Convair 340 (C-131D) ZS-BRV crash Pretoria, South Africa
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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....
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only accident I recall was an Extra, (NOT an oldtimer!) losing power after T/O and going into a field.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: UK
Posts: 1,515
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We are not talking commercial air transport of customers without a clue.
Oh well, time for me to go, I'll read the accident report when it comes out. I doubt it will contain many surprises.
You may as well ban all aerobatic displays then
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?
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Chocolatetown
Age: 63
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: en route
Posts: 222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
First flight out of major overhaul
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Nairobbery
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Balanced reporting ... I don't think so.
These pilots were not heroes.
They were not legally entitled to pilot that aeroplane on that registration at that time. As senior Q training pilots they know full well the law, and as noted in Oz, it is a strict liability offence. If foreign pilots conducted this flight in Australia they would be prosecuted and the Q pilots union would have been fully supportive of the prosecution. However Australians coming to Africa and behaving like amateur cowboys is somehow acceptable? Remember, by choosing to conduct this illegal flight the pilots' actions led to DEATH.
Again, as far as "doubt(ing) the capability, experience and airmanship of the flight deck team" ... I wait to see and hear the GoPro footage. Good airman would not have flown an illegal flight. Good airmen would not have carried passengers on the test flight. But as reported by the SACAA they behaved in a thoroughly unprofessional manner for the aircraft type they were flying in, and again because of their actions people DIED.
These pilots were not heroes.
They were not legally entitled to pilot that aeroplane on that registration at that time. As senior Q training pilots they know full well the law, and as noted in Oz, it is a strict liability offence. If foreign pilots conducted this flight in Australia they would be prosecuted and the Q pilots union would have been fully supportive of the prosecution. However Australians coming to Africa and behaving like amateur cowboys is somehow acceptable? Remember, by choosing to conduct this illegal flight the pilots' actions led to DEATH.
Again, as far as "doubt(ing) the capability, experience and airmanship of the flight deck team" ... I wait to see and hear the GoPro footage. Good airman would not have flown an illegal flight. Good airmen would not have carried passengers on the test flight. But as reported by the SACAA they behaved in a thoroughly unprofessional manner for the aircraft type they were flying in, and again because of their actions people DIED.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
According to the report:
Aircraft was painted and weighed February 2017
"Rebranded" in December 2017
Flown in February 2018
A, B and C checks performed July 2018.
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: what U.S. calls ´old Europe´
Posts: 941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A, B and C checks performed July 2018.
I do not even know whether Convair has ever published letter checks, this policy was introduced later in the industry around the mid 60s. But maybe Convair was pioneering this.
Probably the former owner/maintenance organisation called it that way.
They were not legally entitled to pilot that aeroplane on that registration at that time.
because of their actions people DIED.
Because they did not take certain actions, people died.
Because of some of their actions many people SURVIVED.
What they did perfectly is "fly the plane" and "control the plane as far as possible into a crash", this for sure saved lives. But it does not make them heroes.
They should have probably realized earlier that they will not make it back to the airport and perform an emergency landing in a suitable flield. There were several along their flight path.
Thanks to GoPro we will probably receive a great final report.
Join Date: Sep 2017
Location: Europe
Posts: 1,674
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Every pilot ever having graced a 'crash comic' started the day assuming it was not going to happen to them.
Perhaps human nature as it applies to the individual means we as a species consider those fallen lesser than ourselves, maybe this is what helps humans do things, including flying which carry real risk: It is always that guy not me.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the occupants exited the aircraft still breathing is testament to many factors.
Best to leave it for the fullness of time to reveal what transpired.
Perhaps human nature as it applies to the individual means we as a species consider those fallen lesser than ourselves, maybe this is what helps humans do things, including flying which carry real risk: It is always that guy not me.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of the occupants exited the aircraft still breathing is testament to many factors.
Best to leave it for the fullness of time to reveal what transpired.
We shall definitely wait for the full report but there is little reason to doubt the preliminary findings.
We have a "super" CVR in the form of the GoPro. As far as we know they did not communicate during the emergency, which is is not good airmanship. And "controlled flight" into a dairy factory is very suspect to me. Until proven otherwise there was nothing controlled here and they just happen to crash into power lines then into the building pretty much as passengers. As I wrote earlier their only redeeming quality was to be incredibly lucky: good on them!
Now I don't know if this fight was recoverable: they were most likely going down anyway. But there is zero indication so far that crew performance was above par.
We have a "super" CVR in the form of the GoPro. As far as we know they did not communicate during the emergency, which is is not good airmanship. And "controlled flight" into a dairy factory is very suspect to me. Until proven otherwise there was nothing controlled here and they just happen to crash into power lines then into the building pretty much as passengers. As I wrote earlier their only redeeming quality was to be incredibly lucky: good on them!
Now I don't know if this fight was recoverable: they were most likely going down anyway. But there is zero indication so far that crew performance was above par.
Whom would you prefer to fly this machine? Someone with all the boxes ticked and the I's all dotted, that has f all experience on type and overall? Or would you prefer these guys that were in the accident?
As said above #408, most of us, having been dealt a hand such as they were dealt, would probably have died along with all on board, given the same senerio.
As said above #408, most of us, having been dealt a hand such as they were dealt, would probably have died along with all on board, given the same senerio.
I certainly question the wisdom of flying paxes in a test flight after apparently an extensive maintenance.
I have many reservations on the crew performance (or lack of) during the emergency but I'll wait for the final report.
But I am happy that whoever was flying this aircraft was immensely lucky!
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course it might have been a viable plan to keep the engine running as long as possible due to the OEI performance of this aircraft.
However, I would have expected that this plan is discussed by the flight crew members.
Furthermore, due to the topologie the traffic pattern to the north is very long - they where in the air for 9min until they crashed. With just 4kt of wind a procedure turn and a downwind landing would have been an option to get the plane on the ground ASAP. Maybe there was a reason not to do that but it should have been discussed.
Also, they should have been aware that an engine fire in a piston engine might quickly compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft. Again, that was not discussed.
However, I would have expected that this plan is discussed by the flight crew members.
Furthermore, due to the topologie the traffic pattern to the north is very long - they where in the air for 9min until they crashed. With just 4kt of wind a procedure turn and a downwind landing would have been an option to get the plane on the ground ASAP. Maybe there was a reason not to do that but it should have been discussed.
Also, they should have been aware that an engine fire in a piston engine might quickly compromise the structural integrity of the aircraft. Again, that was not discussed.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Alaska, PNG, etc.
Age: 60
Posts: 1,550
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Wales
Posts: 82
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I can quite see why people climb into aircraft of a previous age to relive nostalgia, (I would myself) but there is a history of things going wrong. There is a parallel with this accident - https://www.gov.uk/aaib-reports/2-19...19-august-1984 which I would hope the operators of older aircraft would take on board.