Jump to content

Mooney down in Hayward CA


Joe Larussa

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

The article I'm reading his father said "Flying was his passion... Chris got his pilot's license about five months ago". Could it be that an initial report that he was a student was wrong?

Maybe that is his father's definition of a "pilot's license". His friend who he is shown flying in the plane with the pilot said "“He was still under student status. Flying a high performance airplane, things happen so much faster,” said Schriber.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, orionflt said:
 
could have meant he got his student certificate
 
Personal Information

 CHRISTOPHER LAWRENCE DE BAR 

8025 BOREN LN
GRANITE BAY CA 95746-5877
County:  PLACER
Country: USA


Medical Information:
Medical Class: Third  Medical Date: 10/2018
BasicMed Course Date:  None   BasicMed CMEC Date:  None

Certificates
STUDENT PILOT
 
Certificates Description
 
Certificate: STUDENT PILOT  
Date of Issue: 10/24/2018



Limits:
CARRYING PASSENGERS IS PROHIBITED.

A little over 3 months experience... 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any of those are possible. I've certainly had to take students down to the FSDO because their new certificate isn't processed by the FAA within the 120 day limit.

Was this his first student pilot certificate in 10/2018 or did he have to renew it? His dad says he got his "license" 5 months ago whichever license that is.

 

-Robert

Edited by RobertGary1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The article I'm reading his father said "Flying was his passion... Chris got his pilot's license about five months ago". Could it be that an initial report that he was a student was wrong?

You bet it’s not entirely accurate so maybe you too would benefit from reviewing all of the available reports and FAA records for yourself. Per previous post in the other thread on this he got “Student” license 5 months ago - October 2018 per the FAA pilot registry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, RobertGary1 said:

Any of those are possible. I've certainly had to take students down to the FSDO because their new certificate isn't processed by the FAA within the 120 day limit.

Was this his first student pilot certificate in 10/2018 or did he have to renew it?

 

-Robert

He says de Bar lived life to the extreme; he was a skydiver and motorcycle racer, and a few months ago, he decided to get his pilot’s license. Schriber has been a pilot for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Marauder said:

He says de Bar lived life to the extreme; he was a skydiver and motorcycle racer, and a few months ago, he decided to get his pilot’s license. Schriber has been a pilot for years.

The article from nbcbayarea quotes his father as saying "Chris got his pilot's license 5 months ago". Just goes to my point that we're making a lot of assumptions based on in iniitalnews reports that nearly always turn out to be inaccurate to some degree.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, kortopates said:


You bet it’s not entirely accurate so maybe you too would benefit from reviewing all of the available reports and FAA records for yourself. Per previous post in the other thread on this he got “Student” license 5 months ago - October 2018 per the FAA pilot registry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're thinking he got his student certificate 5 months ago and his private 3 months ago? That's certainly possible too. FAA pilot's records are taking so long to update I'm not basing too much on that. Like I said I've had to take students down to renew 120 day temps because the FAA processing is so behind.

-Robert

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, RobertGary1 said:

You're thinking he got his student certificate 5 months ago and his private 3 months ago? That's certainly possible too. FAA pilot's records are taking so long to update I'm not basing too much on that. Like I said I've had to take students down to renew 120 day temps because the FAA processing is so behind.

-Robert

And let's say he was licensed as VFR pilot. Heck, let's even give him an IFR rating as well. When one of our own who lives there says "Well I live a mile from the west entrance to Mt Diablo, driving around here Friday night was terrible winds, downpours low ceilings ugh. IFR would have been a challenge. Way below my minimums". 

I guess it was just bad luck. Stick to instructing, your reasonable doubts skills are a bit soft.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, kortopates said:


You bet it’s not entirely accurate so maybe you too would benefit from reviewing all of the available reports and FAA records for yourself. Per previous post in the other thread on this he got “Student” license 5 months ago - October 2018 per the FAA pilot registry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Yes, this is my point. Obviously some of these reports are inaccurate. FAA records are so far behind I woudln't read too much into that. We're seeing 120 day temps expire before the FAA updates the registry and issues certificates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, Marauder said:

 

I guess it was just bad luck. Stick to instructing, your reasonable doubts skills are a bit soft.

If you think reasonable doubt is good enough to publicly declare this guy was a fool that's fine by me. I'm just saying I'll wait for the NTSB out of respect for him and his family  thank you.

-Robert

Edited by RobertGary1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're thinking he got his student certificate 5 months ago and his private 3 months ago? That's certainly possible too. FAA pilot's records are taking so long to update I'm not basing too much on that. Like I said I've had to take students down to renew 120 day temps because the FAA processing is so behind.
-Robert

Highly unlikely he got his pilots license already and as Chris@Marauder cites above, his mentor pilot friend would have been the first to hear if he did get it, but tells us he was operating under his student certificate. I find that very compelling.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, gsxrpilot said:

The whole narrative about how he lived life on the edge, skydiving, racing motorcycles, etc. certainly doesn't do anything for GA. It's sad to be equating those activities with simply flying a small airplane.

I'll bet this was just poor judgement start to finish. And I pity the CFI who might or might not have signed him off for the flight.

More like life on the edge is consistent with launching into low sky’s, high terrain and at night in a high performance airplane with very little experience in the airplane and not yet more than a students permit.  Definitely on the edge.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think reasonable doubt is good enough to publicly declare this guy was a fool that's fine by me. I'm just saying I'll wait for the NTSB out of respect for him and his family  thank you.
-Robert


There is a difference between saying “this guy is a fool”, and “student pilots shouldn’t fly in anywhere close to those conditions”. One more time, the latter discussion is quite productive. I hope we can manage such distinctions.

Also, even during the shutdown, the FAA was more like 4-6 weeks to reflect a new cert, it seemed from where I sat... we shall see. Not that much difference between a PPL the day before and the day after his/her check ride in terms of skill and experience anyhow.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is third class medical is processed simultaneously with the student pilots certificate? It used to be when they were paper certs. If that was the case either this guy was a student pilot and his CFI is F’d or he was a wet ticket PPL and had absolutely no business flying that day   

@RobertGary1 I think your conceptual framework on the value of this discourse is entirely wrong.  The value is in the hypothesis generating and hypothesis testing that may or may not align with the NTSB factual or final.  I’ll bet a lunch at Smitty’s that this NTSB report will read almost word for word: The VFR pilot’s / student pilot’s continued flight into instrument meteorological conditions” and the  would continue in a couple of ways... which either resulted in CFIT or SD and he happened to crash on Diablo.  The radar data will tell us which one.  Is that important - probably not.  The lesson learned is one of ADM and judgement. 

If twelve poeple on this thread come up with 11 scenarios or lessons that can be learned, and they are plausible, then they are hugely valuable.  Maybe I discovered three new ways by which I can avoid killing myself in an airplane thanks to my internet friends.  It doesn’t matter whether my leaning is based on the exact facts of this case- if plausible and I learn something to keep me safe, I still win.  It not so much whether our conclusions overlap with the one or two official NTSB conclusions that’s so important.  

If you are a CFI, I’d implore you to adopt this type of safety culture adult learning approach with your students.  It gets the mind engaged and seeks out potential weakness in our own operations even though our operations may be dissimilar from the “index case”. 

Here’s an example from my line of work. Let’s say there’s a bad patient outcome in a hospital.  Let’s say they pass away.  You could approach the bad outcome by saying “let’s wait for the autopsy report before we make any rash conclusions because we may not be  relying on the official facts of the case”.  That’s absolutely the wrong way to approach known or potential safety issues. The correct way would be to take a “deep dive” prior to the “official report”.  Examine systems, processes, redundancies.  Identify weaknesses. Try to find the other holes in the cheese which were there but may may not have been the holes that lined up.  This is all done just because something bad happened.  Changes and processes are implemented.  Then, later, when the official report is available, you do the “deep dive” process again and compare to your conclusions from the temporally proximate deep dive.  Rinse and repeat.  This is one but not by any means the only example of how systems get safer... not safe as a black and white concept. 

Right now the Mooney owners and operators “system” is doing a deep dive.  Some changes will be implemented. “Brad airlines” is doing a deep dive  because a type I operate had a bad outcome.  It’s kind of like how Southwest Airlines is interested in the Lion Air crash now and not just when the final report comes out.  

Heck the hypothesis testing and discourse might even save a life of a Mooneyspace member.  It’s not about the “I’d never do that” and want to distance yourself from an adrenaline junkie attitude - it’s quite the contrary.  And yes I’d wager that any pilot who is a serious member of the aviation community would welcome this type of discourse if they were involved in an accident or incident if it could help others.

Those that are on Mooneyspace and have been involved in an accident or incident have generally welcomed this type of discussion.  For example - I would never have thought it important to have a CO detector had not Dan been so open about his accident.  

That’s all I have to say   Hope @RobertGary1 starts to see things in less of a black and white manner- especially if he’s instructing as this one should hit home hard for CFIs out there. I’ll probably be a CFI within a year. I’m thinking now what would I do if I encountered a student with an adrenaline junkie personality and counsel them on risk assessment?  Call it quits and tell them to shove off? Try to teach them.   This case is a valuable tool for those thought experiments.  

- B

 

  • Like 12
Link to comment
Share on other sites

We know what killed him, he flew into a mountain.  That point is not up for discussion.  What should be talked about is the decision making that went into this accident and where we can all learn.  Waiting until the NTSB report would be nice, but those take months and the timeliness of the incident is lost and if there is a mechanical issue, then it will resurface.

The FAA has spent a lot of time lately hammering on aviation decision making and trying to break the chain of these accidents.  It seems like this individual did not have much "fear" or was an adrenaline junkie (not said in a bad way).  Not being a CFI, is there guidance from the FAA on how to teach and reinforce the ADM with students like this?   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Gents...

Some things I find....

1) Mooney accidents continue to happen...

2) More often to those with less experience...more seriously to those missing a particular type of experience...

3) The respectful conversations are not something that can be held off... (an unchangeable human behavior, for better or for worse...)

4) Some part of We, will learn from this disaster.

5) Enough people will learn a valuable piece of information to keep an accident from happening... whether it is factual or hypothetical...

6) In honor of the lost Mooney pilot... let the respectful conversation continue...

7) Continue until there are no new Mooney pilots to be lost.

8) Also Remember, the lost pilot’s family will be along here any minute... what you type will be read... so use caution with your selection of words...

I still miss Patrick... college educated in the arts and sciences of aviation, made a misjudgment with two other students of aviation in the plane....  Patrick stands as a reminder how a simple discussion of Density Altitude can make a difference in the longevity of a newly minted pilot...

Maybe a friend of Christopher can remind new students how to avoid this tragedy...

I hope somebody continues the discussion in honor of Christopher’s early departure...

 

know that everybody grieves differently at different times... anger is often part of the grieving process....

When somebody says... he died doing something he loved... just go along for the moment... there isn’t much more some people are going to be able to say under the circumstances... it is  a comforting phrase that works for The bereaved... go with it...

Peace and prayers for our lost brother.

Best regards,

-a-

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

39 minutes ago, gsengle said:

 


There is a difference between saying “this guy is a fool”, and “student pilots shouldn’t fly in anywhere close to those conditions”. One more time, the latter discussion is quite productive. I hope we can manage such distinctions.

 

I agree completely.  By discussing and thinking about such flights gone wrong we may well remind ourselves to make good decisions.  This is a necessity for us to continue to self train ourselves by affirmations of making good decisions.  Good decisions is likely the most important aspect of being a safer pilot. Certainly beating the importance of good skills (although of course that is important too).  That said there is a fine line between analyzing a flight gone bad and crossing over to simply being blamey.  Also, the analyzing a flight for sake of trying to be a better pilot is not the same as trying to convince yourself that such a thing could never happen to you, as a matter of making yourself feel better.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@bradp I have a couple disagreements with your endorsement for speculative based learning

1) Its not really fair to the pilot or family to publicly share opinions on what could have caused an accident before factual data is released. We know that early news articles are rarely very accurate. I've seen this happen to several friends, its very sad.

2) Myths persist forever. We all know of numerous accidents in which everyone knows what caused it. Except when you go back and read the final NTSB they're wrong. Is that a positive learning experience? Off the top of my head a couple accidents in which pilots are shocked when you tell them they are wrong. 1) We had an A36 crash on take off from our field killing 2. Everyone said he took off with a tailwind. The NTSB determined it wasn't a tailwind but unexpected sheer. So pilots run through the coals for no reason 2) DC-8 crashed killing all. Initial speculation was that cargo was not tied down correctly and the ground crew were blamed. But almost no one knows that the actual cause turned out to be a mechanical failure with the elevator. I feel so bad for that innocent ground crew. Years later when you tell a local group of pilots this they are very surprised. 

3) Early speculation is going to be based on pilot's perception of what happens and news reporter's layman's understanding. Using that information is very counter to a scientific approach to safety analyst. Its very self fulfilling and each accident is used by pilots to confirm what they think they know. But actual factual data is what we need to focus on, evidence based learning, not self-affirming.

If there was a lack of NSTB reports to draw from for training I'd agree with you but there isn't. Every other year when I go to CAP Check Pilot school we study several accidents, civilian and military. We don't have to speculate on accidents because we have enough factual data from NSTB, military, reports.

So I focus training on factual NTSB reports. There are many very interesting ones to draw from.

-Robert

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, RobertGary1 said:

@bradp I have a couple disagreements with your endorsement for speculative based learning

1) Its not really fair to the pilot or family to publicly share opinions on what could have caused an accident before factual data is released. We know that early news articles are rarely very accurate. I've seen this happen to several friends, its very sad.

2) Myths persist forever. We all know of numerous accidents in which everyone knows what caused it. Except when you go back and read the final NTSB they're wrong. Is that a positive learning experience? Off the top of my head a couple accidents in which pilots are shocked when you tell them they are wrong. 1) We had an A36 crash on take off from our field killing 2. Everyone said he took off with a tailwind. The NTSB determined it wasn't a tailwind but unexpected sheer. So pilots run through the coals for no reason 2) DC-8 crashed killing all. Initial speculation was that cargo was not tied down correctly and the ground crew were blamed. But almost no one knows that the actual cause turned out to be a mechanical failure with the elevator. I feel so bad for that innocent ground crew. Years later when you tell a local group of pilots this they are very surprised. 

3) Early speculation is going to be based on pilot's perception of what happens and news reporter's layman's understanding. Using that information is very counter to a scientific approach to safety analyst. Its very self fulfilling and each accident is used by pilots to confirm what they think they know. But actual factual data is what we need to focus on, evidence based learning, not self-affirming.

If there was a lack of NSTB reports to draw from for training I'd agree with you but there isn't. Every other year when I go to CAP Check Pilot school we study several accidents, civilian and military. We don't have to speculate on accidents because we have enough factual data from NSTB, military, reports.

So I focus training on factual NTSB reports. There are many very interesting ones to draw from.

-Robert

@RobertGary1 I have been following this thread and trying to be neutral with my option, but you seem to be ignoring some of the facts that others are focusing on. no one has bashed the pilot and no one has discounted mechanical failure or another reason for this accident. what the have brought up were known facts.

Fact: student/inexperienced pilot. (student pilot cert issued 10/18) statements from father and friend

Fact: night VFR flight in documented marginal VFR IFR conditions including rain and strong winds. (metars and local members testimony)

Fact: pilot recently bought the aircraft and was low time in make and model. (based on sale date of plane and student pilot certificate issue date)

  these facts are are being discussed, yes there are suppositions of what may have happened during the flight but no one has pointed any fingers. 

we as a community should look at the facts and when the final NTSB report comes out use the info for training. but in the mean time, hypothesizing different reasonable scenarios and discussing them to make our community better is not a bad thing.

yes his decision making is being questioned, I question my decision making after every flight when I do a mental review. but no one is crucifying him for his decision making with out all the facts. 

Brian

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, bradp said:

this guy was a student pilot and his CFI is F’d

Why would the CFI be fucked? the in the end the pilot decided to go? If i remember correctly, I don't think a student pilot is permitted to do night ops solo.
in the end the student pilot flew. I don't understand why the CFI would be Fucked.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Niko182 said:

Why would the CFI be fucked? the in the end the pilot decided to go? If i remember correctly, I don't think a student pilot is permitted to do night ops solo.
in the end the student pilot flew. I don't understand why the CFI would be Fucked.

I think Brad is referring to the fact the CFI is responsible to ensure the student is capable of solo flight per the regulation and has authorized the solo flights. Not sure how often, if at all, the FAA goes after an instructor in situations like this. But I suspect it can be part of the investigation to speak to the CFI. 

61.87

(n)Limitations on student pilots operating an aircraft in solo flight. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight unless that student pilot has received an endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown by an authorized instructor who gave the training within the 90 days preceding the date of the flight.

(o)Limitations on student pilots operating an aircraft in solo flight at night. A student pilot may not operate an aircraft in solo flight at night unless that student pilot has received:

(1)Flight training at night on night flying procedures that includes takeoffs, approaches, landings, and go-arounds at night at the airport where the solo flight will be conducted;

(2) Navigation training at night in the vicinity of the airport where the solo flight will be conducted; and

(3) An endorsement in the student's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown for night solo flight by an authorized instructor who gave the training within the 90-day period preceding the date of the flight.

(p)Limitations on flight instructors authorizing solo flight. No instructor may authorize a student pilot to perform a solo flight unless that instructor has -

(1) Given that student pilot training in the make and model of aircraft or a similar make and model of aircraft in which the solo flight is to be flown;

(2) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the maneuvers and procedures prescribed in this section;

(3) Determined the student pilot is proficient in the make and model of aircraft to be flown; and

(4) Endorsed the student pilot's logbook for the specific make and model aircraft to be flown, and that endorsement remains current for solo flight privileges, provided an authorized instructor updates the student's logbook every 90 days thereafter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Marauder said:

I think Brad is referring to the fact the CFI is responsible to ensure the student is capable of solo flight per the regulation and has authorized the solo flights. Not sure how often, if at all, the FAA goes after an instructor in situations like this. But I suspect it can be part of the investigation to speak to the CFI. 

 

I agree the FAA would speak with the CFI. But it would depend on if the CFI had endorsed him for this flight and, if he did, what limitations did he place on the student. I don't think its fair (or common) for us to be held accountable for student actions if they are operating outside of their endorsements.

-Robert

  • Like 5
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.