To cheer you up a bit, I survived lightning strike in DA42 with minor winglets damage. The problem, later solved with new winglets, was that winglets in early models were not connected to the rest of aircraft’s grounding system and they didn’t have static dischargers. As a consequence, lightning burned trailing edges of winglets at exit points.
I can’t say whether it was the case in specified accident but it might be related to bonding and aircraft’s ability to conduct electricity.
Speaking of TS, an accident I find frightening is the loss of a DA 42 following a lightening strike which apparently damaged the stabilizer.
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=17435
Does anyone have a good understanding of the reasons of this accident ? (Ie why the structure wasn’t able to withstand the strike)
I don’t think there has been a modification of the plane after this occurrence (only a checklist amendment but I am unsure of how it may solve the problem)
With the summer +TS wx everywhere right now, perhaps time to look at this again…
BeechBaby wrote:
This aeroplane operates in cruise, near VNE, and whilst a stable platform, is quite tricky if allowed to get out of the pilots capacity. I suppose you could argue that about all planes. It flies like a mini airliner, and should be operated by the numbers.
Yes, but that would be true of the 33 and 36 series as well, would it not? Apparently they have an excellent in-flight break-up record.
This EuroGA article of mine looked at the accident history of the 182 vs 210 for 2000-2010. Only one 210 was lost to in flight break up in convective weather during the period.
https://www.euroga.org/articles/technical/accident-statistics-in-imc
I have not been able to prove it, so apologies if it is an OWT, or geezer patrol myth, but the fixed gear 172/182 series may have never experienced an in flight break up in convective weather in the US – bent wings yes, wrinkled tail cone, but not a break up.
RWY20, sorry, no, I did not. I will now. This aeroplane operates in cruise, near VNE, and whilst a stable platform, is quite tricky if allowed to get out of the pilots capacity. I suppose you could argue that about all planes. It flies like a mini airliner, and should be operated by the numbers. There have been a fair few who have found this out the hardway. Obviously moving through VNE, in a spiral dive, generally something may break. In the case of the V tail, early days, it was the tail section. I also suggest that there is a large knowledge gap in maintenance, and a very well, and correctly maintained airframe, should assist in keeping the pilot safe, even when he gets the plane into situations that do not auger well. Secondly, if rigged incorrectly, flutter can be an issue. A number of V tails have been flying, mine included, with incorrect rigging. Mines has been fixed by the way…..the previous riggers were Part145, who managed to rig it, without a jig…….I discovered this, after the event of course..
BeechBaby wrote:
Silvaire, do you have the specific reference quote for that statistic.
Did you read the article linked to in post #13? I found it very interesting and well researched.
QuoteV tail Beech Bonanzas averaged about one fatality per month due to inflight structural failures over a period of about 30 years, late 40s to roughly 1980 when FAA applied some ADs that apparently worked well. Three or four hundred fatalities in all, IIRC. I’m sure most of those were weather related, in conjunction with rudimentary IMC instrumentation and the characteristics of the plane and pilots.
Silvaire, do you have the specific reference quote for that statistic. I would question it. My view is that there were a couple of accidents where deliberate, or inadvertent entry from VMC, into IMC, with the non experienced pilots stuffing the nose down, rapid speed build up, into loss of control, into plane breaking up. The adverse publicity came due to this being an innovative design, way before its time, fast, dependable transport for the reasonably well healed. The term Doctor Killer was given, because it was this wealth band that could a) afford it, and b) provided suitable transport throughout the US. Needless to say, Beech bowing to some adverse publicity, and potential lawsuits, on its new dream machine, worked hard at PR, one aspect being a strut strengthened and enhancement AD. Nothing was actually ever proven that the aeroplane was structurally defective.
Pity we could not AD some pilots……
DavidC wrote:
I think this relates to PH-UBG, a TB21 which crashed on 10 April 2001 in Belgium (Neeroeteren). The event is so old that the accident report is no longer online.
Here’s the accident report. I’ve asked Peter to store it somewhere.
