Peter wrote:
The PA46 Type Rating is an old piece of history. I recall something years ago suggesting that a significant % of pilots got a frozen pitot (presumably because they forgot to turn on the heater), so they saw IAS dropping off, so they pitched down trying to maintain cruise speed (omitting the obvious thing which is to check pitch+power), went past Vne and broke it up aerodynamically.
It was never a piece of history. There was an FAA special investigation early on when the PA46 was young which found that the airframe is fine but pilots and training were lacking. Some pilots overspeeded and had in flight breakups due to not being familiar with a quick clean airframe. The FAA showed that the aircraft is incredibly tough and can go well beyond redline. But pilots’ stupidity cannot be overestimated and in spite of that they damaged aircraft.
If you press the yoke against the AP, it will try to trim against you. Out of that condition, if the AP releases, the airplane will be massively out of trim. Happens not only in the PA46, I remember a Chinese A310 which crashed because of exactly this mechanism, fighting the autopilot without realizing it.
Yes, but you will get tons of warning because you have been pushing against it the whole time beforehand.
I guess this guy was in IMC and well out of it.
JasonC wrote:
pilots’ stupidity cannot be overestimated
This bit is hearsay: several of the early wrecks were found with the pitot heat switch in the OFF position, leading to speculation (or even “likely cause”) that when the pilot lost his IAS, he also lost control, in IMC. I remember reading from one of the reports, that when a PA-46 pilot broadcasted his panic, someone on the frequency immediately shouted “turn on the pitot heat”.
huv wrote:
Perhaps the PA-46 pilots were more stupid than other pilots, what do I know. But Richard Collins of Flying Magazine documented that the PA 46 at one time had the worst safety record of any civil aircraft in existence. As I read the story, that was why the FAA made a complete recertification of the type (a very rare occurrence), which resulted in a clean bill of health; nothing was wrong with the airplane, but the training for what the PA-46 could do compared to what pilots stepped up from, was found lacking.
Yes. Isn’t that what I just said?
Are there reasons not to have pitot heat on from take off to landing on a PA46 (Or 98% of the planes)? (Excluding emergencies such as alternator failure where you want to save batteries)
Noe wrote:
Are there reasons not to have pitot heat on from take off to landing on a PA46 (Or 98% of the planes)? (Excluding emergencies such as alternator failure where you want to save batteries)
No.
JasonC wrote:
Yes. Isn’t that what I just said?
Close. My point was that although the airframe was not found at “fault”, it did play a role, in that it requires special training to get an acceptable operational safety level, unlike other singles.
huv wrote:
Close. My point was that although the airframe was not found at “fault”, it did play a role, in that it requires special training to get an acceptable operational safety level, unlike other singles.
They actually didn’t find that. Unlike the MU2 no special training regime was put in place. Essentially they just encouraged better training.
…which was pretty much the approach Cirrus took when faced with fatal accident rates well above average – they are now in line with what one would expect.
I very much prefer that approach over “mandatory type rating” nonsense in Europe, or the abuse of regulation where we have “class” ratings for single engine turboprops which are really type ratings, albeit with a two-year period between check flights.
I defend the right for every private pilot to go kill him/herself by being out of their depth. We don’t ask for Lamborghini type ratings, either. Or a 300+ HP sign-off for cars. Hey, how about a rear-wheel drive sign-off? Might be useful in an older 911.
Cobalt wrote:
I defend the right for every private pilot to go kill him/herself by being out of their depth.
Certainly. But then I demand that people who think they do not require at least differences training must not be allowed to carry passengers. There is a huge difference between killing oneself and taking out one’s entire unsuspecting family (as in this accident).
Cobalt wrote:
Or a 300+ HP sign-off for cars.
There are actually countries, like Italy (at least at the time when I got my driving license there), which require a certain number of years of driving practice before being allowed to drive cars which can exceed a certain speed (150 km/h IIRC). In my part of the world, one needs to have his motorcycle licence for a minimum of two years before driving bikes with more than 35kW engine power. I think there is a good reason for that.
Anyway, I don’t think the aircraft type played a major role in this accident. People have killed themselves in similar circumstances in all type of aircraft, from C152 to Citation X. The difficult part of any DIY approach is not the approach itself, but the go-around.
