|
I do not understand how the bolded bit is supportable on the facts: The ATSB also found that the presence of the building struck by the aircraft did not increase the severity of the consequences of this accident. In the absence of that building, the aircraft’s flight path would probably have resulted in an uncontrolled collision with a busy freeway, with the potential for increased ground casualties. |
I didn't see all the ATSB presentation....thanks ABC for switching away.
Was the question asked as to why the rudder trim was in the full left position? Had the aircraft had any recent maintenance done that would have involved the rudder trim mechanism ? |
If it was just rudder trim, why did the report take nearly 2 years?
From my initial scan of the report: As i understand it, the PIC was the last person to fly the aircraft. So, who moved the trim? The report infers that the pilot did not undertake a proper pre-flight, but despite CCTV footage is unable to provide any factual evidence - only speculation. It notes that the preflight checks have 5 separate checks of the rudder trim, but has nothing other than speculation that says these were not conducted. Examination of the wreckage clearly shows full LH rudder trim, but the report is mute on when or how it got that way. |
Originally Posted by GAforlife
(Post 10256668)
Too much fuel?
|
I think the B200 is an FAR 25 type certificate? Does anyone know if the type certificate requires demonstration that the aircraft is controllable with full rudder trim?
When the Partenavia that crashed at Essendon in the 1970's and it was found that the aircraft was not controllable at full elevator trim, an emergency AD was issued requiring the elevator trim to be limited. If the B200 is not controllable with full rudder trim, should there be a recommendation from the ATSB about an AD for B200 aircraft to limit rudder trim? |
Akro, it's Part 23. Raisebeck does have a Part 25 supplement though. 3100lbs (full mains and 400ltrs in the aux tanks) for a flight to King Island and back? That's a heck of a lot of fuel! With 5 on board and gear, that could well be pushing limits depending on the BEW of the aircraft. Most would struggle to load 500kg (pilot/pax/bags) with that amount of fuel on board. As for the stated cause in the report, I'm speechless. |
FAR 23 methinks.... |
Originally Posted by Lead Balloon
(Post 10256648)
I do not understand how the bolded bit is supportable on the facts:Isn’t the building located on the aerodrome side of the “busy freeway”? |
You’d have to assume it’s far more convenient to leave with a full fuel load rather than pay Tasmanian prices for a refill. Theres no point suggesting who / what is responsible for winding it to the left because it is irrelevant if it was missed before takeoff. All that would do is incriminate additional parties and not affect the outcome other than from a possible litigation perspective, despite that being a hard ask. Can anyone think of an operational reason as to why it would be so far across, perhaps from a previous flight? Does anyone know if the type certificate requires demonstration that the aircraft is controllable with full rudder trim? |
The ATSB also found that the presence of the building struck by the aircraft did not increase the severity of the consequences of this accident. In the absence of that building, the aircraft’s flight path would probably have resulted in an uncontrolled collision with a busy freeway, with the potential for increased ground casualties |
Originally Posted by GAforlife
(Post 10256668)
Too much fuel?
|
Thanks for the additional info.
I have to say, I am extremely surprised that full mains, 400 litres in the auxers, five adults, and possibly four golf bags, puts the aircraft at an estimated 240kgs overweight. I have no experience at all on the B200, but I assumed, naively, that they would have more payload than that. |
The ATSB report says that the B200 is controllable with full left trim up to 140 KTAS (p46)
The ground speed data shows that the aircraft took off at 11 kt GS and peaked at approx 116 kt before decaying to approx 108 kts at impact (p28) actual MET data recorded at 1 sec intervals shows the wind at 322 deg magnetic at 4-5 kts for a tailwind component of approx 4 kts Therefore TAS of the aircraft is (approx) 107 kt (rotation) 112 kt (initial climb) 104 kt (impact). So... why was the pilot not able to maintain directional control? The ATSB flight simulator exercise shows that at these speeds directional control could be maintained. Also, why was the aircraft not CLIMBING? If the engines were producing full power, it should have either been diving (increasing airspeed) or climbing. Yet, its airspeed was decaying and it was not climbing. the ATSB explanation that the cause was sideslip is flawed. The flight simulator testing (p46) was " in order to determine the effects of full left rudder trim on take-off and climb performance" and yet, the ATSB presents no data on take-off or climb performance from the simulator tests and goes on to say " "it was not possible to quantify the effects on ZCR without flight testing or complex engineering modelling. Both of these options was outside the scope of investigation...". This is the very core of the issue that the ATSB conclude, but they say its outside the scope of the investigation????? Really?? The ATSB has labelled the cause as full left rudder trim, yet has not put forward an explanation how it occurred, or how a pilot with 2400 hours on B200 all of a sudden forgot. Nor has the ATSB made any real attempt to prove its theory that the rudder trim led to yaw which led to lack of climb performance. The simulator work that the ATSB commissioned demonstrated that the aircraft could maintain directional control by the pilot at the airspeeds recorded by VH-ZCR. So why didn't a very experienced B200 pilot not push harder on the rudder, keep the aircraft straight and fly away? |
You’d have to assume it’s far more convenient to leave with a full fuel load rather than pay Tasmanian prices for a refill. While the report tells us what caused the accident, there are certainly many unanswered questions. |
Squawk, no need to take full fuel just to avoid paying Tassy prices. Take what you need and then some, no problem. But I would say, on face value, without any extenuating circumstances, that 3100lbs is excessive for that kind of trip- especially in the commercial world (unless you disregard W&B, which some do). 3100 isn't full fuel anyway. I'd quite comfortably do that trip, with no weather requirements, with 2100lbs. That's a bit over 30 mins margin on top of 30 fixed back at Essendon. Not exactly scary. Or to make life easy, full mains 2400lbs- gives me another 40mins margin back at EN plus no worries with the payload. Plenty of alternate and divert options. And if you are likely to need fuel in Tas, build it into the charter cost! Note- I'm basing the above two paragraphs on the assumption that it was just an EN-KI-EN trip. Hell, you can take a B200 most of the way across the country with 3100lbs! In relation to the rudder trim setting- the only real reasons why it would be there are- single engine flight (you still don't need full deflection); maintenance; or checking the full travel on pre-flight and forgetting to set it back to neutral afterwards. outnabout- probably the only thing I don't like about the B200 is its payload when you stuck heaps of fuel in there. That's where the 350 is better. You'll find a lot of B200s are around the 3700-3800kg range empty. Varies a lot though with interiors, props (3 or 4 blade), other airframe and performance mods, landing gear, avionics fitouts (going from a standard avionics panel to a full glass can save about 60kg) etc etc. VIP/executive type interiors (which ZCR had) are typically heavier than the "commuter" type configurations. The only one I flew with VIP config was about 100kg heavier, and that was just in the seats! |
I guess it’s a moot point if it was over weight. All bets would be off on certification requirements the PIC was reasonably light. Lets call the passengers 100 kg ea with 30 kg of bags each. This should still leave over 1300kg for fuel. Google tells me a bit over 100 gph in the cruise = about 320kg/hr = 4 hours range. Even with the new CASA fuel reserves that seems a lot for King Is & back. |
Originally Posted by Car RAMROD
(Post 10256698)
In relation to the rudder trim setting - the only real reasons why it would be there are- single engine flight (you still don't need full deflection); maintenance; or checking the full travel on pre-flight and forgetting to set it back to neutral afterwards. |
Well so much for the PPrune experts. having just reviewed the topic from start to finish the following reasons for the crash were. Engine failure and/ or both, water in hull, Torque set too low, throttle friction locks, and even control seat collapsed/went backwards. No one picked the rudder trim set right over. Dick Smith in a way came closest when in April stated this would never had happened if the pilot was grounded after he had an incident at Mt Hotham some time previous see post 716.( My guess Dick had some inside info on the investigation this time). So sadly it appears the pilot in question did not use a check list, never been in a sim and apparently stated he didn't need to. His carefree attitude finally caught up with him and sadly he took his passengers with him.
Lesson for all of us. |
sadly it appears the pilot in question did not use a check list |
Maybe x 2 the aircraft was refueled for a previous booking which was cancelled leaving a fuel excess for this flight he was mid way through his trim preflight check, answered his mobile and missed returning the trims to the take off possition |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:28. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.