Mooney hitting power lines in TN

[V1VRV2]

14 hours ago, Hank said:

I don't now, didn't in the past and won't in the future. 

But I did fly my Mooney for 3 years before getting Instrument rated, and most places that I flew to were new to me.

So far, almost a decade and a half of never landing at the wrong airport, with Approaches loaded only for announced practice approaches or in IMC.

Do you always fly your Mooney like an airliner, complete with a 2nd pilot calling out your checklists? If not, per your logic above, you should be. Or do you pick and choose which airline practices and policies to carry over to your Mooney based on yourown personal opinions? Because all of them certainly do not apply.

Airline pilots have a much better track record of getting it right vs. GA pilots. Just saying there might be something to be learned there. Past history of performance is NOT indicative of future performance. Trying to eliminate as many variables as possible makes for a safer flight. Carry on doing it your way... it seems to work until it doesn’t.

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, V1VRV2 said:

Airline pilots have a much better track record of getting it right vs. GA pilots.

Two person professional crew, always IFR, Part 121 and thorough operations manuals. Quite a different culture.  

Perhaps a more useful example for us is Part 135 operations, some flying single pilot in the same class of aircraft we fly.  

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, Jerry 5TJ said:

Two person professional crew, always IFR, Part 121 and thorough operations manuals. Quite a different culture.  

Perhaps a more useful example for us is Part 135 operations, some flying single pilot in the same class of aircraft we fly.  

Yes! Absolutely and I can tell you as a writer of 135 manuals that it will be rejected by the FSDO if the manual does not contain a requirement to use all available nav aids for identifying and approaching an airport.

 

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

Yes! Absolutely and I can tell you as a writer of 135 manuals that it will be rejected by the FSDO if the manual does not contain a requirement to use all available nav aids for identifying and approaching an airport.

 

But that requirement is not listed anywhere at all under Part 91. The only manuals applicable to us are CFR 14 Part 91; airplane Owners Manual or POH as applicable; and Operating Manuals for avionics and other installed equipment and STCs.

PPLs fly to new airports without any idea if loading an approach unless they have Instrument training, appropriate installed equipment and correct plates.

You cannot compare airline SOPs to GA! It's a total waste of effort, nothing but nothing lines up.

[V1VRV2]

I live near a now defunct AFB. Plattsburgh. There used to be an airport named Clinton County about 3 mi away. An F111 pilot landed at Clinton county instead of the AFB. He got out and walked down the street to use a pay phone to call the AFB and tell them where he was. He said he thought the runway looked a little short. They had to take the wings off and tow it back to the AFB. It happens to the best. Good practices aren’t something you will always find in a manual but everything found in a manual are good practices which are there because of someone else’s mistakes. Doesn’t matter what you fly. I don’t want to become a cautionary tale. 

[GeeBee]

And insurance rates keep going up and everyone wonders why.

 

[carusoam]

3 hours ago, GeeBee said:

And insurance rates keep going up and everyone wonders why.

 

I would bet we wonder why the insurance rates increase, while the accident rates are going down...

I’m sure this Mooney pilot has proven himself human...

The last thing I want to see is somebody get chastised for crummy decision making, poor skills, or shouldn’t have done that...

Part 91 flying is a luxury...

Yes, we want to learn from this occurrence...

But the lesson isn’t to blame the pilot for our insurance going up...  

The blame game has/will always bite us on the backside...

 

Sometimes around here... there is a welcoming environment... that allows the fortunate pilot to tell his story...

I’d like to hear what happened from his point of view...

There will be some interesting maintenance to occur as well... similar to a lightning strike...

Lets be nice to everybody... or we will be sitting in the dark discussing what may have happened...

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

[MooneyMitch]

1 hour ago, carusoam said:

Lets be nice to everybody... or we will be sitting in the dark discussing what may have happened...

Ok....... if you say so 

[bradp]

I’m in total agreement with @V1VRV2  I learned on night approach to RIC turning right base lost sight of the runway 20 and got lined up with 16.  Since then I either reference an extended centerline if at day or punch in the full approach if at night.  Playing IAP when VMC at night is a layer of safety especially with towers / terrain etc. 

[Ibra]

On hitting cables with GA aircraft, the Swedish equivalent of NTSB investigated this accident and done some extensive testing, their report conclusions (sorry it’s in Swedish) nothing bad would have happened to the aircraft nor the human attached to the paraglider, the winch cable would have snapped, the human will fall and pilot would not even notice it until inspecting his aircraft on the ground !

Maybe they are 100% right but I don’t want to try and will stick to flying the PAPI if one is available for flying shallow approaches or go for steep 20deg visuals 

 

 

RL_2014_15A_Reviderad.pdf

Edited February 9, 2021 by Ibra

[JustOnlyJohn68]

Crazy that this just happened yesterday in Winchester. No real details yet and probably unrelated to the other incident but still pretty freaky...

2 killed in small plane crash in Tennessee (msn.com)

[GeeBee]

12 hours ago, carusoam said:

I would bet we wonder why the insurance rates increase, while the accident rates are going down...

I’m sure this Mooney pilot has proven himself human...

The last thing I want to see is somebody get chastised for crummy decision making, poor skills, or shouldn’t have done that...

Part 91 flying is a luxury...

Yes, we want to learn from this occurrence...

But the lesson isn’t to blame the pilot for our insurance going up...  

The blame game has/will always bite us on the backside...

 

Sometimes around here... there is a welcoming environment... that allows the fortunate pilot to tell his story...

I’d like to hear what happened from his point of view...

There will be some interesting maintenance to occur as well... similar to a lightning strike...

Lets be nice to everybody... or we will be sitting in the dark discussing what may have happened...

Go MS!

Best regards,

-a-

Okay, let me try this a more genteel way and distill it down. Is it good aeronautical decision making to approach an unfamiliar airport at night, with 10s of thousands of dollars of avionics on board and not use them? Some say yes, I say no.

I think a consultation of the Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge chapter 2 might reveal the answer.

 

[V1VRV2]

On 2/8/2021 at 8:31 AM, GeeBee said:

I fly my Mooney using the best practices available. No, I don't have a co-pilot so that is not available. I do have a good avionics suite, and that is available so I use it. Cockpit Resource Management. Use all your tools available. 

This is the one I am most familiar with as I knew Captain Ferguson personally. He was a good guy, a careful pilot, more experienced than most here. He had flown Casper to Sheridan a dozen times in the last 3 months..... but he put a 737 down on 3000 feet and could have injured passengers.

http://www.buffalobulletin.com/profiles/article_92509fc6-ec92-11ea-b494-57f772013f35.html

I would note this paragraph:

Even today, accidental landings happen. Between 1990 and 2014, the Associated Press of Records found there had been 150 such incidents. But this mistake wasn’t like the others. This one got people from all corners of America talking about Buffalo, Wyoming.

Great story! Just to add....

 https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferguson_v._NTSB

[GeeBee]

Note that it was a Part 91 regulation that sank his appeal.

 

[Mooney in Oz]

I think common sense needs to be applied here.

If instrument rated and flying into a city or country airport at night whether VMC or not, one should make use of the available RNAV or LPV runway approach. Guaranteed obstacle, including power line clearance.

If night VFR rated then comply with the regs. Should also guarantee obstacle and power line clearance.

Even better if slope guidance in the form of PAPI or VASI is available.

Night flying can be magically beautiful, but it can also be much more challenging with the black hole effect, illusions and other dangers such as unseen obstacles.

[Hank]

6 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Note that it was a Part 91 regulation that sank his appeal.

 

It was a Part 91 Preflight regulation that got him, not his actions in the cockpit.

[GeeBee]

26 minutes ago, Hank said:

It was a Part 91 Preflight regulation that got him, not his actions in the cockpit.

No. Partially correct but not complete. He was also charged with violation of 91.9

"While the NTSB agreed that Ferguson's actions were not deliberate, his appeal was rejected when the court decided his actions were reckless and in violation of a key FAR (§ 91.5) that required a pilot to familiarize himself or herself with all available flight information, and a company policy (Western Airlines Flight Operation Manual, P 5.3.3.C) that required him to use a radio navigational instrument to identify the airport before landing. Ferguson claimed he "saw the runway and assumed it was the right airport".

Failure to use radio nav aids was considered "careless and reckless". If the requirement were inconsequential, it would have been so stated. Instead it added to the charge of "careless and reckless" (he was also charged with violation of 91.9) so obviously the NTSB considered it a consequential and decisive policy. 

I might also add this view was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals.

 

[Hank]

3 minutes ago, GeeBee said:

No. Partially correct but not complete

"While the NTSB agreed that Ferguson's actions were not deliberate, his appeal was rejected when the court decided his actions were reckless and in violation of a key FAR (§ 91.5) that required a pilot to familiarize himself or herself with all available flight information, and a company policy (Western Airlines Flight Operation Manual, P 5.3.3.C) that required him to use a radio navigational instrument to identify the airport before landing. Ferguson claimed he "saw the runway and assumed it was the right airport".

Failure to use radio nav aids was considered "careless and reckless". If the requirement were inconsequential, it would have been so stated. Instead it added to the charge of "careless and reckless" so obviously the NTSB considered it a consequential and decisive policy. 

I might also add this view was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals.

 

It was careless and reckless because A) he's a professional, commercial airline pilot; he landed at an airfield not rated for the weight of his aircraft; C) he endangered his paying passengers. These don't apply to most people here in MooneySpace, and B & C don't apply to our Mooneys.

This case hinged on his failure to obtain all possible information before the flight, which would probably have helped him identify that he was at the wrong place. Higher certificates bring higher privileges, and also carry hugher responsibilities.

This is my take on a short article summarizing what was likely a long, complicated case. 

[EricJ]

I remember when that happened, as I was flying out of KRAP back then which wasn't far away, and suffered from airliners landing at Ellsworth AFB when intending to go to KRAP.  It was a SAC base back then and the Air Force took a very dim view of such things.  And I remember Lowell Ferguson days in Buffalo.   I always thought it was funny, and typical for the area, to do stuff like that.

 

[GeeBee]

I will also quote from the Court of Appeals decision:

A gross disregard for safety occurs when a person engages in conduct that show a disregard for foreseeable consequences. Administrator v. Understein, NTSB Order EA-1644 (1981). Ferguson should have known that his conduct could result in harm to the safety of his passengers. The ALJ commented that Ferguson's failure to use navigational aids was "unjustified." Sound judgment should have dictated a verification of the airport. 

Nothing about being a professional.

Further

"We hold that the NTSB did not abuse its discretion in drawing the conclusion that Ferguson should have known that he was landing at the wrong airport. Because Ferguson's conduct had clearly foreseeable consequences, it demonstrated a gross disregard for safety and created an actual danger to life and property. Thus, the conduct was reckless within the meaning of § 91.9."

Gross means without regard for status.

 

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/appellate-courts/F2/678/821/329801/

[MikeOH]

The troubling thing about rulings like this one is the broad and overreaching nature of quips like, "Because Ferguson's conduct had clearly foreseeable consequences, it demonstrated a gross disregard for safety and created an actual danger to life and property. Thus, the conduct was reckless within the meaning of § 91.9.". Now tell me, exactly what is an example, especially judged AFTER the fact, of something that was NOT foreseeable?  It today's law, EVERYTHING is deemed foreseeable AFTER the fact. It is part and parcel, and the 'go-to' argument the Feds use to hang anyone they wish.

Pilots have been, and likely will continue to, land at wrong airports, unfortunately a consequence of being human and making mistakes that others have made before them.

You can do it with all the fancy INS/GPS/FMS or with map & compass.

Thing is, this thread is a scary reminder of the slippery slope we are on where we will be FORCED to purchase ALL the technology that is available!  Yet, mistakes will continue to happen.

My point is, should a pilot that lands at the wrong airport be judged more harshly simply because had equipment that he did not use than the pilot that did not have said equipment?  Be careful how you answer.

[Hank]

40 minutes ago, MikeOH said:

My point is, should a pilot that lands at the wrong airport be judged more harshly simply because had equipment that he did not use than the pilot that did not have said equipment?  Be careful how you answer.

As a mere PPL holder, unless I land at the wrong airport (or land wrongly at the correct airport), there will likely be no NTSB investigation or punishment as long as I don't bust a TFR or controlled airspace or get in someone else's way enough to cause an RA or a significant deviation on the other plane's part. Or land at a military field or cross a national border without Customs Clearance, etc., etc.

[47U]

5 hours ago, MikeOH said:

My point is, should a pilot that lands at the wrong airport be judged more harshly simply because had equipment that he did not use than the pilot that did not have said equipment?

From wiki...

The first officer flew the aircraft, while Ferguson handled radio communications. However, by regulation, Ferguson was the pilot in commandas captain of the aircraft. Neither crew member had ever landed at Sheridan, but each thought that the other had done so in the past. At approximately 10:00 p.m. MDT, the crew mistakenly landed the aircraft at Buffalo, Wyoming, thinking it was their destination airport of Sheridan.

This wrong airport landing was way back in 1979.  I’m not sure what fancy RNAV equipment the airlines were flying at that time then basic VOR/DME.  Even so, Sheridan County airport is only 5 DME southeast of the Sheridan VOR.  Johnson County airport (Buffalo) is 25 miles southeast of the Sheridan County airport, and 25 DME northeast of Crazy Woman VOR.  

Point being, as many of us are bound by obligation, you ALWAYS pay attention to Crazy Woman.  if this crew had been paying attention to Crazy Woman, they wouldn’t have landed at the wrong airport.

   

 

 

 

[GeeBee]

To follow up on 47U's point. Talking to the F/O about a year later, he said as they rolled out, the DME, locked on  then and they knew they messed up.

As to the protest that this was a "professional crew" being judged to professional standards the FAA's own  Pilot's Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge in chapter 2, "Aeronautical Decision Making" speaks directly an on point to the subject.

"Examining National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) reports and other accident research can help a pilot learn to assess risk more effectively. For example, the accident rate during night visual flight rules (VFR) decreases by nearly 50 percent once a pilot obtains 100 hours and continues to decrease until the 1,000 hour level. The data suggest that for the first 500 hours, pilots flying VFR at night might want to establish higher personal limitations than are required by the regulations and, if applicable, apply instrument flying skills in this environment." 

As to landing at the wrong airport, say you are going into an uncontrolled field IFR and Center clears you for the visual, cancel on the ground. You land at the wrong airport, you just deviated from the clearance. Consequences. Or VFR you mistake an uncontrolled field for another uncontrolled field.  You announce your intentions on CTAF but for the intended field. Your position announcements cause a commuter flight to go around. Guess what? Captain has to write up the go around. That gets the attention of the FAA POI who reads all those the next day (and every day) and guess what follows? 709 ride for you.....at night.

[MikeOH]

They both should be judged EQUALLY harshly: they screwed up and landed at the wrong airport.

Once equipment starts entering the picture it's a short slide to MANDATING equipment, and MANDATING its use, claiming it's for SAFETY.

The safety glasses situation is NOT an analogy. It is a situation where NOT using or NOT having safety glasses is a VIOLATION (i.e. a MANDATED requirement) of established policy.

Do you want an FAA that makes it MANDATORY to categorize avionics as SAFETY equipment and MANDATE it's installation and use?

I'd prefer to just hold the pilot responsible for his mistakes, not drag what equipment he had, or did not have, used or did not use, into the fray.

Or, to put it another way, it is disturbing to me that a pilot that doesn't use some equipment is a 'bad' pilot because it rather strongly carries the connotation that the pilot that does NOT choose to have that equipment is ALSO a bad pilot.

Pretty soon if you don't install synthetic vision and the 'Blue button' A/P you're going to be judged a bad pilot...