Scratch Two More

[blueldr]

Yestersay one of the guys from our airport flew down to some place in Santa Clara county to bring his adult son home for Christmas It was not bad in the early morning, but the weather really went to hell in the PM. Fog, low clouds, patchy rain showers. Everything that aint worth a damn for flying. He was not instrument rated, and it's now too late for him to get one. The other guys figure he went in out of the traffic pattern. He was that close.

[juredd1]

That really sucks for their family....i guess my Christmas wasn't so bad after all.

[Hawkeyenfo]

Sad

[blueldr]

I Googled up "Airplane crash in Sutter Creek" and found a photo of the crash. They went in so straight down that you could just about cover the whole crash site, including the wreckage, with a 10' x 10' tarp.

[bagarre]

sutter-creek-men-dead-in-plane-crash.jpeg

Tragic

[voorheesh]

It is very tragic and because that pilot could easily be just like one of us, it might be worth discussing. The weather in N Calif on 12/24/2014 was definitely flyable in the early morning. A weak Pacific cold front was approaching and expected to bring showers and lower visibilities through Northern/Central CA in the late PM. At 0900-0930 Acuweather radar showed precipitation in the Arcata/Eureka area stretching north to Mt Shasta. The Sacramento Valley had mid level clouds and good visibility. About 1130 (approx 45 minutes N of JAQ) the wind suddenly picked up from the south with some light rain showers, mist, reduced visibility. Foot hills were obscured. Just as quickly, this little weather system moved through leaving beautiful clear skies, a stiff NW breeze and about a 10 degree drop in temp. Foot hills near my location remained obscured by clouds and you could not see the Sierra until about 4PM.

Are Cessna singles piloted by non instrument pilots reliable transportation? Gilroy (South County/E16 to Jackson (JAQ) is about a 2 to 3 hour drive. It is 85nm and about a 45 minute flight. I sure would be tempted to fly that one. But what if the weather came in early? Do you divert to Stockton and call family? Would there be pressure to keep on going and have a look see? Everyone scud runs now and then? Right? Lets say we kept flying and actually spotted JAQ, all be it obscured by rain and low visibility. Minimums are 1 mile clear of clouds Right? Thats "flight visibility", by the way. Lets say we approach down wind and find ourself craning over the side window trying to maintain ground contact and all of a sudden we are in IMC. This can happen in a New York minute in the weather we have here in California. Now when was the last time we practiced flying by instruments? We do that every BFR Right? If we are not at least somewhat proficient, we are in serious trouble. While trying to maintain ground visual contact, our plane went into a bank and when we started looking at the gauges, confusion occurred. What is our plan to escape this situation? Did we think about that before we made the decision to penetrate bad weather and try and reach home? 180 degree turn? Climb? We don't even have a clear picture of what our attitude is. Flying by reference to the instruments takes practice whether you are instrument rated or not. It is a skill with a shelf life. Now I don't have any more idea of what happened to that poor father and son than anyone else, but I sure am thinking about my flying practices and how I can avoid a similar fate.

In 2014, there have been 1090 general aviation accidents listed on NTSB.gov, 236 of them fatal. In California there have been 99 general aviation accidents, 23 of them fatal (not including this one). Former NTSB Chairwomen Deborah Hersman, in an interview with AOPA expressed a belief that general aviation can improve its record as the airline did, but do we have the will? She observed that we "Keep making the same mistakes". My job with the FAA is to assist the FAA Safety Team in Western Pacific Region (AZ, NV, CA, HI)create meaningful programs to reduce general aviation accidents. I would really appreciate any ideas from participants on this forum (including those who would probably tell me to forget it). We can do better.

I also want to wish everyone a happy and a SAFE New Year!!

[c170b53]

Great post!
Why can someone put in modern avionics in their homebuilt whereas a Cessna owner such as myself must pay significantly more for the same equipment in their certified machine ?

[robw56]

Today I went flying in my 170 to try out foreflight's new synthetic vision. Of course it isn't certified to be used for IFR flying, but having it in the plane could possibly save your life if you get into a situation like these poor guys did. It's a welcome addition to my VFR only panel.

[voorheesh]

The FAA and other aviation authorities have not kept up with the technology that is changing the world. Just tonight an Airbus is missing in Indonesia due to the lack of onboard positioning data that could be achieved using a $300 SPOT device. Airliners have the capability of satellite data download but no authority has determined it is important enough to implement. In GA, certified equipment that can be used for IFR is expensive and usually only found in aircraft worth much more than Cessna 170s and old 172s. I use fore flight which has attitude, heading, and speed data, now adding synthetic vision. This is affordable technology for VFR situational awareness and does not require any FAA approval. I would urge all pilots to check this great program out. The Experimental/Amateur built Aircraft have really good technology that is not subject to FAA certification and is more affordable for the average pilot. Its utility for IFR operations may be a challenge however.

The FAA and other organizations that include AOPA have formed the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee that identifies general aviation hazards and safety mitigations. Last year, they succeeded in easing FAA approval of angle of attack equipment in certified aircraft because this technology is known to assist pilots in recognizing critical flight conditions, thus saving lives. Before this change in policy, there were significant barriers to obtaining this equipment in a typical Cessna or Piper. I am not sure, but I believe that industry has followed up and these devices are now available. Hopefully, more will follow. The FAA has a defined goal in its "Destination 2025" Flight Plan to reduce GA accidents and the agency is doing its utmost to find solutions and eliminate obstacles. If there is reliable technology currently available to experimental aircraft that would make certified aircraft safer it should be identified and made available for everyone.

I should have mentioned that former NTSB Chair Hersman also identified GA accidents as a more significant problem than current airline safety where the industry has taken such admirable responsibility that many governmental investigative functions are not as common as they once were. She suggested that the NTSB should ramp up its GA investigations and develop more probative approaches that seek solutions rather than filling blocks on a report. Using this accident as an example, an overworked NTSB Investigator and an on call FAA Inspector from Sacramento are called out on Christmas day and find what you all saw in the picture. That wreckage will be transported to the Sacramento facility where, in all probability, no major aircraft related problems will be found. (If there was carb ice, there will be no trace. H2O in the fuel? good luck finding that) There will be an autopsy and toxicology that typically comes back negative. Pilot weather briefings/flight plans will be checked. There may have been witnesses and the Jackson AWOS probably saves data. Oakland Center weather data for that area will be downloaded. The pilot's family will be interviewed. The probable cause will come out in a year and probably read that this "Cessna 172 departed from controlled flight for unknown reasons. Weather conditions may have been a factor". What have we learned? I am not criticizing the NTSB or FAA but that is the current state of GA accident investigation. If it was Asiana or United, there would be an in-depth study of human performance, aircraft propulsion/structures, maintenance, survivability, weather, you name it. FDRs and CVRs would be available and while some believe they are intrusive, they save data that can help prevent future accidents. Even GA equipment now has what we call nonvolatile memory that we can use such as in the Rhymes accident. We can do more. But someone has to make it happen and be willing to pay for it.

I think GA needs to consider an attitude/culture change also and I believe that AOPA is doing a really good job in leading this evolution. I sense we are a bit complacent and negative towards authority while we simultaneously demand that the same authorities serve us. Coming from the airline industry, I really notice that. We had V.P.s and others who would mouth off about FAA or DOT. There were Feds who abused their power or were otherwise jerks but no surprise there. The majority from both sides were competent professionals. Where the rubber met the road we exercised mutual respect and were always learning. Almost always. Believe me, we got the job done and usually did it right (not always the first time). AOPA is adopting this attitude and you can see it in their publications and their safety organizations. We also have younger pilots and technicians joining the ranks and they will revolutionize our technology once given the chance. I would be pretty optimistic that we will see some improvement in technology including devices that can be legally installed in GA aircraft and help pilots save lives.

[W.J.Langholz]

Thanks Mr V for your input and frankness.

Keep at it


W.

[bagarre]

It's going to be a real challenge to get GA safety numbers up to the level of commercial numbers.
How far apart are the numbers between weekend boaters and commercial shipping? That's worst case, those boaters are nuts.

How does the FAA deal with the fact that an Experimental aircraft can install non certified avionics/autopilots and then operate in the same IFR system as certified aircraft? If it the equipment is good enough for them to use, why not me in my private little airplane?
I don't think technology should be the FIRST approach to improving safety but imagine if this father and son were in an RV-7 or similar. For a few thousand dollars, they might have had a wing leveler or full autopilot that could have flown a course with a touch of a button.

My Dad has that in his RV-8. We've put it in some really unusual attitudes and by pressing a button, the thing levels out and finds it's programmed course again. Talk about a life saver!

To put a similar system in a certified airplane is entirely prohibitive in price and for no good reason.

[voorheesh]

Experimental Aircraft operating limitations are found in 91.319. These aircraft must have operating limitations issued by an FAA FSDO which are considered a a condition of the issuance of the airworthiness certificate. An experimental aircraft may be operated under IFR provided the operating limitations specifically authorize it. To obtain IFR authorization, the owner would need to demonstrate to a FSDO inspector that the aircraft is properly equipped and would be able to operate safely in the system. Translated into plain English, this means that experimental aircraft and certificated aircraft have identical equipment requirements for operation under IFR (91.205). The difference is that a properly equipped Cessna can be operated under IFR based on its configuration but an experimental aircraft must receive permission (operating limitation) based on an application where the owner must first demonstrate compliance to the FAA.

I am not sure how to address the question on installation of an autopilot or wing leveler in a Cessna 170. The TCDS shows several models approved for these aircraft so it can be accomplished. The approved autopilots are old technology and probably unavailable or difficult to maintain. There are probably autopilots available per STC that list our aircraft as approved for installation but I am not familiar with these. An owner who has time, expertise, resources, could engineer a new autopilot system and apply for a one time STC to an FAA ACO. So I think that there are options available for installation of these in our aircraft.

It has been my experience that autopilots are invaluable tools because, if used properly, they reduce pilot workload and assist in maintaining aircraft control. Having said that, it has also been my experience in general aviation that autopilots are taken for granted and instructors do not spend enough time teaching pilots how to use them. Autopilots also have unique maintenance requirements and sometimes qualified technicians and parts are hard to find resulting in the device becoming deferred/inoperative for extended periods of time. This can be a problem. I remember an accident where a pilot lost control of a Bonanza on short final (the aircraft was destroyed). The loss of control was due to a malfunction of a bridal cable that was not detected during any inspection. The only symptom was an autopilot that would not engage. The pilot/owner was unable to get to an avionics shop and flew (legally) with the system placarded. In hindsight, he readily acknowledged he should have had a qualified technician dig a little deeper into the source of this otherwise "minor" problem.

It is interesting to consider if an autopilot would have helped the pilot of the Christmas eve accident. The answer is that if the 172 was equipped with a functioning autopilot and the pilot was able to use it, it could very well have helped maintain control. More importantly, however, would be the planning and decision making that preceded the situation requiring its use. That is where we pilots need to focus if we want to improve safety. Hope this might answer some questions.

[lowNslow]

The difference I still see is that on our certified birds we don't have the option of demonstrating compliance to FSDO and using the cheaper (and often better) avionics for IFR flight.
This system is stunning at a reasonable price too: http://www.garmin.com/us/products/inthe ... g3x-touch/

I have the same thoughts. There some awesome systems out there (Garmin, Dynon and others) for the experimental market being used IFR legally while we would have a hard time finding any FSDO that would allow you to put them in certified aircraft. It seems if the FAA is serious about safety they should be encouraging more of these systems which provide a large leap in situational awareness especially in the IFR environment at a price that puts them in reach of the lower end of GA market.

[voorheesh]

I want to be careful not to pass out invalid information and anyone interested in specific installations should get advice from an expert. Having said that, we need to differentiate between an IFR and a VFR avionics setup. To operate under IFR, a GPS system must be approved for that operation and it must be specified in the unit's Flight Manual Supplement. This is not the user manual. It is the official document that specifies the unit's capabilities and the conditions for operating it as a navigation source for IFR if that is needed. The equipment mentioned by Karl and Arash is designed for experimental aircraft but needs to be associated with an IFR GPS for use under IFR. Garmin does not address this on their website and I would inquire about this before buying it even for an experimental aircraft if I need IFR capability. To put it more simply: Does a Garmin G3X by itself have approval for IFR ops?? You can install a Garmin 430 or 530 IFR GPS/VOR receiver in either a experimental or certified aircraft. There are glass panel products available for both experimental and certificated aircraft also. These panels interface with IFR approved navigation equipment.

Putting the IFR issue aside, is there a valid safety benefit to having the FAA approve installation of low cost glass panel equipment in certificated aircraft? Would the lower cost attract more buyers and reduce accidents by increasing situational awareness? If that is the argument, I would be happy to forward that to our representative on the GAJSC, although I am almost certain AOPA has brought it up. I believe that the FAA is open to suggestions for safety related technology but they are not going to compromise the standards for operating in our IFR system.

[bagarre]

There are probably autopilots available per STC that list our aircraft as approved for installation but I am not familiar with these. An owner who has time, expertise, resources, could engineer a new autopilot system and apply for a one time STC to an FAA ACO. So I think that there are options available for installation of these in our aircraft.

Because engineering a new autopilot system and applying for an STC is such a viable option for a $30,000 airplane.

It is interesting to consider if an autopilot would have helped the pilot of the Christmas eve accident. The answer is that if the 172 was equipped with a functioning autopilot and the pilot was able to use it, it could very well have helped maintain control. More importantly, however, would be the planning and decision making that preceded the situation requiring its use. That is where we pilots need to focus if we want to improve safety. Hope this might answer some questions.

I think we can all agree that the best option is to not be stupid. The same can be said about the AOA instruments. If you just learned good stick and rudder skills, you don't need one to fly safely. However, in the event that things do go bad around you and you find yourself in a bind, technology is a nice thing to lean on as an alternative to being dead.

We shouldn't be flying into IMC.
We shouldn't be uncoordinated and too slow on base to final.
But it still happens and there are types of technologies that can save your life in both situations that cost way way way too much money right now. However, the technology that the FAA IS mandating (ADSB Out) does nothing to address any of this in my VFR airplane.