Jandakot Crash
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: perth
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
compressor stall, sorry to have upset you with my post. I was not indicating the report was ideal, but (in my opinion) it was not sensationalist. For the non-flying public it presents a rational view of what might have happened, and what will probably happen.
Those same members of the general public are unlikely to want to wait until the complete results of a formal investigation are released before they read something in the paper.
On another topic. Not wanting to cast them in a poor light, but I would prefer to have to wait for a dedicated response from firefighting appliances stationed at Jandakot than have to wait for a FESA response.
FESA allocates resources to provide a response that is timely for property fires (i.e. people's houses) The time it takes for a fire to fully involve a dwelling is rather different from the time for a fire to do the same thing in an aircraft.
Whilst the time taken for a FESA response in this case may or may not have made any difference, when it does make a difference, it will *never* be to the benefit of the situation.
(edited to korrect hoples spelin)
Those same members of the general public are unlikely to want to wait until the complete results of a formal investigation are released before they read something in the paper.
On another topic. Not wanting to cast them in a poor light, but I would prefer to have to wait for a dedicated response from firefighting appliances stationed at Jandakot than have to wait for a FESA response.
FESA allocates resources to provide a response that is timely for property fires (i.e. people's houses) The time it takes for a fire to fully involve a dwelling is rather different from the time for a fire to do the same thing in an aircraft.
Whilst the time taken for a FESA response in this case may or may not have made any difference, when it does make a difference, it will *never* be to the benefit of the situation.
(edited to korrect hoples spelin)
![[steve2] is offline](https://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_offline.gif)
Steve,
No offence taken. I agree it was not "sensationalist" in a tabloid "NT News" sense, but it was still full of errors and some make-believe. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it was "well balanced". Half fact and half fiction.
Mr Thomas has obviously got some detailed facts right - the runway length and, I presume as I don't have one handy, the p-chart figures (although what "normal circumstances" are he does not say and I needn't need to go into that quagmire!)
I hope for my opinion of Mr Thomas's aviation writing abilities that the intervening woven words were indeed those of a sub editor. Mr Thomas is a reader of these fora from time to time and perhaps he might like to defend himself?
[/RANT]
And yes your concerns on aviation fire fighting, I could not agree more. As a frequent user of YPJT, I would like the services of a ARFF service at hand. Sadly though, it's a user pays world.
Cheers
CS
No offence taken. I agree it was not "sensationalist" in a tabloid "NT News" sense, but it was still full of errors and some make-believe. I wholeheartedly agree with you that it was "well balanced". Half fact and half fiction.
Mr Thomas has obviously got some detailed facts right - the runway length and, I presume as I don't have one handy, the p-chart figures (although what "normal circumstances" are he does not say and I needn't need to go into that quagmire!)
I hope for my opinion of Mr Thomas's aviation writing abilities that the intervening woven words were indeed those of a sub editor. Mr Thomas is a reader of these fora from time to time and perhaps he might like to defend himself?
[/RANT]
And yes your concerns on aviation fire fighting, I could not agree more. As a frequent user of YPJT, I would like the services of a ARFF service at hand. Sadly though, it's a user pays world.
Cheers
CS
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Still in Paradise
Age: 60
Posts: 861
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A tragic occurance with no upside.
Re the question of on-field fire services - I think anyone would be hard pressed to find an example of where an on-field fire / rescue service has actually made a difference to outcomes in Australia, in the case of an unexpected crash. Certainly in GA, if an aeroplane crashes and burns, it generally
A: occurs outside the immediate airport environs and is beyond immediate response from an on-field service, and
B: when it involves fire, it is 'all over red rover' before anyone gets there.
Re the rescue helicopter comment from 03ILS
- the greatest benefit of rotary wing services in emergency medicine IS getting the patient to hospital in the least time frame.
The questions being asked re FAR certification should be like a red rag to a certain bull - where's Gaunty?
Re the question of on-field fire services - I think anyone would be hard pressed to find an example of where an on-field fire / rescue service has actually made a difference to outcomes in Australia, in the case of an unexpected crash. Certainly in GA, if an aeroplane crashes and burns, it generally
A: occurs outside the immediate airport environs and is beyond immediate response from an on-field service, and
B: when it involves fire, it is 'all over red rover' before anyone gets there.
Re the rescue helicopter comment from 03ILS
What comes with this chopper? Medically qualified crew? Or just a quick method of transport to a hospital?
The questions being asked re FAR certification should be like a red rag to a certain bull - where's Gaunty?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Victoria
Age: 62
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
While I agree with Compressor Stalls’ analysis of the article in the West Australian of 13/8 (ie absolute c#$p
!), they (the West Australian that is) seem to have come up with a semi-intelligent hypothesis in today’s issue – that the aircraft may have been refuelled with JET A1 instead of AVGAS.
Certainly would explain the sluggish take-off performance. And although I have never flown the 404 I don’t think it would be over MTOW with 6 POB and full fuel…..would it?
Horrible business
!), they (the West Australian that is) seem to have come up with a semi-intelligent hypothesis in today’s issue – that the aircraft may have been refuelled with JET A1 instead of AVGAS.Certainly would explain the sluggish take-off performance. And although I have never flown the 404 I don’t think it would be over MTOW with 6 POB and full fuel…..would it?
Horrible business
Captain Sand Dune
It has been a while since I flew a C404 (beautiful aircraft), but in the two and a half years that I did, I only ever filled it up twice. On both occasions I only had one pax. If memory serves me correctly, six POB, not PAX and bags you were at max TOW with full fuel (936kg usable). I don’t have the figures anymore but if someone current on type would like to critique my words go for it.
It has been a while since I flew a C404 (beautiful aircraft), but in the two and a half years that I did, I only ever filled it up twice. On both occasions I only had one pax. If memory serves me correctly, six POB, not PAX and bags you were at max TOW with full fuel (936kg usable). I don’t have the figures anymore but if someone current on type would like to critique my words go for it.
CS - A Couple of posts back you mention 'transport category aircraft'. Now I don't have all the details but I believe a long time ago the old DCA had a 'transport' category that covered AC with an MTOW >3500 kg engaged in RPT operations. There are not many Light twins over 3500 kg but the C404 is one of them(3810). From memory aircraft in this catergory had to have a 1.9% net (remembering flight manual figures are gross) single engine climb gradient under ambient conditions when engaged in RPT operations. Thus they often had a much reduced TOW with high ambient temps.
A company I have previously worked for at one stage conducted RPT ops (before my time) and had produced a bunch of data cards for the ports that were serviced by 404 RPT. In addition these data cards took into account the recuded runway lengths required to provide a 1.9% clear TO gradient as detailed in the ERSA runway supp. This could often reduce the TOW by several hundred kg to ensure the 1.9% (on paper anyway). Now I know all this kind of thing is predicated on accurate and lighning fast reactions by the pilot, operating engine producing full power etc.
in the event of an EFATO but I think all other things being equal these reduced weights provided a reasonable level of single engine performance given the net fudge factor. Alas I don't think this category applies anymore - is there anyone that knows otherwise or has better info on this 'transport' category. All this from memory so I could well have some details incorrect.
ps Full fuel on the 404 was around 1276 litres useable but I can't imagine why they would fill up the tanks to go 15 minutes to RTI
A company I have previously worked for at one stage conducted RPT ops (before my time) and had produced a bunch of data cards for the ports that were serviced by 404 RPT. In addition these data cards took into account the recuded runway lengths required to provide a 1.9% clear TO gradient as detailed in the ERSA runway supp. This could often reduce the TOW by several hundred kg to ensure the 1.9% (on paper anyway). Now I know all this kind of thing is predicated on accurate and lighning fast reactions by the pilot, operating engine producing full power etc.
in the event of an EFATO but I think all other things being equal these reduced weights provided a reasonable level of single engine performance given the net fudge factor. Alas I don't think this category applies anymore - is there anyone that knows otherwise or has better info on this 'transport' category. All this from memory so I could well have some details incorrect.
ps Full fuel on the 404 was around 1276 litres useable but I can't imagine why they would fill up the tanks to go 15 minutes to RTI
Last edited by slice; 14th Aug 2003 at 15:18.
short flights long nights
I would have thought such an "award" winning jurno such as GT would have known that a light twin does not have to be certified to climb one one engine. Perhaps instead of writing total C##P he could look at why fire services were withdrawn from airports such as JT. But there would be no value in that sort of story, would there...............
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Perth Australia
Posts: 111
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compressor Stall:
Every time I try and defend myself in this forum I seem to get myself into more strife.
In this case there is no defence other than we did our very best to check and recheck facts from people who were not able to or didn't want to talk. Somewhat difficult to build a picture of what happened in just two hours.
The error relating to single engine performance came from one authority but I followed this up today with a correction part of which was subbed out.
The problem of course is to write an article that can be understood by the lay audience with out making myself look stupid. I was keen to reassure the travelling (RPT) public that aircraft were designed to fly on one engine. I had in mind jets and didn't realise that some light pistons have a window of speed where this is not going to happen.
Certainly I have learnt something.
Aside from that I think that the couple of articles are a reasonable summary of what may have happened. Some may not agree with the tone but they would be interested to know I have left out some allegations and comments that would be offensive.
Best GT
Every time I try and defend myself in this forum I seem to get myself into more strife.
In this case there is no defence other than we did our very best to check and recheck facts from people who were not able to or didn't want to talk. Somewhat difficult to build a picture of what happened in just two hours.
The error relating to single engine performance came from one authority but I followed this up today with a correction part of which was subbed out.
The problem of course is to write an article that can be understood by the lay audience with out making myself look stupid. I was keen to reassure the travelling (RPT) public that aircraft were designed to fly on one engine. I had in mind jets and didn't realise that some light pistons have a window of speed where this is not going to happen.
Certainly I have learnt something.
Aside from that I think that the couple of articles are a reasonable summary of what may have happened. Some may not agree with the tone but they would be interested to know I have left out some allegations and comments that would be offensive.
Best GT
I don't want to be the best pilot in the world - Just the oldest
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Here and there
Posts: 1,013
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think we tend to be a bit harsh on journos like GT. At least he, unlike many of his less learned colleagues in his profession takes a keen interest in aviation and tries damn hard to source reliable facts before going to print. I know from experience how he goes to extra lengths to research his info.
As he alluded to in his post. It's hard to work to an editors deadline and make sure every reported fact is 100% technically correct and at the same time keeping the information simple enought for the non aviation savy newsreader to understand.
Especially when those in the know either cannot or will not speak to the media.
Their job is to get the news to the public in a timely manner and unfortunately there are always those self proclaimed experts who will use the opportunity to get their mugs on TV or their name in print. Even if they have little or no knowledge of the situation. Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning had a few of them crawling from under their rocks.
Slice,
A friend of mine works at the company where the 5 pax were from. The aircraft was destined for work beyond Rottnest involving some scientific equipment testing over the ocean. Not sure where the YRTI destination came from in the media unelss they planned for awk somewhere around the island.
As he alluded to in his post. It's hard to work to an editors deadline and make sure every reported fact is 100% technically correct and at the same time keeping the information simple enought for the non aviation savy newsreader to understand.
Especially when those in the know either cannot or will not speak to the media.
Their job is to get the news to the public in a timely manner and unfortunately there are always those self proclaimed experts who will use the opportunity to get their mugs on TV or their name in print. Even if they have little or no knowledge of the situation. Monday afternoon and Tuesday morning had a few of them crawling from under their rocks.
Slice,
A friend of mine works at the company where the 5 pax were from. The aircraft was destined for work beyond Rottnest involving some scientific equipment testing over the ocean. Not sure where the YRTI destination came from in the media unelss they planned for awk somewhere around the island.
G'Day IJ 
K: How's things? Must catch up in JT one of these days...
I concur with what you say about editorial pressures etc, and as I mentioned earlier, Mr Thomas has sourced hard facts...fuel qty runway length etc, p-charts etc which is a long way above and beyond most - hence my aviation journalist satire that pops up on various threads from time to time.
What I objected to in the article was the presumption that the right engine was not developing full power, the pilot lost control etc. etc.
In my opinion these hypotheses were drawn from thin air and undid the good effort in researching the aircraft and airport facts. But Joe Public does not see it this way, and he is what keeps Mr Thomas in a job!
Geoffrey Thomas:
Thanks for your reply...it is all very easy for me to sit back and tell you how your job should be done for the comfort of my loungeroom chair! And thank-you for omitting the thoughts of many who automatically apportion blame onto the pilot in these circumstances.
With reference to single engine performance issues, you could speak to no better person than Guanty. He is the guru on all things of that ilk. When I was an inexpereinced pilot thrown out bush with a 402, thru PPrune, he taught me a lot that is missing from pilot training syllabi these days.
Cheers
CS
K: How's things? Must catch up in JT one of these days...I concur with what you say about editorial pressures etc, and as I mentioned earlier, Mr Thomas has sourced hard facts...fuel qty runway length etc, p-charts etc which is a long way above and beyond most - hence my aviation journalist satire that pops up on various threads from time to time.
What I objected to in the article was the presumption that the right engine was not developing full power, the pilot lost control etc. etc.
In my opinion these hypotheses were drawn from thin air and undid the good effort in researching the aircraft and airport facts. But Joe Public does not see it this way, and he is what keeps Mr Thomas in a job!
Geoffrey Thomas:
Thanks for your reply...it is all very easy for me to sit back and tell you how your job should be done for the comfort of my loungeroom chair! And thank-you for omitting the thoughts of many who automatically apportion blame onto the pilot in these circumstances.
With reference to single engine performance issues, you could speak to no better person than Guanty. He is the guru on all things of that ilk. When I was an inexpereinced pilot thrown out bush with a 402, thru PPrune, he taught me a lot that is missing from pilot training syllabi these days.
Cheers
CS
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Camden, NSW, Australia
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Compressor Stall and SOPS, you can wave the FARs around as long as you like. They are NOT YET the operating law in Australia. The Australian Law is the 20.7 series of the CAOs. Also check out CAO 82.0 2.2 (a). It does not mention the FARs. Your own life preserving instinct should tell you not to fly the aircraft when it can’t get you out of the ***** that you got yourself into. If you get the sack, you have another chance with another operator. If you die, there are few jobs for dead pilots. Capish.
Titan Driver
Yes you are quite correct. My memory is starting to come back now. Both our Titans could carry 4 POB and bags. Anything more and fuel came off. Mind you unless you are going a long way and/or want to carry return fuel, you wouldn’t fill them up anyway.
PS: By any chance one of your Titans ex Cairns.
Yes you are quite correct. My memory is starting to come back now. Both our Titans could carry 4 POB and bags. Anything more and fuel came off. Mind you unless you are going a long way and/or want to carry return fuel, you wouldn’t fill them up anyway.
PS: By any chance one of your Titans ex Cairns.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yoh Stallie!
I Fly, I'm not sure whether I've got the wrong end of your stick but , the EFATO case has nothing to do with 20.7.4.
That reg only senshrines it in Oz law the simple fact is that ALL aircraft under 5700kg are certified to whatever amendment to FAR23. Period.
And without going into the details because you can find it yourself the ONLY sngle engine cases they are required to demonstrate for certification is then ability to maintain level flight (=+50fpm climb)at 5,000ft ISA with the inoperative engine feathered and the aircraft in the cruise configuration and a positive rate only with and engine failure after take off and the aircraft in the climb config, i.e. gear and flaps up.
ANY climb rate better than that is because the manufacturers wanted to achieve some other goal.
The most you are going to get out of a typical twin is around 200fpm if you hold your mouth right and get it set up properly.
The reality is that whatever height you have when it all goes pear shaped at MGW is what you've got and you are looking for the least worst "alighting" are in front of you using the live one to maybe broaden the choice.
Any attempt to turn without significant altitude has to cancel or make negative any climb rate you may have gained.
If you are nibbling at the edge then the result is inevitable, departure for controlled flight and we all know the consequences of that at low level.
It's called the laws of Physics and absolutely nothing to do with how good or well trained is the pilot or whether he is a nice chap or not.
I spent several days in a Coroners a whle back with about 13 barristers batting on my head getting the message across that it didn't make any difference how many pilots there were on board and even if it did have turbines, it wasn't going anywhere different on one engine than the piston version of the aircraft. That is nowhere much at all.
They eventually got it but as GT says, if smart people like that have a difficulty understanding the concept what chance ma and pa kettle.
It's not in the syllabus until ATPL and then only as interpretation of 20.7.1b, with nothing about why and the certification issues surrounding.
As for the VG, Raisbeck and other GW and field performance mods all they do is move the performance figures around, but they do nothing but make it worse should one quit and remove any buffers that might have been there in the first place.
It's called physics again.
On one of the turbines it moves VYSE, VMCA and VS to within a couple of knots of each other. Some operators use it routinely to get in and out of places it could not without, watch this space if they lose one under those circs. They know not what they do.
It's legal but not very smart.
Stallie is a very competent pilot, but even he would admit to having a difficulty keeping it all together with an EFATO and all of the tidying up, ball and bank angles and flying airspeed within a couple of knots, whilst trying to dodge the big timber.
I Fly, I'm not sure whether I've got the wrong end of your stick but , the EFATO case has nothing to do with 20.7.4.
That reg only senshrines it in Oz law the simple fact is that ALL aircraft under 5700kg are certified to whatever amendment to FAR23. Period.
And without going into the details because you can find it yourself the ONLY sngle engine cases they are required to demonstrate for certification is then ability to maintain level flight (=+50fpm climb)at 5,000ft ISA with the inoperative engine feathered and the aircraft in the cruise configuration and a positive rate only with and engine failure after take off and the aircraft in the climb config, i.e. gear and flaps up.
ANY climb rate better than that is because the manufacturers wanted to achieve some other goal.
The most you are going to get out of a typical twin is around 200fpm if you hold your mouth right and get it set up properly.
The reality is that whatever height you have when it all goes pear shaped at MGW is what you've got and you are looking for the least worst "alighting" are in front of you using the live one to maybe broaden the choice.
Any attempt to turn without significant altitude has to cancel or make negative any climb rate you may have gained.
If you are nibbling at the edge then the result is inevitable, departure for controlled flight and we all know the consequences of that at low level.
It's called the laws of Physics and absolutely nothing to do with how good or well trained is the pilot or whether he is a nice chap or not.
I spent several days in a Coroners a whle back with about 13 barristers batting on my head getting the message across that it didn't make any difference how many pilots there were on board and even if it did have turbines, it wasn't going anywhere different on one engine than the piston version of the aircraft. That is nowhere much at all.
They eventually got it but as GT says, if smart people like that have a difficulty understanding the concept what chance ma and pa kettle.
It's not in the syllabus until ATPL and then only as interpretation of 20.7.1b, with nothing about why and the certification issues surrounding.
As for the VG, Raisbeck and other GW and field performance mods all they do is move the performance figures around, but they do nothing but make it worse should one quit and remove any buffers that might have been there in the first place.
It's called physics again.
On one of the turbines it moves VYSE, VMCA and VS to within a couple of knots of each other. Some operators use it routinely to get in and out of places it could not without, watch this space if they lose one under those circs. They know not what they do.
It's legal but not very smart.
Stallie is a very competent pilot, but even he would admit to having a difficulty keeping it all together with an EFATO and all of the tidying up, ball and bank angles and flying airspeed within a couple of knots, whilst trying to dodge the big timber.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Southern Western Australia
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
M.R
The Bullwinkle,
how do you know Mr. Roper?
And on the topic of the tragic event, did anyone else read the article in "Tarmac" about Fugro, I think? Alot was made of the company's safety record. Former pilot now flies up the coast, north of G'ton.
how do you know Mr. Roper?
And on the topic of the tragic event, did anyone else read the article in "Tarmac" about Fugro, I think? Alot was made of the company's safety record. Former pilot now flies up the coast, north of G'ton.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: perth
Posts: 43
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Anyone have a name of the pilot
404's eeessshhh
A while back in the dark continent, a Kiwi guy lost an engine, landed wheels up on the strip, as they were in the process of evacuating, woommff, all dead.
chapati and sukuma wiki thanks
404's eeessshhh
A while back in the dark continent, a Kiwi guy lost an engine, landed wheels up on the strip, as they were in the process of evacuating, woommff, all dead.
chapati and sukuma wiki thanks