If they do they will probably bring in the same “expert” again so let us hope it will stay under the radar until the investigation is finished. At least we know that all parts broke due to overload.
I think the AD being issues was outrageous to start with.
Regulators (in this case, CASA) should not be able to restrict people’s activities and use of their aircraft unless thy have evidence that doing so is unsafe.
To ground the fleet until it is certain that the break up was not due to a design flaw was the only way to do it. Do not think any operator disagrees.
If an operator agrees, they can voluntarily stop flying.
Most in flight break ups follow a loss of control with subsequent overstress. An in-flight break up should only lead to grounding of the fleet if there is a reason to believe that it is caused by the airframe.
Airborne_Again wrote:
It will be interesting to see if the media will take notice of this — considering the attention they gave to the AD when it was issued. Probably not, but they might.
Actually they did!
Hm, this was event where the plane departed controlled flight in a way that despite it happened at +13000 ft, all aboard were wearing parachutes, the plane was equipped with a big exit door no one was capable of getting out of it alive. @Cobalt: Are you kidding?
No, I am not. That nobody got out after the loss of control is sad, perhaps difficult to explain, but has nothing to do why with why it happened in the first place.
Regulators should have evidence, or at least the balance of probabilities, on their side when they take restrictive measures. In this case, they had neither.
They also have an obligation to act if there is a doubt regarding airworthiness and that is what kicked in in this case.
The Swedish Accident Investigation Authority has just published a status report presenting the state of the investigation. They have only presented facts, no analysis.
After climbing to the normal jump height of around 13000’, the accident aircraft requested a clearance to a higher than normal altitude due clouds. Given the cloud situation, 7/8 with bases lower than the aircraft altitude, it is possible that they were in cloud at the time. The engine appeared to be operating normally at this point. Some time after resuming the climb, airspeed decreased and the aircraft suddenly began a steep descending turn to the left with a greater than 45° descent angle. Airspeed rapidly increased past Vne. After descending in this fashion to about 8000’ the aircraft went into a vertical descent.
The aircraft mass was slightly above MTOM and the GC was behind the aft limit. It would have moved even further aft when the parachuters assumed jump position near the aircraft door.
The right wing and empennage had broken under overload. There were no traces of metal fatigue or corrosion.
Airborne_Again wrote:
it is possible that they were in cloud at the time
Probably the case, that would explain why no one with parachute went to the exit door
