Mustang down in Germany....
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just a reminder - this is the Citation 510 - that on delivery to Croatia as 9A-CSG - left Wichita with USA Cessna registration. The 9A - reg was painted under the wing.
Cessna covered it with white wrap - pilots missed the fact the fuel vent was covered - in flight pilots heard two big bangs - and one of the wings imploded - made an emergency landing.
Aircraft was dismantled and flown back by cargo - for weeks worth of repairs, and redelivered to Croatia.
Eventually it was sold and became YU-SPM, then re-sold as OE-FWD.
Cessna covered it with white wrap - pilots missed the fact the fuel vent was covered - in flight pilots heard two big bangs - and one of the wings imploded - made an emergency landing.
Aircraft was dismantled and flown back by cargo - for weeks worth of repairs, and redelivered to Croatia.
Eventually it was sold and became YU-SPM, then re-sold as OE-FWD.
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: toronto
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Comments posted by Globe Aero pilot based in Iceland, and one of two pilots on board the Mustang - on delivery flight Wichita to Croatia as N13616.
“When I arrived at Cessna, I was told that the Cessna test pilots had flown the aircraft twice that day and the PIC had preflighted the aircraft. Even still, I did a walk-around. Looking under the wing and checking the gear etc, the vinyl foil was just so much like the paint, you really did not see it. The wing is very low to the ground and with the vent completely covered, you just sort of “forget” that it should be there. Imagine that you always look at the pitot tube for an obstruction. Imagine that the aircraft has NO pitot tube…you just tend to forget it. Lulled into the “factory has already flown it,” I just didnt see it. As there are so many aircraft with vented fuel caps, without seeing the vent, it becomes a non-entity. The engine did NOT stop. The problem with the design, is that there is no redundancy. On other aircraft, there is a valve or a vented cap or cross ventilation…SOMETHING! Our Challenger has 8 systems if I remember correctly. Cessna will correct this and I am happy of course that we didnt get killed. On a new design, this lack of backup slipped through the cracks and happily has been discovered with only bent metal, no major property damage or injuries. We all learn and my opinion is that both Cessna and the FAA handled the post incident situation in an exemplary manner. I phoned both of them right away, the aircraft was secured in a hangar and both agencies sent a field rep early the next morning. The FAA inspectors were professional and thorough and immediately coordinated with Cessna. With nearly 200 deliveries of new aircraft and almost 11,000 hours, I have seen a few quality issues on new aircraft. On the other hand, we have flown single-engined aircraft all over the world and of the thousands of aircraft delivered over the last 40 years, few have gone down due to mechanical failure. I hope that I have helped your understanding of this incident and maybe one of you will take a lesson from the discussion that will save your bacon one of these days. Fly safe gents!”
“The PIC had already been at Cessna for several days and had flown the aircraft, They changed the software display in some manner and then again test-flew the aircraft. So the flight was indeed made by the PIC. I arrived late in the day and was informed of these flights “by the factory” and the PIC, so I was lulled somewhat. We had no CAS message until after having heard the noises, which sounded like they were coming from the gear. They got progressively louder, but there was no handling change. So no, THIS IS NOT TRUE! The CAS message came about 2.30 hours into the flight and it was that the boost pump came on. As I said, of course checking the vent is a necessary matter. But lets say you arrive at a car dealer and your brother is waiting for you. He has waited hours. He says, I drove the car and it is great. We had one little problem, but they fixed it and the mechanic and I went for a ride and it is fine. So you look over the car, jump in and 45 miles down the road, the wheel falls off… Well, of course, you should have checked all the torques on the wheels (dont you, when you buy a new car?) but your brother, whose car it is, afterall…has assured you that all is in order… So it would not have been discovered on another test flight as there were no symptoms until the vacuum created by the missing fuel was great enough to lower the fuel pressure and trip the boost pump. So only seeing the foil blocking the vent would save the day. Again, although it may seem strange, you check the pitot tube for an obstruction…but if the pitot tube is completely removed and the screw holes are painted over, will you actually miss it? If I had been there alone, I would have taken the POH and followed each and every item on the preflight, but as the PIC was there ahead of me, I didnt. Needless to say, the factory pilots obviously need a review of the preflight procedures as well, as they flew this aircraft more than once.”
“When I arrived at Cessna, I was told that the Cessna test pilots had flown the aircraft twice that day and the PIC had preflighted the aircraft. Even still, I did a walk-around. Looking under the wing and checking the gear etc, the vinyl foil was just so much like the paint, you really did not see it. The wing is very low to the ground and with the vent completely covered, you just sort of “forget” that it should be there. Imagine that you always look at the pitot tube for an obstruction. Imagine that the aircraft has NO pitot tube…you just tend to forget it. Lulled into the “factory has already flown it,” I just didnt see it. As there are so many aircraft with vented fuel caps, without seeing the vent, it becomes a non-entity. The engine did NOT stop. The problem with the design, is that there is no redundancy. On other aircraft, there is a valve or a vented cap or cross ventilation…SOMETHING! Our Challenger has 8 systems if I remember correctly. Cessna will correct this and I am happy of course that we didnt get killed. On a new design, this lack of backup slipped through the cracks and happily has been discovered with only bent metal, no major property damage or injuries. We all learn and my opinion is that both Cessna and the FAA handled the post incident situation in an exemplary manner. I phoned both of them right away, the aircraft was secured in a hangar and both agencies sent a field rep early the next morning. The FAA inspectors were professional and thorough and immediately coordinated with Cessna. With nearly 200 deliveries of new aircraft and almost 11,000 hours, I have seen a few quality issues on new aircraft. On the other hand, we have flown single-engined aircraft all over the world and of the thousands of aircraft delivered over the last 40 years, few have gone down due to mechanical failure. I hope that I have helped your understanding of this incident and maybe one of you will take a lesson from the discussion that will save your bacon one of these days. Fly safe gents!”
“The PIC had already been at Cessna for several days and had flown the aircraft, They changed the software display in some manner and then again test-flew the aircraft. So the flight was indeed made by the PIC. I arrived late in the day and was informed of these flights “by the factory” and the PIC, so I was lulled somewhat. We had no CAS message until after having heard the noises, which sounded like they were coming from the gear. They got progressively louder, but there was no handling change. So no, THIS IS NOT TRUE! The CAS message came about 2.30 hours into the flight and it was that the boost pump came on. As I said, of course checking the vent is a necessary matter. But lets say you arrive at a car dealer and your brother is waiting for you. He has waited hours. He says, I drove the car and it is great. We had one little problem, but they fixed it and the mechanic and I went for a ride and it is fine. So you look over the car, jump in and 45 miles down the road, the wheel falls off… Well, of course, you should have checked all the torques on the wheels (dont you, when you buy a new car?) but your brother, whose car it is, afterall…has assured you that all is in order… So it would not have been discovered on another test flight as there were no symptoms until the vacuum created by the missing fuel was great enough to lower the fuel pressure and trip the boost pump. So only seeing the foil blocking the vent would save the day. Again, although it may seem strange, you check the pitot tube for an obstruction…but if the pitot tube is completely removed and the screw holes are painted over, will you actually miss it? If I had been there alone, I would have taken the POH and followed each and every item on the preflight, but as the PIC was there ahead of me, I didnt. Needless to say, the factory pilots obviously need a review of the preflight procedures as well, as they flew this aircraft more than once.”
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The legal investigation into the accident/deaths has drawn its conclusion. The prosecution held a press conference yesterday, announcing that the accident had been caused by icing, which had blocked the "extension of a flap" when the aircraft was on approach, resulting in the aircraft spinning out of control. Prosecution refered to investigation results of the German BFU (aviation accident investigators), excluding a technical defect or disease as a cause:
http://www.schwarzwaelder-bote.de/in...97e282f70.html
The BFU itself has not released its report yet, though. And the reports from the prosecution's press conference are still a bit vague. Most newspaper reports mention a (single) blocked flap. This would indicate asymmetric flap extension. Another newspaper mentions "blocked extension of flaps" (plural) though, which would indicate a slightly different scenario:
https://www.suedkurier.de/region/bod...372474,9638665
http://www.schwarzwaelder-bote.de/in...97e282f70.html
The BFU itself has not released its report yet, though. And the reports from the prosecution's press conference are still a bit vague. Most newspaper reports mention a (single) blocked flap. This would indicate asymmetric flap extension. Another newspaper mentions "blocked extension of flaps" (plural) though, which would indicate a slightly different scenario:
https://www.suedkurier.de/region/bod...372474,9638665
I think these two reports add to the confusion instead of saying what has actually happened. Looks like a prosecutor who gave out information he was not supposed to hand out prior to the BFU report being released and done in a way intended for aviation unsavvy journalists rather than anyone specific. It appears that the statement was given at a yearly press conference by the prosecutor covering all matters of interest of 2017.
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That was published as their official Traueranzeige:
Adi Anderst - Todesanzeige - VN Todesanzeigen
Adi Anderst - Todesanzeige - VN Todesanzeigen
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The prosecution held a press conference yesterday, announcing that the accident had been caused by icing, which had blocked the "extension of a flap" when the aircraft was on approach, resulting in the aircraft spinning out of control.
A dude I bumped into today said, it was tailplane icing.
Last edited by His dudeness; 5th Mar 2018 at 13:21.
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Far away from LA
Posts: 1,032
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
And CL300 said, zero flaps in icing on a C510 - I take his post as if that is a limitation. So either they busted a limitation when trying to extend flaps in icing (which I figure is not required on runway as long as Friedrichshafens) or...
A dude I bumped into today said, it was tailplane icing.
A dude I bumped into today said, it was tailplane icing.
But it is only me...
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Germany
Posts: 63
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If I have a to do an approach in ice, first I check the ceiling. If it is above outer marker check altitude, I delay flap extension until outer marker. Often wings went clear if reaching freezing level. But such a high-speed approach has to be flown before and the crew has to be sure to have it stabilized. Even a landing with approach flaps has a different feeling and has longer runway requirements, esp. normally RWY is contaminated or wet.
In this accident selecting flaps could trigger tail stall. Maybe there was a condition as the crew selected flaps because the moment of wings is increased with flaps at same speed. If the horizontal stabilizer was near the max alpha, it could stall, what leads to loss of control. A tail stall occurs at higher speeds than a wing stall and masks flaps asymmetry. But only official docs will give further proofs. We are just talking about general considerations of flying in ice. VLJ has many limitations. Sometimes I wonder, how can such a small jet carry so many limitations. If want to use the full envelope, it is desired to develop some kind of personnel trainings programm.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
VLJ has many limitations. Sometimes I wonder, how can such a small jet carry so many limitations.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Ormond Beach
Age: 49
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Earth
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The German BFU has released its intermediate report (sorry, in German only): https://www.bfu-web.de/DE/Publikatio...ublicationFile
The intermediate report only lists the known facts.
According to the BFU, another pilot flying an airliner on approach to nearby Stuttgart airport reported severe icing conditions at about the same time as the C510 was approaching Friedrichshafen. The airliner had very quickly accumulated 2-3cm (1-1.5") of ice on its windscreen.
A B1900, which landed in Friedrichshafen about 45 minutes after the accident, was also covered with thick layer of clear ice. According to ground crews, the icing was so bad, they required about 4 times the normal amount of deicing fluid, to prepare the B1900 for its next leg.
The BFU has found no indications of any malfunction. Neither do they mention any flap issue. The C510 entered a steep dive at the very moment, as they were about to capture the ILS - while they were still flying at a speed of about 240kts.
Eventually they crashed at a very shallow angle - after clipping trees about 1km from the final accident site. So, it seems the C510 had already recovered from the steep descent.
So, no clear explanation yet. We'll have to wait for the final report...
The intermediate report only lists the known facts.
According to the BFU, another pilot flying an airliner on approach to nearby Stuttgart airport reported severe icing conditions at about the same time as the C510 was approaching Friedrichshafen. The airliner had very quickly accumulated 2-3cm (1-1.5") of ice on its windscreen.
A B1900, which landed in Friedrichshafen about 45 minutes after the accident, was also covered with thick layer of clear ice. According to ground crews, the icing was so bad, they required about 4 times the normal amount of deicing fluid, to prepare the B1900 for its next leg.
The BFU has found no indications of any malfunction. Neither do they mention any flap issue. The C510 entered a steep dive at the very moment, as they were about to capture the ILS - while they were still flying at a speed of about 240kts.
Eventually they crashed at a very shallow angle - after clipping trees about 1km from the final accident site. So, it seems the C510 had already recovered from the steep descent.
So, no clear explanation yet. We'll have to wait for the final report...
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: South Germany
Age: 55
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A minor correction to the above post with respect to the flaps. The preliminary report mentions (in German): ‘Es wurde festgestellt, dass das Fahrwerk und die Landeklappen zum Unfallzeitpunkt eingefahren waren.’. Translation: ‘It was established that the landing gear and the flaps were not extended at the time of the accident.‘ This very clear statement in my opinion discredits the earlier disclosure about a blocked flap.
One message recorded by the EEC included ‘De-icing ON’. So one could think that the crew did the correct things in the prevailing conditions.
The report shows radar tracks until a few seconds before the plane impacted the ground. The steep descent happened after the aircraft had veered off the approach course by 60 or 70 degrees to the right for 1NM, after overshooting the LOC to the left. Then the descent became shallower indeed. The elevation at the crash site is approximately 2300 AMSL. I am not sure if there was a recovery, or the height or time for it. The report mentioned as a peculiarity that a number of larger debris was found inverted along the crash path: LH wing on the right and vice versa. Surprisingly the path is in a 240 degree direction again.
The other day I watched a FAA instructional video on tailplane icing: NBX84bF2d4U on YouTube. I just can’t help connecting the two things.
One message recorded by the EEC included ‘De-icing ON’. So one could think that the crew did the correct things in the prevailing conditions.
The report shows radar tracks until a few seconds before the plane impacted the ground. The steep descent happened after the aircraft had veered off the approach course by 60 or 70 degrees to the right for 1NM, after overshooting the LOC to the left. Then the descent became shallower indeed. The elevation at the crash site is approximately 2300 AMSL. I am not sure if there was a recovery, or the height or time for it. The report mentioned as a peculiarity that a number of larger debris was found inverted along the crash path: LH wing on the right and vice versa. Surprisingly the path is in a 240 degree direction again.
The other day I watched a FAA instructional video on tailplane icing: NBX84bF2d4U on YouTube. I just can’t help connecting the two things.
Maybe they extended the flaps, got into a tailplane-stall, realized it, retracted the flaps and did not have enough altitude to recover?
I also found the wind conditions quite interesting. At 5000ft from 250-260 degrees at 45-50kts, while EDNY's METAR corresponding to the time of approach reported winds 200/8. Quite a bit of windshear/turbulence. Another C510 of the same operator had landed 10 minutes before the accident happened and reported that it was bumpy with a rapid decrease of wind, but also that it was well manageable and that they were VMC at 3500ft MSL. Icing was light to moderate, for them.
I also found the wind conditions quite interesting. At 5000ft from 250-260 degrees at 45-50kts, while EDNY's METAR corresponding to the time of approach reported winds 200/8. Quite a bit of windshear/turbulence. Another C510 of the same operator had landed 10 minutes before the accident happened and reported that it was bumpy with a rapid decrease of wind, but also that it was well manageable and that they were VMC at 3500ft MSL. Icing was light to moderate, for them.
Last edited by EatMyShorts!; 13th Mar 2018 at 08:52.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: South Germany
Age: 55
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Like I wrote earlier, I have doubts about any recovery effort because things happen fast on a 240kt approach, and there was work to do, probably a lot at this point. To me the flight path and the ROD point towards a loss of control. I admit that the shallow angle of the crash is puzzling. However, the spread of the debris hints that the plane may have been upside down on impact.
The wind part I find an interesting remark because it would have had the potential to exacerbate an aerodynamic problem, be it icing, stall speeds of the wing or the tailplane. On the ther hand their speed was quite high for an approach 8NM before the threshold and they were still in clean config.
The wind part I find an interesting remark because it would have had the potential to exacerbate an aerodynamic problem, be it icing, stall speeds of the wing or the tailplane. On the ther hand their speed was quite high for an approach 8NM before the threshold and they were still in clean config.
Last edited by jbodenr; 13th Mar 2018 at 10:48.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: schermoney and left front seat
Age: 57
Posts: 2,438
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not only is it way too fast to avoid tailplane icing, but the AP would overshoot the loc too.
To me it looks as if they just banked the little bugger hard in order to correct onto the LOC and either did not pull, thus the descent rate developed or the aircraft was full of clear ice and had an "high speed stall" when they banked it.
Last edited by His dudeness; 14th Mar 2018 at 20:29.
I wonder what G1000 software version they had. I remember flying the early C510s and they were susceptible for failing to intercept the LOC on AP. We used to reduce intercept speeds and angles, but the problem only seemed to really diminish on later software upgrades.