King Air down at Essendon?
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Sydney
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you used the checklist EVERY TIME then people would have NO cause to question it as a factor. The fact that some saw him use it and then some said not is very telling. If you use a combo of use and not use you'll come unstuck in no time.
Last edited by Victa Bravo; 24th Sep 2018 at 05:54. Reason: Itchy trigger finger
There's a reason checks are called Vital Actions.
Did you read anything on the report, holdingagain?
It was refuelled right before the flight.
Page 2, second paragraph, first sentence.
TWT, if there was a checklist either
a) it didn't have trims on it (that would be surprising) or
b) he didn't use the checklist properly.
mostlytossas, I agree that there were a few wild theories, but there were other good discussion points that many of us got involved in, whether or not they had, at the time, any potential contribution towards the accident. Do you not think that investigators come up with theories and investigate them whilst looking through evidence, even just to discount certain possibilities?
It was refuelled right before the flight.
Page 2, second paragraph, first sentence.
TWT, if there was a checklist either
a) it didn't have trims on it (that would be surprising) or
b) he didn't use the checklist properly.
mostlytossas, I agree that there were a few wild theories, but there were other good discussion points that many of us got involved in, whether or not they had, at the time, any potential contribution towards the accident. Do you not think that investigators come up with theories and investigate them whilst looking through evidence, even just to discount certain possibilities?
Of course they do Ramrod . But they keep them to themselves while they work out if the cause or not. Unlike Pprune where some on here declare that the only cause can be so and so because this is what the evidence fits.
Then when they are shown to be wrong they look rather foolish don't you think?
As the old saying goes....Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt!
Then when they are shown to be wrong they look rather foolish don't you think?
As the old saying goes....Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt!
Originally Posted by Mostly
Then when they are shown to be wrong they look rather foolish don't you think?
As the old saying goes....Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt!
As the old saying goes....Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than open it and remove all doubt!
As for checklists...I remember way back when most students learnt on C150's or Pipers the checklists were always done by ROTE memory. T..Trim, M..Mixture set F..Fuel, Flaps etc. Nothing wrong with this because the aircraft are simple and not a long list.
TRIM was always the first thing checked.
As you move up to twins, turbines etc then written checklists are the norm.
I read somewhere in the report either he or the company didn't use them?
TRIM was always the first thing checked.
As you move up to twins, turbines etc then written checklists are the norm.
I read somewhere in the report either he or the company didn't use them?
I read somewhere in the report either he or the company didn't use them?
The PIC was cleared as competent to fly by a CASA FOI just months before (how many of us can say that?). He had over 2400 hours on type (how many of us can say that?).
Primarily the speculation about checklists arises because an unrelated CASA audit of his AOC showed that the operations manual did not have a CASA approved checklist on the AOC holders format / logo. At the time of the accident he had submitted one which was subsequently approved. Not having a CASA endorsed checklist (as opposed from a Beech one or one from his previous AOC is completely different thing than not using one.
But, still I ask, why wouldn't the aeroplane fly with full LH rudder trim? The ATSB flight sim excercised indicates that it should have.
Wonder about the rudder force fidelity of the simulator used for this particular demonstration.
Why was this not done in an aircraft, using a qualified tp?
How does left rudder trim and left yaw cause sideslip to the left?
Makes me wonder if the author even knows the difference between yaw and sideslip.
What else doesn't he/she know?
Why was this not done in an aircraft, using a qualified tp?
How does left rudder trim and left yaw cause sideslip to the left?
Makes me wonder if the author even knows the difference between yaw and sideslip.
What else doesn't he/she know?
Last edited by zzuf; 24th Sep 2018 at 07:38.
Holdingagain has the most likely explanation, IMO. Distraction when working through a checklist (via mobile phone, Airways clearance, pax chatter, or?) could explain the full left rudder trim. It is not uncommon for distraction to create an accident.
SB.
SB.
I can see how the rudder trim was left full deflection, wouldn’t be impossible to not complete and return to normal during the preflight internal inspections. That said, it’s inexcusable for this not to have been picked up during the before take off checks, or even down the runway prior to V1 (or similar, I only have experience on B350). It’s a pretty important item in the before take off checks.
Not using a checklist in a complex twin turbine? Sounds pretty game.
Not using a checklist in a complex twin turbine? Sounds pretty game.
I can see how the rudder trim was left full deflection, wouldn’t be impossible to not complete and return to normal during the preflight internal inspections. That said, it’s inexcusable for this not to have been picked up during the before take off checks, or even down the runway prior to V1 (or similar, I only have experience on B350). It’s a pretty important item in the before take off checks.
Has anyone noticed that the prelim report says that 10 deg flap was selected, yet the final report says zero degrees flap was selected. The report offers no explanation to reconcile this. It says that examination of the LEFT HAND motor shows the LH flap was retracted. The report says it is unable to identify the position of the RH flap.
Wouldn't the LH flap being retracted and the RH flap being 10 deg down produce the same sort of effect? Might it cause the pilot to wind in full LH rudder trim to help compensate?
Originally Posted by Akro
Wouldn't the LH flap being retracted and the RH flap being 10 deg down produce the same sort of effect? Might it cause the pilot to wind in full LH rudder trim to help compensate?
I would think this would induce a roll to the left, requiring right aileron and probably right rudder and therefore right rudder trim.
But the real question is a) how can the ATSB publish 2 reports with such a large discrepancy and laugh it off and b) why not investigate it in the SIM.
I do not know the accident pilot, so my comment here is in NO relation to him- it is a generic statement only: 1200hrs, 2400hrs, 24000hrs on type means nothing if you aren't actually a competent and diligent pilot.
I remember inducting a new pilot to the company some time back. He had more B200 time than I had total (more than this accident pilot). He was the definition of complacent, he truly scared me. Said bloke had similar thoughts about checklists.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 344
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can’t believe that the pundits think the ATSB is infallible. They , ATSB, have got this wrong big time and it is a damn shame. Even with full left rudder trim she would have climbed like a homesick angel if both engines were producing full power. How do we know that the rudder trim didn’t get displaced by the impact forces?
Groggy
Groggy
I can’t believe that the pundits think the ATSB is infallible. They , ATSB, have got this wrong big time and it is a damn shame. Even with full left rudder trim she would have climbed like a homesick angel if both engines were producing full power. How do we know that the rudder trim didn’t get displaced by the impact forces?
Groggy
Groggy
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Groggy, read the report. Full explanation there as to how the rudder trim could not have been "displaced by impact forces" (e.g. the position of the jackscrew).
And, you will also read about simulator trials where the aircraft was taken off, with full NL rudder trim, and how difficult this was for the pilot to sustain.
And, you will also read about simulator trials where the aircraft was taken off, with full NL rudder trim, and how difficult this was for the pilot to sustain.
Said bloke had similar thoughts about checklists.
And, I'm with Groggy. The issue in flashing lights is "why didn't it still climb?"
Lets just say the pilot missed the rudder trim. The ATSB's own simulations show that at climb speed he would have directional control, The aircraft should have still climbed to an altitude which would let the pilot do some diagnostics and find the error.
Why didn't it climb? Why didn't the ATSB investigate why it didn't climb?