Crash of the Junkers Ju 52 HB-HOT

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Junkers Ju 52 HB ‑ HOT crashed
JU52 HB HOT 2.jpg

The later crashed machine (2005)
Accident summary
Accident type Wrong decision by the pilots (flying too deep into a valley without a safe way to turn around)
place Piz Segnas
date August 4, 2018, 4:56 p.m.
Fatalities 20th
Survivors 0
Injured 0
Aircraft
Aircraft type Ju 52 / 3m g4e
operator Ju ‑ Air
Mark HB ‑ HOT
Departure airport SwitzerlandSwitzerland Dubendorf
Stopover SwitzerlandSwitzerland Locarno
Destination airport SwitzerlandSwitzerland Dubendorf
Passengers 17th
crew 3
Lists of aviation accidents
Crash of the Junkers Ju 52 HB-HOT (Switzerland)
Crash site
Crash site
Dubendorf
Dubendorf
Locarno
Locarno
Overview map of the route and the crash site, the machine had started in Locarno for the return flight to Dübendorf at 4:10 p.m.

When the Junkers Ju 52 with the aircraft registration HB ‑ HOT crashed on August 4, 2018 at 4:56 p.m. CEST in the canton of Graubünden in Switzerland , all 20 occupants, including two pilots, a flight attendant and 17 passengers, were killed.

It is the worst aircraft accident in Switzerland since 2001, when an Avro RJ100 on Crossair flight 3597 hit the ground when approaching Zurich Airport in Bassersdorf .

procedure

Before the crash

The historic Ju ‑ Air aircraft with the aviation registration HB ‑ HOT was in use for a multi-day excursion that was to lead from the Dübendorf military airfield to the Locarno airfield and back. Like many other similar offers before, the trip was organized and advertised by Ju ‑ Air. The 17 available seats on the trip were booked out.

The outbound flight took the tour group from Dübendorf to Locarno on Friday morning, August 3, 2018. Shortly before noon the plane landed at Locarno airport.

Unfortunate flight

For the return flight on Saturday, August 4th at 4.10 p.m., the aircraft took off as scheduled from Locarno airport and flew via Bellinzona to Biasca , into the Blenio valley and across the Lago di Luzzone and the Greina plain . At 4:51 p.m. the Surselva was crossed to the northeast and Obersaxen was passed. At 4:53 p.m. the machine passed the Crap Sogn Gion and then flew into the basin southwest of the Piz Segnas .

At 4:56 p.m. the machine began a left turn towards the northern end of the basin. This curve then developed into a spiral trajectory downwards. A few seconds later the machine crashed southeast below the Segnespass and Martinsloch at about 2540  m above sea level. M. Höhe in the municipality of Flims steeply into the terrain chamber, which is barely inclined there. The aircraft was completely destroyed on impact.

Rescue and recovery measures

Various eyewitnesses, including the keeper of a nearby hut, observed the crash. They alerted the police and rushed to the wreck to provide first aid . At the same time, a directional emergency signal was triggered by a transmitter in the aircraft . After the alarm was sent to the canton police , various rescue organizations moved into the disaster area on foot and with helicopters . In the evening, the area around the crash site was declared a restricted flight area by the Federal Office for Civil Aviation (FOCA) . The canton police monitored the scene of the accident during the night.

The police confirmed that the crashed machine was a Ju 52 and that there were no survivors. At the same time, police photos were published showing the severely compressed torso lying on its back on the mountain flank. The rear of the machine was buckled as a result of the impact.

In the days that followed, rescue workers recovered the human remains and the wreckage. The salvage work was officially completed on August 9th. At the scene of the accident, piles of stones remind of the crash.

plane

The Junkers Ju 52 / 3m g4e was built in 1939 at the Junkers Flugzeug- und Motorenwerke plant in Dessau and delivered brand new to the Swiss Air Force . This put the machine into service on October 4, 1939 with the military registration number A ‑ 702. On October 15, 1982, the Air Force gave the Junkers with 3,545 operating hours on permanent loan for free use to the Ju ‑ Air carrier, the Association of Friends of the Swiss Air Force (VFL) . On July 29, 1985, the aircraft was registered as HB ‑ HOT and henceforth used for civil, commercial flights.

At the time of the accident, the machine had completed 10,189 flight hours. According to the investigation report, 8,783 landings were carried out with the aircraft. It had been serviced two flight hours previously, at 10,187 flight hours, on July 31, 2018, and no defects were found. The last examination by the FOCA took place on April 6, 2018.

All Ju ‑ Air aircraft - in addition to the aircraft involved in the accident, two others - have original BMW ‑ 132 engines , unlike other Ju 52s that are still flying . These nine-cylinder radial engines were built in 1939 with the serial numbers 67438, 68842 and 70578. They had between 5,687 and 8,228 operating hours, but have been overhauled in the meantime (2010, 2013 and 2016, depending on the engine).

The unlucky machine as A-702 with the camouflage from the movie Agents Die Alone

HB ‑ HOT was one of the last airworthy Ju 52s . The plane was seen in the film Agents Die Lonely (1968). The Swiss Air Force kept the camouflage pattern from the film. Ju ‑ Air later used various liveries for advertisers. In the film Operation Walküre - The Stauffenberg Assassination (2008), the unlucky machine made an appearance as Hitler's service aircraft (registration number D ‑ 2600). She also appeared in the movie Up to the Horizon, Then Left! (2012).

Passengers and crew

There were three crew members and 17 passengers on board who were between 42 and 84 years old, eleven men and nine women. Seventeen of them were Swiss and three were Austrian citizens. Among them was Jürg Dedial, a former editor of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung .

The two pilots were 62 and 63 years old and had flight experience of 943 and 297 hours respectively on the Ju 52. Both had previously been active as pilots for around 30 years with the Swiss Air Force and the scheduled airlines Swissair , Swiss and Edelweiss Air , most recently on the types Airbus A330 and A340 . The 66-year-old flight attendant worked for more than 40 years.

Research results and further developments

The approximate location of the accident in the valley floor, seen from Martinsloch , looking south-east

First findings and first grounding

According to the media conference on August 5 in Flims, the plane crashed almost vertically and at high speed to the ground. There is no evidence that it broke apart in midair or that a fire broke out prior to impact. According to previous knowledge, no emergency call was sent. The authorities rule out a collision with an obstacle as a cause of the crash. An eyewitness observed how the machine tilted out of a sharp curve and hit the ground vertically after a few seconds.

According to eyewitnesses, the sky was slightly cloudy at the time of the accident, it was a warm day with a tendency towards thunderstorms for the later afternoon, which is common in the mountains. A weather station on Crap Masegn , around eight kilometers away , reported gust peaks of no more than 25  knots at the time of the crash . In the mountains, however, local conditions are difficult to compare. The cloud base was around 3,400 meters, the visibility below it was over 10 kilometers.

Ju ‑ Air announced that it would suspend all flights until further notice as a result of the accident. On August 8th, the resumption of flight operations for August 17th was announced. There are no indications of a lack of operational safety.

Missing flight data recorder

The aircraft accident investigation is made more difficult by the fact that the aircraft concerned did not have a flight data recorder ; this was not mandatory due to the year of construction. For the reconstruction of the event, the investigating authority is therefore dependent on eyewitnesses and recordings from cell phones and film cameras. According to the interim investigation report of November 20, 2018, a large number of mobile phones and individual film cameras from passengers and crew members were found at the accident site. Some of these recording devices were severely damaged in the accident, so that the readout work of the seized devices continues. She therefore called for further relevant eyewitness recordings to be sent to the investigating authority. The investigating authorities have video recordings of the last few seconds before the impact on the ground.

Operational requirements

As a condition, the Swiss Federal Office for Civil Aviation FOCA imposed a restriction on freedom of movement in the cabin. Visits to the cockpit and taking photos from both sides were no longer possible with the requirement to wear seat belts. A new minimum flight altitude of 300 meters above the ground in uninhabited areas (previously 150 m) or 600 m above inhabited areas (previously 300 m) was decreed, as well as the requirement to carry a GPS data recording device.

In October 2018, the head of Ju ‑ Air gave an interview in the newspaper Südostschweiz . He got on the August 17th flight with a feeling of security. He mentioned a statement from the press conference on September 5 that said “no technical problem”. The investigator in charge of the SAUST then only declared the exclusion of a collision and the exclusion of a loss of parts in flight to be certain to the Tages-Anzeiger at that time. Technical causes, on the other hand, could only be named or excluded later. The wreck will be examined in Payerne . The operational principles of Ju ‑ Air would also be analyzed. The chief pilot of Ju ‑ Air stated that the passengers in the Ju ‑ Air did not switch sides to take photos of the pilots.

Interim report from November 2018 and second grounding

On November 20, 2018, the investigating body published an interim report. Regarding the meteorological conditions, it was recorded that the zero degree limit was around 4,600 meters, and that at an altitude of 2,500 meters the air was around 16 degrees warmer than predicted by the standard atmosphere (see density altitude ). The deformation of the propeller blades indicates that the engines were running at high speed at the moment of the accident. There was a "considerable" amount of fuel in the tanks ; however, no fire broke out.

Technical investigations of the wreck showed that no structural components or control surfaces of the aircraft were missing. Some cylinders from a wreck of a Ju 52 were installed, which had to make an emergency landing on the Umbalkees glacier in Prägraten (Austria) on January 4, 1941 and was recovered in 2002 and 2003. However, this is permissible provided that a qualified company certifies the safety and conformity of the parts. Earlier and in some cases inadequate repairs were visible on the wing structure, especially on the spars and the engine mounts. A spot with cracks was found on a spar tube of the left wing in the area of ​​the engine mount. In addition, considerable corrosion and other damage were discovered on the spars, hinges, fittings of the wings and in the area of ​​the cabin floor plate. In addition, fuel lines showed considerable damage due to their age - up to 30 years.

Defects in the storage of aircraft components were found both at the operating Ju ‑ Air and at the responsible engine workshop. There was no clear identification and documentation of the parts according to EASA regulations. Maintenance work was not consistently documented and there was a strong personal relationship between Ju ‑ Air and the maintenance company. Maintenance companies must notify the FOCA if they manufacture spare parts themselves. According to the interim report, however, a Notice of Modification was never concluded between 2000 and the day of the accident .

The investigation showed that the damage and defects found were not related to the crash. Nevertheless, on November 16, 2018 , the FOCA withdrew the airworthiness certificate from sister aircraft HB-HOP and HB-HOS with immediate effect and until further notice . There is a risk that, due to the same year of construction, the similar mode of operation and the comparable operating times, there are comparable defects and thus flight safety is endangered.

Withdrawal of authorization for commercial flights

On March 12, 2019, the Federal Office for Civil Aviation withdrew Ju ‑ Air's license for commercial flights. A national authorization for flights with club members as well as only in Germany, however, remains possible. At this point in time, aircraft HB ‑ HOS had been dismantled and extensively x-rayed. At the time when the license was withdrawn, Ju ‑ Air was hoping for the X-rays to be inspected by the Federal Office and for the operation of this one aircraft for the summer of 2019. At the general assembly on April 27, 2019, a general overhaul of the three other Ju ‑ 52s (HB ‑ HOP , -HOS and -HOY) and their renewed take-off from 2021 in prospect.

Withdrawal of the approval of maintenance companies

On May 5, 2019, the SonntagsZeitung reported that the FOCA had revoked both Ju ‑ Air and Naef Flugmotoren AG's authorization to maintain the machines and / or the piston engines . The reason for this is three detailed inspections, which have revealed serious violations. These violations would lead to reduced safety standards for the aircraft as well as a risk to flight safety. In Switzerland there are no longer any people or businesses that are allowed to maintain the Ju 52. The companies affected can apply for renewed approval in the future.

Further interim reports

August 2019

On August 2, the SUST published another interim report, which mainly described the investigations that had been ongoing since the accident.

A large number of photo and video recordings from eyewitnesses - both from the flight involved in the accident and from previous flights - were available and these were correlated with radar recordings and weather data (air pressure and temperature) in order to draw conclusions about the flight tactics of the respective crews. The occupants carried more than forty cameras and cell phones with them, on which images and videos of the accident flight were suspected. With some devices it was possible to read out images or videos from the flight involved in the accident and the previous flight, while work on other data carriers continued. Laser scans and photographs were used to create a 3D model of the accident site and an aircraft of the same construction. Meteorologists were commissioned to operate a weather station (with wind LIDAR ) in the accident area and to create small-scale wind simulations. Finally, the engine performance was analyzed by means of spectral analyzes of sound recordings.

The integration of all these data should allow a reconstruction of the flight path, the flight position, the airspeed and ultimately also the power reserve of HB ‑ HOT at the time of the accident. A final report was announced for the first quarter of 2020, but was later postponed to autumn.

August 2020

On August 4th - the second anniversary of the accident - the SAUST published another report. The key points of this interim report were:

  • 44 data carriers from cameras and cell phones were seized; eight of them could be read out.
  • The investigations announced or described in the previous interim report have been completed.
  • Systemic causes: The SUST examined the operating principles, the training of the crews and the management tools with regard to the accident. The FOCA's official supervision of Ju-Air as well as Ju-Air's internal quality and safety management concepts were also the subject of the SUST investigations.

The Federal Department of Environment, Transport, Energy and Communication commissioned the Dutch National Aerospace Laboratory to conduct an investigation based on the draft final report . It is intended to examine the activities of the FOCA, including the supervisory activities of this authority outside of historical aviation. The results should be available in spring 2021.

Report of the SonntagsZeitung on August 30, 2020

Based on the as yet unpublished report, the SonntagsZeitung reported that flying too deep into the valley basin was the main cause of the accident. As a result, a safe turnaround was no longer possible. This flight tactic stood in "stark contrast" to the very great flying experience of the two pilots. The two pilots responsible, but in particular the captain, were regularly on the move with unsafe flight tactics, had broken flying rules several times and were not very self-critical. There is no evidence that technical defects or the weather caused the accident. The FOCA was aware that Ju-Air pilots repeatedly flew in a risky manner, but it had not intervened.

In this context, it is pointed out that the alpine area requires special adjustments to flight tactics; such as, for example, that mountain passes and ridges are flown over at an acute angle (and not across) so that if there is no power reserve, a gentle curve can be flown back into your own valley without risk. Climbing flights must also be started early, depending on the terrain, and not only in the vicinity of the ridge or pass to be overflown.

Final report

The final report was in consultation at the end of August 2020 . According to the SonntagsZeitung , the pilots lost control of the aircraft through their own fault. The tragedy happened "not because of incorrectly adjusted flight instruments or rust on the material". Rather, the machine was flown riskily. Apparently, the pilot in charge had fallen below the minimum flight altitude even on previous check flights .

See also

Web links

Individual evidence

  1. ↑ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p Interim report from the Swiss Safety Investigation Board SUST on the accident involving the Junkers Ju 52 / 3m g4e airliner, HB ‑ HOT , SUST, November 20, 2018
  2. ↑ Airplane crashed on Piz Segnas , SRF News, August 5, 2018
  3. ↑ "Tante Ju" crashes above Flims at Piz Segnas - fearing up to 20 deaths. Neue Zürcher Zeitung, August 4, 2018, accessed on August 5, 2018 .
  4. ↑ Marco Latzer: The ghostly calm on Piz Segnas. Blick, August 9, 2018, accessed August 11, 2018 .
  5. ^ Yannick Nock: Ex-Swissair spokeswoman Beatrice Tschanz : "The Ju-Air will fly again" . In: St. Galler Tagblatt . ( tagblatt.ch [accessed on August 7, 2018]).
  6. ↑ a b Media information from JU ‑ AIR on the JU ‑ 52 accident of JU ‑ AIR on August 4th. In: ju-air.ch. August 5, 2018, accessed August 5, 2018 .
  7. ↑ Where Eagles Dare. In: IMPDb.org. Retrieved August 5, 2018 .
  8. ↑ «Aunt Ju» plane crashed ++ Up to 20 deaths feared ++ A connection with heat cannot be ruled out. In: Aargauer Zeitung . August 5, 2018, accessed August 5, 2018 .
  9. ↑ Valkyrie. In: IMPDb.org. Retrieved August 5, 2018 .
  10. ↑ Peter Rásonyi: The retired NZZ foreign editor Jürg Dedial had a fatal accident. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung . August 6, 2018, accessed August 7, 2018 .
  11. ↑ Sad certainty - All 20 inmates of the JU-52 died in the crash. Swiss radio and television, August 5, 2018, accessed on August 6, 2018 .
  12. ↑ Cedric Fröhlich: Segnes-Hüttenwart saw the crash: "It didn't take 15 seconds". Der Bund, August 7, 2018.
  13. ↑ The weather station is about 2,500 m above sea level on the Crap Masegn .
  14. ↑ Accident of a Ju ‑ 52 of JU ‑ Air ( Memento from August 5, 2018 in the web archive archive.today )
  15. ↑ Resumption of flight operations by JU ‑ AIR on August 17, notification from August 8, 2018 ( Memento from August 15, 2018 in the web archive archive.today )
  16. ↑ Jürgen Schelling: Ju ‑ 52: a classic car from the 1930s. In: NZZ. August 5, 2018, accessed August 5, 2018 .
  17. ↑ Under ICAO rules (commercial aviation: Annex 6 Part 1, 6.3.1.2; non-commercial: Annex 6 Part 2, 3.6.3.4; online see Part 1 or Part 2 ), flight data recorders for non -turbine-powered aircraft are only available from April 5 , 7 tonnes MTOW is mandatory, and only for aircraft that were certified after 1989 and 2005 respectively.
  18. ↑ Here the Ju-52 crashes! In: Blick online from November 30, 2018
  19. ^ Federal government issues stricter rules for Ju ‑ 52 flights , Tages-Anzeiger, August 16, 2018
  20. ↑ https://www.suedostschweiz.ch/ju18
  21. ↑ Investigators correct the Ju-Air boss , Tages-Anzeiger, October 17, 2018, page 16
  22. ↑ Federal government tightening the screw at Tante Ju , Tages-Anzeiger, March 13, 2019, p. 5
  23. ↑ Ju ‑ Air is no longer allowed to offer commercial flights
  24. ^ Dübendorf: Future secured for museum and Ju-52 , Hansjörg Bürgi on SkyNews.
  25. ^ Pia Wertheimer: Severe setback for Ju ‑ Air - The federal government blocked the total overhaul of the Ju ‑ 52. The maintenance companies have lost their license. In: Tages-Anzeiger. May 5, 2019, accessed May 5, 2019 .
  26. ↑ a b Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board STSB: Status report by the Swiss Transportation Safety Investigation Board STSB concerning the status of the investigation into the accident involving the Junkers Ju 52 / 3m g4e transport airplane, HB ‑ HOT, operated by Ju ‑ Air on 4 August 2018 1.2 km south-west of Piz Segnas, municipality of Flims (canton of Grisons). August 2, 2019, accessed on August 19, 2019 .
  27. ↑ The reason for Aunt Ju's crash remains in the dark longer
  28. ↑ 2. Status report from the Swiss Safety Investigation Board SUST on the status of the investigation into the accident involving the Junkers Ju 52 / 3m g4e airliner, HB-HOT. Retrieved August 4, 2020 .
  29. ↑ Swiss dispatch agency : Aviation supervision is being investigated for criticism after the Ju-52 crash. In: Bieler Tagblatt. August 9, 2020, accessed August 9, 2020 .
  30. ↑ a b Mark Baer: Pilots considered themselves “invulnerable”. In: SonntagsZeitung , August 30, 2020.
  31. ↑ Andri Rostetter: Ju-52 crash at Piz Segnas: pilots should not have kept to minimum height is. In: Neue Zürcher Zeitung. August 30, 2020, accessed August 30, 2020 .

Coordinates: 46 ° 53 '53.6 "  N , 9 ° 13' 38.7"  E ; CH1903:  seven hundred thirty-six thousand two hundred ninety-six  /  195 675