B58 Baron N2063G fatal crash 4/13/2026 Knoxville, TN (KDKX)

iamtheari

iamtheari

Administrator
Management Council Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2016
Messages
5,585
Display Name
Ari

It sounds like they were working on stalls and then lost it. That could have been from a variety of original causes.

But it reminds me of this tale of woe. I have a colleague who nearly lost a twin once while doing power-on stalls. An engine failed during the stall and the Vmc roll came fast. He had enough altitude and presence of mind to recover. I think it’s easy to get complacent and think that Vmc is a training maneuver that keeps you upright in the long flight from an engine failure in cruise to a safe landing. But Vmc can bite you anytime, including while training other maneuvers.
 
TrueCourse said:
Pilots and instructors continue to die trying to train or test on maneuvers and recoveries to avoid the probability of dying in the real world.
Click to expand...
Indeed. It's one of the reasons that I have been very, very hesitant to get my multi. The Vmc demo just seems insane to me, as an intentional degradation of safety margin which approaches the edge of an unrecoverable state. Back in the day, maybe it was necessary. Today, we have high-fidelity simulators that can not only demonstrate Vmc flight, but can let the student take it all the way to catastrophe and then still get a beer afterwards.

I suspect it's going to take a lawsuit against the FAA to get them to stop requiring this demonstration in actual aircraft instead of a simulator.
 
Tbh, I’m a bit afraid to do my spin training and my goal is to get my CFI this year. After the incident last year, I don’t even want to do stalls. I will go to a higher altitude for sure.
 
AvNavCom said:
Indeed. It's one of the reasons that I have been very, very hesitant to get my multi. The Vmc demo just seems insane to me, as an intentional degradation of safety margin which approaches the edge of an unrecoverable state. Back in the day, maybe it was necessary. Today, we have high-fidelity simulators that can not only demonstrate Vmc flight, but can let the student take it all the way to catastrophe and then still get a beer afterwards.

I suspect it's going to take a lawsuit against the FAA to get them to stop requiring this demonstration in actual aircraft instead of a simulator.
Click to expand...

So apparently you have never done a VMC demo?
 
@admin, is Doc an asset to this form or just an ass. We are all friends here, if you aren’t, go to Reddit.
 
mandm said:
@admin, is Doc an asset to this form or just an ass. We are all friends here, if you aren’t, go to Reddit.
Click to expand...
I've met exactly 1 person from this forum. Am I in the wrong place?

Doc makes me laugh. He's right on this one, if you're afraid of spins AND stalls, you shouldn't get a CFI until you work those gremlins out, perhaps with some upset training
 
Doc Holliday said:
I've done lots of VMC demos and I can't see what the perceived "danger" is you are speaking of.
Click to expand...
Seriously? It is, by definition, taking the aircraft to the edge of its envelope, in a condition of asymmetric thrust, in such a way that a mistake on the rudder can put the aircraft into a potentially unrecoverable stall/spin. It is inherently more risky than simple stalls and spins. I'm not saying that the demonstration doesn't have merit. I'm saying that there should be the option to do it in a simulator.
 
AvNavCom said:
Seriously? It is, by definition, taking the aircraft to the edge of its envelope, in a condition of asymmetric thrust, in such a way that a mistake on the rudder can put the aircraft into a potentially unrecoverable stall/spin. It is inherently more risky than simple stalls and spins. I'm not saying that the demonstration doesn't have merit. I'm saying that there should be the option to do it in a simulator.
Click to expand...

The maneuver done correctly is benign. If the student makes a mistake lowering the nose and reducing thrust on the good engine is a smooth recovery. It's not a rushed maneuver.

www.aopa.org

Technique: V(mc) Demo

The VMC demo is a multiengine checkride item that has confounded students and stressed out examiners for decades. But when done properly, it shouldn’t be dramatic at all.
www.aopa.org

Finding a simulator for a piston twin is going to be challenging, plus getting the FAA approval to perform a check ride for that portion. The flight sim will have to adequately be able to replicate all of the control movements and be approved.
 
mandm said:
Tbh, I’m a bit afraid to do my spin training and my goal is to get my CFI this year. After the incident last year, I don’t even want to do stalls. I will go to a higher altitude for sure.
Click to expand...
Sounds like you need some upset recovery instruction, perhaps even some introductory lessons to aerobatics before you start teaching.
 
AvNavCom said:
Seriously? It is, by definition, taking the aircraft to the edge of its envelope, in a condition of asymmetric thrust, in such a way that a mistake on the rudder can put the aircraft into a potentially unrecoverable stall/spin. It is inherently more risky than simple stalls and spins. I'm not saying that the demonstration doesn't have merit. I'm saying that there should be the option to do it in a simulator.
Click to expand...
That mistake on the rudder is probably far less likely in a Vmc demo than any other training maneuver in a multiengine airplane.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
Sounds like you need some upset recovery instruction, perhaps even some introductory lessons to aerobatics before you start teaching.
Click to expand...
I have always done stalls without issue, but after having 2 of my instructors involved in stall spin accidents (separate events), I’m a bit hesitant! I enjoy life. Is it necessary to train something that we should avoid is the question is how I read the other posters comment. By commenting, I was told not to be a CFI which I felt was a bit insulting. But yes I will do the spin training as required to earn my CFI.

Be a little sensitive is all I’m asking…
 
mandm said:
I have always done stalls without issue, but after having 2 of my instructors involved in stall spin accidents (separate events), I’m a bit hesitant! I enjoy life. Is it necessary to train something that we should avoid is the question is how I read the other posters comment. By commenting, I was told not to be a CFI which I felt was a bit insulting. But yes I will do the spin training as required to earn my CFI.

Be a little sensitive is all I’m asking…
Click to expand...
If you want to teach you should.

I’m sorry your feelings were hurt.

If you have any trepidation about maneuvering at the edge of the envelope please get some advanced maneuvering training. It’s not a derisive suggestion. Students will put you in very compromised positions. You’ll be a better and safer instructor if you get the training.
 
mandm said:
I have always done stalls without issue, but after having 2 of my instructors involved in stall spin accidents (separate events), I’m a bit hesitant! I enjoy life. Is it necessary to train something that we should avoid is the question is how I read the other posters comment. By commenting, I was told not to be a CFI which I felt was a bit insulting. But yes I will do the spin training as required to earn my CFI.

Be a little sensitive is all I’m asking…
Click to expand...
I would suggest doing enough of it to be comfortable recovering when your student tries to snap roll you on final.
 
mandm said:
I have always done stalls without issue, but after having 2 of my instructors involved in stall spin accidents (separate events), I’m a bit hesitant! I enjoy life. Is it necessary to train something that we should avoid is the question is how I read the other posters comment. By commenting, I was told not to be a CFI which I felt was a bit insulting. But yes I will do the spin training as required to earn my CFI.

Be a little sensitive is all I’m asking…
Click to expand...
I didn't know you had another instructor involved in an incident. I knew about the rv10, was that a stall spin? A client of mine, his father has a mooney at UGN and that was his instructor as well.

My condolences.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The maneuver done correctly is benign. If the student makes a mistake lowering the nose and reducing thrust on the good engine is a smooth recovery. It's not a rushed maneuver.

www.aopa.org

Technique: V(mc) Demo

The VMC demo is a multiengine checkride item that has confounded students and stressed out examiners for decades. But when done properly, it shouldn’t be dramatic at all.
www.aopa.org

Finding a simulator for a piston twin is going to be challenging, plus getting the FAA approval to perform a check ride for that portion. The flight sim will have to adequately be able to replicate all of the control movements and be approved.
Click to expand...
Certainly creeping up on VMC intentionally doesn't represent what could likely happen in the real world, as is demonstrated many times per year.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Certainly creeping up on VMC intentionally doesn't represent what could likely happen in the real world, as is demonstrated many times per year.
Click to expand...

For years I trained and performed V1 cuts on checkrides. In reality an engine failure happening exactly at or three seconds before V1 is astronomical. But the training and maneuver checking does provide for an understanding. In the one time I did lose an engine at take off it was at 200' but the training kicked in and was a non event.

Stalls don't happen typically the way they are trained either. But the training forms the basis of recognition and recovery.
 
I look at it like autos to the ground. Every year someone balls up a helicopter doing them but it’s still a critical part of training. Can it be done in a sim? Yep, I’ve done thousands of them and it doesn’t even come close to replicating a real auto. The visuals, handling, Nr response. Never seen a sim that replicates it correctly. Problem is we have young CFIs who start teaching without enough experience in conducting EPs.
 
Velocity173 said:
I look at it like autos to the ground. Every year someone balls up a helicopter doing them but it’s still a critical part of training. Can it be done in a sim? Yep, I’ve done thousands of them and it doesn’t even come close to replicating a real auto. The visuals, handling, Nr response. Never seen a sim that replicates it correctly. Problem is we have young CFIs who start teaching without enough experience in conducting EPs.
Click to expand...
This is very well stated. My response was more like “**** that guy he doesn’t understand ****” so I deleted it. Don’t want to say what I actually was thinking on here. Gets a fellow the hammer.
 
Velocity173 said:
I look at it like autos to the ground. Every year someone balls up a helicopter doing them but it’s still a critical part of training. Can it be done in a sim? Yep, I’ve done thousands of them and it doesn’t even come close to replicating a real auto. The visuals, handling, Nr response. Never seen a sim that replicates it correctly. Problem is we have young CFIs who start teaching without enough experience in conducting EPs.
Click to expand...
Yep, and a real engine out is definitely different than pulling the throttle for a simulated engine out. Been there done that.

It still helps to practice approaches at idle.
 
What is concerning is that an 18 yr. old CFI with 15 hours of multi-engine time can become a MEI after receiving a few hours of instruction and pass a check ride. He’s now qualified to show YOU how to properly accomplish any and all maneuvers in a multi-engine aircraft with a minimum of real-world experience.
 
Brad Smith said:
What is concerning is that an 18 yr. old CFI with 15 hours of multi-engine time can become a MEI after receiving a few hours of instruction and pass a check ride. He’s now qualified to show YOU how to properly accomplish any and all maneuvers in a multi-engine aircraft with a minimum of real-world experience.
Click to expand...
It's also concerning that someone can put in 40 to 60 hours and find a Santa type DPE to give them a PPL, then they launch off at night in marginal weather flying over inhospitable terrain with family and friends aboard.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It's also concerning that someone can put in 40 to 60 hours and find a Santa type DPE to give them a PPL, then they launch off at night in marginal weather flying over inhospitable terrain with family and friends aboard.
Click to expand...
And that said person's CFI thought that they were doing the applicant a favor by taking them to an "easy" examiner.
 
Doc Holliday said:
It's also concerning that someone can put in 40 to 60 hours and find a Santa type DPE to give them a PPL, then they launch off at night in marginal weather flying over inhospitable terrain with family and friends aboard.
Click to expand...
One doesn't even need Santa ... the practical is rather easy to pass.
 
RyanShort1 said:
And that said person's CFI thought that they were doing the applicant a favor by taking them to an "easy" examiner.
Click to expand...

Flight schools around here will only use certain examiners no matter how long it takes to get the checkride. CFI's don't want a fail and applicants just want the certificate.
 
Doc Holliday said:
Flight schools around here will only use certain examiners no matter how long it takes to get the checkride. CFI's don't want a fail and applicants just want the certificate.
Click to expand...
To be fair, the FAA sort of unintentionally fuels this by tying CFI quality to first-time pass rate.
 
RyanShort1 said:
To be fair, the FAA sort of unintentionally fuels this by tying CFI quality to first-time pass rate.
Click to expand...

In a system that is suppose to work, the DPE is the final check that the CFI is doing his job correctly. A CFI with a poor pass rate needs to be re-evaluated and the system should support that.

However that depends upon the DPE doing his job correctly. But we all know there are certain DPE's that fall into the Santa Claus category. Then these DPE's overlook flaws to get a pass. Now the system fails.
 
Jenny Blalock seemed to easily find CFI's to pass her in the Knoxville area.
 
Doc Holliday said:
In a system that is suppose to work, the DPE is the final check that the CFI is doing his job correctly. A CFI with a poor pass rate needs to be re-evaluated and the system should support that.

However that depends upon the DPE doing his job correctly. But we all know there are certain DPE's that fall into the Santa Claus category. Then these DPE's overlook flaws to get a pass. Now the system fails.
Click to expand...
And unfortunately the CFI's that take the "easy" route have the higher pass rates and brag about it. It was a real problem 15 years ago in the SAT FSDO, but I blame the FAA equally as the instructors because their atmosphere really encouraged that gaming of the system.
 
Don’t new pilots that passed a “hard” DPE check ride crash with regularity also?

Isn’t it said that a new PPL license is a license to learn.
 
RyanShort1 said:
And unfortunately the CFI's that take the "easy" route have the higher pass rates and brag about it. It was a real problem 15 years ago in the SAT FSDO
Click to expand...

They apparently weren't sending their guys to Frank Fortman. ;)

(not sure if he's even at the FSDO anymore - it's been over 20 years since I was in that neck of the woods)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top