5 dead in Bakersfield crash of PA32

Everskyward said:
We do agree. I was disagreeing with the posters who were trying to come up with some mathematical formulas using past statistics, which may or may not have been relevant.
Click to expand...

Look at it this way: Before you shop for a car you try to get some data to avoid buying a make/model that has a reputation for being unreliable. After you buy the car, you don't care about the make/model data any more and worry whether the individual car you just bought is reliable.

Calculating aviation risk is sort of similar.
 
Wow, didn't mean to start a statical nerd war! ;)

Let's just say this: I flew my family, from infants to adulthood, everywhere across the US, year 'round, all VFR.

It was safe, and incident free. You just have to be aware of your limitations, and the limitations of the little planes most of us fly. You also must accept nothing but mechanical perfection with your aircraft.

We continue to fly this way several times each week, although these last five years have been in the more benign weather of the Sunbelt.
:)
 
asicer said:
Look at it this way: Before you shop for a car you try to get some data to avoid buying a make/model that has a reputation for being unreliable. After you buy the car, you don't care about the make/model data any more and worry whether the individual car you just bought is reliable.

Calculating aviation risk is sort of similar.
Click to expand...
No, I don't do any kind of statistical analysis when I'm buying a car, and I don't think of flying that way either. I have some feeling whether something is risky or not but I don't try to quantify it.
 
Clark1961 said:
That's what I asked...who?

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
Click to expand...
I have no idea. Although I have had fuel gauge sending units fail. Which is, of course, a non issue in flight when you measure your fuel usage with a stop watch and fuel flow meter.

I've had all sorts of things fail on airplanes. The important point, and the one that will help keep you alive, is to fix them in a timely fashion, and don't proceed if you suspect you have an issue.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I have no idea. Although I have had fuel gauge sending units fail. Which is, of course, a non issue in flight when you measure your fuel usage with a stop watch and fuel flow meter.

I've had all sorts of things fail on airplanes. The important point, and the one that will help keep you alive, is to fix them in a timely fashion, and don't proceed if you suspect you have an issue.
Click to expand...

Sure, that works for many people.

:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:
 
MAKG1 said:
Don't jump to conclusions. We have no idea if icing was a factor. It might have been, but there are several other possibilities.

The source of that assumption seems to be some unrelated pilot who was hanging around Bakersfield at the time and spoke to reporters. That's not very different from speculating on this board. He wasn't there, and didn't even fly that day. You can't see icing conditions from the ground, especially above multiple cloud layers.

You can't avoid situations if you don't know what they are. For all you know, his elevator might have broken in a nose down position.
Click to expand...

Opinion. Possibility. Educated guess.

Hi, I'm said pilot, and I WAS at the airport that day preflighting my plane when I spoke with arriving traffic. I knew I could probably skate over there, but coming home wasn't going to be possible....

Plus the temps/precip and the big shiny Airmet pretty much put that plan to a stop.

PS..the entire context of my "speculation" wasn't printed obviously, but I do stand by them.

Truly a sad week around here. Finally got up the nerve to get back in the saddle with my 4yr old co-pilot this morning.
 
I like to see where I'm going.

Single engine IFR in a sense is setting yourself up to fail eventually in my humble opinion.

RIP
 
txflyer said:
I like to see where I'm going.

Single engine IFR in a sense is setting yourself up to fail eventually in my humble opinion.

RIP
Click to expand...

That's much of my flying, and without it flying would become nearly useless to me.
In my humble opinion, anytime you get out of bed you set yourself up to fail eventually.
 
Last edited:
txflyer said:
I like to see where I'm going.

Single engine IFR in a sense is setting yourself up to fail eventually in my humble opinion.

RIP
Click to expand...

IFR and IMC are not the same... If you're IMC, you have to be on an IFR flight plan but the reverse is not true, you can be IFR in VMC conditions. Almost all my XC flights are IFR.

Now having said that I wouldn't fly in IMC conditions in the mountains at night in a single engine piston... in that case I'd agree with you.
 
txflyer said:
I like to see where I'm going.

Single engine IFR in a sense is setting yourself up to fail eventually in my humble opinion.

RIP
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how that statement applies to this accident. By all accounts this pilot wasn't even instrument rated and judging by other's accounts of the conditions at the time of the accident, he might very well have been flying in IMC and/or icing conditions.
 
It's all about calculating risks. flying IMC without a rating is a big risk, so is single engine IMC at night in the mounains. Single engine IMC when you are proficient and have carefully examined weather conditions and you have options is riskier than CAVU VFR, but on a totally different scale from what this guy did. Every flight and every drive to the airport has inherent risks. Some choose to mitigate those risks with planning, training, and good decision making. Others not so much.

If you refuse to fly into clouds that's just fine and dandy, but that doesn't mean everyone who does is asking for disaster. this particular guy might have been though.
 
Last edited:
fiveoboy01 said:
By all accounts this pilot wasn't even instrument rated
Click to expand...

All accounts? The sole information I've seen is that the FAA's database does not currently assert he was instrument-rated (but of course it does not assert that he wasn't). Are there other accounts of his rating status that I've missed?

and judging by other[s'] accounts of the conditions at the time of the accident, he might very well have been flying in IMC and/or icing conditions.
Click to expand...

Very likely. He certainly accepted an IFR clearance.
 
Last edited:
Ok, the ONE account, Mr Nitpicky.

It was a play on words, not an absolute statement of fact.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Ok, the ONE account, Mr Nitpicky.

It was a play on words, not an absolute statement of fact.
Click to expand...

Even that one account does not say he didn't have an instrument rating; it doesn't say either way. Perhaps he didn't, but since he's no longer around to defend himself, we shouldn't overstate the evidence of malfeasance.
 
My post was more of a rebuttal to the assertion that "single engine IMC is asking for trouble", but I was not able to state it as eloquently as Dallas did.

In any case it doesn't much matter if he had one or not now. NTSB will tell the tale.
 
Growing up on a farm has given me a deep mistrust of machines. Especially machines that are decades old.

The single engine IMC debate won't be settled here.

I choose to see it that if anything even minor goes wrong in IMC, with one fan, one pump, one of everything, you can be in over your head pronto.
 
Challenged said:
Man, pretty horrible all around. I couldn't help but notice this comment on the mercurynews site: "The plane was almost 40 years old, definitely on its last legs. No I wouldn't drive a 40 year old car to Gilroy much less Las Vegas. Imprudent action on the part of the pilot."
Click to expand...

"The plane was almost 40 years old." So what! Mine is 45 years old; last time I checked this Link it was still in Freeport, Grand Bahamas for a few days before coming back to her Maine base.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N7872G

HR
 
acrophile said:
All accounts? The sole information I've seen is that the FAA's database does not currently assert he was instrument-rated (but of course it does not assert that he wasn't). Are there other accounts of his rating status that I've missed?



Very likely. He certainly accepted an IFR clearance.
Click to expand...

If the database doesn't show the rating he either doesn't (didn't) have it, or he just recently got it. This was already said in this thread. If he didn't have it we all know the problem. If he just got it he likely had little or no experience in actual IMC which makes the problem almost as bad. Either way it's not a good situation.
 
Our non-turbine GA singles are easily overmatched by weather - and physics. We lack manuverabilty in the vertical plane - we can't go up (or down) very fast. Not much tolerance for postive G's, and almost none for negative G's. We can't haul (or shed) much ice, our autopilots are sketchy in rough turbulence, and our systems redundancy is very, very limited. When in IMC, our envelope is narrow and unforgiving.

I refrain from having pax with me in prolonged, "hard" IMC. Maybe in warm stratus, with room beneath, or above. But I'm aware that every foray into real IMC is life threatening, and intuitivley much more so than driving to work. Or sky diving. You don't have to mess up much, or even a little, to get killed doing this.
 
StinkBug said:
If the database doesn't show the rating he either doesn't (didn't) have it, or he just recently got it. This was already said in this thread.
Click to expand...

Yes, but the post I was responding to stated falsely that by all accounts, the pilot simply did not have the rating. No accounts have yet said that.

If he just got it he likely had little or no experience in actual IMC
Click to expand...

I agree it's possible, given what little we know so far. But what makes it likely? Is there information to show that most pilots in his part of the country get little or no IMC experience during their instrument training? And even if so, it does not follow that most recently-rated pilots making a flight such as that, with their family aboard, have little or no IMC experience.

Many pilots reach their peak proficiency at the time of their checkride.
 
Last edited:
Virtually everyone local gets some IMC experience when training over the summer. It's hard to avoid.

I know people want to blame the pilot for this, but for all we know, he had a heart attack. We know he had weather ahead, but we do NOT know he was in IMC at the time.

Let those with actual information do the investigation.
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Virtually everyone local gets some IMC experience when training over the summer. It's hard to avoid.

I know people want to blame the pilot for this, but for all we know, he had a heart attack. We know he had weather ahead, but we do NOT know he was in IMC at the time.

Let those with actual information do the investigation.
Click to expand...

I tend to find this line of reasoning rude and condescending. It unnecessarily assumes that the readers and posters on this type of thread are not capable of changing their minds when presented with better evidence.

Admittedly, some people can obnoxiously jump to conclusions, at the same time some people can vaingloriously refuse to evaluate obvious evidence out of a desire to appear self-righteous, not saying that is is anyone in particular, but my belief is that probably most people would prefer to NOT blame the pilot; however, where the evidence goes it goes.

For example saying "for all we know he had a heart attack" is actually something the evidence tends to contradict, we do know (although I have not listened to the tapes because they are reputed to be garish) that there was a pilot calling mayday mayday. Keeping an open mind is NOT the same thing as letting every piece of information that comes into your ears fall out the other one.
 
gov98 said:
saying "for all we know he had a heart attack" is actually something the evidence tends to contradict[;] we do know [...] that there was a pilot calling mayday mayday.
Click to expand...

The pilot didn't specify the reason for the Mayday call, so I don't see how the call provides evidence for or against a heart attack (or lots of other theories).

I myself think informed speculation about the cause of a crash can be useful, but It becomes irresponsible when blame-the-dead-pilot guesses are stated with more certainty or likelihood than the evidence so far warrants.
 
Last edited:
The pilot didn't specify the reason for the Mayday call, so I don't see how the call provides evidence for or against a heart attack (or lots of other theories).

... Well, I can explain. It's not conclusive, but it is suggestive. For example my foundational assumptions are, PA32R, copilot yokes and copilot Push to talk, as a result, mayday mayday coupled with a fairly quickly followed dive of some nature seems inconsistent with pilot incapacitation, where given foundational assumptions the person in the co-pilot's seat (inferentially oldest son or wife) would be able to a. hold the plane straight and level and communicate the information of a pilot incapacitation to ATC. Now, could be wrong, but with my foundational assumptions the information tends to move me to reduce the overall likelihood that "pilot incapacitation" was the cause of the crash.

I myself think informed speculation about the cause of a crash can be useful, but It becomes irresponsible when blame-the-dead-pilot guesses are stated with more certainty or likelihood than the evidence so far warrants.

I can agree with that.
 
gov98 said:
I tend to find this line of reasoning rude and condescending. ...

...some people can obnoxiously jump to conclusions, ...

...some people can vaingloriously refuse to evaluate obvious evidence...

...out of a desire to appear self-righteous, ...
Click to expand...

Lots of other thin-skinned folks around here, so you're in good company. They just HAVE to let you know how offended they are at a different opinion too. What I don't understand is "why". In another thread someone compared POA to a boys locker-room, which I think is accurate and immediately raises suspicions about the women hanging around in here, btw. Yet, I never see the easily offended proclaim their offense at such juvenile ribald "humor" (note quotes). That doesn't offend, only being intellectually trumped (pardon the expression) does. Curious.

gov98 said:
...my belief is that probably most people would prefer to NOT blame the pilot;
Click to expand...

In my (considerable) experience, non-pilots don't want to blame the pilot, but pilots crowd around the smoking hole and pour gasoline on the poor soul's reputation.

dtuuri
 
Last edited:
gov98 said:
the person in the co-pilot's seat (inferentially oldest son or wife) would be able to a. hold the plane straight and level and communicate the information of a pilot incapacitation to ATC.
Click to expand...

Even if they were in IMC, a passenger would have been able to keep the plane level, and simultaneously communicate with ATC, likely having done neither ever before, and while panicking in an emergency? Sorry, that strikes me as far-fetched.
 
MAKG1 said:
Virtually everyone local gets some IMC experience when training over the summer. It's hard to avoid.

I know people want to blame the pilot for this, but for all we know, he had a heart attack. We know he had weather ahead, but we do NOT know he was in IMC at the time.

Let those with actual information do the investigation.
Click to expand...

Maybe you only say this because he was a fellow Civil Air Patrol pilot:dunno:..:rolleyes:
 
acrophile said:
Even if they were in IMC, a passenger would have been able to keep the plane level, and simultaneously communicate with ATC, likely having done neither ever before, and while panicking in an emergency? Sorry, that strikes me as far-fetched.
Click to expand...

Well I agree that'd it'd be pretty much impossible in IMC, but the whole crux is if they flew into IMC underprepared. That would seem like the major factor in the incident but what do I know.

The other thing is ... If in VMC I'm taking regular cross-countries with my family and my family is going to be completely incapable to even keep the plane level for 5 minutes if I get incapacitated ... Then I need to think twice about preparedness to fly said family cross country.
 
gov98 said:
Well I agree that'd it'd be pretty much impossible in IMC, but the whole crux is if they flew into IMC underprepared. That would seem like the major factor in the incident but what do I know.

The other thing is ... If in VMC I'm taking regular cross-countries with my family and my family is going to be completely incapable to even keep the plane level for 5 minutes if I get incapacitated ... Then I need to think twice about preparedness to fly said family cross country.
Click to expand...

What does that mean? BRS or go home?
 
hindsight2020 said:
What does that mean? BRS or go home?
Click to expand...

It means that my wife has done a pinch hitter course moreover even before the course on the first flight with my family I showed her how to use the yoke and contact atc and that 121.5 was for emergencies.
 
gov98 said:
Well I agree that'd it'd be pretty much impossible in IMC, but the whole crux is if they flew into IMC underprepared.
Click to expand...

Right, but what if they flew into IMC well-prepared, and the pilot then had a heart attack?

No one has suggested that's the most likely scenario. Rather, the post you criticized merely said "For all we know...", which is a very low bar to clear.
 
acrophile said:
Right, but what if they flew into IMC well-prepared, and the pilot then had a heart attack?

No one has suggested that's the most likely scenario. Rather, the post you criticized merely said "For all we know...", which is a very low bar to clear.
Click to expand...

What if the military was doing rocket exercises and one of them struck the plane and the government has engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover it up so they don't have to pay litigation and compensation damages. There's as much evidence of that as there is of the heart attack conjecture.

Flying a turbo at 17500 east asking about tops to avoid clouds... Hmm is there anything that happens at 18000 ft oh wait excuse me FL180 that might shed any light on anything...if only I could figure this puzzle out.

The point is however is someone did say "for all we know" I reject the assertion that "we" know as little as that poster suggested, in fact "I" actually feel as though I know a number of the facts associated with the situation... Do I "know" everything? No... Do I know enough to say that I conclude based upon the current state of evidence :Not pilot incapacitation: yes yes "I" do.

And I reject the associated assertion that to form opinions based upon the current state of the evidence is a. Not letting the investigators do their jobs or b. An unwarranted jump to conclusions.
 
gov98 said:
What if the military was doing rocket exercises and one of them struck the plane and the government has engaged in a massive conspiracy to cover it up so they don't have to pay litigation and compensation damages. There's as much evidence of that as there is of the heart attack conjecture.

Flying a turbo at 17500 east asking about tops to avoid clouds... Hmm is there anything that happens at 18000 ft oh wait excuse me FL180 that might shed any light on anything...if only I could figure this puzzle out.

The point is however is someone did say "for all we know" I reject the assertion that "we" know as little as that poster suggested, in fact "I" actually feel as though I know a number of the facts associated with the situation... Do I "know" everything? No... Do I know enough to say that I conclude based upon the current state of evidence :Not pilot incapacitation: yes yes "I" do.

And I reject the associated assertion that to form opinions based upon the current state of the evidence is a. Not letting the investigators do their jobs or b. An unwarranted jump to conclusions.
Click to expand...

Oh Great... Now we are converging on the TWA 800 fiasco....:redface:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top