Cessna 208B Caravan crash in Alaska
Thread Starter
Join Date: May 2016
Location: Knoxville, TN
Posts: 25
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cessna 208B Caravan crash in Alaska
N803TH My very inside information indicates the aircraft was being moved from one operator to another. The pilot (single occupant of the aircraft) was killed and the aircraft destroyed when he impacted a mountain. The pilot was reportedly scud running to his destination as is very common in Alaska. One killed, the airframe destroyed beyond repair. This occurred near Chignik, AK.
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20170501-1
https://aviation-safety.net/database...?id=20170501-1
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Pacific
Posts: 731
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Would you say that scud running is inherently dangerous? Would you equate a Special VFR Approach to scud running or would you say that it meets the definition of a safe way to fly to a destination instead of an instrument approach?
The airplane was flying to Chignik Lake, which has an instrument approach that is available to approved operators only. I often fly this approach and it is easy and safe, taking the airplane down to basic VFR conditions, nothing tough, well clear of any terrain. It should be an open approach available to anyone but the FAA makes it really tough to get approval to fly it, as if they have to pay each time the approach is used out of their own pockets. They would be quite happy to see all the operators in Alaska go bankrupt before they would allow for unrestricted use of this approach. Obviously the FAA considers that scud running is better than IFR and that scud running is totally acceptable. But I bet you will see them, and the NTSB, ignore that and gleefully throw the blame for this accident onto the pilot.
The airplane was likely fitted with enhanced terrain warning on the GPS. If a pilot tried to fly into the side of a mountain he would have the system howling at him unless he inhibited it. Many pilots inhibit the terrain warning routinely because it is "distracting" and because it frightens the passengers. If a passenger reports the sound and sight of terrain warning in a small airplane to the Feds do they tell the passenger not to worry because the system is obviously working correctly or do they come after the air carrier and "investigate"? Putting the carrier on the defense and forcing their pilots to react by inhibiting the warnings. To the point that the system might as well be removed from the airplanes.
Sure it was scud running but I can tell you that a lot of the reason for that is due to pressure from not only the companies but also from the Feds.
The airplane was flying to Chignik Lake, which has an instrument approach that is available to approved operators only. I often fly this approach and it is easy and safe, taking the airplane down to basic VFR conditions, nothing tough, well clear of any terrain. It should be an open approach available to anyone but the FAA makes it really tough to get approval to fly it, as if they have to pay each time the approach is used out of their own pockets. They would be quite happy to see all the operators in Alaska go bankrupt before they would allow for unrestricted use of this approach. Obviously the FAA considers that scud running is better than IFR and that scud running is totally acceptable. But I bet you will see them, and the NTSB, ignore that and gleefully throw the blame for this accident onto the pilot.
The airplane was likely fitted with enhanced terrain warning on the GPS. If a pilot tried to fly into the side of a mountain he would have the system howling at him unless he inhibited it. Many pilots inhibit the terrain warning routinely because it is "distracting" and because it frightens the passengers. If a passenger reports the sound and sight of terrain warning in a small airplane to the Feds do they tell the passenger not to worry because the system is obviously working correctly or do they come after the air carrier and "investigate"? Putting the carrier on the defense and forcing their pilots to react by inhibiting the warnings. To the point that the system might as well be removed from the airplanes.
Sure it was scud running but I can tell you that a lot of the reason for that is due to pressure from not only the companies but also from the Feds.
