King Air down at Essendon?
He claimed the King Air is an aircraft designed to remain airborne even after the engines have failed. I'd like to see that.
Google "Occam's Razor". It is a simple principle that the simplest, most likely explanation for anything is usually correct. I think the posts here have been very imaginative in dreaming up complex coincidences that may have contributed to the accident.
Who knows, one of these amazing confluences of events may in fact prove to be correct. However....
Like others watching that video I am seeing an aircraft yawing around to the left. There is a simple explanation available for that.
I find the hysterical reaction to legitimate questions (How dare you question the skills of the pilot?!? He was my mate and is without fault!) quite worrying on a board of supposedly professional technical equipment operators. If you aren't looking at this incident, and every other incident, and questioning how YOU could fall into that trap then you should be.
After the Airtex Mojave a number of pilots who knew the accident pilot sought to blame anyone but the accident pilot, refusing to examine his role in the events.
After Norfolk Island the pilot was elevated to saint-like status by some, despite actions and decisions that contributed to the accident.
I love Human Factors training and I have participated in and delivered a great deal of it - HOWEVER human factors is, like Stall recovery practice, an exercise in highlighting the danger and learning to identify the symptoms to TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION. Human Factors does not provide you with a bag of excuses for poor performance or f*ckups.
Stop being a bunch of emotionally reactive schoolgirls and act like professional, technical, analytical pilots.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Behind a CB near you
Age: 44
Posts: 204
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am speechless... The tinfoil hat wearers are out in force... After getting 19 minutes through this I couldn't watch any more. There are some muppets who should not be accorded the privilege of free speech!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvU6fRAcQyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvU6fRAcQyY
I feel the need for a good shower and a scrub after watching crap like that. What is truly scary is the number of followers the muppet attracts.
Toruck, theoretically yes what you said could happen but really what do you think the chances of that are, seriously? Firstly the primary governor would have to fail, the over speed governor would have to fail, then the fuel topping governor would have to fail. Then finally in your scenario, the ability to feather would have to fail.
As Horatio said, Occams Razor.
I hope the investigation on this accident gets published in a better time frame than other investigations have been getting published. I'm sure there are many people who are interested to find out what occurred.
As Horatio said, Occams Razor.
I hope the investigation on this accident gets published in a better time frame than other investigations have been getting published. I'm sure there are many people who are interested to find out what occurred.
I hope the investigation on this accident gets published in a better time frame than other investigations have been getting published. I'm sure there are many people who are interested to find out what occurred.
...reckless endangerment of the general public perhaps?
Jeez.
A guy offers an alternative point of view in a reasonably restrained way and he gets abused and called an arseclown.
Reminds me of an ALPA bloke who had a go in a staff meeting many years ago at AirNZ.
"Remind me to never, ever share a flight deck with you pal" - I thought to myself.
"You're not just an angry man - with an attitude like that - you're actually an absolute danger to other people".
I discovered that the said A320 Captain had climbed on take-off from AKL for a considerable period with the wheels down, and had only reluctantly retracted the gear when the FA stuck her head through the door and said, "Captain K****n - the undercarriage...!"
FO was too **** scared to say anything.
And that's a story that was relayed to me by another very experienced NZ captain; well known in gliding circles in NZ.
Really angry people have no place in this industry... certainly nowhere near a yoke or control column.
A guy offers an alternative point of view in a reasonably restrained way and he gets abused and called an arseclown.
Reminds me of an ALPA bloke who had a go in a staff meeting many years ago at AirNZ.
"Remind me to never, ever share a flight deck with you pal" - I thought to myself.
"You're not just an angry man - with an attitude like that - you're actually an absolute danger to other people".
I discovered that the said A320 Captain had climbed on take-off from AKL for a considerable period with the wheels down, and had only reluctantly retracted the gear when the FA stuck her head through the door and said, "Captain K****n - the undercarriage...!"
FO was too **** scared to say anything.
And that's a story that was relayed to me by another very experienced NZ captain; well known in gliding circles in NZ.
Really angry people have no place in this industry... certainly nowhere near a yoke or control column.
Last edited by tartare; 24th Feb 2017 at 09:08.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Essendon ? similar incident of a B200 in 2014 « Assistance to the Aviation Industry
Similar incident overseas in 2014. The interesting part in that report was the amount of rudder in degrees of slip/skid and the direction it was assumed the pilot applied during the few seconds of flight.
Similar incident overseas in 2014. The interesting part in that report was the amount of rudder in degrees of slip/skid and the direction it was assumed the pilot applied during the few seconds of flight.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: S
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am speechless... The tinfoil hat wearers are out in force... After getting 19 minutes through this I couldn't watch any more. There are some muppets who should not be accorded the privilege of free speech!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvU6fRAcQyY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvU6fRAcQyY
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: brisbane
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MickG0105,
Regarding Advance Airlines Crash in VH-AAV
You got me! He did everything copybook, and exactly on schedule!
How then do you explain the flat skidding descending turn as observed by ATC, the wake in the water, as observed by ATC, the evidence given by ATC that it looked (through binoculars) like flaps were not retracted till the a/c was very low, the initial confusion of ATSB by the left engine suffering damage consistent with it operating at idle at impact
And finally the well documented evidence of P&W, and Beechcraft, that if the PIC had done any ONE of the following, 1 applied power up, 2 flap up, 3 feathered the dead eng, or 4 centered the skid ball and flown wings level, the a/c would have flown away successfully.
The final decision of the PIC to pull up and VMC diagonally across the rock wall and 34 t/hold was the single worst option available, at that precise time.
The IAS of flap retraction is conjecture, but is consistent with ATC observing the a/c sag into ground effect at flap retraction, something it certainly would not have done had the speed been at 121k.
The only conclusion as to why the left engine was operating at idle, although feathered at impact, was that the contaminated fuel had pumped itself clear by the engine windmilling for a considerable time, and the auto ignition then relit the engine. This was the conclusion reached by P&W after extensive bench testing.
I used this accident as a training guide as to what not to do. My instruction to my crew was to follow the drills, i.e.
Fly the a/c,
power up,
clean it up,
secure the dead eng,
maintain r/way hdg,
keep the skid ball centered, (in the unlikely that it's not performing, pick the best of what you have STRAIGHT IN FRONT of you),
when at a safe alt (500') maybe tell ATC.
VH-AAV PIC did none of that.
Put simply, I did not want one of my crew emulating this pilot in any way.
Please explain how any what I have said is defamatory to a deceased pilot. I believe it is using someone's mistakes as a learning experience, surely as professionals that is what we are required to do.
Cheers Gazumped
Regarding Advance Airlines Crash in VH-AAV
You got me! He did everything copybook, and exactly on schedule!
How then do you explain the flat skidding descending turn as observed by ATC, the wake in the water, as observed by ATC, the evidence given by ATC that it looked (through binoculars) like flaps were not retracted till the a/c was very low, the initial confusion of ATSB by the left engine suffering damage consistent with it operating at idle at impact
And finally the well documented evidence of P&W, and Beechcraft, that if the PIC had done any ONE of the following, 1 applied power up, 2 flap up, 3 feathered the dead eng, or 4 centered the skid ball and flown wings level, the a/c would have flown away successfully.
The final decision of the PIC to pull up and VMC diagonally across the rock wall and 34 t/hold was the single worst option available, at that precise time.
The IAS of flap retraction is conjecture, but is consistent with ATC observing the a/c sag into ground effect at flap retraction, something it certainly would not have done had the speed been at 121k.
The only conclusion as to why the left engine was operating at idle, although feathered at impact, was that the contaminated fuel had pumped itself clear by the engine windmilling for a considerable time, and the auto ignition then relit the engine. This was the conclusion reached by P&W after extensive bench testing.
I used this accident as a training guide as to what not to do. My instruction to my crew was to follow the drills, i.e.
Fly the a/c,
power up,
clean it up,
secure the dead eng,
maintain r/way hdg,
keep the skid ball centered, (in the unlikely that it's not performing, pick the best of what you have STRAIGHT IN FRONT of you),
when at a safe alt (500') maybe tell ATC.
VH-AAV PIC did none of that.
Put simply, I did not want one of my crew emulating this pilot in any way.
Please explain how any what I have said is defamatory to a deceased pilot. I believe it is using someone's mistakes as a learning experience, surely as professionals that is what we are required to do.
Cheers Gazumped
TM,
Possibly.
It would depend on what caused the overspeed in the first place, uncontrolled high fuel flow could cause a momentary OS along with increased Tq but the various fuel flow governors should catch up pretty quick and bring it in check. I would think the yaw would be very slight in this case.
To expand your thought line further, if say the bearings in the prop hub seized or were binding then Np (prop rpm) absorbing prop pitch increase with increasing power is denied, the result will be an overspeed until the OS governor trims fuel back. Under these conditions the remaining Tq could be quite low so yaw toward the dying engine would follow, but likely not to the extent of a completely dead and windmilling engine/prop.
If the OS results in an engine failure and subsequent complete Tq reduction then the seized/binding prop bearings will possibly not allow feathering to occur and windmilling will continue.
Unlikely this is what happened but it is another of the possible plethora of scenarios that may need to be considered.
Would overspending prop give slight yaw to right ( left eng ) then failure of feathering system cause the drag to the left ?
It would depend on what caused the overspeed in the first place, uncontrolled high fuel flow could cause a momentary OS along with increased Tq but the various fuel flow governors should catch up pretty quick and bring it in check. I would think the yaw would be very slight in this case.
To expand your thought line further, if say the bearings in the prop hub seized or were binding then Np (prop rpm) absorbing prop pitch increase with increasing power is denied, the result will be an overspeed until the OS governor trims fuel back. Under these conditions the remaining Tq could be quite low so yaw toward the dying engine would follow, but likely not to the extent of a completely dead and windmilling engine/prop.
If the OS results in an engine failure and subsequent complete Tq reduction then the seized/binding prop bearings will possibly not allow feathering to occur and windmilling will continue.
Unlikely this is what happened but it is another of the possible plethora of scenarios that may need to be considered.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
suitable environs for airfields
Fuji, of course I didn't mean that every farm strip should have fire service, etc etc. I specified complex aircraft require more complex airfields, and any aircraft with more than one engine to my mind is COMPLEX. Especially if one engine goes tits up and you are not in practice.
For a farm strip for your country doctor, he is unlikely to be arriving in a fancy twin. For six wealthy golfers they can afford the luxury travel. Trouble is that any aircraft capable of carrying paying passengers, usually more than one engine is required. And the airfield in use should not be surrounded with highways, shopping centres, parking lots, and lots and lots of homes and schools and kindergartens.
I am a retired gliding instructor and tug pilot, with more than 3,000 hours. That means I have had a LOT of practice doing launch failures safely. I keep abrest of the news, and the British Gliding Association has just sent out to all UK glider pilots that if you have a winch launch failure, LAND AHEAD if it is safe to do so. Trouble with Essendon, and I admit I know absolutely nothing about unique Australian land development creep that blocks off any place that would qualify as a safe place to LAND AHEAD, is that the whole neighbourhood in the photos featured make it look like there is NOPLACE TO GO WHEN THE DONKEY STOPS. So the pilot makes the fatal turn.
For a farm strip for your country doctor, he is unlikely to be arriving in a fancy twin. For six wealthy golfers they can afford the luxury travel. Trouble is that any aircraft capable of carrying paying passengers, usually more than one engine is required. And the airfield in use should not be surrounded with highways, shopping centres, parking lots, and lots and lots of homes and schools and kindergartens.
I am a retired gliding instructor and tug pilot, with more than 3,000 hours. That means I have had a LOT of practice doing launch failures safely. I keep abrest of the news, and the British Gliding Association has just sent out to all UK glider pilots that if you have a winch launch failure, LAND AHEAD if it is safe to do so. Trouble with Essendon, and I admit I know absolutely nothing about unique Australian land development creep that blocks off any place that would qualify as a safe place to LAND AHEAD, is that the whole neighbourhood in the photos featured make it look like there is NOPLACE TO GO WHEN THE DONKEY STOPS. So the pilot makes the fatal turn.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mary, you clearly don't know wat the Royal Flying Doctor consists of. It is not a single doctor in a Cessna 182. The RFDS operates across the country with a large fleet (currently 69) of complex aircraft. They operate into all types of airstrips from capital cities to dirt strips on farming properties. They are fitted out like MICA ambulances. Have a look here.
https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/abou...fds/our-fleet/
https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/abou...fds/our-fleet/
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
- 2 x King Air B300 C;
- 32 x King Air B200 and B200 C
It was initially thought (reported) that the aircraft was either a RFDS aircraft or Ambo (Ambulance) aircraft...
Essendon is used by the RFDS...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law...c00-1487964320
But development creep is real and a problem at most small airfields/airports.
Fujii beat me to it...
Last edited by Heady1977; 24th Feb 2017 at 18:28. Reason: Fujii beat me to it...
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thanks Heady. When I worked in Alice Springs tower I was able to do a couple of trips with the RFDS. Once when they still had PA31s and again in a Kingair. The GAFA is a big place.
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,186
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Low and slow, with nowhere to go, has to be one the worst nightmares you can face!
The DH Dove accident that occurred at Essendon many years back was a classic case. Highly experienced former airline captain. Took off on Runway 17, starboard engine failure just after lift-off, unable to get gear up, rapidly approaching Vmca, aimed to force land on one of the several road ahead in same direction as take off flight path. The pilot closed the throttle on the live engine to prevent loss of directional control and crashed wings level on roof of house which dissipated energy, same with roof of next house and finished in a heap. No fire and few injuries to passengers and pilot or on the ground. If I recall correctly the key to survival was the pilots actions in closing the live engine throttle to ensure wings level impact.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I recall correctly the key to survival was the pilots actions in closing the live engine throttle to ensure wings level impact.
Watching, over and over, that video linked to by OttoL does indeed suggest the aircraft was on runway heading but then skidded violently to the left. If this was indeed the case then it suggests the pilot may have reduced the power on the starboard engine so as to regain control.
The few seconds before disappearing from view certainly suggest very strongly that control had been regained. The act of extending the undercarriage (clearly visible in the video) also strongly suggests that the pilot's actions were oriented towards making the ground contact as survivable as possible.
I am wondering if the propeller refused to feather.
Question for the B200 experts regarding the valve that opens to allow oil pressure to leave the hub, thus causing the prop to feather: does the autofeather (via the solenoid) operate the same valve as the manual control (via the prop lever)?
FGD,
Pulling the prop lever back to feather will raise the governor pilot valve mechanically, dumping pressure from the prop cylinder.
The auto feather solenoid dump valve is on the overspeed governor and dumps control oil.
Therefore, separate.
Pulling the prop lever back to feather will raise the governor pilot valve mechanically, dumping pressure from the prop cylinder.
The auto feather solenoid dump valve is on the overspeed governor and dumps control oil.
Therefore, separate.
Last edited by Car RAMROD; 25th Feb 2017 at 01:43. Reason: Typo