Partnavia crash at Rottnest Island
Part Banana take-off's
Part Bananas' do infact have a double engine failure mode. There is a caution in the flight guide about it.
Been a few years but it was somthing like less than 1/4 tanks avoid sharp turns before takeoff and sharp acceleration (holding on the brakes with full power and letting go)
Have seen an experienced CFI demonstrate a short field takeoff from a standing start with low fuel load and 1 POB, both engines started surging at about 200 feet, and the resulting rudder work and attitudes attained were interesting
As a know all 19 year old I also remember "showing off" my piloting prowess and was lucky to survive, so I dont believe that anything has changed for young males of that age. I still see them do dumb things at the airfield now (Also young female pilots are starting to copy)
Been a few years but it was somthing like less than 1/4 tanks avoid sharp turns before takeoff and sharp acceleration (holding on the brakes with full power and letting go)
Have seen an experienced CFI demonstrate a short field takeoff from a standing start with low fuel load and 1 POB, both engines started surging at about 200 feet, and the resulting rudder work and attitudes attained were interesting
As a know all 19 year old I also remember "showing off" my piloting prowess and was lucky to survive, so I dont believe that anything has changed for young males of that age. I still see them do dumb things at the airfield now (Also young female pilots are starting to copy)
Last edited by c100driver; 14th Nov 2006 at 20:26. Reason: better english
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Australia
Age: 35
Posts: 59
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
HAHAHHAHA CHRONIC YOUR SO 
FUNNY!!!! This is not a literacy competition... I have seen many mistakes in other people posts and i cop it when it happens... GET OVER IT!!!
FUNNY!!!! This is not a literacy competition... I have seen many mistakes in other people posts and i cop it when it happens... GET OVER IT!!!
LJones,
the only relevant fact to this discussion you raised was in your very first post on this topic. First line infact:
"I am not a pilot"
I am also young. No, not 17, but I do suffer the higher insurance costs, pay more for a rental car etc. And guess what, I live with it! Its a fact of life. Now I would rather get in a car with someone else who accepts that fact of life, than someone who thinks that they are an exception to it.
Flying, driving, spelling, sex, you eventually get better at all of it with time and experience. Don't go jumping the gun. Your girlfriend will thank you for it.
PS some light reading for you:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...266510575.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...661747037.html
http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/cont...ull&pageID=171
the only relevant fact to this discussion you raised was in your very first post on this topic. First line infact:
"I am not a pilot"
I am also young. No, not 17, but I do suffer the higher insurance costs, pay more for a rental car etc. And guess what, I live with it! Its a fact of life. Now I would rather get in a car with someone else who accepts that fact of life, than someone who thinks that they are an exception to it.
Flying, driving, spelling, sex, you eventually get better at all of it with time and experience. Don't go jumping the gun. Your girlfriend will thank you for it.
PS some light reading for you:
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...266510575.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/...661747037.html
http://www.tacsafety.com.au/jsp/cont...ull&pageID=171
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Chimbu
A P68 fully loaded after t/o with an engine failure no matter how quickly you react will more than likely hit the deck. I have spent a bit of time in this aircraft (IYK) and its sad to see her in this state.
Most piston twins are the same, unless your a test pilot with a new aircraft and react in the millisecond you need to fully being prepared for a failure. (seminole anyone?) Even the chiefton fully loaded on a hot day out of meeka with a engine failure you fly straight and put her down where you can.
Those guys who are suggesting the bloke was showing off, get a life and keep to your 152's and your gfpt training.
A P68 fully loaded after t/o with an engine failure no matter how quickly you react will more than likely hit the deck. I have spent a bit of time in this aircraft (IYK) and its sad to see her in this state.
Most piston twins are the same, unless your a test pilot with a new aircraft and react in the millisecond you need to fully being prepared for a failure. (seminole anyone?) Even the chiefton fully loaded on a hot day out of meeka with a engine failure you fly straight and put her down where you can.
Those guys who are suggesting the bloke was showing off, get a life and keep to your 152's and your gfpt training.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Wherever I Lay my Hat...
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with 4SPOOLED here CC... it was a long time ago, but the overwhelming impressions I have of a brief association with a Partenavia were of an exceedingly ugly, gutless, uncomfortable aircraft with crap access/egress options and shockingly bad cockpit ergonomics. The only redeeming grace I could find was the cruise speed, which surprised me on so little horsepower. As to it's assymetric attributes... the thing was a pig whenever it was in proximity to the ground, even with both of 'em turning. I struggle to think of a (piston) light-twin with much of a comfort zone with one mill down.
In the situation under discussion, I wonder if perhaps windshear or mechanical turb off the trees would be worthy of consideration as much as the seemingly general assumption of crap handling or double engine-failure? I've only flown to Rottnest the once, in a Seneca III and apparently similar conditions. The turb on short-finals (on 27) certainly got my attention in an aircraft at low gross weight; and again on takeoff, passing about 50' with the wheels in-transit. I'm damn sure glad I didn't suffer an engine-failure at that particular point -something I pointed out to the experienced Rotto driver that was in the right seat beside me at the time.
Again I reiterate, give this guy a chance. Most people seem only too ready to dump on him without knowledge of the facts. Suspend your judgement until there is something to be judged.
Always.. do unto others as you would have them do unto you -it could well be you next time.
In the situation under discussion, I wonder if perhaps windshear or mechanical turb off the trees would be worthy of consideration as much as the seemingly general assumption of crap handling or double engine-failure? I've only flown to Rottnest the once, in a Seneca III and apparently similar conditions. The turb on short-finals (on 27) certainly got my attention in an aircraft at low gross weight; and again on takeoff, passing about 50' with the wheels in-transit. I'm damn sure glad I didn't suffer an engine-failure at that particular point -something I pointed out to the experienced Rotto driver that was in the right seat beside me at the time.
Again I reiterate, give this guy a chance. Most people seem only too ready to dump on him without knowledge of the facts. Suspend your judgement until there is something to be judged.
Always.. do unto others as you would have them do unto you -it could well be you next time.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4spooled et al - as I said previously, the thing WILL climb - albeit not real well. The example I quoted previously was at Armidale in summer (high and hot) at MTOW. It ain't the bestest aeroplane around, but it ain't a complete dog either. (you want to talk about negative climb performance in assy configuration try a Seneca - the 1st one - or an Apache 160). Let's see what the guys with all the inside knowledge and facts come up with.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: leeds
Age: 62
Posts: 5
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
just booked
amazing, justa couple of days ago i booked a flight for me and family boxing day jandacot to rottnest return, 6 seater a/c........... are incidents regular occurence on rottnest?
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
4spooled et al - as I said previously, the thing WILL climb - albeit not real well. The example I quoted previously was at Armidale in summer (high and hot) at MTOW. It ain't the bestest aeroplane around, but it ain't a complete dog either. (you want to talk about negative climb performance in assy configuration try a Seneca - the 1st one - or an Apache 160). Let's see what the guys with all the inside knowledge and facts come up with.
The facts will come to light soon, ill be heading back to perth from the bush this weekend for the red bull air race so ill pop into jt and see the boys.
4s
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PN68
The Partenavia P68 B and C are great little twins which will legally carry six people for 180 NM, or three for 750 NM. They will go anywhere a C206 wil go. For a high wing aircraft it has good visibilkity, as the pilot is ahead of the wing.
When we got the first one in Alice Springs, I was unsure about their performance when assymetric, as we are usually "hot and high". So I did all the sums, and finally took one out and actually shut down an engine and feathered the prop. (overhead the aerodrome) I did a fair bit of this sort of experimentation, (zero thrust settings can give misleading performance.), and came to the conclusion that the aircraft WILL climb a little with an engine out, but only if you fly it right.(just as it says in the book) The same as most piston twins.
I found that it will climb if you fly it straight, at the right speed, but during a rate one turn you can expect to LOSE about one foot of altitude for every degree of turn.
Think about that. If you get an EFATO at low level and try to immediately fly a circuit, you will not make it. You have to fly straight ahead and coax it to climb to at least 360ft AGL, if possible, or fly a large circuit with a bit of climb on each leg. We introduced a "minimum assymetric circling height", below which we flew straight. Of course you would have considered terrain befor etakeoff.
Simple maths really, but it is amazing that hardly anyone seems to have figured this out.
And there is this belief that "If you get an engine failure in a twin you just land straight ahead". Then why have the second engine? You do not have to be a test pilot, but you do have to have done your homework, and kept your skills and knowledge at a high level. If you cannot handle it you should not be there. Even 30 year old aeroplanes or 90,000 hour Boeings CAN and do achieve book figures. (If they are flown right)
There are all sorts of copouts, but the determining factor is the PIC.
We flew a few thousand hours in PN68's,and had two engine failures (both exhaust valves) and both these aeroplanes made it to an aerodrome assymetric.
This is not meant as a criticism of the PIC at Rottnest, but is general comment, trigured by some the recent posts.
LJONES
Some posters are less than polite on here. I suggest you evaluate each one, and consider the facts and opinions. Do not let the impolite ones disturb you, or tempt you to behave in a similar fiashion.
When we got the first one in Alice Springs, I was unsure about their performance when assymetric, as we are usually "hot and high". So I did all the sums, and finally took one out and actually shut down an engine and feathered the prop. (overhead the aerodrome) I did a fair bit of this sort of experimentation, (zero thrust settings can give misleading performance.), and came to the conclusion that the aircraft WILL climb a little with an engine out, but only if you fly it right.(just as it says in the book) The same as most piston twins.
I found that it will climb if you fly it straight, at the right speed, but during a rate one turn you can expect to LOSE about one foot of altitude for every degree of turn.
Think about that. If you get an EFATO at low level and try to immediately fly a circuit, you will not make it. You have to fly straight ahead and coax it to climb to at least 360ft AGL, if possible, or fly a large circuit with a bit of climb on each leg. We introduced a "minimum assymetric circling height", below which we flew straight. Of course you would have considered terrain befor etakeoff.
Simple maths really, but it is amazing that hardly anyone seems to have figured this out.
And there is this belief that "If you get an engine failure in a twin you just land straight ahead". Then why have the second engine? You do not have to be a test pilot, but you do have to have done your homework, and kept your skills and knowledge at a high level. If you cannot handle it you should not be there. Even 30 year old aeroplanes or 90,000 hour Boeings CAN and do achieve book figures. (If they are flown right)
There are all sorts of copouts, but the determining factor is the PIC.
We flew a few thousand hours in PN68's,and had two engine failures (both exhaust valves) and both these aeroplanes made it to an aerodrome assymetric.
This is not meant as a criticism of the PIC at Rottnest, but is general comment, trigured by some the recent posts.
LJONES
Some posters are less than polite on here. I suggest you evaluate each one, and consider the facts and opinions. Do not let the impolite ones disturb you, or tempt you to behave in a similar fiashion.
Last edited by bushy; 16th Nov 2006 at 03:35.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 309
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
glad that not every one is against me
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bullaland
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Partnavia is not a bad performer on 1 engine. I clocked up 300 hrs in them and had the oppertunity to operate on 1 a few times.
Climbed out at 400fpm, full fuel, 3 pax on board. Would have been within 200kg of MTOW I think from memory.
Not as bad as everyone seems to be suggeting.
They are not that good for your back though, Ouch!!
Bulla
Climbed out at 400fpm, full fuel, 3 pax on board. Would have been within 200kg of MTOW I think from memory.
Not as bad as everyone seems to be suggeting.
They are not that good for your back though, Ouch!!
Bulla
Grandpa Aerotart
It has become clear to me that the 80s was pretty much the end of the piston twin era..the last decade when they were used in really large numbers and where most pilots logged MANY hours, usually 1000s, in them before moving on up the food chain.
I remain to be convinced that the skill set required to fly them safely has not been almost completely lost as the really experienced pilots who used to train on them, and the piots they trained, have gone on to bigger and better things...financially at least, GA was tons more fun/satisfying than airline flying ever will be.
As a result knowledge has been replaced with legend to some extent.
In the 80s I flew most of the well known piston twins for 1000s of hours and trained pilots in many of them at one time or another. All the Cessna 300/400 series, all the Beechraft piston twins, most of the Pipers excluding the Seminole but including the Aerostar, the PN68, Islander.
NOT ONE wouldn't fly reasonably well on one engine if flown reasonably well...and I don't mean Test Pilot well I mean reasonably well.
Between me and my mates we all had engine failures in all sorts of situations...and the vaste preponderance of those engine failures ended well...including some that occurred at gross weights that would suggest otherwise if you go on legend alone...like several hundred kg overloaded in a C404 for instance.
I did my Islander endo on a 260hp version at Mt Hagen (5400' amsl/ISA+20) and it included lots of engine failures at 100-200' and one complete shutdown/feathered circuit, go around at 300' and another circuit. The flying bit didn't start until after 4 days of flying with the trainer watching from the RHS and gleaning much information and sitting in a quiet room discussin systems and performance...how many pilots out there have had a 4 day ground school for a piston twin? Not so many years ago I was endorsed on a Citation 560...the ground school was less than 1 day
The mentality was that it (any piston twin you care to name) will fly on one...but if for whatever reason it doesn't put it down before you lose control. Because the training pilots were so experienced...and we weren't given training approvals without LOTS of experience (unlike todays average ME instructor) much time was spent learning and practicing those techniques that maximise SE performance. Virtually all trainers had had at least one real engine failure...some of us were blessed with several
I get the impression these days that the mentality is 'they won't fly on one heavy/hot/high' and that preconditions the pilot's thinking to some extent...instead of 'it's not climbing what am I doing wrong' it has become 'it's not climbing they were right I am going to crash'.
To often a young or inexperienced pilot suffers an engine failure at say 50-100' on takeoff and manages to get the dead engine secured. That is the easy/rote part. He then sees very little performance (probably because he is not flying the aircraft properly) and decides his only chance is to turn around and get back to the airport...he starts to turn and, as Bushy suggests, the aircraft starts to descend, or descend faster, and every preconditioned thought that pilot has ever had is confirmed. It is what he expects to see...this is what he has heard happens around the aeroclub bar...this is what the 30 hr wonder who taught him to fly ME said too...desperation sets in....probably he might creep up the angle of bank to get around the corner quicker....which just makes things worse, of course.
What he really should be doing is maintaining runway heading and scratching every '/min out of the airframe it is possible to get...for as long as it takes to get to a safe altitude so he can start to manouver. I once had an engine fail on takeoff in an old C402a in Talair...it took me 5 nm out to sea to climb up to the cloudbase in pouring rain...5nm to get to 400'.
Fuel aint going to be a limiting factor...I don't care if it takes 20 minutes to climb to 1000'. If that is what is needed, fecking do it.
When I levelled off and got a little extra speed, enough to think about turning around and flying back to Finchafen, in about 1nm vis, I discovered my right leg was shaking so bad it was almost jumping off the rudder pedal. It took every trick I had ever been taught and very careful flying to drag that beat up old 402 loaded with villagers up to a 'safe' altitude. I had about 2000 hrs ME piston command at the time and the 402 as my 4th type rating although I would only have qualified as 'fairly experienced' on two...the BN2 and 402..and the Talair trainers, of which I wasn't one yet...were tough guys to please.
ME training, particularly initial twin (and probably the next couple of types) needs to be strenuously centered on assy performace...lots and lots and LOTS of engine failures including some at fairly representative weights...instead ME training in this day and age seems to have become a box ticking excercise done to minimum cost by an instructor who is probably less competent than he thinks he is and nowhere near comfortable/knowledgable or skillfull enough to give the trainee a really good work out on one engine.
I remember giving a guy an engine failure, without warning and using the mixture, in a C402a taking off from a coastal strip in PNG with no pax. It wasn't a training flight I was just passengering home to Rabaul and sitting in the RHS. He went through the memory items correctly and had the aircraft under control and we shot out across the reefs at zot feet not climbing much, if at all, with the ASI nailed to the 'blue line' speed of 103 kts.
"You flying the correct speed?"
(Very indignantly) "Yeah!!"
"Your sure?"
"YEAH!!"
I flipped down his sun visor (where we had table with a range of Vyse/wts glued) and asked him again. He looked and adjusted the attitude for the correct speed (about 99kts from memory) and we started climbing at a very satisfying rate...probably 500'/min.
Point made I gave him back the engine and we flew back to Rabaul in utter silence...he was seriously pissed off with me
but I had known him a few years and he was just one of those young guys who didn't take criticism well...constructive or otherwise After we landed at Rabaul he cornered me and displayed his extreme displeasure...he was literally hopping from one foot to another with undisguised rage..it was almost funny
He thought my actions MOST unreasonable!!!
"Well for starters xxx I could care less what you think...how much warning do you think a real engine failure will give you or do you think engine failures only happen on IR renewals?...you've known me a few years...are you really so stupid as to think I wouldn't give you an engine failure with no pax on board, I am the piston fleet (Islanders/402s/404s) training/standards pilot...it's my job to ensure your standards are high and they were not high today. What is more you can expect at any time that I will, without warning, hop in an aircraft with you and expect you to know your stuff..and I am going to make a point of it sometime in the next mth or so...fair enough?"
To his credit he saw the point I was making and appologised...he now flys for CX. He no doubt recognises himself in the above story and he definately knows who Chimbu chuckles really is...Hi
In my previous lives as a trainer or CP I have seen, over and over again, young blokes who get quite upset when they are called to account in similar circumstances...I've sacked one or two
In my present incarnation as a widebody SFO I get called to account when I slip up...and we all do from time to time...the difference is usually that I am my own hardest critic and my eyes don't flash with barely disguise fury when I am being given feedback on my performance...you'd be amazed how many times I have seen that...and you'd be amazed how many times ATOs I know tell me about candidates who dictate what will and won't be happening on the test they are about to do
Flying ME piston is VERY serious business...there is just no room for BS.
Quite why pilots, who can land perfectly well under normal circumstances, stall at 20' in a forced landing/single engine landing or ditching is lost on me but it is, non the less, more common than you would credit.
I remain to be convinced that the skill set required to fly them safely has not been almost completely lost as the really experienced pilots who used to train on them, and the piots they trained, have gone on to bigger and better things...financially at least, GA was tons more fun/satisfying than airline flying ever will be.
As a result knowledge has been replaced with legend to some extent.
In the 80s I flew most of the well known piston twins for 1000s of hours and trained pilots in many of them at one time or another. All the Cessna 300/400 series, all the Beechraft piston twins, most of the Pipers excluding the Seminole but including the Aerostar, the PN68, Islander.
NOT ONE wouldn't fly reasonably well on one engine if flown reasonably well...and I don't mean Test Pilot well I mean reasonably well.
Between me and my mates we all had engine failures in all sorts of situations...and the vaste preponderance of those engine failures ended well...including some that occurred at gross weights that would suggest otherwise if you go on legend alone...like several hundred kg overloaded in a C404 for instance.
I did my Islander endo on a 260hp version at Mt Hagen (5400' amsl/ISA+20) and it included lots of engine failures at 100-200' and one complete shutdown/feathered circuit, go around at 300' and another circuit. The flying bit didn't start until after 4 days of flying with the trainer watching from the RHS and gleaning much information and sitting in a quiet room discussin systems and performance...how many pilots out there have had a 4 day ground school for a piston twin? Not so many years ago I was endorsed on a Citation 560...the ground school was less than 1 day
The mentality was that it (any piston twin you care to name) will fly on one...but if for whatever reason it doesn't put it down before you lose control. Because the training pilots were so experienced...and we weren't given training approvals without LOTS of experience (unlike todays average ME instructor) much time was spent learning and practicing those techniques that maximise SE performance. Virtually all trainers had had at least one real engine failure...some of us were blessed with several
I get the impression these days that the mentality is 'they won't fly on one heavy/hot/high' and that preconditions the pilot's thinking to some extent...instead of 'it's not climbing what am I doing wrong' it has become 'it's not climbing they were right I am going to crash'.
To often a young or inexperienced pilot suffers an engine failure at say 50-100' on takeoff and manages to get the dead engine secured. That is the easy/rote part. He then sees very little performance (probably because he is not flying the aircraft properly) and decides his only chance is to turn around and get back to the airport...he starts to turn and, as Bushy suggests, the aircraft starts to descend, or descend faster, and every preconditioned thought that pilot has ever had is confirmed. It is what he expects to see...this is what he has heard happens around the aeroclub bar...this is what the 30 hr wonder who taught him to fly ME said too...desperation sets in....probably he might creep up the angle of bank to get around the corner quicker....which just makes things worse, of course.
What he really should be doing is maintaining runway heading and scratching every '/min out of the airframe it is possible to get...for as long as it takes to get to a safe altitude so he can start to manouver. I once had an engine fail on takeoff in an old C402a in Talair...it took me 5 nm out to sea to climb up to the cloudbase in pouring rain...5nm to get to 400'.
Fuel aint going to be a limiting factor...I don't care if it takes 20 minutes to climb to 1000'. If that is what is needed, fecking do it.
When I levelled off and got a little extra speed, enough to think about turning around and flying back to Finchafen, in about 1nm vis, I discovered my right leg was shaking so bad it was almost jumping off the rudder pedal. It took every trick I had ever been taught and very careful flying to drag that beat up old 402 loaded with villagers up to a 'safe' altitude. I had about 2000 hrs ME piston command at the time and the 402 as my 4th type rating although I would only have qualified as 'fairly experienced' on two...the BN2 and 402..and the Talair trainers, of which I wasn't one yet...were tough guys to please.
ME training, particularly initial twin (and probably the next couple of types) needs to be strenuously centered on assy performace...lots and lots and LOTS of engine failures including some at fairly representative weights...instead ME training in this day and age seems to have become a box ticking excercise done to minimum cost by an instructor who is probably less competent than he thinks he is and nowhere near comfortable/knowledgable or skillfull enough to give the trainee a really good work out on one engine.
I remember giving a guy an engine failure, without warning and using the mixture, in a C402a taking off from a coastal strip in PNG with no pax. It wasn't a training flight I was just passengering home to Rabaul and sitting in the RHS. He went through the memory items correctly and had the aircraft under control and we shot out across the reefs at zot feet not climbing much, if at all, with the ASI nailed to the 'blue line' speed of 103 kts.
"You flying the correct speed?"
(Very indignantly) "Yeah!!"
"Your sure?"
"YEAH!!"
I flipped down his sun visor (where we had table with a range of Vyse/wts glued) and asked him again. He looked and adjusted the attitude for the correct speed (about 99kts from memory) and we started climbing at a very satisfying rate...probably 500'/min.
Point made I gave him back the engine and we flew back to Rabaul in utter silence...he was seriously pissed off with me
but I had known him a few years and he was just one of those young guys who didn't take criticism well...constructive or otherwise After we landed at Rabaul he cornered me and displayed his extreme displeasure...he was literally hopping from one foot to another with undisguised rage..it was almost funny He thought my actions MOST unreasonable!!!"Well for starters xxx I could care less what you think...how much warning do you think a real engine failure will give you or do you think engine failures only happen on IR renewals?...you've known me a few years...are you really so stupid as to think I wouldn't give you an engine failure with no pax on board, I am the piston fleet (Islanders/402s/404s) training/standards pilot...it's my job to ensure your standards are high and they were not high today. What is more you can expect at any time that I will, without warning, hop in an aircraft with you and expect you to know your stuff..and I am going to make a point of it sometime in the next mth or so...fair enough?"
To his credit he saw the point I was making and appologised...he now flys for CX. He no doubt recognises himself in the above story and he definately knows who Chimbu chuckles really is...Hi
In my previous lives as a trainer or CP I have seen, over and over again, young blokes who get quite upset when they are called to account in similar circumstances...I've sacked one or two
In my present incarnation as a widebody SFO I get called to account when I slip up...and we all do from time to time...the difference is usually that I am my own hardest critic and my eyes don't flash with barely disguise fury when I am being given feedback on my performance...you'd be amazed how many times I have seen that...and you'd be amazed how many times ATOs I know tell me about candidates who dictate what will and won't be happening on the test they are about to do
Flying ME piston is VERY serious business...there is just no room for BS.
Quite why pilots, who can land perfectly well under normal circumstances, stall at 20' in a forced landing/single engine landing or ditching is lost on me but it is, non the less, more common than you would credit.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 16th Nov 2006 at 16:03.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 51
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello guys, seems like everyone wants to put their two bobs into this one...
I have read all the posts regarding this event and would like to make a few points that I believe need to be raised. I have got all of about 1hour in a PN68 which is not including the scenic I did across to the Avalon air show many years ago but I think the points are still valid.
How many of us have got several hundred or thousands of hours in one particular aircraft but have noticed that they all fly differently? Yes, even C150's! This is due to a number of reasons. Some of which include:
- wing angle of incidence
- condition of the wing
- engine considerations
- propeller type.
All these and many more factors cause every single aircraft to behave differently. If you don't believe me then you clearly haven't got enough hours in your logbook. So to sit here and argue about whether or not the Partenavia actually has performance on one engine, I believe is pointless. The margin between having performance at MTOW and not with these types of light piston twins is extremely small. Why don't we get some feedback from pilots that have actually flown IYK and other Partenavia's to compare the actual stats? I know for a fact that where I fly we have several of the same type of aircraft and every one of them performs extremely different.
This leads me to my next point... When we were first taught how to fly a twin our instructor hopefully emphasized the importance of "if not obtaining performance, I will close both throttles and land ahead" (hopefully at not too an early stage of the failure though). Has anyone considered that combined with my above statement that the aircraft simply didn't have performance? Or a possible flap failure on retraction? The pilot has recognized this, closed both throttles but ballsed up the landing. How many of you have actually landed on a dried up lake with a possible engine failure under god knows what conditions and not damaged the aircraft? I say a credit to the pilot at this stage
As for the person who ruled out a double engine failure. Although unlikely, it does happen. We typically run the outbaord tanks dry and quite frequent experience the drop in fuel pressure occurring within seconds of each engine.
So I guess my point is (finally) that we cannot say what actually happend we can only speculate.
I have read all the posts regarding this event and would like to make a few points that I believe need to be raised. I have got all of about 1hour in a PN68 which is not including the scenic I did across to the Avalon air show many years ago but I think the points are still valid.
How many of us have got several hundred or thousands of hours in one particular aircraft but have noticed that they all fly differently? Yes, even C150's! This is due to a number of reasons. Some of which include:
- wing angle of incidence
- condition of the wing
- engine considerations
- propeller type.
All these and many more factors cause every single aircraft to behave differently. If you don't believe me then you clearly haven't got enough hours in your logbook. So to sit here and argue about whether or not the Partenavia actually has performance on one engine, I believe is pointless. The margin between having performance at MTOW and not with these types of light piston twins is extremely small. Why don't we get some feedback from pilots that have actually flown IYK and other Partenavia's to compare the actual stats? I know for a fact that where I fly we have several of the same type of aircraft and every one of them performs extremely different.
This leads me to my next point... When we were first taught how to fly a twin our instructor hopefully emphasized the importance of "if not obtaining performance, I will close both throttles and land ahead" (hopefully at not too an early stage of the failure though). Has anyone considered that combined with my above statement that the aircraft simply didn't have performance? Or a possible flap failure on retraction? The pilot has recognized this, closed both throttles but ballsed up the landing. How many of you have actually landed on a dried up lake with a possible engine failure under god knows what conditions and not damaged the aircraft? I say a credit to the pilot at this stage
As for the person who ruled out a double engine failure. Although unlikely, it does happen. We typically run the outbaord tanks dry and quite frequent experience the drop in fuel pressure occurring within seconds of each engine.
So I guess my point is (finally) that we cannot say what actually happend we can only speculate.
Grandpa Aerotart
our instructor hopefully emphasized the importance of "if not obtaining performance, I will close both throttles and land ahead"
Think about the probable ramifications of drumming that into a pilot short on experience/ judgement.
The aircraft is not performing for whatever reason...the speed is probably bleeding back towards VMCa as the pilot sits there knowing he's about to crash and he suddenly remembers "Close both throttles and land straight ahead" and does it.
The reduction in thrust, the reduction in lift from the engine blasting air back over a largish portion of wing and the sudden lack of any need for huge rudder input causes a loss of control..and a very hard arrival.
What I used to drum into guys was;
After securing the engine etc.
Nail the speed,
Rudder as required
lift the dead engine up 'a bit'. (you need less rudder)
If the aircraft will NOT climb or maintain ht maintain that speed no matter what...maintain the full thrust no matter what. Find somewhere soft and reduce the power to idle as you round out, flare and touch down, keep the aeroplane straight with rudder. What you are trying to achieve is essentially arriving at 20' at Vyse (minimum ROD) with full power and then bleed off the power as you round out and flare, reducing rudder deflection as you do so (VMCa quickly drops below stall speed as you pull power off) and flare into a fairly normal landing with zero thrust.
Can you see the difference in mindset?
I think it is obvious which method will be more likely to produce a more consistantly survivable forced landing.
When ****s are trumps a pilot will remember what he has had drummed into him at an early stage...particularly innexeperienced ones. You have to be incredibly careful what ingrained habits you put there.
Last edited by Chimbu chuckles; 17th Nov 2006 at 00:16.
Believe me, the fuel selectors on the Partenavia have proved to be deadly because they are well known for binding or completely jamming. A ditching in the English Channel revealed the female pilot was unable to physically select the crossfeed position after getting close to min fuel and she was forced to ditch.
At Essendon many years ago, I inspected three local Partenavias for fuel system operation and in all cases it was almost impossible to operate the selectors with one hand. The operator blew his top when I wrote up the defect saying no one had complained about it before. Knowing the GA scene I wasn't surprised. CASA were notified, visited the aeroplane and promptly grounded it. Soon after I sent CASA a copy of a British CAA AD that required a full check of the fuel valve operation after the ditching episode. CASA then issued their own AD which among other checks required pilot reporting of binding cockpit fuel selectors. Well, that wasn't going to happen, was it - but at least CASA alerted LAME's aalthough few pilots knew about it which is where the system breaks down if pilots are not made aware of an AD defect problem.
Six months after that, two of the Essendon Partenavias still had impossibly stiff operation of fuel valve selectors - so much for pilot integrity in writing up defects and leaving that responsibility for the next chap to cop it.
A Partenavia from Essendon landed at Phillip Island and buggered the nose wheel in soft ground. On return to EN it was in the hangar for several months. Massive corrosion was evident in the airframe and electrical wiring was found to be stuffed. The rubber protection on the leading edge of the stabiliser had significant ridges which would have disrupted airflow patterns according to the maintenance people. It was found that both engine fuel selectors were totally and permanently jammed where the linkages go into the engines and that if an engine had caught fire it would have been impossible to turn off the fuel. That aircraft was in the hangar for six months getting prettied up for the next owner.
Several years ago, a brand new turbo-charged Partenavia was on static display at the Avalon Air Show. I asked the display pilot if he could operate the fuel selectors. He had a go with some difficulty so the long term design defect still was there. If anyone reading this thread flies Partenavias take my advice and see if you can operate the individual engine fuel selectors easily in all directions with one hand operation. If the selectors are hard to operate then for the sake of the next pilot to fly that aircraft, write it in the maintenance release.
At Essendon many years ago, I inspected three local Partenavias for fuel system operation and in all cases it was almost impossible to operate the selectors with one hand. The operator blew his top when I wrote up the defect saying no one had complained about it before. Knowing the GA scene I wasn't surprised. CASA were notified, visited the aeroplane and promptly grounded it. Soon after I sent CASA a copy of a British CAA AD that required a full check of the fuel valve operation after the ditching episode. CASA then issued their own AD which among other checks required pilot reporting of binding cockpit fuel selectors. Well, that wasn't going to happen, was it - but at least CASA alerted LAME's aalthough few pilots knew about it which is where the system breaks down if pilots are not made aware of an AD defect problem.
Six months after that, two of the Essendon Partenavias still had impossibly stiff operation of fuel valve selectors - so much for pilot integrity in writing up defects and leaving that responsibility for the next chap to cop it.
A Partenavia from Essendon landed at Phillip Island and buggered the nose wheel in soft ground. On return to EN it was in the hangar for several months. Massive corrosion was evident in the airframe and electrical wiring was found to be stuffed. The rubber protection on the leading edge of the stabiliser had significant ridges which would have disrupted airflow patterns according to the maintenance people. It was found that both engine fuel selectors were totally and permanently jammed where the linkages go into the engines and that if an engine had caught fire it would have been impossible to turn off the fuel. That aircraft was in the hangar for six months getting prettied up for the next owner.
Several years ago, a brand new turbo-charged Partenavia was on static display at the Avalon Air Show. I asked the display pilot if he could operate the fuel selectors. He had a go with some difficulty so the long term design defect still was there. If anyone reading this thread flies Partenavias take my advice and see if you can operate the individual engine fuel selectors easily in all directions with one hand operation. If the selectors are hard to operate then for the sake of the next pilot to fly that aircraft, write it in the maintenance release.
Last edited by Centaurus; 16th Nov 2006 at 18:06.
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: bullaland
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the Partnavia, just like ANY GA TWIN, the fuel system should be checked for correct operation before EVERY flight.
If this gets done in every preflight it wont be jammed. If you never touch it and expect it to operate once a year you are asking for trouble!!!!!
Basic airmanship really
Bulla
If this gets done in every preflight it wont be jammed. If you never touch it and expect it to operate once a year you are asking for trouble!!!!!
Basic airmanship really
Bulla