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 16th Aug 2018, 16:24
  #381 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Centaurus
The operative word is "noticeably." In the Convair (assuming my memory is correct from over 50 years ago since I flew the Convair 440) there was usually around 15 BMEP difference between the two engines on take off. That was because one of the engines was used for operating the air-conditioning /pressurisation systems and that stole power from that engine, for want of a better term. I forget which engine. However manifold pressure and RPM indications displayed equal for both engines. It was only the BMEP for one engine that was slightly down on the other engine
That's true centaurus, The DC-6 had pressurization on 2 engines, and the company I was with had the pressurization systems removed anyway, but there was always some variation due to engine condition, indicator system inaccuracy, etc. But once you had a feel for what was "normal", an indication outside of normal usually meant something.
A Squared is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 01:41
  #382 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas
Posts: 1,919
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Centaurus
The operative word is "noticeably." In the Convair (assuming my memory is correct from over 50 years ago since I flew the Convair 440) there was usually around 15 BMEP difference between the two engines on take off. That was because one of the engines was used for operating the air-conditioning /pressurisation systems and that stole power from that engine, for want of a better term. I forget which engine. However manifold pressure and RPM indications displayed equal for both engines. It was only the BMEP for one engine that was slightly down on the other engine
At least in FAA land there is an AD concerning the windshield. The simple solution to deactivate the pressurization system. So thirty some years ago all the CVs I flew had the pressurization inop. We bought a 240 that had been sitting for years mainly for the engine cowls to switch one plane from CA engines to CBs. During the ferry flight I look over and all the pressurization stuff on the FO's side panel appears to be working. So then we had to try to remember how to make it work.


And to think there are people on here who talk about the simple aircraft of the 1950s!


I still remember my first leg as PIC after 15-20 hours of OE with a line check airman. The FO and I had both come off DC-3s. Lining up on the runway I asked "Are you ready for this?" BMEP gauges and auto-feather lights. CHT selector switches and water pressure lights and gauges. We even had engine analyzers on some of the planes if you wanted to get up and play with them.
MarkerInbound is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 11:53
  #383 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 63
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MarkerInbound
We even had engine analyzers on some of the planes if you wanted to get up and play with them.
Engine Analyzer in Aircraft after overhaul good idea.
PAX in OLD Airplane after EO.
Not so such.
IMO.

Last edited by climber314; 17th Aug 2018 at 12:43.
climber314 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 13:47
  #384 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,125
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
Originally Posted by A Squared
Ehhh, it's not like we're talking about a rare, priceless historical artifact. There's rows of them sitting in the desert. We're a loooong way from running out of Convairs.
My point was: do we keep on crashing old aircraft until there are none left? There might be Convairs lining up to crashed buy not so many Ju-52s and old warbirds.
PAXboy is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 14:58
  #385 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 63
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by PAXboy
My point was: do we keep on crashing old aircraft until there are none left? There might be Convairs lining up to crashed buy not so many Ju-52s and old warbirds.
I'm not sure GROUNDING sound historical aircraft being operated in revenue service makes a lot of sense.
Especially if there of plenty of types available for static display in a museum.
This isn't the Wright Flyer.
Better to BE a part of history than to just SEE history.
climber314 is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 17:00
  #386 (permalink)  
Paxing All Over The World
 
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hertfordshire, UK.
Age: 67
Posts: 10,125
Received 58 Likes on 48 Posts
Since I was told that Convair are 'a dime a dozen' (sort of) I replied that it's fine to go on breaking them. But, at what point do you stop - when there are only three exampes left? One?
PAXboy is offline  
Old 17th Aug 2018, 17:23
  #387 (permalink)  

"Mildly" Eccentric Stardriver
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: England
Age: 77
Posts: 4,131
Received 215 Likes on 62 Posts
Agreed, paxboy. They said the same thing about Spits, Hurricanes and Lancasters after WWII.
Herod is online now  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 00:37
  #388 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Australia
Posts: 4,186
Likes: 0
Received 6 Likes on 4 Posts
Agreed, paxboy. They said the same thing about Spits, Hurricanes and Lancasters after WWII
Aerobatic displays by these precious old aircraft should be banned. OK to have a reasonably low flypast so spectators can hear the sound of a Merlin and admire the beautiful lines of a Spitfire, Mustang and similar warbirds, but showing off by performing a slow roll, steep wingover or barrel roll at low altitude is quite risky and totally unnecessary. Over-enthusiasm often leads to pilot error.
Centaurus is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 03:06
  #389 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Here and there
Posts: 3,089
Received 14 Likes on 11 Posts
You may as well ban all aerobatic displays then Centaurus. The machines are privately owned and I don't see why the owners shouldn't do whatever they like with them. If someone wants to make sure there is a non-flying but airworthy museum piece then they are welcome to buy one and store it.
AerocatS2A is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 16:23
  #390 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: USA
Posts: 255
Received 22 Likes on 5 Posts
Originally Posted by WhoFlungDung
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.
Yes, it could have easily been much worse, so before you start arguing that the crew "saved the lives of 18 people on board" once airborne, one must make the case that deciding to accept those 18 pax on board for a maintenance test flight of an aircraft after prolonged down time/ just out of heavy maintenance was prudent or a wise decision in the first place, regardless of what papers those in back signed. That's a question of crew judgement that can't be ignored.
PukinDog is offline  
Old 18th Aug 2018, 19:22
  #391 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
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
  #392 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
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
  #393 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbon Bootprint
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
  #394 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Edmonton, Alberta
Posts: 17
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Chris Scott
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
  #395 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA
Posts: 349
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #396 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes on 1 Post
Originally Posted by Gigajoules
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
  #397 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Blighty (Nth. Downs)
Age: 77
Posts: 2,107
Received 4 Likes on 4 Posts
Originally Posted by Gigajoules
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
  #398 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Australia
Age: 71
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
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
  #399 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
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
  #400 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Australia
Posts: 1,082
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Has anyone been able to ascertain, from the footage available, if the cowl flap position matches the cowl flap setting?
currawong is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.