Accident at Krugersdorp today

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

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
jimdavis
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 15946
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 am
Closest Airfield: FAGG
Location: Wilderness
Has liked: 323 times
Been liked: 352 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by jimdavis » Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:19 pm

CrazyC wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:45 pm
Chalkie wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:01 pm
BD wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:21 pm
Oh ... and by the way, I agree with all those in favour of "steep" approaches rather than the low, flat approaches. All the aerodynamic facts point to the steep approach as the "correct" way to do it!!!

Brian Davidson.
Correct. =D> =D> =D>

Low power, low nose, good view of the runway with speed stable at 1.3 Vstall or less (as required) versus: the low approach with high nose, high power, now where exactly is that runway? :mrgreen:

In this case it would seem the pilot was WAAAY above 1.3Vs and only touched down at about the halfway mark by pushing the aircraft down onto the nosewheel. Folks, the main wheels are designed to absorb the landing loads, the nosewheel is there to keep the prop off the ground whilst you taxi. It is not meant to be landed on... #-o All the skid marks at the end would indicate the wings still supporting some weight, when they should have been done with the producing lift job.

Much has been said about the quality of flight instruction and some flight instructors, this seems to add fuel to the argument of poor quality. Perhaps he / she? should have done another go around and landed uphill. ANY tailwind on a downhill runway is asking for a problem.
Very sad when ppl comment without fact. I was the puc and yes i am insteuctor rated. The wind was not a tailwind as some suggest. It was a north westerly at 280/7kts. I despise coming in low and slow at fields with few options esp on anan elevated rw like 26 prone to windshear. I was at 70kts indicated with full flap. I did not touch down on the nosewheel as some suggest. I also never apply brakes on touchdown for fear of heating up brakes and causing tyre bursts. By the time i did apply brakes- there was nothing. The ac would not slow down. I atyempted vacating right onto the grass hence the skid marks. Very irresponsible and a poor airmanship for wknd warriors to give theories based on assumptions without knowing the facts. Brakes were complained about a few times prior to the incident where amos did the beat they could and blamed the poor design on the manufactures. I have my theories but ill leave that to the experts to coment on with all the facts before becoming part of the ignorant know it all wknd warrior crowd. Ignorance and arrogant know it all pilota are the largest danger to aviation

Crazy C, I have had a couple of accidents and it's absolutely natural to look for outside reasons why they happened, rather than looking at yourself. Crashing an aircraft is a very emotional event. It will take a bit of time for the dust to settle and for you to see clearly what actually happened. Try to write down the sequence of events dispassionately - as if you were talking about someone else flying the aeroplane - perhaps one of your pupils.

I suspect that it might even take a year before you are really ready to analyse the accident unemotionally

If you can Google "Dunning-Kruger" and try to understand what they are saying, without getting upset, then you are a strong and sensible man.

All the very best for your future in aviation.

jim
These users liked the author jimdavis for the post:
Kiewiet Vlok
"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
heisan
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5514
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 3:45 pm
Closest Airfield: Rhino Park
Location: Pretoria
Has liked: 28 times
Been liked: 142 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by heisan » Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:40 pm

Hmmm... Looking at the video timestamps. The average speed of the aircraft from when the video starts, to when it goes off the end of the runway is 61KTAS, or around 50KIAS. Since you would normally only land at around 50KIAS, the aircraft either landed very fast, or there was absolutely no braking (wheels or aerodynamic) over the entire ground roll?
Justin Schoeman

ZU-FSR (Raven)
Taildraggerdriver
Changing Underwear
Posts: 539
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2011 5:04 pm
Closest Airfield: faps
Location: Far west
Has liked: 32 times
Been liked: 16 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by Taildraggerdriver » Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:46 pm

CrazyC wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:45 pm
Chalkie wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:01 pm
BD wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 3:21 pm
Oh ... and by the way, I agree with all those in favour of "steep" approaches rather than the low, flat approaches. All the aerodynamic facts point to the steep approach as the "correct" way to do it!!!

Brian Davidson.
Correct. =D> =D> =D>

Low power, low nose, good view of the runway with speed stable at 1.3 Vstall or less (as required) versus: the low approach with high nose, high power, now where exactly is that runway? :mrgreen:

In this case it would seem the pilot was WAAAY above 1.3Vs and only touched down at about the halfway mark by pushing the aircraft down onto the nosewheel. Folks, the main wheels are designed to absorb the landing loads, the nosewheel is there to keep the prop off the ground whilst you taxi. It is not meant to be landed on... #-o All the skid marks at the end would indicate the wings still supporting some weight, when they should have been done with the producing lift job.

Much has been said about the quality of flight instruction and some flight instructors, this seems to add fuel to the argument of poor quality. Perhaps he / she? should have done another go around and landed uphill. ANY tailwind on a downhill runway is asking for a problem.
Very sad when ppl comment without fact. I was the puc and yes i am insteuctor rated. The wind was not a tailwind as some suggest. It was a north westerly at 280/7kts. I despise coming in low and slow at fields with few options esp on anan elevated rw like 26 prone to windshear. I was at 70kts indicated with full flap. I did not touch down on the nosewheel as some suggest. I also never apply brakes on touchdown for fear of heating up brakes and causing tyre bursts. By the time i did apply brakes- there was nothing. The ac would not slow down. I atyempted vacating right onto the grass hence the skid marks. Very irresponsible and a poor airmanship for wknd warriors to give theories based on assumptions without knowing the facts. Brakes were complained about a few times prior to the incident where amos did the beat they could and blamed the poor design on the manufactures. I have my theories but ill leave that to the experts to coment on with all the facts before becoming part of the ignorant know it all wknd warrior crowd. Ignorance and arrogant know it all pilota are the largest danger to aviation
Weekend warriors....Ha
Did you read and edit your post before you posted it....
I am not a instructor, but I have been flying for 37 years and have 15000 hours, on planes between 1000 and 220 000lbs, so I think my opinion has a little merit, not a lot, but at least a little
Humility is in order sonny
Most of the the guys commenting here have probably forgotten what you haven’t even learned yet.
Introspection and a attitude change seem in order
These users liked the author Taildraggerdriver for the post (total 4):
FlooiSwampdonkeyZU BMNkwest
C210
Cirrus sailplane
Joe S
Pre-take off checks
Posts: 82
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2008 9:01 pm
Has liked: 2 times
Been liked: 0

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by Joe S » Fri Aug 16, 2019 11:37 pm

Low inertia aircraft generally have an approach speed well above 1.3 x stall, some go as high as 1.5. This compensates for the speed lost when power is cut before rounding out. Add the additional people as was the case here and the aircraft has more inertia (momentum) through the round out loosing less speed than normal. With more speed and more momentum the aircraft floats forever. The pilot states the approach speed was 70 instead of 63 so it is no surprise they floated a long way and carried a lot of speed. This is a similar effect the water ballast has in a glider.
User avatar
Pete
Too Tousand
Too Tousand
Posts: 2659
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 7:09 pm
Closest Airfield: FAKR
Location: Preferably under a swashplate
Has liked: 35 times
Been liked: 38 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by Pete » Sat Aug 17, 2019 2:54 am

#-o
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.
These users liked the author Pete for the post (total 4):
travelmanafricaChalkieweedsAEH
CrazyC
Engine Started
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2013 12:18 pm
Closest Airfield: Rand
Location: Johannesburg
Has liked: 1 time
Been liked: 0

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by CrazyC » Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:31 am

jimdavis wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 10:19 pm
CrazyC wrote:
Fri Aug 16, 2019 9:45 pm
Chalkie wrote:
Thu Aug 15, 2019 5:01 pm


Correct. =D> =D> =D>

Low power, low nose, good view of the runway with speed stable at 1.3 Vstall or less (as required) versus: the low approach with high nose, high power, now where exactly is that runway? :mrgreen:

In this case it would seem the pilot was WAAAY above 1.3Vs and only touched down at about the halfway mark by pushing the aircraft down onto the nosewheel. Folks, the main wheels are designed to absorb the landing loads, the nosewheel is there to keep the prop off the ground whilst you taxi. It is not meant to be landed on... #-o All the skid marks at the end would indicate the wings still supporting some weight, when they should have been done with the producing lift job.

Much has been said about the quality of flight instruction and some flight instructors, this seems to add fuel to the argument of poor quality. Perhaps he / she? should have done another go around and landed uphill. ANY tailwind on a downhill runway is asking for a problem.
Very sad when ppl comment without fact. I was the puc and yes i am insteuctor rated. The wind was not a tailwind as some suggest. It was a north westerly at 280/7kts. I despise coming in low and slow at fields with few options esp on anan elevated rw like 26 prone to windshear. I was at 70kts indicated with full flap. I did not touch down on the nosewheel as some suggest. I also never apply brakes on touchdown for fear of heating up brakes and causing tyre bursts. By the time i did apply brakes- there was nothing. The ac would not slow down. I atyempted vacating right onto the grass hence the skid marks. Very irresponsible and a poor airmanship for wknd warriors to give theories based on assumptions without knowing the facts. Brakes were complained about a few times prior to the incident where amos did the beat they could and blamed the poor design on the manufactures. I have my theories but ill leave that to the experts to coment on with all the facts before becoming part of the ignorant know it all wknd warrior crowd. Ignorance and arrogant know it all pilota are the largest danger to aviation

Crazy C, I have had a couple of accidents and it's absolutely natural to look for outside reasons why they happened, rather than looking at yourself. Crashing an aircraft is a very emotional event. It will take a bit of time for the dust to settle and for you to see clearly what actually happened. Try to write down the sequence of events dispassionately - as if you were talking about someone else flying the aeroplane - perhaps one of your pupils.

I suspect that it might even take a year before you are really ready to analyse the accident unemotionally

If you can Google "Dunning-Kruger" and try to understand what they are saying, without getting upset, then you are a strong and sensible man.

All the very best for your future in aviation.

jim
Hi oom Jim
Appreciate the advice. However the comment about the 50kts speed below is accurate. There was definitely zero braking effect on the ac which i inly found out at the time of brake application further down the runway. An important fact which nobody here seems to take into account is that a complete brake failure was reported and confirmed on this aircraft 2 months prior.1 week prior, i flew the ac to kdorp to have the brakes further adjusted where i was told that they cannot do much more to the brakes. Just stating that there was more to the brake issue then "theorists" would know without the facts which is dangerous and insulting
HJK 414
Fife Thousand feet
Fife Thousand feet
Posts: 5429
Joined: Fri Oct 10, 2014 4:34 pm
Closest Airfield: abcd
Location: wandering ...
Has liked: 53 times
Been liked: 282 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by HJK 414 » Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:35 am

CrazyC wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:31 am
Hi oom Jim
Appreciate the advice. ……….
CrazyC,

Take the advice Jim offered.
Put a lid on it - step back and try to learn from it.
Try to stop explaining that the aircraft is to blame for a landing that took 3 attempts - and ended up in a ditch.

Your suggestion that "PPL holders" should refrain from comment is insulting.
There are people trying to advise you that have skill and knowledge beyond your current grasp.

Grow up - learn from it - move on.
Wish you well.

JK
These users liked the author HJK 414 for the post (total 10):
PeteGLMikeyFlooiAJWChalkiekwestScrapyard DogAEHPJL
User avatar
AJW
Tree Tousand
Tree Tousand
Posts: 3591
Joined: Mon Feb 18, 2008 6:54 pm
Closest Airfield: FARB
Location: FARB
Has liked: 7 times
Been liked: 2 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by AJW » Sat Aug 17, 2019 10:40 am

HJK 414 wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:35 am
CrazyC wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:31 am
Hi oom Jim
Appreciate the advice. ……….
CrazyC,

Take the advice Jim offered.
Put a lid on it - step back and try to learn from it.
Try to stop explaining that the aircraft is to blame for a landing that took 3 attempts - and ended up in a ditch.

Your suggestion that "PPL holders" should refrain from comment is insulting.
There are people trying to advise you that have skill and knowledge beyond your current grasp.

Grow up - learn from it - move on.
Wish you well.

JK
I once also landed down wind in a 10kt wind because of my own stupidity as student on solo flight and felt the effect of that......... Hopefully never again...

If this was against the wind uphill, breaking was not needed anyway.

Snowball effect.
Be safe
Abrie
User avatar
jimdavis
10000 and still climbing
10000 and still climbing
Posts: 15946
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2008 7:46 am
Closest Airfield: FAGG
Location: Wilderness
Has liked: 323 times
Been liked: 352 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by jimdavis » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:32 pm

CrazyC wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 8:31 am
Hi oom Jim
Appreciate the advice. However the comment about the 50kts speed below is accurate. There was definitely zero braking effect on the ac which i inly found out at the time of brake application further down the runway. An important fact which nobody here seems to take into account is that a complete brake failure was reported and confirmed on this aircraft 2 months prior.1 week prior, i flew the ac to kdorp to have the brakes further adjusted where i was told that they cannot do much more to the brakes. Just stating that there was more to the brake issue then "theorists" would know without the facts which is dangerous and insulting
Hi Crazy, I agree, from the video it certainly looks like the brakes were not working.

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
mnmodels
Airspeed active
Posts: 192
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 9:51 pm
Closest Airfield: FAOH
Location: FAOH
Has liked: 8 times
Been liked: 8 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by mnmodels » Sat Aug 17, 2019 3:49 pm

Then even more bizzare... Before the flight brakes are tested.. No1 item after moving. Then to know there is brake issue and to fly aircraft is.......cant find correct word.... Learn move on.. Could have been much worst.
Morné Nortier
ZU-IPH CX150
ZS-EAE Project
ZS-MWC C150
ZU-IOY X350
User avatar
Chalkie
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1438
Joined: Mon Jun 02, 2008 9:19 am
Closest Airfield: FAPX
Location: In RV Eden.
Has liked: 34 times
Been liked: 129 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by Chalkie » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:12 pm

HJK 414 wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 9:35 am
Put a lid on it - step back and try to learn from it.
Try to stop explaining that the aircraft is to blame for a landing that took 3 attempts - and ended up in a ditch.
This has to be the best advice to CrazyC. Some introspection is required...
These users liked the author Chalkie for the post (total 4):
kwestRay WMikeyAEH
Rule #2 Hurry up Slowly.
Cynic: One who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.
User avatar
mikev
Circuit re-established
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:34 am
Closest Airfield: FAKD
Location: Swartpan International Airport
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by mikev » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:22 pm

Where does this energy come from:
E = M x V²
In order to simplify the sums, we do the following:
M does not change, so we turn it into 1.
V changes in increments easily computed in units of five KIAS, thus we change V into “units” of 5KIAS.
Stall speed is at 45 KIAS, thus 9 “units” of speed:
E = 1 x 9 x 9
= 81 units of energy. (Just less than the minimum you require)
This will see you with just enough energy to anticipate flight on takeoff, or to stall when flying,
When reducing airspeed in the event of landing, at this speed you don’t fly anymore but are still moving and need to stop, hence the need to apply brakes.
Approach speed is 1 + ⅓ of Stall speed, thus 60 KIAS or 12 x 5 “units” of speed:
E = 1 x 12 x 12
= 144 units of energy.
This rule is not the advocation of weekend warriors, fools or idiots. It is written in blood of many an aviator coming to grief, too low and too slow to make the landing a success. This is why the POH has a specific approach speed listed.
Let’s put it in relevance:
144/81 = 1.78 times the minimum energy is what the POH is calling for.
At an approach of 70 KIAS (14 energy “Units”), you have the following energy level:
E = 1 x 14 x 14
= 196 units of energy
To compute, at 70 KIAS, you have:
196/81 = 2.41 times the energy needed to just make it above stalling.
By increasing the approach speed by 10 KIAS (60 KIAS to 70KIAS), you don’t increase energy by 1/6th, you are more than doubling the minimum energy required to fly.
These users liked the author mikev for the post (total 4):
ChalkieAEHmodify101cvzyl
Lions ikke miste søvn over vurderingene av sau
User avatar
pietmeyer
1k poster
1k poster
Posts: 1054
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2008 7:37 am
Closest Airfield: FAWB
Location: Centurion Pretoria
Has liked: 0
Been liked: 7 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by pietmeyer » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:51 pm

mikev wrote:
Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:22 pm
Where does this energy come from:
E = M x V²
In order to simplify the sums, we do the following:
M does not change, so we turn it into 1.
V changes in increments easily computed in units of five KIAS, thus we change V into “units” of 5KIAS.
Stall speed is at 45 KIAS, thus 9 “units” of speed:
E = 1 x 9 x 9
= 81 units of energy. (Just less than the minimum you require)
This will see you with just enough energy to anticipate flight on takeoff, or to stall when flying,
When reducing airspeed in the event of landing, at this speed you don’t fly anymore but are still moving and need to stop, hence the need to apply brakes.
Approach speed is 1 + ⅓ of Stall speed, thus 60 KIAS or 12 x 5 “units” of speed:
E = 1 x 12 x 12
= 144 units of energy.
This rule is not the advocation of weekend warriors, fools or idiots. It is written in blood of many an aviator coming to grief, too low and too slow to make the landing a success. This is why the POH has a specific approach speed listed.
Let’s put it in relevance:
144/81 = 1.78 times the minimum energy is what the POH is calling for.
At an approach of 70 KIAS (14 energy “Units”), you have the following energy level:
E = 1 x 14 x 14
= 196 units of energy
To compute, at 70 KIAS, you have:
196/81 = 2.41 times the energy needed to just make it above stalling.
By increasing the approach speed by 10 KIAS (60 KIAS to 70KIAS), you don’t increase energy by 1/6th, you are more than doubling the minimum energy required to fly.
Mike, you lost me at "E ="
I fly a Jab J400, breaks suck but i stick to the numbers in my POH and find that you can land and stop in 500m depending on the conditions with hardly using any breaks.
From your post I gather that you paid attention in Math class and did not have our Mrs Gloy who mumbled and drew weird calculations on the black board confusing us even more :D
Hopefully I do not have to understand your post to fly my plane :D

If you spend lots of time in your aircraft and get to know it well, you feel when it is right to land or when to go around but I might be wrong as I only having a PPL

Just kidding of course.... makes sense =D>
ZU-DUU Jabi J400 (FAWB)
User avatar
mikev
Circuit re-established
Posts: 417
Joined: Sat Mar 22, 2008 10:34 am
Closest Airfield: FAKD
Location: Swartpan International Airport
Has liked: 14 times
Been liked: 10 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by mikev » Sat Aug 17, 2019 6:32 pm

Mike, you lost me at "E ="
I fly a Jab J400, breaks suck but i stick to the numbers in my POH and find that you can land and stop in 500m depending on the conditions with hardly using any breaks.
From your post I gather that you paid attention in Math class and did not have our Mrs Gloy who mumbled and drew weird calculations on the black board confusing us even more :D
Hopefully I do not have to understand your post to fly my plane :D

If you spend lots of time in your aircraft and get to know it well, you feel when it is right to land or when to go around but I might be wrong as I only having a PPL

Just kidding of course.... makes sense =D>
Piet,

That was the whole point! :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Simply put, without the maths,

A seemingly small increase in airspeed, does not have a correspondingly small effect on the kinetic energy state of the moving aircraft.

What guys tend to forget, is that the equation proves that the energy grows EXPONENTIALLY.

Too much airspeed is as much undesirable as too little.

Vlieg lekker, mag jy baie blou lug en dromme vol verniet petrol beleef in jou Jabbie.
Lions ikke miste søvn over vurderingene av sau
User avatar
BD
Power off stall
Posts: 338
Joined: Thu Aug 16, 2007 9:47 pm
Closest Airfield: FAGC+FALA+FAGM
Location: RANDBURG
Has liked: 10 times
Been liked: 13 times

Re: Accident at Krugersdorp today

Unread post by BD » Sat Aug 17, 2019 7:21 pm

CrazyC ....... Without getting insulting or boastful, I'll simply say that perhaps you should do background checks on Chalkie, myself and many of the others who posted on this thread. Looking at your comments about "ppl comments", "weekend warriors" and some of your other insults, you might be shocked at what your background checks reveal. All we are trying to do is prevent this from happening again to anybody at FAKR or at any other similar airfield.

Brian Davidson.
These users liked the author BD for the post (total 11):
ChalkieHJK 414PeteRastusSwampdonkeySkinnyAEHGLMrb13676Broadbandboercvzyl

Return to “Academy & Flight Safety”