Convair 340 (C-131D) ZS-BRV crash Pretoria, South Africa
There is an underlying complacency with meeting any semblance of compliance that occurred then, nearly 10 years before the Convair event.
Of light relief, reportedly the "PIC" involved in this had to phone home on a borrowed cell phone to work out how to start the 73 before departing on the adventure. To give the PIC his due, once upon a time he was a very good Checker on B747s with a major carrier, but retirement seems to have altered his view on standards and compliance matters.
FAA was aware of the issue, as was SA CAA, and as was CASA... and no one did a thing about it. FAA has enough work on their plate with other items to be worried about cloned jets, or the same Antonov being used on contract to the UN, 2,305nm apart at the same moment, registered to a country that doesn't have an Antonov on its register. One colourful vignette came from a recovery crew picking up a 737 on a lease that was delinquent, which was parked beside the cloned B737, showing the same registration. The crew were impressed enough to take happy snaps of the twins. The regulators did... nothing.
Please note that I'm only playing devil's advocate with regard to the licencing issue. I'm not commenting on the other aspects of this accident.
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In support of the crew, to get a validation in SA, was (and is?) extremely bureaucratic and cumbersome, at least that was it 15 Yrs ago.
I did it a few times to get my SAA PPL, to rent a Cessna whenever I had a layover.
One of the irritating and stubborn views of the office was that the expiry date of part of my ATPL's IF rating was of course sooner than the ATPL itself.
They insisted that that date was then also the expiry date of my validation, even while it was a VFR PPL validation only! So with some luck I had it valid for 3-4 months.
After doing that a few times (my next trip was always after the expiry date...) I got fed up and never rented again.
Bureaucracy at its worst, thinking in hurdles in stead of possibilities.
Of course the government tries to "protect" the local pilots of not giving away an ATPL too easily, but they could have stated on it, that is was only for a few test flights on that specific plane plus the outward bound.
Try that with a driver's license of a foreign visitor and the local rental car businesses would be crying out...
The report does not state why the crew did not/could not obtain a suitable validation, I am sure they tried!. If this was because of a missing check flight, I swallow my words, but they might not have gotten even close to this point. Instead the report mentions the missing licensing several times. But no word WHY it was missing...
I did it a few times to get my SAA PPL, to rent a Cessna whenever I had a layover.
One of the irritating and stubborn views of the office was that the expiry date of part of my ATPL's IF rating was of course sooner than the ATPL itself.
They insisted that that date was then also the expiry date of my validation, even while it was a VFR PPL validation only! So with some luck I had it valid for 3-4 months.
After doing that a few times (my next trip was always after the expiry date...) I got fed up and never rented again.
Bureaucracy at its worst, thinking in hurdles in stead of possibilities.
Of course the government tries to "protect" the local pilots of not giving away an ATPL too easily, but they could have stated on it, that is was only for a few test flights on that specific plane plus the outward bound.
Try that with a driver's license of a foreign visitor and the local rental car businesses would be crying out...
The report does not state why the crew did not/could not obtain a suitable validation, I am sure they tried!. If this was because of a missing check flight, I swallow my words, but they might not have gotten even close to this point. Instead the report mentions the missing licensing several times. But no word WHY it was missing...
Really, how sure ... as sure as you are that they wouldn't break rules and procedures, wouldn't fail to follow checklists or display basic airmanship, wouldn't recklessly endanger the lives of others by turning a test flight into a sightseeing jaunt. Sadly the dead and the injured may have shared your misplaced confidence but paid a far higher price.
Well, formally licensed or not, ignoring a defective (or at the very least extremely suspect) then burning engine was extremely poor aimanship. That people walked form this crash as sheer luck.
The report does not state why the crew did not/could not obtain a suitable validation, I am sure they tried!. If this was because of a missing check flight, I swallow my words, but they might not have gotten even close to this point. Instead the report mentions the missing licensing several times. But no word WHY it was missing...
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 71
Posts: 165
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The current owners MUST have known the crew failed to get the corresponding licenses. If not, they were quite sloppy in their preparations. Normally, getting a validation for these kind of flights, the "locals" will be helping with all the paperwork and the national licensing department.
And if they DID know, that makes them culpable as well, willingly letting an incomplete licensed crew fly their plane.
I rented planes all over the world, but I never got a simple C172 from the FBO/Club w/o them checking my license..... Plus a checkout of course...
And if they DID know, that makes them culpable as well, willingly letting an incomplete licensed crew fly their plane.
I rented planes all over the world, but I never got a simple C172 from the FBO/Club w/o them checking my license..... Plus a checkout of course...
IF they tried to obtain a validation, but couldn't or didn't, and flew the flight knowing they were technically unlicensed makes it worse than simply thinking, or assuming as the case may be, that the CAA blindly accepted their Australian qualifications. The report doesn't seem to go into either their attempts to obtain such a validation, or their reasoning for crewing the flight without it, either knowingly or not.
Join Date: Aug 2017
Location: London
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
)But: Failing to get the certification shows a "she'll be right" attitude. Which is confirmed by the rest of the narrative. Taking passengers when not current, in an old crate, and not having the engine fire checklist drilled into memory...
I can't see anything in the accident report about why they didn't pull the fire suppression. Were they reluctant to shut an engine down if they were still getting power out of it?
From the various reports of the in-flight footage and accident report my take is that they froze, possibly not even recognizing an engine fire and the seriousness of it...
Last edited by atakacs; 31st Aug 2019 at 09:05.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Being rated on the CV340 they should have been aware that an engine fire on such a radial engine quickly affects the structural integrity of the aircraft.
Convair 340 (C-131D) ZS-BRV crash Pretoria, South Africa
The investigation report makes no mention of interview evidence. Were the investigators unable to speak to them at any time while still in-country - even as they were eventually preparing to travel back to Australia? One wonders if the SA investigators will ever be able to ask these two the requisite questions... or is it that they will lay low in Australia, have a memory lapse, and choose to make no contribution whatever to the advancement of aviation safety?
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: East Sussex
Age: 71
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Really, arguing the toss about whether things are merely "untidy" or it's merely because bureaucratic obstacles simply prevent compliance with rules is a complete red herring. The bottom line is that it was an unsound operation in almost every respect. To even contemplate flying to the Netherlands is even more worrying. This type of thing only ensures that the difficulties facing preservation and operation of old aircraft become even more stringent. Many would say rightly so, after reading the accident report.
I am led to believe that both of the pilots were senior QF captains (one of them was on the A380). I am also led to believe that they had successfully delivered ZS-ARV to Australia previously? They were both very seriously injured in the accident and ended up in hospital in induced comas. One, I have heard, ended up with a double amputation. So, perhaps those of you out there who can't understand why they did not give a comprehensive debrief before they were medivaced back to Oz might just give them a little bit of latitude.
Last edited by JW411; 3rd Sep 2019 at 08:04. Reason: Spelling
I am led to believe that both of the pilots were senior QF captains (one of them was on the A380). I am also led to believe that they had successfully delivered ZS-ARV to Australia previously? They were both very seriously injured in the accident and ended up in hospital in induced commas. One, I have heard, ended up with a double amputation. So, perhaps those of you out there who can't understand why they did not give a comprehensive debrief before they were medivaced back to Oz might just give them a little bit of latitude.
The current owners MUST have known the crew failed to get the corresponding licenses. If not, they were quite sloppy in their preparations. Normally, getting a validation for these kind of flights, the "locals" will be helping with all the paperwork and the national licensing department.
And if they DID know, that makes them culpable as well, willingly letting an incomplete licensed crew fly their plane.
I rented planes all over the world, but I never got a simple C172 from the FBO/Club w/o them checking my license..... Plus a checkout of course...
And if they DID know, that makes them culpable as well, willingly letting an incomplete licensed crew fly their plane.
I rented planes all over the world, but I never got a simple C172 from the FBO/Club w/o them checking my license..... Plus a checkout of course...
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: Earth
Posts: 16
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So the question is, did this damage occur during the final impact, during the flight, or was this panel like that before the flight?
If the T handle was missing, that might explain why the crew couldn't address the fire.
Drain Bamaged
If it had broken on their hands, I think it would have been mentioned on the report. Or words would have gone out about it one way or another.
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Germany
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, having seen the pictures of the cockpit area after the crash and seeing the broken and bent fire panel in the dirt with shards of glas it is pretty obvious that the T-handle was ripped of in the accident sequence.
Furthermore, if you look closely at the picture it is obvious that panel is distorted and the switch holding the T-handle is dislodged. That has surely torn off the T-handle.
Furthermore, if you look closely at the picture it is obvious that panel is distorted and the switch holding the T-handle is dislodged. That has surely torn off the T-handle.
