Aerostar down KSLK. Three fatalities.

Bad fuel, stall, Vmc.... way too many things possible to speculate on the cause. Too little information.

Tim
 
RIP. Likely extra dark up there last night with smoke added to the mix from the Canadian wild fires. The smoke filtered into Pennsylvania last night and appears we're going to live with it for a while down here.
 
Rick A said:
RIP. Likely extra dark up there last night with smoke added to the mix from the Canadian wild fires. The smoke filtered into Pennsylvania last night and appears we're going to live with it for a while down here.
Click to expand...
70 year old,10:30 pm dark and add the smoke. Most as we age eliminate those late night departures. rip
 
ionel said:
70 year old,10:30 pm dark and add the smoke. Most as we age eliminate those late night departures. rip
Click to expand...

Single pilot LOC's occurring shortly after takeoffs in IMC conditions are are dangerous enough without added risks of darkness, turbulence, inner ear issues, fatigue, lack of currency, or not being proficient or capable in the first place. Advancing age is just one more factor to add to a long list of not so uncommon risk factors...

And even worse, although less likely, is some type of emergency occurring shortly after takeoff into IMC conditions, i.e., engine, flight instrument or other serious issue. Problems that could overtax the mental ability of a single pilot to handle along with keeping the wings level and safely proceeding along with the departure.
 
tspear said:
Bad fuel, stall, Vmc.... way too many things possible to speculate on the cause. Too little information.

Tim
Click to expand...
Lack of pilot proficiency emergency procedures in an unforgiving make/model.
 
ASN has a good account and link to the NTSB prelim.

Sure looks like spatial disorientation or loss of situational awareness. My specific guess is somatogravic illusion. Plane seems to have been fine. Ground speed was high enough that we can confidently say those engines were turning. Hit terrain after achieving 169 kts just 75' AGL. Never climbed higher than 125' AGL.

On a personal note: as a husband, father to a 1-year-old girl (and 9-year-old boy), doctor, and pilot, this is both nightmare fuel and a disgusting display of confident incompetence. It also just perpetuates the stereotype that us docs make awful pilots, and I truly don't understand why that is. Ego? Hubris? In this case, bruh completely wiped out his entire gene pool in an instant. Imagine getting the call that your father-in-law just un-alived your wife and daughter along with himself. Is it really that hard to take flying every bit as seriously as the medicine we practice?
 
Nah, it's not unique to high earning medical practicioners. Business owners do it on the regular as well. In fairness, I know fellow mil pilots who didn't want to be 121 cannon fodder, so they hung it up and became MDs (and yes, I get the 'whats your excuse?' from the weef on the regular, she should have married better lolz). All to say, I'd say it's more of a type A thing than a direct correlation to what you do as a pedestrian, when it comes to the risk profile.

It's possible to approach recreational flying in a professional manner, it just becomes work and that's tough to do when u already have a demanding job on the ground as the primary. Keeping it VFR and leaving the ifr stuff to solo, or a netjets/planesense membership for the family, would do these types some good on the longevity bit. That's prob where the ego part pops up (dismissing single pilot ifr as low rent stuff, which the industry dismisses too, when you go by how little they compensate it vs crew work).

All that said, I also know a mil guy who took his brother, sister in law their baby on a flight in the tango foxtrot he built poorly (ntsb assessment not mine). Had a fuel interruption event to the engine and killed himself and his brother attempting an impossible turn, the baby in the back (car seat) and sister in law survived. By all accounts a pilot of his background and experience level should have known better. So don't be too self deprecating as an MD, pros bone it up with family too.
 
hindsight2020 said:
Nah, it's not unique to high earning medical practicioners. Business owners do it on the regular as well. In fairness, I know fellow mil pilots who didn't want to be 121 cannon fodder, so they hung it up and became MDs (and yes, I get the 'whats your excuse?' from the weef on the regular, she should have married better lolz). All to say, I'd say it's more of a type A thing than a direct correlation to what you do as a pedestrian, when it comes to the risk profile.

It's possible to approach recreational flying in a professional manner, it just becomes work and that's tough to do when u already have a demanding job on the ground as the primary. Keeping it VFR and leaving the ifr stuff to solo, or a netjets/planesense membership for the family, would do these types some good on the longevity bit. That's prob where the ego part pops up (dismissing single pilot ifr as low rent stuff, which the industry dismisses too, when you go by how little they compensate it vs crew work).

All that said, I also know a mil guy who took his brother, sister in law their baby on a flight in the tango foxtrot he built poorly (ntsb assessment not mine). Had a fuel interruption event to the engine and killed himself and his brother attempting an impossible turn, the baby in the back (car seat) and sister in law survived. By all accounts a pilot of his background and experience level should have known better. So don't be too self deprecating as an MD, pros bone it up with family too.
Click to expand...
I know that mil guy, went to school with him and his wife. I too never understood how he decided to try the turn. Sad RIP Rick.
 
The ink on this pilot's instrument rating was still wet, having picked up the rating in October 2024. And IMO low on total time (just over 1000 hours) and night hours (probably way under 1000). Time in twins and IMC will be interesting to learn, but I would imagine they are also on the low side of experience. Especially considering the notoriously slick twin he was flying.

It's a tragedy he felt confident and qualified enough to fly with family that night. Likely he didn't know what he didn't know...
 
Last edited:
Bill said:
So the weef goes by hindsight2020betterhalf?
Click to expand...
lol nah, she finds this whole recreational online bickering, cornball to a fault. She does want me to start monetizing my non-aviation streams of consciousness, given my wanton absence of vocational direction come 2027 2028. I †told her we can't all be Mover and quit a six figure a-word job to stream, race cars, recreationally fly helos and live happily every after with the other 22 hours of your day; he don't got a wife and kid after all....this about how that went
:fingerwag:
(†that's the 10pct truth version of what I actually said, which would surprise you 0% to find it was both much more succint, and much less incisive. I'm polemic for engagement, but I do know how to sidestep landmines of choice, username notwithstanding)
 
From wikipedia:

A study of Aerostar accidents by The Aviation Consumer from 1978 to 1982 showed that the Aerostar had an accident rate of 12.9 per 100,000 flight hours, substantially more than the rate of the comparable Beechcraft Baron 58 at 4.9 per 100,000 hours. A similar study conducted by Aviation Safety compared the safety records of eight similar models of twin-piston-engine aircraft and found that the Aerostar had the highest accident and fatal accident rate. According to the studies, the leading cause of Aerostar accidents was engine failures on takeoff. The Aviation Consumer notes that the Aerostar's high wing loading, which contributes to its high cruise speed, also gives it relatively unforgiving flying qualities on takeoff and landing;
Click to expand...
 
Ed Haywood said:
From wikipedia:
A study of Aerostar accidents by The Aviation Consumer from 1978 to 1982 showed that the Aerostar had an accident rate of 12.9 per 100,000 flight hours, substantially more than the rate of the comparable Beechcraft Baron 58 at 4.9 per 100,000 hours. A similar study conducted by Aviation Safety compared the safety records of eight similar models of twin-piston-engine aircraft and found that the Aerostar had the highest accident and fatal accident rate. According to the studies, the leading cause of Aerostar accidents was engine failures on takeoff. The Aviation Consumer notes that the Aerostar's high wing loading, which contributes to its high cruise speed, also gives it relatively unforgiving flying qualities on takeoff and landing;
Click to expand...

There doesn't seem to be much evidence in the NTSB prelim to suggest this mishap was in any way related to an engine failure or any other mechanical failure. It also seems unlikely that intrinsic flying qualities of the airframe related to its high wing loading are a factor. He was screaming along at nearly 170 kts just 75' above the ground. Even a 737 can (usually) fly at that, clean no less.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top