Another one lost from 52F

[wabower]

Outside the norm.

[/U]

Forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of the word "outlier?"

 

[bbchien]

Forgive my ignorance but what is the significance of the word "outlier?"

It is not usual for a pilot with hours in this range to be pic of a turbine (unless you are military).

There is a system safety reason why that is - things happen faster and the pyramid narrows at the top.

If something had happened in say, a PA-32, (JFK Jr for example who was IIRC in the 350 hour range), nobody would think it's an "outlier".

In the case of my guy, he was flying uninsured after FSI turned down flying with him. I refused to sign him off. He left an 18 year old son behind, no parents. And, from where in the patter he was, I think I know EXACTLY what happened. I could not break my guy of a particular habit, that I though would make him come to grief.

He had about 600 hours, and about 7 in the MU-2..

Now that hurt.


1000 is a more typical experience level.

 

[ja_user]

Bruce, what is FSI?

You think he pulled back past the idle stops?

 

[volaveloce]

Thank you. I guess the accurate answer to the original question, was he aware... is yes, he was aware. He was cautioned many times and responded appropriately by a number of people close to the situation, hence the 25 hour dual requirement plus the 25 hour solo requirement imposed by the insurance company prior to taking pax. He had a healthy respect for the airplane. I cannot speak to the issue of overconfidance but I can say that I never saw any cockiness-a phenomenon, I think, we, with serious time and serious scares in our background-have seen in far too many pilots. I would have jumped in his stuff with both feet if I had.

 

[bbchien]

Bruce, what is FSI?

You think he pulled back past the idle stops?

Flight Safety Intl.

No. I think what happended has to do with airspeed discipline during a configuration change and cockpit managment at that point in an approach.

Thank you. I guess the accurate answer to the original question, was he aware... is yes, he was aware. He was cautioned many times and responded appropriately by a number of people close to the situation, hence the 25 hour dual requirement plus the 25 hour solo requirement imposed by the insurance company prior to taking pax. He had a healthy respect for the airplane. I cannot speak to the issue of overconfidance but I can say that I never saw any cockiness-a phenomenon, I think, we, with serious time and serious scares in our background-have seen in far too many pilots. I would have jumped in his stuff with both feet if I had.

Velavoce:

I'm sure that's the case (that you would).

What none of us can quantitate, is how the perception of the 100 vs. 1,000 vs 10,000 hour guy for the SAME situation changes over the development of the "experience" bag. Seriously, I have seen some 400 hour pilots for whom I'd go to sleep in the back (Jesse, you reading this- and I've never watched when he was PIC, I have seen his approach to it, however), and some 8,000 hour guys for whom I have to have a PIC seat or I will not go.

But we both know that the perception and responses of even a well trained 400 hour guy, are different from that of the 4,000 hour guy.

I was a 400 hour guy once. I had four levers and 13,000 hp under my right hand and a crew of 10. I didn't think I was an inexperienced pilot then- but the perspective is soooo very different now (and I've given up logging except for currency ).

 

[volaveloce]

Question #1: Did he put the lever in beta? Frankly, I doubt it as the lever requires that you lift up and over the gate and I don't think that is something he would have thought to do ... even on roll out. Accidentally? Well, there is the essence of the discourse.

I agree completely with the 100/1000/10,000 hour assessment. When I had 800-1500 hours, I was invincible. At 5000 hours, I have a more, shall we say, balanced approach-certainly to my own mortality. N32GP was a lot of airplane for a 340 hour pilot who hadn't flown at all in the previous 8+ years. In fact either condition, 340 hours or hadn't flown, would have given (or should have given) anyone pause to think. That, in itself, may be a poignant lesson for less ecperienced pilots reading this blog...know your limitations and stick to them. Additionally, if we are expounding on experience matters, I lament the absence of spin training, long gone from the PP curriculum as well as serious unusual attitude training (aerobatics). I was partners once upon a time in a Bonanza with a guy approaching age 75, flying since he was 15 who had never had anything happen, ever. I, with 2000 or so hours had had two engine failures, an inflight fire and an icing incident that puts hair on things that should not have hair. Go figger...

 

[wabower]

I think the beta question was directed towards Bruce's friend in the Moo-too.

I commend your follow-up and forthright assessment of your friend's capabilities.

Question #1: Did he put the lever in beta? Frankly, I doubt it as the lever requires that you lift up and over the gate and I don't think that is something he would have thought to do ... even on roll out. Accidentally? Well, there is the essence of the discourse.

I agree completely with the 100/1000/10,000 hour assessment. When I had 800-1500 hours, I was invincible. At 5000 hours, I have a more, shall we say, balanced approach-certainly to my own mortality. N32GP was a lot of airplane for a 340 hour pilot who hadn't flown at all in the previous 8+ years. In fact either condition, 340 hours or hadn't flown, would have given (or should have given) anyone pause to think. That, in itself, may be a poignant lesson for less ecperienced pilots reading this blog...know your limitations and stick to them. Additionally, if we are expounding on experience matters, I lament the absence of spin training, long gone from the PP curriculum as well as serious unusual attitude training (aerobatics). I was partners once upon a time in a Bonanza with a guy approaching age 75, flying since he was 15 who had never had anything happen, ever. I, with 2000 or so hours had had two engine failures, an inflight fire and an icing incident that puts hair on things that should not have hair. Go figger...

 

[volaveloce]

Regarding your interesting quote... I have often thought a picture tax return might be an excellent form of identification.

 

[bbchien]

Question #1: Did he put the lever in beta? Frankly, I doubt it as the lever requires that you lift up and over the gate and I don't think that is something he would have thought to do ... even on roll out. Accidentally? Well, there is the essence of the discourse.
...

No. Both propellors were found in a thrust producing configuration.

I think he continued, as he had in his A-star, then his 421, to bend down to the floor below the pedestal to pick up his airport diagram, right at the turn from the 45 to the downwind. Try not losing pitch control during the skinny envelope when your flaps are half out....or are coming out...or aren't yet out but you're trying to do everything at once. The location of the wreckage was indeed, midfield abeam....

 

[weilke]

A turbine A36 doesn't fly any faster or have a stall speed any higher than a NA or A36TC.

 

[wabower]

Actually quite a bit faster than either airplane at low altitude IIRC. Turbine VNE is marked at the low end of yellow arc for the piston airplanes, but neither will achieve it. Check speeds shown on the FA track log for comparison.

A turbine A36 doesn't fly any faster or have a stall speed any higher than a NA or A36TC.

 

[volaveloce]

Weilke is incorrect. Turbine A36 performance is way higher than a NA or TC Bonanza. Max IAS for the turbine can be well above the Vne mark below about 12,000 ft. Most turbine owners pull the circuit breaker with the overspeed warning since the damn thing goes off constantly and since the Vne on the other airplanes is considerably higher, a slight Vne overspeed is not a big deal but the horn is an annoyance. Nobody (not Allison, Soloy or Tradewinds) ever did any structural assessment of where Vne should be for the turbine version, they just put the mark at the bottom of the yellow because it required no additional certification issues. Vne, as Wayne correctly noted, is at the bottom of the yellow. Below 12K you are torque limited, above 12K temp limited. IAS at optimum cruise altitude (15,000 ft) and TOT of 720º (the top of the green arc for TOT) is 168kts and TAS is in the neighborhood of 210-215 kts depending on air temp, burning about 23gph. A lot of owners pull the power back down low, that is common. Soooo 32GP's GS readout is likely the result of a retarded throttle. Fuel burn down low can be painful if you don't do that....>32gph. Stall speeds remain technically at the same place as normal Bonanzas (61-62kts) but practically are slightly higher (about 66 kts) because of w/b variations with the engine change and relocation, 21" farther forward.

 

[volaveloce]

No. Both propellors were found in a thrust producing configuration.

I think he continued, as he had in his A-star, then his 421, to bend down to the floor below the pedestal to pick up his airport diagram, right at the turn from the 45 to the downwind. Try not losing pitch control during the skinny envelope when your flaps are half out....or are coming out...or aren't yet out but you're trying to do everything at once. The location of the wreckage was indeed, midfield abeam....

Sorry, I was referring to the 32GP accident.

 

[weilke]

Actually quite a bit faster than either airplane at low altitude IIRC. Turbine VNE is marked at the low end of yellow arc for the piston airplanes, but neither will achieve it. Check speeds shown on the FA track log for comparison.

Yeah, blazing fast at a 144kts ground speed on the day of the crash.

If you look at his weekly trips to McAllen, while he often filed for 190kts, the ground tracks are often between 165-185, other flights are in the 140-160 range, nothing over 200 sustained.

They climb well, are easier to operate, more reliable and sound cool, but they are no Mu2 or Learjet when it comes to V-speeds.

 

[wabower]

What cruise speed do you select when you're short of fuel?:wink2

Most A-36 cruise speeds are closer to 160 than any other number. Especially when burning $7 LL.

Yeah, blazing fast at a 144kts ground speed on the day of the crash.

If you look at his weekly trips to McAllen, while he often filed for 190kts, the ground tracks are often between 165-185, other flights are in the 140-160 range, nothing over 200 sustained.

They climb well, are easier to operate, more reliable and sound cool, but they are no Mu2 or Learjet when it comes to V-speeds.

 

[weilke]

Max IAS for the turbine can be well above the Vne mark below about 12,000 ft. Most turbine owners pull the circuit breaker with the overspeed warning since the damn thing goes off constantly and since the Vne
.
.
.
.
.
Stall speeds remain technically at the same place as normal Bonanzas (61-62kts) but practically are slightly higher (about 66 kts) because of w/b variations with the engine change and relocation, 21" farther forward.

So you are telling me that when operated outside of the manufacturer/STC holder provided limits, they will behave in a non-standard manner ? I am shocked.

 

[N801BH]

Question #1: Did he put the lever in beta? Frankly, I doubt it as the lever requires that you lift up and over the gate and I don't think that is something he would have thought to do ... even on roll out. Accidentally? Well, there is the essence of the discourse.

I agree completely with the 100/1000/10,000 hour assessment. When I had 800-1500 hours, I was invincible. At 5000 hours, I have a more, shall we say, balanced approach-certainly to my own mortality. N32GP was a lot of airplane for a 340 hour pilot who hadn't flown at all in the previous 8+ years. In fact either condition, 340 hours or hadn't flown, would have given (or should have given) anyone pause to think. That, in itself, may be a poignant lesson for less ecperienced pilots reading this blog...know your limitations and stick to them. Additionally, if we are expounding on experience matters, I lament the absence of spin training, long gone from the PP curriculum as well as serious unusual attitude training (aerobatics). I was partners once upon a time in a Bonanza with a guy approaching age 75, flying since he was 15 who had never had anything happen, ever. I, with 2000 or so hours had had two engine failures, an inflight fire and an icing incident that puts hair on things that should not have hair. Go figger...

Then there is this crash just a few days ago here in Wyoming.. http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2012/10/12/news/doc5077a8f28385a135601717.txt

4 guys from Texas. The story I am getting is the pilot bought the plane 6 days before, had a 25,000 + hour retired airline captain on board and two other innocent guys too and proceeded to fly directly into Laramie peak at full throttle.. The S&R guys I spoke to said the biggest part was the motor, all other debris was size of a shoebox.... Just little bitty pieces all over. The plane supposably had a glass panel with terrain warning... Total hours don't mean squat if you are not gonna use your head........

Sad deal for 4 families..

 

[volaveloce]

There is apparently some misunderstanding of ground speed vs indicated air speed vs true airspeed. The A36 in question could reliably file for 205 TAS at 15,000 ft. His ground speed could be anything. Filing for 190 kts TAS would indicate a slightly lower fuel burn. Most conventional Bonanzas (of which, I have owned 3-33s, 1-35 and 2-36s) will have a TAS of about 158-164 kts. These same airplanes would have vastly different IAS based on altitude and temp (remember your E6B?).

Regarding how much fuel might or might not have been on this airplane, there simply is no credible information, at the moment, to support any hypothesis other than the logical one that he had less than a full load because of his short hop to F44 for fuel on his way to the football game. If he had been nearly full at 52F, he could easily have made a 420nm trip to the game NS and gotten there with 2 hrs range remaning.

If I had to guess, and that is all this would be, I would say he left south Texas two days prior with full fuel, burned 2.5 hours or so on his way back to 52F and then, with 2.25 hours remaining, planned on a 30 min hop to F44 for fuel out to Mississippi.

 

[wabower]

Wheeler Peak near Taos has been similarly smacked by numerous Texans over the years.

Then there is this crash just a few days ago here in Wyoming.. http://www.laramieboomerang.com/articles/2012/10/12/news/doc5077a8f28385a135601717.txt

4 guys from Texas. The story I am getting is the pilot bought the plane 6 days before, had a 25,000 + hour retired airline captain on board and two other innocent guys too and proceeded to fly directly into Laramie peak at full throttle.. The S&R guys I spoke to said the biggest part was the motor, all other debris was size of a shoebox.... Just little bitty pieces all over. The plane supposably had a glass panel with terrain warning... Total hours don't mean squat if you are not gonna use your head........

Sad deal for 4 families..

 

[N801BH]

There is apparently some misunderstanding of ground speed vs indicated air speed vs true airspeed. The A36 in question could reliably file for 205 TAS at 15,000 ft. His ground speed could be anything. Filing for 190 kts TAS would indicate a slightly lower fuel burn. Most conventional Bonanzas (of which, I have owned 3-33s, 1-35 and 2-36s) will have a TAS of about 158-164 kts. These same airplanes would have vastly different IAS based on altitude and temp (remember your E6B?).

Regarding how much fuel might or might not have been on this airplane, there simply is no credible information, at the moment, to support any hypothesis other than the logical one that he had less than a full load because of his short hop to F44 for fuel on his way to the football game. If he had been nearly full at 52F, he could easily have made a 420nm trip to the game NS and gotten there with 2 hrs range remaning.

If I had to guess, and that is all this would be, I would say he left south Texas two days prior with full fuel, burned 2.5 hours or so on his way back to 52F and then, with 2.25 hours remaining, planned on a 30 min hop to F44 for fuel out to Mississippi.

Yup... my guess about 30 posts ago..... And to keep harping on TAS is pointless as the track, if true, shows he never got over 3000 MSL.. Those turbines get DARN thirsty down low...

I will repost.... he took off, looked for his fuel stop, couldn't get down and ran out of fuel.... And then gravity took over... A REALLY sad deal no matter the reason..

 

[wabower]

I don't have much question about the beginning or the end, but will admit the middle part is a total mystery. I don't know anything about his fundamental flying skills, but assume he was a reasonably bright guy with some knowledge and logical though processes. Looking at the FA track makes those assumptions difficult to sustain.

Yup... my guess about 30 posts ago..... And to keep harping on TAS is pointless as the track, if true, shows he never got over 3000 MSL.. Those turbines get DARN thirsty down low...

I will repost.... he took off, looked for his fuel stop, couldn't get down and ran out of fuel.... And then gravity took over... A REALLY sad deal no matter the reason..

 

[douglas393]

From the report:

All flight control cables were traced. All observed control cable separations had a broom straw appearance consistent with overload.

Could this suggest inflight breakup, or structural overload.

The left and right wing flap jackscrew actuator measurements corresponded to a zero degree flap setting. The aileron trim actuator measurement was consistent with a neutral setting. The landing gear linkage position was consistent with retracted landing gear.

I think somewhere it was suggested he was landing, but would this not suggest he was in something other than approach.

The engine separated from the airframe. Debris was found in the engine’s turbine section.

Would this suggest the engines were functioning at the time of the accident. Thus fuel starvation is possibly not the cause.

Fuel was found in the fuel pump filter bowl.

Also would suggest that fuel starvation possibly not the issue.

The propeller was separated from the engine. Two propeller blades remained attached to their hub and they exhibited chordwise abrasions. The separated blade exhibited S-shaped bending and chordwise abrasion.

Also does this not suggest that the engine was running and probably not a fuel starvation issue.

The attitude indicator was disassembled and its gyro and cage exhibited rotational scoring.

Not sure what this means but is it due to the gyro tumbling?


Doug

 

[weilke]

From the report:
Could this suggest inflight breakup, or structural overload.
I think somewhere it was suggested he was landing, but would this not suggest he was in something other than approach.
Would this suggest the engines were functioning at the time of the accident. Thus fuel starvation is possibly not the cause.
Also would suggest that fuel starvation possibly not the issue.
Also does this not suggest that the engine was running and probably not a fuel starvation issue.

Agree on all counts.

Looking at the pictures of the crater, two wings and two tip tanks were present in the typical configuration. If the tail was in the same location, I doubt it was in-flight breakup.

Not sure what this means but is it due to the gyro tumbling?

The way I understand 'NTSB-ese' that means the gyro was spinning at the time of the mechanical impact.


From the prelim, so far everything sounds like a loss of control in IMC, hardly the first time that that has happened.

 

[douglas393]

From the prelim, so far everything sounds like a loss of control in IMC, hardly the first time that that has happened.

Did not want to say that but that is what it seems.

Doug

 

[wabower]

Disregard. Looking at an incomplete track.

Was he s-turning while looking for the airport?

Did not want to say that but that is what it seems.

Doug

 

[Fearless Tower]

The plane supposably had a glass panel with terrain warning... Total hours don't mean squat if you are not gonna use your head........

Uh-oh....don't tell L.Adamson.....according to him, that can't happen.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

 

[douglas393]

Was he s-turning while looking for the airport?

Thought he was on an IFR plan in IMC would an S turn looking for the airport be appropriate. I am just got my IFR a few months ago, but I cannot think of a reason why I would be doing S turns looking for an airport while on an IFR plan. For that matter, never really thought of using S-turns to look for an airport, I usually associate them with looking for traffic .

Doug

 

[wabower]

I amended the post. One of the earlier tracks that I saw didn't download properly and the squiggle lines NE of Terrell were the end of of the tracing.

As an instructor I've seen some of the gyrations that pilots attempt when they can't find the airport directly ahead. None of them are included in the "how to fly in the clouds" books. In any event, disregard.

Thought he was on an IFR plan in IMC would an S turn looking for the airport be appropriate. I am just got my IFR a few months ago, but I cannot think of a reason why I would be doing S turns looking for an airport while on an IFR plan. For that matter, never really thought of using S-turns to look for an airport, I usually associate them with looking for traffic .

Doug

 

[volaveloce]

I am not disagreeing. It's just pointless for us to speculate. I knew the pilot and his airplane well. Four dead. Sad beyond words. Let us all learn the lessons that are out there and just so obvious to survivors.

 

[douglas393]

Every accident is sad. When someone dies its beyond words. I have learned a lot from both reading the official reports, both by NTSB, and by the experts in the field when they dissect out accidents. Likewise, I have learned a lot from the "speculation" on forums like this. If this "speculation" prevents just one accident, or makes just one pilot a better pilot, it's not pointless.

When a pilot dies, or is in an accident, we all feel for them and their family. I do not think the "speculation" that goes on on these forums is meant to be disrespectful. It occurs because we all are trying to learn something and hopefully prevent it from happening to someone else.

I think I speak for all of us when I say we are truly sorry for your loss.

I for one have learned more in forums like this than I have from any instructor or book.

Doug
"

 

[ja_user]

I don't know these pilots or their families.. But reading these helps me think of situations that I don't run into in the middle of the flatlands...

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Note that according to the preliminary report, total flight time prior to impact was only one hour... Not the 3+ hours FlightAware's track shows. FA data was probably in coast mode...

 

[Mafoo]

I don't know these pilots or their families.. But reading these helps me think of situations that I don't run into in the middle of the flatlands...

I just flew my last required solo cross country, and flew by Mount Washington at 5500 feet (It's 6,288 feet high), constantly scanning for a place to land if the engine failed. It was incredibility beautiful today. Clear, skys with snow caps.

Anyway, I often think the same thing the other way. I have only flown in the mountains, and I often wonder if there are any situations I would run into in the flatlands that I don't often see here.

One for sure is a completely different set of landmarks. Out here, power lines cut through the trees are as good as someone using a highlighter on the earth. You can't miss them.

Another would be high cross winds. We don't have near as high of winds here then you have in the mid west.

I often wonder what else I am missing.

 

[wabower]

Reports vary between 30 minutes and 3 hours. The truth probably lies in there somewhere.

Note that according to the preliminary report, total flight time prior to impact was only one hour... Not the 3+ hours FlightAware's track shows. FA data was probably in coast mode...

 

[ja_user]

I just flew my last required solo cross country, and flew by Mount Washington at 5500 feet (It's 6,288 feet high), constantly scanning for a place to land if the engine failed. It was incredibility beautiful today. Clear, skys with snow caps.

Anyway, I often think the same thing the other way. I have only flown in the mountains, and I often wonder if there are any situations I would run into in the flatlands that I don't often see here.

One for sure is a completely different set of landmarks. Out here, power lines cut through the trees are as good as someone using a highlighter on the earth. You can't miss them.

Another would be high cross winds. We don't have near as high of winds here then you have in the mid west.

I often wonder what else I am missing.

I am not sure, because I haven't flown there.


Wait, New Hampshire has mountains???

 

[Mafoo]

Wait, New Hampshire has mountains???

lol, yea. I have flown in the Green Mountains of Vermont, and NH has the Whites. Here is one of the shots I took with my iPhone. Days like this, I am excited to get my PPL so I can go up with my Wife, so she can take a real camera, and get some greats shots.

Anyway, this has nothing to do with this thread, so sorry for derailing it.

 

[ja_user]

Well, just the tip is white.. That just looks like a hill

 

[Mafoo]

Well, just the tip is white.. That just looks like a hill

Try climbing it

What you're looking at in that photo, is the location on earth, with the highest recorded wind speeds. The highest was 231 mph, only eclipsed once by recording winds inside a tornado.

If you look at the hardest hikes in the US, more of them are in these mountains, or the Siara Nevadas, then the Rockies. The Rockies are taller, but the Appalachians are steeper.

 

[ja_user]

Try climbing it

What you're looking at in that photo, is the location on earth, with the highest recorded wind speeds. The highest was 231 mph, only eclipsed once by recording winds inside a tornado.

If you look at the hardest hikes in the US, more of them are in these mountains, or the Siara Nevadas, then the Rockies. The Rockies are taller, but the Appalachians are steeper.

So left rudder in the climb would have been more appropriate than right?

 

[Clark1961]

The Rockies are taller, but the Appalachians are steeper.

Hmmm, dunno 'bout that. The steep parts of the Rockies can't be "hiked"...