Authorities search for crashed plane near Mt Isa
Aerod, ditto on that one! However, Radios reply is equally valid.
When engines stop on final approach, or at the same time in a twin, most would assume they were sucking air (and they would be right most of the time), until proven otherwise. Those of us who speculated were wrong in the case of Whyalla, and apparently in the case of the C207 that went into the swamp at YBTL. The jury is still out on the 777 at LHR, but it is interesting that the fleet were not grounded while the cause of the engines failing to spool up was determined (I thought about that one recently while crossing the Atlantic to LHR in a 777.
If speculating on the cause of a prang gets people thinking and helps one pilot avoid the same fate - then I think that is OK.
Will be interesting to get the whole story, but I do have some sympathies for young pilots struggling with the challenges of GA commercial ops. These days I only fly privately in the FTDK, when I mostly depart with full tanks and the Garmin 496 reminds me of my fuel management responsibilities every 30 min.
I have only had two fuel "incidents" in twins.
One was at night when a pilot newly rated on the Aztec turned the fuel off instead of changing tanks. Fortunately I had suggested he staqger the tank changes by 5 minutes (as has always been my practice after reading in the Crash Comic about a Queenair that went it at night with a double engine failure due to fuel starvation - and plenty of fuel on board), so we only had one failed engine to deal with.
The other one was when the CP gave me a 402 with less than full tanks but supposedly a known amount of fuel on board after a previous flight. The charter was out and back to a remote cattle station. Outbound I had some concerns about the fuel on board as indicated by the guages and rang the CP before departing homeward to again assure myself that there was sufficient fuel on board. TOC I changed one side onto a tank that should have had 45 min in it - and the engine stopped 5 min later. A quick diversion into Charlie's Trousers solved the probem. The CP swears to this day that the aeroplane had sufficent fuel for the flight - and I am equally adament that it didn't.
I feel for those who do the fuel/payload shuffle everyday, with 30 year old equipment.
Digital fuel flows such as the Shadin in my Bo should be mandatory. Seems to me that this is one area where technology has made life a great deal easier. The question "do I have enough fuel onboard" is easily answered. A GPS will tell you your ETA to the minute and a Shadin type fuel flow meter should tell you what fuel is on board and exactly what your endurance is.
Dr
Oh - and stagger your tank changes in case you still get it wrong.
When engines stop on final approach, or at the same time in a twin, most would assume they were sucking air (and they would be right most of the time), until proven otherwise. Those of us who speculated were wrong in the case of Whyalla, and apparently in the case of the C207 that went into the swamp at YBTL. The jury is still out on the 777 at LHR, but it is interesting that the fleet were not grounded while the cause of the engines failing to spool up was determined (I thought about that one recently while crossing the Atlantic to LHR in a 777.
If speculating on the cause of a prang gets people thinking and helps one pilot avoid the same fate - then I think that is OK.
Will be interesting to get the whole story, but I do have some sympathies for young pilots struggling with the challenges of GA commercial ops. These days I only fly privately in the FTDK, when I mostly depart with full tanks and the Garmin 496 reminds me of my fuel management responsibilities every 30 min.
I have only had two fuel "incidents" in twins.
One was at night when a pilot newly rated on the Aztec turned the fuel off instead of changing tanks. Fortunately I had suggested he staqger the tank changes by 5 minutes (as has always been my practice after reading in the Crash Comic about a Queenair that went it at night with a double engine failure due to fuel starvation - and plenty of fuel on board), so we only had one failed engine to deal with.
The other one was when the CP gave me a 402 with less than full tanks but supposedly a known amount of fuel on board after a previous flight. The charter was out and back to a remote cattle station. Outbound I had some concerns about the fuel on board as indicated by the guages and rang the CP before departing homeward to again assure myself that there was sufficient fuel on board. TOC I changed one side onto a tank that should have had 45 min in it - and the engine stopped 5 min later. A quick diversion into Charlie's Trousers solved the probem. The CP swears to this day that the aeroplane had sufficent fuel for the flight - and I am equally adament that it didn't.
I feel for those who do the fuel/payload shuffle everyday, with 30 year old equipment.
Digital fuel flows such as the Shadin in my Bo should be mandatory. Seems to me that this is one area where technology has made life a great deal easier. The question "do I have enough fuel onboard" is easily answered. A GPS will tell you your ETA to the minute and a Shadin type fuel flow meter should tell you what fuel is on board and exactly what your endurance is.
Dr
Oh - and stagger your tank changes in case you still get it wrong.
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 705
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balls Deep
Just to set you straight(if possible). I am a trained investigator and that training wasn't obtained watching Air Crash Investigator or any other TV show but an accredited accident investigation institution OS. So if anybody would be making the tea it would be you. But then again I wouldn't give you a job. To put it succinctly, pull your head in and let the professionals do what they are trained for.
A note for the new pilot of a lighty in a new, to them, aircraft -
ForkTailedDrKiller has foregotten to mention that before you trust any fuel flow indicator - first check it has been calibrated correctly. I have paxed in an aircraft simular to mine that the fuel totalizer showed unusualy low fuel flow to power settings - the owner said he just had not got around to calibrating it yet and did'nt use it.
One way to check the calibration is to read the expected fuel flow/power settings section of the flight manual (if there is one) or do a post flight fuel burn cross check.
ForkTailedDrKiller has foregotten to mention that before you trust any fuel flow indicator - first check it has been calibrated correctly. I have paxed in an aircraft simular to mine that the fuel totalizer showed unusualy low fuel flow to power settings - the owner said he just had not got around to calibrating it yet and did'nt use it.
One way to check the calibration is to read the expected fuel flow/power settings section of the flight manual (if there is one) or do a post flight fuel burn cross check.
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: sydney
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aviation seems to have way to many experts wouldnt you say!!! I know the particular pilot in question here, and can I just say that he is very lucky indeed to have come out of it in one piece. Thank god. But out of respect for him and the operator can the speculation be kept to minimum.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
one kept running until lack of maintenance, poor in-flight decision making and planning and poor engine handling dealt to it too
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sexual chocolate (what a wonderful name)
I agree with much of what you say. GA is undervalued, by too many and only considered as a training ground for airline pilots.
There was a time when it was possible to make a reasonable living in GA (but very few did in the cities). My first logbook had about 5000 hours, most of which was single time. But I earned a reasonable wage. Jobs were few, but you could make a living.
Then our clever government introduced an allowance which allowed any company that bought new equipment to get huge tax concessions which nearly paid for the aeroplane. So we had every tax dodger setting up a charter company, and buying an aeroplane. A charter licence went with most aircraft sales. They were easy to get. So there were accountants, bookies and used car dealers, beekeepers,and womens underwear salespeople running charter companies. The aeroplane sales people did well as they always used new aircraft for charter (their demonstrators) and did very little maintenance. They sold them before they got rattley. They could undercut other charter operators. They also ran flying schools and trained as many pilots as they could. The airlines only needed a few each year, but lots and lots were trained, looking for that lucrative jet job.
So we had lots of new aeroplanes, charter companies, lots of pilots, and the oil exploration started. Freebies for pilots. Free maps and charts, regs, renewals, flight tests. No landing fees. Boom times. False, short term boom times. Not much movement into airllines,so a stable, experienced group of career GA pilots, and new, better (big and small) aeroplanes coming regularly. Some airlines had a nice government subsidy.
Then it stopped. The ioil exploration stopped. The tax concessions stopped. And the landing fees came. And the tax dodgers sold their aeroplanes, which had not been maintained very well, when the engine overhaul became due. And the pilot's feeebies stopped.
But the flying schools still trained lots of pilots. And they rented aeroplanes to use for further ICUS sales, while doing charter in the outback.(and RPT it appears)
So, many pilots became desparate. They were unemployed and broke, but still believed that lucrative jet job was just around the corner. Some worked for little or nothing. One or two offered to buy jobs. The GA career pilots were quitting because they were being undercut by newbies from the coast.(most GA is in the outback)
So GA is left with a continual stream of new pilots, and the stable group of career GA pilots is almost gone. The experience level is not there any more. There is hardly anyone to lead the way. The airlines have recruited quite a few recently from GA, but seem to be relying on imports to get the experience they need. The age old system of relying on a huge pool of desparate GA pilots to meet their needs has failed them. GA pilots do not have Boeing endorsements.
A newly licenced CPL holder is usually a little bit out of his depth on his first job, even in a C206. The workload is often too high for them, and they need support. I'v seen aircraft taxying with baggage doors open, flipper doors open etc. It's not uncommon. It was generally accepted that the apprenticeship lasts 5000 hours.
They are nearly all apprentices now.
There was a time when it was possible to make a reasonable living in GA (but very few did in the cities). My first logbook had about 5000 hours, most of which was single time. But I earned a reasonable wage. Jobs were few, but you could make a living.
Then our clever government introduced an allowance which allowed any company that bought new equipment to get huge tax concessions which nearly paid for the aeroplane. So we had every tax dodger setting up a charter company, and buying an aeroplane. A charter licence went with most aircraft sales. They were easy to get. So there were accountants, bookies and used car dealers, beekeepers,and womens underwear salespeople running charter companies. The aeroplane sales people did well as they always used new aircraft for charter (their demonstrators) and did very little maintenance. They sold them before they got rattley. They could undercut other charter operators. They also ran flying schools and trained as many pilots as they could. The airlines only needed a few each year, but lots and lots were trained, looking for that lucrative jet job.
So we had lots of new aeroplanes, charter companies, lots of pilots, and the oil exploration started. Freebies for pilots. Free maps and charts, regs, renewals, flight tests. No landing fees. Boom times. False, short term boom times. Not much movement into airllines,so a stable, experienced group of career GA pilots, and new, better (big and small) aeroplanes coming regularly. Some airlines had a nice government subsidy.
Then it stopped. The ioil exploration stopped. The tax concessions stopped. And the landing fees came. And the tax dodgers sold their aeroplanes, which had not been maintained very well, when the engine overhaul became due. And the pilot's feeebies stopped.
But the flying schools still trained lots of pilots. And they rented aeroplanes to use for further ICUS sales, while doing charter in the outback.(and RPT it appears)
So, many pilots became desparate. They were unemployed and broke, but still believed that lucrative jet job was just around the corner. Some worked for little or nothing. One or two offered to buy jobs. The GA career pilots were quitting because they were being undercut by newbies from the coast.(most GA is in the outback)
So GA is left with a continual stream of new pilots, and the stable group of career GA pilots is almost gone. The experience level is not there any more. There is hardly anyone to lead the way. The airlines have recruited quite a few recently from GA, but seem to be relying on imports to get the experience they need. The age old system of relying on a huge pool of desparate GA pilots to meet their needs has failed them. GA pilots do not have Boeing endorsements.
A newly licenced CPL holder is usually a little bit out of his depth on his first job, even in a C206. The workload is often too high for them, and they need support. I'v seen aircraft taxying with baggage doors open, flipper doors open etc. It's not uncommon. It was generally accepted that the apprenticeship lasts 5000 hours.
They are nearly all apprentices now.
Last edited by bushy; 20th Jul 2008 at 07:43.
Then our clever government introduced an allowance which allowed any company that bought new equipment to get huge tax concessions which nearly paid for the aeroplane
... what was the last bright idea ? ...airport privatisation
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: turn L @ Taupo, just past the Niagra Falls...
Posts: 596
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not going to argue with you Brian -and I'm certainly not going to address any personalities involved, but from my reading of the reports (admittedly some time ago) the overwhelming impression I have was of:
I'm of the opinion that Whyalla should be required reading for every aspiring twin pilot, accompanied with a thorough analysis and discussion. Another fatality that meets that requirement would be one that I was closely involved in -Foveaux Strait 1998. There are many others that would be excellent for initial and recurrent training scenarios for twin pilots, both VFR and IFR, covering almost every imaginable circumstance that if mishandled may lead to a fatality.
Nobody gains or learns anything if people that know get all prickly at the mere mention of an incident, personality or express an opinion contrary to the accepted wisdom. If you have been around this industry for long -as I suspect you may have been- then you will be aware of circumstances where the facts of an incident have been made to 'fit' the political agenda of whatever agency or individual stands to lose the most political currency. Again Foveaux Strait 1998 is a classic example of the fudging committed by Police, TAIC, CAA and whoever else perceived a benefit in jumping on their bandwagon.
There is learning in here for us all.
- an airframe in desperate need of adequate maintenance, particularly the engines,
- a poor decision to press on single-engine when viable alternates were nearby and available, and
- the supposition that the live engine may have continued producing power were a lower power setting selected.
I'm of the opinion that Whyalla should be required reading for every aspiring twin pilot, accompanied with a thorough analysis and discussion. Another fatality that meets that requirement would be one that I was closely involved in -Foveaux Strait 1998. There are many others that would be excellent for initial and recurrent training scenarios for twin pilots, both VFR and IFR, covering almost every imaginable circumstance that if mishandled may lead to a fatality.
Nobody gains or learns anything if people that know get all prickly at the mere mention of an incident, personality or express an opinion contrary to the accepted wisdom. If you have been around this industry for long -as I suspect you may have been- then you will be aware of circumstances where the facts of an incident have been made to 'fit' the political agenda of whatever agency or individual stands to lose the most political currency. Again Foveaux Strait 1998 is a classic example of the fudging committed by Police, TAIC, CAA and whoever else perceived a benefit in jumping on their bandwagon.
There is learning in here for us all.
PP as an operator, certainly does not gain any respect from me. As an above poster said, if he's going to continually pay pilots less than award (about half), then he deserves no sympathy. He deserves what he gets.
morno
morno
Silly Old Git
Bushy it was my experience during the 120% tax write off days for small town guys like newsagents and insurance agents just buy an new aeroplane and use a private pilot mate to operate them
Many a times I was asked for a charter quote only to have the reply "**** the newsagent does better than that!".
The DCA in those days were informed ad nauseum and of course were never seen
Whats new 30 odd years on?
Many a times I was asked for a charter quote only to have the reply "**** the newsagent does better than that!".
The DCA in those days were informed ad nauseum and of course were never seen
Whats new 30 odd years on?
Cause 100's of shiny new aircraft were brought into the country as a result of that scheme.
I got to fly many of them, ie I have flown more than 20 aircraft that had less than 100 hrs on the clock (a chunk of that being ferry time) - 4 x 210s, 1 x 206, 2 x 185s, 3 x 182s, 1 x BE36, 2 x M20s plus a gaggle of PA28s, C172s, 152s and 150s - but have not flown a brand spanking new aircraft since 1986.
That was the whole idea of the program - to encourage the modernisation of machinery and equipment across all industries.
Dr
I got to fly many of them, ie I have flown more than 20 aircraft that had less than 100 hrs on the clock (a chunk of that being ferry time) - 4 x 210s, 1 x 206, 2 x 185s, 3 x 182s, 1 x BE36, 2 x M20s plus a gaggle of PA28s, C172s, 152s and 150s - but have not flown a brand spanking new aircraft since 1986.
That was the whole idea of the program - to encourage the modernisation of machinery and equipment across all industries.
Dr
ForkTailedDrKiller, I think Bushy is pionting out that it had to be paid for sometime - sort of like maxing out the credit card .... painfull days ahead.
Short term profits line the pockets of some, and win elections, though future generations pay the costs
Short term profits line the pockets of some, and win elections, though future generations pay the costs