Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Eleven killed in Polish skydiving plane accident

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

  • Eleven killed in Polish skydiving plane accident

    Another sad news, this time from Poland:

    Piper Navajo carrying 12 people crashed and burst into flames in Topolów, southern Poland, shortly after takeoff
    Piper Navajo carrying 12 people crashed and burst into flames in Topolów, southern Poland, shortly after takeoff


    Eleven people have been killed and one person seriously injured after a plane crashed at a parachute club close to Czestochowa, in the south of Poland.


    Eleven people were killed and one was injured when a small plane carrying parachutists crashed and burst into flames shortly after takeoff in southern Poland, firefighters said Saturday.


    RIP

  • #2
    11 people in a Navajo?

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
      11 people in a Navajo?
      Frankly, it's looks strange to me as well. But this is what they wrote.
      Maybe there is someone with more accurate information?

      Comment


      • #4
        12 in a Navajo!!!

        Comment


        • #5
          The cause of the crash is being investigated. Firefighters say that the Piper Navajo aircraft may have been overloaded.

          Comment


          • #6
            When I look here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31_Navajo ) I see 10 seats.

            So pull the seats, leave off some gas (they aren't going very far), and what's the big deal? I don't know it's that unusual for skydiving operations.

            You also have to figure on that Russian-Poland influence and that they may have been moving trees and generating fog banks and mis-adjusting the navigation beams....
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by 3WE View Post
              When I look here ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piper_PA-31_Navajo ) I see 10 seats.

              So pull the seats, leave off some gas (they aren't going very far), and what's the big deal? I don't know it's that unusual for skydiving operations.

              You also have to figure on that Russian-Poland influence and that they may have been moving trees and generating fog banks and mis-adjusting the navigation beams....
              Only the stretched Chieftain could seat 10, and then not very comfortably. The "short" Navajos are 8-seaters and get pretty cozy with that load.

              Comment


              • #8
                A report by the Flight Safety Foundation said the Piper twin, registered to an owner in Merrimack, New Hampshire, and operated by the Omega Skydiving School, had a history of engine problems.

                Eyewitnesses reportedly stated that the Navajo’s left engine quit just before the crash.

                Read more at http://www.flyingmag.com/technique/a...gGliGKW1RTE.99
                .

                --- 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


                • #9
                  Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
                  Only the stretched Chieftain could seat 10, and then not very comfortably. The "short" Navajos are 8-seaters and get pretty cozy with that load.
                  Thanks...

                  Ok a 50% overload (crude estimate) is pushing it- even for more "lawless-throw-caution-into-the-wind" operations.
                  Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                    a 50% overload (crude estimate)


                    How do you get to that "crude" estimate?
                    Ok, you have 50% more people, but do you have 50% more engines, wings, landing gears?

                    --- 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


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by Gabriel View Post


                      How do you get to that "crude" estimate?
                      Ok, you have 50% more people, but do you have 50% more engines, wings, landing gears?
                      ??????

                      I do not understand your question.

                      First- my frame of reference is an "other than first world parachute operation"...right or wrong, there's probably some rule bending with some operators.

                      I originally stated that 12 folks on a 10-seat plane isn't all that overloaded (Especially in my frame of reference).

                      ATL corrected me that it was more like an 8-seat plane.

                      Ok 12 folks on an 8-seat plane is roughly (very roughly) 50% overloaded using basic parlour weight and balance calculations and is a fairly significant overload very possibly contributing to the crash.

                      That's all I was trying to say.

                      I do not know where you are going with your comment about 50% more engines.
                      Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                        ??????

                        Ok 12 folks on an 8-seat plane is roughly (very roughly) 50% overloaded using basic parlour weight and balance calculations and is a fairly significant overload very possibly contributing to the crash.

                        That's all I was trying to say.

                        I do not know where you are going with your comment about 50% more engines.
                        I'm going to... ok, never mind. I (worngly?) took "50% overload" as "50% overweight".

                        Empty weight: 3930 lb
                        MTOW: 6500 lb
                        Allowed Useful load: 2570 lb
                        12 adults with parachutes = 200~220 lb x 12 = 2400~2800 lb.
                        Fuel: No idea. Let's asume that it had not much (15~40 USGal/wing?), so it's 30~80 USGal x 6 lb/USGal = 180~480 lb.
                        Total useful load = 2580~3280 lb
                        That's 10~710 lb above the allowed useful load and above the MTOW.
                        And that's 0.4~28% overload or 0.15~11% overweight.
                        With a 15% overweight the stall speed increases by 7%, from 64 to 68 kts.
                        The Vmc doesn't change, and neither does the blue-line climb speed (best climb with one engine inop), but what does change (worsens) is the climb rate at said (or any) speed. Being overweight is not the right time to lose an engine.

                        --- 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


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                          That's 10~710 lb above the allowed useful load and above the MTOW.
                          And that's 0.4~28% overload or 0.15~11% overweight.
                          Indeed.

                          And, yes, the denominator matters.

                          50% more people that it's people capacity...

                          ...but that is not 50% more weight than it's total weight capacity...

                          (This and the speed comment below is why I said 12 folks on a 10-seat airplane is not necessarily a clear cause)

                          And if the CG is OK and the altitude is OK and the engines are OK and you have extra runway, it will fly just fine as long as you don't do the equivalent of "four one oh" 'ing it...

                          And- bring on the lesson that available lift ~ speed^2 AND that grossed out with healthy airspeed, you can pull 2 G in a 60 degree bank and not only didn't died, but didn't descended nor didn't violated any law or aircraft restriction, nor didn't spilled the drink service when you takeded a picture for a flight report.

                          Nonetheless- 50% more folks on this aircraft is pretty significant by any denominator and does tend to mess with CG and feel and performance and is a likely suspect to be a contributing factor.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Denominators, denominators....

                            Who was the asshole that invented them?

                            --- 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
                              FFS ! Why are we all arguing the toss about this ?

                              12 people went up in a plane designed for 8. An engine failed and 12 people died.

                              ......and all you can do is have an "I can piss higher up the wall than you" competition. Wake up, it ain't rocket science. I can give you 5 personal experiences of this happening in the past, either from engine failure or weight overloading or a combination of both.
                              If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X