Mustang down in Germany....
 

apparently on approach for Friedrichshafen (EDNY) coming from Egelsbach (EDFE).

Link to German newspaper:

Offenbar drei Tote bei Absturz von Business-Flugzeug

3 feared dead, most likely OE reg. acc. to a German forum OE-FWD of Skytaxi...

Any english updates on this? What sorr of operator was this? Must have been commercial.

A German newspaper claims to have obtained a flight profile. It shows the aircraft approaching normally to about 4000ft, when it suddenly entered a steep dive/fall to the ground. It was snowing quite heavily at the time.

schwaebische.de/region_artikel,-Luftfahrtexperte-Flugzeug-war-besonders-sicher-_arid,10788160_toid,310.html

Possible tail plane stall? A bit high to be taking flaps though. I don't have total confidence in the C510 de-icing boots - I once took off in freezing conditions with boots operating as per the AFM and the ice on the leading edge stayed on the whole flight until we landed somewhere warm.

4000ft (MSL) meant 2500ft GND though. The crash occurred 8nm before the runway, right on the extended center-line.

Does anyone have crew names? PM me please?

The captain's name was immediately public - since it's the owner of Skytaxi himself. He was well-known in Austria's aviation community. The name of the co-pilot (49 years, from Vienna) is not disclosed publically.

oe24.at/oesterreich/chronik/vorarlberg/Flugzeugabsturz-Zwei-Oesterreicher-tot/313173554

Thank you both. I need details of the 49 year old Austrian. 'Fearing the worst now.

Kelly: PM.

Thanks for that info - in which case it might well have been about the point they selected approach flaps. Any information on their ground speed at that point? Would be interesting to calculate how close they were to Vfe1.

Also, with only one pax and possibly little luggage, CG would be at the forward end of the certified range, increasing tail-plane loading.

Just checked the Jepps for runway 24 at EDNY and the glide-slope intercept is indeed 8.9nm/16km at 4000'. So they went down just as the AP would be trimming forward. The METARs also show optimal icing conditions. So if the tailplane was loaded with ice, this might well have caused tailplane stall. Possibly exacerbated if they had also selected flaps at "half point above the glide" as taught by some ATOs.

The Mustang is on zero flaps landing if in icing conditions..

It is limited to TO/APR flap setting.

http://www.smartcockpit.com/docs/Cit...Protection.pdf

If you had flown the mustang, you would like to keep flaps up in icing conditions, at least until WELL established on final descent, and until this moment it is an absolute minimum of 160 Kias...
This aircraft does not like ice at all..T tail, de-icing sequence every two minutes and asymmetrical...well recipe for success..

It was the point I was making- C510 with high T-tail and boots is an ICTS trap.it was you who decided to announce that C510 is "flaps zero until landing". I have actually flown the C510 a great deal - obviously you haven't - because you don't seem to have read the AFM link which I gave you.

It does seem they lost control at the glide intercept - there is no indication at all so far that they even took TO/APR flaps at that point.For me personally that would be too early - I would normally take TO/APR at about 5nm, and LANDING about 3nm. I just suggested that the point they crashed could feasibly have been when they might have taken TO/APR flaps. All we can say for certain is that is about where (had they been flying on AP - which would be normal) the AP would be trimming forwards...

It is not 100% proof at this time, so please check yourself, because I lost contact to him when he worked in Africa, but there is olny one I know with age 49 working for "Skytaxi" (you can see his profile on "Xing"). His name Alexander F. For further info pse send me PM. Erich

@ Kelly Hopper:
Newspaper here in Austria wrote about a 49 years old "Alexander F." I think Iknow who he was...

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 OE-FWD.

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.

:eek: := :(

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.”

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

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.

That was published as their official Traueranzeige:
Adi Anderst - Todesanzeige - VN Todesanzeigen

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.

Actually it is 15° flaps max in icing. and 160 kt MIN , in very icing conditions, with a T-Tail and the Austrian maintenance.. I would not dare to extend any flaps in severe icing.
But it is only me...

Flying in ice can be tricky. Myself experienced 2 similar like a stall in a C421, both at 130 KIAS. One was without height loss but the attitude was oscillating. The second it started to descend by its own. During my type rating for EMB120 they showed us printouts from icing incidents. One did 12 turns in spin, then recovered, another turned while intercepted loc to the wrong side. But all showed the same characteristics, first oscillating in attitude, then the full stall, at 154 KIAS. The reason seems based on laminar profile, are sensitive to a contaminated upper surface, which lengths seem to change and so created the onset/oscillation.

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.

What are you talking about ? Minimum speed in icing conditions has been a limitation in every jet & TP I ever flew...

That's interesting.

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...

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.

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.

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.

Were they at 240kts before the upset? If so that is way too fast on C510. Not only is it way too fast to avoid tailplane icing, but the AP would overshoot the loc too.

Yes, they were. ATC is quoted as watching them overshoot the LOC at 240kts and starting a steep descent, and not responding to their calls any longer.

The numbers which were transmitted by the ADS-B indicate that they were not on AP.

The BFU asked for the tapes of the last 6 approaches and 6 out of 6 times the aircraft overshot the centre line. All intercepts were made at 220-240kts GND.


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.

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.