Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

DA42 LN-PFM down in Norway

I do agree the DA42 is well behaved with idle power and clean config, I took one with a friend all around the clean flight envelope on idle to check rear door lock warning (it was annoying spurious warning that engineer got fixed but we went on stress testing flight of that switch), we did not touch power/flaps during that exercise as flight & engine envelope gets very tight (vebs, spins/dives, prop pitch, engine fadec…)

The other thing I recall is that positive & negative G’s with power do cause stress on props pitch (aircraft is restricted to G > 0 above 120kts?) and give erratic fuel & oil readings these are believed to cause engine FADEC electronic controls to go nuts, you may actually see oil pressure & low fuel flow & pressure warnings that you have to acknowledge and disregard, it does not take a PhD to hear that the engine & prop do not like doing that with lot of power…

Last Edited by Ibra at 26 Nov 10:28
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom
It looks like the location where LN-PFM hit the ground is about 2-3 nm from where radar coverage was lost (FR24).

https://www.vg.no/nyheter/innenriks/i/dnr4P1/smaafly-styrtet-i-larvik-to-flyelever-og-en-instruktoer-omkom

Given the flight data in FR24, heading, rapid loss of speed, and altitude, can someone try to explain how they could have managed to cover the distance from where radar was lost to the actual crash site?

A horrible accident, my thoughts go to families and friends.

PJK
Norway

Given the flight data in FR24, heading, rapid loss of speed, and altitude, can someone try to explain how they could have managed to cover the distance from where radar was lost to the actual crash site?

I would take FR24 data with a grain of salt.

Last Edited by Emir at 27 Nov 16:46
LDZA LDVA, Croatia

I live in the neightbor city. People saw the plane spinning downwords. The day was sunny and no wind

Last Edited by Aleks123 at 07 Dec 05:20
Norway

Final investigation report released. It’s available at ASN.

LDZA LDVA, Croatia

In short: cause unknown. Refresher training in spin prevention and how to get out of a spin is recommended by Statens havarikommisjon. No such refresher training for FIs exists today.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

Refresher training in spin prevention and how to get out of a spin is recommended by Statens havarikommisjon

Usually people do that in Extra200? or Cap10? I am not sure how does one go from there to getting DA42 out of spin? I am not looking to try…

Last Edited by Ibra at 21 Feb 19:49
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

The DA-42 has an elevator restriction when applying full flaps (tested in after start checks), to prevent a deep stall condition from the T-tail. It would be interesting if the report explores this.

Refresher spin training on a type not approved for spinning seems pointless, if the spin was allowed to develop into auto rotation it may not have been recoverable.

The scenarios how this spin may have occurred are various: student or instructor accidentally accelerated into a stall in a type which has a risk of deep stall, and where accelerated stalls are prohibited; or student/instructor tried to apply full power to minimise height loss (CPL standard) without eliminating all symptoms of stall, and at a speed below Vmc, and one of the engines did not produce power, resulting in a Vmc yaw and ergo a yaw aggravated stall ie spin; or a combination or something else – incorrect stall recovery at time of a wing drop followed by trying to lift the wing with aileron and inducing a spin (the DA42 being a wing heavy design in a spin context), with the student freezing on the controls.

No such refresher training for FIs exists today.

The CPL MEP test still doesn’t teach correct Standard Stall Recovery as per either Aerobatics or as taught in a type rating. Getting European regulators to understand correct SSR would be a more important first step.

Arguably incipient spin refresher training might be more relevant. In theory the ATO should be covering this in Standards flights with their instructors.

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

The DA-42 has an elevator restriction when applying full flaps (tested in after start checks), to prevent a deep stall condition from the T-tail. It would be interesting if the report explores this. It would be interesting if the report explores this.

We mentioned it earlier here, pity that neither T-TAIL design or VEBS were discussed

VEBS

VEBS

MEP are not certified for “spin exit”, likely they were the first guys to ever try DA42 spin…

Last Edited by Ibra at 21 Feb 20:58
Paris/Essex, France/UK, United Kingdom

LeSving wrote:

In short: cause unknown.

I wouldn’t say that. From the available data, eyewitness statement and comparing to similar cases, including successful recoveries, it’s most probable that the cause of accident was unrecoverable spin. The question remains what the reason for entering the spin was (construction, W&B combined with CoG, combination of all these factors) and also whether it was recoverable by more knowledgeable/skilful FI. Area search and engine analysis showed that no structure failure was involved as well as no engine/propeller failure.

RobertL18C wrote:

The DA-42 has an elevator restriction when applying full flaps (tested in after start checks), to prevent a deep stall condition from the T-tail.

This works only if power is set to more than 20%.

Ibra wrote:

likely they were the first guys to ever try DA42 spin…

Maybe you should read complete report…

LDZA LDVA, Croatia
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top