NZFF

by **ZÃƒÂ¶ltuger** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:25 pm

Trolly wrote: This is a perfect scenario to recreate with the new Woodbourne scenery!

that scenery is so realistic you could probably stage the landing in FS and pass it off to the media as the real deal, get a huge profit out of it

by **ZKTOM** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:42 pm

The crew and pilots did a great job dealing with the situation. However the cause of this crash is most probably pilot error. Personally I believe manufacturers need to get the message out to pilots. At least it wasn't a jet-imagine the chaos then.

by **ZKTOM** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 5:48 pm

Its not really a crash. Gear up landings cant really be called a crash.

Technichnally speaking no as it was a small aircraft. I'm sure that on a larger scale it would be considered so. However the aircraft has been damaged unintentionally(we hope!!) and could have easily turned into a proper crash if something went terribly wrong. Also passengers were put at some sort of risk and the incident is being taken seriously as some sort of crash incident.

by **ZK-Brock** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:02 pm

I don't think the aircraft would be a write off judging from the pics, however I don't think any further speculation is really appropriate until the facts are made public.

by **kiwiflyboy** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:06 pm

scon wrote: Do you think the aircraft was Written off / will it ever fly again

After having spoken to an ex 1900 pilot (in canada, their company had the gear fail on one while sitting on the ramp) If there is damage to the spar, it is quite possibly a write off........

by **victor_alpha_charlie** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:07 pm

For anyone wanting to know, it was ZK-EAK.

by **towerguy** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:11 pm

However the cause of this crash is most probably pilot error.

?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

how do you come to that conclusion?! :angry:

by **ooOO00OOoo** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:50 pm

towerguy wrote: However the cause of this crash is most probably pilot error. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

how do you come to that conclusion?!

When you see on programs like Air Crash Investigators you always hear there was always some pilot/human error involved. Like when the 747 crashed into Mt Fuji, it was not the pilots fault but the Boeing repairers fault.

I reckon Human Error would better describe it than pilot error.
I believe it will show some human error, planes don't seem to cripple on their own.

by **ardypilot** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:50 pm

For anyone wanting to know, it was ZK-EAK.

Yeah, just saw that on the news. It looked like an absoultly perfect landing!

I couldn't tell if it on the grass or tarmac runway from the tv camera angle though, and as there were no sparks, I'm guessing it was on the grass??

by **Kelburn** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 6:51 pm

apparently his relative (who works for CAA) said that it was pilot error.
ZKTOM says that they were probably doing a preflight test and flicked the support switch and then forgot to put it back, confusing the gear.

I don't happen to know what the support switch is and I don't think it was pilot error.

by **ZKTOM** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:01 pm

However the cause of this crash is most probably pilot error. ?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

how do you come to that conclusion?!

I don't want to come to full conclusions but these type of things have happened before and are due to whoever was responsible(most probably a pilot)for not flicking that switch back. I'm pretty certain that was the cause of the crash (due to it only being discovered shortly before coming into wellington). If it was a technical difficulty I'm pretty sure there would've been a problem raising the gear aswell.

by **victor_alpha_charlie** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:02 pm

Trolly wrote:
For anyone wanting to know, it was ZK-EAK.

Yeah, just saw that on the news. It looked like an absoultly perfect landing!

I couldn't tell if it on the grass or tarmac runway from the tv camera angle though, and as there were no sparks, I'm guessing it was on the grass??

Nope seal, it mentions in one report that only a few a/c using the grass could land.

by **ZKTOM** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:18 pm

Where is the current report???

by **ZK-Brock** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 7:36 pm

Another example of speculation just like the near miss at NZAA on the part of some NZFFers - wait for the facts from aviation sources instead of speculating and relying on the info the media give! :angry:

by **Alex** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:24 pm

ZKTOM wrote: Where is the current report???

Hold your horses mate, its only been a few hours since the landing, let them get the facts straight.

A constant that we can always rely on is the media's tendancy to blow aviation-related accidents/near misses up massively and portray them as fatal or near fatal. That being said, its not worth losing your cool over a bit of speculation, but it should always be speculation - and not pointing the blame at anyone/anything yet.

There is a big difference between saying "I think might be the pilot's fault", and saying "It is the pilot's fault". Statements like the latter should wait till we know what happened, rather than saying things based on the media and hearsay.

Alex

by **deaneb** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:46 pm

ZK-Brock wrote: I don't think the aircraft would be a write off judging from the pics, however I don't think any further speculation is really appropriate until the facts are made public.

Once the aircraft was lifted with a crane, the wheels were dropped and the aircraft was towed to a hangar, an idication that there is no severe structural damage

Deane

by **ZÃƒÂ¶ltuger** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 8:47 pm

aerial photo showing the 1900D on the sealed runway:
http://www.tv3.co.nz/News/NationalNews/ ... fault.aspx

by **G-HEVN** » Mon Jun 18, 2007 9:03 pm

From that news report, the plane diverted from Welly because the gear wouldn't deploy, so it's unlikely to be 'pilot error' (I can't imagine anyone would divert if they'd simply forgotten to pull the gear knob!) Does the B1900 have audible gear warnings? I'd imagine so.

Given the choice of hard or grass runways for a wheels-up landing, you'd most likely go for the hard to minimise damage (the plane will slide along the tarmac, but dig in to the grass with lots more bits getting ripped off, not to mention all the mud getting in everywhere)

Edit: There's a link for video footage on the right hand side of the page that ZÃƒÂ¶ltuger gave. I rather liked the quote "I've had bumpier landings in Wellington with the wheels down!" :clap: