Grant Aviation pilot killed in Southwest Alaska crash

Holy cow. I knew the guy when I was there. We weren't close or anything but he was considered one of the better pilots.
 
" plans to reach the location were still on a "weather hold" due to reduced visibility and obscured mountaintops."

Oh good we're doing this again.
 
I did not know the deceased, but trying to get into Perryville VFR when the weather is down is no joke. My former employer was probably a little too gung ho about it, and at the time I was a Caravan FO who really didn't know any better.

Stay safe out there.
 
Roger Roger said:
" plans to reach the location were still on a "weather hold" due to reduced visibility and obscured mountaintops."

Oh good we're doing this again.
Click to expand...
I'm not entirely sure western/sc Alaska reads the SE Alaska NTSB reports. We like to learn ourselves.
 
Oh boy.....see...it's this kind of crap that's not ok. Having flown with this guy at hageland....I'm well aware of his attitudes towards flying....like...regularly departing in dog crap...landing and saying "gee it's bad" and then flying in it again. Or getting stuck ontop in a 207 yelling for help on the radio....etc...so not shocked he drilled a hole with a plane.
 
Akbush said:
Oh boy.....see...it's this kind of crap that's not ok. Having flown with this guy at hageland....I'm well aware of his attitudes towards flying....like...regularly departing in dog crap...landing and saying "gee it's bad" and then flying in it again. Or getting stuck ontop in a 207 yelling for help on the radio....etc...so not shocked he drilled a hole with a plane.
Click to expand...

Unnecessary
 
Stone Cold said:
Is it true though? That's the question, and if so, the young guys should learn from it. If it's not true, then a correction should be posted.
Click to expand...

When I was there he was respected for his abilities. I don't recall anyone having any issues with his flying. But it's Grant......there were reasons I bailed after 3 months. I saw some shady stuff up there.
 
"The aircraft was equipped with a (make/model) TAWS system. The system was installed in (year) and had accumulated (x) hours, of which it recorded (x-1) hours with the system in "INHIBIT" mode, which will not provide terrain warnings"
 
Roger Roger said:
"The aircraft was equipped with a (make/model) TAWS system. The system was installed in (year) and had accumulated (x) hours, of which it recorded (x-1) hours with the system in "INHIBIT" mode, which will not provide terrain warnings"
Click to expand...
Not saying it's right, but that's not uncommon. Some guys inhibit because they like to fly low in the terrain and they get tired of the frequent warnings. Some guys inhibit because erroneous warnings are not too uncommon. I've experienced warnings when I was nowhere near terrain, and I developed the opinion that the TAWS was not a reliable device. I've received clear messages from mechanics to not squawk the TAWS because they couldn't fix the problem. Again, not saying that's right.
 
Plata said:
Not saying it's right, but that's not uncommon. Some guys inhibit because they like to fly low in the terrain and they get tired of the frequent warnings. Some guys inhibit because erroneous warnings are not too uncommon. I've experienced warnings when I was nowhere near terrain, and I developed the opinion that the TAWS was not a reliable device. I've received clear messages from mechanics to not squawk the TAWS because they couldn't fix the problem. Again, not saying that's right.
Click to expand...
Oh, I'm veeeery familiar with the common practices regarding TAWS/EGPWS usage in Alaska 135 ops. Let's talk about a few key points.
-accuracy and reliability. Highly dependent on the hardware and accompanying database. I've not personally seen outright false hits, but I've generally operated with a little bit better equipment than the KGP560 commonly used in 'Vans.
-nuisance alerts in normal ops. Here's where I think the thinking needs to change. Yeah, there are a couple places we go that you have to have it inhibited no matter how carefully you fly. But outside of those spots, if the route/weather you're on/in is giving you "nuisance" alerts, maybe it's time re-evaluate what you're doing. If the weather is good, what are you doing so low, and if the weather is bad, well, the equipment is doing its damn job.

Lemme tell ya, I did 4+ years of flying without turning the inhibit off. But at some point, after the 4th or 5th 135 fatal where actually using the shiz that the Feds require to be in the airplane might have kept the last hole in the cheese from lining up, my thinking started to change and I've pretty close to come 180° where I leave it on all the time, VFR or IFR. It's hard to explain but when you see the NTSB photos of the exact same toggle switch locked in the INHIBIT position after a CFIT it starts to have an impact on your thinking.

Again, no judgment on this crash, gotta wait for the NTSB, but the whole thing just seems really familiar after 7 years in this business up here.
 
Last edited:
I think I'm with you. With very few exceptions we shouldn't be getting nuisance alerts at all. If we are getting them we should be giving a lot of thought to altering our flight path.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top