Mooney down KSAF

[Shadrach]

On 11/29/2018 at 8:00 AM, steingar said:

Because in the age of ADSB it doesn't do anything for you.  You see what they see.  It is just giving you the responsibility of listening for your tail number.  I keep my number 2 comm on Guard.  Something happens I'll sqawk a Mayday.

Indeed it does. It gives you the ability to immediately notify ATC of a problem, the nature of said problem and begins the process of summoning emergency services.   This guy made a smoking hole in the ground and no one knows a thing about the circumstances of the crash.

Edited December 1, 2018 by Shadrach

[David Lloyd]

Rusty airplane, rusty pilot, high terrain, ending in the dark.  What could possibly go wrong?

[steingar]

51 minutes ago, DualRatedFlyer said:

The ADSB mandate isnt required until 2020. Lots of folks operating without it until then which basically means users are only getting a false sense of security in terms of traffic. 

I get every aircraft with a transponder, same as ATC.  If I can't see it neither can they. 

51 minutes ago, DualRatedFlyer said:

ADSB coverage can also be spotty to downright unavailable at various altitudes depending on geographic location.  In the accident area, ADSB coverage isnt solid-ish until 3000ft AGL.  In the event you crash, they could theoretically track your ADSB reported altitude down to 3000ft (in the general accident area) - assuming they knew to even start looking for you. 

I strongly suspect that areas without ADSB coverage are also sparsely served by radar coverage.  I will be happily proven wrong on this point though.

51 minutes ago, DualRatedFlyer said:

I personally dont see ADSB replacing flight following, but thats just my 2c

I do.  I already dislike FF, don't like listening for my tail number when I'm yakking with pax.  Moreover, they can't really do anything for you that you can't do for yourself with just a bit of technology.  I think broadcasting on the guard frequency will get as much attention as the ATC frequency, perhaps more.  Given how quickly they get on telling you to stop transmitting on guard, someone must be listening.

[Yetti]

I have a policy of not posting on AOG threads.   I am making an exception.   STOP YOUR speculation and bickering it makes you look stupid.

[Shadrach]

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgyr/KGYR2-Gnd-Twr-Nov-26-2018-2230Z.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1MSX_Ne8-fiX3e0ArFgab4dC6GV1_w39UqX2D227sD5fpTxAzc8FI_QC4

 

This guy was way rustier than his new plane... starts at 15:00. Sad day...

Edited November 29, 2018 by Shadrach

[Shadrach]

8 minutes ago, steingar said:

I get every aircraft with a transponder, same as ATC.  If I can't see it neither can they. 

I strongly suspect that areas without ADSB coverage are also sparsely served by radar coverage.  I will be happily proven wrong on this point though.

I do.  I already dislike FF, don't like listening for my tail number when I'm yakking with pax.  Moreover, they can't really do anything for you that you can't do for yourself with just a bit of technology.  I think broadcasting on the guard frequency will get as much attention as the ATC frequency, perhaps more.  Given how quickly they get on telling you to stop transmitting on guard, someone must be listening.

Using ADSB only provides all of the evidence that one has done something stupid. Flight following provides another set of eyes to advise the pilot before his stupidity bites. 

[Andy95W]

2 hours ago, steingar said:

Because in the age of ADSB it doesn't do anything for you.  You see what they see.  It is just giving you the responsibility of listening for your tail number.  I keep my number 2 comm on Guard.  Something happens I'll sqawk a Mayday.

The whole point of being on flight following is that if anything bad happens, you’re already talking to the people who will help you. 

You’re not transmitting in the blind hoping someone will hear you. You’re not blindly squawking 7700 hoping someone will notice you. You’re not waiting for your crash and then a few hours of hoping someone will hear your ELT. 

You’re already in radar contact so they know where you are and you’re already on the right frequency. 

The whole point is that help is on the way before you crash, and you don’t have to waste valuable time or effort when you should be dealing with your emergency. 

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, Andy95W said:

The whole point of being on flight following is that if anything bad happens, you’re already talking to the people who will help you. 

You’re not transmitting in the blind hoping someone will hear you. You’re not blindly squawking 7700 hoping someone will notice you. You’re not waiting for your crash and then a few hours of hoping someone will hear your ELT. 

You’re already in radar contact so they know where you are and you’re already on the right frequency. 

The whole point is that help is on the way before you crash, and you don’t have to waste valuable time or effort when you should be dealing with your emergency. 

When ADSB starts doing all of that, I'll think about equipping. 

[DualRatedFlyer]

18 minutes ago, steingar said:

I get every aircraft with a transponder, same as ATC.  If I can't see it neither can they. 

I strongly suspect that areas without ADSB coverage are also sparsely served by radar coverage.  I will be happily proven wrong on this point though.

I do.  I already dislike FF, don't like listening for my tail number when I'm yakking with pax.  Moreover, they can't really do anything for you that you can't do for yourself with just a bit of technology.  I think broadcasting on the guard frequency will get as much attention as the ATC frequency, perhaps more.  Given how quickly they get on telling you to stop transmitting on guard, someone must be listening.

Lots of ships out there without transponders that ATC can see on primary and advise, but to each his own.  Whatever you feel link you need to do to keep your pax safe.  I usually file IFR everywhere, so listening for my tail number and chatting with passengers is not a problem for me. 

[LANCECASPER]

12 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgyr/KGYR2-Gnd-Twr-Nov-26-2018-2230Z.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1MSX_Ne8-fiX3e0ArFgab4dC6GV1_w39UqX2D227sD5fpTxAzc8FI_QC4

 

This guy was way rustier than his new plane... start a 15:00.

Listening to that, wow, very sad. All of us eventually reach the point where we hang it up. Either he hadn't flown out of a controlled airport for years or he his cognitive abilities were impaired. I'd say the latter, but probably both. It will be interesting to see when he last had a flight review.

[Sabremech]

3 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

 

I would not want to be the IA that signed the logs. I'm not an IA but if I was, learning that an airplane I recently returned to service crashed and burned would be a very sad event.

 

 I've read your statement a number of times and can see different interpretations now, but as an IA view it as assigning blame or guilt when no facts are known.

10 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

Indeed it does. It give you the ability to immediately notify ATC of a problem, the nature of said problem and begins the process of summoning emergency services.   This guy made a smoking hole in the ground and no one knows a thing about the circumstances of the crash.

"no one knows a thing about the circumstances of the crash", my thoughts exactly, yet speculation always jumps in.

 

"I have actually been the one saying let's wait for the whatever facts are available and not assume a mechanical failure (plainly viewable in previous posts).  The only bold statements I've seen in this thread are from David who accused me of something without qualifying it and Dan who decided to bandwagon along with him.  It's an interesting case of the ability of seemingly intelligent people reading a common language to see things that were never written nor implied. I too have been known to say things that rub people the wrong way. It's why I always try to qualify my statements with evidence"

As an IA, this qualifies my statement. It's obvious that you've rubbed seemingly intelligent people the wrong way.

 

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, LANCECASPER said:

Listening to that, wow, very sad. All of us eventually reach the point where we hang it up. Either he hadn't flown out of a controlled airport for years or he his cognitive abilities were impaired. I'd say the latter, but probably both. It will be interesting to see when he last had a flight review.

Agree'd.  Anyone performing that with a little bit of awareness would recognize they performing sub par. HE was probably terribly nervous after the first few mistakes.  He was clearly ill-prepared to make the flight under ideal circumstances. I can only imagine how he might have  handled the most mundane of surprises.

[DualRatedFlyer]

Kathrynsreport has a writeup about the mishap.  Very heartbreaking. 

 

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2018/11/mooney-m20c-n113ta-fatal-accident.html

[Shadrach]

11 minutes ago, Sabremech said:

 I've read your statement a number of times and can see different interpretations now, but as an IA view it as assigning blame or guilt when no facts are known.

"no one knows a thing about the circumstances of the crash", my thoughts exactly, yet speculation always jumps in.

 

"I have actually been the one saying let's wait for the whatever facts are available and not assume a mechanical failure (plainly viewable in previous posts).  The only bold statements I've seen in this thread are from David who accused me of something without qualifying it and Dan who decided to bandwagon along with him.  It's an interesting case of the ability of seemingly intelligent people reading a common language to see things that were never written nor implied. I too have been known to say things that rub people the wrong way. It's why I always try to qualify my statements with evidence"

As an IA, this qualifies my statement. It's obvious that you've rubbed seemingly intelligent people the wrong way.

 

"Seemingly intelligent" was meant to be a charitable nod to the quality of your past contributions to this forum. My way of giving you the kind of benefit of the doubt that you've not had the courtesy to afford me.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Shadrach

[RobertGary1]

Could have been worse. This old guy could have died in an old aged home covered in his own drool sitting in his own poo. 

 

-Robert 

[skydvrboy]

54 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgyr/KGYR2-Gnd-Twr-Nov-26-2018-2230Z.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1MSX_Ne8-fiX3e0ArFgab4dC6GV1_w39UqX2D227sD5fpTxAzc8FI_QC4

 

This guy was way rustier than his new plane... start a 15:00.

That was painful to listen to.  The whole time I found myself pleading with the ground controller to say "Mooney 113TA return to FBO."  Then to the tower controller, I'm thinking leave the gear down, let the guy fly all the way to Denver that way.  If he couldn't remember to put it up, he won't remember to put it down either!

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgyr/KGYR2-Gnd-Twr-Nov-26-2018-2230Z.mp3?fbclid=IwAR1MSX_Ne8-fiX3e0ArFgab4dC6GV1_w39UqX2D227sD5fpTxAzc8FI_QC4

 

This guy was way rustier than his new plane... start a 15:00.

That is very disturbing! “Do you plan to depart with the speedbrakes deployed?” followed by leaving the gear down and going NORDO and not knowing which way to turn. I wonder what motivated him to keep going? I have a rule that if I do three stupid things before I take off I cancel the flight. I would like to think that if I had this many problems just getting out of the traffic pattern I would have had aborted the trip. 

[gsxrpilot]

1 hour ago, steingar said:

I get every aircraft with a transponder, same as ATC.  If I can't see it neither can they. 

I strongly suspect that areas without ADSB coverage are also sparsely served by radar coverage.  I will be happily proven wrong on this point though.

I do.  I already dislike FF, don't like listening for my tail number when I'm yakking with pax.  Moreover, they can't really do anything for you that you can't do for yourself with just a bit of technology.  I think broadcasting on the guard frequency will get as much attention as the ATC frequency, perhaps more.  Given how quickly they get on telling you to stop transmitting on guard, someone must be listening.

Come fly in Texas. Lots of radar coverage, very sparse ADSB coverage. And the controllers very much appreciate us using FF all the time.

[skydvrboy]

8 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

How well can they "see" aircraft that truly aren't emitting any signals?

I'm sure this has a lot to do with distance from the radar, altitude, etc.  I'm no expert, but I can relate my personal experience.  I took off from KLXT (SW of Kansas City) with an inop transponder heading west toward the class B.  It worked when I went in, dead when I contacted ATC on departure.  They were pretty sure they knew who I was immediately (1000 AGL) and had me to a 90 degree left/right to verify. 

The thing that surprised me was that they almost immediately cleared me into the bravo, even though I hadn't requested it (my intended flight path skirted just outside).  Over the next few minutes they probably asked my 5 different times for altitude reports to make sure traffic above was clear.  From what I've heard, the controllers around KC are much more forgiving and easier to work with than those in much busier airspace on the coasts.

[Shadrach]

1 minute ago, skydvrboy said:

I'm sure this has a lot to do with distance from the radar, altitude, etc.  I'm no expert, but I can relate my personal experience.  I took off from KLXT (SW of Kansas City) with an inop transponder heading west toward the class B.  It worked when I went in, dead when I contacted ATC on departure.  They were pretty sure they knew who I was immediately (1000 AGL) and had me to a 90 degree left/right to verify. 

The thing that surprised me was that they almost immediately cleared me into the bravo, even though I hadn't requested it (my intended flight path skirted just outside).  Over the next few minutes they probably asked my 5 different times for altitude reports to make sure traffic above was clear.  From what I've heard, the controllers around KC are much more forgiving and easier to work with than those in much busier airspace on the coasts.

Some sectors are way more service oriented than others. 

[bonal]

Prayers and condolences to his family 

[takair]

52 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

Interesting discussion. I have noticed over the years here that IAs tend to be very sensitive to any speculation whatsoever that any of their brethren's actions or inactions may have been responsible for or even contributed to a crash. In this case I thought that Ross's comments were more than adequately qualified, but I am not an IA and almost certainly have a thicker skin on this topic. 

I do have a question for you guys regarding the flight following aspect of this discussion. When ATC reports traffic as a "primary" return only, what exactly are they saying? It is obvious from context that they aren't talking to the aircraft and they don't know it's altitude, but my question is are they skin painting it or does the aircraft have a working transponder but just no encoder to report it's altitude?  How well can they "see" aircraft that truly aren't emitting any signals?  I have always been curious about this and just thought I would ask in case anyone here knows definitively. It is certainly relevant to this discussion because I believe that post 2020 there will actually be more totally dark aircraft flying around outside of ADS-B  / Mode C airspace rather than less, and if ATC can truly "skin paint", flight following would certainly be able to add value that ADS-B cannot. 

Jim

Ref. the radar, listening to the recording, it sounds like he initially had the transponder off.  They would only paint a radar (primary) return....could be a bird a Mooney or a 747.  ATC reminds him to turn on his transponder....then ATC says that they see his mode A (Code only).  So now, they would have a primary target and a Mode A code (1200?).  They ask him to turn the knob to the right to ALT (mode C)....but not much indication in this recording if that was successful.  So, either he only had it set to A or mode C didn't work.  Older encoders needed a warm-up period....or it could have simply been failed.  So, they would not have had a virtual 3D picture of him....position only, but no altitude.

[gsxrpilot]

I know a few controllers in the Austin area and they all say they much prefer for VFR flights to be on FF. It makes their life and workload easier. I know I always prefer to be on FF... unless... around the Houston and DFW Bravo's, I'll sometimes keep silent just to avoid having to go around. 

[DualRatedFlyer]

5 minutes ago, bluehighwayflyer said:

OK. Thanks, that is helpful. So "primary' return is synonymous with radar-only return? If that is the case that is what I wanted to know and is a darn good argument for using flight following.

Unfortunately I am still limited to my cell phone here in the aftermath of Hurricane Michael and can't get enough bandwidth the listen to the ATC recording you guys are referring to. It sounds like a real doozy. 

Jim

There is a primary and secondary radar.  Primary works by emitting energy and receiving it back as it bounces off of objects (painting targets).  As someone else pointed out, this can include things like flocks of birds as well, however there is some filtering to try and remove these as much as possible to only get other aircraft.  The timing between the emission and return is calculated to give distance, and the rotating lobe gives direction of the target.  Thats about it.  Secondary radar emits a transponder interrogation and asks the transponder to reply with additional information (altitude, squawk code, etc).  

Can never go wrong asking for flight following.  Can point to several mishap reports where flight following could have saved lives. Cant really point to any that flight following caused the loss of life. 

[bob865]

14 minutes ago, DualRatedFlyer said:

Can never go wrong asking for flight following.  Can point to several mishap reports where flight following could have saved lives. Cant really point to any that flight following caused the loss of life. 

One thing everyone seems to be missing, or maybe I missed it if it was, is Flight Following is a two way street.  Sure in many cases it may not help you but it tells ATC what you are doing so they can offer options to help traffic flow through their area even if those options are not for you.  ATC works best when they know what everyone is doing.  So if nothing else, it's a courtesy to ATC to take flight following.