Nothing mystical about it at all. I just remember that when a friend died at an Aboriginal community a few years ago they honoured him by "singing" him out of the community while his employer couldn't be bothered to take the time to go there to see the crash site.

So mr Josh Cox .... how does your comment be justified if you are on a mission, and normally fully loaded to max limit, as they are normally are!

They are not on Joy Flights up there, so have you been fully loaded to max, and had to go OEI???

Just a thought.

Condolences to JS - a great shame :(

^^ justified comment

on his way home as sole occupant. He was only speaking of this flight not others.

Rip js and sorry to all close friends and family, he was a terrific bloke.

Pilot of aircraft departed immediatly after is a good mate and said he spoke to him right before take off. Fatigue and experience in area not a factor. Awaiting Atsb repot as should the rest.

R

KP, I suggest you read the thread again. :rolleyes:

The previous poster's comments, who you have ridiculed, were in relation to the specifics of the crash, not some generic comment about engine failures in light twins. :=

There was only the pilot on board the aircraft, in addition, on a flight to Bathurst Island the aircraft would not have required much fuel, even if a TEMPO was required. In fact, if he had taken five passengers there, and presumably baggage, you could not have much fuel otherwise you would be over MTOW. :uhoh:

A few of us have been discussing it via PM.

Judging from the position of the crash site, it is probably not an engine failure and subsequent loss of control, as the impact point is pretty much on the runway centerline.

Somotographic illusion may be a contributing factor however, witnesses reported 'flames'.

Whatever happened to the poor bugger was catastrophic, and I'm sure he gave it his best shot to get home.

If you look at the sequence of events, it almost looks as if was most surely operating to a 'higher' plan. It was a crosshired charter to another company. The aeroplane was a crosshire. The Pilot who was crosshired, was flying the companies aeroplane who was crosshiring him.

Had the aeroplane had it's SIDS program completed? How long ago was it done? Who did it? Was it done in house?

GG

KP,

What Plovett said.

Urghh ?, do you mean a Charter ?.

:rolleyes:

Im sorry Kulwin Park but what is the climb performance in your fully loaded ME aircraft engaged in IFR Charter?

Im only asking as I assume you have figured it out.

And I also assume as PIC you have taken into accountCAO 20.7.4 para 8.1
If not here is a little piece... "Multi-engined aeroplanes engaged in charter operations under the Instrument Flight Rules or aerial work operations under the Instrument Flight Rules must have the ability to climb with a critical engine inoperative at a gradient of 1% at all heights up to 5 000 feet in the standard atmosphere"

As no weight is specified it means at any weight the minimun is 1% and please take note of the word MUST. If it cant do it, its not legal. Enough said.

RIP JS. May you now fly higher than any of us could dream to. :ok:

Just because it says so, does not mean it can. It is like Rex saying cadet Pilots are as good as direct entry Pilots. They can spin it all they like, word from the line drivers and check Captains suggest otherwise.

I take it from your moniker that you're one of them hey! (statement, not a question) A healthy respect for what an aeroplane can do and 'should' do in certain situations is paramount in your early flying career.

Good luck with it!

GG you would assume wrongly I'm afraid when it regards my moniker, it has saved my ass (and others im sure) more times than I'd care to remember.. And let me give you some advice with reference to.. Delete the word early ;)

The Three sisters to this A/C (TBE,TBG,DVN) are all C310R and all perform differently, ranging from rotate speed to leave the runway to climb speed on two engines and CHT's at/below redline. One will fly 10kts faster than another in the cruise. On a medium sector (eg;YMgd-Ypdn) one will arrive 5-8mins quicker. cruise climb one will climb at 500fpm the other will just manage 300-350fpm. So even though they are the same aircraft and proabaly built within a few months/year of each other they aren't the same.
Not sure if you are aware, there is another aircraft in the area of the crash from a few years ago. (Maybe 2007?) A Beech Bonanza going to the TIWI Is footy grand Final and crashed on approach just to the north of the runway.

bythenumbers

If you are implying it is illegal to fly a piston twin in charter under the IFR fully loaded in conditions that are hotter than the standard atmosphere then you are most definitely wrong. CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 only states that the aircraft must be capable of achieving the quoted OEI performance at MTOW in the “standard atmosphere”. There is no legal requirement for it to be able to achieve those OEI climb performance figures in conditions that are hotter than ISA and it most certainly doesn’t imply that it is illegal to fly one when it is hotter than ISA. As long as the aircraft can achieve the required normal performance figures in the POH then it is legal to fly, period. Any interpretation outside this is wrong.

I despair at the level of thinking of some of you young blokes. (here anyway)

What engine failure? The aircraft hit the ground right on extended centreline.

Two previous posters have given good mail. Attitude, on the take-off primary concern is going straight and going up!

I too knew the pilot of the 310 at Longreach, airborne he thought it imperative to turn the landing lights off. Right hand reaching over his body to find them on the left panel, looking down of course.

Truth be told he probably hit the gangbar for the mags.

GG, this has occurred to myself and others that I have talked to.
Without me speculating as to what actually caused this crash, it is indeed possible that the "flames" that have been reported were from the impact. As the site looks like it is on top of some rising terrain, to an observer on the ground the aircraft may have looked like it was still 'in the air'.

I was somewhat hesitant to post that possibility due to the feeling that I would receive the inevitable "you don't know" type comments, however as it has been mentioned previously without seemingly angering anyone, I thought I would.


Of course it is also possible that something else completely different happened. We will have to wait and see, but in the mean time civilised conversation about the accident and what could be contributing factors should be seen as ok and a chance to perhaps understand and learn more.


Thoughts go out to the young fella's family and friends. I'm sure he was chasing the same dream that we all have.
Havn't been in the Darwin scene myself, but from everything I've heard about the place I'm sure the rest of the crew up there will have had a few beers for Jamie. It's sh!t to lose mates flying.

Titan: What I am implying is that whatever the conditions are... If crunching the numbers gives a Density Altitude 5000' or lower and the aircraft can't make 1% Climb at a given TOW then YES, it is illegal.

Its not the PIC's fault if the aircraft cant make it, but the PIC has the responsability to know what the aircraft will and wont do and decide if he/she should proceed.

You only need to look to our short history in aviation to see how pilots both GA and airline get hung out to dry if they break rules, limitations etc.. and live to tell the tale.

I didn't know is not an excuse in court.

bythenumbers

You have forgotten to mention that to achieve the required OEI climb performance mentioned in CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1, then a number of performance criteria must be met. They being:

• Propeller of inoperative engine stopped, i.e. feathered.
• Undercarriage (if retractable) and flaps retracted.
• Remaining engine(s) operating at maximum continuous power.
• Airspeed not less than 1.2 VS.

I am sure you would also be aware that by the time all the above conditions are met plus achieving Vyse (blue line at MTOW) or the decision point if one is used, i.e. from a long runway, the aircraft will be at least 2-300ft. Until then there is absolutely no requirement to achieve a 1% climb gradient. After all the title of CAO 20.7.4 para 8.1 “EN-ROUTE CLIMB PERFORMANCE” implies in itself that the aircraft must be clean.

Having said all that it would appear to me though that other things were at play that may have cause this accident.

Speed of light vs speed of sound
 

"Without me speculating as to what actually caused this crash, it is indeed possible that the "flames" that have been reported were from the impact. As the site looks like it is on top of some rising terrain, to an observer on the ground the aircraft may have looked like it was still 'in the air'."

Agreed.

Again, without speculating as to the cause of the accident (we shall leave this in the professional hands of the ATSB) but if you were looking up at the crash which was some distance away, you would expect to see an explosion, then shortly afterwards you will hear the engines stop, even though this may of happened at the same instance. As light travels faster than sound.

For the untrained (and petrified) observer, I could see how they could of mistakenly said there was an explosion before the engines stopped.

Titan: You are correct with regards to the grey area from rotation till the aircraft is in the specified configuration. A point that most will never experience an engine failure (genuine) anyway. Bad spot to find out the Aux's are selected though.

I was not specifically commenting on this accident rather replying to kulwins generalised comment that a twin at MTOW wont perform.

So many young guys and gals flog around in twins these days with not the slightest respect for the regs which are put there to protect them. :ugh:

Just to be clear: This comment is not directed at the current thread topic or pilot involved.

i don't think it's rising terrain there. i suspect it's actually slightly downhill to the crash site.

if it's uphill or downhill it's within a metre or two.

For what it's worth, I've had two AI failures in the past month in different aircraft, one VMC, one IMC.

VMC, easy to detect. IMC, a few moments of 'this feels f'ing wrong' before I picked it up. Autopilot off and recovered on Standby AI from about 20 AoB and 5 degrees nose down. No biggie at altitude.

Having an AI let go on rotation on a cloudy night with a black hole in front of you: That is a biggie.

Perhaps this pilot was trained well and new all about OEI performance requirements and the somatographic illusion. Perhaps, like me, he knew about AI failures. Perhaps, unlike me, he didn't have enough sky below...

:(

By the Numbers

By your posting I am positive you are a multi engine instructor - who has never done anything but.

Yes a Seneca or Duchess will climb perfectly well, with a couple of POB in most situations around Australia. Where we operate piston charter twins most of the time, they certainly won't.

The key - is to expect the aeroplane not to perform and plan accordingly, then be surprised when it does. It certainly is not a happy day when you are expecting performance, and it does not (a friend of mine was taken recently because of this). Chimbu Chuckles once said something quite profound. He never expects an engine to perform for the duration of a flight, and is pleasantly surprised when it does. I think you should adopt the same attitude, and plan accordingly, then accept the reality of your piston twin performance.

The 1% climb gradient to 5000 feet needs to be also explained (slowly just for you). If you are grounding 100 knots, that is only a 100 ftpm ROC. Now you could be achieving this, and losing this PLUS MORE, in thermal turbulence and down-droughts. 100 fpm ROC is not something that is going to give you much love. In simple terms it will take you 10 mins to climb 1000 feet. This will also put you 16 miles or so from where you started. Unless you are taking off from a flat island in the middle of the ocean, once you are outside the protection of the circling area you will surely be below the 10/25nm MSA and en-route LSALT.

If you want guaranteed performance, fly something certified to achieve it (under 20.7.1b). Even then, sometimes due to the nature of the beast - you can not necessarily rely on it.

Let's also get this straight, the 1% climb gradient is only required in ISA (along with the other performance requirements) conditions. They are certainly not required to achieve this performance in ISA+ under their certification. As the operating Pilot, you are also not required to ensure they can. You are just required to understand the limitations. If you want to maintain these margins, you will never be able to operate piston twins with more than a couple of POB in ISA+ conditions.

Before you start crapping on about how they should be banned if this is the case, why do you happily fly in singles? A piston twin is basically a single engine aeroplane with the engine divided by two and bolted to the wings. Treat is as such, and you will not have a problem.

As for the accident, this does not appear to be the cause of it, so lets put this one to bed.

Next.

Goblin. Judging by your post count its clear that you are likely be the m/e instructor with more time to troll pprune than actually get out and fly. However I am not going to judge you on your pprune merit as that would be foolish indeed. You clearly have not read any of my posts with much attention as at no time did I say 1% would keep you out of the trees.

Now run along back into the woods where you can from and stop scaring the children.

Sounds to me like you are trying to imply that it is legislated that is should climb, therefore it should.

I think you will find, that in ISA (below a 5000 pressure height), the charts will always suggest a positive rate of climb at max weight. After all, that is the certification requirement.

You are there to protect you and your passengers. Once it all goes pear shaped - you can act in any means necessary to save your aeroplane and passengers. The only thing the regs will be good for at this point, is being thrown overboard to save a bit of weight!

You're starting to clutch at straws mate, and by the PMs I have received, many others feel the same.

As for my history, I don't even need to justify it. Most on here know.

Green Goblin said.

As to far above, Yes I meant Charter instead of Mission. Also I will apologise, as I did find an article later on a news site browsing through that the pilot had dropped off passengers, and was flying away empty. I made an implication that the pilot could have been on a fully fuelled and loaded charter, being max weight. This does happen all over Australia, so my comment was meant to be general, not specific to this incident we talk about here.

The old police 310's up north used to be an example of fully fuelled, max POB, and fly off into distance, all very well trained and cultured to conditions and environment, but if something had gone wrong, then similar situation may have arisen to accident. It's not different to anywhere else in the world, accidents happen unexplained, until investigated to cause by local officials.

I was just implying initially (or thinking in my head really) that we are trying to get away with more, still using older aircraft, pushed to their max limits their whole life. In the above case, maybe it was nothing to do with age of aircraft, just something went wrong, with fireball reported on aircraft prior to it connecting with the ground.

CAO 20.7.4 states the weight limitations for a light aircraft in charter or airwork operations. Weight control is a responsibility of the Pilot in Command.

These are not certification requirements they are day to day based except for the enroute climb requirement which is ISA based. That is they must be calculated for the intended operation.

The Seminole (non-turbo), Seneca I and Travelair are examples of aircraft which do not meet the 1% to 5000 requirement and MTOW must be reduced for IFR charter and airwork in these aircraft. They were made to just make the FAA certification requirement of maintaining 5000ft in ISA.

The rule only makes reference to manufacturers data for take-off and landing distance calculations, and to factor them if there is no evidence that they have been. It also intends that the particular aircraft is to be considered, not type, not a fresh from factory aircraft etc... If you know that your aircraft can not comply with these rules you are operating it illegally.

The manufacturer provides basic data, it is up to the pilot to use the data apply factors and determine if the weight at take-off meets the legal requirements. How you approach this problem with what factors for a 40 year old piston up North is another debate.

Certainly looks like rising terrain... or is it down a hill and green towards a creek perhaps?


http://resources0.news.com.au/images...e-stephens.jpg

That's not a hill - it's a vegetation change from scrub to greener mangroves. Check it out on Google Earth.

I think so........Melville Is WAC shows no high ground, same for the YBTI Rwy 15 RNAV approach. Google Earth shows a creek.

Why did you bold the Take off performance (b)? (your bolding not mine) This is a requirement for ALL engines operating and doesnt corelate with your arguement at all. Only shows how little you understand of these requirements

The enroute requirement is for ISA in the clean configuration.

ISA is not normal in Australia's North.

This requirement of 1% is also a requirement for certification and is calculated by the manufacturer to comply with "including" degredation of performance from airframe and engine's for their workable lifetime.

And on that note please point me to the chart and performace calculations for "reducing" payload to ensure compliance with aircraft age and ISA changes to comply with 1%. My AFM seems to be missing this chapter...

We all know, as has been stated on this thread, that a MTOW light twin will struggle to maintain any climb under certain conditions. You should always fly with an escape route up your sleeve. This is why we make an emergency pre-takoff brief isn't it?

In this instance fuel exhaustion/starvation, a/h topple, or illusions on t/o seem a more likely cause for the accident. However that isn't as easy a target as the - OMG light twins are bad mkaaaay.

In any case i digress...

Poor bloke has lost his life doing the best he could with what he had at the time. The rest should await the atsb report...

condolensces once again to those close.

R

Geez, the posts on here are indication of some severe lack in operational (and legislative) knowledge.

The reg you are quoting 43inches is for both engines operating, and being able to comply with a SID climb gradient for instance.

Xcel, well said.

The bolding highlights climb performance requirements, i'm not arguing single or multi, though some twins may actually struggle to meet the 6% requirement high weight with gear down at TOSS at ISA +20 in low density conditions (tropics). The chieftain does not have a chart for this either and extrapolating from the take-off over a 50ft barrier the aircraft climbs between 4.5-5.5% from lift off to the barrier at max weight at high temps..

Where are the factors for grass, wet surface etc in a chieftain manual?

There are standard factors for these available but they are very general in nature.

You are proving your lack of understanding in that the 1% requirement is only required to be calculated in ISA. It does not need to be checked for each flight, that is the MTOW limited aircraft will have the same limit at any temperature/density.

What are you on about? The CAO is in regard to any aeroplane below 5700kg enganged in private, charter or airwork operations, excluding agricultural. It is the minimum performance the aircraft must have in order to conduct the operation and is not related to any procedure such as a SID etc. SIDs have a design gradient of 3.3% or higher and do not take into acount engine failure in any aircraft.

Here is subsections 7 & 8 for your benefit;

You're proving your lack of understanding by thinking xcel was implying that this is the case.

He was laughing at you, for implying that you had to ensure you meet the minimum 1% climb gradient below 5000 feet.

It's flat as a tack north of airfield. The photo is deceptive due to the colour changes of the vegetation. The dark green is mangrove trees on the edge of a creek then there is the lighter green of the scrub.

At this stage, in the absence of any more definitive information, it looks awfully like somatogravic illusion has trapped this fellow. It always crossed my mind as a possibility every time I taxied out at Tennant Creek at night. I can also remember a discussion about it on PPRuNe years ago and the recommendation then was attitude flying but the suggestion was an initial 5 degrees then after gear retraction go to just under 10.

Personally, I always transition to instruments on takeoff at night and have used that initial 5 then 8 degree attitude.

I remember as a newly rated NVFR PPL taking off on a black night. Something did not seem right at the time during early climb and I quickly went to instruments. I remember once in the cruise being a bit confused about what went on shortly after departure. My training had not covered the illusion, but had covered the importance of the AH.

It was only a year or so later that I read about the somatogravic illusion and the penny dropped.

For those interested, in my part of the world the illusion can happen during the day in white out conditions too...:8

-----------------------------
And maybe the mods could move single engine performance issues to another thread of its own? The discussion and errors in the discussion are likely not relevant here, but it's an important argument to have to thrash out the truth from the heresay and misunderstanding. May I also suggest the protagonists study the aircraft certification FARs... :uhoh:

Can happen in the most innocuous of conditions to very experienced aviators.

Test pilot was up in a Vampire on a beautiful day. Come time to land the sole weather impediment for a thousand miles was a single thunderstorm bearing down on the field. Lost sight of the landing enviroment on short, short final when flying into the rain shaft and overshot. Somatogravic raised its head and aircraft impacted some distance to the left of the runway. Survived but confined to a wheelchair.

anyone know if a funeral is planned for Darwin, pm if want to keep private.

not to pre judge the findings
 

I once had an AH fail on rotation and show a marked pitch up. Also no warning flag came up. Had it have been a dark night or IMC I would have probably flown it straight into the ground trusting the instruments. Luckily it was day VMC...

Keep the stories coming.
 

It is too early to judge these events, and hopefully not too much of a thread drift, but tales like Van Gough's above are fantastic reading for everybody. Please keep them coming. These things do happen and when people just get away with it, it does not make the crash comics and noone gets to learn.

This discussion raises awareness that might save a life of some young bloke or blokette one day. These short stories - like Van Gough's or Brian Abraham's - are more forceful than the "what went wrong" tales in the fancy toilet paper that turns up every two months.

For Jamie and all the aviators that are now eternally flying.

Glod Bless.

Rest In Peace.

YouTube - Angel's Wings by Marisa (with Lyrics)

Nice one servo, I think the guy's are missing the point above.

There's one departure I used to do into pitch black that was one of these somatogravic thingys. Every time I did that departure I'd sit on the end of the runway for a minute or two for last minute checks and run through how I was going to perform it.

Some of the fellas used to get the autopilot on as soon as possible after departure, I didn't trust myself to look away from the A/H (and the others) to flick any switch let alone the autopilot. No power reductions til everything was sorted.

Poor bugger