VH-PGW PA-31P-350 15 June 2010 Crash Investigation
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Des
You are right. A giant jigsaw puzzle. But this one is different. There are false pieces which do not belong.
The false idea that an aeroplane should be scrapped if it's not the latest model seems to come from second rate Cessna salespeople and I learned a long time ago not to rely on information that came from them.
60's technology should not be used ????? The Mojave was not built in the 60's. It was went into production in the 80's. Twenty five years after the B747. ( what age are the King Airs which are doing the NT aeromed contract?)
Aircraft flight manuals have the correct information about their performance even when they are not this years model.
The RFDS did not buy the Mojave. They also had presentations fom Beechcraft reps (C90 King air) and Aero Commander reps (a specially built turbo commander with a large cargo door).
They did not buy those ones either.
There was something very wrong in the accident Mojave (not a Chieftain) apart from the failed engine, and it was not due to "60's technology" and probably not due to weather.( except for the fog at Richmond.) That aircraft when serviceable had the performance to fly back to Bankstown with one engine inoperative. We do not yet know what was wrong, but something certainly was.
It would be easy to speculate, but that would be wrong.
You are right. A giant jigsaw puzzle. But this one is different. There are false pieces which do not belong.
The false idea that an aeroplane should be scrapped if it's not the latest model seems to come from second rate Cessna salespeople and I learned a long time ago not to rely on information that came from them.
60's technology should not be used ????? The Mojave was not built in the 60's. It was went into production in the 80's. Twenty five years after the B747. ( what age are the King Airs which are doing the NT aeromed contract?)
Aircraft flight manuals have the correct information about their performance even when they are not this years model.
The RFDS did not buy the Mojave. They also had presentations fom Beechcraft reps (C90 King air) and Aero Commander reps (a specially built turbo commander with a large cargo door).
They did not buy those ones either.
There was something very wrong in the accident Mojave (not a Chieftain) apart from the failed engine, and it was not due to "60's technology" and probably not due to weather.( except for the fog at Richmond.) That aircraft when serviceable had the performance to fly back to Bankstown with one engine inoperative. We do not yet know what was wrong, but something certainly was.
It would be easy to speculate, but that would be wrong.
Last edited by bushy; 19th Jul 2010 at 01:50.
Thread Starter
"The RFDS did not buy the Mojave"
Actually the RFDS Base at Launceston began operations in February 1997 with a Piper Mojave VH-HFD (ex-RFDS WA Section )
picture Photos: Piper PA-31P-350 Mojave Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Actually the RFDS Base at Launceston began operations in February 1997 with a Piper Mojave VH-HFD (ex-RFDS WA Section )
picture Photos: Piper PA-31P-350 Mojave Aircraft Pictures | Airliners.net
Agree bushy. Appears to me the second engine started misbehaving late in the approach. Not nice at all. Some serious questions remain unanswered.
Krusty i used to brief 100 kts as a low weight blue line speed. Out of interest what did your experiment come up with?
Krusty i used to brief 100 kts as a low weight blue line speed. Out of interest what did your experiment come up with?
Remoak
You should remember that Richmond had fog or low cloud with 200m visibility and a little further on than Richmond the pilot reported to ATC that he was "on top". None of us know what it looked like from the air that day, but the pilot may have not been seeing very much ground at all.
To suggest that the professional thing to do is close both throttles and glide to land when the pilot could not see the ground completely lacks any insight of the likely circumstances. I'm sure that we'll get other opinions, but I doubt that any pilot - professional or otherwise - will descend to the ground through fog if there is an alternative.
I can just imagine your howls if the pilot did as you recommend and hit a hospital, school or something that was obscured by fog.
You should remember that Richmond had fog or low cloud with 200m visibility and a little further on than Richmond the pilot reported to ATC that he was "on top". None of us know what it looked like from the air that day, but the pilot may have not been seeing very much ground at all.
To suggest that the professional thing to do is close both throttles and glide to land when the pilot could not see the ground completely lacks any insight of the likely circumstances. I'm sure that we'll get other opinions, but I doubt that any pilot - professional or otherwise - will descend to the ground through fog if there is an alternative.
I can just imagine your howls if the pilot did as you recommend and hit a hospital, school or something that was obscured by fog.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
desmotronic
Another predictably asinine comment. Nobody is denigrating the pilot, least of all me. Evaluating the facts as we know them is not denigrating anyone. And as for the report, it will tell you precisely diddly squat about why the outcome was as it was. If you want to assume that everything he did was perfect, feel free. pilots never make mistakes, after all... well not in your world, anyway.
1a sound asleep
So the best course of action is to bow to the pressure and sacrifice safety for commercial and personal expedience? Ah, now I see where I have been going wrong all these years. In any case, I don't grant your premise... reputable airlines look at these things on an individual basis. I know plenty of airline folk who have had accidents and subsequently gained employment with major carriers.
Old Akro
Read the preliminary report FFS. Bankstown was CAVOK with a TAF for 1-2 oktas at 3500ft. The Richmond controller stated that the sky was clear and that there were radiation fog patches, which you are only going to get with a clear sky anyway. The Bankstown controller said he was unable to see the aircraft due to haze (ie not cloud). So yes, we do have a pretty comprehensive picture of what the pilot was seeing that day. "On top" could have been a slip of the tongue, or a reference to one or two small bits of cloud, but it doesn't fit with the facts as we know them, and it certainly doesn't mean that he couldn't see extensive areas of ground.
Yes but that isn't what I suggested at all, is it? And in any case it doesn't agree with the facts. The only suggestion that I have made with regard to fog is that it would be safer to land on a big, wide runway with a precision approach and fog that was less than 6 ft thick (and almost certainly considerably less), and with 300m vis (which is ample for the rollout), than to attempt continuing to a more distant aerodrome. I mean, just think about it for a minute... the pilot is never going to actually enter the fog! All he has to do is maintain the centreline for a few seconds... that's it. Easy with 300m vis (in fact, easy with 100m vis too).
And it's pretty hard to hit a hospital if you on the ILS.
But if you want to denigrate the pilot who is not here to defend himself at least wait for the report so you can do it with the benefit of facts.
1a sound asleep
There is a huge pressure, perceived or otherwise, not to have any accident or incident....and in this case the pilot may have felt that returning the plane to Bankstown was the "safest commercial" option. As I have said before there are many airlines that will not employ a pliot with any accident history.
Old Akro
You should remember that Richmond had fog or low cloud with 200m visibility and a little further on than Richmond the pilot reported to ATC that he was "on top". None of us know what it looked like from the air that day, but the pilot may have not been seeing very much ground at all.
To suggest that the professional thing to do is close both throttles and glide to land when the pilot could not see the ground completely lacks any insight of the likely circumstances. I'm sure that we'll get other opinions, but I doubt that any pilot - professional or otherwise - will descend to the ground through fog if there is an alternative.
And it's pretty hard to hit a hospital if you on the ILS.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can't read, can you? How many engines did he have overhead Richmond? At what point did the second one start playing up - assuming it did, because right now we don't really know? Feel free to guess...
Of course the bit you missed was that the ILS was actually completely unnecessary, given the prevailing conditions... I was simply making a general point.
Let's see... take the big, wide runway underneath me, with fog patches that I won't actually ever enter, and a clearly visible runway... or carry on to Bankstown... now that's the real question that needs answering... along with why an emergency forced landing was not made before it all got too difficult.
Ah, but I forgot, it's never the pilot at fault, is it...
Of course the bit you missed was that the ILS was actually completely unnecessary, given the prevailing conditions... I was simply making a general point.
Let's see... take the big, wide runway underneath me, with fog patches that I won't actually ever enter, and a clearly visible runway... or carry on to Bankstown... now that's the real question that needs answering... along with why an emergency forced landing was not made before it all got too difficult.
Ah, but I forgot, it's never the pilot at fault, is it...
Remoak see post # 52 for an eyewitness statement which sounds to me like a second engine problem. Combine that with the obvious lack of performance and it is reasonable to conclude that something was amiss with the remaining engine is a possibility.
Once the report is released we may know more. I would wait until then before i spoke ill of the dead. RIP.
Once the report is released we may know more. I would wait until then before i spoke ill of the dead. RIP.
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: in the classroom of life
Age: 55
Posts: 6,864
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
desmo
Really mate, you need to read back and stop attacking remoak on this..... You suggest to read back about what the witness at Wilberforce, if you honestly think that he had two engines with trouble at Wilberforce well what the
was he doing trying to make Bankstown for. An ILS fog or not right below you is always a safer bet than 20-30 track miles with two engines in trouble.
Interesting note....of all the pilots (who fly as their profession) I have spoken to about this, they all say the same thing....ILS at Richmond fog or not! Maybe they have read my posts and remoak's posts and thought we foolish folk were so convincing that its must be the way to go.
By the way what ever happened to that picture you posted a few years ago of the girl flying the Cessna 208?
I went looking for it the other day for someones education....could not find it.
Really mate, you need to read back and stop attacking remoak on this..... You suggest to read back about what the witness at Wilberforce, if you honestly think that he had two engines with trouble at Wilberforce well what the
was he doing trying to make Bankstown for. An ILS fog or not right below you is always a safer bet than 20-30 track miles with two engines in trouble.Interesting note....of all the pilots (who fly as their profession) I have spoken to about this, they all say the same thing....ILS at Richmond fog or not! Maybe they have read my posts and remoak's posts and thought we foolish folk were so convincing that its must be the way to go.
By the way what ever happened to that picture you posted a few years ago of the girl flying the Cessna 208?
I went looking for it the other day for someones education....could not find it.
Interesting note....of all the pilots (who fly as their profession) I have spoken to about this, they all say the same thing....ILS at Richmond fog or not! Maybe they have read my posts and remoak's posts and thought we foolish folk were so convincing that its must be the way to go.
If I'm honest with myself without the benefit of my current experience and the experience I have learnt from very senior Pilots since leaving the pistons I would have more than likely started a descent and headed for Bankstown too.
I hope whatever the findings are, we and many of the up and coming piston twin drivers or even the 20.7.1b turbine guys use and discuss this and have a few more tricks up their sleeve if the unthinkable happens.
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Otamatata
Posts: 72
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brilliant Remoak, the old no engine ILS approach in fog. 
Thanks for your prolific 'professional' opinions.
Thanks for your prolific 'professional' opinions.
Remoak
Runway visibility is measured adjacent to the touchdown areas and at the centre of the runway at a height of 5 metres. This is intended to be indicative of the pilots view when landing. The automated service at Richmond reported a visibility of 200m at this 5m height. Besides, OAT 4 degC, dewpoint 4 degC and calm wind screams fog.
In what fairy tale land does that translate to isolated patches of 6 foot thick light mist?
The air traffic controllers statement is ambiguous and in conflict with the AWIS. Although if he was in the tower its possible that he was near the top of the fog layer - in which case the sky would look blue to him. The tower at YRSI looks like its about 15m tall based on scaling its shadow in Google Earth.
From the pilot's point of view the thickness is irrelevant if he couldn't see the ground and the reported weather was well below ILS minima, then Richmond airport didn't exist for his purposes.
Based on the graphs I made of altitude, airspeed & vertical speed, My speculation is that the pilot was not aware of the second problem until abeam or past Richmond. I think that there are signs he was unaware of an issue with the LH engine at the point he turned around.
Runway visibility is measured adjacent to the touchdown areas and at the centre of the runway at a height of 5 metres. This is intended to be indicative of the pilots view when landing. The automated service at Richmond reported a visibility of 200m at this 5m height. Besides, OAT 4 degC, dewpoint 4 degC and calm wind screams fog.
In what fairy tale land does that translate to isolated patches of 6 foot thick light mist?
The air traffic controllers statement is ambiguous and in conflict with the AWIS. Although if he was in the tower its possible that he was near the top of the fog layer - in which case the sky would look blue to him. The tower at YRSI looks like its about 15m tall based on scaling its shadow in Google Earth.
From the pilot's point of view the thickness is irrelevant if he couldn't see the ground and the reported weather was well below ILS minima, then Richmond airport didn't exist for his purposes.
Based on the graphs I made of altitude, airspeed & vertical speed, My speculation is that the pilot was not aware of the second problem until abeam or past Richmond. I think that there are signs he was unaware of an issue with the LH engine at the point he turned around.
At no point was the PIC given the actual weather at RIC according to conversations between ATC and the pilot. It was only during the preliminary investigation that it was brought up by an air traffic controller who was on duty at the time. All the PIC would have had available to him was the TAF’s, Metars and what he could see outside, all of which indicated fog. The pilot even reported his in-flight conditions as “visual on top” indicating to me what he saw or thought he saw was more that just “shallow fog” because above shallow fog the ground is quite visible. This would have played a major part in his decision making process especially if he thought that the other engine was OK. If and when he discovered he may have had a problem with the second engine is anyone’s guess. Did he try and see what performance was available from the good engine? From the preliminary report it would appear not.
Weather information
Aerodrome forecasts
The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) issued an aerodrome forecast (TAF) for Bankstown Aerodrome at 0244 on 15 June 2010 with a local time validity period from 0400 to 2200 on 15 June, which encompassed the aircraft’s planned takeoff and climb in the Bankstown area. The forecast wind was variable in direction at 3 kts, the visibility was forecast to be greater than 10 km with 1 – 2 oktas of cloud at 3,500 ft above the aerodrome elevation, the outside air temperature (OAT) was forecast to be 4º C and the QNH 1032 hPa.
The BoM also issued a TAF for Richmond Aerodrome at 0303 on 15 June with local time validity period from 0400 to 2200 on 15 June. The forecast wind was variable in direction at 3 kts, the visibility was forecast to be 400 m in fog until 0900, the OAT 2º C and QNH 1032 hPa.
Actual weather information
The BoM Automatic Weather Station (AWS) located at Bankstown Aerodrome generated routine aerodrome weather reports (METAR). The METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was from 340º true at 4 kts, the OAT was 6º C, the dewpoint was 5º C, the visibility was 8 km with no cloud detected and the QNH was 1033 hPa.
The Bankstown Aerodrome automatic terminal information service (ATIS) ‘Bravo’ was broadcast during the period encompassing the aircraft’s departure and subsequent return flight towards Bankstown. The ATIS information included a variable wind of 5 kts, an OAT of 6º C, CAVOK and a QNH of 1033 hPa. The pilot reported that he had received ’Bravo’ when contacting the Bankstown Surface Movement Controller at 0734, 6 minutes prior to departure.
An AWS was also located at Richmond Aerodrome and the METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was calm, the OAT 4º C, the dewpoint was 4º C, the visibility was 200 m with vertical visibility information being unavailable, and the QNH was 1033 hPa. An air traffic controller who was on duty in Richmond control tower later stated that the weather conditions at the aerodrome when the aircraft was flying over the Richmond area included a clear sky with a shallow fog that reduced visibility at ground level to 300 m.
Aerodrome forecasts
The Bureau of Meteorology (BoM) issued an aerodrome forecast (TAF) for Bankstown Aerodrome at 0244 on 15 June 2010 with a local time validity period from 0400 to 2200 on 15 June, which encompassed the aircraft’s planned takeoff and climb in the Bankstown area. The forecast wind was variable in direction at 3 kts, the visibility was forecast to be greater than 10 km with 1 – 2 oktas of cloud at 3,500 ft above the aerodrome elevation, the outside air temperature (OAT) was forecast to be 4º C and the QNH 1032 hPa.
The BoM also issued a TAF for Richmond Aerodrome at 0303 on 15 June with local time validity period from 0400 to 2200 on 15 June. The forecast wind was variable in direction at 3 kts, the visibility was forecast to be 400 m in fog until 0900, the OAT 2º C and QNH 1032 hPa.
Actual weather information
The BoM Automatic Weather Station (AWS) located at Bankstown Aerodrome generated routine aerodrome weather reports (METAR). The METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was from 340º true at 4 kts, the OAT was 6º C, the dewpoint was 5º C, the visibility was 8 km with no cloud detected and the QNH was 1033 hPa.
The Bankstown Aerodrome automatic terminal information service (ATIS) ‘Bravo’ was broadcast during the period encompassing the aircraft’s departure and subsequent return flight towards Bankstown. The ATIS information included a variable wind of 5 kts, an OAT of 6º C, CAVOK and a QNH of 1033 hPa. The pilot reported that he had received ’Bravo’ when contacting the Bankstown Surface Movement Controller at 0734, 6 minutes prior to departure.
An AWS was also located at Richmond Aerodrome and the METAR issued at 0800 indicated that the wind was calm, the OAT 4º C, the dewpoint was 4º C, the visibility was 200 m with vertical visibility information being unavailable, and the QNH was 1033 hPa. An air traffic controller who was on duty in Richmond control tower later stated that the weather conditions at the aerodrome when the aircraft was flying over the Richmond area included a clear sky with a shallow fog that reduced visibility at ground level to 300 m.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys crack me up, fair dinkum !! we'll have to organise a get together some time..... (read.. piss up/punch up) and swap yarns.FWIW I was at Richmond that fateful morning...fog what fog? Blame, well blame goes to Lady Destiny.
Des, FWIW you won't find a bigger supporter of the PA31 than myself.
A mighty aircraft which carried our RPT on its back for decades. An aircraft which could bite if mismanaged and an aircraft which must be maintained to a very high standard, and an aircraft which must be retired on expiration of the airframe fatigue life. Like everything ....they wear out.
Last edited by PA39; 19th Jul 2010 at 06:25.
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
desmotronic
OK... so let me see if I've got this right. I'm not allowed to comment until the report comes out, but you are happy to go with an unverified report from a non-expert witness? I see. And there was an "obvious" lack of performance? How do you know? How do you know WHEN that lack of performance started? How do you know it was engine-related? Why is it reasonable for you to assume stuff, but apparently not OK for me to do so? 
And for the last time, nobody is speaking ill of the dead. If you can't discuss this subject without getting all emotional, you will never learn from it.
Old Akro
No, RVR is measured that way. There was no RVR reported for RIC. In any case, it wouldn't be possible as the meteorological definition of shallow fog is a layer of fog below 2m (6'), which would not be picked up by the transmissometers which are, as you said, at 5m (actually 14', but whatever). I'm not sure where the automated service gets it's vis reading from, but it certainly wasn't recorded in the manner you describe.
In the fairytale land of meteorological definitions (and the accounts of locals in the first thread on this subject, should you care to read it) - and PA39's comment above. By the way, I have never used the terms "patches", or "thick light mist" which is an obvious oxymoron.
Are you seriously suggesting that it isn't possible to see the runway through a 2m (at the most) layer of fog through which the visibility is 300m? Haven't flown around fog much, have you? From altitude that would be virtually transparent. At no point on the approach are you likely to lose visual reference with those conditions.
Some of you need to get a grip on what radiation fog actually is, and what 300m met vis looks like.
Douche (yep, that sums it up)
And if you think that trying to fly an additional 23 miles with an aircraft in such a condition is smart... you are way beyond being a retard...
see post # 52 for an eyewitness statement which sounds to me like a second engine problem. Combine that with the obvious lack of performance and it is reasonable to conclude that something was amiss with the remaining engine is a possibility.
And for the last time, nobody is speaking ill of the dead. If you can't discuss this subject without getting all emotional, you will never learn from it.
Old Akro
Runway visibility is measured adjacent to the touchdown areas and at the centre of the runway at a height of 5 metres. This is intended to be indicative of the pilots view when landing. The automated service at Richmond reported a visibility of 200m at this 5m height.
In what fairy tale land does that translate to isolated patches of 6 foot thick light mist?
From the pilot's point of view the thickness is irrelevant if he couldn't see the ground and the reported weather was well below ILS minima, then Richmond airport didn't exist for his purposes.
From altitude that would be virtually transparent. At no point on the approach are you likely to lose visual reference with those conditions.Some of you need to get a grip on what radiation fog actually is, and what 300m met vis looks like.
Douche (yep, that sums it up)
I mean honestly; if you believe that an ILS approach into fog in a very sick MOJAVE is a good idea, then you're a retard.
Remoak i didnt assume, all i said was its a possibility there was a problem with the second engine on the basis of a witness.
Because he couldnt maintain height. It may have been pilot induced but maybe not!!
I dont and neither do you.
like 10 miles out and 10 back for an ILS?
And there was an "obvious" lack of performance? How do you know?
It may have been pilot induced but maybe not!!
How do you know WHEN that lack of performance started?
And if you think that trying to fly an additional 23 miles with an aircraft in such a condition is smart... you are way beyond being a retard...
Remoak, done a few ILS's in real foggy conditions in a real aeroplane with an engine problem or are we talking Flightsim2000?
Keep in mind AWIS's can give a lot of false information when it comes to fog, mist, low cloud and visibilty.
The other consideration was RAAF Richmond Tower open, or shut until 9am LMT?
Keep in mind AWIS's can give a lot of false information when it comes to fog, mist, low cloud and visibilty.
The other consideration was RAAF Richmond Tower open, or shut until 9am LMT?
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: back of the crew bus
Posts: 1,312
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
like 10 miles out and 10 back for an ILS?
Remoak, done a few ILS's in real foggy conditions in a real aeroplane with an engine problem or are we talking Flightsim2000?
So yeah I've seen a bit of fog... but then I was living in the UK so...
I agree about AWIS, take them with a pinch of salt. The one at my local airport has a wonderful imagination...
Fair enough Remoak, for your ILS's in the UK you probably had a serviceable autopilot and a flight director.
The Mojave when they came off the production had the best avionics setup in any GA piston twin or single that I had flown up until early 2000, Ten years later is that all gear still working or it on the MEL list to be fixed, had the young bloke been shown how it all worked and how to use it? Amazing how chief pilots have a fear of flight directors, or coupled approahes etc!!!
The Mojave when they came off the production had the best avionics setup in any GA piston twin or single that I had flown up until early 2000, Ten years later is that all gear still working or it on the MEL list to be fixed, had the young bloke been shown how it all worked and how to use it? Amazing how chief pilots have a fear of flight directors, or coupled approahes etc!!!