Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

Convair 340 (C-131D) ZS-BRV crash Pretoria, South Africa

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

Convair 340 (C-131D) ZS-BRV crash Pretoria, South Africa

Old 14th Aug 2018, 21:22
  #341 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 58
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by Murexway View Post
I might buy "likely would have", but "would have"?
Yeah, "would have". That close to the ground there simply isn't enough time or space to figure out why the airplane is rolling uncontrollably despite your aileron inputs. If there was a way to initiate this at altitude, perhaps some good pilots could figure it out and overcome a lifetime of practice and control roll with "backward" inputs. 10 ft off the runway? Not a chance. Your wing is in the ground before you have time to think anything other than " whoa! I'm really rolling left, I need more right aileron. "

Regardless, we have ample video of the takeoff it took off without a wobble in roll. Whatever the cause of the raised aileron in the video, it wasn't from them being rigged backward in Mx.
A Squared is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 21:36
  #342 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Who said it was rolling uncontrollably? He had control for quite awhile. But If he needed aileron and it went the wrong way, turn the yoke the other way. Just because previous instances turned out poorly doesn't mean they will all automatically result in an immediate crash.

Last edited by Murexway; 14th Aug 2018 at 21:52.
Murexway is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 21:51
  #343 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 58
Posts: 1,550
Originally Posted by Murexway View Post
In any case, you're probably right - the ailerons weren't the problem. I was just brainstorming.
Well, obviously on the video from inside the plane in flight, there's some problem with the aileron. I'm just saying that I think it's really unlikely that it was a Mx Reversal of the ailerons prior to takeoff. .
A Squared is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 22:58
  #344 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
Well, obviously on the video from inside the plane in flight, there's some problem with the aileron. I'm just saying that I think it's really unlikely that it was a Mx Reversal of the ailerons prior to takeoff. .
Yeah, something sure wasn't right, unfortunately.
Murexway is offline  
Old 14th Aug 2018, 23:37
  #345 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
The C-131 was old and slow, but it was a very comfortable, stable airplane. In 1972-73 when Bendix was developing the first TCAS, we used one with specially calibrated altimeters to run head on passes against a C-135 starting with 2,000 ft. vertical separation, and working our way down to 500 ft. It was an eye opener.

But I digress. Hope both the guys in the hospital do well.
Murexway is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 00:07
  #346 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Under The Southern Cross
Posts: 37
Disgusted

Originally Posted by Grizzly Bare View Post
If this is how professional airline radial engine drivers behave in an abnormal situation, then heaven help us all!

People DIED because this crew were not situationally aware/unprofessional/inept/incompetent (choose your own adjective).
Bare, I read your comment with utter disgust. How dare you slander these pilots before the investigation is complete. What right do you have to judge and condemn anyone involved in this tragic accident on the basis of a preliminary report? Who knows what this crew were faced with on the day. Controllability issues? Engine shutdown? How would you feel about intentionally destabilizing an aircraft that was maybe marginally controllable - immediately after take off? Gear? These guys know whether the gear has been selected up or not - but perhaps the fire had destroyed the gear indication circuitry. Would that not be cause for confusion and or discussion about the gear position? The fire is clearly evident below the wing and in the LH main gear area. Convairs have a history of Aileron issues associated with engine fires. And tell me Bare, which non normal checklist would you call for? The one titled "Crew Are Struggling to Control Aircraft - Shutdown Engine and Lose Control Totally"? Or would you expect the crew to muster their combined 37000 hrs of experience to try and manage a situation for which there is no checklist or training.Or perhaps you have some magical technique that neither Boeing or Airbus have mastered for dealing with multiple failures? The tragedy of this event is that two people lost there lives. It could have been so much worse. By all means speculate on the cause of this horrific event, but don't you dare condemn two men who have arguably saved the lives of 18 people on board, on the basis of a preliminary report.
WhoFlungDung is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 00:13
  #347 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,095
Hopefully, the pilots will recover and be able to fill in the blanks
Even though they may regain their physical health they may have absolutely no memory of the accident flight.

Post-Traumatic Amnesia - Memory Disorders - The Human Memory
megan is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 00:46
  #348 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2012
Location: Florida USA
Age: 58
Posts: 0
WFD post 358. I would go the engine shutdown and fire checklist from memory items close cowl flaps while on the way to land empty in about a 3 seconds pattern as it is an out of heavy maintenance test flight with nil pax/weight....... Is this answer ok, but Im not an Australian top gun so might be a bit simple.

OH I would have run the engines up with the LAME looking from the outside shutdown checked for leaks restarted etc before he jumped aboard rather than " started the left engine once the LAME was onboard per report ".
4 Holer is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 00:52
  #349 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Under The Southern Cross
Posts: 37
There are no Top Guns here 4 Holer. Just want to make sure two guys get a fair hearing. Can it be any simpler?
WhoFlungDung is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 02:14
  #350 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: America
Posts: 130
None of us know what was really going on in that cockpit. We can speculate all we want, but let's wait a bit before we castigate our fellow professional airmen, who are still in the hospital.
Murexway is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 02:34
  #351 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: North by Northwest
Posts: 476
Originally Posted by rog747 View Post
There is a thread about the 2 QF crew members welfare on the Ozzie pages - and these chaps were involved in flying with the HARS heavy piston fleet for some years
Is this the same HARS crew that ferried the PBY from Portugal? There was a YT documentary on that which I can no longer find. I was somewhat surprised at the condition that the PBY was ferried with and the relatively cavalier attitude of the crew to potential problems - even to themselves (caveat, I don't know who narrated it).
b1lanc is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 06:41
  #352 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
Bear in mind, there was no mention of BMEP in the report, it's only been a point of discussion in this thread.
Is that another inaccuracy of the (interim) report? Do they actually mean the BMEP when they say "the captain stated that the manifold pressure was low" ?
Do they mean the BMEP indicators when they say "the manifold pressure gauge, which is a dual indicator for the left and right engine, was removed, repaired and refitted to the Aircraft" ?
Does manifold pressure mean anything on these high power piston engines? Is it as important as on a typical SEP with CS Propeller? Or is BMEP the parameter you use to manage engine power?
Is the removed and repaired unit somehow linked to the autofeather system?
Volume is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 08:36
  #353 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,942
Originally Posted by Murexway View Post
None of us know what was really going on in that cockpit. We can speculate all we want, but let's wait a bit before we castigate our fellow professional airmen, who are still in the hospital.
Murexway,
Well said, preliminary guesses based on the GoPro and little else will NOT be the whole story.
As for whether the crew were "legal" or not, firstly it has no bearing on the reasons for this terrible accident, and sounds more like a bureaucratic balls up than anything else, to me. Nowhere (but particularly in Australia) is aviation law straight forward and unambiguous.
Tootle pip!!
LeadSled is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 09:29
  #354 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: UK
Age: 64
Posts: 302
good news is one of the pilots (Doug) has been repatriated home by QF

also one of his QF colleagues has stated the pilots were def typed rated for the a/c (Ok but maybe not for flying in RSA as reported?)

please see the thread on the pacific forum for more details re the pilots and news

Douglas Haywood and Ross Kelly
rog747 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 11:09
  #355 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: east ESSEX
Posts: 3,979
Can anyone confirm whether the aileron controls are cable ,or pushrod operated.Also a`routing` diagram along the wing/fuselage would be useful...
sycamore is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 11:32
  #356 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Surrey, UK
Posts: 858
Originally Posted by A Squared View Post
As I said in a previous post, its really a torquemeter. The way it measures torque is the outer ringgear of the planetary gear reduction unit has helical splines around it's rim. These fit into helical splines in the nose case of the engine. the reaction to engine torque tend to shift this ring gear backward (Or is it forward?, it's been a while) opposing that axial thrust are a series of hydraulic pistons which operate off engine oil pressure from the nose case scavenge pump. there's some sort of metering mechanism so that the pistons exactly offset the axial thrust of the ring gear, and the actual measurement is of the oil pressure required in the pistons to balance that axial force, the signal from the oil pressure transducer is displayed on the BMEP gauge. As a side note, on other radial engine installations, the torque meter was calibrated in units of "Torque oil pressure" which is a more accurate description of what is actually being measured that BMEP, But again, the units are arbitrary, learn what numbers you should see for what power setting on your engine and it doesn't matter the actual units are.
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound The autofeather system is armed by raising the guard and then the switch under it found at the center of the pedestal aft of the prop controls. There is one green light to the left of the switch that indicates the system is armed. When the throttles are advanced to a point that equates to ~45 inches MAP and the BMEP drops below ~70 for more than one second a solenoid pulls the feather button in and the prop feathers as if the feather button was pushed. The system also then disarms to prevent autofeathering the other prop.
And to think there are people on here who talk about the simple aircraft of the 1950s!
steamchicken is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 11:33
  #357 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Aus
Age: 29
Posts: 488
Originally Posted by Grizzly Bare View Post
First iteration:
"Sorry, our documentation is not yet in place, so we can't legally fly yet."
That night everyone is still alive.

Professional airline pilots know when they are legally allowed to fly, and know when they can't. Many thousands of birthdays/anniversaries have been missed because crews have reached duty limits and can't fly home in time - even though they desperately wanted too. QF pilots would not deliberately bust mere duty hours to get home, and yet this flight happened in Africa. This is so much a worse violation. An attitude of "I don't have the legal authorisation to fly this airplane in this country on this registration, but what-the-hell I'll violate the law and do it anyway, it's only South Africa - not like it's a real country and a real CAA" by any chance?
Knowing that they were both (clearly) trained on type, you are focusing on easily the most irrelevant and insignificant aspect of this tragedy, paperwork on the day wouldn't have stopped what happened from happened. For what purpose or agenda remains to be seen.
junior.VH-LFA is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 13:15
  #358 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls Žold EuropeŽ
Posts: 941
The flight crew were not licenced to pilot this aircraft. Simple.
Really simple? Are there still training organisations around which have instructors current on this type? Are there training aircraft available? (approved) Flight simulators? Are there any examiners current on the type? Is the manufacturer maintaining the training material up to date? Or even the pilot handbooks? Does the licence mean anything?
It might be a pure beurocratic paperwork issue, you can probably have pilots which can perfectly handle such aircraft but are lacking the paperwork, you probably can also have pilots perfectly licenced but havin no clue how to operate them.
For 1950s vintage aircraft it does not make much sense to aply 2018s regulation for flight crew licencing.

So it is a simple fact with a difficult truth behind...
Volume is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 13:42
  #359 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 60
Posts: 83
[QUOTE=The Ancient Geek;10193854]The SACAA can be relied upon to publish a full investigation is due course, their work is always to a very high standard.
/QUOTE]

Paperwork seems to be a legitimate concern.
CRM is another issue, as is NOT running the EFTO/Fire Checklists amongst others.
A GoPro video is a pretty good substitute for the lack of CVFDR in this incident.
What is the alternative theory here?
That SACAA has it "in" for the crew due to a regulatory issue?
Seems like an unbiased and fact-based PRELIMINARY report IMO.
It appears some here don't like the facts as presented by SACAA?

Last edited by climber314; 15th Aug 2018 at 16:53.
climber314 is offline  
Old 15th Aug 2018, 15:45
  #360 (permalink)  
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 260
Something from the other thread that I had not seen mentioned before

https://www.pprune.org/australia-new-zealand-pacific/611016-douglas-haywood-ross-kelly-post10195432.html

It is stated that the FO on the accident flight, Ross Kelly, had an engine failure in another Convair last year. So one of the flight crew had first hand experience of the CV-340 on one engine even if at a very light weight.

Not sure how that would manifest itself in this case, but surely better than having no experience of engine problems.
Feathers McGraw is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

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

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.