I'm confused about the location and direction. Has it been confirmed whether he crashed immediately after takeoff, or attempting some sort of return to the airport?

The crash site appears to be about 300m from runway centreline. The footage shown on the news it looks like the aircraft was wings level, descending around 150m? from runway centreline. It looks like the direction of travel was almost 90 degrees to the runway.

I don't see how you can turn almost 90 degrees and be wings level within 150m of the runway. Likewise if he was maneuvering to return I don't really understand how you would end up in that location without a good opportunity to put it on a runway. Very strange.

Maybe the footage is misleading? In any case I am sure that the flight path is well documented and will come out in due course.

How many cycles/hours did Max have on the B200 ? Good question - but a better question is how current in efato training was he??? When was he last in a simulator to practice and hone this stuff - if ever???

I will probably get shot at for sure if I say it was very very likely a factor.

Has the possibility of a double engine failure been considered? highly unlikely, not not impossible.

Power lever slideback on the left or both, one witness heard high revving engine prior to impact, pitch control failure ?.

Its just the angle of the corner that the video was taken from.

andrew, if the failure was on the port engine below Vcma then the aircraft will bank to port. To get wings level you have to reduce power on the live engine but then you are descending towards the landing if you have open space in front of you, otherwise accident. Hence the safety briefing before departure so that you are ready before it happens.

Runway30 not correct. You are thinking of Vmca.

Desmo, thanks for the correction. Having had it happen to me, I know that between Vcma and Vyse, they don't fly very well..............

Probably, it just doesn't look right. I would have expected either the aircraft to be head on, or in an obvious bank. That road is pointing directly at the intersection, at an angle of about 30 degrees to the runway. The aircraft definitely crosses left-right, so it has turned much more than 30 degrees, but is still less than 300m off centre line.

Skillsy and others, to see how much Melbourne has expanded over the years and surrounded Essendon have a look at Melbourne 1945 (no dot com on the end)

The media is reporting the airfield is closed. Notam and ATIS state Police, Ambos, etc only. I thought it would have been open.

Only guys who didn't know Max would ask dopey questions like this.

Pure observations...

I will admit my first thoughts were EFATO on a B200 should not end like this. This aeroplane is almost stupid proof. But the more I watch the video and look at the satellite map, the more I think this poor chap was forced to reduce power on the live engine to maintain control.

The eyewitness report of a sharp turn to the left and the location at which he crosses over Bulla Rd makes me think he tried to fly runway heading for as long as he could, but as his speed dropped and not being able to maintain his height he pulled a hard left to avoid the houses.

The rocking of the wings indicate to me he fought the plane all the way, trying to stay just above Vmca.

No matter what the reasons for the engine failure or the cause of power loss, I feel his efforts should be recognised.

I'm not sure why, maybe because I was a local to Raleigh grove, or did my first TIF out of YMEN, this crash has saddened me more than others.

My sincere condolences to all those affected by this tragic accident.

What is Vmca?? Where is it defined?
I am well aware of Vmc as defined by FAR23.149. and have been involved in the determination of Vmc and Vmcg for a number of aircraft types.

VMC Minimum Control Speed
VMCA Minimum Control Airspeed Airborne (Red line speed)
From CAAP 5.23-1(2): Multi-engine aeroplane operations and training

Reading the posts, there is a lot of discussions around gear up or down prior to impact...

This video clearly shows them down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g2F7mcfZ5jg

screenshot attached.

has it been confirmed there was an engine failure?
Control surface failure?

If the LEFT engine failed or failed first (i.e. in the event of dual engine failure) it is probable that the aircraft would have initially yawed to the LEFT..possibly as far as 30 deg LEFT of the centre-line of Runway 17. Again, if the problem was engine failure and/or the auto-feather system did not function correctly or quickly enough, the pilot may have been looking to put the aircraft back down on the ground, instead of conducting a single engine climb and recovery back to the field. There is very limited space on the eastern side of Runway 17, so he may have initially aimed at Bulla Road, which would have been directly to his front. However, he either lost control very late in the descent and veered into the Direct Factory Outlet (DFO) and/or Bulla Road was occupied by heavy morning vehicle traffic, so he may have had no option - but to put down on the roof of the DFO, which is located between Runway 17 and the airport boundary.

An observation of this very sad incident……

I'm not convinced it's genuine footage of the incident. The aircraft certainly appears to be travelling at near right angles or at least at a significant angle relative to the road upon which the dashcam vehicle is travelling. (There is also a clump of trees to the left where there is now a building unless the depth of field is deceptive.)

As others have mentioned, to impact the building where it did, it would have deviated about 30 degrees to the runway centreline assuming the deviation commenced a few hundred metres before the runway intersection. The impact scars on the top of the building seem to indicate that the aircraft's trajectory is consistent with that.

The road on which the vehicle is travelling is no more than 10 or 15 degrees different to the projected flightpath. How then does the aircraft appear to be at or near right angles to the road and wings level, even with significant yaw occurring?

Again as someone mentioned a few pages back, one video source suggested that the roof of the building had what appeared to be slashes through the steel that suggested it had been cut by a rotating, forward moving propellor. These were to the left of the initial impact damage possibly indicating that the left propellor was still rotating. It's possible that it could have been caused by the right propellor but not if the aircraft impacted close to wings level.

None of this is in any way definitive, just my observations of a tragic accident that always seems to have greater impact when it involves one of our fellow aviators - even those we don't know personally.

RIP Gentlemen.

Looks to me he lowered the gear just prior to it disappearing from camera view. A recommendation on some types to attenuate some of the crash energy, relatively open fields though, not building roofs.

Rumour is that there was a fairly high crane working on or near the Freeway which may have aggravated the situation however I haven't spotted this in any of the video - not that I was looking for a crane

Elche said
VMC Minimum Control Speed
VMCA Minimum Control Airspeed Airborne (Red line speed)
From CAAP 5.23-1(2): Multi-engine aeroplane operations and training

According to FAR 23.1545 (6) Red line speed is the maximum value of Vmc
CAAP 5.23 -2(2) refers to a Vmca with no definition, or means of determining this speed.
Is Vmca a speed invented by CASA FOI's without reference to the certification speeds?
How does a test pilot determine this Vmca?

There seems to be a significant move by various authorities to close major public infrastructure for surprisingly long durations after accidents.
Seen more often in freeways and rail.

elche: I agree the gear is down and explains why the nose wheel ended up on the Tullamarine Freeway. This is a startling development.

The crash was about 200 metres from my front door, I heard it and was there shortly afterwards. I was in ATC for 42 years and saw a number of accidents/incidents and learned that speculating as to the cause is a complete waste of time. People have asked what happened. My reply is that I don't know, wait for the report.

Well said, Sir.

zzuf,

A previous discussion here on pprune regarding Vmc and Vmc(a)
http://www.pprune.org/tech-log/26280...-vmc-vmca.html

Am I the only one who thinks that the Channel 10 published footage of the aircraft coming in low over the DFO building with the gear down is not actually the incident aircraft? I think it is an aircraft (clearly a B200, and possibly even the same one) landing on RWY35 at another time. I would like to know if Channel 10 actually checked the metadata before they forked out money for that one. The other dashcam footage published showing the fireball from a distance is more believable as the crash aircraft.

Just because a news outlet publishes footage online and says it is the crash aircraft doesn't mean it is.

zzuf,

The reason there's no definition as you observe is that it is defined by ICAO.

That's why.

It's an internationally accepted definition, despite the ignorance of some.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/V_speeds

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minimum_control_speeds

And even if it is "the" aircraft immediately before "the" tragedy, how can anyone be sure that the gear was not in transit during that short period - that is, extending rather than extended?

Elche
Nothing authoritative there.
It seems that as far as certification standards (FAR's) go there is no such thing as Vmca.
Probably developed in the same way as the myth that Va is always related to Nz max.

zzuf,

Been working in a few countries, and all seem to recognise Vmcg (for on ground) and Vmca (for when airborne). The TOPA we use shows Vmcg as limiter to V1. The flight manuals of Lockheed , Boeing and Airbus aircraft I have flown all show Vmcg and Vmca numbers.

Am I the only one who thinks that the Channel 10 published footage of the aircraft coming in low over the DFO building with the gear down is not actually the incident aircraft? I think it is an aircraft (clearly a B200, and possibly even the same one) landing on RWY35 at another time. I would like to know if Channel 10 actually checked the metadata before they forked out money for that one. The other dashcam footage published showing the fireball from a distance is more believable as the crash aircraft.

Just because a news outlet publishes footage online and says it is the crash aircraft doesn't mean it is.

No not alone, if you look at the fl24 data. was aircraft operating before and after and one landed on the e/w runway from west not long before the accident. The livery is similar to the crashed aircraft, you can work out who that was if not the aircraft involved, I wont name them for fear of misquoting down the track.

As for 1.8nm and 90m seperation, thats a red herring. Come to my place at Carrum and 1k sep and less is quite normal. We had one home built it looked like last week that was at 350 ft doing a circle, verified by laser (not mine).

There are a few sims on youtube of simulations of engine out in this type, they all take 90 seconds at least to attend to.


http://www.pprune.org/images/statusicon/user_online.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/report.gif http://www.pprune.org/images/buttons/quickreply.gif

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDzi-utoKtc&t=201s

Interesting C90 EFATO video at light weight.
B200 speeds:
Vmca 90
Vx 101
Vy 108

If autofeather is in use reducing power lever before the prop stops will cancel autofeather.

Anyone know if Vmca assumes engine inop is feathered or not?

donpizmeov
Thanks for that, I can find no mention, in the certification standards, of Vmca. Since it seems so widely used there must be an authoritative statement somewhere that says if you establish Vmc as required by the certification standards you can call it Vmca.
As you would know the procedures for establishing aircraft performance speeds are described in great detail in the FAR's and amplified in various AC's.
Anyway this is clearly the wrong place for this discussion so I will desist.

Vmc/Vmca
 

It sure doesn't help when the FAA gets a bit slack (in a few documents, no less) with nomenclature and can't make up their mind as to what's what .. see, for instance, here or here, or even, here or here.

One expects it between the certification and operations folks but it hurts my head when the certification mob over there has difficulty with consistency ....

For what little it might be worth, the first reference (FTG) does say "The VMC (commonly referred to as VMCA) requirements... " in the body text .. and then goes on to adopt the Vmca nomenclature as a general usage. At least AC23-8C is consistent with Vmc.

Would never have happened in the days of Air Liquide House ...... as zzuf would well recall ...

You think?

I've got a lot of Respect for GH but he made comments on the channel 9 news tonight that were akin to something a single engine private pilot would make.

'Modern twin engine aircraft are designed to be able to climb when one engine is failed'

Oh really? Pretty broad statement there. Better off keeping your mouth shut unless you are going to fully explain.

Whilst the investigators are probably up there with the best of them the interference that happens from the politically correct amongst their 'superiors' may see more bull**** like the Norfolk Island lie.

To those of you doubting the Chanel 10 video, look at the YouTube link provided earlier which is to a HD version of the footage, it is also slightly longer. Looks pretty convincing to me.

Steve

Yes, this is my first post, and yes, i once saw a plane, so please take my comments with a grain of salt.

What I see:

With reference to the female witness that reported the aircraft rocking from side to side. Listen very carefully to what she says. Where she was, what she did and what she saw. Anyone remember the chk chk girl. If not google it, in short she was an apparent witness to an incident, turns out she fabricated the whole story.

The footage linked in post #219 is very deceiving, but if you look closely at google earth maps you can see exactly where this car was on Bulla Rd. You can use signs, road markings such as arrows, intersections, trees, guard rails etc etc.

Yes, I understand the car is moving, but the aircraft in the footage grows in size much more than the surrounding objects in the footage. This tells me the aircraft is not only moving left to right but has significant forward movement, towards the car.

Look closely at what appears to be the main gear just before the aircraft goes out of sight. It looks to me like the aircraft crosses Bulla Rd at close to maybe 45 degrees and with the left wing a little low.

edit: chk chk boom girl

Agree. The prang happened right behind the curved signs. That video is of an aeroplane a long way from the curved signs (and heading the wrong way for the prang flight).

Desmotronic, all 3-blade B200s and McCauley 4-blade B200s are certified for Vmca with a windmilling prop.

Hartzell-Raytheon and Hartzell-Raisbeck 4-blade B200s are certified with the inop feathered. That's why on these machines AFX is a mandatory system. If it doesn't work you don't take off.


Yes if you pull a power lever back when AFX is doing its thing you'll disarm the system. That's why the checklist does not direct you to pull back a power lever for an engine failure after takeoff/in flight. And they also have a note at the bottom of that checklist about the AFX being disarmed if you do.