Socata 700 accident.....my personal friend died.

[spilok 1,134]

Here's a link to an accident that happened in New England on Friday night.The attorney, Peter Karoly, and his wife, Lauren, along with a young pilot were killed trying to land in bad weather in New Bedford, MA. He was a friend, a client of mine, and we talked about flying a great deal. We live in the Allentown, Pa area. Peter had 3 airplanes and several businesses. He enjoyed flying his own plane to his other businesses. I'll miss him a great deal.Seems runway lights, covered by vegetation, were not lit, and it was going to be taken care of, but as of Friday, it wasn't.Here's the link from a Boston newspaper.http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/...al_plane_crash/

[Guest B1900 Mech]

Very sorry to hear that Stan:-( I live and work at Hyannis,And have friends that fly out of KEWB. Does anyone know what the decision height would have been for the ILS 5 with approach lighting inop?

[Guest Accent]

700 MSL IIRC

[Geofa 108]

Sorry to hear of your loss Stan.I guess I have been lucky to not have known anyone to have had such a tragedy thru flying-though one of my pilot friends died from West Nile virus after being bit by a mosquito this year--and I've had quite a few go in car crashes.I hope it will not dampen your enthusiasm to learn to fly.Take care,Geofhttp://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[spilok 1,134]

Geofa,Of course it will not dampen my enthusiasm for flying. Something wierd must have happened. The lights being talked about were not really necessary for an ILS landing, but the plane came down 3 miles before the runway threshold. How does that happen? The pilot Peter hired was only 23 years old and got his Commercial license last year. I don't know if Peter was at the controls or the pilot he brought with him. I flew the flight from KBOS to KEWB several times today in RealWeather and with Foggy conditions. Since I didn't have the Socata, I used the Marchetti 260 and then I used the Lear. It was extremely do-able in simulation. Of course, you have to go around and come back to runway 5, but the flights were uneventful even with weather. But then again, so many circumstances could have occurred that I'm unaware of. I certainly hope they can piece together the last moments and the reality of what really happened.I appreciate you kind words.

[Guest squidie]

I

[spilok 1,134]

Ben,Thanks for the thoughts. Yes, I'm OK, but I will be better when I find out what really happened. Today's newspaper claims they will be able to give better details very soon about the accident, but we may really not know all the facts for perhaps one year.

[Geofa 108]

Lots of things can happen-it could be a pilot error-engine trouble-or very possibly ice which I would suspect. I personally don't think the lights would be responsible-sounds like the media just jumping on something they can. Stuff conspires sometimes despite your best intentions.I had one a few weeks ago. I had a great forecast from Sarasota to Mcminville, Tenn. While flying radar went out-no problem-was in the clear at 6000 with a 58 degree temp in the clear and just had to make position reports. As I got near Mcminville there was a broken layer about 1000 ft. below-tuning in the awos said a 800 ft. ceiling-not too concerned. Then atc called and asked if I was getting any ice as they were starting to get reports near that area? I looked at the outside air temp at 58 degrees-shrugged my shoulders and said no. Atc then descended us into the clouds below-just like that the temp dropped to 32 (bizzare!)and we had almost instantly a layer of clear ice. Meanwhile-since radar was out-had to fly the whole approach on my own (procedure turn) while flicking the deice boots on an off to try to take the ice off. When on final course the localizer (loc app.) started doing screwy stuff (maybe the ice?)-luckily I had the kln94 on a backup approach and a copilot to help with the workload. Anyway-broke out at about 600-finally broke the ice off, and made a landing in a 30 knot xwind. Was a handfull!Decided to spend the night there instead of heading home with those conditions-even though I new I'd be late/miss work the next day and possibly be in trouble.Left early the next morning in clear skies-got home and was only 45 minutes late for work. In the meantime-someone trying to come in to a Detroit area airport that night was killed landing short of the runway (ice) and a friend of a friend was killed that night in West Va. trying to land again in the same system with a load of ice.So my suspician would be ice-maybe picked up some on the approach-no deice equipment-then tried to go around-but really you have to wait till all the facts come in .By the way-my manager at my work congratulated my decision (he had heard about the other fatality on the news), was very happy I had not pushed my luck, and I was none the worse...http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

>Geofa,Of course it will not dampen my enthusiasm for flying. Something wierd must have happened. The lights being talked about were not really necessary for an ILS landing, but the plane came down 3 miles before the runway threshold. How does that happen? The pilot Peter hired was only 23 years old and got his Commercial license last year. I don't know if Peter was at the controls or the pilot he brought with him.

[michal 44]

Very sorry to hear that.It could simply have been a botched IFR approach (this '80 degrees' sounds ominous). After a go-around chances of a badly executed approach apparently go up tremendously since pilot(s) are extra nervous and prone to make more errors. Richard Collins of FLYING magazine advices in such circumstances to get out and go to a different airport rather than trying again but a waiting friend and a good dinner can be a factor that gets in a way of cool thinking.Michael J.

[Geofa 108]

Here is the accident report on the friend of a friend-sounds somewhat similar:Generally OTA does not report on accidents until the NTSB has issued its probable cause finding. However, there is enough information contained in the NTSB preliminary report of this Cessna 414 fatal accident to remind all IFR pilots of the risks of icing, particularly when on an instrument approach.The pilot, with a nurse onboard, departed the Morgantown, WV Airport just a couple of weeks ago (December 26). Their planned destination was the Teterboro Airport, NJ to pick up a patient. Enroute they encountered icing conditions. Below are extracts from the preliminary NTSB report.According to preliminary air traffic control information, the airplane was en route, at 7,000 feet, when the pilot advised Cleveland Center that she had encountered icing, and wanted to divert to Johnstown. At 1544:58, the center controller advised Johnstown Tower controllers that, "she's icing, she'll try and make an ILS and try to shed the ice and if she sheds it, she's gonna do a missed and come back off."The center controller then requested the weather conditions at Johnstown, which the tower controllers provided, including a temperature "right at freezing." After further coordination between tower and center controllers, the pilot was switched to the tower frequency. The picture provided by the preliminary NTSB report is clear. The pilot had encountered icing conditions and had decided to make an enroute precautionary landing at the Johnstown, PA Airport. The report does not reveal the severity of this icing, nor can we tell if she had considered climbing to a higher altitude to escape these conditions.At 1549:52, the pilot reported that the airplane was on the "ILS three three." The controller asked if she was going to execute a missed approach or a full stop landing. At 1550:04, the pilot replied, "It depends if my ice comes off or not...if the ice does not come off we're gonna land." At 1550:17, the tower controller replied, "Roger and keep me advised." The NTSB report suggests that all was going normally as the C-414 intercepted and proceeded down the ILS final approach course. It was not until she broke out at about 300' AGL that controllers observed that something was amiss. See the report extract below:According to the tower supervisor, who was then using binoculars, he saw the airplane break out of the clouds about 300 feet above the ground, right of course, approximately over Bravo taxiway. The airplane appeared to be turning slightly to the right and climbing, and all three controllers commented that they thought the airplane was executing a missed approach. "All of a sudden," the airplane made a rapid turn to the left, toward the runway, and "began dropping like a rock, just dropping." The supervisor saw that the landing gear was not down, and told the trainee (controller) to warn the pilot.At 1554:21, the controller radioed, "check wheels down."At 1554:23, when the airplane was "about 75-125 feet," the tower supervisor radioed, "go around, go around, go around." The supervisor then saw the airplane make a "hard" landing, about 2,000 feet beyond the approach end of the runway, on the left side, like a Navy carrier landing." He also saw a "puff of dust," and thought the airplane had landed half on and half off the runway. He then observed the airplane take off again, "almost perfectly; it flew straight ahead" for 2,000 to 3,000 feet, and the landing gear was then down. The airplane subsequently made a right turn, "like in a midfield, right closed pattern," but then made "a steep nose dive into the grass infield."Both the pilot and the nurse died in the crash.What went wrong?The controllers observed that the pilot arrived at the decision height (DH) somewhat right of the runway. She apparently tried to re-align herself for landing. Here's where things get a bit unclear. FAR 91.175 requires that we must be in a position from which a normal descent and landing can be made in order to descend below the decision height on an ILS. If not, as this case indicated, she should have executed a missed approach.The presence of airframe icing, however, often mitigates against a missed approach. The pilot may have decided in her mind that she had one and only one shot at landing and she was going to take it, regardless.In the midst of making this decision, there is evidence to suggest that she had failed to lower the gear in preparation for landing. The controllers observed her landing hard on the runway, then becoming airborne for a brief period before crashing nose down adjacent to the runway.Here is an extract of what the crash investigators discovered:According to the responder, he "proceeded to runway 33 and noticed a large amount of ice pieces, which started at the 2,000-foot mark and extended in a 'V' pattern approximately for 1,000 feet." He also noted that the ice pieces ranged in size from "long horizontal pieces, to golf ball and baseball sizes." In addition, he observed the left wing tip tank in two pieces in the grass, along with three belly antennas. The plot thickens . . .The presence of large amounts of ice pieces, some the size of baseballs for 1000' along the debris path suggests that the airplane was heavily loaded with airframe and wing ice as it descended down along the instrument approach.Did this explain the pilot's difficulty in tracking the localizer/glideslope to the runway? Could this have caused momentary confusion and oversight on the part of the pilot? You bet it could!Lessons to be learnedSeveral important lessons can be learned from this fatal accident. The first is, of course, the importance of a comprehensive pre-flight weather briefing before commencing any flight, particularly IFR flight in the winter.Second, should icing conditions be encountered, whether or not in a known-ice certified airplane, IMMEDIATE steps must be initiated to escape those conditions. Waiting for airframe ice to accumulate to any degree before executing "Plan B" adds considerably to the risk.Third, whenever carrying ice on an instrument approach, the pilot's concentration must not be diverted from the localizer/glideslope needles. He or she may have only one shot at the approach. A missed approach may NOT be an option. It must be done right the first time, period!http://mywebpages.comcast.net/geofa/pages/rxp-pilot.jpg

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

GeofIcing is a factor that can easely be incorporated or eliminated by the met and pilot reports.Transitioning from IMC to poor VMC is more likely to be a factor especially when the pilot is already stressed and disorientated.I can remember being inches off landing gear up making a home made approach into an airfield.I came down as far as I dared caught a glimpse of the airfield which I tried to hold. My scan went from the instruments and the other aircraft indications to 100% concentration on the end of the runway in the murk. The aircraft was a few hundred feet up.The aircraft ran back into cloud at maybe 300 feet agl. I told the pilot I was with that I was going around only to burst out of that patch of cloud and to have the runway in front of me.I changed plan and decided to land. Unknown to me the other pilot had taken the gear up trying to assist when I had announced the go around.As I flared my eyes moved to the three greens which were not illuminated and I hung in the flare trying to comprehend what I was now looking at.I hit full throttle waiting for the props to strike the tarmac and pitched the nose up.There was no strike and I got away with it. Distractions in that sort of situation can easely take your concentration away from the aircraft to being fixated on where you are trying to land. The TBM is known to be very unforgiving. A lot of torque can come on abruptly low and slow and there have been a mass of torque spin accidents with that aircraft.Only the accident report will tell us if its torque/spin or icing or a combination of those two factors or others which caused that tragic accident.CheersPeter

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Hey guys,Haven't posted in a while. Very sorry to hear about your friend.Looking at the pic in the news report and reading it; a couple of things strike me as odd.1. The report states the aircraft struck the ground at a near 80 degree nose down attitude yet the picture shows the aircraft mostly in tact and flat. That pic does not in any way show that type of crash. There would not be that much a/c in tact, even from a low altitude. What I see from the pic is a really hard almost flat type of landing/crash.Anyone who has ever been in the CAP and been on a SAR before or has seen that type of crash before knows the types of post impact crash scenes and what they look like.2. The report states that the actual ILS system was inop but appears to be mis-stated because they appear to be refering to the lighting in most of the report as their focus.We all know that lighting is actually more of a problem in low vis situations so having no lighting might have actually helped them as long as the edge lighting was still on. Approach lighting can actually be blinding to a pilot even on clear nights. I've often times asked for ATC to turn down or off the approach lighting whn on short final just so I could see better the runway threshold....I'm wondering given the fact that the a/c crashed short at 3 miles if the altimiter was incorrectly set for the field conditions or if the pilot simply didn't make the correct transition from IMC to VMC when he broke out. At 3 miles though it seems a little far out.

[Guest Peter Sidoli]

Jeff NThat makes two of us who havent posted around here for some time :-)>1. The report states the aircraft struck the ground at a near 80 degree nose down attitude yet the picture shows the aircraft mostly in tact and flat. That pic does not in any way show that type of crash. There would not be that much a/c in tact, even from a low altitude.

[Jeff Nielsen 1,386]

Hey Peter,Long time no hear...hehe. Still flying CJ's? I remember you always had really good pics.Yeah, not to discount what you're saying either. I assume you're talking about a flat spin possibly? It just seems kind of weird that even in a traditional spin the cockpit section would have broken off where it did when looking at the pic.I wonder if the direction of the aircraft after the crash was still towards the runway assuming he was still on the extended centerline in that pic?Alot of stuff we still don't really know and tring to go off what the paper was printing we could really be totally off base.Glad to see you're still kicking the dust up! haha. :-)Take care!