MERGED: Skydive 206 down at Tooradin
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: ɐıןɐɹʇsn∀
Posts: 1,994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Horatio Leafblower
Originally Posted by VH-XXX
They are not meat-bombs, they are Sky-Divers or Parachutists. Meatbombers is somewhat disrespectful.
Last edited by Hempy; 10th Oct 2011 at 11:29.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could it be that the pilot had not been experienced with a heavy load on landing
Cavok, you crack me up - you criticise everyone for being a fuel expert, but then offer advice suggesting that the pilot can't land a "heavy" aeroplane
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have many many loads and many to come flying skydivers, I have the utmost respect for them.
AFAIK they dont find the term meatbomb offensive, but I have many friends in the industry so Ill ask before using the term again.
XXX, it was I who first suggested the heavy aircraft on landing scenario. Ive witnessed it. Pilots who have flown lots of loads always landing light, then get caught having to land full and make a heavy landing, or comment to me after how it caught them out low on power on final etc and how different it is. The difference is a C182 at MTOW or just under on landing versus one that is almost below the listed ZFW due to the missing interior and low fuel.
Now that its been mentioned he handled one earlier, that rules out that. Puts it back to a power issue.
AFAIK they dont find the term meatbomb offensive, but I have many friends in the industry so Ill ask before using the term again.
XXX, it was I who first suggested the heavy aircraft on landing scenario. Ive witnessed it. Pilots who have flown lots of loads always landing light, then get caught having to land full and make a heavy landing, or comment to me after how it caught them out low on power on final etc and how different it is. The difference is a C182 at MTOW or just under on landing versus one that is almost below the listed ZFW due to the missing interior and low fuel.
Now that its been mentioned he handled one earlier, that rules out that. Puts it back to a power issue.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maun, Botswana
Age: 37
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cavok, please read my original suggestion.
A sustained turn for longer than 1 min with less than 1/4 of a tank can lead to fuel starvation. If he had 1/4 in each tank, that would add up to around 1hr 20mins of fuel on board. PLEANTY enough to do the drop with legal reserves.
Drop plane climbs to altitude, Does not change tanks at all, cannot drop the (politically correct) parachutists, and begins a nice circling decent to the field.
Feed in the power as you come onto finals, engine tries to take fuel that isnt there and fails. With 6 PoB on board, minus luggage and seats but packing parachutes, the plane would be near MAUW, and glide performance is crap.
At that altitude, and rightly so, rather than fluffing around trying to start an engine and end up somewhere worse. Shut off and prepare for the worst.
In the manual, it states that the plane should be on the fullest tank for landing. If the engine does cut, changing tanks will not suffice in getting restarted, fuel pump has to be on as well.
A sustained turn for longer than 1 min with less than 1/4 of a tank can lead to fuel starvation. If he had 1/4 in each tank, that would add up to around 1hr 20mins of fuel on board. PLEANTY enough to do the drop with legal reserves.
Drop plane climbs to altitude, Does not change tanks at all, cannot drop the (politically correct) parachutists, and begins a nice circling decent to the field.
Feed in the power as you come onto finals, engine tries to take fuel that isnt there and fails. With 6 PoB on board, minus luggage and seats but packing parachutes, the plane would be near MAUW, and glide performance is crap.
At that altitude, and rightly so, rather than fluffing around trying to start an engine and end up somewhere worse. Shut off and prepare for the worst.
In the manual, it states that the plane should be on the fullest tank for landing. If the engine does cut, changing tanks will not suffice in getting restarted, fuel pump has to be on as well.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Maun, Botswana
Age: 37
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Meh, just a guess.
From reading that accident report, seems it can take a while for the engine to cut. If power was put in on the downwind leg... could reason that the engine would cut after turning base or finals.
Just a thought that was worth exploring.
From reading that accident report, seems it can take a while for the engine to cut. If power was put in on the downwind leg... could reason that the engine would cut after turning base or finals.
Just a thought that was worth exploring.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Mel-burn
Posts: 4,875
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry I should have worded that a little better. There was power on downwind and I wasn't suggesting that was the first time that power was added. I have no idea on that and would not speculate. My point was that it didn't glide down to a straight-in approach and have no power when it was needed.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
You guys crack me up!! As soon as one person says fuel, everyone reckons that's the problem. How would it be low fuel if they climbed up but not allthe way due cloud, so they wouldn't of burn all intended fuel therefore would have excess remaining.
We are not here to write the report. That is for the ATSB!
We are just chewing the fat over what might or might not have been.....or once may have been......This is PPRuNe
We are just chewing the fat over what might or might not have been.....or once may have been......This is PPRuNe
i've seen this type of 'shut up' comment mentioned before. And I thought then as I do now, what is the difference between us discussing it here or at the local aero club/qaintarse caviar lounge???
I could think of only one difference...no aeroplanes within 100m. (do i hear muppetry??)
---------------------------------
BOT.
Not being familiar with the 206, discussion i had with someone was that he didn't have the selector on both. (is that an option on the 206..that one in particular??)
The other comment, is that particular 206 is cleared to fly with the doors removed, and part of that requirement is that the pilot is in a multi-point harness, and that many pilots cannot reach the fuel selector. (thoughts?)(btw, if you watch the interview with the spokesman, you will see the a/c doors leaning on the hangar wall behind him)
My own thought was that with the fuel level being so low (who knows how long he swanned around trying to drop) can the nose down position (not bad flying technique) uncover the pickups in a 206?? This guy may have made a straight in, and those big 6's being as thirsty as they are, i doubt you would have 60 seconds of fuel in the lines. maybe 20........(based on experience...a 351 cube cleveland with a 600 holley and 3/8th fuel line runs for about 1.5 minutes at idle with the fuel supply cut off), so how long for a 500+ cube with a large power setting??
Reading the reports, it certainly wasn't a fuel exhaustion issue(the rescue teams were treated for avgas immersion), but perhaps a starvation problem??
Cheers big ears
Jas
Fuel on the U206 is LEFT/OFF/RIGHT ie: you pass through "off" to change tanks.
Trying to pass the magnifying glass over this particular aspect of the prang via PPRuNe is pointless and - honestly - does it REALLY contribute to the body of pilot knowledge out there?
I have long been a PPRUNe speculator on prangs but maybe I'm getting older or something.... it's going to be one of a group of causes, we all know what those causes are. History tells us that for every 100 pilots who learn something from this (or any other prang) there will be 1 who repeats it.
Maybe I'll just shuffle off into the PPRuNe-set and STFU
Trying to pass the magnifying glass over this particular aspect of the prang via PPRuNe is pointless and - honestly - does it REALLY contribute to the body of pilot knowledge out there?
I have long been a PPRUNe speculator on prangs but maybe I'm getting older or something.... it's going to be one of a group of causes, we all know what those causes are. History tells us that for every 100 pilots who learn something from this (or any other prang) there will be 1 who repeats it.
Maybe I'll just shuffle off into the PPRuNe-set and STFU
If the engine does cut, changing tanks will not suffice in getting restarted, fuel pump has to be on as well.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: land down under
Age: 43
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First off, for those that took offence to the term meatbombs, Im sorry. My parachutist mates dont get offended when I call them that and worse so I didnt think many pilots on here would. Just like i dont get offended when they start making comments about the size of my watch.
On a more relevent note. Any of the speculation on here could be true. Lack of fuel? Sure maybe, but there was fuel in the water after.
of balance in the turn and starved the pick ups of fuel?? Sounds plausible
Not used to landing heavy??? Yeah, possible. So he landed like that just before? Doesn't mean that he cant EFF it up the second time.
Maybe the engine actually did just sh*t itself guys? Not the first time it's happend.
Heres one from left field. What if it was a control issue?? Maybe the skydivers down the back got sick of leaning forward and sat down and rested on the baggage shelf, that would go very close to putting a 206 out of balance. I can see it now, slowing down on approach, guys sit back, nose goes up, pilot pushes forward, nose keeps going up, WTF?? power up (so nose up more), flaps already full, behind the drag curve, cant power out, stall (sorry, plankie isnt here) into the trees.
What if he did change to the fullest tank on the way down? To a tank that had heaps of fuel in there. But just think, everything was happening a bit quick, he had a full load which was different and was concentrating on that, didnt quiet notice that the selector didnt go into the detent. Fuel starvation that way?
Whatever happend, all survived which is the most important thing. That allows us to speculate more freely without feeling as though someone may get offended.
On a more relevent note. Any of the speculation on here could be true. Lack of fuel? Sure maybe, but there was fuel in the water after.
of balance in the turn and starved the pick ups of fuel?? Sounds plausible
Not used to landing heavy??? Yeah, possible. So he landed like that just before? Doesn't mean that he cant EFF it up the second time.
Maybe the engine actually did just sh*t itself guys? Not the first time it's happend.
Heres one from left field. What if it was a control issue?? Maybe the skydivers down the back got sick of leaning forward and sat down and rested on the baggage shelf, that would go very close to putting a 206 out of balance. I can see it now, slowing down on approach, guys sit back, nose goes up, pilot pushes forward, nose keeps going up, WTF?? power up (so nose up more), flaps already full, behind the drag curve, cant power out, stall (sorry, plankie isnt here) into the trees.
What if he did change to the fullest tank on the way down? To a tank that had heaps of fuel in there. But just think, everything was happening a bit quick, he had a full load which was different and was concentrating on that, didnt quiet notice that the selector didnt go into the detent. Fuel starvation that way?
Whatever happend, all survived which is the most important thing. That allows us to speculate more freely without feeling as though someone may get offended.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Gods Country
Age: 53
Posts: 181
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Propblast, what you describe in your 3rd paragraph above is very plausible.
I have experienced a rearward CofG change in a C206. Took off OK, pax moved some items in flight to parcel rack, no change in a/c performance, as fuel burnt off CofG moved further aft, on arrival in circuit area 2.5hrs later and taking 10 flap, I had elevator control issues (porpoising) removed flap and increased speed, had pax move stuff fwd. Applied flap again and had control issues, elected to land flapless at higher speed, everything ok. After landing, for my own curiosity, I weighed everything and everyone and found at current fuel load, the CofG was "JUST" over the rear limit. We had some bags posted home from where we were.
If a skydiver had turned around, that could place 80kg about 2 feet further aft with a light fuel load ? ? Ive had skydivers turn around, like they were preparing to exit on jump run, whilst on decent to land, ALWAYS tell them to sit down facing backwards for safety reasons in the event of a sudden stop, but rearward CofG change is another very good reason for them to stay seated.
I have experienced a rearward CofG change in a C206. Took off OK, pax moved some items in flight to parcel rack, no change in a/c performance, as fuel burnt off CofG moved further aft, on arrival in circuit area 2.5hrs later and taking 10 flap, I had elevator control issues (porpoising) removed flap and increased speed, had pax move stuff fwd. Applied flap again and had control issues, elected to land flapless at higher speed, everything ok. After landing, for my own curiosity, I weighed everything and everyone and found at current fuel load, the CofG was "JUST" over the rear limit. We had some bags posted home from where we were.
If a skydiver had turned around, that could place 80kg about 2 feet further aft with a light fuel load ? ? Ive had skydivers turn around, like they were preparing to exit on jump run, whilst on decent to land, ALWAYS tell them to sit down facing backwards for safety reasons in the event of a sudden stop, but rearward CofG change is another very good reason for them to stay seated.
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I too have quite a few mates who I regularly call meatbombs, so far no-one has dragged me outside for offending them,,,,of course I once called them "dirt darts" and you should have seen the sh@t hit the fan,
as for the 206 stack,,,I missed it ,I was at least 40 miles away so I have no idea what happen,
as for the 206 stack,,,I missed it ,I was at least 40 miles away so I have no idea what happen,