Missing north of Peterborough

[RatherBeFlying]

Inexperience, poor decisions, inability to navigate in the dark...

Let me add Inadequate Curriculum

It's all too easy to get a night rating and blissfully launch yourself into the same situation.

Yep, they could have turned to 180 and got into radar coverage hopefully before overflying Lk. Ontario. They might have made it to NY, but more likely various radars would have picked them up.

Should also add that this is not the first accident where full rich empties the tanks sooner than expected.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Should also add that this is not the first accident where full rich empties the tanks sooner than expected.

If they were too low for radar coverage, just wow much more time in the air do you think they'd have gained with the mixture knob? Hardly worth mentioning?
Illya.

[photofly]

They crashed what, 20nm away from CND4. If (it's a real if) they weren't running a lean mixture, and (equally important) if they hadn't, when they realized they were uncertain of position, made the decision to slow down then remembering those things might have made the difference. It could have been as little as another 2 or 3 gallons that would have seen a different outcome.

[Illya Kuryakin]

They crashed what, 20nm away from CND4. If (it's a real if) they weren't running a lean mixture, and (equally important) if they hadn't, when they realized they were uncertain of position, made the decision to slow down then remembering those things might have made the difference. It could have been as little as another 2 or 3 gallons that would have seen a different outcome.

Were they headed that way, or were they just in the neighbourhood?
Illya

[fxyz]

Just listened to the liveatc recording. Looks like they thought they were tracking a vor radio. Is it possible that it's due to instrument failure?

[photofly]

ATC was trying to steer them to CND4 from the south east, by giving radials to follow on their VOR receiver, relayed by an AC aircraft at high level. Another aircraft had activated the ARCAL and it was hoped that GJAO would see the lights.

There are so many other "if only" items about this flight, and we don't know where the mixtre control was actually set. But if there are any benefits to this kind of hypothesizing, reminding oneself about the effect of airspeed and mixture on range and endurance is one.

[Illya Kuryakin]

The lesson here. You sort of know where you are. Within 50 miles or so. It's dark. You're low on petrol. Your ass is eating your seat.
Bite the bullet. Turn in a direction you know will cross a highway. (180 would work here). Find tail lights and follow them in for a landing. Obviously, don't pick one lonely pair of tail lights. Find a whole bunch. As in a four lane highway. Stop flying when YOU want to.....not when the fuel gods force the issue. Paper beats rock. Embarrassment beats death.
This was a sad, and preventable accident.
Illya

[photofly]

Bite the bullet. Turn in a direction you know will cross a highway. (180 would work here). Find tail lights and follow them in for a landing.

I don't disagree, but that's going to be one phenomenally difficult decision for a low time pilot to make. One most enormous bullet to bite, so to speak.

[fxyz]

reminding oneself about the effect of airspeed and mixture on range and endurance is one.

I actually did range and endurance today with my instructor today. In a strong head wind, range and endurance speeds are quite different. On top of that, best range speed is a lot faster, which increases fuel burn. What would you do in that situation? Slow down to best endurance speed and find a place to land to the east (with a tail wind)?

[photofly]

I think if you check carefully, you'll find that of the two, best endurance speed is always slower than best range speed, and that best range speed increases into a headwind but best endurance speed remains unchanged, in any steady wind.

If you have a very strong headwind and you are concerned about reaching a safe landing point - then yes, an airport behind you can be quicker and use less fuel to reach than somewhere that's geographically closer ahead of you. It's one thing to know this information when safe on the ground, but it can be psychologically very difficult to turn around in flight. It can also be very difficult when in extremis to slow down, in the air. Most of us, when uncomfortable with the situation in the air, want to get on the ground as soon as possible. Reaching safety may however depend on slowing down and spending much longer in the air to get there.

In the case in question, it's possible that the pilot didn't appreciate how strong the headwind was (if he had, he might not have become lost). Hard to judge what the best course of action is, with imperfect information.

[fxyz]

Sorry I actually wanted to type best range instead of best endurance

[PilotDAR]

It's one thing to have unexpected winds, which bugger up your range/endurance calculations. It's a separate problem when you're well off course, and worse, to the no alternates side of the course. A part of the decision making which I hope that new pilots take away from this sad event, is to give yourself a chance by erring to the safe side of your track, or indeed flying a non direct track which keeps you in safe reach of civilization and help.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Bite the bullet. Turn in a direction you know will cross a highway. (180 would work here). Find tail lights and follow them in for a landing.

I don't disagree, but that's going to be one phenomenally difficult decision for a low time pilot to make. One most enormous bullet to bite, so to speak.

Totally. It would be a tough call. But trying to rely on best range or endurance speed when you're already on fumes, is not going to help. Much. They work for a flight, but by the time you figure it's needed, it's too late. The cost of a small aviation hand held GPS should be on every PPL's Christmas wish list. Way better investment than that fancy Bose headset.
Illya

[MIQ]

If you have a very strong headwind and you are concerned about reaching a safe landing point - then yes, an airport behind you can be quicker and use less fuel to reach than somewhere that's geographically closer ahead of you. It's one thing to know this information when safe on the ground, but it can be psychologically very difficult to turn around in flight. It can also be very difficult when in extremis to slow down, in the air. Most of us, when uncomfortable with the situation in the air, want to get on the ground as soon as possible. Reaching safety may however depend on slowing down and spending much longer in the air to get there.

Reminds me of a ferry flight I did not too long ago, going down into the states. I was on my last leg towards my final destination after a long day of flying. Headwinds were way stronger than in the forecast therefore I was going into night time which I wanted to avoid. The sun was setting, I was in an unfamiliar area in the states with no great radar coverage so Terminal told me to squawk VFR and cleared me enroute. At this point the headwinds were intense and I was doing a 50 to 55 knot groundspeed. My destination 190nm away seemed unreachable and I tried everything between 2.000 and 8.000 feet but there was no way of getting out of the headwind. I was flying low in strong turbulence due to surface friction because there I got a solid 62 knots over the ground. As it was getting darker I didn't want to risk staying at that altitude so I climbed up to 4.000 feet, giving up almost 10 GS but at least I was staying definitely clear of all obstacles in darkness. I was contemplating turning around, landing at the nearest airport (which was still almost an hour away at this point) and calling it a night. But that's when the get-there-itis kicks in. However, I had plenty of fuel, a GPS installed in the plane and I hold a CPL with MIFR and it was a clear night so I wasn't too concerned of getting there. It ended up taking me 4.5 hours to fly a leg that should have been no more than 2.1 hours but anyway, at this point I was really glad to have clear weather, a GPS, an instrument rating and full fuel. Definitely taught me a lesson or two about night cross countries... Now I'm thinking back to all the VFR night cross countries that I've done with my PPL pre-IFR rating just to get that 25 night XC PIC requirement that TC wants for the ATPL and am just glad that I made it without any issues because I'm pretty sure I wasn't fully aware of the dangers of flying VFR at night. Without some sort of GPS I definitely wouldn't do it again and I definitely would account for more than 45 minutes reserve fuel.

[Illya Kuryakin]

Many years ago I followed the dirt road to a northern airport knowing full well I was out out of gas. Had planned two fuel stops. Overflow both due to conditions. Had the boss/owner, and the chief pilot on board. We were all waiting for silence. We landed on the runway, and the Baron couldn't make it to the pumps. Not a nice feeling, and it's never come close to happening again.
Illya

[CFR]

Bite the bullet. Turn in a direction you know will cross a highway. (180 would work here). Find tail lights and follow them in for a landing.

I don't disagree, but that's going to be one phenomenally difficult decision for a low time pilot to make. One most enormous bullet to bite, so to speak.

Totally. It would be a tough call. But trying to rely on best range or endurance speed when you're already on fumes, is not going to help. Much. They work for a flight, but by the time you figure it's needed, it's too late. The cost of a small aviation hand held GPS should be on every PPL's Christmas wish list. Way better investment than that fancy Bose headset.
Illya

If there is an "In" and an "Out" to a parking lot, I invariably use the wrong one. This did not bode well for navigational success for my return to flight after an absence of 18 years and so I started to look at GPS's and after looking at a bunch, settled on the Garmin Aera 510. Paper charts plus this unit in the rental aircraft (via suction cup mount) I flew, made things a bit easier, but I am a redundant kind of guy so I added one of the flight programs to my phone and an Icom handheld transceiver with VOR to my flight bag and I had most things covered. When I bought my plane, Com 1 was a Garmin 300XL so I had a built in GPS unit and the stack has an ADF as well. I had the Aera installed and upgraded it to satellite weather, and now carry an Ipad mini with Fore Flight. All this to say, that there are numerous ways to bring GPS info into the cockpit with tablet and phone apps becoming very capable at a reasonable price. As Ilya says, Christmas is coming!

One thing not mentioned here yet is using FSS via the RCO's. In the somewhat lonely stretch from Sault St Marie to Ottawa during a recent trip down east, I was able to get weather updates, amend my flight plan, provide location and arrival time updates, get and give PIREPS, virtually the whole way. Staying in touch, or at least having the frequencies handy meant that had something have gone wrong I would not have had to scramble to try and find the right frequency.

There are many take-aways from this event and the others discussed here recently. Discussion about survival kits, prompted me to rethink what I carry and a visit to Cabela's to gather many of the recommended items resulted in a 10lb survival kit that I am confident will keep me around to greet rescuers in the event of a mishap.

When the final report comes out, I will be very interested to see what kind of gear they had with them (did they have a flashlight with red filter, etc), what flight planning info had been written down, etc, to see if I am missing anything similar in my planning for cross country and night flights.

A sad event, made sadder if we don't learn from it.

[photofly]

On the audio, nobody thought to ask for a DF steer from Muskoka. I'm not sure the range (altitudes, intervening terrain etc), but worth a try.

[fxyz]

Could DF steering possibly work if radio doesn't?

[Illya Kuryakin]

Have to say, I think even Doc might agree.....not running out of gas is even more important than remembering to put the gear down.
Illya

[CpnCrunch]

Could DF steering possibly work if radio doesn't?

As I understand it, their radio was working fine (they were talking to ATC). The problem was that they weren't in radar coverage (possibly too low).

[fxyz]

I thought an AC aircraft was relaying information so their radio was out of range?

Edit: They could not establish contact with Toronto terminal but maybe they're within the radio range of Muskoka.

[CpnCrunch]

I thought an AC aircraft was relaying information so their radio was out of range?

Edit: They could not establish contact with Toronto terminal but maybe they're within the radio range of Muskoka.

Yes, you could be right. The CADOR doesn't say whether or not ATC was actually able to talk directly to them.

[photofly]

ATC comms were relayed by various AC aircraft at high altitude. There was no direct communication with Toronto on any frequency, but Muskoka might have been in range.

If an AC jet wanted to preserve a record of the radio traffic (without which only one side would be available to investigators) would there have been a way for the flight crew to keep the CVR contents?

[Blueontop]

Just listened to the liveatc recording. Looks like they thought they were tracking a vor radio. Is it possible that it's due to instrument failure?

Could you post the link please

[pelmet]

ATC comms were relayed by various AC aircraft at high altitude. There was no direct communication with Toronto on any frequency, but Muskoka might have been in range.

If an AC jet wanted to preserve a record of the radio traffic (without which only one side would be available to investigators) would there have been a way for the flight crew to keep the CVR contents?

Pull the CVR CB after arriving at the gate in accordance with any company related procedures. It has a 2 hour recording.