Very sad news, and waiting for the investigation report. I never had any control problem with dr400 fully load, either 180 or 120cv, it just flies very well, just a bit slower. I could fly Cannes to Propriano fl80 with 3pob and max mtow with a 120cv without much to worry about, (except the fear of engine failure…).
Testimonials seems to indicate a nose dive before crash, and with such a restricted altitude (same around Milano btw), you are not protected against these issues. But it was an instruction flight and there was plenty of fields around, it may indicates a flight control issue or sudden loss of balance…
A 100LL engine won’t run on Jet-A1 for even 1 second, surely?
The “Kerosene” must be poor reporting again.
It’s indeed the result of some journalist’s poor work. This plane was an avgas version. At the first read I saw this kérosène smell as a potential cause as there were many issues with cd135 version, I experimented some, electrical for most, but the plane I sometimes flew had an important coolant leakage in flight and some gearbox issues as well.
Kerosine in one tank? Changed tanks?
I’ve no DR400 experience but would be surprised at MAUW stall problems. For LAA Permit Annual renewal I stalled the DR1050 at as near max AUW as possible. Never a problem. Unless they were outwith C of G limits, aft.
Contrary to many people’s belief airplanes don’t fall out of the sky when the engine quits. Of course one could forget flying the plane and stall whilst trying to restart the engine. But who tries that at 1500ft?
I wouldn’t set too much store by the FR24 track. IME these tracks aren’t that precise down low anyway, and if they just went for a forced landing in a field, they would prob99 have gone below the FR 24 coverage PDQ. Sadly, whatever happened, went wrong. RIP.
I note the BFM piece says 15000ft = 5000m …
None of these articles have been written by anyone who even faintly knows anything about aviation… they are each copying the other…badly.
Getting back on this sad story, some unofficial sources did say that a bird strike heavily damaged the wing until the spar, and could be the cause of the crash.
skydriller wrote:
I note the BFM piece says 15000ft = 5000m …None of these articles have been written by anyone who even faintly knows anything about aviation… they are each copying the other…badly.
Looks like it and the notion of “kerosene” is also a mistake which happens very often if journalists with no aviation background report about a GA crash, where that is possible if a Diesel engine is involved but unlikely that any of those people would know the difference.
I’ve had one of these people claim that every airplane, big or small, “dumps excess kerosine” into the atmosphere before each landing…. words fail me in such cases but imho such folks should be removed from editorial staff…..
greg_mp wrote:
bird strike heavily damaged the wing until the spar
If the case, that would be extremely unlucky & really sad !
