[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YqmomTUVsAw[/ame] This happened the other day in Manila. The plane was a BC Queen Air. 13 killed including 10 on the ground.
Looks like a stall/spin accident when turning onto either base or final. RIP to all those that lost their lives in this one.
Wow that was scary fast...I'm no pilot, but was the speed to low or the turn angle to great? No chance to recover - RIP to everyone, that's very sad.
My first reaction was that he was flying too slow. As soon as he started to bank, I knew it wasn't going to end well. RIP
It looks to me like there is a pretty hefty yaw axis movement to the left just preceding the actual spin. I guess they were trying to tighten that turn the very wrong way. At any rate, it's obviously a stall/spin, and that's stuff you don't expect from people's airmanship once they get to the King Air level. To be fair, I don't know all the facts here, but it sure would be a pity to lose 23 lives to something you are taught to avoid from day 1.
It does look like the rudder moved immediately prior to the spin. Interesting that he seems to be nose down atittude prior to the spin. I suppose the slow airspeed is what the culprit was. Pity.
It sounds like to me that only one engine was running hard and/or the other was backfiring badly. If the left engine was dead and the pilot turned into it at that slow speed I could see why it flipped over. I notice hard right rudder right before it spun. Of course , just speculation.
Yep, it can all happen very quickly with no chance of recovery. Reminds me a lot of this incident... [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8V7z1l8t7hA[/ame]
Another case of trying to make the airplane fly when it lacks the power and the nose hasn't been lowered. Another case of turning an airplane when when it has lost airspeed and the nose hasn't been lowered. Another case of defying the laws of flight physics. I keep hearing the screams of my instructor, " Stick forward! Straight ahead!" The thing that I see here is a slow response to a sick engine and the delay in maintaining airspeed and control. Really a sad thing to see 23 people killed due to it.
I had never seen that C-17 vid before. What were the circumstances on that one? Airshow or was he flat hatting? Either way, both videos are a reminder that all it takes is one mistake. Be careful out there
I see what you mean now. It does look like he tried to kick the rudder hard right just before the spin. Possibly dumb question -- I'm pretty sure the basic aerodynamics are the same, but what is the effect of asymmetrical thrust on spin entry? Regarding my first post -- I realized it was a Queen air and there were three on board. I guess it pays to read
Turning into the dead side of the A/P increases the likelihood of a spin. Looking at the video, the left wing quit flying, not enough air passing over it to provide lift.
Assymmetrical thrust or asymmetrical lift produces a stall on one side of the airplane and that can precipitate a spin. In most twins there is a lot of airflow over the wing behind the engine that provides lift. Kill one engine and you lose the thrust as well as lift one one side. The resulting yaw further subtracts any lift and the airplane is on the edge of a roll with all the power and lift in an asymmetrical configuration. The Martin B-26 was famous for its single engine dangers. It got a large percentage of lift from the prop wash and the only way that you could minimize your chances of rolling it in was to come back on power of the good side and try to keep wings level and then apply the power slowly to attempt to at least be a pilot and not a passenger.
Thanks to the finest Father/Son aerodynamic team I've ever encountered I hadn't considered the loss of prop wash being a factor (I'm such a single engine jockey!), but now that makes perfect sense. I've always known single engine flying in a twin is a pretty dicey proposition, but this makes me wonder if I'll ever really get into multiengine operations. Seems like a whole host of problems are brought up if you have to explore the "safety benefits" of having one prop still turning. I'm confident in my engine out skills for singles and don't fly over vast expanses of water, so I think I'll continue to place my bets on having just one engine kicking up there!
I think that the crux of the problem is maintaining some sort of airspeed and quickly attacking the problem of an engine-out in a twin or single. A twin requires a different procedure for sure but the same thing applies; maintain control, maintain airspeed, and go through the drill that hopefully you have been taught and had it in mind anyway. The Queenair incident as far as I can see started with the failure to deal with a decaying airspeed by not putting the nose down and then trying to keep the airplane flying without enough power. With no airspeed the rudder movement was too late and ineffective before the left wing stalled and the airplane went into a spiral. Engine failure in a twin at altitude and good speed can be dealt with a bit more effectively but in check rides in which I was an observer the action in any case was rapid, well rehearsed, and very effective. That was not evident in the video of which we discuss.
The Lockheed L-188 Electra (and the P-3 Orion) also count a lot on propwash providing lift, which is why they can make do with a wing which, at first blush, looks too small. Take a look at the engine spacing and you'll see that between them, the two props on each side provide propwash to most of the span. And the paddle-bladed props pushed a lot of air! The first Electra crash, which had nothing to do with the "whirl mode" problem which would cause structural-failure crashes later on, was of an American Electra which crashed into the East River while on final approach to LGA, only 12 days into its service life. While bad weather at night did not help, the crash was attributed to the PIC's limited experience with the type, less than 50 hours, after coming off DC-6s. The Electra required a different procedure for reducing speed on final approach, which somehow involved keeping prop speed (and hence, propwash) up while still reducing power and aircraft speed. In essence, the pilot tried to slow down like he was used to doing in DC-6s, but the Electra's unique design caused this procedure to result in an excessive sink rate which wound up with the aircraft in the river.
Thanks for the comment. Spasso has been my side kick for forever. He went with us to many air shows and flew my old airplane home with me when I was " resting"a bit, I think that he was 12 or 13 then. Now he lets me tag along with him sometimes in his Testa Rossa. He grew up with airplanes, flying, and learning a lot about them and now he keeps the Kite Factory running right in Everett.
All things considered, how much better would your chances be in a C 337, with twins inline? Do you suffer rotation thrust problems? (non-pilot question, I just like the aircraft)
Just give us a call or let us know when you drop by and I'll have my wife break out the special hot dogs. We ain't fancy but Judy is a great cook and if it isn't on a day when Spasso is saving Boeing, we can all get together.
I feel that I should qualify the description of asymmetrical lift and prop wash. Prop wash has a greater asymmetric effect at lower air speeds but to simplify it, things in pairs don't work right if one quits.
Two engines inline is a no brainer. (and safest) Everything is on one axis. Stopping one engine creates a standard single engine airplane that is a bit overweight and down on power. If you want to see the finest example of an in line twin (and deadliest) look at the Dornier 335. Big, Brutal and FAST. Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login Image Unavailable, Please Login
