Flying with vacuum failure
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX USA
Flying with vacuum failure
Two days ago there was a Bellanca 17-30A accident a few miles from my home, that killed both occupants and burned 2 houses. Shortly after takeoff from Addison airport, the pilot radioed that he had instrument panel failure and used the word "gyros" 2 or 3 times. Then the plane crashed into 2 houses just to the left of the extended runway centerline, roughly 5 miles from the airport.
I don't have exact weather data yet, both it was very humid and foggy that morning. Visibility was reported to be 7/8 of a mile at the airport at the time of the accident. I drove to work that morning at 8am, and the ceiling at 8am (a few miles from Addison) was low cloud base at about 250 feet judging from the "invisible" upper half of the high-rise building I drove to. It wasn't much better by 10am when the accident occurred.
The cause of the accident is still unknown, but it's believed that the pilot was in the low cloud base when he radioed about the instrument panel failure.
Assuming the pilot was inside the low cloud shortly after takeoff, I'd like to ask everyone how you would fly inside a low cloud base if you were to experience a vacuum failure with the loss of the attitude and heading indicators. It's not known if a vacuum failure actually occurred, but this accident caused me to think of this possibility, especially given the circumstances.
(Edited to add the time of the accident, which I meant to include.)
I don't have exact weather data yet, both it was very humid and foggy that morning. Visibility was reported to be 7/8 of a mile at the airport at the time of the accident. I drove to work that morning at 8am, and the ceiling at 8am (a few miles from Addison) was low cloud base at about 250 feet judging from the "invisible" upper half of the high-rise building I drove to. It wasn't much better by 10am when the accident occurred.
The cause of the accident is still unknown, but it's believed that the pilot was in the low cloud base when he radioed about the instrument panel failure.
Assuming the pilot was inside the low cloud shortly after takeoff, I'd like to ask everyone how you would fly inside a low cloud base if you were to experience a vacuum failure with the loss of the attitude and heading indicators. It's not known if a vacuum failure actually occurred, but this accident caused me to think of this possibility, especially given the circumstances.
(Edited to add the time of the accident, which I meant to include.)
Last edited by Flight Safety; 5th January 2004 at 23:03.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
From: UK,Twighlight Zone
Partial panel, using the turn coordinator, ASI, DI and VSI. Partial panel work is hard especially if you are out of practice and a vacuum failure so low would have made it hard work to transition to partial panel quickly and effectivly.
It pays to practice partial panel skills frequently if you are instrument flying.
It could well have been the case that this person was not in practice and the failure so soon after take off overtook him with fatal results.
As I recall there was a very similar case in the UK a year or so ago that was put down to the same problem. Vacuum failure on take off and the pilot was unable to control the aircraft and crashed.
It pays to practice partial panel skills frequently if you are instrument flying.
It could well have been the case that this person was not in practice and the failure so soon after take off overtook him with fatal results.
As I recall there was a very similar case in the UK a year or so ago that was put down to the same problem. Vacuum failure on take off and the pilot was unable to control the aircraft and crashed.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 10,804
Likes: 1
This skill is covered in the partial panel work during IR training.
You use the turn and bank with reference to your compass to maintain wings level.
And vsi cross referenced to ASI to remain level or hold a climb rate
The whole trick is to remain trimmed and only alter 1 thing at a time.
As with all flying its important to aviate navigate communicate
So if you did have a vacum failure, which is actually pretty hard to spot if you are concentrating on other things.
Its important to fly the machine and to establish yourself above MSA, wings level, and trimmed for level flight pointing in a direction which means your not going to hit another plane (ie controlled airspace) or hit anything on the ground.
Then tell ATC, personally i would declare a mayday, but even if you didn't i am sure that ATC would give you the same service what ever you declared. They would then try and get you somewhere to land or into VMC.
In a failure just afteroff you would maintain wings level then by small adjustments of pitch hold your climb speed. Then unless your going to hit something, climb straight ahead.
RT " MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY G-XXXX Instrument failure climbing staight ahead to y000ft standby"
The standby is important because otherwise ATC will come back to you and start asking questions when you should be putting your full attention into flying the machine. If they do start asking questions which are not critical to the situation ignore them. ie whats the number of POB and the like. But if they say give you a flight safety instruction then respond.
Then once you are above MSA and trimmed and settled. Call ATC again and with there help decide what would be the safest option.
As with all these skills currency plays a big part to the end result. Last year I hadn't flown IFR for 6 months, my scan, and handling were utter pants. After a not very impressive trip I made sure that got at least an hour a month in IFR and during the trips practised partial panel (but not the unusual attitudes stuff) but to be honest even that wasn't enough.
Its all covered in the instrument Thom book.
The contents of this post in no way are meant to comment on the incident.
And my condolences to anyone who knows the deceased.
MJ
You use the turn and bank with reference to your compass to maintain wings level.
And vsi cross referenced to ASI to remain level or hold a climb rate
The whole trick is to remain trimmed and only alter 1 thing at a time.
As with all flying its important to aviate navigate communicate
So if you did have a vacum failure, which is actually pretty hard to spot if you are concentrating on other things.
Its important to fly the machine and to establish yourself above MSA, wings level, and trimmed for level flight pointing in a direction which means your not going to hit another plane (ie controlled airspace) or hit anything on the ground.
Then tell ATC, personally i would declare a mayday, but even if you didn't i am sure that ATC would give you the same service what ever you declared. They would then try and get you somewhere to land or into VMC.
In a failure just afteroff you would maintain wings level then by small adjustments of pitch hold your climb speed. Then unless your going to hit something, climb straight ahead.
RT " MAYDAY MAYDAY MAYDAY G-XXXX Instrument failure climbing staight ahead to y000ft standby"
The standby is important because otherwise ATC will come back to you and start asking questions when you should be putting your full attention into flying the machine. If they do start asking questions which are not critical to the situation ignore them. ie whats the number of POB and the like. But if they say give you a flight safety instruction then respond.
Then once you are above MSA and trimmed and settled. Call ATC again and with there help decide what would be the safest option.
As with all these skills currency plays a big part to the end result. Last year I hadn't flown IFR for 6 months, my scan, and handling were utter pants. After a not very impressive trip I made sure that got at least an hour a month in IFR and during the trips practised partial panel (but not the unusual attitudes stuff) but to be honest even that wasn't enough.
Its all covered in the instrument Thom book.
The contents of this post in no way are meant to comment on the incident.
And my condolences to anyone who knows the deceased.
MJ
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,650
Likes: 0
From: Chichester, UK
A vacuum pump failure in IMC leading to loss of the AI and DI has got to be close to the top of my list of nightmare scenarios. Limited panel skills are taught and they're undoubtedly important, but you need to recognise the failure too - and that's my nightmare.
All you can do is to try and learn to constantly cross check what the instruments are telling you. If the DI says you are turning, does the turn coordinator agree? Straight and level on the AI, are the altimeter/VSI and ASI stationary? Do this all the time and you may catch an instrument failure before you follow it in to trouble. It's very hard though.
All you can do is to try and learn to constantly cross check what the instruments are telling you. If the DI says you are turning, does the turn coordinator agree? Straight and level on the AI, are the altimeter/VSI and ASI stationary? Do this all the time and you may catch an instrument failure before you follow it in to trouble. It's very hard though.
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX USA
Evo, that's where a warning light system comes in handy. In the late model 172S POH that I have, the system has 2 engine driven vacuum pumps. Each pump has it's own vacuum sensor upstream of the tee manifold. When either pump fails, a light (L VAC or R VAC) blinks for 10 seconds, then steady on after that. The light lets you know immediately that there's a pump failure.
Then of course there's the vacuum gauge to go along with the warning lights.
Then of course there's the vacuum gauge to go along with the warning lights.
Joined: Aug 2003
Posts: 29
Likes: 0
From: Northern Europe
All that has been said about partial panel is true. With my own (limited) experience I'd like to stress that you should never, on partial panel, try to make more than one adjustment at a time. Learned that lesson the other day when I did a partial panel lesson after about six months off the instrument flying. Spent five minutes trying to hold a fixed descent rate with wings level - without success.
Then gave up on the descent rate and concentrated on holding the wings level. That worked things out.
Then gave up on the descent rate and concentrated on holding the wings level. That worked things out.
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
During my CPL training, my instructor failed the gyros, and as we were above a layer of IMC we shot the ILS proper partial panel, in IMC. To make things more complicated, just as we entered the cloud (stratus layer about 3000' thick) he failed an engine (ME aircraft). It was bloody tricky keep the aircraft right side up, trying to identify a dead engine in IMC with no gyros, with the TC wobbling from side to side like crazy as my rudder pressure varied is next to impossible.
These were sudden post-it-note "failures". We experimented in a Sim afterwards, with the instructor flying the "aircraft". We gave him a slow vac failure in IMC (and a few other failures
) which almost ended in 'disaster', and probably would have in a real plane....
EA
These were sudden post-it-note "failures". We experimented in a Sim afterwards, with the instructor flying the "aircraft". We gave him a slow vac failure in IMC (and a few other failures
) which almost ended in 'disaster', and probably would have in a real plane....EA
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
I fly an aircraft with a slightly dodgy Attitude Indicator. Since the aircraft is limited to day VFR in any case, we haven't replaced the instrument, and over the course of a year or so I've got used to it. However, at first, it was extremely disorientating having the artificial horizon doing something different to the real horizon - and that was in good VFR conditions.
Personally, I doubt that very many pilots would be able to recognise such a problem, and then handle it safely, unless they'd seen and done it several times before. When you're that low, by the time you've identified the problem I suspect it would be too late (although in this case, it sounds from what you say of the RT that the pilot did identify the problem). Partial panel work that you do for the IMC rating is not enough, IMHO, because there is no requirement to recognise the failure. The only way this could be taught properly would be on a simulator (or else on an aircraft where the vacuum pump can be turned off by the instructor - and although someone may correct me on this I don't think that's legal).
Just my personal opinion, I don't have any stats or documents to back this up I'm afraid.
FFF
-----------
Personally, I doubt that very many pilots would be able to recognise such a problem, and then handle it safely, unless they'd seen and done it several times before. When you're that low, by the time you've identified the problem I suspect it would be too late (although in this case, it sounds from what you say of the RT that the pilot did identify the problem). Partial panel work that you do for the IMC rating is not enough, IMHO, because there is no requirement to recognise the failure. The only way this could be taught properly would be on a simulator (or else on an aircraft where the vacuum pump can be turned off by the instructor - and although someone may correct me on this I don't think that's legal).
Just my personal opinion, I don't have any stats or documents to back this up I'm afraid.
FFF
-----------
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
FFF
Partial panel work that you do for the IMC rating is not enough, IMHO, because there is no requirement to recognise the failure
I don't believe this, because even the most knackered just-about-IMC-capable spamcan will have an AI (vac) and a TC (electric). The pilot is taught to scan both of these, and if flying something this basic he ought to be aware that he must really watch things.
Anything less should not be flown in IMC at all, because a vac AI fails gradually and it isn't at all obvious until you are upside down.
In any plane which someone might be flying in IMC for real, there should be a vac warning light which should be obvious when it lights up. There will also be a second (electric) AI which you also keep an eye on.
I suppose that incidents where vac failures cause accidents are where the pilot has such a high workload that his scan goes down the pan (easily done if there is no autopilot for example) or where he is flying a plane which isn't up to the job. None of the planes in which I trained I would fly in IMC myself - the workload is very high. Even a non-slaved DI which drifts 10 degrees every 5 mins (pretty normal for a spamcan) increases workload drastically.
Partial panel work that you do for the IMC rating is not enough, IMHO, because there is no requirement to recognise the failure
I don't believe this, because even the most knackered just-about-IMC-capable spamcan will have an AI (vac) and a TC (electric). The pilot is taught to scan both of these, and if flying something this basic he ought to be aware that he must really watch things.
Anything less should not be flown in IMC at all, because a vac AI fails gradually and it isn't at all obvious until you are upside down.
In any plane which someone might be flying in IMC for real, there should be a vac warning light which should be obvious when it lights up. There will also be a second (electric) AI which you also keep an eye on.
I suppose that incidents where vac failures cause accidents are where the pilot has such a high workload that his scan goes down the pan (easily done if there is no autopilot for example) or where he is flying a plane which isn't up to the job. None of the planes in which I trained I would fly in IMC myself - the workload is very high. Even a non-slaved DI which drifts 10 degrees every 5 mins (pretty normal for a spamcan) increases workload drastically.
Joined: Jan 1999
Posts: 6,209
Likes: 2
From: north of barlu
One of the things that I have found when teaching the IMC rating is that some people can fly the aircraft better on partal panel than full panel in the early stages of there IF training.
I can only think that they have less think about with the AI and DI failed !.
The real danger of vac system failure is in the fast identification of the failure as the gyros lose ridgidity this requires a very good panel scan to pick up before you have to try the recovery from unusual attitudes.
I can only think that they have less think about with the AI and DI failed !.
The real danger of vac system failure is in the fast identification of the failure as the gyros lose ridgidity this requires a very good panel scan to pick up before you have to try the recovery from unusual attitudes.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
An interesting subject. Wasn't it failed primary insruments in IMC that caused the 747 accident near Stansted a few years ago?
I suggest you shouldn't assume that failed gyros can only cause problems in IMC. Flying in poor VMC (very hazy, few k vis; 'fishbowl conditions'), you will use the instruments a lot to keep orientated, particularly if instrument qualified. Under these VMC conditions you may well be less alert about your checks, and it's easy for a vacuum failure to creep up on you without warning. This happened to my wife and I a while back, and it was very disorientating, despite being able to see something of the ground.
IO540 mentioned the autopilot. Mine derives its signal from the TC (it's a two axis type). Presumably you wouldn't want it to try to follow the heading bug on the failed DI, so it would have to be in wings-level mode or tracking a VOR or GPS.
It's important to cover the failed instruments, because it really is very hard indeed to ignore them.
Whilst I agree about the importance of keeping the partial-panel skills current, I would also enlist the help of the GPS. It is much easier to use the pseudo compass screen on the GPS than it is to use the conventional aircraft alcohol-filled compass, with all its errors - particularly if you have to fly a partial-panel approach. An IFR-certificated GPS is obviously preferable, but without DI and AI in IMC, you have an emergency on your hands and should use any tool that can help.
Similarly, if you lose your pitot/static system in IMC, the GPS will be of great help with altitude and groundspeed.
I have made a new year resolution to practice loss of gyros and pitot/static using the GPS to help.
AA.
I suggest you shouldn't assume that failed gyros can only cause problems in IMC. Flying in poor VMC (very hazy, few k vis; 'fishbowl conditions'), you will use the instruments a lot to keep orientated, particularly if instrument qualified. Under these VMC conditions you may well be less alert about your checks, and it's easy for a vacuum failure to creep up on you without warning. This happened to my wife and I a while back, and it was very disorientating, despite being able to see something of the ground.
IO540 mentioned the autopilot. Mine derives its signal from the TC (it's a two axis type). Presumably you wouldn't want it to try to follow the heading bug on the failed DI, so it would have to be in wings-level mode or tracking a VOR or GPS.
It's important to cover the failed instruments, because it really is very hard indeed to ignore them.
Whilst I agree about the importance of keeping the partial-panel skills current, I would also enlist the help of the GPS. It is much easier to use the pseudo compass screen on the GPS than it is to use the conventional aircraft alcohol-filled compass, with all its errors - particularly if you have to fly a partial-panel approach. An IFR-certificated GPS is obviously preferable, but without DI and AI in IMC, you have an emergency on your hands and should use any tool that can help.
Similarly, if you lose your pitot/static system in IMC, the GPS will be of great help with altitude and groundspeed.
I have made a new year resolution to practice loss of gyros and pitot/static using the GPS to help.
AA.
Joined: Jan 2004
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
From: UK
I agree with alphaalpha about using a GPS to help - the garmin 196 in particular has that VFR instrument page which must be of some help on the "DI" and "Altimeter" they have there, though not sure using GS is a good idea. GPS gets a lot of stick - ie should only be used as a backup etc etc, which is true, but I think it could certainly help once a vaccum pump failiure has already been identified
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
From: EuroGA.org
alphaalpha
A lot of the time, an AP is no good at all with a vac failure. I have a vac primary horizon and an electric TC and DI but the AP uses both the vac horizon and the electric DI!
Also, when tracking a VOR one still has to fly a heading primarily so I don't think any AP will be able to track a VOR if the DI has gone...
Re GPS as a backup... you get a LOT more out of a GPS if you use it as a primary instrument, concurrently with the others, than if you start using it only when everything has turned to ****.
A lot of the time, an AP is no good at all with a vac failure. I have a vac primary horizon and an electric TC and DI but the AP uses both the vac horizon and the electric DI!
Also, when tracking a VOR one still has to fly a heading primarily so I don't think any AP will be able to track a VOR if the DI has gone...
Re GPS as a backup... you get a LOT more out of a GPS if you use it as a primary instrument, concurrently with the others, than if you start using it only when everything has turned to ****.
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
IO540:
I have an STec 20 and a GNS430. Your post has prompted me to start by reading the manuals to see how the STec gets its signals when following either the GPS or VOR in NAV mode. I assumed the autopilot got a 'track-error' signal from the GPS/VOR and the computer in the TC generated the turn command. As you suggest, it's better to know BEFORE things start going wrong. Although it's manatory to carry the manuals, you really can't read them when you suffer gyro failure in IMC!! ;-) I'll post more in a few days.
Purely personally, I agree that a practical reality is to use GPS as primary guidance and confirm that all is well using map or conventional nav instruments. This is what I do and this is the way I was advised to do NDB and VOR non-precision approaches by my IRE -- using an IFR approved GPS with a current database, I hasten to add.
Style:
I have not used the Garmin 196 (Is this the new one with visual screen representations of instruments?). Do you get a rapid screen response to changes in aircraft attitude and performance? Is it sufficient to use if the gyros fail, or are you better to use conventional techniques?
I have checked my GPS altitude readout and found it typically agrees with the altimeter within 50 feet when I have a good satellite constellation (I have an external aerial). There is also good agreement at typical IFR rates of descent, around 500fpm. The GPS keeps up well. Hence my preparedness to use GPS if I lost the pitot/static.
So far as using GPS groundspeed is concerned, remember if you lose your pitot/static in IMC, the back-up is to use "Power + Attitude = Performance." This is pretty imprecise. If you have been flying for a while before pitot/static failure occurs, you will have a good idea of the wind and of the difference between groundspeed and indicated airspeed. You use this to help you derive airspeed from GPS groundspeed. This helps to confirm that you have selected the correct attitude and power to get the performance you want.
In my long-winded way, I am trying to say that if you lose your gyros or your pitot/static then use all the remaining tools at your disposal!
AA.
I have an STec 20 and a GNS430. Your post has prompted me to start by reading the manuals to see how the STec gets its signals when following either the GPS or VOR in NAV mode. I assumed the autopilot got a 'track-error' signal from the GPS/VOR and the computer in the TC generated the turn command. As you suggest, it's better to know BEFORE things start going wrong. Although it's manatory to carry the manuals, you really can't read them when you suffer gyro failure in IMC!! ;-) I'll post more in a few days.
Purely personally, I agree that a practical reality is to use GPS as primary guidance and confirm that all is well using map or conventional nav instruments. This is what I do and this is the way I was advised to do NDB and VOR non-precision approaches by my IRE -- using an IFR approved GPS with a current database, I hasten to add.
Style:
I have not used the Garmin 196 (Is this the new one with visual screen representations of instruments?). Do you get a rapid screen response to changes in aircraft attitude and performance? Is it sufficient to use if the gyros fail, or are you better to use conventional techniques?
I have checked my GPS altitude readout and found it typically agrees with the altimeter within 50 feet when I have a good satellite constellation (I have an external aerial). There is also good agreement at typical IFR rates of descent, around 500fpm. The GPS keeps up well. Hence my preparedness to use GPS if I lost the pitot/static.
So far as using GPS groundspeed is concerned, remember if you lose your pitot/static in IMC, the back-up is to use "Power + Attitude = Performance." This is pretty imprecise. If you have been flying for a while before pitot/static failure occurs, you will have a good idea of the wind and of the difference between groundspeed and indicated airspeed. You use this to help you derive airspeed from GPS groundspeed. This helps to confirm that you have selected the correct attitude and power to get the performance you want.
In my long-winded way, I am trying to say that if you lose your gyros or your pitot/static then use all the remaining tools at your disposal!
AA.
Why do it if it's not fun?
Joined: Jul 2001
Posts: 4,782
Likes: 12
From: Bournemouth
If you lose your pitot/static in IMC, the back-up is to use "Power + Attitude = Performance."
If you loose your pitot, the only instrument which will be affected would be the ASI, so you can fly fairly accurately by setting the right power, and using a combination of AI and Altimeter/VSI to set exactly the right attitude.
Just curious on your thoughts on this one - I'm probably about as inexperienced at actual instrument flying as it's possible for an IMC-holder to be, but I would have thought that it's very rare that "Power + Attitude = Performance" really is all you have to go on if you don't have the use of a GPS?
FFF
----------
Joined: May 2001
Posts: 4,729
Likes: 0
From: 75N 16E
If you loose your pitot, the only instrument which will be affected would be the ASI.
In short after takeoff on the climb out, un beknown to my mate the ASI started to give false readings, and of course as he climbed the ASI dropped causing him to increase power and lower the nose. He thought he'd made a serious mistake in weight and balance calcs, and ended up looking for a field to dump it in. I think it was GPS that finally saved him, he figured that with a GS of 150kts, there was no way he could be doing 75 kts IAS. The Pitot had become blocked.
There was a case saveral years ago of a 727 (I think) which crased and killed everyone onboard. Turned out the Pitot tube became blocked, and as they climbed higher the ASI reading increases, so they kept pitching up and ended up stalling.....
Cheers
EA
Joined: Nov 2001
Posts: 355
Likes: 0
From: united kingdom
FFF -- You're right, of course. But some pitot/static problems will not be helped by using alternate static and I suppose that's what the Power + Attitude = Performance training is about.
I will shoot down my own argument. Imagine you have encountered significant icing conditions in an aircraft not so equipped. The static vent freezes over and you are smart enough to recognise this but you forget all about alternate static sources. With an increasingly heavily iced airframe, P + A will not equal the performance you normally get. Setting cruise power and normal attitude will lead you into problems..... and the GPS here would be a life-saver. But then you shouldn't have been there in the first place!
AA.
I will shoot down my own argument. Imagine you have encountered significant icing conditions in an aircraft not so equipped. The static vent freezes over and you are smart enough to recognise this but you forget all about alternate static sources. With an increasingly heavily iced airframe, P + A will not equal the performance you normally get. Setting cruise power and normal attitude will lead you into problems..... and the GPS here would be a life-saver. But then you shouldn't have been there in the first place!
AA.
Sub Judice Angel Lovegod
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 2,460
Likes: 0
From: London
AA
AIUI the STEC uses the Turn indicator, which is electrical, and is therefore entirely independent of the suction system. If you have a purely electrical a/p that has got to be the safest way to ensure that you remain the right way up until you are in VMC.
There is definitely a lag on the "DI" readout on the 530 (and I assume therefore the 430), which is not surprising when you consider the technology, but that lag is considerably less than that on the compass, and is quite useable if you make slow turns.
I would be very cautious before you assume that the altiutude readout on the 430 is independent of the static system. Certainly on my installation I have a blind encoder driving the altitude readout on the 530. You should check with your avionics engineer before you assume that the 430 is a backup to the static system.
Will
AIUI the STEC uses the Turn indicator, which is electrical, and is therefore entirely independent of the suction system. If you have a purely electrical a/p that has got to be the safest way to ensure that you remain the right way up until you are in VMC.
There is definitely a lag on the "DI" readout on the 530 (and I assume therefore the 430), which is not surprising when you consider the technology, but that lag is considerably less than that on the compass, and is quite useable if you make slow turns.
I would be very cautious before you assume that the altiutude readout on the 430 is independent of the static system. Certainly on my installation I have a blind encoder driving the altitude readout on the 530. You should check with your avionics engineer before you assume that the 430 is a backup to the static system.
Will
Thread Starter
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 739
Likes: 0
From: Dallas, TX USA
NTSB Preliminary Report on this accident
NTSB Identification: FTW04FA052
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, January 01, 2004 in Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Bellanca 17-30A, registration: N4104B
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On January 1, 2004, at 1004 central standard time, a Bellanca 17-30A single-engine airplane, N4104B, registered to, and operated by a private individual, was destroyed when it impacted residential structures shortly after takeoff from Runway 15 at Addison Airport (ADS), near Dallas, Texas. The instrument rated private pilot and his passenger were fatally injured. Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The cross-country flight's intended destination was Amarillo International Airport (AMA) near Amarillo, Texas.
According to Air Traffic Control (ATC) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, the aircraft departed the Addison Airport from Runway 15 at 0957. Approximately four minutes into the flight, the pilot reported that he "lost his panel." At 1003, the radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The aircraft impacted a private residence in a northeasterly heading, and came to rest in the garage of a second private residence, across the street. The aircraft and both residences were destroyed by post-impact fire. There were no reported ground injuries. Witnesses in the area reported hearing the sound of an engine pass overhead, at a low altitude, and then heard a "loud boom." The impact was hard enough to rattle neighbors' windows. Witnesses reported hearing the noise, but it was too "cloudy" to see anything.
The weather conditions for ADS at 0957 reported winds from 130 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 7/8 of a mile with mist, and the ceiling was 100 feet overcast. The temperature was 17 degrees Celsius, and the dewpoint as 17 degrees Celsius, with a barometric altimeter of 30.20 inches of Mercury.
Things of note, the aircraft departed Southeast on runway 15. The neighborhood where it crashed is just to the left of the extended runway centerline about 5 miles out, but the aircraft's heading at the time of impact was northeasterly. The ceiling was 100 feet overcast at takeoff and the temperature was at dewpoint. The ground witnesses also reported that they couldn't see anything because it was "too cloudy", and I also heard this on the news. Sadly, this is the first accident listed on the NTSB monthly reports for 2004.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, January 01, 2004 in Dallas, TX
Aircraft: Bellanca 17-30A, registration: N4104B
Injuries: 2 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On January 1, 2004, at 1004 central standard time, a Bellanca 17-30A single-engine airplane, N4104B, registered to, and operated by a private individual, was destroyed when it impacted residential structures shortly after takeoff from Runway 15 at Addison Airport (ADS), near Dallas, Texas. The instrument rated private pilot and his passenger were fatally injured. Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. The cross-country flight's intended destination was Amarillo International Airport (AMA) near Amarillo, Texas.
According to Air Traffic Control (ATC) data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration, the aircraft departed the Addison Airport from Runway 15 at 0957. Approximately four minutes into the flight, the pilot reported that he "lost his panel." At 1003, the radar contact with the aircraft was lost. The aircraft impacted a private residence in a northeasterly heading, and came to rest in the garage of a second private residence, across the street. The aircraft and both residences were destroyed by post-impact fire. There were no reported ground injuries. Witnesses in the area reported hearing the sound of an engine pass overhead, at a low altitude, and then heard a "loud boom." The impact was hard enough to rattle neighbors' windows. Witnesses reported hearing the noise, but it was too "cloudy" to see anything.
The weather conditions for ADS at 0957 reported winds from 130 degrees at 6 knots, visibility 7/8 of a mile with mist, and the ceiling was 100 feet overcast. The temperature was 17 degrees Celsius, and the dewpoint as 17 degrees Celsius, with a barometric altimeter of 30.20 inches of Mercury.
Things of note, the aircraft departed Southeast on runway 15. The neighborhood where it crashed is just to the left of the extended runway centerline about 5 miles out, but the aircraft's heading at the time of impact was northeasterly. The ceiling was 100 feet overcast at takeoff and the temperature was at dewpoint. The ground witnesses also reported that they couldn't see anything because it was "too cloudy", and I also heard this on the news. Sadly, this is the first accident listed on the NTSB monthly reports for 2004.