I suspect this comment came from some one who has not had the opportunity to train in a sim?

There is absolutely no comparison. It is simply impossible to practice most scenarios in an aircraft.

The difference between a cheiftan and a larger aircraft is that there are no cheiftan sims, and we aren't talking about those flight sims.

Not at all, whilst the chieftain may have less climb performance on one engine it is a much less complicated aircraft. An engine failure in a turbo-prop at low speed can require more effort to retain control than the lower powered pistons like PA31 and C400 series. An autofeather failure at low speed and altitude and you might be in trouble. There are many scenarios which could occur during and shortly after take-off which could lead to loss of control. Unfortunately all of them are a result of someone making an error at some stage whether its pilots, engineers, a part manufacturer etc...

The simulator if used correctly will prove how critical some of these failures can be and is invaluable in training crews.

Spending more is usually the cheapest option. :(

A dozen posts in a row of decent, reasoned discussion! :D
There IS hope! :bored:

The ATSB investigation will give us the real cause of this accident.I think I am right to say from the CAO's,for training flights the FDR/CVR's have to be serviceable.So they should tell the full story when the investigation is complete.Hopefully they were serviceable to make the flight legal.

Yup, irrespective of the final outcome to the causes of this accident, there are a number of people that still have to understand that just because the regs permit something does not make it safe or sensible - especially when there are other options.

There is nothing inappropriate about remoak's posts. We should feel grateful that a person of his wisdom and experience is contributing to this discussion.

The "big picture"? That is all about the causes of the crash and what the lessons are for safety. Spoilher, you are confusing the big picture with the small picture.

As far as costs are concerned, it is actually cheaper to do this sort of training in the simulator. So, no, the operator is not doing it in the aircraft to save money!

I have had discussions with a couple of fellow turboprop pilots about this crash. When speculating about whether the engine-out performance of the aircraft was a factor, they both made statements similar to:

This view is alarming. I have also heard a King Air pilot say the same about his aircraft.

Where do these guys get these views? Do these ideas start as bar talk that then spread via the younger and more impressionable pilots? Just how entrenched is this view?

Something for the ATSB to think about ...

We never know the HOUR or DAY
 

Tribute from todays NT Newspaper to two great AUSTRALIANS tragically taken from us.
I am sure they are in a better place than us.

Crash pair a part of NT community | Northern Territory News | Darwin, Northern Territory, Australia | ntnews.com.au

Peter you missed my point; My argument is if there's a sim it should be law that it's used and not done in the aircraft (for example there's no F50 sim in oz so well they have no other choice)

FGD,

I think you are missing the point with those two statements:

In the case of the EMB120, it is an aircraft that has to be able to do exactly that to meet the requirements of CAO 20.7.1B.

In the case of the B200, whilst it is not required to meet 20.7.1B, it more than likely can, surely someone has ran the numbers on this statement.

They were making a statement on the single engine performance of the aircraft.

IMHO the same can not be said for say, a PA39 or C402B, (from personal experience). i.e. A PA39 on one engine can not climb away with gear down and the failed windmilling.

I do not believe they were displaying an over confidence or arrogance in those cases, statement of opinion/fact.

Had a chat to one of the deceased only a month ago at the Ansett sim centre, ironically he was there trying to organise the Brasillia sim training program for A/N. He was also heading to greener pastures in the near future. A terrible tragedy at any time.RIP.

Not entirely familiar with the Braz but would assume it must have an autofeather system which enables the prop to quickly feather and then the aircraft can meet the CAO requirements. The prop discs on 30 seaters like the braz is huge and a windmilling prop would be the equivelent of about 2-3 tons extra weight. FGD is quite correct in being concerned with these statements and a quick visit to the sim may correct some of these veiws.

Do you know what "Segment One" is ?.

Reference CAO 20.7.1B section 7.1

Note: I am not buying into discussion of this horrible event, thought FGD was mistakenly suprised by what he/she was told/overheard, wanted to share an objective explaination.

Josh,

Your statements are causing me some alarm - and affirming my view that this dangerous perception is widespread.

No twin engined aircraft can climb with one propeller windmilling. You should know that instinctively!

Really ?, are all twin engine aircraft equipped with operational auto feather ?, are you expected to rely on that auto feather, you know, with your life ?.

In two crew, when do you run your "Phase One Drill" ?, before or after the acceleration altitude ?, how then do you get to acceleration altitude ?.

"These guys" have likely experienced it themselves! I have seen it "demonstrated" by students many times - zero thrust (sometimes closer to flight idle), at fwdish c of g, training weights!!. Aircraft entirely controllable, and surprising performance, if everything else is normal. Not a method to be encouraged, of course.

Bit of a strange concept. Is there something that invalidates a sim if you have to cross water to reach it?

Either it's not legal to train in a real a/c in which case it doesn't matter where the sim is - you have to use it; or it is legal to train in the sim. Putting distances from the sim in legislation?

Sensible to use an aircraft - not going there.....

UTR.

Having more than a few hours C&T on the DH8, including the Simulator, I have witnessed, on several occasions, a twin engined aeroplane do just that.

A colleague with my current employer was also a colleague in a former life. He was flying a Nord out of Sydney for Tamworth when a blade separated from the 5 bladed prop, and in doing so damaged the hub preventing feathering of the prop. With a load of pax, they continued flight back to Sydney with the remnants of the prop windmilling happily.

--------------------------------------

One must agree that Stallie's comment above is right on the money. Legal isn't necessarily best.

Absolutely INCORRECT!

To use just one example - both Clarrie and I have a few hours on the Dash from previous lives. The 1/2/300 series ALL have MEL's for dispatch with autofeather inop. Yes, there is a weight penalty, which will guarantee compliance with 20.7.1b.

Most operators (as did the one I worked for) covered training for such situations in the simulator during the cyclic program on a very regular basis. All fairly routine, as I'm sure Clarrie will attest to. These exercises were conducted with the aircraft configured in the assumption that autofeather was operating (ie no weight penalty). The aircraft still climbed prior to the condition lever being moved to Start/Feather during the recall actions.

I'm sure there are other aircraft which can dispatch with inop autofeather/NTS.

To make a broad sweeping statement that an aircraft will not climb with a windmilling prop shows a lack of understanding (or experience) on propeller driven aeroplanes. Particularly turboprops.

I'm sure the guys involved in this crash were doing what was a fairly routine training exercise, only conducted in the aircraft. I'm not going to express an opinion on the merit or otherwise of what happened yesterday. I'll leave that to the experts.

Forgot to add that at reduced weight aircraft which require a functional autofeather (or equivelent) may depart in compliance with the CAO;

(Very simply) To climb Thrust and Lift must balance or exceed Weight and Drag. Assuming power is limited then if drag dramatically increases (windmilling prop) then by reducing weight you can get the required performance. But the weight penalty is usually quite large.


Engine failure with the failure of an autofeather system at high weight soon after V1 and some large turbo-props may even struggle to get airborne at all let alone climb after lift off. Quick action by the crew to manually feather the prop is required.

Most twin engined aircraft could reduce weight to a level where able to climb in various high drag situations. But are these statements still true at normal operating weights? Most likely no, and configuration becomes critical.