Chieftain crash at Tullamarine circa 1978. Discussion points.
 

The long-in-tooth may recall the Piper Chieftain that crashed shortly after take off from Melbourne runway 34 around 1978. Details of the accident was well written up in Issue 108 of Aviation Safety Digest in 1979. That was over 30 years ago and a whole new generation of current Navajo/Chieftain pilots are now flying who have never heard of that accident. The report delved deeply into the reasons why the Chieftain was unable to maintain a safe single engine climb after the pilot had feathered the starboard engine when he thought he detected a fire under the cowl.

I am hoping that this accident report may be re-published again as the risks involved with a single engine climb out after take off in a piston-engine light twin, are unchanged from all those years ago. One of the significant factors mentioned in the accident report was that the aircraft had flown 3000 hours since new, and the wear and tear on the airframe alone would have degraded the rate of climb by about 100 feet per minute. Pretty startling info considering the best expected rate of climb was 220 feet per minute on one engine.

An article is being drafted and it would help if anyone could supply a reasonable estimate of how many Chieftain/Navajos are currently on the Australian register and an estimated range of airframe hours that would be most likely on them by now.

According to the CASA register, there are 190 "PA-31" type aircraft VH registered.

It wasn't the engine failure that caused the accident it was the uncontrollable engine fire that did the damage.

From memory that particular operator believed in reduced power take off's and the density controllers were adjusted to give about 42" MP. Another operator who operated C402's on a ambulance contract, had the same belief, and killed himself and several others after an engine failure.

Unfortunately, a lot of practical experience has not being passed down the line.

I recall that accident well. Peter Benton lost his life on a night freight charter. I understand he survived the impact but could not extricate himself from the wreckage before it was consumed by fire.

As Centaurus says, those same Chieftains are now 30 years older, and in many cases the endorsement training is not as thorough as it once was. No doubt there are many younger pilots blissfully unaware of the marginal performance on one engine.

I would love to see some of these older accidents published again as a reminder of the risks involved.

As a young chieftain pilot who has around 400hrs on PA31's and has suffered a turbo charger failure at MTOW. I have learnt one thing and that is a 30 year old chieftain at MTOW will struggle to maintain height. :bored:

The nominating of a decision speed in these aircraft could almost be seen as jovial! with maybe a single engine takeoff brief taking into account clearings off the end of the strip being more appropriate.

Is the original report available somewhere? Google doesnt seem to find it. I fly 2 Navajos, one has 3000hrs and the other 5000!!

So pretty recent then?

I just hoped out of a piston twin today with over 37,000 :eek:

A piston twin with 37000 Hrs and it still flyes?? crickey, I'm glad I dont have to get aboard that one to maintain it, let alone fly in it:eek::eek:

Probably only some paperwork and the serial number plaque are original.. all the other components have been changed over the years.. :) reminds me of an XW sold earlier this year..

Wow, that would be nice. I have trained a few people on PA31s and 2 up with 1 cowl closed (sometimes needed 2 cowls closed) you'd get 150 fpm.

Have a look in the POH and you'll see all single engine performance figures are based on failed engine cowl flap closed.

My brief EFATO is ... feather failed engine, close both cowl flaps. Open again if / when altitude achieved.

They must be nice machines. I don't think I've flown one under 10,000 hours.

I would be surprised if a reasonably experienced PA31 driver hasn't flown an oldie that is lucky to achieve 500 fpm MTOW on an ISA + 10 day on 2 engines!

I remember quizzing a student on MAP climb gradients on. At 1% with a raised minima (calculated) to meet obstacle clearance requirements on the particular approach in question required +1000 ft to the minima (a lot more then the 300-400 feet that most schools teach) and still about 25 NM to climb back to MSA. Compare that to something like a Baron which performs much closer (but still not there) to 2.5%.

Remembering a recent accident as well, The PA31 EFATO from Darwin that was unable to maintain performance and ditched. Here

hmmm

Something to consider: Why are these machines still allowed in RPT operations.

I refer to the Dick Smith Flyer website which hosts the casa safety brochure. Here the claim is that (Page 4) .

Also another good read: Big challenges for little airliners. This article discusses the ageing fleet of piston twins used in RPT operations. The focus is towards airframe issues.

Slightly off track. But interesting to ponder none the less.:8

Sorry to correct you but according to the accident report published in ADS 108/1979 and here is an extract: "It was established that, as a result of excessively lean mixture operation, there was a hole burned through the piston rings and into the side of the No. 2 piston of the right engine. There was no evidence of fire within the engine compartment but it was apparent that the hole in the piston had resulted in pressurisation of the crankcase cavity, ejection of the oil dipstick, and the consequent venting of oil on to the exterior of the exhaust pipes. The engine had the capacity to continue to produce a substantial amount of power for a limited period...the probable cause of the accident was that, believing there was a fire in the right engine compartment, the pilot closed the engine down in circumstances where the single engine performance capability of the aircraft proved to be insufficient to sustain continued flight

This is great after the fact , I would have shut the engine down as well . Great learning incident

It is amazing how much smoke is caused by venting engine oil onto an exhaust pipe without there being a fire. Was informed by Bris tower on short final once, that someone in Redcliffe had seen the smoke as I went over, and rung in. Turned out a seal on a vacuum pump had let go, and the oil had been pumped out of the Islander engine so I had less than 2 litres left on landing. Everything, pressures, temperatures, power had been normal from my end until informed. Some passengers of the full flight had noticed something on the right side but said nothing to me til disembarking. Maybe they thought oil on the leg of an Islander, and smoke was normal..!!

The second engine in a PA31 will take you to the crash site!

The only real use for it is en-route, so you can adopt a 'drift down procedure' and land. I'd seriously have to question someones sanity for blasting into the soup in a piston twin when the cloud base is below 1000 feet AGL (let alone 300 feet!). It's not really even a real IFR machine, if one lets go on an approach in the soup, I'd almost take the single over the PA31!
And 42" on takeoff? I never really saw them get over 40" They certainly never got anywhere near the 46" limitation!

Peter was a very good friend of mine, an ex-croppie who once had his own business at Albury. I worked with him for two years at Australian Air Charterers (AAC). He was an excellent pilot. 'Centaurus' and 'Chimbu' have their facts correct, it was only a blown piston, but the oil filler dip stick was blown out through the cowl and the escaping oil began to torch off the turbocharger, which, as Chieftain pilots know, glows red hot. The engine would have stopped eventually regardless of his actions. He was accused of shutting it down too early. (by some CASA 'guru' sitting behind a desk armed with all the facts and two weeks to think about it!!) I had left AAC at this stage and was flying for Air Express that night on a B170 and saw the fire as I landed at Essendon. I knew the exact time the 'paper-run' planes left for Canberra and on disembarking I knew from the Ground Engineers face it was a bad accident. Amazing how fast news travels. I lived near Moorabbin in those days and will never forget seeing his white Holden Ute in the car park just sitting there.
Any stories of AAC reducing the power available are bull ****, the power was down slightly on the good engine due to an error in adjustment, there was no policy to do this. Another hole in the cheese, thats all. Peter nearly made it but just clipped a tree top with the right wing. On the PA31 series you have no landing lights with the gear up, let alone a fire extinguisher. Once you see bigger aeroplanes it makes you wonder how they certify some of the 'below 5700kg' aircraft. A good mate lost for all the wrong reasons. The rego was VH-MBK

Well i for one agree with all of what is being said! Most of the machines are at LEAST 15,000 hrs and blasting off at MTOW is always a finger crossing exercise until TOC. Throw in a significant overwater leg and your crossing your fingers for much of the cruise too!! :sad:

And of course these days most (if not all) Chieftains have VG kits fitted. Anyone who knows me knows my opinion on them! :ugh:

DF.

Also DF, - if at the higher gross T.O., if a Contract calls for 2 pilots (one usually inexperienced but keen) and an engine fails in climb on a warm day, is the operation safer than if (he) had been left off..? Decisions, decisions,.. and Coy and Reg. Requirements..

In addition to what By George has correctly stated, I believe that none of the turbo/super-charged twins had fire detectors in those days. As I recall this became an AD on Queenairs, 402's and Navajos in the late 70's.

It is therefore difficult to fault this pilot for his actions; visual indications certainly pointed to a fire, and the normal reaction (particularly to a fuel-fed fire) is to shut it down ASAP.

Gosh is it 32 years ? :uhoh:
Peter was the quintessential bloody top bloke everyone's cobber.
He once said to me he got out of cropdusting because it was "too bloody dangerous"
RIP mate.

Peter was aware of the Aztec accident in PNG where the guy had a turbocharger related fire and lost a wing turning final for an emergency landing. I think the time from the initial fire to the wing failing was only a few minutes and another pilot lost, doing the right thing, but not quite making it. He always said to me that fire was his greatest concern and I agree with him. A lot of light twins have magnesium alloy in the undercarriage, and guess where that sits. I have always been bitter about that accident report with the old 'pilot error' tag. He was also criticized for turning right rather than continuing straight ahead. The aeoplane at the weights we operated at was never going to climb away and I think a turn towards the lights of the city and the closest runway with an ILS was the only choice he had. It was a dark cloudy night with some low stratus cloud. I am convinced he realised he wasn't going to make it and was going for a wheels-up force landing in the clear area near the old folks home (I think it is). With no landing lights he clipped a tree and the rest is history.
I am off on a 7 day trip and away from 'the boards' so "Merry Christmas" to all.

Magnesium not only in the undercarriage but like a 400 series Cessna the actual wing spar itself!

It's all well and good to have fire detection systems on a lighty, but with no way of putting it out apart from increasing the airspeed I think i'd rather be oblivious to my impending doom.........

Ty 'BG' I do recall that accident but never really knew the facts. Like the Mu2 that speared in on App to ML rwy 27 one night such a waste:sad:

I remember many years ago now not being able to retract the gear after T/off on an old PA31 out of Roxby Downs with what felt like 15 on board! 35 + deg day I could hardly hold Alt at max pwr heaven help me if I had lost a magneto never lone an engine!
Those that are still flying these old buckets me takes me hat off too yas!:ok:

Wmk2

If you have VG kits fitted, have a look at the maximum temperature on the performance chart and let us know if you can operate above 35C

I can see why the guys in the warmer climates don't like the performance of the PA31s. (Although I've still not seen less than about 44" MP out of the engines?)
Last night out of EN with 30 degrees outside, we were 200kg under MAUW and I was starting to wonder if the thing was ever going to climb. :eek:
One one engine it would have been a rapid descent!

Remembering my first flight with a new employer in a PA31......full load, supervising pilot in RHS, 35-odd celcius........just after gear up, RH eng dropped to about 30"MAP......managed a low-level circuit at Vyse making all of 50 fpm:eek:

FCU shagged. Operator knew about it too........:mad:

lucky your here to tell us about it!!! :eek:

The PA31 - 310 was a far better performer than the - 350 Chieftain. Lost a FCU one night with 8 pob and was able to climb out and return without too many dramas. Temp = 15 or less. Would have been a different story in the tropics!

They just give the old buggers a swim up here :}

http://images.theage.com.au/2009/02/...hing-420x0.jpg

i see thats had the amphib mod :O

A young pilot once said to me, "the best planes ever built were the DC3 and the Tiger Moth. They made thousands of em".

I replied, "Why are there so few left then"?

The Pa31-350 is a great machine, just the same.

Very soon CC will enter the debate and tell you guys that these old twins will fly just fine, climb away no worries and perform quite well on one.
Done it all before in NG.

He will say that if you have proper maintenance / good training and checking you will be able to get back on the ground safely in one piece!

If you reckon the aircraft is not maintained properly just make a MR entry and tell the boss its a "no fly" till fixed.

And of course the regulator will agree.

In the world of GA that I know very few old twins fly fine on one!!
Yea, I know, I should stand my ground and tell the boss to go jump.

We have flogged this subject before.

megle2

Most twin piston training is done with pilot and instructor, and half tanks, and empty which still shows marginal performance at ISA. Go to the tropics, add some bodies, some more fuel, an old aircraft, and the P charts are tested.

CC is welcome to discuss this at his leisure.

Hey Guys,
Some interesting points and thanks for bringing up the incident. Will look into it and learn from it. I operate a PA31 in europe doing aerial survey work, luckily it does not get too hot here and most of the time we fly it quite low. The chief pilot took one to North Africa recently and she struggled abit out there. Came back full of sand!

Now this was a long time ago, and my memory probably isn't what it once was, but my recollection of this accident is that it wasn't an uncontrollable engine fire.

The dipstick hadn't been replaced correctly during the preflight and the pressure within the crankcase pumped oil out of the dipstick hole, catching fire on the hot manifold. The pilot thought he had an engine fire, and shut down the engine, but then couldn't maintain height/climb on one, and hit Radar Hill.

He took off on R27 and was returning to land on R16??

This may have been said in previous posts; I didn't read them all, and I may be wrong, but I feel almost certain this is the sequence of events.

Later today:

I've just read most of the posts, and I believe Centaurus has it correct; I was a little out, but essentially the oil came out of the dipstick housing, and presented the illusion of an engine fire.

I never flew Piper twins, but did the Cessna range of twins, and had one fail in a 404 at 500' after TO in the tropics, at AUW + about 20 Kgs. I know the book says 'climb straight ahead', but if I'd done that I'd have ended in the trees, so used what open space I had to complete a tear drop to return for landing. Over the threshold I had sufficient height to lower the gear + about 2 feet, and that was a near new aircraft.

Might I respectfully suggest that those of you who expected to see 46" or 42" or any other particular figure for MAP on a Chieftain or Navaho go back to the books and try to understand how the turbocharger system actually works in them.

"One of the significant factors mentioned in the accident report was that the aircraft had flown 3000 hours since new, and the wear and tear on the airframe alone would have degraded the rate of climb by about 100 feet per minute."

I'm intrigued by this sentence from the report. Of course an aircraft that has been taken apart, maybe as a result of major surgery after serious damage for example, and has been reassembled with the rigging out by a hair's breadth will suffer performance penalties. As will a machine which is dirty and generally uncared-for (hence the 'bug-wipers' on many high-performance competition gliders), or one which has had a forest of additional antennae and other equipment foisted on it, etc. But a reasonably well-cared for, clean, undamaged airframe? Would've thought that the loss of climb performance would come primarily as a result of pilot technique, lack of power and the whole host of ambient conditions? 3000 hours is practically new, after all. The degradation of climb performance attributed solely to the airframe hours is astounding. By that mantra a few of the hairy old thumpers that I've flown would have had a negative rate-of-climb on losing one, simply because they had accumulated 8000+ hours, irrespective of engine condition, technique, etc. Does anybody have more on this?

:( Lose an engine in a Cheiftain (or any other light piston twin) at MTOW AT the critical moment and you'd want to have a guardian angel sitting on your shoulder, because you would want to be VERY current with your assymetric procedures AND the aircraft would need to be in very good condition both engine and airframe wise to show a pos rate of climb under any conditions. Blue line and BOOK figures are just that.....figures produced by a test pilot in a new aircraft for certification purposes. Close it down and put it in "controlled", sure as hell, if it goes in uncontrolled you'll end up a grim statistic.

Of course being GA you will lose your job and the regulator looks the other way..