Runway Lighting Cited as possible cause of fatal crash

Very sad, but I don't see how lack of lights can make ya crash?

I would say that descending too low might have caused the crash. Isn't the approach supposed to have a safeguard built in, called "Missed Approach"?
 
Low-time pilot (attorney) in a TBM- but he was wisely in the practice of bringing along an apparently well-qualified commercial pilot for safety.

Still cannot understand how the absence of any runway lighting can cause an accident; if they were unable to adequately see the runway environment, go missed.

Read the brother's quote- gosh, I wonder if he intends to sue the town, the airport or the FAA? I wonder...
 
CapeCodJay said:
Well, Friday night a plane crashed on final at KEWB (New Bedford) Mass.

It appears that the plane went missed on the first approach and was making the second approach when it went down after being cleared on final.

3 Dead. Sad indeed.

Read more here: http://www.boston.com/news/local/ar...y_lighting_investigated_in_fatal_plane_crash/
Click to expand...

Sorry, but no. Not sad. Not sad in the least.

First problem was you had too much airplane and too little pilot. Second problem was you had too much airplane and too little "commercial-rated" pilot.
Third problem was that Problem One and Problem Two were flying on instruments into an unfamiliar field and were obviously dumbasses to not even be able to land with a runway that had centerline and perimeter lights operative.

This was not an accident. It was instead, inevitable.

I mean, my God, you have an idiot who hadn't even been flying half a freaking year and is flying a freaking HP turbine in IMC with a rookie "commercial" pilot?

It strike me far more as Darwinian than sad.

Another interesting part is that the brother sure sounds like he's looking for an entire ambulance fleet to chase.

I'd start with God Himself. After all, he created Instrument Meteroligical Conditions.

Then move on to the EPA who required a hefty permit to allow another gov't agency to cut weeds in a wetland area that has a big concrete strip running through it.

Then take a look at the Mayor who claims it would cost, what was it, $300,000 "to do the job?"

Hellfire, call ME--I'll throw my weedwacker in the back of the plane and go up there and do the job for HALF of that. Plus, all the EPA commies I can slice and dice while I'm doing same for the weeds.

It almost cracks me up that a damned liberal state who leads the nation in in NIMBY let liberalism run amok to the point that ultimate liberals (trial lawyers) may sue them because they couldn't handle their own liberal BS policies and codes!

And since damn near everyone involved in this is either a lawyer or political type, you KNOW there's going to be lawsuits flying (no pun) like crazy. Hopefully those suits will occur in IMC. . .

Add it all up and that's why I honestly don't see a damn thing sad about it.

-JD
 
JD, save it for the spin zone.

People die = sad. no matter the circumstances.
 
tonycondon said:
JD, save it for the spin zone.

People die = sad. no matter the circumstances.
Click to expand...

Sorry, but that's your opinion--not mine.

When people die because of factors beyond their control, that's sad. When people die because of unforseen factors that are suddenly upon them, that's sad.

The ramifications of actions like these can and likely will affect GA adversely when it could have easily, easily been avoided.

That is what's sad.

-JD
 
CowboyPilot said:
.

Then move on to the EPA who required a hefty permit to allow another gov't agency to cut weeds in a wetland area that has a big concrete strip running through it.

Then take a look at the Mayor who claims it would cost, what was it, $300,000 "to do the job?"

Hellfire, call ME--I'll throw my weedwacker in the back of the plane and go up there and do the job for HALF of that. Plus, all the EPA commies I can slice and dice while I'm doing same for the weeds.

-JD
Click to expand...

While I don't agree with everything JD -- I sure have to agree with these comments.
 
Sorry, but I agree with JD on this one. Are you folks going to cry for me if I fly an approach in solid IMC when I can't even get the localizer to line up? If, I go on down to MDA and cannot see the "runway environment" regardless of the reason? And, if I continue an approach or make another that's still unstable, you're going to cry for the guy who has only 400 hours TT and a half dozen hours actual? Add to that I fly a turboprop that's way beyond my ability, regardless of having another pilot who is not much more experienced than I am? This guy probably didn't have more than 150 hours with a generous estimate.

I'd have to be pretty damn naive to think there won't be criticism of my actions. I'd have to be pretty damn naive to continue this approach.

All through my IR training and even now during CPL training, I'll go around on an approach at times. I didn't feel comfortable continuing and I had no reason to rush my getting down. It wasn't an emergency... yet. I had no intention of making it one. Most of the time, my CFI would say he probably would have continued. But, he'd also tell me, "I can't fault you for going around. That's always the better decision."

This guy should have gone to an alternate the first time. He was definitely unstable the second time; with two sets of eyes and hands.

I'm sorry for the loss of life. I'm more sorry a damn insurance company signed off so easily on such an advanced airplane on a low-time, novice pilot. If they did specify a commercially rated pilot, they probably didn't specify experience level. I doubt he was proficient in the TBM.

We need to see the preliminary and final report to be certain but the initial facts as reported by the NTSB and the brother who knew him speak volumes about lack of experience. It was an accident waiting to happen.

Oh, and if I do go down in such a stupid accident... it won't bother me in the slightest how much you criticize me. If it brings light to another pilot by speaking to the stupidity of my actions, go for it.
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm sorry for the loss of life.
Click to expand...

good, then you agree with me. thats all i was talking about. i made no comment how good or bad they were as pilots. Yea they screwed up, its still sad that they died. I guess i value human life, even people who make mistakes.
 
tonycondon said:
good, then you agree with me. Yea they screwed up, its still sad that they died. I guess i value human life, even people who make mistakes.
Click to expand...

Mistakes.

The guy who "screwed up" and killed my family while drinking and driving 41 years ago didn't make a mistake. He purposefully got drunk and purposefully drove a car and ended up killing my family. Had he not also died in that car wreck, I would've come home and killed him myself.

The pilot who flew his TBM into the ground didn't make a mistake. Because when you purposefully do something wrong or purposefully venture beyond your abilities and level of expertise and experience and get caught, that's not a mistake.

It's called being careless--and in many instances, you pay the ultimate price.

What's sad is when innocent life is lost because of the arrogance or egotism (ie, "I can handle it") of whoever is at the controls or initiates the chain of events.

In this case, I'm sad that the wife lost her life. But I'm not one damned bit sad over the pilot or "co-pilot" becoming part of the landscape. I only hope that other low-timers with more money and ego than sense and ability will look at these kinds of things and try to avoid repeating them.

These two guys played high-stakes poker when they weren't even proficient to play Go Fish and they lost. Nobody forced them to take the trip. There was no emergency. Nothing like that. If the weather was going south when they landed at Logan, they could've rented a car. They didn't.

In other words, they did every conceiveable thing possible to put themselves in harm's way and they paid the price. And if litle brother lawyer starts going sue-happy, we'll ALL end up paying a price.

-JD
 
Last edited by a moderator:
CowboyPilot said:
Sorry, but no. Not sad. Not sad in the least.

First problem was you had too much airplane and too little pilot. Second problem was you had too much airplane and too little "commercial-rated" pilot.
Third problem was that Problem One and Problem Two were flying on instruments into an unfamiliar field and were obviously dumbasses to not even be able to land with a runway that had centerline and perimeter lights operative.
Click to expand...

I don't think that the performance capabilities of the airplain had anything to do with it. I think they would have had the same result in a 182. This one reads to me as an attitude problem rather than an equipment problem.

My favorite quote from the aricle was this:
Authorities said the plane was making an instrument-only landing, a technique commonly used in bad weather.
Click to expand...

Hmmmm.... a TBM is CATIIIc certified? Even CAT II I make the landing on visual ref.
 
Henning said:
I don't think that the performance capabilities of the airplane had anything to do with it. I think they would have had the same result in a 182. This one reads to me as an attitude problem rather than an equipment problem.

My favorite quote from the article was this:
<snip>
Hmmmm.... a TBM is CATIIIc certified? Even CAT II I make the landing on visual ref.
Click to expand...
You're right in that it wasn't the airplane as much as it was the pilots. But, a more advanced aircraft requires better-trained and more proficient pilots. These pilots were apparently way behind the aircraft.

We have a guy in our school who's halfway through his PPL training. He just bought a decked-out Mooney 201 to finish his training in. How long do you suppose it will take for him to become proficiently ahead of the airplane? Most FBOs won't rent a complex aircraft to a low-time pilot; and with good reason.

As for the statement in the article. I'm sure that's nothing more than a reporter who has no clue what was really said. So, he interprets an "approach by only instruments" as being completely automated, no human required. That reporter was probably a cousin to the guy who called a precautionary landing with unlocked gear a "belly landing."
 
KennyFlys said:
I'm more sorry a damn insurance company signed off so easily on such an advanced airplane on a low-time, novice pilot. If they did specify a commercially rated pilot, they probably didn't specify experience level. I doubt he was proficient in the TBM.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the price from the insurance company was steep, but it looked like this guy and his wife could pay. They (ins co) took the business, now they step up to the plate.
 
Don't be terribly surprised if he was flying without benefit of insurance at all.

I know of nothing inherently dangerous about an approach to a field without operational approach lights or REILs- if you do not have the runway environment, you go missed, and nothing guides you into a loss of control and crash.

Still so much to be learned, but the brother's grief is no excuse for his inflammatory comments and blame-laying.
 
The lights being out is the reason that they didn't make the airport on the first try.

When I shoot to mins, I see the rabbit & etc at mins & then go below min by 100 ft with the app lights & then I see the runway, well I hope by then I see the runway :) :)

The reason the crashed on missed is either bad piloting or bad equipment. The NTSB will figure that out.
 
Eamon said:
The reason the crashed on missed is either bad piloting or bad equipment. The NTSB will figure that out.
Click to expand...

If the lights were out as stated in the article due to vegetation, I hope all that was in the Notams. If not, then we have another can of worms...
 
Bill Jennings said:
If the lights were out as stated in the article due to vegetation, I hope all that was in the Notams. If not, then we have another can of worms...
Click to expand...

It was all the big stink on the local (Boston) radio this morning. Supposedly, the airport was trying to clear items from around the lights, but someone (I do not know who) required an Envinronmental Impact Statement and other documentation there would be no adverse affects.

Scary stuff. I drive right by KEWB to my climbing gym and this is extremely sad.

Cheers,

-Andrew
 
Bill Jennings said:
If the lights were out as stated in the article due to vegetation, I hope all that was in the Notams. If not, then we have another can of worms...
Click to expand...
Maybe, but if you make the approach twice and still can't see the lights (and therefore, the runway), its time to go missed and go for the alternate, IMO.
 
However...
The lights marking the runway's center line, as well its left and right sides, were illuminated at the time of the crash, Peters said.
Click to expand...
It sounds to me like he COULD see the lights, if this news report is to be trusted.
 
Greebo said:
Maybe, but if you make the approach twice and still can't see the lights (and therefore, the runway), its time to go missed and go for the alternate, IMO.
Click to expand...

From a practical piloting side, of course. Even if you didn't know the lights were out, I'd miss twice, then beat feet for the alternate.

I was looking at it from the brother lawyer side, if the lights were not Notam'd as out of service when it was common knowledge that they were out of service, well look out...
 
Greebo said:
However...

It sounds to me like he COULD see the lights, if this news report is to be trusted.
Click to expand...

We don't know what HE saw. Sometimes you see the rabbit long before you can discern the runway lights. Looking at the plates, it looks like the main runway as MASLR, but I assume that is what was covered with the vegetation. I don't see any mention of TDZL on the plates. TDZL and CL on high really help the runway stand out.
 
Last edited:
But Bill,what you're missing is that regardless of the light's service condition, if one doesn't see the lights, one shouldn't descend below a certain altitude. The pilot screwed up, and the lights played no role in that mess up.
 
SkyHog said:
The pilot screwed up, and the lights played no role in that mess up.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I was just saying if the lights were not notam'd out, then the lawyer brother has the ammo he needs to win the lawsuit lottery...
 
The lighting issue was in the NOTAM according to an FAA spokesman. Accident report is out.

Best,

Dave
 
It will interest you all to know that Peter Karoly was a personal injury and med mal attorney. I googled him, because the name was familiar to me.

He was pretty green for that aircraft. IR on 7/24/06. Does the FAA record type ratings in the airmen registry? If so, then this guy didn't have one, which I would rather imagine is required for a TBM700?

The commercial pilot had been one since 12/12/05 and CFI since 1/12/06. Pretty green himself.

Two misses in a fast, HP aircraft (or any aircraft for that matter) and it's time for me to get heck out of Dodge, go to alternate.

Jim G
 
grattonja said:
Does the FAA record type ratings in the airmen registry?
Click to expand...

yes
If so, then this guy didn't have one, which I would rather imagine is required for a TBM700?
Click to expand...

no i dont think so. its a turboprop, not turbojet/fan, and max gross is under 12,500.
 
I wonder whether the aircraft was CVR-equipped; likely not. Worst-case, completely disoriented, engage A/P, add power, regroup.
 
Bill Jennings said:
From a practical piloting side, of course. Even if you didn't know the lights were out, I'd miss twice, then beat feet for the alternate.
Click to expand...

Twice? Heck, if I missed ONCE and didn't figure out a reason why (like "Oh duh, I forgot to click the lights on...) or have some other reason to believe I was definitely going to complete the second approach, it's time to head for the alternate after the FIRST miss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top