Safety: Piper Mirage

The ramblings of our community of aviators.

Moderators: Rick, Lance Murray

Post Reply
User avatar
AndrewM
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 239
Joined: Sun Nov 20, 2016 2:05 pm
First Name: Andrew
Aircraft Type: DA40
Aircraft Registration: N897KC
Airports:
Has thanked: 73 times
Been thanked: 75 times

Safety: Piper Mirage

Post by AndrewM »

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?
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
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

Post by ememic99 »

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.
User avatar
Lou
4 Diamonds Member
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

Post by Lou »

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.
User avatar
ememic99
5 Diamonds Member
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

Post by ememic99 »

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.
User avatar
Lance Murray
5 Diamonds Member
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

Post by Lance Murray »

Just another version of a Doctor killer. The airplane is a very nice airplane. Single engine though.
User avatar
Karl
4 Diamonds Member
4 Diamonds Member
Posts: 317
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

Post by Karl »

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.
Antoine
5 Diamonds Member
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

Post by Antoine »

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 (?)
Post Reply