Accident in Namibia, SH Ventus 2cxm

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 4:51:30 PM UTC-5, wrote:
...how the Eta glider used for certification broke up some years ago:
when getting out of a spin with full ballast in one wing, the other empty,
the fuselage couldn't resist the torsional load and failed.

I was briefed that the Eta accident was caused by not recognizing
that the spin had degenerated to spiral dive, followed by incorrect
recovery from spiral dive. Was I briefed incorrectly (by a factory
test pilot, briefing me on spin recovery in another make/model)?

Thanks,
Best Regards, Dave

On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 2:09:14 PM UTC-8, Darryl Ramm wrote:
On Friday, January 15, 2016 at 1:58:38 PM UTC-8, Jonathan St. Cloud wrote:
Curiously enough the ASH-26E is not certified for spins.

And the reason for that would be, what in Aviation is known as common sense. You want engine oil spilling over a possibly warm/hot exhaust? An engine bay fire?

The ASH-26E handles beautifully, I expect it to recover from a spin very well. Certainly all pushing I have done both with and without an engine installed, it was just great.

I suspect that Schleicher just doesn't want you to do spins, not that it can't. In addition to oil, I wonder if there's a concern that wing mounted water or fuel tanks could expand with the centrifugal force and damage the wing skins?

-tom

Dave,

your version is correct.

Dave is indeed right, but that was not my point, just that the Eta did break up during spin tests.

If you want the whole story, here is the final investigation report:

http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publication...ublicationFile

By my count there have been four Nimbus 4D spin/spiral non-recoverable accidents. Two accidents both flight crew were killed and two accidents both flight crew bailed out.

On Monday, January 18, 2016 at 12:37:39 PM UTC-8, wrote:
Dave is indeed right, but that was not my point, just that the Eta did break up during spin tests.

If you want the whole story, here is the final investigation report:

http://www.bfu-web.de/EN/Publication...ublicationFile

Interesting read. What structural load factors do the sailplane designers use?

Interesting read. What structural load factors do the sailplane designers use?

Google CS-22 Amendment 1 revised. 22.337 refers. Nimbus is Utility.

Dan

In Denmark we had a serious incident regarding an Arcus.

The left wing airbrake bell crank ruptured as a consequence of inadequate weld quality. The strength of the welds was insufficient to withstand airbrake bell crank operational loads. The bell crank broke as the glider was in 600ft and had a speed of 108t. The left airbrake extended, The pilot made a brilliant recovery extending the right airbrake and landed the glider 32 seconds later.

You find the full report http://www.hcl.dk/index.php?option=c...order=&lang=da

-Peter

Uh oh. That's no good. Has an AD for the Arcus been issued yet? Lots of load on those spoilers for sure.

At 17:19 31 January 2016, smfidler wrote:
Uh oh. That's no good. Has an AD for the Arcus been issued yet? Lots
of
load on those spoilers for sure.


The AD for the duo came out June or July we monitored it and changed to the

new stronger one when the annual was done at Christmas (uk)