Superstition Crash Factual

CT4ME

CT4ME

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 24, 2011
Messages
1,321
Location
Phoenix, AZ
Display Name
Display name:
CT4ME
The NTSB factual report (not final) is finally available, nearly two years after the accident. Bottom line... pilot error. OK, we get that. But the report barely mentions the defective Class B airspace issue that also contributed greatly to the accident. This, in spite of a "secret/private" internal memo from FAA personnel that says the airspace is deficient and needs to be fixed to avoid a similar accident. It also doesn't mention that there is no beacon on the mountain top which is higher than the very close class B airspace.
The NTSB Factual
Local TV report
Report on leaked FAA memo not mentioned in factual report
I have not been able to find the "NTSB ATC group chairman's factual report" mentioned. This isn't the final report (due in a month)... so there's still time for them to get it right.
 
Last edited:
When someone shows me the full memo, I'll be interested to read it. Until then, all we have are a few sentences extracted from context.

One thing that does impress me is that the pilot claimed to have amassed 1400 hours of flight experience in less than nine months (a rather staggering feat by itself), while the company records showed only 116 hours flown in that period. Further, it appears they were in violation of a number of FAR's regarding the maintenance and equipage of the aircraft, as well as the ferry permit on which they were operating, which suggests a certain level of disregard for proper procedures.

All things considered, blaming this one on the Class B airspace sees disingenuous.
 
No one, nobody, is "blaming" Class B airspace.... but not mentioning it as a significant contributing factor is negligent. And not fixing it is worse...
Do you think that the error logging time contributed to the accident more or less than the airspace issue? (or at all?)
 
Last edited:
CT4ME said:
No one, nobody, is "blaming" Class B airspace....
Click to expand...
You seem to be.

...but not mentioning it as a significant contributing factor is negligent. And not fixing it is worse...
Click to expand...
Your posts seem to suggest that there's some secret FAA memo which shows the Class B airspace "is a significant contributing factor" in this accident, but you don't have the memo to support your position. Let us know when you have it in its entirety so we can read and fully consider it.
 
Just the fact that there IS a secret/private memo, that you can't get... says more than anything else.
 
CT4ME said:
Just the fact that there IS a secret/private memo, that you can't get... says more than anything else.
Click to expand...
There are a lot of good reasons for keeping documents "secret/private" (a classification of which I never heard in the 27 years I held a US security clearance, which right off the bat makes me suspicious of its authenticity), starting with the fact that it may be one person's unsubstantiated opinion without any basis in fact, proper analysis, or second party review -- a distinct possibility since the news report quotes the document as including (IIRC) the phrase "in this inspector's opinion". As I said, when you get hold of this alleged document and can share it, we can evaluate its accuracy, veracity, logic, and analysis, and whether or not the source has any personal axe to grind. Until then, all you are presenting is unreliable speculation.
 
Last edited:
The airspace is hardly "secret." It's published on charts and the NTSB and the parties to the investigation were welcome to investigate whether it (and the terrain associated with it) were somehow contributory. I fail to see how an FAA memo, public or private, would have any bearing here.
 
statist tools make the rules for fools and you and me alike.
 
Ron Levy said:
When someone shows me the full memo, I'll be interested to read it. Until then, all we have are a few sentences extracted from context.

One thing that does impress me is that the pilot claimed to have amassed 1400 hours of flight experience in less than nine months (a rather staggering feat by itself), while the company records showed only 116 hours flown in that period. Further, it appears they were in violation of a number of FAR's regarding the maintenance and equipage of the aircraft, as well as the ferry permit on which they were operating, which suggests a certain level of disregard for proper procedures.

All things considered, blaming this one on the Class B airspace sees disingenuous.
Click to expand...

If I recall correctly, the pilot had very few hours in a 690, and this airplane was very new to them.

The other thing I recall is, the mechanic was on board as they were using it as a test flight following some maintenance issues, which we can only speculate may have been a distraction and possibly another reason.

I knew Shawn Perry personally, as I watched him grow up at the airport I used to fly out of. His dad ran an air service there and did all the maintenance on my airplanes at the time.

The guy had avgas in his veins from the time he was a little boy.
 
Do you want a serious report that helps avoid repeating the problem, or a white-wash CYA report that doesn't step on any government agency's toes?

The point here is: The defective airspace (nobody said secret) isn't mentioned (yet) as a major contributing factor. Forget the (significant) secret,leaked, memo. The problem with the airspace was pointed out to the FAA long before the accident. Everyone involved warned that the airspace was an accident waiting to happen. The AOPA, AZ Pilots Assoc, and other aviation groups fought to avoid the problem.

Forget the outbound traffic issue, think of the inbound jet traffic. You have a situation where a mountain top projects into Class B airspace, just seconds before (at jet speeds) the threshold of the airspace. And there is NO beacon there.

To mention goofy insignificant record keeping errors or minor FAR issues, and not mention the airspace issue is wrong.
 
Last edited:
Ron Levy said:
All things considered, blaming this one on the Class B airspace sees disingenuous.
Click to expand...

I think maybe you might have read one or two NTSB reports where there is something called "contributing factors"?

I could look one up for you. But I won't.

There is something disingenuous going on, but the NTSB hit all the high points - except one.
 
The ATC Factual Report is on the docket. You can search for the docket here:

http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/

By entering the Accident ID: WPR12MA046

Copy is attached.
 

Attachments

  • 533725.pdf
    2.6 MB · Views: 28
The "Secret" airspace memorandum attached.
 

Attachments

  • 516309.pdf
    210.5 KB · Views: 44
Wow.. thanks for the docs. 'Lot more there than in the recently released report. The Internal FAA memo says what pilots around Phoenix and the Aviation organizations have been saying: It definitely was a contributing factor and should be fixed to prevent future similar accidents. It's puzzling why the NTSB, so far, has not jumped on the airspace issue.
The allegations of Class Bravo airspace requests isn't really pertinent to this case, as there would hardly have been enough time to contact ATC and make the request before they would have been out of the airspace. But it's interesting to see the defensive sections trying to dispute the allegation. That can be left for a future discussion.
 
In some places if you are a visitor to the country and you get into a car accident it's automatically your fault because it wouldn't happened if you weren't in the country.

The logic is pretty similar here. The thought process seems to be that if the Bravo shelf was higher, he wouldn't have stopped his climb below 5000 and he would have flown out the other side. But... this still requires a pilot that doesn't know they are flying towards mountains to pick a usable cruising altitude. That doesn't seem bullet proof.

In fact... that kind of thinking can be extended to make Bravo go to the surface to keep pilots from even taking that route. Now you have to talk to ATC and they can warn you about the mountains you don't know are there.

The airspace grab sucks. I don't think this accident is evidence that it's inherently dangerous. On the other hand it is inherently dangerous to fly night VFR with no visual references around terrain off airways.
 
CT4ME said:
It's puzzling why the NTSB, so far, has not jumped on the airspace issue.
Click to expand...

It's puzzling to you? I think blind, and deaf mouse could find the issue with only three working legs. Surely any 'reasonable man' has seen it. Hard to find a problem when one has their fingers in their ears and is shouting 'la-la-la-la-la-- I can't heeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaarrrrrrr yooooooouuuuuuuuuuuuuu.'
 
CT4ME said:
Wow.. thanks for the docs. 'Lot more there than in the recently released report. The Internal FAA memo says what pilots around Phoenix and the Aviation organizations have been saying: It definitely was a contributing factor and should be fixed to prevent future similar accidents. It's puzzling why the NTSB, so far, has not jumped on the airspace issue.
The allegations of Class Bravo airspace requests isn't really pertinent to this case, as there would hardly have been enough time to contact ATC and make the request before they would have been out of the airspace. But it's interesting to see the defensive sections trying to dispute the allegation. That can be left for a future discussion.
Click to expand...


On the other hand…

It was more than a little foolish to go out of Mesa Vfr in that direction at night. Not only because of the class B airspace restriction, but also because it's awfully black out there And they were flying a “new” airplane with its set of distractions.

The extra 10 min. on the departure procedure (in the opposite direction) would have been more than prudent.

Maybe I'm the only one who says you have to stay within the confines of what is there and take the safest option.:dunno:
 
'All true... but falls into the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" category. Based on the chain of events that actually happened, and might happen again, the airspace issue likely caused the pilot to decide stay well below 5,000, and not climb aggressively. What sucks is that the FAA agrees that the lowering of the airspace to 5K wasn't really necessary because they've never used an approach that low (paraphrase). Seems like an easy fix. Heck, just putting a solar-powered beacon on the peak would fix things, even if the Bravo stayed the same.
 
Last edited:
It is hard to overlook stupidity of a VFR pilot who late at night decides to takeoff from the large PHX area and takes the heading that leads smack dabb into the fastest climbing terrain. There is a VFR waypoint the name of which I don't recall (don't have the Phoenix VFR terminal chart in front of me) but it starts with VP*** or VCL** that is slightly to the south that would force only a slight detour but would keep them from the highest terrain (and from class B ) in the area and provide more time to reach safe altitudes. They had RNAV equipment aboard if I recall so it should have been no problem to navigate to this waypoint before proceeding more eastbound. I don't know if airspace design has anything to do with it if you have such glaring disregard for flight safety to begin with, carrying so many kids in pitch black with high terrain all around you. Who knows perhaps for 'safety' FAA should consider lowering class B floor in this place to permanently close this 'escape route' to future daredevils.
 
Last edited:
CT4ME said:
'All true... but falls into the "woulda, coulda, shoulda" category. Based on the chain of events that actually happened, and might happen again, the airspace issue likely caused the pilot to decide stay well below 5,000, and not climb aggressively. What sucks is that the FAA agrees that the lowering of the airspace to 5K wasn't really necessary because they've never used an approach that low (paraphrase). Seems like an easy fix. Heck, just putting a solar-powered beacon on the peak would fix things, even if the Bravo stayed the same.
Click to expand...


As Si Robertson says… “you can't fix stupid” For lack of a better terminology.

It's right there on the map. We assume responsibility for the safety of our flight and our passengers every time we fire up the engine(s).

Heck… all he needed to do was fly 5 miles south of his course and there are virtually no mountains there if he didn't want to deal with ATC.

I'm not trying to make light of the crash… as I wrote, I knew someone on that airplane personally
 
Agreed... but that argument would be the only argument needed - "don't do stupid things". Often chanted by CFIs (& Moms). 'Probably a FAR regulation somewhere. The solution will more complex. Maybe making it a mandatory tower warning from all aircraft departing to the East from FFZ. They already do it some of the time.

Proposing the Class B goes to ground that far out is, well, see above. There are about 4 airports out in that area, a good deal of training flights, and heavy GA traffic in that area. The FAA has threatened to make Gateway airport (KIWA) a class C.
 
Airspace is what it is and everybody should learn to live with it. Trying to cross from SF Bay area into southern Nevada is a nightmare (if your airplane is performance limited) because you have to navigate around so many restricted airspaces, I could as well angrily pound my fist on the table and demand a justification for all this complexity or demand a 'fix'.

Airports are what they are and pilots cope to live with their realities, if someone lands long, overshoots the runway nobody is going to argue to extend the runway to "fix" the problem.
 
CT4ME said:
Agreed... but that argument would be the only argument needed - "don't do stupid things". Often chanted by CFIs (& Moms). 'Probably a FAR regulation somewhere. The solution will more complex. Maybe making it a mandatory tower warning from all aircraft departing to the East from FFZ. They already do it some of the time.

Proposing the Class B goes to ground that far out is, well, see above. There are about 4 airports out in that area, a good deal of training flights, and heavy GA traffic in that area. The FAA has threatened to make Gateway airport (KIWA) a class C.
Click to expand...


Daylight VFR is not a big deal that way, but turn the lights off and adding class B should be helping safety, not the other way around, because it adds discipline to the equation.

I used to keep a car/airplane at falcon for the years that I lived in Tempe, and still used it when my parents were alive and lived in Sun Lakes after I moved to Utah. I can't count the number of flights over the superstitions that I have made in route to northern Arizona. It was weekly for a number of years
 
What a small world it is! We just spent the week at OSH where we camped next to the nicest couple. He was Delta pilot who has flown Asian route for 30 years. She was a pilot with many ratings including her ATP but oddly is working as a flight attendant. It was both of their first time to OSH.

We enjoyed several conversations with the couple including an evening around the campfire laughing and joking about flying.

The lady turned out to be the mother of the children who died in the crash. Karen Perry is her name and she is an amazing woman. Cancer survivor who has endured more tragedy then anyone ever should in a lifetime. She made no mention of who she was the 4 days we lived next to them. It was her husband who mentioned it. You can only cry inside when you read about her ordeal with the crash and losing all her kids. The park service won't even allow her to set up a memorial at the site.

We exchanged contact info and I look forward to visiting with them in the future. Wow, amazing the story the person living next to you may have isn't it!
 
Every crash is a chain of events. The inverse of serendipity is at work in all crashes, to the extent that we make decisions based on what we have to work with.

The idea of the class B was to separate big traffic and give it a special buffer as they move around in the lower altitudes. After the San Diego crash with PSA I was sold on this plan. However, everything is a compromise, and this accident maybe points to a situation where the FAA is not working with the best interests of ALL NAS users, including GA. I don't know if there's a need for that ring to be at 5000' but it's a common altitude for the outer ring of a class B, so it may be that altitude was selected as a default and not for any navigation or safety reasons. If it were raised to 5500' or 6000' in that ring would it impact airline safety? It looks like it would clearly enhance GA safety.

I'm not discounting the mistakes made by the pilot, but I think there's a good case to be made that the airspace restrictions, possibly abetted by lack of FF from a less than helpful ATC combined as part of why this family is dead. Break any link in the chain - in this case the class B ring altitude or the ATC accepting a popup VFR request and things are much different.

If it's too much to ask of our managers at the FAA, I guess they really aren't around to make aviation safer.
 
The docket has documents detailing the justifications for the 5000 foot shelf for simultaneous ILS approaches, the lack of them actually performed, and how the space ends up getting used even without the amount of traffic they expected.

There's no big conspiracy. It's plain and simple that they grabbed the airspace and don't have much justification. The fuel that made the engine run has the same degree of causal connection as the airspace. You really need to know if you are flying over a mountain range or not.
 
TedR3 said:
The "Secret" airspace memorandum attached.
Click to expand...
Not so secret. Not even marked "Internal use only." And since it appears from the accident report that the pilot did not even attempt to obtain clearance into the Bravo, it is hard for me to consider this a contributing factor.
 
Ron Levy said:
Not so secret. Not even marked "Internal use only." And since it appears from the accident report that the pilot did not even attempt to obtain clearance into the Bravo, it is hard for me to consider this a contributing factor.
Click to expand...

If the answer is always no, why would he bother? You are displaying a massive amount of Ostrich syndrome related to this case when it comes to Fed culpability. Which is sad because if you aren't part of the solution you are part of the problem.

I'm not asking for the Feds to make regulations for every situation but in this case, the two direct actions from the FAA contributed. Your obtuseness to this is saddening.
 
seand said:
The fuel that made the engine run has the same degree of causal connection as the airspace. You really need to know if you are flying over a mountain range or not.
Click to expand...
And it sums it all up pretty well.

I could bet that when we get the final report there will be little on the subject of airspace design. With every accident there are 'contributing factors', pilot's mood that day was also a contributing factor. When Asiana 777 crashed at SFO the seawall at the runway threshold was also a contributing factor.

By the way I just checked the name of this VFR waypoint on the PHX terminal chart, it is VPREN and clearly it was placed there precisely for such an occasion, almost custom made for this unfortunate flight.
 
Last edited:
Actually Jim that line, "you can't fix stupid" was used by Ron White. It is the name of his album released in 2006.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top