What's new
Van's Air Force

Don't miss anything! Register now for full access to the definitive RV support community.

OT - Bad, bad, bad month for IFR

Tandem46

Tandem46

Well Known Member
December is shaping up to be a bad month for IFR accidents. I've been noticing these lately, some from the NTSB site and some from aero-news.net.

3 Dead, 10Dec - C-310 crashed while trying to land at night in fog, Waco TX.

4 Dead, 17Dec - Family traveling night VFR in a Piper PA-24, Bucyrus OH, rain reported, crashed after decent rate in excess of 10,000fpm from 11,600'.

4 Dead, 22Dec - Another family, crashed during 2nd attempt at approach, night IMC, Chattanooga TN.

4 Dead 23Dec - C-340, crashed during 2nd attempt at approach, IMC, Charleston SC.

3 Dead 25Dec - C-414 crashed during approach near Atlanta, night/fog.

2 Dead, 2 critically injured 26Dec - Commander 114, crashed during approach in fog.

Fly safe in 2007 :)
 
Last edited:
Dec 22. 4 dead. 78 year old pilot in a malibu crashes and burns short of runway at Concord Ca. Kccr. Weather IFR. :confused:
Tom
 
Even one death is of course too many, but is this any worse than any other December? We lose about 550 people a year in GA.
 
IFR, even single engine IFR, is safe if you're qualified (note that I didn't say instrument rated).
Unfortunately, there seems to be a fair number of pilots who don't undergo recurrent or simulator training and end up flying approaches to minimums in actual conditions. Here's a thought: Grab a qualified observer on a gusty day and practice. If you can't hold +/- 50 feet on altitude, if at any time you aren't sure of your precise position, if you can't hold +/- one dot on every ILS (zero tolerance below GS), you should continue practicing rather than flying in the system.

Even if you fly every day in the Great Lakes region, you get very few opportunities to fly approaches to minimums. It's unbelieveable that pilots launch into IMC hoping that weather will be better than forecast or with some delusion of their skill level. Every flight should be an expectation that final approach will be to minimums, a miss will be executed, and you'll be headed to an alternate. Sooner or later, we all end up flying in weather that's worse than forecast. We can't fly an aircraft in IMC that isn't sufficiently equipped - no pilot should be in the system with skills that aren't up to the task.
 
Know Your Personal Minimums

I have developed my own system for go vs no-go IFR decisions. I call it the "Three-Strike" rule. I have a little list of what I consider adverse conditions in my head, and if three of them are present, I wont go. The best example I can think of is: 1. Destination conditions anywhere near minimum conditions (say, less than 1,000 ft ceilings or vis less than 3 miles). 2. Non-precision approach at the destination. 3. Arrival after sunset. There you go, three strikes, and I ain't going. You can substitute any other hazardous condition, like emotional upset, rain or whatever you consider hazardous. This works for me and makes the decision easier. When the bags are packed, and your passenger is looking at you expectantly, just say, "sorry, conditions are below my personal minimums."
 
Three more.....

Good points Jerry.
Years ago, three of us were ferrying Cessna Agwagons to Georgia from Wichita and that night over dinner, the old "Geezer" in our group told us that the three dangers to flying are 1) Bad weather, 2) Nighttime, 3) Low fuel.
and that if you never get any two at the same time you can handle the situation. Nighttime and low fuel is much more difficult to deal with than low fuel in the daytime. Bad weather and low fuel :eek: bad. Seewhatahmean?
The worst: Bad weather and night.

Regards,
 
B-O-O-O-O!

I first read Captain Avgas' thread about "us" being the enemy and I wondered what prompted him to start something that will be so inflamatory with so little benefit then I read this thread. WOW, I agree with him. The facts are, you can't fly IFR well if you don't fly IFR with some regularity and if you get too comfortable, if you exceed the published limits or if you get into a situation that has no escape your risks go way up. Preparation, skill, Judgement and physical limits (instruments, weather, fuel, etc.) are all critical factors to success and if you fly long enough you are going to be put to the test in every one of these areas - some outcomes will not be successful. I get no great joy out of flying IFR but the system was developed and is maintained to facilitate air transportation and I use it when I consider it appropriate and manageable for that purpose, recognizing the higher risk. The increased risk flying in IMC or at night added to the risk of flying have a beneficial purpose. What is the purpose of scare statistics with little or no cause and effect information?

Bob Axsom
 
Last edited:
IFR is cool, but single pilot, night, IMC, fog, down to mins, family/friends onboard......not so cool.
Click to expand...

Actually, popping out at 200' on centerline is one of the most satisfying things I have/will ever experience flying.

I appreciate the point of trying to raise attention and prevent unecessary accidents. But the message came across to me almost begging for more regulation and restriction.

Two non-proficient pilots flying a -172, -310, etc. are probably not much more safe than one non-proficient pilot in the same equipment. But one proficient pilot in either would be as safe as the venture would allow.
 
Last edited:
As bad as being a cop...

Paul Eastham said:
Even one death is of course too many, but is this any worse than any other December? We lose about 550 people a year in GA.
Click to expand...

I used to be a cop. It was a long time ago, but I seem to remember that about 400 police officers die each year in the line of duty... or was it 100... I can't remember for sure.

The point is, shouldn't flying an airplane be safer than confronting criminals on a traffic stop in the middle of the night by yourself?

--JCB
 
sad news

The sad news is that you can have an instrument rating, and still you may not be profficient under all IFR circumstances. And, the circumstances are always changing during any given flight. You can cause your own delima also. You get your IFR rating in a Cessna 172, then you win the lottery and move up to a Cessna 310. You can "buy" your way to an early grave by moving up stream. There are so many sutle traps in IFR if your really aware of them it should cause you to devote every waking hour towards staying profficient. Being current does not equal profficient. My friend here just took an instrument evaluation in a simulator for his Piper Malibu required for insurance even though he has thousands of hours in his Malibu. He was telling us they failed every concievable combination of equipment in the simulator beyound his wildest capabilites. I asked him if they made him fly inverted on instruments at night. He said they even did worse than that. You just cant approach instrument flying like you do VFR and continue on fat dumb and happy. You gotta work at it continuously. :rolleyes:
 
Single Pilot IFR

If you are going to fly single pilot IFR, day, night, and in inclemate weather you had better be good. It is not an easy chore. You must have a properly equipped aircraft, with adequate performance and possess piloting skills to meet any and all adverse encounters. There is no substitute for proper training. The best training available is probably through the airlines and the military. Experience is the ultimate Masters Degree but it is valid only if you are current. Considering the price of aviation fuels today it is difficult to maintain proficiency unless money is a non-factor.
Jumping off or flying into the dark of night in a single or single pilot multi engine aircraft in adverse weather conditions is a foolhardy thing to do. Unless you are a professional ATR rated Pilot, flying a high performance IFR equipped aircraft, don't even think about it. Even with 24,000 plus hours and 30 years of airline experience I would never contemplate such a venture in my piston single and twin engine Cessna. There are just too many "goblins" out there just waiting for you, as the NTSB records reveal.
Best to "enjoy" the privileges of flight.... pick your time and place and use common sense, do not become a statistic.
 
I've read enough and biting my tongue!

I'm new to this group for only a few months and I don't give a dang what anyone else flys or what they do on their daily routine job or business.

SAFETY IS #1 Period. I was taught as a child to learn from my mistakes and others. Look, listen and keep your ears and eyes open. Don't get me wrong as I've done many dumn things in my past 43 yrs. of living on this wonderfull earth. I've had my wrecks,,, (Race Cars, etc., but NO Airplanes YET) I study and read all of the accident reports and I do not want to be one of those to be posted in the list of NOT FLYING anymore! If I do not see the ground VFR,,,,,, I land and wait it out PERIOD! There will always be another day. Call me a what ever.....a &#*%#$& Whim^$pppp, whatever......I will not get into a situation that will jeapordize my life if things GO WRONG. IFR is fine if conditions are right, but what I see is pilots getting in over there heads trying to push there luck and it is not worth it. Family, living Is Number 1,,,, Is it really worth the challenge to say Hey I did this or BS with your buddies at the airport that I did this I did that and took a chance to tell about it. Priceless in my opinion..... Fly VFR and lets enjoy our flying without pushing the luck ok. I'd like everyone to stay alive and live well that's all. If IFR is your thrill or entertainment for fun that is ok, but like with any hobby or sport, things can go WRONG. If things go wrong in my court I'd like to be able to find a spot to land in the daylight and not in IFR conditions with a single engine aircraft. Sorry if I offended anyone but I'm a very cautious pilot and I set my limits. Living and flying as much as I can is number one to me. The ones that push their luck are the ones that will not be writing here as I am. If you have the skills then so be it........ Be SAFE and don't go over your limitations, that's all I can say.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Balance....

Alan and many of you guys have had some very good stuff to say but let me add a little more.

My wife and I were just talking about BALANCE this morning, regarding folks who hoard belongings/money verses others who squander. Both activities are extremes and some balance is the answer. Balance relationally and balance financially. Spend some, play some, save some...balance.

As far as flying, if you're instrument rated (I am) fly with balance. I use mine to ascend/descend through layers with known good VFR below or above, not IMC down to minimums or in ice and never in fog...it's a balancing act. My rating has allowed me to go many places when pure VFR couldn't get the job done but I use it judiciously and yes, I read the NTSB reports regularly and shake my head in amazement at how dumb we humans can be.

Know and abide by your limits and accept the fact that flying does indeed add risk to your life but it's manageable by balancing your flying to your ability.

Regards,
 
I'm puzzled

I'm a VFR pilot minted in '99 with 300+ hours, mostly in a Cherokee (can I say minted in the previous century - it sounds like I'm far more experienced than I am :)). I've read most of the study materials to become an IFR pilot but I have essentially no IFR experience. When I'm done building my 9A I will probably get the rating.

Having read this thread carefully and having a tendency to think about what I read (not always a good thing :) ) the two responses that dealt with "Three Strikes" made sense to me except for the part about IFR at night. Remembering my experience is almost 100% under the hood (I did survive a brief unintended IFR encounter) I don't understand why whether its day or night changes the difficulty/stress of the flight. I can see where low fuel, poor weather, and other factors would be "strikes" that add to the difficulty of the flight. However, when flying on instruments whether you're under the hood, flying in clouds, or flying in the dark doesn't seem like it would matter. On the other hand, if it's turbulent, there's icing, or you're low on fuel, I can see where that matters.

Now since two of you mentioned night flying (or arriving after sunset) would be a "strike" I thought maybe one or both of you could educate me about why it adds to the difficulty. It's not that I doubt the advice, simply that I don't understand it and understanding the whys and wherefors of flying is important to me.
 
Sorry if I was a little harsh

pierre smith said:
Alan and many of you guys have had some very good stuff to say but let me add a little more.


As far as flying, if you're instrument rated (I am) fly with balance. I use mine to ascend/descend through layers with known good VFR below or above, not IMC down to minimums or in ice and never in fog...it's a balancing act. My rating has allowed me to go many places when pure VFR couldn't get the job done but I use it judiciously and yes, I read the NTSB reports regularly and shake my head in amazement at how dumb we humans can be.

Know and abide by your limits and accept the fact that flying does indeed add risk to your life but it's manageable by balancing your flying to your ability.

Regards,
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I totally agree, I was maybe a little harsh with my comments and I agree about balancing things out. I just get angry when some pilots that are not experienced get themselves into really bad situations and I shake my head when I read some of the reports. It's all about using ones skills and setting some limits. I would like to get my IFR rating for safety reasons to have that skill and maybe someday I will get that rating. I like your thoughts and care of using the skills within safe reason. Sorry if I offended anyone. I'd just like everyone to be safe and not get into bad situations if it's not really neccesary.
 
I think it boils down to having a gold-plated Plan-B (and C?) and the willingness to use it even if it causes disruption or inconvenience.

Launching into IMC without an instantly executable option in the event of engine failure, electrical problems, etc... is foolhardy at best - criminal if you have passengers aboard. And if you fly at night or in IMC without a good GPS, well... we'll save a spot in the Darwin Awards for you, because you're that stupid.

Just my opinion - worth what was paid for it I guess.
 
Engine failure

Don said:
Now since two of you mentioned night flying (or arriving after sunset) would be a "strike" I thought maybe one or both of you could educate me about why it adds to the difficulty. It's not that I doubt the advice, simply that I don't understand it and understanding the whys and wherefors of flying is important to me.
Click to expand...

Hi Don,
The point is that in the event of an engine failure at night, you can't see where you're going to land or what you're going to fly into, whether it's powerlines or boulders or parked cars or an unlit house......the possibilities of what you land on/in are limitless because you can't see them. In a twin you have another engine to go to an airport but in a single, you're sunk.

Several years ago a Piper with a Lycoming H2AD (the single drive mag) that sheared the shaft coming out of Augusta, Ga with five people aboard. Approach vectored them to an airport 15 miles from me and they crashed into some trees within 1/4 mile from the runway and all died. What was so sad about this is that there are many open fields and pastures that could have been used had it been in daytime.

Regards,
 
Darwin Award Recipient

Matt,

I have several thousand hours of single pilot night IFR among my 22,000 hours of flight time, and I never even saw a GPS until just a couple of years ago. I guess I am just not smart enough to know I am dead?

In all seriousness people, we need to reduce the number of bombastic pronouncements and get some 'balance' (thanks, Pierre). Paul's post on another thread really sums up what we should be focusing on very well...layers of protection and how to use them.

For some pilots, just flying at night is one too few layer of protection. That does not mean that I am stupid for flying at night, and it doesn't mean that pilot who won't is a 'nervous nellie.' It means that the other pilot made a command decision that he was not comfortable with his level of safety when flying at night, while I was. We could very possibly BOTH be right.

Each pilot needs to take a look at his OWN level of experience, training, and expertise, as well as the condition of HIS equipment, the state of the weather, and other relevant conditions, and make decisions based on those factors. Do not assume that what is right for you is automatically right for everyone else. Do use your best judgement to avoid flying in conditions which will degrade safety FOR YOU.

This summer I flew over a hundred miles to reach home, in a glider, in an unfamiliar mountainous area (the Alps), with no instruments at all after a total electrical failure. It would be just as insane for me to assume that a newly minted private pilot could duplicate this flight as it would be for that private pilot to assume that I will automatically get lost if my GPS fails.

Please do study the accident reports and try to learn as much as possible from them. Think about what levels of safety you need to maintain your comfort level. Have the good judgement and discipline to stay on the ground when you don't have enough layers of protection.

And don't tell me I shouldn't be allowed to fly just because you wouldn't be comfortable in the same situation.

Pat
 
I am an airline pilot. I fly IFR on a daily basis. Just last week, I shot 3 CATII ILS approaches to minimums in 2 days. We go through intense simulator training to qualify to do these appraoches.

I am building an RV-4. It is going to be a simple, DAY-VFR machine. IFR flying is work, my -4 is just for fun. If I don't have VFR minimums, I won't go.

I am not knocking anyone's decision to fly single-pilot, IFR. If that person is QUALIFIED (not just CURRENT), and the aircraft is in top shape, then it can be safe. Personally, the more experience I gain, the more I don't want to fly single-pilot IFR or single engine at night...if something goes wrong, the ways out are limited.

Bryan
 
And if you fly at night or in IMC without a good GPS, well... we'll save a spot in the Darwin Awards for you, because you're that stupid.
Click to expand...
And if you can't safely fly at night or in IMC without a GPS, then maybe you should get some more training. GPS receivers fail, and the GPS constellation can have problems, so please don't put all your eggs in the GPS basket. Sure, GPS works most of the time, but it is not 100.00% reliable.
 
mdredmond said:
And if you fly at night or in IMC without a good GPS, well... we'll save a spot in the Darwin Awards for you, because you're that stupid.
Click to expand...

Umm... okay. I have to agree with Pat on this one; of my 15,000 hrs, roughly 2400 hrs are single pilot night/IFR freight dog time... with no GPS/Loran/moving map/autopilot. I've even flown single engine night VFR with no GPS and lived through it. Who knew I was so lucky to even be here... shame on me for being just that stupid.

Seriously, I don't get it. What's up lately with these blanket statements saying we shouldn't fly in formation, do aerobatics, or fly at night or IMC with no GPS? I'm all for flying safely and using good judgement, but to post here that we're stupid for not using a GPS is just nuts.
 
Guys, all I'm saying is the tool is there and not having it is foolish. I'm not saying successful IFR didn't happen before GPS. It's just another tool and you have to admit, it has added a new dimension of situational awareness across the board. That's a good thing.

Surgery happened before autoclaves existed.

I'll stand by my statement. Flying without using all of the tools reasonably available to you is stupid. As cheap as GPS is, there is no excuse for not having one if flying night/IFR.
 
Last edited:
mdredmond said:
I'll stand by my statement. Flying without using all of the tools reasonably available to you is stupid. As cheap as GPS is, there is no excuse for not having one if flying night/IFR.
Click to expand...

Matt,

And how will you feel when someone question's your intelligence because in their opinion, you shouldn't be flying with only a single engine? There are experienced pilots that feel that way you know. And to some people's pocket-book, they are cheap. So are BRS's.

I have no trouble at all with you saying that you feel better having a GPS at night or IFR. Heck, I feel a whole lot better having three of them, on board. (Of course, I also have VOR/ILS/LOC...). But that doesn't give you the right to call someone else that disagrees a name like that.

There has been way to much name calling on this board recently. Doug is a very nice guy, and he shouldn't have to put up with that from guests in his house. And neither shoudl other members.

Paul
 
Okay, okay. It's just a matter of opinion and I obviously have mine. I didn't call anyone names. I characterized a behavior. I'll refrain from voicing my opinion with any obvious (i.e., potentially offensive) conviction from now on.
 
Last edited:
Kevin Horton said:
And if you can't safely fly at night or in IMC without a GPS, then maybe you should get some more training. GPS receivers fail, and the GPS constellation can have problems, so please don't put all your eggs in the GPS basket. Sure, GPS works most of the time, but it is not 100.00% reliable.
Click to expand...

Kevin is exactly right here. The airliner I currently fly does have GPS as part of the FMS. I have experienced several interuptions of GPS service, mostly due to military activity and consequent jamming. If the GPS constellation is not working, it doesn't matter if you have 17 GPS receivers in the cockpit, you better be able to fly without the magic box.

Pat
 
night

If you fly at night, you should be prepared to fly without your electrical system, except for battery backup and minumal systems. Alternator failure is a very common event. If you fail to recognize the failure before you burn up your battery, you better be prepared for that too. The bottom line is no electrical system at all. Whip out your flashlight and follow your compass. :eek:
 
I was out a computer these last couple weeks, so this is the first i'm chiming in on this discussion. It all comes down to one thing, work or play, proficiency. IFR is not about currency, it's about proficiency. I have done a ton of Simulator instruction over this summer, and I'll tell you right now, most current IFR pilots are no where near proficient. Constant training, or constant usage of the system is a must if flying single pilot IFR.
 
sportpilot said:
If you fly at night, you should be prepared to fly without your electrical system, except for battery backup and minumal systems. Alternator failure is a very common event. If you fail to recognize the failure before you burn up your battery, you better be prepared for that too. The bottom line is no electrical system at all. Whip out your flashlight and follow your compass. :eek:
Click to expand...

I'd probably use a backup battery operated GPS before the compass! :D

What I don't want to see, is the use of modern day moving map GPS's diminshed, as being one of the most useful navigation tools available.

I've had this "thing", won't dare call it fasination, of researching flight into rising terrain accidents, ever since the death of Frank Sinatra's mother, and a DC-8 that crashed into a mountain near my home in 1977. Mrs. Sinatra's chartered Lear crashed into a mountain, after the crew failed to make the prescribed turn in IMC conditions. This took place in California, also in 1977.

As we all know, flight into terrain accidents have been going on well before 1977 & well after. Notable recent accidents are the American Airlines 757 near Cali, Columbia, the Ron Brown CT-43 (737) crash in Bosnia, the C-130 accident by Jackson Hole Wyoming, and the Hendrick's Motorsports crash in Virginia. What they all had in common, is the pilots loss of navigational awarness, as to their exact location, followed by flight into rising terrain. Some even had GPS, but nothing compared to the screens available now.

Considering that a good moving map GPS can provide instant situational awarness to about three feet of actual location, it's certainly a device that can do wonders compared to the old & bold way. New GPS's also offer terrain and obstacle overlays, as well as warnings, and uplinked weather mapping.

They also can offer detailed airport diagrams, showing exact location of the aircraft on the "proper runway", despite possible construction confusion, which the Comair crew certainly could have used.

All the reasoning of "not" using GPS, or not counting on GPS, can be made, yet it's one of the most valuable tools, that pilots of yesteryear could have only wished for.

Considering that GPS's are rather cheap, I'd agree that there isn't much reasoning for not having one, in one form or another for IMC operations.

And I do advocate folowing along with a sectional, as well as other available navigation devices, in addition to the GPS. Sure wouldn't waste money on an ADF though!

L.Adamson
 
L.Adamson said:
What they all had in common, is the pilots loss of navigational awarness, as to their exact location, followed by flight into rising terrain. Some even had GPS, but nothing compared to the screens available now.
Click to expand...

In point of fact, the Cali crew DID have an FMS with better situational awareness screens than any of us can afford to put in an RV. As evidenced by the CVR tapes, the crew DID know their exact location, and were aware that they were turning in the wrong direction (towards the rising terrain). Unfortunately, they were attempting to troubleshoot the FMS (trying to figure out why it was causing them to turn in the wrong direction). By the time they noticed that they didn't have time to find the problem with the FMS programming (two navigational fixes with the same ident in the FMS database - a problem which has been resolved since the accident), it was too late!

If anything, the Cali accident is the poster child for how too much information and automation can kill you.

Pat
 
gps

What I don't want to see, is the use of modern day moving map GPS's diminshed, as being one of the most useful navigation tools available.
L.Adamson
Click to expand...

There is no doubt, we are at a cross road in avionics. I dearly love the garmin 430 I have been using and the garmin 396. I hope I never have to be without them. Realistically hope dosent count. Instrument failure is not going away.

In the RV9a I am helping to build, Cleve has designed what I consider the ultimate light plane instrument panel. Power and instrument failure was a primary concern even with the GRT EFIS, Garmin 430 with WAAS, and the Garmin 396 with XM weather. Cleve plans to fly his plane IFR so he backs up with the 396, airspeed, compass, altimeter, and Tru Trak battery powered AH hoping to be bullet proof. Electrical failure is the worst possibility without any gyro's.

I learned instrument flying using the doghouse turn coordinator, airspeed, compass, ADF, Narco superhomer, and alitimeter. Thats all I had available at the time, but it sure does work. For me that is still the bottom line, but I dont wish to end up like Amelia Earhart who shunned the ADF technology of 1937 and got lost. I seriously would not want to lose any of the new gadgets, but still I want to be able to get home if everything fails. I think we are all going to have to make adjustments for the future. That might be what happened in the Hendricks Motorsport crash. It's very much like what 4kilo says about information overload. Heck, lets live and learn as we go and don't step on any landmines OK?

HAPPY NEW YEAR 2007.
 
Last edited:
Don said:
Now since two of you mentioned night flying (or arriving after sunset) would be a "strike" I thought maybe one or both of you could educate me about why it adds to the difficulty.
Click to expand...

I LOVE flying at night. Air is smoother and traffic is easier to see. Yes, if you're flying "on the gauges," it doesn't matter if you are surrounded by light, dark or smoke. But flying IFR is much more than just flying with reference to instruments. Transition from instruments to visual references is more difficult for me in the dark. Reading maps and approach plates is more difficult in the dark. The effects on darkness on depth perception and spatial orientation are factors which I think reduce the margin of safety. It doesn't mean that I wont fly at night, even IFR. It just means that darkness is on my list of hazardous conditions. An accident is usually not the result of a single event, but more often the end product of a series of events or distractions leading to the result.
 
4kilo said:
In point of fact, the Cali crew DID have an FMS with better situational awareness screens than any of us can afford to put in an RV. As evidenced by the CVR tapes, the crew DID know their exact location, and were aware that they were turning in the wrong direction (towards the rising terrain). Unfortunately, they were attempting to troubleshoot the FMS (trying to figure out why it was causing them to turn in the wrong direction). By the time they noticed that they didn't have time to find the problem with the FMS programming (two navigational fixes with the same ident in the FMS database - a problem which has been resolved since the accident), it was too late!

If anything, the Cali accident is the poster child for how too much information and automation can kill you.

Pat
Click to expand...

You are incorrect in your assumptions. I read page after page of a government investigation pertaining to this accident. It's one of my best examples! In the end, a simple device such as an older Garmin 296 with terrain features & the "whole picture" could have saved the day. Let's face it, a Garmin 1000 in a simple Cessna 172 presents more complete information that the American 757 crew had. Had the crew had something along the lines of a Garmin 1000, with a much a much broader moving map picture of where they were going, and where they had been, this accident most likely would have been eliminated. And thats because the complete big picture is there at a glance! The use of moving map GPS's is even a recommendation specifically brought up in this investigation.

No, this accident is a poster child for the "use" of new and advanced GPS!

L.Adamson
 
In the new January adition of AOPA Pilot, in the Safety Pilot column, part of the title is "You can't move a mountain".

This is an overview of a 2004 accident in which a LearJet, with a captain having 13000 hrs. flight time, slammed into a mountain after a midnight departure out of San Diego's Brown Field.

In short, the crew had a tough time trying to file their IFR clearence, and did not follow the departure proceedure of a climbing left turn. The controller failed to warn of impending rising terrain because they were still essentially VFR, although the heading he gave them still kept the aircraft flying towards the mountains. Fatique was also involved for both pilots and the controller.

In the end, once again, a simple Garmin 296 could have easily saved the day! With a pictorial representation of your track towards rising mountains turning "red", what are you going to do? Continue in a straight path?

L.Adamson
 
Def'n of navigational awareness?

>>>As we all know, flight into terrain accidents have been going on well before 1977 & well after. Notable recent accidents are the American Airlines 757 near Cali, Columbia, the Ron Brown CT-43 (737) crash in Bosnia, the C-130 accident by Jackson Hole Wyoming, and the Hendrick's Motorsports crash in Virginia. What they all had in common, is the pilots loss of navigational awarness, as to their exact location, followed by flight into rising terrain. Some even had GPS, but nothing compared to the screens available now.<<<

I would like to comment on the reference to the AA B757 crash near Cali, Colombia in the mid 90's. I have some 4400 hrs in the B757/767 aircraft, much of which to/from higher risk South American airports such as CLO, UIO, LPB, BOG, etc., from MIA. To characterize the causal factor of this accident simply as loss of navigational awareness is incorrect. But, there is an analogy to present day GPS reliance, especially in IFR condx. Imagine if you were to punch in a direct to, approach, etc., "correctly", exactly as you had been trained and as the "box" mfr intended, only to get nav guidance to some unintended point. Compound this black box "gotcha", nav database anomaly, whatever, with being in mountainous terrain (the accident aircraft's approach to Cali was from the north, down a long valley with terrain higher than the arrival altitudes on both sides), and at night. Then, add in different ATC phraseologies, language semantics, translational differences, between the AA B757 crew and the Colombian controllers. You now have a better idea of the actual causal factors of the AA B757 accident. This event makes the case that reliance on one nav source in hard IFR condx, or at night, is probably not advisable.
 
Automation

Mr. Adamson,

The Cali accident is widely recognized as an "automation accident". They had the best displays and automation available at the time, but still dug a hole. Whether the pilots malfunctioned, the equipment malfunctioned, or they were just plain tired, all those people still died.

Now that we have terrain data layered over the nav data, even the most inept pilot will be less likely to hit the dirt. But what happens when it malfunctions (remember Kahuna's posts)? What do you do when your single alternator fails?

A panel bulging with the latest glass doesn't change the fact that we fly single engine aircraft with (often) single electrical generation. Added to the fact the pilot flies infrequent IFR, we need to be judicious about the weather we take on.
 
Yukon said:
Mr. Adamson,

The Cali accident is widely recognized as an "automation accident". They had the best displays and automation available at the time, but still dug a hole. Whether the pilots malfunctioned, the equipment malfunctioned, or they were just plain tired, all those people still died.
Click to expand...

And this is TODAY! We have the availibilty of better displays, better resolution, better data bases, and better warning features! Why is this improved technology sometimes dismissed, along with a multitude of excuses, as it is in this thread? :confused:

L.Adamson
 
Conservative Judgement

L,
I didn't dismiss the technology, rather pointed out that it is no better than the platform it is installed in or the pilot pushing the buttons. Still no substitute for solid airmanship and conservative judgement.
 
wv4i said:
>>>
I would like to comment on the reference to the AA B757 crash near Cali, Colombia in the mid 90's. I have some 4400 hrs in the B757/767 aircraft, much of which to/from higher risk South American airports such as CLO, UIO, LPB, BOG, etc., from MIA. To characterize the causal factor of this accident simply as loss of navigational awareness is incorrect. But, there is an analogy to present day GPS reliance, especially in IFR condx. Imagine if you were to punch in a direct to, approach, etc., "correctly", exactly as you had been trained and as the "box" mfr intended, only to get nav guidance to some unintended point. Compound this black box "gotcha", nav database anomaly, whatever, with being in mountainous terrain (the accident aircraft's approach to Cali was from the north, down a long valley with terrain higher than the arrival altitudes on both sides), and at night. Then, add in different ATC phraseologies, language semantics, translational differences, between the AA B757 crew and the Colombian controllers. You now have a better idea of the actual causal factors of the AA B757 accident. This event makes the case that reliance on one nav source in hard IFR condx, or at night, is probably not advisable.
Click to expand...

Now compare the "limited" screen display of the American 757's to a 15" center mounted Garmin 1000 MFD that comes standard with a new Cessna Mustang. What's presented on the screen is a world of difference. You're no longer looking at just an electronic track between two navigation points. You're now seeing a visual representation of mountainous terrain in all directions, let alone waypoints, fixes, etc.

And once again, this is my point. We have all these GPS satellites in orbit, we have new technology combined with advanced terrain and weather data-bases, so why not use it! I'm again seeing GPS as being somewhat dismissed in the continuing thread here. Pitiful.
 
Nav Displays with overlays

Now that we're talking about nav displays with "map" or "terrain" overlays, be it a GPS 296 or a GPS whatever, these overlays may not necessarily be correct. In transport aircraft, normally there are multiple types of comparator warnings, i.e. GPS vs IRS vs. ground based navaid position, that should activate in the case of an apparent error, map shift, etc.. But, this forum addresses smaller, GA aircraft, which normally do not avail themselves of such systems. Back to automation dependency, sole source nav, etc., and you may be betting your life that the automation is correct and accurate.

It is important to consider that we have all levels of piloting experience visiting this forum. It is of benefit to those less experienced to consider a more conservative route, not all eggs in one basket approach, to piloting and navigation, AND realize the potential pitfalls of sole source nav, or sole source situational awareness for that matter, i.e. really need that attitude gyro at night, albeit it's being required by FAR 91.205. Thus, extending this concept to night flying, IMC, etc., if only one display or "box" or round instrument is all that's between a safe flight and an emergency, this should be food for thought. Systems and devices do fail. Whether GPS, attitude gyros, whatever, the point re sole source and automation or instrument dependency is all the same.

May all have a happy, safe, and prosperous new year.
 
Have we really gotten to the point that loosing nav data during VFR flight, GPS or otherwise, has become a potentially fatal situation? I never go anywhere without my GPS and I certainly don't mean to "diminish" or otherwise discourage it's use but really now....things like terrain avoidance and the like are PREFLIGHT actions. If I have to glance at the GPS for anything more than confirming what I already know, I'm already behind the power curve and have added a link in the chain of events that leads to accidents.

So I don't think anyone is suggesting chucking the GPS but any pilot should be able to safely and reliably execute a VFR flight, day or night, with the altimeter, a compass and 2 eyeballs. If some combination of circumstances is in play that brings that into doubt, you probably shouldn't make the flight....GPS, FMS, PMS, or WHATEVER you have on board notwithstanding. I've certainly cancelled night flights that I haven't felt comfortable making because of unfamiliar terrain, or an overcast moonless night, etc... With that as a criteria, and it IS something we all demonstrated the ability to do when we earned our license, the cockpit gadgets serve to ENHANCE the safety of an already safe flight. This is a much better place to be.

And no, my GPS doesn't have a terrain database, but my sectional does.
 
Another CFIT accident that was recently written up in 'Aftermath' (or maybe Sport Aviation, don't remember) was some guy in Utah that was VFR at night and slightly off course. He'd have been fine except he got a vector directly to his destination from ATC. The new course had him flying directly toward a mountain peak 46 feet (IIRC) above his altitude. He hit it.

Had he plotted his new course on his sectional, he might have seen the mountain. But he was flying at night over unlit terrain using borrowed reading glasses. He probably had his hands full as it was. A big red blob directly in front of him on his GPS would have saved his bacon in spite of his other presumed failures.

Once again, it's just another tool that can enhance safety. Dismissing it because it might fail is a mistake. Most of the time it won't fail. If it does, you go to the 'Plan B' that was part of your pre-flight planning. Nobody is advocating putting all one's eggs in the GPS basket.
 
jcoloccia said:
Have we really gotten to the point that loosing nav data during VFR flight, GPS or otherwise, has become a potentially fatal situation? I never go anywhere without my GPS and I certainly don't mean to "diminish" or otherwise discourage it's use but really now....things like terrain avoidance and the like are PREFLIGHT actions. If I have to glance at the GPS for anything more than confirming what I already know, I'm already behind the power curve and have added a link in the chain of events that leads to accidents.
Click to expand...

I'm not talking VFR where a set of eyeballs work.

BTW ---- A few years back, there was article titled: A Case for a Garmin. As I remember, a single engine Mooney suffered engine failure in mostly VFR conditions over the Sierra Nevada's. A local controller tried to direct the now gliding Mooney to an emergency landing in the valleys below, through some patches of clouds in lower lying areas.

Unfortunately, the Mooney hit a rising ridge line, thats actually shown on the Garmin's terrain data-base. To the left or right, would have saved the day. The complete article was written, just to show advantages of new technology that can be very helpful in less than desireable conditions.

And believe it or not, until this last year, we were averaging around three flight into terrain accidents a year, out here in the mountainous Rockies, for one reason or another. Perhaps more pilots have moving map GPS's? :D
 
mdredmond said:
Another CFIT accident that was recently written up in 'Aftermath' (or maybe Sport Aviation, don't remember) was some guy in Utah that was VFR at night and slightly off course. He'd have been fine except he got a vector directly to his destination from ATC. The new course had him flying directly toward a mountain peak 46 feet (IIRC) above his altitude. He hit it.
Click to expand...

And also out here in "mountainous Utah", we had a CFIII & a private pilot working on his IFR rating, flying a return cross country around 10:00PM on a moonless night. The intent was to open an IFR plan while in flight. Unfortunately, while in the pre-planning stages, they missed one particular rising mountain range, that's basically in the middle of a rather flat flight path to the desitination airport.

With a direct to heading set, and altitude of 8500', without warning or even seeing it, they hit the trees on top of a ridgeline of this particular mountain, which rises another 1000'. Suddenly in the snow, they were lucky to be in one piece, as well as having working cell phones on this cold wintery night.

So naturally, as a friend and I took this exact route in daytime VFR conditions in an RV9A, we decided to set a direct to course, set the A/P at 8500', and watch what the Garmin could do! :)

In the end, the instructor and student failed on their part, destroyed an airplane in the process, but the little Garmin 296 did it's job very well in turning red and warning "us" of the impending mountain strike! Now, imagine you're a passenger, and the pilots have failed somewhere along the line. Perhaps a controller on the ground too! Would you want these new and modern safety devices aboard, or not?
 
what to do?

A Buddy here flies a Corporate Kingair 350. He laughs when he tells us that hes killed hiself 3 times at simcom recurrency training. We laugh too but knowing the seriousness of what he is telling us is real. They are using a dual Avidyne system, but they still have steam gage backup flight instruments. Thier usual flight profile is from FL180 to FL270 day or night all weather. I am sure they can fly the Kingair 350 on basic gyros if required cause they train for that in case it happens. They never take for granted that the Avidynes will not fail. No one I know wants to go back to the dual nav/com dme Narco/King radio stack of the 1970's but neither do they want to fly their MFD's without backup. I think everyone needs to have an MFD but I also think I want to have the skills to use backup steam gages. :D
 
Best Wishes for 2007

It would be really cool if everyone on this forum got through 2007 without bending metal, and I don't mean in the construction phase.

Yea, I know, stuff happens and sometimes there isn't much one can do to prevent it, but with any luck at all we'll crawl, walk, or run away from it. :)

Man, it would be terrific if 2007 came and went without a single RV fatality, especially the guys here.
 
L.Adamson said:
We have the availibilty of better displays, better resolution, better data bases, and better warning features! Why is this improved technology sometimes dismissed, along with a multitude of excuses, as it is in this thread?
Click to expand...

If you think that I dismiss the technology, then I must not have done a very good job of communicating my true meaning. My concern is that so many pilots seem to be RELYING on the technology rather than concentrating on aviating. Every available layer of protection increases safety, but as soon as pilots begin using the technology as a crutch rather than as an aid to good flying practices, then the tech is no longer actually a layer of protection, but becomes one of the dreaded holes instead.

To be clear: If you can fly the airplane without the advanced technology, and you fly the airplane as if you could lose that technology at any time, then the new gagets are a genuine safety improvement. If you can ONLY fly the airplane by using the toys, then you are a danger to yourself and others. When you cross the line of having so much technology and automation that you are paying more attention to the systems than you are to flying, then the tech is no longer your friend and actually degrades safety. This line is in a different spot for different pilots, different aircraft, and different situations. I am not trying to tell anyone where their line is, but I will point out that many operations are conducted on the wrong side of the line. It is possible to add too much equipment.

My last point concerns risk management. Our RV's would undoubtably be safer if all pilots were required to have a simulator checkride in type every six months, all aircraft were required to have TCAS, radar altimeters, enhanced GPWS, CVR's, flight data recorders, and all the other safety equipment required on airliners. Unfortunately, no one would be able to afford to fly them, even if they could become airborne carrying all of this equipment. We would be even safer if we were not allowed to leave the ground (or our houses for that matter) at all. This is why I vehemently oppose anyone telling ME what MY acceptable level of risk is - I feel I should be allowed to determine this based on my experience, budget and risk tolerance, not yours.

We all need to continue to research and discuss all available safety enhancements. We should all feel free to mention equipment and techniques which we think increase safety. I just don't think we should be trying to coerce others to comply with whatever our individual opinions are.

Have a safe and happy New Year,

Pat
 
Good post Pat. For many of us flying our RVs VFR, remember to keep your eyes out of the cockpit and know what to do if your GPS takes a dump. Got maps, know your position within 5 miles?

Flying IFR, better have real backups and know how to use them if the glass ever goes down. Know the current draw on your glass and how long the battery will last if the alternator quits. A lot of glass will sign off at 9-10 volts, not to mention the rest of your avionics. Have a plan.
 
???

4kilo said:
...This is why I vehemently oppose anyone telling ME what MY acceptable level of risk is - I feel I should be allowed to determine this based on my experience, budget and risk tolerance, not yours...
Pat
Click to expand...

Not even the FAA?

Not to be argumentative (I agree with most of your post) but isn't that exactly what the FAA is? Someone else deciding what level of risk is acceptable for you?

--John Babrick
 
High tech...

4kilo said:
...
My last point concerns risk management. Our RV's would undoubtably be safer if all pilots were required to have a simulator checkride in type every six months, all aircraft were required to have TCAS, radar altimeters, enhanced GPWS, CVR's, flight data recorders, and all the other safety equipment required on airliners...
Click to expand...

None of these things really need to be out of the range of homebuilder pilots. A CVR and FDRs are downright simple, TCAS really isn't much more than another transponder, EGPWS is just a fancy database coupled to your GPS and I am not sure of the need for radar altimeters but I will take your word for it.

Anything touching an airplane is grossly grossly overpriced for what it actually is. Consider for example the cost of an SL30 nav/com. About $3500 but what is it actually? A ten watt vhf transceiver. An amateur radio vhf transceiver that does practically the same thing on a slightly different frequency band would cost about $250 and probably give better performance and reliability. But it is not TSO'd.

You pay for the costs of proving that the manufacturer followed regulations and standards. Ninety eight percent of the job I am about to leave to go do this morning is following procedures and two percent will be actual software development of the FMS.

-- John Babrick, FMS software guy.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top