Well this is my story, and I can claim it as either Fact or Rumour, at any time - but a valuable lesson was learnt at the time that has stayed with me ever since. It has no connection with anyone other than myself and the Instructor - I was embarrassed at the time, and now that I'm sharing it, will be embarrassed again, but it was an important learning incident at a critical point in my career.
With 5000 hours total, and twin time, I was sent to San Antonio for a month to Flight Safety to do my Initial Turbine Endorsement, Single Pilot, Systems Groundschool and Simulator training on Metro. There were about five of us on the Systems course, one fellow came from Angola and others from the U.S. When it came to the Simulator sessions, to operate single pilot, it was just myself and the Instructor.
The Simulator sessions progressed, and as I got used to the placement of everything, the handling, and the memory items on the checklists, the sessions moved on to Emergencies.
On a take off, the Instructor gave me an engine failure at about 100-150 feet.
Now I knew what I had to do, and there wasn't much time, so I did it. Part of the cleanup was to reach down and pull the big red Stop and Feather button. Handling the still strange aeroplane, watching out the front to keep straight, trying to remember the order of things, suddenly it all went very quiet in that Sim. I had pulled the Wrong Big Red Button.
With no time to even try a restart, all I could do was to try and glide it down onto, and overrun the simulated runway.
Back on the 'ground', the Instructor, in his Texan drawl, said "You won't do that again", to which I replied "No Sir !!!". "We prefer all our students to make their mistakes in the Sim", he said.

So ever since, when given an engine failure during a Renewal, or a Base Check, I take just a split second longer on the identification and confirmation, and get it correct. All the amount of reading of others mishaps, while valuable, doesn't compare to something you have survived, even if it was in a Sim.

I later did the real flying on the aircraft, to finish the endorsement, when it was delivered to the company.

Folks,
Actually, if you substitute forest covered mountain for "building", that ain't a new way.

Many moons ago, BEA backed an Argosy freighter in to a mountain near Milan, the crew survived. Seriously strong winds and a bit of disorientation in a holding patter.

Tootle pip!!

Two blokes dead, maybe/maybe not pilot error. Families grieving, friends lost forever and all most of you want to do is get into a dick waiving contest. :ok:

Hoofharted, this is a forum; what is being said/speculated upon here is not illegal, nor is it against the forum rules.

It is more than unfortunate that there are two pilots, as you say, good blokes, dead, two families + many others grieving, but this is life. People talk about events, dissect the circumstances, postulate on possible causes, and to do so shows no disrespect nor lack of consideration for those hurting.

To suggest so is just plain incorrect.

It seems there are some learning from this discussion and that can't be a bad thing. It's an ill wind that blows no good.

Fact: the Emb120 sim in Tullamarine is available (I'm happy to be stand corrected... is it U/S?) for ballpark (I'm aware of the pricing) $750 per hour; JQ DRW-MEL return $400? And a night at the 'Not so Quality Inn' $90 (....all facts)...


Pilot Wages several days $ ????
Flights XXXLD or more Pilots employed $ ????
Flight Duty Times $ ????
Allowances $ ????

There are more costs than some people care to think about - But no person ever wants to hear of a fatal crash..

We know the incident occurred and instead of attempting to ascertain what led to the result we should all just keep it to ourselves, sit on our hands/opinions and let the investigation proceed without outside influences.

Also, without the assumption that somebody must have done something wrong, might it just be possible that a malfunction like a run away propeller could have occurred which would cause the aircraft to do exactly as it did.
I won't elaborate further here now but having had that happen during training some time ago I can assure all that it is a definite possibility (among others) which seems to have escaped all the theories here. i.e. Don't be too fast in assuming a stuff up. "There but for the grace of god go I"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Zero Thrust simulates a failed and feathered engine, not a failed one with a windmilling prop, so of course the aeroplane will climb away, that's what it was designed to do...

Did people not learn from the incident in Williamtown a decade ago where they set flight idle and the aircraft became uncontrollable because the action of setting flight idle (instead of zero thrust) simulated a failed engine, and a failed auto-feather system?

versus

every one alive and well, and an airframe in tact?

ps, I'm not attributing blame. Regardless of the cause, to be determined by the ATSB, had the training been in the sim, there'd be no wreck off the end of the runway and both pilots'd be talking about it in the pub.

What's the old adage?

If you thing training's expensive, try having an accident!

jetstar21, I don't believe anyone posting here has conclusively said it was pilot error, but it has been advanced as a possible cause.

Somebody said earlier that possibilities were

failure and pilot error
catastrophic failure

A failure alone wouldn't, and indeed shouldn't, cause a crash if properly handled; a catastrophic failure, e.g., a wing failing, would, regardless of what the pilots did.

Capt Claret, you're right on the button with that old adage.

Having spent a few years, and almost 5000 hours in GA before moving on, I can say that there are more cost cutting corners there than anybody is willing to talk about; not suggesting that was a factor in this incident, or that it was Air North policy when I was flying there.

Just mean when costs exceed income lots of lives are saved (until another operator starts up ). That is all there is no place with an endless money pitt.

That is not to say it was a factor in this.

Not entirely correct. When the Kinghams ran ASA they had a twin sim in the TKFS that was set up as a Chieftain sim. Its handling in assymetric situations could best be described as 'vicious.'

When TK/CK retired it was sold to an organisation at YPFL which has since closed. Where it is now I do not know.

"A report released this month by the Federal Government's Bureau of Infrastructure, Transport and Regional Economics (BITRE), puts a $2.67 million price tag on the cost of a road death, taking into account factors such as workplace and household losses, insurance and medical bills, road delays and legal costs". --- Illawarra Mercury, 20/2/2010.

On this basis the cost of the lost of 2 valued emplyees is $5,340,000.
Brasilia Aircraft (value): ~$2,000,000.
Lost revenue (80 seats/day, $200/ticket, 120 days): $1,920,000.

Not counting any other tangible or intangible costs (heartache, legal, increased insurance, corporate experience, re-training, loss of company goodwill...)

Already looking at economic damages to AirNorth of $10,000,000 upwards. This could kill the company.

Now, how much would it have cost to send these guys to MEL for simulator?

PS: I had the 'pleasure' of doing Base Training in a pressurised turbo prop aircraft some years ago at a CTAF airfield. There were 3 other aircraft doing circuit and navaid training while we were doing V1 cuts, SE circuits and SE NDB approaches (+Go-around). The questionable level of safety was raised to the check pilot by my good self. He explained that we couldn't afford to use the simulator. My take is that this is if you cant afford to send people to the simulator, perhaps you should not be in business.

As always GG, well put... I'm sure our employer doesn't value our life to a night in melb with associated allowances...!

Precisely.

More to the point, CASA should mandate that a simulator be used for all asymmetric and emergency training where one is available, even if it is elsewhere in the world.

I'm afraid that in NZ and OZ, the regulatory authorities are in the dark ages when it comes to training in third level airlines and GA.

KR you are correct, zero thrust is there to simulate the aircraft with an engine failed and the prop feathered. The Braz requires (or at least used to) that the autofeather on each engine was tested before each sector, if it did not work it was a no-go item and the aircraft was grounded. The B200 is the same, however I think the requirement for testing on each sector has been removed (for the 4 blader that is). The one thing that has not been bought up yet, from my brief scan, is the massive increase in Vmca of a prop that is windmilling. If you conduct a V1 cut, continue the takeoff and attempt to climb at V2 with the prop windmilling you may not have control especially at the very low weights hence low V speeds that a Braz might have during training. On the B200 (with 4 blade props) it can be as much as 17knot increase (91KIAS to 108KIAS). If the aircraft does not meet climb gradient requiements during testing then systems like auto feather are often included as mandatory items. Thats why they are not allowed to operate without them.

Anthil, I was saying a similar thing from my first day in GA; if the boss can't afford to pay the award, not overload, not shortcut on maintenance, etc., then he shouldn't be in business, but plenty were, and still are.

Thanks for crunching the numbers; it's just such a shame that operators don't look at them and take note instead of adopting the 'it can't happen to us/here' mentality.

TAA stopped training for three engined take offs after a Viscount crash at Mangalore in 1954 killing three CC's. The risk of people being killed and aircraft lost in training far exceeded the risks involved for the odd occasion it maybe required. It was safer, and more cost effective, to fly bits to the grounded aircraft than train pilots for that eventuality.

I would venture to say that there have been more aircraft lost and crew killed in training accidents than in real incidents, so the common sense is that the training be done in the safest possible way, and if that involves more $$, then so be it, but the regulator must have the will, because operators aren't going to volunteer.

Props have been known to do worse then windmill.....

Reverse would render it pretty unflyable.

Yep, and that would come under the category of 'catastrophic failure' if it occurred at low level, which this incident did. Even at altitude, if it couldn't be controlled, i.e. back to zero or flt idle, it would be likewise.

Different issue I know, 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. I think that occurred at about 15,000' and the aircraft disintegrated at about 4,000'.

Very well point anthill,

The questionable level of safety was raised to the check pilot by my good self. He explained that we couldn't afford to use the simulator. My take is that this is if you cant afford to send people to the simulator, perhaps you should not be in business.

Seems to come down to a choice - If the business can not afford to use the simulator - A Pilot does not have to work for them. We all have that choice.

If it came down to a split pin or a heart attack then there is no choice for the 2 concerned. Simply a tradgic accident.