5 related adults dead in Cessna 340 crash

[Velocity173]

I see your point and agree. However, my position, and I don’t think it’s an unreasonable one, is that departing 0/0 or very, very low IFR with four other people on board who have put heir lives in your hands, all to go to lunch, is an unreasonable risk to take given that if something goes wrong in the first minute or so, it’s goodnight Irene for everyone on board. If this had happened to a medivac crew taking a heart attack victim to the hospital, hey, I get it. I get taking that risk. I don’t get taking this one.

And one thing that hasn’t been discussed - do you think his passengers were fully informed of the risks being taken with their lives? I doubt it.

Well we talk about risk and not having to be anywhere but the fact is, we never have to be anywhere. Ever driven on icy roads just to go out to the store? You don’t have to make the trip but you do it because of the confidence in your vehicle and your ability to handle said vehicle. That’s a personal risk assessment that you conduct just as I would hope is this case, the PIC conducted.

Whether it’s EMS or flying loved ones private Part 91, we should use the same type of decision making. When I make a decision to pick up a patient, it’s the same weather decision making if I were to ferry the helicopter. Its a decision void of emotion that is based on regulations and my own personal ability to pull the flight off. Sounds cold, but it doesn’t do anyone any good if I launch in less than company / FAR WX mins and can’t reach the patient because I went IIMC. Also, you’d be surprised at how the culture has changed in EMS. The “rescue ranger” mentality used to be common. Now, probably because of accidents, that mentality is discouraged and could very well result in dismissal. As I say, it ain’t the 1980s/90s EMS culture anymore.

As far as briefing risk to a passenger, there’s no standardized PAX briefing whether it be 91,135, or 121 that addresses briefing risk. Crew members, yes, passengers, no. Now, SHOULD we tell them? I personally don’t see the need to. No point in telling a passenger about an elevated risk that shouldn’t result in an accident. As I said earlier, I’ve done plenty of true 0/0 takeoffs in the desert at night, even with high ranking officials on board. No point in telling a general that I’m about to lose all visual references for several seconds but to assure him that everything will be all right. Most likely he’s aware of the increased risk, most likely he knows I’ve done it many times before and most likely he knows that I can NEVER assure his safety.

This whole thing really boils down to acceptable risk. I don’t automatically assume this pilot was taking an unacceptable risk. I assume he had experience in the operation and was flying at that time because they had a schedule to keep. He’s not departing with icing on the aircraft and as far as we know, no mechanical issue that would ground the aircraft. As of right now we know nothing other than an aircraft and lives are lost departing into low vis. Without any documentation to the pilots experience, no audio, no video and no pilot eyewitnesses I try not to pass judgment on the pilot in question.

 

[mryan75]

No

Just have my 4th amendment rights crapped on with those nazi "saftey" and "DUI" checkpoints.

Right. Whenever the term Nazi comes up in a context like this, I know I’m dealing with a very reasonable person.

 

[mryan75]

That's what I was taught. But I don't do that very often any more. Once I have positive climb I will only delay raising the gear if it's good VMC and I happen to be on a very long runway. The reasoning is identical to @Radar Contact post #156.

Ending up with a functioning aircraft or "saving the props & engines" just does not (should not!) factor into any of my decision making. My attitude is the moment there's a problem that puts the aircraft at risk, the insurance company has made a binding offer to buy it. Saving the human contents is the only thing that counts. If the best choices to do that in a specific circumstance leave the airplane unscathed, so be it. I go through an audible exercise of talking myself through what I am going to do in the event of a, b or c just before taking the runway on every take-off; even when I am solo (yes, I talk to myself ) to reinforce that.

There are no end of examples of airplanes in difficulty, low to the ground that ended badly after stalling or similar. I've always suspected "trying to save the airplane" instead of putting it down wings level, under control, factored into some of those.

We had a double fatal at our airport in October. Not yet known exactly what happened but appears they had difficulty climbing out and instead of putting it down in the harvested field they were over, they appear to have stalled it at very low altitude and went nose down into it right in line with the departure runway instead.

Superb answer. Thank you for this one!

 

[mryan75]

So what would be your objective measure of "fully informed" in the context of getting into someone else's private conveyance - whether that be an airplane, an automobile, a boat, a motorcycle, or whatever?

How would I know that I have fully informed a potential passenger? Would that entail describing every possible thing that could go wrong and how that might harm them?

It's unlikely this was the first time his daughters were in a plane piloted by their father. Is there any amount of information that would have resulted in them declining to board?

People know the risks in a car. In a plane, not so much. This may not have been the first time they’ve flown with their father. Was it the first time they’d flown with him in these conditions? Did he do it with them aboard all the time and never tell them that if they lose an engine at rotation they could very easily die? Who knows. We don’t know the answers. And we can play word games with “fully,” but I try to give my passengers as complete a picture of the risks involved in what we’re doing as I can. Then again I don’t take people on flights other than severe clear and good flying conditions.

But I think in a situation like this, the pasesengers had a right to know the risks involved. I think it’s not very likely that they had any clue.

 

[mryan75]

I'd be willing to bet the pilot didn't consider his situation to be hopeless if something went wrong. I'm all for talking through various scenarios and levels of risk that people consider to be acceptable or unacceptable, but I simply don't feel we have enough information about this guy's proficiency to come down on his ADM in this particular case. Is it higher risk? Of course. Was it dangerous or negligent? I just don't know.

I agree. I also don’t know much about the performance characteristics of this plane. With five aboard and a couple hours of fuel, can it climb out safely with one feathered? Then again, I think about trying to secure a failed engine in the moment at or just after takeoff in 0/0, and doing so without losing control could be a very real issue no matter what the performance capabilities of the aircraft.

To repeat myself, if this were a medivac flight or something of similar importance, I could basically ignore the risk profile this flight presented. But to take the chance he did for lunch, with four peoples’ lives on the line, I just can’t see a rationale for it.

However you choose to assess the odds of success for the takeoff and initial climb, those odds improved infinitely about two hours after this flight crashed. It’s just not worth it in my eyes.

 

[Tantalum]

Why? People don’t have a right to know the risks they are facing just because you’re the PIC? That’s just a bizarre argument.

People have a right to know, of course.. there are reasonable limits to this though when a subject matter expert is dealing with a non subject matter expert. Plus, when someone agrees to go flying with you there's a reasonable assumption they are making that you're safe and not taking any undue risks. If the pilot has to brief his passengers "I don't think we'll make it" or "I'm really playing with fire on this one, if we lose an engine and I forget how to fly a twin on one engine we have a higher chance of dying because of the fog" then he shouldn't be flying period

When a commercial jet elects to make a departure at the tail end of a deice holdover time to avoid falling more late I don't think it's common for them to come on the intercom "hi, uh, folks, from the flight deck. Looks like our wings are going to start icing up in the 3 minutes. We're next for takeoff and think we'll be able to make it off the runway in time but there's a risk we may pick up some ice and subsequently crash and die".. or worse, can't they depart after HOT if they visually check the plane? That sounds even sketchier

PS, this guy got his license in 1965, I highly doubt this was the first time his family ever sat in a plane with him.. it's safe to assume aviation was a big part of their life so it's reasonable to assume as well that they were at least somewhat aware of what they're getting into. I know my wife is no stranger to it. Who knows, maybe they thought taking off in, and flying in the clouds would be cool and look forward to it? I know my first real low ceiling departure into IMC (as a student) I thought it was the coolest thing

This stuff can be done safely. We simply don't know yet what caused the crash and their deaths. Obviously if they knew they were going to die they would not have gone

I have to agree with many of the others that this was not by itself an unnecessarily risky departure.

**As an aside, statistically it would be interesting to see if there's a difference in people's opinion's on this depending on their rating level

 

[mryan75]

The missing thought here is that in that specific aircraft under specific loading conditions (and five on board is probably there, not knowing the size of his passengers or his fuel load), it’s “goodnight Irene” even in CAVU conditions if certain things happen below a safe return altitude on one engine. Even at sea level.

FAA made that decision about light twins long long ago. The pilot can do things to remove that risk, but VFR/IFR conditions only add to the complication level or add additional risk if the risk isn’t already “100% through the fence crash if the engine quits below X”.

We have no insights to the pilot’s ADM in the matter. Or his performance with what he had available to him. Yet. His ADM may very well have included that an engine failure on takeoff would mean a very bad day. It may have included knowing he couldn’t climb on a single engine. He may have simply not maintained directional control in an aircraft likely outfitted with multiple instruments capable of giving directional information.

*** He may have had a completely different non-survivable failure in ANY weather conditions. ***

May not have mattered at all that he made a decision not to have an “out” to land for a ways. He was operating a twin after all, and not a Part 23 twin.

We simply don’t know yet. We even now have someone who’s posted that local RVRs were 1000+. That’s not 0/0 and many people do purchase twins and operate them in such conditions because they’re twins.

One twin owner here has shared in the past that he completely rewrote the performance tables for his twin such that he modifies instrument procedures to remove climb out risk on missed approaches by limiting the missed altitude to the higher of either the approach plate OR his climb performance table.

Nothing wrong with that. Good ADM even, if you ask me, but not required or regularly done. Most training flights here in summertime in most non-turbo twins, even lightly loaded, are a guaranteed crash from altitude X to altitude Y. Pilot gets to fill in the blanks and take their chances. In the aircraft I trained on, the gear takes 13 seconds to transit.

One can build numbers to show the altitudes from which a hard landing and a crash through the fence off the end of the runway is guaranteed and above that altitude the gear can be fully retracted )assuming the remaining engine is producing full power and the failed engine is feathered... ) without hitting the ground.

Whether this pilot ran his numbers or knew them, and accounted for them, or flew the aircraft appropriately to maximize the time not in that risk state in the departure profile, is completely unknown. Weather only complicates or, but the risk is still “100% crash” for a few seconds.

Whether pilots fall into the trap of thinking two engines is “safer” or aren’t trained that their twin has this limitation, is pretty far fetched by the time you’re flying what he was flying.

His ADM may very well have been “This is a guaranteed risk of crash that I’ve been willing to accept in this aircraft before.” Sucks, but we all can’t afford Part 23 certified twins.

If he thought he couldn’t handle a failure and keep the wings level and the runway below him, yeah... no-go. For me personally? Also no-go for the weather and workload. But it’s literally left up to his judgement as PIC in that aircraft knowing it has at least a small portion of the takeoff where a crash or hard landing is not just possible, it’s guaranteed. 100% risk.

FAA is fine with this. It’s the PICs call. If they choose to stuff the airplane full, the aircraft is not certified to climb. This is covered and repeatedly re-covered in multi training. Welcome to light twins, 101.

Without his logbook it’s pure speculation as to whether or not he made the ADM call that a problem on departure was a “100% crash” scenario. Or whether he felt he had no problem with the low ceiling.

All the discussion about whether or not the passengers given all the information about the flight would get off? Most passengers in light twins would get off if told of the reality of takeoff failures. Like I said, FAA approved that decision as part of the nature of these aircraft the day they slapped a certification on them.

The insurance companies don’t like it. They add a lot of things the FAA doesn’t require to most twin policies for twins that size, and even made FAA change the solo requirements for multis such that an insurable pilot (the instructor) can be on board pretending not to be there, while the student “solos” in their long XC. Obviously the FAA wanted true solo, and the insurers said no, we won’t insure that aircraft flown solo with a non PIC rated pilot.

No doubt flying that aircraft in low IFR is a challenge. No doubt that airplane has limitations built into its design that make it no better and maybe worse than a single from liftoff to a certain altitude. All stipulated.

The problem is in the assumption that the pilot didn’t know these things. I suspect he did. I suspect he’s accepted that risk before. With passengers on board. It’s built into the nature of light twins.

Very few multi pilots are going to brief their passengers that a loss of thrust on one engine below Y altitude, is a guaranteed ride through the fence and into whatever obstacles are behind it, and that’s the best option vs a Vmc roll a mile away.

I hate to hog up so much space with seemingly pointless replies, but thank you. I still think this was a bad choice, but I truly enjoy and appreciate listening to much more experienced pilots than myself taking the time to give me their thoughts. I’ve learned quite a bit from this thread. Very interesting reading and a lot to chew on.

 

[kayoh190]

I agree. I also don’t know much about the performance characteristics of this plane. With five aboard and a couple hours of fuel, can it climb out safely with one feathered? Then again, I think about trying to secure a failed engine in the moment at or just after takeoff in 0/0, and doing so without losing control could be a very real issue no matter what the performance capabilities of the aircraft.

It's been a long time, but I have a few hundred hours in the 340. If I remember correctly, the book numbers gave me about 400fpm at gross weight at sea level and standard temp. Feathering the prop and getting clean was very important to get to that number, of course.

 

[CJ Rader]

I agree. I also don’t know much about the performance characteristics of this plane. With five aboard and a couple hours of fuel, can it climb out safely with one feathered? Then again, I think about trying to secure a failed engine in the moment at or just after takeoff in 0/0, and doing so without losing control could be a very real issue no matter what the performance capabilities of the aircraft.

To repeat myself, if this were a medivac flight or something of similar importance, I could basically ignore the risk profile this flight presented. But to take the chance he did for lunch, with four peoples’ lives on the line, I just can’t see a rationale for it.

However you choose to assess the odds of success for the takeoff and initial climb, those odds improved infinitely about two hours after this flight crashed. It’s just not worth it in my eyes.

Speaking only for myself, this flight would fail both the PAVE and the CARE checklists at the intersecting (E)xternal pressures. Having a 'schedule to keep', especially as it pertains to lunch, in my eyes, would qualify as flawed reasoning. I might get away with it for awhile, but eventually, I'm gonna have teeth marks on my back side, or worse.

 

[Ryan F.]

I pulled up the historical METARs for the time of the accident for airports like LAL, GIF, MCO, ISM, even in the other direction up to OCF etc. They were all reporting similar foggy conditions at the time of the aircraft departure as BOW. Airports with RVR equipment were reporting between 1000 and 2000 feet of visibility, and below minimums for approaches.

I still don't think this tells us much about the accident sequence (unless the crash happened on an abort or a return)... but it does seem like he elected to depart into an environment where he didn't have an out for quite aways.

Those aren't crazy low RVRs for departure in an aircraft like the one the accident pilot was flying. And "an out for quite a ways" may have been a lot closer than you're imagining. If he was fueled for EYW he likely had pretty much the whole state of Florida to pick from for a takeoff alternate. That would have left a ton of choices. This really could have been a fairly vanilla IFR departure.

It's outside the comfort zone of some, but not all. Not for me, anyway. In and of themselves, those aren't dangerous conditions for the appropriate equipment. (Which would exclude, for me, single-engine airplanes.)

As stated by several people on this thread -- myself included -- the weather may or may not have played a role in this accident. We just don't know.

 

[mryan75]

Why do I get a pass and not the PIC of the 340?

This was a thoughtful post and my response is not an attempt to discredit anything you’ve said, but on this particular point I can give you an answer: because he crashed and killed his entire family and you didn’t. That’s not a commentary on which of the two of you is better trained, more proficient, has/had better ADM, etc. But that is the reason.

 

[MauleSkinner]

You left out the part about how some of your best friends are pachyderms who self identify as pink. Beware, we know who you are and you will not, not be allowed to continue publicly denigrating pinks!

You're making assumptions that make you look silly...I don't have friends!

 

[Ryan F.]

Ryan, you’ve forgotten more about flying than I will likely ever know. I respect your knowledge and opinions tremendously. But to me these things are situational. Regarding the first line in the quote above, when we’re talking about taking four loved ones for lunch and knowing that if you wait an hour or two it will be severe clear, I just have to disagree. Given what they were doing, the entire weather picture (including the doubtless vast improvement within a relatively short period of time) and what the consequences would likely be of something going wrong in that two minutes from firewalling the throttles until you get in the clear, I’m sorry, but it just wasn’t worth the risk. In nearly every scenario we could come up with, and there are plenty, having clear weather significantly improves your options and likelihood of a successful save versus the weather he attempted to takeoff in.

And I say his with all the respect in the world for you as an aviator. I just have to disagree here.

The respect is mutual. I hope I'm being reasonably clear when I point out that what he did wasn't necessarily right or wrong from an ADM standpoint, just that it's clearly out of place to assume he was wrong to choose to launch given the limited data available. To take it a step further and judge the dead pilot for being an 'idiot' is beyond egregious to me. That's not an opinion borne of aeronautical experience or knowledge, just simple human decency and common sense. As of December 27 at 1345 EST, we have no idea what happened.

What if he had waited, the weather had cleared, and the same events transpired, with the same tragic result? As of this moment, that's a perfectly reasonable supposition. That trim tab sure is interesting to me. Who knows? ... and that's the whole point.

 

[Salty]

Why? People don’t have a right to know the risks they are facing just because you’re the PIC? That’s just a bizarre argument.

They can't know the risks unless they have the training to assess the risks.

 

[Rykymus]

I have absolutely neither time nor training in twins. (Although I eventually hope to.) However, I find some of the arguments supporting this pilot's decision to launch somewhat flawed. (IMHO)

I feel that as a private pilot, my instrument certification is best used as protection for me and my passengers from the dangers of IMC, should I find myself in such conditions. It is not an open invitation to launch into risky conditions, with passengers, just because I want to, or just because I don't believe anything will go wrong. To me, that is irresponsible. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of my aircraft, or my skills and experience as a pilot. It's about the ability to balance risk vs reward, and to adjust those scales accordingly for various factors such as mission, passengers, weather, aircraft performance, etc. And I don't buy the argument that this is different for every pilot. It's just an excuse to do what you want instead of what's responsible. (At least for recreational flying.)

I have not researched any of the facts surrounding this crash. I am only going by what I have read in this thread. If in fact, the mission was purely recreational, and the ceilings were low enough to create undo risk, then the pilot's decision to launch was a bad one. It matters not whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure or pilot error. All that matters is the decision to launch itself. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Just because you've done it countless times before is also not a factor.

Would this crash have happened if they had waited for VMC? If mechanicial, quite possibly. Could the pilot have saved the lives of his passengers if the incident had occured in VMC? Possibly. At the very least, there would have been one less mitigating factor for the pilot to deal with.

Honestly, if this was single-pilot into ceilings below approach minimums for his field of departure, in a complex aircraft, stuffed with passengers, for purely recreational purposes, I don't see how any of you can defend this guy. And if you do, I'll sure as hell never fly with you. Of course, I don't expect any of you to care about that.

Just my two-cents.

 

[MauleSkinner]

I have absolutely neither time nor training in twins. (Although I eventually hope to.) However, I find some of the arguments supporting this pilot's decision to launch somewhat flawed. (IMHO)

I feel that as a private pilot, my instrument certification is best used as protection for me and my passengers from the dangers of IMC, should I find myself in such conditions. It is not an open invitation to launch into risky conditions, with passengers, just because I want to, or just because I don't believe anything will go wrong. To me, that is irresponsible. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of my aircraft, or my skills and experience as a pilot. It's about the ability to balance risk vs reward, and to adjust those scales accordingly for various factors such as mission, passengers, weather, aircraft performance, etc. And I don't buy the argument that this is different for every pilot. It's just an excuse to do what you want instead of what's responsible. (At least for recreational flying.)

I have not researched any of the facts surrounding this crash. I am only going by what I have read in this thread. If in fact, the mission was purely recreational, and the ceilings were low enough to create undo risk, then the pilot's decision to launch was a bad one. It matters not whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure or pilot error. All that matters is the decision to launch itself. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Just because you've done it countless times before is also not a factor.

Would this crash have happened if they had waited for VMC? If mechanicial, quite possibly. Could the pilot have saved the lives of his passengers if the incident had occured in VMC? Possibly. At the very least, there would have been one less mitigating factor for the pilot to deal with.

Honestly, if this was single-pilot into ceilings below approach minimums for his field of departure, in a complex aircraft, stuffed with passengers, for purely recreational purposes, I don't see how any of you can defend this guy. And if you do, I'll sure as hell never fly with you. Of course, I don't expect any of you to care about that.

Just my two-cents.

I think your logic is flawed in the statement, if not the assumption, that ANYTHING in this takeoff was done because he "[didn't] believe anything would go wrong". I'm sure there was some level of risk analysis conducted for various problems.

As far as "risk vs. reward", I personally don't believe safety is dependent upon the reward. If I believe an operation to be safe, I believe it to be safe whether I'm flying by myself, with family for lunch, or with paying customers in the back. If I believe an operation is unsafe, it also doesn't matter who, if anybody, is with me, how important the trip is, or whether I'll be fired again for not making the trip.

As far as the risk side, that is absolutely dependent upon the individual pilot...experience, recency, proficiency, physical/mental condition, and training are all factors that by definition vary from pilot to pilot.

Keep in mind that I'm neither defending nor condemning the pilot...I wasn't there, I don't know exactly what the weather was there or what contingencies he had in mind, much less any of the personal factors I mentioned above. Did he make the wrong decision? Absolutely...he and several others are dead. It's obvious. Was he wrong to make that decision to fly? I don't know.

 

[denverpilot]

Honestly, if this was single-pilot into ceilings below approach minimums for his field of departure, in a complex aircraft, stuffed with passengers, for purely recreational purposes, I don't see how any of you can defend this guy. And if you do, I'll sure as hell never fly with you. Of course, I don't expect any of you to care about that.

How about the Private certificate holder with Instrument rating who launches in VMC, flies over 300 miles on top of weather that approaches are not possible under, and lands VMC on an Instrument flight plan, to go somewhere on vacation? Single engine? Multi?

By definition all but incidental business transportation flights on a Private certificate are “recreational”. (Ignoring the seven exceptions for Private certificate holders like glider towing.)

How about the Private pilot with no Instrument rating who lands and takes off from an airport that the runway requires maximum performance and has literally no place safe to go if the engine quits in a single? That okay?

We can come up with thousands of “unsafe” flights taken every day. Whether they should be or not, we leave up to the PIC. Because FAA does.

Most passengers trust FAA when they climb aboard, they don’t know enough to make the decisions, but if someone wants out, most pilots will happily taxi back to the FBO and even shut down the engine so they don’t walk through a prop on their way to the FBO couch. Maybe their trust in the process is misplaced, that’s not my call to make.

Some people won’t fly with Private pilots. Their call. Some won’t fly at all.

FAA could make all pilots share every decision they make with passengers and make the pilot take a vote and record it on their smartphone, there’d still be fatal accidents.

I think one of the goofy cultural values we’re seeing in this thread is the overindulgence of ”fairness” complainers. Not you, but you see shades of it here. People don’t like that there’s a PIC and PIC makes the decisions including the risk analysis, and doesn’t need to consult with the mind-hive.

Are PICs going to keep making fatal mistakes? Definitely. We don’t know if this PIC did or not. The investigators with access to all of the information will publish their opinion on it in about a year.

 

[James331]

Right. Whenever the term Nazi comes up in a context like this, I know I’m dealing with a very reasonable person.

Road blockade with armed people around my car demanding to see my papers, asking where I'm coming from, where I'm going, all without them witnessing me commit any crime, I'd say it's a foreseeable comparison.

You're right, totally diffrent lol

In one we have men in brown uniforms armed with lethal weapons performing a road block, they are just doing their jobs.

In the other picture they also are wearing reflective vests.

 

[Tantalum]

Safety First

 

[James331]

Safety First

Really... It is all for the chilllllllldrennnnn

 

[neilw2]

I have absolutely neither time nor training in twins. (Although I eventually hope to.) However, I find some of the arguments supporting this pilot's decision to launch somewhat flawed. (IMHO)

I feel that as a private pilot, my instrument certification is best used as protection for me and my passengers from the dangers of IMC, should I find myself in such conditions. It is not an open invitation to launch into risky conditions, with passengers, just because I want to, or just because I don't believe anything will go wrong. To me, that is irresponsible. It has nothing to do with the capabilities of my aircraft, or my skills and experience as a pilot. It's about the ability to balance risk vs reward, and to adjust those scales accordingly for various factors such as mission, passengers, weather, aircraft performance, etc. And I don't buy the argument that this is different for every pilot. It's just an excuse to do what you want instead of what's responsible. (At least for recreational flying.)

I have not researched any of the facts surrounding this crash. I am only going by what I have read in this thread. If in fact, the mission was purely recreational, and the ceilings were low enough to create undo risk, then the pilot's decision to launch was a bad one. It matters not whether the crash was the result of mechanical failure or pilot error. All that matters is the decision to launch itself. Just because you can, it doesn't mean you should. Just because you've done it countless times before is also not a factor.

Would this crash have happened if they had waited for VMC? If mechanicial, quite possibly. Could the pilot have saved the lives of his passengers if the incident had occured in VMC? Possibly. At the very least, there would have been one less mitigating factor for the pilot to deal with.

Honestly, if this was single-pilot into ceilings below approach minimums for his field of departure, in a complex aircraft, stuffed with passengers, for purely recreational purposes, I don't see how any of you can defend this guy. And if you do, I'll sure as hell never fly with you. Of course, I don't expect any of you to care about that.

Just my two-cents.

Ok, so you think ever launching into less than VMC conditions constitutes "risky conditions?" In that case I must be crazy. Good think my life insurance is paid up because i'm playing with fire!

Honestly, I get your point. For YOU, it doesn't make since to fly IMC for leisure flying. For many (including myself) I feel that as long as I adhere to my personal mins I am flying above my risk tolerance.

But, I think you go a little far in saying it doesn't matter what qualifications the pilot or plane has. Using your logic a 100 hr private with a 152 with 1 VOR launching into 1SM 500OVC has the same risk as a King Air flown by a 10,000 hr ATP with a G-1000, autopilot, and wx radar. You know that isn't true and certainly isn't logical.

In the end you kind of change your argument when you start to mention taking off when the field is below approach mins. Like I said before I wouldn't do that now in my 182, but if I had a few thousand more hours and a more capable plane (like say a 340) with enough fuel to get me to a field where I could easily shoot an approach, my answer may be alot different.

Lastly, I understand you feel differently than me regarding risk tolerance but it's too bad you are chalking people who disagree with you as pilots you "would never fly with." You are grouping a bunch of people as bad risk takers when I don't believe that is fair.

 

[neilw2]

Oh and BTW threads like this is actually why I love POA. Besides some who insist on name calling of a dead man or people that they happen to disagree with there are many, many good opinions on ADM found in here.

Of course we don't know what happened in this case but it definitely leads to a discussion on weather decision making, which I believe is always helpful.

I am pretty confident in my ADM but know that I can always learn from others experiences. Thanks all those who have decided to share how they would approach this flight and why they think it would be a go/no go.

 

[Ryan F.]

Lastly, I understand you feel differently than me regarding risk tolerance but it's too bad you are chalking people who disagree with you as pilots you "would never fly with." You are grouping a bunch of people as bad risk takers when I don't believe that is fair.

In a nutshell, that's the whole thread. There are some pilots looking through their tiny lens in the hotel room door and assuming the little sliver of hallway they see outside represents the whole world. Never mind others are roaming the halls, riding the elevators, even (gasp) walking up and down the stairs, even strolling right out of the building itself... totally out of sight, and out of mind to the guy up in his room.

It's understandable, to a point. We all tend to see the whole world the way a small part of it is presented to us. Some pilots remain static with their risk threshold parameters for many years. Their assumption of what is 'safe' vs. an unacceptable risk may become quite rigid over time.

The more one gets exposed to new operations, the more this "me-centric" view tends to soften. A newly rated instrument pilot may only tackle vanilla IFR out of the gates, but slowly expand their envelope as their confidence grows. Someone who moves into turbocharged singles, then light twins, then turbine twins, may find their ability to operate in low weather to be limited only by the quality of their contingency planning. But they don't often enjoy that perspective without the experience and exposure to that kind of operation.

What seems unthinkable at the beginning of the arc may become routine at the apex. Yes, this type of operation can be conducted safely, with the right pilot, the right training, the right equipment, and correct planning. Of course, all of those things can be done to the highest level possible, and accidents will still occur.

But for some of the folks who have been commenting on this thread, those things aren't happening in their room, or in the hallway right outside their door, so they can't quite visualize that it can be done safely.

Like I said, understandable.

To a point.

 

[Kritchlow]

This is my issue with the pilots decision. Even if it was a mechanical issue, his decision left him no options. Higher risk than seems reasonable for a joy ride.

Honestly, if you’re an IR pilot taking off in 1/4 mike vis is (should be) a COMPLETE NON ISSUE.
What happened is a tragedy, but not a failure of judgement for a properly qualed pilot.

 

[MauleSkinner]

Honestly, if you’re an IR pilot taking off in 1/4 mike vis is (should be) a COMPLETE NON ISSUE.
What happened is a tragedy, but not a failure of judgement for a properly qualed pilot.

True enough, but note that the vis was reported as "M1/4"...we have no idea whether the viz was zero, 1319 feet, or somewhere in between...nor do we have ANY indication of what it was at the runway. And technically, a bird crapping on the ASOS would give the same indication.

No, I'm not disagreeing with your statement...just clarifying what the reported weather actually means. we know there was fog, but we don't know how thick it was ANYWHERE on the field.

 

[Kritchlow]

True enough, but note that the vis was reported as "M1/4"...we have no idea whether the viz was zero, 1319 feet, or somewhere in between...nor do we have ANY indication of what it was at the runway. And technically, a bird crapping on the ASOS would give the same indication.

Yes, we know there was fog, but we don't know how thick it was ANYWHERE on the field.

For a competent IR pilot even 300 rvr should be a non issue. Especially in a slower, non jet.
Indeed if it was truly zero... but how often does that happen? Not sure I’ve ever seen ZERO vis due to clouds & fog.

 

[Tantalum]

Oh and BTW threads like this is actually why I love POA.

Exactly. Same here. It is refreshing to be a part of a such a smart and civil forum, even when people are in complete opposition. What does that say about POA, and pilots in general? I always learn from you all here and have recommended this forum to other pilots

In a nutshell, that's the whole thread. There are some pilots looking through their tiny lens in the hotel room door and assuming the little sliver of hallway they see outside represents the whole world. Never mind others are roaming the halls, riding the elevators, even (gasp) walking up and down the stairs, even strolling right out of the building itself... totally out of sight, and out of mind to the guy up in his room.

Beautifully said. Reminds me of the allegory of the cave. Well put!

Honestly, if you’re an IR pilot taking off in 1/4 mike vis is (should be) a COMPLETE NON ISSUE.

That's the part that really threw me here. The idea of getting an IR ticket simply to avoid the accidental VFR -> IMC is crazy to me, and frankly, dangerous! If you don't practice flying in the system and expanding your comfort zone than the IR is not going to help you. That one time in 9 months you end up in the clouds you'll be so rusty you'll be dead anyway.

Are PICs going to keep making fatal mistakes? Definitely. We don’t know if this PIC did or not. The investigators with access to all of the information will publish their opinion on it in about a year.

I will be waiting for this one anxiously. And depending on the cause I think it will be an exciting case study for GA. Watch it end up being something completely stupid like "control lock left in place"

 

[Rykymus]

Ok, so you think ever launching into less than VMC conditions constitutes "risky conditions?" In that case I must be crazy. Good think my life insurance is paid up because i'm playing with fire!

Honestly, I get your point. For YOU, it doesn't make since to fly IMC for leisure flying. For many (including myself) I feel that as long as I adhere to my personal mins I am flying above my risk tolerance.

But, I think you go a little far in saying it doesn't matter what qualifications the pilot or plane has. Using your logic a 100 hr private with a 152 with 1 VOR launching into 1SM 500OVC has the same risk as a King Air flown by a 10,000 hr ATP with a G-1000, autopilot, and wx radar. You know that isn't true and certainly isn't logical.

In the end you kind of change your argument when you start to mention taking off when the field is below approach mins. Like I said before I wouldn't do that now in my 182, but if I had a few thousand more hours and a more capable plane (like say a 340) with enough fuel to get me to a field where I could easily shoot an approach, my answer may be alot different.

Lastly, I understand you feel differently than me regarding risk tolerance but it's too bad you are chalking people who disagree with you as pilots you "would never fly with." You are grouping a bunch of people as bad risk takers when I don't believe that is fair.

I'm not sure you understood my meaning. Obviously, the pilot's abilities and the aircraft's capabilities are factors to consider when making a go/no-go decision. But neither justifies taking on the additional risk purely for recreational purposes, especially when there are four other family members aboard. People on this board talk about different minimums when family, or those inexperienced with GA are on board.

To me, the first step of risk evaluation are the needs of the mission vs the risk involved. In this case (assuming that visibility was at the very least below minimums for that field) that scale was very out of balance. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, any pilot that feels such a flight was acceptable shouldn't be a pilot. And I stand by my statement that such a pilot is not one that I would fly with. I neither expect nor care if anyone agrees with me. This is MY risk tolerance.

I fully expect everyone's risk tolerance to be different, and to change based on all the factors that we regularly consider when evaluating such risk. My risk tolerance changes for the same reasons. However, I will never launch with a plane full of passengers into extremely low ceilings for a recreational flight, and I still think anyone who does is foolish and irresponsible. However, I stand by everyone's (including myself) right to make stupid decisions. God knows I've made more than my fair share in life.

 

[Kritchlow]

I'm not sure you understood my meaning. Obviously, the pilot's abilities and the aircraft's capabilities are factors to consider when making a go/no-go decision. But neither justifies taking on the additional risk purely for recreational purposes, especially when there are four other family members aboard. People on this board talk about different minimums when family, or those inexperienced with GA are on board.

To me, the first step of risk evaluation are the needs of the mission vs the risk involved. In this case (assuming that visibility was at the very least below minimums for that field) that scale was very out of balance. IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, any pilot that feels such a flight was acceptable shouldn't be a pilot. And I stand by my statement that such a pilot is not one that I would fly with. I neither expect nor care if anyone agrees with me. This is MY risk tolerance.

I fully expect everyone's risk tolerance to be different, and to change based on all the factors that we regularly consider when evaluating such risk. My risk tolerance changes for the same reasons. However, I will never launch with a plane full of passengers into extremely low ceilings for a recreational flight, and I still think anyone who does is foolish and irresponsible. However, I stand by everyone's (including myself) right to make stupid decisions. God knows I've made more than my fair share in life.

The problem I have is you don’t say it’s “no go” for you, but rather generalized that it’s a mistake for any pilot to go.

That’s flat out wrong, and really not open for judgment.
airlines LAND every day in Cat III weather. Take off is easy.

 

[Tantalum]

IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, any pilot that feels such a flight was acceptable shouldn't be a pilot.

I appreciate you sticking to your guns because it helps me frame my own thoughts and views. I have a totally honest and fair question for you then. The weather reported was allegedly around a quarter mile, so about 1,300 ft visibility... let's assume it was even worse, around 1/8 mile visibility.. so really vis conditions. And to make it even stickier lets assume 200 foot hard ceilings and freezing fog conditions. So this is some serious stuff right here. And let's say you are on a commercial jet, and you are not traveling for work, and your whole family is with you, as well as your grandkids and your grandparents, and the only reason you are going on this plane is for a free ski trip you won. Would you board the plane?

I'm not trying to be an ass, just genuinely curious in the response following your logic of "any pilot" departing in such conditions as expressing severely poor ADM

 

[Rykymus]

That's the part that really threw me here. The idea of getting an IR ticket simply to avoid the accidental VFR -> IMC is crazy to me, and frankly, dangerous! If you don't practice flying in the system and expanding your comfort zone than the IR is not going to help you. That one time in 9 months you end up in the clouds you'll be so rusty you'll be dead anyway."

I think it's important to clarify this misunderstanding. Going up to practice (which I do quite frequently) is not the same thing as launching with a plane full of people into low vis for a lunch flight, when one could wait a couple hours and drastically reduce the risk exposure. And I do launch into low vis (but not below approach minimums) as often as the weather allows. But that is to reduce the risk if and when I do get caught in IMC, or the needs of my mission outweigh the additional risks of IMC. But I sure as hell don't go "hey everybody, lets go play in the clouds, it'll be a hoot!" There's a HUGE difference.

 

[Kritchlow]

I appreciate you sticking to your guns because it helps me frame my own thoughts and views. I have a totally honest and fair question for you then. The weather reported was allegedly around a quarter mile, so about 1,300 ft visibility... let's assume it was even worse, around 1/8 mile visibility.. so really vis conditions. And to make it even stickier lets assume 200 foot hard ceilings and freezing fog conditions. So this is some serious stuff right here. And let's say you are on a commercial jet, and you are not traveling for work, and your whole family is with you, as well as your grandkids and your grandparents, and the only reason you are going on this plane is for a free ski trip you won. Would you board the plane?

I'm not trying to be an ass, just genuinely curious in the response following your logic of "any pilot" departing in such conditions as expressing severely poor ADM

Yup. I published a 300 rvr Cat IIB Lansing about six months back (not mine).

 

[mscard88]

Take off is easy.

Unless you have a mechanical, like an engine out at rotation.

 

[Tantalum]

Going up to practice (which I do quite frequently) is not the same thing as launching with a plane full of people into low vis for a lunch flight

I wouldn't have departed either, I am not nearly skilled enough of an IR pilot for it. So I agree with your ultimately conclusion, neither of us would have flown, we would have both waited. But I would not indict another pilot for it, they could be a lot more skilled than me, and I would have no problem departing in those conditions with many of the pilots on this board here, who clearly have more experience than me

 

[Cooter]

I appreciate you sticking to your guns because it helps me frame my own thoughts and views. I have a totally honest and fair question for you then. The weather reported was allegedly around a quarter mile, so about 1,300 ft visibility... let's assume it was even worse, around 1/8 mile visibility.. so really vis conditions. And to make it even stickier lets assume 200 foot hard ceilings and freezing fog conditions. So this is some serious stuff right here. And let's say you are on a commercial jet, and you are not traveling for work, and your whole family is with you, as well as your grandkids and your grandparents, and the only reason you are going on this plane is for a free ski trip you won. Would you board the plane?

I'm not trying to be an ass, just genuinely curious in the response following your logic of "any pilot" departing in such conditions as expressing severely poor ADM

Are the requirements more stringent for 121 operations or 91? (Rhetorical, you don't have to answer) If they aren't the same, why not? Which type of operation is more likely to experience a lapse in proficiency for the pilot? With which type of flight can you trust, that the pilot is being held to a high standard? Can you assume the same about a pilot (his currency and proficiency) flying his own plane, that you can about an airline pilot?

These questions matter, and seemingly are being ignored.

 

[Rykymus]

The problem I have is you don’t say it’s “no go” for you, but rather generalized that it’s a mistake for any pilot to go.

That’s flat out wrong, and really not open for judgment.
airlines LAND every day in Cat III weather. Take off is easy.

Perhaps I should have said "any private pilot." I just thought that was understood here, since we are speaking about a private pilot. Using airlines here isn't really a valid comparison. First of all, they can't launch in 0/0. Second, they are equipped and trained to land Cat III conditions. Private Pilots are not. So, apples and oranges.

And, it is open for judgment. I can judge anyone and anything I wish. Just as you can. We don't have to agree. That's what makes life interesting, and this forum useful. I don't expect anyone to change the mind because of what I say. That's not the purpose. I'm just expressing my opinion.

I appreciate you sticking to your guns because it helps me frame my own thoughts and views. I have a totally honest and fair question for you then. The weather reported was allegedly around a quarter mile, so about 1,300 ft visibility... let's assume it was even worse, around 1/8 mile visibility.. so really vis conditions. And to make it even stickier lets assume 200 foot hard ceilings and freezing fog conditions. So this is some serious stuff right here. And let's say you are on a commercial jet, and you are not traveling for work, and your whole family is with you, as well as your grandkids and your grandparents, and the only reason you are going on this plane is for a free ski trip you won. Would you board the plane?

I'm not trying to be an ass, just genuinely curious in the response following your logic of "any pilot" departing in such conditions as expressing severely poor ADM

Yeah, I probably should have said "private pilot." My bad.

 

[Kritchlow]

https://www.bing.com/videos/search?...766BE6D683922D692192766BE6D&FORM=VIRE&PC=APPL

 

[Rykymus]

Are the requirements more stringent for 121 operations or 91? (Rhetorical, you don't have to answer) If they aren't the same, why not? Which type of operation is more likely to experience a lapse in proficiency for the pilot? With which type of flight can you trust, that the pilot is being held to a high standard? Can you assume the same about a pilot (his currency and proficiency) flying his own plane, that you can about an airline pilot?

These questions matter, and seemingly are being ignored.

I really wish someone could explain to me why Part 91 operators are allowed to takeoff in 0/0. I've never understood it, and feel the same as you.

 

[Kritchlow]

Perhaps I should have said "any private pilot." I just thought that was understood here, since we are speaking about a private pilot. Using airlines here isn't really a valid comparison. First of all, they can't launch in 0/0. Second, they are equipped and trained to land Cat III conditions. Private Pilots are not. So, apples and oranges.

And, it is open for judgment. I can judge anyone and anything I wish. Just as you can. We don't have to agree. That's what makes life interesting, and this forum useful. I don't expect anyone to change the mind because of what I say. That's not the purpose. I'm just expressing my opinion.



Yeah, I probably should have said "private pilot." My bad.

Private pilots (with IR) can, and are trained to launch in 0/0.

 

[Rykymus]

Private pilots (with IR) can, and are trained to launch in 0/0.

Are you inferring that that makes it okay to do so, with a plane full of people, to go to lunch? Seriously?