PPRuNe Forums


Accidents and Close Calls Discussion on accidents, close calls, and other unplanned aviation events, so we can learn from them, and be better pilots ourselves.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 14th Feb 2017, 17:19   #1 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 3,968
Tecnam twin crashes northwest of Calgary. Two fatalities

Aviation school fleet grounded as Mount Royal University mourns loss of 2 instructors in crash near Calgary - Calgary - CBC News
India Four Two is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 17th Feb 2017, 03:34   #2 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 3,968
Photos from the crash site seem to show a near-vertical descent with a very small pitch angle.





Flight instructors killed in plane crash near Calgary were experienced pilots: Mount Royal University president | Globalnews.ca
India Four Two is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2017, 20:07   #3 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,019
Simulated single engine exercise gone wrong?
Inadvertent spin?
B2N2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2017, 20:17   #4 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 3,968
B2N2,

There is no official information yet. However, two things to note:

1. This was a flight with two very experienced instructors, presumably doing some continuation training exercises.

2. The crash site photos imply an almost vertical impact with little or no pitch angle. I remember seeing confirmation of this somewhere else. The second photo I posted shows an impact scar which might indicate rotation, but it might also have been caused by the wreckage sliding downslope.

I've not been able to find any information on stall-spin Tecnam twin accidents.
India Four Two is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 5th Mar 2017, 22:51   #5 (permalink)
 
Join Date: May 2015
Location: Inverness
Posts: 871
Second hand information as I've not flown it but friends who do operate it say the stall characteristics are closer to a Tomahawk than a Seneca however that is just a lead in from the last comment above about stall/spin. I've got no idea as to the cause here, haven't looked into it at all.
TangoAlphad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th Mar 2017, 13:43   #6 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Belgium
Age: 58
Posts: 68
@TangoAlphad

That would be problematic as there were only 2 persons on board in this accident, and with 4 adults and bagage the cg would move further aft.
Vilters is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 20th Mar 2017, 19:03   #7 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: FL, USA
Posts: 2,019
It's been a while since I looked this up but twin engine aircraft have no certification requirements as far as spins...as you're not supposed to spin them.
I don't know of any GA twin which is authorized to spin.
But an accident with two experienced instructor pilots is usually training related which would lead you to believe a SE demo gone wrong.
B2N2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st Mar 2017, 09:45   #8 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 68
Quote:
I don't know of any GA twin which is authorized to spin.
Perhaps I can enlighten you...

http://https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wi...in_E2E_Comet_1

http://http://www.pprune.org/flight-...comet-1-a.html
B737C525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 00:08   #9 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 3,968
I've been trying to find a POH for the P2006T. Does anyone know if spinning is approved or not?
India Four Two is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd Mar 2017, 08:17   #10 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 68
From the AFM Section 2:

Quote:
14. APPROVED MANEUVERS
The aircraft is certified in normal category in accordance with EASA CS-23 regulation.
Non aerobatic operations include:
 Any manoeuvre pertaining to “normal” flight
 Stalls (except whip stalls)
 Lazy eights
 Turns in which the angle of bank is not more than 60°
 Chandelle
And then, with a big red warning triangle next to it:

Quote:
Acrobatic manoeuvres, including spins and turns with angle of bank of more than 60°, are not approved for such a category. In addition, stall with one engine inoperative is forbidden.
...and from Section 3, with another red triangle:

Quote:
The spin recovery has not been demonstrated during certification process being not required for this aircraft category. Should an unintentional spin occur, the classic recovery ma- noeuvre is deemed as being the best action to undertake.
B737C525 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd Mar 2017, 17:15   #11 (permalink)
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: CYYC (Calgary)
Posts: 3,968
B737C525,

Thank you for that information, which was as I suspected.

During some searching, I stumbled on this interesting video of spin-testing a Beech Duchess:



As pointed out in the video, even after successful spin-testing during certification test-flying, the Duchess was certified in the Normal Category and placarded "Normal Category Aircraft: No acrobatic maneuvers, including spins, approved."

Previously discussed on PPRuNe here:

http://www.pprune.org/flight-testing...ml#post8778999

Last edited by India Four Two; 23rd Mar 2017 at 18:45.
India Four Two is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 24th Mar 2017, 16:59   #12 (permalink)
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 56
Posts: 3,442
Note the certification differences:

Normal category singles may be spin approved, but are not required to be. They will, however, for certification, have demonstrated recovery from a one turn spin in no more than one additional turn. Nothing says that this recovery has to be easy, just possible.

Utility category aircraft, if to be spin approved, are required to demonstrate recovery from more demanding spin conditions.

The forgoing shows the difference on the spinning categories approved for the 172 - normal vs utility.

Multi engined aircraft are not required to demonstrate spin compliance at all for certification, unless they are requesting spinning approval as a utility aircraft. I'm not aware of any examples of this. They are required to demonstrate single engined stalls, but if you're spinning a multi engined aircraft you are probably a test pilot for that flight.
Pilot DAR is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 25th Mar 2017, 06:44   #13 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: N/A
Posts: 1,779
Quote:
you are probably a test pilot for that flight
And perhaps an unwilling one. The RAAF had a C-130 make a six turn spin, and the USN had a P-3 make five turns.
megan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th Apr 2017, 22:47   #14 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Mediterranean
Posts: 78
Quote:
I've not been able to find any information on stall-spin Tecnam twin accidents.
20160817 TC-TUO
https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/wiki.php?id=189329

20121113 YL-SVN
http://www.taiib.gov.lv/uploads/Fina...kultix%200.pdf
janrein is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 15th Apr 2017, 15:45   #15 (permalink)
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,603
That accident report is pretty interesting reading. I have not flown the Tecnam, but other types I have flown, including the Partenavia Observer, demonstrated good tolerance to wing drop and spin entry, when flown within their certified parameters. The flying I did on these types included single engined and 30 degree banked stalls. Though I was guarding myself for an upset, I was always rewarded with a benign aircraft.
Step Turn is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01.


© 1996-2012 The Professional Pilots Rumour Network

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.1