Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

PA46 Malibu N264DB missing in the English Channel

Given he didn’t want to fly high for lack of an IR

There was a whole pile of factors like that. The plane didn’t have Mode S either. Why not Mode S? Think about it The mission profile of this plane, presumably appreciated by the customers, dictated discreet flying, but why? Certain things are fairly obvious but still better to not post them. But see also here.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Sebastian,

I have wondered about this too, and my very first flight in my plane with an instructor (who’s actually a very good guy and knowledgeable), who said “you can pull off pressurisation for take off, that will give you more power”. That’s not true as you know, but it’s an OWT which is still around. Even Piper resellers were telling customers the Matrix (unpressurised Mirage) had more power available. Given he didn’t want to fly high for lack of an IR, he might have wanted that “extra power”?

I sometimes pull pressurisation off, when it’s very hot in summer, because the air renews faster and allows for better cooling, especially as you get to colder air at altitude. The risk is to forget it as you pass 10k feet, so you need to make sure your cabin altitude alert works, after every annual at least. But I never do those unpressurised climbs with the heater on, precisely to avoid that CO risk.

I have a portable CO detector behind the P2 seat. It sometimes goes off when I store a bag there and press the test button accidentally but otherwise it’s very reassuring to have it.

EGTF, LFTF

I must say I’m a bit surprised by the comments on the EASA decision. Given how we usually gripe about overregulation I thought that a decision by EASA to not mandate active CO detectors as not being proportionate would be appreciated. Oh, well.

(Note the word “active” in the AAIB recommendation. A simple €5 chemical detector plate was not what they asked for.)

Last Edited by Airborne_Again at 21 Dec 07:08
ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

Having to buy new headsets for the plane (kids grew and the old ones are not suitable anymore), and being a normal client of Bose (non aviation products), I did decided for the new Lightspeed Delta Zulu for that reason exactly. It is a peace of mind having an active CO reader right in your ears.

LPSR, Portugal

Why EASA won’t do a recommendation on it even is quite astonishing. They usually don’t hesitate when it comes to much more expensive stuff.

EASA says

They can be of two types:
— portable CO detectors, which means they are ‘carried on’ to the aircraft. They have auditory and/or visible warning sensors. They are available on the market in a wide variety of forms, and their price ranges from € 15 to 100 or above, depending on the number of functions they have. Such detectors are built for home use (usually for kitchens), caravans or similar mobile-home vehicles. They last longer than passive detectors — with a sensor life of approximately 7 years, and a battery life of between 1 and 10 years. No airworthiness approval is required for such units; or
— permanently ‘installed’ CO detectors that can be installed in a suitable position on the aircraft. Aviation standard units are also available. They are compliant with ETSO-2C48a and do not need an airworthiness approval. Such units have additional functions but are more expensive (approximately €200–300). Their usual service life is between 5 and 7 years. Some of them have batteries.
Most of the installed active detectors can be installed by following the related CS-STAN specifications, so no direct EASA involvement is necessary. This saves operators the time and money otherwise required for an application for a formal aircraft modification.
EASA has published the following CS-STAN standard changes to facilitate the installation and exchange of CO detectors:
— CS-SC107a for the installation of CO detectors (for equipment which is compliant with ETSO- C48 or other recognised industry standard);
— CS-SC201b for the exchange of CO detectors.

Basically there are already SIBs, recommendations and CS-STAN paths to increase safety without raising cost significantly. Lighter & simpler rules for GA. Isn’t that a good thing?

This guy dove into CO warners and recommends the Ei208D (40€ on amzn).

Last Edited by Snoopy at 20 Dec 23:53
always learning
LO__, Austria

I have a B&Q household detector in the Bolkow Junior. It has never bleeped in flight.
I had it in my flight bag on the rh seat in the Jodel DR1050. It went off after ~20 minutes and didn’t stop until removed from the cockpit after landing as engine shut down.
The Bolkow cockpit is well sealed.
The Jodel had a draught coming in at the centre, blowing into my face.

Maoraigh
EGPE, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

EASA has now concluded that such a requirement would carry a cost which is not proportionate to the limited safety improvement,

Well, any of us is free to do it anyway. After this crash and several others (including the Dallach crash) it’s not a bad idea I think.

Capitaine wrote:

Of course, the alarm was beeping on 90% of the flight, but, “don’t worry, it always does that”

Many house hold detectors are unsuitable for airplane environment and will do that exactly.

I will be getting one by BAC Avionics soon. Until then I have a portable one which I did test to be suitable. It’s not rocket science and they are not expensive.

Peter_G wrote:

I find this extraordinary since CO was a contributing factor to not only the Sala accident but also in the de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver aircraft, VH‑NOO, at Jerusalem Bay, Hawkesbury River, NSW on 31 December 2017.

and it was the cause of the crash of Wolfgang Dallach in 2015.

Why EASA won’t do a recommendation on it even is quite astonishing. They usually don’t hesitate when it comes to much more expensive stuff.

Last Edited by Mooney_Driver at 20 Dec 21:30
LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland

The AAIB recommended that
“the European Union Aviation Safety Agency require piston engine aircraft which may have a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning to have a CO detector with an active warning to alert pilots to the presence of elevated levels of carbon monoxide.”
EASA has now concluded that such a requirement would carry a cost which is not proportionate to the limited safety improvement, so they reject the recommendation.

I find this extraordinary since CO was a contributing factor to not only the Sala accident but also in the de Havilland Canada DHC-2 Beaver aircraft, VH‑NOO, at Jerusalem Bay, Hawkesbury River, NSW on 31 December 2017.

  • It CONFIRMS that the cause of the accident was CO.
  • It CRITICISES the use of disposable CO chemical spot detectors as being unreliable, especially in sunlight.
  • It RECOMMENDS that GA aircraft be fitted with inexpensive and readily available electronic active warning CO detectors.

Despite EASA response, there is nothing to stop private pilots obtaining one of these:

Last Edited by Peter_G at 20 Dec 20:52
Rochester, UK, United Kingdom

I recently flew with someone who had a domestic CO detector attached to the panel of their syndicate plane: “it’s the law to have it”. No real explanation where this came from, but must have been as a result of this accident. Of course, the alarm was beeping on 90% of the flight, but, “don’t worry, it always does that” 🤔 You can lead a horse to water…

EGHO-LFQF-KCLW, United Kingdom

Airborne_Again wrote:

The AAIB recommended that

“the European Union Aviation Safety Agency require piston engine aircraft which may have a risk of carbon monoxide poisoning to have a CO detector with an active warning to alert pilots to the presence of elevated levels of carbon monoxide.”

I do not understand why they do not look at how that CO could possibly have entered the cabin of that PA46? The piston PA46 is not a normal piston airplane in this regard. If operated normally it is nearly impossible to get CO into the cabin. Only by pulling a big lever to deactivate the pressurized cabin the system can be turned into a conventionaly setup like most piston planes. Only then CO could enter once the heat exchanger on the exhaust gets a leak. I have many hours in the PA46 and not flown a single minute in that configuration, nor have I ever seen anybody doing so.
On top of that flying and airplane, which was made to fly high above the weather etc., so low over the water at night simply makes no sense. Usually I think it could happen to all of us anytime and we better watch out. But there is so much wrong with this flight I do not even know where to start.

www.ing-golze.de
EDAZ
1180 Posts
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top