Aircraft down in Canley Vale
Question;
Theoretical only - no assumptions made;
I wonder, if an acft was refuelled just prior to flight, with an incorrect fuel, I would expect the fuels to mix as described, and the 'problem' to be immediately apparent..or not too long after engine start?
(Fuel in lines etc considered)
Or, if it was fuelled earlier and left - say overnight - which would allow the fuels to settle / separate, then I wonder how far the flight may progress until the problem showed?
Theoretical only - no assumptions made;
I wonder, if an acft was refuelled just prior to flight, with an incorrect fuel, I would expect the fuels to mix as described, and the 'problem' to be immediately apparent..or not too long after engine start?
(Fuel in lines etc considered)
Or, if it was fuelled earlier and left - say overnight - which would allow the fuels to settle / separate, then I wonder how far the flight may progress until the problem showed?
Interesting thoughts Griffo. I never conducted any tests to see how well the two mixed, although I did conduct some tests to see how well sugar dissolves in both aviation fuel & super petrol. It doesn't!
DF.
DF.
I think commercial pressure/losing his job would have been the FURTHEST thing from his mind at the time?
There have been NUMEROUS accidents where this has been a major factor.
Here's one;
www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAR0201.pdf
expecting the aircraft to have the performance to at least drift down to Bankstown
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Australia
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VH-XXX
Spot on. I fear the same has happened again. The poor chap that passed away with the Whyalla accident had been told off previously for putting down with one - eng dead at a nearby airport when on route bewteen Adl and Whyalla. When I say dead, a piston had gone through the cowling in that instance.
Didn't the Whyalla Chieftain continue on AND BEGIN the over-water part of the flight on one engine when the "easier" option was to simply turn back which was of shorter distance? (commercial pressure related)
Driftdown in a PA31
I have had an in-flight shutdown in a Chieftain with 5POB and full fuel, roughly overhead Richmond, at 5,000'.
I didn't have to add power to the good engine to "drift down" to Bankstown. I clearly remember not declaring a mayday for fear of having 4 media helicopters formating on me at a time when I had some other things to worry about.
Like most of the others, I reckon there's a lot more to this than just a simple engine failure
I didn't have to add power to the good engine to "drift down" to Bankstown. I clearly remember not declaring a mayday for fear of having 4 media helicopters formating on me at a time when I had some other things to worry about.
Like most of the others, I reckon there's a lot more to this than just a simple engine failure
Thankyou Miraz for your transcript.
Interesting in that the pilot was 'suggested' Richmond twice.......
Oh that it had been a better outcome.
I guess most would have made it back to BK OK, but if 'other' problems arose, then that's the 'gamble' on one engine.
Interesting in that the pilot was 'suggested' Richmond twice.......
Oh that it had been a better outcome.
I guess most would have made it back to BK OK, but if 'other' problems arose, then that's the 'gamble' on one engine.
Interesting in that the pilot was 'suggested' Richmond twice.......
Tee Emm
Airport suitability is a very subjective thing especially when it comes to a pilot’s familiarity with it. Obviously the more experienced the PIC the less of an issue this is.
Regarding the BA 744 that actually departed LAX, even though I will concede in my opinion it is just a tad further than I would like to fly on three, there is no requirement as I am sure you are aware for a four engine jet to divert to the nearest suitable airport in the event of an engine shut down. Personally I would have diverted to JFK (A major hub for BA) to then have all the pax protected on the numerous BA flights a day and the large BA engineering team there to change the engine. I recall back in the mid 90’s a CX 742 CS → BN suffering an engine failure on rotation out of CS. The aircraft continued onto BN but the captain later decided to divert to Sydney because QF had a spare engine there and all the resources to change it. CASA started asking questions why the aircraft didn’t return to CS but were soon reminded of the requirements for a four engine jet to divert in the event of an engine shut down in flight.
Airport suitability is a very subjective thing especially when it comes to a pilot’s familiarity with it. Obviously the more experienced the PIC the less of an issue this is.
Regarding the BA 744 that actually departed LAX, even though I will concede in my opinion it is just a tad further than I would like to fly on three, there is no requirement as I am sure you are aware for a four engine jet to divert to the nearest suitable airport in the event of an engine shut down. Personally I would have diverted to JFK (A major hub for BA) to then have all the pax protected on the numerous BA flights a day and the large BA engineering team there to change the engine. I recall back in the mid 90’s a CX 742 CS → BN suffering an engine failure on rotation out of CS. The aircraft continued onto BN but the captain later decided to divert to Sydney because QF had a spare engine there and all the resources to change it. CASA started asking questions why the aircraft didn’t return to CS but were soon reminded of the requirements for a four engine jet to divert in the event of an engine shut down in flight.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Unfixed
Age: 50
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Has anyone else noticed a disparity between the audio from Sydney radar and BK TWR? Andrew never actually panned, but YSBK tower says "PAN acknowledged".
There was no doubt in ATC's mind that PGW had an engine gone. I'm sure if Andrew had even hinted at it, that ATC would have specifically asked him if he wanted to declare an emergency.
There was no doubt in ATC's mind that PGW had an engine gone. I'm sure if Andrew had even hinted at it, that ATC would have specifically asked him if he wanted to declare an emergency.
Last edited by Tidbinbilla; 18th Jun 2010 at 00:57. Reason: Continuity
Join Date: May 1999
Location: Sydney, NSW, Australia
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We may never know the answer here. Some points:
The Mojave doesn't have the inboard / outboard fuel tank selections that have brought down Chieftains in the past. Is this true?
Piston engines usually fail "a little bit" as opposed to turbines that often fails spectacularly.
GA pilots are taught to stay away from military bases lest a flock of F/A 18's descend on you.
CTA steps should always be avoided too, lest a flock of FOI's descend on you.
I believe an ILS into low cloud/fog and an airport unfamiliar would be a low priority.
I believe that an incorrect fuel management selection (selectors or pumps) would be unlikely as demonstarted by AW's calm nature on the radio and the initial abundance of altitude.
The sequence where they went from full power to - "we've shut one down" to - being unable to maintain altitude points to a gradual and near complete power loss which seems to point to a fuel contamination.
This crash has upset me, but not nearly as much as the families involved.
Does any one know the approximate flight time? And was Richmond fogged in?
The Mojave doesn't have the inboard / outboard fuel tank selections that have brought down Chieftains in the past. Is this true?
Piston engines usually fail "a little bit" as opposed to turbines that often fails spectacularly.
GA pilots are taught to stay away from military bases lest a flock of F/A 18's descend on you.
CTA steps should always be avoided too, lest a flock of FOI's descend on you.
I believe an ILS into low cloud/fog and an airport unfamiliar would be a low priority.
I believe that an incorrect fuel management selection (selectors or pumps) would be unlikely as demonstarted by AW's calm nature on the radio and the initial abundance of altitude.
The sequence where they went from full power to - "we've shut one down" to - being unable to maintain altitude points to a gradual and near complete power loss which seems to point to a fuel contamination.
This crash has upset me, but not nearly as much as the families involved.
Does any one know the approximate flight time? And was Richmond fogged in?
With my 30 year Aviation experience I would humbly suggest any Engine failure on a twin ( PA31 or B777 ) warrants a Mayday call. Besides, you can always downgrade later if you wish. Some places around the world don't understand Pan anyway!!
Re Roger Wilco -
"Has anyone else noticed a disparity between the audio from Sydney radar and BK TWR? Andrew never actually panned, but YSBK tower says "PAN acknowledged".
There was no doubt in ATC's mind that PGW had an engine gone. I'm sure if Andrew had even hinted at it, that ATC would have specifically asked him if he wanted to declare an emergency."
ATS staff would not normally refer to an emergency as a 'PAN' unless the call was made by the pilot.
The 'normal' for any situation is for ATS to 'Declare the appropriate phase of SAR for the incident'.
i.e. Upon becoming aware that the safety of the acft or its occupants may be in danger, the ATS staff would 'Declare' an Uncertainty Phase, or Alert Phase, or Distress Phase (1 of 3) - whichever the level of info gained warranted.
The 'degree' of the situation would dictate the facilities which may be required.
Only the guy in BK Twr could answer for sure, but that "PAN Acknowledged" to SY Centre MAY have been a 'local phrase' for acknowledging the 'INCERFA' or 'ALERFA' if that's what was 'declared' by SY Centre.
We all have used 'colloqualisms' at times - instead of what is 'in the book' - The important point is that it was acknowledged.
The 'Phase Declaration' is not normally conveyed to the pilot - he has enough to worry about.
A 'Current' ATCer may be able to confirm this is still the case.....
Its been a while now...
"Has anyone else noticed a disparity between the audio from Sydney radar and BK TWR? Andrew never actually panned, but YSBK tower says "PAN acknowledged".
There was no doubt in ATC's mind that PGW had an engine gone. I'm sure if Andrew had even hinted at it, that ATC would have specifically asked him if he wanted to declare an emergency."
ATS staff would not normally refer to an emergency as a 'PAN' unless the call was made by the pilot.
The 'normal' for any situation is for ATS to 'Declare the appropriate phase of SAR for the incident'.
i.e. Upon becoming aware that the safety of the acft or its occupants may be in danger, the ATS staff would 'Declare' an Uncertainty Phase, or Alert Phase, or Distress Phase (1 of 3) - whichever the level of info gained warranted.
The 'degree' of the situation would dictate the facilities which may be required.
Only the guy in BK Twr could answer for sure, but that "PAN Acknowledged" to SY Centre MAY have been a 'local phrase' for acknowledging the 'INCERFA' or 'ALERFA' if that's what was 'declared' by SY Centre.
We all have used 'colloqualisms' at times - instead of what is 'in the book' - The important point is that it was acknowledged.
The 'Phase Declaration' is not normally conveyed to the pilot - he has enough to worry about.
A 'Current' ATCer may be able to confirm this is still the case.....
Its been a while now...
Re the decleration of PAN PAN - at least where I did my MECIR, with some of (in my opinion) best ME instructors in Oz was deal with the failure - Re-plan (LSALT, fuel and performance) and PAN PAN call.
These calls were also made to be readout to the instructor as if they were a call to centre. At least as far as I was taught - engine failure or power loss in a twin = PAN PAN call. The Pan Pan call from doing this is in my memory like a phase 1.
I called Pan Pan once with rough running engine on a single - no complaints, questions or critisism from anyone for doing it, why the fear?
These calls were also made to be readout to the instructor as if they were a call to centre. At least as far as I was taught - engine failure or power loss in a twin = PAN PAN call. The Pan Pan call from doing this is in my memory like a phase 1.
I called Pan Pan once with rough running engine on a single - no complaints, questions or critisism from anyone for doing it, why the fear?
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
YSRI was not fogged in,
in fact practise ILS were being conducted at the time in VMC.
The PAN was not made as far as I heard on the CEN and TWR tape. Maybe one was jammed in somewhere but my guess is the CEN ATC told the TWR and it was an assumed PAN.
Fog was not an issue.......and he was offered it.
EDIT....What I should have tped was "Fog was not an issue and he was offered YSRI and declined"
in fact practise ILS were being conducted at the time in VMC.
The PAN was not made as far as I heard on the CEN and TWR tape. Maybe one was jammed in somewhere but my guess is the CEN ATC told the TWR and it was an assumed PAN.
Fog was not an issue.......and he was offered it.
EDIT....What I should have tped was "Fog was not an issue and he was offered YSRI and declined"
Last edited by Tidbinbilla; 18th Jun 2010 at 00:59. Reason: Tidy up
I called Pan Pan once with rough running engine on a single - no complaints, questions or critisism from anyone for doing it, why the fear?
On each occassion I was asked by ATC "Do you wish to declare and emergency". For three I answered "Yes", and for the fourth I answered "Not at this time" - to which the ATC guy (Tower) replied, "Well I'll get them out anyway"!
On each occassion the assistance I received from ATC was first class, and never any question later about whether or not I should have done this or that.
I recall that the Aviation Safety Digest used to discuss issues like this and those of us who had the privilage to read that publication were able to rationalise what we might do when faced with these sorts of senarios. I have no doubt that this type of pre-thinking is an aid to quick decision making when the poo hits the fan.
Dr
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Puff
In my opionion an incident like the one at BK this week was cause for a MAYDAY. Not even a PAN PAN. maybe we need a beer or two to sort this one out
.
Interesting confirmation of what I believed the definitions of distress calls are...from wiki.
Here is what a B757 crew did when they cooked a chook on takeoff. No PAN's or ahh tower we have a bit of a problem here.....it was full blown proper MAYDAY-MAYDAY. They do not have to end in a smoking hole to justify using the words.
J
In my opionion an incident like the one at BK this week was cause for a MAYDAY. Not even a PAN PAN. maybe we need a beer or two to sort this one out
.Interesting confirmation of what I believed the definitions of distress calls are...from wiki.
In radiotelephone communications, a call of pan-pan[1] (pronounced /ˈpæn ˈpæn/) is used to signify that there is an urgency on board a boat, ship, aircraft or other vehicle but that, for the time being at least, there is no immediate danger to anyone's life or to the vessel itself.[2] This is referred to as a state of urgency. This is distinct from a Mayday call, which means that there is imminent danger to life or to the continued viability of the vessel itself.[3] Thus "pan-pan" informs potential rescuers (including emergency services and other craft in the area) that a safety problem exists whereas "Mayday" will call upon them to drop all other activities and immediately initiate a rescue attempt.
J
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Big Smoke
Posts: 18
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
7:55 - Center - Are you able to maintain height, if not Richmond 2 miles south of you at this time
7:55 - PGW - Ah, we're just on descent at this time… (difficult to make out exactly)
7:55 - PGW - Ah, we're just on descent at this time… (difficult to make out exactly)
No PAN's or ahh tower we have a bit of a problem here.....it was full blown proper MAYDAY-MAYDAY.
Most others just use MAYDAY only .... and some countries will question/ignore that!