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 11th Jan 2021, 01:29
  #1321 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon View Post
For Groggy, I note the ATSB report says this about flight carried out in a Level D simulator for a similar model aircraft:The unambiguous implication of that outcome (assuming it substantially replicated the performance of ZCR) is that it is not physically possible for the aircraft to fly away ‘like a homesick angel’, if the rudder trim is set to full deflection (or at least full nose left deflection), unless the pilot is an “exceptional human”.

Have you any first-hand experience, either in the simulator or the aircraft, of flight with the rudder trim set to full nose left deflection and both engines delivering maximum thrust?


Lead,
It takes a long time, relatively, for a King Air to reach 140 KIAS after lift off if flown properly regards speeds. I train my guys to climb at max rate, about 125 kts, until through lowest safe however in visual conditions the subject pilot may have done it differently. I would expect you would be approaching 400 ft before reaching 140 kts in a normal situation. Getting back to gear retraction I want to reiterate the power lever snaps back very quickly and the pilot may never get to actually place his hand on the gear lever before grabbing the yoke with both hands in an effort to control a wildly yawing aircraft.

Groggy
Grogmonster is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2021, 00:40
  #1322 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Australia
Age: 54
Posts: 1,992
Centaurus, you misunderstood my point and that was that B200 sim caught a lot of people out with assymetric handling.

A lot of the aces found out the B200 sim like the real aeroplane, was a handfull to fly in assymetric configuration, nothing like a Seminole or Seneca.


Stationair8 is offline  
Old 12th Jan 2021, 23:34
  #1323 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 343
Wichita B200 Accident report

I was thinking this report about a B200 accident in Wichita back in 2014 read very similarly to the Essendon accident. While there is no probable cause, attached to this report, a simple Google search seems to point towards Power Lever Migration.

Groggy
Attached Files
Grogmonster is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 04:37
  #1324 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,840
Originally Posted by megan View Post

Concorde pilot John Hutchinson tells the story that an Air France 747 carrying President Chirac was holding off the side of the runway, the 747 Captain told the story that the Concorde sailed over the top of them with an estimated twenty feet of clearance, had they attempted to stop perhaps we would have seen a Tenerife rerun. The above photo was taken from the 747.
They are quite different. In the case of Tenerife the KLM pilots could not see anything and the runway was occupied. In the Concorde accident they were visual, and the aircraft from which the photo was taken was holding clear of the runway. If that photo was taken from the 747 it suggests the estimate of 20 feet to be an exaggeration - understandable with something so frightening unfolding in front of you!. At the time of the photo the Concorde crew still appeared to have directional control, though it was lost shortly after, as controls were destroyed rapidly by the fire. The aircraft is still within the confines of the airfield and apparently still over the runway (the markings are blurry in the photo). By the time the photo was taken it was well and truly committed to continue.
The other great difference between the two accidents, is that in the case of Tenerife, the KLM Captain did everything wrong, while the Air France Concorde Captain did everything right. A translation from the French says that the words "too late" were heard, suggesting a reference perhaps in response to the Engineer's call of "stop" at some 35 knots above V1; but maybe it came later and meant they knew their fate was sealed.
From the multiple 'Maydays' heard by ATC, the King Air pilot obviously knew his fate was sealed almost the moment the wheels left the ground, probably before any attempt to retract the gear was made. Whether he did right or wrong is open to conjecture and no doubt will play out in lawsuits for some time to come.

Last edited by Mach E Avelli; 13th Jan 2021 at 21:27.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 09:27
  #1325 (permalink)  
Man Bilong Balus long PNG
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Now officially on Life's scrap heap, now being an Age Pensioner and not liking it one little bit! I'd rather be flying but in the meantime still continuing the never ending search for a bad bottle of Red!
Age: 66
Posts: 2,646
Devil

the B200 sim like the real aeroplane, was a handfull to fly in assymetric configuration, nothing like a Seminole or Seneca.
In that case the B200 must be a real bastard in assymetric conditions, as the Seneca 1 could prove to be a bit interesting!
Pinky the pilot is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 21:34
  #1326 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,840
Pinky, I think that the old B200 simulator is probably worse than the real aeroplane in that it is very sensitive to pitch control. More than two degrees either way and a positive climb speed can't be achieved if the failure is simulated at Vr. Later King Airs with Raisebeck mods seem to be more tolerant in pitch, but still require precise lateral control, though no more than most twins which have so much power to weight.
However, despite being only level B that sim remains a useful training tool and could well be used for any light twin training to teach the fundamentals in a safe environment.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 22:23
  #1327 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 847
That old Sim wasn't the easiest contraption to drive but it did/does the job. You simply had to be a good driver to handle it within the testing parameters. We used to even experiment after a Sim check. Full flap, one engine, off Syd 34L from a standing start, could get it airborne, just -) Sometimes we used to swap roles, the examiner would jump in the drivers seat and we/I would fail things at the control panel revenge is sweet-)
machtuk is offline  
Old 13th Jan 2021, 23:35
  #1328 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,336
Sorry for my propensity for persistence, but I’m not sure my question was answered. I’ll ask it again, but generally:
I note the ATSB report says this about flight carried out in a Level D simulator for a similar model aircraft: .... The unambiguous implication of that outcome (assuming it substantially replicated the performance of ZCR) is that it is not physically possible for the aircraft to fly away ‘like a homesick angel’, if the rudder trim is set to full deflection (or at least full nose left deflection), unless the pilot is an “exceptional human”.

[Has anyone had] any first-hand experience, either in the simulator or the aircraft, of flight with the rudder trim set to full nose left deflection and both engines delivering maximum thrust [and accelerating through 140kts]?

Lead Balloon is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2021, 02:57
  #1329 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 3,645
Mach, the Tenerife comment was purely in reference to a collision between the aircraft, no more. The Concorde pilot telling the near miss story was asked by John, "Surely you mean 20 metres?", No he replied "20 feet", 16:50 on the video.


With reference to a possible abort the official report says,
it appears that the residual speed of the aircraft at the end of the runway would have been 74 kt for a takeoff aborted at 183 kt and 115 kt for a takeoff aborted at 196 kt.
These figures show that an aborted takeoff would have led to a runway excursion at such a speed that, taking into account the fire, the result would probably have been catastrophic for the aircraft and its occupants.
Between a rock and a hard place it would seem, the first sign of trouble was 6.4 seconds after V1 at 188 kt CAS.

V1: 150 kt
VR: 199 kt
V2: 220 kt

The left wheel truck took out a runway light and burn marks on the grass show deviation well to the left.


A closer shot from the 747, photo is full frame and not cropped.


megan is offline  
Old 14th Jan 2021, 05:31
  #1330 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 513
How persistent do you want to be LB?
Lookleft is offline  
Old 16th Jan 2021, 07:33
  #1331 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Australia/India
Posts: 3,336
I tend to get more persistent when I can't get straight answers to fairly simple questions. The ATSB, having produced various works of fiction for various reasons for a substantial period, means I am presumptively dubious about the content.

In the case of ZCR, the mystery of why the rudder trim was where it was post-impact may be a mystery forever. But the question whether an aircraft of this kind is 'handleable' by an ordinary pilot, with full nose left rudder trim and the engines delivering full power after accelerating through 140kts, is binary.

If the ATSB probably got it right, I should concede that.
Lead Balloon is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.