6 seater a/c crash Somerset
 

News of a light aircraft crash with four deceased en route Dunkeswell

Four people dead as plane crashes in Somerset - BBC News

I would be surprised if Dunkeswell was flyable at all today. I live just a few miles away and been in cloud all day, plus strong winds and certainly drizzle with occasional heavy rain.

Appears to be N186CB. Was based at Fairoaks.

Photos and report at :

Kathryn's Report: Piper PA-46-350P Malibu Mirage, N186CB: Fatal accident occurred November 14, 2015 near Churchinford, Somerset, England

Wreckage suggests a stall from a low altitude.

stall ? - wreckage profile
 

i was thinking the same ever since when i first saw the bigger photos on the link

Kathryn's Report: Piper PA-46-350P Malibu Mirage, WWSL Inc Trustee/Whitespace Work Software Ltd, N186CB: Fatal accident occurred November 14, 2015 near Churchinford, Somerset, England

perhaps the pilot in vain maybe was looking for a field to put down in and wanted to get the speed down as low as possible for a crash land?

all i know that living only some miles away is that the weather on Saturday was not much different to that what is happening today (same time too)

its howling and lashing with very low cloud <500m and vis below about 2000m - i live on high ground


a complete tragedy - would his departure station Fairoaks not have given him as what seems a very novice pilot with a new plane some hint that its not a good idea to go or do they not have that remit to say anything???

Yes it is a tragedy. The victims have been named, see link below.


Tributes to Birmingham family killed in Somerset plane crash - Birmingham Mail

The above report describes the pilot as an amateur. The family of four were heading for their grand daughters birthday party. It does make one question as to why by air on a day when weather conditions were less than ideal.
Would anyone hinted about going flying on that day, who knows. Perhaps all that can be said is that the decision is down to the private owner pilot. But what an awful price to pay if it proved to be wrong. Sadly am sure some of us looking back at the club scenes can recall many who tragically proved wrong.

Very sad and seeing the pictures of that lovely family very tragic.

Looking back I can understand why some pilots fly in such bad weather when even the birds would rather be on the ground. Many of us have done that in the past.

It really reinforces the idea of flying within your own limits and the aircraft limits and sadly many overestimate their own limits or the aircraft limits some of us get away with it. But especially carrying such a precious cargo brings a special responsibility.

My feelings and that is all they are is that the winds had more to play in what appears to be a stall and crash.

I have flown in conditions where the ASI is leaping up and down 25 to 30 kts with severe windshear.

Not a time to be flying low level near the stall or for that matter near the normal VREF. One massive downdraught ?
But as I said just an instinct it could have been disregard for airspeed while peering into the gloom or overbanking again at too slow a speed.

Very very sad

Pace

Some speculation. He was picking up from Dunkeswell and then going on to Cardiff. Not a quick trip by road but a short hop in an aircraft. Probably explains wanting to press on regardless. The nearest weather forecast for Dunkeswell is Exeter, 10.2 nm SW. Exeter is 100ft elevation, Dunkeswell is 850ft. Maybe he thought the weather was better than it was.

A very very tragic story and made worse looking at the family pics shown. One hates to say it but it seems to me that to be succesful in business and to make a good pilot there are some conflicting personal qualities.

Humility and caution are it seems important qualities in a pilot but they are not much of a recipe for business success . Equally drive and single mindedness are valuable business skills but for a pilot-hmm not so sure .

What kind of licence is required for something like the TBM, which despite being a prop single is nothing at all like a C150 and frankly looks apretty hot ship where things can go wrong very very quickly if youare not trained and experienced.

Not looking to denigrate the poor guy at all but it does seem a big ask for a guy with limited time for flying to take something like this aloft on a day when the birds would choose to walk.

PB

It was a Mirage which is a piston powered pressurised single the TBM is a Turboprop, just a small correction.

But yes there are pilots who are PPLs and will fly in most weather and do a pretty good job but I stress it takes a lot of experience a lot of spatial awareness and an ability to pick up your game to whatever is required which can be lacking in many PPLs especially those with low experience

i stress fly within your limits but know and respect what your limits are as well as the aircraft especially when your cargo is so precious.

I can look back and think of occasions when Mother luck was on my side but thats looking back from a different place now.

Pace

What about the plausible scenario that this low time pilot panicked in IMC, lost control of the aeroplane and ended up spinning in?
Disoriented, panicking possibly and in a new HP plane with his most precious cargo (family) on board doesn't seem like a good place to be in those conditions.

Does anyone know the pilots hours/experience and if he was IMC or IR rated?

The photos we have been linked into suggest to me that the wreckage was in line - the result of a straight stall rather than of a spin.

At five miles out, the pilot had no need to poke about at low level yet.

My money is on a loss of power at safety height or early on the glide path.

He should not have been low on fuel if he only came from Sussex.

He might have been subject to engine icing, unaware of it but losing power irreparably once he had throttled back for his descent into Dunkeswell.

In the weather prevailing, he would have been gliding in cloud to the last moment. He might have had a last second choice either to fly into what obstacles presented themselves or to pull back on the stick to avoid them. The former might have been his better choice.

Pilot wasn't shy in announcing on social media obtaining his PPL and his new aeroplane. No mention of an IMC rating or I/R. Many instances of VFR pilots getting into difficulties in IMC in this aeroplane.

Does anyone know what the weather actually was at Dunkeswell around the time of accident? And presumably the pilot would have been told of this on RT given he was only 5 miles away.

Rlsbutler - coming a short distance doesn't mean fuel is very unlikely to be a cause - depends on the pilot's refuelling plans. The headwind would certainly have been very big and flight time much longer than in still air. And maybe fuel was a lot cheaper at Dunkeswell - I've no idea, but a thought. And there was no fire by the look of it.

If he wasn't instrument qualified, then the conditions on the day were pretty poor throughout the UK from recollection of the TAFs and from flying that day further north. I think at Dunkeswell the cloudbase will have been sub 500ft with poor viz, hopefully someone can confirm weather conditions there at the time.

An engine failure is one option but unlikely IMO and wouldn't have resulted in the high speed vertical impact unless the pilot had stalled it while gliding.
I think far more likely is the conditions quickly overtook his skill and experience levels (and qualifications) and he got disorientated and stalled it or lost control completely.
RIP to them all

This was an N reg. If my memory serves me right, many years ago, an FAA PPL was required and when these hot ships first came out an IR was thrown in for good measure for the buyer. Then some bits and pieces started falling out of the sky and some new rules and training requirements were introduced. To get me out of trouble IMC rating, not recognised on the Continent, was hotly debated for many years and remained with a don`t try this yourselves at home warning. PPL`s with FAA IR`s could only opt for IFR after crossing the foreign FIR`s and the same for the return. They could not exercise the privileges of their FAA IR `s in UK controlled airspace in UK reg aircraft.
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan. I don`t know the wx conditions on the day for the whole of the planned/intended routing, but if vis and cloud base were not present to conduct the flight under VFR then mechanical malfunction or not risk was significantly increased and flight safety margins were reduced if not compromised.

From what I gathered he stated that this was a new toy and he needed to learn to fly it but that was 2 years ago so I am sure he would have had some experience by now.
you don't buy a Mirage without an IR as its a pressurised single designed to fly in the high teens.
My guess is that he would have held an FAA IR but would have had relatively low hours.
You don't buy a Mirage for low level VFR flight but make use of its TAS high level

N reg with an FAA IR you would file IFR in UK airspace. On short runs and the fact that the Mirage is not the best climber on the planet it would probably fly IFR OCAS at 3000 to 7000 feet with a cloud break over a known point for the position flight or he tried to fly VFR under the clouds never a good option in bad weather close to the ground.
Again there would be radar traces and altitude readouts as well as RT communication recorded
i believe it was windy that day and reaching low level possible wind shear. take the transition from instrument flight to visual flight confusuion and maybe incorrect speed for the conditions while looking into the gloom for the airfield and its easy to see how a stall may occur

Pace

According to FR24, apart from climbing to 4700 ft to transit the Southampton Zone, he was at low level.

I would never speculate as to the actual cause of this tragedy. However I have looked at the NTSB figures for the PA-46.
On their database there have been 66 fatal and 153 non-fatal accidents on this type so far with the loss of 151 lives.

SF

I personally think it is healthy for pilots to speculate on What COULD have happened because with the accident fresh in our minds it makes us more open to consider what mistakes or aircraft failures MIGHT have lead to a crash like this and hopefully avoid a similar situation ourselves.

To state anything as fact is a different matter as that would be WRONG but to discuss the possibilities can only be positive. Like all of these accidents when the AAIB reports are complete the incident has gone to the back of our minds from the initial horror. Its the initial horror! There for the grace of God go I which makes us open to take note

The Malibu did have a spate of accidents when it was first released and I believe it was limited to VFR flight only for a short time.
the Cirrus too has a comprehensive training schedule in place as that too was having more than its fair share of accidents
We are all probably aware of the V tail Bonanza known as the Doctor Killer

All of them are relatively fast complex aircraft and many wealthier individuals jumped straight from the PA28 or Cessna 172s into these faster less forgiving aircraft without the currency on type or experience and detailed knowledge hence the more rigorous training demanded by the insurance companies

It was not the aircraft at fault but the pilots flying them in the majority of cases

Pace

weather on the day
 

I am living only some miles away - West Dorset on high ground too.
the weather on Saturday was not much different to that what is happening this week - especially yesterday which was likened to Saturday

high winds - strong gusts
low viz less then 1- 2km in fog sometimes (as is today)
very low cloud base less than 500 feet
dew point same as temp and the forecast for Saturday was not set to improve during daylight

more or less the whole area from Dunkerswell to say Compton Abbas was the same - downright awful
he was coming from Fairoaks and the wx there was not much better - worsening as he went West.

i fly from Compton Abbas sometimes with a friends Bulldog and there is no way in the past 10 days would any PPL'er would have likely gone anywhere, nothing few from CA on Saturday.

its been howling and lashing with very low cloud and some fog for a week and a half round here - surely a phone call before take off to Dunkerswell would have secured a decision not to go?

this is a tragedy and i cannot fathom why anyone flew down here this way that day unless you were very very experienced and rated accordingly

There are elements in this accident similar to the JFK junior Piper Saratoga accident. Namely a wealthy individual, possibly relatively inexperienced, buying a high performance single. Then there were circumstances on the day such as family pressures and weather that limited visual contact with the runway and airport surroundings that would have meant dependence on instruments at low level.

Just for the record and for the sake of the less up to date on these things reading in here, and making no assertions regarding the qualifications of this particular pilot, as it stands an FAA PPL with an IR allows one to fly an N-reg aircraft under the IFR any where in the world in accordance with ICAO protocols.... It also allows (until April 2016) such a pilot to fly a G-reg aircraft anywhere in the world (VFR only). After April next year (unless there is a further extension to the derogation), EASA has thumbed their noses at ICAO and for such a pilot (if he is a European resident) to fly under the IFR in his N-reg aircraft he/she will need an EASA IR (in addition to his FAA IR)....so-called "dual papers"...

An FAA IR on its own has never been sufficient for flying a G-reg aircraft under the IFR.

On a further note, the FAA allows a pilot to fly an N-reg aircraft in a given state with only the pilot licence of that state....so it is possible to fly an N-reg under the IFR in the UK without any FAA licence if you have a UK issued EASA licence...note this does not allow said pilot to fly to say France or anywhere outside the UK (in this example)...there has been some conjecture as to whether the FAA will allow an N-reg to be flown under the IFR by a pilot with only an IMC rating (known as an IR(R) under EASA) and not a full IR...

AQ

Not quite correct. A valid IR is needed to fly in Class A airspace. It is perfectly possible for an IR(R) or IMCR pilot to file and fly an IFR flight plan (in the UK) if the route does not enter Class A airspace.

Awkward, this part of the quote you have copied was not mine

"Originally Posted by runway30 View Post
Pilot wasn't shy in announcing on social media obtaining his PPL and his new aeroplane. No mention of an IMC rating or I/R. Many instances of VFR pilots getting into difficulties in IMC in this aeroplane."

The following part was mine

"This was an N reg. If my memory serves me right, many years ago, an FAA PPL was required and when these hot ships first came out an IR was thrown in for good measure for the buyer. Then some bits and pieces started falling out of the sky and some new rules and training requirements were introduced. To get me out of trouble IMC rating, not recognised on the Continent, was hotly debated for many years and remained with a don`t try this yourselves at home warning. PPL`s with FAA IR`s could only opt for IFR after crossing the foreign FIR`s and the same for the return. They could not exercise the privileges of their FAA IR `s in UK controlled airspace in UK reg aircraft.
Without a valid IR, when an IFR routing is a must, it cannot be planned. By definition therefore it becomes a VFR plan. I don`t know the wx conditions on the day for the whole of the planned/intended routing, but if vis and cloud base were not present to conduct the flight under VFR then mechanical malfunction or not risk was significantly increased and flight safety margins were reduced if not compromised."

I have always wondered as to why the FAA PPL/IR and a N reg is such an attractive proposition for private flying in the UK and the near Continent. Given that costs would not be expected to be of any significant consequence to a businessman who can afford to buy a sophisticated aircraft and will use it over this side of the pond, and as they say "in anger", why not go for a UK IR. Would it not be better. It is not just the ticket that matters, it is after all just another piece of paper? What really matters is the rigorous training,the tough exams and tests and the knowledge gained, the appreciation and the respect for the inherent risks to flight, that gives a good understanding and ability to plan and make that all too important decision to embark on a flight on a given day. In so many words Pace has said it all, it takes a lot more than success in business to also succeed in flying. It is difficult to devote the required amount of time in the correct measures to be successful at both at all times. I have known busy businessmen who employ chauffeurs for their cars not because they want to advertise their big success, but because they admit that it is safer for them and all who travel with them. It is so difficult to serve two masters. Best to choose one and stick with him through thick and thin I`d say.

My apologies Chronus, I messed up the quote function on that one....


You are quite right about the requirement for rigorous, thorough and relevant training coupled with frequent use and recurrent training. Yes the FAA only requires one written 20 question exam for the IR versus a minimum of 7 exams for a PPL IR in the UK...but the training is about the same and in fact whereas a UK IR holder can do a revalidation flight and then not fly at all, let alone conduct approaches to minimums, for 364 days and still be legal to fly, an FAA IR holder must have conducted 6 approaches in actual or simulated IMC in the preceding 6 calendar months to remain current....this can be difficult for a pilot not flying for a living and as a result many if not most will undertake an IPC roughly every 6 months. So the main difference is the huge effort required to pass the exams. Only two exams can be taken in a given sitting and they can only be held at a limited number of inconvenient locations. Their value (vs the FAA approach) is questionable and they are a legacy from the fact that the UK training industry is set up for basic VFR PPLs or airline pilots...PPL IRs are not really catered for. So that is one of the drivers for private individuals with a life who can't take six months to live in a residential training facility like aspiring airline pilots.


But as I mentioned in my previous post, EASA has made it a requirement that regardless of aircraft registration, if you are a resident of one of the EASA states then you must have an EASA licence. Most (all?) EASA states elected to claim the available derogation t extend the deadline for this implementation and the latest extension has taken it to April next year, although it may be extended further.


Also although the more readily obtained FAA IR may no longer be a driver for business people flying an N-reg aircraft, there are many benefits to operating an N-reg aircraft over a G or F or D with regards to the available STCs for various mods, the direct owner control over maintenance which contrary to popular European myth, follows the same manufacturer recommended schedules and although for example, the UK allows engines to run on-condition past their TBO, many other EASA states do not.


Hope that explains it!

Thank you Awkward, it does explain things well. Now in my after life, since the end of my flying days and the stage of well past ripeness, I am left with much time and inclination to reflect on many memories of those days. There were many sad occasions, one of which was a UK PPL for whom along with the spanking brand new PA46 came an FAA IR and not so long thereafter came the grief of a sudden encounter with a mountain peak in VMC whilst out on a VFR FP. It was then discovered by all and sundry that he had 400 hrs tt including his initial training, duals and IMC. Nothing was said or found about his instrument time. Such an important thing I thought this so called instrument time was.

New to the forum in terms of posting, but felt compelled to say something, so here goes.

I flew a Seneca in UK and Europe as a businessman with a UK PPL IR. I am same age roughly as this pilot and like everyone very saddened at the brutal finality of this accident. The images of this family, and the family in the PA34 that crashed in Kentucky earlier this year (little girl survived in 3rd row), stick with me as being so familiar to my own experiences.

I very nearly killed myself once when I made an awful decision, in an N registered aircraft. The plane was a seaplane equipped with very basic (VFR) instruments, but I had my trusty G-reg Seneca fully equipped for IFR and I was in current instrument practice. I chose to fly the seaplane in bad conditions relying (rationalizing) that my instrument rating allowed me to do this safely.

The story makes me shiver still and fortunately I turned the plane around and landed VFR safely, but with very little fuel left. This is a specific example of a terrible decision (to go in the first place) that did not end in tragedy, but could (and would) have done. I don't know how this helps other than to confirm the old adage about aviation being very unforgiving of poor decision making.

Actually I think the problem I encountered was blurring the line between a well planned IFR flight (typical Seneca trip) and a VFR jolly (seaplane trip). My totally flawed seaplane plan (on the bad wx trip) was to descend to near sea level and land VFR. This would never have worked, the sea would have been too rough etc etc. Melding these 2 familiar scenarios (IFR cruise and VFR approach) into one impossible trip was nearly fatal.

Decisions
 

As a general statement, as we do not know the background to this particular incident.

I believe it is beholden on all of us professional and experienced pilots to say something when we see someone about to try and operate beyond their ability, but in practice very few people ever do.

Some years ago I was present when a PPL IMC chap was about to to try and take off to get home in a single engine piston 6 seater without any airframe anti or deicing equipment. The weather was freezing fog and stratus with embedded icing. Incredibly there were other professional pilots around who turned their back and hid by the coffee machine when I was trying to persuade this chap not to fly. They just kept quiet and did not want to get involved. I am still fairly confident that I prevented the chap from having an accident that day.

Please be prepared to help each other carefully and sensibly, even if it means sticking your neck out sometimes.

MM

MMagister

When I was getting my multiengine piston many moons ago my instructor had to take a Baron 55 up north to Scotland. He offered to let me left seat the trip for the experience. We landed in Inverness and departed again south at night in Horrendous weather and straight into snow blizzards

When we lined up ATC announced that they wanted it recorded that they did not approve of this departure as apart from the snow blizzards there was severe low level turbulence in the forecast.

Rather than taxi back he calmly announced we were departing and overruled the warning. We took off and the snow was so heavy you could not look forward but only at the panel as the swirling snow was so intense and the turbulence was severe.
To look out ahead was completely disorientating

It was such a relief breaking out near Glasgow and seeing a mass of twinkling city lights below.
I am not sure whether you can stop a takeoff ? He was a very cool relaxed pilot as comfortable in the air as on the ground and we survived so another notch on the experience belt. I do remember clearly thinking if we lost an engine that there was no way you could hold it all together in that turbulence

Pace

Surely, ATC can only withhold take off clearance if instructed by a higher authority. When it comes to weather the airport authority could close the airport but if the airport is open the Captain's decision is final, the warnings of ATC might have relevance for the subsequent enquiry/court case though.

You will find the R/T messages for withholding clearances in CAP 413 2.76

CAP 493 Section 1 Chapter 4: Control of Traffic
Withholding Clearance
4.31 The Aerodrome Operator and certain other persons are empowered to
prohibit flight and they may instruct controllers to withhold a clearance.
A list of the personnel authorised under civil aviation legislation and
the procedures to be adopted when detaining aircraft appear in unit
instructions.
4.32 If a controller is instructed to withhold take-off clearance, he should take
reasonable steps to establish the authenticity and powers of the person
giving the instruction.
4.33 In addition a controller shall withhold clearance to take-off when it is known that an aircraft has been detained by a police or HM Customs officer.
4.34 If a controller has not been instructed to withhold clearance but he has reason to believe that a planned flight is liable to endanger life or involve a breach of legislation, he is to:
1. warn the pilot of the hazardous condition or apparent infringement and obtain an acknowledgement of the message;
2. in the case of an infringement of legislation, warn the pilot that if he does take-off the facts will be reported to the appropriate authority;
3. if the pilot still requests take-off clearance after acknowledging the warning he should be advised, when traffic permits, that there are no traffic reasons to restrict take-off;
4. record the warning and any comment made by the pilot in the ATC Watch Log.

MM

When I was training for my MEP must have been 25 years plus ago so don't know what the regs were like then.

Take off minima are very low you can takeoff in fog or into a very low cloud base and it is not the responsibility of ATC to know your qualifications or abilities.

Normally if the weather is unfit for flight! Operations from the airport are delayed!
Going out of Dublin I can remember about 20 jets in front being held as a bad storm crossed the field with multiple lightning strikes, even refuelling was temporarily stopped.

Obviously in CAS you cannot takeoff without a take off clearance and to do so would be an infringement but to withhold that clearance based on a doubt on the ability or qualifications of the pilot??
A pilot could request an IFR clearance and would be given it as its not ATCs responsibility to know if the pilot is qualified to take it.

In my MEP days we had about a 94% mission success rated to weather fog at destination being the main show stopper other weather usually not although a diversion and road trip was sometimes needed

It is also difficult for one PPL to determine what is safe for flight or not safe for flight as what maybe deemed as unsafe by one pilot maybe routine conditions and safe for another, so we are probably talking about extreme weather conditions where ATC will intervene

Pace

In the UK licensed airfields have a minimum visibility requirement of 150m for takeoff. This is imposed by the airfield not a limitation on the pilot. A private pilot has no such limitation.... I'm sure you have practised take-offs under the hood... Of course none of this is sensible, especially in a single engine aircraft... a sensible minimum should be the visibility and ceiling required to land back where you took off from.....but even at 200ft an EFATO will leave absolutely no time to assess your landing area....you will break out just in time to see the crash site...

I would have thought given the weather conditions described when the B55 departed were clearly IFR and possibly below limits for an approach if he had to return to Inverness, in which case the pilot would have been required to have a take-off alternate within 30 mins single engine flying time from Inverness ?

Hi Chronus, I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that he got his FAA IR without doing the required training...you make it read like it was in the back page of the owner's manual!....In fact during the 80s after a spate of accidents the FAA investigated and basically exonerated the aircraft and recommended type specific training (but fell short of mandating it). In any case, as is often the case, the insurance industry made sure that minimum hours and minimum recurrency training be undertaken by pilots..... You can't realistically just get in one of these aircraft and fly it...especially in Europe where insurance is a legal requirement.....


Have a read of this if you're interested: http://www.mmopa.com/gallery/234_Tra...A46_Pilots.pdf

You do have a minimum in a multi engine aircraft, and that is to be able to return to the airport you took off from and legally commence an instrument approach in the event of an engine failure, or have a suitable take-off alternate within 30 minutes single engine flying time.

Also is additional training not required to take-off in less than 400m as it then deemed to be low viz ops.

If you are operating single pilot is it not a requirement to have a minimum of 800 RVR to commence an approach ?

Of course that would not be applicable in a single engine aircraft should the engine fail.

Yes but don't confuse AOC operations with private operations...

800m RVR is a legal requirement for single pilot ops regardless of private or AOC to commence an approach under EASA, unless you have a suitably equipped auto-pilot in which case normal RVR minima for the approach in question can be applied. But how many GA aircraft especially older ones have a suitable auto-pilot that will couple to fly an accurate approach with 550m RVR.

Still, why would you take-off in 150m even if that is the minimum airport RVR without a suitable take-off alternate, when at best the lowest usable single pilot approach Ops RVR is 550m, dependent on equipment installed and increments added to your DA/DH ?