PA38 kills student and instructor, possibly on stall instruction, small debris field, good weather. One comment on restriction of 2500 ft because of controlled airspace, not much room for error in a Tomahawk....

I agree when I was practicing stalls in a 172. I would take it up to four thousand just to make sure. We are very lucky here we have plenty of unrestricted airspace for flight training.

Paul

Guys,
Liege ATC are some of the most accommodating folks on the planet. I wouldn't make the assumption that the fkight in question was restricted to 2500' or below. I'd be surprised if that were the case.

Rumour at the club also mentions stall training, someone even mentioned "deep stall" which I understand to mean the elevator getting caught in the slipstream from the wing, obviously at high angle of attack. As I understood it takes quick decisions AND very good airmanship AND a lot of altitude to succesfully recover from.

Though Tomahawks are the frequent victim of unkind chatter for handling, they are a type cerified aircraft, and as such have demonstrated compliance with stall handling and recovery requirements, which include not being suceptable to a deep, or unrecoverable stall. Aircraft types (larger than a Tomahawk) which are suceptable to deep stall are required to have things like stick pushers to be barriers against stall entry.

Therefore pilots should remain confident that the Tomahawk, along with other certified types, has met the requirements for stalls, and is safe to stall. No aspects of the flight of a certified aircraft are permitted to require "very good airmanship". The standard applicable to the Tomahawk begins with:
The aeroplane must meet the requirements of 523.143 through 523.253 at all practical loading conditions and operating altitudes for which certification has been requested, not exceeding the maximum operating altitude established under 523.1527, and without requiring exceptional piloting skill, alertness, or strength.
(bering in mind that the referenced paragraphs are all of the flight standards, including stalls. This is the Canadian version, but it's the same as the FAA verison in this case)

Now, that is predicated on good aircraft condition, and correct loading. An improperly rigged, or misloaded aircraft could have a very different recovery, though I'm not making any reference to this particular situation, as I know nothing about it.

I will watch with interest to see if a cause is found for this accident....

Well, our incident investigation board do publish their results on the www, but we'll be lucky to see anything pop up in this same 2011 calendar.

Perhaps a belgian ATC controller or someone from the club can shed some light? Perhaps there was a mayday?

The Tomahawk is also not very good with 2 up and full tanks depending on the weight of the occupants. Anyone have any info?

PilotDAR is correct that the prototype Tomahawk met all the certification requirements. I have never flown a Tomahawk and I don't think I ever will, but there are some rumors floating around that the Piper build quality was so atrocious that the certification was meaningless.

Dirk,

I can assure you it is a great little plan to fly, very twitchy which means you learn to steer... After a PA38 a PA28 will be a doodle, so from that perspective a good trainer.

I believe the plane was not cleared for spin training but incipient spin was allowable, so my instructor did show me one. I went... WOW !

The stalls were not very docile, a serious wing drop would occur unless the ball was perfect in the centre.

In all it was a great little trainer with fab views from the cockpit.

Later after my PPL my revision instructor would ask me to land it in the shortest possible distance from 500 ft at the threshold. She would land it from there on the numbers! Sideslip all the way down, level perfectly at the right time and immediately lift the flaps on touch down, and break hard. You can do more with a plane than you'd think.....

start shooting, friends....

I quite liked the Tomahawk. I flew two about 50 hours from a 1600' turf runway. Never had a problem with them. Certainly an aircraft with some not so common flight characteristics, but it did what it was designed to do - teach you precision in flying.

I had no problem with stalls and spins in them, though I always took the approach "get in and get out" - no goofing around during these maneuvers. They were a delight to dogfight with, quite agile, and would really accelerate when you pointed them down.

They are poorly suited for rough or soft runways, and the T tail was not nice to clear of snow. Hard to load heavy articles into the cabin. The low wings require more taxiway width if snowbanks become a factor in the winter. For those reasons, I would not own one, but if all my flying was summer weather, and I had lots of firm runway, I'd be happy to have one....

Who knows what preceded the crash, but I would be surprised to find that a deficiency in the Tomahawk's design was a factor.

What I meant was that the build quality or the state of some particular aircraft (due to student abuse) was so variable that stall and spin characteristics were very variable too with lots of flak from some instructors. Even Aviation Consumer has something to say about the stall/spin characteristics.