Since we've only got a few grainy photos to work off, why not wait for the accident report.





.

Min airspeed for a restart is 140KNOTS THATS ABSOLUTELY MIN AIRSPEED.
Not 108 knots as has been quoted

Please don't respond, Car RAMROD. We agree with what you said. Please don't encourage this individual.

What-ever the power plants and props were doing at the time of impact may very well not reflect what were the power parameters a few seconds before impact. The pilot may very well have rectified an issue to late to save the aircraft. So what we 'see' in those prop marks on the roof may be a false indicator.

An accident investigation report will tell us more.





.

Yep their reply hasn't exactly got much to do with the question I asked. Also, we weren't even talking about restarts in relation to the accident!
I agree, no point in conversing with someone so oblivious but unfortunately there's others out there that read said dribble and I'm somewhat compelled to at least post the correct information- not necessarily in response per se.

I like everyone else wondered why this accident happened. I can clearly see why now with comments like this.

English is not a sign of how smart one is. I feel blessed to have poor English skills. What i loose on that i more than make up in my ability to be able to troubleshoot work out and repair from limited data. Clearly you are afraid of this. For all your eppressions i have given valid reasons for them.
So for all your good English what do you have ? God gave you two ears two eyes one mouth. Maybe you should look listen more look more and speak less.
What makes your argument more right over mine. Mine are from correct data and how it all works together in both flight and in principle and a clear and detaled understanding.

Lets look at engine restart in flight.
Min aspeed of n 140 knots, accident was 108 knos some 32 knots slower. Why is 140 knots important. That equals approximately 12% ng at 140 knots. Thats the min speed to indrouce fuel, with out having a metal contrail.
So say we take 30% off 12%. So now we have 8% ng. Oil px at 8% is going to be at best maybe 10 psi. Now this has to be transmitted to the prop gov. But its not being driven is it. Its powered by tne power section. Even if the prop hasnt stopped spining there is not enough oil flow from the pump to supply the gov to add px to over come the one the prop spring px and the prop counter weights. Take out prop internal leakage as well an what do you have.
Its going to be less than 8% ng. As speed increases so flow and ram px will be increased to a greater sum.

Smart people use all the information at hand and not discard what they dont wish to hear.

All of the contributions on the PT6 internals are making me think! That's a plus as long as I don't get it screwed up.

Connedrod,
If you can't be arsed to improve any other aspect of your English skills, you really ought to familiarise yourself with the meanings of the words "loose" and "lose". They are not interchangeable. You wrote "loose" although I strongly suspect you meant "lose", but who knows?
Furthermore, what on earth are "eppressions"? I am not being facetious. You have piqued my curiosity and I would really like to know.

But, in my opinion, it's a bloody good clue and when you can't spell where you're from, it's an even better one!
Further, if this isn't yrright, (what with the inflammatory, argumentative and aggressive style) I'll be REALLY surprised!

Heh, ...ah always thought that William Shakespeare chap were a bit stupid. Couldn't even spell his own last name. And, he even invented new words just because he weren't smart enuf to use proper English properly....;)





.

Connedrod, please tell us whether you are yr right or not?

No fibbing, please. Your personal credibility would be at stake.

(Your technical credibility is questionable already.)

Don't want to stick up for anyone here, but I see this as about 1/3 off 12 (about 4), which leaves 8. Not saying that the argument is valid, but I can see his/her logic.
And I reckon yr right about yr right resurrected

Has there been any more talk about this one of late?

I'm hearing again from the traps, fuel, fuel contamination and deep cleaning of the aircraft prior as possibilities.

I've havn't heard anymore about this event, but really havn't stopped thinking about it either from the perspective of an experienced kingair pilot. I keep coming back to the same scenario. A seemingly normal takeoff roll to VR then an overwhelming shock horror event so radical, I don't raise the gear, struggle to fly straight, brace myself for an impending crash and fire off a mayday call. Hard to imagine. A 100kg's of water in the belly bringing the cofg way beyond the aft limit at rotation would probably do it.

But that scenario doesn't explain the horizontal flight path and isn't supported by the vertical flightpath.

Did any witness report oscillations in the aircraft's pitch attitude?

One witness by sheer chance took a photo of the King Air during its take off roll and compared that photo with another KingAir departing on the same runway shortly before the accident. It was obvious the accident aircraft took a significantly longer roll before getting airborne. However this assumes both aircraft took off from the beginning of runway 17.

Do we have a "technical" eye witness that can make that judgement with respect to what was happening about the aircraft axis along that flight path between VR and impact. It was 9 seconds and he was transmitting mayday for at least 5 seconds of that, this tells me he knew he was about to crash.

Where did the 100kgs of water in the belly come from, Xeptu?

A valid question Charlie Ray and one that needs to be explored. Any vessel can take on water under the right set of conditions. A better question is how does it drain out. On the face of it we are presented with enough information that makes it likely to draw a conclusion as to what happened here, but there are elements of it that don't add up.

We appear to have a mindset where he believed for what ever reason I'm going to crash and there's not a thing I can do about it for at least 5 of those 9 seconds.

The key is to find what created that mindset.

I have been told that the aircraft went sideways during the takeoff roll & wiped out some runway lights before getting airborne.

DF.

Oh!!!!!!....... Ummm...... I see!!!!!!

Can anyone explain to me how 100kg of water in the fuselage could do that?
...what's the maximum fuel imbalance allowable between the wings? 2-300lb?

The idea that the fuse was full of water (100 lts of water ffs) and that it somehow magically caused the aeroplane to yaw sideways and crash into the DFO strikes me as beyond fanciful. :mad:

I didn't say it was, only that it would do it, if the CoG is way beyond the aft limit, then the aircraft will be unstable around all 3 axis, not just pitch. Water is particularly bad because it is fluid and constantly moving the CoG for and aft left to right in addition to induced aerodynamic changes. A computer simulation will show you.
In light of DF's preceding post, if correct concludes my "any further" investigative thoughts

I doubt the water scenario would be the case- flight path, speeds and altitudes in the plot don't seem to indicate that (to me anyway). One would expect a steeper climb, more rapid speed loss, then stall. Divergence like what is plotted from centreline as soon as it lifts off is not very likely to indicate a CofG issue, in my opinion.
It's been a while since I've had the guts out of a B200 but from memory water wouldn't exactly flow to the back so rapidly. If I moved a large passenger from the front to the baggage compartment during rotation it wouldn't result in this.

Horatio, maximum fuel imbalance in a B200 is 1000lbs. If it is fitted with wing lockers the imbalance is reduced, if memory serves me well it's by the capacity of the lockers which I think is about 300lbs- don't quote me though it's been a while.
Have flown them with 500lbs imbalance. Not a big deal.

Sideways during the takeoff roll DF? Interesting. Any idea as to how accurate that is by way of was it all three wheels on the ground or it was already rotating and its then started to go off the side whilst getting airborne?

I'm not going to go into the technicalities of operating the B200, but if the pilot had no stand out medical issues and the aircraft was serviceable, could this accident be as simple as a distraction in the cockpit or cabin at the wrong time ie: the pilot or passengers phone ringing or an incoming text message? Yes, I know that all phones should be switched off, but I know plenty of pilot's who have their phones on at all times and this is not just a GA issue.

It could have been caused by a European wasp loose in the cabin.

Pretty pointless speculating in the absence of more facts, is it not?

Or maybe snakes on a plane?

My mother used to say that its better to say nothing and look a fool, than open your mouth and prove it.

The bottom line is that something catastrophic happened that Max was unable to deal with in the available time. And I challenge anybody who thinks they would have done better.

After the ATSB releases its report, the report is challenged & debunked then the ATSB repeats the investigation and releases a second report, then we might know what happened - in about 3 years.

3 years would be nice. Still waiting on this one : https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2014-053/

Don't laugh Old Akro.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...rgency-landing

I doubt any pilot would be stupid enough to be using a phone whilst taking off, let alone just the ring or buzz from an incoming call/message being a distraction.

About as likely as a meteor hitting the plane.

As much as people are taking the p!ss out of this suggestion, if as DF said runway lights were taken out then that could be the moment of the initial distraction and then the take off was continued. In regards to pilots and mobile phone use, believe me it occurs more than you think in both GA and airlines. A number of years ago JQ had a missed approach in SIN (I think) due to one of the pilots mobile phones causing a distraction.

Great.

So what would you have us or the ATSB or the Werris Creek CWA do about your theory?

Don't underestimate the Werris Creek CWA.
Far more powerful than the Quirindi CWA.

Questions arose re a Chieftain crash at Christchurch about cellphones. For the last three minutes of the ILS approach the pilots phone was active. The crash terminated the call. Eight died, two survived with serious injuries.

http://www.taic.org.nz/AviationReports/tabid/78/ctl/Detail/mid/482/InvNumber/2003-004/Page/4/Default.aspx?SkinSrc=[G]skins%2ftaicAviation%2fskin_aviation

I always found the People's Front of Judea v Popular People's Front of Judea rivalry between the Werris Creek and Quirindi CWAs, about scone recipes, to be pretty scary.

The relevance of this? None. Just like speculation about wash water, mobile phone distractions, European wasps and snakes. Entirely pointless.

If anyone in PPruNeworld has a theory about what caused this accident, please pick up the phone and tell it to ATSB.

That's a very good suggestion as the ATSB seem to be understaffed and struggle to get a final report out on other previous serious incidents and accidents in less than 2 years (Mt Hotham and Norfolk Island come to mind).

Surely up that way, you mean Scone recipes? :(

I find the Scone CWA doesn't enter into the petty reivalries of the Liverpool Plains.

Leady, Leafy and Gerry you are morons. People died in this prang and you reduce a serious discussion to utter tripe in your most recent posts. Please delete and grow up.
F...wits.

Lighten Up Mach Avelli, In case you didn't notice it's a deliberate attempt to diffuse that serious discussion, because the cause is already known and they don't want it posted here.