PPRuNe Forums - 4th Aug 2018 Junkers JU52 crashed in Switzerland

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Accidents and Close Calls (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls-139/)

- - 4th Aug 2018 Junkers JU52 crashed in Switzerland (https://www.pprune.org/accidents-close-calls/611836-4th-aug-2018-junkers-ju52-crashed-switzerland.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by A Squared (Post 10326631)

I suppose. I’m obviously speaking from a US perspective. It’s hard for me to imagine a legal system under which one person can unilaterally sign away another person’s right to legal remedy for damages.

It is not only that, this paper waver is only good for acts of God or technical/mechanical failures, if it is pilot / maintenance error or negligence , it will not help you much either , and this in any Country I would say. But I am not a lawyer .

Quote:

Originally Posted by jimjim1 (Post 10326463)

These golden oldies should not be permitted to operate as passenger flights without it being entirely clear that they are not part of the same industry that delivered worldwide ZERO jet airliner fatalities in 2017.

The Touristy or Traveling public should not be misled.

There are times to extend the envelope and there are times to say NO!

Who misled them and when ? If you are a person allowed to vote (eg. above 18 years old), you should be able to work out that an airplane 80 years old can´t be as save as new one and a piston powered airplane is less save to travel in than a turbine powered one. Have not seen a single statement by any provider of these trips that would claim anything remotely close to what you imply.

Who made the pax on this flight say YES ? Were they forced to fly on this aircraft ? Of course not and you know that. So, whats your agenda ? More regulation, less freedom ? Forebid anything fun ?

Go ahead, you´re in line with the EU and almost all administrations in the world. Not sure I like this mindset. (actually I hate it, but...)

I have piloted trips in a D.H. Dove under German air law and we had to stop that after JAR OPS came in force. IMO there should be a statement possible to exclude the same amount of safety from such trips, as it is crystal clear that it could not be achieved. Even if the JU would have been build from scratch in 2017 - that most likely would have not changed anything in this case. IF we would be talking about a structural disintegration of some sort it`d maybe be different, but for the time being we aren´t. Or would you ban - e.g. - 737s when a crew mishandled them and killed passengers ? Of course you wouldn´t.

Totally agree, your Dudeness! The Swiss Regulator (FOCA/BAZL) is already threating with more control on oldtimers - instead of better controls of course. I am affected by this actionism because I own and fly a swiss registered oldtimer. I have been twice on a flight of Ju-Air and nobody boarding was misled into believing to fly with a modern aircraft. No oldtimer is dangerous because of its age if well maintained and piloted with its limits in mind and taking care of its idiosyncrasys. This aircraft did not crash because of age. And, as we are sadly aware, even brand new aircraft can be involved in accidents.

Dudeness - they also have t think of people on the ground who may not have signed up to having an 80 year old 'plane flying over them and depositing large amounts of metal over the vicinity

Personally I'm with Terry Pratchett on this in general - you have freedom of choice but that includes the requirement to take the consequences of your actions. If I go to an Airshow I accept the risk I may be killed by an aircraft crashing - but that's a long way from, for example, the people driving on the main road and killed by the Hunter crash in the UK a couple of years back...............

Quote:

Originally Posted by Asturias56 (Post 10326798)

Well, what if BA 038 would have crashed half a mile earlier ? Is it really 100% safe to fly A380s over London ? Or Paris ? Now, we most likely agree that the probability is way smaller, however, we also allow oldtimer cars in todays traffic. With drum - brakes and no ABS. Bicycles have brakes that are way less effective than, say, car brakes. Yet they are in todays traffic, in growing numbers. Where exactly do you draw the line ? Lastly I think you deliberately compare apples and oranges. The JUs accident has NO parallel whatsoever with the 'accident' of the Hunter, when we set aside advanced age of the aircraft. Unless we find out the JU was involved in acrobatics, which I seriously doubt. Airshows ? Who accepts risks in Airshows ? Nobody does nowadays, thats why there are less and less of em. They get killed by H&S (or the nanny state, if you prefer)

Updates on HB-HOT JU-52 crash

First it seems that the draft on the final report is being circulated and that the SUST (Schweizerische Sicherheitsuntersuchungsstelle) is confident that they had sufficient data to perform their analysis.

Second there is some new development in which the Swiss government has requested that the Dutch NLR investigates the BAZL (Das Bundesamt für Zivilluftfahrt) in the context of this investigation (not exactly clear, does anyone have more info ?).

They called in the Dutch before. It's about possible issues with BAZL oversight over Ju Air. They want a neutral body to look at things.

There are some loose connections here with the crash of G-APFE over Mt.Fuji in March 1966. A passenger's cine camera was found in the wreckage that was running just before the side gust caught the aircraft. There were 2 frames of the film missing immediately before the camera hit the cabin floor which were later assesed to gauge the subsequent lateral G forces that removed the vertical stabiliser. From this, the subsequent aircraft breakup was fairly well established - complimented of course with the very sad images of the aircraft falling to the ground. Quite possibly the video images, if available, will be potentially of far better quality that the old cine super 8 film.

The actual crash might be more about hot weather high mountain flying and maneuvering.
But the post-crash in-depth wreckage analysis is said to have revealed unexpected fatigue and non-standard repairs to word it polite. This will be the part the Dutch will have a look at.

Quote:

Spot on, LessHair. The delay in publishing the final report is not because of any doubt to the primary cause. Its because the whole outfit was operated in a rather amateurish way which did not really match the stringent commercial rules that apply when you sell flight-tickets to the public. The BAZL (FOCA or Federal Office Of Civil Aviation) had a blind eye on this outfit because it was mostly run by well-known and well-liked military aviation oldtimers. It will be difficult and critical to word the final report, as it will most likely trigger legal battlements (insurance) and possibly criminal investigations. And if indeed the oversight of the FOCA was producing holes in the Swiss Cheese, state liabilities might matter too. Sad for all those involved.

Quote:

But the post-crash in-depth wreckage analysis is said to have revealed unexpected fatigue and non-standard repairs to word it polite. This will be the part the Dutch will have a look at.

Well that was made clear in the preliminary report published in 2018. If the BAZL were derelict in their supervision I would expect an investigation to be initiated earlier...

Quote:

Well that was made clear in the preliminary report published in 2018. If the BAZL were derelict in their supervision I would expect an investigation to be initiated earlier...

You are too optimistic about the awareness and speed of the Swiss government. They are not any better (or worse) than other governments. This department is run by a very nice lady who probably does not know the difference between a knot in aviation and in stitching. They probably only reckoned something was amiss and got shocked when they read the pre-release of the final report.

Quote:

Originally Posted by His dudeness (Post 10326657)

Or would you ban - e.g. - 737s when a crew mishandled them and killed passengers ? Of course you wouldn´t.

Er, they got pretty damn close to it though, it was (still is) a ban in all but name.

Accident Report JU-52 HB-HOT is released

The Accident report is finally out in both english and german language.
https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV.../HB-HOT_EN.pdf

Dreadfully sad. Know what you and your aircraft can do, and apply a margin on top. Never be too proud to take an escape route in time.

Pretty daming if you ask me. No real suprise (ie. the "big picture" was already known) but the whole chain, from pilot, "arline" to supervsion authrority was criminally negligent. Even in Swiss law there will be field day for the lawyers...

Absolutely no surprise as was the swiss mid air, crossair’s two losses and a host of other dangerous or quasi legal practices in the last 40 years.
Problem being the influence of the Swiss military throughout all parts of aviation in the country.
But not unique to CH.

Accident report of Swiss Ju-52 out

https://www.sust.admin.ch/en/documen...-4-august-2018

They blame it mostly on the pilots for taking unnecessary risks such as doing a low speed flyby through a narrow valley that is prone to turbulence.

I just can't see how these guys could call themselves professional - I suppose familiarity breeds contempt as the old saying goes. (not commercial but have flown and instructed in gliders in the mountains).