CYBW Mooney Crash

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

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

digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6775
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by digits_ »

trey kule wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:22 am It is my understanding that the pilot flying had zero instructional experience. A bit puzzling that he was in the left seat.
Probably an insurance requirement? Doesn't look like formal instruction was required. Not that uncommon to satisfy an insurance requirement with whomever is available and meets the insurance requirements. Instructor or not.

trey kule wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:22 am
Reading some of the posts I am gobsmacked by how uninformed some pilots are about the effects of ice on an aircraft. Doesn’t seem to stop them from posting.
Why don't you correct the wrong information? Share your knowledge.
---------- 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
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

trey kule wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:22 am It is my understanding that the pilot flying had zero instructional experience.
Ahhh.

The 3 bars your class 4 FI wears, though with zero actual time in IMC as is the norm, automatically makes that person a much safer pilot and fully qualified instructor, yes?

This continuing ridiculous attitude about who is safe to teach won't die the slow and painful death it deserves.
---------- ADS -----------
 
trey kule
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4766
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2005 7:09 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by trey kule »

I am a bit surprised Rookie that you quoted me out of context. Perhaps I wasn't clear.

I included that he was a highly experienced instrument pilot. That being said, under normal circumstances what someone doing a type training flight would typically be more interested in going through procedures on the plane.
What I found odd was the trainee was not in the left seat , though I understand they were an instructor so maybe they did not see being checked out in the right seat as unusual.
Or , as digits mentioned, it was just to check off the boxes for insurance.

As to me sharing knowledge about icing., for basic knowledge TC puts out a couple of videos which many small companies have incorporated as part of their training. I am not certain, but I think private pilots would be able to access them as well.

The issue I saw in my career was that pilots could take all the training available and they still did not recognize the risk, or understand that flight characteristics only deteriorate so far and then the aircraft simply departs from flight. That point cannot be recognized, ergo , any ice is bad.

There are some good TSB reports. One in particular regarding a king air Medivac that continued in icing condition until it fell. Everyone survived so data was available. But TSB never directly asks the question “ What were you thinking”

Years ago on Avcanada there was a discussion with a young pilot intentionally flying through icing conditions to “ experience it”. . His rationale was that he had a way out if it got to bad.
A typical case of not understanding exactly where it becomes to bad. And the consequences are immediate and lethal.

As to this particular accident. Who knows? It is the typical speculation based on a sometime flimsy rationale that it is all about learning.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Accident speculation:
Those that post don’t know. Those that know don’t post
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 »

If the only experienced non-instructor instrument pilot (who was also PIC) had been in the right seat, that would have been much more suspect, given the flight was conducted in actual IMC.

It does seem strange to conduct the initial familiarization flight in a new type in IMC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

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.

I have a problem with that, and when I’ve raised it here, it gets…laughed off as unimportant.

“Shut up Rookie. The class 4 with 200 hours knows more than you ever will”.

This attitude sucks.

I recall excuses like “insurance doesn’t like it” or “the flight school won’t allow it”.

I don’t do excuses. Make it happen, mandate it, TC. Are you listening?

Or we will see more of these types of terrible accidents, every one of them fatal.
---------- 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: 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.
That doesn’t sound like an issue at play here. Both pilots were instrument rated, and there was no instrument instruction being given.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:38 pm
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.
That doesn’t sound like an issue at play here. Both pilots were instrument rated, and there was no instrument instruction being given.
Did the decision making go back to their training in the first place?

There is a system in place where instrument instructors don’t ever have to personally think about weather — specifically icing — while instructing, because they aren’t allowed to fly inside of clouds — period.

Now tell me that doesn’t lend itself to less than optimum awareness and transmission of the risks of icing (or embedded CB’s for that matter)

Of course cause I talk about finance too, the trolls think I must not be a pilot and able to articulate this stuff. Surprise! I am a pilot who has experienced these things, and they are sneaky….
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:52 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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 »

I understand (actually I don’t understand) the visceral hatred for flight instructors and the need for every accident to be directly attributable (and attributed by you) to the malfeasance of one of them, but with nearly 3000 hours of flight time between them, one hopes the two pilots on board had enough opportunity for independent learning and experience since they finished their training that any residual experiential or theoretical holes in their knowledge were really their own responsibilities.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:51 pm I understand (actually I don’t understand) the visceral hatred for flight instructors and the need for every accident to be directly attributable (and attributed by you) to the malfeasance of one of them, but with nearly 3000 hours of flight time between them, one hopes the two pilots on board had enough opportunity for independent learning and experience since they finished their training that any residual experiential or theoretical holes in their knowledge were really their own responsibilities.
Then why the heck did they take off into IMC with zero degrees on the ground, and what was it, mist and drizzle?

You’re making my comments personal against instructors. Ridiculous.

There is zero room for that on an accident forum and I have little patience for it.

Any pilots doing their IFR here, ESPECIALLY for private reasons — lesson is: demand time in actual IMC during your training. (I did).

If your instructor won’t do it, fire them / change schools. Its your life.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:53 pm
photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:51 pm I understand (actually I don’t understand) the visceral hatred for flight instructors and the need for every accident to be directly attributable (and attributed by you) to the malfeasance of one of them, but with nearly 3000 hours of flight time between them, one hopes the two pilots on board had enough opportunity for independent learning and experience since they finished their training that any residual experiential or theoretical holes in their knowledge were really their own responsibilities.
Then why the heck did they take off into IMC with zero degrees on the ground, and what was it, mist and drizzle?
I didn’t say it was good decision-making. I just said you can’t lay it at the door of a hypothetical flight instructor about whose instruction or own experience you have no evidence.

Learning doesn’t stop when the instructor gets out of the plane.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:56 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:53 pm
photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:51 pm I understand (actually I don’t understand) the visceral hatred for flight instructors and the need for every accident to be directly attributable (and attributed by you) to the malfeasance of one of them, but with nearly 3000 hours of flight time between them, one hopes the two pilots on board had enough opportunity for independent learning and experience since they finished their training that any residual experiential or theoretical holes in their knowledge were really their own responsibilities.
Then why the heck did they take off into IMC with zero degrees on the ground, and what was it, mist and drizzle?
I didn’t say it was good decision-making. I just said you can’t lay it at the door of a hypothetical flight instructor about whose instruction or own experience you have no evidence.

Learning doesn’t stop when the instructor gets out of the plane.
I didn’t. I asked, and raised what I believe is a problem with the training requirements.

“Puppy Mill” flight schools might be a bit harsh, but their is a grain of truth with no IMC — and 5 knot crosswind limits.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:53 pm You’re making my comments personal against instructors. Ridiculous.
Well, no, forgive me, but you are:
rookiepilot wrote: 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.
rookiepilot wrote: Did the decision making go back to their training in the first place?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:00 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:53 pm You’re making my comments personal against instructors. Ridiculous.
Well, no, forgive me, but you are:
rookiepilot wrote: 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.
I don’t hate them. Its not personal. Its a shi—ty training standard!

If you progress to employment, your mentorship takes care of the gaps. Not if your private.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.
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: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:03 pm
photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:00 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:53 pm You’re making my comments personal against instructors. Ridiculous.
Well, no, forgive me, but you are:
rookiepilot wrote: 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.
I don’t hate them. Its not personal. Its a shi—ty training standard!
But there’s nothing to suggest the training standard is especially at fault here. If the pilot had passed an instrument check ride the week before and launched into this weather then you might have a point. But there’s no evidence to suggest that.

If this accident is attributable to inadequate instructor experience standards, then so is every single accident that happens to any airplane anywhere, which is trite logic.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:06 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:03 pm
photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:00 pm

Well, no, forgive me, but you are:
I don’t hate them. Its not personal. Its a shi—ty training standard!
But there’s nothing to suggest the training standard is especially at fault here. If the pilot had passed an instrument check ride the week before and launched into this weather then you might have a point. But there’s no evidence to suggest that.

If this accident is attributable to inadequate instructor experience standards, then so is every single accident that happens to any airplane anywhere, which is trite logic.
Its not inadequate experience. Its an inadequate standard.

I did on my own hook, upset recovery— within safe limits— under the hood with one of my instructors. Unbelievably hard. Don’t have lunch first.

Should be required.

Accidents happen every year cause pilots can’t control the AC without an AP in IMC.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7726
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:53 pm
Then why the heck did they take off into IMC with zero degrees on the ground, and what was it, mist and drizzle?
Poor judgement. There would be every expectation for icing in weather like 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: Its not inadequate experience. Its an inadequate standard.
But the inadequacy in the standard about which you’re complaining, is that the standard of experience required is inadequate. So… it is a complaint about inadequate experience, isn’t it?
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:13 pm Accidents happen every year cause pilots can’t control the AC without an AP in IMC.
As far as we know, this accident had nothing at all to do with an inability to control an airplane in IMC without an autopilot.
You are rather bouncing from one unconnected idea to another.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 6775
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by digits_ »

trey kule wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:07 pm

The issue I saw in my career was that pilots could take all the training available and they still did not recognize the risk, or understand that flight characteristics only deteriorate so far and then the aircraft simply departs from flight. That point cannot be recognized, ergo , any ice is bad.
It's the 'any ice is bad' and 'there is no such thing as a little bit of ice ' mantra that does more harm than good.

Most pilots will end up with ice on their plane at some point. Usually nothing happens, so they decide that the previously taught 'any ice is bad' statement is incorrect, and consequently are not afraid of icing anymore.

It's like saying that you'll die if you enter a cloud when you're a PPL. They fly through an isolated tiny cloud on an otherwise cavok day, see it's a non event, and then spiral out of control when they enter an overcast layer. Luckily a PPL student now has to spend a few hours in IMC conditions, hopefully spent demonstrating the differences in conditions you can encounter.

Yet for icing any critical questions get met by 'there is no such thing as a little ice', when in fact it is easily determined and demonstrated that there is indeed such a thing.

If you (not you personally trey) oversimplify and exaggerate when teaching an important subject, don't be surprised if people don't listen to what you're saying.
---------- 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 »

digits_ wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:43 pm
trey kule wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 6:07 pm The issue I saw in my career was that pilots could take all the training available and they still did not recognize the risk, or understand that flight characteristics only deteriorate so far and then the aircraft simply departs from flight. That point cannot be recognized, ergo , any ice is bad.
It's the 'any ice is bad' and 'there is no such thing as a little bit of ice ' mantra that does more harm than good.

Most pilots will end up with ice on their plane at some point. Usually nothing happens, so they decide that the previously taught 'any ice is bad' statement is incorrect, and consequently are not afraid of icing anymore.
I don’t think that’s a consequent conclusion most people would come to. Everyone agrees that some amount of ice will overwhelm their airplane, but the fact they had no adverse effects up to now isn't very helpful in determining what that amount is, and no use whatsoever in judging "how long" you can fly in icing.
It's like saying that you'll die if you enter a cloud when you're a PPL.
Without any kind of training at all, it’s not an unlikely result of continuing in IMC. Continued flight into bad weather kills more people - even with the training required for a PPL - than flight in icing conditions, which most people are sensible enough to avoid.

You could argue that “a little bit” of training for Instrument flying provides enough self-justification for pilots to try it and fail, whereas impressing on pilots that there’s no “safe” level of ice accretion seems to keep the death rate down quite well.


Maybe it's worth focusing more on "there's no safe duration in icing". Ice build-up enough to overwhelm a small plane can be slow, or extremely rapid.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:38 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Its not inadequate experience. Its an inadequate standard.
But the inadequacy in the standard about which you’re complaining, is that the standard of experience required is inadequate. So… it is a complaint about inadequate experience, isn’t it?
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:13 pm Accidents happen every year cause pilots can’t control the AC without an AP in IMC.
As far as we know, this accident had nothing at all to do with an inability to control an airplane in IMC without an autopilot.
You are rather bouncing from one unconnected idea to another.
We don’t know anything - yet.

They are very connected.

Icing accidents where the AC is on AP have happened frequently.
---------- 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 5:26 am
photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:38 pm
rookiepilot wrote: Its not inadequate experience. Its an inadequate standard.
But the inadequacy in the standard about which you’re complaining, is that the standard of experience required is inadequate. So… it is a complaint about inadequate experience, isn’t it?
rookiepilot wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 7:13 pm Accidents happen every year cause pilots can’t control the AC without an AP in IMC.
As far as we know, this accident had nothing at all to do with an inability to control an airplane in IMC without an autopilot.
You are rather bouncing from one unconnected idea to another.
We don’t know anything - yet.

They are very connected.

Icing accidents where the AC is on AP have happened frequently.
So… if entering icing in an unequipped aircraft, turn the autopilot off but continue, because it’s your unwillingness to hand fly that’s at the root of the problem?

Your thought processes - through it being an historic instructional deficiency to related to the level of automation in use - are unclear.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:41 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:26 am
photofly wrote: Tue Oct 25, 2022 8:38 pm
But the inadequacy in the standard about which you’re complaining, is that the standard of experience required is inadequate. So… it is a complaint about inadequate experience, isn’t it?


As far as we know, this accident had nothing at all to do with an inability to control an airplane in IMC without an autopilot.
You are rather bouncing from one unconnected idea to another.
We don’t know anything - yet.

They are very connected.

Icing accidents where the AC is on AP have happened frequently.
So… if entering icing in an unequipped aircraft, turn the autopilot off but continue, because it’s your unwillingness to hand fly that’s at the root of the problem?

Your thought processes - through it being an historic instructional deficiency to related to the level of automation in use - are unclear.
Fatal accidents are rarely one decision or process events, as you well know.

I’ve made myself clear. You want to argue and get offended about it, and defend your industry. Don’t. Just Stop.

I hope you do better by your own students than arguing with them.

The instructional standard for IFR training is inadequate. Period.

Do better.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pdw
Rank (9)
Rank (9)
Posts: 1705
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2012 6:51 am
Location: right base 24 CYSN

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by pdw »

pelmet wrote: Tue Oct 18, 2022 4:30 pmone might want to add more margin on an aircraft like that
The mooney here turns north/at SEKEM 97kts(GS/report) … with airspeed up there at 200OAGL more like 110kts. That’s ample IAS, as someone pointed out earlier in discussion. So if the TSB determined a bit high along there, it stands to reason the gradual reduction in airspeed speed (before it dropped off too far later on by accident) is probably intentional.

Edit:
The large AS:GS ratio early in approach dissipates as pitch flattening for DH. It’s here at “250ft” and ‘threshold in sight’ (barring windshield ice) where G/S goes toward par with IAS, where IMO TSB evidence is pointing out airspeed margin of the last seconds of this approach/flight has closed on stallspeed of this wing’s surface for whatever reason(s). PDW
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pdw on Mon Oct 31, 2022 8:55 am, edited 3 times in total.
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 5:51 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:41 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:26 am

We don’t know anything - yet.

They are very connected.

Icing accidents where the AC is on AP have happened frequently.
So… if entering icing in an unequipped aircraft, turn the autopilot off but continue, because it’s your unwillingness to hand fly that’s at the root of the problem?

Your thought processes - through it being an historic instructional deficiency to related to the level of automation in use - are unclear.
Fatal accidents are rarely one decision or process events, as you well know.

I’ve made myself clear. You want to argue and get offended about it, and defend your industry. Don’t. Just Stop.

I hope you do better by your own students than arguing with them.

The instructional standard for IFR training is inadequate. Period.

Do better.
I am disturbed by woolly thinking, but more particularly I’m fascinated by how (and why) you twist and wriggle and contort so you can lay the blame for this accident on some flight instructor somewhere in the distant past. It’s amazing to behold.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5069
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: CYBW Mooney Crash

Post by rookiepilot »

photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 8:38 am
rookiepilot wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:51 am
photofly wrote: Wed Oct 26, 2022 5:41 am
So… if entering icing in an unequipped aircraft, turn the autopilot off but continue, because it’s your unwillingness to hand fly that’s at the root of the problem?

Your thought processes - through it being an historic instructional deficiency to related to the level of automation in use - are unclear.
Fatal accidents are rarely one decision or process events, as you well know.

I’ve made myself clear. You want to argue and get offended about it, and defend your industry. Don’t. Just Stop.

I hope you do better by your own students than arguing with them.

The instructional standard for IFR training is inadequate. Period.

Do better.
I am disturbed by woolly thinking, but more particularly I’m fascinated by how (and why) you twist and wriggle and contort so you can lay the blame for this accident on some flight instructor somewhere in the distant past. It’s amazing to behold.
All you are doing is reinforcing my bias with your comments.

Really gotta stop getting triggered anytime anyone critiques flight training. :roll:
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Wed Oct 26, 2022 9:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”