Para drop flight accident

[AES]

At approx 14.00 local, Sunday 18th February 2024, near "Flugplatz Grenchen" (Kanton Solothun, Switzerland) a "passenger aircraft" (per local newspaper reports) crashed just outside the airfield. Apparently carrying 13 parachutists, when the pilot realised the a/c was in difficulties (unspecified), he told all pax to bail out, which they all did, all landing safely.

The aircraft type is not reported, neither is the pilot's name. The pilot died in the accident. From published photos of the wreckage I cannot identify the a/c type. The pilot has not yet been named though I KNOW (for sure) who he was (I am related to him by marriage and was informed by my wife's sister early this morning).

Any more HARD information much appreciated. Thanks in advance

[what next]

The aircraft type is not reported,...

Here you can find the aircraft type and what other information is know so far: https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/351775
Condolences for your loss.

[AES]

Thanks for the v quick response. Don't know much about that a/c type (I am/was a big a/c bloke)!

But I shall certainly miss "Krigel" even though I haven't seen him for quite a few years now.

And thanks for your thoughts mate.

[ATC Watcher]

Very sad story, sorry for your loss, AES, a question for those in the know, does carriage of a safety parachute for a Skydive a/c with an door open recommended in Switzerland ?

[phantomsphorever]

Pilot made a mayday call when the a/c was still at around 10.000 ft.
From that altitude he could have easily made it to a safe landing, even with the engine out?
So this points to a mechanical malfunction that rendered the a/c uncontrollable.
Impact was near vertical - so definitely completely out of control.
RIP to the pilot :-(

[AES]

Thanks for that ATC Watcher. Personally I do not "know him" these days (to a large extent I lost touch with the pilot when he started parachuting, and then flying himself; though we did have a pretty close relationship - mainly aviation-related - quite a a few years back now).

But as a general comment about "speculation generally":

A fellow Forum member posted details for me just recently. It contained a number of links which DID add some new hard info (for which I've thanked him, post above).

BUT included withing the various links was a "live ATC recording" of the last moments of that flight. I have NOT listened to that "recording", but attached to it are various "comments" which I just couldn't miss. Amongst other comments, someone (who as far as I can tell cannot possibly KNOW) speculates about "fear in voice transmissions", "lots of screaming" etc, etc.

Apart from the fact that I find listening to such recordings more than morbid, (even if I don't know the pilot - reading a transcript in a formal accident report is much different but also "chilling enough" IMO), I just wonder what it is in "us" (many human beings) that stir them to post such meaningless, potentially hurtful, completely speculative tripe?

Sorry, rant over.

Again, thanks for the condolences (first time I've ever been "directly" involved in an fatal accident, though I was a "crash guard" in a couple of RAF fatalities MANY years ago).

Cheers

[B2N2]

Unlikely this was an engine issue.
Interesting reading in the article about the aircraft type:

https://diverdriver.com/pac-750xl/

Article includes a video of the aircraft stalling with 6 jumpers hanging on outside:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaAaiSDKQQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fdiverdriver.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

It wouldn’t be the first time that the actions of a jumper led to an accident.

[EDLB]

Very likely a flight control issue. Engine out or stall would be no issue with such a plane at parachute drop altitude. Plenty time and energy to recover and make a safe forced landing. You are essential above the airport. Sad that the pilot had no chute.

[Junkflyer]

Used to fly skydivers in the US. Parachute was required for the pilot.
Always thought that was universal.

[atakacs]

Article includes a video of the aircraft stalling with 6 jumpers hanging on outside:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaAaiSDKQQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fdiverdriver.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

It wouldn’t be the first time that the actions of a jumper led to an accident.

Should be recoverable for even modestly competent pilot (I'd say any skydiver pilot should be ready for it as it is a relativly common occurrence). This looks like some flight control or structural failure.

[clearedtocross]

Used to fly skydivers in the US. Parachute was required for the pilot.
Always thought that was universal.
It certainly is required in Switzerland!

[9gmax]

still very early days, but some news reported that stabilo of the plane has been found far away from crashsite ...
https://www.solothurnerzeitung.ch/solothurn/grenchen/unglueck-vermutung-nach-truemmerfund-in-grenchen-stuerzte-das-flugzeug-ab-weil-teile-des-hoehenleitwerks-abgerissen-wurden-ld.2581777?reduced=true

[B2N2]

Should be recoverable for even modestly competent pilot (I'd say any skydiver pilot should be ready for it as it is a relativly common occurrence). This looks like some flight control or structural failure.

Look further.
A stall would not be the cause of the accident but 5-6 jumpers bumping into your stabilizer as a result of it could be.
Like I said, wouldn’t be the first time the action of a jumper caused an accident.

[Jhieminga]

Article includes a video of the aircraft stalling with 6 jumpers hanging on outside:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mbaAaiSDKQQ&embeds_referring_euri=https%3A%2F%2Fdiverdriver.com%2F&source_ve_path=MjM4NTE&feature=emb_title

It wouldn’t be the first time that the actions of a jumper led to an accident.
It is not a stall. You can see the aircraft gaining altitude relative to the high wing twin. In a stall it would lose altitude. The article linked to has a second part (addendum) that describes what happens: the driver ran out of forward stick and trim due to the group of skydivers hanging on and blocking the tailplane.
Anyway, we do not know what happened to the aircraft involved in the accident in Switzerland. Time and a thorough investigation will tell us.

[MartinM]

It certainly is required in Switzerland!
There is no obligation. This is left up pilot discretion

[ehwatezedoing]

It is not a stall. You can see the aircraft gaining altitude relative to the high wing twin. In a stall it would lose altitude. The article linked to has a second part (addendum) that describes what happens: the driver ran out of forward stick and trim due to the group of skydivers hanging on and blocking the tailplane.
Anyway, we do not know what happened to the aircraft involved in the accident in Switzerland. Time and a thorough investigation will tell us.
errr...he's obviously loosing control probably leading to a stall afterward, we just can't see from this video:
Too much "jumpers" in the back, out of CofG, nasty angle of attack (The part where you see the aircraft going up yes!) All that combined usually leads to a stall.


Not referring to the accident in Switzerland but the video linked in post #7

[ATC Watcher]

There is no obligation. This is left up pilot discretion
Thanks this is what I thought too, only a recommendation unfortunately, like we have in many EUR places .

[Jhieminga]

errr...he's obviously loosing control probably leading to a stall afterward, we just can't see from this video:
Too much "jumpers" in the back, out of CofG, nasty angle of attack (The part where you see the aircraft going up yes!) All that combined usually leads to a stall.


Not referring to the accident in Switzerland but the video linked in post #7
I agree, it may have led to it, but we cannot see that in the video so calling what is shown in the video a stall is incorrect. Anyhow, we better get back to the accident. If the stabiliser was found separate from the rest of the wreckage, it is no use arguing about stalls as a structural failure is something different.

[MartinM]

Thanks this is what I thought too, only a recommendation unfortunately, like we have in many EUR places .

Even if he would have had a chute attached, the issue remains that the aircraft dropped from FL100 to zero feet in roughly a minute. The g-forces likely give you no chance to release your harness, open the doors and jump out.

[Sziget]

Even if he would have had a chute attached, the issue remains that the aircraft dropped from FL100 to zero feet in roughly a minute. The g-forces likely give you no chance to release your harness, open the doors and jump out.
Free fall doesn't have g-forces, does it?

[1southernman]

Used to fly skydivers in the US. Parachute was required for the pilot.
Always thought that was universal.
In the US the FAR used to be that if it was a jump flite everyone onboard had to wear a legal chute whether jumping or not...

[osborne57]

Free fall doesn't have g-forces, does it?

In a spin it does

[ATC Watcher]

Even if he would have had a chute attached, the issue remains that the aircraft dropped from FL100 to zero feet in roughly a minute. The g-forces likely give you no chance to release your harness, open the doors and jump out.
Was not aware of the 10.000ft/min , on this type of aircraft it could means in flight break up no? But do not underestimate the power of Adrenaline , there are lots of gliders pilots that managed to jump out of of impossible situations to tell the tale.

[markussollberger]

According to ATC from Bern it happened immediately after the drop took place. The pilot did report '...dropping completed' followed by the mayday call seconds later. Looks like the paras are the reason for the breakup.

[B2N2]

I agree, it may have led to it, but we cannot see that in the video so calling what is shown in the video a stall is incorrect. Anyhow, we better get back to the accident. If the stabiliser was found separate from the rest of the wreckage, it is no use arguing about stalls as a structural failure is something different.

A loss of control due to jumpers hanging on followed by said jumpers tumbling off the aircraft and separating said tailplane…
Tails don’t just fall off perfectly good aircraft.
Same as running out of elevator as the airplane rapidly pitches up..does lead to a stall.
But none of that could ever matter…as the tail came off.

[megan]

https://aviation-safety.net/database/record.php?id=20010429-0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyt-sIMym0

[ATC Watcher]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TCyt-sIMym0
Thanks for posting this megan , this demonstrates pretty well the power of Adrenaline and the benefits to wear a safety parachute .

[Joe_K]

According to ATC from Bern it happened immediately after the drop took place. The pilot did report '...dropping completed' followed by the mayday call seconds later. Looks like the paras are the reason for the breakup.

For what it's worth, ASN now has the following note: "Unconfirmed reports suggest that a parachute got entangled in the tail control surfaces." Unclear when that note was added, and what the source of the report is.

[Foxaviation]

Used to fly skydivers in the US. Parachute was required for the pilot.
Always thought that was universal.


I see a lot of confusion about this on here, so I wanted to clarify things.

Parachutes are only required for pilots in small aircraft like a 182 or 206, with the jump door located next to the pilot. Same goes for Swiss regulations.

They aren’t required in ANY turbine jump plane and I have yet to see any other jump pilot (other than myself) who wears a rig when flying them. This situation here goes to show exactly why I choose to wear a bailout rig. You never know what’s gonna happen.

I have more than 3000 hours flying jumpers, the past 2000 of them being in turbine aircraft, and only made the decision to buy my own bailout rig this past holiday season.

In the US the FAR used to be that if it was a jump flite everyone onboard had to wear a legal chute whether jumping or not...

this only applies to 182’s and 206’s really. No turbine aircraft are included, and no jump pilots that I know of wear a parachute when flying them.

[DownWest]

Another old one:
I was looking at the DH Rapide that we aquired in the 70s and saw some repaired damage to the horizontal tailplane. Scanning through the log books, it seems that a similar event, but not fatal. Rang a bell, as I had read about it some time before in a newspaper
Used by the army for jumps, a parachute had deployed by the door, caught on the tailplane and left the jumper trailing behind the a/c. The jumpmaster got the remaining jumpers to trail him on a load of joined up static lines back to the casualty, cut him loose and they went down on one. He got a GM for the effort.
To add, the other Rapide that we bought as scrap for engines etc had a jumper from a higher a/c hit from above and wedged in the fuselarge up to his waist. Luckily his chute had not deployed. He was not much injured (thin ply & fabric..) so stayed there until they landed. Again, saw the damage and checked the books.

Bit surprised that the 'catch' loads would pull the tailplane off, but thinking about shock loading, maybe not.

[EDLB]

If you stuck or rip of anything of the elevator or its control the plane is usually done. This control is the least one, you can do without.

[1southernman]

I see a lot of confusion about this on here, so I wanted to clarify things.

Parachutes are only required for pilots in small aircraft like a 182 or 206, with the jump door located next to the pilot. Same goes for Swiss regulations.

They aren’t required in ANY turbine jump plane and I have yet to see any other jump pilot (other than myself) who wears a rig when flying them. This situation here goes to show exactly why I choose to wear a bailout rig. You never know what’s gonna happen.

I have more than 3000 hours flying jumpers, the past 2000 of them being in turbine aircraft, and only made the decision to buy my own bailout rig this past holiday season.



this only applies to 182’s and 206’s really. No turbine aircraft are included, and no jump pilots that I know of wear a parachute when flying them.

Thanks...My time was early 80's in BE-18's (SNB5/C45) and 182's at Franklin Co., NC...B

[AES]

Thanks to all posters above who appear to be "in the know". That "knowledge" is in contrast to my own, which in the whole GA/"little aeroplane"/sky diving context is virtually nil.

Just for info, my own background is as an aircraft engineer, starting out with an RAF apprenticeship in 1961, and apart from military a/c, my whole career has been spent dealing with a/c of 50 pax and more.

I am NOT interested in speculating about this particular accident, but when I meet some of those involved (next week) I would appreciate answers to the following if anyone would be kind enough to share their knowledge. As above, my knowledge of this area of aviation is virtually nil, so "please be gentle"! Thanks in advance:

1. It seems that pilots of TURBINE powered para dropping a/c do NOT normally wear personal parachutes. Apart from the obvious size/weight/power differences between, say, a piston-powered Cessna and a type such as the subject of this accident, why not? (It also seems that most airworthiness authorities do not mandate but "recommend" that pilots wear parachutes, correct)?

2. Not being at all familiar with the type which is the subject of this particular accident, I've studied available photos on line. It seems that the Pilot door/s are of the "gull wing" type (like the famous Mercedes sports car, DeLorean, etc). It LOOKS as if the upper door hinge line is more or less on the a/c fuselage upper (cabin roof) centre line. Further, it looks like the rearmost door/window line is more or less in line with/just behind the pilots shoulder; AND that the aft lower door hinge line is just about in line with the pilots elbow, while the forward lower hinge line is just about at pilot knee level. Assuming such a/c was in a fully-developed stall (or possibly even a spin, upright or inverted), and assuming the door/window is fitted with an emergency release (e.g. withdraw all hinge pins, or similar idea), what are the chances that the door/window would break away from the a/c cleanly? (I am assuming that as part of it's original Type Certificate testing in Australia/elsewhere, this emergency jettison would have been demonstrated in some way)?

3. A "supplementary"/general interest Q if I may:
On my travels around and about I've sometimes seen "in the metal" an a/c called the Fletcher Fu 24. Apart from size and powerplant, to my untutored eye the two a/c look remarkably similar, not "just" in general configuration but also in outline (excluding the large fin strake). Are the two types "related" or is this just coincidence?

TIA

[DIBO]

...I've sometimes seen "in the metal" an a/c called the Fletcher Fu 24. ... ... Are the two types "related" or is this just coincidence?never seen one up close, so no further knowledge, but the pedigree goes as follows:
Fletcher FU-24 (aka PAC Fletcher) ==> PAC Cresco ==> PAC P-750 XSTOL

[megan]

Pilot wearing of parachute in Oz when dropping parachutists.Operational Regulations require an emergency parachute be made available for use by all pilots conducting jump operations. The APF (Australian Parachute Federation) highly recommends their use, as they have saved pilots lives before. If an emergency parachute is worn, ensure that you have been briefed by an instructor on its proper use

[roundsounds]

In a spin it does
Sufficient forces precluding a pilot abandoning the aircraft? I think not.

[helispotter]

AES, from your most recent post, it seems like you may believe the Pacific Aerospace 750XL is built in Australia. It is actually built in New Zealand. Wikipedia gives a good overview of the type and its evolution as DIBO already briefly outlined:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PAC_P-750_XSTOL

Wikipedia also has a separate page covering the manufacturer, which I see has changed more recently:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Aerospace

The aircraft description on a page from the new company is at:

https://www.aerospace.co.nz/aircraft/750xl

All the best with trying to better understand the circumstances of this sad accident.

[Jhieminga]

1. It seems that pilots of TURBINE powered para dropping a/c do NOT normally wear personal parachutes. Apart from the obvious size/weight/power differences between, say, a piston-powered Cessna and a type such as the subject of this accident, why not? (It also seems that most airworthiness authorities do not mandate but "recommend" that pilots wear parachutes, correct)?

The relevant regulations are EASA rules, as Switzerland is a non-EU EASA member state. Para dropping falls under Part-SPO (pun intended) and you can find the entire PDF of this document here: https://www.easa.europa.eu/en/document-library/easy-access-rules/easy-access-rules-air-operations-regulation-eu-no-9652012
My quick browse through this document does NOT mention parachutes as being mandatory or recommended. It does mention this:
SPO.OP.230 Standard operating procedures Regulation (EU) No 379/2014
(a) Before commencing a specialised operation, the operator shall conduct a risk assessment,
assessing the complexity of the activity to determine the hazards and associated risks inherent
in the operation and establish mitigating measures.
(b) Based on the risk assessment, the operator shall establish standard operating procedures (SOP)
appropriate to the specialised activity and aircraft used taking account of the requirements of
subpart E. The SOP shall be part of the operations manual or a separate document. SOP shall be
regularly reviewed and updated, as appropriate.
(c) The operator shall ensure that specialised operations are performed in accordance with SOP.
These SOPs must be written by the operator and approved by the regulator and it is in this document that you can set out the result of a risk assessment, ie. the fact that you want the pilot to wear a parachute. There may well be guidelines on this but I have not found them in this document. My guess is that accepted practices in the industry have been incorporated into these SOPs but there is no direct regulatory reason to state that a parachute must be worn.

[AES]

@ helispotter: Thank you Sir. Quite correct, I did think the manufacturer is in Oz! I SHOULD Google the a/c!

[phantomsphorever]

It seems confirmed now, that one of the parachutists hit the tail of the a/c and took the elevator out.
Rumor has it, that it happened due to an inadvertant opening of the rescue chute.

[AES]

Thanks for that. I've seen the updated "SUST" report.

[clearedtocross]

It is no more a rumor. The prelim states:
Beim Absetzen von Fallschirmspringern kam es bei einem noch am Flug-
zeug befindlichen Fallschirmspringer zu einer ungewollten Öffnung des
Reserveschirms. Der Fallschirmspringer kollidierte in der Folge mit dem
Höhenleitwerk, wodurch dieses vollständig vom Flugzeug abgerissen
wurde, und das Flugzeug stürzte ab. Der Pilot trug keinen Rettungsfall-
schirm.
Which translates roughly into : unwanted opening of emergency parachute of one of the parachutists whereupon that person collided with the elevator and broke it off. The pilot did not wear a parachute.
Link is here:
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-TCP_VB.pdf