Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

Noe wrote:

From my understanding of things, CO can incapacitate (and then kill) so fast, in a way that you will not realise

Serious question now then, we have some medics on here…
How fast can CO incapacitate? Is a CO detector really only useful if there is a tiny leak (which I guess must be the most common?) I know the effect can be cumulative.

Secondly, are there other examples of CO poisoning in aircraft in recent times? I have to say I don’t remember any.

Last Edited by Neil at 16 Aug 08:33
Darley Moor, Gamston (UK)

Neil wrote:

are there other examples of CO poisoning in aircraft in recent times?

Perhaps not recent but worth a read

https://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/cobroforweb.pdf

Ted
United Kingdom

There are occasional ones. I remember one in the US after I learned to fly – it was a high performance single (a Comanche, I think) and the pilot passed out from CO inhalation while on autopilot. The plane flew till it ran out of fuel and made a passable forced landing all by itself. I believe in that case the pilot survived the ordeal.

CO incapacitation certainly isn’t common but I’ve heard of a handful of cases.

Exhausts can also go quite suddenly, there was a case on Reddit just yesterday where a C172 exhaust broke in two in flight. If the cracks are small enough and not right through they will pass visual inspection, and no one takes off their exhaust system to pressure test, even at annual. I’ve had a chunk of exhaust break off on a plane before – invisible to visual inspection, the defect wasn’t visible until a 10p sized chunk of exhaust went missing where the exhaust pipe makes a bend under the engine.

Andreas IOM

Obviously the report in the Daily Mail about the poor level of maintenance cannot be taken at face value, but if the ultimate owner was shocked by a £10k bill, that tells you there’s no way the annuals were done properly… The PA46 is a great plane but it’s not meant to be maintained on the cheap.

EGTF, LFTF

alioth wrote:

Exhausts can also go quite suddenly

Here is a pic of the exhaust on my old A36 Bonanza, it had been making a popping noise from the exhaust for the last couple of flights (when the throttle was closed) and this should have warned me something could be wrong.

Also near to the hole in the manifold are the fuel lines so this was one flight I was lucky to have got away with, it did however leave black streaks from the gills 45cm down the outside of the plane.

but if the ultimate owner was shocked by a £10k bill, that tells you there’s no way the annuals were done properly

I used to rent a really shagged PA28 – owned by an accountant, too. Maybe there is a trend?

That said, should 10k bills be the norm, on a piston PA46, unless the plane has been neglected long-term, or the engine is mismanaged?

Most exhaust systems are made from fairly ordinary stainless steel and they do fail periodically. That is why the condition of the air hoses in front of the firewall is critical. If one of them breaks or comes off, and you have fumes inside the cowling, they will go into the cockpit. You cannot be sure the exhaust won’t develop a hole after the last service. One example here.

That said, a PA46 (not the Matrix) should have somewhat better sealing…

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

boscomantico wrote:

But the „system“ whereby an aircraft needs a thorough lookover only once a year, and a subsequent sign-off by just one single person (and where, as Silvaire says, all the rest of the airworthiness responsibility lies by the owner, who very often, is clueless about things technical and who might be on a tight budget) is prone to lead to deficiencies is the technical status of the aircraft (and yes, I do know that EASA Part-M is not all that fundamentally different from that).

I don’t think owners are “very often clueless”, they learn aircraft ownership skills though experience, to protect themselves, just as in life generally, What is required by government is a minimal inspection by a government designee once a year, the rest of the work and inspections are directed or carried out by the owner to prevent his injury or death, which is in practice quite good motivation. That is how the real world works, people are always responsible for their own safety, and who in their right mind would want it any other way? Not me, that’s for sure. The Annual Inspection is just a bit of theatre to keep people honest.

I would prefer that government have no right to inspect my property annually, and it would make no difference to the maintenance of my plane. My maintenance is done weekly, not annually and I cannot recall an Annual ever driving any additional maintenance action. Obviously that’s why so many people have moved away from certified aircraft.

Peter wrote:

You can find dishonest / corrupt people anywhere. My view is that the greater sanction is available to bust such people, the less they are likely to try it

My view in relation to aircraft operated on Part 91 is that the more the guy who will be injured or killed is directly involved, the better the maintenance to prevent it.

Last Edited by Silvaire at 16 Aug 14:16

“That said, should 10k bills be the norm, on a piston PA46, unless the plane has been neglected long-term, or the engine is mismanaged?”

As the owner of a Malibu Mirage for the last 5 years I can tell you that I have never had an annual that cost LESS than £10K, and I often end up spending another £10K or more between annuals keeping on top of things. Mine is considerably younger that the plane in question, although I am scrupulous in making sure everything is attended to.

These are very complex planes, and once they get on in years there is always something that fails. But it is a wonderfully capable plane and I am very happy to have it.

Upper Harford private strip UK, near EGBJ, United Kingdom

Neil wrote:

I’ll think of that when I next fly my Super Cub

I will think of it when I next drive my Series One Land-Rover! (The square body and lack of any wind tunnel testing means that exhaust is drawn into the car if the windows are open).

EGBW / KPRC, United Kingdom

Could a firewall sealing problem lead to CO in that cabin? Obviously combined with an exhaust leak.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top