PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

dejwu wrote:

If there is any cockpit picture one could tell whether there was an ELT manual switch in the cockpit.

I think even with a cockpit swich (present on all 3 of the modern planes I fly), most of the people have never been told about flipping the switch to “ON” when they know they are doing to do an emergency landing.

Anywhere in the English Channel, 7700 will light up a load of radars like an xmas tree. And that is something everybody should remember to do.

I agree with manual ELT activation; not normally taught.

But these things will draw attention which may not be desirable in some scenarios and in the case of loss of control (due to icing, or anything else) you won’t be thinking of anything else.

(Not my own work)

Noe wrote:

most of the people have never been told about flipping the switch to “ON” when they know they are doing to do an emergency landing

Isn’t it in your emergency landing checklist? It is in ours, a fair bit down but still.
Peter wrote:

in the case of loss of control (due to icing, or anything else) you won’t be thinking of anything else

That is more likely, trying to recover before all else. Aviate Navigate Communicate.

@Christopher: Thanks, that’s a big one. So, one more mystery. No public tracking data, big ELT switch not used, what more?

@TimR: Yes, the ice clogged propeller made me smile too. What kind of iceberg does DM expect to fly in clouds without smashing the whole aircraft? Totally new meaning of scud running, slalom between flying icebergs.

AeroPlus wrote:

Why is the flight history of the N264DB not showing on flightradar24.com?

Been wondering that too, checked several sites and nada.

Arne wrote:

AeroPlus wrote:

Why is the flight history of the N264DB not showing on flightradar24.com?
Been wondering that too, checked several sites and nada.

I can only think of transponder off, but wouldn’t you receive a ‘strong comment’ in controlled airspace or from FIS/RADAR/LARS?

I know when I got my aircraft I had to go through some sort of registration process with FR24 before it started tracking. It didn’t track the aircraft until I had done that.

Ibra wrote:

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?

Well blow me, been flying multi engine turboprops and turbo fans for the last 20+ years, and now I’m told I would have been safer in SET!

https://forum.flightradar24.com/threads/1872-Aircraft-to-be-added-into-Flightradar24-aircraft-database

Aircraft to be added into Flightradar24 aircraft database
The airplane information shown on FR24 is not transmitted by the airplane. The information comes from a giant database that has been built up manually during 5 years time. It’s based on the unique Hex/ModeS code that is transmitted by the airplane.
Every day there are new deliveries and old aircraft getting new owners, so new information have to be added into database daily.
Help us updating the database by posting the Hex/ModeS code together with aircraft information in this thread.