Buffalo DC-3 Hay River

[Mick G]

Thanks for posting those pics, sunfm.

Interesting, to see, it looks like a lot of creasing along the fuselage; damage is probably worst then it looks.

Also sunfm, I see you are in Hay River, any chance you can post a pic or two of C46 GTXW in the storage yard, I'd like to see pics of her now that she is down there.

[linecrew]

Seems pretty intact given the cards they were dealt.

[albertdesalvo]

Nice shots, thanks for posting them.

[godsrcrazy]

Accident investigation Report

https://cabinradio.ca/27749/news/report ... hay-river/

[Mick G]

Interesting, so it sounds like both engine were having trouble? As a dual engine failure is relatively uncommon, I wonder if there was a fuel or fuel delivery problem.

[Cliff Jumper]

so it sounds like both engine were having trouble?

What the? Where does it even vaguely suggest that?

I must have read a totally different report.

[Mick G]

so it sounds like both engine were having trouble?

What the? Where does it even vaguely suggest that?

I must have read a totally different report.

I highlighted in bold below the LEFT first and the RIGHT later near the bottom. Might be time for that Cataract surgery you have been talking about
Cheers


As the plane was flying to cruising altitude, the report stated a decrease in oil pressure was observed on the left engine. Shortly after, "rising cylinder head temperature and oil temperature indications" were observed on the same engine. The pilot then directed the first officer to request a return to the Hay River airport.As the crew began to prepare for approach, they observed smoke and oil, as well as "abnormal sounds" coming from the left engine. The crew shut down the left engine and feathered the propeller.At 7:48am, seven minutes after takeoff, the crew declared a mayday emergency. Mayday, the report states, is a distress signal that indicates "imminent and grave danger and means that immediate assistance is requested." The crew completed a descent checklist but were unable to complete an approach checklist, including the landing briefing, due to the "escalating emergency."The first officer then saw the landing gear down gauge had zero hydraulic pressure. He mentioned this to the captain, who then directed the first officer to "prep the gear." The first officer then extended the landing gear. The report states the captain "did not expect (this) because the aircraft had not started its final approach and the airport had not been visually acquired."During the approach, the plane's airspeed decreased and the "flight control response became sluggish." At this point, around 7:57am, the captain directed the first officer to raise the landing gear.At 7:59am the crew heard "abnormal sounds and felt vibrations" from the right engine. To keep the plane's altitude, the crew increased the right engine's power to "maximum takeoff power." This had no effect.The crew then prepared for an emergency landing with the landing gear up.

[Cliff Jumper]

Safety message
In this occurrence, the aircraft’s airspeed and altitude could not be maintained, primarily because of the increased drag when the landing gear was extended early in the approach. This highlights the need to follow SOPs and use standard phraseology, as well as the importance of checklist discipline, during an emergency.

[Cliff Jumper]

Plus, Mick, you have cherry picked and paraphrased a bunch of text, claimed that it's from the TSB report, and then highlight select words from it, as if it's a quote.

"During the approach, the plane's airspeed decreased and the "flight control response became sluggish." At this point, around 7:57am, the captain directed the first officer to raise the landing gear.At 7:59am the crew heard "abnormal sounds and felt vibrations" from the right engine. To keep the plane's altitude, the crew increased the right engine's power to "maximum takeoff power." This had no effect.The crew then prepared for an emergency landing with the landing gear up.

WHEREAS...

The aircraft’s airspeed decreased from 100 KIAS to 80 KIAS, while its altitude decreased to 1100 feet ASL. With the reduced airspeed, the aircraft’s flight control response became sluggish and the captain directed the landing gear to be raised (Figure 1, point 9).

After the landing gear was raised, at 0759, the flight crew heard abnormal sounds and felt vibrations from the right engine. The aircraft’s airspeed was 80 KIAS, and its altitude began to decrease to below 800 feet ASL.

In an attempt to maintain altitude, the right engine was increased to maximum takeoff power, but this had no effect. The flight crew then prepared for an emergency gear-up landing, and the aircraft’s flaps were lowered on short final to reduce speed for touchdown.

[Mick G]

Okay, I don't get it, both the report and news article clearly state there was problems with the right engine after the left had been shut down. What am I missing? Did they shut down the wrong engine accidently?

[pelmet]

Unfortunately, the report says that no investigation of the engines was done, we can only rely on what the pilots told the investigators about their engines. This includes unusual vibrations/sounds from the remaining engine.

That being said. If the gear was extended when it should not have been due to a miscommunication, why did they leave it down when they were low and possibly a bit slow.

Not surprisingly, they subsequently lost speed in the turn and only then retracted it again.

It sounds like the gear always was working OK and that the zero hydraulic pressure indication noted by the FO, which led to the initial discussion about the gear, was normal(subject to confirmation).

If possible, get rid of that drag, especially if it is resulting in you having to maximize power from an engine that in general is not the type known for reliability.

[Cliff Jumper]

Actually, Mick, sorry, I retract my point. I can see how it's a little unclear.

When I read the report, I took away that they put the gear down while flying on one engine, got too slow, and couldn't (or at least didn't) recover. The addition of a little more power from METO to MTO had little (or no) effect at reducing their decent rate, because they were too slow.

I understood the R/E noise/vibration to be a red herring, but can see how you took it differently.

[Mick G]

Actually, Mick, sorry, I retract my point. I can see how it's a little unclear.

When I read the report, I took away that they put the gear down while flying on one engine, got too slow, and couldn't (or at least didn't) recover. The addition of a little more power from METO to MTO had little (or no) effect at reducing their decent rate, because they were too slow.

I understood the R/E noise/vibration to be a red herring, but can see how you took it differently.

The more I think about this, the more it seems to make sense that the left engine was shut down in error when in fact the right engine was the one with issue. How else do you explain both engines suffering mechanical fault near the same time. Even if they lost a can, the engine should have still responded when applying full power, it just would have shook like a banshee. I'm surprised that the TSB may have overlooked this.

[valleyboy]

Reading the report and regardless of engine issues there was poor and non standard communications in the filling deck. "prep the gear" I'm not sure what that means and the f/o obviously did not understand the system. The gear is held up by hydraulic pressure normal position is lever in neutral. If the system reads zero and the gear is up the leak is not in the gear system. The gear would free fall into position when selected with no hydraulic pressure. Emergency gear extention in a DC 3 is pretty simple. The catch is that zero on the gage means no pressure so after gear was mistakenly extended there is no way to retract it again.

To me combination of low time and inexperience in the right seat contributed and possibly they could not have salvaged it anyway but they might have made the airport at least with a gear up landing. Choice of approach could also have been a factor.
This is a very good example of what happens with companies (not the only one) that use the pilot Wan-a-be programs. Initially until experience clicks in it's pretty much a single pilot aircraft with an extra set of hands that might pull out push the wrong switch or lever. PPC means very little except they passed the ride.

[Eric Janson]

Shutting down an engine is something that needs to be thought through. This is not really emphasised in training.

If the Engine is still developing power then leaving it running to get you back to the airport should be a consideration.

Not clear from the report what was the issue was with the right engine.

There are 2 hydraulic gauges in the aircraft - one for system pressure and one for the landing gear down line. Seems to have been some confusion about which one was reading zero.

[Cliff Jumper]

The more I think about this, the more it seems to make sense that the left engine was shut down in error when in fact the right engine was the one with issue. How else do you explain both engines suffering mechanical fault near the same time. Even if they lost a can, the engine should have still responded when applying full power, it just would have shook like a banshee. I'm surprised that the TSB may have overlooked this.

I don't read it that way.

The report says "In an attempt to maintain altitude, the right engine was increased to maximum takeoff power, but this had no effect."

To me, this says the engine DID go to MTO just fine, but the additional power did not help their 'attempt to maintain altitude' ....(because they were too slow, with the gear down).

[pelmet]

The more I think about this, the more it seems to make sense that the left engine was shut down in error when in fact the right engine was the one with issue. How else do you explain both engines suffering mechanical fault near the same time. Even if they lost a can, the engine should have still responded when applying full power, it just would have shook like a banshee. I'm surprised that the TSB may have overlooked this.

I don't read it that way.

The report says "In an attempt to maintain altitude, the right engine was increased to maximum takeoff power, but this had no effect."

To me, this says the engine DID go to MTO just fine, but the additional power did not help their 'attempt to maintain altitude' ....(because they were too slow, with the gear down).

As far as I'm concerned, it is not a well written statement and open to interpretation. Does this mean that the throttle was moved to full power position but there was no effect on the engine in terms of power increasing or does it mean that the engine did actually increase in power but there was no effect on aircraft performance. Reports should be written clearly in order to ensure no misinterpretation. I suggest that the TSB make an amendment.

There does not seem to be any mention of the left engine being shut down by accident. I believe that the report says that the oil and smoke could be seen coming from the engine making it more likely that an error was not made based on misinterpretation of the gauges.

The report also says...."After the landing gear was raised, at 0759, the flight crew heard abnormal sounds and felt vibrations from the right engine. The aircraft’s airspeed was 80 KIAS, and its altitude began to decrease to below 800 feet ASL." Therefore, it appears that the gear was raised after it was lowered.

Footnote 8 of the report says...
"Hydraulic pressure on the main landing gear DOWN line is indicated on a separate hydraulic pressure gauge mounted on the right-side cockpit wall, adjacent to the main hydraulic system pressure gauge. When the landing gear is retracted, it is normal for the hydraulic pressure on the main landing gear DOWN line gauge to read zero."

[Mick G]

As far as I am concerned the TSB has really flubbed this up, and I would bet they had a rookie investigator involved. Is this what our tax dollars are paying for?

Not only is the final report unclear without interpretation, the investigation itself seemingly has missed the single most important issue, where BOTH engines were evidently making noise and not completely responsive. The landing gear should be a secondary noted observation.

This really ought to BEHOOVE the TSB to re-open and make an amendment if the findings change.

[Heliian]

Of course the right engine sounded different, it was now on it's own to produce power and being demanded max everything. (they shut the left down after confirming loss of power and smoke and oil coming out of it.)

Firewalling the good engine had no effect as they were already...."behind the curve".

They might have made it back if it wasn't for the gear drag though. You could fault them for that but it looked like the f.o. didn't understand what the pilot was asking. Not uncommon in an emergency.

At the end of the day, everyone walked away, the TSB didn't glean anything new out of this accident so case closed.

[godsrcrazy]

As far as I am concerned the TSB has really flubbed this up, and I would bet they had a rookie investigator involved. Is this what our tax dollars are paying for?

Not only is the final report unclear without interpretation, the investigation itself seemingly has missed the single most important issue, where BOTH engines were evidently making noise and not completely responsive. The landing gear should be a secondary noted observation.

This really ought to BEHOOVE the TSB to re-open and make an amendment if the findings change.

TSB accident investigations are. No Passengers , No one hurt = Limited to No Investigation