Update on Catalina Baron crash

Ah, so nothing would have prevented this pilot from departing, as his personal limits included this takeoff.

Sounds like it would have prevented the accident. :rolleyes:
True, gotta have reasonable personal limits. Many pilots don’t, or are quite willing to say “normally I wouldn’t fly in these conditions, but…”.
 
The default is no-go. Only go if and when everything is inside the Go parameters. That applies to everything from flying across the country to once around the pattern.
Agreed.

But most people are set to Go and only cancel if things are bad enough. Gethomeitis is a form of this.
 
Where are the Go parameters published?
You, as the PIC make those parameters.

But you make then outside of planning any specific trip. Such as, Go only if ceiling is forecast to be 1000 feet or higher. Then when the day comes, you check the weather and the ceiling is forecast 900, you don't go, as you have not met YOUR Go parameter.
 
You, as the PIC make those parameters.

But you make then outside of planning any specific trip. Such as, Go only if ceiling is forecast to be 1000 feet or higher. Then when the day comes, you check the weather and the ceiling is forecast 900, you don't go, as you have not met YOUR Go parameter.
But the implication of the post I replied to was that somehow it would have made a difference in this accident. We have no evidence that this pilot exceeded any of his personal minimums.
 
Juan says that if you try to charge a dead battery with an alternator, there is a good chance that you will 'fry' that alternator.

Is this actually true?
 
Juan says that if you try to charge a dead battery with an alternator, there is a good chance that you will 'fry' that alternator.

Is this actually true?
I think that's backwards.

If you recharge a dead battery off an alternator, it can damage the cells of the battery due to the high rate of charge. Better to put the battery on a charger at a lower amperage.
 
Juan says that if you try to charge a dead battery with an alternator, there is a good chance that you will 'fry' that alternator.

Is this actually true?
That's what happens every time someone gets a jump-start in their car. That large data set refutes the alternator claim. The battery risk mentioned above is supported by that data set, although I think deep-cycling a battery that is not built for it contributes to the battery's demise in addition to the previously mentioned charge-rate.
 
Juan says that if you try to charge a dead battery with an alternator, there is a good chance that you will 'fry' that alternator.

Is this actually true?
Not generally. The internal resistance of the battery when discharged plays a part in this, as does the regulator on the alternator. In aircraft, the full load of all electric loads on an alternator cannot exceed 80% of the rated amperage of the alternator installed. So, there are situations where the alternator can be loaded up to 60-80% of its rated capacity, and then adding a large current draw to recharge a batt may exceed the thermal dissipation of the alternator.

If the load on the alternator is very low, like 10% of the alternator rating, then charging a battery should be ok as long as the alt is getting plenty of cooling air. Where it comes into damaging alternators, is a large electrical load on the alt, plus a large batt charging load, and very little cooling air like sitting at the ramp on a hot day. In that case, it may overload the regulator of the alt and fry the diodes inside.

Like everything else in aviation; 'it depends'. If you must charge a dead batt, the best thing to do is leave all other loads off, and when the engine is running, leave the field switch or master switch off until the plane is in the air, and then turn on the alt or field and monitor the charging or voltage gauge. When the batt recovers and the load is much lower, the electrical loads can be added carefully.
 
That's not what the prelim says. It says, "Information provided by the flight school indicated that the responding airplane was not operated by the flight school and belonged to an acquaintance of the owner of the flight school."

The flt school owner calling a buddy with a plane and asking him to go pick up some stranded folks would be consistent with the prelim (as would other scenarios).
Yeah, I might have gotten confused from the earlier reports that implied the PIC was the Flight School owner.

Apparently the PIC had been a longtime SMO Flight School owner and shut his business down within the past year. It was a different school that was operating the stranded aircraft.
 
Is this actually true?
Depends how you define a "dead" battery and what caused it to discharge. But in general, an alternator is not designed to properly recover a battery that is discharged. Unfortunately, lead acid batteries do not handle excessive discharges well and are usually damaged unless it is properly recharged. This is partly the reason you see people complain their batteries only last 3 or 4 years vs 7+ years. So yes an alternator can be damaged when you have an excessive battery discharge event and do not properly handle the situation per the OEM recommendations.
 
Depends how you define a "dead" battery and what caused it to discharge. But in general, an alternator is not designed to properly recover a battery that is discharged. Unfortunately, lead acid batteries do not handle excessive discharges well and are usually damaged unless it is properly recharged. This is partly the reason you see people complain their batteries only last 3 or 4 years vs 7+ years. So yes an alternator can be damaged when you have an excessive battery discharge event and do not properly handle the situation per the OEM recommendations.
It's funny how often someone online tells the owner of a dead battery "Just hook up a battery tender and let it run for a couple of days."
 
Again, all they had to do was call the sheriff to come "rescue" them. Sheriff's deputies would have taken them into town and help them find accommodations. If rooms were available at the last minute, I'm sure they wouldn't have to pay for a two-night minimum. If rooms were not available, they could have slept in the lobby of the sheriff's station...
This is fake news. The Sheriff would not drive up to the airport then let them sleep in the sheriff's station.
 
"I will pick up the occupants of the broken airplane using a broken airplane" sort of says it all.
 
"I will pick up the occupants of the broken airplane using a broken airplane whose condition is unknown to me"
FTFY.
 
Last edited:
This is fake news. The Sheriff would not drive up to the airport then let them sleep in the sheriff's station.
Not fake news. The sheriff would rather assist now, then later rescue... Perhaps we agree to disagree. Plenty of posts here where others have called the police/sheriff for access, assistance and help, including one of your own (FAT). They should have at least tried.
 
Not fake news. The sheriff would rather assist now, then later rescue... Perhaps we agree to disagree. Plenty of posts here where others have called the police/sheriff for access, assistance and help, including one of your own (FAT). They should have at least tried.
I do not agreee to disagree. My brother in law worked for the LA county sheriffs office for over 20 years. He has worked in Catalina. There is a small outpost in Avalon. He claims there is no way a Sheriff would drive over an hour in the middle of the night to drive people to a hotel. Catalina is a unique situation that you clearly have no clue about.
 
I've never been to Catalina (but hope to some day). I do fly regularly to Block Island. People frequently get stranded there, in both the high summer season (when lodging is at an extreme premium), and offseason as well. The locals on the island, including the police, are well aware of this, and I've never known any stranded person who was refused some assistance or guidance if they were willing to ask. Maybe the Catalina sheriff's office wouldn't drive out, but is it at least possible that the island cab could be located (for after-hours prices, of course)? (I've called the cab on Block on a winter night when we were stranded at the empty airport but our car wouldn't start, and the person answering referred me to another cab driver who left her warm house and dinner to come and "rescue" us). All this may be moot -- the Baron crew may have been doubtful of what help they could get or they may have felt there was no significant risk in departing after dark such that they were going to leave for the mainland regardless of what options there were for staying. And maybe if you are stranded at AVX after hours then you really are stuck. I think the point of some of the posts above, though, is that asking for help can often bring help -- whether you ask the police, the sheriff, the airport manager, or anyone, and it's at least worth considering asking for help if you think you need it. You might be surprised at people's willingness to assist. (And yes, I fully acknowledge that Block is not Catalina -- walking from BID into "town" is maybe 1.5 miles, mostly downhill -- but it is cold and windy in January).
 
The pilot made it clear he had no intention of staying overnight. None of the passengers expressed anything contrary. They weren't going to call the sheriff, a cab, or anything else.

This is a classic example of cascading errors. Poor maintenance led to a delay. The takeoff after dark was a bad decision but not an inherently fatal one. Not enough info yet to know whether mechanical issues or pilot error led to the terrain impact.

Speculation follows: PIC was familiar with the airfield. Departing hotdog pilots would sometimes dive off the end of the runway to pick up speed and cross the channel at 500' or 1000', perhaps buzzing lower terrain in the process. PIC tried it at night and just didn't see how close he was to the ground.
 
I think the point of some of the posts above, though, is that asking for help can often bring help -- whether you ask the police, the sheriff, the airport manager, or anyone, and it's at least worth considering asking for help if you think you need it. You might be surprised at people's willingness to assist. (And yes, I fully acknowledge that Block is not Catalina -- walking from BID into "town" is maybe 1.5 miles, mostly downhill -- but it is cold and windy in January).
In hindsight, knowing that everyone died, it is obvious that just about any other decision, including sleeping on the cold hard ground under the stars or calling random strangers and begging for help, would have been a better decision.

At the time, with a bunch of folks all thinking that they could get a lift back home to comfortable beds in their own homes, it's easy to see how the final holes in the Swiss cheese lined up.

- The guy with the twin wouldn't have agreed to fly over and pick them up if he thought his plane was going to crash and kill everybody.
- The pax wouldn't have gotten on the rescue flight if they thought the plane was going to crash and kill them.
- In short, nobody ever thought, "I'm making a choice between begging for help from strangers who would be extremely inconvenienced vs. getting killed."

They only thought they were going home, and so they all happily climbed onboard.

Maybe if there were a Motel 6 adjacent to the field, or a 24/7 shuttle bus into town, or even a cab or Uber, they would have been more likely to consider other options. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, the only other options were things that looked like essentially impossibilities. Compare those options against "there's a plane coming to pick us up, yay!" and ask yourself honestly if you would have insisted on staying on the island overnight if you were in that group?

Pilots (and passengers, often unwittingly) make bad choices and get away with it dozens (hundreds? thousands?) of times a day. The vast majority of those events we never hear about. This was almost one of those events, right up until it wasn't.
 
Even with as brash as the Baron driver was in a previous incident I posted I highly doubt he departed with a known discrepancy. I think it's much more likely a failed hot start drained the battery. From there it's anyone's guess what caused the crash. Did the battery suddenly go tango uniform from getting jumped. Spatial disorientation from it being nigh? Overweight. We're fixated on the departing at night. But that's only one part of the chain. The fact his landing gear was down is very peculiar.
 
Maybe if there were a Motel 6 adjacent to the field, or a 24/7 shuttle bus into town, or even a cab or Uber, they would have been more likely to consider other options. But as has been repeatedly pointed out, the only other options were things that looked like essentially impossibilities. Compare those options against "there's a plane coming to pick us up, yay!" and ask yourself honestly if you would have insisted on staying on the island overnight if you were in that group?
We don't know if war-dialing every number on the island would have led to a warm place to sleep. But it does seem like this particular group would have turned down a free hangar, room, and supper at a Waldorf Astoria located on the field. What makes this crash worthy of study is the question of what you would have done if you knew that departing that night carried a high risk of a bad outcome, and how high that risk would have to be to try something different. Following all of the rules would have kept them alive, albeit uncomfortable for the night. At all times, but especially when deviating from a rule, it is critical to evaluate and weigh the risks you are taking.
 
I know nothing about Catalina that I didn't learn in this thread. And I read the preliminary report.

All those who are saying the pilot should have moved heaven and earth to avoid taking off, other than it being nighttime, what other signals of impending doom should have told the pilot he was risking death?
 
Not to be pedantic, but "can you say PAVE"?
Factors:

Pilot
Aircraft
enVironment
Extenal pressures

It's so very lame but so very true. Every item gets continuous re-assessment.
The problem remains, the "Abstract risk" vs. the Known Benefit of proceeding.

The PIC must have known as the clusterF - kept piling up and the sun was going down...to just freaking CAMP. And everyone knows (Block Isl. and Martha's Vineyard, are parts of civilization whereas Avalon - not so much)...you need to bring options. As in, tent, camp stove, bags, or 750W ebikes for all....etc.

Then there is positive confirmation bias: "I've done it before, and it's never been a problem". That's the Challenger disaster.

Such a needless waste.
(wearing CFI hat)
 
Last edited:
All those who are saying the pilot should have moved heaven and earth to avoid taking off, other than it being nighttime, what other signals of impending doom should have told the pilot he was risking death?
I can think of at least three signals of impending doom other than the simple fact that they were taking off from a closed airport at night:

1. The airport manager went out of his way to tell them that the airport was closed and takeoffs were prohibited at night. When the person most knowledgeable about the airport tells you it's dangerous, you should listen. This isn't the first crash where the last person who saw the pilot alive had warned him not to go.

2. The airplane had an electrical or mechanical problem of some sort. It could be that they ran the battery down trying to restart a hot engine, but the pilot seems to have been experienced enough that it should not have been so challenging for him to restart a healthy hot engine. So either the engine wasn't healthy or the electrical system wasn't healthy. Neither of those is a great risk to add on to the already-risky night takeoff.

3. They were simply having a bad day. One airplane was broken down and stranded. The rescue airplane was having problems. Sometimes, you just have to call it quits and try again another day. We've all had days like that, when nothing seems to go right. How many of us, near the end of such a day, think it's a good idea to make a risky, illegal, night (pick one or more adjective) takeoff in an airplane that's already abused our trust that day?

I don't know what I would have done if I were in their situation with the information I knew about Catalina before reading and discussing the crash in this thread. I do know what I will do if I fly to Catalina with what I've learned here. I will pack hiking and camping gear, at least a basic toolkit, plenty of water, and survival rations, even if I'm just going there for lunch. I hope to make it there someday.
 
I know nothing about Catalina that I didn't learn in this thread. And I read the preliminary report.

All those who are saying the pilot should have moved heaven and earth to avoid taking off, other than it being nighttime, what other signals of impending doom should have told the pilot he was risking death?
Ari hits it with #2, above. WIth a bad battery, you pull up the gear and it doesn't go- it won't retract on just the 65A alternator. It needs the battery reserve. With an inductive motor load and little battery storage, you get immediate <11.2 V, and nothing happens except- all the intruments go blank. And at night.

I'm reminded of the DA 42 twinstar crash about 10 years ago. Bad Battery. They jumped it, departed and pulled up the gear. Immediately, <11.2 V. The props went into autofeather because it takes volts to keep them unfeathered. DA 42 hit the fence and was badly damaged. Now, Twinstars have a separate battery system just for the prop governors.

The pilot should have refused to escalate the cluster F.
In medical terms we say, "There are too many adverse factors. No surgery, today". The stranded kids would have had an uncomfortable night in the disabled airplane (They had shelter). But they would be talking today.

One option: He COULD have just brought bivouac gear, water and food, and planned to spend the night. He KNEW what the clock said when he departed SMO. But it's a good bet that never occurred to him. We EXPECT our First world survivorship, in the 3rd world; it does not work that way. Avalon is exactly that, which is why it is so gorgeous.

So i think a fair question here is, did the retired flight school owner have "businessman brain" or aviator brain"?

PAVE, is lame, but this is even more lame.
 
Last edited:
Aviation Newstalk Podcast has a great analysis of the craah
 
Using one’s discretion becomes more and more of a factor as hours and experiences build.

Discretionary checking or ignoring of one of the PAVE items or “rules” like no night departures is a risk factor in and of itself.

That’s why these discussions have value, even if the facts have not yet been determined by the investigation team. It makes the audience to which these factors may apply a lot bigger - hmm, what could I do to avoid the same fate. Once the final comes out, it becomes easier to think “idiot, I would never do that”.
 
Ari hits it with #2, above. WIth a bad battery, you pull up the gear and it doesn't go- it won't retract on just the 65A alternator. It needs the battery reserve. With an inductive motor load and little battery storage, you get immediate <11.2 V, and nothing happens except- all the intruments go blank. And at night.

I'm reminded of the DA 42 twinstar crash about 10 years ago. Bad Battery. They jumped it, departed and pulled up the gear. Immediately, <11.2 V. The props went into autofeather because it takes volts to keep them unfeathered. DA 42 hit the fence and was badly damaged. Now, Twinstars have a separate battery system just for the prop governors.

The pilot should have refused to escalate the cluster F.
In medical terms we say, "There are too many adverse factors. No surgery, today". The stranded kids would have had an uncomfortable night in the disabled airplane (They had shelter). But they would be talking today.

One option: He COULD have just brought bivouac gear, water and food, and planned to spend the night. He KNEW what the clock said when he departed SMO. But it's a good bet that never occurred to him. We EXPECT our First world survivorship, in the 3rd world; it does not work that way. Avalon is exactly that, which is why it is so gorgeous.

So i think a fair question here is, did the retired flight school owner have "businessman brain" or aviator brain"?

PAVE, is lame, but this is even more lame.
While I’m not disagreeing, the pilot has to not only have “aviator brain,” but also the training and/or experience to recognize that too many adverse factors is, in fact, a problem. That could probably go into the thread about areas in which pilot training is generally deficient. As instructors, we need to start student pilots more down the path of studying dead people.
 
… studying dead people.

Funny (in a morbid way), but true. Kind of like “write an essay or do a presentation” for your fellow PPL students or CFI. Especially in the last decade or so where this stuff is easy to find in the report databases. Would have been a lot harder back in the day.
 
It sounds like a systems refresher course for the owner/cfi was sorely needed.
 
Back
Top