A36 down at KGSO

T

Tflhndn

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Apr 4, 2013
Messages
223
Location
Greensboro, NC
Display Name
Display name:
Tflhndn
Officials: Pilot reported being disoriented

http://www.greensboro.com/news/loca...cle_19891ada-c8c0-56e6-a4cd-bafba1f748f2.html

(Sent from News-Record)

While there is little real info in the article, it appears to me like he had a gyro problem.

Ceilings were about 1,000' Agl through the morning, tops about 4,000 MSL

From the liveatc recordings, (1530z (last 10 minutes) and 1600z (first 3 minutes) he had trouble intercepting the localizer and seemed a little out of it on talking to Approach. After a while, approach tried to give him no gyro turns to intercept, then to get him to climb up and out of the of
Clouds but it seems like that come too late.
http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgso/KGSO2-Sep-07-2015-1530Z.mp3

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgso/KGSO2-Sep-07-2015-1600Z.mp3

N36HT
 
The audio with the flight path is really confusing me. It appears he's having some difficulty with the altitude, but appears to make the turns ok (simply based on no inquiry from ATC on anything but his altitude wavering)

Then the long silence and that gut wrenching finale. It doesn't look like a spiral and the radar track seems to go straight for the last mile or so.

Are there any initial thoughts on possible cause? I'm drawing a complete blank on this.

I hope asking these questions isn't insensitive, I'm just wanting to learn from it.
 
I know next to nothing.
My guess would be spatial disorientation
 
Archammer said:
The audio with the flight path is really confusing me. It appears he's having some difficulty with the altitude, but appears to make the turns ok (simply based on no inquiry from ATC on anything but his altitude wavering)

Then the long silence and that gut wrenching finale. It doesn't look like a spiral and the radar track seems to go straight for the last mile or so.

Are there any initial thoughts on possible cause? I'm drawing a complete blank on this.

I hope asking these questions isn't insensitive, I'm just wanting to learn from it.
Click to expand...

ATC asked if he was established on the localizer. He said he was. They showed him progressing north away from the localizer. Things were pretty messed up it seems.
 
Looking at the headings and speeds, ground speed was low but he wasn't climbing near the end. Perhaps he stalled while trying to get back on course? He could have been focused on navigating and lost track of flying.

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N36HT/history/20150907/1208Z/KSRQ/KGSO/tracklog

I know ground speed doesn't equal airspeed but I wouldn't expect he was seeing a 50+ knot headwind from the east at 2100 msl.

As someone on the home stretch of IFR training it's sobering to ponder all the ways things can go wrong. :confused:
 
LDJones said:
Stay sharp on partial panel.
Click to expand...

Needle ball airspeed? Sure, universally agreeable in theory, but not really practical advice imo. If I find myself down to n/b/a in no kidding wide-area hard IMC in this day and age, I've fogged up my ADM wholesale somewhere up the swiss cheese chain.

A more organic solution would be to invest in a second AI, SV, and flight plan to MVFR minimums when filing. Sure, the last one diminishes the value of the instrument rating, but it beats dying. As much as denialists on here want to suggest spatial D is not a problem in the hobbyist crowd, it continues to be a killer as a percentage of people who encounter it, and a major contributing factor to task saturation related accidents. I put it in the category of things people don't give you a cookie for when done right, and costs you your life the one time you're an RCH less than on your A-game. Meh, no thanks, this is supposed to be recreational, not work.

Most people can't do needle ball airspeed consistently right on a pop-up situation as it is. They pooch it over and over. The FAA and NTSB has known this for decades. That's why AC 91-75 has been in place for a while now. I think SV brings a whole new dimension to providing comprehensive horizon reference and thus a comfortable improvement to SA. If you're the baby turtle that spatial-Ds behind a G1000/equivalent, you're just not meant to make it to the ocean. The vast majority of folks however, will definitively benefit from eVFR in their recreational IFR flying. N-B-A is for the birds.
 
I
am as confused as most of you are, my dad is a pilot and my aviation is limited to skydiving, however being a firefighter and going to the scene today made me really wonder. There is no skid marks just one impact on a graded dirt field. i don't think i am allowed to tell the condition of the aircraft but it appeared to go straight in. neighbors said he circled twice before diving. There was evidence that they were looking up emergency landing procedures. My guess is equipment failure then stall. any thoughts? Prayers for the families
 
If I ever have spatial disorientation, I will try to engage the AP to keep the plane steady while I get myself oriented. Disorientation can be a b*tch and half and I hope to experience it under controlled conditions with a CFII first to know what it feels like and to be able to talk myself through it.

May they R.I.P. :(
 
hindsight2020 said:
Needle ball airspeed? Sure, universally agreeable in theory, but not really practical advice imo. If I find myself down to n/b/a in no kidding wide-area hard IMC in this day and age, I've fogged up my ADM wholesale somewhere up the swiss cheese chain.

A more organic solution would be to invest in a second AI, SV, and flight plan to MVFR minimums when filing. Sure, the last one diminishes the value of the instrument rating, but it beats dying. As much as denialists on here want to suggest spatial D is not a problem in the hobbyist crowd, it continues to be a killer as a percentage of people who encounter it, and a major contributing factor to task saturation related accidents. I put it in the category of things people don't give you a cookie for when done right, and costs you your life the one time you're an RCH less than on your A-game. Meh, no thanks, this is supposed to be recreational, not work.

Most people can't do needle ball airspeed consistently right on a pop-up situation as it is. They pooch it over and over. The FAA and NTSB has known this for decades. That's why AC 91-75 has been in place for a while now. I think SV brings a whole new dimension to providing comprehensive horizon reference and thus a comfortable improvement to SA. If you're the baby turtle that spatial-Ds behind a G1000/equivalent, you're just not meant to make it to the ocean. The vast majority of folks however, will definitively benefit from eVFR in their recreational IFR flying. N-B-A is for the birds.
Click to expand...

Have as many backups/alternatives as possible. I'd be looking toward my Stratus 2 and ForeFlight in that situation. But partial panel isn't that tough if practiced regularly. I want all the tools possible, including basic needle/ball/airspeed flying.
 
LDJones said:
Have as many backups/alternatives as possible. I'd be looking toward my Stratus 2 and ForeFlight in that situation. But partial panel isn't that tough if practiced regularly. I want all the tools possible, including basic needle/ball/airspeed flying.
Click to expand...

My MEI showed me a trick with my 530, put it on the first nav screen and it shows heading on the top, it looks like the top of a DG. Of course it lags a bit, but using it along with turn and bank makes partial panel easier.
 
Given what I heard on the radio, I hope if I ever find myself having those issues 500-1000 below blue skies I will cancel the approach attempts and get back to VFR before attempting to do a partial panel approach.

The overcast was fairly solid, but not very thick.
 
Did I miss an emergency call? I only listened about ten mins of the end of recording 1 and 3 mins of recording 2, but I never heard an emergency call made.

The controller then started a no gyro approach, which to me indicated emergency (I am a vfr only pilot and know little about IFR), but nothing "emergency" was done about. This forced the controller to continue his normal workload while trying to no gyro vector the "emergency" plane. Aren't most no gyro approaches done with a separate controller on a unique frequency?

And why the heck did the pilot flying not communicate the issue? Where was the ask for help? He doesn't even sound panicked, which I guess is a good thing but I think he thought "I can get out of this" when he couldn't. :-(

RIP, and condolences to the family. I hope we figure out what happened and why so others can learn from this one. This one seems a bit confusing.

TJ

Ps: no insensitivity meant... I'm just so puzzled on why no ask for help.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tj1376 said:
....... Aren't most no gyro approaches done with a separate controller on a unique frequency?.......




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
You're thinking of Radar Approaches such as PAR and ASR approaches. They are usually, but don't have to be done as Single Frequency Approaches where the pilot is put on a discrete frequency prior to the beginning of the approach and won't change to the Tower until after landing and rolling out. No Gyro vectors can be done at anytime whether or not is in conjuction with a "Radar Approach." This airplane was getting No Gyro Vectors to an Instrument Approach. I listened to the feed once and never heard a "Stop Turn." There was a Turn Left followed by a Turn Right and a lot of other stuff in between and after. In a situation like this I would never hesitate to stop a turn myself and try to get caught up with airplane if things were starting to get out of hand and worry about the vectors and navigating later.
 
Tj1376 said:
Did I miss an emergency call? I only listened about ten mins of the end of recording 1 and 3 mins of recording 2, but I never heard an emergency call made.

The controller then started a no gyro approach, which to me indicated emergency (I am a vfr only pilot and know little about IFR), but nothing "emergency" was done about. This forced the controller to continue his normal workload while trying to no gyro vector the "emergency" plane. Aren't most no gyro approaches done with a separate controller on a unique frequency?

And why the heck did the pilot flying not communicate the issue? Where was the ask for help? He doesn't even sound panicked, which I guess is a good thing but I think he thought "I can get out of this" when he couldn't. :-(

RIP, and condolences to the family. I hope we figure out what happened and why so others can learn from this one. This one seems a bit confusing.
Click to expand...
Right now, no one knows exactly what happened. There may have been an aircraft failure or perhaps not. The pilot may have been proficient and competent or perhaps not enough for the situation. The controller knew there was a problem and took what he thought at the time was appropriate action. Etc.

From the audio it seems to me after the first couple of transmissions that the pilot was 'behind' things and more than a bit tense if not scared and confused. The erratic flying and odd requests got the attention of the controller pretty quickly and it seems like he gave him some room to get it back together. The pilot didn't declare an emergency or ask for emergency help or action because it's not a natural thing to do and/or he may not have known what to ask for because he may not have known what was wrong... only that something was. The controller realized things were continuing to go downhill and tried to help the guy. No one declared an emergency but it's not clear that would have changed the outcome. The pilot was scared to death in the last transmissions.

But that's all guess work and conjecture from very little information.

Some years ago there was a set of trials done involving pilots of high performance singles and instrument failures. As I recall, standard six pack panels were used and an unexpected vacuum failure was simulated. Many pilot/plane combinations entered into spirals or otherwise lost control not so much from lack of partial panel skills per se, but rather from their inability to identify the failure fast enough to maintain safe flight. The more 'slippery' the plane, the more difficult it was to identify and react correctly to the failure in time. Bo's were one of the more 'slipperly' planes. (Can someone link to this 90s vintage work to refresh and correct my recall?)

Anyway, while I have no idea what happened the other day in Greensboro, I was thinking of those issues as I listened to the audio. Something was wrong and/or the pilot was confused. Certainly the last minutes in that cockpit were terrifying. The last 15 minutes may have all been gut wrenchingly terrifying. Much more than the flight track suggests.
 
Bill Watson said:
Right now, no one knows exactly what happened. There may have been an aircraft failure or perhaps not. The pilot may have been proficient and competent or perhaps not enough for the situation. The controller knew there was a problem and took what he thought at the time was appropriate action. Etc.



From the audio it seems to me after the first couple of transmissions that the pilot was 'behind' things and more than a bit tense if not scared and confused. The erratic flying and odd requests got the attention of the controller pretty quickly and it seems like he gave him some room to get it back together. The pilot didn't declare an emergency or ask for emergency help or action because it's not a natural thing to do and/or he may not have known what to ask for because he may not have known what was wrong... only that something was. The controller realized things were continuing to go downhill and tried to help the guy. No one declared an emergency but it's not clear that would have changed the outcome. The pilot was scared to death in the last transmissions.



But that's all guess work and conjecture from very little information.



Some years ago there was a set of trials done involving pilots of high performance singles and instrument failures. As I recall, standard six pack panels were used and an unexpected vacuum failure was simulated. Many pilot/plane combinations entered into spirals or otherwise lost control not so much from lack of partial panel skills per se, but rather from their inability to identify the failure fast enough to maintain safe flight. The more 'slippery' the plane, the more difficult it was to identify and react correctly to the failure in time. Bo's were one of the more 'slipperly' planes. (Can someone link to this 90s vintage work to refresh and correct my recall?)



Anyway, while I have no idea what happened the other day in Greensboro, I was thinking of those issues as I listened to the audio. Something was wrong and/or the pilot was confused. Certainly the last minutes in that cockpit were terrifying. The last 15 minutes may have all been gut wrenchingly terrifying. Much more than the flight track suggests.
Click to expand...


I can't even begin to imagine what it must be like to be in the clouds with a vacuum failure and starting to feel very spatially disorientated. It's not like the attitude indicator just dies the moment the pump starts failing... Watching a gyro spin down from loss of vacuum is mesmerizing. Now add in being in the clouds and feelings of vertigo. Yikes.

I know we still don't know if that happened, but if so it might really explain the odd behaviors.

Rip

TJ


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Also be aware that the liveatc feed is not just one approach frequency, it is two approach frequencies, tower, ground and clearance delivery. There could very well be pieces that were not recorded on that feed.
 
Based on the radar data on flight aware and approaches radios comments I don't think he broke out until he was well into a death spiral. JMHO... He was disoriented / suffering from loss of gyros, he had just been told to climb up and out of the layer. If he wasn't wings level he very well might have "climbed" himself into a death spiral. By the time he broke out at the bottom he didn't have time to recover.

I don't know the numbers on a Bonanza, but on a Comanche, a controlled diving spiral for an emergency descent can give you a descent rate of more than 4000' per minute. At a 1,000 ft ceiling, that'd leave you less than 15 seconds to identify and recover. And the ceiling were no higher than 1,000' that day and clouds were much lower in some places
 
Tflhndn said:
Based on the radar data on flight aware and approaches radios comments I don't think he broke out until he was well into a death spiral. JMHO... He was disoriented / suffering from loss of gyros, he had just been told to climb up and out of the layer. If he wasn't wings level he very well might have "climbed" himself into a death spiral. By the time he broke out at the bottom he didn't have time to recover.

I don't know the numbers on a Bonanza, but on a Comanche, a controlled diving spiral for an emergency descent can give you a descent rate of more than 4000' per minute. At a 1,000 ft ceiling, that'd leave you less than 15 seconds to identify and recover. And the ceiling were no higher than 1,000' that day and clouds were much lower in some places
Click to expand...

Bonanzas are easy machines to fly up to the point that they're not. They can go into an accelerating spiral (and cross Vne) to which it takes unintuitive steps to correct. It's not so difficult if you know it's coming and are prepared to correct. Wouldn't want it to happen disoriented with 1000' to correct. Not saying that's what happened here, just commenting on a "quirk" of the Bo.
 
Tflhndn said:
Based on the radar data on flight aware and approaches radios comments I don't think he broke out until he was well into a death spiral.
Click to expand...

Can you explain how the radar data leads you to conclude he was in a death spiral? :dunno:
 
No gyro failure, was observed to be moving wings back and forth before spiraling down nose first. Again no gyro failure.
 
bartmc said:
Bonanzas are easy machines to fly up to the point that they're not. They can go into an accelerating spiral (and cross Vne) to which it takes unintuitive steps to correct. It's not so difficult if you know it's coming and are prepared to correct. Wouldn't want it to happen disoriented with 1000' to correct. Not saying that's what happened here, just commenting on a "quirk" of the Bo.
Click to expand...

Most airplanes are pretty easy to fly provided you have some time in type, were instructed by a capable person and are not a low time pilot. Maybe I missed the question in all this speculation but does anyone know how much time the pilot had? Both in type and total? Then......how much instrument time? Did he fly instruments often? While some high time pilots get into trouble on instruments, much more often it's the recent IFR rated ,or low time IFR, that buys the ranch.( or both) A bonanza is a pretty straight forward aircraft especially if you've flown one a good bit. Another big consideration is pressure and how some pilots are unable to handle it when the chips are down. It's why the military try's to weed these types out during training and is pretty successful, though some get thru. In GA this is not the case.
 
Last edited:
Jimmy cooper said:
Most airplanes are pretty easy to fly provided you have some time in type, were instructed by a capable person and are not a low time pilot. Maybe I missed the question in all this speculation but does anyone know how much time the pilot had? Both in type and total? Then......how much instrument time? Did he fly instruments often? While some high time pilots get into trouble on instruments, much more often it's the recent IFR rated ,or low time IFR, that buys the ranch.( or both) A bonanza is a pretty straight forward aircraft especially if you've flown one a good bit. Another big consideration is pressure and how some pilots are unable to handle it when the chips are down.
Click to expand...

I agree with this, especially the bolded. I am not making the accusation that this is what happened, I just agree with the statement.
 
Unregistered said:
No gyro failure, was observed to be moving wings back and forth before spiraling down nose first. Again no gyro failure.
Click to expand...

Observed by whom?

What does failure or non failure of the gyro have to do with the ability or inability move wings back and forth...(I assume you mean bank the wings)
 
Gyros have nothing to do with banking wings back and forth I guess, like I said I am not a pilot. However I was on scene with people way above my rank that know alot and have evidence.
 
Apparently there is someone on this forum who was on the scene. I'm sure they have better information than I, but I do have information from one of the initial responders that said,

"Reports from people who seen the plane in the air said they seen black smoke coming from it then it just fell out of the sky."

My question for those much wiser than I am:
Disregarding the above quote, which may or may not be accurate (the public sees all sorts of things), what's the possibility that the pilot over-flew his fuel limitations?
I ask this because of the range of the A36, and the fact that his track on FlightAware indicates that he made the trip without a stop for fuel.
I'm not a pilot, so I may be way out in left field with my question. Just asking.
 
kc4wsd said:
Apparently there is someone on this forum who was on the scene. I'm sure they have better information than I, but I do have information from one of the initial responders that said,

"Reports from people who seen the plane in the air said they seen black smoke coming from it then it just fell out of the sky."

My question for those much wiser than I am:
Disregarding the above quote, which may or may not be accurate (the public sees all sorts of things), what's the possibility that the pilot over-flew his fuel limitations?
I ask this because of the range of the A36, and the fact that his track on FlightAware indicates that he made the trip without a stop for fuel.
.
Click to expand...

Reports indicate a large fire at impact. Since it crashes into a quarry, my assumption would be there was plenty of fuel on board (I know, two assumptions in the above)

Based on the odd responses the pilot gave atc early in the approach, I just don't think fuel starvation was the issue.
 
Thanks Tflhndn. I was also wondering why fuel issues weren't mentioned in communications with Greensboro Approach.
On the other hand, I find it a little odd that he put it down in a quarry, of all places. Only a few yards away was a major four-lane highway with a median (recently designated an interstate).
I suppose we can all guess until the cows come home, but will never know more until the NTSB report is released.
 
kc4wsd said:
Thanks Tflhndn. I was also wondering why fuel issues weren't mentioned in communications with Greensboro Approach.
On the other hand, I find it a little odd that he put it down in a quarry, of all places. Only a few yards away was a major four-lane highway with a median (recently designated an interstate).
I suppose we can all guess until the cows come home, but will never know more until the NTSB report is released.
Click to expand...
Put it down or crashed, that's a question.

If he was still under control and found himself underneath the IMC there was no reason to put it down until he found GSO. Control did not seem to be the case.
 
I don't think there is any indication that the pilot was trying to "put it down"

Everything pretty clearly points to loss of control in IMC, whether it be disorientation or loss of instruments no one knows rights yet, but it is pretty clearly a spatial disorientation crash... IMHO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
 
My error in making a bad choice of words.
Yes, he "crashed" the aircraft, he was obviously not trying to "land" it in a rock quarry.
I was really just curious about the fuel issue, because of the range vs. the distance flown prior to the accident.
Disorientation seems to be a major factor / cause of the accident due to the nearby highway, which would have served as a decent landing option.
 
Tflhndn said:
I don't think there is any indication that the pilot was trying to "put it down"

Everything pretty clearly points to loss of control in IMC, whether it be disorientation or loss of instruments no one knows rights yet, but it is pretty clearly a spatial disorientation crash... IMHO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD
Click to expand...

kc4wsd said:
My error in making a bad choice of words.
Yes, he "crashed" the aircraft, he was obviously not trying to "land" it in a rock quarry.
I was really just curious about the fuel issue, because of the range vs. the distance flown prior to the accident.
Disorientation seems to be a major factor / cause of the accident due to the nearby highway, which would have served as a decent landing option.
Click to expand...


While I realize that eyewitnesses are inherently unreliable, this one had one talking about "maneuvers" close to the ground and then talked about spinning. That leads me to believe loss of control in IMC, breaking out of the clouds with not enough time to recover.

Another person said they were at the scene and that it basically went straight in...

This clearly wasn't a "landing" of any type. It was a completely out of control impact to the ground.
 
The query that the plane ended up in was recently graded and had a very large area flat and smooth that "maybe" the pilot saw and was going to attempt to put it down there. There was a Manuel open to procedures for emergency landings found at scene. Some of you have refereed to coming out of IMC. I am not familiar with that term. Would someone be willing to explain what that means. I by no means am trying to tell you guys what did or didn't happen, I just was hoping to give some detail to what i saw that might help figure this out.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top