The L 410 has experienced 116 accidents with 426 fatalities.With at least 20 fatal crashes from 2003 to 2013, it is one of the most accident-prone aircraft.
I think we should be very careful of comments like the one quoted by the Daily Mail journalist, who clearly lifted it from Wikipedia, when it was originally made by a Telegraph journalist, who quoted it from another site that conflates airline safety statistics with aircraft types. In others words the quote is statistically meaningless with reference to the safety of the type itself. All one can say is that the aircraft is flown by some airlines that have poor safety records.Ex-Ascot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:58 amhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... jured.html
Never heard of this type of aircraft before but it doesn't sound like the greatest in the world.
The L 410 has experienced 116 accidents with 426 fatalities.With at least 20 fatal crashes from 2003 to 2013, it is one of the most accident-prone aircraft.
- From WikpediaThe L 410 has experienced 116 accidents with 426 fatalities. With at least 20 fatal crashes from 2003 to 2013, it is one of the most accident-prone aircraft. However, the operator's safety rating and operations procedures are more important than the aircraft design
+1Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 amTGG, and the hours flown and the operating environment. The GAF F104 widow maker was famed for its accidents but I think on the quiet the Harrier and Lightning were not the safest aircraft either.
Standing by for Boac.Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 amTGG, and the hours flown and the operating environment. The GAF F104 widow maker was famed for its accidents but I think on the quiet the Harrier and Lightning were not the safest aircraft either.
No doubt Boac will tell us what the landing speed of the Lightning was... the F-104 Starfighter's "unblown" landing speed was eye watering!Ex-Ascot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:45 amStanding by for Boac.Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 10:02 amTGG, and the hours flown and the operating environment. The GAF F104 widow maker was famed for its accidents but I think on the quiet the Harrier and Lightning were not the safest aircraft either.
The F-104 Starfighter. They always said the cheapest way to obtain one was to buy a field in Germany and just wait. How can a thing with two foot long wings fly?
To make landing speeds “reasonable,” The F-104 forced engine air through the wings to smooth the airflow and give more lift. With bleed air, the Zipper could land at the challenging but not extreme speed of 160 to 165 knots. If the air-bleed system was not working, landing speeds climbed to 240 knots.
Pontius Navigator wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 12:48 pmA Belgian pilot used to display the 104, straight and level, 20 feet, and rolling all the way. Then he would do a roller landing, a touch down, climb to 50 feet, roll, and touch down again before climbing out to 50 feet, further roll, an round again.
21 seconds (assuming 165 knots average) from beginning to the end of the runway with landing and climb somewhere in the middle. Plenty of time with a fast roll rate (I am kidding of course).
"Bill tragically passed away, in of all things, a car accident, well before his time."TheGreenGoblin wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 1:40 pmDer verrückte Major's routine must have been something to behold. Is he still extant?
Bill was the first of a small cadre of pilots that ever attempted this ultra-intense manoeuvre, of which many are said to have died trying. One pilot, Ferry Van Der Geest, stated:In 1966-1967 Commander "Bill" Ongena was the official demo-pilot on F-104 for the Belgian Air Force being member of the "Slivers" demo team. Later William "Bill" Ongena was promoted to a higher rank and was assigned to the ministry of defense.
Lieutenant Colonel William "Bill" Ongena was an Belgian Air Force pilot and flew on F-104G starfighter. "Bill" Ongena was one of the few and the first to be able to perform a "Touch-Roll-Touch" in a F-104G. A maneuver deemed impossible even amongst F-104 test-pilots. Lieutenant Colonel Ongena unfortunately died in a car accident near Bierbeek after his active career in the Belgian Air Force.
Another pilot, Wolfgang Czaia, said:This famous touch-roll-touch was only performed in Belgium (note: apparently an American pilot died trying it and other pilots from other air forces did it or died trying to do it as well), one day a pilot had an afterburner (AB) blow-out and he crashed on the second touch, killing himself in the process. It is an extremely dangerous manoeuvre with no room for error whatsoever. The average touchdown speed is at around 175 knots and the use of AB is totally mandatory. So far no one has ever done something like this afterwards.
https://fighterjetsworld.com/air/video- ... vers/5887/This one shows Belgian Air Force pilot Bill Ongena doing the so-called ‘Touch-Roll-Touch’, but other pilots of other air forces have done it as well. He approaches the runway with gear and take-off flaps extended, touches down briefly, applies full power and pulls up to about 50 feet while initiating a roll on his upward trajectory. Then comes a power reduction, possibly speed brake extension to slow down, and descent to another touch-and-go. With the landing gear down, full aileron travel (20°) is available, producing a sufficiently good rate to complete a 360° roll without the nose dropping dangerously low. (With landing gear up, the aileron throw is only 10°). It was strictly a “show” maneuver to demonstrate the controllability of the airplane, and had no practical application. After Belgian pilot Jacobs was killed during a practice flight, the maneuver was prohibited.
It looked very familiar Ex-Ascot - because it reminded me of another dangerous aircraft, the Mitsubishi MU-2:Ex-Ascot wrote: ↑Mon Oct 11, 2021 4:58 amhttps://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... jured.html
Never heard of this type of aircraft before but it doesn't sound like the greatest in the world.
The L 410 has experienced 116 accidents with 426 fatalities.With at least 20 fatal crashes from 2003 to 2013, it is one of the most accident-prone aircraft.
From Wikipedia...In the United States, the MU-2 had a spotty safety record during its early decades, as its high performance coupled with a relatively low purchase price appealed to amateur pilots who did not appreciate its demanding flight characteristics compared to simpler piston engined aircraft. The MU-2 has performance similar to a small jet; however, as it weighs less than 12,500 pounds (5,700 kg), under U.S. pilot certification rules in force at the time, a pilot holding a multi-engine rating for much slower light twin piston-engine aircraft was allowed to fly the MU-2 with only a simple flight instructor endorsement. Inexperience with the MU-2's higher speeds, altitudes, and climb and descent rates resulted in many crashes. In Europe, pilots were required to obtain a specific type rating to fly the MU-2, resulting in roughly half the accident rate of early operations in the U.S.
Some of the aircraft's flight characteristics may be unfamiliar to pilots accustomed to slower light piston twins. Standard engine-out procedures are counterproductive when flying the MU-2: the commonly taught procedure of reducing flap following an engine failure on takeoff leads to a critical reduction in lift in the MU-2 with its unusually large and effective flaps. When pilots were taught to retain takeoff flap and reduce climb rate after an engine failure, MU-2 takeoff accident rates were reduced. Additionally, the MU-2 is sensitive to trim settings, and it is critical to promptly trim the aircraft properly in all phases of flight.The absence of adverse yaw eliminates the need to use rudder for coordinated flight, but proper and prompt use of rudder is vital to counter the aircraft's tendency to roll in reaction to engine torque; at low airspeed, the aircraft will rapidly roll and enter an accelerated stall if the pilot applies full power without adequate preparation, and safe recovery from this condition is very difficult at low altitude.
Most crashes early in the type's service life were attributable to pilot error; however, in 1981, four uncontrolled descents from altitude prompted the United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) to initiate separate investigations into the cabin pressurization system and autopilot, but the outcome was inconclusive. In 1983, after more crashes, the NTSB convinced the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) to perform a more comprehensive study of various aircraft systems; the study ultimately did not fault the MU-2's design, but the repeated investigations had damaged the aircraft's reputation by this time.
