ATSB Report on Angel44 asymmetric accident now published.
As has been said above it's notoriously difficult in many twin aircraft to climb and accelerate in TO config with a windmilling prop.
Airline category turboprops are the same. At max weight they go up at 6-700fpm OEI with autofeather. Fail the auto feather, and they descend at a minimum of 300fpm even when empty.
As sure as the night follows day,
more Aussie pilot’s lives will be lost in the future in these bull**** training accidents.
Multi-engine aircraft are divided by FAR 23 into two weight classes - above and below 6000lbs, and those below 6000lbs are divided into two classes depending on Vso (stall speed in the landing configuration) above and below 61 knots CAS.
Only those twins that weigh more than 6000lbs or have a Vso higher than 61 knots need to demonstrate any single-engine climb performance at all for certificaion, and the requirements are pretty meager. Basically the regulation says that these aircraft must demonstrate a single engine capability at 5000' (ISA) with the inop engine feathered and in a clean configaration.
The only requirement for an aircraft less than 6000lbs, and with a Vso less than 61kts (like the Aztec) is that its climb performance (positive or negative) be determined.
There is nothing in the FAR which says a light twin aircraft must fly while in the take-off configuration with one engine inop - and so attempting to train for that is a nonsence applied by instructors who have a half-arsed understanding of airline operations, which are on aircraft in a totally different category.
Only those twins that weigh more than 6000lbs or have a Vso higher than 61 knots need to demonstrate any single-engine climb performance at all for certificaion, and the requirements are pretty meager. Basically the regulation says that these aircraft must demonstrate a single engine capability at 5000' (ISA) with the inop engine feathered and in a clean configaration.
The only requirement for an aircraft less than 6000lbs, and with a Vso less than 61kts (like the Aztec) is that its climb performance (positive or negative) be determined.
There is nothing in the FAR which says a light twin aircraft must fly while in the take-off configuration with one engine inop - and so attempting to train for that is a nonsence applied by instructors who have a half-arsed understanding of airline operations, which are on aircraft in a totally different category.
Further to the downed Angel. Two things stick out...to me anyway..
1. the first circuit (which I didnt see) was said to be airborne after 300 mtrs Angel being STOl, there must have been good grunt available then. Which didnt last because rough running was heard on downwind and approach. After run ups > they tried again.
2..On the secong take -off roll, why nobody chopped the power and jumped on the brakes when there was pracitaly none left...Que? 3. Did the rough running engine actually fail.?....adding to the cut back from the "failed" engine thus giving leading to the impression of a silent glder final.
Perhaps we'll never know. The aircraft had been sitting around for a couple of years, old fuel, mud wasps up the tank vents ...no air in, no fuel out
BIQ the Aztec a year or so before ,was likewise left for years. That got parted out in the bush shortly afte a "hairy goat" departure which I also witnessed.
1. the first circuit (which I didnt see) was said to be airborne after 300 mtrs Angel being STOl, there must have been good grunt available then. Which didnt last because rough running was heard on downwind and approach. After run ups > they tried again.
2..On the secong take -off roll, why nobody chopped the power and jumped on the brakes when there was pracitaly none left...Que? 3. Did the rough running engine actually fail.?....adding to the cut back from the "failed" engine thus giving leading to the impression of a silent glder final.
Perhaps we'll never know. The aircraft had been sitting around for a couple of years, old fuel, mud wasps up the tank vents ...no air in, no fuel out
BIQ the Aztec a year or so before ,was likewise left for years. That got parted out in the bush shortly afte a "hairy goat" departure which I also witnessed.
Moderator
Some thoughts, if I may be indulged a tad.
The instructor had limited experience in multi-engine aeroplanes with retractable landing gear and only one short flight in the Angel 44 aircraft several years earlier.
However, that doesn't always apply. The Camden Duchess mishap instructor was at the other end of the experience spectrum - military, GA, corporate, airline experience. Both Centaurus and I knew him well and I had done several GA renewals with him in the past. Experience doesn't count for all that much if/when you stick your neck out too far once too often and put yourself in an unwinnable situation ....
I have complete confidence that until the day I die, there will continue to be more GA deaths in Australia from engine failure training than from actual engine failures.
A predictable consequence of a lack of technical knowledge. One of my increasing concerns, over the past several decades, has been the active reduction in operator/regulator interest/emphasis on crew technical knowledge. There is no need for the line pilot to become a design or flight test engineer but a very healthy level of technical knowledge usually helps us to keep our noses clean whilst we enjoy our careers.
Your examiner/instructor/trainer should include in their brief ‘engine failures will not be simulated below XX AGL’ If they don’t brief it, ask them about it before takeoff.
Or, even, tell them rather than ask. After a few unnecessary frights as a sprog, it became a standard briefing point on endorsements/renewals (unless I knew the instructor/testing officer well enough to know that he would not do so) that any failure below (my choice of a nominated height) would result in my closing both throttles and landing more or less ahead - including my initial Class One issue with a well-known DCA examiner many years ago. Never had any problems as none ever saw it necessary to test my resolve on the point.
Another anecdote comes to mind: A close, and very experienced, colleague, post 89, decided that he should renew a GA rating. This necessitated his undertaking an endorsement on whichever lightie was to be the requisite aircraft. The endorsing instructor made a point of having to have a look at Vmca (why ? for routine civil operations, there is absolutely no reason to play near Vmca except, perhaps, for one's initial multi endorsement and, then, only for a brief exposure to yaw handling problems for a degree of familiarisation). Anyway, my colleague, knowing a bit about such things, saw fit not to play as decreed and applied a part rudder bootful of foot to limit the speed excursion to which the aircraft would go prior to yawing uncontrollably - apparently the instructor was quite perplexed - "but it always goes slower than that". However, foolish pride was satisfied and they continued with the rest of the endorsement program.
Overall, the underlying problem is a dreadful lack of pilot technical knowledge and this is not helped by the "blind leading the blind" syndrome we so often see both with theory and flight training of pilots. Hopefully, observations by greybeards, sprinked throughout PPRuNe, will assist in education of those coming on, however limited the success may be.
The instructor had limited experience in multi-engine aeroplanes with retractable landing gear and only one short flight in the Angel 44 aircraft several years earlier.
However, that doesn't always apply. The Camden Duchess mishap instructor was at the other end of the experience spectrum - military, GA, corporate, airline experience. Both Centaurus and I knew him well and I had done several GA renewals with him in the past. Experience doesn't count for all that much if/when you stick your neck out too far once too often and put yourself in an unwinnable situation ....
I have complete confidence that until the day I die, there will continue to be more GA deaths in Australia from engine failure training than from actual engine failures.
A predictable consequence of a lack of technical knowledge. One of my increasing concerns, over the past several decades, has been the active reduction in operator/regulator interest/emphasis on crew technical knowledge. There is no need for the line pilot to become a design or flight test engineer but a very healthy level of technical knowledge usually helps us to keep our noses clean whilst we enjoy our careers.
Your examiner/instructor/trainer should include in their brief ‘engine failures will not be simulated below XX AGL’ If they don’t brief it, ask them about it before takeoff.
Or, even, tell them rather than ask. After a few unnecessary frights as a sprog, it became a standard briefing point on endorsements/renewals (unless I knew the instructor/testing officer well enough to know that he would not do so) that any failure below (my choice of a nominated height) would result in my closing both throttles and landing more or less ahead - including my initial Class One issue with a well-known DCA examiner many years ago. Never had any problems as none ever saw it necessary to test my resolve on the point.
Another anecdote comes to mind: A close, and very experienced, colleague, post 89, decided that he should renew a GA rating. This necessitated his undertaking an endorsement on whichever lightie was to be the requisite aircraft. The endorsing instructor made a point of having to have a look at Vmca (why ? for routine civil operations, there is absolutely no reason to play near Vmca except, perhaps, for one's initial multi endorsement and, then, only for a brief exposure to yaw handling problems for a degree of familiarisation). Anyway, my colleague, knowing a bit about such things, saw fit not to play as decreed and applied a part rudder bootful of foot to limit the speed excursion to which the aircraft would go prior to yawing uncontrollably - apparently the instructor was quite perplexed - "but it always goes slower than that". However, foolish pride was satisfied and they continued with the rest of the endorsement program.
Overall, the underlying problem is a dreadful lack of pilot technical knowledge and this is not helped by the "blind leading the blind" syndrome we so often see both with theory and flight training of pilots. Hopefully, observations by greybeards, sprinked throughout PPRuNe, will assist in education of those coming on, however limited the success may be.
They named one lad in Darwin. I would have to pay for his time from when he left the Darwin office, fly him to Sydney, pick him up, do the test, pay for his overnight, and send him back to Darwin. Plus pay a Test Fee. This lad had a bare endorsement on type and hadn't flown one for 5 years, and of course was not familiar with this model, which had FADEC .
CA$A also suggested another one, in Melbourne, and who I had known from RAAF days. Same situation, pay pay pay and bare endorsement on type and never flown the model. But CA$A reckoned that a type-inexperienced uncurrent desk jockey was safer than a current experienced but non-type-rated instructor. So we used the Melbourne man.
The pre-flight briefing included me telling him :"You will NOT be touching the controls. If you desire to simulate an engine failure, you will say so, and I will work the throttles."
After the review was over, we had to fly back from Richmond to Sydney, via Long Reef and the chopper lanes down the beaches. He asked gingerly "May I have a fly?" so I let him have a go. The grin on his face lit up the cockpit, and probably doubled his time on type.
I was to do a PVT IFR instrument "review" in the Boss's chopper, which was the only one of its model in Oz - plenty of similar types, but none of this model. The trick was to find an instructor able to do the renewal. Sadly, the experienced instructor who flew my previous review in this aircraft was the one mentioned above in Camden, and was no longer available. There was another civil ATO with great experience on multis and instrument flying, but not endorsed on type. We had known each other for many years with some mutual respect, and being a "review" it was not a test as such, but to fly the sequences to the required standard, and refresh any that were a bit lacking - there is no "FAIL" in a review. You do it until all is good. I was happy to have him do the flight, as he would not be required to operate the systems. But CA$A insisted that one of their FOIs do the job.
They named one lad in Darwin. I would have to pay for his time from when he left the Darwin office, fly him to Sydney, pick him up, do the test, pay for his overnight, and send him back to Darwin. Plus pay a Test Fee. This lad had a bare endorsement on type and hadn't flown one for 5 years, and of course was not familiar with this model, which had FADEC .
CA$A also suggested another one, in Melbourne, and who I had known from RAAF days. Same situation, pay pay pay and bare endorsement on type and never flown the model. But CA$A reckoned that a type-inexperienced uncurrent desk jockey was safer than a current experienced but non-type-rated instructor. So we used the Melbourne man.
The pre-flight briefing included me telling him :"You will NOT be touching the controls. If you desire to simulate an engine failure, you will say so, and I will work the throttles."
After the review was over, we had to fly back from Richmond to Sydney, via Long Reef and the chopper lanes down the beaches. He asked gingerly "May I have a fly?" so I let him have a go. The grin on his face lit up the cockpit, and probably doubled his time on type.
They named one lad in Darwin. I would have to pay for his time from when he left the Darwin office, fly him to Sydney, pick him up, do the test, pay for his overnight, and send him back to Darwin. Plus pay a Test Fee. This lad had a bare endorsement on type and hadn't flown one for 5 years, and of course was not familiar with this model, which had FADEC .
CA$A also suggested another one, in Melbourne, and who I had known from RAAF days. Same situation, pay pay pay and bare endorsement on type and never flown the model. But CA$A reckoned that a type-inexperienced uncurrent desk jockey was safer than a current experienced but non-type-rated instructor. So we used the Melbourne man.
The pre-flight briefing included me telling him :"You will NOT be touching the controls. If you desire to simulate an engine failure, you will say so, and I will work the throttles."
After the review was over, we had to fly back from Richmond to Sydney, via Long Reef and the chopper lanes down the beaches. He asked gingerly "May I have a fly?" so I let him have a go. The grin on his face lit up the cockpit, and probably doubled his time on type.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Queensland
Posts: 632
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Multi engined aircraft
i have around 14k hrs in multi engine training. My contribution is that VYSE or blue line was determined on a new aircraft fliown by a test pilot under ideal conditions. The 50 yr old hacks that most fly are med to high af time, certainly ageing in engine time, flakey paintwork, a few dings on the leading edges and flown by non test pilots. BEWARE.
The 50 yr old hacks that most fly are med to high af time, certainly ageing in engine time, flakey paintwork, a few dings on the leading edges and flown by non test pilots
