Convair 340 crash report just published.
Thread Starter
Convair 340 crash report just published.
The accident report pertaining to the crash on 10 July 2018 of a Convair 340 in South Africa, has just been published. More details in Pprune Rumours and News forum.
See: http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and...ports/9722.pdf
As a former pilot who flew the RAAF Convair 440 Metropolitan aircraft in the 1960's, I read the report with more than normal interest. The accident aircraft took off with both engines cowl flaps fully open, which is not the normal takeoff setting. One engine caught fire early during the takeoff roll. The drag from full open engine cowl flaps is significant and this would seriously affect the rate of climb on one engine
. The report indicates flames could be seen under the open engine cowl flap from the cabin. During my time on the Convair, the before takeoff checklist required the cowl flaps to be set at a trail position or similar setting which meant very slightly open. The accident report discusses the excessive drag caused by open cowl flaps. It also states the crew of the accident aircraft failed to feather the engine on fire or close its cowl flaps as part of the engine fire drill. The open cowl flap would exacerbate the intensity of the fire.
Some time ago a HARS crew ferried a Convair 440 from South Africa to Australia where it now lives at Wollongong airport along with other HARS aircraft. A South African media photo at the time showed that Convair taking off with its engine cowl flaps in the full open position. Another media photo, this time at Wollongong, shows that Convair in the air on final approach still with full open cowl flaps.
Of course, operational procedures could have been changed by the manufacturer since I last flew a Convair in the 1960's. But I must say I wondered why the current HARS Convair as well as the crashed Convair which was being flown by an Australian crew, would fly with engine cowl flaps fully open. Maybe the cowl flaps were set in a fixed open position for maintenance reasons? That would be a questionable practice for sure.
Certainly the cowl flaps would be set to fully open for taxiing and run up for air cooling on the ground. But to takeoff and fly with fully open engine cowl flaps was never a AFM procedure. Perhaps any HARS member could explain further? I recall writing to HARS on the subject but did not receive a reply.
See: http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and...ports/9722.pdf
As a former pilot who flew the RAAF Convair 440 Metropolitan aircraft in the 1960's, I read the report with more than normal interest. The accident aircraft took off with both engines cowl flaps fully open, which is not the normal takeoff setting. One engine caught fire early during the takeoff roll. The drag from full open engine cowl flaps is significant and this would seriously affect the rate of climb on one engine
. The report indicates flames could be seen under the open engine cowl flap from the cabin. During my time on the Convair, the before takeoff checklist required the cowl flaps to be set at a trail position or similar setting which meant very slightly open. The accident report discusses the excessive drag caused by open cowl flaps. It also states the crew of the accident aircraft failed to feather the engine on fire or close its cowl flaps as part of the engine fire drill. The open cowl flap would exacerbate the intensity of the fire.
Some time ago a HARS crew ferried a Convair 440 from South Africa to Australia where it now lives at Wollongong airport along with other HARS aircraft. A South African media photo at the time showed that Convair taking off with its engine cowl flaps in the full open position. Another media photo, this time at Wollongong, shows that Convair in the air on final approach still with full open cowl flaps.
Of course, operational procedures could have been changed by the manufacturer since I last flew a Convair in the 1960's. But I must say I wondered why the current HARS Convair as well as the crashed Convair which was being flown by an Australian crew, would fly with engine cowl flaps fully open. Maybe the cowl flaps were set in a fixed open position for maintenance reasons? That would be a questionable practice for sure.
Certainly the cowl flaps would be set to fully open for taxiing and run up for air cooling on the ground. But to takeoff and fly with fully open engine cowl flaps was never a AFM procedure. Perhaps any HARS member could explain further? I recall writing to HARS on the subject but did not receive a reply.
I know I'll get rocks chucked at me John, but is it a good idea to fly so many of these HARS aircraft "part time"? Is the cowl flaps issue you have discussed a lack of corporate knowledge? I wonder at the safety of outfits where pilots fly 3 or more types. Do they really know all the limitations and emergency memory items for all the aircraft?? Do they know the AFM for all the aircraft? Interviews I do would suggest otherwise - IFR knowledge and current aircraft knowledge is woeful 19 out of 20 times. Knowledge of the aircraft is vital when things go wrong, and its inexcusable when lack of knowledge is the cause of things going wrong.
Like Centaurus, I question (rather than accuse) why the cowl flaps were operated this way.
Like Centaurus, I question (rather than accuse) why the cowl flaps were operated this way.
Join Date: Sep 2018
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What are cowl flaps used for in the first place? To keep the engines operating temps within limits at any time during operation. Perhaps the engines where close to their max temp which necessitated the cowl flaps to be left open? If the cowl flaps left open was the deciding factor that this bird would have a satisfactory climb or not on 1 engine then that's scary!
Coupled with the unfeathered prop, it certainly wasn’t going to go up.....
Trevor has some very good points, experienced pilots flying multiple types (complicated large aircraft) on a part time basis isn’t good for safety, no matter how much experience one has. Might have been acceptable years ago before glass got thrown into the the front end of airliners, however the comparisons with regards to aircraft systems and basic operation (logic) are miles apart now, particularly when comparing vintage aircraft to modern day aircraft.
NBD approaches, bread and butter not so long ago! Now they are history.
Trevor has some very good points, experienced pilots flying multiple types (complicated large aircraft) on a part time basis isn’t good for safety, no matter how much experience one has. Might have been acceptable years ago before glass got thrown into the the front end of airliners, however the comparisons with regards to aircraft systems and basic operation (logic) are miles apart now, particularly when comparing vintage aircraft to modern day aircraft.
NBD approaches, bread and butter not so long ago! Now they are history.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From what I saw of the HARS ops when I was there a few years ago the pilots had spent most of the flying lives with round instruments so "glass" really didn't come into it.
While I agree with statements about complexity, for the most part the complexity rests with the round engines and their operations.Again when I was there the pilots only flew multiple types with the same engines ie Connie and Neptune. The biggest variation was Caribou R2000 and C47 R1800. In addition the Connie engines were mainly handled by licensed Flight Engineers. Again there was a limitation in the manual that specified always 2 Flight Engineers on board.
The Connie engines were maintained by the same persons that were licensed Flight Engineers as was the airframe and avionics. There was a good depth of knowledge within the operation.
Wunwing
While I agree with statements about complexity, for the most part the complexity rests with the round engines and their operations.Again when I was there the pilots only flew multiple types with the same engines ie Connie and Neptune. The biggest variation was Caribou R2000 and C47 R1800. In addition the Connie engines were mainly handled by licensed Flight Engineers. Again there was a limitation in the manual that specified always 2 Flight Engineers on board.
The Connie engines were maintained by the same persons that were licensed Flight Engineers as was the airframe and avionics. There was a good depth of knowledge within the operation.
Wunwing
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Has anyone been able to ascertain, from the footage available, if the cowl flap position matches the cowl flap setting?"
No answer to the question on the other thread. Perhaps someone here can help.
No answer to the question on the other thread. Perhaps someone here can help.
What are cowl flaps used for in the first place? To keep the engines operating temps within limits at any time during operation. Perhaps the engines where close to their max temp which necessitated the cowl flaps to be left open? If the cowl flaps left open was the deciding factor that this bird would have a satisfactory climb or not on 1 engine then that's scary!
On that basis, you would have found most aircraft of the era scary.
Indeed, a common and workable definition of an aircraft in those days was: " A highly complex mechanical device that almost doesn't fly".
Tootle pip!!
From a USAF flight manual.
On one occasion an airline in Oz had a engine failure following take off and the crew had to close the flaps on the good engine to reduce drag and be able to remain airborne for a quick circuit and landing. Cooked the engine, but it did the job of which it was asked.
The cooling flaps are controlled by a switch having the following positions. MID POSITION, OPEN, CLOSE and spring loaded to an unmarked OFF position. When placed in the MID position the flaps open two inches and remain in that position until either OPEN or CLOSE is selected.
The line up check list requires the cooling flaps to be set to the "MID POSITION". This position provides sufficient cooling in hot summer temperatures.
The line up check list requires the cooling flaps to be set to the "MID POSITION". This position provides sufficient cooling in hot summer temperatures.
Indeed, a common and workable definition of an aircraft in those days was: " A highly complex mechanical device that almost doesn't fly".
Thread Starter
On one occasion an airline in Oz had a engine failure following take off and the crew had to close the flaps on the good engine to reduce drag and be able to remain airborne for a quick circuit and landing. Cooked the engine, but it did the job of which it was asked.
Never heard of that one. Are you certain it was a Convair? Would be most interested in reading the incident report. Any idea of date, year, airport? I thought you only "cooked" turbine powered engines - not piston types!
Centaurus, it was an article in the "Australian Aviation" magazine many, many years ago. It was a 240 or 340, TAA or Ansett not sure. Pistons can be cooked, B-29 was a classic.
Last edited by megan; 30th Aug 2019 at 14:04.
Would seem to be a different incident Sherm.
A regular event it would seem, remember a 440 of Airlines of South Australia undergoing an engine change in Whyalla following a failure after take off.
TAA People FJ Ball
In 1952, Ball was in command of a Convair 240 when a starboard engine became troublesome and automatically feathered during take-off from Brisbane airport. He coaxed the aircraft to climb gradually on one engine before it began losing altitude near the Brisbane River. Fortunately, the crew restarted the engine and returned to the airport
TAA People FJ Ball
Join Date: May 2013
Location: Trentham Vic
Posts: 45
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
