you are all VICTIMS!

So what are you suggesting GA multi engine pilots get their twin "experince" on? Something other than piston twins?

What is enough "experince" to fly a piston twin? 500 hrs? 1000hrs? 3000hrs? Much much single v twin time?

No disrespect or malice intended but i'm keen to hear what in your opinion is enough experience to fly a piston twin?

All those posters that are saying that these aircraft don't perform - or that that particular aircraft wasn't performing - should just read the report.

The report very clearly shows that this aircraft was indeed performing.

The ONLY reason it crashed was because of that second turn. The pilot had gotten away with the first turn, so the supposed power line threat was no longer present.

But it was that second turn (taking it onto the northerly track) that robbed the aircraft of its performance and made the crash inevitable.

The engine failure had occurred before the aircraft had passed the upwind end of the runway. That it had continued to fly to a point on the other side of the aerodrome - and onto a heading opposite to that of takeoff - is surely proof that that aeroplane was performing.

If the aeroplane wasn't performing then I would suggest that perhaps it should not have been uplifting the payload on the day. I understand that this category of aircraft does not have to comply with any sort of guaranteed performance requirements, however, Perth being as flat as it is, if power lines miles off the end of the runway are becoming a concern....

2.63nm or 4.87 km from the brake release point........

As measured on Google Earth.....

With that logic every piston twin would be grounded and you would not be able to fly a single....

Back in yer box

A C404 and most 10 seat cabin twins with 400L onboard and two crew (Instructor and Pilot) will barely climb with a failed engine in temps over 30 degrees.

It's all good to quote the regs bearing in mind these certification requirements were demonstrated by a test pilot in a new aeroplane under ISA or better than conditions.

The only way to make sure the aeroplane will perform is to remove all the payload and fly the pilot around with minimum fuel. The only aircraft I know that would achieve a mildly positive climb rate in the piston range was a Baron.

Those that fly or have flown these aeroplanes understand that the second engine is not a get out of jail free card. It simply gives you options. If you have an engine failure with a normal operating payload on take off it may as well be a single. Enroute at altitude you can consider your landing options and adopt a drift down procedure.

While it would be remiss of me to discuss the appropriateness of the pilots actions in this case I would like to offer an experiment we once did.

We had 3 of the same type of aircraft, a GA piston twin very similar to the C404. We used the same day, same time, same terrain, same weights etc. We conducted a series of tests with either engine on all three aircraft. The results were, one of them climbed, albeit very slowly, one stayed relatively level and the other started dropping rather quickly. The difference was significant between the three aircraft and it taught us all a lesson on making assumptions based on what a manual says, what a type is supposed to do and what can really happen.

As another aside, we should all try and put ourselves in this pilots shoes and think of how we would feel if our own actions were put under the microscope in the way his have.

Regards

Whiskey Oscar Golf makes a very valid point. At one stage I was involved in completing annual c of a air tests on a small fleet of DC3s for British CAA regulations.
This involved ballasting the aircraft to a certain weight then getting it airborne, feathering one engine just off the deck (really) and flogging the poor old thing at max takeoff power for five minutes while logging the climb rate etc. Then that engine was restarted and the other feathered and run at METO for 10 minutes for the en-route climb.
One aircraft in the fleet - which had suffered major damage in its early post-war career and been rebuilt - always made it comfortably. Another - which had no known major damage and was quite pretty to look at - was an absolute dog and required some creative paperwork to pass the required climb rate tests. Everything else checked out, fuel burn, cruise TAS, stall speeds etc but it just would not meet the climb gradient on one engine.
Pilot technique was not an issue (same pilot who became rather good at it if I do say so myself) and the weather was alway chosen to be most favourable - early morning, preferably just a bit foggy, so nice and stable etc.
Later I became involved in similar work on Fokker F27 aircraft and one in particular had us baffled for a while. It was brand new but just could not make the numbers. It turned out that the tail got a bit twisted in production due to some misalignment of a jig.
So, in the absence of a FDR we may never know whether the particular C404 in the accident was really able to make the numbers or not.

No need for an FDR - you can just read the report. I thought I had made this point clear back at post #44.

Mach E Avelli, from your previous work with DC3s you would be well aware of the effect that TURNING has on an aircraft's marginal SE performance.

In the case of this C404, it is very clear from the report that:

1. The R engine failed 1-2 seconds after the aircraft left the runway;
2. The aircraft continued to fly for a further 2.5 miles;
3. The aircraft was successfully turned left through about 90 degrees (it regained the airspeed lost during the turn);
4. The aircraft crashed on a heading opposite to that of takeoff;

You think an aircraft that "wasn't performing" could have achieved what this aircraft did?

FGD, I will go back and read the accident investigation more fully.
But I do know that I would do almost anything - including attempting to fly outside the envelope if painted into that corner - to avoid hitting power lines or buildings. Could he have flown under them? Could a survivable (we know it would have not been safe) flight path be maintained with 15 degrees angle of bank and say 50 ft of obstacle clearance all the way back to a landing ? I don't know, as I don't know the area well enough and certainly have not examined it at 50 ft. Did the aircraft go better in one direction of turn than the other? Local wind effects/subsidence/rotor?
I am trying to avoid coming across as an armchair expert, but I still believe that the pilot is carrying too much of the blame for a situation that we may all talk about when we do our emergency briefings, but few of us will ever experience in real life.

I don't think "the famous Bob Mc G's" ...tag is Mach :ok:

But I do wish folks would take note of Mach E Avelli's words in post #41 especially CASA and those training 404 pilots to use flap for take off.