Crash this AM at SEE, 2 fatalities

[CRQFlier]

There are decent sized hills (mountains for Midwest fliers) in 3 of 4 quadrants around SEE including one a couple miles off the departure end. Falling out of clouds, knowing but maybe not seeing hills would probably be pretty uncomfortable.

Sent from my SM-G930T using Tapatalk

 

[denverpilot]

Might been incapacitated someway too and unable to recover.

Yeah. Or pilot incapacitation and passenger trying to survive. All sorts of possibilities as to the “why” still. All we know is back to back stall/mush events with what sounds like plenty of power being made.

 

[comanchepilot]

Guy I know (ATP) posted on FB that he witnessed it. Said he was stalled coming out of the clouds. Looked like mushing to me but whatever. Said he watched them pull the bodies out. Ugh.

I will note that if for some reason you are unable to complete an approach and need to land no matter what the minimums are - or what the actual weather is - stalling a Cessna or Piper is a good way to perform a controlled descent at no more than 500fpm - I've never seen a 172/177/182 or PA28/24/32 descend at more than 500fpm in a wings level stall. If you come to the minimums there - and need to bring it down slowly right over the airport - a stall ain't a bad way to do it.

You just gotta remember to stall it all the way to the ground - get it in ground effect then bang it on. At some point you have to drop the nose. . . . and didn't happen here.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I will note that if for some reason you are unable to complete an approach and need to land no matter what the minimums are - or what the actual weather is - stalling a Cessna or Piper is a good way to perform a controlled descent at no more than 500fpm - I've never seen a 172/177/182 or PA28/24/32 descend at more than 500fpm in a wings level stall. If you come to the minimums there - and need to bring it down slowly right over the airport - a stall ain't a bad way to do it.

You just gotta remember to stall it all the way to the ground - get it in ground effect then bang it on. At some point you have to drop the nose. . . . and didn't happen here.

Or you could just setup a stabilized approach and follow the ILS to touchdown without stalling the airplane. That would probably be more controllable and result in a higher probability of not crashing.

But if you are good enough to fly a stalled aircraft then go for it I guess.... you must be a wizard. Do you know any hobbits?

 

[Fearless Tower]

Or you could just setup a stabilized approach and follow the ILS to touchdown without stalling the airplane. That would probably be more controllable and result in a higher probability of not crashing.

But if you are good enough to fly a stalled aircraft then go for it I guess.... you must be a wizard. Do you know any hobbits?

There is no ILS at SEE due to terrain.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

There is no ILS at SEE due to terrain.

More of a general comment on my part pointing out that riding a stall to the ground would be unnecessary with little benefit and a lot of risk.

 

[denverpilot]

I will note that if for some reason you are unable to complete an approach and need to land no matter what the minimums are - or what the actual weather is - stalling a Cessna or Piper is a good way to perform a controlled descent at no more than 500fpm - I've never seen a 172/177/182 or PA28/24/32 descend at more than 500fpm in a wings level stall. If you come to the minimums there - and need to bring it down slowly right over the airport - a stall ain't a bad way to do it.

You just gotta remember to stall it all the way to the ground - get it in ground effect then bang it on. At some point you have to drop the nose. . . . and didn't happen here.

Genuinely curious. What scenario is going to put you “right over the airport” where a controlled non-stalled descent is going to be worse than a stalled descent? Because without a scenario, the stalled idea sounds worse than a number of other options at first read.

I’ve always seen the “fly it slow at just above stall speed” advice reserved for impact into poor terrain off airport even, never stalled.

And if you’re going to hit something hard, maintain enough directional control to hit it with a wing, try not to hit it with the fuselage and have it join you in the cockpit, or shove the engine through the firewall to join you, anyway...

What scenario are you thinking of where a full stall is better than a slower vertical speed at best glide plus a flare near touchdown?

 

[exncsurfer]

That is what makes this baffling to me. From what I saw it looks like all that was needed was power power power, wings level a little nose down to gain airspeed, find a runway and land. But as suggested by others, by the time visual contact was made with the ground panic may have already set in. We will never know what the thought process was in the pilot.

Sad day indeed. Lessons to be learned.

If you had @Tantalum s black box you might have that answer. Even if it was just a fireproof intercom recorder.

 

[GRG55]

If you had @Tantalum s black box you might have that answer. Even if it was just a fireproof intercom recorder.

I keep coming back to this suggestion of @Tantalum.

So we spend more money and put these in the entire GA fleet. And you get the data you describe above, including every expletive uttered by the pilot into his microphone, including the usual final "ah £¥€#" .

So what. What are you going to do with it? How does it contribute to reducing the frequency with which GA pilots destroy perfectly good airplanes, and their lives, by merging them with terra firma?

 

[luvflyin]

That is what makes this baffling to me. From what I saw it looks like all that was needed was power power power, wings level a little nose down to gain airspeed, find a runway and land. But as suggested by others, by the time visual contact was made with the ground panic may have already set in. We will never know what the thought process was in the pilot.

Sad day indeed. Lessons to be learned.

...............Lessons to be learned....... We'll probably never know what exactly happened and for sure what was going on in the pilots head. The basic thing that comes up to me in this one is 'survival instincts.' Every fiber of our evolution has given us the DNA that screams 'pull away from danger.' A lot of learning to do things that are not in our evolution but are a result of our 'civilzation,' many which involve 'motorized' stuff, have to do with overcoming 'survival instincts.' Ya gotta practice that stuff. And believe in it. 'Visualizing' it and thinking about it may be the difference someday. It may be 'instictually' hard to do, but sometime you may have to 'push' toward the danger, ULTFW(unload the fkng wing) allowing you to FTFA(fly the fkng airplane) even though you are 'pushing towards' the danger.

 

[James331]

There is no ILS at SEE due to terrain.

Another thought would be to get a good altimeter setting, fly out to the coast and slowly descend along the coast line, where there's noting to hit, with a good altimeter setting 0MSL is 0AGL.

 

[FastEddieB]

That's the problem with stall recovery training. It easy to push the nose down & decrease your angle of attack when you're 1,500 AGL. It's a whole different animal when you're close to the ground & have to push your nose down to break the stall. Often times the ground arises before the wing is flying again.

...............Lessons to be learned....... The basic thing that comes up to me in this one is 'survival instincts.' Every fiber of our evolution has given us the DNA that screams 'pull away from danger.'

Well put.

“You’re a whole different person when you’re scared.” Warren Zevon

 

[Tantalum]

So we spend more money and put these in the entire GA fleet. And you get the data you describe above, including every expletive uttered by the pilot into his microphone, including the usual final "ah £¥€#" .

So what. What are you going to do with it? How does it contribute to reducing the frequency with which GA pilots destroy perfectly good airplanes, and their lives, by merging them with terra firma?

Never said it should be required, but if it was voluntary, or helps get you a better insurance rate, then I can see value in these data points

For example, if we knew the pilot became incapacitated, then we could look back further medically to find out what incapacitated him, and maybe discover something that could help future pilots.. an autopsy may show similar thing, but even having a cockpit voice recording would give you a world of information we are missing right now. There's a reason airlines have it, and there's a reason that more and more drivers now have dash cams recording, that they voluntarily install to protect their own rear end in a crash. It always helps to know the full accident chain

Or, maybe we'll find out that he was perfectly fine and just became disoriented in IMC and was struggling to break the stall while also not hitting the ground and panic set in. In that case, that might change our training culture. I did plenty of unusual attitude recovery in IR training, but we never actually stalled it in actual IMC, maybe maneuvers like that need to be practiced in a simulator. I'm not saying they should, but any data from an accident can be useful

Psychologically, there's also not much focus put on preventing panic set in during emergency situations. My training was very process-oriented and rationally based, which is good, but maybe there should be some psychological training as well.. even if it is something stupid like making the first point on all emergency checklists "don't panic" - that might habitualize your response and in a real emergency, to know not to panic and follow your training

 

[mryan75]

Seems to me if he had just leveled the wings and leveled off when he got out of the clouds he would have been just fine.

 

[James331]

Seems to me if he had just leveled the wings and leveled off when he got out of the clouds he would have been just fine.

Well based on the experience (or lack thereof) the ACS nowadays wants a PPL to have, that very well could have been the first time that pilot ever found himself in a real stall. ACS, moving backwards.

 

[mscard88]

Well based on the experience (or lack thereof) the ACS nowadays wants a PPL to have, that very well could have been the first time that pilot ever found himself in a real stall. ACS, moving backwards.

I train full stalls, I would think most CFIs do I hope. What the ACS calls for and what you train students for doesn't have to be identical. Train for the ACS at the end and what it calls for. Same with MCA.

 

[James331]

Stilled F'd that we have to "train for the test" after training to keep them alive.

 

[mscard88]

Stilled F'd that we have to "train for the test" after training to keep them alive.

Yep most agree with you there.

 

[mryan75]

Well based on the experience (or lack thereof) the ACS nowadays wants a PPL to have, that very well could have been the first time that pilot ever found himself in a real stall. ACS, moving backwards.

What does the ACS say about stalls?

 

[comanchepilot]

Or you could just setup a stabilized approach and follow the ILS to touchdown without stalling the airplane. That would probably be more controllable and result in a higher probability of not crashing.

of course - you actually need an ILS signal to follow down - ott - it was a great idea.

 

[PPC1052]

What does the ACS say about stalls?

I can't quote for you, but the old PTS required actually stalling the aircraft before recovery, whereas the ACS calls for recovery once the signs of an impending stall are observed.

 

[comanchepilot]

@denverpilot - for one thing, in a stall you're going over the ground a lot slower than you would in a nonstalled controlled descent - so you will remain over the runway a lot longer as well -

Its a tool in the box - works for short runways in the back country.

 

[Tantalum]

SUBJECT: dive and drive vs stabilized
--------------------------------------------------

Or you could just setup a stabilized approach ... without stalling the airplane

When I first started learning about IR the common info I was reading said "dive the plan down to the next step down, then level off until the next fix / stepdown point".. this never sat right with me as you are forced to make some fairly dramatic pitch, speed, trim, configuration changes.. if in actual IMC that's a high workload and if you are "diving" then you risk punching through your step down. My CFI taught me instead that a better habit was to stabilize the approach and make the descent more manageable, easier, less likely to bust an altitude, and generally less dramatic by down a slower steadier descent. Honestly, with virtually every plane now having at least a 430 in it you can very easily figure out what your descent rate needs to be. "Gee, I have 2 minutes to go and 1K feet to lose, let's try 500 fpm" - this worked out great for me and I think it makes it much less likely to do a yank pull back on the stick, forget the power or prop, and stall the thing. I've sat safety with some people who still do the 1,500 fpm descent then do a rollercoaster level off 100' above the min altitude, I find that ridiculous.. but some CFIs still teach that. The logic I heard was "then you have a few minutes before the next fix and you don't have to worry about the step down, just fly straight and level until the next fix" but I inherently don't find that safe to nose dive the thing then cruise along at the minimum altitude

There is no ILS at SEE due to terrain.

No ILS, but the LOC D and the RNAV have step downs that are not at all challenging to follow. The LOC D can be a little exhilarating towards the end, but the RNAV 17 is quite mild, and can easily be flown stabilized

of course - you actually need an ILS signal to follow down

True, the needles are much easier to fly stabilized, but to my point above there's no reason a competent IR person can't follow a non ILS approach down either in a smooth stabilized matter

 

[Fearless Tower]

No ILS, but the LOC D and the RNAV have step downs that are not at all challenging to follow. The LOC D can be a little exhilarating towards the end, but the RNAV 17 is quite mild, and can easily be flown stabilized

I suppose it depends on what you are flying and what you consider challenging.

I did my IR checkride at SEE. You can fly the LOC D straight in if you dive and drive, but if it is IMC, I always flew it as a circling approach.

 

[Tantalum]

I suppose it depends on what you are flying and what you consider challenging.

Archer mostly, but have done that approach in faster planes like an SR22T. Which, to be honest, the 22 drops like a rock if you pull the power, so while it's faster I didn't find the descent harder to accomplish than the humble Archer. But it's definitely a pretty serious drop once you get to the mountain on your right and the hill on your left

I did my IR checkride at SEE. You can fly the LOC D straight in if you dive and drive, but if it is IMC, I always flew it as a circling approach.

Same, did the checkride at SEE as well. I think realistically that LOC D is always going to be circling unless the ceilings are really high. There's even a little VDP thing on the plate that pretty much tells you "you're not going to make it past this point" lol

 

[SoCal RV Flyer]

“You’re a whole different person when you’re scared.” Warren Zevon

Yes. Let me add:

"Everyone has a plan until they get punched in the mouth." --Mike Tyson

Disorientation could well have been that punch in the mouth.

 

[idahoflier]

Its a tool in the box - works for short runways in the back country.

Are you serious? This sounds like a great way to crash.

 

[denverpilot]

@denverpilot - for one thing, in a stall you're going over the ground a lot slower than you would in a nonstalled controlled descent - so you will remain over the runway a lot longer as well -

Its a tool in the box - works for short runways in the back country.

This didn’t really answer the question.

If you’re landing on a short runway in the back country, when is a fully stalled arrival better than a normal short field approach? I know of no reason to fully stall an aircraft at altitude to arrive at a back country strip. It appears it will lower control and increase sink rate.

I still see no benefit to this fully stalled technique for anything at all other than power off emergency arrival to unknown terrain.

Anything power on, you’re better off landing properly under control and using that control to hit the softest thing you see.

 

[mscard88]

I recall reading an article in Flying I think about a military trainer during WW2. Forget exactly what happened (eng fail maybe) but the IP decided to stall and mush on down to the runway he was near/over. Sink rate was so great the main wheel structs went upwards thru the wings, both sides.

 

[Cooter]

Its a tool in the box -

How do you practice using this tool? Got any video? I’d like too what the approach looks like.

I’m assuming that you have some type of particular scenario in mind that would require a radical approach. Pun not intended.

 

[FastEddieB]

There is a technique I’ve heard to referred to as the “stall down” method.

Rather than arriving in ground effect with enough extra speed to have a flare, the roundout can be timed so the plane stalls just as it reaches the ground. I think you see this in Valdez-like competitions, but the timing has to be just right and it’s not something I teach or do.

Clearly not the case in this accident, but I think it might be the technique referred to upthread, and is not crazy.

 

[idahoflier]

There is a technique I’ve heard to referred to as the “stall down” method.

Rather than arriving in ground effect with enough extra speed to have a flare, the roundout can be timed so the plane stalls just as it reaches the ground. I think you see this in Valdez-like competitions, but the timing has to be just right and it’s not something I teach or do.

Clearly not the case in this accident, but I think it might be the technique referred to upthread, and is not crazy.

^^^ That is standard backcountry flying. But that is not what was presented as the "tool"...

 

[denverpilot]

^^^ That is standard backcountry flying. But that is not what was presented as the "tool"...

Agree. It was not.

 

[Zeldman]

Long before I came on to the scene it was taught that the best way to descend through a layer of clouds was to set the plane up in a spin, spin through the layer and normal spin recovery after breaking out.

Not sure how to find out where the bottom was....

 

[Piperonca]

Long before I came on to the scene it was taught that the best way to descend through a layer of clouds was to set the plane up in a spin, spin through the layer and normal spin recovery after breaking out.

Not sure how to find out where the bottom was....

My father started flying biplanes and barnstorming in the 30's. He said the same thing about spinning through clouds as a last resort. He did commonly use spins to descend through holes. I can see where that would make sense.