FlyWire Update PA30 Loss of Control Inflight and B36TC Final Report

[@easttexan2933]

Sept 30, 1966 is a day I will never forget. My high school sweetheart was a passenger in a 172 headed to college station when the low time, non IFR rated pilot flew into a fast approaching cold front and flew the plane upside down into the trees near Hempstead, TX. I was 18 at the time and I still agonize over this tragedy even now. Ever time I read one of your reports, or Dan's or Juan's, this all comes rushing back. I just don't think some pilots can come to terms with turning around or just make the decision to not go. So very tragic. Deepest sympathies to family, loved ones and friends. I understand their grief. It really never goes away.

[@tgmccoy1556]

Lost a girlfriend to a crash with an inexperienced seaplane pilot

[@easttexan2933]

@@tgmccoy1556 I'm very sorry for your loss. The thoughts never go away completely, do they?

[@jfkastner]

One pilot once said he's " ... looking for reasons NOT to abort takeoffs ... " UNLESS speed, wind, runway length etc are ALL in his favor - it's the go-go-go attitude that kills too often, sad. RIP

[@alaneee5273]

Thanks for the details. You’ll recall that Part 91 o2 requirement is 30 min above 12,500ft and anytime above 14,000 ft. Independent of the rules I wouldn’t want to spend anytime near 16,000 ft without o2 - I’m just not in (and never have been) USAF pilot shape.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Pilot above 12.5 after 30 minutes. Passengers above 14.

[@leviathan68w78]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Alan is correct. It would make no sense to require oxygen for only passengers above 14. Oxygen deprivation could absolutely be a factor in this accident. 91.211 Supplemental oxygen. (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry - (1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration; (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes;

[@thomasturner1099]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Pilot over 12,500 for more than 30 minutes; pilot any time over 14,000 feet; available to passengers (but not required for passenger use) over 15,000.

[@gregellis3859]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Incorrect. 12,500 to 14,000 oxygen is needed for flight crew if greater than 30 minutes. Above 14,000 oxygen for flight crew is mandatory and above 15,000 for passengers. See below. § 91.211 Supplemental oxygen. (a) General. No person may operate a civil aircraft of U.S. registry - (1) At cabin pressure altitudes above 12,500 feet (MSL) up to and including 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen for that part of the flight at those altitudes that is of more than 30 minutes duration; (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes; and (3) At cabin pressure altitudes above 15,000 feet (MSL) unless each occupant of the aircraft is provided with supplemental oxygen.

[@kevincollins8014]

These videos are a great learning tool even if a person doesn't agree with you. Just goes to show how something as simple as trim setting and elevator can really affect ground roll

[@zimonthetown7873]

Scott, Thanks for some insight on the recent incident in Oklahoma. I knew the pilot personally and his family. A tragic loss, as all of these are. It’s surprising if what he did was increase altitude to get above weather and in effect, resulted in many factors “getting one over on him”. RIP dear friend and family.

[@thomasaltruda1243]

1:48 flying to 16,000 is not within the FAA allowance.. the FAA allows above 12.5 to 14k for 30 minutes, then above 14k the pilot needs to be on supplemental oxygen, and above 15k, the passengers must be provided oxygen, so 16k is clearly above all of these.

[@Mike-01234]

Likely they didn't have any oxygen why they were stuck really dumb I can't believe people take such risks with 2 others onboard also. Easy enough to just divert somewhere.

[@bobbob7698]

They had no O2

[@davem5333]

While 14,000 ft is a legal number, it is not a real practical safe number. Just because the FAA says you can fly that high doesn't mean that your brain is going to properly function at that altitude. I have visited Colorado ski areas on several occasions. Sometimes I was okay at 11,000 ft. Other times I was gasping at 9,000. My personal limit would be 10,000 ft.

[@bobbob7698]

@@davem5333 people need to realize that because the FAA said it is ok it is not safe. I once spent 3 hours above 10,000 when I called tower I made some mistakes on position . And as soon as I descended below 3000 it was amazing how my awareness changed

[@davem5333]

@@Mike-01234 One of the main effects of hypoxia is euphoria. The "All is well "feeling. Because of that and diminished judgment they didn't realize the deep trouble they were in. It is easy to couch fly at sea level.

[@fatherdaughterflights346]

Hey Scott. Thanks for talking about Thursday’s accident. The three family members will be buried tomorrow in the cemetery one block from our house. Tragic loss. FLYSaFE people

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Tragic loss for sure!

[@ProbableCause-DanGryder]

The Probable Cause is “not” a failure to abort. An abort was never attempted! The abort didn’t fail, what failed was the flying. Improper short field takeoff flap setting, trim setting, and short field hot/heavy technique. The real failure lies with the NTSB to quickly figure this out, publish it, and make recommendation! Took too long, they got it wrong, and not a word about how to avoid this in the future!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

True!

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

In other words, are you saying the pilot (if having the visual image or METAR) "should have turned back or gone to an alternative. 🐝💨

[@carlospar3727]

@@johnfitzpatrick2469 1- This is required for every takeoff: Follow the checklist and properly set the trim for takeoff. Didn't do that... 2- This is also required for every takeoff: Set an abort point at which, if they didn't have airspeed to fly/aircraft wasn't off the ground, they should've rejected or aborted the takeoff (throttled back to idle, maintained runway alignment, applied brakes to keep from running off the end of the runway). Either of those would've prevented the single engine accident he covered. The twin...going inadvertent IMC (I-IMC = inadvertent instrument meteorological conditions)(blind in the clouds, in the soup) for whatever reason, is something I trained pilots to counter for years. Our statistics indicated that your actions in the first 30 seconds of entering I-IMC would determine the outcome; especially at night, where you might not see the obscuration in time to avoid it. Having successfully managed the entry into IMC, the game's not over, you still have to get out of the IMC conditions. Pilots who have not practiced it, or aren't instrument rated have a very low probability of surviving the event. Sad, in both cases. Sobering, in that it can happen to anyone in a moment of inattention or distraction.

[@rrknl5187]

I’ve never flown a twin Comanche but I owned and flew a single 250 from 1975 to 1986. Often in actual IMC. I found it to be about as solid as rock, very stable plus it handled ice well. It had an autopilot, sort of......lol.......it was a basic wing-leveler. Not precise at all but it would keep the shiny side up. Also, hard to override with the yoke. If you’re not instrument rated, I think you could engage the autopilot and make a successful descent through clouds. Could be wrong though, I got my instrument rating as soon as I could. If you’re hand flying and not instrument qualified your chances of a successful descent through clouds is very low.

[@TerribleFire]

Great work. The NTSB are too busy being a great place to work to actually do an investigation.

[@fhuber7507]

NTSB takes time because they cross every T and dot every I before releasing final report. They are actually one part of the government that does work as intended.

[@kewkabe]

@@fhuber7507 Alerting the public to safety deficiencies in mechanical issues or training isn't something you should delay getting out just to "cross every T and dot every I." How many others die from the same cause while they spend all that time perfecting their reports?

[@TerribleFire]

@@kewkabe Agreed. And most of the time their conclusions are wrong. There are hundreds of documented cases where they send an avionics expert to investigate an engine failure crash. and vice versa. Its sheer uselessness.

[@kewkabe]

@@TerribleFire I'm FAA, not NTSB so I don't know their current internal culture, but I do know federal agencies and departments can develop a paranoid culture when the top of the management chain is displeased with things and gives guidance like "we need to focus on inclusion and diversity more" that snowball down the chain until everyone thinks that's top priority. I can imagine them selecting team members with that in mind and/or to rotate people more evenly, more than knowledge skills and ability criteria that have been downplayed over the years as not inclusive enough. It's just a guess on my part, but the fact their stated core values are "transparency, accountability, integrity, diversity and inclusion" I think makes it plausible.

[@TerribleFire]

@@kewkabe The NTSB did much better work when it got guys like Richard L Collins in to do the investigations for them. External investigators are much better and arent playing politics. No respect for anyone who works for any government anywhere.

[@dayre9216]

If you could please follow up on the PA 30 accident I would greatly appreciate it. The pilot was a friend and I respect your opinions and knowledge.

[@ProbableCause-DanGryder]

Great job.

[@RMR1]

Is your iron broken, captain? ... Ha! Sorry, couldn't resist -- just giving you a hard time. I only noticed because all my tee shirts look the same way. I use the spritz-water-on-shirt method of ironing, which kind of works ... but only kind of. 😉 Great video, as usual.

[@davidfrost1428]

Great stuff thanks so much

[@eddy2561]

Interesting video.....where's your lapel mic?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Trying something new.

[@kasm10]

Ty

[@rinzler9775]

The most dangerous part of most aeroplanes is the nut between the yoke and the seat.

[@ferebeefamily]

Thank you for the video.

[@dansullivan3515]

Thomas Altruda is correct (post 3 days prior to this one)- 14 CFR § 91.211 Supplemental oxygen. (a) No person may operate a civil aircraft of US registry ... (2) At cabin pressure altitudes above 14,000 feet (MSL) unless the required minimum flight crew is provided with and uses supplemental oxygen during the entire flight time at those altitudes ... you are allowed 30 minutes without O2 above 12,500 feet pressure altitude up to and including 14,000 feet. Not smart, but legal up to 14,000 ft. FAA recommends supplemental O2 above 10,000 ft. daytime and above 5,000ft. nighttime.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Ok, that’s all well and good. Has little to do with my point that I don’t think Hypoxia was a factor to this accident with that exposure time. You both score a point. What worse is he flew into IMC without qualifications.

[@dannyfowler7055]

I don’t own my own airplane, but if I did, I would think it imperative to know it’s performance characteristics…my life might depend on it. Very sad reports.

[@TerribleFire]

The irony is that all aeroplanes in the US (at least ones flying legally) have a manual in them that tells you the performance. Also if you as a pilot arent at rotation speed at 50% of the way down the runway reject the take off. The FAA has a different rule but i use 50%.

[@justinhoover6248]

What app are you using to calculate weight and balance? That looks helpful. Thanks!

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Bonanza and Baron Performance

[@briankilpatrick1121]

Hi Scott, I was wondering if you can come up with some information or anything really that regards the 2 person, fatal crash, of a b58 on June 13, 2018, departing from kvay. I personally knew both pilots involved, but the little info on the crash just confuses me. I can send you more info on it, if you would like

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Send tail number. Often there isn’t much info for accidents that old to independently work with.

[@briankilpatrick1121]

@@FlyWirescottperdue looks like it was N218BL. It was a pretty bad day to fly, I was working on his base airport that day. But he was a very experienced pilot, instrument rated and flew in instrument conditions often to be proficient, and his co-pilot was also an experienced pilot. The plane was completely destroyed on impact, but there was no fire or anything. But knowing the pilot, he never flew that plane with anything less than absolutely full tanks. Just would like to know if you have any input other than spacial D

[@gtr1952]

Hey Gunny, I went to your 'Merch' store and it is empty! Nada, nothing there at all. The book might be, didn't look, but no t-shirts, hat's, sweats etc at all. Just FYI. Thanks, --gary

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks someone else told me that today and I checked on it. I don’t know what the heck is going on! Sorry!

[@noyfub]

Probably only pulling about 14 inches of MP at 16000. Indicated airspeed maybe around 100 plus indicated.

[@ronaldheller6740]

Good info

[@armandovivenzio8276]

Hi. I have a question. You can guide me to repair, find part and other things fora Bonanza?

[@Mike-01234]

Never could understand why anyone would fly into weather in a GA aircraft not designed to go over it, or though it. There is no excuse to not knowing the weather on your flight path.

[@padsliderfranco9561]

Seems like lots of issues near this part of country.

[@Maynardtkrebs]

5 kts on the tail = difference of 10 kts on the nose (ground roll vs airspeed); would probably have made the TO even with inappropriate elevator. If a pilot is not instrument rated, they should get some real time in the clouds with CFI who is rated just to see how quick they will buy the farm without the training. Have realistic flight minimums. RIP all these folks.

[@kabaddiify]

Thank you for posting the video. For my knowledge- why wouldn't you abort the take off on the dirt runway?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

This wasn’t a dirt runway. It was 3200’ paved. But relatively short for the airplane on that day.

[@carlospar3727]

The idea is to abort while on the pavement (and staying on pavement) as opposed to not planning on the abort until one runs out of pavement and finds one's self in the dirt.

[@lutomson3496]

sad to see the Ok crash family dead..and they owned a funeral home in Milford and the services will be there always wondered how that worked with family..sad RIP

[@fatherdaughterflights346]

There are three other funeral homes involved covering the details- plus redirecting the “regular work load” of the funeral homes owned by the pilot

[@lutomson3496]

@@fatherdaughterflights346 such a sad loss glad others are helping thx

[@geeselouise]

Please explain what you mean by "elevator full aft". I know up or down, but not aft. Thank you.

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

So tell me where the yoke/ stick is when you have the elevator nose up and nose down?

[@emergencylowmaneuvering7350]

A twin comanche with 3 on board, fuel load, at 16 k and trying to climb? Sounds like a stall from that altitude and never recovered.

[@PARTner91]

When are Part 91 pilots going to start taking checklists seriously? Ya don’t have to pull out the POH, a simple CIGARS check would have prevented this accident since it would have included checking trim.

[@jackoneil3933]

Thanks for the great Situational Awareness brief Scott, looking forward to the rest of the findings and analysis. Years ago, a group of fellow aviators, A couple of CFIIs/MEIs and and former FAA members sort of pushed a proposal for additional actual and simulated primary recurrent instrument training as a requirement for non-instrument rated, high-performance endorsements/pilots, and perhaps that might be something worth revisiting today. I'm personally not an advocate for over regulation but given the known risk to posed to non-rated high performance pilots in high performance aircraft, it seems a reasonable proposal might it not? As for B6TC, I've bought sold a couple, and despite my initial delight with them, after some full-gross operations in high and hot conditions, the B36TC ended up near the bottom of my personal recommendations for a high performance single. With the T210, B/D/E55 and 58 barons, or even a Seneca my personal preference over over the B36TC. My opinion is hat if you are going to fly Turbo singles or twins, just get the rating and learn to fly safe IFR, it's what real pilots do, and that from a guy who flew a lot of hours in HP singles and even pressurized twins and a couple of turboprops without an instrument rating. You can do so safely as a VFR pilot in such aircraft but it makes no sense

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Good comment!

[@jackoneil3933]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Thanks again Scott. I fixed the typos again. Old guys voice typing on phones without glasses is like blind guys flying partial panel I guess.

[@stanislavkostarnov2157]

this content is too important of a discussion to whisper, get you mic intake settings on a louder type, you can sacrifice quality/clarity of recording we need sound!

[@N8844H]

RE the Bonanza: were t/o flaps used?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

No. Takeoff flaps in a B36TC is a bad idea.

[@N8844H]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Scott, why is that? I know the old POH's advised 1984 and later A36s and B36TCs use approach flaps (12 degrees extension in A36s/G36s; 15 degrees in B36TCs) for short field departures. They dropped mention of this later on for some reason and I don't know what that reason could be. In my Straight 36 (tips and IO550) approach flaps were very helpful getting off the ground sooner.

[@Stubby0266]

Link?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Good point... just fixed it.

[@stephenembrey883]

I really appreciate your professional insights. I grew up in the usaf, lost many many friends due to stupid things. The discussions you are doing or extremely valuable, I have no doubt you will save more than just one life and your breakdowns of these situations. I would like you to take it serious upon yourself that you are a great help in teaching.. perhaps people that were untrainable.. forgive me for word prediction but I'm working off my phone, I can spellcheck and I hit send, and my words do not come out the way I intended, just so Understood, you are completely on the right track of virtually all of your videos. You and I have lost many friends, I appreciate your place and trying to fix an open peoples eyes as to what causes these problems

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Thanks Stephen, I'll keep at it. I knew a Steve Embrey in F-4s... was that you?

[@rinzler9775]

The sky has clouds and rain, and always will. If you don't have a current IFR, you should not be flying in it.

[@johnfitzpatrick2469]

G,day Scott from Sydney Harbour Australia. Case study 1 Why the weather information discrepancy at 9000ft and why climb to 16000 (possiblity trying to fly over a cumulus nimbus storm). VFR pilot would be looking for blue sky? 🕵️🇦🇺

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Looks like that to me.

[@dandaniel439]

9000 overcast is the bottoms of the overcast layer.

[@soulbarn]

Why is it so hard for VFR pilots to maintain straight and level in the clouds? Don’t the instruments indicate both attitudes? Does the brain just want so hard to “believe” what it thinks it is doing that it can’t process or appreciate the hard data?

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

You have to believe... and practice!

[@WarblesOnALot]

G'day Scott, Hmmm, 16,000 ft with no supplemental Oxygen...; that might be OK for people in their 20s with healthy hearts and lungs - it mostly worked OK in WW-1 - but how many US Aircraft Owners & Pilots are young, fit, thin and healthy ? Most people are closer to being old, fat, and a bit chronically unwell before they have enough money to spare for twin engines to privately travel by air. This business of heading for the Deck at 340 mph for a Vertical Envelopment of the Impact Site seems to be getting to become a bit popular...; that's apparently what the China Air Boeing 737 did, too. As for heavily loaded takeoffs going downwind and trying to fly too early, with the Aircraft trimmed to stall before reaching Flying Speed....; there seems to have been a lot of complacency at work with that one... Maybe we should be speaking less of "Flying in Aeroplanes" and more of "Dicing with sudden Death, while attempting to defy Gravity, in little old Levitation-Machines...(!)" ? Maybe that might prompt some of these Human Runway-equivalents to Roadkilled Kangaroos..., to pay more attention to what they're trying to do ; rather than slap-happily going through (half) the motions of planning their Flight....; and then executing the Plan only if it is valid ? One wonders how long such people were getting away with silly stuff, and thinking they were safe all the time...(!) ? Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Good one Warbles.

[@kewkabe]

Right, you can imagine a non instrument rated pilot, "drunk" on hypoxia, flying into IMC, then remembering from his training long ago to look at the little "window" -- blue is sky, brown is ground, except it's all brown. Which way do I go?

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@FlyWirescottperdue Thanks mate, No worries ! Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@WarblesOnALot]

@@kewkabe G'day, Thanks... It's remarkable how many people don't want to accept that THEY won't be able to "feel" the Horizon via the seat of their pants. The only way to cure them is for them to pick a Cloud with a bottom sufficiently high to be able to recover from spinning out of..., big enough to take a few minutes to emerge from ; and see how they go, in real life. A mate of mine, who'd bought the prototype Bailey-Moyes Dragonfly TUG (Tows Up Gliders) and was converting on it to 3-Axis Control after 20 years of Weight-Shift Rogallos and Trikes, and he opined that it should be feasible to fly through some level of Clouds without special Instruments and Training. About a week later he was telling me how impossible it was to fly straight and level in a Cloud without propper Instruments..., after he'd had a go. I never felt any such temptation, myself, but I had grown up wallowing in Aeronautical History, and it was one of the bits of Received Wisdom against which I couldn't see any point trying to rebel against. Old mate had never been that into Flying until he taught himself to fly Rogallos by running down a grassy hill in the 1970s..., so he had flown a lot - but not with Instruments, and he hadn't read up on how people had learned to aviate in Clouds. A Trueism holds that, The Lord looks out for Fools and Innocents... And apparently people who do not realise the foolishness of their own choices generally manage to (almost miraculously) get away with some extraordinarily STUPID behaviour....; and the idea appears to be that the bright ones realise what a close call they had so they modify their attitudes and behaviour - and the sillier ones conclude that the "Rules" don't apply to them because they're immortal (?), or Lucky, maybe even Fated To Succeed..., so they go out and do it again and again, until the Odds catch up with them and everything turns to Turds for them. At which point, they all say, in the final transmission, "Shit !", "Shiesse !", "Merde !", or whatever means that in their Milk-Language. "A little knowledge is a dangerous thing...!" (Lamented the Sorcerer's Apprentice...). Such is life, Have a good one... Stay safe. ;-p Ciao !

[@jonclassical2024]

Sooooo many basics missed...who are these FAA licensed pilots and why are they making these decision's?!?!?!

[@eradicator187]

Thanks Scott, you still have me convinced to never fly. 👍

[@FlyWirescottperdue]

Learn the right way and be conscientious and you’ll find it the most rewarding thing you’ve ever done.

[@Timoftx1776]

Anyone flying cross country with their family in a twin, single, ultralight or even powered flying bicycle without a current, proficient and practiced IFR ticket is basically playing Russian roulette with their family. Might as well spin the full cylinder, point at family and say your dead because I'm stupid.

[@carlospar3727]

If one exercises care and due diligence, it isn't a showstopper nor an automatic accident to fly VFR x-cntry. The problem lies in human nature. My very first instructor pilot always hammered the idea of stacking the deck in your favor; be that with training, qualifications, equipment, information, etc. Many GA pilots fly for pleasure and so they only fly in fair weather. If you're a GA pilot flying passengers x-cntry for pleasure, you incur additional responsibilities and requirements. Planning takes on new considerations. Location/environment will determine if you need to obtain additional training (i.e. mountain flying, overwater survival, etc). Not having an instrument rating is not an issue unless you fly yourself into that environment. Tough to avoid, but the majority of pilots do so for years without incident, because they planned everything around a hard no-go definition. Even in-flight; reported storm activity, PIREPS, weather updates from FSS or Flightwatch would trigger the abort or divert to known good weather. Tomorrow is a new day. That's how most of those "old guys" have done it successfully, for years. I'm happy to have an instrument rating and feel comfortable exercising it. However, I still have a refined go/no-go for us, in our plane. Just simple risk mitigation.

[@ralphedelbach]

Voice level fluctuates too much. Difficult to follow. Otherwise informative.