Grumman electrical failure. Crashes into Cessna on runway.

Daleandee said:
Still when the alarm went off it was time to land and find out why ...
Click to expand...
Meh, why bother when you could just munch into the back of a 182 on a nearby runway and then the insurance company can figure it out instead. Seems way simpler.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Don’t be so hard on the guy. Listening to the end, at least he knows it’s his fault.
Click to expand...
"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training." We are all familiar with some form of this quote from Archilochus (for those of you who know your Greek history). We often hear it said as "We don't rise to the occasion...," which is not quite the same thing. The original quote emphasizes the flaw of the ego. We often do not perform as well as we think we will.

My gut instinct is that this pilot probably knew on an intellectual level that his engine wouldn't stop and his flight controls wouldn't jam if his electrical system failed. Where, then, did his training fail him?

Panic has no place in the cockpit. Practicing simulated emergencies is the beginning of preventing that from happening. However, one could argue that running drills, while necessary, is insufficient to achieve full preparation. One really needs to step back and think about how they would respond in a real-life, no-advance-notice emergency. After having several of my own exciting experiences in the cockpit, including one that left me no choice but to bend metal, I now approach every flight as though the plane and the environment are both trying to kill me. That makes it a pleasant surprise when nothing happens, and much less stressful when it does. Of course, I do a lot of serious XC flying. I'm on an IFR flight plan almost every time I start the engine. My plane isn't my Big Boy Toy, it is my transportation. I'm not sure the $100 hamburger guy is approaching flying that way. It is his recreational activity.

Flying is fun, but it's no joke. How do we get that message consistently across to everyone behind the yoke, including - maybe especially - the weekend CAVU guys?
 
traumamed said:
"We don't rise to the level of our expectations, we fall to the level of our training." We are all familiar with some form of this quote from Archilochus (for those of you who know your Greek history). We often hear it said as "We don't rise to the occasion...," which is not quite the same thing. The original quote emphasizes the flaw of the ego. We often do not perform as well as we think we will.

My gut instinct is that this pilot probably knew on an intellectual level that his engine wouldn't stop and his flight controls wouldn't jam if his electrical system failed. Where, then, did his training fail him?

Panic has no place in the cockpit. Practicing simulated emergencies is the beginning of preventing that from happening. However, one could argue that running drills, while necessary, is insufficient to achieve full preparation. One really needs to step back and think about how they would respond in a real-life, no-advance-notice emergency. After having several of my own exciting experiences in the cockpit, including one that left me no choice but to bend metal, I now approach every flight as though the plane and the environment are both trying to kill me. That makes it a pleasant surprise when nothing happens, and much less stressful when it does. Of course, I do a lot of serious XC flying. I'm on an IFR flight plan almost every time I start the engine. My plane isn't my Big Boy Toy, it is my transportation. I'm not sure the $100 hamburger guy is approaching flying that way. It is his recreational activity.

Flying is fun, but it's no joke. How do we get that message consistently across to everyone behind the yoke, including - maybe especially - the weekend CAVU guys?
Click to expand...
Sorry I forgot to include the sarcasm smiley. Keep in mind I also said
midlifeflyer said:
Even Jerry thinks this guy's an idiot.
Click to expand...
 
Steamflyer said:
FYI - the "grass" on either side of the runway is actually fairly deep drainage ditches. Quite a few accidents in them and at last one fatality. Go-around was the option with a functioning, not-on-fire, airplane.
Click to expand...
Yes, and those swales have crossing taxiways that will flip a plane if you try to land there. No bueno. The options were, IMO:

1) Go around
2) 360 to make space
3) Land long and use the second half of the runway (there's more than 4,000 ft total, and going off the end at 5 mph would have been preferable to this mess).
4) Land on the taxiway left of the runway
 
StraightnLevel said:
Yes, and those swales have crossing taxiways that will flip a plane if you try to land there. No bueno. The options were, IMO:

1) Go around
2) 360 to make space
3) Land long and use the second half of the runway (there's more than 4,000 ft total, and going off the end at 5 mph would have been preferable to this mess).
4) Land on the taxiway left of the runway
Click to expand...
There really was one reasonable option: Fly final at the appropriate speed and spacing, and land normally.

But since he threw that out the window:
1. Best option of the bunch, given that he’d already botched the approach by being way too close and too fast to land in the zone.
2.360 on final - recipe for a midair.
3. Only if he can stay behind the Cessna.
4. No need for that. There was, in fact, no emergency and thus no urgency to land.
 
VASAviation has radio communication between the Cessna and someone waiting to take off, as well as a statement from the Cessna pilot:

 
midlifeflyer said:
Don’t be so hard on the guy. Listening to the end, at least he knows it’s his fault.
Click to expand...
Hmmm....

If the tail# on the panel is correct, here's another recent flight from a few days earlier:

www.flightaware.com

N5450L Flight Tracking and History 11-Dec-2024 (KLVJ - FlightAware

Track N5450L flight from Pearland Rgnl to Houston, TX
www.flightaware.com www.flightaware.com

Look at the takeoff. He departs 32 and turns right crosswind. KLVJ is left pattern for fixed-wing, right pattern for 'copters. He's also turning right into the HOU Bravo (or really, really close - can't quite tell from the trace here). Then he flies at 300ft AGL over Friendswood (populated area).

:mad2:
 
StraightnLevel said:
Hmmm....

If the tail# on the panel is correct, here's another recent flight from a few days earlier:

www.flightaware.com

N5450L Flight Tracking and History 11-Dec-2024 (KLVJ - FlightAware

Track N5450L flight from Pearland Rgnl to Houston, TX
www.flightaware.com www.flightaware.com

Look at the takeoff. He departs 32 and turns right crosswind. KLVJ is left pattern for fixed-wing, right pattern for 'copters. He's also turning right into the HOU Bravo (or really, really close - can't quite tell from the trace here). Then he flies at 300ft AGL over Friendswood (populated area).

:mad2:
Click to expand...
Filling in all the slots on that F'DUP-FLYR bingo card. "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes."
 
If I deliberately crash my perfectly operating car into another driver, that would be a criminal act.

The Grumman pilot deliberately crashed a perfectly servicable aircraft into another. The guy should be going to prison.
 
Katamarino said:
If I deliberately crash my perfectly operating car into another driver, that would be a criminal act.

The Grumman pilot deliberately crashed a perfectly servicable aircraft into another. The guy should be going to prison.
Click to expand...
So you’re saying he intentionally crashed into the Cessna?

If this crash involved cars, worst case he’d get a reckless driving misdemeanor, but more likely following too closely, if he’d get cited at all. More than likely it’d just be listed as the primary collision factor and be listed as the party most at fault. He’d get points on his driving record and maybe a fine.
 
ateamer said:
So you’re saying he intentionally crashed into the Cessna?
Click to expand...
I absolutely am. He had a perfectly functional airplane and made the decision to fly at a much higher speed than normal, catch up to the plane in front, and direct his aircraft straight into it.

He had literally the entire sky, and pretty much anywhere else on the ground, available to him - and he decided to hit the Cessna. There were just so, so many deliberate choices he had to make to end up doing what he did. He knew the Cessna was there and he chose to point his plane there anyway, with no reason to do so.

If this was in cars I'd say it would be classed as road rage, assault with a deadly weapon or similar.
 
Last edited:
ateamer said:
So you’re saying he intentionally crashed into the Cessna?
Click to expand...

Katamarino said:
I absolutely am. He had a perfectly functional airplane and made the decision to fly at a much higher speed than normal, catch up to the plane in front, and direct his aircraft straight into it.

He had literally the entire sky, and pretty much anywhere else on the ground, available to him - and he decided to hit the Cessna. There were just so, so many deliberate choices he had to make to end up doing what he did.
Click to expand...

Hanlon's Razor:

Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
Click to expand...
 
I'm not saying it was malice, but it was a very definite choice. Deliberately doing something because you're stupid is still deliberately doing something.
 
ateamer said:
Intent matters. Maybe not on an internet forum, but in court, it absolutely does.
Click to expand...
It does - but the "I didn't mean any harm by it" defence also has to be credible.

I argue that it's not credible that he could have done what he did, and not realised he was going to cause a collision. There was no vaguely credible argument that his actions were in any way necessary, either.

Try crashing your car into someone and then telling a judge you did it because your radio had stopped working.
 
Katamarino said:
I absolutely am. He had a perfectly functional airplane and made the decision to fly at a much higher speed than normal, catch up to the plane in front, and direct his aircraft straight into it.

He had literally the entire sky, and pretty much anywhere else on the ground, available to him - and he decided to hit the Cessna. There were just so, so many deliberate choices he had to make to end up doing what he did. He knew the Cessna was there and he chose to point his plane there anyway, with no reason to do so.

If this was in cars I'd say it would be classed as road rage, assault with a deadly weapon or similar.
Click to expand...
Maybe you’re giving this guy way too much credit for his ability to fly an airplane. If he had that must deliberation and airmanship the incident wouldn’t have happened to begin with. I mean really who would intentionally commit vehicular homicide/suicide or attempted as it were, with no provocation?
 
darthanubis said:
Maybe you’re giving this guy way too much credit for his ability to fly an airplane. If he had that must deliberation and airmanship the incident wouldn’t have happened to begin with. I mean really who would intentionally commit vehicular homicide/suicide or attempted as it were, with no provocation?
Click to expand...
I'm not suggesting he was trying to hurt anyone, but are you suggesting he'd lost control of the aircraft?

I suggest he was in full control of the aircraft, chose to land where he did, and any reasonable person could have predicted that his actions were going to cause a collision.

He might have thought he had to do it, but that doesn't change the fact he chose to do it. A pilot is entitled to do anything necessary to deal with an emergency - nobody can argue that this was even remotely necessary, and therefore he has no justification for what he did.
 
He didn't want to hit the Cessna. You can tell by the way he tried to use his yoke like a steering wheel to steer the airplane to the right. *sigh*
 
Katamarino said:
Try crashing your car into someone and then telling a judge you did it because your radio had stopped working.
Click to expand...
I’ve seen people in court tell the judge that exact thing. The outcome isn’t jail for assault with a deadly weapon. It’s a fine for following too closely or for excessive speed for the conditions. Of course, they were properly charged with a traffic violation instead of a serious felony in the first place, because an investigation had been done by reasonable professionals who didn’t act out of shock or emotion.
 
Last edited:
So I think we're all in agreement this was a total bonehead accident but there might be something to be learned anyway. I'd really like to hear a debrief from the pilot and hear what he was thinking at the time.

One scenario I wonder about and it's hard to tell from the cameras but listening to the ATC recording I'm wondering if this might have played out.
Pilot of the grumman is rattled because of no comms in busy airspace and wants to get down ASAP. He sees the Cessna landing in front of him and thinks he has room.
Meanwhile the Cessna pilot hears someone on the radio call out "Cessna there's a grumman right behind you.... he's going to hit you". Cessna pilot, unable to see anything makes a panic reaction and gets on the brakes, eating up the distance the Grumman thought he had. Doesn't really excuse the decision making here but it would at least make more sense.

It also seems like... at least I can't think of any other explanation here... the grumman pilot must have thought the 'emergency' was more urgent than it really was for some reason.
 
StraightnLevel said:
If the tail# on the panel is correct, here's another recent flight from a few days earlier:

www.flightaware.com

N5450L Flight Tracking and History 11-Dec-2024 (KLVJ - FlightAware

Track N5450L flight from Pearland Rgnl to Houston, TX
www.flightaware.com www.flightaware.com
Click to expand...
If this is his tail and the only airplane he's flying then it's no wonder this happened. In the last two months, records show four flights of duration ranging from 9 min to 24 min ... I'm not counting the ill fated "emergency" flight. How can you maintain proficiency when you're only spending minutes in the air?
 
I know of a young flight student who was returning from a solo practice flight when the alternator warning light came on. The student decided to land in a field rather than continuing on to the airport, even with sufficient battery power to talk to the tower. Treating every electrical problem as a get-down-now emergency isn’t a unique mistake.

But it’s an even more baffling mistake if the plane had electrical shortcomings before takeoff. You should never be surprised in the air by a problem you were having on the ground.
 
Last edited:
Racerx said:
It gets better!

Passenger talked to local news. Told them the plane wouldn't start and it needed to be jumped.

Passenger needs to stfu.

Click to expand...

Ok well, that sure makes the whole excessive panic over electrical failure theory seem a lot less likely.

elvisAteMySandwich said:
If this is his tail and the only airplane he's flying then it's no wonder this happened. In the last two months, records show four flights of duration ranging from 9 min to 24 min ... I'm not counting the ill fated "emergency" flight. How can you maintain proficiency when you're only spending minutes in the air?
Click to expand...
When I do stuff like that it's because I'm having maintenance issues and trying to ferry the airplane around/do test flights.
 
Racerx said:
Passenger talked to local news. Told them the plane wouldn't start and it needed to be jumped.
Click to expand...
Yikes. His passenger is really opening the door to certificate action under 91.13 "careless and reckless operation." Obviously, it is legal to operate in day VFR without an electrical system. However, if you leave the ground knowing you have electrical problems and then demonstrate that you have no idea how to fly a plane without a functional electrical system, that would seem to be "careless and reckless."
 
I can envision the jump start making a difference in the way the FAA handles the enforcement phase.

Has the passenger figured out yet that his friend was not a “skilled pilot” who saved them from disaster, but an incompetent one who almost killed them by creating one?
 
Last edited:
traumamed said:
Yikes. His passenger is really opening the door to certificate action under 91.13 "careless and reckless operation." Obviously, it is legal to operate in day VFR without an electrical system. However, if you leave the ground knowing you have electrical problems and then demonstrate that you have no idea how to fly a plane without a functional electrical system, that would seem to be "careless and reckless."
Click to expand...
Even without it, I don’t think the FAA would have any problem saying that crashing into something while in control of an operating aircraft was careless and reckless.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Even without it, I don’t think the FAA would have any problem saying that crashing into something while in control of an operating aircraft was careless and reckless.
Click to expand...
This is true, but the FAA tends to handle willful negligence differently than "unintentional" negligence. He was probably looking at mandatory remedial training +/- a 709 ride at worst. This changes things in a big way. It opens the doors to a punitive enforcement action.
 
cowman said:
. . . . I'd really like to hear a debrief from the pilot and hear what he was thinking at the time.
Click to expand...
Why? Some have nothing to offer. Would you ask a baseball manager who finished 70 games back and lost by an average of 10 runs per game to breakdown why?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top