should we discuss fatal accidents?
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whenever I hear about an aircraft accident on the news the first place I come to is PPRune to read what other pilots are thinking.
I agree that it is indeed possible to speculate about the causes of an accident without causing distress to family and friends.
I agree that it is indeed possible to speculate about the causes of an accident without causing distress to family and friends.
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Reading, Berkshire
Posts: 169
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Good and Bad
Death and accidents generate a natural curiosity in mankind. Many people want to talk about an event, even if just to 'offer condolences' as an expression of fear, care or "there but for the grace of God go I".
The good thing about discussion on these forums after an accident is that it is cathartic for us pilots. It can help drive home the realities and impacts of decisions we make related to GA. Like everyone else I have thought about this accident, and wondered if it's possible that with 4 on board you probably wouldn't have a full load of fuel and with very strong headwinds could run dry. I think, make better allowances on fuel for my own trips. Then I look at other people's thoughts and it all goes to educating each other and provide that all-important reality check. A good quality discussion can be just as valuable as knowing 'the truth' about an accident.
The bad thing about some discussions is the judgement and the nit-picking of some contributors who seem just to want to be 'right'. They won't rest until they have hammered home their point. It's no better than people having a stand-up row over someone's body whilst it is being lowered into the ground.
It shows an undignified lack of respect for those who have died, whatever the reason.
I welcome open and objective discussion after tragic events in GA. But it would be so much more positive if we could all agree to avoid judgement at the personal level and the bickering. We should all be clear about the line between discussion and being disrespectful.
The good thing about discussion on these forums after an accident is that it is cathartic for us pilots. It can help drive home the realities and impacts of decisions we make related to GA. Like everyone else I have thought about this accident, and wondered if it's possible that with 4 on board you probably wouldn't have a full load of fuel and with very strong headwinds could run dry. I think, make better allowances on fuel for my own trips. Then I look at other people's thoughts and it all goes to educating each other and provide that all-important reality check. A good quality discussion can be just as valuable as knowing 'the truth' about an accident.
The bad thing about some discussions is the judgement and the nit-picking of some contributors who seem just to want to be 'right'. They won't rest until they have hammered home their point. It's no better than people having a stand-up row over someone's body whilst it is being lowered into the ground.
It shows an undignified lack of respect for those who have died, whatever the reason.
I welcome open and objective discussion after tragic events in GA. But it would be so much more positive if we could all agree to avoid judgement at the personal level and the bickering. We should all be clear about the line between discussion and being disrespectful.
Moderator
I'm sure others here have their stories, to back up their feelings, here is one of three of mine....
I don't mean to single out a poster, but I have a different perspective on the sentiment:
My good friend's wife, who is also a nurse, was at the scene. I, in my capacity as a volunteer firefighter, flew in, and ran to the scene of his collision with earth. He had done something which demonstrated poor airmanship, and physics had got him.
As she and I and two other firefighters lifted him out of the inverted wreck, we were quiet and professional. I really did not want to upset her any more, she was doing so well. We could not tell if he was alive, but it seemed that he still might be. As I assisted in moving him as gently as possibly (another fire was a very real concern, there had already been one), I could feel some of his injurys, but kept this to myself, so as to be considerate of feelings. I remember thinking to myself, "for his own sake, I hope he passes away without pain, because living is going to involve huge pain for a long time". The first words spoken during this solemn task were his wife saying: "Oh, he's all broken" (and she is a very qualified observer, and had not even felt the part of him I was holding). I realized at that moment that she was emotionally distancing herself from a situation which was going to be very unpleasent. "He" was now two entities, a soul she loved, and a body she did not know any more.
The coroner told me the next day, that he had met earth at more than 200G - in a Cessna 150.
His wife searched for months for a place to lay blame. We (the very qualified flying observers) remained united in our silence on this. Nothing else could be found to blame when a perfectly servicable aircraft hits the ground in perfect flying conditions. How would explaining that to her possibly help?
Were it to be these days, and she became aware of the incredible speculation run rampent in an internet forum, it would tear her apart inside. How does that make the world better?
Those of us who knew the circumstances, rolled things over in our minds, and all fly safer for it. The pilots we talk to, get the watered down version, and are hopefully safer too.
I disagree that it can be assumed that speculation about an accident can be widely communicated without causing distress to family and friends. I think that you need to walk a mile in the other person's shoes, before you assume how they might feel, and then go off to satisfy your own unimportant desire to simply chat about it.
No attack intended, just my carefully thought out opinion...
Pilot DAR
I don't mean to single out a poster, but I have a different perspective on the sentiment:
.....other pilots are thinking.
I agree that it is indeed possible to speculate about the causes of an accident without causing distress to family and friends.
I agree that it is indeed possible to speculate about the causes of an accident without causing distress to family and friends.
As she and I and two other firefighters lifted him out of the inverted wreck, we were quiet and professional. I really did not want to upset her any more, she was doing so well. We could not tell if he was alive, but it seemed that he still might be. As I assisted in moving him as gently as possibly (another fire was a very real concern, there had already been one), I could feel some of his injurys, but kept this to myself, so as to be considerate of feelings. I remember thinking to myself, "for his own sake, I hope he passes away without pain, because living is going to involve huge pain for a long time". The first words spoken during this solemn task were his wife saying: "Oh, he's all broken" (and she is a very qualified observer, and had not even felt the part of him I was holding). I realized at that moment that she was emotionally distancing herself from a situation which was going to be very unpleasent. "He" was now two entities, a soul she loved, and a body she did not know any more.
The coroner told me the next day, that he had met earth at more than 200G - in a Cessna 150.
His wife searched for months for a place to lay blame. We (the very qualified flying observers) remained united in our silence on this. Nothing else could be found to blame when a perfectly servicable aircraft hits the ground in perfect flying conditions. How would explaining that to her possibly help?
Were it to be these days, and she became aware of the incredible speculation run rampent in an internet forum, it would tear her apart inside. How does that make the world better?
Those of us who knew the circumstances, rolled things over in our minds, and all fly safer for it. The pilots we talk to, get the watered down version, and are hopefully safer too.
I disagree that it can be assumed that speculation about an accident can be widely communicated without causing distress to family and friends. I think that you need to walk a mile in the other person's shoes, before you assume how they might feel, and then go off to satisfy your own unimportant desire to simply chat about it.
No attack intended, just my carefully thought out opinion...
Pilot DAR
Join Date: May 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 4,631
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Dar
The human element of an accident is tragic - and you make it very clear from your post just how tragic.
I was reading Flying today. Each month they publish an article titled “Aftermath”. I always read the article. Not for morbid curiosity, but because there is nearly always something to learn from Peter Garrison. At some point in the article he usually comments on what the official NTSB report said. In this case: “the NTSB neatly, if unhelpfully, summed up the probable cause: “The pilot’s failure to follow up the instrument approach procedure and his descent below the prescribed precision height” In this accident the commercial IR pilot and his two passengers died.
Peter points out for an instrument rated pilot the approach is a mechanical procedure which if followed correctly will always end in one of two ways - a successful landing or a missed approach. He might have said (but didn’t) if we were computers (mechanical failures during the approach aside) there would never be an accident on an approach.
Sadly, more instrument rated pilots kill themselves in this way than any other.
Peter, goes on to discuss in some detail why this might be so, by specific reference to this accident. There is little doubt that a significant part of the article is speculation, albeit informed and, for all I know, well researched speculation.
Personally, I think the article should be called “Insight”, not “Aftermath”. Peter provides an insight into what caused the accident. When a pilot dies it is always tragic. It is a waste of life, moreover, more often than not, a preventable waste of life. Clearing up the mess is always going to be heart wrenching.
However, as in this article the NTSB report is as Peter says, neat, but unhelpful. The helpful part is his insight into what may have caused the accident - what really are the factors that may cause a well trained pilot to depart from a mechanical procedure that if followed can only have a good outcome. What may cause a pilot to do anything that in hindsight is at worst simply stupid, or, at best, unfortunate?
In short, only one good thing can come from any fatal accident. That is the discussion that follows, the insight into what may have caused the accident, the factors than can result in commercial instrument rated pilot flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft in reasonable weather into the ground when the only factor probably involved was his unwillingness to give up on the approach. Read the NTSB report and none of that comes over in the neat clinical way in which the report is written.
Simply, the reason we discuss these things is that if it stops just one other pilot making the same mistake(s), just one pilot recalling as he finds himself pushing the minima just how tragic the outcome can be then not all is lost; and if as Peter does, even a few words are spent on describing just how awful the scene of the accident was, I don’t think that is such a bad thing.
The human element of an accident is tragic - and you make it very clear from your post just how tragic.
I was reading Flying today. Each month they publish an article titled “Aftermath”. I always read the article. Not for morbid curiosity, but because there is nearly always something to learn from Peter Garrison. At some point in the article he usually comments on what the official NTSB report said. In this case: “the NTSB neatly, if unhelpfully, summed up the probable cause: “The pilot’s failure to follow up the instrument approach procedure and his descent below the prescribed precision height” In this accident the commercial IR pilot and his two passengers died.
Peter points out for an instrument rated pilot the approach is a mechanical procedure which if followed correctly will always end in one of two ways - a successful landing or a missed approach. He might have said (but didn’t) if we were computers (mechanical failures during the approach aside) there would never be an accident on an approach.
Sadly, more instrument rated pilots kill themselves in this way than any other.
Peter, goes on to discuss in some detail why this might be so, by specific reference to this accident. There is little doubt that a significant part of the article is speculation, albeit informed and, for all I know, well researched speculation.
Personally, I think the article should be called “Insight”, not “Aftermath”. Peter provides an insight into what caused the accident. When a pilot dies it is always tragic. It is a waste of life, moreover, more often than not, a preventable waste of life. Clearing up the mess is always going to be heart wrenching.
However, as in this article the NTSB report is as Peter says, neat, but unhelpful. The helpful part is his insight into what may have caused the accident - what really are the factors that may cause a well trained pilot to depart from a mechanical procedure that if followed can only have a good outcome. What may cause a pilot to do anything that in hindsight is at worst simply stupid, or, at best, unfortunate?
In short, only one good thing can come from any fatal accident. That is the discussion that follows, the insight into what may have caused the accident, the factors than can result in commercial instrument rated pilot flying a perfectly serviceable aircraft in reasonable weather into the ground when the only factor probably involved was his unwillingness to give up on the approach. Read the NTSB report and none of that comes over in the neat clinical way in which the report is written.
Simply, the reason we discuss these things is that if it stops just one other pilot making the same mistake(s), just one pilot recalling as he finds himself pushing the minima just how tragic the outcome can be then not all is lost; and if as Peter does, even a few words are spent on describing just how awful the scene of the accident was, I don’t think that is such a bad thing.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: London
Age: 68
Posts: 1,269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Pilot Dar and Fuji
what an excellent exchange of view, so sensitive and well written! This is exactly what the Private Flying forum needs
Pace
Your interpretation of what to do and what not and why is excellent, I hope people read and remember it
This is rightly developing in a movement NOT to stifle free speech, which we need to keep, but to explain to those who like to listen to themselves so much that this is not the place for them.
Qualifying as a pilot is not the only prerequisite for this forum, another one is to value other's opinions as much as one's own and to show respect to pilots both deceased and living
what an excellent exchange of view, so sensitive and well written! This is exactly what the Private Flying forum needs
Pace
Your interpretation of what to do and what not and why is excellent, I hope people read and remember it
This is rightly developing in a movement NOT to stifle free speech, which we need to keep, but to explain to those who like to listen to themselves so much that this is not the place for them.
Qualifying as a pilot is not the only prerequisite for this forum, another one is to value other's opinions as much as one's own and to show respect to pilots both deceased and living
Moderator
Yes Fuji,
A read those articles, and completely agree with you. The difference (what makes me so willing to agree with you) is, as I had pointed out on the other thread, that the "Aftermath" article, and others like it, are written to discuss an accident report, more than the accident itself. Thus, it is not in "real time". I'm not suggesting that there never be discussion and learning from accidents, just that it not occur in "real time", when facts are not known (thus speculation, and non-factual information cannot be distinguished from truth). Truths which really should come out, must have the timely opportunity to follow the proper path, rather than being short circuited. The sort of time period which a society (the media) allows to exist, so as to allow the next of kin to be notified.
I helicopter I have flown a number of times was crashed last summer. The wife of the pilot found out by watching national news that her husband was dead. All because "everyone thought everyone else had told her" Nobody had. She was justifiably upset. Within hours of her finding out her husband was lost, there was ILL INFORMED guessulation being posted on PPRuNe, and I took quite a slagging for squelching it. I had been told the FACTS right away (they were totally know right away), but did not relate them then. Other posters accused me of having privilaged information (they were right, I did) and being a poor person for not posting it! Tough on them, they had no need to know. Days later the FACTS were public, and with the appropriate permission, I released those facts in the theme of safety. The report has yet to come, but will say nothing more than what we already know.
By the way, all of you "want you learns" out there, take your engine cover off before you fly! (particularly if you fly helicopters, where that cover also surrounds the rotor pitch control links)
I too, have learned a lot from reading accident reports. I learn much much less from reading hours old speculation!
Pilot DAR
A read those articles, and completely agree with you. The difference (what makes me so willing to agree with you) is, as I had pointed out on the other thread, that the "Aftermath" article, and others like it, are written to discuss an accident report, more than the accident itself. Thus, it is not in "real time". I'm not suggesting that there never be discussion and learning from accidents, just that it not occur in "real time", when facts are not known (thus speculation, and non-factual information cannot be distinguished from truth). Truths which really should come out, must have the timely opportunity to follow the proper path, rather than being short circuited. The sort of time period which a society (the media) allows to exist, so as to allow the next of kin to be notified.
I helicopter I have flown a number of times was crashed last summer. The wife of the pilot found out by watching national news that her husband was dead. All because "everyone thought everyone else had told her" Nobody had. She was justifiably upset. Within hours of her finding out her husband was lost, there was ILL INFORMED guessulation being posted on PPRuNe, and I took quite a slagging for squelching it. I had been told the FACTS right away (they were totally know right away), but did not relate them then. Other posters accused me of having privilaged information (they were right, I did) and being a poor person for not posting it! Tough on them, they had no need to know. Days later the FACTS were public, and with the appropriate permission, I released those facts in the theme of safety. The report has yet to come, but will say nothing more than what we already know.
By the way, all of you "want you learns" out there, take your engine cover off before you fly! (particularly if you fly helicopters, where that cover also surrounds the rotor pitch control links)
I too, have learned a lot from reading accident reports. I learn much much less from reading hours old speculation!
Pilot DAR
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Gemma
The worst I had was at FL120 over Madrid in a Seneca Five twin. I was flying single pilot with the owner in the back. As we approached Madrid there were two large storms. The ground temperature at Madrid was 45 deg c.
I went between the two cells in clear air and was horrified to see the ASI shoot in a few seconds from 155 KTS ias to 70 kts IAS. i disonnected the autopilot added full power while pushing the nose over. Nothing happened airspeed stayed at 70 kts IAS and the VSI went off the clock. The aircraft dropped 1500 feet before everything came back to normal. The best way to describe it was as if the aircraft had flown into a vacuum and dropped wings level vertically.
The whole experience surprisingly was not scary and I knew in my mind that it would come back again but I had never experienced anything like it and have never since.
You often get sink while flying over solid cloud and then come over a hole in that cloud. You will notice with the aircraft on auto a slight up on the vsi as the aircraft struggles to hold hight. The airspeed will also drop maybe 10 kts short as you come out of that sink the VS1 drops a little and the speed increases.
I once had quite a severe downdraft in a single and the above description becomes far worse. You may have the aircraft pitched to fly up with full power and in that profile find you are actually descending with little you can do other than finding your way out of the sink.
Flying a citation to Nice there were reports of severe turbulence between FL210 and FL290 I warned the passengers to expect the worst reduced the speed and nothing ! as smooth a a babies bottom. We filed out feeling like idiots on the more northerly route out of Nice over the mountains but this time empty having deposited the passenegers who must have questioned whether we knew what we were talking about! . FL210 and all hell let loose with 45 degree wing drops. The aircraft was almost uncontrollable. Cabinet doors flew open everything hurled around the cabin.
I requested an immediate climb to above FL290 and all of a sudden the citation was climbing at 3500 fpm at that level which is unheard of in an old Citation 2. we shot up through 290 assisted like a lift to FL310 so it works both ways
Pace
Pace or anyone with mountain experience, out of interest, in a downdraft situation, what would be the likely aircraft attitude? Would one be nose up fighting the downdraft, or nose down? It isn't something I've ever experienced but in turbulence when sinking fast I've instinctively been full power nose up while trying to keep the altitude. How would you know in IMC on instruments that you had hit a downdraft? Would it be a large uncommanded rate of descent whilst the instruments showed straight and level attitude? Any other indicators?
I went between the two cells in clear air and was horrified to see the ASI shoot in a few seconds from 155 KTS ias to 70 kts IAS. i disonnected the autopilot added full power while pushing the nose over. Nothing happened airspeed stayed at 70 kts IAS and the VSI went off the clock. The aircraft dropped 1500 feet before everything came back to normal. The best way to describe it was as if the aircraft had flown into a vacuum and dropped wings level vertically.
The whole experience surprisingly was not scary and I knew in my mind that it would come back again but I had never experienced anything like it and have never since.
You often get sink while flying over solid cloud and then come over a hole in that cloud. You will notice with the aircraft on auto a slight up on the vsi as the aircraft struggles to hold hight. The airspeed will also drop maybe 10 kts short as you come out of that sink the VS1 drops a little and the speed increases.
I once had quite a severe downdraft in a single and the above description becomes far worse. You may have the aircraft pitched to fly up with full power and in that profile find you are actually descending with little you can do other than finding your way out of the sink.
Flying a citation to Nice there were reports of severe turbulence between FL210 and FL290 I warned the passengers to expect the worst reduced the speed and nothing ! as smooth a a babies bottom. We filed out feeling like idiots on the more northerly route out of Nice over the mountains but this time empty having deposited the passenegers who must have questioned whether we knew what we were talking about! . FL210 and all hell let loose with 45 degree wing drops. The aircraft was almost uncontrollable. Cabinet doors flew open everything hurled around the cabin.
I requested an immediate climb to above FL290 and all of a sudden the citation was climbing at 3500 fpm at that level which is unheard of in an old Citation 2. we shot up through 290 assisted like a lift to FL310 so it works both ways
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 28th Oct 2008 at 19:13.
Guest
Posts: n/a
I once had quite a severe downdraft in a single and the above description becomes far worse. You may have the aircraft pitched to fly up with full power and in that profile find you are actually descending with little you can do other than finding your way out of the sink.
Fortunately the gods were kind that day and we exited the cloud/sink at around 700' (having encountered it circa 3,500') and recovered.
There but for the grace of god, as we were over the Channel at the time.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Wind shear, sometimes referred to as windshear or wind gradient, is a difference in wind speed and direction over a relatively short distance in the atmosphere. Wind shear can be broken down into vertical and horizontal components, with horizontal wind shear seen across weather fronts and near the coast, and vertical shear typically near the surface, though also at higher levels in the atmosphere near upper level jets and frontal zones aloft.
Wind shear itself is a microscale meteorological phenomenon occurring over a very small distance, but it can be associated with mesoscale or synoptic scale weather features such as squall lines and cold fronts. It is commonly observed near microbursts and downbursts caused by thunderstorms, weather fronts, areas of locally higher low level winds referred to as low level jets, near mountains, radiation inversions that occur due to clear skies and calm winds, buildings, wind turbines, and sailboats. Wind shear has a significant effect during take-off and landing of aircraft due to their effects on control of the aircraft, and was a significant cause of aircraft accidents involving large loss of life within the United States.
Sound movement through the atmosphere is affected by wind shear, which can bend the wave front, causing sounds to be heard where they normally would not, or vice versa. Strong vertical wind shear within the troposphere also inhibits tropical cyclone development, but helps to organize individual thunderstorms into living longer life cycles which can then produce severe weather. The thermal wind concept explains with how differences in wind speed with height are dependent on horizontal temperature differences, and explains the existence of the jet stream.[1]
Wind shear itself is a microscale meteorological phenomenon occurring over a very small distance, but it can be associated with mesoscale or synoptic scale weather features such as squall lines and cold fronts. It is commonly observed near microbursts and downbursts caused by thunderstorms, weather fronts, areas of locally higher low level winds referred to as low level jets, near mountains, radiation inversions that occur due to clear skies and calm winds, buildings, wind turbines, and sailboats. Wind shear has a significant effect during take-off and landing of aircraft due to their effects on control of the aircraft, and was a significant cause of aircraft accidents involving large loss of life within the United States.
Sound movement through the atmosphere is affected by wind shear, which can bend the wave front, causing sounds to be heard where they normally would not, or vice versa. Strong vertical wind shear within the troposphere also inhibits tropical cyclone development, but helps to organize individual thunderstorms into living longer life cycles which can then produce severe weather. The thermal wind concept explains with how differences in wind speed with height are dependent on horizontal temperature differences, and explains the existence of the jet stream.[1]
It is scary when it happens low level like it did with you. It is an awful feeling especially in an underpowered aircraft when you have full power and feel that some giant hand is pushing you down and you feel powerless to do much about it. High level you know you will come out. IMC you must have wondered what the heck was going on with the instruments?
In low powered singles with strong wind forecasts it is not just the crosswind components you need to consider but the fact that you may encounter severe pockets of sinking air. Some of us who have flown light singles or twins over the Alps lowish level know only too well that you dont do it on anything but the calmest days.I have taken a jet into Engadin Airport, located at an altitude of 1707 metres above sea level, 5 km from St.Moritz, it is Europe’s highest elevated airport.
Even a jet has to be low level in the mountains approaching or departing that airport. One very beautiful but scary place with mountains both sides and not enough room to turn! I would certainly keep an eye on wind forecasts going into there.
Addendum
While on a skiing holiday in the french Alps in Meribel I went up with a french instructor in a Ski equipt Jodel. Apart from being a stunning experience those instructors have a vast knowledge on mountain flying and the perils. It is well worth treating yourselves to a course of mountain flying for a better understanding of the dangers of the medium we fly in.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Oct 2008 at 09:59.
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: London
Age: 71
Posts: 339
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well, Pilot DAR you certainly have brought home the need to tread very carefully when there are emotionally vulnerable people in the aftermath of a recent accident. Point taken. It does seem that you feel there should be a complete ban on discussion of an accident until the accident report is out?
Human nature being what it is, that isn't going to happen (unless the moderators enforce it). I still don't see any harm in discussing possible causes as long as they are presented as just that (in modern science causation can never be "proved").
A couple of weeks ago I started a thread based on the October AAIB reports and I felt there some really useful contributions to that by various people.
Human nature being what it is, that isn't going to happen (unless the moderators enforce it). I still don't see any harm in discussing possible causes as long as they are presented as just that (in modern science causation can never be "proved").
A couple of weeks ago I started a thread based on the October AAIB reports and I felt there some really useful contributions to that by various people.
Moderator
I do not seek to impose a complete ban on content in posts, nor would I like to be subject to one. Rather, I hope that those of us in the PPRuNe community can strive to display behaviour toward our peers, which we would wish for ourselves. Presupposing that we do "raise the bar", it will from time to time be necessary to reign in the occassional newcomer, who may have yet to come to understand the sensativities which could be involved, and the standards of conduct acceptable to the group in general.
Perhaps if PPRuNe had some agreed guidance and behaviour paragraphs assessible, which could be cut 'n paste into posts by any of the participants, this could serve to introduce or remind posters of the "code of conduct" which the majority of the group would like to embrace. Not a ban, just a polite reminder. Leave the "banning" to the moderators, on a case by case basis.
Just thinking....
Pilot DAR
Perhaps if PPRuNe had some agreed guidance and behaviour paragraphs assessible, which could be cut 'n paste into posts by any of the participants, this could serve to introduce or remind posters of the "code of conduct" which the majority of the group would like to embrace. Not a ban, just a polite reminder. Leave the "banning" to the moderators, on a case by case basis.
Just thinking....
Pilot DAR
should we discuss fatal accidents?
Pilo DAR, I can only imagine the dreadful circumstances that you found yourself in, and this must have a huge influence on how you view these discussions.
His wife searched for months for a place to lay blame. We (the very qualified flying observers) remained united in our silence on this. Nothing else could be found to blame when a perfectly servicable aircraft hits the ground in perfect flying conditions. How would explaining that to her possibly help?
FBW
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Dublin
Posts: 2,547
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Perhaps if PPRuNe had some agreed guidance and behaviour paragraphs assessible
If not then perhaps they could do one up.
If not, then perhaps we could do one up ourselves, and they could agree to it.
If might stop these endless discussions of what's appropriate taking place after each fatal accident.
If we all know what's allowed and what's not, then we could get on with things, whether we agreed with the policy or not.
dp
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chedburgh, Bury St.Edmunds
Age: 81
Posts: 1,177
Likes: 0
Received 11 Likes
on
9 Posts
Been away a day or two. Just to put the record straight, my daughter doesn't read Pprune, not being interested in Aviation. She informed me that she knew the pilot etc., and I informed her of some of the critical posts.
Some very interesting views here.
Some very interesting views here.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Could there be a possibility that in the circumstances a frank explanation of the facts, coming from a trusted friend - and experienced aviator - could have avoided some of those months of anguish and helped achieved closure more quickly? This is, of course, just a thought from one wholly unconnected with the incident, with no knowledge of the people concerned, and certainly not a criticism of you.
I am not qualified to make statements on how best to let people deal with any bereavement especially one involving tragic circumstances so this is just an observation.
Most people go through many emotions and that is a needed process for healing. Whether trying to cotton wool people is a good thing? I have my doubts and tend to reflect the opinion posted above.
I firmly support a Pilot forum discussing possible causes because even possible causes which are not the cause of an acccident could be in future situations. Secondly pilots are more "open" to taking in certain advice after the shock of an accident and when we think "that could have been us" rather than a year or more later when the AAIB release a report that hardly anyone bothers to read or is very interested in.
I of course am not referring to a very small minority who gain a certain pleasure or excitement from others misfortunes.
As to a code of conduct? I do not think that stifling free speech even if it becomes borderline is good as eventually the conversations lead to the required result even if a little heated on route. Moderators are in a good position to identify that small minority posting that is distasteful or insulting and deal with it appropriately.
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Oct 2008 at 16:53.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Speaking of mud throwing, I actually think it should be banned from any thread, not just from accident debates.The personal attacks which repeatedly happen here (of which I have been a victim many times) are completely pointless and merely serve to make the poster look like an idiot and drive away most people with anything useful to say. IMHO any such post should be deleted by the mods and repeat offenders simply banned. Pprune has a pretty awful reputation already in many quarters, as a result of the "activities" of a small band of posters. This is a real shame since there is a lot of expertise around here - more than on any other forum - and in addition pprune does not suffer from being clicquey (sp?) like most others are (which turns most serious debates into drivel).
As regards this accident, do we actually know anything other than the really obvious one which is that terrain clearance somehow got compromised?
People have criticised the decision to do that flight in a PA28, or any single engine plane, but I don't agree with that at all. If you are going to get say a -4000fpm downdraught (and is there any evidence, examining the airflow at the time and the terrain maps that this was the case?) then nothing short of a Tucano or similarly capable turboprop is going to outclimb it. A TBM850 certainly won't, though of course that one would be at FL250 or whatever. No civilian piston twin will outclimb it. -1000fpm is possible with a decent single or twin (my TB20 will manage 1000fpm, just). But in terms of mountain waves, the difference between -300fpm (roughly, the capability of a heavily loaded PA28 like this one was) and -600fpm (which a more powerful single or twin could outclimb) is only of the order of 1000ft in the altitude above the terrain.
Icing was probably not an issue, and neither was any in-flight breakup or even a control failure. Not a case of flying into a snow covered hill (as in the Mt Erebus one). It looks like it flew into the terrain in a pretty leisurely manner, and almost certainly in solid IMC.
In short, I am not sure what can be learnt from that accident, right now.
As regards this accident, do we actually know anything other than the really obvious one which is that terrain clearance somehow got compromised?
People have criticised the decision to do that flight in a PA28, or any single engine plane, but I don't agree with that at all. If you are going to get say a -4000fpm downdraught (and is there any evidence, examining the airflow at the time and the terrain maps that this was the case?) then nothing short of a Tucano or similarly capable turboprop is going to outclimb it. A TBM850 certainly won't, though of course that one would be at FL250 or whatever. No civilian piston twin will outclimb it. -1000fpm is possible with a decent single or twin (my TB20 will manage 1000fpm, just). But in terms of mountain waves, the difference between -300fpm (roughly, the capability of a heavily loaded PA28 like this one was) and -600fpm (which a more powerful single or twin could outclimb) is only of the order of 1000ft in the altitude above the terrain.
Icing was probably not an issue, and neither was any in-flight breakup or even a control failure. Not a case of flying into a snow covered hill (as in the Mt Erebus one). It looks like it flew into the terrain in a pretty leisurely manner, and almost certainly in solid IMC.
In short, I am not sure what can be learnt from that accident, right now.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In short, I am not sure what can be learnt from that accident, right now.
I think a lot can be learnt! btw a Seneca Five twin will climb at 1500 fpm if needed but I take your point on severe down air currents some which even a jet would find hard to counteract.
But equally flying in very strong winds over high terrain would mean that I would want thousands of feet clearance to give me a safety zone of air in the event of extreme down air movement.
Ie in a light twin I would want to be cruising at 10000 feet over 3500 foot mountains which means up in the icing levels not cruising at 5000 feet or less in a deiced single.
If my approach and landing was in the hills/mountains I would have to question the advisability of using an aircraft which could not outclimb the predicted down drafts.
I would also question the advisability of taking a small single over seas battered by high winds as that would reduce my chances of a successful forced landing in conditions like that.
Horses for courses and maybe a PA28 fully loaded wasnt the right horse for the job but then again maybe it was who am I to judge??? Flying is all about risk management sometimes we dont manage those risks as strongly as we could (and I have equally been as guilty of that}but then we lean towards Russian roulette
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 29th Oct 2008 at 17:36.
Join Date: May 2001
Location: 75N 16E
Age: 54
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"The pilot should never have attempted to fly over mountains with such winds. It's incompetent! I'd never do that!"
People have criticised the decision to do that flight in a PA28, or any single engine plane, but I don't agree with that at all. If you are going to get say a -4000fpm downdraught (and is there any evidence, examining the airflow at the time and the terrain maps that this was the case?) then nothing short of a Tucano or similarly capable turboprop is going to outclimb it. A TBM850 certainly won't, though of course that one would be at FL250 or whatever. No civilian piston twin will outclimb it. -1000fpm is possible with a decent single or twin (my TB20 will manage 1000fpm, just). But in terms of mountain waves, the difference between -300fpm (roughly, the capability of a heavily loaded PA28 like this one was) and -600fpm (which a more powerful single or twin could outclimb) is only of the order of 1000ft in the altitude above the terrain.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree about extra height (a very rough rule is 1000ft above the peaks for every 10kt of wind) but that would have placed the pilot into IMC, which (it is reasonable to assume) he didn't want.
He also (reportedly) cleared the worst of the terrain, hitting (reportedly) the last hill on the route. Not knowing his route (ATC will know, of course) we can only guess here.
And looking at the radar image (the one bit of data I can get for the relevant time and place) a flight in IMC would have been pretty rough. I would not have gone airways in that type of picture, for sure. But I also know very very few pilots get radar images.
That is a different consideration though. It's a personal attitude thing entirely. Many pilots would not fly a single over mountains, for example.
He also (reportedly) cleared the worst of the terrain, hitting (reportedly) the last hill on the route. Not knowing his route (ATC will know, of course) we can only guess here.
And looking at the radar image (the one bit of data I can get for the relevant time and place) a flight in IMC would have been pretty rough. I would not have gone airways in that type of picture, for sure. But I also know very very few pilots get radar images.
I would also question the advisability of taking a small single over seas battered by high winds as that would reduce my chances of a successful forced landing in conditions like that.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Pembrokeshire UK
Posts: 343
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PPRuNe at its best on this thread, so I hesitate to add my pennyworth, but something worries me. I guess its the attitude of some pilots to the activity of flying an aeroplane.
My experience of the RAF and BOAC/BA have imprinted the idea that flying is not necessarily dangeous but a wrong decision will usually be fatal.
When I flew for the airlines the drive up the M4 from home to Heathrow was cathartic. No matter what mayhem was going on in my life, divorce, builders, money problems, it was all consigned to a drawer in my head, not to be opened again untill the end of my flight. By the time I checked in the professional had emerged from the emotional wreck, and I was ready to give 100% to the job of flying 400 pax across the pond.
Now when I fly my little aeroplane I am usually solo and have long ago come to terms with the dangers. My family have reluctantly accepted that I might die, in the to them, totally unneccessary toy aeroplane. Insurance & inhertance tax taken into account, I can enjoy my flying having made allowance for the risks.
But what if a non pilot wishes to fly with me? that changes everything.
Now my decision making is based on the safety of that passenger. Marginal weather becomes unflyable, crossing expanses of water in winter without two engines, life raft, immersion suits, and full informed agreement from my passengers, impossible. Above all my recency, flying ability, state of mental health, and deterioration due to age, have to be up to spec.
In short my attitude to flying is serious but fun. That's why the casual attitudes expressed by some make me most uncomfortable. People talk of flying as a "hobby" as if it was like knitting, to be picked up and put down at will. French flyers have it defined properly, to most of them it is a Passion, a way of life, an all inclusive view of themselves and the world.
If you like knitting then fly solo, and don't put your innocent friends into your aeroplane for a casual jolly. As pilots we are intitled to take informed risks with our own lives, but not with innocent others.
My experience of the RAF and BOAC/BA have imprinted the idea that flying is not necessarily dangeous but a wrong decision will usually be fatal.
When I flew for the airlines the drive up the M4 from home to Heathrow was cathartic. No matter what mayhem was going on in my life, divorce, builders, money problems, it was all consigned to a drawer in my head, not to be opened again untill the end of my flight. By the time I checked in the professional had emerged from the emotional wreck, and I was ready to give 100% to the job of flying 400 pax across the pond.
Now when I fly my little aeroplane I am usually solo and have long ago come to terms with the dangers. My family have reluctantly accepted that I might die, in the to them, totally unneccessary toy aeroplane. Insurance & inhertance tax taken into account, I can enjoy my flying having made allowance for the risks.
But what if a non pilot wishes to fly with me? that changes everything.
Now my decision making is based on the safety of that passenger. Marginal weather becomes unflyable, crossing expanses of water in winter without two engines, life raft, immersion suits, and full informed agreement from my passengers, impossible. Above all my recency, flying ability, state of mental health, and deterioration due to age, have to be up to spec.
In short my attitude to flying is serious but fun. That's why the casual attitudes expressed by some make me most uncomfortable. People talk of flying as a "hobby" as if it was like knitting, to be picked up and put down at will. French flyers have it defined properly, to most of them it is a Passion, a way of life, an all inclusive view of themselves and the world.
If you like knitting then fly solo, and don't put your innocent friends into your aeroplane for a casual jolly. As pilots we are intitled to take informed risks with our own lives, but not with innocent others.