Some accidents are worth discussing...

Hi,

This accident is a 'local' one for us Bay Area pilots. The report sure
makes interesting reading.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...FA187& akey=1

Hilton

"Hilton" wrote in message
link.net...
Hi,

This accident is a 'local' one for us Bay Area pilots. The report sure
makes interesting reading.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...FA187& akey=1

Hilton

Perhaps I missed what you think is interesting. Bad judgment that could
have gotten them there, but left no safety margin, and one more thing went
wrong, (fire) and it bit them in the ass. Sounds like all to that, right?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/2/2004

"Morgans" wrote in message ...
"Hilton" wrote in message
link.net...
Hi,

This accident is a 'local' one for us Bay Area pilots. The report sure
makes interesting reading.


http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...FA187& akey=1

Hilton

Perhaps I missed what you think is interesting. Bad judgment that could
have gotten them there, but left no safety margin, and one more thing went
wrong, (fire) and it bit them in the ass. Sounds like all to that, right?
*****************
Jim
If you read it, was it because you were interested to see what it
said? Or did you read it of prurient interest? In either case, it was
interesting reading! In my opinion, any accident that I can learn from
is of interest. If anyone can learn from it, it has particular value
if the individual is interested in learning from the mistakes of
others.
So, has my response been of any interest? ggg
Ol Shy & Bashful

Hilton wrote:

This accident is a 'local' one for us Bay Area pilots. The report sure
makes interesting reading.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...FA187& akey=1

Interesting that an instrument-rated pilot in an instrument-rated plane
instead of getting a "pop-up" IFR decided to scud-run through a mountain
pass shrouded in fog. Interesting that a CFI on board apparently assented
to this course. While an instrument flight plan certainly wouldn't have
prevented an in-flight fire, the MEA over that pass is 5500, which would
have given the pilot a lot more landing options.

I suppose it sounded like a good idea at the time.

"SelwayKid" wrote

Jim
If you read it, was it because you were interested to see what it
said?

Yep, read it all. I am always interested in learning something new, even if
from an accident report.

Or did you read it of prurient interest? In either case, it was
interesting reading! In my opinion, any accident that I can learn from
is of interest. If anyone can learn from it, it has particular value
if the individual is interested in learning from the mistakes of
others.

I did not think it was particularly interesting. I've see dozens of
similiar reports and articles written on reports. As I said, bad judgement,
no room for error, something goes wrong, and someone buys the farm. Change
one thing, and nobody ends up taking a dirt nap. Same old same old, not
interesting, imho.

So, has my response been of any interest? ggg
Ol Shy & Bashful

No, not particularly, but it didn't **** me off, either. It is what it is.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004

(No Such User) wrote in message ...
Interesting that an instrument-rated pilot in an instrument-rated plane
instead of getting a "pop-up" IFR decided to scud-run through a mountain
pass shrouded in fog. Interesting that a CFI on board apparently assented
to this course. While an instrument flight plan certainly wouldn't have
prevented an in-flight fire, the MEA over that pass is 5500, which would
have given the pilot a lot more landing options.

I suppose it sounded like a good idea at the time.

From the report :"About 1 minute prior to the accident, the passenger
noticed that there was fire and smoke coming from the left seat rudder
pedal area. The pilot tried to move away from the flames and keep the
airplane level. "

I don't see why everone is getting hung up about the low altitude.
It would seem to me that if you have enough fire and smoke in the
cockpit that the pilot is dodging flames, more altitude is not going
to help (unless the pilot is dressed in a Nomex suit). It's quite
possible that the lower altitude is what allowed the flight instructor
to survive at all.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)

John,

John Galban wrote:
From the report :"About 1 minute prior to the accident, the passenger
noticed that there was fire and smoke coming from the left seat rudder
pedal area. The pilot tried to move away from the flames and keep the
airplane level. "

I don't see why everone is getting hung up about the low altitude.
It would seem to me that if you have enough fire and smoke in the
cockpit that the pilot is dodging flames, more altitude is not going
to help (unless the pilot is dressed in a Nomex suit). It's quite
possible that the lower altitude is what allowed the flight instructor
to survive at all.

Well, this accident has a lot of 'interesting' things going on:

Altitude: These guys were seriously scud-running. It was overcast at 1200'
and these guys flew down 101 quite some distance at a few hundred feet, then
tried to get through the hills (I saw the radar plot). RHV was reporting
OVC 1100' (field at 113') and a resident 1 mile from the crash site reported
ground fog with a visibility of less 300'. The accident occured at 1402'
MSL.

The in-flight 'fire': "The pilot rated passenger reported that about 1
minute prior to the collision with terrain that there was smoke originating
from the pilots left rudder pedal area. The cabin quickly filled with smoke.
The ensuing fire after the ground impact destroyed the entire cockpit and
cabin. No evidence of an in flight internal cockpit fire was found. No rivet
shadowing, soot streaks, or molten metal tailings were identified on the
remaining external fuselage sections."

Engine power: "Both tips of the Hartzell propeller had a tip sections
fractured and separated. One blade exhibited chordwise striations on the tip
the other blade exhibited an s-curve bending of the trailing edge. The
spinner was crushed with a clockwise twist and clockwise striations. ...
The carburetor was found to be in full throttle and full mixture settings.
Upon disassembly the fuel screen had black carbon like debris deposited in
the interior. The float was present but thermally damaged. The throttle
valve was observed to be in the full open configuration." Consistent with
an in-flight fire? Seems more like using full power to climb through the
overcast.

IFR Clearence: "They were following Highway 152 and were prepared to call
for an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance if the visibility got worse."
They were really close to VFR weather and I'm sure they knew it. Merced 6
miles south was clear. Also, recall the resident's statement of 300'
viisibility and that they crashed at 1402' MSL and the bases were reported
at about 1200' MSL. How much worse could it get?

CFI Capacity: He was just a passenger for this flight? Yeah, I know it's
possible, legal, and perfect valid, but...

Aircraft Altitude and Configuration: "He could not recall the airplane's
flight altitude or configuration because he was not the one flying. " A
CFI, after scud-running about 30 miles or so - now in the hills, allegedly
about to pick up an IFR clearance doesn't know the aircraft's flight
altitude or configuration?

Well, as always, the final report will add more to the story, but after
reading hundreds of NTSB reports, this one sure got my attention, and it was
a 'local' accident so I know the area really well (RHV to Harris Ranch) -
saw the ground scar next to the reservoir. You also have to wonder why they
never picked up a simple IFR to VFR on top from RHV?

Hilton

On Mon, 15 Nov 2004 01:44:53 GMT, "Hilton"
wrote:

John,

John Galban wrote:
From the report :"About 1 minute prior to the accident, the passenger
noticed that there was fire and smoke coming from the left seat rudder
pedal area. The pilot tried to move away from the flames and keep the
airplane level. "

I don't see why everone is getting hung up about the low altitude.
It would seem to me that if you have enough fire and smoke in the
cockpit that the pilot is dodging flames, more altitude is not going
to help (unless the pilot is dressed in a Nomex suit). It's quite
possible that the lower altitude is what allowed the flight instructor
to survive at all.

Well, this accident has a lot of 'interesting' things going on:

Altitude: These guys were seriously scud-running. It was overcast at 1200'
and these guys flew down 101 quite some distance at a few hundred feet, then
tried to get through the hills (I saw the radar plot). RHV was reporting
OVC 1100' (field at 113') and a resident 1 mile from the crash site reported
ground fog with a visibility of less 300'. The accident occured at 1402'
MSL.

The in-flight 'fire': "The pilot rated passenger reported that about 1
minute prior to the collision with terrain that there was smoke originating
from the pilots left rudder pedal area. The cabin quickly filled with smoke.
The ensuing fire after the ground impact destroyed the entire cockpit and
cabin. No evidence of an in flight internal cockpit fire was found. No rivet
shadowing, soot streaks, or molten metal tailings were identified on the
remaining external fuselage sections."

Engine power: "Both tips of the Hartzell propeller had a tip sections
fractured and separated. One blade exhibited chordwise striations on the tip
the other blade exhibited an s-curve bending of the trailing edge. The
spinner was crushed with a clockwise twist and clockwise striations. ...
The carburetor was found to be in full throttle and full mixture settings.
Upon disassembly the fuel screen had black carbon like debris deposited in
the interior. The float was present but thermally damaged. The throttle
valve was observed to be in the full open configuration." Consistent with
an in-flight fire? Seems more like using full power to climb through the
overcast.

IFR Clearence: "They were following Highway 152 and were prepared to call
for an instrument flight rules (IFR) clearance if the visibility got worse."
They were really close to VFR weather and I'm sure they knew it. Merced 6
miles south was clear. Also, recall the resident's statement of 300'
viisibility and that they crashed at 1402' MSL and the bases were reported
at about 1200' MSL. How much worse could it get?

CFI Capacity: He was just a passenger for this flight? Yeah, I know it's
possible, legal, and perfect valid, but...

Aircraft Altitude and Configuration: "He could not recall the airplane's
flight altitude or configuration because he was not the one flying. " A
CFI, after scud-running about 30 miles or so - now in the hills, allegedly
about to pick up an IFR clearance doesn't know the aircraft's flight
altitude or configuration?

Well, as always, the final report will add more to the story, but after
reading hundreds of NTSB reports, this one sure got my attention, and it was
a 'local' accident so I know the area really well (RHV to Harris Ranch) -
saw the ground scar next to the reservoir. You also have to wonder why they
never picked up a simple IFR to VFR on top from RHV?

Hilton


At the risk of stooping to symbolism (puff of cigar smoke) 8^)

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=e...t%26rnum %3D9

To answer a long-ago posed question, a very good friend of mine was on
the accident investigation team.

Bela P. Havasreti