Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Private Flying
Reload this Page >

Piper Navajo N80HF accident North Weald

Private Flying LAA/BMAA/BGA/BPA The sheer pleasure of flight.

Piper Navajo N80HF accident North Weald

Old 24th Dec 2010, 22:21
  #1 (permalink)  
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
Oxeagle is offline  
Old 29th Dec 2010, 13:52
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 87
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What do you want to know and why...?
Thoroughly Nice Bloke... is offline  
Old 24th Jan 2011, 23:51
  #3 (permalink)  
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
Oxeagle is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 01:10
  #4 (permalink)  
 
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
Rod1 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 02:04
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 1998
Location: Escapee from Ultima Thule
Posts: 4,279
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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?

Last edited by Tinstaafl; 25th Jan 2011 at 02:43.
Tinstaafl is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 02:31
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: London, UK
Posts: 294
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.
Wrong Stuff is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 07:48
  #7 (permalink)  
 
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.
Very likely that he may also have positioned the props for the same reason. If you have to go in gear up it's a very sensible thing to do. Minimises damage.
Johnm is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 08:01
  #8 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 53
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I was going to say the same thing. When landing is assured, why not stop both engines so save shock loading the engines.
englishal is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 09:00
  #9 (permalink)  
 
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
Pace is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 09:42
  #10 (permalink)  
 
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.
It won't save a legally mandatory shock load inspection IAW the engine mfgs requirements (unless one is a real cowboy and basically forges the logbooks ).

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.
IO540 is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 10:51
  #11 (permalink)  
 
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
Pace is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 11:27
  #12 (permalink)  
 
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.
mm_flynn is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 17:30
  #13 (permalink)  
 
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
Pace is offline  
Old 25th Jan 2011, 23:00
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 939
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Crashing an aircraft with fixed undercarriage and a ballistic parachute is quite an achievement.
Johnm is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 07:55
  #15 (permalink)  

 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 53
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Airmanship alone has demonstrated this.
I suppose it depends what caused the double engine failure. Mistakes with crossfeed can do this as can fuel mismanagement, amongst other things.

I'd say walking away from an single engine aeroplane with a failed engine in flight is a rather good achievement...
englishal is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 08:07
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
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
IO540 is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 08:15
  #17 (permalink)  
 
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
Well spotted and I accept that any landing you walk away from is good and if they can use the 'plane again............
Johnm is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:24
  #18 (permalink)  
W2k
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Sweden
Age: 39
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
Funny how you made that your 12,001st post
W2k is offline  
Old 26th Jan 2011, 18:43
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I know; it's really scary...
IO540 is offline  
Old 8th May 2011, 17:29
  #20 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 14,036
Received 12 Likes on 5 Posts
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
Genghis the Engineer is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information

Copyright © 2023 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.