Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD

[1980Mooney]

1 hour ago, Marauder said:

So, where does all this TERPS discussion leave us with this mishap? Clearly, something didn’t go as planned.

In my thinking, there are still pieces of the puzzle to be fitted. Like, was he really receiving an LPV signal or was his GPS showing an LNAV for RWY14? Did he get an LPV indication for RWY14 but dove to the DA thinking he was dropping down to an MDA for a look see? Based on his ATC exchanges, how far in the back seat was he when he shot the approach?

Seeing that he was pretty expressive in post mishap conversations with the press, I’m sure the investigators will be able to piece together what type of neuron path he emitted during this event.

Because of the winds his trip up to KHPN in White Plains NY took 1 hour 14 minutes arriving about 10 AM (15Z)  The trip back took 2 hours 28 minutes.  He left White Plains at about 3 PM (20Z).  As one of the early safety reviews noted the weather deteriorated during the day. It was clear when he got to White Plains.  It was changing as he left.

KHPN 271456Z 18004KT 10SM CLR 09/01 A2983 RMK AO2 SLP104 T00890011 56011
KHPN 271556Z 19005KT 10SM BKN120 09/02 A2979 RMK AO2 SLP091 T00940022
KHPN 271656Z 16006KT 10SM BKN100 10/04 A2975 RMK AO2 RAB20E52 SLP077 P0000 T0 1000039
KHPN 271756Z VRB03KT 8SM -RA SCT027 SCT080 OVC100 09/04 A2971 RMK AO2 RAB36 SLP063 P0000 60000 T00940044 10100 20039 58041

At Gaithersburg it was getting worse.  He took off from KGAI at about 9 AM (14Z).  He crashed at about 5:30 PM (22:30Z) 

KGAI 271356Z AUTO 18003KT 10SM FEW045 OVC095 10/03 A2982 RMK AO2 SLP114 T0 1000033
KGAI 271438Z AUTO 21007KT 10SM -RA SCT022 BKN027 OVC060 10/06 A2982 RMK AO2 RAB05 P0000
KGAI 271456Z AUTO 20004KT 10SM -RA BKN020 OVC027 10/06 A2981 RMK AO2 RAB05 SLP109 P0000 60000 T01000061 58018
KGAI 271556Z AUTO 18008KT 10SM -RA OVC016 11/07 A2976 RMK AO2 RAE1458B37 SLP091 P0000 T01060072
KGAI 271638Z AUTO 19009KT 4SM RA BR BKN010 OVC014 09/08 A2971 RMK AO2 RAE00B19 CIG 008V011 P0001
KGAI 271656Z AUTO 17009KT 6SM -RA BR BKN006 OVC011 09/08 A2970 RMK AO2 RAE00B19 CIG 005V009 SLP073 P0005 T00890083
KGAI 271750Z AUTO 14008KT 6SM -RA BR OVC004 08/08 A2961 RMK AO2 P0009 KGAI 271756Z AUTO 16003KT 6SM -RA BR OVC004 08/08 A2962 RMK AO2 SLP046 P0009 60014 T00830083 10106 20078 55044
KGAI 271856Z AUTO 18003KT 8SM OVC004 09/09 A2957 RMK AO2 RAE07 SLP029 P0000 T00940089
KGAI 271956Z AUTO 12004KT 3SM BR OVC004 10/09 A2951 RMK AO2 RAB1857E55 SLP006 P0003 T01000094
KGAI 272015Z AUTO VRB03KT 3SM BR OVC002 10/10 A2950 RMK AO2
KGAI 272056Z AUTO 15004KT 2SM BR OVC002 11/10 A2947 RMK AO2 PRESFR SLP995 60003 T01060100 56050
KGAI 272110Z AUTO 14007KT 1 1/4SM BR OVC002 11/10 A2946 RMK AO2
KGAI 272156Z AUTO VRB04KT 1 1/4SM BR OVC002 11/11 A2945 RMK AO2 SLP987 T01060106

We don't know when he checked the weather.  If he checked KGAI at about 11:40 AM it was OVC014.  At noon it was OVC011.  At about 1 PM it was OVC004. 

I was going to speculate more but the Prelim is out.

 

[1980Mooney]

https://wtop.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/12/Report_ERA23LA071_106368_12_6_2022-2_45_33-AM.pdf

Prelim.

[1980Mooney]

I suspect that the NTSB got the Prelim out fast with a lot of info because the pilot is so "talkative" in social media.  

Sure sounds like "pilot error".  He clearly was way behind the plane.  It was not his "A" game... (well maybe it actually was the best he was capable of).  It will be interesting to learn in 2 years if he was even current.  Very lucky to be alive.

Preliminary Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control communication information revealed that the pilot was advised to expect the RNAV/GPS A instrument approach procedure at GAI, but the pilot expressed a preference for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach procedure. The controller cleared the pilot to fly directly to the BEGKA intermediate fix (IF), approximately southwest and ahead of the airplane’s position, but instead, the airplane turned about 100° to its right. The controller provided numerous heading changes and direct clearances to waypoints on the RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach procedure; however, the pilot made a series of left and right turns, near course reversals, or continued established headings as the controller repeatedly requested that the pilot turn to a different heading. At one point, the controller requested that the pilot confirm he had the BEGKA waypoint and spelled it for him. The pilot responded that he had entered the information incorrectly and was making the correction. About that time, another airplane on approach to GAI announced that visibility was below minima and requested a diversion to another airport.

The controller instructed the accident pilot to proceed direct to BEGKA and cleared him for the RNAV (GPS) RWY 14 approach. The minimum altitude at BEGKA, 11.3 nautical miles (nm) from the runway, was 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl). The airplane crossed BEGKA about 2,775 ft as it aligned with the final approach course and continued its descent. The minimum altitude at the final approach fix (TIMBE), 5.2 nm from the runway, was 2,200 ft msl. The airplane crossed TIMBE at 1,725 ft msl. The minimum altitude at JOXOX waypoint, about 2.3 nm from the runway, was 1,280 ft msl; the airplane crossed JOXOX at 750 ft. The decision altitude (DA) for the final segment of the approach was 789 ft msl (The DA defines the altitude at which the pilot must initiate a missed approach procedure if specified visual references to the runway are not acquired).

About 1.25 miles from the runway and left of the runway centerline, the airplane impacted and became suspended in a power line tower at an elevation about 600 ft msl and 100 ft agl. Between JOXOX and the collision with the tower, the airplane descended as low as 475 ft. The published field elevation at GAI was 539 ft msl.

During a conversation with 911 call center personnel while the airplane remained suspended in the tower, the pilot reported, “I got down a little lower than I should have… I thought I was closer to the airport than I was…We could see the ground, but we couldn’t see in front.”

A calibrated altimeter test instrument was installed by an airframe and powerplant mechanic with inspection authority under the supervision of an NTSB investigator. Functionality testing was performed at the as-found setting of 29.40 in the altimeter’s Kollsman window, then 29.92, and finally a Barometric Scale Error Test was performed through a range of 28.10 and 30.99. According to the test report, the altimeter was “well within the test allowable error at all ranges.”

[1980Mooney]

He was definitely Scud Running.  I love this from the Prelim:

Before collision with the tower at 600 ft. elevation " the airplane descended as low as 475 ft. The published field elevation at GAI was 539 ft msl."

He was flying like a "ground hugging" cruise missile. If he looked at his altimeter and thought abought the elevation at his home base KGAI maybe he thought he was a submarine or would tunnel into the runway......

Edited December 6, 2022 by 1980Mooney

[ArtVandelay]

Did he have a radar altimeter, and maybe just using to fly minimum altitude?

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

He was definitely Scud Running.  I love this from the Prelim:

Before collision with the tower at 600 ft. elevation " the airplane descended as low as 475 ft. The published field elevation at GAI was 539 ft msl."

He was flying like a "ground hugging" cruise missile. If he looked at his altimeter and thought abought the elevation at his home base KGAI maybe he thought he was a submarine or would tunnel into the runway......

Yeah, I caught that too (so did the controller). All his altitudes on the intermediate fixes were a few hundred feet off too. I love how quickly the FAA rebutted his “my altimeter must have been broken” argument. Seems from the prelim like his actions were quite intentional and not accidental at all. A shame this is such a black eye for the aviation community. It seems that airport had been struggling even before the accident and now it will probably lead to increased calls to shiut down “unsafe” GA airports since those spam can pilots don’t know what they’re doing. Should we link this to the “why are my insurance rates going up” threads?

[ilovecornfields]

6 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Did he have a radar altimeter, and maybe just using to fly minimum altitude?

Maybe the plane was born a Mooney but self-identified as an F-22.

[A64Pilot]

18 minutes ago, ArtVandelay said:

Did he have a radar altimeter, and maybe just using to fly minimum altitude?

I have a Radar altimeter and of course everything I flew in the Army did too.

If the earth was flat then they would be good for IFR, but it’s not so therefore unless you know the approach very well as in know where every hill and tower is and know where you are on the approach they aren’t necessarily that good. Then add in they often will read the altitude to a tree canopy or not depending on the season

I’m not sure how good they are in a GA airplane, mine of course has an alarm and a bug you set the alarm with, I guess the idea is to set it to the MDA in AGL and if it alarms, go missed.

[rbp]

On 12/6/2022 at 3:20 PM, A64Pilot said:

If the earth was flat then they would be good for IFR, but it’s not so therefore unless you know the approach very well as in know where every hill and tower is and know where you are on the approach they aren’t necessarily that good

this is why we have both DA and DH on the plate. 

[rbp]

On 12/6/2022 at 1:53 PM, 1980Mooney said:

He was flying like a "ground hugging" cruise missile

maybe what he wanted was a contact approach

>>> It's flown the same way as a visual approach, but you don't need the airport in sight. You need to remain clear of clouds, have 1 statute mile of flight visibility, and reasonably expect to continue to the airport in those conditions. Plus, the airport must have a published instrument approach.

 

[EricJ]

1 hour ago, rbp said:

maybe what he wanted was a contact approach

>>> It's flown the same way as a visual approach, but you don't need the airport in sight. You need to remain clear of clouds, have 1 statute mile of flight visibility, and reasonably expect to continue to the airport in those conditions. Plus, the airport must have a published instrument approach.

It does require a specific clearance, though, which I suspect may not be given when there are high obstacles off the end of the runway.

[1980Mooney]

2 hours ago, rbp said:

maybe what he wanted was a contact approach

>>> It's flown the same way as a visual approach, but you don't need the airport in sight. You need to remain clear of clouds, have 1 statute mile of flight visibility,…..

The Prelim quotes his call to 911 where stated “ could see the ground but WE COULD NOT SEE IN FRONT”.  Since he was only 100 ft AGL it sounds like his forward visibility was even less. I think that pretty well nixed a Contact Approach….

[Ibra]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

It does require a specific clearance, though, which I suspect may not be given when there are high obstacles off the end of the runway.

He was likely very low under 700ft agl flying in uncontrolled Golf airspace and going to non towered airport, why he would need ATC clearance for that flying? he was likely on CTAF frequency bellow radio/radar reception coverage: ATC tends to give up on anyone going low like that, on this occasion, they called for “low alert” but no answer…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.173

If he was in controlled airspace with Approach (or final with Tower), he will need contact clearance but I highly doubt “IFR contact approaches” (ground in sight?) are allowed at night with ATC? what about “IFR visual approaches” (airport in sight?) at night with ATC?

By day, 1 1/4 visibility & clear of clouds flying under 700ft/1200ft he could even call that (scud run) VFR: no clearance and no flight plan, by night, I would expect that would becomes 3nm visibility on higher ceiling minima? 

I gather this “ground contact business” tend requires more skills & luck than proper IFR on procedures to DA & MDA? life expectancy shrinks exponentially bellow DA & MDA on procedure at 0.5nm from runway let alone 3nm away on freestyle navigation, the most easy & obvious way to avoid ground & trees is to fly up away from them in clouds not go down to have a closer look

The pilot likely saw the ground on short final, this happens often at night in marginal weather with layered clouds, that does not mean he should go for it? ground under with no runway ahead: run to hide into clouds !

 

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by Ibra

[201er]

ATC has never granted a Contact Approach when I’ve asked.

[jetdriven]

It was definitely a contact approach 

[EricJ]

4 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

It was definitely a contact approach 

"N201RF, contact tower."

"Willco!"

[Hank]

10 minutes ago, EricJ said:

"N201RF, contact tower."

"Willco!"

That's baaaaaadd . . . .

[jetdriven]

A friend of mine has been saying that for a few days now. Very clever. 

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, 201er said:

ATC has never granted a Contact Approach when I’ve asked.

They talk about that on the Opposing Bases podcast. Apparently a lot of controllers aren’t familiar with it. There’s a story of a pilot requesting a contact approach and after a long pause the controller replies “contact approach on 124.3.” I think @EricJ may have been speaking from experience.

[bradp]

5 hours ago, Ibra said:

He was likely very low under 700ft agl flying in uncontrolled Golf airspace and going to non towered airport, why he would need ATC clearance for that flying? he was likely on CTAF frequency bellow radio/radar reception coverage: ATC tends to give up on anyone going low like that, on this occasion, they called for “low alert” but no answer…

https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/14/91.173

If he was in controlled airspace with Approach (or final with Tower), he will need contact clearance but I highly doubt “IFR contact approaches” (ground in sight?) are allowed at night with ATC? what about “IFR visual approaches” (airport in sight?) at night with ATC?

By day, 1 1/4 visibility & clear of clouds flying under 700ft/1200ft he could even call that (scud run) VFR: no clearance and no flight plan, by night, I would expect that would becomes 3nm visibility on higher ceiling minima? 

I gather this “ground contact business” tend requires more skills & luck than proper IFR on procedures to DA & MDA? life expectancy shrinks exponentially bellow DA & MDA on procedure at 0.5nm from runway let alone 3nm away on freestyle navigation, the most easy & obvious way to avoid ground & trees is to fly up away from them in clouds not go down to have a closer look

The pilot likely saw the ground on short final, this happens often at night in marginal weather with layered clouds, that does not mean he should go for it? ground under with no runway ahead: run to hide into clouds !

 

 

He violated 91.119 regardless of the class airspace he was flying in. 
 

Maybe a question for @midlifeflyer- can a PIC (outside of 91.13) change an approach once he/she has been cleared for an approach? It would seem straightforward to be able to select localizer minimums once cleared for an ILS approach - but anything else would seem a violation of 91.123 as well. 

[midlifeflyer]

2 hours ago, bradp said:

He violated 91.119 regardless of the class airspace he was flying in. 
 

Maybe a question for @midlifeflyer- can a PIC (outside of 91.13) change an approach once he/she has been cleared for an approach? It would seem straightforward to be able to select localizer minimums once cleared for an ILS approach - but anything else would seem a violation of 91.123 as well. 

Change it to what? @Ibra's post you responded to saud he was below 700 AGL? What published approach starts there? Remember that while IFR flight without a clearance us technically legal, 91.175(a) says we "must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport" when we need to do an instrument approach. The rules about approaches and landings under IFR in 91.175 apply in bot controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

but I might be misunderstanding the question .

[bradp]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

Change it to what? @Ibra's post you responded to saud he was below 700 AGL? What published approach starts there? Remember that while IFR flight without a clearance us technically legal, 91.175(a) says we "must use a standard instrument approach procedure prescribed in part 97 of this chapter for that airport" when we need to do an instrument approach. The rules about approaches and landings under IFR in 91.175 apply in bot controlled and uncontrolled airspace.

but I might be misunderstanding the question .

Thanks Mark- that is good information regardless.  I was thinking more hypothetically and should have been clearer in my question.  Let’s say he he was cleared for the RNAV 14 and there was also an ILS-Z 14 at GAI.  He then has a loss of RAIM on the RNAV (or similar) and the localized backed up.  He can’t (legally) decide “hey I’m flying the ILS instead now”.  The proper thing to do in that circumstance outside of an emergency (91.13) would be to go missed, notify ATC and give resequenced for the ILS.  
 

In the hypothetical presented by Ibra, he can’t dip legally below mins on an approach (91.175(c) and 91.123 and 91.119) with the reasoning of “well in now in class G and on a contact approach”.  He was only cleared for the RNAV 14 by ATC. 

[Ibra]

4 hours ago, bradp said:

Let’s say he he was cleared for the RNAV 14 and there was also an ILS-Z 14 at GAI.  He then has a loss of RAIM on the RNAV (or similar) and the localized backed up.  He can’t (legally) decide “hey I’m flying the ILS instead now”.  The proper thing to do in that circumstance outside of an emergency (91.13) would be to go missed, notify ATC and give resequenced for the ILS.

Aside from technicalities, it's an interesting question (especially with ground in-sight toward untowred airport under 700/1200 airspace)

For 3D/2D short final: my understanding you can degrade from ILS min to LOC min on losing GP, you can degrade to LNAV from LPV (only above 1000ft agl?), you can pick CDFA or DnD profile...you don't need any ATC clearance for these, funnily, that may allow lower 2D minima than 3D, very uunusual but happens there is a pylon that kink into 3D DA survey surface but not 2D MDA survey surface, am I feeling lucky today? 

Near "airport area", my understanding you can't degrade from instrument circling into visual pattern: you are prohibited CTL without explicit ATC clearance even with ground in sight, 1/ if you having circling clearance you can't join visual pattern outside circling protection and 2/ you can't descend bellow CTL MDA without identifying non-ILS end threshold and being able to reach it with stable approach 

Now can one legally degrade GPS or ILS into IFR contact/visual or VFR join, I have no idea? in one hand, 91.175 does enforce being on the published standard procedure (even for Golf), also enforces approach weather minima to instrument runways even in non-towred airport...in the other hand, one can't decend bellow DA/MDA unless few conditions are met 

Let say you lose GPS, CAVOK day, short final LPV to untowred airport on CTAF frequency, can I fly using ground features? or I have to go missed and ask for another approach? 

There are likely other caveats regarding planning minima and missed procedure...

Edited December 9, 2022 by Ibra

[midlifeflyer]

The technicalities are kind of an interesting academic exercise. But once we start changing approaches midstream there are some practicalities at work too. I think the answer to the ILS vs LOC or LPV vs LNAV question is that ATC clears you for an approach, not the minimums. I think the answer to 

3 hours ago, Ibra said:

say you lose GPS, CAVOK day, short final LPV to untowred airport on CTAF frequency, can I fly using ground features? or I have to go missed and ask for another approach? 

is, you should have canceled IFR   Alternatively, consider yourself circling.

When it comes to contact approaches, I think we are in a different ballpark altogether. I've never delved deeply into the question so this is a FWIW, but I think contact approaches are what 91.175(a) refers to as a non-SIAP "otherwise authorized by the FAA." As such, you have to meet all requirements for it, including the requirement that ATC clears you for it. I dint think there is such a thing as a pilot-created or pilot self-cleared contact approach.

[Ibra]

35 minutes ago, midlifeflyer said:

is, you should have canceled IFR   Alternatively, consider yourself circling.

On CTAF no TWR in CAVOK, I can but no one around to take note, "cancel at xx:yy" 

In the other hand, contact or visual approaches are odd ones, few conditions need to be met at IF/FAF and ATC need to clear for it from there, it's unlikely that PIC can self switch to it half-way after ground in sight?

These go horribly wrong by daylight in sunny blue sky at 2000ft agl, let alone at 100ft agl at night with low weather...

https://www.aviation24.be/airlines/air-france-klm-group/air-france/twice-in-a-week-a-commercial-airline-approaches-for-landivisiau-naval-air-base-but-destination-is-brest-airport/