Comments on: DA-42 engine failure

By: david

david — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 19:58:17 +0000

Brock: I agree that they shouldn’t have taken off with a dead battery, but it’s still a huge problem if a plane’s engines both shut down because of a very brief electrical interruption — there are a lot of things that can cause an electrical interruption besides taking off with a flat battery. In this case, I think that an AD is probably justified, at least until they figure out a way to make the FADEC system more robust.

By: Brock

Brock — Thu, 28 Jun 2007 17:01:24 +0000

The larger issue is the pilots taking off with a dead battery (or two). Sorry guys, if you don’t know the issues associated with a dead battery and using a APU to start as a solution, you run into things of this nature.

Very stupid mistake with very sever consequences. I am sure if they ever have a dead battery, they will charge it 100% before taking off. Just like any pilot would do that has more than 2 marbles in their head…

I am a bit taken back that this likely started with a master switch being left on (purely speculation) and a rush to get back home (gethomeitis). If any pilot does not know how an Alternator works, they are in for a lesson as the aforementioned idiots learned. You must have bias voltage to excite the armature to generate electricity. That means you need electricity to make electricity. The battery would never charge off the alternator alone even if there were enough voltage to make a charge. Generators don’t need voltage to work. Kind of important to know the difference…

Make sure we all thank the pilots for starting an AD and another legal issue in aviation. It is nice to know the cost of the aircraft will increase thanks to these idiots. God knows it isn’t their fault for the manufacture not taking the idiot factor in every singe detail of construction of an aircraft.

I’m not sure on the popular opinion, but what idiot would take off with dead batteries in a FADEC power plant? What idiots think a jump start via APU will suffice?

By: david

david — Thu, 17 May 2007 22:33:19 +0000

Thanks for the clarification, Nick — so we should blame FADEC rather than diesel, then, or just a bad FADEC implementation?

By: Nick Budd

Nick Budd — Fri, 27 Apr 2007 07:19:13 +0000

Diesel engines don’t require connection to the electrical system either in order to keep on running, and don’t require mags or spark plugs either. The problem in this case was not with the engine, strictly speaking, but with the automatic engine control system, which is of course electrically-driven. When the engine control system sensed an electical power loss it automatically “reset” itself, which caused the props to feather. In a single with FADEC, you might have the same problem, but you wouldn’t have the feathering effect, of course, and presumably the engine would briefly go to idle and the prop would windmill in the meantime.

By: Aviatrix

Aviatrix — Thu, 26 Apr 2007 21:15:35 +0000

Yikes, I did not know that about the DA42 systems. When I win the lottery I will have to give serious consideration to not buying one, now. How can you have a machine that you plan to expose to the weather that cannot handle a momentary interruption to electrical power? I have had many electrical problems in airplanes, including a double generator failure in a twin, and a total electrical failure at night, but I’ve never had to question the airplane’s ability to continue generating thrust based on something as fickle as electricity.