Superstition Crash Final report

[Dart]

..The peaks have been there for centuries, the class B for only a handful of years. But for the extended class B, would the plane have continued the climb from FFZ? I don't know, but due to the artifact that is this ring of the class B, it is surely a question the NTSB ought to be interested in(if they are in fact interested in SAFETY).

This is an interesting issue. While the class B is not a mountain, it is a form of "obstruction" to VFR flight. Was it causal? I leave it to those more knowledgeable on the subject of law to decide the FAA's contiributory "liability" in this. I think DocMirror makes a good case that the presence of the Class B it changes the probabilities of a safe outcome for traffic coming across the mountain. Those changes seem to favor an increased probability of safety for IFR traffic and a decrease of it for VFR traffic.

 

[olasek]

Or those who request and are denied, delayed entry

Sorry, fail to see any logic here. First, NTSB did look into those alleged "denied" entries and found no compelling case. Second it sounds a bit strange that a denial or delay somehow relieves a pilot of caring about terrain around him, sounds pretty bizarre actually.

seem to favor an increased probability of safety for IFR traffic and a decrease of it for VFR traffic.

That can be said of any mountain anywhere, IFR traffic will always be safer.

 

[Dart]

That can be said of any mountain anywhere, IFR traffic will always be safer.

Yes. I was speaking to Indigo and Docs observations. The mountain has always been there. The Class B has not. It changes things.

 

[Henning]

Yes. I was speaking to Indigo and Docs observations. The mountain has always been there. The Class B has not. It changes things.

Both have been there for quite some time. There are options to avoid both without going IFR. Situational awareness on the part of the PIC is what was lacking.

 

[docmirror]

I was always taught that the min safe altitude for that square bounded sector on the chart was given in thousands of feet, in a major and minor number. i.e. 54, which would mean I will be safe if I am 5400' and above from any obstructions. As I looked at the chart, I noticed this is one of the rare cases where the obstruction clearance height is higher than the elevation of the floor of the class B within that sector(happens further N in the PHX class B as well). It does happen at the surface in the center of the class B of course, but in this case, we're talking about the outer ring, and the impossibility of remaining both VFR, and at a safe altitude for obstruction without a clearance into the B.

 

[Henning]

I was always taught that the min safe altitude for that square bounded sector on the chart was given in thousands of feet, in a major and minor number. i.e. 54, which would mean I will be safe if I am 5400' and above from any obstructions. As I looked at the chart, I noticed this is one of the rare cases where the obstruction clearance height is higher than the elevation of the floor of the class B within that sector(happens further N in the PHX class B as well). It does happen at the surface in the center of the class B of course, but in this case, we're talking about the outer ring, and the impossibility of remaining both VFR, and at a safe altitude for obstruction without a clearance into the B.

Is vertical avoidance the only option? What's wrong with horizontal?

 

[olasek]

and the impossibility of remaining both VFR, and at a safe altitude for obstruction without a clearance into the B.

Wrong, you can be at a safe altitude going sideways, adjusting your track laterally, it is another bizarre argument that you must be at the depicted 'safe sector altitude' to be safe.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Is vertical avoidance the only option? What's wrong with horizontal?

No, and he wouldn't have even needed a gps to avoid that mountain.

If the pilot had just looked at the chart before leaving the ground and picked a good visual reference for the departure, he could have maintained separation from the mountain even with the delayed turn.

If he had just turned right enough to point the nose at Highway 60, they would have been able to stay below the Bravo and clear the mountain.

 

[weilke]

Yes, But those peaks already have beacons, because of the radio towers.

Some do, didn'tkeep the guys in the g1000 182 from hitting it.

 

[Palmpilot]

No, and he wouldn't have even needed a gps to avoid that mountain.

If the pilot had just looked at the chart before leaving the ground and picked a good visual reference for the departure, he could have maintained separation from the mountain even with the delayed turn.

If he had just turned right enough to point the nose at Highway 60, they would have been able to stay below the Bravo and clear the mountain.

Agreed. I never like to point my aircraft at black spaces without being darn sure of the height of anything that's in them.

 

[TMetzinger]

Anyone who has questions about this accident...please ask me....the mother of the kids who died, the former wife of the pilot who died (who was not flying that night) and a pilot myself..airline and CFII/MEI.
Karen Perry

Somehow the normal "Welcome to the board" doesn't seem quite right. Nonetheless, you ARE welcome, and I'm so sorry for your troubles.

 

[Everskyward]

Yes. I was speaking to Indigo and Docs observations. The mountain has always been there. The Class B has not. It changes things.

I don't think I addressed any issue besides TAWS.

But in thinking about the Class B, the height of the floor may have been a factor but I don't think it's much of an excuse. Look at the Salt Lake Class B with very tall mountains just outside the borders. Denver was similar back when the Class B was centered around Stapleton instead of DIA. The Class B borders were next to the foothills.

 

[gismo]

Or those who request and are denied, delayed entry. Or those who consider that asking to use a small part of the class B would frustrate the controller and they would take it out on the next GA plane.

The peaks have been there for centuries, the class B for only a handful of years. But for the extended class B, would the plane have continued the climb from FFZ? I don't know, but due to the artifact that is this ring of the class B, it is surely a question the NTSB ought to be interested in(if they are in fact interested in SAFETY).

What I don't understand is why the Class B shelf is such a big deal. All one needs to do there is fly a few miles out of the way before heading in the direction one want's to go. Seems like a matter of convenience rather than safety to me.

 

[docmirror]

What I don't understand is why the Class B shelf is such a big deal. All one needs to do there is fly a few miles out of the way before heading in the direction one want's to go. Seems like a matter of convenience rather than safety to me.

OK, I made my point. Some don't think it was a link in the chain. I tried to show that if this particular link wasn't there, the accident may not have happened, and that the class B was an artifact of human making, and not a natural element. It could be moved, modified, changed somehow, and that I think it would improve overall safety. I could be wrong.

 

[dans2992]

OK, I made my point. Some don't think it was a link in the chain. I tried to show that if this particular link wasn't there, the accident may not have happened, and that the class B was an artifact of human making, and not a natural element. It could be moved, modified, changed somehow, and that I think it would improve overall safety. I could be wrong.

I agree that raising the floor in that area would be safer.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[olasek]

It could be moved, .....

IF it could be moved......

 

[CT4ME]

In two very similar accidents (Las Vegas - Potosi & Gass Peak) a major contributing factor was listed as ATC's lack of terrain warning. 'Odd that this was not listed in this report. We are always looking for one thing that will stop the chain of errors that lead to an accident. FAA Order 7110.65 states, in part, that a controller's duty priority is to "give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts..." The safety alert is to be issued to an aircraft once the controller observes and recognizes a situation wherein the aircraft is in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. The controller "...must remain vigilant for such situations."
With all the controversy that the Bravo airspace created on this issue, I'm surprised the report didn't mention the lack of an ATC advisory. It should be part of their normal procedure, especially for night flights. All of the above mentioned accidents happened on a dark, moonless night. A simple "N690SM, be advised of the 5,500 ft peak about 10 miles to the SE, close to your departure path", may have saved 6 lives.

 

[Henning]

In two very similar accidents (Las Vegas - Potosi & Gass Peak) a major contributing factor was listed as ATC's lack of terrain warning. 'Odd that this was not listed in this report. We are always looking for one thing that will stop the chain of errors that lead to an accident. FAA Order 7110.65 states, in part, that a controller's duty priority is to "give first priority to separating aircraft and issuing safety alerts..." The safety alert is to be issued to an aircraft once the controller observes and recognizes a situation wherein the aircraft is in unsafe proximity to terrain, obstacles, or other aircraft. The controller "...must remain vigilant for such situations."
With all the controversy that the Bravo airspace created on this issue, I'm surprised the report didn't mention the lack of an ATC advisory. It should be part of their normal procedure, especially for night flights. All of the above mentioned accidents happened on a dark, moonless night. A simple "N690SM, be advised of the 5,500 ft peak about 10 miles to the SE, close to your departure path", may have saved 6 lives.

Was he on frequency with the sector controller? Best I remember the last person he was on with was the departing tower.

 

[olasek]

, I'm surprised the report didn't mention the lack of an ATC advisory.

It did mention it, you missed it. Read post #17 (Sumwalt's report). How can you provide advisory to someone who is not in the ATC "system", did not ask for flight following or any other ATC services?. A pilot must initiate such contact. The report leaves no doubt that there was no such initiative from this pilot, in other words ATC (apart from the tower controller) knew nothing about this flight.

 

[flibmeister]

IF it could be moved......

Oh, it could be moved-- PHX doesn't use the airspace, they never instituted the parallel ILS program that they claimed made the airspace grab necessary. I live right under it, and rarely see any airplanes in the vicinity below 8000.

And, as Karen mentioned earlier in the thread, even if they did want to run parallel ILS's, they don't need the airspace down to 5000-- 7000 would be more than sufficient, given glideslope altitudes that far from the airport.

What HAS moved are the training flights out of IWA that used to buzz all over the area, generating a lot of noise complaints. Lowering the airspace pushed them all further south, which is much less densely populated. That eliminated most of the noise complaints.

Coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[olasek]

Oh, it could be moved-- PHX doesn't use the airspace,

FAA begs to disagree with you.
Read document #20 from this accident's docket (or Federal Register Vol. 72, No 152, Aug. 8, 2007, page 44372) there is a long argument/counter-argument for lowering the class B in this place to 5000 ft.
I am not about to rule who is right/wrong, nor I think I am qualified to even utter my opinion, just noted there was such a debate in 2007 and this is the end result. Whether the arguments from 2007 are still valid today - I hope someone smart and competent will rule on it.

 

[docmirror]

Final words on this.

The class B was put there by people. It is an artificial restriction, or artifact in terms of the NAS. As stated, there was a time, a very long time in the nation when this section of the class B didn't exist. It could be moved, changed, altered, raised, narrowed or any number of other verbs that IMNSHO would improve safety. Obviously I am not an airspace engineer, but from my perspective, most class Bs in the country are far larger than they need to be to accommodate 95% of the comm traffic flow.

 

[flibmeister]

FAA begs to disagree with you.

Yeah, the FAA and I disagree on a lot.

I spent 20 years working parallel approaches at O'Hare, so I know a little about how it's done. They don't need the airspace between 5000 and 7000 to run parallel approaches, and they don't have enough other traffic this far out to justify use of that airspace for anything else.

There were other factors at play here-- they wouldn't admit it then, and in the wake of this accident, they sure as hell won't admit it now.

 

[CT4ME]

It did mention it, you missed it. Read post #17 (Sumwalt's report). How can you provide advisory to someone who is not in the ATC "system", did not ask for flight following or any other ATC services?. A pilot must initiate such contact. The report leaves no doubt that there was no such initiative from this pilot, in other words ATC (apart from the tower controller) knew nothing about this flight.

I'm referring to the KFFZ tower... maybe not considered "ATC", but in the best position to warn departing pilots who've indicated they are departing in that direction.
IMO, they didn't attempt to contact Phoenix because of the known propensity for them to hassle VFR traffic. Plus, they were only going to be in the vicinity for maybe 3 minutes. I don't care what the report says, the bogus survey (done a year after they were publicly spanked for being aloof to VFR traffic) doesn't change the fact that all Phoenix-area pilots know about the problem. And the numbers in their survey are bogus. Probably 99% of the Bravo requests are folks doing the very straightforward North/South transition corridor. The problem exists when you ask for FF or other odd requests. And it's not that the requests are turned down... they just say something like "get back to me in 10 minutes"... clue enough that you've been flipped the Bird.

 

[kkoran]

I'm referring to the KFFZ tower... maybe not considered "ATC", but in the best position to warn departing pilots who've indicated they are departing in that direction.
IMO, they didn't attempt to contact Phoenix because of the known propensity for them to hassle VFR traffic. Plus, they were only going to be in the vicinity for maybe 3 minutes. I don't care what the report says, the bogus survey (done a year after they were publicly spanked for being aloof to VFR traffic) doesn't change the fact that all Phoenix-area pilots know about the problem. And the numbers in their survey are bogus. Probably 99% of the Bravo requests are folks doing the very straightforward North/South transition corridor. The problem exists when you ask for FF or other odd requests. And it's not that the requests are turned down... they just say something like "get back to me in 10 minutes"... clue enough that you've been flipped the Bird.

They could put it on the ATIS: "Caution for southeast departures; pilots who didn't adequately plan their flight might run into a mountain." They could follow it up with "Northeast through southeast departures use caution for Rocky Mountains."

 

[olasek]

But wait, there are potential obstacles in other directions too, later somebody will hit some other mountain/hill in the direction that wasn't mentioned and his family will sue that pilot did not get a warning!!
And since there are many, many airports with different degrees of varying/difficult terrain around them I propose a generic recording almost everywhere (exempt Florida): Potential high terrain everywhere around you, plan in advance or perish!! And I would add this to the recording: Check your fuel, running out of fuel is one of the most frequent causes of accidents. And of course why not this: Are you qualified for current weather conditions? VMC into IMC is the number one killer, save yourself and your innocent passengers!

 

[hilton]

Would TAWS have prevented it? They flew straight into a completely vertical rock face.

I put this video together soon after the accident just out of interest, then decided to make it available after some folks asked me about it. At the time I had no idea that they were using an EFB app or which one they were using (I only found out which EFB app they were using at the time on these forums recently). WingX Pro7 has subsequently added GPWS and a terrain profile view with an altitude line which was not available at the time and hence not in this video, but even without those two features there is enough red to make it very obvious. My condolences to those who lost loved ones, as a father of three little ones I cannot even begin to imagine the pain. Note: in this earlier version of WingX Pro7, the center of the airplane icon depicted its position - it is now the hose of the icon - that's why it appear on the moving map that the airplane hits the red terrain before it actually does. I'm really glad to see some of the other EFB apps now adding terrain capability.

http://hiltonsoftware.com/ArizonaKids.mov

Hilton

 

[Henning]

Interesting, yeah, I don't understand why people reject having SVT when it's readily available, truly mind boggling to me.