KingAir crash near Chigwell?
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: another hotel room
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Noiffsorbuts
Very very well said! I too came from airlines to GA and the GA culture has me tearing my hair out with frustration.
The CAA need to stop being so toothless and properly audit ALL GA companies
To stop this culture of "just get on with it, the last crew did".
Very very well said! I too came from airlines to GA and the GA culture has me tearing my hair out with frustration.
The CAA need to stop being so toothless and properly audit ALL GA companies
To stop this culture of "just get on with it, the last crew did".
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Uk
Posts: 301
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Let's not forget the altimeter as well.
as the ka200 is pressurised , could you assume then if the drains/alternate pitot source where left open and the cabin was set to climb at say 500fpm, then the altimeters would actually start to descend or even stay level? I guess a drain would open up the whole system where as an alternate source isolates..
as the ka200 is pressurised , could you assume then if the drains/alternate pitot source where left open and the cabin was set to climb at say 500fpm, then the altimeters would actually start to descend or even stay level? I guess a drain would open up the whole system where as an alternate source isolates..
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: another hotel room
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.
Quote:
flapassym
The CAA need to stop being so toothless and properly audit ALL GA companies
To stop this culture of "just get on with it, the last crew did".
The problem there is, so long as the weight of the paperwork = the weight of the aircraft the CAA seem happy to let things continue. Lets face it, all companies know when an audit is approaching so they make sure their house is in the best possible order so that most likely they get away with a couple of small findings.
That doesn't mean the root cause of the problem is fixed only that a sticky plaster has contained the problem until the next audit, incident or accident.
I wonder if they send their crew to the simulator every 6 months or is all training done on the aircraft, in which case they may have never experienced such a failure, and thats another topic, training.
Above The Clouds is offline Report Post Reply
Quote:
flapassym
The CAA need to stop being so toothless and properly audit ALL GA companies
To stop this culture of "just get on with it, the last crew did".
The problem there is, so long as the weight of the paperwork = the weight of the aircraft the CAA seem happy to let things continue. Lets face it, all companies know when an audit is approaching so they make sure their house is in the best possible order so that most likely they get away with a couple of small findings.
That doesn't mean the root cause of the problem is fixed only that a sticky plaster has contained the problem until the next audit, incident or accident.
I wonder if they send their crew to the simulator every 6 months or is all training done on the aircraft, in which case they may have never experienced such a failure, and thats another topic, training.
Above The Clouds is offline Report Post Reply
That is why I said 'properly'.
Turn up unannounced, don't give these companies a chance to make everything rosy. Catch them unprepared.
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Camped on the doorstep
Posts: 76
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by flapassym
I'm well aware of how companies prepare for an audit havin witnessed the whole charade many times.
That is why I said 'properly'.
Turn up unannounced, don't give these companies a chance to make everything rosy. Catch them unprepared.
That is why I said 'properly'.
Turn up unannounced, don't give these companies a chance to make everything rosy. Catch them unprepared.
I'm not sulking like a sim instructor over the speculation, but this thread is veering towards a conclusion with (as far as I can see) almost no evidence for anything.
That's a different thing indeed from chatting about what might have happened.
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: In an ever changing place
Posts: 1,039
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
One of the most often heard statements from the CAA inspector.
Why is it all your defects seem to appear in your tech logs while returning to your home base or en-route to your maintenance facility.
Why is it all your defects seem to appear in your tech logs while returning to your home base or en-route to your maintenance facility.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Las Vegas NV.
Age: 63
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now you see them (note, I have the forward drain latched in the open position)
Now you don't.
Older interiors may have a smaller cover over the valves, but on this newer B200 you need a Phillips screwdriver to remove the panel to see if the valves are open or closed.
Worst part is I've never seen water come out of a KA static system, short of attaching a pressure washer to the static ports, it is about impossible to get water into the system, the plumbing runs straight up from the ports to the top of the airframe before going back down.
Now you don't.
Older interiors may have a smaller cover over the valves, but on this newer B200 you need a Phillips screwdriver to remove the panel to see if the valves are open or closed.
Worst part is I've never seen water come out of a KA static system, short of attaching a pressure washer to the static ports, it is about impossible to get water into the system, the plumbing runs straight up from the ports to the top of the airframe before going back down.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not sulking like a sim instructor over the speculation, but this thread is veering towards a conclusion with (as far as I can see) almost no evidence for anything.
That's a different thing indeed from chatting about what might have happened.
That's a different thing indeed from chatting about what might have happened.
+1 damn right
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
>>as far as I can see) almost no evidence for anything.<<
Apart from a discussion after the AAIB report in the distant future when the accident will be forgotten we can only speculate
In that speculation we can still learn a lot even if that speculation proves way off the mark
Pace
Apart from a discussion after the AAIB report in the distant future when the accident will be forgotten we can only speculate
In that speculation we can still learn a lot even if that speculation proves way off the mark
Pace
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: essex
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rob bull
Rob bull the captain was a very good friend and my IMC instructor ,a very kind person who lived for flying, work his was up the hard way,when landed the job with LEA I was so please form him,rob was a very good instructor, and on my last IMC check out,he gave me a hard time about my scan and checking AH,what every happen to rob, it happen very fast, the distance for the run way to crash site is very short,base leg for 04,rob was family man who love his daughter very much, I will miss his loads, Robert mailer
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: FL490
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Accident Investigation
Having worked on a few major aircraft incidents (mainly GA out in the good ol' US of A where GAs crash almost daily due to the FAA not giving a hoot about anything but commercial aviation)..
accidents always happen as a result of a chain of events.
If the flight crew are skilled enough to spot any of the links forming (sometimes they form very quickly) the chain and can stop the formation, then they can prevent the accident. However, if the final link has formed and the aircraft is now in distress (i.e. the damage is done), then only a very skilled flight crew would be able to get the aircraft to safety by using their knowledge, skills and training.
So the AAIB will have to ask themselves,
1) What were the links to this chain that led to the accident?
2) How quickly did those links develop and form the chain?
3) Could the pilots have spotted the forming links early on?
4) Why couldn't the pilots handle the emergency situation?
At the end of the day, you can blame microbursts, a faulty AH, a faulty fuel pump, icing in the B777 fuel-oil heat exchange, etc etc, but it will always be pilot error because they could have and definitely should have avoided this accident if they had
a) spotted the chain of events developing
b) broke that chain of events or failing that
c) used their training, knowledge, skills and something that is rare these days -> common sense <- to have recovered from the emergency
That's my two pence.
And before it kicks off, let me give you an example.
I was in the sim the other day practicing an approach into SFO. It was pretty windy with choppy gusts. There we were flying a visual into SFO and the airspeed was quite unstable and quite high by 2500' callout. I disengaged the AP/FD/AT and left the thrust levers at idle trying to bleed off the excess speed. Down to 500', the aircraft nose is coming up, a sinking sensation kicks in and low and behold, I notice the thrust levers are still at idle. Call for TOGA and off we go (you know the drill; full power, nose up, gear up, flaps 3, etc etc). The sim instructor praised me on avoiding another Asiana at SFO but also praised me on breaking the chain that could have led to an accident!
accidents always happen as a result of a chain of events.
If the flight crew are skilled enough to spot any of the links forming (sometimes they form very quickly) the chain and can stop the formation, then they can prevent the accident. However, if the final link has formed and the aircraft is now in distress (i.e. the damage is done), then only a very skilled flight crew would be able to get the aircraft to safety by using their knowledge, skills and training.
So the AAIB will have to ask themselves,
1) What were the links to this chain that led to the accident?
2) How quickly did those links develop and form the chain?
3) Could the pilots have spotted the forming links early on?
4) Why couldn't the pilots handle the emergency situation?
At the end of the day, you can blame microbursts, a faulty AH, a faulty fuel pump, icing in the B777 fuel-oil heat exchange, etc etc, but it will always be pilot error because they could have and definitely should have avoided this accident if they had
a) spotted the chain of events developing
b) broke that chain of events or failing that
c) used their training, knowledge, skills and something that is rare these days -> common sense <- to have recovered from the emergency
That's my two pence.
And before it kicks off, let me give you an example.
I was in the sim the other day practicing an approach into SFO. It was pretty windy with choppy gusts. There we were flying a visual into SFO and the airspeed was quite unstable and quite high by 2500' callout. I disengaged the AP/FD/AT and left the thrust levers at idle trying to bleed off the excess speed. Down to 500', the aircraft nose is coming up, a sinking sensation kicks in and low and behold, I notice the thrust levers are still at idle. Call for TOGA and off we go (you know the drill; full power, nose up, gear up, flaps 3, etc etc). The sim instructor praised me on avoiding another Asiana at SFO but also praised me on breaking the chain that could have led to an accident!
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Manchester
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At the end of the day, you can blame microbursts, a faulty AH, a faulty fuel pump, icing in the B777 fuel-oil heat exchange, etc etc, but it will always be pilot error because they could have and definitely should have avoided this accident if they had
There are many things that can bring an aircraft down that are completely outside the control of the pilots....
Birdstrike, space debris, missile, explosion, smoke/fire, catastrophic airframe failure.....the list is endless. Most clearly not applicable to this case....but such a sweeping statement is patently wrong.
Others might be less polite
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: FL490
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not so!
There are many things that can bring an aircraft down that are completely outside the control of the pilots....
Birdstrike, space debris, missile, explosion, smoke/fire, catastrophic airframe failure.....the list is endless. Most clearly not applicable to this case....but such a sweeping statement is patently wrong.
Others might be less polite
There are many things that can bring an aircraft down that are completely outside the control of the pilots....
Birdstrike, space debris, missile, explosion, smoke/fire, catastrophic airframe failure.....the list is endless. Most clearly not applicable to this case....but such a sweeping statement is patently wrong.
Others might be less polite
Birdstrike - not usually avoidable but definitely able to recover from it (e.g. US1549)
Space debris - I will not comment.
Missile - should not be flying over an active/prominent warzone.
Explosion/Smoke/Fire - avoidable if the aircraft is maintained accordingly but also recoverable if the flight crew are able to land and evacuate. Refer to BA777 at LAS as well about the importance of quick decision making.
Catastrophic Airframe Failure - give me an example of this as the cause of any commercial aviation accident where pilot/human error was not an attribute?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There maybe very rare occasions of a structural design fault making the aircraft unflyable but sadly in the vast vast amount of cases it comes down to pilot error.
Not always in a serviceable aircraft but in mishandling a situation where one or more failures have occurred.
Pilots may loose an engine then crash the aircraft because the engine out situation was not handled correctly.
That is why we have emergency checklists to make sure we follow the correct steps in dealing with an aircraft that has gone wrong.
something happened pretty quickly with very little altitude at a guess to cause a good pilot to crash? He didn't have enough air under the plane and time to sort it. There is always that delay period from something going wrong to the pilot working out whats wrong and reacting correctly to it.
I do think the radar traces and altitude readouts will be very revealing in showing the altitude the aircraft should have been in a normal climb and its descent point to impact as well as the speeds from the traces
Pace
Not always in a serviceable aircraft but in mishandling a situation where one or more failures have occurred.
Pilots may loose an engine then crash the aircraft because the engine out situation was not handled correctly.
That is why we have emergency checklists to make sure we follow the correct steps in dealing with an aircraft that has gone wrong.
something happened pretty quickly with very little altitude at a guess to cause a good pilot to crash? He didn't have enough air under the plane and time to sort it. There is always that delay period from something going wrong to the pilot working out whats wrong and reacting correctly to it.
I do think the radar traces and altitude readouts will be very revealing in showing the altitude the aircraft should have been in a normal climb and its descent point to impact as well as the speeds from the traces
Pace
"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
but it will always be pilot error because they could have and definitely should have avoided this accident
Congratulations on your undoubted skill in the simulator.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Herod
What he said is not rubbish. The answer to your points is that aircraft should not be allowed to fly over war torn countries where you are likely to be shot at so in cases like MH17 the regulators are at fault
I repeat the vast majority of accidents are pilot error in handling a serviceable aircraft or one with problems where those problems in themselves should not take an aircraft down if handled correctly
This like the vast vast vast majority of accidents will likely be pilot error but compounded by mechanical failure! But yes there is a very slim chance it could be something else
Pace
What he said is not rubbish. The answer to your points is that aircraft should not be allowed to fly over war torn countries where you are likely to be shot at so in cases like MH17 the regulators are at fault
I repeat the vast majority of accidents are pilot error in handling a serviceable aircraft or one with problems where those problems in themselves should not take an aircraft down if handled correctly
This like the vast vast vast majority of accidents will likely be pilot error but compounded by mechanical failure! But yes there is a very slim chance it could be something else
Pace