Mooney down over New Hall Pass • Los Angeles

[carusoam]

One challenge regarding the chatter...

It is a real pilot that many people may know.

In some cases it will be an MSer.

Family members of the lost may stop in and not recognize the regular chatter vs... the particular instance..

Always maintain respect for the OP.

Often, somebody will start a new thread to easily continue the unrelated conversation...

PP thoughts only...

Best regards,

-a-

[Andy95W]

4 hours ago, Gary0747 said:

I learn a lot from the discussion of possible accident scenarios regardless of if they actually turn out to be the exact one the FAA ends up publishing.  Not sure why anybody gets upset over these discussions?  Nobody is forcing them to read or participate. 

Exactly!

We go through this same argument about every 6 months, and some people still want to be the conversation police because they're so easily offended.  Speculation about mistakes might get just one pilot to double-check their fuel status or rethink their personal minimums and maybe just one airplane accident can be avoided.  That's worth offending a few people's delicacies, since I've never heard an accident discussion here on MooneySpace become blatantly disrespectful.

So I'll put it out there, once again: if I die in an airplane accident, everyone here has my blessing to speculate all you wish, good, bad, and ugly, about anything I might have done wrong.  After the NTSB report comes out, please revisit the subject to drive home the lessons learned.  At that point in my life (death) I'm pretty sure I will be able to handle the criticism!

I'm a professional pilot who gets 3 checkrides a year.  I pride myself on flying as perfectly as possible, but I'm still learning and I have yet to have a perfect flight.  Having discussions like these help make some of us better pilots.

[N9201A]

Interesting point.  It would seem that most of the posts on this topic are "speculation and guess".  We don't really know who was the PIC, who was actually talking to ATC, the exact flight path of the plane (page 2 & 3 of this topic point out that Flightaware and flightradar24 might not be accurate). the exact weather conditions experienced by the plane, the medical status or condition of the PIC, the currency of the PIC, the condition of the plane, the equipment level (presence of Aspen, type or condition of autopilot, etc), level of hypoxia or presence of CO, what the pilot actually heard ATC say, etc.
The only factual "INFORMATION" we really have is the identity of plane, Aircraft registration, location of crash, identity of 2 deceased, FAA Airman's Registry for the owner, the ATC recording and Flightaware tracks which may or may not be accurate. 
By the proposed rules of "police ourselves" then I guess there should not really be any comments other than links to those sources of "INFORMATION".

I have not proposed any rules, and everyone has their own standards.

My original post addressed a disparaging comment about a controller who demonstrated professionalism and calm trying to save two lives that ultimately were lost, and who will live with that outcome for the rest of their life. Criticism from us, however well-intentioned, is unhelpful and adds no value.

That’s just my opinion, and you’re entitled to your own. I’ve watched people behave in ways I wouldn’t and I have done things others would not have done as well.

Some have made thoughtful posts about sensitivity to survivors of actual people some of us may know who are now gone. Others may encourage us to critique them when they’re gone; presumably criticizing a live person is OK too. To each their own...you do you.

[Fry]

On the accident: I've listened to the recording and read what I found.

Fact is, the pilot stalled the airplane. Probably in IMC.

* Icing may or may not be a factor

* Pilot health issues (CO?) may or may not be

* Or, one thing crossed my mind, an unnoticed failure or wrong operation of the autopilot (of the "altitude hold with throttle closed" kind) may or may not be

Let's wait for the NTSB report on this.

[Hank]

3 hours ago, Fry said:

Let's wait for the NTSB report on this.

Talk to you in Summer 2021! Bye 'til then, nothing to see hear, nothing to learn until mid-next-year . . . . . .

[flyboy0681]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Talk to you in Summer 2021! Bye 'til then, nothing to see hear, nothing to learn until mid-next-year . . . . . .

The friend of a friend died in a Lancair crash in September 2018 and I'm still waiting for the report. Seems these days they can take 2+ years.

[Andy95W]

1 hour ago, Hank said:

Talk to you in Summer 2021! Bye 'til then, nothing to see hear, nothing to learn until mid-next-year . . . . . .

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Hank!  By then, we'll all have forgotten about it (except the families, of course) and we will have had at least another 5-10 accidents that we're not supposed to discuss in the meantime- until the NTSB reports come out.

In the meantime, there are lots of valuable lessons to be learned by respectfully speculating about possible causes- not judging.  Maybe THAT should be our policy:  Discuss, don't judge.

The type of pilot that visits a website like ours is the type that is already conscientious and is concerned about safely operating their aircraft.  It is that type of pilot that will benefit the most by these discussions.

The lives we save may be our own.

[kortopates]

4 hours ago, Andy95W said:

Exactly the point I was trying to make, Hank!  By then, we'll all have forgotten about it (except the families, of course) and we will have had at least another 5-10 accidents that we're not supposed to discuss in the meantime- until the NTSB reports come out.

In the meantime, there are lots of valuable lessons to be learned by respectfully speculating about possible causes- not judging.  Maybe THAT should be our policy:  Discuss, don't judge.

The type of pilot that visits a website like ours is the type that is already conscientious and is concerned about safely operating their aircraft.  It is that type of pilot that will benefit the most by these discussions.

The lives we save may be our own.

Couldn't agree more with both your posts above. I respect there are different views on this but Mooneyspace is not the obituaries section.

Many of us here learn a lot by examining the information we have to look at and contemplate what it suggest to us as pilots. Sharing our thoughts that are based on the facts we have to work with helps out all of us that read these threads with an interest in what we can learn as a result of these tragedies. I know I often enjoy sharing my thoughts if I've had the time to delve into it and I really enjoy reading others thoughts based on the data; especially when they bring up possibilities that are very logical based on facts that I didn't see or missed to consider. That's what I consider learning.

The detraction's are post that attempt to remind us that we really don't know what happened - duh, whomever thought we were trying to write the NTSB report really doesn't get it. We're not trying to play NTSB investigators for a day, but to learn how we can improve our own operations and mindset to reduce the chances of having a similar incident. Sometimes its not so easy to make the right decision; it may not be perfectly black or white call. Although that's never going to change, I personally believe that reviewing accidents the last few decades has aided immeasurably in adding to the tools I have at my disposal to help with my decision making. Its certainly helped me to see hazards I hadn't recognized the importance of. But so many accidents are constant repeats such as failure to go missed and failure to follow the published missed. I am no longer surprised by these, merely that sometimes it took 3 approaches gone bad in such a fashion before it did become a fatal. Yet these they still reinforce to me the need to take certain rules very seriously. Here is an example I'll share. Years ago, like many CFI's, due to lack of a formal definition of the word "Established" I used to use the common practices of going by as soon as the needle had moved off full scale or 7/8 deflection. But I've since changed. After reading about so many full scale deflections leading to fatal accidents from the pilot trying to fix it rather than go missed , I concluded that waiting till full scale defection was too long, that we needed to be primed to go missed earlier so we weren't still trying to save it full at full scale since once we're at full scale we really don't know where we are and no longer have obstacle/terrain protection. So what made the most sense to me is the ACS  requirement to maintain within 3/4 scale all the way. This has changed my mentality such that if we  get to 3/4 scale I am now at least thinking I may need to go miss, and priming myself ready to go missed before I get to full scale, with no doubt I am going missed if I can't turn it around. That's my intention anyway. But for me, using my old definition of off full scale or even 7/8 was setting me up for not being primed to go missed till it could be too late at full scale to start thinking of it. There are many others, refinements so to speak that I have learned about or refined my techniques and teaching philosophy through the accident record. But of course it doesn't always take accidents,  many come from commercial practices (such as the Derived Decision Altitude or DDA's for MDA's (per OPSPEC C073) )

Really the only speculation I am not fond of us is suggestions of things that there is zero evidence yet to support. Not because I take offense but because I simply don't know how to process them. I don't understand their intent. Its like it can't be a simple explanation that we may have screwed up, its got to an equipment failure or a medical event or hypoxia or CO or .... These come up on every accident as if we couldn't screw up -  yet we do it all the time.  It may not be intended, but often seems like denial to me.  Yet we're all human, we all make mistakes. So why not work on trying to help ourselves recognize mistakes as they are happening so we become better at taking action before they progress to point we scrape metal or cause injury?

To do this I really don't need to necessarily wait for the final report. Of course I'll be interested to read it. But the final reports never tells us why the pilot did what they did or what they were thinking. Certainly not why the pilot didn't catch the chain and break it before it was too late. They do present all the available facts which led to that pilot's  predicament. But the bottom line is always simply the obvious in that pilot failed to get established, failed to go missed, failed to follow the published miss etc. They rarely tell us why, but they often provide additional casual factors that contributed to the pilots challenge such as an equipment issue. 

The other issue I have with the sentiment we should wait is that now is when it's real, 1-2 years from now nobody will care. But their is nothing like the emotional impacts of a recent accident to get your soul searching about what we might do as individuals to avoid getting ourselves into a similar fate. The key thing is that the final reported cause doesn't matter for learning to take place, not when we have enough information to consider our own exposure to similar risk and to consider if we are doing everything we can to minimize our own exposure. 

At the moment, since I am not addressing this accident directly, but the criticism about discussing it. I can't help but wonder why those that disapprove simply ignore the thread. That what I try to do, yet I am no better about it either.  But I'll add I am also thankful for those that have posted their position against speculation have done it in very respectful manner which had me liking and agreeing with the majority of their post, just not all. I appreciate the positive tone of that because so often such counter views come off sounding like attacks which I know we all want to avoid.  As soon as that happens everybody loses. 

Edited March 20, 2020 by kortopates

[Fry]

To all those who critizice respectful speculation about the events: you do not have to read this thread, but if you do, please do not police those who speculate (and mark their speculation as such). Because there is really nothing wrong about forming hypotheses.

BTW, does anyone know how experienced the pilot was? In total, in IMC, on type?

[bradp]

20 hours ago, Fry said:

On the accident: I've listened to the recording and read what I found.

Fact is, the pilot stalled the airplane. Probably in IMC.

* Icing may or may not be a factor

* Pilot health issues (CO?) may or may not be

* Or, one thing crossed my mind, an unnoticed failure or wrong operation of the autopilot (of the "altitude hold with throttle closed" kind) may or may not be

Let's wait for the NTSB report on this.

so from this speculation we can all take lessons to: 

1) recognize LOC is an important cause of crashes for IFR rated pilots (you can’t argue that point away as speculations - this was 100% a LOC IMC crash)

2) pay attention to freezing levels and recall that P+P=P if ever concern for an abnormal indication 

3) understand that age, health and altitude don’t always mix well 

4) call you and cross check autopilot modes, revert to a less automation if something is going wrong. 
 

So I’m sorry why are some folks‘ sensibilities so offended by plausible conjecture?

[mike_elliott]

On 3/18/2020 at 4:29 PM, carusoam said:

I once gave a goofy new MSer some advice regarding his new2him Mooney Eagle regarding his fuel tanks... a year later... I asked him how we knew each other... He was my new CFII for re-learning how to fly my O... he reminded me of the Conversation... six months after that... he was helping be get an engine OH’d... (proof that you never know...) (memories of @Cris)

You must be referring to Chris Wilcox, I remember the del. trip your new to you plane made and the stop in Wi.

RIP Chris.

[carusoam]

20 minutes ago, mike_elliott said:

You must be referring to Chris Wilcox, I remember the del. trip your new to you plane made and the stop in Wi.

RIP Chris.

Actually, Cris Gleason who has passed from ‘natural causes’.

I hope Chris and Cris can find the MS on the other side....  

RIP gents,

-a-

[mike_elliott]

41 minutes ago, carusoam said:

Actually, Cris Gleason who has passed from ‘natural causes’.

I hope Chris and Cris can find the MS on the other side....  

RIP gents,

-a-

Ahh, I was thinking of Slim's 252 that Chris Wilcox ferried for Vince Liggio

[kortopates]

2 hours ago, 1980Mooney said:

The free flight history on FlightAware only shows flights in January-March of this year.  None of the flights appear to be at IFR altitudes. 

Actually, logging into Flightware you should be able to see the flight history dating back to August of last year. All of the flights are VFR and none shows any evidence of practice approaches or IFR currency work. As a private pilot, its unlikely that the pilot maintained IFR currency in an aircraft other than his personal aircraft used for his cross country flights. Perhaps he maintained IFR legal currency in a sim. But if not, the pilot wouldn't have been legal to fly IFR due to lack of currency beyond 6 months.

Perhaps one reason that makes Beechtalk a more comfortable environment for pilots to discuss recent accidents as they occur is that they eliminate public viewing of the Crashtalk forum by requiring a login to access it. That must help curtail the public googling about a loved one and stumbling upon a thread discussing their crash. A good policy in my mind.

[Davidv]

2 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Actually, logging into Flightware you should be able to see the flight history dating back to August of last year. All of the flights are VFR and none shows any evidence of practice approaches or IFR currency work. As a private pilot, its unlikely that the pilot maintained IFR currency in an aircraft other than his personal aircraft used for his cross country flights. Perhaps he maintained IFR legal currency in a sim. But if not, the pilot wouldn't have been legal to fly IFR due to lack of currency beyond 6 months.

Perhaps one reason that makes Beechtalk a more comfortable environment for pilots to discuss recent accidents as they occur is that they eliminate public viewing of the Crashtalk forum by requiring a login to access it. That must help curtail the public googling about a loved one and stumbling upon a thread discussing their crash. A good policy in my mind.

Real names also help control the commentary. 

[N9201A]

so from this speculation we can all take lessons to: 
1) recognize LOC is an important cause of crashes for IFR rated pilots (you can’t argue that point away as speculations - this was 100% a LOC IMC crash)
2) pay attention to freezing levels and recall that P+P=P if ever concern for an abnormal indication 
3) understand that age, health and altitude don’t always mix well 
4) call you and cross check autopilot modes, revert to a less automation if something is going wrong. 
 
So I’m sorry why are some folks‘ sensibilities so offended by plausible conjecture?

I didn’t read that anyone was offended by an informed, respectful analysis of facts.

I did suggest refraining from sniping and—unjustifiably, based on the tape—criticizing participants who even now are likely wrestling with personally experiencing a fatal tragedy that claimed two lives.

I’ve now learned that BeechTalk is better at not doing the latter, apparently. But hey, everyone should just be themselves...

[pwnel]

47 minutes ago, kortopates said:

Actually, logging into Flightware you should be able to see the flight history dating back to August of last year. All of the flights are VFR and none shows any evidence of practice approaches or IFR currency work. As a private pilot, its unlikely that the pilot maintained IFR currency in an aircraft other than his personal aircraft used for his cross country flights. Perhaps he maintained IFR legal currency in a sim. But if not, the pilot wouldn't have been legal to fly IFR due to lack of currency beyond 6 months.

Perhaps one reason that makes Beechtalk a more comfortable environment for pilots to discuss recent accidents as they occur is that they eliminate public viewing of the Crashtalk forum by requiring a login to access it. That must help curtail the public googling about a loved one and stumbling upon a thread discussing their crash. A good policy in my mind.

@kortopates yes, I suggested requiring login when this portion of Mooneyspace launched.  I also shared the T&C of a similar aviation forum in South Africa.  There speculation is encouraged precisely for the learning.

On a Flightaware note - I see this happened at the end of a 4.5h flight.  Plain exhaustion can certainly be a contributing factor.  It definitely reminded me to keep to my written down personal IFR limits.

[jaylw314]

On 3/17/2020 at 8:44 AM, 1980Mooney said:

You are right that it is about questioning ones capabilities, personal mins and "I am not proficient"..."or up to the task".  But perhaps it is less about "today" and more fundamentally about the passage of time and age. 

...

 last medical was 4/2016 and that it expired in 2018 in his age bracket.  It does not show that he completed a BasicMed course.

AFAIK, the FAA would not have any information on whether a pilot has used BasicMed, since no information is sent to them (as opposed to AME medicals).

Also, for the sake of privacy and respect, I would discourage publicly posting accident victims' names on the forum.  PM'ing someone for a specific purpose (I know some of us have reached out to victims' families) would be appropriate.  Even though there names might be publicly reported, the context is not appropriate here.

[neilpilot]

42 minutes ago, jaylw314 said:

AFAIK, the FAA would not have any information on whether a pilot has used BasicMed, since no information is sent to them (as opposed to AME medicals).

Here's an example from the FAA Airmen Registry:

 

[Fry]

4,5h flight duration.

Enroute at an altitude >10000ft, so legally not requiring oxygen, but physiologically quite exhausting (with or without oxygen)

77 year old pilot.

IFR approach in IMC.

The busiest GA airport of the world (I believe it is).

Late ATIS reception coming from the north, so things go fast from there.

VNY routinely expects you to stay fast (I presume).

So this was certainly not an easy flight.

[Hank]

2 hours ago, neilpilot said:

Here's an example from the FAA Airmen Registry:

 

They can provide that for 1st, 2nd and 3rd class medicals, but the Basic Med paperwork lives in the Pilot's logbook and is produced upon request. The doctor signs it, gives it to the pilot, and he takes it home. FAA has no record of this . . . .

[neilpilot]

Just now, Hank said:

They can provide that for 1st, 2nd and 3rd class medicals, but the Basic Med paperwork lives in the Pilot's logbook and is produced upon request. The doctor signs it, gives it to the pilot, and he takes it home. FAA has no record of this . . . .

If that's the case, then explain the example I provided?  I know the data in that example is real and accurate.  Just maybe when a Basic Med applicant completes the online test, i.e. via AOPA, the data is shared with the FAA.

[carusoam]

To have Basic Med... I had to start with a Class III first... and not have it taken away for any reason...

So...

My Class III is still on file... but may show that it is a bit out of date...

Best regards,

-a-

[Hank]

27 minutes ago, neilpilot said:

If that's the case, then explain the example I provided?  I know the data in that example is real and accurate.  Just maybe when a Basic Med applicant completes the online test, i.e. via AOPA, the data is shared with the FAA.

The example shown above says "Medical Class:  Third" which involves an AME sending test results to the FAA. Basic Med involved my doctor going over the checklist, talking to me, signing the papers and me taking the papers home for safekeeping; nothing went to the FAA . . . But they probably still show my 3rd Class from 2016.

[RLCarter]

Doesn't the FAA get your basic med info from the online course ?