Nine Dead in Fox Glacier Crash, New Zealand

[NGsim]

Hey Guys,

Early reports were a couple injuries, then 3 deaths and now 9 confirmed deaths and an injury.......this is the worst accident NZ has seen in quite a while.

Thoughts to all involved. It's been a hell of a 12 hours for the South Island!!!

Nine dead in Fox Glacier plane crash - national | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4096455/Fox-Glacier-plane-crash)




N.

[Konev]

Know a number of pilots in that area. Waiting for bad news.

[Ned-Air2Air]

Nine dead in Fox Glacier plane crash (Source: ONE News)

Source: ONE News

Nine people are now confirmed to have died in a Fox Glacier plane crash.

The Fletcher Fixed Wing plane hit the ground just before 1.30pm and locals reported seeing a plume of smoke rising into the sky from the local airstrip.

Earlier ambulance staff said three people died at the scene, while a fourth person was taken to Greymouth Hospital with moderate injuries.

Locals believe it may have been a sky diving flight and there are reports it burst into flames after take-off.

Constable Paul Gurney said one pilot and eight passengers were on the flight.

[Ned-Air2Air]

The crash, which involved a skydive plane, happened just before 1.30pm at the end of the runway.

All nine people onboard died in the accident, police said.

A police spokesperson said the passengers and pilot were a mix of New Zealanders and tourists.

Police are now notifying next of kin.

The plane reportedly burst into flames after takeoff.

Ambulance staff did not know the age or gender of those deceased.

There is only one sky diving company based at Fox Glacier, Skydive New Zealand.

When contacted, a female employee of the company said "no comment".

A message on the company's answerphone this afternoon said, "unfortunately, we will not be skydiving for the rest of the day."

According to the company's website, Skydive New Zealand was relocated from Hokitika to the glaciers in 1997. The business is owned and operated by locals who have been involved in the skydiving and aviation industry for more than 25 years.

The aircraft, a Fletcher Fixed Wing plane, is a type operated by several scenic flight operators in the area, including ski planes, and is considered ideal for the mountain environment.

Police are at the scene.

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

Know a number of pilots in that area...

As do I. Would appreciate any info by PM, if available.

[bournebourne]

I have a feeling its that EUF Fletcher conversion, an ex ag-plane. My thoughts go to the families and to skydiving nz...

[toolowtoofast]

EUF's a Walter-powered Fletcher. I know they had a 185 but not with 9 pax.

Very very close to home. My heart goes out to everyone involved.

[heli heney]

Just seen footage of the plane. Not much left of it. Very very sad.

[+TSRA]

thoughts to all at Skydive NZ.

What a day the South Island has had...

[NZFlyingKiwi]

As the person above said, not a lot left of it, but looking at the paint scheme on the few recognisable pieces in the TV news footage it does look like EUF. It also looks like it crashed before the end of the runway, but quite some distance to the side.

Real tragedy. :(

[7AC]

A couple fo pictures.
RTÉ News: Irish man dies in New Zealand plane crash (http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0904/newzealand_crash.html)

[mattyj]

Herald has the names, very very experienced drop pilot, hell of a nice guy. Just got married in March...Sad:sad:

[Cypher]

Farewell Chami, it was a absolute pleasure to have known you.
:(

[M14_P]

Repeating cyphers words. I'm speechless.

And yeh what a day, my folks live about 5km from the epicentre, the house got shaken to @!#^% but there was no visible damage...

[Konev]

Huge shock to the guys in Queenstown. His good nature will be greatly missed.

[biggles3]

What a great guy Chami was. A total professional. Hardworking, dedicated, competent and humble. Whenever I think of him it'll be his smiling face I remember mostly. So sad that the machinery let him down.
There but for the grace of god go I.

Condolences to the families of the other 8 people on board, all of whom set out, on that tragic day, to live life to the fullest ...... what a heartbreaking loss.

[Dreamflyer1000]

RIP to all involved...
What a 24hrs. Earthquakes here, Plane Crashes There, AND the vic floods as well! oh dear...

[aileron_69]

When is the CAA going to do something about these bloody Walter "Skodajet" turbine conversion fletchers!! How many have to fail before they ground them? What are we up to now? 20? 30 failed? Its a tragedy when an ag pilot working his ass off in challenging terrain has one of these buckets of trash fail on him, and its even worse when there is a load of people on board too skydiving.
Operators that think they are saving money putting an inferior engine in a 40 year old airframe instead of buying a cresco are just gambling with peoples lives.
Sort it out CAA, and my condolences to the families of everyone in the crash.

[Super Cecil]

Aileron, no doubt your basing your comments from personal expirence. What troubles have you found with these powerplants?

[prospector]

The details published thus far would not appear to support an engine failure as the cause, a steep climb immediately after take off, followed by a wing drop would to me point to a C of G problem, or a take off with full aft trim. Once again, only speculation on my part.

[TBM-Legend]

a friend's eyewitness [pilot] saw it climb steeply immediately after take-off , stall and drop a wing and hit the ground 'vertically'..

Doesn't sound like an engine issue "Aileron'...

Can't speculate on the actual reason....

Sad day for all concerned whatever the reason,,,,

[zk-eml]

Way to early to say what happened but being a Walter topdressing pilot myself and by what people have seen it seems to be more towards a control problem rather than a engine problem. Real shame for everyone and family, brings a tear to my eye.

[27/09]

Didn't think the seats in the Fletcher moved so the Q about the adjustment detent being latched not really relevant.

Elevator trim problem?

[aileron_69]

Im not home at the moment to ask anyone about it, I was just going on this comment:


Locals believe it may have been a sky diving flight and there are reports it burst into flames after take-off


Which sounded like a catastrophic engine failure, similar to one in the North Island a couple of years back that had to put down in a riverbed after flames shot from the exhaust and the engine quit. News reporters are pretty good at ballsing it up tho as we all know so I guess we will see what the crash report says.

[remoak]

I know a couple of people that saw it happen. From their accounts, it was climbing steeply initially, the pilot did manage to reduce the nose attitude but it was too late... no airspeed, wing drop, crash. There do not appear to be any mechanical issues, witnesses all seem to be saying that it was making plenty of power (well maybe plenty of noise)...

Yes we should wait for the report, however the only thing it is likely to say that we don 't already know is "aft c of g"...

[D-J]

Yes we should wait for the report, however the only thing it is likely to say that we don 't already know is "aft c of g"...

seems likely, although with 9 regular sized people on board c of g shouldn't have been a problem for skydive ops (assuming it's simmilar to a fu24 with a pt6), the thing that comes to my mind is that the operation (from what i know of it) had only recently aquired the a/c, so possibly the TM's put the bigger pax at the rear & combined with aft trim....?

was a sad day for the industry & unfortunatly I doubt much will be learn't from the accident as I fear it's a case of lessons already learn't being forgotten

[remoak]

Yes would have to agree. It probably wasn't intentionally loaded with an aft C of G, but maybe a spirited departure with a bunch of essentially unrestrained skydivers all ending up in the back together...

Some folk I know who have flown the type say that there can be elevator authority issues at aft C of G, particularly with the Walter-powered examples... anyone know for sure?

[LocoDriver]

I did Half of Chami's PPL , and most of his CPL Training., plus tailwheel conversion.
A well above average pilot, he was very meticulous with his CPL training, and has been parachute dropping now for eight years, amassing vast experience.

It was a priviledge to train him, and to know him, he was quiet, likeable, hardworker.I am sure all who knew him will agree.

Farewell my friend. thanks for the memories, I will always hold them.

Condolences to all, for a very tragic accident.

[Water Wings]

Emergency AD not long issued by the department

Emergency Airworthiness Directives (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Airworthiness_Directives/Emergency_Airworthiness_Directives.htm)

[remoak]

...prompted by a recent accident which indicated it is possible to exceed the aircraft aft C of G limits during parachuting operations.

Substitute "possible" with "really really easy"...

[Konev]

thought those things could take more than 6 pax :ooh:

[Jober.as.a.Sudge]

They can. Amply proven daily. The problem arises when the essentially unrestrained load shifts (by whatever mechanism) to a point taking the aircraft beyond its design load-limits.

[D-J]

Emergency AD not long issued by the department

Emergency Airworthiness Directives (http://www.caa.govt.nz/Airworthiness_Directives/Emergency_Airworthiness_Directives.htm)

wow... this will upset a few operators :ouch:

Is in not a requirement to use single point restraints in NZ?

[fencehopper]

At our dropzone last weekend and the buzz is the CG went aft on lift off. They were all found in the back. No single point restraints were used or even required. i've watched the Turbine Fletcher take off at YMTD and not impressed with the way it waddles into the air. just have to see what the investigation reveals. Sad day as most knew those involved.

We took delivery of a Cresco on Saturday so the C/G topic was bashed around. If the seating was the same for the Cox Fletcher it would be to easy to slip along them down them. Had no problems getting everyone to buckle up.
Gotta admit that Cresco is a really good jumpship. 10 jumpers full tanks still well within max wgt by 350kg i think he said. PT6-34 gives pretty brisk acceleration enough to make you brace your feet and hang on. A 'sensible' climb angle until 800ft then get up it, gave 12mins to FL140, still showing a good 1000fpm coming down to 9mins with 3 loads fuel. Even with ten packed in the door on exit it is easily managed. If it stalls on jump run then it is because the pilot allowed it to. Gonna be a fun summer.
FH

[D-J]

YMTD

did you mean YMND (maitland) or is there another one around the traps now?

[fencehopper]

Maitland/Rutherford, plus a XL operating from Cessnock. Now Elderslie's Cresco. All climbing above our house at Greta. XL is the loudest seems to have a medioca climb. Cresco is the quietest, Plus Luskintyre just over the river had lots of aircraft flying. :)

[EBCAU]

Quote: "XL is the loudest seems to have a medioca climb. Cresco is the quietest,"

Anybody out there able to give any reason's as to the validity of this statement? Different engine, prop, or what?

Apologies if this is too much thread creep on a serious topic.

[doubleu-anker]

How are these parachutists restrained in this type of aircraft? Do they have seats fitted, restrained in any other way, or do they just hang on to hand holds/grips? Are these aircraft fitted with a restraining net, at a suitable position in the cabin?

I have seen these aircraft operating on jump work and I have thought of this point. I guess it would not be easy for a geared up parachutist to maneuver inside and aircraft with seats fitted.

If there haven't been seats fitted and no adequate restraints, then it is surprising this type of tragedy hasn't happened previously. Has someone (CAA) taken their eye off the ball?

[remoak]

Has someone (CAA) taken their eye off the ball?

Have they ever had their eye ON the ball, when it comes to these sorts of ops...???

"An accident waiting to happen" is being charitable. Many of these sorts of operations are run way too "close to the edge", that is until something happens and people are hurt.

[Super Cecil]

Quote: "XL is the loudest seems to have a medioca climb. Cresco is the quietest,"

Anybody out there able to give any reason's as to the validity of this statement? Different engine, prop, or what?

Apologies if this is too much thread creep on a serious topic.

Same engine, mebe they have different operating techique with prop revs? some pullum back more than others.

[propblast]

How are these parachutists restrained in this type of aircraft? Do they have seats fitted, restrained in any other way,

Not sure about other types, but when I was meatbombing back in the day the skydivers had straps made from seatbealt material that they attached to their harnesses. Although getting them to where them was often a challenge.

Skydiving aircraft dont have seats fitted (and no, its not a weight or room saving idea, this comes at the expense of other things, like radios etc). It is to reduce objects that ripcords and other things can get caught on and release the canopy inside the cabin inflight.

[fencehopper]

The Cresco, Caravan, XL ect have two narrow benches running down each side of the aircraft. You sit straddled across them facing rear. 5 rows of two abreast for the fletcher and cresco.
Australia it is mandatory to use SPR on TO and Landing and below 1000'. I belive NZ does not have the SPR rule.
I think the XL just appears louder as the rate of climb is a lot slower and hangs overhead longer. maybe the intake of the cresco is different or the -34ag engine is quieter than the normal version.

[Diatryma]

NZ aviation regulator tightens skydive rules - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation) (http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/09/14/3011709.htm?site=news)

NZ aviation regulator tightens skydive rules

By New Zealand correspondent Dominique Schwartz
Posted Tue Sep 14, 2010 6:36pm AEST
New Zealand's civil aviation authority is restricting the number of skydivers a plane can carry just 10 days after a deadly crash at Fox Glacier.
Eight passengers and the pilot died when the plane came down shortly after take off.
Australian Adam Bennett was among the eight passengers on board the ill-fated Fletcher FU24.
The civil aviation authority says skydive operators using such planes will now be allowed to carry only six passengers and that all parachutists and their equipment must be weighed.
The authority has raised concerns about weight distribution in skydiving planes, but transport accident investigators say the directive is precautionary and the cause of the Fox Glacier crash is still to be determined.

Di

[DeathStar-Alpha]

Some operators ask their pilots to fly at lower Np, prop RPM, which reduces the noise one would hear. XL and Cresco 750 shouldn't sound different at the same settings, the 4 blade prop isn't certified here yet, i think???

I've had the cresco stall on me because of too many fellas down the back. Fortunately I was at FL160, happened to a mate in another walter, and there's that one of the XL on youtube. It's a given that these are all on jump run where the jumpers have to be at the back, where the door is, but at low airspeeds it only takes a small amount of excess weight too aft for things to tip slightly, then get worse slowly yet increasing exponentially..

I hope this spurs on a few of the 'dodgy' operators to get their act together. I believe a few of them are virtually self regulated with rules, as in they make the rules?

Terrible none the less. RIP and condolences to the families and friends.

[prospector]

Key shows sympathy after skydiving tragedy | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/4137534/Key-shows-sympathy-after-skydiving-tragedy)


I for one certainly would not call this a freak accident. Especially when within a few days of the occurence we have a directive come out telling operators what they should have been told, and known, before this type of operation, with this aircraft type ever started.

[seizedwing]

so it will be pilot error, or will it be a system error at the skydive company? The thing I can't get my head round is, if the margin is so fine that a slightly misloaded a/c or a shift in weight results in an unrecoverable situation for the pilot (as it seems to have here), if the margin is that fine then why the hell did this thing ever get certified for 8 pax in the back. They are very very quick to send out this emergency AD, so something is obviously very wrong and obviously wrong,

my question, who checks out the skydiving mod and signs it off for use in the first place?

[Neptunus Rex]

Too many parachutists are wayward, ill-disciplined yahoos. Add to that the nervous bravado displayed by many, in order to appear macho before a jump (especially if there are girls around) and you have a recipe for disaster. I can just imagine them larking around in the back of the aircraft; the unfortunate pilot had no control over them and he will be castigated at the enquiry. They should all be strapped in, like any other passengers, until they are at a safe altitude.

One of my mates (JB) was dropping parachutists from a C182. The PJI was the last one out, and, for a joke, leaned over, withdrew the ignition key and took it with him. JB was now faced with a real forced landing, which he carried out immaculately.

JB beat the PJI to the ground, secured the aircraft and then beat the PJI to the ground!

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

"NR".....

I hope you mean 'INTO the ground'..............:}

[Neptunus Rex]

Yes, you are right. When the CFI heard about it, he grounded the PJI for a few weeks.

[seizedwing]

For the record the boys in Fox were not 'wayward, ill-disciplined yahoos'

the owner operator was in his 50's, his best mate was in his 60's the other two jumpers were old enough to have got through the yahoo stage. They had run a very professional outfit for a long time. They were good experienced tandem jumpers and I can promise you they would not have been larking about in the back of that a/c. Its pretty obvious that it was out of CoG and very much so, and the emergency AD indicates that with 8 pax the margins are slim or non-existant.

In my opinion if the emergency AD becomes a permanent thing then whoever certified that mod for 8 people is at fault right from the get go.

[toolowtoofast]

Too many parachutists are wayward, ill-disciplined yahoos. Add to that the nervous bravado displayed by many, in order to appear macho before a jump (especially if there are girls around) and you have a recipe for disaster. I can just imagine them larking around in the back of the aircraft; the unfortunate pilot had no control over them and he will be castigated at the enquiry. They should all be strapped in, like any other passengers, until they are at a safe altitude.

One of my mates (JB) was dropping parachutists from a C182. The PJI was the last one out, and, for a joke, leaned over, withdrew the ignition key and took it with him. JB was now faced with a real forced landing, which he carried out immaculately.

JB beat the PJI to the ground, secured the aircraft and then beat the PJI to the ground!

tandem jumpers tend to be pretty serious guys - they have a lot of responsibility.

and to take the keys out of a 182 you have to lean over past the pilot, turn the mags off and pull the keys out - sounds like your mate wasn't paying attention. i've had the owner of a 172 ask how my forced landings were before pulling the mixture and jumping out. i thought if he wants me to descend with the engine shock cooling from 6000', then it's his plane not mine, so i left the mixture out and landed. as a CPL flying jumpers, a glide approach from high overhead the aerodrome is hardly pushing the limits of ability, and is hardly worthy of a 'beat to the ground'

[remoak]

the unfortunate pilot had no control over them and he will be castigated at the enquiry.

Whilst I agree that skydivers can be ill-disciplined thrillseekers/andrenaline junkies, the bottom line is that it is the pilot's responsibility to enforce discipline on the aircraft he is in command of. If people are larking about, don't take off or land immediately and read them the rules.

Unfortunately what often happens is that the pilot goes along with the larking about, getting into the spirit of the thing as it were, and takes his or her eye off the ball for a second or two... which is all it takes.

Of course if the jumpers were properly restrained for takeoff... CG properly calculated, even if done on a "standard" loadsheet... well they would all be alive.

[saabsforever]

Some thoughts as i feel there is something missing in this sad story:

Yes some jumpers can clown around and there would be room for them all to go to the back for some reason and create a problem for the Pilot. But here we have a professional operation with mature experienced jumpmasters, one of which was a director in the company. These guys would have been simply getting through the day with as little drama as possible.

I do not see overloading as an issue here this aircraft should be quite capable with 8 in the back and have spare capacity. By comparison a 185 will carry 6 and is a much smaller aircraft. Others will know the details I am not familiar with the exact numbers.

If it is just a C of G issue it would be expected to cause an accident such as this with a 'full house'. That is max weight cabin full down to the back.
Standard practice for light aircraft loading would dictate that seating such as it is would be from the front to the back and remember we are not dealing with clowns here.

These converted Fletchers have been around for years now and have done tens of thousands of jump flights. If C of G is so critical there must have been many close calls before on take off and those operating them would have been aware. Especially this Pilot who appears to have been very capable and experienced in this type of flying.

It seems quite proper and logical for the CAA to impose limitations in the meantime given the evidence at the accident site, but this would not imply that C of G is considered the sole cause of this accident.

I think there is some missing part cause to this accident. A control problem could arise from jammed controls, broken control cables or rods etc. Maybe something as simple as a spare seatbelt or other object up front falling down and causing a jam. Fletcher control runs are quite exposed in the cockpit from memory. Jammed or mis set trim sure can cause drama as well. My knowledge of the Fletcher is very limited am just speculating here.

Once the aircraft did pitch to a high nose up attitude then the Jumpers in the back would have been thrown to the back of the cabin if unrestrained.
Then serious C of G problem would most likely prevent control being regained at such low level. The reason for the initial high pitch up may be the key here. I think the pilot and occupants would have done every thing possible to avoid this accident and certainly nothing unresponsible.

[prospector]

It has been quite a few years since I flew Fletchers on Ag work. But from memory the trim was always wound right back for landing, and as you waited for the load to be deposited in the hopper part of the pretake off checks, an extremely brief check, but it did involve winding the trim full forward, just to counter the load. The hopper was quite compact in as far load spread was concerned, very close to the C of G. There was a full bulkhead immediately aft of the cockpit in these versions of the FU24.

How much has the Walter conversion changed the configuration? is that bulkhead still in place? does it still have manual fore and aft trim control?

Would it be possible, with a combination of aft trim for take off, and the heaviest people at the aft end of the jumpers position to put the C of G so far aft as to be uncontrollable??

The pilot had many hours of parachute dropping, but how much of it from Walter powered FU24's?? Would the acceleration at the beginning of the T/Off run be enough to inadvertantly push some of the jumpers to the back of the aircraft? does the Walter conversion have a bulkhead at the back of the fuselage to prevent any weight being placed to far aft?

No doubt all this will be answered when the accident report comes out, but as I suspect, as has already happened to some extent, it will be reactive, rather late now to be proactive.

[EBCAU]

There sure could be a few more questions that need to be asked here. The registration, if it has retained this from the beginning, would lead me to speculate that it is a FU 24-954 and as such may well have the electric trim. These trims were known to cause problems in the ag role and if it ran away or failed to the aft position with a load of unrestrained freight on take off then I wouldn't want to be flying it.

[conflict alert]

my experience as a Jump Pilot, which includes a fair amount of years dating back to the mid 80's to 2001, all as a non payed pilot, was that all behaved very well once in the aircraft. Most of the 'playing up' or 'bravado' as one has mentioned, was on the ground, but once inside the aircraft all behaved appropriately. The latter years were all dealing with Tandems and the solo's were generally for filming the punter that had paid for it. Not once did I feel that these individuals, no matter which outfit I flew for, behaved in other than a professional, business (but fun) like manner. I have not flown the fletcher but C172, C206, C180, and C185 in PJE ops and at all times they knew where to sit, where to stay, where their fare paying punter was to sit - and that's where they stayed until it was time to pin up - all without having to be told by me.

Runaway trim is feasible - its nasty and there is nothing you can do (unless you recognise it and have time to pull the circuit breaker) - my experience - just airborne in a PA18-180 towing a glider I pushed nose down on the electric trim and it kept going. Had the glider not released when I yelled on the RT to 'release', I might not well be here.

Another 'theory' above is control lock. Again not familiar with the fletcher - Pilot of a Cub in TG a few years ago had the seatbelt around the pax stick and took off with a glider in tow - got airborne and went into the vertical. Seatbelt was used as a 'gust lock' - would appear pilot forgot DVA's prior to takeoff. A/C stalled and pilot killed.

[saabsforever]

Just had a talk with a wise man who used to flight test these things in the dim dark ages. Seems EUF had a manual trim and indeed the electric ones could be a bit dodgy. The Fletcher has a powerful all moving tailplane with a large trim tab. If the trim is not set for take off for some reason control can be maintained but it may take two hands and arms to do so. The elevator has good pitch up movement but not so great on pitch down. The passengers were probably not restrained by any clip or similar to the Aircraft in which case they would tumble to the back at high pitch angles. There are known C of G issues with the Fletcher but various turbine varients have been around for the last 40 years or so as has the utility configeration. In terms of weight as a topdresser up to 1500 kg could be carried maybe not all legally. But with a hopper rear movement of load is obviously not possible and it can be dumped if in trouble. Eight pax would be around 800 kg total well within its capabilities. The Cresco is used for Parachute work more than the Fletcher conversion, of which only a few are used as Jump ships. This aircraft was recently converted and it was a quality job. She had been working at Fox for quite a few weeks so while not a long history not the 'first day on the job' either. The skydiving operator has been around for about 20 years and is well respected. Just some random snippets make of it what you will. The big question remains why this flight went so wrong while thousands of others have not.

[xxgoldxx]

and lets take it easy on the "all skydivers are cowboys" attitude...

remember it was the barnstormers etc that were the pioneers of what we do today.. things do change...

also not that long ago that there was a 707 doing barrel rolls ...

should I be scared to get on Qantas lest I get the same ... pilots are all the same right...??

[DeathStar-Alpha]

EUF had about as big a birthday as they get. they had a write up about her in aviation news.

PAC have had a few issues with their electric elevator trims running away. It's happened to me in the XL several times but that's why they have a trim interrupt switch installed. In the cresco the electric trim has died once or twice, never ran away on me though. I havn't flown the walter before. They are built by the same guys, it would seem correct to assume the case is the same for them?

It's entirely possible the trim ran away on him, and given the low speed/altitude the situation became irrecoverable. It's also entirely possible the trim stopped working after landing (which would be set up in a nose high attitude) and the subsequent T/O has the same effect as a runaway trim. The XL has the manual trim center cockpit above your head, the crescos is under your seat and a real prick to use if you needed it in a hurry. Someone else can fill in the blanks better for the fletchers and walters. I believe their trim is on the left sidewall, and I also believe some have them removed, or the handles at least, after electric trims are installed. This being the case, is there another manual override??

Alot of skydivers are cowboys, many of them hyper retards, but never have I met one that would jepardise the safety of the flight. Lunatics yes, unsafe no.

[fencehopper]

Started jumping in 1975 and still current. I've looked after a lot of jumpships over the years and have had to look after up to 400 jumpers at some boogies. Not all jumpers act as complete nutters. A lot are quite talented athletes in their fields. One thing i have noticed is that the majority are not aviation or aircraft savy. To most an aircraft is just a means to altitude. And they do not like aircraft. They are the number one killer in the sport. On take off apart from the odd yahoo ect, they are crapping bricks pretty well until 3 grand. When they do have to move it is done with care and consideration, last thing you need is a popped canopy going out the door. may be hard for a non jumper to understand that jumpers 'play safe'. If one good thing has come from the new APF and CASA regs concerning aircraft operations/ maintenance is things aren't so loose anymore. When you first arrive on a DZ you are weighed geared up and that is recorded for manifesting. Even pilots seem to have come up a grade now operators now pay them.
Interesting to see this thread still going. jumpers have a very good idea what happened, we can learn from that and apply it. just have to wait for the report to find out what initiated the accident. Until then we have moved on.
FH

[remoak]

The report will likely tell you absolutely nothing about what initiated the accident, unless someone had a camcorder running or something.

If it looks like a duck, flies like a duck, and quacks like a duck... it's a duck.

[HercFeend]

Have to agree with Fencehopper here.

Although all my jumping experience is from the UK it was no different there. We had a real mixture at our DZ - all ages and all backgrounds from middle aged company directors, military freefall, Tandem, champion sky surfers to free flyers (guilty), the whole shebang. One thing was a constant though - no one ever f*cked about from the time they got in the a/c to the time they got out of the door......ever!

Obviously I can't vouch for the Fox operation but judging by some of the posts it seems unlikely that 'f*cking about' in the back is to blame - but.

[prospector]

"The report will likely tell you absolutely nothing about what initiated the accident"

You may be right, but from the photo's that have emerged and been made public, the rear empannage was relatively unscathed. The position of the elevator trim for take off will likely be obvious, if it was where I suspect it was, then the likely sequence of events will become known with some certainty.

What iniated the accident happened long before this occurence. That has been confirmed by the haste that the AD was issued.

[fencehopper]

There does seem to be enough remaining 'evidence' to find the cause. If it was out of trim then that will show. This accident has a very similar ring to the army porter crash at Jaspers Brush about 15 years ago. can't comment on the 'quick response' bandaid by the powers but really surprised that it has not been followed up in NZ by introducing single point restraints to all jump operations.
FH

[Cypher]

Having done jump pilot work on both sides of the Tasman, I can say that there is a real difference between the two industries.

Yes in Oz, there was a lot more larking around, keys out of the ignition, general disregard of VMC/IMC drops through cloud, pressure often from the jumpmaster and DZ owner and general overall it felt like a amateur industry. I'm sure there are exceptions to this in Oz.

While in NZ working as a drop pilot, I found the complete opposite. Tandem masters took their work seriously and only larked about in the hangar, nowhere near the aircraft or while airborne. IMC conditions were to be avoided religiously, lest the pilot got beat up by the jump master once they got down on the ground. I've seen a load of tandem masters once on the ground go to work on a pilot who took them IMC. They all knew too well the risks of flying IMC without the proper training and equipment. (This was around the Taupo DZs)
Sure there probably will be exceptions as well in NZ, but in my time in the parachute industry, I had yet to see a "cowboy operator" in NZ. Maybe its something to do with the fact that all involved with the majority of drop operations in NZ are PAID positions including pilots.

To be honest, you cannot compare the Australian Parachute Industry to the NZ Parachute industry because I believe there is a huge difference between the two, IMO...

[remoak]

I'm not in the skydiving industry so can't comment directly, however I can say that while flying in NZ, I have twice had skydivers appear directly in front of me, jumping through what was in both cases about 7/8 cloud cover; once had a skydiver land in front of me as I was taxying a long distance from the PDZ; another time, listened in to a group of skydivers who were using a local hangar, as they discussed ways to unsettle the aircraft and scare the pilot. I crap you not.

I'm sure the majority are professional, but there are still plenty of the other kind around.

Reminds me a lot of the jetboating industry... all stretching the boundaries until someone gets hurt, then everyone behaves for six months, then back to normal ops.

[flyinkiwi]

I asked someone I know who is well known in NZ aviation that was present during the turbine conversion of EUF, he sent me photos of EUF after the conversion, one of which clearly show a manual stabilator trim control aft of the throttle quadrant.

[conflict alert]

jumping through what was in both cases about 7/8 cloud cover;

Not knowing the airspace classification you were flying in but dropping through cloud is permitted in controlled airspace. At 7/8ths I guess they were descending through a Hole? if outside controlled airspace - and at any rate, presuming calls were made by the pilot that dropping was in progress, why would you be flying over/through the 'descent' area?

once had a skydiver land in front of me as I was taxying a long distance from the PDZ

Once again - knowing chutes are descending onto an airfield that extra caution would be taken, they do get blown away from the landing zone from time to time particularly if they have exited the aircraft too late/early or the upper winds are different to assessed.

[Jack Ranga]

I've PJE piloted jump aircraft for around 15 years in OZ (C182, C206, C208, P750).

*There are certainly some weird & wonderful skydivers. None of them I'd be worried about letting on the aircraft.

*All of the CI's & DZSO's monitored for drug or alcohol affected jumpers (not tolerated)

*Not one skydiver I've spoken to understands C of G or weight shift issues.

*I've NEVER seen a skydiver use the provided restraints.

*Out of all the types I've flown the P750 is the biggest pain in the arse, fully loaded I've never had a C of G issue. The C208 is easily the best type by a country mile, a litlle underpowered perhaps but I hear there's a conversion with a bigger dash?

remoak (and others) you really should make an effort to understand cloud jumping manuals and whether the operator has them before criticising.

Skydivers are petrified of aircraft, if they tried to 'scare' me they'd get a 'demonstration' in what an aircraft is capable of next jumprun :ok:

[remoak]

Not knowing the airspace classification you were flying in but dropping through cloud is permitted in controlled airspace. At 7/8ths I guess they were descending through a Hole? if outside controlled airspace - and at any rate, presuming calls were made by the pilot that dropping was in progress, why would you be flying over/through the 'descent' area?


The airspace they were jumping into was uncontrolled, although it is possible they started out in controlled airspace. However the cloudbase on both occasions was around 500' below the upper limit of uncontrolled airspace, which is a no-no.

They may have been aiming for a hole, but they missed it on both occasions (by quite a margin).

remoak (and others) you really should make an effort to understand cloud jumping manuals and whether the operator has them before criticising.

Sorry but as an aircraft operator with no interest whatsoever in skydiving, I don't see any reason at all why I should study skydiving manuals. Would you like me to get an ag rating too, just in case I one day encounter a cropduster? :ugh::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Better that skydivers obey the rules. Most do, of course.

[Jack Ranga]

Nah, but if you're going to comment, understand what you are commenting on :ok:

[aldee]

Care to elaborate as to why the P750 is the biggest PIA?
Not criticizing, just interested thats all:ok:

[Jack Ranga]

aldee,

You don't fly it, you wrestle it. After a few years if you're not careful you will be walking in right hand circles (your right leg and arm will be significantly developed, so work out at the gym on your left hand side only :ok:

The pilot seat is a joke for a million dollar turbine aircraft. After a 10 hour day in it you will need assistance to vacate the aircraft.

It's a bit plasticy and bits tend to break off it. Having said that, it works hard and gets to height quickly.

The van however, yeah baby, a beautiful plane to fly, especially when you have to sit in it all day. Trim it in the arc you are flying, adjust the torque until it temps out and monitor it :ok:

[saabsforever]

Just had a good look at the Photo showing the tail of the crashed aircraft. The elevater trim appears to be in the full up position. This could be due to the high impact forces but at least it is there to inspect.

[mvd71]

The van however, yeah baby, a beautiful plane to fly, especially when you have to sit in it all day. Trim it in the arc you are flying, adjust the torque until it temps out and monitor it :ok:

The Caravan that you really want is the Texas Turbines converted one. It leaves the PT6 powered one for dead.:ok: And its cheaper to operate.:cool:

Cheers....

Mike.

[remoak]

The van however, yeah baby, a beautiful plane to fly, especially when you have to sit in it all day

Might be OK for meatbombing, but otherwise it's a bit of a pig really. Great if you like trimming every second you are in it, but it's under-powered, and horrible for IFR flying. 750 is worse from what I hear.

Guess it's only the Swiss that understand single-engine turbines... :p

[Jack Ranga]

Flew it Brissy to Batchelor, trimmed it twice :ok: (had to re-fuel at Isa)

[mvd71]

Might be OK for meatbombing, but otherwise it's a bit of a pig really. Great if you like trimming every second you are in it, but it's under-powered, and horrible for IFR flying. 750 is worse from what I hear.
When I learnt to fly, my instructor was kind enough to explain to me that you are not supposed to fly the trim wheel.:= Was this ever explained to you?

Flew it Brissy to Batchelor, trimmed it twice http://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/thumbs.gif (had to re-fuel at Isa) I'll fly with you then Jack:) BTW you'd have gotten there quicker in a texas turbines machine:}

[remoak]

When I learnt to fly, my instructor was kind enough to explain to me that you are not supposed to fly the trim wheel.:= Was this ever explained to you?

Well when I learned to fly, the object of the exercise was to be in balanced flight at all times... that's what the little ball is for. So unless you like holding rudder pressure on the whole time you are flying, you trim the forces out with the trim wheel. Was this ever explained to you?

In the Van, you use that wheel an awful lot... change anything, you need to re-trim.

Although I suppose some here probably just fly it with the ball trying desperately to escape it's tube... :rolleyes:

[mvd71]

Well when I learned to fly, the object of the exercise was to be in balanced flight at all times... that's what the little ball is for. So unless you like holding rudder pressure on the whole time you are flying, you trim the forces out with the trim wheel. Was this ever explained to you?

Yup, and when it's done right you don't have to play with it all the time.:ugh: Still some people enjoy that.:p

[remoak]

Yup, and when it's done right you don't have to play with it all the time

That's right, you only have to adjust it when you change something... guess you spend all your time in the cruise then (or just don't bother and fly out of trim).

[Jack Ranga]

I'll fly with you then Jackhttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/smile.gif BTW you'd have gotten there quicker in a texas turbines machinehttp://images.ibsrv.net/ibsrv/res/src:www.pprune.org/get/images/smilies/badteeth.gif


I'll have to google this texas turbines thingo MVD71, ta :ok:

[mvd71]

I'll have to google this texas turbines thingo MVD71, ta :ok:

I think you'll like it. There is one on its way to NZ, and I'm sure it would be good in Oz too:cool: It uses a -12 Garrett that is flat rated to keep the nose attached to the rest of the airframe.:ok:

Cheers....

[captain big balls]

Interim report out from TAIC, interesting investigation so far!

They have used and intital estimated weight of the passengers as 70kg. I'm unsure of any operators using a weight this light these days - with usual 'standard weights' between 77 and 84kg. They also estimate the parachute equipment at 20kg per set - it is more like 25-28kg in reality including the harness.

TAIC's suggestion that the a/c was 5kg over MAUW based on their calculations seems a bit odd. I suggest they should have either worked out the actual weight as best they could using actual weights of passengers or used a more realistic set of 'standard weights'.

The aft C of G condition was what most of us expected from the report.

Pitty the skydive industry did not get of its ass and bring in restraints for skydivers in aircraft below 10 pax when they had the opportunity a few years ago after the Motueka crash.

My suggestion is that the a/c was possibly well more that 5kg over weight and consequently more aft C of G than suggested. Thought it would take a bit more than the report suggests to push a Fletcher to near vertical straight after take-off.

[Aerozepplin]

I notice that the report states witnesses believed the aircraft was airborne at the usual point. Would a significantly aft C of G or a significantly reward trim in a Fletcher result in getting airborne earlier than usual?

[zk-eml]

Don't think so but if trim more nose up than normal nose will pitch up quickly.

[swaziboy]

Aerozepplin, an aft C of G significantly reduces the take-off roll on the 750XL.. not sure about the fletcher...

[toolowtoofast]

Considering the tourists would (should) have been weighed prior to jumping, and the weights of the crew would have been known, along with 4 tandem chutes plus a pilot's chute, I would think 70kg each is a little on the light side. I would pick closer to 95, maybe 100kg each.

A Fletcher can easily carry a ton, but in its ag days that would have ALL been sitting over the front spar.

[flyinkiwi]

It's a bit more than that, read the report here. (http://www.taic.org.nz/ReportsandSafetyRecs/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2010-009/Page/0/language/en-US/Default.aspx)

Previous link was broken, this should get you a bit closer.

[kingRB]

your link is broken Kiwi

[prospector]

Fox Glacier Skydive Tragedy: Fatal Crash Failures | Stuff.co.nz (http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/6884434/Skydive-tragedy-Call-to-review-aviation-law)

[27/09]

JimmyConwayAn overloaded aircraft and two pot smoking tandem masters. I hope these clowns get taken to the cleaners by the affected families.

I'm not sure it was overloaded but certainly out of C of G limits, I don't see what the tandem masters had to do with causing the accident.

As already posted other issues at play here. Also CAA might be lucky to get away without any of the families going after them.

[mattyj]

Would this be a case of skydivers and customers crowding the door to get a look at the view?

[SeldomFixit]

Hard to look out the door when you are kissing your arse goodbye :suspect:

[27/09]

JimmyConwayI do however think it is a disgrace that anybody responsible for the lives of others should be under the influence of drugs. I agree 100%.

mattyWould this be a case of skydivers and customers crowding the door to get a look at the view? Perhaps more of a case of the pax sliding to the rear for some reason, making already aft C of G even worse and/or an incorrect trim setting for take off?

What I am suggesting here is the aft C of G and some other items referred to in the report and being focused on by the media weren't what ultimately caused the accident, they just made a bad situation even worse.

Remember this wasn't the first flight carrying this sort of load in this aircraft. While it probable the C of G was almost certainly aft of the rear limit for most take offs the aircraft had been successfully operated for a period of time prior to the accident flight. What was different about this flight? What else can be learned?

[remoak]

I don't see what the tandem masters had to do with causing the accident.

We don't know - maybe they moved aft for some inexplicable reason.

The main point about the drugs is that the presence of them in the blood of the two tandem jumpmasters is indicative of attitudes and practices in this part of GA. In my experience, a lot fo these companies focus on providing an adrenaline rush first and foremost, with safety coming a distant second. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

The situation is not helped by a reactive CAA that is constantly playing catch-up. You have to ask yourself how it is that the mod state of the aircraft was not picked up by the CAA...

[prospector]

maybe they moved aft for some inexplicable reason.

I would say that the reason is explicable. Normally during the approach with the FU24 the trim is slowly wound back and normally at touch down is wound fully back.

If on the pre T/O checks the trim is not set back to the correct T/O position, even with the Cof G in the correct range, the nose will rear up and needs two hands to get the nose down, the trim is very powerful with the full flying tail plane/elevator.

If the people in the back are not restrained in any way, a combination of acceleration force, and having the floor suddenly tipped very steeply towards the tail would be quite capable of sending them to the rear of the cabin.

With the take off and flight path of the aircraft my money would be on this scenario. In fact that was my thoughts on this accident at the beginning of this thread. (Post 20 this thread.)

[remoak]

Should be pretty easy to establish where the trim was though, if it was that simple I would have expected a mention of it.

[prospector]

Post 95 this thread. Watch the video, the TAIC man specifically mentions trim position.

[baron_beeza]

3.5.6 and 4.2.12 of the report mention the possibility of the manual trim not being reset prior to the take-off.
Para 3.2.5 did say the handle was found to be in a position that would indicate full nose forward trim had been wound in. Being manual in operation the pilot probably would have been unable to wind it in after the premature rotate..

The positions of the handle and screw jack were consistent with the trim having been set to the nearly full full-forward or nose-down trim position at the time of impact. The trim assembly in the empennage displayed no evidence of binding and the trim was able to be moved in both directions. Refer paragraph 3.5.4 for further information on the trim system.

[remoak]

Well... if the trim was found set fully nose-down... and the pilot had insufficient time to reset it once he realised that he had a problem... and the aircraft STILL over-rotated... well everyone must have been well aft.

So, Prospector, it would appear that the findings so far agree with your second supposition, but disagree with your first.

It reminds me a lot of an accident I saw at Guernsey in the Channel Islands. An F27 took off with a load of newspapers. The cargo was not secure and moved aft as the aircraft rotated. Aircraft basically went into a vertical climb before stalling and spinning in. It hit a house across the road from our crew hotel, and it had no forward motion when it hit.

Watching the video reveals one thing though - the cowboy nature of much of GA in NZ.

[remoak]

Yep.

The thought process goes something like this:

"Hmmm this adventure tourism stuff is the go, you can make sh#tloads of money taking people up and letting them jump out of a perfectly good aeroplane. Now - what do we need?

1 - a really, really cheap means of getting them to altitude. I wonder if I can weld some wings on the old Hilux and use that? What? The CAA might not allow that? Well what's a really cheap Hilux-like aeroplane... I know, a shagged out old cropduster. We'll stick a Holden V8 in it and cut a door in the side. Can't use a Holden V8? Well what's the cheapest possible engine that will do the job? An Eastern bloc turbine? Well... is it cheap? Righto then!

2 - some skydivers to act as jumpmasters. Now, who can we use? Maybe those two pot-heads that hang around the place? Why not, I mean all you have to do is pull the ripcord, right? How hard can that be, even after a night on the wacky baccy?

3 - Some manuals and procedures. Oh sh#t, do we really have to have all that crap? Oh alright then, we'll have a flight manual to keep the Feds happy - all they care about is whether the books are up to date anyway. But we won't have it in the aircraft, some noob pilot might actually read it and work out that our operation is essentially illegal. Can't have that!

4 - A pilot. Hmmm, we need one good enough that he won't crash while breaking the rules that we haven't told him about, and dumb enough to go flying with no Flight Manual. We'll also need to convince him that Weight and Balance is only for fairies and Air NZ pilots (basically the same thing he he he). We can't have any paper records of what we do 'cos it's illegal anyway. Geez, hope the Feds never ask to see them... nah, not much chance of that. Just as well there are hundreds of desperate pilots willing to look the other way in order to get some turbine hours.

Great - job done. Now all we need are some punters who are silly enough to believe that the Regulator is ensuring their safety. Easy-peasy..."

And that, folks, is pretty much how a lot of NZ GA works. You can thank Swedavia for that. How do I know? Because I have been part of it (within the last year or two), and saw it from the inside. Makes me yearn for the airlines again...

[framer]

Which video shows the cowboy nature?

[remoak]

The one in post 95 of this thread (TAIC investigation)

[Ornis]

Since the owner-operator was killed I think the cowboy epithet is as unlikely as it is unfair. Ignorance more likely.

I belong to Sport Aircraft Association (SAANZ) whose members amateur-build aircraft. I find it incredible that nobody did a Weight & Balance after the major :suspect:modification. Paperwork and box ticking should ensure checks are done and recorded but it is no substitute for know-how and nouse.

I claim no expertise but it's possible the pilot climbed out more steeply than hitherto. A lower airspeed would mean less elevator authority and just one jumper-pair falling back would be enough to upset the apple cart.

[remoak]

Cowboy operators cannot be the authors of their own demise?

It is clear from what information we have so far that there were serious issues with the aircraft and the operation in general. It may turn out that the final straw was a piloting error, however if the operation was professional, it is unlikely that this accident would have happened.

If there is one thing in NZ aviation that really annoys me, it is the general reluctance to call a spade a spade. We saw it with the Iroquois crash near Pukerua Bay, the clown that hit a van with his Cessna while doing a beat-up, the Seneca that smashed into Mt Tauhara, the Fouga that speared in near Thames - to name but a very, very few. Everyone goes into denial mode and refuses to call it what it really is - a pilot or operator screwing up. The regulator is as bad at this as anyone.

Well, I'm over it - every time I read of an accident like this, and the lack of professionalism that emerges, I'm more than happy to conclude what is bleedingly obvious to anyone with half a brain. The eventual report will only confirm what most of us figured out a year earlier.

In this case, we have a classic "Swiss cheese" scenario.

Paperwork and box ticking should ensure checks are done and recorded but it is no substitute for know-how and nouse.

I'm afraid there isn't a (competent) airline on the planet that would agree with that. We have SOPs, forms and checklists to ensure that NOBODY relies solely on "know-how and nouse". Fine attributes they may be, but they are by no means the whole story. Unfortunately, GA in this country is somewhat the other way... there's an awful lot of "she'll be right" going on. And now you see the results.

[Lepper Messiah]

This report has completely missed the point.

The supposed primary cause of the crash was the fact it was over loaded and out of c of g limitations. What a load of rubbish.

I've seen these aircraft operating with 9 people in the back, and I've heard of the odd occasion of 10. These aircraft can physically handle it, as proven many many thousands of times in other aircraft and 70 odd times in this particular aircraft.
Monte carlo reckons this was the heaviest most rearward flight yet ??
Come on, pull the other one :ugh:
Look at those on board. 3 of the tandem masters were rather average to slight in build and none of the passengers were anything more than average to slim either. By all accounts this was probably a light load. Definitely not the heaviest and most rearward.
So why hasn't it crashed on an earlier flight ? Why haven't the other Fletchers crashed with even much greater loads in the back ??
They've never come close.

Did they flight test an aircraft at altitude with different c of g / weights as part of this investigation to determine its characteristics ?

Yes for sure, a not so favorable c of g definitely would not help with the recovery, but cause the fatal pitch up ??
No way.

If the c of g was that far out the arse to cause this, so tail heavy the tail would have been scraping all the way down the runway and the thing would have hardly got airborne before stalling and going splat then and there. Could anyone agree with that ?
In this case the aircraft flew off the runway and FLEW up to the near (apparently :ugh:) vertical.

The primary cause of this accident lies in what caused the aircraft to fly up so steeply. It could be many things, like some of those mentioned in the report (yet quickly dismissed). But it wasn't the c of g.


An overloaded aircraft and two pot smoking tandem masters. I hope these clowns get taken to the cleaners by the affected families.

These "clowns" died in the crash. I'm sure their families are effected by that.

I do however think it is a disgrace that anybody responsible for the lives of others should be under the influence of drugs.

There is a difference between "Traces in the system" and "Under the influence". Just like Alcohol.
Since when was anyone "under the influence" :mad: :ugh:

Would this be a case of skydivers and customers crowding the door to get a look at the view?

No. Have you seen inside the cabin of a fletcher ? Have a look and think how the hell do you fit 8 people and 4 tandem rigs in here, then see how much room there is to move about and have a look out the door.
None.

Perhaps more of a case of the pax sliding to the rear for some reason, making already aft C of G even worse

Sliding I very much doubt. And not on take off. There is simply bugger all room. The 4 people up the front are almost wedged in next to each other (due cabin width). There is plenty to hold on to and simply no sliding (on a normal take off), there just isn't that much room.

However, when the aircraft went up so steep, what all the forward people falling back down on top of the others ? Then you would really be up **** creek without a paddle. That would make recovery pretty hard...

We don't know - maybe they moved aft for some inexplicable reason

No. As above.

The main point about the drugs is that the presence of them in the blood of the two tandem jumpmasters is indicative of attitudes and practices in this part of GA.

No Remoak, trying not to get personal, but thats a load of crap.

But I do dare you to tell me that no airline pilot has ever tested positive for any recreational drugs in their system, even just before boarding a flight...

In my experience, a lot fo these companies focus on providing an adrenaline rush first and foremost, with safety coming a distant second. Not all of them, but a lot of them.

Clearly then, you have very little experience in this area.

Should be pretty easy to establish where the trim was though, if it was that simple I would have expected a mention of it.

3.5.6 and 4.2.12 of the report mention the possibility of the manual trim not being reset prior to the take-off.
Para 3.2.5 did say the handle was found to be in a position that would indicate full nose forward trim had been wound in. Being manual in operation the pilot probably would have been unable to wind it in after the premature rotate..

I know that if I took off with the trim right back, and it did cause a big pitch up as prospector said (and I totally agree) then I would be winding like mad to get that trim forward. No way I would just leave it there. There was a bit of time from lift off to impact, I'm sure enough to move that trim forward ?

Well... if the trim was found set fully nose-down... and the pilot had insufficient time to reset it once he realised that he had a problem... and the aircraft STILL over-rotated... well everyone must have been well aft

They weren't well aft. There is insufficient room. This isn't a half loaded airbus with all the punters seated in the rear half of the aircraft. They were in the same positions as all the other flights, and the many many thousands of flights of other aircraft in this role.

I read an article in the newspaper which stated that only one skydiving outfit was able to produce the necesscary documentation by the rule deadline. If that is correct then it just goes to show how hopeless some of these GA goons are.

You have got to be kidding me ! In a news paper ?!?! Gosh that must be true !! :ugh:
It's like getting an AOC. It costs time and money. You can't just do it over night. I believe all the major operators are operating now, with minimal down time, a day or 2 before receiving their certificates.

The thought process goes something like this:

"Hmmm this adventure tourism stuff is the go, you can make sh#tloads of money taking people up and letting them jump out of a perfectly good aeroplane. Now - what do we need?

1 - a really, really cheap means of getting them to altitude. I wonder if I can weld some wings on the old Hilux and use that? What? The CAA might not allow that? Well what's a really cheap Hilux-like aeroplane... I know, a shagged out old cropduster. We'll stick a Holden V8 in it and cut a door in the side. Can't use a Holden V8? Well what's the cheapest possible engine that will do the job? An Eastern bloc turbine? Well... is it cheap? Righto then!

2 - some skydivers to act as jumpmasters. Now, who can we use? Maybe those two pot-heads that hang around the place? Why not, I mean all you have to do is pull the ripcord, right? How hard can that be, even after a night on the wacky baccy?

3 - Some manuals and procedures. Oh sh#t, do we really have to have all that crap? Oh alright then, we'll have a flight manual to keep the Feds happy - all they care about is whether the books are up to date anyway. But we won't have it in the aircraft, some noob pilot might actually read it and work out that our operation is essentially illegal. Can't have that!

4 - A pilot. Hmmm, we need one good enough that he won't crash while breaking the rules that we haven't told him about, and dumb enough to go flying with no Flight Manual. We'll also need to convince him that Weight and Balance is only for fairies and Air NZ pilots (basically the same thing he he he). We can't have any paper records of what we do 'cos it's illegal anyway. Geez, hope the Feds never ask to see them... nah, not much chance of that. Just as well there are hundreds of desperate pilots willing to look the other way in order to get some turbine hours.

Great - job done. Now all we need are some punters who are silly enough to believe that the Regulator is ensuring their safety. Easy-peasy..."

And that, folks, is pretty much how a lot of NZ GA works. You can thank Swedavia for that. How do I know? Because I have been part of it (within the last year or two), and saw it from the inside. Makes me yearn for the airlines again...

Remoak. I do believe you are talking out of your anus, without a clue.
Why waste bandwidth with that drivel ?

[Ornis]

remoak, I think we are at cross purposes.

You didn't mention Bannerman, who killed the science workers on approach to Christchurch. Enough paperwork to paper over the cracks.

After we did the Weight & Balance on my aircraft, I was able to say: I can take the front seat passenger out and stick him in the back and the CoG is still well within limits. With a front seat passenger I can stick bikes in the back and as much luggage as will fit and it won't go out of balance. Overloaded maybe.

Here was a major modification of a (factory-built) aircraft. Did anyone who knew what he was about inspect it, do some calculations, get a clear picture of how it would fly? Who did the test flying? If it was loaded as intended for use wouldn't the pilot realise it was tail heavy, run out of elevator? What actually did the CAA require? The paperwork should be the gravy not the meat.

There are two boxes I want to see ticked yes: Is the aircraft safe; Is the pilot safe. To decide that requires know-how and nouse, not a great wall of rules and regulations, behind which, in my unprofessional opinion, the CAA hides.

[remoak]

Lepper Messiah

But I do dare you to tell me that no airline pilot has ever tested positive for any recreational drugs in their system, even just before boarding a flight...No, I would be the first to agree that it isn't confined to GA, however it is far more prevalent in GA.

Clearly then, you have very little experience in this area.
Other than acting as Chief Pilot for one of them, no... :rolleyes:

If the c of g was that far out the arse to cause this, so tail heavy the tail would have been scraping all the way down the runway and the thing would have hardly got airborne before stalling and going splat then and there. Could anyone agree with that ? In this case the aircraft flew off the runway and FLEW up to the near (apparently :ugh:) vertical.

The primary cause of this accident lies in what caused the aircraft to fly up so steeply. It could be many things, like some of those mentioned in the report (yet quickly dismissed). But it wasn't the c of g.
Not to let the facts get in the way of a good story... but the TAIC report says:

"As a result the aeroplane was being flown outside its loading limits every time it carried a full load of 8 parachutists. On the accident flight the centre of gravity of the aeroplane was well rear of its aft limit and it became airborne at too low a speed to be controllable. The pilot was unable to regain control and the aeroplane continued to pitch up, then rolled left before striking the ground nearly vertically."

So TAIC are lying, are they? They obviously feel that it was the aft C of G that caused the pitch up. As far as the trim goes, the aircraft was only airborne for seconds, and I have a hard time believing that the pilot did anything other than use both hands on the stick in an attempt to pitch down. To recognise the trim problem, and wind it all the way forward while maintaining sufficient pressure on the stick to counteract the pitch up, in only a few seconds - highly unlikely.

Remoak. I do believe you are talking out of your anus, without a clue. Whatever. I have seen enough to know differently, and it is obvious from what we know of this accident already, particularly regarding the dodgy mods on the aircraft, the lack of weight and balance calculations, the use of incorrect information from another aircraft, the lack of a Flight Manual in the aircraft, that it was a long way away from being a professional operation.

And if your (and Prospector's) trim theory is correct, where were the preflight checks? Even the most basic and rushed checks should include trim position, particularly with this sort of operation. Even less professional... :rolleyes::ugh:

[baron_beeza]

I am sure a weight and balance was done Ornis.
When we mod an aircraft we fill in the blue pages at the back of the logbook and raise a new 2173 and insert in the Flight Manual. The report did say that had all been done.

The Flight Manual was not with the aircraft and the W&B calculations the operator had chosen to use were from another example of a similar aircraft. You could suggest that perhaps they knew theirs was heavier and could struggle to carry 4 pairs and remain within limits.
Perhaps the same could be said of the preflight W&B calculations. Pointless if it is only going to hi-lite a known issue.

The guys doing the reweigh only weigh the empty aircraft in the current new configuration. It is up to the owner and operator to then use that data to do the calculations prior to flight.
The aircraft was well within limits after the modifications.

They may not have entered the new aft limit information in the AFM correctly though.

The empty weight and balance for ZK-EUF was properly recorded in the flight manual, but the stability information in that manual had not been appropriately amended to reflect its new role of a parachute aeroplane. Nevertheless, it was still possible for the aeroplane operator to initially have calculated the weight and balance of the aeroplane for the predicted operational loads before entering the aeroplane into service.

The problem only existed when you filled in with parachutists and equipment.

As for the aircraft pitching up on rotate. I would have though the pilot would be pushing forward with both hands, I could not see how he could turn the trim handle if it was selected incorrectly.

DHC4-T Crash - N400NC - YouTube

[prospector]

As soon as you realize the trim has not been set correctly for T/O both hands are initially used, then a knee is used to take some of the load whilst the trim is readjusted. All this happens in a very short time span.

If however the pax/load has shifted to the back, with the resultant aft C of G, then even having the trim correctly set will not necessarily retrieve the situation.

It is a very busy few seconds even with the load in a hopper, and the C of G in the proper position.


To recognise the trim problem, and wind it all the way forward while maintaining sufficient pressure on the stick to counteract the pitch up, in only a few seconds - highly unlikely.

Not necessarily so, the wrong trim setting shows up during the latter part of the ground run, the trim may have been reset, but to late to affect the outcome given the other factors involved.

[Ornis]

The aircraft was well within limits after the modifications.

Thank you everyone for helping me understand this crash. My concern is that apparently nobody asked: Is this aircraft safe for the purpose? There is nothing about the aircraft, modification, purpose or operation that is not clearly understood.

I accept that ultimately the pilot is responsible for the load, but we can't have passengers die because one enthusiastic and exuberant young pilot doesn't have a nose for trouble.

[27/09]

How long does it take to trim from full nose up to take off trim or nose down trim in a FU24. I've heard that it can take several seconds and many many winds of the trim handle though I'm not sure if this is correct.

This one didn't have electric trim?

[remoak]

I suspect that TAIC have rightly concluded that the trim position was academic. We'll never know for sure anyway.

The clue is in their report:

"On the accident flight the centre of gravity of the aeroplane was well rear of its aft limit and it became airborne at too low a speed to be controllable."

Not slightly rear...

And, of course, unlike a hopper full of super, this cargo could, and almost certainly did, move. Whether there was much room or not, everybody piled against the rear bulkhead will obviously result in a far more rearward C of G than if they were evenly spread throughout the cabin - all the more critical when the load is rearwards of the spar.

As I mentioned, we'll never know for sure whether it was the chicken or the egg, but either way, there were serious deficiencies in the operation.

[prospector]

"On the accident flight the centre of gravity of the aeroplane was well rear of its aft limit and it became airborne at too low a speed to be controllable."

The question being why was it well aft of the rear limit??

As previously stated this aircraft had carried out a number of sorties without any obvious problems. The load in itself was not excessive, in as much as the pax were not unduly heavy. To put the C of G well aft on this particular flight, far enough so as to be uncontrollable, some of the load must have moved either just prior or during lift off. The question is then why? and any answer to that question can only be speculation.

How long does it ta ke to trim from full nose up to take off trim or nose down trim in a FU24. I've heard that it can take several seconds and many many winds of the trim handle

It does take a number of turns, from a dim memory maybe 10 to 12, but it can be done in a very short time, 2 or 3 seconds maybe, there is no load on the trim handle.

[baron_beeza]

3.5.4. An elevator trim system was fitted to assist the pilot and ease elevator control forces when operating in a range of speeds and loading conditions. Fletcher aeroplanes had either electrically or manually operated trim controls. The trim control for ZK-EUF was manual, with a rotating handle located on the left side of the cockpit, aft of the power-control lever (see Figure 6). The trim could therefore be moved with the pilot’s left hand while at the same time the right hand held the control column. The trim took about 25 turns of the handle for full travel.

The aircraft obviously pitched up on rotate, possibly even slightly before.
The investigator knows how to fly an aircraft, many here have worked alongside him. I am sure he would have a fair idea or perhaps a personal belief. He is much closer to the action than any of us.
I would have thought the pilot, yes I knew him also, would have been very busy with the felt hand. pitching up with low airspeed..... hmmm I think whacking full power on would be high on the list of priorities, or at least confirming full power if that is the Walter system.
25 is the maximum number of turns so I guess 15 would be a good guess from landing to fully nose done. Still a lot of cranking to do when the nose is already pointed well above the horizon.
Perhaps the pilot did manage to crank all the turns in but by then the aircraft was already doomed.
The C of G would have caused a crash sooner or later. It truly is the Swiss cheese sequence yet again.

I also can't believe the operator did not at least have a series of standard W&B sheets prepared and approved. ie, Standard loads with various trip fuels.

I operate both NZ and Australian engineering licences..... the NZ is very good for normal GA operations. A lot of reliance is put on the IA and unfortunately this one and the balloon tragedy are not helping the industry.
It would appear the IA in each incident may have a case to answer.

The operations should be a lot more professional than these appear to have been. I am sure we will be seeing some increased audit activity there also.
You have to feel for the families, this report must be difficult reading.

[Ornis]

The father of a young man killed is quite right, we are amateurs. In my experience the response from the CAA to reporting a safety issue is defensive. Others have had similar treatment.

Is there going to be a report to the minister or Parliament when the CAA has its house in order?

I hope the emphasis is showing people how to get it right, in broad terms, when a proposal is made for an operation. I remain unconvinced the key to safety is paperwork, however necessary that might be.

[gobbledock]

This was an interesting account on 60 Minutes that I just watched. It would seem that Director Harris (CAA), and Australia's very own Director Screaming Skull (CASA) have much in common?

One Way Ticket (http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8543355)

Well I guess for starters;

Both don't seem to be able to answer a straight question (well not without looking like they had just had a giant unlubricated pineapple rammed up their klacker).
Both have delivered public performances that are about as convincing as a crack whore porno actress pretending to have an orgasm.
CAA and CASA don't appear to blink an eyelid when deaths, yes I mean deaths - You know, people's loved ones are reduced to body parts, lifeless limbs, bloody masses and unrecognizable pulps and torso's occurs. Mere collateral damage of a poorly oversighted regulatory inept regulator.
As usual and rightly so, the regulator (or lack of) played a huge part in this accident, however in standard fashion the witch hunt and blame has been thrown squarely at the deceased pilot.
Both regulatory bodies purpose and structure is to protect, shield and deflect moral and ethical accountability and blame away from an incompetent trough dwelling spin spewing taxpayer funded Minister for uselessness.
Both the CAA and CASA should have their Wikepedia pages updated to include 'pony pooh' as part of their mantra and core function.


It is a shame that Senator X doesn't have jurisdiction and a large jackboot that spreads beyond Australia's boundaries and over to our comrades in NZ? Then again, one mans crusade, as admirable and respected as it is, won't reshape our industry before 'the big one' occurs.

A TICK TOCK for Australia and a TICK TOCK for NZ........

[Waghi Warrior]

I totally agree, I saw the interview and it was disheartening to watch how the CAA Director reacted to the interviewers questions.

Blame the dead pilot, easy!

Problem is that having unsuitable so called experts in a regulator with no initiative to change things for the better is becoming more of a norm.

Tick Tock Tick Tock is totally correct, you don't only have to look at Oz and Nz either!

[Elevator Driver]

That 60minutes story was the biggest load of one sided 'pony pooh' seen on TV for sometime.

There was not one mention of the changes & introduction of part 115, which has introduced a raft of safety measure's including a calculated W&B for each load minimum experience and recurrent training. Which is far more than a drop pilot in oz gets.....

Having worked on both sides of the ditch recently, NZ has a much better regulatory system to work under & a far more approachable regulator.

[baron_beeza]

Having worked on both sides of the ditch recently, NZ has a much better regulatory system to work under & a far more approachable regulator.

Amen.

The entire NZ system is worlds ahead. Even more so on the engineering side.

[Waghi Warrior]

I agree that the NZ system is possibly better than the way things are done in Oz. I figure with SMS and good surveillance and industry education promoted by regulators, terrible accidents like this can be prevented. We are all responsible for aviation safety, not individuals.

[Weheka]

The so called story shown on Australian 60 minutes was, as far as the accident goes....rubbish. But what else could you expect from the media. They just don't seem to be able to do any proper research on anything to do with aviation.

No words can possibly describe what the victims families have been going through for the past two years. My comments here relate only to the actual accident.

I find it mind boggling the CAA can just turn around and blame EVERYTHING on the pilot and operator. I honestly didn't know that was their opinion.

60 minutes based their story on the TAIC report. The opinions of their expert were based on the TAIC report.

Would it surprise anyone to know that in an investigation into an accident in which Nine people lost their lives, that not all of the aircraft was recovered for proper investigation.

No person in the investigation team had even the slightest knowledge of the Fletcher FU24 type aircraft. There were plenty of qualified people available who did, including qualified accident investigators and engineers with enormous experience on type, but their services were apparently not required.

The accident was clearly a loss of control accident. The control column was found to be broken off and was found in the cockpit. The control lock was torn out but not found, even though it is clearly visible in photos post accident.

These items were buried on site along with the remains of the fuselage and wings. No proper testing was carried out on the control column or lock, such as testing by appropriate persons as to what caused the fracture, or why and how the lock was torn out. DSIR I imagine could have studied the control column?

A few months ago an exact same control column (cresco) broke off in flight, luckily the aircraft was dual and the pilot was able to land safely.

There is so much wrong with that report it is not funny.

Anyone who watched the Coroners inquest, which was screened live, and hearing all the expert witness's, should be convinced that C of G had no part in the CAUSE of this accident. Although even when faced with overwhelming evidence some "experts" refuse to change their opinion. Seems to be quite a few on this site who are quick to lay blame with absolutely NO knowledge of this accident. The Coroners report has not been released yet.

In independent CAA approved and monitored flight tests, in the same type of aircraft, with the same load and C of G position, the aircraft was fully controllable in all flight conditions. It didn't matter where the trim was set, it could be fully aft, the aircraft was still easily controllable through all stages of the take off. The aircraft had strain gauges and inclinometers fitted. All testing was carried out by a qualified test pilot and design engineer, it was done bearing in mind the average pilots ability. This is all documented.

The aircraft had completed 78 previous flights with the same loadings with no hint of being marginal, it flew perfectly. Other aircraft of the same type have carried greater loads in the skydiving industry for thousands of flights over more than ten years with no problems whatsoever. None of this information was taken into consideration.

We will now never know what the primary cause was, but in my opinion it was either a control breakage or jam of some sort, and beyond the pilots capabilities to regain control, even though he did manage to get it back to level flight and facing back towards the runway on a north easterly heading before the final wing drop.

[27/09]

CAA approved and monitored flight tests,

Hmmm, I wonder what CAA were doing getting involved in this flight testing?

[Lepper Messiah]

even though he did manage to get it back to level flight and facing back towards the runway on a north easterly heading before the final wing drop.

Though the TAIC report claims a different flight path with no recovery, 2 or 3 of the eye witnesses called at the coroners inquest provided the above account viewed in detail from different parts of the airfield. Turns out, these witnesses were never interviewed for the investigation even though they were probably the most qualified (tandem masters and Pilot) and could give the most detailed and accurate accounts of what they saw.

The quality of this TAIC investigation stinks like that of the ATSB investigation into the Westwind at Norfolk. Poor.

A final conclusion made even before the investigators turned up at the site.


Hmmm, I wonder what CAA were doing getting involved in this flight testing?

For a start, at the inquest the CAA's chief investigator essentially got up and said the TAIC report was crap and that W & B was not a causal factor. Perhaps the CAA wanted to back this up by going out and getting hard evidence through flight testing ? (something TAIC never bothered to do)

[Weheka]

A final conclusion made even before the investigators turned up at the site.

Hit the nail on the head there L.M. Also they didn't arrive at the scene until a day and a half after the accident. Not good enough.

Because of the nature of the flight testing I would assume it required CAA approval. The fact is this testing should have, and could have been undertaken by TAIC, if they were interested in finding the true cause of the accident.

[27/09]

For a start, at the inquest the CAA's chief investigator essentially got up and said the TAIC report was crap and that W & B was not a causal factor. Perhaps the CAA wanted to back this up by going out and getting hard evidence through flight testing ?

Could it also be because CAA allowed certification from the Ag category into the category used for the skydiving operation without following all the correct procedures?

I suspect they were trying to cover their backside against potential legal liability by attacking the TAIC report and getting involved in the flight testing. Who actually instigated the flight tests Weheka mentions?

I agree there was some unseemly haste with parts of the investigation and TAIC missed the mark in some areas. Examination of the control column etc would certainly be helpful though I don't think this is the root cause but maybe a subsequently contributing cause.

There is no question the aircraft was being operated outside the C of G envelope. This might be OK when things are normal but when something out of the ordinary occurs then it could well be the straw that breaks the camels back. The flight testing proves nothing in my opinion.

[Weheka]

Examination of the control column etc would certainly be helpful though I don't think this is the root cause but maybe a subsequently contributing cause.

So if the control column broke off at lift off or just after you don't think this would cause an accident? You are aware it was a single control aircraft?

Do you think any other Aircraft Accident Investigator in the developed world would dispose of these critical items without proper examination in such a major accident?

Why wasn't the control lock even found? It is plainly visible in the photos. Did they not know what it was?

The flight testing proves nothing in my opinion.

Hard to believe anyone could seriously think that. Hopefully your opinion doesn't count for anything in this case.

[27/09]

So if the control column broke off at lift off or just after you don't think this would cause an accident? You are aware it was a single control aircraft?

In a properly loaded aircraft that was trimmed correctly, No,

Sure a broken control column would have resulted in a crash landing but in properly loaded and trimmed aircraft, it shouldn't have have resulted in the attitude this aircraft was reported to have assumed just after take off thus resulting in the impact that happened.

All the flight testing proved was the aircraft could be operated adequately in an aft C of G situation under normal conditions nothing more nothing less. I think it's safe to assume that conditions for the accident flight weren't normal.


Hopefully your opinion doesn't count for anything in this case.

You're right, my opinion counts for nothing in this case.

It will be interesting to see what the Coroners report says.

[prospector]

Weheka,

Hard to believe anyone could seriously think that. Hopefully your opinion doesn't count for anything in this case.

Counts about as little as your opinion. Perhaps you could advise what your aeronautical experience is that enables you to come out with such profound statements.

In independent CAA approved and monitored flight tests, in the same type of aircraft, with the same load and C of G position, the aircraft was fully controllable in all flight conditions.

It may well have been, but it is not the load and C of G that is likely to have caused the problem. It was the position of the trim control at the commencement of the take off run, and at lift off, in conjunction with the aft c of g, which would have caused a major pitch up, and caused the pax to move even further aft and accentuate the problem until it became not recoverable.

Having been caught a few times myself, not remembering to reset the trim from the landing position to take off position, I am well aware ot the stick load that has to be overcome to keep the nose down at lift off. The FU24 has a large elevator trim tab, combined with a fully flying tail plane creating a very powerful force if not trimmed correctly.

[Weheka]

The question that will never be answered is why the aircraft pitched up to 45/50 degrees after lift off, forget vertical. Some unknown event caused this.

Another important piece of information that was ignored is this.

In my view the aircraft is most vulnerable to running out of forward stick when on the jump run. The aircraft is relatively slow, low power setting, and the first pair to exit have to come back to the door at least 12 to 18 inch's. The pair at the very back are the second to exit. This is where you would expect the aft C of G to become evident, and yet there was no problem. On ratings in the Fletcher, and I would imagine the Cresco and XL as well, this is something that is pointed out, to monitor speed and nose attitude on jump run.

On the other hand take off is perfectly normal. Take off with trim a couple of turns back from fully forward, after take off get rid of flap and trim back to about 3/4 forward and then pull nose up to maintain the 90 knots for best initial climb. Not something you would be doing on 78 previous flights with a similar load in this particular aircraft, and tens of thousands in other aircraft of the same type if the flights were barely controllable as TAIC suggests.

[Weheka]

It may well have been, but it is not the load and C of G that is likely to have caused the problem. It was the position of the trim control at the commencement of the take off run, and at lift off, in conjunction with the aft c of g, which would have caused a major pitch up, and caused the pax to move even further aft and accentuate the problem until it became not recoverable.
I am certainly no expert, maybe you need to talk to the people who conducted the test flights, because according to them, with the same weight and C of G position as the accident aircraft, even with full aft trim on take off, the aircraft could be controlled with one hand on the stick as long as speed was below about 90 knots.


I don't think there would have been any load shift until a very late stage of the climb.

[prospector]

The question that will never be answered is why the aircraft pitched up to 45/50 degrees after lift off, forget vertical. Some unknown event caused this.
,
That statement is correct, it will never be known with certainty. But I can say, after some 7,000 hrs flying FU24 on Ag Ops, with many thousands of t/o's, that the behaviour of the aircraft immediately after t/o points very strongly to the trim being left in the landing position and not set for t/o.

[Weheka]

that the behaviour of the aircraft immediately after t/o points very strongly to the trim being left in the landing position and not set for t/o.
I would have to say they were my initial thoughts as well. Now there are more questions than answers.

[Lepper Messiah]

Examination of the control column etc would certainly be helpful though I don't think this is the root cause but maybe a subsequently contributing cause.

In a properly loaded aircraft that was trimmed correctly, No,

Sure a broken control column would have resulted in a crash landing but in properly loaded and trimmed aircraft, it shouldn't have have resulted in the attitude this aircraft was reported to have assumed just after take off thus resulting in the impact that happened.

Are you serious ? I must say I disagree. Assuming the aircraft was trimmed correctly and the control column broke off on rotation, I think you are pretty well screwed, regardless of nearly everything else (including loading). It's a single control aircraft with essentially no other options (such as an autopilot/servos etc) to have basic elevator and aileron control. You would be in big big trouble.

This was a very real possibility considering the control column in EUF was broken of and resting on the floor of an otherwise relatively intact cockpit section.
This option was not considered. The stick was chucked away soon after the accident, buried along with any other evidence, on site.

There's this AD on the same control column in EUF:
http://www.casa.gov.au/ADFiles/under/cresco/DCA-CRESCO-18.pdf

There is no question the aircraft was being operated outside the C of G envelope. This might be OK when things are normal but when something out of the ordinary occurs then it could well be the straw that breaks the camels back. The flight testing proves nothing in my opinion.

All the flight testing proved was the aircraft could be operated adequately in an aft C of G situation under normal conditions nothing more nothing less. I think it's safe to assume that conditions for the accident flight weren't normal.

The flight testing proved what has always been known by many,- The aircraft performs perfectly fine with the loading at the time of the accident. It also proves that it even performs fine and is fully controllable in an abnormal condition such as a take off with that load and a fully rear set trim.
This is indisputable evidence. Remember, the TAIC concluded that the pitch up and loss of control was caused by the excessive rearward C of G. Not an incorrectly set trim, not control failure, not nothing but C of G.
This is rubbish but it is the official report.

Another thing that came out at the inquest was the fuel loading. When I read the TAIC report, they had fuel figures which didn't seem enough to even complete a flight considering (unusable and skydive flight attitudes) let alone reserves. Basically the impression I got, those numbers in the report were not standard practice and it would have had significantly more fuel, probably enough for two or more flights plus reserve plus unusable. Don't know where TAIC got those figures from. But what does this do to the C of G ?? It moves it forward.

The simple fact is, the Fletcher aircraft has operated successfully outside the C of G envelope for the past 50 years. Especially so in the last 13 years in the Walter powered variant with the larger hopper attempting to operate as a cheaper alternative to the Cresco. With the amounts routinely squeezed into the hopper, do an accurate W & B on those. The C of G is nowhere to be found. Its somewhere out the arse, up the strip by the bins. Yet, for an uncountable number of take-offs, the type has been fine. On top of that, they can have double + the payload of EUF on the accident flight.
Granted, not legally, but thats not the point.
I've watched these aircraft operating in the skydive role with 9 in the back, I've head of 10 stuffed in there regularly. I've heard of more than one occasion of a skydive Fletcher taking off inadvertently with a full aft trim and a huge load in the back. I've watched them taxi around with such an aft C of G that the nose wheel is spending the majority of the taxi clear of the ground. I've even heard a story of the aircraft operating in the standard passenger category in the pacific back in the day, filling the aircraft with Samoans and it actually resting on the tail, it would not come off the tail onto the nose until the engine was started.

Make no mistake, the FU24 is a highly capable aircraft in it's various forms. In my no-good opinion, the aircraft is not capable of producing such a terrible accident with these given conditions without influence from some major abnormal factor which has not yet been determined, and may never be.

It is the job of the TAIC to determine the cause of this accident. They said it was the C of G. Thats rubbish, and proven. In my opinion they have not done their job.

[Weheka]

There was another accident at Taumarunui in 2001 involving an Iroquois, in which three people lost there lives. It appears TAIC used the same "blinkered" approach to this investigation.

After the Coroners report, and one or more of the victims Families own investigating efforts, also I think Political involvement, the Accident Report was forced to be withdrawn. A new one has yet to surface as far as I am aware.

Not sure how to do links but a google search of New Zealand Herald for an article by Stuart Dye titled "Coroner slams crash reports" makes interesting reading.

Apart from the obvious grief and suffering caused by the accident itself, the report can also have a major effect on all the people involved, one way or another.

[prospector]

Assuming the aircraft was trimmed correctly and the control column broke off on rotation,

Well lets assume that. If the aircraft was trimmed correctly why the nose up pitch as it got airborne? if the control column broke there would be no way of pulling the nose up, if it was trimmed correctly, with no control inputs it would no doubt have eventually pranged, but not from a steep climb upon rotation.

[27/09]

Well lets assume that. If the aircraft was trimmed correctly why the nose up pitch as it got airborne? if the control column broke there would be no way of pulling the nose up, if it was trimmed correctly, with no control inputs it would no doubt have eventually pranged, but not from a steep climb upon rotation

Prospector, thank you, that was exactly my point. I'm surprised that others couldn't see this as well.

The aircraft should have been controllable around the lateral axis with the trim and along with the use of power I would expect a survivable crash landing would have been possible if the control column did in fact break at rotation.

[Neville Nobody]

The stick could have broken off during a hard check of an over rotation? Although with that sort of load on I doubt it would be anything other than a gentle rotation lifting off with flap? There seems to be a rash of AD's (Control stick) and SB's on Fletchers and Cresco's after that incident, arse covering?

[27/09]

There seems to be a rash of AD's (Control stick) and SB's on Fletchers and Cresco's after that incident, arse covering?

There was a dual Cresco that had a control column break in flight some time after the Fox Glacier crash. I think the AD's etc are more to do with this incident and are co incidental rather than arse covering for the Fox Glacier crash.

In my mind there is some arse covering going on re the Fox crash but not to do with the control column.

[Lepper Messiah]

Well lets assume that. If the aircraft was trimmed correctly why the nose up pitch as it got airborne? if the control column broke there would be no way of pulling the nose up, if it was trimmed correctly, with no control inputs it would no doubt have eventually pranged, but not from a steep climb upon rotation.

Perhaps not directly but what about resulting from reactive actions ? And depending on what attitude a column failure left the aircraft with ? How about the pilot fire-walling the power (in fear of the nose dropping at such a low altitude) and that being over done (and not being controllable, or easily) then eventually a load shift ?
Who knows what actions the pilot took, considering the seriousness and speed of the situation presented to him.

I'm not offering the idea of control column failure as the cause, it would still leave many unanswered questions. My point is that it could have been the instigating factor and more so; it should have been investigated further. To look deeper and answer those questions,- or to thoroughly rule it out. It would hardly be much of a consideration if it was still sitting there where it should be in the cockpit. But as I said, it wasn't. It was broken off in an otherwise relatively intact cockpit. Surely one would check to see how it broke off, part of the impact sequence or otherwise ? Just to be sure or, dig deeper ? Instead, it was put in a hole and buried soon after the crash, though the rest of the cockpit was saved.

[owen meaney]

Was the rest of the control column tube inspected/analysed?
This would determine if it was a clean break on impact, or from existing cracking.

[Weheka]

I think the remaining piece of the control column and the large, alloy? piece that it goes into are missing as well. I wouldn't have thought it had melted as there are other light alloy parts in the cockpit that haven't, ie part of the trim handle and the button on the end of the flap handle. As L.M. says the cockpit for all intents and purposes is relatively intact, that is you can identify everything and it is in it's place.

[framer]

Something on the news about this last night.
TAIC were asked to apologise for their errors but the head of TAIC would not.

[prospector]

TAIC were asked to apologise for their errors but the head of TAIC would not.

Understandable, something about giving a squeeky wheel oil perhaps?

[framer]

I don't know enough about the event/investigation to know what you mean Prospector. I was just updating the thread in case others wanted to watch the news on demand or something.

[prospector]

There were parts of the investigation that could have been done better.

But the conclusion arrived at with the known evidence was on the balance of probability the correct one,

There have been people who are close to the investigation, who have a close personal relationship with the deceased who disagree with the findings.

I have no knowledge of their aeronautical qualifications, if any, of these people.

The theory they put forward as to the cause of the tragedy, I cannot bring myself to call this an accident, is only a vague possibility, to my mind so vague as to be not credible.

[Lepper Messiah]

I'm glad this has finally come out,- that TAIC were idiots. The job they did on this investigation was below poor yet we rely on them to come up with plausible conclusions based on fact so the rest of the industry can learn and hopefully related tragedies can be avoided.

TAIC showed up, did a quick weight and balance found it was out, default determined that was the cause, put everything in big hole and buggered off out of there because it was pissing down with rain and they had earthquake damage to deal with back home.

For the next year or what ever they maintained this mindset until it was published in the report as the cause of the accident, with minimal consultation with the rest of the bewildered industry and overwhelming evidence on the contrary at their disposal.

I agree that an out of limit C of G would not help the recovery, but most importantly - WHAT CAUSED THE UPSET ?

Unfortunately now we will probably never know. For the good of the industry it was the job of TAIC to find out. They didn't do their job.

[prospector]

WHAT CAUSED THE UPSET

It has been stated a number of times by people who have many hours in FU24'S.

The trim for landing an empty aircraft is usually well back. If the trim is left there and a take off is commenced it is not until just about rotate that this manifests itself with a very powerful desire of the aircraft to climb very steeply.
This can be overcome but it takes a second or two to suss out what is going on. If the initial rotate is very steep, and you have the skydivers sitting on a smooth surface without any restraint then the chances are they will all end up against the rear bulkhead.

The report did find that the manual trim was well forward. As soon as it was realised what was causing the steep climb then that trim would likely have been wound forward very rapidly, but with the weight shifted so far aft recovery would not be possible, and the scenario that played out is exactly what one would expect.

[Weheka]

Prospector.

Saying that they all ended up against the rear bulkhead is silly. Have you read the review? Have you been on a parachute load in the back of a Walter Fletcher? Have you looked into the cabin of a Walter Fletcher that has eight people or four tandem pairs on board? The review discusses the possibility of load shift.

The Walter Fletcher must have different fight characteristics than the 400 Fletcher as far as take off with full aft trim goes. I am not disputing your experience with aft trim on ag work. Superair tested this and found it was easily controllable in the Walter? Why don't you ring the test pilot and ask him about it as one Fletcher pilot to another?

Why was the trim at the accident scene in the normal take off position? If the pilot had been madly winding it forward you would think it would be hard against the stop?

The chief commissioner says that the review really changed nothing, when in fact they have reversed the main finding of weight and balance being the most likely cause, to weight and balance being 99% certain NOT to be the most likely cause.

They rightly say now, they have no idea what the cause of the steep (not anywhere near vertical) climb was that led to the accident.

I see the Wanganui Helicopter accident has also come up again, where taic did a similar job on the investigation.

[prospector]

Saying that they all ended up against the rear bulkhead is silly

Why so?? If the C of G was marginal with the parachutists in their normal T/O positions as quoted in the interim accident report, then surely the sudden pitch up on rotate would very likely have caused the front two pairs, against the fwd bulkhead, and not secured in any way to the aircraft, to pitch aft, they would then have ended up amongst the pair seated at the rear bulkhead, this would surely have put the C of G so far aft as to make the aircraft uncontrollable. The distance the front pair could move aft in the cabin I am not aware of, but from the photo's of the accident aircraft cabin it would amount to a number of feet.
This scenario very closely parallels what actually was observed from the ground.


Superair tested this and found it was easily controllable in the Walter That may be so, but the test pilot knew what to expect, if this problem is thrust upon you with just a few seconds to assess and the rectify the problem I would say that info is of little use. The load shift would have happened in a second or two, on rotate, as observed by witnesses, and with the attitude of the aircraft no way to clamber back to your proper station.

It was normal practice
for the first 2 tandem pairs to sit as far forward as possible facing rearwards. The next 2 pairs
would then sit with one pair opposite the door and the third pair against the rear bulkhead
facing towards the door

If it was possible for the investigators to establish that the manual trim was in the T/O position, then surely it would have been possible to establish whether the control column had broken, something I have never heard of happening in the many thousands of hours topdressing in FU24's

[Weheka]

I have no words for the scenario you are describing re parachutists and passengers falling to the rear of the aircraft and all ending up at the bulkhead. I can only suggest you have look at a Fletcher with people on board and try not to think of the aircraft in a vertical position, it may have been around 45 degrees or so, which is still very steep. Better still, go for a ride in one, you may change your mind, or not.

Even with the surprise of having realised you have full aft trim on take off, i.e. the instant the wheels leave the ground, then IF the aircraft is controllable you should be able to control it, test flights say the Walter Fletcher is? I have had this happen a few times in a 185, yes it gives you a bit of a fright, but no problem to control. A Pilatus Porter is definitely NOT controllable on that situation.

The trim was where it was at the time of the accident and there is no argument about that, just seems odd it was not ALL the way forward. There is no argument the control column was sitting there broken off after the crash, the question was, WHEN and HOW did it get broken. Somebody just looking at and taking a photo at the crash site then throwing it away is not going to tell you for certain. The only way was to have it tested in a laboratory, which has been done (after it was dug up?) and it has been found to have broken off after impact with rudder peddle.

[prospector]

then IF the aircraft is controllable you should be able to control it,

That is my point, the aircraft would have been controllable if the trim was the only problem. But at the rotate, with the tail dropping away, any object not secured to the aircraft would have rapidly moved aft. From that point the aircraft becomes uncontrollable.

I cannot recall the exact details but much the same thing happened in Australia many years ago and their CAA made it a mandatory requirement for parachutists to be secured to the aircraft. I stand to be corrected on that statement, it was many years ago.

From Australian Jump Pilot manual
(h) Ensure there are sufficient approved restraints fitted for all parachutists

[Weheka]

http://i303.photobucket.com/albums/nn137/jskerr-photos/IMG_1702.jpg (http://s303.photobucket.com/user/jskerr-photos/media/IMG_1702.jpg.html)

This is not at Fox Glacier but as you can see there is no room for tumbling or falling back etc. There are nine people in the back here and this aircraft (Fletcher) did thousands of these loads over about an eight year period, no problems.

[prospector]

but as you can see there is no room for tumbling or falling back

Will have to disagree on that one. If the people against the front bulkhead were not secured to the aircraft, then on a rotate such as was observed, they could well have ended up in the laps of the people at the back.

None of the parachutists were restrained in any way, they were sitting on a smooth floor. To consider that they would not move aft when the floor suddenly goes to at least a 45 degree slope aft is pushing the bounds of probability.

They would not all be against the back bulkhead but the C of G would move far enough aft to give the scenario that was observed.

What is your theory as to why this crash occurred? Why did it happen if everything had gone as hundreds of other jumps that had been carried out using the same equipment had had no problem?

[Weheka]

I really have no idea now, but I am certain W&B wasn't the cause. There are now more questions than answers.

Regardless of what was the cause of the accident was, these aircraft should not have been certified for passenger carrying without proper weight and balance information in the flight manual and a proper STC rather than just a modification. When it was realised that only six people could be carried, no one would have bothered with the cost of conversion and STC.

As it was, all the big companies operated these Fletchers including, Taupo Tandems, Able Tasman Skydive, Christchurch Parachute School, Nzone in Queenstown. In hindsight, all were operated outside the W&B requirements for the aircraft in standard category, although finding anyone to admit that now would be difficult.

Knowing the loads that were carried in the ten years of operations before this accident is just another reason why I don't think W&B was the cause.

[prospector]

but I am certain W&B wasn't the cause.

And I am as certain as it is possible to be that it was.

When the original FU24's were being used for topdressing, the pilot had a single seat in the cockpit, the loader driver had a bench seat behind the hopper, the hopper was actually your back rest. If the pilot had for some reason upset the driver, then on the flight home it was possible to get even by crawling down the back of the fuselage, thus putting the C of G a lot further aft, the pilot had a moment of "what the F***k, and then figuring out what was the problem move the control column back and forward very rapidly. The driver rapidly resumed his proper seat.

As you can see in the photo you printed, the load is a lot further aft then when the aircraft was fitted with a hopper, the load then being just about right on the C of G, and not capable of being moved.

[Lepper Messiah]

prospector

You are just not comprehending this. This is not the back of a cargo 747 with some unrestrained vehicles with hand-breaks off as cargo.

This is a tiny fletcher with 8 people in the cabin, along with 4 large parachutes (about the size of a trampers pack but wider). It is not a slippery slidey surface, its effectively rubber on rubber,- the jump suits have a rubber like protective pad on the arse, I'm not sure what you'd call it, but for protection / wear when landing.

In order to get 8 people and 4 tandem rigs into that tiny cabin they are packed in like sardines. There are hand holds, foot wedges etc. They being jammed in against each other IS their restraint. There is no room to move.
Unfortunately the above photo is not the greatest example as there are two sport jumpers with backpack type rigs.

You may be able to see space, but what you don't see is legs, which are stopping movement.

I do agree that come an extremely steep angle, there MAY, and I say may with reservations, have been some sort of falling over the top or something but only at a very very steep angle. But no sliding at lower angles or on take off. There is no room.
From the witnesses I have spoken to, it did not go that steep, no where near vertical and it kind of "flew" into that attitude, rather than abruptly pitched.

The big unanswered question is WHY did this happen in the first place. That is unanswered and the rest doesn't even really matter.

I initially thought the trim. But since the testing was conducted and it found to be controllable in the hands of an average pilot I believe it no longer the case. Like many in NZ, I knew this pilot personally and know he was very vigilant when it came to the operation of aircraft. Trim position would have been in his mind and I'm very confidant he would have checked as he was fastidious with his checks,- particularly before the first flight of the day or after a break (as this flight was).

Not that this is scientific proof, but adding to the testing with knowing his type I personally find it unlikely. And the trim was found in the take off position, I doubt in the heat of the moment he had chance to do the many winds to full forward which would have helped, then back to take off position. I think both hands would have been wrestling with the stick and trim handle left where it was. But thats just me.

[Lepper Messiah]

So even TAIC now don't think W & B was the cause but you do. Is your name Ian by any chance ?


Please tell me, in a way that my small brain can understand, how W & B could possibly be the cause where there have been THOUSANDS of successful flights in this W & B or WORSE ?

Is it dark magic ?

Divine intervention ?

What makes this flight special ?

Before you say these people could have all been fat, I'll stop you with fact. They weren't.

I have heard of 10 (TEN) in the back of another skydive fletcher.

[Weheka]

Im beating my head against a brick wall, so I'm out.

[prospector]

Witness accounts varied in detail, but they generally described the aeroplane accelerating
normally down the airstrip and getting airborne at about, but certainly not later than, the usual
position. Two local witnesses standing near the operator’s facilities at the end of the runway,
and who were familiar with ZK-EUF taking off from the Fox Glacier runway, thought the
aeroplane got airborne earlier than it normally did. The aeroplane was then seen to continue
pitching upward until it appeared to be almost vertical. At about 100m the aeroplane entered
what was described as a wing-over to the left to point almost vertically downwards.

None of these witnesses knew what it was that they were observing?

pitching upward until it appeared to be almost vertical

And all those unrestrained parachutists remained in the allotted positions?

[Lepper Messiah]

Tell me Prospector, in your fletcher experience, how do you possibly get a loaded fletcher climbing vertical after take off, without strapping a SRB to the bottom ? Perhaps walter were secretly testing a new engine...

[prospector]

Perhaps if you read what was observed by the witnesses

The aeroplane was then seen to continue
pitching upward until it appeared to be almost vertical.

rather than stating

how do you possibly get a loaded fletcher climbing vertical after take off
you would have a better understanding of the sequence of events.

As to the rest of your post.
The first Fletcher I was operating, with an agricultural overload, was powered by a 225hp engine.

This Fletcher was powered by a 550hp turbine, it had less than an agricultural overload, and with that power it is quite conceivable that the take off path could be as observed by the witnesses.

It was obvious that that rate of climb could not be sustained and the aircraft did exactly as would be expected, dropped a wing and went vertical downward.

The distance from the commencement of the take off run, to where it impacted the ground after becoming airborne and going into the steep climb, stalling and impacting the ground certainly supports the witness observations.

[Lepper Messiah]

We are going around in circles here but what I gather is that you still believe that the original botched report was correct in saying that the cause of the pitch up was the aft c of g,- even though there have been many thousands of very successful flights before hand in a same or worse loading configuration. And against the flight tests conducted under the guidance of the CAA which prove at that weight and balance the plane was fully normally controllable AND to throw more in the mix it was fully controllable by a pilot of average skill to take off with a fully aft elevator trim as well as the c of g on the accident flight.

I'm not sure why you are quoting an abomination of a report. It has been found to be incorrect by the commission, effectively by the coroner and of course by almost every aviator who has read it, who has had anything to do with the parachute industry or the fletcher aircraft,- except you.

Perhaps if you read what was observed by the witnesses
you would have a better understanding of the sequence of events.

I have read what the report says. I have also spoken to, at length, a small number of witnesses two of which were never interviewed even though they asked to be, and were probably most qualified. Both these two were on different parts of the field but gave very similar accounts as to the sequence of events and both swear black and blue that it was not as was written in the report. One of these two was a tandem master who disconnected and removed the start cart from the aircraft for that flight and watched the whole thing effectively from the runway while making his way back to the hangar. I have walked the airfield with him and to the crash site as he gave a description of what he saw. The other was a well known aviation doctor from your corner of the country who gets around carrying out medicals for pilots. Perhaps you should hear his account.

The problem is, generally witness accounts do vary in detail,- as the report does day. But of those interviewed by TAIC, I believe they were all in the same general area (correct me if I'm wrong) with out necessarily a clear unimpeded view of the whole flight path. Also most were distraught tourists whom had just watched their friends die in a fiery plane crash (viewing from almost directly behind, on the deck at the top of the runway). How accurately can you judge a pitch angle from directly behind ?

I don't believe the aircraft went vertical (as was in the draft report), or any where near vertical. It is an impossibility because it simply does not have the performance without already having a great deal of speed or inertia before lift off,- which it didn't because it got airborne at the usual position, or early,- depending on who talk to or what you read.

I agree that if the aircraft was sitting on it's tail then yes of course there would be a change in positions of the passengers but overall the spread out would not be as different as one might think. I.e not all down against the back wall, because no matter which way round 8 people and 4 tandem rigs are in that tiny space,- it would still fill out a fair chunk of it.

Regardless, I do agree and believe that at some point, but later in the sequence of events, that there was a shift in load rearwards which would have made the recovery very difficult. However, I stress this as being LATER in, in the VERY steep attitude (read not near vertical).

The whole unanswered question, and the key to unlocking the cause of this crash, is:

WHAT CAUSED THE INITIAL PITCH UP ?

Not C of G (as you believe so)
Not a load shift (no room, very difficult to move)
Probably not trim (as was found in take off position and subsequent flight testing proves it still possible to take off with that load)

So what are we left with:

Control column break / failure ? (as has happened and subsequent ADs)

Control lock ?

Control cable failure ?

I really have no idea but I believe some failure or impediment in the control system somewhere, even if it was only temporary...


Prospector you should forget that report. Its mostly garbage. I take it you didn't watch the coroners inquest, as so much came out there. Many whiteness/experts especially those never interviewed or consulted.

[prospector]

4.2.16. At 0.122m rear of the aft limit, the centre of gravity on the accident flight was within the 5% grouping, and therefore likely to have been further aft than the centre of gravity on nearly all previous flights with 8 parachutists. At a minimum of 0.122m rear of the aft limit, the centre of gravity on the accident flight was possibly the most rearward centre of gravity of any of the aeroplane owner’s previous flights

Are you saying that the quoted figures are incorrect?

The impression I am getting is that it is OK to go outside the aft limits because it had been done before.

But when you go so far outside the aft limits it bites you, then it must have been something else.

What is going to be proven by digging up wreckage after being buried for years? What extra damage to components could have occurred during the burial and the uncovering these parts.

[GTang]

Are you saying that the quoted figures are incorrect?

The impression I am getting is that it is OK to go outside the aft limits because it had been done before.

But when you go so far outside the aft limits it bites you, then it must have been something else.

What is going to be proven by digging up wreckage after being buried for years? What extra damage to components could have occurred during the burial and the uncovering these parts.

If for example, it is the single bolt holding the control column that failed, being buried in the ground for that long will lead to corrosion of the fracture surface making it very difficult to determine the mode of fracture.

Prospector sit in the back with a full load of tandems and rigs, and see what is the furthest you can move unrestrained.

[Lepper Messiah]

Quote:
Quote:
4.2.16. At 0.122m rear of the aft limit, the centre of gravity on the accident flight was within the 5% grouping, and therefore likely to have been further aft than the centre of gravity on nearly all previous flights with 8 parachutists. At a minimum of 0.122m rear of the aft limit, the centre of gravity on the accident flight was possibly the most rearward centre of gravity of any of the aeroplane owner’s previous flights
Are you saying that the quoted figures are incorrect?

The impression I am getting is that it is OK to go outside the aft limits because it had been done before.

But when you go so far outside the aft limits it bites you, then it must have been something else.

What is going to be proven by digging up wreckage after being buried for years? What extra damage to components could have occurred during the burial and the uncovering these parts.


Prospector. In 12 years of being a daily pprune follower, in general I have respected and agreed with the majority of your posts.

Now however, I have determined one of two things:

1) You are simply taking the piss, for a laugh.
or
2) You are a complete idiot.

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

I'm not sure how many times it needs to be said, or has been said, but I'll say it just once more,- for the record.

There have been thousands upon thousands of flights in this Weight and Balance configuration,- or WORSE with no problem.

THIS WAS NOT THE MOST REARWARD C OF G THAT THE FLETCHER HAS TAKEN OFF WITH

This was a standard load, no different to any previous, or if anything lighter as the people on board were not big at all. There is a record (that I know of) of 10 people in the back, though not in this particular fletcher. This flight had 8.

Also

IT HAS BEEN PROVEN IN TEST FLIGHT CONDITIONS THAT WITH THE ABOVE C OF G THE FLETCHER IS PERFECTLY NORMALLY CONTROLLABLE AND TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT IT WAS ALSO TESTED WITH THIS C OF G A TAKE OFF WITH FULL AFT ELEVATOR TRIM AND IT WAS FINE !!

I put in capitals so maybe you have more chance of understanding these simple concepts.


This is where I step off, unless someone else has something more to add.

:ugh: :{ :ok:

[prospector]

I put in capitals so maybe you have more chance of understanding these simple concepts.

Why then go to the trouble of establishing any C of G limitations?

[Dan_Brown]

LM

That is all very well. However at the stall or the approach to the stall, where the elevator may stall before the main planes for example, then the a/c can become very unpredictable very quickly with an aft C of G. Certainly there will be longitudinal instability at the very least.

[GTang]

LM

That is all very well. However at the stall or the approach to the stall, where the elevator may stall before the main planes for example, then the a/c can become very unpredictable very quickly with an aft C of G. Certainly there will be longitudinal instability at the very least.

So the pilot just let the plane pitch up until stall at full power?

[Dan_Brown]

Of course not.

What i'm suggesting, the thing was out of control.

Aft C of G, = longitudinal instability, therefore unpredictability.

[prospector]

IT HAS BEEN PROVEN IN TEST FLIGHT CONDITIONS THAT WITH THE ABOVE C OF G THE FLETCHER IS PERFECTLY NORMALLY CONTROLLABLE AND TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT IT WAS ALSO TESTED WITH THIS C OF G A TAKE OFF WITH FULL AFT ELEVATOR TRIM AND IT WAS FINE !!


Perhaps you could advise us who carried out this testing? and what, if any, connection they had to the parachute fraternity.


The aeroplane owner recalled that about 2 weeks before the accident the pilot had rejected a take-off part-way down the runway and returned to the loading area before taking off successfully on the second attempt. The pilot had later said that he had forgotten to reset the elevator trim for take-off after the previous landing. The error was detected early in the take-off roll so he had stopped the take-off, returned to the start point and reset the trim before taking off. As a result of the incident the operator placed a label on the instrument panel to remind the pilots to check the trim position before take-off.

If the little detail of the trim position was of so little consequence why then the rejected T/O and return to the start point to reset it in the T/O position??

[lilflyboy262...2]

Maybe he thought that the problem was trim, but turned out to be something more serious that wasn't noticed until airborne on the second attempt?

Just throwing that out there.

[prospector]

The aeroplane owner recalled that about 2 weeks before the accident

Quite a few flights between that incident and the accident.

[prospector]

Lepper Messiah

From the accident report, have these figures been challenged?

At a minimum of 0.122m rear of the aft limit, the centre of gravity on the accident flight was possibly the most rearward centre of gravity of any of the aeroplane owner’s previous flights

THIS WAS NOT THE MOST REARWARD C OF G THAT THE FLETCHER HAS TAKEN OFF WITH

There is a record (that I know of) of 10 people in the back, though not in this particular fletcher. This flight had 8.

In order to get 8 people and 4 tandem rigs into that tiny cabin they are packed in like sardines

Enough room for a few more sardines of 10 people in the back



IT HAS BEEN PROVEN IN TEST FLIGHT CONDITIONS THAT WITH THE ABOVE C OF G THE FLETCHER IS PERFECTLY NORMALLY CONTROLLABLE AND TO MAKE IT MORE DIFFICULT IT WAS ALSO TESTED WITH THIS C OF G A TAKE OFF WITH FULL AFT ELEVATOR TRIM AND IT WAS FINE !!

Why then has CAA limited the load to 6 parachutists? if there is no problem with an aft C of G then surely this ruling would have been appealed? has it?

One can only surmise you must be part of the parachuting fraternity.
Any licensed pilot who would treat the C of G so lightly, especially with fare paying skydivers involved and then publicly brag about in on a public forum, I would return your comment

2) You are a complete idiot.

[Cloudee]

Prospector, I don't know what the rules for parachute ops are in NZ but here in OZ, looking from the outside in, I suspect there must be an entirely different set of rule when it comes to parachute ops.

I haven't seen them written down anywhere but minimum fuel, MTOW, and definition of VMC seem different somehow from the normal aviation interpretation.

[prospector]

entirely different set of rule when it comes to parachute ops.

One difference being that in Australia the parachutists have to be secured to the aircraft for the T/O and initial climb.

Some operators in NZ have taken it upon themselves, as a good safety feature, to have these restraints installed in their aircraft.

It is not mandatory in NZ and unfortunately the accident in question the parachutists were not restrained in any way, apart from "being packed in like sardines"

[Lepper Messiah]

Perhaps you could advise us who carried out this testing? and what, if any, connection they had to the parachute fraternity.

Flight tests of Walter Fletcher aircraft — August 2012

[79] .....engaged for the purpose by Super Air Limited, carried out testing on 7 and 8 August 2012 to evaluate the pitch control on a Walter Fletcher. The flight testing required CAA approval, which was granted, for the issue of an experimental category certificate of airworthiness.
[81] The flight testing was carried out under controlled conditions by an experienced Walter Fletcher pilot who had undertaken previous test flights with Mr ..... Mr ..... said that the test pilot would be "testing the aircraft to the capability of an average pilot of average skill." "Obviously" the pilot would be expecting there might be some unusual flight control inputs. Appropriate aft weighting was applied to counteract the weight of two persons in the cockpit.
[82] The pilot utilised Walter Fletcher ZK-BHG, with the weight and aft centre of gravity assumed in the ZK-EUF's accident flight. Although the test aircraft had a hopper and was set up for agricultural operations, Mr .... said, "...for these types of tests the different configuration should not affect the general pitch characteristic being investigated."
[83] A number of lead weights were used to simulate the weight and aft centre of gravity assumed in the ZK-EUF's accident flight. Mr .... said these were placed "well aft in the aircraft... just forward of the elevator control systems or tail plane control systems." If they had not been secured there was a danger they could have interfered with the control systems. This compares to the situation in ZK-EUF where the rear bulkhead protected the control systems. Testing with unrestrained loads would have been "very dangerous" and would not have been permitted by CAA.
[87] In summary Mr .... said:
... the testing found that at the assumed weight and balance the aircraft was controllable, and did not appear to show a flight characteristic that was unpredictable. In addition, when the trim was set fully aft on take-off, the aircraft was controllable as the control stick forces were not beyond the capability of a normal person to control with their right arm, and were within those permitted by FAR 23.143 [which Mr .... explained as "...the permitted control stick forces for temporary and prolonged application."]
[106] Importantly, Mr .... said the August 2012 flight tests showed when the trim was set fully aft on take-off, the aircraft was controllable as the control column forces "were not beyond the capability of a normal person to control with their right arm". He said a pilot caught in this situation should be capable of maintaining effective control with one arm through the airspeeds used for take-off and climb out while they adjust the trim imbalance. He said normal lift-off speeds are 51-55 knots and climb out usually around 80 knots or less. "The speeds would be indicated airspeeds."


From the accident report, have these figures been challenged

Yes, though I don't find it too significant. The TAIC report had an incorrect fuel loading as there was actually more fuel on board. There was also oxygen in the co pilot seat. Though the increased load increased the take off weight, it also brought forward the C of G, though not too much to be significant:

Fuel load/oxygen tanks
[48] Mr ...., for reasons set out in his evidence, included in his weight and balance calculations the installed oxygen system (11 kg) in the cockpit beside the pilot, and revised fuel loading for a total indicated of 160 litres, For the extra 50 litres, he allowed 39 kg.' This gave an indicative weight of 2271 kg, or 67 kg in excess of the allowable limit. He said: "this would not have caused the aircraft to crash."
[49] The extra weight (50 kg), shown in these calculations forward of the centre of gravity, had implications for the balance of the aircraft, given the likely weight of persons and parachute rig aft of the centre of gravity.
[50] Mr .... calculated the aft balance of this weight "during the initial stages of the take-off, in combination with the higher weight, should not have directly contributed to the accident." He said the balance was "possibly 4.3 inches (109.22 mm) aft of the rear limitation for the aircraft".
Analysis [52] It is likely that at take-off the aircraft was above its allowable weight limit as set out in the aircraft flight manual by some 67 kg, with the centre of gravity 0,109 m outside the maximum aft limit.


Quote:
In order to get 8 people and 4 tandem rigs into that tiny cabin they are packed in like sardines
Enough room for a few more sardines
Quote:
of 10 people in the back


You can sure pack in "sport" skydivers much better than tandem. For starters the parachute rigs are significantly smaller, about that of a small school backpack.


Why then has CAA limited the load to 6 parachutists? if there is no problem with an aft C of G then surely this ruling would have been appealed? has it?

What are you on about prospector ??? I'm trying to tell you, what has been already been determined,- that the weight and balance was not the cause of this crash. I'm not trying to justify operating beyond the c of g range, or whats legal/ethical/safe or anything like that. I'm trying to discus the cause of this crash. Can't you grasp that ?

One can only surmise you must be part of the parachuting fraternity.


For your information, I have absolutely nothing to do with the "parachuting fraternity". Not that I get the relevance anyway.

Any licensed pilot who would treat the C of G so lightly, especially with fare paying skydivers involved and then publicly brag about in on a public forum, I would return your comment

Again, what are you on about ????? When did I publicly brag about what ??



...significant anecdotal evidence from agricultural operators that the Walters have
been routinely operated well in excess of their agricultural overload provision
(6360/2860 kg). This, combined with diminished fuel loads, (due to lower unusable
fuel load than required) have allowed the aircraft to operate with a greater rearward
centre of gravity than EUF supposedly had on the accident flight. ...[T]he aircraft
type has historically operated well outside these considerations for most of its 57
years in service in New Zealand in its many variant stages.

Surely prospector, you were never part of this reckless unruly behavior in your ag career. I would like to think that you sat at the top of the strip and worked out a w & b for every load, making certain you were never a kg over weight or a mm out of balance...

[prospector]

https://www.tianz.org.nz/content/library/Coronial_Findings_for_Fox_Glacier.pdf

245. Had commercial tandem parachuting operations been required to be certificated and subject to CAA audit as at 4 September 2010, there is more likelihood that the weight and balance problems with the carrying of eight unrestrained passengers in a Walter Fletcher would have been identified and acted upon. Without this responsibility for the safe operating of the aircraft in carrying unrestrained passengers to altitude for skydiving purposes rested primarily with the pilot.

246. It is unlikely that the cause of the crash will ever be fully understood. Something unusual such as inadvertent pilot error or engine malfunction, mechanical failure has occurred at Take Off. this coupled with the aircraft being overweight and loaded rearwards of the centre of gravity is consistent with the evidence and has been the immediate cause of the tragedy.

That finding from the coroner would appear to cover all bases.
I would like to think that you sat at the top of the strip and worked out a w & b for every load, making certain you were never a kg over weight or a mm out of balance...

There was no requirement for that, the load always went into the hopper, and the hopper was near as dammit on the centre of gravity.

[lilflyboy262...2]

And the weights were always carefully measured right?

[currawong]

Obviously.

He's still here, isn't he?

:ugh: