Piper Aerostar crash, or, Don't do stupid things in airplanes.
- Thread starter darrenf
- Start date
Bandit_Driver
Gold Member
Don't see how the plane is only certified in the normal category.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Again, gets back to the point that we're all fallible. I'm sure the friend never expected to watch his buddies ball it up with him watching; I'm sure he instead expected them to exhibit the good airmanship and judgment they'd probably had at most other times in their flying careers.
Don't get me wrong: there are obviously bad apple, rogue pilots out there who think they are such good aviators that they can bend or openly break the rules. Bud Holland, the pilot of the B-52 that crashed at Fairchild AFB, was one of those guys, as I'm sure there are many others who died fiery, violent deaths in an airplane. I've known a couple of pilots who were "that guy" (felt that an occasional bust of the rules, or pushing a situation for no reason other than fun or a thrill, was perfectly all right because they were good enough to pull it off) who didn't crash, die, or even bend any metal and are still flying today.
But there are also pilots who died fiery, violent deaths in an airplane because of their extremely poor judgment at a critical time who otherwise had good or great airmanship. It doesn't mean there was some rule-flaunting monster that lived inside of them who was just waiting to break out, it just means that at that particular juncture, they made an error in judgment that cost them their lives.
Any pilot who thinks it couldn't/wouldn't ever be them is kidding themselves. We ALL have instances of bad judgment and airmanship, it is part of being a human being. The objective is to obviously minimize those instances to the max extent possible, such that the ramifications are reduced as much as possible. Remember that airmanship and judgment are journies, not destinations. Aviators are refining both right up until the aircraft on their last flight ever comes to a complete stop and is shut down. Mistakes and deviations from perfection are an unfortunate but inseparable part of that journey.
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
I've met a lot of those pilots and I, myself, have been one of them. Having said that... risk aversion is a slippery slope to a loss of skills and airmanship.
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
Me, too. I certainly wish I could say otherwise and claim some squeaky-clean history from some ivory tower, but my opinion on the issue was partially forged through instances of errors in judgment I've made during my career.
Fortunately, none of them have ever resulted in bent metal, hurt people, or (in the case of military flying) resulted in the failure to accomplish a mission. Strangely enough, it is the failures and mistakes that probably contribute more positively to building airmanship and judgment than many successes in decisionmaking do.
I am a better aviator for having had those experiences, and having been able to analyze what went wrong and fix it/build on it for later flying. The ones who don't see the errors in judgment for what they are (in other words, they continue to think they were good decisions...) won't have that benefit. Naturally, guys who pack it in never have the chance to step back and learn from their mistakes.
nocturnalaviator
AI Jedi
If he was, he'd still be alive today right? I hate hearing that crap. Sucks. Why ya gotta go do that and push the limit especially near homes?! Something easily preventable.
ArcherII
Well-Known Member
I think there's a fine line from the "hey, you're one of our best pilots" to the "they say I'm the best pilot, so I really might be!".
When you cross it, you'll need a stroke of humility to bring you back to the safe zone. If you don't get that stroke, good luck.
We all needed a crash course in humility in our lives, it's damn necessary.
Maurus
The Great Gazoo
Some pilots don't survive the crash......
ArcherII
Well-Known Member
I mean an accelerated course. Don't know how to say it in english quite right.
No, you were right the first time. Your comment just had a double meaning that tied well together in making both points nicely. I was just building on that. I agree with your comments fully.
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
Here's the NTSB Preliminary:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140319X12053&key=1
On March 19, 2014, about 1650 mountain daylight time, N90464, a Smith Aerostar 601P twin engine airplane was destroyed when it collided with terrain while conducting low level aerobatics near Aurora, Colorado. The airline transport rated pilot/registered owner was fatally injured. No flight plan was filed for the local flight that departed Front Range Airport (FTG), Denver, Colorado, at a yet to be determined time. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
A witness stated that the pilot planned to fly over his home that afternoon to show him and another mutual friend the airplane he recently purchased. The witness, who was also a retired military pilot, said he was standing outside his home about ¼-mile from the accident site, when he first saw the airplane approach from east to west. The airplane flew over a set of power lines and cleared them by about five feet at an estimated speed of 200-230 knots. The witness said the airplane then made a sharp right hand turn toward the north before it pitched straight up with the nose of the airplane going "pure vertical" and performed a "hammerhead stall." The witness said the pilot kicked full right rudder and the nose of the airplane turned toward the ground and the airplane descended. The witness said the airplane recovered from the descent about 20-feet-high above the ground. The airplane then headed toward the south and flew over the witness's home about 20-feet-high over the roof. The witness said that as the airplane flew over his home, he was yelling at the pilot to "Just stop!" He said the pilot then made two more "extremely low" passes. On the fifth and final pass, the pilot again flew east to west and cleared the witness's home by about five feet, before making a right, 90-degree right hand turn to the north. The witness said he then ran around the side of his home, when he heard a shotgun-like sound followed by an explosion. He thought the pilot may have had overstressed the airplane. The witness then saw smoke, realized the airplane had crashed, and responded to the accident site.
Three Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors were driving home from work when they each observed the airplane flying low and erratic over a residential area. The inspectors pulled over on the highway so they could capture the airplane's registration number when it suddenly impacted terrain. They immediately responded to the accident site.
Several other people witnessed the airplane flying low over their homes and called 911. Some of these witnesses took video of the airplane. A preliminary review of these videos revealed the airplane was making steep turns at a low altitude before it impacted terrain.
The airplane wreckage was examined at the site on March 20, 2014. All major components of the airframe were accounted for at the site. The airplane came to rest in a rolling and partially wooded field on a heading of 360 degrees, at a ground elevation of 6,154 feet mean sea level (msl).
The initial impact point was a tree that was about 100-feet-tall. As the airplane continued along the wreckage path it continued to impact trees before impacting the ground. Numerous broken tree limbs were found along the wreckage path and some exhibited 45-degree angular cuts with black pain transfer marks.
At the point where the airplane impacted the ground, there were two impact craters in direct line with each other. Embedded in the first impact crater was the right propeller assembly and in the second crater was the left propeller assembly. All three blades remained attached to their respective hubs for each propeller assembly. Several slash marks were also observed on the southern edge of each impact crater. Just to the south of the first impact crater was a long ground scar consistent with the length/ width of the airplane's wing. Embedded in the dirt near the end of this scar were pieces of green navigational lens.
The main wreckage came to rest several hundred feet forward of the ground impact scars. From the initial impact point with trees to where the main wreckage came to rest was about 1,100 feet. The main wreckage consisted of the empennage, the center section of the fuselage, both wings and the cockpit. The center section was inverted and the main landing gear was retracted. The center section sustained extensive impact and post-accident fire damage.
The empennage sustained impact damage but no fire damage. It remained partially connected to the center section via flight control cables. Flight control continuity was established for the elevator and rudder to the center section; however, due to extensive impact damage, flight control continuity was not established for the ailerons or flaps.
Examination of both engines revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation prior to impact.
The pilot held an airline transport pilot rating for single and multi-engine airplane. His last FAA first class medical was issued on March 8, 2014. At that time, the pilot reported a total of 26,000 flight hours. The pilot was also an FAA certified airframe and power plant mechanic.
Weather reported at Buckley Air Force base at 1655 was reported as wind from 240 degrees at 6 knots, scattered clouds at 22,000 feet, visibility 10 miles, temperature 12 degrees C, dewpoint -18 degrees C, and a barometric pressure setting of 29.97.
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20140319X12053&key=1
On March 19, 2014, about 1650 mountain daylight time, N90464, a Smith Aerostar 601P twin engine airplane was destroyed when it collided with terrain while conducting low level aerobatics near Aurora, Colorado. The airline transport rated pilot/registered owner was fatally injured. No flight plan was filed for the local flight that departed Front Range Airport (FTG), Denver, Colorado, at a yet to be determined time. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the personal flight conducted under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.
A witness stated that the pilot planned to fly over his home that afternoon to show him and another mutual friend the airplane he recently purchased. The witness, who was also a retired military pilot, said he was standing outside his home about ¼-mile from the accident site, when he first saw the airplane approach from east to west. The airplane flew over a set of power lines and cleared them by about five feet at an estimated speed of 200-230 knots. The witness said the airplane then made a sharp right hand turn toward the north before it pitched straight up with the nose of the airplane going "pure vertical" and performed a "hammerhead stall." The witness said the pilot kicked full right rudder and the nose of the airplane turned toward the ground and the airplane descended. The witness said the airplane recovered from the descent about 20-feet-high above the ground. The airplane then headed toward the south and flew over the witness's home about 20-feet-high over the roof. The witness said that as the airplane flew over his home, he was yelling at the pilot to "Just stop!" He said the pilot then made two more "extremely low" passes. On the fifth and final pass, the pilot again flew east to west and cleared the witness's home by about five feet, before making a right, 90-degree right hand turn to the north. The witness said he then ran around the side of his home, when he heard a shotgun-like sound followed by an explosion. He thought the pilot may have had overstressed the airplane. The witness then saw smoke, realized the airplane had crashed, and responded to the accident site.
Three Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspectors were driving home from work when they each observed the airplane flying low and erratic over a residential area. The inspectors pulled over on the highway so they could capture the airplane's registration number when it suddenly impacted terrain. They immediately responded to the accident site.
Several other people witnessed the airplane flying low over their homes and called 911. Some of these witnesses took video of the airplane. A preliminary review of these videos revealed the airplane was making steep turns at a low altitude before it impacted terrain.
The airplane wreckage was examined at the site on March 20, 2014. All major components of the airframe were accounted for at the site. The airplane came to rest in a rolling and partially wooded field on a heading of 360 degrees, at a ground elevation of 6,154 feet mean sea level (msl).
The initial impact point was a tree that was about 100-feet-tall. As the airplane continued along the wreckage path it continued to impact trees before impacting the ground. Numerous broken tree limbs were found along the wreckage path and some exhibited 45-degree angular cuts with black pain transfer marks.
At the point where the airplane impacted the ground, there were two impact craters in direct line with each other. Embedded in the first impact crater was the right propeller assembly and in the second crater was the left propeller assembly. All three blades remained attached to their respective hubs for each propeller assembly. Several slash marks were also observed on the southern edge of each impact crater. Just to the south of the first impact crater was a long ground scar consistent with the length/ width of the airplane's wing. Embedded in the dirt near the end of this scar were pieces of green navigational lens.
The main wreckage came to rest several hundred feet forward of the ground impact scars. From the initial impact point with trees to where the main wreckage came to rest was about 1,100 feet. The main wreckage consisted of the empennage, the center section of the fuselage, both wings and the cockpit. The center section was inverted and the main landing gear was retracted. The center section sustained extensive impact and post-accident fire damage.
The empennage sustained impact damage but no fire damage. It remained partially connected to the center section via flight control cables. Flight control continuity was established for the elevator and rudder to the center section; however, due to extensive impact damage, flight control continuity was not established for the ailerons or flaps.
Examination of both engines revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation prior to impact.
The pilot held an airline transport pilot rating for single and multi-engine airplane. His last FAA first class medical was issued on March 8, 2014. At that time, the pilot reported a total of 26,000 flight hours. The pilot was also an FAA certified airframe and power plant mechanic.
Weather reported at Buckley Air Force base at 1655 was reported as wind from 240 degrees at 6 knots, scattered clouds at 22,000 feet, visibility 10 miles, temperature 12 degrees C, dewpoint -18 degrees C, and a barometric pressure setting of 29.97.
Pilot Fighter
Well-Known Member
There are many guys that are very conservative and risk-averse in their professional flying and are capable of crazy sheeet when flying solo for recreation. I'm not that guy, but I dial in more risk sometimes in my recreational flying. Would I fly low-level in a single-engined homebuilt with my girlfriend aboard? No, but I've done it before alone and I'll probably do it again. I have flown with some amazing pilots, so I'm well aware that I'm not an amazing pilot - keeps me honest.
Murdoughnut
Well sized member
I get your point, but there is also a binary element to this: Legal vs. Illegal.
I've made some foolish mistakes before, like thinking it was a good idea to push my seat back during the climb out, or poor weather planning in general. What I haven't done, however, is knowingly violate FARs like this guy apparently did when he flew 20-feet over someone's rooftop. Have I broken FARs before? Sure - such as when taking off thinking the base layer is at one level, and bumping into it on the way up. But I think there's a completely different designation for those who might be good sticks, but purposely violate regulations or aircraft operating limitations.
I sometimes scoff at this notion that "this could be any of us." Yes, this could be any of us in the sense that we could be a smoking hole in the ground. No, this couldn't be "any of us" in the sense that we could bite it while performing aerobatics close to the ground and beyond what the FAA designates as a safe margin.
It would be like looking at a car mangled because it was going 120mph drag racing down the freeway. Could be any of us? Uhm, no - not really.
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
That's a very good point.
The more experience I get as a pilot, the more I realize "Fate in the Hunter", and sometimes crazy stuff happens to the wrong people. I remember when I was a 300 hour commercial pilot, and I would practically scoff at the mistakes made in accident reports. Then I started knowing people that were involved in those accident reports, and I started to get humble real quick.
Once case in particular was this one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/aviationquery/brief.aspx?ev_id=20090525X51624
I left this company just a few months before this accident. I used to fly that plane on that trip (it was a regular one) every week.. I knew and flew with both pilots, they were both very sharp. It easily could have been a multiple fatality, the PIC did an amazing job of getting it down. Unfortunately mistakes were made, and they were surprising mistakes considering how good both pilots were. This was one of those accidents that made me realize "Fate is the Hunter", and it very EASILY could have been me that day.
But I don't knowingly tempt fate. What this guy did in Denver with the Aerostar is hard for me to comprehend. From what I've heard he was very well liked, he had a family, and a good career. Why somebody would risk all of that for something so obviously dangerous, I will never know.
NewYorkophile
Fly Casual
Thanks for posting. Good lesson to stay in the books, even after you're on the line. It didn't say in the report, but I assume the right tank ran dry, and the left remained full?
GypsyPilot
Mohawk Town
Yes sir. There was absolutely no need for that accident.
