![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Recently, Friedrich Ostertag posted:
Karl-Heinz Kuenzel wrote: Hi. Here in Germany we had an accident with a brand new DA 42 in Speyer (EDRY) on 3-4-07 during take off. It seems, that the battery was down and both engine were started with remote power. After take off when retracting the gear, the props feathered and both engines stopped. You can read about that accident in German (sorry) in www.pilotundflugzeug.de First hearing about that accident and the background, I could not believe it. I don't even know where to start. How can an aircraft, that depends on electrical power for the operation of it's engines, be airworthy without fully redundant electrical systems? While in this particular case the pilot might have noticed the problem, had he meticuously follow procedures and started the second engine at the plane's own power, it is quite easy to find failure modes that would go unnoticed inflight, yet cause double engine failure at the instant the gear is lowered on final. Lead batteries are known to occasionally go flat suddenly, once the buildup of oxide makes contact between the lead elements. Happened to me in the car once. The engine (a diesel with mechanical injection pump) ran happily without me even noticing the failure until I shut it down. When I turned the power back on again, not even the lights in the dashboard would light up, it was completely and utterly dead. I would never have thought that they cut corners like that at Diamond. I Hope this will not create a lot of mistrust in aerodiesels, as it is not a diesel issue. I guess you could call it a FADEC issue if you wanted, however it really is an issue of redundancy of essential systems, and easily solveable as such. I have a somewhat different take on this event. It appears to me that the pilot didn't sufficiently understand his aircraft or the implications of the symptoms he observed. Knowing that there was insufficient power to start the engines, that the engine & prop controls were dependent on electric power and that the landing gear used an electric motor would have stopped me from taking off until the battery/electrical system problem was addressed. I don't find it surprising that the props feathered in this situation, and would even say that it would be the expected behavior, rather than a fluke of some kind. I would find it surprising if Diamond doesn't have adequate information about their flight systems in the POH to inform the pilot of this possibility. Regards, Neil |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
F6F accident | Larry Cauble | Naval Aviation | 4 | October 14th 05 06:19 PM |
Accident db? | [email protected] | Owning | 3 | July 25th 05 06:22 PM |
C-130 accident | Jay Honeck | Piloting | 28 | January 11th 05 06:52 PM |
MU2 accident | Big John | Piloting | 16 | April 13th 04 03:58 AM |
KC-135 accident | Big John | Piloting | 3 | November 19th 03 04:36 PM |