Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Accident in Spain, M20K D-ETFT

Peter wrote:

It is what a fixed ELT does, but few planes have these because even they are mandatory in a lot of places, they were banned “since for ever” in Europe so not many are installed.
They’re not. (All our club aircraft have one, including the 2006 C172S.)

Maybe you’re thinking of older ELTs not transmitting on 406 MHz? I don’t know if they’re banned but they don’t satisfy current requirements for an ELT.

The relevant piece of regulation is

NCO.IDE.A.170 Emergency locator transmitter(ELT)

(a) Aeroplanes shall be equipped with:
(1) an ELT of any type, when first issued with an individual CofA on or before 1 July 2008;
(2) an automatic ELT, when first issued with an individual CofA after 1 July 2008; or
(3) a survival ELT (ELT(S)) or a personal locator beacon (PLB), carried by a crew member or a passenger, when certified for a maximum passenger seating configuration of six or less.

(b) ELTs of any type and PLBs shall be capable of transmitting simultaneously on 121,5 MHz and 406 MHz

An “Automatic ELT” is one which is activated automatically by impact forces. A “Survival ELT” is one that is detachable from the aircraft.

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 18 May 13:32
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

I wrote “were” [banned] so one is starting from a low installed base. When my plane was delivered it came with one but the CAA (G-reg) demanded its removal. I am sure the Swedish GA scene is 100% compliant but taking Europe as a whole I reckon (in fact I know) many still fly without one. Also (a)(3) permits a handheld PLB which is not going to be of much use in a real crash. And actually with the wreckage being burnt out too, a fixed ELT may not have been much good either, assuming it survived the impact. Post #13 looks pretty grim.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

The flight was very stable, first 11500ft for most of the time, then descend maintain 7500ft, then descend maintain 4400ft, then a 3min climb to 6300ft, followed by a 5 minute descend, with speed decrease down to 110kts and then varying. The squawk code was 3310 until 11:12, then 7215 until 13:05, followed by 7065 at 13:06, which means either IFR, or VFR with an ATC assigned squawk.

Looking at the last couple minutes of the flight, my guess is engine failure, followed by best glide speed, and CFIT in IMC or not enough VMC.
I don’t buy any of your speculations about VFR into IMC, there is no indication of a spin, that plane went down the last minutes in a controlled manner.

Last Edited by EuroFlyer at 18 May 14:06
Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

All very valid points. It makes one wonder…

With the most powerful hindsight, if they found a wx wall, they had just overflown LETL 20’ before in CAVOK conditions and could turn back and land there (35’ flying time from where the flight ended). LEZG was also good. LEDA was closer but since it is not always manned, it is not easy to get wx.

SA 12/05/2018 10:00→
METAR LETL 121000Z AUTO 25011KT 210V280 CAVOK 19/05 Q1016=
SA 12/05/2018 10:30→
METAR LETL 121030Z AUTO 26012KT 230V290 9999 NCD 19/04 Q1015=
SA 12/05/2018 11:00→
METAR LETL 121100Z AUTO 26010KT 230V320 CAVOK 19/05 Q1015=
SA 12/05/2018 11:30→
METAR LETL 121130Z AUTO 24013KT 220V290 CAVOK 19/04 Q1015=
SA 12/05/2018 12:00→
METAR LETL 121200Z AUTO 22011KT 170V250 CAVOK 19/02 Q1014=
SA 12/05/2018 12:30→
METAR LETL 121230Z AUTO 23008KT 160V300 9999 NSC 20/04 Q1014=
SA 12/05/2018 13:00→
METAR LETL 121300Z AUTO 24011KT 210V270 CAVOK 21/04 Q1014=
SA 12/05/2018 13:30→
METAR LETL 121330Z AUTO 23007KT 160V280 CAVOK 20/03 Q1013=
SA 12/05/2018 14:00→
METAR LETL 121400Z AUTO 23008KT 200V260 CAVOK 19/01 Q1013=

As was mentioned before, by the time the flight was terminated, they were only 10 minutes from destination so pressure to get there must have been high.

If they had engine trouble, then the wx may have been only a factor, but regardless and judging by reports, it was a big one!

To me the key is why is this information so evident to us now but it was not to them then?

Two answers that I am pondering are:

a) As above: ATC should have had a similar picture to our gorgeous hindsight: why so little asistance from ATC?
First: the pilot asked too little too late, and nothing in relation to wx has been mentioned in those comms
Why?
Second: most of my flying in 20 years has been in Spain and I do second the view that in general ATC are not helpful to light aircraft unless you are really assertive. And I mean REALLY assertive. Once you make your point that you need assitance then they switch into helping mode, I give them that.

I think the two above are connected as also mentioned before: there is some pressure on the pilot NOT to report an issue to ATC. That means ATC in Spain will rarely go into helping mode with light aircraft unless you really ask so.

IN the UK, once, as soon as I mentioned I was experiencing some light icing and requested higher (after waiting a couple of mins for the busy freq to clear) ATC must have read between the lines, granted approval and, knowing they had had the freq occupied came back: sir, whenever you have a request with regards to icing please forward it immediately. In Spain they give you a standby for icing as happily as if you were asking for the wx at your VFR destination two hours away. Surely if I get a standby then I will initiate my climb/descent anyway as soon as it goes outside my comfort zone, then notify, but the general tendency is to wait for a clearance when in controlled airspace.

I am not saying it is good, just stating a fact: a lot of pilots (including embarrased myself) are reluctant to ask for help: furthermore the Spanish ATC attitude deters from it whereas the UK makes it unnecessary to go into PAN mode before you can get help.

Other than the “ATC-induced” reluctance (if I may call it that, apologies in advance to ATCO’s, but you get the point) why are we reluctant?

I have had two occasions where I found myself in a situation where I could have asked for help and I did not:

Once I was a VFR pilot a long time ago with no GPS or VOR coverage and I got lost as I misidentified a landmark and my mismatching clues got me to the wrong conclusions. ATC could have quickly got me out of there. Instead I elected to find my way by looking at other landmakrs and my map and 20’ later I was back on track. It worked out well but it may not have and I may have ended out of fuel on a field or worse.
Another time I was in the middle of the North Atlantic in a SEP with no viable alternate closer than my destination and had an uncertain fuel state/possible fuel leak in a 60kt headwind.I eventually figured I could reach my destination with comfortable reserves, but for the 15 minutes it took me to reach that conclusion, I concentrated in analysing options and fuel state rather than calling ATC. By the time I was certain of our situation, there was no need to advise anyway. I felt it more urgent to ascertain our situation than to inform ATC of somethign I was unsure of, and about which I could do no more in the meantime (ie switch fuel supply to feed solely from the supposedly leaking tank and keep heading to the closest viable airfield). IN my defense even today I do not know what they could have done to help when my priority was to get certainty as to our situation.

I must say my mind worked a lot worse in those situations than it usually does and I had to concentrate to voice everything I was doing step by step so I could get my companion to verify me for consistency…talk about tunnel vision/thinking! We must not expect pilots performanced to be above standard in those situations: I find the opposite.

Is that what happened to these guys? Tunnel thinking?

b) It makes no sense that in 2018, for long cross-country flights, we are still relying routinely on “traditional” wx sources when we can get reasonably cheap almost-real-time satellite wx and even 3G wx in flight. I make a very strong case for systems like Golze.
Not long ago when over Southern France aiming to land at Tarbes LFBT in very stable widespread wx, the METARs started to separate from TAFs all around the western half of the country when the widespread fog/low cloud refused to lift. It took me 5 minutes to get the whole picture of France with all airfields and decide on my diversion to the single airfield in the western half of France with consistent CAVOK wx at Nantes LFRS, then figure I had enough fuel to re-divert further on to the Channel Islands with also good MET and TAF. (I was heading to the UK anyway).
It would have taken me ages to get that picture from ATC and I would have had to head west to Biarritz or Bilbao when I wanted to head North.
For a club or shared airplane this kind of system should be quite affordable and almost mandatory for long range flights. Can you fly without it? Yes. Does it make sense to do long-range cross-country without it or some means to get as a minimum MET/TAF in flight? Not to me.

Last Edited by Antonio at 18 May 14:26
Antonio
LESB, Spain

Peter wrote:

For example when I am flying above the Alps, more than half the time it is above an overcast, and I run a topo map like this

But I imagine you are in a total group of one running such a homemade solution… the rest use the likes of SkyDemon which shows a nice elevation view..and gives terrain warnings…

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

As I said, I don’t think the adoption of SD is that big, once you get out of the “UK forum SD fan club” scene Also many people find it confusing and over-complex; something which was evident when I flew with people using it. I find strange quirks in these tools too. I guess the accident report might comment on any tools that were used, if they find an Ipad or some such and it is still functioning (unlikely, given the fire).

As for what I use personally, I use it because it does what I need. For the limited amount of VFR that I do these days (mostly UK stuff) I don’t need to pay a hundred quid a year for a complex tool. Running raster maps is fine for me. The UK ones are clear. I did think Foreflight had a very good terrain (topo) presentation when I had a play with it at EDNY this year, but I don’t have a modern Ipad so could not try it further.

Good post @Antonio … however as I say above, GA contains many sub-communities which do things in so many different ways. If you get 10 pilots from around Europe into a room, you will find they brief in 10 different ways for VFR and 20 different ways for IFR Also, if an instructor is involved you can be fairly sure the methods used will be something out of the PPL syllabus i.e. stuff which is about 20 years out of date (but is still taught today).

Also there will be resistance to doing something which usurps the authority of the instructor, which is going to complicate the preflight and airborne decisionmaking. I saw this when I got my TB20 in 2002 and started doing longer trips in 2003. The school club fly-outs became a lot less welcoming, although I remained useful for ferrying the girlfriends and wives of the (mostly male) students

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

I suspect in many cases a PLB will be more useful than an ELT fixed to the airframe. It’s only when there’s a crash and the occupants are alive but unconscious and the aircraft doesn’t burn that an ELT would be more useful. If someone can egress then a PLB isnt going to burn or sink to the bottom of the sea (I hook mine around my belt for overwater flying so if I get out so does the PLB, an ELT would just end up underwater and useless)

Andreas IOM

Antonio wrote:

Is that what happened to these guys? Tunnel thinking?

Probably. A similar accident happened in my backyard so to speak. 3 German pilots in one aircraft, all of them with lots of experience. They had all the help in the world, and was given it. Yet they chose to continue as planned. They issued no form of distress at any part of the flight. All three killed instantly when smashing into a mountain just a couple of NM from the last airport they flew past and could have landed safely.

It could also be that they just didn’t recognize the danger they were in. They had never really experienced the situation (low visibility, low cloud cover and hilly terrain) despite their long experience as pilots. Less than a year ago, another German pilot carved up the runway with both propellers when he forgot to lower the landing gear. Instead of landing, he continued several hundred nautical miles with bent propellers and probably twisted and cracked cranks, past half a dozen airports, and landed at my home airport. It will be funny reading the accident report on that one.

This last accident also looks like they went out of fuel, maybe a combination. But, German pilots issuing a mayday or any form of distress? In my experience that looks to be a very difficult thing for them to do. Maybe it is a mind set?

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

What – in hell – does that have to do with „German“ pilots ? Did you watch too many bad C rated WW2 movies in British TV ?

Last Edited by EuroFlyer at 19 May 10:09
Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany

… that looks to be a very difficult thing for them to do. Maybe it is a mind set?

… those were the Japanese pilots … (sorry Japan)
Last Edited by nobbi at 19 May 19:12
EDxx, Germany
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top