Chieftain crash at Tullamarine circa 1978. Discussion points.
Silly Old Git
Gosh is it 32 years ? 
Peter was the quintessential bloody top bloke everyone's cobber.
He once said to me he got out of cropdusting because it was "too bloody dangerous"
RIP mate.
Peter was the quintessential bloody top bloke everyone's cobber.
He once said to me he got out of cropdusting because it was "too bloody dangerous"
RIP mate.
Peter was aware of the Aztec accident in PNG where the guy had a turbocharger related fire and lost a wing turning final for an emergency landing. I think the time from the initial fire to the wing failing was only a few minutes and another pilot lost, doing the right thing, but not quite making it. He always said to me that fire was his greatest concern and I agree with him. A lot of light twins have magnesium alloy in the undercarriage, and guess where that sits. I have always been bitter about that accident report with the old 'pilot error' tag. He was also criticized for turning right rather than continuing straight ahead. The aeoplane at the weights we operated at was never going to climb away and I think a turn towards the lights of the city and the closest runway with an ILS was the only choice he had. It was a dark cloudy night with some low stratus cloud. I am convinced he realised he wasn't going to make it and was going for a wheels-up force landing in the clear area near the old folks home (I think it is). With no landing lights he clipped a tree and the rest is history.
I am off on a 7 day trip and away from 'the boards' so "Merry Christmas" to all.
I am off on a 7 day trip and away from 'the boards' so "Merry Christmas" to all.
Magnesium not only in the undercarriage but like a 400 series Cessna the actual wing spar itself!
It's all well and good to have fire detection systems on a lighty, but with no way of putting it out apart from increasing the airspeed I think i'd rather be oblivious to my impending doom.........
It's all well and good to have fire detection systems on a lighty, but with no way of putting it out apart from increasing the airspeed I think i'd rather be oblivious to my impending doom.........
Ty 'BG' I do recall that accident but never really knew the facts. Like the Mu2 that speared in on App to ML rwy 27 one night such a waste
I remember many years ago now not being able to retract the gear after T/off on an old PA31 out of Roxby Downs with what felt like 15 on board! 35 + deg day I could hardly hold Alt at max pwr heaven help me if I had lost a magneto never lone an engine!
Those that are still flying these old buckets me takes me hat off too yas!
Wmk2
I remember many years ago now not being able to retract the gear after T/off on an old PA31 out of Roxby Downs with what felt like 15 on board! 35 + deg day I could hardly hold Alt at max pwr heaven help me if I had lost a magneto never lone an engine!
Those that are still flying these old buckets me takes me hat off too yas!
Wmk2
Chieftains have VG kits fitted
I can see why the guys in the warmer climates don't like the performance of the PA31s. (Although I've still not seen less than about 44" MP out of the engines?)
Last night out of EN with 30 degrees outside, we were 200kg under MAUW and I was starting to wonder if the thing was ever going to climb.
One one engine it would have been a rapid descent!
Last night out of EN with 30 degrees outside, we were 200kg under MAUW and I was starting to wonder if the thing was ever going to climb.
One one engine it would have been a rapid descent!
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Remembering my first flight with a new employer in a PA31......full load, supervising pilot in RHS, 35-odd celcius........just after gear up, RH eng dropped to about 30"MAP......managed a low-level circuit at Vyse making all of 50 fpm
FCU shagged. Operator knew about it too........
FCU shagged. Operator knew about it too........
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The PA31 - 310 was a far better performer than the - 350 Chieftain. Lost a FCU one night with 8 pob and was able to climb out and return without too many dramas. Temp = 15 or less. Would have been a different story in the tropics!
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A young pilot once said to me, "the best planes ever built were the DC3 and the Tiger Moth. They made thousands of em".
I replied, "Why are there so few left then"?
The Pa31-350 is a great machine, just the same.
I replied, "Why are there so few left then"?
The Pa31-350 is a great machine, just the same.
Very soon CC will enter the debate and tell you guys that these old twins will fly just fine, climb away no worries and perform quite well on one.
Done it all before in NG.
He will say that if you have proper maintenance / good training and checking you will be able to get back on the ground safely in one piece!
If you reckon the aircraft is not maintained properly just make a MR entry and tell the boss its a "no fly" till fixed.
And of course the regulator will agree.
In the world of GA that I know very few old twins fly fine on one!!
Yea, I know, I should stand my ground and tell the boss to go jump.
We have flogged this subject before.
Done it all before in NG.
He will say that if you have proper maintenance / good training and checking you will be able to get back on the ground safely in one piece!
If you reckon the aircraft is not maintained properly just make a MR entry and tell the boss its a "no fly" till fixed.
And of course the regulator will agree.
In the world of GA that I know very few old twins fly fine on one!!
Yea, I know, I should stand my ground and tell the boss to go jump.
We have flogged this subject before.
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: BackofBourke
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
megle2
Most twin piston training is done with pilot and instructor, and half tanks, and empty which still shows marginal performance at ISA. Go to the tropics, add some bodies, some more fuel, an old aircraft, and the P charts are tested.
CC is welcome to discuss this at his leisure.
Most twin piston training is done with pilot and instructor, and half tanks, and empty which still shows marginal performance at ISA. Go to the tropics, add some bodies, some more fuel, an old aircraft, and the P charts are tested.
CC is welcome to discuss this at his leisure.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: In a place where I dont have to fly for food.
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey Guys,
Some interesting points and thanks for bringing up the incident. Will look into it and learn from it. I operate a PA31 in europe doing aerial survey work, luckily it does not get too hot here and most of the time we fly it quite low. The chief pilot took one to North Africa recently and she struggled abit out there. Came back full of sand!
Some interesting points and thanks for bringing up the incident. Will look into it and learn from it. I operate a PA31 in europe doing aerial survey work, luckily it does not get too hot here and most of the time we fly it quite low. The chief pilot took one to North Africa recently and she struggled abit out there. Came back full of sand!
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: asia
Posts: 235
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now this was a long time ago, and my memory probably isn't what it once was, but my recollection of this accident is that it wasn't an uncontrollable engine fire.
The dipstick hadn't been replaced correctly during the preflight and the pressure within the crankcase pumped oil out of the dipstick hole, catching fire on the hot manifold. The pilot thought he had an engine fire, and shut down the engine, but then couldn't maintain height/climb on one, and hit Radar Hill.
He took off on R27 and was returning to land on R16??
This may have been said in previous posts; I didn't read them all, and I may be wrong, but I feel almost certain this is the sequence of events.
Later today:
I've just read most of the posts, and I believe Centaurus has it correct; I was a little out, but essentially the oil came out of the dipstick housing, and presented the illusion of an engine fire.
I never flew Piper twins, but did the Cessna range of twins, and had one fail in a 404 at 500' after TO in the tropics, at AUW + about 20 Kgs. I know the book says 'climb straight ahead', but if I'd done that I'd have ended in the trees, so used what open space I had to complete a tear drop to return for landing. Over the threshold I had sufficient height to lower the gear + about 2 feet, and that was a near new aircraft.
The dipstick hadn't been replaced correctly during the preflight and the pressure within the crankcase pumped oil out of the dipstick hole, catching fire on the hot manifold. The pilot thought he had an engine fire, and shut down the engine, but then couldn't maintain height/climb on one, and hit Radar Hill.
He took off on R27 and was returning to land on R16??
This may have been said in previous posts; I didn't read them all, and I may be wrong, but I feel almost certain this is the sequence of events.
Later today:
I've just read most of the posts, and I believe Centaurus has it correct; I was a little out, but essentially the oil came out of the dipstick housing, and presented the illusion of an engine fire.
I never flew Piper twins, but did the Cessna range of twins, and had one fail in a 404 at 500' after TO in the tropics, at AUW + about 20 Kgs. I know the book says 'climb straight ahead', but if I'd done that I'd have ended in the trees, so used what open space I had to complete a tear drop to return for landing. Over the threshold I had sufficient height to lower the gear + about 2 feet, and that was a near new aircraft.
Last edited by relax737; 25th Dec 2009 at 08:16. Reason: editorial
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: deepest darkest recess of your mind
Posts: 1,017
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Might I respectfully suggest that those of you who expected to see 46" or 42" or any other particular figure for MAP on a Chieftain or Navaho go back to the books and try to understand how the turbocharger system actually works in them.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Nearest Bombardier AMO
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"One of the significant factors mentioned in the accident report was that the aircraft had flown 3000 hours since new, and the wear and tear on the airframe alone would have degraded the rate of climb by about 100 feet per minute."
I'm intrigued by this sentence from the report. Of course an aircraft that has been taken apart, maybe as a result of major surgery after serious damage for example, and has been reassembled with the rigging out by a hair's breadth will suffer performance penalties. As will a machine which is dirty and generally uncared-for (hence the 'bug-wipers' on many high-performance competition gliders), or one which has had a forest of additional antennae and other equipment foisted on it, etc. But a reasonably well-cared for, clean, undamaged airframe? Would've thought that the loss of climb performance would come primarily as a result of pilot technique, lack of power and the whole host of ambient conditions? 3000 hours is practically new, after all. The degradation of climb performance attributed solely to the airframe hours is astounding. By that mantra a few of the hairy old thumpers that I've flown would have had a negative rate-of-climb on losing one, simply because they had accumulated 8000+ hours, irrespective of engine condition, technique, etc. Does anybody have more on this?
I'm intrigued by this sentence from the report. Of course an aircraft that has been taken apart, maybe as a result of major surgery after serious damage for example, and has been reassembled with the rigging out by a hair's breadth will suffer performance penalties. As will a machine which is dirty and generally uncared-for (hence the 'bug-wipers' on many high-performance competition gliders), or one which has had a forest of additional antennae and other equipment foisted on it, etc. But a reasonably well-cared for, clean, undamaged airframe? Would've thought that the loss of climb performance would come primarily as a result of pilot technique, lack of power and the whole host of ambient conditions? 3000 hours is practically new, after all. The degradation of climb performance attributed solely to the airframe hours is astounding. By that mantra a few of the hairy old thumpers that I've flown would have had a negative rate-of-climb on losing one, simply because they had accumulated 8000+ hours, irrespective of engine condition, technique, etc. Does anybody have more on this?
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lose an engine in a Cheiftain (or any other light piston twin) at MTOW AT the critical moment and you'd want to have a guardian angel sitting on your shoulder, because you would want to be VERY current with your assymetric procedures AND the aircraft would need to be in very good condition both engine and airframe wise to show a pos rate of climb under any conditions. Blue line and BOOK figures are just that.....figures produced by a test pilot in a new aircraft for certification purposes. Close it down and put it in "controlled", sure as hell, if it goes in uncontrolled you'll end up a grim statistic.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,414
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you reckon the aircraft is not maintained properly just make a MR entry and tell the boss its a "no fly" till fixed.
And of course the regulator will agree.
And of course the regulator will agree.