Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...

Plane crash!

Reply
Created by southace > 9 months ago, 21 Feb 2017
southace
SA, 4758 posts
21 Feb 2017 7:14PM
Thumbs Up

i new one engine was still going looking at the first slash marks on the roof, shame he didn't have the time to stall it onto the roof of the building. R.I.P guys!

Little Jon
NSW, 2115 posts
22 Feb 2017 3:50PM
Thumbs Up

yes it will be interesting to see what the investigation shows, hope it's not a lack of maintenance. Twin engine should be able to fly on one engine but if it's just after take off maybe not enough altitude to adjust to one engine?

NorthernKitesAUS
QLD, 1061 posts
22 Feb 2017 3:58PM
Thumbs Up

According to some reports, he was trying to turn it back to the airport. He may have thought of trying to land it on the roof. If he'd turned right, he would have landed on the cars.

southace
SA, 4758 posts
22 Feb 2017 6:17PM
Thumbs Up

I feel his choice to drop it on the roof would have been the best only option unfortantly it looks like it over shot the roof then dropped and exploded. I watched all the updates as soon as it happened and the media at 9am where saying the pilot mayday with total engine loss but now they are saying the only word he issued was maday. Apparently the type of aircraft involved should have been able to climb out of that situation on one engine. Aircraft Investigation time!

dmitri
VIC, 1040 posts
22 Feb 2017 7:59PM
Thumbs Up

What sort of morons would build a big shopping mall at the end of a runway

southace
SA, 4758 posts
22 Feb 2017 7:53PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
dmitri said..
What sort of morons would build a big shopping mall at the end of a runway


I'm not sure if there is a shopping mall at the end of the runways that's now just media talk. If you loose a engine the plane/boat is going to steer to the opposite bank to the existing running engine. Should be corrected with trim and power settings.

Tonz
509 posts
22 Feb 2017 5:56PM
Thumbs Up

FFS there are shopping malls, motels, hotels, freeways at end of airports all over the world.
Everybody is happy shopping there, now there has been an accident all ****in hell breaks loose with the pissy doo gooders.
Its about. Arrh forget it I get too riled up over calamity janes geting their knickers in a knot

jn1
2454 posts
22 Feb 2017 6:08PM
Thumbs Up

"knot". Is that an aeronautical pun ?

southace
SA, 4758 posts
22 Feb 2017 9:22PM
Thumbs Up

Yep Km on the roads and knots on the water and in the air! Or speed over earth which either way you look at it.

jn1
2454 posts
22 Feb 2017 6:58PM
Thumbs Up

What about knickers ?

Toph
WA, 1797 posts
22 Feb 2017 7:10PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
southace said..
i new one engine was still going looking at the first slash marks on the roof, shame he didn't have the time to stall it onto the roof of the building. R.I.P guys!



Sorry SA, but 'stalling' is uncontrolled flight. You are better 'flying' to the crash site.



Select to expand quote
Little Jon said..
Twin engine should be able to fly on one engine but if it's just after take off maybe not enough altitude to adjust to one engine?



Not all, and certainly not most light twins, but a Kingair, yes. It should have climbed if climbing STRAIGHT especially considering it only had four passengers.

mineral1
WA, 4564 posts
22 Feb 2017 7:24PM
Thumbs Up

Most annoying is the effing media highlighting the pilot was under investigation, with a trickle in the end as to what for. I effing well hate the effing media
RIP for all those that were lost

southace
SA, 4758 posts
22 Feb 2017 11:03PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
Toph said..

southace said..
i new one engine was still going looking at the first slash marks on the roof, shame he didn't have the time to stall it onto the roof of the building. R.I.P guys!




Sorry SA, but 'stalling' is uncontrolled flight. You are better 'flying' to the crash site.




Little Jon said..
Twin engine should be able to fly on one engine but if it's just after take off maybe not enough altitude to adjust to one engine?




Not all, and certainly not most light twins, but a Kingair, yes. It should have climbed if climbing STRAIGHT especially considering it only had four passengers.


if he was flying he should have flown out on one prop. Who knows time will tell and lessons hopefuly will be learnt.

Toph
WA, 1797 posts
22 Feb 2017 9:20PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
southace said..
if he was flying he should have flown out on one prop. Who knows time will tell and lessons hopefuly will be learnt.


I think you mistook what I was trying to say. You are right of course to say the above. What I was trying to get at was you don't want to stall an aircraft like a Kingair ever. Maybe I should have said 'control' it to the....... That also being said, maybe he didn't have control of it.

Chris6791
WA, 3271 posts
22 Feb 2017 11:33PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
NorthernKitesAUS said..
According to some reports, he was trying to turn it back to the airport. He may have thought of trying to land it on the roof. If he'd turned right, he would have landed on the cars.


Planes land on runways, anywhere else is a crash.

Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
23 Feb 2017 4:40PM
Thumbs Up

NorthernKitesAUS said..
According to some reports, he was trying to turn it back to the airport. He may have thought of trying to land it on the roof. If he'd turned right, he would have landed on the cars.


According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html

southace
SA, 4758 posts
23 Feb 2017 7:35PM
Thumbs Up

They said this morning that the same type of aircraft had a engine failure which also failed the auto feather which caused a aircraft to bank sharp . If the prop doesn't feather after a shut down I'm guessing it would act like a brake and full power to fly out would be useless. They recovered the black box today so should get some results in the next month or so.

Dawn Patrol
WA, 1991 posts
23 Feb 2017 5:12PM
Thumbs Up

Ian K said..

NorthernKitesAUS said..
According to some reports, he was trying to turn it back to the airport. He may have thought of trying to land it on the roof. If he'd turned right, he would have landed on the cars.



According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html


I'd probably still rather a twin!
It is interesting though. A very rare event that everyone trains for but rarely unexpectedly and almost never experiences for real.
One reason why the Hudson landing was so spectacular. To keep calm under immense pressure very suddenly, when the last 30 years doing the same task have been very relaxed.

southace
SA, 4758 posts
23 Feb 2017 8:12PM
Thumbs Up

Dawn Patrol said..

Ian K said..


NorthernKitesAUS said..
According to some reports, he was trying to turn it back to the airport. He may have thought of trying to land it on the roof. If he'd turned right, he would have landed on the cars.




According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html



I'd probably still rather a twin!
It is interesting though. A very rare event that everyone trains for but rarely unexpectedly and almost never experiences for real.
One reason why the Hudson landing was so spectacular. To keep calm under immense pressure very suddenly, when the last 30 years doing the same task have been very relaxed.


The difference with the Hudson is he had time to climb out..**** I need to see that movie sully forgot about that! I think the King air had about 60 seconds before impact.

Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
24 Feb 2017 4:54PM
Thumbs Up

Select to expand quote
southace said..


The difference with the Hudson is he had time to climb out..**** I need to see that movie sully forgot about that! I think the King air had about 60 seconds before impact.


Probably no two are the same, can't train for that, that's why you need a pilot, Sully was good, he quickly made a plan and went for it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/US_Airways_Flight_1549

"At 3:27:36, using the call sign "Cactus 1539 [sic],"[26] Sullenberger radioed New York Terminal Radar Approach Control (TRACON):[27] "Hit birds. We've lost thrust on both engines. We're turning back towards LaGuardia". Air traffic controller Patrick Harten[28] told its tower to hold all departures, and directed Sullenberger back to Runway 13.[27] Sullenberger responded, "Unable".[27]

Sullenberger asked if they could attempt to land in New Jersey, mentioning Teterboro Airport;[27][29][30] controllers obtained permission for a landing on Teterboro's Runway 1.[30] Sullenberger responded: "We can't do it ... We're gonna be in the Hudson".[29]"

pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
24 Feb 2017 4:54PM
Thumbs Up



Dawn Patrol said..


Ian K said..






According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html




I'd probably still rather a twin!
It is interesting though. A very rare event that everyone trains for but rarely unexpectedly and almost never experiences for real.
One reason why the Hudson landing was so spectacular. To keep calm under immense pressure very suddenly, when the last 30 years doing the same task have been very relaxed.



Long ago in a galaxy far away, well,..right here on planet earth actually, and around the 1960's, it was part of the normal twin endorsement that you had to practice for an engine failure soon after take off. If you crashed or had to be rescued by the instructor then you did not get the endorsement.
Some years after this it became obvious that there were far more fatal plane crashes from pilots learning and practicing this procedure than were ever likely to occur from the actual event, because engine failures are now not at all common.
So, they did the smart thing and removed the procedure from the training schedule.
Part of the reasoning was that since the event was so rare, whatever training the pilot did for it was so long ago that it was very rusty and out of practice if the real event actually happened.
Thus the training was considered unacceptably dangerous in itself and probably of little use if and when it was actually needed.
I don't think any pilots now do actual engine out on take-off with twins in real life.
They can obviously do it in flight simulators however and probably do.

More recently, training for engine failures are carried out at a safe altitude, where there is enough room to make a mess of it and have enough altitude to patch up the mistake. The idea is then to apply this to the low level situation if ever it occurs.
Thus, there is still the occasional accident when a real engine-out on take-off does occur and quite often it results in a serious accident, usually fatal. However, it is far from certain that any form of training would alter the situation unless it was very recent and ongoing. There were still fatalities from engine-out on take offs even when the training was being done, so it was in
no way an insurance against a bad outcome.

As far as I know, almost all twin engine aircraft made in the last 60 years will actually climb out on one engine, although it will be at a very low climb rate. They have to be able to do this to get certification. The Beechcraft King air is no exception and being a turbo prop, should climb out reasonably well on one engine so long as everything was done correctly in the short time available to assess and act.
The reason why many of them fail to do this in real life is that the aircraft has to be set up exactly right to achieve this.
The configuration of the aircraft is very different between climb out on full power with both engines running, and level flight on only one engine with the dead engine dragging the plane off in that direction.


There is a very specific and narrow speed range, flap setting, attitude with prop feathered etc etc, as well as identifying and then shutting down and isolating the defunct engine, and this is often not done properly due to the time restraints dictated by the low altitude at which the onset of trouble occurred. It is very easy to let just one critical parameter run out of range while being occupied looking for the best option to get back on the ground safely.
It can cost a few hundred feet to set things up perfectly, and soon after take off, you do not have that available.
Consequently the accidents continue.

All this is assuming the aircraft was not incapacitated in any way.
The report did say it suffered a catastrophic engine failure, which usually means bits flew out of the engine and went somewhere else. If that was a turbine blade or blades, they eject with very high momentums and can cause serious damage to critical components. We will have to wait for the report to see what the actual situation was.


A lot of the early twins, such as the DeHavilland Dragon would not climb on one engine, so if an engine failed in one of those, you were coming down, even though it be at a lower rate than with both engines on idle. In fact, they wouldn't even maintain level flight on one engine if it was fully loaded. If an engine conked out, you looked for a landing area, any landing area, and hoped you could get that far. In that respect the twin engines did nothing for the safety aspect other than to make a forced landing due to engine failure twice as likely.

Ian K
WA, 4039 posts
24 Feb 2017 5:30PM
Thumbs Up

pweedas said..




Dawn Patrol said..



Ian K said..






According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html





I'd probably still rather a twin!
It is interesting though. A very rare event that everyone trains for but rarely unexpectedly and almost never experiences for real.
One reason why the Hudson landing was so spectacular. To keep calm under immense pressure very suddenly, when the last 30 years doing the same task have been very relaxed.





It can cost a few hundred feet to set things up perfectly, and soon after take off, you do not have that available.



A few hundred feet of vertical? That's a big window of exposure! I've just looked up the max climb rate of a King air 2000 fpm.

That's 6 seconds to get to say 200 feet when you can't afford anything to go wrong! Sort of like helicopter pilots who hate to hover at less than 200 feet (or was it metres?) Can't get auto rotation going before hitting the ground.

Sounds like you're a pilot Pweedas, how would you feel on a simple one engine out in a King air, assuming you'd been endorsed, at 300 feet. Confident, a bit concerned, terrified?

southace
SA, 4758 posts
24 Feb 2017 8:29PM
Thumbs Up

It was possible to climb out if the one remaining was still running at full power and the failed engine feathered the prop. Other than that it was a rapid dive/stall to the Port into the building roof in 60 seconds!

Toph
WA, 1797 posts
24 Feb 2017 6:54PM
Thumbs Up

Ian K said..


pweedas said..








Dawn Patrol said..





Ian K said..






According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html







I'd probably still rather a twin!
It is interesting though. A very rare event that everyone trains for but rarely unexpectedly and almost never experiences for real.
One reason why the Hudson landing was so spectacular. To keep calm under immense pressure very suddenly, when the last 30 years doing the same task have been very relaxed.







It can cost a few hundred feet to set things up perfectly, and soon after take off, you do not have that available.





A few hundred feet of vertical? That's a big window of exposure! I've just looked up the max climb rate of a King air 2000 fpm.

That's 6 seconds to get to say 200 feet when you can't afford anything to go wrong! Sort of like helicopter pilots who hate to hover at less than 200 feet (or was it metres?) Can't get auto rotation going before hitting the ground.

Sounds like you're a pilot Pweedas, how would you feel on a simple one engine out in a King air, assuming you'd been endorsed, at 300 feet. Confident, a bit concerned, terrified?



I'd be both. Terrified yet confident that it would climb out on the one engine.

I do have to respectfully disagree with Pweedas to some degree. Engine failures on takeoff do still gets taught and practised on endorsement and annual flight reviews. The relative new rule now being though (since a training accident in Darwin a few years back), is that if the aircraft type in supported by a simulator located IN Australia, then all endorsement training and emergency procedures must utilise the simulator and not in the real aircraft.

pweedas
WA, 4642 posts
25 Feb 2017 12:26AM
Thumbs Up

Ian K said..

pweedas said..






Dawn Patrol said..




Ian K said..






According to the guys on the prune forum if you fly a King air straight and level it will climb on one engine. Turning adds drag, windsurfers know that. Can't afford to do anything draggy with one engine. It looks like you can fly for 28 years and only have one EFATO. All these pilots offering opinions while secretly wondering about how well they'd deal with one if it ever happened. Not an aviator myself but have spoken to plenty of pilots in pubs around the country. I've heard you're better off in a single than a twin, half the chance of engine failure. You might as well jump to 4 engines from a single, at least most fly OK with 75% power.

www.pprune.org/pacific-general-aviation-questions/591237-king-air-down-essendon.html






I'd probably still rather a twin!
It is interesting though. A very rare event that everyone trains for but rarely unexpectedly and almost never experiences for real.
One reason why the Hudson landing was so spectacular. To keep calm under immense pressure very suddenly, when the last 30 years doing the same task have been very relaxed.






It can cost a few hundred feet to set things up perfectly, and soon after take off, you do not have that available.




A few hundred feet of vertical? That's a big window of exposure! I've just looked up the max climb rate of a King air 2000 fpm.

That's 6 seconds to get to say 200 feet when you can't afford anything to go wrong! Sort of like helicopter pilots who hate to hover at less than 200 feet (or was it metres?) Can't get auto rotation going before hitting the ground.

Sounds like you're a pilot Pweedas, how would you feel on a simple one engine out in a King air, assuming you'd been endorsed, at 300 feet. Confident, a bit concerned, terrified?


No, I'm a 'has been' pilot. That's what happens when you get old. Such is life.

It would actually take a lot longer than six seconds to get to 200 feet on a normal climb out because the aircraft straight off the ground has an initial climb rate very much lower than that stated in the specs.
In fact it starts off at zero fpm. The initial climb angle is actually quite shallow while the gear and flaps etc are being retracted, and much of the available power is used to get the aircraft up to the speed specified for normal climb out. That all takes time and distance.
The stated climb rate in the specs is what you can expect once the aircraft is set up in the climb with all the correct settings and at the most favorable altitude for the engines and airframe to be efficient. That is rarely at low airspeed and at ground level unless the plane is specifically designed for it, such as crop dusters and fire bombers etc. King airs, most certainly not.

My guess from takeoff to 200 feet would be somewhere about 20 to 30 seconds, depending on load and pilot preference under the conditions at the time. Obviously, if you knew an engine failure was on the cards you would make an early altitude gain a top priority, but you would rarely get that privilege. Mostly it would come as a big surprise. , ,, ,,,
You can obviously do it faster than this if you are climbing out of a short strip somewhere and into a hillside but normal take offs such as from a main airport typically use a quite shallow initial climb angle.

An engine failure in a twin during this period is a serious problem for anyone and I would not have liked to deal with it.
I think most pilots would at the least be considerably concerned in the event that one occurred.
I would not like to fly with someone who was so confident that he was not concerend. If they were not then I think they don't have a proper appreciation of the realities of aerodynamics, mass and motion within the confines of the physical laws they are operating under. Some do not and we see them on the six o'clock news from time to time.

It is a matter of well proven fact that regardless of how confident you are, if something goes wrong which causes an aircraft with high wing loading to stall or drop a wing while close to the ground, your fate is sealed at that point no matter how smart you are, because any remedy requires altitude, and that you do not have.

king of the point
WA, 1836 posts
25 Feb 2017 11:56AM
Thumbs Up

Hmmm firstly horriable and condolences i got 2 points explained to me by my old man at about 10 years or age that stuck with me for life about flying 1 BIRDS DO NOT FLY AT NIGHT A NIETHER DO I 2 STALL / SPIN / CRASH /BURN / DIE



Subscribe
Reply

Forums > General Discussion   Shooting the breeze...


"Plane crash!" started by southace