Fatality Crash KHOU looks like a Cirrus

Doggtyred said:
"You are too high, go around". Its not the same verbiage as "landing clearance cancelled" but it has the same effect
Click to expand...
Yes, I did hear that... But it didn't fit in the context of the pp who said it was to make room for the "big dogs".
That was likely for her own good.
 
Mike Smith said:
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".
Click to expand...
Indeed.. This is what I need to go listen for.
 
I only have 350 hours under my belt and not too much Bravo experience. Not pretty sure I could had broken the chain of events that led to this tragic accident if confronted to an exact situation. Well, I own a C182 (that really count?) that have proved to me an incredible forgiveness, but I am filling the bag of experience very carefully, before I get empty on my lucky bag...
 
Last edited:
Rotero said:
I only have 350 hours under my belt and not too much Bravo experience. Not pretty sure I could had broken the chain of events that led to this tragic accident if confronted to an exact situation. Well, I own a C182 (that really count?) that have proved to me an incredible forgiveness, but I am filling the bag of experience very carefully, before I get empty on my lucky bag...
Click to expand...

You could have snapped that chain if you were competent in your airplane and had it configured for landing. Really not a lot of difference going into a Class C or D. Just busier.
 
I guess I have yet to comment about this but I have been reading everyone else's comments over the past few days. Pretty tragic accident and RIP to all those affected. Hopefully we all can learn something from this to prevent one of us from doing the same some day...

I found the video to be very helpful in visualizing what happened, and of course I put most of the blame on the pilot's lack of ability to control the plane (maybe due to fuel exhaustion?)

However some people bring up a good point, On the first approach, she was definitely cleared to landed, then it sounded like the 747 got too close and they sent her around.

Why would they send around a plane already on final around instead of the jet?

I wouldn't think they would be able to do that. Granted it I haven't landed in a Bravo but I have in some busy C and D airport and I have never been cleared to land then been cancelled for the traffic behind me. They have always had the traffic behind me do a 360 or get re-vectored if the spacing wasn't ok and I would expect the same if I was #2 and approaching the #1 plane fast.

Maybe some controllers can comment if that is common?
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

He said "turn left heading 30 degrees", and she rightly repeats and then starts the around about turn. Maybe he meant turn 30 to your left but that's not what he said.
 
There are approach controllers and tower controllers, sometimes the former jam traffic in and the latter has to try fix it. Sometimes they slam dunk a plane because of traffic and its tough to get down and slow down, throw in a slow Cirrus and it's a mess
 
teejayevans said:
There are approach controllers and tower controllers, sometimes the former jam traffic in and the latter has to try fix it. Sometimes they slam dunk a plane because of traffic and its tough to get down and slow down, throw in a slow Cirrus and it's a mess
Click to expand...


Yes but to solve that mess they cancel a landing clearance for the plane already #1 on final and previously cleared to land? Just sounds strange to me.
 
The one thing I've learned in 400+ posts of this thread, there are a lot of pilots here that would have misunderstood at least one of the instructions in this series of events given the amount of disagreement on what can be clearly heard on a recording of actual events.
 
ifly4fun said:
The one thing I've learned in 400+ posts of this thread, there are a lot of pilots here that would have misunderstood at least one of the instructions in this series of events given the amount of disagreement on what can be clearly heard on a recording of actual events.
Click to expand...

I don't think so. In my opinion the controllers were pretty clear in what they were asking her to do. The pilot on the other hand sounded like she was way behind, in over her head, and struggling to fly the airplane much less comply with the instructions given. She also forfeited being PIC in this case, agreeing to land with a quartering tailwind when she was already struggling with just getting lined up on a runway.

The one issue I have with the controllers is asking her to land on 35 when she was obviously struggling. It did however sound like they were willing to give her whatever she needed to be able to land safely, she just didn't ask for it (probably because she was intimidated or overloaded by the whole experience). It sounds to me like the controllers just wanted her on 35 to keep her out of the way of the faster traffic and likely also to give her more time to think and get set up for the landing.

If I were to speculate, this girl struggled with the concept of where the wind was coming from and where she was in relation to the airport and runway she was supposed to be landing on. This seems to be a more common problem than many people think, or maybe I should say that I've seen a lot more pilots who can't figure out what runway they're supposed to line up on than I would have expected. This would explain why she did some of what she did anyway.
 
I'm a mid-time guy; basically all my departures are from within Class B, and the bulk of my arrivals, too, though not necessarily to the main airports in the Class B.

I supply the preface to give context; if a controller was communicating with me as was done in this case, I'd think he was accomadating and helpful. Her airplane wasn't one suited for chopping-and-dropping. She has to know that, has to be ahead of it.

I don't see second guessing tower on this, as in "he should have/could have,etc.". None of what he said, or cleared, rises to the level of extraordinary requests; you gotta be able to go around, you gotta be able to recognize wind effects, etc.

If she had got it done successfully, she'd have probaly learned, added to her experience, and been more skilled for it. But it was a critical phase of flight, in an aircraft with quirks of handling, and the margin of error was small. It sucks, and the price exacted was awful. Just my opinion, but expecting greater gand holding from tower is out of line - he did what he could, within the bounds of what we all should expect. He clears, he seperates, we fly. . .
 
Sundancer said:
Her airplane wasn't one suited for chopping-and-dropping. She has to know that, has to be ahead of it.

...
Click to expand...

Is there something about a Cirrus SR-20 that precludes slipping it to lose altitude?
 
Sometimes I think it's the FAA's fault for emphasizing perhaps to the exclusion of all else, the "stabilized approach." I commented to a pilot that his pattern was really excessively large and he came back to me with the excuse that he was flying a Mooney that was so much faster than my towplane and he required the extra room for a stablilized approach. I've flown power off 180s in a Mooney and it didn't seem any different than many other single engine airplanes I've flown. If you don't know how to manage energy and rely on power-on approaches with at least a mile final, you're not going to feel comfortable flying a tight and steep pattern, especially if you never practice it. I've seen professional pilots flying King Airs that can water your eyes flying a tight pattern. It's all about proficiency. A man (or woman) has to know their limitations as Clint Eastwood was fond of saying. In hindsight it's easy to say that the accident pilot should have landed at a reliever airfield and not tried to mix in with the big iron at a Class B primary airfield.
 
neilw2 said:
Yes but to solve that mess they cancel a landing clearance for the plane already #1 on final and previously cleared to land? Just sounds strange to me.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily. It might be easier to break the small plane out for a quick lap around the VFR pattern than having to deal with resequencing the jet.
 
teejayevans said:
He said "turn left heading 30 degrees", and she rightly repeats and then starts the around about turn. Maybe he meant turn 30 to your left but that's not what he said.
Click to expand...
You still do not understand the difference between an instruction to change heading by a certain amount and an instruction to fly a certain heading on a compass rose. There is no such heading as "thirty degrees".

Might I add that this instruction wouldn't have been necessary if she hadn't turned downwind for the wrong runway.
 
Last edited:
neilw2 said:
Why would they send around a plane already on final around instead of the jet?

I wouldn't think they would be able to do that. Granted it I haven't landed in a Bravo but I have in some busy C and D airport and I have never been cleared to land then been cancelled for the traffic behind me. They have always had the traffic behind me do a 360 or get re-vectored if the spacing wasn't ok and I would expect the same if I was #2 and approaching the #1 plane fast.

Maybe some controllers can comment if that is common?
Click to expand...

neilw2 said:
Yes but to solve that mess they cancel a landing clearance for the plane already #1 on final and previously cleared to land? Just sounds strange to me.
Click to expand...

Easier to make the Cirrus go around than send the 737 back out to radar, give them another approach, and try to sequence them in-between the other commercial jets. I see it all the time flying military. The airlines get priority.
 
FastEddieB said:
There is absolutely nothing in the design of the SR20 that would preclude "chopping-and-dropping" as a tool to get down.
Click to expand...
I'll defer to you, then - I haven't flown one; my readings suggest the low speed handling is sub-optimal, and the control force feedback is masked by springs. Apparently not an airplane to be flown confidently, when close to the stall AOA, as opposed to other aircraft in the same class. . .that was my intended point.

The jury is out, but it looks like it got away from her, which doesn't make her a bad person or careless pilot; she was one of us, but didn't have time to learn enough before beng tested in this fashion.
 
I hope I never auger into the dirt if for no other reason than I don't want to be crucified posthumously on these forums. SHEESH. Some of y'all is brutal. I absolutely see the merits in discussing why events like these happen as a learning experience for the rest of us, but some of you are downright disrespectful towards the dead.
 
LDJones said:
It's a harsh criticism of someone you don't know. Some highly competent airmen have come to grief over one momentary lapse in judgment/skill. The list is long. High horses hurt when you fall off them.
Click to expand...
Once again, indeed you're right... But in the short audio tape I heard, it was clear. Incompetence. If it was one blunder fine, we all make mistakes. Two, I get it. But she didn't seem to know which runway she was going for and didn't seem to know that she needed to start descending..
Don't mean to be harsh, just factual. We can all certainly make mistakes, but I don't expect anyone to sugar coat them afterwards nor do I expect anyone to make excuses for me.
 
Kritchlow said:
Don't mean to be harsh, just factual. We can all certainly make mistakes, but I don't expect anyone to sugar coat them afterwards nor do I expect anyone to make excuses for me.
Click to expand...

I honestly think the line might be drawn between "professional" pilots and "hobby" pilots.

The critique style of those who fly for food is a little more direct than those who don't.
 
If someone like fast Eddie had been with her, unless he let her be high on purpose for training, doubtful but possible , he would have then said " I've got it" and landed the airplane as the tower, ( who was more than kind and was working big iron behind her) directed. She was in way over her head.
 
Kritchlow said:
....in the short audio tape I heard, it was clear. Incompetence ...
Click to expand...


Have some respect



BellyUpFish said:
I honestly think the line might be drawn between "professional" pilots and "hobby" pilots.

The critique style of those who fly for food is a little more direct than those who don't.
Click to expand...

I fly for food, and his was still a d1ck statement.
 
James331 said:
I fly for food, and his was still a d1ck statement.
Click to expand...

Maybe, maybe not. I don't find it to be a d1ck statement, but if you do, that's clearly your prerogative.

If she had lived through it, posted here about her adventure, imagine the crap she would have taken......
 
James331 said:
Have some respect





I fly for food, and his was still a d1ck statement.
Click to expand...
Respect for what? Her life (and passengers life)? Fine. I would word things much more tactfully if I was breaking the news to her family. But this isn't her eulogy. This is an aviation forum discussing the aviation side of things.
 
ircphoenix said:
I hope I never auger into the dirt if for no other reason than I don't want to be crucified posthumously on these forums.
Click to expand...

If I screw up and die, I hope to get that treatment for the benefit of those who remain. If this thread teaches one student or low hour pilot to avoid the series of mistakes this pilot made, it has served a purpose.

My takeaway:
- when you fly into class B, be on your A-game. Printed taxi diagram and approach plates, a clear concept of the runway layout, where the wind is from, an extra pencil in your shirt pocket
- don't fly high value cargo until you are ready for it
- 'screw it, I am going somewhere else' is sometimes a valid strategy after the second missed approach.
- don't fly the aeroplane too slow lest the ground riseth up to smite thee (it's somewhere in the KIng George translation)
 
Teaching a student pilot or a low hour pilot to avoid a series of mistakes is different from some of the tone and negativity directed at the pilot in question under the guise of a "teachable moment."

Some people just have no tact, and think that somehow makes them honest or blunt. And it doesn't. It just makes them jerks.
 
dmspilot said:
You still do not understand the difference between an instruction to change heading by a certain amount and an instruction to fly a certain heading on a compass rose. There is no such heading as "thirty degrees".

Might I add that this instruction wouldn't have been necessary if she hadn't turned downwind for the wrong runway.
Click to expand...

I do understand, Controllers sometimes drop the leading zeros, the key word is "heading"
See 5-6-2 a1-2
635fa222dd8ca4d4c97592dece4f691b.jpg
 
neilw2 said:
)

However some people bring up a good point, On the first approach, she was definitely cleared to landed, then it sounded like the 747 got too close and they sent her around.

Why would they send around a plane already on final around instead of the jet?

Maybe some controllers can comment if that is common?
Click to expand...

I'm not a controller but I flew out of a busy class c for 3 years and it was common place in situations where faster jets were landing to cancel the landing of the small ga plane and let the jet land. It makes sense when you think about it because if the jet goes around he has far more to deal with( worried passengers, possibly late arrival now, long vectors back to final,and needs to be fit in again) while the small ga planes just re-enters the pattern and lands.
 
Kritchlow said:
Once again, indeed you're right... But in the short audio tape I heard, it was clear. Incompetence. If it was one blunder fine, we all make mistakes. Two, I get it. But she didn't seem to know which runway she was going for and didn't seem to know that she needed to start descending..
Don't mean to be harsh, just factual. We can all certainly make mistakes, but I don't expect anyone to sugar coat them afterwards nor do I expect anyone to make excuses for me.
Click to expand...


I listened to the same audio and all I heard was a calm, somewhat apologetic, low-time (appears she got her ticket two years ago about the time they got the Cirrus) private pilot being jockeyed all around some pretty busy airspace. She may have been in over her head, but I'll choose to be a bit more charitable in labeling her.

She had proved the requisite competence to the satisfaction of the FAA on 5/2/14, and had safely piloted a high performance airplane for two years since. But that day she was asked for a level of skill beyond her experience level. If the controller hadn't sequenced her tight between two jets originally we probably wouldn't be discussing her.
 
Last edited:
Sundancer said:
I'll defer to you, then - I haven't flown one; my readings suggest the low speed handling is sub-optimal, and the control force feedback is masked by springs. Apparently not an airplane to be flown confidently, when close to the stall AOA, as opposed to other aircraft in the same class. . .that was my intended point.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the deference.

The paradox is that every GA airplane has unique characteristics, while at the same time they are all basically the same.

I prepared a Private applicant for his checkride in an early SR22, so we had to run the gamut of exercises in the PTS: slow flight, stalls both power off and power on, landings of all descriptions including with power off, ground reference maneuvers and so on. The bungee aileron/rudder interconnect and any springs in the controls have very subtle effects, if any.

I never saw any scary tendencies in hundreds of stalls in a Cirrus, yet I respect from other's reports that if pushed beyond certain limits it can bite - so we generally did air work at 4,000' agl plus, and I always had the CAPS handle in mind if things got too hairy.

I worry about the mystique that a Cirrus is some high performance aircraft requiring special techniques and stabilized approaches at all costs. It's not. Or that "You can't fly this thing like a Cessna". For the most part, you pretty much can.

The poor pilot in this case did not seem to have a full complement of skills to deal with busy airspace, nor the assertiveness to get what she needed. "Hobby Tower, Cirrus 4252G is kinda high for 35 right now, is a left 360 approved to get down?" But regardless, "task saturation" seems to be a newly popular buzz phrase, and I think this accident will be used for years as a prime example of where it can lead.
 
Last edited:
Overall this has been a good thread about being pilot in command and following ATC instructions and the really bad things that can happen "if you get behind your plane" and do not aviate, navigate and communicate in the correct order.

My thoughts our that if she had the opportunity to read this thread before her fatal accident she would be here with us today because she would have much more knowledge on how to handle this situation and what dangers to be careful of (stall/spin) and how to reset the stress-full situation by getting out of the pattern and coming back in 10 minutes with a fresh new start.

She would have been better prepared for the class bravo environment having just experienced it and thus she would have known what to expect and anticipated the situation better i.e. being squeezed in between faster moving airplanes. She might have decided after 10 minutes or flying around that landing at that airport at that time of day was not her best option and diverted to another airport or she would have looked at her airport diagram and reorganized her plan and thought, yes I can do this, but I need this runway (It also would have given the ATC time to regroup and figure out a better plan). In my opinion, the best plan for "high task saturation" where you are getting over-worked is to reset, regroup and take small bite size pieces of the situation. In other words, start from the basics and move forward, airspeed is good, altitude is good, what direction would I like to land, what is the crosswind (wait, they have me landing with a tail wind that is not acceptable) etc.

I have learned a lot.

This thread will probably save many lives in the future, that is why we speculate, to decrease this from happening again.

R.I.P.
 
FWIW I believe there is another accident thread here on POA that a family member stumbled upon a few years later.

One thing I noticed listening to the original Live ATC post....I let it keep going after the accident. Within 5 or 10 min of the crash they turned traffic around to 12. Can't help but wonder if this would have been avoided if traffic had been on 12 all along. Parallel runways, so sequencing not an issue. No quartering tailwind. What if???

Edit: my mistake. They were departing 12, but still landing 4. Never mind.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top