A Sad Reminder

It was a rainy Thursday afternoon and I was eating lunch with my family when my phone rang. My wife and I had just been discussing how miserable the weather was, so it was only natural that about 30 minutes later I was soaking wet and sitting in one of our Aerostars getting ready to take off for Ohio. I didn’t have much information about who I would be flying, or why, but I knew that I was going to pick someone up to fly them home; something about a missing airplane. So off I went into the muck. My biggest concern at that point being whether or not my clothes would ever dry out.

I arrived uneventfully and walked happily into the FBO, but found myself quickly in a very different atmosphere. It turned out I had two passengers to pick up, a husband and wife, and they had arrived at the FBO before me. As I walked in the door, the wife received a phone call. The person on the phone told her that search teams had found her father’s airplane crashed in the woods and that he was dead. I learned the rest of the details quickly and it was hard to stomach.

She was travelling home that day to be with family until they were able to locate her father. She was pregnant with her first baby and was in her third trimester. The baby was to be her dad’s first grandchild. He’d owned a Lake Amphibian for years and had stayed at home to work while his wife was out of town. He was last seen leaving work on Tuesday of that week and was reported missing on Thursday by his co-workers. Airport security footage showed him pulling the airplane out and taking off at 20:48 (after sunset) on Tuesday night.

After a few minutes we loaded the Aerostar and took off. It was the saddest flight I’ve ever done. Understandably, my passanger sobbed on and off from the time she got off the phone until we landed a couple of hours later. The weather seemed appropriate as we flew along through the rain and were greeted at our destination by a grief stricken family and a few reporters.

I said a sad goodbye and left, but I couldn’t help but think about their situation. It really hit close to home with me as it was easy to draw parallels between my family and theirs: she was very close in age to me and pregnant with her first child. My wife and I were new parents. Her dad had owned his airplane for about the same length of time that my dad has owned his Bonanza. Additionally, it isn’t uncommon for my parents to go a couple days without being able to reach each other because they both travel.

A Lake 250, the same type of aircraft involved in the accident.

But what happened..?

In the time since the accident, the NTSB has published their findings and unfortunately, it makes the situation sadder. It was completely avoidable.

Airport security cameras showed that after removing the airplane from the hangar, the pilot did not complete a preflight inspection or even a walkaround of any kind. He simply climbed in and left. The investigators were unable to find any traces or odor of fuel in the wreckage, nor any mechanical abnormalities with the airplane. In fact, according to the report, the engine was put on a test stand and ran perfectly. It would seem that the pilot simply never checked the fuel quantity and took off. The airport cameras captured the take off and a bright flash about 30 seconds after the aircraft departed.

Here is an excerpt from the report:

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:  The pilot’s attempted 180-degree return to the runway immediately after takeoff in dark night conditions, which resulted in collision with trees and terrain. Also causal was the pilot’s inadequate preflight inspection, which resulted in a takeoff with little-to-no fuel on board the airplane.

Interestingly, the report also details their ability to use logbook information and fuel receipts to show the airplane was taken on a long cross country on its last flight and likely not fueled again.
Another thing which stuck out in my mind upon learning the details of the crash was how important it is to let someone know when you’re going flying. Having another person know roughly when a flight is leaving, where it’s going and and when to expect it back could potentially save the lives of the people on board. In the case of this accident, the pilot didn’t alert anyone that he was going flying and therefore, no one realized he was missing for 2 days.

From reading the NTSB report I don’t get the impression that he survived the crash, but I can’t help thinking about the possibility that he, or others in similar circumstances, could survive a crash and then die from their injuries because no one knew to look for them. When I flew charter, we weren’t legally allowed to take off VFR without letting someone at the company know the details of the flight. I’ve adopted this as my personal policy as well. One text message could be the difference between being rescued or not.

Finally, every pilot should ensure that a proper walk around is completed! It’s easy to assume everything is okay with an airplane, especially one that no one else has access too. In addition to a thorough preflight, I like to walk all the way around the airplane and visual check fuel caps, doors, chocks, ropes, etc., immediately before getting in to ensure that everything is ready. I know a couple of pilots who have taken off with various panels and compartments open simply because they got distracted during their walk around and never closed them. (A good policy is to never walk away and leave something open). Perhaps even more mind boggling is that he apparently didn’t look at the fuel gauges after start up and before take off. I also have to wonder how much fuel he had remaining upon completion of the previous flight.

“Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect” is likely a familiar quote to just about every pilot. It is often written on a poster with a picture of an old timey bi-plane hanging out of a tree, but I think that it is absolutely on point. Carelessness in the preflight and neglecting basic pilot responsibilities (in this case fuel planning) cost this father his life and his opportunity to meet his first grandchild.

I know this article is a real downer, but it’s supposed to be. Its tragic that accidents take place which are completely avoidable. Obviously this case was beyond the normal realm of carelessness and neglect, but, we as pilots need to be extremely careful not to get so comfortable with an airplane that we stop doing the things which are so basic and important to safety. One of my professors in school used to say “aviation is fun, but it plays for keeps,” which is an effective way to remind myself how important it is to do it right.

*Out of respect to the family, I have not included any specific names, tail numbers or airports in this article.

Similar Posts

  • Drones: A Brief History

    Drones; these technological wonders have, seemingly, come out of nowhere over the course of a few years. Although they bring with them the promise of convenience and fun, they have also brought problems and uncertainty for the government, general public, and, specifically, the aviation community. But, where did drones come from and are they really something to be worried about? Let’s take a look at Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS) and hopefully put to bed some of the concerns which seem to be following them around.

    It shouldn’t come as a surprise to anyone when I say that drones have recently become overwhelmingly popular. The military, businesses, and hobbyists are increasingly utilizing them for all kinds of purposes, which range from enemy surveillance to package delivery. Drone pilots are in high demand and several aviation universities are even offering majors designed to produce graduates which specialize in UAVs (Unmanned Aerial Vehicles).

    Drones are relatively new to the landscape of unmanned flying machines. Although model airplanes have been popular since the dawn of aviation, the first “drones” didn’t start becoming commercially available until a few years ago. As electronic technology advanced, so did model aviation. Models became more and more sophisticated and could be flown remotely as long as they remained within sight of the person flying it.

    It wasn’t until about 3 or 4 years ago that the technology became available to develop drones. This is due to the need for very small and light electric motors, batteries, and stabilization systems. Once these started to become popular, it didn’t take long for drones to become bigger, cheaper, and completely automated.

    It is important to note that there is a difference between drones and conventional model airplanes and helicopters. Drones are defined most simply as an unmanned vehicle which can be operated without user input from the ground. Conventional model aircraft can take all shapes and sizes, but must be operated within line of sight from the operator; as they have no ability to fly, takeoff, land, or navigate without input via a radio transmitter. So, if you happen to see a model aircraft flying, don’t assume automatically that it is a drone. Most of the time, model airplanes, helicopters and even drones are being flown safely and legally.

    Generally, a drone is designed with several arms which come off of a central body. Each of the “arms” typically has a motor with a rotor mounted on it to provide lift while the main body is home to the radio equipment, landing skids and camera gear. If you see a model flying that looks like a conventional airplane or helicopter, odds are it isn’t a drone. Most likely it is being flown recreationally by someone nearby.

    Historically, model airplanes and helicopters have been difficult to learn to fly. Before the times of pre-built foam airplanes and ready to fly drones, a modeler had to build their flying machine and find someone to teach them how to fly it. (Otherwise, they would likely only get one short flight). New modelers would be directed toward the local model flying club and would get plugged in with a group of established fliers who could outline the rules for model aircraft as well as get them up in the air safely.

     

    However, because most everything is purchased online in today’s market, drones are bought and flown by enthusiasts who have not been taught the rules, safety protocols, and procedures necessary to safely operate their new kits. In addition, the drones incredible stability and ability to be flown without any skill means that anyone with great enough funds and an equally great lack of common sense can buy a model and program it to fly over any location they choose. Unfortunately, sometimes that includes places which cause problems.

    Andrew Robinson is a 135 Charter Pilot and flight instructor who lives with his wife and 2 daughters in Pennsylvania.  He flies Pilatus PC-12s and instructs in Beechcraft Bonanzas.

  • Cirrus G2 Vision Jet

    Well, that was fast.

    In January, Cirrus announced the Generation 2 SF50 Vision Jet.  After getting the Generation 1 Vision Jet certified in late 2016, Cirrus didn’t waste any time in starting in on improvements.

    The improvements are pretty sweet, making the G2 Vision Jet even easier to fly and step into for Cirrus’ target market, SR22 owners.

    Here are the improvements on the G2 Vision Jet.

    RVSM Approval

    The G2 Vision Jet has received RVSM approval, allowing the airplane to fly at 31,000 feet.  RVSM stands for Reduced Vertical Separation Minimums (read more about RVSM here).  RVSM airspace starts at 28,000 feet, the G1 Vision Jet’s ceiling.  Now that the G2 Vision Jet is RVSM certified, it can fly at 31,000 feet.

    For piston pilots, you are left scratching your head as to the advantage of this.  In a jet, the higher you go, the thinner the air, so the faster you go, and the less fuel you burn since the thin air needs less fuel to mix with.  This caps out at a certain altitude and the speed begins dropping and you start losing efficiency (even though the fuel burn is quite low).

    According to Cirrus, at 31,000 feet, the G2 Vision Jet cruises over 300 KTAS and gets a range boost to almost 1,200 nm.

    Garmin Perspective Touch+

    Cirrus & Garmin have taken the new NXi interface and paired it with the Garmin Perspective Touch to create the Touch+.  You can read about the improvements on the NXi here, all of which are included in the Touch+ in the G2 Vision Jet.

    The big improvement that is included in the Touch+ is Autothrottle capability.  An Autothrottle is integrated with the autopilot.  It automatically adjusts power settings and speeds based on the phase of flight without the pilot having to touch the throttle.  Pretty cool.

    New Cabin

    The G2 Vision Jet has a redesigned cabin as well, making it an extremely passenger friendly airplane.  The second row has been redesigned and equipped with a center console.  There is also a drop down TV screen that allows passengers to connect their mobile devices to it to watch movies or videos while traveling (no internet on board, yet.  That’ll probably be the G3 Vision Jet!).

    Cirrus also put in more noise reduction in the cabin, creating a quieter ride for passengers.  Cirrus also allows for multiple different seating configurations, depending on the needs of the owner.

    As always, Cirrus is on the leading edge of airplane technology, creating airplanes that are easy as well as fun to fly.  I’m excited to see how they continue to improve the design to both the SR22 and the Vision Jet.

  • Textron Aviation’s New Single Engine Turboprop

    An 8 seat, cabin class, single engine turboprop is set to come to market in 2018 from the new aviation conglomerate Textron Aviation (Textron owns Cessna, Hawker, and Beechcraft).  Details were announced last week at the European Business Aviation Conference and Exhibition.  The as yet unnamed aircraft will be equipped with Garmin’s G3000 avionics and will be outfitted with a GE 1,240 Shaft Horsepower engine.

    Cessna TurbopropThe GE engine will be equipped with a FADEC (Fully Automated Digital Engine Control) computer that will allow the pilot to make all necessary power adjustments using just one lever.

    Range will be about 1,600 miles at 285 knots, giving the airplane the same legs as a PC12 at slightly faster speeds, but a smaller cabin.  The cabin will be equipped with a belted lav if desired.

    To read more, check out the AOPA Article here.

  • The Aunt Betty Directive: PFD Failures

    Glass panel displays, ballistic parachute aircraft recovery systems, portable tablet computers enabling paperless cockpits, and widely available three axis autopilot systems have changed the way we fly, the way we train, and the way we are expected to perform on check rides. Our training and testing paradigms have tried to stay in synch, yet always seem to be catching up to the latest levels of technology.

    This is very apparent when we instructors are preparing a student for an FAA practical test. When training aircraft had no autopilots, no GPS, and certainly no parachutes, the general philosophy was that during training, the student should have the lowest level of technology available. This was also the expectation on the check ride. This theory has changed over the years and now the Practical Test Standards require that an applicant integrate all available technology while demonstrating mastery of his or her aircraft. This raises numerous questions from instructors and students about what technology will be available for each task.

    One example of this dilemma is found when contemplating an instrument airplane practical test in a Cirrus SR20/SR22. The test requires the task “Instrument Approach without Primary Flight Display”, which has taken the place of what was the partial panel approach, accomplished without use of gyroscopic heading and attitude indicators. In the Cirrus, the standby attitude indicator, standby airspeed, and standby altimeter are available, as is the Multi-Function Display. Guidance from the FAA has us shooting a GPS approach using the moving map display on the MFD after disabling the PFD. Those of us who trained and tested in steam gauge aircraft think that this task should be fairly easy. With a fully functional Attitude Indicator and a nice big moving map display showing our course, a reasonably competent instrument pilot should have little trouble adapting to this setup and flying a good approach.

    But, in the Cirrus specifically, and perhaps in other aircraft as well, another question comes up. Can the applicant use the autopilot (which still works just fine after a display failure) during the approach without the PFD? A rather famous DPE who writes for a national magazine says “yes”, opining that not to allow its use would be introducing simultaneous multiple systems failures, which is strictly forbidden in the minds of some. If we follow this logic, we would not test simulated engine failure emergencies in these aircraft either, because to do so would imply failure of not only the engine, but the CAPS parachute system as well. In my former role as a pilot examiner, I always said no, that the approach should be hand flown. Here is my logic.

    I was amazed that flight instructors and examiners would accept the substitution of autopilot technology for the skill required to fly an approach without the PFD. I would argue that the intent and the well described emphasis of the PTS is that the applicant must demonstrate the ability to control the airplane after a loss of the primary flight display, not observe and monitor the autopilot controlling the airplane! This argument was generally unpersuasive, so I approached from a different point of view, that of a concerned family member.

    “Aunt Betty” represents a future passenger flying with the soon to be rated instrument pilot. Here is the question posed to Aunt Betty: “When we train and test pilots for instrument proficiency, we require them to demonstrate the ability to safely and skillfully fly the airplane without their primary instruments. Now, Betty, in this airplane, we can test this task in one of two ways. We would like your input on which way you would prefer, seeing as you will be a frequent passenger with your nephew. We can either have the pilot (might be your son, brother, husband, or nephew) demonstrate that he can fly the airplane by hand without the PFD, which does require a little more skill and a slightly different technique, or, we can require the pilot to perform this task using the autopilot so that the pilot basically monitors the airplane flying itself on the approach.

    “Now, Aunt Betty, a pilot allowed to use the autopilot system on this approach may not have the skill or technique to fly the approach by hand in the clouds should the autopilot shut down due to turbulence or mechanical failure. Should this happen to a pilot without the skill and practice normally required, the odds of a fatal accident occurring would be quite high.

    “So what do you think, Aunt Betty? Would you feel more comfortable flying with this fellow if he has demonstrated mastery of the aircraft (sans PFD) without the autopilot or only with its assistance?”

    This leads us to a larger discussion about the use of other technology, iPad, GPS moving map, and more. If technology is used as a replacement for pilot proficiency during training and testing, we end up with less skillful, less competent and ultimately less safe pilots. But, if we require that our students demonstrate mastery with the lowest available level of automation and technology (which, by the way, implies excellent fundamental aircraft control skills) then, when technology is added into the equation, we have a safer pilot.

    Technology can be a value added safety multiplier, or it can be a crutch needed to make up for lack of fundamental and advanced skills. Crutch or Safety Multiplier, which one will you choose? I know which one Aunt Betty prefers.

    Charles McDougal is a flight instructor, corporate pilot, and former DPE ‎who offers basic and advanced flight instruction in the San Antonio area.  To find out more information about Charles or to contact him, visit his website, www.flighttrainingcoalition.com.

  • Unusual Attitude Recoveries

    For a VFR or an IFR pilot, an unusual attitude can be one of the most dangerous situations to get into.  That is one reason so many new autopilots are being developed with a level button.  The concept behind the level button is if the pilot gets into a disorienting situation, press the level button and the autopilot comes on, holding the airplane in a straight and level pitch attitude.

    What about all those planes without autopilots that have a level button?  That’s who this article is for.

    First off, what is an unusual attitude?  The Airplane Flying Handbook on page 4-17 gives the following definition:  “An unusual attitude is commonly referenced as an unintended or unexpected attitude in instrument flight.”  The AFH also goes on to say that an unusual attitude in training has no defined bank and pitch parameters, but “for training purposes an instructor could place the airplane in a 30 degree bank with a nose up pitch attitude of 15 degrees and ask the student to recover and that would be considered an unusual attitude….”

    We now have a basis from the FAA.  VFR Pilots are now saying, “Oh, instrument flight, that doesn’t apply to us.”  Not so fast.  The Private Pilot ACS (and before it, the PTS) has a requirement for Basic Attitude Instrument Flying, including unusual attitude recoveries.  Why?  Because VFR pilots still inadvertently fly into IMC conditions and can get into an unusual attitude.  Plus, a private, non-instrument rated pilot has a higher chance of not recovering from an unusual attitude since he isn’t used to relying on his instruments.

    At each training event I do, whether it be private pilot training, a flight review, IFR training, transition training, or pretty much any kind of recurrent training, I like to do unusual attitude recoveries with my customers.  It’s one of those things that the recovery procedure wanes over time since it isn’t routinely practiced solo (for good reason!).

    I see people have the most trouble with the nose high unusual attitude recoveries.  Let’s start with the recovery procedure, then I’ll discuss the common errors (notice that the nose high unusual attitude recovery procedure mirrors a stall recovery).  Remember, this is in IFR conditions:

    • Breathe
    • Pitch Down to a level pitch attitude on the Attitude Indicator (or lower if the stall warning horn continues to go off)
    • Simultaneously add full power
    • Roll wings level
    • Flaps up and recover to a level pitch attitude if not there already

    The order is important, especially the breathing part.  What happens if a pilot goes straight into a recovery and doesn’t pause for a second or two to absorb what’s going on is the recovery isn’t executed properly.

    Our brains see the wings banked and set off all kinds of alarms to roll the wings level first before doing anything else.  Adding any kind of aileron input with the nose close to the critical angle of attack is a bad idea.  You are adding adverse yaw (since you probably won’t be coordinated) and load factor which increases the stall speed.  Then we all know that Stall + Yaw = Spin.  That’s something that is best avoided in IMC.

    We have to teach our brains to ignore the bank angle until the pitch and power come in.  Once the airplane is far away from the critical angle of attack, then the bank can be rolled to neutral.

    Let’s look at the nose low unusual attitude recovery.  The order is still important on this one too:

    • Breathe
    • Power Reduce (to idle if necessary)
    • Roll Wings Level
    • Pitch up to a level pitch attitude
    • Add Power back to cruise

    The theory with the nose low unusual attitude is your speed is accelerating.  By reducing the power first, that helps reduce the load factor experienced when the pitch is increased.  Same with rolling the wings level.  Neutral bank is a lower load factor than some kind of a bank angle.  We are trying to prevent overspeeding the airplane.  The lower the load factor, the less of a chance we have to rip the wings off.

    The most important step in either recovery procedure is to breathe first, allowing the brain to process exactly what is happening.  That way, the proper recovery can be executed.

  • The Diamond DA62: The Ultimate Twin

    Late last year, the Diamond Aircraft Corporation announced a brand new twin engine, the Diamond DA62. At first glance, this is a pretty cool airplane.  It seats 7 passengers, spread out amongst 3 rows, with 2 massive doors, leading to an “SUV” type feel, according to Flying Magazine.  That is only one of the “neato” features of the Diamond DA62.

    The thing that will make pilots believers is the fuel burn.  According to Flying Magazine, which did a test flight of the airplane, at 14,000 feet and 60% power, the airplane was only burning 12 GPH, but still doing 170 KTAS.  Remember, this is a twin.  That’s about the same as a normally aspirated Cirrus SR22 at the same altitude.

    Diamond DA62

    How does Diamond do it?  Jet A.  The company put two Austro AE330, 170 Horsepower, Jet A burning piston engines on the Diamond DA62.  You may say, well, yeah, at 60% power, that’s great, but I want to go places. How much fuel does it burn then?  Even at max continuous power of 95%, it’s still only burning 18.5 GPH total and cruising at 195 knots.  Paying Jet A prices, that’s pretty sweet.

    The range on the airplane is quite nice too.  Again, according to Flying Magazine, the range with full fuel (86.4 gallons with aux tanks) is about 1,300 miles.  You can carry the whole family too, as the full fuel payload is 1,000 pounds.  Golf clubs?  No problem.  Just stick them in the nose.

    The Diamond DA62 is probably one of the easiest twins to manage, engine-wise, too.  The Fully Automated Digital Engine Control (FADEC) system that Diamond installed leaves the pilot with only 2 power levers, instead of 6 on the typical piston twin.  All that needs to be done at cruise is set a percent power and the FADEC computer does the rest.

    Need air conditioning, built in oxygen, and TKS?  Diamond can set you up.  The G1000 system complete with digital backup instruments is standard in the airplane.  What more can you really ask for?

    If you haven’t figured it out, I really like this airplane and would be aching to fly it.  I enjoy the DA40 and have a good amount of DA42 experience, but I’d really like to hop in a Diamond DA62.

    Read the whole Flying Magazine article here.

    Sources:  Flyingmag.com

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *