DA42 LN-PFM down in Norway

I stopped at this (yes I looked at other accident examples)

Is there a documented “spin incident” in DA42 where the pilots managed to recover?

Ibra wrote:

Is there a documented “spin incident” in DA42 where the pilots managed to recover?

Isn’t that mandatory for any EASA CS-23 to demonstrate a spin recovery? There definitely was a spin recovery video on Youtube for another Diamond aircraft (DA-40).

Isn’t that mandatory for any EASA CS-23 to demonstrate a spin recovery? There definitely was a spin recovery video on Youtube for another Diamond aircraft (DA-40).

CS23 SEP like DA40 or DA50 are required to demonstrate spin recovery, including SR2x, CS23 MEP read the above

Yes. There are two in the very same report.

Indeed, including the anonymous reports

Because of the mass of the engines on the wings, MEPs don’t have benign spin characteristics, and do not require the minimum one turn spin recovery for certification, which SEP/SETs require. Beechcraft did carry out spin testing on the Duchess.

Is there a link for the accident report? I couldn’t find it in the ASN link.

RobertL18C wrote:

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.

Might not, also means might have. I have a hard time believing a DA42 is unrecoverable, but maybe it is. Spin recovery is different in different planes in any case. Seems like no one actually knows how the DA42 behaves. I fly aerobatics. One thing about aerobatics is it’s much more a “best before” than any other type of flying. It’s not that you forget it (not the basic maneuvers). It’s mostly that the sensation becomes overwhelming, in particular spin and high G maneuvers. It takes a couple of loops and a couple of spins before your body and brain is “back at it” after 6-12 months. When flying aerobatics, it’s always planned. When entering a spin, you know exactly what to do to exit it, even though it is 8 months since last time, and you are not even able to count the turns. Flying aerobatics regularly, it all that stuff becomes a walk in the park (a slow roll is still very difficult though but a spin is not). If entering a spin by accident out of the blue, and it is 10 years since the one and only time you ever did it, I highly doubt your brain and body is even able to figure out what is going on at all, not within the “allotted” time at least

A very funny video showing this is below. Her reactions are truly hilarious What’s important IMO is that her reactions are 100% “bodily”. She is not used to maneuvering in 3D space, and this is how the body and brain reacts to it, and this is a gentle normal sight seeing flight. Otherwise she has no signs of being scared or anything like that. She is very much up to speed. A spin is perhaps a factor 100 times more “disturbing” on the body/brain functionality. I would say they were doomed the moment they entered the spin, and flying a DA42 or a Super Decathlon would make no difference.

@Emir thank you.

1. I learned that the VEBS is related to accelerated stalls and not intended to prevent a deep stall (ie unrecoverable due to tail-plane blanking), although arguably this maybe semantics as you may need to carry out an accelerated stall to enter deep stall risk territory?
2. I was surprised at the ‘incipient spin’ recovery technique in the SOPs and wonder whether this is quoted from the POH? ’If a wing drops, which often happens due to poor pilot technique where the airplane is out of balance at the stall, or aileron input is being used, we must somewhat alter our stall recovery. Once the wing stalls, aileron input will not stop the roll, it will worsen the situation, in these cases the rudder should be used to prevent the nose of the airplane yawing. If the wing drop is not promptly recovered, a spin may develop. Excessive rudder should not be applied (to level the wings through the secondary effect of rudder) as this may cause a stall and flick manoeuvre in the opposite direction to the initial roll (wing drop).
3. I also note the SOPs do not emphasise eliminating all symptoms of the stall in the stall recovery first action, and do not discuss the concept of a safe speed before applying, smoothly power for the recovery.

I am sure the incipient spin technique, which I hope is the ATO SOP and not Diamond POH, is written with the best of intentions, but it is a ‘potage’ of concepts not explained correctly and arguably wrong: No memory items; not focusing on the need to centralise all controls promptly at the first indication of un-commanded yaw (discusses roll, when the un-commanded yaw is causing the wing drop and incipient spin); fails to call for ensuring power has been reduced to idle (we have not one but two gyroscopes and torque/propeller effect conditions, especially if applying troglodite regulator imposed incorrect CPL stall recovery technique of applying full power before eliminating all stall symptoms and below safety speed); when stabilised, roll level and recover smoothly from ensuing dive; apply smooth power and establish gentle climb.

Practising precision spinning in an aerobatic type might build resilience, but may not prepare an FI for understanding the difference between incipient spin recovery, and spin recovery from a stable fully developed spin.

The regulators and accident investigators should spend some time digging further on the root causes of this unfortunate accident.