VH-BDS Duchess report released
 

This is "interesting".
IMHO a few large holes in this report.

ATSB Report Here

Agreed. Some details that don't stack up:

..for those figures to dovetail the pilot would have to have been using 100fpm for his descent. Hmm.

And it goes on, labelling the "approximate conditions at time of engine failure" on the graph at 4 degrees, as opposed to "descending through, and just below, the forecast freezing level".

No reference to a drop in MAP or change of yaw trim that one would expect as a warning sign before the noticeable yaw.

Also in the narrative it is written that the pilot advanced the throttles and props as an immediate action. And yet shortly after it states that he did not select full power on the good engine until after securing the failed engine and subsequently noticing that he could not maintain altitude at Vyse.

And "The ATSB did not conduct an inspection of the propeller feathering system or engine".

All in all, not a great report. Rather cursory as so often with GA accidents.

Some details that don't stack up:

The relevance of a ground level dew point some 6,000+ feet below a moving air mass....... in winter time. Freezing level 7,000 with little or no cloud below cruising level. Normally aspirated engines at 7,500 and reducing power for descent.......!

" Rather cursory ...."

That was kind, oggers.

There is a lot missing here, including the experience levels involved - from the aircraft endorsement to the investigation!

I don't think the disclaimer stacks up:

The PIC is a Grade 1 instructor, CFI/HOO, was CFI of Cooranbong for the last 5 years or so, and is a ME IFR Examiner. :D

No examination of engine. No on-site investigation. Just a reassurance from the recovering LAME (was that a mate from Church?) that there was fuel in the tanks.

I know this is a separate question - what action has the regulator taken?

[QUOTE][what action has the regulator taken?/QUOTE]
Get real, what would they know about flight safety, they are regulators only.
CC

Squark - that's a great report and investigation - better than "they said it was OK so we're pretty sure it was OK"

Ever since the first tricycle landing gear fighters came on the scene, research proved it was generally safer to force land with wheels down rather than belly land wheels up. Ditching was different. The RAAF followed this advice with the introduction of the Vampire, Meteor and Sabre jet fighters in the early Fifties. The advantages were energy absorption taken by the landing gear system instead of through the pilots spine as with a wheels up landing. Also with wheels down, brakes are available thereby shortening the landing run. Different with tail wheel aircraft of course where heavy braking on touch down can cause the aircraft to go over on its back.

As with so many flying schools, most instructor school graduates haven't a clue about flying beyond what is taught to them by their own grade three instructors during their early PPL and CPL training. Google might be your friend as they say but very few pilots study flying training history.

In this Duchess accident report, a wonderful opportunity was missed by ATSB to discuss the pros and cons or flight safety advantages of a wheels down forced landings versus wheels up belly landing. A belly landing is fraught with danger on any surface because of lack of energy dissipation and the potential for spinal injury as the shock of impact is directly through the pilots seat to his spine.

Landing gear down on uneven surface may result in one or more landing gears tearing off. But at least in doing so, energy is dissipated that way rather than through the pilots spine at fuselage contact. I believe flying school instructors have a duty of care to inform their students of the facts of the matter.

Haven't heard of that theory before. Is that personal opinion? Any proven evidence? Maybe any RAAF pilots reading Pprune could advise on RAAF policy on King Airs for example?

Which is probably why the A-10 was designed to leave the wheels partially exposed to lessen the damage when landing with them retracted. Guess the designers didn't listen to the military. Military jet pilots generally have another option rather than landing at all, and that seems to be the overwhelmingly preferred option, leaving the question of gear up or down a moot point.
Gear down would slow the approach speed (which is probably why it was recommended for the early jets), and anything that lessens the energy of the crash that then has to be absorbed by the structure before it is transmitted to the occupants is a good thing.

Flaps change an aircraft approach speed - not the landing gear?

Some Flaps can change an aircraft approach speed by providing low speed lift and/or consequential drag. Extending the landing gear is in most cases, all drag.

CC

Landing gear down or up? Neither the Dutchess or Baron flight manuals offer guidance on gear position for a forced landing, in fact they make no mention of forced landings, though the Baron manual says to pick smooth sod for a gear up. The C404 manual on the other hand does provide guidance by saying land gear down if the surface is smooth and hard, if the terrain is rough or soft land gear up.

As the incident in question was at night I'd opine the pilot made the correct choice to go gear up, not knowing the precise state of the landing surface. A friend did an engine out in an A36 gear down, day time, into a very good farmers field and tore the nose wheel out when it hit a very small ditch, remained upright with little damage, other than nose wheel and attachment. Copied the DC-3. :D Judd, small aircraft regularly find themselves with their legs in the air, though at inappropriate times. This incident cites braking as the cause, but the nosewheel digging into soft ground can be enough to give the same result, as can landing in standing crops or water. Nor does the King Air manual offer guidance, once again, it makes no mention of forced landings.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-new...-36165824.html