Aircraft Crash Essendon YMEN

[Martin Buzzell]

I was quite surprised they said the 240 kilos did not contribute to the collision.

[Radi K]

Originally Posted by Martin Buzzell

I was quite surprised they said the 240 kilos did not contribute to the collision.

Because it's only about 6% above the MTOW. Within the design limits.

You'd be surprised how many commercial jets every day technically take off beyond their maximum weights. Airlines use "standard" weights for passengers. If a few of these are above the "standard" (87kg for example) then you could technically be above max weight. Same goes for "standard" hand luggage.

[Martin Buzzell]

Originally Posted by Radi K

Because it's only about 6% above the MTOW. Within the design limits.

You'd be surprised how many commercial jets every day technically take off beyond their maximum weights. Airlines use "standard" weights for passengers. If a few of these are above the "standard" (87kg for example) then you could technically be above max weight. Same goes for "standard" hand luggage.

I understand the airlines because their aircraft are bigger, but there was mention of a longer take off roll.

[MarkR]

The report seems to ask more questions than it answers, with those who have actual B200 experience really questioning its assumptions.

Given the deceased relatives are now looking at pursuing legal damages, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the subsequent court case and expert cross examinations cast further doubt on the validity of the report. To me, its another Pel Air type report, and I would not be surprised if re-investigation is commenced down the track, possibly by an overseas safety organization.

[Martin Buzzell]

Originally Posted by MarkR

The report seems to ask more questions than it answers, with those who have actual B200 experience really questioning its assumptions.

Given the deceased relatives are now looking at pursuing legal damages, I wouldn't be surprised to hear the subsequent court case and expert cross examinations cast further doubt on the validity of the report. To me, its another Pel Air type report, and I would not be surprised if re-investigation is commenced down the track, possibly by an overseas safety organization.

That's good. I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks there's something missing.

[Radi K]

Understand same pilot involved in this incident: https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications...r/ao-2015-108/

[Daniel M]

The old swiss cheese model in full effect here

[Rowan McKeever]

It’s important to remember ATSB reports are written so’s not to apportion blame, and I think discussion on this and other forums should follow that lead. While it may be that the actions and/or omissions of those on board contributed to the crash, all of those people are tragically deceased. Their families and friends may well be among us, and we should be sensitive to those people.

That said, I feel the analysis of the crash itself is perfectly adequate and has probably identified all the major contributing factors. The ATSB couldn’t afford not to be thorough in this instance, given the Pelair investigation and the public profile of the Essendon crash, questions about building approvals, etc. I would’ve liked, though, a little more discussion about how a similar occurrence can realistically be avoided in future.

[MarkR]

Originally Posted by Rowan McKeever

That said, I feel the analysis of the crash itself is perfectly adequate and has probably identified all the major contributing factors. The ATSB couldn’t afford not to be thorough in this instance, given the Pelair investigation and the public profile of the Essendon crash, questions about building approvals, etc. I would’ve liked, though, a little more discussion about how a similar occurrence can realistically be avoided in future.

I dont think the report is adequate at all, ie the mentioning of the lack of a checklist when no checklist could be found, is conjecture given the impact damage. If you want to read a report that does fit the bill, on an accident that was very similar try https://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...30X24112&key=1

More detail https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employmen...15FA034&akey=1

[Philip Argy]

I don't think the NTSB report you cite is "better" than the ATSB report on ZCR. In fact it's scant on the critical detail of why there was so much left rudder, especially if the left engine was thought by the pilot to have failed. The NTSB also appears to more explicitly "blame" the pilot instead of taking the ATSB approach of noting that the checklist for the B200 provides three pre-takeoff opportunities for detecting full left rudder trim and then providing some plausible explanations for why those opportunities may have been missed or not detected the incorrect setting.