5 dead in Bakersfield crash of PA32

[fiveoboy01]

A reminder: be respectful. This may have been totally preventable, but none of the victims deserved that.

Respectful towards the victims yes.. but we should be scathingly harsh towards the pilot, if nothing else to hopefully prevent someone else from making the same mistake. Lots of these types of accidents on file, and yet pilots keep flying into IMC and killing themselves and their helpless passengers.. whilst furthering the notion that GA is dangerous and light aircraft should be avoided.

I'm not sure which one makes me more angry. This one or the guy that killed himself and 3 others in the Cirrus in northern IL.

 

[PPC1052]

Boy, you just bust my bubble good. I was thinking of that study when I entered legal VFR conditions that might as well have been IFR (mist and water with better than 5 miles of visibility and a ceiling higher than five thousand feet). I managed to keep the shiny side up for a good ten minutes until I recovered the horizon, and thought I was some sort of superman for not auguring in after 30 seconds. Silly me.

Yeah, I some times wonder if we don't tip the scale too far in terms of the risk associated with inadvertent IMC. Granted, it is to be avoided in our decision making. And we should drill this into pilot's heads. But do we make it sound like such a death sentence that merely entering it causes pilots to panic and not safely extract themselves? I don't know, but I wonder about this sometimes.

 

[acrophile]

Respectful towards the victims yes.. but we should be scathingly harsh towards the pilot, if nothing else to hopefully prevent someone else from making the same mistake.

Right, because if the lives of a pilot's family are not enough to deter reckless decision-making, then the fear of scathing posthumous denunciations on PoA will surely do the trick.

 

[PPC1052]

4 out of 5 didn't deserve it, the 5th ...

didn't deserve it either.

But deserve has nothing to do with it.

 

[fiveoboy01]

Right, because if the lives of a pilot's family are not enough to deter reckless decision-making, then the fear of scathing posthumous denunciations on PoA will surely do the trick.

Peer pressure is a very powerful thing.

 

[petrolero]

What accounts for the in-flight breakup and shredded cabin?

• It reads as though the engine departed the airframe first. First, is that correct? Second, if so, can ice imblance cause that? Other reason?
• Was he hand-flying and ended up in a classic tightening spiral and overstressed the airplane? That usually causes tail separation, no? Perhaps the engine departed due to forces resulting from tail separation?
• But he was able to make a mayday call so that implies something a bit more gradual perhaps.
• Maybe he was accumulating ice and suddenly the ap kicked off and handed him an uncontrollable airplane which he then failed to control and the breakup of all components as due to forces arising from that - and the engine only landed first because it is the most massive component? But then, while it is more massive, it also carries much more momentum than the aero surfaces and might continue down range farther.

In any case...


The pilot was reckless. How many times previously had he filed an IFR fpl? Filing an IFR flight plan (edited to add: before departure) indicates a willingness to enter IMC rather than turn around. Had he previously received an IFR clearance? Had he previously entered IMC? They'll be able to investigate some of this.

 

[gov98]

I suspect people are misreading the filing of an ifr flight plan. I think it just means he filed an in-flight flight plan when in contact with atc. I doubt he filed an ifr flight plan on the ground seems inconsistent with the vfr flight up to the instrument conditions. Just my read. Also reads like the pilot's fault just saying. And a lot of people saw that back when this story was a lot fresher. Also there are only 4 victims. There is one perpetrator.

 

[petrolero]

I suspect people are misreading the filing of an ifr flight plan. I think it just means he filed an in-flight flight plan when in contact with atc. I doubt he filed an ifr flight plan on the ground seems inconsistent with the vfr flight up to the instrument conditions. Just my read. Also reads like the pilot's fault just saying. And a lot of people saw that back when this story was a lot fresher. Also there are only 4 victims. There is one perpetrator.

That's a great point. Thanks for pointing that out. They could have clarified that in the prelim.

 

[Tampico Trauma]

He accepted an IFR clearance to HND in the air.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MAKG1]

That's a great point. Thanks for pointing that out. They could have clarified that in the prelim.

The prelim said in as many words that he departed under VFR flight following.

I think a few people need to read more carefully.

 

[fiveoboy01]

The prelim said in as many words that he departed under VFR flight following.

I think a few people need to read more carefully.

Yep. Nothing in the report gave me the idea that he was on an IFR flight plan until he took a clearance in the air.

 

[MAKG1]

Peer pressure is a very powerful thing.

On a message board?

You're kidding, right?

The pilot deserved a tongue lashing, probably a 44709 ride, maybe an emergency revocation. Not death. Be respectful. He had friends and family, and no one but a grade A Internet ***hole would wish him dead.

 

[petrolero]

The prelim said in as many words that he departed under VFR flight following.

I think a few people need to read more carefully.

Yes. Like yourself.

I know he departed VFR. I even referenced that fact in my post above.

I'm referring to the point that the prelim did not state when the flight plan was filed. Many of us assumed that it was filed before he departed but didn't consider that the fpl in reference could refer to the one that would have to have been filed by controller at the time s/he issued the clearance.

You do know that it is possible to file an IFR flight plan and still depart VFR, right?

 

[dell30rb]

Not sure which is worse, this or the guy who flew after doing cocaine?

The pilot held a private pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land issued in July 2012. He did not hold an instrument rating.

The pilot responded, "Ok, we're going to deviate to the south and try and go through Barstow." Another airplane then reported cloud tops in the Palmdale area of about 21,000 ft and the controller reiterated this information to N36402, advising that it was in the direction that he was heading. The pilot responded, and the controller then provided another weather update, which indicated areas of moderate precipitation at the 11 to 2 o'clock position.

At 1550, the controller asked if the pilot would like to file an IFR clearance to Henderson. The pilot responded in the affirmative, requesting an altitude of 15,000 ft. Two minutes later the airplane began a left turn to the north, and a short time later the controller advised he was ready with the IFR clearance. The controller provided the clearance, and the pilot read it back; however, the airplane had now transitioned to a northeast track. The controller asked if the pilot was turning northbound, and the pilot stated, "Roger, I just took a heading off of Bakersfield and I'm going to change it to the current IFR."


The airplane had fragmented in flight, with the majority of the components coming to rest in an almond orchard, directly below the last radar target, about 9 miles southwest of Bakersfield.

 

[fiveoboy01]

On a message board?

You're kidding, right?

The pilot deserved a tongue lashing, probably a 44709 ride, maybe an emergency revocation. Not death. Be respectful. He had friends and family, and no one but a grade A Internet ***hole would wish him dead.

The point is that hopefully someone, even maybe just one, will learn from his mistakes. He's dead, and can't care whether my comments are precepted as respectful or not.

I agree that an ******* would wish him dead. Good thing I didn't.

 

[TheGolfPilot]

Has anybody else noticed that this guy was flying in the suppl. oxygen altitudes. With 4 passengers in visible moisture!
Also he lives near San Jose Intl. Tons of Direct commercial flights.
The fact that he filed IFR suggests he knew conditions were marginal. He probably knew very little about icing. Most pilots don't grasp a good understanding about icing until AFTER they get their IR rating. Above 12k, non FIKI, visible moisture.
The more I read about this flight the more negligent I realize the pilot was.

 

[acrophile]

I doubt he filed an ifr flight plan on the ground seems inconsistent with the vfr flight up to the instrument conditions.

I often file both an IFR plan and a VFR plan in marginal weather, and then take off with VFR flight following if the weather permits. (Unlike the accident pilot, though, I have an instrument rating.)

 

[ahkahn]

He did not have an instrument rating. Check the airmen database as well as the NTSB report. Get-there-itis at it's worst. He kept pressing on even as conditions worsened.

 

[acrophile]

He did not have an instrument rating. Check the airmen database as well as the NTSB report.

We know. We've been discussing that here ever since the NTSB report came out this morning.

 

[acrophile]

The prelim said in as many words that he departed under VFR flight following.

I think a few people need to read more carefully.

No one here suggested that he took off under IFR. You can file an IFR plan and take off under VFR. I often do that.

 

[ahkahn]

Excuse me. I thought I saw several posts indicating speculation that he filed IFR prior to takeoff. Perhaps I misunderstood.

 

[acrophile]

I thought I saw several posts indicating speculation that he filed IFR prior to takeoff. Perhaps I misunderstood.

No, that's how I interpret the NTSB report. My point is that you can file IFR before takeoff and then take off under VFR (with or without flight following), as I myself often do. No one has suggested that this pilot didn't take off under VFR.

 

[ahkahn]

No, that's how I interpret the NTSB report. My point is that you can file IFR before takeoff and then take off under VFR (with or without flight following), as I myself often do. No one has suggested that this pilot didn't take off under VFR.

You can't file an IFR flight plan without an instrument rating......

 

[acrophile]

You can't file an IFR flight plan without an instrument rating.

There's no regulation saying that (although the FAA may interpret filing as demonstrating an intent to fly IFR, which would be illegal without the rating).

But the legality of filing an IFR flight plan doesn't bear on the question under discussion here, which is whether the pilot's taking off under VFR is somehow inconsistent with his having first filed an IFR plan for the flight (it's not).

 

[gov98]

You can't file an IFR flight plan without an instrument rating......

You can't <i>legally</i> file an IFR flight plan without an instrument rating. (Except of course if say your CFII is onboard). But people can do illegal things.

 

[ahkahn]

There's no regulation saying that (although the FAA may interpret filing as demonstrating an intent to fly IFR, which would be illegal without the rating).

But the legality of filing an IFR flight plan doesn't bear on the question under discussion here, which is whether the pilot's taking off under VFR is somehow inconsistent with his having first filed an IFR plan for the flight (it's not).

Ugh... Ok, so is there a statistic out there that measures how many VFR-only pilots file IFR flight plans just to fly VFR???

Bottom line is that the guy didn't file an IFR flight plan prior to flight. That's why the controller offered him a clearance to get through it. He broke the regs when he accepted that clearance... but probably did because he thought he could get through it and move on without further question.

 

[acrophile]

Bottom line is that the guy didn't file an IFR flight plan prior to flight. That's why the controller offered him a clearance to get through it.

You seem to be confused about the distinction between filing an IFR plan and accepting an IFR clearance.

We know the pilot did not accept an IFR clearance before taking off. Contrary to your assertion, we do not know that he did not file an IFR plan before taking off.

If he did so, it was presumably for the same reason that I, and many other instrument pilots, file IFR plans before taking off under VFR.

In his case, though, it would show an intent to fly illegally in IMC if IMC turned out to prevail. But we already know he was inclined to do that, because in fact he did.

 

[RotorDude]

Ugh... Ok, so is there a statistic out there that measures how many VFR-only pilots file IFR flight plans just to fly VFR???

Bottom line is that the guy didn't file an IFR flight plan prior to flight. That's why the controller offered him a clearance to get through it. He broke the regs when he accepted that clearance... but probably did because he thought he could get through it and move on without further question.

He did, read the NTSB report. He departed under VFR FF. He later accepted an IFR clearance, despite not being instrument rated.

 

[RotorDude]

You can't <i>legally</i> file an IFR flight plan without an instrument rating. (Except of course if say your CFII is onboard). But people can do illegal things.

It would be illegal for you (assuming you are not instrument rated) to file under your name even with a CFII on board. The name on the IFR flight plan must be the PIC's.

 

[acrophile]

It would be illegal for you to file under your name even with a CFII on board. The name on the IFR flight plan must be the PIC's.

What makes you think that? Can you cite any regulation, or even letter of interpretation?

I have often, when not current or even before I got my rating, filed IFR and noted in the remarks section that the PIC would be my CFII.

 

[Kritchlow]

Looks like you need to be rated to file...
http://www.askacfi.com/14411/can-i-file-an-ifr-flight-plan.htm

I see Mark chimed n there.... That indeed is tricky.

Point is does it matter? He accepted the clearance.

 

[N801BH]

It would be illegal for you (assuming you are not instrument rated) to file under your name even with a CFII on board. The name on the IFR flight plan must be the PIC's.

really ??

How do the thousands of airline flights not list the PIC on their IFR flight plans?...

 

[acrophile]

Looks like you need to be rated to file...
http://www.askacfi.com/14411/can-i-file-an-ifr-flight-plan.htm

Actually, the source you link to says just the opposite.

 

[Kritchlow]

Actually, the source you link to says just the opposite.

I did edit my post a bit... That said, it's all a technicality. If he accepted the clearance all else has no bearing.

 

[RotorDude]

really ??

How do the thousands of airline flights not list the PIC on their IFR flight plans?...

I was referring to part 91. Not sure what the regs are for 121.
For part 91, see 91.153 and 91.169, where it specifically says the name on the flight plan must be the PIC.

 

[N801BH]

I was referring to part 91. Not sure what the regs are for 121.
For part 91, see 91.153 and 91.169, where it specifically says the name on the flight plan must be the PIC.

 

[acrophile]

I did edit my post a bit... That said, it's all a technicality. If he accepted the clearance all else has no bearing.

It has some bearing. If his IFR flying was premeditated (as would be strongly suggested if he filed IFR before takeoff, even though the takeoff was not IFR), then it's an even more egregious level of recklessness than if he did it in a moment of spontaneous bad judgement.

In general, most offenses are considered extra-culpable if premeditated, and rightly so.

 

[acrophile]

For part 91, see 91.153 and 91.169, where it specifically says the name on the flight plan must be the PIC.

You have to include the PIC's name when you file, but you don't have to be the PIC.

 

[RotorDude]

What makes you think that? Can you cite any regulation, or even letter of interpretation?

I have often, when not current or even before I got my rating, filed IFR and noted in the remarks section that the PIC would be my CFII.

Too late to yank your ticket now but you were wrong, as was your CFII for condoning that practice. See 91.169 and 91.153.
When I was training for my IR, I often filed the flight plan, but I would give my CFII's name as PIC, per his request. (And much of our flying was IMC.)

 

[Kritchlow]

When is the final report due? I will wait until then to pass judgement.