Sebastian_G wrote:
I hThe turbo controller is actually quite precise and 3.3 inch overboost does not just happen. The setup of this engine was
completely wrong. A clear maintenance problem.
Manufacturing problem – the aircraft was new and had so few hours it probably hadn’t seen its first real maintenance (IIRC the report said the TTAF was about 22 hours – so enough to ferry it then sell it).
I am surprised there is no discussion in the report about a flaps 20 takeoff, which is the listed shortfield takeoff technique. The POH includes a graph for this configuration (at least there is in the POH from early 2000 I have) and indicates circa 500 feet better takeoff performance to 50 ft at MTOW.
I see the report says “The takeoff performance graphs in the POH are all based upon flaps 0°,”.
Maybe they removed the flaps 20 performance charts from later models for some reason (can’t think why?) but they are certainly available in earlier iterations of the PA-46 350 POH
This is a bit of a weird report. Reference to ‘crew’ (there’s only one in in a PA-46), going on about the 1.33 safety factor (which is a recommendation, nothing else), but not a word about the obviously unqualified PF (in itself misleading in discussing a single-pilot airplane). But hey, at least the AAIB make no fewer than three mentions of :
The CAA is intending to publish anarticle in its ‘Clued Up’ magazine
The CAA is intending to publish an article in its ‘Clued Up’ magazine
Yes; it’s hilarious. That is quite an amusing rag at times. Very patronising, typical of the CAA “old fart club”. Pitched largely at 5hr/year PPLs. Reminds me of another “CAA” rag, called GASCO (recently of the “smash infringers with a hammer” CAA contract fame) or GASIL or some such, which ran a great article on how to stop mice climbing up the tailwheel of your taildragger and eating the upholstery. The method (which must have been top secret during the cold war, in case the KGB found out) was: put the tailwheel in a plastic bucket.
There is a lot of 5hr/year PPLs around (not just in the UK; it is a thing inherent in the aeroclub community) but they aren’t buying PA46s.
What a ridiculous accident.
I wonder what the insurance situation here is. The pilot flying the aircraft was not qualified to do so and prob90 not on the insurance. I know that in the US you can get a waiver for demo flights with prospective buyers (or conversely for the buyer), does that work in the UK?
This sentence in the report stood out: “He had 131 hours on all types of the PA-46, with 1.5 hours on the 350P”. Seems that his hours on PA-46 were almost all on the turbine, which might have influenced his thinking on performance?
Re the buyer/passenger flying, query whether the PIC had instructor rating and if that would make any difference? Query whether it is even permissible for passengers to handle controls where PIC has no instructor rating?
it is even permissible for passengers to handle controls where PIC has no instructor rating?
It is legal but the PIC remains PIC.
does that work in the UK?
Not usually IIRC. The normal insured is sitting in the RHS (that is legal unless the POH requires the PIC to be in a specific seat) and the prospective buyer is in the LHS. The insured remains the legal PIC…
I would not have allowed a basically “zero time on type” pilot to do a takeoff on an obviously marginal runway, even if it was Neil Armstrong.
There would have been the usual “interesting psychology” involved here.
I would not have allowed a basically “zero time on type” pilot to do a takeoff on an obviously marginal runway, even if it was Neil Armstrong.
Same here, the more so when just the act of setting take-off power requires some finesse…
