Aircraft down in Canley Vale
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It was water in the fuel we assumed cause the engineer didnt find any other faults so they drained the tanks and lines and cleaned it up.A few days later a 152 in our fleet had the same problem but the RPM just didnt drop as much thats all. Im not gonna mention the company but the reason for me moving on was be cause the maintenance was shocking and 100 hrlys were done by airtime and students were still charged by VDO...DODGY I dont think I gave anything away here because that could of been any flight school in YSBK LOLLOL :P Oh yeah Owen the fuel came good after a few minutes of tank swapping and fuel pump pressure but I did have a paddok ready from the corner of my eye...
100 hrlys were done by airtime and students were still charged by VDO...DODGY I dont think I gave anything away here because that could of been any flight school in YSBK LOLLOL :P
I've never flown an aeroplane that 100s were calculated by ground time + airtime
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I learnt that a real emergency can never be prepared for and your actions depend on you and how you manage stress yourself.
This isn't a specific comment on you or your student - and it's of course hard to have a very high level of emergency training in a pre-CPL student. But these situations can certainly be prepared for.
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 11
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah not sure myself if it depends on the person or how much experience they have had on how they manage levels of stress in a inflight emergency.I think that would be a tricky one to figure out but bottom line is that the person himself/herself has alot to do how the emergency will be carried out on the day when it happens for real not just how well they know the emergency proceedure although I do agree it will help alot if they know their aircraft and the drill Zapp..
Glide range from 7,000'
It was said that from 7,000' he could almost glide back to Bankstown (Cloud Basher post #307).
I don't have the exact glide ratios for a light twin, perhaps being a tad optimistic, but a 8:1 glide from 7,000' would only give you at most 9.2 nm range (in still wind and assuming the ground is level). PGW would not have been able to glide back to Bankstown.
Many light twins have a single engine ceiling around 5,000' AMSL in ISA conditions (I don't know what the single engine ceiling on a PA31 is though), so from 7,000', even with one good engine PGW would have drifted down to the single engine ceiling.
Remaining as high as possible until within gliding range of Bankstown should be a safe option, unless something happened to the good engine. This is versus landing at the nearest suitable airfield, but the debate rages whether Richmond was suitable or not.
I eagerly await further findings, because I hope (like many others on this list) that there may be lessons learned that I can apply to my own flying. I am always saddened by aviation fatalities.
I am a level 2 gliding instructor and also fly light twins. I am new here, so please be kind!
I don't have the exact glide ratios for a light twin, perhaps being a tad optimistic, but a 8:1 glide from 7,000' would only give you at most 9.2 nm range (in still wind and assuming the ground is level). PGW would not have been able to glide back to Bankstown.
Many light twins have a single engine ceiling around 5,000' AMSL in ISA conditions (I don't know what the single engine ceiling on a PA31 is though), so from 7,000', even with one good engine PGW would have drifted down to the single engine ceiling.
Remaining as high as possible until within gliding range of Bankstown should be a safe option, unless something happened to the good engine. This is versus landing at the nearest suitable airfield, but the debate rages whether Richmond was suitable or not.
I eagerly await further findings, because I hope (like many others on this list) that there may be lessons learned that I can apply to my own flying. I am always saddened by aviation fatalities.
I am a level 2 gliding instructor and also fly light twins. I am new here, so please be kind!
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 50
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Witness to aircraft in flight 1 minute before accident
I am a pilot of 40 hours experience and let's just say I am in no way hugely knowledgeable on twins, but I did happen to see PGW in flight approximately 1 minute before its hard landing in Canley Vale. I work at a school in Fairfield West along Hamilton Rd, and I have contacted ATSB about what I had seen that morning when I got out of my car. I wanted to let you all know what I had seen too as I thought, this is either a training run on one engine or he is in some trouble, or that he was wanting to get a slap on the wrist from CASA for being below,1500 feet in a residential area!
Please note that my view was from the left side, behind, at about a 45 degree angle, and from the ground.
Gear was up.
Wings level and no flaps retracted.
Left engine sounded unfeathered slightly, and right engine was off as I could see the prop and it was not spinning.
Weather was clear.
Height at the time I saw the aircraft was about 500 ft and descending at about 100ft per minute (The sink rate seemed quite flat but he was not able to hold the height on that one engine for some reason.
It is my opinion though, and please feel free to put your two cents worth in on this, but I think that either he had a fuel supply problem or a fuel pump problem of some sort. Although the left engine did not sound like it was spluttering at that time i noticed it and maybe some of you are correct in saying the a PA-31 does not fly well on one engine.
I think the pilot made an error in judgement by trying to make it back to YSBK instead of landing as soon as possible on the one good engine. In hindsight the pilot may not have known that the plane was not going to lose height such as it did.
Let me know your thoughts....
Please note that my view was from the left side, behind, at about a 45 degree angle, and from the ground.
Gear was up.
Wings level and no flaps retracted.
Left engine sounded unfeathered slightly, and right engine was off as I could see the prop and it was not spinning.
Weather was clear.
Height at the time I saw the aircraft was about 500 ft and descending at about 100ft per minute (The sink rate seemed quite flat but he was not able to hold the height on that one engine for some reason.
It is my opinion though, and please feel free to put your two cents worth in on this, but I think that either he had a fuel supply problem or a fuel pump problem of some sort. Although the left engine did not sound like it was spluttering at that time i noticed it and maybe some of you are correct in saying the a PA-31 does not fly well on one engine.
I think the pilot made an error in judgement by trying to make it back to YSBK instead of landing as soon as possible on the one good engine. In hindsight the pilot may not have known that the plane was not going to lose height such as it did.
Let me know your thoughts....
I think the big question is and I think we will have to wait for the accident investigators conclusions, is regardless of the decisions that were made that brought this aircraft to an altitude it was, why wasnt it able to maintain 1500ft. There are a number of possibilities, lets explore the more obvious ones and it should be noted that I am not Mojave type rated.
We know an engine was shutdown inflight, because he said so.
1. The operating engine was unable or was not delivering maximum takeoff power.
2. The aircraft was producing excessive drag for best climb performance (ie. has a cowling/locker door been displaced.)
3. Was the aircrafts actual weight less than maximum one engine out IFR weight.
I think these are the key issues that need to be determined.
We know an engine was shutdown inflight, because he said so.
1. The operating engine was unable or was not delivering maximum takeoff power.
2. The aircraft was producing excessive drag for best climb performance (ie. has a cowling/locker door been displaced.)
3. Was the aircrafts actual weight less than maximum one engine out IFR weight.
I think these are the key issues that need to be determined.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its a mathematical equation.
7000' @ RIC
1500' @ 12nm BK
0' @ 3nm BK
The first 5500' to 6000' took the aircraft around 12 - 13 nm and the last 1500' approx 9 nm.
The radio call to the twr at 12 nm seems calm and at ease. Remember only a PAN was made so to this point there was seemingly no serious concern. Only when trying to maintain altitude to continue to BK did the pilot become aware of an increasing danger in his situation.
If the remaining engine did start to lose performance it was still able to carry the aircraft 9nm from 1500'. The first 5500' - 6000' would appear to have been lost voluntarily.
Even using the performance capabillity of that last 1500' the first 5500' should have taken the aircraft nearly 30nm.
This would have had the aircraft arriving overhead bk and having to loose altitude in the cct to land.
Dont give up altitude you may need later. It is the only safety margin you can bank on.
I had met this pilot on a number of occassions on a professional basis a few years back and this truely is a great tradgedy.
7000' @ RIC
1500' @ 12nm BK
0' @ 3nm BK
The first 5500' to 6000' took the aircraft around 12 - 13 nm and the last 1500' approx 9 nm.
The radio call to the twr at 12 nm seems calm and at ease. Remember only a PAN was made so to this point there was seemingly no serious concern. Only when trying to maintain altitude to continue to BK did the pilot become aware of an increasing danger in his situation.
If the remaining engine did start to lose performance it was still able to carry the aircraft 9nm from 1500'. The first 5500' - 6000' would appear to have been lost voluntarily.
Even using the performance capabillity of that last 1500' the first 5500' should have taken the aircraft nearly 30nm.
This would have had the aircraft arriving overhead bk and having to loose altitude in the cct to land.
Dont give up altitude you may need later. It is the only safety margin you can bank on.
I had met this pilot on a number of occassions on a professional basis a few years back and this truely is a great tradgedy.
Drift Down
Without having a PA31 P-chart in front of me, I suspect that the initial loss of altitude would have been involuntary, because even in a brand new a/c with expert pilotage, and the live engine going max-continuous power at blue line, there would have been descent from 7,000' down to the single engine ceiling.
Once there could the a/c maintain level flight?
If yes, next question, would you be happy to cross suburbia on one engine assuming that your remaining good engine is OK?
Mind you, thousands of single engine a/c fly over suburbia around the country without much fuss. Mind you, with the encroachment of suburbia around GA aerodromes, there aren't many places to put down if it does go pear shaped.
Once there could the a/c maintain level flight?
If yes, next question, would you be happy to cross suburbia on one engine assuming that your remaining good engine is OK?
Mind you, thousands of single engine a/c fly over suburbia around the country without much fuss. Mind you, with the encroachment of suburbia around GA aerodromes, there aren't many places to put down if it does go pear shaped.
Malt
The Mojave uses turbo charged engines, so your SE service ceiling assumption is invalid. It also depends on load. Based on a similar turbocharged aircraft, its SE service ceiling might be above 14,000ft.
The Mojave uses turbo charged engines, so your SE service ceiling assumption is invalid. It also depends on load. Based on a similar turbocharged aircraft, its SE service ceiling might be above 14,000ft.
Without having a PA31 P-chart in front of me, I suspect that the initial loss of altitude would have been involuntary, because even in a brand new a/c with expert pilotage, and the live engine going max-continuous power at blue line, there would have been descent from 7,000' down to the single engine ceiling.
I believe something else has occured to lead to this outcome which is not clear from present evidence. Power loss on the live, fire, airframe damage, gear/flap extended, control difficulty etc, etc.... maybe the secondary issue did not manifest itself until too late or maybe the situation was underestimated, only one person knows the full situation and they are not here to tell us.
For an example of an unexpected situation which led to a two crew turbo-prop loosing similar height in very quick time read the accident report for ASA flight 529 (emb-120). The Brasilia did not make it to an airport 10 miles away from 9000 ft above it with one engine capable of full power. Had there not been survivors who witnessed the damage to the prop and wing the investigators may have struggled to find the cause, even the crew were too occupied with control to realise the severity of the damage until much height had been lost.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ForkTailedDrKiller,
Why would you give up altitude before a safe landing was possible?
If he quite rightly thought he had it sorted with everything done, pax briefed, checklists complete, Aircraft performing well etc.I know if everything was absolutely peachy, the misbehaving donk was secured , I might do the same.
I might revert to my standard overflying-jet-avoidance profile into Bankstown.
If he had a valid reason to believe he had a pan pan and nothing more, then he may have made the correct decision at that time.
My point is, there could be more to this than appears.
As Remoak has asked, why did he overfly Richmond? Good question, but unfortunately, we don't really know.
We may never know.
Why would you give up altitude before a safe landing was possible?
If he quite rightly thought he had it sorted with everything done, pax briefed, checklists complete, Aircraft performing well etc.I know if everything was absolutely peachy, the misbehaving donk was secured , I might do the same.
I might revert to my standard overflying-jet-avoidance profile into Bankstown.
If he had a valid reason to believe he had a pan pan and nothing more, then he may have made the correct decision at that time.
My point is, there could be more to this than appears.
As Remoak has asked, why did he overfly Richmond? Good question, but unfortunately, we don't really know.
We may never know.
why it couldn't seemingly maintain height on one engine and why he descended (by choice or otherwise) to 1500ft at 12nm.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
QUOTE :The descent to 1500' could only have been by choice, otherwise the pilot would have been looking for alternatives a lot earlier.
Precisely. He had no idea of the magnitude of his problem till it was too late, hence the PAN.
On this occassion the No.2 engine only did what the old addage said it would do.
Precisely. He had no idea of the magnitude of his problem till it was too late, hence the PAN.
On this occassion the No.2 engine only did what the old addage said it would do.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Nit Picker,
I started reading this thread and was quite shocked that before this poor individual has even had his funeral a number of posters were tearing to bits this tragic accident and the 'I would have done this' or I would have done that' was starting to come out. 'Surely he should have done this, gone there, been able to make it to here, etc etc' A bunch of you can't even agree on what the weather was it the airfield below him at the time of the emergency and yet still the - shoulda gone in there comes out. In my warped way I guess I was making a point - that was to put a ridiculous statement out there to entice someone to make a comment. Most choose to ignore it - you didn't and without knowing me, my background in aviation - you ASSUMED I was some pimply faced young wanabee pilot who played flight sim as you intimated in your posts to me. You based this on pure speculation given the information that I put in front of you. The fact is, I agree with everything you said regarding experience, I believe I am a fairly experience person within aviation, I have been involved in investigations, I have known personally over 40 people, spanning 34 years of flying, who have tragically been killed, and the smell of death in a wreckage is something you never forget. So you see, I made my point - you thought I was someone I was not so things are not always, just sometimes, not always what they seem to be, so those that think that this should have been avoidable or he should have landed here there whereever or could have glided to timbuktoo weren't there, don't know all the mitigating circumstances, don't know what was running through this poor guys mind, don't know what the actual wx conditions were and so on. WAIT and then when the report comes out tear it to bits if that makes you all feel good.
Sorry if I upset some on the way.
I started reading this thread and was quite shocked that before this poor individual has even had his funeral a number of posters were tearing to bits this tragic accident and the 'I would have done this' or I would have done that' was starting to come out. 'Surely he should have done this, gone there, been able to make it to here, etc etc' A bunch of you can't even agree on what the weather was it the airfield below him at the time of the emergency and yet still the - shoulda gone in there comes out. In my warped way I guess I was making a point - that was to put a ridiculous statement out there to entice someone to make a comment. Most choose to ignore it - you didn't and without knowing me, my background in aviation - you ASSUMED I was some pimply faced young wanabee pilot who played flight sim as you intimated in your posts to me. You based this on pure speculation given the information that I put in front of you. The fact is, I agree with everything you said regarding experience, I believe I am a fairly experience person within aviation, I have been involved in investigations, I have known personally over 40 people, spanning 34 years of flying, who have tragically been killed, and the smell of death in a wreckage is something you never forget. So you see, I made my point - you thought I was someone I was not so things are not always, just sometimes, not always what they seem to be, so those that think that this should have been avoidable or he should have landed here there whereever or could have glided to timbuktoo weren't there, don't know all the mitigating circumstances, don't know what was running through this poor guys mind, don't know what the actual wx conditions were and so on. WAIT and then when the report comes out tear it to bits if that makes you all feel good.
Sorry if I upset some on the way.
No problem confict, no-one is upset and we didnt assume you were a pimply faced wannabee, you presented as one and you write what no-one else is able to understand that's all. We'll try and take that into account as we discuss the issues.
well actually he did present himself as a pimply faced wanna bee quite well with his comments about experience. A comment only an inexperienced Pilot would make.
That being said, I accept your explanation but respectfully suggest that next time you engage brain before mouth.
That being said, I accept your explanation but respectfully suggest that next time you engage brain before mouth.