325 N51FM SR22 Crash Paso Robles - When to fly the Hold at an IF/IAF 325 N51FM SR22 Crash Paso...
Вставка
- Опубліковано 22 кві 2024
- Max talks about the accident of N51FM, a Cirrus SR22T at Paso Robles, CA, and emphasizes the importance of understanding approach procedures, particularly when starting an approach from an IF/IAF fix with a racetrack. The accident involved a pilot who failed to follow correct procedures, leading to a crash, though fortunately, all occupants survived. Max breaks down the mistakes made by the pilot and discusses the implications for instrument pilots.
If you're getting value from this show, please support the show via PayPal, Venmo, Zelle or Patreon.
Support the Show by buying a Lightspeed ANR Headsets Max has been using only Lightspeed headsets for nearly 25 years! I love their tradeup program that let's you trade in an older Lightspeed headset for a newer model. Start with one of the links below, and Lightspeed will pay a referral fee to support Aviation News Talk. Lightspeed Delta Zulu Headset $1199 Lightspeed Zulu 3 Headset $899Lightspeed Sierra Headset $699 My Review on the Lightspeed Delta Zulu
Send us your feedback or comments via email
If you have a question you’d like answered on the show, let listeners hear you ask the question, by recording your listener question using your phone.
Mentioned on the Show ADSBExchange.com ADS-B data for N51FM flight to Paso Robles RNAV (GPS) 19 approach to KPRB, Paso Robles, CA
Free Index to the first 282 episodes of Aviation New Talk
So You Want To Learn to Fly or Buy a Cirrus seminars Online Version of the Seminar Coming Soon - Register for Notification
Check out our recommended ADS-B receivers, and order one for yourself. Yes, we’ll make a couple of dollars if you do.
Get the Free Aviation News Talk app for iOS or Android.
Check out Max’s Online Courses: G1000 VFR, G1000 IFR, and Flying WAAS & GPS Approaches. Find them all at: www.pilotlearning.com/
Social Media Like Aviation News Talk podcast on Facebook Follow Max on Instagram Follow Max on Twitter Listen to all Aviation News Talk podcasts on UA-cam or UA-cam Premium
"Go Around" song used by permission of Ken Dravis; you can buy his music at kendravis.com If you purchase a product through a link on our site, we may receive compensation.
First off, thank you for the in depth debrief. It’s a great learning experience and luckily everyone survived! I’m currently going through CFI training and found this accident very perplexing. To me, the chain of events leading to the accident began way before the FAF, but I’m curious as to what was going through the CFI’s head as they continued the initial “unstabilized” approach. If I were too high on an approach as described, I want to believe I’d ask ATC to re-vector me and try again instead of continuing. I kinda have to question her mind set if she switched back to the approach controller and asked for a visual. They were on an IFR plan and should have flown the MAP! And then aligning with the wrong runway and continuing to land anyway was not the best ADM. Glad everyone on board walked away.
Same pilot who flew ILS to LGA a few weeks ago?👨✈️So fortunate A/C did not have ruptured fuel cell🙏🏻
Different pilot, but same problem - failure to fly an instrument approach correctly. And of course this accident was ultimately a circle to land accident...even though it was initially a straight in approach. As a listener just wrote to me “Sometimes God smiles on fools and lieutenants.” So happy this wasn't a fatal accident. - Max
I have flown this approach a dozen times a while ago preparing for my IFR checkride at KPRB. We always brief at each waypoint how far we are from the runway, to make sure we are not far away from the 3:1 gliding ratio to make a stabilized approach (every 1000 ft requires 3 nautical miles).
I thought ATC can clear you for a CTL approach for non-towered but ATC can’t give you instructions eg right traffic R19. Can you clarify?
No, the controller handbook says they can only issue circling instructions for a towered airport. For a non-towered airport, you can land on any runway, and you don't need a circling clearance (and cannot get one) to do it. - Max
Max, my understanding is that you must fly the course reversal no matter what unless you’re on a leg or TAA sector designated NoPT, you’re being vectored, you’re on a timed approach from a holding fix, or you’re given a specific clearance of “cleared straight-in approach.”
AIM 5-4-6(e) is pretty clear on this, though controllers and pilots aren’t always in sync with the expectation. I always ask for clarification if I don’t hear the words “straight-in.”
Edit to add: I hear you say that later. But the initial language made it sound like a pilot could elect to skip it on their own, to which my point is *only with the straight-in clearance from ATC.* Just a little unclear if that’s what you intended to say at first.
From an IF you can precede straight-in if the turn to final is less than 90 degrees. I think I said that...sorry if it was less than clear. Thanks so much for listening to the show, and please tell your friends about it. - Max
@@AviationNewsTalk I don't think that's the case. I think the *controller* is allowed to give you a straight-in clearance if the angle is less than 90°, but you still need the specific straight-in clearance - you can't just decide to go straight in and skip the course reversal unless you meet the factors I spoke of previously.
Maybe we're talking about the same thing, just in a different way?
Max, great show, but I am really confused right now. According to the published hold at Paso Robles if you look at the plate, the hold is published between 4400 and 6000. So then why did the controller give a clearance to hold at 7000? I know ATC has authority to assign altitudes, but when you have a published set of altitude restrictions with a line above and below, I would think that you’re supposed to hold within those two parameters. Am I wrong?
Likely another airplane holding below. ATC will stack airplanes on the same hold but at different altitudes. Once the lower aircraft has landed the higher altitude aircraft can then be cleared to descend in the hold and continue the approach.
I don't know why they were cleared to 7000 until they reached the hold. Had they flown the hold, instead of turning directly onto the approach, they would have had a lot of time to descend in the hold. - Max
By my read of Google Maps, which I assume the pilots could have done if they'd had the runway in sight, runway 13 is 1000' + 1000' + a middle section that is something substantially greater than 1000', so at least 3000' (looks more like 4000'+ to me.) Go around, or land on 13.
It's about 4700 feet long, so plenty long. I didn't mention the actual length, as I wanted listeners to think about what they would do in that situation, not knowing the length of the runway. Land or go around would have been much better choices. - Max
So there’s 3 pilots in a sr22 and none of them notice they are doing 208knts? The pilot has amazing communication skills u can hear how calm she is calling Oakland and letting them know she was going around. That’s just amazing airmanship all around bravo
Amazing comm skills don’t fly the plane. Going around in right traffic was absolutely the wrong thing to do here.
Side note, that cirrus belonged to flyingwithbigern
Green Hornet I believe
Wow I was wondering about that
I guess that makes the pilot his daughter? Hard to believe an airline captain would tolerate his plane being down 140 in the downwind. Someone normalized that deviance for her. Maybe it was him.
@@danielreuter2565 that’s what I was trying to figure out, I remember she also flies, but I wondered if maybe he rented the plane out? Hard to believe but if it was his daughter.. it definitely won’t look good with just how bad this sequence of events was
He's mentioned numerous times that she's working on her ratings. The voice on the radio sounded young. It certainly doesn't look good. It's hard to decide on the scariest part. I can't really imagine any pilot descending at 2000 ft/min on final approach unless they had seen someone do it before.
why not go direct CHVAL???
That does seem like a decent option. Maybe the controller was setting them up to be close to the final so they can be dumped in when previous traffic was no longer a factor. The MVA may have been 5,000 that's why it was assigned, however, it may have been best to State 5,000 until established on the procedure so the pilot knew that they could descend at their discretion once established on the published portion.
🛫📖🛬
Hi Max,
A very brilliant debrief. Your years of learning and stored knowledge is very rare.
Chuck, thank you for your kind words. I find accidents fascinating and I spend hours analyzing them so that I can help pilots understand what they need to do to avoid similar accidents. This one is fascinating, as the NTSB will most likely just focus on the final event which was landing on the grass instead of the runway. They usually don't discuss preceding events, such as this pilots failure to fly the required hold. Yet that event kick off the entire accident sequence. Lots to learn to be a safe pilot. - Max
She wasn’t the pilot. She was on coms.
True. I updated the podcast to reflect that, though the UA-cam version didn't get that update.
Must be one of those United pilots.
Some of the worst instrument flying decision making I have ever seen
Agreed. Hard to believe there was a CFI on board.
Speculating on why the pilot sounded excited on the radios and misleading your listeners with ground speed readouts really knocked down the quality of the discussion. Took a great learning opportunity much closer to awkward cringe commentary. You're better than that.
Aside from the effect of wind on GS, the TAS in the pattern at L35 is going to be a lot higher. At an ADS-B indicated altitude of 10,000 with a notional OAT of +5C (based on the AWOS and standard lapse rate), TAS would have been about 18% higher than the IAS. Again, this is without figuring in wind, which were forecast to be out of the west at 13kts at altitude. So the IAS could have been as low as 116 kts on the high downwind and produced a GS of 150. This is such a huge factor in mountain/high-altitude flying and needs a lot more attention from pilots.
I also question whether it was really a right-hand pattern as the aircraft was really not established in the pattern until well after the very wide descending turn and joined a nearly 5-mile straight in. Almost looks like it was a late decision/diversion to land at L35, which isn’t a big deal in and of itself. But the point is, the big turn wasn’t really recognizable as a standard 1/2-1 mile pattern (edit to say:) so standard pattern speeds don’t really apply until later, anyway. I just don’t see much of an issue there.
I'm sorry, I don't understand your point about groundspeeds being misleading. The winds were reported as calm, so groundspeeds should be very close to true airspeed. They're also the only data we have. And an aircraft reaching Vne of 208 knots on the approach, when Cirrus to fly an approach at 100 knots is highly relevant. As for the pilot's excitement, you could hear it in her voice. There's no reason to have been excited unless they mistakenly thought they wouldn't have to hold. When I talk about an accident, I talk about all of the potential signposts along the way. This was a fairly clear signpost, though it certainly wasn't unequivocal. Lot's of things in an accident aren't, yet they're still worth mentioning, as they speak to the mindset of the pilot. If we can't get into the mind of the pilot, it's a lot harder to understand why they do the things they do.
@@AviationNewsTalkI can’t speak for the other fella, but all we have from ADS-B is the groundspeed, right? From that, we have to work backwards. We can do it in a no-wind scenario, then we can figure worst case winds. In the no-wind scenario, if the groundspeed was, say, 150, at a “pattern” density altitude of 11,000’, that’s reflective of 150kts TAS. So working backwards, that gives us a CAS of 127 kts.
Add in 13 knots tailwind on the downwind and the GS and IAS are even more divergent. So worst-case, if someone was at a GS of 206 (at Vne) in that density altitude and 13 knot tailwind, the IAS will be more like 163. Still hot in that scenario, but nowhere near driving it at redline, from a cockpit perspective.
That’s why using groundspeed is not a great indication, because at high density altitudes it very much diverges and you may not be close to flying an indicated speed anywhere near that, especially not Vne, which is predicated on IAS here.
Picture is worth a 1,000 words. Why not show the IAF/IF and approach plate while you are explaining? I lost interest in what should have been a good presentation.
Probably because it originates as a podcast, which has no video component. This is the podcast + a static image to fill up space (otherwise you'd be looking at a black rectangle for half an hour.)
@@mattj65816 I was feeling this too, but just brought up airnav. No issue.
The podcast version had an image showing the IF/IAF portion of the approach plate, though not all podcast players display images. Unfortunately, when Libsyn converts the audio file and uploads it to UA-cam, they don't include any of the chapter images in the podcast. I'll send a note to them about that now....that would definitely enhance the UA-cam version of the podcast. - Max
I recommend you do youtube videos instead of the radio format. nobody cares about radio because it's designed to waste a fixed amount of time, not because it has something to say
Thanks for the recommendation, but the audio podcast version gets many times more listens than the UA-cam version. I post it on UA-cam so that more people get exposed to the podcast. The goal is to increase safety, and putting it also on UA-cam reaches more pilots.
@@AviationNewsTalk a podcast on youtube is still a podcast