King Air down at Essendon?
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suitable environs for airfields
Bigger and more complex aircraft with more than one engine should require suitably trained pilots and suitable airfields with fire service, ATC, big enough runways, taxiways, and the type of runway ending that can bring an overrun safely to a halt.
Perhaps Essendon does not have enough surrounding space or facility to safely provide an advanced operation and so should restrict traffic to microlites.. and helicopters.
Perhaps Essendon does not have enough surrounding space or facility to safely provide an advanced operation and so should restrict traffic to microlites.. and helicopters.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary, are you proposing that all of the hundreds of farms and cattle stations in Australia with strips to accommodate the flying doctor should have a fire service and ATC? Neither ATC or a fire service would have had any influence on this accident.
"Aero Developer" is a troll. His argument is simply that, if aviation infrastructure land commands cheaper revenue than commercial land, he is "losing money". This is not the same as making a loss. It is called a "Chinese loss" in that he can't make as much money as he would like.
The owners " business model" has nothing to do with "risk".
The model is
(1) Acquire the airport, complete with maintenance and operation of public infrastructure obligations.
(2) Lobby Government to minimise the public infrastructure obligations so that as much of the airport land as possible can be converted to higher value commercial/residential use.
(3) Profit.
P.S. I suggest posters be very careful about what they write about ownership of YMEN lest they end up in court.
The owners " business model" has nothing to do with "risk".
The model is
(1) Acquire the airport, complete with maintenance and operation of public infrastructure obligations.
(2) Lobby Government to minimise the public infrastructure obligations so that as much of the airport land as possible can be converted to higher value commercial/residential use.
(3) Profit.
P.S. I suggest posters be very careful about what they write about ownership of YMEN lest they end up in court.
Last edited by Sunfish; 23rd Feb 2017 at 19:38.
I stand corrected, DF, on my statement that there were no buildings in that area before the DFO. However, I make 2 points:
1. If you compare the footprint of the DFO and its carparks with the footprint of the buildings in the photo at #362, the DFO and the carparks have a much bigger footprint - almost the entirety of the space is taken up by either buildings or carparks.
2. At its peak activity times, the DFO and carparks will have many (many) more punters in it than those pre-exiting buildings.
1. If you compare the footprint of the DFO and its carparks with the footprint of the buildings in the photo at #362, the DFO and the carparks have a much bigger footprint - almost the entirety of the space is taken up by either buildings or carparks.
2. At its peak activity times, the DFO and carparks will have many (many) more punters in it than those pre-exiting buildings.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: NT
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I notice that the ATSB have classified this accident as a "collision with terrain".
Huh?
With every new action by the ATSB I find myself wondering, more and more, whether they know what they're doing. If this was a "collision with terrain" (CWT), then every other aircraft crash would also be!
Ran out of fuel, entered a descent and met the earth? CWT.
Lost control and met the earth? CWT.
Collided with another aircraft, lost a wing, fell and met the earth? CWT.
Stalled on final approach and met the earth? CWT.
Landed with undercarriage retracted? CWT "
Recall reading last yr, same dept deemed running out of fuel, was an "engine malfunction"
...go figure. This was over the jabiru investigations.
Huh?
With every new action by the ATSB I find myself wondering, more and more, whether they know what they're doing. If this was a "collision with terrain" (CWT), then every other aircraft crash would also be!
Ran out of fuel, entered a descent and met the earth? CWT.
Lost control and met the earth? CWT.
Collided with another aircraft, lost a wing, fell and met the earth? CWT.
Stalled on final approach and met the earth? CWT.
Landed with undercarriage retracted? CWT "
Recall reading last yr, same dept deemed running out of fuel, was an "engine malfunction"
...go figure. This was over the jabiru investigations.
Once you wok out the orientation of the car with the dash cam footage there are a couple of observations to be made. The gear appears to be up and the wings are level. That would seem to support that the pilot had handled the initial engine failure, otherwise the aircraft by that stage of the flight would be in a much steeper angle of bank. It also negates the idea that giving a mayday call distracted him from completing the drills.
The impact with the building also suggests a wings level attitude so why wasn't it capable of climbing? There has been speculation that the photo of the left prop indicates that it was feathered but has anyone got a photo of the starboard prop? If it was developing power it should look like a peeled banana skin and the ground should have lots of prop strike marks. Is that photo that has been posted earlier confirmed as the left prop or is that speculation because there is not much damage?
Just a question for King Air pilots, do they have starter generators or separate generators? The reason I ask is because of this accident.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200600563/
The impact with the building also suggests a wings level attitude so why wasn't it capable of climbing? There has been speculation that the photo of the left prop indicates that it was feathered but has anyone got a photo of the starboard prop? If it was developing power it should look like a peeled banana skin and the ground should have lots of prop strike marks. Is that photo that has been posted earlier confirmed as the left prop or is that speculation because there is not much damage?
Just a question for King Air pilots, do they have starter generators or separate generators? The reason I ask is because of this accident.
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200600563/
Lookleft, they've got starter-generators.
P.S there's been discussion that in the video the gear appears down, especially when some higher-res video was published. Conjecture though as to whether it was down the whole time or lowered as it got near to the shops.
P.S there's been discussion that in the video the gear appears down, especially when some higher-res video was published. Conjecture though as to whether it was down the whole time or lowered as it got near to the shops.
Remember way back when the Mallard prang in Perth happened?
I wonder how long it will take for the B200 prang at YMEN to be overtaken by the next tragedy and media/PPRuNe circus.
I wonder how long it will take for the B200 prang at YMEN to be overtaken by the next tragedy and media/PPRuNe circus.
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: earth
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yep.
Put vid in full screen, just before aircraft goes out of site stop vid, do a screen capture. select the aircraft, then resize to 500%
What you see might change your mind. Gear looks down and aircraft looks to be in a left bank of 20 - 30 degrees.
Put vid in full screen, just before aircraft goes out of site stop vid, do a screen capture. select the aircraft, then resize to 500%
What you see might change your mind. Gear looks down and aircraft looks to be in a left bank of 20 - 30 degrees.
Property Developers have carte blance when they lease this Commonwealth land.
Avalon, Essendon, Moorabbin are all been seen as future housing developments, not long term airports. Ask Fox what his long term plans are.
To suggest that lessors are forced to develop the land within airports, or else they would lose money, is fantasy. Who enters into a 99 year lease knowing they will lose money from day one? The land that Costco sits on at Moorabbin is valued at 40 million.
How many C172s doing circuits does it take to raise 40 mil? My point is that land development is the prime reason for leasing this land, not support for the aviation industry.
Airports are prime brownfield developments. Water, sewer, gas, power, drainage, flat land all sitting there, when they eventually buy this land, they pay only greenfield rates, double your money overnight. Laverton is a prime example.
When Tooraddin is announced, Moorabbin will close. The money from this sale should be used to relocate Moorabbin to Bangholme where there is ample land available. Fox will hold onto Avalon lease for the initial 50 years then buy the land not opt for the additional 49 year lease. Most of us will be dead by then so my theory is safe.
Regional Victoria is no better off really.
Avalon, Essendon, Moorabbin are all been seen as future housing developments, not long term airports. Ask Fox what his long term plans are.
To suggest that lessors are forced to develop the land within airports, or else they would lose money, is fantasy. Who enters into a 99 year lease knowing they will lose money from day one? The land that Costco sits on at Moorabbin is valued at 40 million.
How many C172s doing circuits does it take to raise 40 mil? My point is that land development is the prime reason for leasing this land, not support for the aviation industry.
Airports are prime brownfield developments. Water, sewer, gas, power, drainage, flat land all sitting there, when they eventually buy this land, they pay only greenfield rates, double your money overnight. Laverton is a prime example.
When Tooraddin is announced, Moorabbin will close. The money from this sale should be used to relocate Moorabbin to Bangholme where there is ample land available. Fox will hold onto Avalon lease for the initial 50 years then buy the land not opt for the additional 49 year lease. Most of us will be dead by then so my theory is safe.
Regional Victoria is no better off really.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose the reason it is classified as a collision with terrain is because that when the initial report was released on the day of the accident, that was the only known fact. I.e. the aircraft crashed.
Why not simply title it, "Accident Under Investigation" until ready to finally classify it?
FGD it has to be classified to go into their database and the database drives the classifications.
Thanks for the picture Birdman it does appear to show the gear is down but I still don't see that it was at a large AofB. In your picture draw a line between the main gear wheels. If the pilot had lost control then the AofB would have been very high and the picture would have shown more plan form of the wing than it does. What the picture can't answer is why was there not sufficient power from the operating engine to keep it airborne?
Thanks for the picture Birdman it does appear to show the gear is down but I still don't see that it was at a large AofB. In your picture draw a line between the main gear wheels. If the pilot had lost control then the AofB would have been very high and the picture would have shown more plan form of the wing than it does. What the picture can't answer is why was there not sufficient power from the operating engine to keep it airborne?
FGD it has to be classified to go into their database and the database drives the classifications.
Thanks for the picture Birdman it does appear to show the gear is down but I still don't see that it was at a large AofB. In your picture draw a line between the main gear wheels. If the pilot had lost control then the AofB would have been very high and the picture would have shown more plan form of the wing than it does. What the picture can't answer is why was there not sufficient power from the operating engine to keep it airborne?
Thanks for the picture Birdman it does appear to show the gear is down but I still don't see that it was at a large AofB. In your picture draw a line between the main gear wheels. If the pilot had lost control then the AofB would have been very high and the picture would have shown more plan form of the wing than it does. What the picture can't answer is why was there not sufficient power from the operating engine to keep it airborne?
as the first 15 seconds are very valuable, I think.
0:04 Aircraft makes its first appearance from the top of a distant sign.
It seems to me to be climbing and moves towards the LEFT of frame for 2 seconds.
And looks to be on runway heading.
0:06 Aircraft begins moving to RIGHT of frame
0:07 We seem to be viewing left side of the aircraft. Tail is clearly on the left.
and this continues.
It seems to be in a very flat, skidding left turn up to impact.
Wings seem to be fairly level throughout.
Posters have mentioned Rudder boost and auto feather.
Does the video indicate that no attempt was made to stay straight (or was unsuccessful)
or that it was a deliberate attempt to try return to a safer area?
I think the valuable input will be from the pilots who saw, with their own eyes, what happened. Hopefully those pilots will speak to, and only to, ATSB.
I'm jiggered if I can see the nuances that you are in that video.
I'm jiggered if I can see the nuances that you are in that video.
I see the same thing 0ttol ... i was watching today over and over but couldn't quite pin point it. But that's the best way I could describe it. I grew up in the area, and drove those exacts roads hundreds if not thousands of times. It definitely looks like he was on runway heading in the first few frames because I can clearly remember having seen aircraft on climbout from runway 17 and the way they were pointed in relation to Bulla Rd. It seems after the first few frames, the skid is very violent and flat to the left.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 704
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Fortunately we have media experts who have already determined the cause of the problem: It's a lack of training to deal with a feathering failure. According to The Age.
Earlier in the week I saw Geoffrey Thomas talking to i think Channel 9. He claimed the King Air is an aircraft designed to remain airborne even after the engines have failed. I'd like to see that.
Earlier in the week I saw Geoffrey Thomas talking to i think Channel 9. He claimed the King Air is an aircraft designed to remain airborne even after the engines have failed. I'd like to see that.