C310 Down in the TIWI's
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is no mystyical seeing you into the after any more than police tape around a car crash at Elizabeth.
Anyone who has spent any time in a C310 with one POB will know that it will easily climb OEI.
You guys a so full of crap it is embarrasing to read, there is no evidence, no credible witnesses and yet you already know all the answers, nice job.
You guys a so full of crap it is embarrasing to read, there is no evidence, no credible witnesses and yet you already know all the answers, nice job.
They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???
Just a thought.
Condolences to JS - a great shame
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
^^ justified comment
on his way home as sole occupant. He was only speaking of this flight not others.
Rip js and sorry to all close friends and family, he was a terrific bloke.
Pilot of aircraft departed immediatly after is a good mate and said he spoke to him right before take off. Fatigue and experience in area not a factor. Awaiting Atsb repot as should the rest.
R
on his way home as sole occupant. He was only speaking of this flight not others.
Rip js and sorry to all close friends and family, he was a terrific bloke.
Pilot of aircraft departed immediatly after is a good mate and said he spoke to him right before take off. Fatigue and experience in area not a factor. Awaiting Atsb repot as should the rest.
R
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
KP, I suggest you read the thread again. 
The previous poster's comments, who you have ridiculed, were in relation to the specifics of the crash, not some generic comment about engine failures in light twins.
There was only the pilot on board the aircraft, in addition, on a flight to Bathurst Island the aircraft would not have required much fuel, even if a TEMPO was required. In fact, if he had taken five passengers there, and presumably baggage, you could not have much fuel otherwise you would be over MTOW.
The previous poster's comments, who you have ridiculed, were in relation to the specifics of the crash, not some generic comment about engine failures in light twins.
There was only the pilot on board the aircraft, in addition, on a flight to Bathurst Island the aircraft would not have required much fuel, even if a TEMPO was required. In fact, if he had taken five passengers there, and presumably baggage, you could not have much fuel otherwise you would be over MTOW.
A few of us have been discussing it via PM.
Judging from the position of the crash site, it is probably not an engine failure and subsequent loss of control, as the impact point is pretty much on the runway centerline.
Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.
Whatever happened to the poor bugger was catastrophic, and I'm sure he gave it his best shot to get home.
If you look at the sequence of events, it almost looks as if was most surely operating to a 'higher' plan. It was a crosshired charter to another company. The aeroplane was a crosshire. The Pilot who was crosshired, was flying the companies aeroplane who was crosshiring him.
Had the aeroplane had it's SIDS program completed? How long ago was it done? Who did it? Was it done in house?
GG
Judging from the position of the crash site, it is probably not an engine failure and subsequent loss of control, as the impact point is pretty much on the runway centerline.
Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.
Whatever happened to the poor bugger was catastrophic, and I'm sure he gave it his best shot to get home.
If you look at the sequence of events, it almost looks as if was most surely operating to a 'higher' plan. It was a crosshired charter to another company. The aeroplane was a crosshire. The Pilot who was crosshired, was flying the companies aeroplane who was crosshiring him.
Had the aeroplane had it's SIDS program completed? How long ago was it done? Who did it? Was it done in house?
GG
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!
They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???
They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?
Im only asking as I assume you have figured it out.
And I also assume as PIC you have taken into accountCAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"
As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.
RIP JS. May you now fly higher than any of us could dream to.
Quote:
So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!
They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?
Im only asking as I assume you have figured it out.
And I also assume as PIC you have taken into account CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"
As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Do I assume too much. Enough said.
RIP JS. May you now fly higher than any of us could dream to.
So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!
They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?
Im only asking as I assume you have figured it out.
And I also assume as PIC you have taken into account CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"
As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Do I assume too much. Enough said.
RIP JS. May you now fly higher than any of us could dream to.
I take it from your moniker that you're one of them hey! (statement, not a question) A healthy respect for what an aeroplane can do and 'should' do in certain situations is paramount in your early flying career.
Good luck with it!
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG you would assume wrongly I'm afraid when it regards my moniker, it has saved my ass (and others im sure) more times than I'd care to remember.. And let me give you some advice with reference to..
Delete the word early 
A healthy respect for what an aeroplane can do and 'should' do in certain situations is paramount in your early flying career.
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Antartica (Melbourne)
Posts: 28
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The Three sisters to this A/C (TBE,TBG,DVN) are all C310R and all perform differently, ranging from rotate speed to leave the runway to climb speed on two engines and CHT's at/below redline. One will fly 10kts faster than another in the cruise. On a medium sector (eg;YMgd-Ypdn) one will arrive 5-8mins quicker. cruise climb one will climb at 500fpm the other will just manage 300-350fpm. So even though they are the same aircraft and proabaly built within a few months/year of each other they aren't the same.
Not sure if you are aware, there is another aircraft in the area of the crash from a few years ago. (Maybe 2007?) A Beech Bonanza going to the TIWI Is footy grand Final and crashed on approach just to the north of the runway.
Not sure if you are aware, there is another aircraft in the area of the crash from a few years ago. (Maybe 2007?) A Beech Bonanza going to the TIWI Is footy grand Final and crashed on approach just to the north of the runway.
bythenumbers
If you are implying it is illegal to fly a piston twin in charter under the IFR fully loaded in conditions that are hotter than the standard atmosphere then you are most definitely wrong. CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 only states that the aircraft must be capable of achieving the quoted OEI performance at MTOW in the “standard atmosphere”. There is no legal requirement for it to be able to achieve those OEI climb performance figures in conditions that are hotter than ISA and it most certainly doesn’t imply that it is illegal to fly one when it is hotter than ISA. As long as the aircraft can achieve the required normal performance figures in the POH then it is legal to fly, period. Any interpretation outside this is wrong.
And I also assume as PIC you have taken into accountCAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"
As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"
As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: AUS
Posts: 356
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I despair at the level of thinking of some of you young blokes. (here anyway)
What engine failure? The aircraft hit the ground right on extended centreline.
Two previous posters have given good mail. Attitude, on the take-off primary concern is going straight and going up!
I too knew the pilot of the 310 at Longreach, airborne he thought it imperative to turn the landing lights off. Right hand reaching over his body to find them on the left panel, looking down of course.
Truth be told he probably hit the gangbar for the mags.
What engine failure? The aircraft hit the ground right on extended centreline.
Two previous posters have given good mail. Attitude, on the take-off primary concern is going straight and going up!
I too knew the pilot of the 310 at Longreach, airborne he thought it imperative to turn the landing lights off. Right hand reaching over his body to find them on the left panel, looking down of course.
Truth be told he probably hit the gangbar for the mags.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Judging from the position of the crash site, it is probably not an engine failure and subsequent loss of control, as the impact point is pretty much on the runway centerline.
Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.
Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.
Without me speculating as to what actually caused this crash, it is indeed possible that the "flames" that have been reported were from the impact. As the site looks like it is on top of some rising terrain, to an observer on the ground the aircraft may have looked like it was still 'in the air'.
I was somewhat hesitant to post that possibility due to the feeling that I would receive the inevitable "you don't know" type comments, however as it has been mentioned previously without seemingly angering anyone, I thought I would.
Of course it is also possible that something else completely different happened. We will have to wait and see, but in the mean time civilised conversation about the accident and what could be contributing factors should be seen as ok and a chance to perhaps understand and learn more.
Thoughts go out to the young fella's family and friends. I'm sure he was chasing the same dream that we all have.
Havn't been in the Darwin scene myself, but from everything I've heard about the place I'm sure the rest of the crew up there will have had a few beers for Jamie. It's sh!t to lose mates flying.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titan: What I am implying is that whatever the conditions are... If crunching the numbers gives a Density Altitude 5000' or lower and the aircraft can't make 1% Climb at a given TOW then YES, it is illegal.
Its not the PIC's fault if the aircraft cant make it, but the PIC has the responsability to know what the aircraft will and wont do and decide if he/she should proceed.
You only need to look to our short history in aviation to see how pilots both GA and airline get hung out to dry if they break rules, limitations etc.. and live to tell the tale.
I didn't know is not an excuse in court.
Its not the PIC's fault if the aircraft cant make it, but the PIC has the responsability to know what the aircraft will and wont do and decide if he/she should proceed.
You only need to look to our short history in aviation to see how pilots both GA and airline get hung out to dry if they break rules, limitations etc.. and live to tell the tale.
I didn't know is not an excuse in court.
bythenumbers
You have forgotten to mention that to achieve the required OEI climb performance mentioned in CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1, then a number of performance criteria must be met. They being:
• Propeller of inoperative engine stopped, i.e. feathered.
• Undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted.
• Remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power.
• Airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.
I am sure you would also be aware that by the time all the above conditions are met plus achieving Vyse (blue line at MTOW) or the decision point if one is used, i.e. from a long runway, the aircraft will be at least 2-300ft. Until then there is absolutely no requirement to achieve a 1% climb gradient. After all the title of CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 “EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE” implies in itself that the aircraft must be clean.
Having said all that it would appear to me though that other things were at play that may have cause this accident.
You have forgotten to mention that to achieve the required OEI climb performance mentioned in CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1, then a number of performance criteria must be met. They being:
• Propeller of inoperative engine stopped, i.e. feathered.
• Undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted.
• Remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power.
• Airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.
I am sure you would also be aware that by the time all the above conditions are met plus achieving Vyse (blue line at MTOW) or the decision point if one is used, i.e. from a long runway, the aircraft will be at least 2-300ft. Until then there is absolutely no requirement to achieve a 1% climb gradient. After all the title of CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 “EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE” implies in itself that the aircraft must be clean.
Having said all that it would appear to me though that other things were at play that may have cause this accident.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: You know where the Opera House is? Well....no where near there.
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 38 Likes
on
11 Posts
Speed of light vs speed of sound
"Without me speculating as to what actually caused this crash, it is indeed possible that the "flames" that have been reported were from the impact. As the site looks like it is on top of some rising terrain, to an observer on the ground the aircraft may have looked like it was still 'in the air'."
Agreed.
Again, without speculating as to the cause of the accident (we shall leave this in the professional hands of the ATSB) but if you were looking up at the crash which was some distance away, you would expect to see an explosion, then shortly afterwards you will hear the engines stop, even though this may of happened at the same instance. As light travels faster than sound.
For the untrained (and petrified) observer, I could see how they could of mistakenly said there was an explosion before the engines stopped.
Agreed.
Again, without speculating as to the cause of the accident (we shall leave this in the professional hands of the ATSB) but if you were looking up at the crash which was some distance away, you would expect to see an explosion, then shortly afterwards you will hear the engines stop, even though this may of happened at the same instance. As light travels faster than sound.
For the untrained (and petrified) observer, I could see how they could of mistakenly said there was an explosion before the engines stopped.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Titan: You are correct with regards to the grey area from rotation till the aircraft is in the specified configuration. A point that most will never experience an engine failure (genuine) anyway. Bad spot to find out the Aux's are selected though.
I was not specifically commenting on this accident rather replying to kulwins generalised comment that a twin at MTOW wont perform.
So many young guys and gals flog around in twins these days with not the slightest respect for the regs which are put there to protect them.
Just to be clear: This comment is not directed at the current thread topic or pilot involved.
I was not specifically commenting on this accident rather replying to kulwins generalised comment that a twin at MTOW wont perform.
So many young guys and gals flog around in twins these days with not the slightest respect for the regs which are put there to protect them.
Just to be clear: This comment is not directed at the current thread topic or pilot involved.
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Oz
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For what it's worth, I've had two AI failures in the past month in different aircraft, one VMC, one IMC.
VMC, easy to detect. IMC, a few moments of 'this feels f'ing wrong' before I picked it up. Autopilot off and recovered on Standby AI from about 20 AoB and 5 degrees nose down. No biggie at altitude.
Having an AI let go on rotation on a cloudy night with a black hole in front of you: That is a biggie.
Perhaps this pilot was trained well and new all about OEI performance requirements and the somatographic illusion. Perhaps, like me, he knew about AI failures. Perhaps, unlike me, he didn't have enough sky below...
VMC, easy to detect. IMC, a few moments of 'this feels f'ing wrong' before I picked it up. Autopilot off and recovered on Standby AI from about 20 AoB and 5 degrees nose down. No biggie at altitude.
Having an AI let go on rotation on a cloudy night with a black hole in front of you: That is a biggie.
Perhaps this pilot was trained well and new all about OEI performance requirements and the somatographic illusion. Perhaps, like me, he knew about AI failures. Perhaps, unlike me, he didn't have enough sky below...
By the Numbers
By your posting I am positive you are a multi engine instructor - who has never done anything but.
Yes a Seneca or Duchess will climb perfectly well, with a couple of POB in most situations around Australia. Where we operate piston charter twins most of the time, they certainly won't.
The key - is to expect the aeroplane not to perform and plan accordingly, then be surprised when it does. It certainly is not a happy day when you are expecting performance, and it does not (a friend of mine was taken recently because of this). Chimbu Chuckles once said something quite profound. He never expects an engine to perform for the duration of a flight, and is pleasantly surprised when it does. I think you should adopt the same attitude, and plan accordingly, then accept the reality of your piston twin performance.
The 1% climb gradient to 5000 feet needs to be also explained (slowly just for you). If you are grounding 100 knots, that is only a 100 ftpm ROC. Now you could be achieving this, and losing this PLUS MORE, in thermal turbulence and down-droughts. 100 fpm ROC is not something that is going to give you much love. In simple terms it will take you 10 mins to climb 1000 feet. This will also put you 16 miles or so from where you started. Unless you are taking off from a flat island in the middle of the ocean, once you are outside the protection of the circling area you will surely be below the 10/25nm MSA and en-route LSALT.
If you want guaranteed performance, fly something certified to achieve it (under 20.7.1b). Even then, sometimes due to the nature of the beast - you can not necessarily rely on it.
Let's also get this straight, the 1% climb gradient is only required in ISA (along with the other performance requirements) conditions. They are certainly not required to achieve this performance in ISA+ under their certification. As the operating Pilot, you are also not required to ensure they can. You are just required to understand the limitations. If you want to maintain these margins, you will never be able to operate piston twins with more than a couple of POB in ISA+ conditions.
Before you start crapping on about how they should be banned if this is the case, why do you happily fly in singles? A piston twin is basically a single engine aeroplane with the engine divided by two and bolted to the wings. Treat is as such, and you will not have a problem.
As for the accident, this does not appear to be the cause of it, so lets put this one to bed.
Next.
By your posting I am positive you are a multi engine instructor - who has never done anything but.
Yes a Seneca or Duchess will climb perfectly well, with a couple of POB in most situations around Australia. Where we operate piston charter twins most of the time, they certainly won't.
The key - is to expect the aeroplane not to perform and plan accordingly, then be surprised when it does. It certainly is not a happy day when you are expecting performance, and it does not (a friend of mine was taken recently because of this). Chimbu Chuckles once said something quite profound. He never expects an engine to perform for the duration of a flight, and is pleasantly surprised when it does. I think you should adopt the same attitude, and plan accordingly, then accept the reality of your piston twin performance.
The 1% climb gradient to 5000 feet needs to be also explained (slowly just for you). If you are grounding 100 knots, that is only a 100 ftpm ROC. Now you could be achieving this, and losing this PLUS MORE, in thermal turbulence and down-droughts. 100 fpm ROC is not something that is going to give you much love. In simple terms it will take you 10 mins to climb 1000 feet. This will also put you 16 miles or so from where you started. Unless you are taking off from a flat island in the middle of the ocean, once you are outside the protection of the circling area you will surely be below the 10/25nm MSA and en-route LSALT.
If you want guaranteed performance, fly something certified to achieve it (under 20.7.1b). Even then, sometimes due to the nature of the beast - you can not necessarily rely on it.
Let's also get this straight, the 1% climb gradient is only required in ISA (along with the other performance requirements) conditions. They are certainly not required to achieve this performance in ISA+ under their certification. As the operating Pilot, you are also not required to ensure they can. You are just required to understand the limitations. If you want to maintain these margins, you will never be able to operate piston twins with more than a couple of POB in ISA+ conditions.
Before you start crapping on about how they should be banned if this is the case, why do you happily fly in singles? A piston twin is basically a single engine aeroplane with the engine divided by two and bolted to the wings. Treat is as such, and you will not have a problem.
As for the accident, this does not appear to be the cause of it, so lets put this one to bed.
Next.