Nine killed in plane crash in northern Sweden
 

One non-paywalled link in English
https://www.citynews1130.com/2019/07...sweden-9-dead/

A Swedish link for those who want to see a more updated report and play with Google Translate (if necessary)

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/lokalt/va...n-har-gatt-ned

Not in D and with an adblocker on FF.

GippsAero GA8 Airvan crash in Sweden
 

9 people killed when small plane with skydivers crashed in Umeå/northern Sweden, today. A witness filmed the crash.
I am not allowed to post links, but google "Flygolycka umeå fångad på film"

I've a thousand hours or so flying a skydive Airvan. It's docile, you have to work hard to crash it.

The video is horrifying. I see no tail in the video but the fuselage seems long. Possible accidental deployment of a tandem parachute? But again I can't see it breaking off the tail which is high. Skydivers can hit it if they try hard.

Also nine is a heavy load for an Airvan. We could get eight with minimum fuel. But without tandems. Yes it's nose heavy empty, you'd run out of trim and have to hold nose up on landing so clearly it was designed to minimise the possibility of being unbalanced with a heavy load to the rear. But nine is heavy.

Obviously if they find the tail separated???

23s
Vertical dive with rolling

49sec
Nothing relevant on video that I can see -
Sounds like audio of press interview or other discussion but I don't know Swedish.

It appears to be confirmed that the airplane disintegrated in the air. Apparently they are looking for parts and are asking the population to look out and report.

https://www.svt.se/nyheter/inrikes/d...esskonferensen

There has been pictures of parts of a wing (right wing, with stall warning sensor as far as I could tell), as well as what looked like parts of the horizontal stabiliser. Both these parts (and probably more) were found in the river some distance from the crash site. There were witness reports saying that some parts came down _minutes_ after the fuselage, which sounded very strange. But a possible explanation could be a parachute got entangled in the tail section or similar, and the (parts of) wing(s) came off due to high g loads in the spin following disintegration.

According to Flightradar24 the plane was at 13.400 feet at the moment of crash, and they were ready to drop.

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/EASAAD20190177E.pdf

They're grounded EASA wise, looks like it broke up in flight.

How is that a big call? A sensible "safety pause" whilst the event/failure scenario can be determined. I would say it is a prudent call.

Yes it would be silly to ground an aircraft that had a wing structural failure after the tail had already been torn off due to outside influences (such as overspeed after stall, or entanglement with a parachute).
We don't know what the actual failure scenario was though.
The question is whether they are grounding because (a) due to specific evidence that they suspect a structural problem, or (b) they are the type to ground something when they don't yet have any evidence either way. Wait and see.
The EASA AD is vague as to the reasons for its decision, as it says it is both following the lead of Australia's temporary grounding, and using "all available information".

Grounded in NZ tool

https://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/a...ectid=12251302

Directive issued last year:AD/GA8/9 Airworthiness Directives as madeThis instrument amends certain part replacement times which were recently mandated by AD/GA8/9. As Australia is the State of Design for the type, CASA is required to develop, and to transmit to other States of Registry, an airworthiness directive (AD) to correct the problem. The AD sets out required remedial action to replace certain GippsAero GA8 wing struts and wing strut fittings within specified timeframes in response to a manufacturing quality escape which resulted in wing strut fittings in the effective serial number range to be manufactured with incorrect grain orientation.Administered by: Infrastructure, Transport, Cities and Regional Development
AIRWORTHINESS DIRECTIVE

On the commencement date specified below, and for the reasons set out in the background section, the CASA delegate whose signature appears below repeals Airworthiness Directive (AD) AD/GA8/9 and issues the following AD under subregulation 39.001 (1) of CASR 1998 and subsection 33 (3) of the Acts Interpretation Act 1901. The AD requires that the action set out in the requirement section (being action that the delegate considers necessary to correct an unsafe condition) be taken in relation to the aircraft or aeronautical product mentioned in the applicability section: (a) in the circumstances mentioned in the requirement section; and (b) in accordance with the instructions set out in the requirement section; and (c) at the time mentioned in the compliance section.

GippsAero GA8 Series Aeroplanes

AD/GA8/9 Amdt 1

Wing Strut and Wing Strut
Fittings - Inspection and Replacement

11/2018

Grounding lifted

http://publicapps.caa.co.uk/docs/33/...20190177CN.pdf

I imagine the footage of one or several cameras on on board will have been reviewed by now as well. No doubt light has been shed on cause. Speculation perhaps they will have revealed one of a couple of scenarios.

​​​​​​Premature deployment of a parachute causing loss of control followed by structural failure of both tail and wing.

Loss of control after inadvertent or otherwise entry into IMC with a subsequent overstress on attempted recovery. It's so easy to find yourself in a spiral dive after being distracted by the jumpers. Don't ask me how I know.

Ice could be a factor too if in cloud. Even in the Summer months.

A stall, spin on the run in is possible but most likely a few people would have got out in that case. Besides the Airvan has a docile stall even with everyone crowding the exit.

As I said speculation but borne of experience flying the Airvan on Skydive ops.


​​​​​

Thanks for that AAKEE, it does paint a picture, a rather grim one. Suddenly finding yourself in a spiral dive in cloud with spatial disorientation for the first time is quite a moment. The temptation to pull must be resisted.
​​​​​It's still speculative but it does fit.

Swedish Airvan Crash
 

.....hmm. I have done many stalls in the Airvan. It is benign, often there is no nose drop at all and it will just mush down. It can be quite difficult on a check ride or a C of A to be sure it has stalled until a noticeable rate of descent is indicated. Also it is very hard to get the cg out of forward limit and a pile of pax behind the two front seats would not do it. Furthermore, the seat backs are pretty substantial. They are higher than ie a 206. Of course it would still be possible in extremis for a pax to come over the top of one at shoulder level and there is also a gap between the seats that a person can climb through. However I really don't think the above scenario is at all likely to be caused by the non-event that is a stall in an Airvan.

I spoke briefly to a sky-diving instructor mate of mine this morning. He mentioned devices called AAD's . Automatic Activation Devices (I think that was what he said). Basically an unconscious sky-diver in free fall passes a threshold altitude without popping his canopy and the AAD pops the reserve automatically. He has seen the video and suggests that the rate of descent would trigger these on the packs of the occupants. This might explain what looks like a candled canopy and the eyewitness reports of the skydivers attempting to get out of the aircraft. I don't know enough about these bits of kit but assume that they can be de-activated or the pilot ensures a reduced decent rate close to the the trigger altitudes to prevent them going off unintentionally when returning to land with pax still on board. In this tragic accident, I doubt anyone on board had chance to deactivate them if that is the case.

Anyone know any more about parachuting safety gadgets?

Preliminary out
 

I'm out of touch with the allowed MTOW of the Airvan but 1814 I seem to remember was the original MTOW. That has been increased since. So it's unlikely a factor in the accident. In terms of CofG. When empty or light in Airvan you'd run out trim and have to hold back pressure on approach. To me that implied it was designed to be slightly nose heavy. Further confirmation of that was the fact we always asked one of skydivers to sit on the step at the rear because it helped stability.

As oggers said the stall is benign and the warning horn comes on much too early. I was only caught out once when all the skydivers rushed the door simultaneously without briefing me. But it was easy to recover from and also remember ailerons can be used right through the stall. It essentially mushes downward.

While a botched stall recovery is a possible cause. I return to the idea of a spiral dive through VNE possibly because of a distraction or spatial disorientation. It happened to me. I turned to talk to a skydiver. When I looked back the airspeed was in the yellow and the VSI was pegged at it's limit. Instant disorientation. I reduced power, levelled the wings and eased very gently out of the dive having now entered cloud. Then I started breathing again. The crew in the back noticed nothing. Boy did I feel stupid. A panicked pull and the story might have been quite different.

Someone asked about the AADs. They will fire at a predetermined rate of descent below a set altitude. That can vary, student rigs have a more conservative setting. In fact I was in the back wearing a student rig on a ferry flight when the pilot forgot and dived off the altitude. There was a bang and I was surrounded by canopy. He was mortally embarrassed. But I could have deactivated it if I'd known he was about to play fighter pilot.

The skydivers were probably pinned to the floor or ceiling by the time the AADs fired. No chance.

The pilot I note had only 12 hours on type and 214 in total. No mention of an instrument rating. Maybe it was the first time he found himself in the conditions he encountered that day.

An odd comment in the report. It mentions standard procedure is to close the cowl flaps before the descent. The Airvan doesn't have cowl flaps.

Also no mention of cameras, no GoPros? That would be a surprise.

My experience of a power on stall in the Airvan with a full load was essentially a non event. But a mishandled recovery and a low time non IR pilot.......

As I said it went from situation normal to a spiral dive very quickly. My training was good and I simply recovered.

Perhaps he didn't have that luxury.

Final report has been published. Overweight, out of envelope, stall in to the cloud (IMC). Broke up midair. Low time pilot, 215 total time.

I am not allowed to post a link but Swedish state accident board has a video (in Swedish) explaining things and report in English and Swedish.

SHK =statens haverikommision and You should be able to find it.

MJH

https://www.havkom.se/en/investigati...n-14-juli-2019

Unfortunately, jump operations sometimes push things, and attract inexperienced pilots to do them. The pilots want the flying, so they do what they perhaps shouldn't. In my opinion, jump flying should be a endorsement on a pilot's license. I was invited to fly jumpers in a 185 and 206 by a club who did not know my experience - I had many thousands more experience than they thought when they asked me to fly. I saw the overweight flying, and the causal approach to regulatory compliance. I tried to shift the culture, but could not prevail, so I stopped flying for them.

To those pilots eager to fly jumpers: (a) follow the rules you know, (b) look up the rules you don't know, then back to (a), and (c) get some good mentoring!

He had a CPL with NO instrument rating and the airplane was maintained for VFR only.
However, he had what EASA calls nowadays the "basic instrument flying module", enabling you to climb, descent, turn in IMC / under the hood, and also recover from unusual attitudes under simulated IMC. In short, you are able to keep or recover control in IMC, but it doesn't make you capable to do any instrument departure or approach procedures yet.

I had a thorough "torturing" with power-on/departure stalls and unusual attitude recoveries in simulated IMC from my CPL instructor recently, so unfortunately I think I can see how this happened :(.
With low-time experience, he didn't feel having the authority to call of the drop or drop from lower altitude.
As the clouds grew taller during the day, they gave him a false horizon. As he tried to get higher with the heavy load, his airspeed decayed and the aircraft stalled with climb power to the left, due to insufficient right rudder (to offset the lower airspeed).
Power-on stalls with climb power are different ballgame than the the relatively benign power-off/approach stalls. They come by surprise, with a big startle factor. The resulting pitch change is very large, very fast.
I was taught that on recognition of the wing drop due to the power on stall, I should just let the airplane do what it wants initially and stop trying to analyze and solve the problem immediately.
Instead, the 2 things however I had to do immediately is CONTROLS NEUTRAL and POWER TO IDLE.
The aircraft will accelerate rapidly anyway, and by the time I ensured the basics, it might even have sufficient speed to get it under control and bring it back to level flight. If it went into a spin, recover from it, if it went into a diving spiral already, bring it back to level flight.

But under simulated IMC, there is a huge temptation to pull too hard and too much in a dive, or spiral diver. It takes a lot of self-control to get it to wings level, pitch attitude to level flight, despite the engine still roaring and ASI still approaching the redline Vne. Timely but gently pull, power off and level attitude will eventually avoid going into Vne and the situation calms down, power needs to be added to maintain level flight and then we can think about getting out of the cloud.
.
I am quite sure he recovered from the stall, but he probably forget to pull the power to idle and quickly accelerated towards Vne and pulled very hard to slow down, causing the inflight breakup.

This pilot had all the necessary training to recover.
But he had that training 5 years before, and haven't flown for 4 years in between at all.

Makes you think that after 4 years of absence from flying, it's really advisable to refresh some of the most important CPL exercises, such as the power-on stall recoveries and unusual attitude recoveries in IMC, especially with high-load climb operations like jump operations and the Swedish weather, which is often cloudy.

By the way, sometimes jumpers help stall even bigger aircraft... :)