Nine Dead in Fox Glacier Crash, New Zealand
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pacific
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well lets assume that. If the aircraft was trimmed correctly why the nose up pitch as it got airborne? if the control column broke there would be no way of pulling the nose up, if it was trimmed correctly, with no control inputs it would no doubt have eventually pranged, but not from a steep climb upon rotation.
Who knows what actions the pilot took, considering the seriousness and speed of the situation presented to him.
I'm not offering the idea of control column failure as the cause, it would still leave many unanswered questions. My point is that it could have been the instigating factor and more so; it should have been investigated further. To look deeper and answer those questions,- or to thoroughly rule it out. It would hardly be much of a consideration if it was still sitting there where it should be in the cockpit. But as I said, it wasn't. It was broken off in an otherwise relatively intact cockpit. Surely one would check to see how it broke off, part of the impact sequence or otherwise ? Just to be sure or, dig deeper ? Instead, it was put in a hole and buried soon after the crash, though the rest of the cockpit was saved.
Last edited by Lepper Messiah; 12th Oct 2012 at 07:03.
I think the remaining piece of the control column and the large, alloy? piece that it goes into are missing as well. I wouldn't have thought it had melted as there are other light alloy parts in the cockpit that haven't, ie part of the trim handle and the button on the end of the flap handle. As L.M. says the cockpit for all intents and purposes is relatively intact, that is you can identify everything and it is in it's place.
I don't know enough about the event/investigation to know what you mean Prospector. I was just updating the thread in case others wanted to watch the news on demand or something.
Guest
Posts: n/a
There were parts of the investigation that could have been done better.
But the conclusion arrived at with the known evidence was on the balance of probability the correct one,
There have been people who are close to the investigation, who have a close personal relationship with the deceased who disagree with the findings.
I have no knowledge of their aeronautical qualifications, if any, of these people.
The theory they put forward as to the cause of the tragedy, I cannot bring myself to call this an accident, is only a vague possibility, to my mind so vague as to be not credible.
But the conclusion arrived at with the known evidence was on the balance of probability the correct one,
There have been people who are close to the investigation, who have a close personal relationship with the deceased who disagree with the findings.
I have no knowledge of their aeronautical qualifications, if any, of these people.
The theory they put forward as to the cause of the tragedy, I cannot bring myself to call this an accident, is only a vague possibility, to my mind so vague as to be not credible.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pacific
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm glad this has finally come out,- that TAIC were idiots. The job they did on this investigation was below poor yet we rely on them to come up with plausible conclusions based on fact so the rest of the industry can learn and hopefully related tragedies can be avoided.
TAIC showed up, did a quick weight and balance found it was out, default determined that was the cause, put everything in big hole and buggered off out of there because it was pissing down with rain and they had earthquake damage to deal with back home.
For the next year or what ever they maintained this mindset until it was published in the report as the cause of the accident, with minimal consultation with the rest of the bewildered industry and overwhelming evidence on the contrary at their disposal.
I agree that an out of limit C of G would not help the recovery, but most importantly - WHAT CAUSED THE UPSET ?
Unfortunately now we will probably never know. For the good of the industry it was the job of TAIC to find out. They didn't do their job.
TAIC showed up, did a quick weight and balance found it was out, default determined that was the cause, put everything in big hole and buggered off out of there because it was pissing down with rain and they had earthquake damage to deal with back home.
For the next year or what ever they maintained this mindset until it was published in the report as the cause of the accident, with minimal consultation with the rest of the bewildered industry and overwhelming evidence on the contrary at their disposal.
I agree that an out of limit C of G would not help the recovery, but most importantly - WHAT CAUSED THE UPSET ?
Unfortunately now we will probably never know. For the good of the industry it was the job of TAIC to find out. They didn't do their job.
Guest
Posts: n/a
WHAT CAUSED THE UPSET
The trim for landing an empty aircraft is usually well back. If the trim is left there and a take off is commenced it is not until just about rotate that this manifests itself with a very powerful desire of the aircraft to climb very steeply.
This can be overcome but it takes a second or two to suss out what is going on. If the initial rotate is very steep, and you have the skydivers sitting on a smooth surface without any restraint then the chances are they will all end up against the rear bulkhead.
The report did find that the manual trim was well forward. As soon as it was realised what was causing the steep climb then that trim would likely have been wound forward very rapidly, but with the weight shifted so far aft recovery would not be possible, and the scenario that played out is exactly what one would expect.
Prospector.
Saying that they all ended up against the rear bulkhead is silly. Have you read the review? Have you been on a parachute load in the back of a Walter Fletcher? Have you looked into the cabin of a Walter Fletcher that has eight people or four tandem pairs on board? The review discusses the possibility of load shift.
The Walter Fletcher must have different fight characteristics than the 400 Fletcher as far as take off with full aft trim goes. I am not disputing your experience with aft trim on ag work. Superair tested this and found it was easily controllable in the Walter? Why don't you ring the test pilot and ask him about it as one Fletcher pilot to another?
Why was the trim at the accident scene in the normal take off position? If the pilot had been madly winding it forward you would think it would be hard against the stop?
The chief commissioner says that the review really changed nothing, when in fact they have reversed the main finding of weight and balance being the most likely cause, to weight and balance being 99% certain NOT to be the most likely cause.
They rightly say now, they have no idea what the cause of the steep (not anywhere near vertical) climb was that led to the accident.
I see the Wanganui Helicopter accident has also come up again, where taic did a similar job on the investigation.
Saying that they all ended up against the rear bulkhead is silly. Have you read the review? Have you been on a parachute load in the back of a Walter Fletcher? Have you looked into the cabin of a Walter Fletcher that has eight people or four tandem pairs on board? The review discusses the possibility of load shift.
The Walter Fletcher must have different fight characteristics than the 400 Fletcher as far as take off with full aft trim goes. I am not disputing your experience with aft trim on ag work. Superair tested this and found it was easily controllable in the Walter? Why don't you ring the test pilot and ask him about it as one Fletcher pilot to another?
Why was the trim at the accident scene in the normal take off position? If the pilot had been madly winding it forward you would think it would be hard against the stop?
The chief commissioner says that the review really changed nothing, when in fact they have reversed the main finding of weight and balance being the most likely cause, to weight and balance being 99% certain NOT to be the most likely cause.
They rightly say now, they have no idea what the cause of the steep (not anywhere near vertical) climb was that led to the accident.
I see the Wanganui Helicopter accident has also come up again, where taic did a similar job on the investigation.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Saying that they all ended up against the rear bulkhead is silly
This scenario very closely parallels what actually was observed from the ground.
Superair tested this and found it was easily controllable in the Walter
It was normal practice
for the first 2 tandem pairs to sit as far forward as possible facing rearwards. The next 2 pairs
would then sit with one pair opposite the door and the third pair against the rear bulkhead
facing towards the door
for the first 2 tandem pairs to sit as far forward as possible facing rearwards. The next 2 pairs
would then sit with one pair opposite the door and the third pair against the rear bulkhead
facing towards the door
Last edited by prospector; 1st Nov 2015 at 00:22.
I have no words for the scenario you are describing re parachutists and passengers falling to the rear of the aircraft and all ending up at the bulkhead. I can only suggest you have look at a Fletcher with people on board and try not to think of the aircraft in a vertical position, it may have been around 45 degrees or so, which is still very steep. Better still, go for a ride in one, you may change your mind, or not.
Even with the surprise of having realised you have full aft trim on take off, i.e. the instant the wheels leave the ground, then IF the aircraft is controllable you should be able to control it, test flights say the Walter Fletcher is? I have had this happen a few times in a 185, yes it gives you a bit of a fright, but no problem to control. A Pilatus Porter is definitely NOT controllable on that situation.
The trim was where it was at the time of the accident and there is no argument about that, just seems odd it was not ALL the way forward. There is no argument the control column was sitting there broken off after the crash, the question was, WHEN and HOW did it get broken. Somebody just looking at and taking a photo at the crash site then throwing it away is not going to tell you for certain. The only way was to have it tested in a laboratory, which has been done (after it was dug up?) and it has been found to have broken off after impact with rudder peddle.
Even with the surprise of having realised you have full aft trim on take off, i.e. the instant the wheels leave the ground, then IF the aircraft is controllable you should be able to control it, test flights say the Walter Fletcher is? I have had this happen a few times in a 185, yes it gives you a bit of a fright, but no problem to control. A Pilatus Porter is definitely NOT controllable on that situation.
The trim was where it was at the time of the accident and there is no argument about that, just seems odd it was not ALL the way forward. There is no argument the control column was sitting there broken off after the crash, the question was, WHEN and HOW did it get broken. Somebody just looking at and taking a photo at the crash site then throwing it away is not going to tell you for certain. The only way was to have it tested in a laboratory, which has been done (after it was dug up?) and it has been found to have broken off after impact with rudder peddle.
Guest
Posts: n/a
then IF the aircraft is controllable you should be able to control it,
I cannot recall the exact details but much the same thing happened in Australia many years ago and their CAA made it a mandatory requirement for parachutists to be secured to the aircraft. I stand to be corrected on that statement, it was many years ago.
From Australian Jump Pilot manual
(h) Ensure there are sufficient approved restraints fitted for all parachutists
Last edited by prospector; 1st Nov 2015 at 01:27.
This is not at Fox Glacier but as you can see there is no room for tumbling or falling back etc. There are nine people in the back here and this aircraft (Fletcher) did thousands of these loads over about an eight year period, no problems.
Guest
Posts: n/a
but as you can see there is no room for tumbling or falling back
None of the parachutists were restrained in any way, they were sitting on a smooth floor. To consider that they would not move aft when the floor suddenly goes to at least a 45 degree slope aft is pushing the bounds of probability.
They would not all be against the back bulkhead but the C of G would move far enough aft to give the scenario that was observed.
What is your theory as to why this crash occurred? Why did it happen if everything had gone as hundreds of other jumps that had been carried out using the same equipment had had no problem?
I really have no idea now, but I am certain W&B wasn't the cause. There are now more questions than answers.
Regardless of what was the cause of the accident was, these aircraft should not have been certified for passenger carrying without proper weight and balance information in the flight manual and a proper STC rather than just a modification. When it was realised that only six people could be carried, no one would have bothered with the cost of conversion and STC.
As it was, all the big companies operated these Fletchers including, Taupo Tandems, Able Tasman Skydive, Christchurch Parachute School, Nzone in Queenstown. In hindsight, all were operated outside the W&B requirements for the aircraft in standard category, although finding anyone to admit that now would be difficult.
Knowing the loads that were carried in the ten years of operations before this accident is just another reason why I don't think W&B was the cause.
Regardless of what was the cause of the accident was, these aircraft should not have been certified for passenger carrying without proper weight and balance information in the flight manual and a proper STC rather than just a modification. When it was realised that only six people could be carried, no one would have bothered with the cost of conversion and STC.
As it was, all the big companies operated these Fletchers including, Taupo Tandems, Able Tasman Skydive, Christchurch Parachute School, Nzone in Queenstown. In hindsight, all were operated outside the W&B requirements for the aircraft in standard category, although finding anyone to admit that now would be difficult.
Knowing the loads that were carried in the ten years of operations before this accident is just another reason why I don't think W&B was the cause.
Guest
Posts: n/a
but I am certain W&B wasn't the cause.
When the original FU24's were being used for topdressing, the pilot had a single seat in the cockpit, the loader driver had a bench seat behind the hopper, the hopper was actually your back rest. If the pilot had for some reason upset the driver, then on the flight home it was possible to get even by crawling down the back of the fuselage, thus putting the C of G a lot further aft, the pilot had a moment of "what the F***k, and then figuring out what was the problem move the control column back and forward very rapidly. The driver rapidly resumed his proper seat.
As you can see in the photo you printed, the load is a lot further aft then when the aircraft was fitted with a hopper, the load then being just about right on the C of G, and not capable of being moved.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pacific
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prospector
You are just not comprehending this. This is not the back of a cargo 747 with some unrestrained vehicles with hand-breaks off as cargo.
This is a tiny fletcher with 8 people in the cabin, along with 4 large parachutes (about the size of a trampers pack but wider). It is not a slippery slidey surface, its effectively rubber on rubber,- the jump suits have a rubber like protective pad on the arse, I'm not sure what you'd call it, but for protection / wear when landing.
In order to get 8 people and 4 tandem rigs into that tiny cabin they are packed in like sardines. There are hand holds, foot wedges etc. They being jammed in against each other IS their restraint. There is no room to move.
Unfortunately the above photo is not the greatest example as there are two sport jumpers with backpack type rigs.
You may be able to see space, but what you don't see is legs, which are stopping movement.
I do agree that come an extremely steep angle, there MAY, and I say may with reservations, have been some sort of falling over the top or something but only at a very very steep angle. But no sliding at lower angles or on take off. There is no room.
From the witnesses I have spoken to, it did not go that steep, no where near vertical and it kind of "flew" into that attitude, rather than abruptly pitched.
The big unanswered question is WHY did this happen in the first place. That is unanswered and the rest doesn't even really matter.
I initially thought the trim. But since the testing was conducted and it found to be controllable in the hands of an average pilot I believe it no longer the case. Like many in NZ, I knew this pilot personally and know he was very vigilant when it came to the operation of aircraft. Trim position would have been in his mind and I'm very confidant he would have checked as he was fastidious with his checks,- particularly before the first flight of the day or after a break (as this flight was).
Not that this is scientific proof, but adding to the testing with knowing his type I personally find it unlikely. And the trim was found in the take off position, I doubt in the heat of the moment he had chance to do the many winds to full forward which would have helped, then back to take off position. I think both hands would have been wrestling with the stick and trim handle left where it was. But thats just me.
You are just not comprehending this. This is not the back of a cargo 747 with some unrestrained vehicles with hand-breaks off as cargo.
This is a tiny fletcher with 8 people in the cabin, along with 4 large parachutes (about the size of a trampers pack but wider). It is not a slippery slidey surface, its effectively rubber on rubber,- the jump suits have a rubber like protective pad on the arse, I'm not sure what you'd call it, but for protection / wear when landing.
In order to get 8 people and 4 tandem rigs into that tiny cabin they are packed in like sardines. There are hand holds, foot wedges etc. They being jammed in against each other IS their restraint. There is no room to move.
Unfortunately the above photo is not the greatest example as there are two sport jumpers with backpack type rigs.
You may be able to see space, but what you don't see is legs, which are stopping movement.
I do agree that come an extremely steep angle, there MAY, and I say may with reservations, have been some sort of falling over the top or something but only at a very very steep angle. But no sliding at lower angles or on take off. There is no room.
From the witnesses I have spoken to, it did not go that steep, no where near vertical and it kind of "flew" into that attitude, rather than abruptly pitched.
The big unanswered question is WHY did this happen in the first place. That is unanswered and the rest doesn't even really matter.
I initially thought the trim. But since the testing was conducted and it found to be controllable in the hands of an average pilot I believe it no longer the case. Like many in NZ, I knew this pilot personally and know he was very vigilant when it came to the operation of aircraft. Trim position would have been in his mind and I'm very confidant he would have checked as he was fastidious with his checks,- particularly before the first flight of the day or after a break (as this flight was).
Not that this is scientific proof, but adding to the testing with knowing his type I personally find it unlikely. And the trim was found in the take off position, I doubt in the heat of the moment he had chance to do the many winds to full forward which would have helped, then back to take off position. I think both hands would have been wrestling with the stick and trim handle left where it was. But thats just me.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Pacific
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So even TAIC now don't think W & B was the cause but you do. Is your name Ian by any chance ?
Please tell me, in a way that my small brain can understand, how W & B could possibly be the cause where there have been THOUSANDS of successful flights in this W & B or WORSE ?
Is it dark magic ?
Divine intervention ?
What makes this flight special ?
Before you say these people could have all been fat, I'll stop you with fact. They weren't.
I have heard of 10 (TEN) in the back of another skydive fletcher.
Please tell me, in a way that my small brain can understand, how W & B could possibly be the cause where there have been THOUSANDS of successful flights in this W & B or WORSE ?
Is it dark magic ?
Divine intervention ?
What makes this flight special ?
Before you say these people could have all been fat, I'll stop you with fact. They weren't.
I have heard of 10 (TEN) in the back of another skydive fletcher.