FAA "Called Out" by local tv station yesterday

I remember this. It was/is a black eye for us all. This tragedy could have been prevented many times over. I would put most of the blame on the irresponsible pilot, but the system failed to stop him. The fact that he killed innocent children is beyond reproach.
 
This was a bad deal seven ways to Sunday. I genuinely wonder if the guy would have done the flights anyway even if the AME had yanked his medical.
 
Does anybody who read the full accident report think for a minute any of the medical concerns mentioned were the real cause of this accident? What does this kind of sensationalistic reporting do for our cause to eliminate the third class medical?

"Videotapes of previous flights and of the beginning of the accident flight indicated that the pilot was performing nonstandard takeoffs. Rather than beginning a normal climb after lifting off from the ground, the pilot would maintain an altitude just above treetop level until reaching the departure end of the runway, at which point he would initiate a steep pitch-up maneuver followed by a pushover maneuver. Also, a witness, who was a pilot, reported that the accident pilot commonly performed a nonstandard maneuver called a “buttonhook turn” to align the airplane with final approach for landing. The maneuver involved flying the airplane at an altitude of about 300 feet above ground level perpendicular to the final approach course and then executing a 270-degree turn to the final approach. The witness stated that he observed the pilot perform this maneuver during one of the passenger-carrying flights preceding the accident flight."

"About 30 minutes after the airplane departed on the accident flight, witnesses observed it returning to the airport. Witnesses near the accident site reported that the airplane was flying at a low altitude toward the runway when it banked, descended, and impacted the ground. One witness stated that the airplane “appeared to be flying very slow, almost on the edge of a stall.” This witness heard the engine “throttle up” and observed the airplane stall, with the left wing “dipping,” and then descend below the tree line."​

Apparently, the guy was a CFI too:

"The passenger seated in the right front seat of the accident airplane was one of the accident pilot’s former student pilots who purchased a ride in the airplane. He held a private pilot certificate, but did not hold a current Airman Medical Certificate. If the accident pilot had become incapacitated, it is possible this passenger could have taken control of the airplane. There was insufficient evidence to determine whether or not this passenger was manipulating the flight controls when the accident occurred."​

dtuuri
 
I wonder how the station might weigh in on the FAA even considering doing away with third class medicals? Granted, if he was selling rides then he would still need a medical, but I suspect those details would be lost when breathlessly asking "what about the children?"

It sounds like a Santa Claus AME, but ultimately the pilot himself holds the responsibility of being fit to fly the moment he walks out of the Dr.'s office.
 
I guess people are trusting and many don't understand aviation but I really have to wonder who in their right mind gets into an airplane with an 86 yo stranger.

If it's someone you've known all your life and are familiar with their state of health, sure. But a stranger? No freakin' way I'm climbing on board with anyone over about 70...75 on the very outside.
 
Flying close to the envelope is probably not something you want to do WHILE BLIND.
 
dtuuri said:
Does anybody who read the full accident report think for a minute any of the medical concerns mentioned were the real cause of this accident?
Click to expand...

Yes.

20/200 is REALLY bad vision. In effect, this guy was attempting instrument zoom climbs and low level maneuvering without being able to see the instruments. The he made it through several flights before crashing is the surprise, not that he crashed.

Though the maneuvering is not good judgment on its own, it's the bad vision that makes it criminal.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Yes.

20/200 is REALLY bad vision. In effect, this guy was attempting instrument zoom climbs and low level maneuvering without being able to see the instruments. The he made it through several flights before crashing is the surprise, not that he crashed.

Though the maneuvering is not good judgment on its own, it's the bad vision that makes it criminal.
Click to expand...

What was his vision after correction? Did he have on glasses? Was he even the one actually flying the plane?

I can easily fathom the former student handling the controls, getting too slow (it was a C-206, constant speed prop, typical error for low-time pilots), trying to fly from the right seat, and the cause really being poor monitoring on the part of the owner rather than poor eyesight.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
Sensationalized BS story. I don't see anything that directly ties eyesight or his AME health to the accident. Yes, the Dr. was not being a strict gatekeeper. I wonder if this somehow ties in to the FAA third-class medical relaxation story. I can see it now..."this is just one case, but soon, the sky will be filled with incapable self-assessed pilots, it will be raining airplanes".
 
dtuuri said:
What was his vision after correction? Did he have on glasses? Was he even the one actually flying the plane?

I can easily fathom the former student handling the controls, getting too slow (it was a C-206, constant speed prop, typical error for low-time pilots), trying to fly from the right seat, and the cause really being poor monitoring on the part of the owner rather than poor eyesight.

dtuuri
Click to expand...

Not sure Macular Degeneration is correctable.

CT4ME said:
Sensationalized BS story. I don't see anything that directly ties eyesight or his AME health to the accident. Yes, the Dr. was not being a strict gatekeeper. I wonder if this somehow ties in to the FAA third-class medical relaxation story. I can see it now..."this is just one case, but soon, the sky will be filled with incapable self-assessed pilots, it will be raining airplanes".
Click to expand...

Yes and no. The story certainly was sensationalized but I think his eyesight could have a lot to do with the accident.
 
dtuuri said:
What was his vision after correction? Did he have on glasses? Was he even the one actually flying the plane.
Click to expand...

His vision was 20/200. Macular degeneration is not farsightedness and his glasses made as much difference as his watch.

This guy was very literally flying blind. Given that the maneuvers at hand were his MO, it's a stretch to say someone else was flying.
 
MAKG1 said:
His vision was 20/200. Macular degeneration is not farsightedness and his glasses made as much difference as his watch.
Click to expand...

Nothing in the report says how much of his uncorrected 20/200 vision was due to myopia or astigmatism and how much was due to macular degeneration. What's relevant is his corrected vision, which is not mentioned and is not known to us.
 
MAKG1 said:
Yes.



20/200 is REALLY bad vision. In effect, this guy was attempting instrument zoom climbs and low level maneuvering without being able to see the instruments. The he made it through several flights before crashing is the surprise, not that he crashed.



Though the maneuvering is not good judgment on its own, it's the bad vision that makes it criminal.
Click to expand...


I'm roughly 20/200 nearsighted which is mostly astigmatism. I could easily perform anything on the Private pilot non-instrument PTS without my glasses on (or I would carry an extra pair in the flight bag). Instrument would be some eyestrain from squinting but could fly it.

20/200 by itself is a meaningless number. You'd need to know if he was near or farsighted and what optical characteristics cause that.

That said, my awesome eye doc confirmed that I have the inner eye health of a 19 year old today (he can still see a macular "sheen"), but also that it's time for me to get readers for computer work and reading. Just a little less eyestrain up close. I'm slightly over corrected to 20/15 farsighted and I like it that way, but it's making the peepers work a little too hard close in.

Sooooo... For now I'll have VFR and IFR glasses. Ha. Doc says bifocals could also be done but probably not worth it at this point. A few more years. :)

For anyone with non-perfect eyeballs, I really can't stress how much a really really good Doc is. I can tell this guy I fly airplanes some days, shoot pistols and rifles some days, and spend 8 hours a day looking at a computer monitor and he listens and explains the options and then SHOWS me, with a set of lenses he can toss in a frame that'll give me a perfect feel for what the world will look like behind each prescription.

Been to plenty of "discount" places in my life that wouldn't do that. Never again.
 
MAKG1 said:
His vision was 20/200. Macular degeneration is not farsightedness and his glasses made as much difference as his watch.
Click to expand...
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The guy had abysmal judgment. When the TSA came to him, he didn't know where his logbook was. His medical applications over the years, though, showed an impressive accumulation of flight hours exceeded only, I think, by our growing national debt. Air BP de-branded the fuel he sold because of his massive disregard for fuel-dispensing standards. He had four auto accidents in the ten years before the crash. The last one was ten days before, when he turned in front of another car despite not being able to see because of the sun's glare--he "assumed" it was clear according to the police report. He made a gear-up landing despite a blaring warning horn and a verbal warning from his student four years prior. He had one near-midair collision earlier on the day of the crash because he was flying the wrong way on base leg or doing his favorite "button-hook" at low altitude (whatever the heck that is).

So, we should blame his eyesight?

MAKG1 said:
This guy was very literally flying blind. Given that the maneuvers at hand were his MO, it's a stretch to say someone else was flying.
Click to expand...
I didn't say that--I merely raised the possibility. They couldn't tell who was actually flying. Either way, it's the old guy's fault, but blaming the crash on bad eyes misses the point and only muddies the water regarding the usefulness of requiring a third class medical. What's next? Decertify anyone with macular degeneration, a malady I understand that is as common as gray hair, just a bit further down the road?

dtuuri
 
dtuuri said:
You aren't seeing the forest for the trees. The guy had abysmal judgment. When the TSA came to him, he didn't know where his logbook was. His medical applications over the years, though, showed an impressive accumulation of flight hours exceeded only, I think, by our growing national debt. Air BP de-branded the fuel he sold because of his massive disregard for fuel-dispensing standards. He had four auto accidents in the ten years before the crash. The last one was ten days before, when he turned in front of another car despite not being able to see because of the sun's glare--he "assumed" it was clear according to the police report. He made a gear-up landing despite a blaring warning horn and a verbal warning from his student four years prior. He had one near-midair collision earlier on the day of the crash because he was flying the wrong way on base leg or doing his favorite "button-hook" at low altitude (whatever the heck that is).

So, we should blame his eyesight?


I didn't say that--I merely raised the possibility. They couldn't tell who was actually flying. Either way, it's the old guy's fault, but blaming the crash on bad eyes misses the point and only muddies the water regarding the usefulness of requiring a third class medical. What's next? Decertify anyone with macular degeneration, a malady I understand that is as common as gray hair, just a bit further down the road?

dtuuri
Click to expand...

So, the DMV failed us too?
 
Not having a medical would not have kept this guy on the ground. He knew very well he was unfit to fly, and did it anyway. From the NTSB:

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

On autopsy, the pilot was noted to have severe coronary artery disease with "only a pinpoint lumen remaining distally of the left anterior descending coronary artery," prostate cancer with evidence of radioactive seed implantation and no indications of spread beyond the prostate, and severe diverticulosis.

Review of the accident pilot's personal medical records indicated treatment for age-related macular degeneration in both eyes since at least April 2006. The accident pilot's left eye had been treated twice with laser photocoagulation, eleven times with bevacizumab injection, and once with combined photodynamic therapy and bevacizumab injection, with the last combined therapy on May 20, 2008. His records also note treatment of the right eye with laser photocoagulation on May 6, 2008. His distant visual acuity without correction was last noted on May 20, 2008, to be 20/200 for each eye. Distant visual acuity with correction was last noted on April 8, 2008, to be just worse than 20/100 for each eye. Near visual acuity was last noted on May 13, 2007, for his better (left) eye, with best possible correction, to be 20/40. On that same date, his uncorrected distant visual acuities were noted to be 20/160 for his right eye and 20/100 for his left eye. He had been advised not to drive on at least two separate occasions (in October 2007 and January 2008) by his retinal specialist. The accident pilot's personal medical records also noted (in August 2006) a history of hyperglycemia (high blood sugar), with a hemoglobin A1c of 6.8 and blood glucose of 118, and of prostate cancer. There were no indications of heart disease in the personal medical records reviewed.

The accident pilot had not noted any conditions or treatments, and had specifically denied "Eye or vision trouble except glasses" and "Visits to Health Professional within Last 3 Years," on his most recent application for airman medical certificate, dated May 4, 2007, which has the following limitation: "must have available glasses for near vision." On the examination performed in conjunction with that application, his uncorrected distant vision was noted to be 20/20 in each eye separately and both eyes together, and his near vision was noted as corrected to 20/20 in each eye separately and both eyes together.
Click to expand...
 
Lindberg said:
Not having a medical would not have kept this guy on the ground. He knew very well he was unfit to fly, and did it anyway. From the NTSB:
Click to expand...

See? It's the government's fault that the guy lied on his medical application!

Based on the "I felt like it was OK to turn" thing, the guy was convinced that all of his mad skillz meant that all he needed to continue was the power of The Force.
 
Last edited:
Anybody who is involved in the medical profession knows that the state board wouldn't have done a thing had they have been advised. Lets just say, short of the DR physically harming children, the state medical board wasn't going to do a damn thing.

Them saying anything else was just a ploy to make the state board look more relevant than they really are.




I find it hard to believe that plane wasn't over weight as well, there were some "larger than standard weight" humans aboard from the video they showed.
 
Last edited:
mikea said:
See? It's the government's fault that the guy lied on his medical application!

Based on the "I felt like it was Ok to turn" thing, the guy was convinced that all of his mad skillz menaty all he needed to continue was the power of The Force.
Click to expand...


The force in this case was Gravity.... And the force won....:sad::sad:
 
Holy crap. This happened six years ago; no doubt CT4ME is 100% correct, the AMEs in concert with FAA are "spreading the word" about the dangers of doing away with the 3rd class medical. Timing is too convenient- of course they pick some egregious incident to make their case.

"between 2011 and 2013, FAA aviation medical examiners cleared about 1.1 million pilots to fly. During that time, the agency reversed nearly 400 cases and grounded pilots for medical reasons"

36 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT????

BTW, I didn't know we has 1.1 million pilots. Maybe the AOPA should increase it's membership drive......

http://www.abc6onyourside.com/share...a-dropped-ball-deadly-plane-crash-31537.shtml
 
Last edited:
paflyer said:
Holy crap. This happened six years ago; no doubt CT4ME is 100% correct, the AMEs in concert with FAA are "spreading the word" about the dangers of doing away with the 3rd class medical. Timing is too convenient- of course they pick some egregious incident to make their case.

"between 2011 and 2013, FAA aviation medical examiners cleared about 1.1 million pilots to fly. During that time, the agency reversed nearly 400 cases and grounded pilots for medical reasons"

36 THOUSANDTHS OF A PERCENT????

BTW, I didn't know we has 1.1 million pilots. Maybe the AOPA should increase it's membership drive......

http://www.abc6onyourside.com/share...a-dropped-ball-deadly-plane-crash-31537.shtml
Click to expand...

Some medicals have to be redone every year right? So you'd have the same people counted multiple times in that number.

Of course, you have guys like me who only have to get it done every 5 years who aren't counted at all during that period.
 
Bonchie said:
Some medicals have to be redone every year right? So you'd have the same people counted multiple times in that number.

Of course, you have guys like me who only have to get it done every 5 years who aren't counted at all during that period.
Click to expand...

The article said "pilots," not instances. 1st class over 40 is every 6 months.

My point was that the number of "rejects" is inconsequential and the article made it out to be a big deal.

Just another "journalism" fail.
 
It's unfortunate,that he took innocent people with him. They put there faith in him.
 
frfly172 said:
It's unfortunate,that he took innocent people with him. They put there faith in him.
Click to expand...

I agree. It is a big responsibility not to be taken lightly. Being in training to be a jump pilot, I am feeling that responsibility more than when I was a CFI. With one set of controls and a bunch of non-pilots in the back, its all on me.

David
 
denverpilot said:
I'm roughly 20/200 nearsighted which is mostly astigmatism. I could easily perform anything on the Private pilot non-instrument PTS without my glasses on (or I would carry an extra pair in the flight bag). Instrument would be some eyestrain from squinting but could fly it.

20/200 by itself is a meaningless number. You'd need to know if he was near or farsighted and what optical characteristics cause that.

That said, my awesome eye doc confirmed that I have the inner eye health of a 19 year old today (he can still see a macular "sheen"), but also that it's time for me to get readers for computer work and reading. Just a little less eyestrain up close. I'm slightly over corrected to 20/15 farsighted and I like it that way, but it's making the peepers work a little too hard close in.

Sooooo... For now I'll have VFR and IFR glasses. Ha. Doc says bifocals could also be done but probably not worth it at this point. A few more years. :)

For anyone with non-perfect eyeballs, I really can't stress how much a really really good Doc is. I can tell this guy I fly airplanes some days, shoot pistols and rifles some days, and spend 8 hours a day looking at a computer monitor and he listens and explains the options and then SHOWS me, with a set of lenses he can toss in a frame that'll give me a perfect feel for what the world will look like behind each prescription.

Been to plenty of "discount" places in my life that wouldn't do that. Never again.
Click to expand...


Nate, so you see an optometrist, or an ophthalmologist (an MD)?
 
steingar said:
This was a bad deal seven ways to Sunday. I genuinely wonder if the guy would have done the flights anyway even if the AME had yanked his medical.
Click to expand...

I would agree with this.

At my worst, I was 20/400. Driving without my glasses was like watching cotton balls in front of me. The big ones were the cars, the small ones were the pedestrians. I did it once. Never again.

I don't know what 20/200 is like. I probably did at one time and I forgot. Right now I have a solid 20/15 vision. Don't miss those glasses.
 
The Virginia DMV allows you until the age of 50 to self certify your vision on your license renewal. The question goes like this:

Select One:

A. I do not need glasses to drive.
B. I need glasses and I wear them.
C. I need glasses and I do not wear them.

I don't know what happens when you check C.
 
flyingron said:
The Virginia DMV allows you until the age of 50 to self certify your vision on your license renewal. The question goes like this:

Select One:

A. I do not need glasses to drive.
B. I need glasses and I wear them.
C. I need glasses and I do not wear them.

I don't know what happens when you check C.
Click to expand...

I hope it is more than a few dirty looks.

David
 
I just renewed my Drivers license and passed he vision test without my glasses. My far sight is improving but my near sight is on the decline.

I remember when this happened, seems the son also had a lot to say I just forget what his comments were.
 
flhrci said:
I agree. It is a big responsibility not to be taken lightly. Being in training to be a jump pilot, I am feeling that responsibility more than when I was a CFI. With one set of controls and a bunch of non-pilots in the back, its all on me.

David
Click to expand...


At least they have parachutes!!! ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top