Centaurus
28th Aug 2019, 15:41
The accident report pertaining to the crash on 10 July 2018 of a Convair 340 in South Africa, has just been published. More details in Pprune Rumours and News forum.
See: http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and%20Incidents%20Reports/9722.pdf
As a former pilot who flew the RAAF Convair 440 Metropolitan aircraft in the 1960's, I read the report with more than normal interest. The accident aircraft took off with both engines cowl flaps fully open, which is not the normal takeoff setting. One engine caught fire early during the takeoff roll. The drag from full open engine cowl flaps is significant and this would seriously affect the rate of climb on one engine
. The report indicates flames could be seen under the open engine cowl flap from the cabin. During my time on the Convair, the before takeoff checklist required the cowl flaps to be set at a trail position or similar setting which meant very slightly open. The accident report discusses the excessive drag caused by open cowl flaps. It also states the crew of the accident aircraft failed to feather the engine on fire or close its cowl flaps as part of the engine fire drill. The open cowl flap would exacerbate the intensity of the fire.
Some time ago a HARS crew ferried a Convair 440 from South Africa to Australia where it now lives at Wollongong airport along with other HARS aircraft. A South African media photo at the time showed that Convair taking off with its engine cowl flaps in the full open position. Another media photo, this time at Wollongong, shows that Convair in the air on final approach still with full open cowl flaps.
Of course, operational procedures could have been changed by the manufacturer since I last flew a Convair in the 1960's. But I must say I wondered why the current HARS Convair as well as the crashed Convair which was being flown by an Australian crew, would fly with engine cowl flaps fully open. Maybe the cowl flaps were set in a fixed open position for maintenance reasons? That would be a questionable practice for sure.
Certainly the cowl flaps would be set to fully open for taxiing and run up for air cooling on the ground. But to takeoff and fly with fully open engine cowl flaps was never a AFM procedure. Perhaps any HARS member could explain further? I recall writing to HARS on the subject but did not receive a reply.
See: http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and%20Incidents%20Reports/9722.pdf
As a former pilot who flew the RAAF Convair 440 Metropolitan aircraft in the 1960's, I read the report with more than normal interest. The accident aircraft took off with both engines cowl flaps fully open, which is not the normal takeoff setting. One engine caught fire early during the takeoff roll. The drag from full open engine cowl flaps is significant and this would seriously affect the rate of climb on one engine
. The report indicates flames could be seen under the open engine cowl flap from the cabin. During my time on the Convair, the before takeoff checklist required the cowl flaps to be set at a trail position or similar setting which meant very slightly open. The accident report discusses the excessive drag caused by open cowl flaps. It also states the crew of the accident aircraft failed to feather the engine on fire or close its cowl flaps as part of the engine fire drill. The open cowl flap would exacerbate the intensity of the fire.
Some time ago a HARS crew ferried a Convair 440 from South Africa to Australia where it now lives at Wollongong airport along with other HARS aircraft. A South African media photo at the time showed that Convair taking off with its engine cowl flaps in the full open position. Another media photo, this time at Wollongong, shows that Convair in the air on final approach still with full open cowl flaps.
Of course, operational procedures could have been changed by the manufacturer since I last flew a Convair in the 1960's. But I must say I wondered why the current HARS Convair as well as the crashed Convair which was being flown by an Australian crew, would fly with engine cowl flaps fully open. Maybe the cowl flaps were set in a fixed open position for maintenance reasons? That would be a questionable practice for sure.
Certainly the cowl flaps would be set to fully open for taxiing and run up for air cooling on the ground. But to takeoff and fly with fully open engine cowl flaps was never a AFM procedure. Perhaps any HARS member could explain further? I recall writing to HARS on the subject but did not receive a reply.