Primarily for general aviation discussion, but other aviation topics are also welcome.
  • 1
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1713043
KeithM wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:
KeithM wrote:More questions, I know, but if the pilot was overcome in the manner suggested one might expect that the pilot’s body would be in the aircraft, along with that of the passenger especially with the exit door being rearward of the pilot’s seat and closer to the passenger than the pilot?

Maybe we will never know.


From the underwater images, I don't think he left the cockpit by choice.


From my recollection of the photographs (I couldn’t find all of them this time) the fuselage, as reported at the time was “largely in one piece”.

Did the nose section break away?

Just seems that if the pilot had succumbed to any poisoning and this explains any loss of control, that he might have been found in his seat. With my limited knowledge of the Malibu, entry and exit would seem to be easier for passengers than for front seat occupants.

I am not suggesting anything suspicious but it is just another puzzle.


Image

Harness parts on impact, screen has gone. Whether "ejected" or floated out, who knows. But looking at that, I doubt he climbed over his passenger and swam away.
By KeithM
#1713050
Sooty25 wrote:which evidence?


I guess he means the photographs that would not have been taken had not the secondary search taken place.

On my previous point, for several reasons, I, too would doubt that the pilot climbed over the passenger and swam away. That said, looking at that second picture, I am still a little surprised that the pilot was not found trapped in the wreckage by which I mean that entrapment might have seemed more likely than not.

I just speak as a lay observer, of course.
By KeithM
#1713056
Sooty25 wrote:second search was paid for by crowdfunding, not the family.


I didn’t think that the funding source was the issue or the point being made but rather the eventual subsequent discovery of the wreckage , i.e. further evidence, by a third party contractor.

Was it not the case that the Crowdfunding came about following a plea from the Sala family that the search be continued, in the absence of which there might have been no further search and no such discovery?

So, thanks should perhaps go to the Sala family, the contractor and those who supplied the private funding?
User avatar
By tomshep
#1713057
This all makes the assumption that the pilot remained strapped in through the flight. As it is, he was almost certainly much heavier than Sala and nowhere near as fit. He was probably the first to become unconscious and most likely to have been thrown through the screen.
#1713060
Sooty25 wrote:second search was paid for by crowdfunding, not the family.


That is not entirely correct.

The AAIB commissioned specialist vessel Geo Ocean III and Blue Water Recoveries Ltd commissioned FPV Morven and the search area was divided between the vessels. Both vessels began their search on the morning of Sunday 3 February.
AlanM, 2Donkeys liked this
By KeithM
#1713114
patowalker wrote:
Sooty25 wrote:second search was paid for by crowdfunding, not the family.


That is not entirely correct.

The AAIB commissioned specialist vessel Geo Ocean III and Blue Water Recoveries Ltd commissioned FPV Morven and the search area was divided between the vessels. Both vessels began their search on the morning of Sunday 3 February.


Yes, I reckon that’s more accurate, with the privately funded vessel, of the two involved, finding the aircraft?

Would I be correct in saying that, prior to the Crowdfunding campaign, the search had been terminated and, thereafter, reinstigated?
User avatar
By Pilot H
#1713125
I think it is likely that there was a turbocharger failure, allowing exhaust gas to enter the bleed air system....

PA46-350 POH wrote:Air for cabin pressure is obtained from the engine turbocharger
induction air system through two sonic venturi tubes. Bleed air is routed
through the bleed air heat exchanger for the temperature conditioning to
provide the desired cabin comfort level. Ram ambient air is routed across the
heat exchanger to cool the bleed air, and hot ambient air from the heat muff
is routed across the heat exchanger to heat the bleed air. Mixtures of ram
ambient and heated ambient air may also be selected.


All the air in a PA46 Cabin flows in through the pressurisation system which is bleed air from the turbocharger. The actual pressurisation is achieved by closing (automatically) the outflow valves; but even in non pressurised flight the only way to get air into a PA 46 cabin is via the bleed air system. In unpressurised flight the outflow valves are fully open.

The exhaust muffler jacket does not heat the cabin air directly, as in a non-pressurised piston single, but indirectly (as it is at ambient pressure) so it comes from the exhaust muffler and blows across the "outside" of a heat exchanger. The actual cabin air is inside the heat exchanger and never the twain meet. So there would need to be two leaks, firstly a leak from the exhaust muffler, and then a leak from the heat exchanger. Also, the air in the heat exchanger is likely to be under higher pressure than the ambient air, as it comes from the turbocharger and is used to pressurise the cockpit, so if there was a breach in the heat exchanger, I would have expected the air to leak out of the cabin air supply not into it.


(There's also a supplementary cabin heater in a PA46 but it's an electrical one and not a combustion system.)
By patowalker
#1713190
KeithM wrote:Yes, I reckon that’s more accurate, with the privately funded vessel, of the two involved, finding the aircraft?

Would I be correct in saying that, prior to the Crowdfunding campaign, the search had been terminated and, thereafter, reinstigated?


The search area was agreed and each vessel was assigned a part of it which one found the wreck is immaterial. The air and sea search was terminated and not reinstigated. The seabed search was a completely different exercise.
By KeithM
#1713201
patowalker wrote:
KeithM wrote:Yes, I reckon that’s more accurate, with the privately funded vessel, of the two involved, finding the aircraft?

Would I be correct in saying that, prior to the Crowdfunding campaign, the search had been terminated and, thereafter, reinstigated?


The search area was agreed and each vessel was assigned a part of it which one found the wreck is immaterial. The air and sea search was terminated and not reinstigated. The seabed search was a completely different exercise.


I stand corrected on that detail!

But would there ever have been a seabed search without the Sala family's plea and the subsequent Crowdfunder campaign?
User avatar
By Sooty25
#1713206
@KeithM the only point I was making was the Sala family didn't flip open a cheque book and fund it, somewhere near 5,000 individuals all chipped in.

Still a very sad accident which by some strange turn of events, may just make us all a little more aware of CO and make our own flying a little safer.
By patowalker
#1713211
KeithM wrote: But would there ever have been a seabed search without the Sala family's plea and the subsequent Crowdfunder campaign?


Who knows? All I know is what the AAIB wrote in page 6 here.
The AAIB was aware that a separate, privately funded search was to be conducted and established close liaison with those involved to maximise the chance of locating any wreckage and to ensure a safe search operation.
By KeithM
#1713214
Sorry to be a pedant but the original comment was this:

"The AAIB should be extremely grateful to the Sala family for providing this evidence!"

It would, perhaps, have been more accurate to say ".....for prompting further action that eventually produced further evidence".

Money isn't mentioned.
  • 1
  • 77
  • 78
  • 79
  • 80
  • 81