Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD

[toto]

1 hour ago, midlifeflyer said:

 The lawyers here may recall the 1968 Kinsman cases from 1st year law school. Keeping it simple, some losses are just considered too remote to allow recovery despite a provable chain of causation.

When I read this, an ancient 1L synapse fired that said “Palsgraf”

 

[Echo]

7 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

You are correct. Hemoglobin has a much higher affinity for carbon monoxide (CO) than oxygen (O2) so if even a small amount of CO is present it will alter the affinity of hemoglobin for oxygen essentially making hemoglobin grab all the oxygen around it but not let it go, thereby impairing oxygen delivery to the tissues and causing what is termed “anemic hypoxia” because there is plenty of oxygen around, but it’s not getting delivered to the tissues.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), the molecule responsible for bubbles in beer, does not have this property so in order for CO2 to cause hypoxia the concentration would have to be so high as to displace the oxygen in the room. The memory aid was to recall that hemoglobin has a high affinity for carbon MONOXIDE only and does not involve CO2.

For further reading:

Pathophysiology

CO toxicity causes impaired oxygen delivery and utilization at the cellular level. CO affects several different sites within the body but has its most profound impact on the organs (eg, brain, heart) with the highest oxygen requirement.

 

Cellular hypoxia from CO toxicity is caused by impedance of oxygen delivery. CO reversibly binds hemoglobin, resulting in relative functional anemia. Because it binds hemoglobin 230-270 times more avidly than oxygen, even small concentrations can result in significant levels of carboxyhemoglobin (HbCO).

 

An ambient CO level of 100 ppm produces an HbCO of 16% at equilibration, which is enough to produce clinical symptoms. Binding of CO to hemoglobin causes an increased binding of oxygen molecules at the three other oxygen-binding sites, resulting in a leftward shift in the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve and decreasing the availability of oxygen to the already hypoxic tissues.

 

CO binds to cardiac myoglobin with an even greater affinity than to hemoglobin; the resulting myocardial depression and hypotension exacerbates the tissue hypoxia. Decrease in oxygen delivery is insufficient, however, to explain the extent of the CO toxicity. Clinical status often does not correlate well with HbCO level, leading some to postulate an additional impairment of cellular respiration.
 

https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/819987-overview#a5

Textbook on how CO2 Fire Extinguishers work so well.  

[Marauder]

 

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

[kortopates]

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

Or selecting full flaps early could also explain the sudden drop in altitude.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ibra]

11 hours ago, rbp said:

were you getting vectors-to-final?  on some garmin models on older software, enabling VTF would delete all approach waypoints except the FAF 

That is a good point, it also removes IAF ROUAN from the flight plan and it's not in VTF straight line, so you can't just "eyeball it" when ATC ask you to go direct there, you have to intercept earlier and fly IF or FAF

If you intercept tight or 2nm near FAF on VTF GPS approach is toasted: you don't get get glideslope and missed get removed, all you are flying is FAF-RWY leg with "approach not active" flashing 

As always, getting shortcuts in unfamiliar places and bad conditions give a headache while there is zero room for error or catch a falling knife, it does not hurt to take sometime to setup things...

Edited December 1, 2022 by Ibra

[midlifeflyer]

9 hours ago, toto said:

When I read this, an ancient 1L synapse fired that said “Palsgraf”

 

 Kinsman is kind of relevant to our discussion because it was a case about shipping negligence that took out a bridge which, in turn, damned the Buffalo River causing flooding and all sorts of related havoc. But the cases always stuck in my mind (it's almost 50 years since I was 1L) because I found it funny (yes, I'm weird).  There were two of them. Same defendants, different plaintiffs. Both dealt with proximate cause for different types if claims. In Kinsman I, the court said there was legal causation but warned that at some point, the link would be too tenuous. In Kinsman II, the court said, remember what we said in Kinsman I? Well...

[bradp]

I’m having some difficulty but looking at this 

again, it appeared as though the pilot is diving and driving on an LPV mins approach. 

[M20F]

17 hours ago, rbp said:

were you getting vectors-to-final?  on some garmin models on older software, enabling VTF would delete all approach waypoints except the FAF 

Your question is for @Ibra

[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

[1980Mooney]

22 hours ago, midlifeflyer said:

Really no different than with most any damage claim. The utility or whoever owns the power stations or their insurer will pay for the repair. That's pretty basic, regardless of who causes the damage. No one is going to wait for the results of a lawsuit to restore power. Pretty much same for claims for lost business, etc, although those tend to be more difficult due to legal principles of what is called "proximate" or "legal" cause.  The lawyers here may recall the 1968 Kinsman cases from 1st year law school. Keeping it simple, some losses are just considered too remote to allow recovery despite a provable chain of causation.

What happens next depends. If the party paying for the repair thinks there's basis for attaching responsibility to and receiving payment from the pilot or the airframe or the engine or the avionics manufacturer, a claim may be made against them.. Settlement (full or partial) and/or litigation with them and their insurers. In terms of a pilot with limited insurance, part of the calculation is, as in any lawsuit, realistic possibility of actual payment if found liable.

The cost of rescue operations. Some states have statutes permitting recovery. Some don't. Some require only simple negligence, others require more culpability - gross negligence or reckless conduct. 

I know that's not particularly helpful other than as a description of the ballpark. 

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.

 

[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

[1980Mooney]

48 minutes ago, Cruiser said:

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 ? 

The plane is in a partnership with 4 other owners.  In May he was looking for a 5th 20% owner.

doc_SPECIFICATION_1726404_1653771711.pdf (barnstormers.s3.amazonaws.com)

[toto]

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

 

[1980Mooney]

4 minutes ago, toto said:

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

 

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

[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