Citation Biggin Crash any news on why yet ?
For jets shut down is the only option....
I still fail to see why they ended up so far from Biggin Hill.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Euroland
Posts: 2,814
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The question that arises in my mind is;
If this rivet was broken some time before the accident flight and this caused the throttle to bypass the gate, I am surprised that no one else experienced an unintended shutdown of the engine previously.
Most pilots I know place the throttles "solidly" in the idle position on landing. This ensures no excess residual thrust and (for those that have it reverse can be selected). Therefore if this rivet was missing for some flights the natural solid closing of the throttles when landing would have produced the same results as the closing of this throttle during the accident flight would it not?
In fact I would expect that the throtle was placed against the gate several times duting the taxi out on the final flight. Did it work perfectly on all those occasions but bupass the gate on the single occasion that it is closed (smoothly in best practice) as a result of suspected engine vibration?
I think that faced with unsure source of engine? vibration I would close one throttle and if that had no effect I would open that one again before closing the other.
As anyone who has flown the citation knows, even in a well trained multi-crew environment the RHS pilot can only monitor the LHS pilot's actions because most of the important switches are on that side of the cockpit. Therefore the best way in which the RHS "mentor" could have helped is fly the aircraft and maintain orientation to the runway or best forced landing area. This is what did not happen and the reason they traveled to an area that they did not want to fly to is that most probably no one was looking out the window.
If this rivet was broken some time before the accident flight and this caused the throttle to bypass the gate, I am surprised that no one else experienced an unintended shutdown of the engine previously.
Most pilots I know place the throttles "solidly" in the idle position on landing. This ensures no excess residual thrust and (for those that have it reverse can be selected). Therefore if this rivet was missing for some flights the natural solid closing of the throttles when landing would have produced the same results as the closing of this throttle during the accident flight would it not?
In fact I would expect that the throtle was placed against the gate several times duting the taxi out on the final flight. Did it work perfectly on all those occasions but bupass the gate on the single occasion that it is closed (smoothly in best practice) as a result of suspected engine vibration?
I think that faced with unsure source of engine? vibration I would close one throttle and if that had no effect I would open that one again before closing the other.
As anyone who has flown the citation knows, even in a well trained multi-crew environment the RHS pilot can only monitor the LHS pilot's actions because most of the important switches are on that side of the cockpit. Therefore the best way in which the RHS "mentor" could have helped is fly the aircraft and maintain orientation to the runway or best forced landing area. This is what did not happen and the reason they traveled to an area that they did not want to fly to is that most probably no one was looking out the window.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Retarding left engine first doesn't rectify the problem. Unknown to him he has cut-off fuel supply to left engine because missing rivet head doesn't stop the throttle lever at the idle stop. He reapplies full left hand power and retards right engine.Due to no bleed air entering the ACM vibration stops. Believing he has rectified the problem he cuts fuel to right hand engine. Now he discovers he has two inoperative engines."
What your saying in a way it makes sense, but surely even if you only meant the left engine to go to idle but because of the missing rivet the engine shut down completely the master caution, hydraulic, fuel pump and generator lights would all flash pretty madly in your face as soon as the engine spooled down.
I could understand if it was the right hand engine they shut down first as a precaution as they believed this was the one causing the problem. When this didn't resolve the vibration they brought the throttle back on the left with the intention on only going to idle to see if this helped and then unfortunately found themselves with 2 engines shutdown .
What ever happened it was a very sad event.
What your saying in a way it makes sense, but surely even if you only meant the left engine to go to idle but because of the missing rivet the engine shut down completely the master caution, hydraulic, fuel pump and generator lights would all flash pretty madly in your face as soon as the engine spooled down.
I could understand if it was the right hand engine they shut down first as a precaution as they believed this was the one causing the problem. When this didn't resolve the vibration they brought the throttle back on the left with the intention on only going to idle to see if this helped and then unfortunately found themselves with 2 engines shutdown .
What ever happened it was a very sad event.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Something that I couldn't determine from the AAIB report is whether any other pilots that flew this aircraft experienced any difficulties with the left throttle/cut-off lever, I assume that AAIB would have traced back through the recent history of flights and found the relevant crews? Since there was evidence of witness marks on the lever due to collisions with the idle gate, someone must have known about this, and if it had been the operating crew you would expect them to have been extra careful with the thrust handling if that were the case.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This may be of interest.
CORRUPT businessman Kautilya Nandan Pruthi, who duped celebrities, sports stars and hundreds of other victims out of £115 million in Britain's biggest "Ponzi" investment scam, owned the plane involved in the Farnborough air crash.
Indian-born Pruthi was labelled a "professional fraudster" as he was jailed for 14 years and six months at Southwark Crown Court, and told he faced deportation back to his home country following his jail term.
Pruthi owned the Cessna Citation 500 which crashed into a house in Romsey Close, Farnborough, after an engine shutdown on March 30, 2008.
CORRUPT businessman Kautilya Nandan Pruthi, who duped celebrities, sports stars and hundreds of other victims out of £115 million in Britain's biggest "Ponzi" investment scam, owned the plane involved in the Farnborough air crash.
Indian-born Pruthi was labelled a "professional fraudster" as he was jailed for 14 years and six months at Southwark Crown Court, and told he faced deportation back to his home country following his jail term.
Pruthi owned the Cessna Citation 500 which crashed into a house in Romsey Close, Farnborough, after an engine shutdown on March 30, 2008.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Peter
I dont think who bought it had any impact on why it crashed! I flew that very aircraft before she was sold and in the previous owners hand she was well maintained and flew beautifully.
Pace
I dont think who bought it had any impact on why it crashed! I flew that very aircraft before she was sold and in the previous owners hand she was well maintained and flew beautifully.
Pace
