|
Accident at Mumbai
There has been a crash on landing at Mumbai airport involving a turboprop of some kind but no details whatsoever. Apperantly four deaths and fire. Anyone have any details?
|
King Air C90. First flight in nine years. Hmmm.
https://www.ndtv.com/india-news/mumb...anding-1875530 |
As usual,press reports are confused. They imply that it had completed a test flight following a major 9 year rebuild before the first commercial flight. The C90 is too small to require flight and data recorders.
There is nothing in the report about weather and visibility conditions so we really have no clues as to what went wrong. |
I saw a report from the day of the accident that stated very definitely that "it was not raining". Aircraft was apparently on approach after a test flight with 2 engineers or technicians in addition to 2 flight crew. 1 fatality on the ground as well.
|
The test flight originated at the small Juhu airport, not BOM (Chhatrapati Shivaji International).
From The Times of India: Mumbai plane crash: Aircraft did not have a certificate of airworthiness Manju V TNN Updated: Jun 29, 2018, 08:20 IST MUMBAI: A 26-year-old charter aircraft, on its way to a landing at Juhu airport during a test flight, crashed into open space near a construction site in the crowded Mumbai suburb of Ghatkopar on Thursday afternoon, killing all four crew members and a labourer on the ground. Had the King Air C90 aircraft, which appeared to have lost control when it was around 700 feet over the ground, plunged into any of the highrises in the surroundings, it would have been a major tragedy. Both pilots, Capt Pradeep Rajput and Capt Maria Zuberi, along with aircraft maintenance engineer Surabhi Gupta and junior technician Manish Pandey died on the spot. A construction labourer, Govind Dubey, was killed in the fire that broke out when the jet fuel tank exploded. At least 35 workers, who were on a lunch break in the basement of the under-construction building, had a lucky escape. Two of the labourers who were on the ground floor were injured. The aircraft, which was on its first flight after being grounded for around nine years, is suspected to have crashed due to mechanical failure. The pilots gave out no distress message or “Mayday” call to Mumbai airport’s air traffic controller. Around 1.10 pm, onlookers along Jivdaya lane saw the plane coming down engulfed in flames. “We were waiting for an autorickshaw when we saw a burning plane falling. It all happened so suddenly. Within seconds it crashed and was engulfed in smoke,” said Nami and Malay Shah, two teens who live nearby. Nami and Malay Shah, two teens who live in Girdhar building near the crash site, said, “We heard three blasts one after the other.” The twin-engine turbo prop had departed for a 50-minute test flight from Juhu airport at 12.20 pm after a puja. Sources from Mumbai and UP said it was the first time the aircraft had taken flight after suffering severe damage in a crash in Allahabad in 2009. “It was owned by the UP [Uttar Pradesh] government and the cabinet decided to dispose it of than spend heavily to repair it,” said a former UP government official. The aircraft was finally sold in 2014—after three unsuccessful auctions— to a Pune-based company, which then sold it to Mumbai-based U Y Aviation Pvt Ltd, its current owner. “Though we have ownership of the aircraft, it was under the care of Indamer company. The aircraft was not yet handed over to us, it did not have a certificate of airworthiness,’’ said Chauhan. The take-off was captured on camera by Indamer engineers — the video is doing rounds on social media — and one can hear applause as the aircraft lifts off the runway. As it slowly climbs out, an onlooker encouragingly shouts “C’mon baby’’. Rajeev Gupta, CEO of Indamer, said the cause of crash is under investigation by the DGCA safety wing. The ill-fated flight left several unanswered questions. Said a senior commander, who is also a KingAir C-90 examiner: “Test flights shouldn’t be carried out in poor weather. It was raining heavily in Mumbai when the aircraft lifted off, that isn’t an ideal condition, the test flight should have been postponed.” |
Yes very sad indeed. R.I.P.
Not to take anything away from the deceased or speculate on the cause of this tragedy, I wonder if the pilot's were test pilots. I.E., production test pilot's from the factory? If they weren't they should have been. I do admire the attitude of the AME's having the courage to be on board. However a test pilot/pilot's would have had the appropriate engineering qualifications. Insurance companies would need to look at this, if they already haven't. If a Learjet series aircraft, for example, was to have certain leading edge devices replaced or adjusted,, a factory test pilot must carry out a flight test, prior to normal operations. Read somewhere the aircraft had 6 years of major work carried out on it and hadn't flown for 9 years. You can guarantee there would have been a stack of paperwork (at least as high as the building it almost hit) associated with the aircraft, before the DGCA would have even thought about letting it get airborne.. "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link". .As mentioned above, WX needs to be good before carrying out such a venture. . |
Originally Posted by John_Reid
(Post 10185515)
Yes very sad indeed. R.I.P.
Not to take anything away from the deceased or speculate on the cause of this tragedy, I wonder if the pilot's were test pilots. I.E., production test pilot's from the factory? If they weren't they should have been. I do admire the attitude of the AME's having the courage to be on board. However a test pilot/pilot's would have had the appropriate engineering qualifications. Insurance companies would need to look at this, if they already haven't. If a Learjet series aircraft, for example, was to have certain leading edge devices replaced or adjusted,, a factory test pilot must carry out a flight test, prior to normal operations. Read somewhere the aircraft had 6 years of major work carried out on it and hadn't flown for 9 years. You can guarantee there would have been a stack of paperwork (at least as high as the building it almost hit) associated with the aircraft, before the DGCA would have even thought about letting it get airborne.. "A chain is only as strong as it's weakest link". .As mentioned above, WX needs to be good before carrying out such a venture. . I read that it had major damage repairs over a 6 year period, if it were something like a gear up landing the repairs could be done in several months but costs of engines and props would be expensive. Since it was done over 6 years I expect it was a project job (keep the workers busy when quite times happen). If the aircraft was not deregistered the paperwork would not be that bad - DGCA would not even need to be informed the aircraft was going to be flying again (unless they have an annual requirement like some countries do to have a DGCA inspector inspect the aircraft). |
Originally Posted by Bend alot
(Post 10185562)
Can you explain why they should have been production test pilots from the factory? In the countries I have worked never has that been the case and in most cases they wont have the required licence to fly in said country. Where do we find the requirement for the Lear jet requiring a factory test pilot (not saying it is not false - only ever done a minor inspection on one)?<br /><br />I read that it had major damage repairs over a 6 year period, if it were something like a gear up landing the repairs could be done in several months but costs of engines and props would be expensive. Since it was done over 6 years I expect it was a project job (keep the workers busy when quite times happen).<br /><br />If the aircraft was not deregistered the paperwork would not be that bad - DGCA would not even need to be informed the aircraft was going to be flying again (unless they have an annual requirement like some countries do to have a DGCA inspector inspect the aircraft).
|
We have no idea yet if this was test related or something as simple as CFIT in poor weather.
That said, the question of qualified test pilots reminds me of an A320 which was flown into the ground by an unqualified test pilot ignoring a warning in the official test schedule that the alpha sensor test MUST be conducted at least 10,000 feet AGL. ISTR that it was being tested prior to return from charter to ANZ. Each aircraft has an official test schedule written by the manufacturer and woe betide anyone who does not follow it accurately in the correct sequence down to the last dot and comma. Here be dragons. |
Ancient Greek,
You are so right! |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 18:47. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.