RIP Max, those that knew you are disgusted with the ATSB's report, sadly you where used as a scapegoat! We can't bring you back (or the hapless pax) we can't even defend you as it's the ATSB (a law onto their own like CASA) but we can remember you:-)

Propsforever, the report actually goes a long way to answering your questions. I don't believe you have read it too carefully.

You appear to be forgetting the effect of the sideslip. At 30 degrees of sideslip, there is considerably more drag, considerably less lift and somewhat reduced thrust. As stated in the report, the ATSB were unable to quantify each of these effects without going to considerable engineering and modelling work - due the manufacturer not possessing the necessary data.

You claim that you could hold the rudder forces for a minute. Have you ever tried this in a real King Air or a simulator? You could have just read what the test pilot said. He said that the forces could be held for only a short time, after which the "leg gave out" and the aircraft became uncontrollable. He certainly did not say anything about being able to get the aircraft back onto the ground. He did say forces were evident before rotation, however, and that the takeoff should have been aborted.

And why the takeoff roll extended? The report suggests a highly probable scenario where the pilot, nearing rotation speed, notices the rudder forces required, becomes suspicious and transfers his attention to the engine instruments, with the result that he goes past the rotation speed by a few seconds.

Have another read.

zzuf,
Don't confuse me with Lead Balloon, who, to the best of my knowledge, started his aviation experiences in the RAAF, but has never worked for an airline.
There is an old adage in the airline training business, " You can teach a fighter pilot, but you can't teach him much, you can't teach a test pilot anything". And that should not be taken as a compliment, for those of limited comprehension.

Gratuitous insults are probably not required. JT

the tailwind on takeoff is known precisely. The BOM logged it at 1 sec intervals. It was 4 kts.

The ATSB didn't do simulation, modelling or fight tests because they say it was outside the scope of the report, not that it was too expensive. How they can say it was outside the scope of the report is beyond me. And it is unknown if the manufacturer had flight data or not. The ATSB did not ask Raytheon. The list of organisations that were asked for contributions is on page 66. Raytheon are not listed. Once again, something that defies logic.

The SIM pilot said " the yaw on take-off was manageable". The rudder force required was not quantified (another report oversight). One KingAir pilot on this forum says it was manageable. I have it from 2 pilots that flew the subject aircraft that they have flown it with full rudder trim without difficulty

All the pilot needed to do was hold opposite rudder for 1 min - at which time he should have been well above 1500ft which would in turn have allowed time for diagnosis.

The fact that the pilot made seven rapid panicky (?) mayday calls in those few critical seconds, suggests that for whatever reason, he had run out of ideas of how to control the flight path. Classic example of sensory overload when faced with potential disaster, unfortunately.

Old Akro, you are really banging the drum. It appears you have an agenda. You seem to have an opinion and want to push that opinion and are subtly misquoting the report in order to push it.

Have a look at page 46 of the report. It says "this information was not held by the aircraft manufacturer".

No, that list is of the sources of information - not "who was asked", as you assert. My reading is that the ATSB asked the manufacturer for sideslip performance data but they did not have any, so could not provide any.

I take that to mean the takeoff roll. The sim pilot was clear about what happened after that - his leg "gave out" and the aircraft became uncontrollable.

But was that asymmetric when those 2 pilots flew it "without difficulty"? If on both engines, then explain to us what, how and why they were flying the aircraft on two engines with full rudder trim on? And was it full nose-left trim, btw?

Have another read of the comments by the simulator pilot as to how well he managed in that situation. He tried, three times, but crashed on all three.
​​​​​​​

FGD, I could say the same thing about you.

The major flaw in the SIM session is that the aircraft was flown to a TAS of up to 140kt.and possibly more. But the incident aircraft never flew above about 112 kt CAS. Therefore the SIM did not fly the accident profile. WHY?

the report does not say the SIM simulation . It says " ...about 140 kts (CAS) at which time because of aerodynamic flow around the rudder (sic) it became uncontrollable". This infers that the SIM session was broken off when the pilot lost directional control at 140 kts. (an an undisclosed altitude). Interesting, but not relevant. What is relevant is the flight condition at 108 - 112 knots CAS..

the SIM pilot is not reported as having made any comment on the controllability at the speeds exhibited in the incident. The SIM pilots comments are that the yaw was manageable at lift off, then challenging, then uncontrollable after an unspecified period with the aerodynamic load at 140 knots and above. The aerodynamic load can be expected to increase with the square of airspeed - so the rudder force required to correct the LH rudder trim at 140 knots will be very different than at 108 - 112 knots.

Hear, hear !

Yep, I forgot about the Textron takeover and only recognised the name in the context of other components.. But still there is no indication that they asked Beechcraft about either the ability to maintain directional control with full rudder trim or the impact that might have on the climb rate.

To answer some Questions:
I have flown Scenarios with full Rudder Deflection, both in the Sim and in the real Aircraft. FS BE350 Sim . Finn Air BE300 Sim . BE90-200-300 real AC.
It takes a lot of Strain - You can hold it with one Leg ( I couldnt after a while in the Conquest I) - The first Thing an experienced KA Pilot does after lift off is Clean up, because with anything dangling down its not Capable to climb on one Engine - The next Thing everybody i know, does in an OEI Scenario is: Rudder Trim full on!! Its not in the checklist at that Point , but makes live a lot easier.
So in this Scenario every Pilot i know, wood : Stomp the Rudder to the Floor - Raise Gear - Raise flaps at 120kt- Immediatly trim- And if i see Speed decreasing and a building coming up my flight path, "I" would put the Thottles ( Presumed both Donkeys working) to the Forward Stop. This will provide 2450ft/lb instead of 2230ft/lb Torque. There is a Limiter in the FCU set to this Value, you wont blow the Engine. But of course afterwards it is gettting expensive.

Seeing the Video and reading the Report, gives me the strong Impression that there might be more into this Accident than written on the Report.


I have read the Report in full,, but there are some Points i cant believe!
One difference might be that iam used to Operate the Aircraft with FAR25 Performance in mind.

When we where send to Short (under1600m) fields, we knew we where doomed between V1 and V2 clean, in case something happenend. And we knew that we would get app. 5,5% Gradient ISA/SL on MTOW after cleanup.

incorrect

even if the nylon drive fails the over speed gov will caputure and allow slighty over max prop rpm. Independent system.

so if the rudder trim was full set to one way to which it looks. Whom put it there, the air raft had previously flown and was not diectly out of maintenance. So some one must know who placed it into gghis postion.

I have never flown a B200. Indeed, except for a few hours in the RHS of a 'Twotter' langtaim back,(Thanks for that opportunity,Tas:ok:)I have never flown any turbine A/C.

I have read this entire thread, and the ATSB report leaves me with a deeply uneasy feeling.:suspect:

Make of this what you will.