Bo crashes into house in Massachusetts

jimbilly said:
BRS anyone? I mean, we're landing robotics on Mars with parachutes without breaking them, just saying. Time to catch up? People didn't like seatbelts when they came out either.

Doesn't help if you don't have the option.
Click to expand...

While I don't know a whole lot of people who wouldn't love to have the BRS option, the loss of a good amount of useful load as well as a not-insignificant cost of inspection/repack/replacement is usually enough to turn most folks away. How much do you try and mitigate the risk of an engine failure in IMC? I'm not terribly concerned about it myself since I don't fly IFR, and rarely in a populated region of the country. With the ever-decreasing useful loads of newer aircraft, it's a tough sell to most to add a BRS into the mix.

I'd never shun a pilot for opting for one.
 
SoonerAviator said:
While I don't know a whole lot of people who wouldn't love to have the BRS option, the loss of a good amount of useful load as well as a not-insignificant cost of inspection/repack/replacement is usually enough to turn most folks away. How much do you try and mitigate the risk of an engine failure in IMC? I'm not terribly concerned about it myself since I don't fly IFR, and rarely in a populated region of the country. With the ever-decreasing useful loads of newer aircraft, it's a tough sell to most to add a BRS into the mix.
Click to expand...

It's a tough sell ? The company who offers it has sold 6000 aircraft since 2000, that's about 10 times as many as either of their competitors in the travel airplane market.

As for the 'decreasing useful load', a base version G5 SR22 has a useful load of 1340lbs. That's Comanche territory.
 
Last edited:
weilke said:
It's a tough sell ? The company who offers it has sold 6000 aircraft since 2000, that's about 10 times as many as either of their competitors in the travel airplane market.
Click to expand...

Wonder how those numbers would compare if you included all the used aircraft sales during that timeframe. Piper and Cessna aren't just competing against Cirrus...they're also competing against the huge fleet of existing Pipers and Cessnas.

6000 aircraft over 15 years is fantastic compared to Piper's new planes sales over the same timeframe, but pales compared to the ~175,000 piston singles sold between 1965-1980. So, "tough sell" may still be applicable.

Wonder how long Cirrus will be able to maintain those sale rates before their niche approaches saturation and the used market starts to cannibalize new sales.
 
Initial finding of the engine,there is a hole in the block. As reported by local media.
 
Can't imagine what would be going through your mind as you wait to see what you have been given to work with when you pop out of the overcast.
 
What planes can they retrofit a BRS on?
I believe I have read where they can add it to a 172 / 182

What does it cost to add?
 
weilke said:
It's a tough sell ? The company who offers it has sold 6000 aircraft since 2000, that's about 10 times as many as either of their competitors in the travel airplane market.

As for the 'decreasing useful load', a base version G5 SR22 has a useful load of 1340lbs. That's Comanche territory.
Click to expand...

A tough sell being as though few other aircraft are certified for the BRS. Tough sell to retrofit anything not in experimental category, as the cost is 1/3 of the value of the aircraft in most cases. Not every aircraft has the useful load of the Cirrus, so losing that ability to carry fuel and/or pax may tip the scale of whether that aircraft still meets the mission. You think a 172SP has plenty of useful load to spare? With a BRS, it probably has less than 700lbs of useful load, so take away a full load of fuel and you're down close to 300lbs. So yes, a tough sell for equipment designed to prevent a relatively miniscule chance that you'll need to use it.
 
With 30 plus years of SEL in my Bonanza and knowing I would not have time to stay current in a Baron or other light twin, I feel safe flying my plane in IFR conditions day or night even to the Bahamas. The one consideration I really think about is taking off when the field is LIFR with the knowledge I would not be able to return to the field. I have only done that only twice (when VFR vis is within 2K feet of the field elevation.)
 
winrose46 said:
With 30 plus years of SEL in my Bonanza and knowing I would not have time to stay current in a Baron or other light twin, I feel safe flying my plane in IFR conditions day or night even to the Bahamas. The one consideration I really think about is taking off when the field is LIFR with the knowledge I would not be able to return to the field. I have only done that only twice (when VFR vis is within 2K feet of the field elevation.)
Click to expand...

Very valid point. Like I said earlier, a twin is only good if you have the proper time and money. Otherwise t can be less safe. And not everyone can afford a new BRS.

In such a case, you do the best with what you can. I would only add that if it were me, I would probably limit flying my family in a SE under such conditions.
 
SoonerAviator said:
A tough sell being as though few other aircraft are certified for the BRS. Tough sell to retrofit anything not in experimental category, as the cost is 1/3 of the value of the aircraft in most cases. Not every aircraft has the useful load of the Cirrus, so losing that ability to carry fuel and/or pax may tip the scale of whether that aircraft still meets the mission. You think a 172SP has plenty of useful load to spare? With a BRS, it probably has less than 700lbs of useful load, so take away a full load of fuel and you're down close to 300lbs. So yes, a tough sell for equipment designed to prevent a relatively miniscule chance that you'll need to use it.
Click to expand...

I dont see a big need for BRS in a new 172. Few of them are used for IFR cross country travel. I dont need BRS to fly VFR over midwestern farm-country. 2000ft in the clag over northern New Jersey getting vectored for Teterboro or at night over the Appalachians is when I would like to have one more option.
 
Jim_R said:
Wonder how those numbers would compare if you included all the used aircraft sales during that timeframe. Piper and Cessna aren't just competing against Cirrus...they're also competing against the huge fleet of existing Pipers and Cessnas.

6000 aircraft over 15 years is fantastic compared to Piper's new planes sales over the same timeframe, but pales compared to the ~175,000 piston singles sold between 1965-1980. So, "tough sell" may still be applicable.

Wonder how long Cirrus will be able to maintain those sale rates before their niche approaches saturation and the used market starts to cannibalize new sales.
Click to expand...

The comparison to Cirrus are Mooney, Columbia/Cessna and Beech. In that regard, the market has spoken. For someone able to drop 600k on. G5 SR22, 30 yo Mooneys are not a consideration.
Cirrus supports the secondary market, they know that it expands their brand, not cannibalize it.
 
Last edited:
Gotta wonder if a battery backed up EFIS with synthetic vision would have helped this pilot ...
 
Considering the characteristics of this flight and not the pilot or controller, Does anyone think this flight should have tried for Mansfield ? They were exactly half way between North Central SFZ and Mansfield 1B9. Mansfield would have offered a straight in attitude if gliding, with out having to pull a 180 turn to North Central. Did the turning maneuver burn up altitude ?

When I put myself in this situation I think I'd look at the iPad or mfd and see Mansfield 7nm out in front of me and tell myself go for it.... They have an rnav there and a highway basically aligned on final if you come up short. If gliding in short you could wheels up into the airport as an open space even on the 110 heading. IF a pilot could stay calm and come up with that in 60 seconds does it seem like the plan??

I fly this LIFR mission with my family a lot and hope this flight can give us all a take away to learn from if we are faced with this near impossible decision matrix.

Since the audio reveals the question where's the nearest airport Would keener situational awareness offered quicker decisions? ie knowing where nearby airports are...

Is it good practice to avoid significant turns and maneuvers to save altitude unless you know you can make it ?

I think when I'm set up for vectors to final I'm done thinking about nearby airports, but this demonstrates I probably shouldn't be....

What other tips for LIFR should we all gain, it seems to me this fellow pilot would certainly want us to....?
 
Last edited:
Apparently my med crew knew this gentleman (Dr Richard Kalister). Well liked by everyone. There's a a memorial on FB and there's nothing but page after page of compliments to his character. I'm told he was a former F-15 pilot as well. News article said they flew up there looking for colleges for the daughter.

As far as SVT helping in this accident, I seriously doubt it. It helps for terrain in mountainous areas but that's about it. Field of view is just too narrow and it isn't going to distinguish roads and wires. Best reference would be a moving map with terrain until you get below the clouds, then go visual from there.

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/20...that-killed/5Y49bH19CyfexhCp9DOGGK/story.html
 
Last edited:
Flying is dangerous.
Now you can recoil in horror and sneer at me all you want
And tell me about your tens of thousands of hours
And your world class skills as a pilot
And your lightning reflexes
And it does not make one iota of difference
Flying is dangerous
And it is dangerous for your family

Modern airplanes are the most reliable complex machines made. Yet they still break - and always at the worst time
The only thing you can do is reduce the danger as much as possible
Fanatical maintenance
Good judgement

There are two airports that I go to once in a while that I will not go with passengers. There is almost no place to put the plane down and survive right after you take off.
If it is low IMC forget it - you are now a statistic.
As far as the discussion over twins - I am too old and too slow to stay current on single engine failures in poor visibility over bad terrain - so I fly a clapped out old twin that matches my capabilities :D

edit - typo
 
Boston Herald is reporting this am that NTSB investigators found a hole in the crankcase and internal engine damage....
 
Sounds like there was rather severe vibrations towards the end of the transmission. I'm more in line with something bad breaking in the engine than an induction/fuel problem.

I suspect that his first indication was probably some oil indication moments before it went entirely.
 
Last edited:
jspilot said:
Very sad. Tough to imagine why anyone would have went flying in the Northeast on the day in question. Especially when waiting but 12 hours would have placed the flight in much better weather.

This is the reason I am strongly considering skipping the IFR ticket and going for the commercial license first. IFR should be used to get you out of trouble and not a ticket to get you into trouble... Just because you can does not mean you should!
Click to expand...

Don't skip the IR. It too can help you get out of trouble and you will be a better pilot for it. It is useful and relatively lower risk for just busting through high overcast, or passing through clouds during cruise.

The fact that you are questioning it now puts you light years ahead of the average aspiring "personal airliner" captain. Keep reading these types of threads and over the years you will come to appreciate that flying low IFR and at night in single engine airplanes is risky business.

Likely you will come to the same conclusion many of us have. That the risks aren't worth it. You will realize that you don't have a personal airliner and that your flights are highly weather dependent. So be it. You must think of the family you leave behind, or worse, take with you as you pursue your right to "die doing what you love".
 
Last edited:
jhoyt said:
Pending checkride this Sunday so not official yet, but I find it amazing how many pilots fly single engine piston planes at night and in minimal IFR. I think it's fine to take that risk by yourself, but I have trouble w non pilot passengers going along and taking that risk. I don't understand the thinking. Seems like every pilot I know has either had major engine problem or knows someone that did lose engine or need emergency landing. It's not as rare as we think.
Click to expand...

It's not rare. Many of us know that. The statistics show that it should be a rare occurrence, but many, many engine failures are never reported and not part of the statistics. If nobody is hurt, no crash happens and no emergency declared, then it does not become a statistic.

The same guys that say stuff like- "The engine doesn't know..." and "Our engines are bullet proof..." and "Statistically you're more likely to..." are the same guys that in a different thread about "Have you ever had an engine failure?" will proudly boast how they have survived three in their flying career. My airplane has had an engine failure that resulted in a dead stick landing on a golf course, no injuries but minor damage. When I was renting, some of the planes were involved in emergency landings and one of them that is in my log book is no more as the result of engine failure.

You are right to question and keep questioning. I agree that night and low IFR in single engine piston planes is questionable if you care about your family.
 
txflyer said:
Gotta wonder if a battery backed up EFIS with synthetic vision would have helped this pilot ...
Click to expand...

As it is now, I doubt it would help much. In the future, when they start combining SVS with Google earth type imagery that depicts the ground as we see it with buildings, trees and structures, then yes I believe it would help in a case like this very much. Technology like this in the future, as well as FLIR systems promise to one day make night and low IFR flying nearly as safe as VFR flying. I hope there is a way that the FAA could see fit to get a fast track going on these.
 
Dav8or said:
As it is now, I doubt it would help much. In the future, when they start combining SVS with Google earth type imagery that depicts the ground as we see it with buildings, trees and structures, then yes I believe it would help in a case like this very much. Technology like this in the future, as well as FLIR systems promise to one day make night and low IFR flying nearly as safe as VFR flying. I hope there is a way that the FAA could see fit to get a fast track going on these.
Click to expand...


I was excited about the 'google glasses' concept at OSH but I have not heard anymore advances about it...

The pair I tried on were bulky ... and heavy ... and wired ... not ready for prime time. :sad:

The potential is off the charts however. Imagine being able to 'see' airspace above class bravo like a picture of an upside down layer cake, or being able to see through the floorboard of the plane like it isn't there .. that sort of thing. Combined with FLIR and SAT images you could see deer on the runway or a highway or field in the darkest conditions ... the possibilities are staggering.
 
txflyer said:
I was excited about the 'google glasses' concept at OSH but I have not heard anymore advances about it...

The pair I tried on were bulky ... and heavy ... and wired ... not ready for prime time. :sad:

The potential is off the charts however. Imagine being able to 'see' airspace above class bravo like a picture of an upside down layer cake, or being able to see through the floorboard of the plane like it isn't there .. that sort of thing. Combined with FLIR and SAT images you could see deer on the runway or a highway or field in the darkest conditions ... the possibilities are staggering.
Click to expand...

:yes: and predict that this tech is coming to ordinary GA cockpits everywhere pretty soon.
 
FLIR and SAT isn't likely to be real useful. LIDAR runs would possibly help (if you screw around with GoogleMaps you can find a few places they've got terrain over LIDAR, try looking at Wittman Field).

Of course, that presumes that even if you had the synthetic vision, you could do anything with it in the emergency at hand. I always liked the lines from the Beechtalk-inspired Bonanza vs. Baron video.

BoPilot: I will have you know that it has a G1000 with synthetic vision and roll steering autopilot.
BaronPilot: That is good. This way when the engine quits when flying in instrument conditions, your autopilot can fly you into the side of a mountain while you watch it happen on the G1000.
 
Man if pilots can't agree on the idea of flying imc or night single engine, imagine what will happen when the pedestrians get fed up due to the media scaring them. Our avocation is screwed...
 
hindsight2020 said:
Man if pilots can't agree on the idea of flying imc or night single engine, imagine what will happen when the pedestrians get fed up due to the media scaring them. Our avocation is screwed...
Click to expand...

What's to be agreed on? Nothing wrong with SE ops, just a diffrent animal.

Also no matter what the media will make a mess out of it, it's not news it's entertainment, and blood, sex and fast money always draws a crowd and ratings.
 
This is one of those unfortunate cases where the plane failed them and the pilot could do nothing to save himself and his family. Especially tragic as he was about 5 mins away from landing at his destination. The fact is, LIFR or flying over unlit terrain at night is simply not survivable in many instances if something goes wrong. And you either accept that risk or don't go flying in LIFR or at night over unlit terrain.
 
MassPilot said:
http://www.bostonherald.com/news_op...engine_of_small_plane_that_crashed_into_house

They were heading to Boston for the daughter to attend orientation at Northeastern University. Ten years ago I was on my way to Boston for the same thing. They went down less than 10 miles from where I rent (1B9). This one hits a little too close to home.

RIP
Click to expand...

Yea I'm not far off from that either. Was just last year that my daughter went to college. This story is just so freaking tragic:(

frcabot said:
This is one of those unfortunate cases where the plane failed them and the pilot could do nothing to save himself and his family. Especially tragic as he was about 5 mins away from landing at his destination. The fact is, LIFR or flying over unlit terrain at night is simply not survivable in many instances if something goes wrong. And you either accept that risk or don't go flying in LIFR or at night over unlit terrain.
Click to expand...

That is what is so darn hard. 5 damn minutes from his destination and the engine craps out. I can't say for sure but knowing you are going down is one thing but knowing you are going down with your family would be worse than I can even imagine. RIP
 
txflyer said:
Gotta wonder if a battery backed up EFIS with synthetic vision would have helped this pilot ...
Click to expand...
Don't see how SVT would have helped. It shows terrain, not buildings. The only thing that would have helped, short of not having an engine failure in the first place, is a parachute.
 
frcabot said:
Don't see how SVT would have helped. It shows terrain, not buildings. The only thing that would have helped, short of not having an engine failure in the first place, is a parachute.
Click to expand...

..or a second engine and enough gas to run it.
 
I read an article somewhere that stated the accident aircraft had less than 200 hours on a major overhaul.

Has anyone else seen that?
 
If the less-than-200hrs-SMOH is true, whoever did that overhaul is calling their insurance provider as we speak...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top