690B crashes into homes near KHVN

[acrophile]

It crashed while circling to land on HVN ILS 2. The pilot, and two children on the ground, are reportedly missing. No distress had been reported to ATC.

http://www.wtnh.com/dpp/news/new_haven_cty/plane-crash-east-haven-charter-oak-ave#.UgUkOJK1GAm

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N13622/history/20130809/1400Z/KTEB/KHVN

http://www.airport-data.com/aircraft/N13622.html

https://www.google.com/maps/preview...791!3d41.2574958!3m2!1i992!2i975!4f13.1&fid=5

There was a significant tailwind on the approach. Ceiling was 180' above the circling minimum.

METAR KHVN 091453Z 17012KT 10SM OVC009 24/23 A2990 RMK AO2 RAB42E52 CIG 007V014 SLP123 P0000 60002 T02390228 56020

SPECI KHVN 091526Z 17012G19KT 9SM -RA OVC009 24/23 A2988 RMK AO2 RAB18 CIG 006V011 P0000

METAR KHVN 091553Z 17014KT 5SM -RA BR BKN009 OVC037 24/23 A2986 RMK AO2 RAB18 SLP112 P0003 T02390228

The pilot is calmly talking to HVN tower at 15:16:50z, but at 15:17:03z says "622" in a panicked voice. That's the last transmission before the crash.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/khvn/KHVN-Aug-09-2013-1500Z.mp3

 

[wsuffa]

Listened to the archive feed on LiveATC - he called downwind for 20, a minute later tower asked if he could stay visual, he replied that he had visual on the airport at that time.

About 15 min into the liveatc archive.

 

[cavmedic]

Sucks that people were in the home



http://www.wfmz.com/news/plane-hits-2-homes-in-connecticut/-/121458/21402472/-/sryelj/-/index.html

 

[N747JB]

I've done ONE circle to land ILS approach that was close to circling minimums. It was my first and last in actual IFR conditions that I hope to ever attempt. Even with two pilots on board, it was no fun, monitoring speed, altitude, trying to keep sight of the runway and manuvering VERY close to the ground. Next time I will land with the tailwind or go somewhere else.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

Obviously a challenging environment, but not insurmountable given the equipment and assuming the pilot was game ready. A mechanical issue in that weather would be a real issue for a single pilot. Time will tell.

 

[Pilawt]

Obviously a challenging environment, but not insurmountable given the equipment and assuming the pilot was game ready. A mechanical issue in that weather would be a real issue for a single pilot. Time will tell.

The same pilot had a mechanical issue that forced him to ditch an Epic into the Columbia River near Astoria in 2009:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090429X35008&key=1

He replaced the Epic with the Turbo Commander. It happened to be at my home field last year when I snapped this photo:

 

[Ted]

I read up a bit more on this and I have about 20-25 hours in Commander 690A/Bs.

The circle to land ILS isn't a good procedure to do in most cases. In fact, in my 135 world we were banned from doing circling approaches of any sort without training specific to that approach and airport. So in other words, if I wanted to do an ILS27 circle to 09 at IPT, I need training on that. If I then wanted to go do an ILS 35 circle 24 at MHT, I needed training on that. I think there's good reason for that.

The Commander is not a hard airplane to fly. Engines are reliable and straightforward once they're started. Although it has almost the cruise speed of an MU-2, it does not have the same unforgiving nature. Stalls with it are benign, and the flaps are normal in operation. However the issue I always had with the plane was relatively poor forward visibility combined with instruments that were very far down when looking out the window and were partially blocked by the column. It's not a great human factors setup and would benefit from a HUD.

My guess? He ended up in a standard stall/spin on the circling approach, due in part to not being able to easily scan the instruments while looking out the window and potentially ending back up in a cloud he didn't expect. I'll be curious to see what the NTSB says.

Sad...

 

[Fearless Tower]

I read up a bit more on this and I have about 20-25 hours in Commander 690A/Bs.

The circle to land ILS isn't a good procedure to do in most cases. In fact, in my 135 world we were banned from doing circling approaches of any sort without training specific to that approach and airport. So in other words, if I wanted to do an ILS27 circle to 09 at IPT, I need training on that. If I then wanted to go do an ILS 35 circle 24 at MHT, I needed training on that. I think there's good reason for that.

The Commander is not a hard airplane to fly. Engines are reliable and straightforward once they're started. Although it has almost the cruise speed of an MU-2, it does not have the same unforgiving nature. Stalls with it are benign, and the flaps are normal in operation. However the issue I always had with the plane was relatively poor forward visibility combined with instruments that were very far down when looking out the window and were partially blocked by the column. It's not a great human factors setup and would benefit from a HUD.

My guess? He ended up in a standard stall/spin on the circling approach, due in part to not being able to easily scan the instruments while looking out the window and potentially ending back up in a cloud he didn't expect. I'll be curious to see what the NTSB says.

Sad...

Ted, or anyone else who has flown for a company that prohibited circling approaches:

Is the issue/limitation on circling based on conducting the circle at minimums? I can see how a circling approach could be rather hazardous when flown to mins depending on the visibility when you break out, but if the ILS to the downwind runway is the only approach and you break out well above mins (say 1500' AGL), are you still prohibited from circling to land?

I ask because I've only done circling approaches in 91 ops and the ones I have done didn't seem hazardous, but were well above mins, or in the case of the one I did for my IR checkride, the MDA was 1500' AGL.

 

[Ted]

Ted, or anyone else who has flown for a company that prohibited circling approaches:

Is the issue/limitation on circling based on conducting the circle at minimums? I can see how a circling approach could be rather hazardous when flown to mins depending on the visibility when you break out, but if the ILS to the downwind runway is the only approach and you break out well above mins (say 1500' AGL), are you still prohibited from circling to land?

I ask because I've only done circling approaches in 91 ops and the ones I have done didn't seem hazardous, but were well above mins, or in the case of the one I did for my IR checkride, the MDA was 1500' AGL.

Our Ops Spec prohibited instrument circling approaches. I think the idea was that if the clouds were low enough to require an instrument approach that they were low enough that a circling approach would be considered hazardous. Of course, visual approaches were allowed and those resulted in patterns (basically circling).

The idea makes sense and I can certainly see why they had the rule in there. It's not because of the majority of the times when it's easy, it's because of those times when it's hard. I had a number of night ILS27 circle to 09 at IPT, and in spite of my being based at the airport and having general comfort, I could easily see how they could kill people. The ridge directly south of the field was part of it.

I typically will take a tailwind vs. a challenging (or unknown) circling approach in low vis. The 690 has no problems going into and out of short fields or handling crosswinds, so a tailwind or crosswind should have been just fine on a runway long enough to have an ILS and would have been preferable to a circling approach.

 

[azure]

It might not be a bad policy for spam can drivers too. Even with my limited experience, I've noticed that poor flight visibility 100-200 feet below the reported bases is more common than a sharp transition from being in a cloud to severe clear. Flying single pilot on an ILS or LPV approach, I normally don't even start looking for the runway until I'm at the reported ceiling and I've yet to acquire it until at least 100 feet lower. I was taught, and can easily imagine, that joining the missed from a CTL in actual is one of the most hazardous moments in IFR flying. I would have been very uncomfortable trying a CTL with only 200 feet of wiggle room.

 

[Ted]

Yep. Remember, procedures exist to give you options. The key is figuring out which option makes the most sense and is the safest. Part 91 gives you the most latitude with discretion on options. I look at 135 and 121 for ideas since their regs have been added to help minimize the possibility of getting into a bad situation in the first place. Some I utilize in decision making, some not. As another example, under 135 we had to pick up and cancel our IFR clearance on the ground. All flights were IFR. Usually I think this is dumb and don't do it, but if I'm on a night approach after a long day, I'll cancel on the ground so that someone is waiting to make sure I landed safely.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Our Ops Spec prohibited instrument circling approaches. I think the idea was that if the clouds were low enough to require an instrument approach that they were low enough that a circling approach would be considered hazardous. Of course, visual approaches were allowed and those resulted in patterns (basically circling).

The idea makes sense and I can certainly see why they had the rule in there. It's not because of the majority of the times when it's easy, it's because of those times when it's hard. I had a number of night ILS27 circle to 09 at IPT, and in spite of my being based at the airport and having general comfort, I could easily see how they could kill people. The ridge directly south of the field was part of it.

I typically will take a tailwind vs. a challenging (or unknown) circling approach in low vis. The 690 has no problems going into and out of short fields or handling crosswinds, so a tailwind or crosswind should have been just fine on a runway long enough to have an ILS and would have been preferable to a circling approach.

I guess it makes sense in alot of cases. All of my circling approaches were with a marine layer - once I broke out below the layer, vis was always greater than 6 miles.

 

[DJTorrente]

Based on the weather that blew through that day (CB), I suspect that the ILS2 may have been the best or only approach available at the intended destination, despite the howling tailwind. Rwy 2/20 at Tweed is ~5k ft; I don't know whether that is safe or even doable in a Twin Commander with 12G19 on the tail.

 

[Ted]

I guess it makes sense in alot of cases. All of my circling approaches were with a marine layer - once I broke out below the layer, vis was always greater than 6 miles.

Right, it's all a matter of "it depends." I think the idea behind the restriction was that it understood in some cases it was easy, in some cases not. So it eliminates the decision. Same idea behind 135 not being allowed to shoot the approach if the METAR reported below mins.

Based on the weather that blew through that day (CB), I suspect that the ILS2 may have been the best or only approach available at the intended destination, despite the howling tailwind. Rwy 2/20 at Tweed is ~5k ft; I don't know whether that is safe or even doable in a Twin Commander with 12G19 on the tail.

I would say yes, safe and doable with 5k. You land it around 100 kts and then engage reverse. Thing will stop on a dime.

12G19 isn't really howling...

 

[LJS1993]

Is there a possibility that the family of the pilot just might get sued in this incident?

 

[spinfire]

It looks like the only straight in approaches to Tweed-New Haven are to Runway 2.

 

[Ted]

Is there a possibility that the family of the pilot just might get sued in this incident?

There will probably be a lawsuit for damages. Can't blame them - if someone crashed into my house and my kid died there would definitely be a lawsuit.

The real question will be if Rockwell and Honeywell get sued.

 

[redtail]

Right, it's all a matter of "it depends." I think the idea behind the restriction was that it understood in some cases it was easy, in some cases not. So it eliminates the decision. Same idea behind 135 not being allowed to shoot the approach if the METAR reported below mins.



I would say yes, safe and doable with 5k. You land it around 100 kts and then engage reverse. Thing will stop on a dime.

12G19 isn't really howling...

If I heard it correctly,
It sounded like he requested the straight in to 2 and was denied due to the winds favoring 20.

What are your thoughts on that?
I'm just curious, why not just let him land straight in, unless conflicting traffic was an issue?

 

[LJS1993]

There will probably be a lawsuit for damages. Can't blame them - if someone crashed into my house and my kid died there would definitely be a lawsuit.

The real question will be if Rockwell and Honeywell get sued.

Would this be similar to an auto accident? Would insurance cover this tragic accident?

 

[dell30rb]

Would this be similar to an auto accident? Would insurance cover this tragic accident?

Yes. As long as the guy bought enough liability insurance.

 

[Ted]

If I heard it correctly,
It sounded like he requested the straight in to 2 and was denied due to the winds favoring 20.

What are your thoughts on that?
I'm just curious, why not just let him land straight in, unless conflicting traffic was an issue?

I haven't listened to the transcripts, but I can't imagine being denied a runway (the same patch of cement, no less) when specifically asking. What I could imagine was the tower assigning a circle to 20, and the pilot complying rather than exercising the "unable." I also can't imagine a conflicting traffic issue that would allow 20 but not 2 if he came in on the ILS 2.

Depending on the weather, I would have no problems arguing with tower over the approach and I've done so before. I was once assigned a circling approach and it was actually right at straight in minimums.

Would this be similar to an auto accident? Would insurance cover this tragic accident?

It would depend on his specific policy, and if he had insurance.

 

[wsuffa]

I haven't listened to the transcripts, but I can't imagine being denied a runway (the same patch of cement, no less) when specifically asking. What I could imagine was the tower assigning a circle to 20, and the pilot complying rather than exercising the "unable." I also can't imagine a conflicting traffic issue that would allow 20 but not 2 if he came in on the ILS 2.

Depending on the weather, I would have no problems arguing with tower over the approach and I've done so before. I was once assigned a circling approach and it was actually right at straight in minimums.



It would depend on his specific policy, and if he had insurance.

If you listen to the audio on LiveATC, the tower asks the pilot if he can maintain the field in site and execute the approach. The pilot replies that he could.

 

[Norman]

Just wondering out loud here. We won't know till NTSB releases the final report, but it's possible he may have had a severe medical happening just before the crash. That kind of thing has happened before.

 

[Ted]

If you listen to the audio on LiveATC, the tower asks the pilot if he can maintain the field in site and execute the approach. The pilot replies that he could.

I'm sure everyone else who ended up back in a cloud on a circling approach and died has said the same thing.

Just wondering out loud here. We won't know till NTSB releases the final report, but it's possible he may have had a severe medical happening just before the crash. That kind of thing has happened before.

Possible, but seems less likely to me.

 

[Fearless Tower]

Is there a possibility that the family of the pilot just might get sued in this incident?

Definitely a possibility and if he was a former Microsoft Exec, I can just about guarantee that there are lawyers knocking down doors of those affected to go after that estate.

Most likely, he had insurance which will cover any damages up to the limits of the policy. The advantage of insurance, is that even if the coverage was less than his estate assets, the insurance company will at least pony up for the legal defense, so hopefully the family of the pilot will have a fighting chance.

 

[acrophile]

I'm sure everyone else who ended up back in a cloud on a circling approach and died has said the same thing.

I'm not sure I understand why ending up back in the clouds is particularly dangerous during a CtL. Instrument pilots fly in and out of clouds all the time (and when they pop out, they have to divide their attention in and out of the cockpit, looking for traffic outside).

I suppose the cloud re-entry might be less expected during a CtL, but it doesn't seem hard to train to expect it and to go missed if it occurs.

I can see that a missed approach during a CtL could be challenging because you might not start out on the final approach course, so it might not be immediately apparent which direction to go. But in a flat area like HVN, all you need to do is climb and you'll be safe while you figure out the rest.

So overall, I'm puzzled as to why this CtL would've been too challenging for an experienced, proficient instrument pilot to perform safely.

 

[Ted]

I'm not sure I understand why ending up back in the clouds is particularly dangerous during a CtL. Instrument pilots fly in and out of clouds all the time (and when they pop out, they have to divide their attention in and out of the cockpit, looking for traffic outside).

I suppose the cloud re-entry might be less expected during a CtL, but it doesn't seem hard to train to expect it and to go missed if it occurs.

I can see that a missed approach during a CtL could be challenging because you might not start out on the final approach course, so it might not be immediately apparent which direction to go. But in a flat area like HVN, all you need to do is climb and you'll be safe while you figure out the rest.

So overall, I'm puzzled as to why this CtL would've been too challenging for an experienced, proficient instrument pilot to perform safely.

The reality of instrument flying is that approaches seldom end up in a missed. When you do end up in the clouds unexpectedly, the instinct can often be to try to get back out of them or to get disoriented. High stress situation (circling approach to mins after a short flight with lots of vectors in busy airspace) combined with get-there-itis (want to check out these colleges on schedule) and a bit of macho (I can do it!) can combine for a bad situation.

Should it happen? Arguably not. But there is a reason why we were prohibited from doing it without approach-specific training on 135 - because lots of others who should've been able to handle it before us couldn't.

 

[azure]

I'm not sure I understand why ending up back in the clouds is particularly dangerous during a CtL. Instrument pilots fly in and out of clouds all the time (and when they pop out, they have to divide their attention in and out of the cockpit, looking for traffic outside).

To expand on what Ted said, I can think of other hazards beyond that of simple disorientation, such as:

1. Thinking the cloud you flew into was small and that you'll pop out in a sec, thus delaying the transition to the missed.

2. Even in flat areas, there may be nearby obstacles. At VLL, going missed from the CTL to 27 means turning north initially, in the direction of a tall building barely 1.5 miles NE of the field, and then joining a climbing left turn. CTL altitude is 1400, the building is around 1300. I've yet to fly that missed for real, but my plan is to make the climb as steep as safely possible and to delay starting my turn until at a safe altitude. Not a lot of margin for errors such as overshooting the field and a too shallow climb, if you turn toward the runway immediately as the AIM recommends from a CTL.

Finally, going missed, like going around, is a high-workload situation. In a complex airplane, you have to check the mixture and prop, firewall the throttle, pull up the gear, establish a climb, and now you have to do it while often making a climbing turn with no visual reference. Even for a proficient instrument pilot, the risk of disorientation in that situation is not negligible.

 

[Alexb2000]

I was doing a circling approach at night with pretty good ceilings, or so I thought. I could see the runway plain as day on my downwind. As I turned base, all is well, then someone turned out all the lights. There was a low cloud hanging down that I couldn't see. Being in a descending turn on a visual reference, when suddenly you are in IMC isn't an easy situation to handle.

Thankfully I was in a slow forgiving aircraft and I knew the airport like the back of my hand (nothing to hit). So I was able to fly out of it.

I don't do circling approaches anymore, unless the ceilings are VFR quality (which is really just a visual).

For other better pilots, with training, maybe, I don't know.

 

[wabower]

I spent a number of years at the IP console in turboprop sims, some of which were flown by owner-pilots. Suffice to say that any non-precision (no glideslope) approach is problematic for a high percentage of all pilots and even more so for the non-pros. Looking out the window in low-viz conditions is difficult during a straight-in, and much, much, much more difficult while turning.

The odds-on bet for this accident is that the guy could afford more airplane than he could handle, got in over his head and crashed wherever the airplane took him. No pejorative intent involved, just an observation based on seeing similar outcomes many times over when I dropped the ceiling a hundred feet during the circle to see if they would miss or crash. Most crashed.

PS: The CTL's in sim training are artificial at best, since only certain airports can be used, many of which are 90-degree turns (like the VOR4 to 31R at JFK) with good ground reference points for additional orientation. Because they are somewhat gimmicky, pilots are shown other methods to help assure they complete the maneuver within limits in order to fill the square on the training record. I always thought that such an artificial methodology was counter-productive, as we were making an approach possible (and even probable) in the sim when the pilot would probably be unable to do it under actual conditions without the added "gouges" provided by the IP's.

To counter this "any caveman can do it" mentality, I used a number of tools (lower the vis, lower the ceiling, kill the rabbit) to be sure the pilots knew that circles were far more difficult than the others we practiced, and that a miss would be far more likely than a successful landing. Some pilots bitched to high hell about it until they understood I was just trying to extend their life-span by letting them screw up in the sim, at which point they became disciples of my "no CTL's unless pursued by Indians" mentality.

I'm not sure I understand why ending up back in the clouds is particularly dangerous during a CtL. Instrument pilots fly in and out of clouds all the time (and when they pop out, they have to divide their attention in and out of the cockpit, looking for traffic outside).

I suppose the cloud re-entry might be less expected during a CtL, but it doesn't seem hard to train to expect it and to go missed if it occurs.

I can see that a missed approach during a CtL could be challenging because you might not start out on the final approach course, so it might not be immediately apparent which direction to go. But in a flat area like HVN, all you need to do is climb and you'll be safe while you figure out the rest.

So overall, I'm puzzled as to why this CtL would've been too challenging for an experienced, proficient instrument pilot to perform safely.

 

[Ted]

The other possibility is that he tried to stay too close to the airport, made too tight of a turn, and had a typical accelerated stall/spin/crash.

 

[Ted]

FWIW, my SOP is to do straight-in approaches only for unfamiliar airports at night or in IMC. If I'm thinking of a circling approach, it's going to be daytime VMC or high IMC (amounts to the same) or an airport I know we'll. I did them semi-routinely at Williamsport at night, but only with high ceilings and I knew the airport well, having been trained there and based there for 5 years.

I've been known to do instrument approaches in night VMC to airports that I was unfamiliar with. Sure makes it easier.

 

[wabower]

The other possibility is that he tried to stay too close to the airport, made too tight of a turn, and had a typical accelerated stall/spin/crash.

That's not different, it's just a good example of one of many common mistakes.

 

[DJTorrente]

FWIW, my SOP is to do straight-in approaches only for unfamiliar airports at night or in IMC. If I'm thinking of a circling approach, it's going to be daytime VMC or high IMC (amounts to the same) or an airport I know we'll. I did them semi-routinely at Williamsport at night, but only with high ceilings and I knew the airport well, having been trained there and based there for 5 years.

I've been known to do instrument approaches in night VMC to airports that I was unfamiliar with. Sure makes it easier.

Your story reminds me of a night XC my CFI took me on during PP training. Coming back to what is practically the only airport I'd known during my training, and not my first night sortie there, I visualized the runways rotated 90 degrees to what they actually were (I thought 15/33 was 6/24). I just couldn't figure out why the rotating beacon was on the 'wrong' side of the runway. Real eye-opener for me.

 

[Ted]

Your story reminds me of a night XC my CFI took me on during PP training. Coming back to what is practically the only airport I'd known during my training, and not my first night sortie there, I visualized the runways rotated 90 degrees to what they actually were (I thought 15/33 was 6/24). I just couldn't figure out why the rotating beacon was on the 'wrong' side of the runway. Real eye-opener for me.

Yeah, that's easy to do at night. I've had a few night illusions, including one where I was landing at an unfamiliar airport at night after a long day and lined up with the wrong runway similarly. It happens.

 

[denverpilot]

Is there a possibility that the family of the pilot just might get sued in this incident?

Technically, his Estate will be sued not his family. It's a nit but an important one.

Assuming he probably had enough assets to bother with it, he may have made certain some of them were more distances from his own personal liability than others. Gifting, trusts, etc.

The insurance attorneys, counsel for the Estate and perhaps a named Executor, and counsel for any other entities or parties named in any lawsuits will sit down and hammer out a deal which will probably be sealed and not public record, if there's no evidence of equipment failure.

The Probate court will have to agree as it pertains to the assets of the Estate, and that will all take a minimum of one year in most States.

 

[LJS1993]

I was checking out an update this morning that claims eyewitnesses saw the plane inverted as it hit the home.

 

[LJS1993]

So guys let me ask you this. If a pilot finds themselves in a really uncomfortable situation in terms of fog, clouds, and overall vision so poor it's down right scary would powering up and just getting altitude be an acceptable "out"?

 

[denverpilot]

So guys let me ask you this. If a pilot finds themselves in a really uncomfortable situation in terms of fog, clouds, and overall vision so poor it's down right scary would powering up and just getting altitude be an acceptable "out"?

Yes. Standard missed approach.

One difficulty with a circling approach is deciding if you're going the wrong way if you're going to fly the published miss.

Assuming you didn't miraculously just go NORDO at the moment you went missed, in the real world it's a non-issue, you work it out with the controller as to where he or she wants you to go.

You probably won't even get that far. Your missed approach call will elicit, "Skyhurler 123, turn right heading 230, climb and maintain 9,000. Say intentions."

Since you know it's coming, you either have to say " standby" while you give serious consideration to departing for the alternate, or much better... you've already decided the next move if this approach is a miss.

Assuming every approach is miss and you need a Plan B ready to execute is part of the mental game you must play to keep ahead of it.

 

[Threefingeredjack]

I typically will take a tailwind vs. a challenging (or unknown) circling approach in low vis. The 690 has no problems going into and out of short fields or handling crosswinds, so a tailwind or crosswind should have been just fine on a runway long enough to have an ILS and would have been preferable to a circling approach.

At an unfamiliar airport a circle to land with that ceiling would be dead last on my list of outs. Unless I had a screaming tailwind, which wasn't the case here as far as I know. Nailing my approach to ensure I had as much runway as possible on touchdown seems the right way for me. Hard to second guess anyone however, but the results of a runway overrun could not have been any worse.