Plane Missing Over Lake Erie

GlennAB1 said:
I doubt that, he had a instrument rating, but he might have broke the airplane.
Click to expand...

The pilot could have become disorientated easily. Just because he had an instrument rating wouldn't necessarily prevent it 100%. Broke the airplane? A joke on your part? o_O
 
Last edited:
GlennAB1 said:
Fixed:
Click to expand...

Well he would have had to do some serious maneuvers to break his plane.

Only thing I'm saying is, if you break your altitude, ATC knows it. Don't put your aircraft in an unusual attitude to try and get back to avoid a PD. While working approach years ago, I had a female student F-18 pilot blow past her assigned altitude of 10,000. When I made her aware, she got back to it in a hurry. There was no need. I'm not going to write her up and center isn't going to take the time to write her up. It's not worth manuvering that aggressively to get back.

Not sure if that's what happened here. Could've been multiple scenarios. Just giving one possible.
 
Last edited:
Just keep in mind the NTSB reports are opinion. When you read a report like this causes such as insufficient training /experiance come to my mind.

Private multi instrument with 1205 hours (Total, all aircraft), 919 hours (Pilot In Command) in a Cessna 525 jet.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
Just keep in mind the NTSB reports are opinion. When you read a report like this causes such as insufficient training /experiance come to my mind.

Private multi instrument with 1205 hours (Total, all aircraft), 919 hours (Pilot In Command) in a Cessna 525 jet.
Click to expand...

So what was inaccurate about their “opinions” and what specific training would you have offered to save his ass that differs from their report?
 
Read the entire report. Rather inexperienced pilot for the equipment and possible lack of proficiency with the displays and auto pilot. Add lack of instrument skills.
 
Clip4 said:
Read the entire report. Rather inexperienced pilot for the equipment and possible lack of proficiency with the displays and auto pilot. Add lack of instrument skills.
Click to expand...
I'd have felt better if they'd have addressed the possibility of a pitch trim runaway and ruled it out, especially with these facts from the report:

"At 2257:29, about 2 seconds after the bank angle warning, the tower controller instructed the pilot to contact departure control. The pilot replied, "to departure six one four sierra bravo;" however, that communication was not received by the tower controller suggesting that the pilot did not have the microphone push-to-talk button depressed.

At 2257:37, the controller again attempted to contact the pilot. Two seconds after the controller's transmission, the EGPWS provided a "sink rate" warning to the pilot. The pilot again responded, "six one four sierra bravo," but this was not received by the tower controller. Beginning at 2257:43, the EGPWS provided 7 "pull up" warnings at 1.6-second intervals until the end of the CVR recording. During that time, a sound similar to the overspeed warning began, which continued until the end of the recording."​

Ever heard of a pilot answering ATC without first pushing the mic button? Me neither. So, he might have had the AP/Trim disconnect button pushed instead, no? Maybe because the plane was diving toward the lake? Just sayin'..
 
Clip4 said:
Read the entire report. Rather inexperienced pilot for the equipment and possible lack of proficiency with the displays and auto pilot. Add lack of instrument skills.
Click to expand...

You didn’t answer the question. What objectively measurable items would you require he do that weren’t covered in his training?
 
denverpilot said:
You didn’t answer the question. What objectively measurable items would you require he do that weren’t covered in his training?
Click to expand...

First let’s look at what I wrote that sparked your question.

“Just keep in mind the NTSB reports are opinion. When you read a report like this causes such as insufficient training /experiance come to my mind.

Private multi instrument with 1205 hours (Total, all aircraft), 919 hours (Pilot In Command) in a Cessna 525 jet.”

This pilot, IMO, did not have the experiance level for safe operation of the machine he opted to buy. Irregardless if you believe the training was adequate, he failed on game day a short period after he completed training.

For what ever reason, the pilot failed at maintaining control of the aircraft. You can put basic aicraft control during an IMC departure and recognizing an auto pilot mode failure on the top of the list.
 
Last edited:
@Clip4 You left out the part where you said NTSBs opinion was wrong and yours was correct. Repeating your opinion of a “training problem” with no access to his training records, still doesn’t answer the question I posed — what training would you suggest?

Starting to see the logic problem? You have no idea what his training history was other than what NTSB found and they had access to more of it than you did, but you decided their report was “just opinion”. Hmmm.

People who are plenty well trained still make mistakes, see Scott Crossfield. NTSB said he made a mistake, and seemed fine with his “training”. You say it’s just their “opinion”, so you must have seen his training records and felt otherwise?
 
For the record, here's the accident docket: https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/...dRow=15&StartRow=1&order=1&sort=0&TXTSEARCHT=

"Mr. Lane recalled that twice during training, the accident pilot had pressed the AP XFR button on the flight guidance panel when he had intended to active the autopilot by pressing the AP button. In both instances, the accident pilot did not notice the error and Mr. Lane had to point it out to him"​

Not saying that had anything to do with the crash. My concern is this is a similar accident to an early CJ that ditched in the ocean due to a faulty Cessna design of a pitch trim PCB: https://reports.aviation-safety.net/2003/20030722-0_C525_N996JR.pdf
The Lake Erie CJ4 came out of Brazil and had electronic pitch trim components changed there. Is it possible one of the old-style PCBs found its way into the CJ4? Seems like an accident investigator would want to know and mention it in the report if the possibility was ruled out. Maybe an old style wouldn't work or fit, I dunno. Maybe it would and did... until it didn't?
 
Clip4 said:
“Just keep in mind the NTSB reports are opinion. When you read a report like this causes such as insufficient training /experiance come to my mind.

Private multi instrument with 1205 hours (Total, all aircraft), 919 hours (Pilot In Command) in a Cessna 525 jet.”

This pilot, IMO, did not have the experiance level for safe operation of the machine he opted to buy. Irregardless if you believe the training was adequate, he failed on game day a short period after he completed training.
Click to expand...
So, what exactly would be "the experiance level for safe operation" of this plane? (misspelling copied from original post)

By the way, "irregardless" is incorrect usage. Correct usage is "regardless".

:stirpot:
 
What ever you guys want to believe, my opinion is this guy had no business in that aircraft given his experiance and his training was not effective. This type accident is common in aviation because you can’t buy experiance.

Maybe if there is an after life you can have this discussion with the pilot and his passengers.
 
What I've been trying to figure out for over a year and a half now is how a plane goes "missing over Lake Erie." Does the final report explain that.

:)
 
I believe he mishandled setting the autopilot as the steps/buttons were different from his Mustang (prior jet). As a result he was trying to engage/set it to level the plane while flying it and lost control.

What a very sad accident -the whole family is gone.
 
GLMS_NC said:
I believe he mishandled setting the autopilot as the steps/buttons were different from his Mustang (prior jet). As a result he was trying to engage/set it to level the plane while flying it and lost control.

What a very sad accident -the whole family is gone.
Click to expand...

.

And it goes wrong quickly on a dark night over a large body of water. I'm not going to agree completely with the theory the amount of hours he had contributed to the accident, and perhaps blaming a lack of training is also unfair. He had logged 373 hours over a two year period in the Mustang, and had 56 hours in the accident airplane over two month period. He had undergone training at FSI ten days before the crash. That's a significant amount of flying, and most of it was probably IFR in the flight levels.

He had been awake 17 hours the day of the crash. That, along with perhaps small mistakes entering data on the ramp and after takeoff, resulted in the sad outcome.

Sometimes errors are made. Sometimes they have terrible consequences.
 
Clip4 said:
What ever you guys want to believe, my opinion is this guy had no business in that aircraft given his experiance and his training was not effective.
Click to expand...

So your story just changed and the training itself was adequate but magically wasn’t “effective”. Okay. Nice pivot.

You still haven’t answered the question about what you specifically think should have been included in his training that wasn’t done, since you apparently have access to that and the NTSB didn’t.

The report is just “their opinion” though. We know. Yours is based on more information than they had available to them, I’m sure.

Still waiting to hear what we should be training people to make sure they’re not pushing the wrong button in a jet. Sounds like someone already told him he did it wrong twice when checking him out. Can’t really do more than that.

Unless you’re saying the guy who checked him out should have kept him from passing for pressing the wrong button twice. I’m fine with that if that’s your opinion. But you haven’t elaborated. You just attacked the NTSB report with no backing besides your own opinion, which was basically a platitude. “Pilot didn’t have enough experience and killed themselves.”

Not exactly news. Certainly not interesting enough to not read the NTSB’s “opinion” and vibe it more weight than an internet opinion.

I’ve seen some good internet opinions that had great backing and facts from people who knew a particular airframe, or similar, but so far you’ve stated the obvious that could be the “cause” of every accident that wasn’t an equipment failure.
 
denverpilot said:
So your story just changed and the training itself was adequate but magically wasn’t “effective”. Okay. Nice pivot.

You still haven’t answered the question about what you specifically think should have been included in his training that wasn’t done, since you apparently have access to that and the NTSB didn’t.

The report is just “their opinion” though. We know. Yours is based on more information than they had available to them, I’m sure.

Still waiting to hear what we should be training people to make sure they’re not pushing the wrong button in a jet. Sounds like someone already told him he did it wrong twice when checking him out. Can’t really do more than that.

Unless you’re saying the guy who checked him out should have kept him from passing for pressing the wrong button twice. I’m fine with that if that’s your opinion. But you haven’t elaborated. You just attacked the NTSB report with no backing besides your own opinion, which was basically a platitude. “Pilot didn’t have enough experience and killed themselves.”

Not exactly news. Certainly not interesting enough to not read the NTSB’s “opinion” and vibe it more weight than an internet opinion.

I’ve seen some good internet opinions that had great backing and facts from people who knew a particular airframe, or similar, but so far you’ve stated the obvious that could be the “cause” of every accident that wasn’t an equipment failure.
Click to expand...

You can’t buy experiance and for training to be effective you must also have a base level of experiance. They go hand in hand.

Did the guy complete training and retain it or just complete training? When you kill your family in a CFIT accident because you couldnt or didn’t fly the plane, it really doesn’t matter.
 
A wise man told me that experience was what you get when you didn't get what you wanted...

Minor nit to pick.

You CAN buy experience. The trick is to buy enough before you give it an opportunity to bite you.
 
Clip4 said:
You can’t buy experiance and for training to be effective you must also have a base level of experiance. They go hand in hand.

Did the guy complete training and retain it or just complete training? When you kill your family in a CFIT accident because you couldnt or didn’t fly the plane, it really doesn’t matter.
Click to expand...

It does matter. Either the training was wrong and needs fixed or the training was fine and the pilot needed to buy more of your as-yet undefined “experience”.

Your assertion you keep conveniently forgetting was that the NTSB report was “just an opinion”, and yet you haven’t provided an objective measure of either what was trained, what was tested, or what experience the pilot should have been mandated to have.

Feel free. List off what he needed to know, demonstrate, and have done prior to making that flight. Prove he didn’t meet it with his logbook, too, since you still haven’t defined what was wrong with NTSB’s “opinion” and apparently have information the investigator didn’t have.

(In other words, taking pot shots at the NTSB report without any objective commentary is useless emotionalized garbage. All you’ve got is pandering to the “but somebody died and it’s sad” emotional response. We all have that.)
 
denverpilot said:
It does matter. Either the training was wrong and needs fixed or the training was fine and the pilot needed to buy more of your as-yet undefined “experience”.

Your assertion you keep conveniently forgetting was that the NTSB report was “just an opinion”, and yet you haven’t provided an objective measure of either what was trained, what was tested, or what experience the pilot should have been mandated to have.

Feel free. List off what he needed to know, demonstrate, and have done prior to making that flight. Prove he didn’t meet it with his logbook, too, since you still haven’t defined what was wrong with NTSB’s “opinion” and apparently have information the investigator didn’t have.

(In other words, taking pot shots at the NTSB report without any objective commentary is useless emotionalized garbage. All you’ve got is pandering to the “but somebody died and it’s sad” emotional response. We all have that.)
Click to expand...

There is no Fortune 500 company flying Part 91 that would put their employees in a plane with that pilots experiance and training level.. if you feel comfortable putting your family in a plane with a pilot having that training and experiance level, have at it.
 
Clip4 said:
There is no Fortune 500 company flying Part 91 that would put their employees in a plane with that pilots experiance and training level.. if you feel comfortable putting your family in a plane with a pilot having that training and experiance level, have at it.
Click to expand...

That’s mandated by their insurance company and yes, companies have gotten it waived for more money and used lower time pilots when they wanted to.

You still haven’t answered the question you brought up. What was wrong with the NTSB’s “opinion” you apparently didn’t like. And what was wrong with the pilot’s training? You’ve asserted both then ran away when someone called you on your BS.

Because you don’t know, do you?
 
denverpilot said:
That’s mandated by their insurance company and yes, companies have gotten it waived for more money and used lower time pilots when they wanted to.

You still haven’t answered the question you brought up. What was wrong with the NTSB’s “opinion” you apparently didn’t like. And what was wrong with the pilot’s training? You’ve asserted both then ran away when someone called you on your BS.

Because you don’t know, do you?
Click to expand...

When you fly a perfectly good airplane into something as flat as Lake Erie after takeoff you were not properly trained in the aircraft and that is what the NTSB should have said in their report.

So let’s call you on your bull crap. What outcome from this crash leads you to believe this pilot was properly trained? The accident was the result of failing to act as the pilot should have with effective training. That is why he and his family are dead.
 
Last edited:
Clip4 said:
When you fly a perfectly good airplane into something as flat as Lake Erie after takeoff you were not properly trained in the aircraft and that is what the NTSB should have said in their report.

So let’s call you on your bull crap. What outcome from this crash leads you to believe this pilot was properly trained? The accident was the result of failing to act as the pilot should have with effective training. That is why he and his family are dead.
Click to expand...

Plenty of crashes where highly experienced pilots flew “perfectly good airplanes” into things.

Nice try.

I don’t have to answer whether he was properly trained or not. That’s FAA’s and NTSB’s job.

You’re the one who says they’re wrong and haven’t backed it up with anything but your emotional response.

You can be as mad at me as you like for calling you on it. You still haven’t said anything of substance about what you know about the pilot or his training.

Training doesn’t fix everything. Humans still make mistakes even when trained. Seen plenty of humans make mistakes doing things they were properly trained to do.

I’m sure you have also.

Until you have some evidence the training was inadequate, I’ll go with the “opinion” of the people who had access to his training record. All they’ve said is he pushed the wrong button twice. That’s fact.

Everything else is your emotional conjecture. Show us where his training record has a deficiency and we’ll take your opinion over the people who had access to it. You don’t.
 
Clip4 said:
So let’s call you on your bull crap. What outcome from this crash leads you to believe this pilot was properly trained? The accident was the result of failing to act as the pilot should have with effective training. That is why he and his family are dead.
Click to expand...
Uh, ya know it IS possible to be properly trained and make an error....
 
Clip4 said:
Yes it is, but basic aicraft control is Instrument training lesson 1.
Click to expand...

And nobody has ever lost control of an aircraft who has thousands of hours in IMC...

(Rolls eyes.)

Still don’t have anything constructive to say about the actual training that you claim was missed yet?

Pretty sure “basic aircraft control” was checked on more than one occasion for this pilot prior to the accident by more than one person.

Care to try again? Still ultra-lame so far.
 
Recent online FLYING picked up the story (author Rob Mark, 9/20/2018) of this crash and this what he wrote which I have no clue what he is talking about:

“Adding to the pilot’s confusion that night may have been that the primary flight display on the CJ4 was different from that of the Mustang. The CJ4’s PFD was an ego-centric ("inside out") type display. This "inside out" perspective uses a fixed aircraft symbol and a moving horizon similar to what a pilot sees when looking outside the aircraft. The Mustang, however, uses an exo-centric ("outside in") display. That "outside in" perspective involves a fixed horizon and a moving aircraft symbol.”

Aren’t all modern aircraft of the “moving horizon” type? The Mustang is G1000 equipped and it does have the moving horizon so unless I am missing something the claim that it has the “fixed” horizon preposterous (I fly G1000 Cirrus). I know some Russian made aircrafts from the 60-ties had the fixed horizon type AI but never heard of modern western aircraft having something like that.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
 
Last edited:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around @Clip4 's continual moaning that because the dead pilot made a mistake resulting in his death that he wasn't properly trained and didn't have enough experience. The many times that @Clip4 has misspelled "experience" confirms, by his own reasoning, that his own education was deficient, he should quit his job and go back to school and study bpth Spelling and Typing, because "experiance" isn't in any dictionary I've ever seen, despite the dozen or more times he has typed it in his posts above. Or is making mistakes a characteristic of all humans?

As long as @Clip4 is back in school, he should fill his day with classes in logic, so that his circular reasoning can be corrected and he can learn how to back up his assertions with something other than repeating the same assertion all over again. Yelling it in person also is not persuasive.

And lastly, for @Clip4 's knowledge, every time my family and / or friends go flying with me, they are flying with someone who has much, much less "experiance" than this pilot had at the beginning of his last flight. My own Total Flight Time, PIC Time and Time in Type are all much smaller numbers. So how much longer should I fly alone before daring to put someone in the plane with me? In the past 11 years I've gone from zero to ~850 hours, but it looks like I need >1200 hours before risking a passenger . . . There's no way that will fly in my house, my wife would pitch a fit! She's been flying with me for the last 800 hours.
 
Hank S said:
I'm still trying to wrap my head around @Clip4 's continual moaning that because the dead pilot made a mistake resulting in his death that he wasn't properly trained and didn't have enough experience. The many times that @Clip4 has misspelled "experience" confirms, by his own reasoning, that his own education was deficient, he should quit his job and go back to school and study bpth Spelling and Typing, because "experiance" isn't in any dictionary I've ever seen, despite the dozen or more times he has typed it in his posts above. Or is making mistakes a characteristic of all humans?

As long as @Clip4 is back in school, he should fill his day with classes in logic, so that his circular reasoning can be corrected and he can learn how to back up his assertions with something other than repeating the same assertion all over again. Yelling it in person also is not persuasive.

And lastly, for @Clip4 's knowledge, every time my family and / or friends go flying with me, they are flying with someone who has much, much less "experiance" than this pilot had at the beginning of his last flight. My own Total Flight Time, PIC Time and Time in Type are all much smaller numbers. So how much longer should I fly alone before daring to put someone in the plane with me? In the past 11 years I've gone from zero to ~850 hours, but it looks like I need >1200 hours before risking a passenger . . . There's no way that will fly in my house, my wife would pitch a fit! She's been flying with me for the last 800 hours.
Click to expand...

What ever, but I still stand behind my comments that this pilot did not have the experience for this aircraft and the training was not effective for the aircraft he was operating.

Do you need 1200 hours to carry passengers? No, but if you are going to strap on a jet and carry your loved ones you need more time than this guy had. You read this stuff month, low time guy in a HP TAA, and a fatal accident. Go for it, no risk for us reading the accident reports. I will just tell you I am far more conservative than the rest of you.
 
Clip4 said:
The 2700 fpm descent from 3000 tells you all you need to know.
Click to expand...
No, TAS should be pretty close to EAS not a nominal 25 kts slower, give or take. Remember the ICE-T formula? At a density altitude near sea level they should be close to the same.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top