Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

TB10 HB-EZW down near Lucerne

Graham wrote:

Many clubs/groups/schools/airfields teach and practice a reduction to 2,500rpm shortly after takeoff in variable-pitch SEPs.

What transpires in the discussion is that these guys even took off with 2500 RPM! And if they needed full power, they pulled back RPM at 50 ft. That, imho, is a smoking gun in this case.

The exact point in climb when a reduction to 2500 ft is required is usually noted in the POH, The TB10 one however sais climb with all levers full forward. Reducing RPM for take off will result in longer roll, longer total distance and a mediocre climb performance. Also there is no clue in the POH on how much lower.

Fact is, this plane has climbed with less than 50% of its capability. That is one big hole in the cheese. Another one is the bad visibility out of the front.A third one was the ver low SEP currency the pilot had.

If this was done for noise abatement, so Nimby-folk egosim which forces such stuff has just claimed another victim. Or rather 4 of them.

LSZH, Switzerland

Unfortunately the explanation for this accident is extremely simple – and noise abatement procedures might have contributed, but are surely not the core.

The simple truth is: There is no such thing as an “experienced pilot”!
Flying experience is always relative to type, flying conditions, area, etc.: Mountain-Time doesn’t help for offshore operations (and vice versa), IFR-time doesn’t help for VFR (and vice versa), Turbine time doesn’t help for SEP (and vice versa).
In this accident one could even argue, that the “wrong” experience is actually detrimental: If it is true what the SUST assumes, that the pilot was completely surprised by hitting the ground, one of the core reasons might have been that he was so used to the climb performance of the SETs, etc. he typically flew, that he did not sufficiently consider climb performance as the key factor for his flight tactics in this departure.

Unfortunately we had some accidents in that category in the not so distant past: Guess we all remember the extremely experienced (and for sure proficient) Austrian aerobatics pilot that flew a helicopter into the ground in the mountains not so long ago…

Germany

Malibuflyer wrote:

Guess we all remember the extremely experienced (and for sure proficient) Austrian aerobatics pilot that flew a helicopter into the ground in the mountains not so long ago…

And a citation pilot who ended up crashing a TB20 in France…. was also a thread here.

Malibuflyer wrote:

The simple truth is: There is no such thing as an “experienced pilot”!

Maybe too simple but fact is: Experience on one class of airplane does not mean experience in another. Maybe the currency requirements for renewal of different ratings are simply too low today. IMHO, the rule about currency to carry pax (3 landings in 90 days per class) might as well be extended to airplane type or even subtype where they differ..

LSZH, Switzerland

I’m a good example for this. Additionally I don’t own an airplane so can’t tinker around and become as familiar (intimate, hehe) with it as you owners.

I did my training on seps and meps. Then didn’t fly privately at all, apart from keeping my ratings valid.
Then my interest in private ga increased and I gradually started flying more again (sep).

To say that e.g. flying a jet as a day job means you are fine to fly anytime and anywhere in a sep is wrong. To say it doesn’t help in some regard is wrong as well. I try to take the best bits from both worlds and combine them. I try to soak up information like a sponge and I believe a lot can be learned by engaging with others (eg on here) and reading up, watching videos etc.. before venturing out and gaining experience step by step.

Flying airplanes means any small mistake can kill you. It’s unforgiving. I believe this pilot simply had a lapse of judgement concerning where/how high he was for a short while and that was fatal :(

I am against more rules. The 90day rule, along with differences training, is pointless imho because three quick touch and goes will not avoid mistakes like the one this thread is discussing.

Last Edited by Snoopy at 07 Feb 12:51
CB IR Instruction
LOWG, LOWW

The 90 day rule is not perfect, but at least it reminds that currency is important.
If the Pilatus chief pilot forgot about it when taking his family (if I understand well, having 0 hr in the last 90 days), he probably was not current at all in pistons.

I read an article on a US mag for airline pilots taking on GA when they retire. The first advice was : this Piper you fly is not a Boeing you are used to !!!

Snoopy wrote:

Flying airplanes means any small mistake can kill you. It’s unforgiving. I believe this pilot simply had a lapse of judgement concerning where/how high he was for a short while and that was fatal :(

It has to be a bunch of mistakes during the planning (e.g. lack of type currency) but yes it only takes one killer action in the cockpit
I give you one: you try to fly max range then you are low on fuel, you find headwinds +40kts at 3000ft and +10kts at 1000ft

Which speed/altitude you fly? (probably all answers are wrong but slow at 4000ft get you ready for the next step )

Now back to currency on type, I never had an issue flying close to max range in a Mooney with Fuel Totaliser (even with 50kts headwinds adjusted numbers and reserves went just fine) but I think it was stupid to try the same in a slow C172 with POH and only inaccurate gauges, the flip side it is easy to land slowly into wind….

I think flying is very safe if:
- Bowtie Swiss Cheese is kept to 1 hole during planning and 2 holes while flying (3 = land ASAP)
- Enjoy GA airtime and associated hassle rather than focus flying CAT missions (this is the hard bit)

Last Edited by Ibra at 07 Feb 14:12
ESSEX, United Kingdom

Ibra wrote:

I never had an issue flying close to max range in a Mooney with Fuel Totaliser (even with 50kts headwinds adjusted numbers and reserves went just fine) but I think it was stupid to try the same in a slow C172 with POH and only inaccurate gauges,

Flying max range for me is not a question of airplane type but of having an accurate fuel flow meter and a fuel totalizer. Even for a C172 there are cheap models. If my plane had not had one, that would have been the first thing to put, no matter if it was a C150 or a Mooney.

Snoopy wrote:

Flying airplanes means any small mistake can kill you.

Mistakes which can kill you can not really be classified as small.

I believe the fact that this experienced pilot came to grief had maybe to do with the fact that he was a professional beyond the capabilities of most of us (test pilot e.t.c.) but he was adhering to a “home made” procedure designed for noise abatement which in fact took a lot of performance away from him. He was close to MTOW, yet he choose (probably was instructed to) take off and climb with 2500 RPM instead of the maximum of 2700 RPM, which with the ambient conditions about halfed the climb performance. That was the hole in the cheese which was big enough for the mouse to climb through and open the rest.

I am totally amazed that this would happen to a top guy like him. But then again, how many top guys (not sky gods, real honest professionals) have we lost in GA recently. They should finally realize that low powered airplanes are much less forgiving any such stuff in comparison to overpowered twin jets.

LSZH, Switzerland

In what way was he a “professional” pilot?

Not in a TB10, surely?

Perhaps in a 737 which can do +3000fpm at ISA+20 while loaded with 150 “modern size” Europeans, and which can be at 10000ft by the time it reaches midpoint downwind if loaded lightly.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Mistakes which can kill you can not really be classified as small.

By definition, you mean? :)

To not be complacent I’ll continue the mantra that flying airplanes means minor things can kill you. And quickly.

CB IR Instruction
LOWG, LOWW

In what way was he a “professional” pilot?

Reto Aeschlimann started his aviation career in 1989 with the courses in pre-flight training (FVS, today SPHAIR). For ten years, he flew as a commercial pilot and flight instructor on the F-5 Tiger and F / A-18 with the Air Force. Most recently, he was assigned to F-5 E / F Tiger as a militia pilot in Fl St 19. He was also a flight instructor and BAZL expert. Aeschlimann had been employed by Pilatus Aircraft Plants in Stans since 2004, and as a chief pilot since 2005. He completed his test pilot training at the Empire Test Pilot School in Boscombe Down (England). In his flight books, he reported more than 7,300 flight hours and 11,500 landings, including over 4,500 as a pilot in command on civil aircraft, around 3,000 hours on military jets, 2,500 as a test pilot and 2,300 as a flight instructor and flight examiner. In the military, he also flew PC-7 and the Jet Trainer Hawk Mk66. Most recently, he was also responsible for the certification program for the PC-24 Super Versatile Jet at Pilatus and, among other things, completed the first flight with the first prototype together with a second test pilot.

CB IR Instruction
LOWG, LOWW
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top