Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vintage JU-52 aircraft crashes in Swiss Alps

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    A man walks in the hairdresser's and requests:

    - Leave it long in this side but short in the other, curly in the front, a swirl in the top, cut it in diagonal the back, trim one sideburn and leave the fringe with irregular length.
    - But how am I supposed to do that?
    - Like the last time you &%^$*#@*~ !!!!

    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
      I am sure that if you divided the GA pilots with solid basic airmanship skills into two sets: one with the pilots that take aviation more seriously, don't do stupid tricks, have at least a basic understanding and application or risk management which includes a conservative approach, and a tendency to follow procedures, rules and best practices, and another set with confidence alone, then you would see huge different in the safety records of both sets, then possibly the record of the first set may be better than cars, but nowhere close to commercial aviation simply because it is a much more restricted and regulated activity that has so much more backups, redundancy and levels of safety. I have never seen a study in this regards, but it just makes sense.
      Repaired.

      If we don't hear from 3WE for a while, it is because you just made his head explode.

      But I suspect in this case you might need to divide those pilots between those who know the limitations of the specific type they are flying and those who believe all aircraft only require the same, universal knowledge learned in flight school. Or maybe between ground maintenance that follow manuals to the letter vs those with a MacGuyver approach to problem solving.

      (The vintage category probably relies heavily on the MacGuyver approach, making it potentially less safe. )

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        ***If we don't hear from 3WE for a while, it is because you just made his head explode.***
        I scanned the explosion of everyone trying to state safety statistics in their own words- and only got a headache from Evan's new code word for Cowboy improvisation...MacGuyver approach..

        Now to Evan and Gabe:

        Light planes ~7X more dangerous than cars...Check. (And how many companies and their insurance departments forbid the use of private aircraft and don't pay your life insurance for light plane crashes?)

        Remove the eye rollers from airplane crashes and it gets 2X better. Fine. But when you do that, you have to remove the eye-rollers from car crashes too. (Driving's a lot safer without the eye-rolling activity too). No one will offer an exact figure here- but I think cars still win in a multi-X fashion.

        Indeed- never stepping into a 172 or a 787 or a Toyota will greatly reduce your chances of did dieing in a crash.

        I have shared this before- This is my own hought process that developed over YEARS.

        There's that sobering VFR in IMC category of crashes. Sometimes these are obvious cowboy idiocy. But, if you read aviation typists, seems like every month, someone get's screwed by the weather forecast and if you visit with folks, everyone's got a pucker story. My own story fortunately involved an instrument lesson...Weather was marginal but forecast for improvement...Instructor said, why don't you take off the hood, we're in real IMC...(without a flight plan too and in ragged out, old 172 with questionably reliable instruments).

        But hey- I want to get my IFR ticket- THEN I will be safer and can use a plane for business travel...

        But wow, can I really stay current?...not sure...but hey...I will be safer because all I have to do is stay upright, call for help and go to a place with easier weather...Yeah, I won't fly in genuine IMC...but on those marginal-but forecast to improve days, I will be safer...

        Now- everything I said above is actually rather logical, but see that bolded sentence...Yes, I actually thought that...

        ...Know what's special about that sentence? That's probably been thought be the majority of the proverbial good, safe pilots who saw a legal and generally positive weather forecast, but exited the clouds spinning (and often not in one piece). That exact thought is admonished amongst safety types as bad thinking...taking the first step down justifiable added risk course to disaster.

        Then the other truth byte. Simple exposure. Pleasure flying on sunny afternoons or using an Instrument ticket Even if you are doing it all Evan style:...One of those exposes you to a lot more icing and turbulence and places MORE requirements on your vacuum pump, and opens the door for your brain to momentarily (that's a very big word) think your attitude is different than what it is...

        Now, let's switch to Bobby-world. You fly a couple of weeks a month...that's your ONLY job- you focus on it and spend your time and focus doing it good today and more gooder tomorrow. You have a partner helping you and double checking you as you do it. You are in a crazy refined multi-backup machine with many (but not all) of Evan's wondrous electronic automation. Every six months you get trained and tested- skills are sharpened, scenarios are run...Holy phugoid- the gap between that world and the light plane world is huge!

        So Gabriel- anything wrong about what I say above?

        I am not going to hold my breath that Bobby will acknowledge any of it, but instead will state that the comments are invalid because I have never flown an airliner and tell a hairdresser or mom's basement joke. Have a beer with Bobby?, fine, but I'm trying to remember why your signature is the way it is.
        Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Evan View Post
          The vintage category probably relies heavily on the MacGuyver approach.
          Nice...

          I do not_concur.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #35
            I actually agree with what you said 3. Big note here, the difference that you are trying to convey is the difference between being current, and being proficient. One of the things I used to do in my corporate jet days was when I went to FlightSafety every 6 months, was to request that they also gave me an instrument competency check. It was another 30 minutes of just different approaches and going over the "rules of the road" in the debriefing. Complacency is a killer!

            Comment


            • #36
              I will buy you a beer because I do stir crap.

              As much as I’d like to fly a big jet for money, I’d probably be the dude who gets pulled away for a burnt out lightbulb and do CFIT. Hell, I’m probably capable of running a 777 out of airspeed and altitude 2000 feet too soon on a beautiful afternoon...such a beautiful view out the window and this big giant fuzz bear feeling real dumb and happy...Unlike Hui Theiu Lo, I’d be loving it, not fearing it.
              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by 3WE
                I do not_concur.
                The vintage category probably has a greater potential to rely on the MacGuyver approach for ground maintenance.

                Still don't concur?

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                  Can...Should...

                  Safe...Safer...Not as safe...Reckless...

                  Dude with PPL only flies 172's with unreliable vacuum pumps within 50 miles on sunny afternoons...dude gets an instrument rating and a Bonanza with backup gyros and electronic weather radar wizardly AND get's all the great training...

                  Low time, puppy mill graduates run up great safety records in conventional RJs...Experienced, big-iron guys pull up relentlessly in super automated Airbi...

                  Oh the gray-scale, trade-off, interactional ironing.
                  My dear friend, what have been your beverages since the last 3 weeks? I know, Friday and Saturday nights are tricky, Seahawk knows more about me..

                  What you say almost sounds like July 1999. Mr Greg Feith wrote 'spatial disorientation' on the death certificate of
                  Mr John F. Kennedy Junior (1960-1999).

                  And now let me say again what you said.
                  'Dude with PPL only flies 172's with unreliable vacuum pumps within 50 miles on sunny afternoons...dude gets an instrument rating and a Bonanza with backup gyros and electronic weather radar wizardly AND get's all the great training...'

                  In case of the son of JFK, it was not a Beech Bonanza, but a Piper Saratoga II. But everything you said also seems to be true for July 16th 1999, the day when JFK Junior died.

                  Let's come back on topic. A Bonanza or a Saratoga is not a Junkers JU-52! Let me try to compare cars.
                  The Saratoga II with a vmax of 160 knots (296 km/h) seemed to be to fast for JFK junior, so let's say the Saratoga II is a BMW M5.

                  For a man like JFK jr. who afaik has never sat in a faster type than a Fiat 500 Abarth with a vmax of 110 knots (205 km/h), the BMW M5 (Saratoga II) must have been like a rocket.

                  And indeed, JFK jr. afaik never before sat in the left seat of a 'rocket'. On that July evening in 1999, he ignored one of his friends, who only 3 or 4 hours before he died said, 'Please J., Do not fly alone, the Saratoga II caliber is not comparable with types which you know until today. She's way faster!'

                  But compared to the Saratoga II 'Rocket' with vmax 160 kn,
                  the Junkers JU-52 still is completely different, rather like a Greyhound bus, with 17 passenger seats and only a cruise speed of 97 knots (180 km/h), if no headwind occurs...

                  'Dude with PPL only flies 172' definitely is not true here in this case.

                  In my eyes, the Alter Hase (Junkers JU-52 Flight Captain, 62 years old with more than 900 flight hours on that ancient 3 engine propeller) rather seems like a man which liked to fly BMW M5 or faster (Swiss-A343 or LH-B744), and also knew how to fly an Omnibus (Ju-52) but on that special day, he demanded too much of that old Omnibus, with a 27 knot strong headwind..

                  [For 1 or 10 seconds he must have thought, that he's again in his Airbus A343 or B744, where a 27 knot strong headwind @ alt 14,000 or much, much MUCH higher rather is nothing. His fatal error. Imho, we are lucky that he thought that his Ju-52 with 17 passengers could easily reach 300 knots or more.
                  What would have happened if he thought that his A343 or B744 could easily reach 100 knots or less @ low alt , with 5 or ten passengers more than in a Ju-52...
                  I've seen Lufthansa Long Haul Flight Captains on TV, who voluntarily visit the doctor more often than demanded by law. Which I definitely will also do when older than 55!]

                  Thank God it was not his Airbus A343 or B744, where he made the fatal misjudgment. With 350 pax on board or more? No, please don't you!

                  You can try to walk against a 27 knot strong head wind (50 km/h Gegenwind). Then you know what the 3 engines of the 86 year old flyin Omnibus obviously were no longer good for...

                  That's my final report. Don't know what Mr Greg Feith would say...
                  Last edited by LH-B744; 2018-09-02, 03:02. Reason: Fatal misjudgment.
                  LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
                  EW, one of the dearest LH daughters, the brandnew November 19 schedule (frequency):
                  DUS - VRA (--3-5-7), DUS - EWR (1234567), DUS - MIA (1-3-56-), DUS - BGI # 1152 (Mon and Thu with exceptions), ...

                  Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. A whole decade here on this platform.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Don't know if in Switzerland that's a benchmark. But here in Germany, most of the car drivers have an idea what their cars are good for and especially

                    what their cars are not good for. Let's take again the choice, Fiat 500 Abarth or BMW M5.

                    There are streets in Germany where the 500 Abarth is too slow. For the A2 between Königshardt and Hannover, I'd definitely only take the rocket, the M5 (A343 or B744).

                    PS: Nobody indeed knows what the Alter Hase tried in his 86 year old Omnibus, did he roll backwards off the mountain in his slow Omnibus? It almost seems like that.

                    That's a danger, if you once know how fast and high rockets (A343 and B744) can go with or without strong headwinds, you try routes which you once have managed perfectly in your M5, with vehicules that definitely are too weak for the hills near Bielefeld (or South of Kloten).

                    I always hope that somebody like me who only knows the power in a Boeing 747 due to Randazzo's 747 semi-pro simulator, is totally wrong. But I also know more than 1 rather old man who'd try the Lohausen - Fontanarossa route nonstop in a 1978 Volkswagen Beetle with 34 hp:
                    1. My father.
                    2. Former 747 Flight Captain J.V. van Zanten, who exactly died in his 747 at the age of 50,

                    because he tried something which even in a 747 is not possible...
                    Even a 747 is not a Panzer, not indestructible. What was in the head of JvvZ? Did he really think that a KLM B742B is stronger than a Pan AM B741?!
                    This rwy is mine, the Spanish atc is not worth a Gulden, and my 747 is stronger than the PanAm 747?

                    Since I know that these two men are dead, I always say, there always is a limit, even in a Boeing 747. Or in a Junkers Ju-52. Or in rockets like a Saratoga II, if you previously only knew the Abarth 500...
                    I hope that I survive longer than - daredevil van Zanten with his only 50 years, - longer than Elvis Presley with his only 42 years (!),
                    and indeed longer than Mr. John Lennon with ... 40 years and not much more than 40 days,
                    which should be an easy exercise for men who just ve celebrated the 4th decade in life..

                    With a rather careful manner, 75 is a good aim not only for pilots, Jan-Michael Vincent..

                    Who did we survive, Gabriel? - Well. John Belushi killed himself at the age of only 33, with something what the doctors have called a "speedball" in March 1982. As one of three brothers, I can only assume what that meant for his younger brother, Jim Belushi..

                    For each and every machine there is a limit, even for a Boeing 747. Know the limits of your machine!

                    PS: Again, my father, God bless him: 'Übermut kommt vor dem Fall.' A quite brilliant saying, when we talk about aviation.. And I just don't know how to translate that. Anyone?

                    Or the best saying in aviation which I also know in English until today: There are only 2 kinds of pilots,
                    a) aggressive (dead) pilots
                    or
                    b) old pilots.

                    I rather tend to be type b). Think about it ...

                    I still don't know what type the JU-52 Flight Captain was. 62 years old, so probably also type b), but with his Airbus A340 background, with 10 seconds of too much routine?

                    After all, one of the very sad fatal aviation accidents between Lohausen and Malpensa, after March 2015..

                    PS: Today, I know at least two men who both are older than me, who could virtually kill van Zanten again for his ignorance of the Los Rodeos ATC and for flyin a 747 over a rwy into shere blindness, with 248 souls on board, although he knew that at least one another 747 is ready for take off...
                    One of these two men today works for the Norddeutscher Rundfunk NDR near EDDH, but he is a former German ATC..

                    The second one is one of my dearest jetphotos Senior members, and until today only the second (or should I rather say the first) man who shares this home airport with me here on jetphotos...
                    Who seriously would ignore the ATCs on major airports like Hamburg, Düsseldorf or Los Rodeos?! Van Zanten? Probably.

                    I wouldn't dare that, onboard my avatar, with 350 pax in my neck.
                    Last edited by LH-B744; 2018-09-02, 09:22. Reason: Brothers in arms.
                    LH and the Hamburg - Düsseldorf - Shannon - NYC route, open since June 1st, 1955. A/C type: Lockheed Super Constellation.
                    EW, one of the dearest LH daughters, the brandnew November 19 schedule (frequency):
                    DUS - VRA (--3-5-7), DUS - EWR (1234567), DUS - MIA (1-3-56-), DUS - BGI # 1152 (Mon and Thu with exceptions), ...

                    Aviation enthusiast since more than 30 years. A whole decade here on this platform.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                      For each and every machine there is a limit, even for a Boeing 747. Know the limits of your machine!
                      To be clear, I'm not suggesting the JU-52 was incapable of overflying a 9000ft mountain pass. I'm suggesting conditions that day may have left it with a limited climb rate (which is pretty awful on a good day) and a limited ability to contend with windshear or recover from an upset. Carbureted engines are obviously more susceptible to air density issues, but, as this was a former warhorse until the 1980's, I imagine it was supercharged for higher altitude capability.

                      And there were reports of engine trouble prior to the crash. So how well does a JU-52 handle windshear with one engine faltering...?

                      Flying in an aircraft like this through (not simply over) mountainous terrain carries significantly higher risk than your typical Easyjet flight. People just need to be made aware of that.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        To be clear, I'm not suggesting the JU-52 was incapable of overflying a 9000ft mountain pass. I'm suggesting conditions that day may have left it with a limited climb rate (which is pretty awful on a good day) and a limited ability to contend with windshear or recover from an upset. Carbureted engines are obviously more susceptible to air density issues, but, as this was a former warhorse until the 1980's, I imagine it was supercharged for higher altitude capability.
                        The only thing the supercharger does on the Tante Ju is prevent the already awful climb performance from being even worse.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          Most people that fly do so because they have the passion. Until you have flown alone with just you and the aircraft you cannot understand. Statistics, if you were that worried about them then you probably would never get in your Toyota and get on the street. The most dangerous part of any airplane ride is the drive to and from the airport. Brakes (I guess I never get to live this one down for forgetting after not being in the aircraft for a year and some, but hey my wife brings up shit I did 30 plus years ago. And I am sure you have never in your life done anything like that.) I get to fly a friends restored Curtiss Jenny, know what ? I doesn't have ANY brakes at all.

                          You actually remind me of an old joke that my father told me years ago. You know the person that ALWAYS finds fault in anything that you do? You bought something and you for sure paid too much. If you did not get it at the store they shop at it is the worst place in the world. No matter what you did they did it before you and it was bigger and better when they were there or did it. My wife calls it a one upper.

                          So this woman goes to her hair dresser (3WE) to get her hair done. She tells her that her husband is taking her on a trip to Rome for a week. She says I really want to look good for my trip. The hair dresser says how are you getting there? We are flying on Continental she says. Oh you don’t want to go on Continental, their airplanes are really old and the service is terrible. Where are you going to stay in Rome? We have a room at the Excelsior Hotel, it is right down the street from the Vatican. Oh I know that place, it is old and rundown, and not in the best part of town. Well it is close and we have tickets to see the Pope so we want to be close. See the Pope! You will be sitting 150 rows away from the stage, he is going to look like an ant and you are going to have to fight the crowds to get in and out.

                          The next month she returns to get her hair done again. So how was the trip to Rome? Continental really stunk didn’t it? Well actually when we got to the gate they told us the flight was going to be delayed for around 30 minutes because they had to replace the aircraft. See I told you there is always a problem with Continental. Well when we were boarding they told us they were going to have to change our seats because this 777 had just had a new interior put in and it had less business class seats, so they upgraded us to first class. It was wonderful, the food and the service were excellent. Well what about the hotel did I tell you or what? When we arrived they told us that they were just finishing some renovations and that our suite was not finished yet so they gave us the Presidential suite, it was incredible! And when you went to see the Pope, crowded and he looked like an ant? Well that is a story in itself. We got there an hour early so we could walk around a bit. As we were admiring some of the artwork two of the Swiss Guards approached us and asked us if we would like to meet the Pope. Of course we accepted the invitation. They explained to us that once a week the Pope likes to have a couple of people come into his office for a private seating. You got to meet the Pope? What did he say to you? You know what the first thing he said was? WHO FUCKED UP YOUR HAIR?
                          I am going to HAVE to remember this one
                          If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LH-B744 View Post
                            In my eyes, the Alter Hase (Junkers JU-52 Flight Captain, 62 years old with more than 900 flight hours on that ancient 3 engine propeller) rather seems like a man which liked to fly BMW M5 or faster (Swiss-A343 or LH-B744), and also knew how to fly an Omnibus (Ju-52) but on that special day, he demanded too much of that old Omnibus, with a 27 knot strong headwind.
                            I don't see the connection between the accident and the 27 knots headwind. I mean, Even proposes that gusts, windshear, turbulence may have been a factor. But the headwind by itself, I don't see how. If anything, a head wind will improve your climb gradient.

                            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                              I don't see the connection between the accident and the 27 knots headwind. I mean, Even proposes that gusts, windshear, turbulence may have been a factor. But the headwind by itself, I don't see how. If anything, a head wind will improve your climb gradient.
                              I’d prefer to not have a headwind when flying uphill. The hill might exceed the critical AOA.
                              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                                I don't see the connection between the accident and the 27 knots headwind. I mean, Even proposes that gusts, windshear, turbulence may have been a factor. But the headwind by itself, I don't see how. If anything, a head wind will improve your climb gradient.
                                With a headwind, it takes longer to get to the accident site. So when you arrive, the aircraft is older and thus more likely to experience a failure.
                                Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                                Eric Law

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X