RAAF Crash East Sale
 

Not much info yet.... what did we lose a PC9 ??

Just did a google search and found an article about a PC9 crash around 1515hrs local. Appears pilot(s?) ejected safely.

the other day there were a few PC9's at Wagga doing low level work

RAAF PC-9s grounded after crash | Australian Aviation Magazine

The Australian way... crash a plane, then GROUND all similar types :ok:

At Avalon Airshow the Roulette team aircraft did not all have the big R on the tail. Three were from 2FTS Pearce. I was told that it was because all the higher engine time PC9's had been grounded because of an earlier engine incident.

Now there appears to be another incident..........

I remember a CT4 having an engine failure and subsequent forced landing in a friend's paddock off Dunnings Rd just north of Pt Cook; back in the 80's if I recall correctly. No big deal then, no damage during landing as far as I know but a hell of a theatrical performance on behalf of RAAF personnel; armed guards around the aircraft for some time, a huge fuss with the property owner being told to effoff despite property damage and expensive animals nearby; bigger than Ben Hur I remember him saying, I don't recall him being to impressed.

Short video clips just now on ABC of military personnel wearing respirator gear while other individuals in civvies breathing al la naturale.

Is the engine a PT6 in the PC9 ?

It makes no difference re total time of aircraft. Engines/props are on a different overhaul schedule. Hours and cycles on the engine not the airframe dictate its condition. A 10,000 hours airframe can have a "0" time since overhaul engine for example.

Oh boy I could have a field day with this one.:E:E

On a side note I guess 'punching out' isn't optional when the ONLY fan goes quiet. I wonder if that decision ( to punch out) can be assessed at the time if the commander decides a controlled crash is an option, anyone know?



Wmk2

From memory SOP's are to punch regardless, but I do wonder if there is a minimum. There is mention in this link of ejection at "only 300ft" which makes me wonder what the minimum is.

This is an interesting link:

http://www.ejection-history.org.uk/A...c_9_losses.htm

If the prop doesn't/isn't feathered the thing sinks like a collins class (couldn't resist). Do you waste time deciding if you might make it ( and maybe get that decision wrong)or do you take a well rehearsed option.
I heard someone recalling a story of a RAF pilot I believe, who ejected.
The journo asked him just after the incident when did you make the decision to eject in this scenario?
The pilot replied 10 years ago.
The PC 9 is getting on, who cares if you chuck one away if it fails the makers warranty as long as the crew get out safely.

'OZ' I understand where ya comin' from re who cares about the airframe. I was more thinking about the risks associated with punching out. Am sure it ain't a walk in the park going along for a ride in one of those fast movin' seats!Am sure there has been many an injury created from leavin' da plane like that in a hurry:)
Anyway their safe that's the main thing.

Wmk2

As long as ejection is initated within the performance parameters of the particular seat installed, and correct seating posture is adopted the risks of injury should be minimal. Where you land is another matter! As a matter of procedure, all ejectees are immediately raced of to medical to get an X-ray.

and don't forget that once they abandon ship, its an out of control missile. How much consideration is given to people on the ground?

Lucky it wasn't a PC-12, where punching out isn't an option!:eek:

Oh I see Wally has already broached that topic!;)

Hi Wal
My comments are just my own thoughts on the matter and not directed at any one (in this case!).
There is a ADF media release from today that now says the boys had departed, had an engine failure, turned back from some distance, tried to restart but it wouldn't and they were not in gliding distance so selected the Martin Baker let down option.
The PC 9 really isn't a good aircraft to try to force land on a paddock, particularly when you have another option. Bang seats have got better over the years and offer a much better option than a relatively high speed landing with narrowish tires and fuel tanks very close to the leading edge.
As for deciding where to leave vs whats on the ground all depends on the time/control you have over the situation. I imagine for those who have done it they tried to control the outcome as much as possible and its the first thing you would think of once you are on the ground.
I had my own policy regarding it but it may have varied in the real case!!!
As for the PT6, the PC9 ones get flogged but I do have awe for anyone who flies one without a bang seat!

Punching out in the event of an engine failure is SOP. part of that procedure, is to ensure the aircraft will cause minimal damage on the ground after you leave it. in otehrword, exercise good airmanship and make sure your aircraft is pointed somewhere safe when you pull the handle

Out of interest, I believe that all the PC-9 frames get rotated through 2FTS and the Roulettes ... to average out the usage.

Hey Wally,

Just a few hours later I launched from YSGE to YRED......and it was dark! :uhoh:

And no ejection options:eek:

Are the PC9s ejection system similar to the CT4Bs in that does one have to manually jump out of the aircraft?

Do the RAAF PC9s have zero-zero seats? or would that be too new and expensive (by RAAF standards)

Jieunni, the PC9 has a light weight Martin baker ejection seat, in the CT4 you can open the canopy and jump out.
As for the PC12, it is designed to be crash worthy were as the PC9 was designed with the intention to eject rather than force land. Once the decision to eject is made, if you have any control over the aircrafts flight path the impact point of the aircraft is always a consideration. Common sense and good airmanship really.
The other major advantage of a bang seat is it works after a mid air as the roulettes have proved. The risk of a mid air was always a major concern in congested training airspace.
Finally they may look a bit Nancy to you using respirators at the crash site but the RAAF is justifiably gun shy on OH&S. They broke a lot of people working on F111s without proper PPE. If people aren't cautious were you work that doesn't make it right.

Crash footage on ABC looks... survivable... just. Pretty good for uncontrolled!

Wal, guaranteed 15G ejection or a worst possible 15G crash...

0-60 seats in the PC-9, ie ground level with at least 60 kt.

Here I was thinking that the solo Roulette routine over Albert Park a few weeks ago down to around 300 ft looked pretty cool..... I now realise how badly it could have gone wrong!

For the record, far more entertaining than the full Roulette formation, including stall turns.

Hmmmm... I'm not sure if I agree about the survivability of this one!

Photos from 7 News.

Interesting the ejection pole things sticking up for the purposes of punching out the canopy, with the canopy frame still present.

Can barely even tell which part is the engine!


http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-1.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-2.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-3.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-4.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-5.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-6.JPG

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bc_j400/pc9-7.JPG

those 'ejection poles' that you mentioned are not there to break the canopy. The top of seat itself has two canopy breakers that makes the hole for the rest of the seat to follow (it's only perspex that the seat/occupant goes through).

The canopy stays on the aircraft and the top of the seat makes the hole for everything else to follow.

On hawks or other aircraft, the canopy itself has explosive chord in it to make the hole which is part of the ejection sequence when pulling the handle.

Just to clarify havicks post, the poles are rails upon which the seat rides up till clear of the airframe.

I was going to ask that but had made that assumption.

The "poles" are actually the ejection "gun" the rails are part of the aircraft structure, the "gun" has progressive cartridges as it estends so the acceleration of the seat is positive but moderated to protect the spine of the pilot as much as possible.

Ahhhh....got to love the media. Channel 7 news update!
"Two pilots miraculously walked away when their Roulette crash landed...":ugh:

looks like this thing has landed in straight and level trim in a pretty clear looking paddock and got taken out by the fence. Maybe if they put the gear down before banging out it would be in one piece. Does the RAAF still have a gliding club? Shheeesh what a waste.
FH

Anything but, I would say!

There is supposed to be an engine on the front there somewhere but it's twisted off to the right.

It would be interesting to know the speed of impact.

The rear occupant would have walked away :} I didn't see those picies.

Still for a glider which would no doubt have stability issues after the canopy popped, without the gear and flaps oh, and NO PILOT its a pretty tidy mess! Not far off the van that over/undershot Beagle bay (which was a walk away). I know it goes against SOP but would have been interesting to see the result had they had gear, flaps structurally sound and a pilot.

Have a good look at it. The overhead shot from the rear show the wings main damage caused by the fence posts. no tip damage no twists. They are still attached to the airframe, just ripped open by the fence posts. The rear empanage is straight not twisted to one side so no sudden stop, very little 'canning' or bent up or down so no heavy bounce. All the main damage is caused by the engine tucking under and the airframe going over the top of it. So if it was up on it's wheels and someone driving good chance there would be bugger all damage. This landed it did not "crash" all the main damage seems to be caused during the slide not the initial impact.

Seems we have plenty of armchair "experts" here....

Fencehopper, you seem to be suggesting the guys did the wrong thing by punching out. The aircraft is fitted with an ejection seat for this very reason so why not use it.

Hats off the to guys for making the correct call and departing from an aircraft which had given up it's right to exist.

http://members.iinet.net.au/%7Ebc_j400/pc9-6.JPG

I reckon that will buff right out! :E

Dr :8

Who goes first?

Being a tandem, I would guess that the rear pilot goes first so as not to throw debris on the other guy if it was the other way round - with the front pilot going first...?

Or is the sequence managed by the ejection system - that if one person punches out, both are ejected???