C208 Caravan vs Smokestack Final Report Update
Вставка
- Опубліковано 9 тра 2024
- C208 Caravan vs Smokestack Final Report Update
IFR Mins- Ducking below the MDA
• IFR Approach Mins Fina...
FlyWire Store:
flywire-store.creator-spring.com
Patreon FlyWire:
/ flywire
FlyWire is about exploring flight and the freedom this incredible experience brings us on a personal level. Flying has always captured the imagination and excitement of living life to its fullest. Hi, I'm Scott Perdue. In a former life I flew the F-4 and F-15E, more recently I retired from a major airline. I've written for several aviation magazines over the years, was a consultant for RAND, the USAF, Navy, NASA as well as few others, wrote a military thriller- 'Pale Moon Rising' (still on Kindle). But mostly I like flying, or teaching flying. Some of the most fun I had was with Tom Gresham on a TV show called 'Wings to Adventure". We flew lots of different airplanes all over the country. Now with FlyWire I want to showcase the fun in flying, share the joy and freedom of flight and explore the world with you. Make sure you subscribe if you want to go along for the ride!
#Pilot #Fly #Flying #Fly yourself #aviation #FlyingTraining #LearntoFly #adventure #military aviation #aviationhistory
Website: www.flywire.online
Merch Links: flywire-store.creator-spring.com
My Book: Pale Moon Rising tinyurl.com/5abmxxkh
Twitter: @FlyWireO / flywire.online
Facebook: / flywireonline
0417
What a tragedy! My heart goes out to the Family who lost their wonderful daughter! Prayers to all! Great summary Scott! Very well presented, thank you for all of your hard work and making other pilots learn from these tragic mistakes that could happen to any of us! 😥🙏
Thanks for posting and keeping things drama-free.
What? This is drama crap
I really feel for this pilot. It is telling that she could see the runway but not the smokestack, so she continues below MDA. Then suddenly, a smoke stack looms up into her vision, too late to avoid.
If one maintains 1 mi flight visibility as required by the approach, should see the stack 1 mile away, no? Enough time to see and avoid?
@skyboy1956 Visibility is technically defined as average visibility. A small cloud here and there therefore doesn't technically lower the visibility that much. So she was legal in terms of visibility. However, a small cloud can still be dangerous if it obscures something like a stack.
@igclapp "Flight Visibility" is defined in 14CFR 1.1. It says in part the horizontal distance from the cockpit of an aircraft in flight at which prominent unlighted objects may be seen and identified by day (like agglomerate stacks} Yeah, so if a stack less than 1 mi away can't be seen and identified due to atmospheric restrictions, one doesn't have 1 mi flight visibility. While the airport, less than 1 mile away may be reporting 2 miles viz, an aircraft in flight may not have the same visibility.
@skyboy1956 The definition is "...average forward horizontal distance...", so if you can't see a stack right in front of you but you can see the far end of the runway 2 miles ahead of you, then arguably you have 1 mile average visibility. At least I think we can agree that what is legal is not necessarily safe.
@skyboy1956 Also, remember it's snowing and everything is white. That stack was likely invisible, especially with a light that couldn't be seen in the day time, and with a stack that's not painted properly. Thats why the light and stack is so important and the likely subject of ongoing litigation.
Thank you for being a class act, and for calling it like you see it without overt hostility.
Now I see it. The concerns about icing ( no flaps) and the runway surface (don't land long) put the big squeeze on. Her worries about those conditions may have overrode her concerns about the stacks. She didn't want to be high.
Nice analysis of the incident. In regards to the youtuber who shall not be named, he showed up long after the incident/end of NTSB investigation and the tower was on the ground waiting to be recycled or thrown away. He saved the non-approved FAA light allowing for lawsuits which will allow those responsible to pay up and for the FAA to realize its lack of attention regarding safety.
Good on you for standing up for Dan. Despite his unorthodox and sometimes abrasive approaches, I think hes been misrepresented here. I hope he is soundly vindicated. The NTSB has made some big blunders on this one.
@Coops777 I agree. No matter what they say about Dan, his heart is in the right place and he is an asset to the GA community.
@ValerieGriner Thanks Valerie. Scott and JB seem to think the light was useless in daylight and won't need to be part of the investigation, but the fact remains, in night time conditions or even early morning (when Brittany flew in) a bright white flashing strobe, which was specified, would have made some sort of noticeable illumination in the fog of steam, possibly alerting Brittany ahead of time and before she lost lift in the steam cloud.
@Coops777 I totally agree with you!
@Coops777 white strobe lights are not authorized near airports for obstructions. Plus it wouldn't make any difference.
The margin of error should never be allowed to be that small in my point of view. So many things in that accident was stacked against her.
All involved were well aware of the margin. Increasing margins is expensive.
@AlbertHess-xy7ky I don't agree that she was aware of all the margins, if she was I believe she would not have went for that landing.
And unless you have a stake in the profits, you should never accept that small margins.
And if you still do, I would question if your level of greed is acceptable.
@purplerunner1715 If she was not aware of all of the margins she was incompetent. She should have been aware of the tower height, she should have been aware of the MDA. She flew below the the MDA, death resulting.
She, the aircraft owner, the airport, the FAA, and the city were well aware of the margins. They all have a stake in the profits. No potatoes, no airport, no town, what is acceptable?
Thank you Scott for a concise and informative explanation…I’ve watched all of the videos about this incident (I think) and drama following a loss of life like this is not terribly helpful. Even though it’s apparent that the young woman descended below MDA, I truly hope the business is taken to task for the installation, subsequent raising, lack of consultation and follow through on properly marking that stack…
You are a true gentleman and a professional Mr Flywire. Much respect to you. Reporting the facts and subtle as a sledgehammer at the end . 👍
This is such a sad incident. The daughter had a wonderful future ahead of her and her family was justifiably very proud of her accomplishments.
Thanks Scott for your input on this unfortunate tragedy. It’s always great to listen to a complete expert’s perspective and analysis on the accident.
The flight data showed a constant descent then sudden drop enough to hit the stack....and many have postulated that she ran into a large cloud of the steam emanating from the other stacks. Being a cold day entering a large cloud of hot steam would be much lower density and could have caused the drop without any control input and about the worst thing you'd want to happen when your path would just have cleared the stack she hit. Bad place to be at the wrong time.
And the light deal is interesting in that the NTSB didn't even mention that light until after the lawsuit was filed and had left it in the trash with the remains of the stack so it wasn't 'stolen' as they said in the report and was given to the authorities to keep safe until the lawsuit. It is not uncommon for evidence to 'disappear' after a lawsuit that might use said evidence to bolster their case is filed...so making sure it was safe seems a prudent move to me. The NTSB claiming it was 'stolen' is a 'CYA' move by them for not even mentioning it in their report despite it being unlikely to have contributed to the accident. For SURE that stack should have had a high visibility strobe on it considering the clouds of steam constantly obscuring it and the piddly little light inadequate which is likely going to be claimed in the lawsuit.
I agree about "air-density-shear", that sure had to have a significant effect.
Absolutely…. the FAA / NTSB were done with the stack wreckage and light and together with the Gem State company were happy for it to “disappear”…. it was clear evidence of the quick and dirty way they sneaked their extended smokestacks onto the plant and right in the way of the airport in violation of FAA requirements and with the collusion of City officials, everyone was happy to degrade the inconvenient airport and not provoke big business…. completely rotten situation….
There are so many things that led to this tragedy But Really putting a building with a steam producing stack on the centerline of a runway is unbelievable and illegal
Good comment. I think in this case, it may be very unwise to think the report is without error and completely true. Video evidence has already uncovered at least one serious flaw in the docket
I looked at the light situation the same way Flight 811 when the parents of Lee Campbell took the boxes of evidence. If they hadn't taken the evidence, they would have NEVER gotten justice for their Son. It's sucks that folks have to take matters into their own hands when we have several government agencies that are supposed to be doing it for them.
Newish sub here from down in New Zealand. Very much like your manner of dealing with the facts and making a very distinct line between those and your interpretation of them. No doubt it's a hard line to tread, please keep it up. Thanks for the video.
Thanks!
Excellent commentary Scott...totally professional and knowledgeable and not swayed by external pressures. Very unfortunate accident indeed...RIP
Great debrief Scott. You were respectful when it came to the DG part at the end. I think JB lowered the tone and standard of his report giving the issue so much attention. There also appears to be some contention as to the NTSB report accuracy as the light was removed long after the NTSB investigation and when the tower had already been moved off the building to another site, unlike the inference in the report.
PS I think it would be unwise to accept lock, stock and barrel, this docket as the whole truth over Dan's video evidence just because it is he who reported about the light. If I were Scott and JB, I would be looking into it a bit further before pointing the finger.
Thank You Scott,... Prayers 🙏for all affected by this.
This is a perfect soup of factors waiting to happen. The smoke stack inline with the runway belching vapor and steam into the flightpath, uncontrolled airport, snowy, icy weather, ice/snow contaminated runway, pilot going below MDA. If that factory with that smoke stack wasn't there, this accident never would've happened. How the FAA, the state, or the local municipality ever gave permission for that factory to be built with smoke stacks in that particular location inline with a runway of a very nearby airport is just beyond comprehension.
Good report. I think you've best encapsulated the various pressure points better than other reporting. Many things here can be true, but fundamentally, the pressure to land in spite of very challenging circumstances is at the core of this accident. My only bone to pick is the flaps and speeds, both less than optimal (as I sit here on my comfy coach and Monday morning QB)...I prefer to have at least 10 deg of flaps at FAF and once established full allowed flaps and on speed. This makes a huge difference in deck angle in high wing Cessna's and very likely may have aided her in forward vision. The story saddens me because she was trying her best to achieve the objective and based upon your info may have certainly felt pressure since she had a previous diversion. Ducking below or simple sinking due to other factors such as speed are all signs that she was really under pressure and trying hard to complete the job. RIP aviator, very sad to lose you.
Totally agree!
Great report, as usual. This seemed like an excellent diligent pilot who was trapped into a dangerous set of circumstances which should have been resolved earlier. On a side note, thanks for sharing the missing light report. Integrity is the currency of honorable people.
I don't know Scott, I watched Juan's take on it too. If those stacks puked a load of steam, low viz and density altitude could have been involved maybe? She couldn't see, and it dropped like a box of rocks in the cloud? Especially if she had no flaps at all in? That whole scenario sounds hard to duplicate for testing? It's a shame, she was so young and had a great future ahead in aviation. It's easy to say, but I hope they eliminate the stacks or move the airport!! Thanks, JMHO --gary PS; No comment on the other thing. 8(
Back when I was flying, the drill was to get to the MDA (non precision approach) early and stay there until seeing definite visual appearance of the runway environment sufficiently prior to the MAP to assure a stabilized approach. Otherwise, execute the missed approach.
I would be open to new things if they were improvement. I'm with you though I wanna be down as soon as I can.And I wanna be looking for as much as I can. If you're where you should be then terrain clearance is assured.
Thats not the FAA guidance today. CDFA is the buzz and the preferred method. No more dive and drive. They will jump on you at recurrent for diving and driving. It's still legal but not preferred.
@@johnaclark1 If you are that close to the runway when it comes into view, you don’t dive, you go around. However, as I previously stated, you only start the descent below MDA when a stabilized approach can be made. No diving!
@johnaclark1 Who said anything about diving. You want to give yourself the best position possible? Especially in airline operations.You're still gonna have to go back there and do it again. You got passengers behind you. If you can safely get in then you wanna Get them there.
@neatstuff1988 "Dive and Drive" is the term for flying the actual step downs as opposed to following a continuous descent final approach (CDFA) or a VNAV style approach. Airlines, cargo, and most corporate operators don't do "dive and drive" anymore. You follow a VNAV down to an MDA, or in some cases a DDA (derived decision altitude) where you actually add 50 or 70 feet to your MDA (based on your aircraft's altitude loss during a go-around maneuver) and start your missed approach there so that when you dip below during the go-around procedure you don't drop below MDA. It's usually a safer method but doesn't get you down quite as low as the "dive and drive." It is apparent this pilot was doing a CDFA approach using VNAV and not doing a dive and drive. That's why I'm certain she had the airport at MDA and contiinued below MDA based on having the runway but then lost sight of it due to the steam sometime after leaving MDA. I don't believe she intentionally dipped below MDA to try and get the airport in sight.
Juan Brown brought up an interesting point about the conditions in the steam cloud. I've personally observed this plant on a cold day - I'm a trucker by profession, and the local truck route passes by the plant. I noticed that the plant exhausts surprisingly large amount of steam. Juan's point was that within that cloud, the accident aircraft would have encountered a localized area of hot, moist air. Both are conditions that raise density altitude. The sink rate of the aircraft may have increased quite a bit just before impact with the smokestack.
Maybe
@@FlyWirescottperdue of course you're absolutely correct that she was operating belowcthe MDA in any case.
Thank you for reiterating, this no doubt was a major factor.
Single pilot Pt. 135 can be hugely challenging. At the 135 outfit where I flew, about one-third of the pilots who came to fly for us, including some from 121 backgrounds, couldn't do the job. We had to fire a couple 'cause they did something stupid, others faked injury, illness or sudden family emergencies to avoid flying, there was the obligatory "I-don't-trust-the-maintenance-here" type, and a couple others who simply admitted that they just couldn't hack it. One young lady badly smashed up one of our Caravans in a botched landing on only her third day on the job, and another fellow died of a heart attack during his first week with us.
Single-pilot all-weather flying is a high-stress job that can make or break a pilot. Like the woman who crashed our Van, it seems as though this young lady was put into a position she wasn't yet ready for. RIP
Should two pilots be required?
What about no pilot?
@@AlbertHess-xy7ky No pilot is definitely no go because machines can, and will, fail. As far as whether two pilots should be required, not necessarily. But....with two pilots the stress levels of the pilots are much lower. However, in spite of the stress (or once I overcame my fears), I enjoyed and preferred flying single pilot.
But if a single pilot becomes incapacitated.....
@@jiyushugi1085 "No pilot" can deliver an atomic weapon half way around the world and return to base. Like "meat" pilots they can and will fail. No meat pilots are required to get goods to the space station. My question was not about your personal preference but minimum safety standards.
@@jiyushugi1085 This pilot became incapacitated. She allowed her aircraft to go below the MDA and hit why it was there.
@AlbertHess-xy7ky speculation. Zero evidence of pilot incapacitation. But I agree, this was a LOC accident vs CFIT.
Not sure about the Caravan as I flew a Cardinal RG but and if you get low and slow the Cardinal would mush. If you didn’t pay attention to the VSI you could get behind the power curve in a heart beat. In a high work load this could go a long way to explaining busting the MDA especially when starting high.
Scott - that was the best analysis of this tragic accident that I have viewed. Well done!
Thanks for bringing some light to the situation.
I’m not a big fan of lawsuits in general as I think far too many are frivolous, but this is a case where I hope this company is sued into oblivion. They clearly willfully ignored the FAA and normal requirements for obstructions in an approach path of an airport. And they also failed to do even basic things such as paint the stack and light it properly. The only justice here is for this company to pay a huge civil penalty to the family AND have the executives who approved this smokestack face criminal charges and jail time.
Agreed....
Here Here !!
@Plutogalaxy I suspect he meant "approved" before the autocorrect took over.
If you really feel it necessary to blame someone, why not look at the operator? They know this kind of flying is not for beginners, yet they hired this gal when she didn't even meet 135 IFR mins! Was there some favoritism going on? Favor for friend of the family? Then, why throw her out on the line in the dead of winter, the worst flying weather of the year? Why not wait until summer when the weather is mostly VFR and most of the flying is in daylight conditions to let her gradually work her way in? Will the family be suing the operator? Could be very telling . . .
"The aircraft was 320 below the MDA at impact" 11:32. The smokestack didn't cause this crash. Pilot error did.
What I'm getting from this video is that the pilot screwed up, Dan screwed up, possibly the potato plant screwed up. But why didn't the airport manager or FAA NOTAM the approach after they learned about the violations and improper obstruction height on the charts? The approach plate is still out there as if nothing happened.
And that is a problem!
NTSB at its finest
Small town BS. I live in Idaho, and we deal with crap like this all the time. Money is king, and so is who you know.
In the defense of the pilot we don't know what effect the ice had on the airplane performance. It is possible that falling below the glideslope was unavoidable if the aircraft was aerodynamically compromised by the ice. Hopefully we can all agree that more needs to be done to build safer approaches with greater awareness to safety during inclement weather.
excellent breakdown. +sub sir
good points
That one hurt,l was close to the one that happened in winnipeg was a girl building hrs on a fed ex caravan about or over 10 years ago took off in icing conditions ,managed to put it down on railway tracks without destroying homes or lives,she did not make it
I recall a UA-camr suggested that she flew into the exhaust plume of warm humid air causing a loss of lift, resulting in the planes falling and the accident.
Pure speculation
@FlyWirescottperdue Sounds like something that could be tested in VFR conditions though?
The plume came out behind the crash site and the wind could have blown it downwind straight into the path. Possible but needs clarification, what's the temperature and volume of steam coming out? Also, was the Airport there first or the factory and if the airport was first why build smokestacks in the extended centerline?
@@Dilley_G45 The airfield was there prior to the potato plant.
@@davidcrouch5190 alright then, relocate the stacks
Can't you descend below the mda if you have the runway in sight? Looks like she maybe descended to avoid the steam cloud but the stack was not visible because of sight angle.
There are clear requirements to see before you can descend below the MDA.
@FlyWirescottperdue so you are saying she didn't meet those requirements?
If the information about the light - (published?) that it was a flashing strobe - it is significant - specially in limited visibility conditions!! Not a "laugh-it-off" nothing meaning factor.
It was NOT a flashing light.
@FlyWirescottperdue excactly!
There are photos of her airplane flying low and slow WITH NO FLAPS and slighly under the smoke stack. Like if she retracted the flaps and sunk over 100 feet under the approach profile and didnt put power first to go around. Why so low and slow and no flaps? That is a huge pilot error. Once i had a nervous student that had the bad habit of taking all flaps up when needed to put power first to go around. Took 3 more go arounds for him to stop trying to take flaps up first.
The only thing I could suggest as a possible escape from the last cheese hole would be to roll left as part of the attempted climb over it, or given the speed roll/turn to avoid. The steam output from the plant should have a serious sounding investigation to determine/demonstrate the affect on density altitude: ie performance. I still think the potatoe outfit needs some takin out to the woodshed. Just sayin.
A sudden sharp bank 80’ above the ground. What could go wrong?
When maximum climb performance is required, the last thing one should do is bank.
@@FlyWirescottperdue Well based on the strike point on the tower with say 1-2 seconds heads up perhaps a 30 degree bank maybe could have worked. Pilots tend to get fixated on runway heading here it was to avoid the impact danger and screw the runway. She didn't to me hit by much. We'll never know but don't get fixated on runway heading when now that obviously is no-no. She may have enhanced the option by stick forward and okay maybe she would have smacked the roof but that would have been wings level. This would be a good scenario for any simulator with detailed fidelity on the characteristics of the plane. We fly in a 3d world and hitting it on the previous track suggests losing an option by 2d thinking under desperate conditions, It was an option rather it would have worked or not. Go down fighting. Very sad, and the FAA I think dropped the ball and was clueless about the danger of their plate. I say FAA should have to take now soundings of that cotton picking steam plume to explore the deleterious impact on density altitude which likely had some impact on this incident. Great video analysis, Cuddo's
If those people up in the mountains of Idaho insist on putting a smokestack almost in line with a flight path of an airport; they can bring all their material in my truck
Thanks for posting, I was aware of this tragedy and was waiting for the report. I live about about a couple of miles or so from our local tiny airport. I can just about see pilots at the controls as they pass over my home. (You've got to be quick!) In days gone by, there were several buildings in approximately the same "Relative" distance to our local runway, as compared to the proximity of the potato factory at the accident scene here. One or two were only 40 feet high and had powerful red lights on the rooftops. About 10 years ago, local to me, ALL of the buildings that were within the glide slope at a distance of at least 3/4 of a mile to a whole mile or so were demolished. These included many family homes along with any building less than a half a mile to the side of the field. I find it staggering to see that ANYONE would allow cooling towers in the proximity of the location of an airfield. Again local to me, the construction would have been stopped LONG BEFORE completion by the local authorities. This was to me at least, a foreseeable event. I feel so sorry for the pilot lost is such a preventable event and the family of the pilot. 😞😞.
I find it hard to understand the location of this tower as well!
Can I ponder that the potato factory contributed more in taxes than the airport?
Just a little additional information. (I have just learned from our local newspaper just how seriously, safety is treated where I live.) Last year, during an "Air Show" an un-licenced Drone pilot, flew a small camera drone directly in the flightpath of our local airport. The resulting Court Case has just hit the media here. The drone encroached 500 feet into the glide slope of the field. The Drone pilot was fined $5000.00 and the Judge ordered that the Drone was to be destroyed by Court Authorities. No other aircraft was involved in the incident. However, the Judge said that if this had been the case, the punishment would have been very much more severe. Flight safety is a serious business and it is a shame it is not seen as such everywhere.
Sad for the pilot. RIP. Her death won't be in vain
It seems to me that the pilot descended below the minimum descent altitude because she had the runway environment in sight. But it also seems plausible that the new smokestack was not in view due to instrument dashboard/glare-shield blocking her view, and difficulty seeing the non-painted stack due to it blending in with steam and snow. It also appears that had that particular smokestack not been there, she still may have struck one of the others behind it. Regardless, I cannot believe this approach was compliant with Order 8260.3D, United States Standard for Terminal Instrument Procedures, nor can I not believe the FAA didn’t de-certify the approach based on those hazards to flight. As far as the obstruction light is concerned, I agree, I don’t think it was a real factor but I also don’t buy the NTSB’s description that it was “stolen” or that there was trespassing involved given the person was on scene weeks after the accident and the NTSB had already left the scene, and the light was piled up as trash in an an unsecured area, nonfenced, no signs to keep out or no trespassing. For all we know the individual was given permission to take the light. This person has an axe to grind with the NTSB and one can expect the NTSB might take a few liberties in a government report to throw shade on that individual.
The NTSB is a typical governmental organization that often fails to do the job it's supposed to be doing. Same as OSHA I suspect that after an accident the 'investigators' are taken out to lunch and everything gets smoothed over and they get butt-hurt when someone points out their failings.
Look at the ValueJet crash in the '90's where oxygen generators improperly packaged and shipped burned the plane and caused it to crash. Both FAA and NTSB were warned by an employee about what was going on but neither lifted a finger before or after the crash.
If the FAA had done their JOB....this accident wouldn't have happened just like with the ValueJet and afterwards they want it all to go away but a lawsuit was filed and the 'missing light' their excuse for not enforcing their own regulations.
Scott you have missed the point of what Dan is saying about the light. I agree Dan does things for video effect but the point is the NTSB pulled their "Yellow tape" and left a part of importance on the ground(Tower light).
I didn’t miss the point at all.
@FlyWirescottperdue
I commend you for your restraint and choosing to employ the qualifier "allegedly". Also, for noting how unreliable eyewitness testimony tends to be. All in all, based on my reading of pilots' comments around the Web, this strikes me as a balanced interpretation of events.
Also, I tend to agree, the location of the tower itself and the light or absence thereof played no role in this accident. I define 'contributing factor" as anything that is actively affecting the operation of the airplane in some way-- a distraction, malfunction, icing, turbulence etc -- flying into a tower is no different than flying into a mountain that the pilot didn't see for some reason. The mountain itself is not a contributing factor, it's just there-- CFIT.
As to the conjecture surrounding the loss of altitude due to encountering a steam cloud, I'm a bit skeptical. Yes, maybe a pilot might feel a bit of a disturbance, but without some solid math to show the magnitude of the effect, I hesitate to put a lot of emphasis on this point.
Mr Flywire, you make good videos.
@FlyWirescottperdue Non specific rebuttal. Can you clarify which point you didn’t miss? (Otherwise how can we be sure)
@@frankhuber9912 Thanks Frank. I too am skeptical about the Steam Cloud/DA effect.
@gabes3dvideos I replied to the OP that I missed the point about what Dan was saying about the light. Seems pretty specific to me.
The light situation makes no difference to me. This channel and the other one are making us safer pilots. I don't have a CFI close to me, so these videos help keep me tuned up tell I can fly with one.
Sadly Dan had explained in his video why he took the light and how he found it. According to him the investigation had been completed and the smokestack debris was piled to be salvaged. He had also stated that young kids were playing around the salvaged he was not saying that the light was the cause of the accident but I believe and he may have said this that the light was insufficient for its location even at night. He also thinks that the investigators we're embarrassed by the story of the light and made up an excuse. Which is why he was not investigated for any crime. Dan always tries to go to the accident area but has always said he waits until the evident investigation is over. This is something that those other UA-camrs never do so they don't have the whole story.
Sad story
It sure is!
IMC in minimum conditions with a single pilot by a Part 131 operation really needs to be looked at by the FAA. Kenmore Air will not do it. Why are other operators allowed?
Good point!
Well put, thank you 🙂
I would say that a glideslope that is 25% steeper is more than slightly steeper. If a restaurant charged you $50 for a meal that was $40 on the menu, would you say you were only slightly overcharged?
that restaurant analogy isn't right. there are plenty of approaches with steeper than 3 degree slope. 4 degrees is about perfect for small planes and safer than dragging it in at shallow angle. if the engine quits on final you will not make it to the runway at 3°
@asho1735 The restaurant analogy was perfect for the point I was making, which escaped you. And 3 degrees is the standard for instrument approaches. Anything else is nonstandard and nonstandard is a recipe for trouble. We standardize things for a reason.
there are ILS approaches with a 3.75 degree glideslope (or greater). Those are not particularly difficult to fly - in fact, they are actually easier.
@LTVoyager ahh the recipe! thanks for another kitchen metaphor, chef! 😂
Wasnt her first ever time t this airport
I am sure Dan Gryder has nothing against your mentioning his name - his anti NTSB stance is well known, and he has made countless passes against them and FAA and gained few friends in those quarters. I am sure they are more than happy to come back on him with this "serious theft of evidence from an accident scene". He painted himself into a corner there and had to lie in order to avoid serious legal trouble. I am sorry, but my heart is still with Dan and I don't doubt his integrity the way you do.
If I remember correctly, you two old boys had some UA-cam collab once or twice. Or was that you and Juan and/or Dan and Juan? So I am sorry to see two guys being friendly at first and then one of them makes a mistake and is then referred to as "him whose name we will not mention".
Just my thoughts from Oslo, Norway. If my tone is somewhat hard, remember this is not my mother tongue.
Scott and Blanco are retired military pilots who were taught from the young age not to doubt the chain of command. They have affinity to each other and government entities like the FAA and NTSB. Dan is a civilian, who thinks and acts outside the box and bends the rules sometimes. There is not going to be much love between them.
Your comment is perfectly stated. There are three big UA-cam egos in play here who all want to be "right" and appear cute while being so.
@jimw1615 I am not sure that this is about ego. Juan, Scott, and Dan did collab with each other in the past. Juan and Scott still do.
The problem, IMHO, is that Dan is disrespectful, he doesn't provide much information, he does almost no analysis of accidents, and all his channel is about generating controversies to get more audience.
If I'd have a UA-cam channel, I wouldn't like to be linked with Dan in any way, shape, or form.
@elbelgranense All three personalities are "human". I see it as Dan having the same passion for the message he delivers as do Juan, Scott, and others. I enjoy and value all three, in addition to the others who contribute to Aviation Safety.
@asho1735 Scott, JB and Dan M are all big government guys that love to follow the chain of command. If the NTSB says something there is no doubt that it is accurate.
Great report . And you handled the last part about the light with class.
It's not easy being Scott.
Nobody does nauseous incredulity better.
❤❤❤❤❤!!!!!!
We do love you!!!!!
It was a sad incident. I think that get there itis is the ultimate cause of the accident.
You’re not wrong!
The blinking red light was never supposed to be there. It was the wrong light for that tower in that location, because it would never have been able to be seen in the day time. That's why the light (and the lack of paint) matters. There is some negligence there that the potato plant is going to have to explain in court...where the light will be Exhibit A since that light ended up in the hands of the attorneys (presumably Brittany's family's attorneys) in the case.
As for descending below minimums, she was perfectly legal and correct to do so if she had the runway in sight which she likely did given the weather reports. That plume of smoke or steam came up at the wrong time, probably after leaving MDA) and it appears as if she attempted to go around when it did. Nothing wrong or illegal about that. The warm moist air would have caused a loss of performance and, unfortunately, her fate was sealed. The bottom line is the tower should not have been there, incorrectly identified, incorrectly marked, etc. My prediction is the potato plant is going to lose this one and be on the hook for her wrongful death.
She was not correct to do so. The MDA was set because of the stack. She was wrong to go below the MDA prior to having a clear view of the threshold and any intervening obstacles. The plume of smoke/steam has been coming out of this stack for six years.
The potato plant is the life blood of the town. If they go belly up there won't be enough business to keep the airport open.
Do you want to see the potato plant go belly up?
And the airport?
And the town?
When it comes to civil court and civil liability , the so-called light is important . Some call it a flashing red light. That description is not adequate in court. As an investigator , you would have to be specific as to the manufacturer , specific model number , lumins it emitted, and so on. Details matter with evidence.
@@AlbertHess-xy7ky Given the weather at the time, she likely had that clear view of the runway and started her legal and proper descent to the runway. The problem is when the plume of smoke suddenly obscured the tower and the runway in front of her she attempted the go-around but due to loss of performance and lift from the steam she was unable to before hitting the tower. The reason is that the tower was taller than it was supposed to be, not properly marked or lit, and she couldn't see it under the glareshield the closer she got to it. The tower never should have been there at that height. The FAA even told the potato plant it shouldn't be there but it was left there. That is bad news for the FAA for not amending or removing the approach, the potato plant for putting up the tower, and the town for allowing the plant to put up the tower. They only cared about their plant, not caring that it could kill an innocent pilot. Maybe the town should vote in better leadership who are not so negligent. They all had a hand in this and my prediction is they will lose in court.
@@donallan6396 What kind of light did the FAA require to be on the tower, if any? The FAA was fully aware of the tower, it is on their published materials. All involved knew about the tower, including the pilot.
@@johnaclark1 This was her second approach The plume of steam did not suddenly appear. It is there whenever the potato plant is in operation. The tower and steam are well known locally.
The tower height has been accurately charted. by the FAA for over six years. It was well known by all involved.
Towns care about about it's citizens.
They need jobs.
Should the town shut down the potato plant?
The airport?
The pilot was not innocent.
The pilot was aware of the tower.
The pilot failed to maintain the published glide path.
This approach has been used thousands of times, successfully.
Who is to blame?
All involved, including the pilot?
Thank you for your ongoing dedication to improving safety in GA and light commercial aviation. I greatly appreciated your call out at the end. Its time that the GA safety community sets some boundaries.
What is the GA safety community? Do they have a website? If they set boundaries, will compliance be mandatory?
I don't understand how she'd have the flaps up for a low altitude slow Runway look. With the p t six you're gonna stop Just fine. I would have liked to have helped her that morning. I flown that approach hundreds of times and i've always wondered about those smokestacks. Most times you can make it. But even on a severe clear day they are annoying.
she definitely needed help.
Scott, you're probably the last sane & "ungreedy" aviation content producer left on UA-cam. Thank you.
Dan G RECOMMENDS; No banks over 30 degrees if under 2,500 agl EVEN on lightplanes. But.. HEY.. Not even on tailwind section of GRM Turns? Or Box Canyon Turns only 30 degrees? WTF. Or short approaches, or Emergency Spirals? Or Circling Approaches turns? Only Mild Maneuvering? He wants me to be an anti banking pilot? Sometimes you need to turn up to 45 bank on those maneuvers or overshoot the turn. That is BS advise.
DG also says; If IFR encounter by VFR only pilot to keep climbing to on top. To on top of the overcast? And how the hell will you come down? You need to turnback 180 or last only 170 seconds on average and LOC. WTF BS RECOMMENDATIONS. Recommending PILOT ERRORS.
Scott, Thank you for your very detailed report on this tragedy, and many thanks for your dedication to making flying safer. I also watched Juan Browns discussion on this tragedy, and he mentioned something I never thought about. The fact that the airspeed was decisively slower than the normal approach speed and the fact fact she flew through warm moist air could have induced a stall referenced by the rapid change in her altitude around that point, density altitude? You have probably viewed Juan’s report? Just would like your opinion? Many blessings, and keep up the good work! Mooney 201 driver form Texas🤠
Hi Mark. I would bet Scott will ignore this question.
@jimw1615 Why?
I can see there might be a possibility of that scenario. But as you can see from the picture the airplane was not in the steam cloud before encountering the smokestack. In the security video I showed the cloud was between the stack and the runway. If anything it obscured the runway.
@FlyWirescottperdue The wind was 190 at 8. How was the steam cloud between the potato plant and the runway?
Great report. Thank you. We really appreciate it. For all the folks chasing the dream logging the hours to get to the airlines. Please please fly safe and remember this is a Peacetime business. Slow down and live to fly another day. The airlines can wait. Safety Safety Safety. 👍👍🛩️🛩️🛩️🛩️
Exactly William!
Did someone steal the approach lights ?
There are no approach lights installed for this runway.
My take from your analysis (compared to that 'other UA-camr') is that the pilot felt pressured not to do the sensible thing - divert, instead descended too low for the conditions, and hit a smoke stack that should not have been there. 2 wrongs don't make a right, but who is more to blame? A young pilot eager to please, or a factory who put a smoke stack where it shouldn't be? I'm not leaning away from the factory, just sayin'. As for the light, well NTSB had already been to the crash site and gathered the evidence they needed before the 'other UA-camr, was there. The NTSB did not secure the site after they left and there was no indication that anything left behind wasn't trash. The point about the light is that it was the wrong type of light. It should have been a powerful strobe, visible in iFR, not something only suitable for night VFR. Reporting the embarrassing loss of the light as a crime? That sounds like CYA to me.
I’d like to think the stolen light was just a representation but if the cops are investigating it means the actual light was missing…….you be the judge.
The light is where it needs to be.
DG RECOMMENDS; No banks over 30 if under 2,500 agl EVEN on lighplanes. But.. Not even on tailwind section of GRM? Or Box Canyon Turns? Or short approaches, or Emergency Spirals? Only Mild Maneuvering anti banking pilot? You need to turn up to 45 bank on those maneuvers many times or overshoot the turn. That is BS advise. And if IFR encounter by VFR only pilot to keep climbing to on top. WTF BS RECOMMENDATIONS. Recommending PILOT ERRORS.
If the correct aerial warningl stack light was installed, it definitely will be visible through a temporarily artificially
created cloud bank, which was generated by the boiler steam being released though the high stacks.
Therefore, it is very obvious, the aerial warning stack light was not an FAA approved light and was not visible at a scientifically confirm safe visual distance to avoid an aerial collision. The confirmation safe distance is in reference to smoke stack and high rise building structures during visible/vision obstructions cause by low fog and very low cloud overcast conditions.
It must be mentioned, automobiles are equipped with fog lamp/lights, which are very effective during heavy fog and snow driving conditions.
Adams
The steam bank was not between the airplane and the stack, but between the stack and the camera that showed it. Another camera, that took the picture in my video showed that.
A certain UA-camr 😉 is he griNding your gears? Cause he probable does
Interesting perception... "griNding"
An ole farmer once said, "If you are going to wrestle a pig, you're going to get muddy, and be aware, the pig loves it.
@@ChazToz I don't hate that guy at all. I like him but Noone is perfect. I think Scott nailed it with his comment. But....Mr. some youtuber has an axe to griNd with them Feds. I think that was his way of saying "up yours m8"
This one has some volitivity to it for sure. Would hot, steamy air on this cold day of the accident cause the aircraft's altimeter suddenly reading higher than the plane actually was and if noticed by the pilot flying through the steam cloud transitioning to instruments push forward on the yolk to remain on the glide slope?
No glide slope…. Below MDA is a visual approach….. after MAP. She was not on glide slope.
@FlyWirescottperdue . . . and becomes an "approach on instruments" (which should have become a missed approach) when she goes into the steam cloud and is inadvertently in IMC.
At first looking at the one picture I didn't think the plane was in that bad of shape. But when I got bored and starting looking at NTSB dockets I feel bad for her the second picture the cockpit area of the plane in shambles. I watched a guy do that exact approach as a tribute to her and not thank you I wouldn't even be a passenger during that approach. Anyway good and informative as always take care sir.
On another note if the NTSB doesn't take all their items was clear of the scene I'm sorry they are at fault if it is removed. Ive been a police officer for 10 years and they have use do some the aviation accident investigations now. I almost got to attend the training until we became short staffed temporarily. But its the same with are investigations. We had one with a fatal house fire that you have to tape off where all the evidence is and once we leave take what you need for the investigation. Because if you come back and its gone that's on you. Im not going to pass judgement on him over it. Also the light like you said wasn't going to make a difference. We all do dumb sh*t sometimes so I'm not going drag someone forever over it. Just if I was them don't that crap ever again. Most DA's wouldn't touch it anyway if it was within limitations but its not a risk worth taking either.
Dan is a master.
Baiter
G,day Scott from Sydney Australia.
Very tradgic: there are a number of questions that remain in my mind.
1. Any navigation aid is a good aid, when navigating. Was it adequate knowing the meteorological events and approach obstructions.
2. Are there any eye witnesses or CCV as to the illumination of the navigation beacon at the time of the accident?
Moreover was the light of sufficient lumens for that level of risk?
As the (unnamed) UA-camr stated "a idie biddie light" was he meaning the severity of the criminality?
🕵️🇦🇺
Regarding the light? Not sure aa light during the day could be adequate for the job. No reports on whether it was illuminated.
Scott - how does this approach with the stacks meet TERPS standards. Why no NOTAM?
This approach is in compliance with TERPS. It is a non-precision approach. There is 269’ of obstacle clearance over the highest obstacle in the final segment; the required obstacle clearance for a non-precision approach is 250’. As any IFR pilot knows, once you descend below the protected altitude of the MDA,(4560’ in this case) you are flying an entirely visual maneuver. The pilot is responsible for visually avoiding obstacle when flying below the MDA. This is IFR 101 stuff. This is a very tragic accident but it’s not because the approach was faulty.
There are 3 current NOTAMs regarding the BYI airport tower obstructions (04/004, 04/011, and LTA-ZLC-3). They all expire by Aug 7, 2024 for some reason.
Good on you sticking to what actually matters - A pilot getting "unalived" because an approach and surrounding terrain were not what they should have been (with perhaps some pilot training thrown in also) at the time Brittany was trying to land an airplane. That's the real problem in Burley. Whatever happened days/weeks/months later may/may not be problems but they didn't get anybody killed. The guys and girls with badges and law licenses can handle those issues plenty fine on their own.
Safety not a goal?
Pay attention to what I said afterwards!
I support Dan Gryder agitating for better safety. Anyone deny we all want safety?
he contributes ZERO to safety.
Yes we all want safety. Dan is the only one that teaches solutions to prevent accidents and not just tell the story.
@stopit6051 yep. Juan is just a narrator!
has the 'truth' come out as to the light?
I think your conclusion is not quite right, Scott. You said the cause was descending below the MDA. But...
You showed the picture of the view at the pilot's eye height where the runway could be seen, but the stacks were obscured by the glareshield. Visibility at the time of the accident was 2.5 miles. So, the pilot could likely see the runway.
When can you descend below the MDA? When you have the runway environment in sight.
So, perhaps, she could see the runway and was heading for it, legally...
All the visibility requirements are preceded by ‘in a position to land safely’. Did you miss the part how low she was 2600’ from the threshold. So, no. Plus no attention was given to the witness report of the airplane flying into the steam cloud.
I believe your analysis is correct on this. If she had the runway environment in sight, she should have been able to leave the MDA. The stack shouldn't be there. Period.
she descended way to low too early in the approach.
@FlyWirescottperdue Thank you, Scott, for the Video Addendum. I think you addressed my comment well...
Was the tower ultimately eliminated or lowered
Still there as far as I know.
@FlyWirescottperdue Please analyze the BYI airport NOTAMs. There are 2 "Obstruction" Class NOTAMs for BYI regarding "OBST TOWER" on the current FNS NOTAM Search, but ALL seem to have something to do with obstacles and/or visibility. Only one "OBST TOWER" NOTAM is still in effect until its 08/07/2024 End Date. Another NOTAM was issued the day of, or the day after, the accident, but it was deleted off the FNS NOTAM Search database. Also, NOTAM Number: LTA-ZLC-3 in the current database for "Obstacles in the vicinity of BYI airport" was issued 2 months after the accident, and ended on 06/14/2024.
That tower is gone. I Iive a mile from this plant. It was taken down just a few days after the accident.
@cew995 QUESTION --- is the ground that the Gem Processing Plant is built on, at the same elevation as the approach end of Runway 20? From video taken ON the runway surface, it looks like the Gem plant could be almost 20 feet higher than the runway surface. I'm asking because the tower height calculations that the NTSB Report made in Figure 3 seem to show that the Gem Plant / Agglomerator Stack AND Runway 20 are BOTH at the SAME ground height above sea level. Thanks!
@Raiders33Good question. It does seem the diagram in the prelim could be interpreted to mean that the base of the stack (they mean the base of the building the stack is on) is the same elevation as the runway. However, they use MSL figures for all elevation calculations, so it doesn't matter that the base of the stacks is not the same elevation as the runway. I checked the plant parking lot elevation according to USGS and it's 4,154'. According to the NTSB prelim diagram, it's 4,156'. So very close. Displaced runway threshold elevation is 4,142' per the diagram. So the diagram could have been clearer to show a 12' difference, but I don't think there is any error calculating the 98' clearance between the glide path and the top of the stacks.
There was quite a bit of steam emanating from the smokestack. Could this very warm air have changed the density altitude in the immediate vicinity of her glide path and caused the plane to sink unexpectedly, resulting in a lower-than-safe actual flight path?
This cloud of steam, in addition to upsetting her visibility, may have adversely affected her planned descent and significantly contributed to (or caused) her accident.
Water vapor changes air density. The potatoes plant is the life blood of the town. All concerned have been aware the stack for over six years. She went below the glide path , it was steep for a good reason. Who is at fault?
The other youtuber has made a public enemy out of nearly every other person/community he has once featured on his channel as friends. The common denominator in all these conflicts in the other youtuber. He should be left alone to bask in the accolades of his increasingly non-aviating ambulance chasing fanbase.
What YT’er?
''The other UA-camr'' has saved lives. Oh yes he has! Absolutely.
I looked at the light situation the same way Flight 811 when the parents of Lee Campbell took the boxes of evidence. If they hadn't taken the evidence, they would have NEVER gotten justice for their Son. It's sucks that folks have to take matters into their own hands when we have several government agencies that are supposed to be doing it for the families.
The light was not a factor in any case. Moreover, it was the family that was directly involved. Not some random guy on the interweb.
What if it was Your daughter. I bet you would have a different opinion about that light. Im not saying that your opinion is wrong. I just disagree. Thanks for the video.
If it was someone’s daughter, their emotions would cloud rational discussions, therefore shouldn’t be relied upon for policy changes.
@user-nx6qr1mt6f And that's why you hire attorneys to help you make those decisions during that time. Obviously, they believe that the light along with the stack were problems. The
depositions/transcripts are available to read, and their is some pretty damaging testimony in the transcripts.
I don't know about you, but I would have done the same thing. It's sad that people can be easily bought off to sweep under the rug evidence that may be able to prove that laws and rules can be bent or broken that may have cost a human life over money and corruption along with campaign donations and pure greed. If your morals are that low, then you are the scum of the earth. I'm not saying that you are a dirt bag. I'm just saying that it happens all too often, and it won't get fixed until people start caring.
@CJE2007.5 She was 320’ below minimums…
Let that sink in for a moment , that’s big.
Had this been a man, it would be how he botched his approach.
Plus, there would be no comments about dirtbags or scum of the earth to others which are derived from emotions.
The descent path is being called a glide path. There is not a glide path on this approach; it is a non-precision approach. There is a published Vertical Descent Angle (VDA) that provides advisory information to allow a stabilized approach…in this case a 3.75 degree constant descent angle to cross the displaced threshold at the TCH. If your avionics provide VDA information, you will get a vertical descent indication on your flight instruments. As in any non-precision approach, the pilot needs to have the runway environment in sight and be in a position to make a normal descent to landing from the MDA. The FAA clearly states in the AIM and other references that the VDA is NOT evaluated as a “glide path” for obstacles…it is tool to assist in making stabilized non-precision approaches. Operating below MDA is a always a visual maneuver on a non-precision approach and the visibility minimums provide for visual contact with obstacles. And, finally, the obstacle height depicted on the approach chart is probably one of the closer stacks to the runway and not the one she hit.
Excellent point and well said!
Why didn’t the FAA change the RNAV approach the minute the stack extension was discovered by airport manager? Could it not have been adjusted a few degrees?
I wonder why there wasn't a NOTAM issued for this airport.
Very disappointed in your inaccurate reporting Scott.
Not inaccurate at all. All the other stuff folks are saying is speculation. I just use facts. If you prefer guessing then don’t watch FlyWire.
Ok, I’m unsubscribed
@dbsmith975 be sure to squawk 1200, good day ! !
A major problem not addressed by anyone is that this was a fairly isolated town during a very fast-moving frontal passage. A local altimeter setting given by ASOS could have been old enough or off enough to represent a few hundred feet of altitude. An hour-old altimeter setting could have very well been complicit here. A damn shame all the way around.
An ASOS updates its data every time it transmits. How is there going to be old data? The only way to use an hour old altimeter setting is for the pilot to not bother getting the weather before starting the approach.
@@rbrosz And was at the tail end of a frontal passage. Stick to the facts please.
Mr. Purdue do you think that the hot steam and the cold and snow could have caused issues with the aircrafts performance and density from flying in freezing weather and then hitting the hot steam by chance. Jaun kinda of mentioned it but I was wondering if you think it could have caused the plane to drop in altitude like turbulence wise? Thanks.
See my comments on this issue in other replies.
Thanks for a thorough report. Appreciate your efforts. Sad accident. Speaks a lot about possible political shortcuts taken with respect to the addition on the stack. I believe the stack wasn't painted properly as well, according to another report, and the light? Even if she couldn't see the light directly, wouldn't she still have been able to see its blinking through the mist?
Best not get me started. Scott - this pilot lost her life. No offense, but "Wtf" isn't where it's at. The light may be a small thing, but it still might have been a factor. The NTSB was precluded from checking it out when the unnamed UA-camr pulled yet another of his illustrious stunts. And guess what? Integrity is one of the most important things there are.
For example, would you want to have surgery by some crackpot doctor who cheated or took shortcuts on his medical exams? I hardly think so. Similar to good safety practices. There are some things in life that it's important to have your act together in terms of skill and safety no matter what - like flying an F-4, for example or dropping an Airbus on to the Hudson river like a giant feather. People who really have that kind of ability aren't dismissive of little things like lights at an accident scene. They are attentive to details and conscientious about doing things right. They are the ones who walk away from serious accidents, who don't shoot themselves in the foot when they're out hunting and whose patients don't have to return for another surgery b/c - oops - we accidently left a bunch of 2X2 cotton pads in your chest cavity...
Would I want to fly with a person like that? Not hardly. Would be safer to thumb a ride.
The mail must get thru . This IS the primary cause of the loss of a fine young pilot. And of course bad weather with an obstruction in the final approach . The end comments of DC 3 guy correct. The odd thing Me when I comment get snubbed on this site, the DC 3 site and the ownie site. Interesting this fatal accident and the Boeing B 17 crash with passengers got me a steamed seeing the back of the B 17 Engines showed total lack of cleaning and maintenance.
And when I posted that on DC 3 site I get silence!’
The only aviator that does reply to me is the one teaching doing in depth walk around and showing true stick and rudder skills needed to fly an aircraft equipped with the GE J 79 turbojet engine with afterburner. This guy really nice.
Why isn’t anyone talking about the DA the aircraft may have experienced when entering the hot wet air from the stack. Hence the sink rate, and high AoA? I feel Blanc and Scott have missed the mark here
because there is no evidence. Humidity has very little effect on density, no aircraft performance charts make adjustments for humidity.
Because I don’t think is a factor. See my other comments on this issue.
Whoever approved and built the stacks needs to be sued, and imprisoned for manslaughter.
No stobe on the stack, no coloring. FAA dropped the ball.
Scott you and Juan should team up with Millican and do a live stream. This would be great content. One of you could talk about Gryder while the others smile.
How on earth does the FAA think that an approach with 98 FT clearance is acceptable especially since it was a smokestack!
How many feet should it be?
How many approaches have less than 98 feet?
Smokestack, antenna tower, high rise apartment building, Fuel/water tank, electric lines, hills, what difference does make, stay 98 feet above them, not 28 below.
@@AlbertHess-xy7ky In Europe/UK the circling approach has an obstacle clearance limit of 300ft. The obstacle was 700m on finals to the runway with a non-precision approach! An obstacle that produces its own cloud of obscuration! A recipe for disaster.
@@alanwright3172 It was not a circling approach. Nothing had changed in six years. All of flying is recipe disaster. How should the recipe be changed? Shut down the potato plant? Shut down the airport? Because a pilot failed to maintain the required the published MDA? Shut down the town?
One airport I land at I cross the fence at 40 ft. Imagine them putting a fence only 40 below the glidepath ! ! This is outrageous I say ! !
@skyboy1956 And is the fence, on a non-precision approach, producing it's own cloud of less dense air that obscures your view and robs your aircraft of performance? didn't think so.
I think DG’s analysis is correct. And calling him out for finding the light and giving it Britney’s family is commendable, since the NTSB didn’t care.
You are welcome to your opinion.
He didnt take the light. The light walked to him in Georgia. And also is good to make straight in approaches when VFR into busy traffic pattern , No 180 degree turns if get into IFR without IFR rating and instruments, just keep climbing to find VFR on top. And no turns if power reduction ROTOT under 1,000 agl. Crash in front-NO TURNS ever under 1K. Those are too difficult for all pilots. All pilots, DG Mandates.. LOL..
His new name is Captain Craftsman. A real tool . . .
@skyboy1956 DG RECOMMENDS; No banks over 30 degrees if under 2,500 agl EVEN on lightplanes. But.. HEY.. Not even on tailwind section of GRM Turns? Or Box Canyon Turns only 30 degrees? WTF. Or short approaches, or Emergency Spirals? Only Mild Maneuvering? To be an anti banking pilot? You need to turn up to 45 bank on those maneuvers or overshoot the turn. That is BS advise. DG also says; If IFR encounter by VFR only pilot to keep climbing to on top. To on top of the overcast? And how the hell will you come down? You need to turnback 180 or last only 170 seconds on average and LOC. WTF BS RECOMMENDATIONS. Recommending PILOT ERRORS.
Come on people Dan is only trying for the bloody best out come in our GA sector savung lives I have loved Scott, Juan, And Dan for helping me with my aircraft here in New Zealand. Full stop for me Come on guys we working to the same thing here. I'm no new commer but till Dan I didn't know about DMMS for my plane pa28R just bloddy Come together as we in it to win it so to speak.....❤
I think the steam cloud had a contributing factor to a lower approach
When you listen long enough to know WHEN the light was removed from the junk pile, off-site, no yellow tape, NTSB gone home, you'll see the light. pun intended.
Dan took the light, as he has a habit of collecting artifacts from crash sites. The fact he lied about it is utterly reprehensible
When you listen long enough to know WHEN the light was removed from the junk pile, off-site, no yellow tape, NTSB gone home, you'll see the light. pun intended.
I think they should offset the final for that runway
scott and what about what dan gryderr says that the adsb shows sudden loss and maybe was caused becasue change of air density of heated smoske form stacks,,,maybe played a part here...
In the US the vast majority of ADSB is relayed by ground stations…. Not satellites. The data we have do not show what you suggest. The data has drop outs because of line-of-sight issues. Folks are reading into this issue more than is there.
In the pilots defense, we don't know if the steam/ice that was present was a factor. It's probable she was carrying ice that was effecting the performance of the airplane. That could explain her trying to get the plane on the ground and not diverting. In the defense of the light lifting event it occurred long after the ntsb investigation was complete and was not a factor in the investigation. It's probable that the light was seen as critical evidence that needed to be preserved. Scott's statement that the light would not have been visible is very important. The light should have been a strobe or high visibility device that the very least. Lastly, we can all probably agree that this was a dirty approach. Building these obstacles at the end of a runway was very poor judgement. Likely many people involved but if the airport exsisted before the potato plant this is unacceptable. Going to be a difficult job for jury. Lot's to learn from this tragedy. RIP Brittany hopefully you'll be the catalyst for change.
Thank you for not being Dan.
Amen!