And in general, the Swiss CAA not only has a tendency to throw out the baby with the bathwater, but to throw out the kitchen sink, too. They frequently try to use accidents to introduce regulations that have little to do with preventing similar accidents.
From what is published at this point, the maintenance state of the aircraft was not a factor in the accident —> let’s ban old aircraft and shut down the maintenance company
Jets flown by professional crew bust VFR minima at Samedan and come to grief —> let’s have mandatory instructor flights for piston aircraft.
A Saratoga engine which obviously had not seen a condition inspection in years fails —> let’s ban on condition maintenance (they failed, fortunately)
RobertL18C wrote:
It reputedly had truck like handling.
It’s a Mooney 
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Engine and prop have hardly any hours since last TBO
The advert says:
1373 TT SNEW
Engine Lycoming TIO-541-A1A 280 H STOH
Propeller Hartzell HC-C2YK-1BF142 H SOH
STOH means Since Top Overhaul, in other words indicating the engine cases have never been split. The photo of the engine with newly painted cases would seem to indicate otherwise but I’d check this out carefully.
I hope a plane like this can find an appreciative long term owner, the price is low but that’s just the buy-in. I’m sure a lot of work and money will be involved to own it.
STOH means Since Top Overhaul, in other words indicating the engine cases have never been split. The photo of the engine with newly painted cases would seem to indicate otherwise but I’d check this out carefully.
There was a RWY excursion incident in 2018, the report claims no damage though.
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-DVZ.pdf
Maybe the engine got a bit wet there… 
Anyway, a very marginal runway for such a big beast. Unfortunately these very shorts strips is all we have in terms of affordable and accessible infrastructure for light GA in many European countries, especially in Switzerland. Swiss pilots tend to be very good at short field operations. Still means that any margins for error will be very small…
Accident reports support that widening your margins a bit if you are still flying at age 84 is a good idea.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I hear a lot of rumours that some countries will go after airplanes above 40 years of age with a big axeThat’s 90% of all trainers PA28/C172/C152, they’ll have to find additional criterias.
I would jump at this if I was in the market. 24 still flying in the world, so not a total orphan
Seriously, how do you maintain an aircraft like this?
Exactly, not a total orphan but just about. No STC’s, no nothing.
boscomantico wrote:
Maybe the engine got a bit wet there…
Anyway, a very marginal runway for such a big beast.
Actually, as far as I know that plane has been based there for most of its existence. And from what I hear the seller is if not the original owner then a very long term owner. The incident reported was very lucky indeed as the airplane had absolutely no damage despite almost ending up in the water. Apparently it not only flies like a tank, it is also built like one
This is a very sore subject also Antonio touches. Actually, the FOCA has addressed this issue in their safety report stating that they are worried about the status quo where prosecutors actively undermine just culture and apparently they are trying to counteract this. The incidents you quote are very well known here. However, the critical player here has been the SUST issuing completely over the top safety recommendations which the FOCA partially followed. In the case of on condition, they came up with inspections which appear to have caused at least one more accident while preventing others if I listen to inspectors but that does not put away the fact that the airplane in question should never have been immatriculated in Switzerland in the condition it was, that particular whoopsie is not even mentioned in the report…
I see a rather difficult situation for the FOCA. They are between a stone (SUST) and a hard place (Public Prosecutors) and on top they have a lot of lawyers in their own ranks whose idea of risk analysis is to eliminate the risk altogether. In some cases EASA regs have prevented worse but in many cases it appears that their position is anything but simple. In the end, they will have to ask themselfs if in the face of the massive prosecution of aviators in Switzerland recently they are willing to go out on a limb to protect aviation from this development. In all fairness, I see a massive conflict of interest there which probably needs to be sorted out via external influence (e.g. EASA / ICAO rules overruling national rulemaking). I am told that ICAO has taken an interest in the goings on regarding the prosecution of ATCO’s and if they look closely, they will find a lot of other things to look at. In fact, some of the stuff prosecutors in this country have been shooting against in other fields appear to violate basic human right principles, so I guess the EU human right courts are gonna be busy in some cases too (as Switzerland reluctantly reckognizes those). this is by no means restricted to aviation, but a general development.
As for the aging airplane proposed rulemaking, the FOCA seem very well aware of the fact that imposing such age limits would close down GA mostly. For the moment I think they are primarily focussed on the aftermath of the Ju Air Crash which already has had the consequence of grounding several similar projects, the Connie and the German JU52 for sure and has hastened the sale of the Breitling DC3 to Turkey. So what I think we will see in a relatively short term is a prohibition on old airplanes which exceed something like 6 seats or massively increased restrictions on their use, such as it has been hinted that such planes would not be allowed to overfly inhabited areas e.t.c. In non commercial traffic they will have to convince EASA as it is out of their hands.
Personally, if I had the means I’d go for this Mustang in a big way. It is a LOT of airplane for the money and I suppose it could be made a nice IFR platform with relatively few upgrades. FL240, pressurized, 200 kts and 1200 NM range is a very potent airplane.
Some of us fly septuagenarian aircraft, which like Tigger’s broom have been endlessly rebuilt :)
Personally, if I had the means I’d go for this Mustang in a big way. It is a LOT of airplane for the money and I suppose it could be made a nice IFR platform with relatively few upgrades. FL240, pressurized, 200 kts and 1200 NM range is a very potent airplane.
Well, the airplane is based at my home airfield and, if I would be in the market to buy a plane, alone for securing the hangar place I would consider buying…. Nonetheless, do you have a guestimate of the higher operating cost compared to a M20C / M20J?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
FL240, pressurized, 200 kts and 1200 NM range is a very potent airplane
Those are very useful and impressive performance parameters for a travelling piston aircraft, and a lot of bang for the money.
Sounds very much like our P210, but the latter for relatively little more money but with an OEM,a lot of STC’s and a thousand of the type to help support it (and you can actually carry some stuff all the way to those 1200nm!)
MikeWhiskey wrote:
do you have a guestimate of the higher operating cost compared to a M20C / M20J?
I have no idea but if our P210 vs C177RG serves as a similar comparison that we are very familiar with, then for utilization <100h/yr the answer is twice as much. It has been said before: don’t be misled by the purchase price: this is an <$100k airframe that would sell for about $1.5M if made new today. You should expect operating costs to be in line with the latter, not the former. The avionics (and most other mods) it deserves would need ad-hoc (ie expensive) design approvals
Rather that op costs, I would have a bigger worry about what percentage of time the aircraft would be operational and not awaiting upgrades, fixes, difficult parts, paperwork and the like.
This is in my view an airplane for an appreciative enthusiast for whom the low acquisition price is a small factor in the decision, who is willing to spend $50-$100k equipping it and then $25k-$40k/year and a lot of his personal time and energy maintaining and running it, and who has a great relationship with his maintenance team.
