Aircraft down in Canley Vale
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: middleofthehighway
Posts: 426
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
All I say is you need to think about your options and not allways the textbook ones as they may not be the best option if a few small things go sour.
Dog
You can see why he went to BK, familiarity, didn't need the charts out, company base for aeroplane recovery etc etc.
If he went to Richmond no doubt the powers that be would have been a tad upset at why he couldn't fly a twin engine aeroplane to Bankstown no matter what spin you put on performance etc etc.
I just hope the investigation goes his way. It's been on my mind constantly for two days now.
I agree, careful though the nazis would rather you crash reading a checklist than use some common sense!
If he went to Richmond no doubt the powers that be would have been a tad upset at why he couldn't fly a twin engine aeroplane to Bankstown no matter what spin you put on performance etc etc.
I just hope the investigation goes his way. It's been on my mind constantly for two days now.
Quote:
All I say is you need to think about your options and not allways the textbook ones as they may not be the best option if a few small things go sour.
Wise words... .. and it comes down to training and experience..
Dog
All I say is you need to think about your options and not allways the textbook ones as they may not be the best option if a few small things go sour.
Wise words... .. and it comes down to training and experience..
Dog
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
This is a side issue....why does a twin not make 20+ miles from 7000' with some power left?
What was the VIS like at the time? I get the feeling from the ATC tapes that there was at the very least haze, and more than likely fog/mist.
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Oz
Age: 63
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thank you, and welcome to the forum....By the way, I happened to see on the news coverage this evening one of the props was featherd, evidently from eyewitness reports the other one was not running to well either.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MPGiles,
If I have correctly read the quotes from some of the witnesses to the last moments of the flight, it sounds as though there were problems with both engines.
Since I heard of this crash the one thing that has nagged me is why a PA31P with only 2 on board and probably full tanks and stretcher kit could not maintain altitude if there was only a single engine problem or failure.
However a double engine problem could well account for the outcome.
PA 31 goes OK on 1
Since I heard of this crash the one thing that has nagged me is why a PA31P with only 2 on board and probably full tanks and stretcher kit could not maintain altitude if there was only a single engine problem or failure.
However a double engine problem could well account for the outcome.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
OK...bit more info.
Fog not an issue, and yes he may have opted for familiar and avoiding the scorne of landing at SRI, but at least you can walk away saying get F
under your breath.
I also feel that he may have tried to be "gentlemanly" and stay out of CTA for the last bit as the folk in Sydney seem to scare off folk so much it becomes hard not to descend early rather than arrive over the field at say 4000'. Then when he wanted more from what he had left...12 miles 1500'...he did not have it.
As for wrong engine.........good point but ohhh dear!
Fog not an issue, and yes he may have opted for familiar and avoiding the scorne of landing at SRI, but at least you can walk away saying get F
under your breath.I also feel that he may have tried to be "gentlemanly" and stay out of CTA for the last bit as the folk in Sydney seem to scare off folk so much it becomes hard not to descend early rather than arrive over the field at say 4000'. Then when he wanted more from what he had left...12 miles 1500'...he did not have it.
As for wrong engine.........good point but ohhh dear!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
news reports tonight are bandying around fuel contamination... so might have had one shut down, and the other losing power not long after...
disclaimer, it came from a journalist...
disclaimer, it came from a journalist...
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Remote
Posts: 298
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah, there definitely seems to be a belief (amongst journos) that there may have been Jet A1 involved. If this is the case, to think that such a preventable mistake could have caused the loss of 2 lives is almost unbearable.
AW, even in the short time I knew you, you were a true gentleman and professional.
AW, even in the short time I knew you, you were a true gentleman and professional.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well I have waited and read all of the previous posts. Here are some facts guys. I have personally experienced a total and complete engine failure in a Chieftain. It happened shortly after departure at approximately 1500 ft AGL in clear cool weather at this time of the year. I was at MTOW with 9 POB. Once I got over the shock and feathered it the aircraft flew fine at 135 KTS. I was even able to reduce power so as not to cook the remaining engine. I can confirm that it easily maintained height as in my hurry to sort things out I forgot to turn back towards the runway until approx 6 miles out. I was very lucky and I know it. Bottom line a Chieftain will fly on one. Having said that I have not flown the type concerned but as previously discussed at 7000 ft over YSRI something must have badly went wrong for it not to be able to return to YSBK.
My point is that there must have been some other contributing factor as Jabawocky pointed out. I firmly believe that this will come out in the investigation. It may have been fuel contamination, both engines. It may have been the pilot's decision to remain OCTA hence giving away valuable altitude staying under SY CTA. I suspect that was a contributing factor and if so my heart goes out to him. He was obviously a well liked professional operator and even though I did not know him I feel a deep sense of loss. I hope for his sake that we can all learn something from this once the facts come out. Fly safe guys.
Groggy
My point is that there must have been some other contributing factor as Jabawocky pointed out. I firmly believe that this will come out in the investigation. It may have been fuel contamination, both engines. It may have been the pilot's decision to remain OCTA hence giving away valuable altitude staying under SY CTA. I suspect that was a contributing factor and if so my heart goes out to him. He was obviously a well liked professional operator and even though I did not know him I feel a deep sense of loss. I hope for his sake that we can all learn something from this once the facts come out. Fly safe guys.
Groggy
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 81
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Grogmonster, what elevation was your departure field?
I've had a similar experience with slightly different results.
MTOW departure, 9 POB in a PA-31 but from a field over 3000' AMSL, with a very cold OAT luckily. The engine let go at about 100 AGL and was secured and feathered by 700' AGL. From that point on the performance was not positive at all, but thankfully the RoD was only about 200 feet per min. There was no way that the aircraft was going to climb and a constant descent via the circuit back to the runway was only just possible with the gear coming out over the fence just before touch down.
Below is an incident involving a PA-31P that diverted from Young to BK after an engine failure and shutdown (at FL170) and there was plenty of performance available...
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...502231_001.pdf
I've had a similar experience with slightly different results.
MTOW departure, 9 POB in a PA-31 but from a field over 3000' AMSL, with a very cold OAT luckily. The engine let go at about 100 AGL and was secured and feathered by 700' AGL. From that point on the performance was not positive at all, but thankfully the RoD was only about 200 feet per min. There was no way that the aircraft was going to climb and a constant descent via the circuit back to the runway was only just possible with the gear coming out over the fence just before touch down.
Below is an incident involving a PA-31P that diverted from Young to BK after an engine failure and shutdown (at FL170) and there was plenty of performance available...
http://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/...502231_001.pdf
Why oh why would you try and stay under control steps when you are having engine problems?????????
That's not making a lot of sense to me, FJ. You made 500' whilst cleaning up after an EFATO, but thereafter there was no more climb rate in it? Was it falling terrain that gave you height? How did you manage to return to the field at 200' RoD?
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listening to that very sobering audio I must say that I do not know how the Controller managed to stay on the job in the minutes after the crash; professionalism I suppose.
Well done to him.
FRQ CB
Well done to him.
FRQ CB
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Its a bit different but plenty of cars/4wds have had a petrol and diesel blend in both engine types....and they run for a while, and some better than others.
Time will tell no doubt. I know of cases happening at the hunter valley and I think the whitsundays recently. So its not uncommon for the aircraft to get airborne, and if multiple tanks are used, you could get further from home.
Time will tell no doubt. I know of cases happening at the hunter valley and I think the whitsundays recently. So its not uncommon for the aircraft to get airborne, and if multiple tanks are used, you could get further from home.
If he went to Richmond no doubt the powers that be would have been a tad upset at why he couldn't fly a twin engine aeroplane to Bankstown no matter what spin you put on performance etc etc.
Last edited by ftrplt; 16th Jun 2010 at 13:12.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: ˙ǝqɐq ǝɯ ʇ,uıɐ ʇɐɥʇ 'sɔıʇɐqoɹǝɐ ɹoɟ uʍop ǝpısdn ǝɯɐu ɹıǝɥʇ ʇnd ǝɯos
Age: 45
Posts: 715
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I did my initial Instrument Rating I remember one of the other students going from Perth (school PH based) to Rottnest Island and shutting one of the Duchess' engines down as part of the training.
They were unable to get the engine restarted and elected to return to PH assymetric. An uneventful single engine landing was completed.
Did the PIC make the right decision? If by returning to PH and saving the company a costly retrieval we might think of the "commercial considerations" and say yes; if they'd crashed we'd all say no.
Is this the dilema which faced Andrew?
FRQ CB
They were unable to get the engine restarted and elected to return to PH assymetric. An uneventful single engine landing was completed.
Did the PIC make the right decision? If by returning to PH and saving the company a costly retrieval we might think of the "commercial considerations" and say yes; if they'd crashed we'd all say no.
Is this the dilema which faced Andrew?
FRQ CB
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 243
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great.... go out for a day....come home, switch on the computer and another Norfolk Island thread fiasco is starting.
Guys, have a little respect.
People who worked closely with Andrew and Kath will be reading. Keep the conjecture to a minimum eh?
There's a good chance the press will be following as well.
Mods....you lot keeping track?
Guys, have a little respect.
People who worked closely with Andrew and Kath will be reading. Keep the conjecture to a minimum eh?
There's a good chance the press will be following as well.
Mods....you lot keeping track?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree with others, there is more to this than meets the eye, it just doesn't add up to me.
if there was Jet A1 in the tanks, it would have been in the bottom so hard to see how he got to 7000'.
Everyone is saying how professional the guy was. That being the case, I am wondering why he didn't shout "Mayday", state the nature of the emergency, and so on. I am also left wondering why he went for the road and not that big bit of grass, but hey, hindsight is easy and not really fair on the poor guy... but those questions must be asked.
Many are repeating the standard mantra, "wait for the report". Sure, we shouldn't jump to conclusions... but what do you seriously expect it to say? It might establish the cause of the failure(s), but it won't explain what the pilot was thinking, which is what really matters in this case. Having just got back into GA after many years in the airlines, I am struck by the lack of discipline, professionalism and experience in the GA world. Not to say that GA pilots are bad pilots, more that they simply don't have the depth of training that allows those qualities to fully develop. Some of the stuff I have seen in recent months in GA makes my toes curl. A lot of these guys are taught, or required, to cut corners - it's actually quite criminal.
That's why I wonder why he didn't just yell "mayday" and take vectors from 7000 feet. With that much altitude to play with, it shouldn't have been an issue to have made a safe landing - although it does seem that he was very unlucky not to successfully make the road.
Anyway... RIP.
if there was Jet A1 in the tanks, it would have been in the bottom so hard to see how he got to 7000'.
Everyone is saying how professional the guy was. That being the case, I am wondering why he didn't shout "Mayday", state the nature of the emergency, and so on. I am also left wondering why he went for the road and not that big bit of grass, but hey, hindsight is easy and not really fair on the poor guy... but those questions must be asked.
Many are repeating the standard mantra, "wait for the report". Sure, we shouldn't jump to conclusions... but what do you seriously expect it to say? It might establish the cause of the failure(s), but it won't explain what the pilot was thinking, which is what really matters in this case. Having just got back into GA after many years in the airlines, I am struck by the lack of discipline, professionalism and experience in the GA world. Not to say that GA pilots are bad pilots, more that they simply don't have the depth of training that allows those qualities to fully develop. Some of the stuff I have seen in recent months in GA makes my toes curl. A lot of these guys are taught, or required, to cut corners - it's actually quite criminal.
That's why I wonder why he didn't just yell "mayday" and take vectors from 7000 feet. With that much altitude to play with, it shouldn't have been an issue to have made a safe landing - although it does seem that he was very unlucky not to successfully make the road.
Anyway... RIP.
So a bit of the speculation so far
Fuel contamination or wrong fuel?
Pushing on due to commercial pressures?
Secondary problems happening after the initial issue and by then he was too low to recover?
Trying to Stay clear of CTA?
A mixture of all these things?
Who knows yet.
Lets face it.From all reports this guy was a fine young pilot, and you only need to listen to the tape to hear how calm he was under a stressful situation(although i never heard a mayday call on the ATC recording?)..I doubt very much that this guy would have descended below a safe height had he known the problem was that bad earlier although as already mentioned it may not have been until he tried to mantain height after the descent that he found himself in the sh1t and it is possible that a secondary issue sprung up upon trying to apply more power or with some other change of setting..
I take news reports with a grain of salt, but the Australian today had done more research than any of the others in regards to the nature of the flight etc, and in that report it was stated that he had been cleared to RI if he wanted it and that they could accept him in no probs, but at that stage he obviously didn't think that he needed it and chose the well trodden well known field..Time will tell if that's all waffle or not and if it isn't then what a crucial decision it was to push on.A decision Im sure all of us have faced at some point or another..
Its amazing how many of these situations people walk away from and then one just goes really really bad.Very sad indeed...
I agree, but what your not taking into account is that the specialist training you receive in an airline is a very expensive process, and from what Ive heard it isn't that easy to start out as an airline captain and end up as a grade 3 instructor.There is a process of starting out and learning as you go on the job, and maybe there needs to be more government support to make sure all pilots going for a CPL gets the opportunity to have some of that specialist training at the governments expense, but I still think that time is the key in regards to experience.You just cant stuff 10 years of flying experiences into 2.
How would you see that training being instilled?
Fuel contamination or wrong fuel?
Pushing on due to commercial pressures?
Secondary problems happening after the initial issue and by then he was too low to recover?
Trying to Stay clear of CTA?
A mixture of all these things?
Who knows yet.
Lets face it.From all reports this guy was a fine young pilot, and you only need to listen to the tape to hear how calm he was under a stressful situation(although i never heard a mayday call on the ATC recording?)..I doubt very much that this guy would have descended below a safe height had he known the problem was that bad earlier although as already mentioned it may not have been until he tried to mantain height after the descent that he found himself in the sh1t and it is possible that a secondary issue sprung up upon trying to apply more power or with some other change of setting..
I take news reports with a grain of salt, but the Australian today had done more research than any of the others in regards to the nature of the flight etc, and in that report it was stated that he had been cleared to RI if he wanted it and that they could accept him in no probs, but at that stage he obviously didn't think that he needed it and chose the well trodden well known field..Time will tell if that's all waffle or not and if it isn't then what a crucial decision it was to push on.A decision Im sure all of us have faced at some point or another..
Its amazing how many of these situations people walk away from and then one just goes really really bad.Very sad indeed...
Not to say that GA pilots are bad pilots, more that they simply don't have the depth of training that allows those qualities to fully develop.
How would you see that training being instilled?
Last edited by Homesick-Angel; 16th Jun 2010 at 14:09.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Many years ago at Essendon, a Victorian Aerial Ambulance Cessna 402 lost an engine shortly after lift off. It had difficulty maintaining height and about a minute after take off it reached Vmca and flicked and spun in killing all aboard. The failed engine propeller was not feathered before impact which is probably why the climb performance was limited. The policy of the company (the chief pilot was in the accident aircraft) was all instrument rating tests and recurrent training involving simulated engine failures were conducted in the company Cessna 310. The chief pilot did not want to use the Cessna 402 because in his opinion the 402 engines needed lots of careful engine handling whereas those of the Cessna 310 were more robust. It was a cost thing.
It would instructive to know if company recurrency training in the Mojave involved asymmetric flight or if another type was used for this purpose.
It would instructive to know if company recurrency training in the Mojave involved asymmetric flight or if another type was used for this purpose.