Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Plane Crash in Blizzard-Like Conditions Kills 9 in South Dakota.

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    It does, but what is the margin in an engine-out situation in a single-engine airplane? Visibility can be helpful there.
    True.

    Small GA twins are NOT required to have ANY engine-out climb capability.
    Does that mean they aren't required to be able reach a safe level-off altitude after losing an engine on take-off (Safe meaning above known obstacles on the approved flight path and the return flight path)?

    Visibility is supposed to be used to visually fly the plane which in IMC includes being able to track the runway centerline during take-off and landing as well as transition from an instrument approach to a visual landing.
    Why would that require 1/2 mile visibility? As 3WE put it, you need 100' for that. I mean, unless there are curves in the runway...

    Transition from instruments to visual during landing and from visual to instrument in take-off are 2 very critical moments in a flight and different types of disorientation have been responsible for numerous accidents in both cases.
    How does having three engines help you there? What about takeoffs in darkness over large bodies of water? Same restrictions?


    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by Evan View Post

      Does that mean they aren't required to be able reach a safe level-off altitude after losing an engine on take-off (Safe meaning above known obstacles on the approved flight path and the return flight path)?
      Precisely so. Which is why a prudent pilot will make an escape plan part of his runway assessment. That is to say, if his performance calculations say that the best he can expect is -400fpm, he will decide beforehand where he'll put the airplane should he lose an engine.

      Comment


      • #48
        curious. although the folks that made the decision to t/o paid the ultimate price and i have no interest in laying blame at anyone's feet here, the articles i read mention that 1) the airport had no ATC and 2) his flight plan was approved and he was given clearance to fly. who gave the pilot clearance?

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
          curious. although the folks that made the decision to t/o paid the ultimate price and i have no interest in laying blame at anyone's feet here, the articles i read mention that 1) the airport had no ATC and 2) his flight plan was approved and he was given clearance to fly. who gave the pilot clearance?
          Clearance for what?

          ATC (enroute centers) gave him clearance (very possibly by telephone) to fly his 'planned route', under IFR, with a designated departure time window so as to coordinate airspace with other aircraft.

          They have no control over the minute by minute weather (which from most indications was OK).

          No need for an on-field control tower.

          If you don't take off on time, you call "ATC" back and get a new time.
          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

          Comment


          • #50
            The Air Safety Institute have some interesting case studies on YouTube many of which relate to bad weather and VFR into IMC. They also identify the important distinction between being in possession of an Instrument Rating and being current, competent and confident. The other factor which may or not be relevant to this sad case is the susceptibility of a pilot to external pressures. The ASI identifies cases where, for example, the pilot has made an undertaking to his passengers to take off and be at a certain destination by a certain time. The conditions then deteriorate beyond the pilot's comfort zone but for reasons of misplaced ego/pride he feels unable to spell out the changed circumstances and presses on regardless. The human factor.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by pegasus View Post
              The Air Safety Institute have some interesting case studies on YouTube many of which relate to bad weather and VFR into IMC......The human factor.
              Yes.

              They usually make perfect sense sitting in front of the computer.

              Not sure they mean much sitting in front of an instrument panel when things go different than planned.

              I am very certain I will never make a mistake like that, because I'm doubting I'm ever going to make an instrument flight. I did screw up a couple months back at a 2-way stop with compromised lateral visibility and a speeding, possibly texting driver.

              Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

              Comment


              • #52
                I have made plenty of ITO's in corporate aircraft from uncontrolled airports. I have also made at least 20 in the 74 out of HSV late at night after the control tower had closed at 2300 lcl. As 3WE said, either a telephone call to FSS or more often a call to the Center on VHF on the ground, will give you a clearance with a "be off the ground by" time. Not a big deal. I am still waiting for acknowledgement of any de-ice/anti-ice procedures performed or requirements for the flight. The aircraft in question is certified for and equipped for single pilot IFR and flight into known icing.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                  I have made plenty of ITO's in corporate aircraft from uncontrolled airports. I have also made at least 20 in the 74 out of HSV late at night after the control tower had closed at 2300 lcl. As 3WE said, either a telephone call to FSS or more often a call to the Center on VHF on the ground, will give you a clearance with a "be off the ground by" time. Not a big deal. I am still waiting for acknowledgement of any de-ice/anti-ice procedures performed or requirements for the flight. The aircraft in question is certified for and equipped for single pilot IFR and flight into known icing.
                  The PC-12 has de-icing boots for flight into icing, but we’re talking about pre-flight de-icing. How well was it done? Was it done wrong? Was it done inadequately to make that “off the ground by” window?

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Originally posted by Evan View Post

                    The PC-12 has de-icing boots for flight into icing, but we’re talking about pre-flight de-icing. How well was it done? Was it done wrong? Was it done inadequately to make that “off the ground by” window?
                    Again I ask, where is the reference to it being needed or done? You keep talking about de-ice/ anti-ice and have given no indication of either.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      It also has a PT-6 for power, hence engine inlet heating. I don't know what it has for windshield, bleed air or electric. But one more time, it very well may be that is was not necessary.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Now in the Randazzo simulator, I think they all happen at once! But that's only a guess because I have never seen a Randazzo simulator.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                          Again I ask, where is the reference to it being needed or done? You keep talking about de-ice/ anti-ice and have given no indication of either.
                          National weather service reported light snow and roughly 1/2 mile visibility and "the media" mentioned "blizzard-like conditions".

                          Given the UBER OVER GENERALIZED rule that you NEVER EVER EVER dismiss ice (and that I've seen several airliner deicings during very light snow)- one could speculate that there was some snow on the wing (even if they DID deice) AND some sort of deicing might have been a good idea (if they didn't)...

                          Plus hints that there were more bodies than seats = heavy + a little snow/ice/whatever...

                          Professional investigators NEVER speculate, they wait for the final report and all facts. But I think they are on a different forum than this one- maybe PADIRUNE?
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Airplane in a heated hangar overnight? There are many things that come into play. But when you haven't really done it.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                              Now in the Randazzo simulator, I think they all happen at once! But that's only a guess because I have never seen a Randazzo simulator.


                              Randazzo is not a simulator. Randazzo is the head of Precision Manuals Development Group (PMDG) who develops add-on airplanes (including the 747) for different flight simulators platforms like Microsoft Flight Simulator X and X-plane. I never tried one of their products but, allegedly, they are closest as you can get to the real plane in a PC-based simulator, with good flight models, excellent systems simulation, and complete and fully realistic procedures from dark and cold at the departure airport to parking brakes set at the destination gate.

                              YouTube is full of videos of PMDG virtual planes in action.

                              Example: Atlas 747-8F departure from Santiago.
                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fAMqPl1k7tA

                              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
                                Airplane in a heated hangar overnight? There are many things that come into play. But when you haven't really done it.
                                Lose the "haven't really done it" comment. You weren't present at the airport for this either and I'm sure we (no italics) will know more when the final report is issued.

                                How about a heated hanger? But, then 15 minutes in moderate snow where the warm wing melts the flakes and then they refreeze? Could that have happened? Could that have been worse than being out all night well below freezing where the snow does NOT melt onto the wing- and you thoroughly sweep it off?

                                Believe it or not, I got a good bit of experience with snow on sheet metal...not sure how much experience you have with that in Miami. I might have even flown light planes that sometimes were hangered AND other times sat out all night in snow.

                                I know it's a complicated concept, but it WAS snowing so one might speculate that there could have been an issue. Yes, it's equally valid to wonder that they might have properly addressed it. They may have.

                                These thoughts are just as valid whether one is an ATP or 100 hour parlour talker. And whether one is an ATP or parlour talker has no bearing on what the investigators will determine.
                                Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X