Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD

[bradp]

25 minutes ago, M20F said:

Your question is for @Ibra

Yes this is true Re the 430.  The best practice is to select the most logical approach entry point with an IF or IAF designation and use menu, activate leg to keep the other approach waypoints available without deleting them 

[jaylw314]

11 hours ago, Marauder said:

Since he was originally planning on the RNAV-A, I wonder if he treated the RNAV 14’s DA as an MDA. Could explain the sudden altitude movement.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

For that matter, his brain could have still been programmed for the RNAV-A approach, expecting to step down from the FAF to either the RNAV-A or GPS 14 minimum altitude.  Of note, the RNAV-A doesn't have any intermediate altitudes after the FAF, it just plonks straight down to its MDA.   But that's getting into the realm of wild speculation.

Edited December 1, 2022 by jaylw314

[Ibra]

5 hours ago, bradp said:

activate leg to keep the other approach waypoints available without deleting them 

That is the "right way" to do it 

In reality with 1sm visbility you tell ATC you are going to IAF ABCDE and let them organise traffic around you? if any traffic feel they are more than happy to go first with 1sm vis: be my guest, be first but please report ceiling on CTAF, I will come 2nd after...

The last time I had this situation in France the guy behind me told me/ATC "he likes to hold and be number 2" and "I should go first, report ceiling and wish him go luck"  I was in a school rented Archer2 with my gumpy wife no auto-pilot and rusty G430 (non-WAAS), he was in PC12 with comfy cow leather chairs fitted with AP, TCAS, TAWS, GPS-W, HUD or Synthetic-Vision and likely co-pilot !!!

I reported the cloudbase after we vacated the active runway for him to land 

Edited December 1, 2022 by Ibra

[midlifeflyer]

1 hour ago, 1980Mooney said:

Of course, the utility will use its cash or insurance to immediately address the damage.  Your logic about who will pay for the repair "regardless of who causes the damage" may hold water related to automobile accidents in NC which is a "no-fault state".   But these claims are "at-fault".  The utility company insurance company will subrogate the claim to your insurance, if you have any, and if you don't they will sue you.  And if the Utility is self insured they will sue you.  It doesn't matter if you break a water line flooding the neighborhood, sever a gas line burning down your part of town or destroying electric utility infrastructure with car or plane - they will come after you for recovery of damages.   Regarding damages "too remote" to establish causation or seek recovery this isn't 1968 anymore.  Thank the internet.....Exhibit A.

 

Where did I suggest any of this was "no fault" with respect to the pilot? No fault car insurance from any state is a special situation that has nothing to do with this. Of course claims against the pilot, etc, are based on fault and causation. I thought that was clear from my description of the general process (which is not tried on YouTube or other social media) but I guess not. 
 

Edited December 1, 2022 by midlifeflyer

[Cruiser]

I have not followed the thread but I did read that the pilot admitted he was below DA looking for the airport. 
I also looked at FlightAware, The plane has flown over 50 times since the 1st of September. Now that is a lot of flying no matter who you are. Was the pilot a CFII doing instruction or a commercial hauler ? 

[kortopates]

I have not followed the thread but I did read that the pilot admitted he was below DA looking for the airport. 
I also looked at FlightAware, The plane has flown over 50 times since the 1st of September. Now that is a lot of flying no matter who you are. Was the pilot a CFII doing instruction or a commercial hauler ? 

He had 5 partners, so the pilots currency is still in question. But the recording is very telling IMO.

i only read him admit to that the FAA/NTSB that they would need “to check his instruments”.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[toto]

@BSrigley might have some insight into the plane’s flying habits. I think he was a former partner in this ac?

 

[kortopates]

Wow - they had 6 owners back then.  Trying to fly on weekends or holidays must have been a real struggle.

True, but in every partnership i have ever known with more than just 2 pilots, only a minority were very active with the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Schllc]

11 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

For that matter, his brain could have still been programmed for the RNAV-A approach, expecting to step down from the FAF to either the RNAV-A or GPS 14 minimum altitude.  Of note, the RNAV-A doesn't have any intermediate altitudes after the FAF, it just plonks straight down to its MDA.   But that's getting into the realm of wild speculation.

Better question is why would one choose a circling approach over an r-nav in low ifr?

[jaylw314]

2 hours ago, Schllc said:

Better question is why would one choose a circling approach over an r-nav in low ifr?

The approach course for the RNAV-A was lined up with his course, so less distance to fly?  Seems a silly reason, but I've heard sillier.

[Sue Bon]

The pilot was in an extremely high stress situation and most probably had get-there-itis. He had a lot of wind from the southeast at altitude, less on the ground, including wind shears. He was in hard IMC (not sure about icing) and doesn't seem to have had the right approach loaded. It seems he descended below the OVC 002 ceiling and started looking for the airport. As @Ibra mentioned, the shopping mall lights were probably very attractive. He had been pushing the frequency button to light the runway (not sure if it worked).

The pilot has over 30 years experience. I wonder if that was a factor in boosting his confidence. I share the sentiment of @ilovecornfields in that I'm more prone to cancel than to go if there is ever a question of safety. I've stayed on the ground more often than I'd like to admit on flyable days because the weather seemed a bit iffy and I wasn't sure. I know a few pilots with over 30 years experience that look at the same situation and say, "It should be ok." Should isn't enough for me, but I've only been in the IFR game for three years.

[rbp]

5 hours ago, Sue Bon said:

I'm more prone to cancel than to go if there is ever a question of safety. I've stayed on the ground more often than I'd like to admit on flyable days because the weather seemed a bit iffy and I wasn't sure.

Yes

[Becca]

16 hours ago, kortopates said:

True, but in every partnership i have ever known with more than just 2 pilots, only a minority were very active with the plane.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The plane is based at my home airport. It’s a pretty active partnership. The plane is (was) pretty regularly flown by many or all of the partners.  I think there may be 1-2 new partners so sucks for them if this is their first experience in airplane ownership.  I find it hard to believe anyone who flies IFR regularly into GAI, let alone is based at GAI would be unfamiliar or unable to spell the BEGKA waypoint. I am curious how this will all play out with liability.  

i was not impressed with the pilot’s post accident interviews.  In one he said to the reporter “well I’m trained to fly in that weather as long as it isn’t icy or a thunderstorm” (along those lines) which conveys he likely didn’t have any sense of personal minimums.  One things you might not be hearing in the compressed versions of the LiveATC floating here is there was a Cheyenne on the approach to GAI in front of him who went missed, never saw the runway, and diverted to FDK.  The accident pilot was aware (heard, discussed with ATC) of that and continued pressing.  I was at GAI about an hour before the accident and the fog was so thick the ducks were walking, if anything the weather may have been slightly worse than the ASOS history reported in the thread.

Edited December 2, 2022 by Becca

[jaylw314]

49 minutes ago, Becca said:

...I was at GAI about an hour before the accident and the fog was so thick the ducks were walking

I'm not sure why that's funny but I LOL'd there 

[ilovecornfields]

2 hours ago, jaylw314 said:

I'm not sure why that's funny but I LOL'd there 

I think it’s because the ducks at least had enough “common sense” to not be flying in those conditions.

[N201MKTurbo]

Everybody talks about the low ceilings and vis. If you look at his speed plot, you see some huge speed spikes with no altitude change. This tells me he was flying with an autopilot with altitude hold and it was very bumpy. For me there is a big difference flying an approach to minimums in smooth air and in very bumpy air. Perhaps he hit a wind shear that forced him down and there wasn't anything he could do about it.

[aviatoreb]

4 hours ago, Becca said:

The plane is based at my home airport. It’s a pretty active partnership. The plane is (was) pretty regularly flown by many or all of the partners.  I think there may be 1-2 new partners so sucks for them if this is their first experience in airplane ownership.  I find it hard to believe anyone who flies IFR regularly into GAI, let alone is based at GAI would be unfamiliar or unable to spell the BEGKA waypoint. I am curious how this will all play out with liability.  

i was not impressed with the pilot’s post accident interviews.  In one he said to the reporter “well I’m trained to fly in that weather as long as it isn’t icy or a thunderstorm” (along those lines) which conveys he likely didn’t have any sense of personal minimums.  One things you might not be hearing in the compressed versions of the LiveATC floating here is there was a Cheyenne on the approach to GAI in front of him who went missed, never saw the runway, and diverted to FDK.  The accident pilot was aware (heard, discussed with ATC) of that and continued pressing.  I was at GAI about an hour before the accident and the fog was so thick the ducks were walking, if anything the weather may have been slightly worse than the ASOS history reported in the thread.

I am not impressed with the post accident interviews.  WOW - if I had been a dummy and crashed my plane and survived - please remind me just not to take any interviews on tv.  It's better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.  - Mark Twain.

As for walking ducks.  Well we have Canadian Geese who land in our backyard - and well those IFR ready Canadians will fly in anything!

 

[ilovecornfields]

1 hour ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Everybody talks about the low ceilings and vis. If you look at his speed plot, you see some huge speed spikes with no altitude change. This tells me he was flying with an autopilot with altitude hold and it was very bumpy. For me there is a big difference flying an approach to minimums in smooth air and in very bumpy air. Perhaps he hit a wind shear that forced him down and there wasn't anything he could do about it.

I completely agree with everything expect the last part. What he could have done is not attempted the approach under those conditions and diverted elsewhere. The Cheyenne in front of him went missed. The reported and actual weather were crappy. He struggled just to even initiate the approach.

One of my CFI friends likes to talk about “windows of opportunity” as as you go down the accident trajectory how your options get narrower and narrower until you finally get to the point where the “accident” is unavoidable. Even if you’re right, for all but the last few seconds of the flight there was absolutely something he could have done about it. 
Maybe this wasn’t an error in physically manipulating the aircraft, but it was certainly a judgement error.

[Nippernaper]

I was flying the same day, a bit north of this airport, and earlier in the day and had to miss an approach when the ceiling ended up being substantially lower than the ATIS ( and the minimums). It was a little bumpy, but not too bad. Winds were very strong out of the south west, and there may have been some mountain wave action present even though the nearest ridge lines are pretty far west. HOWEVER, if you can’t fly an ILS to minimums in light turbulence without descending below glide slope so far that you hit obstructions, you shouldn’t be flying IFR. This is far from the first time a pilot has descended well below where they should be on an approach, and will not be the last. It is up to us to make sure we are proficient and current. The numbers on the charts are absolutes. This was flyable weather with no icing.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[jetdriven]

2 hours ago, N201MKTurbo said:

Everybody talks about the low ceilings and vis. If you look at his speed plot, you see some huge speed spikes with no altitude change. This tells me he was flying with an autopilot with altitude hold and it was very bumpy. For me there is a big difference flying an approach to minimums in smooth air and in very bumpy air. Perhaps he hit a wind shear that forced him down and there wasn't anything he could do about it.

The STEC 30ALT has no trim function. So those huge speed changes aren’t really likely with that equipment 

[Ibra]

11 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

The Cheyenne in front of him went missed. The reported and actual weather were crappy. He struggled just to even initiate the approach.

I don't think Cheyenne going missed is a good reason? I am happy to proceed on those conditions in M20J for coupled LPV and 3D guidance but I won't hand-fly LNAV non-precision or circling with Dive & Drive in those conditions, I need 3sm & 600ft ceiling and some lights

On Cat-I ILS (no Cat-II), you can land single piston when airliners are diverting due to deltas in DH and Vref, ATC may raise their eyebrows but you can have as much as 300ft ceiling advantage from slow speeds, obviously these are not the conditions for freestyle flying !

The minima are different for Cheyenne has 100kts with Vref > 90kts and would be higher than M20J with sub-90kts Vref but to be fair to your point the M20J clocked more than the Cheyenne on final segment 

On a side note, the pilot had the required visibility & cceiling to legally start up and depart (3sm & 400ft) and the required visibility (1 1/4sm) to legally approach on LPV, 

It's not very difficult to fly a coupled ILS or coupled LPV down to system minima, you legally have to go missed at your DA, even if you ignore by error (say wrong altimeter setting) or by choice (say minima does not apply to you) nothing bad happens: you will CFIT on runway touchdown point (runway/aircraft risks) not CFIT on pylons (huge 3rd party risks)

The intersting bit here that the pilot was doing dive & drive on LPV which is a very new concept? unless he was flying LNAV non-precision or circling? but then he was way under his LNAV minima, bellow visual VDP and very optimistic about his skills 

I agree on the struggle to initiate the approach, if one pilot is going for 1sm visibility & 200ft ceiling, he should know every fix in his plate and every button in aircraft with executive decision at DA, especially at night & untowred airfield

He had a freestyle start: can't find the IAF !!! and freestyle finish: turning an LPV 3D final into VFR in IMC scud run...

It will be good to hear from the pilot one day, what equipment he had to be that comfortable going down (WAAS guidance? GS autopilot? SV display?) 

It can't be: I went LNAV in darkness, I saw some light between overcast ceiling gaps at 4nm, I pushed nose down and decided to fly cross-country "I Follow Roads & Lights" (IFRL) under OVC002, in FAA jargon, the (full actual) "contact approach" 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Ibra

[ilovecornfields]

@Ibra, I appreciate your analysis but I disagree. The Cheyenne going missed should have been part of his situational awareness. Red Flag: Someone just tried to do what you’re about to try and failed.
 

Yes, it’s legal Part 91 to try and there’s a chance you’ll make it but after all the other issues he had, to attempt an approach that you know for a fact will be to minimums (or worse) is insane. I listened to the 9-1-1 call. I don’t think he was “calm,” I think he was impaired. Otherwise I struggle to understand why he did what he did, in those conditions, after the issues he had. He should have reasonably expected under those circumstances to not be able to safely complete the approach. Which is exactly what happens.

I remember a long time ago trying the ILS 24 into CRQ right after a citation went missed and diverted to Palm Springs. The only think I saw at DA was the amber glow from the streetlights reflected in the fog. Fortunately, Lindberg Field was above minimums and lit up like a Christmas tree so I was able to land there. I don’t think I’ll ever try an approach that was just reported below minimums again unless the alternative is running out of fuel. I’m too old to take stupid risks.

[Schllc]

48 minutes ago, ilovecornfields said:

@Ibra, I appreciate your analysis but I disagree. The Cheyenne going missed should have been part of his situational awareness. Red Flag: Someone just tried to do what you’re about to try and failed.
 

Yes, it’s legal Part 91 to try and there’s a chance you’ll make it but after all the other issues he had, to attempt an approach that you know for a fact will be to minimums (or worse) is insane. I listened to the 9-1-1 call. I don’t think he was “calm,” I think he was impaired. Otherwise I struggle to understand why he did what he did, in those conditions, after the issues he had. He should have reasonably expected under those circumstances to not be able to safely complete the approach. Which is exactly what happens.

I remember a long time ago trying the ILS 24 into CRQ right after a citation went missed and diverted to Palm Springs. The only think I saw at DA was the amber glow from the streetlights reflected in the fog. Fortunately, Lindberg Field was above minimums and lit up like a Christmas tree so I was able to land there. I don’t think I’ll ever try an approach that was just reported below minimums again unless the alternative is running out of fuel. I’m too old to take stupid risks.

I always listen to the traffic ahead of me on approaches. What better information could there be at our disposal than this?
My own personal minimums do everything I can to avoid any actual instrument approach much less a low ifr approach. I would have diverted upon hearing the conditions. 
Not saying I am right, just those are my personal min…

Single pilot ifr, low ifr, in a single piston, at night, after a long day of flying, would be too many risk factors for most pilots. 
Like someone said earlier, he was fantastically lucky to survive, and hopefully he is sufficiently “tempered”, in the future. 

[Ibra]

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

Yes, it’s legal Part 91 to try and there’s a chance you’ll make it but after all the other issues he had, to attempt an approach that you know for a fact will be to minimums (or worse) is insane

Why the Cheyenne crew went for it? the ceiling was definetly bellow their plates DA, the visbility was likely illegal at 120kias in their aircraft with paying passengers !!

Likely they had few gadgets LPV, WAAS, AP, SV, HUD and maybe 2nd engine & pilot which is why they did it?

What matters at the end of the day: they went missed as they did not like what they saw at DA !

Edited December 3, 2022 by Ibra

[rbp]

9 hours ago, Ibra said:

The minima are different for Cheyenne has 100kts with Vref > 90kts and would be higher than M20J with sub-90kts Vref but to be fair to your point the M20J clocked more than the Cheyenne on final segment 

 

Can you please explain this in terms of the approach plate? 

FlightAware_GAI_IAP_RNAV (GPS) RWY 14.PDF