Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom (10 July 2018)

What your instructor never taught you. Continuing your education and learning from others. Flight safety topics and accident/incident discussions.

Moderator: Moderators

dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by dany » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:26 pm

To sum all up, any sign of red flags or slightest doubt, say NO. And not saying No killed many people before and will keep on killing till we change from within on ourselves. We way to quick to accept things as normal. Hmmmm,is there not a video somewhere specially on this. ?

And this "norm" brings me to another issue.
People doing their own maintenance not having the skills. Oh,the norm is, it is not difficult to handle a spanner. But the problem is not the handling of the spanner, its the technical side of affairs at the other end of the spanner.
Fire extinguishers. How many people swear by a halon,as it is a death "sentence to operate a powder extinguisher inside a aircraft. --That is the normal idea and thoughts. How many people tried first hand to put out a open fire(engine,brake pads you name it,outside with slight wind blowing with a halon extinguisher. hmmm, I can carry on what we take as norm and what reality is.
User avatar
Spoke Eagle
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2050
Joined: Wed Apr 13, 2005 10:00 pm
Closest Airfield: Silver Creek
Location: Rustenburg
Has liked: 5 times
Been liked: 26 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by Spoke Eagle » Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:32 pm

We should consider that both were high time line pilots. Those people it seems take longer to think things through to make better judgements calls.
Same thing happenned with the Swiss Air fire at Halifax . In retrospect and if I have a fire like that I'll just dump it in the sea because I'm so scared to burn but that would probably be the worst thing to do. Their minds were trained to think differently.
User avatar
Zulu01
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1282
Joined: Thu Nov 08, 2007 9:23 pm
Closest Airfield: KGSO
Location: KGSO, Greensboro NC , USA
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by Zulu01 » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:10 pm

Some interesting thoughts and posts. Hopefully at some stage the pilot will be able to help the investigators understand what was happening in the last few minutes.

Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought I read previously that the AME was also a pilot on this very same plane.
In which case he would have been a 3rd pilot and mechanic during the flight.
Rick Cockcroft
Former GPL and instructor
PPL
RC Novice
User avatar
Chalkie
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1337
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:19 am
Closest Airfield: FAPX
Location: In RV Eden.
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 39 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by Chalkie » Thu Aug 16, 2018 7:31 pm

dany wrote:
Thu Aug 16, 2018 1:26 pm
And this "norm" brings me to another issue.
People doing their own maintenance not having the skills. Oh,the norm is, it is not difficult to handle a spanner. But the problem is not the handling of the spanner, its the technical side of affairs at the other end of the spanner.
Fire extinguishers. How many people swear by a halon,as it is a death "sentence to operate a powder extinguisher inside a aircraft. --That is the normal idea and thoughts. How many people tried first hand to put out a open fire(engine,brake pads you name it,outside with slight wind blowing with a halon extinguisher. hmmm, I can carry on what we take as norm and what reality is.
In a closed environment such as inside an aircraft, Halon is an awesome fire extinguisher, if there was anything better then the Halon extinguishers would be removed and replaced with the better item. I agree in the open air environment it might not be as good as a dry powder extinguisher, however, the problem with a dry powder extinguisher is it contains siliconized monoammonium phosphate powder. From matric science, if a chemical has a name ending in ...ate, it has extra oxygen molecules attached which can cause corrosion problems. Monoammonium phosphate powder when applied to a fire in an aluminium airframe will melt and flow between riveted lap joints and be impossible to remove without de-riviting the airframe.

I will stick to Halon.
Rule #2 Hurry up Slowly.
Cynic: One who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by dany » Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:51 am

You miss the point I am trying to make.(btw, we carry halon as standard kit in some projects and lost two colleagues indirectly to halon)
User avatar
Chalkie
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1337
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:19 am
Closest Airfield: FAPX
Location: In RV Eden.
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 39 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by Chalkie » Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:55 pm

dany wrote:
Fri Aug 17, 2018 8:51 am
You miss the point I am trying to make.(btw, we carry halon as standard kit in some projects and lost two colleagues indirectly to halon)
Sorry to hear that. When halon extinguishes a fire, a byproduct is a poisonous gas and the area needs to be ventilated, but I am sure you are aware of that.
Rule #2 Hurry up Slowly.
Cynic: One who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
dany
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1905
Joined: Mon Sep 30, 2013 7:07 am
Closest Airfield: moscow
Location: Moscow/Africa
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by dany » Fri Aug 17, 2018 1:12 pm

Thank you and appreciate.Fully aware of dangerous gas. We test all safety equipment prescribed ourselves in typical applications since this accident. Now we carry both powder and halon in similar situations and disposable dustmasks.. If they had a small powder extinguisher with them,they would probably still be alive today. That day due to a freak of nature, the wind just hit the entrenches to tunnels and service bunkers at the right angle to create a low pressure deep inside the structures(hydro project). Our team was at the middle section of the main power supply to the large 800 volt actuaters of bypass valves. One of the switchboards caught fire, and at the same time, shuttering got sucked in at one of the main entrances,creating a draft, which renders the halon useless in fighting the fire. Once both units was empty, the ground team manage to shut one of the sluice gates, which stop all draft and then they got trapped by flames fueled by the draft. If they had powder, they might have difficulty to breath,but the fire would not get time to spread and ignite other material(all was still under construction)
D228100
Taxiing
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:47 am
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by D228100 » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:34 pm

Reading through many pages of people defending and blaming the crew has been an interesting exercise with many varying points of view, so I thought I would add my own and perhaps offer some thoughts behind decisions made from my experiences. I believe there are area's that the crew did fail if the reports are true.

1. While the paperwork did not cause the engine to fail or the aircraft to crash we all know that in the modern World paperwork is king and needs to be in order. I think airline crew should know this more than the average weekend warrior. So if we can believe the reports, in this area they fail.

2. Taking passengers on a test flight. Here I must admit I don't know the law and I don't have a test pilot rating so I can only offer an opinion. The aircraft having not been flown for an extended period of time and having had extensive work carried out, I personally don't believe that passengers should have been taken with on the initial flight even if it is within the confines of the law. I have not read anywhere that it is not but welcome the input if it is and we can all learn from it. Test flights are there to identify potential issues and you want the aircraft to be in the most favourable condition to ensure it flies in the event of a problem, so only enough fuel for the exercise and minimum crew to ensure everything that needs to be tested can be tested, so engineers and observers if required. The fact that all passengers were asked to sign an indemnity would imply that taking passengers was legal but that as there were no tickets for the flight as the aircraft was not on an AOC they wanted the passengers to be aware and they were taking precautions. I'm sure that this decision would have been taken with the input of more than just the pilots but ultimately it was their decision.

3. The auto feather light not working. This is a test flight of an old aircraft that has not been flown in a long time, you expect to find minor things that don't work. The LAME stated that it was the light bulb, I don't know the systems of this aircraft but I'm guessing that there is a test for the auto-feather system. The extended pre take-off tests probably indicate that they did test this system before take-off and it was shown to be the bulb.

4. The controls. Having flown different versions of the same model of aircraft I can say that the feel is always different and not what you were accustomed to with the previous aircraft you flew, more so if the last one was a few months prior. Added to this the aircraft is old and maintenance had been done so perhaps something had been over torqued thus causing the stiffness or not set quite right. Remeber this is a test flight to identify issues to be checked. How many times have you sent your aircraft back to an AMO to reset something. I'm guessing they had full and consistent movement and thus considered it something worth noting but within limits.

5. Low manifold pressure indication. Having had both a low manifold pressure reading and an engine producing lower than expected power on a twin you will know the difference. An engine producing lower power than the opposite engine on a twin at take-off power settings and low speed you will be off the runway before you realize it. The amount of rudder required to keep it straight would be an immediate indicator of the power being produced. I'm guessing the Captain didn't require much rudder input and thus concluded the guage was misreading so decided to continue with the take-off. Again I say this was probably expected as it was a test flight and he would have been looking for other inputs to confirm the reading he was getting from the pressure guage, in this case it would have been RPM, fuel flows and rudder input, I guess they were all in the normal or inthe expected range so the decsion was to go.

6. Engine fire. Ive had an engine fire directly after take-off and there are many things that go through your mind. In an airline its a lot more simple. It will fly and climb on one engine so the decision is easy to shut it down and pull the T-handle to dump the extinguishers. On and under performing twin there are other considerations. The engine was still producing power which is evident from the speeds and the climb so I'm guessing the decision was to use the power until it was no longer required before shutting it down, that was my decision and I would repeat it again under the same circumstances. Again here I don't know but in some of the older aircraft systems were not duplicated so some systems run off either left or right engine only so perhaps this was also a consideration but I'm sure there are persons better positioned to comment on this. Speed and height are a pilots best friends while in the air, It looks like they were trying to get the best balance of this to complete the circuit.

7. Alternate runway. These were not local pilots but I'm sure they would have known the alternate runway was shorter which would have influenced their decision to return to their take-off runway. My first flight into Wonderboom from the East I got lost, not an easy airport to identify from low level so rather go with something that you are sure about. The instruments would have been set up for RWY 29 so their positional awareness would have been with that in mind. There is a lot going on in the cockpit and in your mind under these circumstances so you need to keep it simple. I also had an alternate runway available to me but didn't consider it because I had never landed on it and it was also shorter, I wanted something that was familiar to me under a stressfull period. These guys didn't even have that.

The rest is somewhat immaterial and hindsight is a little more of a perfect science, I don't know why they didn't eventually shut the engine down as this is what appears at this stage to have ultimately caused the end resulting loss of control, which seemed to have been well dealt with. They flew the aircraft into the crash. This resulted in a far reduced mortality rate and they should be commended for this.

To me the mistake they did make was not to have the paperwork in order. The other issues I think based on the information they had at the time and the indications they were getting their decisions were good. I'm sure they would probably do the same again under the same conditions. After all this was a test flight and the weight that they took off at the book says it should fly. Its very easy to sit behind your computer and say they should have said no to the take off. You do not know what they based their decisions on but I doubt it was peer pressure or pressure from the passengers on board. These were pilots that I'm sure had left many passengers stranded around the World for safety reasons in their years in the airlines, to do it again for a pleasure trip for 17 passengers would have been an easy decision. They believed the aircraft was safe to fly, with their combined experience and training I would believe them.
User avatar
jimdavis
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 15682
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 am
Closest Airfield: FAGG
Location: Wilderness
Has liked: 215 times
Been liked: 210 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by jimdavis » Mon Aug 20, 2018 4:55 pm

D228100 (where on earth did you get that name?) Anyhow I would like to congratulate you on what I see as the most sensible and unemotional post on this thread =D> =D> =D>

Just one point - I'm too lazy to troll through all these posts, but I seem to think it was not the initial test flight. Was it not just the first one on which they were testing the wet takeoff?

jim
"PPL Manual"
"Flight Tests"
"So Others May Live"
"Flying in Africa" Vol 1
"Flying in Africa" Vol 2
Look inside these books, or buy them at: www.jimdavis.co.za.
scotty
ATC Delay
Posts: 116
Joined: Sun Nov 02, 2014 9:11 am
Closest Airfield: wonderboom
Location: pretoria
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by scotty » Mon Aug 20, 2018 9:15 pm

ZULU01
The AME WAS ON HIS ENGENEERS LICENSE TYPE RATED-but on his ppl he wasnot rated or twin rated :oops:
Bowie
Reaching GFA
Posts: 262
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2015 11:09 pm
Closest Airfield: FALA Lanseria
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 0

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by Bowie » Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:19 am

Oom Jim, I think the answer lies in the clue.D228100 = Dornier 228 Series 100
Regards Bo
User avatar
jimdavis
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 15682
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 am
Closest Airfield: FAGG
Location: Wilderness
Has liked: 215 times
Been liked: 210 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by jimdavis » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:24 am

Bowie wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:19 am
Oom Jim, I think the answer lies in the clue.D228100 = Dornier 228 Series 100
Regards Bo
Thanks Bo.

Can anyone confirm that this was NOT the Convair's first flight after restoration?

jim
"PPL Manual"
"Flight Tests"
"So Others May Live"
"Flying in Africa" Vol 1
"Flying in Africa" Vol 2
Look inside these books, or buy them at: www.jimdavis.co.za.
User avatar
Peregrine
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1053
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 12:16 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: Midrand
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 4 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by Peregrine » Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:29 am

jimdavis wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 6:24 am
Bowie wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 1:19 am
Oom Jim, I think the answer lies in the clue.D228100 = Dornier 228 Series 100
Regards Bo
Thanks Bo.

Can anyone confirm that this was NOT the Convair's first flight after restoration?

jim
From the Prelim Report:

1.1.3 On 06 July 2018 maintenance checks (A, B & C) were performed on the aircraft at 18115.1 airframe hours The accident flight was the first flight post maintenance.
D228100
Taxiing
Posts: 70
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2010 9:47 am
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 12 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by D228100 » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:49 am

Hi Uncle Jim

Thanks, seems like all your questions have been answered.

I see all things in life as a calculated risk, getting out of bed is an everyday event but could end up killing you if you slip in the process. Every take-off is a calculated risk because there are many things that can go wrong and kill you or you might have a memorable flight. You look at the picture you have in front of you, interpret it and make a decision on the facts you have in front of you at the time, your experience and your training. I believe these pilots did just that. To those who don't agree, please don't get out of bed tomorrow because your day may not end up the way you planned
User avatar
cage
Niner Tousand
Niner Tousand
Posts: 9574
Joined: Mon Dec 23, 2013 9:47 am
Closest Airfield: FAGC
Location: ..for the grass 35
Has liked: 6 times
Been liked: 114 times

Re: Convair Radial Crash at Wonderboom - 10 July 2018

Unread post by cage » Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:57 am

D228100 wrote:
Tue Aug 21, 2018 8:49 am
To those who don't agree, please don't get out of bed tomorrow because your day may not end up the way you planned
There is risk everywhere, the issue is around additional risk, particularly when someone isn't able to quantify what that risk is and trusts someone that has a far higher appetite for it.
Drawing a parallel between getting hit by a bus vs crew cutting corners is tenuous.

Return to “Academy & Flight Safety”