Vintage JU-52 aircraft crashes in Swiss Alps

[BoeingBobby]

You mean during sudden windshear? You mean monitoring the sudden drop in airspeed would have saved them?

If you put yourself in that low altitude position in mountainous terrain subject to windshear and your airspeed suddenly goes from healthy to stall and you lack the power to power out of it and the altitude to recover and lowering the AoA means crashing into a mountain, is this a problem of piloting technique or a problem of piloting judgement?

Sounds like Boeing's fault to me.

[Evan]

Instead of addressing “the apparent trend for military pilots to systematically ignore procedures”, I am more concerned “with the apparent trend to not_monitor airspeed”.

Anyone have insight or possible solutions?

You mean during sudden windshear? You mean monitoring the sudden drop in airspeed would have saved them?

If you put yourself in that low altitude position in mountainous terrain subject to windshear and your airspeed suddenly goes from healthy to stall and you lack the power to power out of it and the altitude to recover and lowering the AoA means crashing into a mountain, is this a problem of piloting technique or a problem of piloting judgement?

[3WE]

Instead of addressing “the apparent trend for military pilots to systematically ignore procedures”, I am more concerned “with the apparent trend to not_monitor airspeed”.

Anyone have insight or possible solutions?

[Evan]

More than that. If you look at the video, before the stall they were above parts of the surrounding terrain (i.e. they had an escape route). Very possibly if they had not tried to climb so desperately and just firewalled the throttles and keep Vy or Vx, they would have gotten out of it.

Oh, and they should not have been that low to begin with.

Or maybe lower. Like 0ft and far from a cockpit.

[Gabriel]

So, basically an unrecoverable stall at low altitude brought on by windshear and exacerbated by an out-of-range COG?

More than that. If you look at the video, before the stall they were above parts of the surrounding terrain (i.e. they had an escape route). Very possibly if they had not tried to climb so desperately and just firewalled the throttles and keep Vy or Vx, they would have gotten out of it.

Oh, and they should not have been that low to begin with.

[Evan]

Final report out

https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_E.pdf

AVH's summary (and reconstruction video)

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bbf2069/0014&opt=0

The level of deep analysis that they were able to do and the amount of data they were able to obtain or reconstruct is truly amazing, given that the plane was not equipped with recorders. They must have invested a lot of time, effort and resources.

So, basically an unrecoverable stall at low altitude brought on by windshear and exacerbated by an out-of-range COG?

[Gabriel]

Final report out

https://www.sust.admin.ch/inhalte/AV-berichte/HB-HOT/EN/SB_HB-HOT_E.pdf

AVH's summary (and reconstruction video)

http://avherald.com/h?article=4bbf2069/0014&opt=0

The level of deep analysis that they were able to do and the amount of data they were able to obtain or reconstruct is truly amazing, given that the plane was not equipped with recorders. They must have invested a lot of time, effort and resources.

[BoeingBobby]

Alrighty then!

[LH-B744]

For a moment I forgot that here we are on board of one of the Best aviation platforms who I know. So what describes Lugano, better than 1000 words? Right, a jetphoto. Here it is.

https://www.jetphotos.com/photo/8043934

This seems to be a real B350. Seven windows on each side. I know that there are also smaller versions, B90 and so on. In the background, you see what the standard departure from the Lugano rwy 01 is all about. Behind that Beech twin-turbopropeller, that should be hdg 010.

This is only the Southern end, the rather flat end (!) of the Swiss Alps. Definitely not the typcial scenery where you find weak single props, e.g. Cessna 152, Cessna 182, ...

Did I mention what my feeling for the way down to Lugano told me, in the fsx simulator?


- You better take 2 x 1,050 hp turbopropellers with you (in a Beech B350), these hills are definitely bigger than what I see here at Lohausen Intl.
But I might repeat myself.
Since it happened in 2018, I have never understood how an experienced jet pilot could have the idea to try to transport 20 people through the Swiss Alps in an eighty year old tri-propeller (which is the Ju-52) without turbo.

Before 2018, if you had asked me, I had always said that the LH-B744 is my favourite aircraft to cross the Alps.

Before 2018, I even did not know that someone uses simple piston engines like in the Ju-52 (or in the Cessna 152, with exactly 1 x 100 hp) to cross the Alps.
The Ju-52, which originally was invented and designed for something as flat as
the Norddeutsche Tiefebene (Dessau)!

[LH-B744]

Another problem which I see is, no one on Earth has ever tried to fly the Original route again, in something like a Junkers Ju-52 simulator. 3WE, you know me, I am here since more than 11 years. And I have never ever, not since 1978, heard of something like a Junkers Ju-52 simulator!

You own more years here in this forum. Have you ever heard of something like a Junkers Ju-52 simulator? I mean, together with Gabriel, I sometimes discuss the msfs 2020 simulator. But I'm almost sure that msfs 2020 does not either include a Junkers Ju-52, which survives a test flight under the eyes of Flight Captain R.S. Randazzo..

I don't know if I had already published that idea before, but I at least have the Original route, only slightly altered, from Lugano to Basel instead of Locarno to Dübendorf, in fsx.

Basel - Lugano is really not the same as Dübendorf - Locarno, especially not after I also changed the aircraft. As I mentioned, I do not own the Junkers Ju-52 for fsx. Thus, I use what I always use for short haul flights (up to 831 nautical miles, i.e. 1500 km) in fsx: the Beech Super King Air 350.

Even the Lugano departure is interesting, after you've seen the Lugano airport arrival only once in a simulator. But once in the air, I plan to use the Original route (orginally in German, but I translate):
Original departure: LSZL Locarno airfield.
[changed to Lugano due to the take off run ahead which you need in a B350]

Flightplan: scenic flight, nonstop, departure to the North, via Bellinzona, Lodrino, Biasca, Olivone,
the Rheinwaldhorn at 3402 m (11,162 AMSL) on your right side,
then to the East, proceed through the valley of the river Rhine, throught Obersaxen and further to Flims,
then to the North again, direction Dübendorf.

arrival: LSMD Dübendorf, that at least was planned..
[changed to Basel-Mülhausen].

That, even in a Beech B350, which is powerful enough to climb above the clouds which back then in 2018 theoretically had required you to use IFR above alt 11,000,
is not an easy route, if you have only seen it once before, in a simulator, on your way to Lugano (originally Locarno).

3WE, if you know a place where Gabriel could show you in a (professional) simulator the airport of Lugano and its standard departure procedure.. , I'd take the chance!

Not without a reason, I have not started that flight in fsx until today.

[LH-B744]

I am Not_Gabe.

I suspect something broke.

Upon impact many things broke.

Given no CVR and 400 channel FDR, I’m afraid it may not be possible to sort out what broke when.

Obviously you are not Gabriel.

He has not written 5000 forum entries since he's here in this forum.. Unbelievable. Sometimes I worry about him. He joined this forum eleven months before I did. And since then, he simply wrote 2,000 entries MORE than you? I mean, my next step is 1,500.
And I confess, during that damn disease it is easier to write forum entries. But Gabriel seems to aim at the absolute jetphotos forum record, which is somewhere clearly above 10,000 right in this moment. The good thing is, you and me will be with him when that happens.

Back on topic.

Yes. Something broke. I also have discussed this topic offline, on various occasions. And, dependant on who you ask, some people say,

why on EARTH would a Flight Captain (ex Swiss Airbus A340) who has gathered let's say 1000 flight hours on type Junkers JU-52 try air acrobatics?

In an eighty year old tri-propeller without turbo, higher than alt 10,000 (and probably still climbing), with a VERY experienced F/O sitting next to you, a not less experienced female flight attendant on board, plus 17 passengers behind you.
I have seen very very experienced Lufthansa Airbus A340 Flight Captains, who from time to time appear on youtube, even with their real name.

I simply assume that, all people who once have seen a soccer stadium, fully occupied with 56,400 people (F95), are cured from even the attempt to try air acrobatics, if you as the one and only pilot are not alone on board!

The summary of that fatal crash today still is unclear. You simply do not try something stupid, as a(n ex) Swiss A340 Flight Captain.

But what happened then. No CVR, no FDR. I also have heard something through the grapevine. That eighty year old tri-propeller could have had a maintenance problem. Let's imagine, engine #1 (of three) fails, because something broke as you say. Thus, in a Junkers JU-52, then you only have thrust on the #2, which exactly sits in the middle, on the nose of the Ju-52, and on #3 (right wing).

The result is, your aircraft could start a nosedive over portside, without that it ever touched a rock (or something else) before,
exactly as eyewitnesses reported.

But why couldn't you be able to rescue that aircraft, with 1000 flight hours on type Ju-52?! That still is very unclear.

[kent olsen]

Ok I wasn't aware that the Junker's had turbos. However those of you who are European probably all have experience around the Alps. Soo, here's another of my experiences. I was ferrying a DC-8-73 (CFM engines) from Calif to Tinker AFB in Oklahoma. We were empty so were able to cruise at FL410. Crossing the Sierra Nevada Mtns everyone below us was reporting turbulence. All of a sudden and for about 2 minutes we experienced a mountain wave. I was just barely able to maintain altitude by reducing power to idle, as we rode the wave, and then Max power and then back to idle for nearly 2 minutes, and during this it was smooth as glass. So there are times when the wind can grab you and if you are not paying attention you are just along for the ride.

[KGEG]

I can't help but loathe the terrorist who attacked the intended airport destination for the doomed flights making them have to divert to Los Rodeos in the first place. So as with a lot of accidents and disasters a sick twist of fate altered the lives of and killed hundreds. I have often wondered if the terrorist group responsible were also happy it lead to the disaster because it did far more damage than the actual attack that closed the airport.

But the twist of fate for the Ju-52 is very unclear outside of that it crashed. Because the sources I have read do say it should be able to operate as Evan says just over 19,000. Of course this doesn't mean that the plane is going to handle as well at 14,000 as it would 7,000 but that goes for every model of plane ever besides some exceptions where extreme altitude maneuvers are expected (such as the F-22 Raptor). But I don't doubt those fine German engineers and test pilots who pegged it for 19,000. So it probably is a case where maybe it did try a maneuver that was too extreme for being so high up, but then again I doubt this too, the only reason I could see this happening is if the pilots were already worried and spooked about hitting a mountain and tried to avoid impact but ultimately stalled being at a lower tolerance for stalling so high up, plus a lower amount of room to recover in the mountains. So having a ceiling of 19000 doesn't mean the performance at 14,000 or anything in between that and 19000 is still going to be ideal in a case of putting the plane into emergency avoidance maneuvers.

[Evan]

Flying around a 14,000ft?????? Many years ago I did a charter into Reno Nevada. When I went back to pick them up they were all intoxicated but having a good time. This was in Cessna 402. Well they started partying in this small twin. It started to to get a little carried away so I climbed up to 14,000ft or maybe a little higher and in short order they started calming down and dozing off. Now I had an oxygen bottle so I would take a snort every few minutes. As soon as they all calmed down and some dozed off I returned to 10,000.

I'm guessing this Junkers didn't have oxygen and 14,000ft would be near it's max altitude so there would be little performance left if you caught a downdraft on the lee side of one of those mountains.

This was an ex-Swiss military JU-52 that saw service until 1982. I believe it had the supercharged/fuel injected variants of the BMW 132. It should have been able to operate well above 14,000ft under the right conditions. I think the ceiling on the standard Ju-52 is around 19,000.

[kent olsen]

Flying around a 14,000ft?????? Many years ago I did a charter into Reno Nevada. When I went back to pick them up they were all intoxicated but having a good time. This was in Cessna 402. Well they started partying in this small twin. It started to to get a little carried away so I climbed up to 14,000ft or maybe a little higher and in short order they started calming down and dozing off. Now I had an oxygen bottle so I would take a snort every few minutes. As soon as they all calmed down and some dozed off I returned to 10,000.

I'm guessing this Junkers didn't have oxygen and 14,000ft would be near it's max altitude so there would be little performance left if you caught a downdraft on the lee side of one of those mountains.