Caravan forced landing on Darwin taxiway
 

Help Please.
I am looking for more information on the Nov 11 2016 incident when an instructor turned a Caravan back to land on the taxiway at Darwin after engine failure on take off. The NTSB report commented (favorably) on the pilots choices and techniques.:D I would like to get more detailed information on the pilots perspective and experience as a training illustration for the pilots in my area.
The PPrune search engine has no results on this incident.
Any leads or links appreciated.:ok:

I didn't realise the Americans were involved?

https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2016-149/

Send $25.00 to............................

Excellent thank you.

The Pilot/Instructor comments were very interesting. Also good to get input on the “turn back” scenario.
Two vital points he made:-
The instructor developed the C208B operating procedures for the operator. The instructor regularly practiced and trained pilots on the conduct of these procedures.
The turn back procedure is not suitable for all aircraft types, piston engine aircraft do not have the same ability to turn back after an engine failure.

One point I would like to throw onto the forum for C208 & single piston flyers :-
The ATSB report says “At the completion of the turn, they selected 30 degrees of flaps to provide a short climb, which allowed the aircraft to clear two hangars and an area of trees.”
The report I originally read from Aviation International News, attributed to ATSB, says “he added 30 degrees of flap to provide a short zoom climb to clear the trees/hangers”
“Zoom” suggests a short dive to increase airspeed that might provide a short hop maneuver to clear the obstacle. Is this a valid option? If in a forced landing situation you can see you are going to connect with the base of your obstacle is a zoom/hop equal to or better than a short flap deployment to get those few extra feet. Or how about a bit of both? Short dive for speed – zoom up – deploy flap?

Views?

Was the 30 selection to try get back to the runway? But taxiway was used as the only option left?

Counting on 30 flaps to jump over stuff to make it seem part of intention seems a bit of a push.

At that height in Darwin you can plant a Caravan in many places with a bit of safety with out needing a bump to avoid the biggest hangars on the airport that side.

The taxiway was used partly because the following aircraft for departure had already lined up on Rwy 29, plus - why go further than you need to (aircraft turn back was a left hand turn from upwind Rwy 29) when Twy A at Darwin may as well be a runway...

The aircraft landed in the vicinity of the intersection Rwy 36 and Twy A, so fairly comfortably made it back with the flap "assist".

The extension of flap in a 208 increases the camber and surface area of the wing quite rapidly and the effect of this seems to be such that an extra couple hundred metres of glide (depending on the tailwind being experienced at the time) can be achieved. No dive or "zoom" required! Ultimately though, once the configuration change has occurred and the aircraft's inertia succumbs to the drag, it will descend at a steeper angle than it did before. The idea is that by then you will have achieved the landing area that you were previously falling just short of.

Not something that works in your C172, but the Caravan is an extraordinary machine!

Flying bear is quite right, selection of flap has a masive effect and can be used to clear the fence or hangar in the caravan.
Selection of flap to extend the glide is written into most C208 operators ASETPA emergency procedures manual.
There is a reason you need to practice it tho.
Sounds like it was a pretty text book manoeuvre.
Good job Cameron.

Good job Cameron indeed, but that was not CASA's initial reaction. They were initially going to hang him out dry for breaching the SOP, notwithstanding the excellent result and the avoidance of loss of an airframe and possibly a life or two.

Here we go all over again. Make sure the ambulance and Firies are on standby as for sure one day the practice will go wrong.:sad:

The quote is from the accident report. Despite the point made in the ATSB report that the start of the take off gave ample runway for take-off, and therefore perfectly legal, it conveniently ignored that the fact if the pilot had chosen to start the take off from the threshold of Runway 29 it is probable that the pilot could have simply landed ahead on the remaining runway length with ample spare runway length without having to risk life and limb by resorting to a very risky piece of manoeuvring at low speed and with a contaminated windscreen.

The old adage comes to mind that runway behind you is useless when taking off. That has been the case since flying first began. Intersection take offs are fine for twins providing performance parameters allow this. But for just a few more minutes of the pilot's time, (yes I know - its all about money nowadays) it is good airmanship to go that extra yard and use the full available length -just in case one day your one and only engine will choose to fail at the worst time - which is did in this case.

Presumably the instructor was a qualified test pilot who had the resources and CASA approvals to conduct measured flight tests before developing the procedures on behalf of the operator? Frankly it smacks of an amateur approach to a very serious manoeuvre. Risk mitigation, someone?

Or...

Appropriately risk manage the training with regard to height, speed, wind and sequence "abort" parameters - combined with proficiency requirements for the trainers - so that pilots can be given a fighting chance of success when / if they get faced with the scenario. To eliminate any risk is impossible, but it can be managed.

In my case, the aircraft performed as expected and the happy outcome thankfully followed.

I'm afraid that some things need to be practiced in a controlled environment, that simply discussing them in airconditioned comfort won't cut it. That's a big part of what quality training is all about.

Discipline in knowing where to draw the line is key to success - and that really is a topic for another thread.

It is a concern that the very SOPs for a turn back that he developed were ignored - a case of don't do as I do, do as I say? What message does that send to ordinary line pilots without such considerable experience on type. The need to select full flaps to clear the buildings due to the lack of height - not ideal? Coasting to the bomber ramp while pissing out fuel? Anyway, thankfully they are here to tell the tale and we can all learn from it.

Centaurus makes some very valid points - just because you can operate the 208 out of shorter strips doesn't make it sensible to waste runway that is available.

D'pirate, in all fairness he wrote those SOPs for the "Average" Pilot to follow, SOPs are written so that if followed correctly the Average Pilot will have a successful outcome the vast majority of the time.

It sounds as if the Pilot in question though is highly experienced, if it's the Cameron I'm thinking of then indeed he is VERY highly experienced and knew of a method that would have a successful outcome and conducted it as such. Perhaps it is a method that he knows can be successfully done but would be too risky to teach to others, that would be risk mitigation.

It would be equally ridiculous for him, with his knowledge and experience, to follow the SOPs that would perhaps have led to a lesser outcome.

Thank you, Ixixly.

I simply used the techniques I have learnt and been taught to avoid pranging - so I could be around today to cop Centaurus' and D'pirate's flogging... :)

I should stay out of this now!

Folks,
Of course, what else would you expect, aviation law is for the safe conviction of pilots and engineers, and you can't have an accident of incident without breaching at least one (and usually a bucketload) of our so comprehensive suite of "air safety" laws.
Tootle pip!!

PS: There is a most interesting NSW Supreme Court appeal decision on the rights of the PIC versus SOPs, upholding the rights of the PIC, but CASA have never accepted the very strong legal precedent.

Who would have thought that the guy that designed the procedure and demonstrates it regularly rather than 6 monthly would be able to fly it to a higher standard? Give the guy a break. If I was going to have a failure at that height he's the guy that I would like to be sitting next to me. Great work FB.

If the SOPs were followed the outcome would have ended up in an accident.

A common mistake was made by not using the full length, and they pulled the jackpot joker. The debate is starting to become a p!ssing contest. Time to move on people.

How many people were in the aircraft?
All that have slung statements?
How many GA operators using YPDN RWY 29 use full length by choice.

A pilot had a number of heart beats to determine a fix, a positive outcome.
In this case the pilot did what that pilot could do.
It worked.

Centaurus, you are admired by many, including me. Many years ago we sat around a little round table drinking coffee and talked. You probably won't remember me. I remember you and the experience you have and the way you go about aviation.

In this case I think you have been unjust and exhibited what you have not been before. An armchair critic.

Sir, this is not you and the process you have used to admonish this living person is wrong.
He is living due to actions he called in those heart beats.

SOPs and processes do and will continue to save lives, sometimes, you need to do what you you have to to stay breathing. You and I will not know in this case as we were not there.

Where the f**k are you gna go EFATO on that rwy...? Nowhere, he had no option. Case closed.

I operated out of Darwin for many years and while no one will stop you using full length you wouldn't make many friends creeping back to use full length in an aircraft that can t/o in a quarter of Darwins length.The busy departure rate would plummet and holding fuel would increase. Imagine the thoughts of a 747 crew inbound from overseas when told to hold due Cessna 150 backtracking so he can use full length.

SOP's are written to cover the lowest experienced individual. A highly experienced individual, such as Cameron, of course can outperform a nugget. In deed, some operators lay down limits according to the level of experience. An extreme is "Captains Only" requirements.

Apparently, when CASA tried to heavy Cameron, the reply was why didn't the CASA engineers who inspected the aircraft on import detect the engine anomaly (was first of type for the operator). Wind died to zero.

Rutan, just a thought, but, if you wanted to use the full runway in Darwin in a Light Aircraft you wouldn't really cause any major delays except most likely to yourself, they'll just clear you across to the Alpha Taxiway and then get you to go down, you'll be delayed waiting for clearance to cross the runway though.

The following thoughts are all based on Singles. Whilst I wouldn't agree with necessarily using the Full runway in Darwin, a bit of extra backtrack can be requested and often won't cause any delays and will only take an extra 30 seconds, 100m, 200m, that could be the difference, "Ready immediate?", "No thank you sir, we'd rather wait a few minutes and take some backtrack".

Quite a few will disagree with me, you'll point out the obvious that he did infact make it back which, Yes, he did. But if the situation hadn't turned out so well, would we begrudge people taking an extra 5 minutes worth of taxi?

Sure, it's a bit of extra fuel but most Light Aircraft don't burn that much in the taxi anyway and even if you did it 10,000x it would still wouldn't equal the worth of a Hull and would never come close to the value of the lives onboard.

Darwin has very few options after you're airborne, so you either accept the Intersection departure and off you go, happy 99% of the time or take the extra time taxiing and burn a grand total of $10 worth of fuel and be happy 99.9% of the time.

I won't lie, I've operated out of Darwin as well and have taken many (mostly) intersection departures and never had any issues, but after something like this I'd be thinking about such things just a little bit more in future, especially at Aerodromes where your options are limited once airborne. It's a numbers game that we're all playing basically, luckily when the numbers all lined up this time it had a lighter load and was with someone onboard that was able to bring it back safely, next time it might not be so.

Nothing in this post is meant to admonish anyone and the way they do things. It's Aviation, I think we all know it's about weighing the risks vs the benefits, if you don't then you're probably in the wrong business. But I always feel it's worth pointing out that just because everyone does it and just because an aircraft CAN do something, doesn't necessarily make it a good idea to be done, it might just mean no one has been caught out YET.

Ouch! That one hurt a bit. We are all armchair critics at some time or another. If Pprune readers were all afraid to comment on Pprune for fear of being labelled with the derogatory term "Arm Chair Critic" then what a boring website it would be.
The ATSB report implied the pilot did a good job to get his aircraft back on the ground on one piece. It took fast thinking and clever flying. No argument from me on that point.

Use of the full runway can be a pain in the neck in terms of lost time. On the other hand, a hundred successful departures from an intersection in a single engine aircraft must inevitably lead pilots into a false sense of security. That being so, it is up to the pilot to decide is it worth the small added risk not to use all available length for safety reasons.

It was because it was a mechanical component on a fixed wing aircraft (non airliner). Darwin requires you not to follow regulations - they even put that in writing.