Beechcraft Baron 55 down in Leyden MA, triple fatal

When the cure’s symptoms are worse than the disease, knocking it off is a real consideration.

Prolly oughta change up the multi rating into piston and everything else. Taildraggers are culled out, and groundloops aren’t very dangerous.

Food for thought.
 
Tantalum said:
. . . during training sometimes to use accidents will happen. I'm surprised they would try any kind of "exciting maneuver" with someone in the back though
Click to expand...
It doesn't seem unreasonable to prohibit passengers when conducting this training. Especially since passenger(s) drive the CG further aft, making recovery more difficult.
 
Tantalum said:
Sorry to the OP


The metrics are skewed. Do you have data on the hours of successful twin training that occurs daily with these kinds of maneuvers?

Twins demand more. Unfortunately that means during training sometimes to use accidents will happen. I'm surprised they would try any kind of "exciting maneuver" with someone in the back though

But if the data is sourced and supports it, it might not be unreasonable to update training standards..
Click to expand...
I dont think we need any relative data (relative to the total hours of training). If we can save 5 people per year by transferring specific twin maneuvers to the sim, I think that's a good idea.
 
Some of the best training I’ve had for multiengine emergencies was towing gliders. Maybe everybody should do that for a couple hundred hours before they get their multiengine rating.

Of course, if it’s not taken seriously it’s not going to be any better than anything else.
 
Last edited:
As the VMC training continues, being reminded of the risk exposure is important. That Baron probably was used plenty of times to do VMC training, without incident. But, something obviously went wrong. I would not want to be a passenger on a VMC training flight.

In my early years of flying our airport had one deadly accident after a multi had an engine failure on takeoff. Within a year of that happening another multi had an engine failure on takeoff, but the pilot kept it flying and landed a few minutes later with a full load of passengers. Engine out procedures played a roll in each outcome.
 
And that's what I'm saying. What's the likelihood of a stall with an engine failure in a multi? Based on the statistics (that I mentioned earlier) this is highly unlikely if not non-existent. We don't practice landing in a river at the regionals but as we were reminded last week, it's happened. If we're killing more people than we're saving, we should probably reconsider the necessity of the training. To draw it to something more of us have experienced, I've never put a plane in a spin. But it's possible. But we don't have that as part of the Private or Sport curriculum.
 
KE5BM said:
And that's what I'm saying. What's the likelihood of a stall with an engine failure in a multi? Based on the statistics (that I mentioned earlier) this is highly unlikely if not non-existent. We don't practice landing in a river at the regionals but as we were reminded last week, it's happened. If we're killing more people than we're saving, we should probably reconsider the necessity of the training. To draw it to something more of us have experienced, I've never put a plane in a spin. But it's possible. But we don't have that as part of the Private or Sport curriculum.
Click to expand...
The likely hood is actually pretty dang high. Especially in just about any light twin shortly after takeoff. Once you’re cleaned up, climbing and well above blue line the risk drops considerably. Saying it’s non existent is a fantasy.
 
KJT said:
It doesn't seem unreasonable to prohibit passengers when conducting this training. Especially since passenger(s) drive the CG further aft, making recovery more difficult.
Click to expand...
Define passenger, because I'd bet in most of these cases it's actually a student or a CFI / MEI candidate. It's not without value to ride in the back and observe.

 
RyanShort1 said:
Define passenger, because I'd bet in most of these cases it's actually a student or a CFI / MEI candidate. It's not without value to ride in the back and observe.

Click to expand...
Interesting way to demonstrate CG changes by arm wrestling ... ;)
 
I think the issue here is that some of these accidents are not just biting CFIs, but some really seasoned pilots. Wasn't there one recently where the DPE was one of those involved?
 
Let me put it a different way and I'll put it to rest because I'm still wrestling with the risk v. gain decision to continue these demos.

According to NTSB data, If you select fatal accidents happening to twin-engine aircraft that occurred during takeoff there are 21 such incidents in the US over the last 10 years. If you limit that search to just propeller-driven aircraft that eliminates 3 of those. Then, if you only count the ones that didn't involve something else entirely (mid-air collision, IMC disorientation, controlled flight into terrain, etc.) I'm left with only 6 accidents totaling 8 fatalities. At least one of those could be attributed to something other than an engine failure as well. But we'll be generous. We killed 3 in one demonstration accident and a quick search of Juan's videos will find we surpass 8 very quickly. So, given 8 fatalities across 10 years of twin-engine takeoffs that MIGHT be attributed to a stall after an engine failure or partial power loss I'd say that constitutes my use of "highly unlikely if not non-existent." Admittedly using "non-existent" is an exaggeration. Statistically speaking, however I can't put the gain above the risk regardless of what term I used.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this. I'm no expert when it comes to using the NTSB database. I'd love to believe that the gain far outweighs the risk of conducting these demos. But when I see how often we're flat-spinning multi-engine aircraft doing them, and add to that at least a couple professional pilots suggesting that you can't possibly recover one of these stalls in less than a few thousand feet, AND we're training this for the event of it happening on the takeoff and initial climb, I'm led to believe this is an unnecessary task. Is that an unreasonable assumption? Am I missing something?
 
KE5BM said:
Let me put it a different way and I'll put it to rest because I'm still wrestling with the risk v. gain decision to continue these demos.

According to NTSB data, If you select fatal accidents happening to twin-engine aircraft that occurred during takeoff there are 21 such incidents in the US over the last 10 years. If you limit that search to just propeller-driven aircraft that eliminates 3 of those. Then, if you only count the ones that didn't involve something else entirely (mid-air collision, IMC disorientation, controlled flight into terrain, etc.) I'm left with only 6 accidents totaling 8 fatalities. At least one of those could be attributed to something other than an engine failure as well. But we'll be generous. We killed 3 in one demonstration accident and a quick search of Juan's videos will find we surpass 8 very quickly. So, given 8 fatalities across 10 years of twin-engine takeoffs that MIGHT be attributed to a stall after an engine failure or partial power loss I'd say that constitutes my use of "highly unlikely if not non-existent." Admittedly using "non-existent" is an exaggeration. Statistically speaking, however I can't put the gain above the risk regardless of what term I used.

I'd love to be proven wrong on this. I'm no expert when it comes to using the NTSB database. I'd love to believe that the gain far outweighs the risk of conducting these demos. But when I see how often we're flat-spinning multi-engine aircraft doing them, and add to that at least a couple professional pilots suggesting that you can't possibly recover one of these stalls in less than a few thousand feet, AND we're training this for the event of it happening on the takeoff and initial climb, I'm led to believe this is an unnecessary task. Is that an unreasonable assumption? Am I missing something?
Click to expand...

Taking your numbers (I'm not doubting them, let's just use them), there were very few fatal accidents of the nature that the stall/spin training is intended to avoid. What we don't know is how many accidents would occur if pilots were not trained for stall/spins on departure.

What are the numbers for engine failures on departure that did not result in a fatality? We don't know because an engine failure in a twin is not necessarily reportable.
 
KE5BM said:
Am I missing something?
Click to expand...
Yes. You are using the wrong basis for comparison. Instead of looking at the number of takeoff deaths, you should be looking at the number of single-engine-out events that resulted in no accident because the pilot was trained to react correctly.
 
Hang on...is the demo that resulted in this triple-death a simple engine out? Or is it something else? I thought it was a stall after an engine out.
 
KE5BM said:
Hang on...is the demo that resulted in this triple-death a simple engine out? Or is it something else? I thought it was a stall after an engine out.
Click to expand...
Flightaware profile looks more like a departure stall than a Vmc demo.
 
dtuuri said:
Ask yourself if you'd rather be a passenger in a twin flown by somebody who has actually demonstrated the skills in a real plane, or someone who hasn't.
Click to expand...
I see a lot of pilots who have demonstrated the skills in a real plane that I wouldn’t get in an airplane with, passenger or not.
 
MauleSkinner said:
Flightaware profile looks more like a departure stall than a Vmc demo.
Click to expand...
Earlier I was confident it was a VMC demo, but with the amount of climb seen it may more likely be a power on stall demo, with a bank. Naturally we think VMC demo is the more risky one.

Been a long time since I was put to the test in ME piston engine training. I just noticed while glancing at a few YT videos of ME training and VMC demos how there was inconsistencies in training methodology.

Regarding the question of if we should train it or not, the awareness training is vital. But it needs to be briefed thoroughly, as well as taught and performed with precision to be safe. Yes, the likelihood of a failure of one engine on takeoff is slim, but the critical nature of that scenario demands training. Jets are more reliable than pistons and perform much better when losing an engine on takeoff, but the training for engine failures on takeoff have been around a long time and will remain unless the planes go pilotless.
 
Last edited:
TrueCourse said:
Regarding the question of if we should train it or not, the awareness training is vital. But it needs to be briefed thoroughly, as well as taught and performed with precision to be safe. Yes, the likelihood of a failure of one engine on takeoff is slim, but the critical nature of that scenario demands training. Jets are more reliable than pistons and perform much better when losing an engine on takeoff, but the training for engine failures on takeoff have been around a long time and will remain unless the planes go pilotless.
Click to expand...
Problem is that since the multi engine trainee was a lowly pre-solo student, instructors have been saying “more rudder, more rudder” when heading starts to drift due to asymmetric thrust. In multi engine training, it just gets yelled.

Then, we take a short break from yelling “more rudder!” when the heading starts to drift, and we say, “ok, when heading starts to drift, we reduce power to idle and lower the nose. Got it? Good.”

And then go back to “MORE *%^+ RUDDER, DUMMY!”
 
loganjvx said:
The instructor in the right seat had 13,000+ hours in everything from gliders, to jets, to helicopters and seaplanes.
Click to expand...
Who was the DPE that went in in a Baron recently, had every rating in the book and a gazillion hours? It can happen to anyone.
 
Bob Noel said:
Taking your numbers (I'm not doubting them, let's just use them), there were very few fatal accidents of the nature that the stall/spin training is intended to avoid. What we don't know is how many accidents would occur if pilots were not trained for stall/spins on departure.
Click to expand...
Exactly. We can’t prove a negative. We train to prevent something, it doesn’t happen, so therefore we don’t need the training. It’s a logical fallacy.
 
I don't see how a power-on stall goes wrong enough to down a Baron though, unless you're doing them full power (which is a helicopter simulation) AND an engine lunches at that magic moment causing a spin. Recovery from just the stall is basically "pull back less hard on the yoke"
 
schmookeeg said:
I don't see how a power-on stall goes wrong enough to down a Baron though, unless you're doing them full power (which is a helicopter simulation) AND an engine lunches at that magic moment causing a spin. Recovery from just the stall is basically "pull back less hard on the yoke"
Click to expand...
I don’t remember it happening in Barons, but every King Air I’ve stalled has had significant wing drop when it breaks. Maybe some of the Barons that get beat up as trainers are starting to see that.
 
schmookeeg said:
I don't see how a power-on stall goes wrong enough to down a Baron though, unless you're doing them full power (which is a helicopter simulation) AND an engine lunches at that magic moment causing a spin. Recovery from just the stall is basically "pull back less hard on the yoke"
Click to expand...
Pretty easy for me to imagine: With lots of thrust in a steep attitude, the engines are lifting the weight to a considerable degree which lowers the stall speed to a level the controls may not have the airflow to do much good. Not to mention as it falls through at the break, the AoA will rapidly increase to an extra large value, deepening the stall.
 
dtuuri said:
Pretty easy for me to imagine: With lots of thrust in a steep attitude, the engines are lifting the weight to a considerable degree which lowers the stall speed to a level the controls may not have the airflow to do much good. Not to mention as it falls through at the break, the AoA will rapidly increase to an extra large value, deepening the stall.
Click to expand...

Barons are pretty darn nose-heavy (even three-up), the fall-through you're imagining would need me to stack gold bricks behind the third row seats. And in that configuration, taxiing would have been difficult since it'd be dragging its tail around like an unclean dog. :D
 
KE5BM said:
I'm seeing a bunch of folks in Juan's comment section as well as Hoover's screaming about how the FAA needs to stop requiring this type of training. Strictly looking at statistics I'm inclined to agree. And as an up-and-coming pilot myself with aspirations to go multi in the near future, this s*** scares me.
Click to expand...
Agreed
 
KE5BM said:
Yes, that's exactly what I thought this was.
Click to expand...
Not required to be trained, demonstrated or evaluated. A big chunk of ME training is about how to recognize impending loss of control while single engine and prevent it from ever happening.

If you are advocating that we not train single engine stalls in twins then, I think, everyone will agree with you.
 
schmookeeg said:
Barons are pretty darn nose-heavy (even three-up), the fall-through you're imagining would need me to stack gold bricks behind the third row seats. And in that configuration, taxiing would have been difficult since it'd be dragging its tail around like an unclean dog. :D
Click to expand...
I'm wondering now which would give you a better whip stall — gold in the nose or tail?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top