let off the runway in tz
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tanzania
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
let off the runway in tz
hi there folks....
this happened on sunday as we were about to depart for jhb ,i noted a tip tanked high wing airplane parked on the left side of the runway 23..anyways did some investigation and mostly gossip and found that it was a let(again) belonging to zanair that had gone off the runway due to wht was called brake/hydraulic failure...always thought spoilers/beta would be enough to stop this stol aircrafts..but then i guess i have been wrong in the past..needless to say that the names of the crew are withheld but as usual the pm lines are open to those of you who wish to pass on their PFS regards....
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot....(thank god for that)
this happened on sunday as we were about to depart for jhb ,i noted a tip tanked high wing airplane parked on the left side of the runway 23..anyways did some investigation and mostly gossip and found that it was a let(again) belonging to zanair that had gone off the runway due to wht was called brake/hydraulic failure...always thought spoilers/beta would be enough to stop this stol aircrafts..but then i guess i have been wrong in the past..needless to say that the names of the crew are withheld but as usual the pm lines are open to those of you who wish to pass on their PFS regards....
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot....(thank god for that)
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Let has an hydraulic accumulator in the braking circuit to allow braking following hydraulic system failure - the main hydraulic circuit being isolated from the braking circuit by a non-return valve. Braking is also available using the hand operated park brake which also has its own small reservoir. Nosewheel steering is hydraulically activated, so steering following hydraulic failure is by differential braking or differential reverse if pressure is lost in the brake circuit as well.
Reverse and spoiler application will be enough to stop the aircraft if the runway is of average length.
Of course, finger trouble would not have been a problem as it would not have been in the recent gear up landing.
Reverse and spoiler application will be enough to stop the aircraft if the runway is of average length.
Of course, finger trouble would not have been a problem as it would not have been in the recent gear up landing.
Last edited by Woof etc; 16th Aug 2005 at 15:57.
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Dark side of the moon
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use of Aesimetric thrust should have kept the plane on the runway, that and rudder and nose gear inputs whilst at a high enough speed for the rudder. Just release the brakes, plenty of runway like 406 said. Unless they were trying to make a turn and slaming everything hard. But then if you are making a short field and one side of the brakes fail or engine doesn't go into beta or reverse how long do you need to react. It's a big runway, long and wide, how far off it where they? And how is the aircraft? Never really heard of Karls Let's having too much trouble's unlike another company. Let's are getting a bad rep in Tanzania, could use some more details on this incident.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tanzania
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
**** happens...
hello fellows....
its true that the other company is phasing out their machiner the easy wy but dont think zan...has any plans to phase out these aircrafts in the near future..anyways the plane was parked near the very end of runway 23 and from the looks no great damage done to the hull...
by the way mr.cowboy i have been around to see the most experienced fellows bent the most robust of planes so do not be surprised buddy,just be prepared...hows your wing??
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot
its true that the other company is phasing out their machiner the easy wy but dont think zan...has any plans to phase out these aircrafts in the near future..anyways the plane was parked near the very end of runway 23 and from the looks no great damage done to the hull...
by the way mr.cowboy i have been around to see the most experienced fellows bent the most robust of planes so do not be surprised buddy,just be prepared...hows your wing??
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Middlesex
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi,
Any news on a registration please, I try to keep an eye on all Let -410's in that part of the world.
There was another Let accident a few weeks ago as well, Any idea on an id of this one too.
Regards
Marc
Any news on a registration please, I try to keep an eye on all Let -410's in that part of the world.
There was another Let accident a few weeks ago as well, Any idea on an id of this one too.
Regards
Marc
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tanzania
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
helo guys just when you thought it couldnt get any worse here is some serious gossip....he he he
had a chat to one of pilots at "tanzania's finest airline" and he told me that the dukes of hazzard had actually landed deep in an effort to force the landing as there was an aircraft on the runway waiting to vacate the active....interesting fact or fiction ?? if the pilot survived you will never know the truth...funny enough at the control were 2 captains who have had past bush flying experience so i very much doubt the fact that they could overrun a 3km runway...but it must have been done before sounds too damn familiar
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot(and there isnt a day that i dont thank god 4 it)
had a chat to one of pilots at "tanzania's finest airline" and he told me that the dukes of hazzard had actually landed deep in an effort to force the landing as there was an aircraft on the runway waiting to vacate the active....interesting fact or fiction ?? if the pilot survived you will never know the truth...funny enough at the control were 2 captains who have had past bush flying experience so i very much doubt the fact that they could overrun a 3km runway...but it must have been done before sounds too damn familiar
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot(and there isnt a day that i dont thank god 4 it)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Can I phone a friend?
Posts: 24
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The S Sudan strip (near Leer) apparently is the latest site for 410 spares... Once did a wheels up this month; the "rescue" one arrived and both airframes bonded; and a few days ago the third lost a nosewheel...
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Unfortunately there are a number of operators in Africa that bought cheap former Soviet Union Lets and operate them with complete disregard for the prescribed maintenance schedule.
Typically these aircraft have components with no traceability and engines that are operated way past TBO. I know of aircraft operating in Mozambique for instance, where there is no engineer in the field to support the aircraft. Part of the prescribed maintenance program for the LET is a 10 daily inspection - who does this in this case? Usually these aircraft are registered in countries of convenience where a couple of bob slipped under the table gets you a C of A.
Unfortunately these rogue operators, operating aircraft the factory has no interest in being associated with, bring the aircraft into disrepute. The LET, if properly maintained, is an extremely durable and reliable aircraft.
As for pilot competency - the LET is a reasonably complex aircraft and requires a proper type rating with a good technical. I know of pilots that have been signed off P1 after a quick hop around the patch with no technical - criminal as far as I am concerned.
Typically these aircraft have components with no traceability and engines that are operated way past TBO. I know of aircraft operating in Mozambique for instance, where there is no engineer in the field to support the aircraft. Part of the prescribed maintenance program for the LET is a 10 daily inspection - who does this in this case? Usually these aircraft are registered in countries of convenience where a couple of bob slipped under the table gets you a C of A.
Unfortunately these rogue operators, operating aircraft the factory has no interest in being associated with, bring the aircraft into disrepute. The LET, if properly maintained, is an extremely durable and reliable aircraft.
As for pilot competency - the LET is a reasonably complex aircraft and requires a proper type rating with a good technical. I know of pilots that have been signed off P1 after a quick hop around the patch with no technical - criminal as far as I am concerned.
Last edited by Woof etc; 23rd Aug 2005 at 23:19.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tanzania
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello fellows,
i have never flown the aircraft in question but i couldnt agree more with "woof" as i know several operators in TZ opted to buy 3x let410 and claimed they cost less then a brand new c-208...so as far as economics go its a wonderful 19pax twin turbine aircraft but as usual theres a catch to everything nowadays...and a few of the guys flying with "tanzania's finest airline" also proud crashers of 3 of such samples told me that that carryig 19pax out of 4500;elev airstrips really put the fear of god into them..in fact there was a time when they went up to do "c of a" test flight and the aircraft failed to climb away with one engine feathered...all this and the fact that the wipers are hydraulically operated,its a nice and durable aircraft...yeah right
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot
i have never flown the aircraft in question but i couldnt agree more with "woof" as i know several operators in TZ opted to buy 3x let410 and claimed they cost less then a brand new c-208...so as far as economics go its a wonderful 19pax twin turbine aircraft but as usual theres a catch to everything nowadays...and a few of the guys flying with "tanzania's finest airline" also proud crashers of 3 of such samples told me that that carryig 19pax out of 4500;elev airstrips really put the fear of god into them..in fact there was a time when they went up to do "c of a" test flight and the aircraft failed to climb away with one engine feathered...all this and the fact that the wipers are hydraulically operated,its a nice and durable aircraft...yeah right
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"all this and the fact that the wipers are hydraulically operated,its a nice and durable aircraft...yeah right"
As you say, you have never flown the aircraft.
I say again, a PROPERLY MAINTAINED Let is an extremely reliable and robust aircraft. I state this based on my 1500 hrs experience flying properly maintained LETs. If you want to fly rubbish FSU aircraft with no maintenance, no maintenance records, engines way out of TBO bought for a dime a dozen and registered in some dodgy Banana Republic - well it's your sickleave. Even the LET factory does not want to be associated with these aircraft. Unfortunately, a number of these aircraft seem to have found their way into the backwaters of Africa.
A new Let 410 UVP-E20 will cost in the region of 2 million USD.
If the aircraft is operated within the manufacturers parameters, it will perform as advertised. The aircraft will climb fully loaded on one engine at 4500 ft if flown correctly. However, if you don't clean up the aircraft and fly at the correct speeds, like many aircraft, it won't climb. In an actual emergency, the power levers are lifted through the gate and the maximum ITTs and torque can be exceeded for a period of 5 minutes to provide an emergency power reserve. This obviously cannot be simulated during training.
Going back to the example stated in Sudan. How exactly do you land a LET wheels up? Either the gear warning is inoperative or both pilots are completely deaf - believe me you will know about it when it goes off. Landing deep and hitting the first aircraft? A competent pilot can put a LET down in 250m. Nosewheel falling off? That tells you everything you need to know about the maintenance of the aircraft.
Aviation-safety.net provides some insightful statitics:
Of the 28 listed hull losses to Let aircraft since 2000, 14 of these have occurred in Africa - virtually all can be attributed to pilot error or poor maintenance. Of the 5 hull losses recorded last year, all of them occurred in Africa! The latest incidents mentioned above will contribute to Africa's quest to destroy aircraft as fast as the developed world can produce them. Aportion blame where its due, it ain't the aircrafts fault!
The Let is most commonly compared to the Twin Otter. Aviation-safety.net provides the following comparative statistics:
LET 410: Production commenced 1969
Number Produced 1138 +
Hull Losses 73 (6.5 %)
Fatalities 277
Twin Otter: Production commenced 1965
Number produced 844
Hull losses 216 (25.6%)
Fatalities 1222
Like any aircraft the LET has its limitations. You can't put 19 pax, luggage and full fuel in the aircraft and expect to be within the weight limits. Baggage capacity is limited. The aircraft could be lighter, a consequence of it's brick sh_thouse construction.
However, flown within the design parameters and correctly maintained, the LET is a reliable, safe and economic aircraft to operate. That's probably why it is the most prolific twin turbine in Africa.
ps. The hydraulic windscreen wipers work just fine - been very grateful for them when flying an approach in a west African thunderstorm. Besides, I can assure you that they are a lot better at removing Siberian winter icing than the wipers on your aircraft!
As you say, you have never flown the aircraft.
I say again, a PROPERLY MAINTAINED Let is an extremely reliable and robust aircraft. I state this based on my 1500 hrs experience flying properly maintained LETs. If you want to fly rubbish FSU aircraft with no maintenance, no maintenance records, engines way out of TBO bought for a dime a dozen and registered in some dodgy Banana Republic - well it's your sickleave. Even the LET factory does not want to be associated with these aircraft. Unfortunately, a number of these aircraft seem to have found their way into the backwaters of Africa.
A new Let 410 UVP-E20 will cost in the region of 2 million USD.
If the aircraft is operated within the manufacturers parameters, it will perform as advertised. The aircraft will climb fully loaded on one engine at 4500 ft if flown correctly. However, if you don't clean up the aircraft and fly at the correct speeds, like many aircraft, it won't climb. In an actual emergency, the power levers are lifted through the gate and the maximum ITTs and torque can be exceeded for a period of 5 minutes to provide an emergency power reserve. This obviously cannot be simulated during training.
Going back to the example stated in Sudan. How exactly do you land a LET wheels up? Either the gear warning is inoperative or both pilots are completely deaf - believe me you will know about it when it goes off. Landing deep and hitting the first aircraft? A competent pilot can put a LET down in 250m. Nosewheel falling off? That tells you everything you need to know about the maintenance of the aircraft.
Aviation-safety.net provides some insightful statitics:
Of the 28 listed hull losses to Let aircraft since 2000, 14 of these have occurred in Africa - virtually all can be attributed to pilot error or poor maintenance. Of the 5 hull losses recorded last year, all of them occurred in Africa! The latest incidents mentioned above will contribute to Africa's quest to destroy aircraft as fast as the developed world can produce them. Aportion blame where its due, it ain't the aircrafts fault!
The Let is most commonly compared to the Twin Otter. Aviation-safety.net provides the following comparative statistics:
LET 410: Production commenced 1969
Number Produced 1138 +
Hull Losses 73 (6.5 %)
Fatalities 277
Twin Otter: Production commenced 1965
Number produced 844
Hull losses 216 (25.6%)
Fatalities 1222
Like any aircraft the LET has its limitations. You can't put 19 pax, luggage and full fuel in the aircraft and expect to be within the weight limits. Baggage capacity is limited. The aircraft could be lighter, a consequence of it's brick sh_thouse construction.
However, flown within the design parameters and correctly maintained, the LET is a reliable, safe and economic aircraft to operate. That's probably why it is the most prolific twin turbine in Africa.
ps. The hydraulic windscreen wipers work just fine - been very grateful for them when flying an approach in a west African thunderstorm. Besides, I can assure you that they are a lot better at removing Siberian winter icing than the wipers on your aircraft!
Last edited by Woof etc; 25th Aug 2005 at 00:15.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: East Africa
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey 406,
There you go again upsetting people ;-) The Let is flippin awesome dude!! Back to the original subject, did one of the crew woek where you are now? No names....
Hey Soap Box,
How does one break a "wing" pushing a Caravan? Anyone who worked for DHL on B757s would never manage that. Unless of course its an excuse to go to the middle east for time off :-)
I am fishing. Check your email......
There you go again upsetting people ;-) The Let is flippin awesome dude!! Back to the original subject, did one of the crew woek where you are now? No names....
Hey Soap Box,
How does one break a "wing" pushing a Caravan? Anyone who worked for DHL on B757s would never manage that. Unless of course its an excuse to go to the middle east for time off :-)
I am fishing. Check your email......
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: tanzania
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hello there kj...
you are right about one of the pilots....just got ur sms...the plan is to ferry her next month at the same place.
anyways i never meant to upset anyone, us being humans are entitled to our opinions...like a few of us that enjoy safety and speed others will keep on enjoying robustness and effective wipers while still cursing the design flaws of this overweight designed plane...
anyways wasnt this "flippin awesome"...robust plane have an airframe lifetime of around 5000hours or so??? and didnt someone say that this so called robust plane was never certified in any of the developed countries?? or am i missing a point here...he he he
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot
you are right about one of the pilots....just got ur sms...the plan is to ferry her next month at the same place.
anyways i never meant to upset anyone, us being humans are entitled to our opinions...like a few of us that enjoy safety and speed others will keep on enjoying robustness and effective wipers while still cursing the design flaws of this overweight designed plane...
anyways wasnt this "flippin awesome"...robust plane have an airframe lifetime of around 5000hours or so??? and didnt someone say that this so called robust plane was never certified in any of the developed countries?? or am i missing a point here...he he he
keep it up there fellows,
no more 406pilot
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
406pilot
Sigh. You're not a big one for facts.
Airframe life 5000hrs? Want another guess? Actually it's 20 000 hrs which may be extended by modification.
Here some more facts that would be of no interest to you:
"The L 410 UVP-E aircraft and its derivative versions meet the NLGS-2, JAR 25 or FAR 23 requirements. Certifications have been obtained for operations all over the world including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Germany, Chile, India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines, RSA, Russian, Sweden, Ukraine, Venezuela, the United States of America and other countries."
There are important differences between the L410 UVP and the L410VUP-E20:
The L410UVP has a three bladed prop (L410-E20 and L420 have 5 blade prop), no underwing emergency exits, 5700 kg MTOW (L410-E20 6600 kg) and M601D engines developing 725 hp (Let 410-UVPE20: M601E, 750 hp and L420: M601F, 777 hp).
The L410UVP is NOT approved for operation in South Africa and many other countries, primarily due to the fact that it does not have the underwing emergency exits. However, you willl see these aircraft operating in Africa under for instance Swazi (3D) registrations. The L410UVP is no longer in production, the current production models being the L410UVP-E20 and L420. I refer to the LET410UVP-E20.
"cursing the design flaws of this overweight designed plane"
I said the aircraft could have been built lighter, I did not say it was overweight. Like any aircraft design a compromise has to be made between a number of conflicting factors; a limitation is not a design flaw as you ineptly put it. You might recall a section in your aircraft's POH titled "Limitations" - it is unusual for the manufacturer to refer to this section as "Design Flaws"
Instead of spreading mis-information based on rumour and heresay I suggest you stick to topics you know something about. This obviously is not one of them.
Sigh. You're not a big one for facts.
Airframe life 5000hrs? Want another guess? Actually it's 20 000 hrs which may be extended by modification.
Here some more facts that would be of no interest to you:
"The L 410 UVP-E aircraft and its derivative versions meet the NLGS-2, JAR 25 or FAR 23 requirements. Certifications have been obtained for operations all over the world including Argentina, Australia, Brazil, the Czech Republic, Colombia, Cuba, Denmark, Germany, Chile, India, Indonesia, Kenya, the Philippines, RSA, Russian, Sweden, Ukraine, Venezuela, the United States of America and other countries."
There are important differences between the L410 UVP and the L410VUP-E20:
The L410UVP has a three bladed prop (L410-E20 and L420 have 5 blade prop), no underwing emergency exits, 5700 kg MTOW (L410-E20 6600 kg) and M601D engines developing 725 hp (Let 410-UVPE20: M601E, 750 hp and L420: M601F, 777 hp).
The L410UVP is NOT approved for operation in South Africa and many other countries, primarily due to the fact that it does not have the underwing emergency exits. However, you willl see these aircraft operating in Africa under for instance Swazi (3D) registrations. The L410UVP is no longer in production, the current production models being the L410UVP-E20 and L420. I refer to the LET410UVP-E20.
"cursing the design flaws of this overweight designed plane"
I said the aircraft could have been built lighter, I did not say it was overweight. Like any aircraft design a compromise has to be made between a number of conflicting factors; a limitation is not a design flaw as you ineptly put it. You might recall a section in your aircraft's POH titled "Limitations" - it is unusual for the manufacturer to refer to this section as "Design Flaws"
Instead of spreading mis-information based on rumour and heresay I suggest you stick to topics you know something about. This obviously is not one of them.
Last edited by Woof etc; 27th Aug 2005 at 21:47.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Ashwell, U.K.
Posts: 323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't want to divert the thread but woof's numbers on the Twotter are pretty dramatic. 25% hull losses is a bad number. Where were these losses sustained? Across the board or in Africa?
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Planet Tharg
Posts: 2,472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Seen more Lets lying around Africa in kit form than Twotters.
Twotters operate in pretty harsh environments on the whole so no surprises at the mortality rate. Strips that a Let wouldn't get into are meat and drink for a Twotter. Apples and oranges as they were designed for different roles.
Twotters operate in pretty harsh environments on the whole so no surprises at the mortality rate. Strips that a Let wouldn't get into are meat and drink for a Twotter. Apples and oranges as they were designed for different roles.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A quick look through the aviation-safety.net database shows that in the vast majority of accidents for both aircraft the cause of the accident is pilot error. Which is the point I'm trying to make.