690B crashes into homes near KHVN

[Pilawt]

Technically, his Estate will be sued not his family. It's a nit but an important one.

And if (when) the insurance company folds its arms and says "Go fish," the victims have to file suit against the Estate, not the insurance company. And if it goes to trial, the jury will never be told that the insurance company chose not to settle, or that there is any insurance at all. Mere mention of the "I" word in the courtroom can cause a mistrial.

 

[denverpilot]

And if (when) the insurance company folds its arms and says "Go fish," the victims have to file suit against the Estate, not the insurance company. And if it goes to trial, the jury will never be told that the insurance company chose not to settle, or that there is any insurance at all. Mere mention of the "I" word in the courtroom can cause a mistrial.

Interesting. Had no idea that the mention of an insurance policy would do that, but I do see how it could cloud a jury's judgement. Most juries think insurance means "free money".

 

[Ted]

So guys let me ask you this. If a pilot finds themselves in a really uncomfortable situation in terms of fog, clouds, and overall vision so poor it's down right scary would powering up and just getting altitude be an acceptable "out"?

If at any point you can't continue the approach, execute the published missed.

The problem is that most pilots have to go missed so rarely that they don't have the mental preparation to be able to do it when needed.

At an unfamiliar airport a circle to land with that ceiling would be dead last on my list of outs. Unless I had a screaming tailwind, which wasn't the case here as far as I know. Nailing my approach to ensure I had as much runway as possible on touchdown seems the right way for me. Hard to second guess anyone however, but the results of a runway overrun could not have been any worse.

And if you had a screaming tailwind, you would also have the option of going to another airport. After all, we're talking an area that is littered with good options. They might not have the rental car waiting, but it's better than having to call the morgue.

I remember one time I shot an ILS in the Aztec with a 40 kt tailwind. It died down by the time I got to the ground to probably about 20-30 kts, figure 6,000ish ft runway. Planted it and was off fast enough that tower's comment was "Contact ground and... wow." It's doable, and was preferable to flying through the thunderstorm to get to the ILS the other direction (with the headwind).

 

[Threefingeredjack]

If at any point you can't continue the approach, execute the published missed.

The problem is that most pilots have to go missed so rarely that they don't have the mental preparation to be able to do it when needed.

YES. I always fly every approach with the mind set that I will go missed. I make the weather prove to me it is safe to land, just like in my pre-flight weather briefs I assume the weather is too bad to go unless there evidence to the contrary. I spent many years launching into anything that was marginally flyable because it was what I was paid to do.

 

[acrophile]

Thanks for everyone's elaborations about the risks of low-ceiling CtL.

I guess I was taking it for granted that a conscientious instrument pilot would practice enough to maintain proficiency at missed approaches; would perform a low-ceiling CtL while continuing the instrument scan, thus preparing for inadvertent re-entry into the clouds; and would not illegally continue the approach if such re-entry occurred, or if visual contact with the runway was otherwise lost, but rather would immediately climb for a missed approach.

If those precautions are taken, then a landing might not result, but the plane should be safe during the attempt (at least in flat terrain with no nearby tall obstacles). Factors that others have mentioned--an urge to arrive, excessive confidence, or flouting safety rules--may lead a pilot to choose not to take all these precautions; but that choice is under the pilot's control.

Like most pilots, I've seldom had to perform a missed approach for real. But during any challenging approach, I devote a significant part of my attention to continually assessing whether to go missed.

(Regarding a complex plane: If you can place the prop and mixture controls full-forward before any approach begins, and use a single hand gesture on those and the throttle when aborting an approach, then there's no extra work from the prop control during the missed approach. Retracting the landing gear is an extra step, but it takes the place of turning off the carb heat in many non-complex planes, so it's not really more work on the whole.

On the other hand, I don't fly high-performance or multi-engine planes, so I'm not familiar with any extra challenges they may present.)

 

[Ted]

YES. I always fly every approach with the mind set that I will go missed. I make the weather prove to me it is safe to land, just like in my pre-flight weather briefs I assume the weather is too bad to go unless there evidence to the contrary. I spent many years launching into anything that was marginally flyable because it was what I was paid to do.

Yep, same here. I really believe every pilot needs to spend some time flying in crappy weather with planes that will break. It gives you an appreciation for failures and understanding you can't rely on things going your way.

The catch is making sure you survive it.

 

[Ted]

The issue is that there's no training like doing it for real. Many pilots just don't have to fly on bad days. I used to do it all the time, but in the past year, the worst I've had to deal with is a little icing climbing through. pretty easy stuff (at least for me).

So I've scheduled time at SimCom to let someone beat me up and help me crash a video game. I'm looking forward to it and think it will help knock the rust off.

The hardest thing for most pilots (including me) to admit is when we shouldn't do something or when we aren't as good as we used to be (applies to me). In the case of a circling approach going missed, many might have forgotten what to do once they saw the airport. Ok, I see it, I'm good. Oh wait, now I'm in a cloud...

Obviously people do circling approaches every day successfully, but people have also flown through thunderstorms successfully.

 

[azure]

Yeah, that's easy to do at night. I've had a few night illusions, including one where I was landing at an unfamiliar airport at night after a long day and lined up with the wrong runway similarly. It happens.

It's embarrassing to admit, but I did it once during the day. It was at FNT, conditions were VERY hazy, but I was VFR (this was before I was instrument rated). I didn't catch that I was already on base for 18 until I was ready to turn base, thinking I was on downwind. Taught me to ALWAYS check the HSI on downwind at a field I'm not intimately familiar with.

 

[N53KL]

If I heard it correctly,
It sounded like he requested the straight in to 2 and was denied due to the winds favoring 20.

What are your thoughts on that?
I'm just curious, why not just let him land straight in, unless conflicting traffic was an issue?

I just listened to the liveATC recording. For the record, he asked if other aircraft landed straight-in rwy 2. The controller responded negative and reported the winds at 190/17. The controller never denied him anything.

I don't claim to know what happened, but as others have stated, a missed approach from circle is a high workload maneuver. I do not know this pilot's skill level but from what I have read, he seemed to be a conscientious guy in a not-so-nice set of circumstances. He was a single pilot operation with his hands full.

Very sad

Kevin

 

[MassPilot]

I found this article interesting:

http://www.flyingmag.com/blogs/flying-guest-opinion/should-new-haven-pilot-have-landed-straight

 

[Bill Watson]

So guys let me ask you this. If a pilot finds themselves in a really uncomfortable situation in terms of fog, clouds, and overall vision so poor it's down right scary would powering up and just getting altitude be an acceptable "out"?

Here's a variation I embarrassingly performed some years ago. I live on a lit private grass field. The challenge is often getting 'home' on low IMC days. Very early in my IFR journey, I landed at a uncontrolled nearby ILS equipped field. Noting the ceiling and viz on the way in, and with an unhealthy dose of get-home-itis, I took off with the intent of a low VMC return 'home' over very familiar ground. Halfway home I went IMC.

It's a stupid pilot stunt but I did it. The best part was that I had the sense to immediately start a climb and 'fess up to ATC while asking for a clearance. The rest of the flight to KRDU's facilities was a piece of cake and no questions were asked. 'Home' is now KRDU, getting to my real home strip is now considered gravy.

Circling at night at KIPT? It takes a twin set... or familiarity.

My first flight into there I got the RNAV 30 with high ceilings and snow. Even in daylight that was an eye opener. The ridge to the north is so in-your-face I guess that no one would hit it. Felt like I was ridge soaring on final.

 

[Ted]

Circling at night at KIPT? It takes a twin set... or familiarity.

My first flight into there I got the RNAV 30 with high ceilings and snow. Even in daylight that was an eye opener. The ridge to the north is so in-your-face I guess that no one would hit it. Felt like I was ridge soaring on final.

Yeah, don't be low on the RNAV 30. I honestly don't get how that approach is legal, but I'm not someone who makes approaches. Shooting a lot of the approaches in that area in the daytime gives you an appreciation for how close you can be to terrain while IFR. Night circling even with familiarity can be a bit interesting. N79 was worse.

 

[acrophile]

The preliminary NTSB report is out. No surprises.

http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20130809X23530&key=1

 

[LDJones]

Two cents on CtL: A couple of months ago I shot the only approach into a small airport (D09, GPS 31) with a 25 kt direct tail wind. I broke out about 50' above the circle minimum in rain and 3 mi. visibility and it was attention-getting the effort required even in a slow, docile C-172. I would do something else in a twin.

 

[Dr. O]

Mere mention of the "I" word in the courtroom can cause a mistrial."

Yup, jurors are the most lied to people in the entire legal system.

 

[Ted]

9 miles, 900 ft ceiling.

Not circle to land weather.

No surprises, but very tragic and sad.

 

[wsuffa]

Yeah, don't be low on the RNAV 30. I honestly don't get how that approach is legal, but I'm not someone who makes approaches. Shooting a lot of the approaches in that area in the daytime gives you an appreciation for how close you can be to terrain while IFR. Night circling even with familiarity can be a bit interesting. N79 was worse.

KROA is another one that's in the mountains. Better to fly into there the first time during the day...

 

[Ted]

KROA is another one that's in the mountains. Better to fly into there the first time during the day...

BTDT at ROA.

My first landing at KIZG was at night. Non-precision GPS approach, pre-WAAS in the plane so no vertical bars to help, lots of hills all over and no terrain warnings. Doable but not the most comfortable for sure and one of the more challenging after a long day. Not something I would recommend.

Edit: and NFW would I have done a circling for that.

 

[ja_user]

Weather at HVN : The recorded weather at HVN, at 1126, included wind from 170 degrees at 12 knots, gusting to 19 knots, visibility 9 miles, and overcast ceiling at 900 feet.

Stiff tailwind for non-circling approach...

That plane does have reverse thrust, not that I have done the calculation.

 

[Ted]

Weather at HVN : The recorded weather at HVN, at 1126, included wind from 170 degrees at 12 knots, gusting to 19 knots, visibility 9 miles, and overcast ceiling at 900 feet.

Stiff tailwind for non-circling approach...

Not that stiff given the plane and the runway length.

 

[N53KL]

9 miles, 900 ft ceiling.

Not circle to land weather.................

Really? Or are you attempting to be funny?

 

[Ted]

Really? Or are you attempting to be funny?

Yes, really. The 9 miles is fine, the 900 ft is the issue.

Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Circling mins were 800 ft, although weather at the time was reported as 900 it's not uncommon in my experience to have a reported 900 ceiling be variable and a bit lower.

I wouldn't do it in the 310.

 

[Old Guy]

I was to fly on 8-9-13 so I watched the doppler weather for New Haven all morning. Well, it was terrible. Patches of rain with strong gusts until afternoon. I followed N13622's path from TEB and looked at the graphs for his flight. The wind was from the south at 12K gusting to 19K. The last tracan had him at 800 ft at 185K. Initially, the first reports said he missed the approach and was making his second attempt when he crashed. The preliminary NTSB report has no mention of that.
Keep in mind that a Yale owned aircraft crashed attempting a circle to land on runway 20 from 02 back in 1971 (I'm not sure of the date). So, this is not an easy runway to attempt that. Also, it is possible that N13622 experienced a simultaneous flameout like the commuter crash the NTSB talks about in Nebraska-water ingesting. By my own witnessing the conditions that day, the downpours and winds, with poor visibility, I would not be surprised if that was the situation at HVN ten miles away form me.

 

[N53KL]

Yes, really. The 9 miles is fine, the 900 ft is the issue.

Just because something is legal to do doesn't mean that it's a good idea. Circling mins were 800 ft, although weather at the time was reported as 900 it's not uncommon in my experience to have a reported 900 ceiling be variable and a bit lower.

I wouldn't do it in the 310.

I understand you would not be comfortable under these conditions and applaud you for siding on the side of safety. I was referring to your blanket statement that this was not circle to land weather. Seeing as previous flights did it successfully indicates it can be done safely. This accident did not happen because the weather was 900 and 9. OLDGUY's post sheds light on how the weather was changeable a few miles away. I agree with him that this might have been a contributing factor but only one in a chain that led to the loss of live. That is what is sad to me .

On a different note, Kudo's to you and your animal rescue operation

Kevin

 

[CT Arrow]

I was to fly on 8-9-13 so I watched the doppler weather for New Haven all morning. Well, it was terrible. Patches of rain with strong gusts until afternoon. I followed N13622's path from TEB and looked at the graphs for his flight. The wind was from the south at 12K gusting to 19K. The last tracan had him at 800 ft at 185K. Initially, the first reports said he missed the approach and was making his second attempt when he crashed. The preliminary NTSB report has no mention of that.
Keep in mind that a Yale owned aircraft crashed attempting a circle to land on runway 20 from 02 back in 1971 (I'm not sure of the date). So, this is not an easy runway to attempt that. Also, it is possible that N13622 experienced a simultaneous flameout like the commuter crash the NTSB talks about in Nebraska-water ingesting. By my own witnessing the conditions that day, the downpours and winds, with poor visibility, I would not be surprised if that was the situation at HVN ten miles away form me.

I was on I-95 in East haven probably around the time the crash occurred. I was roughly 3-4 miles from the airport and I remembered vividly how ugly the weather was outside. I have also performed the circle to land from the ILS 02 while shooting some approaches in new haven. It can be done but it would not have been something I would have chosen that day.

Another terrible tragedy that lately seems to be the norm in air travel.

 

[Ted]

I understand you would not be comfortable under these conditions and applaud you for siding on the side of safety. I was referring to your blanket statement that this was not circle to land weather. Seeing as previous flights did it successfully indicates it can be done safely. This accident did not happen because the weather was 900 and 9. OLDGUY's post sheds light on how the weather was changeable a few miles away. I agree with him that this might have been a contributing factor but only one in a chain that led to the loss of live. That is what is sad to me .

Just because something is done successfully and is legal does not necessarily mean that it is safe. I have never crashed a plane, but I have had moments that I've come away from saying "That was a bad idea" and have learned what not to do. There are plenty of legal unsafe actions, and plenty of safe illegal actions. Ultimately, good ADM is about figuring out the course of action that will most likely ensure a safe outcome.

In the case of the 900 ft ceiling, there are lots of variables to that. In the case of a 690B, you have a high performance plane that's pretty fast, and you have rapidly changing weather from that day. I honestly don't think it's a good idea in any plane, but especially in the larger/faster planes. Now you might have a really benign day with 900 ft ceilings and could make an argument that on those days it's fine. I know the weather up there and haven't found that to happen often.

I'm also on the Twin Cessna forum where we've had this same discussion. These are mostly serious pilots with decades of experience flying aircraft that are somewhat comparable. Overwhelmingly, the agreement was that circling approaches are rarely good ideas, and definitely not without VFR ceilings. One pointed out that the ILS circling mins at his home field were 500 AGL, which he couldn't believe (nor could I), with no intentions of using them.

On a different note, Kudo's to you and your animal rescue operation

Thank you! 25 saved last weekend!

 

[acrophile]

Circling mins were 800 ft, although weather at the time was reported as 900 it's not uncommon in my experience to have a reported 900 ceiling be variable and a bit lower.

Circling MDA for HVN ILS 2 is 720', not 800'.

 

[acrophile]

Initially, the first reports said he missed the approach and was making his second attempt when he crashed. The preliminary NTSB report has no mention of that.

Yup, because it didn't happen. As reviewed earlier in this thread, online ATC tapes show there was no missed approach. The first news reports came from someone who didn't know the difference between a circle-to-land and a missed approach.

 

[Lucky]

Definitely a possibility and if he was a former Microsoft Exec, I can just about guarantee that there are lawyers knocking down doors of those affected to go after that estate.

Most likely, he had insurance which will cover any damages up to the limits of the policy. The advantage of insurance, is that even if the coverage was less than his estate assets, the insurance company will at least pony up for the legal defense, so hopefully the family of the pilot will have a fighting chance.

Chances are the aircraft is owned by a LLC owned by a LLC owned by a LLC. Mine certainly is. There are many ways to limit the personal financial liability.

 

[Alexb2000]

Chances are the aircraft is owned by a LLC owned by a LLC owned by a LLC. Mine certainly is. There are many ways to limit the personal financial liability.

You might search on the LLC issue, it has been discussed many times. Assuming you are piloting your own aircraft LLC's don't do much to limit liability. If not, then sure they make sense.

 

[wabower]

Reverse isn't used for the calculation in the T/P's I've flown.

That plane does have reverse thrust, not that I have done the calculation.

 

[ja_user]

Reverse isn't used for the calculation in the T/P's I've flown.

Calculation? Now you want to do calculations?

 

[wabower]

I actually prefer calculus, and would probably like it even better if I had taken the course or read the book.

Calculation? Now you want to do calculations?

 

[Ted]

I actually prefer calculus, and would probably like it even better if I had taken the course or read the book.

In high school all that most of the students would ever talk about was the integral of e^x.

You didn't miss much.

 

[Lucky]

You might search on the LLC issue, it has been discussed many times. Assuming you are piloting your own aircraft LLC's don't do much to limit liability. If not, then sure they make sense.

You are partially correct as far as it goes. My example makes it not my aircraft. An LLC owns it. My point being 1) there are several ways to mitigate liability issues with high net-worth individuals and 2) if Mr. Henningsgaard's estate was set up to mitigate risk, I doubt it (the estate) would have substantial liability.

 

[Old Guy]

The question in my mind has been whether N13622 had time to make it down wind, turn to base and then final? By my calculations, he had 81 seconds to do it. The total distance he had to cover was 3.62 miles. In that 81 seconds, he traveled 4.13
miles. Thus, he was definitely on final when he crashed.
The other question I had was: What effect would him being on partial throttle do to the turbo heading into a driving rain coming at him at 17 knots? From what I have been able to find out, turbos are most susceptible to flameout at partial throttle in turbulent rain. Also, two observers stated the engine noise stopped before the crash.

 

[acrophile]

The question in my mind has been whether N13622 had time to make it down wind, turn to base and then final? By my calculations, he had 81 seconds to do it. The total distance he had to cover was 3.62 miles. In that 81 seconds, he traveled 4.13 miles. Thus, he was definitely on final when he crashed.

We already knew that from the street address of the crash--on the extended runway centerline, about .7 miles from the threshold. ATC radar followed him until just about the point of the crash (his last radar position was recorded at about the moment of his final, truncated, alarmed-sounding radio transmission).

 

[denverpilot]

You might search on the LLC issue, it has been discussed many times. Assuming you are piloting your own aircraft LLC's don't do much to limit liability. If not, then sure they make sense.

They mostly limit you from exposure from one of the other co-owners doing something stupid.

 

[Alexb2000]

They mostly limit you from exposure from one of the other co-owners doing something stupid.

Exactly.