Moderators: jsumali2, richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR

 
F27500
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 1:57 am

Planesmart wrote:
F27500 wrote:
How many more of these "vintage" clunkers need to crash before they stop being permitted to fly with pax on board? I'm all for nostalgia, but this is really not a smart idea.

They're not only putting the people who (granted, willingly) are getting on them, but also those on the ground. Just keep these old birds for static display. Its too risky otherwise.

There are already enough rules, regulations and barriers to flying old aircraft.

If we want to eliminate risk, and needless loss of life, then no cars except for emergencies, worthwhile social purposes, and commerce. No more shopping malls, drive ins, race tracks, holidays and plane spotting.

Hopefully not in my remaining life time.


Any old plane like this being flown around is NOT being fitted with good quality (new) parts when things fail. Because they don't exist. They are having old, used, refurbished (or jury-rigged) crap fitted instead. There's no way this kind of thing would be allowed for commercial airlines carrying passengers, so why should these flying museum pieces be able to get around the same stringent rules and checks modern planes/carriers are subject to.

These corroded old birds put too many people at risk just for the sake of "nostalgia".

Another example I'll give is Buffalo Airways (cargo) in Alaska. They have a horrendous crash record .. and all they were flying were these old things .. C47s, DC3s, Electra, etc …

Its not worth the risk, IMO.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 2:56 am

F27500 wrote:
Planesmart wrote:
F27500 wrote:
How many more of these "vintage" clunkers need to crash before they stop being permitted to fly with pax on board? I'm all for nostalgia, but this is really not a smart idea.

They're not only putting the people who (granted, willingly) are getting on them, but also those on the ground. Just keep these old birds for static display. Its too risky otherwise.

There are already enough rules, regulations and barriers to flying old aircraft.

If we want to eliminate risk, and needless loss of life, then no cars except for emergencies, worthwhile social purposes, and commerce. No more shopping malls, drive ins, race tracks, holidays and plane spotting.

Hopefully not in my remaining life time.


Any old plane like this being flown around is NOT being fitted with good quality (new) parts when things fail. Because they don't exist. They are having old, used, refurbished (or jury-rigged) crap fitted instead. There's no way this kind of thing would be allowed for commercial airlines carrying passengers, so why should these flying museum pieces be able to get around the same stringent rules and checks modern planes/carriers are subject to.

These corroded old birds put too many people at risk just for the sake of "nostalgia".

Another example I'll give is Buffalo Airways (cargo) in Alaska. They have a horrendous crash record .. and all they were flying were these old things .. C47s, DC3s, Electra, etc …

Its not worth the risk, IMO.


Have you considered another hobby like basket weaving?
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:12 am

Quote f27500 "Another example I'll give is Buffalo Airways (cargo) in Alaska. They have a horrendous crash record .. and all they were flying were these old things .. C47s, DC3s, Electra, etc … "


Are you serious???? Mama Mia 2 is coming out, you better go see it...
Last edited by crownvic on Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:26 am, edited 1 time in total.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:13 am

oldannyboy wrote:
I still cannot get my head around the fact that 19 people were allowed to board what is essentially a proving flight on a 65yo Convair...

I am a BIG enthusiast. Would I board a 65yo CV340 on a "PROVING FLIGHT"??? NO way!!!!


I would in a heart beat! I would jump at the opportunity with any vintage aircraft. We all have a different perspective on our risk of our lives. If I die in a vintage airliner, I died doing what I loved. If I die crashing a car at 200 mph, the same applies. At the same time, you won't get me to parachute out of a plane, while you may have no problem doing that. Different strokes for different folks.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:19 am

I had the opportunity to fly both the restored Eastern DC-7 and the Qantas Super Connie and the attention to detail was second to none. I also met one of those Convair pilots in Australia at the HARS museum last March, he was the Chief A380 instructor pilot working on another restoration project. Great people great work..
 
travaz
Posts: 931
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 1:03 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 3:55 am

In my old Forest Service days I rode in a B-17, B-25, PB4Y, Baby 6 (DC-6) and a DC-7. Sign me up anytime for another ride. BTW all were operating Air Tankers.
Having said that I am not sure why 19 people were on board a test flight. I climbed on of my own volition and was aware of the risk involved.
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:21 am

SAAFNAV wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
SAAFNAV wrote:
To the person above who said a plane can't fly if it can't fly if the performance doesn't allow a single engine climb: It depends in what role the plane is operated and under what part it is certified.

A Twin-Commanche cannot climb at all with one engine, but still perfectly legal to fly as it is designed under Part 23 and single-engine performance only needs to be demonstrated, even if it is negative.



Two thoughts ...

1) A Twin Comanche can climb at 260 ft/min with one engine at gross weight. See https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all ... ane-review

2) The Part 23 rule is this: Either your twin can climb to requirements or better on one engine, OR your plane must meet the single engine maximum stall speed of 61 kts with flaps down. A Twin Comanche actually meets both sides of the "or".


Have you flown a Twin Comanche at 8 600' DA? I have done my ME comm test on one and I assure you she can't. If an engine fails, you fly her like a single engine plane, even with half fuel and 2 on-board.
The AOPA stats are based on sea-level, and assumes perfect flying technique as well.

The Convair accident happened at ~5 300' DA. That is a massive difference from sea level.


Since a Twin Comanche has a single engine service ceiling of 5,800 feet, I would assume it could not maintain 8,600 feet.

I don't know the Convair's single engine service ceiling, but since it's got turbocharged engines I would expect it to lose performance more gradually with altitude than a non-turbocharged aircraft. BTW, a turbo Twin Comanche on a single engine should climb up to 8,800 feet, so thinking a turbo charged Convair should not come down immediately at 5,300 feet does not seem crazy. But if the flaps and gear are down, prop not feathered ...

I wasn't trying to start a fight. But you did state the rule wrong, at least as it is today. Peace :-)
 
User avatar
kitplane01
Posts: 1622
Joined: Thu Jun 16, 2016 5:58 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 8:23 am

Planesmart wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:
One difference is that these days such plains don't have access to the very high octane fuel that was available then. This reduces performance.

I've raced cars in my day, and used avgas, and apart from switching to 100LL from 100/130, there haven't been many changes. The military used a higher octane, but the engines were all civil versions originally approved on 100/130, and from memory that fuel was withdrawn in the late 50's / early 60's.

Even if your race car has a modern ECU which adjusts for octane, they generally can't compensate beyond 100, so still benefits. Avgas ruins cats. The advantage of Avgas is it's produced and stored to higher cleanliness and water standards than other fuels. Time expired or reject avgas usually gets sold for motorsport. When avgas is spot tested, it usually rates above 100/130, whereas car pump fuel is spot on.

Avgas is a great scavenger cleaner (as is diesel), so if the bottom of tanks, and fuel lines are anything less than superbly clean, fuel filters can block quickly.


Old radials don't have a modern ECU with knock and octane sensors. :-)

They have a very strong turbo. And when running on mere 100 octane gas, they will detonate on full boost. So the pilot/engineer uses reduced boost, which avoids detonation but reduces power.
 
Flanker7
Posts: 503
Joined: Thu Aug 07, 2008 4:38 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 9:39 am

I sure hope they keep these old clunkers flying. I love it when sitting in my balcony and the old DC3 thunders over the house, great sound great aircraft.
Flying blue only if possible
 
reltney
Posts: 678
Joined: Fri Jun 25, 2004 1:34 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 10:03 am

SAAFNAV wrote:
trijetsonly wrote:
kitplane01 wrote:

That's curious.

As built .. the plane could maintain a reasonable altitude with one engine. Even then that was a requirement. If the plane today could not perform .. I wonder why it was flying with passengers.

One difference is that these days such plains don't have access to the very high octane fuel that was available then. This reduces performance. But still, if it really couldn't climb one one engine it should not have been flying at all.

One possibility is that the pilots didn't get the gear/flaps up in time. I have no knowledge, but I wonder if there was some pilot error to go along with the engine failure.

Wishing everyone involved the best ...


As far as I know the fuel part is a big issue today with classic airliners.

This is supposed to be one of the reasons why Lufthansa pulled the plug on the Starliner revival. The performance decrease due to the unavailability of the right aviation gasoline makes a huge operational impact and I'm sure it is also a safety concern.



While I realize this info is only marginally better than speculation or hearsay, initial fingers point to a fuel line that burst and started the fire. That in turn failed an oil line that prevented the prop from feathering.

Reading this report: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Acc ... AR1404.pdf, the plane has got marginal climb performance at sea-level. At 6 000' DA with a prop that didn't feather they didn't have a chance.

To the person above who said a plane can't fly if it can't fly if the performance doesn't allow a single engine climb: It depends in what role the plane is operated and under what part it is certified.

A Twin-Commanche cannot climb at all with one engine, but still perfectly legal to fly as it is designed under Part 23 and single-engine performance only needs to be demonstrated, even if it is negative.

I don't think fuel was that big of a factor: a couple of Dc-3's and Dc-4's still fly on cargo and luxury charter flights, and they do fine.

I will say one thing for sure: taking a lot (or any) passengers on a 'test' flight or whatever they called it, was not a good idea.




I fly a 1967 twin Comanche. It flies great on one engine and as demonstrated with 3 people full fuel yesterday, as advertised we climbed 4500 ft to 6400 ft on one engine at around 200 FPM. The turbocharged will do better.

I have specifically taught in PA-30s since 1982. It climbs as advertised.
Knives don't kill people. People with knives kill people.
OUTLAW KNIVES.

I am a pilot, therefore I envy no one...
 
Planesmart
Posts: 2891
Joined: Sun Dec 05, 2004 3:18 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 12:11 pm

kitplane01 wrote:
Old radials don't have a modern ECU with knock and octane sensors. :-)

They have a very strong turbo. And when running on mere 100 octane gas, they will detonate on full boost. So the pilot/engineer uses reduced boost, which avoids detonation but reduces power.

But 100/130 is rated at 130 when used in turbocharged or supercharged engines. Rating only 100 in normally aspirated engines. The special military brew was 115/145 (or similar).
 
TW870
Posts: 1273
Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2013 2:01 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 4:56 pm

crownvic wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
I still cannot get my head around the fact that 19 people were allowed to board what is essentially a proving flight on a 65yo Convair...

I am a BIG enthusiast. Would I board a 65yo CV340 on a "PROVING FLIGHT"??? NO way!!!!


I would in a heart beat! I would jump at the opportunity with any vintage aircraft. We all have a different perspective on our risk of our lives. If I die in a vintage airliner, I died doing what I loved. If I die crashing a car at 200 mph, the same applies. At the same time, you won't get me to parachute out of a plane, while you may have no problem doing that. Different strokes for different folks.


So would I! I have flown in a Trans Florida 240 and an Air Resorts 440 - and if either aircraft was still operating I would buy a ticket right now. I was so surprised at how smooth and quiet the piston Convair is - even at high power settings. The big paddle blade propellers on the Allison-powered 580 make for a much noisier ride with much more vibration.

Also, not all vintage aircraft are the same. The Pratt&Whitney R2800 has been a very reliable engine - probably the most reliable of any large radial. Everts is still running them every day up in Alaska on DC-6s in a very marginal operating environment. My guess is something happened here that prevented the crew from feathering the number 1 propeller during the engine failure sequence, which made it impossible to maintain altitude long enough to get back to the field. This was a tragic accident, but not something typical for the R2800.
 
F27500
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:05 pm

 
User avatar
Gonzalo
Posts: 1860
Joined: Tue Aug 23, 2005 2:43 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:23 pm

Planesmart wrote:
F27500 wrote:
How many more of these "vintage" clunkers need to crash before they stop being permitted to fly with pax on board? I'm all for nostalgia, but this is really not a smart idea.

They're not only putting the people who (granted, willingly) are getting on them, but also those on the ground. Just keep these old birds for static display. Its too risky otherwise.

There are already enough rules, regulations and barriers to flying old aircraft.

If we want to eliminate risk, and needless loss of life, then no cars except for emergencies, worthwhile social purposes, and commerce. No more shopping malls, drive ins, race tracks, holidays and plane spotting.

Hopefully not in my remaining life time.


I completely agree with you. Every activity in our life implies some degree of risk. Hell, I can slip in my bathtub and hit my head, and voala, that’s all folks!
Vintage and historic flights are very safe 99 per cent of the times, it wouldn’t be fair to forbid this kind of flights because of the risks that can be managed properly most of the times. This tragic accident was just that. Would you end every air show on Earth if one display goes wrong tomorrow? We have several examples in history answering that question.

Rgds.
G.
Gear Up!!: DC-3 / EMB-110 / FH-227 / A318-19-20-21 / B732 / B763 / B789 / B788 / A343 / ATR72-600
 
gzm
Posts: 364
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2014 1:52 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sun Jul 22, 2018 4:45 pm

crownvic wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
I still cannot get my head around the fact that 19 people were allowed to board what is essentially a proving flight on a 65yo Convair...

I am a BIG enthusiast. Would I board a 65yo CV340 on a "PROVING FLIGHT"??? NO way!!!!


I would in a heart beat! I would jump at the opportunity with any vintage aircraft. We all have a different perspective on our risk of our lives. If I die in a vintage airliner, I died doing what I loved. If I die crashing a car at 200 mph, the same applies. At the same time, you won't get me to parachute out of a plane, while you may have no problem doing that. Different strokes for different folks.

Your combined posts sum it up nicely: This is not a matter of personal responsibility of mature and consenting adults,it is a matter of aviation rules and procedures. Proving flight or Positioning flight, you send the plane empty for a purpose, such flights do not carry passengers, they are not sight-seeing flights or merry-go-round flights. Had the plane been empty the outcome would have been very different and why not,it could have been saved. Now the survivors will rally together around a common lawyer pretending they did not know the risks involved and somebody will be in big trouble.
 
F27500
Posts: 831
Joined: Sun May 07, 2017 12:52 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 2:02 am

crownvic wrote:
F27500 wrote:


If anyone is drinking, it maybe you. Your F27500 name pretty much makes you rather hypocritical.


Sorry, Papi .. but liking/admiring a particular type of plane is a WHOLE different thing than climbing on to some silly "air show nostalgic birds" and flying on them … being operated under sketchy conditions like these old DC3s (and Convairs are)

You could die. As much as I like the F27 (from my past career on them) .. I would NEVER get on one now … being flown by some fly-by-night airplane masturbation airshow society flying these silly old relics around. It ain't safe.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 9:03 am

gzm wrote:
crownvic wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
I still cannot get my head around the fact that 19 people were allowed to board what is essentially a proving flight on a 65yo Convair...

I am a BIG enthusiast. Would I board a 65yo CV340 on a "PROVING FLIGHT"??? NO way!!!!


I would in a heart beat! I would jump at the opportunity with any vintage aircraft. We all have a different perspective on our risk of our lives. If I die in a vintage airliner, I died doing what I loved. If I die crashing a car at 200 mph, the same applies. At the same time, you won't get me to parachute out of a plane, while you may have no problem doing that. Different strokes for different folks.

Your combined posts sum it up nicely: This is not a matter of personal responsibility of mature and consenting adults,it is a matter of aviation rules and procedures. Proving flight or Positioning flight, you send the plane empty for a purpose, such flights do not carry passengers, they are not sight-seeing flights or merry-go-round flights. Had the plane been empty the outcome would have been very different and why not,it could have been saved. Now the survivors will rally together around a common lawyer pretending they did not know the risks involved and somebody will be in big trouble.


Thanks for instilling some sense and some perspective into this crazy discussion.

We all know that most of these big burly A.net daddy-heroes are all ready, courageous and all, but perhaps it is worth revisiting the chronicle of this particular accident and underline that this a freakin' PROVING FLIGHT. A proving flight!
You DO NOT carry passengers on a proving flight - NEVER! It's actually forbidden.

I am not sure what all these enthusiastic war heroes above are going on about...? maybe they have to prove something in order to overcome their insecurities... maybe their 'enthusiasm' is clouding their judgment a bit....
Would I board a vintage aircraft? Yes, sure. Would I board a PROVING flight? Never. No freakin' way I would.
There's a TON of difference between knowing you are boarding an aircraft whose systems are yet to be PROVEN and checked after extensive maintenance/overhaul, vis a vis one that is in fully flyable conditions and certified, and flying regularly.

Someone is surely going to get into serious trouble for letting all these people on that old Convair on a proving flight. And never mind if they were people from the Lelystad Museum - they had no place being that proving flight that day. And sadly the accident proves exactly why regular people do not belong to air proving flight.
 
AndyEastMids
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:24 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:10 am

And what is a "proving flight"? The aircraft had a certificate of airworthiness that was valid until mid-August. Although it hadn't flown much recently, as long as all the hour and calendar-based maintenance had been completed, ADs applied and pre return to service actions had been completed, as long as nothing had been done for which an air test / functional check flight was required as a follow up, it was good to carry passengers. Besides, it is reported elsewhere that the flight was not an air test but was a short trip carrying people who had been involved with the aircraft during its time in South Africa as a farewell thank you.

Even if by proving flight you mean 'it might be a good idea to fly it round the block again before departing on the long trip to Europe', as long as all the required preparation for return to service had been done and a flight test was not legally mandated it was good to carry passengers.

We will only get to know whether it was really on a legally mandated air test (in which case passengers would not have been allowed) as the investigation progresses.
 
smokeybandit
Posts: 1437
Joined: Mon Mar 17, 2014 3:24 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 11:27 am

 
beechnut
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 12:55 pm

AndyEastMids wrote:
And what is a "proving flight"? The aircraft had a certificate of airworthiness that was valid until mid-August. Although it hadn't flown much recently, as long as all the hour and calendar-based maintenance had been completed, ADs applied and pre return to service actions had been completed, as long as nothing had been done for which an air test / functional check flight was required as a follow up, it was good to carry passengers. Besides, it is reported elsewhere that the flight was not an air test but was a short trip carrying people who had been involved with the aircraft during its time in South Africa as a farewell thank you.

Even if by proving flight you mean 'it might be a good idea to fly it round the block again before departing on the long trip to Europe', as long as all the required preparation for return to service had been done and a flight test was not legally mandated it was good to carry passengers.

We will only get to know whether it was really on a legally mandated air test (in which case passengers would not have been allowed) as the investigation progresses.


In Canada at least, even after an annual inspection for a private aircraft, a test flight without pax is performed, and the pilot of that flight (usually me for my own plane) signs off the logbook.

Surely the restoration of an old bird like this would have required a test flight, with perhaps a follow-up if snags were found. If that was done then assuming all other legal conditions were met to carry pax such as insurance, crew qualified and currant on type, operator certificate, etc, then they were legal.

It boils down to what was meant by “proving flight”. If a post restoration test flight then carrying pax was a big no no. If just flying around to get a feel for the aircraft that’s another matter.

Beech
 
jupiter2
Posts: 1739
Joined: Tue Jan 02, 2001 11:30 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:06 pm

What evidence is there that was a "proving flight", or "test flight" ?

The aircraft is reported to have a valid certificate of airworthiness, so while it hadn't flown in a while, most of the maintenance performed on it would have just required ground testing. Power runs, taxi tests for brakes, electronic systems, hydraulic systems, etc, all could've been performed on the ground, without the need for an air test. I find it highly unlikely that two highly experienced captains, who had experience with the type, previously flying one to Australia for HARS, to then let so many people on board, including ones wife, if they didn't believe the aircraft was airworthy and safe for flight.

The people involved with this aircraft were not amateurs.
 
AndyEastMids
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:24 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Mon Jul 23, 2018 1:31 pm

Precisely Jupiter2. And my understanding is that the aircraft had not been 'restored' as it didn't need to be restored - it was just repainted and prepared for a long ferry flight after having flown only occasionally over the last few years (but that doesn't in itself require an air test). If the maintenance was up to date and the airworthiness certicate was current (it is reported that is was valid until mid-August) an air test might not have been mandatory, in which case carrying passengers would not have been an issue. Like you, given the status of the pilots involved, I doubt it was on an air test.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:10 am

F27500 wrote:
crownvic wrote:
F27500 wrote:


If anyone is drinking, it maybe you. Your F27500 name pretty much makes you rather hypocritical.


Sorry, Papi .. but liking/admiring a particular type of plane is a WHOLE different thing than climbing on to some silly "air show nostalgic birds" and flying on them … being operated under sketchy conditions like these old DC3s (and Convairs are)

You could die. As much as I like the F27 (from my past career on them) .. I would NEVER get on one now … being flown by some fly-by-night airplane masturbation airshow society flying these silly old relics around. It ain't safe.


Like I said, there is a basket weaving class at your local community college starting soon. My past career also was on the F-27-500 and 600 and the one plane that could do circles around it was the Convair. I would not hesitate to get on either aircraft tomorrow.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Jul 25, 2018 5:13 am

oldannyboy wrote:
gzm wrote:
crownvic wrote:

I would in a heart beat! I would jump at the opportunity with any vintage aircraft. We all have a different perspective on our risk of our lives. If I die in a vintage airliner, I died doing what I loved. If I die crashing a car at 200 mph, the same applies. At the same time, you won't get me to parachute out of a plane, while you may have no problem doing that. Different strokes for different folks.

Your combined posts sum it up nicely: This is not a matter of personal responsibility of mature and consenting adults,it is a matter of aviation rules and procedures. Proving flight or Positioning flight, you send the plane empty for a purpose, such flights do not carry passengers, they are not sight-seeing flights or merry-go-round flights. Had the plane been empty the outcome would have been very different and why not,it could have been saved. Now the survivors will rally together around a common lawyer pretending they did not know the risks involved and somebody will be in big trouble.


Thanks for instilling some sense and some perspective into this crazy discussion.

We all know that most of these big burly A.net daddy-heroes are all ready, courageous and all, but perhaps it is worth revisiting the chronicle of this particular accident and underline that this a freakin' PROVING FLIGHT. A proving flight!
You DO NOT carry passengers on a proving flight - NEVER! It's actually forbidden.

Oh please. Just because men today act like little girls and the women act like the men from a local bar, it doesn't mean I have to be as great or mature as you. Some of the people on this forum (like you) are little "high" on themselves.
I am not sure what all these enthusiastic war heroes above are going on about...? maybe they have to prove something in order to overcome their insecurities... maybe their 'enthusiasm' is clouding their judgment a bit....
Would I board a vintage aircraft? Yes, sure. Would I board a PROVING flight? Never. No freakin' way I would.
There's a TON of difference between knowing you are boarding an aircraft whose systems are yet to be PROVEN and checked after extensive maintenance/overhaul, vis a vis one that is in fully flyable conditions and certified, and flying regularly.

Someone is surely going to get into serious trouble for letting all these people on that old Convair on a proving flight. And never mind if they were people from the Lelystad Museum - they had no place being that proving flight that day. And sadly the accident proves exactly why regular people do not belong to air proving flight.
 
oldannyboy
Posts: 2595
Joined: Wed Jun 15, 2016 8:28 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Jul 25, 2018 8:19 am

crownvic wrote:
F27500 wrote:
crownvic wrote:

If anyone is drinking, it maybe you. Your F27500 name pretty much makes you rather hypocritical.


Sorry, Papi .. but liking/admiring a particular type of plane is a WHOLE different thing than climbing on to some silly "air show nostalgic birds" and flying on them … being operated under sketchy conditions like these old DC3s (and Convairs are)

You could die. As much as I like the F27 (from my past career on them) .. I would NEVER get on one now … being flown by some fly-by-night airplane masturbation airshow society flying these silly old relics around. It ain't safe.


Like I said, there is a basket weaving class at your local community college starting soon. My past career also was on the F-27-500 and 600 and the one plane that could do circles around it was the Convair. I would not hesitate to get on either aircraft tomorrow.


Man, I mean, I really don't know what you're on at here, telling people like myself and F27 to go to basket weaving class. I mean, ok, you're the big hero, ok, you've got bigger balls than us and you get to wear the captain America costume if you like, but seriously, discussions between enthusiasts should be..err..a little 'loftier'.

All people are saying is that perhaps getting on a proving flight (if indeed AS IT SEEMS that was one - and never mind if the aircraft had a licence: it had been sitting idle for maintenance for some time, and that was the FIRST flight post-maintenance) on a 65 yo Convair and stuffing it with enthusiasts was *perhaps* not a very sound idea.

The fact that you think that the Convair as an aircraft might be [have been] superior to the Fokker [back in the day] is a moot point. It all boils down to the current maintenance standards, and what kind of spare parts that frame is being flown with.
 
crownvic
Posts: 2743
Joined: Wed Oct 20, 2004 10:16 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:45 am

smokeybandit wrote:


please change your username as you are an embarrassment to one of the best movies of all time. Why do you post a repeat video that has already been posted on page one? Another documented A.netter in a rush to post without reading the rest of the thread first....FYI that video has been blasted by all media sources last week.
 
AndyEastMids
Posts: 1101
Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 10:24 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Jul 25, 2018 1:30 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
All people are saying is that perhaps getting on a proving flight (if indeed AS IT SEEMS that was one - and never mind if the aircraft had a licence: it had been sitting idle for maintenance for some time, and that was the FIRST flight post-maintenance) on a 65 yo Convair and stuffing it with enthusiasts was *perhaps* not a very sound idea.


There is no offical term "proving flight" in aviation. Either an air test / functional check flight is required - or it isn't. Whether one was necessary will be spelled out in the aircraft manuals and airworthiness regulations, and will depend on what maintenance work has been done. Only that will determine whether carrying passengers is legal or not. Carrying passengers on an aircraft that does not require an air test - even if it has not flown for a while - comes down to individual judgement rather than legalities. Like crownvic I would not have hesitated to have flown in it had I been there and been offered the opportunity - and what happened near Wonderboom would not colour my decision making were such an opportunity arise for me in the future.
 
beechnut
Posts: 940
Joined: Wed Apr 21, 2004 12:27 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Jul 25, 2018 10:36 pm

Everybody has a different level of risk tolerance. There is no shame in having a lower risk tolerance. I used to do a lot of single-engine night flying. Then my plane became more than 30 years old, and in spite of good maintenance, I started to wonder if it was still a good idea, along with not seeing as well at night as I got older and my eyes took longer to adapt to dark. So I stopped flying at night.

Being prudent is not the sign of a lack of balls, it is the sign of having a brain. As the old saying goes, there are old pilots, and there are bold pilots, but there are no old, bold pilots.

So please stop the infantile flame war.

Beech
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:09 pm

Article (in Dutch): https://www.upinthesky.nl/2018/08/11/pi ... procedure/
Article is based on a preliminary conclusion of the South Africa Aviation Authority.

Summary:
- GoPro found in cockpit
- Footage suggests that a passenger alerted a technician in the cockpit about an engine fire in the left engine
- Confusion between the pilots
- Pilots debated which engine was on fire
- Prop wasn't feathered
- Confusion between the pilots whether the gear was retracted
- Only 1 of the pilots was type rated
 
User avatar
notaxonrotax
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2011 2:29 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:23 pm

oldannyboy wrote:
I still cannot get my head around the fact that 19 people were allowed to board what is essentially a proving flight on a 65yo Convair...

I am a BIG enthusiast. Would I board a 65yo CV340 on a "PROVING FLIGHT"??? NO way!!!!


I would, provided the pilots are professional and the maintenance appears to be dealt with.......
Statistics suggest that it`s pretty safe to jump on most planes, including the museum stuff.

I would risk it, unless the (private) pilot is some drunken dare devil.....I met a few of those.

No Tax On Rotax
For anybody that happens to be wondering:"yes, owning your own aircraft is a 100% worth it!"
 
User avatar
AirlineCritic
Posts: 1774
Joined: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:07 pm

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Aug 11, 2018 1:26 pm

airkas1 wrote:
Article (in Dutch): https://www.upinthesky.nl/2018/08/11/pi ... procedure/
Article is based on a preliminary conclusion of the South Africa Aviation Authority.


Thank you for sharing!

airkas1 wrote:
Summary:
- GoPro found in cockpit
- Footage suggests that a passenger alerted a technician in the cockpit about an engine fire in the left engine
- Confusion between the pilots
- Pilots debated which engine was on fire
- Prop wasn't feathered
- Confusion between the pilots whether the gear was retracted
- Only 1 of the pilots was type rated


Oh boy... not knowing which engine is on fire.

But, the old cheesehole theory strikes again. Engine out is not enough to cause an accident, need more holes aligned than that. Seems like they were aligned in this case.
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 13621
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Sat Aug 11, 2018 3:55 pm

crownvic wrote:
oldannyboy wrote:
I still cannot get my head around the fact that 19 people were allowed to board what is essentially a proving flight on a 65yo Convair...

I am a BIG enthusiast. Would I board a 65yo CV340 on a "PROVING FLIGHT"??? NO way!!!!


I would in a heart beat! I would jump at the opportunity with any vintage aircraft. We all have a different perspective on our risk of our lives. If I die in a vintage airliner, I died doing what I loved. If I die crashing a car at 200 mph, the same applies. At the same time, you won't get me to parachute out of a plane, while you may have no problem doing that. Different strokes for different folks.


Skydiving is much safer than the other two activities, though. Not that I wouldn't participate either, but you'd have to show me the car is well maintained, same for the airplane. For the parachute, I know. And I have an emergency one on top.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
User avatar
airkas1
Posts: 7904
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2003 7:01 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Aug 28, 2019 10:44 am

Final report is out (and an interesting read in my opinion): http://www.caa.co.za/Accidents%20and%20 ... s/9722.pdf


Summary from ASN:

"Probable Cause:
During take-off, the left engine caught fire and the crew continued with the flight without securing the left engine as prescribed in the aircraft flight manual (AFM).
The crew declared an emergency and attempted to return to the aerodrome, however, they lost control of the aircraft and collided with power lines prior to crashing into a factory building.

Contributory Factors:
1. Pre-existing damage to the cylinder No 13 piston and ring pack deformation and, most probably, the cylinder No 7’s fractured exhaust valve head that were not detected during maintenance of the aircraft.
2. Substandard maintenance for failing to conduct compression tests on all cylinders during the scheduled maintenance prior to the accident.
3. Misdiagnosis of the left engine manifold pressure defect as it was reported twice prior to the accident.
4. The crew not aborting take-off at 50kts prior to reaching V1; manifold pressure fluctuation was observed by the crew at 50kts and that should have resulted in an aborted take-off.
5. Lack of crew resource management; this was evident as the crew ignored using the emergency checklist to respond to the in-flight left engine fire.
6. Lack of recency training for both the PF and PM, as well as the LAME.
7. Non-compliance to Civil Aviation Regulations by both the crew and the maintenance organisation
"

Source: https://aviation-safety.net/database/re ... 20180710-0
 
User avatar
SQ22
Moderator
Posts: 2154
Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:29 am

Re: Martin's Air Charter crash in Pretoria, South Africa

Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:12 am

Thread bump has been approved by moderators.

Please note: In case you want to post in a thrread which has been inactive for more than six month, please ask moderators by mail to [email protected] for approval.
 
Armadillo1
Posts: 588
Joined: Thu Apr 20, 2017 5:14 pm

Re: Updated: Martinair CV-340 crash in SA (July 2018): final report is out

Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:17 am

what is LAME?
 
petertenthije
Posts: 4036
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2001 10:00 pm

Re: Updated: Martinair CV-340 crash in SA (July 2018): final report is out

Wed Aug 28, 2019 11:21 am

Armadillo1 wrote:
what is LAME?

Licensed Aircraft Maintenance Engineer
The first thing to remember is always treat your kite like you treat your woman.
Get inside her five times a day and take her to heaven and back!
Lord Flashheart, 1989

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos