Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Cessna P210 N731MT down at Hohenems LOIH

Antonio wrote:

Not on 210’s…usually gear is retracted after obstacle clearance and not in a hurry, since it increases drag during its 13-second retraction.

Only if it’s a really tight departure where you need every little bit of climb. Done some of those on dirt strips in Africa. Been flying 210s for many years…

172driver wrote:

IME especially the 750 can bite if you’re not on top of it.

I’ve flown a lot with the 650 but not at all with the 750. What makes the 750 more tricky? AFAIU there is no functional difference, but the 750 has a larger screen.

ESKC (Uppsala/Sundbro), Sweden

172driver wrote:

IME especially the 750 can bite if you’re not on top of it.

I can’t believe that this accident has anything to do with avionics:
Yes, like any complex technical device the GTN (650 as well as 750) needs training to fully understand. And there are some cases where you just need to know what the device is doing to not get in a difficult situation (e.g. holding entry, which legs are sequenced automatically vs. manually, what happens when you push “unsuspend” in certain situations). But that is all normal training.

In this situation, however, it is most likely that the pilot tried to fly a handmade IFR departure. In these situations you obviously do nothing at all with your avionics but to program them in a way that you do not need to touch them between start of ground roll and reaching a safe altitude. Therefore it’s hard to believe that avionics had anything to do with it.

172driver wrote:

one inadvertent touch (it’s touch-screen for those who don’t know this thing) can get you into some menu from which there is no immediate escape.

What do you mean by “no immediate escape”? Long push on the home key always takes you to the map page which is for most configurations what your default would be.

Mooney_Driver wrote:

The question in my mind is, would such a setup and particularly the PFD have synthetic vision? If so, then it is hard to understand why this should not prevent disorientation, provided of course one looks at it.

SVT is an unlock function on the 500txi. So not automatically clear if the accident plane had it.

But even if: At least for pilots who are as average as I am, SVT is a nice “peace of mind” addition at some times (e.g. when approaching a runway in IMC and “seeing” it in front of my on SVT) and one of the greatest tools I’ve seen so far for supporting “see and avoid” when linked with the right traffic system, but not something that would seriously help me not to get disoriented.
If you are not a flying god or invested significant time in training (why should one?) I can’t believe that anybody is seriously looking at the SVT display. It’s quite rough, has some significant time lag to reality and has some height compression.

Last Edited by Malibuflyer at 15 Nov 08:23
Germany

I can’t believe that anybody is seriously looking at the SVT display

Useless on takeoff & climb, all you need is a HDG/TRK and ASI, pointing SVT nose to X takes to Y

It does make some sense on landing as way to stabilise the approach (you point Flight Path Vector to X and the aircraft go to X) but honestly I won’t bet my life on it

Also useless for “extreme manoeuvring”, anyone who has done stalls and unusual attitudes on SVT (for fun with a safety pilot), can comment how much it’s disorientating

It could be useful for those flying F16s in the Alps between clouds but surely not for someone who climbs on 300fpm/100kts with gear/flap down, you can’t tactically avoid of climb over a mountain in an aircraft you have to plan a safe trajectory in your couch (GoogleMap at home is probably way more useful than SVT in the aircraft)

SVT is a complicated solution to an easy problem at least at LOIH, you depart climb 400ft, turn North (on HDG/TRK), climb 7000ft call Wein for IFR, it’s one way takeoff, if there is an emergency and you can’t climb, stay out of the rocks down that road, land in the fields or ditch in the lake down that road, it’s a C210 not an F16 with SVT

I will let Antonio as he is familiar with the type to opine if one can survive an off field landing that way in VMC? or IMC? and how much ceiling & visibility one would need for that, he already mentioned speeds to fly in climbs & turns…

Last Edited by Ibra at 15 Nov 08:54
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

Snoopy wrote:

LOIH is approved for VFR operations, however that might be based on national law which is second to EU law.
You see it in many AIPs of EU-countries, where only VFR is stated under “permitted traffic”, just like at LOIH (AIP AD 2.2). So I might assume that it is allowed to allow/certify airfields only for VFR operations.

Ibra wrote:
how high one need to climb to get Wein FIS/Info or nearby ATC on radio/radar? any easy way to get this info?
Wien Information (FIS) is almost not reachable in Vorarlberg (the state where LOIH is based). Even when flying on 9.000 ft, I never reached them out there. It is quite common to use Swiss FIS (Zurich) instead, they are reachable above +/- 3.500 ft MSL around LOIH. They offer support up to the Arlberg or even Rechenpass, where Innsbruck or Padova takes over.

Can you depart/arrive on uncontrolled straight-in in Austria, specifically LOIH?
I don’t know about general rules in Austria, but it’s at least not allowed at LOIH due noice abatement. See also the approach and departure procedures in the Austrian AIP (LOIH AD 2).
Switzerland

Ibra wrote:

It does make some sense on landing as way to stabilise the approach (you point Flight Path Vector to X and the aircraft go to X) but honestly I won’t bet my life on it

I have a GRT EFIS Sport EX in my RV-8 – all non-certified – and I find it to be amazingly accurate. I’ve never flown in IMC with it but I do glance down at it during landing from time to time just to see how accurate it works. I should do a side-by-side video of the EFIS and the external view sometime to show how good it is. The runway looks exactly like the outside view during the whole approach, flare, and rollout. Centerline stripes, numbers, edges – everything.

I’d guess that the new equipment from Garmin and Dynon are as good or better.

As good as it is, I would not bet my life on it as a single way to get me down regularly, but in an emergency, it would help a lot.

My point relating to the topic of this thread is that I have spend a lot of hours reading the GRT user guides, playing with the buttons in the hangar, and testing things at altitude with our kind GVA INFO people watching out for traffic for me. Learning to use complex avionics requires a substantial investment in time.

Fly more.
LSGY, Switzerland

Looking at the smoking wreckage that was left on the mountainside, we will never learn about what settings had been used in the avionics. It’s most probably all gone.

A stable turning climb indicates to me that either the pilot was hand-flying, or the autopilot was set on total wrong heading. It’s most probably no technical issue or “abnormal situation”, because the track lacks any pilot reaction. In that case you would not turn into the mountain and rugged terrain, but to the flat fields in the other direction (I’m no local, just from the looks of the google earth image).

For me (as one of the IR pupils here) discussing and thinking about all this really raises caution and awareness on departure preparation. Luckily my homebase is in a region as flat as it could be, but even here people keep constantly flying in obstacles in homemade approaches or departures. Not that I’d say that any homebrew procedure is unsafe per se, I’m far from that. But it needs all the extra caution it can get, as margins are tighter. For example, a published procedure can be flown by the autopilot, particularly the setup as present in the particular plane seems to have been able to do so (if the avionics was installed properly).

I have a GTN650. I, too, think that it can bite if you’re totally new to it. And I don’t mean the extra advanced features. To give just an easy example, you can select whether map shows north up or heading up, and as this aircraft was flown by more pilots, it could have been changed by someone else. You have to track this down. And this perspective changes to “always north” on a certain scale setting (which can also be selected). Also you can program a lot of what is to be shown where. And not all inputs are 100% intuitive. It is a very good device, but it needs a bit of training (by the way there is a real good training software available from Garmin for use on iPads).

Avionics trouble might be a cause. But I stick to think that his mind was set for a certain departure procedure he mentally prepared before flight and was overtaken by change of runway direction. It needs a lot of training to stay ahead of the aircraft when plans change significantly. Put in any further distraction (“threat”), something that troubled his mind, and you might be out of your envelope pretty fast.

Germany

Certainly very good points @UdoR. Basically it could be a simple as someone setting up his home made departure, then making a change to the take off direction and pushing autopilot at around 800ft AGL and sitting back or maybe even wondering why the aircraft is turning left instead of right to catch the planned course. A bit like the GPS in your car “recalculating” but not taking obstacles into account.
I shall certainly be taking another look and maybe adding a few things to my TEM thinking.
Familiarlity can be an enemy.

France

Malibuflyer wrote:

In this situation, however, it is most likely that the pilot tried to fly a handmade IFR departure. In these situations you obviously do nothing at all with your avionics but to program them in a way that you do not need to touch them between start of ground roll and reaching a safe altitude. Therefore it’s hard to believe that avionics had anything to do with it.

the pilot was a very “thorough checker”. so it is very probable that he did an intense (ifr) prep before take off in such conditions.
including programming the autopilot etc.

i flew the takeoff and course now on the fs2020 for several times.
the fs2020 is pretty (photo) realistic and accurate concerning distances, terrain etc.

if he took off and the plane was at some point turning east on autopilot
he had probably less than 60 or so seconds to notice it, to decide what to do in imc and to reprogramm/change avionics.
(if an (programming) error was the cause that the plane turned east).

as a very experienced local he knew very well that his flight would be very short turning east.

that he did not immediately try (manually) to turn the plane to north (and obviously did not change anything)
indicates that he did not notice the turn (improbable), tried (and failed) to change avionics or was doing something else.
if its true that the gear was still out chrashing. it would support this.

Last Edited by cpt_om_sky at 15 Nov 10:06
Austria

Frans wrote:

You see it in many AIPs of EU-countries, where only VFR is stated under “permitted traffic”, just like at LOIH (AIP AD 2.2). So I might assume that it is allowed to allow/certify airfields only for VFR operations.

To make IFR departures in Golf, it’s more bonker, there is the VFR/IFR tag in AIP AD2 for airport entry, there is VFR/IFR tag in AIP in AD1.3 country index, there is VFR/IFR tag in the FPL system (I-FPL/Z-FPL) and there is question of with/without ATC/AFIS and if you can get the “provisional/pseudo” IFR clearance by phone for en-route or join your/nearby SID

If you do all that and you figure out that you can’t depart IFR, then you have to depart VFR and pick up IFR in the air

To depart VFR, you have be VFR on taxi and takeoff (if you are IR rated you need 1.5km at surface but some VFR aerodromes in Golf have own takeoff minima & observation), then you remain clear of clouds and in-sight of surface in some “surrounding” before transiting IFR, what is “surrounding” the answer is easy when it’s an ATC VFR AD or your own private strip, for other cases people will get into all complicated schemes to get you an answer on the “surrounding”, things may go from 1m to 200nm & 1ft to 10kft: I am personally, split between 1m & 1ft for visbility & ceiling or ceiling above RVSM and 200nm visibility to cover my max EC FPL DCT

As long as you have the required visibility to takeoff VFR, the takeoff would be 100% legal, if you are IR rated operating under NCO/SERA you can fly through clouds in Golf at any height & speed above MSA in cruise and bellow it on departure/landing (even if someone thinks it’s illegal, enforcing cloud distance is impossible even on PPL/ULM/Glider unless you are talking about ATC/AFIS AD with ATIS/METAR)

What is likely not legal is the departure flight path (and this can be enforced): straight-in departure, overhead climb, noise abatement, circuit compliance, minimal altitude, congested area, controlled and restricted airspace, you name it…

However, I don’t think the pilot here had 1.5km visibility

Frans wrote:

Wien Information (FIS) is almost not reachable in Vorarlberg (the state where LOIH is based). Even when flying on 9.000 ft, I never reached them out there. It is quite common to use Swiss FIS (Zurich) instead, they are reachable above +/- 3.500 ft MSL around LOIH. They offer support up to the Arlberg or even Rechenpass, where Innsbruck or Padova takes over.

Thanks, that is what I expect, so flying on Z-FPL, you will have a long way before getting an IFR clearance with Wien Info help even after crossing say 7kft route MSA going north unless you talk to Swiss FIS…

Last Edited by Ibra at 15 Nov 10:01
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top