Safety Archives - Page 6 of 31 - Golf Hotel Whiskey

Spatial disorientation kills two in a Piper

General Aviation News will often reprint excerpts or summaries from US Transportation Safety Board (NTSB), including one from a February 2010 accident report that involved a Piper Malibu in Belleville (Illinois) and led to two fatalities.

Apparently, the pilot had flown to an airport in order to receive training in the Malibu and specifically, much of the training time was to be spent on operating the Garmin GPS installed in the aircraft. According to the CFI providing the training, the pilot had problems with the pilot interface of the GPS initially. Nevertheless and upon completion of the training, the pilot had met the requirements of the Private Pilot/Instrument Rating Practical Test Standards and the CFI endorsed the pilot’s logbook for an “Instrument Proficiency Check.” The pilot then began a flight back to his home airport on an IFR flight plan in IMC at night.

Twice during the approach to the home airport, the pilot was advised by the controller that the aircraft was to the right of the approach course. The controller suggested a left turn of 5° to 7° and once the aircraft was back on the inbound course, he instructed the pilot to contact a tower controller.

However, the pilot never contacted the tower controller and executed a missed approach. He then reestablished contact with the approach controller who provided radar vectors for a second attempt at the ILS approach. The pilot also said that he was having problems with his autopilot but later on he stated that these problems had been resolved.

During the second approach, the controller advised the pilot that the aircraft was to the right of the approach course. He also issued a low altitude alert and the aircraft started a climb plus a turn back toward the inbound course. The controller then advised the pilot that he would intercept the inbound course at the outer marker for the approach. He also asked if the pilot would like to abort and try again but the pilot responded by saying that he would continue the approach.

There were no further transmissions from the pilot. The aircraft crashed into a building and burst into flames about 0.4 nautical miles from the outer marker.

An investigation of the accident noted the aircraft’s turning ground track along with the challenging visibility conditions at the time could have caused the pilot to suffer from spatial disorientation.

Moving beyond the “rich, suicidal idiots” stereotype of GA pilots

Thomas P. Turner has written a provocative article for General Aviation News saying that most people think that general aviation pilots are “rich, suicidal idiots.” That’s a very strong statement coming from someone who has a Masters Degree in Aviation Safety, was the 2010 National FAA Safety Team Representative of the Year and is a master CFI but he made some interesting points in the article about the stereotype for general aviation pilots.

First of all and in the US, Thomas pointed out that a pilot who rents the cheapest aircraft and only flies 50 hours a year will need to allocate at least $5,000 in disposable income to the endeavor. And if a pilot decides to own an aircraft, figure a minimum of $20,000 per year and likely much more.

On the other hand, the costs of flying may not be as much compared with other luxury items like big houses and fancy cars or even other pursuits such as ski vacations, equestrian activities and sail boats (Apparently, a retired airline captain once told Thomas: “You think airplanes are expensive? Buy a sailboat”). In other words, flying is just another choice to spend discretionary income on.

Thomas then mentioned out how the general public is scared to death of “little airplanes” given what is seen on TV, in the movies and even at the airport. After all, entertainment and air shows are supposed to be about “death-defying stunts” and situations rather than touch and go landings.

Moreover, what the public usually hears about general aviation includes:

Flying in thunderstorms. Loss of control in low clouds or fog. Crashed trying to take off or land. Running out of gas. Crashing into people’s houses. This is what the public hears about general aviation — and many think we’re idiots for going up in these expensive, dangerous toys with no idea how to fly them.

However, good planning and cockpit technology can largely avoid bad weather and other problems. For example: If your aircraft’s range is five hours, make sure you can complete the trip in less than four hours and have a backup plan to fly to an alternative place. Moreover and when flying over a heavily populated area, always have emergency landing sites within sight at all times as an emergency over a city is just as risky as having one over a forest or over mountains (not to mention all the attention you will get from the media if something bad were to happen…). Finally, practice, practice and more practice will help you know your abilities and that of your aircraft.

In other words, there are plenty of arguments to counter the notion that GA pilots are all “rich, suicidal idiots.

Loose fuel lines lead to accidents

General Aviation News will often reprint excerpts from US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports, including two accidents that involved loose fuel lines after maintenance work or an inspection.

In the first accident report dated February 2010, a Piper Malibu Mirage suffered substantial damage in Nashville but luckily there were no injuries. According to the report, a 2,632-hour commercial pilot was in cruise flight when the alternator light illuminated and he smelled smoke. While diverting to the nearest airport, he lost all power on the descent but safely landed and he then noted light smoke coming from cowling for several minutes after landing.

An inspection by an FAA inspector found that the fuel control unit feed and return lines were “loose at the rear engine baffle fittings immediately above the starter and starter adapter.” A review of maintenance records showed that the starter adapter had just been replaced nine hours before the accident – meaning the mechanic had failed to properly secure the fuel control unit fuel lines.

The second accident report dated May 2010, a Piper Warrior II suffered substantial damage in Chandler (Arizona) resulting in one serious and one minor injury. According to the accident report, a private pilot and a CFI were performing touch-and-goes when smoke began to fill the cockpit – most likely coming through the defroster vents. The smoke soon became so thick that the CFI could not see outside of the windows and he ended up making a hard landing.

A review of maintenance records revealed that the last annual inspection had been completed just two days before the accident and the aircraft had flown about four hours since then. An inspection of the aircraft then revealed that the fuel line leading from the engine-driven fuel pump to the carburetor was disconnected at the fuel pump with no visible impact damage to the “B” nut on the line or to the fitting on the fuel pump – meaning the line was undone before impact.

It was concluded that the “B” nut on the line had not been properly tightened by maintenance personnel and probably backed off due to normal engine vibration. In other words and right after maintenance, check those fuel lines!

Do Cirrus pilots have a safety problem?

Richard Collins has written a thought provoking post for Air Facts noting that when the Cirrus first debuted, one of its executives pointed out that product liability would not be a problem because the aircraft would be so safe BUT since then, NTSB figures show 80 fatal Cirrus accidents in its database (nearly all of which have probably led to lawsuits….). In other words, 80 fatal Cirrus accidents despite the fact that:

Cirrus has worked hard to see that pilots are properly trained for the aircraft.
All Cirrus airplanes have an airframe parachute.
Cirrus was the first light aircraft with a glass cockpit.

However, Richard also pointed out that the FAA had drastically reduced instrument rating requirements to make the rating less expensive – and potentially more lethal with the result being that there are now instrument-rated pilots who are actually not prepared for instrument flying in technically advanced aircraft like the Cirrus. He then added that:

From the beginning the Cirrus has been sold as a transportation machine. That relates to weather flying like the airlines do. So a new pilot, and many Cirrus pilots are relatively new, gets an instrument rating and is suddenly trying to do what infinitely more experienced pilots are doing with airliners. And there are two of those experienced pilots in the front end of every airliner.

On the other hand, a certain Capt. Dave posted a comment well worth noting:

In my experience in both boating and flying, it always seems to be the rich playboy that buys more plane or boat than their experience deserves.

Ray Stallings then added to that point with his take about Cirrus pilots:

The thing that always impressed me the most about these people is their total lack of airmanship. The majority of them have much more money than sense (or pride in their flying abilities) and rely totally upon the avionics in the aircraft to get them from point A to B. They fly for the most part completely heads down, eyes glued to the PFD, even on CAVU days.

So what do you our readers think: Is there something seriously wrong with Cirrus pilots or is there another explanation?

Insurance checkout ends in a mishap

General Aviation News will often reprint excerpts from US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports including one from a May 2010 report about an incident that seriously damaged a Piper Comanche in Carrollton (Georgia) but luckily caused no injuries.

According to the investigation, the pilot had just purchased a share in the low-wing airplane and was receiving a checkout from a CFI for insurance purposes. While attempting to land the Piper Comanche with a simulated engine failure, the pilot misjudged the approach.

However, the CFI did not attempt to take control of the Piper – even when it was apparent the aircraft would not make it to the runway. Instead, the aircraft touched down 90 feet short of it.

The aircraft’s nose wheel then struck the edge of the runway causing the nose-gear to collapse and the pilot initiated a go-around. On the second landing attempt, the airplane skidded to a stop resulting in substantial damage to the firewall.

After the incident, the pilot stated that the firewall damage was likely sustained as the landing gear crossed the edge of the runway pavement and that the majority of his flight experience had been in high-wing aircraft – where its also easier to see both the main landing gear and runway.

Hence, the cause of the accident was ruled the pilot’s improper touchdown point while attempting a landing but the CFI’s actions or rather the lack thereof, was also ruled a contributing factor.

Photo credit: shelbs2

When you bounce an aircraft on a landing

General Aviation News often reprints excerpts from US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) accident reports including two accident reports involving Cessna aircraft that bounced upon landing – resulting in aircraft damage.

The first accident report excerpt covered an incident involving a Cessna 182 in Destin (Florida) which caused substantial aircraft damage. Apparently, recorded winds at the airport around the time of the accident were 190° at six knots and the pilot noted that the downwind and base leg of the approach to the runway were normal. According to the excerpt:

He aligned the airplane with the runway centerline at 75 knots, with “two notches” of flaps. He reduced power just before crossing the runway threshold, and flared for landing. The airplane sank. The pilot noted that he was above stall speed with no stall warning indication. The airplane subsequently came down on the centerline and bounced four times, with the stall warning horn sounding after the first bounce.

The probable cause of the accident was ruled the pilot’s improper recovery from a bounced landing.

The second accident report dated May 2010 also involved a Cessna 182 in Parkersburg (West Virginia) and the aircraft suffered substantial damage. Apparently the pilot was trying to land in gusty winds when the aircraft bounced several times and then the pilot initiated a go-around. The following landing was uneventful but while taxing to the parking ramp, the aircraft was difficult to steer because a further inspection revealed a flat nose-wheel tire and substantial damage to the lower firewall. Hence, the cause of the accident was ruled the pilot’s loss of aircraft control while attempting to land with a gusting wind.

In other words and especially when landing in gusty conditions, be careful not to bounce the aircraft as a bounce can cause substantial aircraft damage.