Air Med Seneca Down
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Expressflight:
No, but you can bet there will be many who will opine that, had there been two pilots on board, they would have been less likely to overlook a step-down MDA limit...
Not that I agree with them.
'Done it many times before' (sic) appears in the report. Perhaps there lies the rub: if we do it lots of times, even if it's wrong, and get away with it, then we might do it at a time when it's critical that we do the right thing (as in this case). The hill has always been there. How many people have come close to it in IMC without realising??
No, but you can bet there will be many who will opine that, had there been two pilots on board, they would have been less likely to overlook a step-down MDA limit...
Not that I agree with them.
'Done it many times before' (sic) appears in the report. Perhaps there lies the rub: if we do it lots of times, even if it's wrong, and get away with it, then we might do it at a time when it's critical that we do the right thing (as in this case). The hill has always been there. How many people have come close to it in IMC without realising??
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
eyeinthesky...
I agree with you entirely. I have said before on PPRUNE that I believe there is a clear case for two crew ops. Having flown hundreds of hours single crew I am well aware of what really goes on (!).
Two pilots help protect each other as well as the pax.
As for this particular case, well, at least it did not cost him his life
I still debate the issue of piston a/c and will not go into that here, but for what it's worth I now fly multi crew turbine and am not prepared to fly single pilot ops (or piston!) ever again.
Be safe dudes
UTF
had there been two pilots on board, they would have been less likely to overlook a step-down MDA limit...
Two pilots help protect each other as well as the pax.
As for this particular case, well, at least it did not cost him his life
I still debate the issue of piston a/c and will not go into that here, but for what it's worth I now fly multi crew turbine and am not prepared to fly single pilot ops (or piston!) ever again.
Be safe dudes
UTF
Guest
Posts: n/a
usedtofly. I think you and eyeinthesky are actually in disagreement.
For what it's worth I agree with you on the two-crew concept. Having flown 2500 hours single-crew (IFR) and more than that multi-crew I think I know which I consider to be safer most of the time and it's not when a pilot is all on their lonesome.
For what it's worth I agree with you on the two-crew concept. Having flown 2500 hours single-crew (IFR) and more than that multi-crew I think I know which I consider to be safer most of the time and it's not when a pilot is all on their lonesome.
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 3,218
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A lot of CFIT mishaps have occured with two or three pilot crews.
An excellent example was the G-III crash at Houston in November of 2004. Flown by a crew of 2, each of whom had considerable flight experience (over 19,000 hours each) and experience in type, one of whom was the current company chief pilot, and the other the former company chief pilot, both check airmen...descended into a parking lot during a routine ILS intercept enroute to pick up the former President of the United States. The nature of the mishap, an early descent into terrain below the published procedure, is somewhat similiar to the Seneca incident.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0606.pdf
The addition of a crewmember may be an enhancement to safety, but not necessarily so. A well equipped airplane with adequate performance does not prevent CFIT any more than a second crewmember, or an experienced crew.
An excellent example was the G-III crash at Houston in November of 2004. Flown by a crew of 2, each of whom had considerable flight experience (over 19,000 hours each) and experience in type, one of whom was the current company chief pilot, and the other the former company chief pilot, both check airmen...descended into a parking lot during a routine ILS intercept enroute to pick up the former President of the United States. The nature of the mishap, an early descent into terrain below the published procedure, is somewhat similiar to the Seneca incident.
http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0606.pdf
The addition of a crewmember may be an enhancement to safety, but not necessarily so. A well equipped airplane with adequate performance does not prevent CFIT any more than a second crewmember, or an experienced crew.
Guest
Posts: n/a
So if I brief an incorrect MSA/minima or whatever and was corrected by the other pilot it would still have been safe had he not been there? Hmmmm
We're all human, we all make mistkes (see?) and having another person there to crosscheck (providing it's done properly) has to be A Good Thing. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
We're all human, we all make mistkes (see?) and having another person there to crosscheck (providing it's done properly) has to be A Good Thing. I don't see how anyone could think otherwise.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Hants, UK
Posts: 1,064
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Back to what I said earlier:
'Done it lots of times before'
Returning to home base after a trip, not necessarily expecting the weather to be bad, flying an approach both pilots have done loads of times without mishap, always got in, local knowledge...
The holes in the cheese begin to line up, and there is no guarantee that a second pilot experiencing some or all of the above would either have:
a) insisted upon a full pre-approach brief or
b) been concerned about the approach below the profile
enough to prevent the accident. We all suffer from get-there-itis from time to time.
The pilot admitted he did not check the procedure on paper and, when questioned, did not know the exact position or level of the FAP. (notwithstanding amnesia caused by the crash). Would a second pilot necessarily have done this? In fact, two pilots' complacency and desire to get home might make that even less likely.
Just because there are two of you does not necessarily make it safer.
My company insists upon a full approach brief even when returning to home base for just this reason.
'Done it lots of times before'
Returning to home base after a trip, not necessarily expecting the weather to be bad, flying an approach both pilots have done loads of times without mishap, always got in, local knowledge...
The holes in the cheese begin to line up, and there is no guarantee that a second pilot experiencing some or all of the above would either have:
a) insisted upon a full pre-approach brief or
b) been concerned about the approach below the profile
enough to prevent the accident. We all suffer from get-there-itis from time to time.
The pilot admitted he did not check the procedure on paper and, when questioned, did not know the exact position or level of the FAP. (notwithstanding amnesia caused by the crash). Would a second pilot necessarily have done this? In fact, two pilots' complacency and desire to get home might make that even less likely.
Just because there are two of you does not necessarily make it safer.
My company insists upon a full approach brief even when returning to home base for just this reason.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by eyeinthesky
Back to what I said earlier:
'Done it lots of times before'
Returning to home base after a trip, not necessarily expecting the weather to be bad, flying an approach both pilots have done loads of times without mishap, always got in, local knowledge...
The holes in the cheese begin to line up, and there is no guarantee that a second pilot experiencing some or all of the above would either have:
a) insisted upon a full pre-approach brief or
b) been concerned about the approach below the profile
enough to prevent the accident. We all suffer from get-there-itis from time to time.
The pilot admitted he did not check the procedure on paper and, when questioned, did not know the exact position or level of the FAP. (notwithstanding amnesia caused by the crash). Would a second pilot necessarily have done this? In fact, two pilots' complacency and desire to get home might make that even less likely.
Just because there are two of you does not necessarily make it safer.
My company insists upon a full approach brief even when returning to home base for just this reason.]
'Done it lots of times before'
Returning to home base after a trip, not necessarily expecting the weather to be bad, flying an approach both pilots have done loads of times without mishap, always got in, local knowledge...
The holes in the cheese begin to line up, and there is no guarantee that a second pilot experiencing some or all of the above would either have:
a) insisted upon a full pre-approach brief or
b) been concerned about the approach below the profile
enough to prevent the accident. We all suffer from get-there-itis from time to time.
The pilot admitted he did not check the procedure on paper and, when questioned, did not know the exact position or level of the FAP. (notwithstanding amnesia caused by the crash). Would a second pilot necessarily have done this? In fact, two pilots' complacency and desire to get home might make that even less likely.
Just because there are two of you does not necessarily make it safer.
My company insists upon a full approach brief even when returning to home base for just this reason.]
All a bit 'if' and 'maybe' really. I still maintain that two crew doing their jobs properly are safer than one. How many briefs have you given or received that contain errors? How often does the other pilot pick up on them? I've seen it lots of times particularly in the sim or at the end of a long day/week when the pressure is on and people are tired. The sum of the parts is greater than the whole and that little extra capacity often makes the difference.
We've done this to death in the past. If single pilot were safer why aren't all the airlines and operators doing it? I know I can fly my aircraft alone, simulated incapacitation proves that, and it would be easy to introduce a higher level of automation than we already have. So why no single pilot airline ops?
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 138
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK, I was a bit premature. I do not agree fully with eyeinthesky.
Two pilots are (mostly) safer then one (in my opinion).
Put it this way, on your own there is no one else on board to help you! ... FACT
Been there, done that, never again...... 2 crew 4 me
Two pilots are (mostly) safer then one (in my opinion).
Put it this way, on your own there is no one else on board to help you! ... FACT
Been there, done that, never again...... 2 crew 4 me
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 304
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, two crew is safer. Look at some of the other accidents that have happened in single crew ops. Two Loganair BN2 fatal crashes and the Mersey Chieftain crash that killed five.
I used to fly for an ambulance operator that did multi crew ops in a piston. I always felt safer knowing that the other guy was watching my back. I also did single crew ops. Based on being in the know, if I was told that I would be riding in the back of a single crew piston as a PAX, I think I'd suddenly rememeber that I'd left the taps running at home....
I used to fly for an ambulance operator that did multi crew ops in a piston. I always felt safer knowing that the other guy was watching my back. I also did single crew ops. Based on being in the know, if I was told that I would be riding in the back of a single crew piston as a PAX, I think I'd suddenly rememeber that I'd left the taps running at home....
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I have over 2000 hrs in Senecas . They are easy to fly and very docile forgiving aircraft.
Most of those hours have been in seneca fives with the wastegated intercooled engines which perform better than the earlier engines.
I have had a grosse weight engine failure at 200 feet in the climb out and very few piston twins do a good job on one but is there any indication that this was an engine problem?
They will let you get away with murder and are well tried and tested aircraft.
I am afraid that all aircraft crash. Is there some statistics that Senecas have worse safety records than other twins. I doubt it.
Pace
Most of those hours have been in seneca fives with the wastegated intercooled engines which perform better than the earlier engines.
I have had a grosse weight engine failure at 200 feet in the climb out and very few piston twins do a good job on one but is there any indication that this was an engine problem?
They will let you get away with murder and are well tried and tested aircraft.
I am afraid that all aircraft crash. Is there some statistics that Senecas have worse safety records than other twins. I doubt it.
Pace
