King Air down at Essendon?
Gazumped
I take exception to what you have written about the crash if VH-AAV because you demonstrate a disconcerting proclivity for making stuff up.
You initially posted that;
The only skidding turn mentioned anywhere in the entire investigation report relates to the impact with the sea wall and that was subsequent to an impact with the water.
The undercarriage was already retracted when the left engine lost power, so you just made that bit up.
Correct, and as I stated very clearly in my post #137 "what he failed to do was go to maximum power from the company required limited power take-off setting of 700°C ITT". This was most assuredly the critical oversight.
He did feather the left propeller, so again, you just made that bit up too.
He did raise the flaps, so, again, something else you made up.
You went on to say;
The PIC successfully carried out at least three of your just "one" of actions and the aircraft most assuredly did not climb away. In order to achieve anything even vaguely approaching positive climb potential the PIC needed to apply full power to the right engine.
Any old how, when your manifest misrepresentations were pointed out to you, you came back with;
It is beyond dispute that the gear was up before the engine failure, so you made the "but late" bit up.
There were no flight recorders so how you came up with an airspeed, short of making it up, is anyone's guess (just by the bye, 106 - 95 = 11 not 26)
All the evidence, including two eye witness accounts, has the left prop feathered a long before the airplane was descended into ground effect over Botany Bay, and the DoT found that "... it was considered only valid to conclude that the pilot had most probably feathered the left propeller shortly after the left engine failed." So, you've made the late feathering in ground effect bit up.
Having been called on all of that, now you want to go with;
There is no mention of ATC observing a flat, skidding descending turn, at all. You made that up.
There is no mention of ATC observing flap retraction. You made that up.
Extensive bench testing? If P&W drew any such conclusion it was not documented in the investigation report. What P&W did find was that when the left fuel control unit and fuel pump were inspected water was found throughout the fuel nozzles, transfer tubes, flow divider, FCU outlet line and the fuel pump itself.
ATC didn't observe the airplane sag into ground effect at flap retraction at all. You made that up.
As has been clearly demonstrated repeatedly, the PIC carried out at least two of the "any ONE of" actions and the airplane most assuredly did NOT fly away successfully. The critical action required was application of full power from the reduced power take-off configuration.
When you're at zero feet flying towards a 3 metre rock wall you tend not to have many options, at that precise time, but there's no evidence that the PIC did pull up. The DoT concluded that it was "... probable that the aircraft struck the water first and then ricocheted into the sea wall" and given the water-strike damage to the right propeller it is more likely that the PIC attempted to steer around the southern end of the wall.
On the basis that good judgement comes from experience and experience tends to include its fair share of poor judgement, I have no problem with using other people's poor judgements as learning opportunities. What I do have a problem with is making stuff up. You claim to have "read the VH-AAV cover to cover, studied it, and used it as a training guide." and yet you have produced a litany of grossly and patently false statements regarding the PIC's actions/inactions. When you make stuff up that casts aspersions upon a person's professional competency and performance it is slanderous and defamatory.
If you're going to quote accidents in public forums how about exercising a bit of scholarship, get your facts straight and show a modicum of respect for dead colleagues? Surely, your professional responsibilities extend that far.
Cheers,
Mick
You initially posted that;
... in VH-AAV's case the PIC did a flat skidding turn,
failed to retract the gear,
did not apply full power,
did not feather the dead engine,
did not select flap up, ..."
You went on to say;
"... if the PIC had successfully carried out just "one" of the following, full power, or gear up, or flap up, or rudder to prevent yaw, or feathered the engine the aircraft would have climbed away, ..."
Any old how, when your manifest misrepresentations were pointed out to you, you came back with;
he did retract the gear, but late,
he did not retract the flap till his IAS was approx 95k, putting him 26K below blue speed, (his blue speed flap out was 106k),
he eventually feathered the propeller very late, in ground effect,
Having been called on all of that, now you want to go with;
the flat skidding descending turn 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 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.
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.
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.
On the basis that good judgement comes from experience and experience tends to include its fair share of poor judgement, I have no problem with using other people's poor judgements as learning opportunities. What I do have a problem with is making stuff up. You claim to have "read the VH-AAV cover to cover, studied it, and used it as a training guide." and yet you have produced a litany of grossly and patently false statements regarding the PIC's actions/inactions. When you make stuff up that casts aspersions upon a person's professional competency and performance it is slanderous and defamatory.
If you're going to quote accidents in public forums how about exercising a bit of scholarship, get your facts straight and show a modicum of respect for dead colleagues? Surely, your professional responsibilities extend that far.
Cheers,
Mick
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On subject and as noticed by another poster, the ATSB is saying this was a private flight. I sincerely hope for all concerned that that is a mistake as it will be blood in the water for lawyers for the passenger families.
Kaz
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Australia
Age: 51
Posts: 931
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For those complaining about excessive development in the near-runway areas; please explain to me how this King Air crash would have had a totally different ending if it had pancaked into flat open ground at over 100kts, and full of fuel? Do you really believe everyone on board would have just walked away, if there were no buildings there? Where are the study results that show no development within miles of a runway improves air safety outcomes?
Would the DFO outlet not being inside the original airfield boundary changed the out come? Well that is a maybe. But for sure you have more hope slapping it into the grass with wings level than you do bouncing it off the roof of a department store.
On a side note...what is it with DFO and airfields? conspiracy? ( hate conspiracy theories, but gotta ask it on this one)
On a side note...what is it with DFO and airfields? conspiracy?
What we are seeing is airfields being squeezed. All of their available space being used up for development. Run off space being eroded etc.
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Victoria
Posts: 750
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It's called bad planning.
When I was a young adult there we're no buildings on the southeast corner at YMEN and no freeway or tollway. The Moonee Ponds Creek was a creek. And then Governments looked at the "unused" land and encroachment began.
Back then, YMBN was a grass all-over field surrounded by market gardens and the odd dairy farm. And planners in Councils and then the Commonwealth saw the "empty" land and encroachment began.
At my home town, YSHT was outside the town boundary and there were opportunities to purchase adjoining farmland to extend the main and cross-strip runways. But the Council and the developers (funny that) saw the vacant land and it was subdivided. There are now houses and factories up against the aerodrome boundary and the Council and some of the bright business people are talking about a new and bigger airport further out so that bigger aircraft can operate. Of course those of us who fly from there now will never be able to afdord the cost-recovery rates and other charges that will be levied so little GA will become even littler all over again.
I ask myself the rhetorical question "who has made a lot of money out of all this, and what influence do they have to achieve it?"
Kaz
When I was a young adult there we're no buildings on the southeast corner at YMEN and no freeway or tollway. The Moonee Ponds Creek was a creek. And then Governments looked at the "unused" land and encroachment began.
Back then, YMBN was a grass all-over field surrounded by market gardens and the odd dairy farm. And planners in Councils and then the Commonwealth saw the "empty" land and encroachment began.
At my home town, YSHT was outside the town boundary and there were opportunities to purchase adjoining farmland to extend the main and cross-strip runways. But the Council and the developers (funny that) saw the vacant land and it was subdivided. There are now houses and factories up against the aerodrome boundary and the Council and some of the bright business people are talking about a new and bigger airport further out so that bigger aircraft can operate. Of course those of us who fly from there now will never be able to afdord the cost-recovery rates and other charges that will be levied so little GA will become even littler all over again.
I ask myself the rhetorical question "who has made a lot of money out of all this, and what influence do they have to achieve it?"
Kaz
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: sydney
Posts: 1,469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Its called "Political donations" Kaz, the modern day equivalent of the brown paper bag.
In some cases it could be called "Deferred Payment" as the senior mandarins who handle this stuff, they already get obscene salaries so hardly need immediate cash, they get their kick back after retirement by way of lucrative directorships, even free farms in NZ.
In some cases it could be called "Deferred Payment" as the senior mandarins who handle this stuff, they already get obscene salaries so hardly need immediate cash, they get their kick back after retirement by way of lucrative directorships, even free farms in NZ.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Who is responsible for the associated costs of an incident/accident?
So who pays if an aircraft departs a runway strip, regardless of width, and subsequently crashes into an obstacle; just outside the Obstacle Free Zone (OFZ)/Precision Obstacle Free Zone (POFZ), or just underneath the inner transitional surface, such as an airport shopping centre, petrol station, carpark and/or office building? Historically, much of the land immediately adjacent to runway strips was clear.
The potential cost of an aircraft overrun, runway excursion or forced landing, such as what occurred in Essendon on Monday, will be considerably greater when expensive airport infrastructure (aviation or non-aviation) is also involved. Should the aviation industry accept that the additional costs of the incident/accident be ‘absorbed’ by the general aviation company ‘responsible’, or potentially by airlines and/or ultimately, the airline’s insurers or underwriters? Will the airport operator and their respective insurers come to the party or contribute to covering these extra costs? This eventuality would be worth considering, or at least desk-topping, as it is only a matter of time.
Developing every skerrick of land within the confines of an airport boundary, immediately adjacent to critical runway and instrument approach infrastructure, is similar to developing all the road shoulders of the main access roads to our city’s major hospitals. It gradually negates the redundancy which was characteristic to the airport (or road) when it was first designed and constructed. So too, some types of airport development, for the sake of income/profit maximisation, limits options for pilots in the event of certain emergency situations. That is undeniable.
People of the greater community can drive to any number of supermarkets, malls, or even discount outlets (DFO) when they feel the need to shop. Conversely, a pilot when confronted with a complex emergency, especially during critical stages of flight (i.e. rotation, lift-off, final approach etc.) does not have the same luxury of time, the ability to just pull-over stop and think, or multiple options to put the aircraft back on the ground. Historically, Australian pilots could expect relatively generous clear areas within airport boundaries, in which they could recover a disabled aircraft.
The potential cost of an aircraft overrun, runway excursion or forced landing, such as what occurred in Essendon on Monday, will be considerably greater when expensive airport infrastructure (aviation or non-aviation) is also involved. Should the aviation industry accept that the additional costs of the incident/accident be ‘absorbed’ by the general aviation company ‘responsible’, or potentially by airlines and/or ultimately, the airline’s insurers or underwriters? Will the airport operator and their respective insurers come to the party or contribute to covering these extra costs? This eventuality would be worth considering, or at least desk-topping, as it is only a matter of time.
Developing every skerrick of land within the confines of an airport boundary, immediately adjacent to critical runway and instrument approach infrastructure, is similar to developing all the road shoulders of the main access roads to our city’s major hospitals. It gradually negates the redundancy which was characteristic to the airport (or road) when it was first designed and constructed. So too, some types of airport development, for the sake of income/profit maximisation, limits options for pilots in the event of certain emergency situations. That is undeniable.
People of the greater community can drive to any number of supermarkets, malls, or even discount outlets (DFO) when they feel the need to shop. Conversely, a pilot when confronted with a complex emergency, especially during critical stages of flight (i.e. rotation, lift-off, final approach etc.) does not have the same luxury of time, the ability to just pull-over stop and think, or multiple options to put the aircraft back on the ground. Historically, Australian pilots could expect relatively generous clear areas within airport boundaries, in which they could recover a disabled aircraft.
Last edited by Datum; 25th Feb 2017 at 23:01.
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Permanently lost
Posts: 1,785
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the debate about the dfo location is irrelevant to this crash. For whatever reason this Kingair was going to crash, whether it was into the dfo or the Tullamarine freeway or houses. It was going down when it struck the building roof.
Airports cannot be made totally crash proof unless you locate them where no one will use them. The dfo at YMEN is clear of the departure splay and any argument against its presence is effectively an argument for the closure of the airfield and I am most assuredly not arguing for that.
Airports cannot be made totally crash proof unless you locate them where no one will use them. The dfo at YMEN is clear of the departure splay and any argument against its presence is effectively an argument for the closure of the airfield and I am most assuredly not arguing for that.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Further to this line of thinking. Who pays by way of time and/or costly additional fuel burn in the event of; ‘weather’ holding, missed approaches and/or flight cancellations if over-development of on-airport infrastructure contributes to an increased prevalence of wind-shear and turbulence? Add to those costs; hotel accommodation, transport/hotel transfers, food vouchers etc. if the ‘weather related event’ results in the flight or flights diverting to another airport other than the intended destination. Who pays if due to over-development certain airport infrastructure cannot be used safely, such as some runways at certain airports during various weather conditions?
The majority of these costs are very unlikely to be absorbed by the airport operator, airport owner or airport leasing company. Why should the airlines, passengers (i.e. the public) and flight crew continue to absorb these ‘events’ with their time and at their expense?
The majority of these costs are very unlikely to be absorbed by the airport operator, airport owner or airport leasing company. Why should the airlines, passengers (i.e. the public) and flight crew continue to absorb these ‘events’ with their time and at their expense?
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Santa Barbara
Posts: 912
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Brisbane's lease cost $1.4 billion in 1997
Hardly peppercorn, and hardly "given it"
Did you read the article in the aviation section of Friday's Australian regarding airport funding. The author pointed out it is almost impossible to pay the running costs from purely aviation related activities.
No one can afford to run something at a loss for long
(except the government, and that's what happened when they did, and that's why they got rid of them).
and some of them they sold for $1.4 billion, woo-hoo, now they can pay your CSS pension, that would have made you happy?
The truth is, in the majority of cases, it is the non-aviation related activities that are subsidising the rest, just to make it work.
It seems there are arseclowns on both sides.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Down Under
Posts: 99
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cost Recovery?..
It would be only slightly more understandable if our cities were so large, or so over populated that the land within airport boundaries was absolutely the very last option for development! That is not the case in our country. In Australia we are blessed with vast space and land surrounding our cities and regional towns, when compared to many other cities around the world.
Further, the adverse effects of climate change are increasingly impacting on aviation in Australia. Our airport leasing companies and their supporting consultants should also carefully consider the severity of weather their respective locations are likely to encounter in the years to come, specifically during the initial infrastructure design and planning stages.
Perhaps the Commonwealth government should explore a mechanism facilitating cost recovery - that is, allowing at least a proportion of these substantial airline and customer costs to be passed back to an airport operator. The significant direct and indirect costs associated with; missed approaches, delays, cancellations and/or diversions, if the event can be attributable to poorly designed, inappropriately sited or overdeveloped airport infrastructure, should not just be the shared responsibility of the airlines and the public. This is particularly true if the additional related costs were somewhat attributable to ‘non-aviation’ infrastructure. A regime such as this is likely to motivate airport operators to plan and design airport infrastructure more appropriately.
Further, the adverse effects of climate change are increasingly impacting on aviation in Australia. Our airport leasing companies and their supporting consultants should also carefully consider the severity of weather their respective locations are likely to encounter in the years to come, specifically during the initial infrastructure design and planning stages.
Perhaps the Commonwealth government should explore a mechanism facilitating cost recovery - that is, allowing at least a proportion of these substantial airline and customer costs to be passed back to an airport operator. The significant direct and indirect costs associated with; missed approaches, delays, cancellations and/or diversions, if the event can be attributable to poorly designed, inappropriately sited or overdeveloped airport infrastructure, should not just be the shared responsibility of the airlines and the public. This is particularly true if the additional related costs were somewhat attributable to ‘non-aviation’ infrastructure. A regime such as this is likely to motivate airport operators to plan and design airport infrastructure more appropriately.
For those complaining about excessive development in the near-runway areas; please explain to me how this King Air crash would have had a totally different ending if it had pancaked into flat open ground at over 100kts, and full of fuel?
Do you really believe everyone on board would have just walked away, if there were no buildings there?
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Victoria
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Stablemate
I just watched the stablemate to the crashed aircraft depart from YHML on a charter to EN. It was airborne half way down 35 flat climb out graceful, gear up before threshold and flew well with 8 or so souls on board.
We at the a/c could not even begin to envisage what went wrong.
Comment was made that in the video on TV the aircraft at EN looked to be flying straight and level.
Seeing the King Air here just an hour ago makes it seem all the worse that the catastrophy occurred at EN on takeoff.
I remember AAV at mascot and it was different scenario.
But watching this plane at 100 feet off the runway all I can say to you pundits is whatever happened was unrecoverable after watching a plane under full control take off so effortlessly with so much power.
The video on the warehouse showed a crane hauling out the left engine and prop and someone said the blades were bent back at right angles and it didn't appear feathered.
is this correct and what does that say about the left engine?
We at the a/c could not even begin to envisage what went wrong.
Comment was made that in the video on TV the aircraft at EN looked to be flying straight and level.
Seeing the King Air here just an hour ago makes it seem all the worse that the catastrophy occurred at EN on takeoff.
I remember AAV at mascot and it was different scenario.
But watching this plane at 100 feet off the runway all I can say to you pundits is whatever happened was unrecoverable after watching a plane under full control take off so effortlessly with so much power.
The video on the warehouse showed a crane hauling out the left engine and prop and someone said the blades were bent back at right angles and it didn't appear feathered.
is this correct and what does that say about the left engine?
ZAZ re left prop
There's a couple of photos of a prop being craned away from the crash site at post #184. Viewed side on, it's anyone's guess; viewed front on, it looks feathered.
We'll be dissecting the interim report this time next month - time will tell.
We'll be dissecting the interim report this time next month - time will tell.
But watching this plane at 100 feet off the runway all I can say to you pundits is whatever happened was unrecoverable after watching a plane under full control take off so effortlessly with so much power.
But watching this plane at 100 feet off the runway all I can say to you pundits is whatever happened was unrecoverable after watching a plane under full control take off so effortlessly with so much power.
King Air pilot was telling me of one hair raising take off and circuit he made. Had done the de-ice boot test but didn't notice that the boots had not deflated. Hard to detect visually from the cockpit I think he said, but sure double checks them now. Got airborne, found his hands full, too late to abort, struggled (he really emphasised that point) to circuit height, and landed. Effortless take off under full control? May have looked so to an unknowing observer, but one person was sweating chips wondering if ......
There is so much that can go wrong.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Oxford, UK
Posts: 1,546
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Launch failure? no place to go!
First, thanks to Fujii, Megan, Kaz, Cream Puff, and many others - I am now looking forward to a lot of reading about the Royal Flying Doctor Service!
But to return to the problem, Airports Attract Development! which I see has generated its own thread, which may hopefully be noticed by your politicians and the media....
Yesterday I drove from Oxford up the M40 and the M1 to Nottingham, (an hour and 40 minutes) for the British Gliding Association AGM and conference.
What I saw was a lot of landscape, scarcely encumbered by a number of wind turbines, and an aircraft on approach to East Midlands. How come Britain seems to have been able to restrain the developers?
Of course it pays to have a serious war just the other side of the channel. Many a farm was turned into Airfield. A lot are still owned by the RAF, which is trying to sell them....
But the Green Belt regulations also preserve countryside, just under the approach for a lot of local airports. To get approval for any sort of development, it takes a lot longer in the UK. (In 40 years or so we may see a railroad between London and the North!)
Meanwhile, when dealing with ANY SORT OF LAUNCH FAILURE, you may survive if you land straight ahead, with the AIRCRAFT UNDER CONTROL.
Even on rooftops.
But to return to the problem, Airports Attract Development! which I see has generated its own thread, which may hopefully be noticed by your politicians and the media....
Yesterday I drove from Oxford up the M40 and the M1 to Nottingham, (an hour and 40 minutes) for the British Gliding Association AGM and conference.
What I saw was a lot of landscape, scarcely encumbered by a number of wind turbines, and an aircraft on approach to East Midlands. How come Britain seems to have been able to restrain the developers?
Of course it pays to have a serious war just the other side of the channel. Many a farm was turned into Airfield. A lot are still owned by the RAF, which is trying to sell them....
But the Green Belt regulations also preserve countryside, just under the approach for a lot of local airports. To get approval for any sort of development, it takes a lot longer in the UK. (In 40 years or so we may see a railroad between London and the North!)
Meanwhile, when dealing with ANY SORT OF LAUNCH FAILURE, you may survive if you land straight ahead, with the AIRCRAFT UNDER CONTROL.
Even on rooftops.
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Melbourne
Age: 72
Posts: 774
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hi Mary, it probably comes down to demographics. Britain is wet and green all over with many large cities and you've had a couple of thousand years to establish them. Australia has around 24 million people who mainly cling to the coastal fringe. Go more than a few hundred kilometres from the coast and you enter the GAFA, desert. Nothing to attract industry, no water and not much grows there so it can't support any sort of large towns. That's why land is so expensive here. Melbourne and Sydney are amongst the most expensive cities in the world to buy a house. Come down for a holiday. I'll even put you up.