really is, rather than trying to make excuses for the unfortunate pilot.

Having just got back into GA after many years in airlines, I am absolutely appalled at the level and quality of training that is regarded as normal in the GA world. The training that I received on types that were new to me, was a complete joke and nowhere near the standard that should be required for these types of operations.

Probably the single biggest aspect that is apparently missing from GA, is the ability to make good judgement calls in difficult situations... which is what seems to have happened here.

I'm not saying he didn't keep trying to land safely but faced with virtually zero safe options we would all under the same circumstances just be part of the blur that he was faced with.

I beg to differ... and it is the ability to rise above the "blur" and keep on functioning until the end that separates competent professional pilots from less competent ones. the Alaska Airlines flight 261 (elevator screwjack) pilots never gave up, right up to the point where they hit the water. The United Airlines Flight 232 (Sioux City) pilots never gave up. The US Airways Flight 1549 (Hudson River) pilots never gave up...

When we train in the simulator, if a guy starts to lose it as the pressure mounts, and begins making bad decisions, he goes back in the sim until he gets it right (or he gets chopped).

Until GA starts to properly equip pilots, this stuff will keep on happening.

OK, rant over...

[Wally Mk2]

'remoak' it's not a rant yr post it's an opinion just like mine. We all have them (opinions) some will kind of agree with me some won't, yr the latter & that's fair enough.
I'm not going to go head to head with you here I simply respect others opinions & in yr case some of what you say is yr airline background speaking for you. Remember this guy the pilot in question wasn't at yr level of training or thought processing. It would be nice if ALL pilots where trained 'till they got it right, but we don't live in a fairytale land now do we?


Am sure the pilot didn't give up as such but was at the end like all pilots in this situation was just going along for the ride whilst doing everything humanly possible to the end.


Wmk2, happy to read other stories from others:)

[bushy]

A serviceable Mojave has a single engine ceiling of about 15,000 feet. It can maintain level flight at 7,000 feet with one engine shut down. It is a younger design than the Boeing 747 and this one has flown less hours than most of our airliners.
A Lycoming TIO540 engine can run at maximum power for 50 continious hours without exceeding limitations. This was a requirement for it's certification. (The Whylalla one did not because it was running very lean.)
This pilot DID advise ATC that he had shut down an engine. That is the same as saying the magic PAN words. He advised that he had non normal operation.
The aircraft should have made it safely back to Bankstown. The pilot's decision to do that appears to be a sound one.
The aircraft then flew at a higher speed than I would have expected (143 kts) and had a high rate of descent. We do not know why. I consider a strong tail wind is unlikely.
So there must be another factor Which we do not know yet.
Hopefully there will be more information coming fro ATSB.
Remoak
I agree with some of your comments. But our government members do not seem to use GA aircraft, and do not seem to know what an important part of our transport system GA aircraft are. I think many of them do not know it exists. We have to fix that. Then we can start fixing the other things.
But that is another subject and probably not appropriate here.

[remoak]

Wally Mk 2

Actually I'm not really disagreeing with you, I guess what I am really saying is that GA leaves it's pilots terribly exposed when it comes to training.

When I went from a four-engined jet and over 10,000 hours experience to my current GA job, I felt well out of my depth. I was released to line flying very quickly and left to fend for myself. I didn't feel at all comfortable, and that's with all that airline experience!

So I do agree with you that this pilot probably never stopped trying, but I suspect that his last few minutes were mostly filled with desperation and no clear plan, following a bad judgement call. That sort of thing can be mostly fixed with good training - the examples I was quoting were given as examples of coolness under pressure, and a reasoned plan being executed (to some extent, anyway).

So what I am saying is that training is the issue. I reckon this guy was let down a bit by his training - not by the people who did it, who I am sure did a good job, but by a system that sets pilots loose without covering all the bases. That has certainly been my experience, and that of most of the GA people I know.

[Wally Mk2]

I agree completely 'remoak':ok:

We both acknowledge that training in GA is at best basic at worst down right dangerous & I reckon mainly due cost sadly. I work at the high end of GA & the checking & training is excellent.

Two of the pieces of the Swiss cheese for this guy was one, training & two the actual A/C. meaning that he obviously wasn't too prepared for such an event & the A/C should have been able to sustain flight on 1 engine all things equal. BUT at this stage we don't know how 'equal' this guys mount was on the day.
Funny you know we have had pilots with many hrs on heavy jets/large turbines come work for us for various reasons & all bring vast knowledge but most struggle with SP Ops & the high demand of our work at all hrs so experience in some ways isn't of benefit funnily enough.
I still believe you can train a pilot to be the best in a controlled environment such as a Sim but under real pressure he/she can turn to making even the most basic mistakes, humans not the machines is the real problem:)

Just as an Eg of well trained pilots some years ago now pre Beech 200's the "RUFDUS' used C404's. One night a flight could have turned to poo big time with the loss of an engine in IMC leaving the pilot to do a full NDB at BDG to the min then overshoot due not being visual then off to an Alt AD (ECH) where another NDB was performed & a successful landing was carried out, remember all on one donk! Couldn't think of anything more terrifying. Without being awful here I doubt few could handle that scenario without proper recurrent training to a very high std.in a well maint A/C

Wmk2

[GADRIVR]

Once....and just for for once, I'd have to say that some of what Remoak has to say has some merit.
True a lot of what he says in previous posts and threads smacks of "notice me, notice me I've flown a jet, God why won't you Godforsaken Kiwi GA types look at me...mine's HUUGGGEE!!!",

his last post pretty well sits with where I think GA is at right now.
Remoak..... post something silly, I'm starting to take you seriously!:p

[remoak]

Lol... hmmm not sure if I should be pleased or offended... ;)

It's not willy-waving, it's just that once you have experienced "the other side" you see things from a different perspective. I'm sorry if my posts seem arrogant or self-serving, believe me that is not the intent, it is just that every time I see one of these accidents, I get very angry at the unnecessary loss of life, and a system that allows the lower end of GA to muddle along with poor equipment, poor training, and inadequate regulatory support.

I also think that most light twins should be banned from any form of RPT, they are just too marginal to be considered safe in today's environment. Why we allow '60s technology to be used for passenger air transport is beyond me. It just needs a government with the balls to take action, and a major shakeup in the industry to remove the dodgy players. Finally, it needs an acceptance from the public that if you want a safe GA environment, it comes with a price tag, and that means realistic fares and charges.

And more money spent on training... there is no excuse at all for not training GA pilots in simulators, even generic ones. Some of the new generation of GA sims are really excellent.

[Capt Fathom]

Is this a mutual admiration society?

Move on!

[gaunty]

It was a mongrel aircraft when it was new and it just got worse from there.

It came out of a desperate last gasp from the dying embers of the Piper company, if I recall correctly they only built 50.

Even the RFDS on whom it was trying to be foisted jacked up.

[bushy]

"why we allow 60's technology to be used for passenger transport is beyond me"
What about the Boeing 747. It's 50's technology.

[Wally Mk2]

.........'bushy' even though I understand where ya comin' from there that's a long bow yr drawing there. One could even go as far as to say the 747 was Wright Bro's technology ( as was every A/C) but with transport cat A/C they have to have guarneteed performance with en eng failure from the day they where made 'till the day they are scraped. A/C of the PA31 type simply deteriorate during there life & where at best marginal due pwr to weight ratio on one donk from day one. You had to have everything going for you to make it work, rarely do we have that many years down the track with man & machine.

'remoak' old planes like the PA31 will go on killing people no Govt agency is going to ban them just as no Govt agency is going to ban the automobile the other mode of transport that kills far more than some old beat up planes. There is simply no 'to cover all' answer, we designed them, we accepted them & we use them & will continue to do so for the foreseeable future. One can reduce the risk by lowering the A/C's T/off weight etc to give it a better climb gradient in the critical stages of flight but few operators would agree to that on commercial grounds, the most powerful reason why we do anything in life where profit is concerned.

At the end of the day what have we got here?
We have an old airframe that is marginal under these circumstances (Eng failure)
We have low/er experienced pilots flying them with at times minimal training.
We have them operating in the worst level of WX, blw 10K with few protections
We have them conducting flights that are based on nothing but commercial reasons
And the real hit home hard one is we operate them to climb that ladder & we ALL do what we have to do to get to the top meaning we have done things along the way that where somewhat risky in a high risk plane design. (not just the PA31 either)

'guanty' yr right the Dr's didn't like the Mojave's at all I believe. To get any guaranteed performance from them they had to operate them at a reduced weight making the plane marginal in other area's, range & mission capabilities etc.

Wmk2

[remoak]

What about the Boeing 747. It's 50's technology.

Very, very few 747s in current pax service are '50s technology, other than the basic airframe. In any case, you are talking chalk and cheese in performance terms.

The PA31 barely changed throughout it's production. It was marginal when it was designed, and it still is, which is not a criticism you can level at the 747.

[PA39]

There is nothing wrong with ageing aircraft being utilised in these operations. As long as they are within the fatigue life limits and well maintained.....emphasis on the well maintained (big ask).There does come a time when the economic viability of an aircraft is not sustainable and they are retired. Its the TT and fatigue life, maintenance and perhaps damage history that counts.

[Arnold E]

Finally, it needs an acceptance from the public that if you want a safe GA environment, it comes with a price tag, and that means realistic fares and charges.
Why we allow '60s technology to be used for passenger air transport is beyond me
All of that is fine, providing that you are prepared to accept less jobs in the industry, both pilot and engineer. The fact is the fares needing to be charged to sustain the purchase of modern aircraft would be higher that the public would want, or indeed afford, to pay. Also, the choice of aircraft of similar capacity to the chieftan and 400 series cessna's is very limited. I think we will be riding around in these aircraft for some time yet.

[Old Akro]

Guglielmo Marconi was born about 200 years after Daniel Bernoulli, so I'm confident they never conspired. There are no radio calls that would have changed the way this aeroplane flew. There are no radio calls that would have changed its fate. The aeroplane did what physics and a pilot told it to do. Aviate, Navigate, Communicate.

Similarly, pieces of metal do not get together to have parties to celebrate birthdays. As far as I can see the whole aging aircraft thing has been invented to pursue some sort of political agenda. Are we concerned about the age of our bridges? Buildings? Trains. Ships? Dams? Gas pipes? The list goes on.

Aircraft deterioration with age is primarily about 2 things. 1. Fatigue life. While our GA fleet might be old, the vast majority of the fleet is well under its fatigue cycle design limits. 2. Maintenance and the number of times & diligence with which parts have been disassembled & reassembled for inspection. Diligent maintenance (which is sadly uncommon) means that a 5,000 hour aircraft is as safe and reliable as a new one. In fact the "bathtub"curve of component failures would suggest that it would be more safe.

A car over its life might have as little as 10 labour hours spent on its maintenance (ie 30,000km service interval x 5). Unlike aeroplanes which have a maintenance and part replacement schedule, cars are not maintained. A typical light aircraft might have twice as many labour hours spent on its maintenance in a year as a car does in its life. To use cars as a paradigm for aircraft aging is false & misleading. No intelligent person would do this unless they were pursing a false agenda. Its certainly has no engineering discipline as its base.

[43Inches]

This is some research from the ATSB site regarding the PA31, it is a list of accidents/incidents involving the aircraft for the last 30 years or so. I have not included the latest accident as there is not enough evidence available yet. Also not included are a number of landing gear related accidents.

VH-OPC Most probably loss of control due spatial disorientation (no mechanical defects found)
VH-ZGZ Most probably loss of control due spatial disorientation (no mechanical defects found)
VH-LHR Fuel Starvation
VH-BTD Loss of control, spatial disorientation (recovered and landed)
VH-WAL Precautionary landing due to low fuel
VH-TFX In-flight shut down landed on water (investigation still in progress)
VH-ZMK Failure on approach and landed on taxyway
VH-PYN Broke up in thunderstroms
VH-OAO CFIT/Disorientation/Ice (no mechanical defects found)
VH-MZV Double engine failure induced by pilot (mixture control)
VH-IGW In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-PRJ Take-off with control lock installed
VH-BSM In-flight shut down, could not maintain altitude due flap extension and also instrumentation issues
VH-OCF In-flight fire and shut down with successful landing
VH-UBC Double engine failure induced by pilot (tank selection)
VH-MZK Double engine failure (whyalla)
VH-JCH In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-TTX In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-LTW In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-FML In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-FMU Fuel starvation
VH-NPA In-flight shut down with successful landing
VH-KIJ CFIT whilst circling
VH-WGI CFIT whilst circling
VH-UFO Double engine failure induced by pilot (tank selection)
VH-NDU CFIT whilst circling

In bold are the aircraft specific occurances with the shut downs from MZK to FML all during the time the crankshafts were suspect.

All the aircraft related failures (Except MZK) resulted in the pilot and passengers walking away. I would not say that the aircraft is dangerous or even marginal, considering the types of operations these aircraft continue to be used you would think the rate would have been higher.

[Old Akro]

43 Inches.

Nice work, thanks.

I note that there doesn't seem to be any recent increase of mechanical issues that would be attributable to age.

I hope the twin engine skeptics note the number of successful landings after engine shutdowns.

[remoak]

Arnold E

All of that is fine, providing that you are prepared to accept less jobs in the industry, both pilot and engineer.That doesn't necessarily follow at all, you are still carrying the same numbers of pax and probably using similar-sized aircraft, just powered by turbines and with better performance. And if, for example, it became the norm to operate two-crew, pilot numbers would go up, not down, and so on.

The fact is the fares needing to be charged to sustain the purchase of modern aircraft would be higher that the public would want, or indeed afford, to pay.Yes, but if everyone was forced to use more modern aircraft, costs would rise uniformly. I don't agree that fares would be higher than the public can afford to pay, fares have been dropping for years and a restoration to an appropriate level, that reflects the true cost of aviation, is not unsustainable.

Old Akro

As far as I can see the whole aging aircraft thing has been invented to pursue some sort of political agenda. Are we concerned about the age of our bridges? Buildings? Trains. Ships? Dams? Gas pipes? The list goes on.Actually, yes, we are. Take oil tankers, for example. In 1995 it was agreed that all tankers would have to be converted to double-hull (or taken out of service) when they reached a certain age (up to 30 years old). This measure was adopted to be phased in over a number of years because shipyard capacity is limited and it would not be possible to convert all single hulled tankers to double hulls without causing immense disruption to world trade and industry.

Although the double hull requirement was adopted in 1992, following the Erika incident off the coast of France in December 1999, IMO Member States discussed proposals for accelerating the phase-out of single hull tankers. As a result, in April 2001, IMO adopted a revised phase-out schedule for single hull tankers, which entered into force on 1 September 2003.The new revised regulation set out a stricter timetable for the phasing-out of single-hull tankers. That phase-out date was progressively revised until the final date became 2010 (it had been 2015).

Bridges, tunnels, and especially pipelines are all routinely replaced when they reach the end of their useful life, or completely refurbished to meet modern standards. Small piston twins, on the other hand, remain essentially unchanged throughout their life, which is pretty much always far longer than the manufacturer intended it to be.

Diligent maintenance (which is sadly uncommon) means that a 5,000 hour aircraft is as safe and reliable as a new one.Sure it is... but that isn't the point. The REAL point is, are we still prepared to accept the safety standards that were in existence when these aircraft were certificated? Standards that are now over 40 years old and way out of step with modern expectations?

There are plenty of aircraft around that, although certificated in the '60s, are so marginal in performance terms that were they to be presented for certification now, they would never achieve it. Older turboprops like the F27 are good examples.

Nobody is arguing that a 40 year old aeroplane cannot perform as it did on the day it rolled out of the factory, the point is, is that level of performance adequate?

43Inches

I would not say that the aircraft is dangerous or even marginal, considering the types of operations these aircraft continue to be used you would think the rate would have been higher. Your sample is too small to be meaningful, try having a look at the NTSB stats.

Also, the fact that pilots have managed to save the situation (easily, or only just) doesn't mean that the aircraft itself isn't marginal, it just means they did a good job (or got lucky).

[Arnold E]

And if, for example, it became the norm to operate two-crew, pilot numbers would go up, not down, and so on. As it was said in the "Castle", "tell 'im he's dreamin'"

[43Inches]

The sample is in respect to Australian operations, in the USA there are far more PA31 used as private aircraft and the rate of accidents reflects this. There have been almost 300 PA31 in use in Australia throughout the years, not a small number by any means. They have been used in all sorts of commercial operations from Charter to RPT, Medical transport, target towing, Freight etc... Many hours have been accumulated and it is a proven workhorse.

A number of the shut downs on the list the aircraft continued to a destination passing suitable fields and at least one on arriving held for a while until emergency services arrived. Doesn't sound like struggling to fly to me.

The Kingair enjoys a similar rate of accident including failures on take-off which have resulted in accidents due to lack of performance. But this is a turbine and newer so it must be safer...

If the aircraft is maintained to an appropriate level and the flight crew trained there should be no issues.

What was the accident rate of the RFDS Navajo fleet before pistons became unfavourable?

[remoak]

Arnold E

As it was said in the "Castle", "tell 'im he's dreamin'"

Yep... I know... but there was a time when all air transport was single pilot. Change can happen (unlikely as it may be).

43Inches

There have been almost 300 PA31 in use in Australia throughout the years, not a small number by any means.

So about 7.5% of production then.

I also have a hard time believing that there have only been 26 in-flight failures or shutdowns over the 43-odd years the aircraft will have been flying in Oz. That's, what, 1.6 failures every two years?

A number of the shut downs on the list the aircraft continued to a destination passing suitable fields and at least one on arriving held for a while until emergency services arrived. Doesn't sound like struggling to fly to me.

All that tells me is that there are a bunch of stupid pilots out there.

Nobody is saying that it always struggles with an engine out, of course it won't if it is reasonably light and the weather is good. It's when you are at max gross and there is bad wx or icing about that you have a problem. Just because pilots get away with emergencies most of the time, doesn't mean that the aircraft is as safe as it should be. I've flown the Chieftain enough to know that it's fine at reasonable weights, but near max gross in adverse conditions, it's not a happy aircraft at all on one engine.

The Kingair enjoys a similar rate of accident including failures on take-off which have resulted in accidents due to lack of performance. But this is a turbine and newer so it must be safer...

I doubt that, but if you want to show me stats, I'll be happy to be proved wrong.

If the aircraft is maintained to an appropriate level and the flight crew trained there should be no issues.

"Tell 'im he's dreamin'..." :rolleyes:

[Les Norton]

It was a mongrel aircraft when it was new and it just got worse from there.

It came out of a desperate last gasp from the dying embers of the Piper company, if I recall correctly they only built 50.

Even the RFDS on whom it was trying to be foisted jacked up.


Finally more sense on that part of the subject.

Bushy and others espousing the virtues of busted RRR's, bent and twisted old junk (most of you seem easily fooled by a schmick paintjob and new engines - hey, there is a bridge a couple of hundred k's south of here getting a new paintjob, I can let you have it for say, around three times what it is in reality worth....), as usual you are getting the words "able to" and "should" very badly mixed-up in relation to certified performance. To compare a 747 and a Pa31 in the same sentance draws a long bow as they weren't even built using the same criteria or for the same utilisation/cycle rate or even to carry the same design loads. They are as similar as a London bus and a mini in construction, design and intended use.

I notice that no-one from your camp has the conviction to challenge the gauntlet I threw down about re-validation of the certified performance figures previous to the issue of each annual/MR. To expensive, or s#!t scared it wont make the grade? The truth of the matter is that many (not all) would possibly not make their certified performance due to a number of factors, engine age, gear/flight control rigging, bent and ill-fitting cowls/control surfaces, worn engine mounts enough to grind the crap out of the cowls - this alone will significantly change the thrust line of an engine, control cable rigging (despite the fact that they are supposedly checked each time I have seen so many huge splits in throttles/mixtures/pitches) - and the big one for a Pa31 - the bl**dy cowl flaps that some well meaning but brain dead engineer agreeing with the owner to rig them slightly open when indicating closed etc) etc.... And the list will go on and on ad infinitum.

Krusty and Remoak raise great points about training. I have seen one Einstien leave the cowl flaps half open and run over rich in PA31s as he was under the impression he was looking after the engines/airframe to keep the CHTs down, which, of course he came up with himself. As a bit of a drama queen he got a little hot under the collar when asked by his Chief Pilot to explain why he was getting around 20LPH less economy and around 0.2 longer short sector times than all of the other pilots. It was pointed out to him that by allowing the airframe to accellerate that extra 10-15 knots the airflow would increase and running the engines at their designed FF/EGT then the rest took care of itself... There are similar stories all across the industry ranging from people with their own ideas on things like hot starting to descent power reductions and circuit patterns.

Have personally experienced something as simple as a blown wastegate (the housing split and the controller blown fair off the side) cause a serious enough degradation of performance in a red legged Pa31 at just below MLW that I seriously thought about shutting it down as the drag was incredible from the prop on the engine that was delivering around 20". It certainly got my (and the 8 bums sitting behind me) attention as well. This happened in CRZ enroute from a mine in the Gulf of Carpentaria in the build-up to the wet. All I could get out of it was 5 thousand feet (at VYSE) by experimenting with airspeed back to VXSE (6,200'). Note: this aircraft was known for many many issues and in the end my company got rid it in the end.

Why do you think that CASA want these dungers out of the sky and are doing their best to ensure that they are becoming more and more unsustainable? Is it because you think CASA is out to get you?

I will make the point again that Andrew either ran out of luck/options/depth of knowledge or there is another issue that will possibly arise about the airframe or second engine or a feeder system to it. The real crux of the point I am making is that just because it has a second engine, does not mean that it is making either its rated power/torque or will deliver it at a crucial moment despite the fact it tests OK on the ground.

There also seems to be a worrying trend for people to adopt VYSE in every situation (fine for enroute), why do you think there is a VXSE?

Les.

[bushy]

Remoak seems to do a lot of dreaming, but there is a lot of merit in his posts as well.
Remoak's suggestions, mixed with some reality would be good medicine for GA.
Piston engined aeroplanes are an important part of Australia's transport system. Those who cannot accept that should go.

[43Inches]

I also have a hard time believing that there have only been 26 in-flight failures or shutdowns over the 43-odd years the aircraft will have been flying in Oz. That's, what, 1.6 failures every two years?



I agree there are far more failures that have occured and not attracted the attention of the ATSB/BASI, I know of at least a few more not listed in the database. If they had not got somewhere safely then they would make the list as well, some were close to max weight.

All that tells me is that there are a bunch of stupid pilots out there.


Agreed land as soon as safe to do so is the best option.

Nobody is saying that it always struggles with an engine out, of course it won't if it is reasonably light and the weather is good. It's when you are at max gross and there is bad wx or icing about that you have a problem. Just because pilots get away with emergencies most of the time, doesn't mean that the aircraft is as safe as it should be. I've flown the Chieftain enough to know that it's fine at reasonable weights, but near max gross in adverse conditions, it's not a happy aircraft at all on one engine.


Some turbo-props will also struggle in wx and especially icing on one engine.

My point is that the aircraft is no more dangerous or marginal than any other aircraft in its class, including some turbo-props.

The king-air comparision again was via a quick search of the ATSB site, three accidents occured relating to possible system failures which resulted in fatalities. One on take-off with an engine shut down and lack of performance due to a possibly unfeathered prop. The others were not engine related. There has also been a number of other fatal accidents during operations including the RFDS accident at Mount Gambier.

One could say that given the amount of flights completed by the PA31 fleet to that of the King Air fleet in Australia that the King Air is more dangerous, but I don't have the actual data to support that.

[remoak]

My point is that the aircraft is no more dangerous or marginal than any other aircraft in its class, including some turbo-props.Fair enough, I tend to think of all piston powered light twins as being equally dangerous anyway... ;) In terms of the turboprop comparison, given that the failure rate is likely to be a lot higher in a piston-powered twin, those limits will be tested a lot more often in such aircraft. Also given the relative complexity of operating a piston-engined aircraft, a similar-performance turboprop should be a lot easier to manage and therefore safer.

Of course if you really want a good performance comparison... try comparing the performance of a Chieftain with a Cheyenne IV. That's more what I am talking about. In my admittedly utopian world, all PA31s would be scrapped and replaced with Cheyenne IVs (or Cheyenne 400LS if you are feeling generous). Basically the same fuselage as the PA31 but with proper reserves of power and performance, proper redundant systems and sensible automatic systems to assist in the engine failure case.

[scavenger]

I'm surprised no one else has seemed to considered this, what if the prop wasnt feathered, but seized with the engine failure? I'm thinking one engine performace would go out the window pretty fast, the report didnt confirm that it was feathered yet, just that one of the props wasnt turning from witness reports.

If it wasn't turning, its as good as feathered. The extra frontal area from a non-feathered prop, provided its not turning, would make bugger all difference.

Think about the force required to turn a prop (and the bits of the engine connected to it) with your hand. Now imagine the force required to turn the prop at windmilling speed. This is where the drag from a windmilling prop comes from, not the frontal area of the blades.

The feather pitch position simply causes the airflow to cease driving the blades and turning the engine.

[bushy]

It's not aeroplanes that are dangerous, it's people. Aeroplanes are generally predictable. People are not.

[KRUSTY 34]

Still on the subject of vyse/vyxe Les;

Back in the early 90's the head of check and training at the company I worked for took us all out 2 at a time for some "training". No Jeopardy, no checking, lets just go out and explore some of the things that may catch us out. We spent half a day out in the central west (Bathurst) area and explored every thing from engine failure drills, to reduced performance when carrying ice (simulated by flying at reduced power), crucial decision making when faced with... "what do you think we should do if this happens?" etc, etc...

One of the things I discovered, that wasn't covered in my initial multi-training, was that vyse in the PA31 (as in all multi-engined aircraft) was in fact a linear speed depending on A/C weight. Blue Line essentially was at MTOW and at lower weights (provided it was safe to do so of course) a (carefull) reduction to below it towards vyxe did in fact give significant improvements in performance!

I can tell you now, I learnt more about my aircraft, it's capabilities, and my own limitations in that half day session than at anytime previously. There were plans to expand this program into regular structured sessions, and I for one (having experienced somewhat of a revelation) was excited about it.

Unfortunately, management decided that it was too expensive, and the program was not proceded with! :sad: The check captain who conducted these sessions decided to move on, and our loss was certainly his next employer's gain.

Just maybe, if more G/A pilots were exposed to this sort of "lateral training" rather than simply relying on the personal initiatives (the right stuff) of individual pilots, I believe they, and ultimately all of us, would all be far better off.

[youngmic]

Scavenger

I think this needs to be addressed before someone mistakenly takes it on board.

Think about the force required to turn a prop (and the bits of the engine connected to it) with your hand. Now imagine the force required to turn the prop at windmilling speed. This is where the drag from a windmilling prop comes from, not the frontal area of the blades.

To turn an aircraft engine over at normal operating RPM requires about 15hp (ref. John Deakin & GAMI).

Roughly speaking 3 x ~30" blades with an average chord of ~5" = 450 sq" (dimensions by eyeball guess) if this is presented to the airstream at 90 degrees it is pretty much equal to flat plate drag, (maybe slightly less).

450 square inches is 1.75 square feet.

To drag a one foot square flat plate through the air at 100 kts creates ~26lbs of drag which requires about ~9hp, therefore 9 x 1.75 = 15.75 hp.

That is approximately what you will rob from the available power of the good engine.

Of the available 350hp on the good engine perhaps 270hp (guessing) is required to maintain L/D max or Vyse, leaving 80 hp for climb.

15.75 hp of that 80 is 20% so it will cost you around 20% of your climb performance if stationary and unfeathered.

However the aerodynamic forces (drag) associated with a windmilling prop are huge. Consider how well an Autogyro (or a helicopter without power) would work with its rotating thingy stopped.

Hope that helps.

[desmotronic]

Given the reports that this aircraft had one engine shut down and other not delivering full power makes 95% of this thread irrelevant. Doesnt matter what profile, what aircraft or what training, without one good engine all bets are off. However i am sure someone like Remoak will tell us how much superior he is and how much better he would have done.

[PA39]

I don't think so. Remoak is giving us his opinions, to which he is entitled to do. Freedom of speech is still alive in our "democratic" society. I thoroughly enjoy every post on Prune, some i question, a lot make me smile....its great to smile!

This accident is like a giant jigsaw puzzle. Each post just may have an input into putting that jigsaw back together.....maybe so we could all learn from this tragedy.

[desmotronic]

Fair enough PA39, but the fact remains that you could be chuck yeager in a military jet but without one engine you have very limited options. BTW the company i used to work for operated a fleet of PA31's for 20 years with never more than a partial failure on one due to turbo failure.

[Old Akro]

Demotronic. Nicely put on both counts.

If you graph the vertical profile of the aircraft (based on the ATSB timeline). The flight lasted about 760 seconds from first altitude loss to loss of radar return (about 300 ft AGL). Not much time, really.

The flight had largely 3 segments. An initial loss of altitude to 5,000 ft which occurred at about 1200 ft/min which lasted about 100 seconds. Then a period of about 300 seconds where the speed was sort of stable at about 140 kt GS and a descent rate of about 740 ft/min. The final 360 seconds was marked by a reduced rate of descent (about 320 ft/min) with reducing airspeed (140 kt GS to 95 kt GS). It looks like he started to try and stretch the glide, which to a degree was successful.

The aeroplane could have been flown slower than 140 kt GS which might have reduced the initial sink rate, but it looks like descending at 740 ft/min was what the aeroplane wanted to do with stable airspeed. This is not consistent with the LH engine producing much power at all. From the point of first altitude loss it needed a descent rate of about 350 ft/min to make Bankstown. It was never going to happen.

However, the high initial descent, in my opinion. indicates that the pilot initially expected that the aeroplane would maintain height on one engine (which it should - easily). It was a reasonable thing to do, you need to come down sooner or later, ATC had cleared him to 5,000ft and at that height the Mojave should have been able to fly for hours. When did he figure out there was another problem that would drastically reduce his options? Was the second problem there all along, or did it manifest itself after he turned back?

By the time the aeroplane returned to a stable speed (after the speed build up from descent) and the pilot could figure out that it would not maintain altitude, he was probably going through 4,000ft. At this point he was passing Richmond, which we know was in fog and less than 2 minutes later he reported to ATC that he was on top of a cloud layer, so its fair to assume that Richmond and its surrounds was completely obscured.

What would you do? turn back to an unfamiliar airport that was not visible under fog / low cloud that required a bunch of frequency changes and mental calcs on approach intercepts? Or proceed to an airport that was straight ahead, that had emergency services waiting, was known to be visible and one which you had good local knowledge?

I hope I'm never faced with these decisions.

[RatsoreA]

I notice that no-one from your camp has the conviction to challenge the gauntlet I threw down about re-validation of the certified performance figures previous to the issue of each annual/MR.

I do, I just wasn't near the internet over the weekend!

As I have previously posted, -

I have had a failure in a chieftain 700' high after takeoff with 6 pob, baggage and full mains in north west NSW in january in the rain, and the aircraft performed exactly as I expected. Once securing the engine, it was able to climb straight ahead until reaching 1000' where i returned for an uneventful landing.

That was on an older (hours and years) a/c than PGW.

These aircraft are well within their design fatigue life and I can't speak for anyone else, but I have never flown one with flight control rigging, bent and ill-fitting cowls/control surfaces, worn engine mounts enough to grind the crap out of the cowls

Control surfaces are have a very low tolerance to poor fitting/free play/bent etc etc. If painting them incorrectly is enough to cause flutter and subsequent loss of an aircraft then I am sure a dodgy control surface would be detected long before it became an issue to single engine handling.

I am not an engineer, and I would be happy to be corrected if this is not the case, but I would suspect that the engine mounts are replaced, if not inspected for tolerances during an engine overhaul. The torsional forces at play on an engine driving that large a prop at MCP would be huge. A busted engine mount (I imagine) would be something easily identified. I broke on on my car sometime ago and everytime I took off I could feel the engine banging away in the engine bay. I dread to think of what would happen when you upscale that to aero engine specs. I doubt any maintence worker would be happy letting an aircraft go with a suspect engine mount.

Why do you think that CASA want these dungers out of the sky and are doing their best to ensure that they are becoming more and more unsustainable?

Can you please support this with some sort of policy/directive/reference?

All that said, there are some s#@theaps out there that should have been retired 20 years ago, but in my experience they are becoming fewer and are not used for things as critical as aero-med.

[The Green Goblin]

Aeromed only requires 'AIRWORK' on the MR.....which means you can run engines on condition and a myriad of other regulation loopholes.

Have a look at the TBOs on Kingairs running Aeromed...

but in my experience they are becoming fewer and are not used for things as critical as aero-med.

I'd love to know how many hours these engines had on them when Willow was at the helm.

[RatsoreA]

I'd love to know how many hours these engines had on them when Willow was at the helm.

Well, the airframe had 6,267.2 hours total time in service, according to the report and had just completed a 50 hourly inspection.

Odd that it didn't mention the TTIS for each engine though? I am sure it will be in the final report.

[remoak]

desmotronic

Given the reports that this aircraft had one engine shut down and other not delivering full power makes 95% of this thread irrelevant. Doesnt matter what profile, what aircraft or what training, without one good engine all bets are off. However i am sure someone like Remoak will tell us how much superior he is and how much better he would have done.

Leaving the slur aside (some of you just can't help yourselves, can you), all bets are most certainly not off. If the remaining engine is giving problems, there is nothing at all to stop the pilot, from a safe height, closing both throttles and executing a glide approach to a safe landing. There were plenty of places to go - just check Google Earth or a map - and he did, at most times during the flight, have the height to do so.

The problem is that it all got too difficult in the last minute or so, and the final desperate attempt to land on the street was never going to be the best option.

Having the self-discipline to choose the safest option in the face of personal or commercial pressure is what distinguishes the professional pilot from the less competent one. Yes, the problems he had were difficult (although could have been much worse - he could have been IMC in bad weather), but there was the possibility of a safe outcome right up until the last minute or so.

Sorry if professionalism offends you.

[desmotronic]

Remoak,
You arrogance is amazing but at least you are consistent. If you want to speculate thats fine this is a rumour network after all. But if you want to denigrate the pilot who is not here to defend himself at least wait for the report so you can do it with the benefit of facts.

That would be professional. Your self congratulatory drivel is not.

[1a sound asleep]

"Having the self-discipline to choose the safest option in the face of personal or commercial pressure is what distinguishes the professional pilot from the less competent one"

There is a huge pressure, perceived or otherwise, not to have any accident or incident....and in this case the pilot may have felt that returning the plane to Bankstown was the "safest commercial" option. As I have said before there are many airlines that will not employ a pliot with any accident history.

Just ask the poor BA 777 Captain that safely got his a/c on the groung at LHR that is now unemployable

[bushy]

Des
You are right. A giant jigsaw puzzle. But this one is different. There are false pieces which do not belong.
The false idea that an aeroplane should be scrapped if it's not the latest model seems to come from second rate Cessna salespeople and I learned a long time ago not to rely on information that came from them.
60's technology should not be used ????? The Mojave was not built in the 60's. It was went into production in the 80's. Twenty five years after the B747. ( what age are the King Airs which are doing the NT aeromed contract?)
Aircraft flight manuals have the correct information about their performance even when they are not this years model.
The RFDS did not buy the Mojave. They also had presentations fom Beechcraft reps (C90 King air) and Aero Commander reps (a specially built turbo commander with a large cargo door).
They did not buy those ones either.
There was something very wrong in the accident Mojave (not a Chieftain) apart from the failed engine, and it was not due to "60's technology" and probably not due to weather.( except for the fog at Richmond.) That aircraft when serviceable had the performance to fly back to Bankstown with one engine inoperative. We do not yet know what was wrong, but something certainly was.
It would be easy to speculate, but that would be wrong.

[1a sound asleep]

"The RFDS did not buy the Mojave"

Actually the RFDS Base at Launceston began operations in February 1997 with a Piper Mojave VH-HFD (ex-RFDS WA Section )

picture Photos: Piper PA-31P-350 Mojave Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net (http://www.airliners.net/photo/Royal-Flying-Doctor/Piper-PA-31P-350-Mojave/0144163/M/)

[desmotronic]

Agree bushy. Appears to me the second engine started misbehaving late in the approach. Not nice at all. Some serious questions remain unanswered.

Krusty i used to brief 100 kts as a low weight blue line speed. Out of interest what did your experiment come up with?

[bushy]

1a Sound asleep
Sorry, I should have said RFDS Central section did not buy it.

[Old Akro]

Remoak

You should remember that Richmond had fog or low cloud with 200m visibility and a little further on than Richmond the pilot reported to ATC that he was "on top". None of us know what it looked like from the air that day, but the pilot may have not been seeing very much ground at all.

To suggest that the professional thing to do is close both throttles and glide to land when the pilot could not see the ground completely lacks any insight of the likely circumstances. I'm sure that we'll get other opinions, but I doubt that any pilot - professional or otherwise - will descend to the ground through fog if there is an alternative.

I can just imagine your howls if the pilot did as you recommend and hit a hospital, school or something that was obscured by fog.

[remoak]

desmotronic

But if you want to denigrate the pilot who is not here to defend himself at least wait for the report so you can do it with the benefit of facts.

Another predictably asinine comment. Nobody is denigrating the pilot, least of all me. Evaluating the facts as we know them is not denigrating anyone. And as for the report, it will tell you precisely diddly squat about why the outcome was as it was. If you want to assume that everything he did was perfect, feel free. pilots never make mistakes, after all... well not in your world, anyway.

1a sound asleep

There is a huge pressure, perceived or otherwise, not to have any accident or incident....and in this case the pilot may have felt that returning the plane to Bankstown was the "safest commercial" option. As I have said before there are many airlines that will not employ a pliot with any accident history.

So the best course of action is to bow to the pressure and sacrifice safety for commercial and personal expedience? Ah, now I see where I have been going wrong all these years. In any case, I don't grant your premise... reputable airlines look at these things on an individual basis. I know plenty of airline folk who have had accidents and subsequently gained employment with major carriers.

Old Akro

You should remember that Richmond had fog or low cloud with 200m visibility and a little further on than Richmond the pilot reported to ATC that he was "on top". None of us know what it looked like from the air that day, but the pilot may have not been seeing very much ground at all.

Read the preliminary report FFS. Bankstown was CAVOK with a TAF for 1-2 oktas at 3500ft. The Richmond controller stated that the sky was clear and that there were radiation fog patches, which you are only going to get with a clear sky anyway. The Bankstown controller said he was unable to see the aircraft due to haze (ie not cloud). So yes, we do have a pretty comprehensive picture of what the pilot was seeing that day. "On top" could have been a slip of the tongue, or a reference to one or two small bits of cloud, but it doesn't fit with the facts as we know them, and it certainly doesn't mean that he couldn't see extensive areas of ground.

To suggest that the professional thing to do is close both throttles and glide to land when the pilot could not see the ground completely lacks any insight of the likely circumstances. I'm sure that we'll get other opinions, but I doubt that any pilot - professional or otherwise - will descend to the ground through fog if there is an alternative.

Yes but that isn't what I suggested at all, is it? And in any case it doesn't agree with the facts. The only suggestion that I have made with regard to fog is that it would be safer to land on a big, wide runway with a precision approach and fog that was less than 6 ft thick (and almost certainly considerably less), and with 300m vis (which is ample for the rollout), than to attempt continuing to a more distant aerodrome. I mean, just think about it for a minute... the pilot is never going to actually enter the fog! All he has to do is maintain the centreline for a few seconds... that's it. Easy with 300m vis (in fact, easy with 100m vis too).

And it's pretty hard to hit a hospital if you on the ILS.

[desmotronic]

Brilliant Remoak, the old no engine ILS approach in fog. :D Thanks for your prolific 'professional' opinions.

[remoak]

Can't read, can you? How many engines did he have overhead Richmond? At what point did the second one start playing up - assuming it did, because right now we don't really know? Feel free to guess...

Of course the bit you missed was that the ILS was actually completely unnecessary, given the prevailing conditions... I was simply making a general point.

Let's see... take the big, wide runway underneath me, with fog patches that I won't actually ever enter, and a clearly visible runway... or carry on to Bankstown... now that's the real question that needs answering... along with why an emergency forced landing was not made before it all got too difficult.

Ah, but I forgot, it's never the pilot at fault, is it...

[desmotronic]

Remoak see post # 52 for an eyewitness statement which sounds to me like a second engine problem. Combine that with the obvious lack of performance and it is reasonable to conclude that something was amiss with the remaining engine is a possibility.

Once the report is released we may know more. I would wait until then before i spoke ill of the dead. RIP.

[Jabawocky]

desmo

Really mate, you need to read back and stop attacking remoak on this..... You suggest to read back about what the witness at Wilberforce, if you honestly think that he had two engines with trouble at Wilberforce well what the :mad: was he doing trying to make Bankstown for. An ILS fog or not right below you is always a safer bet than 20-30 track miles with two engines in trouble.

Interesting note....of all the pilots (who fly as their profession) I have spoken to about this, they all say the same thing....ILS at Richmond fog or not! Maybe they have read my posts and remoak's posts and thought we foolish folk were so convincing that its must be the way to go.

By the way what ever happened to that picture you posted a few years ago of the girl flying the Cessna 208? :E I went looking for it the other day for someones education....could not find it.

[The Green Goblin]

Interesting note....of all the pilots (who fly as their profession) I have spoken to about this, they all say the same thing....ILS at Richmond fog or not! Maybe they have read my posts and remoak's posts and thought we foolish folk were so convincing that its must be the way to go.

Actually jab, most professional Pilots I know would have put her in a driftdown straight away, ran the drills and pressed nearest on the GPS. If they couldn't hold altitude or had a high ROD with suspect second engine problems they would have taken Richmond. If they could maintain height or had a marginal driftdown they would have taken Bankstown. Probe the facts, Identify the problem, Look for a solution, operate and take stock. Or for the newer method of thinking State the problem, assess the options , fix the problem, evaluate the result.

If I'm honest with myself without the benefit of my current experience and the experience I have learnt from very senior Pilots since leaving the pistons I would have more than likely started a descent and headed for Bankstown too.

I hope whatever the findings are, we and many of the up and coming piston twin drivers or even the 20.7.1b turbine guys use and discuss this and have a few more tricks up their sleeve if the unthinkable happens.

[DickyPearse]

Brilliant Remoak, the old no engine ILS approach in fog. :D Thanks for your prolific 'professional' opinions.


This new thread was going along relatively quietly until des came along. Many people have made the point that BK would have been their favoured option. However, two critical decisions followed. The first was to descend (assuming it was voluntary) rather than maintain height until safely within gliding range of BK. The second was not to seek alternatives until it was too late. You seem more focussed on personal attack.

[Old Akro]

Remoak

Runway visibility is measured adjacent to the touchdown areas and at the centre of the runway at a height of 5 metres. This is intended to be indicative of the pilots view when landing. The automated service at Richmond reported a visibility of 200m at this 5m height. Besides, OAT 4 degC, dewpoint 4 degC and calm wind screams fog.

In what fairy tale land does that translate to isolated patches of 6 foot thick light mist?

The air traffic controllers statement is ambiguous and in conflict with the AWIS. Although if he was in the tower its possible that he was near the top of the fog layer - in which case the sky would look blue to him. The tower at YRSI looks like its about 15m tall based on scaling its shadow in Google Earth.

From the pilot's point of view the thickness is irrelevant if he couldn't see the ground and the reported weather was well below ILS minima, then Richmond airport didn't exist for his purposes.

Based on the graphs I made of altitude, airspeed & vertical speed, My speculation is that the pilot was not aware of the second problem until abeam or past Richmond. I think that there are signs he was unaware of an issue with the LH engine at the point he turned around.

[404 Titan]

At no point was the PIC given the actual weather at RIC according to conversations between ATC and the pilot. It was only during the preliminary investigation that it was brought up by an air traffic controller who was on duty at the time. All the PIC would have had available to him was the TAF’s, Metars and what he could see outside, all of which indicated fog. The pilot even reported his in-flight conditions as “visual on top” indicating to me what he saw or thought he saw was more that just “shallow fog” because above shallow fog the ground is quite visible. This would have played a major part in his decision making process especially if he thought that the other engine was OK. If and when he discovered he may have had a problem with the second engine is anyone’s guess. Did he try and see what performance was available from the good engine? From the preliminary report it would appear not.

Weather information

Aerodrome forecasts

The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) issued an aerodrome forecast (TAF) for Bankstown Aerodrome at 0244 on 15 June 2010 with a local time validity period from 0400 to 2200 on 15 June, which encompassed the aircraft’s planned takeoff and climb in the Bankstown area. The forecast wind was variable in direction at 3 kts, the visibility was forecast to be greater than 10 km with 1 – 2 oktas of cloud at 3,500 ft above the aerodrome elevation, the outside air temperature (OAT) was forecast to be 4º C and the QNH 1032 hPa.

The BoM also issued a TAF for Richmond Aerodrome at 0303 on 15 June with local time validity period from 0400 to 2200 on 15 June. The forecast wind was variable in direction at 3 kts, the visibility was forecast to be 400 m in fog until 0900, the OAT 2º C and QNH 1032 hPa.

Actual weather information

The BoM Automatic Weather Station (AWS) located at Bankstown Aerodrome generated routine aerodrome weather reports (METAR). The METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was from 340º true at 4 kts, the OAT was 6º C, the dewpoint was 5º C, the visibility was 8 km with no cloud detected and the QNH was 1033 hPa.

The Bankstown Aerodrome automatic terminal information service (ATIS) ‘Bravo’ was broadcast during the period encompassing the aircraft’s departure and subsequent return flight towards Bankstown. The ATIS information included a variable wind of 5 kts, an OAT of 6º C, CAVOK and a QNH of 1033 hPa. The pilot reported that he had received ’Bravo’ when contacting the Bankstown Surface Movement Controller at 0734, 6 minutes prior to departure.

An AWS was also located at Richmond Aerodrome and the METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was calm, the OAT 4º C, the dewpoint was 4º C, the visibility was 200 m with vertical visibility information being unavailable, and the QNH was 1033 hPa. An air traffic controller who was on duty in Richmond control tower later stated that the weather conditions at the aerodrome when the aircraft was flying over the Richmond area included a clear sky with a shallow fog that reduced visibility at ground level to 300 m.

[PA39]

:) You guys crack me up, fair dinkum !! we'll have to organise a get together some time..... (read.. piss up/punch up) and swap yarns.

FWIW I was at Richmond that fateful morning...fog what fog? Blame, well blame goes to Lady Destiny.

Des, FWIW you won't find a bigger supporter of the PA31 than myself.
A mighty aircraft which carried our RPT on its back for decades. An aircraft which could bite if mismanaged and an aircraft which must be maintained to a very high standard, and an aircraft which must be retired on expiration of the airframe fatigue life. Like everything ....they wear out.

[remoak]

desmotronic

see post # 52 for an eyewitness statement which sounds to me like a second engine problem. Combine that with the obvious lack of performance and it is reasonable to conclude that something was amiss with the remaining engine is a possibility.OK... so let me see if I've got this right. I'm not allowed to comment until the report comes out, but you are happy to go with an unverified report from a non-expert witness? I see. And there was an "obvious" lack of performance? How do you know? How do you know WHEN that lack of performance started? How do you know it was engine-related? Why is it reasonable for you to assume stuff, but apparently not OK for me to do so? :rolleyes::ugh::ugh:
And for the last time, nobody is speaking ill of the dead. If you can't discuss this subject without getting all emotional, you will never learn from it.

Old Akro

Runway visibility is measured adjacent to the touchdown areas and at the centre of the runway at a height of 5 metres. This is intended to be indicative of the pilots view when landing. The automated service at Richmond reported a visibility of 200m at this 5m height.No, RVR is measured that way. There was no RVR reported for RIC. In any case, it wouldn't be possible as the meteorological definition of shallow fog is a layer of fog below 2m (6'), which would not be picked up by the transmissometers which are, as you said, at 5m (actually 14', but whatever). I'm not sure where the automated service gets it's vis reading from, but it certainly wasn't recorded in the manner you describe.

In what fairy tale land does that translate to isolated patches of 6 foot thick light mist? In the fairytale land of meteorological definitions (and the accounts of locals in the first thread on this subject, should you care to read it) - and PA39's comment above. By the way, I have never used the terms "patches", or "thick light mist" which is an obvious oxymoron.

From the pilot's point of view the thickness is irrelevant if he couldn't see the ground and the reported weather was well below ILS minima, then Richmond airport didn't exist for his purposes.Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't possible to see the runway through a 2m (at the most) layer of fog through which the visibility is 300m? Haven't flown around fog much, have you? :rolleyes: From altitude that would be virtually transparent. At no point on the approach are you likely to lose visual reference with those conditions.

Some of you need to get a grip on what radiation fog actually is, and what 300m met vis looks like.

Douche (yep, that sums it up)

I mean honestly; if you believe that an ILS approach into fog in a very sick MOJAVE is a good idea, then you're a retard.And if you think that trying to fly an additional 23 miles with an aircraft in such a condition is smart... you are way beyond being a retard...

[desmotronic]

Remoak i didnt assume, all i said was its a possibility there was a problem with the second engine on the basis of a witness.

And there was an "obvious" lack of performance? How do you know? Because he couldnt maintain height. :ugh: It may have been pilot induced but maybe not!!

How do you know WHEN that lack of performance started? I dont and neither do you.

And if you think that trying to fly an additional 23 miles with an aircraft in such a condition is smart... you are way beyond being a retard...
like 10 miles out and 10 back for an ILS? :ugh:

[Stationair8]

Remoak, done a few ILS's in real foggy conditions in a real aeroplane with an engine problem or are we talking Flightsim2000?

Keep in mind AWIS's can give a lot of false information when it comes to fog, mist, low cloud and visibilty.

The other consideration was RAAF Richmond Tower open, or shut until 9am LMT?

[remoak]

like 10 miles out and 10 back for an ILS?Completely unnecessary given the reported conditions... don't confuse general concepts with individual cases. Circle down from overhead and use the ILS for say three miles if you absolutely need to - but you wouldn't need to in this case.

Remoak, done a few ILS's in real foggy conditions in a real aeroplane with an engine problem or are we talking Flightsim2000?According to my logbooks I have done about 120 Cat II approaches over 20 years (real ones, not simulated). That's to 50' ARTE disconnect. Also a handful of Cat IIIb approaches to autolands.

So yeah I've seen a bit of fog... but then I was living in the UK so... :}

I agree about AWIS, take them with a pinch of salt. The one at my local airport has a wonderful imagination...

[Stationair8]

Fair enough Remoak, for your ILS's in the UK you probably had a serviceable autopilot and a flight director.

The Mojave when they came off the production had the best avionics setup in any GA piston twin or single that I had flown up until early 2000, Ten years later is that all gear still working or it on the MEL list to be fixed, had the young bloke been shown how it all worked and how to use it? Amazing how chief pilots have a fear of flight directors, or coupled approahes etc!!!

[remoak]

Fair enough Remoak, for your ILS's in the UK you probably had a serviceable autopilot and a flight director.

And a serviceable First Officer! :ok:

Amazing how chief pilots have a fear of flight directors, or coupled approahes etc!!!

Amazing how so many people on this forum have a fear of them or a complete misunderstanding of them too! But I digress...

[sagan]

Remoak said

'And if you think that trying to fly an additional 23 miles with an aircraft in such a condition is smart... you are way beyond being a retard...'

And here is where you have completely lost my respect.

Pat yourself on the back and bask in your years of self indulgent glory.

I am embarrassed for you.

[assymetric]

If problems with the remaining engine toward the end of this flight is determined to be the cause of this tragic accident, does this not add to the argument LAND ASAP after first engine failure or if unable do not descend any further than required by S/E performance until assured of landing i.e. overhead the field.

Assy

[Under Dog]

What if the senario is that he shut down the good engine by mistake (We know that
the remaining engine on descent was not producing full power) and then powered up at say 1500ft not realising his mistake when the engine didn't respond.
Just a thought!!!

The Dog

[404 Titan]

Under Dog

That possibility had certainly crossed my mind, especially with witnesses reporting an engine surging. At this stage though that is really for the investigators to determine. Anything we say here is only speculation.

[Reading5]

Please guys, respect the families and Andrew and Kathy.

I suspect that 'BREEZE 01' may be a member of the media fraternity. If you are not, BREEZE 01, then apologies and understand that this matter is a sensitive issue. There will always be members' of the media who will trawl these forums for a quote.

Also, please remember that as with the CASA/ Airservices accident publications, that this is a learning forum and as such it is appropriate to learn from incidents and accidents in a hope that future accidents are minimised or avoided.

Discussion is healthy. Having said that, though, there is a tendency for people to pass judgement on situations and occurences when we are not in that situation.

I can think of a number of checks, double checks, decisions and radio calls here in the comfort of my lounge room that I 'would have done' in that situation. However, if it were in the heat of a moment, confronted with a genuine engine failure and potential crisis in a light piston twin aircraft with some fog, coupled with operational demands....then who knows how I, or any of us would react.

My genuine heartfelt thoughts go out to the families.

[UnderneathTheRadar]

One possibility in my mind for the reported surging engine is that this was associated with the failed engine - not the 'good' one. It may have been delivering intermittent power or the pilot may have been exercising the throttle looking for a power setting that solved whatever problem he had.

[Aerodink]

I was made aware of something today that would indicate the wrong engine was shut down, so UnderDog may well be correct.

[RatsoreA]

Can you be more specific?

[Aerodink]

Would rather not.
It will all come out in due course.

And as a footnote, I am realising once again why i stopped visiting this website around 8 yrs ago....your all full of it !

[thepalmer]

I am curious to se the ATSB report when it finally comes out.

I am a ME trainer and want to see if it was an incorrect operational decision or a cascading failure that backed someone into an inescapable corner.

The PA31 is not the best performer on 1 engine but it isn't the worst but it is probably the the most critical in its class to CORRECT handling to have a successful outcome. ie speed, bank, yaw angle, cowl flaps, density, turbulence/control input rates etc.

It amazes me that every time a PA31 has an engine problem that the VHMZK too lean statement comes out from an ignorant industry and regulator. Do some research and educate yourselves. THE POH was written mostly by the marketing and sales department not the test pilots or engineers.

[ejet3]

Hi,

I've been following this thread and the initial thread any more details?, with regard to my job and procedures, we have all been taught to just return if you have a engine failure at or after v1, in the case of the pa31 it did happen up near Richmond the only thing i can say is maybe he couldn’t visually see Richmond airport? there were reports of fog in the area according to the initial report, so why wouldn't he just return to YBSK? I would have done the same as this young pilot RIP mate :{,

remoak,
Even if the pa31 couldn't for some reason maintain height and Richmond was fogged in why would u try an approach there if u know you can’t get it and risk doing a 1 engine missed approach from there at a aerodrome you are unfamiliar with when he knew Ybsk was relativity clear.

Just be 2 cents worth

[Jack Ranga]

Would rather not.
It will all come out in due course.

And as a footnote, I am realising once again why i stopped visiting this website around 8 yrs ago....your all full of it !

mmmmm, interesting, some thought provoking stuff posted here that could get punters thinking about how they'd deal with similar

I was made aware of something today that would indicate the wrong engine was shut down, so UnderDog may well be correct.


Yet you couldn't help yourself trying to be the first with 'breaking news'

What a hero, who's full of it?

[remoak]

Even if the pa31 couldn't for some reason maintain height and Richmond was fogged in why would u try an approach there if u know you can’t get it and risk doing a 1 engine missed approach from there at a aerodrome you are unfamiliar with when he knew Ybsk was relativity clear.

You should read the thread mate, before posting stuff like this, but briefly, whatever fog was present at Richmond was classified as fog patches, which by definition are no more than 6 feet thick... the point being that he would never have entered whatever was there, and the reported vis was such that the runway would be clearly visible... and it is a very big runway. People in the area at the time have said on this thread that the "fog" amounted to hardly anything. Anyway, read the thread...

[ejet3]

Fog is fog mate 6 feet deep or 500ft still can’t see the rwy, he obviously didn’t go there for a good reason, I think its harsh for us almost 2 months later after reviewing all the data, when he would of only had seconds to gather and review and decide the best course of action! I heard rumors at Bankstown that the refueler may have topped of his aux tanks with jet a1, so after takeoff he may have switched to burn his aux’s and then got detonation on both engines or something like that just rumors going around my work.


"An AWS was also located at Richmond Aerodrome and the METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was calm, the OAT 4º C, the dewpoint was 4º C, the visibility was 200 m with vertical visibility information being unavailable, and the QNH was 1033 hPa. An air traffic controller who was on duty in Richmond control tower later stated that the weather conditions at the aerodrome when the aircraft was flying over the Richmond area included a clear sky with a shallow fog that reduced visibility at ground level to 300 m."

From the report u think you would even consider going to Richmond if you head that metar on the radio! when Bankstown was cavok!

"The Bankstown Aerodrome automatic terminal information service (ATIS) ‘Bravo’7 was broadcast during the period encompassing the aircraft’s departure and subsequent return flight towards Bankstown. The ATIS information included a variable wind of 5 kts, an OAT of 6º C, CAVOK8 and a QNH of 1033 hPa. The pilot reported that he had received ’Bravo’ when contacting the Bankstown Surface Movement Controller at 0734, 6 minutes prior to departure."

[Arnold E]

the refueler may have topped of his aux tanks with jet a1, just rumors going around my work.This is a rumour network after all

[GADRIVR]

Seems at that even though the operator in question is presently grounded at the moment, they are still operating aero med transfer flights through another operator in Port. What the hell is CASA doing about this???!!!
I'd love to see the due diligence study they did before going down this road... them and the area health service concerned.
Another accident waiting to happen.:ugh:

[remoak]

ejet3

No, fog is not just fog, It varies widely in it's properties. In this case, it was shallow fog (less than 2m thick) with a visibility in that shallow fog of 300m. Are you suggesting that with a vis of 300m, it is not possible to see 2m? Particularly from altitude.

he would of only had seconds to gather and review and decide the best course of action

Complete bollocks. There was absolutely no hurry from that altitude, he had plenty of time to think about it.

From the report u think you would even consider going to Richmond if you head that metar on the radio! when Bankstown was cavok!

Of course you would think about it. Consider ALL the options, not just the obvious one.

I heard rumors at Bankstown that the refueler may have topped of his aux tanks with jet a1, so after takeoff he may have switched to burn his aux’s and then got detonation on both engines or something like that just rumors going around my work.

If he did it after takeoff he would never have got to the altitude he did. Also makes you wonder why, if that was the case, he didn't change back to the main tanks when he had a problem... but we will never know.

[puff]

I believe the other aeromed operator in Port is infact their 'opposition' company GADRIVR. I believe it's Premier Aviation Aircraft Charter which is part of Johnston Aviation. Airtex may be 'contracting' out their contract work to them ??

There used to be another aeromed operator in Port (years ago) which was Wingaway - which Airtex bought out.

[KRUSTY 34]

It is my understanding that the PA31P has main tanks only (no Aux's).

Also, the decision re: BK or RIC has been debated to death. What I think really put him up against it was the decision to throw away invaluable altitude. Some here have postulated that he may have been forced to descend by as yet unknown factors. I'm sorry, but the radar data (G/S-ROD) does not support either an Emergency descent nor a Driftdown.

I was chatting to an old collegue of mine the other day, an ex G/A and airline training Captain, now retired after 30 + years. "Crikey Krusty, if it was me at 7000' over RIC, and I made the decision to go to BK, I would have still been at 7000' over the top of BK! Why do you suppose he didn't do that?"

I could only shrug my shoulders. :sad:

[ejet3]

If he did it after takeoff he would never have got to the altitude he did. Also makes you wonder why, if that was the case, he didn't change back to the main tanks when he had a problem... but we will never know.

Good question I always got taught do FMOST or something similar it’s been awhile now, e.g. change fuel tanks etc

KRUSTY 34

Yer your right "The fuel system was simple Left and Right, 80 us gallons up to the tabs, 95 us gallons was up to top of the wing and then full tanks was 119 us gallons aside." found that here http://www.pprune.org/dg-p-general-aviation-questions/323610-pa-31p-mojave.html

Is JetA1 heavier then Avgas? Maybe topped it off and it all sunk to the bottom of the tanks or something?

[remoak]

Why do you suppose he didn't do that?

Probably the only relevant question, really...

[bizzybody]

GADRIVER, i have seen nearly every operator around parking their aircraft over that neck of the weeds ranging from Chieftains, Jetstream , an ACT based Metro :ugh:

[Horatio Leafblower]

Ol' Ivesy must be desperate if he's got DeBruins' J32 in :eek:

[Les Norton]

Is JetA1 heavier then Avgas? Maybe topped it off and it all sunk to the bottom the tanks or something


There's a bloke over in the west who has first hand experience in just that very subject while he was conducting a mail run. He tried it in a C210 in around 2004 sometime in central Australia. His inattention when refuelling his aircraft very nearly cost him his life quite some distance and stops after he refuelled.

I am not saying that PGW had Jet A1 in its tanks in this instance but there seem to be similarities to the incident I speak of in some of the evidence arising from some witnesses to the way the remaining engine was delivering power.

Despite the difference in specific gravity it seems to float on the AVGAS with a layer that does mix to a certain extent, which seems to allow an aircraft to get airbourne with the inevitable power degradation (when the engine is trying to digest the cocktail of Avgas and Jet A1 it still runs, however belches smoke and runs very rough) sometime later.

[ejet3]

Hi Les,

Sounds like a possibility, eye witnesses said the other engine was cutting in and out possible detonation? does anybody know the company's sops maybe engine failure due to running the engines too lean like the one over in Adelaide can't remember the details off hand,

[remoak]

Mis-fuelling does seem like a pretty obvious scenario, although the problem is that Jet A-1 is heavier than Avgas (.8 to .71), so it really should have got into the fuel lines pretty early in the piece. The other problem is that it should be very simple to establish what went into the wings, it should have been known within hours of the accident and yet CASA have said nothing about it. Unless, of course, the refueller is trying to cover his arse...

[Jamair]

AVTUR and AVGAS mix quite readily, especially when considering the agitation the liquid would go through being pumped into the tanks.

[remoak]

It also separates out quite readily when left... it really depends when it was fuelled.

[ejet3]

It also separates out quite readily when left... it really depends when it was fuelled.


True but once the pa31 took off and climbed etc i think the fuel would of mixed!

[remoak]

Depends... if the taxi was gentle and the air smooth - and the ball was in the middle - there would likely be very little mixing (due to the shape of the tank).

[bushy]

I'm aware of the 210 incident, and that engine was very badly damaged. It did fly for a short time after refuelling. I expect he changed fuel tanks during that time.
I know of another misfuelling incident (with avtur instead of avgas). In this case the aircraft took off shortly after being refuelled and the engine failed shortly after liftoff and they landed on a road.
I expet any avtur in the tank that is supplying the engine would result in immediate failure. If it (the PA31P) was misfuelled there will be records of that.
Regarding the engine surging. This could be caused by interruption of the fuel supply to the engine. When that happens the prop goes to full fine, and unless the throttle is retarded the engine will go to max RPM when the supply is restored, and then reduce to what it was as the prop pitch changes. (don't ask me how i know)

[ejet3]

remoak (http://www.pprune.org/members/153426-remoak) you got a parts manual or diagram of the fuel tanks?

[remoak]

Nope... don't happen to have one of those. However it is basically the same shape as the wing between the spars, one big tank each side. The dihedral is the reason that, once separated, mixing tends to be inhibited.

[PLovett]

Mmm..playing devil's advocate here but wouldn't the turns onto course and then the vibration of the engines cause the fuel mix to stay mixed?

Like bushy, I am also aware of the 210 crash in Central Australia. The story I was told was that the pilot misfueled the aircraft from drum stock while doing a mail run. The engine started running rough almost immediately on starting. The pilot shut down and phoned the engineers who advised remaining where he was but he thought he would travel another sector (for what reason I have no idea). The engine seized (I think) forcing a landing into scrub. :ugh:

[remoak]

If the aircraft is in balanced flight, turns onto course will do absolutely nothing other than aid separation... the only slight help being the tiny amount of additional G in any turns, which will tend to force the higher SG (ie turbine) fuel to the bottom. Engine vibration, by itself, is highly unlikely to have much effect.

[Les Norton]

Like bushy, I am also aware of the 210 crash in Central Australia. The story I was told was that the pilot misfueled the aircraft from drum stock while doing a mail run. The engine started running rough almost immediately on starting. The pilot shut down and phoned the engineers who advised remaining where he was but he thought he would travel another sector (for what reason I have no idea). The engine seized (I think) forcing a landing into scrub


The aircraft flew on for another seven or eight stops after refuelling at Baikal. The pilot was advised that if he was not happy to stop, however he elected to continue. The engine completely failed shortly after departure from Utopia and unfortunately he pulled-up around 5 or so miles to the south of there after (it would appear) turning around to head back. The engine aparently did not show any real power loss until a couple of stops later after a tank change, that was when he rang engineering.

[nojwod]

I know diesel isn't avtur and unleaded isn't avgas but I believe they're similar enough for this story to be possibly relevant...

The old man filled our old petrol Peugeot 504 with diesel by mistake at a servo on the Hume Highway. He headed off down the highway as normal and several kilometres later, with no warning, it suddenly belched a large cloud of smoke and the engine stopped dead. There was no mixing of those fuels I can tell you.

To answer the replies below... the engine ran fine after the lines had been blown out and fuel introduced. There would not have been pre-detonation or anything like it. The diesel simply did not combust, however by coming into contact with the fuel in the lines a small amount of mixing occured in the fuel line, and the hot engine interior would have created some smoke from the diesel, enough to create a few seconds worth of clouds of white smoke from the exhaust. Pre-detonation occurs when you introduce a lighter grade of fuel into a diesel, as in petrol into a diesel, but not the other way around.

[Wally Mk2]

'nojwod' there would have been some mixing, Jet & Avgas does mix otherwise turbines engines wouldn't be allowed to use Avgas (limited use) for engine combustion.
You might find that in yr dads case the car initially ran on the fuel in the fuel lines & carby (if it where a carby fed donk which I think the old 504 was) before the kero based fuel came into contact with the engines combustion chamber/s. When such an event happens the damage to the engine is nasty thru sever detonation problems causing failure of some moving parts within hence the 'dead stop'. The large cloud of smoke as you mention was the final explosion of the poor fuel/air mixture just prior to death of the 'Pug'.ugly things they where too:}.

The biggest diff between Avgas (petrol) & Avtur (Kero) is the liquids flash point not so much it's ability to mix. As most would know for an auto eng you need a much higher compression to support ignition using Diesel fuel where using petrol (Avgas) it can explode just looking at it!:)



Wmk2

[CharlieLimaX-Ray]

A Piper Chieftain on an RPT run in the early 1980's was refuelled with Jet A-1 from drum stock, by the time the aircraft had backtracked for departure both engines were running rough and only just producing enough power to be able to taxi back to the terminal.

[remoak]

When such an event happens the damage to the engine is nasty thru sever detonation problems causing failure of some moving parts within hence the 'dead stop'.

You would normally get a lot more warning than that, some engines will detonate for a considerable time before they die - depends on how well built/overbuilt the engine is for it's hp rating. I doubt the Pug would die from detonation for at least a few minutes. Diesel engines detonate by default... :}

[ejet3]

Any ideas when the final report will be out? I still think if it was jet a1 in the tanks the vibrations and turning and climb etc would have been enough to mix the fuel etc

[whoooop1991]

it was not jeta1, it was not avtur! about 5 aircraft from airtex/skymaster were refuelled that morning by the same truck... with no issues!

[ejet3]

Ok looks like that theory is out the window, what else could of it been? both engine just letting go running the egt's too high?

[Seabreeze]

Many years ago, Bob Hoover had his recip engine Shrike refueled with Jet A1 at Brown Field, near the Mexican Border in Southern California: Note both engines quit after departure not far out of Brown!!! Quoted interview below:

"Mike Busch asks:

You mentioned some in-flight emergencies in the P-51. Ever had any in the Shrike?

Bob Hoover:

Mike....Yes...I participated in an event at Brown Field, and upon departing, I had been serviced with jet fuel (with recip engines) and both engines quit producing power yet completely normal readings.
I was heading north out of Brown Field, and I didn't have enough power to turn back and land, and in that area there are nothing but deep ravines, really deep....
and I pulled up at the last instant, and slammed into the side of a ravine, but I had the airplane slowed up enough so that nobody was hurt.
We hit a rock pile after about 200 feet of forward movement...but we all got out OK.

[ejet3]

I still think jeta1 may have caused this accident its obvious that 1 engine was shut down and the other was almost dead and he seemed to be going fine untill the last few seconds

[RatsoreA]

Ejet3, how about you go shove your head back wherever you pulled it out of. It is clear you are either an uninformed member of the media, or just a troll looking to stir. You have only joined recently, and only posted in this thread, and a good deal later than the event and are just repeating stuff that others have already said or asked.

Really, just go f@$k off.

[ejet3]

Ejet3, how about you go shove your head back wherever you pulled it out of. It is clear you are either an uninformed member of the media, or just a troll looking to stir. You have only joined recently, and only posted in this thread, and a good deal later than the event and are just repeating stuff that others have already said or asked.

Really, just go f@$k off.

Hey,
Why don't u do more research I have posted in other threads i see you have posted maybe a dozen times on this accident does this make you know it all?, I’m not some 33 year old who fly’s his desk every night :} and read every post , what do you do for a living? I bet your some second officer and just sits on guard all day stirring the pot :D and doing Jepp amendments and sucking up to the captain!
I have been reading on this thread and the previous one, I am just like everybody else and want to find out what happened this is a rumor forum isn’t what is your problem?

[whoooop1991]

Ejet,

Don't you think if it was jeta1 there would be another 5 aircraft that crashed at bankstown? Did you read the preliminary report? Or is your head to far up your a** speculating and not looking at the real facts?

[kimwestt]

You obnoxious little sh1t.
Could you please explain why the aircraft climbed to 7000 odd feet before the effect of your "tanks full of Jet A1" theory were evident?
I think you owe many people a deep apology.
Now is good

[ejet3]

Like i said this is a rumor forum and that was what i heard from around the airport and the people i work with! i heard the tanks where topped off with jeta1 so whoooop1991 if u dont like what I have to say then don't read it! :}

[remoak]

Awwwww come on guys, everybody knows that if you accidentally put JET A1 into your MS Flight Sim Mojave, you can easily get to 7000' before anything happens... :=

[ejet3]

Awwwww come on guys, everybody knows that if you accidentally put JET A1 into your MS Flight Sim Mojave, you can easily get to 7000' before anything happens... :D answer that RatsoreA :8

[whoooop1991]

who do you work with ejet? airtex??

[ejet3]

Nuh mate been there done that, been in a airline now for a number of years

[eternity]

whooop191 had a good point,



reading the preliminary report, the ATSB noted that the aircraft was filled up with AVGAS.

Not JetA1 - AVGAS............


The investigators are not idiots - they are in fact very experienced. I am sure that they too were initially looking at what type of fuel was put into the a/c tanks. Hence the reason they noted that it was filled up with AVGAS


Not JetA1 - AVGAS..........


how are you people not getting this....???

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

This thread has long-since departed a discussion of any value -to anyone- and descended into the typically farcical.

It needs closed.

[el_capitano]

Second that, time to close this thread.

[remoak]

I never really understood these "close the thread" calls. If you don't like it, don't read it! :=:=:ugh::rolleyes:

[whoooop1991]

I completely understand why people want this thread shut, I personally don't approve of speculating. The thing that is inappropriate is when people continue to speculate on issues that have already been addressed.

[ejet3]

lets just get back on with it! it is a rumor forum! :ok:

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

I never really understood these "close the thread" calls. If you don't like it, don't read it!

Speaking personally and in this particular case, this thread did originally serve an admirable purpose -even if that purpose might best be described as "speculation"- in a group of (supposed) professionals trying to understand why a tragedy occurred and what might best be done to prevent a similar tragedy in future. Whilst some of the speculation within the thread has been ridiculously wide of the mark, there has been discussion of tremendous value from some participants -including yourself remoak. That's why I read the thread.

Recently however, the thread has descended into the nonsensical, with theories already disproved still being touted by trolls and respondents indulging in vicious personality attacks, apparently intended to defend the reputations of mates departed -but which serve only to damage their own reputations within these forae. That's why I called for the thread to be closed.

Like you, I have little if any faith in the investigations currently under-way exposing the full truth of the matters leading to this tragedy. Their "findings" will most likely be an appeasement to their political masters and an obfuscation of the regulatory and training factors that could potentially be an embarrassment to those charged with that responsibility. There will doubtless be a scape-goat, possibly a couple for the public "execution" and I guarantee you, no-one even peripherally involved with this tragedy will be happy with the result.

[remoak]

Hmmm.... point well argued, Jober!

[osmosis]

I have been reading PPRuNe for quite some time and only since June this year have I become a registered user; I have not posted 'til now.

For newcomers to aviation and crusty old fossils alike, there is a wealth of knowledge in a common interest being shared on this international network in all sorts of aviation fields. Many of these treasures are to be found in threads of years gone by, take a look for yourselves to see the depth of knowledge on here, from New Guinea to New York, from tailwheel tire sizes to turbine hot start cycles. Much of it is not gospel but merely the writer sharing first hand knowledge, belief & experience.

Newcomers, read what the authors have to say. There is much to be learned from reading, and reading alone. As a relative newcomer here myself, there have been many times when I have been tempted to offer knowledge, advice or comment but have refrained. I am not in the industry anymore but my love for it and the unquenchable thirst for more of it cannot be denied, like some of our newer friends on here.

Things get messy when threads wander and wandering pays disrespect to both the thread starter and the topic. Reluctantly, I agree with Jober; this thread has wandered so far off it has become puerile and pointless for everyone. If one has nothing positive to contribute then why contribute?

For pharq's sake lets keep all threads on track.

[RatsoreA]

Hey,
Why don't u do more research I have posted in other threads

You joined on the 6th of August and 60% of your posts were on this thread. This thread being one of the first two you posted on on the day you registered.

i see you have posted maybe a dozen times on this accident does this make you know it all?

God no. But to see you continue to bring up things that have already been dismissed would indicate that you know even less.

I’m not some 33 year old who fly’s his desk every night

Being an anonymous forum who would know what you are or do. And who cares. Judging by your use of spelling and grammatical errors, I would say your day job would be an anoraked semi-literate 11 year old.

I bet your some second officer and just sits on guard all day stirring the pot and doing Jepp amendments and sucking up to the captain!

Swing and a miss. Like to try another guess? I will give you hint, not even close.

Quote:
Awwwww come on guys, everybody knows that if you accidentally put JET A1 into your MS Flight Sim Mojave, you can easily get to 7000' before anything happens...

answer that RatsoreA

I think if you think about it, that was directed at you... But Remoak can clear that one up if he wants. Not my place to say what message others were trying to convey...

And I might point out, that I am not alone in what I think about your posts.

[remoak]

RatsoreA is correct.

I could only shake my head in wonder when I read ejet3's response... :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Wally Mk2]

Okay guys I don't know why some of you are getting all hot under the collar here. Sure the jet A1 theory is probably the most remote of all but everyone is entitles to an opinion here after all PPRUNE is made up mostly of opinions in such threads.
Who really cares if ejet3 believes JetA1 is the cause it matters none to those that are somewhat brighter but by getting stuck into someone here they way some of you are achieves nothing all yr doing is adding fuel to the fire, feeding him. The more you guys post the more angry yr getting. Just ignore such comments & eventually like most other threads of this nature they die off 'till a more in depth report hits the streets.
You guys can be professional & still shake yr head in disbelief but doing it thru nasty comments proves only one thing, un-professionalism.

Relax & lets all enjoy life while we still are above ground & vertical, unlike the two that where the end result of this unfortunate accident.


Wmk2

[j3pipercub]

Nuh mate been there done that, been in a airline now for a number of years

Which one:

Virtual Airlines < Flight Simulation in the Yahoo! Directory (http://dir.yahoo.com/Recreation/Games/Video_Games/Genres/Simulation/Flight/Virtual_Airlines/)

j3

[remoak]

Relax & lets all enjoy life while we still are above ground & vertical

Amen brother! Treat PPRuNe for what it is, great amusement with the occasional worthwhile discussion between peers. Not that that happens much these days, but hey, we live in hope, right?

Some of you really old hands may remember that way back in the early days of PPRuNe, there was a thread entitled "Religious Discussion" which I followed with some interest. It was interesting, informative, and did not feature giant egos, anger, belligerence, or other foolishness. It ran for weeks, allowed to do so because of the temperate nature of the discussion and the ability of the main proponents to restrain themselves, even when provoked. That thread should be found and stickied as an example of how we can behave when we put our minds to it... when discussing a topic that has started wars.

Them were the days... :cool:

[GADRIVR]

HTFU Remoak .....you're sounding nostalgic, wistful and melancholy...... soft son...very soft!!!:E

[remoak]

Yeah... you're right... I need to harden up. Someone punch me in the head or something...

In my defence, I have traded in my normal jet for a little GA toy, and it's messing with my head. I'm mixing with these relatively inexperienced GA guys too, which can be impressive and scary all at the same time! Kind of makes me appreciate the subject of this thread a little more...

[ejet3]

i thought this was a rumour forum? :} what else do you think would cause a engine failure, then all of a sudden loose all his altitude and the 2nd engine die?

[KRUSTY 34]

He didn't Lose all his altitude ejet3, he threw it away!