Slight tangent, but if the blades were in feather and struck the ground, being composite, would they have broken off or dug in?

Quote RNZAF........When things stop going to plan in ANY aeroplane regardless of size, speed, number of seats etc. I would expect (either as a passenger or pilot) that all crew members were the very best of the bunch put up for selection at the time of their intake. And that the check and training process they had been through should have been as stringent as possible.!!!


Mate...that was well said and nothing short of what we all would expect...your point on the rantings is also accurate....but on this forum mate...look past the smoke,dont take it personal,and if you do...fire shots across the bow...most of it is in zest and fun....have a few x-RNZAF mates as well...always found it easy to pull their chains.....valid points for sure


Sir Pratt....great photo,s mate...must have a few connections.....noticed that side shot,the double layer skin and window designed to protect from ice shedding did a great ob.....I now this layer is designed to protect against ice,what about prop shed???.....flew a metro 3 once,lost the window when the ice shed but the fuselage stayed intact....double layed skin...


Quote Sprocket...."Sir.pratt; As a fare paying pax, I would be expecting the pilot to put it down in the safest possible manner, not the cheapest."

.....that is one of the strangest comments I ever heard :confused:

1279, think you need to get your facts in order as "K" aint that bad and no it was not K that had the strike over tauranga, that was H. :\
Sprocket, I may be wrong but I am sure that the blades are designed to depart from the hub as they did in the event of a wheels up to prevent excess damage to the engine and possibility of digging in.

Debate
 

I think everyone wants to throw their 2 cents in. But at the end of the day the pilots followed their QRH and company procedures (and emergency is hardly the time to deviate from them) They landed that aircraft safely (anyone who watched it on the news pretty much textbook stuff) and no one was injured. So in my mind they did everything correctly. As as far as im concerned one can debate the props feathering non feathering for as long as one likes, but the proof is in the pudding, Aircraft is in remarkably good shape and everyone walked away.

You cant get better than that!!!!

The clowns on the TV news last night called it a crash landing. Crash landings aren't supposed to be as smooth and well done as that are they? I wonder what words they would dredge up for something nasty. Clowns.

"Mumbler" Mossman was flying for Freedom Air last time I spoke to him.

I don't know the other chap.

And the Controller who spotted the absence of wheels is in the land of Oz. :ok:

Cheers

F/O lance became captain lance.. was off sick the last couple of years, recently returned (briefly) but is now in the big sandpit flying for Falcon.

how long to fix Sir Pratt?...if you don't mind me asking..roughly.

Whether or not it is procedure or possible to feather the props in this situation it was disturbing to see the still image with sections of props going in all directions.

It is a distinct concern at the thought of what night have happened if a section of one of the props had pierced the cabin.

any word on wot eagle are going to do in the meantime for a replacement aircraft..I.E delay heavy maintainece or the Vincent boys going to be doing some more work for Eagle??

Some more work, does the charters ever stop. Pics on the staff website showed the blades impacted where they should have- on the reinforced area aroun 2a and 2f, even so they are composite blades and they fuse is probably been designed in such a way that if the props depart as they supposed to in the event, then the chance of the blades going through the side would be very slim. Also thats the whole point of composite materials, they are as sttong as hell but if they depart and hit the fuse they will shatter into smaller pieces, thus makes the even more safe and the fuse better able to take the impact.

Relatively minor damage to the underside of the a/c minus aerials and strakes and flaps etc...

Again a job well done to both crew involved.:ok:

I agree entirely ;)

...with #1AHRS that is

Sir pratt...great stuff mate,and I would say very accurate on our thiughts on repair etc.....for me the damage looks substantial.....the unseen damage lieshen they start pulling the skin off......the spa,s are what concern me....most A/C that have suffered this type of damage never fly the same....no matter how she,s rigged or trimmed ......bets of luck with it

for those of you ranting about the pilots capabilitiy.....unless youve pranged at least 3...like me,,....then bear with me....

Alaska(all on file with the NTSB)

(1)Hit Bull moose,C-207,Sewetkna...1982...major damage,no injuries
(2)Left Main ldg colapse on ldg,C-402,Cordova,minor damage,no injuries,lots of screaming
(3)Hit 10+ Canadian geese on T/O,Twin Otter,,minor injuries,major damage,lost both engines at 50ft,pranged the bitch off the end of the runway .....

.....not proud of this record at all,never had my licenses taken,FAA/NTSB detremined all accidents were...."the cost of doing buisness"

Did I do things right...dont know,dont remember,but do care....Im feckin alive,....so before you judge a bloke,s ability.........be real careful as YOUR day may come sooner than you think....PB

My apology, I should have said looks relatively minor, given what happened to the aircraft. I would not dispute the damage uner the surface but all I was getting at was the fact that given they carried out a wheels up on a sealed runway the damage LOOKS relatively minor...
Does that make people a bit happier. Given the state of the other thread about Eagle I think not.

Doh
 

Always Inverted: Alright "K" aint that bad I suppose. But it isn't regarded as one of the better ones! Apols on getting K muddled with H in TG too. :O. Must be getting old!

Hey, does anyone want a bet how long it'll take before 'D' gets the photos posted here removed?? :hmm:

who cares he's doing a good job:ok: makes for interesting viewing by others who operate the same type.

so any clues on the cause of the mishap.

Toilet Service Door:confused:

Sticky Job:E

SQ

What do you think of these comments

http://www.stuff.co.nz/thepress/4100961a11.html

My thoughts.

You rely on a lawyer for sound judgement when he/she advises you on legal matters.

You rely on an accountant for sound judgement when he/she advises you on financial matters.

You rely on a doctor for sound judgement when he/she advises you on medical matters.

You rely on an an pilot for sound judgement when he/she flies you.

The good doctor should stick with his area of expertise and not criticise the actions of a professional in an area he knows nothing about.

The guy doesn't know his arse from his elbow.....hes probably also an expert in bulls%it as well:hmm:

Geez next someone will write an article about how WB has bad feng shway and should have gone somewhere with a runway direction of 33/15:rolleyes:

Prehaps the route guide could be ammended to list what cities have what surgeons on at what time but PLEASE...... I wont disagree that WN hospital would be better equipped than BHE but its not the ONLY factor involved and to say Blenheim was "the wrong call" ........:yuk:

Full credit to the boys who put it down :ok:

Also liked the comments from one of the pax that was interviewed along the lines of "oh yea we were a little nervous but what could you do? No, nobody one was screaming - this isint the states" :}

This chap Guy Gardiner is a misinformed crettin. If the WB incident was similar to the Sioux City DC10 event, then well, yes, divert to a place where there is ample facilities to cope with the expected casulaties. Stick to taking patients temperatures with ur rectal thermometer Dr GG.:ugh:

YEAH BOYZ....best not get upset over this one....there,s always a jurno(s) trying to make a name for themselves and selling science fiction to make a $$$$$......scare the ****e out of the public,thats what these jokers do...why ruin a good,accurate story with the facts

Intesting subject on the diversion though....would like to know links policy on that....
For us,to divert, the decision must be made between the dispather and the Captain ,and they must concur.......this does not in any way take away the Capts authority,which is final.....but based on all the factors,it must be discussed and agreeded upon......diverting without consultation will get you some time at your favourite beach ...unless you have no choice.....hence the example given in the previous thread.....

Sir pratt.....once again mate...great photos mate....makes this thread easy to comment....the pictures dont lie..PB

What a load of ****e, how about doing the best you can to keep the risk of injury very low, rather than worrying unduely about the very unlikely event that it all goes horribly wrong.

Considering the layout of both airfields, it would be far safer to attempt any sort of abnormal landing at WB, than run the risk of sliding into one of the many obsticles, or ending up in the drink at WN. This doctor needs to stick to over-prescribing antibiotics, and leave the flying to the proffesionals.

yes but Pakeha Boy the FAA and NZCAA have rather different opinions on qualification or total lack thereof for flight despatchers. I suspect you enjoy a higher level of service from ops control than the old country :}

Dr Gardiner's comments made my blood boil. :mad: A letter to the editor is in order I think.

He should stick to what he does best, playing golf and charging exhurbant prices and leave aeronautical decision making to the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions.

Cypher

Good idea on the letter.

One point do you mean emergency helicopters and aircraft would have been on hand in Wellington or do you mean Blenheim?

I did mean Wellington, LifeFlight and Westpac have bases there and are on 24 hrs standby. If needed, they could have airlifted medical staff and supplies to Blenhiem on the way out.
They would have done a triage on the patients first if there was a big incident, sorting out the worst off to the best, treating accordingly. Then the aircraft could have flown them out to Wellington or Nelson as needed.
I also suspect that Base Woodbourne would also have good medical facilities, being a major RNZAF base..

Cypher,

Now I understand your reasoning. I might suggest your letter, if you send it, may need rewording, adding in your explanation from your second post.

I too wondered about the medical capabilities at Woodbourne.

Essentially the same facilities you would find at your local medical center - one or 2 GPs (medical officers) and some medics.

Quote... "You rely on a lawyer for sound judgement when he/she advises you on legal matters.

You rely on an accountant for sound judgement when he/she advises you on financial matters.

You rely on a doctor for sound judgement when he/she advises you on medical matters.

You rely on an an pilot for sound judgement when he/she flies you.

The good doctor should stick with his area of expertise and not criticise the actions of a professional in an area he knows nothing about" ........


Are you guys not doing exactly what you are accusing the doctor of?

Eh?????

Lower Lobe....try reading the whole thread, and the story attached as a link :uhoh:

The Doctor is quite rightly getting both barrels on the basis that he questioned the decision to divert into Woodbourne...the article states that he feels it was the wrong decision.
What part of this is difficult to understand?

haughtey1....

My point is that those posting here are upset at the thought of someone who is not a pilot telling or suggesting that the aircraft should of diverted to wellington instead of Blenheim.

Quote "He should stick to what he does best, playing golf and charging exhurbant prices and leave aeronautical decision making to the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions"

The important part of the quote is..."the proffessionals that are trained in and experienced at making those decisions"

His comments are made from a medical perspective and yours from a pilots perspective.

Are you telling us that pilots know more about medical procedures and capabilities at Blenheim medical facilities than the doctor does?

He was not telling you how to fly but made a comment on medical capabilities.

What part of talking about medical emergencies from a doctors point of view don't you understand.

Would it be the pilots at Blenheim trying to operate and save lives or the doctors at the hospital?

Quite possible this reported comment is missing context. Highly likely, even. (Would reporters do such a thing?)

However, the way it is reported certainly indicates the good doctor is placing himself in the executive-decision making seat, which he is only qualified to do from the medical perspective.

Markjoy....Exactly so.

The press have never been known to embellish or put a slant on a story....

Having said that,from a pilots point of view would you divert to another field if requested by medical authorities because of a lack of facilities or would continue and land regardless?

hmmm... a bit of a Devils Advocate eh lowerlobe???

I agree with the sentiments here with regards the Dr's broadside through the media. The simple fact is, in this case, the 'better medical facilities' in NZWN were not required, as should be the case in a properly managed event like a fairly straight-forward wheels-up landing. I don't see a problem there at all. The decision was taken presumably after consultation between the tech crew and their ops department, that in that circumstance NZWB was the best option. I agree, for what it's worth. Were there complicating factors like the wheels-up landing being necessitated by airframe damage, on-board emergency (other than the wheels-up) or major systemic failure (again, other than the wheels-up) I'm confident the people involved would again have made the correct decision, with pax safety as a primary consideration and the availability of medical resources as anticipated a priority.

A few factors perhaps in favour of NZWB:

• An 'easy' approach path in an area renowned for benign wx conditions -don't know what conditions were on the day though.
• Disruption due a disabled aircraft on the runway: minimal
• Ongoing operation at the airport: Available -Air2There and SoundsAir both reported in the media continuing into NZWB without disruption. That both operate C208 may have helped!
• Proximity to appropriate engineering facilities
• Proximity to facilities which enabled the pax to continue their disrupted travel: Again, Air2There and SoundsAir, along with other options.
• Proximity to anticipated necessary medical facilities: appropriate to the circumstances.

Now to the NZWN option which you seem to endorse:

• An airport renowned (with good reason) for turbulence and in-flight upsets on approach -again, I don't know the conditions on the day. You need look no further than YouTube to see what can happen.
• A single runway. The airport would have been closed until the aircraft was cleared at least, possibly longer if TAIC for example needed to conclude a scene examination.
• Major disruption to Domestic, International and feeder flights, inconveniencing potentially thousands of travellers.
• NZWN is a 'hub' airport on the main trunk. The entire national air transport network would have suffered at least some disruption as a consequence.

The good Dr in question has taken it upon himself to fire a broadside at the professionalism of the flight-crew and others solely to make political capital for himself. To see that as anything more or less is giving the guy far more credit than he's due. As others have said, he should stick to what he knows.

I agree Cypher, a letter to the Editor is well indicated -but please, check your syntax and spelling before posting it -otherwise we all look like d!ckheads!!! Professionalism, appreciation and exorbitant might help your case. Keep in mind that professionalism extends beyond your actions in the cockpit too...

Far too simplistic lowerlobe. Given the option, I'm sure every one of us would put our aircraft wherever medical facilities are best in an emergency -were that the only deciding factor. Unfortunately that is almost never the case; often we will never have the option of making a decision where that factor even comes into consideration. We simply have to accept the circumstance we find ourself in and manage the events to the best of our ability. In other than extraordinary circumstances, I can't imagine the medical profession even having input into the disposition of an aircraft involved in a declared emergency.

Surely the airfiled was selected so that Medical facililites would not be required. Sheesh.

Lobe, as the previous posters have said the doctor in the article refers to the diversion being the wrong call. Had the wording been along the lines of "In his opinion" things may be different.

As one poster stated has the said doctor seen how close suburbia is to the fencline at WN or what lies of the end of either threshold???? One could also argue that putting down in WN would block the runway for the lifeflight metro preventing it getting in/out on any other op.
Flyby has spent too many sectors debating with T/C's the merits of diversions to A over B to end the list here.
Myself and im sure all the other boys/girls in this game for a living give WB the thumbs up :ok:

In anycase im sure what was quoted was at the least out of context and more likley a summary of what the jurno had interpreted.

Interesting discussion, and the pilots seems to be not too impressed with the Doc's opinion.

To quote from the article:
All other things being equal, fair enough. That said, had the other Wellington traffic divereted to, er, Blenheim (and other places) things wouldn't have been so busy in WLG.
Again - fair enough, all other things being equal.

And then we get:
As it says, an admission that medical facilities in the event of it all going pear-shaped was less of a priority than having appropriate MX facilities in the vicinity.

As SLF I would hope that you guys up front, when selecting a site for an emergancy landing, would generally place the vicinity of doctors to fix me up somewhat higher on the list than engineers to fix the plane up.

Clearly there are other issues to consider (I can accept the weather at WLG, the issue of Wellington Harbour, houses nearby, etc) but these are not the issue the airlne is pushing (and there is always the 'how accurate is the journalism' angle to think about). I'm NOT categorically stating that the decision to land in Blenheim was the wrong one, but it's concerning as to what is being identified as the priorities.