Plane missing in north Queensland on way to Horn Island
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This increased weight is for VFR operations, based on the aircrafts OEI climb ability.
The two MTOW's, VFR and IFR have been deemed well within the physical limtation of the airframe, any speculation beyond that is blatant stupidity.
If you look into why the aircraft can be operated differently to the USA, is because our certification legislation is different, I am not going to spend forty minutes typing out why, do some research and you'll find its all above board, tried, tested and certified.
The two MTOW's, VFR and IFR have been deemed well within the physical limtation of the airframe, any speculation beyond that is blatant stupidity.
If you look into why the aircraft can be operated differently to the USA, is because our certification legislation is different, I am not going to spend forty minutes typing out why, do some research and you'll find its all above board, tried, tested and certified.
Good to see some varied opinions on my last however I agree with Josh, also as I mentioned in my last, if the aircraft is maintained correctly there shouldn't be any major problems !!!! However I don't dismiss that some of these aircraft (And I'm not only specifically talking about Commanders) are well and truly operating beyond their used by dates. It's amazing what a good coat of paint can cover up !
In regard to the nav charges, this has been an issue for years and it is a safety issue, I don't care what anyone thinks. Pilots flying around VFR in IFR conditions isn't safe, regardless if the pilot and the aircraft are rated or not. Whilst I'm sure the nav charges will never be dropped, nor should they be, I still feel that the industry as a whole should be addressing the problem in a constructive manner. As for the Torres Straight area and CTAF, this has been an on going issue for years and is a unique place in Australia given the amount of traffic that operate in the area, not to mention it's geographical location.
This incident/accident has really opened up a can of worms, and it's good to see everyones varied views/opinions.
Back to the original topic, has there been any positive progress on the search.
In regard to the nav charges, this has been an issue for years and it is a safety issue, I don't care what anyone thinks. Pilots flying around VFR in IFR conditions isn't safe, regardless if the pilot and the aircraft are rated or not. Whilst I'm sure the nav charges will never be dropped, nor should they be, I still feel that the industry as a whole should be addressing the problem in a constructive manner. As for the Torres Straight area and CTAF, this has been an on going issue for years and is a unique place in Australia given the amount of traffic that operate in the area, not to mention it's geographical location.
This incident/accident has really opened up a can of worms, and it's good to see everyones varied views/opinions.
Back to the original topic, has there been any positive progress on the search.
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: australia
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
no news from the search.
you are all mentioning things that make sense, but the truth is that GA
evolves around old planes, with equipment on board that is not adequate for the job (still legal with just 2 adf's on board and just a 155 gps and no radar) to fly in the wet season at the top end at night, most of the time underpaid, and so on .
the truth is that is up to everyone to say NO instead of barking here where no one can hear you.
If we are not happy, simply we have to say no, and no one operator can operate without pilots.
pure utopia, because there will be always who says yes.
you are all mentioning things that make sense, but the truth is that GA
evolves around old planes, with equipment on board that is not adequate for the job (still legal with just 2 adf's on board and just a 155 gps and no radar) to fly in the wet season at the top end at night, most of the time underpaid, and so on .
the truth is that is up to everyone to say NO instead of barking here where no one can hear you.
If we are not happy, simply we have to say no, and no one operator can operate without pilots.
pure utopia, because there will be always who says yes.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sure the Torres is an issue and IMHO an accident waiting to happen with regards to a mid air collision, this is not new.
There has been suggestions in the past on ways to alleviate the high risk of a mid air collision.
In 2003/4 I sent a letter to the TLFO CS, from the position of Chief Pilot of an organisation, that highlighted my concerns of this imminent risk, and suggested a simple solution ( never got a response.... ):
Arrival and departure routes for VFR flights into and out of HID, one to the NW of HID and one to the NE.
Funnelling is a simple concept, inbound aircraft would be laterally distant from the outbound aircraft.
Aircraft travelling in the same direction via their appropriate route would have a reasonably low closure rate on each other, as all BN2's travel at the speed of stink.
I'm certain there are other and better suggestions on moderating this risk, building a control tower and making Class C is IMHO probably overkill.
There has been suggestions in the past on ways to alleviate the high risk of a mid air collision.
In 2003/4 I sent a letter to the TLFO CS, from the position of Chief Pilot of an organisation, that highlighted my concerns of this imminent risk, and suggested a simple solution ( never got a response.... ):
Arrival and departure routes for VFR flights into and out of HID, one to the NW of HID and one to the NE.
Funnelling is a simple concept, inbound aircraft would be laterally distant from the outbound aircraft.
Aircraft travelling in the same direction via their appropriate route would have a reasonably low closure rate on each other, as all BN2's travel at the speed of stink.
I'm certain there are other and better suggestions on moderating this risk, building a control tower and making Class C is IMHO probably overkill.
However I don't dismiss that some of these aircraft (And I'm not only specifically talking about Commanders) are well and truly operating beyond their used by dates. It's amazing what a good coat of paint can cover up !
.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cficare,
That would have to be the worst post I have seen on pprune, infact, I am having trouble working out what exactly you are trying to say ?.
If you are trying to suggest that an IFR and VFR aircraft colliding is pure fiction, I would have to ask, have you ever flown in highish density traffic, say the Torres in daylight hours ?, particulary during the wet season ?.
are we talking of a vfr/ifr collision??...if so wheres the other a/c....get real guys.
If you are trying to suggest that an IFR and VFR aircraft colliding is pure fiction, I would have to ask, have you ever flown in highish density traffic, say the Torres in daylight hours ?, particulary during the wet season ?.
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
cficare - I think you've got your wires crossed. Go back and read the entire thread. No-one has suggested a mid-air, in this A/C disappearance, and there's only one A/C reported missing - VH-WZU.
All that was discussed, in some thread drift, was the potential for a mid-air between VFR and IFR aircraft in the area, due to some noted laxity in the region as regards regulations... plus a near-mid-air, that did actually happen.
The fact that reports now state there were storms in the area of Horn Island at the time of VH-WZU's disappearance, and that it was reported that he was holding for WX to clear, leads one to wonder if this disappearance isn't a very similar event to VH-YJB. However, the timing of the disappearance eliminates diurnal heating, and the resultant, normally severe turbulence.
YJB was apparently lost due to mountain wave turbulence and possible pilot error. However, the ATSB notes on operating in severe turbulence at speed in the 500S, lend weight to storm turbulence being a highly probable factor in the disappearance of WZU.
Investigation: AO-2007-029 - In-flight break-up - Clonbinane, Vic; 31 July 2007, VH-YJB, Rockwell, Commander 500S
I find it interesting, that a large proportion of the Aero Commanders where wing spar failure has been the major reason for the loss, the wing/s seem to have buckled downwards under negative G forces, and rarely upwards.
Is it possible that the Shrike Commander wing spar is weaker, in resistance to -G forces, as compared to +G forces? I would have thought that any wing would have an even resistance to buckling against both forces.
All that was discussed, in some thread drift, was the potential for a mid-air between VFR and IFR aircraft in the area, due to some noted laxity in the region as regards regulations... plus a near-mid-air, that did actually happen.
The fact that reports now state there were storms in the area of Horn Island at the time of VH-WZU's disappearance, and that it was reported that he was holding for WX to clear, leads one to wonder if this disappearance isn't a very similar event to VH-YJB. However, the timing of the disappearance eliminates diurnal heating, and the resultant, normally severe turbulence.
YJB was apparently lost due to mountain wave turbulence and possible pilot error. However, the ATSB notes on operating in severe turbulence at speed in the 500S, lend weight to storm turbulence being a highly probable factor in the disappearance of WZU.
Investigation: AO-2007-029 - In-flight break-up - Clonbinane, Vic; 31 July 2007, VH-YJB, Rockwell, Commander 500S
I find it interesting, that a large proportion of the Aero Commanders where wing spar failure has been the major reason for the loss, the wing/s seem to have buckled downwards under negative G forces, and rarely upwards.
Is it possible that the Shrike Commander wing spar is weaker, in resistance to -G forces, as compared to +G forces? I would have thought that any wing would have an even resistance to buckling against both forces.
Last edited by onetrack; 27th Feb 2011 at 08:36.
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cairns
Age: 50
Posts: 295
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Is it possible that the Shrike Commander wing spar is weaker, in resistance to -G forces, as compared to +G forces? I would have thought that any wing would have an even resistance to buckling against both forces.
I find it interesting, that a large proportion of the Aero Commanders where wing spar failure has been the major reason for the loss, the wing/s seem to have buckled downwards under negative G forces.
I'd love to see some POF explaining it!
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Perth - Western Australia
Age: 75
Posts: 1,805
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Josh - O.K. - I see where, "US CAR3 standards required the aircraft design to sustain ultimate flight loads of +6.6 g and -2.7 g."
Part 1.3.3 of the report into the loss of YJB makes for interesting reading... particularly the section where the US authorities replaced the CAR23 standard with an amended FAR 23, and "published maneuvering speed", became the "design maneuvering speed".
Also, this part .. "There was no published maximum turbulence penetration speed for the aircraft, nor was one required for certification to CAR 3 or FAR 23 standards. Instead, the manoeuvring speed was used as a guide to the maximum speed that the aircraft could be safely flown in turbulent conditions. Flight in turbulent air at speeds above the manoeuvring speed could result in flight loads exceeding the aircraft’s design limit loads, even in circumstances that involved less than maximum control deflection."
I also note the mentioned fact in the report, that an empty A/C is more susceptible to high G-loads in turbulence, than a fully-loaded A/C, due to the empty A/C's inherent ability, to change direction/speed, more rapidly.
Part 1.3.3 of the report into the loss of YJB makes for interesting reading... particularly the section where the US authorities replaced the CAR23 standard with an amended FAR 23, and "published maneuvering speed", became the "design maneuvering speed".
Also, this part .. "There was no published maximum turbulence penetration speed for the aircraft, nor was one required for certification to CAR 3 or FAR 23 standards. Instead, the manoeuvring speed was used as a guide to the maximum speed that the aircraft could be safely flown in turbulent conditions. Flight in turbulent air at speeds above the manoeuvring speed could result in flight loads exceeding the aircraft’s design limit loads, even in circumstances that involved less than maximum control deflection."
I also note the mentioned fact in the report, that an empty A/C is more susceptible to high G-loads in turbulence, than a fully-loaded A/C, due to the empty A/C's inherent ability, to change direction/speed, more rapidly.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
GG,
Wing failures in AC50's and Cessna 210's are usually downwards with slap marks on the fuselage.
Why is this so?
The wings are designed with washout, and this results in a slightly neutral to slightly negative AoA at the wing tips.
This negative incidence is easily seen on a C210 in normal cruise.
As Vne is approached or exceeded the wingtip download increases, and especially with aileron input adding to the bending loads.
"Wings clapping", as often expressed in these forums, is an urban myth and a misnomer,
they don't fail upwards, they fail downwards, hence the need to be vigilant with Manoeuvering Speed / Turbulence penetration speed.
Otherwise the wings may fail and "slap" the fuselage.
Back to a possible cause of the accident,
a more likely scenario from holding in bad weather is an inadvertent entry to a spiral dive (graveyard spiral).
Presented with a rapidly increasing airspeed and decreasing altitude, the instinctive response, unless trained or made aware,
is to apply back stick to try to simulataneously prevent altitude loss and airspeed build up.
This will tighten the spiral and increase airspeed and vertical speed
UNLESS the aircraft is rolled wings level and skid ball centred
PRIOR to slowly applying back stick.
Structural failure is a possibility in an inappropriate spiral recovery.
In 2001, a C206 was lost while holding between Badu and Horn Island, the wreckage was subsequently recovered.
In 1999, a C206 was lost in the lower Gulf near Sweers Island after possibly encountering IMC.
The wreckage was eventually recovered 2 years later.
Wing failures in AC50's and Cessna 210's are usually downwards with slap marks on the fuselage.
Why is this so?
The wings are designed with washout, and this results in a slightly neutral to slightly negative AoA at the wing tips.
This negative incidence is easily seen on a C210 in normal cruise.
As Vne is approached or exceeded the wingtip download increases, and especially with aileron input adding to the bending loads.
"Wings clapping", as often expressed in these forums, is an urban myth and a misnomer,
they don't fail upwards, they fail downwards, hence the need to be vigilant with Manoeuvering Speed / Turbulence penetration speed.
Otherwise the wings may fail and "slap" the fuselage.
Back to a possible cause of the accident,
a more likely scenario from holding in bad weather is an inadvertent entry to a spiral dive (graveyard spiral).
Presented with a rapidly increasing airspeed and decreasing altitude, the instinctive response, unless trained or made aware,
is to apply back stick to try to simulataneously prevent altitude loss and airspeed build up.
This will tighten the spiral and increase airspeed and vertical speed
UNLESS the aircraft is rolled wings level and skid ball centred
PRIOR to slowly applying back stick.
Structural failure is a possibility in an inappropriate spiral recovery.
In 2001, a C206 was lost while holding between Badu and Horn Island, the wreckage was subsequently recovered.
In 1999, a C206 was lost in the lower Gulf near Sweers Island after possibly encountering IMC.
The wreckage was eventually recovered 2 years later.
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 283
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm, if a VH aircraft has a valid maintenance release the machine is then safe for flight
Jabawocky, re the context of the post i were referring to i believes it is a fair "assumption"..
Post maintenance it is fer the pilot/capitano to ultimately decide if the aircraft is good to go.
.
That there is an assumption not a fact
Post maintenance it is fer the pilot/capitano to ultimately decide if the aircraft is good to go.
.
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mynameisis
structual failure due to fatigue.
Civil aircraft such as the C210 and the AC50 have washout designed to delay stalling at the tips.
ATSB and NTSB have plenty of instances of slapping, hardly any clapping.
structual failure due to fatigue.
Civil aircraft such as the C210 and the AC50 have washout designed to delay stalling at the tips.
ATSB and NTSB have plenty of instances of slapping, hardly any clapping.
This one looks like a "slap" rather than a "clap" !
Dr
PS: Most pilots seem wary of the C210, but I can only recall one confirmed case of 210 wing failure in Australia - many years ago on descent into Cloncurry. Any others?
Dr
PS: Most pilots seem wary of the C210, but I can only recall one confirmed case of 210 wing failure in Australia - many years ago on descent into Cloncurry. Any others?
