NTSB Prelim

N801BH

N801BH

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
17,188
Location
Jackson Hole Wy
Display Name
FBH
Home Airfield
kjac
These are REAL lucky SOB's...

Upside down, 15 feet up in the air, in a tree, and on fire..... And they all walked to a house for help.:yes::eek::eek::yikes:.


NTSB Identification: ERA13LA042
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, October 28, 2012 in Sevierville, TN
Aircraft: PIPER PA-32R-300, registration: N4478F
Injuries: 3 Minor,2 Uninjured.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators may have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
On October 28, 2012, about 1434 eastern daylight time, a Piper PA-32R-300, N4478F, impacted a pole and trees after departure from Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge Airport (GKT), Sevierville, Tennessee. The certificated private pilot and one passenger were not injured and three passengers received minor injuries. The airplane, forward of the empennage, was consumed by postimpact fire. The airplane was registered to Space Coast Aviation Sales LLC and operated by a private individual under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions were present at the departure airport; however, instrument meteorological conditions prevailed in the area and an instrument flight rules flight plan had been filed for the flight destined for the Space Coast Regional Airport (TIX), Titusville, Florida.

According to the pilot the flight was being provided radar vectors by an air traffic controller at a nearby approach control facility. He had received a terrain warning on his global position system (GPS) and queried the controller; however, he received no reply. Subsequently the GPS provided an obstacle warning and then a rooftop was observed in the clouds. He pitched up and banked the airplane, in order to clear the rooftop and the now visible trees. However, the underside of the airplane impacted several trees prior to the airplane coming to rest inverted in a tree about 15 feet above ground level. A postimpact fire began and the occupants exited the airplane.

Initial examination of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector revealed that the airplane impacted a pole and some trees located on a mountain about 2,600 feet above mean sea level, prior to coming to rest. The airplane was consumed by postimpact fire, except for approximately 6 feet of the empennage. Cable continuity was confirmed throughout the airplane. Several tree limbs exhibited marks consistent with being cut by the airplane's propeller during the accident sequence. One of the two propeller blades exhibited curling on the tip and the other exhibited slight bowing in the forward direction. Index for Oct2012 | Index of months
 
Last edited:
Vectored IFR into a house...? Something seems weird with the preliminary... Bad juju. Yikes.
 
The obvious was he was too low, but why would you query ATC if your GPS said you were too low? Why would you not just go to a higher altitude and then figure out what was wrong? Aviate, navigate, and then communcate. My first bet is his altimeter setting was off.

Yeah they are lucky SOB's, but I wonder if this accident was not just pilot error and completely preventable.

Doug
 
Crash site appears to be 254*/6.8 nm from airport at 2500-3000' elevation. Bluff Mountain. Very lucky individuals. I sure do like my experimental GRT synthetic vision, 430w and 496 in the mountains. We just flew through that same area three days ago. They may have departed rwy 10 then did a climbing right turn instead of left which would have put them behind Bluff Mtn in relation to Knoxville's radar/radio hence the reason nobody responded. When all else fails, trust your instruments, climb and don't ask ATC to help you fly the plane.
 
Wow! One needs to know there minimum altitudes. And you know if you are going to spend the money on things like terrain awareness use the dang thing! What are you doing when it says "Too low terrain?" I mean seriously I don't think there is enough training on this equipment. I don't remember the procedures anymore verbatim but when I was getting paid to fly any terrain warning was followed by full thrust and pitch to the shaker until warnings were extinguished. Why would you have this equipment and not be fully prepared to use it if it say you are about to hit stuff while you are in the clouds. :mad2:
 
bbchien said:
...wedded to the magenta line....
Click to expand...

No sir, he was IMC/IFR on vectors had he had SVT he wouln't have waited for a non responsive controller as he would have had visual confirmation he was going to hit terrain long before he saw that roof.
 
He ignored the terrain warning, what makes you think he would have heeded the SVT warning?

Doug
 
He didn't know what to do about it and he was on vectors. This is the type of stuff that is the whole reason behind NextGen, this is not the fist time controllers have flown people into the side of a mountain, this is why you will eventually be required to buy into ADS-B and all the rest. We have a 50 year old system of special awareness that requires us to be on surveyed routes with third party detours and traffic avoidance and it puts people into terrain reasonably frequently.
 
Huh? The controller knew where he was. What about NexGen would fix a bad vector?
 
Okay I am still confused. He states his GPS clearly told him he ws too low and he continue to fly the same course, knowing he was too low. What am I missing here? I see nothing elctronic that would have saved him, other than the plane saying sorry ol chap I am taking over flying today bacause you are going to crash me into the side of a mountain, and I know of no GA plane that can do that yet, though I believe there are some cars that can. This pilot seems to me to have forgotten the first and second laws of flying, aviate and navigate, and skipped over to number three communicate.

Doug
 
If you ever get a chance to fly VFR in the hills behind SV you will immediately see the benefits. One advantage of the experimental category. Much better situational awareness than with my 430w or 496.
 
Considering the rules allow him to deviate from ATC instruction now I doubt he would have heeded the warning from SVT also. But that's his choice and he's lucky he gets to learn from the experience
 
Makes you wonder whether his altimeter was set right....
 
wsuffa said:
Makes you wonder whether his altimeter was set right....
Click to expand...

Except even if that were the case, wouldn't ATC give him a low altitude warning, since their scope would show what the transponder is reporting, which is always based on standard pressure? They would have verified his altitude before giving him vectors, wouldn't they?
 
douglas393 said:
Okay I am still confused. He states his GPS clearly told him he ws too low and he continue to fly the same course, knowing he was too low. What am I missing here? I see nothing elctronic that would have saved him, other than the plane saying sorry ol chap I am taking over flying today bacause you are going to crash me into the side of a mountain, and I know of no GA plane that can do that yet, though I believe there are some cars that can. This pilot seems to me to have forgotten the first and second laws of flying, aviate and navigate, and skipped over to number three communicate.

Doug
Click to expand...

He was IFR in IMC, you don't depart your heading or altitude without permission and he didn't have the confidence in his situational awareness to know what change to make and couldn't get hold of ATC.
 
The unanswered question is what altitude was he assigned? Seems like the MVA is likely 3000' or higher in that area.
 
Henning said:
He was IFR in IMC, you don't depart your heading or altitude without permission and he didn't have the confidence in his situational awareness to know what change to make and couldn't get hold of ATC.
Click to expand...
Still did not answer my question. Also correct me if I am wrong but in an emergency I can depart my heading and or altitude in IFR. May not be smart all the time, but I still believe it is legal. In my book a low terrain warning would satisfy the requirements of an emergency.

Doug
 
Henning said:
He was IFR in IMC, you don't depart your heading or altitude without permission..
Click to expand...

Except in an emergency, at which point you do what you have to do to deal with the emergency.

I would qualify a terrain warning from my GPS as an emergency.
 
douglas393 said:
Still did not answer my question. Also correct me if I am wrong but in an emergency I can depart my heading and or altitude in IFR. May not be smart all the time, but I still believe it is legal. In my book a low terrain warning would satisfy the requirements of an emergency.

Doug
Click to expand...

In an emergency you can do as you need to prevent an accident. You are in the middle of a cloud off airway and with no idea of where traffic is, what change do you choose? This is the advantage to Nexgen, the terrain and traffic are painted visually in a 3D format right in front of you so you can make an informed 'see and avoid' type decission same as in VMC.
 
bflynn said:
Except in an emergency, at which point you do what you have to do to deal with the emergency.

I would qualify a terrain warning from my GPS as an emergency.
Click to expand...

Right, but a warning of "Terrain" is of very limited use when it doesn't give a resolution for the conflict. You can have emergency authority to deviate from your clearance, but if you don't have the situational awareness of the traffic and terrain surrounding you, it doesn't really do you a heck of a lot of good.
 
Jim Logajan said:
:confused:

"According to the pilot the flight was being provided radar vectors by an air traffic controller at a nearby approach control facility."
Click to expand...
...means unable to make PIC decisions. Too low, not oriented, expecting others to watch for out for him.

When you're too low, or you are not certain of the terrain you HAVE to climb, climb, climb and know how to get back to protected space, safely.

I see candidates all the time with G1000s for whom, if it doesn't appear on the screen, just can't think outside the box. They are ....dependent.....
 
Henning said:
Right, but a warning of "Terrain" is of very limited use when it doesn't give a resolution for the conflict. You can have emergency authority to deviate from your clearance, but if you don't have the situational awareness of the traffic and terrain surrounding you, it doesn't really do you a heck of a lot of good.
Click to expand...
Well unless you are upside down, the conflict with terrain is most likely below you, so one could make a good assumption that you could make a good attempt at resolving the problem with a climb. No sense in having terrain awareness and warning if you are not going to heed it warnings.
 
=bbchien;1023647I see candidates all the time with G1000s for whom, if it doesn't appear on the screen, just can't think outside the box. They are ....dependent.....
Click to expand...

Well.............

As I've said in the past, I have about 70 years worth of fatal accident reports, in which there was no screen for those last few precious seconds. I'll take the trade offs, while realizing that a few will still just blindly follow that magenta line. In the meantime, those three a year average CFIT accidents, out here in mountain country..........seem to have significantly dropped. Could it be, because of all of this marvelous new tech?? :D

L.Adamson
 
flyingmoose said:
Well unless you are upside down, the conflict with terrain is most likely below you, so one could make a good assumption that you could make a good attempt at resolving the problem with a climb. No sense in having terrain awareness and warning if you are not going to heed it warnings.
Click to expand...

I could make that assumption and drive straight into terrain that rises faster than I can climb when if I had SVT I could see that 20 degrees right or left would have been what was required. A general warning while operating at speed in 3 dimensions is not adequate for conflict resolution.
 
Actually, L.Adamson, if you do the hand review, they haven't dropped.....farmers just drive the tractor farther up the hill....
 
flyingmoose said:
Well unless you are upside down, the conflict with terrain is most likely below you, so one could make a good assumption that you could make a good attempt at resolving the problem with a climb. No sense in having terrain awareness and warning if you are not going to heed it warnings.
Click to expand...

I go with Henning on this. I've been around a lot of synthetic vision & mountains. Unless you're flipping through menus (as may of happend with the two CAP pilots out of Las Vegas).............it's almost too hard to ignor whats on the screen.

However, you never know. A few years back a figher fighting bomber slammed into the mountain, on the opposite side of the peak, from where I live. The co-pilot who was flying, told the captain that the Garmin 396 handheld was showing terrain up ahead. They were scud-running, with the captain giving orders for headings and altitude, as he was somewhat familiar with the area. When the co-pilot questioned the captain about the terrain warnings, there was no response. As to whether he didn't hear him, we don't know. This is all from cockpit recordings. Never the less, they just simply slammed into the mountain at 240 knots. Perhaps a large SV screen would have been a bit more convincing. No excuse to scud run, though.
 
L.Adamson said:
Well.............

As I've said in the past, I have about 70 years worth of fatal accident reports, in which there was no screen for those last few precious seconds. I'll take the trade offs, while realizing that a few will still just blindly follow that magenta line. In the meantime, those three a year average CFIT accidents, out here in mountain country..........seem to have significantly dropped. Could it be, because of all of this marvelous new tech?? :D

L.Adamson
Click to expand...
or less people flying.
 
L.Adamson said:
I go with Henning on this. I've been around a lot of synthetic vision & mountains. Unless you're flipping through menus (as may of happend with the two CAP pilots out of Las Vegas).............it's almost too hard to ignor whats on the screen.

However, you never know. A few years back a figher fighting bomber slammed into the mountain, on the opposite side of the peak, from where I live. The co-pilot who was flying, told the captain that the Garmin 396 handheld was showing terrain up ahead. They were scud-running, with the captain giving orders for headings and altitude, as he was somewhat familiar with the area. When the co-pilot questioned the captain about the terrain warnings, there was no response. As to whether he didn't hear him, we don't know. This is all from cockpit recordings. Never the less, they just simply slammed into the mountain at 240 knots. Perhaps a large SV screen would have been a bit more convincing. No excuse to scud run, though.
Click to expand...
Used properly SVT will give you more situational awareness, but I think the Cirrus experience(and I am not beating on Cirrus), and the studies comparing accident rates between traditional cockpits, and glass cockpits have shown that the accident rates are pretty similar. Give someone rope and see if they will hang themselves with it or make a macrame hanger with it.

I am sorry but I for one do not believe that technology can make a careless pilot into a careful pilot.

Doug
 
douglas393 said:
Used properly SVT will give you more situational awareness, but I think the Cirrus experience(and I am not beating on Cirrus), and the studies comparing accident rates between traditional cockpits, and glass cockpits have shown that the accident rates are pretty similar. Give someone rope and see if they will hang themselves with it or make a macrame hanger with it.

I am sorry but I for one do not believe that technology can make a careless pilot into a careful pilot.

Doug
Click to expand...


You have to rmrmber that the majority of 'glass' is still not SVT, and in at least one 'glass safety study' I read, SVT was specifically excluded from the research. All glass without SVT is just a rehash of the same old crap we've been using since Doolittle's days.

SvT has nothing to do with making a careful pilot, it's about having an informed pilot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top