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 4th Sep 2019, 09:04
  #481 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 72
Posts: 3,179
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by roundsounds View Post

Both of these pilots gained their type ratings on the sister ship in SA by a local instructor / examiner. There seems to be some information missing or misinformation in the report.
If true it is indeed not really what the report says :
1.5.1.3 The PF (and PM) ..... had not done a skills test on a Convair 340/440 as required
ATC Watcher is online now  
Old 4th Sep 2019, 12:51
  #482 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 3,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They did their type ratings with an SA instructor in order to have the aircraft put on their Australian licences.
JW411 is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2019, 11:41
  #483 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: OZ
Posts: 1,077
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is not the "skills test" an annual requirement?
It was when I was doing a bit of flying in Africa "North of the Limpopo".
mustafagander is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2019, 12:08
  #484 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: aboard
Age: 63
Posts: 77
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Skilltest is the first checkride for the type rating as far as I know.
After that it's yearly LPC's isn't it?
Mariner is offline  
Old 5th Sep 2019, 16:35
  #485 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: UK
Age: 81
Posts: 3,771
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Mariner is absolutely correct in his statement. However, it should be remembered that this aircraft was being operated as a private aircraft on a private flight. It was not being operated as a public transport category flight, Therefore, "PPL" rules applied. (You could fly a 747 on a PPL if you could find someone to insure you). By the way, I hear that one of the pilots has made a reasonable recovery but has no memory of the accident. The other still has serious medical problems.
JW411 is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2019, 09:51
  #486 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Even if the plane is operated privately the type rating is only valid for one year.

There are no operational requirements like a line check but the validity of the TR is the same.
EDML is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2019, 22:13
  #487 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The report is clear that neither pilot had flown a Convair 340 for 17 months before the accident flight.
medod is offline  
Old 6th Sep 2019, 22:53
  #488 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: California
Posts: 361
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
It occurs to me to ask: How does one do a check ride on a type when there are no flying instances of that type in the country, and possibly no examiner rated on the type?
MarcK is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2019, 03:30
  #489 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Australia
Posts: 469
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I suspect that the answer to the last questions are to be answered by the fact that the sister ship to the accident aircraft is currently operating in Australia and both pilots may be the normal crew on the Australian aircraft???

If the accident report says that they hadn't flown a Convair for 17 months ,then it seems wrong. Maybe not an SA registered Convair?

In the world of rare historic aircraft operations, its normal for crews to keep recent on foreign aircraft. I know that both the Swiss Connie and Lufthansa 1649 crews kept recent on the HARS Connie.

Wunwing

Last edited by Wunwing; 7th Sep 2019 at 03:46.
Wunwing is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2019, 08:15
  #490 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 68
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Learned contributors,
Wasn’t it a similar engine fire that finally closed Air Atlantique’s efforts to put a Convair twin on to the U.K. register G-CONV was I believe a CV-440?
Is this a known problem on Convair CV-340/440 aircraft?
Be lucky
David
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2019, 14:02
  #491 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Stockport MAN/EGCC
Age: 68
Posts: 984
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by The AvgasDinosaur View Post
Learned contributors,
Wasn’t it a similar engine fire that finally closed Air Atlantique’s efforts to put a Convair twin on to the U.K. register G-CONV was I believe a CV-440?
Is this a known problem on Convair CV-340/440 aircraft?
Be lucky
David
Having now had a chance to get fully on line, and check ASN I see the answer is a definite YES.
Sorry to trouble you
David
The AvgasDinosaur is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2019, 15:30
  #492 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,180
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Is this a known problem on Convair CV-340/440 aircraft?
I flew the Convair 440 Metropolitan as QFI on the RAAF No 34 (VIP) Squadron for several years 1963-68. Apart from the occasional induction fires caused by over-priming during engine start, I do not recall any in-flight engine fires. The over-priming fires were caused by inexperienced ground engineers starting the Convair engines for the first time without adequate supervision.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 7th Sep 2019, 20:56
  #493 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2019
Location: UK
Posts: 68
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Wunwing View Post
I suspect that the answer to the last questions are to be answered by the fact that the sister ship to the accident aircraft is currently operating in Australia and both pilots may be the normal crew on the Australian aircraft???

If the accident report says that they hadn't flown a Convair for 17 months ,then it seems wrong. Maybe not an SA registered Convair?

In the world of rare historic aircraft operations, its normal for crews to keep recent on foreign aircraft. I know that both the Swiss Connie and Lufthansa 1649 crews kept recent on the HARS Connie.

Wunwing
The report isn't clear. For example, in the conclusions:

3.2.4 Both pilots last flew the Convair 340/440 aircraft 17 months prior to the accident flight, therefore, none of the crew complied with the 12-month competency check.

But in the flight crew information section contradictory information is given; the PFs logbook indicated 5.9 hours on type in the last 90 days (the PM's logbook wasn't found). But the same section also says According to the PF’s logbook, the PF last flew the Convair 340/440 on 27 February 2017. ??

Still, none of this takes away from the fact that the pilots were fully aware the left engine was on fire but took no actions to deal with it. They had observed that the engine had low MAP before V1 but elected to continue. Once the fire was obvious, the LAME handed the PM the AFM QRH but the PM "ignored it", to quote the report. It must be said though that the LAME was manipulating the engine controls, not the pilots. The fire melted out the rivets securing the left wing's aileron cable pulleys which resulted in the cable going slack and the left aileron rising, as seen in the video. They lost roll control & lift, on top of the drag of the burning engine which they never feathered or secured.

The engine caught fire because the LAME didn't service it properly, missing that no. 7 cylinder's exhaust valve was cracked and partly missing its head. The cylinder head cooling fins softened and failed and the combustion flame escaped the engine. No 13's piston rings had also failed and were no longer sealing; that didn't cause the fire but it and no. 7's damaged exhaust valve did drop the MAP.

The programmed maintenance performed a few days before the flight called for compression testing of each cylinder on both engines but the LAME patently didn't do this.

The engine had been showing low MAP on two previous flights but the LAME removed the gauge each time and sent them to another AMO, who both times recorded that it was blocked with carbon deposits and cleaned it out, rather than compression testing the engine.
medod is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 11:39
  #494 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: near an airplane
Posts: 2,323
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by medod View Post
Still, none of this takes away from the fact that the pilots were fully aware the left engine was on fire but took no actions to deal with it. They had observed that the engine had low MAP before V1 but elected to continue. Once the fire was obvious, the LAME handed the PM the AFM QRH but the PM "ignored it", to quote the report. It must be said though that the LAME was manipulating the engine controls, not the pilots.
For me, this is one of the main questions that remains after reading the report; why did they not take any action to deal with the engine? Was this because of a CRM arrangement where they expected the LAME to deal with it? Were they too overwhelmed by the flying qualities of the aircraft with one engine low on power to take on any other tasks? Did the events unfold with such speed that they didn't have time to take action (I cannot find a timeline in the report)? I realise that we may never know the answer, but a bit more attention to this particular question by the investigating team would have been appropriate in my view.

Jhieminga is offline  
Old 9th Sep 2019, 18:00
  #495 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 926
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Very odd response by two experienced aviators. I would look into what may have been known about the port engine prior to departure. Speculating but if they knew it was down on power that might go some way to explain lack of response initially.
Shame that a gracious old lady had to be so miss handled to cause her demise.
IcePack is offline  
Old 12th Sep 2019, 13:16
  #496 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 70
Posts: 154
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
During my airline years we were drilled to call ENGINE FAILURE/FIRE, LOUD and clear. This was to "reset" the crew (including Yrself) to start one's memory items/actions, whatever You were doing otherwise. More or less the same effect You will see when calling "Mayday 3X" , it will get anyone's attention (ATC and other A/C) and get everyone into high gear and do the job one was trained for.
It looks like this was not done here, plus the presence of the LAME had eroded the strict 2-man crew operation. It was NOT a three man crew with a fully trained FE, notwithstanding his knowledge of the engines. The LAME did probably all his best from a technical standpoint, but did not fit into CRM at that moment.
The pilots were leaning (too)heavily on his presence/actions.

For ones who might wonder why the aileron went upwards, when the aileron control cables break the pressure difference below and above the wing will force it upward. Possibly, when speed would be rising, it would blow back into a more trailing position, but if the net result would be the same rollrate, I have no cue. Anyone here to have an idea?
In this case they were already trading height for minimum speed, for not getting the prop into feathering, and there was no more energy to accelerate. Getting more speed would have given them more control, like with the rudder to assist in roll.
Nevertheless, as with many other accidents, not a scenario I'd like to be in and play hero. And I do have mixed feelings talking about the subject with the crew still recovering, But that is aviation.
And wishing them all the best.
Double Back is offline  
Old 13th Sep 2019, 12:03
  #497 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 64
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Double Back View Post
During my airline years we were drilled to call ENGINE FAILURE/FIRE, LOUD and clear. This was to "reset" the crew (including Yrself) to start one's memory items/actions, whatever You were doing otherwise. More or less the same effect You will see when calling "Mayday 3X" , it will get anyone's attention (ATC and other A/C) and get everyone into high gear and do the job one was trained for.
It looks like this was not done here, plus the presence of the LAME had eroded the strict 2-man crew operation. It was NOT a three man crew with a fully trained FE, notwithstanding his knowledge of the engines. The LAME did probably all his best from a technical standpoint, but did not fit into CRM at that moment.
The pilots were leaning (too)heavily on his presence/actions.

For ones who might wonder why the aileron went upwards, when the aileron control cables break the pressure difference below and above the wing will force it upward. Possibly, when speed would be rising, it would blow back into a more trailing position, but if the net result would be the same rollrate, I have no cue. Anyone here to have an idea?
In this case they were already trading height for minimum speed, for not getting the prop into feathering, and there was no more energy to accelerate. Getting more speed would have given them more control, like with the rudder to assist in roll.
Nevertheless, as with many other accidents, not a scenario I'd like to be in and play hero. And I do have mixed feelings talking about the subject with the crew still recovering, But that is aviation.
And wishing them all the best.
Lift moves the aileron up when it’s no longer firmly connected to the other side. It will move up until a balance between lift and loss of lift due to the aileron position is reached. More speed won’t change that as the lift increases as well.
Depending on the way the cables are connected the other side will move up as well. That would keep things symmetrical with no roll rate. However, roll control would be very limited or lost altogether.
EDML is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 04:12
  #498 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,751
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
the presence of the LAME had eroded the strict 2-man crew operation. It was NOT a three man crew with a fully trained FE
The USAF operated the aircraft with a three man cockpit crew, two pilots and a flight mechanic. The mechanic has his duties/responsibilities spelled out in the flight manual, among items he operated were ignition switches, cowl flaps, flaps (on pilots call). Were they operating in accordance with USAF procedures perhaps, or utilising a form of carry over from their Constellation practices?
megan is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 05:13
  #499 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Weltschmerz-By-The-Sea, Queensland, Australia
Age: 100
Posts: 1,256
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Did the accident aircraft have brake mean effective power gauges? More than MAP + RPM, BMEP shows a direct torque (and hence h.p.) output. I have a very few long-ago hours on CV440, and am no expert on the R-2800, hence I probably would defer to the superior technical knowledge of the engineer when it came to nuances. Once you do that though it might be too easy to rely on that knowledge past the point of (operational, pilot sh*t) prudence.

I think the US Navy crashed a 440 in similar circumstances in the 70’s. Engines mounted in the wing present fire-related issues that we moderns have not had to consider for several generations of aircraft.
Australopithecus is offline  
Old 14th Sep 2019, 08:08
  #500 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 4,751
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 2 Posts
Did the accident aircraft have brake mean effective power gauges
Yes, has torquemeters.
megan 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 © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.