Paul_Sherry

A ‘call to vigilance’ is the same as saying ‘just try harder’. What a pointless suggestion….as if anyone would, as part of their normal day, would make a choice to positively put an aircraft (or two) into a situation where a collision might occur……

Another way to say this is if people don’t ‘try harder’ then we can now blame the individual person rather than look at whole system safety.

Professor Sidney Dekker, author of The Field Guide to Understanding Human Error (the best ‘simple to understand’ book on this subject which I have found) has some great short videos on this. Look them up on YouTube.

He gives a very cogent explanation of why the ‘just try harder’ message is an abrogation of management responsibility. It’s quicker, easier, cheaper and much less painful for the organisation to blame the poor person in the hot seat @ the time an incident.

As humans we are going to make mistakes. But nobody comes to work to do a bad job (excluding deliberate sabotage - which is a completely different discussion) so the trick is to ask the why - why the mistake happened - rather than the who….

2 replies

roganderson60

At ORD once, ATC, I mentioned that the traffic was about to over run my ability at that moment. I was told this wise counseling, “if you get behind, work faster!” Actually, yep. (But I’m counting on Bot Gpt to soon monitor all my actions). In fact I just now asked Bot how fast do I need to descend from 11 miles out at 7000’. Then I added at 150kts. In ten seconds I had this. I’m tossing my E6B.
If you are flying at a speed of 150 knots during the approach, it will affect the rate of descent required to maintain the glide slope angle.

The rate of descent required to maintain a 3-degree glide slope is calculated using the following formula:

Descent Rate = (Distance to runway x Tan(Glide Slope Angle)) + (Altitude Above Field / 3)

Assuming the same values as before (11 miles from the runway and 7,000 feet altitude), we get:

Descent Rate = (11 x Tan(3)) + (7000 / 3)
Descent Rate = (11 x 0.0524) + 2333.33
Descent Rate = 2333.85 feet per minute (rounded to the nearest hundredth)

However, at a speed of 150 knots, your ground speed will be higher, which means you will cover the same distance to the runway in less time. This means that you will need to increase your descent rate to maintain the 3-degree glide slope. The exact increase in descent rate will depend on your ground speed, but as a rough estimate, you could increase the descent rate by around 5-10% per 10 knots of airspeed increase.

So, at 150 knots airspeed, you might need to descend at a rate of around 2500 feet per minute to maintain the 3-degree glide slope. However, it’s important to follow your aircraft’s published approach and landing procedures and to adjust your descent rate as necessary based on airspeed and other factors.
Crazy stuff.

1 reply

lbeare

Agreed. And “The absence of a fatality or an accident does not mean the presence of safety.” I must have missed something. It kinda does, at least to my 20th century head. I think what she meant was that “…does not mean the absence of danger.” (I am reminded of the traffic safety sign person who told me I couldn’t drive in the lane in which her eyes could clearly see I was driving.) Maybe that’s just semantics but when we use language to communicate semantics are important, plus that sort of statement makes it seem that someone would rather say something that sounds good than actually say something that triggers improvement. Can we really afford that mentality in aviation?

J_Earnie

If you think that a 2500 fpm rate of descent is required to maintain a 3º glide slope at 150 knots, you might want to hang on to that E6B (or memorize a basic rule of thumb).

Won’t be too long until most humans are helpless drones, dependent upon AI to think for them. Chat GPT will be quoted a source material for every cause of every nutty group in existence. Aviation, especially recreational flying, might not fare well.

1 reply

roganderson60

I just gave GPT you second paragraph to consider. Notice it refers to itself in providing thought as it being human. “us as humans and we use it”. Crazy.

As for aviation, AI has already had a significant impact on the industry, particularly in the areas of safety and efficiency. However, recreational flying and other human-driven activities may not necessarily become obsolete because of AI. While AI may be able to assist in certain aspects of these activities, there will always be a demand for human pilots and other skilled professionals who can navigate complex situations and make judgment calls based on their experience and knowledge.

Overall, while AI is transforming our world in many ways, it is important to remember that it is just a tool, and it is up to us as humans to determine how we use it and what role it plays in our lives.

1 reply

flier1998

My simple MENTAL MATH, 150 kts. is 2.5 nm per minute, thus 11 miles will take 4.4 minutes,
descent rate required is 7000/4.4 (round to 5 for simplicity) equals 1400 fpm.

My Instructor beat this into my head and I passed it on to all my students.

1 reply

roganderson60

Yea. I got so excited, I didn’t see that it for some reason it tossed in a bogus 3 degree requirement. Back to the drawing boards…for now.

Bill_B

It sounds like their plan is for y’all to just be careful out there, hear?

flier1998

My earlier Mental Math was a simple calculation to establish a VFR descent rate.

But adding the glide slope complicates matters, the approximate altitude of the GS is 300’ per nm. therefore at 11 nm its at 3300’ well below the fictitious aircraft at 7000’.

GS capture is normally from below, so are we looking for a step down??? my 2 cents worth.

1 reply

roganderson60

I think that for now, if GPT speaks, you’d better verify. I don’t know how it came up with the answer it gave me. From 11 out and 7K, the GS would be about 12 degrees and a descent rate of about 1600 fpm at 2 1/2 miles per minute. That’s assuming I’ve let my personal thinker cypher correctly…which is always open for doubt.

FlyerDon

Where ever possible stop using active crossing runways for awhile until things settle down. It will delay some flights but maybe that’s what the system needs right now.

Larry_S

It’s all OUR fault. The FAA is not complicit in any way, shape or form. WE have to do better.
OK … got it! Too bad blathering and bravo sierra can’t be canned and converted to something useful. OH … and a tentative FAA Administrator appointee who doesn’t know a stall from an ADS-B squit oughta be able to fix it all. Geesh !!

Just last nite I took an hour long webinar on Ramp Inspections. The ASI doing the blathering was both embarrassing and WAY over the top acting like a judge, jury and enforcer. THERE’s your problem … an adversarial FAA who managed to drop the “Promulgation of Aviation” mission statement in the 1994 re-authorization. I view it a bit like the old days when the Captain was god, the FO was a lackey and CRM didn’t exist. Maybe THEY need some CRM?

vmtcomet

My version of the above:

My CFI, copilot, boss, etc. says “be vigilant!” With guilt implanted I am thinking more about being vigilant, feeling guilty and put-upon, than on my duties as a pilot. My first mistake during preflight, then …

Raf

Cycle of Complacency. Awareness declines over time, resulting on injuries or deaths over time. NBAA President Ed Bolen’s “a call to vigilance” is correct.

pilotmww

But SMS is going to solve everything! Interesting that only on GA rep was invited.

pilotmww

Allow me to correct, only one GA rep was invited?

keith

Beware that ‘AI’ is just using computing power to process formulas and data programmed in by humans. Thus it is no better than those humans, who were know are variable in smarts and quality of work. (Did I ever criticize a certain publishing company? :-o)

planemech

While all the issues with ATC and airport ops take the spotlights, Lip service is given to maintenance and the severe technician/skills shortage only compounded by the covid mess. Trying to address this “vigilance” issue, while MRO’s and airlines are trying to be creative, is going to cause a bigger mess in the very near future. So far the FAA never said how many techs/per aircraft a operator must have. This might have to be a reg down the road, similar to hrs limits on flight crews. My NPRM is trying to address the technical skills shortage. All the old timers like me will be out of the system, then what?
https://www.regulations.gov/document/FAA-2023-0050-0001
Carl

pilotmww

There is another possibility another individual has brought up online. The possibility that the single pilot onboard became incapacitated due to health issues ( passed away) not related to pressurization. The passengers in the passenger cabin may not have realized what may have happened to the pilot prior to the fuel exhaustion. The F16 pilots have only reported the pilot slumped over, nothing said about any passengers. I have flown this type of Citation and the pressurization system is pretty simple and reliable. Also for those who have little experience with FMS systems the flight track shown on FlightAware is easily programmed prior to flight and the autopilot would have followed it quite easily. The 180 degree turn at CCC vor is normal ATC routing in the New York area. Until the voice recorder is recovered, if there is one, and analyzed, we may never get an answer as to why this happened. RIP to those lost, condolences to the families involved.

1 reply

online

The BlancoLirio channel has a report on it and oddly the “return” flight track passes directly over the Montebello (MOL) VOR, so precisely that it implies that it was part of a flight plan. Doing so could also have been a simple coincidence as part of being in DR mode, however.

1 reply

Ken_S

“…the Citation, which is not equipped with autothrottles that would have automatically initiated a descent to execute the approach.” Does that mean if the aircraft had been so equipped it could have descended into the heavily populated area surrounding the destination airport?

1 reply

whankinson

If the pilot’s responses ceased only 15 minutes into the flight, it might be that the pressurization system did not fail, but that it was never turned on? I read that hypoxia can occur in minutes, and at the 15 minute point the aircraft was already at 30k feet.

1 reply

pilotmww

Pressurization system is normally on even during takeoff. The system would have to be deliberately turned off by the pilot for this to happen. During normal flight there would be no reason to do so.

1 reply

Skypark

In typical media fashion, a key item in the story nationwide was the attempt to attach some dire significance to the “delay” in scrambling fighters to intercept, implying that was both a dire national security concern and a lost opportunity to have prevented the accident.

wally

The later Gulfstream airplanes have this feature. The auto-descent is to a preselected altitude, typically 10,000. Then, if it is hypoxia the crew should recover.

JohnKliewer

Mark, who is suspecting hypoxia; the masses of armchair investigators or the real investigators?

Loss of communication as early as 15 minutes into this flight caught my eye immediately as something potentially other than hypoxia. The small private jet owning community should not be waiting for the final report on this one to have serious conversations with their inner souls about how much they are really saving by conducting single pilot operations. Even with highly experienced pilots as is the case here, they are breaking the redundancy chain. At a minimum, they should have this conversation for the sake of the next, and the next, and the next 2 year old they put on board.

rammstark

Why do rich clients skimp on having a second pilot onboard a complex aircraft flying in a complex airspace?

1 reply

Douglas_C

In the Payne Stewart Lear jet crash, the pilots stopped responding to ATC less than 15 minutes after departure - both pilots in a 2 pilot crew.

1 reply

Widget

The cause is yet to be determined. My question is since this plane was NORDO since 15 minutes after departure and had been heading dead center toward the DCA TFRs for no less than 20 minutes, why did the military wait so long to scramble the jets, and why did they just feel the need for speed as it was already way past Washington?
In my mind, this splatters egg all over the DCA defenders faces.
Don’t even get me started on ALL the erroneous headlines about the “private plane violating restricted airspace”.

1 reply

pilotmww

That depends on the client. A lot of clients I have flown actually want that second pilot on board. According to the DO of a company I flew for, the increase in insurance coverage for single pilot pt 135 jet ops was easily the same amount of money as paying the salary for a first officer. So there may not be that much of a cost saving operating single pilot. I think the single pilot operation was geared more toward owner/operators of those jets certified for that.

Pilot_101

Most (all?) large-cabin long-range business jets are equipped with Emergency/Automatic Descent Mode (EDM or ADM, depending on the manufacturers nomenclature). Above a certain altitude, say 30,000’, the system is armed to recognize a sudden drop in cabin pressure. The autothrottles reduce power to idle, the autopilot turns the plane 90-degree to the left and descends to (usually) 15,000’. It will level off there and increase thrust to maintain 250 KIAS until (hopefully) a pilot is able to take back control.

Unfortunately, this airplane type has neither autothrottles nor EDM/ADM. Because of this, pilot intervention would be necessary for the plane to begin a controlled descent from 34,000’. Once captured/level, selecting a lower altitude and commanding a vertical mode are required to descend, even in airplanes equipped with autothrottles.

Pretty safe to say that pilot incapacitation (hypoxia or medical) is to blame in this tragic accident.

Thomas_Meleck

Nope. The Citation technically had not violated DC airspace. It was flying at a reported 34,000 ft. AGL. The DC restriction is only applicable for flight under !8,000 ft. AGL.

Charles_Dickinson

In the Payne Stewart crash it was reported that the crew had been flying several legs with the crew emergency oxygen depleted. Without the oxygen, no number of crew members could have saved the flight.

craigamorton

This is small jet. There is no door between the passengers and cockpit. I think passengers probably would have noticed the pilot slumped over the controls for 3 hours.

flier1998

Concerning the turn back after reaching destination.
When I taught IR, I always suggested that a Departure Instrument Approach be added to the end of the FMS route. If an emergency occurred after take off, the pilot flying could access the approach with a simple button press.

In this accident, was the departure approach added to the flight plan and caused the autopilot to reverse course after overflying the destination and then fly back to the departure airport?

1 reply

cpparks66

“Also, the Citation apparently followed the lateral track of an instrument approach, turning toward and then overflying its destination, New York Long Island McArthur Airport (KISP). But it flew the “approach” at 34,000 feet and continued on a consistent track until apparently running out of fuel and spiraling to the ground at a high rate of descent.”

I disagree with your track analysis.

The airplane followed the flight plan/cleared path. The last part of the plan was SARDI DCT CCC DCT KISP. The airplane smart turned from SARDI-CCC to CCC-KISP, it didn’t line up with an approach. After passing KISP it followed an extended, great circle path from CCC-KISP. If you put that on ForeFlight, and put KISP-0A9 on there as well you’ll see a divergence of about 1º. It is simply an incredible coincidence that it is so close.

I think my theory satisfies Occam’s Razor as well.

1 reply

cpparks66

If you zoom in on the final part of the straight leg and the spiral on ADS-B Exchange you’ll see it didn’t not directly overfly MOL. Close, but not to it.

cpparks66

See my comment below and tell me what you think?

mphelps

That makes sense. I will rewrite that section to replace “instrument approach” with “flight-planned path.”
Thanks.

newtexan

Lots of good info in all these comments but no one really knows yet. I’m sure they will pin it down. However a few comments noted the auto throttles will reduce power and bring the aircraft to an altitude 10,000 - 15,000 ft and allow pilot recovery from hypoxia.

But what is the result of a pilot suffering hypoxia for 2+ hours? Can you just snap out of it once you get a normal supply of oxygen or is there brain damage?

2 replies

russroe

You are Dead

Pilot_101

Steve, the automatic system I mentioned above would immediately descend an equipped airplane (not this accident airplane) to 15,000’ within 15 minutes from 40,000’ (even quicker if a pilot is able to extend speed brakes/spoilers during the episode). So, responsiveness after prolonged exposure would not be an issue in that case.

Perhaps somebody else could speak to the effects of long-term hypoxic exposure, but I imagine that there is a “point of no return.”

roganderson60

Above about 20K, you have just seconds to think logically, then unable to comprehend, then unconscious, then dead, all in a super short time. Higher the quicker it all happens.

1 reply

Dennis_C

I flew the CE-550/560 for 12 years. We never turned the pressurization off.

Pilot_101

Roger, according to Wikipedia, time of useful consciousness (TUC) at 22,000’ could be as much as 10 minutes (normal ascent) or as short as 5 minutes (rapid decompression). At 35,000’, those numbers are 30-60 seconds and 15-30 seconds, respectively. And at 40,000’ the numbers are 15-20 seconds and 7-10 seconds, respectively. While unconsciousness certainly occurs quickly at the higher altitudes, many stowaways have survived several-hour flights in the mid-30s. I imagine the outcome isn’t as good after a couple of hours in the upper 30s to low 40s.