Plane Missing Over Lake Erie

Odd. Anyone have the weather? Iced up?

See it from post above now.

METAR Weather report:
03:45 UTC / 22:45 local time:
KBKL 300345Z 26023G32KT 6SM -SN BR SCT012 BKN021 OVC026 01/M02 A2973 RMK AO2 PK WND 26035/0254 SNB0259 P0000 T00061017
03:53 UTC / 22:53 local time:
KBKL 300353Z 26025G31KT 8SM -SN BKN013 BKN022 OVC032 01/M02 A2974 RMK AO2 PK WND 26035/0254 SNB0259 SLP076 P0000 T00061017

04:00 UTC / 23:00 local time:
KBKL 300400Z 26022G31KT 9SM SCT015 BKN023 OVC039 01/M02 A2974 RMK AO2 PK WND 26027/0356 SNE0355 P0000
 
Last edited:
WTF happened to that Citation? It says 2012 model, so I assume glass. Bad AHRS? Pilot medical event?

Sucks.
 
CNN reports that a CJ 2 or 3 was missing after departing Burke late last night. The reporting, so far, says that the plane disappeared from radar 2 miles from the airport. Given the obvious flat topography of the lake, how low is "below" radar? Or is that the wrong technical question?

Seems to me that 2 miles from the airport is likely to be pretty close to the shore for S&R purposes, but I recognize that if nothing below 1000agl shows on radar, a struggling jet could go quite some distance beyond that range before hitting the water....assuming I'm thinking about that right.

Regardless of the technical aspects, a very sad turn of events. Hoping against hope that this group is found.
 
mscard88 said:
Odd. Anyone have the weather? Iced up?

See it from post above now.

METAR Weather report:
03:45 UTC / 22:45 local time:
KBKL 300345Z 26023G32KT 6SM -SN BR SCT012 BKN021 OVC026 01/M02 A2973 RMK AO2 PK WND 26035/0254 SNB0259 P0000 T00061017
03:53 UTC / 22:53 local time:
KBKL 300353Z 26025G31KT 8SM -SN BKN013 BKN022 OVC032 01/M02 A2974 RMK AO2 PK WND 26035/0254 SNB0259 SLP076 P0000 T00061017

04:00 UTC / 23:00 local time:
KBKL 300400Z 26022G31KT 9SM SCT015 BKN023 OVC039 01/M02 A2974 RMK AO2 PK WND 26027/0356 SNE0355 P0000
Click to expand...

Mist and snow right at the freezing point with pretty good winds. I would image it was even more intense over the water. I don't know enough about how bleed air works to know of effective it is at take-off and the initial climb.

I know that both bleed air and the inertial separator rob power so I don't know if it's standard ops to have them on during take-off...
 
mscard88 said:
Odd. Anyone have the weather? Iced up?

See it from post above now.

METAR Weather report:
03:45 UTC / 22:45 local time:
KBKL 300345Z 26023G32KT 6SM -SN BR SCT012 BKN021 OVC026 01/M02 A2973 RMK AO2 PK WND 26035/0254 SNB0259 P0000 T00061017
03:53 UTC / 22:53 local time:
KBKL 300353Z 26025G31KT 8SM -SN BKN013 BKN022 OVC032 01/M02 A2974 RMK AO2 PK WND 26035/0254 SNB0259 SLP076 P0000 T00061017

04:00 UTC / 23:00 local time:
KBKL 300400Z 26022G31KT 9SM SCT015 BKN023 OVC039 01/M02 A2974 RMK AO2 PK WND 26027/0356 SNE0355 P0000
Click to expand...

Doesn't appear it was in the air long enough to gather enough ice to impair a Citation, but maybe it departed without a clean airframe? Faintly reminiscent of a Citation accident at Kelowna, BC earlier this year.
 
In those conditions the anti-ice should have been on for takeoff but it does depend on what the POH says. Regardless it should have been on right after takeoff at the latest.
 
Given the proximity to Cleveland Hopkins, I'd expect radar coverage down to the surface.

And don't forget the aircraft must be transponder equipped, so even "below" radar, it will still be seen.
 
MAKG1 said:
That's not the radar track. FlightAware tracks are cobbled together from various sources very badly. Doesn't it give you some concern that it says the plane continued to fly for some 40 minutes southwest after it crashed, with position but no speed or altitude?

Look at your own flights in FA and see the kinds of garbage it spews.
Click to expand...

Hey MAKG, slow down. That is the "radar track" as presented by FlightAware. I have been using FA to analyse accidents since they went online, and other sources before that. If you have a different short name for FA's output, feel free to let us know.
In this case, as you can see, there are only a few relevant ADS-B "hits" before going into "coast mode".
Edit: would "flight track" be more acceptable?
 
Velocity173 said:
Like this accident. I remember one of the flying mags did a story on it. Line personnel couldn't believe she declined de-icing.

http://archive.boston.com/news/local/articles/2008/02/03/colo_woman_son_die_in_crash/
Click to expand...

That one was a hot mess... classic case of get-there-itis, complacency and negligence. The FAA concluded spatial disorientation, but the problems started well before that.

In the report: "Additionally, the pilot was eager to depart, as indicated by comments that she made before her departure that she was glad to be leaving and that she had to go. Witnesses indicated that as she was departing the airport she failed to activate taxi and runway lights, taxied on grass areas off taxiways, and announced incorrect taxi instructions and runways. Additionally, no Federal Aviation Administration authorization for the pilot to operate an aircraft between 29,000 feet and 41,000 feet could be found; the IFR flight plan was filed with an en route altitude of 38,000 feet."

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20080211X00172&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=MA

She was zipping out of there like she was running from the law... barely even let her kid go to the bathroom. I just don't get it. :(
 
RotorDude said:
Hey MAKG, slow down. That is the "radar track" as presented by FlightAware. I have been using FA to analyse accidents since they went online, and other sources before that. If you have a different short name for FA's output, feel free to let us know.
In this case, as you can see, there are only a few relevant ADS-B "hits" before going into "coast mode".
Click to expand...
FlightAware doesn't represent those as radar tracks either. As for your analysis, garbage in, garbage out. And it violates their TOS to use it for an "operational" purpose.

Even if the data were perfect -- and it's terrible -- two minute sampling is not nearly enough for this. Wait for a real source.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
That one was a hot mess... classic case of get-there-itis, complacency and negligence. The FAA concluded spatial disorientation, but the problems started well before that.

In the report: "Additionally, the pilot was eager to depart, as indicated by comments that she made before her departure that she was glad to be leaving and that she had to go. Witnesses indicated that as she was departing the airport she failed to activate taxi and runway lights, taxied on grass areas off taxiways, and announced incorrect taxi instructions and runways. Additionally, no Federal Aviation Administration authorization for the pilot to operate an aircraft between 29,000 feet and 41,000 feet could be found; the IFR flight plan was filed with an en route altitude of 38,000 feet."

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20080211X00172&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=MA

She was zipping out of there like she was running from the law... barely even let her kid go to the bathroom. I just don't get it. :(
Click to expand...

Yes, classical case of "get-there-itis". I haven't read that report recently, but recall the pilot was a "go getter" who founded her own high tech company and was used to getting things done quickly.
 
The pilot was a local guy, John Fleming who was CEO of a regional beer distributor here called Superior Beverage Group. I did not know him but still sad to see a family perish.
 
RotorDude said:
Hey MAKG, slow down. That is the "radar track" as presented by FlightAware. I have been using FA to analyse accidents since they went online, and other sources before that. If you have a different short name for FA's output, feel free to let us know.
In this case, as you can see, there are only a few relevant ADS-B "hits" before going into "coast mode".
Click to expand...

Flightaware "data" and tracks now are quite different than they were in the past. In the past year, it has become a much less useful and reliable tool IMHO.

I agree with MAKG's assessment that it often spews bad info now. Before it was strictly the data feed from the ATC computers (from the actual radars), now it is a cobbled together mess of that original data, their network of home based Pi receivers, and estimated positions. It's still a useful informational tool, but hardly reliable or precise anymore.
 
MAKG1 said:
FlightAware doesn't represent those as radar tracks either. As for your analysis, garbage in, garbage out. And it violates their TOS to use it for an "operational" purpose.

Even if the data were perfect -- and it's terrible -- two minute sampling is not nearly enough for this. Wait for a real source.
Click to expand...

When low and near the ADS-B ground station, the ADS-B track may be more reliable than the radar. In this case, it seems that FA did not receive any radar hits, so ADS-B is all we have. And not sure what you mean by "real source" -- for all we know, the NTSB may not get any other external data besides the ADS-B track. Hopefully the on board instruments will reveal more, if intact.
 
RotorDude said:
When low and near the ADS-B ground station, the ADS-B track may be more reliable than the radar. In this case, it seems that FA did not receive any radar hits, so ADS-B is all we have. And not sure what you mean by "real source" -- for all we know, the NTSB may not get any other external data besides the ADS-B track. Hopefully the on board instruments will reveal more, if intact.
Click to expand...
A real source has a pedigree. How do you know there are no radar hits? This is exceedingly unlikely that close to a major Class B airport. FA has an obviously defective data assimilation algorithm.

This is a tertiary data source designed for bored people in airport terminals. It has no controls nor transparency. It is not even close to suitable for the purpose you are attempting.
 
MAKG1 said:
A real source has a pedigree. How do you know there are no radar hits? This is exceedingly unlikely that close to a major Class B airport. FA has an obviously defective data assimilation algorithm.
Click to expand...

We'll find out soon enough about actual radar hits. And as far as FA's algorithms, I am sure they keep improving them. In this case I don't see any major "defect" besides the assumption that when radar/ads-b input is lost, the aircraft keeps "coasting" (as opposed to "crashing"). I am sure that assumption is correct 99.999999% of the time, which is better than most working assumptions.
 
RotorDude said:
We'll find out soon enough about actual radar hits. And as far as FA's algorithms, I am sure they keep improving them. In this case I don't see any major "defect" besides the assumption that when radar/ads-b input is lost, the aircraft keeps "coasting" (as opposed to "crashing"). I am sure that assumption is correct 99.999999% of the time, which is better than most working assumptions.
Click to expand...
No, that assumption is both unfounded and wrong.

Are you instrument rated? Do you ever follow your cleared route in Class B airspace? I always get vectors....

DO NOT MAKE UP STATISTICS. Only one in 10 million planes makes a turn?
 
MAKG1 said:
No, that assumption is both unfounded and wrong.

Are you instrument rated? Do you ever follow your cleared route in Class B airspace? I always get vectors....

DO NOT MAKE UP STATISTICS. Only one in 10 million planes makes a turn?
Click to expand...

First of all, as you know, 97% of all statistics are made up, so don't get so uptight.
Second, I don't see what my IR has to do with this. And I always do follow my clearance in Class B (and elsewhere), unless I have to deviate due to imminent collision or similar safety hazard. And what does that have to do with this accident? And getting vectored somewhere counts as a new clearance (or part thereof), BTW.
And where did I say only one in 10 million planes makes a turn? The stat I quoted was intended to imply "not crashing", not necessarily continuing on a ballistic trajectory.
 
I'm sure there were radar hits at Cleveland, which as we know is a Class B. Patience grasshopper, it'll all be out.
 
mscard88 said:
I'm sure there were radar hits at Cleveland, which as we know is a Class B. Patience grasshopper, it'll all be out.
Click to expand...

Exactly. If it's at a typical antenna altitude, even without a fusion system, you're looking at around 8 mile surface detection. So in the example, over water with no mountains, probably get hits around 100-200 ft. ADS-B track isn't going to provide anything more useful than the local source data from CLE.

Another thing on FA, their refresh rate and map detail isn't anywhere near that of ATC radar.
 
Last edited:
The pilot.....how many hours? Hours in type? Hours on instruments? Hours flying in bad weather, blowing snow, high winds? We shall see. Vertigo seems a possibility.
 
The initial ROC looks pretty good for a contaminated airframe. Seems like some other event happened at 3000'. Maybe stalled due to frozen probes (pitot, static, TAS, AOA)? All should have been heated.
 
Cajun_Flyer said:
That one was a hot mess... classic case of get-there-itis, complacency and negligence. The FAA concluded spatial disorientation, but the problems started well before that.

In the report: "Additionally, the pilot was eager to depart, as indicated by comments that she made before her departure that she was glad to be leaving and that she had to go. Witnesses indicated that as she was departing the airport she failed to activate taxi and runway lights, taxied on grass areas off taxiways, and announced incorrect taxi instructions and runways. Additionally, no Federal Aviation Administration authorization for the pilot to operate an aircraft between 29,000 feet and 41,000 feet could be found; the IFR flight plan was filed with an en route altitude of 38,000 feet."

https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/R...ID=20080211X00172&AKey=1&RType=Final&IType=MA

She was zipping out of there like she was running from the law... barely even let her kid go to the bathroom. I just don't get it. :(
Click to expand...

I'm sure the shrinks are better able to explain the behaviour than this engineer, but it's difficult not to notice a pattern that some people who are wildly successful early in life develop an attitude they are somehow "exempt" from the rules and can take any sort of risk with impunity - entertainers, sports celebrities (Tiger Woods comes to mind), finance/bankers, politicians. It's almost a new form of entitlement mentality.

There were undoubtedly antecedents before the accident referenced above.
 
Having tried to find ATC comms with the flight on LiveATC, all I found was Cleveland Approach trying to raise the flight, with no luck.
 
GRG55 said:
I'm sure the shrinks are better able to explain the behaviour than this engineer, but it's difficult not to notice a pattern that some people who are wildly successful early in life develop an attitude they are somehow "exempt" from the rules and can take any sort of risk with impunity - entertainers, sports celebrities (Tiger Woods comes to mind), finance/bankers, politicians. It's almost a new form of entitlement mentality.

There were undoubtedly antecedents before the accident referenced above.
Click to expand...

Yes, the most classical I believe was the Therman Munson crash, often used as a generic term for the syndrome. But we have no idea if it's related to this accident.
 
Velocity173 said:
Exactly. If it's at a typical antenna altitude, even without a mosaic system, you're looking at around 8 mile surface detection. So in the example, over water with no mountains, probably get hits around 100-200 ft. ADS-B track isn't going to provide anything more useful than the local source data from CLE.

Another thing on FA, their refresh rate and map detail isn't anywhere near that of ATC radar.
Click to expand...

The one potential benefit of ADS-B, at least before the on board recording equipment is found, is the self-reported data like airspeed or ROC, which in the case of radar can be way off. But once the on board "black boxes" are (hopefully) downloaded, that should be even more detailed and reliable.
 
If this was a privately owned airplane, single pilot obviously, was it required to have flight data recorders?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top