N44368 vectored to death ?

[blakealbers]

First of all I can’t imagine the pain family and friends are going through right now. Just wondering if this is a reminder that we are ultimately the pilots and can say “Unable”

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[exM20K]

Correct tail number is N43368.

[LANCECASPER]

https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/233544

Descent rate at the end is sobering:

https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N43368/history/20200303/1830Z/KCAE/KTCL/tracklog

[Nick Pilotte]

I saw this posted on BeechTalk and looked up the N number on FA.  I couldn’t bring myself to dig for ATC recordings because I saw the path and track log.  So sad, a very capable aircraft and the owner was an MMOPA member so it would “seem” conscientious.  But it shows that Mother Nature doesn’t care what you know or fly, you are not invincible. 
 

I am learning a lot about ADM and recently @Yooper Rocketman penned a great thread about his recent no-go decision from his home airport to Las Vegas.  Between his thread and reading about the other pilot who was in this crash, I’ve learned a lot.  Tom was NOT the pilot of this airplane.  

Edited March 4, 2020 by Nick Pilotte
Clarification of pilot information

[alextstone]

4 minutes ago, Nick Pilotte said:

 It’s the sobering to think that, while I may not know @Yooper Rocketman personally, his no-go decision thread was a good one and I’ve learned from him and this crash. 

Was this @Yooper Rocketman who was piloting the Malibu or are you @Nick Pilotte, referencing his thread only?

[Nick Pilotte]

Sorry no.  Last week Tom elected to scrub a flight to Las Vegas and it sparked a good conversation in a thread on here. I did NOT mean he was the pilot of the plane in this crash. I will reword my previous post. 

[MrRodgers]

Is there an ATC recording available on this?  I do not know how to find those.

Perhaps that can provide some clues as to what happened.  So sad.

 

[tmo]

LiveATC.net has archives here - they have Atlanta Approach (N. Sat) and Atlanta Approach (TAR North) which are probably who he was talking to, right?  Time of accident is just past 2130 UTC.

[0TreeLemur]

Looking at the flight path, it seems that weather was a factor.

The preliminary report suggests that the flight interacted with severe weather while being vectored by Atlanta approach.   Scary stuff.   Read here:  https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20200303X93345&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA

Take home message might be:  PIC is ultimately responsible for the safety of the flight.  If given a vector that looks unsafe, the word "UNABLE" is the life saver.

RIP.

Edited April 4, 2020 by 0TreeLemur
removed speculation based on new input from preliminary report.

[0TreeLemur]

After reading the preliminary report referenced in my previous post, I am left wondering how this would have been best avoided.  The pilot said that he saw a clear path, yet acceded to follow the instructions of a controller sitting in a dark room.  This after the controller cleared the pilot to do whatever he thought best.   From the report:

The pilot stated "I thought I was gonna shoot this gap here, I got a gap I can go straight through." The controller acknowledged and advised that was fine if it looked good to him, but that he showed moderate precipitation starting in about 1 mile extending for about 4 miles north bound; the pilot acknowledged.About 1633 the controller asked the pilot what his flight conditions were, the pilot responded, "rain three six eight." There were no further transmissions from the pilot.

Hail outside the CB?  Seems unlikely but possible.   Scary stuff and a good cautionary read.  Again the link is here: https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20200303X93345&AKey=1&RType=Prelim&IType=FA

[gsxrpilot]

Good weather, go VFR. Bad weather go IFR. Really bad weather, go VFR. 

I don't like ATC assigning me vectors when I'm dealing with convective activity or ice. I'd rather cancel IFR and then go where I want. Of course, generally speaking, whether icing conditions or convective conditions, in either situation, I prefer to stay out of the clouds and therefore out of IMC. And then VFR just gives you more options.

VFR would have allowed him to go right over the top of ATL at 12,600. Of course that might not have been possible because of icing.

[M20S Driver]

48 minutes ago, gsxrpilot said:

Good weather, go VFR. Bad weather go IFR. Really bad weather, go VFR. 

I don't like ATC assigning me vectors when I'm dealing with convective activity or ice. I'd rather cancel IFR and then go where I want. Of course, generally speaking, whether icing conditions or convective conditions, in either situation, I prefer to stay out of the clouds and therefore out of IMC. And then VFR just gives you more options.

VFR would have allowed him to go right over the top of ATL at 12,600. Of course that might not have been possible because of icing.

 I could not agree more..   Flying VFR over LAX class Bravo,  ATC was vectoring me into icing and was not happy when I declined.   I am glad I was VFR

20 years or so ago on an IFR flight plan Socal forced me into ICING in my Cessna 182 and I had to say that I will declare an emergency in a few minutes before Socal allowed me to go lower and out of icing.

[Jerry 5TJ]

The accident Malibu was flying at 6,000’ and it probably had no on-board radar. Cloud tops in the area were reported at around 18,000 but this pilot chose to stay lower. Perhaps he wished to minimize strong headwinds, or avoid ice.  
It might have been a better plan to get higher and have better visibility.    He could have climbed into the lower Flight Levels before reaching central Georgia. 
As for ATC vectors - I feel there tends to be more leeway in the low FL as almost no one is flying there.  
In any case you can say “unable” to any ATC request and go wherever you need to remain safe.  But if you can’t see where that safer path lies then you are in a stressful place.  

[GeeBee]

Having several thousand hours with ATL Tracon, they are very good at keeping you out of the. bad stuff, but they will defer to you if want to go another way no problem. I've. even had them say, "clear to deviate any direction, call me back when you are ready direct xxxx." I know a lot of the TRACON folks personally and they are very sensitive to not jamming you up.

 

 

[irishpilot]

This brings up a good point for discussion. I've flown many times in convective areas, and agree that avoiding Tstorms is much easier when you can see them. Embedded TStorms should make us think twice about our route of flight or altitude. Modern Mooney's have the option of going into the FLs, but sometimes that climb may put you through an icing level IMC. ADSB & XM weather are great for trends but they aren't updated fast enough to try and shoot the gaps in storms. On board wx radar is the fastest, but not all are created equal. This comes down to mission planning and having plan B inflight. Tough reading accident reports like this one. Hopefully we can all learn from this and be safer for it.

Your friendly Safety Mod

[Ibra]

On 4/30/2020 at 5:27 AM, irishpilot said:

ADSB & XM weather are great for trends but they aren't updated fast enough to try and shoot the gaps in storms. On board wx radar is the fastest, but not all are created equal. This comes down to mission planning and having plan B inflight

Surely real-time weather will help avoiding TS rather than going into them in the blind and are far better than data-link with 20min delay (TS cell may popup and mature in 10min)

Using weather radar for tactical avoidance between cells comes with a huge risk at piston speeds: one can hardly keep 20nm separation from TS flying at "turbulence speed" (120kts?) if it takes 10min for cells to randomly pop-up and mature? Jets fly at 400kts so "shooting static gaps" makes more sense 

A friend retrofitted a gwx68 to his DA42 (cost 40k$ & 12lbs) and use it to stay away from the whole lot (basically like stormscope/data-link but way cool)

Anyone who has a weather radar on his Mooney? how one use them? what is the weights/costs? what is the range/coverage?

[Hank]

51 minutes ago, Ibra said:

Surely real-time weather will help avoiding TS rather than going into them in the blind and are far better than data-link with 20min delay (TS cell may popup and mature in 10min)

Stormscope provides realtime updates on most convective activity. ADSB-IN and XM are delayed enough that they are only useful for stratetic planning, while Stormscope is useful for navigating around / between cells [tactical decision making], and is the only reasonable way to fly in IMC in the southeastern summer [we have lots of afternoon convective storms].

[carusoam]

There were a few small dish radars put in Mooney wings...

But...

I don’t think any are still in use...

Probably old tech, expensive to maintain... were the key reasons for no pireps...

Strike finders, XM, and ADSB have been much more usable eyes in the sky for MSers...

Always have two sources Tactical and strategic...

Best regards,

-a-

[Ibra]

4 hours ago, carusoam said:

Strike finders, XM, and ADSB have been much more usable eyes in the sky for MSers...

Always have two sources Tactical and strategic...

Yes, I think having stormscope & weather/traffic data-link should cover everything one needs: stormscope has 200nm range and conservative warnings to "avoid losing wings" but miss heavy rain, turbulence, wind sheer...data-link weather & traffic complement the picture on the convective areas 

Radar weather (30nm range?) is an extra bonus for comfortable smooth and dry rides if you stay away (can be used tactically to go inside with +300kts afterburner) 
Cheaper way for me so far to keep my teeth/wings and avoid getting wet (literally and figuratively) is fly slow in VMC and take nice pictures from outside 

Edited May 7, 2020 by Ibra

[Mooney in Oz]

On 5/7/2020 at 10:08 AM, Hank said:

while Stormscope is useful for navigating around / between cells [tactical decision making]

Hello Hank.

When flying my WX500 equiped Mooney, my idea of navigating around cells in IMC is a 90 degree turn away from the strike area and if that doesn't work then it's another 90 degree turn (180 degree turn back) or land until it passes.  

When you say between cells I assume you mean when VMC as you have no way of knowing that is where you are heading for in IMC without a real time radar picture.  There is also the risk of a lightning strike when between cells if they are active enough.  

One of only a very few occasions I experienced St. Elmos Fire around the windscreen area at night when tracking between two active cells in a radar equipped airframe.  I could just about feel the static electricity.  I hated being in that position, but luckily there was no lightning strike event.

For those who may not know what St. Elmos Fire is: 

 

[Hank]

@Mooney in Oz, it's all about "close." I prefer to not be "a few kilometers" from a thunderstorm. But when IMC, they're hard to spot . . . Stormscope politely shows you where to avoid before you stumble into the turbulence. It's realtime, unlike your ADSB In, which only shows where heavy rainfall was a while ago.

StormScope will also show where a cell is building before rain starts falling out of it, so you can avoid it before its old position shows up on XM/ADSB.

[Jerry 5TJ]

On 5/7/2020 at 1:33 AM, carusoam said:

There were a few small dish radars put in Mooney wings...

The in-wing RCA Weatherscout radars could, on a good day, see a cell at 10-15 miles.  The small antenna had especially poor performance in the vertical axis so ground clutter obscured most cloud returns. 

I doubt many remain in use.  Some Bonanzas also had that radar option. Early PA46 Malibus offered that system 1984-88.

PA46 Mirages were fitted with the pod-mounted Honeywell Radar starting in 1989 which usually can paint embedded cells 30-40 miles out and isolated storms at 80-100 miles. 

[wiguy]

  If that radar picture shown above is fairly accurate, not a good place to be. I didn’t listen to the tapes, usually don’t care to.

  The one point, though it may not apply here, is early mention to ATC about an expected/desired deviation ahead. With a little extra time, usually more options are available. Later in the process, one may be more boxed in.

  Any suggestions from ATC are just that, suggestions or paths of previous flights. That may or may not work for you. Talking to ATC, IFR flight plan, whatever, landing short or diverting is always in the toolbox.