Bugger - Poor Jabiru J200 on Takeoff

[DrZoos]

Thrust pulls left, beach cambered left, and likely a slight onshore breeze turning him left. Wonder if he just ran out of rudder authority, which he did mention. But there was a lot of beach behind him and not much in front. Perhaps if he had used more beach he could have used less thrust to counter the camber. ...perhaps a good example of why a slower practice run would have been good idea.

 

 

[Downunder]

Thrust pulls left, beach cambered left, and likely a slight onshore breeze turning him left. Wonder if he just ran out of rudder authority, which he did mention. But there was a lot of beach behind him and not much in front. Perhaps if he had used more beach he could have used less thrust to counter the camber. ...perhaps a good example of why a slower practice run would have been good idea.

I think the MAJOR issue was the weight and not getting the front wheel off..........

 

 

[Camel]

In the first video you see the police car drive up to the plane so the sand is firm enough so there no reason to be so close to the water.

 

 

[jetjr]

Blocked fuel then seriously cocked up take off is hardly a jabiru problem, engine was working great until it hit the sand, nose wheel even survived and Id guess being an older model had the weaker setup.

 

I too have a J200 and the torque pull to left is severe on short take off. Site didnt look too good and yep should have been way right to pull that off.

 

 

[skeptic36]

The beach angled to the left, torque pulling to the left, nil wind and a lower hill behind him..... I think I may have gone the other way. Well that's my armchair opinion from 2000 Klms away anyway

 

 

[alf jessup]

The beach angled to the left, torque pulling to the left, nil wind and a lower hill behind him..... I think I may have gone the other way. Well that's my armchair opinion from 2000 Klms away anyway

I agree with you Bill,

 

Would have made more sense to take off in the other direction as the plane would have had the natural slope to work against which would have given him more rudder authority so to speak, and the up side would have been he would of had more usable beach if he went up to the area where he broke his plane to commence his take off roll.

 

That's my arm chair opinion from 2085km away:buddies:

 

 

[coljones]

How do you know it was fuel. I read three articles on this. All said it was an engine failure, none mentioned fuel. In fairness to jab though it was likely a user caused problem given it just had an engine change, and they got it running again. But its still possibly jab engine failure. So lets call it number 2 still unless we find out otherwise

From the first post.

http://tvnz.co.nz/national-news/failed-take-off-bid-after-emergency-landing-beach-5796094

 

"After some running repairs on a blocked fuel valve the plane burst back into life and the makeshift runway was cleared in time to beat the incoming tide."

 

 

[Ultralights]

cant help but think, wait for low tide! get the aircraft as light as possible. or ring the insurance company. help them find a truck

 

 

[Captain]

Thats jab number 3 down and its the 11 th

Geeeez Doc.

 

 

 

Don't tell me you're trying to link this prang to some kind of fundamental problem with the 3300 engine or the 200/230 airframe.

 

 

 

That's about as smart by you as those blokes were on the beach.

 

 

 

Close ups of that particular aircraft around the cowl made it look like a pretty rough build.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

I think the MAJOR issue was the weight and not getting the front wheel off..........

The nose wheel did come off, and thats why he lost the ability to keep straight. There was back pressure on from the moment he gunned it, which is NOT how a short fielder is done. And certainly not in the Jab. The nose wheel needs to stay on the ground to aid steering and also keep the angle of attack as low as possible (read drag) for as long as possible to aid acceleration. And look at all that runway behind him.

Thank you to this pilot for showcasing to the world a complete lack of airmenship and basic flying skills. Good job.!!!

 

 

[jetjr]

I dont mean off the ground but broken off the firewall, its a point jab knockers often bring up

 

Agree this isnt how a short field is done in this ac

 

I think COG can be a bit different in j200 and nose lifts early and easily

 

 

[Doug Evans]

I think this case was cause by pilot err not any thing to do with the aircraft poor judgment bad planing

 

Hope he learnt something from the exercise

 

 

[sandman]

Nose wheel broken at firewall. Isn't that just below the engine???????, musn't be able to see past the engine, ( too much sh*& on glasses). Aircraft pulling to the left etc ,etc, wouldn't you think as soon as that water's edge was getting close and things could go pear-shape (catistrophic situational awareness), ABORT!, ABORT!, at least if u abort (before hitting the water), you can have another go or just turn around try the other way, maybe they just don't teach abort take-off these days, or maybe we are just too keen to get airborne and dont' care about the potential effect of our surroundings, DAMM I forgot to put a float on the left hand undercarriage leg.

 

 

[fly_tornado]

Amazed how viral this has gone. Its on FB, twitter and all the aviation and MSM media.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Perhaps we should be focussing on how little obvious damage there was to the airframe. How would a metal aircraft cope with this sort of treatment? Jabs are easily repaired.

 

 

[motzartmerv]

They are bloody tough !! No doubt about that.

 

 

[alf jessup]

Perhaps we should be focussing on how little obvious damage there was to the airframe. How would a metal aircraft cope with this sort of treatment? Jabs are easily repaired.

Well hopefully none of us will be that dumb to try this out on any aircraft metal or plastic fantastic to see how it would hold up.

 

Best thing about this video is we ALL should learn from these questionable pilots mistakes and think about it a little more serious before we kick the tyres and light the fires.

 

Looks great to all when it comes off and looks absolutely stupid when you fail miserably.

 

The day you stop learning something and you think you know it all in any hobby you do is the day you should give it away.

 

Fellow flyers, it is about time we all took notice of other peoples mistakes, far too many accidents and incidents from people who thought it would never happen to them.

 

They are or were human and so are the rest of us.

 

Alf

 

 

[alf jessup]

They are bloody tough !! No doubt about that.

They get a lot of test practice Andy and being tough too, a lot more frequent than other brands. (Just saying)

 

 

[facthunter]

At least a lot of them are out there being used, (and abused). Learn from the mistakes of others is the cheap and practical option. It's also quicker as you won't live long enough to make them all yourself. Nev

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Perhaps we should be focussing on how little obvious damage there was to the airframe. How would a metal aircraft cope with this sort of treatment? Jabs are easily repaired.

Must disagree there OK, both wings obviously suffered major damage at the wing attach points with the fuselage. This is no easy repair, and critical that it be repaired correctly for future safety, and adequet structural strength. Might be worth noting the rego for future reference, should a slightly used J previously operated in NZ, suddenly appear on our used aircraft listings for a 'can't refuse' price!.......Maj....

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Regarding the pilot's poor decision-making, maybe this is just like they say about landings: the quality of the takeoff is inversely proportional to the size of the audience. With so many onlookers, the media and Police, as well as the incoming tide to contend with, how many of us would be able to make a clear-headed rational decision?

 

 

[webbm]

Totally agree mate. There's plenty of incidents out there where just the presence of other people (both in and outside the cockpit) are a main contributing factor. It should be a significant part of human factors syllabus in my opinion.

 

 

[Guest Maj Millard]

Well this guy did everything wrong...he's got the police on site , if he needed more beach as he obviously did , have the coppers clear the beach of all the public, which would allow the pilot full use of all the beach, for a safer attempt. If its too late and the tide has already taken too much beach, then park it, for another try tomorrow .

 

And if your using an unfamiliar beach for what really is a test- flight with a possible still suspect Powerplant, you certainly don't load two rear passengers. You get off the beach with only the pilot on board and pick up the others elsewhere if you have to.

 

A very bad case and example of getthereitis in my opinion, and absolutely no brownie points awarded here at all !.........Maj....

 

 

[motzartmerv]

Two rear pax?? Tell me that's not accurate???

 

 

[Oscar]

Well this guy did everything wrong...he's got the police on site , if he needed more beach as he obviously did , have the coppers clear the beach of all the public, which would allow the pilot full use of all the beach, for a safer attempt. If its too late and the tide has already taken too much beach, then park it, for another try tomorrow .And if your using an unfamiliar beach for what really is a test- flight with a possible still suspect Powerplant, you certainly don't load two rear passengers. You get off the beach with only the pilot on board and pick up the others elsewhere if you have to.

A very bad case and example of getthereitis in my opinion, and absolutely no brownie points awarded here at all !.........Maj....

Since when did a J200 carry four people? Since it had a RAANZ registration and that is limited to two passengers, it is ipso facto a two-seater. I think we all recognise and defer to your encyclopaedic knowledge of Jabiru deficiencies, but you would engender greater credibility by actually demonstrating a basic knowledge of the things. Or, indeed, bothering to check your facts. At no point in any of the video evidence is there any suggestion that there were four people aboard; presumably you have powers of observation and conclusion that escapes we lesser mortals.

 

Possible still suspect powerplant? As far as I am aware, the fuel delivery system up to the engine-mounted fuel pump is not part of the powerplant, but obviously I should defer to your greater knowledge. I guess that in your world, a Jabiru engine failing to run with zero fuel supply is just another example of Jabiru's failure to produce reliable engines; no doubt Rotaxes operate perfectly with zero fuel delivery. In the several videos referenced, there was absolutely no indication that the engine was running other than sweetly.

 

That the take-off attempt had just about everything wrong that one could factor in, is undeniable. Even allowing for the foreshortening effect of telephoto lenses, it seems obvious that a tight turn left within around 2-300 metres of the lift-off point would have been necessary. I seriously doubt that the insurance company for this aircraft will be paying out on the basis that 'Sh!t happens, here's your money'. It's an easy job to remove a Jabiru from an unviable take-off site.

 

Classic case of an accident that was predicated before the PIC hit the starter.