Why is the flight history of the N264DB not showing on flightradar24.com? I have a subscription, so it should show all flights up to 90 days in the past.
Antonio wrote:
As to the former, does that mean you would consider it sensible or even safe to fly or even plan a flight at 5000ft over the Channel in IMC at -5C at night in winter in say a fully serviceble and well equipped TBM or even a 737?
@AeroPlus: The missing records of the usual private spy tracking organizations is indeed strange. I wonder what Flightradar or others have to say? Unlikely they all signed a contract not to show N264DB at all, or?
Purely out of interest to the discussion have a look here;
https://www.marinetraffic.com/en/ais/home/centerx:-0.9/centery:50.0/zoom:8
Much as with flight tracking, this gives real time information on the shipping in the channel. Although it can seem a very empty stretch of water, the reality is even in the middle of the night there is more traffic than you might imagine. Ships and trawellers dont tend to stop for the night as aircraft. Most (not all) of the vessels will be maintaining a listening watch on the marine channel 16. If the location of a raft or person is known diverting a vessel for recovery is more than possible. In addition in the channel if the position is known with accuracy getting other assets on location (lifeboat, SandR rotary) is very likely. I have watched recoveries from various locations in the channel and been very impressed just how quickly SandR can be positioned on the vessel. Of course the real problem is locating the casualty, which is why a personal beacon is so vital otherwise even in a small area it is like looking for the proverbial. All commercail vessels will have AIS these days as well as many leisure vessels so with a PLB with AIS the position will be shown as an MOB alert and again locating the casualty stands a very high chance of success with absolute precision. PLB with AIS can be purchased for less than £200 and placed around the neck.
…yes, twin turboprops.
The reasons may not be linked to system/power plant redundancy, but how well flight crew, especially single crew, cope with failures/emergencies, and the self evident statistical rule that if you have two of something you have a slightly higher than double the chance of a failure.
The assessment was PC12 specific, not necessarily other SETs.
I have never used a liferaft but my research pointed towards winslow 6 person with cover and stabilization.
I don’t have experience in a tbm but a 737 can easily climb at a few thousand ft per minute from icing at 5000 to clear skies above… no point to compare 737 ops with two pro pilots up front to a vfr ppl in a malibu.
Fuji_Abound wrote:
Most (not all) of the vessels will be maintaining a listening watch on the marine channel 16.
Yes. Another good benefit. Unfortunately in the leisure fraternity the use of DSC is not as good as it could be (I think due to the poor intergration of DSC with chart plotters, and not all leisure VHFs having DSC) but you are absolutely correct with commercial vessels. In any event the various coastguard agencies along the channel are very good at relaying any PANs or Maydays and requesting help from any vessels on a listening watch so if only you can get off a Mayday call and have an electronic means of location and survive the ditching I think the chances of being recovered and often surprisngly quickly are pretty good. The trouble is you probably have less than half an hour in the water this time of year without appropriate protection which is probably not long enough unless you are very lucky. With appropriate clothing and a raft I think you have a very good chance indeed, but only with electronic means of location.
RobertL18C wrote:
…yes, twin turboprops.The reasons may not be linked to system/power plant redundancy, but how well flight crew, especially single crew, cope with failures/emergencies, and the self evident statistical rule that if you have two of something you have a slightly higher than double the chance of a failure.
I agree with that view as anyone increase his risk profile and type of missions on a twin turboprop than on a single (say direct route than minimal route).
For a given mission, however, a MET should give more guarantees than a SET?
Just out of curiosity, how many “professional crew” will be happy to continue a single pilot flight in IMC with one engine in a twin turboprop?
Antonio wrote:
It has been discussed before that the most likely reason for the latter descent was weather, definitely IMC, but perhaps also icing. Descent may or may not have put them VMC (not very relevant for visual ref in those circumstances, but meaningful for icing), but OAT and even more TAT would have been closer to 0C and perhaps slightly positive at or around 2000ft, so out of ice and a good reason to descend if you are not willing/able to climb.
I’m not sure how good a strategy descending out of it is with this temperature profile.
If you’ve been in IMC at 5,000ft and -10C and picked up some ice, and then descend to VMC at 2,000ft where it is 0C, then the ice doesn’t just drop off in seconds and all is good again. If you had enough ice to seriously affect the aircraft then that problem will likely continue for some time – it will take a while to melt.
It is very easy to say after the event, but with the temperature profile (which I was familiar with because I flew that day and had to make enter cloud / don’t enter cloud decisions) then I really would have climbed rather than descended. Of course, the ice may have been so severe that it was not possible, in which case he was essentially committed to a ditching the moment he realised the could not maintain altitude. And of course if you are unable to maintain altitude – particularly over the sea – then that is a MAYDAY, no matter how worried you are about your illegal charter being discovered.
Just to make the specific point: I do not agree that a SEP is unsuitable for night flight over water. This is done all the time. It’s a matter of
As regards flight in IMC, that depends on
Night flight is IMC anyway. You need to be instrument capable to fly at night safely (on a proper dark night, not sunset plus 31 mins along the coast from Shoreham to Brighton).
It is awfully tempting to make general statements on the typical condition of certain aircraft types… aeroplanes exist in distinct capability categories and usually the type which sits at the bottom of each category is in the worst condition – because it is the most affordable of the category. Hence every piston PA46 I have known was decrepit, every Arrow I have known was decrepit, etc. I could post some examples but won’t because I got them in confidence and the owners probably want to one day sell the heap on which they had to retrospectively comply with a raft of ADs… And in the end it may be that the condition of the plane was not relevant, that the autopilot worked, that it got overcome with severe ice, and flipped and went straight down. Unless they salvage it (on past record unlikely, but could happen due to the value of the passenger, both financial and political) we aren’t likely to find out.
In this case, about +5C on the ground / sea level, heavy ice, say 3cm, would take about 30 mins to completely melt, at say 1000ft. I know this from experience. You would need max power too because Vs will be over 100kt and there will be a lot of drag. You will also be on radar the whole time so will have to tell ATC why you are flying around in circles over the sea… Unless you turn off the transponder which is the most likely explanation for zero flight tracking visibility. In France you can fly VFR non-TXP easily, and whole GA communities there do exactly that.
