Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by pelmet »

---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by AirFrame »

I'm more curious about the other accident, where pilot died and passenger was seriously injured... Anyone know what type?
---------- ADS -----------
 
imjustlurking
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 700
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2021 9:12 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by imjustlurking »

It's linked in the article.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
AirFrame
Rank 10
Rank 10
Posts: 2610
Joined: Sun Oct 11, 2009 10:27 pm
Location: Sidney, BC
Contact:

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by AirFrame »

imjustlurking wrote: Sun Oct 10, 2021 9:44 pm It's linked in the article.
A story about it is, but nothing about what type, which is what I asked. But thanks for playing.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by pelmet »

C-FFYM, a privately registered Daher TBM700N (TBM910), was conducting an IFR flight from
Vernon (CYVK), BC to Westlock (CES4), AB. The aircraft departed CYVK and flew to Springbank
(CYBW), AB with 1 pilot and 1 passenger on board. The aircraft landed in CYBW and made a short
stop to pick up 2 additional passengers. During this stop, the aircraft remained running and did not
shut down. Moments later, the aircraft departed CYBW for CES4. During landing on Runway 28 at
CES4, the aircraft landed hard on the right hand main landing gear, bounced and rolled inverted
coming to rest on the south side of the runway. The passengers were assisted out the main
entrance by witnesses; the passengers had minor injuries. The pilot was trapped in the cockpit for
about 2 hours before first responders could get him safely out of the wreckage; he had serious
injuries. An investigator from the TSB Edmonton office deployed to the site.
---------- ADS -----------
 
JL
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 142
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 12:56 pm
Location: Edmonton

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by JL »

---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by digits_ »

The pilot survived but the investigators could not determine his time on type?

I'll never understand why people don't wear all their seatbelts in an airplane. Especially in a fairly new one with fairly comfortable ones.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
User avatar
TurkeyFarmYQX
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 93
Joined: Sun Oct 08, 2017 5:38 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by TurkeyFarmYQX »

The TBM is the new Bonanza "Doctor Killer"

It's too much plane for most people.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by photofly »

The accident report takes the position that a 3° approach is optimal for this aircraft:
At this point, a descent path of 3.9° would have been required to cross the threshold at 50 feet AGL; this was significantly steeper than an optimal or typical descent path of 3°.
it began to sink below the optimal 3° descent path
At this point in the occurrence flight, the aircraft was 18 KIAS above the normal target speed and approximately 50 feet or 0.5° above the optimal 3° approach slope.
and by 350 feet AGL, when the aircraft was descending through the optimal 3° slope,
It's even given as a cause:
Finding as to causes and contributing factors

The aircraft joined the final approach well above the optimal 3° descent path and, during the steep approach that followed, the aircraft’s airspeed continually decreased and resulted in an unstabilized approach.
Is that the case for this small single-engine prop-driven aircraft? It certainly wouldn't be for a piston-powered aircraft.

The report opines that:
In November 2000, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association published an article titled “The Stabilized Approach.”Footnote50 The article states that the concept of stabilized approaches was first advocated in turbine aircraft in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when pilots were discovering that new jet transport aircraft were harder to slow during approach for landing than the large piston and turboprop aircraft they were used to. At the time, turbine engines also responded to power changes more slowly compared to aircraft with propellers, and turbine aircraft were frequently involved in undershoot accidents, in which they landed short of a runway.
But this aircraft wasn't a jet transport, and was very much a turboprop that wouldn't have been "harder to slow during approach for landing".

Is it better to fly this plane like a jet, even though it isn't one? Maybe that's why it's "too much plane" - but I'm curious from what does that difference stem?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:07 am The accident report takes the position that a 3° approach is optimal for this aircraft:
At this point, a descent path of 3.9° would have been required to cross the threshold at 50 feet AGL; this was significantly steeper than an optimal or typical descent path of 3°.
it began to sink below the optimal 3° descent path
At this point in the occurrence flight, the aircraft was 18 KIAS above the normal target speed and approximately 50 feet or 0.5° above the optimal 3° approach slope.
and by 350 feet AGL, when the aircraft was descending through the optimal 3° slope,
It's even given as a cause:
Finding as to causes and contributing factors

The aircraft joined the final approach well above the optimal 3° descent path and, during the steep approach that followed, the aircraft’s airspeed continually decreased and resulted in an unstabilized approach.
Is that the case for this small single-engine prop-driven aircraft? It certainly wouldn't be for a piston-powered aircraft.

The report opines that:
In November 2000, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association published an article titled “The Stabilized Approach.”Footnote50 The article states that the concept of stabilized approaches was first advocated in turbine aircraft in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when pilots were discovering that new jet transport aircraft were harder to slow during approach for landing than the large piston and turboprop aircraft they were used to. At the time, turbine engines also responded to power changes more slowly compared to aircraft with propellers, and turbine aircraft were frequently involved in undershoot accidents, in which they landed short of a runway.
But this aircraft wasn't a jet transport, and was very much a turboprop that wouldn't have been "harder to slow during approach for landing".

Is it better to fly this plane like a jet, even though it isn't one? Maybe that's why it's "too much plane" - but I'm curious from what does that difference stem?
A turbine aircraft is (usually) designed to fly IFR. I would say the TBM is especially suitable for such an environment, and most operators likely fly it IFR most of the time.

IFR PPC training highly emphasizes stabilized approaches, and constant descend angles, even for non-precision approaches. 3 degrees seems to be the standard there. Perhaps the word 'optimal' is a poor choice, but I would definitely call it 'standard'. Doesn't the initial IFR flight test guide favor 3 degree glideslopes as well nowadays?

Given the flow of events, I would agree that the lack of 3 degree glideslope was a significant factor. He dove for it, landed short, engine likely didn't spool up quickly enough, and he was in trouble.


And yes, it was a VFR manoeuver, but if you're used to (hypothesis on my end) flying IFR on 3 degree glideslopes all the time, then a steep VFR descend might throw you off, even if it's in VMC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
Maynard
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Sep 24, 2008 8:33 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by Maynard »

photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:07 am The accident report takes the position that a 3° approach is optimal for this aircraft:
At this point, a descent path of 3.9° would have been required to cross the threshold at 50 feet AGL; this was significantly steeper than an optimal or typical descent path of 3°.
it began to sink below the optimal 3° descent path
At this point in the occurrence flight, the aircraft was 18 KIAS above the normal target speed and approximately 50 feet or 0.5° above the optimal 3° approach slope.
and by 350 feet AGL, when the aircraft was descending through the optimal 3° slope,
It's even given as a cause:
Finding as to causes and contributing factors

The aircraft joined the final approach well above the optimal 3° descent path and, during the steep approach that followed, the aircraft’s airspeed continually decreased and resulted in an unstabilized approach.
Is that the case for this small single-engine prop-driven aircraft? It certainly wouldn't be for a piston-powered aircraft.

The report opines that:
In November 2000, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association published an article titled “The Stabilized Approach.”Footnote50 The article states that the concept of stabilized approaches was first advocated in turbine aircraft in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when pilots were discovering that new jet transport aircraft were harder to slow during approach for landing than the large piston and turboprop aircraft they were used to. At the time, turbine engines also responded to power changes more slowly compared to aircraft with propellers, and turbine aircraft were frequently involved in undershoot accidents, in which they landed short of a runway.
But this aircraft wasn't a jet transport, and was very much a turboprop that wouldn't have been "harder to slow during approach for landing".

Is it better to fly this plane like a jet, even though it isn't one? Maybe that's why it's "too much plane" - but I'm curious from what does that difference stem?
There is a reason the PAPI's are set up for 3 degrees. It's a standard, not just for that type. VFR flying the papis to a normal runway, is optimal
---------- ADS -----------
 
I guess I should write something here.
gimmepars
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by gimmepars »

Maynard wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 8:54 am
photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 4:07 am The accident report takes the position that a 3° approach is optimal for this aircraft:
At this point, a descent path of 3.9° would have been required to cross the threshold at 50 feet AGL; this was significantly steeper than an optimal or typical descent path of 3°.
it began to sink below the optimal 3° descent path
At this point in the occurrence flight, the aircraft was 18 KIAS above the normal target speed and approximately 50 feet or 0.5° above the optimal 3° approach slope.
and by 350 feet AGL, when the aircraft was descending through the optimal 3° slope,
It's even given as a cause:
Finding as to causes and contributing factors

The aircraft joined the final approach well above the optimal 3° descent path and, during the steep approach that followed, the aircraft’s airspeed continually decreased and resulted in an unstabilized approach.
Is that the case for this small single-engine prop-driven aircraft? It certainly wouldn't be for a piston-powered aircraft.

The report opines that:
In November 2000, the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association published an article titled “The Stabilized Approach.”Footnote50 The article states that the concept of stabilized approaches was first advocated in turbine aircraft in the late 1950s and early 1960s, when pilots were discovering that new jet transport aircraft were harder to slow during approach for landing than the large piston and turboprop aircraft they were used to. At the time, turbine engines also responded to power changes more slowly compared to aircraft with propellers, and turbine aircraft were frequently involved in undershoot accidents, in which they landed short of a runway.
But this aircraft wasn't a jet transport, and was very much a turboprop that wouldn't have been "harder to slow during approach for landing".

Is it better to fly this plane like a jet, even though it isn't one? Maybe that's why it's "too much plane" - but I'm curious from what does that difference stem?
There is a reason the PAPI's are set up for 3 degrees. It's a standard, not just for that type. VFR flying the papis to a normal runway, is optimal
3 degrees is both optimal, and standard, but ref+5 in a light turboprop is too slow-the ones I've been flying for the last 5000 hours don't handle well close to ref, and being between 7k to 20k lbs instead of the 150k+ lbs that the approach and landing accident reduction document's guidelines we're designed for, you're much more susceptible to being bounced around by gusts, windshear or wake turbulence. Significant power changes are required to recover any energy deficit encountered when you're approaching at ref+5, these planes just don't have the momentum of a heavier aircraft to stay on slope and centreline when flying conditions aren't optimal on the approach.

To adapt the approach and landing accident reduction document's stabilized approach criteria for light turboprops I would rather vref+20 (+10/-5) and start slowing the aircraft to cross the threshold at ref at 200'agl.

There's also plenty of good reasons to fly a steeper approach, i.e. steeper papis as at Kemess or Creston out here in BC, following an Airbus or a Boeing on the approach into YVR. This would have to be briefed in a 2 crew environment, but is manageable with experience and aptitude.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by photofly »

gimmepars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:39 am
3 degrees is both optimal, and standard,...
I guess my question is, why is 3° optimal in a TBM but not for a Caravan, or turbo beaver? Or maybe it is? How about a Piper M600, or it's piston equivalent M350? 3° would be really weird for a visual circuit in most single engine planes, wouldn't it?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 7:20 am 3 degrees seems to be the standard there. Perhaps the word 'optimal' is a poor choice, but I would definitely call it 'standard'. Doesn't the initial IFR flight test guide favor 3 degree glideslopes as well nowadays?
Yes. Almost all approaches are designed to be flown at 3°, that's your typical ILS glidepath, that's what the PAPI or VASI is calibrated to (where not otherwise indicated) and that's the usual constant approach angle data provided on approach plates for a non-precision approach.

But while you can fly a 3° approach in a light single, and would be expected to do so on an instrument approach, it wouldn't be a natural choice for a regular VMC overhead join to the downwind, base and final, which is what this airplane flew. If this pilot had flown a few more VFR circuits in this plane, this approach and landing should have been a no-brainer, shouldn't it?

What I'm asking is, is a TBM sufficiently different in handling that a competent pilot wouldn't be expected to manage a visual circuit without approach guidance in it like they could in many other similarly sized single engine turboprops? And what makes it so?

I totally get the focus on a stabilized approach, but the report almost makes a fetish of the 3° thing. The pilot was initially established on a 3.9° approach. That would be totally manageable in most small planes flying a circuit - unremarkable - if not even rather shallow. What's special about this plane?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
gimmepars
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 18
Joined: Sun Oct 20, 2013 12:02 pm

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by gimmepars »

photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:44 am
gimmepars wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:39 am
3 degrees is both optimal, and standard,...
I guess my question is, why is 3° optimal in a TBM but not for a Caravan, or turbo beaver? Or maybe it is? How about a Piper M600, or it's piston equivalent M350? 3° would be really weird for a visual circuit in most single engine planes, wouldn't it?
I guess my answer is 3 degrees is optimal because it's standard for the glideslope and papi/vasi at the huge majority of airports, probably over 95%, so that's what the pilot's eye is accustomed to seeing. Flying consistent, stable approaches sets you up for consistently good landings, and the instrument and visual references we have available are pretty much all set to 3 degrees.

If I was to get into any of those types mentioned, or anything else new to me, I'd need a really compelling reason to deviate from glideslope or papi indications.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by photofly »

This was a VFR circuit in VMC conditions in a light single, onto a 3000' runway. Why would you need a PAPI or a glideslope to manage that (and this airport didn't have either, anyway.) Maybe the pilot just forgot how to fly a circuit in his plane?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 9:57 am The pilot was initially established on a 3.9° approach. That would be totally manageable in most small planes flying a circuit - unremarkable - if not even rather shallow. What's special about this plane?
It's not only about the plane. It's about this flight. It ended in touching down short of the runway, and then crashing.

I'm pretty sure if the same accident would have happened in a King Air or a PC12 (or any other turbine powered aircraft), the 3 degree thing would still have been mentioned in the same way.

I agree that it's totally manageable, but the crux of the matter is that it wasn't managed in this accident.

They mention in the report that he descended *through* the 3 degree glide path. If you start out on a 3.9, and you end below a 3 degree glidepath, then you are not flying a 3.9 degree glidepath, nor a 3 degree glidepath, and that is cause for concern.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:19 am I'm pretty sure if the same accident would have happened in a King Air or a PC12 (or any other turbine powered aircraft), the 3 degree thing would still have been mentioned in the same way.
To be clear, you think the dividing line between fussing over 3.9° vs 3.0°, and not fussing, is purely because the aircraft was a turboprop?

If a 787 made a 3.9° approach that would be worthy of comment for being too steep. If a 172 did it, you would be laughing at the "space shuttle sized" circuit and too-shallow approach the pilot chose to fly and agree that more circuit practice would be needed.

I'm trying to understand why the TSB thinks the TBM is on the "big airplane" side of that line; it's straight-wing, doesn't weigh very much, approaches slowly. It's also pulled by a prop, not a jet. The report doesn't have much to help me.

Happily I don't work for the TSB, but my reaction to the data would that the pilot lacked proficiency in flying visual circuits and was probably too used to relying on vertical guidance, which he didn't have available. Then he was unfamiliar with the characteristics of the aircraft during a late go-around - again, a lack of proficiency issue, and not one of glideslope. I'm sure the TSB has reached the correct conclusion and that I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what.
They mention in the report that he descended *through* the 3 degree glide path. If you start out on a 3.9, and you end below a 3 degree glidepath, then you are not flying a 3.9 degree glidepath, nor a 3 degree glidepath, and that is cause for concern.
Yes. I'm just questioning the implication that even it had been stable and well flown at 3.9°, it would still not have been "optimal". It was a small plane on a VFR circuit to a small non-instrument runway at a small airport in VMC conditions. The report reads in the context of a much larger aircraft at a large airport.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 am
digits_ wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:19 am I'm pretty sure if the same accident would have happened in a King Air or a PC12 (or any other turbine powered aircraft), the 3 degree thing would still have been mentioned in the same way.
To be clear, you think the dividing line between fussing over 3.9° vs 3.0°, and not fussing, is purely because the aircraft was a turboprop?
I think that's the TSB's train of thought. Turboprops react a little bit slower to power changes than piston aircraft do.
Not that this should be an issue for a competent pilot. But competent pilots usually don't crash like this either. Which makes it worth mentioning it IMO.
photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 am If a 787 made a 3.9° approach that would be worthy of comment for being too steep. If a 172 did it, you would be laughing at the "space shuttle sized" circuit and too-shallow approach the pilot chose to fly and agree that more circuit practice would be needed.

I'm trying to understand why the TSB thinks the TBM is on the "big airplane" side of that line; it's straight-wing, doesn't weigh very much, approaches slowly. It's also pulled by a prop, not a jet. The report doesn't have much to help me.
I don't think it's about the 'big airplane'. I think it's about the turbine engine and the 'I assume it's usually flown IFR and thus used to 3 degree glideslopes'. And, more importantly, it went *below* the 3 degree glideslope.
photofly wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:23 am Happily I don't work for the TSB, but my reaction to the data would that the pilot lacked proficiency in flying visual circuits and was probably too used to relying on vertical guidance, which he didn't have available. Then he was unfamiliar with the characteristics of the aircraft during a late go-around - again, a lack of proficiency issue, and not one of glideslope. I'm sure the TSB has reached the correct conclusion and that I'm missing something, but I'm not sure what.
I'm sure both factors are important. But if he would have come down a 3 degree glideslope, stabilized (which was a more major focus than just the 3 degree glideslope per se), he would have had more chance to correct, and likely wouldn't have gone that slow, making a go around easier if required.

Would it make more sense re-reading the report and replacing the 3 degree glideslope factor with an 'unstabilized approach'?
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: Socata TBM Crash in Alberta

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Thu Mar 30, 2023 10:40 am Would it make more sense re-reading the report and replacing the 3 degree glideslope factor with an 'unstabilized approach'?
I think one has to read and judge the report as written, and without search-and-replace on the bits that you don't understand!
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”