Aircraft Crash At Essendon Airport

**mtv** · 22-02-17, 03:52 PM

Major Australian airports are on federal land and not subject to state or local planning, but I totally agree, development that close is absurd.

**Uncle Fester** · 22-02-17, 04:47 PM

As I kind of indicated in post #12, an engine failure alone on a twin engine plane does no cause it to crash but if there is a fvcking DFO store in the emergency flight path when I lose altitude to pick up speed to avoid a stall, then that theory is now debunked at least in Australia where developers continously and uncontrolled can bribe their way to wealth.
Half our politics is probably based on what developers want, not the people.
Up here it is just developments on flood prone swampy areas or blocking views where no council will care but try to get your own house approved, can take years.
...although people die in floods too.

**ol' boy** · 22-02-17, 05:35 PM

Councils, Shires, bahahahahahah stop it, you are hurting my stomach from laughing so much!

**hoe** · 22-02-17, 05:41 PM

In the cabin there was no real panic among our passengers, although it would be fair to say many were obviously frightened over our predicament. One lady started to cry rather loudly, but her husband gave her a quick backhander and she was then content to just whimper quietly for the next hour. Another passenger indicated that he felt that there was no excuse for us not to proceed with serving bar and lunch, and yet another settled down to write out his will!

Gave her a quick backhander, like it's the most natural thing in the world to do.

lol, these days you'd be up for assualt....

Sent from my LON-L29 using Tapatalk

**Uncle Fester** · 22-02-17, 05:41 PM

Originally Posted by oceanboy

Councils, Shires, bahahahahahah stop it, you are hurting my stomach from laughing so much!

I don't get the joke !

**trash** · 22-02-17, 08:40 PM

It really isn't going to matter. Remember that General Aviation aircraft are designed and serviced not to fail. The point of an airport is to have it close to the population center.
Otherwise Sydney's new second airport would be built at Tullamarine.

So it will be interesting to find out what happened that two turboprop engines failed at the same time.
Looking at the map of where DFO is, it looks like he's managed to do a 180 degree turn and head back to the field but he hasn't made it.

I'm thinking about my choice, I would have turned 180 if I'd thought I had the height, else I would have been looking at crashing through the railings at flemington.

**Godzilla** · 22-02-17, 09:50 PM

Originally Posted by admin

Re the above story I posted and the current accident, you really have to wonder why approval is given for buildings around airports such as the DFO complex.

My understanding was that airfields were being bought up for just the purpose of the spare land to build on in metro locations.

There was a article somewhere around the last day of so where a town planner (? i think) discussed this and was against DFO being built where it was.

**bob_m_54** · 23-02-17, 09:26 AM

Originally Posted by hoe

Gave her a quick backhander, like it's the most natural thing in the world to do.

lol, these days you'd be up for assualt....

Sent from my LON-L29 using Tapatalk

Nah, back in those days it was considered the appropriate action in cases of someone having the hysterics. Just watch a few of the old 50's & 60's movies, all the hero actors did it. It's a wonder old Clark Gable didn't have knobbly knuckles, he did it so often.

**admin** · 23-02-17, 09:44 AM

Originally Posted by Godzilla

My understanding was that airfields were being bought up for just the purpose of the spare land to build on in metro locations.

There was a article somewhere around the last day of so where a town planner (? i think) discussed this and was against DFO being built where it was.

In today's Australian (edit : might have been the Herald Sun, I read both) it stated that the airport was built on Federal land. The airport was leased out to private enterprise in the early 2000's.

As part of that lease, the leasee's do not have to abide by state or council planning laws. In fact, there were plans to add another 10,000 sq feet to the DFO building.

**garrycol** · 23-02-17, 10:32 AM

Originally Posted by trash

It really isn't going to matter. Remember that General Aviation aircraft are designed and serviced not to fail. The point of an airport is to have it close to the population center.
Otherwise Sydney's new second airport would be built at Tullamarine.

So it will be interesting to find out what happened that two turboprop engines failed at the same time.
Looking at the map of where DFO is, it looks like he's managed to do a 180 degree turn and head back to the field but he hasn't made it.

I'm thinking about my choice, I would have turned 180 if I'd thought I had the height, else I would have been looking at crashing through the railings at flemington.

Both engines did not fail - left engine only - no 180 turn to head back to the airfield.

Soon after takeoff (southerly runway) the left engine failed when the aircraft was about half way down the runway but 50m in the air. Aircraft then veered about 20 degrees left and went straight ahead coming down on top of the DFO with maybe left wing down - cut a hole along its path in the roof and then ended in the rear carpark behind the DFO storage areas. At al stages from takeoff the aircraft was heading in a southerly or south easterly direction - impacted DFO from the NW not from a southerly direction as reported by some media.

**shagga66** · 23-02-17, 10:33 PM

Sitting in traffic on the Tulla and watched the entire thing, saw the plane in trouble and the impact, was in shock, thinking did I just see that happen..

**trash** · 01-03-17, 07:15 PM

Originally Posted by garrycol

Both engines did not fail - left engine only - no 180 turn to head back to the airfield.

Soon after takeoff (southerly runway) the left engine failed when the aircraft was about half way down the runway but 50m in the air. Aircraft then veered about 20 degrees left and went straight ahead coming down on top of the DFO with maybe left wing down - cut a hole along its path in the roof and then ended in the rear carpark behind the DFO storage areas. At al stages from takeoff the aircraft was heading in a southerly or south easterly direction - impacted DFO from the NW not from a southerly direction as reported by some media.

Ok, report I saw said both engines had failed.
The videos I saw on TV looked like it was crossing over the freeway heading in a northerly direction.

Given your description assuming it is correct, I rethink the situation.
Now I think about when I'm halfway down a runway, I'm a little higher than 150ft (I have a better climb rate).
So for my little aircraft, would be power off, nose down and get ready to flare hard. I would have lots of runway left, so I'd probably be able to land and pull up without issue.

Even in a bigger aircraft with more airspeed (still single engine) and a shorter runway, I'd do the same thing crashing through the fence at the end of the runway.

So now we scale it up again. Twin engine going even faster. A single engine failure shouldn't have been a problem. Both engines will already be at full throttle so the yaw is expected. The question is, at 150ft I would have thought he was close enough to the ground to power off and splash onto the grass and into the boundary fence. But that is the logic of a single engine pilot.

A twin engine pilot might expect to keep going. Which is what I think I might have done if it was a short field.
Something doesn't quite add up. That is his vertical airspeed is positive at 150ft and he hasn't cleared a 50ft building.
I would think he has enough airspeed and height even with the yaw. I wonder what his vertical airspeed was when the engine failed.

Obviously it wasn't enough, but hitting the ground roughly where the end of the runway is doesn't make a lot of sense if you're trying not to end up there.
If you are trying to end up there then you should already be on the ground before you hit the building or fence.

**garrycol** · 01-03-17, 11:11 PM

One engine failed

The vision is not from the freeway but the link road that runs north south just to the west of DFO. Aircraft was heading SE and the vision is from a vehicle heading in a northerly direction. The radar track of the aircraft has been published.

I am making an assumption here but the King Air is not really a light aircraft as reported but is a classed at the smaller end of the medium sized category - Most likely the aircraft had reached the speed that aborted takeoff was too late (V2 speed in heavy aircraft - the speed that has been reached where the aircraft must continue the flight.

The conjecture is that the left engine failed and should have been able to climb but only if the left engine can be feathered. The conjecture is, an can only be confirmed with the investigation was that the initial swerve to the left was caused when the engine failed and the right hand engine at full power caused the engine to veer to the left - should have been able to be corrected with controls and power. The aircraft continued to veer left - reasons are not know but one being the left engine did not feather (reason to be determined) so the drag caused further veering to the left a reduced one engine aircraft performance. The workload for the pilot with an engine that would not feather would also be a consideration). All unknowns at this stage.

The location of DFO is probably not all that relevant because the aircraft ended up on the airport boundary - if DFO had not been there the aircraft would have most likely ended on the freeway or a little further in residential houses.

We will have to wait for the report to find out what happened.

**mtv** · 01-03-17, 11:41 PM

If the left engine prop failed to feather, (which means turning the blades edge-on to the front) the excessive drag on that engine could pull the aircraft down, even with a perfectly working right engine.

The above is my own version of what may have occurred.

**Uncle Fester** · 02-03-17, 11:06 AM

The Beechcraft Super King Air B200 has Autofeather.
There is a test button and the armed function which is part of the checklist before take off.

Here is the condensed checklist, to give you an idea what pilots SHOULD do before take off:

If autofeather was not armed/tested and the indicator lights ignored, then we would indeed have a major issue with a failed engine.
If the pilot then accidentally manually feathered/cut the wrong engine then we have a repetition of a fatal incident not that long ago.

**garrycol** · 02-03-17, 12:42 PM

Yes - lots of possible scenarios - I guess we all have to wait for the report of the investigation.

We know the track of the aircraft, we know the left engine failed (at least reported), we know it did not climb when it should have but there is not much else that has been released so the rest is all conjecture.

**trash** · 04-03-17, 12:06 AM

I was with a few aviation friends tonight discussing this.
The discussion was if the autofeather could fail. The general consensus with the friends that work on the aircraft is that it "shouldn't". It's default failsafe is feathered.
There was no mention of if you could over-ride it or forget something in the checks.
The assumption was that it was feathered. Which brought us to V1 airspeed. The aircraft should be able to fly and climb. The problem comes with pilot induced oscillations.

The general thought was that the plane was more than capable of completing a circuit on one engine.
Pilot error appears to be the cause. Somebody suggested that this might not come as a surprise.

**mtv** · 04-03-17, 07:27 PM

Don't be surprised if the cause turns out to be wrong fuel in the plane.

**mtv** · 04-03-17, 07:33 PM

DFO = Don't Fly Over

**Uncle Fester** · 06-03-17, 09:43 PM

Originally Posted by mtv

Don't be surprised if the cause turns out to be wrong fuel in the plane.

Bloody hell, Turnbull's new fuel restrictions forced them to use E10, no wonder they lost power.

I shouldn't be joking.
It would be extremely surprising considering the fact that the fuelports are designed totally different. It is like putting a round nozzle into a square receptacle that is too large.