Fatality Crash KHOU looks like a Cirrus

weilke said:
- don't fly the aeroplane too slow lest the ground riseth up to smite thee (it's somewhere in the KIng George translation)
Click to expand...

Keepest thou thy flying speed...
 
dmspilot said:
No they don't. A controller would never say "thirty degrees" to mean zero three zero. AIM 4-2-10.
Click to expand...
dmspilot said:
No they don't. A controller would never say "thirty degrees" to mean zero three zero. AIM 4-2-10.
Click to expand...

Yes not if the controller wanted a heading of 030 specifically. But a controller will say "turn thirty degrees left" for a reason, like avoiding weather, for spacing, etc.
 
mondtster said:
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.
Click to expand...
My comment had nothing to do with the interaction between atc and the actual pilot but how a large group of pilots have all listened to the exact same recording and there must be 20 differing opinions on the instructions that were given. They all can't be right... So at least some of the pilots here, would have heard the instructions and gotten it wrong too. I'm not saying they would have crashed, but mistakes would have been made.
 
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...
Or she's Bessie Coleman on a good day and was suffering from a TIA or some other medical event. Could have even been CO in the cockpit. Maybe by your standards she'd still be incompetent.
 
jspilot said:
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.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This video from a few weeks ago was in a class D which is under the Houston Bravo. (Forward the video to about 8:00 for the pattern.) After being cleared on early downwind, I got a go-around command right when I was about to flare. This was because of a Falcon jet that Approach handed over behind me. I can blame this go-around on the jet coming in too fast, the controller's sequencing, and/or myself (not tight enough). The important thing is that we all worked together to resolve the issue. However I do admit that this was nothing compared to the stress from a Bravo approach.
 
mscard88 said:
Yes not if the controller wanted a heading of 030 specifically. But a controller will say "turn thirty degrees left" for a reason, like avoiding weather, for spacing, etc.
Click to expand...

Correct, I posted a page from JO 7110.65, it clearly states that turns can be in group form, that's thirty instead of 0 3 0, but the controller clearly states "heading thirty degrees", which tells me even the controller was getting confused and mixed terminology.
 
teejayevans said:
Correct, I posted a page from JO 7110.65, it clearly states that turns can be in group form, that's thirty instead of 0 3 0, but the controller clearly states "heading thirty degrees", which tells me even the controller was getting confused and mixed terminology.
Click to expand...

No, it absolutely does NOT say that. The controller CANNOT say "thirty" instead of 030. You are conflating 5-6-2 a.1 with a.2. "Group form" is only an option under a.2 which is referring to an amount of heading change. The controller should not have used the word "heading" but using group form as in "thirty degrees" sends a crystal clear signal that the instruction was to change heading by 30 degrees, not fly heading 0 3 0. Again, see also AIM 4-2-10.
 
Last edited:
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...

No dog in this dumb thread's "fight" whatever it is, but just a note that the above, if it's what was said, is incorrect phraseology. It's either "turn left 30 degrees", or "turn left heading zero three zero".

This crap CAN contribute to accidents, as much as people tend to blow it off.
 
denverpilot said:
No dog in this dumb thread's "fight" whatever it is, but just a note that the above, if it's what was said, is incorrect phraseology. It's either "turn left 30 degrees", or "turn left heading zero three zero".

This crap CAN contribute to accidents, as much as people tend to blow it off.
Click to expand...


And so many would be afraid or not care enough to clarify.

I was flying last week, Houston controller refused to call me by my proper call sign, but I kept correcting her until she shipped me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
dmspilot said:
No, it absolutely does NOT say that. The controller CANNOT say "thirty" instead of 030. You are conflating 5-6-2 a.1 with a.2. "Group form" is only an option under a.2 which is referring to an amount of heading change. The controller should not have used the word "heading" but using group form as in "thirty degrees" sends a crystal clear signal that the instruction was to change heading by 30 degrees, not fly heading 0 3 0. Again, see also AIM 4-2-10.
Click to expand...
Huh? How is it crystal clear? If the controller said, "turn left heading 30 degrees," he apparently used non-standard phraseology. Even if you have the pilot-controller glossary memorized, what mind-reading powers make it clear that the instruction he meant to give was "turn left 30 degrees" and not "turn left heading zero three zero"?

P.S. FWIW, I would have interpreted the instruction the same way she apparently did because of the word "heading." Maybe that makes me incompetent and/or I should go read the AIM again.
 
Lindberg said:
what mind-reading powers make it clear that the instruction he meant to give was "turn left 30 degrees" and not "turn left heading zero three zero"?
Click to expand...

Because he said "thirty degrees" and not "zero three zero." Why is this so hard?
 
dmspilot said:
Because he said "thirty degrees" and not "zero three zero." Why is this so hard?
Click to expand...
But he also said "heading." Why is this so hard?

BTW, I don't know if he said that or not, but that's what's reported above. At least one transcript has the controller not saying that, but the pilot saying it on her readback and the controller not correcting her. I'm not going to listen to the tape. Obviously, if you receive an ambiguous instruction you should seek clarification. But most pilots probably have never heard of JO 7110.65 and might not even know such an instruction is ambiguous.
 
I listened to the recording, heard the word "heading", and made the same assumption it looks like she did.
 
BellyUpFish said:
You posted it in an attempt to make a point, correct? The last sentence of your quote says "These mental simulations are inferential based on past experiences and training" which seems to infer that the decisions people make in high stress situations are influenced by training..
Click to expand...

Quit trolling.
 
Matthew said:
I listened to the recording, heard the word "heading", and made the same assumption it looks like she did.
Click to expand...

I did as well. I might have noticed the non-standard "30 degrees" instead of 030 and asked for clarification, but I might not have in real life. And speaking as a high time CFII who does not always get things perfectly right every time either.
 
LDJones said:
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.
Click to expand...
I just listened to the tape again in case I missed something.
I agree with virtually everything you say in this post.
The difference is you say "she was asked for a level of skill beyond her experience level".
I call that incompetent to handle the task that she signed up for.
Part of the obligation of a competent pilot (and I see this very often here on POA) is knowing your personal limitations as well as what you're "authorized" to do. She clearly had no business doing that.
Heck, it wasn't even all that busy for a B airport.

As an example, I am qualed to fly many different jets around the world into European, Asian and African countries. If I was asked to do so I would be the first one waiving the white flag and asking for further training.
 
Last edited:
Lindberg said:
Or she's Bessie Coleman on a good day and was suffering from a TIA or some other medical event. Could have even been CO in the cockpit. Maybe by your standards she'd still be incompetent.
Click to expand...
Well I'm not a medical expert but I do have first hand experience of someone gooing through TIA's. From the sound of her admittedly competent tone I'm guessing that's not the case.

She couldn't line up with runways, didn't know to descend, and ATC had to prompt a go around.
Does that sound like a competent PP to you??
 
Kritchlow said:
Well I'm not a medical expert but I do have first hand experience of someone gooing through TIA's. From the sound of her admittedly competent tone I'm guessing that's not the case.

She couldn't line up with runways, didn't know to descend, and ATC had to prompt a go around.
Does that sound like a competent PP to you??
Click to expand...

It sounds to me she was out of sorts; maybe is was the first class Bravo experience, maybe she was getting "help" from the passengers, maybe it was the ambiguous instructions and changing instructions from ATC or maybe she overreacted when the controller emphasized making a tight turn while she was slow and still climbing....a momentary lapse of judgment.
I was told my certificate is a license to learn, she didn't learn fast enough, her biggest mistakes was not rejecting 35 runway or not leaving when things started becoming messy. I hope AOPA does one of their safety videos on this one.
 
FastEddieB said:
I did as well. I might have noticed the non-standard "30 degrees" instead of 030 and asked for clarification, but I might not have in real life. And speaking as a high time CFII who does not always get things perfectly right every time either.
Click to expand...

Exactly- a simple question from the pilot is what is needed.

"Tower do you want me to turn left 30 degrees or turn and maintain a heading of zero three zero?"

Guys I notice a trend on this forum that concerns me. Many expect a level of perfection from ATC and other pilots that is often not there. If you flew around in New York airspace all the time like I do, you'd grow to respect that ATC has an often insanely demanding job and wants to be as clear as possible. That being said, they often don't use exact phraseology and honestly, I don't care. If I've been given an instruction and I understand it, I do it. If I get an instruction that I don't understand I ask. It's a simple premise that many of us in our non-pilot lives must live by. In 5 years of flying around the busiest airspace in the country, I've never been chewed out by a controller once simply by operating under the rule, "ask when I don't know if I'm understanding the instruction."
 
Why all of the emphasis on the "30 Degree" instruction? If I'm not way off, that was well prior to when she started the fateful final maneuver. I hear controllers make mistakes often enough, but I don't think this one has any responsibility in this accident. Pilot lost control for whatever reason.
 
jspilot said:
Exactly- a simple question from the pilot is what is needed.

"Tower do you want me to turn left 30 degrees or turn and maintain a heading of zero three zero?"

Guys I notice a trend on this forum that concerns me. Many expect a level of perfection from ATC and other pilots that is often not there. If you flew around in New York airspace all the time like I do, you'd grow to respect that ATC has an often insanely demanding job and wants to be as clear as possible. That being said, they often don't use exact phraseology and honestly, I don't care. If I've been given an instruction and I understand it, I do it. If I get an instruction that I don't understand I ask. It's a simple premise that many of us in our non-pilot lives must live by. In 5 years of flying around the busiest airspace in the country, I've never been chewed out by a controller once simply by operating under the rule, "ask when I don't know if I'm understanding the instruction."
Click to expand...

We expect pilots not to run out of fuel or stall/spin the aircraft. Thats not entirely an unreasonable expectation or level of performance.
 
Doggtyred said:
We expect pilots not to run out of fuel or stall/spin the aircraft. Thats not entirely an unreasonable expectation or level of performance.
Click to expand...

That's not what I'm talking about. There are about 3 pages of replys about if ATC said an instruction that was phrased wrong. Please, that's just arguing for arguing sake.
 
Kritchlow said:
Well I'm not a medical expert but I do have first hand experience of someone gooing through TIA's. From the sound of her admittedly competent tone I'm guessing that's not the case.

She couldn't line up with runways, didn't know to descend, and ATC had to prompt a go around.
Does that sound like a competent PP to you??
Click to expand...
IMHO she didn't sound incompetent. All this speculation is just that, speculation. Hopefully the investigation will shed light on this accident. A more experienced pilot might have asked for a different runway or even avoided Hobby altogether but the cause of the crash is really unknown at this point. With the amount of heavy traffic into and out of Hobby, wake turbulence might even have been a player. My only experience with wake turbulence happened to be overhead Hobby with no "caution, wake turbulence" call from the tower and no airiliner in sight. Fuel remaining or fuel management might be a contributing factor. We just don't know at this point. Calling the pilot incompetent is premature until all the facts are determined.
 
At one point (when doing her go around on 04), the controller said that he was calling her right base now. Did he mean, "turn right base now," or "standby for me to call your right base"? Seems this confusion may have contributed to her overshooting 35. Of course, that's not really causal of the accident any more than her decision to go flying was.
 
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. 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.
Click to expand...

Welcome to the forums:confused::eek:

I had an electrical problem at night (alternator completely came apart and rotated) within 9 seconds my battery exploded . I was near my home field directly over a highway. I had smoke in the cockpit, but all gauges running well. Had fire extinguisher ready and all electrical turned off, vented the smoke after insuring no in cockpit flames. Uneventful landing, but after putting it away I imagined if I had augered it in instead and bought the farm, and if the NTSB couldn't tell about the alternator and battery cause due to crash damage ... well, I'd be getting a lot of pilot error, shouldn't fly at night posts here regarding my "wreck"o_O
 
jspilot said:
That's not what I'm talking about. There are about 3 pages of replys about if ATC said an instruction that was phrased wrong. Please, that's just arguing for arguing sake.
Click to expand...

Not to mention that as near as I can tell, the phrases being argued about would not have affected the outcome of this accident.
 
danhagan said:
Welcome to the forums:confused::eek:

I had an electrical problem at night (alternator completely came apart and rotated) within 9 seconds my battery exploded . I was near my home field directly over a highway. I had smoke in the cockpit, but all gauges running well. Had fire extinguisher ready and all electrical turned off, vented the smoke after insuring no in cockpit flames. Uneventful landing, but after putting it away I imagined if I had augered it in instead and bought the farm, and if the NTSB couldn't tell about the alternator and battery cause due to crash damage ... well, I'd be getting a lot of pilot error, shouldn't fly at night posts here regarding my "wreck"o_O
Click to expand...
I can see the report now: "Probable cause: Pilot error. Contributing factors: Pilot apparently distracted while playing with fire extinguisher and turning off electrical for unknown reasons."
 
mondtster said:
Not to mention that as near as I can tell, the phrases being argued about would not have affected the outcome of this accident.
Click to expand...
A theme I've seen in the thread is that the pilot might have been overwhelmed or task saturated. A misunderstood phrase might have added to the stress level after it was pointed out. I doubt it bothered her when it was given because she repeated it and made the turn she thought was issued. But when the controller came back and said he didn't know what she was doing, did that get in her head? I dunno.
 
My condolences to the family and friends.

This thread is worse than the presidential campaign tweets, as poorly understood, blown out of proportion, and totally misconstrued. Watch the video matched with the audio. When the controller called for a left 30 degrees, it was to set her up for a downwind to 35; without which she wold have flown straight through the extended center line of 35 and into the final for 4. I am not sure I would have interpreted that any different given the circumstances but she was neither downwind nor base to 35. And I did hear a couple of different voices from the ATC side. Were they not coordinated? Were they reacting to how she was flying? And I am not faulting the controllers. They were certainly busy with other traffic but did a good job helping her out.

There is a statement attributed to the military "Train like you fight; fight like you train." There is nothing that says once you get your license that you cannot take your favorite CFI out for a spin around the patch. In fact, I think after you've had sufficient time to build up some bad habits, you seek them out to remold the clay. Don't wait for the flight review. Your proactive might save you some aggrevation. There is also the WINGS program to do.
 
^^^

The old saying "you can have 100 hrs of experience, or you can have 1 hour of experience a hundred times", comes to mind.
 
Auburn2002 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Any pilot who flies a piston single into a busy airport like Hobby had better be ready for unexpected changes such as go arounds or switched runway assignments. If they aren't, they need to pick a different/slower airport to land at and drive the rest of the way.
 
silver-eagle said:
When the controller called for a left 30 degrees, it was to set her up for a downwind to 35; without which she wold have flown straight through the extended center line of 35 and into the final for 4.
Click to expand...

Granted, the controller's phraseology would have confused me too... I'd expect "turn left heading zero-three-zero" or "turn thirty degrees left" but not a combination of the two.

If the pilot had positioned herself on a downwind for 35 as instructed, the heading change instruction wouldn't have been necessary.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
Any pilot who flies a piston single into a busy airport like Hobby had better be ready for unexpected changes such as go arounds or switched runway assignments. If they aren't, they need to pick a different/slower airport to land at and drive the rest of the way.
Click to expand...
I agree, and never suggested otherwise. I simply commented that could have easily added to the stress level/confusion/frustration. Should any pilot who flies a piston single be immune to stress? Unlikely, but some handle it better than others. Unfortunately that can have fatal effects.
 
Matthew said:
A theme I've seen in the thread is that the pilot might have been overwhelmed or task saturated. A misunderstood phrase might have added to the stress level after it was pointed out. I doubt it bothered her when it was given because she repeated it and made the turn she thought was issued. But when the controller came back and said he didn't know what she was doing, did that get in her head? I dunno.
Click to expand...

Listening to the audio, I agree and believe she was overwhelmed or task saturated. My point is that the controller's instructions that are being argued about were early enough in the audio clip that that she was flying long after that. Even if she was confused about what to do with those instructions she did at least another couple circuits around the airport after that point.
 
Auburn2002 said:
I agree, and never suggested otherwise. I simply commented that could have easily added to the stress level/confusion/frustration. Should any pilot who flies a piston single be immune to stress? Unlikely, but some handle it better than others. Unfortunately that can have fatal effects.
Click to expand...

Immune to stress? No.

Capable enough to handle the stress this situation presented? Without a doubt.

A lot of posts here and unfortunately the pilots performance and end result would suggest that this pilot was under a fair amount of stress.

Anyone reading this thread or listening to the audio of this event, while sitting firmly in the comfort of terra firma, and finds themselves feeling stressed or thinking this situation was a "high stress evolution", I'd suggest staying far away from busy airspace until further training has occurred for them.

IMO, and it's only that, this whole event is not something that anyone who was prepared to enter the airspace should have died from.

Was she a component pilot? Perhaps. She might have been Chuck Yeager 364 days out of the year. Unfortunately, the day her competency was called into question, it killed her.

This is not meant as a snide remark towards her or her skillset, but unless there was a structural/mechanical failure of the aircraft, her abilities and her abilities alone as a pilot killed her and 2 other individuals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
fiveoboy01 said:
Granted, the controller's phraseology would have confused me too... I'd expect "turn left heading zero-three-zero" or "turn thirty degrees left" but not a combination of the two.

If the pilot had positioned herself on a downwind for 35 as instructed, the heading change instruction wouldn't have been necessary.
Click to expand...

Looking at the ground track in the video posted a few pages back it appears to me that she started her base turn immediately after being cleared and instructed to land #2 to the airport following the jet traffic landing on rwy 4. By turning immediately she appeared to get too close to the jet, making the spacing suboptimal and the tailwind also blew her past the extended centerline of 35. I believe that prompted the controller to give the heading correction instruction, after she said she wasn't lined up on 35.

Ultimately, I think she was overloaded and trying to comply exactly with the controller's requests, so much so that it made matters worse. At my local towered airport we often get instructions like "make straight in for rwy 30" even when we're about 45 degrees offset. Someone taking that instruction 100% literally might have responded similar and asked the controller what to do rather than just moving over to runway centerline and coming in to land.
 
Kritchlow said:
I just listened to the tape again in case I missed something.
I agree with virtually everything you say in this post.
The difference is you say "she was asked for a level of skill beyond her experience level".
I call that incompetent to handle the task that she signed up for.
Part of the obligation of a competent pilot (and I see this very often here on POA) is knowing your personal limitations as well as what you're "authorized" to do. She clearly had no business doing that.
Heck, it wasn't even all that busy for a B airport.

As an example, I am qualed to fly many different jets around the world into European, Asian and African countries. If I was asked to do so I would be the first one waiving the white flag and asking for further training.
Click to expand...


No one would label you as an "incompetent pilot" if you weren't up to that particular task. The fact you recognize your limitations is a tribute to your judgement borne of lots of experience. Sadly, she hadn't acquired enough experience to adequately recognize her limitations in this case, which I find sad. So I will continue to refuse to label her with that pejorative.
 
Watching this video
it seems pretty clear that she was lined up on the runway more or less, four times and failed to execute a landing on a huge runway from at least a two mile final. She was lined up on 04 once and could have landed 04 a second time. She was lined up on 35 three times and failed to get down. If you can't get the plane down in VFR conditions onto a 6000 or 7000 x 150 runway, I think there are serious issues with basic flying skills.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top