RAAF Crash East Sale
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: SE Aus
Posts: 129
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
RAAF PC-9s grounded after crash | Australian Aviation Magazine
The Australian way... crash a plane, then GROUND all similar types
The Australian way... crash a plane, then GROUND all similar types
Last edited by VH-XXX; 18th May 2011 at 11:19. Reason: Oops added the word "ground"
At Avalon Airshow the Roulette team aircraft did not all have the big R on the tail. Three were from 2FTS Pearce. I was told that it was because all the higher engine time PC9's had been grounded because of an earlier engine incident.
Now there appears to be another incident..........
Now there appears to be another incident..........
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Australia
Age: 65
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember a CT4 having an engine failure and subsequent forced landing in a friend's paddock off Dunnings Rd just north of Pt Cook; back in the 80's if I recall correctly. No big deal then, no damage during landing as far as I know but a hell of a theatrical performance on behalf of RAAF personnel; armed guards around the aircraft for some time, a huge fuss with the property owner being told to effoff despite property damage and expensive animals nearby; bigger than Ben Hur I remember him saying, I don't recall him being to impressed.
Short video clips just now on ABC of military personnel wearing respirator gear while other individuals in civvies breathing al la naturale.
Short video clips just now on ABC of military personnel wearing respirator gear while other individuals in civvies breathing al la naturale.
It makes no difference re total time of aircraft. Engines/props are on a different overhaul schedule. Hours and cycles on the engine not the airframe dictate its condition. A 10,000 hours airframe can have a "0" time since overhaul engine for example.
Oh boy I could have a field day with this one.
On a side note I guess 'punching out' isn't optional when the ONLY fan goes quiet. I wonder if that decision ( to punch out) can be assessed at the time if the commander decides a controlled crash is an option, anyone know?
Wmk2
On a side note I guess 'punching out' isn't optional when the ONLY fan goes quiet. I wonder if that decision ( to punch out) can be assessed at the time if the commander decides a controlled crash is an option, anyone know?
Wmk2
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From memory SOP's are to punch regardless, but I do wonder if there is a minimum. There is mention in this link of ejection at "only 300ft" which makes me wonder what the minimum is.
This is an interesting link:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/A...c_9_losses.htm
This is an interesting link:
http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/A...c_9_losses.htm
If the prop doesn't/isn't feathered the thing sinks like a collins class (couldn't resist). Do you waste time deciding if you might make it ( and maybe get that decision wrong)or do you take a well rehearsed option.
I heard someone recalling a story of a RAF pilot I believe, who ejected.
The journo asked him just after the incident when did you make the decision to eject in this scenario?
The pilot replied 10 years ago.
The PC 9 is getting on, who cares if you chuck one away if it fails the makers warranty as long as the crew get out safely.
I heard someone recalling a story of a RAF pilot I believe, who ejected.
The journo asked him just after the incident when did you make the decision to eject in this scenario?
The pilot replied 10 years ago.
The PC 9 is getting on, who cares if you chuck one away if it fails the makers warranty as long as the crew get out safely.
'OZ' I understand where ya comin' from re who cares about the airframe. I was more thinking about the risks associated with punching out. Am sure it ain't a walk in the park going along for a ride in one of those fast movin' seats!Am sure there has been many an injury created from leavin' da plane like that in a hurry
Anyway their safe that's the main thing.
Wmk2
Anyway their safe that's the main thing.
Wmk2
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As long as ejection is initated within the performance parameters of the particular seat installed, and correct seating posture is adopted the risks of injury should be minimal. Where you land is another matter! As a matter of procedure, all ejectees are immediately raced of to medical to get an X-ray.
Sprucegoose
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Hughes Point, where life is great! Was also resident on page 13, but now I'm lost in Cyberspace....
Age: 59
Posts: 3,485
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Lucky it wasn't a PC-12, where punching out isn't an option!
Oh I see Wally has already broached that topic!
Oh I see Wally has already broached that topic!
Hi Wal
My comments are just my own thoughts on the matter and not directed at any one (in this case!).
There is a ADF media release from today that now says the boys had departed, had an engine failure, turned back from some distance, tried to restart but it wouldn't and they were not in gliding distance so selected the Martin Baker let down option.
The PC 9 really isn't a good aircraft to try to force land on a paddock, particularly when you have another option. Bang seats have got better over the years and offer a much better option than a relatively high speed landing with narrowish tires and fuel tanks very close to the leading edge.
As for deciding where to leave vs whats on the ground all depends on the time/control you have over the situation. I imagine for those who have done it they tried to control the outcome as much as possible and its the first thing you would think of once you are on the ground.
I had my own policy regarding it but it may have varied in the real case!!!
As for the PT6, the PC9 ones get flogged but I do have awe for anyone who flies one without a bang seat!
My comments are just my own thoughts on the matter and not directed at any one (in this case!).
There is a ADF media release from today that now says the boys had departed, had an engine failure, turned back from some distance, tried to restart but it wouldn't and they were not in gliding distance so selected the Martin Baker let down option.
The PC 9 really isn't a good aircraft to try to force land on a paddock, particularly when you have another option. Bang seats have got better over the years and offer a much better option than a relatively high speed landing with narrowish tires and fuel tanks very close to the leading edge.
As for deciding where to leave vs whats on the ground all depends on the time/control you have over the situation. I imagine for those who have done it they tried to control the outcome as much as possible and its the first thing you would think of once you are on the ground.
I had my own policy regarding it but it may have varied in the real case!!!
As for the PT6, the PC9 ones get flogged but I do have awe for anyone who flies one without a bang seat!
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Sydney NSW Australia
Posts: 3,051
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Punching out in the event of an engine failure is SOP. part of that procedure, is to ensure the aircraft will cause minimal damage on the ground after you leave it. in otehrword, exercise good airmanship and make sure your aircraft is pointed somewhere safe when you pull the handle
