Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

JU52 HB-HOT down near Flims

I’m well aware of the effect of temperature on density altitude, having flown in Colorado and Montana in the summer. I’d be surprised if the pilots in this accident were not well aware of it.
The mention of CBs on the other side of the pass could produce strong, localised, wind effects.
Turning away from the pass, a descending turn would have less G.
I’m not, at this stage, willing to consider that some action of the pilots caused this accident, nor that they could have avoided it.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Maoraigh wrote:

I’m not, at this stage, willing to consider that some action of the pilots caused this accident, nor that they could have avoided it.

Not sure anyone, anywhere in this discussion has highlighted pilot error.Quite the opposite in fact. Flying up valleys, at altitude and high temps as we all know is tricky. Whether it is diminishing engine performance, down drafts, updrafts, shear, and add ‘’thread the needle’’ scenario, and it all can get overwhelming. I was caught once in my Chipmunk where I was heading for the infamous gap at the top. Low performance engine, low cloud over the tops of the mountains, rising terrain, two sides of the valley closing in, and the keyhole at the top of the valley where I kept telling myself it would be alright on the other side. I ran out of turning space and headed on. It was pretty scary and I remember the sigh of relief as I went through and could see down the valley on the other side. And as always, learnt from that.

however despite all the experience we can all get caught and sometimes there is just no way out.

Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

Well, the area this crash happened and the pass they were trying to cross was one of their very often used stomping grounds, so they knew every square foot of that valley very well. They apparently were also high enough to cross the pass with reserves. The keeper of the lodge up there has seen them countless times and was simply shocked when it fell out of the sky in the turn. There were dozens of people watching this happen, so there probably will be material for the investigators to watch.

I think we will hear some preliminary reasons a lot earlier than the actual report. This accident is HUGE in Switzerland.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

A preliminary accident report has been published today.

Zwischenbericht HB-HOT

Unfortunately it does not make pleasant reading for issues quite unexpected. And it goes along with grounding the remaining two JU-52 3M indefinitly.

The report does not elaborate on the causes of the crash just yet and maintains that so far, no technical deficiencies have been found which were reckognized as causal to the crash. However, analyzing the condition of the crashed planes, some quite massive corrosion spots were found in the area of the wing spar as well as in the cabin and elsewhere. It was also established that the maintenance organisation responsible for Ju Air and it’s engines did not properly document a lot of work they did, had lots of spare parts without labels or self produced without documentation for the same and had not reported a lot of reportable work done to the competent authority. It was also found that the engines mounted on that airplane went through cylinder replacements at alarming rates and that the engines had other quality issues.

Consequently the Swiss FOCA have grounded the remaining 2 airplanes pending investigation.

Ju Air say they still plan to restart flying in 2019 including re-activating a retired plane (HB-HOY) which is currently on exhibit in Mönchengladbach. This plane is interesting because it underwent a complete restauration quite recently and would theoretically not be subject to the grounding, as it is a CASA built airplane.

It will be very interesting to see how this sad story continues. One thing is sure, the leeway given to Ju Air and it’s cooperators will likely change and therefore the maintenance of these planes will become much more expensive. It is also a problem that for these engines there are no spares, so they have to make their cylinders or re-hone them no matter what Junkers or BMW said almost a century ago. And it also should not be forgotten that Ju Air have had a remarkable safety record for over 30 years. Still, that does not make them as immune from the modern world as they appear to have thought.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 20 Nov 17:53
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

A preliminary accident report has been published today.

Thanks Urs. I flew with a sister plane (HB-HOP) in August 2017, and just shared my photos and videos as requested by SUST.

LFHN, LSGP, LFHM

Mooney_Driver wrote:

Consequently the Swiss FOCA have grounded the remaining 2 airplanes pending investigation.

Lots of passion involved in flying these oldtimers. Sadly it sometimes leads to turning a blind eye as the report exposes.

always learning
LO__, Austria

Zorg wrote:

I flew with a sister plane (HB-HOP) in August 2017, and just shared my photos and videos as requested by SUST.

Yes, that is VERY unusual that they request this. For me, after reading through the report several times, the deficiencies found are one bit of information but not the one which will eventually lead to the explanation of this crash. It is also very unusual that technical faults are ruled out again in this report, as they were before, but now it is even more unusual facing the deficiencies found.

The way I read this, the SUST is very concerned with the way these planes were operated and are trying to make a case for this. That is why they are asking for videos and georeferenced pics and that is why they told Ju Air very early on to keep their pax seated, to carry gps loggers e.t.c.

My own theory goes into the direction of CG problems with the pax not seated but too many to one side and probably too far forward in the cabin. The engines were running and gave full power, that is their conclusion so despite the faults found they were running and producing high power (even though the fact that 16 Cylinders were changed in the last overhaul is mindboggling).

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The way I read this, the SUST is very concerned with the way these planes were operated and are trying to make a case for this

While they seem to have a point here, given the maintenance state of the accident aircraft, some authorities have a bit of a history of using accidents as an excuse to do what they want to do. Especially in Switzerland, where jet accidents in Samedan led to restrictions affecting primarily private light aircraft, and where they tried to use a Saratoga engine failure where the engine clearly hadn’t seen any meaningful condition inspection to ban on-condition engine maintenance past TBO.

So while the state of the aircraft was clearly below par, a lot of what the authorities do and write here makes it look looks like a witch hunt, at least in part. In particular where they focus on paperwork offences. Documented parts for an old-timer? seriously? And they fault them for maintaining the engines properly by replacing cylinders?

Biggin Hill

Wind 009 (right from over the Segnas edge) @ 16, gusts 26, meaning rotors and downdrafts in the hollow where they crashed, + very high density altitude, + bad performance of the Ju, + apparently an issue with passengers not being seated (why else the respective remark in the report ?)….
Pretty obvious if you ask me. Very sad.

Last Edited by EuroFlyer at 21 Nov 08:27
Safe landings !
EDLN, Germany
always learning
LO__, Austria
Sign in to add your message

Threads possibly related to this one

Back to Top