ilovecornfields

My KFC225 says “trim in motion” if it has been on for more than a few seconds. Does the Garmin not do this?

Maybe the plane was born a Mooney but self-identified as an F-22.

Yeah, I caught that too (so did the controller). All his altitudes on the intermediate fixes were a few hundred feet off too. I love how quickly the FAA rebutted his “my altimeter must have been broken” argument. Seems from the prelim like his actions were quite intentional and not accidental at all. A shame this is such a black eye for the aviation community. It seems that airport had been struggling even before the accident and now it will probably lead to increased calls to shiut down “unsafe” GA airports since those spam can pilots don’t know what they’re doing. Should we link this to the “why are my insurance rates going up” threads?

Nice! Good summary of the problem.

King will teach you the material. Sheppard will help you ace the test. Up to you which one(s) you think you need.

I’m based at SBP. I’m jealous you’re within walking distance to the airport. Let me know what you come up with. Harris Ranch is always a popular spot. Camarillo is probably a lot easier for the Southern California people.

I agree with what you’re saying, however, Zofran (ondansetron) is one of the most popular antiemetics prescribed. The vast majority of people taking it don’t have a cancer diagnosis. I wouldn’t read too much into that. The other meds certainly may have played a factor and if he was taking muscle relaxers, cough syrup and nausea medications then he certainly might have been sick at the time as well. I agree, that if he’d done an “IMSAFE” on himself he probably would have failed.

What’s wrong with the above statements is that you’re missing the forest for the trees. He couldn’t hold a heading, follow a vector or even load the approach correctly and follow it. You think he had a chance of safely getting to DA and landing?! Doesn’t matter what category he’s in or the technical minutia. He did not demonstrate the ability to safely fly the approach and clearly lacked the insight into his deficiencies until after he’d crashed. I care about what’s safe much more than what’s technically legal. There are a lot of ways to legally get killed in an airplane.

@Ibra, I appreciate your analysis but I disagree. The Cheyenne going missed should have been part of his situational awareness. Red Flag: Someone just tried to do what you’re about to try and failed. Yes, it’s legal Part 91 to try and there’s a chance you’ll make it but after all the other issues he had, to attempt an approach that you know for a fact will be to minimums (or worse) is insane. I listened to the 9-1-1 call. I don’t think he was “calm,” I think he was impaired. Otherwise I struggle to understand why he did what he did, in those conditions, after the issues he had. He should have reasonably expected under those circumstances to not be able to safely complete the approach. Which is exactly what happens. I remember a long time ago trying the ILS 24 into CRQ right after a citation went missed and diverted to Palm Springs. The only think I saw at DA was the amber glow from the streetlights reflected in the fog. Fortunately, Lindberg Field was above minimums and lit up like a Christmas tree so I was able to land there. I don’t think I’ll ever try an approach that was just reported below minimums again unless the alternative is running out of fuel. I’m too old to take stupid risks.

I completely agree with everything expect the last part. What he could have done is not attempted the approach under those conditions and diverted elsewhere. The Cheyenne in front of him went missed. The reported and actual weather were crappy. He struggled just to even initiate the approach. One of my CFI friends likes to talk about “windows of opportunity” as as you go down the accident trajectory how your options get narrower and narrower until you finally get to the point where the “accident” is unavoidable. Even if you’re right, for all but the last few seconds of the flight there was absolutely something he could have done about it. Maybe this wasn’t an error in physically manipulating the aircraft, but it was certainly a judgement error.

I think it’s because the ducks at least had enough “common sense” to not be flying in those conditions.

You got me. You win.

How do you support your assertion that E-AB pilots take “more risk flying?” Is this a feeling you have or is there something you can point to that supports this? We all have feelings…

I highly recommend a class on biostatistics. It turns out you actually can make comparisons between two groups and get meaningful data. Why would “pilot error” even be a confounder? Do E-AB pilots make more errors than ones who fly certified planes? I don’t think you really understand how this stuff works. Using “common sense” in place of facts whenever the facts don’t support our preconceived notions is exactly why we’re so messed up right now as a society.

Well, that’s what Mooneyspace is for! And a good CFI. Ok, maybe 95% CFI, 5% Mooneyspace.

Normalization of deviance is a problem that sometimes comes with experience. Getting away with something stupid makes you more likely to try it in the future.

I don’t know about autopilots since I’m happy with my prehistoric KFC225 but my AOA indicator and landing height system were both reasonably priced and certified under NORSEE.

“Common sense” is the argument commonly used when someone can’t find any facts to support their argument. I appreciate innovation and the contribution that experimental airplanes have, but arguing that they are safer because you “feel” that way when the facts clearly illustrate the opposite doesn’t really mean much to me. Yes, the STC process can be improved and NORSEE had led to positive changes in the certified world. That still doesn’t mean E-AB is safer because you feel that way. That’s not the way facts work.

I’m interested in how you came to this realization. I’m an EAA member and I love the innovation that comes from experimental aircraft but everything I’ve seen shows the E-AB accident rate is at least twice what it is for certified aircraft. I’d love to see something that suggests otherwise. The NTSB’s 2012 Findings – E/ABs account for a disproportionate number of total accidents and an even more disproportionate share of fatal accidents when compared with similar non-E/AB aircraft conducting similar flight operations. – Accident analyses indicate that powerplant failures and loss of control in flight are the most common E/AB aircraft accident occurrences by a large margin. Accident occurrences are similar for both new and used aircraft. – Structural failures have not been a common occurrence among E/AB aircraft. – Compared with similar non-E/AB aircraft, a much higher proportion of accidents involving E/AB aircraft occur early in the aircraft’s operational life. – A similarly large proportion of E/AB aircraft accidents occur shortly after being purchased by a subsequent owner (14 of the 224 study accidents during 2011 occurred during the first flight by a new owner of a used E/AB aircraft). https://www.aviationsafetymagazine.com/features/e-ab-aircraft-safety/

090126icing.pdf

Before I worked I the ER I’d never heard of a “high content wolf dog.” I can now say I’ve met several owners. https://wolfsanctuary.co/what-is-a-wolf-dog/

I would recommend practicing stalls/spins with an appropriately experienced CFI. I have not had this issue with my Ovation and with VGs it doesn’t really “break” but just mushes. You mentioned you got a new panel. Is the slip/skid indicator appropriately calibrated? Your spin recovery worked, but I agree with @A64Pilot that it is usually recommended NOT to use the aileron to pick up a wing in a stall. 30 years ago I was taught “stick neutral, opposite rudder.” Now it’s PARE (power to idle, ailerons neutral, opposite rudder, elevator forward). Either way, I think it’s generally advised to avoid using the ailerons in an stall for the reasons described in the earlier post.

You are correct. Hemoglobin has a much higher affinity for carbon monoxide (CO) than oxygen (O2) so if even a small amount of CO is present it will alter the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen essentially making hemoglobin grab all the oxygen around it but not let it go, thereby impairing oxygen delivery to the tissues and causing what is termed “anemic hypoxia” because there is plenty of oxygen around, but it’s not getting delivered to the tissues. Carbon dioxide (CO2), the molecule responsible for bubbles in beer, does not have this property so in order for CO2 to cause hypoxia the concentration would have to be so high as to displace the oxygen in the room. The memory aid was to recall that hemoglobin has a high affinity for carbon MONOXIDE only and does not involve CO2. For further reading: Pathophysiology CO toxicity causes impaired oxygen delivery and utilization at the cellular level. CO affects several different sites within the body but has its most profound impact on the organs (eg, brain, heart) with the highest oxygen requirement. Cellular hypoxia from CO toxicity is caused by impedance of oxygen delivery. CO reversibly binds hemoglobin, resulting in relative functional anemia. Because it binds hemoglobin 230-270 times more avidly than oxygen, even small concentrations can result in significant levels of carboxyhemoglobin (HbCO). An ambient CO level of 100 ppm produces an HbCO of 16% at equilibration, which is enough to produce clinical symptoms. Binding of CO to hemoglobin causes an increased binding of oxygen molecules at the three other oxygen-binding sites, resulting in a leftward shift in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve and decreasing the availability of oxygen to the already hypoxic tissues. CO binds to cardiac myoglobin with an even greater affinity than to hemoglobin; the resulting myocardial depression and hypotension exacerbates the tissue hypoxia. Decrease in oxygen delivery is insufficient, however, to explain the extent of the CO toxicity. Clinical status often does not correlate well with HbCO level, leading some to postulate an additional impairment of cellular respiration. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/819987-overview#a5

Can always count on Professor Pi to bring math and logic to the discussion which was way more entertaining with just conjectures and feelings. I guess the denominator really does matter.

CO perhaps. You’d have to have a pretty high concentration of CO2 (enough to physically displace the oxygen in the room) in order for that to be an issue. One of the residents shared a helpful memory aid with me: