Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)

[alser]

Can anyone explain why the aircraft could not be set up in T/O configuration and then perform the exercise at a safe (safer) altitude.
Outside of using a simulator this would appear to be the safest alternative.

[remoak]

That is exactly what the UK CAA mandated after the Prestwick J32 accident - all "V1" cuts had to be done above 500' AGL.

Unfortunately, the point of the training is somewhat lost as you really need to be accelerating from below V1 to really get the point of how tricky the manouevre is, and how small the margin of error can be.

Which is why we have simulators...

I can remember when converting onto the F27 many years ago, that the simulator was regularly crashed while getting to grips with V1 cuts. It was perfectly possible to get off the ground with virtually no yaw and climb away at V2, but all of us, at some point, messed it up and crashed. Thank god for sims, eh...

The other "gotcha" in the F27 was an engine failure on finals... the autofeather didn't operate at approach power settings, so the prop stayed in fine and unless you remembered to feather it, you ended up with a giant disc and the end result was always a descent below the glide, max power on the operating engine and a gradual loss of control as you ran out of rudder and aileron... followed by a crash, usually inverted, short of the threshold. Nasty.

[Jabawocky]

In my opinion, there is no valid or justified reason. If the report comes out with a finding along the lines of what many expect, there will be yet another reason why your post is extremely valid.

I never allow any unbriefed (read as surprise attack) EFATO below 1000, if anyone does it, they may have grounds to visit a hospital shortly afterwards, with or without an accident.

Maybe there is some CASA requirement or company SOP's that require it, and if so someone qualified to comment might like to.

J

[Checkboard]

The other big difference between simulator training and flight training is that simulator training is (usually) conducted as a two crew procedure. The trainer operates the simulator from an instructor station behind the operating crew - leaving both able to concentrate fully on the training.

In a two crew engine failure exercise (or real event), both crew members work together to achieve the best result. Should the PF mishandle slightly, the other pilot calls, and if necessary corrects, before the situation gets out of hand, They help each other to to best extent possible.

In a flight training exercise, one pilot is under training - and the other is conducting the training. When the failure exercise takes place, the pilot conducting the training is constrained not to help, but to assess. The pilot conducting the training is at the same time distracted from the events by the requirement to adjust the power levers, retard them and then set zero thrust and monitor engine parameters. Should a handling error occur, the pilot trainer has a performance pressure to allow the error to develop somewhat before attempting to take control and thus "failing" the student.

This makes the flight training exercise more difficult to perform than the simulator exercise, as well as having a terribly higher consequence.

The training value compared to the simulator is also lower, due to the somewhat artificial crew roles required by the flight exercise.

[A37575]

but the Lauda Air 767 that had a reverser deploy on climb out of Bangkok in 1991 was deemed by Boeing and the NTSB to be recoverable if the crew had acted quickly enough.

Thread drift I know, but I remember reading that Lauda 767 accident report and the published tests that done after the event. The test report stated that the crew had four seconds to recover from the situation once the reverser deployed before control was irrevocably lost due aerodynamic forces. Keeping in mind it was at night and at the climb speed at the time which was around 280 knots IAS, the effect of reverse on one engine at that speed was catastrophic.

The rate of roll with one engine in full reverse would have inverted the aircraft extremely quickly. In any case there is a safety factor with inadvertent reverse in flight in that the throttle automatically closes to idle which in theory would make the rolling action less severe.

Assuming that safety factor did cut in with the Lauda 767, four seconds to get the aircraft straightened up after an extremely rapid roll and extreme nose down attitude was probably impossible allowing for the surprise factor. Also in those days very few airlines practiced unusual attitude recovery on instruments in their simulators so the Lauda pilots were possibly ill-equipped to get out of that event.

[AerocatS2A]

Haven't got the manuals at home but when I was at QFL we only had the Beta Warning system. Tested each line check, put aircraft airborne, hold #1 RADALT test and flick the triggers for the warbler.

Oh well it doesn't matter, my original point was just that some Dash 8s won't let you select beta in flight.

[remoak]

Checkboard makes some great points above.

I can remember doing conversion training in the Shorts SD360 (conducted in the aircraft) and seeing an instructor get maxed out during a V1 cut and lose situational awareness. Luckily, the student sorted it out but it could have been very, very nasty. In case you are wondering how I knew about it, it was SOP in those days to take four guys up plus the instructor... one guy flying, one observing (by standing behind the trainee in the doorway), and the other two raiding the galleys and waiting their turn to fly. Wouldn't happen these days... I hope...

[The Green Goblin]

Typical BS again.

The facts - it is not a Dash 8.

It is a:

Brasilia
Multi Engine Turboprop
>5700 kg
Multi Crew (both highly experienced)
20.7.1b Performance (Positive rate with gear/flap down)
Autofeather
CAT A maintenance.

Along with being LIGHT, The conditions where only around ISA+15 at the time with light winds, minimal cloud and no buildups or sig wx.

Before you speculate about training, V1 cuts, asymmetric handling and whatever other nonsense think about the above.

Signing off.......

[FGD135]

learner001 said the following about zero-thrust and flight-idle:

Two totally different worlds...

With (if not prepared, unexpected...) totally different (flight) characteristics...

There is a third regime, and that is: windmilling-prop. In terms of flight characteristics, this one is like a more extreme version of flight-idle.

I made the statement, many posts ago, that no twin can climb with one prop windmilling. (Windmilling means that NTS systems are not operating).

The drag is so prohibitive that descent is the only possible mode of steady state flight. This means that, if you try to maintain level flight, you will soon lose control.

Of course, several posters disputed this statement. t303 was one, but he thinks zero-thrust is the same as windmilling.

Hugh Jarse said "Absolutely INCORRECT!" and made some references to training exercises in the DHC8 simulator (with autofeather configured). Not sure what exactly you were saying about those exercises, wrt to autofeather and whether the prop feathered - but a feathered prop (or a prop getting NTS treatment) is not a windmilling prop.

I remember reading about a loss of control and near accident in a DHC8 that had an engine failure during the departure phase from an airport in Europe. The prop was never feathered. One of the recommendations from the safety authorities was to remind pilots of the importance of feathering. I will try to find a link to that incident.

The only things I know about the TAMAIR accident is from what I have read here. I speed-read the Prestwick J32 accident report.

The implication in both of these cases is that flight-idle was set - and not zero-thrust.

If that was true - then think about how much more extreme windmilling is than flight-idle! Then you may see why I say that no twin can climb with one prop windmilling.

[TBM-Legend]

Atlantic Southeast Airlines Flight 2311, crashed in Brunswick, Georgia on April 5, 1991. The crash claimed the lives of all twenty-three people on board, including former U.S. Senator John Tower of Texas and astronaut Sonny Carter. This was due to propeller control failure.

[learner001]

FGD135 said:

"There is a third regime, and that is: windmilling-prop. In terms of flight characteristics, this one is like a more extreme version of flight-idle."

Very clear... And agree...

Additionally, this much more grave situation would not necessarily be limited to a failure of any sort...
It could even happen if the flight idle rigging for an engine-propellor combination, for whatever reason, would be incorrect (too low)...

Kind regards, learner...

[VH-VIN]

Dont know about a braz but a B1900, F 406 and B200 if you bring one power lever back to flight idle at V1 you will lose control and crash, and it will happen very fast!! At v2 you might be able to pull it off but its struggle. That prop needs to be feathered or zero thrust set.

[Socket]

High risk manouvre being performed???

Says who?

Airnorth chief executive Michael Bridge says pilots perform the move twice a year in training.

"It's obviously one of the highest-risk manoeuvres," he said.

I think he just might be in a position to know.

Mr Bridge said the company was moving to introduce training simulators and it was possible the two pilots were performing the move for the last time in the company's history.

I should hope it is more than just a possibility.

[AerocatS2A]

Originally Posted by FGD135

Hugh Jarse said "Absolutely INCORRECT!" and made some references to training exercises in the DHC8 simulator (with autofeather configured). Not sure what exactly you were saying about those exercises, wrt to autofeather and whether the prop feathered - but a feathered prop (or a prop getting NTS treatment) is not a windmilling prop.

I'll help you out there.

You said earlier that no twin will climb with a windmilling prop. The point a few of the Dash 8 drivers were trying to make is that any one who's been in the Dash 8 sim has probably seen it climbing with the prop windmilling.

Take a Dash 8, fail an engine, fail the autofeather system so that it doesn't feather, handle it ok and it climbs. It's not pretty and the performance is very marginal, but it can be done. That's not to say it should be done, and any one who's done it is under no illusions that it is in any way safe, but you are simply wrong when you make a blanket statement that no twin will climb with a windmilling prop.

[frigatebird]

re. post 132
In the intervening 19 years we have all learnt from that accident, and had the extra maintenance surveillance to prevent a re-occurence. Those on other types with similar engine and prop combinations at the time, have paid particular attention to their equipment indications in case they could be developing problems, ever since.
Anything is possible as the cause of this departure from controlled flight.
With time and hard work a finding/ probable finding will be arrived at.

[FGD135]

Take a Dash 8, fail an engine, fail the autofeather system so that it doesn't feather, handle it ok and it climbs. It's not pretty and the performance is very marginal, but it can be done.

AerocatS2A, thanks for your post.

Are you saying you can get steady-state climb? That is, climb with a constant airspeed?

Or, is the climb of only a short duration (a few seconds - as the airspeed drops off)?

And, there is definitely no NTS action on the prop?

[Dave Incognito]

Before you speculate about training, V1 cuts, asymmetric handling and whatever other nonsense think about the above.

Have a look at the ABC story linked on the previous page, which includes the following excerpts:

The airline has confirmed [the crew] …were performing an "engine cut out on take-off" manoeuvre when their plane crashed...

The bureau's investigator in charge, Alex Hood...says the sharp left roll of the plane that caused it to crash is characteristic of an engine-out manoeuvre.

However he says a mechanical or systems failure could also be the cause.

Interesting how several posters were given a hard time earlier in this thread for suggesting similar thoughts to what the ATSB investigator in charge has stated above.

[3 Holer]

I think he just might be in a position to know.

So Socket ,he was on the flight that crashed was he?

You and remoak both missed my point. NOBODY knows at this stage what caused this aircraft to crash. It is ALL speculation at his stage.

As was said, but totally ignored, earlier in the thread. Let's not speculate what occurred here but wait until the experts have time to investigate.

The ABC story is speculative too:

However he says a mechanical or systems failure could also be the cause.

[no one]

Crash pilots were flying 'dangerous' manoeuvre | Northern Territory News | Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia | ntnews.com.au

I see the media is now quoting pprune

[relax737]

Dave, it's difficult for people to admit their mates could have screwed up under these circumstances; I understand that and I'm no different. We all do it, and fortunately for most of us it hasn't been a situation that hasn't been recoverable.

It is not, however, insensitive nor disrespectful for those who post here to speculate on possible causes and that's what I see. To suggest that it is, is just emotion talking, and I also understand the depth of that.

There is nothing illegal, immoral, indecent, nor against forum rules to speculate on possible causes, even though nobody knows with any degree of certainty. 3 holer, you are abolutely correct about that.

However, there are two possible causes

Failure and loss of control
Catastrophic failure

As I see it, the only other possible is crew incapacitation, but I'd put that at about .001% or less, but not an impossible chance.

Jabawocky, you were in a difficult and unenviable position, but if you've gone some way to consoling an elderly mother, then well handled.