OK, if the cause is known, the sooner we have it the better for all. It would also be better for all if no one speculated on the cause of accidents, or at least only did so in private and not on public forums such as this. Better to wait for the official version.
Backing off now and going back into retirement. Cheers all.

Really? Have you informed the ATSB of this info? If you know what has happened and haven't given the ATSB the relevant info then you may committed an offence under the TSI Act.

Trying to stop speculation about accidents on Pprune is like trying to stop the tide coming in with a sand castle.

Why would you be trying to stop it, rumour and speculation is the intended purpose of this website. If you want serious discussion use the technical forums.

And on that note, i should point out that the collective global membership of Ppruners makes it the biggest aviation database of knowledge in the world and not just knowledge, observation and hands on experience as well. The guy that came up with the satellite plot for the final hours of MH370 is a pprune member. where else can you access a database of that magnitude.
What has the ATSB got, 3 individual investigators, subject to public service rules that are hopelessly overloaded.

speculation is necessary, speculation provides a path of enquiry that may lead to evidence, evidence that may not have been immediately obvious

A year today
 

RIP Max and passengers.








Meanwhile, the ATSB has "delayed" an investigation into development at Essendon and behind the scenes there is an ongoing finger pointing exercise relating to how YMEN has been certified given the infringement of the shopping centre into the airspace alongside both runway (but mostly 26). CEO of Essendon Fields on ABC radio this morning aiming both barrels at CASA - "They have certified the airport twice since privatisation".

Subject of interview with footage on ABC TV and news today...

Pilot's widow thanks aviation community on anniversary of fiery Essendon DFO plane crash - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)


The sting is in the tail per Ron Bartsch:

"We can never ever compromise safety over commercial interests — detailed risk assessments of land use around airports will make sure that won't happen in the future."

Those of us who feel their local airport is being squeezed out by unrestricted development have to hope he is correct.


Kaz

This accident had nothing to do with the proximity of buildings.

Really Xeptu..? How can you make that assertion..? I would have thought that the fact they hit the building on the way down means it had something to do with the accident! Surely if the building wasn't there, Max may have had a chance to at least try to put it down on an open part of the field, but I guess we'll never know.


Thoughts and condolences to all the families involved in this tragedy. Hard to believe a year's gone by already.

Xeptu. Agreed.

It was hit the buildings or hit the freeway..

Both results sadly would be the same..

There has been a building on that location at Essendon since at least 1962 when the old DCA hangar was relocated there to serve as home for the Regional Transport Depot.

Regardless of what caused the accident, Ron has bought up a very valid point. Canberra is another example of how commercial realestate has encroached on areas that should be clear of buildings and structures. The day will come when an aircraft crashes into an airport located DFO which results in multiple fatalities on the ground.

Risk assessments? Who’s doing them, the kids at the local kindergarten by the looks of it...............

There was a runway excursion to the left, having entered from the right on a 45 metre wide runway in this class of aircraft is eyebrow raising in itself, there were at least two propeller strikes, (two runway lights down 60 metres apart), yet the takeoff was continued. Upon becoming airborne there was no attempt to fly the aircraft, the gear was not retracted, the engine was not shutdown and the propeller was not feathered. The pilot transmitted mayday for 5 of the 9 seconds of airborne time. so the questions remain, why, why and why

The question remains: Why are you so keen to attribute blame to the dead pilot.

Three questions in fact: why, why and why.

How about you change the way you look at the questions. that said we are human and not infallible, that is the whole purpose of standard operating procedure, to create expectation in order to minimise that fallibility, but at the end of the day, you are the pilot in command

Thanks for those insights into the bleeding obvious. I’ll write them down in the Big Book Of PPRuNe Wisdom.

Do you have any direct or indirect pecuniary or other interest in the parties who are arguing about who was the registered operator at the time of the accident, or in the organisation which performed maintenance on the aircraft?

No none at all not even remotely, how about you

None at all. That’s why I’m not speculating.

You must be speculating as a consequence of some misguided belief that you’re somehow making a positive contribution to aviation safety.

This conversation is difficult but necessary: You’re not.

A question from someone who has a complete disinterest in this sad event;

Is the quote above correct in its detail?:confused:

I'm not sure where you're coming from bud, my sole purpose these days is safety, in the hope that everyone goes home to their families. I am retired, I have trained many, I'm not a fan of bureaucracy, or bull**** politics, apart from those with mental health issues and deliberate acts, no-one sets out to have an accident, there's always a reason and just because you're an experienced pilot doesn't mean you're not the reason

Xeptu; I assume that your post was not directed at me, but at Leady.

yes pinky you would be correct and anyone else that understands the purpose

I'm with Xeptu 100%. Pilot had never been in a Kingair sim, and was quoted as saying he didn't need to. First full on failure happened in the aircraft. Unsat

... and what was that failure ?

.... and what was that failure: A Crew Seat Malfunction. The aircraft was airborne for 9 seconds, the takeoff roll was about 15 seconds from a rolling start and appears to be mostly limited to no control right from the start. Without seat rail stops those crew seats can roll back a long way. The most likely culprit is that the crew seat collapsed and was too low or the locking mechanism failed and rolled back too far for effective control.
This statement is pure speculation, but fits the sequence of events

So he hit full power and the seat went back and for the next 15 + 9 seconds he was trying to reach the controls and the pedals, the aircraft took off, gear still down, nobody flying and yet he could happily reach the PTT to give a 5 second mayday?

Somewhat fanciful.

Surely you would pull power immediately in said scenario?

The entire event is somewhat fanciful, but it happened. Surely you would do a lot of things if you could. Not much point pulling power levers once airborne, if he ever did get within reach distance.
I'm not saying this is what happened, it's merely a plausible explanation.

It's not all that plausible to be honest. Hitting runway lights and continuing to takeoff smells to me more like someone IN control versus out of control, under an assumption that hitting the lights may not have been noticed by the pilot which is plausible. The deviation could be for any number of reasons which the pilot then believed were not significant enough to have aborted.

You could keep guessing all day and still be way off....

Curious as to how many Kingair drivers out there have actually done sim time though?

DF.

Literally heaps of it, and the sim is very busy.

Don’t know why anyone would want to fly something like a King Air without doing any sim training, even if it is legal. It’s not really a “simple” aeroplane.

Xeptu, as Stick said, if he could reach the PTT, he could reach the controls, your idea doesn't hold water.

Where has this come from??

Doesn't fit the mayday calls

Don't think so. And don't forget that the end of the runway is nowhere near where it used to be.

There are a number of lawyers looking at this in detail at the moment with a fistfull of FOI requests. I suspect the ATSB initiating separate report on their own initiative suggests that there is a real issue.

Presumably the transmission would have been in the last 9 seconds, I have a PTT on the boom of my headset, there are a number of other locations one can use other than the control column. I concede though I would be fighting to release myself from the seat, rather than transmitting, "unless" it's all over and you know it. there are a number of live examples of that. "oh here we go" and "I love you mum" are two I remember.

The buildings were there when I worked at Essendon in the late 60s and again in the early 90s.

Back in 1962 the old DCA hangar was relocated to pretty much the exact location where the DFO development now stands. It was used initially as the Regional Transport Depot and was subsequently occupied by a garbage removal contractor. It was knocked down to make way for the DFO development.

If there was a galley fitted behind the captains seat the seat couldn’t roll back very far
I’d say the majority of Aus KA drivers haven’t been in a sim but fortunately that’s changing

Don't even need a galley. They can just have a partition.

Anyway, whilst "possible" I'd put the seat move in a very unlikely category.

Cardiac Arrest ?