Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vintage JU-52 aircraft crashes in Swiss Alps

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

  • Vintage JU-52 aircraft crashes in Swiss Alps

    A vintage plane with a capacity of 20 crashed at altitude in the Swiss Alps on Saturday, in canton Graubünden. Police have yet to confirm fatalities, as rescue operations continue on Sunday.

    The plane went down on the western side of the Piz Segnas mountain on Saturday afternoon (see map), at an altitude of 2,540 metres, cantonal police confirmed.

    A large rescue operation, which included the deployment of five helicopters, is continuing on Sunday morning and the airspace around the accident site remains closed.

    The plane that crashed was a Junker JU-52 (affectionately known as 'Tante Ju' or 'Auntie Ju' in German), owned and operated by the JU-AIR company based in Dübendorf, which specialises in sightseeing flights. The plane was constructed in 1939, according to the Swiss news agency.

    The Blick newspaper reported that the aircraft - which can carry 17 passengers along with three crew members - was fully booked for the flight from Locarno in canton Ticino over the Alps to the military airport of Dübendorf in canton Zurich.

    JU-AIR confirmed only that people were present on board, without giving precise numbers. A telephone numberexternal link has been made available for the families of passengers to call for more information.

    The cause of the crash is as yet unknown.

    https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/plane/44300776

    u-Air lost one of its historical planes. A Junkers JU-52 (HB-HOT) crashed when it impacted terrain near Flims, Piz Segnas, Switzerland. It is believed the 19 seater was fully booked on a sightseeing flight. Rescue operations are ongoing at present.

    https://twitter.com/JacdecNew/status...999808/photo/1

    https://www.jetphotos.com/registrati...OT?term=HB-HOT

    Click image for larger version

Name:	w650h331q80.jpg
Views:	1
Size:	43.0 KB
ID:	1045696

  • #2
    It surprises me a little bit that after a day no one responded here about this tragedy.

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ErezS View Post
      It surprises me a little bit that after a day no one responded here about this tragedy.
      Perhaps that is because this is an aviation safety forum and there is nothing too safe about climbing into an airframe built in 1939 and flying through the alps. I'm not saying not to do it. I'm just saying do it knowing the risks.
      Since there is no black box, it's probably going to be left to speculation. My first speculation would be a failure in the rigging or the airframe.

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Evan View Post
        there is nothing too safe about climbing into an airframe built in 1939 and flying through the alps.
        Of all the asinine statements that you have made in the past, this one takes the cake!

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          Of all the asinine statements that you have made in the past, this one takes the cake!
          Originally posted by AvHerald
          On Aug 6th 2018 a ground witness, a military pilot, reported he had observed the aircraft from his garden about 10 minutes prior to the accident. He saw the aircraft rolling to initiate a left turn when all of the sudden the aircraft tipped over to the left and nose down. One of the motors roared up and seconds later the aircraft was stabilized again and continued its flight normally. The military pilot believes this was a first indication of a serious control problem. It is probable, the witness continued, that they had the problem again up in the mountains and were not able to correct it. If the controls fail in this scenario with the aircraft tipping to the side the nose drops and the aircraft impacts ground near vertical.
          Just sayn

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by Evan View Post
            Just sayn
            That had nothing to do with your statement of "climbing into an airframe built in 1939 and flying through the Alps". Just saying too! I also would be skeptical about the "Military" pilot that heard "one of the MOTORS ROAR UP" Maybe it's a German Military expression? LH? any guidance here?

            Comment


            • #7
              yes statements from someone who has no idea about JU-AIR and the immaculate state of their planes.

              Wind and hot temperatures are the main caused discussed among the Swiss pilots nowadays - Erezs there was a total blackout on all media due to the fact that police had a hard time joining the families. One of the reasons for the lack of reaction and official news for the first 24h

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
                yes statements from someone who has no idea about JU-AIR and the immaculate state of their planes.
                I've little doubt that the aircraft was meticulously maintained. My comment refers to the vintage technology (or lack of technology) that makes flying in an 80-year-old Junkers less safe (not particularly unsafe) than flying in aircraft with modern safety developments and redundancies. I was also referring to the nature of flying in close terrain proximity amidst mountains at high altitudes where performance can be near limits and winds can be unpredictible. I was specifically referring to the combination of these things: a vintage, carburrated airplane with limited hot and high performance, a vulnerability to vapor lock and considerably less emergency reserve power to clear terrain or escape upset situations. It seems at this point that when they realized they could not clear the pass as usual (High OAT? Degraded engine performance?) they made a rather steep turn off heading and either stalled or something failed or broke. These crews are reputed to be top-notch, so it leads me to think the aircraft failed them in some way.

                That is to say, flights like this are not for those who are primarily concerned with safety, but rather for people who are primarily concerned with adventure and wish to take certain calculated risks in life. I'm not calling it reckless. Would I go up on one of these flights? In a heartbeat!

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Alex - Spot-This ! View Post
                  - Erezs there was a total blackout on all media due to the fact that police had a hard time joining the families. One of the reasons for the lack of reaction and official news for the first 24h

                  Alex, I did not know that.
                  It is normal for me that there is sometimes blackout on all media in my country, for understandable reasons, but I didn't think that it was happening in Switzerland.

                  By the way, on my last visit to Switzerland, I thought to take a tour on a JU-52, but it was not possible for me that time, now I'm afraid about these thing ...

                  Any disaster that happens in the world of aviation causes me very sadness, Now I share the grief of all of the families and the airline.

                  I wish we would always only hear happy news and not hear about disasters.

                  Erez.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    I've little doubt that the aircraft was meticulously maintained. My comment refers to the vintage technology (or lack of technology) that makes flying in an 80-year-old Junkers less safe (not particularly unsafe) than flying in aircraft with modern safety developments and redundancies. I was also referring to the nature of flying in close terrain proximity amidst mountains at high altitudes where performance can be near limits and winds can be unpredictible. I was specifically referring to the combination of these things: a vintage, carburrated airplane with limited hot and high performance, a vulnerability to vapor lock and considerably less emergency reserve power to clear terrain or escape upset situations. It seems at this point that when they realized they could not clear the pass as usual (High OAT? Degraded engine performance?) they made a rather steep turn off heading and either stalled or something failed or broke. These crews are reputed to be top-notch, so it leads me to think the aircraft failed them in some way.

                    That is to say, flights like this are not for those who are primarily concerned with safety, but rather for people who are primarily concerned with adventure and wish to take certain calculated risks in life. I'm not calling it reckless. Would I go up on one of these flights? In a heartbeat!
                    Carbureted correct spelling, oh yes they are dangerous pieces of mechanical equipment. You better stick to writing about something that you at least have an inkling of knowledge about. All you are doing at this point is digging yourself a deeper hole.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                      Carbureted correct spelling, oh yes they are dangerous pieces of mechanical equipment. You better stick to writing about something that you at least have an inkling of knowledge about. All you are doing at this point is digging yourself a deeper hole.
                      Well, sometimes to only way to the facts is to dig deeper:

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_lock

                      BTW: NOT saying this was the cause here. Just pointing out one aspect of the airplane that makes it less safe (not particularly dangerous) to operate in high altitudes on exceptionally hot days.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        Well, sometimes to only way to the facts is to dig deeper:

                        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vapor_lock

                        BTW: NOT saying this was the cause here. Just pointing out one aspect of the airplane that makes it less safe (not particularly dangerous) to operate in high altitudes on exceptionally hot days.
                        I own and fly a 70 year old SINGLE engine airplane. It has NO electrical system whatsoever, and has a dreaded very dangerous carburetor that supplies the fuel air mixture to the internal combustion engine. I live in South Florida, it is pretty damn hot this time of year here, I have never had a problem or was worried for the 2000 plus hours I have put on her over the last 19 years. Granted I am not flying it at 8000' asl, and not in the mountains, but I do live on the coast and fly it over the ocean from time to time. I will give you a little gem that my father told me 50 years ago or so. "My boy, the airplane has no damn idea where it is. It doesn't know if there are mountains under it or water. It doesn't know if it day or night. All she knows is altitude, temperature, weight, weather and very little else".


                        And to have had vapor lock in all three engines at once, yea right.

                        And my comment was to your original brilliant statement, " there is nothing too safe about climbing into an airframe built in 1939 and flying through the alps".

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          Granted I am not flying it at 8000' asl, and not in the mountains.
                          Exactly.

                          "All she knows is altitude, temperature, weight, weather and very little else".
                          Exactly. She knows her limitations.

                          And my comment was to your original brilliant statement, " there is nothing too safe about climbing into an airframe built in 1939 and flying through the alps".
                          Exactly, and that is true. I did not say it was "very dangerous" did I?

                          Antique aircraft are a probably a gas to fly and a joy to fly in. There really isn't much to say in the Aviation Safety Forum about them though when they crash due to mechanical or performance issues. That's all I'm saying.

                          Well have to wait and see what caused this one to crash. If it wasn't gross pilot error or insurmountable wind shear, maybe you will see my point.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                            I live in South Florida, it is pretty damn hot this time of year here
                            Being now the night of my first day in Orlando, I can confirm that.

                            --- 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


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post


                              And to have had vapor lock in all three engines at once, yea right.
                              True enough, but it's not like Tante Ju is exactly an awesome performer even with all three running. At sea level. On a cold day.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X