162 SkyCatcher crashes

since an airworthiness directive can easily doom an aircraft design
Click to expand...
The Cirrus, a newer aircraft, already has a handful of AD's, and a not so good safety record. And I have to work on them....:faint:
All must remember, when one flys any aircraft, they are taking a certain risk inheirent in the nature of aviation. Can't accept that, then stay on the ground, and get killed by something else.
As for the T-3 Firefly, that was made in England, not China, so anyone can make a dud.
 
FWIW I head that on at least one of the 162 crashes they were testing with a significant aft Center of Gravity, to determine a safe aft limit, that explains the flattened spin but it seems now that they've had two aircraft parachute failures resulting in the test pilots taking to their own 'chutes, not such a good result. It has to be remembered I suppose that test pilots are paid to find the limits of a design so that any issues can be resolved and safe limitations can be set.

But that is all speculation until a report is published lol!
 
What the USAF had to say about the T-3

"The Air Education and Training Command commander stood down the entire T-3A fleet in July 1997 as a result of uncommanded engine stoppages during flight and ground operations. A major factor driving the decision were three T-3 Class A mishaps in 1995, 1996 and 1997 that resulted in the deaths of three instructor pilots and three student pilots. The accidents were investigated, and the causes were attributed to spin recovery procedures and engine malfunctions."

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As far as the 162 is concerned, you're correct - we'll just have to wait for the report...
 
Whitehawk, I think you misunderstood this last accident. The BRS worked on the 162 on this one. In the previous accident, the BRS was reportedly activated, but failed to deploy.

As an aside, Anytime a BRS is deployed, the airframe will be a write-off. The BRS is only designed to get the pilot to the ground in a relatively safe fashion. It is not designed to protect the airframe.

BRS have been relatively successful, however they are not a gaurantee. Much depends on the attitude and speed of the aircraft, as well as the terrain the aircraft descends into.

Oddly enough, Cirrus, which helped pioneer the use of this system in "certified" aircraft, has some of the worst safety numbers. There is speculation that some pilots allow themselves to get into bad situations because they have an unreal sense of safety due to the BRS. That is pure speculation of course, and there appears to be nothing inherently unsafe about the Cirrus.

And there are a number of accidents in which the no attempt was made to activate the BRS, when it clearly would have prevented a fatality.

But then, I've heard it said when they find backpackers dead in the desert of dehydration, there's usually water in their canteen.
 
Cheers for clarifying that TeaSea, that's what I get for basing my post on what I hear around the local airfield lol!
 
Whitehawk,

Oops, I amend my comments...yes, the BRS did deploy properly. However it appears that the secondary functions (release) did not work:

"According to the report, the parachute had been modified to be jettisoned by the pilot in flight. After the aircraft stabilized, the pilot tried several times to release the chute but couldn't. Possibly concerned that his actions would unpredictably cause the chute to release, he considered taking his chances with his personal parachute but had run out of altitude and elected to ride the airplane down instead of bailing out. Initially, damage to the airplane was limited mostly to the landing gear but because the pilot was unable to release the parachute on the ground, the wind caught it and the airplane was dragged more than half a mile until it caught in a fence. It ended up inverted and heavily damaged." -AVWEB, 25 MAR 09



So, the scuttlebutt around the field is "partially" right.

Cheers. :ernae:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top