Youtube Pilot and her dad perish in TN

Status
Not open for further replies.
dmspilot said:
Her first flight after her private pilot checkride, she takes her nonpilot dad flying, and gives him the controls at about 250 feet AGL, so she could turn her cameras on.

View attachment 123676

You could play "Where's Waldo" with this picture and see what else you can find wrong with what's happening here.

Jenny suffered from a toxic soup of poor instruction, poor judgment, no multitasking ability, and distraction with cameras. Then add flying a high performance/complex airplane beyond her skill level with avionics she didn't understand.
Click to expand...
And her dad is obviously not a pilot, based on that picture.
 
I wish I did some screenshots of the YT comments before they went dark.

"She was a modern day Amelia Earhart". That one made me chuckle.

"She fought the plane to keep it from crashing into a home". Ok, really?
 
MauleSkinner said:
They both died in an airplane, and they both have been viewed as less than competent…I’d say there’s at least a couple of grains there.
Click to expand...
Earhart’s public persona presented a gracious and somewhat shy woman who displayed remarkable talent and bravery. Yet deep inside, Earhart harbored a burning desire to distinguish herself as different from the rest of the world. She was an intelligent and competent pilot who never panicked or lost her nerve, but she was not a brilliant aviator. Her skills kept pace with aviation during the first decade of the century, but as technology moved forward with sophisticated radio and navigation equipment, Earhart continued to fly by instinct.

She recognized her limitations and continuously worked to improve her skills, but the constant promotion and touring never gave her the time she needed to catch up. Recognizing the power of her celebrity, she strove to be an example of courage, intelligence, and self-reliance. She hoped her influence would help topple negative stereotypes about women and open doors for them in every field.
Click to expand...
Amelia Earhart

Pushed past her shortcoming to make a point, encouraged by her celebrity. She was trying to be an influencer in her time. If they had them, she would have had a Gopro and IG account.
 
FastEddieB said:
So, without electric trim, the autopilot by itself could not do anything with the plane’s trim. If it was drastically out of trim, it had to have been put there by the pilot with the trim wheel, right?

I thought in a small GA aircraft, regulations said a pilot should be able to override even a maximum amount of nose up or nose down trim with a reasonable amount of force. Do I have that wrong?
Click to expand...
All speculation, but I can't help but wonder how much they were working on that autopilot. Maybe trying to fix it several times, which disturbs wires, hoses and other stuff that can get jammed into a control column. I was thinking of that after looking behind my panel at my rat's nest of wires.

So I spent some time over the past two days tightening up all my wiring.

I have no idea if that contributed to this crash or not, but it really got my thinking about all the things that could cause an airplane to go full power-on lawn dart into a fireball.
 
eman1200 said:
I think the report claimed a descent rate of almost 12k fpm
Click to expand...
I don't remember who it was, but someone in this thread ripped me for suggesting it was a 45 degree down angle. Am I redeemed yet? Or do I still need a math lesson?
 
rickgn said:
I don't remember who it was, but someone in this thread ripped me for suggesting it was a 45 degree down angle. Am I redeemed yet? Or do I still need a math lesson?
Click to expand...
The estimates (or whatever you called them) you presented previously are still wrong, and unless you’re presenting evidence of only 120 knots across the ground to go with this 120 knots down, it’s still not 45 degrees.
 
Last edited:
Don’t know the capability of the Memphis Center radar data, if it includes ADS-B or not, but it is an estimate of the descent rate. Their data may extend slightly later than the ADS-B data we see, but the extreme rate of descent was short lived. The following part of the report doesn’t read as if it came down at 45 degrees, and last time I saw the math it was not a 45 degree angle.

“with the wreckage path oriented on a heading of about 268° magnetic. The wreckage was highly fragmented, and the debris field extended in a fan-like pattern about 300 ft long. The tops of several trees leading to the main wreckage were cut off at progressively lower heights leading up to the main impact with the ground”

Regardless, I think we can put to rest the “stall/spin” theory. The ADS-B data from earlier in the sequence doesn’t support it.
 
Last edited:
dmspilot said:
...Jenny suffered from a toxic soup of poor instruction, poor judgment, no multitasking ability, and distraction with cameras. Then add flying a high performance/complex airplane beyond her skill level with avionics she didn't understand...
Click to expand...

I wonder if the family will start looking at who they might hold accountable. The DPE? Any CFI who signed her logbook (endorsements, instruction, etc.)? I assume CFIs carry some sort of insurance...
 
Hate to be the one who has to watch those videos from the two Gopro cameras they recovered. Hopefully those videos don't end up on that YouTube channel "What You Haven't Seen".
 
FPK1 said:
I wonder if the family will start looking at who they might hold accountable. The DPE? Any CFI who signed her logbook (endorsements, instruction, etc.)? I assume CFIs carry some sort of insurance...
Click to expand...
I know CFIs carry some sort of insurance (at least mine did and recommended I do, too, if I ever became a CFI), but I don't know what all it covers. Since the reason they'd be going after them would be insufficient/incompetent instruction, that might not be covered? If proven, anyway. I imagine if all the rest of the students trained by her CFIs turn out to be good pilots, it will be a much harder battle for the family to prove that she was provided incompetent instruction and that said instruction was the main reason, or a significant contributing reason, for her crash.
 
SkyChaser said:
I know CFIs carry some sort of insurance (at least mine did and recommended I do, too, if I ever became a CFI), but I don't know what all it covers. Since the reason they'd be going after them would be insufficient/incompetent instruction, that might not be covered? If proven, anyway. I imagine if all the rest of the students trained by her CFIs turn out to be good pilots, it will be a much harder battle for the family to prove that she was provided incompetent instruction and that said instruction was the main reason, or a significant contributing reason, for her crash.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure what cfi insurance would cover for a former student. Maybe the CFI isn't a cfi anymore and carries no such insurance. Fairly certain it only covers loss or damage during instruction.
 
I'm not a lawyer...hell I don't even know enough to play one on TV but I'm thinking it would be hard to hold a CFI liable for the proficiency or lack thereof of a certificated pilot. Once you earn your certificate, you've essentially been signed off by 3 different entities. The CFI twice...once for your written, once for your checkride. Then the written exam itself, then the DPE twice via the oral and checkride. All three would then have to be held liable for a new pilot (like myself at just shy of 100 hours) who memory dumps everything they've learned. At 400+ hours, though (allegedly) there's nobody to blame but the pilot.
 
kell490 said:
Hate to be the one who has to watch those videos from the two Gopro cameras they recovered. Hopefully those videos don't end up on that YouTube channel "What You Haven't Seen".
Click to expand...
well, you might see two heads down and focused strictly on the panel w/out looking up until the - ah crap, moment..
 
rickgn said:
I don't remember who it was, but someone in this thread ripped me for suggesting it was a 45 degree down angle. Am I redeemed yet? Or do I still need a math lesson?
Click to expand...
You still need a math lesson. :D

GS would have needed to be 120 also to be 45 degrees. GS was MUCH higher.
 
I've got a math minor, which was really by accident and rightfully impresses no one...and I wouldn't trust myself to calculate a tip after 9pm, but, guessing - guessing that the max groundspeed and max reported decent rate happened at roughly the same time, I came up with about 30 degrees down and something like 150 knots velocity. I made that guess because I figured as long as the plane wasn't dropping out of the sky stall/spin style, and the wings were attached, the faster it's going down the faster it's going horizontal, too. (Or in other words I assumed it was <45 down, so the point of max horizontal velocity would be the same as max vertical.) Many assumptions with that, though, including that there's any validity in the posted numbers from ADSB, and that I wrote them down correctly and did the math right.

I'm going to guess again, and that's that if the pilot didn't understand how serious being over Vne can be, OR that they were going that fast, she might not have realized how big a problem it was until too late.

Assuming there's nothing unexpected that NTSB finds, my curiosity is what the throttle was set at, if they can tell. That should be part of anyone's training for unusual attitudes, but sometimes people don't do what they were trained to do.
 
In contrast to most here, I’m favorably disposed toward YouTube aviation content creators in general. It’s a lot of work and, for most (likely all in the aviation space), pays much less per hour than the day job.

Because of this, I was inclined to defend this pilot. Now, having watched a few of her videos and, importantly, Juan B’s discussion, I think the poor thing was just over her head and getting inexcusably bad instruction. I also have to admit that her attention to content creation probably contributed.
 
FPK1 said:
I wonder if the family will start looking at who they might hold accountable. The DPE? Any CFI who signed her logbook (endorsements, instruction, etc.)? I assume CFIs carry some sort of insurance...
Click to expand...
It’s a typical response in my anecdotal experience. Unfortunately, I think the person responsible died in the crash.
 
I am starting to think her dad may have contributed. Aside from persuading her to buy a Bonanza in the first place, there are numerous instances where he tries to "help" her...playing with the autopilot, accidentally setting the parking brake, confusing her by pointing her in the wrong direction, giving unsolicited advice which was not correct, etc. And as he was her dad she was inclined to trust him and even ask him to help her when this was completely inappropriate. She was a bad pilot and he was a bad passenger.
 
KE5BM said:
I'm not a lawyer...hell I don't even know enough to play one on TV but I'm thinking it would be hard to hold a CFI liable for the proficiency or lack thereof of a certificated pilot.
Click to expand...
I recall hearing of successful lawsuits against instructors (one was because the instructor did a FR and didn't document a specific aspect of the review, an aspect that wasn't required but did relate to the accident) but like many of these judgments they are nullified on appeal. And although I carried CFI liability insurance when I was actively instructing it was more to cover potential lawyer fees than to pay out a potential settlement.
 
Last edited:
Albany Tom said:
I've got a math minor, which was really by accident and rightfully impresses no one...and I wouldn't trust myself to calculate a tip after 9pm, but, guessing - guessing that the max groundspeed and max reported decent rate happened at roughly the same time, I came up with about 30 degrees down and something like 150 knots velocity. I made that guess because I figured as long as the plane wasn't dropping out of the sky stall/spin style, and the wings were attached, the faster it's going down the faster it's going horizontal, too. (Or in other words I assumed it was <45 down, so the point of max horizontal velocity would be the same as max vertical.) Many assumptions with that, though, including that there's any validity in the posted numbers from ADSB, and that I wrote them down correctly and did the math right.

I'm going to guess again, and that's that if the pilot didn't understand how serious being over Vne can be, OR that they were going that fast, she might not have realized how big a problem it was until too late.

Assuming there's nothing unexpected that NTSB finds, my curiosity is what the throttle was set at, if they can tell. That should be part of anyone's training for unusual attitudes, but sometimes people don't do what they were trained to do.
Click to expand...
Eye witnesses on the ground said that it sounded like the airplane was at full throttle. Full power lawn dart, then a crater and a fireball.

To me this is what is so intriguing about this accident. So many obvious issues, so much complacency... it's like a bad B-rated movie when you know how the plot will end about half way through.
 
Albany Tom said:
I've got a math minor, which was really by accident and rightfully impresses no one...and I wouldn't trust myself to calculate a tip after 9pm, but, guessing - guessing that the max groundspeed and max reported decent rate happened at roughly the same time, I came up with about 30 degrees down and something like 150 knots velocity. I made that guess because I figured as long as the plane wasn't dropping out of the sky stall/spin style, and the wings were attached, the faster it's going down the faster it's going horizontal, too. (Or in other words I assumed it was <45 down, so the point of max horizontal velocity would be the same as max vertical.) Many assumptions with that, though, including that there's any validity in the posted numbers from ADSB, and that I wrote them down correctly and did the math right.

I'm going to guess again, and that's that if the pilot didn't understand how serious being over Vne can be, OR that they were going that fast, she might not have realized how big a problem it was until too late.

Assuming there's nothing unexpected that NTSB finds, my curiosity is what the throttle was set at, if they can tell. That should be part of anyone's training for unusual attitudes, but sometimes people don't do what they were trained to do.
Click to expand...
120 knot vertical. 228 GS
A^2 + B^2 = C^2
 
Piperonca said:
Using 117.5 kt vertical (converted from 11,900 ft/min in NTSB report), and 228 kt horizontal, I get 257 kt approximate airspeed at 27 deg. nose down.
Click to expand...
There we go! So substitute 250k instead of 150k in my post, my mistake. 150 is < Vne for a PA-28 even. Thanks!
 
Insurance that covers prior professional acts would need a tail…yes that what it’s called and probably does not exist for CFI’s…I am surprised there is any representation by insurance companies for these type of suits where they go after the CFI. My opinion totally wrong as the process is subjective and unless the CFI system is broken…and needs to be punished and thus put another nail in the GA coffin.
 
Piperonca said:
Using 117.5 kt vertical (converted from 11,900 ft/min in NTSB report), and 228 kt horizontal, I get 257 kt approximate airspeed at 27 deg. nose down.
Click to expand...
That's even more puzzling. 27 degrees nose down should be recoverable.
 
Her CFI’s did her no favors. None. Let this is a reminder to all instructors; if the student is not ready, they are not ready. Period.

I bet all the CFI’s that worked with her and whoever signed off her certificate have a few questions to answer. I get a certificate an evaluation at a point in time, but look at her prior flight tracks. They show a pattern that’s hard to refute.
 
GLMS_NC said:
Her CFI’s did her no favors. None. Let this is a reminder to all instructors; if the student is not ready, they are not ready. Period.
Click to expand...

For me, the buck stops with the DPE. Yes, CFIs signed her off for the ride, but a higher authority, the DPE, deemed her competent to exercise the privileges of a PPL.
 
FPK1 said:
Unless you and/or your passenger are not properly belted in and your entire body weight is now pushing down on the controls (gravity) thus making it impossible to pull up...
Click to expand...


Only true if the plane isn’t accelerating in a dive.

But as airspeed became excessive, the required control forces may have become very high, especially with a nose-down trim.

I suspect that she didn’t understand what was happening and therefore had no idea what to do. She probably thought she was fighting the autopilot and didn’t understand the trim situation.
 
I keep trying to make sense of all of this, with varying degrees of success.

The plane she took her primary instruction in, and passed her PPL with, probably wasn't this plane. Maybe she flew that plane, that might have not had an autopilot or GPS to play with, just fine. Maybe the main issue was jumping into a faster plane with more buttons in it, and focusing on the new buttons rather than the new plane. That she was a bit behind the plane in normal flight, and not doing the right things to fix that. Put into what to her was a very unusual attitude, it was too much at once. Clearly I'm guessing here, but it would explain the primary instructors and DPE not noticing the problems.

Maybe not a good theory, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone got into trouble by getting into something they weren't ready for. If that's the case, it's mostly on the pilot. The CFII's could warn her about the basics, and some may have, but don't believe they signed her off for anything.
 
Bill said:
For me, the buck stops with the DPE. Yes, CFIs signed her off for the ride, but a higher authority, the DPE, deemed her competent to exercise the privileges of a PPL.
Click to expand...
to play devil's adv, it's the CFI who endorses her for the legal ability to PIC in the Debbie, that's the guy I think would be closest to the crater so as to warrant some cursory training record scrutiny. She didn't do her PPL ride in the Deb, if she had, I'd agree with ya.
 
Albany Tom said:
I keep trying to make sense of all of this, with varying degrees of success.

The plane she took her primary instruction in, and passed her PPL with, probably wasn't this plane. Maybe she flew that plane, that might have not had an autopilot or GPS to play with, just fine. Maybe the main issue was jumping into a faster plane with more buttons in it, and focusing on the new buttons rather than the new plane. That she was a bit behind the plane in normal flight, and not doing the right things to fix that. Put into what to her was a very unusual attitude, it was too much at once. Clearly I'm guessing here, but it would explain the primary instructors and DPE not noticing the problems.

Maybe not a good theory, but it wouldn't be the first time that someone got into trouble by getting into something they weren't ready for. If that's the case, it's mostly on the pilot. The CFII's could warn her about the basics, and some may have, but don't believe they signed her off for anything.
Click to expand...

Her Cherokee was used for the primary training and you are right, she may have done OK with it. Saying she was behind this Debonair is pretty accurate. Calling a descent an unusual attitude is a bit of a stretch, but like you state “to her” it might have been.

Your post and others like it do bring up a shortcoming that is primarily on the shoulders of the CFIs. Transitioning training into a high performance airplane with variable speed prop and retractable gear is a big step to a low time pilot, especially if they are limited in their skill set. The CFI needs to really take this step seriously and use caution when someone is showing signs that it’s too much for them. It might require a point blank “you’re simply not ready for this” moment on the part of the CFI.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top