Citation Down Into Percy Priest Lake After Takeoff From Syrna MQY

TrueCourse said:
True, in an accident investigation. In this discussion, glad we can go beyond that. Unless of course, one goes too far, character assassinates the newly dead, and takes a WAG at something like it’s fact.
Click to expand...

And that hasn't happened.
 
Fearless Tower said:
In fairness to Cessna, in the later 550 and 560 models, the avionics switch was modified with a guard that you have to lift the switch up and out of the guard to turn it off. But apparently they didn't make that a retroactive refit.
Click to expand...

It may be required by the time this investigation is over with if it’s determined a contributing factor. I’ll betcha Cessna’s lawyers are already busy what if’ing it.

upload_2021-6-3_14-16-57.png
 
So if you turn the igniter switches off on the 550, it automatically flames out the engines or is it just something that’ll happen in heavy rain?
 
Velocity173 said:
So if you turn the igniter switches off on the 550, it automatically flames out the engines or is it just something that’ll happen in heavy rain?
Click to expand...
Think the potential issue is the avionics power switches right above the ignitors. Turn off the avionics by accident while going into a turn in IMC.
 
Velocity173 said:
So if you turn the igniter switches off on the 550, it automatically flames out the engines or is it just something that’ll happen in heavy rain?
Click to expand...
No. Igniters are only needed to start the engine. The combustion is continuous in a turbine so there's no need for a spark during normal operations.

Ignition is used with the engine running as a precautionary measure during certain conditions. This is in case the combustion stops, a flame-out, the ignition is there to immediately relight. Heavy rain, use of anti-ice, severe turbulence, and, in some aircraft, takeoff and landing are all situations were continuous ignition may be required.
 
Larry in TN said:
No. Igniters are only needed to start the engine. The combustion is continuous in a turbine so there's no need for a spark during normal operations.

Ignition is used with the engine running as a precautionary measure during certain conditions. This is in case the combustion stops, a flame-out, the ignition is there to immediately relight. Heavy rain, use of anti-ice, severe turbulence, and, in some aircraft, takeoff and landing are all situations were continuous ignition may be required.
Click to expand...

Ok, so it’s not an automatic deal on the 550. The igniter switches have to be on in case of a flame out.
 
Velocity173 said:
Ok, so it’s not an automatic deal on the 550. The igniter switches have to be on in case of a flame out.
Click to expand...
With switches in the NORM position, the igniters will automatically activate for certain system configurations (I.e., engine starting and anti-ice), but they don’t automatically activate in the event of flameout.
 
Hang 4 said:
Think the potential issue is the avionics power switches right above the ignitors. Turn off the avionics by accident while going into a turn in IMC.
Click to expand...

There is zero reason to turn off the ignitors other than the noise in your headset. Why anyone would do that while 'going into a turn in IMC' is beyond me. Ignitors go on in case of heavy precip or icing and stay on until workload allows careful action. My Conquest inverter switch is up and away from all the other switches and is located next to backup AI and ASI. The ignitor switches are down on the pedestal, but are near several other critical switches. Proper care is advised.
 
luvflyin said:
It may be required by the time this investigation is over with if it’s determined a contributing factor. I’ll betcha Cessna’s lawyers are already busy what if’ing it.

View attachment 96912
Click to expand...

There are lights next to the ignitor switches that should be on when the ignitors are active. The lights do make it easier to find the switches.
 
I don't think anybody has commented here that the FAA Airmen Registry now shows that the pilot's last medical was 11/2019 meaning he would have had a valid medical. At least we can scratch the "no qualified pilot" argument.
 
jbm said:
I don't think anybody has commented here that the FAA Airmen Registry now shows that the pilot's last medical was 11/2019 meaning he would have had a valid medical. At least we can scratch the "no qualified pilot" argument.
Click to expand...
That’s quite interesting, because just yesterday when the article was posted here, I checked the database and it was not showing that, so evidently it was just updated within the last 24hrs. Seems like there’s some funny business going on here...
 
RyanB said:
That’s quite interesting, because just yesterday when the article was posted here, I checked the database and it was not showing that, so evidently it was just updated within the last 24hrs. Seems like there’s some funny business going on here...
Click to expand...
...or perhaps just as a result of the investigation the FAA determined that he had a medical that had not been properly recorded. The problem with jumping to conclusions based on a trickle of unverified 'facts' is that you can build a whole accident chain (and POA thread) on a link that turns out to be incorrect. That may or may not be the case here, but none of us really know which.

Nauga,
off-piste
 
nauga said:
...or perhaps just as a result of the investigation the FAA determined that he had a medical that had not been properly recorded. The problem with jumping to conclusions based on a trickle of unverified 'facts' is that you can build a whole accident chain (and POA thread) on a link that turns out to be incorrect. That may or may not be the case here, but none of us really know which.

Nauga,
off-piste
Click to expand...

Yes, but what fun is it if everyone is right all the time?
 
He did his type ride last year, so he must have had a valid medical at the time or the examiner has some explaining to do.
 
The databases are not always up to speed. I would not get too distracted by the lack of a medical in the database. Also heard elsewhere that he did have a medical, but don't think anything medical was involved here. Almost never is medical. Incapacitations are exceedingly rare. Spatial disorientation, possibly caused by avionics or airframe anomalies, far more common.
 
jbm said:
I don't think anybody has commented here that the FAA Airmen Registry now shows that the pilot's last medical was 11/2019 meaning he would have had a valid medical. At least we can scratch the "no qualified pilot" argument.
Click to expand...
Well, we can scratch the "no legally qualified pilot" argument.
 
The NTSB has just released their Preliminary Report on this crash.

Here's the link: https://www.wkrn.com/wp-content/upl...rt_ERA21FA234_103165_6_15_2021-3_32_56-PM.pdf

I quote the final sentence of the narrative portion of the report:

"Initial review of the plot’s logbook revealed he had accumulated about 1,680 total flight hours; of which 83 hours were in the accident airplane."

That doesn't necessarily mean that the pilot was inexperienced in type, it just indicates that he had limited time in the accident airplane.

Regards,
Grog
 
Last edited:
Capngrog said:
That doesn't necessarily mean that the pilot was inexperienced in type, it just indicates that he had limited time in the accident airplane.
Click to expand...
Which doesn’t mean a thing…
 
"Which doesn't mean a thing..."

Exactly; however, I was keying off of the article on the Flying Magazine website headlined:

"NTSB Publishes Preliminary on Tennessee Citation Crash
Pilot had limited experience in the aircraft."

The Flying article is based on the NTSB Preliminary Report which is basically an orderly re-hash of information already discussed on this thread.

Regards,
Grog
 
Capngrog said:
"Which doesn't mean a thing..."

Exactly; however, I was keying off of the article on the Flying Magazine website headlined:

"NTSB Publishes Preliminary on Tennessee Citation Crash
Pilot had limited experience in the aircraft."

The Flying article is based on the NTSB Preliminary Report which is basically an orderly re-hash of information already discussed on this thread.

Regards,
Grog
Click to expand...

The pilot did have limited experience in type. He had just gone through his initial Type rating about a year ago.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Interesting commentary on another board about the placement of the ignitor switches and the inverter/avionics switches in the 501. It is very possible that the pilot could have inadvertently hit the inverter and avionics switch meaning to turn off the ignitors.

Here is an interesting scenario....pilot takes off, everything is fine. Tower hands him off to Departure. Pilot acknowledges and before contacting Departure he runs his after takeoff checklist.....but instead of turning off the ignitors, pilot hits the inverter/avionics switch and kills his panel (and radios). That would explain not contacting departure.

Pilot realizes what he's done and quickly turns the avionics back on....he gets his radios back, but the other avionics take a minute to come back online. So, he hears and responds to Departure calling him (and he is stressed because he's trying to fly blind), and gets quickly overwhelmed trying to carry out the ATC instruction.

Not saying that I know for certain that's what happened, but it certainly seems plausible.
Click to expand...

Are you telling me that in a glass cockpit all your avionics can be killed by flipping a single switch? I’ve only ever flown steam gauges so forgive my ignorance. I read later in the thread that they put some sort of cover on the switch, but still, one switch?
 
Rushie said:
Are you telling me that in a glass cockpit all your avionics can be killed by flipping a single switch? I’ve only ever flown steam gauges so forgive my ignorance. I read later in the thread that they put some sort of cover on the switch, but still, one switch?
Click to expand...
Usually there is a second set of instruments in case you lose glass. ASI, AI, Alt
 
Rushie said:
Are you telling me that in a glass cockpit all your avionics can be killed by flipping a single switch? I’ve only ever flown steam gauges so forgive my ignorance. I read later in the thread that they put some sort of cover on the switch, but still, one switch?
Click to expand...

Kind of. All the glass shuts down and goes through a lengthy re-initialization. So while it’s doing that, you are left with a small standby AI above the copilots left knee.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Kind of. All the glass shuts down and goes through a lengthy re-initialization. So while it’s doing that, you are left with a small standby AI above the copilots left knee.
Click to expand...

Is this the case in the 525 as well? It could explain the avionics failures described by the pilot of N711BX, which crashed in Utah in 2016 after he lost control in IMC.
 
I've never flown an airplane with a glass panel, so my understanding of the possibilities of glass panel failure due to power interruption is limited at best. I would think that the power supply to glass panel instrumentation would be interrupted only by circuit breaker actuation, but as I understand the situation in the Citation 501 Series, electric power to the glass panel can be interrupted by the "flicking" of a single unguarded toggle switch. I realize that if one's instrument panel starts producing smoke in flight, that it's nice to be able to shut off all electric power to the panel ... but shouldn't that be via circuit breaker or a "guarded" switch?

Below is a photo (I found it on line) of the portion of the panel of a Cessna Citation 501 series airplane, containing the avionics power switch. I see that the unguarded avionics power switch is located just above the ignition (igniter) switches. In my limited understanding of this stuff, I think that switching the "Avionics Power" switch to OFF will cause the glass cockpit to go dark. Is that true? Of course, THAT would be bad, because even resetting the avionics power switch back to the ON position, several (perhaps many) seconds would elapse before the "glass" regained its usefulness. Meanwhile, in the electronic darkness, there would be only 3 or 4 "steam gauges" for reference in IMC, and I would think that transitioning from one type of instrumentation to the other is neither instantaneous nor intuitive. This may or not have been a factor in this accident; however, the placement of the switches seems to be problematic.

thumbnail

For some reason, the image of the 501 Series panel was deleted from my post. I've included an image of the panel in my subsequent post below.

Is my perception of this situation even close to being correct?

I understand that later versions of the Citation had either relocated the switch or "guarded" it ... or both.

Regards,
Grog
 
Capngrog said:
In my limited understanding of this stuff, I think that switching the "Avionics Power" switch to OFF will cause the glass cockpit to go dark. Is that true? Of course, THAT would be bad, because even resetting the avionics power switch back to the ON position, several (perhaps many) seconds would elapse before the "glass" regained its usefulness. Meanwhile, in the electronic darkness, there would be only 3 or 4 "steam gauges" for reference in IMC, and I would think that transitioning from one type of instrumentation to the other is neither instantaneous nor intuitive. This may or not have been a factor in this accident; however, the placement of the switches seems to be problematic.

thumbnail


I understand that later versions of the Citation had either relocated the switch or "guarded" it ... or both.

Regards,
Grog
Click to expand...
Yes, if you flip the avionics switch to OFF, it kills the glass and then when you flip it back on the panel goes through an startup/initialization process.

The switch in newer Citations was changed from a simple toggle to a gate-type switch (basically like a landing gear switch) that you have to lift the switch up and over a gate to turn it off.
 
I have no glass. But I recall from a friend's setup that when he shut off power, the display indicated that power had been turned off and entered a "do you really want to shutdown" countdown while running on battery. That seems like a useful feature.
 
Dan Gryder has now solved the case. Murder/suicide. Just posted today on his Probable Cause channel. An hour’s worth.
 
Love him or hate him, he puts more effort into non-commercial crash investigations than anybody else.
 
LesGawlik said:
Love him or hate him, he puts more effort into non-commercial crash investigations than anybody else.
Click to expand...
No argument there. About 45 minutes in, he goes to war with Patrick Stites of RF. It’s another level of contention (and threats) compared to his earlier work. And not much to do with aviation, but more about the RF organization and its finances. And of course Gryder now asking for donations.

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top