Trevor, There is no basis to suggest that he stopped flying. Not even the ATSB has suggested this and they are pretty good at leaps of logic. The pilot was one of the most experienced King Air pilots around. He'd just been put through the mill with 3 or more flight reviews. I'll bet that each one had at least one simulated engine failure.

Go and read the ATSB report on the Mojave Air ambulance accident at Bankstown. That pilot was heavily criticized for not making a mayday call. I guess you just cant win.

If I had a low level incident that had me worried, I'd be thinking about getting the services out early, which would prompt you to make a mayday call. Plus, the Mojave incident has burned in my mind that you need to make the mayday call to prevent AsA & ATSB from attacking you later.

Akro - you need to get past this idea that his experience equated to competence. I have a vast training background and I have been with 15,000 hour pilots that I wouldn't piss on and I have been with 1500 hour pilots that fly like eagles. EXPERIENCE DOES NOT NECESSARILY EQUAL COMPETENCE.. I have seen it so many times.

Forget the pixel method, Old Akro, I suggest it would be too erroneous. Just look at the impact marks diagram and associated analysis.

I believe there is a basis, Old Akro - the pilot's leg giving out. And I believe that is what the ATSB are getting at. When that happened, the aircraft would have gone into a situation of increased drag, reduced lift and reduced thrust - all of which made continued climb impossible.

Dead set serious, Leady.

King Air Down at Essendon
 

It may help to understand this crash by describing a crash of a Bonanza I witnessed at Archerfield some time ago.
A fully loaded Bonanza took off on 28.
At the time, I was working from building just to the south of the terminal building.
What drew our attention, was the Bonanza being airborne well before you’d expect to see it off the ground. The climb levelled out, then started again, then levelled out then went into a vertical climb ending in a stall turn and descent into the ground.
(it landed in the creek actually just near the 10 threshold).
Alarming to watch I can tell you.
It did this out of control manoeuvring because it was trimmed full nose up on the elevators.
It had returned to AF just prior to loading and the attempted departure of the crashed flight.
The aircraft was trimmed nose up from the previous landing when it attempted the takeoff.
So, during the Bonanza’s departure, the controls were just doing what the aerodynamics wanted them to do and simply overpowered the pilot.
Slow speed, the pilot could handle it but as the speed increased the trim position forced the elevators to full nose up and the pilot simply could not stop it doing so.
Now think of this B200.
It accelerates and starts veering left as the aerodynamics are forcing the rudder to yaw hard nose left.
I can only speculate of the pilot’s reaction but it must have been startling to him and he never gets his head around the problem and the solution.
The yaw continues, it gets airborne, secondary effect of yaw comes into play, and …
If the Bonanza pilot had recognised why the pilot was pushing so hard on the elevators, it should have followed that trim follows the control pressure.
Ditto with the B200 pilot.
And the other solution was in both cases, get off the power.

Get off the airspeed, I think you mean XYGT, but I know what you're getting at.

Trevor, A CASA FOI declared him to be competent about a year prior after extensive review.

The maydays were broadcast in the last 3 seconds before impact. I know the correct broadcast when you realize a crash is inevitable is a laconic "Ahhh sh*t" but we can't all have The Right Stuff.

XYGT is correct - one Jan Kennedy. I saw this accident too like I witnessed the fatal C206 accident at CAB that killed five souls. My statement to the coroner was that it appeared to me that the trim might have been left set for landing as the aircraft had no rapid pitch change that might have been associated with a seat rollback.

Competence = Knowledge, Recency and Discipline

Firstly, the ATSB rely heavily on the pixel method. It is the prime basis on which they argue that the aircraft was in a slideslip that caused reduced performance. Note, that the ATSB failed to investigate if the aircraft would climb in this configuration. Its speculation that it wouldn't.

Secondly, I'm not completely won over by the roof marks because a) from the time any part f the aircraft touched the roof, the path of the aircraft would have become violent and not fully predictable. The first part of the aircraft contacting would create yaw in itself. b) the propellor marks aren't fully consistent with the aircraft position they have outlined. I think the slash marks look like they are made with less aircraft yaw.

I think the work they did here was interesting, its just not intellectually rigorous enough to base their conclusion upon.

Regarding the pilots "leg giving out" you and I are just going to disagree. My reading is that the SIM pilot said that the rudder force was manageable at the airspeeds that the accident aircraft was flying. The sadness is that the ATSB didn't undertake the SIM exercise diligently. It should have replicated the incident aircraft's flight condition. In which case we wouldn't be debating the implications of comma's.

He reached brain CPU overload before leg muscle forces overload!
Aircraft doing what it was doing and not thinking once about rudder trimming your aircraft for a little help!?




Really? :confused:

If the whole thing only took 12 seconds, then spending the last 25% of it on the radio was probably about as useful as anything else.

I understand that the B200 is certified under FAR 23. Paraphrasing FAR 23.677 it says essentially that the aircraft should have enough control authority to land in any trim position. The wording suggests they are primarily referring to elevator trim. Does anyone know if this is tested for rudder trim?

In a similar vein, I note that the ATSB report indicates did not consult Raytheon. If the ATSB is asserting that the B200 cannot be flown with full rudder trim, wouldn't it be worth an email to the manufacturer to see if they flight tested this condition????

How much yaw do you need for the nose and left mains to be following the same path?

Unfortunately the results bear me out.

To be clear, an FOI found that he satisfactorily met the required standards for an IPC, probably in a cheaper and simpler aircraft than the B200 (since the required engine failure simulations would not have been permitted in a B200 aircraft with the availability of a sim). Said FOI also specifically recommended additional B200 sim practice / refresher training, a recommendation which apparently wasn't taken up.

And a Trim Runaway can only apply to the elevator trim, since the other two are manually controlled screw jacks.

Not necessarily, Leady.

My comments were in relation to previous statements that the pilot wasted valuable time talking on the radio. Three seconds prior to impact the aircraft had already ceased to fly. Airspeed was decaying, and rate of descent was increasing rapidly. The damage was already done.

His leg had given out. Perhaps it was at this point that he surrended and made the radio call.

About the only sensible comment that you have posted in prune in years.

FDG 135 It is always enlightening to see a post such as yours i.e sideslip is sideslip left or right irrespective of aircraft attitude or manoeuvres.
Lead whatever, always uses the same technique to appear to display superior knowledge without ever actually a commitment to such a demonstration.
I don't know who he is, but he always displays the corporate arrogance which infects certain pilots of a particular Australian carrier.
For me, I am just a dumb test pilot graduate. Thankfully there are a bunch of tp graduates in said carrier way smarter than Lead whatever.
He did, however make the point that there is a long way to go on this report.
I believe that it will be shredded by those chasing the biggest bag of cash.

There is no evidence of what the rudder forces were and the relationship to those acceptable to the certification authority, or even if the simulator was in any way representative of the aircraft under these circumstances.
Typically acceptable rudder forces, these days (they change with the certification basis) are about 200lbf. I known, as a typical unfit pilot, i could hold 400lbf rudder force for over 30 seconds in a no risk environment.
This report opens more questions than those answered.

"The ATSB found that the pilot did not detect that the aircraft’s rudder trim was in the full nose-left position prior to take-off."

Haven't read the complete report, but I hope they have an explanation as to how the trim got there in the first place.

You show as much knowledge about sideslip and aircraft handling as you do about Vmcg.
Still I am not surprised.

I have flown King Airs for almost 20 yrs, mostly on the B200. While reading this Report, iam not really happy with it. For me the Report raises more Questions than Answers.
And yes, i have been in Simulators several Times. And have done Checkrides in the Actual AC. In EASA Land it is a Class/Type Rating, so no credits flying Seneca or similar.

1 : At the weight and Temperature the AC would definitly fly on both engines. Clean or Flaps Appr.
2 : Ruddertrim full over is putting a lot of strain on you, but i think i could hold the Trim for at least lets say, a Minute. But it would be unmistakable on the TO run
3 : Why didnt the AC climb? . Why didnt the Pilot raise the Gear? ( With the Climb Penalty of ca. 500ft/min and an OEI Climbrate of 400-600ft/min, you have no Chance with the Wheels down.

4 : Why did the Take Off Roll take that Long?


5 : One Thing that Comes to my mind is, that most Pilots are late or Carefull with using Rudder to Stop Asymetric flight, but if a building Comes Close.....

Ok a Rolling T/O on a short RWY(below 2000m) would be off Limits to me, as it will use to much Rwy, but thats not the reason for the crash
The T/O Speeds seem very low to me. Acc to Experience VR is roughly 100KTs ( exactly ist 95kt limited by 110% Vmc) and VYse flaps up is 121KTs
Rotating with under 100KTs Flaps up, or rotating a bit fast gets you in the Air with a beeping Stall Warning and a Sluggish Flying AC.
Most Pilots accelerate immediatly to 160kts Cruise Climb and never climb any slower.

And most Pilots i know would use on Rwys below 1500m in any case Flaps Appr for T/O, sacrifying 1% Climb Gradient in Exchange for a Solid flying AC directly after T/O

My Impression was : Engine related Failure, or untrained Pilot in KA200

Sorry!

Oh Akro - spare me. A CASA FOI deemed him competent. That means nothing. Scrub up for the test, be a good boy, pass test which is limited in the full extent of airborne emergencies, and then ignore the FOIS call for remedial training and then go back to bad habits.

Begs the question - how does an FOI pass a guy and then give him the option of remedial training if you feel like it?