PA34 down in the Alps

[IO540]

I've never had a problem there either, and have been generally very positive on their ATS services, but the perception of ground hostility to N is unfortunately very real among foreign-reg pilots and over the years has been pretty widely propagated not only through the UK aviation press but also through every pilot forum there is.

On occassions, it gets reinforced by real incidents on the ground where somebody has to hand over the VAT on a TBM700 or whatever, only to get it back upon departure a few days later.

I never suggested that a pilot should delay declaring an emergency in a N-reg, and I wouldn't.

Let's leave personal "your attitude is wrong" attacks for other forums, especially the cliquey ones where everybody knows each other anyway and can settle it over a beer the same night.

[IanSeager]

Originally Posted by IO 540

So if on a VFR flight, one might think twice before declaring an emergency...

IO (Can I call you by your first name?) - I was genuinely surprised to see this and feel very strongly that it is the wrong attitude.

Happy to buy you a beer whenever



Ian

[a4fly]

IO 540

I am certainly assuming that this pilot was flying in V.M.C. ! I would be staggered if he was flying in I.M.C. several thousand feet below M.S.A.

I suppose the bottom line with my argument is this:

Irrespective of how many engines I have (because I'm probably going to die in the event of an engine failure if I try to continue), do I attempt to climb to M.S.A. and press on with the flight, bearing in mind it will take at least a few minutes subject to turbulence, icing etc. or do I turn back and try a different route ?

I agree that the most important thing is to keep miles away from danger. Clear planning ahead of the flight is imperative. The first thing that I learnt when doing my I.M.C. rating was that planning an I.F.R. flight can often take twice as long as conducting the flight . This is because the planning phase needs to cover all reasonable eventualities. Entering I.M.C. over the Alps is entirely possible, as you know, and should always be planned for.

Incidentally for you M.E. fans, the argument regarding the engine failure gives more credence to the turn back possibility ; as maintaining altitude on one engine as one tries to retreat is almost certainly going to be possible, whereas trying to out climb the mountains is going to be impossible.

[mm_flynn]

Originally Posted by a4fly

Irrespective of how many engines I have (because I'm probably going to die in the event of an engine failure if I try to continue), do I attempt to climb to M.S.A. and press on with the flight, bearing in mind it will take at least a few minutes subject to turbulence, icing etc. or do I turn back and try a different route

Moving away from this specific case, where there was potential icing in the climb and we are speculating a non-deiced aircraft - I would climb on my current track to MSA before manoeuvring unless I positively knew something was in my way (in which case I would really wonder what I was doing flying at it in the first place!). The potential not to correctly judged the circling radius against memory of what terrain I had recently passed is so high and accident stats suggest people underestimate this even when they can see where they are going (like in NYC recently) that the risk of CFIT has got to be higher turning around in a pass rather than climbing to MSA and then turning around.
Obviously if there is a performance limit like icing, operating near service ceiling, lack of O2, etc. then you are stuck with turn around and hope you remembered which side of the valley you are now on!
I would agree that in this case the VFR plan was clearly blown and pressing on would be a bad call. I just think it is climb to MSA and then turn if you and the plane are technically capable of IFR.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by a4fly

Incidentally for you M.E. fans, the argument regarding the engine failure gives more credence to the turn back possibility ; as maintaining altitude on one engine as one tries to retreat is almost certainly going to be possible, whereas trying to out climb the mountains is going to be impossible.

It is only "almost certainly going to be possible" if the ground behind you is going down and not up.

Whether in this case that is a fact I know not, but knowing the best direction to drift down (should one engine inop require it) is part of situational awareness, and if you can't see the ground out the window you're reliant on TAWS/EGPWS and/or luck.

After a couple of hours fuel burn and 2.5 passengers (in weight terms) I would have thought even a Seneca could maintain height on one engine at that altitude unless it was iced-up; but then even two engines might not have been enough.

[Fuji Abound]

After a couple of hours fuel burn and 2.5 passengers (in weight terms) I would have thought even a Seneca could maintain height on one engine at that altitude unless it was iced-up;

Really.

According to the report posted the accident site was at nearly 6,500 feet.

Are you suggesting the pilot would have readly been able to maintain height on one engine given the single engine service ceiling and the need to maintain some rate of climb at times even to maintain the existing altitude?

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Fuji Abound

According to the report posted the accident site was at nearly 6,500 feet.

Are you suggesting the pilot would have readly been able to maintain height on one engine given the single engine service ceiling and the need to maintain some rate of climb at times even to maintain the existing altitude?

No, I didn't "suggest" anything of the kind as I have zero idea of his competence or experience: I merely "thought" that a Seneca after 2+ hours of fuel burn and relatively lightly loaded could maintain height <10,000 with one engine inop, subject to icing. (Exactly as I wrote, funnily enough )

"SE Service ceiling" is a bit meaningless in a drift-down context, and in any event is the altitude where >=100FPM climb is unsustainable.

Twins don't suddenly drop to SE ceiling (POH'd at MTOW) in the event of an engine failure, they slowly drift down with the ROD reducing as mass reduces through fuel burn or jettison of unneeded cargo.

It wouldn't surprise me if the SE drift-down altitude was significantly higher than the "SE service ceiling" quoted in a book.

Maintaining altitude, or having a climb rate > 0 < 100 FPM is entirely feasible at that altitude and assumed mass.

[Pilot-H]

The SE service ceiling of the Turbocharged Seneca is 16,500'
At 6,000' ISA the SE R.O.C. is 320 fpm. (Seneca V figures)

[IO540]

On what we know (admittedly very little) he reported having general trouble but he didn't report engine trouble.

I am sure any twin pilot, and this was one quite high time, would have known about SE climb performance on this type of twin being well short of spectacular, and would have turned back.

I say "climb" because my presumed "VFR flight" scenario, together with the crash site location, would suggest he flew under the Lyon airspace, probably between 2500 and 3500ft AMSL, and then he would have had to climb quite decisively to clear the terrain coming up (peaks to 7600ft).

It doesn't actually make any sense no matter how you look at it.

[S-Works]

Maybe he got lost? It was pretty bad luck to hit that peak as it is surrounded by quite low terrain all around.

[Adrian N]

They could well have been lost, or at least not where they thought they were. But contrary to the impression you can get from some aeronautical charts, this isn't an isolated peak surrounded by low ground.

This not particularly good photo was taken last summer about 15 miles North of the accident site, heading South. The accident was just to the left of the high peak on the far right of the picture, at 6400ft. The peaks in the foreground reach 7500ft. For about 20 miles to the West before you reach the Rhone valley, there are hills up to 5600ft, and within 15 miles to the East the ground rises to over 9000ft.



At 6400ft in this area, you stand a very high chance of having an accident unless the visibility is good.

[Fuji Abound]

Rustle

I had assumed your comments were relevant to the discussion as opposed to a technical comment along the lines of “the book says the take off run of a Warrior is .. .. - so it must be”. I am sorry I mis understood the contexty of your comment.

Most of this is speculation and someone raised the comment that maybe he suffered an engine failure.

I have no idea what version of the Seneca was involved in this accident (apologies if it has been stated earlier). Details of the performance of a Turbo charged Seneca may or may not be relevant. However given the number of Senecas made and the number with turbos I guess it is unlikely it was this version.

In my opinion given that the aircraft was likely to have been higher than the accident site and we know that the pilot inadvertently entered IMC, with snow, probable icing and perhaps moderate turbulence, and given that we know he had a young child and wife with him who may well have been panicking, and finally given the marginal single engine performance of most Senecas, never mind that he may well have been above the SESC coping with sink and turbulence (to be expected in the mountains in those conditions) I think he would have done a remarkable job to have maintained altitude on one engine if that had befallen him - whatever the book says.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by Pilot-H

The SE service ceiling of the Turbocharged Seneca is 16,500'
At 6,000' ISA the SE R.O.C. is 320 fpm. (Seneca V figures)

Thanks H. So much duff gen on this BB it's nice to see some facts.

[IO540]

The aircraft was a PA34-200T Seneca II. Is this a turbo?

I am not going to give the tail number here but it has been confirmed locally, and positively identified from the crash site pictures.

Looking at the FAA aircraft data for it, there is no mention of the 1999kg mod either - relevant to a VFR flight.

[rustle]

Originally Posted by IO540

The aircraft was a PA34-200T Seneca II. Is this a turbo?

Looking at other PA34-200Ts it seems they're all turbo. Maybe that's what the "T" designates

[mm_flynn]

I looked up the model and in fact the T does seem to stand for the turbocharged option. In addition, in photos you can see what appear to be wing, rudder, elevator boots and a hot plate on the windscreen.
The publicly available information seems to suggest an uneventful level flight below cloud that suddenly entered a snow show and probably then went IMC.

I am not aware of any reporting (as compared to speculation) that he was experiencing icing, engine failure, or any other performance problem prior to his call to ATC.


In addition, the fact he was in a turbocharged aircraft apparently with deice boots (although they may have been inop) is a further mystery as to why he had chosen that route and altitude

[421C]

However given the number of Senecas made and the number with turbos I guess it is unlikely it was this version.

The original Seneca ('73-'74) was a normally aspirated 4cyl Lycoming, a few have aftermarket turbos.

All subsequent Senecas (II,III,IV,V) are turbocharged, with the 6cyl Continetal. The power steps up from 200hp to 220hp t/o only to 220hp continuusly across the models.

This accident aircraft was a turbocharged Seneca II, and, as a random guess, 90% of the Seneca fleet is turbocharged (ie. is not a Seneca "1" model)

The Single-Engine performance of any of the turbo models should be fair at 6500' on a cold day (by light twin standards), unless of course there is icing or a prop won't feather etc.) But I agree that the little we know of the accident doesn't particularly signal that engine failure was an issue. Sounds like loss of terrain awareness when navigating in IMC, perhaps avoiding weather an/or icing.

rgds
421C

[S-Works]

I have considerable time in the Senece both our Senece I and the Turbo version G-RH. They are generally de-iced and the single engine performance is actually very good, certainly enough to have cleared the peaks in question.

This looks very like a loss of awareness brought on by flying into a snow storm. The logic behind the route VFR is what I find most curious. I was in the alps snowboarding and from the 2nd-5th it was stunning blue skies (I have the tan to attest) after that is snowed for the rest of week with a lot more forecast. As an IR pilot I would not have consider that route even airways so I wonder why he did?

[Ye Olde Pilot]

Maybe he thought it was going to be an easy ride?

The truth is that mountains kill a lot closer to home.

For what is worth in over a decade of weekly flying from North to South Wales in a single I never managed a direct flight from Gwynedd to Cardiff VFR!

There are lots of nice weather 'mountain" flying sites if you google.

Here is a UK example!

Pilot's thanks for air crash help

The plane came down in cloud onto the mountainside

A pilot who survived a light aircraft crash in Snowdonia, which killed his passenger, says he wants to return to the area to thank his rescuers.
Brian Vaux, 61, from Pontypool, has undergone extensive treatment for brain and spinal injuries after the Cessna accident near Bethesda last September.
His passenger, Stuart Kingsbury, who was 73 and also from Pontypool, died.
Speaking publicly for the first time, Mr Vaux said he would always be haunted by the crash which killed his friend.
"He'd been a long-standing friend for over 40 years and he was probably the first person who introduced me to general aviation, light aircraft.
"He was a wonderful guy, helped me a lot and I've been devastated by his death, devastated and I'm sure it will haunt me for the rest of my life," said Mr Vaux, who is being treated in a rehabilitation centre in Pontypool.
His widow still says it was a terrible accident - and that's all that it was - an accident


Brian Vaux


The pair had taken off from Caernarfon when the aircraft came down in cloud in the Ogwen Valley.
Mr Vaux recalled what happened.
"I was very lucky in that a lady fell runner heard the aircraft going over and heard the impact of us hitting the hillside and immediately ran down and alerted the rescue services," he said.
He described how members of a mountain rescue team came to help - along with a paramedic who was dropped at the accident site by police helicopter.
He was eventually lifted off the mountain by RAF rescue helicopter from Valley on Anglesey and taken to hospital in Bangor.
Volunteers
"I would certainly like to pay tribute to those people for the assistance they gave me which was quick and, basically, I owe my life to them.
"I would just basically like to...thank them for their help because when you consider the mountain rescue people are just volunteers."
"Hopefully if I make a full recovery I'd like to go back to the area to meet some of the people involved to thank them for their response and assistance on that day," added Mr Vaux.
He said he had been enormously helped by Mr Kingsbury's family. His widow Frances had visited him in hospital "on numerous occasions"
"His widow still says it was a terrible accident - and that's all that it was - an accident."
The emergency services were alerted by a jogger


Paul Smith, a member of the Ogwen Valley Mountain Rescue, said they would be pleased to host the injured pilot.
"It's obviously very nice to hear people survive after these incidents because very often we don't hear from people - they go off to a hospital somewhere else in the country and we very often don't get the follow up, so that's very nice," said Mr Smith.
Mr Smith also described the accident scene.
"The plane was actually lying upside down and the canopy over the cockpit had been crushed. "Both occupants were presumably hanging from their seatbelts after the impact and its obviously a thin line because the passenger sadly died and Brian was very lucky to come out alive."

[RatherBeFlying]

On one occasion I flew through a few snow showers over flat land and yep, the forward viz is zilch; however the ground remained visible. All this with a nice VFR forecast and an IR and sufficient height to clear towers. I don't recommend this practice, but snow showers tend to come in streets; so, the door behind can get closed and you have to pick your way through the thin spots or land out

I've been flown through mountain valleys in dodgy VFR in a helo with a highly experienced pilot who knew the terrain like the back of his hand. At 70 kt, he could do a
180 in next to nothing, but a twin doing a 180 is a completely different ball game.

Mixing snow showers, mountainous terrain, high airspeed and lack of local knowledge puts the risk factor waaay up unless you're in the Swiss AF.

The previous photo shows the wreakage on a snow slope. Perhaps he was flying for what he thought was an opening

Amazingly enough, snow slope impacts are sometimes survivable. There was one case reported where the pilot was adding power because the a/s was going down to zero as he bogged down in fine powder