Sapphire Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Just watched that on 60 minutes. An a/c was converted from a crop duster to skydiving operations without any check done on the c of g. When the plane crashed as a result of being out of c of g, it was "pilot error" The head of the NZ regulatory authority accepted no blame-the pilot [who can't defend himself] should not have flown that a/c. When I fly , I check that it has a certificate of airworthyness and from that I assume that when the a/c is loaded according to the fligh manual, it is within correct c of g. Another trick is that after the accident regulations have been tightened up requireing all a/c to be checked after major modification. Reminds me of the Air New Zealand Antarctic crash long ago. After the trial the judge commented that he was continually presented with a litany of lies Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 i may be wrong but that aircraft should have been grounded 2 or 3 weeks before the acident as the regs had been changed then neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Just watched that on 60 minutes. An a/c was converted from a crop duster to skydiving operations without any check done on the c of g. When the plane crashed as a result of being out of c of g, it was "pilot error" The head of the NZ regulatory authority accepted no blame-the pilot [who can't defend himself] should not have flown that a/c. When I fly , I check that it has a certificate of airworthyness and from that I assume that when the a/c is loaded according to the fligh manual, it is within correct c of g. Another trick is that after the accident regulations have been tightened up requireing all a/c to be checked after major modification. Reminds me of the Air New Zealand Antarctic crash long ago. After the trial the judge commented that he was continually presented with a litany of lies Well, as PIC in Australia you are required to check the weight and balance before every flight. I suspect NZ would have the same requirement. The weight calculations you would be doing would be based on the moment arms of the crop duster configuration, hence the PIC would have been judged responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Compulsion Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The biggest problem was as soon as the nose went up the passengers all slid down the rear of the aircraft ensuring that they where doomed. At least it would have been a quick death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 .The pilot had previously nearly bent a aircraft (could have been the same one), by nearly taking off with trim set aft. Not set at the Take Off postion trim setting. I have read this somewhere.Cant remember, the comments where made by a fellow pilot.Could have been a prelim report on this accident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 The biggest problem was as soon as the nose went up the passengers all slid down the rear of the aircraft ensuring that they where doomed. At least it would have been a quick death. The pax, sliding backwards was a secondary effect.They pitch up must have been alot for them to have slid backwards.I think that as soon as the Fletcher left the runway, they where dead. Nodody will recover a aircraft with that much rear C 0f G.Even before the Pax started sliding backwards. Another way of looking at it is - If the Pax didnt slide backwards, the aircraft still would have ended up like it did.It maybe just taken a few seconds longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eightyknots Posted October 7, 2012 Share Posted October 7, 2012 Well, as PIC in Australia you are required to check the weight and balance before every flight. I suspect NZ would have the same requirement. Yes, NZ also has this requirement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted October 7, 2012 Author Share Posted October 7, 2012 Well, as PIC in Australia you are required to check the weight and balance before every flight.Answer: I'am getting confused Turboplanner. You and 80knots say that part of the preflight check is to check the weight and balance? That requires emptying the fuel tanks and putting the a/c on scales., then filling the fuel tanks and doing the same not to forget the calculations. The last guy I seen take off had to be at point B ten minutes earlier. Kicked the tyres, slammed on the starter, high speed taxi to the strip... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
turboplanner Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Its a calculator check of all key items on the flight, their weights , and distances from a datum set by doing the things you referred to and some others. Don't fly with the tyre kickers - you can't see out of balance 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest ozzie Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 A big point overlooked is at the time of the accident single point restraints (seat belts) where not required in New Zealand. They are now mandatory. If these had been fitted and used the jumpers would not have slid to the rear of the aircraft and a good chance the accident may have been prevented. SPRs have been mandatory here in Oz for many years. SPRs are required to be used on take off, landing and below 1500ft. Converted Fletchers are now operated on reduced numbers of jumpers. The similar Cresco is not affected and can still carry a full load All drop zones in Australia are required to weigh all jumpers fully geared up and manifest is to supply pilot with total weight for each load. This became a requirement after the overloaded Cessna accident in Qld some years back. Ozzie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Especially on a taildragger. Austers can be a trap as they often fit a weight down the back for banner towing ops. IF you put pax in you are tail heavy. This doesn't show as it does on a Cessna NW type where they will nearly sit on their tail. The POH should show the CORRECT basic weight and index and the pilot works from that. Bit difficult to expect the pilot to determine if the POH is incorrect, but sometimes it is. A full reweigh where the weight on each wheel is recorded, will enable the figures to be checked. Without that you would only know by how it flew and where the elevator "sits" when in flight. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 As I understand it, when the cropduster was converted, probably the front hopper, pumps, fittings etc were taken out and the c of g moved way back. At that stage we are dealing with a new unknown a/c and have to do a weight an balance and add ballast where required. Now the a/c is given a new c of a. This was not done. The pilot would have applied the c of g tables in his manual thinking they still correctly applied to his a/c. The only way I can see the pilot responsible is if he was required to check that the a/c had a certificate of airworthyness after the modification. The air safety authority certainly didn't because at the time they didn't require it. That lack of legislation caused the accident. Then the head of air safety denied any fault because existing legislation did not reqire the a/c to be checked, and whose fault is that? Listening to him was like Richard Nixon explaining away watergate- 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
farri Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 A big point overlooked is at the time of the accident single point restraints (seat belts) where not required in New Zealand. They are now mandatory. If these had been fitted and used the jumpers would not have slid to the rear of the aircraft and a good chance the accident may have been prevented. Ozzie Not overlooked by me! When I say everyone just sitting there, it was the first thing I thought of, when the nose of the AC pitched up! As Ozzie has said, I also think that if the jumpers hadn`t slid to the rear, there would have been a chance of recovery! Even if only a small chance! Frank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 " As a result the aeroplane was being flown outside its loading limits every time it carried a full load of 8 parachutists." This sentence from the report suggests that the aircraft had already flown in this condition? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winsor68 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Found it... "3.7.8. An examination of the operator’s booking diary and loading receipts showed that since the introduction into service of ZK-EUF the aeroplane operator had flown about 193 revenue flights or loads. Of these about 74 loads had had 8 parachutists, 16 loads had had 7 parachutists, 86 loads had had 6 parachutists and 17 loads had had 4 parachutists." I wonder why it was not noticed on previous flights? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dazza 38 Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Eyewitnesses report that after rotation she went nearly vertical then at approx 350 feet, yawed left and dove into the ground. Information sourced from CAA Crash report. We are talking of a major aft C of G . I have no idea how it had flown 74 times with 8 Para Pax before that event.They PAX must have been very friendly & sitting on the pilots lap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guernsey Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 Perhaps they were lighter passengers and the take of trim was set correctly. Alan. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 8, 2012 Share Posted October 8, 2012 NZ has a pretty poor record od safety on many things. A cavalier attitude it seems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sapphire Posted October 8, 2012 Author Share Posted October 8, 2012 Eyewitnesses report that after rotation she went nearly vertical then at approx 350 feet, yawed left and dove into the ground. Information sourced from CAA Crash report. We are talking of a major aft C of G .I have no idea how it had flown 74 times with 8 Para Pax before that event.They PAX must have been very friendly & sitting on the pilots lap. Probably on that flight someone ventured to the back of the a/c. The c of g was so far back, that simple action caused the a/c to be uncontrolable. How is the spaceship flying, rocketman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 C of G yes - overall weight would not be a problem ................. say 8 + 1 = 9 POB @ 100 kg = 900 kg I'd say a fletcher could lift easily twice that weight - turbine poered probably lots more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnm Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 i'm wrong there ! fletcher woul carry about 1000+ kgs - i'll slink off and take another 'red' pill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted October 11, 2012 Share Posted October 11, 2012 i'll slink off and take another 'red' pill :crying:dont johnm there not doing me any good:help: neil 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now