Plane Crashes into House in Mass.

Pilot was a doctor, his wife and college-bound daughter were aboard. Plane was owned by another doctor. Familiar chain.

I know there are people on this forum who do not like seeing posts on crashes. As a former CFI, CFII, and MEI, I tend to read all I can and ask why? Could this have been prevented. Since this forum sports a lot of new, low-time pilots (and student pilots) there usually is a lesson to be learned. In this case, after studying Flight Trackers readout of altitude and airspeed, this pilot failed to do the first thing you learn when doing emergency procedures. When at altitude, with an engine failure, immediately set up your airplane's best glide speed. Had he done that, I feel the outcome would have been much different. A36's glide speed is not between 159 and 208 knots which is what FT showed. That extra altitude he could have saved would probably have gotten him at least to the Interstate ATC told him about if not the airport. I'll take my chances with an Interstate over a house any day.

I'm not trying to put the blame on the pilot -- that's NTSB's job to sort out the details. Just pointing out how important currency training is. Maybe someone reading this will remember it if they encounter the same problem.
 
old cfi said:
Pilot was a doctor, his wife and college-bound daughter were aboard. Plane was owned by another doctor. Familiar chain.

I know there are people on this forum who do not like seeing posts on crashes. As a former CFI, CFII, and MEI, I tend to read all I can and ask why? Could this have been prevented. Since this forum sports a lot of new, low-time pilots (and student pilots) there usually is a lesson to be learned. In this case, after studying Flight Trackers readout of altitude and airspeed, this pilot failed to do the first thing you learn when doing emergency procedures. When at altitude, with an engine failure, immediately set up your airplane's best glide speed. Had he done that, I feel the outcome would have been much different. A36's glide speed is not between 159 and 208 knots which is what FT showed. That extra altitude he could have saved would probably have gotten him at least to the Interstate ATC told him about if not the airport. I'll take my chances with an Interstate over a house any day.

I'm not trying to put the blame on the pilot -- that's NTSB's job to sort out the details. Just pointing out how important currency training is. Maybe someone reading this will remember it if they encounter the same problem.
Click to expand...

FWIW, there were some killer tailwinds on the east coast yesterday.

I had the biplane up to 125 kts yesterday at 1500' AGL. At least a 30kt tailwind and the winds increased the higher up you went.

I don't know if he was that far off best glide.
 
old cfi said:
In this case, after studying Flight Trackers readout of altitude and airspeed, this pilot failed to do the first thing you learn when doing emergency procedures. When at altitude, with an engine failure, immediately set up your airplane's best glide speed. Had he done that, I feel the outcome would have been much different.
Click to expand...

You're making a pretty bold statement. How do you know he didn't do so?

While ATC indicated a highway was present, its distance from the crash site was apparently several miles. You think he could have stretched his glide to reach the highway, or that a landing site would have magically appeared if he had glided a bit further. The outcome would have been "much different"? That's a bit of an overreach, don't you think?

What was the ceiling when he broke out? I'm not talking about the observed ceiling somewhere near the crash site. What did he see? News reports don't say.

What was the orientation of the freeway in relation to his direction of travel? Would he have had to make a 90 degree turn to align the aircraft with the roadway? What about power lines? Buildings? You don't know, do you?

The pilot reported engine vibration before it stopped. What was the propeller doing during and after the failure? Stopped? Rotating? Was he able to alter the pitch setting, or was it impossible due to the failure? How did this effect his rate of descent?

After a crash of this sort there are always attempts by we forum members to understand what happened. Posts are made, and speculation is sometimes uncomfortably harsh.

But you have gone too far. Criticizing a dead pilot that (by all indications based upon radio transmissions) acted in an exceedingly brave and competent manner in an attempt to prevent what became a tragic outcome is odious.

The bodies of the pilot and his passengers haven't even been released to their families, and you are finding fault with his actions based upon data produced by a source which is hardly definitive.

A total engine failure in hard IMC, an area with no airport or highways within reach, and you find fault with his actions.

Really?

:nonod:
 
old cfi said:
In this case, after studying Flight Trackers readout of altitude and airspeed...
Click to expand...
Which flight trackers give airspeed data? The ones I'm familiar with give groundspeed and as such are a poor measure of proximity to Vbg.

Nauga,
and a different kind of source error altogether.
 
nauga said:
Which flight trackers give airspeed data? The ones I'm familiar with give groundspeed and as such are a poor measure of proximity to Vbg.

Nauga,
and a different kind of source error altogether.
Click to expand...
Exactly my point about the tailwinds that day.
 
old cfi said:
Pilot was a doctor, his wife and college-bound daughter were aboard. Plane was owned by another doctor. Familiar chain.

I know there are people on this forum who do not like seeing posts on crashes. As a former CFI, CFII, and MEI, I tend to read all I can and ask why? Could this have been prevented. Since this forum sports a lot of new, low-time pilots (and student pilots) there usually is a lesson to be learned. In this case, after studying Flight Trackers readout of altitude and airspeed, this pilot failed to do the first thing you learn when doing emergency procedures. When at altitude, with an engine failure, immediately set up your airplane's best glide speed. Had he done that, I feel the outcome would have been much different. A36's glide speed is not between 159 and 208 knots which is what FT showed. That extra altitude he could have saved would probably have gotten him at least to the Interstate ATC told him about if not the airport. I'll take my chances with an Interstate over a house any day.

I'm not trying to put the blame on the pilot -- that's NTSB's job to sort out the details. Just pointing out how important currency training is. Maybe someone reading this will remember it if they encounter the same problem.
Click to expand...


I think you could use some currency training on the difference between airspeed and ground speed and the affect of winds aloft on the two.
 
Henning said:
I think you could use some currency training on the difference between airspeed and ground speed and the affect of winds aloft on the two.
Click to expand...

Not necessarily. If you know at what point the mayonnaise hit the fan and have both groundspeed and rate of descent (which you get from delta altitudes between ping data points) you can pretty well cross-correlate his airspeed from rate of descent if you believe the data in the POH or owner's manual.

Besides, if he had that hellacious groundspeed from WHATEVER mechanism, not making at least the freeway was not a good maneuver.

And, just to be grammarpicky, you need recurrent on "effect" and "affect".

Jim
 
Very sad, and such unfortunate timing. Less than 20nm from his destination (OWD), and almost equidistant from Mansfield and North Central.

Looks like he'd already started down, and 3000ft doesn't leave much to play with :(
 
Weren't ceilings around 700ft? If so, unless he managed to maneuver himself almost perfectly so that the highway was directly in front and aligned with his direction of flight as he broke out, he would have had a really tough last 30 seconds in VMC. With growing panic, an engine vibrating like crazy (not confirmed but sounds like it) then going dead, in the soup, getting closer and closer to the ground, passengers freaking out (supposition), it is not an easy task. We don't know enough yet but based on what we do know, I have a hard time criticizing this guy. And I'm also glad for the CAPS in my airplane, should I ever find myself in his shoes because unlike some of the armchair quarterbacks, I'm not sure I would have done it better in his plane.
 
RudyP said:
Weren't ceilings around 700ft? If so, unless he managed to maneuver himself almost perfectly so that the highway was directly in front and aligned with his direction of flight as he broke out, he would have had a really tough last 30 seconds in VMC. With growing panic, an engine vibrating like crazy (not confirmed but sounds like it) then going dead, in the soup, getting closer and closer to the ground, passengers freaking out (supposition), it is not an easy task. We don't know enough yet but based on what we do know, I have a hard time criticizing this guy. And I'm also glad for the CAPS in my airplane, should I ever find myself in his shoes.
Click to expand...

That's why the Cirrus has outsold everything else since it came out. I'm still amazed that none of the other manufacturers adopted the BRS chute.:dunno:
 
Henning said:
That's why the Cirrus has outsold everything else since it came out. I'm still amazed that none of the other manufacturers adopted the BRS chute.:dunno:
Click to expand...

And yet you'll still find people on this forum (and more specifically the AOPA forum) that insist the BRS has a negative value and that if you can't land your plane safely in IMC with a 700ft ceiling you are lacking basic airmanship ;)

Personally, I wish I had one.
 
Bonchie said:
And yet you'll still find people on this forum (and more specifically the AOPA forum) that insist the BRS has a negative value and that if you can't land your plane safely in IMC with a 700ft ceiling you are lacking basic airmanship ;)

Personally, I wish I had one.
Click to expand...

It's the only certified SE plane I would consider anymore for a traveling machine.
 
RudyP said:
Weren't ceilings around 700ft?
Click to expand...


Dunno. What is your source of information? If he was IMC and in radar contact, a vector from the controller would have put him on short final for the freeway. His problem from 700 AGL would have been to avoid overpasses.

Jim
 
Henning said:
Why do you think I buy twins to travel in? I can't afford a Cirrus.
Click to expand...

I have no idea why you do that.

And I'm not disparaging the Cirrus or BRS systems in general, just saying they're pretty low on my priority list of things that are important to me. Proper mx of whatever I own is my #1 focus.

I've been far less comfortable in ****tily maintained twins than I am in my properly maintained single.
 
Always find it funny how the twin piston fans need to climb in on threads like this and take their jabs about how unsafe single engine planes are... Let's not talk about all those twin accidents this year.

Tim is right. Far better to concentrate on your own maintenance and your own training/skills. Single, twin, whatever, make sure your equipment is well maintained and your skills are current.
 
Try looking at the OP of this thread and you'll understand. Day VFR I'm comfortable in anything. Night and low IMC, I'm not fond of one engine and no options.
 
narchee said:
Always find it funny how the twin piston fans need to climb in on threads like this and take their jabs about how unsafe single engine planes are... Let's not talk about all those twin accidents this year.

Tim is right. Far better to concentrate on your own maintenance and your own training/skills. Single, twin, whatever, make sure your equipment is well maintained and your skills are current.
Click to expand...

Ah yes, and at the same time single guys will jump in with their own hang ups about twin accidents and how they are just as safe. If you don't want to pay the premium for s twin, that's fine. I honestly don't care what you do. I only add my perspective as food for thought for those that wish to mitigate the risk.

People die in singles, twins and 4 engine planes. They die in airplanes with and without parachutes. Crap happens. You make your own choice on how you mitigate the risk. You are the only one who can make the choice for you. I just happen to choose to adopt Tim's idea of proper maintenance along with the second engine (and redundant systems that come with it), along with proper training and proficiency.

I do think my approach is safer than simply trusting good maintenance alone, but it comes at a higher cost (both time and money) and is not available to everyone. I think a BRS is a fine system as well, but haven't seen any 6 seat airplanes with such systems so that kind of limits the choices.
 
Does anyone think that having a synthetic vision device on board could have helped this pilot?

BTW... Really impressed with his calmness and focus in this dire situation... I believe he had control of his aircraft all the way to the end. Something many would fail to do in this situation...
 
FlySince9 said:
Does anyone think that having a synthetic vision device on board could have helped this pilot?

BTW... Really impressed with his calmness and focus in this dire situation... I believe he had control of his aircraft all the way to the end. Something many would fail to do in this situation...
Click to expand...
Might help some, but I doubt synthetic vision would show houses and trees.
 
Having more altitude would have been useful. Would I fly no higher than 3000 feet for the whole trip knowing I am crossing an area of low IFR ceilings? Not me. Altitude is your friend.
 
FlySince9 said:
Does anyone think that having a synthetic vision device on board could have helped this pilot?

BTW... Really impressed with his calmness and focus in this dire situation... I believe he had control of his aircraft all the way to the end. Something many would fail to do in this situation...
Click to expand...

People will have one of two reaction, calm focus, or calm detachment. Either way, you die pretty calm.

SVT would have shown the road.
 
Henning said:
Try looking at the OP of this thread and you'll understand. Day VFR I'm comfortable in anything. Night and low IMC, I'm not fond of one engine and no options.
Click to expand...

Single-engine, night, IMC, mountain. We get to pick two.
 
Henning said:
Single engine Day VFR Mountain I'm fine with, night in the prairie is ok.
Click to expand...

Single-engine, IMC, night, mountain.

So in that case you picked these two.

In the prarie, these two:

Single-engine, IMC, night, mountain.

:D
 
Henning said:
Because you were offensive.
Click to expand...

Offensive? Where? It's not like I called anyone a douchebag or told them to **** off. Now that would be offensive. Not that I think any upstanding member would ever do that here, mind you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top