Light Aircraft Crash in Whitsundays
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"throwing a piston" is more of a figure of speech than actual physical occurence. For an aircraft engine to throw a piston the cylinder would have to effectively be ripped off the engine to expose the piston and or conrod. It certainly is possible to break off a cylinder at the studs (very common in certain engine types) and this would explain how the aircraft was able to continue with the circuit.
If this aircraft is under water as has been suggested I am impressed with the quick recovery, engine failure analysis and dissemination of information to pprune.
If this aircraft is under water as has been suggested I am impressed with the quick recovery, engine failure analysis and dissemination of information to pprune.
If this aircraft is under water as has been suggested I am impressed with the quick recovery, engine failure analysis and dissemination of information to pprune.
Throwing a piston
It does not nesseraly mean you actually send a piston into orbit by blowing the cylinder head off. It is impossible. It is a term commonly used when you loose a cylinder caused by a broken ring, a failed valve or a broken ring land on the piston or something similar to cause loss of compression in that particular cylinder to loose power. In my opinion it was a partial engine failure but i was not there so what do i know.
it sunk in the process of transferring it to Hamilton island
No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamiltion Island, then lost it?
According to an unreliable source.... Boats attempted to tow the aircraft back to Dent Island but failed and it sunk shortly after the crash.
A bit too much poetic license being used here to describe events!
Otherwise known as good old aussie exaggeration!
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: ChCh NZ
Posts: 402
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have been working around these engines as a LAME for over 30 years and have to admit I am someone perplexed at some of the replies. I guess probably a reflection of what we also see on other threads, a little gossip, some rumour but not always too much fact.
I was a little surprised to see a previous post about barrels failing about the hold-down studs. A new one on me, I know Norton Commandos used to crack in that area.
As for cylinder failures......of course aircraft engines pop cylinders... what do you think the engineers are doing checking around the head and attachment area during their inspections.
On some engines I can name it is probably more common than the other failures like piston, ring or valve related.
In my experience of engine failures most have been caused by incorrect handling, either directly or indirectly.
A full failure is most often fuel related, very little redundancy and plenty of potential for failure modes. I guess the same could be said of the lubrication system but that generally gives at least a little warning.
Partial failures such as valve issues, or popping the head, I feel are caused by poor handling, incorrect heating and cooling etc. Guys trying to burn plugs off to improve a mag drop etc.
A cylinder head failure is nasty, but not the end of the world. Sure there will be a decrease in power.. and some oil spray. But it is leaking from the pushrod tubes and the engine can continue running for some time. The exhaust and intake manifolds ensure the cylinder head is still held close to it's original position.
Many pilots used to declare a failure and shut the engine down, - now you do have a full failure.... and the risks to the aircraft.
I am sure many here have experienced a cylinder popping and have stories to tell. Hopefully a pleasant ending.
I was a little surprised to see a previous post about barrels failing about the hold-down studs. A new one on me, I know Norton Commandos used to crack in that area.
As for cylinder failures......of course aircraft engines pop cylinders... what do you think the engineers are doing checking around the head and attachment area during their inspections.
On some engines I can name it is probably more common than the other failures like piston, ring or valve related.
In my experience of engine failures most have been caused by incorrect handling, either directly or indirectly.
A full failure is most often fuel related, very little redundancy and plenty of potential for failure modes. I guess the same could be said of the lubrication system but that generally gives at least a little warning.
Partial failures such as valve issues, or popping the head, I feel are caused by poor handling, incorrect heating and cooling etc. Guys trying to burn plugs off to improve a mag drop etc.
A cylinder head failure is nasty, but not the end of the world. Sure there will be a decrease in power.. and some oil spray. But it is leaking from the pushrod tubes and the engine can continue running for some time. The exhaust and intake manifolds ensure the cylinder head is still held close to it's original position.
Many pilots used to declare a failure and shut the engine down, - now you do have a full failure.... and the risks to the aircraft.
I am sure many here have experienced a cylinder popping and have stories to tell. Hopefully a pleasant ending.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I know of a specific engine type that frequently pops cylinders off by the studs breaking, however if an aware / experienced pilot is at the controls, the result is usually positive as some power is still avaliable, albiet quite reduced and with a heck of a lot of vibration.
I thought it might float better than that unless it was full of go-juice.
Another win for BRS.
I thought it might float better than that unless it was full of go-juice.
Another win for BRS.
What! The recovery vessel sank?
No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamiltion Island, then lost it?
According to an unreliable source.... Boats attempted to tow the aircraft back to Dent Island but failed and it sunk shortly after the crash.
A bit too much poetic license being used here to describe events!
No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamiltion Island, then lost it?
According to an unreliable source.... Boats attempted to tow the aircraft back to Dent Island but failed and it sunk shortly after the crash.
A bit too much poetic license being used here to describe events!
No! You don't mean after they beached it on Dent, they decided to drag it across the channel to Hamilton Island, then lost it?
Was it Steve Maltby on the rudder pedals ??
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 8
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 862
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thats a funny photo of the boats towing an aircraft backwards, underwater..
A light plane from Archerfield ended up in the surf after a landing on a beach on Fraser once. 'Helpful' 4 wheel drive owners without any aviation knowledge put a rope around the fuse forward of the tail and pulled to get it out.. did lots of damage then..
Engine failures..?? At Hamilton..??
Does time run slow, or backwards too..??
Might be a 'Whitsunday Triangle", - Stay away..
A light plane from Archerfield ended up in the surf after a landing on a beach on Fraser once. 'Helpful' 4 wheel drive owners without any aviation knowledge put a rope around the fuse forward of the tail and pulled to get it out.. did lots of damage then..
Engine failures..?? At Hamilton..??
Does time run slow, or backwards too..??
Might be a 'Whitsunday Triangle", - Stay away..
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like he turned it into a marketing opportunit for Cirrus from his recovery bed.
Experienced pilots here, would you as a pilot unlatch the doors / hatches before a forced outlanding, particularly over water?
From the sound of his experience he sounds lucky, smashing a window in an upside down Cirrus in the water does sound rather distressing indeed.
Experienced pilots here, would you as a pilot unlatch the doors / hatches before a forced outlanding, particularly over water?
From the sound of his experience he sounds lucky, smashing a window in an upside down Cirrus in the water does sound rather distressing indeed.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rough running
Arnold E, Baron Beeza, VH-XXX,
Losing or throwing a cylinder or piston is not impossible, just unlikely.
Here's some photos of a C206 that did both.
Cruising at 8,000 ft, 20 nm off shore, started to run rough, then threw the cylinder plus piston out through the cowling.
Pilot set up for nearest suitable landing spot, managed to coax it to Lockhart River.
Windscreen covered in oil, made a straight in approach to rwy 30 with a tailwind.
As soon as the 206 touched down the engine seized, no more oil to keep it running.
****e happens, the situation was managed, and lady luck helped out as well.
Losing or throwing a cylinder or piston is not impossible, just unlikely.
Here's some photos of a C206 that did both.
Cruising at 8,000 ft, 20 nm off shore, started to run rough, then threw the cylinder plus piston out through the cowling.
Pilot set up for nearest suitable landing spot, managed to coax it to Lockhart River.
Windscreen covered in oil, made a straight in approach to rwy 30 with a tailwind.
As soon as the 206 touched down the engine seized, no more oil to keep it running.
****e happens, the situation was managed, and lady luck helped out as well.
VH-XXX
Yeah, I would unlatch the door, depending on time available and aircraft type. e.g. I would do it in a Cessna, but not in a TB10.
Also, even with BRS fitted a good forced landing is still preferable to a chute. The chute is more for when there's no way to make a safe forced landing. Pretty sure it says something to that effect in the manual.
I'd rather fly it in than pop the chute if I had a good field any day
Yeah, I would unlatch the door, depending on time available and aircraft type. e.g. I would do it in a Cessna, but not in a TB10.
Also, even with BRS fitted a good forced landing is still preferable to a chute. The chute is more for when there's no way to make a safe forced landing. Pretty sure it says something to that effect in the manual.
I'd rather fly it in than pop the chute if I had a good field any day
The reason these aircraft are required to have a parachute is because there is no other means of spin recovery so could not be certified without one. Anything else you read about BRS is pure marketing propaganda.
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Under the Equator
Posts: 605
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
desmotronic:
Not sure if you did any research before you posted your message.
The Europeans made Cirrus do some spins before they granted EASA Certification.
Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin)
Have a read, it might enlighten you to do some checking before you post next time.
The reason these aircraft are required to have a parachute is because there is no other means of spin recovery so could not be certified without one. Anything else you read about BRS is pure marketing propaganda.
The Europeans made Cirrus do some spins before they granted EASA Certification.
Why Cirrus (CAPS & Stall/Spin)
Have a read, it might enlighten you to do some checking before you post next time.
Last edited by Rich-Fine-Green; 27th Dec 2009 at 04:18.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RFG, correct, it is a common misconception that the Cirrus has a BRS because it "has" to. It's there because the designers wanted it; after all, this aircraft is considered the new-age Doctor Killer.
One could suggest that it (a BRS) should be considered mandatory these days if it's available on the specific aircraft types and if it doesn't eat too much into the MTOW, just for that "once in a life-time" situation when seems to frequently occur in aviation.
One could suggest that it (a BRS) should be considered mandatory these days if it's available on the specific aircraft types and if it doesn't eat too much into the MTOW, just for that "once in a life-time" situation when seems to frequently occur in aviation.
RFG,
Your link confirms that the cetification rules have been relaxed so that spin recovery is no longer required if the design is sufficiently spin resistant. This is consistent with what i said the context of development of the type and CAPS.
Your link confirms that the cetification rules have been relaxed so that spin recovery is no longer required if the design is sufficiently spin resistant. This is consistent with what i said the context of development of the type and CAPS.
Originally Posted by desmotronic
RFG,
Your link confirms that the cetification rules have been relaxed so that spin recovery is no longer required if the design is sufficiently spin resistant. This is consistent with what i said the context of development of the type and CAPS.
Your link confirms that the cetification rules have been relaxed so that spin recovery is no longer required if the design is sufficiently spin resistant. This is consistent with what i said the context of development of the type and CAPS.