CYBW Mooney Crash

[rookiepilot]

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.

[photofly]

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

Well, no, forgive me, but you are:

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.

Did the decision making go back to their training in the first place?

[rookiepilot]

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

Well, no, forgive me, but you are:

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.

[photofly]

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

Well, no, forgive me, but you are:

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.

[rookiepilot]

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.

[pelmet]

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.

[photofly]

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?

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.

[digits_]

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.

[photofly]

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.

[rookiepilot]

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?

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.

[photofly]

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?

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.

[rookiepilot]

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.

[pdw]

one 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

[photofly]

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.

[rookiepilot]

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.

[Squaretail]

I think statistically the argument that icing related accidents are due to poor training just doesn't hold. While statistics aren't readily available for Canada, AOPA estimated that only 12% of weather related accidents had icing as a factor. This would say to me that on the whole pilots are getting warned pretty well about not flying into icing conditions. Weather related GA accidents were on the decline (the majority are still take off and landing accidents). Incidentally the lions share of Icing accidents 58% were with pilots of the 1000+ hour category. Three quarters of the accidents related to icing were of pilots in the 500+ hour category. These pilots have spent more time away from the instructor than they have had with, and says to me that pilots perhaps just get braver the more experience they have, maybe more complacent, or change their risk assessments.

Incidentally for Canada, they don't separate out any statistics for icing related accidents which would say to me that these are few and far between when taken on the whole. IF it was a huge problem, I suspect it would be on the list of things the TC training people would have on their hit list.

Also one might add, that if you feel that the standard of training is too low and needs to be raised, then that's a regulatory issue. I would argue that pilots currently are meeting the standard. We have no indication that in this case that the pilots had somehow circumvented the standards. How would one change the current standard?

[photofly]

We have no indication that in this case that the pilots had somehow circumvented the standards. How would one change the current standard?

Flight training standards will improve the moment Rookie acknowledges his true calling and qualifies as a class IV instructor.

[rookiepilot]

I think statistically the argument that icing related accidents are due to poor training just doesn't hold. While statistics aren't readily available for Canada, AOPA estimated that only 12% of weather related accidents had icing as a factor. This would say to me that on the whole pilots are getting warned pretty well about not flying into icing conditions. Weather related GA accidents were on the decline (the majority are still take off and landing accidents). Incidentally the lions share of Icing accidents 58% were with pilots of the 1000+ hour category. Three quarters of the accidents related to icing were of pilots in the 500+ hour category. These pilots have spent more time away from the instructor than they have had with, and says to me that pilots perhaps just get braver the more experience they have, maybe more complacent, or change their risk assessments.

Incidentally for Canada, they don't separate out any statistics for icing related accidents which would say to me that these are few and far between when taken on the whole. IF it was a huge problem, I suspect it would be on the list of things the TC training people would have on their hit list.

Also one might add, that if you feel that the standard of training is too low and needs to be raised, then that's a regulatory issue. I would argue that pilots currently are meeting the standard. We have no indication that in this case that the pilots had somehow circumvented the standards. How would one change the current standard?

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.

[photofly]

Really gotta stop getting triggered anytime anyone critiques flight training.

And you really need to learn the difference between critique and criticism.

[rookiepilot]

Really gotta stop getting triggered anytime anyone critiques flight training.

And you really need to learn the difference between critique and criticism.

PF. Don't become a trader if your skin is this thin.

Friendly advice.