MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, June 6th 2023 - 05:41 UTC



Ten people killed as small chartered plane crashes few minutes after takeoff in Uruguay

Friday, March 20th 2015 - 07:05 UTC
Full article 46 comments

Ten people have been reported dead when a small chartered airplane with Argentine plates crashed Thursday night after taking off at the Laguna del Sauce airport, near the Uruguayan resort of Punta del Este. Rescue teams and fire personnel confirmed at least seven charred bodies. Read full article


Disclaimer & comment rules
  • ChrisR

    That was a pretty little twin turbine three prop plane that sat at the far end park most of this summer together with its sister.

    Always sad to hear of this sort of disaster.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 11:46 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Always sad to hear of loss of life.

    Let's just hope they weren't 'suicided'. Did they have links with argentine Farmers Union?

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 12:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    1st, the model of the plane is not “air king”, but “king air”.
    2nd, punta del este is not an atlantic resort, but a city.

    and you christine, what “pretty little plane” are you talking about?
    it is the best in its category.
    now, the strange thing is that it is an 8 passenger plane, and this one had a 10 seater configuration.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 12:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • SebaSvtz

    RIP people, really sad to hear.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 12:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    stop lying, you piece of crap.
    surely you are so glad with the death of 9 argies, no?
    so stick all that “sad to hear and blablabla” up to your ass.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 12:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    What did I lie about?
    I expressed my genuine regrets for any loss of life, and raised a perfectly legitimate question, especially considering CFK's record.

    Why are you talking about the name of the plane, and whether or not Punta del Este is an atlantic resort, or a city?
    Or how the plane was configured?
    Digression as always!

    PS: “carried 10 people on board: eight passengers and two pilots” So, an eight-seater then? Pilots are not passengers, you only count the seats passengers can be seated on. But as an, (self-proclaimed), experienced pilot such as yourself, you would know that, wouldn't you?
    arf! arf!

    penguin-cedron, please stop embarrassing yourself and get back to fantay-surfing, unicorn polo-playing, online architectural-global-domination, malvina-believing, basement-living.
    Or just the paco-pipe... as you do.
    Just keep on sucking...
    Your comedy value is appreciated!

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 01:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    Comment removed by the editor.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 01:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Argentines fly without a co-pilot when transporting public passengers?
    Wow! How crazy is that!
    (if true?)
    Can anyone else support this?

    Paco-cedron, get off the pipe and re-read the article above.
    Direct quote:
    ”The aircraft, a “Beechcraft C 90” model Air King that was registered in Argentina under the ID “LV-CEO” and belonging to Aviajet, carried 10 people on board: eight passengers and two pilots (eight men and two women).”

    You stand corrected. No need to thank me, as always your comedic ineptitude is welcome instead.

    An 8-seater normally would have two crew members. You are forgetting that I have taken numerous trips in Chile, Colombia and Venezuela in 8 and 12 seater aircraft and we always had two pilots.

    I think you have just proved that you are not the pilot you claim to be.

    Still, keep posting, I like my daily laff!

    PS: Do you think the crash was due to poor maintainence or just 'latino machismo?

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 01:57 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    8 imbecile
    it seems your response was to report my comment...what a
    lets see if your tiny little mind can understand it.
    the king air (air king is a model of rolex you ass) can transport 8 people, not 10.
    it is a question of WEIGHT, you asshole.
    can you understand that?

    so if you have 1 pilot, you can transport 7 people more.
    if you have 1 pílot and 1 copilot, you can transport 6 people more.

    1 + 7 = 8
    2 + 6 = 8

    a configuration of 10 seater is not for this model.
    and this model does not need a copilot.

    got it?

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    I didn't report your comment. I don't need too. I am happy to trounce you in public. Maybe the editor did not approve of your lies and nasty comments about these unfortunate deaths?

    Your 'Air King/ King Air' argument is merely a matter for Mercopress sub-editors. I have not said otherwise.

    Try reading the article again.
    It states that there were 10 people 'on-board', 8 men and 2 women. So 10 in total. That includes the two pilots and eight passengers.
    It does not differentiate as to who were pilots and who were passengers.

    Then you say @9 “the king air [..] can transport 8 people, not 10”

    yes, people, not 'plus pilots', how do these people fly without pilots?

    To read the article once more, one could be forgiven for thinking that both pilots were women?
    ref: ”carried 10 people on board: eight passengers and two pilots (eight men and two women).”

    If so, I retract my suggestion of 'latino machismo', maybe it was down to careless maintainence on the ground?

    You keep talking about 'a configuration of 10 seater is not for this model.'

    We know this, an 8-seater is just that, you don't count the pilot seats!

    irrespective of your so-called 'configurations' the article clearly states that there where two pilots on-board.

    Your comprehension of the English laguage is equivalent to your Pilots Licence, non-existent.

    I've 'got it' do you now?

    PS: As a 'pilot' in Argentina are you not concerned about all so many deaths in your skies recently?

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:37 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    seriously, you are not too bright, are you?
    of course there were 10 people aboard.
    that's why there are 10 dead...boludo.
    and that could be the reason of the accident since, the C90 is a plane FOR 8 PEOPLE, you idiot.

    so surely plane was overloaded.

    got it now, you benny-hillbilly?

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Conqueror

    @1. 'three prop'? Where did they put the third one? Even the real propellors have for blades.
    @3. I'm curious. How does a hovel with a population of 9,277 get to be a 'city'?
    @5, 9. Surely you must understand that the problem here is letting an argie getting its hands on a piece of technology. See the headline 'Ten people killed as small chartered plane crashes few minutes after takeoff in Uruguay'. Did you read the article? TWO pilots and EIGHT passengers. Thanks for confirming the intelligence of argies. A pilot and a passenger more than the aircraft is designed for. What a GOOD idea to NEVER board an argie aircraft or any aircraft with an argie aircrew. The new reasons for flight departure delays as passengers demand to see the passports of the flight crew. Now to be renamed 'flight crap'.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 02:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    So now you are saying it was due to incompetence and flying illegally?

    Wow, great defence!

    You don't need to remind me to never board an Argentine flight ever again.

    I flew Aerolinas Argentinas back in nineties. Never again. This is a timely reminder of attitudes to air safety in that place.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 03:29 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    “Wow, great defence! ”...says the
    and why the fuck am i going to defend them, you asshole?
    overloading is one of the most common causes of accidents in planes, you retard.

    as for: “You don't need to remind me to never board an Argentine flight ever again”
    let´s get real benny-hillbilly.
    you have never left the stinky shack in porko stanley.

    it seems the other imbecile conqueror have the same problems of understanding than you, eh?.
    and then they say the are not a genetic

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 03:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    Perhaps 'overloading ' is common amongst Argentine pilots, it doesn't happen in Europe.
    Europe is a place I spend a lot of time. I am not sure if you are familiar with it paulie? It is in the Northern Hemisphere, so probably you are unacquainted?
    PS: google street view is not the same thing lol!

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 04:12 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    again, stop lying.
    you have never left that stinky shack.
    it is the only place you know.
    and it is in the stinky islets, not in europe, you asshole.

    about overloading planes, again, it is the most common cause of accidents.
    here in europe or wherever the fuck you want.
    and it is pretty common between british airlines or in the airlines of their 3rd class colonies.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Would you care to give more examples of how common this is in British Airlines.
    Please quote the Air Accidents Investigation Boards findings that point to your assertion.
    I have checked the 2014 annual review of the AAIB for crashes due to overloaded aircraft and can find none.
    Perhaps you know better ?

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 05:22 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Klingon

    Well I have flown in a King Air and it is the largest aircraft legally allowed to fly with 1 pilot. I actually rode in the co pilots seat on one of the legs.
    That plane was configured with 6 passenger seats (large leather).
    The reports indicate that it lost power and looks like the pilots tried to belly land it in the lake.
    Just remember with all your swearing and cursing there are 10 families grieving today :(

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 06:05 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    It is no good trying to educate POLLY about anything, least of all highly technical approval requirements such as aircraft.

    Firstly the King Air “could” have been modified by one of the many companies that offer performance improvements though it still had three props when I would have expected 4 prop engines.

    Secondly it is not ALL about the weight, far from it. A C90 usually has about 4,400 Kg max take off weight BUT the controlling factor is the CofG calculation which MUST be done and recorded EACH time something changes that would alter the trim. Full tanks, full quota of passengers, full baggage hold, etc, etc.

    Having the thing tail heavy would be a real problem for the pilots to cope with on take-off whether it was overweight or not. The angle of attack of the control surfaces would have been compromised and may be the real cause of the disaster.

    The other problem of course is obvious: being argie maintained is the same as being BADLY maintained. Eventually all these problems are bound to result in crashes, there are NO accidents, there are ALWAYS reasons!

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 07:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    first, i would love to know where the fuck you can see 3 (THREE) propellers in the c90.
    second, AGAIN, overweight is one of the main causes of aerial accidents.
    that´s why all of you, big balls of fat, should be banned of taking a plane.
    “Overweight caused Nepal's plane crash last year: investigation”
    “Obese passengers could have caused plane crash”

    about maintenance, aero baires is the official representative of beechcraft in argentina, and it is the best in southamerica.

    rest of the nabos:
    lets talk about some basic concepts that, of course, NONE OF YOU have the slightest idea.
    the important thing here is the payload, la capacidad de carga útil, you nabos.
    and it is +/- 850 kg.
    now subtract the weight for luggage +/- 150kg
    and the result is 700 kg.
    700 kg is the equivalent for 8 (EIGHT) PEOPLE, you dumbassholes.

    that´s why the c90 is an aircraft for...8 (EIGHT) PEOPLE.
    understand now, you knuckleheads?

    it would be as if i wanted to transport 10 people in my bonanza, when the capacity is for 5 (1 + 4 = 5)
    and like the c90, it DOES NOT NEED A COPILOT.

    it seems the problem with you islanders is not only ignorance but a complete lack of intelligence.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 09:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR


    Oh what a stupid POLLY you are.

    How many engines on the King Air: TWO

    How many blades on each engine:

    C90B three, C90GTx four

    How many on the FAA approved engine upgrade for the C90? four!

    AND on the 100 series: four!

    Clarin have an update about the passengers and at least one of the women does not fit in to the La Rural team. Ho-hum, eh?

    ““Obese passengers could have caused plane crash””
    Should have read: PILOT caused the plane crash, he did not compute the CofG calculation properly.

    IF you were a pilot and frankly I do not believe you, YOU would know all the regulations about the calculation and the corrective actions that MUST be taken to correct the balance point within the specified tolerance in both planes (that's geometrical planes, dummy).

    Furthermore, if you look at the specifications for all planes FAA design approval you will find the overload maximum! This forms the basis for transporting planes across large bodies of water for delivery. Try California to Australia without an initial gross overload.

    “it seems the problem with you is not only ignorance but a complete lack of intelligence.” That at least IS believable.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 10:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    i really expected a bit more from you, but clearly you are the same thing as the rest of the isleters.
    your words: “That was a pretty little twin turbine three prop plane”
    so, again, where the fuck is the 3rd propeller?
    you meant 3 blade propellers?
    you confuse blades with propellers?
    do you know how to speak properly in english?
    and you dare to talk about planes?
    you are a joke.

    to conclude my class of today, the plane was a nice 1969 B90, not a C90 like this 4th class site said, and i bet that the cause of the accident was overweight.

    Mar 20th, 2015 - 11:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    you know how to speak properly in english?

    The word propeller is also used in English to denote a propeller blade.

    He used the expression twin turbine which to an English speaker means twin engined. The expression 3 propellers refers to the number of blades.

    Any native English speaker would understand what this without any problem. As a native Spanish speaker I can understand that you are not quite up to speed in colloquial writing or speech.

    By the way, you have not answered my query at #17. Are you in a position to do so.

    My brother was Chief of the Air Traffic Inspectorate for Scotland and the N. of England and we would discuss some of the cases in which he was involved.
    I cannot remember ONE in which an accident was caused by overloading.
    Probably Air Traffic standards are lower in your part of the world.

    Mar 21st, 2015 - 01:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    first, it is not: “you know how to speak properly in english?”, but : “do you know how to speak properly in english?”

    second, aerial accidents are most of the times, i would say always, multicausal.
    so if your plane is overloaded and you have a problem in your engine, flaps, undercarriage, etc, you will surely have an accident.

    third, good try of scotland.
    hope ireland win the tournament, but i expected more from scotland since they have some very good players.

    Mar 21st, 2015 - 03:11 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    I obviously missed the word do when I pasted your comments.

    Any air accident enquiry in the UK would report that any overloading of an aircraft would be the primary cause of an accident as it would seriously affect the handling of the aircraft, especially in respect of it's stalling speed and control handling.
    As a footnote, my son has been asked to organise the RAF's 100th anniversary
    exhibition at the Museum at Hendon. He was pleased but rather surprised as he is the expert on the Falkland's campaign.
    If I don't know anything I ask him !

    Mar 21st, 2015 - 05:43 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 22 POLLY

    Now that Clyde15 has 'put you right' about the correct and familiar use of English can you please explain to me why you claim the plane was a 1969 B90?

    I am intrigued because as usual your argie plane registry is not accessible via the internet, you have to e-mail the idiots to find anything out about a plane.

    ALL modern western countries have internet access to this data, it helps combat theft for one thing! But argies wouldn't want to combat theft, would they.

    BTW, if you ARE correct the plane is of course 46 years old and should be pensioned off before the barrel cracks due to fatigue.

    I have to say from my knowledge of the plane it does not appear to be the 'B' version having checked the manufacturers specifications for both types.

    Mar 21st, 2015 - 08:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Another point I missed. Omitting “Do” from “do you know how to speak properly in english?” is equally correct and more common in colloquial English.'

    you know how to speak properly in english, don't you ? is shortened by the removal of don't you . In speech the word know would be emphasised and the inflexion would be raised at the end of the sentence as it is a question.

    Subtleties that are difficult for non native speakers to grasp.

    Mar 21st, 2015 - 10:20 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    grandpa / christine.
    now i do not have the time to teach both of you about the correct use of “do”, “don't”, the use of the comma, etc.

    now, returning to the plane, here you have, christine:
    LV-CEO Beech B90 King Air c/n LJ-454

    in brief: a 1969 king air b90.
    you are not very used to goolge, the internet and stuff, eh?

    and since when a plane of 46 years is old?
    if it has all the “recorridos”, services, etc, then it is perfectly safe.

    Mar 21st, 2015 - 10:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    On the subject of ' peruvian-cedron and 'correct' English'...
    (all posters, please see previous comments)

    Further proof that paulcedron is an Anglophile, desperate to be taken seriously by the Brits, always trying to prove he 'is more English than them etc.'
    Much as he likes to try to cricticise, for example, picking up real Brits on their grammar etc, he fails at the first hurdle. Namely that those who own the language are comfortable be 'loose'/playfull with the language, knowing that their brethern will forgive, even enjoy, the flexibility permitted to those 'inside the tent, pissing out' rather than those outside, so busy trying to 'get in' that they don't notice that they are pissing on their own feet.
    The British have seen many examples of this over the centuries and are not so easily swayed by such protestations, arguments, or otherwise.

    It is always the newly converted that becomes the most fundamentalist.
    However, in this case, we are witness to penguin-cedron disappearing up his own fundament....

    Hence, the shit-storm when he has no logic to support his 'statements'.

    If anyone wants to quote the fictional Lance-Corporal-Jones, of 'Dad's Army', as to exactly where paco-cedron 'don't like it', please be my guest!

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 03:10 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    I have let MANY of your GAFFS go as I realise you are only up to speed in swearing in Spanish. For example,you continually use i for the first personal pronoun singular when it should be I....CAPITAL LETTER !

    Back to your unsupported assertion about overloading planes,
    “ again, it is the most common cause of accidents. here in europe or wherever the fuck you want.
    and it is pretty common between british airlines or in the airlines of their 3rd class colonies.”

    Show me where you came across this “fact” in the official air accident reports published by the Air Accident Board or we will assume that it is just one of your made - up fantasies.

    By the way, what is a first class colony ?

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 09:45 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    The latest news on the crash is that an engine failed very shortly after the wheels lifted off.

    Had the plane been at cruise the pilot would have had a chance to put it down in a better place perhaps: as it was the single engine on a small twin just could not cope.

    Many people think small twins like this have greater safety compared to single engine planes if an engine goes out; this is not at all the case, all it means is the pilot has a little longer to “fly the plane to the crash site” as you are taught to do when taking the PPL course.

    Takeoff has the greatest risk: probably at maximum weight with full fuel AND heavier than the permitted landing weight! That is why commercial jets have to lose fuel to get down to maximum landing weight before they can land, even in an emergency.

    So it looks like poor maintenance after all unless it still had argie JP1 in the tanks. NOT over weight.

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 11:16 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    When my brother flew Shackletons in the 1950's, they had to fly 24 hour missions grossly overloaded with fuel. The Griffon engines had maximum boost and if one failed at take off, it was curtains. He said that the only way to get airborne was to retract the u/c and hope the earths curviture would assist.
    They had to stay airborne for about 5 hours before a landing could be attempted

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 01:32 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    31 christine
    well, talking about propeller airplanes, monomotores or single engine planes, have more glide capacity.
    but in twins, if one of the engines fails, you can perfectly land or take off.
    the problem again, and THIS IS FOR YOU GRANDPA, is the LOAD DISTRIBUTION.

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 03:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 33 POLLY

    Now I KNOW you are not a pilot, coming out with that drivel.

    I defy you to find ANY small twin engine plane with a specification that approves it for single engine only take-off. It would be against FAA regulations to begin with, but hey, argie regs? Ha, ha, ha, ha.

    I won't hold my breath.

    I notice you didn't acknowledge the real cause of the crash: HTF did a 'fully maintained' plane end up with a fatal engine failure without any lead up? Argie JP1?

    BTW you are wrong again: it doesn't matter how many 'tours' / services it has if the frame itself is time expired it will be grounded by the Inspector on the next “Annual”.

    Recovering a time expired airframe is HUGELY expensive and the plane will cost more to repair than to buy another. Another bypass for argie planes I suppose.

    @ 32 Clyde15
    “He said that the only way to get airborne was to retract the u/c and hope the earths curvature would assist.”

    I bet that made them all “pucker up”. :o)

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:33 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    THIS IS FOR YOU PAULI A big assumption here. Are you saying that an aircraft well over its gross maximum weight can take off and land safely on one engine. For a start it is going to accelerate slower than with two engines and needs a much larger take off run. Of course weight distribution matters, if it is badly out then the trim will be affected as will the handling.
    However see the following about overloading
    The effects of overloading include:
    reduced acceleration and increased take-off speed, requiring a longer take-off run and distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle;
    decreased angle of climb reducing obstacle clearance capability after take-off;
    higher take-off speeds imposing excessive loads on the landing gear, especially if the runway is rough;
    reduced ceiling and rate of climb;
    reduced range;
    impaired manoeuvrability;
    impaired controllability;
    increased stall speeds;
    increased landing speeds, requiring a longer runway;
    reduced braking effectiveness
    reduced structural strength margins;
    ;on twin-engined aircraft, failure to climb or maintain height on one engine.
    The above assumes that the engine is working.
    You are assuming that a twin engined aircraft, overloaded, has enough power in one engine to lift off under control, do a circuit and land.

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 06:51 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    and WHO is talking about specifications, regulations and blablabla?
    i am talking about having a problem in one of the engines, que se te plante un motor in spanish, when you are doing the approach to the airport for instance, la aproximación in spanish, or when you are in the middle of the flight.
    of course you can continue with the task with just one engine.
    in take offs it is a lot more difficult, but it is possible too.

    and when you send your plane to do the “recorrido”, checking the structure is one of the MAIN POINTS.
    so, again, it does not matter a shite if the plane is 40, 50 or 60 years old.
    the important thing is a good maintenance, the update of avionics, and the controls.
    otherwise you cannot get the plan de vuelo or flight plan.

    check this list of aircraft for sale in your beloved USA.
    MOST OF THEM are 30, 40 or 50 year old.

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 07:00 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    This is for a C90 / C90/1: Certified Aircraft Database (Pilot's Friend)

    Horsepower: 550 Gross Weight: 9650 lbs
    Top Speed: 223 kts Empty Weight: 5765 lbs
    Cruise Speed: 217 kts Fuel Capacity: 384.00 gal
    Stall Speed (dirty): 76 kts Range: 1120 nm
    ['dirty' means the flaps are down, not that the plane needs cleaning]

    Ground Roll: 1629 ft
    Over 50 ft obstacle: 2261 ft
    [that's the distance needed to get just 50 feet high after takeoff]

    Rate Of Climb: 1955 fpm Rate of Climb (One Engine): 539 fpm
    Ceiling: 28100 ft Ceiling (One Engine): 15050 ft

    SO, when you are sitting at 28,100 ft and an engine goes out DOWN you go to 15050 ft and how it happens may not be solely up to the pilot.

    Now just add in a slight problem with engine efficiency, panic from the pilot who has not had an engine fail before and before you know where you are the thing is MINUS 100ft/min.

    But of course being The Red Baron of TDC in your SINGLE engine Bonanza you will be looping the loop, won't you?

    You are WRONG about it doesn't matter how old a plane is or how many takeoff's and landings it has had or the total frame time being expired, BUT keep spouting the argie drivel, somebody might be taken in, but I'm not the one.

    Mar 22nd, 2015 - 10:01 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    FAR 23.149 Minimum control speed.
    (a) VMC is the calibrated airspeed at which, when the
    critical engine is suddenly made inoperative, it is
    possible to maintain control of the airplane with that
    engine still inoperative, and thereafter maintain
    straight flight at the same speed with an angle of bank
    of not more than 5 degrees. The method used to simulate
    critical engine failure must represent the most critical
    mode of powerplant failure expected in service with
    respect to controllability.
    (b) VMC for takeoff must not exceed 1.2 VS1, where
    VS1 is determined at the maximum takeoff weight. VMC
    must be determined with the most unfavorable weight and
    center of gravity position and with the airplane airborne
    and the ground effect negligible, for the takeoff
    configuration(s) with--
    (1) Maximum available takeoff power initially on each
    (2) The airplane trimmed for takeoff;
    (3) Flaps in the takeoff position(s);
    (4) Landing gear retracted; and
    (5) All propeller controls in the recommended takeoff

    read and learn:
    Engine Out Scenarios

    Mar 23rd, 2015 - 12:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 38 POLLY

    You left out the most important statement: what load weight?

    Let me correct that for you:
    ”II) FAR 1 (the “definitions” section) defines VMC as “minimum control speed with the critical engine13 inoperative”. It does not specify any restrictions as to weight, configuration, altitude, et cetera.

    Multi-Engine Flying

    Q: In an underpowered twin, what is the role of the second engine?

    A: It doubles your chance of engine failure, and it will fly you to the scene of the accident.
    DID you actually read my post @31? Of course not.

    “In normal conditions, operating a twin is not very different from operating a fast, heavy, high-powered, complex single.” Oh dear, as I said!

    “Also, if the engines, propellers, and paint job are not quite factory-new, the performance will be even less than these book values suggest.” See my post above!

    I know exactly what your problem is: you don't understand Fig 17.1 or:
    “First, we must deal with an important basic question: How serious is the loss of an engine? Answer: it depends.
    • There are some situations where it is hard to notice and hardly worth noticing. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is level 1 or 2.
    •There are some situations where it is extremely serious, and you must immediately respond in exactly the right way if you want to survive. On a scale of 1 to 10, this is level 10.
    •Indeed there are some situations where the loss of an engine would be beyond serious: The situation would be unrecoverable, no matter how you respond. On a scale of 1 to 10, this level 11.

    You must maintain proficiency so you can deal with level-10 situations.

    You must use good judgement so you stay away from any possibility of a level-11 situation.”

    Guess what level applied to the crash plane?

    You do realise that if you continue with this nonsense of being able to takeoff and land with only one engine AND being heavily loaded you are effectively saying that the argie pilot was to blame, NOT the engine failure. I don't.

    Mar 23rd, 2015 - 05:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    what i have said is that when you have an engine out, IT IS POSSIBLE to land, or continue the flying in “emergency mode”, but it is a lot more difficult when you are taking off.

    it is possible as far as you can control the minimum speed required, the effect of drag, etc.

    as for overweight, read the reports of accidents of Cyrrus SR20, an airplane for 4 people, where 2 people mean overload.

    “an overweight airplane has a higher aerodynamic stall speed, thus making accidents while maneuvering more likely. it also has reduced climb performance, which can result in takeoff and climb-out accidents, particularly in hot or high altitude conditions or in mountainous terrain”

    Mar 23rd, 2015 - 06:21 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    See my last sentence of my post at #35. I believe I basically said what you are saying in post 40.
    Taking off with engine failure on one of the engines when overloaded is most likely to end in a crash.
    The dynamics will change suddenly. The take off speed will have to be increased needing a longer take off run. The good engine will have to be revved up to make the maximum power, there may be asymmetric control problems associated with torque causing the aircraft to yaw and possibly pitch.
    The workload on the pilot will be extremely stressful.
    Note that I am talking about an aircraft which is overloaded and still has it's C.of G. established within it's laid down parameters.

    However, there are a few aircraft which might get away with it such as the C-2 Greyhound which is overpowered with two 4,600 SHP engines.

    Do you now agree with me ?

    Mar 23rd, 2015 - 07:17 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    yes christine.
    totally agree.

    Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:38 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ChrisR

    @ 41 Clyde15

    EIGHT bladed props! I thought they were almost extinct except for really big carriers and I think the contra-rotating props on the Bear are also 4 on the two hubs.

    The brochure is an unabashed pitch at Congress for an update and it shows. You have to admire the suppliers of military “bits”: recognise a possible opening, do the homework on likely advantages, cost it including backup for the existing programme and put it out there! What's not to like?

    Mar 23rd, 2015 - 09:48 pm - Link - Report abuse 0
  • paulcedron

    i mean clyde, totally agree

    Mar 24th, 2015 - 01:48 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • ilsen

    I just love it when penguin-cedron totally fails!
    Dear paulito, thank-you for the laffs!

    Some posters arguing from real life knowledge, and 'architect - surfer, paco-pilot peruvian-cedron arguing from Google!”

    A true classic of MercoPress!

    Triples all round to ChrisR and Clyde15, my shout!

    whilst paulie gets to piss in the potty on the naughty-step!

    Thank you all!

    Mar 24th, 2015 - 03:49 am - Link - Report abuse 0
  • Clyde15

    Thank you for your reply and would also confirm what you said about loading and C.of G,weight distribution. I also have no reason to disbelieve that you have pilot qualifications and own an old Beechcraft Bonanza.

    Multi bladed props. seem to be coming into fashion again.
    The British Aerospace ATP was fitted with 6 bladed props. and according to people who helped build it, it had an irritating high pitched whine that could be heard in the passenger compartment.
    The Shackleton had a magnificent “growl”. In later life many of the aircrews suffered from deafness induced by the continual low frequency noise.

    The TU-9 5 Bear is so noisy that you can hear it before you see it.
    I saw them a couple of times at RIATA at Fairford and heard them long before I saw them. RAF crews sent to intercept them to the N. of Scotland said the same don't need radar, just head for the noise.

    It would seem that 6 to 8 bladed props. are now the norm.

    Mar 24th, 2015 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!