DA42 crashed in Northern Germany
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Stuttgart, Germany
Posts: 265
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
DA42 crashed in Northern Germany
Terrible accident near the Airport Parchim in North Eastern Germany.
Swiss registered plane, 4 on board, pilot and wife fatally injured, the others severely injured. Accident happened right after takeoff from Parchim, destination Basel in Switzerland. Shortly before the crash, the pilot reported technical difficulties. The airplane crashed on an open field and slid into a forest.
Picture gallery here.
Swiss registered plane, 4 on board, pilot and wife fatally injured, the others severely injured. Accident happened right after takeoff from Parchim, destination Basel in Switzerland. Shortly before the crash, the pilot reported technical difficulties. The airplane crashed on an open field and slid into a forest.
Picture gallery here.
Last edited by achimha; 29th May 2012 at 14:00.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Looks like the aircraft had an almost direct head-on impact with the trees. The whole airframe is broken up.
Only positive angle to this crash, as the article notes: No post impact fire.
Something severe must have happened. Single/multiple engine failure at a critical stage? Electrical fire in the cockpit?
Only positive angle to this crash, as the article notes: No post impact fire.
Something severe must have happened. Single/multiple engine failure at a critical stage? Electrical fire in the cockpit?
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Or a badly handled emergency. Horrible crash & it is a wonder anyone survived. Had this been a non composite, "old" airframe I think there would have been 4 fatalities.
That trip looks to be around 500NM or about 3.5 hrs flying time.
80% cruise power for 12 gallons/hr for 42 gallons fuel required.
With full main tanks only (50 gallons) they would have had sufficient VFR reserves.
Some assumptions here but with full main tanks (350lbs) leaves about 700lbs for 4 people, luggage and maybe TKS fluid as the airplane was TKS equipped.
700/4= 175 lbs average passenger weight with personal luggage allowance included.
At least in the pictures there seems to be a debris path of luggage and personal items.
I'd be interested in the W&B on this one and also in the location of the rear canopy. I guess you would put the non flying passengers in the back.
Possible rear canopy opening during climbout with the pilot reaching back and trying to close it?
80% cruise power for 12 gallons/hr for 42 gallons fuel required.
With full main tanks only (50 gallons) they would have had sufficient VFR reserves.
Some assumptions here but with full main tanks (350lbs) leaves about 700lbs for 4 people, luggage and maybe TKS fluid as the airplane was TKS equipped.
700/4= 175 lbs average passenger weight with personal luggage allowance included.
At least in the pictures there seems to be a debris path of luggage and personal items.
I'd be interested in the W&B on this one and also in the location of the rear canopy. I guess you would put the non flying passengers in the back.
Possible rear canopy opening during climbout with the pilot reaching back and trying to close it?
Überlebenden, ein Mann und eine Frau, kamen in Krankenhäuser in Hamburg und Schwerin. Die Frau soll den Rettungskräften bei ihrer Bergung erklärt haben, dass ein Motorschaden Grund des Absturzes gewesen sein könnte.
Source: Meldung: Tote bei Flugzeugabsturz nahe Parchim vermutlich Schweizer - Nachrichten Newsticker - News3 (DAPD) - WELT ONLINE
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Engine issues in both engines of a twin are usually fuel (lack of)... or (IIRC) in the case of the DA42 an alternator failure following a departure with a flat battery.
That's a very "interesting" fuel calculation, B2N2.... 8 gallons in the tanks at the planned destination? I burn ~11 USG/hr and my absolute min would be 20 gallons. 8 is so low that one needs to read the POH to see how much sideslip is allowed before one unmasks the tank outlet 
That trip looks to be around 500NM or about 3.5 hrs flying time.
80% cruise power for 12 gallons/hr for 42 gallons fuel required.
With full main tanks only (50 gallons) they would have had sufficient VFR reserves.
80% cruise power for 12 gallons/hr for 42 gallons fuel required.
With full main tanks only (50 gallons) they would have had sufficient VFR reserves.
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: South East Asia
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pure speculation, but maybe it went something like this:
Overweight or max weight take-off (4 persons & fuel for 4 hrs?), single engine failure & slightly botched emergency recovery -> crash.
I can't help but think, that it's also a lot easier for a pilot to get distracted & lose precious reaction time w/4 people in the cabin, including family members...
Overweight or max weight take-off (4 persons & fuel for 4 hrs?), single engine failure & slightly botched emergency recovery -> crash.
I can't help but think, that it's also a lot easier for a pilot to get distracted & lose precious reaction time w/4 people in the cabin, including family members...
8 gallons in the tanks at the planned destination?
So 8 gallons remaining over two tanks is actually (almost) required IFR reserves of 45 min at 75% power.
No matter how you look at it it's legal but fairly tight for a 500 NM flight.
If this aircaft has the long range tanks installed and filled with an additional 26 gallons the aircraft would have been 182 lbs (26 x7) overweight with the previous assumption of 175 lbs/pax + luggage.
The CG arm for the aux fuel tanks is 126 inches which is almost the same as the rear passenger CG arm which is 128.
This means that with 2 rear passengers and fuel in the aux tanks max aft CG is exceeded. It essentially means the weight of three adults in the rear seats.
Exceeding aft CG plus engine problem.................
**** the above is all purely scenario based speculation and does not imply in any way shape or form that I know or claim to know the cause of this accident ****
For all I know they had three fuel stops planned and no aux tanks installed.
Last edited by B2N2; 30th May 2012 at 14:50.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, and no reflection on this accident, I have a few engine failures at MTOW after take off in the 42. Its ok, but you do need to be on your game, and their isnt bags of surplus power. Being over weight would not be a good idea as I suspect there is not much margin.
Join Date: May 2010
Location: EDDS
Age: 54
Posts: 27
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
FWIW, and no reflection on this accident, I have a few engine failures at MTOW after take off in the 42.
you mean you've experienced yourself several real engine failures in a DA42 after take-off??
Or do you mean simulated ones in a safe height above the field?Anyhow, OEI performance on Thielert powered DA42s at MTOM was reported to be insufficient in a couple of incidents before. And engine issues seem to be more frequent than on LyContiSaurus.
Training with actually shutting down can be done safely and close to reality, simulating an imaginary runway at 5.000 ft, for instance, ground being at 1.000 ft. Doing this once a year in my Seneca II, to stay ahead in case I need it.
Best regards,
Andi
Last edited by AndiKunzi; 31st May 2012 at 20:51.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Diesel engine failures are way more common than Lyco/Conti engine failures.
Where I am based there is an FTO operating several of these and it is a fairly common sight to see them taxiing in followed by a fire engine. Obviously these are not (usually!) cases where a piston is sticking out of the cowling, but some sort of engine issue nevertheless.
Where I am based there is an FTO operating several of these and it is a fairly common sight to see them taxiing in followed by a fire engine. Obviously these are not (usually!) cases where a piston is sticking out of the cowling, but some sort of engine issue nevertheless.
Diesel engine failures are way more common than Lyco/Conti engine failures.
Naturally, Centurion/Thielert claim the opposite.
Would be nice to have figures.
Canada used to require that an actual shut down be carried out when training for the multi rating (they finally stopped this foolishness 3 years ago). I have on two occasions been unable to restart the engine.
I declared an emergency both times as by my own actions I converted a perfectly servicable aircraft into one with a 90% reduction in its rate of climb, a minimum inflight speed limit and the inability to reject a landing when below 500 feet.
For what ? The exact same effect can be achieved by leaving the engine running at zero thrust !
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Andi
My efatos in the 42 have all been simulated. Unlike some twins the performance is sufficient to enable the aircraft to climb positively at mtow and perhaps even more importantly the handling is docile. However the point i was making previously is there is only a small surplus of power; over use of the controls and failure to keep the aircraft balanced will erode the surplus that is available and the aircraft will quickly cease to climb. Over mtow and i guess there is no margin, unlike for example an aztec where you barely notice the loss of an engine such are the performance reserves. I have had a real engine failure in the cruise which is a different kettle of fish.
As to the reliability of the engines / aircraft i am not sure how much evidence there is to back up some of the assertions. There is little reason to think the engine is any less reliable in 42s compared with 40s. I read of very few 40s suffering engine failure, events which would almost always be reported, even if a failure in a twin might go unreported. If anyone has statistics to the contrary that would be interesting.
Thats not to say that such is the monitoring of the engines that more potential issues might be flagged in flight that with other conventional engines and this in part might explain some aborted flights.
As to simulated engine failures in twins i dont see what evidence there is for this action being harsh on a 42. The engine is water cooled and so long as the engine has not been running at a high power setting prior to the shut down why should this be any different to a ground shut down after giving time for the turbo charger to cool. I would agree a shut down from a high power setting would be unkind, albeit par for the couse given the number of 42s one sees roll up on the apron followed by the pilot immediately switching off both engines. I had an engine failure on my initial multi in so far as we couldnt restart the engine; so i would agree an intentional in flight shut down is a risky strategy. I think in a 42 this is less true because the restart is very straight forward and difficult to get wrong. Moreover the aircraft handles far worse with one engine at very low power settings than with the engine shut down and prop fethered. On the other handle with the conventional six levers, twin mags and often difficult injected big sixes it does seem to me the pilot has much to learn from an inflight restart. However, how often will a pilot shut down an engine and subquently elect an in flight start? The excercise is to give experience of flying the aircraft on one engine and experience of how to shut down the engine in the first place. Does the engine need to be actually shut down in flight to give this experience, probably not
My efatos in the 42 have all been simulated. Unlike some twins the performance is sufficient to enable the aircraft to climb positively at mtow and perhaps even more importantly the handling is docile. However the point i was making previously is there is only a small surplus of power; over use of the controls and failure to keep the aircraft balanced will erode the surplus that is available and the aircraft will quickly cease to climb. Over mtow and i guess there is no margin, unlike for example an aztec where you barely notice the loss of an engine such are the performance reserves. I have had a real engine failure in the cruise which is a different kettle of fish.
As to the reliability of the engines / aircraft i am not sure how much evidence there is to back up some of the assertions. There is little reason to think the engine is any less reliable in 42s compared with 40s. I read of very few 40s suffering engine failure, events which would almost always be reported, even if a failure in a twin might go unreported. If anyone has statistics to the contrary that would be interesting.
Thats not to say that such is the monitoring of the engines that more potential issues might be flagged in flight that with other conventional engines and this in part might explain some aborted flights.
As to simulated engine failures in twins i dont see what evidence there is for this action being harsh on a 42. The engine is water cooled and so long as the engine has not been running at a high power setting prior to the shut down why should this be any different to a ground shut down after giving time for the turbo charger to cool. I would agree a shut down from a high power setting would be unkind, albeit par for the couse given the number of 42s one sees roll up on the apron followed by the pilot immediately switching off both engines. I had an engine failure on my initial multi in so far as we couldnt restart the engine; so i would agree an intentional in flight shut down is a risky strategy. I think in a 42 this is less true because the restart is very straight forward and difficult to get wrong. Moreover the aircraft handles far worse with one engine at very low power settings than with the engine shut down and prop fethered. On the other handle with the conventional six levers, twin mags and often difficult injected big sixes it does seem to me the pilot has much to learn from an inflight restart. However, how often will a pilot shut down an engine and subquently elect an in flight start? The excercise is to give experience of flying the aircraft on one engine and experience of how to shut down the engine in the first place. Does the engine need to be actually shut down in flight to give this experience, probably not
Last edited by Fuji Abound; 31st May 2012 at 23:01.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The DA42 will climb quite well on one engine at MTOW and is pretty docile as mentioned. If you trim out the rudder it really isn't much of an issue flying on one engine especially once you have feathered the prop (master switch OFF). However like all twins, if not handled correctly then things can go wrong pretty damn fast.
There was an incident some time ago where a DA42 took off after having a flat battery. They started it with ground power then took off. When the gear was raised the ECUs both tripped out (lack of power) and both engines stopped. However the procedures were changed so that if you have a flat battery then you only start ONE engine from ground power and start the other normally. This ensures there is enough power in the battery to raise the gear without causing low voltage conditions.
I haven't heard of many mechanical problems to the Thielert which have caused a catastrophic failure as in the Lycoming type of failure. I did once have a turbo boost problem on one engine when climbing through 8000', the right engine power reduced to 75-80% and kept reducing with altitude (left stayed at 100%), but it wasn't an issue low down.
There was an incident some time ago where a DA42 took off after having a flat battery. They started it with ground power then took off. When the gear was raised the ECUs both tripped out (lack of power) and both engines stopped. However the procedures were changed so that if you have a flat battery then you only start ONE engine from ground power and start the other normally. This ensures there is enough power in the battery to raise the gear without causing low voltage conditions.
I haven't heard of many mechanical problems to the Thielert which have caused a catastrophic failure as in the Lycoming type of failure. I did once have a turbo boost problem on one engine when climbing through 8000', the right engine power reduced to 75-80% and kept reducing with altitude (left stayed at 100%), but it wasn't an issue low down.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Englishal
Interesting, I wouldn't entirely agree.
I felt the 42 at MTOW climbs away on one engine but the performance is hardly sparkling and unless the aircraft is correctly trimmed it struggles.
Purely my own observations.
Not to say there aren't twins that are worse and a few much better.
Interesting, I wouldn't entirely agree.
I felt the 42 at MTOW climbs away on one engine but the performance is hardly sparkling and unless the aircraft is correctly trimmed it struggles.
Purely my own observations.
Not to say there aren't twins that are worse and a few much better.
I thought diesel fuel was denser than petrol ?
(petrol has densities range ~0.72 -0.74).
But I see above folk calculating fuel load using 7lb per gallon.
So s that UK 4,54 litres gallon petrol or a US gasoline @ 3.8 something per gal.?
mike hallam.
(petrol has densities range ~0.72 -0.74).
But I see above folk calculating fuel load using 7lb per gallon.
So s that UK 4,54 litres gallon petrol or a US gasoline @ 3.8 something per gal.?
mike hallam.