Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Old fashioned upper class slang for 'goodbye'.Toodle-pip is a variant of 'toodle-oo', from the French a tout a l'heure, 'see you soon'
Why thank you Mr Google...
Why thank you Mr Google...
Agreed on the Chinese water torture effect of "toodle pip". I understand the desire to distinguish yourself from the crowd but can't you just wear red socks or something?
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Asymmetric Training - is it legally required?
Hi Leadslead,
In regard to your point on the inherent dangers of conducting simulated asymmetric training in multi-engine aircraft - while I agree, is it still a legal requirement to conduct asymmetric training in Australia (simulator or no simulator available relevant to the aircraft type) for the aircraft type yoy want to be endorded on - ranging from say a Brasilia to PA31 to Patrenavia? - or, is it generally classified as non emergency type training and the asymmetric component is not legally required to be flown as part of an endorsement for this type of aircraft. Do the CAO's permit this?
I was under the impression that asymmetric operations were a necessary (legally required) component of a twin endorsement for a particular twin type (Navajo, C402, Baron etc) as they do have different handling characteristics to varying degrees). As a multi-engine instructor on several types of light multi-engine aircraft, I would be grateful for your thoughts and the thoughts of others please?
Thanks.
In regard to your point on the inherent dangers of conducting simulated asymmetric training in multi-engine aircraft - while I agree, is it still a legal requirement to conduct asymmetric training in Australia (simulator or no simulator available relevant to the aircraft type) for the aircraft type yoy want to be endorded on - ranging from say a Brasilia to PA31 to Patrenavia? - or, is it generally classified as non emergency type training and the asymmetric component is not legally required to be flown as part of an endorsement for this type of aircraft. Do the CAO's permit this?
I was under the impression that asymmetric operations were a necessary (legally required) component of a twin endorsement for a particular twin type (Navajo, C402, Baron etc) as they do have different handling characteristics to varying degrees). As a multi-engine instructor on several types of light multi-engine aircraft, I would be grateful for your thoughts and the thoughts of others please?
Thanks.
Last edited by VH-MARIA; 13th May 2010 at 14:35. Reason: To correct grammar.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 55
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmmm
VH-MARIA
As a multi-engine intructor on several types of light multi-engine aircraft. Shouldn't you know the answer to those questions?
In regard to your point on the inherent dangers of conducting simulated asymmetric training in multi-engine aircraft - while I agree, is it still a legal requirement to conduct asymmetric training in Australia (simulator or no simulator available relevant to the aircraft type) for the aircraft type yoy want to be endorded on - ranging from say a Brasilia to PA31 to Patrenavia? - or, is it generally classified as non emergency type training and the asymmetric component is not legally required to be flown as part of an endorsement for this type of aircraft. Do the CAO's permit this?
I was under the impression that asymmetric operations were a necessary (legally required) component of a twin endorsement for a particular twin type (Navajo, C402, Baron etc) as they do have different handling characteristics to varying degrees). As a multi-engine instructor on several types of light multi-engine aircraft, I would be grateful for your thoughts and the thoughts of others please?
Thanks.
I was under the impression that asymmetric operations were a necessary (legally required) component of a twin endorsement for a particular twin type (Navajo, C402, Baron etc) as they do have different handling characteristics to varying degrees). As a multi-engine instructor on several types of light multi-engine aircraft, I would be grateful for your thoughts and the thoughts of others please?
Thanks.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Aust
Posts: 378
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If it is too dangerous to carry out these procedures in RPT aircraft with only the crew aboard, then let's stop pretending that these aircraft have the magic ability to perform these manouvers with a full load of passengers aboard.
Either the aircraft cannot do it safely, or the crew training should improve.
Either the aircraft cannot do it safely, or the crew training should improve.
I have done countless (simulated) V1 cuts on the Braz, and never was the prop feathered for real. Only touch drills. That leaves 4 great big paddles windmilling in the breeze.
The practice of reducing power on the remaining engine to simulate hot and heavy loads is, in my opinion bull
. It was to prevent running out of rudder authority.It would be nice to believe that with the prop feathered then the aircraft would have the "magic ability to perform these manouvers with a full load of passangers on board".
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nothing new in that report really, looks like a long wait till the investigation is completed...
A long time ago and following a series of multi-engine training accidents involving simulated engine failures after take off, the NTSB observed , quote: "that many flight instructors down through the years, used the technique of abruptly cutting an engine with a multi-engine candidate to test his emotional reaction and judgement with this extreme technique". The recommendation observed that use of such procedures at traffic pattern altitudes may not permit enough time to overcome possible errors on the part of the applicant.
Let's face it -it is an extreme technique to pull an engine one second after lift off. Best of luck to any instructor that tries it - he may need it....
Agree Tee
A side point
What if the pilot being checked decided the required Casa "tick the box EFATO" was in fact unsafe and simply, if it had been possible prior to retracting the U/C landed straight ahead (assuming distance remaining was not a limiting factor).
Would he have failed the check for going against the brief or would the checker have failed for instigating a potentially unsafe exercise.
A side point
What if the pilot being checked decided the required Casa "tick the box EFATO" was in fact unsafe and simply, if it had been possible prior to retracting the U/C landed straight ahead (assuming distance remaining was not a limiting factor).
Would he have failed the check for going against the brief or would the checker have failed for instigating a potentially unsafe exercise.
Both the prior posters must not have an understanding of transport category aeroplanes.
A failure at V1 is perfectly controllable and the subsequent rotation and flight is all within the capabilities of the average (or below average Pilot for that matter) Pilot and briefed as such prior to every takeoff. When comparing that to light piston twins then of course you would not pull the mixture/throttle prior to a safe height.
As part of a base check you will have a V1 engine failure and have one simulated every renewal/proficiency check thereafter. Whether that is in the sim or the aeroplane makes no difference. Whilst the attention is on the Pilot being checked to perform the maneuver safely the onus is on the check Pilot to conduct the operation safely and to be ready with the levers and rudder if required.
In this game we play for keeps - Ernest Gann
A failure at V1 is perfectly controllable and the subsequent rotation and flight is all within the capabilities of the average (or below average Pilot for that matter) Pilot and briefed as such prior to every takeoff. When comparing that to light piston twins then of course you would not pull the mixture/throttle prior to a safe height.
As part of a base check you will have a V1 engine failure and have one simulated every renewal/proficiency check thereafter. Whether that is in the sim or the aeroplane makes no difference. Whilst the attention is on the Pilot being checked to perform the maneuver safely the onus is on the check Pilot to conduct the operation safely and to be ready with the levers and rudder if required.
In this game we play for keeps - Ernest Gann
Moderator
Both the prior posters must not have an understanding of transport category aeroplanes
Can't speak to megle2 but Tee Emm has more heavy transport hours than you and I put together a couple of times over, I suggest ..
A failure at V1 is perfectly controllable and the subsequent rotation and flight is all within the capabilities of the average (or below average Pilot for that matter) Pilot
... providing that the circumstances on the day reasonably replicate the certification envelope .. one of the questions which our good friends at ATSB will be looking at closely is whether this was/was not the case for this mishap. In this respect we are considering crew, aircraft, weather, etc., etc ...
It is important not to infer guarantees with performance .. there is a measure of variability and statistical inference involved with all this stuff .. and, if one goes out on a limb a bit too far ... all bets can rapidly be off.
Whether that is in the sim or the aeroplane makes no difference
.. except to the extent that, in the sim, if one screws up, the others get to have a bit of a chuckle .. in the aircraft, the families might get to bury the crew.
landed straight ahead (assuming distance remaining was not a limiting factor).
purely speculation but I suspect that such would not have been an option for this event and any typical crew. In the lower weight end of the envelope, and depending on the speed schedule and systems handling, things can happen VERY quickly and, unless the crew is onto the problem correctly and rapidly, the ground sometimes wins ...
My comments don't necessarily apply to the mishap .. we need to wait awhile for competent investigation results.
Can't speak to megle2 but Tee Emm has more heavy transport hours than you and I put together a couple of times over, I suggest ..
A failure at V1 is perfectly controllable and the subsequent rotation and flight is all within the capabilities of the average (or below average Pilot for that matter) Pilot
... providing that the circumstances on the day reasonably replicate the certification envelope .. one of the questions which our good friends at ATSB will be looking at closely is whether this was/was not the case for this mishap. In this respect we are considering crew, aircraft, weather, etc., etc ...
It is important not to infer guarantees with performance .. there is a measure of variability and statistical inference involved with all this stuff .. and, if one goes out on a limb a bit too far ... all bets can rapidly be off.
Whether that is in the sim or the aeroplane makes no difference
.. except to the extent that, in the sim, if one screws up, the others get to have a bit of a chuckle .. in the aircraft, the families might get to bury the crew.
landed straight ahead (assuming distance remaining was not a limiting factor).
purely speculation but I suspect that such would not have been an option for this event and any typical crew. In the lower weight end of the envelope, and depending on the speed schedule and systems handling, things can happen VERY quickly and, unless the crew is onto the problem correctly and rapidly, the ground sometimes wins ...
My comments don't necessarily apply to the mishap .. we need to wait awhile for competent investigation results.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goblin,
By all means disagree with the previous posters but don't start by denigrating them as being poorly informed. As Tee Emm states the use of opposite rudder by mistake happens. This can rapidly lead to an unrecoverable situation in transport category airplanes. This may not be the case here I'm not assuming anything, but do you really learn that much more by simulating failure at rotate as opposed to above 500' or 1000' as I have seen in some ops manuals? If so is the risk worth it?
By all means disagree with the previous posters but don't start by denigrating them as being poorly informed. As Tee Emm states the use of opposite rudder by mistake happens. This can rapidly lead to an unrecoverable situation in transport category airplanes. This may not be the case here I'm not assuming anything, but do you really learn that much more by simulating failure at rotate as opposed to above 500' or 1000' as I have seen in some ops manuals? If so is the risk worth it?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A failure at V1 is perfectly controllable and the subsequent rotation and flight is all within the capabilities of the average (or below average Pilot for that matter) Pilot
... providing that the circumstances on the day reasonably replicate the certification envelope .. one of the questions which our good friends at ATSB will be looking at closely is whether this was/was not the case for this mishap. In this respect we are considering crew, aircraft, weather, etc., etc ...
... providing that the circumstances on the day reasonably replicate the certification envelope .. one of the questions which our good friends at ATSB will be looking at closely is whether this was/was not the case for this mishap. In this respect we are considering crew, aircraft, weather, etc., etc ...
However I do agree with Green Goblin, an astute and professional check pilot will always make sure that the trainee can't kill him. When conducting any form of multi-engine assymetric training, I always have my foot hovering just above the "correct" rudder pedal, ready to counteract an incorrect input, and a hand close to the power lever ready to restore power if required. If you are going to do this sort of stuff close to the ground, you are absolutely crazy if you don't take precautions.
Yes, using the wrong rudder input will very quickly allow an unrecoverable situation to develop - however, a smart check pilot will never allow this to happen in the first place.
My gut feel for this accident is that the check pilot was probably complacent, and the trainee simply made a fundamental error.
I would have to agree with Tee Emm 100% as well. The Brits were very smart to mandate, after the J31 accident at Prestwick, that EFATO exercises be carried out at 500' AGL or above. Quite a few trainers in my company at the time (also a J31 operator), felt that the exercise was pointless unless carried out within half a second of V1, but then these were the same people (all ex-RAF) that took the view that the primary purpose of training was to load a trainee up until they lost the plot and screwed up. The secondary purpose of training was to then berate the trainee for their failures in as intimidating a manner as possible - preferably in public.
I have noticed, following a recent visit to the Ansett Sim centre in Melbourne, that the "load 'em up until they break" approach seems to be fairly well entrenched in some Australian training practices.
Thankfully, most of us are a little more enlightened these days (although ex-Forces people seem unwilling to let their old methods go).
As far as I am concerned, if you can't afford to do asymmetric training in a simulator, you can't afford to operate that type, period.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Oz
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak It would be nice to see one thread that does involve a civil versus military pissing contest. I vigourously agree with most of your thread but I think you'll find the style of instruction in the military is vastly different to your opinion.