Michigan recruit in second plane crash
- Thread starter dennyleeb
- Start date
Why not ?
He was circling right in lousy visibility with 1deg dewpoint spread under a low ceiling in a high-performance retract trying to keep visual contact with the airport. Not that far of a stretch to think that he inadvertently pulled back a bit further than appropriate for his flight-dynamic status.
(smiley faces added to satisfy my insistent daughter, not related to post
)Gary F
Final Approach
The address of the house he crashed into was 221 W. Carpenter St. which is NE of the airport. It appears he attempted to circle to land at a very low altitude. I wonder how much fuel he had when he arrived in Charlevoix. Why not fly the missed and go to Pelston or Traverse City? Both are better airports and runway 28 at Traverse City is 6,500' and has an ILS approach. If he was running low on fuel perhaps he was determined to get down and not repeat his last mistake.
Attachments
Why not ?
He was circling right in lousy visibility with 1deg dewpoint spread under a low ceiling in a high-performance retract trying to keep visual contact with the airport. Not that far of a stretch to think that he inadvertently pulled back a bit further than appropriate for his flight-dynamic status.
(smiley faces added to satisfy my insistent daughter, not related to post
Because when you stall spin inadvertantly, the nose drops. The nose goes up when you yank it into a spin. If he had broke into a spin from below 200', he would have gone in nose down (remember the Cirrus video clip? That is a classic low altitude "Stall Spin" entry. The damage doesn't indicate this. You yank and stomp in a panic reaction, the nose goes up and you roll over in a snap roll.
Last edited:
Last time this happened he flew the missed and killed his other wife.... Not saying that makes the decision correct, just giving a potential human factor for why he made the decision. Personally though, I would have likely done the same thing in minimums like that with reasonable visibility as he had.
Gary F
Final Approach
Really? You would have attempted a circle to land with a ceiling probably between 200' and 400'?
I suppose it depends on the approach and what's around it. Millville, NJ once had a "circle to land" approach only 500 feet above the ground...I remember doing it many times (in practice). A C-172 could make the turn easily and land. They later raised it to 800 feet. I asked my CFII to do it once off the hood because I rarely fly so low (take off/landing for the wise guys) and I wanted to see what it looked like. It was like legalized buzzing!
Lawreston
En-Route
I always make it a habit to "land at a very low altitude," grammatically speaking, of course; and a Pulitzer for flying to anyone who's mastered landing above 0 AGL.
)Gary F
Final Approach
OK funny guy. I wrote "circle to land at a very low altitude". I should have written something along the lines of "make a circling approach at such a low altitude". What altitude do you consider safe for a circling approach? The minimum listed in the approach plates, higher or lower? It appears that the Bonanza driver was not capable of safely doing what he attempted. The minimum altitude for circling on the GPS 27 approach at Charlevoix is 700' and the ceiling was most likely well below that based on the information in the NTSB report.I always make it a habit to "land at a very low altitude," grammatically speaking, of course; and a Pulitzer for flying to anyone who's mastered landing above 0 AGL.
Yeah, I used to fly the pattern at 100-200' all the time so it doesn't bother me. As long as the vis is Ok, altitude doesn't mean anything. You can circle to land at 10' with no problems as long as you can see the obstructions to avoid them.
Besides, it's not a "Circle to Land" approach, it's a "Contact Approach". All legal and on the up and up as long as I don't lose visual contact with the runway environment.
Gary F
Final Approach
A man has got to know his limitations. Dirty Harry
Apparently the good doctor did not know his limitations although I admit that all of the information is not in. I would not attempt a similar maneuver except under extreme circumstances. You are obviously a much more experienced pilot. I am fairly risk averse, especially when flying with passengers. I do not understand why there is a 700' ceiling requirement for circling but a contact approach is fine at a lower altitude.
The difference is TERPS and FAA liability.
The "Contact Approach" is a piece of rope the FAA leaves dangling for us for when we need it. There isn't always a "good option" so we gotta use whatever option we can. You gotta "man up" to use it though because at that point, it's all on you. Basically what it says is that "Once you have the runway environment in sight, you can do what you gotta do to get it on the runway and we'll keep other planes out of your airspace."
With a "Circle to Land", they not only have to keep traffic off of you, but they have to provide you a path that meets TERPS guidelines. That's why "Circle to Land" is higher than "Contact"
BTW, this quote is a nonsequiter. In order to know ones limitations, one must find ones limitation. In order to find a limit, you need to cross it.
Hollywood is no place to garner personal philosophy from....
Gary F
Final Approach
So if I understand this correctly, a contact approach is a circle to land at your own risk.
You weren't suppose to take this too literally. Are you an attorney? My personal philosophy has served me well so I make no apology from wherever I have derived it.
I still think that some valuable advice can be derived from this. My rough translation is that we should (especially in aviation) be able to assess the ability required to perform a task safely and if we have a high probability of possessing the requisite skills. If we are uncertain it is a good idea to get some outside, preferably expert, assistance. I will practice things with my 18,000 hour instructor I would not attempt solo let alone with passengers. Yesterday I did my first solo landing and T/O from 6Y9. I was not absolutely certain that I could pull this off safely but have flown into a shorter grass field with an instructor years ago in a different airplane. My wife wanted to come but I felt the risk was excessive and wanted to be light for an improved safety margin. I realize that I am being judgmental but I am convinced that the Bo driver really screwed up by making bad decisions and not having the skill needed to successfully implement his flight plan. He did not understand his limitations. Being the PIC in two fatal aviation accidents is not likely coincidence. I would not at all be surprised if you could have pulled it off safely.
Doggtyred
En-Route
No. It can be straight in too. But it's own risk.
Pilot must ask for a contact approach. No defined procedure. It's something a pilot familiar with the area can use to get into a field they otherwise wouldn't due to weather.
For a realistic scenario why you'd do one, this link gives an example
http://airplanepilot.blogspot.com/2006/03/contact-approaches.html
It's legalized scud running into a field where you otherwise couldn't legally land.
Last edited:
Gary F
Final Approach
I don't understand how a contact approach can be straight in assuming you were flying some type of approach to begin with. I am beginning to suspect that contact approach is in some ways an IFR equivalent to SVFR.
Leave out the qualifiers, simply "Own Risk". It may be straight in, it may be a displaced pattern, it can be anything. When you declare a Contact Approach, you are declaring that you have the runway in sight and are proceeding to it visually on own nav and take responsibility of obstacle and terrain clearance in less than VMC conditions.
A contact approach is a PIC assumption of liability for obstacle and terrain clearance.
I was just funnin which is why it was a separate comment, but there is a flaw in the logic to interpreting that statement as a limitation rather than a challenge.
You're on the right track. It's there to cover any situation not already covered on an "at need" basis. Conditions can be reporting below required minimums which in some situation would make it illegal to land out of the approach, yet the pilot can meet the visual criteria of being able to get in so at the bottom of the approach he declares"contact" with the runway and can proceed legally.
Gary F
Final Approach
Well then, the pilot in this accident was not up to the challenge. I am determined to avoid situations where the requirements for safe flight exceed my ability.
...yet by doing so one never expands their ability... It's a conundrum....
I'm not advocating anyone else doing this, I'm just pointing out that in and of itself the low level circle to land need not be fatal. The plane flies exactly the same at 20 feet as it does at 2000 feet. I was also pointing out one of the potential things that can be compounded with low level poor weather flying that could have cause in this accident.
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
That's what everybody says, then we read the accident reports that proves they didn't stick by their words. Where's the disconnect?
Lawreston
En-Route
Touchy, are you? It's just the order in which the statement was made. Perhaps, "circling at a low altitude to land," in view of the conditions, would have been a more orderly definition of the maneuver. English, sequentially inverted, can cause comical interpretations.
)
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
I'm not sure "circling" was an accurate description/connotation of his activities. I think "maneuvering" would have been a more accurate and appropriate term.
Touchy, are you? It's just the order in which the statement was made. Perhaps, "circling at a low altitude to land," in view of the conditions, would have been a more orderly definition of the maneuver. English, sequentially inverted, can cause comical interpretations.
Gary F
Final Approach
Touchy, not really. I will admit that my language skills are not very good. This is one reason I participate in forums, to practice and get free criticism. I still think my point was not that ambiguous.Touchy, are you? It's just the order in which the statement was made. Perhaps, "circling at a low altitude to land," in view of the conditions, would have been a more orderly definition of the maneuver. English, sequentially inverted, can cause comical interpretations.
Not particularly no, however when talking aviation in an aviation forum, it's best not to use a term that has a specific definition in the Pilot/Controllers Glossary for a generic situation that the phrase will semantically fit. While not "wrong", it will typically confuse the point you are trying to make.
Gary F
Final Approach
I agree. I will dust off my FAR/AIM for future discussions. I appreciate the education I receive in this and other aviation forums.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
That's not technically correct. You need at least one mile visibility, plus the controller needs to issue a contact approach at the request of the pilot which I don't think was the case in this situation.
I'm missing Ron Levy.
And Wally Roberts.
One of his collumns in IFR refresher is quite informative on the circling issue:
http://www.terps.com/ifrr/nov97.pdf
What happened to Ron ?
Gary F
Final Approach
I feel at least a little bit vindicated. I don't see how you could be cleared for the GPS 27 approach, fly a user defined missed approach and then start flying a contact approach without an additional clearance. I have been looking at satellite maps of the area around the airport trying to find the water tower SW that he flew around but have not been able to identify it. I am not surprised that he would need to pick his way around obstructions at the altitude he was reportedly flying. I agree that airplanes fly the same at 20' as they do at 2,000' but there are a lot more things to bump into at 20'. Your average physician is not a HS pilot like Henning so he probably should have thought a little more about his limitations before attempting low level maneuvering in poor weather conditions in a Bonanza with family members on board.
This was neither a 'circle to land' nor a 'contact approach', this was a 'damn I'm already below the MDA, where is that runway, oh wait there is the departure end, let me just get down there' approach. I have not found that procedure in the AIM or TERPS, yet I have seen it a couple of times described in NTSB reports.
I doubt that the final report will show that he requested a contact approach.
I doubt that the final report will show that he requested a contact approach.
Gary F
Final Approach
Exactly. I doubt that such a maneuver would ever be safe or legal under those circumstances.
Everskyward
Experimenter
- Joined
- Mar 19, 2005
- Messages
- 33,453
- Display Name
Display name:
Everskyward
+1....
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,530
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
Well you only have that or Washington DC.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
I've done a contact approach - once. Tyler, Texas was sitting under a giant hole in the clouds & the approach in use would have taken me 10+miles out into the cloud deck to set up for a straight-in. Was able to safely use a contact approach to decend in the hole and land at the field.
It's a tool in the toolbox. Pilot judgement required.
It's a tool in the toolbox. Pilot judgement required.
True, I've only used it once myself but it went like this, VOR approach I was ay MDA I saw the highway I knew would take me to the end of the runway, I knew I had clear space, there were really ragged and and I was in a hole with a view but still a ways out so I called "04Y contact approach" "04Y cleared contact approach switch to tower..."
wabower
Touchdown! Greaser!
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2008
- Messages
- 12,013
- Display Name
Display name:
Wayne
- Joined
- Jul 4, 2006
- Messages
- 5,128
- Location
- Lincoln, Nebraska
- Display Name
Display name:
Jason W (FlyNE)
We were set up very similar to this the other day. We were in actual and were transitioning to the VOR. While directly over the airport it suddenly opened up underneath us and you could see the entire airport as plain as day. I didn't look around long enough to see if a chop and drop could have worked to get us in, but it's possible that it would have.