Mooney 201 lands on high power lines in MD

[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

[Ibra]

1 hour ago, rbp said:

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

Sorry, I was using Jepps plates (these are produced for 121/135 criteria) with minima for Cat A & C aircraft (90kts & 120kias) both traffic were on remote altimeter setting which would beefed up visibility requirements and decision altitudes (FAA/Jepps plates ask for it)

ATC gave Baltimore Altimeter to both aircraft, I have no clue what kind of operation (91/121/135) or equipments (BARO or WAAS) these aircraft have? what they were flying as minima (LPV, L/VNAV or LNAV)? what technique (3deg CDFA with autopilot or Dive & Drive to threshold by hand?)? but in all cases, 200ft overcast & 1 1/4 visibility will be a long shot

Part91 with AP+LPV, why one would not give it a try in M20J and go missed at 350ft DH? I have no clue what minima those Cheyennes are operated on? the fact they have gone missed is a useful advisory information to adjust expectations but not the sole criteria out there start an approach, if I have enough fuel and LPV, I will personally give this one go down to DA and missed as well (or land if runway in sight)

LNAV with no glideslope: dive-drive or circling, no thanks: it will be “run for my life” ! 
 

 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Ibra

[jetdriven]

3 hours ago, Ibra said:

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 !

What’s the legal visibility for a category B or C airplane for the LPV 14?  
maybe they didn’t see anything at DA and that’s why they went missed.  Also. Ceiling isn’t controlling for minimums. Visibility is. 

[Ibra]

54 minutes ago, jetdriven said:

What’s the legal visibility for a category B or C airplane for the LPV 14?  

1 1/4 for LPV (we don’t know minima for airplane with paying passengers, they are likely higher than system minima)

in any case on same equipment & pilot, irrespective of airport plates & weather conditions and operational rules:

* Cheyenne has visibility to approche => M20J has visibility to approche 

* M20J can’t see runway at DA => Cheyenne can’t see runway at DA

* Cheyenne gone missed at DA => M20J can still land from DA 

I don’t see anything wrong in the above statements? As I said, I disagree that “M20J can’t approche behind Cheyenne, if the latter has gone missed”, I would just go and see myself 

Edited December 3, 2022 by Ibra

[ilovecornfields]

2 minutes ago, Ibra said:

1 1/4 for LPV (we don’t know minima for Cat C airplane with paying passengers but they are likely higher)

in any case on same equipment & pilot, irrespective of plates & weather conditions:

* Cheyenne has visibility to approche => M20J has visibility to approche 

* M20J can’t see runway at DA => Cheyenne can’t see runway at DA

* Cheyenne gone missed at DA => M20J can still land from DA 

I don’t see anything wrong in the above statements 

What’s wrong with the above statements is that you’re missing the forest for the trees. He couldn’t hold a heading, follow a vector or even load the approach correctly and follow it. You think he had a chance of safely getting to DA and landing?!

Doesn’t matter what category he’s in or the technical minutia. He did not demonstrate the ability to safely fly the approach and clearly lacked the insight into his deficiencies until after he’d crashed. I care about what’s safe much more than what’s technically legal. There are a lot of ways to legally get killed in an airplane.

[rbp]

are you're suggesting that he picked the LNAV over the LPV, on a low IFR day given that he had WAAS?

the barometer affects all category minima equally (+80 +1/4)

"Baro-VNAV NA when using Washington Dulles Intl altimeter setting. For uncompensated
Baro-VNAV systems, LNAV/VNAV NA below -16°C or above 36°C. When local altimeter setting not received, use Washington Dulles Intl altimeter setting and increase all DA/MDAs 80 feet and all visibilities 1/4 mile."

[jetdriven]

40 minutes ago, Ibra said:

1 1/4 for LPV (we don’t know minima for airplane with paying passengers, they are likely higher than system minima)

in any case on same equipment & pilot, irrespective of airport plates & weather conditions and operational rules:

* Cheyenne has visibility to approche => M20J has visibility to approche 

* M20J can’t see runway at DA => Cheyenne can’t see runway at DA

* Cheyenne gone missed at DA => M20J can still land from DA 

I don’t see anything wrong in the above statements? As I said, I disagree that “M20J can’t approche behind Cheyenne, if the latter has gone missed”, I would just go and see myself 

Why would the minima be higher for a 135 airplane?  And how do you know N108UC is a 135 airplane? You’re trying to make a distinction that doesn’t exist. 

[Ibra]

Cheyenne (91 or 135) can’t have lower minima than M20J on Part91 on that airport, they can only have higher ones ! 

Edited December 4, 2022 by Ibra

[jetdriven]

Or the same minima.  1-1/4.   You are claiming it’s higher.  I think you’re wrong. 

Also. It’s an LPV. It’s not dive and drive.  In fact you can’t even do that as it has no circling minima.  You could use LNAV minima but it’s way higher. And they have equipment for lower mins, so it’s nonsensical. Also the 1280 ft mandatory restriction 1.4 to threshold. 
the Cheyenne has a KFC-300 autopilot and it’s coupled to the glideslope. The Mooney has a century IIB and a stand-alone altitude hold.  It won’t follow a gradient path. . 

[rbp]

As far as I can find, Vs0 in the Cheyanne is 89, so 1.3 *89 = 105, which is Category B

https://code7700.com/approach_categories.htm

 

"In 1972 the FAA implemented the U.S. Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures (TERPS). The TERPS rule changed the way the FAA defined aircraft approach categories from one based on the number of engines to new criteria based on stall speed in landing configuration or aircraft weight. Specifically "aircraft approach category" was defined as a "grouping of aircraft based on a speed of 1.3 VSO (at maximum certificated landing weight) or on maximum certificated landing weight." See 32 Fed. Reg. 13909,13911-12 (Oct 6, 1967); 32 Fed. Reg. 6938, 6939 (May 5, 1967). Section 97.3 was amended later to remove the option for basing aircraft approach categories strictly on maximum certificated landing weight. See 44 Fed. Reg. 15659 (Mar. 15, 1979). The only remaining way to make this determination was "1.3 VSO (at maximum certificated landing weight)." Id."

 

[Scottknoll]

Or the same minima.  1-1/4.   You are claiming it’s higher.  I think you’re wrong. 

Also. It’s an LPV. It’s not dive and drive.  In fact you can’t even do that as it has no circling minima.  You could use LNAV minima but it’s way higher. And they have equipment for lower mins, so it’s nonsensical. Also the 1280 ft mandatory restriction 1.4 to threshold. 
the Cheyenne has a KFC-300 autopilot and it’s coupled to the glideslope. The Mooney has a century IIB and a stand-alone altitude hold.  It won’t follow a gradient path. . 

I agree, if they were both on the LPV, then I think they both had the same minimums (which I think are 1SM unless the GAI altimeter was unavailable for some reason). LPV mins on this approach are the same for all categories.

Good info on the Glide Path coupled for the Cheyenne and no GP coupling for the Mooney. That’s one more link in the chain if the AP wasn’t capable of coupling to the GP.

[Jerry 5TJ]

2 hours ago, ilovecornfields said:

I care about what’s safe much more than what’s technically legal. There are a lot of ways to legally get killed in an airplane.

The accident pilot certainly had plenty of hints collectively suggesting that it wasn’t a good plan to go to GAI just then.  
While he was still dangling from the transmission lines the front passed and the weather cleared up significantly.  

[Fly_M20R]

On 12/1/2022 at 9:07 AM, bradp said:

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. 

Pilot seemed to be behind the airplane and with approach possibly not loaded correctly in 430W as well as HSI possibly misaligned. IFR flight requires buttonology to be nailed down. 

[jetdriven]

That aircraft has no HSI. 

[Ragsf15e]

Knowing where to draw your personal mins is tough.  And even when you have them, they’re “made up” by you and can be “adjusted” by you.  Yes, I know, hard and fast.  Never deviate.  It’s a slippery slope.

Its scary because 3 times in the last month, I’ve used the rule about “seeing approach lights” at DH and continuing down to  100’ before seeing the runway or termination bars.  Now I fly for a living which doesn’t mean I’m better at this flying thing than anyone else, but I’m very current, experienced, and the airplane is well equipped.  So am I a bad person?  Am I misleading myself and putting my passengers and my life in danger?  I want to think not.  I follow the rules.  I want to think I really would have gone around if I hadn’t seen the runway at 100’.  In each case, I had a divert plan and fuel available.  In each case, the rvr was slightly Below mins, but I saw the lights at or slightly above DH.  These were big airports with strobes and very bright lighting.  Ever see the little note that allows rvr reduction if using a coupled approach, hud or FD to mins?  What about an ILS and LPV to the same runway, same mins, but the lpv has that note for the lower rvr (KHIO ILS13 vs RNAV 13). It’s 600’ less rvr.  25% less vis required.  I’m not saying most people should have personal mins this low, but someone does.  If person, equipment, etc is right it can be safe.  It’s hard to figure out when you think you’re 100% and maybe you’re not.
 

-135 ops can definitely have different mins.  Depends on their opsspec.  Might depend on the PICs time and currency too.  To me that would be good information to know he went missed but not a show stopper.

Now do I want to do this in my Mooney with an stec30A?  No.  Have I shot approaches to mins in the Mooney?  Yes, a couple of times in 3/4nm vis in smoke (daytime). Would I do it again? It depends.  Things like turbulence, night, precip, airport lighting, currency, workday, etc all add up.  Do you take every possible factor into account with your personal mins every time?  It’s hard.

Clearly the personal mins applied here (if any) were not appropriate since the results speak for themselves.  There were obvious cues.  We wouldn’t all make the same choices even with all those same cues.  Trying to load the approach on your gns430w in bad weather at night probably isn’t a good time to consider your personal mins or the decisions you might make.  It has to be before the flight and you have to be honest with yourself when you need to do something different.  It’s hard though.  Remember that.  This guy didn’t takeoff thinking he would end up shutting down power to 500k people while dangling 200’ up.