Plane crashes in Marchovelette (Belgium): several dead
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: uk
Age: 74
Posts: 62
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane crashes in Marchovelette (Belgium): several dead
From Google translate -
"An aircraft which were several people who would parachute crashed Saturday afternoon Marchovelette (Fernelmont, province of Namur), said firefighters Namur. The floor of Namur will descend on the scene. There would be no survivors. Several media evoke a dozen deaths. Namur firefighters were called shortly before 16h. Eghezée firefighters are also on hand. It would be a plane that had left the airfield Temploux. The plane would hit no home ground. The prosecutor does not want to provide more for now."
Source: Un avion s?écrase à Marchovelette: plusieurs morts | Fil info Belgique - lesoir.be
BBC breaking news -
BBC News - Belgian plane crash 'kills 10' near Namur
"According to the mayor of Fernelmont, Jean-Claude Nihoul, it is still very difficult to understand what happened, but a witness has reported a wingtip would have separated from the aircraft in flight . "Three or four paratroopers have tried to open a parachute, but it was too late," says Jean-Claude also Nihoul."
Source (and two photos) - Un avion de tourisme s'écrase à Marchovelette, au moins dix morts - RTBF Regions
"An aircraft which were several people who would parachute crashed Saturday afternoon Marchovelette (Fernelmont, province of Namur), said firefighters Namur. The floor of Namur will descend on the scene. There would be no survivors. Several media evoke a dozen deaths. Namur firefighters were called shortly before 16h. Eghezée firefighters are also on hand. It would be a plane that had left the airfield Temploux. The plane would hit no home ground. The prosecutor does not want to provide more for now."
Source: Un avion s?écrase à Marchovelette: plusieurs morts | Fil info Belgique - lesoir.be
BBC breaking news -
BBC News - Belgian plane crash 'kills 10' near Namur
"According to the mayor of Fernelmont, Jean-Claude Nihoul, it is still very difficult to understand what happened, but a witness has reported a wingtip would have separated from the aircraft in flight . "Three or four paratroopers have tried to open a parachute, but it was too late," says Jean-Claude also Nihoul."
Source (and two photos) - Un avion de tourisme s'écrase à Marchovelette, au moins dix morts - RTBF Regions
Last edited by rp122; 19th Oct 2013 at 15:24. Reason: Update - more information
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 645
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Don't know this plane. But parachute a/c (at other places) seem to be treated quite brutal sometimes. With steepest descends, overtaking the free falling jumpers, and macho style violent (aerobatic) maneuvers. How many operators might risk early fatigue this way?
Last edited by Kerosene Kraut; 19th Oct 2013 at 17:06.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft in question was registered OO-NAC (serial 107) Build in 1969, used as HB-FFP till 1984 as cropsprayer, from 1985 till 1989 used in Angola for the Red Cross. Upon return in 1989 sold to Belgium and used for skydivers, registered OO-FWJ. Crashlanded and severely damaged in 2000 in Moorsele (EBMO). Rebuild and sold again to Switzerland, then in 2003 returned to Belgium and registered as OO-NAC. Several witnesses saw the aircraft spiraling down with the right wing missing.....(to be taken with caution, not yet confirmed..) Sad day for skydiving...
Join Date: Jun 2011
Location: france
Posts: 760
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Once more the old crash scenario in skydiving community... : 
The head of the jumping center asks the pilot to descend so quickly as possible, spiraling with high bank over VNE, and to accept more persons per stick that allowed, and after some crashes anybody takes the parts with help of any secret service in war regions , another builds one aircraft with the parts of two or more, fake certifications, etc... etc...Regulator knows but seems blind, air police never look where they know they have to look, etc. etc...
So often seen...
The head of the jumping center asks the pilot to descend so quickly as possible, spiraling with high bank over VNE, and to accept more persons per stick that allowed, and after some crashes anybody takes the parts with help of any secret service in war regions , another builds one aircraft with the parts of two or more, fake certifications, etc... etc...Regulator knows but seems blind, air police never look where they know they have to look, etc. etc...
So often seen...
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: France
Posts: 342
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Another possible scenario is a loss of control in the clouds followed by a structural failure.
A loss of control in the clouds followed by a spin, evacuation of most of the skydivers, and eventually by a recovery happened in France last year on a PC6.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2012/f-hm...f-hm120609.pdf(French Only)
Sometimes, pilots fly, even when weather conditions are not acceptable, in the hope to keep their jobs, we've all seen that.
Anyway I'm just speculating, the report will be posted here (reports are drawn up in English in Belgium) in several months.
A loss of control in the clouds followed by a spin, evacuation of most of the skydivers, and eventually by a recovery happened in France last year on a PC6.
http://www.bea.aero/docspa/2012/f-hm...f-hm120609.pdf(French Only)
Sometimes, pilots fly, even when weather conditions are not acceptable, in the hope to keep their jobs, we've all seen that.
Anyway I'm just speculating, the report will be posted here (reports are drawn up in English in Belgium) in several months.
Last edited by 172510; 19th Oct 2013 at 21:21.
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Hanging off the end of a thread
Posts: 33,056
Received 2,931 Likes
on
1,250 Posts
If that is indeed the serial No then this does not appear to effect it
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a..._2013-0115-E_1
http://ad.easa.europa.eu/blob/easa_a..._2013-0115-E_1
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Belgium, near BRU
Age: 45
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This plane wasn't indeed covered in the latest EAD but it is covered in another active AD for the PC-6 which requires mandatory (yearly) inspections for corrosion, wear and cracks to the wings / wing strut fitting:
http://t.co/dqeSxjxn2z
http://t.co/dqeSxjxn2z
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ 172510 : I live 25km from the crashsite and can confirm cloud(base) was not a factor, wx was fine, not yet CAVOK but close to it, very thin layer of cloud around 5000', hardly any wind, good visibility.... The pilot was a professional (cargo) airline pilot.... More and more reports are coming in that (part of) the right wing seperated inflight and that the aircraft spiralled down (from around FL110 accdg to latest rumours...- to be confirmed!)
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: FUBAR
Posts: 3,348
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If the separation occurred at FL110 or thereabouts, are we to assume that the g forces were violent enough that nobody could jump out, as surely it would have been better to risk striking the airframe than to stay onboard a crippled aircraft. . . . unless the pilot thought for some of the descent that he had retained a modicum of control.
In my limited experience as a jump Pilot 25 years ago, the first sign of trouble above 1000' and the jumpers would be out the door.......
If this happened at 11,000' and none jumped out there would be a good reason stopping them.
They would have jumped if they could have.
If this happened at 11,000' and none jumped out there would be a good reason stopping them.
They would have jumped if they could have.
Last edited by nitpicker330; 20th Oct 2013 at 08:49.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: England
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In an in flight emergency at altitude, the parachutists would normally wait for the pilot to tell them to leave (don't want to make handling issues worse by suddenly changing c.of g unexpectedly). But if it becomes obvious is catastrophic then they will go without being told.
Only problem is, it is VERY difficult to get up off the floor, move and get out of a plane when there are any G forces.
Just because an aircraft is being flown outside what is "normally" seen doesn't mean it's being abused. Steep descents/spirals done within limits by an experienced pilot can be spectacular - and perfectly safe.
Only problem is, it is VERY difficult to get up off the floor, move and get out of a plane when there are any G forces.
Just because an aircraft is being flown outside what is "normally" seen doesn't mean it's being abused. Steep descents/spirals done within limits by an experienced pilot can be spectacular - and perfectly safe.
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: home counties
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some commentary in newspaper that the problem was around 10,000ft, en-route for jump altitude at 15k. Two things from that, if true.
1. Door on PC6 would be closed for the climb. It is a big door, and hard to get that open if a/c is unstable and there are consequent G forces. Looks like they did get it open eventually, but it must have taken a long time and hence too low to get out and deploy before the ground.
2. If WX not an issue, then a/c unlikely to be under any stress in the climb, making cause of separation of the wing really perplexing.
1. Door on PC6 would be closed for the climb. It is a big door, and hard to get that open if a/c is unstable and there are consequent G forces. Looks like they did get it open eventually, but it must have taken a long time and hence too low to get out and deploy before the ground.
2. If WX not an issue, then a/c unlikely to be under any stress in the climb, making cause of separation of the wing really perplexing.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Belgium
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ effortless : partially opened canopies seems to be (accdg to first indications) due to "automatic opening by barometric computer/safety system built into modern parachutes)
High rate of descent of the acft explains open canopies...
High rate of descent of the acft explains open canopies...
If there is an inherent weakness in part of the structure then it doesn't always require exceptional loading to cause a failure. It can (and does) happen in straight and level 1 g flight.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: UK
Posts: 226
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Partially deployed canopies probably implies the reserve canopies opened as a result of the Automatic Activation Device firing; basically a ballistic charge firing a cutter to open the reserve. Commonly set for 750 feet above the ground for experienced jumpers which is 3 seconds from impact in a belly down position.
I disagree with the comment above. An aircraft can lose a wing in straight and level flight. Look at what happened to Chalks Ocean Airways....
Sad day for skydiving and very worrying.
I disagree with the comment above. An aircraft can lose a wing in straight and level flight. Look at what happened to Chalks Ocean Airways....
Sad day for skydiving and very worrying.
Last edited by maxed-out; 20th Oct 2013 at 13:55.