Pytlak wrote:
So it was my misinterpretation of what I saw elsewhere. Sorry for disrupting the discussion. Still I think that old beaten Malibu on N reg was old beaten Malibu, probably not much suitable for serious IFR flying. I can imagine how did it look like as I have seen some of those before.
Pytlak wrote:
. Still I think that old beaten Malibu on N reg was old beaten Malibu, probably not much suitable for serious IFR flying. I can imagine how did it look like as I have seen some of those before.
I must have missed them, have there been any reports to support that?
dejwu wrote:
and for this mission well suited aircraft
Really? SEP over water at night in the middle of winter, rather you than me!
I am quite convinced it was a beaten one. I just googled some pictures and see pretty basic airplane in what seems to be original paint and some signs of deterioration and lack of maintenance. See the pictures bellow. There is black soot on the front gear leg door. That can mean worn engine leaking oil or throwing oil via exhaust or bad combustion (too rich). The two bladed prop seems to be original as well, which means nothing but detail shows the whole engine is sagging quite a lot and that means tired rubber engine mounts. These are normally replaced during engine overhaul. So we already have two signs that the engine overhaul was probably done very long time ago. Than there are missing wheel caps, which is rather aesthetic issue but tells something about the level of the maintenance. I lost my wheel cap once and replced it immediately with a new one. Third picture from 2010 shows the airplane had the wheel caps back in 2010…
Picture from august 2017
Picture from August 2017 – see details of sagging engine, black soot on the gear door and missing wheel caps
Picture from 2010. It is obvious that the condition of the airplane deteriorated over time and there was not too much effort done to fight this.
Antonio wrote:
What makes you think a turbine would have made a difference on this occasion?
A turbine is hopelessly inefficient at low level, so it would make no sense to operate a turbine in that way. It would also probably cruise at more than the permitted speed for VFR below 10,000 feet.
As to the general point of whether this flight could or should have been done low level is another question. I havent examined the forecasts closely enough. Whilst I agree for the purpose in mind I would expect most pilots to be in the lower flight levels, if conditions were VMC below there is no reason not to fly low level. As I say I have no idea on this occasion but it is possible the conditions were good VMC out of the airport, and perhaps would have remained good VMC all the way to the coast with a routing further to the East. However, it seems highly likely that the desitnation would not have been possible VMC below so at some point a transition would have been necessary – not a problem in itself. Weather avoidance over the channel on a dark night is always going to be a problem, because you have no idea that you are entering a bank of cloud until you have, so transitioning over the channel would not make a great deal of sense and I owuld not have considered that, but it is possible VMC up the French peninsula and then a climb on top before the Cap and to the East of ORTAC would have worked fine, routig to the East of the airway and direct to St Catherine’s Point. There would still have been a potential issue transiting Bristol airspace without an airways clearance, but an IFR transit would almost certainly be granted at that time, although they can be awkward. Alternatively the flight could have continued to the East of Bristol without requiring a clearance. Givent he weather it would be interesting to know what the pilot’s intentions were as it seems likely the intended route was direct to make landfall somewhere around Exeter.
It is interesting that of course a lot of pilots would (righty) hope to fly the whole route on A/P and all the time the A/P is functioning well the aircraft will essentially fly itself, especially one this capable, assuming a good fully functioning A/P. In fact it can be quite boring at night. However, the simple consequence of the A/P malfunctioning unexpectedly with someone with limited night time (I am not suggesting this is the case), perhaps due to turbulence for example and things can get exciting very quickly, especially if you are then challenged with hand flying for a period of time. It is often said the most challenging flying possibe to do, is single pilot night IMC without a functioning A/P – you have got to be on your game to do that for any length of time. Over the channel with a solid overcast, even if you are VMC below, might just as well be in IMC.
PeteD wrote:
Really? SEP over water at night in the middle of winter, rather you than me!
Pytlak wrote:
I am quite convinced it was a beaten one
I don’t think a fresh new PC12 or SR22 fit the bill neither, tough I have seen few flying at night IFR > FL150 with sensible crossings (via LYD or DVR) this would have minimized the risk a lot, better to speak to engineers if you think any of the SEP/SET around are designed for 3h in imc/ice/water/night/winter even certification guys will not be happy to demonstrate that for you (marketing guys, owners and ferry pilots will tell you it can 
)
One more to the condition and level of equipment of the airplane. There is a video, which can be simply googled, showing the cockpit of the unfortunate airplane. It shows pretty basic IFR equipment as it came from the factory with only upgrade being the Garmin GNS530 navigator. This was also the only radio with 8.33kHz spacing on board. IFR flown airplanes should have two 8.33kHz radios on board so this one was not, according to my opinion, fit for legal IFR flying. Original, not too powerful autopilot with altitude preselect and standard six pack, not too much for comfort flying in bad weather and pretty vulnerable with the so often failing vacuum system to drive the main instruments…
Pytlak wrote:
IFR flown airplanes should have two 8.33kHz radios on board so this one was not, according to my opinion, fit for legal IFR flying.
You can debate whether an IFR airplane “should” have two 8.33 kHz radios. (Personally, I think a second radio capable of 121.500 is quite enough from a safety point of view, if not from a convenience point of view.) As to the legality, there is no need to debate opinions or interpretations. There is an official statement from EASA that two 8.33 kHz radios are not required for legal IFR flying according to part-NCO (unless required by aircraft certification.)
I am not convinced that a single, night, IFR, sea crossing is not fit for purpose. In reality that judegment is based solely on the engine failing. In reality the risk is very very remote. Yes, not non existent, but very very small. There are a great many factors that should be much higher on the priority list, like rock solid A/P, good instrumentation with good backup, good performance to mention just a few. I bet 999 times out of 1,000 any accident will not be down to engine failure, but something else that could happen equally with one engine or two. It is irrational that I wouldnt do it in a single, but I know it is irrational and I dont want to sit there irrationally worrying that the engine might quit. Two very different things.
It is like radios, the legislation is there to ensure the safety of all airspace users, but it has little relevance to the safety of an individual aircraft. I think we all know that a radio doesnt fly an aircraft and in reality when things go wrong there isnt a great deal ATC can actually do to save the day, although talking to them may be of some comfort and benefit in devising a plan. However, if you had a budget, legality out the window, and a criteria on making the aircraft as safe as possible, I think the whole budget would go on the engine, the A/P, the navigation and attitude equipment and backup, and for all weather flying, anti-icing.
The argument is the other way around, by night over water in winter, the worst case scenario is deadly irrespective of the type of aircraft/flight (including 737s)
Now you are left with the probablity of that scenario, for this specific bit a twin, oroper avionics, planing, pic choices, aispace acess and de-ice “may help” to reduce the likelihood of ending up in water to an acceptable level
Imo, oce you are in water it does not matter how you end up there, then you don’t have much luck and probably game over after 4h even to recover the aircraft bits, especially if you are not flying as expected on a VFR flight (cherbourg to st cath) or IFR as filled…
