PDA

View Full Version : Young lady crashes on first solo x-country.


AdamFrisch
25th Aug 2013, 04:08
First-person: Student pilot recounts plane crash - YouTube

Billings teen recounts surviving plane crash in mountains near Amelia Earhart?s Wyoming cabin (http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/wyoming/billings-teen-walks-away-from-wyoming-plane-crash/article_0e389231-f179-567b-b6fa-3275b93e7293.html)

rjtjrt
25th Aug 2013, 04:51
Could have been a man or a woman.
Lucky young woman - that someone saw the crash, in such a remote spot.

In the video she spoke repeatedly of being supposed to "follow the water" as a navigation method, and in the newspaper article it is said "After leaving Greybull, Wyo., Morgan became disoriented and started flying in almost the opposite direction of where she needed to be going".

Perhaps she should be told what a compass looks like, although I guess that is a little judgemental on my part!

Some instruction in Situational Awareness may also be appropriate.

BroomstickPilot
25th Aug 2013, 09:44
Nobody, irrespective of age or sex, should have been sent on a first cross country in this sort of terrain, especially not in an aeroplane probably incapable of climbing clear of the surrounding high ground.

Add to this the fact that her navigational skills seem to have been at best rudimentary, and you have the makings of a serious accident. She was very lucky to get away alive and in one piece.

I think the US authorities should move in and start asking some pointed questions.

BP.

sharpend
25th Aug 2013, 10:33
So lets get this right... a young teenager flies off on her first solo, decides to fly up into the high mountains in a low performance Cessna, presses on into the mountains until the valley she is climbing into is too narrow to turn round and the ground is too high to get over. Then the inevitable happens!

So who supervised her route? Or did she get hopelessly lost and fly in a totally different direction to that briefed. If so, surely she might have noticed the mountains coming up?

Perhaps supervision & training might be investigated.

Either way, a lucky young lady to walk away from the crash.

Sallyann1234
25th Aug 2013, 10:43
Yes it's easy to blame the student for flying into trouble.
But what was the instructor thinking, sending her out on her first solo so badly briefed?
Did he really agree a flight plan that was 'follow the water'? That's not navigation!

rjtjrt
25th Aug 2013, 10:51
There is an easy solution to this - just buy a GPS and follow the magenta line - simples!

Sir George Cayley
25th Aug 2013, 11:17
One photo showing the twisted remains of the prop caught my eye. It looks to me like c/s hub and checking the FAA registry N516MA it turns out to be a Cessna R172E.

If that's a Rocket with a 210hp Continental it might explain how she got it so high but also raises the question of students in what EASA describes as complex.

SGC

mad_jock
25th Aug 2013, 11:21
The FAA are a lot more proactive and do pull tickets of pilots and instructors who don't come up to the required standards.

And its not uncommon for routes to be set which shall we say take into account natural features that help navigation.

The problems occur when the student picks up on the wrong feature.


My ppl test in the states was basically follow a highway and then the diversion "occurred" 5 miles before a waterway and the diversion point was right next to a bridge on the water way.

Conversely my CPL test in the UK had me going to a disused airfield on the chart which had got a pig farm built on it and in no way or form looked like an old airfield in the middle of the vale of York. You had to State that you were over you point due time etc but you couldn't identify it.

Unfortunately the magenta line solution means that there is nothing the pilot can do when in the future the GPS goes tits up.

AdamFrisch
25th Aug 2013, 12:45
Everything in Wyoming is high altitude flying near mountains. Even the flat bits start at 5000ft+.

Pilot DAR
25th Aug 2013, 12:53
Supervision and briefing are obviously an aspects which should be questioned.

also raises the question of students in what EASA describes as complex.

C/S prop complex? C/S stands for constant speed! It's even more simple than fixed pitch!

I think much of today's avionics are much more complex than a C/S propeller could be. And much more likely to lead to less safe flight with distraction and automation, with temptation to fly eyes in all the time. A C/S prop on most engines is pretty well set and forget, and if you somehow forget to set it, it's just loud and wastes gas....

thing
25th Aug 2013, 13:39
I've often wondered why a cs prop is regarded as complex too. How many times during a normal flight do you touch the blue knob? Twice?

mad_jock
25th Aug 2013, 13:47
Its the management of said prop in an engine failure I think is the issue. Not normal operation.

I haven't looked at the EASA stuff but you used to be able to do your PPL on a CS prop and retractable as well if you liked.

DX Wombat
25th Aug 2013, 15:17
Thank God we are blessed with the wonderful D&D. :ok: :ok: :ok:

Whirlybird
25th Aug 2013, 16:37
There seems to be rather a lot of criticism when we have few actual facts.

dont overfil
25th Aug 2013, 17:33
A guy at my local field in the UK has just completed his ppl in a C182. CS prop and G1000!
D.O.

Whopity
25th Aug 2013, 19:32
but also raises the question of students in what EASA describes as complex.I can find no reference to the word "Complex" in any of the EASA documents or definitions. The items described simply require differences training but, if you haven't flown anything else that is covered in the basic instruction.

Pilot DAR
25th Aug 2013, 19:44
Its the management of said prop in an engine failure I think is the issue. Not normal operation

What's not normal about a C/S prop on a piston engine at the time of an engine failure? If you do nothing, it's going to behave like a fixed pitch prop. If you choose to secure the engine, and coarse it right out, you will improve the glide a little, but other than that?

mad_jock
25th Aug 2013, 19:54
As whopity says its considered a difference.

To be honest I wouldn't have a clue either about a SEP CS operation as I did my CPL in a twin so never had to do all the single engine stuff.

Pilot DAR
25th Aug 2013, 20:04
As whopity says its considered a difference

Hmm, I wonder what the criteria is for "difference".

I would wonder if it should be "differences" to go from an "On - Off" fuel system to one with multiple tanks, particularly with no "Both" selection. I bet there are a lot more accidents resulting from non proficiency with the fuel selector than with the propeller control!

Maoraigh1
25th Aug 2013, 20:08
Am I right in seeing her face, still inside the plane, in the pic of it upsidedown?

mad_jock
25th Aug 2013, 20:24
From Memory..

Tail Wheel.
Turbo's
Cs props
retractable
Glass if trained on steam instrument
Steam if trained on Glass
Pressurisation.
single lever to double (fadec machines without a mixture)

I think are all the differences but I may well have missed one or two out

mm_flynn
25th Aug 2013, 22:50
For the record, FAA Complex aircraft (SEL) must have all of Flaps, retractable gear and CS prop

patowalker
26th Aug 2013, 07:47
I think the US authorities should move in and start asking some pointed questions.

"Wednesday, she worked with Federal Aviation Association (sic) officials on the crash report."


Am I right in seeing her face, still inside the plane, in the pic of it upsidedown?

No. The student pilot took the photos.

riverrock83
26th Aug 2013, 10:28
A quick bit of Googling brings me to:
EASA Flight Standards (http://www.easa.europa.eu/flightstandards/ga-ba.html)

The term ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ is defined in the Basic Regulation as follows:

(j) ‘complex motor-powered aircraft’ shall mean:

(i) an aeroplane:

with a maximum certificated take-off mass exceeding 5 700 kg, or
certificated for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nineteen, or
certificated for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots, or
equipped with (a) turbojet engine(s) or more than one turboprop engine, or
(ii) a helicopter certificated:

for a maximum take-off mass exceeding 3 175 kg, or
for a maximum passenger seating configuration of more than nine, or
for operation with a minimum crew of at least two pilots,
or

(iii) a tilt rotor aircraft;

Glad she got out alive!

Looking at the map http://goo.gl/maps/1cJSx (ignore the driving directions) she started at "A", was meant to go to "C" but ended up at "B". So she followed the river, but headed West instead of North. It does sound like she was feature crawling and not using a compass! The obvious waypoint would have been Bighorn Lake, and a lack of it should have raised even more alarm bells...

Shorrick Mk2
26th Aug 2013, 11:57
"I was supposed to follow water" - upstream or downstream?

First rule of mountain flying before following a terrain feature (river, valley, road) - identify it by heading...

Looks like instead of following Bighorn river that runs +/- north south she followed the roughly east/west running smaller tributary that flows into Bighorn close to the airport...

Steve6443
26th Aug 2013, 13:46
Here in Germany a "complex" machine means, as far as I recall from my Air Law exams, being equipped with 2 out of the following 3:

1) C/S Prop
2) More than 200hp (turbo or normal)
3) retractable undercarriage.

hence a C182 is considered complex whereas a Cirrus SR20 isn't. That's not to say the rules don't change across the world, this is just for Germany.

mad_jock
26th Aug 2013, 13:48
Germany has the same rules as the rest of Europe with aviation.

Pilot DAR
26th Aug 2013, 16:42
SO if all of Europe considers a C/S prop complex (for who knows what reason?!), that would presume that some extra instruction would be appropriate for flying that aircraft type.

but also raises the question of students in what EASA describes as complex.

So if a person is a student pilot on a complex aircraft, would it not be natural to assume that the additional instruction [for the complex element] is included in the basic flight training on that type, and everything is okay anyway? I expect that there would be an extra 5 minutes of ground briefing, and extra two minutes in a lesson on how the blue knob makes the sound change, and you're on to the regular training again - no big deal...

Or is there a rule that you are not permitted basic training on complex aircraft?

Shorrick Mk2
26th Aug 2013, 18:23
No rule against training ab initio on a complex.

And it's really beyond the point of this accident anyway. I'm puzzled as to how she couldn't make it over the ridge - if it is indeed a 210hp plane with one on board it shouldn't have been a problem.

Not to mention that if you plan for 7500 and have to climb to 8500 and barely clear the trees it should prolly be an indication you're flying up the wrong valley...

Fly-by-Wife
26th Aug 2013, 18:32
I'm puzzled as to how she couldn't make it over the ridge

Downdrafts?

FBW

Shorrick Mk2
26th Aug 2013, 19:04
Probably though she makes it sound as if the plane lacked climb performance even before the gust hit it.

zondaracer
27th Aug 2013, 21:54
As I fly quite a bit in that part of the country, I can tell you that winds can be very strong. It is not uncommon to see winds gusting over 30kts. Additionally, if you throw in high density altitude (ISA +35 is not rare on really hot summer days), and strong winds going the wrong way across a mountain ridge, you could quickly be in a lot of trouble.

riverrock83
28th Aug 2013, 09:17
Pilot DAR - see my quote from EASA (which overrides local European rules) above. Complex is now nothing to do with having a Constant Speed Prop.

And I completed my Ab Inito training on a 200hp aircraft with a Constant Speed Prop (although a welded undercarriage) in Scotland. Other than not allowed to have a type rating, there are no other restrictions (as far as I know) in what you can do your Ab Initio training in. If you were made of money, you could do it in a twin and get a MEP rating without ever having an SEP rating...

Shorrick Mk2
28th Aug 2013, 10:08
If you were made of money, you could do it in a twin and get a MEP rating without ever having an SEP rating...

Or in a PC-12 :)

Whopity
28th Aug 2013, 10:26
I'm puzzled as to how she couldn't make it over the ridgeMountains can rise faster than aeroplanes even C130s

pudoc
28th Aug 2013, 17:47
Did she say she descended to gain airspeed and then use that airspeed to climb?

Cobalt
28th Aug 2013, 22:14
So if a person is a student pilot on a complex aircraft, would it not be natural to assume that the additional instruction [for the complex element] is included in the basic flight training on that type, and everything is okay anyway? I expect that there would be an extra 5 minutes of ground briefing, and extra two minutes in a lesson on how the blue knob makes the sound change, and you're on to the regular training again - no big deal...


Not quite, but close... a proper VP prop ground briefing takes an hour at least [undercarriage indeed 5 minutes... but I make them read the POH before I do that and just ask questions!]; also you have to spend a bit more time on how the red knob makes a change in the bank balance ;-) and on what to do if the white knob does not put down the black things from under the wings.

A recent student of mine bought a PA28R Arrow [T-Tail] and took delivery basically a few days after his first solo in the PA28. He needed about 4.5 hours to go solo in his aircraft; I would guess that if I had trained him in that from day one 3.5 of that would not have been required - allowing one hour for the extra bits & the T-tail arrow being a bit difficult in the flare.

What was much more interesting was the cross country flying - all the school's standard routes were too short to teach meaningful navigation (the legs were just to short at 130kt) so we did some interesting trips.

All in all, anyone who starts in a "complex" [FAA-speak] aircraft will probably have fewer hours, but higher cost, than someone who starts in a C152 and then upgrades. And MUCH more enjoyable training...

jetsetter250
30th Aug 2013, 13:33
Did she say she descended to gain airspeed and then use that airspeed to climb?

This was only after she compensated for drag by reducing airspeed

Brian Abraham
31st Aug 2013, 02:49
A high DA accident where you wonder why the pilot didn't see it coming.

Fatal Plane Crash Recorded From Inside The Plane - YouTube

garrya100
31st Aug 2013, 06:02
I would agree with that. I bought a P28R as a 15 hr Student with a view to finishing my training in it. Needed 2hrs to solo in it and to do the CSU and retract endorsement, which was a briefing and then emergency procedures, runaway prop, emergency gear extensions, engine failures etc. Learnt very quickly to pull the prop back on an engine failure, with the gear out and prop full fine it glides like a brick.

The school I'm with plans for 2hr navs, in the PA-38 it is an out and back exercise, with the Arrow you get to see a lot more of the country and sample a lot more remote airports, which I feel is better training.

In my view the Arrow is a fantastic trainer, complex enough to be a bit of a challenge but it doesn't require lots of expirience, if you fly the numbers it easy but if you don't it lets you know without being dangerous, fast enough to be useful but not too fast so you arrive at your destination at the same time as the aircraft.

Also I normally see a TAS of 135knts, which with the prevailing winds here most often give me a GS of 120knts. Makes navigation easy, 2nm per minute.

Gertrude the Wombat
31st Aug 2013, 12:22
A high DA accident where you wonder why the pilot didn't see it coming
Well, I don't suppose I'm the only one who would have chickened out before the first ridge. However my opinion is worth exactly what you paid for it, my experience of flying in mountains at the aircraft's ceiling on a warm day being all of ten minutes.

Possibly he'd done that route before in similar conditions and got away with it?

dubbleyew eight
31st Aug 2013, 13:09
pilot probably didn't see it coming because he fell into a trap.
flying parallel to the ground up a gentle slope can occur without you realising it.
right at the top of the slope the aircraft runs out of climb capability and then on the edge of a stall you see him try to turn.

he was probably consciously flying under the clouds.

edit: in fact there is another error he made. he did the classic glider fatal error of turning toward the hill.

I cant say that I heard him firewall the engine to climb either.

ShyTorque
31st Aug 2013, 14:38
I know a lady who crashed on her first solo. It was thankfully much closer to civilisation though. She hit an apple tree in the garden just across the road from the threshold and the aircraft ended up rolled into a ball....

They put her straight back in another Cessna and later made her re-fly the sortie - which she did. They re-aligned the runway a bit after that, especially as it was so short.

Gertrude the Wombat
31st Aug 2013, 15:17
I cant say that I heard him firewall the engine to climb either.
I was assuming that he already had all engine controls set for max climb rate, which was zero, thus didn't expect to hear any change.

Maoraigh1
31st Aug 2013, 21:27
The fatal crash video is of an ex military Cessna Bird Dog, which was nowhere near its service ceiling, nor its MAUW. The crucial last bits of the tape were damaged. The wreck was not found for a long time. Cause of the steep right bank??? Katabatic downdraft? Control failure?
Going close to the right slope would be normal before a left turn, which he had plenty of room for.
This video should never have been released by the US agencies trusted with it.

Brian Abraham
1st Sep 2013, 02:41
The crucial last bits of the tape were damagedWhat crucial last bits? You see the aircraft hit the trees, roll inverted and hit the ground.

Crash site was 10,200 feet AMSL with a DA estimated to be 13,000 feet.

This video should never have been released by the US agencies trusted with itA video such as this is a great teaching aid.

dubbleyew eight
1st Sep 2013, 03:29
shouldnt be released?
why not?
it doesnt bring the pilot into disrepute, just shows that he got caught in a situation that got the better of the aircraft.

lessons i would take from that video.
make decisions earlier.
turn so that you are turning over the centre of the valley, never turn toward the ridge line.
never let your speed decay.

if he had turned toward the right until near the ridge then turned left he'd probably still be here with us.
ymmv.