How about the more modern day crashes ?

[mikewint]

That's really wild Dave. We're on a ridge overlooking the lake and we are at 820 MSL at the very front and about 800 on the back patio.
The lake is presently at 657 MSL and can get as high as 695 during the monsoon season. The dam is hydroelectric and as such water release depends on power demands. I've seen the lake rise as much as a foot an hour (it's 85 miles long and 4 others are connected to it and were at the bottom of the pile).

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Altitude is not as simple a concept as it might seem when dealing with aircraft.

No concept related to flight is as simple as it seems! Altitude, airspeed, lift, drag, thrust, weight, heading, course, distance; you name it, they're all dynamically varying all the time.

OK - a few things - an instrument rating is very hard to get.

If you find an instrument rating hard to get, your primary instructor didn't do his/her job right. You need to help your student walk bravely into their "discomfort zone" again and again and come back a hero. They need to be comfortable under the hood and confident in unusual attitude recoveries before they go for their checkride. They also need to be reasonably proficient at precision flight, as that is both the biggest stumbling block in instrument training, and one of the biggest confidence builders in primary training.
The average private pilot will go through one or two Biennial Flight Reviews before tackling the instrument rating, which gives the instructor a couple of opportunities to banish any complacencies that have set in and polish the pilot's precision flying

The pilot has to decide "who" to believe, his instruments or his senses.
John Kennedy Jr. was caught in this same dilemma. A heavy haze and a featureless sea, absolutely no visual clues

The same happened to me when I was a 150 hour private pilot in an ancient T-34 with tired, badly precessing gyros flying over the Gulf of Mexico on a hazy moonless night. I flew into an unseen cloud and quickly became disoriented by the lack of horizon and the dizzying reflection of my rotating beacon on the surrounding cloud. I tried to fly the gages, but was misled by my rapidly precessing gyro instruments. I wound up in the classic graveyard spiral, totally panicked and befuddled as to what was happening. I knew I was losing altitude fast, but was otherwise clueless. I came out of the bottom of the clouds at about a thousand MSL in a steep spiral dive, pulled almost 7Gs, and saw the reflection of my nav lights in the black water. I don't know exactly how close I came to splashing, but it was CLOSE! I was lucky to be flying an acro-tank of a plane. If I'd been flying JFK Jr's Saratoga, it would have been terminal.
We used to have at least one accident a year of experienced IFR pilots from up north that would auger into the drink on a hazy night because they didn't have an IFR mindset in "VFR conditions".
Cheers,
Wes

 

[FLYBOYJ]

If you find an instrument rating hard to get, your primary instructor didn't do his/her job right.

Sorry Wes, but I totally disagree. My instructor was excellent. It is well known that between the written and practical exams plus the training, an instrument rating is the most difficult rating to attain. I also think you'll find that the instrument written has the highest fail rate out of all FAA written exams.

 

[mikewint]

Even with no direct knowledge or experience I have to totally agree 110% with Joe. Zooming through space at +100mph with no visibility whatsoever putting your very life in the hands of electronics that could and do malfunction while your senses are telling you something totally different has to be EXTREMELY difficult to say the very least and scary as hell

 

[GrauGeist]

If anyone's ever suddenly driven into a fogbank or snowsquall at night, at highway speeds, that's just a fraction of what's going on under night-time moonless/adverse IFR conditions.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

It is well known that between the written and practical exams plus the training, an instrument rating is the most difficult rating to attain.

What'll it be? Pistols at 20 paces, or would you prefer boarding sabers? How about with left arm tied back? My seconds will contact yours to settle on the grounds.
Seriously, the ATP beats the Instrument Rating hands down. Especially if you do it out of a FAR 141 program, as I did. The reason that Instruments beats ATP statistically for failures is because until recently most ATPs came out of airline or academic training programs, whereas Instruments came from "out in the field", where the resources are scarcer and less consistent.
I think you'll find those statistics changing, now that air carrier applicants have to show up with a Multi-engine ATP in hand. They don't get all that air carrier right seat time before they show up for their ATP ride which WAS typically also their captain upgrade ride.
My friend Kathleen had no use for the "new" system which resulted in right seaters in her jet with "theoretical" ATPs and no hard experience. 800-1000 hours of instructing in a "semen-hole" in Florida or Arizona is no preparation for hopping into the right seat of a 70 or 90 passenger jet. Typically these folks had only seen the inside of a cloud once or twice in their life, and icing, what's that? She said "Give me a freight dog who's flown a twin Beech, a MU2, or a Bandit single pilot in the north country for a couple years, any day!"
It's been my experience that most instructors, especially in flat country, are so busy emphasizing a good visual outlook that they tend to not develop student's instrument skills enough. Here in the north country, that doesn't work. I've encountered way too many flatlander pilots while giving BFRs who couldn't do a 180 out of the clouds or an unusual attitude recovery under the hood. In fact they reacted to the hood like it was a rattlesnake. That's a good way to get yourself killed around here. My students didn't get recommended for the Private checkride until they could confidently and precisely fly under the hood, including with partial panel. And so far none of them has flown into a cloud full of rocks.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[FLYBOYJ]

What'll it be? Pistols at 20 paces, or would you prefer boarding sabers? How about with left arm tied back? My seconds will contact yours to settle on the grounds.
Seriously, the ATP beats the Instrument Rating hands down. Especially if you do it out of a FAR 141 program, as I did. The reason that Instruments beats ATP statistically for failures is because until recently most ATPs came out of airline or academic training programs, whereas Instruments came from "out in the field", where the resources are scarcer and less consistent.
I think you'll find those statistics changing, now that air carrier applicants have to show up with a Multi-engine ATP in hand. They don't get all that air carrier right seat time before they show up for their ATP ride which WAS typically also their captain upgrade ride.
My friend Kathleen had no use for the "new" system which resulted in right seaters in her jet with "theoretical" ATPs and no hard experience. 800-1000 hours of instructing in a "semen-hole" in Florida or Arizona is no preparation for hopping into the right seat of a 70 or 90 passenger jet. Typically these folks had only seen the inside of a cloud once or twice in their life, and icing, what's that? She said "Give me a freight dog who's flown a twin Beech, a MU2, or a Bandit single pilot in the north country for a couple years, any day!"
It's been my experience that most instructors, especially in flat country, are so busy emphasizing a good visual outlook that they tend to not develop student's instrument skills enough. Here in the north country, that doesn't work. I've encountered way too many flatlander pilots while giving BFRs who couldn't do a 180 out of the clouds or an unusual attitude recovery under the hood. In fact they reacted to the hood like it was a rattlesnake. That's a good way to get yourself killed around here. My students didn't get recommended for the Private checkride until they could confidently and precisely fly under the hood, including with partial panel. And so far none of them has flown into a cloud full of rocks.
Cheers,
Wes

Boarding Sabers!!!!!!

The latest data I could find...

https://www.faa.gov/data_research/a...a/2014/annual/2014_Airmen_Knowledge_Tests.pdf


The 135 ATP score is a hair lower than the instrument but compare the numbers that take the ATP test

2014 Airmen Knowledge Tests
Total Volume - 129,204

Volume Pass Rate Average Score

Air Transport Pilot Airplane (14 CFR part 121)
25,610 92.67% 85.56

Air Transport Pilot Airplane (14 CFR part 135)
1,644 86.86% 79.75

Commercial Pilot Airplane
8,322 96.60% 86.87

Private Pilot Airplane
25,460 89.64% 82.49

Sport Pilot Airplane
567 95.24% 85.83

Instrument Rating Airplane
12,207 87.13% 80.66

Flight Instructor Airplane
3,674 92.05% 84.46

Flight Instructor Instrument Airplane
2,909 97.80% 89.53

I still think its more difficult to teach someone to hold headings, maintain altitude control and fly arcs, especially if they are low time private pilots than it is more advanced ratings.

 

[XBe02Drvr]

I still think its more difficult to teach someone to hold headings, maintain altitude control and fly arcs, especially if they are low time private pilots than it is more advanced ratings.

Interesting stats, but they don't reflect the "new regime". Wait'll you see 2016-17.
Teaching precision comes from emphasizing aircraft performance values. Once they were reasonably adept at herding the airplane in the desired direction and altitude and we were reasonably comfortable with maneuvering we would pick a nice calm day and go play "test pilot". We would establish and hold various descent or climb rates on assigned headings or at specific turn rates and when the student got it adjusted to the desired values he/she would call out the parameters and I would write them on a "flight test card". From then on the student would brief me on every climb, descent, turn, transition, etc, with what speed, power, descent/climb rate they would use, then grade themselves on how well they did, and offer any observations on what made the plane perform differently than they expected. For some students this was just "too much work", but most took it as a challenge and developed pride in their skill. For those who found it oppressive, there were always other instructors available.
Teaching these pilots instruments later on was a breeze, as they had developed and practiced the habit of precision flight all along. Learning procedures and techniques is easy if you have a bedrock of precision flying skills to build on.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[FLYBOYJ]

Interesting stats, but they don't reflect the "new regime". Wait'll you see 2016-17.
Teaching precision comes from emphasizing aircraft performance values. Once they were reasonably adept at herding the airplane in the desired direction and altitude and we were reasonably comfortable with maneuvering we would pick a nice calm day and go play "test pilot". We would establish and hold various descent or climb rates on assigned headings or at specific turn rates and when the student got it adjusted to the desired values he/she would call out the parameters and I would write them on a "flight test card". From then on the student would brief me on every climb, descent, turn, transition, etc, with what speed, power, descent/climb rate they would use, then grade themselves on how well they did, and offer any observations on what made the plane perform differently than they expected. For some students this was just "too much work", but most took it as a challenge and developed pride in their skill. For those who found it oppressive, there were always other instructors available.
Teaching these pilots instruments later on was a breeze, as they had developed and practiced the habit of precision flight all along. Learning procedures and techniques is easy if you have a bedrock of precision flying skills to build on.
Cheers,
Wes

Great technique! But not to rain on the parade, you point out how this was too much of a workload for some students. That's the workload I'm talking about that makes getting an instrument rating difficult. Combine that with a difficult written where you have to choose the "most correct answer" and I think the stats show the accuracy. BTW, look at the scores of A&Ps

 

[XBe02Drvr]

you point out how this was too much of a workload for some students. That's the workload I'm talking about that makes getting an instrument rating difficult.

Some students "just want to have fun in the sky", without being interested in polishing their skills or pursuing excellence. Such pilots shouldn't (in my mind) aspire to be professional pilots. I got to be pretty good at inspiring students to pursue excellence, and we made a fun game of it. Most of them didn't find the workouts to be onerous, and developed pride in their achievements. Those with "lazy intellects" who didn't want to put out the effort, I didn't see as likely to make good instrument pilots. I know, I was one. It wasn't until I became an instructor and had to develop some self discipline, that I began to see the light. I decided I needed to be a better instructor than mine had been.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[PWR4360-59B]

Latest modern day crash, the stolen joy ride airplane from seatac airport. The guy did some great aerobatics with no experience. I thought it was Bob Hoover flying that thing.

 

[Zipper730]

Latest modern day crash, the stolen joy ride airplane from seatac airport. The guy did some great aerobatics with no experience. I thought it was Bob Hoover flying that thing.

The pilot live?

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

The pilot live?

Have you watched the news? He crashed the plane on an island.

 

[Zipper730]

Have you watched the news? He crashed the plane on an island.

Yeah I found out later

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Have you watched the news? He crashed the plane on an island.

One of the audio recordings had him mumbling something about losing an engine right at the end. I'm speculating that he lost control at that point and augered in. If he hadn't adhered strictly to the checklist, he may not have armed the autofeather, which would have resulted in a windmilling prop and a sharp yaw induced roll into the dead engine. Once started, this excursion is nearly impossible to stop. Betcha he didn't practice engine-out scenarios when he was playing on his computer sim.
Cheers,
Wes

 

[DerAdlerIstGelandet]

One of the audio recordings had him mumbling something about losing an engine right at the end. I'm speculating that he lost control at that point and augered in. If he hadn't adhered strictly to the checklist, he may not have armed the autofeather, which would have resulted in a windmilling prop and a sharp yaw induced roll into the dead engine. Once started, this excursion is nearly impossible to stop. Betcha he didn't practice engine-out scenarios when he was playing on his computer sim.
Cheers,
Wes

Just speculation, but what about fuel exhaustion? How much fuel did he have before takeoff?

 

[GrauGeist]

Just speculation, but what about fuel exhaustion? How much fuel did he have before takeoff?

Don't recall the exact amount, but in the traffic between Junior and ATC, it was mentioned that the fuel level was very low.

 

[pbehn]

Guys, in an airplane incident or crash being investigated to what extent does no blame culture apply. If the pilot or other does something wrong but there are reasons for him/her doing it wrong what happens?

 

[XBe02Drvr]

Guys, in an airplane incident or crash being investigated to what extent does no blame culture apply. If the pilot or other does something wrong but there are reasons for him/her doing it wrong what happens?

In an ideal world "no blame" culture would be universal except in cases of deliberate malice or wilful negligence. OTOH, in much of the world,
any involvement, no matter how periferral, in an aircraft accident is a criminal act.
Our reality lies somewhere in between. The value of "no blame" is of course the free flow of information to help prevent more accidents, and is rooted in the concept that "blame" lies mostly in external circumstances and personnel are uniformly conscientious. To that effect we have the NASA ASRS safety reporting system in which people who observe, experience, or perpetrate unsafe events or circumstances can be absolved of "blame" if they report them promptly to the NASA safety database.
More authoritarian societies around the world tend to favor the punitive approach, reasoning that the system itself is infallible and that human error can be deterred by severe penalties.
Which world would you rather live in?
I'm reminded of an episode in the novel "Rat Race" by Britain's notorious jockey/pilot/author in which a charter pilot is penalized by the Transport Ministry for violating a ceiling regulation during a dramatic aerial rescue that the press touts as heroic.
Here in the US, very few accidents occur without some level of pilot error involved, even if external circumstances played the major role. Consequently, even if the FAA doesn't elect to pursue a violation action, the tort law system will go after everyone within firing range in pursuit of damages. A one word deviation from the prescribed phraseology in an emergency is all it takes for a smart lawyer to establish culpability in the minds of a jury. That can cost an airline additional millions.
Answer your question?
Cheers,
Wes

 

[pbehn]

In an ideal world "no blame" culture would be universal except in cases of deliberate malice or wilful negligence. OTOH, in much of the world,
any involvement, no matter how periferral, in an aircraft accident is a criminal act.
Our reality lies somewhere in between. The value of "no blame" is of course the free flow of information to help prevent more accidents, and is rooted in the concept that "blame" lies mostly in external circumstances and personnel are uniformly conscientious. To that effect we have the NASA ASRS safety reporting system in which people who observe, experience, or perpetrate unsafe events or circumstances can be absolved of "blame" if they report them promptly to the NASA safety database.
More authoritarian societies around the world tend to favor the punitive approach, reasoning that the system itself is infallible and that human error can be deterred by severe penalties.
Which world would you rather live in?
I'm reminded of an episode in the novel "Rat Race" by Britain's notorious jockey/pilot/author in which a charter pilot is penalized by the Transport Ministry for violating a ceiling regulation during a dramatic aerial rescue that the press touts as heroic.
Here in the US, very few accidents occur without some level of pilot error involved, even if external circumstances played the major role. Consequently, even if the FAA doesn't elect to pursue a violation action, the tort law system will go after everyone within firing range in pursuit of damages. A one word deviation from the prescribed phraseology in an emergency is all it takes for a smart lawyer to establish culpability in the minds of a jury. That can cost an airline additional millions.
Answer your question?
Cheers,
Wes

Yes thanks XBe, I was asking with reference to a recent medical court case in UK, I just wondered how it worked in aviation, very similar.