Jump to content

Sweden Parachuting plane crash 9 dead

Guest deanfi

By Guest deanfi
in Aircraft Incidents and Accidents

 Share

Recommended Posts

Laeros Member

Laeros

Posted
Posted

It was a Gipps GA8 for sure. Some are speculating that parts of the wing or the horisontal stabiliser separated from the body, but on the videos it looks like the wings are still attached. Not sure about the hs, which is hard to see. They found one lift producing surface that could be either part of the wing or the horisontal stabiliser (or maybe the vertical stab, but looks more like the horisontal) in the water, some distance from the crash site. The plane dived from around 12000 feet, it was apparently ready for drop.

 

 

onetrack Well-known member

onetrack

Posted
Posted

That wasn't a dive, it was a vertical fall with no control systems inputs. It looks like a rock falling out of the sky. That scenario has to be a major in-flight breakup. 

 

I don't reckon that aircraft fell from 12,000 feet, or some of the skydivers would have survived by jumping. The reports are, that it crashed not long after takeoff.

 

There are witness reports that some of the skydivers tried to jump, but the aircraft was too low for their parachutes to open.

 

Perhaps the witness reports were wrong, and what they saw was simply bodies being flung from the falling aircraft, as it disintegrated.

 

What is interesting is the aircraft is reported to have "undergone inspection" only 3 weeks ago, and no problems, or potential problems were found. Obviously, that inspection was inadequate.

 

The ATSB is going to get involved in the investigation, because of the fact that it's an Australian-built aircraft - and no doubt the Swedish aviation authorities will be wanting to know a lot more about the Airvan.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/jul/15/skydiving-plane-crash-kills-all-nine-on-board

 

https://www.thelocal.se/20190715/what-we-know-about-the-fatal-plane-crash-in-northern-sweden-so-far

 

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/world/aussies-to-help-investigate-deadly-swedish-plane-crash/news-story/eef19defb0dde9955a7ddc9b928c6a98

 

 

Laeros Member

Laeros

Posted
Posted

Flightradar  history shows the plane to be at approximately 13400 feet just before the crash at 1205Z (SE-MES), and a fellow pilot airborne in the area at the time reported that the pilot of the accident plane was preparing to drop (as reported on radio). During the press conference yesterday, Swedish accident investigation board confirmed that the plane didn't hit the ground in one piece, but they wouldn't disclose which parts were found at different sites. Pictures of a metal surface hoisted upf from the sea/lake looked big, too big to be only one side of the horisontal stabiliser. 

 

 

  • Informative 1
Laeros Member

Laeros

Posted
Posted

Local newspapers are reporting that Australian aviation authorities last fall warned about a (potential?) manufacturing flaw in the wing mounts which could lead to metal fatigue, was there an accident prior to this in Australia?

 

I think we would know if it was a midair collision with anything other than a bird. Not sure of the risks of (huge!) bird strike at that altitude? Also seems like they were at an ground speed of 75-85 kts just before the crash. Which would be close to drop speed?

 

Here's a picture of the part they found in the river close to the crash site:

 

3229.jpg?width=640&height=440.4301075268818&x=0&y=0&cw=100&ch=100&digest=25e181b046c5ec28ce6e17612de2d9d0378236f5616d14c588e82864d6c8ec7c

 

 

Thruster88 Well-known member

Thruster88

Posted
Posted

 

What is interesting is the aircraft is reported to have "undergone inspection" only 3 weeks ago, and no problems, or potential problems were found. Obviously, that inspection was inadequate.

 

Speaking as an AME and pilot it is far more likely that the pilot lost control leading to structural failure or a parachute deployed in the aircraft leading to structural failure. I may be over sensitive.  

 

 

  • Informative 1
Laeros Member

Laeros

Posted
Posted

If I'm not mistaken, the picture above (or first part of the Herald Sun video) shows the right wing with the stall warning. In the video there is also a smaller wing surface with a flap lying on the ground, that looks similar to a horisontal stabilisator and elevator in size. I could be wrong, though. According to the POH, the stall warning sensor is on the leading edge of the right wing. Could the tail surfaces have broken off from impact of a chute or another object, and the wing have collapsed from secondary forces after loss of control? I guess only the investigation will give us the answer.

 

 

  • Helpful 1
kasper Well-known member

kasper

Posted
Posted

I do not like to speculate - my comments are on the pics and video only.

 

1. the size of the piece puled from the water is approx the size of the wing outboard of the lift strut attach

 

2. the video (while blurry) shows to my eye two stub wings of approx same size but not full correct wingspan and not much at the rear for horizontal stab.

 

My interpretation of the final point of crash is that the two outboard wings are missing from the strut outward and that the horizontal stab (both sides) are not there.

 

How it got into that situation is conjecture and as a former jumper and current pilot I can see in theory how this may have occured. 

 

The only comment I will make is that if the aircraft is that out of control before the door is open its entirely possible to have it come from 12,000+ feet without the jumpers being able to get out.

 

Very sad incident and hopefully the sequence of events that resulted in the  deaths will become clear to the investigators.

 

 

  • Agree 1
  • Helpful 1
facthunter Well-known member

facthunter

Posted
Posted

Grounding it  is logical in the circumstances till more is known.. Having all the parts will disclose the nature of the failure. Being an ex meat bomber, I was always concerned about loading the strut , or someone hitting the tailfeathers..  The plane is close to the stall and a lot is happening. Nev.

 

 

Thruster88 Well-known member

Thruster88

Posted
Posted
Nothing from casa(Australia)  at this time.

 

All grounded from midnight  tonight july20 for 15 days. Hope for all the commercial operator's that this can be resolved in a timely way.

 

CASA has written to all Australian operators of GA8 aircraft advising them of the temporary suspension and reminding them of their obligation to comply with all applicable GA8 Airworthiness Directives issued by CASA

 

Could be somthing in that.

 

 

  • Informative 1
onetrack Well-known member

onetrack

Posted
Posted

AD/GA8/9 is rather concerning - particularly this bit ...

 

"A manufacturing quality escape has resulted in wing strut fittings in the effective

serial number range to be manufactured with incorrect grain orientation. The fatigue

implications of the incorrect grain are not well understood. Therefore, CASA has

mandated a conservative factored fatigue life limit based on the known fleet data of

the affected aircraft. CASA will continue to gather data for the purposes of managing

the fleet removal of these fittings from service."

 

One hopes that this particular Swedish GA8 wasn't missed, due to paperwork or communication errors, or language difficulties.

 

https://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/ADfiles/under/ga8/GA8-009.pdf

 

There are 10 AD's relating to the GA8, and one is related to wing strut fittings, and one is related to HS inspection for cracking and improper assembly of fasteners.

 

https://services.casa.gov.au/airworth/airwd/schedules/ad_display.asp?sched=under&toc=ga8

 

The destruction of SE-MES is very extensive, the fuselage broke in half at the cargo door, and the rear section is missing all its tail structures.

 

The photo below shows the rear fuselage section lying in the forest, obviously some distance from the rest of the wreckage, thus indicating the fuselage broke apart in the air.

 

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-20/plane-crash-near-umea,-sweden-1/11328534

 

SE-MES in better days.

 

https://www.flickr.com/photos/46191393@N08/27343742728

 

 

  • Informative 1
Laeros Member

Laeros

Posted
Posted

In the crash there were 9 persons on board. Is that normal in a configuration like this where they probably had removed most of the seats for skydivers? The AC is normallly certified for 8 persons.

 

 

Guest deanfi

Guest deanfi

Posted
Posted

This YouTube video was taken on a older / previous flight in the aircraft that crashed ,on this flight  I count 7 including camera person but may be more, hard to see .

 

 

 

 

Laeros Member

Laeros

Posted
Posted

Yeah, on this flight the copilot's seat is empty, though?  I read on Umeå skydiving's website that the capacity of SE-MES was 8 divers. IE 9 including pilot. I'm sure this is within certification.

 

 

onetrack Well-known member

onetrack

Posted
Posted

With a bit of luck, one of the victims carrying a video on the fated flight may have taken some useful footage, that helps investigators pin down the reason/s for the crash.

 

 

  • Agree 3
onetrack Well-known member

onetrack

Posted
Posted

Wow, that must be the fastest crash inspection conclusion in recent history! The damage must have been so substantial and so obvious, it wasn't even worth a laboratory inspection.

 

I'm thinking that the major components must have exhibited very clearly visible tearing damage, over an extended area, a potent indication of severe overload. 

 

 

Guest deanfi

Guest deanfi

Posted
Posted

Maybe video from the skydivers had some cause of the overload which would explain the quick conclusion , then again maybe not , time will tell.

 

The Swedish accident department says the right wing , the vertical and both horizontal stabilizers separated in flight, quite a break up , must of been  terrifying for the poor souls on board.

 

https://www.havkom.se/en/investigations/civil-luftfart/olycka-med-flygplanet-se-mes-av-typen-gibbsland-g8-airvan-naera-umea-flygplats-den-14-juli-2019

 

 

Thruster88 Well-known member

Thruster88

Posted
Posted
Wow, that must be the fastest crash inspection conclusion in recent history! The damage must have been so substantial and so obvious, it wasn't even worth a laboratory inspection.

 

I'm thinking that the major components must have exhibited very clearly visible tearing damage, over an extended area, a potent indication of severe overload. 

 

Pre existing faults (fatigue cracks or corrosion ) are very easy to see in failed parts such as spars, struts, attach fittings. The way parts are bent and broken can determine the sequence of events. There would have been plenty of time to get parts to a lab if that was required  

 

 

  • Like 1
spacesailor Well-known member

spacesailor

Posted
Posted

As they All had Parachutes , Why didn't they bail.

 

No I haven't read or seen any footage on this accident. Just the headlines.

 

spacesailor

 

 

bull Well-known member

bull

Posted
Posted
As they All had Parachutes , Why didn't they bail.

 

No I haven't read or seen any footage on this accident. Just the headlines.

 

spacesailor

 

Maybe the breakup happened so fast and with such  high G and no restraints  they where forced against the roof ,very sad event no matter what cause........as they where getting ready to drop ,,some how lost a part of the horizontal stab maybe ???who knows.

 

 

  • 1 year later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...