Medical transport 206 down in Lake Michigan, Pilot survives
- Thread starter mikea
- Start date
flyersfan31
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2006
- Messages
- 14,269
- Display Name
Display name:
Freiburgfan31
Bad news. There is something inherently sad about the crash of an Angel Flight.
Last edited by a moderator:
Maxmosbey
Final Approach
- Joined
- Aug 23, 2007
- Messages
- 5,247
- Location
- San Juan, PR/Ames, IA
- Display Name
Display name:
I need to get serious.
I don't know if it is just me who thinks this, or what, but it seems like the Angel Flights have more than their share of crashes.
Last edited by a moderator:
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
This was not an Angel Flight. It was a privately arranged donated trip among friends. To my knowledge, none of the ACAs members can find this flight.
I do have a lengthy post on the red board about the turnback point which is repeated in most part, here:
When you put in the lat lons from Flightaware, 43.99N, -86.90W, the failure occurred at 10,000 feet 22.2 nm west of Ludington. They ditched 4.2nm west of Ludington State Park, the MOST western spot on the Lake Michigan eastern shore (44.04, -86.6).
He wasted 500 vertical feet still going west, made the turn, so the decay glide from 9000 to 550 msl got him ~15nm back to shore. With a moderate westerly wind aloft (20 knots) and nine minutes' descent, he made 3nm back due to wind alone at an average of 80 knots airspeed.
Even had he made the turn immediately he would have been 2.0 nm off shore. I used to do this calculation in my M20J Turbo Bullet and concluded I could not cross the lake unless I was at 18,000 feet (47 nm from Ludington to Manitowoc, shore to shore). Every time the turnback pont would be calculated differently due to winds aloft.
The vulnerability window was closed at that point. But that's a bit much for a medical transport w/o a pressure cabin.
All of yourse guys who simply say, "each take risk unto their own" please note Mother nature makes no exceptions, and NONE for your passengers. 50 degrees means useful time is about 20 minutes. If you escape, and THAT'S IN JULY.
I do have a lengthy post on the red board about the turnback point which is repeated in most part, here:
When you put in the lat lons from Flightaware, 43.99N, -86.90W, the failure occurred at 10,000 feet 22.2 nm west of Ludington. They ditched 4.2nm west of Ludington State Park, the MOST western spot on the Lake Michigan eastern shore (44.04, -86.6).
He wasted 500 vertical feet still going west, made the turn, so the decay glide from 9000 to 550 msl got him ~15nm back to shore. With a moderate westerly wind aloft (20 knots) and nine minutes' descent, he made 3nm back due to wind alone at an average of 80 knots airspeed.
Even had he made the turn immediately he would have been 2.0 nm off shore. I used to do this calculation in my M20J Turbo Bullet and concluded I could not cross the lake unless I was at 18,000 feet (47 nm from Ludington to Manitowoc, shore to shore). Every time the turnback pont would be calculated differently due to winds aloft.
The vulnerability window was closed at that point. But that's a bit much for a medical transport w/o a pressure cabin.
All of yourse guys who simply say, "each take risk unto their own" please note Mother nature makes no exceptions, and NONE for your passengers. 50 degrees means useful time is about 20 minutes. If you escape, and THAT'S IN JULY.
Last edited by a moderator:
Alma - Rochester 341nm
Alma - Gary - Rochester 428nm
In a 206 that would have been about 35minutes more. With a lifeguard callsign he would have presumably been able to get a bravo transition in Chicago.
Alma - Gary - Rochester 428nm
In a 206 that would have been about 35minutes more. With a lifeguard callsign he would have presumably been able to get a bravo transition in Chicago.
Last edited by a moderator:
Handsfield
Pre-Flight
In fact not. There were 3 fatal accidents involving Angel Flight in a fairly brief period a couple of years ago. Two involved passengers who died and the third was the Angel Flight volunteer pilot alone, flying home after dropping off the passenger(s). To my knowledge, they were the only fatal AF accidents in many years (maybe ever?). These 3 events stimulated an assessment by FAA, which was not unfavorable, and also led many (most? all?) Angel Flight organizations and other volunteer pilot organizations to carefully review their safety policies, standards and procedures.
The several AF organizations are legally and functionally separate entities. As a Board member of Angel Flight West, I can tell you that our accident/incident rate is essentially zero in somewhere around 50,000 missions over roughly 15 years -- a statistic that most general aviation organizations can't match. I can't speak for any of the other Angel Flights, LifeLine Pilots, and others, but I believe their records are similar to that of AF West.
Regards-- Hunter Handsfield
T182T N134GW
Seattle, WA BFI
Last edited by a moderator:
Folks, because the original post referenced Angel Flight by name, and this was *not* an Angel Flight mission, I have edited to remove the reference to this being an AF.
Angel Flight (as well as Lifeline Pilots, Grace Flight, and many others) provide a remarkable service with excellent operational standards- there is no need for any of them to be falsely branded.
Angel Flight (as well as Lifeline Pilots, Grace Flight, and many others) provide a remarkable service with excellent operational standards- there is no need for any of them to be falsely branded.
Thanks. I was trying to think of the generic name and my brain failed.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,761
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Actually, that sole pilot was on his way to pick up the passengers, not on his way home.
NTSB is having a meeting with the Air Care Alliance and interested parties at AirVenture on Tuesday to discuss their recent recommendations. I plan to be in attendance.
Compassion Flight is the call sign for those flying under the auspices of the Air Care Alliance. Public Benefit Flying is the generic term we use at AirVenture and elsewhere.
gprellwitz
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2005
- Messages
- 12,761
- Location
- Romeoville, IL
- Display Name
Display name:
Grant Prellwitz
Oh, the current word is that they've called off the search for the other four aboard. Not unexpected, but sad nevertheless. 
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Yes the search was called off yesterday (Saturday) morning.Oh, the current word is that they've called off the search for the other four aboard. Not unexpected, but sad nevertheless.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wouldn't count on it - And it wouldn't have been Lifeguard, either. Had it been part of one of the orgs it would have been "Compassion" or "Angel Flight" but as it was privately arranged, he had no callsign and Chicago probably would have shunned him. 1500 down the lakeshore, maybe...
They left from Ludington:
KLDM KRST 263nm
KLDM KGYY KRST 410nm (and that's over a LOT of water - In fact, MUCH more exposure time than direct KRST)
KLDM KLWA KMGC KGYY KUGN KRST (no feet wet, and no bravo): 444nm.
444nm - 263nm = 181nm difference, probably more like an hour and a half when all is said and done.
I just crossed the lake yesterday. 13,000 feet. For me, that's a very short (<2 min) feet wet time. Had a 47-knot tailwind up there too. The trip took 1.6, vs. the 4.4 it took when I went around IFR. But, I didn't take off from the shore either, I was at 9,000 over OSH and began the climb to 13,000 about 12 miles west of MTW. Was ~11,500 before I even crossed the shoreline.
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
I get 100 nm more to go Alma-->South Bend-->Plano-->RST.
The pilot will be thinking about this forever.
The pilot will be thinking about this forever.
tonycondon
Gastons CRO (Chief Dinner Reservation Officer)
i think that survival must be the absolute worst form of punishment in this case.
This is the flightaware track for the flight:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N...210Z/KAMN/KRST
For some reason, it is listed as 'Lifeguard N82531'. Presumably that is how he showed up in the FAA datastream.
I don't think you need anyones blessing to perform an 'urgent medical transport flight'.
The flightaware track originates from Alma (KAMN).
nyoung
Pre-takeoff checklist
The flightaware archived radar is an interesting piece of data in the decision to cross the Lake. If the pilot had gone around the Lake, another detour (toward Peoria IL, and then Central Iowa) might have been required to avoid the storms in Southern Wisconsin/Northern Illinois.
RMCN172RG
Pattern Altitude
rottydaddy
En-Route
I wonder if the others even had PFDs? Not that it would guarantee survival... that water's cold year-round.
flyingcheesehead
Touchdown! Greaser!
weilke said:
You do, however, need Chicago Approach's blessing to get through the bravo. That was my point.
sba55
En-Route
Because any pilot can use that call sign when appropriate. It has nothing to do with whether or not your flight is privately arranged. See AIM 4-2-4.
In this particular case, use of that call sign probably isn't justified since nobody on board was in a life threatening situation.
Dr. O
Pattern Altitude
I have been flying these lakes for 50+ years (in addition to swimming, diving, sailing, them)... They are in reality seas not lakes... Do something dumb and they will kill you... Take a chance and they will kill you... Just be unlucky that day and they will kill you...
This crash is a shame, and doubly so because the people were trying to do something good and charitable... But in the end it all comes down to physics... Have enough altitude to put the wreckage on the beach or you will meet the water...
denny-o (who flies a clapped out old twin for a reason)
This crash is a shame, and doubly so because the people were trying to do something good and charitable... But in the end it all comes down to physics... Have enough altitude to put the wreckage on the beach or you will meet the water...
denny-o (who flies a clapped out old twin for a reason)
bbchien
Touchdown! Greaser!
...yep. Hey no kiddin.....35 year old Seneca II.
roncachamp
Final Approach
Because the pilot filed the flight plan as a Lifeguard.
This is what the all-knowing AIM says about 'Lifeguard':
b. Air Ambulance Flights.
Because of the priority afforded air ambulance flights in the ATC system, extreme discretion is necessary when using the term "LIFEGUARD." It is only intended for those missions of an urgent medical nature and to be utilized only for that portion of the flight requiring expeditious handling. When requested by the pilot, necessary notification to expedite ground handling of patients, etc., is provided by ATC; however, when possible, this information should be passed in advance through non-ATC communications systems.
1. Civilian air ambulance flights responding to medical emergencies (first call to an accident scene, carrying patients, organ donors, organs, or other urgently needed lifesaving medical material) will be expedited by ATC when necessary. When expeditious handling is necessary, add the word "LIFEGUARD" in the remarks section of the flight plan. In radio communications, use the call sign "LIFEGUARD" followed by the aircraft registration letters/numbers.
It only talks about and 'urgent medical nature' and 'carrying patients'. It doesnt say anything about a requirement for the patient being in a life-threatening situation. A good number of inter-hospital transfer flights that routinely use lifeguard would not qualify under that definition.
I don't know what the patient in this case was treated for and what the degree of urgency to get to Mayo was. The patients personal physician came along, unless he was heading for the nightlife of Rochester, he presumably came along to monitor and attend to the patient during the transport. If the PIC found it appropriate to use the lifeguard call-sign for this situation, I don't think we have much cause to second guess it.
Flights done under the air care alliance umbrella are for the most part a convenience to the patients involved and care is taken that there is NO medical urgency in the missions involved. To reflect that different nature of medical compassion flights, the ACA board got the FAA to issue the CMF callsign.
sba55
En-Route
Life threatening, urgent - whatever you like to call it. It's probably not so urgent if the passenger has the time to arrange for a private plane to fly him - that's all I was saying.
-Felix
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Rochester does actually have a pretty good night life.