PA46 Down- passed up alternate airport

Hmm. The way I read it, the decision to divert to a different airport was pretty much incidental to the accident, not causal. (Though you could argue that maybe he would have still had oil pressure at the closer airport)
 
The fact that he went to another field is irrelevant in this case. You could argue it, but the problem is that he didn't have as much potential energy to convert into kinetic as he thought he did. That's an easy problem to have, especially with that airplane.

They walked away alive, and the plane was on airport property. Not a bad outcome.
 
Any landing you can walk away from...

I could hope to do so well when my turn comes.
 
Sounds like he had the airport made was high and lowered the gear. Doesn't sound like the diversion was the central issue; although he did run the engine until oil pressure was zero, sounds as if he though he had the airport made and didn't when he shut the engine down. I guess if he landed sooner, oil pressure may not have been as much of a concern. He tried to save the engine and lost the plane.

Best,

Dave
=================================================
He lowered the landing gear to assist in losing altitude and the oil pressure gauge indicated "0" with the oil warning light illuminated. The pilot continued to run the engine until he thought he could make the runway, and then he shut the engine down and completed the emergency landing checklist. He raised the landing gear, but the airspeed decreased.
 
Yet another case that demonstrates shutting down a thrust producing engine may not be the best plan of action.

There are exceptions. Some fires, multi engine training, etc. One should really stop and think very carefully before making such a decision.
 
Sounds like a turbo problem.

Moreover, sounds like he made the alternate, but fouled up the landing. Stuff happens.
 
I haven't worked on this one for a while. The failed turbo only had about an hour of time since overhaul.

We seem to be falling into another failed turbo times for the PA46. Sad ending, gear wiped off, prop gone, and the wings wrinkled. It was a really nice airplane when I worked on it in CA when it was new.

Kevin
 
Insurance owns the airplane, and the second the oil light comes on you are screwed anyway so why risk your life shutting the engine down.... Stupid.
 
I have a question, why couldn't an aircraft mechanic come out to the first airport, he could've at least got the aircraft good enough so that it can limp back to the airport with a mechanic.
 
Because pilots are cheap ba__ards....that's why. He saved a whole lot of $$ on this one. Even in a twin, you take the FIRST serviceable airport. :(
 
bbchien said:
Because pilots are cheap ba__ards....that's why. He saved a whole lot of $$ on this one. Even in a twin, you take the FIRST serviceable airport. :(
Click to expand...

Ahh, See, if this was me, the last thing on my mind would be "The airport doesn't have a mechanic? Then let's go to another one!" No, what would be going through my mind is "OK, we gotta get down as soon as possible and as safely as possible."

So that's why I was perplex by the whole thing.
 
bbchien said:
Because pilots are cheap ba__ards....that's why. He saved a whole lot of $$ on this one. Even in a twin, you take the FIRST serviceable airport. :(
Click to expand...

Amen. Airmanship before walletmanship, if I can use that as a word.

Land the broken plane, figure it out on the ground.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
He tried to save the engine and lost the plane.
Click to expand...

Yeah, not the smartest thing ever - Luckily, it wasn't the all-too-common "he tried to save the airplane and lost his life" story.

Inverted said:
Insurance owns the airplane, and the second the oil light comes on you are screwed anyway so why risk your life shutting the engine down.... Stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, normally I'd say "the insurance company owns the airplane" but the insurance company does NOT pay to replace ruined engines, unless you stuck the prop in the ground and/or crack something else up. If you have a purely mechanical failure, you're on your own for the engine.

Maybe the insurance companies will wise up and realize that it would help them if they did add this to the coverage so as to remove any incentive to pull this particular stupid pilot trick.

What I *really* can't understand is the people who have landing gear failures and try to do the "drive a fast car down the runway and try to pull it out" thing. Sooner or later, someone's gonna get a prop to the head and then it won't seem so "heroic" any more - Not that it ever was, a gear malfunction and gear-up landing is not a life-threatening emergency.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
Ahh, See, if this was me, the last thing on my mind would be "The airport doesn't have a mechanic? Then let's go to another one!" No, what would be going through my mind is "OK, we gotta get down as soon as possible and as safely as possible."

So that's why I was perplex by the whole thing.
Click to expand...

There could be more to this. A point can be made that if a runway with facilities is reasonably close (not a stretch in the situation) it might be a better choice in many cases. Going into an airport without facilities doesn't just mean a mechanic; although, that seems to be the focus because the pilot specifically asked. Someone will know your situation; like the tower. Emergency services may (and probably will) be better. You may have resources that just may not be immediately available at an uncontrolled field. I've even had places where my cell didn't work on the ground or was very spotty. So, in my twin, in the instant situation, going a bit farther to someplace with facilities can be worthwhile and safer. Instrument conditions, at night, I really lean toward a controlled airport where someone knows where I am and what's going on if I have a problem.

In this case, it didn't seem going to the other field was the defining event; although, one could say it put more pressure on the pilot to shut the engine down after getting the warning light. He seems to have had the field made and in a busy, stressful moment with a lot going on, misjudged having the field made. Doing too much at a critical time can contribute to outcomes such as this.

Best,

Dave
 
it doesn't mention what the airport was that he passed up. if it didn't have a mechanic i doubt it had a much longer runway than the 6500 ft one that he couldn't make a good landing on anyway. since he obviously had the energy to make the airport, it had a tower, services, presumably fire and rescue, perhaps GWO really was the best choice to begin with.
 
Anyone notice that he was climbing through 13,000 ft when the problem occurred. Hardly an emergency at 13k...Seems he thought he had plenty of options. I also wonder if he had doubts about putting it down some of the "smaller fields" from a skill perspective. He was also an ATP rated pilot and, I assume, accustomed to a certain level of maintenance, etc.
 
Fearless Tower said:
Altitude should not be a determining factor as to whether or not it is an emergency.
Click to expand...

No, but it does play a very significant factor in the severity of the emergency.

For example - I know some people who were at FL250 when they heard a similar "POP" in a Malibu and the engine lost power and manifold pressure. In this case, the intercooler hose popped off. They glided for roughly 50 nm going back to home base over the Florida coast. Lots of airports along the way. By the time they hit 13,000 ft, the engine restarted - it had enough manifold pressure there to start and run, and then it was easy to get home.

Tons of options. I haven't read anything that makes me believe he did anything wrong other than shut down the engine and then screw up the landing. I'm sure there's more to the story, but I don't believe that anyone who's posted here so far really has enough information to condemn the pilot for his actions.

They walked away. That's what counts.
 
IF the early alternate was a grass strip, I agree with passing it up as there are not many 'bu drivers with extenisve grass strip experience, nor who practice getting 'Bus into 2,100 foot strips.

However, this sure does not look like a good decision. Even if he wanted to "save" the remnants of the engine, getting that thing shut off would have been better served at a 2500 foot strip that was closer.

Humans can "clutch" when the heat is on....and they do.
 
Last edited:
bbchien said:
IF the early alternate was a grass strip, I agree with passing it up as there are not many 'bu drivers with extenisve grass strip experience, nor who practice getting 'Bus into 2,100 foot strips.

However, this sure does not look like a good decision.
Click to expand...

I would pass up a paved 2100 ft strip in the Aztec or 310 if I was having an engine problem unless it was really my only practical option. I wouldn't want to be coming in at the slow airpseed required on one engine if I could at all avoid it. Short field landing with engine problems - that sounds like asking for turning a bad day into a worse day.
 
bbchien said:
IF the early alternate was a grass strip, I agree with passing it up as there are not many 'bu drivers with extenisve grass strip experience, nor who practice getting 'Bus into 2,100 foot strips.

However, this sure does not look like a good decision.
Click to expand...

without knowing what he passed up its impossible to say. there is a 7000 ft runway at Grenada but who knows where the engine went pop. we don't.

plus how the hell does ATC know where mechanics are?
 
tonycondon said:
plus how the hell does ATC know where mechanics are?
Click to expand...
That is kind of what I was thinking - ATC is the last place I'd look for A&P services. Now I would ask ATC (and factor it into my decision process) if there were emergency services at a given field.
 
I recall some language saying "as soon as practicable...". My guestimation is that would apply here. I only question his choices to shut down and fool with the gear position twice.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
No, but it does play a very significant factor in the severity of the emergency.

For example - I know some people who were at FL250 when they heard a similar "POP" in a Malibu and the engine lost power and manifold pressure. In this case, the intercooler hose popped off. They glided for roughly 50 nm going back to home base over the Florida coast. Lots of airports along the way. By the time they hit 13,000 ft, the engine restarted - it had enough manifold pressure there to start and run, and then it was easy to get home.
Click to expand...

But did they know what the cause was at the time?

If I'm in a single and I start having engine trouble (other than running a 'teeny' bit rough), I'm declaring an emergency whether I'm at 5000 or FL 250.
Tons of options. I haven't read anything that makes me believe he did anything wrong other than shut down the engine and then screw up the landing. I'm sure there's more to the story, but I don't believe that anyone who's posted here so far really has enough information to condemn the pilot for his actions.
Click to expand...
I agree - not enough info.
 
Fearless Tower said:
But did they know what the cause was at the time?

If I'm in a single and I start having engine trouble (other than running a 'teeny' bit rough), I'm declaring an emergency whether I'm at 5000 or FL 250.
Click to expand...

I didn't say not to declare an emergency, but not all emergencies are the same, and thus the actions will not always be the same.

Let's say that you're having some engine trouble, and you're at 10,000 ft. 5 nm away is a short strip that you could probably get into, but aren't really comfortable with with obstacles. 10 nm away is a longer strip that you know you can get into, and there are no obstacles between you and it. The 10 nm choice is further, but the one I would take.

Now, if you're directly over that shorter strip, then your decision is made for you already. But the point is, "always" is not a term that works well with aviation, except that your plane will "always" find its way back to earth.
 
I agree with you completely Ted.....I was just taking exception to Jaybirds comment 'hardly an emergency at 13K'.
 
Fearless Tower said:
I agree with you completely Ted.....I was just taking exception to Jaybirds comment 'hardly an emergency at 13K'.
Click to expand...

Ahh, ok. Sorry, I missed that part.
 
I have a silly question: if you are "a little high" in emergency, is it possible to perform a slip maneuver in Malibu, rather than playing with lowering, raising and lowering the gear? How effective is slip in Malibu (e.g. in Cherokee I can only go down maybe 1200 fpm with full rudder)? Naturally I never flew a PA-46 myself.
 
zaitcev said:
I have a silly question: if you are "a little high" in emergency, is it possible to perform a slip maneuver in Malibu, rather than playing with lowering, raising and lowering the gear? How effective is slip in Malibu (e.g. in Cherokee I can only go down maybe 1200 fpm with full rudder)? Naturally I never flew a PA-46 myself.
Click to expand...

I haven't flown a Malibu, so can't speak to it. However, I've used slips in 172s through 310s, and find they work well in all.

Typically if I'm gliding in, I want to come in with more energy and only dissipate it when the runway is definitely made. A lot of judgement comes into play with this, and it's easy to see where someone could get it wrong.
 
I'm wondering if the oil pressure going to zero and the light coming on was a result of him pulling the power to idle, which would have happened at either airport. To me it sounds like a misjudgement in glide performance and shutting the engine down, not the choice of airports played more of a factor here. Glad they walked away.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
I haven't flown a Malibu, so can't speak to it. However, I've used slips in 172s through 310s, and find they work well in all.
Click to expand...

The only plane I've ever found where a slip isn't particularly effective is the 182 (older variety with 40º flaps). The big barn door flaps at 40º give a huge amount of drag, and a hard slip doesn't result in any more descent because the fuselage blanks out the flap on the up-wing side in a slip - It basically performs the same in straight flight with full flaps as it does in a hard slip with full flaps.

Now, if the flaps were to fail or be otherwise unavailable (electrical failure), a slip would definitely increase the descent rate significantly.
 
jesse said:
Yet another case that demonstrates shutting down a thrust producing engine may not be the best plan of action.

There are exceptions. Some fires, multi engine training, etc. One should really stop and think very carefully before making such a decision.
Click to expand...

In multi engine operational (as opposed to instructional) situations I successfully landed after precautionary shut down of a running power producing engine with an oil leak. It's one of the advantages you have in that you don't have to let a $25 hose cost you a $25,000 engine.
 
Inverted said:
Insurance owns the airplane, and the second the oil light comes on you are screwed anyway so why risk your life shutting the engine down.... Stupid.
Click to expand...

Well, why risk life flying single engine airplanes at all...Stupid.
 
Tarheel Pilot said:
I have a question, why couldn't an aircraft mechanic come out to the first airport, he could've at least got the aircraft good enough so that it can limp back to the airport with a mechanic.
Click to expand...

Because it usually costs extra money to get repairs done out on location, and most pilots are cheap.

Personally I don't fault his decision on going on to the airport with better maint though, I fault his energy management of his aircraft. He had the runway made and f-ed it up.... Oh well, at least he controlled the crash well enough.
 
Henning said:
Personally I don't fault his decision on going on to the airport with better maint though, I fault his energy management of his aircraft. He had the runway made and f-ed it up.... Oh well, at least he controlled the crash well enough.
Click to expand...

My thoughts exactly.
 
bbchien said:
Because pilots are cheap ba__ards....that's why. He saved a whole lot of $$ on this one. Even in a twin, you take the FIRST serviceable airport. :(
Click to expand...


Actually, chances are he's most likely insured and the plane will be totalled for some defined value that can replace the aircraft with one that does not need an immediate engine repair, so in a way, yeah, he saved himself a good chunk, or at least deferred the expense to a later day.

There are exceptions to the "First Airport" rule for twins. A couple of times, Once in a 310 high and once in my BE-95 down low with 2 pax, I passed up landing LAX to get to LGB which was home, and my destination in the 310.
 
Henning said:
In multi engine operational (as opposed to instructional) situations I successfully landed after precautionary shut down of a running power producing engine with an oil leak. It's one of the advantages you have in that you don't have to let a $25 hose cost you a $25,000 engine.
Click to expand...

Correct. And not just in that case. I've had issues where it's been comforting to know I could shut down an engine and keep flying. I haven't had a time when it made sense to do that yet, but there have been times when that ability has allowed me to keep flying when having a single would mean I'd be looking for an airport to land at.

Henning said:
Well, why risk life flying single engine airplanes at all...Stupid.
Click to expand...

Singles have their place, but I don't get how people can go out and spend tons of money on an airplane and still end up with a single (sorry, Andrew).
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yeah, not the smartest thing ever - Luckily, it wasn't the all-too-common "he tried to save the airplane and lost his life" story.



Well, normally I'd say "the insurance company owns the airplane" but the insurance company does NOT pay to replace ruined engines, unless you stuck the prop in the ground and/or crack something else up. If you have a purely mechanical failure, you're on your own for the engine.

Maybe the insurance companies will wise up and realize that it would help them if they did add this to the coverage so as to remove any incentive to pull this particular stupid pilot trick.

What I *really* can't understand is the people who have landing gear failures and try to do the "drive a fast car down the runway and try to pull it out" thing. Sooner or later, someone's gonna get a prop to the head and then it won't seem so "heroic" any more - Not that it ever was, a gear malfunction and gear-up landing is not a life-threatening emergency.
Click to expand...


You can buy an engine program if you want one. I'm sure there will be several ways to provide on this. It will cost a significant extra premium though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top