CYBW Mooney Crash

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

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

photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by photofly »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am 1. Mandate IFR training, or a reasonable portion, must be done in IMC conditions.

Why is such a simple change getting everyone's shorts in a knot?

And....

2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
Again, this is relevant to the causes of this accident how, exactly?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:39 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am 1. Mandate IFR training, or a reasonable portion, must be done in IMC conditions.

Why is such a simple change getting everyone's shorts in a knot?

And....

2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
Again, this is relevant to the causes of this accident how, exactly?
Can you state with certainty that it isn't?
---------- ADS -----------
 
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by digits_ »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am
2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
I'd wager a significant number of accidents and even more incidents have been caused by incorrect AP usage. Thinking back on all my checkrides, the AP has always been failed by the examiner at one point. I don't think that part of the process is an issue.
---------- 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: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by photofly »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:45 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:39 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am 1. Mandate IFR training, or a reasonable portion, must be done in IMC conditions.

Why is such a simple change getting everyone's shorts in a knot?

And....

2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
Again, this is relevant to the causes of this accident how, exactly?
Can you state with certainty that it isn't?
Obviously there are many things that one cannot be certain are not connected with the accident, but I think if you want to lay a claim that inadequate primary training or testing conditions are especially at fault here you had better have some cogent line of reasoning for doing so. I don't see any such reasoning in your posts, but I'd like to hear some.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by Squaretail »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am

1. Mandate IFR training, or a reasonable portion, must be done in IMC conditions.

Why is such a simple change getting everyone's shorts in a knot?
a) Its not a simple change. First, safe IFR in this country isn't easy to come by. In my experience, Its either VFR, or its holy shit don't leave the ground in a small plane IFR. There is a small fraction of safe in IMC in a single or underpowered twin to do in IMC training. Mandating it would put more people training in bad IFR and increase the risk of training accidents to get the conditions of training you desire. Or it would lead to a lot of questionable logbooking to meet the requirements. Neither of which I think would improve outcomes, and may make things worse. Ultimately in Canada there are only a small fraction of non-CPL pilots who are going to challenge hard IFR conditions. For the most part they either i) buy airplanes that have the performance to avoid the worst of these conditions, or ii)just already have the wisdom or fear to avoid these conditions.

b) A majority of pilots I know had no IMC experience in their training and have flown careers without incident. This does not say to me that their skills would be better if an instructor took them into some clouds. I have never in all the proficiency checks I have had to administer said "wow, this guy has had in cloud time and it shows!" or that this particular area of their skill shone when nothing else did. Good pilots will be able to handle their first in command experiences in cloud. Bad ones won't. There are a lot of other ways that a pilot will probably need to improve than just their in cloud ability, if such a thing exists. If you have trouble flying in cloud, you probably have trouble keeping it together in the clear blue.
And....

2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
Why? Isn't the use of the autopilot something that should be tested? I would counter to say that lots of pilots get themselves into trouble because they don't know their autopilot well enough. This just says to me you don't understand the function of automation when its available. You can't fly single pilot IFR commercially without an autopilot. You can privately. That's the part to me that doesn't make sense. Yes pilots should also have good hand flying skills which should be tested, and in all of my rides and PPCs, the examiner gives me an auto pilot failure. So I feel the testing portion is adequate.

Either way, while a lot of pilot problems can be attributed to poor instruction, this one is pretty far off base. Pilots flying in icing at great risk are usually pretty long out of the FTU nest. They can take responsibility for their own decisions at this point.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by Squaretail on Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

digits_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:00 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am
2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
I'd wager a significant number of accidents and even more incidents have been caused by incorrect AP usage. Thinking back on all my checkrides, the AP has always been failed by the examiner at one point. I don't think that part of the process is an issue.
I'd argue its both incorrect usage and inability to take over at the worst possible moment.

I don't think my 2 suggestions are unreasonable and would increase proficiency.

Training under a hood on a severe clear day is night and day from bumpy IMC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:03 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:45 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:39 am
Again, this is relevant to the causes of this accident how, exactly?
Can you state with certainty that it isn't?
Obviously there are many things that one cannot be certain are not connected with the accident, but I think if you want to lay a claim that inadequate primary training or testing conditions are especially at fault here you had better have some cogent line of reasoning for doing so. I don't see any such reasoning in your posts, but I'd like to hear some.
In a word, No.

It is not for Photofly to decide on a thread's content.

An accident of this kind, opens the door to a broader conversation not just about this accident, but factors that may lead to these kinds of fatal accidents, which should disturb all of us. That includes training.

Squaretail has put forward some very thoughtful counterarguments, not attempting to shut the conversation down. I respect that.

Enough. Talk to Joe if you disagree.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

Squaretail wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:04 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:29 am

1. Mandate IFR training, or a reasonable portion, must be done in IMC conditions.

Why is such a simple change getting everyone's shorts in a knot?
a) Its not a simple change. First, safe IFR in this country isn't easy to come by. In my experience, Its either VFR, or its holy shit don't leave the ground in a small plane IFR. There is a small fraction of safe in IMC in a single or underpowered twin to do in IMC training. Mandating it would put more people training in bad IFR and increase the risk of training accidents to get the conditions of training you desire. Or it would lead to a lot of questionable logbooking to meet the requirements. Neither of which I think would improve outcomes, and may make things worse. Ultimately in Canada there are only a small fraction of non-CPL pilots who are going to challenge hard IFR conditions. For the most part they either i) buy airplanes that have the performance to avoid the worst of these conditions, or ii)just already have the wisdom or fear to avoid these conditions.

b) A majority of pilots I know had no IMC experience in their training and have flown careers without incident. This does not say to me that their skills would be better if an instructor took them into some clouds. I have never in all the proficiency checks I have had to administer said "wow, this guy has had in cloud time and it shows!" or that this particular area of their skill shone when nothing else did. Good pilots will be able to handle their first in command experiences in cloud. Bad ones won't. There are a lot of other ways that a pilot will probably need to improve than just their in cloud ability, if such a thing exists. If you have trouble flying in cloud, you probably have trouble keeping it together in the clear blue.
And....

2. Mandate flight test and re currency be done without use of the AP at any time.
Why? Isn't the use of the autopilot something that should be tested? I would counter to say that lots of pilots get themselves into trouble because they don't know their autopilot well enough. This just says to me you don't understand the function of automation when its available. You can't fly single pilot IFR commercially without an autopilot. You can privately. That's the part to me that doesn't make sense. Yes pilots should also have good hand flying skills which should be tested, and in all of my rides and PPCs, the examiner gives me an auto pilot failure. So I feel the testing portion is adequate.

Either way, while a lot of pilot problems can be attributed to poor instruction, this one is pretty far off base. Pilots flying in icing at great risk are usually pretty long out of the FTU nest. They can take responsibility for their own decisions at this point.
Good thoughts. Though -- I am a private pilot, and have flown numerous times in hard IFR, so the career mentoring that follows training was not available to me. I did seek that out myself and flew multiple times with an experienced pilot. I agree with you on point 2, then SOME of the flight test -- maybe most? -- could be hand flown. Or type specific recurrency?

A Mooney is a different beast than a 172.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by photofly »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:16 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:03 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:45 am

Can you state with certainty that it isn't?
Obviously there are many things that one cannot be certain are not connected with the accident, but I think if you want to lay a claim that inadequate primary training or testing conditions are especially at fault here you had better have some cogent line of reasoning for doing so. I don't see any such reasoning in your posts, but I'd like to hear some.
In a word, No.

It is not for Photofly to decide on a thread's content.

An accident of this kind, opens the door to a broader conversation not just about this accident, but factors that may lead to these kinds of fatal accidents, which should disturb all of us. That includes training.

Squaretail has put forward some very thoughtful counterarguments, not attempting to shut the conversation down. I respect that.

Enough. Talk to Joe if you disagree.
I'm not trying to shut you down. But you very clearly made it known you think there's a link between this specific accident and what you see as inadequate training. Specifically, you said:
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:31 pm The systemic issue here, is FI’s are allowed to teach IFR to private pilots (like me, for example) who will fly in IMC in the future, their instructor having never seen the inside of a cloud in their life. ...

Or we will see more of these types of terrible accidents, every one of them fatal.
My emphasis.

If you want to campaign in this or any other thread for any regulatory changes you want to see, I don't want to stop you. I just want you to justify your unambiguous assertion that poor training and testing was a primary cause of this accident.

I absolutely encourage you to share your reasoning. The very opposite of trying to shut you down. An accident happened to two experienced pilots (one of whom was a flight instructor WITH an instrument rating) in IMC, and you leap to "primary instrument training is at fault". You see a connection that I obviously don't. Please explain!
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by Squaretail »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:20 am
so the career mentoring that follows training was not available to me.
I would say that you imagine "career mentoring" as something greater than it is. In most cases (my own certainly) the first encounters of new CPLs with hard IFR are going to be of the thrown in the deep end kinds of experiences. There's lots of BS one has to wade through, and a lot of care isn't taken with new pilots, just a "better get good" attitude. Lots of old boys in the game who expect that the kids got to put up with the conditions they did. That most are coming through a lot of single pilot first jobs says a lot to me of some of the initial training, because certainly the company ain't going to spare extra training to make them more comfortable with it. The hiring process mostly weeds out those who look like they can't swim, no sort of "mentoring" unless you count having a lot of bullshit heaped on you "mentoring".
A Mooney is a different beast than a 172.
Not that much different, at least when it comes to this question. The main problem, if icing is the main factor in this case, is happening before any props turn.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

Squaretail wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:42 am
A Mooney is a different beast than a 172.
Not that much different, at least when it comes to this question. The main problem, if icing is the main factor in this case, is happening before any props turn.
Yes. I simply meant an out of control Mooney will build up speed much, much faster.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5931
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:25 am An accident happened to two experienced pilots (one of whom was a flight instructor WITH an instrument rating) in IMC, and you leap to "primary instrument training is at fault". You see a connection that I obviously don't. Please explain!
To paraphrase both or your points a bit:

rookiepilot claims it's possible that the instructor with an instrument rating can reach that position without ever having flown in IMC, and can even teach how to fly in IMC without ever have flown in it themselves. Because it's possible that this is the case, and IMC flying might have been a factor in this, it's a possibly root cause to explore.

You claim that regardless of what initial training the pilots had, they have had ample opportunity to practice and/or train themselves after receiving their initial training.


You're both correct.
---------- 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
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

digits_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:46 am
You claim that regardless of what initial training the pilots had, they have had ample opportunity to practice and/or train themselves after receiving their initial training.

You're both correct.
My belief is ----- yes, its correctly ultimately the responsibility of the pilot to to maintain currency / training for the conditions they will fly in -- but like post university, too many stop that self training once the rating is achieved. At least that's my belief.

Ultimately responsibility always lies with the PIC. Some are just reckless, and Regs will never change human nature.

I believe this, its just worth exploring factors as has been done after accidents for decades now.

So like if I go for one of my favorite hikes with a sharp drop off, I slip and kill myself, is it my fault or the park's for not warning me and putting up a fence?

No easy answer. Just worth exploring.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by Squaretail »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:45 am
Squaretail wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:42 am
A Mooney is a different beast than a 172.
Not that much different, at least when it comes to this question. The main problem, if icing is the main factor in this case, is happening before any props turn.
Yes. I simply meant an out of control Mooney will build up speed much, much faster.
If anything the Mooney can make a faster approach and perhaps subject itself to less icing in the approach profile, in other words being in the window of highest risk less time. Once either plane is out of control, the difference in time between when it occurs and when they hit the ground is going to be mere seconds, if they are on the approach phase, since the ground isn't far below. FWIW, if one was to be foolish enough to challenge some icing in such a plane, the Mooney's ability to cruise faster at a higher altitude, probably allows it on a trip of such risk to spend the majority of it out of the worst ice. The poor Cessna will probably have to plod though a lot of it. The fixed gear and struts not helping its ice avoidance abilities.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

Squaretail wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:58 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:45 am
Squaretail wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:42 am


Not that much different, at least when it comes to this question. The main problem, if icing is the main factor in this case, is happening before any props turn.
Yes. I simply meant an out of control Mooney will build up speed much, much faster.
If anything the Mooney can make a faster approach and perhaps subject itself to less icing in the approach profile, in other words being in the window of highest risk less time. Once either plane is out of control, the difference in time between when it occurs and when they hit the ground is going to be mere seconds, if they are on the approach phase, since the ground isn't far below. FWIW, if one was to be foolish enough to challenge some icing in such a plane, the Mooney's ability to cruise faster at a higher altitude, probably allows it on a trip of such risk to spend the majority of it out of the worst ice. The poor Cessna will probably have to plod though a lot of it. The fixed gear and struts not helping its ice avoidance abilities.
I would think, though I do not know, that a Mooney's stability would be impacted a lot more easily by any amount of ice than a Cessna's, at approach speeds. Laminar wing, don't they have?
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by photofly »

digits_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:46 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:25 am An accident happened to two experienced pilots (one of whom was a flight instructor WITH an instrument rating) in IMC, and you leap to "primary instrument training is at fault". You see a connection that I obviously don't. Please explain!
rookiepilot claims it's possible that the instructor with an instrument rating can reach that position without ever having flown in IMC, and can even teach how to fly in IMC without ever have flown in it themselves. Because it's possible that this is the case, and IMC flying might have been a factor in this, it's a possibly root cause to explore.
The instructor in the plane in this case wasn't the PIC. The PIC had just short of 1800 hours and his own instrument rating. The pilot was long past the time when his primary training can be blamed for any mistakes. Rookie's point is BS.

The point to explore in this case is what was the purpose of the flight, and how did those on board expect to fulfil it? This was not weather to be checking out a putative ferry pilot without time on type.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:02 am
digits_ wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:46 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 10:25 am An accident happened to two experienced pilots (one of whom was a flight instructor WITH an instrument rating) in IMC, and you leap to "primary instrument training is at fault". You see a connection that I obviously don't. Please explain!
rookiepilot claims it's possible that the instructor with an instrument rating can reach that position without ever having flown in IMC, and can even teach how to fly in IMC without ever have flown in it themselves. Because it's possible that this is the case, and IMC flying might have been a factor in this, it's a possibly root cause to explore.
The instructor in the plane in this case wasn't the PIC. The PIC had just short of 1800 hours and his own instrument rating. The pilot was long past the time when his primary training can be blamed for any mistakes. Rookie's point is BS.

The point to explore in this case is what was the purpose of the flight, and how did those on board expect to fulfil it? This was not weather to be checking out a putative ferry pilot without time on type.
I've never once seen you acknowledge the potential role of substandard training in any accident thread.

Not once.

In your world training could never be a factor in any of the countless accidents in history.

I'd examine that.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by photofly »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:15 am I've never once seen you acknowledge the potential role of substandard training in any accident thread.

Not once.
Your memory isn't nearly as good as you think it is.
viewtopic.php?p=1059735#p1059735

You were even in violent agreement with what I wrote.
rookiepilot wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 9:56 am I can't improve on the above one iota. 100% agree with every point.
But I'll recognize the role of substandard training in accidents where substandard training actually had a role, and not trot it out regardless of the circumstances.

Again, I'll ask you to consider if the primary instrument training of either of the occupants was a significant contributing factor here. You may wish to read this report again, for some background about the two people on board, and what the purpose of the flight was:
https://calgary.ctvnews.ca/one-of-a-kin ... -1.5877307
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by photofly on Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:46 am, edited 1 time in total.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Squaretail
Rank 6
Rank 6
Posts: 485
Joined: Mon Jan 22, 2018 12:27 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by Squaretail »

rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 11:00 am
I would think, though I do not know, that a Mooney's stability would be impacted a lot more easily by any amount of ice than a Cessna's, at approach speeds. Laminar wing, don't they have?
No. The Mooney isn't a fire breather in spite of what some may have you believe. Its stall characteristics are pretty benign. The Mooney's gains on speed are related more to its cleaner fuselage shape than to its aerofoil shape. While I haven't tested either in the icing conditions we're talking I can't see there being a remarkable difference. If the Mooney is more effected by the same amount of ice, it would be countered by the Cessna's tendency to collect more ice in similar exposure conditions, so the two would even out.
---------- ADS -----------
 
I'm not sure what's more depressing: That everyone has a price, or how low the price always is.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”