Tragic PA-28 crash in Swiss Alps
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Over the past 35 years, 5,000 youngsters have attended the annual camp and there have never been any serious accidents
Thread Starter
I personally know 3 persons that went in the past and choose a career in aviation. These camps are very nice and I would have definitely sent my kids too. It is really really a sad day for all aviation enthusiasts.
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: With Wonko, outside the asylum
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it is really really a sad day
I participated in this camp, aeons ago. It helped start my aviation career, but like most participants I was infatuated with aviation even before. Our flight induction was done in a twin, a P68. Whether that's any safer than a SEP I doubt, it just doubles the probability of an engine failure, which in the alpine, high altitude environment would perhaps raise the odds of a walk away outcome less so than the increased probability of it taking place...
Oh for goodness sake all this nonsense about risk. How thick a wad of cotton wool do you want to wrap children in? SEP is not that unsafe otherwise they would be crashing down in their thousands every day. I'd rather they went up in a SEP from Samedan than went out with their older friends who have just passed their driving tests on a snow covered road.
Tragic PA-28 crash
Physicus.
Yes; all fatal crashes are tragic and we in the aviation business do our utmost to keep them to a minimum. However they do happen, and unfortunately will happen again, SEP or MEP. Statistically, using a single for these camps has very little more danger than using a multi, with the usual provisos for temperature and altitude.
However I was quite fascinated by your comment.
I was always under the impression that the idea of two engines was that, if we had a failure, we could usually expect to have one left to sort out our options.
I agree that sometimes with a heavy aeroplane we were definitely going to descend ('Drift down'), particularly from high flight levels.
In the earlier days, of course, one engine was usually only sufficient help to give more choice of landing area, think Anson or even a MTOM Twin Comanche.
That has obviously given me false confidence for something like 55 years !
Yes; all fatal crashes are tragic and we in the aviation business do our utmost to keep them to a minimum. However they do happen, and unfortunately will happen again, SEP or MEP. Statistically, using a single for these camps has very little more danger than using a multi, with the usual provisos for temperature and altitude.
However I was quite fascinated by your comment.
I agree that sometimes with a heavy aeroplane we were definitely going to descend ('Drift down'), particularly from high flight levels.
In the earlier days, of course, one engine was usually only sufficient help to give more choice of landing area, think Anson or even a MTOM Twin Comanche.
That has obviously given me false confidence for something like 55 years !
Christian Gartmann, from the High Engadine flying club, said the pilot was free to choose his own route according to the weather, wind, air traffic and other factors.
That must have been well above 10,000 density altitude.
With that load your climb performance is a couple hundred feet a minute....if that.
The slightest downdraft will put you in the rocks.
Reminded me of this accident:
https://youtu.be/LzDSq6m2zV4
Thread Starter
The report is out (unfortunately only in French or German) and is pretty damning:
- The plane was actually left to be piloted by one of the 14 old passengers (with no pilot qualification) - this was not SOP (of course)
- The (actual) pilot did not have formal mountain flying training (although he was very familiar with the area)
- There were major deficiencies (aka lack of) in flight planning
- The main reason for the crash is that they were simply out of performance for the aircraft with this load, altitude and temperature. Something that should have never happened and certainly not with a kid as PIC.
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Under Causes ("Ursachen", 3.2) they conclude, that a risky and unsuitable tactic for flying in mountainous areas was the primary cause. Then they say that letting the untrained pax fly by the non-FI pilot contributed directly to the accident. (with the info from the report I must say I disagree). Then they say that the organization contributed systematically to the accident, because they knew that this non FI would let the kids fly.
The pilot had "amassed" 100hrs in the last 10 years. 10 hrs a year fur then years when one only has 250 hrs definitely won´t make you the sharpest knife in the drawer. He also required 95 hrs (!) for the PPL. (is that normal in Switzerland ?) He trained from 2002 to 04.2005 and his mountain flying training was done during PPL - training in 2003. His total time was 349 hrs.
This is - just from these numbers - a person I wouldn´t let take my bicycle for a trip, let alone 2 kids, in THIS area.
+ 1
The pilot had "amassed" 100hrs in the last 10 years. 10 hrs a year fur then years when one only has 250 hrs definitely won´t make you the sharpest knife in the drawer. He also required 95 hrs (!) for the PPL. (is that normal in Switzerland ?) He trained from 2002 to 04.2005 and his mountain flying training was done during PPL - training in 2003. His total time was 349 hrs.
This is - just from these numbers - a person I wouldn´t let take my bicycle for a trip, let alone 2 kids, in THIS area.
The main reason for the crash is that they were simply out of performance for the aircraft with this load, altitude and temperature. Something that should have never happened
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Box canyon?
That must have been well above 10,000 density altitude.
With that load your climb performance is a couple hundred feet a minute....if that.
The slightest downdraft will put you in the rocks.
Reminded me of this accident:
https://youtu.be/LzDSq6m2zV4
That must have been well above 10,000 density altitude.
With that load your climb performance is a couple hundred feet a minute....if that.
The slightest downdraft will put you in the rocks.
Reminded me of this accident:
https://youtu.be/LzDSq6m2zV4
I also disagree with SUST's assessment that letting one of the kids steer the aircraft was a contributing factor to the accident. The only reason was the choice of flight path by this "pilot".
Thread Starter
Re-reading the report they have found recordings (through Flarm device presumably) of previous flights by the same pilot where they cleared the pass by 13 and 28m respectively 
As mentioned in the report this guy most likely did not realise how dangerous his flying was. Still I find it borderline criminal to let him fly young aviation enthusiasts...
As mentioned in the report this guy most likely did not realise how dangerous his flying was. Still I find it borderline criminal to let him fly young aviation enthusiasts...
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or he just showed off. How exactly the organization would have known how low this dude flew on first occasion ? To the best of my knowledge its not normal to draw data from the flarm if your not the SUST, correct ?
