The DA42 accident above?
Cobalt wrote:
The DA42 accident above?
No, but there have been several Vmca training accidents in the past. The one above could as well have been avoided by staying clear of the actual stall. There is nothing to be learned from a “deep stall”. Absolutely nothing. As there is nothing to be learned from losing control upon reaching Vmca. We know what happens. There are plenty of accident reports about it. We don’t demonstrate “disintegration of the airframe when exceeding Vne” either.
The Vmca demo in a DA42 is near impossible as you will tend to reach the stall at about the same time (Vmca 68KIAS, Vs 64KIAS).
mmgreve wrote:
Given how incredibly safe commercial flights are, I find that statement quite ignorant.
I found that interesting as well. When I read the report a few weeks ago, I actually asked them about this statement and they replied that this was their position on this topic and that they actually had received the same opinion from EASA. EASA had told them this:
“The objective is for ATOs to at least reach an equivalent level of safety which is set out in the EU civil aviation regulatory framework for commercial air transport operations”
Notice that they have mentioned AT LEAST, that is some extraordinary safety precautions which I can’t really fathom. I told them that with Part-NCO and Part-M Light being very different from their commercial siblings this is something that can never be achieved. Perhaps this is something that should be brought up with EASA if this was a statement from them…
Fly310 wrote:
EASA had told them this:“The objective is for ATOs to at least reach an equivalent level of safety which is set out in the EU civil aviation regulatory framework for commercial air transport operations”
I can see nothing wrong with that. Really. Why should flight instruction carry any more risk than flying?
what_next wrote:
Why should flight instruction carry any more risk than flying?
You mean that all flight instruction should be done in twin turboprops with both instructor and student having at least CPL/ME/IR?
Airborne_Again wrote:
ou mean that all flight instruction should be done in twin turboprops with both instructor and student having at least CPL/ME/IR?
In an ideal world that would be the case… When my wife asks me in the morning: “Where are you flying today?” and I reply: “Nowhere, just some instructing” I don’t want to worry her with that. And therefore I do everything I can to keep my instructing as safe as possible. I have no death wish and especially not for 25 Euros per flying hour. Therefore I do not perform spins, deep stalls, Vmca demonstrations all the way to Vmca and beyond, practice forced landings with the engine turned off, asymmetric training in twins with an engine shut down, IFR training in icing conditions without anti-ice, IFR training with thunderstorms in the area, crosswind landing training with crosswinds above demonstrated values. All by the book so to say. Students who are not happy with that are free to go elsewhere.
That all makes good sense What_next and I can’t disagree, but you would still be safer If you fly on German Wings to Berlin and back instead.
While what_next’s attitude is quite sensible and minimises risk, this won’t achieve CAT levels of safety, simply because the aircraft are nowhere near as safe as transport category jets, and the flights performed have more scope for things going wrong than when two very experienced crew members fly from A to B on the same route they fly every day. The only thing that makes flight training on occasion more safe is that it takes place in relatively benign weather conditions, while CAT keeps flying until right at the minimum.
So flight instructing should be as safe as normal private flying, and probably safer as many of the sillier reasons for accidents on private flights (loss of control after inadvertent IMC, running out of fuel, CFIT) are probably less prevalent. But CAT it isn’t.
what_next wrote:
Students who are not happy with that are free to go elsewhere.
I think any and all training should be within a risk assessment that pleases both the student and instructor, on that particular day. And also that it’s nobody else’s business assuming they do nothing illegal. The tendency to group think individual activities is unnecessary in my view. Spins are a good example, do whatever is best for the individuals and for the type of plane.
