Airtours C404 crash report
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Kiltie---
I would also not agree that these aircraft are not suitable for charter operations. They have proven over the years to be very reliable however, at MTOW they have very limited performance with an engine inop. The 404 has a large cabin with 11 seats but it is not always a good idea to fill them all. On the other hand, this same fuselage, when pressurised and fitted with Garret engines becomes a CE441, and this type DOES have good performance. My favorite machine, bar none.
With regard to run-up while taxiing, an incident I personally saw last week in which a CE414 tried this and ended up in the dirt with the left gear collapsed shows that it is, at best, ill advised.
I would also not agree that these aircraft are not suitable for charter operations. They have proven over the years to be very reliable however, at MTOW they have very limited performance with an engine inop. The 404 has a large cabin with 11 seats but it is not always a good idea to fill them all. On the other hand, this same fuselage, when pressurised and fitted with Garret engines becomes a CE441, and this type DOES have good performance. My favorite machine, bar none.
With regard to run-up while taxiing, an incident I personally saw last week in which a CE414 tried this and ended up in the dirt with the left gear collapsed shows that it is, at best, ill advised.
Don Quixote Impersonator
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Australia
Age: 77
Posts: 3,403
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Listen to the wise words of pterodactyl, you do not get to be as old and wise as a pterodactyl without knowing a thing or two.
411A you may be surprised to learn that notwithstanding that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the C441 being an outstanding aircraft, it's actual EFATO performance at gross weights isn't all that much better if at all, than the C404, neither is it required to be. "measurably positve" is the go. It's the old FAR23 certification issue. There are no legal EFATO figures (beyond accelerate/stop/go distances 50 ft obstacle) for FAR 25 type climb gradient other than for Engine inop ROC. If you take the time it is possible to construct a defacto FAR25, 1 thru 4 climb segment obstacle clearance scenario, but it is not provided.
Like the C404 or any FAR 23 twin including the B200/MU2/Cheyenne. blah blah, especially the big MU2s and don't get me started on those, in the EFATO scenario you are just hanging out there damned if you do and damned if you don't.
411A you may be surprised to learn that notwithstanding that I wholeheartedly agree with you about the C441 being an outstanding aircraft, it's actual EFATO performance at gross weights isn't all that much better if at all, than the C404, neither is it required to be. "measurably positve" is the go. It's the old FAR23 certification issue. There are no legal EFATO figures (beyond accelerate/stop/go distances 50 ft obstacle) for FAR 25 type climb gradient other than for Engine inop ROC. If you take the time it is possible to construct a defacto FAR25, 1 thru 4 climb segment obstacle clearance scenario, but it is not provided.
Like the C404 or any FAR 23 twin including the B200/MU2/Cheyenne. blah blah, especially the big MU2s and don't get me started on those, in the EFATO scenario you are just hanging out there damned if you do and damned if you don't.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Little to compare between Titans / Chancellors / Golden Eagles with Conquests or Caravans - gas turbine power will always vastly improve performance when matched to the same fuselage. Having flown turbine 400s alongside their piston variants I agree I'd rather be in a Conquest or whatever but the cost of purchase / operation of a PT6 or Garret powered machine over a TSIO-540 is prohibitive for most (UK at least) small charter operators, so I still think the 404 / 402 etc. has a role; but as you say at max AUW performance rarely matches that of the handbook when the aircraft is 20 years old.
Where do you stop at banning piston powered light twin charters? Do we keep Aztecs, Senecas, Barons & 310s etc.? Or would you say these were potential disasters as well?
PS when I was discussing taxiing run-ups I really meant a 30 sec stop at the holding point rather than continuing with forward motion; but not to the extent where long noisy power checks need to be endured.
Where do you stop at banning piston powered light twin charters? Do we keep Aztecs, Senecas, Barons & 310s etc.? Or would you say these were potential disasters as well?
PS when I was discussing taxiing run-ups I really meant a 30 sec stop at the holding point rather than continuing with forward motion; but not to the extent where long noisy power checks need to be endured.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Kiltie.
I tend to differ with your opinion. I doubt if there can be any valid operational excuse for run-ups on the run, or a quickie feather check and quickie mag check at the hold. It is short cuts that kill people. If the ccompany cannot afford the time and money to operate the aircraft as per manufacturer's recommendations (and that includes a proper engine check as per POH) then they should not be in business.
Believe me, the short cuts which you state that there is nothing wrong with, would see you crucified in a court of inquiry and worse still in a court of law - if they resulted in an accident.
Quote from your post:
Personally I see no fault with run-ups "on the move", so long as the full engine checks were performed on the first flight of the day. I don't know if this aircraft had flown previous to that of the accident flight on the same day, but if I was carrying passengers I would be inclined to abbreviate the run ups to a simple mag check and quick feather excercising at the holding point without undue "revving". This is commonplace in the charter environment and not inherently an unsafe corner-cutting measure.
Unquote.
I hope for your sake that you never have a prang where your words could come back to haunt you. No offence met, old chap - and I really mean that. But so many accidents have been caused by short cuts rationalised in the name of legitimate cost savings.
"This is commonplace in the charter environment" is a clear indictment of the GA industry.
[ 04 August 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]
I tend to differ with your opinion. I doubt if there can be any valid operational excuse for run-ups on the run, or a quickie feather check and quickie mag check at the hold. It is short cuts that kill people. If the ccompany cannot afford the time and money to operate the aircraft as per manufacturer's recommendations (and that includes a proper engine check as per POH) then they should not be in business.
Believe me, the short cuts which you state that there is nothing wrong with, would see you crucified in a court of inquiry and worse still in a court of law - if they resulted in an accident.
Quote from your post:
Personally I see no fault with run-ups "on the move", so long as the full engine checks were performed on the first flight of the day. I don't know if this aircraft had flown previous to that of the accident flight on the same day, but if I was carrying passengers I would be inclined to abbreviate the run ups to a simple mag check and quick feather excercising at the holding point without undue "revving". This is commonplace in the charter environment and not inherently an unsafe corner-cutting measure.
Unquote.
I hope for your sake that you never have a prang where your words could come back to haunt you. No offence met, old chap - and I really mean that. But so many accidents have been caused by short cuts rationalised in the name of legitimate cost savings.
"This is commonplace in the charter environment" is a clear indictment of the GA industry.
[ 04 August 2001: Message edited by: Hudson ]
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Regarding the run up/power checks required in the 404 for those of you who aren't aware of them:
engine gauges …………………………….. normal
both throttles …………………………….. 1500 RPM
magnetos …………………………….. check (max drop 100RPM, max difference
50RPM)
*propellors …………………………….. check feather
*mixture lever operation …..………………….… check
*pneumatic de-ice system ……………………… check (if required)
hydraulic flow lights …………………………….. check
engine gauges …………………………….. check
throttles …………………………….. *close/check idle, reset 1000 RPM
Hmmmmm........not exactly an awful lot to do.
Just two points for thought.
1.If done stationary (which is always going to be the best option) then the amount of time taken to complete this procedure is hardly going to have any significant implications on the duration of the flight, so to accuse the pilot (even if he did own the company) of cutting corners for financial reasons seems a bit extreme! We're not talking about a PPL who can't remember where the levers and guages are or where he is in the checklist!
2.As stated previously 'not exactly an awful lot to do'. Therefore if done on the move at a slow taxi speed it really should not be too much to cope with.
engine gauges …………………………….. normal
both throttles …………………………….. 1500 RPM
magnetos …………………………….. check (max drop 100RPM, max difference
50RPM)
*propellors …………………………….. check feather
*mixture lever operation …..………………….… check
*pneumatic de-ice system ……………………… check (if required)
hydraulic flow lights …………………………….. check
engine gauges …………………………….. check
throttles …………………………….. *close/check idle, reset 1000 RPM
Hmmmmm........not exactly an awful lot to do.
Just two points for thought.
1.If done stationary (which is always going to be the best option) then the amount of time taken to complete this procedure is hardly going to have any significant implications on the duration of the flight, so to accuse the pilot (even if he did own the company) of cutting corners for financial reasons seems a bit extreme! We're not talking about a PPL who can't remember where the levers and guages are or where he is in the checklist!
2.As stated previously 'not exactly an awful lot to do'. Therefore if done on the move at a slow taxi speed it really should not be too much to cope with.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: United Kingdom
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sorry, forgot to add this bit.
The run up/power check issue to the thread therefore seems to me to be a bit of a tenuous sideline to the analysis of what went wrong with this flight.
The run up/power check issue to the thread therefore seems to me to be a bit of a tenuous sideline to the analysis of what went wrong with this flight.
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: Scotland
Posts: 417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Area Juliet thanks for that breakdown; that proves that performing the actions quickly does not necessarily mean they are corner-cutting or unsafe. Familiarity with type will always see such checks done expeditiously without "missing bits out" for want of a better phrase.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Far flung shores
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W.r.t. 'sudden chop of the throttle' type engine failures we've all had during training / testing.
Many (many, many) moons ago when I was doing my MultiEngine rating, and during a cruise phase of flight, my learned instructor reached down between the seats of our Seneca and (unbeknown to me) turned off one of the fuel taps.
My subsequent reactions to what happened next where almost laughable, as the fuel starved engine coughed, spluttered, and surged its way towards stopping. My inexperienced feet were doing a veritable tango on the rudder pedals (making it worse), i.e. with the aircraft yawing about all over the place, plus the engine gauges bouncing up and down like whores-draws (there was a clue there somewhere, duh), I didn't have any bloody idea as to which engine had failed - and this was made all the worse by my instructor (simulating) total panic at what was going on.
It took (what seemed) ages before I was positively able to identify which engine was having the problem.
Yep, I (very thankfully) learnt a serious lesson from that about the insideous engine failure case, and how important it is to properly identify just what is the real problem, i.e. don't rush the drill.
That said, being in the cruise, with the luxury of time (or even from an armchair, with a beer alongside
) it's all very obvious, but in a heavy aircraft on takeoff, and one with crap s/e performance.......... uhm ? no thanks !
Many (many, many) moons ago when I was doing my MultiEngine rating, and during a cruise phase of flight, my learned instructor reached down between the seats of our Seneca and (unbeknown to me) turned off one of the fuel taps.
My subsequent reactions to what happened next where almost laughable, as the fuel starved engine coughed, spluttered, and surged its way towards stopping. My inexperienced feet were doing a veritable tango on the rudder pedals (making it worse), i.e. with the aircraft yawing about all over the place, plus the engine gauges bouncing up and down like whores-draws (there was a clue there somewhere, duh), I didn't have any bloody idea as to which engine had failed - and this was made all the worse by my instructor (simulating) total panic at what was going on.
It took (what seemed) ages before I was positively able to identify which engine was having the problem.
Yep, I (very thankfully) learnt a serious lesson from that about the insideous engine failure case, and how important it is to properly identify just what is the real problem, i.e. don't rush the drill.
That said, being in the cruise, with the luxury of time (or even from an armchair, with a beer alongside
) it's all very obvious, but in a heavy aircraft on takeoff, and one with crap s/e performance.......... uhm ? no thanks !
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
gaunty---
Performance numbers for 404 & 441:
404: MTOW 8400lbs, engine out ROC: 230 ft/min.
441: MTOW 9850lbs, engine out ROC 715 ft/min.
As you can see, the 441 is just a tad better. Cessna figures, not mine.
'Course, you need at least $1.5 million to slide into a 441 in decent shape.
Performance numbers for 404 & 441:
404: MTOW 8400lbs, engine out ROC: 230 ft/min.
441: MTOW 9850lbs, engine out ROC 715 ft/min.
As you can see, the 441 is just a tad better. Cessna figures, not mine.
'Course, you need at least $1.5 million to slide into a 441 in decent shape.
Primitive Aviator
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Puritan
Don't know about the Seneca but it is quite possible in cruise flight depending on the airspeed in the case you mentioned for
the RPM to windmill at governed RPM and if the throttle has not been moved from cruise setting the manifold pressure would be the same as before. So you have both engine parameters of RPM and Manifold pressure the same. This would occur as long as the airspeed was high enough for the prop to reach governed RPM before it reached full fine blade angle. In due course as speed decayed as a result of the windmill drag RPM would reduce when full fine blade angle is reached. A good thing to be aware of don't you think?
At take off with lower airspeed windmill force would not be enough to do this in the case of a total failure. In any case Dead foot, dead engine is the PRIMARY way to identify the problem using other indicators only as a confirmation if appropriate.
Can't say that running a fuel tank dry or the like is good practice.
Don't know about the Seneca but it is quite possible in cruise flight depending on the airspeed in the case you mentioned for
the RPM to windmill at governed RPM and if the throttle has not been moved from cruise setting the manifold pressure would be the same as before. So you have both engine parameters of RPM and Manifold pressure the same. This would occur as long as the airspeed was high enough for the prop to reach governed RPM before it reached full fine blade angle. In due course as speed decayed as a result of the windmill drag RPM would reduce when full fine blade angle is reached. A good thing to be aware of don't you think?
At take off with lower airspeed windmill force would not be enough to do this in the case of a total failure. In any case Dead foot, dead engine is the PRIMARY way to identify the problem using other indicators only as a confirmation if appropriate.
Can't say that running a fuel tank dry or the like is good practice.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Far flung shores
Posts: 202
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
W.r.t. 'Can't say that running a fuel tank dry or the like is good practice ', to some extent I disagree and would have to ask "why not ?". E.g. in the above, all that was actually done was to close the fuel tap and allow the engine to suck out the fuel downstream of the tap; and perhaps I should have mentioned that at the time we were several thousand feet over the sea and within site of the home airport - i.e. there's also a time and a place.
I accordingly then learnt a whole stack about how the engine actually behaves when it is starved of fuel, i.e. it doesn't, and contrary to many folks impression, just stop-dead. It surges, and that in turn causes the aircraft to yaw from one side to the other, making it harder to identify just which has failed. Plus, and as you say the wind-milling prop causes manifold pressure and RPM to remain pretty much static; Of course in this instance fuel flow was the clue - but with only 100 TT, and 6 on the aeroplane, plus way too confident, hot shot here learnt some very valuable lessons that day.
Similarly now, in the simulator with a V1 cut - it's very unlikely that the engine will actually stop dead in that manner (but that's the hoop that the authorities wish us to jump through, so we do). However imho we should practise a lot more failures of the insidious kind, e.g. early on in the departure during a complex SID and / or with an engine-out emergency turn procedure (e.g. a Barkway departure off R05 at London Stansted, straight ahead on 046 degrees to 2DME then left turn inbound to BKY. During takeoff roll the bloke in back provides an intermittent PMC failure (you get some very small engine surges, nothing above N1 limit, and you put the yaw down to the 30Kt crosswind that he's also given you coming off the terminal). During the climb out the PMC intermittently fails a few more times, but again you put the subtle yaw and engine indications down to the turbulence and / or maybe the auto-throttle buggering about. Just as you commence the big left turn to BKY with the flaps coming up and the autopilot going in, your mate in the back gives you a full PMC failure plus a blocked fuel filter on #1. This causes it to start surging big time - and it is also at the same moment when he chucks in a couple of distracting TCAS alerts - yep, it all becomes quite entertaining - but you haven't had an engine failure, at least not according to the QRH), or how about the classic run-down failure during a descent with thrust levers closed - i.e. you barely notice you've had an engine failure, until you need the engines.
The problem with failures, and as mentioned in many a subsequent board of enquiry, is that they are not always as cut & dried as we'd like them to be or have seen / tried in either training or examinations, i.e. it's nearly always a sequence of insidious events that lead to the scene of an accident - so the more exposure one gets to these less than clear types of failures the safer one should become - which is why we do our stuff in the sim - now is there a sim for the C404 ?
Ultimately - Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate.
I accordingly then learnt a whole stack about how the engine actually behaves when it is starved of fuel, i.e. it doesn't, and contrary to many folks impression, just stop-dead. It surges, and that in turn causes the aircraft to yaw from one side to the other, making it harder to identify just which has failed. Plus, and as you say the wind-milling prop causes manifold pressure and RPM to remain pretty much static; Of course in this instance fuel flow was the clue - but with only 100 TT, and 6 on the aeroplane, plus way too confident, hot shot here learnt some very valuable lessons that day.
Similarly now, in the simulator with a V1 cut - it's very unlikely that the engine will actually stop dead in that manner (but that's the hoop that the authorities wish us to jump through, so we do). However imho we should practise a lot more failures of the insidious kind, e.g. early on in the departure during a complex SID and / or with an engine-out emergency turn procedure (e.g. a Barkway departure off R05 at London Stansted, straight ahead on 046 degrees to 2DME then left turn inbound to BKY. During takeoff roll the bloke in back provides an intermittent PMC failure (you get some very small engine surges, nothing above N1 limit, and you put the yaw down to the 30Kt crosswind that he's also given you coming off the terminal). During the climb out the PMC intermittently fails a few more times, but again you put the subtle yaw and engine indications down to the turbulence and / or maybe the auto-throttle buggering about. Just as you commence the big left turn to BKY with the flaps coming up and the autopilot going in, your mate in the back gives you a full PMC failure plus a blocked fuel filter on #1. This causes it to start surging big time - and it is also at the same moment when he chucks in a couple of distracting TCAS alerts - yep, it all becomes quite entertaining - but you haven't had an engine failure, at least not according to the QRH), or how about the classic run-down failure during a descent with thrust levers closed - i.e. you barely notice you've had an engine failure, until you need the engines.
The problem with failures, and as mentioned in many a subsequent board of enquiry, is that they are not always as cut & dried as we'd like them to be or have seen / tried in either training or examinations, i.e. it's nearly always a sequence of insidious events that lead to the scene of an accident - so the more exposure one gets to these less than clear types of failures the safer one should become - which is why we do our stuff in the sim - now is there a sim for the C404 ?
Ultimately - Aviate, Navigate, and Communicate.
Primitive Aviator
Join Date: Sep 1998
Location: australia
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As you say, Puritan the engine surges and possibly backfires and it is not a kind thing to do to a piston engine if you don't have to. You had the answer.
A similar cycling can occur on an engine fitted with auto feather such as a Dart as the prop alternately coarsens and fines off during the process. No need to be spring loaded just gently and positively apply rudder when a definite effect is evident.
A similar cycling can occur on an engine fitted with auto feather such as a Dart as the prop alternately coarsens and fines off during the process. No need to be spring loaded just gently and positively apply rudder when a definite effect is evident.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Lookout Mtn Tennessee
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the first few confusing, but critical moments of an engine failure during take-off on any aircraft..engine instruments can be most confusing and contradictory...all propellor aircraft involved in public transport should be required to be equipped with autofeather systems..particularly piston twins, whose moderate performance se-climb capabilities are often negated by only small downdrafts, or delay in accomplishing the recall items ie: feathering the prop expeditiously...a C-441 is an unfair comparison to a C-404..a GTSIO 520 is no match for the TPE-331..
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would NOT advise to run a tank dry in an aircraft fitted with GTSIO- engines.
The result from the surging may well be a crankshaft counterweight chucked thru the case, NOT a happy thought.
Overhaul cost, 'round about $35,000 including a new case. No insurance coverage either as TCM has a service bulletin about this (and related) subjects. These engines have good reliability IF operated properly.
Also would definately agree about Dart engines, they are very reliable but traps are there for the unwary.
The result from the surging may well be a crankshaft counterweight chucked thru the case, NOT a happy thought.
Overhaul cost, 'round about $35,000 including a new case. No insurance coverage either as TCM has a service bulletin about this (and related) subjects. These engines have good reliability IF operated properly.
Also would definately agree about Dart engines, they are very reliable but traps are there for the unwary.
