Jandakot Crash Trial
 

Death pilot did not follow rules: expert : thewest.com.au

Death pilot did not follow rules: expert

5th August 2009, 7:00 WST

An aeronautical engineer suggested yesterday that a fatal crash at Jandakot airport in 2003 could have been avoided if the pilot of the twin-engine Cessna 404 followed emergency procedures after an engine failed seconds after take-off.

Robert MacGillivray, of Victoria, who has worked in the aviation industry since 1968, told the Supreme Court that pilot Alec Penberthy had only a few seconds to decide what to do.

Accepted practice was to minimise all manoeuvring after an engine failure but Mr Penberthy decided to turn left and head back to the airport.

“A series of left turns, or a continuous left turn, attempting to return to the airport would increase drag significantly so the pilot would not be able to maintain airspeed without sacrificing altitude, thereby making continuing flight impossible,” Mr MacGillivray said.
The Cessna 404 was in the air about 90 seconds on the afternoon of August 11, 2003, before it crashed into bush. The left wing was ripped off, causing a massive fuel spill and fire that destroyed the aircraft, killing two passengers and badly burning three others. Mr MacGillivray was giving evidence on the second day of a four-week trial.
Crash survivors Malcolm Cifuentes, Michael Knubley and Ozan Perincek are pursuing damages alongside Janet Graham, whose husband Harry Protoolis died in the crash, and Julie Warriner, whose husband Steven died of his injuries 12 weeks later.

The passengers worked for Fremantle technology company Nautronix Holdings, which claims its business was devastated by the loss of the employees.

They are suing Mr Penberthy and Fugro Spatial Solutions, which operated the aircraft.

Also being sued is engineer Aaron Barclay, who is accused of using the wrong alloy when repairing part of the fuel pump in the Cessna. It is alleged this caused the right engine to fail.

Mr MacGillivray said a well-trained pilot would need about 10 seconds to follow emergency procedures such as confirming the failure, shutting the engine and “feathering” the propeller.

He said the pilot should have banked the aircraft about five degrees to the left to compensate for the missing right engine and to ensure the aircraft continued to climb.

Asked if there was any realistic prospect that the aircraft could turn left and make a safe landing, he replied: “No.”



Bit harsh being called a "Death Pilot" ?

Di :sad:

could set a worrying precedent...

ATSB report
200303579

5 degrees gives the minimum Vmca under certification. It has nothing to do with maximum single engine performance which does NOT occur at 5 degrees bank.

This is a real court case with people's lives and repurations on the line - and the guy testifying obviously doesn't know what he is talking about.

Some expert.

If he's from WSL, then he thinks he is.

Re-read the accident report and see what the pilot was confronted with, then perhaps the rationale for turning will become clearer.

Reporting of selective quotes by 'experts' at a court case can often be for 'effect' rather than for 'fact'.:=

I hope he is a member of the AFAP, at least they will provide legal representation for him else it could get expensive!

It is quite worrying that a Pilot can be sued for an accident (The Bali incident set a dangerous precedent to begin with). I'm sure he didn't plan on having an engine failure and when it happened, made a command decision and went with it unfortunatley not having the desired result.

If he landed the aeroplane safely he would have been considered a hero - not a death pilot, perhaps we should all reflect on this.

One would assume the cretins who brought about the case will be trying to prove negligence on the pilots behalf, from reading the ATSB report I don't think you could prove any on his behalf although maybe he could have done things better with good old hindsight.

The disturbing thing if this case is successful is the effect it will have on openness during accident reporting, from reading the report there's a couple of things the pilot said which can / will be use against him in this case. I see in the near future after an accident / incident when the accident investigator goes to get a statement from the pilot and all he'll get is "not with out my lawyer present"

Or the JAH for allowing a tree to be near the runway for them to hit, or God for not allowing the conditions of the day to be beneficial to single engine performance.

If he landed the aeroplane safely he would have been considered a hero - not a death pilot, perhaps we should all reflect on this.

Certainly a fine line between a 'hero pilot' and a 'death pilot'.:ugh:

Tragic indeed. Can't imagine how much post traumatic stress the survivors are living through.

In today's world its not a bad idea actually. Best to not say anything at all.

Its a reminder to pilots to have their assets/cash structured for a worse case scenario.

Bit harsh. I think the "cretins" are the injured passengers and the dependants of the not-so-lucky passengers.

Whats "WSL"?

So no one here thinks the pilot did anything wrong?

By the way, the pilot - whilst named on the Writ as a Defendant, is actually covered by and being represented by an insurer......as are the other defendants.....

Di :ok:

I get very disheartened when I read these reports as they always make me question my ME training, my decision making capabilities and whether my reactions or decisions would have been any better than the pilot concerned.

My conclusion is that the quality of my multi training was probably no different, my experience is nowhere near this guy's and, therefore, my decision making and reaction would have probably been the same - or worse. How does a pilot train themselves to resist that overpowering urge not to crash following an engine failure by retarding the throttles and taking your chances on an overun?

There are many lessons here in this report, particularly with respect to take off planning and briefing, which I will take home and digest in the hope that that I can improve my approach and technique. But, to suggest this pilot was negligent is extremely harsh in my view and my heart goes out to him. I hope he comes out of this OK.

With respect to TO/LDG planning and briefing, do any of you airline or experienced GA ME operators have a good checklist or can suggest an appropriate TO/LDG performance card format suitable for GA ME ops? If you have suggestions, please PM me as I don't wish to hijack this thread. Thanks

It doesn't matter who the "expert" is, the prosecution, defence or accuser will always find someone to support their argument either way, but that this does not mean that the expert is not an expert in his field. In this case, this particular expert is clearly that, with many years flying and engineering experience, ATPL, reg35, instructor rating etc etc. Remember that the 5 degrees is a comment of the reporter and may not reflect those words testified by the expert. The ONLY way to confirm this prior to pointing the finger and dismissing his opinion would be via the court transcripts.

Love ya monday morning quarterbacking Di. If you can't see the slippery slope here, go away

QSK?:

Actually I think your post is what this thread should be all about really....



J3pipercub:

No "quarterbacking" here - I haven't expressed an opinion.....and am not qualified to do so


VH-XXX

Seen transcript - report accurate...



Whats WSL?

Di

Yep....theory and practise.Who the bloody hell can measure 5 degrees. What a load of absolute rubbish. All multi engine pilots should read "Flying the light twin" by Russ Evans. 5 degrees my a**e! All the figures quoted in the AFM are for certification purposes only.....a brand new aircraft with brand new engines delivering full stated HP flown by a test pilot under test conditions with instrumentation to dream of. Give the guy a break.....the darn thing wouldn't have climbed anyway.

You know what they say, the second engine takes you to your crash site!

Anywhere near 75% of MTOW or greater I think of it more like a Cirrus parachute, it just lowers your rate of descent.

FRQ CB

PS I remember seeing that wreckage on what must have been my fourth or fifth training flight... and trying to not look at it on downwind on my first solo. A very sobering sight for a student pilot.

Alec was a very level-headded, experienced and competent pilot.

Old (and new) FAR23 sh#t-boxes don't fly on one engine.

Thousands of pilots over millions of hours take a chance in them on every flight.

You play the cards you've got.

When things go wrong our legal system is designed to extract money.

If the pilot is killed in the accident our legal system will wring money from his estate, from his wife and children, if possible.

Hence my previous post.

But then - you have to just accept that this is a court case.

It's about winners and losers - not the truth or the reality of how you handle an emergency when it all goes to worms and you are in the left hand seat.

It's about who gets paid.

Not really worth getting upset about.

:ugh: