Overdue Cargo Airplane Bound for CYXS

[GyvAir]

Not sure what piece you're referring to, cncpc.

Is that the rudder laying crossways behind the fuselage, with an aileron or elevator on top of it?

Curious too.. how are you identifying the props as LH or RH from the photo?

[Diadem]

I don't know much about Garretts, but someone told me that a single-shaft engine like that can't be feathered while producing max power or it could potentially twist itself off the wing. Is it possible that they had an engine fire and feathered too quickly after shutting it down?

[PointyEngine]

I don't know much about Garretts, but someone told me that a single-shaft engine like that can't be feathered while producing max power or it could potentially twist itself off the wing. Is it possible that they had an engine fire and feathered too quickly after shutting it down?

This is true, the "stop and feather" control has a detent. First detent will stop fuel to the engine, then once torque has decayed through 30% you pull it completely out to feather the engine. Pulling it completely out while producing power translates all that rotational energy of the engine into a force far greater than the air-frame is designed to handle, so Garrett drivers are taught. Haven't seen it first hand.

[lownslow]

Pulling it completely out while producing power translates all that rotational energy of the engine into a force far greater than the air-frame is designed to handle, so Garrett drivers are taught. Haven't seen it first hand.

That's news to me. If the fire goes out at the same time the prop starts moving to feather, what drives these destructive forces?

*Admittedly, I fly a different Garrett installation with a slightly different fuel cutoff/feather linkage.

[switchflicker]

I was taught to pull the Stop and Feather control in one smooth swift movement. I have also heard that if the FCU and the Feathering Valve are not rigged right, and the prop feathers first, 'You'll be in the foundry business'. Nothing was ever said of the torque twisting anything but your sphincter. This training was by Flight Safety.

[cncpc]

Wouldn't the torque be already down as a result of pulling the lever back to "Verify", prior to pulling the handle/knob?

[cncpc]

Not sure what piece you're referring to, cncpc.

Is that the rudder laying crossways behind the fuselage, with an aileron or elevator on top of it?

Curious too.. how are you identifying the props as LH or RH from the photo?

It's this piece here Gyv. It looks like one skin of either a wingtip or a stab, with that horn type thingee on the end.



If you to to the TSB photo folder on FlickR, it's possible to save that image then use Photoshop to blow it up. There is felt marker on both spinners. The left top says RH and the bottom right says lH Prop. Here's that pic...



I'm sure BB is right about that bit being the right wing tip. There has been a significant fire in there. More significant than in the right nacelle, which I think can be seen at the right side of the photo, just left of that yellow step ladder. That would lead to the possibility the wingtip was found after the TSB made the comment about a small fire in the right nacelle.

[boeingboy]

It's this piece here Gyv. It looks like one skin of either a wingtip or a stab, with that horn type thingee on the end.

Thats the LH horizontal stab.

More significant than in the right nacelle, which I think can be seen at the right side of the photo, just left of that yellow step ladder.

Those are engine cowls - not the nacelle

[cncpc]

It's this piece here Gyv. It looks like one skin of either a wingtip or a stab, with that horn type thingee on the end.

Thats the LH horizontal stab.

Thanks. And that bit on the right side? Is that a carry through to the stab on the other side that runs up and down in that track?

How many of these pieces do you think came off in the air? For instance, there are no impact marks on the leading edge of the right stab up against the wall, and nothing on the leading edge of that right outboard part of the wing? So it wasn't severed from the rest by a impact with something on the ground.

Is that a filler cap where that round hole is in the burnt out section of the wing?

The front part of the aircraft is severed in the prop plane, if you look at that chunk of fuselage beside the main piece. It doesn't seem that prop blades are missing. Is is possible that a wing severing at the root or inside the nacelle could immediately rotate upwards putting the prop arc into the fuselage and doing that damage?

I find it unusual that there seems to be such violent destruction of many things, including the engines, but not much leading edge damages on what we can see, and no compression damage to speak of along the longitudinal axis of the fuselage, as you'd expect from a vertical high speed collision with terrain.

[boeingboy]

I dont think thats the stab on the right wall - it seems too big when you compare it to the LH stab on the floor.. I dont know what that is. It's almost impossible to tell what damage happened in the air or on the ground. *edit - it is the RH stab. Size must be an illusion.

I just looked at the Flicker pic and can see the RH nacelle is that pile of junk right of the LH flap. Pretty bad - but again, it's impossible to tell wether the fire damage is the cause of the breakup, or secondary to it.

[boeingboy]

The front part of the aircraft is severed in the prop plane, if you look at that chunk of fuselage beside the main piece. It doesn't seem that prop blades are missing. Is is possible that a wing severing at the root or inside the nacelle could immediately rotate upwards putting the prop arc into the fuselage and doing that damage?

I doubt it - it probably broke just fwd of the fwd wing attach point, since that would be the weakest part.

I find it unusual that there seems to be such violent destruction of many things, including the engines, but not much leading edge damages on what we can see, and no compression damage to speak of along the longitudinal axis of the fuselage, as you'd expect from a vertical high speed collision with terrain.

Again - not really surprising. Wether a wing shed, tail, fuse section........once the aircraft pitched or rolled violently enough the rest of it fails in overload. Wings and tails fold, fuselages break apart etc. When that happens - fuel is released and can easily catch fire Heavy pieces fall rapidly and others like wings more gently. Once they hit the ground - they rolled down the mountain

[boeingboy]

Two very good animations of inflight breakup and fire can be seen in studying the Continental 2574 and CI 611 flights.

Both from the applicable "Mayday" series

http://www.google.ca/url?url=http://www ... 463Kg-7WAg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wC9vg2vT3js

[GyvAir]

If you to to the TSB photo folder on FlickR, it's possible to save that image then use Photoshop to blow it up.

Thanks.. I'd tried expanding it in my browser but I guess I was too impatient for it to load and just assumed the quality was low.

People have commented on the current prop blade positions - fine vs feather. I wouldn't be surprised if some or all of the pitch links are broken, letting the blades rotate freely, post impact.

[Maynard]

Metro 3 has dual Conrac SAS vanes attached to the front of the cockpit area.

False. The 3 has 1 vane, one computer. The 23 has 2 vanes, two computers. Carry on.

[Maynard]

Wouldn't the torque be already down as a result of pulling the lever back to "Verify", prior to pulling the handle/knob?

A fire isn't a failure. There's nothing to verify other than the fire lights. Therefore, first action is pull stop and feather. I've also never heard of this Garrett ripping apart an airplane theory either.

[cncpc]

I think the situation described above was one in which there was some issue with the linkage of the stop feather mechanism and fuel was not cut off prior to the feathering stage activating. Or at all. I've not seen any reference in training in the Jetstream to this issue of danger in the stop feather drill and you're right about the fire drill not requiring reducing to idle.

[co-joe]

What strikes me is the evidence of twisting force on the vertical stabilizer. It looks like it was twisted dramatically and deformed in addition to being separated from the fuselage. I could not tell if that happened in the air of with impact. It looks like it deformed to the right. could that be shear forces from the tail coming un-hinged?

[Rowdy]

Interesting to see the almost perfect separation of the tail section.. Would that have been from the tumble after breakup??

[BobBates]

Could that perfect separation of the tail been done to enable extraction from the forest?
Bob

[Old fella]

Some of you posters should get in on the next competition TSB investigator Aviation as you seem to have all the answers. I am sure they would value your expert analysis combined with encyclopedia knowledge, I mean why would they(TSB) pass up this opportunity to have such assets amongst their ranks.

[cncpc]

Some of you posters should get in on the next competition TSB investigator Aviation as you seem to have all the answers. I am sure they would value your expert analysis combined with encyclopedia knowledge, I mean why would they(TSB) pass up this opportunity to have such assets amongst their ranks.

Here's a tip for you Old Fella. Two tips actually.

First off, if you have something to say, fill your boots. But try and carry it off without lying about what other people say and without describing them as something they aren't. I haven't seen a single poster in this thread who remotely claims to "...have all the answers". Or to offer "expert analysis" or "encyclopedia knowledge". And what's your beef on that anyways? This is an aviation forum with many people who are experts and have a great deal of knowledge. Live with it. If that's not you, say so, but don't be grumbling from behind the toilet stall door while everybody else is washing their hands.

The second thing is this little mark "?". That denotes a question in the sentence preceeding. Not an answer, a question. As in, from someone trying to learn something. And asking for an answer. A process which seems to upset you.

[Old fella]

CNCPC.

If you have aviation investigator authority, please accept my sincere apologies. IF you do not have any investigative authority..... well I rest my case and I stand by my commentary. Speculate all you wish if you feel it adds to reader enthusiasm on this subject, but please remember you have no idea what went on in regards to this sad event. The sequence of events will be determined by the TSB.

Over and Out!!

[cncpc]

CNCPC. No need to shout.

If you have aviation investigator authority, please accept my sincere apologies. IF you do not have any investigative authority..... well I rest my case and I stand by my commentary. Speculate all you wish if you feel it adds to reader enthusiasm on this subject, but please remember you have no idea what went on in regards to this sad event. The sequence of events will be determined by the TSB.

Over and Out!!

I don't see what "aviation investigator authority" has to do with this. For what it's worth, which I expect is nothing, I actually have been paid to investigate some fairly serious accidents. Nobody asked what my authority was, but I'm assuming lawyers wouldn't have paid me if they didn't think I have some expertise they didn't have. And, I have the CASO certificate, which is partially about investigating accidents and incidents and well, you know, determining root causes. And, required by Transport Canada to be a 703 Ops Manager.

I can't see how my answering "No, I don't have an aviation investigator authority" translated to "Old Fella can rest his case and deem himself correct in his commentary."

I think most people have some idea of what went on. An aircraft descended into terrain and was not controllable. For starters. They can see wreckage. Which leads on to questions and more knowledge. And so on. As it always was, and always will be with pilots not wanting to wait years to find out what may be endangering them now.

I'm not someone who thinks you were even talking about me. I mostly asked questions on here and was grateful for the expertise of the responses.

[Old fella]

Well CNCPC.......

Delighted to hear of your managerial background in 703 Ops, remuneration for services rendered as expert in litigation(you noted lawyers so I assume there was civil action against) and your CASO certificate. My only claim to fame in this area(Investigations) was from my Transport Canada days way back in that I was assigned occasionally as "Minister's Representative, it had no "standing" but "observation" only. It was under the System Safety Directorate and I also served(at times) the after hours duty officer. Although my involvement was not with complex investigations I got to see/hear items from the inside and we had" privilege" translation we were not subject to "subponea", perhaps from similar lawyers who graciously provided your remuneration. My time noted there gave me an insight in that what was said/discussed/presented was quite different to what the "outside" was speculation about.

In fairness to you though and after the final report is released, I would love to hear what you have to say(and I say that with respect). However in honesty anything said prior to that will be noted as speculation and conjecture.

Honestly, I am done!!!!!

[boeingboy]

Wow.

Anyways.........Some more pics from TSB. The nose/cockpit before and after removal and the Right horizontal stab.