B58 fatal crash off Raglan.

[Weekend_Warrior]

I'm not sure everyone would agree with the coroner's finding. I have my own opinion.


https://i.stuff.co.nz/national/10281...engine-failure

[ElZilcho]

Official report:

https://www.caa.govt.nz/Accidents_an...254F_fatal.pdf

As always, Stuff.co.nz was very light on details.

[RubberDogPoop]

Since when is an engine failure a "cause" of an accident?

Tellingly, this slipped through the Herald's editorial staff:

"There were no cockpit audio recordings of the crash to assess whether Hertz panicked but in the earlier test flight when power was lost an accompanying engineer said the pilot handled the situation "quite well". "

As opposed to the official accident report:

"The engineer who was on board the aircraft for the flight on 8 March 2013 stated that during the power loss the pilot did not handle the situation very well."

Perhaps Mr Matenga could leave this to the experts...

[jack11111]

"Since when is an engine failure a "cause" of an accident?"

For a non-pilot coroner this is a reasonable statement.

[troppo]

Originally Posted by jack11111

"Since when is an engine failure a "cause" of an accident?"

For a non-pilot coroner this is a reasonable statement.

I'd dispute that. A coroner's report and recommendations relies upon expert advice. A non pilot coroner should have sought expert advice.

[B2N2]

So it was pilot-error...

[Pinky the pilot]

A non pilot coroner should have sought expert advice.

You would think so.

However, I know of one incident here in Australia, albeit quite a few years ago, where this was not done!

Cannot now remember the eventual outcome but IIRC the Coroner was taken to task over his original findings.

[TURIN]

B58?

Shurley shome mishtake.

[B2N2]

Originally Posted by TURIN

B58?

Shurley shome mishtake.

Baron B58

[RubberDogPoop]

E61323D7-60EA-4C02-9F0A-6724D73E5C68.jpeg

Originally Posted by TURIN

B58?

Shurley shome mishtake.

Not this.....

[Ex FSO GRIFFO]

Perhaps the ICAO Designator "BE58" would clarify the matter.....


https://www.icao.int/publications/DO...es/Search.aspx


Cheeerrrsss...

[jack11111]

Looks great...flies great!

[megan]

Strictly speaking there is no B58 in the Beechcraft range, though there are other Beech models that come with a letter prefix, eg B55, C55, B95, D95, C95. The only 58 to have a prefix is the current Baron model, G58, though Beechcraft themselves talk at times of a B58, just to confuse matters. Not all Barons are 58's, the predecessor Barons were 55, A55, B55, C55, D55, E55. That's not to mention the 56, a turbo powered version, and the prefix 95 in some of the 55 models. To confuse matters further ICAO calls a 55 a 58, no doubt because its a look alike.

B2N2, that's one good looking R-22 helicopter you put up.

[Dora-9]

the predecessor Barons were 55, A55, B55, C55, D55, E55.

Not quite megan. Being totally pedantic here, the earlier Barons were 95-55's, 95-A55's, 95-B55's, 95-C55's and 95-D55's. but Beech in 1970 then dropped the "95" prefix and called the next model the E55. Oddly, it seems the 56TC (developed from the 95-C55) never had the prefix either.

[Pinky the pilot]

Megan;Strictly speaking there is no B58 in the Beechcraft range, though there are other Beech models that come with a letter prefix, eg B55, C55, B95, D95, C95. The only 58 to have a prefix is the current Baron model, G58, though Beechcraft themselves talk at times of a B58, just to confuse matters. Not all Barons are 58's, the predecessor Barons were 55, A55, B55, C55, D55, E55. That's not to mention the 56, a turbo powered version, and the prefix 95 in some of the 55 models. To confuse matters further ICAO calls a 55 a 58, no doubt because its a look alike.

Dora -9;the earlier Barons were 95-55's, 95-A55's, 95-B55's, 95-C55's and 95-D55's. but Beech in 1970 then dropped the "95" prefix and called the next model the E55. Oddly, it seems the 56TC (developed from the 95-C55) never had the prefix either.

Neddy Seagoon;It's all rather confusing really!

[1a sound asleep]

The accident occurred because the aircraft departed controlled flight and entered a
spin from which it did not recover.

[Centaurus]

The accident occurred because the aircraft departed controlled flight and entered a
spin from which it did not recover

Also a high probability the pilot lacked the instrument flying skill to maintain manual control on single engine in IMC. From the report and evidence of elevator trim position, he left the autopilot engaged while coping with an apparent engine failure. Automation dependency occurs in general aviation as well as airline operations.

[flyinkiwi]

I visited Raglan some months before the accident and was shocked to find N254F parked up (with a few dings and scratches). I've never seen a twin operating at Raglan and certainly not one the size of a Baron but I'm reliably told it does happen.

[Weekend_Warrior]

I think the dings and scratches were because he went through the downwind boundary fence.

[flyinkiwi]

Originally Posted by Weekend_Warrior

I think the dings and scratches were because he went through the downwind boundary fence.

My memory is a bit hazy and I didn't take any photographs but I recall the pitot and possibly one or more of the aerials were missing. Whether they were torn off during the accident or removed later I can't say.