VFR Flight at 7,000 MSL

[Bill]

I was just looking at the NTSB Preliminary Accident Report on the Cherokee accident that claimed the lives of the Oklahoma State women's basketball coach and three others. One thing that puzzled me was, "Radar data showed the airplane level at 7,000 feet mean sea level on a southeasterly heading." Why was an experienced CFI flying at an IFR altitude while operating as a VFR flight? "Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which operated without a flight plan." The accident occurred in Arkansas, so the plane was more than 3,000 feet above the surface.

I image that we'll never know, since there frequently isn't enough data in these kind of accidents to reach a probable cause, but it has me wondering.

[Mike M]

mightabin uperdown for a bit above or below a cloud, mightabin altimeter mis-set, mightabin above the bump layer and sorting out what to do next, mightabin a lot of things. the terrain in the impact area was over 5000' below that altitude, how would being 500' off VFR hemispherical cruise rules have affected the outcome?

[Joe Delene]

Maybe he was in some type of slow descent? Of course 500' of altitude difference wouldn't matter. I think he's just saying most would of been at a proper VFR altitude.

[steveinindy]

since there frequently isn't enough data in these kind of accidents to reach a probable cause

I wouldn't say "frequently". I believe the percentage of cases that are left "undetermined" is in the single digits most years.

[Dana]

Preliminary NTSB report
(http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20111117X01741&key=1)
Not in the NTSB report, but the NY Times reported the pilot as being 82 years old... a medical issue perhaps?

[steveinindy]

Preliminary NTSB report
(http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20111117X01741&key=1)
Not in the NTSB report, but the NY Times reported the pilot as being 82 years old... a medical issue perhaps?

It's not mentioned because the toxicology results are still pending most likely. I'd guess it unlikely given that less than 5-10% of GA crashes are due to medical issues. Maybe they were just looking at something on the ground and he stalled the plane in. It's cases like this that make me wish there were CVRs at a minimum (preferably in concert with a FDR) on GA aircraft. Given the press attention this crash received, it's likely that if they found something glaringly apparent on the gross at autopsy (heart attack, stroke, etc), it would have already been reported in the press.

[Bill]

I wouldn't say "frequently". I believe the percentage of cases that are left "undetermined" is in the single digits most years.

That is true for the entire set of accidents that occur in a year. But for the cases where there is (unfortunately) no CVR data, no mechanical factors ascertainable from the wreckage, nor any witnesses whose observations can shed light on the causal factors for the accident (in this case, while there were witnesses, "Witnesses who were in the vicinity of the accident site reported that the airplane was flying at a low altitude and making turns. They then observed the airplane enter a steep nose-low attitude prior to descending toward the terrain." Their observations, at first glance, seem unlikely to shed light on the accident cause), I expect that the percentage of "undetermined" is significantly larger and could be considered frequent. One of the airplanes that I used to fly crashed in August, 2010, killing the pilot. Even with witnesses, the probable cause is still undetermined and, given the paucity of data, I would be surprised if there ever is a probable cause determination.

[steveinindy]

"Witnesses who were in the vicinity of the accident site reported that the airplane was flying at a low altitude and making turns. They then observed the airplane enter a steep nose-low attitude prior to descending toward the terrain." Their observations, at first glance, seem unlikely to shed light on the accident cause

It sounds like they descended to look at something on the ground, circled around it and stalled out into the ground. I'm a big believer in the Occam's razor approach to aviation accident investigation: the simplest answer is the one most likely to be correct. In this case, given a description of a nose drop and barring the discovery of the pilot being drunk, high or some form of significant mechanical issue, the most plausible explanation is a stall. It might not be PC to "blame the pilot" but the truth isn't always pleasant.


One of the airplanes that I used to fly crashed in August, 2010, killing the pilot. Even with witnesses, the probable cause is still undetermined and, given the paucity of data, I would be surprised if there ever is a probable cause determination.

Which crash was that?

[Bill]

Maybe he was in some type of slow descent? Of course 500' of altitude difference wouldn't matter. I think he's just saying most would of been at a proper VFR altitude.

The NTSB said, "Radar data showed the airplane level at 7,000 feet mean sea level on a southeasterly heading. At 1610:49, the airplane entered a right turn and began descending. The airplane disappeared from radar shortly after. There were no reported air traffic control communications with the airplane." I, perhaps wrongly, interpret that to mean the aircraft was level at 7,000 MSL for a significant period of time prior to the descending right turn. Therefore, I thought that he should have been at 7,500 MSL for the level portion of flight under VFR.

But we shouldn't read to much into a preliminary report that may well be significantly modified or expanded when the final report is released in a year or more.

[Dana]

Witnesses who were in the vicinity of the accident site reported that the airplane was flying at a low altitude and making turns. They then observed the airplane enter a steep nose-low attitude prior to descending toward the terrain....The initial ground impact scar was consistent with the airplane’s right wing leading edge contacting the ground first. An impact crater, about 10 feet in diameter and about 3.5 feet deep contained most of the airplane. Ground scars and witness marks to trees surrounding the accident site were consistent with the airplane being in a steep nose-low attitude at the time of impact.

Certainly sounds like a stall/spin. The report doesn't say whether the engine was running at the time of impact, or whether there was a post crash fire (which would make medical analysis difficult). Why he descended is a good question; you don't generally descend from 7000' (ground level is around 600' in that area) for no reason.

[Mike M]

It's cases like this that make me wish there were CVRs at a minimum (preferably in concert with a FDR) on GA aircraft.

now there's a great idea. another piece of FAA-certificated, FCC-approved, payload-degrading electronics required for every flight to be paid for by the fat-cat airplane owners. unless you mean we can use the voice recording capability of my MP3 player or your iPad? but somehow i doubt that. why not instantaneous telemetry of engine, attitude, voice, and cockpit video by satellite to a monitoring station in, i don't know, maybe igloo, south dakota? give secure gummint jobs to 'Merican Indians not Mumbai Indians. sheesh. 43,000 killed on the highways last year and we're gonna change the entire structure of private aviation to find out why an 83yo pilot augered-in a 47yo aircraft and killed 4 people. yep, sounds like a wise use of resources. i guess i got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

[rwanttaja]

Looking at my 10-year homebuilt accident database, out of ~2100 accidents, the NTSB issued an "Undetermined" probable cause 17 times. That's less than 1%.

In addition, there were 37 times that it issued a probable cause as "Loss of control for undetermined reasons," so that's about 1.75%. There were also 195 instances of "Loss of power for undetermined reason" (9.4%) but a significant portion of those are either carb ice or the pilot muffing it and not telling the investigator.

Medical/drug situations are a bit rarer. On my database, there were only nine case where pilot incapacitation was listed as a primary cause. However, there were ~55 cases (2.6%) where alcohol or drugs (both legal and illegal, over the counter and prescription) were listed as contributing factors.

Ron Wanttaja

[steveinindy]

now there's a great idea. another piece of FAA-certificated, FCC-approved, payload-degrading electronics required for every flight to be paid for by the fat-cat airplane owners. unless you mean we can use the voice recording capability of my MP3 player or your iPad? but somehow i doubt that. why not instantaneous telemetry of engine, attitude, voice, and cockpit video by satellite to a monitoring station in, i don't know, maybe igloo, south dakota? give secure gummint jobs to 'Merican Indians not Mumbai Indians. sheesh. 43,000 killed on the highways last year and we're gonna change the entire structure of private aviation to find out why an 83yo pilot augered-in a 47yo aircraft and killed 4 people. yep, sounds like a wise use of resources. i guess i got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

Wishing and actually advocating for such devices are two separate things. I wish to see the FAA mandate that stewardesses go back to dressing like they did in the 1950-1970s, but I don't actively advocate for it because I have bigger issues to deal with, both professionally and privately.

[steveinindy]

Looking at my 10-year homebuilt accident database, out of ~2100 accidents, the NTSB issued an "Undetermined" probable cause 17 times. That's less than 1%.

In addition, there were 37 times that it issued a probable cause as "Loss of control for undetermined reasons," so that's about 1.75%. There were also 195 instances of "Loss of power for undetermined reason" (9.4%) but a significant portion of those are either carb ice or the pilot muffing it and not telling the investigator.

Medical/drug situations are a bit rarer. On my database, there were only nine case where pilot incapacitation was listed as a primary cause. However, there were ~55 cases (2.6%) where alcohol or drugs (both legal and illegal, over the counter and prescription) were listed as contributing factors.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks for providing the actual numbers. I meant to figure it out and post it on my own, but just haven't time to do so.

[Bill Greenwood]

Steve and others, you may be familiar or should be with the Nall report from AOPA.
It gathers all the accident data for gen av and analyzes it.
As for a pilot incapitation goes it is about 1/2 of 1% of all fatal accidents.
Of this .05 total, over half of that is from alcohol or drug use, including things like legal cold medications.
So those pilots are not really sick,they are under the influence, it is their choice or behavior that affects their flying.
So that leaves only about .02 of all fatal gen av accidents that have a medical cause.
So why does the FAA spend so much money and emphasis on something that has so little bearing on real safety? And why do they require pilots to spend time an money on this? What if it went to real safety traiining?
Maybe it is the same type of thing where all the sheep are herded onto airliners and told to turn off their cell phones lest it cause the plane to crash. And many gullible people believe this.
We just had an instance where the actor Alec Baldwin was kicked off a flight for not turning off his I Pad, while sitting on the ground at the gate.
This at the same time that not only are many gen av pilots using I Pad for flight , but that I Pads are being issued to airline pilots for use in flight.

[steveinindy]

whether there was a post crash fire (which would make medical analysis difficult)

Actually, unless it's a very extreme fire or the body is fragmented in the crash prior to the fire, it doesn't complicate things all that much. It just makes it harder to tell where the soft tissue injuries are located at in most cases. The impact forces tend to do more in really extreme crashes to hinder diagnosis of pre-mortem or perimortem medical conditions than the fire does.

[steveinindy]

Steve and others, you may be familiar or should be with the Nall report from AOPA.
It gathers all the accident data for gen av and analyzes it.

Yup, although I think the analysis of causation is only half of the GA safety equation.


As for a pilot incapitation goes it is about 1/2 of 1% of all fatal accidents.
Of this .05 total, over half of that is from alcohol or drug use, including things like legal cold medications.
So those pilots are not really sick,they are under the influence, it is their choice or behavior that affects their flying.
So that leaves only about .02 of all fatal gen av accidents that have a medical cause.

Except for the ones where the pilot was medically incapacitated prior to impact (per the autopsy report) but the NTSB still ruled it a pilot error. I'm aware of three such cases in recent years. In one of the crashes, the pilot was clinically dead before impact (based on the lack of certain key findings that would indicate he was alive at the time of the crash) with sufficient evidence to warrant the medical examiner listing it as a death due to natural causes and yet it was still ruled "failure of the pilot to main control of the aircraft". It's one of the areas where there could be room for improvement with regards to the Nall Report that they are solely relying upon the NTSB's verdicts on things.


So why does the FAA spend so much money and emphasis on something that has so little bearing on real safety?

Are you referring to the reminders not to drink and fly or are you referring to medical certification standards? If the latter, you have to remember that the reason for the low rate of medically induced accidents is most likely because of the strict controls on who can fly. Also, relying on fatal crash statistics alone is a rather shortsighted approach. Try comparing the crash rates in GA with the medically induced crash rates of motor vehicles and I think you'll see why some manner of screening is necessary.

I do believe the aviation medical standards are too strict in a lot of instances but it will be interesting to see if the rate of medically related crashes differs significantly between the medically verified pilots (PPL, CPL, ATP) and the "self-certifying" approach associated with the sport pilot movement.

Right now, there's not enough data to say either way but given that those pilots who are found at autopsy or other post-crash medical examination to have had medical issues significant to contribute to the crash are often discovered have hidden their medical histories from the FAA allowing a means for a larger group of pilots to hide their medical conditions is perhaps not the best idea from a safety standpoint. It's beneficial if you're looking solely to boost the number of pilots in order to make us a larger lobby in front of the press but this isn't a discussion about maximizing the number of pilots, it's a discussion about minimizing the number of dead pilots because that's the group that is going to be used against us more than any other. There has to be a balance struck between the two but unfortunately neither side (the pilots or the FAA) as a group seems willing to seek middle ground.


And why do they require pilots to spend time an money on this? What if it went to real safety training?

I've never understood why pilots will crow about "safety" being a priority but as soon as an effort is made to improve safety that impinges on their ability to fly or otherwise counter to their ideal, suddenly it's too harsh, too intrusive, too expensive or just plain inconvenient.

[Mike M]

I've never understood why pilots will crow about "safety" being a priority but as soon as an effort is made to improve safety that impinges on their ability to fly or otherwise counter to their ideal, suddenly it's too harsh, too intrusive, too expensive or just plain inconvenient.

want to know why? ok, here y'go. aviators know we're the top of the food chain in operating complex equipment. and if we aren't, don't bother telling us. if we thought we'd die doing this we wouldn't dare do it, just like the other wal-mart customers. besides, if we say flying is unsafe and we don't care, who will pay us to do it for them? who will let us fly over their precious little pinheads? the dirty little secret is, flying IS unsafe if done improperly. and we know it. but we do it anyway, doing our best to manage the risk so we don't bust our behinds. we don't like ground-bound statisticians second-guessing us, and we sure don't like having our dirty laundry aired in court by bloodsucking leeches. tell you what. i bin told the engine computers in new cars have the capacity to act as data recorders. how 'bout we put voice recorders, data recorders, and video cameras in every car on the road? after they prove it's a good idea, bring it on, i'll admit i was wrong.

[bwilson4web]

Off topic, I was told by moderators in a Prius forum that my posting about accidents had to stop and 'no discussion.' So I ACKed the note and started removing my earlier accident postings and moving them to an independent web page that tracks Prius accidents. I do this because we own and drive Prius and our butts are on the line. Accidents are how we learn what to avoid. So my participation in the Prius forum continued for six weeks when I learn the particulars of an especially important accident that led to legislation that mandates backup cameras in all new cars in the next two years. So with my last posting about this particular accident, I fired those moderators and wished everyone good-by and good luck!

In contrast, aviation teaches us to learn from the mistakes, deadly and otherwise. For us, accidents are teaching moments leading to ways to improve our vehicles and ourselves. It doesn't keep us from buying and flying airplanes but helps to make it as boring as possible so when 'things change' we can deal with it. When I was a student pilot asking about FARs, one pilot said he doesn't fly by the FARs as much as they describe how he prefers to fly. I realized then that FAA regulations are not written in ordinary ink but have a taint of blood.

I don't understand those who turn a blind eye to accidents. Speculation on my part, advocates can 'promote' themselves to salesman and paint a rosier picture than reality. Perhaps others are unable to separate accident lessons from the emotional results. I don't know and it is probably wrong to project. Regardless, I love aviation because we live and die by the truth, the facts and data. I would have it no other way.

Bob Wilson

[Frank Giger]

I've never understood why pilots will crow about "safety" being a priority but as soon as an effort is made to improve safety that impinges on their ability to fly or otherwise counter to their ideal, suddenly it's too harsh, too intrusive, too expensive or just plain inconvenient.


It comes down to cost-benefit analysis.

There are a lot of things that could be done in the name of safety that aren't really value added when the cost is put into the mix.

A good example is the ELT. It's been deemed as a direct benefit to the safety of passengers in GA aircraft should there be a crash, as it aids in locating the injured by first responders. The cost isn't horribly prohibitive, nor is the weight penalty. They are proactive in the event of misfortune.

Pilots aren't quite as valued, of course, as ELT's aren't mandated for single seat aircraft. ;)

Black boxes are cost prohibitive and don't really add value to most GA wreck evaluations.* They do for commercial aircraft, particularly since there is a huge exposure to litigation for the owning company as well as being firmly within the bailiwick of Federal oversight (that whole interstate commerce thing). The are reactive to misadventure, being strictly useful after the fact.

* GA aircraft tend to be much less complex than commercial aircraft, and the causes are most often pretty straight forward. One doesn't need a black box to determine that somebody landed without lowering their gear or stalled on the turn from base to final. GA pilots do dumb stuff at a much higher rate than commercial ones, as they typically don't have a crew to back them up and help prevent mistakes.

I don't know what you meant by "impinges on their ability to fly" in your reply. There is no compelling reason for anyone to perform a local area flight where one takes off and lands at the same aircraft - or even for a 100 hamburger flight. However, there is also no compelling reason why a pilot can't perform them (assuming appropriate weather and condition of the pilot and aircraft).

Permissiveness is the watchword of American society, particularly when it comes to movement, and any serious challenge to it without a damned good reason is unsupportable in the USA legally and politically.

[bwilson4web]

. . .
There are a lot of things that could be done in the name of safety that aren't really value added when the cost is put into the mix.

A good example is the ELT. It's been deemed as a direct benefit to the safety of passengers in GA aircraft should there be a crash, as it aids in locating the injured by first responders. The cost isn't horribly prohibitive, nor is the weight penalty. They are proactive in the event of misfortune.

Pilots aren't quite as valued, of course, as ELT's aren't mandated for single seat aircraft. . . .
I was a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol in the pre-ELT days and remember the hundred or so volunteers and hand full of planes that would search for missing aircraft. If nothing else, ELTs all but ended these massive, volunteer efforts with their costs and risks to what were effectively, crash recovery. I remember how often the low-pressure, IFR weather was still hanging around. I also noticed many urban volunteers were not ready to tramp about in the woods.

Later, when I was taking my flight training, the ELT let me know I had made a particularly unskilled landing. . . . or perhaps I was just testing the ELT. But I also remember at least once a year or so picking up ELT signals from airports where someone else must have been 'testing' their ELT with an unskilled landing.

Bob Wilson

[steveinindy]

* GA aircraft tend to be much less complex than commercial aircraft, and the causes are most often pretty straight forward.

I don't know....the causes of most airline crashes tend to be pretty straightforward as well. The only thing that makes them more complex is that we actually know what led to the crash rather than simply saying "Oh, the crew of Colgan 3407 just failed to maintain airspeed and stalled the plane".


One doesn't need a black box to determine that somebody landed without lowering their gear or stalled on the turn from base to final. GA pilots do dumb stuff at a much higher rate than commercial ones, as they typically don't have a crew to back them up and help prevent mistakes.

No, but it would be nice to know why- as an example- certain aircraft are prone to "loss of engine power for undetermined reasons". "Undetermined reasons" is basically the euphemistic way of saying "insufficient data". Likewise for the pilot error accidents, it would be helpful to know not just that pilots are doing "X" but to figure exactly why they are doing it. Identifying a likely proximate cause of the accident is fine, but to really have an impact on crash rates we really need to understand what is leading up to that.


Permissiveness is the watchword of American society, particularly when it comes to movement, and any serious challenge to it without a damned good reason is unsupportable in the USA legally and politically.

No, it's the watch word of anyone with a stance they want to protect. It's the same argument the NIMBY folks use against us, etc, etc ad nauseum. I see figuring out why people are losing their engines or leaving a mark on history that only a landscaper would truly appreciate as a "damned good reason". You'll see people grouse about "Well, they always blame it on the pilot!" or "My friend's crash is still undetermined after ______ months" but as soon as a potential solution to that problem is put forth, it suddenly becomes "Wait! You can't infringe on my right to....". That always kinds of strikes me as being the defense of someone with something to hide even if I know that person well and trust them.

Honestly, the increasing paranoia of the American public is more alarming than what they are supposedly concerned with.


Pilots aren't quite as valued, of course, as ELT's aren't mandated for single seat aircraft.

I've never understood that oversight.


I don't know what you meant by "impinges on their ability to fly" in your reply.

The argument that is usually brought up with this sort of discussion is what CDRMuetzel pointed out: cost.

[rwanttaja]

No, but it would be nice to know why- as an example- certain aircraft are prone to "loss of engine power for undetermined reasons". "Undetermined reasons" is basically the euphemistic way of saying "insufficient data".

Actually, in a surprisingly number of cases, the data is there but they STILL can't figure it out. There are a few wrecks that destroy the evidence, but in most cases, enough is left to do some diagnostics, and nothing out of the ordinary is found. Often the engine re-starts after the accident.

In some cases it's carb ice--but the NTSB report usually says if the conditions favored it--in other cases it's operator error ("I had it on the wrong tank, but I'm not going to admit it")--and in still others its transient effects (vapor lock, electrical glitch to an electronic ignition). But about 1/3rd of all homebuilt accidents begin with a power failure, and for a large percentage of them, the cause is never determined.

Ron Wanttaja

[Dana]

I've never understood that oversight.

I don't think it's an oversight; it's the same reason that parachutes aren't required for aerobatics when flying solo, and no pilot certificate is required to fly a [single seat] ultralight (but you can't fly it over congested areas). "You can go ahead and kill yourself, but don't take anybody else with you." Individual freedom-- it's the proper attitude for the government to take.

[steveinindy]

Actually, in a surprisingly number of cases, the data is there but they STILL can't figure it out. There are a few wrecks that destroy the evidence, but in most cases, enough is left to do some diagnostics, and nothing out of the ordinary is found. Often the engine re-starts after the accident.


I think you're confusing having the engine still there with having the performance data from said engine. But if you had some form of engine readout recording the changes in parameters, it would certainly make those the minority. The problem is usually something transient (as you said) and even if the plane is completely recovered, it's still impossible to figure it out without that data.


But about 1/3rd of all homebuilt accidents begin with a power failure, and for a large percentage of them, the cause is never determined.

Which is all the more reason for some form of crash resistant data recording. A lot of glass panels have memory built into them and therefore the paranoia over the government "watching us" is pointless since if there is a crash and no significant post crash fire some of this data can be recovered. Why not just make that data more widely available? It doesn't have to be a full-on CVR and FDR but the data already displayed on the MFD would certainly be helpful in the event of a loss of power crash.

I think this is one area where experimental aviation should be leading from the front. Instead of simply toeing the line of what is required, how about we identify the problems (which Ron already pointed out an example of this) and then go figure out why it's happening (which means data collection since current standards are not sufficient apparently) and figure out a solution. There's a bullet that will help keep government oversight and "interference" with personal freedoms to a minimum: reduce the crash and fatality rate and they have no reason to hound us.


I don't think it's an oversight; it's the same reason that parachutes aren't required for aerobatics when flying solo, and no pilot certificate is required to fly a [single seat] ultralight (but you can't fly it over congested areas). "You can go ahead and kill yourself, but don't take anybody else with you." Individual freedom-- it's the proper attitude for the government to take.

Just for the sake of thoroughness: Then why is suicide technically illegal then? ;) (No, I'm not arguing that such activities are tantamount to suicide, so don't any climb up my butt over it).

[Bill Greenwood]

Parachutes

[Dana]

Parachutes are not required by FAA regs, period. It is not a matter of if you are flying solo or with passengers.
Of course you'd be nuts do fly acro without a parachute, but some people do it.

No, parachutes are required to be worn when doing aerobatics with a passenger:

§ 91.307 Parachutes and parachuting.
(c) Unless each occupant of the aircraft is wearing an approved parachute, no pilot of a civil aircraft carrying any person (other than a crewmember) may execute any intentional maneuver that exceeds— (1) A bank of 60 degrees relative to the horizon; or
(2) A nose-up or nose-down attitude of 30 degrees relative to the horizon.
(d) Paragraph (c) of this section does not apply to—
(1) Flight tests for pilot certification or rating; or
(2) Spins and other flight maneuvers required by the regulations for any certificate or rating when given by—
(i) A certificated flight instructor; or...

[Frank Giger]

Steve, I don't want a glass panel; it's one point of failure for instrumentation and I've experienced the no-panel blank screens on takeoff, thank you.

Similarly, I don't know what voice recording is really going to do to help investigate anything in my single seat aircraft. When performing crew management by myself in an aircraft there isn't a lot of verbalization.

One of the other problems with the idea of mandated black boxing is the variety of engines - both certified and non-certified - used on aircraft. What if I'm experimenting with power plant options for aircraft? Do they make black boxes for electrical engines?

What would be the value added for the sort of recording that goes into a Boeing 777 being put into my little day plane? Other than to put another 50 or 100 pounds of stuff onto it, that is....

[Bill Greenwood]

Dana, Thanks for your catching it. That's what happens when one makes a quick response to a topic, in a hurry.
I was thinking of the exception that CFIs and students don't have to wear chutes when doing spin training.
I was not aware that a pilot, apparently can do acro without a chute if solo.
NEITHER ARE SMART; if you are going to do acro, do it up high and wear a chute. And that goes for spin training also; I don't care if you are a CFI, does not suspend the law of gravity.I am planning on doing CFI training soon, the CFI can wear a chute or not, I am going to borrow or rent one, from the nearby FBO that teaches acro and rents acro planes.

[Dana]

An intentional spin is a fairly benign maneuver if the pilot knows what he's doing, which is why parachutes aren't required... and why I wouldn't bother. The real risk in aerobatics, and doubtless why parachutes are required, is messing up a maneuver. A good example is entering a loop too slow and ending up in a tailslide or whip stall, or messing up a roll, split-s'ing out, and overspeeding the aircraft. Or pulling too many g's. A Spin is a low g maneuver, not likely to overstress the aircraft, and unless you wait too long and dive too steep on recovery, hard to mess up.

[Bill Greenwood]

Dana, this time I think it is you who are wrong, in telling people that a spin is "hard to mess up", and "I wouldn't bother" with parachutes. A spin, any spin, is a manuever where the plane is not in normal flight. It is a state where, if not corrected the plane is going to crash and probably will be fatal in most planes in most cases. As for "if the pilot knows what he is doing"; almost all pilots think they know what they are doing;; they think they are safe. Very few people go up for a flight and plan to crash. Just like drunk drivers,and people who invested with Bernie Madoff, what could go wrong?
Spins killed many people in past days of multiengine training; they continue to be a cause in all airplanes, along with stalls of fatal accidents. I would say Art Sholl knew what he was doing, all the way down in until impact.It didn't make him impervious.
Of course a parachute is not gaurantee, but it is one more level of safety and it is foolish to forgo it or as you say. "I wouldn't bother.
Hey, why have enough lifeboats, on the Titanic, after all the Captain was super experienced, sure knew what he was doing, What could go wrong? Why were a seatbelt in your car or put your kids in car seats, after all the driver must know what he is doing. What could go wrong?

A spin may well be low g, at least until ground impact, but over g'ing or breaking the airframe is not the normal cause of fatalities. You can hit the ground with the whole plane intact.

[Dana]

Dana, this time I think it is you who are wrong, in telling people that a spin is "hard to mess up", and "I wouldn't bother" with parachutes. A spin, any spin, is a manuever where the plane is not in normal flight. It is a state where, if not corrected the plane is going to crash and probably will be fatal in most planes in most cases. As for "if the pilot knows what he is doing"; almost all pilots think they know what they are doing;; they think they are safe...
Spins killed many people in past days of multiengine training; they continue to be a cause in all airplanes, along with stalls of fatal accidents. I would say Art Sholl knew what he was doing, all the way down in until impact...

I'm not suggesting that just anybody should go out and do spins just for fun without a parachute; they shouldn't. I'm saying that a properly trained flight instructor should be competent in demonstrating spins and spin recoveries in an aircraft approved for such, and in this situation parachutes are unnecessary. Most planes approved for intentional spins will recover from the spin if the pilot simply releases the controls. Besides, most light training planes, including those approved for spins, would be difficult to exit from in flight even if the pilot makes the decision to jump in time.

Unintentional spins, especially close to the ground, have killed and continue many people. I wonder what the statistics are for intentional spins? Pretty good, I suspect, or the FAA wouldn't exempt them from the parachute requirement. Regarding Art Scholl, he was apparently in an inverted flat spin, and it's speculated the weight of the camera contributed to the inability to recover... not at all the same thing as doing a three turn spin at a safe altitude in, say, a properly loaded Cessna 150.

[steveinindy]

Steve, I don't want a glass panel; it's one point of failure for instrumentation and I've experienced the no-panel blank screens on takeoff, thank you

Agreed which is one reason for having backup instruments and besides, I was talking about for new designs not retrofits.


Similarly, I don't know what voice recording is really going to do to help investigate anything in my single seat aircraft. When performing crew management by myself in an aircraft there isn't a lot of verbalization.

Single seat aircraft are something of an aberration (that is, they are not exactly the most common thing out there).


One of the other problems with the idea of mandated black boxing is the variety of engines - both certified and non-certified - used on aircraft. What if I'm experimenting with power plant options for aircraft?

You noticed that I'm advocating it as a voluntary move right so we can be seen as proactive. We don't need 1000 data points. Given that most of our problems are likely pretty straight forward, finding a way of recording a few basic things like fuel flow, pitch, yaw, roll, power settings, TIT, EGT, etc would likely render an answer to most of the "undetermined" crashes. We might have a variety of engines, but surprisingly a lot of those varied engines are measured using similar gauges.



Do they make black boxes for electrical engines?

Taken a look under the hood of your average electric or hybrid car? They most certainly have data recording at some level. It's how you diagnose problems with them. Then again, for aviation, it's going to be a rather moot point since electric motors (they're not technically engines by definition) are not going to be common (>5% of the fleet) for any time in the foreseeable future despite what the manufacturers keep claiming due to the technical limitations. It might be a larger slice of the ultralight and the low end of the LSA fleet but that's still going to be a minority of all aircraft so it's kind of like derailing a productive discussion to worry about gyrocopters.



What would be the value added for the sort of recording that goes into a Boeing 777 being put into my little day plane? Other than to put another 50 or 100 pounds of stuff onto it, that is....

I'm not going to even grace such an argument with a full response.


I am planning on doing CFI training soon, the CFI can wear a chute or not, I am going to borrow or rent one, from the nearby FBO that teaches acro and rents acro planes.

You might also want to do a couple of jumps or at least some ground training to learn the basics of controlling a parachute and how to land without breaking your ankles. Nothing ruins an otherwise good jump like a botched landing.

[Bill Greenwood]

Steve, although I have done ground training, ( mostly mental reviews and actually pulling the release cord) in parachutes and I have flown in wind tunnel without a chute; that really does not change my wearing and advocating wearing chutes for acro, (including spins with CFIs who I don't regard as or flawless).
An emergency chute is to save your life in an emergency, it is not the same as skydiving for fun. It you have an extreme emergency and have to get out, and the chute opens and all you suffer is an ankle injury, most people would feel they got good value.
As for chute training, or practice in chutes; there is ample evidence that the emergency chute is valueable even without that training. In WWII thousands of allied crewmen were saved by parachutes, even though they had no practice jumps; the first jump was the first real one. And for the most part they did not suffer any major injuries in landing. It was the same for RAF pilots, during the Battle of Britain over 60% of their pilots shot down were saved by parachutes. And this is in planes that were often on fire or otherwise shot upand out of control, and again with no actual practice jumps.
The round emergency chutes we use now are not controllable like a skydiving chute,and don't have to be to work.
Of course there a some planes that are harder to get out of, but if you don't have a chute you don't have that 2nd chance. I will do my CFI spins in a Decathalon, WITH A CHUTE AND WITH QUICK RELEASE DOORS.
As for as a CFI being some kind of invulnerable god of the air and flawless in spin recovery, BALONEY! One can become a CFI with very little spin training, don't even have to have any sort of acro card or any sort of real acro training. My basic acro training came from Duane Cole. Funny old guy, who wore a chute and had one for me.
I could go on and mention a number of accidents that I know of the were fatal with a spin and no chutes, such as the one with 2 CFI s at Flightsafety at Vero Beach. I can give examples of pilots being saved by chutes. But as you seem to have your mind made up, and doubt if you are likely to change it. You do your acro sans chute, by please don't take anyone with you that way.
And you can save some money by not buying a chute, maybe enough to buy something really important like a super cell phone or Ipad.

[Frank Giger]

I think parachutes would have been firmly in the realm of "touchy feelie" during my spin training in a Champ. I have a hard time getting in and out of it on the ground (and I'm not a big guy); forget the CFI in the back seat - he's gonna ride that one out whether he wants to or not.

So it's a judgement call based on the parameters of the maneuver and the plane on whether or not chutes are a good idea.

But let's back up and give big thumbs up to the CFI that conducts actual spin training and not just "spin awareness." Even as your humble Sport Pilot type, I think it really should be mandatory - just to eliminate the bugaboo of fear.

I'll wear a chute for my initial test flights, but not after that (it's not an acro plane). Fortunately it's open cockpit so getting out should be much easier than most models.

On parachute training - if you're going to wear one, at a minimum get ground training on how to perform a Parachute Landing Fall (PLF) and actions to take if landing in a tree or in water.

[steveinindy]

But as you seem to have your mind made up, and doubt if you are likely to change it. You do your acro sans chute, by please don't take anyone with you that way.

Wait.....I think you have misunderstood my stance completely. I have 19 parachute jumps (all civilian) to my credit and actually get laughed at for my desire to wear a chute during "normal" spin recovery training. I am a huge advocate for people wearing them in more situations. I just think that having a little bit of knowledge about how to handle a landing under a chute is helpful. One of my friends is in a wheelchair due to a botched landing after bailing out of a glider that suffered a structural failure. I'm the last person to argue against something in the name of safety.

Also, you won't see me doing aerobatics. I have no interest in that.

[steveinindy]

Even as your humble Sport Pilot type, I think it really should be mandatory - just to eliminate the bugaboo of fear.
Amen to that Frank. BTW, I owe you a beer or two for the spirited discussions you help to foster on here.

[233507]

:(Back to the original topic. I've seen crashes like this that were found to be related to CO poisoning usually from a crack in the exhaust system. It seems incredible that 4 adults would sit there and die if they were not passed-out from CO. And remember the wife of the pilot was an accomplished pilot herself ... CO is my guess.

[Bill Greenwood]

Was it cold at the time of the crash, would they have been using cockpit heat? If not CO is less likely to have just come in the cockpit. And can the autopsy show any C O in body tissue, and did it? What does the NTSB report say? They probably have a preliminary one by now,and the more definitve one in 6 months or so. A tragedy any it came.

[steveinindy]

Anybody think CO had anything to do with it?

Not likely. That would have already leaked to the press (pun not intended) if it were the case.


It seems incredible that 4 adults would sit there and die if they were not passed-out from CO. And remember the wife of the pilot was an accomplished pilot herself ... CO is my guess.

There was a case where an entire three man airline crew in the 1950s or 1960s flew a parallel course to what they were supposed to be on and impacted a mountain due to subtle CO incapacitation. There was a defect in the cabin heater which allowed it to introduce CO into the cabin air. Unless there is a significant size difference or serious difference in underlying health, adults tend to respond relatively predictably to CO. Out of all of the cases (approximately 20) I am aware of, only two or three had some other person on board who made an attempt to control the aircraft. One was a successful landing (in that no one died at least) and the other one that immediately comes to mind ended in a crash.


And can the autopsy show any C O in body tissue, and did it? What does the NTSB report say?

Quite readily. It can be detected in both blood, or in the absence of that, in muscle tissue as it binds not only to hemoglobin but to myoglobin as well. Some research has shown that one can determine whether it was insidious (slow) onset of toxicity or a rapid spike in the CO level (such as in a post-crash fire) based on the correlation between the blood and muscle tissue levels due to differing affinities for each type of substrate (myoglobin versus hemoglobin).