stigaro said:
I believe it's more a reminder of the importance of good decision making.
Click to expand...
I think it’s both, but weather changes and sometimes you find yourself in situations you didn’t anticipate and having made the prior good decision to get fully trained in the airplane can save your life.
 
bmellis11 said:
I think it’s both, but weather changes and sometimes you find yourself in situations you didn’t anticipate and having made the prior good decision to get fully trained in the airplane can save your life.
Click to expand...
Fully endorse advanced ratings.

Making good decisions is what will mitigate “ finding yourself in situations you didn’t anticipate”. The advanced ratings help to make those decisions but poor preflight decisions will trump the rating…
 
rocketman1988 said:
Fully endorse advanced ratings.

Making good decisions is what will mitigate “ finding yourself in situations you didn’t anticipate”. The advanced ratings help to make those decisions but poor preflight decisions will trump the rating…
Click to expand...
You can never fully mitigate the risk of flying and can never fully guarantee that you won’t fly into non-visibility or other conditions even if you have the best decision making. The only way to fully mitigate is to not fly. That’s why I’m mentioning the advanced rating you also endorse. It’s a good decision that you make before you accidentally find yourself in a bad situation despite otherwise good decision making. Loss of control and death shouldn’t be the consequence of bad luck or a momentary lapse of judgment.
 
It is prudent that flying per instruments should be part of every flight review especially for non-instrument rated pilots. We receive instruction in flying with instruments during primary training, it needs to be periodically refreshed. Yes, stress really complicates the situation but making a 180 turn under control should be part of a VFR pilot's skill set.
 
https://www.ntsb.gov/Advocacy/safety-alerts/Documents/SA-020.pdf

Reduced Visual References Require Vigilance

What can pilots do?
  • Obtain an official preflight weather briefing, and use all appropriate sources of weather information to make timely in-flight decisions. Other weather sources and in-cockpit weather equipment can supplement official information.
  • Refuse to allow external pressures, such as the desire to save time or money or the fear of disappointing passengers, to influence you to attempt or continue a flight in conditions in which you are not comfortable.
  • Be honest with yourself about your skill limitations. Plan ahead with cancellation or diversion alternatives. Brief passengers about the alternatives before the flight.
  • Seek training to ensure that you are proficient and fully understand the features and limitations of the equipment in your aircraft, particularly how to use all features of the avionics, autopilot systems, and weather information resources.
  • Don’t allow a situation to become dangerous before deciding to act. Be honest with air traffic controllers about your situation, and explain it to them if you need help.
  • Remember that, when flying at night, even visual weather conditions can be challenging. Remote areas with limited ground lighting provide limited visual references cues for pilots, which can be disorienting or render rising terrain visually imperceptible. When planning a night VFR flight, use topographic references to familiarize yourself with surrounding terrain. Consider following instrument procedures if you are instrument rated or avoiding areas with limited ground lighting(such as remote or mountainous areas) if you are not.
  • Manage distractions: Many accidents result when a pilot is distracted momentarily from the primary task of flying.
 
bmellis11 said:
You can never fully mitigate the risk of flying and can never fully guarantee that you won’t fly into non-visibility or other conditions even if you have the best decision making. The only way to fully mitigate is to not fly. That’s why I’m mentioning the advanced rating you also endorse. It’s a good decision that you make before you accidentally find yourself in a bad situation despite otherwise good decision making. Loss of control and death shouldn’t be the consequence of bad luck or a momentary lapse of judgment.
Click to expand...
No, you cannot fully mitigate the risk.

The problem I see all too often is that people aren’t honest with themselves about the prevailing and forecast weather, and their skills. Their ability to say “No” is not developed and they will tend to press on even though their gut says no and the hairs on their neck are standing up.

As we all know, flying skills are a perishable commodity. Especially instrument skills. Just because you may hold an instrument ticket doesn’t guarantee you can perform, if necessary. I agree with the previous post; basic instrument skills should be evaluated on a routine basis, if even only during a BFR.
 
This is why I’m currently IFR training in my 9. And have a fully functioning autopilot w level and 180 buttons.
Curious what would create the “boom” that witnesses reported prior to the aircraft hitting the ground. Also impressed that it did not break up til 250knots. RIP.
 
edhunter said:
This is why I’m currently IFR training in my 9. And have a fully functioning autopilot w level and 180 buttons.
Curious what would create the “boom” that witnesses reported prior to the aircraft hitting the ground. Also impressed that it did not break up til 250knots. RIP.
Click to expand...
I've seen reports and videos about static load testing a wing to total failure and the failure event is almost explosive. Just imagine the crack of a stick being snapped but several magnitudes greater. The tail may have failed long before max speed was reached, the tailless and nearly wingless fuselage will go down like a lawn dart. I've seen R/C aircraft fail and the vertical speed of the fuselage descending can be amazing.

I can't imagine what the final seconds must have been like..............
 
I’ll take a shot at it.

No mention of the clearance.
No mention if the plane was certified for IFR flight.
Time not specified as to AM or PM.
 
Certified for IFR flight-my ops specs dated July 2015 simply state "unless equipped for night or IFR flight" or words to that effect. Another issue is currency of transponder check. Only place to find that is in the AC Log Books.
One of the things I noticed has to do with design details compared to wording about the failure of the wing and damage to the other wing.
 
The real tragedy is that this didn’t need to happen! The PIC is the last piece of Swiss cheese to make sure all the holes don’t line up. Pilot error strikes again!
do pilots really ever learn! Nope, there will be more unnecessary deaths, just the way it is!
 
I took a closer look at this. Basic med was current. Pilot was 80 years old. 1050 hours total time. Neither occupant had received a current weather briefing. North Platte, 33 miles to the south was 500 broken and 2 1/2 vis.
The accident report details of the wing failure point simply do not compute.
More than 20 years ago I watched a man and woman get in a RV6 at Bullhead City AZ. I had gotten a wx brief for a 300 mile radius for air ambulance flights. I had decided that anything to the west would be questionable because of icing. East was good VFR. As I watched the RV take off i thought "I sure hope he is not going west". He was. Less than an hour later they fell out of the sky in the high mountains SW of Palm Springs, hopelessly iced up. The next day was severe clear all the way to the coast.
I have been a student of aircraft accidents for over 60 years. Most of it is sickening. Too much is just plain stupid.
 
Truly sad.

You don’t need an instrument rating to navigate safely out of IMC.
Most RV’s these days have an HSI, VSI, ASI, GPS, Compass, and/or NaV/Com. I have three HSI’s, three VSI’s, and three ASI’s. One set was purposeful, and stand alone (Ray Allen, Steam VSI and HSI). Others tag along with my EFIS, and my portable.
But, as Sam noted, you have to know how to use them.
I think the biggest benefit of an Instrument Rating in these circumstances is not only do you know how to use them, you’re familiar with the circumstances of needing to use them.
As a VFR pilot, my biggest concern is being able to calm myself and let my training kick in if I ended up in a stressful and unfamiliar situation. It would be difficult.
 
JonJay said:
Truly sad.

You don’t need an instrument rating to navigate safely out of IMC.
........
As a VFR pilot, my biggest concern is being able to calm myself and let my training kick in if I ended up in a stressful and unfamiliar situation. It would be difficult.
Click to expand...
Please don't encourage people - for the very reasons you state in your last sentence.
 
Webb said:
I’ll take a shot at it.

No mention of the clearance.
No mention if the plane was certified for IFR flight.
Time not specified as to AM or PM.
Click to expand...
Report says "VFR flight following". Strongly suggests they were not on an instrument clearance.
"certified for IFR flight" -for an EAB, as noted by another, just means did they have the proper equipment and pitot-static/transponder tests.
Time is in 24 hour format, so it was in the AM

Medical date is a bit hard to decipher, but I think it says that his last FAA (class 3?) medical was in 2017, and that is where his total time in flight number came from (5 years ago!). Then there is the "last FAA medical" in 2019, which I think is actually his basic med exam. If this is correct, then his medical was valid (assuming he took the on-line class in 2021.

Report says "Class G airspace". I guess that's where they hit the ground. The circumstances surrounding the accident certainly were much higher, in class E. Finally, the report never mentions "get-there-itis". They were trying to get to Oshkosh.
 
JonJay said:
Truly sad.

You don’t need an instrument rating to navigate safely out of IMC.
Most RV’s these days have an HSI, VSI, ASI, GPS, Compass, and/or NaV/Com. I have three HSI’s, three VSI’s, and three ASI’s. One set was purposeful, and stand alone (Ray Allen, Steam VSI and HSI). Others tag along with my EFIS, and my portable.
But, as Sam noted, you have to know how to use them.
I think the biggest benefit of an Instrument Rating in these circumstances is not only do you know how to use them, you’re familiar with the circumstances of needing to use them.
As a VFR pilot, my biggest concern is being able to calm myself and let my training kick in if I ended up in a stressful and unfamiliar situation. It would be difficult.
Click to expand...
It is not enough to know how to use the instruments; you actually need to be proficient. You are correct about training kicking in. The issue with a substantial number of pilots is that their last "training" was for their rating ride...and it was almost a certainty that any BAI was using goggles or a hood. KNOWING that you can just look up and take a peek is the problem. It is a bit different flying in a cloud and knowing that there is no "peeking"; you are relying solely on you skills. Now throw in turbulence, rain, ice, the unusual sounds that accompany them...the stress level goes up. Now throw in an abnormal or an emergency. The stress level goes through the roof.

Interesting things happen when we are put in stressful situations. There are a few very specific things that happen when an adrenaline dump occurs. You will get tunnel vision. You will lose your hearing. You will lose fine muscle control. What physiological requirements are needed for instrument flight?

My point is, for those with an instrument ticket, PRACTICE. For those that are VFR only, find someone with a CFII and go PRACTICE. Then if something catches you off guard, you can revert to what you have practiced, if even only a 180 degree turn.
 
rocketman1988 said:
....... The issue with a substantial number of pilots is that their last "training" was for their rating ride...and it was almost a certainty that any BAI was using goggles or a hood. KNOWING that you can just look up and take a peek is the problem. It is a bit different flying in a cloud and knowing that there is no "peeking"; ....
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. I'll never forget giving an IPC to a pilot who seemed pretty good. It was night, mostly VFR, he was wearing a hood. I'm quite sure he wasn't "cheating". For our last approach, coming home, I called up and got an actual clearance, because I could see a line of scattered clouds ahead. As we entered the clouds, I told him, "Don't screw up now, we're in the clouds." His performance went way downhill. He was so focused on keeping the wings level that he ignored the fact that we were slowly drifiting off course. I had to practically beg him to initiate a small turn back toward the localizer.
 
BobTurner said:
Absolutely correct. I'll never forget giving an IPC to a pilot who seemed pretty good. It was night, mostly VFR, he was wearing a hood. I'm quite sure he wasn't "cheating". For our last approach, coming home, I called up and got an actual clearance, because I could see a line of scattered clouds ahead. As we entered the clouds, I told him, "Don't screw up now, we're in the clouds." His performance went way downhill. He was so focused on keeping the wings level that he ignored the fact that we were slowly drifiting off course. I had to practically beg him to initiate a small turn back toward the localizer.
Click to expand...
Indeed. A surprising number of VMC into IMC spatial disorientation crashes happen to pilots who are instrument rated. There is a huge difference between (a) having the rating & practicing under the hood and (b) being proficient in actual.
 
Some pilots would have turned back, this one didn't, I wonder why? It seems there were a number of opportunities for him to do so.
Did the presence of the passenger make a difference to confidence and decision making, one way or another, I also wonder?
 
BobTurner said:
Please don't encourage people - for the very reasons you state in your last sentence.
Click to expand...

See comments from Sam and Bob above. All pilots at the PP level and above are expected to be capable of control by reference to flight instruments alone. Anything less is a lack of basic competence. We should indeed be encouraging every pilot to fly by reference to instruments. I mean hood practice of course, so that when (not if) there is an inadvertent loss of visual horizon, it's no big deal.
 
Last edited:
From flightaware, the pilot was flying with the autopilot during most of the flight. Toward the end, the pilot made a slight left turn, and the data shows he was climbing and still on autopilot, probably to fly around the weather according the accident report.

Link: https://www.flightaware.com/live/flight/N192MH
 

Attachments

  • capture.JPG
    capture.JPG
    87.3 KB · Views: 27
DanH said:
See comments from Sam and Bob above. All pilots at the PP level and above are expected to be capable of control by reference to flight instruments alone. Anything less is a lack of basic competence. We should indeed be encouraging every pilot to fly by reference to instruments. I mean hood practice of course, so that when (not if) there is an inadvertent loss of visual horizon, it's no big deal.
Click to expand...
You may be saying the same thing, but to add I think it’s also important to train for instrument failures, use of VORs and/or GPS for navigation and terrain avoidance, autopilot usage (if applicable), maneuvering for landing, and speaking with ATC for guidance, all at the same time while under the hood. The more structred training in a high workload, high stress environment, the better the potential outcome in a bad situation. This is why I advocate instrument training. PPL training touches on these topics briefly, but you are never forced to spend significant time learning them and typically they are not required to be practiced simultaneously. The 180 turn to safety that we learned as PPs is great if executed in time and weather isn’t dropping all around. Someday it may not be enough.
 
bmellis11 said:
The 180 turn to safety that we learned as PPs is great if executed in time and weather isn’t dropping all around. Someday it may not be enough.
Click to expand...

In that case the VFR private pilot training in regard to appropriate weather decisions and having a "plan B" has been abandoned...........
 
bmellis11 said:
You may be saying the same thing, but to add I think it’s also important to train for instrument failures, use of VORs and/or GPS for navigation and terrain avoidance, autopilot usage (if applicable), maneuvering for landing, and speaking with ATC for guidance, all at the same time while under the hood. The more structred training in a high workload, high stress environment, the better the potential outcome in a bad situation. This is why I advocate instrument training. PPL training touches on these topics briefly, but you are never forced to spend significant time learning them and typically they are not required to be practiced simultaneously. The 180 turn to safety that we learned as PPs is great if executed in time and weather isn’t dropping all around. Someday it may not be enough.
Click to expand...
That goes back to P.P.P.P.P.P.P.

Considering the range of most RVs being less than four hours, the weather “dropping all around” is preventable with Proper Preflight Planning.

Go back a few posts and look at the Dunning-Kruger chart. People need to see where they are on the chart, being brutally honest with themselves. If people are on the path to the valley of despair, it may be prudent to reevaluate their go/no-go decisions. Another good rule of thumb is, “if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt”.

Think about it…those Preflight decisions could be the difference between flying another day and not.
 
I miss Mike. We became friends after I did the initial airworthiness inspection on his aircraft 07-03-2005. I been sadly following the accident since it occured.

Mike.1.jpg
 
Sam Buchanan said:
In that case the VFR private pilot training in regard to appropriate weather decisions and having a "plan B" has been abandoned...........
Click to expand...

Go back a few posts and look at the Dunning-Kruger chart. People need to see where they are on the chart, being brutally honest with themselves. If people are on the path to the valley of despair, it may be prudent to reevaluate their go/no-go decisions. Another good rule of thumb is, “if there is any doubt, then there is no doubt”.

Think about it…those Preflight decisions could be the difference between flying another day and not.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with what I believe both of your main points are, which is that safety starts (and ideally ends) with good preflight and inflight decision making. But we don't live in an ideal world and it's hubris to believe that there is anyone among us that will not screw up at some point.

I think bad decision making should be viewed as deviating from VFR training, not abandoning it along with all hope. So much of training is designed to compensate for statistically inevitable human error. IFR training, amongst its many other benefits, can bail you out if you make a bad decision and enter IMC when flying VFR.

If the argument is that we don't need to be trained to get out of bad situations that could have been avoided by good decision making, then why teach stall and spin recovery? If pilots just followed their VFR training and never exceeded the critical angle of attack, then they wouldn't need to know how to recover from a stall or spin.

I think PPL training is inadequate training for the full dangers and possibilities of flight and I don't think we can learn all the skills we need by teaching ourselves. I'm not saying people should be required to do IFR training, but I personally think that if one can't fly indefinitely solely by reference to instruments (that may be failing) then one is not trained to handle all situations they may encounter in the aircraft. Just my humble opinion.
 
bmellis11 said:
If the argument is that we don't need to be trained to get out of bad situations that could have been avoided by good decision making, then why teach stall and spin recovery? If pilots just followed their VFR training and never exceeded the critical angle of attack, then they wouldn't need to know how to recover from a stall or spin.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen any posts that in any way are making that argument. Please don't extend comments beyond their original intent just to press a point. :)
 
Sam Buchanan said:
I haven't seen any posts that in any way are making that argument. Please don't extend comments beyond their original intent just to press a point. :)
Click to expand...
I agree. I don’t think anyone is making that argument.

I would say, though, there is no rating that can prepare you for any/all situations. That is called experience and it still doesn’t cover everything.
 
DanH said:
I mean hood practice of course, so that when (not if) there is an inadvertent loss of visual horizon, it's no big deal.
Click to expand...
Dan, I respectfully disagree. I have sent a fair number of instrument students off to the DPE, and I always try to get them some actual IMC first even though it’s not required. To a person, they have all commented that it was not ‘no big deal’. Responses varied, of course. Some were just a bit apprehensive, others became very fixated on one gauge. To me the performance fall-off was almost always obvious. I made an exception for my very best student - he was ready, but there had only been the usual N. Cal vmc wx, but I signed him off anyway. He flew an hour north to the DPE, passed the test. But some overcast had moved in (nothing hard) so he decided to immediately use his new rating, file ifr. He later told me his ILS into his home field was the worst approach he had ever done, cdi needles all over the place. First time imc is not ‘no big deal’ for most pilots, even though the difference is ‘only’ psychological.
 
I noticed that the NTSB report made no mention of the possibility of hypoxia. True, at 12,300’, the FARs do not require it for part 91 operations. But I also know that my personal experience is that I’ve need oxygen lower and sooner, as I’ve aged. And this PIC was 80 years old. A factor in fuzzy decision making?
 
BobTurner said:
Dan, I respectfully disagree. I have sent a fair number of instrument students off to the DPE, and I always try to get them some actual IMC first even though it’s not required. To a person, they have all commented that it was not ‘no big deal’. Responses varied, of course. Some were just a bit apprehensive, others became very fixated on one gauge. To me the performance fall-off was almost always obvious. I made an exception for my very best student - he was ready, but there had only been the usual N. Cal vmc wx, but I signed him off anyway. He flew an hour north to the DPE, passed the test. But some overcast had moved in (nothing hard) so he decided to immediately use his new rating, file ifr. He later told me his ILS into his home field was the worst approach he had ever done, cdi needles all over the place. First time imc is not ‘no big deal’ for most pilots, even though the difference is ‘only’ psychological.
Click to expand...
Completely agree. Getting actual IMC time is definitely a benefit to new IFR pilots. It is always interesting to watch their faces and body language the first couple of actual IMC flights. I always try to get my students some actual during their training.
 
BobTurner said:
First time imc is not ‘no big deal’ for most pilots, even though the difference is ‘only’ psychological.
Click to expand...

Bob, I can accept that. First time in real IMC is indeed a big deal. Poor choice of words on my part. I'm merely suggesting there is no reason for it to be fatal,
 
I find It interesting that this report doesn’t include details of the aircraft equipment. Someone above mentioned that it looked like the autopilot was in use. Sometimes this is shown by the accuracy of the tracking and height. So why the sudden loss of control?
Entering cloud at that height without pitot heat could quickly cause a blockage and airspeed failure.
often there’s more to these accidents than we’ll ever know.
However it still all comes down to doing good preflight weather checks, knowing your and your aircraft limitations, being prepared to turnaround early and having a plan B.
 
Last edited:
kiwipete said:
I find It interesting that this report doesn’t include details of the aircraft equipment. Someone above mentioned that it looked like the autopilot was in use. Sometimes this is shown by the accuracy of the tracking and height. So why the sudden loss of control?
Entering cloud at that height without pitot heat could quickly cause a blockage and airspeed failure.
often there’s more to these accidents than we’ll ever know.
However it still all comes down to doing good preflight weather checks, knowing your and your aircraft limitations, being prepared to turnaround early and having a plan B.
Click to expand...
How right you are. I have experienced most of this scenario and fortunately lived to talk about it.

- Hard IMC
-Blocked Pitot tube
- autopilot malfunction
- loss of EFIS (my only attitude reference)
- full blown spatial D…

As I was plunging toward the ground I recall thinking that this would end up in an accident report and likely attributed to “the pilot’s lack of attitude and speed control”, all hung on the fact that I was not instrument rated. Had that crash happened, the world would never have known I suffered a total panel blackout and up to that point was doing fine in the soup. “Fine”, in this context simply means I managed to keep the wings level and climb in a straight line for 10 minutes - it was still a horrible place to be and a result of epic bad decision making on my part.

But your point remains, there is often more to these situations than even a detailed investigation can uncover.
 
A lot of speculation here. Nothing about this was good except to inform those of us left behind of the lessons to be gleaned from what happened and, possibly, avoiding it ourselves.

I have been in a similar situation more times than I can count, both in Suzie Q but also the Cub. Nope. Not today. Time to go back and try again tomorrow. They are mostly, but not all, trying to get to OSH. Without fail, with few notable exceptions, that the weather from about the Colorado/Nebraska border East that time of year is notoriously fickle. Check the weather. Go there. The weather was not as predicted or has changed from when you checked. The options in the Cub are way fewer than in SuzieQ. Nice thing about the Cub: if I encounter a situation that doesn't seem to have a good option out, I can usually find a field and land. I have waited out several storms in a stubble field. The key is making that decision before it gets too bad to even do that. My AWARENESS is on 10+ in the Cub. I have worked OSH for quite some time: this year will be my 35th year. :oops: How is that possible? In my position as a Chairman, I HAVE to be there. But if I don't get there the day I planned, the Convention is not going to grind to a stop because I am not there. And I know that. Is it nice when I get there in time? My crew will tell you YES! How many times have I turned around at The Wall of Clouds/Fog that seems to form nearly every year on the Colorado state line. Too many to mention. I spent the night in Portage the year a storm came through OSH late in the evening and damaged a bunch of airplanes. I was sitting in a loaned hangar watching the carnage to the North. Back in the day when the weather man was at the airport and you could talk to him directly and look at what he was telling you (THOSE were the days!), I was in Buffalo WY heading to Sheridan and was assured the weather would be 'fine'. I flew the Cub into a blinding Snow storm and had to turn around. :mad:

SuzieQ is a basic airplane. She is NOT IFR equipped. For years I had the basic instruments including a T&B with the two-minute 180 degree turn blocks. I would go out and practice with an observer in the back using all the instruments I had to get myself out of Oh No: in the Cloud situations. It's easy to practice the two-minute turn solo. Now I have a Dynon D10A but do not pretend that is anything close to something that will keep me out of trouble except for the momentary use to get turned around. Much better having it on the panel.

I have no autopilot. Never wanted it. I like flying the airplane myself. Would it help in this situation? Yes: but the better option is not to get into that situation in the first place. I have made the 180 turn in deteriorating situations. My best solution is to always have and out which applies in the Mountains as well. What does it look like where I just came from? To the port and starboard directions? With the speed and capabilities of a -4, diverting for weather is not as much of an issue as in the Cub. I went from OSH one year to Rothschild, WI before I found weather clear enough to make it back to Denver. Quite the divert.

SO: what we can do is learn from this incident those things that apply to our skill levels and apply them to our own flying to, maybe, keep us out of trouble. You don't HAVE to be wherever you are going, regardless of who is expecting you. That's why we have cell phones. If you are not IFR rated, you are not IFR rated. And if you are IFR rated you might not be current. You might not be as good as you think you are regardless of how many hours you have. Experienced pilots/people do stupid things all the time. Know your limits. A man's got to know his limitations.
Turn around; don't drown. Pay attention. We owe the lessons from this incident to this pilot and passenger who gave it up for us to be better pilots.

IMHO. Off my soapbox......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.