4th Aug 2018 Junkers JU52 crashed in Switzerland

[rcsa]

It means that the pilots stalled the plane and were unable to recover. Hot, high, changing wind directions on the flight path are most likely contributing factors.

... and, by inference, all the above exacerbated by weight shift - passengers moving from one side of the cabin to the other, from front of cabin to the rear, drawn by a view of a mountain? a photo-opportunity?

[clearedtocross]

The foto in this post shows the situation when you want to cross the Segnes-Pass at 9200ft (600ft more than the Pass). Sorry guys, I am fogged in in low IMC, so this picture is screenshot from my sim. The Pass is above the ASI and the little lake. The famous Martinsloch (not visible in the sim) is below the peak left of the pass and the place the aircraft crashed is south of the lake. To the right (compass) is Piz Segnes and to the left the mountains extend towards the Vorab region. Not much space to turn around if you get a downdraft from the North. https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1908x1017/segnes_pass_9300ft_65c6bd9130e3bc4d31e84b1ea1847801013fea4e. jpg

[tdracer]

... and, by inference, all the above exacerbated by weight shift - passengers moving from one side of the cabin to the other, from front of cabin to the rear, drawn by a view of a mountain? a photo-opportunity?

That's been my assumption as well - the movement of SLF upset the aircraft CG sufficiently that the pilot(s) lost control and stalled.
A skydiving aircraft crashed around here about 30 years ago when the pilot lost control and stalled due to the rapidly changing weight and CG while the skydivers were doing their thing. It's been long enough that I don't recall details, but there were several fatalities.

[RatherBeFlying]

It means that the pilots stalled the plane and were unable to recover. Hot, high, changing wind directions on the flight path are most likely contributing factors.
A vortex downwind of a ridge can produce a shear of twice the wind aloft in the blink of an eye.

[atakacs]

Not sure how to embed this

A video of the investigators working on the wreckage

http://www.20min.ch/ro/news/suisse/story/22840795#videoid=654445

[arketip]

There is video of the last seconds

www.blick.ch/news/schweiz/exklusiv-augenzeugin-filmt-crash-am-piz-segnas-hier-stuerzt-die-ju-52-ab-id15044750.html?OneS=yes

[glad rag]

Why no flash/fire, nothing at all from the AVGAS in that impact??

[pattern_is_full]

Why no flash/fire, nothing at all from the AVGAS in that impact??

Just guessing, but 1) owing to the direct impact on the leading edges (no cartwheeling) the wings seem to have maintained a certain amount of structural integrity. See post-crash pix.

Plus 2), I believe the Ju52 fuel tanks are discrete "barrels" (7 per side) lined up down the wing centerline with a meter or more of "crush-zone" in front of/behind them, and may not have been breached.

[Timmy Tomkins]

What a shame, beautiful old bird, tragic loss of life. It would be a shame if events like this limit the use of old aircraft.

[Kerosene Kraut]

They have already. Their other two Jus are grounded until further notice. Maintenance and structure of the accident bird have been found to be below expectations.
If you use oldies like these airline style you might consider building new ones or take something like Baslers, Twotters or Do 228s instead.

[Hotel Tango]

If you use oldies like these airline style you might consider building new ones or take something like Baslers, Twotters or Do 228s instead.

Surely, you cannot be serious with that comment?!

[Kerosene Kraut]

These were all built in 1939 and are used regularly in some high performance mountain environment. It's most impressive that they survived for so long and that speaks both for the Swiss and their art of maintaining and flying them. However these are machines that get used and grow old after some time. To put a very technocrat view on it you could find more modern planes with some character for daily flight duties. There must be a reason why the Swiss Air Force had semi retired them before. Even with all repairs and new parts old planes never become young again.
My point is if you want workhorses think about something newer. This goes for all oldtimer aircraft that are used beyond the odd display flight here and there like all with paying passengers.

[Pilot DAR]

Several prominent structural failure events years back prompted the FAA and other authorities to initiate "aging aircraft" programs. When I worked for deHavilland Canada, in the Twin Otter program, I attended several FAA presentations on this. Happily, at the time the Twin Otter fell just below their radar, and was already covered by fairly rigorous life limitations on some airframe parts. Similarly, now that I work on the Basler DC-3's, I know how much goes into their rebuild, and ongoing maintenance - it's a lot! No manufacturer of an aircraft more than a half century ago envisioned the aircraft still being in service in this era, nor did they enact a continuing airworthiness program to support such operations. Further to that, aircraft manufactured for military purposes in the WW2 years were definitely not made with decades longevity in mind! It's not too much work to assure the airworthiness of a 1940's Piper Cub or Tiger Moth, but a larger multi engined aircraft is many times more effort. It nice and romantic to think of taking a flight in these very old aircraft, though the cost to assure airworthiness of the aging aircraft makes for pretty high ticket prices!

[Kerosene Kraut]

Right at the Dübendorf base of Ju Air they built some new Junkers F 13 recently (single engine, four to five passengers). Maybe they could build new Junkers 52s as well given that the Ju 52 is considered to be sort of a flying national heritage in Switzerland? You might collect enough money to build them new for daily business and retire the old ones to museums or rare display flights?

[starling60]

Not so far. You can copy and post the text into bing translate, page by page. The result is pidgin but, understandable. I have read that: " It crashed, 20 killed, ISA+16, no fire, unsurvivable. Subsequently, they have found corrosion, poor repairs, unregulated parts, unsegregated stock, all engines working at impact, fuel on board. The Flying permits for the other two aircraft are withdrawn. The full report will address all aspects of the accident".
It is sad reading. However, there is no attempt to describe the cause of the accident that I can find in this interim report.

OAP

I have just read the report and as far as I can see the final part lists a number of restrictions and obligations for Ju Air to comply with in respect of the other two aircraft but can't see a mention of flying permit being withdrawn. I may be wrong however as did it rather quickly but being German speaker I am pretty sure of what I read.
Happy to help with any translation but only short parts as I don't have time to do whole report.

[gearlever]

I 've watched the video over and over.
Looks like they had some altitude in the dive.

Hard to believe they stalled it.....

[A Squared]

If you start hot and high then the performance is worst right after take off. As higher you climb, as cooler gets the air improving performance of your props, wing and engine. Sure the air gets thinner and counteracts this a bit but to my experience if you make it over the fence hot and high then you make it over 14000feet after one hour.

Really? Airplanes perform better the higher you climb?

You've never actually flown one, have you?

[Bend alot]

Really? Airplanes perform better the higher you climb?

You've never actually flown one, have you?
I agree what you mean A Squared - but

"perform" better is why cruise is well above sea level.

[Onceapilot]

I am reading some very short-sighted posts about flying vintage aircraft. There is a simple reality that the vintage airframes and engines need to be maintained to a high standard. Unfortunately, that standard is not always reached and so, incidents occur and regulation catches up. Therefore, the costs increase. Sometimes, particularly bad and sad incidents will reveal past shortcomings and precipitate greater changes. If this accident does force further changes, the cost/price equation of operating the aircraft will be effected and, it will be up to the wishes of anyone who wants to operate or fly in these aircraft if that price is worth paying. I do not see any reason for banning these vintage aircraft, although certain states might decline to licence them if they wished to do so.
It is worth remembering that even the latest and most modern aircraft do still have accidents.
I look forward to seeing vintage aircraft flying in our skies forever, and I would certainly fly or be a passenger in any properly maintained and operated vintage aircraft, as I have done! :ok:

OAP

[Kerosene Kraut]

I am reading some very short-sighted posts about flying vintage aircraft.

Isn't it actually far sighted to think about the typical problems and issues that will come up over and over again regardless of money invested and repairs done? For regular duty one needs reliable and safe aircraft. If you have exchanged all those parts one day it's not your grandpa's plane anymore one way or the other. So why not build a new one for daily use? I admit not 100 percent authentic but at least reliable.
Those original birds approach 100 years of age and were never meant to be flown forever.
I'm writing this because I want to see historical aircraft fly. So let's recreate them.

[A Squared]

I agree what you mean A Squared - but

"perform" better is why cruise is well above sea level.

Read the entire quote. Your engine does not make more power, you wings do not make more lift and your prop does not make more thrust. Yeah, as air density decreases you get a TAS gain, but only up to critical altitude or WOT. Pretty much everything else that could be considered a measure of performance decreases with altitude.

[Discorde]

Similarly, now that I work on the Basler DC-3's, I know how much goes into their rebuild, and ongoing maintenance - it's a lot! No manufacturer of an aircraft more than a half century ago envisioned the aircraft still being in service in this era, nor did they enact a continuing airworthiness program to support such operations. Further to that, aircraft manufactured for military purposes in the WW2 years were definitely not made with decades longevity in mind!

What would be the economics of building a new fleet of C47/DC3s from scratch for GA purposes, including nostalgia displays and enthusiasts' flights? Presumably the blueprints are still available. Or would the cost of manufacturing new recip engines be too much a problem?

A few years ago in the UK a brand new 'Peppercorn' A1 steam loco was built from the original drawings (at a cost of £3m it has to be said).

[Kerosene Kraut]

This is why I had mentioned the Basler for starters. Pret-a-porter - and running on kerosene.

[A Squared]

This is why I had mentioned the Basler for starters. Pret-a-porter - and running on kerosene.

Who is going to go for a "Nostalgia Flight" in a Basler turbo? Not to say it's not a good airplane, but it lacks most of what attracts people to novelty nostalgia flights. People want to fly in a DC-3 to hear the sound of radials, to see the start-up with all the smoke, all that "the way flying used to be" stuff. Other than the fact that the floor slopes when you're on the ground, you might as well be in a Dash-8 as a Basler.

[Kerosene Kraut]

It would work for scenic mountain flights and it is both quiet and powerful. Just an idea. Certainly cheaper to own than some new built Ju 52.
You could still offer old school sounds via cabin speakers or onboard WLAN if you feel like it.

[Asturias56]

"What would be the economics of building a new fleet of C47/DC3s from scratch for GA purposes, including nostalgia displays and enthusiasts' flights? Presumably the blueprints are still available. Or would the cost of manufacturing new recip engines be too much a problem?"

THE problem is not rebuilding a DC-3 from scratch - it's the cost of certification - you wouldn't be able to use a 1935 Certificate - it would have to be done to 2019 standards I believe if you want to carry passengers. You might get an Experimental Certificate in the USA but that doesn't allow you to ply for hire.........

[Onceapilot]

Isn't it actually far sighted to think about the typical problems and issues that will come up over and over again regardless of money invested and repairs done? For regular duty one needs reliable and safe aircraft. If you have exchanged all those parts one day it's not your grandpa's plane anymore one way or the other. So why not build a new one for daily use? I admit not 100 percent authentic but at least reliable.
Those original birds approach 100 years of age and were never meant to be flown forever.
I'm writing this because I want to see historical aircraft fly. So let's recreate them.

Hi KK!
I think that you are confusing the situation. If you really want the original machine from the past, you have to look at the inert, static, dead airframes in museums, and even 99% of them are rebuilds! However, if you wish to experience the authentic original experience of the real flying machine, you can see or fly in them at many locations in the world. The critical factors are: that the airframe is built as original and that the engine is as original. Generally, the famous and respected vintage types have to conform to a fairly limited spectrum of airframe/engine standards. Anything less becomes absurd, like the rotary engined originals with radials or, god save us, flat-fours! :rolleyes:
Have you seen an exact Bleriot reproduction with a real rotary engine engine fly? The pilot has to be brave! The aircraft has the same limited ability as the original, because it is, the same as the original! Likewise the engine, cantankerous, noisy but, low powered and unreliable. To see such a thing at close hand, to hold it down for the engine check, to fly such a beast! :D

OAP

[Kerosene Kraut]

Thanks, but I think I'm not confusing anything. I have seen the Edwardians fly and flown onboard Ju 52s as a passenger. I'm talking about passenger flights and I just wonder about better options to avoid "wasting" very limited historic treasure airframes during daily duty. They will not fly forever so it would be good to think about now how to possibly delay this moment and keep some of the old flavor for younger generations.
Some years on and anything non-drone will be a sight by itself.

[Onceapilot]

Thanks, but I think I'm not confusing anything. I have seen the Edwardians fly and flown onboard Ju 52s as a passenger. I'm talking about passenger flights and I just wonder about better options to avoid "wasting" very limited historic treasure airframes during daily duty. They will not fly forever so it would be good to think about now how to possibly delay this moment and keep some of the old flavor for younger generations.
Some years on and anything non-drone will be a sight by itself.

Hi KK!
However, just proposing flying turbine re-engined DC3's etc is no solution. Apart from the small proportion of genuinely dangerous airframe types (virtually all covered these days), there is NO reason to limit the operation of any type of aircraft or engine, unless you decree that you need a specific safety criteria that they fail to achieve. Shortly after that, you will need to ban most forms of Human enjoyment! :}

OAP

[Kerosene Kraut]

I am not proposing to ban anything. I want to prevent old aircraft from being banned or priced out by insurance rates and regulations. I want more of them flying not less.
Why not even build new ones if you find a sponsor like maybe Rimowa, Red Bull, Breitling, Paul Allen's Foundation or similar?

[Onceapilot]

I am not proposing to ban anything. I want to prevent old aircraft from being banned or priced out by insurance rates and regulations. I want more of them flying not less.
Why not even build new ones if you find a sponsor like maybe Rimowa, Red Bull, Breitling, Paul Allen's Foundation or similar?

Oh yes you are! You are proposing banning genuine vintage machines that do not conform to some un-defined standard, other than your Kerosene-fueled and new-build requirement. So, get off the fence and say what vintage types YOU would allow to fly!? :mad:
OAP

[Kerosene Kraut]

No I did not. I just suggested to add some newer airplanes for the more daily business to save the true classics.

[Onceapilot]

No I did not.
Glad to hear that! :)

OAP

[Kerosene Kraut]

I have not changed my statements above. Strange interpretation.

[Onceapilot]

Isn't it actually far sighted to think about the typical problems and issues that will come up over and over again regardless of money invested and repairs done? For regular duty one needs reliable and safe aircraft. If you have exchanged all those parts one day it's not your grandpa's plane anymore one way or the other. So why not build a new one for daily use? I admit not 100 percent authentic but at least reliable.
Those original birds approach 100 years of age and were never meant to be flown forever.
I'm writing this because I want to see historical aircraft fly. So let's recreate them.

Hi again!
I feel that your mistake is in the "why not build a new one for daily use". I could be happy with a new reproduction, but not a different aircraft with turbine engines, or any other non-original engines. How are you with the VR goggles?

OAP

[Onceapilot]

It would work for scenic mountain flights and it is both quiet and powerful. Just an idea. Certainly cheaper to own than some new built Ju 52.
You could still offer old school sounds via cabin speakers or onboard WLAN if you feel like it.

Oh dear. :eek:
OAP

[Onceapilot]

No I did not. I just suggested to add some newer airplanes for the more daily business to save the true classics.
I see you updated this post.
OAP

[Kerosene Kraut]

I feel that your mistake is in the "why not build a new one for daily use.

Thats no "mistake". I said I'd hope for new built Ju 52s but to have a cheaper option I suggested Baslers as an alternative. No need to get emotional.

If you keep any oldie airworthy long enough you end up with just the serial number plate being original. That's neither the old airplane nor can it be flown and used like in it's glory days.

Building the same type new would give you some reliable all new frame that's good for daily use. This is what I suggested. At the same time you could keep the real oldies the way they were meant to be. With original structure and fabrication instead of using them and finally ruining them in everyday operations.

[Hotel Tango]

Personally, I think that you've lost the plot somewhat KK! :) A few years ago I flew through the Alps on a Lockheed Constellation. The reason was that although I had flown on many piston airliners in my youth, I had never flown on the Connie. For that reason I would never have wanted to fly on some modern reproduction or one powered by anything else other than the Wright Cyclones R3350 it should be powered by. Furthermore, I didn't care a hoot what sort of sortie it was flying. I simply wanted to fly on it. You seem to think that passengers fly on these aircraft purely for the scenic aspect of the flight. Believe me, a good percentage don't. They just want to fly on the genuine article of the type concerned.

[ehwatezedoing]

Who is going to go for a "Nostalgia Flight" in a Basler turbo? Not to say it's not a good airplane, but it lacks most of what attracts people to novelty nostalgia flights. People want to fly in a DC-3 to hear the sound of radials, to see the start-up with all the smoke, all that "the way flying used to be" stuff. Other than the fact that the floor slopes when you're on the ground, you might as well be in a Dash-8 as a Basler.
I think you would review your comparison Dash-8/Basler in a 25kts crosswind landing :p

But yes you are right, DC3T were built/rebuilt as workhorse, not to carry passengers around the patch on CAVOK days with 5kts winds top.

[jimjim1]

@Kerosene Kraut (https://www.pprune.org/members/23773-kerosene-kraut).
"If you use oldies like these airline style you might consider building new ones or take something like Baslers, Twotters or Do 228s instead."

Surely, you cannot be serious with that comment?!

I quite strongly suspect that the Swiss aviation authorities will agree with Kerosene Kraut (https://www.pprune.org/members/23773-kerosene-kraut).

These golden oldies should not be permitted to operate as passenger flights without it being entirely clear that they are not part of the same industry that delivered worldwide ZERO jet airliner fatalities in 2017.

The Touristy or Traveling public should not be misled.

My friends daughter (a fairly novice Diver) is on holiday in Mexico. She is considering a tourist dive trip that will take her, to a depth that she has not been trained for, to see something that she has never seen previously.

My view is NO NO NO.

There are times to extend the envelope and there are times to say NO!

[Hotel Tango]

jimjim1, see my post #290. If sightseeing is the only goal, there are plenty of modern alternatives available (such as smaller and more modern aircraft and helicopters) at all these locations. No one is forcing the public to fly on an historical aeroplane. It's their choice. What diving to a depth your friend's daughter is not trained for has to do with this issue is beyond me. However, the same applies, no one is forcing her to do it. It's her choice!

[A Squared]

I think you would review your comparison Dash-8/Basler in a 25kts crosswind landing :p


OK, yeah I'll concede that point. ;)

[tdracer]

When I paid to take a 30 minute flight on a B-17 several years back, I had to sign a release that basically said I understood this WWII vintage aircraft wasn't up to current safety standards. At least in the US, signing a similar release would be SOP before being allowed to fly on any vintage aircraft.
I know Switzerland isn't as lawyer obsessed as the US, but wouldn't there be a similar requirement for those who wanted to fly on the JU52?

[ATC Watcher]

When I paid to take a 30 minute flight on a B-17 several years back, I had to sign a release that basically said I understood this WWII vintage aircraft wasn't up to current safety standards. At least in the US, signing a similar release would be SOP before being allowed to fly on any vintage aircraft.
I know Switzerland isn't as lawyer obsessed as the US, but wouldn't there be a similar requirement for those who wanted to fly on the JU52?

They all do , but it is not an "out of jail card guarantee" if there is negligence , you'll end up in court , paper or no paper signed. Some vintage operations make you member of their association for one day, so that , as member , you are supposed to know the risks, That what we did with when my club had one ,
But all this is cosmetic if you get an accident. Hell will fall on you paper signed or not. and I would dare to say , even in the US.

As Hotel tango clearly sated , people will do ( and sign) anything to fly in those old aircraft, and basically they want the thrill and experience the perceived "danger" of flying like in the 1930's.
An Hybrid solution is what Lufthansa has done , kept the air frame but put more powerful P&W engines with modern instrumentation, and apply Lufthansa Technik maintenance standards., but that means the aircraft is very often AOG , for small things , like now...
The other big difference with Lufthansa is also they do not need to make money on theses operations..

[A Squared]

They all do , but it is not an "out of jail card guarantee" if there is negligence , you'll end up in court , paper or no paper signed. Some vintage operations make you member of their association for one day, so that , as member , you are supposed to know the risks, That what we did with when my club had one ,
But all this is cosmetic if you get an accident. Hell will fall on you paper signed or not. and I would dare to say , even in the US.

As Hotel tango clearly sated , people will do ( and sign) anything to fly in those old aircraft, and basically they want the thrill and experience the perceived "danger" of flying like in the 1930's.
An Hybrid solution is what Lufthansa has done , kept the air frame but put more powerful P&W engines with modern instrumentation, and apply Lufthansa Technik maintenance standards., but that means the aircraft is very often AOG , for small things , like now...
The other big difference with Lufthansa is also they do not need to make money on theses operations..

One thing about liability waivers is that you can't sign away someone else's right to sue for their loss. Say this guy shows up for a vintage plane ride. They hand him a liability waiver, he signs it, they go flying, it goes badly. Wife of deceased sues for loss of companionship, loss of financial support, pain and suffering, all the usual. Defendant's attorney pulls out the waiver, plaintiff's attorney says "My client never signed an agreement not to sue". Which is correct. The defendant is not being sued by the person who agreed not to sue, they're being sued by his wife, and she never signed any agreement giving up her right to sue for her loss.

[atakacs]

They all do , but it is not an "out of jail card guarantee" if there is negligence , you'll end up in court , paper or no paper signed. Some vintage operations make you member of their association for one day, so that , as member , you are supposed to know the risks, That what we did with when my club had one ,
But all this is cosmetic if you get an accident. Hell will fall on you paper signed or not. and I would dare to say , even in the US.

As Hotel tango clearly sated , people will do ( and sign) anything to fly in those old aircraft, and basically they want the thrill and experience the perceived "danger" of flying like in the 1930's.
An Hybrid solution is what Lufthansa has done , kept the air frame but put more powerful P&W engines with modern instrumentation, and apply Lufthansa Technik maintenance standards., but that means the aircraft is very often AOG , for small things , like now...
The other big difference with Lufthansa is also they do not need to make money on theses operations..
I know I might sound a bit obsessed by these engines but I really don't understand why they kept "gen1" egines on this aircraft. Definitely much better options available while still being original to the Ju-52.

[LeadSled]

One thing about liability waivers is that you can't sign away someone else's right to sue for their loss. Say this guy shows up for a vintage plane ride. They hand him a liability waiver, he signs it, they go flying, it goes badly. Wife of deceased sues for loss of companionship, loss of financial support, pain and suffering, all the usual. Defendant's attorney pulls out the waiver, plaintiff's attorney says "My client never signed an agreement not to sue". Which is correct. The defendant is not being sued by the person who agreed not to sue, they're being sued by his wife, and she never signed any agreement giving up her right to sue for her loss.

A Squared,
That depends entirely what country you are in.
Tootle pip!!

[A Squared]

A Squared,
That depends entirely what country you are in.
Tootle pip!!

I suppose. I’m obviously speaking from a US perspective. It’s hard for me to imagine a legal system under which one person can unilaterally sign away another person’s right to legal remedy for damages.

[ATC Watcher]

I really don't understand why they kept "gen1" egines on this aircraft. Definitely much better options available while still being original to the Ju-52.
I guess money. Larger old BMW 132s engines are both very expensive and very hard to get if you can get 3 of them at all . And to put cheaper 3 P&W wasps with corresponding 3 blades props plus all the changes and fixes to adapt is also very expensive. .Lufthansa could do it, (but even that has limits ,(see the recent put on ice of their Constellation project ) but the small association could not ,especially with 3 birds.

[ATC Watcher]

I suppose. I’m obviously speaking from a US perspective. It’s hard for me to imagine a legal system under which one person can unilaterally sign away another person’s right to legal remedy for damages.

It is not only that, this paper waver is only good for acts of God or technical/mechanical failures, if it is pilot / maintenance error or negligence , it will not help you much either , and this in any Country I would say. But I am not a lawyer .

[His dudeness]

These golden oldies should not be permitted to operate as passenger flights without it being entirely clear that they are not part of the same industry that delivered worldwide ZERO jet airliner fatalities in 2017.

The Touristy or Traveling public should not be misled.

There are times to extend the envelope and there are times to say NO!

Who misled them and when ? If you are a person allowed to vote (eg. above 18 years old), you should be able to work out that an airplane 80 years old can´t be as save as new one and a piston powered airplane is less save to travel in than a turbine powered one. Have not seen a single statement by any provider of these trips that would claim anything remotely close to what you imply.

Who made the pax on this flight say YES ? Were they forced to fly on this aircraft ? Of course not and you know that. So, whats your agenda ? More regulation, less freedom ? Forebid anything fun ?

Go ahead, you´re in line with the EU and almost all administrations in the world. Not sure I like this mindset. (actually I hate it, but...)

I have piloted trips in a D.H. Dove under German air law and we had to stop that after JAR OPS came in force. IMO there should be a statement possible to exclude the same amount of safety from such trips, as it is crystal clear that it could not be achieved. Even if the JU would have been build from scratch in 2017 - that most likely would have not changed anything in this case. IF we would be talking about a structural disintegration of some sort it`d maybe be different, but for the time being we aren´t. Or would you ban - e.g. - 737s when a crew mishandled them and killed passengers ? Of course you wouldn´t.

[clearedtocross]

Totally agree, your Dudeness! The Swiss Regulator (FOCA/BAZL) is already threating with more control on oldtimers - instead of better controls of course. I am affected by this actionism because I own and fly a swiss registered oldtimer. I have been twice on a flight of Ju-Air and nobody boarding was misled into believing to fly with a modern aircraft. No oldtimer is dangerous because of its age if well maintained and piloted with its limits in mind and taking care of its idiosyncrasys. This aircraft did not crash because of age. And, as we are sadly aware, even brand new aircraft can be involved in accidents.

[Asturias56]

Dudeness - they also have t think of people on the ground who may not have signed up to having an 80 year old 'plane flying over them and depositing large amounts of metal over the vicinity

Personally I'm with Terry Pratchett on this in general - you have freedom of choice but that includes the requirement to take the consequences of your actions. If I go to an Airshow I accept the risk I may be killed by an aircraft crashing - but that's a long way from, for example, the people driving on the main road and killed by the Hunter crash in the UK a couple of years back...............

[His dudeness]

Dudeness - they also have t think of people on the ground who may not have signed up to having an 80 year old 'plane flying over them and depositing large amounts of metal over the vicinity

Personally I'm with Terry Pratchett on this in general - you have freedom of choice but that includes the requirement to take the consequences of your actions. If I go to an Airshow I accept the risk I may be killed by an aircraft crashing - but that's a long way from, for example, the people driving on the main road and killed by the Hunter crash in the UK a couple of years back...............

Well, what if BA 038 would have crashed half a mile earlier ? Is it really 100% safe to fly A380s over London ? Or Paris ? Now, we most likely agree that the probability is way smaller, however, we also allow oldtimer cars in todays traffic. With drum - brakes and no ABS. Bicycles have brakes that are way less effective than, say, car brakes. Yet they are in todays traffic, in growing numbers. Where exactly do you draw the line ? Lastly I think you deliberately compare apples and oranges. The JUs accident has NO parallel whatsoever with the 'accident' of the Hunter, when we set aside advanced age of the aircraft. Unless we find out the JU was involved in acrobatics, which I seriously doubt. Airshows ? Who accepts risks in Airshows ? Nobody does nowadays, thats why there are less and less of em. They get killed by H&S (or the nanny state, if you prefer)

[atakacs]

First it seems that the draft on the final report is being circulated and that the SUST (Schweizerische Sicherheitsuntersuchungsstelle) is confident that they had sufficient data to perform their analysis (https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/ju-52-probe-yields-enough-evidence-to-explain-fatal-alps-crash/139623.article).

Second there is some new development in which the Swiss government has requested that the Dutch NLR (https://www.nlr.org/) investigates the BAZL (https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-aviation-agency-probed-after-vintage-aircraft-crash/45957140) (Das Bundesamt für Zivilluftfahrt) in the context of this investigation (not exactly clear, does anyone have more info ?).

[Less Hair]

They called in the Dutch before. It's about possible issues with BAZL oversight over Ju Air. They want a neutral body to look at things.

[Terry McCassey]

There are some loose connections here with the crash of G-APFE over Mt.Fuji in March 1966. A passenger's cine camera was found in the wreckage that was running just before the side gust caught the aircraft. There were 2 frames of the film missing immediately before the camera hit the cabin floor which were later assesed to gauge the subsequent lateral G forces that removed the vertical stabiliser. From this, the subsequent aircraft breakup was fairly well established - complimented of course with the very sad images of the aircraft falling to the ground. Quite possibly the video images, if available, will be potentially of far better quality that the old cine super 8 film.

[Less Hair]

The actual crash might be more about hot weather high mountain flying and maneuvering.
But the post-crash in-depth wreckage analysis is said to have revealed unexpected fatigue and non-standard repairs to word it polite. This will be the part the Dutch will have a look at.

[clearedtocross]

The actual crash might be more about hot weather high mountain flying and maneuvering.
But the post-crash in-depth wreckage analysis is said to have revealed unexpected fatigue and non-standard repairs to word it polite. This will be the part the Dutch will have a look at.

Spot on, LessHair. The delay in publishing the final report is not because of any doubt to the primary cause. Its because the whole outfit was operated in a rather amateurish way which did not really match the stringent commercial rules that apply when you sell flight-tickets to the public. The BAZL (FOCA or Federal Office Of Civil Aviation) had a blind eye on this outfit because it was mostly run by well-known and well-liked military aviation oldtimers. It will be difficult and critical to word the final report, as it will most likely trigger legal battlements (insurance) and possibly criminal investigations. And if indeed the oversight of the FOCA was producing holes in the Swiss Cheese, state liabilities might matter too. Sad for all those involved.

[atakacs]

But the post-crash in-depth wreckage analysis is said to have revealed unexpected fatigue and non-standard repairs to word it polite. This will be the part the Dutch will have a look at.

Well that was made clear in the preliminary report published in 2018. If the BAZL were derelict in their supervision I would expect an investigation to be initiated earlier...

[clearedtocross]

Well that was made clear in the preliminary report published in 2018. If the BAZL were derelict in their supervision I would expect an investigation to be initiated earlier...


You are too optimistic about the awareness and speed of the Swiss government. They are not any better (or worse) than other governments. This department is run by a very nice lady who probably does not know the difference between a knot in aviation and in stitching. They probably only reckoned something was amiss and got shocked when they read the pre-release of the final report.

[meleagertoo]

Or would you ban - e.g. - 737s when a crew mishandled them and killed passengers ? Of course you wouldn´t.
Er, they got pretty damn close to it though, it was (still is) a ban in all but name.

[clearedtocross]

The Accident report is finally out in both english and german language.
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT_EN.pdf

[Capt Scribble]

Dreadfully sad. Know what you and your aircraft can do, and apply a margin on top. Never be too proud to take an escape route in time.

[atakacs]

Pretty daming if you ask me. No real suprise (ie. the "big picture" was already known) but the whole chain, from pilot, "arline" to supervsion authrority was criminally negligent. Even in Swiss law there will be field day for the lawyers...

[paulross]

If anyone else is having problems with broken links in that documentation then here, as far as I can see, are the correct links in four languages EN, DE, FR, IT where available:

Quoted from https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT_EN.pdf :

"Publications (EN) on the investigation of the accident involving the Junkers Ju 52 HB-HOT air- craft on 4 August 2018
The following links can be used to view or download the STSB’s publications on the safety investigation of the accident involving the Junkers Ju 52 HB-HOT aircraft on 4 August 2018. Not all publications are available in English (EN). If a publication is not available in English, reference is made to a version in German (DE).
..."

Media release:
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/HB-HOT_Media_Release_E.pdf
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/HB-HOT_Medienmitteilung_D.pdf
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/HB-HOT_Communique_de_presse_F.pdf
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/HB-HOT_Comunicato_stampa_I.pdf


Main part of the final report (EN, DE, FR, IT)
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_E.pdf
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/SB_HB-HOT_D.pdf
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/SB_HB-HOT_F.pdf
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/SB_HB-HOT_I.pdf


Glossary (EN, DE, FR, IT)
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_Glossar_E.pdf
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/SB_HB-HOT_Glossar_D.pdf
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/SB_HB-HOT_Glossar_F.pdf
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/SB_HB-HOT_Glossar_I.pdf

Annex A1.1 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-01_E.pdf

Annex A1.5 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-05_E.pdf

Annex A1.6 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-06_E.pdf

Annex A1.7 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-07_E.pdf

Annex A1.12 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-12_E.pdf

Annex A1.16 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-16_E.pdf

Annex A1.17 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-17_E.pdf

Annex A1.18 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-18_E.pdf

Annex A1.19 (EN)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_A1-19_E.pdf


Download a copy of the final report including all annexes:
ZIP file of the final report (EN) including all annexes (EN) (93 MB)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB2370__offVersion__E.zip

Explanatory video:
MP4 file (EN, DE, FR, IT) (840 MB)
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SUST%20FINAL%20EN.mp4
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/SUST%20FINAL%20DE.mp4
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/SUST%20FINAL%20FR.mp4
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/SUST%20FINAL%20IT.mp4


Watch the video on Youtube (EN)
EN: https://youtu.be/jGF4ovuSrK0
DE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKnbEVwakL8&feature=youtu.be
FR: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_HscyXw9jU&feature=youtu.be
IT: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv-rv-8gBSo&feature=youtu.be

Illustrations for prevention awareness:

ZIP file containing illustrations from the final report (EN) and the annexes (EN) (300 MB)
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/Mappe_E.zip
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/Mappe_D.zip
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/Mappe_F.zip
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/Mappe_I.zip


Earlier publications:
Status report as of 3 August 2020 (EN)
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/HB-HOT_StatB_E_2.pdf
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/HB-HOT_StatB_D_2.pdf
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/HB-HOT_StatB_F_2.pdf
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/HB-HOT_StatB_I_2.pdf

Status report as of 2 August 2019 (EN)
EN: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/HB-HOT_StatB_E.pdf
DE: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/DE/HB-HOT_StatB_D.pdf
FR: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/FR/HB-HOT_StatB_F.pdf
IT: https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/IT/HB-HOT_StatB_I.pdf


Interim report from 20 November 2018 (DE)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/HB-HOT_ZB_D.pdf

Preliminary report from 15 August 2018 (DE)
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/HB-HOT_VB_D.pdf

[blind pew]

Absolutely no surprise as was the swiss mid air, crossair’s two losses and a host of other dangerous or quasi legal practices in the last 40 years.
Problem being the influence of the Swiss military throughout all parts of aviation in the country.
But not unique to CH.

[BRE]

https://www.sust.admin.ch/en/documentation/news/publications-on-the-investigation-of-the-accident-involving-the-junkers-ju-52-hb-hot-air-craft-on-4-august-2018

They blame it mostly on the pilots for taking unnecessary risks such as doing a low speed flyby through a narrow valley that is prone to turbulence.

[22/04]

I just can't see how these guys could call themselves professional - I suppose familiarity breeds contempt as the old saying goes. (not commercial but have flown and instructed in gliders in the mountains).

[Pilot DAR]

That video is a useful teaching tool, well done. The pilots made a routing choice I would not have made. Normalization of deviance, perhaps?

[rnzoli]

Anyone understands why power was REDUCED before flying low into the basin?
Was it an attempt to synch the engines? Or was it just because they wanted to avoid accelerating during their slight descent to "look through" the "eye" on the ridge? Or was it to reduce turbulence?

I am confused as this power reduction is so much in contrary to usual logic, that if you don't have height (AGL), you better have lots of speed and power.

HB-HOT flew past the Tschingelhörner mountain peaks and began to reduce in altitude, dropping more than 15 m in approximately 6 seconds. During this phase, the power of the engines was rapidly reduced by 30 to 50 rpm, which meant that the engines were increasingly running at a similar speed (5) . During this process, the pitch angle increased and the flight path angle continuously became more negative.

(5) This course of events is typical when synchronising the speeds of the engines"

[Pilot DAR]

the power of the engines was rapidly reduced by 30 to 50 rpm,

A power reduction of 30 - 50 RPM, while never the better idea when you need the performance, would not have a "make it or break it" effect on a well planned flight. The variability of the moving air in a bowl like that would have more effect on performance than that small power change.

[blind pew]

Unfortunately often pilot performance goes out of the window when two mates fly together...The confusion one can also see with PF and PNF incident reports such as the recent irish one.
My first carrier had a ridiculous proceedure of the non flying pilot handling the throttles which again wasn't optimal in several ways.
It would appear that one "captain" had his head in the cockpit trying to synchronize the engines and I wouldn't be surprised if the other wasn't aware of what he was doing and vice versa.
Mountain flying as per the French gliding description of below the crest (vol de pente) is a complicated science which has no givens.
It envolves flying at times under a wing span from the face depending on the steepness of the slope, at an initial speed with energy in hand and ALWAYS WITH AN ESCAPE PATH.
In extremis one can be surprised as I was on a slope bordering the quarry adjacent to the Cape Gliding Club where I found myself and student inverted at 200ft agl.
The thermic activity generally follows the up slope even in the lee, breaking away from trigger points, converging above the crests and with down drafts away from the slope and often in the middle between two crests. (Except when the airflow has gone katabatic).
Low performance motorised flying machines are a danger as downdrafts can easily exceed 2,000 fpm and that is without any wave or rotor influence.
Neil Williams, a former British aerobatic champion who had the wing fold on a Zlin, died flying a Spanish Heinkel 111 in the 1970s doing something similar but with his wife and a couple of engineers on board.
Similarly it is thought that Steve Fossett, the round the world baloonist who tried to set a new world record height gain, did something similar.
Neither of these had fare paying pax on board nor the same level of oversight from the regulators.

[Super VC-10]

SUST have published their final report into the accident. English version here - https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_E.pdf

[Big Pistons Forever]

WOW, what a devastating report. The reality is that regulators almost always simply don't have the people who have the kind of experience to be able to accurately assess the ability of organizations operating aircraft under a "Historically significant aircraft" designation to attain and maintain airworthy aircraft and operate them safely. It is almost entirely up to the operators to step up and make the commitment to do the right things. Unfortunately like the Collins B 17 crash and this accident some ( most ?) organizations are not up to the task.

Sadly I think the day when people will no longer have the opportunity to experience a flight in an amazing historically significant airplane is rapidly coming. Insurance companies and regulators are going to cover their butts by making it impractical to operate these kind of aircraft. Organizations who operate historically significant aircraft have to take a hard look in the mirror and up their game. One more high profile crash with passenger fatalities and I think it is over for everyone....

[megan]

Now the planes are being rebuild structually and outfitted with P&W Wasps. They will be able to continue to fly scenic flights - but they are no longer "Tante-JUs"The prototype flew with Pratt & Whitney R-1340 Wasp and powered a number of the civil aircraft. The BMW 132 engine was an improved license built P&W Hornet and powered the military aircraft.

[rnzoli]

Organizations who operate historically significant aircraft have to take a hard look in the mirror and up their game. Well said. I don't understand why they risked flying so low around the ridge, when anyone can do that in a more manouverable modern airplane too. It's the aircraft sights, the sounds,, the smell that these vintage aircraft operators must provide in a very safe manner. Taking an old and somewhat performance limited aircraft onto a dangerous flight path just to show that hole in the ridge, which looks exactly the same from a C-182 or a DA42 or a King Air does not make sense to me at all. That low flying task in the mountans had no relevance to the vintage status of the aircraft.

[rnzoli]

And I guess you alll start to get this video suggested to you by Youtube. While in most cases, you can see multiple escape routes for an engine failure or strong downdrafts, at 5:12 there is a situation similar to the accident site. But I think the site is different. So the regular route over the Alp may have been flown with more than one such high-risk / no turn-back sections.
https://youtu.be/Vaj8aIorD2E?t=312

[RatherBeFlying]

Figures 22 & 23 attempt to show how moving from a downdraft to an updraft can increase angle of attack. Aerodynamically any sudden change in vertical air movement does change angle of attack. Add a sudden tailwind component and you may well be stalled as I have found out in my glider.

In my case I was downwind of a ridge in a 15 kt wind aloft having just turned final. Second hand I heard that another pilot had a similar encounter quite a long time ago.

The rest of the time, people fly the approach without incident.

The crew may have crossed this ridge with a similar flight path many times in the JU52 and other aircraft, but this time the thermals combined with a wind coming from a certain direction with a certain speed that upset the applecart.

[biscuit74]

Interesting. I too wonder about normalisation of deviance. Flying up the centre of the valley, losing the turnaround option, is something I was taught not to do. I was also taught not to fly up a dead end valley like that with a wind on the nose. Almost guaranteed to have some downdraughts, tricky if power is limited. These every experienced pilots must have known this but perhaps had been lulled by repetition and plenty of successful flights before.

The progressive slow raising of the nose suggests a loss of attitude awareness. For mountain flying a lot of emphasis was on the horizon illusion s, with the need to keep checking the instruments. In the French Alps I was warned about the possible rapid loss of airspeed from downdraft to sudden updraft while flying through gusty turbulence near the mountainsides. Again I wonder if time and experience had dulled the concern.

A sobering report, with useful stark reminders.

'Blind Pew' - excellent post, entirely agree with you.

Ouch.