Jump to content

Mooney down KSAF


ottorecker

Recommended Posts

40 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

I don’t think anyone will convince you otherwise but I’m in the “file IFR or get flight following” camp. I learned to fly in San Diego and most flights were in San Diego/LA area. Since I started flying in 1990 I can think of only 2 instances where I was told I couldn’t get flight following. I understand different places are different but I think if you’re flying in a congested area it’s the safe and courteous thing to do . 

As an example, my last flight was from PSP to SBP. I flew VFR over the top of the Class B at 10.5k. I didn’t need to talk to anyone but I still requested flight following. At one point, the controller asked me if I could turn 20 deg right so I wouldn’t interfere with the traffic into ONT. if I hadn’t been on flight following, he would have had to vector everyone around me. It’s just part of playing nicely in the sandbox. Not everyone does.

Maybe if you’re being denied flight following it has something to do with how you request it. Like I said, flying in some of the busiest airspace in the US, I’ve never had that problem.

Try flying around Chicago, New York, Philadelphia or DC some time, and then tell me about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Shadrach said:

They use regulatory guidance. There were a lot of signs that this guy was not performing well, but he did not violate any regs on the ground.  

Violations of regs was not an issue here but certainly the ground controller must have recognized that he was having difficulty following very simple commands and maybe he was having a medical issue and perhaps a few minutes delay might have saved his life. Not trying to place any blame here but ATC's are here to help us fly safe and that might be more than just providing a heading or altitude assignment. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, steingar said:

Try flying around Chicago, New York, Philadelphia or DC some time, and then tell me about it.

I fly around DC, NY PHL frequently and Chicago occasionally.   I have my favorites, but all of them are very willing to handle VFR traffic.  The only one of those sectors I've ever had problems with is DC and the only reason it sticks out  because the others are so good.

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 3:39 PM, steingar said:

Try flying around Chicago, New York, Philadelphia or DC some time, and then tell me about it.

I've been in Chicago, NY and Philadelphia's airspace IFR and on VFR flight following. My IFR instructor told me from day one to act like a professional pilot, sound like like a professional pilot and you'll get treated like a professional pilot. It's been my experience that if you figure out exactly what you want to do, then when you get on the radio request it in their language they will give it to you if they are able. What I've seen frustrate them, understandably, is when they are busy and the person really doesn't have a clear idea of what they want and then they have repeat their instructions a few times because the pilot didn't write it down.

Posts like this are tragic, but even more so if we don't use them as an opportunity to learn something. We all learn different things, but two things I personally take away at first glance are: 1) When I start hearing from people that maybe it's time to give up flying, I need the humility to listen. Listening to the pilot on the recording, he should have at least had a qualified safety pilot or an instructor with him. 2) Not being on flight following wasn't the cause but didn't help him either. If he was having engine problems and that's why he diverted, ATC could have possibly directed him to a closer airport where he could have landed safely, rather than trying to make it to Santa Fe. At the very least, Santa Fe tower would have been expecting him.

  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, bonal said:

Violations of regs was not an issue here but certainly the ground controller must have recognized that he was having difficulty following very simple commands and maybe he was having a medical issue and perhaps a few minutes delay might have saved his life. Not trying to place any blame here but ATC's are here to help us fly safe and that might be more than just providing a heading or altitude assignment. 

It's always a challenge because judgment of what's dangerous is subjective. This guy sounded like he stepped out of the 80s.  "progressive taxi instructions to the active".  This was common parlance decades ago...today, not so much.   Anyone with a modest EFB has airport diagram with their geo referenced position.  He sounded like some one that was nervous and uncomfortable on the radio.  Being nervous and uncomfortable does not make for good decision making.  This guy sounded behind the airplane before he took "the active"... It's a very sad thing, but the controllers had no legitimate reason to ask him not to depart.

Edited by Shadrach
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So many things were going wrong in the recording... and ATC was engaged and continuing to have a conversation with the pilot... asking in different ways if he wanted to raise the gear... the pilot was struggling to hear, understand, and respond....

Seems like some form of impairment was happening... one that was happening quickly...

If nothing else, a reminder to check to see if you own a CO monitor...

From our MS experience... loss of consciousness can occur in the climb... with a simple CO problem...  without an operating wing leveler, the flight will be pretty short...

RIP, Larry...

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shadrach said:

It's always a challenge because judgment of what's dangerous is subjective. This guy sounded like he stepped out of the 80s.  "progressive taxi instructions to the active".  This was common parlance decades ago...today, not so much.   Anyone with a modest EFB has airport diagram with their geo referenced position.  He sounded like some one that was nervous and uncomfortable on the radio.  Being nervous and uncomfortable does not make for good decision making.  This guy sounded behind the airplane before he took "the active"... It's a very sad thing, but the controllers had no legitimate reason to ask him not to depart.

I started lessons in 2006, and was taught this way (three decades after the 80s). Now I "sometimes" have a tablet with me; it may be in the baggage area. My spendy 430W gets me where I need to go, except when I use pilotage.

And sometimes when I have the tablet up front with me, the battery dies and it ain't no good then.

I'm not sure if the speakers in the ceiling work any more or not,  and there is certainly no handheld mic anymore. But the clip for it is there on the left windshield post, it's a perfect fit for a AA Maglite.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, LANCECASPER said:

I've been in Chicago, NY and Philadelphia's airspace IFR and on VFR flight following. My IFR instructor told me from day one to act like a professional pilot, sound like like a professional pilot and you'll get treated like a professional pilot. It's been my experience that if you figure out exactly what you want to do, then when you get on the radio request it in their language they will give it to you if they are able. What I've seen frustrate them, understandably, is when they are busy and the person really doesn't have a clear idea of what they want and then they have repeat their instructions a few times because the pilot didn't write it down.

This has been my experience in the busy airspace of Southern California as well as flying into Phoenix, over Vegas, and into Salt Lake. I have heard people stumbling over them selves and had ATC tell them to hold on or hold outside Bravo airspace while they have cleared myself or others in/through. On occasion I have not received a response to an initial call up but usually within about 5-10 minutes I am in another sector here and can pick it up from the next controller.

I'm a VFR pilot who likes to use FF. There are a couple of other advantages that I can think of that I think have been alluded to. One is that those who fly with me are very used to me putting up my hand which they know means stop talking or telling them hold on because I am trying to listen to or answer a call. In a way it conditions them that there are times to be quiet. The other is that it keeps my radio skills up. I love this quote from Ralph Waldo Emerson: “That which we persist in doing becomes easier to do, not that the nature of the thing has changed but that our power to do has increased.” The more I use the radios the easier it becomes, which frees up my mind for other things. In the event of an emergency I want talking on the radio to be a normal "don't even have to think about it" type of thing, one less item contributing to cognitive overload.

  • Like 11
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Very sad to listen to that tape...my biggest signal that there's trouble ahead was when he said he was going to Denver at 5,500', which simply isn't doable.  In fact, in that direction going to Denver, it requires at least 7,500' out of Phx VFR in daylight...and even higher going towards Denver.  Then there's the question if he ever raised the gear....RIP.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

After flying with me a bit, my wife commented that going forward she'd know how to get my attention when I'm not listening to her. "Hey! 252 Alpha Delta!" 

She says it works better than using my name :blink:

I've gotten used to hey dumbass!  :D

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, carqwik said:

Very sad to listen to that tape...my biggest signal that there's trouble ahead was when he said he was going to Denver at 5,500', which simply isn't doable.  In fact, in that direction going to Denver, it requires at least 7,500' out of Phx VFR in daylight...and even higher going towards Denver.  Then there's the question if he ever raised the gear....RIP.

From where he took off you can get across Phoenix at 5500, but you'll be in the Bravo airspace, which is why the tower was trying to get him to stay lower and turn his ALT on.
His stated departure northwest out of Goodyear during a weekday would have taken him straight into the Luke AFB Class D, and even departing west would have put him in the SUA.   His initial intention may have been to go westerly and circle around the Bravo airspace and other Class D airports, who knows.   When the tower sent him NE it may have altered his plans and put him on the back foot, but a NW departure could well have gotten him in a lot more trouble right away.

So his situational awareness and planning seemed pretty poor to begin with.    Definitely not a good start to the day.

He couldn't understand the radio traffic except when they gave him a frequency change...he got that okay.   Hm.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

After flying with me a bit, my wife commented that going forward she'd know how to get my attention when I'm not listening to her. "Hey! 252 Alpha Delta!" 

She says it works better than using my name :blink:

With my wife it is this that works: Knock it off!

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 1:12 PM, ragedracer1977 said:

Start listening around 15 minutes in.  This was destined to not go well.  Tried departing with speed brakes deployed, not responding to ATC, busting Class B, leaving the gear down.

http://archive-server.liveatc.net/kgyr/KGYR2-Gnd-Twr-Nov-26-2018-2230Z.mp3?fbclid=IwAR3iU23vI0iQT_m3ejXaaN8L_y7u2LnRCM4QUe6qtdykcwf1UkpHAsFaqmo

Comms start about 12 minutes in, and in isolation, don't necessarily portend disaster, but heard in the context of everything else, paint a picture.

First he contacts tower to ask for taxi clearance (clearly says "Goodyear Tower," too, it's not that he had ground spun in and forgot to toggle the KX-155). Also says he needs progressive taxi instructions. From the FBO to Runway 21. Which, at an unfamiliar airport, I might ask for, too. But... Goodyear isn't exactly a complicated taxi environment, and the FBO is right next to runway 21. 

Tower instructs him to contact ground with the ATIS information. He contacts ground but doesn't report ATIS, until they ask for it again. (Happens about as often as a pilot checking in "with information Whiskey," only to have ATC request them to "confirm you have information Whiskey." So, whatever.)

Ground has to pester him to read back taxi instructions and runway assignment with his call sign. He does.

Tower points out the speed brakes are deployed. "You have good eyes." Presumably he fixes that. I'm betting this was his first flight in that new-to-him M20C. I would have caught the deployed speed brakes when I set flaps and visually verified, but maybe it happened after. Maybe he bumped the control. Who knows.

He doesn't know if he's making a left or right turn on departure. At a new, unfamiliar airport, I might get that wrong, too. I'd probably know Denver was to the east of Goodyear, though, not the west. But I've screwed up directions in information-saturated moments, like flying with a new plane, in a new location. Or before I had my PPL.

But then once he's airborne, leaving the gear down (he had a Mooney before, I'm sure nothing about trying to fly with the gear extended felt right), not having the transponder on or on ALT (correct me if I'm wrong, but by the time an AT50 is warmed up enough to be answering, it can report altitude just as easily as it can provide a Mode C?), and most worryingly, continually mishearing ATC calls and just reporting his intended cruising altitude. And busting the bravo?

For a 40 year pilot and CFI?

Something was going on, probably something medical. He'd recently had kidney problems and been on dialysis. A pilot/doctor on the Mooney Pilots group had a "guesstimate" as to what sorts of things could be going on...

RIP, fellow flyer.

 

IMG_6700.JPG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 1:58 PM, bonal said:

Violations of regs was not an issue here but certainly the ground controller must have recognized that he was having difficulty following very simple commands and maybe he was having a medical issue and perhaps a few minutes delay might have saved his life. Not trying to place any blame here but ATC's are here to help us fly safe and that might be more than just providing a heading or altitude assignment. 

Yeah. The parallels this draws for me, are the guy who was trying to taxi to runway "three eight zero" with a BAC of .207.

"Go ahead and shut down your engine, airport wanted to talk to you, they're almost out to you."

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 11/29/2018 at 1:39 PM, steingar said:

Try flying around Chicago, New York, Philadelphia or DC some time, and then tell me about it.

I don't understand your point, none of those TRACONS are as large or as busy as the SOCAL TRACON that @ilovecornfields was giving the example case for using FF.  Based on FY16 data,  SOCAL is the busiest and largest in the world with over 2 1/4 million operations over 18,000 sq mi of airspace, New York is #2, and then NORCAL is #3 and nothing else tops 1.5 mill operations. POTOMAC is #4, Philadelphia-Consolidated is a distant #10. 

In my busy SOCAL airspace, as a Lead FAASTeam rep we are doing everything we can to get GA private pilots to use FF when VFR. In order for us to be able to share the complex airspace with the rest of users we really need to help ATC do their job in separating traffic by participating in the system. We are constantly in danger in loosing more of our airspace to Class B or C largely because of the pilots who refuse to participate making it much harder for the rest of us. Especially the latest fastest growing segment of pilots  that think because they have Ads/B In that they can be their own controller! Others have made the case for benefits of FF, but I am making the case that if we all work together and participate by talking to ATC they have far less reason to take away more of our airspace. 

Some examples of how non-participating aircraft create a pain for the the system are: We get GA pilots flying right up to the boundary of class B not intending to penetrate it but since they're not talking to ATC, the controllers have no idea what their intentions are. So when a controller sees a plane squawking 1200 headed for an IFR commuter or airline he's not going to wait to see what you do but start moving the airliner, since Class B airspace deviations are common. And if conditions are right between the two planes, like a climbing GA plane and a descending airliners (vice versa) our actions can cause a TCAS RA and the detecting traffic has to take immediate action increasing everyone else's workload because someone thinks its their right to fly around on the edge of busy airspace without talking too anyone. These actions will just cause us to continue to loose more airspace. For example, for the past decade we've been fighting to keep Long Beach airspace (under the Bravo) from going Class C, but it appears we may be losing the battle and pretty soon. Other problems are that unless your mode C altitude has been verified by talking to you, they can't trust it and have to give you a larger bubble of airspace.  I am sure all participants have heard the the controller call out a target and say "altitude unverified".

I implore anyone that feels they don't need to participate to take a tour of their local TRACON, they are generally available. My TRACON does one every month and I schedule tours for all my students. I am confident that once more knowledgeable from attending such a tour all will make the right decision to use FF. Even going out to the practice area to do maneuvers. Also we're very fortunate to have a Controller responsible for doing outreach with a suitable budget and time to give presentations to our pilots throughout the TRACON. Its truly a 2 way street and we've given him an education from our perspective that controllers have to be there for us, so recognizing it can be tough sale for some pilots that don't want to talk, he listens to pilot concerns about being dropped etc and takes those back to his colleagues and its made a positive impact on our services here as well. We have for the most part only a couple sectors that can get so overwhelmed that they really do don't have time to give VFR FF. But even when that's happening the better ones keep you N number and say they'll call you back  in 10 minutes (its almost always just a few minutes later) or some will ask you to call them back in 10 minutes.  

  • Like 10
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

After listening to the tape I couldn't believe the pilot had a current flight review and wondered if he has a medical and if the airplane had even yet been annual'd or if he had a ferry permit. I searched the airman's database. I couldn't find any Larry Nelson in CO in the database that would be a potential match (assuming he really was a CFI at one time); and I also tried Lawrence and Laurence. I then tried Larry Nelson's throughout the country and none of the 22 hits looked like a good match to this gentlemen's credentials sited by his daughter and none of the possible ones had a active medical - but if he just got one that wouldn't show up this soon anyway.

I reviewed Beechtalk's thread on this too, (I saw at least one of you here also contributed to that thread), and another very interesting witness account was revealed. It was pasted in as a graphic and was relayed second hand by a co-worker. But it says the co-worker stopped by the plane and pilot on ramp because the cowling was open and he had a broken dzus fastener and another one messed up so bad that it wouldn't hold either. So the pilot asked this guy if he had any tape to secure it, and the guy said he then noticed "several other fasteners were being held shut by blue painters tape".  It doesn't relay any discussion about actually trying to fix these discrepancies but  goes on to say the co-worker apparently called the tower to see if the tower had authority to call this plane back to the ramp. Given the witness account, it appears very unlikely he even had a Ferry permit;  let alone an annual. I doubt an A&P would risk their cert by signing off an airplane with broken fasteners not holding that would be pretty easy to fix before flying to CO. 

Another item I noticed on the audio tape,  assuming the audio tape wasn't shortened, there clearly wasn't time for a rusty pilot to do a meaningful run-up after he arrived at the runway area and before he took off. He starts taxing at 24:00 when the controller tells him right on Alpha and at 24:30 he's on Alpha when the controller tells him next left to Alpha One and then 45 sec later at 25:15 he is calling tower for departure and the ensuing discussion on deployed speed brakes begins. Did he do a runup on the FBO ramp after startup or did he really depart without one? We don't know, only that there was very little time between arriving at the runway and departing.

If the pilot was having a medical event that was going on pretty much the entire time wouldn't that it make it very unlikely he'd be able to get as far as he did to KSAF? Not conclusively, but sure seems unlikely.

If he did have a ferry permit, he would have been limited to day VFR only, yet it was dark at his arrival to SAF and apparently not talking to tower when he went down a mile from the airport.

I'll leave out my thoughts about 3 of the 5 hazardous attitudes for now in case this really was a medical issue. But it was so sad to hear this plane depart with an obviously very rusty pilot that shouldn't have been flying alone; especially on x-country flight in the mountains in a plane with questionable airworthiness concerns and at night. I can't help but wonder why his daughter didn't intervene.There was also reference to him following her on a x-country solo flight years ago implying she was also a pilot; at least years ago.

Regardless though, I really believe there are take away's for us all by trying to understand these disasters and what we might do to avoid these. We're all getting older! One I've learned about from discussing some similar ones is the need for us aging pilots to appoint someone else we trust that's knowledgeable about our flying skills that can tell us when its time to start hanging it up or to really increase our level of currency training and increase our personal minimums. We really need to be able to trust objective criticism about our decreasing abilities when the time comes.

Edited by kortopates
  • Like 8
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if he had headsets or was relying on the speaker?  At one point, he mentions that “it is loud in here”.  Compounding everything else, he may simply not have been able to hear some of what ATC was saying (vs not understanding).  The speaker was small and poor quality when the plane was built, but most are original and have even worse quality...if any...now.  Stock speakers alone would never work under routine modern ATC interaction.  I wonder if this will be a factor.  Unfortunately, many neglected aircraft have neglected audio systems.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is in response to kortopates (sorry, don’t know how to do that @ thingie) longish diatribe. My response is simply this: if ATC doesn’t like what I’m doing while I’m following the FARs and conducting  a safe flight, they can cry me a river. They don’t own the damn sky, we do.  Moreover, they can get their damn panties in a wad all they like, they’re safe in a booth. I’m the one with skin in the game, and I’ll conduct my flight as I care to within the boundaries of the rules.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, steingar said:

This is in response to kortopates (sorry, don’t know how to do that @ thingie) longish diatribe. My response is simply this: if ATC doesn’t like what I’m doing while I’m following the FARs and conducting  a safe flight, they can cry me a river. They don’t own the damn sky, we do.  Moreover, they can get their damn panties in a wad all they like, they’re safe in a booth. I’m the one with skin in the game, and I’ll conduct my flight as I care to within the boundaries of the rules.

If you’re arguing that as a citizen of this great country you have a RIGHT to be obnoxious, unsafe and contribute to the already poor public impression of GA safety which leads to more restriction, regulations and the loss of public use airports then you are absolutely correct. I would argue that in addition to our RIGHTS we also share a RESPONSIBILITY to the public and fellow aviators to fly as safely as possible. My personal experience in 28 years of flying is that ATC will bend over backwards to help me out as long as I interact with them in a respectful and professional manner. Since I’m paying for their service, I plan to take advantge of it.

Regarding the “longish diatribe,” I welcome it. I have met @kortopates and he is one of the most knowledgeable, competent and professional aviators I have ever met. In additon to what he mentioned regarding his work with the FAA, he is also a CFI, MAPA instructor, A&P, teacher at the local college, Savvy analyst, retired engineer and a bunch of other things I probably don’t even know about. I have flown down to San Diego more than once just to fly with him (I told my mom it was to visit her, but it was really to fly with Paul).

Perhaps as a thought experiment consider what generally happens when everyone behaves in a professional and respectful manner in a shared space compared to what happens when everyone behaves in a selfish and obnoxious manner “because I can.” 

You certainly have the right to be “that guy.” Whether or not you chose to act that way is up to you.

  • Like 13
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I  read somewhere that this gentleman was on dialysis.  I don't think flying an airplane is a good idea because I watched  my  dad do some  weird stuff while he was on dialysis.  It  is  possible  he  had an infection  or a toxin buildup  that left  him disoriented.  It happens easily and regularly  to people on dialysis.  This guy was at one time a CFI (also  mentioned by  his daughter)So his lack  of radio proficiency and airport  operations  seems  a  bit telling when considering his mental state...  My bet is that this accident will be  more  about his physiology and  mental  state rather than any  mechanical failure of the aircraft.   It'll  be about a  guy  who  loved  flying  (also  eluded  to  by  his daughter:   He  would  sometimes  say he was tired  of being  on the  ground )  and was unwilling to admit to  himself  that it  was  time  to stop  flying.

 RIP...:(

  • Like 2
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, MIR2018 said:

I  read somewhere that this gentleman was on dialysis.  I don't think flying an airplane is a good idea because I watched  my  dad do some  weird stuff while he was on dialysis.  It  is  possible  he  had an infection  or a toxin buildup  that left  him disoriented.  It happens easily and regularly  to people on dialysis.  This guy was at one time a CFI (also  mentioned by  his daughter)So his lack  of radio proficiency and airport  operations  seems  a  bit telling when considering his mental state...  My bet is that this accident will be  more  about his physiology and  mental  state rather than any  mechanical failure of the aircraft.   It'll  be about a  guy  who  loved  flying  (also  eluded  to  by  his daughter:   He  would  sometimes  say he was tired  of being  on the  ground )  and was unwilling to admit to  himself  that it  was  time  to stop  flying.

 RIP...:(

Since we all self-certify every time we fly, there are probably a lot of reasons he wasn't medically qualified to fly. But regarding the renal failure, there was no option to self-certify. Here's what the Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners says:

15. Renal dialysis and transplant are cause for denial. FAA certification may be possible after complete recovery from surgery and in limited circumstances involving dialysis.

 . . . 

The presence of an aneurysm or obstruction of a major vessel of the body is disqualifying for medical certification of any class. Following successful surgical intervention and correction, the applicant may ask for FAA consideration. The FAA recommends that the applicant recover for at least 3-6 months. The likelihood of certification is enhanced in situations in which all medications have been discontinued and a current evaluation reveals n/o evidence of cardiovascular or renal disease.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, LANCECASPER said:

Since we all self-certify every time we fly, there are probably a lot of reasons he wasn't medically qualified to fly. But regarding the renal failure, there was no option to self-certify.

15. Renal dialysis and transplant are cause for denial. FAA certification may be possible after complete recovery from surgery and in limited circumstances involving dialysis.

 

2 minutes ago, bonal said:

Flying, like driving is a privilege not a right and as such we are bound by the rules or run the risk of having that privilege revoked 

I'm  not  condoning, just saying that I believe  the cause will be based on  the  pilot's  physiology rather  than the condition  of the airplane which  was  (except for  the diatribes about ADSB)  what many responses to  this thread  were  about.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.