Forrest Gump had it right

[Marauder]

How could any rule or law have stopped him? 91.155, 91.13, and 91.129, were already broken during the flight to name a few. Most of the videos/discussions start with the pilot being over the airport in the clouds. But if we rewind back a little, there was a point at which he made the conscious choice to enter them and continue flying in them. He was very very far behind the airplane (and quite likely wasn't even adequately familiar with available systems). If he waited a few hundred more hours and built experience flying local in a skyhawk and continuing his education, he would have at least known how to talk to the tower, seek help, and been less distracted with the mechanics of flying and been able to dedicate more attention to the EMERGENCY and treated it as one rather than brushing it off as "not wanting to get stuck." I did this [bolded above] in my Mooney. Rolled over 100 hours total enroute to a MAPA PPP, after transition training, complex endorsement, insurance dual and a couple of 300-nm XC trips. What matters is not that I was doing that in a Mooney, a Cirrus or a Skyhawk; I see no benefit to "flying local in a Skyhawk" vs. flying XC in my Mooney. It's all about the individual, his own competency and attention to detail. Some people have gone straight into Turbo Mooneys at the same level that I bought my C; some folks are over their heads in a 152. Legislating "rules" based on the lowest common denominator does not promote safety. Requiring everyone to get "a few hundred hours flying local in a Skyhawk" will not make safer XC pilots flying complex, HP aircraft. It will, however, reduce the pilot population significantly. It would definitely have run me off as soon as I found out about it. Some people obey rules; some people make a habit of disobeying rules; some people want to do things their own way. All of us make mistakes sometimes. It becomes an issue when personal decisions to flaunt the rules, whether VFR into IMC, IFR into icing, or driving too fast on the highway, causes problems/loss for other people. Fly VFR into IMC if you want to, and if your estate can handle the loss of the aircraft, but don't do it with passengers and don't damage anything on the ground. Too many knee-jerk liberals want to prevent anyone from doing the same, making it more difficult for me to make legal IFR flights or purchase insurance for my aircraft. Some of it comes down to flight instructors not embedding respect for the rules into students; some is the fault of the FAA for promulgating too many rules that cannot be enforced, causing disrespect for all of them; part of it is squarely on the person who decides that a particular rule or group of rules can be ignored, and that cannot be legislated away. Since I graduated from college in the mid-80's, it seems that personal responsibility has disappeared on the part of people doing things, and accidents have disappeared on the part of people to whom things happen. Sure, it's a conflict, but I didn't set out to kill us both, it just happened because the airplane crashed not because I flew when I shouldn't have. The engine quit in the clouds because the air intake iced over, not because I shouldn't have been there, but due to such a poor design on the part of the aircraft manufacturer, the engine manufacturer, the propellor that spun the icy air into the intake, ATC who didn't vector me away, and the FAA who certified such poor designs.

I want whatever you are drinking or smoking. Nicely stated Hank!

[Hank]

Left over sweet tea from Mickey-D's, diluted with fresh brewed Lipton tea without sugar.

 

Don't take away MY rights because someone else can't manage their own!

 

There's a wonderful quote from either Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson, something like those who will give up an essential liberty for security deserve neither.

 

I am responsible for what I do. You are responsible for what you do. This unfortunate pilot was responsible for what he did. The deaths of these four people are not the fault of ATC or Cirrus or whatever refinery made the fuel, whichever FBO sold him the fuel; it's not the fault of his flight instructors, the DPE who gave him his checkride. He chose to fly, he chose to press on into deteriorating conditions, he chose to not land. Was he overwhelmed? Certainly! Had he respected the rules and not departed into MVFR conditions, he would not have confused himself.

 

Been there, done that, got on the ground and let the plane sit for a week until I could manage to go fetch it back. Started instrument lessons. Now I'm rated, I'm current, but am not about to fly in actual until I get some foggle time with a safety pilot--not because I can't; not because it's not legal; it is certainly not convenient to find a safety pilot and fly around some, shoot a few approaches, especially since I have a trip planned next week; simply because I feel out of practice and uncomfortable. Personal responsiblity! Individual choice! I'll be current and legal for two more months, but haven't seen the inside of a cloud since early October, so I choose to practice. I think of myself as generally responsible and somewhat conservative, but it's my decision, my choice, and I don't have to do anything other than file and depart since I'm within 6 months of an IPC.

 

"Can I?" and "Should I?" are different questions, and they sometimes have different answers. Man up, and be responsible for your actions. Nobody is going to force you to fly.

[PTK]

Don't take away MY rights because someone else can't manage their own...

...Nobody is going to force you to fly.

I totally agree Hank. If I may add also that just as nobody is going to force one to fly, nobody is going to prevent one from killing themselves either. Preferably they'd do it alone and without passengers. Did he fully disclose his limitations to his passengers and did he obtain their consent to fly with him that day? Did he offer his daughter other transportation options to Chicago that day?

If he wasn't so ignorant and bent on trying to prove something he would've put his daughter on a Greyhound to Chicago. He and and his daughters would be alive. Instead he proved he was in way over his head and his gross lack of awareness of the airplane systems. Never mind shooting an approach how about engaging the autopilot? He took three innocent and trusting souls and killed them. Shame, real shame.

[M016576]

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." -Benjamin Franklin

[Hank]

Thanks! That's the one. Ben got many things right.

[Jeff_S]

I finally got a chance to watch the video this morning. I think we've used up three pages of people expressing their emotions, which I hope made everyone feel good but probably doesn't solve much about the situation. If you follow the learnings of the video, they claimed the major problem was that he let his inner needs (the need to not only get his daughter to college, but also to get home) override his aeronautical decision making.  Yeah, we've all done that a bit I'm sure...I will admit I'm more of a pussy than some.

 

What no one in that video or on this thread seems to mention (or perhaps I missed it because I couldn't really read 100% of the rants) was that the dude had a perfectly good auto-pilot and didn't seem to know how to use it! The auto-pilot won't let you spin in a Cirrus, even the S-TEC 55x which he probably had in that SR20 (if we believe the video version of it). And yes, someone else also mentioned the parachute.

 

So the other moral of this story is, know your equipment, and know how to use it.  That will also keep you from becoming a statistic.

[flyboy0681]

I will admit I'm more of a pussy than some.

 

What no one in that video or on this thread seems to mention (or perhaps I missed it because I couldn't really read 100% of the rants) was that the dude had a perfectly good auto-pilot and didn't seem to know how to use it!

 

I'm the same as you, sometimes I won't go if the ceiling is 5000 with visibility of 10 if I feel that things will deteriorate to less than my comfort zone somewhere along the way.

 

Several people here, including myself, did mention the auto-pilot.

 

I'm glad this post struck a chord. I think all of us are in agreement with the responses here and that it was an extremely preventable tragedy.

[fantom]

I'm the same as you, sometimes I won't go if the ceiling is 5000 with visibility of 10 if I feel that things will deteriorate to less than my comfort zone somewhere along the way.

 

Several people here, including myself, did mention the auto-pilot.

 

I'm glad this post struck a chord. I think all of us are in agreement with the responses here and that it was an extremely preventable tragedy.

 

The guy was in trouble and too embarrased to admit it, just plain stupid....how do you prevent that?

 

Keeping one's cool under pressure is a critical survival tool, both in flying and in life.

 

Instead of the doom and gloom, how about this survival story. There are many like it that aren't caught on video, in the media, or written about.

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-911-tapes-hudson-plane-crash-20130129,0,6963754.story

[Jeff_S]

Interesting, I was in NYC last week and don't remember hearing anything about this incident. Of course, I was trapped in the bowels of a trade show convention for three days so that may be part of the reason.

[scottfromiowa]

If being solid in decisionmaking and conservative in judgement makes you a Pusey....I am indeed proud to wear that moniker Meow.

[Mcstealth]

If being solid in decisionmaking and conservative in judgement makes you a Pusey....I am indeed proud to wear that moniker Meow.

 

Ditto

Meow

[Earl]

I just watched the video today and agree that his decision making was terrible.  But this was an accident caused by a chain of bad decisions that to us in our wisdom of 20/20 hindsight led to its inevitable outcome.  One has to wonder how many times he engaged in similar decision making and it worked out fine?  I would bet over his 200+ hours flying in the midwest this was not his first experience scud running and not getting weather information.  This time he ran out of options, let fear overcome judgment and likely got saturated and lost it.  It made me think about my decision making, especially when I am tempted to violate a personal minimum.  

 

For example. one that is really hard for me is that I am not going to take off from an airport unless it is above instrument minimums.  I have sat there watching single after single take off while I wait and wonder if I am being too conservative.  But then I think that if I violate this once and it turns out OK it makes the next time easier and then pretty soon that personal minimum is gone.  And then after having been successful ten times I climb into the soup, lose my engine, not get back into the airport because it is below minimums and am then the subject of a thread where everyone says stupid is as stupid does.  Don't get me wrong, he was incredibly stupid and irresponsible.  My point is that no one takes off thinking they are going to get into IMC and auger in and kill their children.  But no doubt we are all prone to making bad decisions unless we are very, very disciplined......and most of us with any number of hours (I am soon to exit the killing zone with over 600 hours God willing!) can look back and say this flight or that flight could have turned out pretty bad.  I know I can.......

 

It didn't have anything to do with the plane he flew and the training he received would have prepared him for this kind of weather and had he followed that training he and his passengers would be alive today because he never would have taken off in the first place.  But stories like this remind me that when you have an attitude that you would never make a series of mistakes that lead to an accident you have probably taken that first step to getting yourself into a pickle.  I am a firm, 100% believer that it can happen to me and that makes me even more diligent.  

 

And BTW, I too am a wimp when it comes to decision making and at times have felt a little silly after the fact but have always been able to maintain my discipline by reminding myself about the what ifs.  What if that streak of oil on the top of cowling was evidence of an oil leak instead of a careless line guy getting a little oil on access door when he added a quart?  I felt kind of silly landing early to check it out until I told my CFII about it later and he said its better to be on the ground wishing you were flying than in the air wishing you were on the ground.  These kind of stories ought to cause us to do a little soul searching along with the reasonable critique of the PIC.

 

 

[jetdriven]

I have always found the so called scud running in the midwest to be as safe as anything else (sometimes safer than IFR in the summer with potential for embedded thunderstorms or winter with icing potential), with proper planning and 100% commitment to do a 180 at the first sign of deteriorating conditions. My conditions have always been a ceiling of 2000, being able to stay 1000AGL and sticking to a preplanned route at all cost, a route that was analyzed for obstacle clearance and terrain which usually meant sticking on an airway.

Not a big fan in the mountains, but sometimes required to land at Alpine, WY by first shooting an approach into Afton and then following the highway. Once again, need a 2000 ceiling.

 

To me a 2000 foot ceiling is not an issue as long as visiblity is there. The second visibility or clouds drop, I find a place to land.

 

The biggest risk of flying at 1000' AGL (in flat country, at least) with  2000' ceiling is antennas. The new GPS's with terrain and obstacle alerts in their database can greatly reduce the risk of flying into them.  Our Aera 500 is wired into the audio panel.  It triggered an obstacle alert on an IFR departure a few days ago just as Approach called us with their alarms going off in the background. "Turn right immediately".  There is a 1600' antenna just south of the airport. The Obstacle DP says heading 139 until passing 1600' before turning west.  Due to strong winds aloft, our ground track was more like 170, bringing up within one mile of the antenna.  We were still in VMC, but it still looked pretty close.

[John Pleisse]

Not to digress.... After reading the thread, I think the guy was emboldened by a TAA Cirrus. Not bashing Cirrus or a lot of good Cirrus drivers, but the record on insurance rates and fatalities in type reflects a lot of fancy equipment emboldening low time pilots. In the end, it's still a plane and you have to fly and land it in the weather you can handle.

[Earl]

Not to digress.... After reading the thread, I think the guy was emboldened by a TAA Cirrus. Not bashing Cirrus or a lot of good Cirrus drivers, but the record on insurance rates and fatalities in type reflects a lot of fancy equipment emboldening low time pilots. In the end, it's still a plane and you have to fly and land it in the weather you can handle.

I think this is probably true and what is doubly ironic is the airplane was more than capable of saving his life.  Put on the autopilot, climb and call ATC for flight following to a VFR airport.

[John Pleisse]

Or yank the D-ring and have the chute save you.

[jetdriven]

If you are flying an airplane where you need the automation to save you from a deteriorating flight situation, you probably shouldnt be flying that airplane.

[sreid]

 

The biggest risk of flying at 1000' AGL (in flat country, at least) with  2000' ceiling is antennas. The new GPS's with terrain and obstacle alerts in their database can greatly reduce the risk of flying into them.  Our Aera 500 is wired into the audio panel.  It triggered an obstacle alert on an IFR departure a few days ago just as Approach called us with their alarms going off in the background. "Turn right immediately".  There is a 1600' antenna just south of the airport. The Obstacle DP says heading 139 until passing 1600' before turning west.  Due to strong winds aloft, our ground track was more like 170, bringing up within one mile of the antenna.  We were still in VMC, but it still looked pretty close.

 

Another thing that helps is ownship depiction on VFR sectionals (foreflight iPad). No more guessing your position relative to charted obstacles. This combined with the handheld terrian alerting is a pretty good combination for these types of flights. I guess you still have to worry about uncharted obstacles, but I think that becomes more of an issue when really forced low, like less than 500', with low visibility. Probably starting to push it a little too much in that case.

[Earl]

If you are flying an airplane where you need the automation to save you from a deteriorating flight situation, you probably shouldnt be flying that airplane.

While I generally agree with you I would much rather have a pilot rely on all the tools available to them in such a circumstance rather than pridefully saying they won't use them because of how others may perceive them.  Which is worse, admitting you got yourself in too deep and had to rely on the autopilot to save you and your passengers or ending your flight like this guy did?  I think the answer is pretty obvious.  It makes me wonder if the reason he didn't use that life saving tool is because he had that very same attitude or why he wouldn't listen to ATC.  I'll bet that all changed when he popped out of the clouds at a 70 degree angle and knew this was his last flight and that he had killed his daughters.

 

I for one will tell any pilot at any time to use whatever tools they have available to them to save their butts and would congratulate them for having the courage to do so rather than the false sense of pride that leads to their death.

[201er]

For example. one that is really hard for me is that I am not going to take off from an airport unless it is above instrument minimums.  I have sat there watching single after single take off while I wait and wonder if I am being too conservative.  But then I think that if I violate this once and it turns out OK it makes the next time easier and then pretty soon that personal minimum is gone.  And then after having been successful ten times I climb into the soup, lose my engine, not get back into the airport because it is below minimums and am then the subject of a thread where everyone says stupid is as stupid does.  Don't get me wrong, he was incredibly stupid and irresponsible.  My point is that no one takes off thinking they are going to get into IMC and auger in and kill their children.

There is a pretty big difference here though. He was both inexperienced AND flying in an illegal manner. Taking off below landing minimums for an experienced instrument pilot is not inherently dangerous, but it brings backup safety margins close to nill.

 

 

 

Even though the percent of fatalities in IMC is much greater than VMC, the total number of accidence in Day/Night IMC combined is less than the number of daytime VMC fatalities! Plus, I bet you over half those IMC accidents were by VFR pilots committing inadvertent flight into IMC. Or in the case of the subject of this discussion, intentional flight into IMC!

 

Also, I just wanted to point out again that the equipment available was totally irrelevant. ATC was offering multiple options for the guy to be able to land VFR without having to rely on his autopilot, glass panel, or chute and he flat out refused! Nothing short of ATC remote controlling his airplane could have saved him from his attitude!

[PTK]

Also, I just wanted to point out again that the equipment available was totally irrelevant.

The problem with statistics is they don't apply to the individual. Therefore, in this unfortunate accident, the use of available equipment is totally relevant. If he'd just engaged the ap they'd be alive today. I don't think he knew the airplane. Frankly, I'd be interested to know if he was properly checked out in it.

[201er]

If he'd just engaged the ap they'd be alive today. I don't think he knew the airplane. Frankly, I'd be interested to know if he was even checked out in it.

Frankly, if he'd just respected FAR 91.155 and stayed out of clouds, 4 people would still be alive. From the recordings of him speaking, I don't think the phrase "inadvertent flight into IMC" applies. Judging from his lack of desire to take ATC's suggestions for exiting the clouds, it makes me think his continued flight into poor visibility was in fact advertent. Worse yet, I suspect that it was indeed the plane's sophistication and equipment that gave him the confidence to go forth with this. However, his skills and experience with this equipment were obviously insufficient. If he alone survived this crash, I'd hold him guilty of negligent homicide.

[FloridaMan]

   

Another thing that helps is ownship depiction on VFR sectionals (foreflight iPad). No more guessing your position relative to charted obstacles. This combined with the handheld terrian alerting is a pretty good combination for these types of flights. I guess you still have to worry about uncharted obstacles, but I think that becomes more of an issue when really forced low, like less than 500', with low visibility. Probably starting to push it a little too much in that case.

I just made a post in another thread about this. DO NOT TRUST THE DEPICTION OF YOUR ALTITUDE OR LOCATION ON YOUR PHONE OR TABLET'S CHARTS. While it always seems correct when you look at it, I have seen plenty examples of location data being extremely inaccurate on the iPhone. 

[Earl]

There is a pretty big difference here though. He was both inexperienced AND flying in an illegal manner. Taking off below landing minimums for an experienced instrument pilot is not inherently dangerous, but it brings backup safety margins close to nill.

 

 

 

Even though the percent of fatalities in IMC is much greater than VMC, the total number of accidence in Day/Night IMC combined is less than the number of daytime VMC fatalities! Plus, I bet you over half those IMC accidents were by VFR pilots committing inadvertent flight into IMC. Or in the case of the subject of this discussion, intentional flight into IMC!

 

Also, I just wanted to point out again that the equipment available was totally irrelevant. ATC was offering multiple options for the guy to be able to land VFR without having to rely on his autopilot, glass panel, or chute and he flat out refused! Nothing short of ATC remote controlling his airplane could have saved him from his attitude!

I agree in this case the available equipment obviously didn't save this guy because he chose not to use it, not to listen to ATC, not to do a proper weather briefing, etc.  My point was that if you think it can't happen to you because you would never do what he did you probably have a bit of what he had because I can assure you he didn't take off on this flight with the intent to kill himself and his daughters. He obviously had the hubris to think it could not happen to him right up until that moment when he popped clear of the clouds and by the it was too late.

 

As for your point about taking off below landing minimums, I agree that it reduces backup safety factors to nil which is why that is one of my personal minimums.  But would you not agree that what he did was not inherently dangerous until he got to the end of the flight and ran into IMC?   Likewise, taking off into IMC below minimums is not inherently dangerous until you lose an engine on departure in IMC and can't get easily get back to the airport safely in a very high stress situation.  Many experienced IFR pilots view that as a manageable risk but I am not there yet.

[PTK]

Frankly, if he'd just respected FAR 91.155 and stayed out of clouds, 4 people would still be alive. From the recordings of him speaking, I don't think the phrase "inadvertent flight into IMC" applies. Judging from his lack of desire to take ATC's suggestions for exiting the clouds, it makes me think his continued flight into poor visibility was in fact advertent. Worse yet, I suspect that it was indeed the plane's sophistication and equipment that gave him the confidence to go forth with this. However, his skills and experience with this equipment were obviously insufficient. If he alone survived this crash, I'd hold him guilty of negligent homicide.

The point, I think, is to learn as much as we can from this unfortunate accident. You are being very judgmental, pretentious and disrespectful. You are very quick to play Monday morning qb. It's very easy to fall into that trap especially when a fellow pilot and his passengers are dead and unable to answer any questions.

Let's not forget that a similar occurrence can indeed happen to anyone given the right circumstances and sequence of events leading to it. I'm certain his intention was not to lose the airplane.

May I suggest you judge a lot less and instead we all learn as much as we can with utmost respect, humility and professionalism.