5 related adults dead in Cessna 340 crash

James331 said:
Still a guy and his family members just died, just before Xmas, he could keep his mouth shut on the donut squads opinions.
Click to expand...

It's his job James. We know you have little respect for law enforcement, so really man, enough of the insults. You only make yourself look foolish.
 
Last edited:
My brother in law was going to visit with me here in JAX from Bartow today. We discussed the fog and recommended postpone takeoff until 10-11 am to let the fog burn off. Flown into that airport quite a few times. Next to a large lake and fog is not unusual. Cheap gas and nice FBO.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
GRG55 said:
What instruments did you use to stay on the runway centreline during the take-off roll? Heading indicator/DG only?

I've played around in a sim doing that but I would never launch down a runway single pilot IFR with no peripheral visual cues. I'm just not quite that daring.
Click to expand...

I'm also not daring enough to depart if ceilings aren't high enough to get back in, or at a nearby field (<10 nm away).

The single 0-0 takeoff I made during Instrument training was done on a 150' wide runway, with foggles, and I guided myself down the runway with the DG (it being more sensitive than the compass, and directly in front of me) while the -II beside me made sure we stayed on the pavement.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Until it happens. Then it’s 100% :)
Click to expand...

Same could be said for in flight airframe failures. Possible. But highly improbable. ;)

It is possible they may find something went wrong with the plane at the most inopportune time, but i wouldn't bet on it.

Even the King Air accident in the UK I cited was human error, not mechanical failure, despite the fact it had all the initial indications of a malfunctioning engine.
 
Last edited:
I don't understand some of the comments.

I spend my summers in a place that has regular maritime morning fog. If we're caught in it while driving, we drive at a snail's pace until we can see. We won't go out on the water to go fishing until it burns off. It usually burns off in 30 minutes to 90 minutes from when it begins.

This was obviously a pleasure flight with no urgency. I would have flat out refused to get on the plane. If it was someone that I had influence over, especially a relative, I would have put my foot down and stopped what was happening.

It's that simple.
 
Last edited:
cowman said:
So maybe this isn't the place to ask but as an instrument student who has never flown in IMC I'm wondering why loss of control on takeoff in fog would be such an issue. I would have thought it would be easier than flying an approach, you'd have all your instruments set up before takeoff, you'd be expecting to enter IMC, and all you'd have to do is hold a climb until you got to your desired/cleared altitude and intercepted/turned into your course.
Click to expand...
Like Cooter said, the acceleration and pitch entering the low vis/ceiling messes with your body, particularly if you aren’t ready for it, or get distracted. It is not uncommon for pilots as they enter the low vis ceiling to relax/lower the nose and level off or descend...while still over the runway. If you aren’t ready for that, or something catches you off guard, it can be fatal.
 
Rory said:
I don't understand some of the comments.

I spend my summers in a place that has regular maritime morning fog. If we're caught in it while driving, we drive at a snail's pace until we can see. We won't go out on the water to go fishing until it burns off. It usually burns off in 30 minutes to 90 minutes from when it begins.

This was obviously a pleasure flight with no urgency. I would have flat out refused to get on the plane. If it was someone that I had influence over, especially a relative, I would have put my foot down and stopped what was happening.

It's that simple.
Click to expand...


Fog has typically been lasting until 10 or 11 in the morning after forming overnight. The pilot would have had a wait of 3 or 4 hours. Personally I think it would have been worth the wait.
 
olasek said:
The aircraft took off from Bartow, FL and flew into heavy fog
Click to expand...

Flight instructors do a poor job training pilots on decision making. It's all about learning NDB approaches and other stupid things. How about a requirement to study 30 different accidents about loss of control situations or crap like that. Nope - go practice that NDB approach you will never use in your GPS equipped aircraft.
 
Half Fast said:
Fog has typically been lasting until 10 or 11 in the morning after forming overnight. The pilot would have had a wait of 3 or 4 hours. Personally I think it would have been worth the wait.
Click to expand...

I left WV 3 hours late for Sun n Fun due to unexpected morning fog. It hung on hard along the river, and dissipated fully in the time it took me spot the thinning, pull out of the hangar and taxi to the Hold Short line. So I had a leisurely lunch and a nice nap at Middle Georgia Regional while waiting for the afternoon air show to finish up.

"Hurry" and "weather" are often incompatible.
 
Half Fast said:
Fog has typically been lasting until 10 or 11 in the morning after forming overnight. The pilot would have had a wait of 3 or 4 hours. Personally I think it would have been worth the wait.
Click to expand...

I know Newfoundland in the summer, not Florida. Yes, we get fog as late as 10 or 11, but usually it clears earlier. Meanwhile, we have a couple of good places to go for breakfast/socializing while waiting. There is not a chance in hell that I would have gotten on that plane, and if it was family members I would have made damn sure that they didn't either. Meanwhile, there are people here who appear not to realize how blatantly stupid this was.
 
Adding to what Cooter, Fearless Tower and others have stated, below an excerpt from the linked IFR Magazine article (SD is spatial disorientation):

http://www.ifr-magazine.com/issues/1_22/features/219-1.html

Departure Disorientation
Accidents attributed primarily to SD are the next ones under our microscope, with seven percent of the total accidents and 100-percent lethality. Of these, four were cases where the pilots lost control en route or early on approach for no clear reason, and one more appears to be instrument failure inducing SD.
The remaining nine accidents—64 percent of the total SD accidents—were SD during takeoff and climb, or during a climb from VMC into IMC while en route. This isn’t counting another 14 accidents during takeoff that didn’t appear to be cases of SD, and isn’t including VFR-into-IMC accidents where pilots entered the clouds inadvertently and lost control.

That’s a disturbingly high number of pilots intentionally entering the clouds and then failing to maintain basic attitude instrument flying.

To be fair, one of these could be a case of instrument failure, but the fact that the pilot reported it right after entering the clouds makes it questionable whether it was the instruments or the pilot’s disbelief of what the instruments were saying. Then again, two fatal go-around crashes may have some aspect of SD in them as well, so the number may be a bit higher than we’re reporting here.

No matter what the exact count is, SD after entering IMC is a recurring theme. The accident sequence is often quick, as you can see in the summary of one Aero Commander: “Less than two minutes after the airplane departed the airport, the controller observed the airplane in a right turn and instructed the pilot to report his altitude. The pilot responded he thought he was at 3500 feet and he thought he had lost the gyros.” Maybe he did, but post-crash analysis and Occam’s razor point to simple disorientation.

A Cessna 310 had a similar tale: “The pilot departed from the airport under instrument meteorological conditions on an instrument flight rules flight plan. Weather included a 300-foot overcast cloud layer and one-mile visibility with light rain and mist. Shortly after takeoff, the air traffic controller lost radio contact with the pilot, and witnesses observed the airplane rolling under full power as it descended out of the clouds.”

These were experienced pilots of piston twins, so this isn’t just an accident for the novice or non-proficient. One of the other accident pilots in this group had an IPC days before the wreck.

Another recurring departure problem that surprised us with its prevalence is best described as a general failure to climb. One aircraft that departed in “calm winds, a 1/4-mile visibility in fog and a vertical visibility of 100 feet. Shortly after takeoff for the instrument-flight-rules flight, the airplane made a slight turn to the left and impacted the tops of 25-foot trees about a 1/2 mile from the runway.” Another accident had a similar summary: “After departing Runway 24, the airplane collided with the top conductor of a telephone line an estimated 2500 feet from the departure end of the runway. The estimated elevation of the line was 245 feet.”

If you’re thinking these were climb-challenged, overloaded aircraft, think again: They were both King Airs. Piston twins and singles were members of this group as well, again with experienced pilots. Perhaps that’s part of the problem: Entering the clouds is routine, so it’s easier to let your attention wander to other cockpit tasks and away from just maintaining a positive rate of climb...
 
Runways at KBOW aren’t even a mile long. Mishap pilot wadded his plane up beside the runway, it looks like.
Did he even have time or distance to get disoriented or did he just hit something and run off the road?
 
Lot of armchairs around here.

Like it or not, agree with me or not, this was a legal flight.

Was the plane and pilot instrument current..??

Did he hit something before rotation, like runway lights..???

What happened? At this point nobody knows.
 
GRG55 said:
Same could be said for in flight airframe failures. Possible. But highly improbable. ;)

It is possible they may find something went wrong with the plane at the most inopportune time, but i wouldn't bet on it.

Even the King Air accident in the UK I cited was human error, not mechanical failure, despite the fact it had all the initial indications of a malfunctioning engine.
Click to expand...
I agree with you. Just doing my part to be contrary on poa.

I find there is a delicate balance between being to confident in the equipment and running the risk of being inappropriately surprised when something fails and being so prepared for the failure it sucks the enjoyment out of flying. Somewhere between the two is the best place to be. Seems like a moving target so far
 
Zeldman said:
Lot of armchairs around here.

Like it or not, agree with me or not, this was a legal flight.
Click to expand...

I plead guilty. My armchair opinion is that on a private pleasure flight only a complete idiot takes off into pea soup fog.

And there are lots of things that people can do legally that are really, really stupid, this being one of them.
 
mscard88 said:
It's his job James. We know you have little respect for law enforcement, so really man, enough of the insults. You only make yourself look foolish.
Click to expand...

A well deserved lack of repeat.

And NO, it's not his job to speculate on matter far beyond his expertise
.
The guy should have just left the whole BS about "I watched the video and he shouldn't have done XYZ", people complain when accomplished pilots do that on forums, yet you give a free pass to a donut muncher who doesn't know a LPV from a longeron? Who looks foolish lol


Fact is, as was mentioned, it was a LEGAL pt91 flight and no one yet knows what caused the crash, spoiler alert, it might not have even had anything to do with the weather, we just don't know yet.
 
James331 said:
Fact is, as was mentioned, it was a LEGAL pt91 flight and no one yet knows what caused the crash, spoiler alert, it might not have even had anything to do with the weather, we just don't know yet.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

Yet the armchairs speak with knowledge.

Rory said:
I plead guilty. My armchair opinion is that on a private pleasure flight only a complete idiot takes off into pea soup fog.
Click to expand...

Can you tell me what the weather was 300 feet up?
 
James331 said:
... no one yet knows what caused the crash, spoiler alert, it might not have even had anything to do with the weather, we just don't know yet.
Click to expand...

I made that very point in my first post in this thread, back on page one. Which means what? It means that if it was a mechanical failure - which is certainly consistent with the news reports - the pea soup fog would have made it impossible to make a controlled forced landing.

There is every possibility that this is precisely what happened.

Just one of the reasons why taking off into pea soup fog on a pleasure flight was a really stupid decision.

As a student pilot, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that if I have a mechanical failure on takeoff, and I can't see ten feet in front of me, it's a bit of a problem.
 
Last edited:
I recommend some of the posters here read the chapter linked below. I take ADM seriously. If more CFIs did the same, some needless deaths could and would be prevented. I don’t mind being accused of armchair QBing in cases like this. One thing I will not contribute to is the notion is that it is perfectly ok to take-off in near zero vis, on a morning when the only cost is likely a few hour delay. No we don’t know the full story yet. But the statistics are there, and my own experience informs me of the risks this guy took in deciding to takeoff in these conditions. People are shaped by many influences, one of which is the things they read on the internet. Call me an armchair QB all you want, but anyone reading this thread should come away with the understanding that taking off into near zero visibility is a risk that is almost certainly not worth taking. We don’t yet know all the facts in this case, but it is a fine opportunity to remind people of the dangers associated with such decisions.

Merry Christmas!
https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/handbooks_manuals/aviation/phak/media/04_phak_ch2.pdf
 
mscard88 said:
What helps is if one has a flight director. Then you fly the plane into the command bars and climb out, get the AP on (if you have one), and then retract gear/flaps as required. A Cessna 340 most likely had the equipment I described. You have to be current and proficient as an instrument pilot. You have to have a plan. What are you going to do if you lose an engine for instance. Most professional pilots plan on losing an engine on takeoff or at/after rotation, and mentally review the procedure before hand. That may be a cause of this crash, some type of mechanical problem, might not be. Could have had an engine failure at rotation. Who knows, but we'll probably find out the cause after the NTSB investigates.

This was a Part 91 takeoff, meaning one can takeoff in zero visibility conditions. Not the most wise thing to do, but legal. You wonder why the FAA doesn't require a minimum visibility for takeoff under Part 91 like there is for Part 135 & 121.

Part 135/121 (Air Taxi, airlines) will have required visibility for a particular runway at an airport. Example, might have been 1/2 mile for this runway.
Click to expand...
I've had more than one CFII insist I do a 0-0 under the hood, which I refuse. They weren't trying to determine if I knew the rules or not, but were really serious that it was legal, and didn't understand when I said it was a stupid legality.
 
Rory said:
a complete idiot
Click to expand...
I have a hard time with "a complete idiot" - at least with what we know so far. A competent coordinated pilot can manage a 0/0 takeoff.. it is carries much higher risk but I wouldn't call someone a complete idiot for it. That's a pretty aggressive carte blanche indictment. Some people can ski glades and double blacks no problems, others stay on the blues

Rory said:
As a student pilot, happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. But it seems to me that if I have a mechanical failure on takeoff, and I can't see ten feet in front of me, it's a bit of a problem.
Click to expand...
If you have a mechanical failure on a moonless night, even VFR, or over mountains, or over water out of glide range you are going to have a real problem as well. Aviation is all about managing risk. People out here fly their bug smashers to Catalina almost every weekend, I wouldn't call them complete idiots either.

Zeldman said:
What happened? At this point nobody knows.
Click to expand...
Correct. Maybe it was the fog, or the fog is a big red herring and he had a heart attack.. not sure it's fair to pile on this guy
 
*No, I would not have flown that day. I'll be very interested to hear the probable cause or find out how much actual instrument time he had

*I am very grateful for the actual IMC time I got with my instructor.. the plane feels different and the whole experience is different in clouds. It's definitely not like foggles at all.. can be very strange. Now I know what to expect
 
He could have stalled it, he could have had engine failure, he could have got disoriented, he could have been overweight! Unfortunately the only people that can say what happened are no longer alive. So until the NTSB finding come out, all you experts are theorizing, and putting blame on a pilot that no one here really knows his skills and limitations or the conditions of the plane. A few commenters on here a student pilots, or weekend warriors that fly only a few times a month around the pattern. For crap sake, stop trying to put blame on someone or something that none us were there, knew the pilot or know exactly what happened.
 
Tantalum said:
I have a hard time with "a complete idiot" - at least with what we know so far. A competent coordinated pilot can manage a 0/0 takeoff.. it is carries much higher risk but I wouldn't call someone a complete idiot for it.
Click to expand...

Don't quote me out of context. I said that I think that a private pilot who takes off on a pleasure flight into a pea soup fog is a complete idiot. And I meant it. That happens to be based on living six months a year in a maritime environment where this kind of fog is a regular occurrence, and many, many years of ocean sailing. I also meant it when I said that there isn't a hope in hell that I would have gotten on that plane, and, if faced with an intention by a family member to do this, would have stopped the whole idea in its tracks. As far as I am concerned, what this pilot did, if the reports are correct, defies common sense.

Frankly, what's bizarre is you talking about the lives of five family members on a pleasure flight into zero visibility, completely avoidable with an hour or two wait at Starbucks, as a matter of risk assessment. No wonder the FAA is refocusing its training to address attitudes toward risk.
 
Last edited:
I've always noticed how when tragedies happen people have a tendency to want to blame a person, with the implication that a bad decision that lead to the tragedy makes someone a bad person. That's an attitude that has always bugged me, certainly nobody who knew the outcome of what they were doing was going to be a plane crash would have chosen to proceed. Whatever happened here I think there can be little doubt that this pilot taxied out and pushed his throttles forward with an expectation of making it safely to his destination. We know that didn't work out and we have a good theory of why that might have been but as others have pointed out the NTSB hasn't been out yet- it could still turn out to be mechanical failure or something.

Questioning a decision is something we ought to be doing. Questioning why that decision was made was another thing we ought to be doing. Looking at the pilot's experience, condition, ratings, etc are also completely valid things that we should be doing. This is the useful stuff, this is how we learn what causes problems. This is how we get good statistics and improve safety. We need to do it.

What is not useful is attacking the pilot's character. Attacking the choice is fair game but not the person. I think that, if anything, undermines safety because it puts us into a mindset of "well I'm no dummy, I wouldn't do this". Maybe you wouldn't, maybe I wouldn't. However, I bet every one of us has or will do something that, in hindsight, was probably a really bad idea. It is in our best interest to look at pilots in these sorts of incidents not as irresponsible yahoos but as one of us who made a poor choice and ran out of luck.

tl;dr I am interested in these things to learn something not condemn anyone.
 
I’ve fly into KBOW a lot for the cheap fuel. The fog there is very thin, it could be 1/4 visibility but you can see blue sky. I can understand the temptation to take off knowing you’ll be in the clear by the time you get to 50’, I would not be surprised if the gear was still down. I find it hard to believe that he could get disoriented so quickly in those conditions, I gotta think there was another factor : runaway trim, DG inaccuracy causing him to veer off the runway, engine problem, health issue...I hope they just don’t pencil whip as another pilot error, loss of control.
 
James331 said:
RIP

Guess there's no need to call the NTSB or FAA, the local yocal cop apparently is an expert :rolleyes:

"I have reviewed some footage, and clearly no one should have tried to a takeoff from this airport at 7:15 this morning"

http://abcnews.go.com/US/killed-plane-attempted-takeoff-airport-socked-fog/story?id=51977642


Perhaps he should stick to giving speeding tickets and munching donuts.
Click to expand...

Wherever there is a TV camera Sheriff Judd won’t be far behind ...

Bartow is my local field, I’m currently over in the UK but talking to a CFI buddy yesterday who instructs out of Bartow there is a lot of speculation has to what caused the tragedy but little facts are actually known yet. Unfortunately the tower was closed at the time of the accident.

The pilot involved got his PPL in 2010 and was Instrument rated and had recently been a relief pilot getting supplies into Key West following the Hurricane.

Whatever the reason it’s very sad for all involved. Bartow is a great airport and all the staff from office admin to the line guys are committed to their work. GA is very important and welcomed to the field. Everyone will be devistated by this incident.
 
I have seen a lot of comments that this takeoff was legal due to being Part 91 yet not one mention of the little black "T" triangle on the approach plates so I looked it up. Appears there are only Takeoff Obstacle Notes for KBOW so the takeoff was in fact legal. That being said, I'm in the camp that just because something is legal doesn't make it a good decision. ADM is a lot more complex then that black/white approach.
 
After having done a few 0/0 take offs and experiencing the disorientation that made me think I needed to pitch down 50' off the runway...count me out.

As someone above said, I am here to learn...not throw stones. This happens to be one scenario that I have learned to avoid.

The name "somatogravic illusion" was drilled in my head as an instrument student...my CFII did this because I owned my own plane and he surmised that it would be only a matter of time that I made a low viz take off...and wanted me to be prepared.

2d in this link is what is being described in this thread...somatogravic illusion...
http://webapp1.dlib.indiana.edu/vir...x.cgi/4300833/FID2415/ATPUBS/aim/p0801005.htm

https://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Somatogravic_and_Somatogyral_Illusions
 
cowman said:
I've always noticed how when tragedies happen people have a tendency to want to blame a person, with the implication that a bad decision that lead to the tragedy makes someone a bad person. That's an attitude that has always bugged me, certainly nobody who knew the outcome of what they were doing was going to be a plane crash would have chosen to proceed. Whatever happened here I think there can be little doubt that this pilot taxied out and pushed his throttles forward with an expectation of making it safely to his destination. We know that didn't work out and we have a good theory of why that might have been but as others have pointed out the NTSB hasn't been out yet- it could still turn out to be mechanical failure or something.

Questioning a decision is something we ought to be doing. Questioning why that decision was made was another thing we ought to be doing. Looking at the pilot's experience, condition, ratings, etc are also completely valid things that we should be doing. This is the useful stuff, this is how we learn what causes problems. This is how we get good statistics and improve safety. We need to do it.

What is not useful is attacking the pilot's character. Attacking the choice is fair game but not the person. I think that, if anything, undermines safety because it puts us into a mindset of "well I'm no dummy, I wouldn't do this". Maybe you wouldn't, maybe I wouldn't. However, I bet every one of us has or will do something that, in hindsight, was probably a really bad idea. It is in our best interest to look at pilots in these sorts of incidents not as irresponsible yahoos but as one of us who made a poor choice and ran out of luck.

tl;dr I am interested in these things to learn something not condemn anyone.
Click to expand...

Well said cowman. When I was learning and coming up in aviation I devoured the accident articles in Flying and other publications. Pilots do learn from accidents.
 
FlyingTiger said:
I have seen a lot of comments that this takeoff was legal due to being Part 91 yet not one mention of the little black "T" triangle on the approach plates so I looked it up. Appears there are only Takeoff Obstacle Notes for KBOW so the takeoff was in fact legal. That being said, I'm in the camp that just because something is legal doesn't make it a good decision. ADM is a lot more complex then that black/white approach.
Click to expand...

While the black T is an important reference in taking off, doesn’t matter what’s published (mins / ODP)for it, it’s not required for Part 91 ops.
 
James331 said:
A well deserved lack of repeat.

And NO, it's not his job to speculate on matter far beyond his expertise
.
The guy should have just left the whole BS about "I watched the video and he shouldn't have done XYZ", people complain when accomplished pilots do that on forums, yet you give a free pass to a donut muncher who doesn't know a LPV from a longeron? Who looks foolish lol


Fact is, as was mentioned, it was a LEGAL pt91 flight and no one yet knows what caused the crash, spoiler alert, it might not have even had anything to do with the weather, we just don't know yet.
Click to expand...

I can buy, somewhat, what you're saying about the Sheriff's opinion James, but there are a few law enforcement folks on here and your name calling, "donut muncher", etc, could be left out of your posts. FWIW most Sheriff departments, down south anyway, do have aviation branches, fixed and helo. So they may be familiar with aviation more than you think. One of the CFIs at the flight here is a Sheriff deputy for example.
 
Last edited:
mscard88 said:
I can buy, somewhat, what you're saying about the Sheriff's opinion James, but there are a few law enforcement folks on here and your name calling, "donut muncher", etc, could be left out of your posts. FWIW most Sheriff departments, down south anyway, do have aviation branches, fixed and helo. So they may be familiar with aviation more than you think.
Click to expand...

I work with crew who are around planes all the time, but even they know where their expertise stops, they might know more than the average Joe, for sure, but they also wouldn't speak with that level of certainty about a accident, especially on TV or for the record.

So do your friends not like donuts? ;)
 
With all due respect to the dearly departed, I'm in the camp of "the pilot was stupid". Legal vs safe" is the same thing as "current vs "proficient". IMHO, any takeoff into conditions that are so poor that you could not turn around and land is a foolish and unnecessary risk. (Unless of course NOT taking off would be equally risky, which is hard to imagine.) Doing so with passengers aboard is not only stupid, but it's also irresponsible. There is an awfully big difference between choosing to or having no choice but to shoot an approach in very poor conditions, but this guy was safe on the ground. He didn't have to go, he wanted to go. Most likely, his ego couldn't let him not launch.

Personally, I've never understood why 0/0 takeoffs are legal for Part 91 ops. Can someone explain the FAAs logic about this to me?
 
I thought the alternative takeoff minimums were applicable to 91 ops but Velocity's post above indicates that they are only advisory in nature. Not once did my CFI during IFR training or the DPE during my check ride mention that and I spent a decent amount of time on ODPs with both.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top