Piper Navajo N80HF accident North Weald
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Here and there
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Piper Navajo N80HF accident North Weald
Evening all,
If anyone has any information surrounding the landing accident of Piper Navajo N80HF at North Weald earlier this year could you please PM me, it would be very much appreciated!
I have genuine motives for seeking this information, so if anyone does want to know before passing anything along please do ask and I shall let you know via PM
Many thanks,
Ox
If anyone has any information surrounding the landing accident of Piper Navajo N80HF at North Weald earlier this year could you please PM me, it would be very much appreciated!
I have genuine motives for seeking this information, so if anyone does want to know before passing anything along please do ask and I shall let you know via PM
Many thanks,
Ox
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Here and there
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
After having an interesting chat with people at North Weald, I have learnt that for the undercarriage systems to be operable on a Piper Navajo at least one of the engines must be operating, and N80HF landed gear-up on the 25th July 2010. Of course, the undercarriage could be deployed using the emergency extension procedure for that aircraft, although I can imagine that might be quite difficult whilst dealing with a double engine failure.
From one look at the aircraft (it's sitting outside at the Squadron) you can tell that it has clearly had a gear-up landing, although interestingly on both propellors two of the blades are damaged with the third being untouched, and there is no obvious deformation of the shape of the blades to suggest that they were under power at the time of impact. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the only situation that can cause both engines to fail simultaneously is a lack of fuel. How very interesting.
Thank you for those who have PM'd me so far, but if anyone does have more information or a witness account of this forced landing it would be very much appreiciated.
Kind regards,
Ox
From one look at the aircraft (it's sitting outside at the Squadron) you can tell that it has clearly had a gear-up landing, although interestingly on both propellors two of the blades are damaged with the third being untouched, and there is no obvious deformation of the shape of the blades to suggest that they were under power at the time of impact. Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the only situation that can cause both engines to fail simultaneously is a lack of fuel. How very interesting.
Thank you for those who have PM'd me so far, but if anyone does have more information or a witness account of this forced landing it would be very much appreiciated.
Kind regards,
Ox
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Midlands
Posts: 2,359
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“Correct me if I am wrong but I believe that the only situation that can cause both engines to fail simultaneously is a lack of fuel”
There have been double engine failures (almost simultaneous) on commercial jets, which were not fuel related, but due to very unlikely events or shortly after maintenance or modification.
Rod1
There have been double engine failures (almost simultaneous) on commercial jets, which were not fuel related, but due to very unlikely events or shortly after maintenance or modification.
Rod1
Also icing, fuel contamination, a catastrophic failure of one throwing parts & causing damage to the other, interference with controls/switches, failure of one + procedures while operating on one engine resulting in failure of the other (probably not simultaneously but landing with both engines stopped doesn't necessarily imply simultaneous failure).
There's five off the top of my head + what previous posters have written. Shall we have a competition to see how many reasons can be devised?
There's five off the top of my head + what previous posters have written. Shall we have a competition to see how many reasons can be devised?
Last edited by Tinstaafl; 25th Jan 2011 at 01:43.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It might just be the pilot pulled both mixtures to ICO because he knew he was landing gear-up and wanted to save the engines more damage than necessary.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I tend to agree with most other comments here. Running out of fuel is the least likely purely on chance.
More likely running out of fuel would cause an off airport forced landing. Too unliklely but not impossible for the fuel to pick short finals to run out.
Fuel starvation is another matter as there were some double engine failures on the Golden Eagle caused by the fuel pumps going into the hi setting and causing both engines to fail. I believe the 340 as well as the 303 had the same pumps?
Dont know if the Navajo has such problems!
Failure to extend the Gear normally or by emergency gear extension methods would mean that the pilot would likely cut both engines to save shock loading once assured of landing on the runway or grass.
Pace
More likely running out of fuel would cause an off airport forced landing. Too unliklely but not impossible for the fuel to pick short finals to run out.
Fuel starvation is another matter as there were some double engine failures on the Golden Eagle caused by the fuel pumps going into the hi setting and causing both engines to fail. I believe the 340 as well as the 303 had the same pumps?
Dont know if the Navajo has such problems!
Failure to extend the Gear normally or by emergency gear extension methods would mean that the pilot would likely cut both engines to save shock loading once assured of landing on the runway or grass.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
why not stop both engines so save shock loading the engines.
).The vast majority of shock load inspections find no damage but most of the cost is in the whole dismantling + NDT job so the cost saving from shutting down the engine is minimal.
Also most 3B props mandate a scrapping of the hub if 2 or more blades are damaged to an extent requiring removal, and economically you are looking at new prop(s) anyway. So now you have two zero-timed props and if there was no shock load inspection you will have an engine logbook telling a different story, which very few buyers will believe.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
10540
Shutting both engines down is a good idea before touchdown on two counts! It will save internal damage regardless of whether the engines have to be examined and it will reduce the danger of high speed bits of prop entering the cockpit and killing someone as happened in the humberside Golden Eagle prop strike on go around.
So for your own safety shut down before touchdown
Pace
Shutting both engines down is a good idea before touchdown on two counts! It will save internal damage regardless of whether the engines have to be examined and it will reduce the danger of high speed bits of prop entering the cockpit and killing someone as happened in the humberside Golden Eagle prop strike on go around.
So for your own safety shut down before touchdown
Pace
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Surrey
Posts: 1,217
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is not at all clear from the accident record that shutting down the engine(s) is a wise move when making a gear up landing.
There certainly are cases where the engine was 'saved' but there are also cases where the pilot spends so much time faffing about bumping props etc that he stalls the aircraft or misjudges the shutdown point and lands short.
There may also be cases where idling props break off on ground contact and injure someone (although I am not aware of this ever happening). I am aware of fatalities when a prop driven at full power hits the ground during a botched go around.
There certainly are cases where the engine was 'saved' but there are also cases where the pilot spends so much time faffing about bumping props etc that he stalls the aircraft or misjudges the shutdown point and lands short.
There may also be cases where idling props break off on ground contact and injure someone (although I am not aware of this ever happening). I am aware of fatalities when a prop driven at full power hits the ground during a botched go around.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MM
The Golden Eagle was a go around prop strike under power.
Sadly a piece of the prop entered the cockpit killing one of the occupants. Nevertheless it shows that there is a lot more energy to do damage if the prop is under power on striking.
Most gear up prop strikes are due to gear failure.In such an event burning off fuel is sensible hence a diversion to a large runway with good emergency services and preferably foam to avoid spark fuel ignition is also sensible.
As such landing short would not be a problem to an experienced pilot.
Cutting the engines at 50 feet when landing is assured would be far safer than landing under power.
One pilot flew over a van with an engineer on the back who pulled the one undercarriage leg down and there are other examples of creative piloting.
I don't consider much risk on cutting the engines unless a poor pilot is at the controls
Pace
The Golden Eagle was a go around prop strike under power.
Sadly a piece of the prop entered the cockpit killing one of the occupants. Nevertheless it shows that there is a lot more energy to do damage if the prop is under power on striking.
Most gear up prop strikes are due to gear failure.In such an event burning off fuel is sensible hence a diversion to a large runway with good emergency services and preferably foam to avoid spark fuel ignition is also sensible.
As such landing short would not be a problem to an experienced pilot.
Cutting the engines at 50 feet when landing is assured would be far safer than landing under power.
One pilot flew over a van with an engineer on the back who pulled the one undercarriage leg down and there are other examples of creative piloting.
I don't consider much risk on cutting the engines unless a poor pilot is at the controls
Pace
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airmanship alone has demonstrated this.
I'd say walking away from an single engine aeroplane with a failed engine in flight is a rather good achievement...
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Funny how people just pop up with a post count of 1 and making some point against somebody else
and I accept that any landing you walk away from is good and if they can use the 'plane again............
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 41
Posts: 65
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by IO540
Funny how people just pop up with a post count of 1 and making some point against somebody else
Report out.
I found it very interesting reading. A very large degree of bad luck, handled well by what reads to me as a very competent pilot.
Fuel starvation because of abnormally high fuel burn (more than 20% greater than the POH, which the pilot had already allowed for), combined with an even worse than usual fuel gauging system - then handled impressively well by a pilot who managed a very well performed gear-up landing from an engine failure at 1000ft 2 miles out.
I don't believe that I know anybody involved and have no axe to grind either way - but it really does come across to me as very bad luck, handled very well once it had happened.
G
I found it very interesting reading. A very large degree of bad luck, handled well by what reads to me as a very competent pilot.
Fuel starvation because of abnormally high fuel burn (more than 20% greater than the POH, which the pilot had already allowed for), combined with an even worse than usual fuel gauging system - then handled impressively well by a pilot who managed a very well performed gear-up landing from an engine failure at 1000ft 2 miles out.
I don't believe that I know anybody involved and have no axe to grind either way - but it really does come across to me as very bad luck, handled very well once it had happened.
G