5 killed in Bloomington crash (Cessna 414)

[MooneyDriver78]

Second, I think you have an over-rated view of what pilots should be able to handle. You seem to be holding all pilots to an extremely high standard of performance, all the time. It is like blaming the captain of the American Airlines DC-10 that lost the engine coming out of O'Hare in 1979, because some pilots in the simulator managed to recover by retracting the flaps immediately and pitching down to fly just over the tops of the houses. The fact that a particularly prescient or informed pilot can recover from a catastrophic maintenance error does not change that error into a pilot error.

.

I agree with the simulator because
1. It's a simulator, you know your not going to die
2. You are at a heighten awareness, you know you are not going to have a mundane flight,which you do in real life 99.99% of the time.
3. Did the pilots have an idea of what failure they were going to get? Pretty sure every DC10 pilot had already known about the accident and thought how would I have done it different.

 

[RotorAndWing]

I agree with the simulator because
1. It's a simulator, you know your not going to die
2. You are at a heighten awareness, you know you are not going to have a mundane flight,which you do in real life 99.99% of the time.
3. Did the pilots have an idea of what failure they were going to get? Pretty sure every DC10 pilot had already known about the accident and thought how would I have done it different.

Just curious, how much time do you have in a "C" or "D" simulator doing training?

 

[FlyingTiger]

"Investigators say so far the only thing out of the ordinary is the pilot did not follow a standard missed approach procedure. Todd Fox with the NTSB says instead of coming up in the runway then climbing back up and turning right, the pilot came up on the runway, turned left, climbed up and then went back down."

So the fact this 12,000 hour pilot didn't make the proper turn on missed approach doesn't bother anyone? At the risk of further inciting the pilot union posters on this board, seems like a rather basic error.

 

[RotorAndWing]

If you don't believe in mechanical errors, I have to wonder two things. One, how much experience do you have in aviation maintenance? I am thinking not too much. I can tell you that there is a lot of very shoddy work out there.

You got that right!

 

[timwinters]

"Investigators say so far the only thing out of the ordinary is the pilot did not follow a standard missed approach procedure. Todd Fox with the NTSB says instead of coming up in the runway then climbing back up and turning right, the pilot came up on the runway, turned left, climbed up and then went back down."

So the fact this 12,000 hour pilot didn't make the proper turn on missed approach doesn't bother anyone? At the risk of further inciting the pilot union posters on this board, seems like a rather basic error.

There are quite a few holes in your "logic."

You really don't think that a professional pilot breaking off an approach way early and turning the wrong way couldn't possibly be because he was dealing with an airplane issue?

I might argue that, but to do so would put me squarely in the "wild speculation queen" camp.

So I won't.

 

[FlyingTiger]

It's not what I think, it's what the NTSB thinks and they characterized this as the only thing "out of the ordinary" and that's after doing a preliminary examination of the engines. Are you saying you have better credentials then a NTSB investigator?

Oh by the way, the use the term "queen" in this thread is rather juvenile, no? It's been my experience that when someone lacks the intellectual capacity to discuss something, they resort to name calling.

 

[EdFred]

It's not what I think, it's what the NTSB thinks and they characterized this as the only thing "out of the ordinary" and that's after doing a preliminary examination of the engines. Are you saying you have better credentials then a NTSB investigator?

Oh by the way, the use the term "queen" in this thread is rather juvenile, no? It's been my experience that when someone lacks the intellectual capacity to discuss something, they resort to name calling.

No, it's pretty much right on. And I've hung out with Tim on a number of occasions. He calls 'em like he sees 'em. Everyone in here that "knows" what happened, is definitely queening. He may be an *******, but he ain't stupid.

 

[RotorDude]

It's not what I think, it's what the NTSB thinks and they characterized this as the only thing "out of the ordinary" and that's after doing a preliminary examination of the engines. Are you saying you have better credentials then a NTSB investigator?

Oh by the way, the use the term "queen" in this thread is rather juvenile, no? It's been my experience that when someone lacks the intellectual capacity to discuss something, they resort to name calling.

Yes, the premature turn into a "wrong" direction is out of the ordinary, as is the constant speed reduction on final (not yet mentioned by the NTSB but seen on FA), as is the resulting stall and crash. But none of those mean, on their own, that there was any "error" on the part of the pilot. Given he was very experienced and likely proficient and current, odds are whatever issues confronted him were significant (even sudden incapacitation is not excluded at this point). So to say this early in the game, given the evidence we have, that the pilot made a "basic error" is definitely premature and speculative.

 

[narchee]

Everyone who has posted in this thread is queening. Without exception. Including me.

 

[bflynn]

Brian Flynn and olasek, ether of you two working pilots? Or Multi IFR rated / ATPs?

I'm neither ATP nor do I work as pilot, I'm an IFR student so why pilots die on approach is both of interest and relevant to me.. If being a paid pilot is the requirement to post here, then this place will become deader than the red board.

In the end, I participate in crash threads because I want to learn something about why it happened so I can try to keep that as experience....so I don't repeat it.

BTW, I'll admit that 90% is the wrong number. I just rechecked the Nall report for commercial airplane operations and 69% of the accidents are directly related to pilot error with another 14.2% unknown and the rest (16.8%) attributed to mechanical issues. If we split the unknown, it's roughly 76% chance that it was his fault no matter what his qualifications.

I'm waiting to hear more about this. It doesn't feel like a missed approach, it's too early and the turn was the wrong way. There was no reason to break off the approach, but pilots sometimes do strange things. I'm leaning toward mechanical, but I'm almost always leaning toward mechanical. I did with Germanwings, I did with AF 447.

 

[timwinters]

It's not what I think, it's what the NTSB thinks and they characterized this as the only thing "out of the ordinary" and that's after doing a preliminary examination of the engines. Are you saying you have better credentials then a NTSB investigator?

Did the NTSB say that the engines are the only thing that can malfunction on a Cessna 414? No, and until they investigate the rest of the aircraft and find that nothing was wrong with the control systems, avionics, etc., I won't crucify the pilot. Once they make that statement then, yeah, I'll start looking at the crash as pilot error (given no other extenuating circumstances).

It's FlyingTiger who is jumping to the conclusion that "no engine anomoly" = "no issue with anything on the airplane."

I don't have better credentials than the NTSB, I simply don't take what they say and extrapolate it to mean something they didn't say.

 

[timwinters]

He is an *******, but he ain't stupid.

FTFY!

 

[PPC1052]

I simply don't take what they say and extrapolate it to mean something they didn't say.

****ty lawyer you would make.

 

[Kristin]

"Investigators say so far the only thing out of the ordinary is the pilot did not follow a standard missed approach procedure. Todd Fox with the NTSB says instead of coming up in the runway then climbing back up and turning right, the pilot came up on the runway, turned left, climbed up and then went back down."

So the fact this 12,000 hour pilot didn't make the proper turn on missed approach doesn't bother anyone? At the risk of further inciting the pilot union posters on this board, seems like a rather basic error.

First of all, you have to discount the article which was some ignorant reporter trying to interpret something said which they do not understand. That is evidenced by the reference to a "medical" examination of a crankshaft and "eternal" checks. Secondly, this is akin to the NTSB coming up with the conclusion that the cause of the crash was the pilot's failure to maintain adequate terrain clearance. Duh!

 

[Kristin]

It's not what I think, it's what the NTSB thinks and they characterized this as the only thing "out of the ordinary" and that's after doing a preliminary examination of the engines. Are you saying you have better credentials then a NTSB investigator?

Oh by the way, the use the term "queen" in this thread is rather juvenile, no? It's been my experience that when someone lacks the intellectual capacity to discuss something, they resort to name calling.

I trust that you have not been involved in aviation crash forensics in any form or fashion as you seem to have a belief that NTSB investigators are all highly experienced, highly skilled, and nearly infallible. After more than a dozen years of such involvement included taking course work on crash investigation, I can tell you that is not the case. Overall they do a recently decent job, but they are a bureaucracy like any other and they are subject to the same hiring and training flaws as the other federal bureaucracies.

 

[denverpilot]

(apparently no ELT was heard).

That's pretty common these days, especially if the ELT was 121.5. The receivers that used to hear those were fairly widespread and didn't hear that many of them on the ground anyway, most are inop or completely removed, the satellites that monitored for 121.5 aren't operational anymore, and generally the chances of a 121.5 ELT being heard by anything other than an overflying fellow pilot are about nil.

406 has a better chance but there's very little listening for them terrestrially, (all towers used to have 121.5 available to them, not nearly as many have installed any sort of 406 monitoring, and SAR groups used to privately fund 121.5 monitors in many places but really haven't done so to the extent 121.5 was covered 20 years ago), other pilots can't listen at all for them (removing a considerable number of possible listeners), so generally the new satellites are the only game in town for those.

Without a mandate to switch types and re-investment in ground based receivers at airports to augment the satellites, the whole thing isn't so much a "system" of listeners anymore as it is almost a satellite-only system.

The new ELTs do put out tiny bursts on 121.5 at massively reduced power levels. From experience trying to use them in training exercises, the 121.5 signal is pretty much worthless if you aren't standing there looking at the broken airframe. Many pilots haven't heard the sound of them and might not even realize they're an ELT in weak signal conditions. They're not nearly as obvious as an alert or alarm type of signal as the old sweep tone on 121.5.

^^ All that to say... Not hearing an ELT these days isn't much of a surprise at all. 121.5 ELTs are pretty much worthless at this point and 406 aren't far behind unless they're hooked to a GPS location source AND the satellite decodes the location. Most ground-based monitors have no ability to decode the data burst. The few that do are orders of magnitude more expensive than a simple receiver, and therefore economically, there's always going to be far far fewer of them listening.

If you really want someone to know right where you are or as close as they can get to start a search, get a Spot. Secondarily in importance, IMHO, is an upgrade to 406 and pay to have it GPS interconnected.

 

[Kristin]

I'm neither ATP nor do I work as pilot, I'm an IFR student so why pilots die on approach is both of interest and relevant to me.. If being a paid pilot is the requirement to post here, then this place will become deader than the red board.

In the end, I participate in crash threads because I want to learn something about why it happened so I can try to keep that as experience....so I don't repeat it.

BTW, I'll admit that 90% is the wrong number. I just rechecked the Nall report for commercial airplane operations and 69% of the accidents are directly related to pilot error with another 14.2% unknown and the rest (16.8%) attributed to mechanical issues. If we split the unknown, it's roughly 76% chance that it was his fault no matter what his qualifications.

I'm waiting to hear more about this. It doesn't feel like a missed approach, it's too early and the turn was the wrong way. There was no reason to break off the approach, but pilots sometimes do strange things. I'm leaning toward mechanical, but I'm almost always leaning toward mechanical. I did with Germanwings, I did with AF 447.

One learns by asking questions, not by trying to assign blame before any facts are conclusively established.

We have a vehicle in our society which encourages the ignorant to second-guess the professionals. The ignorant even pay big bucks for the privilege. It is professional sports. Pay you entrance fee and you can yell at the ump, curse the coach, etc.

Aviation is not the place for ignorant and self-destructive speculation. One of the problems that general aviation has is that most of the public fears it. When it comes to that, we are our own worst enemies. Ignorant . . . strike that . . . stupid comments like "night + fog = death", by people who are only a bit less ignorant than John Q. Public only serve to convince the populace that little airplanes are dangerous and should be super tightly regulated so innocent people don't get hurt by having a little plane fall on them.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Mist rain as well. Wonder what oat was.

I was also flying home from the NCAA game and took a route that went over in roughly the same direction. With the storms moving through, we got rocked and rolled quite a bit, it smoothed out climbing through 10,500 (which is also about where the tops were except for the occasional buildups to the mid-20's. However, there was no icing and at 12,000 feet we were still slightly above freezing.

Also, METAR shows +13 at the surface. I'm certain icing was not a factor in this accident.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

It would be helpful to know what support you have for that belief. Are there known examples of FlightAware traces being wrong?

All the time now, unfortunately. It used to be that the green line was always from a radar feed. Now, if you run into an area with spotty radar coverage or there's an interruption in the data stream, they turn the plane gray and have "FlightAware Estimated" next to it where the data block normally goes. However, after you land, those estimated positions are also used to draw the green line. I've seen a lot of FlightAware tracks in the last couple of years since they implemented this function that differ significantly from reality.

 

[RotorDude]

All the time now, unfortunately. It used to be that the green line was always from a radar feed. Now, if you run into an area with spotty radar coverage or there's an interruption in the data stream, they turn the plane gray and have "FlightAware Estimated" next to it where the data block normally goes. However, after you land, those estimated positions are also used to draw the green line. I've seen a lot of FlightAware tracks in the last couple of years since they implemented this function that differ significantly from reality.

I tend to ignore the graphics and focus on the data. FA tells you from where they derive each "hit", radar or estimated, so obviously the latter should be taken with a big grain of salt. In this accident the relevant hits are apparently all radar (except for the "arrival").

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I'm waiting to hear more about this. It doesn't feel like a missed approach, it's too early and the turn was the wrong way. There was no reason to break off the approach, but pilots sometimes do strange things.

Says who? There are plenty of reasons to miss an approach early. However, the proper procedure should be to fly to the MAP and follow the published missed rather than what apparently happened here (left turn).

They were in line with the line of storms, and it did increase in intensity. However, we also know that they came down A) in one piece and B) relatively vertically, since all of the wreckage was found within a wingspan of the fuselage.

Given that, it could have been the worst possible luck: Engine failure combined with microburst (or at least a strong downdraft). Say the pilot reaches the FAF and drops the gear, and shortly after loses an engine. Before he can get the plane cleaned up (or maybe he decided to leave it dirty, since he was on approach), he encounters a strong downdraft and attempts to stay at or above the appropriate altitude for the approach but quickly runs out of the necessary performance to do so. Vmc roll, not enough room to recover.

But that's just speculation... This accident certainly does not have an obvious cause. I'll be very interested to see the NTSB report next year.

 

[Lindberg]

"If we split the unknown, it's roughly 76% chance that it was his fault no matter what his qualifications."

Statistics don't work that way. An accident isn't a random event, and you can't predict the cause based on probabilities and percentages. There is a 100% chance that this accident was caused by whatever caused it, and a 0% chance it was caused by something else. You have to open the box and check the cat's pulse to know.

 

[FlyingTiger]

One learns by asking questions, not by trying to assign blame before any facts are conclusively established.

We have a vehicle in our society which encourages the ignorant to second-guess the professionals. The ignorant even pay big bucks for the privilege. It is professional sports. Pay you entrance fee and you can yell at the ump, curse the coach, etc.

Aviation is not the place for ignorant and self-destructive speculation. One of the problems that general aviation has is that most of the public fears it. When it comes to that, we are our own worst enemies. Ignorant . . . strike that . . . stupid comments like "night + fog = death", by people who are only a bit less ignorant than John Q. Public only serve to convince the populace that little airplanes are dangerous and should be super tightly regulated so innocent people don't get hurt by having a little plane fall on them.

Wow, you have quite the high opinion of yourself. Always amusing when a pilot starts to confuse flight time with I.Q. points. Suffice it say, you are coming off as one the most ignorant persons on this board.

 

[EdFred]

Wow, you have quite the high opinion of yourself. Always amusing when a pilot starts to confuse flight time with I.Q. points. Suffice it say, you are coming off as one the most ignorant persons on this board.

Are you using a Komatasu or Caterpillar for all the excavating you are doing? Just need to know which company to buy stock in. You obviously have zero idea on who she is, or her background.

Turn off the key, and step away from the heavy equipment. You are giving everyone else the impression you are suffering from a form of trisomy.

 

[FlyingTiger]

So if someone has credentials then they get to be rude to other posters? This discussion is a lot more about censorship then placing blame on a pilot. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just like everyone is entitled to disagree, but there are a few people that have gone completely overboard and thrown any sense of civility out the window here.

btw, your post is complete dribble. Try articulating a cognitive thought next time instead of some convoluted metaphors.

 

[Bill]

Night plus fog = death, IR nor not

I've shot ILS to the mins at night, in the rain and fog. Still here.

 

[paflyer]

Wow, you have quite the high opinion of yourself. Always amusing when a pilot starts to confuse flight time with I.Q. points. Suffice it say, you are coming off as one the most ignorant persons on this board.

Way off base here, Champ.

 

[narchee]

Are you using a Komatasu or Caterpillar for all the excavating you are doing? Just need to know which company to buy stock in. You obviously have zero idea on who she is, or her background.

Turn off the key, and step away from the heavy equipment. You are giving everyone else the impression you are suffering from a form of trisomy.

Got a crush on Kristin?

 

[EdFred]

Got a crush on Kristin?

Ha. No. I just know her background from long before she joined here.

 

[EdFred]

So if someone has credentials then they get to be rude to other posters? This discussion is a lot more about censorship then placing blame on a pilot. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, just like everyone is entitled to disagree, but there are a few people that have gone completely overboard and thrown any sense of civility out the window here.

btw, your post is complete dribble. Try articulating a cognitive thought next time instead of some convoluted metaphors.

If you think everyone else is the dumbass, perhaps you need to reanalyze your outlook. I'm sorry that my metaphors were beyond your abilities. I will consult my Dick and Jane books in the future when responding to you. However, I have a better idea.

 

[olasek]

Statistics don't work that way. An accident isn't a random event, and you can't predict the cause based on probabilities and percentages.

Statistics work precisely this way and by the way an aircraft accident is a random event. It is random because we don't know who will be the next victim, when/where it will happen but it is a statistical event because a probability can be assigned to it and it is subject to typical laws of probability (for example Chebyshev's theorem). If aircraft accidents weren't random events Boeing's 'accident rate' definition which is computed every year in their statistical analysis would not be possible.

 

[bflynn]

One learns by asking questions, not by trying to assign blame before any facts are conclusively established.

We have a vehicle in our society which encourages the ignorant to second-guess the professionals. The ignorant even pay big bucks for the privilege. It is professional sports. Pay you entrance fee and you can yell at the ump, curse the coach, etc.

Aviation is not the place for ignorant and self-destructive speculation. One of the problems that general aviation has is that most of the public fears it. When it comes to that, we are our own worst enemies. Ignorant . . . strike that . . . stupid comments like "night + fog = death", by people who are only a bit less ignorant than John Q. Public only serve to convince the populace that little airplanes are dangerous and should be super tightly regulated so innocent people don't get hurt by having a little plane fall on them.

I'll take that as a personal attack and ignore it since I know you're misreading.

 

[Henning]

The article said he had a "regular pilot", so that along with it being a C414 Twin, I would be surprised if the pilot did not have an IR.

Very sad.

I would suspect he had a highly experienced and competent semi retired pro pilot over a low time 'time builder' pilot as well, and you don't see many others besides Owner Operators flying twin Cessnas. This guy seems like the kind of guy who would have a hook up to a really good pilot on his buddy list, and throws around enough money to attract one. Plus these kind of guys are usually a bunch of fun to work for.

 

[Kristin]

Wow, you have quite the high opinion of yourself. Always amusing when a pilot starts to confuse flight time with I.Q. points. Suffice it say, you are coming off as one the most ignorant persons on this board.

OK! You don't like my tone, so you attack my intelligence. Interesting demonstration of your intellect.

BTW, the word you want in your post to Ed Fred is "drivel", as in nonsense. "Dribble" is what you do with a basketball.

 

[Kristin]

I'll take that as a personal attack and ignore it since I know you're misreading.

If you wish to be wounded by my opinion, feel free. It was made more generally, but if you recognize that the glass slipper fits . . .

 

[Henning]

OK! You don't like my tone, so you attack my intelligence. Interesting demonstration of your intellect.

BTW, the word you want in you post to Ed Fred is "drivel", as in nonsense. "Dribble" is what you do with a basketball.

I usually do it with red wine on a white shirt.

 

[Kristin]

I would suspect he had a highly experienced and competent semi retired pro pilot over a low time 'time builder' pilot as well, and you don't see many others besides Owner Operators flying twin Cessnas. This guy seems like the kind of guy who would have a hook up to a really good pilot on his buddy list, and throws around enough money to attract one. Plus these kind of guys are usually a bunch of fun to work for.

One of the reports I read, all if which I take with a grain of salt at this point, quoted the pilot's age as 51. That would suggest that he might have been a free-lancer, or even a professional pilot moonlighting for a few extra shekels.

 

[FlyingTiger]

If you think everyone else is the dumbass, perhaps you need to reanalyze your outlook. I'm sorry that my metaphors were beyond your abilities. I will consult my Dick and Jane books in the future when responding to you. However, I have a better idea.

Considering you are now contradicting yourself, maybe it's time for you reevaluate your outlook. The poster you are defending was the one that went on a rant and essentially called a large number of people dumbasses when she called them ignorant. I, on the other hand, only have an issue with a select few that have an overblown opinion of themselves to the point where they feel they can insult people with impunity.

 

[timwinters]

Wow, you have quite the high opinion of yourself. Always amusing when a pilot starts to confuse flight time with I.Q. points. Suffice it say, you are coming off as one the most ignorant persons on this board.

Actually, no, Kristin is well studied. She's a commercial pilot, an A&P and an attorney (but I don't hold that against her).

OTOH, You're the one who's coming off as ignorant. Repeatedly.

Ha. No. I just know her background from long before she joined here.

As did I. That's why is fun to watch her well though out posts be countered by dibble...or drivel...or red wine...or basketball...or whatever.

 

[bflynn]

If you wish to be wounded by my opinion, feel free. It was made more generally, but if you recognize that the glass slipper fits . . .

With your experience, I'd be more impressed if you shared knowledge rather than quips. We've never met and it sounds like were both misreading each other's words.

I'm still waiting. The thread has been informative already, in multiple ways.