Sydney Airport Message Board Sydney Airport Message Board  

Go Back   Sydney Airport Message Board > Spotting and Movements > Spotting and Movements


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #41  
Old 6th October 2018, 04:58 PM
Martin Buzzell's Avatar
Martin Buzzell Martin Buzzell is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Warrandyte, Victoria
Posts: 121
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Argy View Post
simulator testing showed rendered the aircraft uncontrollable above 140 knots, thus making it impossible for the pilot to correct the slip or the aircraft's heading.
In this instance, it never got anywhere near that airspeed.
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 6th October 2018, 05:26 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Drummoyne
Posts: 1,367
Question ZCR

Not clear what maximum speed was reached - take off was at 111 kts and positive rate of climb was maintained until the full left rudder trim created a slip angle that led to a loss of lift being generated as well as an inhibited ability to change heading. Whether control was impossible or just very difficult probably doesn't matter - it seems clear enough that the condition could not be corrected unless the pilot realised what was wrong, and he plainly did not. Why he did not appears from the report to be because three pre-takeoff opportunities to check the rudder trim setting were missed or did not lead to detection of the adverse setting.

I don't know why that left rudder trim could not be overcome with sufficient right rudder but the simulator apparently showed that it could not be.
__________________
Philip
Between 16R and 16L glide slopes (33.842252 S 151.153295 E) - wave as you fly over!
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 8th October 2018, 03:39 PM
MarkR MarkR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rowan McKeever View Post
That said, I feel the analysis of the crash itself is perfectly adequate and has probably identified all the major contributing factors. The ATSB couldn’t afford not to be thorough in this instance, given the Pelair investigation and the public profile of the Essendon crash, questions about building approvals, etc. I would’ve liked, though, a little more discussion about how a similar occurrence can realistically be avoided in future.
I dont think the report is adequate at all, ie the mentioning of the lack of a checklist when no checklist could be found, is conjecture given the impact damage. If you want to read a report that does fit the bill, on an accident that was very similar try https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...30X24112&key=1

More detail https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employmen...15FA034&akey=1
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 8th October 2018, 05:02 PM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Drummoyne
Posts: 1,367
Exclamation Another B200 with 29 degrees of sideslip!

I don't think the NTSB report you cite is "better" than the ATSB report on ZCR. In fact it's scant on the critical detail of why there was so much left rudder, especially if the left engine was thought by the pilot to have failed. The NTSB also appears to more explicitly "blame" the pilot instead of taking the ATSB approach of noting that the checklist for the B200 provides three pre-takeoff opportunities for detecting full left rudder trim and then providing some plausible explanations for why those opportunities may have been missed or not detected the incorrect setting.
__________________
Philip
Between 16R and 16L glide slopes (33.842252 S 151.153295 E) - wave as you fly over!
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 8th October 2018, 09:28 PM
MarkR MarkR is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 1,124
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Philip Argy View Post
The NTSB also appears to more explicitly "blame" the pilot instead of taking the ATSB approach of noting that the checklist for the B200 provides three pre-takeoff opportunities for detecting full left rudder trim .
Point being from a pilots perspective the trim was not the be all and end all of the incident, note the NTSB investigation covers pilot meds, fuel load, aircraft systems and weather, why didn’t the pilot at Essendon follow the engine out procedure ie go clean? Subsequent civil litigation will no doubt she’d more light on the investigations.
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 9th October 2018, 02:50 AM
Philip Argy's Avatar
Philip Argy Philip Argy is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Drummoyne
Posts: 1,367
Default

He didn't have an engine out and the real cause eluded him. In the available time he couldn't solve his problem. And the ATSB covers all of the aspects you've mentioned - have you read the entire report in full?
__________________
Philip
Between 16R and 16L glide slopes (33.842252 S 151.153295 E) - wave as you fly over!
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 9th October 2018, 04:49 PM
Mick F Mick F is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: NSW
Posts: 849
Default

Being a few hundred kilos overweight would make zero to very minimal difference to a King Air.

The B200 can obtain an STC that permits a 1,000lbs increase in MTOW with the only requirement being the addition of a flight data recorder.

Mick
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT +10. The time now is 05:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright Sydney Airport Message Board 1997-2016
Use of this web site constitutes acceptance of the Conditions of Use and Privacy Statement