DA42 TwinStar crashes at Lands End, (Merged)
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Plane Down at Land's End (St Just)
Last edited by Stretchwell; 20th Jan 2009 at 17:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 122
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Last edited by Stretchwell; 20th Jan 2009 at 18:02.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA42 TwinStar crashes at Lands End, (Merged)
BBC NEWS | England | Cornwall | Plane crashes in take-off attempt
Pasted this from the rumours page. Looks like no one hurt which is great.
Was this a case of the troubled Diesel engines again ? Lets hope the more powerful new units give the aircraft the performance it originally claimed and the reliability too ?
Pace
Pasted this from the rumours page. Looks like no one hurt which is great.
Was this a case of the troubled Diesel engines again ? Lets hope the more powerful new units give the aircraft the performance it originally claimed and the reliability too ?
Pace
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Derby
Age: 45
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Not surprised.
The amount of yaw after one engine out is massive on those Ducks.
As for the engines not being reliable, let's be fair they are reliable in the sense that they will almost always fail at some point.
1/60
As for the engines not being reliable, let's be fair they are reliable in the sense that they will almost always fail at some point.
1/60
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - what is it about "troubled diesel engines" I have a pair of Thielert engines and they have performed flawlessly for 626 hours.
I suspect that the TODA was insufficient.
I suspect that the TODA was insufficient.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There are now 3 (!) threads running on this same crash!
Guys before you post, please check the thread doesn t already exist.
This seems to be the longer one, one is closed , the other one has a good video
The plane flipped over and is on it's head
Great no serious injuries were sustained. 2 were kids, everyone's nightmare! I feel for the pilot.... Great outcome after all....
Guys before you post, please check the thread doesn t already exist.
This seems to be the longer one, one is closed , the other one has a good video
The plane flipped over and is on it's head
Great no serious injuries were sustained. 2 were kids, everyone's nightmare! I feel for the pilot.... Great outcome after all....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pace - what is it about "troubled diesel engines" I have a pair of Thielert engines and they have performed flawlessly for 626 hours.
A small flying school at Rochester Airport is suing a giant Austrian aircraft manufacturer for around £100,000 over the ineffectiveness of two aircraft.
This David versus Goliath case could take between three and five years before Millen Aviation Services know whether its action against Diamond Aircraft Industries has been successful.
Meanwhile, Millen Aviation Services’ boss, Mike Millen, says he is lumbered with two DA40, four-seater diesel turbo aircraft which are "unfit for purpose".
"We also operate several non-Diamond aircraft," he said.
The aircraft, each costing £185,000 new, were leased by Millen Aviation Services in June and August 2004, since when they have been available for just 76% of the time, costing the Millen family nearly £100,000 in lost revenue due to unplanned downtime. The operational availability for commercial aircraft is expected at 97% plus and Airbus guarantee an operational availability of 99% for the first two years on their A380.
Mike Millen and his son, Russell, have had little success in getting satisfaction from Diamond in Austria and through its subsidiary in Nottinghamshire.
"Initially they said we may have teething troubles, but, we still get many of the same problems after three and a half years. The problems have never stopped and the unreliability of these two aircraft is having a serious effect on our business," said Mike.
The volume and variety of occurrences have been extremely considerable
They include, but are not limited to: Engine sensor failures, nose leg fractures, Engine Management System (ECU) failures and seven engines in total by the time that both aircraft had reached 1000 hours.
"The engines are actually warranted for 2,400 hours so they are not proving to be anywhere close to as reliable as we were led to believe before we leased them," said Mike.
Representing the Millens is lawyer, David Brown, a partner at Gullands solicitors in Maidstone, who said: "We have instructed lawyers in Austria to act for us in the Austrian courts, and this process could take between three and five years.
"The case has now been lodged at the Austrian court. On 15th January 2008 the lawyers acting for the manufacturer filed an answer to the Millens’ action, which contained a general denial to each claim. The first step in the legal procedure will deal with evidence and then liability."
The two aircraft, subject of the action, are used for hiring and for flying lessons.
"We maintain that there was insufficient research, development and testing of the aircraft and their Thielert Diesel 1.7 engines before they went into production. Their current unreliability makes them unfit for purpose.
"Our claim is for the lost income due to excessive downtime, and for the lease to be terminated without financial penalties, which we would have to pay if we just handed the aircraft back to the leasing company. We had, prior to this action, asked for them to be replaced with new aircraft but this was not accepted.
"Diamond is a big corporation and we feel we are being bullied. We look forward to our day in court, because after all this time, the amount of evidence is overwhelming. The information collected includes maintenance records, for our aircraft, produced by Diamond UK and statements from other Diamond aircraft operators, both of which identify a number of the issues concerned. We are hoping they will see sense before that and settle our claim," said Mike.
This David versus Goliath case could take between three and five years before Millen Aviation Services know whether its action against Diamond Aircraft Industries has been successful.
Meanwhile, Millen Aviation Services’ boss, Mike Millen, says he is lumbered with two DA40, four-seater diesel turbo aircraft which are "unfit for purpose".
"We also operate several non-Diamond aircraft," he said.
The aircraft, each costing £185,000 new, were leased by Millen Aviation Services in June and August 2004, since when they have been available for just 76% of the time, costing the Millen family nearly £100,000 in lost revenue due to unplanned downtime. The operational availability for commercial aircraft is expected at 97% plus and Airbus guarantee an operational availability of 99% for the first two years on their A380.
Mike Millen and his son, Russell, have had little success in getting satisfaction from Diamond in Austria and through its subsidiary in Nottinghamshire.
"Initially they said we may have teething troubles, but, we still get many of the same problems after three and a half years. The problems have never stopped and the unreliability of these two aircraft is having a serious effect on our business," said Mike.
The volume and variety of occurrences have been extremely considerable
They include, but are not limited to: Engine sensor failures, nose leg fractures, Engine Management System (ECU) failures and seven engines in total by the time that both aircraft had reached 1000 hours.
"The engines are actually warranted for 2,400 hours so they are not proving to be anywhere close to as reliable as we were led to believe before we leased them," said Mike.
Representing the Millens is lawyer, David Brown, a partner at Gullands solicitors in Maidstone, who said: "We have instructed lawyers in Austria to act for us in the Austrian courts, and this process could take between three and five years.
"The case has now been lodged at the Austrian court. On 15th January 2008 the lawyers acting for the manufacturer filed an answer to the Millens’ action, which contained a general denial to each claim. The first step in the legal procedure will deal with evidence and then liability."
The two aircraft, subject of the action, are used for hiring and for flying lessons.
"We maintain that there was insufficient research, development and testing of the aircraft and their Thielert Diesel 1.7 engines before they went into production. Their current unreliability makes them unfit for purpose.
"Our claim is for the lost income due to excessive downtime, and for the lease to be terminated without financial penalties, which we would have to pay if we just handed the aircraft back to the leasing company. We had, prior to this action, asked for them to be replaced with new aircraft but this was not accepted.
"Diamond is a big corporation and we feel we are being bullied. We look forward to our day in court, because after all this time, the amount of evidence is overwhelming. The information collected includes maintenance records, for our aircraft, produced by Diamond UK and statements from other Diamond aircraft operators, both of which identify a number of the issues concerned. We are hoping they will see sense before that and settle our claim," said Mike.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ok, throwing some ideas out here. And this is from memory so I could be wrong. Is that airfield not a grass strip? And if so, then would I be correct in saying that the DA42 isn't cleared for grass strips?
I'm afraid it does look rather like some kind of miscalculation on the part of the pilot, whether it was a perf calculation, or whether he reacted incorrectly to an emergency is a moot point, but the fact is the 42 shouldn't be going off the end of the runway!
I'm afraid it does look rather like some kind of miscalculation on the part of the pilot, whether it was a perf calculation, or whether he reacted incorrectly to an emergency is a moot point, but the fact is the 42 shouldn't be going off the end of the runway!
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
“It was taxiing down the runway and the engine wasn’t sounding right. The next thing I know there’s a big cloud of dust or water come out of it and spray into the air and the plane just flipped completely over and went totally out of sight.
Both would have the same effect of veering the aircraft and stopping it accelerating.
I have only ever flown a DA42 once and did not like its ground handling
Pace
Moderator
Is that airfield not a grass strip? And if so, then would I be correct in saying that the DA42 isn't cleared for grass strips?
If the aircraft "is not cleared" for grass strips, is that the absence of an approval, or a prohibition? Please don't take my question as patronizing, I'm honestly curious about the difference if any in interpretation between operations which are either "not approved" or for which no statement whatever is made, as compared to operations which are specifically prohibited.
In our (well North American anyway) society, you can do whatever you want, unless that act is prohibited by law. If the law does not say you must not, you may. Is flying any different?
I see prohibitions in the DA42 flight manual, but runway surface is not among them. I see a reference to takeoff performance for hard surfaces, but is is silent on other surfaces. By comparison, Cessna does provide a statement about takeoff performace on grass.
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: england
Posts: 613
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Some facts:
A DA42 can use grass.
Rubbish. No more than many twins and a lot less than some. Regardless, less than 150lbs of foot pressure required.
A DA42 can be operated like a Perf A aircraft. In other words, as someone else has said, it shouldn't be seen off the end of a runway.
A DA42 can use grass.
The amount of yaw after one engine out is massive on those Ducks.
A DA42 can be operated like a Perf A aircraft. In other words, as someone else has said, it shouldn't be seen off the end of a runway.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: England
Age: 60
Posts: 276
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PACE (who has only ever flown the DA42 once - and other armchair experts)
Comments posted on this thread just show how full of **** most (not all) posters on here are. PACE by your own admission you have only flown the DA42 but you don't like the ground handling - there is nothing wrong with it, maybe you just couldn't cope after your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.
The link to the Rochester story is not relevant to the DA42 as the problems were sorted before the engines were fitted to the twin
I've got over 200 hours in a DA42, so perhaps I can give you all some INFORMED comment.
The DA42 is cleared for grass - but in my experience grass is to be avoided. I don't even like to taxi on grass. Most people wouldn't take a Beech Duchess on grass and its the same for the DA42.
The DA42 is very efficient in flight, but is under powered for take off, so I'd stick by original comment that insufficient TODA was the cause.
Comments posted on this thread just show how full of **** most (not all) posters on here are. PACE by your own admission you have only flown the DA42 but you don't like the ground handling - there is nothing wrong with it, maybe you just couldn't cope after your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.
The link to the Rochester story is not relevant to the DA42 as the problems were sorted before the engines were fitted to the twin
I've got over 200 hours in a DA42, so perhaps I can give you all some INFORMED comment.
The DA42 is cleared for grass - but in my experience grass is to be avoided. I don't even like to taxi on grass. Most people wouldn't take a Beech Duchess on grass and its the same for the DA42.
The DA42 is very efficient in flight, but is under powered for take off, so I'd stick by original comment that insufficient TODA was the cause.
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PACE (who has only ever flown the DA42 once - and other armchair experts)
Comments posted on this thread just show how full of **** most (not all) posters on here are. PACE by your own admission you have only flown the DA42 but you don't like the ground handling - there is nothing wrong with it, maybe you just couldn't cope after your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.
Comments posted on this thread just show how full of **** most (not all) posters on here are. PACE by your own admission you have only flown the DA42 but you don't like the ground handling - there is nothing wrong with it, maybe you just couldn't cope after your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.
Do you have to be so defensive? Just for your information I have an ATP over 2500 hrs in most light twins and am type rated and fly corporate business jets as a Captain as well as flying around the world with ferry work.
That out of the way NO I did not like the feel of the aircraft on the ground just an impression I had on the one flight so am quite happy to bow to those who fly them on a regular basis.
The engine has been unreliable in that aircraft that is documented. The engine manufacturer went bust and Diamond are replacing the unit on new aircraft with a 170 hp unit instead of the 135 hp units.
Hopefully this will give the aircraft the reliability and the performance which Diamond originally claimed and which was miles off.
I do not know where that leaves owners with existing twin Stars?
But before you make purile comments check who you are talking to and dont be so defensive as I am sure you are very lucky to own a reliable unit. I hope that continues as I dont know where you will get the support from if it doesnt.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 21st Jan 2009 at 08:19.
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: UK
Age: 42
Posts: 47
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The a/c is G-SUEA, a privately owned DA42. I've flown it a couple of times and it is a very well maintained and relatively new a/c.
It has the new 2l engines and is regularly operated on grass although if you do the performance it does need atleast 1000m of runway if the grass is wet and Lands End is no where near that long... We'll have to wait for the AAIB report.
It has the new 2l engines and is regularly operated on grass although if you do the performance it does need atleast 1000m of runway if the grass is wet and Lands End is no where near that long... We'll have to wait for the AAIB report.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW with a quite a few hours in the 42:
1. Ground handling is fine, in fact I would go as far as to say really rather pleasant with no surprises at all. I judge ground handling on the basis that if I can get in the aircraft and handle it first time out it cant be too bad - and that was true of the 42,
2. One look at the tyres will tell you they are relatively small and operate at high pressure, clearly not the best design for wet grass. The aircraft is fine on grass, but I would want to be very cautious if it were wet or rutted or the strip was short.
3. The engine issues are well rehearsed.
4. On the bright side whatever the circumstances the pilot probably did well to realise this was either not a problem to take into the air or that in any event he wasnt going to get into the air so was better off stopping in a errrm "controlled" fashion.
Pace, are you a flight sim man? 
1. Ground handling is fine, in fact I would go as far as to say really rather pleasant with no surprises at all. I judge ground handling on the basis that if I can get in the aircraft and handle it first time out it cant be too bad - and that was true of the 42,
2. One look at the tyres will tell you they are relatively small and operate at high pressure, clearly not the best design for wet grass. The aircraft is fine on grass, but I would want to be very cautious if it were wet or rutted or the strip was short.
3. The engine issues are well rehearsed.
4. On the bright side whatever the circumstances the pilot probably did well to realise this was either not a problem to take into the air or that in any event he wasnt going to get into the air so was better off stopping in a errrm "controlled" fashion.
your C150 or whatever it is you fly on flight sim.
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 21st Jan 2009 at 10:05.
Wunderbra
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Bedford, UK
Age: 44
Posts: 313
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I stand corrected. That may well be a "company" decision as to whether the aircraft can be operated on grass that I have confused with a manufacturer condition.
If the perf figures say that, on wet grass, 1000 metres are required, then there is no way a takeoff should have been attempted. The longest strip at Lands End is somewhat less than 800 metres.
http://www.islesofscilly-travel.co.u...q_airfield.pdf
If the perf figures say that, on wet grass, 1000 metres are required, then there is no way a takeoff should have been attempted. The longest strip at Lands End is somewhat less than 800 metres.
http://www.islesofscilly-travel.co.u...q_airfield.pdf
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Although the outcome thankfully was that al 3 survived, spare a thought for the daddy at the controls. Although grateful it must be horrible to have to put your kids through it.
My ex wife never "allowed" me to take my young kids in my own airplane, and although I always felt it was my decision when they were under my control, to date my children have not flown with me, simply because I still want to get better until I do take them.
I ll start another thread on this issue so as not to soil this one.
My ex wife never "allowed" me to take my young kids in my own airplane, and although I always felt it was my decision when they were under my control, to date my children have not flown with me, simply because I still want to get better until I do take them.
I ll start another thread on this issue so as not to soil this one.