The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

King Air down at Essendon?

Old 27th Feb 2017, 20:45
  #481 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Derfred

With regards to the previous suggestion by another poster that developers should be responsible for the costs of go-arounds or diversions due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation buildings on airport land, I would have to say "toughen up". There are far bigger risks to aviation than this. I would like to see any incident statistics based on this phenomenum.
Derfred

How many missed approaches, diversions, holding patterns, second/third approaches have you ever flown in a large RPT jet? Have you any idea of the fuel used? The aircraft I operate can be expected to use an additional 1500 kg of jet fuel for a single missed approach in 'visual conditions', or approximately 3500 kg in 'instrument conditions' (in cloud). When wind-shear and/or turbulence from inappropriate airport infrastructure results in an inability to land or even attempt a 'safe' landing, its usually multiple aircraft that are affected. Do the math. At some airports, this phenomena is likely to be costing Australian airlines hundreds of thousands of dollars every year.

Last edited by Datum; 27th Feb 2017 at 21:00.
Datum is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2017, 20:46
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home
Posts: 1,018
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Thunderbird Five
Watching that Senate Hearing was interesting. I thought that we had enough problems with our own CAA and EASA here in UK/Europe.
Watching those top CASA guys perform, showing a complete lack of knowledge, and avoiding the questions with mumbling, verbal verbiage.
My commiserations, as it appears you too are saddled with incompetent bureaucrats in your aviation regulators!!
cessnapete is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2017, 21:36
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 373
Received 57 Likes on 21 Posts
Dial up the other parts of those senate hearings. Eye popping viewing.
thunderbird five is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2017, 22:11
  #484 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,167
Received 89 Likes on 60 Posts
Twin engine aircraft are certified to be able to climb away within a splay in the event of an engine failure, and that is generally considered an acceptable level of safety

A necessary, qualifying, observation, if I may.

This statement applies to heavy aircraft ie, the typical airliner. As we come down the size scale, certification reality reduces aircraft capability requirements. Indeed, otherwise we wouldn't have any small aircraft due to the prohibitive cost of ownership. For the low weight end of the spectrum, the requirements are a bit scant ..

The B200 is a capable and very nice aeroplane but its capabilities should not be confused with those of the higher certification standard.

Consistent with its light aircraft roots, there still is a small performance grey area during the final stages of takeoff should an engine fail. The recent mishap aircraft, I suggest, was very much involved with trying to traverse this particular grey area.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 27th Feb 2017, 23:13
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by lurker999

..And at other airports in Aus there is every chance of that sort of accident hitting a terminal building or some other aviation related building. This one hit a DFO that was put in a spot that was previously developed.

Its lovely that you want airports to exist in vast open expanses, but that clearly isn't really possible.
lurker999

The DFO could've been full of unsuspecting members of the public, shopping less than 60 minutes later..

The 'shoppers' wouldn't think for a second that, although shopping less than 250m from the runway centreline of a busy regional airport, they were at any greater risk of being involved in a tragic aviation accident, or losing their own life.

The risk of implication in an aviation accident is far higher 'on-airport' (any airport) when compared to alternatives such as Chadstone, Docklands or the CBD for example.

The 'layman' among us rightfully assume that Governments (Local/State and Commonwealth) have adequately risk managed these type of events. So why is a large shopping centre (DFO or otherwise) located immediately adjacent to the Obstacle Free Zone of Runway 17, just underneath the inner transitional surface (OLS) and within the confines of the airport?..

Why are so many Australian airports prioritising profit/income maximisation at the expense of public safety and aviation amenity and continually getting away with it? What is the primary role of an airport?

Last edited by Datum; 27th Feb 2017 at 23:45.
Datum is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 00:31
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On my V Strom
Posts: 337
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
John Tullamarine
The B200 is a capable and very nice aeroplane but its capabilities should not be confused with those of the higher certification standard.

Not true John Boy. There are operators in Australia operating the B200 on an STC to operate 1000 pounds heavier than normal 12500lb, thus putting it in CAO 20.7.1B territory. So it must meet 20.7.1b up to 13,500lb. Sure, its not going to get 6 or 7% on one engine like a jet, but it DOES meet the requitements and when handled correctly (which sim training should ensure) it WILL fly away nicely.


Consistent with its light aircraft roots, there still is a small performance grey area during the final stages of takeoff should an engine fail. The recent mishap aircraft, I suggest, was very much involved with trying to traverse this particular grey area.

I don't believe in this grey area. The "traversing of the grey area", as you call it, is done by using full rudder, lots of aileron, conducting the memory items and FLYING THE AIRCRAFT - not by punching out useless mayday calls.
Trevor the lover is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 00:48
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,093
Received 127 Likes on 72 Posts
Crushable material in the over-run zone

If I'm stating the obvious, Centaurus, it's because you seemed somewhat oblivious to it. CASA Manual of Standards Part 139 - Aerodromes is crystal clear when it comes to the purpose of the Runway End Safety Area.
"A RESA must be provided at the end of a runway strip, to protect the aeroplane in the event of undershooting or overrunning the runway ..."
So, while your focus might be on high speed emergency stops that is most assuredly not the whole discussion.

You are advocating a solution that augments one of the the stated purposes of the RESA while simultaneously prejudicing the other, and prejudicing it in a manner that would endanger lives. And if you want to have a look at materiality, the ATSB has handled more accident investigations relating to undershoots than overruns.

And just by the bye, Derfred, the major cause of undershoots is weather; variable and gusting winds and windshear, in particular. Near as I can tell very few airports are exempt from those conditions.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 01:02
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
This statement applies to heavy aircraft ie, the typical airliner. As we come down the size scale, certification reality reduces aircraft capability requirements. Indeed, otherwise we wouldn't have any small aircraft due to the prohibitive cost of ownership. For the low weight end of the spectrum, the requirements are a bit scant ..
Absolutely true, JT. I lost a good friend and three generations of his family in a Beech Baron incident many moons ago. Short story, he intended to fly the entire trip gear down due to an issue they had encountered in New England. He informed ATC, all OK. On climbout he had an engine failure which NTSB eventually attributed to a piston deformation in the manufacturing process which would not likely have been discovered in normal maintenance. Informed ATC he was heading back to airport, what could they say? With one engine, and gear down, plus making a turn -- crashed and burned in the woods some ways from the aerodrome. NTSB said while piston failure was root cause, "probable" cause was the pilot's error as he turned around with gear down and didn't aviate first to gain altitude before working things out. It'll be 15 years this years this summer and still gives me the creeps.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 01:44
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
JT - Yes but the performance grey area you refer to is not so small in some of the crappy piston twins flying around currently.


Trevor - I can't comment on the handling/performance of a B200 as I haven't had the pleasure of flying one unfortunately. But I think you're being a bit harsh by inferring that this crash was caused by the pilot mishandling the engine failure. The poor guy hasn't even been buried yet. Lets wait for the official report before apportioning blame shall we..? There could have been other issues/problems we're not aware of.
IFEZ is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 04:32
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Melbourne
Age: 82
Posts: 41
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
I met up with a guy today who recalled an IR renewal I did with him at Mangalore in a Metro 11. This a/c would have similar OEI performance characteristics to the B200. After a simulated EF seconds after airborne he remembered having full aileron and rudder with the a/c going nowhere except downhill towards ground effect. Performance figures that are quoted by the theorists belie the reality of flying this category of aeroplane. When an engine fails below Vyse there must be enough airspace to accelerate level or descend to accelerate to Vyse and then have obstacle clearance for SE climb out. If these conditions don't exist then the only option left is to land more or less straight ahead. That is the reality after T&C hundreds of pilots on turboprops below auw of 12500 lbs.
lamax is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 04:54
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,210
Received 169 Likes on 75 Posts
Long time no read lamax! I was trained on twins by a certain Dutchman who you would know who would only conduct engine cuts at 400'.He had been scared into early grey hair by too many people who mishandled the plane when the EF was initiated at liftoff. His life saving advice was that the drills had to be practiced until they were instinctive. You put 20 pilots in the simulator and give them the scenario that this pilot faced and I don't think there would be much difference to the final outcome.
Lookleft is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 05:05
  #492 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,167
Received 89 Likes on 60 Posts
Not true John Boy

Afraid we shall have to continue to disagree, then.

So it must meet 20.7.1b up to 13,500lb.

I would need to review the STC paperwork in the AFM FMS to form a view. However, a couple of points ..

(a) the original US TC doesn't claim other than FAR23 .. unless I have missed something in a read through ..

(b) citing 20.7.1b is all fine and beaut .. but it is an operational requirements document, not the certification animal. Looking at (a) and (b), and noting that I haven't had the luxury of a looksee through the STC paperwork, perhaps you can detail the manner in which the performance has been improved to meet your claims ? Not saying it hasn't .. just that I am curious.

Certainly, the OEM POH gives various OEI climb gradient capabilities (including to FAR25) but there is a big leap from the typical GA grey area below Vyse and related configuration - caveat, my file POH doesn't include the present mishap aircraft so I am taking a bit of a leap in faith here, I guess.

Sure, its not going to get 6 or 7% on one engine like a jet

There would be many heavy jet pilots who would like to strap that sort of aircraft to their tails .... now, how about with a commercial payload ?

but it DOES meet the requitements and when handled correctly (which sim training should ensure) it WILL fly away nicely.

Caveat - my comment doesn't apply to the present mishap but should be viewed as generic.

(a) simulators are only as good as the model fidelity and the data which goes into the programming .. ergo.. perhaps ...

(b) are you suggesting that this capability covers a critical failure on the ground ? ie that the aircraft might emulate/comply with FAR25 requirements ? If so, at what sort of weights ? I am only too happy to be surprised ...

I don't believe in this grey area

How remarkable. I certainly do for this class of aircraft and smaller ...

Yes but the performance grey area you refer to is not so small in some of the crappy piston twins flying around currently.

Which is why I cited the current FAR23 requirement. The average piston twin at commercial weights and a failure below Vyse (with the associated configuration) and a couple of hundred feet under your belt .. probably isn't going anywhere in a hurry .. other than down.

My position in that class with a critically low/slow failure was always to plan on closing the throttles and crashing the best I could more or less straight ahead .. generally, one is better off crashing at low speed right way up rather than at higher speed and upside down.

Certainly, that was the essence of my pre-takeoff briefing on GA I/F renewals. I note that neither ATOs nor DCA examiners were ever game to put my very definite implied threat to the test by simulating a low height failure ... not to mention that they would have feared gross physical assault after the event ..

I would commend Max's observations in post #494 ... for those who don't know who he is .. the post represents the voice of a LOT of experience.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 05:36
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Which is why I cited the current FAR23 requirement. The average piston twin at commercial weights and a failure below Vyse (with the associated configuration) and a couple of hundred feet under your belt .. probably isn't going anywhere in a hurry .. other than down.


Exactly my point (which I didn't express very well). Under these circumstances its pretty much the luck of the draw. I did my initial twin training at YMMB. If you were 'lucky' enough to have it happen to you taking off on RWY 35, you have a nice golf course straight ahead. If it happens on RWY 17, well, you're pretty much screwed.


I think lamax is on the money. .. the post represents the voice of a LOT of experience. And the voice of reason I'd say.







IFEZ is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 05:42
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: On my V Strom
Posts: 337
Received 14 Likes on 8 Posts
IFEZ - Yes I take your point reference condemning anyone before a full report. BUT there are some known facts already in the mix. Things such as lack of simulator training, gear still down, an ill timed mayday call. All circumstantial of course, but I know of a number of people who have said not surprised.


JT - Our B200s are full reisbeck modded and we are required to meet 20.7.1b every day. We are meeting the criteria, though on hot days with heavy loads we are weight limited to meet the legalities. You are correct ref it being an op document rather than a certification, but does that make any difference practically when looking at required gradients and going to the manuals to ensure we are compliant? And face it, in an accident scenario, the cert standards et al, can go jump, as long as the perf manual gave me a gradient and it met what I needed, then I should have been competent to do it. ref 6 or 7% on jets - I did 12 years on airline jets, 744, 330, 320, but the bulk of my jet time is bizjets. And of course they do perform brilliantly on one off the ground. 6 or 7% makes life very easy in the sim.
Trevor the lover is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 06:22
  #495 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,167
Received 89 Likes on 60 Posts
and we are required to meet 20.7.1b every day

Your post appears to imply that your aircraft only looks at established gradients rather than the full Part 25 thing . two very different animals. I would still be interested in having a look at the POH FMS.

And face it, in an accident scenario, the cert standards et al, can go jump, as long as the perf manual gave me a gradient and it met what I needed

Well, no.

The certification documentation, being the basis for the TC, is the source material for the operational numbers. Alternatively, the STC workup may have done the donkey work again for the new requirements.

I guess so long as the pilot is compliant with the Ops Manual, and the operator has taken advantage of CAR(1988) 139(3) - ie the pilot has never seen the AFM, he/she probably is going to have a reasonable time of things.

However, if the ops data doesn't fit the AFM then others may have their delicates out in the cold breezes.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 06:26
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,821
Received 341 Likes on 180 Posts
John, from the Raisbeck supplement re FAR 25.
ENHANCED RAISBECK TAKE-OFF AND LANDING PERFORMANCE

The aerodynamic improvements of the Raisbeck Enhanced Performance Leading Edges make available improved take-off and landing performance. Part 23 of the Federal Aviation Regulations require only the all engines operating distance over a 50-ft. height be presented for take-off distance. Along with the FAA-approved optional performance in this subsection, we include for your information Accelerate-Go, Accelerate-Stop, Climb Limited Weight, Net Climb Gradient, and other information generally tailored to FAR Part 25. For data not shown in this section, refer to Section V of the Beechcraft POH.

ALTERNATE RAISBECK BALANCED FIELD LENGTHS

There is increasing world-wide acceptance of FAR Part 25 safety standards in the smaller turboprop and turbojet Corporate and Airline fleet. Raisbeck Engineering offers its fully Raisbeck-Equipped B200 aircraft with equivalent FAR Part 25 Balanced Field Lengths, tailored to FAA Advisory Circular, AC25-7. Take-off field length requirements for flaps up and approach may be drawn from this subsection as an alternate to the standard enhanced Raisbeck takeoff performance detailed in the previous subsection.

Some of the more important FAR Part 25 requirements utilized to calculate performance in this subsection are as follows:

• Decision speed (V1) is faster than engine failure speed (VEF) by the demonstrated pilot engine-failure recognition time, plus one-second.

• If continuing take-off:
- Rotation speed (VR) must be faster than 1.05 VMCG
- Speed at 35 feet altitude (V2) must be faster than 1.2 VS
- Speed at 50 feet altitude (V50) is considerably faster than 1.2 VS

• If aborting take-off:
- Brake application may not begin until V1, (See decision speed, above)
- Throttle-chop may not begin until demonstrated pilot brake application time plus one second
- No propeller reverse of any type may be utilized to contribute to the stopping distance

The reference airspeeds for takeoff in this subsection, utilizing all the above factors have naturally increased. To compensate for this, a new Flaps approach takeoff procedure has been incorporated. Shorter take-off and Balanced Field Lengths are the end results. This allows safe operation at heavy gross weights out of previously inaccessible airports.
Following on from previous discussion I note now they say when practising Vmca a minimum of 5,000 ft and the 5 bank.
megan is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 06:33
  #497 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: various places .....
Posts: 7,167
Received 89 Likes on 60 Posts
Thanks for that .. the doc suggests that R has redone the donkey work. Will look forward to a read of the POH FMS when, and if, the opportunity might arise.
john_tullamarine is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 06:42
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Derfred

How many missed approaches, diversions, holding patterns, second/third approaches have you ever flown in a large RPT jet?
Just as many as everyone else, I guess.

How many missed approaches, diversions, holding patterns, second/third approaches have I flown in a large RPT jet due to mechanical turbulence caused by non-aviation infrastructure?

None.

That's why I asked you for statistics, which you have not provided.
Derfred is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 08:23
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: 500 miles from Chaikhosi, Yogistan
Posts: 4,261
Received 111 Likes on 52 Posts
trevor

but it DOES meet the requitements and when handled correctly (which sim training should ensure) it WILL fly away nicely.
Please go to your Raisbeck Manual and plug some numbers. Can you please tell us the TODR of a B200 operated to FAR 25 performance? Strart with ISA and MTOW and also let us know the final climb gradient.
Then cross reference that with the RDS for EN 17.
compressor stall is offline  
Old 28th Feb 2017, 08:47
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Vermont Hwy
Posts: 562
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 3 Posts
Comp stall, as I'm not familiar and maybe you are- what and where is the obstacle that gives the 5-something % gradient for that runway?

Also, please correct me if I am wrong, but wouldn't it be operating under CAO 20.7.4 and as such, would it or would it not be required to meet that 5-something % obstacle gradient?
My recollection of T/O weight requirements under 20.7.4 is that it must be able to make 6% normal ops and 1% with prop feathered and gear & flap up. Quite different to 20.7.1B.
Car RAMROD is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.