26 Oct 2017 - 2 dead after plane crash near Springbank Airport, west of Calgary

[rookiepilot]

Has any mentioned how unbelievably bad this format is?

[GyvAir]

Is this really the thread you guys want to discuss site changes on?

[gwagen]

Seems like perhaps the instructor failed an engine on takeoff and the student misidentified the dead engine and feathered the wrong one, in the confusion dropped below VMC and that was all she wrote?

[pdw]

The answer to earlier/similar questioning about doing that is "No". Not done.
No need to practise if an examiner isn't going there / doing one of those down too low.
_______________

Another Q:
If one fails just as gear starts going in / selected UP after rotation, what is the added speed interruption (just for that power draw) under the remaining engine's power as the other feathers?

[gwagen]

The answer to earlier/similar questioning about doing that is "No". Not done.
No need to practise if an examiner isn't going there / doing one of those down too low.
_______________

Another Q:
If one fails just as gear starts going in / selected UP after rotation, what is the added speed interruption (just for that power draw) under the remaining engine's power as the other feathers?

Just because "its not done" doesn't mean it wasn't.

The Seneca II has an electric hydraulic pump for the landing gear. No appreciable load on the engine/s

It has half decent single engine performance as well.

It is an easy plane to over-boost. My only other thought is if one engine suffered a mechanical failure and in the panic full throttle applied to the functioning engine causing induction system failure or piston damage of some sort taking out the other engine.

-There seems to have been fuel based on the post crash fire.
-They asked for a circuit, not stating a problem or declaring an emergency, (suggesting perhaps a practice manoeuvre)
-The airplane bank over and dove straight in, classic below vmc outcome.

I've flown a Seneca II a number of times and have found it to be a well behaved and decent performing twin. Only downside to it in my mind is the weight of the controls, feels like driving a cement truck without power steering, not a big deal, just not comparable to some of its more refined contemporaries. Though the de icing and counter rotating engines are appreciated.

Finally, condolences to the families.

[pelmet]

Seems like perhaps the instructor failed an engine on takeoff and the student misidentified the dead engine and feathered the wrong one, in the confusion dropped below VMC and that was all she wrote?

Whenever I get training in a light twin, I verbally confirm that the instructor is not going to do something stupid like that. Not worth the risk.

[shamrock104]

Where did the info come about the Instructor failing an engine after takeoff? The call for "immediate right circuit" also a little out of the ordinary so I am guessing whatever went wrong did so before this call was made.

[CpnCrunch]

Where did the info come about the Instructor failing an engine after takeoff? The call for "immediate right circuit" also a little out of the ordinary so I am guessing whatever went wrong did so before this call was made.

Completely baseless speculation, I think.

[YBW-Kid]

Preliminary TSB reporting they were unable to find any mechanical deficiency with the aircraft.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/s ... -1.4454937

[JL]

TSB final report.

http://www.bst-tsb.gc.ca/eng/rapports-r ... 7w0172.asp

[PostmasterGeneral]

Jesus... so the instruxtor elected to simulate an engine failire on takeoff at less than 400’AGL??! Problem the first.

[CFM Symphony]

Jesus... so the instruxtor elected to simulate an engine failire on takeoff at less than 400’AGL??! Problem the first.

That’s the “likely” scenario, not the actual scenario. Please learn to read.

[PostmasterGeneral]

Jesus... so the instruxtor elected to simulate an engine failire on takeoff at less than 400’AGL??! Problem the first.

That’s the “likely” scenario, not the actual scenario. Please learn to read.

I’ll have you know I recently learned how to read at a grade three level!

What’s the “unlikely” scenario then? The report states no mechanical issues were found. Pretty clear what happened here. Procedures were not adhered to and two pilots paid the ultimate price for it.

[pelmet]

What every student needs to do when going flying in a muti-engine training flight with an instructor is to have a discussion before the flight of when exactly the instructor plans to simulate the engine failure. I would suggest that anything below 400 feet is unacceptable and if the instructor is unwilling to do different, then find another instructor.

I have done training flights with instructors on two types of twins this year along with several previous training flight in the last couple of years on those types..........a DA-42 and a Cougar. This was always discussed beforehand as I don't want some idiot doing the low level engine failure scenario. On the first aircraft this year(actually two flights with two different instructors), the simulated the failure was while in cruise while the latter did do a couple at 400 feet on takeoff after telling me just prior to the takeoff that he would do so.

In both cases full power was used for takeoff. I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.

A student might want to keep their hand on the throttles as much as possible and be ready to push the instructors hand out of the way in case he is some sort of guy who says he wont simulate a failure at low altitude but intends to anyways. I'm sure it has happened. Multi-engine training on small aircraft is when I find I have to suspiciously monitor the instructor the most by far.....just in case.

[cncpc]

I've had a look at that ground driving by. It seems that if it really was a failed engine, the instructor could have pulled the other one back and landed parallel to those power lines. If it was simulated, why not just advance the other throttle and carry on?

Something doesn't calculate.

[pelmet]

I've had a look at that ground driving by. It seems that if it really was a failed engine, the instructor could have pulled the other one back and landed parallel to those power lines. If it was simulated, why not just advance the other throttle and carry on?

Something doesn't calculate.

There have been instructors in the past who failed engines using things other than the throttle. One could try the mixture control. I have heard of the fuel selector being used. The engine could have been feathered for some reason and then restarted but too late. One shouldn't assume that the throttle(or retarding of throttle only) was used to simulate the engine failure. Or someone in a panic added more throttle on the good engine in a panic. All just guesses though.

[trey kule]

. Seems like perhaps the instructor failed an engine on takeoff and the student misidentified the dead engine and feathered the wrong one, in the confusion dropped below VMC and that was all she wrote?

I am abit fuzzy. If neither engine is producing thrust, how does Vmc figure into it?

If you are going to offer baseless speculation, perhaps try to learn a bit about Vmc.

A tragic accident.

[7ECA]

I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.

What are you talking about - turbocharger issues? No, flight schools generally use reduced power takeoffs (most I've heard of use 36 inches on the Seneca) to avoid over boosting. Right from the Seneca III POH is the warning in the amplified general procedures, that the Ray Jay's have an overpressure relief valve that prevents the manifold pressure going beyond 42 inches. The thought behind using reduced power is to lessen the chance of students used to flying naturally aspirated aircraft from fire walling the throttle and blowing the valves...

As for high density altitude, bull.

From the report:

The density altitude was calculated at 2238 feet ASL at the time of the accident

You've got an instructor who (most likely) simulated an engine failure at some point before reaching 200' AGL (seeing how the maximum altitude was 250' AGL). By the time the aircraft reached 250' AGL, airspeed had decayed to 70 knots - lower than the POH listed VSSE of 85 KIAS (at least in the Seneca III).

The aircraft continued for another 30 seconds, with an average descent rate of 200 feet per minute (fpm) and an airspeed of just under 70 KCAS.

After takeoff with an engine failure (and continuing the takeoff), Piper notes:

When a climb is established RETRACT the landing gear, accelerate to 92KIAS (VYSE)and FEATHER the inoperative engine

Shortly thereafter;

The aircraft then entered a tight descending and rolling left turn approximately 300 feet north of hydroelectric power lines that were running in an east–west direction. The estimated airspeed dropped to about 65 KCAS when the aircraft was at an altitude of about 100 feet AGL

In the Seneca III VMC is listed as 66 KIAS. At this point in the lead up to the collision with terrain there was no hope of recovery, as the aircraft had entered a VMS roll.

Assuming the failure (simulated or otherwise) had occurred at a greater altitude:

Should an engine fail during flight at an airspeed below 66 KIAS, apply rudder towards the operative engine to maintain directional control. The throttles should be retarded to stop the yaw force produced by the inoperative engine. Lower the nose of the aircraft to accelerate above 66 KIAS and increase the power on the operative engine as the airspeed exceeds 66 KIAS.

Emphasis is mine.

I am abit fuzzy. If neither engine is producing thrust, how does Vmc figure into it?

If you are going to offer baseless speculation, perhaps try to learn a bit about Vmc.

Straight from the report:

Minimum control speed (VMC) roll

A VMC roll is a rapid roll at an airspeed below VMC. It occurs due to insufficient yaw control available to counter the thrust produced by the operating engine. A sudden application of power on the operating engine accelerates any imminent VMC roll condition. At that point, the airplane quickly rolls toward the non-operating engine.

[jakeandelwood]

Right.

But who is responsible for the investigation? TSB, unless there is suspicion of criminality, which is why it’s curious that the RCMP are appealing for witnesses.

Of course they are going to list the RCMP as a contact for witnesses. The general public probably doesn't know what TSB stands for let alone who they are and how to get hold of them. Crime Stoppers is just a non emergency avenue for callers to give tips, it doesn't necessarily mean it was a crime. I suppose the RCMP would then call the TSB with any new info.

[pelmet]

I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.

What are you talking about - turbocharger issues? No, flight schools generally use reduced power takeoffs (most I've heard of use 36 inches on the Seneca) to avoid over boosting. Right from the Seneca III POH is the warning in the amplified general procedures, that the Ray Jay's have an overpressure relief valve that prevents the manifold pressure going beyond 42 inches. The thought behind using reduced power is to lessen the chance of students used to flying naturally aspirated aircraft from fire walling the throttle and blowing the valves...

I'm talking about exactly what I correctly said......due to the turboocharger issue(ie turbochargers installated), they used reduced power for takeoff. Flight schools(can't speak for most of them) likely don't use reduced power for takeoff in most cases because most have normally aspirated twins. None of the several that I have flown at do. However, it appears that the occasional school or at least this one does use reduced power for takeoff due to turbocharger issues(ie installation). Pretty straight forward huh?

I guess the Seneca has turbocharger issues that can lead to pilots doing partial power climbs to prevent an overboost as happened here(never flown the type) but the density altitude is fairly high in YYC so this is just another reason to avoid low level engine failure scenarios.

As for high density altitude, bull.

From the report:

The density altitude was calculated at 2238 feet ASL at the time of the accident

Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)

[7ECA]

I'm talking about exactly what I correctly said......due to the turboocharger issue(ie turbochargers installated), they used reduced power for takeoff.

Not at all, because it isn't an issue. It's FTUs looking to avoid students over boosting turbo'd engines, by using reduced power takeoffs. If there was an "issue" with turbo-chargers, as you allude to - there wouldn't be any FTUs flying turbo'd aircraft, right?

Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)

Springbank's elevation is 3940 feet. With a density altitude of 2238 feet, I'd suggest you'd be getting pretty decent performance outta there - in addition to the fact that having turbocharged engines would negate the effects of said elevation, no?

[7ECA]

I'm talking about exactly what I correctly said......due to the turboocharger issue(ie turbochargers installated), they used reduced power for takeoff.

Not at all, because it isn't an issue. It's FTUs looking to avoid students over boosting turbo'd engines, by using reduced power takeoffs. If there was an "issue" with turbo-chargers, as you allude to - there wouldn't be any FTUs flying turbo'd aircraft, right?

Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)

Springbank's elevation is 3940 feet. With a density altitude of 2238 feet, I'd suggest you'd be getting pretty decent performance outta there - in addition to the fact that having turbocharged engines would negate the effects of said elevation - on a normal takeoff, no?

[cncpc]

The Seneca I didn't have turbos. From II on they did.

They were touchy and could be overboosted, but it wasn't rocket science. Where you set the throttle was reflected on the MP gauge. The real critical time was in setting takeoff power and especially on the roll. In some circumstances, the turbo could lag and even though the throttle commanded what seemed to be a within limits setting, the turbo could catch up and shoot over the top. If I remember correctly, it was called "bootstrapping" or something like that. So, you'd have over redline boost and nobody likes that, so it was a bit of a chat with the student when that happened.

However, I don't think that its correct to say that reduced power is used. Care is taken in the circumstances where an overboost may occur, but a takeoff is normally at the top of the MP limit, and short of overboost.

I doesn't seem like it's a good idea to deliberately set yourself up for another step in the event one calves on takeoff. If you have full power, and get the yaw, you know where you are as far as controllability goes. But, if you are at reduced power, you get the yaw, you have to add power to the good engine, and still have a question as to what that is going to do to your roll control.

By the time you are at full power for a few seconds, the turbo has no lag left and what you see on the gauge is what you're gonna get.

[pelmet]

I'm talking about exactly what I correctly said......due to the turboocharger issue(ie turbochargers installated), they used reduced power for takeoff.

Not at all, because it isn't an issue. It's FTUs looking to avoid students over boosting turbo'd engines, by using reduced power takeoffs. If there was an "issue" with turbo-chargers, as you allude to - there wouldn't be any FTUs flying turbo'd aircraft, right?

Whatever...the fact that they had turbos was a possible reason for the reduced power setting. Not really interested in useless posts arguing about the word issue(even though the meaning is obvious). ...right?

Perhaps higher density altitude than what one might expect from a typical sea level standard day might be better wording. When an single engine climb capability is in the low hundreds at sea level for whatever reason(such as a reduced power setting), it will be even less at 2238 feet density altitude. Which is exactly as it was. No bull, just facts....as always;)

Springbank's elevation is 3940 feet. With a density altitude of 2238 feet, I'd suggest you'd be getting pretty decent performance outta there - in addition to the fact that having turbocharged engines would negate the effects of said elevation - on a normal takeoff, no?

Not if you are choosing to not use them(ie. reduced power setting).......right?

From the report......"The occurrence flight’s estimated total power following takeoff was much lower than that of the comparison flights—as low as ⅓."

Logic says that if you are using 1/3 of you power capability, a density altitude of 2238 feet might really have an effect on performance.....right? Who knows what the full story is. Maybe the instructor wanted to simulate a higher density altitude takeoff. Then they got slow during the exercise and added power on the good engine at the same time as the simulated failed engine making things worse. DC-8's and 707's crashed in the old days of two engines simulated out on the same side on approach where they would get slow and then instinctively select all forward losing control. A bit different scenario including the "issue" of turbojet spool up time on the engines at idle that had a detrimental effect but a VMC rollover scenario nonetheless.

Bottom line...don't do this kind of stuff at low altitude.

[7ECA]

The schools SOP was to use a reduced takeoff power setting of 35 inches. If you think that is a power setting that doesn't use any turbocharging, you're wrong. But, it is less than the POH takeoff power setting of 40 inches.

Why was there upwards of 1/3 less performance during this flight? I certainly do not know, but it stands to reason that this instructor was doing something very idiotic and had a record of simulating engine failures on takeoff before. Accident waiting to happen, especially with an unsuspecting student.