Arrow down near me...

cowman

cowman

Final Approach
PoA Supporter
Joined
Aug 12, 2012
Messages
5,894
Location
Danger Zone
Display Name
Cowman
Home Airfield
KUIN
khqa.com

Illinois State Police investigating deadly plane crash in Pike County

One person is dead after a plane crash in Pike County Sunday night.
khqa.com khqa.com

Our local news as usual has essentially no information but I could just make out the N number on the aircraft. It's an Arrow, the flight aware track matches the reported crash location.

It was very foggy last night... I think the flight aware track makes it pretty clear what happened. Looks they attempted the RNAV 22 approach into Quincy(KUIN) and went to KPPQ as an alternate and made a couple of attempted approaches. Duration of flight given in flight aware is 4h54m which if I'm not mistaken is probably the fuel range of that Arrow.
 
Initial TAF was ok, the next one was really bad.
Both airports were below minima at his time of arrival.

I wonder if he had a way to get WX updates during the flight.

Sad story…
 

Attachments

  • IMG_9884.jpeg
    IMG_9884.jpeg
    66.4 KB · Views: 31
  • IMG_9885.jpeg
    IMG_9885.jpeg
    242.7 KB · Views: 31
I flew the afternoon/evening before(on Sat). I had actually gone to the airport to do some maintenance, there was a low layer of fog... on the drive in I'd say in some spots maybe 1/2mile visibility. It was forecast to lift around the time I got there but it didn't... forecasts soon shifted to ceilings around 300'. By the time I was done with my maintenance actual conditions were sky clear. I mention that because we've had a few days of conditions forecast to be VFR but actually turning out to be fog/mist especially overnight and in the mornings.

I was in/out of my shop last night around the time of the accident- I live within 15nm of the crash site. Conditions were foggy with some mist.. IDK what the actual visibility was but definitely not good. Not sure why they chose to divert to PPQ- maybe the METAR was reporting better conditions but being familiar with these fields I wouldn't trust that unless it was a HUGE improvement and of the two airports KUIN is a far better place to go in bad conditions. PPQ is fine, I shoot practice approaches into it regularly but it's basically a narrow 4,000' strip cut out of a corn field.

I will give the pilot a bit of credit though, that's some hilly farm country and if I'm right about fuel exhaustion he probably did as good as anyone could at gliding it in under those conditions- 2/3 people survived.
 
Sad. The aircraft departed ANB at 2243z, the initial approach to UIN commenced about 8:49p lcl (0249z) and the accident happened 59 minutes later, at 9:39p lcl (0339z).

Interestingly, I63 15nm to the east was reporting clear until after 10:30p lcl (0430z), also has an RNAV LPV approach. Anything north and east was better - MQB, BRL, IJX, even PIA and SPI. PPQ was about the only one working away from the approaching weather that wasn’t VFR.

Doing a little deep dive, working backwards: the 5pm (23z) forecast discussion out of the St Louis WFO was not great, literally called out UIN specifically for these potential conditions ahead of WAA associated with an approaching trough. That’s around the same time the 2330z TAF was issued, which got it right, but was issued an hour after departure.

Going back to the earlier 2:25p (2025z) FD and 11:00a (17z) TAF discussions (which resulted in the 1723z TAF issuance), these were more optimistic, but still mentioned the southerly flow bringing in low stratus. It was probably a matter of intensity and timing - as the afternoon wore on the forecast got worse and worse, earlier.

Also looking back to the graphical charts at about 20z (2.5 hours prior to departure), IFR and MVFR ceilings and vis were forecast for UIN and PPQ, respectively, starting at 01z, then dropping to LIFR and IFR at 02, with both airports (and now also I69) LIFR at 03z - a general northeasterly progression ahead of the front. Actual observed conditions, several hours later, ended up being almost exactly what had been forecast there.

I’m posting this to illustrate how much can change in the usual 6 hours between TAFs and why TAF alone isn’t an end-all, be-all indication. It’s not unusual for things to change in the ensuing time between a forecast and departure (in this case it was 5 hours) and arrival (9-10 hours after the 1735 TAF). There are lots of additional, timely resources that can augment decision making and perhaps as importantly, bigger-picture indications of what is driving those changes (or even the uncertainty involved) that might be worth considering. Maybe they did consider that, who knows, just sayin’.
 
Not too far from me. The weather has been absolute crap here the last few days. LIFR and dense fog that's still there today. Not the type of weather you want to fly into if you arent totally proficient.
 
It's probably worth noting that the pilot flew that plane up from Florida starting at 0800 Eastern time. Time of crash was 2139 Central time. So we're talking 14.6 hours of travel time in one day and approaching to minimums. I'm certain fatigue was a causal factor. Given that it's a club plane, the individual pilot's logbook would be of significant interest. Very sad incident.
 
cowman said:
Duration of flight given in flight aware is 4h54m which if I'm not mistaken is probably the fuel range of that Arrow.
Click to expand...
My Arrow I (180hp) had 48 gallons usable. It burned 9 gph leaned for cruise at 65%. I planned based on 10 gph.
 
Why you go at the end of your useable fuel and PIlot ability both...into such a terrible forecast....
 
Flying Keys said:
I’m posting this to illustrate how much can change in the usual 6 hours between TAFs and why TAF alone isn’t an end-all, be-all indication. It’s not unusual for things to change in the ensuing time between a forecast and departure (in this case it was 5 hours) and arrival (9-10 hours after the 1735 TAF). There are lots of additional, timely resources that can augment decision making and perhaps as importantly, bigger-picture indications of what is driving those changes (or even the uncertainty involved) that might be worth considering. Maybe they did consider that, who knows, just sayin’.
Click to expand...
Today's modern world of in-cockpit iPad weather screams keep up with the weather trends and short-term forecasts at your destination. What the heck else do you have to do in your spare time sitting in the pilot's seat for 4+ hours?

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly towards crappy weather, get low on fuel, and let hope be the strategy. None.
 
Yup. “I hope I make it” isn’t a valid flight planning strategy.
 
Rick A said:
Today's modern world of in-cockpit iPad weather screams keep up with the weather trends and short-term forecasts at your destination. What the heck else do you have to do in your spare time sitting in the pilot's seat for 4+ hours?

There's absolutely no reason whatsoever to fly towards crappy weather, get low on fuel, and let hope be the strategy. None.
Click to expand...
Not only that, but hindsight and all, if you can nab a cell tower and pull up aviationweather, you can instantly see all the latest observations, overlaid on a map. The situational awareness that provides is a real quick means to a potential escape route for relatively docile, slow-moving/developing weather like that.
 
"This had 72 gallons", If it was full. Weight may not have allowed full fuel.
 
Rick A said:
Well, that info puts a new twist on a possible cause of this accident….
Click to expand...
Indeed.

Taking another look at the ground track... they flew over PPQ on the way into Quincy and made what looks like a pretty standard RNAV approach to RWY 22 at Quincy and went missed... the ground track pretty well follows the missed approach path for the RNAV 22. Then they turned towards KPPQ presumably setting up for the RNAV 13 at that airport... except it doesn't actually look like they ever intercepted the approach course to me. When I look at the accident aircraft's ground track it looks more like they just did a GPS direct from the missed approach at Quincy to PPQ.

When they get to KPPQ the lowest altitude reached is 1800' which is approximately pattern altitude at that field- LPV minimum for RNAV 13 is 960'.. even circling goes down to 1300. Then there's no sign of a missed approach procedure either- looks like they did a 180 right over the field and tried to circle back again. Then another attempt and there's where the flight ended.

I wonder if they saw KPPQ when they flew over it on the way to KUIN and were attempting a visual approach but the field was now obscured. The track looks more like a visual search than an actual approach path.


There were 2 survivors, not sure if either were the pilot. I'm curious to hear what happened.
 
cowman said:
I wonder if they saw KPPQ when they flew over it on the way to KUIN and were attempting a visual approach but the field was now obscured. The track looks more like a visual search than an actual approach path.
Click to expand...

Certainly a possiblity. Overflying the airport covered in fog may show the runway lights perfectly while looking straight down. However, a slant view while on final is a whole different story. Especially with the landing light(s) lit.
 
This is sad, and I'm sorry but it's also senseless. There's nothing much easier to check the fuel in than a PA-28, and 72 gallons is a LOT in a 200HP aircraft. 2-up and full fuel is not a problem in an Arrow in any normal temp with the possible exception of mountains out west. WTF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top