Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Non-Airline Forums > Accidents and Close Calls
Reload this Page >

4th Aug 2018 Junkers JU52 crashed in Switzerland

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.

4th Aug 2018 Junkers JU52 crashed in Switzerland

Old 6th Aug 2018, 08:55
  #81 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Australia
Posts: 0
Originally Posted by krohmie View Post
Anybody here with real information about the Power on stall characteristics of the Ju 52?






​​
This is a moot point.

+1
garpal gumnut is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:05
  #82 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: BRS/GVA
Posts: 331
Originally Posted by Arkroyal View Post
Maths was never my strong subject, but from the pilot resumés it seems they’ve both been flying from the age of 4?
One can fly for commercial and military at the same time.
hoss183 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:06
  #83 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: at the edge of the alps
Posts: 374
Originally Posted by clearedtocross View Post
The BMW radials fitted have much less power than the former Luftwaffe engines (500+ instead of 800+ HP) and are normaly aspirated.
According to the Ju-Air website their airplanes have BMW 132A3 engines which according to Wikipedia have a take-off rating of 725hp and a continuous rating of 550hp (of which app. 500hp are used in cruise according to Ju-Air), so the power loss at that altitude would not be that dramatic.

Originally Posted by Alber Ratman
JU52s were never build or regulated to CS25. Yes the company has a Swiss AOC as the aircraft must have done so to carry pax.
I don't think that this operation is certified according to normal passenger transport standards as it is performed by an association (like the Swiss Connie) and you have to be a member to take part in the flights. I hope this modus of operation will not be closed as a result of this accident and the opportunity to get a first-hand experience of flying 1930's (or any later era's) style will remain open to an informed public willing to take the risk

There will inevitably come a day when the last piston airliner will have to be shut down for the last time and reduced to a static display, but I hope that this day is still well in the future.
Alpine Flyer is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:06
  #84 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: If this is Tuesday, it must be?
Posts: 575
Arkroyal, a lot of Swiss military flying is done by reservists, so some of their airline time will have been concurrent.
BizJetJock is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:06
  #85 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Netherlands
Age: 68
Posts: 139
I don't know if the two-day trip schedule was a one-off, compared to normal operations which I suppose will be hourly or day trips. A cancellation isn't a big thing then. But here we have a group that is more or less expecting to fly home in time (at least the day that was planned). It must have put extra pressure on the guys up front, to at least give it a try.
These operators/organisations/clubs need cash flow to continue flying their expensive planes.
Here in our country an organization that operates a Catalina has been forced to stop due to lack of cash flow. Because last Year it was involved in a minor incident (stuck nose gear) and the resulting time it took to get repairs done, took out the best part of the flying season, depleting the little reserves that were there.
Many of these clubs lack the deep pockets like Red Bull has to keep everything in mint condition and don't care if a show or trip gets cancelled.
Double Back is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:12
  #86 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Moo moo land
Posts: 294
Originally Posted by Arkroyal View Post
Maths was never my strong subject, but from the pilot resumés it seems they’ve both been flying from the age of 4?

Its not unusual for pilots to have 2 careers concurrently in many countries think of the air national guard in america.
lowfat is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:13
  #87 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 203
Originally Posted by clearedtocross View Post
There is no need for engine trouble to cause such an accident. This aircraft flew at or above its service ceiling: fully loaded, ISA +17 Celsius. Crash site is at approx. 8500 ft plus the 500 ft you should clear any surface plus nearly +3000 ft density altitude for temperature above ISA adds up to about 12'000 ft density altitude. The BMW radials fitted have much less power than the former Luftwaffe engines (500+ instead of 800+ HP) and are normaly aspirated. Which means that the aircraft was cruising at max. power (which is maybe half of its sea level power) and somewhere near 1.3 times above its rather low stall speed.
Complete rubbish.
Did you ever cross mountains in a piston engine? The Ju52 will go up to 18000 feet outperforming a typical C172 and any Homo sapiens not on oxygen. 12.000 feet density altitude is nothing special. You can go to 14.000 feet without oxygen for half an hour. You will feel a bit tired and that improves with every 500 feet you go down.

Here two experienced captains where faced with a problem they could not solve and that was definitely not a density altitude problem. It might be one additional hole in the cheese but not the definite one for the outcome.
From what I see on the terrain, they could have maid it to an emergency landing even without any power. So there is more to the story.
EDLB is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:41
  #88 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Bit rude aren't we?
Kerosene Kraut is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:47
  #89 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 80
Posts: 195
Ref. that Swiss TV picture(screenshot)
It appears unrelated to the crashed flight!! The Text attached to that TV picture only says: One of the last pictures of the flight. Neither does it state wether that JU52? is actually HB-HOT, nor does it state the date when the picture was taken. Good guess it is just the normal journo crap - Mr. T would call it "fake news"
Canton Glarus is north of the crash site. Enter "Chamm, Glarus" on Google Earth (Maps) and it will show a mountainous place to the north of the accident site. It´s nowhere said or written that they crossed that ridge next to "Martinsloch" and returned crossing that ridge again !!
Annex14 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 09:52
  #90 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Switzerland
Age: 74
Posts: 98
Originally Posted by EDLB View Post


Complete rubbish.
Did you ever cross mountains in a piston engine? The Ju52 will go up to 18000 feet outperforming a typical C172 and any Homo sapiens not on oxygen. 12.000 feet density altitude is nothing special. You can go to 14.000 feet without oxygen for half an hour. You will feel a bit tired and that improves with every 500 feet you go down.

Here two experienced captains where faced with a problem they could not solve and that was definitely not a density altitude problem. It might be one additional hole in the cheese but not the definite one for the outcome.
From what I see on the terrain, they could have maid it to an emergency landing even without any power. So there is more to the story.
Thank you for the flowers, dear EDLB. Yes, I did cross the mountains many time on a piston engine. Thats why I consider myself as qualified to talk "rubbish". What's really rubbish is the ceiling cited in Wikipedia, at least for the JU-52 operated nowadays.
Let's see what the accident investigation has to say about this.
clearedtocross is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 10:18
  #91 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: EDLB
Posts: 203
Sorry, I like in no way to offend you. Keep in mind that a lot of jurnos with no clue whatsoever are reading here and it does not help to jump to conclusions too early.
EDLB is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 10:44
  #92 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 119
Originally Posted by Annex14 View Post
Ref. that Swiss TV picture(screenshot)
It appears unrelated to the crashed flight!! The Text attached to that TV picture only says: One of the last pictures of the flight. Neither does it state wether that JU52? is actually HB-HOT, nor does it state the date when the picture was taken. Good guess it is just the normal journo crap - Mr. T would call it "fake news"
Canton Glarus is north of the crash site. Enter "Chamm, Glarus" on Google Earth (Maps) and it will show a mountainous place to the north of the accident site. It´s nowhere said or written that they crossed that ridge next to "Martinsloch" and returned crossing that ridge again !!
I think the word you’re looking for is that the picture/screengrab is “unverified”.

That doesn’t mean it’s the same as “fake news”

Last edited by zero/zero; 6th Aug 2018 at 13:24.
zero/zero is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 10:48
  #93 (permalink)  
ZFT
N4790P
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Asia
Age: 70
Posts: 2,055
Originally Posted by Daysleeper View Post
The question is one of informed consent. The commercial air transport industry is exceptionally safe (considering what it does) however a lot of those safety advances don't apply to a 1930s built aeroplane. Do the public truly understand the difference between a modern airliner with certificated 16G passenger seat assembly and one that isn't? Or a performance A aeroplane with whatever a JU-52 is?
You may leave the decision up to the individual, but what if they are not capable of making that decision?
And who decides that? I was lucky enough to fly on a B17 and no one dared question my ability to determine if it was safe. That was my decision.
ZFT is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 10:59
  #94 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2017
Location: Tent
Posts: 674
Originally Posted by Daysleeper View Post
16g is the shorthand for the certification standard for new production passenger seat assembly. (the actual standard is quite complicated with various static and dynamic loads and directions)

Why would it hinder survival?
How many can and do survive 16G seat loads.

I am aware of the standard, just doubt it is practical since they are happy with standard weights in such tests.
Bend alot is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 11:23
  #95 (permalink)  
Moderator
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ontario, Canada
Age: 59
Posts: 4,649
How many can and do survive 16G seat loads.
Last summer I survived a crash where I was ejected through the windshield, having ripped out the 9G seat and seatbelt. That means my body was subjected to a minimum of 12G, though more likely 15G. That causes injuries, though is survivable. Through the evolution of the standards, seat and seatbelt strength requirements have been made more demanding - for the most part, going from less than 6G calculated, through 9G static load test to 18G dynamic load test. I have done STC approval projects on vintage aircraft for modernized passenger carrying (Grumman Goose was one), generally in such cases, more modern standards are applied to the STC approval. I have no specific knowledge of the Ju52, though I would think it might have had a seat refit done prior to re-entering passenger carrying service, and common practice would have that seat refit done to a stronger standard than original. That said, from the crash photos, it does not appear that seat strength would have been a factor in surviveabilty.
Pilot DAR is online now  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 11:24
  #96 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Zagreb,Croatia
Posts: 1
There is a very nice video of sister plane flying through the beautiful Swiss landscape on Youtube under title "Junkers Ju 52 -> Tante JU Spectacular Flight through Swiss Alps from Gstaad"
(I can't post URL's yet).

May they rest in peace.
hunterfate is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 12:51
  #97 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Here and there.
Posts: 879
SATCOS WHIPPING BOY is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 12:52
  #98 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 54
Posts: 2,370
Originally Posted by Hotel Tango View Post
I think that applies to a multitude of daily activities and is very much an attitude which has led to the nanny state environment we now live in.
Exactly.

There are millions of cars on our streets that don´t have the latest safety equipment build in. Scrap em ! (?)
His dudeness is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 14:07
  #99 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: S 51 N
Age: 80
Posts: 195
Originally Posted by zero/zero View Post


I think the word you’re looking for is that the picture/screengrab is “unverified”.

That doesn’t mean it’s the same as “fake news”
Hello Z/Z
thanks for the kind help. However I intentially used the word "unrelated". The outgoing flight from Dübendorf to Locarno went via the Gotthard Massiv.The Gotthard routing is well west of the Chamm mountain area in Kanton Glarus. The return flight followed a more easterly rounting to cover the "highlight" Martinsloch, the hole in the rockwall of that ridge they wanted to cross. The accident site is still within the limits of Kanton Graubünden / Grisons .
So neither on the flight on August, 3 nor on the return flight on August,4 HB-HOT could be spotted in the Chamm Mountain Area before the accident.
In my opinion, what happened here is a journalist in a great hurry wanted to sell his story first, grabbed whatever picture or video of a JU 52 flying in the mountains and added it to his/her report.
I use to call such an approach to the facts of a story "Journos crap" and as side kick to the plague of the "Twitter King" in the US I have named it like he would do.
Just for info!!
Jo
Annex14 is offline  
Old 6th Aug 2018, 14:17
  #100 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Hadlow
Age: 57
Posts: 593
Originally Posted by clearedtocross View Post
Thank you for the flowers, dear EDLB. Yes, I did cross the mountains many time on a piston engine. Thats why I consider myself as qualified to talk "rubbish". What's really rubbish is the ceiling cited in Wikipedia, at least for the JU-52 operated nowadays.
Let's see what the accident investigation has to say about this.
That an operator of a certain type of aircraft decides to impose a lower ceiling than previous operators have done before, or that the aircraft has been certified to before, does not mean that the previously certified ceiling is invalid.
Super VC-10 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2018 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.