Accident Report: Incredible

[Bill Greenwood]

The June issue of PILOT, the AOPA magazine, free to all members, contains a astonishing accident report.

The basic facts are pretty simple: On the morning of Oct 10, 2010, about 9:20 am a pilot took off on an IFR flight plan from Mo going to Atlanta in a 1992 Beech Turbo Bonanza, Be 36 TC. I fly a 1988 model myself.

When he called flight service to file the flight plan the briefer tried to give him the warnings about severe thunderstorms until noon. The pilot didn't want to hear the warnings, later said he had the info.

The plane disintegrated in the air about 30 min later starting at about 14,800.

Now a pilot ignoring warnings and flying into severe storms with a fatal result is tragic, but has happened before. But there is more to the story.

The pilot had previously flown into heavy weather, so much so that this plane was overstressed and had to have major repairs done to the airframe, both complete stabilizers and both wing skins. So he had tempted fate and gotten away with it 2 years earlier. And apparently without learning from the lesson.

Believe it or not that's not all. IT WAS THE 2ND Time!!!! Earlier in that same year the same pilot had brought in an A36 with so much damage that it was totatlled!

It's hard to believe a person would do this, but there it is in the report,plain as day. The pilot had 790 total hours with 59 instrument, and was current. The plane had dual Garmin 430s with some weather capability.

In my mind we hope the Lord is looking after us, if we do something we shouldn't. But that should not be His full time job, we have to use some degree of common sense on our own most of the time.

[Bill]

Obviously, the pilot was hell-bent on winning a Darwin Award and pursued that goal with grim determination.

[Joe Delene]

It usually starts with a sad report in the paper or on the net. When the final report is out much later, often the cause is much more simple that the catastrophic mechanical failure. We pilots don't like to see pilot error listed as the cause. The truth is 80+% of the time it's fairly certain the cause. Most events are more clear in hindsight, that aside it's something to keep in mind on each & every flight.

[Antique Tower]

Is it possible he didn't understand the time delay in satellite radar data? That seems to be an issue these days...

[Bill Greenwood]

I don't know what satellite radar delay is or what it had to do with this.

The report shows that TWICE BEFORE he had "totaled" one A36 and did major damage to the BE36 that was the accident plane, and he is quoted as saying "I did it again" after the first one. I presume it was his habit to fly near or into thunderstorms.

If he had let the FSS continue the briefing, there was a convective sigmet out for the dangerous conditions, from 8am until noon , exactly when and where he flew.

It's like someone said let's go on the Titanic again, maybe this time the iceberg will be softer. Or let's have another Vietnam War, maybe this time it will be quick and easy. Or I wish I could invest with Bernie Madoff again, maybe this time we'd make a lot of money!

I don't have any rational explanation for this kind of thinking or lack or it.

[58boner]

I read the article in question with disbelief. I fly a J-35 who's previous owner committed suicide by thunderstorm in an A-36 after flying the '58 V-tail for 10 years. Quite ironic isn't it? The saddest part of my story is the guy took his two young teen grandsons with him.
There is no joy in buying a plane from a widow.

[Antique Tower]

I think the theory is - folks get satellite weather data superimposed on their GPS moving map. The think they can cut it close with the cells on the screen, not realizing that the data is 15-30 minutes old, and that the cell has moved and possibly gotten stronger since then.

It is one possible theory in the recent PC-12 crash in Florida that took out a whole family.

[steveinindy]

I think the theory is - folks get satellite weather data superimposed on their GPS moving map. The think they can cut it close with the cells on the screen, not realizing that the data is 15-30 minutes old, and that the cell has moved and possibly gotten stronger since then

Even with onboard radar (as in the radar antenna is in the aircraft), no light aircraft has any business flying within 30 miles of a convective cell or line. My "personal minimums" is 40 miles just to be on the safe side (50 miles if I'm relying on satellite weather) and I don't hesitate to land short of my original destination since I figure what's another takeoff and landing. Besides, those are the only parts of flying I really enjoy!

[martymayes]

Satellite weather data has some value in stategic wx planning, not so much in tactical wx avoidance. Still nothing can beat the old onboard wx radar for tactical wx avoidance!

[steveinindy]

Satellite weather data has some value in stategic wx planning, not so much in tactical wx avoidance

I believe it was Al Ursic (a colonel who served under Patton and who later became a general himself) that was quoted in a book I read as saying that one difference between a good commander and a great commander is the ability to think and act strategically in a way that made tactical decisions less a matter of single point success or failure. He went on to say that strategic plans should never be considered set in stone simply because of "assets being deployed in the field". To me at least, that is the value of having onboard satellite weather data.


Still nothing can beat the old onboard wx radar for tactical wx avoidance!

Amen to that Marty.

[Frank Giger]

My "personal minimums" is 40 miles just to be on the safe side (50 miles if I'm relying on satellite weather) and I don't hesitate to land short of my original destination since I figure what's another takeoff and landing.

Same here. But that's for driving my F-150 truck, not flying!

[Bill Greenwood]

I assume this was another case of a pilot who thought that he just had to get there right away, regardless of conditions or risk.

Some years ago I was talking to Gregg Fieth (sp), former NTSB accident investigator who lives in Denver and whom you may have seen on tv on several interviews.
We were taking about accidents and their investigation.
Gregg commented that "We usually do our investigation in good weather." I was surprised and asked him what he meant since weather is the number one cause of accidents for most planes. He said by the time an accident happens, often in the afternoon, and the NTSB is called to come in and they travel to the site; it is often the next morning when they arrive. AND THE WEATHER IS OFTEN GOOD VFR BY THEN.
SO OFTEN, NOT ALWAYS IF YOU CAN WAIT A DAY , THE BAD WEATHER MAY PASS BY OR DISAPATE, AND THE RISK GOES AWAY.

[steveinindy]

Gregg commented that "We usually do our investigation in good weather." I was surprised and asked him what he meant since weather is the number one cause of accidents for most planes. He said by the time an accident happens, often in the afternoon, and the NTSB is called to come in and they travel to the site; it is often the next morning when they arrive. AND THE WEATHER IS OFTEN GOOD VFR BY THEN.
SO OFTEN, NOT ALWAYS IF YOU CAN WAIT A DAY , THE BAD WEATHER MAY PASS BY OR DISAPATE, AND THE RISK GOES AWAY.

Greg notably commented that investigators (and other pilots) have to be careful trying to "armchair quarterback" because of that fact. What seems like a logical response to an emergency on a nice sunny day or in your office may never cross one's mind when put in a situation with fifty things happening at once and your senses playing tricks on you, etc. He's a very interesting guy to talk to and a very nice guy as well.

This crash though is one that leaves no doubt that it was one of the stupidest mistakes possible. Intentionally launching into convective weather is an inexcusable offense and I actually remember having a debate with a coroner that I know quite well and respect a great deal who wanted to classify such a crash as a suicide because "No one in their right mind would fly into that. He had to be trying to kill himself". He backed off on that once I explained that it wasn't likely intentional suicide but rather just hubris or good ol' fashioned stupidity. Still, walking through a field and helping extricate the pilot's body from that plane sticks with me and it's one of those events that will always be in the back of my mind whenever I'm checking the weather before a flight.

[Joe LaMantia]

This is not pilot error, this is pilot EGO! If you total an aircraft twice, clearly you have a learning disability. We've all met this personality at one time or another, the guy who always does things his way and has to be first all the time. Ignoring the obvious and throwing out 100 years of knowledge regarding flying safety is beyond stupid, he did actually have a license and an instrument rating, he couldn't get that without knowing the basics. We had a thread awhile back focused on the traits of a good pilot, knowing when put the macho attitude aside and stay on the ground is an outstanding trait! This is the kind of thing that puts GA in a bad light.

Joe
:(

[Bob Dingley]

This is disgusting. Did this pilot not have any friends? Someone to sit him down over coffee after the first or second incident and ask "what were you thinking?" Where was his insurance company. And for crying out loud, where was the FSDO? Surely, the repair station didn't just accept his checks for "repairs for ordinary wear and tear" without SDRs or even a phone call to the FSDO.

If he were a military or commercial pilot, or a member of a flying club, he would not have got past his peer group without someone calling him on his judgement.

Years ago, I buttonholded one guy, got a sneer for my trouble, then ratted him out to the FBO. He still killed himself and his passenger couple of weeks latter.If anyone sees a bad actor like this, don't hold back.

Bob

[Bill]

Years ago, I buttonholded one guy, got a sneer for my trouble, then ratted him out to the FBO. He still killed himself and his passenger couple of weeks latter.If anyone sees a bad actor like this, don't hold back.
Bob

Which just points out that neither the pilot community nor the FAA has an effective way to deal with these pilots. There is currently no mechanism for stopping these maniacs. I just wish there was a way to make them do it by themselves and not take the innocent with them. I personally don't object to suicide, but taking others with you is murder in my book.

[martymayes]

Trashing perfectly good airplanes in hazardous weather is not against any regs that I'm aware of. Not sure what the feds are supposed to do about it. Several times every year professional pilots and aircrews fly into weather that results in aircraft damage, hull losses and/or fatalities. Should the FAA and pilot community have a mechanism to deal with these pilots as well?

The judgement part doesn't surprise me at all. That's why suggesting to someone to use good judgement or common sense can be bad advice. What they think is "good" or "common" might be a long way from the norm.

[martymayes]

The June issue of PILOT, the AOPA magazine, free to all members, contains a astonishing accident report.


When I first saw this, I thought you were mistaken on the source as I had glossed over Mac's verison of the same article in EAA's Sport Aviation June 2012 issue. I went to the AOPA online edition and sure enough, the same accident is reviewed in the June issue. I guess that clears up any doubt about EAA converting Sport Aviation into a facsimile of AOPA Pilot. Certainly there is enough going on in aviation that two publications should not have to duplicate articles? Wow, this is as sad as the accident itself.

[Mike Switzer]

When I first saw this, I thought you were mistaken on the source as I had glossed over Mac's verison of the same article in EAA's Sport Aviation June 2012 issue. I went to the AOPA online edition and sure enough, the same accident is reviewed in the June issue. I guess that clears up any doubt about EAA converting Sport Aviation into a facsimile of AOPA Pilot. Certainly there is enough going on in aviation that two publications should not have to duplicate articles? Wow, this is as sad as the accident itself.

What I find interesting is that Flying magazine just had an article about a fatal test flight of a homebuilt. I'm waiting for it to be available on their website so we can discuss it here in more detail.

[Flyfalcons]

Trashing perfectly good airplanes in hazardous weather is not against any regs that I'm aware of. Not sure what the feds are supposed to do about it. Several times every year professional pilots and aircrews fly into weather that results in aircraft damage, hull losses and/or fatalities. Should the FAA and pilot community have a mechanism to deal with these pilots as well?

The judgement part doesn't surprise me at all. That's why suggesting to someone to use good judgement or common sense can be bad advice. What they think is "good" or "common" might be a long way from the norm.

Careless and reckless comes to mind.

[martymayes]

Careless and reckless comes to mind.

Good luck. Pilot pulls out AC 00-6A and references the section on how to penetrate a thunderstorm, located in the "Do's and Don'ts of Thunderstorm Flying" section and it's game over. Difficult to establish a violation when the pilot is following FAA guidance.

[Dana]

Good luck. Pilot pulls out AC 00-6A and references the section on how to penetrate a thunderstorm, located in the "Do's and Don'ts of Thunderstorm Flying" section and it's game over. Difficult to establish a violation when the pilot is following FAA guidance.

Difficult to impose a penalty when he's dead, too...

[Flyfalcons]

Good luck. Pilot pulls out AC 00-6A and references the section on how to penetrate a thunderstorm, located in the "Do's and Don'ts of Thunderstorm Flying" section and it's game over. Difficult to establish a violation when the pilot is following FAA guidance.

Cute, but that section begins with how it's important to avoid flying through a thunderstorm. The tips on flying through one begin with this phrase: "If you cannot avoid penetrating a thunderstorm, the following are some Do's Before entering the storm:". Emphasis located right in the text. I'm pretty sure "I'm a doctor with a Bonanza and need to make it to my meeting" does not count as "cannot avoid penetrating a thunderstorm".

[steveinindy]

This is disgusting. Did this pilot not have any friends? Someone to sit him down over coffee after the first or second incident and ask "what were you thinking?"

Some people just will not listen. A perfect example was the Dan Lloyd RV-10 fiasco. Myself and numerous other folks told him to take it easy and to correct a laundry list of issues but he refused and he paid for it.


If he were a military or commercial pilot, or a member of a flying club, he would not have got past his peer group without someone calling him on his judgement.

Flying club? Maybe? Commercial pilot? Probably. The military? I hate to show my near complete lack of confidence in the leadership of the Air Force (thanks to what I witnessed and heard first hand while serving in that branch) but I have two words for you: Bud Holland. If that didn't change the attitude of commanders about grounding pilots who perform stupid or risky flying maneuvers, nothing will, but yet they don't appear to have learned anything as judged by the fact that the AF commanders still love to see steeply banked slow passes down the flight line at airshows because of the "WOAH!" factor from the crowd (Elmendorf C-17 airshow practice crash anyone?).

For those of you not familiar with who Bud Holland is or why he's an example of why being a "skilled" pilot and being a "good" pilot are often not the same thing, I offer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUEhNKBi4DY
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FUEhNKBi4DY)...and: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgJl7b9bQH0
(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LgJl7b9bQH0)

If anyone sees a bad actor like this, don't hold back.

I find that handing an autopsy report release form for our research to a stupid pilot's passengers and explaining why I am handing them out to be signed tends to a good way to gut check bad pilots. I stopped a guy at KHUF from taking off in freezing drizzle in a 172 a few years back. He told me to mind my own business and I proceeded to talk to the lady who was loading her bags into the plane. After pointing out that they would be lucky to make it out of the county before they would both be dead, she proceeded to question him and could tell he was trying to weasel his way out of admitting that he had made a bad mistake. He was pissed at me at the time (and I can't say I blame him to be honest) but before they left the next day in good weather, he and his wife treated me to lunch and he apologized for cussing at me and not wanting to listen.


Good luck. Pilot pulls out AC 00-6A and references the section on how to penetrate a thunderstorm, located in the "Do's and Don'ts of Thunderstorm Flying" section and it's game over. Difficult to establish a violation when the pilot is following FAA guidance.

Yeah, but if you manage to live through it, you're going to have a lot of questions to answer about why you allowed yourself to get into a situation where you had not choice but to penetrate a convective cell. It's a violation but just of the broader regulations against actively hazarding your aircraft. We had a guy near here who survived doing just that and was ratted out by someone. He tried that defense and ended up losing the argument and his ability to fly.

[martymayes]

The tips on flying through one begin with this phrase: "If you cannot avoid penetrating a thunderstorm, the following are some Do's Before entering the storm:"

So I see you agree, the act in itself is not illegal. I think the accident pilot in this case has proven one is free to fly in whatever weather he chooses.

[steveinindy]

I think the accident pilot in this case has proven one is free to fly in whatever weather he chooses.

He died so I wouldn't really view that as a valid argument. As for the other cases where he did it before, it sounded like anyone didn't rat him out to the FAA.

[Flyfalcons]

So I see you agree, the act in itself is not illegal. I think the accident pilot in this case has proven one is free to fly in whatever weather he chooses.

Flying through a thunderstorm goes against the very recommendations in the AC you quoted. Because destroying your aircraft in flight causes a hazard to people and property below, it is careless and reckless, period. 709 rides have been given for much less.

[Bill Greenwood]

The cogent point is not if such a flight might be legal, but if it is really unsafe you don't even get to the legal part.
It is not illegal to walk around in West Texas rattlesnake county in shorts and barefoot, or in some states to ride a motorcycle on the highway without a helmet or to smoke cigarettes, or maybe do solo acro without a parachute,but one would be nuts to do these..

[martymayes]

Flying through a thunderstorm goes against the very recommendations in the AC you quoted. Because destroying your aircraft in flight causes a hazard to people and property below, it is careless and reckless, period. 709 rides have been given for much less.

Research enforcement actions, case law, legal opinions and precedence for evidence to support your claim and you'll come up empty. The accident pilot did nothing illegal. May not be smart but it is definitely not illegal. Thankfully, the regulations are not written for the lowest common denominator.

[martymayes]

The cogent point is not if such a flight might be legal, but if it is really unsafe you don't even get to the legal part.

Correct, and lack of understanding on the part of one or two pilots doesn't make it illegal for everyone. Flying in severe weather can be planned and executed with less risk than a 50 hr pilot faces when landing with a crosswind.

The same is true for flying in mountains. It's legal and it can be safe or unsafe, depending on the how the pilot manages the risks.

[steveinindy]

Research enforcement actions, case law, legal opinions and precedence for evidence to support your claim and you'll come up empty.

Or we could try an alternate explanation: because those who are lucky enough to live through the ordeal aren't usually stupid enough to go blabbing about it and those who are dead aren't normally prosecuted for obviously reasons?


The accident pilot did nothing illegal.

Except violate the regulations against purposefully or negligently hazarding ones aircraft? Do a search for reckless flying and you'll find plenty of cases of people being charged for doing stupid things with aircraft at the federal, state and local level. This jerk-off comes to mind: http://www.smmirror.com/articles/News/Reckless-Low-Flying-Pilot-At-Santa-Monica-Pier-Loses-Probation/34992 Flying headlong into a thunderstorm itself might not be specifically illegal but the sort of flying most rational folks would lump it into is enough to get one's license yanked and apparently land your butt in jail. That is, as mentioned before, you're lucky enough to escape such brazen stupidity with your life. It doesn't have to be specifically spelled out because only the "lowest denominator" would fail to realize that a broad "don't do things that endanger yourself, your aircraft or anyone on the ground" regulation (for example FAR Part 91.13) wouldn't apply to flying into known convective activity in an airplane that is most of the time going to break if you do so. Since Part 91.13 states endangering others specifically, I will point out that the case involved the pilot flying with a passenger on board (refer to http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20101026X35112&key=1 ). A reasonable person would look at a flight through a convective cell or line and go "Yup, that's willfully endangering the life of another person" and ergo, violation of Part 91.13 and probably several other subsections of the FAR as well.


Flying in severe weather can be planned and executed with less risk than a 50 hr pilot faces when landing with a crosswind.


The bigger question is "Why would you do it in the first place?".

[Bill Greenwood]

Marty, I think your post takes the wrong view. You seem to think that the key is the pilot and how he "manages the risk". You use mountain flying as a parrelel. I live in the mountains, at 8000 ft and have been flying there for 30 years. Yes, there are some things I know as a pilot familar with the area, and flying a turbo airplane, which I can do whereas a flatland pilot in a 172 has little or no chance.
But, THERE ARE TIMES WHEN THE WAY TO MANAGE RISK IS NOT TO GO THAT DAY OR THAT ROUTE.
I do a seminar sometimes on Mt Flying at Osh and Sun N Fun, and one big point I try to make is some days just stay home or in the motel.

I think repeatedly flying into areas where there is a convective sigmet for thunderstorms and front lines, (not even a forecast, but actual conditions) is like hanging around the parking lot when the bars and strip clubs close at 2 am. Trouble is likely to find you sooner or later.

And the big law I am most concerned about it the law of gravity, not some FAR.

A 50 hours pilot should already have his ppl and certainly know how to land in a moderate crosswind, but even if he makes a mistake the plane is unlikely to break up and the crosswind is unlikely to be fatal.

[Flyfalcons]

Research enforcement actions, case law, legal opinions and precedence for evidence to support your claim and you'll come up empty. The accident pilot did nothing illegal. May not be smart but it is definitely not illegal. Thankfully, the regulations are not written for the lowest common denominator.

You sound like you look for any excuse to make stupid decisions while flying - see you in the statistics someday.

[martymayes]

Marty, I think your post takes the wrong view. You seem to think that the key is the pilot and how he "manages the risk". You use mountain flying as a parrelel. I live in the mountains, at 8000 ft and have been flying there for 30 years. Yes, there are some things I know as a pilot familar with the area, and flying a turbo airplane, which I can do whereas a flatland pilot in a 172 has little or no chance.

Yup, I could get in trouble in a hurry in the mountains. That's why you won't catch me doing it without some training. But you don't see me ranting that it's illegal just because I have no experience doing it. I flew on the Gulf coast 25 yrs and thunderstorms are a daily thing. I'm familiar with the situation and I can fly with minimal risk where a pilot from say AZ might get find himself in serious trouble.

Anyone who thinks they can tattle on a pilot to the FAA, who will in turn stop the pilot from flying in bad weather should make the call. I think they will be disappointed with the response.

[martymayes]

You sound like you look for any excuse to make stupid decisions while flying - see you in the statistics someday.

I don't need an "excuse" to make bad decisions, they come naturally. I'm luck to be alive!!

[Bob Dingley]

I appreciate and respect the opinions and experiences that folks have posted on this subject. I've had a few moments myself. May I share a few T'storm experiences of others.
I was wrapped up in the soaring scene when I was a military pilot in Texas. One day, a story popped up on the field about a young member of a well known soaring club not far away. It seems that the young man launched in a Schweitzer 1-26. It wasn't long before he found himself going up fast in a developing CB. He may or may not intended to do this. But the lucky kid landed later in some distress. His lips and fingernails were blue from either hypoxia or hypothermia. Or both. He walked like a zombie. He was wearing a thin cotton shirt. His face was cut and bleeding from ice crystals blowing on him from the gasper on the panel. All leading edges had the paint removed by hail. The wings required reskinning for wrinkles. I wish that I could have seen it. He was told that " when you catch your breath, leave!"
A year or two later, I saw an item in the SSA's magazine that a gent set the altitude record for the British Isles by intentionaly entering a CB. He was ready for it with oxygen, heated suit and electric flight instruments. He landed OK after making it up to the mid-thirtys.
I was reading the Boy Scout magazine, Boy's Life years ago and an article about a thunderstorm research program fired me up. They routinely flew into T'storms in an instrumented Schweitzer.
I always valued the onboard radar equipment when I found myself around T'storms. Much better than Nexrad. I found squall lines to be the nastiest. I only fly on good days since I retired.
Bob