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 18th Aug 2018, 19:22
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 74
Posts: 2,084
WhoFlungDung writes that two people lost their lives in this accident, whereas the Preliminary Report states one, who I understand was the LAME. I'm hoping no one else has died since?

The circumstances of the sad death of the LAME will presumably be covered in a later report. Considering he was charged with operating the engine controls, was he able to wear a harness on whatever he was seated?
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 21:28
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Chris Scott View Post
WhoFlungDung writes that two people lost their lives in this accident, whereas the Preliminary Report states one, who I understand was the LAME. I'm hoping no one else has died since?
I believe somewhere earlier in this thread it was mentioned a person who was in the building the aircraft struck died a couple of days after the incident.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 22:20
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 74
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by Carbon Bootprint View Post
I believe somewhere earlier in this thread it was mentioned a person who was in the building the aircraft struck died a couple of days after the incident.
Yes, that was posted by Hotel Tango on 11th July, the day after the accident, citing a Dutch news source. The date of the Preliminary Report is corrupt ("01 FEBRUARY 2017" [sic]). but I imagine it was compiled well after that. It clearly states that 8 people on the ground were injured, 4 seriously, but no fatalities at that stage.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 02:59
  #384 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 17
Originally Posted by Chris Scott View Post
Yes, that was posted by Hotel Tango on 11th July, the day after the accident, citing a Dutch news source. The date of the Preliminary Report is corrupt ("01 FEBRUARY 2017" [sic]). but I imagine it was compiled well after that. It clearly states that 8 people on the ground were injured, 4 seriously, but no fatalities at that stage.
The date of the report is not corrupt. The "01 February 2017" refers to the report template date (some type of version control). Nobody on the ground died, it was a mix-up in the media...
Gigajoules is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 03:44
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
I think the thing that stands out most here is that the cowl flaps were wide open.

-drl
deSitter is offline  
Old 19th Aug 2018, 04:53
  #386 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 430
Originally Posted by Gigajoules View Post
The date of the report is not corrupt. The "01 February 2017" refers to the report template date (some type of version control). Nobody on the ground died, it was a mix-up in the media...
I was unaware the ground fatality report was erroneous. I'm glad to hear that, this was bad enough as is.
Carbon Bootprint is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 00:02
  #387 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 74
Posts: 2,084
Originally Posted by Gigajoules View Post
The date of the report is not corrupt. The "01 February 2017" refers to the report template date (some type of version control). Nobody on the ground died, it was a mix-up in the media...
Yes, that it was a template date was evident! But I think it's normal to append a specific date to any report.

Relieved to have confirmation that no one died on the ground, thanks.
Chris Scott is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 04:10
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Age: 68
Posts: 60
voyageur9 (#246) highlights a critical factor and asks a reasonable question. My thoughts on these historic aircraft operations are that, inevitably, a small clique of pilots become type-rated (not a small achievement in the modern era, given the flying that must be involved) and from that, they become 'legends'... their celebrity, of course, being promoted by such people as personnel within their historic aircraft organisation, the media, and various airshow commentators. It IS beginning to sound as if the captain was not quite as competent--including in managing CRM--as some have suggested by pointing out his pedigree. It is also looking as if that old-hand LAME might have been extended slightly excessive deference due to his acknowledged familiarity with the aircraft and to the captain's previous experience of flying with him. There was also--apparently--a supernumerary STANDING on the flightdeck or in the doorway during the flight. These matters also go to the question of the degree of precision of captaincy and management of CRM displayed (or not) by the PF that day.

The ATSB's FindIT tool shows the crash site at 25' 40"/28' 17".

Last edited by Down and Welded; 20th Aug 2018 at 06:14.
Down and Welded is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 06:54
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
I think this whole warbird/vintage debate is derailing this thread. Whatever the antiquity of the aircraft is, it was operating in a passenger-carrying role with some clear risks involved.

Whether or not those risks were correctly managed is currently speculative; whether or not those risks associated with passenger carrying needed to be incurred in the first place, is not.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 07:48
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Has anyone been able to ascertain, from the footage available, if the cowl flap position matches the cowl flap setting?
currawong is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 10:55
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 55
Posts: 2,378
Originally Posted by GeeRam View Post
And the relevance of that statement to this accident is what exactly.........??

Zilch, nothing, nada.

Over here, there is an airshow called "Oldtimertreffen Hahnweide" (OTT), that regularly attracts many thousand of spectators and dozens, if not hundreds of old birds. The only accident I recall was an Extra, (NOT an oldtimer!) losing power after T/O and going into a field. The A/C displayed range from Ryans to DC-3s, they also had fly bys by a Connie, a B-17, a ME 262 etcetc. The displays are done by Stearmans, Cubs, Bückers, Warbirds (P-40,47,51, Spits, Hurricanes, Yaks, Sea Furies, ME 109s and a lot others)

This ban and forbid reflex is just....
His dudeness is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 12:19
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,883
Dudeness, sadly we are headed for a ban and forbid reaction from the various regulators - certainly in regard to carrying passengers in old aircraft . I believe it already exists for commercial operations in Europe. The three most recent crashes (DC3 in the USA, Convair in South Africa and Junkers in Switzerland) can only accelerate the usual knee jerk response from regulators as they move to cover their public service backsides.
Down here in Oz and the Shaky Islands we are still lucky enough to occasionally see a DC 3 on a commercial flight carrying passengers to the vineyards, or doing scenic flights, evening dinner over the city lights etc. The safety record is OK because the few operators are sufficiently diligent in their maintenance and pilot training. It is doubtful that they actually make a profit from such operations, but they persist for the love of it and recover as much of their costs as they can by flogging tickets to the public.
Do the public know the potential risks? Of course not! No one will market a joy flight in a DC3 by stating that if it suffers an engine failure there is a chance it won’t be landing back at the departure airfield, or indeed may not actually land on any airfield but possibly on a convenient beach.
Therefore, I fear these grand old birds will be soon be legislated out of commercial operation by the imposition of modern performance standards, requirements for ADS B, flight recorders etc.which will make them unaffordable for all but the most wealthy private collectors.
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 12:32
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
The only accident I recall was an Extra, (NOT an oldtimer!) losing power after T/O and going into a field.
That very same year a Bücker or Stampe biplane also went into a field after engine failure...

With no people injured, such incidents typically do not attract too much attention. With warbird display pilots being typically very skilled, most of the airshow incidents do not result in injuries or fatalities.

Everybody should know that preserving our aviation heritage in flying condition is not without risk. Everybody involved should accept this. We are not talking commercial air transport of customers without a clue.
Restoring an ancient castle is also not without risk..

It looks like the people involved in the Convair preservation and transfer to the Netherlands did basically know what they were doing, they were skilled, they did it before. What exactly went wrong will most probably be discovered and all people in this relatively small community will learn from it. I know many people dealing with vintage and classic aircraft, all of them follow such threads carefully. Most of them are aware that they do not know everything, and are eager to learn more. It is a pitty that a lot of knowledge gets lost constantly, but many people are working hard to preserve as much of it as possible.
Volume is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 12:42
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
We are not talking commercial air transport of customers without a clue.
Well actually that's exactly what we are (or should be) talking about in this thread. Amongst other things that should be pertinent and thought-provoking to professional aviators everywhere. As opposed to a whole load of spraff as to whether or not vintage aircraft should be allowed in the sky, which a great many people who make (or in my case, made) a living out of aviation could not care less about.

Oh well, time for me to go, I'll read the accident report when it comes out. I doubt it will contain many surprises.
The Old Fat One is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 12:47
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Here and there
Posts: 387
You may as well ban all aerobatic displays then
That was never even hinted at. Nothing wrong with aircraft owners of aerobatics approved modern flying machines spinning and flying upside down leaving coloured smoke all over the sky. But please let the rare old warbirds fly sedately past the crowd so that those of us still alive who either flew them during WW2 or even post war, can watch them with affection without wondering if the owner pilot is going to suddenly show off and lose control with the inevitable result
Judd is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 13:03
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: All at sea
Posts: 1,883
I am not quite sure how we got from an engine fire and loss of control in a Convair to aerobatics in this thread. Relevance is?
Mach E Avelli is offline  
Old 20th Aug 2018, 13:47
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 60
Posts: 83
Originally Posted by Mach E Avelli View Post
I am not quite sure how we got from an engine fire and loss of control in a Convair to aerobatics in this thread. Relevance is?
Yeah... no kidding!
MAJOR thread drift.
Create a new thread to discuss other issues?
climber314 is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2018, 03:59
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,337
Time for some balanced reporting?

THE AUSSIE CONVAIR PILOTS WERE HEROES
I have been reading the Preliminary Report of the Convair Pretoria Accident.
This report was issued by the Accident and Incident Investigative Division of the South African Civil Aviation Authority.
The 3 Investigators responsible for the report were local engineers of which only the lead engineer " had done some flying ".
The report basically tries to blame the Australian pilots but it is full of errors, inaccuracies and unwarranted opinion.
For example the First Officer, a highly regarded Qantas A380 training captain, was accused of not being type rated on the Convair. Yet I can see on page 4 of his Australian ATPL under Type Qualifications - C340/440 above A380 and B747. Also this same crew two years previously had ferried the same model Convair to Australia.
What is most disturbing however is that the 3 engineer investigators appear to have no understanding of twin piston engine aircraft climb performance in the event of an engine failure.
Twin engine jet aircraft have a required climb performance capability in the event of an engine failure after takeoff. Piston twin engine aircraft however may not climb safely away on one engine.The single biggest improvement in aviation safety has been the switch from piston to jet engines. Jet engine stress is rotational inertia unlike the harsh reciprocating forces in a piston engine. In two thousands hours on RNZAF Sunderland flying boats I experienced 4 engines failures 2 of which were partial. In 20,000 plus subsequent hours on jet aircraft I have up to date only experienced 1 failure which was a bearing failure in a Learjet engine and which I immediately shutdown to avoid damage.
The elevation of 4,100 feet at Pretoria and a temperature of 20 degrees C meant a reduced engine power output from a density altitude of 4,700 feet. Plus 19 passengers and nearly 4000 lb of fuel suggests that there was insufficient performance available on one engine to safely climb away.Pilots of piston twin aircraft are taught that if an engine fails before selection of gear up then close the throttle of the remaining engine and land straight ahead. If the engine fails after selection of gear up, which appears to be the Convair case, then the pilot is committed to climb away at the safety speed.
The Convair engine was a partial failure that progressively got worse. Pilots are taught before all else to fly the aircraft and airmanship in this case meant using what power was available from the failing engine, even if it was on fire, to assist in getting to a safe altitude to perform an emergency return to the field for landing. That they managed to get to 800 feet is testament to this fact.
The report slays the pilots for not carrying out the emergency procedure of shutting down the engine. To do so as the investigators state would probably have resulted in a more rapid performance decay and possibly loss of control and crash with the death of all on board. That the pilots managed, in a no win situation, to mitigate the forthcoming consequences by keeping control means they should be lauded. They importantly crashed under control in a nearly wings level attitude that unfortunately resulted in only the one fatality of the Flight Engineer, but saved the rest.
Another disturbing feature of the report is that the investigators, with no formal CRM training, confused the standard airline identification and confirming procedure ( avoids error ) as the pilots being unsure of what was happening. These 2 pilots are Senior Qantas Check and Training captains which includes them teaching human factors and CRM.
This report is severely flawed. The investigators should have sought the advice from experienced airline pilots. That they did not do not means in my opinion that the report is worthless.
CAS should request to the South African CAA a formal review of the report with a view of ensure the final report does not contain these many errors and unqualified opinions.
BYRON BAILEY

www.captainbyronbailey.com
Fris B. Fairing is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2018, 05:27
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 220
Fris - look. No one familiar with South African aviation authorities would assume to get a competent first report these days. It happens, but less and less often. I fully expect the final report to be much more professional. Politics, unfortunately.

I don't think anyone here is really over-exercised about the paperwork - licenses, validations, certificates... we know these guys could fly the plane, and we know they know that their careers depend on them following the rules of Air Law.

I doubt anyone really doubts the capability, experience and airmanship of the flight deck team.

Pretty much everyone here understands that old machines break more often than new ones, and that when they break, the safety systems in place to mitigate consequences are generally not as good as modern safety systems.

There's really only one major bone of contention left - what on earth did they think they were doing taking passengers on that flight? First flight out of major overhaul, challenging density altitude (for the type), unfamiliar ground... Honestly. I wouldn't take passengers in my car, in the equivalent circumstances.

That, sadly, is the decision upon which the case for the defence falls apart. Everything else is irrelevant, or a distraction.
rcsa is offline  
Old 22nd Aug 2018, 05:50
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Brisbane, Australia
Posts: 1,337
First flight out of major overhaul
Do we know this as fact? Could it have been the aircraft's first flight since it was painted? To some, a new paint job alone might constitute a major overhaul.
Fris B. Fairing 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.