Aer Lingus Viscount accident--off Strumble
the Dart suffered from poor acceleration from low RPM's,
411A,
Sometimes you talk a lot of sense, but in this case, I think a little too much Christmas cheer adulterated your post.
The Darts I flew had a limitation of not less than 40lbs of torque inflight, which is probably about the 10% power setting that Zebedie refers to.
Notwithstanding that however, I don't see how you can suggest that the aeroplane was operating at an inordinately low thrust setting during it's cruise, such that poor acceleration from low rpm was a problem, which in this case lead to the loss of the aeroplane. The facts that are known don't bear out such a scenario.
Whatever it was that caused this tragic and unexplained tragedy, blaming the poor old Dart is one heck of a long shot. It was an engine deisgned in the 40s that soldiered on for many years of sterling service, and which I hate to admit, I've seen abused way beyond some of it's more serious limitations. Not even the slightest hint of trouble.
Being an Aussie here in the dear old UK, I've noticed that a lot of your posts enjoy a similar underlying theme: you don't like the British. Mind you, there seem to be lots of things you don't like, Delta/United/American/USAF/young pilots/old pilots/ pilots whose common sense and sound judgements cause them to make more use of automation in busy TMAs in 2 crew modern aeroplanes.
Whilst I totally agree with you on some things, the reduction of standards in airline training depts of late for example, I would love you to explain how you think the dear old Dart was responsible in the case of this Viscount.
Allay my concerns about your deep-rooted prejudice against your fellow man, and post something benevolent, and generous of spirit for once. Mentor the young pilots who read these columns, encourage them, rather than belittleing them.
It is Christmas after all.
Happy new year!
BSD.
Sometimes you talk a lot of sense, but in this case, I think a little too much Christmas cheer adulterated your post.
The Darts I flew had a limitation of not less than 40lbs of torque inflight, which is probably about the 10% power setting that Zebedie refers to.
Notwithstanding that however, I don't see how you can suggest that the aeroplane was operating at an inordinately low thrust setting during it's cruise, such that poor acceleration from low rpm was a problem, which in this case lead to the loss of the aeroplane. The facts that are known don't bear out such a scenario.
Whatever it was that caused this tragic and unexplained tragedy, blaming the poor old Dart is one heck of a long shot. It was an engine deisgned in the 40s that soldiered on for many years of sterling service, and which I hate to admit, I've seen abused way beyond some of it's more serious limitations. Not even the slightest hint of trouble.
Being an Aussie here in the dear old UK, I've noticed that a lot of your posts enjoy a similar underlying theme: you don't like the British. Mind you, there seem to be lots of things you don't like, Delta/United/American/USAF/young pilots/old pilots/ pilots whose common sense and sound judgements cause them to make more use of automation in busy TMAs in 2 crew modern aeroplanes.
Whilst I totally agree with you on some things, the reduction of standards in airline training depts of late for example, I would love you to explain how you think the dear old Dart was responsible in the case of this Viscount.
Allay my concerns about your deep-rooted prejudice against your fellow man, and post something benevolent, and generous of spirit for once. Mentor the young pilots who read these columns, encourage them, rather than belittleing them.
It is Christmas after all.
Happy new year!
BSD.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh dear, BSD, I do seem to have upset you so.
If so, my sincere apologies...
First to ZeBedie's ststement.
Yes, a minimum torque was specified except to close the throttles for landing, and yes that was to reduce excessive lay-shaft wear.
And, yes again, I have 'round about 5000 hours in Dart-powered aeroplanes.
Almost all Command.
Having said this, as a former corporate aviation department manager, I have found some pilots simply didn't RTFB...with generally poor results.
One even tried to select GFP at 50 feet.
This ain't good...at all.
And, as for British designs in general, their turbine engines are, without a doubt, the best in the business.
Darts, Conways, RB.211's are the ones I flown, for over twenty thousand hours in total, just with these engines.
If so, my sincere apologies...
First to ZeBedie's ststement.
Yes, a minimum torque was specified except to close the throttles for landing, and yes that was to reduce excessive lay-shaft wear.
And, yes again, I have 'round about 5000 hours in Dart-powered aeroplanes.
Almost all Command.
Having said this, as a former corporate aviation department manager, I have found some pilots simply didn't RTFB...with generally poor results.
One even tried to select GFP at 50 feet.
This ain't good...at all.
And, as for British designs in general, their turbine engines are, without a doubt, the best in the business.
Darts, Conways, RB.211's are the ones I flown, for over twenty thousand hours in total, just with these engines.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
I have found some pilots simply didn't RTFB...with generally poor results.
Well don't blame the Dart for yankee incompetence then
I have found some pilots simply didn't RTFB...with generally poor results.
Well don't blame the Dart for yankee incompetence then
Yanks knew better.
411A,
Not at all, your posts, curmudgeonly at times, are often amusing. Many of them as I've said I agree with.
No need to apologise. I've also seen a few cases where the Dart was abused horrifically by pilots who needed to RTFB, in all cases though the stout lillle beast just carried on.
I would however be interested in how you might develop a scenario in which the Dart was responsible for the loss of this Viscount.
I don't think for a second, that there is any suggestion this crew had failed to RTFB, so the scenario would be best written assuming their complete competence.
Cheers once again.
BSD.
Not at all, your posts, curmudgeonly at times, are often amusing. Many of them as I've said I agree with.
No need to apologise. I've also seen a few cases where the Dart was abused horrifically by pilots who needed to RTFB, in all cases though the stout lillle beast just carried on.
I would however be interested in how you might develop a scenario in which the Dart was responsible for the loss of this Viscount.
I don't think for a second, that there is any suggestion this crew had failed to RTFB, so the scenario would be best written assuming their complete competence.
Cheers once again.
BSD.
Hey, hey, 411A!
Just back from a few days away.
Checked this PPRUNE thread, looking forward to reading your theory of how the RR Dart brought down the Aer Lingus Viscount.
Nothing, or should it be nada in your part of the USA. You've been posting all over the place in the meantime though, so I imagine you are either working on one heck of a theory, or maybe just forgotten.
It is not on to cast aspersions as you have on the engine without attempting to produce a theory to back it up. For credibility it should take account of the known facts.
If that isn't bad enough, you've gone on to launch a swipe at the operating crew, linking them to people whom you have know who made mistakes for whatever reason. Your subliminal suugestion is that if not the engine, then the pilot's poor operation of it may have caused this tragedy.
I think you may be unique in your beliefs. I also think you need to either help us understand how you have come to them, or better still out of respect for all the people whose reputations you have damaged, retract them.
For someone with as much dislike of the poms as you have, I'm really surprised you haven't latched on to some of the other very anti-British theories that exist about this aweful loss.
What say you 411a? How will you defend this rubbish you have posted!
Happy new year!
BSD.
Just back from a few days away.
Checked this PPRUNE thread, looking forward to reading your theory of how the RR Dart brought down the Aer Lingus Viscount.
Nothing, or should it be nada in your part of the USA. You've been posting all over the place in the meantime though, so I imagine you are either working on one heck of a theory, or maybe just forgotten.
It is not on to cast aspersions as you have on the engine without attempting to produce a theory to back it up. For credibility it should take account of the known facts.
If that isn't bad enough, you've gone on to launch a swipe at the operating crew, linking them to people whom you have know who made mistakes for whatever reason. Your subliminal suugestion is that if not the engine, then the pilot's poor operation of it may have caused this tragedy.
I think you may be unique in your beliefs. I also think you need to either help us understand how you have come to them, or better still out of respect for all the people whose reputations you have damaged, retract them.
For someone with as much dislike of the poms as you have, I'm really surprised you haven't latched on to some of the other very anti-British theories that exist about this aweful loss.
What say you 411a? How will you defend this rubbish you have posted!
Happy new year!
BSD.
Nemo Me Impune Lacessit
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Derbyshire, England.
Posts: 4,098
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Was it an isolated incident or were some models prone to a total electrics failure? I seem to remember an accident in Germany that was attributed to an electrics failure.
Yes - the 'complete electrical failure' problem, highlighted by the German accident, was caused by the fact that is was possible for the alternators/generators to trip due to some other issue, but the pilots weren't given adequate warning (dim bulb I think due to depleted batteries).
Reseting the trip to re-enable charging required a certain voltage to be available to flip a relay - so once the aircraft's batteries were depleted below that voltage total electrical failure was inevitable. Catch 22.
Unfortunately in this case the Viscount was flying above 8/8 clouds and by the time the pilots realised the situation it was too late. Control was lost whilst descending through the clouds in IMC because of the failure of all the electrically powered instruments.
The fix was obviously to enable resetting the alternators/generators manually without need for electrical power.
I've read the book "Tragedy At Tuskar Rock" - the author assisted in the 2002 review/re-investigation of the 1969 accident. I think the new conclusions come much closer to the truth than the original report.
The new report highlights the seemingly blatent incompatibility between the 40+ witness reports of the aircraft's erratic movements at low level prior to the crash, and the apparent radio transcript before the brief distress message that was received - although they were unable to conclude why such an incompatibility existed. Very intrueging to say the least.
I largely agree with the conclusions of this new report - that some sort of elevator/trim tab failure occured, the crew struggled for some time to keep the aircraft under control through several upsets but were tragically unable to prevent an eventual crash. But I do have some reservations about the details of this theory based on the witness reports of the Viscounts low level flying ("low enough to flatten the grass" by one witness report.)
Anyone else read it and have opinions ?
Reseting the trip to re-enable charging required a certain voltage to be available to flip a relay - so once the aircraft's batteries were depleted below that voltage total electrical failure was inevitable. Catch 22.
Unfortunately in this case the Viscount was flying above 8/8 clouds and by the time the pilots realised the situation it was too late. Control was lost whilst descending through the clouds in IMC because of the failure of all the electrically powered instruments.
The fix was obviously to enable resetting the alternators/generators manually without need for electrical power.
I've read the book "Tragedy At Tuskar Rock" - the author assisted in the 2002 review/re-investigation of the 1969 accident. I think the new conclusions come much closer to the truth than the original report.
The new report highlights the seemingly blatent incompatibility between the 40+ witness reports of the aircraft's erratic movements at low level prior to the crash, and the apparent radio transcript before the brief distress message that was received - although they were unable to conclude why such an incompatibility existed. Very intrueging to say the least.
I largely agree with the conclusions of this new report - that some sort of elevator/trim tab failure occured, the crew struggled for some time to keep the aircraft under control through several upsets but were tragically unable to prevent an eventual crash. But I do have some reservations about the details of this theory based on the witness reports of the Viscounts low level flying ("low enough to flatten the grass" by one witness report.)
Anyone else read it and have opinions ?
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Your subliminal suugestion is that if not the engine, then the pilot's poor operation of it may have caused this tragedy.
Read between the lines, old boy.
I agree in that I can't see Dart failures being the primary cause of the Tuskar accident - but the book "Tragedy at Tuskar" notes that the engine fuel system was susceptable to possible interuptions in fuel supply caused by negative G.
411A,
Yes, you are definitely management! Wriggling off the hook by invoking semantics is a true manager's tactic.
Might I quote from your orignal post on this thread, which was about the tragic loss of this Viscount:
"I rather suspect that the Dart engines had a hand in all these accidents."
How very silly of me to think that on this thread, your comments were relevant to the tragedy under discussion.
As for reading between the lines here is what I see: you have tried mischieviously to dent the reputation of the RR Dart, tried when asked to explain, to shift the blame onto the pilots. When asked for clarification, suggested that some pilots, in some 'planes, in some operations, but not this one, weren't very good. Oh, and by the way they weren't Americans.
Sadly, I think your post is tosh, and as you have pointed out, somewhat irrelevant.
DH106's comments are a great deal more relevant, and I agree with him that a failure of the Dart(s) is not likely.
Shall we say an unworthy post from you?
BSD.
Yes, you are definitely management! Wriggling off the hook by invoking semantics is a true manager's tactic.
Might I quote from your orignal post on this thread, which was about the tragic loss of this Viscount:
"I rather suspect that the Dart engines had a hand in all these accidents."
How very silly of me to think that on this thread, your comments were relevant to the tragedy under discussion.
As for reading between the lines here is what I see: you have tried mischieviously to dent the reputation of the RR Dart, tried when asked to explain, to shift the blame onto the pilots. When asked for clarification, suggested that some pilots, in some 'planes, in some operations, but not this one, weren't very good. Oh, and by the way they weren't Americans.
Sadly, I think your post is tosh, and as you have pointed out, somewhat irrelevant.
DH106's comments are a great deal more relevant, and I agree with him that a failure of the Dart(s) is not likely.
Shall we say an unworthy post from you?
BSD.
Red On, Green On
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Between the woods and the water
Age: 24
Posts: 6,487
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
2 Posts
My father was the Captain of HMS Hardy, the first UK ship on scene. The ship was on passage from the North. I've got his order book, and a load of press clippings following the accident.
He's now dead, but was contacted about ten years ago by the Admiralty asking for some information following some publicity. The interesting thing he was told at that time is that the ship's log book for the period, which was returned to the Admiralty on completion, has gone missing. No other book is the series is missing, however.
Here's the ship's order book for the day:
He's now dead, but was contacted about ten years ago by the Admiralty asking for some information following some publicity. The interesting thing he was told at that time is that the ship's log book for the period, which was returned to the Admiralty on completion, has gone missing. No other book is the series is missing, however.
Here's the ship's order book for the day:
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shall we say an unworthy post from you?
How is it not known, just as an example, that perhaps the pilots closed the throttles rapidly, for some unknown reason (aircraft overspeed perhaps) and one or more propellors hung up on the cruise pitch stop, thereby severely overheating one or more engines?
Or, perhaps a propellor third oil line failure.
Many unknowns, it would appear.
Propellors hanging on a pitch stop aren't a Dart problem, but a propellor problem.
411A - It's not known for SURE that the details in your example didn't happen, but it's got to be a pretty shakey investagtive position to assume and engine issue happened and then ask for proof it didn't. No?
411A - It's not known for SURE that the details in your example didn't happen, but it's got to be a pretty shakey investagtive position to assume and engine issue happened and then ask for proof it didn't. No?
Death Cruiser Flight Crew
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Vaucluse, France.
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
llanfairpg: you wouldn't be talking about a certain ex BEA 'character' who got the sack from Channel Airways for melting four Darts on a Viscount at Southend, would you? Only he tried to do EXACTLY the same thing to me on a Dart Herald years later, on the same runway. I got my hand to the FFP stop withdrawal lever faster than he could open up the throttles, after an abandoned takeoff. Good job aviation is a small world, eh?
Nevertheless, he could tell a many a good story in 'The Flarepath.' This included the time he flunked his Vanguard conversion at BEA when he hoiked all the power off at 50ft ... which was even less of a good idea than on the Viscount!
The Vanguard disaster over Belgium was caused by the rear pressure bulkhead failing. The cabin air rushed into the tailplane, blew the skin off, and caused loss of aerodynamic download. The aircraft nosed over and went into an unrecoverable vertical dive.
Nevertheless, he could tell a many a good story in 'The Flarepath.' This included the time he flunked his Vanguard conversion at BEA when he hoiked all the power off at 50ft ... which was even less of a good idea than on the Viscount!
The Vanguard disaster over Belgium was caused by the rear pressure bulkhead failing. The cabin air rushed into the tailplane, blew the skin off, and caused loss of aerodynamic download. The aircraft nosed over and went into an unrecoverable vertical dive.
Last edited by Georgeablelovehowindia; 6th Jan 2008 at 22:23.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Dublin
Age: 36
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
as said above the book "tragedy at tukar rock" by Mike Reynolds.. provides a lot of information about the incident... takes into account all the rumours that circulated at the time... and the ones that still do
Last edited by mikeintheskies; 7th Jan 2008 at 12:26. Reason: duplicate
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Cobh Co Cork
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aer Lingus Viscount Crash 1968
The Viscount, reg. letters EI-AOM, flight number 712, crashed 1.7 miles east of Tuskar Rock at 1215 A on Sunday 24th March 1968 with the loss of all onboard...61.
An Investigation into the accident was carried out by the AAIU and published in 1970.
A Review of the files associated with the crash was published by the AAIU in 2000.
A Study carried out by an international team of experts was published in 2002.
All these documents are available on the Irish Goverment Department of Transport website.
Happy reading
An Investigation into the accident was carried out by the AAIU and published in 1970.
A Review of the files associated with the crash was published by the AAIU in 2000.
A Study carried out by an international team of experts was published in 2002.
All these documents are available on the Irish Goverment Department of Transport website.
Happy reading