True, gotta have reasonable personal limits. Many pilots don’t, or are quite willing to say “normally I wouldn’t fly in these conditions, but…”.Ah, so nothing would have prevented this pilot from departing, as his personal limits included this takeoff.
Sounds like it would have prevented the accident.
Agreed.
You, as the PIC make those parameters.
But the implication of the post I replied to was that somehow it would have made a difference in this accident. We have no evidence that this pilot exceeded any of his personal minimums.
I think that's backwards.
That's what happens every time someone gets a jump-start in their car. That large data set refutes the alternator claim. The battery risk mentioned above is supported by that data set, although I think deep-cycling a battery that is not built for it contributes to the battery's demise in addition to the previously mentioned charge-rate.
Not generally. The internal resistance of the battery when discharged plays a part in this, as does the regulator on the alternator. In aircraft, the full load of all electric loads on an alternator cannot exceed 80% of the rated amperage of the alternator installed. So, there are situations where the alternator can be loaded up to 60-80% of its rated capacity, and then adding a large current draw to recharge a batt may exceed the thermal dissipation of the alternator.
Yeah, I might have gotten confused from the earlier reports that implied the PIC was the Flight School owner.
Depends how you define a "dead" battery and what caused it to discharge. But in general, an alternator is not designed to properly recover a battery that is discharged. Unfortunately, lead acid batteries do not handle excessive discharges well and are usually damaged unless it is properly recharged. This is partly the reason you see people complain their batteries only last 3 or 4 years vs 7+ years. So yes an alternator can be damaged when you have an excessive battery discharge event and do not properly handle the situation per the OEM recommendations.
It's funny how often someone online tells the owner of a dead battery "Just hook up a battery tender and let it run for a couple of days."
This is fake news. The Sheriff would not drive up to the airport then let them sleep in the sheriff's station.
Not fake news. The sheriff would rather assist now, then later rescue... Perhaps we agree to disagree. Plenty of posts here where others have called the police/sheriff for access, assistance and help, including one of your own (FAT). They should have at least tried.
I do not agreee to disagree. My brother in law worked for the LA county sheriffs office for over 20 years. He has worked in Catalina. There is a small outpost in Avalon. He claims there is no way a Sheriff would drive over an hour in the middle of the night to drive people to a hotel. Catalina is a unique situation that you clearly have no clue about.
In hindsight, knowing that everyone died, it is obvious that just about any other decision, including sleeping on the cold hard ground under the stars or calling random strangers and begging for help, would have been a better decision.
We don't know if war-dialing every number on the island would have led to a warm place to sleep. But it does seem like this particular group would have turned down a free hangar, room, and supper at a Waldorf Astoria located on the field. What makes this crash worthy of study is the question of what you would have done if you knew that departing that night carried a high risk of a bad outcome, and how high that risk would have to be to try something different. Following all of the rules would have kept them alive, albeit uncomfortable for the night. At all times, but especially when deviating from a rule, it is critical to evaluate and weigh the risks you are taking.
I can think of at least three signals of impending doom other than the simple fact that they were taking off from a closed airport at night:
Ari hits it with #2, above. WIth a bad battery, you pull up the gear and it doesn't go- it won't retract on just the 65A alternator. It needs the battery reserve. With an inductive motor load and little battery storage, you get immediate <11.2 V, and nothing happens except- all the intruments go blank. And at night.
While I’m not disagreeing, the pilot has to not only have “aviator brain,” but also the training and/or experience to recognize that too many adverse factors is, in fact, a problem. That could probably go into the thread about areas in which pilot training is generally deficient. As instructors, we need to start student pilots more down the path of studying dead people.
??? There is zero evidence to support this. No such options were ever made available. I've not heard that any option to stay with a lower barrier than "heroic effort" was available to them. We have no idea what they would have done if they could have walked next door and slapped down a credit card to get a room.
Yes, of course. For me, it's pretty obvious how these people ended up on the plane and trying to take off. Should they have obeyed the rules? Yes. But Is it a mystery why they might have chosen to break the rules, if they thought their choice was "sleep under the wing or take off into the dark and sleep in my own bed"? No.
However. As Bruce pointed out, with the second plane needing to be charged to start. If there was adequate systems knowledge they would have realized what potentially could happen when he attempted to retract the gear.
The pilot should have known that, yes. Did any of the passengers understand that risk? Should they have been expected to?
The airport manager told them the departure would be at their own risk after the airport closed. I don't see where he told them it was dangerous.
Was just speaking of the pic/cfi/owner.
I was wondering, but I don't know much about the Baron.
Yes! I was thinking about the same one when I saw the gear was still down. FWIW, it wasn't just the props - The (diesel) DA42 has electronically controlled engines, dual ECUs on both sides. Checklist for starting off external power says you may start ONE engine off of external power, not both. That accident, they started both from external power, and the battery voltage wasn't even enough to excite the alternator field sufficiently to charge. Pulled the gear up, instant dual engine failure because all four ECUs went offline when the voltage dropped. And yes, all of the diesel TwinStars now have a separate additional backup battery system for the ECUs.
Just be careful with that, too - Because the NTSB has apparently only recently started to learn about root cause analysis, and most of the reports say "The NTSB finds that the probable cause of this crash is the pilot's failure to ..." it's FAR too easy to look at an accident report and say "Well that's just stupid, I would never do that!" and move on, thinking you're impervious to that particular type of accident.