An aviation crash that may be of interest

[wwillson]

Can't be pilot error, didn't Cujet say "unseen wires".

Unseen wires by who? The pilot must not have known about them and certainly didn't see them. That's pilot error. When you are pilot in command, you are 100% responsible for every outcome, period.

The last thousand pilots who landed at that field over those wires, saw them and didn't make the error of hitting them. Hitting the wires is a piloting error and the only one who could have committed the error is the pilot.

Said yet another way, the pilot made a mistake by hitting the wires. The FAA calls mistakes, errors.

The FAR (Federal Air Regulation) the governs pilot responsibility is about as simple as it gets:

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.

 

[rekit]

Survived that only to treated with Camp Lejeune swamp water!

 

[wwillson]

I watched the video again and saw that the pilot's statement is included. The pilot states that he knew the power lines where there, but still hit them. He made a mistake.

 

[Cujet]

Dragging the approach in is just poor piloting and undisciplined technique.

No dispute there, even so, it happens all the time. But what about gliders? They regularly fly a shallow approach and need a bit of wiggle room to compensate for piloting skill and conditions. With a lift over drag of 50 to 1 to as much as 70 to 1, and only slightly worse with spoilers out.

And again, what about an engine out or dropped cylinder (poor climb) situation?

Helicopters also do not operate under the same conditions as a Cessna 182.

A typical glider "rope break" situation requires only 200 feet AGL to turn back. What then?

I'm standing my ground on this one, powerlines at an airport are a unnecessary hazard, especially if unmarked. Either the airport or the power lines need to be moved.

 

[Exhaustgases]

Opinions of non pilots, will always say pilot error. Pure and simple that is a very dangerous airport. The liability is on the owner of the power lines. Just like the ham radio antenna theory I posted above.
A small plane could be blown into them even though the pilot does the correct thing. For a non aircraft pilot, you all need to know you are never in total control of the aircraft. All it takes is a down draft or up draft, sudden wind for either direction, micro burst or a large dust devil, vortices or what ever, a pilot can not control the wind etc. I have compared flying to driving on ice, you sometimes have to go where the plane or car takes you, fighting it will in some cases make it worse.
In that report the pilot says he lost altitude for some reason. Not pilot error.
I have a friend that was flying one of his cross country flights years ago and got into a down draft that sent him down 5000 feet altitude at I think he said 3000 feet a minute or faster, and all he could do is ride it out and hope. A cessna 150 can't out climb that.

 

[MolaKule]

We're trying to get power lines buried on the North End approach of our runway at C17.

 

[Astro14]

Opinions of non pilots, will always say pilot error. Pure and simple that is a very dangerous airport. The liability is on the owner of the power lines. Just like the ham radio antenna theory I posted above.
A small plane could be blown into them even though the pilot does the correct thing. For a non aircraft pilot, you all need to know you are never in total control of the aircraft. All it takes is a down draft or up draft, sudden wind for either direction, micro burst or a large dust devil, vortices or what ever, a pilot can not control the wind etc. I have compared flying to driving on ice, you sometimes have to go where the plane or car takes you, fighting it will in some cases make it worse.
In that report the pilot says he lost altitude for some reason. Not pilot error.
I have a friend that was flying one of his cross country flights years ago and got into a down draft that sent him down 5000 feet altitude at I think he said 3000 feet a minute or faster, and all he could do is ride it out and hope. A cessna 150 can't out climb that.

Just watched the video. The wires were there. Their location and the hazard were published.

The pilot knew that. He hit them anyway.

100% pilot error.

 

[wwillson]

No dispute there, even so, it happens all the time. But what about gliders? They regularly fly a shallow approach and need a bit of wiggle room to compensate for piloting skill and conditions. With a lift over drag of 50 to 1 to as much as 70 to 1, and only slightly worse with spoilers out.

And again, what about an engine out or dropped cylinder (poor climb) situation?

Helicopters also do not operate under the same conditions as a Cessna 182.

A typical glider "rope break" situation requires only 200 feet AGL to turn back. What then?

I'm standing my ground on this one, powerlines at an airport are a unnecessary hazard, especially if unmarked. Either the airport or the power lines need to be moved.

I agree that powerlines at the end(s) of runways is not an optimal situation. Remember, I instructed at an airport with wires at three of four thresholds and none of the wires were marked with balls. I flew with many students and pilots that tried to drag in approaches over the wires and had a couple that were going to hit the wires if I didn't intervene. I completely agree with you that wires are a hazard, but the reality is they are there. If anyone makes the choice to fly into or out of an airport with 60' wires literally on top of the threshold, then they have to compensate. This pilot didn't compensate.

 

[wwillson]

A small plane could be blown into them even though the pilot does the correct thing.

No, if there is turbulent air you compensate for what ifs and I can promise you if the wind is blowing at that airport, the trees make for rough air. Your approach should never ever be even close to the wires. He claims he doesn't know how he lost the altitude and admits he didn't have the wires in site. He also states he went from 20 flaps to 40 flaps. Have you ever gone from flaps 20 to flaps 40 in a Cessna? I have and I can assure you it drastically increases your decent rate. Why would have have gone to 40 flaps if he didn't see the wires, big mistake. He as plenty of runway for a Cessna, why was he so low at the approach end? Another mistake.

 

[MRC01]

That's fine and good, but flying VFR means non precision approaches. Touching down 1000 feet down the runway won't prevent someone on a shallow approach from hitting the unseen wires. ...

To clarify for non-pilots, precision approach refers to an approach and landing using lateral and vertical instrument guidance, such as an ILS or GPS. Saying that VFR pilots don't do precision approaches does not imply any lack of skill that they can't fly with precision. It only means they land by eyeball and seat of the pants without instrument assistance. In the general non aviation-specific meaning of the term "precision", many VFR pilots have excellent stick & rudder skills and can land in places that are too tight, small or obstructed to be possible with instrument guidance. However, not the pilot in that video

 

[MRC01]

Opinions of non pilots, will always say pilot error. Pure and simple that is a very dangerous airport. The liability is on the owner of the power lines. Just like the ham radio antenna theory I posted above.
A small plane could be blown into them even though the pilot does the correct thing. For a non aircraft pilot, you all need to know you are never in total control of the aircraft. All it takes is a down draft or up draft, sudden wind for either direction, micro burst or a large dust devil, vortices or what ever, a pilot can not control the wind etc. ...

This sounds like resignation, one of the 5 hazardous attitudes identified by the FAA.

If the pilot does the correct thing, he will never be blown into trees or power lines because he will see and avoid them. On a windy day that may require extra spacing or avoiding the area entirely. A pilot who does the correct thing will never be surprised by trees, power lines or other obstacles that are charted, or winds that are forecast or reported, because he always gets a pre-flight briefing covering all available information about that flight (FAR 91.103). This also includes situational awareness during the flight, for example observing smoke, clouds, trees, grass, water and other clues about the wind.

I think we all agree that power lines and other obstacles near airports should be marked to improve safety. Yet the ultimate responsibility for safety of flight always lies with the pilot.

 

[LDB]

If those big orange balls were strung along the top wire I'd say it is 100% pilot error. Invisible wires like that? No, not 100% pilot. Mostly? Ok. Totally, no, the power company has responsibilities as well and they failed in this one. But what do I know. I like A10's too.

 

[wwillson]

If those big orange balls were strung along the top wire I'd say it is 100% pilot error. Invisible wires like that? No, not 100% pilot. Mostly? Ok. Totally, no, the power company has responsibilities as well and they failed in this one. But what do I know. I like A10's too.

It's 100% pilot error. When you are PIC, you don't get to say, "it's not totally my fault I hit those wires".

 

[billt460]

I would put this into somewhat the same category as snowmobilers hitting barbed wire fences at night. The lucky difference in this case is these guys lived, whereas most of the snowmobilers end up getting decapitated.

Both are a well defined problem. But it's still the responsibility of the rider to avoid fences while riding at night...... Not the landowner to string lights or glowing balls on them.

Just as it's a pilots responsibility to be aware of documented power lines involved in any approach. Regardless of how unfortunate these accidents are, they don't shift the blame away from the people who hit either one.

 

[mk378]

Pilot was flying a visual approach but looked away from the situation at a critical moment. He also made an unplanned change to the flap setting which caused the airplane to descend faster.

Since the trees are the same height as the power line but farther back, flying to miss the power line will ensure that you also miss the trees. They're of no major concern.

 

[Surestick]

Opinions of non pilots, will always say pilot error. Pure and simple that is a very dangerous airport. The liability is on the owner of the power lines. Just like the ham radio antenna theory I posted above.
A small plane could be blown into them even though the pilot does the correct thing. For a non aircraft pilot, you all need to know you are never in total control of the aircraft. All it takes is a down draft or up draft, sudden wind for either direction, micro burst or a large dust devil, vortices or what ever, a pilot can not control the wind etc. I have compared flying to driving on ice, you sometimes have to go where the plane or car takes you, fighting it will in some cases make it worse.
In that report the pilot says he lost altitude for some reason. Not pilot error.
I have a friend that was flying one of his cross country flights years ago and got into a down draft that sent him down 5000 feet altitude at I think he said 3000 feet a minute or faster, and all he could do is ride it out and hope. A cessna 150 can't out climb that.

Spoken like a non-pilot.
It is the pilot in command's responsibility to account for factors like this.
The power lines are not a secret, they will be indicated in the FAA publication that gives airport information (sorry, I don't know the US title for that).
It's the pilot's responsibility to familiarise themselves with an airport, its hazards, any special procedures, and any NOTAMs before using an airport. It's the pilot's responsibility to decide, based on their training, comfort level, weather, and knowledge of the performance of the aircraft they are flying if they think the flight is safe.

There are, occasionally, unpredictable hazards but airplane crashes are mostly due to pilots doing something dumb.

 

[billt460]

............ A small plane could be blown into them even though the pilot does the correct thing......... I have compared flying to driving on ice, you sometimes have to go where the plane or car takes you, fighting it will in some cases make it worse.

So..... When Cory Lidle's Cirrus flew into the apartment building in New York, that was the building fault for being there?

 

[Just a civilian pilot]

Spoken like a non-pilot.
It is the pilot in command's responsibility to account for factors like this.
The power lines are not a secret, they will be indicated in the FAA publication that gives airport information (sorry, I don't know the US title for that).
It's the pilot's responsibility to familiarise themselves with an airport, its hazards, any special procedures, and any NOTAMs before using an airport. It's the pilot's responsibility to decide, based on their training, comfort level, weather, and knowledge of the performance of the aircraft they are flying if they think the flight is safe.

There are, occasionally, unpredictable hazards but airplane crashes are mostly due to pilots doing something dumb.

I see you live in Cold Lake.

Are you a RCAF pilot?

What flying experience do you have?

I would include “dumb” as having power lines on final with no markers on them whether or not people feel they should be easy to see.

No excuse for any pilot to not do a thorough review where they are flying to and hitting power lines but same for any power company that has them close to a runway , even if it’s a private, grass strip.

After almost 40 years flying, 25,000 hours, I also find that dumb. Really dumb.

 

[Cujet]

So..... When Cory Lidle's Cirrus flew into the apartment building in New York, that was the building fault for being there?

Ha! The building was clearly visible and no argument could be made that it was not.

 

[F150]

Our FAA at work. No powerlines or airport should co-exist. Who was there first ( the chicken or the egg )