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 1st Apr 2017, 00:33
  #621 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
MQ

I knew Max many years ago so I joined here to observe the outcome (and post). I do hope the authorities get to the bottom of it all. It's the ones left behind that suffer for ever & a day:-(
finalapp4good is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 01:50
  #622 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Abeam YAYE
Posts: 330
Received 10 Likes on 8 Posts
Jay Hook?

I wonder if the J Hook did not disengage - so the gear was physically blocked from being selected up?

It's plausible to imagine the pilot getting distracted by the stuck gear and fumbling for the J Hook release. In this scenario he would have his head inside the cockpit - and hand off the power levers. This would be the worst time to experience a power lever creep back, or a sudden power lever closure, as discussed earlier in this thread.

It's a horrible thought - a nightmare- to imagine looking up in this situation to see you are low level, low speed, off the runway centre line and diverging towards the buildings.
pithblot is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 01:55
  #623 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,421
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
ATSB did say that it was a longer takeoff roll than normal.
Maybe the pilot decided to stay on the ground a little longer than normal flight manual lift off for weight, as a precaution to pick up more airspeed for controllability reasons in case of engine failure after lift off. Quite a common practice with some pilots flying light propeller twins.
A37575 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 02:00
  #624 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by A37575
Maybe the pilot decided to stay on the ground a little longer than normal flight manual lift off for weight, as a precaution to pick up more airspeed for controllability reasons in case of engine failure after lift off. Quite a common practice with some pilots flying light propeller twins.
Five POB, shouldn't imagine AUW would be a factor.
Sorry Squawk, can't say, won't say. Secret squirrel business.
And Eddie, the reason is that it deserves note - right now- is that the ATSB has a long history of sloppy investigative work and of taking the easy way out and blaming the pilot, especially a dead one. The ATSB needs to be put on notice that it will not be accepted again.
Not in everyone's universe.
Eddie Dean is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 02:03
  #625 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,832
Received 154 Likes on 88 Posts
Ack. That makes more sense now.
Squawk7700 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 04:59
  #626 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by megan
You are not interested in airspeed because measurements are being taken from ground impact references (prop slash marks) which relate to GS.

The last data point gives a GS of 108 knots, which equals,

108*6080/60 ft/min = 10944

Four bladed prop - distance over five (one RPM) consecutive blade strikes I measure at 6.9 feet ie one complete prop rotation

Prop RPM then equals 10944/6.9 = 1,586 RPM
I used a mixture of Google Earth and the dimensions between ridges of the roof cladding to work numbers.

Connedrod, quite correct that you have no idea of the power being produced, though touchdown was with yaw about 25 and a 6 descent (rough figures).


Megan,

Hats off to you on your practical maths but can I ask what dimensions did you use for the roof cladding?

The ridges/corrugations in the cladding should be 30 cm apart. By my measurements the first five prop strikes occur over a distance of 1.82 metres or 5.97 feet. That yields an average prop rotation of 1833 rpm. As you'd expect the last five prop strikes occur over a slightly greater distance; about 1.89metres or about 6.21 feet by my measurements, yielding 1762 rpm.

I make the yaw to achieve the left and nose wheel gear marks nearly aligning as they do to be around 30.


Last edited by MickG0105; 1st Apr 2017 at 09:51. Reason: Correct missing spacing.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 09:18
  #627 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2017
Location: Adeliade
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MickG0105


Megan,

Hats off to you on your practical maths but can I ask what dimensions did youuse for the roof cladding?

The ridges/corrugations in the cladding should be 30 cm apart. By mymeasurements the first five prop strikes occur over a distance of 1.82 metresor 5.97 feet. That yields an average prop rotation of 1833 rpm. As you'd expectthe last five prop strikes occur over a slightly greater distance; about 1.89metres or about 6.21 feet by my measurements, yielding 1762 rpm.

I make the yaw to achieve the left and nose wheel gear marks nearly aligning asthey do to be around 30.

So what prop speed is it 2000rpm 1586 1833. So megans difference is nearly 25% ish. Thats a large difference is it not. Why is that important. Because one is in prop gov range and the other is not basically. This is an indication of the power being produced by that engine. Case in point you really cannot make any expectation of prop speed with out detail measurements this includes airspeed at inpact. If its slower than expected the inpact marks will be closer and vice versa.
Connedrod is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 09:49
  #628 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by Captain Nomad
Would anyone know what bus the CVR is powered by? What other systems might be on that bus if for whatever reason it failed/was not energised...?
The CVR is powered off the No 1 Dual Fed Bus, so named because it is powered by both the Left and Right Generator Buses.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 11:25
  #629 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by Connedrod
So what prop speed is it 2000rpm 1586 1833. So megans difference is nearly 25% ish. Thats a large difference is it not. Why is that important. Because one is in prop gov range and the other is not basically. This is an indication of the power being produced by that engine. Case in point you really cannot make any expectation of prop speed with out detail measurements this includes airspeed at inpact. If its slower than expected the inpact marks will be closer and vice versa.
The normal rpm control range of the primary governor, the green arc, is from 1,600 rpm to 2,000 rpm. I estimate that the average prop speed across the first five prop strikes to be 1833 rpm, megan has estimated it to be 1586 rpm; the difference between the two estimates is about 15%. megan's estimate is within 14 rpm (0.875%) of the lower green arc range, my estimate is on the the upper side of the middle of the range. By any reasonable assessment you'd say that the left prop was rotating in the normal range at impact.

Power is clearly a different story but the difference between the first and last sets of five strikes may be instructive; the average prop speed slowed by less than 4% after 11 increasingly deep strikes. That might suggest that the engine was producing power.

The shape of the strikes certainly indicates that the left propeller was not feathered so it is reasonable to infer that the left engine was producing more than 200 foot-pounds of torque otherwise the auto-feather system would have opened the dump valve and feathered the prop.

As has been explained to you previously airspeed is irrelevant to the calculations; the prop strikes are on an object fixed to the ground and we have the ground speed at impact from the ADS-B data as 108 knots.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 11:29
  #630 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,234
Received 385 Likes on 194 Posts
So how do we account for so much (apparent) yaw to the left?
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 12:00
  #631 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
So how do we account for so much (apparent) yaw to the left?
That is a very good question. If you review the dash-cam footage it looks like the airplane yaws through about 90 to the left in less than 2 seconds; as the airplane initially climbs into view it appears to be nose-up, climbing and oriented properly with the direction of flight along the extended centre line then very quickly we see it in profile, nose-down and descending. The flight path illustrated in the ATSB preliminary report might be a gently curving arc but the airplane appears to be oriented obliquely to it in the lateral axis; both the dash-cam and the the alignment of the nose and left landing gear strike marks bear that out. Unfortunately it's difficult, if not impossible, to determine the rudder position from the dash-cam footage.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 12:09
  #632 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: space
Posts: 389
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
For **** sake you arm chair quarterbacks need to shut you cake holes. You all have no idea whatsoever what happened. Let the ATSB finish their investigation.
zanthrus is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 12:33
  #633 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by zanthrus
For **** sake you arm chair quarterbacks need to shut you cake holes. You all have no idea whatsoever what happened. Let the ATSB finish their investigation.
And you all have no idea whatsoever as to what constitutes courteous and professional discourse so perhaps you might heed your own advice regarding holes, cake and shutting thereof.
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 13:38
  #634 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
On given info and B200 performance are we looking at sinister stuff? how many engine calls made and no evidence of any.

Not to be rude but it hit my thoughts.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 16:52
  #635 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,826
Received 346 Likes on 184 Posts
zanthrus, you can always be relied upon to make some stupid post, whatever the thread. Now shut YOUR cake hole. No one knows exactly what happened, and we await the ATSB report, but in the mean time we are free to discuss.
what dimensions did you use for the roof cladding
I used 700mm which is quoted as the coverage for a single sheet. I assumed that would have meant 350mm from ridge to ridge.
So how do we account for so much (apparent) yaw to the left?
From the manual.
CAUTION

With one-engine either at idle or inoperative, flaps UP and propeller windmilling, VMCA may be as high as 108 KIAS.
Note the last groundspeed, and we can assume the airspeed, given the wind was 23005, to be the same, was 108 knots. Recommendation from the good book for practice Vmca demonstration is a minimum of 5,000 feet, clearly not something to be trifled with.

Low side governor failure, P3 air leakage?
megan is offline  
Old 1st Apr 2017, 22:43
  #636 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 5,234
Received 385 Likes on 194 Posts
But the extrapolations from the prop strikes suggest the left engine and propellor were operating 'normally'. If they were, why would a reduction in airspeed below VMCA result in yaw to the left?

(And zanthrus, I generally refrain from following post-crash threads because they often degenerate into character assassinations of the pilot. But I don't see what's wrong with calmly discussing the mechanical and aerodynamic implications of various pieces of information such as the photos of the prop strikes and gear strikes.)
Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 00:43
  #637 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
But the extrapolations from the prop strikes suggest the left engine and propellor were operating 'normally'. If they were, why would a reduction in airspeed below VMCA result in yaw to the left?
It may well have been the other way around; the yaw to the left may have caused the reduction in airspeed (and positive vertical speed).
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 01:03
  #638 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: S16 47.2'
Posts: 180
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Megan,

Could you post the photo that you have used for your calcs? The effective cover and ridge spacing is different for different profiles obviously but from the photos I've seen I can't say for sure which profile has been used. If I can I can give you the exact measurements.
Left 270 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 01:14
  #639 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Sunshine Coast
Posts: 1,099
Received 129 Likes on 73 Posts
Originally Posted by megan
I used 700mm which is quoted as the coverage for a single sheet. I assumed that would have meant 350mm from ridge to ridge.
That style/type of roof panelling comes in a range of widths; 305mm, 420mm, 620mm, 700mm, 762mm, 820mm, 840mm, 930mm. The 700mm panels have four ridges per width or 175mm ridge to ridge. I think an indication of the distance between the ridges can be gained from their alignment with the rectangular HVAC ducting (900mm) and the rooftop walkways (615mm).
MickG0105 is offline  
Old 2nd Apr 2017, 02:51
  #640 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: In my Swag
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
=megan;9726487
Low side governor failure, P3 air leakage?
P3 Air issue should result in hung start. But I guess you are referring to Pressure governing, ie the line running along the top of engine to the power turbine part of the CSU. Have experienced leakage here on a Caravan engine which resulted in topping out at about 1680 RPM.
This should show up on preflight run up.

Last edited by Eddie Dean; 2nd Apr 2017 at 09:32.
Eddie Dean 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.