OZ West Crashes Baron
Regardless of the fact it was a 55, it's not going to be overweight (not likely) with 4 POB. The sector those guys do is about 15-20 min, so even with return fuel its not going to be real heavy.
These aircraft are maintained quite well, as they fly mine personel.
Something else could be the cause.
These aircraft are maintained quite well, as they fly mine personel.
Something else could be the cause.
I fly, you are very close to the mark (if not right on it), with what you are saying.
Those issues aside, all I was getting at was that sometimes you can do everything (within your power), humanly possible to prepare/get out of a situation such as that..... but the aircraft will still fail to perform in that instance no matter what you do to correct it.
He/she quite possibly did everything right, but the aeroplane may have let him/her down when it was needed most.
Regards,
Ops.
Those issues aside, all I was getting at was that sometimes you can do everything (within your power), humanly possible to prepare/get out of a situation such as that..... but the aircraft will still fail to perform in that instance no matter what you do to correct it.
He/she quite possibly did everything right, but the aeroplane may have let him/her down when it was needed most.
Regards,
Ops.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Alice Springs
Posts: 1,744
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suggest you people have a look at the POH for the C55, D55, and D55 Baron, and look at the chart for "accelerate go distance". This shows the distance required to climb to 50 feet if an engine fails at liftoff. It also shows that this can be achieved at 36 degrees and 2000 feet amsl. Can a Caravan doe this after an engine failure at liftoff?
Geeze Bushy, if you can't fly your baron over 36 deg C, that effectively limits our baron usage to about six/seven months of the year here.
Chill Bushy, I am not getting into an arguement with anyone, all I said was that an aircraft may sometimes not do as it says it will from the flight manual for reasons such as......
Engine condition. Yep, just coz it made X horsepower when it was new doesn't mean it makes anywhere near that now...
Airframe condition. Just coz it looks straight, doesn't mean it is....
...and reaction time to a failure, but I ain't touching that one.
Mate, the book is "right" for a NEW a/c, not one of advanced years. Would you use a user manual for a new hi-fi stereo to help you tune your old 1950's valve set?
Chill Bushy, I am not getting into an arguement with anyone, all I said was that an aircraft may sometimes not do as it says it will from the flight manual for reasons such as......
Engine condition. Yep, just coz it made X horsepower when it was new doesn't mean it makes anywhere near that now...
Airframe condition. Just coz it looks straight, doesn't mean it is....
...and reaction time to a failure, but I ain't touching that one.
Mate, the book is "right" for a NEW a/c, not one of advanced years. Would you use a user manual for a new hi-fi stereo to help you tune your old 1950's valve set?
Like BIK & Stallie says: There was never a requirement for any of this class of aircraft (generally piston engine twins <12,500lb) to have any performance in any configuration other than all of: Vyse, flaps up, gear up, failed side feathered, failed side cowl flaps up etc etc etc
This class of a/c has a similar level of risk to a single engine piston a/c that somehow can guarantee that at only half it's cylinders will stop working at any one time. The remaining cylinders might produce enough horses to keep you airborne....
...or they might not. 'Not' is a near certainty unless you've done everything possible to minimise drag, or have spare altitude to give you time to minimise the drag.
This class of a/c has a similar level of risk to a single engine piston a/c that somehow can guarantee that at only half it's cylinders will stop working at any one time. The remaining cylinders might produce enough horses to keep you airborne....
...or they might not. 'Not' is a near certainty unless you've done everything possible to minimise drag, or have spare altitude to give you time to minimise the drag.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: Sydney
Posts: 121
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said Compressor Stall. Just to add my two cents worth. It also assumes the dead engine is feathered. If you take into account the crucial seconds that go by from engine failure to "oh sh__" , identify the problem and dealing with it you are already back on the deck.
Seasonally Adjusted
Geez would you guys stop quoting CAO's, you're starting to worry me.
Agree with you Stallie, at least it went in the right way up at a controllable speed and all walked away.
Never been to this particular field but the overshoot must be reasonably forgiving.
Agree with you Stallie, at least it went in the right way up at a controllable speed and all walked away.
Never been to this particular field but the overshoot must be reasonably forgiving.
Bushy
Firstly the chances of having a engine failure in an ASEPTA Caravan is fairly remote in the first instance because of the all the engine trend moniter gear in the aircraft and if the engineering guys are on the ball then any problems can be nipped in the bud. If however you do have an EFATO and you are RPT then you will have nominated landing areas off the runway which will enable you to crash land reasonably safely. Also with the TO distances being rather short in a C208 you can, on a long runway, get airborne, have an engine failure then nose down and reland on the runway, and/or overrun the end at reasonably slow speed.
On top of this everyone in a Caravan has shoulder harnesses, solid seating that is locked in, the aircraft is designed to crash and withhold reasonable rough impact forces, and if you do it correctly impact speeds should be around 60-70 knots. So if you compare that to 20 year old twins with no Engine trend monitoring, No shoulder harnesses and no or little performance on one engine then I know what I'd rather be in.
Also the Caravan is simple to fly and is basically idiot proof. If you try something stupid you will have a warning horn going. (ie starting an engine with a door open.)
Firstly the chances of having a engine failure in an ASEPTA Caravan is fairly remote in the first instance because of the all the engine trend moniter gear in the aircraft and if the engineering guys are on the ball then any problems can be nipped in the bud. If however you do have an EFATO and you are RPT then you will have nominated landing areas off the runway which will enable you to crash land reasonably safely. Also with the TO distances being rather short in a C208 you can, on a long runway, get airborne, have an engine failure then nose down and reland on the runway, and/or overrun the end at reasonably slow speed.
On top of this everyone in a Caravan has shoulder harnesses, solid seating that is locked in, the aircraft is designed to crash and withhold reasonable rough impact forces, and if you do it correctly impact speeds should be around 60-70 knots. So if you compare that to 20 year old twins with no Engine trend monitoring, No shoulder harnesses and no or little performance on one engine then I know what I'd rather be in.
Also the Caravan is simple to fly and is basically idiot proof. If you try something stupid you will have a warning horn going. (ie starting an engine with a door open.)
Last edited by neville_nobody; 5th Aug 2003 at 11:28.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am sure the Caravan is an excellent aircraft. However if you load it up to the extend where its remaining climb performance is less than the ‘climb performance’ of the ground. The same applies to the 2 engined Caravan or the 2 engined Baron. There is no law telling you when to brake as you drive towards a brick wall. I suppose it’s not smart doing 100 at 6” from the wall. I have not yet found a hill that moved out of the way, just because I had 1 pony not working. The designers a continually building better aircraft and ‘someone’ is building better idiots. Again, I know nothing of the accident and if I do the pilot an injustice, I apologise. I just feel very strong that we HAVE TO KNOW what this particular aircraft can do at this particular place at this particular time. Or know what it can not do and get an aircraft that can. You can not ***** bigger than the hole is.
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lots of truth coming out here.
I can personally say that the 1973 C206F that my company operates definitely doe NOT perform in accordance with what the POH says. I've had it heavy on a hot day, and it definitely does not perform anywhere near the way it should, even with a quarter life engine and near new prop.
Flew her on the numbers, stall warning went ape at me in the first twenty feet, and took me the better part of twenty mins to get to 4500ft MSL. All whilst being within W & B limits, etc. Would dread to find myself in a EFATO scenario from where I took off from - an island with the holiday resort on early upwind of the runway from which I took off. Yikes!!
The P Charts must've been telling me pork pies...
520.
I can personally say that the 1973 C206F that my company operates definitely doe NOT perform in accordance with what the POH says. I've had it heavy on a hot day, and it definitely does not perform anywhere near the way it should, even with a quarter life engine and near new prop.
Flew her on the numbers, stall warning went ape at me in the first twenty feet, and took me the better part of twenty mins to get to 4500ft MSL. All whilst being within W & B limits, etc. Would dread to find myself in a EFATO scenario from where I took off from - an island with the holiday resort on early upwind of the runway from which I took off. Yikes!!
The P Charts must've been telling me pork pies...
520.
...on the numbers, stall warning went...better part of twenty mins to get to 4500ft...All whilst being within W & B limits, etc.
Have you had the pitot/static system & ASI checked?
Join Date: May 2003
Location: PH 298/7.4DME
Posts: 554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know when it was last checked, actually. May as well have been in the late 1970s for all I'm aware. Thanks for the tip though, I'll work on getting it checked at the next 100hrly.
520.
520.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Continental-520. Good boy/gal. Now that you know what your aircraft CAN DO, use that newfound knowledge to stay alive. I am still wondering what 'numbers' you used to upset the stall warning so much. In the Australian P Charts, TOSS is 1.2 times the stalling speed in the take-off configuration. What speed did you use?
520 -
You say C206, so I'm assuming its a VFR operation. AD Instrument 9 (I think) is due every two years (I think), and that includes ASI (I think). Ask a LAME next time you're in the hangar. Maybe one is reading this forum. A stall warning goes off before the stall (quite obviously), so the fact that you're hearing it does not mean anything is really wrong (yet), just that you are at high angle of attack. BTW, what was the density alt. on the day you're speaking of.
Heres one other thing which may seem obvious, but I think many never really consider, when comparing twins and singles:
Upon engine failure in a single, you're NOT faced immeadiately with a potential issue of LOSING CONTROL OF THE AEROPLANE. You very likely can be in a twin. But here it is - TWO ENGINES EQUALS DOUBLE THE CHANCE OF AN ENGINE EVENT/PROBLEM ON TAKEOFF.
You say C206, so I'm assuming its a VFR operation. AD Instrument 9 (I think) is due every two years (I think), and that includes ASI (I think). Ask a LAME next time you're in the hangar. Maybe one is reading this forum. A stall warning goes off before the stall (quite obviously), so the fact that you're hearing it does not mean anything is really wrong (yet), just that you are at high angle of attack. BTW, what was the density alt. on the day you're speaking of.
Heres one other thing which may seem obvious, but I think many never really consider, when comparing twins and singles:
Upon engine failure in a single, you're NOT faced immeadiately with a potential issue of LOSING CONTROL OF THE AEROPLANE. You very likely can be in a twin. But here it is - TWO ENGINES EQUALS DOUBLE THE CHANCE OF AN ENGINE EVENT/PROBLEM ON TAKEOFF.
