Missing light aircraft in the NT
Check Attitude
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Queensland, Australia
Posts: 476
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some observations on wing structural failures in GA aircraft.
two aircraft types have historical records of wing failures.
contrary to guesswork speculation of failure mode, the wings do not normally fail upwards (they do not clap together).
C210 wing failures generally fail downwards, not upwards, with resulting slap marks on the fuselage sides. Failure usually initiated near the flap aileron junction.
Due to washout built into the wing design to attain favourable stall progression, the wingtips on C210 in cruise have either zero to slightly negative angle of attack.
operating above Vne results in downward loads in the outer wing area.
inspection of the wing lower skin near the flap aileron junction will often show a small crease.
the wing is typically rated at around 4g positive and around 1.8g negative., I.e. not as strong with downward loads.
the above observations obviously do not apply to corrosion cracking of the carry through spar.
The other aircraft type are the Aero Commander, the typical failure is just outside the engine nacelle, again signatures with slap marks on the fuselage.
to warn C208 Caravan pilots that they are near or have exceeded Vne, a warning system (the “naughty horn”) will sound an alarm. (The flight data recorder will have a record of the exceedance)
operating aircraft within the design constraints of Va and Vne should ensure a safe operation, however, inadvertent excursions into and beyond Vne can easily happen in extreme turbulence, loss of control in upset situations.
slow down when encountering possible entry into those conditions.
two aircraft types have historical records of wing failures.
contrary to guesswork speculation of failure mode, the wings do not normally fail upwards (they do not clap together).
C210 wing failures generally fail downwards, not upwards, with resulting slap marks on the fuselage sides. Failure usually initiated near the flap aileron junction.
Due to washout built into the wing design to attain favourable stall progression, the wingtips on C210 in cruise have either zero to slightly negative angle of attack.
operating above Vne results in downward loads in the outer wing area.
inspection of the wing lower skin near the flap aileron junction will often show a small crease.
the wing is typically rated at around 4g positive and around 1.8g negative., I.e. not as strong with downward loads.
the above observations obviously do not apply to corrosion cracking of the carry through spar.
The other aircraft type are the Aero Commander, the typical failure is just outside the engine nacelle, again signatures with slap marks on the fuselage.
to warn C208 Caravan pilots that they are near or have exceeded Vne, a warning system (the “naughty horn”) will sound an alarm. (The flight data recorder will have a record of the exceedance)
operating aircraft within the design constraints of Va and Vne should ensure a safe operation, however, inadvertent excursions into and beyond Vne can easily happen in extreme turbulence, loss of control in upset situations.
slow down when encountering possible entry into those conditions.
Moderator
It is indeed a rule
Oh dear, a chap gets slack and doesn't bother to look up and cite the rule - and gets a gentle slap over the wrist for being a bit relaxed. Thanks, Dave, and a very good new year to you, good sir.
slow down when encountering possible entry into those conditions.
..and, again, words of wisdom from a greybeard.
It never ceases to amaze me .. that old story about no old and bold pilots.
The thread is showing promise.
Oh dear, a chap gets slack and doesn't bother to look up and cite the rule - and gets a gentle slap over the wrist for being a bit relaxed. Thanks, Dave, and a very good new year to you, good sir.
slow down when encountering possible entry into those conditions.
..and, again, words of wisdom from a greybeard.
It never ceases to amaze me .. that old story about no old and bold pilots.
The thread is showing promise.
The following users liked this post:
An area very often overlooked is an accumulation of STC for modifications.
Some years ago a C337 accident in the USA which I recall was an inflight break up; wing separation ..
The aircraft was modified with Vortex generators, and no doubt with an approved AFM supplement and STC. I recall the aircraft had modified wing tips; drooping. The airframe also has a STOL kit fitted with revised aileron and drooping ailerons when flap extended. Also in the mix was a 'speed kit' a series of revised cuffs etc at various fuselage/wing areas and the booms to the tailplane.
Each and every one of the mods was applied in accordance with the various STC's
BUT: no one had certified the COMBINATION of all the mods as one package.
In effect the aircraft was destined for another life. The aircraft was no longer a C337 but a highly modified airframe that resembled at C337.
Some years ago a C337 accident in the USA which I recall was an inflight break up; wing separation ..
The aircraft was modified with Vortex generators, and no doubt with an approved AFM supplement and STC. I recall the aircraft had modified wing tips; drooping. The airframe also has a STOL kit fitted with revised aileron and drooping ailerons when flap extended. Also in the mix was a 'speed kit' a series of revised cuffs etc at various fuselage/wing areas and the booms to the tailplane.
Each and every one of the mods was applied in accordance with the various STC's
BUT: no one had certified the COMBINATION of all the mods as one package.
In effect the aircraft was destined for another life. The aircraft was no longer a C337 but a highly modified airframe that resembled at C337.
Stay safe people.
Moderator
no one had certified the COMBINATION of all the mods as one package.
A common worry. What is supposed to happen is that the STC should be qualified as to serials applicable and compatible mods. Certainly, those of my origination in the past had words to keep things clean. This is also a responsibility of the installing agency to make sure that things are not incompatible.
The cited problem ought not to arise but, of course, it does.
This is precisely what I was told
There is plenty of information available which is useful for background and general knowledge. However, the main aim should be to remain within the AFM/POH authorised envelope and operate with a bit of commonsense. I can recall one minor battle I had in respect of operation at higher thrust. The AFM said "at pilot discretion" but didn't bother to say explicitly that this meant OEI. The operator's boss decided that the words applied across the board and I lost the argument because of the contract words.
A common worry. What is supposed to happen is that the STC should be qualified as to serials applicable and compatible mods. Certainly, those of my origination in the past had words to keep things clean. This is also a responsibility of the installing agency to make sure that things are not incompatible.
The cited problem ought not to arise but, of course, it does.
This is precisely what I was told
There is plenty of information available which is useful for background and general knowledge. However, the main aim should be to remain within the AFM/POH authorised envelope and operate with a bit of commonsense. I can recall one minor battle I had in respect of operation at higher thrust. The AFM said "at pilot discretion" but didn't bother to say explicitly that this meant OEI. The operator's boss decided that the words applied across the board and I lost the argument because of the contract words.
An area very often overlooked is an accumulation of STC for modifications.
Some years ago a C337 accident in the USA which I recall was an inflight break up; wing separation ..
The aircraft was modified with Vortex generators, and no doubt with an approved AFM supplement and STC. I recall the aircraft had modified wing tips; drooping. The airframe also has a STOL kit fitted with revised aileron and drooping ailerons when flap extended. Also in the mix was a 'speed kit' a series of revised cuffs etc at various fuselage/wing areas and the booms to the tailplane.
Each and every one of the mods was applied in accordance with the various STC's
BUT: no one had certified the COMBINATION of all the mods as one package.
In effect the aircraft was destined for another life. The aircraft was no longer a C337 but a highly modified airframe that resembled at C337.
Some years ago a C337 accident in the USA which I recall was an inflight break up; wing separation ..
The aircraft was modified with Vortex generators, and no doubt with an approved AFM supplement and STC. I recall the aircraft had modified wing tips; drooping. The airframe also has a STOL kit fitted with revised aileron and drooping ailerons when flap extended. Also in the mix was a 'speed kit' a series of revised cuffs etc at various fuselage/wing areas and the booms to the tailplane.
Each and every one of the mods was applied in accordance with the various STC's
BUT: no one had certified the COMBINATION of all the mods as one package.
In effect the aircraft was destined for another life. The aircraft was no longer a C337 but a highly modified airframe that resembled at C337.
If I was flying such a modified aircraft I would want to see the performance data state that it incorporates both VG and STOL modifications. That is some statement on the charts that says "STOL mod xxx with VG mod xxx installed" or such. Although most pilot's would probably assume the VGs are part of the STOL kit, that's where being familiar with these additions comes in.
That being said I'm not surprised the FAA might just rubber stamp it after seeing some mods that have been done to transport category aircraft where additional sizable holes have been cut in pressure hulls with no real mention of reduced life or such.
Snap taken when heading for the boat.
Can Mainframe & John T please list the C210 wing structural failures that they are aware of.
Being very familiar on the type, I can not see where this seeming quite often event come from - I am aware of a few strutted and non strutted events - but they can be counted on a single hand, and all penetrated very bad weather or very modified.
In short we need some proof the C210 has a reputation for structural failures (please) - wings clap up or clap down!!. We can count all the claps at this stage.
I think the fact is about ZERO have failed without a modification or a POH limit being greatly exceeded - happy to be corrected.
Being very familiar on the type, I can not see where this seeming quite often event come from - I am aware of a few strutted and non strutted events - but they can be counted on a single hand, and all penetrated very bad weather or very modified.
In short we need some proof the C210 has a reputation for structural failures (please) - wings clap up or clap down!!. We can count all the claps at this stage.
I think the fact is about ZERO have failed without a modification or a POH limit being greatly exceeded - happy to be corrected.
I don't think Cessna's engineers/designers from 60 years ago thought these aircrafts will be operational in 3rd decade of 21st century.
Everything has a "best before" date, including aircrafts, therefore they have to be treated with respect.
Everything has a "best before" date, including aircrafts, therefore they have to be treated with respect.
Last edited by Bosi72; 4th Jan 2023 at 09:03.
Moderator
please list the C210 wing structural failures that they are aware of.
I don't think that I made a claim regarding 210s routinely losing wings ? Any aircraft will suffer damage if loads exceed the static load limits for the aircraft (ie if they are excessively overloaded). A major problem with old aircraft is whether the fatigue life has been accounted appropriately and that depends, significantly, on usage reporting.
Beech 50 twin bonanza
No experience with that particular model. However, I think that I will continue to prefer to slow down somewhat below Va min in a light aircraft if I suspect severe turbulence. One needs to be aware of what goes into the limits and then it is a case of "you pays your money and takes your chances". I am not a fan of severe turbulence and am quite happy to trade a stall for another bite of the cherry. No guarantees, of course, I might die either way.
I don't think that I made a claim regarding 210s routinely losing wings ? Any aircraft will suffer damage if loads exceed the static load limits for the aircraft (ie if they are excessively overloaded). A major problem with old aircraft is whether the fatigue life has been accounted appropriately and that depends, significantly, on usage reporting.
Beech 50 twin bonanza
No experience with that particular model. However, I think that I will continue to prefer to slow down somewhat below Va min in a light aircraft if I suspect severe turbulence. One needs to be aware of what goes into the limits and then it is a case of "you pays your money and takes your chances". I am not a fan of severe turbulence and am quite happy to trade a stall for another bite of the cherry. No guarantees, of course, I might die either way.
The following users liked this post:
Bendalot.
it doesn’t take Einstein to put the two themes percolating in this thread together as a possible cause.
I‘m not saying that this is definitely the case the investigators will try and do that. Maybe this thread is the mentoring post any accident that used to happen at Rorkes, the ski club or the ‘tute when the old farts told more tales of woe learned through bitter experience. There are some valuable bits of aircraft certification and limitation that should be well understood by all.
But these discussions about a possible cause - even if not what happens to be the final cause - are valuable and needs to be mandatory reading for every pilot in the NT / Kimberley present and future. There will be two more wet seasons before the ATSB report comes out with any lessons learned. And even then it might be light on details (unlike the “probable cause” that other nations publish).
it doesn’t take Einstein to put the two themes percolating in this thread together as a possible cause.
I‘m not saying that this is definitely the case the investigators will try and do that. Maybe this thread is the mentoring post any accident that used to happen at Rorkes, the ski club or the ‘tute when the old farts told more tales of woe learned through bitter experience. There are some valuable bits of aircraft certification and limitation that should be well understood by all.
But these discussions about a possible cause - even if not what happens to be the final cause - are valuable and needs to be mandatory reading for every pilot in the NT / Kimberley present and future. There will be two more wet seasons before the ATSB report comes out with any lessons learned. And even then it might be light on details (unlike the “probable cause” that other nations publish).
Last edited by compressor stall; 4th Jan 2023 at 10:37.
CS that is perfectly said, just be careful with the old farts and Tute comments 
!
Even company beers on a Friday night were great for a lot of ‘mentoring’ and stories. We learn from each other. Today is all in SMS however nothing beats a chat over beers.
Needless to say company culture is the base for all of this. When anyone asks me, I recommend to newbies to do their best to get into Hardy’s, ok the only company I really know but from what I do know, done right.
Many more companies that came and went and many with pros and cons on the above. Yet it appears a few with the wrong culture seem to last.
As a newbie in the Top End NEVER BE AFRAID TO ASK ANYONE FOR HELP. I’m always happy to lend my advice/ opinion, could be wrong but it will be very heavy on avoiding dem big bumpy black sparking clouds!
I’m sure there was a thread on here at some point!
!Even company beers on a Friday night were great for a lot of ‘mentoring’ and stories. We learn from each other. Today is all in SMS however nothing beats a chat over beers.
Needless to say company culture is the base for all of this. When anyone asks me, I recommend to newbies to do their best to get into Hardy’s, ok the only company I really know but from what I do know, done right.
Many more companies that came and went and many with pros and cons on the above. Yet it appears a few with the wrong culture seem to last.
As a newbie in the Top End NEVER BE AFRAID TO ASK ANYONE FOR HELP. I’m always happy to lend my advice/ opinion, could be wrong but it will be very heavy on avoiding dem big bumpy black sparking clouds!
I’m sure there was a thread on here at some point!
It’s Interesting that some industry stalwarts recon they don’t need an SMS. Their reasoning is generally based around the same theme, that shouldn’t be to hard to work out.
It will be interesting to see if they are in business in 2 years, if CASA don’t roll over on their current implementation mandate.
It will be interesting to see if they are in business in 2 years, if CASA don’t roll over on their current implementation mandate.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Darwin, Australia
Age: 53
Posts: 424
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes
on
3 Posts
‘Fly high’: Young pilot mourned after Christmas Eve tragedy
https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...48f2b148103ba5
https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...48f2b148103ba5
‘Fly high’: Young pilot mourned after Christmas Eve tragedy
https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...48f2b148103ba5
https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/north...48f2b148103ba5
DF.
I thought JT might like this film from the CSIRO. There's a short part showing the wing come off a Hudson pulling out of a dive (1:40) that really highlights how sudden separation can occur.
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/wings-test-1947/
https://csiropedia.csiro.au/wings-test-1947/
The following 3 users liked this post by 43Inches:
Can you cut and paste the article please.
The NT News one.
The NT News one.