A 12-page CFIT story

This had me saying "WTF?"...

"The student asked the instructor about terrain elevation in the area, and the instructor responded that he was not certain of the elevations because the airplane was not equipped with a G-1000 navigation system."

But then this at the end had me saying, "Ahhh..."

"The flight instructor was 49-years-old, held an ATP certificate, had nearly 6,000 hours total flight time with nearly 1,200 hours of dual-given experience. He also had earned a master's degree in world politics and a PhD in economics."

LOL.
 
I'm sure context is everything with that quote.... maybe they generally flew another plane that had that info readily available because of the g1000 or something... my ad-block stuff is blocking the video (guessing...)
 
Just to be clear, the link above takes you to the NTSB summary and some commentary from the guy who posted it. You have to scroll all the way down and download the pdf to read the Washington Post article on the same accident that the OP refers to. It was also on Apple News yesterday. The story is on the human side of the student who spent the night with the plane and was rescued the next morning. The CFI survived the initial crash and was conscious but died during the night.

Yeah, lots of things don't sound like a 6,000 hr CFI in this story or the report.
 
Sounded like a quality instructor right there. :rolleyes:
 
Based on the rest of the report, I'd say it can be taken as a stand-alone statement.

It appears the instructor suffered from ignorant indifference.

It can't possibly be that simple.

Something is quite wrong here. No charts at night? Not even an iPad? Even the first timer I flew a few weeks ago knew better than that, and this guy has 6000 hours. And the student pilot in question apparently knew it, too.

Something is missing from this story.
 
Cmon? No jokes about his advanced degrees being in two fields where you never have to actually be right about anything? :)

Nobody's biting on that bait?

I'm joking but kinda not. World politics and economics -- people die and the experts just shrug.

Intuitively there has to be some crossover in a brain that thinks that way into other endeavors...

Joking aside -- I agree. Something still isn't right about the whole story. I can't fathom anyone teaching, being quite that unconcerned with knowing where terrain was.
 
Cmon? No jokes about his advanced degrees being in two fields where you never have to actually be right about anything? :)

Nobody's biting on that bait?

No. Turns out most of us don't think "well, lets make fun of the dead guy for having advanced degrees" when we read a report about a fatal accident.
 
It can't possibly be that simple.

Something is quite wrong here. No charts at night? Not even an iPad? Even the first timer I flew a few weeks ago knew better than that, and this guy has 6000 hours. And the student pilot in question apparently knew it, too.

Something is missing from this story.
Unfortunately, the "something" missing could easily be a history of procedural noncompliance.
 
It can't possibly be that simpl.

Unfortunately it is. This crew elected to fly to an airport that is located at 3,793' via a cruising altitude of 3,000'. The result was a foregone conclusion.
 
This had me saying "WTF?"...

"The student asked the instructor about terrain elevation in the area, and the instructor responded that he was not certain of the elevations because the airplane was not equipped with a G-1000 navigation system."

But then this at the end had me saying, "Ahhh..."

"The flight instructor was 49-years-old, held an ATP certificate, had nearly 6,000 hours total flight time with nearly 1,200 hours of dual-given experience. He also had earned a master's degree in world politics and a PhD in economics."

LOL.

I have an economics degree. I'm at a loss trying to figure out why that's funny or why that makes me a poor pilot or instructor.
 
Sorry, tough crowd, anyway...

Anyone else read that story and think it very odd that even the reporter who wrote it said that every person who ever met the instructor and all of the investigators, none of them believe the story?

I mean usually there's some... and a reporter going out of their way to mention it...

Very strange.

The story is also a couple of years old... anything new on it?
 
Cmon? No jokes about his advanced degrees being in two fields where you never have to actually be right about anything? :)

Nobody's biting on that bait?

I'm joking but kinda not. World politics and economics -- people die and the experts just shrug.

Intuitively there has to be some crossover in a brain that thinks that way into other endeavors...

Joking aside -- I agree. Something still isn't right about the whole story. I can't fathom anyone teaching, being quite that unconcerned with knowing where terrain was.

If you're looking for anything funny in this article it's right here:
His teacher, sitting next to him in the cramped cockpit, pushed in the throttle, accelerating the aircraft with such power that it rocked Hicks’s head back.

You really need to hold on tight when you push in the throttle on a C172. :rolleyes:
 
Sorry, tough crowd, anyway...

Anyone else read that story and think it very odd that even the reporter who wrote it said that every person who ever met the instructor and all of the investigators, none of them believe the story?

While it sounds unbelievable to some I've seen enough strange, out of character, behavior to believe the facts as presented may be true. Is it likely some facts are missing? I think so.

I've seen instructors do strange things such as night flight into forecast icing with a ppc student, having a post first solo student demonstrate a stall over the only substantial tower for 10 miles, or ignore a maintenance concern. The fact remains that humans do strange things for no apparent reason. The elusive secret is to recognize and correct things before incident or disaster.
 
If you're looking for anything funny in this article it's right here:


You really need to hold on tight when you push in the throttle on a C172. :rolleyes:

Must've had the seldom seen RR-Merlin STC for the 172...
 
A lot of pilots have died being really stupid (and taken innocent people with them) but this story, HOLY CRAP!

I'm sure many of you have seen this one... But It is the same mindset that defies logic for those who take their responsibility seriously....
 
I play a "game" with my non-pilot wife. I read a line from an accident report and she tells me the result, both to the plane and people. minor, substantial, total; none to minor injuries, serious injuries, fatalities. She is usually correct.

Cruising at 3000 ft to an airport at 3789 ft.

Total, all killed.

Well, she was wrong, one did survive.

Still, difficult to believe that a pilot who appeared so incompetent in this case could have survived as a CFI for as long as he did.
 
While it sounds unbelievable to some I've seen enough strange, out of character, behavior to believe the facts as presented may be true. Is it likely some facts are missing? I think so.

I've seen instructors do strange things such as night flight into forecast icing with a ppc student, having a post first solo student demonstrate a stall over the only substantial tower for 10 miles, or ignore a maintenance concern. The fact remains that humans do strange things for no apparent reason. The elusive secret is to recognize and correct things before incident or disaster.

All I can say is, I do hope not to be THAT instructor. I don't get it. Teaching people bad decision-making can lead to attending funerals, if the family will even let you get anywhere near the funeral home. And people learn by emulating...

But my spidey sense doesn't like something about this article.

I see all of the good being done by the student and all of the bad being done by the deceased, and can't tell if that's the way the student portrays it, or if it's an odd spin the storyteller (I can't really say "journalist" in this case, it doesn't seem to be a factual story more than a feel that the author wants to sensationalize it a bit...) added.

I do know we'll never hear the other person in the airplane's side of the story. That alone raises the yellow flag. The sense that the good/bad behavior is all one-sided, flashes the red light intermittently for me.
 
All I can say is, I do hope not to be THAT instructor. I don't get it. Teaching people bad decision-making can lead to attending funerals, if the family will even let you get anywhere near the funeral home. And people learn by emulating...

But my spidey sense doesn't like something about this article.

I see all of the good being done by the student and all of the bad being done by the deceased, and can't tell if that's the way the student portrays it, or if it's an odd spin the storyteller (I can't really say "journalist" in this case, it doesn't seem to be a factual story more than a feel that the author wants to sensationalize it a bit...) added.

I do know we'll never hear the other person in the airplane's side of the story. That alone raises the yellow flag. The sense that the good/bad behavior is all one-sided, flashes the red light intermittently for me.

I read the ntsb report, not the article. We both know why the mass media version should be taken with a grain of salt. A couple of big red flags were the cross country work with a pre-solo student and night cross country flight with no obvious navigation aids. They apparently did not have a chart of the area. My question while reading the reports was "how did they plan to find the airport? Did they have a road to follow?" Reportedly the flight was to be flown in a G-1000 aircraft but ended up in a steam gauge aircraft. Could the underlying problem be that the instructor couldn't admit that he was not capable of safely completing the planned flight once they were airborne? People in positions of authority or seniority do strange things to preserve their perceived pride. We've seen enough of that on POA where nothing really counts. Airborne where your job performance is exposed? Now there is a setup for a bad decision.

Back to the question of cross country work with a pre-solo student and a last minute change in destination. I haven't looked on a chart at the planned flight so probably should do that. It'd still be nice to know why they wanted to make the flight. Was some sort of meeting planned that the student didn't want known? Were they picking someone or something up? Regardless, the instructor still should have ensured they had charts or sufficient info on board to complete the flight before leaving the ground.

Earlier I posed the question of a road to follow. I watched a guy "lose" I-70 over western Kansas one night so I know how bad that nav method can be. I can't imagine night "I follow roads" back east but can imagine a local could do it. Then again a local would know there were tall hills in the area.

So yeah, lots of missing pieces. Ultimately the CFI had responsibility for safety of the flight. He certainly failed in that regard even if it was the student saying "I've got to go here to get this done"
 
Back
Top