NTSB: Selfies caused fatal Colorado plane crash

File that one under dumb ways to die.

I'm sure it sounded like a great idea at the time.....'hey, it's half passed midnight....let's go up for a flight in the 150 and take some selfies!' Wonder if the passenger was female...
 
Passenger was male.

Passenger was working as a keyboard player in town for a concert that weekend.
The pilot was ferrying visitors and locals in the state for the concert.

In addition to ASEL, PIC held Commercial, Multi, and Instrument.
 
Last edited:
Have to admit, at least he invented something new to die from. Gotta give points for originality.
 
steingar said:
Have to admit, at least he invented something new to die from. Gotta give points for originality.
Click to expand...

It is weird using a go Pro at night in IMC.
Not sure what they were expecting it to pick up.

I can't get crap for vid / pic to turn out on night flights.
 
And then some question why the FAA has so many " restrictive" rules! They cannot keep up with idiot pilots! They try but to no avail.
 
Keep in mind that the Go Pro was NOT BEING USED during the flight where the crash occurred. There is no real evidence that the crash had anything to do with selfies. I'm not usually disappointed with the NTSB, but in this case I am.
 
jesse said:
Keep in mind that the Go Pro was NOT BEING USED during the flight where the crash occurred. There is no real evidence that the crash had anything to do with selfies. I'm not usually disappointed with the NTSB, but in this case I am.
Click to expand...

Have to agree with this. I would like to see more detail as to what they are basing their conclusion on. Or is this an in to put a new no Cell Phone law in place for GA airplanes?
 
Jimmy cooper said:
And then some question why the FAA has so many " restrictive" rules! They cannot keep up with idiot pilots! They try but to no avail.
Click to expand...

Because people are dumb and jump to conclusions, they also don't understand that irresponsible people will still be irresponsible.

Also I don't think they can really prove a selfie had jack to do with this crash.

More rules do NOT EQUAL more safety, just less freedom.

Attention all morons, please report to the bandwagon :rolleyes2:
 
Selfie/cell phone rules in a small GA aircraft are almost never going to be detected or enforced unless there's a crash.

All that said, I can see the flash happening by accident. I have had several cameras including cell phone cameras that would keep turning on flash automatically in situations where I didn't want flash... you really have to watch the settings.
 
jesse said:
Keep in mind that the Go Pro was NOT BEING USED during the flight where the crash occurred. There is no real evidence that the crash had anything to do with selfies. I'm not usually disappointed with the NTSB, but in this case I am.
Click to expand...

Maybe they found a phone intact? :confused:
 
Watch the people text in their cars, stare into their phones while eating in public, etc. perfectly believable that the accident occurred this way.
 
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&key=1


http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&ntsbno=CEN14FA265&akey=1


NTSB made an educated guess on this one - recordings from the GoPro of previous flights, including a 6 minute flight in the pattern immediately preceding the accident flight did show flash photos being taken inside.

It would be interesting to find out if they did recover photos from cell-phones, but would that require warrants? Dunno.


edit: Here's what NTSB found on the GoPro for the 6-minute pattern flight just prior to the accident:

>>>
GOPR0021.MP4 – Night

Video recording began at the hangar area. A new passenger, Passenger #5 was in the cockpit with the pilot. The pilot's associates were seen standing near the hangar behind the airplane. A sound similar to the pilot pumping the airplane's fuel primer is heard. The pilot started the engine. The following ATIS recording was heard through the GoPro's internal microphone:

Denver Front Range Airport automated weather observation zero-six-zero-five (0605) Zulu: weather – wind calm, visibility [seven], ceiling three-hundred (300) overcast, temperature one-four (14) Celsius dew point one-three (13) altimeter three-zero-two-zero (30.20).

The pilot taxied to a runway. It appeared that the pilot conducted an engine run-up during the taxi. The pilot was seen checking for freedom of control movement in the control yoke during taxi. The pilot began the takeoff roll and departed the runway. During the climb out portion of flight, the pilot uses his cell phone to take a self-photograph. The camera's flash was activated and illuminated the cockpit area. The pilot's cell phone appeared to be on a user screen consistent with a camera application. The pilot landed and can be seen using his cell phone during the landing rollout. The recording appeared to have ended normally.

<<<
 
Last edited:
Matthew said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&key=1


http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&ntsbno=CEN14FA265&akey=1


NTSB made an educated guess on this one - recordings from the GoPro of previous flights, including a 6 minute flight in the pattern immediately preceding the accident flight did show flash photos being taken inside.

It would be interesting to find out if they did recover photos from cell-phones, but would that require warrants? Dunno.


edit: Here's what NTSB found on the GoPro for the 6-minute pattern flight just prior to the accident:

>>>
GOPR0021.MP4 – Night

Video recording began at the hangar area. A new passenger, Passenger #5 was in the cockpit with the pilot. The pilot's associates were seen standing near the hangar behind the airplane. A sound similar to the pilot pumping the airplane's fuel primer is heard. The pilot started the engine. The following ATIS recording was heard through the GoPro's internal microphone:

Denver Front Range Airport automated weather observation zero-six-zero-five (0605) Zulu: weather – wind calm, visibility [seven], ceiling three-hundred (300) overcast, temperature one-four (14) Celsius dew point one-three (13) altimeter three-zero-two-zero (30.20).

The pilot taxied to a runway. It appeared that the pilot conducted an engine run-up during the taxi. The pilot was seen checking for freedom of control movement in the control yoke during taxi. The pilot began the takeoff roll and departed the runway. During the climb out portion of flight, the pilot uses his cell phone to take a self-photograph. The camera's flash was activated and illuminated the cockpit area. The pilot's cell phone appeared to be on a user screen consistent with a camera application. The pilot landed and can be seen using his cell phone during the landing rollout. The recording appeared to have ended normally.

<<<
Click to expand...


Educated guess :mad2:

I thought the NTSB was in the facts business.
 
James331 said:
Educated guess :mad2:

I thought the NTSB was in the facts business.
Click to expand...

This is not the first report where they use a guess or assumption as a fact. Not sure when it started but it does not make such reports very credible. :rolleyes2:

Let's just stick to "pilot failed to maintain control of the aircraft" and be done with assigning blame without the need for guessing. What's next, a psychic or palm reading? :)
 
I agree that there were some pretty big assumptions made as the accident flight itself was not recorded.
 
I'm pretty sure you can make a solid case for a massively distracted pilot flying into IMC non-current for either night passenger ops or IR ops and spiraling out the bottom and going crunch.

A story that has repeated itself many many times in aviation.

Whether the phones and gadgets were contributors to the distractions is speculative but probably a fairly reasonable speculation. But still speculation.

Got caught up in the "mission" of giving six (+?) joy rides. Weather came in. Got dark. Lost it IMC. Crunch.

I found it interesting there was no mention of whether the ELT activated. Reported missing at 3 AM or so, found by airport ops at 7:30. A reminder that it's pretty lonely and dark at FTG at night. Sure looks like it hit hard enough to set off the ELT. NTSB used to notice that detail and make specific mention of it. No more I guess.

Also looked like too hard a hit to survive it and the coroner seemed to agree. So maybe that's why they left it out.

One of the local radio groups has a 121.5/243.0 receiver on the airport. I helped repair it once, many moons ago. It's probably in disrepair as the group that used to care enough to go chase the ELTs died of apathy. None were upgraded to 406.. I still monitor the ham radio repeater that will alert if one of them goes off on my scanner, but rarely hear anything there anymore.
 
James331 said:
I thought the NTSB was in the facts business.
Click to expand...

Mostly they are. But you have to remember that they are a government organization led by political appointees. While they do an overall good job of sticking to the facts, they do have agendas that the NTSB leadership tries to push. I went through the interview process with them (maritime side) back in 2003 when I thought I was getting out of the Navy. Interesting discussions and insight. I'd say that they are at least 80% fact based, but from the discussions that we had, I got the impression that they will let agency agendas spill into the investigations.

Right now, distracted driving/flying/train operation/shipping....etc are hot topics. Would not surprise me if they took some circumstantial evidence and tried to bolster the case.
 
I don't see why operating a camera while flying is necessarily going to lead to a crash. We operate all kinds of equipment in the cockpit, such as GPS, transponders, charts, while communicating with ATC, and talking to passengers all at the same time.

Driving a car is a different matter. Its easy to veer off the lane in a split second.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Mostly they are. But you have to remember that they are a government organization led by political appointees. While they do an overall good job of sticking to the facts, they do have agendas that the NTSB leadership tries to push. I went through the interview process with them (maritime side) back in 2003 when I thought I was getting out of the Navy. Interesting discussions and insight. I'd say that they are at least 80% fact based, but from the discussions that we had, I got the impression that they will let agency agendas spill into the investigations.

Right now, distracted driving/flying/train operation/shipping....etc are hot topics. Would not surprise me if they took some circumstantial evidence and tried to bolster the case.
Click to expand...


They'll slowly make themselves less useful over time if they give up the principal of sticking to the facts. They were often one of the last places you might get the truth in an accident. If they let that slide, might as well defund and close up shop and just write press releases written by PR spin people and have the lawyers bless it.

They should not follow the path of the Chief Counsel.
 
sarangan said:
I don't see why operating a camera while flying is necessarily going to lead to a crash. We operate all kinds of equipment in the cockpit, such as GPS, transponders, charts, while communicating with ATC, and talking to passengers all at the same time.

Driving a car is a different matter. Its easy to veer off the lane in a split second.
Click to expand...


Veer off the navaids and instruments at 700 AGL, in IMC... Same result.
 
jesse said:
There is no real evidence that the crash had anything to do with selfies...
Click to expand...
Hopefully y'all realize that the 'selfie problem' was not listed as the cause. The probable cause report listed distraction as a *contributing factor*, not primary cause. Listed primary cause was plain and simple spatial-D in night/IMC. Kind of like what people here are suggesting.

For those who think 'nothing but the facts' should be used should recognize that probable cause and factual information are separate sections and/or documents in an accident report.

Nauga,
who actually reads the reports
 
Matthew said:
http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&key=1


http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140531X12318&ntsbno=CEN14FA265&akey=1


NTSB made an educated guess on this one - recordings from the GoPro of previous flights, including a 6 minute flight in the pattern immediately preceding the accident flight did show flash photos being taken inside.

It would be interesting to find out if they did recover photos from cell-phones, but would that require warrants? Dunno.


edit: Here's what NTSB found on the GoPro for the 6-minute pattern flight just prior to the accident:

>>>
GOPR0021.MP4 – Night

Video recording began at the hangar area. A new passenger, Passenger #5 was in the cockpit with the pilot. The pilot's associates were seen standing near the hangar behind the airplane. A sound similar to the pilot pumping the airplane's fuel primer is heard. The pilot started the engine. The following ATIS recording was heard through the GoPro's internal microphone:

Denver Front Range Airport automated weather observation zero-six-zero-five (0605) Zulu: weather – wind calm, visibility [seven], ceiling three-hundred (300) overcast, temperature one-four (14) Celsius dew point one-three (13) altimeter three-zero-two-zero (30.20).

The pilot taxied to a runway. It appeared that the pilot conducted an engine run-up during the taxi. The pilot was seen checking for freedom of control movement in the control yoke during taxi. The pilot began the takeoff roll and departed the runway. During the climb out portion of flight, the pilot uses his cell phone to take a self-photograph. The camera's flash was activated and illuminated the cockpit area. The pilot's cell phone appeared to be on a user screen consistent with a camera application. The pilot landed and can be seen using his cell phone during the landing rollout. The recording appeared to have ended normally.

<<<
Click to expand...

During the RV-7 crash (N820RV) here I was hired to investigate with the NTSB gal, some things transpired...

I have NEVER been involved in stuff like that so I don't know what normal protocol is but here is my view...

We spent most of one day cutting the motor off, pulling components off like fuel pumps, valves, prop governer, ignition, some other stuff and a COMPLETE motor tear down.. While she was doing that I as asked to remove as much of the (people parts) as possible and remove interior stuff..

She mentioned several times his wallet and cell phone is still missing.. We had already removed the baggage and other stuff from behind the seats and all that was left was the front seat area.... When the guy built the plane he fabricated a small console between the seats but since the lady had totally crushed that area during impact alot of stuff was just twisted metal.

I suggested for her to ask the family to call the cell phone so we could home in on the ring sounds,,, The NTSB gal didn't like that idea so I kept digging and prying siht apart.. Finally I found what looked like a pink object and sure enough .. it was the cell phone crushed against his wallet, between the remains of the front seats and people parts..:sad::sad::sad::sad:..

So I call her over and tell her I will take a crowbar, pry open that area and she can grab the phone and wallet.. After 20 minutes or so she has both in her hand and she takes them to a table I had set up a couple days before so we could weigh stuff as it came out of the wreckage... To me, it CREEPY to dig through other peoples stuff.. For her it was another day in the office.. I sat there as she dug through the wallet and she kinda mumbled a play by play of what she found....
ie...
Credit cards, business cards, cash, receipts, etc etc.... We then knew where they had spent the last few nights from the motel receipts, how much fuel was purchased and where, food bought etc etc......

I am a complete dummy on smart phones as I can barely dial my simple cell phone and cannot even text... She got hold of the phone and was DAMN good at reconstructing all calls, pictures and videos.. I was amazed at the database ' archive stuff in smart phones... Before that day ended she knew just about everything she needed to see.....

So,, In closing,,,,,,,

Apparently it does NOT take a court order to recover data from a phone.. IMHO...
 
Last edited:
N801BH said:
Apparently it does NOT take a court order to recover data from a phone.. IMHO...
Click to expand...
I suspect there is a distinction between a living person and deceased. If they are investigating an accident and the person is no longer alive, it may be fair game.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I suspect there is a distinction between a living person and deceased. If they are investigating an accident and the person is no longer alive, it may be fair game.
Click to expand...


And putting passwords on phones, jail breaking and changing the "alpine" root password on many iPhones.
 
nauga said:
Hopefully y'all realize that the 'selfie problem' was not listed as the cause. The probable cause report listed distraction as a *contributing factor*, not primary cause. Listed primary cause was plain and simple spatial-D in night/IMC. Kind of like what people here are suggesting.

For those who think 'nothing but the facts' should be used should recognize that probable cause and factual information are separate sections and/or documents in an accident report.

Nauga,
who actually reads the reports
Click to expand...


The summary was not as clear as the full text version.

And the media ran with the summary page.

It's fairly uncommon for NTSB to allow the speculation to leak to the summary without clear wording.
 
I have been hit by flashes as night by passengers more times than I can count yeah, it's uncomfortable as hell, but it's no reason to lose control, the plane will be stable for the second until you can see the instruments again.
 
Henning said:
I have been hit by flashes as night by passengers more times than I can count yeah, it's uncomfortable as hell, but it's no reason to lose control, the plane will be stable for the second until you can see the instruments again.
Click to expand...

Yup.

Too bad they can't just be honest and say "were going to pass a unneeded rule now, enjoy...thanks, your overlords".
 
I believe in the recent Seneca crash in KY, I read the NTSB initial report and it mentioned that several electronic devices had been retained for further study. As part of an investigation, I'm sure they can look through the phone or have ways to.
 
"It is likely that cellphone use during the accident flight distracted the pilot and contributed to the development of special disorientation and subsequent loss of control," the NTSB said.
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure the NTSB didn't say special...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top