Cobalt wrote:
Given the insistence of a large number of pilots that a turn-back after engine failure (in this case to reach land) is a perfectly possible manoeuvre – despite all experience telling us that it is dangerous in a typival SEP
It is perfectly possible given sufficient height and – like most things in aviation – if you have trained the manoeuvre.
We talk a lot about stall speed but that is a convenience. A stall is caused, as we all know, by attitude of the aircraft. It is difficult if not impossible to stall an aircraft if you get the nose down and that is the usual manouver taught in PPL training AFAIK.
We don’t know what happened here and have very few details for the moment but if I had to guess and based on the experience of the PIC and the capability of the aircraft I would look first at something very simple.
Eg. After take off and in initial climb the pilot’s seat was not secure and shot backwards on its rails. The seat securing mechanism on Robins means ensuring that a bolt is properly set in the slot in the rails and is therefore a feature of the normal checklist. This would have sent the pilot backwards plus an involantary pull back on the stick. If all this happened at a critical moment in the climb there may have been not enough time for the pilot to recognise what has happened and to pull himself forward in his seat and push on the stick to get the nose down. The problem may have been compounded by the involuntary reaction of the passenger to also grab the stick and hold onto it for fear of falling backwards. The passenger seat would not have gone back but it is a similar reaction you get as passengers grab something as to bank for a turn.
There are several scenarios that could have led to this accident and we just don’t know enough to speculate.
RIP
I disagree. It requires a high angle of bank and flight very close to the stall speed (5 percent above has been mentioned) following a rapid adjustment of the attitude from nose high to nose low. Flown with a windmilling propeller. Training for this realistically requires an actual engine shut-down (the windmilling propeller makes quite a difference to performance), and the smallest mistake means almost certain death.
By simply lowering the nose, maintaining a reasonable speed close to best glide and landing with minimum turning is easy and safe, something that even flight students can accomplish, and unless you stall you will survive even if the aircraft might not.
Any pilot that chooses a difficult and high-risk manoeuvre over a comparatively simple and lower risk one has poor judgement.
And what for? Prevention of damage to the aircraft? Or prevention of the inconvenience of having to get the aircraft out of the field? The only reason would be if all landing areas in say +/- 45 degrees of the track are so inhospitable that they are the same level of risk.
As I mentioned in other threads, I knew a pilot with well above average skill and training who died because of his poor judgement.
It requires a high angle of bank
This belongs to the Impossible Turn thread. Clearly “it depends”. Take some obvious cases like a 2km runway, at the end of which you might be at 1000ft. It is obvious that a turnback is pretty easy.
In this case, departing over the sea, you are rapidly out of glide range. I do this on almost every flight from my base. Only with a strong wind would I turn back. All other cases I will ditch straight ahead and go for the raft. There might be time to make a radio call but I doubt it.
No raft? Well then you are stuffed, and the best outcome will be a long swim. But you knew that really before the flight 
Out of the four people, how many could swim?
There are so many possible factors behind some desperate measure, but if this was a “club” plane, i.e. rented, it has “zero value” and can be ditched without a thought.
IIRC a 45° bank turn increases stall speed by 20%. But one also has to consider how current that pilot is at flying a turn with 45° of bank.
Many pilots struggle with accurate high degree banked turns and keeping the turn smooth (eg maintaining same angle of bank throughout the turn), and coordinated and that’s with the engine running perfectly.
Then there is the prevailing wind direction and strength to consider along with the distance to cover.
An exercise we used to do on SEPs was to climb to 3000’ pick a spot on the ground like a water tower pass over it at Vy then pull the engine to idle and return to pass vertical that spot and see how much altitude we have lost.
After a while you can get an idea of the altitude you would need to be before making the turn back. If you are sensible you.would still add a bit extra and that would become part of your pre take off briefing.
Of course it depends, but at around 1000ft it is more like an engine failure in cruise than an EFATO situation.
Now imaging an engine failure in cruise at 1000 ft. Would anyone recommend selecting a landing site that requires 45 degree turns at Vs + 5% instead of one you can reach at 25 degree AOB at best glide speed?
The lure of the runway is very high.
Here is a personal example – I had an engine failure halfway down base at Biggin, runway 03, just as I had set the first stage of flaps. I immediately turned towards the runway. As the aircraft settled into the glide it was borderline. Probably would not make the runway area but BUT just before that is a metal fence and before that a steep bank up from the road. If I land on THAT we can all kiss our spines goodbye – if we survive.
So I had a 50/50 chance of either being a hero or seriously injured. I traded that gamble for a field that I was pretty much certain to land in safely, which I did. But boy was it tempting to give it a go.
i had maybe 10 seconds to make that decision. I can only encourage everyone who has to make a decision in a surprise high-stress situation to go for the safer of two options, especially if the penalty is being embarrassed comopared to being dead.
to remain specific to this thread, the latest news (respectfully edited):
Deux premières victimes ont d’abord été récupérées dans l’eau en arrêt cardiorespiratoire. La troisième et la quatrième personnes ont été localisées et repêchées quelques minutes plus tard. Malgré les efforts des secours, elles n’ont pas pu être réanimées et ont été déclarées décédées.
.(female person), 35 ans, coach à Antibes, et (male person), domicilié à Nice et qui devait fêter ses 41 ans dans quelques jours, figurent parmi les victimes, a indiqué le procureur de la République d’Ajaccio.
Le Niçois avait obtenu sa licence pilote commercial en 2022 et totalisait plus de 700 heures de vol.
Ont également trouvé la mort dans ce terrible accident (female person), 60 ans, et (male person), 61 ans, tous deux domiciliés à Castellane, dans les Alpes-de-Haute-Provence.
Une enquête a été ouverte pour homicide involontaire par aéronef et confiée à la section de recherche de la gendarmerie des transports aériens. À ce stade des investigations, l’hypothèse d’une panne moteur de l’appareil est privilégiée
Translation by DeepL:
The first two victims were recovered from the water in cardiorespiratory arrest. The third and fourth victims were located and fished out a few minutes later. Despite rescue efforts, they could not be resuscitated and were pronounced dead.
.(female person), 35, a coach from Antibes, and (male person), a resident of Nice who was due to celebrate his 41st birthday in a few days’ time, were among the victims, according to the Ajaccio public prosecutor.
The man from Nice had obtained his commercial pilot’s license in 2022, and had clocked up more than 700 flying hours.
Also killed in this terrible accident were (female person), aged 60, and (male person), aged 61, both from Castellane, in the Alpes-de-Haute-Provence region.
An investigation has been opened for manslaughter by aircraft, and entrusted to the Gendarmerie’s air transport research section. At this stage of the investigation, the hypothesis of engine failure is being investigated
I was about 800m away when the crash occurred, but did not see, nor hear anything… nevertheless, I was (and still am) affected by the tragedy, as were most locals.
These are my personal observations: the winds were westerlies at about 7-10 knots, and the DR400 took off from runway 27, as did the para Twin Otter during the afternoon. The sea itself was only slightly agitated with some 30cm waves, and the water temperature around 22°C. The crash site is only about 200-300m offshore.
Many witnesses were around, one woman stating she had seen l’avion faire un looping. All open to speculations, the first one, was there an engine problem, or as @gallois alluded to, something else…
The floating debris were recovered directly after the accident, but the forward part of the fuselage, including the engine, has sunk. Some high winds are forecast for today/tomorrow, so not sure they will able to proceed with the recovery.
It sounds like a high speed impact in which the aircraft disintegrated hence they found the passengers very quickly. The passengers were dead or incapacitated in the impact.
l’avion faire un looping
Seems incredibly unlikely. You COULD loop a DR400, in theory anyway, as long as you were extremely careful (and not bothered about keeping your pilot’s licence). But it certainly wouldn’t happen by accident.
It’s surprisingly hard to see what’s going on from a distance, even for an experienced aerobatic pilot. There are videos I’ve watched where it looks like a loop or a roll but when you study closely you realise it was just a wingover (aerobatic but completely benign 1G) or steep turn.
From the position of the wreckage (on some graphic I saw) it looks like he was either trying an “impossible turn” or trying to line up land on or beside the beach, which would have been a pretty good idea.
