Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Over the Rainbow
Posts: 148
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I think he just might be in a position to know.
So Socket ,he was on the flight that crashed was he?
I think he just might be in a position to know.
So Socket ,he was on the flight that crashed was he?
His knowledge of the reasons for the flight and what was to be performed during it should be far superior to yours I am guessing, so get off your high horse and pull your head in.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: aviation heaven, australia
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wanted to read from other pilots what speculation they had on what happened the 2 chaps that have perished. instead you get a majority of ego tripping pilots that think pilots are the only humans on earth that make no errors.
I know most people here are from aviation, then you all know that PILOT ERROR is the primary cause of a fatal crash although the trend is moving closer to maintenance.
Causes, 1.Pilot error 2.maintenance error 3. mechanical failure 4. weather 5. combination of 1,2,3 or 4. simple.
No one wants to say that they don't make mistakes, especially one that costs a life or 2. we are all human, we all do.
This forum is a blessing for aviation. although a lot of crap is on here, it makes people think about the consequences of actions in your job. Speculation is just that. Don't have a go at the speculator if the media wishes to print. we all know 95% of media is made up anyhow.
My thoughts are with the family of the many people involved, RIP to the boys on board. aviation and australia will miss you.
I know most people here are from aviation, then you all know that PILOT ERROR is the primary cause of a fatal crash although the trend is moving closer to maintenance.
Causes, 1.Pilot error 2.maintenance error 3. mechanical failure 4. weather 5. combination of 1,2,3 or 4. simple.
No one wants to say that they don't make mistakes, especially one that costs a life or 2. we are all human, we all do.
This forum is a blessing for aviation. although a lot of crap is on here, it makes people think about the consequences of actions in your job. Speculation is just that. Don't have a go at the speculator if the media wishes to print. we all know 95% of media is made up anyhow.
My thoughts are with the family of the many people involved, RIP to the boys on board. aviation and australia will miss you.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
3 Holer
I agree with Socket, you are showing all the signs of being a moron... as characterised by:
1. A complete refusal to objectively examine the evidence available.
2. A complete refusal to add 2 and 2 together to arrive at a logical answer.
Why is that you think that accident investigators are mighty gods, and the only people who can come to a sensible conclusion? Most of them have only done a six week course anyway. The only time when their talents are particularly relevant, is when the cause of the accident is an obscure mechanical failure or some other reason that is not immediately apparent, but requires detailed analysis. And even then, they don't actually DO the analysis, they just collate the data from experts and arrange it in a technically pleasing fashion.
You (and others) who constantly repeat the mantra "wait for the investigators to publish the report" are simply in denial - much like the ostrich with it's head firmly in the sand (not that ostriches actually do that, but it's a well-known myth, so...)
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck. I don't need a 50 page report to prove it. If you do, you don't have the deductive and analytical skills required by to be a pilot.
Let's not speculate what occurred here but wait until the experts have time to investigate
1. A complete refusal to objectively examine the evidence available.
2. A complete refusal to add 2 and 2 together to arrive at a logical answer.
Why is that you think that accident investigators are mighty gods, and the only people who can come to a sensible conclusion? Most of them have only done a six week course anyway. The only time when their talents are particularly relevant, is when the cause of the accident is an obscure mechanical failure or some other reason that is not immediately apparent, but requires detailed analysis. And even then, they don't actually DO the analysis, they just collate the data from experts and arrange it in a technically pleasing fashion.
You (and others) who constantly repeat the mantra "wait for the investigators to publish the report" are simply in denial - much like the ostrich with it's head firmly in the sand (not that ostriches actually do that, but it's a well-known myth, so...)
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck. I don't need a 50 page report to prove it. If you do, you don't have the deductive and analytical skills required by to be a pilot.
Originally Posted by FGD
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?
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?
Aircraft set to max take-off weight and auto-feather is supposed to be serviceable, that is, all indications prior to take-off are that it is working.
Engine failure experienced shortly after V1 (while rotating.) Gear is selected up and PNF announces the failure. PF confirms the failure. PNF identifies that the prop has not feathered, i.e., the autofeather system has failed. The prop is windmilling at about 400 RPM.
Normally the engine failure recalls would be done after acceleration but in this case, with the prop windmilling, they are done immediately to achieve certification performance.
PNF selects the power lever to Flight Idle, the condition lever to Fuel Off and completes the rest of the recall items and calls "recalls complete."
PF continues climbing out at V2. At some point early in the engine out departure a turn is commenced, during the turn the EGPWS starts saying "DON'T SINK, DON'T SINK." It's at this time that the PF realises he is finding it more difficult than usual to maintain altitude in the turn and notices that the prop has still not feathered. He brings this to the attention of the PNF and the PNF uses the alternate feather system to feather the prop.
Obviously this is a big cock up, the PNF should have checked that the prop feathered when he moved the condition lever to Fuel Off, but he didn't. The PF could also have kept a better eye on what was going on, it'll be a debrief point. But they didn't crash, and until they commenced a turn they had some climb performance, not much, but enough to fool them into thinking everything was ok.
So, in the sim at least, it is possible to maintain a steady climb on one engine with the other prop windmilling.
Having said that, I've also seen the same situation lead to a crash. I don't mind saying I was the PF in both cases, when I was having a good day I got away with it, when I was having an off day, things didn't turn out so well.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Here today, gone tommorrow
Posts: 157
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remoak
"Why is that you think that accident investigators are mighty gods, and the only people who can come to a sensible conclusion? Most of them have only done a six week course anyway"
The lead investigator has been with ATSB for probably 10 years, is/was a pilot, was a Chief Pilot who was well known and respected for his "take no prisoners approach" to internal company incidents,he would seek the cause, recommend a solution and not look for scapegoats, and certainly wasn't afraid to tread on management toes if this is what his well researched conclusions pointed to.
"Why is that you think that accident investigators are mighty gods, and the only people who can come to a sensible conclusion? Most of them have only done a six week course anyway"
The lead investigator has been with ATSB for probably 10 years, is/was a pilot, was a Chief Pilot who was well known and respected for his "take no prisoners approach" to internal company incidents,he would seek the cause, recommend a solution and not look for scapegoats, and certainly wasn't afraid to tread on management toes if this is what his well researched conclusions pointed to.
Whispering "T" Jet
Socket & remoak = Dumb & Dumber maybe?
Oh and remoak, good luck in aviation with your
reasoning.
I'm sure when you come up for Command Training you'll really impress your training Captain with that logic.
NFTA.
Oh and remoak, good luck in aviation with your
if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, quacks like a duck - it's a duck.
I'm sure when you come up for Command Training you'll really impress your training Captain with that logic.
NFTA.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: N/A
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would think the running costs alone for running the bras (fuel, maint. etc) would be in the ballpark of at around $1500/hr. ie 2hrs = $3000
Ergo, the sim wouldn't be a lot more expensive, and could in fact be cheaper. Plus you cover more in the 1-2 hours having the abililty to reset the sim, and practice V1 cuts over and over, and other inflight emergencies which you wouldn't consider doing or have the ability to do while actually flying (eg. windshear).... and there's no ATC so no delays.
You will be missed fellas. Rest in peace.
Ergo, the sim wouldn't be a lot more expensive, and could in fact be cheaper. Plus you cover more in the 1-2 hours having the abililty to reset the sim, and practice V1 cuts over and over, and other inflight emergencies which you wouldn't consider doing or have the ability to do while actually flying (eg. windshear).... and there's no ATC so no delays.
You will be missed fellas. Rest in peace.
is anyone else here appaled with the NT News using quotes and innuendo from this website ti justify their front page spread title "Crash Pilots Were Flying Dangerous Training Manouver" within only a few days they are using speculation to justify their article. I mean, ok, EFATO excercises are gonna have a level of danger, what in our profession doesn't but that doesn't mean you can go and label standard training procedures as dangerous and insinuate that they have attributed to the accident before even the accident investigators have had a chance to 'investigate', something clearly the NT News no nothing about....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Look up and wave
Posts: 359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To send 3 crew to the sim center is about a 10,000 exercise
Travel 2 crew plus a sim operator (Line captain, line FO and C&T) = $2000.
2 x 2-4 hour sim sessions = $4000
Crew travel/meal/Overnight allowance = $1500ish
Wages during loss of revenue flying (4 days) $4000
Crew to cover those 4 days that you're loosing the Pilots for non revenue $4000
As you can see the costs add up pretty quickly compared to revenue flight for an IR renewal and a EFATO with an instrument approach in the Aeroplane.
With the fleet size and amount of Pilots I'd be allowing at least $500,000 a year for such a program.
Travel 2 crew plus a sim operator (Line captain, line FO and C&T) = $2000.
2 x 2-4 hour sim sessions = $4000
Crew travel/meal/Overnight allowance = $1500ish
Wages during loss of revenue flying (4 days) $4000
Crew to cover those 4 days that you're loosing the Pilots for non revenue $4000
As you can see the costs add up pretty quickly compared to revenue flight for an IR renewal and a EFATO with an instrument approach in the Aeroplane.
With the fleet size and amount of Pilots I'd be allowing at least $500,000 a year for such a program.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FGD135,
Aerocat has explained (what I meant to say) in his/her post. I've done similar routines during SIMEXes, and can confirm that the aircraft will climb with a windmilling prop without autofx.
There is also dispatch relief Via the MEL for autofx inop.
The point I was trying to make, is that it's a broad statement to claim that no propeller driven aircraft can climb with a windmilling prop. Many can, under favourable conditions and weights, etc.
Kiwi, gidday! I seem to remember we only got the abridged version you wrote about (Beta Backup switches and singing canaries), which still allowed selection of below flight idle in flight. Not desirable.
Green Goblin, they are similar engines. I'm not going to speculate on the crew, just interested in the technical aspects (as I'm sure most here are).
Aerocat has explained (what I meant to say) in his/her post. I've done similar routines during SIMEXes, and can confirm that the aircraft will climb with a windmilling prop without autofx.
There is also dispatch relief Via the MEL for autofx inop.
The point I was trying to make, is that it's a broad statement to claim that no propeller driven aircraft can climb with a windmilling prop. Many can, under favourable conditions and weights, etc.
Kiwi, gidday! I seem to remember we only got the abridged version you wrote about (Beta Backup switches and singing canaries), which still allowed selection of below flight idle in flight. Not desirable.
Green Goblin, they are similar engines. I'm not going to speculate on the crew, just interested in the technical aspects (as I'm sure most here are).
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MACH082,
Without wanting to appear picky or abusive, your figures may well be accurate but pale into insignificance with the hull loss of one aircraft and the deaths of two pilots.
It may have been cheaper to do the work in an aircraft while nothing goes wrong but it can never be so when things go pear-shaped. The sim wins out in every situation then.
Without wanting to appear picky or abusive, your figures may well be accurate but pale into insignificance with the hull loss of one aircraft and the deaths of two pilots.
It may have been cheaper to do the work in an aircraft while nothing goes wrong but it can never be so when things go pear-shaped. The sim wins out in every situation then.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Living next door to Alan
Posts: 1,521
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
personally I wouldn't wipe my arse on it let alone put in the pet cockatoo's cage!
Rough, tough, and doesn't take **** from anyone
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Marauder
So what?
I doubt he has done more than the standard six week course at Cranfield. I'm pleased that he's apparently a good guy, but quite frankly he is only slightly more qualified than I, or a lot of people here, are.
3 Holer
Well as I've been commanding jets for the last 20 years, and been a training captain for ten of them, I'm not too worried about that...
Everyone else
I think a lot of you are missing the point here. The issue isn't whether or not the aircraft can climb away in various configurations... the issue is the LOSS OF CONTROL. The only real question in this accident investigation is, why did they lose control? It was either mechanical (ie a prop in reverse or something equally unlikely), or it was pilot error.
The point is that even if the aircraft had been unable to climb, there was nothing to stop either pilot retarding both power levers and landing it straight ahead, under control. Had they done that, they almost certainly would have survived.
It is the LOSS OF CONTROL that is the issue here.
The lead investigator has been with ATSB for probably 10 years, is/was a pilot, was a Chief Pilot... etc
I doubt he has done more than the standard six week course at Cranfield. I'm pleased that he's apparently a good guy, but quite frankly he is only slightly more qualified than I, or a lot of people here, are.
3 Holer
I'm sure when you come up for Command Training you'll really impress your training Captain with that logic.
Everyone else
I think a lot of you are missing the point here. The issue isn't whether or not the aircraft can climb away in various configurations... the issue is the LOSS OF CONTROL. The only real question in this accident investigation is, why did they lose control? It was either mechanical (ie a prop in reverse or something equally unlikely), or it was pilot error.
The point is that even if the aircraft had been unable to climb, there was nothing to stop either pilot retarding both power levers and landing it straight ahead, under control. Had they done that, they almost certainly would have survived.
It is the LOSS OF CONTROL that is the issue here.
Last edited by remoak; 24th Mar 2010 at 09:46. Reason: edited for typo
With the fleet size and amount of Pilots I'd be allowing at least $500,000 a year for such a program
If you think training is expensive, try having an accident.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From reading the above, I can see that the concenus is to use a simulator for all assymetric training, which I think is great, as long as you have the simulators for the types available. Now if we follow the suggestions above, all operators will need a simulator for endorsements and IRT training. How will the operators of King Airs, Chieftains, Barons etc comply with such a rule?
The availability of a simulator can be a major problem for some operators, will they be grounded?
The availability of a simulator can be a major problem for some operators, will they be grounded?
King Airs, Chieftains and Barons aren't certified to climb with an engine failure at rotation, thus the exercise shouldn't be conducted in those aircraft at all. Engine failure exercises with sufficient height for attitude recovery would be appropriate.