PA-46 Down in Danvill,AR (4 Fatal) 4-23-2021

mondtster said:
Thanks for the insight, your reasons for declining are great. It seems like too many instructors who are higher on the food chain don’t want to slum it in a Malibu when they could be flying better stuff and making more money.

The best Malibu instructor I’ve flown with has spent most of his career flying the Malibu’s and twin Cessnas. The two instructors I flew with for my initial training were jet guys and it showed in their thought processes and how they wanted me to fly the airplane. The other guy had a more well rounded approach to things and our flying style lined up well.

Regardless of who I’ve been flying with, weather has only been lightly discussed. Just like most checkouts and training, stick and rudder and avionics have been the primary focus. There is a big hole left when it comes to weather that you basically have to figure out on your own, and unfortunately some don’t figure out what they need to know until it is too late.
Click to expand...
Your experience with weather is the opposite of how I teach. My brother wanted to get his Instrument rating and asked me to teach him. I helped but did not sign him off for the ride. I spent all of our time together teaching trip planning, weather analysis and decision making. I had him hire PIC to burn him through the check ride prep and wrote aspects of instrument flight. I did not have time to do all of his training so I made sure I taught him the really important things that some instructors skip.
 
TrueCourse said:
One can go from calm to controllability issues quickly if you pick the wrong cumulous to fly through or fly over. When the autopilot is on and you unexpectedly get into turbulence, you have to select the modes wisely. Got IAS or VS selected? Might need to go to PITCH instead.
Click to expand...

The autopilot cannot handle severe turbulence. If encountered the AP needs to be immediately disengaged.

Putzing around building CB's and TR is asking for potential trouble.
 
Yeah, Doc Holiday is correct. If you get into severe turbulence, the auto pilot is not going to save you. In fact it might just break your airplane. It is likely want to want to pitch up when it should pitch down, and vice versa, try to roll when it should just wait for the wings to level on their own, in order to relieve the stress on the airframe. And that brings up problem number two. Can you fly solely with reference to instruments in significant turbulence? If the answer is no. Then you probably shouldn’t be flying in IMC. And that I fear is the crux of why we have so many GA aircraft lose control in IMC. Pilots either think they can handfly in IMC when they really can’t, or think the auto pilot is going to save them. Those are poor Bets to take. Never take your auto pilot anywhere, that you could not go without said auto pilot. It will leave you hanging at the worst possible moment.
 
Doc Holliday said:
The autopilot cannot handle severe turbulence. If encountered the AP needs to be immediately disengaged.
Click to expand...

Readers will note I was not referring to severe turbulence, but the level of turbulence an autopilot can handle. Yes, of course, no one should leave the autopilot on in severe turbulence!
 
Noticed all previous flights as far back as January were at or below 10,000 feet, many appearing to be training flights, which confirms comments about this airplane being new to him. Tragic that the first flight above 10K ends like this.

A listing with specs on the airplane has this entry, written as quoted, “Factory Air Factory DeIce System Hot Plate / Windshield Needs to be Replaced”. Not sure if that means the hot plate needed replacing or the windshield or both. Not speculating it as a cause, but I’m sure that will probably be noticed and reviewed when maintenance is examined.
 
Rockymountain said:
...I have a good bit of experience flying turbine and piston PA46 variants. They are incredibly capable aircraft, but they fly in an environment that is terribly unforgiving of poor judgment, knowledge, skill, and technique.
Click to expand...

Most (all?) airplanes are, to lesser or greater degree, intolerant of poor judgment, knowledge, skill, and technique. The difference is how many different ways you can dig yourself into a hole and the ability to dig yourself back out before the consequences are irreversible. A J3 or 172 is quite different from a high performance airplane at speed at altitude, where low experience pilots may have a higher dependence on the automation continuing to work to compensate for any gaps in the greater systems knowledge, skill and technique needed for that airplane.

TrueCourse said:
...A listing with specs on the airplane has this entry, written as quoted, “Factory Air Factory DeIce System Hot Plate / Windshield Needs to be Replaced”. Not sure if that means the hot plate needed replacing or the windshield or both. Not speculating it as a cause, but I’m sure that will probably be noticed and reviewed when maintenance is examined.
Click to expand...

This was an early Continental powered Malibu and would have had a hot plate as part of the original FIKI package from the factory. If it had failed it would generally require replacement with like, or an upgrade to the current heated glass windshield (not sure if the latter is now mandatory?), in order to preserve the FIKI status of the plane.
 
Last edited:
Morgan3820 said:
I may get flamed, but PPL issued 2020, no IR and then flying a high performance aircraft? I have mentioned this before here, where I see a new breed of pilots is making the scene. Plenty of money, little experience, not knowing what they don't know. I am not suggesting a linear cause and effect but there seem to be more people showing up on this forum and elsewhere with 90 hrs. on a PPL and an oversize budget impatiently looking to get an airborne Chevy Tahoe for family trips. Paying lip service to safety and experience. Is this good for general aviation?

Kind off like getting a Suzuki Hayabusa after just finishing my MSF class. I can, but is it a good idea?
Click to expand...

PPl in 2019, purchases high performance complex is 2019.

Also bought a Yamaha R1 as first motorcycle.

Still alive. But that’s because I respect the machine and understood they would kill me.

Can’t blame the machines, a new PPL can fly these planes perfectly fine if they understand, respect and learn them. Someone who just thinks the guidelines don’t apply to them will always find a way to be a statistic.
 
60b75953a80db0440b36da59b9db1741.jpg
 
Jamie Kirk said:
Can’t blame the machines, a new PPL can fly these planes perfectly fine if they understand, respect and learn them. Someone who just thinks the guidelines don’t apply to them will always find a way to be a statistic.
Click to expand...

Not sure that applies to this pilot. I suspect having the CFII onboard, he was probably thinking he was being extra careful. My first experience in icing, in a non-FIKI aircraft no less, was with my instructor onboard. I stalled the plane on the runway, and look back and just shudder at all that I didn't know. I didn't even know what FIKI was, or anything substantial about icing at all. I was early in my instrument training.
 
MPB said:
Check the radar out - sure would have been nice had they gone direct to some place like Kennett, MO and then flown down the front of that weather. People forget the world is round - what looks way out of the way often doesn't add that many miles.

For instance, I can fly from Peoria to Charlotte by going South of Chattanooga and avoid much of the high terrain - it makes a 520 mile trip about a 640 mile trip - but well worth it from a risk perspective.
Click to expand...
88A3A338-06B5-461D-AF1B-95A6D9F8E59B.jpeg
 
Morgan3820 said:
Kind off like getting a Suzuki Hayabusa after just finishing my MSF class. I can, but is it a good idea?
Click to expand...

I'd like your chances on the Hayabusa better. Just because the bike has massive power doesn't mean you have to use it. Plus like any ground based vehicle, if you don't like the situation, pull over and stop. That doesn't work at 17,000 feet.

Doc Holliday said:
And another one that decided to play in weather, no certificates needed.

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2021/04/piper-pa-28rt-201t-turbo-arrow-iv_24.html
Click to expand...

The accident report describes this airplane as having "substantial" damage. I nominate this statement for understatement of the year honors. There's barely enough wreckage in that picture to recycle into a six pack.
 
https://weather.us/radar-us/939-w-341-n/stormtracking/KSRX_20210423-220351z.html
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N461DK

I know the discussion has been centered around severe weather and it seems many have suggested possible in-flight breakup due to pilot's decision to fly into convective activity. I looked into this one a little more since I've rented out of Muskogee a few times. When you look at a radar snapshot at the time the flight track stops it appears the aircraft was not in any heavy precipitation. I would honestly be surprised if he was even in the clouds up at 20,000 with that radar depiction. He also was not flying in the dark - time of last data point was around 5pm CDT. Or I am missing something here?

If structural failure did occur due to weather that is a sobering reality that turbulence can be THAT BAD in clear skies / or clouds not producing extreme precip. Just a weird one to me... I wonder if there is more to the story than just weather.
 
srp_4737 said:
that turbulence can be THAT BAD in clear skies
Click to expand...
Some airplanes seem to have more of a propensity to break up than others

No dig against Piper but there are aircraft out there that have either never had an in flight break up or extremely few..

Socata none

Cirrus, none. Despite being driven by crappy pilots who test their luck thanks to the parachute

Mooney, either none or extremely few

172/182 none.. maybe extremely few?

Even if we exclude the Embry-Riddle Piper it seems that this type tends to break up more than others

I like Pipers so this is not meant to fan flames on the fire but I'd be curious for an inflight breakup rate by manufacturer..
 
Tantalum said:
Some airplanes seem to have more of a propensity to break up than others

No dig against Piper but there are aircraft out there that have either never had an in flight break up or extremely few..

Socata none

Cirrus, none. Despite being driven by crappy pilots who test their luck thanks to the parachute

Mooney, either none or extremely few

172/182 none.. maybe extremely few?
.
Click to expand...

Ya...that's one of those stats that I'm kinda aware of but try to block out of my mind while I'm cruising in the club's PA28-180o_O. But for real, the more I look at flight aware + the radar snapchat at that last ADSB data point, it seems like he was 20-30 miles ish from that heavy precipitation and maybe even in the clear (who knows). Looking at the bigger picture weather that day I definitely would not have launched; but still - I've been 30-40 miles from heavy precip on an IFR flight plan in and out of IMC and truly felt safe (sure it was a bit bumpy and I avoided any substantial build ups). Def something to think about this summer when I'm flying cross countries. Down south it's almost everyday you have at least small isolated convection.
 
srp_4737 said:
that's one of those stats that I'm kinda aware of but try to block out of my mind while I'm cruising in the club's PA28-180
Click to expand...
You and me both! "how many hard landings has this 40 year old plane had? how many steep turns has it practiced?".. best not to think about that stuff when you're humming. I bet they're plenty safe.. but some can tolerate the occasional excursion outside the design envelope better than others!
 
**maneuvering speed should also be understood. It doesn't mean you are indestructible, and if you are in serious turbulence you'll have trouble keeping the airspeed at TAS. I've seen the thing oscilate between 90 and 140 knots.. I'd rather be on the slow end of that equation but the point is that it's not a get out of jail free card
 
srp_4737 said:
https://weather.us/radar-us/939-w-341-n/stormtracking/KSRX_20210423-220351z.html
https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N461DK

I know the discussion has been centered around severe weather and it seems many have suggested possible in-flight breakup due to pilot's decision to fly into convective activity. I looked into this one a little more since I've rented out of Muskogee a few times. When you look at a radar snapshot at the time the flight track stops it appears the aircraft was not in any heavy precipitation. I would honestly be surprised if he was even in the clouds up at 20,000 with that radar depiction. He also was not flying in the dark - time of last data point was around 5pm CDT. Or I am missing something here?

If structural failure did occur due to weather that is a sobering reality that turbulence can be THAT BAD in clear skies / or clouds not producing extreme precip. Just a weird one to me... I wonder if there is more to the story than just weather.
Click to expand...

Not sure why you would think that at FL200 he wouldn't be in the clouds. And radar depictions don't show clouds.

Some of the worse altitudes to be when deviating around thunderstorms are the mid teens through the low twenties.
 
Very true. In the case of this accident it appears the aircraft was in a level climb. You would think structural loads would be relatively low (airspeed lower) at that point. I guess I'll just have to wait and see what the NTSB comes up with. I'm just not 100% convinced this CFI punched right into towering cumulonimbus clouds producing extreme precipitation like several people are saying (not necessarily on this site but others).
 
Doc Holliday said:
Not sure why you would think that at FL200 he wouldn't be in the clouds. And radar depictions don't show clouds.

Some of the worse altitudes to be when deviating around thunderstorms are the mid teens through the low twenties.
Click to expand...

I absolutely agree... and he very well could have been in IMC, possibly in icing conditions, ect. All I'm saying is I think some people misinterpreted the radar snapshot at the time of the accident. I get that "avoiding the red" on the radar does not guarantee you are clear of hazardous weather. I guess when I read people talking about the guy "launching into severe thunderstorms" meant he literally plowed into heavy precip depicted on radar that's all. If you only look at flight aware it shows the radar snapshot is after 7pm, even though it appears the aircraft went down around 5pm. I think it would be easy to assume the radar depiction was at the last ADSB data point - but it wasn't.
 
Last edited:
Tantalum said:
Some airplanes seem to have more of a propensity to break up than others

No dig against Piper but there are aircraft out there that have either never had an in flight break up or extremely few..

Socata none

Cirrus, none. Despite being driven by crappy pilots who test their luck thanks to the parachute

Mooney, either none or extremely few

172/182 none.. maybe extremely few?

Even if we exclude the Embry-Riddle Piper it seems that this type tends to break up more than others

I like Pipers so this is not meant to fan flames on the fire but I'd be curious for an inflight breakup rate by manufacturer..
Click to expand...
Sounds like what happens when "value engineering" is done.
 
RIP

nothing to do with the accident but....

When I was plane shopping, this plane was for sale for YEARS. Wondering why, I dug a little and discovered the owner (John Manchec) had been arrested for child molesting and had fled the country. I assume that had to be a little hiccup in the sales process.
 
Last edited:
Well, not to be rude, but almost everything you said here is not true. There have been several Cessna inflight break ups, several Mooney inflight breakups, and as the picture of this part of Socata N731CA demonstrates, even TBM's can be pulled apart in the air. Any plane including a Cirrus can be pulled apart if the pilot overstresses the airframe. Citations Jets, PC12, 747's, F15's etc. No plane is immune from failure when exceeding it's design limits.

1.jpg

Tantalum said:
Some airplanes seem to have more of a propensity to break up than others

No dig against Piper but there are aircraft out there that have either never had an in flight break up or extremely few..

Socata none

Cirrus, none. Despite being driven by crappy pilots who test their luck thanks to the parachute

Mooney, either none or extremely few

172/182 none.. maybe extremely few?

Even if we exclude the Embry-Riddle Piper it seems that this type tends to break up more than others

I like Pipers so this is not meant to fan flames on the fire but I'd be curious for an inflight breakup rate by manufacturer..
Click to expand...
 
Rockymountain said:
Well, not to be rude, but almost everything you said here is not true. There have been several Cessna inflight break ups, several Mooney inflight breakups, and as the picture of this part of Socata N731CA demonstrates, even TBM's can be pulled apart in the air. Any plane including a Cirrus can be pulled apart if the pilot overstresses the airframe. Citations Jets, PC12, 747's, F15's etc. No plane is immune from failure when exceeding it's design limits.
Click to expand...
I didn't say no Cessna, but there are specific types that seem to have lower rates. Do you have links to the NTSBs? I am not doubting you, but some of these frames had comparatively very favorable stats. On the Socata, I was referring to the piston, Tobago / Trinidad.. to specify:

-C172.. https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/172-lands-safely-missing-much-of-a-wing/ pulled from here: https://www.pilotsofamerica.com/com...72-182-breakup-in-flight.125822/#post-2913258 ..

-C182 (I'm aware a very few have broken up.. but not many)

-Socata Trinidad / Tobago
-Mooney
-Any Cirrus

I'm aware anything will break if pushed hard enough. But different frames can be pushed past their limits more than others. A solid piece wing spar is hard to argue with

I mean... maybe you can call this a breakup.. but the guy lived and most of the wing stayed on. Piper crash and breakup photos seem to have a clean break right at the root. I'm aware they're perfectly "safe" planes, but I'd rather hit the bumps in Cirri / 172 / 182 (even though I hate highwings)

upload_2021-5-21_17-33-19.png
 
No I get that. But it is not bumps that tear any of these planes apart outside of maintenance related issues, they can withstand more turbulence than most pilots can. Just a couple of g’s of turbulence will get moderate and severe pireps.

It is when pilots lose control and get into death spirals. When you get into a dive or a spiral, whether the plane hits the ground in one piece, or several pieces doesn’t make much of a difference. You are dead either way.

This PA46 looks to have come apart in a spiral. The tail can withstand 9+ g’s the wing is certified to 3.8 + 50% or 5.7 g’s and likely will go beyond that bent but not broken. When you exceed Vne which is about 200 KIAS in the Malibu and start pulling bad things can happen.

A Cessna and many lesser planes will come apart well below that speed, fortunately they don’t fly that high, that fast in thin air. The problem is LOC. Preventing pilots from losing control is where the low hanging fruit lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top