4 Hurt in Plane Crash at Brampton

[g_goo_goo]

Thank goodness no fatalities but they hit a tree on landing

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2017/1 ... rport.html

[pdw]

The "tree" looks very small ...

[PilotDAR]

The "tree" looks very small ...

'Must be, I can't pick it out. I recall seeing trees around BFC while landing there, I don't recall thinking any were close to my approach path.

I find it worryingly interesting that the news report three other accidents associated with BFC, but does not mention the tens or thousands of safe flights conducted during the period!

[g_goo_goo]

08 has a displaced threshold. There's a small tree at the railroad crossing/entrance to BFC maybe 300-400 ft from the end of the runway. They must have been low.

[waterdog]

It will be interesting to see how this played out and what "chains" of the accident were involved. I happened to be flying my plane back from its annual just before this, I got to my destination airport at 1630hrs only to have a plane breakdown on the runway while I was crossing overhead to join the downwind. I ended up have to circle the airport for 30 minutes, touching down 15 minutes after sunset, and 30 minutes after my anticipated landing time......I still had 15 minutes left to be legal and I had already determined an alternate airport that was 12 minutes away. It was a first for me and getting low on gas and watching the sunset was a good experience and lesson on how small things can snowball quickly.
This accident happened at 5:20, 10 minutes after the end of legal daytime.....can't help but wondering if an unanticipated delay put someone into a unexpected situation. The sunset behind the clouds last night and it was getting pretty dark long before this happened.

Hopefully everyone involves heals quickly and is ok!

[rookiepilot]

Must use vasi at night. 2 white, 2 red all the way down, will keep you safe. Though I'm not sure how dark it would have been to need that, or what Brampton has for vasi lights.

[g_goo_goo]

I don't believe 08/26 has vasi lights, and at 40' wide at night it looks like you're coming in high if you're used to wider runways.

[Broken Slinky]

08 has a displaced threshold. There's a small tree at the railroad crossing/entrance to BFC maybe 300-400 ft from the end of the runway. They must have been low.

I fly into CNC3 often. That tree is maybe 30'-35' tall. They were definitely really low.

[Chris M]

Must use vasi at night. 2 white, 2 red all the way down, will keep you safe. Though I'm not sure how dark it would have been to need that, or what Brampton has for vasi lights.

Question from someone working on their night rating:

How adamantly do you follow the VASI/PAPIs? The reason I ask is that any power-off approach I fly, even with flaps up, is a much steeper approach angle than the 3 degrees the lights would give you. I generally don’t see 2 red/2 white until I’m at the threshold. I’ve tried to follow the PAPIs and it feels awful – power on, super long final, and zero chance of making the field if the engine quits. That last point is what really bugs me, because at my airport if you can’t make the field you’re guaranteed to have a bad time.

[PilotDAR]

Chris M I entirely agree with you. I prefer higher approaches than the approach aids would indicate. If it quits on final, and you make the runway, you'll get good reviews. If you say you landed short because you were following the approach aids, well, okay, but the plane is still damaged. I opine that the approach aid angle is probably based upon multi engine aircraft characteristics, and the desire to prevent pilots flying high approaches, and going off the end of the runway.

In VFR flight, all of these are approach aids, you don't have to follow them. If you can comfortably fly a higher, safer approach, well done! The 182 amphibian I used to fly has a power off approach angle of 12 degrees, so I always flew steep approaches, just in case!

[CpnCrunch]

Question from someone working on their night rating:

How adamantly do you follow the VASI/PAPIs? The reason I ask is that any power-off approach I fly, even with flaps up, is a much steeper approach angle than the 3 degrees the lights would give you. I generally don’t see 2 red/2 white until I’m at the threshold. I’ve tried to follow the PAPIs and it feels awful – power on, super long final, and zero chance of making the field if the engine quits. That last point is what really bugs me, because at my airport if you can’t make the field you’re guaranteed to have a bad time.

What I do flying at night:

- fly the same normal steep glideslope that I'd fly during the day, and just use the VASI/PAPI to make sure I don't get too low.
- fly the same tight circuit that I'd fly during the day
- not below 500ft AGL before final
- not below 1000ft AGL on x/c, and always know exactly where I am and what the terrain is

[rookiepilot]

Must use vasi at night. 2 white, 2 red all the way down, will keep you safe. Though I'm not sure how dark it would have been to need that, or what Brampton has for vasi lights.

Question from someone working on their night rating:

How adamantly do you follow the VASI/PAPIs? The reason I ask is that any power-off approach I fly, even with flaps up, is a much steeper approach angle than the 3 degrees the lights would give you. I generally don’t see 2 red/2 white until I’m at the threshold. I’ve tried to follow the PAPIs and it feels awful – power on, super long final, and zero chance of making the field if the engine quits. That last point is what really bugs me, because at my airport if you can’t make the field you’re guaranteed to have a bad time.

I agree as well. Should have said, 2 White // or above, as long as not too high for a shorter runway. My meaning was more, certainly don't get low. When it's really dark, obstacles may not be able to be seen.

In retrospect, haven't flown at night for awhile, I'm usually a touch high , to assure clearing obstacles.

[photofly]

Must use vasi at night. 2 white, 2 red all the way down, will keep you safe. Though I'm not sure how dark it would have been to need that, or what Brampton has for vasi lights.

Question from someone working on their night rating:

How adamantly do you follow the VASI/PAPIs? The reason I ask is that any power-off approach I fly, even with flaps up, is a much steeper approach angle than the 3 degrees the lights would give you. I generally don’t see 2 red/2 white until I’m at the threshold. I’ve tried to follow the PAPIs and it feels awful – power on, super long final, and zero chance of making the field if the engine quits. That last point is what really bugs me, because at my airport if you can’t make the field you’re guaranteed to have a bad time.

If you’re comfortable flying a single engine aircraft at night at all, it’s silly to start worrying about making “the field” because of an engine failure in the last minute of a two hour flight.

During the day it’s very easy to discern your approach angle all the way to the threshold: there’s not a lot of benefit to following a VASI or PAPI which is designed usually to follow an instrument approach gradient of 3 degrees suitable for larger aircraft, and to a touchdown point 1000 feet or more from the threshold.

But at night, depending on the ambient lighting and infield, it can become extremely challenging to discern the aircraft flight path particularly over a dark infield on a dark night at an unfamiliar airfield. Steep tight approaches that are normal during the day in a small piston can take on an entirely different, scary aspect. Equally hard sometimes is a 10 mile straight in approach. With no horizon when exactly do you start your descent visually, and how are you going to tell if it’s working out? There’s nothing wrong with flying a 3 degree approach in a 172: yes it’s shallower than you might be comfortable with (your comfort level is something you can fix with practice), but it’s eminently doable. It might not be ideal, but it’s consistent, clear of terrain. and takes you to the runway.

Personally I’m more concerned with a failure of judgment on the part of equipment between the seat and the yoke than the tiny chance of a failure of the engine in some critical sixty second period.

You, as PIC, can make up your own mind, of course.

[trey kule]

If you’re comfortable flying a single engine aircraft at night it’s silly to start worrying about making “the field” because of an engine failure in the last minute of a two hour flight.

PF. There is no place on these forums for common sense.

[rookiepilot]

PF makes the point better than I obviously did, and especially true on long straight in approaches. Those are best to avoid if possible in really dark conditions.

Also where a Vasi is valuable, I recall a three hour flight almost completely in daylight, with sunset during the last hour, landing in a high overcast darkness. The runway small and poorly lit, and following completely black terrain. I recall it being less than comfortable, perhaps because my eyes had not fully acclimated to the dark conditions. Was thankful to lock onto the Vasi all the way in.

[photofly]

by the way, if you do want to follow a 3 degree PAPI or VASI down a long final, it’s very easy. Check you ground speed on your GPS (you are using one, on your phone, or your iPad, at least, aren’t you?), divide by two and add a zero, then from trimmed level flight reduce your power by that many RPM.

Example: ground speed 90 knots, at 2300rpm: divide by two to get 45, add a zero to get 450. Reduce power by 450 rpm to 1850.

Then add a tiny little bit of nose-up trim. Salt and pepper to taste. When it’s time to land lower some flap and back the power off. Until light and fluffy.

Come to that, if you don’t have a GPS just ask the nearest ATC unit for your ground speed. I’m going to assume that anyone who’s worried about not making the field at night wouldn’t ever consider flying outside of RADAR airspace...

[rookiepilot]

RADAR airspace. That's an interesting point.

Would you fly outside of that at night PF? I've done a couple of flights to North Bay Sudbury area at night, but I'm less than thrilled north of Muskoka at night, due to terrain. Windsor Ottawa Montreal corridor? No problem.

[Heliian]

If you fly at night, dusk or even inclement weather, knowing how to use a papi is important. The black hole effect is deadly. You're not going to hit a tree if you're too high on the approach, just don't get too low.

[pelmet]

Question from someone working on their night rating:

How adamantly do you follow the VASI/PAPIs? The reason I ask is that any power-off approach I fly, even with flaps up, is a much steeper approach angle than the 3 degrees the lights would give you. I generally don’t see 2 red/2 white until I’m at the threshold. I’ve tried to follow the PAPIs and it feels awful – power on, super long final, and zero chance of making the field if the engine quits. That last point is what really bugs me, because at my airport if you can’t make the field you’re guaranteed to have a bad time.

Like so many questions, my answer is...it depends.

Commenting on light aircraft, I typically use them as some sort of reference but not always. If there are terrain issues, that is the overriding factor and you want to familiarize yourself with how far back from the runway(and laterally as well), that they will guarantee terrain clearance.

Assuming your typical runway without terrain issues, it depends on the length of runway for the type being used. That being said, I typically use them as some sort of a reference with more and more reliance on them as the runway length gets shorter. I have landed 172's on a near 10,000 foot runay with the desired exit at the end where they were intentionally ignored and I am sure that I would do the same for shorter runways.

Regardless of runway length, I would avoid being low at an unfamiliar airport and there is usually no need to do so at most airports. But it does get done sometimes and for good reason.......

Back in the old turboprop days at familiar airports, we did frequently go below the flight path on shorter runways once we were on very short final. People called it "dipping the PAPI's" and it was done in order to land withing the first two or three hundred feet of the runway instead of wasting significant amounts of it which you don't want to do on a snow covered runway at a heavy landing weight on a short runway in an aircraft with no reverse thrust capability.

[pelmet]

C-GHAP, a Cessna 172P aircraft operated by Brampton Flight Club, was conducting a local flight from Brampton-Caledon, ON (CNC3) with 1 pilot and 3 passengers on board. During the approach to Runway 08 at CNC3 nearing the end of civil twilight, the pilot noted that the aircraft was too low and elected to perform a go-around. On the second approach, the aircraft struck a tree approximately 460 feet prior to the runway edge. With an estimated height of 25 feet, the tree was struck approximately five feet below the top. After contacting the tree, the aircraft slid along the ground and came to a stop just short of the airport boundary fence. All four occupants were wearing shoulder harnesses and evacuated the aircraft through the left door as the right door could not be opened due to the extent of damage. The pilot and front seat passenger suffered minor injuries and the aircraft sustained substantial damage. A nearby motorist called the police and fire department when the accident occurred. There was no post impact fire and the ELT activated.