Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't know what engines the Braz has. With the PW12x on the DHC8 there is nothing (apart from the triggers, which are not locked out in flight) to prevent you from retarding the power levers below the flight idle detent.
I would suggest that if a power lever were to inadvertently be moved aft of the flight idle detent in flight, the result would be a propeller overspeed, and most likely blade separation long before reverse would be possible.
Neither is desirable, however.
I would suggest that if a power lever were to inadvertently be moved aft of the flight idle detent in flight, the result would be a propeller overspeed, and most likely blade separation long before reverse would be possible.
Neither is desirable, however.
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ampk said
Fact: the Emb120 sim in Tullamarine is available (I'm happy to be stand corrected... is it U/S?) for ballpark (I'm aware of the pricing) $750 per hour; JQ DRW-MEL return $400? And a night at the 'Not so Quality Inn' $90 (....all facts)...
Pilot Wages several days $ ????
Flights XXXLD or more Pilots employed $ ????
Flight Duty Times $ ????
Allowances $ ????
There are more costs than some people care to think about - But no person ever wants to hear of a fatal crash..
OK, so factor in the DOC's of the aircraft versus the total costs of a simulator session, bearing in mind that two crew licences are renewed simultaneously.
Multiply the cost of sim hours by 2 (I'm guessing 2 hours are enough for two renewals, and I don't recall my GA renewals ever taking anything like an hour!) and do the sums. Probably close to $3,000 for two renewals over two hours including associated costs, but FAR more would be achieved in a sim than the aircraft. If the aircraft cost is within $500 per licence renewal (under) then it would have to still be worth it. I think the aircraft cost would probably be higher
Fact: the Emb120 sim in Tullamarine is available (I'm happy to be stand corrected... is it U/S?) for ballpark (I'm aware of the pricing) $750 per hour; JQ DRW-MEL return $400? And a night at the 'Not so Quality Inn' $90 (....all facts)...
Pilot Wages several days $ ????
Flights XXXLD or more Pilots employed $ ????
Flight Duty Times $ ????
Allowances $ ????
There are more costs than some people care to think about - But no person ever wants to hear of a fatal crash..
OK, so factor in the DOC's of the aircraft versus the total costs of a simulator session, bearing in mind that two crew licences are renewed simultaneously.
Multiply the cost of sim hours by 2 (I'm guessing 2 hours are enough for two renewals, and I don't recall my GA renewals ever taking anything like an hour!) and do the sums. Probably close to $3,000 for two renewals over two hours including associated costs, but FAR more would be achieved in a sim than the aircraft. If the aircraft cost is within $500 per licence renewal (under) then it would have to still be worth it. I think the aircraft cost would probably be higher
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: on the ground
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
No speculation here to a cause, but merely replies to a couple of queries in prior posts. Condolences to the pilot's families and greater Air North family.
It wouldn't be the first Bras to pull Beta inflight.
ASN Aircraft accident Embraer 120RT Brasilia N270AS Brunswick, GABrunswick-Glynco Jetport, GA (BQK)
An Airworthiness Directive was issued very quickly after the Atlantic Southeast accident and I have never heard of anything else similar since as far as the Brasillia and PW100 series is concerned.
The Bras as a mechanical gate on the pedestal, as well as a lock out solenoid to prevent PLA below flight idle once weight off wheels. The solenoids can be locked out be tripping a CB.
Props have been known to do worse then windmill.....
Reverse would render it pretty unflyable
Reverse would render it pretty unflyable
ASN Aircraft accident Embraer 120RT Brasilia N270AS Brunswick, GABrunswick-Glynco Jetport, GA (BQK)
An Airworthiness Directive was issued very quickly after the Atlantic Southeast accident and I have never heard of anything else similar since as far as the Brasillia and PW100 series is concerned.
I don't know what engines the Braz has. With the PW12x on the DHC8 there is nothing (apart from the triggers, which are not locked out in flight) to prevent you from retarding the power levers below the flight idle detent.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: australia
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
relax 737, I hear you.
But these guys were in Darwin not Tull Airport, so you need to concider associated costs and time. There is a fair chance these guys may have been rostered for a revenue flight this same day.
The ideal a free sim with every Braz included in purchase from factory with free spares and updates or CASA supply a sim for all Braz endorsed pilots. The list goes on. This is not a perfect world infact far from it..
But these guys were in Darwin not Tull Airport, so you need to concider associated costs and time. There is a fair chance these guys may have been rostered for a revenue flight this same day.
The ideal a free sim with every Braz included in purchase from factory with free spares and updates or CASA supply a sim for all Braz endorsed pilots. The list goes on. This is not a perfect world infact far from it..
Interesting reading
Someone earlier referred to the Bae Jetstream at Prestwick in 1992.
Without making any statement about the cause of the Bras accident, I offer this for those of us less familiar with turboprop assymetric handling and training issues. It is interesting reading.
Prestwick J32 Report
Without making any statement about the cause of the Bras accident, I offer this for those of us less familiar with turboprop assymetric handling and training issues. It is interesting reading.
Prestwick J32 Report
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: On the equator
Posts: 1,291
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know that Indonesia's Wings Air (Lion Air's subsidiary regional airline) send their pilots to the Ansett Sim Centre every 6 months for their currency checks on the Dash 8. Now if they can afford to do so .....
Hugh, some Dash 8s have a beta lockout to prevent the props going into ground beta in flight, regardless of where the power levers are. If you get singing canaries when you lift the triggers on the power levers then you will not be able to select beta in flight.
From discussion recently with some in the know at AN, I understand that they are working towards a sim training programme for their Brasilia fleet / crews. Shame it did not come about quick enough, and I commend AN and other operators that prioritise such training resources, sometimes to the detriment of the "bottom line".
Sound training practice is the cornerstone of aviation safety.
I have long been an advocate for FFS training - the notion that in-aircraft training is as realistic, or as safe as a simulator is archaic, to say the least, and smacks of ignorance from those with a gung-ho attitude to their work...
If an operator cannot afford to use a sim for their training in sequences that are risky to the aircraft (ie asymmetrics), then they should not be in business. To justify risking crews and aircraft on fiscal grounds these days with the technology that is about is weak.
If you have to travel overseas, so be it. Factor it into your operating costs and ticket sales.
If the sim you want is in Melbourne or Sydney, fantastic.
CASA put out their discussion paper regarding this subject and comments / feedback for it recently closed. Hopefully they will accelerate their decision and law making process to mandate this safety in training, based on this tragic event.
I believe that this should apply to all aircraft above 5700 kg - from Dash 8s to Beech 1900s and the sooner the better.
Some of the comments regarding asymmetric performance earlier are laughable - and highlight the ignorance and poor standards that all-too-often escape from today's flying schools - but that is another subject... How can one teach a skill that they have yet to master? (my old mate HM coined that one to all new instructor rating trainees).
Not to necessarily say that a training mishap caused this accident - the ATSB lads will find that out in due course - but my two cents worth since the topic has gone down this path.
I hope this causes each C&T pilot out there to redouble their efforts to stay safe - I know it has for me.
Sound training practice is the cornerstone of aviation safety.
I have long been an advocate for FFS training - the notion that in-aircraft training is as realistic, or as safe as a simulator is archaic, to say the least, and smacks of ignorance from those with a gung-ho attitude to their work...
If an operator cannot afford to use a sim for their training in sequences that are risky to the aircraft (ie asymmetrics), then they should not be in business. To justify risking crews and aircraft on fiscal grounds these days with the technology that is about is weak.
If you have to travel overseas, so be it. Factor it into your operating costs and ticket sales.
If the sim you want is in Melbourne or Sydney, fantastic.
CASA put out their discussion paper regarding this subject and comments / feedback for it recently closed. Hopefully they will accelerate their decision and law making process to mandate this safety in training, based on this tragic event.
I believe that this should apply to all aircraft above 5700 kg - from Dash 8s to Beech 1900s and the sooner the better.
Some of the comments regarding asymmetric performance earlier are laughable - and highlight the ignorance and poor standards that all-too-often escape from today's flying schools - but that is another subject... How can one teach a skill that they have yet to master? (my old mate HM coined that one to all new instructor rating trainees).
Not to necessarily say that a training mishap caused this accident - the ATSB lads will find that out in due course - but my two cents worth since the topic has gone down this path.
I hope this causes each C&T pilot out there to redouble their efforts to stay safe - I know it has for me.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gidday Horatio,
Yes, I remember from the Tamair crash (which I witnessed) and subsequent investigation that "zero thrust" (simulating a functional NTS on the Garretts) was around 15% torque on a functional engine (and probably a factor, considering it was normal practice to select flight idle during asymmetric training in that particular organisation). But that was with Garretts, so probably not so relevant to this investigation. Nonetheless, the Prestwick investigation mentions flight idle vs zero thrust.... Good reading.
Aerocat, the QL Dash fleet was retrofitted with Beta warning horn switches quite a few years ago. The mod does not prevent power lever movement below flight idle in flight. It purely involves a microswitch mod into the power lever triggers to alert the crew when the triggers are depressed in flight.
Yes, I remember from the Tamair crash (which I witnessed) and subsequent investigation that "zero thrust" (simulating a functional NTS on the Garretts) was around 15% torque on a functional engine (and probably a factor, considering it was normal practice to select flight idle during asymmetric training in that particular organisation). But that was with Garretts, so probably not so relevant to this investigation. Nonetheless, the Prestwick investigation mentions flight idle vs zero thrust.... Good reading.
Aerocat, the QL Dash fleet was retrofitted with Beta warning horn switches quite a few years ago. The mod does not prevent power lever movement below flight idle in flight. It purely involves a microswitch mod into the power lever triggers to alert the crew when the triggers are depressed in flight.
There is concern when an aircraft in the Dash/Braz/Saab class has a sim gathering dust in our country (literally weeks/months between log entries).
It is such a shame that CASA is not as advanced as either the PNG or NZ CAA with regard to mandating simulator (see NZ CAR 121.579 and its PNG equivalent) for exercises which are hazardous or impractical in the real aircraft. These countries have had this legislation in place for several years already and our time-warped CASA are still beating their gums about whether industry will accept it or not. We have a long and sad history of training fatalities in this country and we are still debating it ??? In such matters firm dictatorship is sometimes appropriate, especially when backed by precedent from more advanced aviation nations (and for all that we may bag the Kiwis, they do seem to be way ahead of us with their aviation legislation). If all operators were equally required to conduct simulator, no one operator would be disadvantaged commercially. Well, not unless they operated some exotic type that is only supported by a simulator in Vladivostok, but that should be their problem, not CASA's.
Quoting from CASA sources dating back to last August:
CASA will address this issue and will commence a review of the legislation. In the course of that review, CASA will consider whether there is a need to mandate the use of simulators in connection with certain flight crew training requirements in the air transport sector, and other sectors where this may be appropriate.
This work will commence immediately. It will involve consultation with industry and may come to involve a risk assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, and the preparation of a regulatory impact statement. As this is likely to be a protracted process, CASA is not in a position to specify a specific completion date at this time.
Quoting from CASA sources dating back to last August:
CASA will address this issue and will commence a review of the legislation. In the course of that review, CASA will consider whether there is a need to mandate the use of simulators in connection with certain flight crew training requirements in the air transport sector, and other sectors where this may be appropriate.
This work will commence immediately. It will involve consultation with industry and may come to involve a risk assessment, a cost-benefit analysis, and the preparation of a regulatory impact statement. As this is likely to be a protracted process, CASA is not in a position to specify a specific completion date at this time.
AO-2007-017
Although, it looks like this was recurrent training, not endorsement training, the point has to be made that if it is considered safer to use the sim for one, then the same risk analysis would apply to the other, surely?
RECOMMENDATION : AO-2007-017-SR-084
(emphasis mine)
The crew's endorsement and other training did not include simulator training and did not adequately prepare them for the event. There was no EMB-120 flight simulator facility in Australia and no Australian regulatory requirement for simulator training. In March 2009, an EMB-120 flight simulator came into operation in Melbourne, Vic. A workshop and discussion forum was conducted on 27 to 28 April 2009 for Australian Embraer 120 aircraft operators. All those operators were expected to commence utilising the simulator for flight crew endorsement training following that workshop.
RECOMMENDATION : AO-2007-017-SR-084
The following inter-related activities are in the process of implementation:
* A combined workshop activity with Ansett Aviation Training, Capiteq Limited trading as AirNorth, Network Aviation Pty Ltd, Skippers Aviation Pty Ltd, PelAir Aviation Pty Ltd and CASA was held on 27, 28 April 2009.
* A combined workshop activity with Ansett Aviation Training, Capiteq Limited trading as AirNorth, Network Aviation Pty Ltd, Skippers Aviation Pty Ltd, PelAir Aviation Pty Ltd and CASA was held on 27, 28 April 2009.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Oztraya
Posts: 354
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is such a shame that CASA is not as advanced as either the PNG or NZ CAA with regard to mandating simulator (see NZ CAR 121.579 and its PNG equivalent) for exercises which are hazardous or impractical in the real aircraft. These countries have had this legislation in place for several years already
With ref to the Zero Thrust v Idle - there was an article on this very subject in Flight Safety magazine in the last year or 2.
Pimp Daddy, it sounds like PNG has regressed. It's in their legislation (copied from NZ) that Part 121 operators should be using simulator but if the CAA fools won't enforce it, that's another matter. ICAO need to pay them another visit.
Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 23rd Mar 2010 at 12:31.
Hugh Jarse,
Could be the QL fleet didn't get the full beta lockout system. This is from the 300 manual,
(My comments in square brackets [].) So it physically stops the props from going into beta as well as having the warning chirps when you lift the triggers. Incidentally it is not mentioned in the FCOM manual, but is in the Flight Manual. My reading of it is that if you have the canaries then you have the rest of it. It's not something you'll be testing in flight though and it's disabled below 50' RADALT so you wouldn't notice anything different in the flare.
If you had Beta Lockout Test switches on the Captain's side panel then you had the revised system that prevents beta in flight, if you had Beta Backup Test switches then you had the original system.
Could be the QL fleet didn't get the full beta lockout system. This is from the 300 manual,
Beta Lockout System (CR 873CH00011)
This system incorporates electrical circuits to prevent the propellers from entering the ground Beta range of operation during flight.
...
The BLS is disabled on the ground to allow for discing, by either 50 ft. RAD ALT or WOW signal ... Setting the PLA [Power Lever Angle] less than Flight Idle while in the flight mode enables the system. Beta backup protection remains enabled regardless of PLA setting while in the air mode.
The warning horn provides an aural warning [canaries] as the Flight Idle gate is removed by lifting the power lever triggers, and before ground beta is actually selected. The revised beta backup enable logic provides low blade angle protection independent of PLA while airborne, instead of the existing standard PLA greater than Flight Idle logic. The NP trigger is tripped upon detection of NP values in excess of 1000 PROP RPM when the power levers are set below the FLT IDLE gate in flight. This provides a discrete signal to increase the prop blade angle to reduce PROP RPM to values below the trigger point.
This system incorporates electrical circuits to prevent the propellers from entering the ground Beta range of operation during flight.
...
The BLS is disabled on the ground to allow for discing, by either 50 ft. RAD ALT or WOW signal ... Setting the PLA [Power Lever Angle] less than Flight Idle while in the flight mode enables the system. Beta backup protection remains enabled regardless of PLA setting while in the air mode.
The warning horn provides an aural warning [canaries] as the Flight Idle gate is removed by lifting the power lever triggers, and before ground beta is actually selected. The revised beta backup enable logic provides low blade angle protection independent of PLA while airborne, instead of the existing standard PLA greater than Flight Idle logic. The NP trigger is tripped upon detection of NP values in excess of 1000 PROP RPM when the power levers are set below the FLT IDLE gate in flight. This provides a discrete signal to increase the prop blade angle to reduce PROP RPM to values below the trigger point.
If you had Beta Lockout Test switches on the Captain's side panel then you had the revised system that prevents beta in flight, if you had Beta Backup Test switches then you had the original system.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: More or less all over the place
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Zero thrust (±12% Garret D228, ±10% PW F50) (Can usually be accurately set by the trainer...)
or
Flight idle (depending on the (correct) 'rigging')... (On first flight of the day or airframe, you sometimes have 'no clue'...)
Two totally different worlds...
With (if not prepared, unexpected...) totally different (flight) characteristics...
Kind regards, learner...
or
Flight idle (depending on the (correct) 'rigging')... (On first flight of the day or airframe, you sometimes have 'no clue'...)
Two totally different worlds...
With (if not prepared, unexpected...) totally different (flight) characteristics...
Kind regards, learner...
If you had Beta Lockout Test switches on the Captain's side panel then you had the revised system that prevents beta in flight, if you had Beta Backup Test switches then you had the original system.