Plane Crash in NJ

Danos

Danos

Line Up and Wait
Joined
Mar 14, 2007
Messages
668
Location
New York City
Display Name
Display name:
i And I Survive
A plane crashed on a highway near Morristown. It looks messy. Three fatalities. :(
 
Ice accident, I think. Look at the Flightaware profiles and the Skew T LogP. Pilot only had 18 months on his ticket.

At 10:01:30 as he enters the ice, his airspeed and his climb rate both go to heck in a handbasket. I'd bet at ~90 knots the AP kicked off and OVER he went.

The guy filed for a VFR altitude, in that crud, can you imagine that?
 

Attachments

  • TBMIceCrash12.20.11.doc
    345.5 KB · Views: 59
Last edited:
:( Bottom of the third page of the attachment.

You are correct, he might not have filed for that, but the Skew T Log P clearly shows the ice from 13K to about ~19K. And he is quoted as saying, "~it would be no problem for us..." ...though I can't recall which article it was quoted (Gretz, NTSB interview).

You don't use FIKI to fly in ice. You use it to get the frick OUT of ice.
 
Last edited:
AdamZ said:
Second page of the article Bruce posted said he was at 17,500 I checked Jesse Weather and it showed clear below 12K but does not go up to 17.5

http://www.jesseweather.com/weather/viewStation/KTEB

Fancy plane for a guy with 18 months on his ticket.
Click to expand...


Just to be clear, the FAA certificate database list the date of the most recent issuance of your certificate. I know from experience because earlier this year I lost my wallet and had to get a replacement pilot certificate and their website, as well as the certificate itself, shows the new date with no mention of my original PPL date which was Oct 1999.

So I'm pretty sure this guy probably had more than 18 months on his ticket.
 
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey said:
Info on the deceased.
Click to expand...


Some of the comments to that article are really disgusting. A few just amplify the public's opinion of small planes and their pilots. It is a sad commentary, on a very sad, and tragic accident.

Another lesson in judgement for us all. Judgement is more valuable than fancy planes, and systems. :(
 
bbchien said:
:( Bottom of the third page of the attachment.

You are correct, he might not have filed for that, but the Skew T Log P clearly shows the ice from 13K to about ~19K. And he is quoted as saying, "~it would be no problem for us..." ...though I can't recall which article it was quoted (Gretz, NTSB interview).

You don't use FIKI to fly in ice. You use it to get the frick OUT of ice.
Click to expand...

I read that as well, and had the same reaction: "Really? Moderate to severe reports by large Boeings is 'no problem' for you? Are you sure?"

:(
 
Last edited:
Well, as usual for anything involving aircraft the mass hysteria media has it FUBAR...

From the news reports I am not able to see a clear pattern on this one... Ice or engine? Or both?

Witness (or is it witless) on the ground said the engine was "cutting out" (surging rapidly?) as the plane went past... Given it is a turbine and they don't surge rapidly it makes 'me' think of the loss of prop control as a possibility... If it were ice buildup I would have expected the engine/prop to be screaming at full power...

Taking anything I am legal to fly into known ice is on MY forbidden list - along with a lot of other things I see pilots do...

denny-o
 
bbchien said:
:( Bottom of the third page of the attachment.

You are correct, he might not have filed for that, but the Skew T Log P clearly shows the ice from 13K to about ~19K. And he is quoted as saying, "~it would be no problem for us..." ...though I can't recall which article it was quoted (Gretz, NTSB interview).

You don't use FIKI to fly in ice. You use it to get the frick OUT of ice.
Click to expand...

Your correct Bruce pilots comment about " no problem for us" was actually on the ATC tapes they played on some of the media outlets.

redtail said:
Just to be clear, the FAA certificate database list the date of the most recent issuance of your certificate. I know from experience because earlier this year I lost my wallet and had to get a replacement pilot certificate and their website, as well as the certificate itself, shows the new date with no mention of my original PPL date which was Oct 1999.

So I'm pretty sure this guy probably had more than 18 months on his ticket.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. Fox said he was reported as an experienced pilot so something didn't mesh.
 
Anthony said:
Some of the comments to that article are really disgusting. A few just amplify the public's opinion of small planes and their pilots. It is a sad commentary, on a very sad, and tragic accident.

Another lesson in judgement for us all. Judgement is more valuable than fancy planes, and systems. :(
Click to expand...

And, of course, the gratitutious slam at them being investment bankers. :mad2:
 
dmccormack said:
I read that as well, and had the same reaction: "Really? Moderate to severe reports by large Boeings is 'no problem' for you? Are you sure?"

:(
Click to expand...

Have you guys actually listened to the ATC tape? It is on LiveATC.net if you are interested.

I listened to it and I could be wrong but his 'it would be no problem for us' appeared to be related to being cleared direct to another waypoint. I do not think he was referring to the ice when he made that comment. That is the problem when stoopid reporters take things out of context.

The controllers were mentioning the ice PIREPS to him and he basically sounded like he would go in, give it and shot and see how bad it was/let them know if he had a problem.....he never did.

From a NJ ATC guy on PPW, the radar coverage abruptly went from 17.5 at 90 kts GS to XXX to ~7000 to XXX to nothing. The XXX means that his descent rate was too fast for the software to process - ie for that aircraft the software thinks the value that the radar comes up with is incorrect. He literally fell out of the sky from 17.5.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Have you guys actually listened to the ATC tape? It is on LiveATC.net if you are interested.

I listened to it and I could be wrong but his 'it would be no problem for us' appeared to be related to being cleared direct to another waypoint. I do not think he was referring to the ice when he made that comment. That is the problem when stoopid reporters take things out of context.

The controllers were mentioning the ice PIREPS to him and he basically sounded like he would go in, give it and shot and see how bad it was/let them know if he had a problem.....he never did.

From a NJ ATC guy on PPW, the radar coverage abruptly went from 17.5 at 90 kts GS to XXX to ~7000 to XXX to nothing. The XXX means that his descent rate was too fast for the software to process - ie for that aircraft the software thinks the value that the radar comes up with is incorrect. He literally fell out of the sky from 17.5.
Click to expand...


I haven't -- yet.

Not a big fan of listening to last moments.

:(
 
The machine saves the descent data which can be analyzed and quantified by a guy who is trained to do it. BTDT when my 340 crashed straight-in. The problem is that most airplanes are turning (spin, spiral, etc) as they descend and the transponder antenna is blanked by the fuslage and wing for some portions of the descent, and the radar can't see the data.

Fearless Tower said:
Have you guys actually listened to the ATC tape? It is on LiveATC.net if you are interested.

I listened to it and I could be wrong but his 'it would be no problem for us' appeared to be related to being cleared direct to another waypoint. I do not think he was referring to the ice when he made that comment. That is the problem when stoopid reporters take things out of context.

The controllers were mentioning the ice PIREPS to him and he basically sounded like he would go in, give it and shot and see how bad it was/let them know if he had a problem.....he never did.

From a NJ ATC guy on PPW, the radar coverage abruptly went from 17.5 at 90 kts GS to XXX to ~7000 to XXX to nothing. The XXX means that his descent rate was too fast for the software to process - ie for that aircraft the software thinks the value that the radar comes up with is incorrect. He literally fell out of the sky from 17.5.
Click to expand...
 
wabower said:
The machine saves the descent data which can be analyzed and quantified by a guy who is trained to do it. BTDT when my 340 crashed straight-in.
Click to expand...
True - the radar tapes will have the actual data. My main point being that the critical event for him happened at 17.5. My uneducated guess (being the ice virgin I am) is that maybe he thought he could climb through it and get on top and he lost control of it before he could get there.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Have you guys actually listened to the ATC tape? It is on LiveATC.net if you are interested.

I listened to it and I could be wrong but his 'it would be no problem for us' appeared to be related to being cleared direct to another waypoint. I do not think he was referring to the ice when he made that comment. That is the problem when stoopid reporters take things out of context.
The controllers were mentioning the ice PIREPS to him and he basically sounded like he would go in, give it and shot and see how bad it was/let them know if he had a problem.....he never did.

From a NJ ATC guy on PPW, the radar coverage abruptly went from 17.5 at 90 kts GS to XXX to ~7000 to XXX to nothing. The XXX means that his descent rate was too fast for the software to process - ie for that aircraft the software thinks the value that the radar comes up with is incorrect. He literally fell out of the sky from 17.5.
Click to expand...

Even just reading the quote I didn't see that it definitely referenced icing. I think it could be taken in either context.

What is PPW? Is it another forum talking about this?
 
AdamZ said:
Fancy plane for a guy with 18 months on his ticket.
Click to expand...

Was thinking that. And one that has enough capabilities that it would be easy to get complacent regarding icing.

Sad. :(
 
bbchien said:
I'd bet at ~90 knots the AP kicked off and OVER he went.
Click to expand...
Yeah, but this 90 kts is GS. What was his IAS (approx.)? I am trying to find out what winds were at his 17,500 ft and having hard time to decipher the meteo data you attached. Did he have strong headwinds?
 
If the pitot tube was clogged wouldn't that kick off the AP also?
 
Ted DuPuis said:
Was thinking that. And one that has enough capabilities that it would be easy to get complacent regarding icing.

Sad. :(
Click to expand...

True Ted but as another poste pointed out he may have actually had his ticket much longer. Fox reported that others said he was an experienced pilot, what ever that means.
 
cbmontgo said:
This has got to be the case. I can't imagine flying that airplane with 18 months' experience in total.
Click to expand...

Just a question of money and determination.

This is from the accident report on the Thurman Munson crash:

The pilot's logbook revealed that he began flight training on
accordance with current regulations. (See appendix B.)
February 27, 1978, in a Cessna 150 aircraft. He continued flight training in single-engine Cessna aircraft until April 10, 1978, at which time he also began training in the Beech BE-60, "Duke," twin-engine aircraft. The pilot completed successfully his private pilot checkride on June 11, 1978, in a Cessna 172. His logbook showed that he had logged 25.0 hrs pilot-in-command and 65.2 hrs dual when his Private Pilot Certificate was issued. The pilot received his multiengine rating on June 15, 1978, in a BE-60 aircraft, He had logged 23.8 hrs in the BE-60 and had logged 97.2 hrs total flight time when he took his multiengine checkride.
On February 10, 1979, at a total logged flying time of 330 hrs, the pilot
purchased and began flying a Beech E-90 "King Air." His logbook revealed that he flew this aircraft until July 6, 1979, when he purchased the Cessna Citation, N15NY. His total logged flying time on July 6 was about 480 hrs, which included 428 hrs of multiengine time. His total time was broken down into 165 hrs dual and 31 5 hrs pilot -in-command.
The pilot flew N15NY with a flight instructor for 10 flights before
receiving his type-rating in the aircraft on July 17, 1979. He had logged 21.7 hrs and 24 landings in the aircraft before his checkride, which was 1.5 hrs long and included 8 landings. The checkride was flown in N488CC, another Cessna CE-501 Citation.

So, start of training Feb 78 until Citation checkride in July 79.

The pilot of the PC-12 that went down in the netherlands in 2009 had a similar timeline. C172--->PC-12.
 
weilke said:
James Fallows, the author, is an instrument rated private pilot.
Click to expand...
And in the article he even mentions having flown with and purchased site access from Scott Dennstaedt, a regular contributor here. I liked his plug. Congrats, Scott!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top