Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > PPRuNe Worldwide > The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions
Reload this Page >

Caravan forced landing on Darwin taxiway

The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions The place for students, instructors and charter guys in Oz, NZ and the rest of Oceania.

Caravan forced landing on Darwin taxiway

Old 27th May 2017, 07:30
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Lusaka and Joburg
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Caravan forced landing on Darwin taxiway

Help Please.
I am looking for more information on the Nov 11 2016 incident when an instructor turned a Caravan back to land on the taxiway at Darwin after engine failure on take off. The NTSB report commented (favorably) on the pilots choices and techniques. I would like to get more detailed information on the pilots perspective and experience as a training illustration for the pilots in my area.
The PPrune search engine has no results on this incident.
Any leads or links appreciated.
Flying Bean is offline  
Old 27th May 2017, 08:07
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Broome
Posts: 23
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Flying Bean
Help Please.
The NTSB report commented (favorably) on the pilots choices and techniques.
I didn't realise the Americans were involved?
JabiruFoxbat is offline  
Old 27th May 2017, 09:02
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Geostationary Orbit
Posts: 373
Received 57 Likes on 21 Posts
https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-149/

Send $25.00 to............................
thunderbird five is offline  
Old 27th May 2017, 10:00
  #4 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Oct 1998
Location: Lusaka and Joburg
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Excellent thank you.

The Pilot/Instructor comments were very interesting. Also good to get input on the “turn back” scenario.
Two vital points he made:-
The instructor developed the C208B operating procedures for the operator. The instructor regularly practiced and trained pilots on the conduct of these procedures.
The turn back procedure is not suitable for all aircraft types, piston engine aircraft do not have the same ability to turn back after an engine failure.

One point I would like to throw onto the forum for C208 & single piston flyers :-
The ATSB report says “At the completion of the turn, they selected 30 degrees of flaps to provide a short climb, which allowed the aircraft to clear two hangars and an area of trees.”
The report I originally read from Aviation International News, attributed to ATSB, says “he added 30 degrees of flap to provide a short zoom climb to clear the trees/hangers”
“Zoom” suggests a short dive to increase airspeed that might provide a short hop maneuver to clear the obstacle. Is this a valid option? If in a forced landing situation you can see you are going to connect with the base of your obstacle is a zoom/hop equal to or better than a short flap deployment to get those few extra feet. Or how about a bit of both? Short dive for speed – zoom up – deploy flap?

Views?
Flying Bean is offline  
Old 27th May 2017, 11:20
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Dog House
Age: 49
Posts: 779
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Was the 30 selection to try get back to the runway? But taxiway was used as the only option left?

Counting on 30 flaps to jump over stuff to make it seem part of intention seems a bit of a push.

At that height in Darwin you can plant a Caravan in many places with a bit of safety with out needing a bump to avoid the biggest hangars on the airport that side.
Band a Lot is offline  
Old 27th May 2017, 11:38
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In God's Country
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 44 Likes on 5 Posts
The taxiway was used partly because the following aircraft for departure had already lined up on Rwy 29, plus - why go further than you need to (aircraft turn back was a left hand turn from upwind Rwy 29) when Twy A at Darwin may as well be a runway...

The aircraft landed in the vicinity of the intersection Rwy 36 and Twy A, so fairly comfortably made it back with the flap "assist".

The extension of flap in a 208 increases the camber and surface area of the wing quite rapidly and the effect of this seems to be such that an extra couple hundred metres of glide (depending on the tailwind being experienced at the time) can be achieved. No dive or "zoom" required! Ultimately though, once the configuration change has occurred and the aircraft's inertia succumbs to the drag, it will descend at a steeper angle than it did before. The idea is that by then you will have achieved the landing area that you were previously falling just short of.

Not something that works in your C172, but the Caravan is an extraordinary machine!
Flying Bear is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 00:29
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Brisbane
Posts: 73
Received 3 Likes on 3 Posts
Flying bear is quite right, selection of flap has a masive effect and can be used to clear the fence or hangar in the caravan.
Selection of flap to extend the glide is written into most C208 operators ASETPA emergency procedures manual.
There is a reason you need to practice it tho.
Sounds like it was a pretty text book manoeuvre.
Good job Cameron.
CAVOK92 is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 01:22
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Australia
Posts: 195
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good job Cameron indeed, but that was not CASA's initial reaction. They were initially going to hang him out dry for breaching the SOP, notwithstanding the excellent result and the avoidance of loss of an airframe and possibly a life or two.
LexAir is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 02:45
  #9 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
There is a reason you need to practice it though.
Here we go all over again. Make sure the ambulance and Firies are on standby as for sure one day the practice will go wrong.

Departure from the E2 taxiway intersection on runway 29 provides in excess of 1,600 m of runway for take-off. This is ample for a C208B and more than is available at any other runway the C208B is operated to by the company. Departing from the end of runway 29 requires a significantly further taxi distance.
The quote is from the accident report. Despite the point made in the ATSB report that the start of the take off gave ample runway for take-off, and therefore perfectly legal, it conveniently ignored that the fact if the pilot had chosen to start the take off from the threshold of Runway 29 it is probable that the pilot could have simply landed ahead on the remaining runway length with ample spare runway length without having to risk life and limb by resorting to a very risky piece of manoeuvring at low speed and with a contaminated windscreen.

The old adage comes to mind that runway behind you is useless when taking off. That has been the case since flying first began. Intersection take offs are fine for twins providing performance parameters allow this. But for just a few more minutes of the pilot's time, (yes I know - its all about money nowadays) it is good airmanship to go that extra yard and use the full available length -just in case one day your one and only engine will choose to fail at the worst time - which is did in this case.

The instructor developed the C208B operating procedures for the operator.
Presumably the instructor was a qualified test pilot who had the resources and CASA approvals to conduct measured flight tests before developing the procedures on behalf of the operator? Frankly it smacks of an amateur approach to a very serious manoeuvre. Risk mitigation, someone?

Last edited by Centaurus; 28th May 2017 at 03:19.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 03:04
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In God's Country
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 44 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by Centaurus
Here we go all over again. Make sure the ambulance and Firies are on standby as for sure one day the practice will go wrong.
Or...

Appropriately risk manage the training with regard to height, speed, wind and sequence "abort" parameters - combined with proficiency requirements for the trainers - so that pilots can be given a fighting chance of success when / if they get faced with the scenario. To eliminate any risk is impossible, but it can be managed.

In my case, the aircraft performed as expected and the happy outcome thankfully followed.

I'm afraid that some things need to be practiced in a controlled environment, that simply discussing them in airconditioned comfort won't cut it. That's a big part of what quality training is all about.

Discipline in knowing where to draw the line is key to success - and that really is a topic for another thread.
Flying Bear is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 04:02
  #11 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2002
Location: FNQ
Age: 66
Posts: 102
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
It is a concern that the very SOPs for a turn back that he developed were ignored - a case of don't do as I do, do as I say? What message does that send to ordinary line pilots without such considerable experience on type. The need to select full flaps to clear the buildings due to the lack of height - not ideal? Coasting to the bomber ramp while pissing out fuel? Anyway, thankfully they are here to tell the tale and we can all learn from it.

Centaurus makes some very valid points - just because you can operate the 208 out of shorter strips doesn't make it sensible to waste runway that is available.
D'pirate is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 04:43
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Brisbane, Qld
Posts: 1,370
Received 29 Likes on 15 Posts
D'pirate, in all fairness he wrote those SOPs for the "Average" Pilot to follow, SOPs are written so that if followed correctly the Average Pilot will have a successful outcome the vast majority of the time.

It sounds as if the Pilot in question though is highly experienced, if it's the Cameron I'm thinking of then indeed he is VERY highly experienced and knew of a method that would have a successful outcome and conducted it as such. Perhaps it is a method that he knows can be successfully done but would be too risky to teach to others, that would be risk mitigation.

It would be equally ridiculous for him, with his knowledge and experience, to follow the SOPs that would perhaps have led to a lesser outcome.
Ixixly is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 04:46
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: In God's Country
Posts: 193
Likes: 0
Received 44 Likes on 5 Posts
Thank you, Ixixly.

I simply used the techniques I have learnt and been taught to avoid pranging - so I could be around today to cop Centaurus' and D'pirate's flogging...

I should stay out of this now!

Last edited by Flying Bear; 28th May 2017 at 04:58.
Flying Bear is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 06:38
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,955
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by LexAir
Good job Cameron indeed, but that was not CASA's initial reaction. They were initially going to hang him out dry for breaching the SOP, notwithstanding the excellent result and the avoidance of loss of an airframe and possibly a life or two.
Folks,
Of course, what else would you expect, aviation law is for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers, and you can't have an accident of incident without breaching at least one (and usually a bucketload) of our so comprehensive suite of "air safety" laws.
Tootle pip!!

PS: There is a most interesting NSW Supreme Court appeal decision on the rights of the PIC versus SOPs, upholding the rights of the PIC, but CASA have never accepted the very strong legal precedent.
LeadSled is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 07:14
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: S16 47.2'
Posts: 180
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Who would have thought that the guy that designed the procedure and demonstrates it regularly rather than 6 monthly would be able to fly it to a higher standard? Give the guy a break. If I was going to have a failure at that height he's the guy that I would like to be sitting next to me. Great work FB.
Left 270 is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 10:41
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 1,459
Received 49 Likes on 33 Posts
If the SOPs were followed the outcome would have ended up in an accident.

A common mistake was made by not using the full length, and they pulled the jackpot joker. The debate is starting to become a p!ssing contest. Time to move on people.
Duck Pilot is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 15:07
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: australia
Posts: 587
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
How many people were in the aircraft?
All that have slung statements?
How many GA operators using YPDN RWY 29 use full length by choice.

A pilot had a number of heart beats to determine a fix, a positive outcome.
In this case the pilot did what that pilot could do.
It worked.

Centaurus, you are admired by many, including me. Many years ago we sat around a little round table drinking coffee and talked. You probably won't remember me. I remember you and the experience you have and the way you go about aviation.

In this case I think you have been unjust and exhibited what you have not been before. An armchair critic.

Sir, this is not you and the process you have used to admonish this living person is wrong.
He is living due to actions he called in those heart beats.

SOPs and processes do and will continue to save lives, sometimes, you need to do what you you have to to stay breathing. You and I will not know in this case as we were not there.
maxgrad is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 18:04
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Wellington
Age: 39
Posts: 64
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Where the f**k are you gna go EFATO on that rwy...? Nowhere, he had no option. Case closed.
Jbrownie is offline  
Old 28th May 2017, 20:49
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 686
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The old adage comes to mind that runway behind you is useless when taking off.
I operated out of Darwin for many years and while no one will stop you using full length you wouldn't make many friends creeping back to use full length in an aircraft that can t/o in a quarter of Darwins length.The busy departure rate would plummet and holding fuel would increase. Imagine the thoughts of a 747 crew inbound from overseas when told to hold due Cessna 150 backtracking so he can use full length.
rutan around is offline  
Old 29th May 2017, 00:36
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 5,882
Received 362 Likes on 192 Posts
It is a concern that the very SOPs for a turn back that he developed were ignored
SOP's are written to cover the lowest experienced individual. A highly experienced individual, such as Cameron, of course can outperform a nugget. In deed, some operators lay down limits according to the level of experience. An extreme is "Captains Only" requirements.

Apparently, when CASA tried to heavy Cameron, the reply was why didn't the CASA engineers who inspected the aircraft on import detect the engine anomaly (was first of type for the operator). Wind died to zero.

Last edited by megan; 29th May 2017 at 01:02.
megan is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.