PPRuNe Forums

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)
-   The Pacific: General Aviation & Questions (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions-91/)
-   -   King Air down at Essendon? (https://www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html)

Trevor the lover 24th Sep 2018 21:51

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?

Old Akro 24th Sep 2018 22:50


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.
zzuf. Good point. And it’s unbelievable that the ATSB didn’t investigate this in the SIM. It also appears that the ATSB did not fly the accident profile in the SIM which I think defies explanation.

A different field, but the rule of thumb for race car braking forces is 2-2.5 times the diver weight. Or around 200kgf. When your back is braced (seat back), it’s surprising how much force you can sustain with your leg. Go to the gym and try a leg press machine.

There is a famous case are where Colin CHAPMAN forgot to allow for braking force in the space frame of a F1 car and the driver bent the frame during the first race.

machtuk 24th Sep 2018 23:33

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:-)

FGD135 25th Sep 2018 00:11

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.

Squawk7700 25th Sep 2018 00:42

Donít forget the unknown tailwind contributing to the takeoff roll too.

It will be interesting to see whom the lawyers will engage as their expert witnesses for the aircraft type.

LeadSled 25th Sep 2018 00:55


Originally Posted by zzuf (Post 10257086)
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.

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

Old Akro 25th Sep 2018 01:11


Don’t forget the unknown tailwind contributing to the takeoff roll too.
the tailwind on takeoff is known precisely. The BOM logged it at 1 sec intervals. It was 4 kts.

Old Akro 25th Sep 2018 01:23


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.
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.


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?
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.

Centaurus 25th Sep 2018 01:52

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.

holdingagain 25th Sep 2018 02:01

In case I missed it the report it takes close to 7 seconds to select full rudder deflection and the same to return back to the 0 trim position if your sitting in the aircraft doing nothing else

FGD135 25th Sep 2018 02:04

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.


And it is unknown if the manufacturer had flight data or not.
Have a look at page 46 of the report. It says "this information was not held by the aircraft manufacturer".


The ATSB did not ask Raytheon. The list of organisations that were asked for contributions is on page 66. Raytheon are not listed.
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.


The SIM pilot said " the yaw on take-off was manageable".
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.


I have it from 2 pilots that flew the subject aircraft that they have flown it with full rudder trim without difficulty
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?


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

Old Akro 25th Sep 2018 02:37


Old Akro, you are really banging the drum.
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

tried, three times, but crashed on all three
. 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.

junior.VH-LFA 25th Sep 2018 04:11

Question about aerodynamic load and muscle endurance seem a bit academic, if the rudder trim had been set in the correct position it wouldnít matter.

Even if the aircraft should have flown, I thinks itís concievable that a startled pilot mere seconds into a flight would experience sensory overload trying to diagnose and rectify that situation, while being low to the ground and also likely confused.

Everyone makes mistakes, everyoneís human.

My takeaway from all of this is to try and be as vigilant with checklists as I can be, to start over from item one if Iím interrupted and to be methodical with their execution.



Car RAMROD 25th Sep 2018 05:51


Originally Posted by Old Akro (Post 10257609)
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.

No it doesn't really defy logic. They went to Textron, first company listed. They own the Beechcraft name now. Raytheon used to, then Hawker Pacific, but it's now Textron.

Plus in several instances in the report they quote "the manufacturer". Do you really think that in an accident such as this the ATSB would not have conversed with them?


In relation to flyability of the aircraft with full rudder trim, wouldn't know, I've never done it. Half trim below 140kts isn't difficult though (think examiner giving you back the "failed" engine before the trim has been re-set after assy work).
As for taking 7 seconds to wind the trim, I think not. holdingagain, can you please elaborate more on your comment about this? I reckon I can go from neutral, hard to the stop on one side, hard to the stop on the other, then back to neutral in under 5.

dogcharlietree 25th Sep 2018 05:52


Originally Posted by machtuk (Post 10257569)
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:-)

Hear, hear !

holdingagain 25th Sep 2018 06:26

Ramrod, I simply timed myself to trim one way and then retimed it back to 0. Took just over 6 secs each time and I rounded it up to 7. If you ďreckonĒ you can do each segment in 1.25 secís then thatís fine. Itís just one small piece of info in this jigsaw.
I am trying like everyone else to understand what happened.

Old Akro 25th Sep 2018 06:31


No it doesn't really defy logic. They went to Textron, first company listed. They own the Beechcraft name now. Raytheon used to, then Hawker Pacific, but it's now Textron.
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.

Propsforever 25th Sep 2018 06:54

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.

Connedrod 25th Sep 2018 08:06


Originally Posted by jobsright (Post 10257205)
I have never flown a Kingair but was working tonight with someone who has a lot of experience on the type in this report. He stated that there is a possible fcu drive shaft fault that results in a runaway engine and believes this is what happened. Looking at the amount of damage on the wreckage, how could this not be discounted from what happened? I have read the report and the engine examinations seem to be a bit glossed over. (My opinion only). Hope this is not an ATSB high profile prang that blames the deceased pilot for expedience.


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.

Pinky the pilot 25th Sep 2018 08:17

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.


All times are GMT. The time now is 21:11.


Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.