Was just mucking around looking at the Piper Mirage... pressurization seems a wonderful thing, until I read this statement on Wikipedia:
"As of January 2019, 225 accidents had been reported in the Aviation Safety Network wiki database, including 106 hull losses, causing 219 fatalities. Hull losses represent 9% of the 1177 PA-46s produced from 2002 through 2017."
Did I read that right... almost 10% of all PA-46 hulls manufactured 2002 - 2017 are now... gone.
Yikes. I never would have imagined that. Terrible safety record, right? Or... what am I missing?
Safety: Piper Mirage
Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray
- ememic99
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
- First Name: Emir
- Aircraft Type: DA42
- Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
- Airports: LDZA LDVA
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 390 times
Re: Safety: Piper Mirage
Aviation Safety Network https://aviation-safety.net currently lists 275 accidents with PA-46 (different variations - Meridians, Malibus, Mirages and JetProps) with some 100 ended with substantial damage and more than 100 with hull loss.
At the same time there are 58 accidents involving DA42 (some 20 hull losses and 20 substantially damaged) and 106 accidents involving DA40 (some 35 hull losses and 50 substantially damaged). I don't know the total number of produced but maybe someone will jump in so we can compare. I'm pretty sure Diamond has better safety score.
At the same time there are 58 accidents involving DA42 (some 20 hull losses and 20 substantially damaged) and 106 accidents involving DA40 (some 35 hull losses and 50 substantially damaged). I don't know the total number of produced but maybe someone will jump in so we can compare. I'm pretty sure Diamond has better safety score.
- Lou
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 370
- Joined: Sat Nov 21, 2015 1:39 pm
- First Name: Louis
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Aircraft Registration: CGXLO
- Airports: CZVL
- Has thanked: 118 times
- Been thanked: 115 times
Re: Safety: Piper Mirage
I don't think it's the airplane, but it's a high performance aircraft marketted to relatively low time pilots. But this is speculation - you really have to break down the causes to form any conclusion. The Continental PA-46 had more engine problems, and a number were lost to nose gear failures. AV Web has done an analysis on the type and I think that the conclusion is that the problems have been worked out and the accident rates are middle of the pack now. (Remind you of another aircraft we know?) There was a significant crash of a Jetprop Mirage around here 10 years ago. The investigation report eventually showed the aircraft was way over gross, the pilot was not trained to fly at altitude, and the owner neglected essential maintenance which eventually led to the autopilot failure. Hard to pin any of that on the type.
- ememic99
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1078
- Joined: Wed Apr 09, 2014 10:31 am
- First Name: Emir
- Aircraft Type: DA42
- Aircraft Registration: SEMAD
- Airports: LDZA LDVA
- Has thanked: 203 times
- Been thanked: 390 times
Re: Safety: Piper Mirage
This one https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/220997 was for many moths considered solely as consequence of pilot's incompetence and at the end toxicology report showed high CO level in passenger's body probably caused by faulty heating system and failure to turn the pressurization on which led to incapacitating pilot.
- Lance Murray
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 1163
- Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 11:25 pm
- First Name: Lance
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Airports:
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 118 times
Re: Safety: Piper Mirage
Just another version of a Doctor killer. The airplane is a very nice airplane. Single engine though.
- Karl
- 4 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 318
- Joined: Wed Aug 04, 2010 3:58 am
- First Name: Karl
- Aircraft Type: DA40
- Airports:
- Has thanked: 68 times
- Been thanked: 102 times
Re: Safety: Piper Mirage
I was tasked with inspecting an almost new PA46, less than 150hrs. As I walked around it I grabbed the wingtip for some reason and detected movement. A quick investigation showed the problem to be with the rear wing spar attachment brackets where it connects to the fuselage. Apparently made from the wrong material. Not an easy job to replace them.
Another surprise was awaiting me when I removed the wing fairings. In the fuselage wall (its pressurised remember) I found a split in a skin approx 6 inch long, which had obviously been caused during manufacture. This had been covered with PRC sealant but not a rivetted repair as would normally be expected. When reported to my boss the response was that as it was done by Piper it must be OK. After the wing mount repairs the aircraft was released but not by me.
A few months later the aircraft flew into a mountain and it was deemed to be that the pilot fell asleep. I reported my concerns about a bad repair possibly causing depressurisation to the accident investigation branch but was told the wreckage was inaccessible and the investigation was closed.
I also know that many of the rivets holding on the wing skins have a head half the size of what is considered normal. As quite a few PA 46 have had in-flight breakups it's not an aircraft I would be spending my money on.
Another surprise was awaiting me when I removed the wing fairings. In the fuselage wall (its pressurised remember) I found a split in a skin approx 6 inch long, which had obviously been caused during manufacture. This had been covered with PRC sealant but not a rivetted repair as would normally be expected. When reported to my boss the response was that as it was done by Piper it must be OK. After the wing mount repairs the aircraft was released but not by me.
A few months later the aircraft flew into a mountain and it was deemed to be that the pilot fell asleep. I reported my concerns about a bad repair possibly causing depressurisation to the accident investigation branch but was told the wreckage was inaccessible and the investigation was closed.
I also know that many of the rivets holding on the wing skins have a head half the size of what is considered normal. As quite a few PA 46 have had in-flight breakups it's not an aircraft I would be spending my money on.
-
- 5 Diamonds Member
- Posts: 2043
- Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2010 11:00 pm
- First Name: Antoine
- Aircraft Type: OTHER
- Aircraft Registration: N121AG
- Airports: LSGG
- Has thanked: 87 times
- Been thanked: 220 times
Re: Safety: Piper Mirage
Yikes, this is really scary, Karl! Thanks for being so outspoken.
I think the PA46-350 is inherently more dangerous than less complex aircraft. The problem lies in the domino effect. One failure causes another. Example: lose the engine at FL200 and your first challenge is not the engine but pressurization.
The Jetprop has such a low payload that they are notoriously operated massively over gross.
No wonder they can break up if exposed to turbulence...
But the manufacturing problems you mention are really scary... And your boss' attitude even more so... not to mention the lack of reaction from the NTSB (?)
I think the PA46-350 is inherently more dangerous than less complex aircraft. The problem lies in the domino effect. One failure causes another. Example: lose the engine at FL200 and your first challenge is not the engine but pressurization.
The Jetprop has such a low payload that they are notoriously operated massively over gross.
No wonder they can break up if exposed to turbulence...
But the manufacturing problems you mention are really scary... And your boss' attitude even more so... not to mention the lack of reaction from the NTSB (?)