Fatality Crash KHOU looks like a Cirrus

An opinion of what happened isn't necessarily a superiority complex. If you don't like discussion of the accident, feel free not to read it, but no need to label anyone that isn't making the dialogue what you think it should be.[/QUOTE]

Lighten up!

That was not a slight... It is a scientific theory of how and why we (sometimes incorrectly) perceive our competence... And maybe why we get in over out heads sometimes...

Geeze!
 
Kritchlow said:
But Jonesy.... Let's forget the labeling and strict definitions for a moment.

In all honesty, aviation, like every other profession, good judgement rules the day. I don't care what the FAR's or aim says, none of those things can put you in every possibly scenario. I don't know if there's a section for judgement in the new acs (?), but if not there should be. It's the single most important ingredient in a good pilot.
Click to expand...

There is: Aeronautical Decision Making and it predates the ACS. But you can't implant a private pilot candidate with the wisdom and experience of a seasoned aviator. You impart as much experience and knowledge as you can, recognizing ultimate the ticket is a license to learn. Sometimes for some people the lessons are fatal.
 
MadseasoN said:
You can't learn about an accident without blaming someone because human error is the cause of EVERY aviation accident..
Click to expand...

I'd like to hear more about this, say for instance, one where a structural failure has occurred. Human error because the aircraft was made from man made materials?

MadseasoN said:
No need to continue judging her experience level which we have no knowledge of..
Click to expand...

MadseasoN said:
You folks should also read up on the Dunning-Kruger effect. It's rampant in this thread..
Click to expand...

So, "we" have no knowledge of her experience level and yet you have enough knowledge of the our experience levels to apply the DK effect to random people on a message board?

You should stop judging and get off your high horse. You may not know what it is you don't even know.. ;)
 
BellyUpFish said:
So, "we" have no knowledge of her experience level and yet you have enough knowledge of the our experience levels to apply the DK effect to random people on a message board?
You should stop judging and get off your high horse. You may not know what it is you don't even know.. ;)
Click to expand...
Your rhetorical wit will go mostly (if not totally) unappreciated here. I find it refreshing though. I was looking forward to pointing out the irony of his post.
 
Last edited:
Cooter143 said:
Your rhetorical wit will go mostly (if not totally) unappreciated here. I find it refreshing though. I was looking forward to pointing out the irony of his post.
Click to expand...

f6712809207c9f8cadd011124355c867.jpg




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
FastEddieB said:
This may seem like a trivial point, but sometimes word choice can help point out where there might be errors in properly visualizing what's going on with a plane in flight.

Both "blown" and "pushed" conjure up an image of a force, like a giant hand, acting upon the plane. That somehow more pressure is being exerted on one side of the plane plane by the wind. Or that a wind "blowing" from the rear can render the elevator less effective, which started us down this rabbit hole.

Better and more accurate to say a given wind causes an airplane in flight to drift, as the airmass in which it is flying is itself moving. No "pushing" or "blowing" involved.

But we're pretty far removed from this thread's topic. I'm going to go ahead and cross-post this post to the thread I linked above - that's probably a better place to continue this discussion.
Click to expand...

For sure. And good call on the thread drift. I really do love these types of conversations though-- way more than the bickering which seems to surround our chat!
 
FastEddieB said:
Or that a wind "blowing" from the rear can render the elevator less effective, which started us down this rabbit hole.
Click to expand...

That can happen, but only on the ground on a landing rollout or takeoff run. At the point where the groundspeed is the same as the tailwind, the elevator will have zero effect.
 
Tarheelpilot said:
you don't have to add power. Change your ground track to allow a steeper closer approach to compensate for the wind.
Click to expand...

You absolutely do have to add power or lower the nose. If you make a tighter turn to compensate for the drift than you are absolutely falling prey to what kills many pilots in the pattern. Simply banking the wings more to compensate for wind dramatically increases the likelihood of a stall. Reference your POH for whatever plane you fly. Any bank increases stall speed and the more you bank the higher the stall speed goes. If you don't increase your speed somehow, either through pitching down or increasing power, common sense says you are loosing airspeed while increasing stall speed-- that's not a combo I want to find myself in.

Again though, this viable discussion in aerodynamics seems to be interfering with the slanderous attacks on the dead pilot, semantical arguments and general other disagreements that surround it. My apologies.
 
Mason said:
That can happen, but only on the ground on a landing rollout or takeoff run. At the point where the groundspeed is the same as the tailwind, the elevator will have zero effect.
Click to expand...

Huh? At the point where the ground speed is the same as the tailwind, the aircraft will fall to the ground because the airspeed is zero.
 
jspilot said:
You absolutely do have to add power or lower the nose. If you make a tighter turn to compensate for the drift than you are absolutely falling prey to what kills many pilots in the pattern. Simply banking the wings more to compensate for wind dramatically increases the likelihood of a stall. Reference your POH for whatever plane you fly. Any bank increases stall speed and the more you bank the higher the stall speed goes. If you don't increase your speed somehow, either through pitching down or increasing power, common sense says you are loosing airspeed while increasing stall speed-- that's not a combo I want to find myself in.

Again though, this viable discussion in aerodynamics seems to be interfering with the slanderous attacks on the dead pilot, semantical arguments and general other disagreements that surround it. My apologies.
Click to expand...
I think you just proved Tarheelpilot's point with your first sentence. You agree that if you turn base sooner(planning for the wind drift) you would not necessarily HAVE to add power. If you planned your base turn so as not to require it. If you were planning ahead and timing it right you could execute this closer base and final with standard rate turns as well, no? I'm not sure what is being argued at this point. haha
 
exncsurfer said:
I think you just proved Tarheelpilot's point with your first sentence. You agree that if you turn base sooner(planning for the wind drift) you would not necessarily HAVE to add power. If you planned your base turn so as not to require it. If you were planning ahead and timing it right you could execute this closer base and final with standard rate turns as well, no? I'm not sure what is being argued at this point. haha
Click to expand...

Not arguing just saying something we already should know. An increase in bank angle without a corresponding action of either lowering the nose or adding airspeed is a possibly risky combo. Sure if you plan to turn base closer to the runway to account for wind drift the maybe you could get away without adding some power but it still seems potentially risky to me.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
An opinion of what happened isn't necessarily a superiority complex.
Click to expand...

DK and Superiority Complex are not the same thing.

DK, partially, is when people who are unskilled or skilled at one specific thing tend to believe they are skilled at everything. They overrate their abilities. It also applies to highly skilled people who tend to believe that all people are as skilled as they are. Two ends of the spectrum.
 
jspilot said:
You absolutely do have to add power or lower the nose.
Click to expand...


Im glad you agree that it is not necessary to add power.

I never said a steeper bank was required because it's not so I'm not sure how any of the bank angle / stall speed stuff applies here. Furthermore it's the g load that is increasing the stall speed not so much the bank just FYI.
 
How would you modify your ground track without changing bank angle?

Not sure why your saying the g load is increasing but the not the stall speed... Load factor and stall speed are related....

EDIT - re-read, I see what you wrote now. Proper punctuation would have helped me understand it the first time around:)
 
Last edited:
MAKG1 said:
Huh? At the point where the ground speed is the same as the tailwind, the aircraft will fall to the ground because the airspeed is zero.
Click to expand...
It can't fall to the ground because it's already on the ground. It's in the quote you quoted.
 
Kritchlow said:
Who let them hold a control full aft? I'm not doubting, but just can't put my finger on it. The only side stick crew airplane I know is the Bus, but that's obviously not what you're talking about.
Click to expand...

Air France 447.
 
fiveoboy01 said:
How would you modify your ground track without changing bank angle?

Not sure why your saying the g load is increasing but the not the stall speed... Load factor and stall speed are related....

EDIT - re-read, I see what you wrote now. Proper punctuation would have helped me understand it the first time around:)
Click to expand...


Punctuation heh who has time for that stuff....


Let's go eat grandma
 
It ain't over until it's been Godwinned...

Let's go.
 
I think they should have mentioned the (easterly) tailwind which created the illusion of faster airspeed than actual.
I like their ‘ladder’.
 
Yea, you can tell ATC considered the 737s priority even though she technically should of had the right of way. Plenty of blame to go around in this one.
 
Overall I thought that video was a good review. Listening to the dialogue from atc to pilot she seemed to take everything in stride. Very unfortunate. Perhaps a good take home message is that practicing go arounds seems boring but can be lifesaving. Something I’ve never done is tell ATC “I can’t do that”. Fortunate perhaps but something to think about.
 
FastEddieB said:
“§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command. (a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.”
Click to expand...

well look at that......you've solved every plane crash that ever happened and all crashes to come. NTSB will be disappointed to know they've wasted so much time and money trying to determine causes of incidents when all they had to do was ask you!

but, in this case, it's hard to argue that it wasn't mostly her fault. I mean, given that there was no other plane involved, it kinda was all her fault. sad any way you look at it.
 
dtuuri said:
I have another cause. It's "First come, first served." The B-737 eating her up from behind on the first approach should have slowed enough or gone around.
Click to expand...

This is what gets me. The controllers should know when they can sequence in smaller craft. There’s really no excuse for commanding a go around because the controller misjudged the numbers. I’ve had to fly some really extended downwinds at KSLC so they could get faster planes in first. I’ve also been offered an immediate landing while 1300 feet above the numbers. But to clear a plane to land (which is what I’m assuming happened on her first approach) and then wave her off? I’m sorry but that ain’t right. Once a plane is cleared unless there is an emergency ATC should be hands off.
 
woodchucker said:
This is what gets me. The controllers should know when they can sequence in smaller craft. <snip> But to clear a plane to land (which is what I’m assuming happened on her first approach) and then wave her off? I’m sorry but that ain’t right. Once a plane is cleared unless there is an emergency ATC should be hands off.
Click to expand...
Or better yet the 737 should get to practice a go-around...
 
I still think that "turn left heading 30 degrees" when he *maybe* meant "turn 30 degrees left" threw a level of confusion into the mix that both sides needed to take a break and do a reset. But neither side saw it - the controller came back with something like "I don't know where you are going" when the pilot thought she was following instructions. I know she needs to fly the plane first, and ultimately that didn't happen, but this was something that should have been simple. Neither side seemed to realize that by each of them trying to be helpful, they were both making it worse. That's where someone (and that would be the PIC) needed to step in and say, "Hey, this isn't working, let's take a minute and sort this out."
 
Last edited:
One could argue as well each go around was a ticking timebomb. They cited that flight recorder showed that with each go around the flaps were being mismanaged. Adding controller pressure for a “tight pattern” with that management proved fatal.
I don’t know anything about the SR-20, but is that plane hard to get down? With no pressure to land quickly on 35 would think of could get a lot of flaps in and drop. I fly a 182 and know it’s a very different plane but if you want to drop. You can drop.
 
I wonder if the 737s were asked to slow down, they mention a 80k closing speed, so maybe a 160K approach speed, sounds like they weren’t?
 
benyflyguy said:
One could argue as well each go around was a ticking timebomb. They cited that flight recorder showed that with each go around the flaps were being mismanaged. Adding controller pressure for a “tight pattern” with that management proved fatal.
I don’t know anything about the SR-20, but is that plane hard to get down? With no pressure to land quickly on 35 would think of could get a lot of flaps in and drop. I fly a 182 and know it’s a very different plane but if you want to drop. You can drop.
Click to expand...

She had a bit of a tailwind when turning right base, at least 20 knots that kept blowing her past the runway.
Class B traffic, 15-20 knots of wind off her right side, ATC giving complex, and incorrectly phrased instructions.
Probably could handle any one, but added together...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top