suitable environs for airfields
 

Bigger and more complex aircraft with more than one engine should require suitably trained pilots and suitable airfields with fire service, ATC, big enough runways, taxiways, and the type of runway ending that can bring an overrun safely to a halt.

Perhaps Essendon does not have enough surrounding space or facility to safely provide an advanced operation and so should restrict traffic to microlites.. and helicopters.

Mary, are you proposing that all of the hundreds of farms and cattle stations in Australia with strips to accommodate the flying doctor should have a fire service and ATC? Neither ATC or a fire service would have had any influence on this accident.

"Aero Developer" is a troll. His argument is simply that, if aviation infrastructure land commands cheaper revenue than commercial land, he is "losing money". This is not the same as making a loss. It is called a "Chinese loss" in that he can't make as much money as he would like.

The owners " business model" has nothing to do with "risk".

The model is

(1) Acquire the airport, complete with maintenance and operation of public infrastructure obligations.

(2) Lobby Government to minimise the public infrastructure obligations so that as much of the airport land as possible can be converted to higher value commercial/residential use.

(3) Profit.

P.S. I suggest posters be very careful about what they write about ownership of YMEN lest they end up in court.

What "The name is Porter" said in #360.

I stand corrected, DF, on my statement that there were no buildings in that area before the DFO. However, I make 2 points:

1. If you compare the footprint of the DFO and its carparks with the footprint of the buildings in the photo at #362, the DFO and the carparks have a much bigger footprint - almost the entirety of the space is taken up by either buildings or carparks.

2. At its peak activity times, the DFO and carparks will have many (many) more punters in it than those pre-exiting buildings.

I notice that the ATSB have classified this accident as a "collision with terrain".

Huh?

With every new action by the ATSB I find myself wondering, more and more, whether they know what they're doing. If this was a "collision with terrain" (CWT), then every other aircraft crash would also be!

Ran out of fuel, entered a descent and met the earth? CWT.
Lost control and met the earth? CWT.
Collided with another aircraft, lost a wing, fell and met the earth? CWT.
Stalled on final approach and met the earth? CWT.
Landed with undercarriage retracted? CWT "

Recall reading last yr, same dept deemed running out of fuel, was an "engine malfunction"
...go figure. This was over the jabiru investigations.

You should read post #364, 5179.

Once you wok out the orientation of the car with the dash cam footage there are a couple of observations to be made. The gear appears to be up and the wings are level. That would seem to support that the pilot had handled the initial engine failure, otherwise the aircraft by that stage of the flight would be in a much steeper angle of bank. It also negates the idea that giving a mayday call distracted him from completing the drills.

The impact with the building also suggests a wings level attitude so why wasn't it capable of climbing? There has been speculation that the photo of the left prop indicates that it was feathered but has anyone got a photo of the starboard prop? If it was developing power it should look like a peeled banana skin and the ground should have lots of prop strike marks. Is that photo that has been posted earlier confirmed as the left prop or is that speculation because there is not much damage?

Just a question for King Air pilots, do they have starter generators or separate generators? The reason I ask is because of this accident.

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...aair200600563/

Lookleft, they've got starter-generators.

P.S there's been discussion that in the video the gear appears down, especially when some higher-res video was published. Conjecture though as to whether it was down the whole time or lowered as it got near to the shops.

Remember way back when the Mallard prang in Perth happened?

I wonder how long it will take for the B200 prang at YMEN to be overtaken by the next tragedy and media/PPRuNe circus.

Yep.

Put vid in full screen, just before aircraft goes out of site stop vid, do a screen capture. select the aircraft, then resize to 500%

What you see might change your mind. Gear looks down and aircraft looks to be in a left bank of 20 - 30 degrees.

It may be just pixelation as the image sharpens but looking at the last few seconds as it approaches the building, it appears the left engine may still be windmilling.

Property Developers have carte blance when they lease this Commonwealth land.
Avalon, Essendon, Moorabbin are all been seen as future housing developments, not long term airports. Ask Fox what his long term plans are.

To suggest that lessors are forced to develop the land within airports, or else they would lose money, is fantasy. Who enters into a 99 year lease knowing they will lose money from day one? The land that Costco sits on at Moorabbin is valued at 40 million.
How many C172s doing circuits does it take to raise 40 mil? My point is that land development is the prime reason for leasing this land, not support for the aviation industry.

Airports are prime brownfield developments. Water, sewer, gas, power, drainage, flat land all sitting there, when they eventually buy this land, they pay only greenfield rates, double your money overnight. Laverton is a prime example.

When Tooraddin is announced, Moorabbin will close. The money from this sale should be used to relocate Moorabbin to Bangholme where there is ample land available. Fox will hold onto Avalon lease for the initial 50 years then buy the land not opt for the additional 49 year lease. Most of us will be dead by then so my theory is safe.

Regional Victoria is no better off really.

You're probably right, but this is just dopey. Flat out dopey.

Why not simply title it, "Accident Under Investigation" until ready to finally classify it?

FGD it has to be classified to go into their database and the database drives the classifications.

Thanks for the picture Birdman it does appear to show the gear is down but I still don't see that it was at a large AofB. In your picture draw a line between the main gear wheels. If the pilot had lost control then the AofB would have been very high and the picture would have shown more plan form of the wing than it does. What the picture can't answer is why was there not sufficient power from the operating engine to keep it airborne?

I'm posting this link again https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ilYVNRO0reQ
as the first 15 seconds are very valuable, I think.

0:04 Aircraft makes its first appearance from the top of a distant sign.
It seems to me to be climbing and moves towards the LEFT of frame for 2 seconds.
And looks to be on runway heading.

0:06 Aircraft begins moving to RIGHT of frame
0:07 We seem to be viewing left side of the aircraft. Tail is clearly on the left.
and this continues.
It seems to be in a very flat, skidding left turn up to impact.
Wings seem to be fairly level throughout.

Posters have mentioned Rudder boost and auto feather.
Does the video indicate that no attempt was made to stay straight (or was unsuccessful)
or that it was a deliberate attempt to try return to a safer area?

I think the valuable input will be from the pilots who saw, with their own eyes, what happened. Hopefully those pilots will speak to, and only to, ATSB.

I'm jiggered if I can see the nuances that you are in that video.

I see the same thing 0ttol ... i was watching today over and over but couldn't quite pin point it. But that's the best way I could describe it. I grew up in the area, and drove those exacts roads hundreds if not thousands of times. It definitely looks like he was on runway heading in the first few frames because I can clearly remember having seen aircraft on climbout from runway 17 and the way they were pointed in relation to Bulla Rd. It seems after the first few frames, the skid is very violent and flat to the left.

Fortunately we have media experts who have already determined the cause of the problem: It's a lack of training to deal with a feathering failure. According to The Age.

Earlier in the week I saw Geoffrey Thomas talking to i think Channel 9. He claimed the King Air is an aircraft designed to remain airborne even after the engines have failed. I'd like to see that.

Would overspending prop give slight yaw to right ( left eng ) then failure of feathering system cause the drag to the left ?

I don't like GT either but I think you are playing with semantics there VH-CU. You and I both know what he meant.

Google "Occam's Razor". It is a simple principle that the simplest, most likely explanation for anything is usually correct. I think the posts here have been very imaginative in dreaming up complex coincidences that may have contributed to the accident.

Who knows, one of these amazing confluences of events may in fact prove to be correct. However....

Like others watching that video I am seeing an aircraft yawing around to the left. There is a simple explanation available for that.

I find the hysterical reaction to legitimate questions (How dare you question the skills of the pilot?!? He was my mate and is without fault!) quite worrying on a board of supposedly professional technical equipment operators. If you aren't looking at this incident, and every other incident, and questioning how YOU could fall into that trap then you should be.

After the Airtex Mojave a number of pilots who knew the accident pilot sought to blame anyone but the accident pilot, refusing to examine his role in the events.

After Norfolk Island the pilot was elevated to saint-like status by some, despite actions and decisions that contributed to the accident.

I love Human Factors training and I have participated in and delivered a great deal of it - HOWEVER human factors is, like Stall recovery practice, an exercise in highlighting the danger and learning to identify the symptoms to TAKE CORRECTIVE ACTION. Human Factors does not provide you with a bag of excuses for poor performance or f*ckups.

Stop being a bunch of emotionally reactive schoolgirls and act like professional, technical, analytical pilots.

I am speechless... The tinfoil hat wearers are out in force... After getting 19 minutes through this I couldn't watch any more. There are some muppets who should not be accorded the privilege of free speech!

:ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh::ugh:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QvU6fRAcQyY

I feel the need for a good shower and a scrub after watching crap like that. What is truly scary is the number of followers the muppet attracts.

Toruck, theoretically yes what you said could happen but really what do you think the chances of that are, seriously? Firstly the primary governor would have to fail, the over speed governor would have to fail, then the fuel topping governor would have to fail. Then finally in your scenario, the ability to feather would have to fail.

As Horatio said, Occams Razor.

I hope the investigation on this accident gets published in a better time frame than other investigations have been getting published. I'm sure there are many people who are interested to find out what occurred.

If Justice delayed is justice denied, Safety delayed is....what?

...reckless endangerment of the general public perhaps?

Jeez.
A guy offers an alternative point of view in a reasonably restrained way and he gets abused and called an arseclown.
Reminds me of an ALPA bloke who had a go in a staff meeting many years ago at AirNZ.
"Remind me to never, ever share a flight deck with you pal" - I thought to myself.
"You're not just an angry man - with an attitude like that - you're actually an absolute danger to other people".
I discovered that the said A320 Captain had climbed on take-off from AKL for a considerable period with the wheels down, and had only reluctantly retracted the gear when the FA stuck her head through the door and said, "Captain K****n - the undercarriage...!"
FO was too **** scared to say anything.
And that's a story that was relayed to me by another very experienced NZ captain; well known in gliding circles in NZ.
Really angry people have no place in this industry... certainly nowhere near a yoke or control column.

Essendon ? similar incident of a B200 in 2014 « Assistance to the Aviation Industry


Similar incident overseas in 2014. The interesting part in that report was the amount of rudder in degrees of slip/skid and the direction it was assumed the pilot applied during the few seconds of flight.

Captain chemtrails in full force.

MickG0105,

Regarding Advance Airlines Crash in VH-AAV

You got me! He did everything copybook, and exactly on schedule!

How then do you explain the flat skidding descending turn as observed by ATC, the wake in the water, as observed by ATC, the evidence given by ATC that it looked (through binoculars) like flaps were not retracted till the a/c was very low, the initial confusion of ATSB by the left engine suffering damage consistent with it operating at idle at impact

And finally the well documented evidence of P&W, and Beechcraft, that if the PIC had done any ONE of the following, 1 applied power up, 2 flap up, 3 feathered the dead eng, or 4 centered the skid ball and flown wings level, the a/c would have flown away successfully.
The final decision of the PIC to pull up and VMC diagonally across the rock wall and 34 t/hold was the single worst option available, at that precise time.

The IAS of flap retraction is conjecture, but is consistent with ATC observing the a/c sag into ground effect at flap retraction, something it certainly would not have done had the speed been at 121k.

The only conclusion as to why the left engine was operating at idle, although feathered at impact, was that the contaminated fuel had pumped itself clear by the engine windmilling for a considerable time, and the auto ignition then relit the engine. This was the conclusion reached by P&W after extensive bench testing.

I used this accident as a training guide as to what not to do. My instruction to my crew was to follow the drills, i.e.
Fly the a/c,
power up,
clean it up,
secure the dead eng,
maintain r/way hdg,
keep the skid ball centered, (in the unlikely that it's not performing, pick the best of what you have STRAIGHT IN FRONT of you),
when at a safe alt (500') maybe tell ATC.
VH-AAV PIC did none of that.

Put simply, I did not want one of my crew emulating this pilot in any way.

Please explain how any what I have said is defamatory to a deceased pilot. I believe it is using someone's mistakes as a learning experience, surely as professionals that is what we are required to do.

Cheers Gazumped

TM,

Possibly.

It would depend on what caused the overspeed in the first place, uncontrolled high fuel flow could cause a momentary OS along with increased Tq but the various fuel flow governors should catch up pretty quick and bring it in check. I would think the yaw would be very slight in this case.

To expand your thought line further, if say the bearings in the prop hub seized or were binding then Np (prop rpm) absorbing prop pitch increase with increasing power is denied, the result will be an overspeed until the OS governor trims fuel back. Under these conditions the remaining Tq could be quite low so yaw toward the dying engine would follow, but likely not to the extent of a completely dead and windmilling engine/prop.

If the OS results in an engine failure and subsequent complete Tq reduction then the seized/binding prop bearings will possibly not allow feathering to occur and windmilling will continue.

Unlikely this is what happened but it is another of the possible plethora of scenarios that may need to be considered.

suitable environs for airfields
 

Fuji, of course I didn't mean that every farm strip should have fire service, etc etc. I specified complex aircraft require more complex airfields, and any aircraft with more than one engine to my mind is COMPLEX. Especially if one engine goes tits up and you are not in practice.

For a farm strip for your country doctor, he is unlikely to be arriving in a fancy twin. For six wealthy golfers they can afford the luxury travel. Trouble is that any aircraft capable of carrying paying passengers, usually more than one engine is required. And the airfield in use should not be surrounded with highways, shopping centres, parking lots, and lots and lots of homes and schools and kindergartens.

I am a retired gliding instructor and tug pilot, with more than 3,000 hours. That means I have had a LOT of practice doing launch failures safely. I keep abrest of the news, and the British Gliding Association has just sent out to all UK glider pilots that if you have a winch launch failure, LAND AHEAD if it is safe to do so. Trouble with Essendon, and I admit I know absolutely nothing about unique Australian land development creep that blocks off any place that would qualify as a safe place to LAND AHEAD, is that the whole neighbourhood in the photos featured make it look like there is NOPLACE TO GO WHEN THE DONKEY STOPS. So the pilot makes the fatal turn.

Low and slow, with nowhere to go, has to be one the worst nightmares you can face!

Mary, you clearly don't know wat the Royal Flying Doctor consists of. It is not a single doctor in a Cessna 182. The RFDS operates across the country with a large fleet (currently 69) of complex aircraft. They operate into all types of airstrips from capital cities to dirt strips on farming properties. They are fitted out like MICA ambulances. Have a look here.
https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/abou...fds/our-fleet/

In Australia the likelihood of the Flying Doctor turning-up in a fancy twin is quite high:

• 2 x King Air B300 C;
• 32 x King Air B200 and B200 C

https://www.flyingdoctor.org.au/abou...fds/our-fleet/

It was initially thought (reported) that the aircraft was either a RFDS aircraft or Ambo (Ambulance) aircraft...

Essendon is used by the RFDS...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law...c00-1487964320

But development creep is real and a problem at most small airfields/airports.

Fujii beat me to it...

Thanks Heady. When I worked in Alice Springs tower I was able to do a couple of trips with the RFDS. Once when they still had PA31s and again in a Kingair. The GAFA is a big place.

The DH Dove accident that occurred at Essendon many years back was a classic case. Highly experienced former airline captain. Took off on Runway 17, starboard engine failure just after lift-off, unable to get gear up, rapidly approaching Vmca, aimed to force land on one of the several road ahead in same direction as take off flight path. The pilot closed the throttle on the live engine to prevent loss of directional control and crashed wings level on roof of house which dissipated energy, same with roof of next house and finished in a heap. No fire and few injuries to passengers and pilot or on the ground. If I recall correctly the key to survival was the pilots actions in closing the live engine throttle to ensure wings level impact.

I wonder how long before Badgery Creek becomes a large built up area!

We may have just witnessed an almost identical set of circumstances in this crash - the only difference being which engine had failed.

Watching, over and over, that video linked to by OttoL does indeed suggest the aircraft was on runway heading but then skidded violently to the left. If this was indeed the case then it suggests the pilot may have reduced the power on the starboard engine so as to regain control.

The few seconds before disappearing from view certainly suggest very strongly that control had been regained. The act of extending the undercarriage (clearly visible in the video) also strongly suggests that the pilot's actions were oriented towards making the ground contact as survivable as possible.

I am wondering if the propeller refused to feather.

Question for the B200 experts regarding the valve that opens to allow oil pressure to leave the hub, thus causing the prop to feather: does the autofeather (via the solenoid) operate the same valve as the manual control (via the prop lever)?

Horatio Leafblower.

Quite so, many elephant stamps to you too.

FGD,

Pulling the prop lever back to feather will raise the governor pilot valve mechanically, dumping pressure from the prop cylinder.

The auto feather solenoid dump valve is on the overspeed governor and dumps control oil.

Therefore, separate.