May 2020
As both a military and a Part 121 pilot, I have made countless lo-vis takeoffs in both the sim and the aircraft. Such procedures are not to ever be treated lightly. I will note that I always had the distinct advantage of multiple, independent systems and the invaluable advantage of a qualified and current co-pilot looking at those independent systems. The key point that applies here is that I always had a good reason to make the takeoff in those conditions. Sorry if this offends anyone’s sensibilities but this pilot had absolutely NO overwhelming reason to attempt this departure. His determination to “go” killed him and his passengers for absolutely no valid reason what-so-ever. A companionable breakfast and an extra cup of coffee at the local eatery would have been the proper choice.
1 reply
May 2020
I agree with David C… As a current and qualified CAT IIIc, and Low Vis TO, Part 121 Captain. All while using the Super Jet equipped with a HUD/FLIR, that makes you look good… I think of all the training and procedures that brought me to this point… Yes, the Part 91 caveat, that is well known, and omits TO minimums, is a “fools game” for any average Part 91 pilot to attempt. This completely avoidable accident, exemplifies this point.
May 2020
▶ system
I agree given the details in the article that this pilot probably should have waited for better conditions. I disagree that “need” played any part in his decisions — or yours. As a professional pilot, I’d hope your “need” to complete a revenue flight would never overrule your assessment of the risk of doing so. Unless you’re launching to defend your country in battle or fleeing an earthquake about to swallow the runway no one needs to launch into conditions they deem to be unsafe. It appears (because we don’t actually know for sure) to have been the pilot’s judgement about his flying skills that was the problem, not his need to go to the beach.
May 2020
As a CFII, I instruct the student to never take off from an airport they can’t land at.
“Yes, it’s legal. Is it safe?”
The concept of Personal Minimums should be emphasized here - things to establish at home, at leisure, and without mission pressure - and a dedication to adhering to them. These PMs must also come with explicit evaluation - at the time of execution - of things like “IMSAFE” and currency/competency for the maneuver being contemplated.
I also teach the philosophy of “Do dangerous things if you want, but don’t endanger others.” It might’ve been (marginally, depending on the likelihood of injuring or killing people on the ground) ethical to attempt this takeoff solo, but to do so with unwitting passengers is unconscionable. For example, I love to do aerobatics with passengers, but we have a long preflight briefing that focuses on “we might break the airplane today”. This gets real for them when I strap them into a parachute and discuss with them emergency egress procedure, including how to do it if I’m unresponsive. Assuming they still get in the plane, they are not an unwitting passenger…
1 reply
May 2020
Smh, this was easily avoidable by not taking off and waiting for better weather. An excellent pilot made a rash decision to take off in his wonder plane in high gusting cross winds after a day of meeting other stol a/c. As skillful as he is in stol with a highly modified a/c, he wasn’t prepared to deal with the gusting winds suddenly changing. A/c was totaled but he and his wife walked away. Admitting to full responsibility of failure to maintain control. he could have waited until winds died down. In both cases was it too much a/c and too little pilot?
May 2020
And if you do, definitely add a little to your normal rotation speed. The “chirps” could indeed have resulted from a less than positive liftoff. Zero viz is no time to be finessing less than positive handling (and climb rate).
May 2020
▶ system
Absolutely… A Proper Preparation to whatever Planned maneuver one may Perform… Damn… There it is again… The “ 4 P’s”…
May 2020
In 121 operations we need at east 600’ visibility. Which isn’t much, barely enough to steer the plane on the centerline of the runway. Any less than that and a safe takeoff is impossible. Then it’s just a matter of if the guy can get the plane off the ground and climbing before he exits the side of the runway or hits something.
The guy in the C-340 used terrible judgement taking off and not waiting for it to burn off some. Air carrier limits should be used by all as a minimum. Not sure why the FAA regs don’t have a minimum takeoff visibility for even part 91 operators. It’s not safe to allow part 91 pilots to takeoff in 0-0 conditions, as they can hit objects in or outside of the airport. A glaring loophole that needs to be closed.
May 2020
I haven’t heard anyone mention back-taxing to ensure a clear runway, danger of animal crossing or worse, aborted takeoffs. Many pilots have troubles with them in good conditions; reduced visual conditions can make them exciting to say the least.
May 2020
Jeb writes a good article. No excessive judgment contained. Without mechanical faults with the airplane, it comes down to pilot proficiency and currency, and the way it is evaluated by the passengers, the PIC, and the CFI. It’s a tough situation for all. As a career Professional Pilot and 35year CFI, I can tell you that there seems to be a profile for proficiency & ADM decay that the insurance companies have certainly taken note of, and that the rest of us need to wake up to. If this pilot was using a statistically relevant FRAT (Flight Risk Assessment Tool), it might have questions like this:
Has the PIC been flying more than 20 years, but not professionally?
Is the PIC financially successful in business other than active flight operations?
Has the PIC’s Instrument currency been recorded in a reliable and available form?
Is the PIC more than 65 years old?
Is the flight to be conducted with an instrument-current SIC rated in category and class?
Is the flight to be conducted in a multiengine aircraft that seats more than 4 persons?
Are the weather conditions at both the departure point and destination forecast to be less than basic VFR?
Was the PIC’s last Flight Review conducted in a simulator at a 14CFR 142 training center?
If answer to previous question is NO, was the Flight Review conducted by a CFII in same category and class?
Are PIC’s immediate family and potential passengers kept somewhat informed of 14 CFR 61.51 requirements?
Are PIC’s immediate family/potential passengers kept somewhat informed of Aircraft Insurance requirements?
