C310 Down in the TIWI's
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Window Seat
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Goblin. Judging by your post count its clear that you are likely be the m/e instructor with more time to troll pprune than actually get out and fly. However I am not going to judge you on your pprune merit as that would be foolish indeed. You clearly have not read any of my posts with much attention as at no time did I say 1% would keep you out of the trees.
Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.
Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Goblin. Judging by your post count its clear that you are likely be the m/e instructor with more time to troll pprune than actually get out and fly. However I am not going to judge you on your pprune merit as that would be foolish indeed. You clearly have not read any of my posts with much attention as at no time did I say 1% would keep you out of the trees.
Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.
Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.
As for my history, I don't even need to justify it. Most on here know.
Quote:
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?
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.
Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that it is legislated that is should climb, therefore it should.
Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?
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.
Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that it is legislated that is should climb, therefore it should.
As to far above, Yes I meant Charter instead of Mission. Also I will apologise, as I did find an article later on a news site browsing through that the pilot had dropped off passengers, and was flying away empty. I made an implication that the pilot could have been on a fully fuelled and loaded charter, being max weight. This does happen all over Australia, so my comment was meant to be general, not specific to this incident we talk about here.
The old police 310's up north used to be an example of fully fuelled, max POB, and fly off into distance, all very well trained and cultured to conditions and environment, but if something had gone wrong, then similar situation may have arisen to accident. It's not different to anywhere else in the world, accidents happen unexplained, until investigated to cause by local officials.
I was just implying initially (or thinking in my head really) that we are trying to get away with more, still using older aircraft, pushed to their max limits their whole life. In the above case, maybe it was nothing to do with age of aircraft, just something went wrong, with fireball reported on aircraft prior to it connecting with the ground.
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.
4 TAKE-OFF WEIGHT LIMITATIONS
4.1 An aeroplane must not take off at a weight in excess of the least of the weights determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) to (d):
(a) a weight at which the take-off distance required under subsection 6 for the pressure height, temperature, runway slope (if in excess of 1%) and wind component along the runway, is equal to or less than the take-off distance available in the direction of take-off. Approved declared conditions may be used instead of actual pressure height and temperature;
(b) a weight which will permit compliance with the take-off climb requirements specified in subsection 7 taking into account ambient temperature and pressure height. Approved declared temperature and pressure height may be used instead of ambient conditions;
(c) a weight which will permit compliance with the en-route climb requirements specified in subsection 8;
(d) a weight which, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight and taking into account either the forecast temperature and pressure or approved declared conditions, will permit compliance with the landing distance limitations specified in subsection 10 related to the longest available landing length under conditions of zero wind.
4.1 An aeroplane must not take off at a weight in excess of the least of the weights determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) to (d):
(a) a weight at which the take-off distance required under subsection 6 for the pressure height, temperature, runway slope (if in excess of 1%) and wind component along the runway, is equal to or less than the take-off distance available in the direction of take-off. Approved declared conditions may be used instead of actual pressure height and temperature;
(b) a weight which will permit compliance with the take-off climb requirements specified in subsection 7 taking into account ambient temperature and pressure height. Approved declared temperature and pressure height may be used instead of ambient conditions;
(c) a weight which will permit compliance with the en-route climb requirements specified in subsection 8;
(d) a weight which, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight and taking into account either the forecast temperature and pressure or approved declared conditions, will permit compliance with the landing distance limitations specified in subsection 10 related to the longest available landing length under conditions of zero wind.
The Seminole (non-turbo), Seneca I and Travelair are examples of aircraft which do not meet the 1% to 5000 requirement and MTOW must be reduced for IFR charter and airwork in these aircraft. They were made to just make the FAA certification requirement of maintaining 5000ft in ISA.
The rule only makes reference to manufacturers data for take-off and landing distance calculations, and to factor them if there is no evidence that they have been. It also intends that the particular aircraft is to be considered, not type, not a fresh from factory aircraft etc... If you know that your aircraft can not comply with these rules you are operating it illegally.
The manufacturer provides basic data, it is up to the pilot to use the data apply factors and determine if the weight at take-off meets the legal requirements. How you approach this problem with what factors for a 40 year old piston up North is another debate.
or is it down a hill and green towards a creek perhaps?
That's not a hill - it's a vegetation change from scrub to greener mangroves.
Last edited by bentleg; 7th Feb 2011 at 23:25.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CAO 20.7.4 states the weight limitations for a light aircraft in charter or airwork operations. Weight control is a responsibility of the Pilot in Command.
Quote:
4 TAKE-OFF WEIGHT LIMITATIONS
4.1 An aeroplane must not take off at a weight in excess of the least of the weights determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) to (d):
(a) a weight at which the take-off distance required under subsection 6 for the pressure height, temperature, runway slope (if in excess of 1%) and wind component along the runway, is equal to or less than the take-off distance available in the direction of take-off. Approved declared conditions may be used instead of actual pressure height and temperature;
(b) a weight which will permit compliance with the take-off climb requirements specified in subsection 7 taking into account ambient temperature and pressure height. Approved declared temperature and pressure height may be used instead of ambient conditions;
(c) a weight which will permit compliance with the en-route climb requirements specified in subsection 8;
(d) a weight which, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight and taking into account either the forecast temperature and pressure or approved declared conditions, will permit compliance with the landing distance limitations specified in subsection 10 related to the longest available landing length under conditions of zero wind.
These are not certification requirements they are day to day based except for the enroute climb requirement which is ISA based. That is they must be calculated for the intended operation.
The Seminole (non-turbo), Seneca I and Travelair are examples of aircraft which do not meet the 1% to 5000 requirement and MTOW must be reduced for IFR charter and airwork in these aircraft. They were made to just make the FAA certification requirement of maintaining 5000ft in ISA.
The rule only makes reference to manufacturers data for take-off and landing distance calculations, and to factor them if there is no evidence that they have been. It also intends that the particular aircraft is to be considered, not type, not a fresh from factory aircraft etc... If you know that your aircraft can not comply with these rules you are operating it illegally.
The manufacturer provides basic data, it is up to the pilot to use the data apply factors and determine if the weight at take-off meets the legal requirements. How you approach this problem with what factors for a 40 year old piston up North is another debate.
Quote:
4 TAKE-OFF WEIGHT LIMITATIONS
4.1 An aeroplane must not take off at a weight in excess of the least of the weights determined in accordance with subparagraphs (a) to (d):
(a) a weight at which the take-off distance required under subsection 6 for the pressure height, temperature, runway slope (if in excess of 1%) and wind component along the runway, is equal to or less than the take-off distance available in the direction of take-off. Approved declared conditions may be used instead of actual pressure height and temperature;
(b) a weight which will permit compliance with the take-off climb requirements specified in subsection 7 taking into account ambient temperature and pressure height. Approved declared temperature and pressure height may be used instead of ambient conditions;
(c) a weight which will permit compliance with the en-route climb requirements specified in subsection 8;
(d) a weight which, allowing for normal consumption of fuel and oil in flight and taking into account either the forecast temperature and pressure or approved declared conditions, will permit compliance with the landing distance limitations specified in subsection 10 related to the longest available landing length under conditions of zero wind.
These are not certification requirements they are day to day based except for the enroute climb requirement which is ISA based. That is they must be calculated for the intended operation.
The Seminole (non-turbo), Seneca I and Travelair are examples of aircraft which do not meet the 1% to 5000 requirement and MTOW must be reduced for IFR charter and airwork in these aircraft. They were made to just make the FAA certification requirement of maintaining 5000ft in ISA.
The rule only makes reference to manufacturers data for take-off and landing distance calculations, and to factor them if there is no evidence that they have been. It also intends that the particular aircraft is to be considered, not type, not a fresh from factory aircraft etc... If you know that your aircraft can not comply with these rules you are operating it illegally.
The manufacturer provides basic data, it is up to the pilot to use the data apply factors and determine if the weight at take-off meets the legal requirements. How you approach this problem with what factors for a 40 year old piston up North is another debate.
The enroute requirement is for ISA in the clean configuration.
ISA is not normal in Australia's North.
This requirement of 1% is also a requirement for certification and is calculated by the manufacturer to comply with "including" degredation of performance from airframe and engine's for their workable lifetime.
And on that note please point me to the chart and performace calculations for "reducing" payload to ensure compliance with aircraft age and ISA changes to comply with 1%. My AFM seems to be missing this chapter...
We all know, as has been stated on this thread, that a MTOW light twin will struggle to maintain any climb under certain conditions. You should always fly with an escape route up your sleeve. This is why we make an emergency pre-takoff brief isn't it?
In this instance fuel exhaustion/starvation, a/h topple, or illusions on t/o seem a more likely cause for the accident. However that isn't as easy a target as the - OMG light twins are bad mkaaaay.
In any case i digress...
Poor bloke has lost his life doing the best he could with what he had at the time. The rest should await the atsb report...
condolensces once again to those close.
R
Geez, the posts on here are indication of some severe lack in operational (and legislative) knowledge.
The reg you are quoting 43inches is for both engines operating, and being able to comply with a SID climb gradient for instance.
Xcel, well said.
The reg you are quoting 43inches is for both engines operating, and being able to comply with a SID climb gradient for instance.
Xcel, well said.
Why did you bold the Take off performance (b)? (your bolding not mine) This is a requirement for ALL engines operating and doesnt corelate with your arguement at all. Only shows how little you understand of these requirements
And on that note please point me to the chart and performace calculations for "reducing" payload to ensure compliance with aircraft age and ISA changes to comply with 1%. My AFM seems to be missing this chapter...
There are standard factors for these available but they are very general in nature.
You are proving your lack of understanding in that the 1% requirement is only required to be calculated in ISA. It does not need to be checked for each flight, that is the MTOW limited aircraft will have the same limit at any temperature/density.
The reg you are quoting 43inches is for both engines operating, and being able to comply with a SID climb gradient for instance.
Here is subsections 7 & 8 for your benefit;
7 TAKE-OFF CLIMB PERFORMANCE
7.1 In the take-off configuration with landing gear extended, an aeroplane must have the ability to achieve a climb gradient of 6% at take-off safety speed, without ground effect, and with all engines operating at take-off power.
8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 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 in the following configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
7.1 In the take-off configuration with landing gear extended, an aeroplane must have the ability to achieve a climb gradient of 6% at take-off safety speed, without ground effect, and with all engines operating at take-off power.
8 EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE
8.1 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 in the following configuration:
(a) propeller of inoperative engine stopped;
(b) undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted;
Last edited by 43Inches; 8th Feb 2011 at 00:16.
You are proving your lack of understanding in that the 1% requirement is only required to be calculated in ISA. It does not need to be checked for each flight, that is the MTOW limited aircraft will have the same limit at any temperature/density.
He was laughing at you, for implying that you had to ensure you meet the minimum 1% climb gradient below 5000 feet.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's flat as a tack north of airfield. The photo is deceptive due to the colour changes of the vegetation. The dark green is mangrove trees on the edge of a creek then there is the lighter green of the scrub.
At this stage, in the absence of any more definitive information, it looks awfully like somatogravic illusion has trapped this fellow. It always crossed my mind as a possibility every time I taxied out at Tennant Creek at night. I can also remember a discussion about it on PPRuNe years ago and the recommendation then was attitude flying but the suggestion was an initial 5 degrees then after gear retraction go to just under 10.
Personally, I always transition to instruments on takeoff at night and have used that initial 5 then 8 degree attitude.
At this stage, in the absence of any more definitive information, it looks awfully like somatogravic illusion has trapped this fellow. It always crossed my mind as a possibility every time I taxied out at Tennant Creek at night. I can also remember a discussion about it on PPRuNe years ago and the recommendation then was attitude flying but the suggestion was an initial 5 degrees then after gear retraction go to just under 10.
Personally, I always transition to instruments on takeoff at night and have used that initial 5 then 8 degree attitude.
I remember as a newly rated NVFR PPL taking off on a black night. Something did not seem right at the time during early climb and I quickly went to instruments. I remember once in the cruise being a bit confused about what went on shortly after departure. My training had not covered the illusion, but had covered the importance of the AH.
It was only a year or so later that I read about the somatogravic illusion and the penny dropped.
For those interested, in my part of the world the illusion can happen during the day in white out conditions too...
-----------------------------
And maybe the mods could move single engine performance issues to another thread of its own? The discussion and errors in the discussion are likely not relevant here, but it's an important argument to have to thrash out the truth from the heresay and misunderstanding. May I also suggest the protagonists study the aircraft certification FARs...
It was only a year or so later that I read about the somatogravic illusion and the penny dropped.
For those interested, in my part of the world the illusion can happen during the day in white out conditions too...
-----------------------------
And maybe the mods could move single engine performance issues to another thread of its own? The discussion and errors in the discussion are likely not relevant here, but it's an important argument to have to thrash out the truth from the heresay and misunderstanding. May I also suggest the protagonists study the aircraft certification FARs...
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sale, Australia
Age: 80
Posts: 3,832
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
can happen during the day in white out conditions too...
Test pilot was up in a Vampire on a beautiful day. Come time to land the sole weather impediment for a thousand miles was a single thunderstorm bearing down on the field. Lost sight of the landing enviroment on short, short final when flying into the rain shaft and overshot. Somatogravic raised its head and aircraft impacted some distance to the left of the runway. Survived but confined to a wheelchair.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: FL350
Posts: 127
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
not to pre judge the findings
I once had an AH fail on rotation and show a marked pitch up. Also no warning flag came up. Had it have been a dark night or IMC I would have probably flown it straight into the ground trusting the instruments. Luckily it was day VMC...
Keep the stories coming.
It is too early to judge these events, and hopefully not too much of a thread drift, but tales like Van Gough's above are fantastic reading for everybody. Please keep them coming. These things do happen and when people just get away with it, it does not make the crash comics and noone gets to learn.
This discussion raises awareness that might save a life of some young bloke or blokette one day. These short stories - like Van Gough's or Brian Abraham's - are more forceful than the "what went wrong" tales in the fancy toilet paper that turns up every two months.
This discussion raises awareness that might save a life of some young bloke or blokette one day. These short stories - like Van Gough's or Brian Abraham's - are more forceful than the "what went wrong" tales in the fancy toilet paper that turns up every two months.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: rangaville
Posts: 2,280
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There's one departure I used to do into pitch black that was one of these somatogravic thingys. Every time I did that departure I'd sit on the end of the runway for a minute or two for last minute checks and run through how I was going to perform it.
Some of the fellas used to get the autopilot on as soon as possible after departure, I didn't trust myself to look away from the A/H (and the others) to flick any switch let alone the autopilot. No power reductions til everything was sorted.
Poor bugger
Some of the fellas used to get the autopilot on as soon as possible after departure, I didn't trust myself to look away from the A/H (and the others) to flick any switch let alone the autopilot. No power reductions til everything was sorted.
Poor bugger
