Air North Brasilia Crash in Darwin (Merged)

[t303]

FGD135

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

Be fair, I did say flight idle to zero thrust!
But thanks for telling me what I think. Apparently, I also think I know how a Bras performs, so humour me for a moment..

Without any inference or opinion whatsoever reference this unfortunate event, but to simply (hopefully) ease FGD's anxiety about turboprop twin performance:

EMB120: THE AIRCRAFT (NOT the movie)

Takeoff config: flaps 15, 100% TQ, around 9.5T training weight,
simulated engine failure at V2+10 and after pos. rate callout.
TQ on dead (critical) engine flight idle, circa 5%. (13-15% was the accepted simulated zero thrust range)

A/c climbs at (eventually) 3-400fpm to 1000ft altitude WITH THE GEAR DOWN. Congratulate him/her on skillful handling of speed, attitude and balance, then point to the gear lever/indicator and make observation that even without CHECKING THE FX OR RETRACTING THE GEAR the old girl has dragged your sorry arze up through the briefed acceleration altitude, 3rd and 4th segment to 1000ft, without any configuration change!
Remind him/her (if s/he doesn't know already) that if s/he tries it with 30pax onboard........ well, use your imagination.
(You don't have to explain it twice, embarassment usually prevents repeats)
And before anyone starts....
Would I prefer to have done it in the SIM? HELL YEAH!!!!!!!!
But we didn't have the luxury.
Did I feel s/he was about to lose it? Not at all, otherwise Mr Pratt's wonderful piece of kit could not have come up any faster if it was running on Viagra! (I don't need to practice bleeding.)

So you can choose to believe me or call me a liar if you wish,
BUT AT LEAST ONE TURBOPROP TWIN WILL DO IT, at least under ideal conditions.
SEEN IT, DONE IT, LIVED TO TELL YOU ABOUT IT

Of course the usual caveat applies:
DON'T TRY THIS AT HOME KIDDIES!

[Checkboard]

The NT News article (yeah, I know) quoted:

"There is no full flight simulation training aid available anywhere in the world for this type of aircraft and, as such, there will always need to be a component of in-aircraft training."

The EMB 120 has been around for 25 years, and there are several sims available world wide. Non in Australia until last year, though.

[teresa green]

Assymetric or no assymetric, two colleagues have died, four little kids left without their fathers, two devastated families, it does not matter how long you have been in the business, if never fails to shock you, and I have seen too many. Some of you post out of shock and grief, some post to try to understand, none of us know, lets wait to see the results, and appreciate the fact that there but for the grace of God go I.

[4PW's]

Condolences not allowed, but speculation is.

For the common good we're told, so's we're all the wiser.

If you keep saying that, remoak, you'll convince someone.

Sad day for the kids, mum's, family, friends: just don't mention it here.

RIP.

[ace from space]

Brasilia critical engine

One of the benefits of a discussion forum such as this, is that it gets people sharing thoughts and ideas that may help prevent a similar type of accident occurring in the future.
We don’t know the facts prior to the accident, what we do know is the end result.
For my money it looks like a loss of control situation (for whatever reason) soon after rotation, where the a/c deviated dramatically to the left and never cleared the airport boundary. The subsequent crash appears to be a high speed impact.
Something that occurs to me in all this, is not so much whether the a/c will still climb after takeoff , if the configuration, power levers or condition levers are mishandled or there is some sort of catastrophic failure or failure of the auto- feathering system, it’s why they(the crew) appear to have lost control?

In a former life when I flew the Bras, the #1 engine (left) is the critical engine should it fail.
In over 6000 hours on type, twice I experienced a situation when the #1 engine was simulated to fail (by setting flight idle) after V1 and the speed is allowed to get a little slow, the a/c required not only full opposite rudder but also full opposite aileron to check the yaw and roll to the left. (and even then the a/c continued to deviate from centreline)
The situation was remedied by reducing the power on the live engine to reduce the asymmetric yaw.
The point I am trying to make is, at low speeds and high torque setting on the live engine, when the critical engine has failed, it is possible to run into controllability issues if you weren’t careful with speed control when conducting training at low weights (with fwd C of G) and relatively low speeds.
I am not postulating as to the reasons for this terrible accident, but simply sharing some experiences and thoughts which help keep us all safe!

[Utradar]

Geez, this is like talking to a ostrich or maybe even a goose.

Remoak (and other's with this mindset), with that sort of experience, you are expected to have healthy sceptical mindset as to what happended then rather than be the typical armchair expert with experience. There have been many accidents that have misidentified over the years, so you'd in a better position to keep an open mind.
You might be right about the control issue mate because it was a control issue otherwise they wouldn't have crashed at high speed during a turn.

You arn't the guy doing the investigation. How do you know that they find something that may prove otherwise that you dont know about? You said:

"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."

How do you know it wasn't something else that caused it. That's what these
'6 week inexperienced' investigators are looking for. What caused the loss of control is what everyone wants to know. A dose of humble pie may be what's in order.

[remoak]

Spoilher

I love the way you pick and choose your quotes to suit your argument.

What I actually said was "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".

Note that there are two possible causes in that sentence...

People with "my sort of experience" are actually expected to have an analytical mindset, which is informed by the incident/accident stats of the airline we work for, and the same stats for the type itself. These stats (in a decent airline) are comprehensive and very revealing. What they show is that by far the majority of accidents and incidents have a significant element of engineer or pilot error to them.

Now if you were to compare all the accidents in turboprops and light twins that were characterised by a loss of control during a V1 cut (and there have been a lot), how many of them would be down to a mechanical failure? That's right - not very many.

That is why it is a relatively safe (but unpalatable) bet to draw a conclusion about what caused this accident - because it has been seen many times before.

Why do you think we have simulators?

Anyway... you wait for the report. Feel free to send me a PM and remind me how wrong I was when it eventually comes out...

[archangel7]

for such a sophisticated aircraft like that to suddenly lose control on take off with 2 highly experienced pilots for no apparent reason makes no sense. Even if they where conducting EFATO drills this shouldnt happen. The Brasilia has gauranteed performance with one engine on T/O... Obviously Something terribly went wrong.This could not be pilot error. Without a doubt, mechanical failure!!! To me it sounds like the malfunction of the engine propeller control unit and this would allowed the propeller blade angles to go below the flight idle position if they where conducting EFATO drills. I am sure there are many other factors contributing to the accident as all accident have a chain of events to lead up to it.

[Capt Claret]

Originally Posted by archangel7

This could not be pilot error. Without a doubt, mechanical failure!!!

Not very wise words there. It could be pilot error. It could be mechanical failure. It could be a combination of both.

Highly experienced pilots make mistakes. Equipment fails. Wise observers don't pronounce cause without being able to substantiate said cause, and at least not until they've completed their investigation.

But I'm not investigating I hear you say.

[ace from space]

Archangel7

for such a sophisticated aircraft like that to suddenly lose control on take off with 2 highly experienced pilots for no apparent reason makes no sense. Even if they where conducting EFATO drills this shouldnt happen. The Brasilia has gauranteed performance with one engine on T/O... Obviously Something terribly went wrong.This could not be pilot error. Without a doubt, mechanical failure!!

Archangel7, even with said guaranteed performance, it doesn’t guarantee you anything if the technique isn’t correct. I.e. control inputs are inappropriate or insufficient, or speed control is inadequate. There is a human element to a large percentage of air accidents which has been pointed out by many on this thread.
A routine event can go wrong very quickly and one can find themself in a position from which there are few avenues of escape if the situation is mismanaged or mishandled.
We’ve all had bad days in the sim, or seen bad situations in the sim where we walk away afterwards thinking to ourselves that we are still alive to fight another day because it was in the sim.
Experience gives us many things, but it doesn’t give us immunity from making a mistake!

[privateer01]

Well I brought up the sim vs Airplane today in recurrent training.....

Was a jet recurrent but I'm typed on 2 turboprops, 2 piston engine, and 2 jets....all in excess of 5700 (12,500 lb for you not metric folks)...

The chief pilot made the comment that even with sim training theres still no replacement for training in the aircraft.

Having been in 6 different sims for 5 different aircraft I'd have to agree.

Sim's are a wonderfull thing but they are not the actual aircraft.

Sim's are designed to replicate the airplane's....but there are issues.

1. The sim is designed to be in fact more difficult to fly then the actual aircraft. Theory being when you transition to the actual airplane all is good.

Sadly no sim ever does a great job of replicating the aircraft and I've had sim's that were different day to day. It depends where the tech sets them. No sim I've ever been in ever ground handled like an actual aircraft. Theres other areas where realism suffers but it depends on the aircraft and the individual sim. Example: Boeing 727 sim...designed to replicate the -100 and with quick changes the -200....it doesn't do both perfectly...but pretty close. Example Falcon 20 sim....quick change from TFE-731's to CF-700's...doesn't do either particularly well.

Lets face it sometimes no two airplanes fly the same...every fleet has a dog or a hangar queen....but you get the point.

2. It seems like no sim is ever configured like your actual fleet. Hell...most places you'll work don't have everything in every airplane standardized. Switches move, Instruments can be different...as someone pointed out...reverse systems can have different mods. Systems can have different mods. Example: Metro's.....I trained in San Antonio on a Metro 23 sim with EFIS (Military C26B) for goodness sake.....Has anyone ever seen 2 metro's set up the same? Know where theres some EFIS equipped metros?

3. Its hard to do a walk around preflight on a sim....yeah ok I just threw that one in for some humour.

Certainly theres things that are best left to the sim and there are things that you can only ever replicate in the sim.

Its just not the end all be all second coming of JC....that some voices seem to be making out.

Wanna have your first engine failure in an actual airplane with pax on board having never had the experience in something thats relevant to your operation?

Scratches head.....well....ummm...that switch or instrument was right over here in the sim.

Holy cow! This thing doesn't really fly like the sim was set up to ......

Let the disagreement commence...but its something to think about.

[relax737]

Good points ace.

Even with a jet, buckets of power and performance, if not flown accurately, and I mean very accurately at AUW, an engine out on a twin is a critical manoeuver.

I've seen as little as half a degree in pitch the difference between climbing and sinking.

And I agree with you Capt Claret, very unwise words from archangel.

There's an old saying

When you're up to your ar$e in alligators, it's difficult to remember you were there to drain the swamp.

The analogy applies equally in aviation, and when everything is going pear shaped, professional aviators aren't much different from the guy draining the swamp. What we do have going for us is instinctive action based on ingrained training, but if you put a foot wrong then it's curtains.

[601]

King Airs, Chieftains and Barons aren't certified to climb with an engine failure at rotation,

Depends on the King Air model - 200/B200 no but try a B300 (Beech 350)

[KRviator]

Originally Posted by archangel7

for such a sophisticated aircraft like that to suddenly lose control on take off with 2 highly experienced pilots for no apparent reason makes no sense. Even if they where conducting EFATO drills this shouldnt happen. The Brasilia has gauranteed performance with one engine on T/O... Obviously Something terribly went wrong.This could not be pilot error. Without a doubt, mechanical failure!!!

You're kidding, right? You have to be. A true professional is never as arrogant, or closed-minded...

Afterall, with such a sophisticated aircraft as the 737, with 3 arguably more experienced pilots up the front, to fly into the ground at Schipol for no apparent reason makes no sense. It shouldn't happen. The 737 has guranteed performance with two engines on approach. Obviously something went wrong, yadda yadda yadda...

Get the point? No matter your experience level, you're not immune to screwing up, and if you think you are, more fool you...

As has been said, nothing in aviation is guranteed and if you try to extract such "guranteed" performance from an airplane that may or may not be capable of delivering such performance due to any number of issues (be it age, engine/prop wear & inefficiency and so on), instead of looking at the bigger picture, and putting the airplane down as softly as you can wherever you happen to be, then you are always entertaining the risk of becoming another statistic instead of simply the walking wounded.

[relax737]

Yes, KRviator, good points.

I know this is digressing somewhat, but that's the nature of a thread such as this.

Another old saying

The two most dangerous times in your aviation career are when you think you know it all, and when you do know it all.

We can, at times, be our own worst enemies!

archangel, it seems the ad isn't for Brazilia pilots, but for Metro, but even if it was, it isn't insensitive or disrespectful to do so; Air North is a business and businesses need people to generate revenue. The world doesn't revolve around people, but money, and without someone to fly their aircraft, a company can't survive.

[redline666]

VU-XUE - Fuel Starvation - Jundee

Good example of the controllability issues faced by the crew in a very abnormal situation. For those that don't know, the LH engine rolled back, and eventually shut down due to fuel starvation on finals.

The crew recalled that, as the pilot in command advanced the engine power levers at the commencement of the go-around, the aircraft yawed and rolled left ‘aggressively’. The co-pilot applied right rudder and aileron but was unable to control the aircraft. He informed the pilot in command that he was unable to hold the control inputs, so the pilot in command placed his hands on the control yoke and his feet on the rudder pedals and assisted the co-pilot. Together, they were able to steady the aircraft’s flight path, which they estimated at that time to have been approximately 100 ft above ground level, with 30 degrees bank left, and 100 to 111 kts airspeed. The crew reported that the stick shaker activated twice, and that each time they slightly reduced the control yoke back pressure. During that period, the EGPWS warning ‘too low terrain’ sounded. The co-pilot called for the flaps to be retracted to the ‘flaps 25’ position. After the pilot in command confirmed that the co-pilot had control, flap 25 was selected. The crew reported that the airspeed slowly began to rise above 111 kts and the left bank started decreasing, although full right aileron and rudder inputs were still required. The crew retracted the flaps
to 15 degrees, and the co-pilot was able to return the aircraft to a wings level attitude. The aircraft achieved a positive rate of climb a short time later. The crew then retracted the landing gear.

31 people were very lucky to walk away from that one.

[ace from space]

Capt Claret spot on with your response to A7.

Relax737
yep I’m with you, you don’t have to get it wrong by much.
Even though the Bras, relatively speaking does have bucket loads of power, directional control for me is the issue (as compared to a jet) exacerbated on a turbo prop by the critical engine factor, windmilling prop and by the large moment arm from the longitudinal axis to the thrust line, combined with a fwd Cof G with only 2 POB.

Archangel7 another thought on your thinking “it can’t happen to such an experienced crew”
From my own experiences, things often happen when a very experienced crew is operating together due to mutual assumptions made about each other.
As a checkie we might be inclined not to intervene until a later time when conducting training/checking with a very experienced operator, than flying with a newbie, if something was going pear shaped.

[relax737]

ace, you mention that the experienced crew/s tend make mutual assumptions about each other, and that is absolutely correct.

I recall an incident when working for that very company many years back when a particular client required a two pilot operation, but the aircraft wasn't normally 2 crew, nor were the pilots qualified to fly 2 crew.

On downwind, the pilot flying ran through his checklist, changed tanks to the fullest for landing, and sometime after that, the "support" pilot changed tanks (selector on the floor between seats) without mentioning it to the pilot flying, and an engine ran out of steam on short final, in fact over the highway, landing on R36.

That's the reverse of what you mention, but indicates how unsafe an operation can be without the required discipline.

I mention it for no reason other than someone may learn something from the incident. If you're not 2 crew qualified, one must sit on his hands.

Then there's that question,

What are the three most dangerous things in aviation?

The first is two check captains flying together, and one of the reasons is as you state, the other being he's not a dedicated co-pilot.

The other two answers don't require mentioning here.

[ampk]

$500,000 a year - direct cost to a company.

$10,000,000.

I think over 1/2 that was put to the loss of 2 lives.
A figure from a road death (I concider mine to be valuable but would put a much lower figure on my ex-wifes) anyway insurance!!!

Hull $2,000,000. insurance!!!

The rest can maybe break a company.

If this was not pilot error these guys just saved a bunch of lives.
If it was pilot error they may well have saved a bunch of lives.

At the end of the day it is the pain that costs most.

[archangel7]

Archangel7, even with said guaranteed performance, it doesn’t guarantee you anything if the technique isn’t correct. I.e. control inputs are inappropriate or insufficient, or speed control is inadequate.

Hang on!!! let me get the facts straight.. wasn't this a training flight? wasn't there a C&T pilot on board? Both very experienced pilots? I am sure there was some sort of pre flight brief to prepare for the training?? the technique isn't hard if you are prepared for it on a training flight under the guidance of a highly reputable Captain who is watching over you. The problem is when it catches you off-guard in a real Engine Failure! That's when your skills really will get tested...

Not very wise words there. It could be pilot error. It could be mechanical failure. It could be a combination of both.

I can agree with you to an extent that it might not be a very wise comment compared to your comments but it is my opinion. You seem like a very experienced and knowledgeable pilot and your post are highly regarded and it is for that reason I chose to respect your opinion on many matters and stay out of your way on this one

You're kidding, right? You have to be. A true professional is never as arrogant, or closed-minded...

like i said, its only my opinion and its not a big issue! :P i guess it is easier to just point the finger at the dead pilots and say it was "human error" . That would make me less arrogant and close minded i guess. I personally believe it is a mechanical error and you can call me as narrow minded and as arrogant as you want it will not change my opinion. But a high-speed crash on take-off points the finger more towards a mechanical error then human error. Do some research on Brasilia fatal crashes and you will discover that 90% of them are mechanical errors!. they vary from propeller going into reverse thrust on final approach, failure of the horizontal stabilizer and there was another interesting one which i read up on the other day where the propeller separated from the engine assembly and became imbedded in the leading edge of the wing and the pilot was committed to make a forced landing into a paddock killing 18 passengers. do some research and see for your self. I don’t think I am being closed minded at all.