Fatality Crash KHOU looks like a Cirrus

No flaming here. All of my CFIs have spent some time teaching this to me, all the way back to the first who covered the panel with his jacket and told me to fly the damned plane.

The difficulties you'll run into (or maybe I should say that I'll run into if I ever get this CFI quest finished up) is that to raise the minimum standards for the initial pilot certificate would make something that's already hideously expensive for the average American loaded down with tens of thousands in consumer debt and hundreds of thousands, often pushing half a million, in housing debt -- would make the initial Private certificate something only a handful can even hope to fiscally accomplish.

Or so they think, anyway. (Obviously some of us figure out that debt is flat out slavery and decide to hammer the "beans and rice" diet and/or go figure out how to make a LOT more money in our careers to pay for this crazy freakin hobby... It can be done... Everyone here is proof...)

It probably also doesn't help that many older pilots started off in CHEAP to fly taildraggers with no radios and no fancy gadgets and not a thing useful in the panel to fixate on, and learned to really fly the things including listening and feeling stuff with their butt, and there are scant few opportunities to do this anymore. We can all joke about the amazing Cessna "Land O Matic" gear and their marketing of the past, but honestly, it worked. And now nosedragger pilots like myself have to work our butts off to connect our feet to our brains. Landing work in a taildragger or glider really helps get that feel for low speed ops and the sloppiness of the controls hammered into long term memory so when it happens unexpectedly, the recovery is instant and automatic.

Example: Ted's airspeed indicator thread. Stuff felt "wrong". He knew from experience the aircraft was acting like it was too slow.

I want more tailwheel time. I also want the glider ratings. It's definitely in my future lists after these CFI ratings as "important" to me. My tailwheel and glider time in my logbook is scarce and incomplete and even with only a little I see the value in both.

Energy management is where it's at! Gotta do it. Gotta know it in your ears and your butt. It has to be there or a stall horn is going to wake you up someday and hopefully you go straight to the proper recovery technique without even thinking about it. It's just got to be instant and automatic.

And that takes time. And money. And it's hard to demand more of that from folks barely able to pay for lessons. Just a really hard Catch-22.
Quite frankly, I only skimmed your post. I never read multiple paragraph stuff.
Point is too many people think "CFI's" are God like. In reality they are THEE most inexperienced commercial pilots on the planet. With that said, most here think they are GOD, yet the mega experienced airline ATP is silly for suggesting "atitppa".
All PP's say its a licensers learn, but then almost immediately dismiss advice from. The pros.

Somehow I think I strayed from topic.
 
Quite frankly, I only skimmed your post. I never read multiple paragraph stuff.

Frankly if you didn't read it then feel free not to hit reply and quote it next time. Your response has nothing at all to do with anything I said.

Go figure. A discussion forum with words and ****. Haha. If you want short sentences and little platitudes and pithy phrases, Twitter awaits. Hahaha.

Sorry just annoyed that the reply notification dinged and I thought "cool! Someone has an idea that extends from what I said or even disagrees with it! Something interesting to read...!" And I get "I didn't bother to read but I quoted you..."

Thanks. That's just ... Grrrrrreat. ;-)

I know. You probably won't read this either. Already over it. Don't care. Hahahhahaha. K THX BYE.
 
Frankly if you didn't read it then feel free not to hit reply and quote it next time. Your response has nothing at all to do with anything I said.

Go figure. A discussion forum with words and ****. Haha. If you want short sentences and little platitudes and pithy phrases, Twitter awaits. Hahaha.

Sorry just annoyed that the reply notification dinged and I thought "cool! Someone has an idea that extends from what I said or even disagrees with it! Something interesting to read...!" And I get "I didn't bother to read but I quoted you..."

Thanks. That's just ... Grrrrrreat. ;-)

I know. You probably won't read this either. Already over it. Don't care. Hahahhahaha. K THX BYE.
Okay. Thank you for the polite correction.
 
Here is short........She screwed the pooch, killed herself and two others while forgetting the fundamental rule FTFA.

Let's quit killing ourselves by doing stupid stuff.
 
Last edited:
Here is short........She screwed the pooch, killed herself and two others while forgetting the fundamental rule FTFA.

Let's quit killing our selves by doing stupid stuff.

Unfortunately true. Sad event for their families that have to deal with the loss.
 
FTFA is rule #1. Another rule is monitor the fuel gauge.
 
Quite frankly, I only skimmed your post. I never read multiple paragraph stuff.
Point is too many people think "CFI's" are God like. In reality they are THEE most inexperienced commercial pilots on the planet. With that said, most here think they are GOD, yet the mega experienced airline ATP is silly for suggesting "atitppa".
Some CFI's are inexperienced for sure, but some, (like a number of instructors here) actually have a TON of practical flying, have seen aircraft in a number of crazy situations that a student can get the plane in, and have a lot more useful experience over the years than thousands of the same hour repeated over and over in an airliner.
 
Has this been posted before? Kind of interesting seeing the ATC transcript overlaid over the actually position of the Cirrus.

 
Has this been posted before? Kind of interesting seeing the ATC transcript overlaid over the actually position of the Cirrus.


After watching, I really don't see how anyone can lay this at ATC's feet.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Has this been posted before? Kind of interesting seeing the ATC transcript overlaid over the actually position of the Cirrus.


That confirms ATC did all they could do to assist her. I really don't see what else they could have done for her. Sad event.
 
After watching, I really don't see how anyone can lay this at ATC's feet.

Yeah I mean ATC set her up for at least two approaches which she botched one way or another. At the end of the day they have to get planes in, they can't keep telling other traffic to go around while she figures out how to FTFA.

She should have requested 12 when it was apparent she was just getting in the way of jet traffic. Or TOLD them she was landing 12 and declared.
 
Yeah I mean ATC set her up for at least two approaches which she botched one way or another. At the end of the day they have to get planes in, they can't keep telling other traffic to go around while she figures out how to FTFA.

She should have requested 12 when it was apparent she was just getting in the way of jet traffic. Or TOLD them she was landing 12 and declared.

Yep..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
After watching, I really don't see how anyone can lay this at ATC's feet.

I agree, except I would add: "After watching, I really don't see how anyone with aviator knowledge can lay this at ATC's feet."
My co-workers (non-aviators) watched and felt it was (mostly) ATCs fault.
 
I agree, except I would add: "After watching, I really don't see how anyone with aviator knowledge can lay this at ATC's feet."
My co-workers (non-aviators) watched a felt it was ATCs fault.

Then it's your job to educate them. People who don't know the system need not form uneducated opinions. ;)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
My co-workers (non-aviators) watched and felt it was (mostly) ATCs fault.

Controllers cannot tell a pilot how to fly their plane. This controller did tell her she was too high and finally made her go around. The majority of controllers are NOT pilots. As an example a couple of large USAF bases I was stationed at had over 100 controllers. There were 2-3 of us that were also pilots at each. On top of her incompetency flying her plane she took on a very busy Class B airport when she could have easily flown to other airports less busy than Hobby. You have to also consider Houston Approach is setting these airliners and other planes up for arrival in to Hobby and someone in the pattern over their head causes a big headache for ATC. Sounds to me like ATC was very patient and helpful to this pilot and tried their best to help her land. But at a point she has to get down to where she can land the plane, not ATC.
 
This is not the first stall/spin crash I've heard of that was preceded by an instruction to "keep it tight." Seems like it may not be a great idea for a controller to say that. Just let her fly the B52 pattern she wants to, and sequence her somewhere around Brownsville...

She also accepted a quartering tailwind. Seems like landing on 17 might have made it all easier, not having to cross the conga line either.
 
Some CFI's are inexperienced for sure, but some, (like a number of instructors here) actually have a TON of practical flying, have seen aircraft in a number of crazy situations that a student can get the plane in, and have a lot more useful experience over the years than thousands of the same hour repeated over and over in an airliner.
Truth. My old CFI had 20,000+ hours over 35 years of flying...everything and anything. Old Bob could and did do anything with an airplane, including things you've never thought of doing.

Example: Did you know that, on a very still morning in Wisconsin, it is possible to "plow" a trench in the fog with an airplane? Well, it is, and we did it. It's still one of the most amazing things I've done in an airplane.

He was a fabulous teacher who has kept me alive and kicking for decades of safe GA flying. Not all CFIs are wet behind the ears kids trying to make it to the airlines.
 
The video makes it much easier to visualize what happened. After the first go-around she blew right past the downwind for 35 and entered downwind for 4 instead. A rookie mistake.

I take my students to a semi-busy Class C (which is literally 10 miles away) to gain experience with ATC and practice patterns. The controller will often clear us for the option for one runway only to make left or right traffic for a different runway. If you don't know what you're doing, it gets confusing easily.

Other instructors have implied that I'm making it overly difficult for the student. :sigh: They go out of their way to have their students do their 3 solo landings at the sleepiest towered airport in a 150 mile radius.
 
Now you're making me reach way back in my memory... someone used to use lead weights on a pulley system. They could run them back and forth to adjust CG!
Nat puffer did it when he was testing the cozy. If I remember right it was a system with a bowling ball in a tube the he could move for and aft.

Bob
 
couple of observations from a student pilot. when I get saturated, sometimes I read back what they say, like a parrot, and then can't even remember what they just said, she might have been doing a lot of that, making it sound like she was on top of things. only thing I think ATC might have done differently assuming they knew she was getting behind, keep instructions simpler, they are expert jugglers, thinking 5 moves ahead, putting all that planning out there may confuse more than help someone struggling to fly a pattern. It may have just been better to tell her, fly downwind for runway X, i'll call you're base. I'm not faulting ATC, hindsight is always clear. Also, a new pilot might confuse keeping the pattern tight with making steep turns, you can fly a tight pattern with standard rate turns, they're just saying they don't want you go to wide and long.

A better way to deal with the parrot problem, instead of echoing when you're behind, confess, use 'stand by', 'say again', 'student pilot', or 'unfamiliar' as others have said in this thread.
 
Last edited:
The airport was too big, complicated, and busy for that pilot. She isn't the first to forget to fly the airplane upon a challenge, and sadly she won't be the last.
 
After watching, I really don't see how anyone can lay this at ATC's feet.

Definitely not blaming ATC for the final outcome, but I won't say they did everything they could to help her either. Her best shot to land was probably the very first approach, when they sent her around from what appeared to be short final. Anyone know how low/close she was on that one? Said he had traffic with an 80 knot overtake. What's the official ATC ruling on that? She was cleared to land ahead of the 737. I know Jet-A is expensive when burned in mass quantities and all, but why should she be sent around when she had priority? And who put her in front of that 737 in the first place if there wasn't ample room for her there?
 
Example: Did you know that, on a very still morning in Wisconsin, it is possible to "plow" a trench in the fog with an airplane? Well, it is, and we did it. It's still one of the most amazing things I've done in an airplane.

You can also do it with a flight of 3 Seminoles trying to get enough legal visibility to land. We came very close, but the fog kept rolling in, so we diverted and waited it out. LOL



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Definitely not blaming ATC for the final outcome, but I won't say they did everything they could to help her either. Her best shot to land was probably the very first approach, when they sent her around from what appeared to be short final. Anyone know how low/close she was on that one? Said he had traffic with an 80 knot overtake. What's the official ATC ruling on that? She was cleared to land ahead of the 737. I know Jet-A is expensive when burned in mass quantities and all, but why should she be sent around when she had priority? And who put her in front of that 737 in the first place if there wasn't ample room for her there?

What else should ATC have done? Where should they have sequenced her? Vectored her hither and yon until they found a dead spot? Is that the way you'd want to be handled?

She may have been sequenced into an area where they thought, given the performance of other prepared individuals in similar aircraft who performed solidly, she might have fit. They had her lined up for 35 and she clearly claimed she wasn't lined up for 35. She was in over her head and while some of the ATC commands were quick, changed quickly, etc, that's just part of it. It's a fluid environment and this recording is a pretty good example of that, if the audio of this accident scares anyone (not saying you Auburn) listening, you (again a generic "you.") need not apply to fly into large airports.

I would assume ATC assumes that aircraft headed to an airport such as HOU are prepared to be sequenced in a manner that doesn't disrupt the entire flow of traffic.

If you're ready to play with the big dogs - Like flying into somewhere like Hobby - you need to be ready to fly into somewhere like Hobby, they're not going to shut the place down for you.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
A lot of posts that she should have requested or been offered another runway due to the crosswinds. It doesn't look like she ever got close enough to a runway that that was a factor.
 
A lot of posts that she should have requested or been offered another runway due to the crosswinds. It doesn't look like she ever got close enough to a runway that that was a factor.

The tailwind component, which could have been much stronger several hundred feet off the ground, may have been the cause of her being way too high on the one approach.
 
For the armchair quarterbacks here:

"Various researchers agree that the way people make time pressured decisions is not via a process of generating internal probabilities and comparing rational option sets, rather, decision makers use categorization of prior experience to solve new problems, often including rapid mental simulation of outcomes. These mental simulations are inferential based on past experiences and training (Klein, 2008)."
 
For the armchair quarterbacks here:

"Various researchers agree that the way people make time pressured decisions is not via a process of generating internal probabilities and comparing rational option sets, rather, decision makers use categorization of prior experience to solve new problems, often including rapid mental simulation of outcomes. These mental simulations are inferential based on past experiences and training (Klein, 2008)."


So, seems to be you're saying "training matters?"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
I watched that latest video with the transcript and path overlay. I need to look at it again, but there were two things that I wondered about. First was when tower wanted her to turn to 030, she started the turn, then a few seconds later tower said something like "I don't know what you are doing." The second part was the final go around, I didn't hear anything from the airplane, just the tower giving instructions.

And I wonder how high she was when tower said she was too high.
 
This is not the first stall/spin crash I've heard of that was preceded by an instruction to "keep it tight." Seems like it may not be a great idea for a controller to say that. Just let her fly the B52 pattern she wants to, and sequence her somewhere around Brownsville...

She also accepted a quartering tailwind. Seems like landing on 17 might have made it all easier, not having to cross the conga line either.

Agreed. Also I'm wondering if there was a sense of being overwhelmed and just mentally fogged.Example:

At one point on my check ride, I was cleared to land on downwind and tower asked if I wanted to go around because they were switching runways. "Negative" I said. I even heard the DPE say, "well, this will be interesting for a check ride....." I didn't even THINK of the tailwind at that point, I was just trying to nail a landing.

On the ground, I realized what happened. (Fortunately?) the tower called out, "I give that a 9.5" lol

Anyway, it's possible the wind calc didn't even occur because of other factors.

So sad. I finally listened. She seemed calm and collected. RIP
 
Last edited:
What else should ATC have done? Where should they have sequenced her? Vectored her hither and yon until they found a dead spot? Is that the way you'd want to be handled?

They found a spot for her, before the now famous transcript even gets started. They even gave her the clearance. Then they revoked it on short final to make room for the "big dog" as you stated.

You can rest easy that I'm not trying to lay blame on ATC. Just pointing out that had they not tried to squeeze her in where she didn't fit in the first place and then pulled it out from under her when she probably wasn't expecting it, maybe she wouldn't have gotten flustered or distracted or whatever ended up happening. Does it take any fault off her to ftfa, of course not. Maybe just my own little contributing factor for the NTSB report in my head.
 
They found a spot for her, before the now famous transcript even gets started. They even gave her the clearance. Then they revoked it on short final to make room for the "big dog" as you stated.

You can rest easy that I'm not trying to lay blame on ATC. Just pointing out that had they not tried to squeeze her in where she didn't fit in the first place and then pulled it out from under her when she probably wasn't expecting it, maybe she wouldn't have gotten flustered or distracted or whatever ended up happening. Does it take any fault off her to ftfa, of course not. Maybe just my own little contributing factor for the NTSB report in my head.
I need to go listen again. Don't remember them cancelling a clearance.
Or are you saying this is before the live ATC tape??
 
I watched that latest video with the transcript and path overlay. I need to look at it again, but there were two things that I wondered about. First was when tower wanted her to turn to 030, she started the turn, then a few seconds later tower said something like "I don't know what you are doing." The second part was the final go around, I didn't hear anything from the airplane, just the tower giving instructions.

And I wonder how high she was when tower said she was too high.
I think there was some confusion between two different controllers, the request to turn left 030 heading is clearly wrong as it takes her parallel to 4 and away from the airport. Then the other asks if she wants a straight in to 4?
If there was no departing traffic I don't know why not use 12.
While ATC is not responsible for the crash, it seems this was not handled very well.
And they called her off to 4 when she was on short final, because a 737 was 9 miles out and 80 knots faster, whats the approach speed for a 737, 140 knots? That would mean she flying at 60 knots...that's awfully slow.
 
Last edited:
I need to go listen again. Don't remember them cancelling a clearance.
Or are you saying this is before the live ATC tape??

I think he's speaking to the first go around due to following traffic being too fast.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The only go around instruction was on the first approach for following traffic. On the second approach ATC said, "you're too high" the pilot replied, " ok I'll go around".
 
I think there was some confusion between two different controllers, the request to turn left 030 heading is clearly wrong as it takes her parallel to 4 and away from the airport. Then the other asks if she wants a straight in to 4?

There is no confusion among the controllers. The pilot overshot the turn to downwind for runway 35 and kept turning until she was on downwind for 4. At that point the controller told her to turn left thirty degrees in order to fix that mistake, which is not the same as an instruction to turn to zero three zero.
 
Back
Top