DA 42 accident

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Karl-Heinz Kuenzel posted:

Neil Gould schrieb:
I have a somewhat different take on this event. [...]
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.


OK Neil.

You find it in the article.

My Deutsch is far too rusty to find it in the article. ;-)

POH - Under - abnormal operating procedures - 4B.7 STARTING ENGINE
WITH EXTERNAL POWER - #13 Opposite engine ..... START WITH NORMAL
PROCEDURE

That is it.

That's fine for starting the engines, but that isn't the only issue,
is it?

Is there nothing in the POH about the electrically powered items
(landing gear, FADEC, etc.)? If there is, it shouldn't require an EE
degree to realize that one should be concerned about the condition of
the batteries, charging, etc. if one has to "jump start" the engine,
or to realize that something critical is in need of attention.

Maybe I'm just an overly cautious type. ;-)

Neil

I agree that if you are flying what is basically an all electric aircraft
and you have an electrical problem on the ground that you should take extra
care before flight BUT, there should be some system in place that doesn't
allow the gear switch, landing lights or any other electrically operated
item to become an OFF switch with out some damn significant warning.

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
Recently, Karl-Heinz Kuenzel posted:

Neil Gould schrieb:
I have a somewhat different take on this event. [...]
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.


OK Neil.

You find it in the article.

My Deutsch is far too rusty to find it in the article. ;-)

POH - Under - abnormal operating procedures - 4B.7 STARTING ENGINE
WITH EXTERNAL POWER - #13 Opposite engine ..... START WITH NORMAL
PROCEDURE

That is it.

That's fine for starting the engines, but that isn't the only issue,
is it?

Is there nothing in the POH about the electrically powered items
(landing gear, FADEC, etc.)? If there is, it shouldn't require an EE
degree to realize that one should be concerned about the condition of
the batteries, charging, etc. if one has to "jump start" the engine,
or to realize that something critical is in need of attention.

Maybe I'm just an overly cautious type. ;-)

Neil

I agree that if you are flying what is basically an all electric
aircraft and you have an electrical problem on the ground that you
should take extra care before flight BUT, there should be some system
in place that doesn't allow the gear switch, landing lights or any
other electrically operated item to become an OFF switch with out
some damn significant warning.

A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a caution;
"Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of course, that
won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad decision.

Neil

Neil Gould wrote:
A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a
caution; "Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of
course, that won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad
decision.

I again agree but if you are going to have an sytem with FADEC it ought to
have the authority to to clearly tell you that it is about to use its'
authority to shut the engine off.

Recently, Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net posted:

Neil Gould wrote:
A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a
caution; "Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of
course, that won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad
decision.

I again agree but if you are going to have an sytem with FADEC it
ought to have the authority to to clearly tell you that it is about
to use its' authority to shut the engine off.

We may be describing the same elephant from different sides. ;-)

Neil

Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:
Neil Gould wrote:
A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a
caution; "Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of
course, that won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad
decision.

I again agree but if you are going to have an sytem with FADEC it ought to
have the authority to to clearly tell you that it is about to use its'
authority to shut the engine off.

From the description it sounds more like the FADEC didn't have the
authority (or power) to do anything.

More to the point, if all the power goes away, what happens to all
the "settings" the FADEC controls?

Do they go to zero, full, stay where they are?

It appears that they go to zero, which is a damn unhandy failure mode.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

The problem, as I understand it, was the battery was dead. According
to the POH, the battery is used to start the engine and is used as a
backup during flight for all the electronic gear (including the
FADEC). Although the investigation is still ongoing and other answers
may be forthcoming, when they operated the landing gear they exceded
the power available from the alternators and the backup system (the
battery) was not available so the FADEC (engine computers) stopped.
One of the lessons here is that one should not fly an airplane that
relies on electricity if you don't have a battery to run the
electricity!

Cary

On Apr 23, 4:35 pm, wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a
caution; "Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of
course, that won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad
decision.

I again agree but if you are going to have an sytem with FADEC it ought to
have the authority to to clearly tell you that it is about to use its'
authority to shut the engine off.

From the description it sounds more like the FADEC didn't have the
authority (or power) to do anything.

More to the point, if all the power goes away, what happens to all
the "settings" the FADEC controls?

Do they go to zero, full, stay where they are?

It appears that they go to zero, which is a damn unhandy failure mode.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

But the point seems to be that even if you had a good electrical system and
a good battery on departure, if a total power failure occurs it appears that
FADEC just packs it up and defaults to zero. Like Jim wrote "a damn unhandy
failure mode".

--
Jim Carter
Rogers, Arkansas

Cary wrote:
The problem, as I understand it, was the battery was dead. According
to the POH, the battery is used to start the engine and is used as a
backup during flight for all the electronic gear (including the
FADEC). Although the investigation is still ongoing and other answers
may be forthcoming, when they operated the landing gear they exceded
the power available from the alternators and the backup system (the
battery) was not available so the FADEC (engine computers) stopped.
One of the lessons here is that one should not fly an airplane that
relies on electricity if you don't have a battery to run the
electricity!

Cary

On Apr 23, 4:35 pm, wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a
caution; "Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of
course, that won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad
decision.

I again agree but if you are going to have an sytem with FADEC it ought to
have the authority to to clearly tell you that it is about to use its'
authority to shut the engine off.

From the description it sounds more like the FADEC didn't have the
authority (or power) to do anything.

More to the point, if all the power goes away, what happens to all
the "settings" the FADEC controls?

Do they go to zero, full, stay where they are?

It appears that they go to zero, which is a damn unhandy failure mode.

Well, we are all guessing here, but...

A battery pack backup for the FADEC itself independant of the aircraft
systems would be trivial technically.

A bigger problem may be how much power does it take to actually control
something with the FADEC?

That is, while the FADEC itself probably doesn't require much in the
way of power, how much power does it take to manipulate the throttle,
mixture, and prop?


--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.

wrote in message ...
A battery pack backup for the FADEC itself independant of
the aircraft systems would be trivial technically.

A bigger problem may be how much power does it take to
actually control something with the FADEC?

That is, while the FADEC itself probably doesn't require much
in the way of power, how much power does it take to manipulate
the throttle, mixture, and prop?

The answers to those kind of questions seem to be missing from the public
record, and even the public discussion. I was asking just that when I
inquired about any "Limp Home" capability of this fully FADEC system. I'm
hoping a Mike Busch media type will attend one of the $4k three day Thielert
maintenance seminars down in Texas and write some details.

Thielert comes to aviation from the automotive industry's custom engine
design and engineering world. And their ability to Design, Produce and STC
the 4.0 diesel in a v8 block in a 2 year window shows they got that part of
their business down. I just hope the Failure Analysis guys or the second
contingency curmudgeons weren't asked to leave the design/production
meetings. When those guys are ignored, they often make excellent "reluctant"
witnesses for the Plaintiff.

As much as I like the Thielert concept (with some healthy concerns), the SMA
guys seem to be walking a much different road technology wise. They have
designed their turbo diesel as an air cooled horiz opposed mostly mechanical
controlled system. When I talked in detail to one of their engineers at SNF
two years ago I walked away thinking that their design was pretty bullet
proof. But, even though I haven't heard of any tech problems, SMA can't seem
to get off the ground.

"Cary" wrote in message
oups.com...
The problem, as I understand it, was the battery was dead. According
to the POH, the battery is used to start the engine and is used as a
backup during flight for all the electronic gear (including the
FADEC). Although the investigation is still ongoing and other answers
may be forthcoming, when they operated the landing gear they exceded
the power available from the alternators and the backup system (the
battery) was not available so the FADEC (engine computers) stopped.
One of the lessons here is that one should not fly an airplane that
relies on electricity if you don't have a battery to run the
electricity!

Cary

On Apr 23, 4:35 pm, wrote:
Gig 601XL Builder wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net wrote:

Neil Gould wrote:
A simple voltmeter with a "red line" should suffice, along with a
caution; "Don't take off with the needle outside the green arc". Of
course, that won't prevent someone from insisting on making a bad
decision.

I again agree but if you are going to have an sytem with FADEC it ought
to
have the authority to to clearly tell you that it is about to use its'
authority to shut the engine off.

From the description it sounds more like the FADEC didn't have the
authority (or power) to do anything.

More to the point, if all the power goes away, what happens to all
the "settings" the FADEC controls?

Do they go to zero, full, stay where they are?

It appears that they go to zero, which is a damn unhandy failure mode.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove .spam.sux to reply.



Even if the battery worked fine, something that causes damage, even
something as small as a bird strike can cause a short; dropping voltage,
and shutting down the engines, plural. Wouldn't a relay that isolated the
engine when the buss voltage dropped to zero have helped? Surely some
prioritizing is in order.

Al G