More questions than answers:-
I managed to catch up with a couple of our ‘expert’ analysts, to gain some perspective on the separation of the ‘buildings’ question from the ‘accident’ investigation. It seems that if the building did not jump up and bite the aircraft in the ass, then it becomes part of the survivability matrix. The building still begs questions which demand answers, however once the survivability box is ticked off, that’s it insofar as the accident investigation is concerned. Fair enough, the lack of transparency as to why there is to be a separate investigation is concerning, but seen in the light of reason – it makes sense. Probably a very good idea; enough.
I read the P7 ‘rumour’ with some interest and it’s worth a second thought or two, the time lapse is intriguing:-
Rumour - “There was a runway excursion to the left, having entered from the right on a 45 metre wide runway in this class of aircraft is eyebrow raising in itself,”
Can’t quite see why this would ‘raise eyebrows’, why should it matter which entry point the aircraft took – provided it lined up on the centreline. We don’t know the path the aircraft took and unless the pilot was taking off ‘across' the runway, then it’s a safer bet that he, like most of us, lined up on the white lines. So, checks complete, power up and off we go.
“[there] were at least two propeller strikes, (two runway lights down 60 meters apart),
The aircraft in the tale above seems not to have gotten very far. Once again no hard data to work with, for instance prop tip clearance and RWY light height. But lets, justfor sake of discussion say it takes (give or take) ::10 seconds to accelerate to rotate speed; the first runway light must have been struck (under carriage or prop?) at some low speed point during that time. I think most of us at any speed below say 80 KIAS, striking a runway light would be enough to haul off the coals, get the reverse power going and jump on the brakes.
“[yet] the takeoff was continued.
And, cleaned up a second runway light; anyone know how far from the runway edge those lights are? Two propeller strikes ? Or– was it the same prop; or, was it one on each; or the landing gear? If the strikes were on one prop, was the aircraft travelling in a straight line; or, heading back to the runway proper? Whichever way you look at it; something went very wrong during the initial few seconds of the acceleration period. It begs the question, why was the take off not abandoned at the first strike? I reckon hitting a runway light would be a thing you’d notice.
“Upon becoming airborne there was no attempt to fly the aircraft, the gear was not retracted, the engine was not shutdown and the propeller was not feathered. The pilot transmitted mayday for 5 of the 9 seconds of airborne time.”
I’m wondering if this was a premature ‘lift off’, i.e. dragged off before a safe speed after clipping the lights, leading major prop damage; or, even FOD injestion? But then I’m left wondering if the pilot was actually medically capable of flying the aircraft. Building or not; freeway or not – there was time to put the brakes on and room enough to come to at least a slow, survivable speed before hitting anything solid.
We just don’t have enough information; but if the ATSB are ‘releasing’ the buildings to separate inquiry then maybe there’s a chance of some hard data in the near future. So much for speculating on rumours and speculation on that speculating. That’s it.
Toot-toot.
I managed to catch up with a couple of our ‘expert’ analysts, to gain some perspective on the separation of the ‘buildings’ question from the ‘accident’ investigation. It seems that if the building did not jump up and bite the aircraft in the ass, then it becomes part of the survivability matrix. The building still begs questions which demand answers, however once the survivability box is ticked off, that’s it insofar as the accident investigation is concerned. Fair enough, the lack of transparency as to why there is to be a separate investigation is concerning, but seen in the light of reason – it makes sense. Probably a very good idea; enough.
I read the P7 ‘rumour’ with some interest and it’s worth a second thought or two, the time lapse is intriguing:-
Rumour - “There was a runway excursion to the left, having entered from the right on a 45 metre wide runway in this class of aircraft is eyebrow raising in itself,”
Can’t quite see why this would ‘raise eyebrows’, why should it matter which entry point the aircraft took – provided it lined up on the centreline. We don’t know the path the aircraft took and unless the pilot was taking off ‘across' the runway, then it’s a safer bet that he, like most of us, lined up on the white lines. So, checks complete, power up and off we go.
“[there] were at least two propeller strikes, (two runway lights down 60 meters apart),
The aircraft in the tale above seems not to have gotten very far. Once again no hard data to work with, for instance prop tip clearance and RWY light height. But lets, justfor sake of discussion say it takes (give or take) ::10 seconds to accelerate to rotate speed; the first runway light must have been struck (under carriage or prop?) at some low speed point during that time. I think most of us at any speed below say 80 KIAS, striking a runway light would be enough to haul off the coals, get the reverse power going and jump on the brakes.
“[yet] the takeoff was continued.
And, cleaned up a second runway light; anyone know how far from the runway edge those lights are? Two propeller strikes ? Or– was it the same prop; or, was it one on each; or the landing gear? If the strikes were on one prop, was the aircraft travelling in a straight line; or, heading back to the runway proper? Whichever way you look at it; something went very wrong during the initial few seconds of the acceleration period. It begs the question, why was the take off not abandoned at the first strike? I reckon hitting a runway light would be a thing you’d notice.
“Upon becoming airborne there was no attempt to fly the aircraft, the gear was not retracted, the engine was not shutdown and the propeller was not feathered. The pilot transmitted mayday for 5 of the 9 seconds of airborne time.”
I’m wondering if this was a premature ‘lift off’, i.e. dragged off before a safe speed after clipping the lights, leading major prop damage; or, even FOD injestion? But then I’m left wondering if the pilot was actually medically capable of flying the aircraft. Building or not; freeway or not – there was time to put the brakes on and room enough to come to at least a slow, survivable speed before hitting anything solid.
We just don’t have enough information; but if the ATSB are ‘releasing’ the buildings to separate inquiry then maybe there’s a chance of some hard data in the near future. So much for speculating on rumours and speculation on that speculating. That’s it.
Toot-toot.