Today's Message Index:
----------------------
1. 08:41 AM - HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
2. 09:36 AM - Re: "Breakup" (Barry Collman)
3. 09:48 AM - Re: HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (Howard Windham)
4. 10:21 AM - Re: HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE?? (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
5. 10:58 AM - Re: "Breakup" (Nico van Niekerk)
6. 11:19 AM - Re: "Breakup" (Stephen Crow)
7. 01:38 PM - Re: "Breakup" (Barry Collman)
8. 01:44 PM - Re: "Breakup" (Barry Collman)
9. 02:09 PM - Re: "Breakup" (CloudCraft@aol.com)
10. 02:30 PM - operating Costs (Victor Fernandez Cochon)
11. 04:48 PM - Re: "Breakup" (Nico van Niekerk)
12. 07:40 PM - Re: operating Costs (ronald)
13. 09:45 PM - Re: "Breakup" (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
14. 10:06 PM - Re: "Breakup" (Bill Hamilton)
15. 10:10 PM - NICE (SHORT) FLIGHT (YOURTCFG@aol.com)
16. 11:42 PM - Werz da cops?? (Dan Brady)
Message 1
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
HI KIDS....Wow, this is a quite as I have seen this board. I am finishing
the news letter and it should be in the mail this week. I will be delivering
an iguana to his new home in triple 2 today. A short trip, bur still away
faster than driving.
Hope all is well in commanderland. jb
Message 2
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Hi Gang,
Got home yesterday after nearly three weeks in the US.
Sincere thanks are once again due to Capt Jimbob for a most enjoyable trip from
Washougal to Scottsdale and return, for the TCAC University. Plenty of old
friends were there, and made some new ones, including Terry Holding who own a
695 here in England, but who I had never met before.
Thanks too, are due to Jeff Cousins at Twin Commander, who once more allowed me
access to their vaults, in order that further research could be made into the
Warranty Files. Thanks too to Pierre, Geoffrey and Gladys for their help.
The accident in New Zealand which Bill Hamilton refers to was a 680, serial
437-109, ZK-BWA, of Bay of Plenty Airways Ltd. This crashed on November 21st
1961 on Mount Ruapehu. The ICAO report on the accident, culled from the official
NZ Report said the Probable Cause was:
"The cause was the detachment of the starboard mainplane in flight. A
contributory cause was the decision by the pilot to fly close to the summit of
the mountain in an aircraft in which, unknown to him, the starboard wing
structure had been appreciably weakened by a combination of spar cap fractures
and fatigue cracking derived from a past incident. Severe turbulence or some
pilot manoeuvre caused the starboard propeller to strike a part of the mountain
and the resultant vibrational loads, together with the effects of violent
turbulence encountered thereafter, imposed stresses which the weakened wing
structure was incapable of withstanding."
Very Best Regards,
Barry C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Bill Hamilton" <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
| --> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
|
| All,
| There was also a piston model broke up in the air in NZ, in the 60's I
| think from memory,but this was a spar failure, and all the spar problems
| and resultant AD's are well known.
| The NZ aircraft had been subject to some pretty severe operating
| conditions, although conditions on the final flight were not severe, as I
| recall, just time ran out with the spreading crack.
| Regards,
| Bill Hamilton.
|
|
| At 10:38 AM 2/04/03 -0500, you wrote:
| >--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
| >
| >In a message dated 04/01/03 10:43:51 Pacific Standard Time,
| >TILLMAN333@aol.com writes:
| >
| >
| > > Do any of you in Commanderland know of a "In-flight Breakup"
| > > of a Twin Commander?
| >
| >Recently? No.
| >
| >I only know of three. The first was the one that caused the bob weight
| >modification. Legend has it a fellow was recovering from a T-Storm
| >encounter and pulled the tail off. This was an early piston model and I'm
| >not sure of the year, but it was 30 years ago, I think.
| >
| >Next was an AC-690C (model 840) on descent into the Denver area. It was a
| >freighter operated out of Cheyenne, Wyoming and was on a high speed descent.
| >This happened about 5-6 years ago.
| >
| >A United Airlines B-737 reported severe turbulence along the same arrival
| >route and slowed down. The pilot of the Turbo Commander did not and pulled
| >the tail off. Radar plots show his ground speed to be ... hauling ass. This
| >is the root cause of of the admonition to keep descent speeds off the red
| >line.
| >
| >Next was an air ambulance flight that had a tail separation over the Reno,
| >Nevada area. This one begat SB218 -- the tail beef up mod on the Turbo
| >Commander (and 685).
| >
| >Anyone see a trend here?
| >
| >Wing Commander Gordon
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 3
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Howard Windham" <bw_cycon@yahoo.com>
Jim, I suggest Hooter's girls surrounding a commander will stir the
interest and get the group talking again
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com
[mailto:owner-commander-list-server@matronics.com] On Behalf Of
YOURTCFG@aol.com
Subject: Commander-List: HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE??
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
HI KIDS....Wow, this is a quite as I have seen this board. I am
finishing
the news letter and it should be in the mail this week. I will be
delivering
an iguana to his new home in triple 2 today. A short trip, bur still
away
faster than driving.
Hope all is well in commanderland. jb
direct advertising on the Matronics Forums.
Message 4
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: HELLO, ANYBODY OUT THERE?? |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 4/14/2003 10:16:44 AM Pacific Standard Time,
bw_cycon@yahoo.com writes:
> Jim, I suggest Hooter's girls surrounding a commander will stir the
> interest and get the group talking again
>
I have the Commandeer!! jb
Message 5
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Glad you got home safely, Barry.
Isn't that stating the cause a little euphemistically, saying that after the
starboard prop hit the mountain it imposed stresses on the wing? Would a
perfect spar cap have saved this plane?
Surely, there must be some mistake. Wouldn't 50% of the wing be gone by the
time the prop even gets to the mountain?
I don't want to Monday-quarterback the situation, but what's the real cause
here?
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman"
<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
>
> Hi Gang,
>
> Got home yesterday after nearly three weeks in the US.
>
> Sincere thanks are once again due to Capt Jimbob for a most enjoyable trip
from
> Washougal to Scottsdale and return, for the TCAC University. Plenty of old
> friends were there, and made some new ones, including Terry Holding who
own a
> 695 here in England, but who I had never met before.
>
> Thanks too, are due to Jeff Cousins at Twin Commander, who once more
allowed me
> access to their vaults, in order that further research could be made into
the
> Warranty Files. Thanks too to Pierre, Geoffrey and Gladys for their help.
>
> The accident in New Zealand which Bill Hamilton refers to was a 680,
serial
> 437-109, ZK-BWA, of Bay of Plenty Airways Ltd. This crashed on November
21st
> 1961 on Mount Ruapehu. The ICAO report on the accident, culled from the
official
> NZ Report said the Probable Cause was:
>
> "The cause was the detachment of the starboard mainplane in flight. A
> contributory cause was the decision by the pilot to fly close to the
summit of
> the mountain in an aircraft in which, unknown to him, the starboard wing
> structure had been appreciably weakened by a combination of spar cap
fractures
> and fatigue cracking derived from a past incident. Severe turbulence or
some
> pilot manoeuvre caused the starboard propeller to strike a part of the
mountain
> and the resultant vibrational loads, together with the effects of violent
> turbulence encountered thereafter, imposed stresses which the weakened
wing
> structure was incapable of withstanding."
>
> Very Best Regards,
> Barry C.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Hamilton" <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
>
>
<fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
I
I'm
was a
descent.
arrival
pulled
This
red
Reno,
Turbo
>
>
Message 6
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: Stephen Crow <k4cpx@arrl.net>
I suggest the real cause is idiot flying....
----- Original Message -----
From: Nico van Niekerk
To: commander-list@matronics.com
Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:57 PM
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Glad you got home safely, Barry.
Isn't that stating the cause a little euphemistically, saying that after the
starboard prop hit the mountain it imposed stresses on the wing? Would a
perfect spar cap have saved this plane?
Surely, there must be some mistake. Wouldn't 50% of the wing be gone by the
time the prop even gets to the mountain?
I don't want to Monday-quarterback the situation, but what's the real cause
here?
Nico
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman"
<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
>
> Hi Gang,
>
> Got home yesterday after nearly three weeks in the US.
>
> Sincere thanks are once again due to Capt Jimbob for a most enjoyable trip
from
> Washougal to Scottsdale and return, for the TCAC University. Plenty of old
> friends were there, and made some new ones, including Terry Holding who
own a
> 695 here in England, but who I had never met before.
>
> Thanks too, are due to Jeff Cousins at Twin Commander, who once more
allowed me
> access to their vaults, in order that further research could be made into
the
> Warranty Files. Thanks too to Pierre, Geoffrey and Gladys for their help.
>
> The accident in New Zealand which Bill Hamilton refers to was a 680,
serial
> 437-109, ZK-BWA, of Bay of Plenty Airways Ltd. This crashed on November
21st
> 1961 on Mount Ruapehu. The ICAO report on the accident, culled from the
official
> NZ Report said the Probable Cause was:
>
> "The cause was the detachment of the starboard mainplane in flight. A
> contributory cause was the decision by the pilot to fly close to the
summit of
> the mountain in an aircraft in which, unknown to him, the starboard wing
> structure had been appreciably weakened by a combination of spar cap
fractures
> and fatigue cracking derived from a past incident. Severe turbulence or
some
> pilot manoeuvre caused the starboard propeller to strike a part of the
mountain
> and the resultant vibrational loads, together with the effects of violent
> turbulence encountered thereafter, imposed stresses which the weakened
wing
> structure was incapable of withstanding."
>
> Very Best Regards,
> Barry C.
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Bill Hamilton" <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
>
>
> | --> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton
<fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
> |
> | All,
> | There was also a piston model broke up in the air in NZ, in the 60's I
> | think from memory,but this was a spar failure, and all the spar problems
> | and resultant AD's are well known.
> | The NZ aircraft had been subject to some pretty severe operating
> | conditions, although conditions on the final flight were not severe, as
I
> | recall, just time ran out with the spreading crack.
> | Regards,
> | Bill Hamilton.
> |
> |
> | At 10:38 AM 2/04/03 -0500, you wrote:
> | >--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
> | >
> | >In a message dated 04/01/03 10:43:51 Pacific Standard Time,
> | >TILLMAN333@aol.com writes:
> | >
> | >
> | > > Do any of you in Commanderland know of a "In-flight Breakup"
> | > > of a Twin Commander?
> | >
> | >Recently? No.
> | >
> | >I only know of three. The first was the one that caused the bob weight
> | >modification. Legend has it a fellow was recovering from a T-Storm
> | >encounter and pulled the tail off. This was an early piston model and
I'm
> | >not sure of the year, but it was 30 years ago, I think.
> | >
> | >Next was an AC-690C (model 840) on descent into the Denver area. It
was a
> | >freighter operated out of Cheyenne, Wyoming and was on a high speed
descent.
> | >This happened about 5-6 years ago.
> | >
> | >A United Airlines B-737 reported severe turbulence along the same
arrival
> | >route and slowed down. The pilot of the Turbo Commander did not and
pulled
> | >the tail off. Radar plots show his ground speed to be ... hauling ass.
This
> | >is the root cause of of the admonition to keep descent speeds off the
red
> | >line.
> | >
> | >Next was an air ambulance flight that had a tail separation over the
Reno,
> | >Nevada area. This one begat SB218 -- the tail beef up mod on the
Turbo
> | >Commander (and 685).
> | >
> | >Anyone see a trend here?
> | >
> | >Wing Commander Gordon
> | >
> | >
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
> |
>
>
Message 7
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Hi Nico,
I "reprinted" exactly what was stated at the end of the report.
In actuality, the prop tip "nicked" a rocky outcrop on the rim of a crater on
the mountain top. I understand it was the pilot's practice to give his
passengers a view of the crater lake.
The aircraft continued flying, but by now the prop imbalance was imposing stress
on an already-weakened wing structure. It is possible that an adjacent portion
of the fuselage also struck part of the mountain.
Perhaps a little clearer now?
Very Best Regards,
Barry C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
| --> Commander-List message posted by: "Nico van Niekerk"
<nico@cybersuperstore.com>
|
| Glad you got home safely, Barry.
|
| Isn't that stating the cause a little euphemistically, saying that after the
| starboard prop hit the mountain it imposed stresses on the wing? Would a
| perfect spar cap have saved this plane?
| Surely, there must be some mistake. Wouldn't 50% of the wing be gone by the
| time the prop even gets to the mountain?
| I don't want to Monday-quarterback the situation, but what's the real cause
| here?
|
| Nico
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
| To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
|
|
| > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman"
| <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
| >
| > Hi Gang,
| >
| > Got home yesterday after nearly three weeks in the US.
| >
| > Sincere thanks are once again due to Capt Jimbob for a most enjoyable trip
| from
| > Washougal to Scottsdale and return, for the TCAC University. Plenty of old
| > friends were there, and made some new ones, including Terry Holding who
| own a
| > 695 here in England, but who I had never met before.
| >
| > Thanks too, are due to Jeff Cousins at Twin Commander, who once more
| allowed me
| > access to their vaults, in order that further research could be made into
| the
| > Warranty Files. Thanks too to Pierre, Geoffrey and Gladys for their help.
| >
| > The accident in New Zealand which Bill Hamilton refers to was a 680,
| serial
| > 437-109, ZK-BWA, of Bay of Plenty Airways Ltd. This crashed on November
| 21st
| > 1961 on Mount Ruapehu. The ICAO report on the accident, culled from the
| official
| > NZ Report said the Probable Cause was:
| >
| > "The cause was the detachment of the starboard mainplane in flight. A
| > contributory cause was the decision by the pilot to fly close to the
| summit of
| > the mountain in an aircraft in which, unknown to him, the starboard wing
| > structure had been appreciably weakened by a combination of spar cap
| fractures
| > and fatigue cracking derived from a past incident. Severe turbulence or
| some
| > pilot manoeuvre caused the starboard propeller to strike a part of the
| mountain
| > and the resultant vibrational loads, together with the effects of violent
| > turbulence encountered thereafter, imposed stresses which the weakened
| wing
| > structure was incapable of withstanding."
| >
| > Very Best Regards,
| > Barry C.
| >
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "Bill Hamilton" <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
| > To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
| > Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
| >
| >
| > | --> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton
| <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
| > |
| > | All,
| > | There was also a piston model broke up in the air in NZ, in the 60's I
| > | think from memory,but this was a spar failure, and all the spar problems
| > | and resultant AD's are well known.
| > | The NZ aircraft had been subject to some pretty severe operating
| > | conditions, although conditions on the final flight were not severe, as
| I
| > | recall, just time ran out with the spreading crack.
| > | Regards,
| > | Bill Hamilton.
| > |
| > |
| > | At 10:38 AM 2/04/03 -0500, you wrote:
| > | >--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
| > | >
| > | >In a message dated 04/01/03 10:43:51 Pacific Standard Time,
| > | >TILLMAN333@aol.com writes:
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > Do any of you in Commanderland know of a "In-flight Breakup"
| > | > > of a Twin Commander?
| > | >
| > | >Recently? No.
| > | >
| > | >I only know of three. The first was the one that caused the bob weight
| > | >modification. Legend has it a fellow was recovering from a T-Storm
| > | >encounter and pulled the tail off. This was an early piston model and
| I'm
| > | >not sure of the year, but it was 30 years ago, I think.
| > | >
| > | >Next was an AC-690C (model 840) on descent into the Denver area. It
| was a
| > | >freighter operated out of Cheyenne, Wyoming and was on a high speed
| descent.
| > | >This happened about 5-6 years ago.
| > | >
| > | >A United Airlines B-737 reported severe turbulence along the same
| arrival
| > | >route and slowed down. The pilot of the Turbo Commander did not and
| pulled
| > | >the tail off. Radar plots show his ground speed to be ... hauling ass.
| This
| > | >is the root cause of of the admonition to keep descent speeds off the
| red
| > | >line.
| > | >
| > | >Next was an air ambulance flight that had a tail separation over the
| Reno,
| > | >Nevada area. This one begat SB218 -- the tail beef up mod on the
| Turbo
| > | >Commander (and 685).
| > | >
| > | >Anyone see a trend here?
| > | >
| > | >Wing Commander Gordon
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 8
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Hi Stephen,
Yep! The Accidents Investigation Branch, Air Department Report No. 25/3/1192
concluded:
(g) The pilot flew across the summit of Mount Ruapehu at a height which
contravened regulation 38 of the Civil Aviation Regulations in respect of
minimum safe heights.
The Report also said that the turbulence encountered would not by itself have
caused separation of the wing, despite the existence of defects in its
structure. Nor would the propeller strike in similar isolation. (Defects here
means not in the design, but in events which had previously weakened the
structure).
Reassuringly, paragraph (k) says: As a result of this investigation the
structural integrity of the Aero Commander 680S aircraft as a type is
unquestioned.
Very Best Regards,
Barry C.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Stephen Crow" <k4cpx@arrl.net>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
| --> Commander-List message posted by: Stephen Crow <k4cpx@arrl.net>
|
| I suggest the real cause is idiot flying....
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: Nico van Niekerk
| To: commander-list@matronics.com
| Sent: Monday, April 14, 2003 1:57 PM
| Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
|
|
| --> Commander-List message posted by: "Nico van Niekerk"
<nico@cybersuperstore.com>
|
| Glad you got home safely, Barry.
|
| Isn't that stating the cause a little euphemistically, saying that after the
| starboard prop hit the mountain it imposed stresses on the wing? Would a
| perfect spar cap have saved this plane?
| Surely, there must be some mistake. Wouldn't 50% of the wing be gone by the
| time the prop even gets to the mountain?
| I don't want to Monday-quarterback the situation, but what's the real cause
| here?
|
| Nico
|
|
| ----- Original Message -----
| From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
| To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
| Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
|
|
| > --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman"
| <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
| >
| > Hi Gang,
| >
| > Got home yesterday after nearly three weeks in the US.
| >
| > Sincere thanks are once again due to Capt Jimbob for a most enjoyable trip
| from
| > Washougal to Scottsdale and return, for the TCAC University. Plenty of old
| > friends were there, and made some new ones, including Terry Holding who
| own a
| > 695 here in England, but who I had never met before.
| >
| > Thanks too, are due to Jeff Cousins at Twin Commander, who once more
| allowed me
| > access to their vaults, in order that further research could be made into
| the
| > Warranty Files. Thanks too to Pierre, Geoffrey and Gladys for their help.
| >
| > The accident in New Zealand which Bill Hamilton refers to was a 680,
| serial
| > 437-109, ZK-BWA, of Bay of Plenty Airways Ltd. This crashed on November
| 21st
| > 1961 on Mount Ruapehu. The ICAO report on the accident, culled from the
| official
| > NZ Report said the Probable Cause was:
| >
| > "The cause was the detachment of the starboard mainplane in flight. A
| > contributory cause was the decision by the pilot to fly close to the
| summit of
| > the mountain in an aircraft in which, unknown to him, the starboard wing
| > structure had been appreciably weakened by a combination of spar cap
| fractures
| > and fatigue cracking derived from a past incident. Severe turbulence or
| some
| > pilot manoeuvre caused the starboard propeller to strike a part of the
| mountain
| > and the resultant vibrational loads, together with the effects of violent
| > turbulence encountered thereafter, imposed stresses which the weakened
| wing
| > structure was incapable of withstanding."
| >
| > Very Best Regards,
| > Barry C.
| >
| >
| > ----- Original Message -----
| > From: "Bill Hamilton" <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
| > To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
| > Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
| >
| >
| > | --> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton
| <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
| > |
| > | All,
| > | There was also a piston model broke up in the air in NZ, in the 60's I
| > | think from memory,but this was a spar failure, and all the spar problems
| > | and resultant AD's are well known.
| > | The NZ aircraft had been subject to some pretty severe operating
| > | conditions, although conditions on the final flight were not severe, as
| I
| > | recall, just time ran out with the spreading crack.
| > | Regards,
| > | Bill Hamilton.
| > |
| > |
| > | At 10:38 AM 2/04/03 -0500, you wrote:
| > | >--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
| > | >
| > | >In a message dated 04/01/03 10:43:51 Pacific Standard Time,
| > | >TILLMAN333@aol.com writes:
| > | >
| > | >
| > | > > Do any of you in Commanderland know of a "In-flight Breakup"
| > | > > of a Twin Commander?
| > | >
| > | >Recently? No.
| > | >
| > | >I only know of three. The first was the one that caused the bob weight
| > | >modification. Legend has it a fellow was recovering from a T-Storm
| > | >encounter and pulled the tail off. This was an early piston model and
| I'm
| > | >not sure of the year, but it was 30 years ago, I think.
| > | >
| > | >Next was an AC-690C (model 840) on descent into the Denver area. It
| was a
| > | >freighter operated out of Cheyenne, Wyoming and was on a high speed
| descent.
| > | >This happened about 5-6 years ago.
| > | >
| > | >A United Airlines B-737 reported severe turbulence along the same
| arrival
| > | >route and slowed down. The pilot of the Turbo Commander did not and
| pulled
| > | >the tail off. Radar plots show his ground speed to be ... hauling ass.
| This
| > | >is the root cause of of the admonition to keep descent speeds off the
| red
| > | >line.
| > | >
| > | >Next was an air ambulance flight that had a tail separation over the
| Reno,
| > | >Nevada area. This one begat SB218 -- the tail beef up mod on the
| Turbo
| > | >Commander (and 685).
| > | >
| > | >Anyone see a trend here?
| > | >
| > | >Wing Commander Gordon
| > | >
| > | >
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| > |
| >
| >
|
|
|
|
|
|
Message 9
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
In a message dated 04/14/03 13:58:21 Pacific Daylight Time,
barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes:
> In actuality, the prop tip "nicked" a rocky outcrop on the rim of a crater
> on
> the mountain top. I understand it was the pilot's practice to give his
> passengers a view of the crater lake.
> The aircraft continued flying, but by now the prop imbalance was imposing
> stress
> on an already-weakened wing structure. It is possible that an adjacent
> portion
> of the fuselage also struck part of the mountain.
Sir Barry,
Thank you for your always sterling research and insights into all things
Commander.
I think I can speak for Nico and one or two (thousand) others who would
rather see this incident categorized as CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain)
and not an "in-flight breakup" which gives the impression the Aero Commander
came apart because of faulty structure.
Of course, if this had happened in the United States, the bereaved widow
would have sued the mountain -- and the builder of the airplane.
Wing Commander Gordon
Message 10
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Victor Fernandez Cochon" <vfc@fernandezgonzalez.com>
Hey gang,
Anyone have an outline of what to consider for actual operating costs for the 500
I just want to have an estimate of what it'll cost me per hour and have been working
on it but don't know if I'm missing something.
Any help appreciated,
Thanks,
Victor
Message 11
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Nico van Niekerk" <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
It's still an amazing thing that the prop actually struck the mountain and
the rest of the plane mostly missing it. It's not like a low-wing job with
its props swinging well below the fuselage of the plane.
I flew a Piper Colt back to the airport after striking a mountain with the
undercarraige and I still visualize the scene and how close that was. And it
was more than 30 years ago. But compared to this accident what happened to
me was nothing. Hitting the ground with the undercarriage is most of the
time part of the job description, but getting a Commander's prop to do that?
WOW.
Nico
PS. Are we sure he wasn't trying to show his pax the view inverted ala Bob
Hoover style?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Barry Collman" <barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Barry Collman"
<barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk>
>
> Hi Stephen,
>
> Yep! The Accidents Investigation Branch, Air Department Report No.
25/3/1192
> concluded:
> (g) The pilot flew across the summit of Mount Ruapehu at a height which
> contravened regulation 38 of the Civil Aviation Regulations in respect of
> minimum safe heights.
>
> The Report also said that the turbulence encountered would not by itself
have
> caused separation of the wing, despite the existence of defects in its
> structure. Nor would the propeller strike in similar isolation. (Defects
here
> means not in the design, but in events which had previously weakened the
> structure).
>
> Reassuringly, paragraph (k) says: As a result of this investigation the
> structural integrity of the Aero Commander 680S aircraft as a type is
> unquestioned.
>
> Very Best Regards,
> Barry C.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Stephen Crow" <k4cpx@arrl.net>
> To: <commander-list@matronics.com>
> Subject: Re: Commander-List: "Breakup"
>
>
> <nico@cybersuperstore.com>
after the
a
by the
cause
enjoyable trip
of old
who
into
help.
November
the
A
wing
or
the
violent
weakened
60's I
problems
severe, as
weight
T-Storm
model and
It
speed
and
hauling ass.
the
the
the
>
>
Message 12
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | Re: operating Costs |
--> Commander-List message posted by: "ronald" <pakrak@charter.net>
figure 190.00 per hour
----- Original Message -----
From: "Victor Fernandez Cochon" <vfc@fernandezgonzalez.com>
Subject: Commander-List: operating Costs
> --> Commander-List message posted by: "Victor Fernandez Cochon"
<vfc@fernandezgonzalez.com>
>
> Hey gang,
> Anyone have an outline of what to consider for actual operating costs for
the 500
> I just want to have an estimate of what it'll cost me per hour and have
been working on it but don't know if I'm missing something.
> Any help appreciated,
> Thanks,
> Victor
>
>
Message 13
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
In a message dated 4/14/2003 4:57:53 PM Pacific Standard Time,
barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes:
> Reassuringly, paragraph (k) says: As a result of this investigation the
> structural integrity of the Aero Commander 680S aircraft as a type is
> unquestioned
HI BARRY.
Glad you made it home. We had spoken about the 680Super ever being
officially refered to as a 680S. I have an old brochure that does in fact
refer to the new 680S. So, I guise that makes it official?? jb
Message 14
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: Bill Hamilton <fighterf@ozemail.com.au>
All,
I think it is reasonable to say that the engineering investigation of this
accident did play a part in the emergence of the various ADs for various
models of Aero Commander involving wing spars.
The official accident report on this accident is controversial to this day,
as recently as last year a major article appeared in a NZ magazine,
"Pacific Wings", disputing the original report, particularly the "prop
strike scenario", and saying that the wreckage investigation showed that
the prop struck the airframe at the time of the breakup, and on the final
flight the aircraft didn't go ant where near the volcano, even though it
was clear that the aircraft had operated in an environment that would be
"severe" in terms of current design and fatigue life standards.
Interestingly enough, some spar strap modifications designed by or for the
then Aero Commander agent in Australia in the early 60's to obtain approval
for increased gross weights pretty much covered the ground for the later
spar straps. Even my relatively light weight 500A has an applicable AD for
this.
One of the contributing problems leading to the requirement for the spar
strap was a production induced problem, the extrusions that are part of the
build up of the main spar were cold bent, without any further stress
relieving heat treatment.
Does anybody have any more information on this.
At 05:08 PM 14/04/03 -0400, CloudCraft@aol.com wrote:
>--> Commander-List message posted by: CloudCraft@aol.com
>
>In a message dated 04/14/03 13:58:21 Pacific Daylight Time,
>barry.collman@air-britain.co.uk writes:
>
>
> > In actuality, the prop tip "nicked" a rocky outcrop on the rim of a crater
> > on
> > the mountain top. I understand it was the pilot's practice to give his
> > passengers a view of the crater lake.
> > The aircraft continued flying, but by now the prop imbalance was imposing
> > stress
> > on an already-weakened wing structure. It is possible that an adjacent
> > portion
> > of the fuselage also struck part of the mountain.
>
>Sir Barry,
>
>Thank you for your always sterling research and insights into all things
>Commander.
>
>I think I can speak for Nico and one or two (thousand) others who would
>rather see this incident categorized as CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain)
>and not an "in-flight breakup" which gives the impression the Aero Commander
>came apart because of faulty structure.
>
>Of course, if this had happened in the United States, the bereaved widow
>would have sued the mountain -- and the builder of the airplane.
>
>Wing Commander Gordon
>
>
Message 15
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
| Subject: | NICE (SHORT) FLIGHT |
--> Commander-List message posted by: YOURTCFG@aol.com
HI KIDS.
I flew triple 2 to Hillsboro this afternoon to deliver a 4"
iguana to it's new owner (great young family) Great evening to fly. Just
enough weather to make it interesting, but not to ever place the outcome in
doubt.
Flew home at night, wonderful to fly over the city at night. Made a
rough crosswind landing back at 1W1. All in all a good day in
"Commanderland" and "Iguanaland" Hope all is well in your commanderland. jb
Message 16
| INDEX | Back to Main INDEX |
| PREVIOUS | Skip to PREVIOUS Message |
| NEXT | Skip to NEXT Message |
| LIST | Reply to LIST Regarding this Message |
| SENDER | Reply to SENDER Regarding this Message |
|
--> Commander-List message posted by: "Dan Brady" <westwindaero@sbcglobal.net>
Homeland Security....protecting us from terrorists?....I think not!! 2 weeks ago
on 31 MAR in the wee small hours of the morning a well planned & skillfully
executed terrorist attack took place on Chicago's lake front. The runway & many
access areas & ramps were destroyed in such a manner that repair costs would
be astronomical. This action came as quite a shock to the owners of the 17 aircraft
trapped in the tiedown area as well as workers who showed up only to find
their workplace destroyed. The mastermind of this attack is well known to the
Federal authorities but just like Saddam H. he recently won an uncontested
5th term as Grand Pooh-Bah of his Sheikdom & as a result is not only thumbing
his nose at the Fed but openly bragging about this illegal & cowardly act......He
claims he did it to protect the citizens of Chicago from terrorists....(pardon
me while I look for my barf bag )....yet for years before this attack he
has claimed he needed this airport property to provide more parkland for the people
even though the vacant & unkempt shoreline south of the airport (where many
of the people actually live) cries out for parks. Also the budget is so tight
that the existing parks are short of programs & falling into disrepair. Lord
help us if we forget to leave our nail clippers at home or miss the trash can
with our candy wrapper or ste p over the line between the out door smoking
& nonsmoking areas (in -40 F. wind chill) at ORD or MDW .....after the strip searching,
luggage tossing & general humiliation if we haven't been locked up as
suspected terrorists, we'll surely miss our flight no matter how late its departure........Yet
the grandest terrorist in the area moves freely through the
land (accompanied by his detail of bodyguards of course) no Federal Marshals....no
contingent of USMC to free the hard working over taxed citizens of their
yoke of oppression....Oh well I guess some of us are more equal than others.
Through 6 decades I have flown a variety of aircraft on a variety of missions
in & out of Meigs Field & even in some trying WX it has always been an uplifting
experience for me & my PAX....the views of one of the most beautiful shoreline/skylines
in the world seems to reach out & welcome you to this obviously
wonderous city....thanks for taking that away from the people Grand Pooh-Head
"DICK"!!....Oh! thank you too Homeland Security for protecting me from "Dickhead
terrorists like this!! Fortunately I moved to the high-desert mountains of
Nevada before this outrageous act but I weep for the friends & family I left behind
): Do I sound upset to you? Heck I've barely got the oil temps high enough
for take off..6277B
Other Matronics Email List Services
These Email List Services are sponsored solely by Matronics and through the generous Contributions of its members.
-- Please support this service by making your Contribution today! --
|