Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Aviation Mishaps' started by Lon Stratton, Jan 2, 2021.
No, I didn't view it on a link.
Would you mind sharing how you saw it? It would be informative to see.
Didn't work. Only showed California plane crashes and one from New Jersey.
I don't believe it has been released to the public. My profile page may give you a clue.
Gocha! Thanks for sharing what you can. Hopefully the ring owner will release is at some point to public. Pilots also benefit from this information.
Sounds like the classic problem under these circumstances.
If the pathologist has it now, it may ultimately be posted on the NTSB docket.
Preliminary is out...
On January 2, 2021, at 1541 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-24-250 airplane, N8347P, was destroyed when it was involved in an accident in New Hudson, Michigan. The pilot and two passengers were fatally injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
There was no record that the pilot obtained a weather briefing or filed a flight plan on the day of the accident. He departed Cherokee County Airport (CNI), Canton, GA at 1221 and flew GPS (Global Positioning System) direct at 7,500 ft, estimated to arrive at Y47 at 1542. The pilot was not instrument rated.
About 1457, while inbound at 7,000 ft, the pilot established radio communications with the Detroit TRACON (terminal radar approach control). After the pilot was given the Detroit altimeter setting, the pilot asked the approach controller if there had been any icing PIREPs (pilot reports). The controller replied that there had not been any for the past hour and added that a pilot landing at Willow Run Airport (YIP), orted no icing in the clouds, and said the cloud bases were at 300 ft. The controller asked the pilot his intentions, and the pilot replied he would “give it (the approach) a shot.” The pilot added that if he had to make a missed approach, he would proceed to Oakland County International Airport (PTK), Pontiac, Michigan, located 13 miles northeast of Y47. The controller reiterated that the cloud bases in the area were reported to be 300 ft.
The pilot was cleared to descend to 4,000 ft, then to 3,000 ft, and instructed to fly a heading of 020° to intercept the final approach course. The controller then told the pilot to maintain 2,700 ft or above until established on the final approach course. Although the pilot was cleared for the VOR-A or GPS-A approach, it had been NOTAMed (Notice to Airmen) as unavailable. This notice was displayed on the Information Display System (IDS) at the radar position. The controller told the pilot to contact the Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) and to report back to him if he executed a missed approach or cancelled his IFR clearance after landing.
The airplane continued to descend to about 1,900 ft msl and passed over Y47. It then appeared to climb slightly to about 2,000 ft before it entered two descending left hand spiral turns at decreasing airspeed. Track data was lost about 1541 near the accident location, which was about 1⁄2-mile north of Y47. There was a post-impact fire that destroyed the airplane and did substantial damage to a house. There were no ground injuries, but a cat inside the house was fatally injured.
Interesting. I'm surprised that the controller cleared him for the approach even though he saw on his screen that it was NOTAMed unavailable.
I'm not sure I've ever seen one with boots. There are other planes out there that pre-date the concept of "FIKI" but they'll have boots or some way to shed ice
I've never seen a Comanche or Twin Comanche with boots.
The Aztec has quite a comprehensive de-ice equipment option (I have it on my plane), but Piper never formally secured FIKI certification for it. The Seneca was the focus of attention for their piston twin FIKI by then.
There were PA30s with boots and the POH talked about operation in known icing. As I understand it, at some point the FAA issued a royal edict that 'clarified' that this does not mean that the AC is approved for FIKI.
Back in the day, icing suitability was determined by the equipment requirements listed in FAR 91. PA-30s had two STCs for icing, one by Wiggins, IIRC (maybe both). I had a pre-purchase done on one in Philadelphia. It had a fiberglass bottle, a big one, wrapped in stainless steel, IIRC, bands for reinforcement up in the nose. The bottle was aired up to some outrageous psi value as it creaked and groaned as it expanded between the bands. This was used to cycle the boots. If that thing, "Fat Boy" comes to mind, ever blew, I swear it would take off the whole nose. (Glad I didn't buy that one. It had come from Canada and I just had a bad feeling about it.)
so is there a legal restriction to whether or not an airplane can fly in forecast ice for those planes built before the official FIKI designation? I've heard that Aztecs are very good at handling ice with the thick wings etc but is this strictly anecdotal or can you legally punch off into a forecast ice layer?
I wish Piper had continued to build the Aztec!
Winter IFR in a non deiced piston single.
Notam'd NA approach;
300 foot ceilings on a nonprescision approach.
What posssibly could go wrong?
....oh, and no I.R.
I think someone like @Kristin is best able to answer this.
I've had the Aztec in ice a number of times (we get icing 12 months of the year around this place) but I don't go looking for it.
Me too. But all things must pass...
And not instrument rated...
When these type of accidents occur, one commonality often present is the pilot's choice of an unsuitable alternate airport, whether defined in his flight planning or expressed to ATC as events close in on him. In this case it was the latter:
The pilot added that if he had to make a missed approach, he would proceed to Oakland County International Airport (PTK), Pontiac, Michigan, located 13 miles northeast of Y47.
What seems more than obvious to anyone else appears to escape the notice of these pilots. If the destination airport is reporting 300' overcast, what the hell are the chances those conditions don't exist at an airport within seven minutes of flight time?
Based on his handling of events up to that point in time, the chances of him finding KPTK and successfully making an ILS approach were miniscule.
The MDA for that approach is 654 feet above ground level. I wouldn’t have even attempted it and just diverted. Sad he took two innocent lives with him.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro
My Twin Comanche had boots. No single Comanche was ever fitted with them as far as I know.
My aircraft has the deice package. It is placarded that it is not approved for flight into known icing. However, I take that as informational and it does not say that flight into known icing is prohibited.
Wiggins and Miller had STC's for the deicing boots. Wiggins had an STC for the alky props. Wiggins had two variations. One used the "bomb" and the other used the 400 series vacuum pumps. I have the latter. Like you, not excited about the reservoir bottle.
The FAA has not issued a regulation that says your aircraft must be certified and equipped per the FIKI requirements to fly in the ice. Certainly they could do so. They have gone at it through certification. If an aircraft was certified FIKI, if not equipped, will have a limitation in the AFM which then has the force of law under 91.9. So if you have an older airplane that has no such prohibition, then you only have to worry about getting busted under 91.13. If you load up your C-150, you won't get busted on 91.9, but the FAA might get you on 91.13, if you live. An Aztec, on the other hand, has no limitation and it is hard to argue 91.9 when it is fully equipped. I used to operate a 1974 Aztec and the AFM stated that the aircraft was approved for flight into light to moder
ate icing conditions when equipped.
Maybe take this to a deicing topic. This accident did not involve any icing.
You should sign up to be a moderator. Maybe then you could split off the entire bit of thread drift, started by someone other than me.
I'm curious, how was this determined?
Sure perhaps it did involve icing....although I thought the indication was that there was no reported icing in the area(granted does not mean icing was not possible)....What we do know is that there was a non instrument rated pilot, without a weather briefing, landing at an airport where the ceilings were well below the minimums. Also from reports, and I don't know for a fact this pilot supposedly has done flights in instrument conditions in the past. Id love to hear about why uncertified pilots are allowed to do such things and risk those on the ground and in the plane. Not to mention tarnish reputation of GA. What can we do to better catch this type of behaviour early and put a stop to it. Perhaps we should have to give our license number when filing or requesting and IFR clearance? If someone does it in the air have them call in after landing and provide the information. etc. How do members feel about this? I am not excited about the bureaucracy this would cause but if it saves lives perhaps its worth it.
I think that's what Bruce mean when he said No I.R.
Chances are, a whole lot of people are saying "I knew this would happen someday." Aviation is the safest where we police ourselves, not where we rely on the FAA, but certain people are just bound and determined. Betcha somebody could have walked up to this guy months ago and told him (pick one):
"If you take off today, you better land somewhere else because you're no longer welcome at this airport."
"I'm sorry, I'm not going to fuel you up. You have no business flying in these conditions in this airplane today."
"I'm not going to check you out at night for you to load your family in the airplane and then fly a long cross-country immediately after earning your private license."
And so on...
In my own experience:
Pilot #1 above took off and the airport owner parked the man's car across the runway forcing him to land elsewhere. A few months later, he killed himself in his twin beech scud running through the hills of West Virginia. Took a nephew with him too.
Pilot #2 (had a Saratoga) departed on a trip he could have easily driven with two of his employees, iced up and crashed on the approach a little over half an hour later. The fueler had expressed his concern, but fueled the aircraft anyway.
Pilot #3 (a doctor) listened to me and didn't make the trip after I refused to check him out. I did sign him off though, and many months and an upgrade from a 172 to a Bonanza later he cartwheeled the Bonanza, at night in upstate NY, with his family onboard. Luckily, they all survived.
Nobody can ever know, though, how many were saved by the ever present good counsel from these real watch-keepers, the CFIs, FBO managers, flight school owners, mechanics and professional pilots we rub elbows with daily. That's where "safety" germinates and flourishes, if we heed their advice.
Do you seriously think that this sort of surveillance increase is going to eliminate irresponsible behavior?
He wasn't legally "allowed to do such things" as he chose to do. And, apparently, his mother wasn't watching over her son at the time.
There's an element in our society that is anti-authoritarian. That never mixes well in activities, such as aviation, where there's a high degree of regulation. At my airport those few pilots who behave this way tend to find nobody will associate with them - they tend to self-isolate themselves over time because of their behavior.
Very poignant. And true.