Another Airlink aircraft down

How much water does It take to aquaplane a plane?

I Still do not see enough water. IF it is so easy, why does airports not close when it starts to rain? I live close to OR Tambo. And they only ground the planes in very very bad weather. Thunderstorms High winds and heavy rains.

Why were it not sent to PE if it was rain related?

Aquaplaning can happen with very little water.

Aquaplaning is actually quite rare because of various techniques used to mitigate the risk. The a/c was not sent to any other airport because the accident could not be foreseen. Other a/c had used the runway just before the accident.
 
At what sort of speed can one attempt a "ground-loop"

I considered adding the option of a groundloop in my first post, but it is not really an effective maneuver to get rid of speed and is very difficult to get going. I mostly just causes departing the runway facing backwards.
 
It's prolly like attempting a donut in an 1100cc car with new tyres. You end up in the wall.
 
Last edited:
Walls

It's prolly like attempting a donut in an 1100cc car with new tyres. You end up in the wall.

NO walls on an airstrip -- just the ones to keep the "self-loading-cargo" at bay :D

Anyone have an idea of what speed the unfortunate bird was doing when it went through the fence

MW
 
According to the a article on News24 the runway was recently resurfaced and groves that help with handling in wet weather had not been cut in the runway yet. Also it was the first rains in a long time and the oils and rubber on the runway float around and make the surface very slippery...
 
Ok, so that sounds more like dangerous play on the part of ACSA. Wonder why they aren't being roasted for that! Or is it going to come out...
 
According to the a article on News24 the runway was recently resurfaced and groves that help with handling in wet weather had not been cut in the runway yet. Also it was the first rains in a long time and the oils and rubber on the runway float around and make the surface very slippery...

If the resurfacing part is true, then there has not been enough time for rubber deposits to build up. The grooves are only cut in the last 100m or so of the runway. I don't think they would have stopped the excursion, although it could have been slower and avoided the fence and road.
 
Not sure why people assume its pilot error?? Maybe some MS flightsim players think that.

If there is any doubt, the situation will be spun by the accident investigators to indicate ‘pilot error’. It is too expensive for the airline to ground aircraft for technical or maintenance faults. The pilot is always the scapegoat. It’s only his reputation and livelihood not high-priority shareholder profits.
 
Never fear, the CAA accident investigators are on the job. Just because some fast footwork was required by Trevor Abrahams (head of the CAA in years gone by) in the trial regarding the issuing of fraudulent pilots licences by the South African Civil Aviation Authority (CAA), is no reason to assume that the pilot was an AA ******** or that the quality of maintenance was low. Or there was rampant corruption. Just because an examiner for the CAA (Murad Ismail), testified against Abrahams and eight other pilots in the case and South Africa's pilot community were outraged, is no reason to doubt the results. There is an assumption that Ismail should know the facts because he issued all the fraudulent licences. This is untrue and racist. A review panel appointed in 2000 by the CAA (unbiased as well), recommended disciplinary steps against Ismail and a reprimand for Abrahams (the boss of the CAA). It’s absolute rubbish that one of the iffy licences was issued to Nicolaus Delacovia in 1999 who went on to crash his plane in Mozambique, killing himself and a passenger (mysteriously, his initial [fraudulent] licence was upgraded, allowing him to fly passenger airliners [such as the Boeing 737] in any weather, night or day). The whole Delacovia incident will be hard to wriggle out of because of the racist accusations. Two independent investigations by the CAA found their boss guilty of piloting an aircraft without the proper qualifications and failing to report a serious crash landing, as stipulated by the law (obviously a colonial plot). Rumour has it that the CAA have struck a deal with Diggory Dog Food manufacturers. If you send-in 3 dog food labels (no photostats please) together with a statement that your life skills and experience qualify you to fly an aeroplane you will receive, by return of mail, a commercial pilots licence. BUT WAIT! That’s not all. If you send in your request immediately you will also receive one of the new Airbus A380s (limited stocks, first come first served).
 
If there is any doubt, the situation will be spun by the accident investigators to indicate ‘pilot error’. It is too expensive for the airline to ground aircraft for technical or maintenance faults. The pilot is always the scapegoat. It’s only his reputation and livelihood not high-priority shareholder profits.
Sadly, this happens. Odd how you don't get a report of "Doctor error" when a patient dies. It's usually "we did our best and that's all we can say".
 
Unfortunately the culture of commercial aviation is such that getting the thing on the ground is the priority

Firstly, I am glad NUGPOT posted some comments here to enlighten some of the guys (and gals) who are not quite as clued up as they think they might be about aviation.

I fly with nugpot for the same company so i like to think i also know a thing or 2 about flying ;-)

Firstly, the above quote is simply not true. The priority in commercial aviation is the safety of the passengers. As simple as that. If the conditions at an airport are not safe, the crew will not even attempt to land and divert to the alternate airport (our airline anyway). I have diverted about 4 times this year and been on 2 delayed flights due to weather. Often the passengers will get angry but you explain the reasons they calm down..

The general aviation knowledge of the reporters is shocking, not only locally but worldwide. They often use wrong terms and blow things out of proportions and sensationalise stories to sell their papers. Stuff like "passengers were ejected from the aircraft after the landing" is just an example of poor reporting.

On the accident, i agree with everything nugpot has said so far. On every accident, there is always a chain of events that lead to that accident. Aquaplaning in this case is just one link in that chain. Unstable approach, too high a speed on touch down, bad landing technique are all things that could have contributed to the accident. The only way we will know what really happened is when the CAA releases the accident report and we get to hear the cockpit voice recorders (CVR).. The CVR and flight data recorders never lie..
 
Ajax... do you think the standard of training in South Africa is good? I'm talking early days - not necessarily those who make it to the commercial scene.

What do you think of guys training using cheaper choppers and planes - thinking Robinson choppers, old pipers / cessnas etc...

There seem to be alot of young folk going for aviation training these days - far more than before. I have a friend who is an instructor at 23 years old - and he's been training for years and flying even longer.
 
Training organisations are by law bound to meet certain minimum criteria. If they dont meet those then their licence is taken away and they close down. So it is in their interest to train the pilots to do the jobs correctly. Having said that, there will always be schools that are better than others because of their instructors / teaching techniques and thats the same in all industries.

As for using "cheaper" or older aircraft, I dont see anything wrong with that. The aspirant pilot has to learn the basics on a BASIC aircraft. You cant just go and put him into a Boeing 747 with very little pilot experience and expect him to do the job without lots of mistakes. Flying is all about learning from others more senior to yourself and also getting the basics right.

As for the instructors in their sub 25's... I am personally not a big fan of that. In most cases they dont have any real experience outside of their local flying club and are only giving instruction to get the minimum number of hours required to send off their cv's to the airlines. In an ideal world I would much rather get instruction from some one who has been there done that (thats how the air force works).
 
Ok - reason I asked is I heard from a Dutch friend who has flown Boeing 737, 747, 767 most of his career (over 30 years) - he was not happy with the standard of training is done in SA - says it's not well regulated and it's too easy to get a license. Just thought it was interesting to hear from another obvoiusly experienced perspective. I imagine, as you say, that it changes from school to school.
 
Cockpit damage from my favorite avcom.co.za forum

Co pilot sitting on the Right Hand Side damaged his ankle no wonder whew
Link1001.jpg


Scanner_073.jpg


Scanner_075.jpg
 
Top
Sign up to the MyBroadband newsletter
X