Canadian plane crashes in Nashville killing 5

[Admiral Beez]

5 Canadians killed in fiery small-plane crash in Nashville | CBC News

Investigators in Tennessee have confirmed five Canadians, including two adults and three children, are dead after the single-engine plane they were travelling in crashed near downtown Nashville Monday evening.

www.cbc.ca

How many times does this have to happen? Some business executive or John-John celebrity has dreams of flying themselves and their family or friends around, so gets their license and then with minimal experience puts themselves and their trusting passengers into often fatal crashes. Unless my partner/friend is a commercial, military and/or well-experienced IFR/IMC pilot who fully understands their aircraft and its particular systems and is well versed in its EAC/QRH and emergency procedures, I'm not getting into your plane. And, if I was a beginner VRF pilot there's no way I would put my family or anyone else at risk as I accumulate hours - other people are not your crash test dummies.

Look at this guy, with less than a year's solo flying experience he puts his family into an aircraft and through either action or inaction kills the lot. I wouldn't let someone with a full driver's license, yet limited driving experience take me across the city in their car, forget boarding a similarly-piloted aircraft.

 

[Sabrejet]

Five people died; show some respect.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

And, if I was a beginner VRF pilot there's no way I would put my family or anyone else at risk as I accumulate hours - other people are not your crash test dummies.

I don't understand this. Are VFR pilots inherently unsafe? I'm a VFR pilot. My family and friends are certainly not test dummies, and I can assure you they are not in danger when flying with me.

 

[Admiral Beez]

Five people died; show some respect.

Respect is earned, you don't get that from needlessly dying. But compassion I have aplenty, which was my feeling when I first saw this article, followed by, not again, another low-hours rich guy smoking his family.

I don't understand this. Are VFR pilots inherently unsafe? I'm a VFR pilot. My family and friends are certainly not test dummies, and I can assure you they are not in danger when flying with me.

I'm not a pilot, so I have no expert opinion other than to hope that anyone who puts their family at risk as they peruse any aspiration of flying, operates within their abilities and skills. I assume you're solid.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Respect is earned, you don't get that from needlessly dying. But compassion I have aplenty, which was my feeling when I first saw this article, followed by, not again, another low-hours rich guy smoking his family.

I'm not a pilot, so I have no expert opinion other than to hope that anyone who puts their family at risk as they peruse any aspiration of flying, operates within their abilities and skills. I assume you're solid.

Huh? Thats exactly what you are doing. Making assumption based opinions not based on any facts. You are assuming that he put his family in danger. How do you know he was flying unsafe?

Where in the article did it say he was at fault or he was flying risky and unsafe? How do you know he was not operating within his abilities?

 

[Sabrejet]

Respect is earned, you don't get that from needlessly dying.

Consideration, it seems, comes from good parenting.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Same with the first article. Where in the first article does it say the Canadian pilot was even at fault? The accident just happened. The investigation has not even fully started.

 

[special ed]

If I, as a low time VFR pilot, fly by myself for 100,200, 500 hours, am I not still endangering those on the ground, those in the pattern while building time to satisfy some unknown number of hours of yours?

Respect is earned, you don't get that from needlessly dying. But compassion I have aplenty, which was my feeling when I first saw this article, followed by, not again, another low-hours rich guy smoking his family.

I'm not a pilot, so I have no expert opinion other than to hope that anyone who puts their family at risk as they peruse any aspiration of flying, operates within their abilities and skills. I assume you're solid.

 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Engine failures don't give a shit about your logbook.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

Engine failures don't give a shit about your logbook.

Thats the thing, nobody knows at this point what caused it. It could be pilot error (poor planning, ran out of gas). It could have been mechanical failure. It could have been maintenance error. Who knows?

So I don't get the hate for non-professional pilots (I refuse to say inexperienced or low time because we don't know their experience or hours), or why we equate them to being risky people endangering others like test dummies while they simply play with their toys.

 

[rrmerlin60]

I can see this from both sides. But first, I'll state that I'm no aviation expert, nor do I know what actually happened in this latest crash. I just see it as a tragedy.

I recall in about 1986-87, I was training on Ultralights in the London Canada area, and absolutely loved it. I couldn't wait to share the thrill of flying with others. Of course I did the one bad thing that low-timers often do; on two occasions, I took a passenger up with me in the 2 seat RX 550 Spectrum Beaver. One Dutch girl whose name is long since out of my memory, and my sister, both brief hops near the airfield. Don't worry, I remember her name.

There was a semi significant crosswind when I brought my sister and I into land. Since it was just a grass field, I had the option of just pointing it into the wind, and ignoring what everyone else understood to be the actual runway. Basic landing in both cases, without incident.

But was that smart ? No ! Talk about low-timer. I may have had a total of 50 hours on single and 2 seat Beavers. What separates me from the kind of incident report that we're discussing here ? Luck, and maybe the concept of a very brief flight. Did I mention luck? I never felt in danger during those two flights, but then, the PIC seldom does until it's really obvious.

In conclusion, I feel for the whole family, and I have some feeling for what may possibly have driven him.

Tom Kay.

 

[Brent]

Respect is earned, you don't get that from needlessly dying. But compassion I have aplenty, which was my feeling when I first saw this article, followed by, not again, another low-hours rich guy smoking his family.

I'm not a pilot, so I have no expert opinion other than to hope that anyone who puts their family at risk as they peruse any aspiration of flying, operates within their abilities and skills. I assume you're solid.

If you are not a pilot how can honestly have an informed opinion about something of which you lack knowledge or experience. Too much talk like this on the net already. I intend no disrespect by my comments, just my opinion as a licensed pilot

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I can see this from both sides. But first, I'll state that I'm no aviation expert, nor do I know what actually happened in this latest crash. I just see it as a tragedy.

I recall in about 1986-87, I was training on Ultralights in the London Canada area, and absolutely loved it. I couldn't wait to share the thrill of flying with others. Of course I did the one bad thing that low-timers often do; on two occasions, I took a passenger up with me in the 2 seat RX 550 Spectrum Beaver. One Dutch girl whose name is long since out of my memory, and my sister, both brief hops near the airfield. Don't worry, I remember her name.

There was a semi significant crosswind when I brought my sister and I into land. Since it was just a grass field, I had the option of just pointing it into the wind, and ignoring what everyone else understood to be the actual runway. Basic landing in both cases, without incident.

But was that smart ? No ! Talk about low-timer. I may have had a total of 50 hours on single and 2 seat Beavers. What separates me from the kind of incident report that we're discussing here ? Luck, and maybe the concept of a very brief flight. Did I mention luck? I never felt in danger during those two flights, but then, the PIC seldom does until it's really obvious.

In conclusion, I feel for the whole family, and I have some feeling for what may possibly have driven him.

Tom Kay.

Thats normal. After I passed my exam, I took my wife up. Took friends up.

Point is simply this, just because someone is a low timer (and we don't know either of these were) does not mean they are going to be unsafe. Anyone can make bad judgment and decisions.

When you complete your training for day/night single engine aircraft, the FAA has deemed you safe and proficient enough to operate an aircraft safely.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

A Admiral Beez

Please understand I am not upset at all here. You are obviously entitled to your opinion on this matter.

I just don't understand where the private pilot hate is coming from, or what the end game is.

I'll ask some questions.

1. What is the point of a PPL if you are not going to use it, and that includes flying friends and family?
2. What is the point of a pilot exam if getting a pilot certificate does not deem you safe and proficient enough to fly passengers?
3. When/how many hours are you safe and proficient enough?
4. Where do we draw the line, and by that I mean, boating, driving cars, etc? All of them require some form of training and certification, right?

 

[pbehn]

From what is written in the link there was clearly a problem with the plane.

 

[Skyediamonds]

Gentlemen:

Admiral & fellow members. I have lots of flying time in the PA-32, which is a Saratoga ( has conventional tail ) both normally aspirated & turbocharged. I admit I've never flown the Lance (has a T-tail) which is the accident in this discussion. However, the Lance is still classified as a PA-32 & in essence a T-tailed version of the Saratoga.

I tend to agree with most of our fellow members here in this forum, that pilots generally receive safe operating training in piloting their aircraft. Just as irresponsible drivers who drive under the influence, this training is only as good as the person willing to follow safety protocols & continue to improve their knowledge & skills.

Without speculation as to the cause of this tragic accident, I'll just comment that if properly maintained, these aircraft are great flying machines. They have safety features such as manually operated flaps (we call them "Johnson Bars) & landing gear retraction switches that won't retract if there's weight on the aircraft or below flying at a certain speed. I could go on but if theres just one short coming, without power it glides like a brick.

It's known so far, that the pilot just took off & is still at low altitudes & climbing. So regardless of experience, his options combined with my previously mentioned statement about its low glide ratio, were quite limited in that state.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

A Admiral Beez I'm honestly interested in your thoughts to my questions above.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

I guess not…

 

[Skyediamonds]

I guess not…

DerAdlerdG:

I'll be happy to respond. I didn't reply to the questions you posed because I already have a brief description of the PA-32 & I figured I said my piece & just step aside for others to respond.

The short answer to questions 1 & 2 is safety.

The early years of flying have resulted in numerous crashes such that a person trying to fly pose more of a safety risk to themselves & others than taking for granted that they have mastered the intricacies of flight.

During that era, the engines were far from reliable & often prone to breaking down in flight under the best of circumstances & literally exploding under the worst.

The airframes were basically wooden frames covered with cloth & held together with glued & wires.

As a result from public outcry, the govt stepped in & started the certification process that has carried on today.

However, we do have what is called "Sports Pilot License" where no certification is required. However, there are numerous restrictions that come with such licenses such as not being allowed to carry passengers for example.

The short answer to your last remaining questions were pretty much arbitrary from experience or accidents or both. Usually the fine line is determined by CFI's ( Certified Flight Instructors ) who from years of experience have taken an average number of hours to declare their students/pilots safe to fly.

I was ready to take my pilot exam after only 10 hours. But that was because up to that point, as an avid aviation enthusiast, I flying in my mind for all of 30 of my ( then ) 35 years. I knew how to fly from reading book, journals pilot operating handbooks ( Internet didn't exist back then) & pretending to manipulate the controls of a wide variety of planes from Cessnas to the P-51 ( I wish).

I flew very successfully (& safely) for 35 years before retiring due to medical issues.

The average "Joe" doesn't fall into that category. In fact, statistics have repeatedly shown the most ill-equipped persons learning how to fly are doctors, lawyers or persons of wealth. They earn big bucks to allow them to ( think that they can ) fly more complex high performance aircraft that are way beyond their skill levels.

John F Kennedy Jr. is ( unfortunately ) a good example. He was flying -of all aircraft- a Piper PA-32 Saratoga. Despite taking lessons & getting his pilot's license & he went off and purchased a complex high performance aircraft (Saratoga). Yes he was taking lessons from his designated instructor to be certified to fly such an aircraft but he needed to be signed off showing he was deemed safe to fly. Unfortunately, as we all know, he was flying that plane without getting signed off by his CFI. We can draw our own conclusions from this example.

Obviously other factors come into play such as flying into marginal weather.

In summary: in effort to minimize self-inflicted hazards, everyone has played a role in shaping the certification standards we have today. Doesn't guarantee that their won't be unfortunate incidences but hopefully it'll serve to deter such events

Hope all this helps.

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

DerAdlerdG:

I'll be happy to respond. I didn't reply to the questions you posed because I already have a brief description of the PA-32 & I figured I said my piece & just step aside for others to respond.

The short answer to questions 1 & 2 is safety.

The early years of flying have resulted in numerous crashes such that a person trying to fly pose more of a safety risk to themselves & others than taking for granted that they have mastered the intricacies of flight.

During that era, the engines were far from reliable & often prone to breaking down in flight under the best of circumstances & literally exploding under the worst.

The airframes were basically wooden frames covered with cloth & held together with glued & wires.

As a result from public outcry, the govt stepped in & started the certification process that has carried on today.

However, we do have what is called "Sports Pilot License" where no certification is required. However, there are numerous restrictions that come with such licenses such as not being allowed to carry passengers for example.

The short answer to your last remaining questions were pretty much arbitrary from experience or accidents or both. Usually the fine line is determined by CFI's ( Certified Flight Instructors ) who from years of experience have taken an average number of hours to declare their students/pilots safe to fly.

I was ready to take my pilot exam after only 10 hours. But that was because up to that point, as an avid aviation enthusiast, I flying in my mind for all of 30 of my ( then ) 35 years. I knew how to fly from reading book, journals pilot operating handbooks ( Internet didn't exist back then) & pretending to manipulate the controls of a wide variety of planes from Cessnas to the P-51 ( I wish).

I flew very successfully (& safely) for 35 years before retiring due to medical issues.

The average "Joe" doesn't fall into that category. In fact, statistics have repeatedly shown the most ill-equipped persons learning how to fly are doctors, lawyers or persons of wealth. They earn big bucks to allow them to ( think that they can ) fly more complex high performance aircraft that are way beyond their skill levels.

John F Kennedy Jr. is ( unfortunately ) a good example. He was flying -of all aircraft- a Piper PA-32 Saratoga. Despite taking lessons & getting his pilot's license & he went off and purchased a complex high performance aircraft (Saratoga). Yes he was taking lessons from his designated instructor to be certified to fly such an aircraft but he needed to be signed off showing he was deemed safe to fly. Unfortunately, as we all know, he was flying that plane without getting signed off by his CFI. We can draw our own conclusions from this example.

Obviously other factors come into play such as flying into marginal weather.

In summary: in effort to minimize self-inflicted hazards, everyone has played a role in shaping the certification standards we have today. Doesn't guarantee that their won't be unfortunate incidences but hopefully it'll serve to deter such events

Hope all this helps.

I'm a private pilot myself. I'm specifically interested in the Admirals thoughts…