Another one - Page, AZ

That place was kind of shady when I was there. They got into some hot water with the FAA over doing tours under Part 91 that went too far up lake, and were shut down for that summer. Operating those aircraft right a max weight, minimum fuel, and minimal experience is not a good combination.
 
desertdog71 said:
That place was kind of shady when I was there. They got into some hot water with the FAA over doing tours under Part 91 that went too far up lake, and were shut down for that summer. Operating those aircraft right a max weight, minimum fuel, and minimal experience is not a good combination.
Click to expand...
If you mean the summer of 2009 I believe you to be in error for the reason.
What is 'minimum fuel'? A full right tank and 10 gallons in the left allowed for two of their longest tours and landing with 5 gallons or a bit more in the right. The left was for emergency only.

No other operator flew at max wt? Ever do a triangle with 6 pax?

I agree about the minimum experience but that applies to the other operators too.
 
desertdog71 said:
13th Court and Grandview? WTF? was he landing on 7 or departing 25?
Click to expand...
The policy was when the winds kick up the 172s use 7/25 to reduce crosswind. The problem is if the pilot is not on glide, on speed. Not much room to float when landing a 172 on 25. A likely scenario would be the pilot initiated a go around at low speed in climb attitude, ran out of room and mushed it in.

Also, the lowest time pilots were put into the 172s.
 
What was the reason? That is what I was told at the time in 2009. I wouldn't be surprised if it was BS though.

Yes, I flew all the tours up there. Plus the black routes over the canyon and almost always at max weight. I don't recall the exact figures but suffice to say that landing with 30 mins of fuel was the norm on most days. The conditions can be tricky and all those things can contribute to problems. I had to divert to Bryce once because a dust storm engulfed the field. Not cool when you don't have much fuel to play with, and Kanab looked to be getting hit as well.

Hot, high, heavy and windy in a 172 departing from or landing on 7/25 is no joke. We both know that to be true.
 
Based on the picture showing the plane with flaps down, I would say he wasn't trying to go around. Either that, or he performed the worst go around EVAH!

Edit: looking at google earth it does appear that he landed to the west which would indicate an attempted go around. A loaded up 172 would never have a chance with full flaps.
 
A contender for worst go around would be the student pilot in a C-152 at Taft, CA, or maybe it was Tulare... sometime in the 1990s. Doing T&Gs, while on approach she aborted the landing to go around. She left carb heat on and did not retract from full flaps. She descended in nose high attitude to impact the ground. Even though she had sustained serious injuries she was able to free herself from the aircraft prior to the post-crash fire. She survived long enough to tell the investigators what had happened.
Law of primacy; just like she had practiced many times with her CFI, she only touched each control knob or handle but without effecting a change in configuration. She succumbed to her injuries soon after that.

This accident sticks in my mind even though I've only been in a 150/152 for .5 hour.

Desertdog, the reason I was told by the CP was there had been a complaint (GCA likely suspect) that raised the issue of the unfairness that AA, under 91, was not required to pay the overflight allocations that GCA and WW paid under 135. Because AA was very near to regaining their 135 after a years long struggle with certain persons within the FAA, AA made the decision to ground their fleet for most of the 2009 season. Op Specs already were in compliance with 135, they just needed the paper. Basically, to show good faith to the FAA, the decision was made at the company level to adopt a wait and see posture.

Integral to that decision was certain persons in the employ of the FAA had made it their task to run AA right out of aviation. One particularly stupid thing an FAA employee out of the SLC FSDO did was to send a letter to AA at Page which contained verbiage, paraphrasing here, to the effect that, 'I'll make sure you (AA owner) never have operational control of another aircraft as long as I live.' I read the letter. I was so appalled a govt employee would be so stupid as to put such a statement to paper that I made a photocopy. I destroyed that copy in 2010.

Too, certain FAA personal were quite peeved that (AA owner) decided to seek relief through Scottsdale which only increased the enmity from the FAA directed at AA Many people may have an unfavorable opinion of AA but what they were up against at the FAA was astounding. Several FAA employees belong in jail. I strenuously reject the idea of govt employees with unbridled authority to dictate the rise or fall of a private business based wholly or in part on subjective personal vendetta.

About the time the decision to ground was made, Shannon pleaded to me that she wasn't the one who had made the complaint. As I had yet to learn a complaint had been made I replied, What complaint? Then she knew she had spilled the beans. She looked like she was going to explode. As if I cared. I was there to fly. I enjoyed the flying, the passengers, the scenic beauty. But that place is ground zero for petty drama, it was difficult to avoid it..

Personally, I don't give a rip about this. What I do care about is talebearers controlling the narrative. When and where I can I'll counter the rumor and gossip with fact.
 
Last edited:
guywhoflies said:
Based on the picture showing the plane with flaps down, I would say he wasn't trying to go around. Either that, or he performed the worst go around EVAH!

Edit: looking at google earth it does appear that he landed to the west which would indicate an attempted go around. A loaded up 172 would never have a chance with full flaps.
Click to expand...
Every student pilot I ever flew with on their first couple go arounds would invariable perform them in this sequence, or similar:
Flaps full up
Half throttle
No rudder
Raise pitch to vx attitude
Wonder why the stall horn was going off.
 
RICHARD5 said:
A contender for worst go around would be the student pilot in a C-152 at Taft, CA, or maybe it was Tulare... sometime in the 1990s. Doing T&Gs, while on approach she aborted the landing to go around. She left carb heat on and did not retract from full flaps. She descended in nose high attitude to impact the ground. Even though she had sustained serious injuries she was able to free herself from the aircraft prior to the post-crash fire. She survived long enough to tell the investigators what had happened.
Law of primacy; just like she had practiced many times with her CFI, she only touched each control knob or handle but without effecting a change in configuration. She succumbed to her injuries soon after that.

This accident sticks in my mind even though I've only been in a 150/152 for .5 hour.

Desertdog, the reason I was told by the CP was there had been a complaint (GCA likely suspect) that raised the issue of the unfairness that AA, under 91, was not required to pay the overflight allocations that GCA and WW paid under 135. Because AA was very near to regaining their 135 after a years long struggle with certain persons within the FAA, AA made the decision to ground their fleet for most of the 2009 season. Op Specs already were in compliance with 135, they just needed the paper. Basically, to show good faith to the FAA, the decision was made at the company level to adopt a wait and see posture.

Integral to that decision was certain persons in the employ of the FAA had made it their task to run AA right out of aviation. One particularly stupid thing an FAA employee out of the SLC FSDO did was to send a letter to AA at Page which contained verbiage, paraphrasing here, to the effect that, 'I'll make sure you (AA owner) never have operational control of another aircraft as long as I live.' I read the letter. I was so appalled a govt employee would be so stupid as to put such a statement to paper that I made a photocopy. I destroyed that copy in 2010.

Too, certain FAA personal were quite peeved that (AA owner) decided to seek relief through Scottsdale which only increased the enmity from the FAA directed at AA Many people may have an unfavorable opinion of AA but what they were up against at the FAA was astounding. Several FAA employees belong in jail. I strenuously reject the idea of govt employees with unbridled authority to dictate the rise or fall of a private business based wholly or in part on subjective personal vendetta.

About the time the decision to ground was made, Shannon pleaded to me that she wasn't the one who had made the complaint. As I had yet to learn a complaint had been made I replied, What complaint? Then she knew she had spilled the beans. She looked like she was going to explode. As if I cared. I was there to fly. I enjoyed the flying, the passengers, the scenic beauty. But that place is ground zero for petty drama, it was difficult to avoid it..

Personally, I don't give a rip about this. What I do care about is talebearers controlling the narrative. When and where I can I'll counter the rumor and gossip with fact.
Click to expand...

Nice detailed explanation and knowing the person in question, (who also threw me under the bus), I am not surprised. In fact that person was the source of my information and it was spread pretty much as fact. I'm sure they did well for themselves as a result too.
 
Roger Roger said:
Every student pilot I ever flew with on their first couple go arounds would invariable perform them in this sequence, or similar:
Flaps full up
Half throttle
No rudder
Raise pitch to vx attitude
Wonder why the stall horn was going off.
Click to expand...
The key word in your post is "student". No way somebody should be flying pax if they can't remember simple go around procedures.
 
Roger Roger said:
I see the same mistakes training pilots 135 that I did training pre solo students.
Click to expand...
Well then, remind me never to take a flight in Alaska in anything other than a Beaver on floats piloted by a guy named Merle who looks, sounds, and acts properly grizzled.:)
 
guywhoflies said:
Well then, remind me never to take a flight in Alaska in anything other than a Beaver on floats piloted by a guy named Merle who looks, sounds, and acts properly grizzled.:)
Click to expand...
I'd be willing to bet 121 check airmen would say the same thing. It's not new mistakes, it's the same mistakes in new context and to different degrees. Although in my case it certainly doesn't help that the folks I worked with were by and large <1000 hours and on their first real flying job.
 
guywhoflies said:
The key word in your post is "student". No way somebody should be flying pax if they can't remember simple go around procedures.
Click to expand...
You should have seen my first few go arounds after transitioning from the CASA! What do you mean theres a prop lever? :)
 
RICHARD5 said:
A contender for worst go around would be the student pilot in a C-152 at Taft, CA, or maybe it was Tulare... sometime in the 1990s. Doing T&Gs, while on approach she aborted the landing to go around. She left carb heat on and did not retract from full flaps. She descended in nose high attitude to impact the ground. Even though she had sustained serious injuries she was able to free herself from the aircraft prior to the post-crash fire. She survived long enough to tell the investigators what had happened..
Click to expand...

This kind accident sequence is one of those "not a new way to crash planes" types. Been many before, and will still be more to come.

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/to-land-or-not-to-land-that-is-the-question.12151/#post-158286
 
@MikeD, given your varied civ and mil experience of both airman and ground personal, your demonstrated advanced understanding of subject matter, and how your writings are demonstrably relatable to the common folk, I, for one, should invite that you continue to put forward your analysis of aviation accident investigations.

I would like to see your analysis of accidents involving formation flights of at least two elements. No, I do not have a specific event in mind. I leave it to your broad experience to conjure such analysis.
 
y"Law of primacy; just like she had practiced many times with her CFI, she only touched each control knob or handle but without effecting a change in configuration. She succumbed to her injuries soon after that.'

Rereading this from my previous post, do you CFIs comprehend the responsibility the position carries? Do you truly 'get it'? I am sick and tired of hearing a 1 or two, or three year CFI moan about how they are 'burned out' from instructing. The first year CFI for my commercial would bore me to tears, strike that; I wanted to put a bullet in either his or my head to erase the pain of hearing of his 'suffering'. As CFI you carry an awesome responsibility in accurately transferring not only knowledge but the right knowledge to your students.

I've actually known several long time CFIs who are ardent in their opinion that instructing should NOT count towards total time when used to meet hiring requirements. Flying laps and the occasional 'cross country' is no where equal to flying across differing regions ie, several states, and the challenges therein.

I've long had the thought that that student would still have a life but for the faulty teachings of her CFI.

/carry on
 
RICHARD5 said:
@MikeD, given your varied civ and mil experience of both airman and ground personal, your demonstrated advanced understanding of subject matter, and how your writings are demonstrably relatable to the common folk, I, for one, should invite that you continue to put forward your analysis of aviation accident investigations.

I would like to see your analysis of accidents involving formation flights of at least two elements. No, I do not have a specific event in mind. I leave it to your broad experience to conjure such analysis.
Click to expand...

I do have a few in the queue I'm working on. But I do have one completed in the series which does cover civilian form flight:

http://forums.jetcareers.com/threads/things-that-go-bump-in-the-night.20633/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top