Commanche down in San Antonio, Dec 1, 2019

[GRG55]

...Reminds me of the Cirrus lady in Houston.

That was my reaction as well. And then I thought of at least two runway threshold accidents at Oshkosh (over the years) on the day before show opening (one a Malibu in 2015) where the pilots got too slow, or overbanked, or both, and stalled the planes and (fortunately) pancaked in.

I can’t imagine what that feels like. I hope you’re in shock and disbelief.

I would have to assume the pilot was in somewhat of a state of disbelief over the (presumed) engine failure...similar to the three pilots in the cockpit of AF 447, where they realized the approaching outcome and could not believe what was happening to them.

And I wonder is this is one of the major benefits of simulator training - dealing with the psychology of an emergency in a controlled environment?

 

[Jamie Kirk]

That is sobering, hard to watch. He had the runway, he had it! Dump flaps, over speed them even, slip it in and get the wheel on the ground. Hell, overrun the runway! As pilots one mistake can be our last, so sad.

 

[Sierra_Hotel]

Holy **** that impact

 

[Witmo]

...
I would have to assume the pilot was in somewhat of a state of disbelief over the (presumed) engine failure...similar to the three pilots in the cockpit of AF 447, where they realized the approaching outcome and could not believe what was happening to them.

And I wonder is this is one of the major benefits of simulator training - dealing with the psychology of an emergency in a controlled environment?

I don't think the "psychology of an emergency" is relevant to the outcome of this tragedy. I think the pic screwed up a dead stick landing. He sounded cool and collected on the radio. It appeared he had plenty of altitude, maybe even too much at some point. I think it was a lack of skill and familiarity with the flight characteristics of his aircraft with an engine failure that resulted in this crash. Glider pilots usually land on their chosen runway without an engine helping because they are intimately familiar with how to do it by practicing it every flight. I see a lot of power pilots doing "stabilized" approaches time after time where a engine failure would inevitably result in the airplane not making the runway. You don't see glider pilots doing 360s on short final to lose altitude--bad technique.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

To be fair, this particular market (GA in the US) is the safest on God's green earth, with much lower regulatory burden than some other markets. So we do get something for our troubles..

I can’t say that I follow that. It strikes me that if we are a market with a lower regulatory burden and lower accident rates, that would argue that regulation does _not_ help improve safety (though would not prove it by any means, that would require more data and analysis).

But maybe “our troubles” refers to something other than the costs of regulation? Or maybe it was slightly misstated and what was intended was we have a higher level of regulation than many countries and consequently better safety?

In truth I suspect there are many other confounding variables which make any correlation of regulatory levels and aviation safety between nations a difficult means for arguing a causal relationship between the two.

 

[mryan75]

I can’t say that I follow that. It strikes me that if we are a market with a lower regulatory burden and lower accident rates, that would argue that regulation does _not_ help improve safety (though would not prove it by any means, that would require more data and analysis).

But maybe “our troubles” refers to something other than the costs of regulation? Or maybe it was slightly misstated and what was intended was we have a higher level of regulation than many countries and consequently better safety?

In truth I suspect there are many other confounding variables which make any correlation of regulatory levels and aviation safety between nations a difficult means for arguing a causal relationship between the two.

What I was saying was that we are the safest aviation market, and we have a lower regulatory burden than some other places. Which is true.

 

[Rein Hart]

Traumatic crash video. My thoughts instantly went to parachutes previously discussed in thread start.

Reminds me of that minimum maneuvering speed YouTube video too.

 

[Kenny Phillips]

How did you come to that conclusion? The reason most of us are stuck with 50 year old planes is because most of us cannot afford $800,000 for a new Cirrus, or even $250,000 for a used one.

Well, because the huge regulatory crush prevents new entries to the market.

 

[hindsight2020]

Well, because the huge regulatory crush prevents new entries to the market.

New entries? Heck, it's actually more recalcitrant than that. They wouldn't even allow the regulatory exit of existing aircraft out of the the certified market (primary non-commercial). It's like a deranged ex. If I can't have you no one can. Part of the reason I minimize my footprint in certified av to the minimum expenditure possible for my mission, which largely leaves avionics and cosmetics out of the picture.

But to the point of the thread, the cost structure that rises as a result is certainly against the interest of safety of flight for recreational participants that don't/can't pass that cost to a customer. Which is ironic given that experimental airplanes are supposed to be the bona fide death trap market.

 

[iflyvfr]

Very different outcomes between two recent crashes, this one and the Seneca. If you haven't seen the vid of the Seneca that lands on the street and both occupants survive check it out in the thread below. The last seconds are in stark contrast to the Comanche's and a solemn reminder to keep the plane flying at all costs. The kinetic energy of the Seneca was obviously far less and dissipated in a survivable manner.

https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/community/threads/small-plane-crash-lands-kdvt.123138/

 

[wsuffa]

"regulation" is done ostensibly to "protect the consumer" but in reality is used to protect incumbent regulees from new entrants. It's designed to be a slow process. But it doing so, it gives more weight to the incumbents (who are now the "experts") than to others. Once upon a time, the regulatory machine hired people retired from industry and folks already experienced - it's become a place now for a very few experts, career bureaucrats, and young attorneys that want to make a name for themselves so they can go into industry someday. This isn't political - both sides of the spectrum and folks in the middle have contributed.

The FAA is really part of that machine.

 

[hindsight2020]

"regulation" is done ostensibly to "protect the consumer" but in reality is used to protect incumbent regulees from new entrants. It's designed to be a slow process. But it doing so, it gives more weight to the incumbents (who are now the "experts") than to others. Once upon a time, the regulatory machine hired people retired from industry and folks already experienced - it's become a place now for a very few experts, career bureaucrats, and young attorneys that want to make a name for themselves so they can go into industry someday. This isn't political - both sides of the spectrum and folks in the middle have contributed.

The FAA is really part of that machine.

IOW, a self-rationalizing euphemism for regulatory capture. It's also a real tragedy of the commons. E.g. Everybody has the perverse incentive to feed at the same corrupted/crony trough since nobody as an individual has the singular power to correct it. "Everybody is innocent in Shawshank" et al pick your platitude.

It appears having integrity in life doesn't pay the bills.

 

[BPM]

I see a lot of power pilots doing "stabilized" approaches time after time where a engine failure would inevitably result in the airplane not making the runway. You don't see glider pilots doing 360s on short final to lose altitude--bad technique.

As a relatively new pilot still eager to learn more, I’m interested in what you would suggest in the place of “stabilized“ approaches.

Also, what maneuver in your opinion should this pilot have performed instead of the 360. My thought would be forward slip but I recognize there exists much I don’t know.

 

[Matthew Rogers]

As a relatively new pilot still eager to learn more, I’m interested in what you would suggest in the place of “stabilized“ approaches.

Also, what maneuver in your opinion should this pilot have performed instead of the 360. My thought would be forward slip but I recognize there exists much I don’t know.

S turns, over speeding flaps and gear extension speeds, hard slip and flaps, landing on runway too far down and running off the end into the fences, landing on the grass next to the runway, a downwind turn parallel to the runway and a short approach the opposite way (even if only half way down the pavement) would all have resulted in better results (or at worst, the same).

I had a partial power emergency landing and was too high and fast because power had just come back close to the airport. All family was onboard (wife and 3 year old). I didn’t trust that it would stay for a normal pattern to land the long runway so I just (possibly) oversped my flaps to full pointed it down hard and landed on the short runway straight in knowing that all I had to do save everyone’s lives was get the wheels on the pavement - anywhere on the airport. Fire trucks were already rolling to save us, so we would be saved even if we flipped or crashed. But we stopped in plenty of time and nothing was damaged other than nerves.

 

[kyleb]

As a relatively new pilot still eager to learn more, I’m interested in what you would suggest in the place of “stabilized“ approaches.

Also, what maneuver in your opinion should this pilot have performed instead of the 360. My thought would be forward slip but I recognize there exists much I don’t know.

Lots of people (including me) hold to the theory of routinely flying tight patterns, managing energy, and landing the airplane on the numbers from the downwind with no power. That isn't the stabilized approach many instructors are teaching.

As far as the 360 goes, it might have been a fine choice. But the absolute last thing you can allow to happen is to stall the airplane, lose control, and crash. You're virtually guaranteed to die that way. Making it to the field or another flat, open area is your first priority. Put it down soft and walk away.

 

[dtuuri]

As a relatively new pilot still eager to learn more, I’m interested in what you would suggest in the place of “stabilized“ approaches.

Also, what maneuver in your opinion should this pilot have performed instead of the 360. My thought would be forward slip but I recognize there exists much I don’t know.

The proper (easier) way is here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...antonio-dec-1-2019.122951/page-2#post-2837980

This pilot ought to have known the pattern altitude so only needed to glide into the the "key" position, give or take a couple hundred feet and aim for one third the way down the runway, regardless of runway length. Just disregard the first third. It'll work out. No need to throw the book on airmanship out the window in a panic.