How much did poor training contribute to this accident?

[MountainDude]

I am really shocked that this can happen right after receiving a pilot's license (his plane was over gross, out of CG, and he tried to outclimb a mountain at a high DA).

Who else thinks we do not emphasize the fundamentals of flying well enough during training?
I think the training for the PP license is focused on passing the test, not necessarily on being a safe pilot.
Yes, it's easy to blame it on the pilot in this case, but I can't help but think that poor training contributed significantly.

On another note, no wonder plane rentals are so expensive. The insurance must be a big part of it.

 

[Tools]

Before doing even a shallow dive into this… let’s do what I usually do and go one step further, hopefully towards root cause.

What do you mean by training?

On the surface this reeks of someone not identifying a dangerous trait. By someone, a flight instructor….

Just because you can meet the requirements, doesn’t mean you should be doing this….

How ya gonna stop this (providing it fits here, don’t know for sure)? THAT is a nuther question altogether.

 

[MountainDude]

Before doing even a shallow dive into this… let’s do what I usually do and go one step further, hopefully towards root cause.

What do you mean by training?

On the surface this reeks of someone not identifying a dangerous trait. By someone, a flight instructor….

Just because you can meet the requirements, doesn’t mean you should be doing this….

How ya gonna stop this (providing it fits here, don’t know for sure)? THAT is a nuther question altogether.

I am not sure this pilot had a dangerous trait. Do you have one in mind?

 

[RyanB]

Who else thinks we do not emphasize the fundamentals of flying well enough during training?

Yes, certainly not enough. Every student needs to read chapters 4 and 5 of the Airplane Flying Handbook - should be required material.

 

[Lindberg]

I am not sure this pilot had a dangerous trait. Do you have one in mind?

You simply can't pass the written or practical tests without knowing how to calculate W&B and why is important, not being able to read a performance chart. So this was an issue beyond skills and knowledge.

 

[geezer]

When quite young someone read "The little Engine that Could" to him may times.

I THINK I CAN, I TINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN..............

Fuel near empty, I think I can get home.

Plane climbing slower than expected, I think I can find a low enough place to get over the mountain.

Un fortunately, most training is done at well below max gross, and perform better than POH values, leading many to expect that to be true when heavy.

It seems this pilot did not get enough instruction on the basics of fuel management, and density altitude. but loading outside the envelope for both weight and balance is all his. You can not pass the PPL without doing those. On that day, I THINK I CAN was the mode of flight.

 

[MackMooney]

I am really shocked that this can happen right after receiving a pilot's license (his plane was over gross, out of CG, and he tried to outclimb a mountain at a high DA).

Who else thinks we do not emphasize the fundamentals of flying well enough during training?
I think the training for the PP license is focused on passing the test, not necessarily on being a safe pilot.
Yes, it's easy to blame it on the pilot in this case, but I can't help but think that poor training contributed significantly.

On another note, no wonder plane rentals are so expensive. The insurance must be a big part of it.

this is very much emphasized in PPL, just because someone does otherwise, doesn't mean they weren't trained properly.

 

[MountainDude]

You simply can't pass the written or practical tests without knowing how to calculate W&B and why is important, not being able to read a performance chart. So this was an issue beyond skills and knowledge.

I agree with the part that you have to know how to calculate it (and I don't doubt that he could).
I also think that somewhere it says that the plane will not perform as well when over gross.
What lacks is 1. emphasizing this last point many times, 2. flying at gross and different CGs during training to show how different the plane behaves, and 3. how this factor can stack with others, such as an old engine, high DA, need for a faster climb, etc.

 

[MountainDude]

this is very much emphasized in PPL, just because someone does otherwise, doesn't mean they weren't trained properly.

You are saying that every CFi emphasizes (mentions it multiple times with clarity) the importance of not being over gross, especially when combined with aft CG, high DA, and/or the need to climb over a mountain?
I don't believe that.

 

[bbchien]

Did you see the video ar 4:18? He ran one out of gas as a student solo pilot and damaged a DA 20.
That sez something right there, as to the pilot's ability to "PAVE". I hate using that acronym but the FAA is right about this.

 

[Racerx]

When quite young someone read "The little Engine that Could" to him may times.

I THINK I CAN, I TINK I CAN, I THINK I CAN..............

Fuel near empty, I think I can get home.

Plane climbing slower than expected, I think I can find a low enough place to get over the mountain.

Un fortunately, most training is done at well below max gross, and perform better than POH values, leading many to expect that to be true when heavy.

It seems this pilot did not get enough instruction on the basics of fuel management, and density altitude. but loading outside the envelope for both weight and balance is all his. You can not pass the PPL without doing those. On that day, I THINK I CAN was the mode of flight.

Optimism cannot overcome a poor horsepower to weight ratio.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I am really shocked that this can happen right after receiving a pilot's license (his plane was over gross, out of CG, and he tried to outclimb a mountain at a high DA).

Why would (or should) this be less likely right after a checkride than any other time in a pilot’s life?

 

[luvflyin]

I am really shocked that this can happen right after receiving a pilot's license (his plane was over gross, out of CG, and he tried to outclimb a mountain at a high DA).

Who else thinks we do not emphasize the fundamentals of flying well enough during training?
I think the training for the PP license is focused on passing the test, not necessarily on being a safe pilot.
Yes, it's easy to blame it on the pilot in this case, but I can't help but think that poor training contributed significantly.

On another note, no wonder plane rentals are so expensive. The insurance must be a big part of it.

Hard to say. First we’d have to know if there was poor training.

 

[MountainDude]

Why would (or should) this be less likely right after a checkride than any other time in a pilot’s life?

Later on you can forget or get complacent.

 

[RyanB]

You simply can't pass the written or practical tests without knowing how to calculate W&B and why is important, not being able to read a performance chart. So this was an issue beyond skills and knowledge.

Sure you can. Lots of people are using Sheppard Air for written exams these days, which is rote memorization. DPE’s are also accepting Garmin Pilot or ForeFlight W&B calculations. The days of *having* to do it by hand are over and the old school method isn’t being taught like it was.

 

[RyanB]

this is very much emphasized in PPL

Is it? Maybe with a broad brush, but few actually experience it during their training.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Later on you can forget or get complacent.

For a lot of pilots, “later on” is driving home after the checkride.

 

[Matthew]

I remember a rental plane that was very nose heavy. If you ever did the W&B with one pax you'd see you were out of range unless you added ballast in the baggage area. And it was a surprising amount of weight.

The Warrior on my PP checkride needed an extra couple pounds in the back. I think it was sitting right on the very front edge of the envelope, but all it took was a few extra pounds to bring it back close to center. I think there was a sandbag in the hangar that was used for that.

I guess, like anything, someone will learn how to do it for the written and then never do it again. Or they'll do it for their CFI, if asked, before an XC. Hopefully they actually do it for real for the checkride just in case the DPE asks to see the work. After that, if it hadn't been burned into them, they likely rationalize that, "I did a W&B on this once, and nothing's changed since, so there's no point in doing it again", but they don't realize that something actually has changed. Or, more likely, they just forget since they don't ask themselves about it prior to each flight.

During my PP training a 421 went down at my airport. Took off into IFR, spun into the ground. Fortunately the two moms and their kids that were in the house that got slammed into were not hurt. NTSB found it had the pilot, 4 pax, >300 pounds of luggage, and added up the fuel receipts they were aware of. It was overloaded and out of balance.

5 fatalities in my back yard got my attention.

 

[Half Fast]

Is it? Maybe with a broad brush, but few actually experience it during their training.

Yep.

And there's a difference between teaching a skill and teaching the importance of that skill.

When I learned to cave dive years ago, one of the texts we used was Basic Cave Diving - Blueprint For Survival ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Cave_Diving:_A_Blueprint_for_Survival ). Every chapter was introduced with a case study, usually a fatality, which resulted from not following the lesson to be taught in that chapter. It was sobering and effective.

Maybe we need to do bit more of that in flight training. Interspersing some actual case studies might drive home the points being made. I think it could serve to emphasize the seriousness the activity.

 

[RyanB]

Maybe we need to do bit more of that in flight training. Interspersing some actual case studies might drive home the points being made. I think it could serve to emphasize the seriousness the activity.

Demonstrate a takeoff using less than full power is one of the best ways to show students hands on.

 

[MountainDude]

Yep.

And there's a difference between teaching a skill and teaching the importance of that skill.

When I learned to cave dive years ago, one of the texts we used was Basic Cave Diving - Blueprint For Survival ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_Cave_Diving:_A_Blueprint_for_Survival ). Every chapter was introduced with a case study, usually a fatality, which resulted from not following the lesson to be taught in that chapter. It was sobering and effective.

Maybe we need to do bit more of that in flight training. Interspersing some actual case studies might drive home the points being made. I think it could serve to emphasize the seriousness the activity.

I really like that. If real consequences are not highlighted, some people will not realize the importance.

 

[Dave Theisen]

Sure you can. Lots of people are using Sheppard Air for written exams these days, which is rote memorization. DPE’s are also accepting Garmin Pilot or ForeFlight W&B calculations. The days of *having* to do it by hand are over and the old school method isn’t being taught like it was.

I’m in class for a type rating right now. I will be required to take off performance and weight and balance calculations for my checkride.

 

[TCABM]

Why does it have to be poor training? Why can’t it be poor learning?

 

[eman1200]

I’m in class for a type rating right now. I will be required to take off performance and weight and balance calculations for my checkride.

using an app or that papery pencily type stuff?

 

[eman1200]

Why does it have to be poor training? Why can’t it he poor learning?

exactly. it didn't take much more than "doing this can kill you" for me to learn it.

 

[Dave Theisen]

using an app or that papery pencily type stuff?

I’m so good, I use a pen.

 

[Lindberg]

Sure you can. Lots of people are using Sheppard Air for written exams these days, which is rote memorization. DPE’s are also accepting Garmin Pilot or ForeFlight W&B calculations. The days of *having* to do it by hand are over and the old school method isn’t being taught like it was.

I didn't say anything about doing weight and balance by hand. Doing it on foreflight is still doing it. And good point about Shepherd, but last time I checked, they didn't have the private pilot written.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I’m in class for a type rating right now. I will be required to take off performance and weight and balance calculations for my checkride.

Technically, performance for “all phases of flight.”

Which type rating?

 

[Half Fast]

Why does it have to be poor training? Why can’t it be poor learning?

A good instructor should be able to assess learning.

 

[Rene]

Optimism cannot overcome a poor horsepower to weight ratio.

At the risk of being a noob sticking her nose where it may not belong. No accident anywhere has ever been caused by an aircraft having a NORMALLY LOW HORSEPOWER TO WEIGHT RATIO.

The airplane you are flying is the airplane you flying . . . 65/1170 is 0.55 HP/lb. No matter how you slice it, you won't lift a draggy airframe 1000 fpm with 0.55 HP/lb or something similar. And sometimes airplanes decide to become gliders. You can't put yourself in a position where this leads to a catastrophe.


A pilot has to know her / his plane's limitations.

 

[AV8R_87]

Optimism cannot overcome a poor horsepower to weight ratio.

T-shirt material

 

[RyanB]

I didn't say anything about doing weight and balance by hand. Doing it on foreflight is still doing it. And good point about Shepherd, but last time I checked, they didn't have the private pilot written.

How do you know ForeFlight is doing the calculation correctly if you don’t know how to verify it by hand? The EFB weight and balance profiles should only be used supplementary and after it can be done by hand.

 

[AV8R_87]

No accident anywhere has ever been caused by an aircraft having a NORMALLY LOW HORSEPOWER TO WEIGHT RATIO

It's not that simple. A plane flown by a solo pilot with half fuel can have 10% more HP/lb than the same plane at max gross weight. And that does not translate into a 10% performance gain, but a lot more. People modify 150HP engines in their planes to get 160HP. That might seem trivial and not worth the time and effort, but you're improving the performance a lot more than 6%, because that's 10HP added not to the 150, but to the 30 or 40 normally available for climbing, once all the straight and level drag has been accounted for. So the actual climb performance will increase substantially. Same thing, fail to account for high density altitude on a hot day, and the 10-20 HP loss in a 150HP engine will have a dramatic impact on climb performance, which might not be apparent if you look at the total numbers.

 

[wanttaja]

A good instructor should be able to assess learning.

I'll have to admit that I cram for my BFRs...it's a matter of pride that I do the ground portion closed-book. CFI usually drops the manual between us, and I don't touch it.

Now, mind you, how much I RETAIN is a question.

Part of the problem is *understanding* the material, vs. the ability to parrot back the book learnin' on demand. Hard to ensure the former.

Ron Wanttaja

 

[Dave Theisen]

Technically, performance for “all phases of flight.”

Which type rating?

True, I’m on the hook for all of it, I was just commenting in context to the accident being discussed.

Falcon 8X

 

[Rene]

It's not that simple. A plane flown by a solo pilot with half fuel can have 10% more HP/lb than the same plane at max gross weight. And that does not translate into a 10% performance gain, but a lot more. People modify 150HP engines in their planes to get 160HP. That might seem trivial and not worth the time and effort, but you're improving the performance a lot more than 6%, because that's 10HP added not to the 150, but to the 30 or 40 normally available for climbing, once all the straight and level drag has been accounted for. So the actual climb performance will increase substantially. Same thing, fail to account for high density altitude on a hot day, and the 10-20 HP loss in a 150HP engine will have a dramatic impact on climb performance, which might not be apparent if you look at the total numbers.

What I was trying to say is that a pilot needs to be aware of the normal performance of her / his aircraft. Sure, I weigh a lot less than my CFI, and could climb twice as fast flying solo as I could with him on board. But those are both "normal" rates of climb at different gross weights. Density altitude is a reaI thing. But, finding your altitude, temperature, and such isn't particularly difficult. No harder than figuring out how much over gross, or outside the CG 'lope you might be.

Now, if I lost a cylinder or the whole dern engine THAT would not be normal. But, wanting to fly - and do so many other things - for years and decades to come, I make sure that should my engine wheeze and the prop really slow down or stop I have a plan. Technology, or money, isn't the answer . . . knowing what one is doing is the answer.

 

[3393RP]

I happened to watch that video earlier today. Seeing the size of the passengers and that the plane was a DA-40 in the first couple of minutes was all I needed to determine the cause of the crash.

It's always tragic when a foolish pilot kills his innocent passengers. They had no idea. The pilot wasn't poorly trained, he was a dumbaß.

 

[TCABM]

A good instructor should be able to assess learning.

The mishap pilot retained knowledge sufficient to pass the knowledge test, met the performance and requirements to get recommended for the practical exam, then had that knowledge and performance validated by an independent third party DPE. Are you suggesting both the CFI and DPE failed to asses the learning that occurred?

Once the newly minted private pilot is let loose in the wild, there’s no CFI supervision required for 24 months.

There’s nothing about a private pilot certificate that magically prevents stupid.

 

[Tools]

A good instructor should be able to assess learning.

Why does it have to be poor training? Why can’t it be poor learning?

This.

Someone didn’t realize this pilot had a bad case of invulnerability, or too much machismo… something along these lines.

This had little or nothing to do with actual performance during the teaching or evaluating process.

THIS is what instructors need to be figuring out. It’s HARD to put the kibosh on someone who can perform, but ya know is gonna screw up… I'm NOT belittling that.

 

[MountainDude]

The mishap pilot retained knowledge sufficient to pass the knowledge test, met the performance and requirements to get recommended for the practical exam, then had that knowledge and performance validated by an independent third party DPE. Are you suggesting both the CFI and DPE failed to asses the learning that occurred?

Once the newly minted private pilot is let loose in the wild, there’s no CFI supervision required for 24 months.

There’s nothing about a private pilot certificate that magically prevents stupid.

There are too many scenarios to cover by the CFI and examine by the DPE.
However, I am talking about the most basic things here, like W&B, DA, and climb rates near the GW.
My hope is that the CFIs emphasize these (and some other) aspects of flying as grave danger for the pilot and their families.