Last Update: Tuesday, Nov 20th 2018 16:26Z 23413 Articles available Events from Jun 19th 1999 to Nov 18th 2018
www.avherald.com
Incidents and News in Aviation
List by:
Filter:
Accident: Rovos Rail CVLP at Pretoria on Jul 10th 2018, engine problem
By Simon Hradecky, created Tuesday, Jul 10th 2018 17:00Z, last updated Saturday, Aug 11th 2018 19:04Z
A Rovos Rail Tours Convair CV-340 in MAC Martin's Air Charter colours, registration ZS-BRV performing a test flight from Pretoria Wonderboom to Pilanesberg (South Africa) with 4 crew and 15 passengers, was climbing out of Wonderboom's runway 29 when ground observers observed smoke from the left hand engine, the aircraft appeared to not climb anymore, estimated height was about 300 feet. The aircraft appeared to maneouver to join a right downwind and turn for final when it lost height, impacted and broke through an industrial building and came to rest about 5.7km/3.1nm east of the airport at position S25.6711 E28.2838. About 20 people on the aircraft and on the ground received injuries, the flight engineer received critical injuries and subsequently died, three other people - reportedly including the pilots - received serious injuries. The aircraft received substantial damage beyond repair, the industrial building was basically split into two halves. On Jul 11th 2018 one of the ground victims passed away, too.
Emergency services reported 4 occupants were trapped inside the aircraft and needed to be freed, all 4 including the pilots received critical injuries. They were flown to a hospital in Johannesburg.
The aircraft was being prepared to depart for Europe to join a display in Lelystad (Netherlands) on Jul 23rd 2018.
The Aviodrome Lelystad reported three of their museum staff were on board of the aircraft, they are all okay with minor injuries only. The aircraft had been donated to the Aviodrome by Rovos Rail and had been restored into flying condition in the colours of Martin's Air Charter, which later became Martinair. The cost for the restoration into airworthy condition and for the repaint of 350,000 Euros had been spent by the Aviodrome. The aircraft was anticipated to join the display at the Aviodrome on Jul 23rd 2018 and was intended to be kept in airworthy condition by the museum staff. Rovos Rail had used the aircraft for luxus air safaris in combination with train journeys until 2009. The aircraft was subsequently offered for sale. In March 2018 the owners decided to donate the aircraft to the Aviodrome as the owners wanted to ensure a good future for the aircraft. The aircraft was to begin the journey to Europe on Jul 12th 2018, but suffered an accident during a test flight on Jul 10th 2018.
Close friends of the flight engineer confirmed the flight engineer passed away as result of the accident. The flight engineer had been working for both Rovos Rail and South African Airways. The aircraft, although certified for a two man operation, was crewed with two pilots and two flight engineers in preparation for the trip to Europe.
Listeners on frequency reported the crew joined a right hand downwind for runway 29. While on the downwind ATC offered runway 24 for landing, the crew however opted for the longer runway 29.
On Jul 11th 2018 South Africa's Civil Aviation Authority (SACAA) reported, that the aircraft belonged to Rovos Rail Tours, the aircraft was departing Wonderboom with the intended destination Pilanesberg. The aircraft carried 3 crew and 16 passengers, 14 South Africans, 3 Dutch and 2 Australians. There were a number of serious injuries on scene, one fatal injury was confirmed on the accident scene. In addition three people on the ground were injured, one of them passed away in the morning of Jul 11th 2018. The aircraft held a certificate of Airworthiness due to expire on August 15th 2018. A team of investigators has been assigned to investigate the accident, a preliminary report is due within 30 days, the investigation however can taken 12 months of more.
Although being a test flight members of the restoration team had been invited to join the flight as appreciation for their work.
Qantas (Australia) told Australian media that their pilot community is in shock over the accident. Two of their most experienced pilots, one of them retired the other current, with over 37,000 hours of flying experience combined (including A380 captaincy) were operating the aircraft.
Based on a video from another aircraft showing the accident aircraft during the last 90 seconds of flight it appears the aircraft lost substantial height while turning base towards the south and was already just above tree/house roof level while heading south over the road towards the south making it impossible to turn further onto final.
On Aug 11th 2018 South Africa's CAA released their preliminary report stating that a camera had been installed in the cockpit (GOPRO). The cockpit was occupied by the captain, a first officer and the Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer (LAME) conducting the final checks for the flight to the Netherlands, all three had also participated in the ferry flight of another CVLP to Australia two years earlier.
Pilanesberg Aerodrome was closed for fixed wing aircraft due to runway maintenance. A related NOTAM was unknown to crew and staff at Wonderboom airport, who accepted the flight plan and issued takeoff clearance.
At about 50 KIAS in the takeoff run the captain commented the manifold pressure was low. After rotation and becoming airborne, one of the passengers - the assistant to the LAME - went to the cockpit and told the crew the left hand engine was on fire. The aircraft continued to climb at about 600-700 fpm until reaching about 800 feet AGL, then began to lose height. The aircraft continued with the left engine fire, the engine fire checklist was never executed and the crew never attempted to extinguish the fire, the engine fire extinguishing system was never activated. The left engine RPM was fluctuating, the engine fire master caution activated and an audible alarm sounded. The control wheel was deflected to the right, the captain commented the ailerons had been lost and requested the first officer to apply rudder. The GOPRO also revealed that the crew was not sure whether they had retracted their landing gear. In addition, crew and LAME were asking each other which engine was on fire although they had been told by the LAME's assistant. At no time the pilots or LAME discussed or attempted the fire drill for the left hand engine, which would have included feathering the propeller, pull the T-Handle to off to shut off all fluids, close the heat source valves, close the cowl doors, place the fuel shut off valve to CLOSED, turn off the fuel boost pump, operate the appropriate fire switch and if needed operate the alternative fire switch. The aircraft lost height, contacted a number of wires parallel to Sakabuka Street just north of the industrial complex, the aircraft impacted, two vehicles and the industrial complex.
Ground witnesses observed and collected melted metal debris, that fell off the aircraft while it remained airborne.
The SACAA reported the inflight left engine fire consumed parts of the left wing structure, the aircraft was destroyed by impact forces, the post impact fire damaged the right main gear and engine. In addition the power lines, the two vehicles and the industrial complex sustained damage.
The SACAA wrote: "Initial on-site investigation identified that the fire was most intense in the left engine. Soot, glazing and heat signatures were evident on a number of electrical, air, oil and hydraulic supply lines. An external fire had developed in the lower left region of the left engine nacelle. Airframe fire damage was found on the aircraft’s left wing rear spar and the exhaust area. The right engine fire was post-impact and was observed after the crash."
Last moments of flight and impact aftermath from cabin (Video: unknown):
Aerial view of the crash site (Photo: Hanno Greyling):
ZS-BRV on the ground (Photos: ArriveAlive):
Accident Site and points of impact (Graphics: SACAA):
Final flight trajectory based on video from other aircraft (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):
Detail Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):
Map (Graphics: AVH/Google Earth):
Reader Comments: (the comments posted below do not reflect the view of The Aviation Herald but represent the view of the various posters)
Pilots By Grounded on Wednesday, Oct 10th 2018 21:08Z
One pilot out of hospital and rehab and now home, the other still in hospital (in Australia). All passengers recovered and OK.
Any updates? By Helmut on Wednesday, Oct 10th 2018 09:23Z
What is the latest with the crew and pax.? Hope all doing fine.
Could They Make It? Revisted By Helmut on Wednesday, Aug 22nd 2018 03:36Z
My thinking is that when the landing gear was selected down, it was too early in the attempted return to airfield sequence.
The aircraft still had quite a bit to turn and the extension of the gear on the down wind on this occasion would have caused the drag to increase significantly.
The landing gear down cycle only takes 5 seconds so a better stabilised approach could have been chosen.
So, there are a couple of things to think about here. (1) if the aircraft was certified to take off on one engine, gear down and other engine propeller feathered, what degraded the performance? and (2) was an/the unfeathered propeller enough to cause an unarrestable descent?
How are the survivors doing?
@MG By Brian Johnson on Thursday, Aug 16th 2018 10:04Z
>> Never turn into the dead engine Who said they did? The left engine had the problem, they turned right.
Poor CRM By Skydriver on Wednesday, Aug 15th 2018 14:41Z
One point: the pilots were modern jet crews flying with no flight engineer, to fly as a three man crew requests sole specific briefing about how to handle a tricky situation and who will do what.
By SE210 on Tuesday, Aug 14th 2018 20:20Z
The Convair 340 in South Africa was piloted by retired A380 pilots. I do not know their experience of flying big props (will be included in the final report), but it is unlikely that they have clocked many hours recently.
The JU-52 in Switzerland was also piloted by retired pilots. The captain had 900 hours over 15 years which makes about 60 hours per year.
The pilot crashing a Hawker Hunter (not a propliner though) in Shoreham had only 43 hours on the aircraft over 5 years. Still he was going to make an air display, that ended up killing 11 people. This pilot was clearly not experienced on type.
My point is, that you need to take training very seriously, when you fly these aircraft and the pilots need to fly them regularly.
By SE210 on Tuesday, Aug 14th 2018 20:19Z
Anonymous - I fully agree with you.
I do not see the age of an aircraft to be a problem, as long as it is properly maintained.
To me the problem is mainly experience and recency of flying old props.
A former colleague of mine, had 5000 hours on the DC6 and a couple of thousand hours on the DC3. A man with this experience is like to be very capable.
On the other hand, if you take a retired airline captain of a modern aircraft like an Airbus, he is likely not to have the skills to fly a very basic and different aircraft. What is even worse, he is not likely to get enough flying to be competent.
The dutch DC3 that crashed 20+ years ago was piloted with retired pilots with moderate experience on the DC3. Furthermore both had less than 50 hours of flying the aircraft within the previous year.
Flying old props By (anonymous) on Tuesday, Aug 14th 2018 17:45Z
@SE210 Why should we stop flying them, some old steam trains are running, old ships are sailing, old car or motorbike take the road... There are two key factors as pointed out by others commentators: being a long haul jet airline pilot does not automaticaly qualify you to be able of handling old props planes. You have to learn the specificities of those piston engines, train, fly, listen to the « old experienced guys »: this takes time and money. And you must fly those birds within an experienced structure: good experienced mechanics, experienced fellow pilots, instructors, that will tell you: chap, the way to test fly such a bird is blablabla... Or you’re still too green for this ride. As an active fighter pilot then a commercial jet pilot I never wanted to move to the historical flying just because I would not get enough spare time during enough years to learn the correct way.
Have we reached a time, where we should stop to fly the "Big Props" By Jetman on Monday, Aug 13th 2018 06:42Z
Only if driven by irresponsible.. Thousand flying hrs or age does not make a top gun, skill knowledge and training does, especially for test flight, this is confirmed by reading everyday on this site comment by so called drivers...scary isn't it ???
By SE210 on Monday, Aug 13th 2018 05:44Z
Have we reached a time, where we should stop to fly the "Big Props"??
The design of the radial engines peaked in the 1950's and our knowledge of how to operate and maintain these engines is not the same as it used to be (in general).
A few companies still have the knowledge and skills (Everts Fuel, Buffalo Airways etc) , whereas most vintage plane clubs outside the US do not fly them often enough maintain what it takes.
Furthermore, look at the age of the pilots flying the old planes. In my country we have a DC-3 club and the pilots are all 65+ - not that age necessarily make a difference, but the skills are not passed on to a new generation. The same goes with the mechanics - how many know how to maintain a PW2800 or PW1830?
In the past month we have seen the crash of a JU-52, a CV340 and a DC-3 - I love old airplanes, but I do not see them as safe as a normal airliner.
@Jochen Heiden By tom on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 22:37Z
I am going to confidently say "yes", had the followed the fire procedure, they would have with relative ease made it back to the airport. If if the fire would not have gone, They would have made it back....it wasn't, based on the video, burning that badly at the end.
The part that kills me, they knew they had a problem at 50kts with the manifold pressure = N1 or EPR on a jet. If the A380 doesn't get the required EPR when the power is set, I am willing to bet that they will abort below V1.
Could they make it? By (anonymous) on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 20:53Z
@Jochen Heiden As already written in some comments, no easy answer to your question, feathering the prop would have helped flying better, but the procedure might have failed killing the fire. So with a damage wing and ongoing fire so many things could happen in the minimum 5 minutes or so to get back on the runway: among them inflight wing breakup, wing fuel tank exploding (so again wing breakup), also most probably... asymetrical main gear extension.
Pilot error By tom on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 18:55Z
Part 1
Looks bad on the pilots and LAMEs part if this is all true. So similar to the Swiss JU52 incident, as far as pilots making a blatant mistake based on conditions.
I have arrived at a conclusion.
ONE -- It takes money to fly such an airplane, as you are 'volunteering' your time....in other words, you got to be a bit independently wealthy....like a captain for a major airline.
TWO -- A high time airline pilot "conveys" a feeling of safety to the passengers...even though, like other posters have pointed out, whether you have 10,000, or 20,000 hours in a commercial jet really makes little difference to a scenario like this.
Pilot error By tom on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 18:53Z
Part 2
CONCLUSION -- esp in the case of the JU52, and also here, would we not have been better of hiring some 30 year old, who has flown DC3, TWin Otters and the likes in the mountains of Nepal, or some Carribean Island Captain who flys a CV340/ 440 / DC3 many days of his life.
I realize I have likely pissed in many people's corn flakes here (esp pilots), I mean no offense. I am a mechanic, I have seen mechanics produce alot of crap over the years too.
Similar accident By Exuma Guy on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 16:20Z
This crew's biggest danger was not the engine failure but the fire. Piston-powered Convairs have a history of this. I can't post links here but NTSB.gov and search N8277Q. Even if the crew had activated the fire suppression system, the extinguishing agent may not have reached all the flames, but they should have tried.
Damning report By Jochen Heiden on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 16:06Z
The preliminary report is exceptionally well written and full of detail, which sadly is quite damning to the pilots. There appears to be an utter lack of airmanship here and I have to wonder why or how this could happen with such an experienced group of aviators.
Another question I have to the experienced pilots here: If they had properly executed the engine fire checklist and feathered the props as soon as possible, what was the possibility of them making it back to the airport to land? Great, good, or bad?
Even before engine failure By Skydriver on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 15:55Z
Out of the Crew handling of the engine fire, we must emphasize again the whole flight seemed wrongly arranged. First flight of A vintage lady after so many years: you perform ground engine run up, you will most often perform a runway ground acceleration: so you can run the engines at take-of power, check steering and brakes. Then you plan a first test flight with minimum crew and you carefully brief the main what if. What if we have an engine failure on take-off would be a first one, then what if we get a jammed gear, a fuel leak, jammed flaps. Most experienced pilots flying old piston birds will tell you: always consider off airport crash landing, mostly in case of uncontrolled Fire. When you start cutting into that process, maybe for financial reason (?), then you rely mostly on luck, can be OK... or not.
CV340 By Hans Siegl on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 15:12Z
All comments are perfectly right. This was a very poor performance. Airbus operating has only minimal in common with flying an aircraft. ...and if those were Qantas best, I am lucky that I never flew with them
Airmanship By Sam Coat on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 13:50Z
As I stated before. Command flying on an A380 at a wealthy and modern western airline bears 0 relevance to basic airmanship. It appears that, given the preliminary report, none of the most basic items in resolving an N-1 scenario were executed. I fly the 777 for a similar type company, and can attest to the fact that EFATO's are seldomly trained. Instead, you get management scenarios. All fine and well. However if you lose the drill and cadence of EFATO's it can come back to bite. It appears they even had trouble identifying the inoperative engine. General chaos. My thoughts are with the family of the deceased.
By Iain on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 13:39Z
This is almost amateur hour for the highly experienced pilots and the LAME - An engine fire on takeoff and they did nothing, didn't even call the checklist. I mean they didn't even know which engine was on fire, even after being told. (Dead leg, dead engine anyone?) If they were in a sim this would be an instant fail.
With a loaded piston twin on takeoff at a high density altitude airport, you MUST feather on engine failure or you're going down. The flight crew should half expect an engine failure on the first flight after 5 months worth of maintenance, and they should've briefed the engine failure drills to memory.
TCDS and such By Sinclair Stokes on Sunday, Aug 12th 2018 12:09Z
Is this a typo? "The aircraft Type Certificate (TC) is held by Transport Canada." Certification authorities issue but do not hold Type Certificates
Kelowna (city) holding the TCDS? "Type Certificate Data Sheet Holder (TDCS) Kelowna, British Columbia (BC), Canada"
Lack of type training? By Yeti on Saturday, Aug 11th 2018 21:26Z
Thanks to the Gopro the intermediary report can state, that the pilots and the LAME did not follow the engine fire procedure. Obviously there is a breakdown in CRM. This leads me to question, if the lack of (simulator) training on the aircraft type (note that the copilot seems to be not type rated) including the mechanic as third "pilot" was one part of the problem? Retrofitting (non FDR/CVR equipped) aircraft with GOPROs seems to be a nice idea for investigators anyway.
Report By Alex on Saturday, Aug 11th 2018 21:10Z
After reading the preliminary report only one preliminary conclusion is drawn: the captain and PF lacked the very basic trait of an airman: never fly when in doubt.
inflight pax video By tom on Saturday, Aug 4th 2018 01:11Z
If you look closely at the inflight video, they were unable to feather the propeller....look at the aileron deflection...I used to work on CV580....Thats almost full left deflection constantly...
No, there isn't any propeller twin that will stay in the air with a windmilling prop, and its not part of certification either...even well below max gross you are doomed. You have this 10 foot aerodynamic disk on the wing, which A - prevents that area of the wing from creating proper lift, and B - creates more drag than any airplane is certified for.
There are instances of the four engined DC4 unable to feather one propeller, and having to crash land.
Single Engine Performance By Helmut on Saturday, Jul 28th 2018 03:30Z
Given a possible scenario that the left engine propeller could not be feathered, it must have been obvious to the crew that airspeed could not be maintained for safe flight. Can someone possibly work out what the airspeed or at best the ground speed decay may have been down wind asthe aircraft was returning?
With the video showing loss of height it should be possible to roughly decipher the vertical descent rate.
So can the Convair 340 maintain flight at MTOW with one engine out and propeller not feathered or not? Is there a certification issue?
CLASSIFICATION By Luca on Friday, Jul 20th 2018 09:30Z
@HowMike
Thanks for your explanation. Actually I posted uncorrectly my question. I was looking for "why" but your answer filled up my doubt.
Question By TZIG on Thursday, Jul 19th 2018 19:45Z
Why couldn't they put it down on the big flat field before they started turning? Look at the 2nd video above taken from the other aircraft in the sky at the 0:50 mark. Looks like that field might have worked.
Live VS Dead Engine By JanB on Thursday, Jul 19th 2018 07:56Z
Browsing the posts below, I see a lot of discussion about turning to the dead engine etc. etc. Why? The left engine failed, and there seems to be consensus that the aircraft was flying a right hand circuit. This means they were only making right turns which imho is towards the LIVE engine and from a performance point of view this is the optimum.
Convair By Observor on Wednesday, Jul 18th 2018 18:35Z
Convair crash wonderboom. The inside story from my AMO who is doing the investigation is that a fuel line fractured on the carburetor avgas radial left engine. Fire then burned through the oil lines. Loss of pressure prevented them from feathering the prop. They turned right downwind to avoid crashing into built up areas. I.e. Against the live engine. They set it down on base but hit a single story steel and brick warehouse tearing chunks out and bending the i beams at right angles. Probably with an engine. This effectively broke their speed. Landed straight ahead with both wings separating and burning. All 18 pax WALKED OUT! Pilots injured but not sure how badly. Engineer in jump seat went through windscreen and died. Truly lucky for all except the engineer. Pilots were incredibly cool and pax too as reported by my AMO's friend who was on board.
this accident Pt 2 By herman on Wednesday, Jul 18th 2018 17:32Z
pt 2. NH assures US that the pilots were gentlemen & did have "true flying abilities". WHAT! what a bunch of baloney, did the flight crew have feathers like a bird? it’s bad judgement to allow any extra persons aboard any test flight. for a ferry flight it’s permissible within strict limits. now back to the videos, it is evident that the #1 engine firewall has been compromised. the engine in detonation blew one or more jugs starting an fuel & oil fire. the initial loss of torque should have been seen on the BMEP gauge during the T/O run. that & the ADI armed light on in conjunction with the quantity indicator on the reservoir gauge decreasing.