ATO responsible for Warrior accident - what is your verdict?

[Bladeangle]

Hey Jaba, why do you say it was dumb for him to use best angle speed?

He was on a CPL flight test, asking a student to demo a short field T/O is normal, the arrow flight manual says how to do it!

These new CPL's are going to be flying up the top end into short strips, hot, heavy conditions, do you really think it is unreasonable to ask a student to demo a short field at orange with over 1600m of runway on a mere 33 degree day?

They're probably both lucky the candidate didn't lift the gear, might have been a different outcome.

As for simulated EFATO. Iv had CASA ATO's and instructors alike do it right throughout my training. When I was instructing it was a sequence in my schools ops manual during "circuit emergencies" lesson.

djpil, why don't you teach Vx?

[andrewr]

And why ohh why was a Best Angle speed used anyway? That was dumb too unless there was some REALLY good reason, and with such a high DA any good reason to NEED the Vx climb would have been enough to say....no, we are not doing it.

Maybe that's what is used for the performance charts? If you don't use the speeds in the chart, don't expect to get the same performance - and you can't calculate the actual performance at your different speed. If it's close, it's important to use the speeds in the chart. You're not suggesting that if there's enough doubt that you need to calculate performance, you should say no to the whole operation?

[43Inches]

He was on a CPL flight test, asking a student to demo a short field T/O is normal, the arrow flight manual says how to do it!

The lines in the Piper POH end at 30c at 3000ft PAlt.

In at least one accident involving a Piper in the US, a Navajo that did not maintain height, single engine, in very hot conditions, the FAA asked Piper their view on the lines on the charts. Pipers answer was simple, the end of the lines marks the end of certified limits, basically the edge of the environmental envelope. You can not extrapolate these lines out, you may interpolate between them.

Secondly can an Arrow at that density altitude acheive take-off climb requirements of 6%? Book says at max weight it can only achieve 200fpm, gear down, 78kias (extropolated of course because lines don't go that far).

Lastly pulling a suprise EFATO at 50ft in an Arrow under those conditions was simply silly and was only going to end one way. There was no risk management in this event, the what ifs surely outweighed the benefits considering the aircraft and conditions. As already stated at least the gear was out to absorb some of the landing shock, could have been worse for those on board if it was up.

Anyone who has flown an Arrow would know that if you went to idle power, 70kts at 50ft on final at approach attitude you would land heavily, this was 72kias, nose high and high elevation.

[djpil]

I never teach Vx climbs in my airplane as it is only 7% above the stall speed

I like to have at least 20% above stall speed for climb after take-off - consistent with FAR 23 minimum take-off safety speed.

[Bladeangle]

43inches, are you looking at an arrow IV performance charts?

The one I'm looking at goes up to 40degC. Be it may, they might not have been able to achieve 6% with gear still down, but just eye balling the gear up climb performance chart, it reflects climb of 560'/min which is about 7%...

djpil, agree, sorry I mis-read your post. Out of interest which type machine?

[43Inches]

The aircraft involved was a PA-28R-201 Arrow III serial number looks like a 1978 model maybe.

The chart has 40 degrees at the bottom, this only intersects a line at sea level. If you draw the line vertically you will find to intersect with 3000ft PA you will have to draw from less than 30degrees C. The chart I have is dated 1995, not sure if there are more recent charts.

The 6% climb requirement on take off is with gear extended.

[Jabawocky]

MIHC

How do you expect students to learn if you have to give them two minutes notice the engine will fail? A little pressure can produce much different outcomes.

Yep it sure does. Thats why we have this report along with countless others and some worse.

I rue the day when the industry accepts the student dictating how the instructor will conduct assessments.

Simply they won't if ab initio's, they do not know differently, but I am not a student and I do not mind fair play. But some actions are stupid and do not achieve the outcome necessary. If a genuine failure or a simulated one end up in a sticky situation, the walk away bent airplane is acceptable in only one circumstance. You the instructor or ATO take full responsibility for the other. It is up to the Instructor/ATO to be sure of a safe outcome. If you only think you can....you can't.

Need I remind you of an "almost family" member of mine who did exactly this kind of thing. He killed himself and a soon to be JQ FO in a Brasilia in DN not long ago. Just 4 years ago http://www.pprune.org/australia-new-...in-merged.html

I rue the day that anyone thinks this is a good idea, don't you?



Bladeangle

Hey Jaba, why do you say it was dumb for him to use best angle speed?

Yes I do. The data speaks for itself.

Can I suggest you read again what I wrote while thinking more about what I said in determining what the pilot reactions were and when to teast each facet. Rather than reading it looking to pick fault in my arguments. You see and understand different things when you take an open mind to reading things. Yes I too am guilty of that too.....all the time, so I understand.



andrewr

You're not suggesting that if there's enough doubt that you need to calculate performance, you should say no to the whole operation?

That would depend on the circumstances. That is a judgement call. It might be OK to depart but not risk EFATO's because they rarely happen and may be worth the risk. If one does happen, well you do the best you can and may well end up with a bent aeroplane and no injuries. They did!

I have to say that I am with 43" and djpil on this.

Anything that ends in a bent aeroplane in any training is generally a dumb idea. As proven. A mechanical failure might be an exception.

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

So let's all keep pretending everything will be la-di-da and allright on the night, eh? Yes training accidents will occur, but there will be much more severe outcomes from other real failures if we ignore the possibility. Did you achieve your standard of flying by never being shown anything without the slightest bit of risk?

The Darwin Bras crew should've configured the aircraft correctly and preferably should've been in a sim. Are you seriuosly suggesting all EFATO training should be mandated as sim only?!?? Seriously?

Want another example?

I'll point out a mate of mine who successfully landed a jump plane full of people at Gladstone several years ago after an engine failure. I can guarantee all of his pax were thankful his training included unannounced failures, not just "during this flight, I will be failing the engine."

I'm sure we can both come up with supporting examples until the cows come home.

Simply they won't if ab initio's, they do not know differently, but I am not a student and I do not mind fair play. But some actions are stupid and do not achieve the outcome necessary.

And I would be surprised if someone of your experience would be unable to handle a simple closing of the throttle at say 200' with 500m of runway remaining, but you may well be asked to demonstrate it. I'm not going to ask you to demo it with 100m left, but if you refuse to even partake in the exercise, them you might as well find someone who is willing to sign you off for your flight review after three circuits.

If you think the rest of the industry is up to your standard of handling, then you are both seriously mistaken and remiss in encouraging others to boycott this type of training.

If a pilot is unable to perform this kind of exercise, then should they even be flying? Would you put your kids in the back with them? Many will be that rusty that they are desperately in need of the practise. I have flown with on RPPL recently who just kept the nose up and started heading off the runway. Are you telling me this kind of training was unnecessary? He can now handle a failure of this kind and I am happy to sign off his review.

There is a time and place for everything. Better judgement is certainy warranted in many of the accident scenarios, but with all due respect, you can't stick your head in the sand and think it won't happen.

Also agree with djpil. That's what TOSS is all about. FAR 23.51 to be exact.

[VH-MLE]

"Does this sound like a Polarair case or am I dreaming?"

Personally, I would respectfully say you're dreaming, but just the same it's a good question to get an accurate answer to, rather than relying on the unsubstantiated rumours made by a few on this forum.

I've asked our very own FIGJAM (that's LeadSled for anyone interested) to provide evidence regarding his comments on the same issue a number of times previously, but he seems unable or incapable of answering.

[Jabawocky]

OK...maybe I am dreaming. I seriously do not recall the specifics but I do recall it had something to do with a battle about safe ATO practises.

Maybe there were parallels.......maybe not.

If you can, settle the score, otherwise I am still none the wiser.

MIHC

The Darwin Bras crew should've configured the aircraft correctly and preferably should've been in a sim. Are you seriuosly suggesting all EFATO training should be mandated as sim only?!?? Seriously?

C'mon which was it? configured correctly (provide data please) or in the SIM (agreed) YES SERIOUSLY.

I'll point out a mate of mine who successfully landed a jump plane full of people at Gladstone several years ago after an engine failure. I can guarantee all of his pax were thankful his training included unannounced failures, not just "during this flight, I will be failing the engine."

You clearly can't read nor comprehend or you have beer goggles on. I never said never do failures for real unannounced. Just not at a height where if I (the chekee) screw up, you can't 100-110% for sure recover. Otherwise do it in segments. Prove I can land on the runway from 50'. Then unannouncd at 300' make me almost land on a acreage block which will result in a survivable write off. Do you know Martin Wood? Remember the A36 off YCDR recently? That is the outcome you want.

And I would be surprised if someone of your experience would be unable to handle a simple closing of the throttle at say 200' with 500m of runway remaining, but you may well be asked to demonstrate it. I'm not going to ask you to demo it with 100m left, but if you refuse to even partake in the exercise, them you might as well find someone who is willing to sign you off for your flight review after three circuits.

Hang on a minute, now you are comparing me with an ab initio and closing my comfortable parameters, that is having your cake and eating it too. I dare say yes I could cope with that. In fact from 300' in my plane I will put you back on the reciprocal runway. But that will make you **** your pants. I think you have missed the point here. Remember...if you only think you can...you can't and that applies to you too as the CFI/ATO or whatever. This is a grey area where only the foolish tread, and unless you are sure the candidate is good for it, and you are even better, thou shall not go! The fuzzy numbers are very flexible on man and machine capability, and the wx on the day. How close can you go before you get in an ATSB report.

Rule No.1 Do nothing that will make you look silly in the ATSB report.

Would you put your kids in the back with them?

Not the ATO in this case, and only a maybe on the CPL candidate. My daughter no, not a chance. My son yes.... But only in the front seats Far more skill than me.

Yes the cows are coming home. We are probably far closer to agreement in real life than our words are depicting. But you need to test and demonstrate in a manner where a cock up does not kill, that way you live to LEARN another day. If you scrub out on day one...no more learning and I think this is the point you miss.

Best Regards


PS: I think you give me more credit than is due for flying skill. I am average at best.

[VH-MLE]

Unfortunately it had nothing to do with "safe ATO practices" - despite the misinformation presented here from time to time to muddy the waters.

There was ample evidence supporting this in the AAT hearing many moons ago...

Having said that, I am pleased to see that Polar seem to be doing very well these days...

[MakeItHappenCaptain]

What do you mean which? From the ATSB report, I read it as being both.

The increased drag from the 'windmilling' propeller increased the control forces required to maintain the aircraft's flightpath. The pilot under check allowed the speed to decrease and the aircraft to bank toward the inoperative engine. Additionally, he increased power on the right engine, and engaged the yaw damper in an attempt to stabilise the aircraft's flight. Those actions increased his workload and made control of the aircraft more difficult. The PIC did not restore power to the left engine to discontinue the manoeuvre. The few seconds available before the aircraft became uncontrollable were insufficient to allow 'trouble shooting' and deliberation before resolving the situation.

That would be configuration and;

Shortly after the accident, an EMB-120 simulator and its staff were approved to undertake the operator's training requirements. In response, the operator transitioned the majority of its EMB-120 proficiency checking, including asymmetric flight sequences, to ground‑based training at that facility.

That would be the sim part.

As for training practices, I'm just gonna agree to disagree here.

Moooo....