SE Indiana fatal

tmyers

tmyers

En-Route
Joined
Nov 8, 2012
Messages
4,626
Location
Kettering, OH
Display Name
Display name:
Tim Myers
Four fatalities near Greensburg airport in SE Indiana last night. Return trip from FL. No other info at this time.
 
UGH.

I know for a fact that conditions were terrible in IL near Chicago Sunday night. Dense fog and IFR conditions below minimums in the area I was driving through... :( I wonder how they compared in the area the pilot was flying through and at the airport he was approaching. If it was anything like it was here, it would have been difficult to impossible to complete a safe approach in those conditions.
 
This was in my wife's hometown, happened just south of her parents house, weather was bad. This airport is my next planned flight. I have a little more info, but its just gossip from folks on the ground so I won't repeat it.
 
I live in SW Ohio and I know that the weather was certainly iffy for flight. The airport has two approaches, there is a GPS and a VOR-A approach. GPS minimums are 700 - 1 and the VOR-a is 800 - 1.

I remember seeing the overcast layer about 300' up on the radio towers in Cincinnati.

I didn't hear whether they made multiple approaches or not. Sad end to a vacation. With four adults on board not sure what they were flying.
 
as a new ppl I wonder why people push their limits like this. While a sad situation for all concerned, why not land and wait for a while.
Just does not compute with me.
 
New ifr ticket earlier this year and new plane in September. Not much time to get comfortable. I am finally feeling comfy in mine after a year and 95.2 hrs. Sorry for the family...six children without parents now.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
as a new ppl I wonder why people push their limits like this. While a sad situation for all concerned, why not land and wait for a while.
Just does not compute with me.
Click to expand...

Had to be back to work after the weekend trip to Destin. The PIC's Dad and Mom(someone else piloting)were 45 minutes ahead and went missed, diverted West to Columbus, IN class D.
 
Based on the plane he was flying he was probably pretty competent, but this one didn't work out so well. Very sad.
 
RV10flyer said:
New ifr ticket earlier this year and new plane in September. Not much time to get comfortable. I am finally feeling comfy in mine after a year and 95.2 hrs. Sorry for the family...six children without parents now.
Click to expand...

Disregard my previous post. Personal minimums are pretty important when expanding your operating envelope. As a new IFR pilot in a new very high performance plane these conditions were pushing it.
 
DaytonaLynn said:
as a new ppl I wonder why people push their limits like this. While a sad situation for all concerned, why not land and wait for a while.
Just does not compute with me.
Click to expand...
It typically is not one thing but many that gets pilots into this situation. Not a month goes by where I do not read some story either in a magazine, or online about how someone pushed their limits, and got away with it. I think many pilots do these things that are obviously not safe to any pilot and get away with it. However it takes just one time of not getting away with it and that results are often fatal. For example, one of my friends showed me some pictures he took while flying his plane over the weekend over some of the local bldgs. I asked what camera he used and what telephoto lens. "Nah" he said, "I was 300ft AGL." And it looked like it.

Personally, I wish some of these magazines would use these studies not to show how to get out of these bad situations, or how great this pilot was to get out of the situation, but as examples of what not to do.

Doug
 
It's pretty sad. Two PA46 series fatals within a month. Both owners were fairly new to their ships. Prior to this the fleet had been without any fatal crashes for over a year.
 
The article was reporting ceilings of 300 to 600 feet AGL both of which are below the approach minimums of 700 and 1 for the GPS and 800 and 1 for the VOR-A.

Jonesy; My personal minimums are way above that especially at night. I have been in to that airport the runway is small. A friend flying with me couldn't believe I was landing on that thin landing strip.
 
tmyers said:
The article was reporting ceilings of 300 to 600 feet AGL both of which are below the approach minimums of 700 and 1 for the GPS and 800 and 1 for the VOR-A.

Jonesy; My personal minimums are way above that especially at night. I have been in to that airport the runway is small. A friend flying with me couldn't believe I was landing on that thin landing strip.
Click to expand...

It's particularly sad when good alternatives are not that far away. I bet both couples had a long list of friends who would have happily driven a number of miles to retrieve them from another airport.

Probably would have flown the plane home in sunshine and light winds a day or two later.
 
The instrumentation and autopilot in that aircraft would have probably flown the approach and should have held altitude at the DH. Would someone have had to overridden the Alt hold to drop to a lower altitude? I am not that familiar with the advanced AP on the more expensive airplanes.
 
douglas393 said:
It typically is not one thing but many that gets pilots into this situation. Not a month goes by where I do not read some story either in a magazine, or online about how someone pushed their limits, and got away with it. I think many pilots do these things that are obviously not safe to any pilot and get away with it. However it takes just one time of not getting away with it and that results are often fatal. For example, one of my friends showed me some pictures he took while flying his plane over the weekend over some of the local bldgs. I asked what camera he used and what telephoto lens. "Nah" he said, "I was 300ft AGL." And it looked like it.

Personally, I wish some of these magazines would use these studies not to show how to get out of these bad situations, or how great this pilot was to get out of the situation, but as examples of what not to do.

Doug
Click to expand...

A big part of the problem is the entire concept of "personal limits", this means it's ok to not be able to perform to published standards and that is unacceptable. Published standards are MINIMUM standards you should be able to operate at. Personal Minimum should be Published Minimum, and if you don't feel up to those standards, retrain and/or re-equip, or avoid the activity altogether. If you can't fly IFR to minimums and hand fly it comfortably for an hour in turbulence, you best just stay VFR.
 
Henning said:
A big part of the problem is the entire concept of "personal limits", this means it's ok to not be able to perform to published standards and that is unacceptable. Published standards are MINIMUM standards you should be able to operate at. Personal Minimum should be Published Minimum, and if you don't feel up to those standards, retrain and/or re-equip, or avoid the activity altogether. If you can't fly IFR to minimums and hand fly it comfortably for an hour in turbulence, you best just stay VFR.
Click to expand...
I agree and do just that on some days...IMSAFE.
 
Personally the lowest approach I have done for real is a 300' 3/4 mile ILS into Detroit Metro, on steam gauges.

I look at personal minimums as the limit of how low the conditions are expected to be at the time of my arrival. For instance if the weather is crap and the forecast is for 200 and 1/2, I am not going to launch into it.

I look at the IMSAFE and my most recent experience to make that decision plus I have it written down to help prevent me from rationalizing.

Another for instance is that I will not fly a circling approach at night.

My thoughts are to not put myself in a situation where I don't feel I am not comfortable.

All that being said I always train to the minimums, because there will come a day when I launch and the weather deteriorates and I need to be able to perform. I just don't knowingly put myself in that position.
 
tmyers said:
The instrumentation and autopilot in that aircraft would have probably flown the approach and should have held altitude at the DH. Would someone have had to overridden the Alt hold to drop to a lower altitude? I am not that familiar with the advanced AP on the more expensive airplanes.
Click to expand...

Based on the approach plate the aircraft should have been at + - 1,400' AGL if it crashed 1.5 miles from the airport as reported by news sources. Photos I have seen of the crash scene show the aircraft made a compact crater. This indicates to me the pilot may have lost control near the aforementioned altitude and the aircraft struck the ground at high speed and a extreme nose down attitude. If he flew the aircraft into the ground, the debris would have been much more widespread.

One news report I saw said the runway lights had not been activated by the pilot. One wonders if this is an indication of pilot overload in attempting a high stress approach he knew was below minimums.

I suspect an inadvertent stall and loss of control.
 
Last edited:
I wonder whether the pilot of the crashed plane had the information that his friends went missed approach 20 minutes ahead of him. Would ATC have shared this info. Seems that there was documentation available that the conditions were below minimums.
One thing that I have now learned is to ask for pireps when there is a chance that the ceiling will be too low. I wonder how atc will react if I ask them when the last landing at a specific airport was made.
 
Henning said:
A big part of the problem is the entire concept of "personal limits", this means it's ok to not be able to perform to published standards and that is unacceptable. Published standards are MINIMUM standards you should be able to operate at. Personal Minimum should be Published Minimum, and if you don't feel up to those standards, retrain and/or re-equip, or avoid the activity altogether. If you can't fly IFR to minimums and hand fly it comfortably for an hour in turbulence, you best just stay VFR.
Click to expand...
My post had nothing to do with the concept of personal minimums and whether or not this is a good thing or a bad thing. My post was an answer to daytonalynn's post. Personally, I think personal minimums are not necessarily a bad thing. I agree that using them not to operate at minimum standards is not a good thing, but knowing your limitations and what you can handle comfortably and cannot handle comfortable is a good thing. I know some pilots such as you are naturally gifted and can handle everything that is thrown at them, I are the other hand see no reason to do an approach with visibility at minimums if other options for the approach including a no go decision for my missions for flying. Can I do it? Based on my training yes. Will I do it? No. Something about bold pilots and growing old resonates with me. I really do not want my epitath to be he died young, but died doing what he loved best.

Just my opinion.

Doug
 
> Personally, I think personal minimums are not necessarily a bad thing.

The goverment publishes legal minimums based on extensive information.

Pilots are charged with the responsibility to analyze the situation with
respect to Pilot skill, aircraft, aircraft equipment, ground equipment
and a resonable expectation of any developing weather.

I once had an Instrument student who was ready for his check ride,
and he told me he wasn't ready. I asked why he thought this.

"Well, I don't think I can handle a 200-1/2 ILS". Even though he
had aced nearly everyone one he had done in his recent work, I smiled.

I told him his mind set was perfect and exactly why he was ready
for his ride. He found that reply strangely exactly what he needed.

The answer here is pretty simple...

Every situation has exactly the minimums that a good pilot deems
appropriate for the setting.

After you read far too many NTSB reports - patterns become noticible.

Quite often it's a chain of events, seperately unimpressive, but in
a cummulative manner daunting.

Always leave yourself a way out.
 
douglas393 said:
Personally, I think personal minimums are not necessarily a bad thing. I agree that using them not to operate at minimum standards is not a good thing, but knowing your limitations and what you can handle comfortably and cannot handle comfortable is a good thing.
Click to expand...
I agree. Published minimums are what you are not supposed to go beyond but there's nothing wrong with stopping short of them. Just plan your alternatives accordingly.
 
Everskyward said:
I agree. Published minimums are what you are not supposed to go beyond but there's nothing wrong with stopping short of them. Just plan your alternatives accordingly.
Click to expand...
I have some issues with "personal IFR minimums", especially the way a lot folks appear to apply them. One is that IME many pilot apply them to the forecast conditions before they begin a flight as part of their "go/no-go" planning with little or no accommodation in terms of alternative options should the forecast be bust. And I expect that many of these pilots will just go ahead and fly an approach even if the conditions are below their personal mins when they arrive and will likely descend at least as far as the published mins in search of the runway environment.

In addition, the way I hear some pilot's apply their personal mins doesn't make sense to me in that they will establish a single ceiling and maybe IME a single visibility limit (e.g 500 & 1mi) that they apply to all approaches. I think a more rational methodology would be to apply a scaler or additive adjustment to both (e.g. double the published mins or add x00 ft and y miles) so that they maintain some sort of margin above the published limits.

To really adhere to conservative mins you should apply the increased limits to your need for an alternate (i.e. add an alternate and fuel if the forecast is less than x% better than the standard ±1hr, 2000 ft, & 3mi), the weather requirements for any alternate (i.e. choose alternates that are forecast to be x% better than the standard 800/600&2), refuse to begin any approach with reported wx less than x% above the published mins, and adjust the MDA or DA by the same percentage. Now if you truly do all that I could see a benefit in "personal mins" but with what I see as the more common application it seems to me that such pilots really need to be prepared to fly with published mins if they do depart or the only safety benefit is less flying exposure.
 
gismo said:
I have some issues with "personal IFR minimums", especially the way a lot folks appear to apply them. One is that IME many pilot apply them to the forecast conditions before they begin a flight as part of their "go/no-go" planning with little or no accommodation in terms of alternative options should the forecast be bust. And I expect that many of these pilots will just go ahead and fly an approach even if the conditions are below their personal mins when they arrive and will likely descend at least as far as the published mins in search of the runway environment.

In addition, the way I hear some pilot's apply their personal mins doesn't make sense to me in that they will establish a single ceiling and maybe IME a single visibility limit (e.g 500 & 1mi) that they apply to all approaches. I think a more rational methodology would be to apply a scaler or additive adjustment to both (e.g. double the published mins or add x00 ft and y miles) so that they maintain some sort of margin above the published limits.

To really adhere to conservative mins you should apply the increased limits to your need for an alternate (i.e. add an alternate and fuel if the forecast is less than x% better than the standard ±1hr, 2000 ft, & 3mi), the weather requirements for any alternate (i.e. choose alternates that are forecast to be x% better than the standard 800/600&2), refuse to begin any approach with reported wx less than x% above the published mins, and adjust the MDA or DA by the same percentage. Now if you truly do all that I could see a benefit in "personal mins" but with what I see as the more common application it seems to me that such pilots really need to be prepared to fly with published mins if they do depart or the only safety benefit is less flying exposure.
Click to expand...
Glad you expanded on that because I was too lazy! I agree with you, though.
 
LDJones said:
Based on the plane he was flying he was probably pretty competent, but this one didn't work out so well. Very sad.
Click to expand...

I'd have to disagree on this. One would hope and one would say he should have been competent. However, the history books have shown that people buy more plane than they can handle. The insurance companies charge more for the first 50-100 hours in type for a reason...

gismo said:
I have some issues with "personal IFR minimums", especially the way a lot folks appear to apply them. One is that IME many pilot apply them to the forecast conditions before they begin a flight as part of their "go/no-go" planning with little or no accommodation in terms of alternative options should the forecast be bust. And I expect that many of these pilots will just go ahead and fly an approach even if the conditions are below their personal mins when they arrive and will likely descend at least as far as the published mins in search of the runway environment.

In addition, the way I hear some pilot's apply their personal mins doesn't make sense to me in that they will establish a single ceiling and maybe IME a single visibility limit (e.g 500 & 1mi) that they apply to all approaches. I think a more rational methodology would be to apply a scaler or additive adjustment to both (e.g. double the published mins or add x00 ft and y miles) so that they maintain some sort of margin above the published limits.

To really adhere to conservative mins you should apply the increased limits to your need for an alternate (i.e. add an alternate and fuel if the forecast is less than x% better than the standard ±1hr, 2000 ft, & 3mi), the weather requirements for any alternate (i.e. choose alternates that are forecast to be x% better than the standard 800/600&2), refuse to begin any approach with reported wx less than x% above the published mins, and adjust the MDA or DA by the same percentage. Now if you truly do all that I could see a benefit in "personal mins" but with what I see as the more common application it seems to me that such pilots really need to be prepared to fly with published mins if they do depart or the only safety benefit is less flying exposure.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I think personal minimums make sense, but one must apply them logically. The way that you describe makes sense, and is what I advocate.
 
They are usually quite accommodating insofar as that information is concerned, as in "last three have missed" or whatever.



Cutnrun said:
I wonder whether the pilot of the crashed plane had the information that his friends went missed approach 20 minutes ahead of him. Would ATC have shared this info. Seems that there was documentation available that the conditions were below minimums.
One thing that I have now learned is to ask for pireps when there is a chance that the ceiling will be too low. I wonder how atc will react if I ask them when the last landing at a specific airport was made.
Click to expand...
 
Just had the CFI who trained this guy in here today. He was pretty upset. The guy appeared to "get it" with regard to system safety. This is "get-in-there-itis" at its worst. They did a lot of hours together, it appears.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top