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.

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.

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!!!!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

crownvic wrote:

F27500 wrote:

Oh gosh … look .. another one.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/us/histo ... index.html

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

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.

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.

F27500 wrote:

crownvic wrote:

F27500 wrote:

Oh gosh … look .. another one.

https://www.cnn.com/2018/07/21/us/histo ... index.html

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 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.

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.

smokeybandit wrote:

A passenger filmed the crash

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mk7XV-_GQxM

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.

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!!!!

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.

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

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.

Armadillo1 wrote:

what is LAME?