Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

LASER DC-3 crash in Colombia

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

LASER DC-3 crash in Colombia

Old 10th Mar 2019, 21:28
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 48
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing View Post

Look at this video to give you an idea at what Raptor System TT is referring.
Just imagine the ground way much closer.

Thank you,I have an even better example,just need about two more posts to post the link..
Raptor Systems TT is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2019, 21:33
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 48
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by guadaMB View Post
Yep...
Like a fly.
Dropped vertically and put her six legs on ground.
Physics don't help on that theory...
Unless it bounced somewhere else before this and it's not in the pic the crash site from what we can see lacks evidence of forward momentum on impact,and I 've got just the fly example for you,gimme a minute..
Raptor Systems TT is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 14:20
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 49
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing View Post
DC-3 stall with skydiver video
Look at this video to give you an idea at what Raptor System TT is referring.
Just imagine the ground way much closer.
wow... never seen that video - quite spectacular !
atakacs is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 14:45
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Spain
Age: 64
Posts: 79
Simply IMPOSSIBLE if we take that video as a source for discussion.
To just leave both wings on the right place (one broken/charred the other almost intact) and the tail section just sitting on the ground...???
With no forward or lateral traces of movement?
That's not a bike. A DC-3 weights about 8 tons plus cargo & pax (if I can remember correctly).
And MOVING...

Last edited by guadaMB; 11th Mar 2019 at 14:45. Reason: spelling
guadaMB is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 16:22
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 48
Posts: 16
Originally Posted by guadaMB View Post
Simply IMPOSSIBLE if we take that video as a source for discussion.
To just leave both wings on the right place (one broken/charred the other almost intact) and the tail section just sitting on the ground...???
With no forward or lateral traces of movement?
That's not a bike. A DC-3 weights about 8 tons plus cargo & pax (if I can remember correctly).
And MOVING...
That's the exact same argument against the alternative theory .

Many factors can influence the outcome of obvious physics,and they are also 'physics'..normal physics can be manipulated by other physical factors on the day.
Raptor Systems TT is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 16:37
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 48
Posts: 16
I don't know why my post was deleted yesterday,maybe I spammed on my 10th?

This is the vid I was referring to,they even mention "flat spin" I hope this isn't a fly..
Raptor Systems TT is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 16:38
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Trinidad And Tobago
Age: 48
Posts: 16
Double clicked...sorry..
Raptor Systems TT is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 22:56
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: cheese
Posts: 49
Is it possible that the bare area in front if the plane, across the road, is the impact scar?
It would have had to turn 180 after impact. Or is it a coincidence that the only row of palms(?) that doesn't extend right up to the roadway happens to be exactly across from where the plane ended up?
short bus is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2019, 23:25
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 2,561
Also reports "DC-3" which yes, can also mean converted C-47
Reported that itt flew in the Second World War for the Air Force as 42-23838 (built in 1942) and was a C-47-35-DL model. Interesting history, would seem Basler must have resurrected her from the data plate up.
42-23838 (MSN 9700) to USAAF Jun 15, 1943. Elmendorf, Alaska Apr 30, 1944. Became NC49538 in Jun 1946 with Mount McKinley Airfreight Company at Anchorage, AK, then N7V. Proctor and Gamble Ltd converted it to a DC-3 in 1950 as N3W, then N3PG. To First National Stores of Somerville, MA Feb 1969 as N308FN. To S. J. Hunter Realty Ltd, Sayville, NY (May 1972), South Bay Electric Supply Co, Inc Patchogue, NY Jul 1972. To Air Cardinal in Canada then CF-EEX with Aladin Safaris, Dorval, QP Jul 29, 1973, Air Caravane leased Jul 1973. To Golfe Air Quebec, Hauterive, QP (1975), then C-FEEX with Golfe Air Quebec then AirGava. Feb 1982 to Century Airlines of Pontiac, Michigan as N2669A. Then to Spain with ARM Paife as EC-187 then EC-FNS Aug 1992. Bought by Mistair as N47FK named "Fifi Kate". To Aces High Flying Museum, Dakota Club, North Weald, Exxes. Starred in "Band of Brothers" with D-Day serial 292912 and other films. Noted in open storage at Lee-on-Solent Airfield, England Oct 2003, wearing false serial 292912. Leased by Aviodrome from Mistair for summer of 2004. N47FK became HK-4700X, ferried thru Opa Locka, Fl May 20101 for [email protected] Aero Colombia. As HK-4700 on Nov 6, 2010 sustained substantial damage in accident at Puerto Carreno-Guerima Airport, Colombia. No fatalities. Repaired, but crashed May 8, 2014 near San Vicente del Caguan, Colombia. 2 pilots and four crew members killed.
megan is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2019, 22:43
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Geneva, Switzerland
Age: 49
Posts: 1,207
Originally Posted by ehwatezedoing View Post
All DC3/C-47 left flying in Colombia are working aircrafts.
Being cargo, pax or combi (mainly combi)
Basler (turbine Dak) are either with their Police or Air Force.


Interesting. Is there an economic sense to do so when speaking TCO ? It must be quite expensive to maintain those airframes in fly worthy conditions - I'm pretty sure a more modern design could deliver the same services with both lower costs and increased security...
atakacs is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 00:49
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 253
Word is from friends in Colombia, the aircraft had a engine failure and could not feather prop. While flying to alternate airport could not maintain altitude with remaining engine. Vaya con dios.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 01:48
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Out of a Suitcase
Posts: 123
Originally Posted by wrench1 View Post
Word is from friends in Colombia, the aircraft had a engine failure and could not feather prop. While flying to alternate airport could not maintain altitude with remaining engine. Vaya con dios.
A controlled forced landing should still be possible - the picture appears to show the forward part of the aircraft crushed. This would indicate a possible loss of control with the aircraft crashing with a high vertical speed and low forward speed.

You would reach Vmc before the aircraft stalled.
Eric Janson is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 02:07
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: PNW
Posts: 67
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Interesting. Is there an economic sense to do so when speaking TCO ? It must be quite expensive to maintain those airframes in fly worthy conditions - I'm pretty sure a more modern design could deliver the same services with both lower costs and increased security...
One of the things that has kept these old Dak's flying in remote areas of South America, is that they can easily land and take off on very rough dirt airstrips. It's like the largest "bush plane" out there. As long as there are spare parts and local mechanics to work on them, it's not easy to replace the amount of cargo and pax they can haul in and out of these remote unpaved airstrips in a single flight.
Photonic is offline  
Old 13th Mar 2019, 15:51
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 6
DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMERDISCLAIMER I am not an expert on much of anything that really matters and am not current on any aircraft type.

A couple of decades ago, I was a designated Party to an NTSB investigation into the crash of a Cessna 205. The aircraft entered a spin at approximately 3,000 ft. AGL.This spin developed into a flat spin with a nearly vertical descent into a cultivated farm field.All aboard the aircraft were killed by the impact, and an ensuing fire consumed most of the fuselage.The wreckage array of the [email protected] DC-3 reminds me very much of the array of the wreckage of the C-205.Judging from the undisturbed crop rows in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, there was almost no lateral movement of the C-205 at impact.The photos of the DC-3 crash site reveal little or no terrain disturbance beyond the wreckage itself, indicating a vertical descent.Lack of longitudinal crushing of the fuselage, nacelles and wings indicate to me that the DC-3 impacted in a flat attitude.

The only thing I can think of that would cause a DC-3 to enter a flat spin on approach to landing would be the loss of an engine and the inability to feather the prop of the dead engine. This is what wrench1 reported in his Post #31 above.A windmilling prop offers much more drag than a feathered one, so VMC with a windmilling prop would be significantly higher than that with a feathered prop.Combine that with the likelihood that the DC-3 PF (Pilot Flying) was carrying a lot of power on the good engine, just to stay in the air, sets them up for tragedy.As Eric Janson points out in his Post #32 above, a controlled descent into terrain would have been possible if power to the good engine had been quickly cut.I have less than 10 hours in the DC-3; therefore, I know next to nothing about the airplane, but the old “Goon” (“Gooney Bird”) is a solid airplane with no reputation of biting the pilots in the butt by being overly touchy.I think that the instinct of most pilots is to keep the airplane in the air, but the inability to feather a prop of a twin engine airplane is a game changer.

The way the wreckage sits when viewed in the ground level photo, indicates to me that the DC-3 was in a right-hand flat spin when it impacted, indicating that it was the No. 2 engine that failed (speculation on my part).

Last edited by capngrog; 13th Mar 2019 at 21:51. Reason: clean up paragraphs
capngrog is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 06:45
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Germany
Posts: 55
Originally Posted by capngrog View Post
DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMERDISCLAIMER I am not an expert on much of anything that really matters and am not current on any aircraft type.

A couple of decades ago, I was a designated Party to an NTSB investigation into the crash of a Cessna 205. The aircraft entered a spin at approximately 3,000 ft. AGL.This spin developed into a flat spin with a nearly vertical descent into a cultivated farm field.All aboard the aircraft were killed by the impact, and an ensuing fire consumed most of the fuselage.The wreckage array of the [email protected] DC-3 reminds me very much of the array of the wreckage of the C-205.Judging from the undisturbed crop rows in the immediate vicinity of the crash site, there was almost no lateral movement of the C-205 at impact.The photos of the DC-3 crash site reveal little or no terrain disturbance beyond the wreckage itself, indicating a vertical descent.Lack of longitudinal crushing of the fuselage, nacelles and wings indicate to me that the DC-3 impacted in a flat attitude.

The only thing I can think of that would cause a DC-3 to enter a flat spin on approach to landing would be the loss of an engine and the inability to feather the prop of the dead engine. This is what wrench1 reported in his Post #31 above.A windmilling prop offers much more drag than a feathered one, so VMC with a windmilling prop would be significantly higher than that with a feathered prop.Combine that with the likelihood that the DC-3 PF (Pilot Flying) was carrying a lot of power on the good engine, just to stay in the air, sets them up for tragedy.As Eric Janson points out in his Post #32 above, a controlled descent into terrain would have been possible if power to the good engine had been quickly cut.I have less than 10 hours in the DC-3; therefore, I know next to nothing about the airplane, but the old “Goon” (“Gooney Bird”) is a solid airplane with no reputation of biting the pilots in the butt by being overly touchy.I think that the instinct of most pilots is to keep the airplane in the air, but the inability to feather a prop of a twin engine airplane is a game changer.

The way the wreckage sits when viewed in the ground level photo, indicates to me that the DC-3 was in a right-hand flat spin when it impacted, indicating that it was the No. 2 engine that failed (speculation on my part).
I like your asessment. Had a friend who fatally crashed a seneca in the Haition mountains. All like you described All six anboard were recovered. All had legs seperated from their body, and five were decapitated from the severe vertical impact.
Left throttle mixture and prop in shutdownwn position, right hand throttle bend outward to the right at about mid position...pilots hand on impact forced the bend. While bodies in this DC 3 are charred by fire, they will still give us additional cues. I have always loved radials, was on DC 6 and 7's in Central America.
Blohm is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 14:42
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by atakacs View Post
Interesting. Is there an economic sense to do so when speaking TCO ? It must be quite expensive to maintain those airframes in fly worthy conditions - I'm pretty sure a more modern design could deliver the same services with both lower costs and increased security...
Actually, there's not a modern equivalent that can provide the same services, at the same costs, and operate out of the same environment. And you don't need to go to SA to see it. Old radial powered aircraft dominate the off-grid (unimproved runway) scene in Alaska and parts of Canada. Most heavy fuel and freight deliveries are currently handled by DC-3, DC-6, and C-47 aircraft. The only manufacturer I'm aware of that has designed and built a more modern off-grid aircraft is Pilatus with the PC12 and PC24, but it can't haul what the old ones haul.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 15:31
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Paisley, Florida USA
Posts: 6
Originally Posted by wrench1 View Post
Actually, there's not a modern equivalent that can provide the same services, at the same costs, and operate out of the same environment. And you don't need to go to SA to see it. Old radial powered aircraft dominate the off-grid (unimproved runway) scene in Alaska and parts of Canada. Most heavy fuel and freight deliveries are currently handled by DC-3, DC-6, and C-47 aircraft. The only manufacturer I'm aware of that has designed and built a more modern off-grid aircraft is Pilatus with the PC12 and PC24, but it can't haul what the old ones haul.
I agree, but let's not forget the Cessna C-208 Caravan and the Dehavilland DHC-4 Caribou and DHC-6 Twin Otter. I think the Caribous are scarce as hen's teeth, but with the good ol' P&W R-2000s, it could haul the freight from unimproved air fields. Do you know whether or not there are any Curtiss C-46s still flying up in Alaska?
capngrog is offline  
Old 14th Mar 2019, 18:18
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by capngrog View Post
Do you know whether or not there are any Curtiss C-46s still flying up in Alaska?
Yes there are. My "C-47" note above should have read "C-46." There are several operated by Everts Air Cargo in Fairbanks and I usually see one of them every summer as they deliver fuel where I stay. Unfortunately, the "Salmon Ella" had an incident last summer due to an engine failure with a full load of diesel and gasoline. Thankfully, it ended on a good note but is undergoing repairs now ( https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20180716-0 )
As to the 208 and Twotter, they just don't cut it with a load of 6"x6"x16' beams like a DC-3 can. Haven't seen any Caribous flying around, but we had a CASA 212 and a DC-6 make a stop this past summer. There's several L-382s around for the really big stuff, but I believe they don't run with gravel kits anymore and won't land on unimproved strips. I also heard of a CV-240 operating.
wrench1 is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2019, 16:27
  #39 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Location: Off the map
Posts: 986
Originally Posted by wrench1 View Post
Actually, there's not a modern equivalent that can provide the same services, at the same costs, and operate out of the same environment. And you don't need to go to SA to see it. Old radial powered aircraft dominate the off-grid (unimproved runway) scene in Alaska and parts of Canada. Most heavy fuel and freight deliveries are currently handled by DC-3, DC-6, and C-47 aircraft. The only manufacturer I'm aware of that has designed and built a more modern off-grid aircraft is Pilatus with the PC12 and PC24, but it can't haul what the old ones haul.
The Antonov AN-2 might be a close second, but I don't think it's certified over there (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
DirtyProp is offline  
Old 17th Mar 2019, 16:56
  #40 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: USA
Posts: 253
Originally Posted by DirtyProp View Post
The Antonov AN-2 might be a close second, but I don't think it's certified over there (someone correct me if I'm wrong).
You're correct on FAA ops. The best you get last I heard was an Experimental AWC under Exibition which keeps you out of the for hire market.
wrench1 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us Archive Advertising Cookie Policy Privacy Statement Terms of Service

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.