AW139 Crash in Bahamas - 7 Killed
Too right. I had an IFR crew in the simulator once, we were practicing low visibility runway departures at night (because the contract they were assigned to had a night standby requirement). Experienced ATP Captain flying. In IMC within a few seconds of initial climb-out. Went inverted and flew it into the runway, co-pilot said and did nothing. And if you think that's scary, we repeated the exercise with exactly the same result, co-pilot said and did nothing a second time. And if you think that's scary, guess what happened at the third attempt. That was in ATT uncoupled mode. And if you think push button coupled mode might be more successful, you need to rethink that as well. Because it 'aint.
Last edited by gulliBell; 13th Jul 2019 at 01:07.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: florida
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am based in South Florida and fly moonless nights over open water regularly. I flew that night and it was deep IMC over water with no moon, clear skies. The first thought I had when I heard about this accident is that the pilots suffered disorientation as they transitioned from over land to over open water and they put it in.
It can happen to anyone, even high time, very skilled pilots.
It can happen to anyone, even high time, very skilled pilots.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: TN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It may be prejudice, but I'm in the mechanical failure camp. The tail being 500 ft from the main fuselage, after a low altitude crash into shallow water, seems difficult to explain otherwise.
Also in the back of my mind is a memory of an earlier Leonardo helo killing the management team of a major NJ casino by an unexpected rotor
failure. It suggests they make Ferrari aircraft, super performing, but with frailties.
Also in the back of my mind is a memory of an earlier Leonardo helo killing the management team of a major NJ casino by an unexpected rotor
failure. It suggests they make Ferrari aircraft, super performing, but with frailties.
Also, CFIT doesn't preclude spatial
disorientation...in many cases it's the result of it.
"Controlled flight" doesn't necessarily mean desired flight.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: florida
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we are all waiting for the NTSB prelim and are all only speculating at this point.
But some are saying that the boom was found 500 feet from the fuselage. I am simply saying a scenario like this does not rule out spatial disorientation that leads to an an uncontrolled crash into the water with a cartwheeling of the aircraft, scattering parts along a distance.
I have personally seen cases of CFIT crashes where the aircraft emerges essentially intact from the water. I have also personally seen cases where spatial orientation lead to a large debris field with scattering of aircraft parts including tail from fuselage.
I know CFIT comes from spatial disorientation but there is a difference in result of a controlled (CFIT implies) vs uncontrolled hit into water as far as the debris field and aftermath.
I am only trying to bring up the fact that all pilots can possibly succumb to spatial disorientation on a moonless night over open water upon departure....whether it be a controlled descent into water or an uncontrolled event.
But some are saying that the boom was found 500 feet from the fuselage. I am simply saying a scenario like this does not rule out spatial disorientation that leads to an an uncontrolled crash into the water with a cartwheeling of the aircraft, scattering parts along a distance.
I have personally seen cases of CFIT crashes where the aircraft emerges essentially intact from the water. I have also personally seen cases where spatial orientation lead to a large debris field with scattering of aircraft parts including tail from fuselage.
I know CFIT comes from spatial disorientation but there is a difference in result of a controlled (CFIT implies) vs uncontrolled hit into water as far as the debris field and aftermath.
I am only trying to bring up the fact that all pilots can possibly succumb to spatial disorientation on a moonless night over open water upon departure....whether it be a controlled descent into water or an uncontrolled event.
Join Date: Jun 2019
Location: TN
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course we are all waiting for the NTSB prelim and are all only speculating at this point.
But some are saying that the boom was found 500 feet from the fuselage. I am simply saying a scenario like this does not rule out spatial disorientation that leads to an an uncontrolled crash into the water with a cartwheeling of the
aircraft, scattering parts along a distance
I have personally seen cases of CFIT crashes where the aircraft emerges essentially intact from the water. I have also personally seen cases where spatial orientation lead to a large debris field with scattering of aircraft parts including tail from fuse
I know CFIT comes from spatial disorientation but there is a difference in result of a controlled (CFIT implies) vs uncontrolled hit into water as far as the
debris field and aftermath.
I am only trying to bring up the fact that all pilots can possibly succumb to spatial disorientation on a moonless night over open water upon departure....whether it be a controlled descent into water or an uncontrolled event.
But some are saying that the boom was found 500 feet from the fuselage. I am simply saying a scenario like this does not rule out spatial disorientation that leads to an an uncontrolled crash into the water with a cartwheeling of the
aircraft, scattering parts along a distance
I have personally seen cases of CFIT crashes where the aircraft emerges essentially intact from the water. I have also personally seen cases where spatial orientation lead to a large debris field with scattering of aircraft parts including tail from fuse
I know CFIT comes from spatial disorientation but there is a difference in result of a controlled (CFIT implies) vs uncontrolled hit into water as far as the
debris field and aftermath.
I am only trying to bring up the fact that all pilots can possibly succumb to spatial disorientation on a moonless night over open water upon departure....whether it be a controlled descent into water or an uncontrolled event.
Join Date: Jul 2019
Location: US
Posts: 3
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
TC,
Earlier you knew what happened
and now you’re saying we should wait?
Your comment about the relationship between CFIT and disorientation is a valid point. In my mind there are three main categories:
The latter two may be precipitated by system or component failures as well as the myriad other factors noted (darkness, crew fatigue, etc.)
The photos show substantial damage to the left side not evident on the right, suggesting that it didn’t plow straight in but with a substantial sideward component. To me this suggests 1 or 2, though perhaps some damage came from a secondary impact.
Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait for the evidence. A horrible tragedy in any case.
Earlier you knew what happened
Why don't we all wait and see where the NTSB pre-lim report says the tailboom was found. It might have been 20 feet from the fuselage or 2000 feet...we don't factually know at this point.
Also, CFIT doesn't preclude spatial disorientation...in many cases it's the result of it.
"Controlled flight" doesn't necessarily mean desired flight.
Also, CFIT doesn't preclude spatial disorientation...in many cases it's the result of it.
"Controlled flight" doesn't necessarily mean desired flight.
- Loss of control due to mechanical failure.
- Loss of control (spinning, extreme attitudes, etc.) due to spatial disorientation.
- CFIT (straight in, slow spiral, etc.) due to disorientation
The latter two may be precipitated by system or component failures as well as the myriad other factors noted (darkness, crew fatigue, etc.)
The photos show substantial damage to the left side not evident on the right, suggesting that it didn’t plow straight in but with a substantial sideward component. To me this suggests 1 or 2, though perhaps some damage came from a secondary impact.
Ultimately, we’ll just have to wait for the evidence. A horrible tragedy in any case.
Because he's correct, and it doesn't have to be night either. Military test pilot in a jet decided to go around on a day approach when a rain shaft obscured the runway, IFR in the rain he suddenly found himself sitting in a wreck in the scrub, confined to a wheelchair there after and very lucky it had not been worse.
What is difficult about IMC?
I am utterly surprised, and shocked at the same time, about the level of excuses you career ATP’s have for fellow aviators failing to keep the blue side up (“can happen to anyone ... can happen to the best ... can happen to me”)!
What is the difference between a dark night (“deep IMC”, whoa, what a word) and, say, being in a cloud. The only problem with IMC is if you don’t realize you are in IMC, and continue flying by the seat of your pants.
Why would an IMC departure over water (read “no obstacles”) ever be a problem? Some airspeed, positive climb, attitude, heading. Come on, you got those instruments, not? Plus in an AW you can set the AP, and then focus on your customs declaration.
I do not understand how a plethora of honorable posters before me concede they too could have put her into the drink under similar circumstances.
What is the difference between a dark night (“deep IMC”, whoa, what a word) and, say, being in a cloud. The only problem with IMC is if you don’t realize you are in IMC, and continue flying by the seat of your pants.
Why would an IMC departure over water (read “no obstacles”) ever be a problem? Some airspeed, positive climb, attitude, heading. Come on, you got those instruments, not? Plus in an AW you can set the AP, and then focus on your customs declaration.
I do not understand how a plethora of honorable posters before me concede they too could have put her into the drink under similar circumstances.
Hot and Hi - I think the point you are missing is that there is a transition from VMC to IMC on a night overwater departure that you have to be mentally prepared for - you go from the comfort of your landing light illumination into pitch black and if you haven't already been including your instruments in your hover scan, you can easily be slow to fully establish your IFR comfort zone.
It is the sort of scenario that needs training and practice. I'm sure TC will attest to how easy it is to get disorientated flying off the back of a ship at night - you are dealing with a change of scan and all the somatogravic illusions of acceleration which you don't normally get on an IFR departure because you establish yourself above VminI before going IMC.
Sasless and I have discussed the military IFTO technique flown from the ground or the low hover which is still not included in civil training or tests - this technique prepares you for those tricky 'on instruments before V minI' situations.
It is the sort of scenario that needs training and practice. I'm sure TC will attest to how easy it is to get disorientated flying off the back of a ship at night - you are dealing with a change of scan and all the somatogravic illusions of acceleration which you don't normally get on an IFR departure because you establish yourself above VminI before going IMC.
Sasless and I have discussed the military IFTO technique flown from the ground or the low hover which is still not included in civil training or tests - this technique prepares you for those tricky 'on instruments before V minI' situations.
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: On the green bit near the blue wobbly stuff
Posts: 674
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
If you have practised it, its something a competent IFR pilot should be able to cope with. If you havent practised it, then it is not something to attempt "off the cuff" !
Originally Posted by [email protected]
I'm sure TC will attest to how easy it is to get disorientated flying off the back of a ship at night
Well spotted Bravo73 - I didn't see that
thanks - the same confrontational style fooled me
thanks - the same confrontational style fooled me
Whilst it seems rather tangential to the current flow of the thread, I remain interested in the background to the fatal flight. The eyewitness report states that the aircraft ARRIVED about half an hour before it departed on the fatal flight. Do we know where from? Do we know why it took around 30 minutes to take off again? If it was a medical emergency involving the owners daughter, would we not expect it to take off immediately? Why was it heading to the US; the medical facilities in the Bahamas are doubtless less sophisticated at the high end, but their proximity would be a major advantage, and they would certainly be able to deal with "alcohol poisoning" ? Why so many friends on the aircraft: I know what young girls are like, but alcohol poisoning is not a spectator sport, and by the time her Father had become involved and had to send for his helicopter in the middle of the night, I would have expected a different and smaller passenger list.
Possibly all irrelevant to what happened, but until we know what transpired, maybe not.
Possibly all irrelevant to what happened, but until we know what transpired, maybe not.
Sasless and I have discussed the military IFTO technique flown from the ground or the low hover which is still not included in civil training or tests - this technique prepares you for those tricky 'on instruments before V minI' situations.
My post which is number 817 of this Thread about the 139 crash at Gillingham applies to our current discussion.
Why the rule or limitation of 50 Knots was placed upon the Crew is something else that needs to be re-thought.
How many millions of takeoffs have been done using the "Military" method by Pilots all around the Globe for at least the past Fifty Years that I know of....and that method is verboten by the CAA for some unfathomable reason plain escapes me.
Now if we could do that safely...routinely....repeatedly in helicopters with no Gucci Kit....why in the world could that "Tool" not be allowed in a Crew's Tool Box for the odd unusual instances such as befell the 139 Crew?
That assumes training, currency, and PROFICIENCY in the technique
How many millions of takeoffs have been done using the "Military" method by Pilots all around the Globe for at least the past Fifty Years that I know of....and that method is verboten by the CAA for some unfathomable reason plain escapes me.
Now if we could do that safely...routinely....repeatedly in helicopters with no Gucci Kit....why in the world could that "Tool" not be allowed in a Crew's Tool Box for the odd unusual instances such as befell the 139 Crew?
That assumes training, currency, and PROFICIENCY in the technique
Originally Posted by [email protected]
Sasless and I have discussed the military IFTO technique flown from the ground or the low hover which is still not included in civil training or tests - this technique prepares you for those tricky 'on instruments before V minI' situations.
Unfortunately, the LPAL crew were never trained to do it.
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Devon
Age: 69
Posts: 125
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Police statement.
Whilst it seems rather tangential to the current flow of the thread, I remain interested in the background to the fatal flight. The eyewitness report states that the aircraft ARRIVED about half an hour before it departed on the fatal flight. Do we know where from? Do we know why it took around 30 minutes to take off again? If it was a medical emergency involving the owners daughter, would we not expect it to take off immediately? Why was it heading to the US; the medical facilities in the Bahamas are doubtless less sophisticated at the high end, but their proximity would be a major advantage, and they would certainly be able to deal with "alcohol poisoning" ? Why so many friends on the aircraft: I know what young girls are like, but alcohol poisoning is not a spectator sport, and by the time her Father had become involved and had to send for his helicopter in the middle of the night, I would have expected a different and smaller passenger list.
Possibly all irrelevant to what happened, but until we know what transpired, maybe not.
Possibly all irrelevant to what happened, but until we know what transpired, maybe not.
Bahamas Police spokesmen states they don't believe there was a distress call, and that the weather wasn't a problem.
https://popculture.com/celebrity/201...new-boyfriend/
Re the above, I also wondered why the aircraft waited 30 minutes for the passengers? It didn't appear to take any fuel according to the witness who worked for the owner.
Bahamas Police spokesmen states they don't believe there was a distress call, and that the weather wasn't a problem.
https://popculture.com/celebrity/201...new-boyfriend/
Bahamas Police spokesmen states they don't believe there was a distress call, and that the weather wasn't a problem.
https://popculture.com/celebrity/201...new-boyfriend/
- Alcohol poisoning may be serious, but is not complicated. Any hospital can treat it.
- Given that night VFR is illegal in Bahamas, you wouldn't take any non essential crew on an emergency flight.
Is it possible that we just wanted to go to a trendy night club in Miami?
I do not understand how a plethora of honorable posters before me concede they too could have put her into the drink under similar circumstances
my ego makes me want to sit here and think to myself and promise you that *I* surely would have done a better job in that situation. But I cannot guarantee that. Perhaps I would have done the same thing, basically sitting frozen on the controls for those eight brief seconds. I like to believe I'm Chuck Yeager/Aaron/Norris all rolled into one awesome human bean. Most of the time though I'm just Chuckles the Clown. I cut that guy a lot of slack