Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

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

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

Message
Author
Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#126 Post by Diadem » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:08 pm

Ypilot wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:46 am
The MU shouldn't be allowed single pilot. If a second qualified pilot would have been there, I am sure a go around would have been initated.
The passenger-pilot held a Canadian commercial pilot licence (aeroplane), with a class 3 instructor and multi-engine rating. The passenger-pilot's licence was also endorsed with a Group 1 instrument rating, valid until 01 December 2017. At the time of the occurrence, the passenger-pilot had 834.2 total flying hours, which included 111.3 hours of multi-engine and 85.4 hours of IFR flight time. The passenger-pilot also held an FAA commercial pilot certificate, which had been issued on 18 March 2014. He had no previous experience on the MU-2B.
---------- ADS -----------
  

User avatar
Flying Low
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 915
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:22 pm
Location: Northern Ontario...why change now?

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#127 Post by Flying Low » Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:51 pm

This, unfortunately, is a pilot making a great airplane look bad. I have 2000 hours in MU2s; all with no autopilot. This pilot had an autopilot which should have given him an easier task at monitoring his progress and making corrections early on in the decent. The MU2 has a wing area (with flaps up) of 179 sq ft. By comparison a C172 has a wing area of 174 sq ft. This means high rates of descent are possible and it makes the aircraft very versatile. Obviously high rates of descent close to the ground are undesirable so corrections in the descent profile should be done as early as possible. This pilot did not successfully monitor his descent profile or speed and allowed the autopilot to weave through the approach course. There were several clues that a missed approach should be done...crossing the IAF 1500' high and 100kts fast, more than half scale deflection (likely full scale) of the CDI for the GPS approach, and finally crossing the FAF 790' high and 50kts fast. He had all the required training but still made bad decisions. You cannot legislate PDM. We, as pilots (private or commercial) are responsible to fly not only within the aircraft's capabilities but within our own personal capabilities.
---------- ADS -----------
  
"The ability to ditch an airplane in the Hudson does not qualify a pilot for a pay raise. The ability to get the pilots, with this ability, to work for 30% or 40% pay cuts qualifies those in management for millions in bonuses."

RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#128 Post by RatherBeFlying » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:08 am

The implication of the TSB report is that 6 hours a month is insufficient to maintain currency in an MU-2 - Agree/Disagree?

This is the first time I've seen the term: Passenger Pilot. Admittedly he seems not to have spoken up about the situation.

As well as a missed approach, one wonders why the pilot didn't tell ATC he needed to take a turn to get down to the IAF. But then a big chunk of my ancient IFR flight training and subsequent sim time was spent in procedure turns.

Too often the curriculum gives you a fixed recipe, but leaves you on your own when you find yourself out of bounds.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Braun
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 679
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#129 Post by Braun » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:03 am

RatherBeFlying wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:08 am
The implication of the TSB report is that 6 hours a month is insufficient to maintain currency in an MU-2 - Agree/Disagree?

This is the first time I've seen the term: Passenger Pilot. Admittedly he seems not to have spoken up about the situation.

As well as a missed approach, one wonders why the pilot didn't tell ATC he needed to take a turn to get down to the IAF. But then a big chunk of my ancient IFR flight training and subsequent sim time was spent in procedure turns.

Too often the curriculum gives you a fixed recipe, but leaves you on your own when you find yourself out of bounds.
For the ATC part the approach is done in uncontrolled airspace if I am not mistaking. Also below radar coverage.
---------- ADS -----------
  

kevenv
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 580
Joined: Thu Apr 12, 2007 6:19 am

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#130 Post by kevenv » Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:21 am

Braun wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:03 am
For the ATC part the approach is done in uncontrolled airspace if I am not mistaking. Also below radar coverage.
The airspace is controlled. No radar coverage below about 8000'.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Braun
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 679
Joined: Thu Mar 23, 2006 11:32 pm

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#131 Post by Braun » Thu Jan 11, 2018 6:20 am

kevenv wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:21 am
Braun wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 5:03 am
For the ATC part the approach is done in uncontrolled airspace if I am not mistaking. Also below radar coverage.
The airspace is controlled. No radar coverage below about 8000'.
You are correct, I am mistaking about the uncontrolled airspace. I thought it was further south than it actually is. The pilot would of been talking with the YGR FSS at that point. I remember flying into YGR once a we were terminated at 12500'.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Ypilot
Rank 3
Rank 3
Posts: 110
Joined: Wed Nov 05, 2014 2:08 pm

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#132 Post by Ypilot » Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:26 am

Diadem wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:08 pm
Ypilot wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:46 am
The MU shouldn't be allowed single pilot. If a second qualified pilot would have been there, I am sure a go around would have been initated.
The passenger-pilot held a Canadian commercial pilot licence (aeroplane), with a class 3 instructor and multi-engine rating. The passenger-pilot's licence was also endorsed with a Group 1 instrument rating, valid until 01 December 2017. At the time of the occurrence, the passenger-pilot had 834.2 total flying hours, which included 111.3 hours of multi-engine and 85.4 hours of IFR flight time. The passenger-pilot also held an FAA commercial pilot certificate, which had been issued on 18 March 2014. He had no previous experience on the MU-2B.
I should have said qualified on type.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Zaibatsu
Rank 5
Rank 5
Posts: 345
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:37 am

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#133 Post by Zaibatsu » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:24 am

It just comes down to basic airmanship. No matter what the type of aircraft, get on speed first, then worry about profile as early as you can before the FAF.

2000+ FPM ain’t going to do squat when you are gobbling up track miles at five or six a minute. It also makes getting behind the aircraft much easier.

And then when you are on speed and on profile, appropriate configurations and power settings. It’s just a machine.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Diadem
Rank 8
Rank 8
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Mar 05, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: A sigma left of the top of the bell curve

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#134 Post by Diadem » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:36 am

Ypilot wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 9:26 am
Diadem wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 11:08 pm
Ypilot wrote:
Wed Jan 10, 2018 8:46 am
The MU shouldn't be allowed single pilot. If a second qualified pilot would have been there, I am sure a go around would have been initated.
The passenger-pilot held a Canadian commercial pilot licence (aeroplane), with a class 3 instructor and multi-engine rating. The passenger-pilot's licence was also endorsed with a Group 1 instrument rating, valid until 01 December 2017. At the time of the occurrence, the passenger-pilot had 834.2 total flying hours, which included 111.3 hours of multi-engine and 85.4 hours of IFR flight time. The passenger-pilot also held an FAA commercial pilot certificate, which had been issued on 18 March 2014. He had no previous experience on the MU-2B.
I should have said qualified on type.
I don't think it should have taken a type rating to tell that the approach was screwed; anyone with an instrument rating should have realized that being that high and that fast in any airplane wasn't going to work.
---------- ADS -----------
  

JeppsOnFire
Rank 1
Rank 1
Posts: 45
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2014 4:45 pm

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#135 Post by JeppsOnFire » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:07 am

This is obvious to us older folks - but you younger pilots need to pay VERY close attention anytime you are descending with the thrust\power levers at idle. This is particularly true on approach. I have been to SIM partnered with pilots from all over the world and that experience has shown me countless times pilots will descend at idle with an altitude in the preselector and be surprised when they notice a gravely low airspeed after the airplane levels (or even stick shaker/pusher).
Keep your hand on the thrust levers. Scan.
Flying is generally pretty easy all day long and you can be lulled to carelessness until you blunder into a situation like this one.
---------- ADS -----------
  
Everything's amazing right now, and nobody's happy.
- Louis CK

RatherBeFlying
Rank 7
Rank 7
Posts: 578
Joined: Sat Sep 17, 2005 9:27 am
Location: Toronto

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#136 Post by RatherBeFlying » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:08 pm

TSB did a thorough job on the conduct of the flight and paperwork.

But we don't see a resumé of his IFR experience.

If he was always getting vectored to the IAF or equivalent, or hadn't before dealt with descent planning from the flight levels to a remote airport, that would be a significant addition to an already heavy workload as described by TSB.
---------- ADS -----------
  

pelmet
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#137 Post by pelmet » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:22 pm

JeppsOnFire wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:07 am
This is obvious to us older folks - but you younger pilots need to pay VERY close attention anytime you are descending with the thrust\power levers at idle. This is particularly true on approach. I have been to SIM partnered with pilots from all over the world and that experience has shown me countless times pilots will descend at idle with an altitude in the preselector and be surprised when they notice a gravely low airspeed after the airplane levels (or even stick shaker/pusher).
Keep your hand on the thrust levers. Scan.
Flying is generally pretty easy all day long and you can be lulled to carelessness until you blunder into a situation like this one.
I think that the emphasis of this statement needs to be on turboprop aircraft. I suppose it depends on the engines as well. PT-6/PW1000 engines have a lot of drag and really slow you down. More so in my experience than some of the other turboprop engines, some of which have minimum power settings for various different reasons which disallow complete idle power. Any comments on Garrett's and how quickly they slow you down at min power setting. Is there a minimum power setting to avoid NTSing
---------- ADS -----------
  

NotDirty!
Rank 4
Rank 4
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed May 21, 2014 4:04 pm

Re: Crash at Iles-de-la-Madeleine

#138 Post by NotDirty! » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:44 pm

pelmet wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:22 pm
I think that the emphasis of this statement needs to be on turboprop aircraft. I suppose it depends on the engines as well. PT-6/PW1000 engines have a lot of drag and really slow you down. More so in my experience than some of the other turboprop engines, some of which have minimum power settings for various different reasons which disallow complete idle power. Any comments on Garrett's and how quickly they slow you down at min power setting. Is there a minimum power setting to avoid NTSing
The Garretts slow you down pretty well at idle, especially the 5 bladed models! I once maintained 250 kts until slightly less than 5 miles final, and was able to slow down to 130 kts by 2.5 miles final. If rigged properly, you should be able to pull the power all the way to the flight idle gate, with no NTSing; sometimes you need to bump the power up a couple of percent, if the NTS starts operating.
Zaibatsu wrote:
Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:24 am
It just comes down to basic airmanship. No matter what the type of aircraft, get on speed first, then worry about profile as early as you can before the FAF.

2000+ FPM ain’t going to do squat when you are gobbling up track miles at five or six a minute. It also makes getting behind the aircraft much easier.

And then when you are on speed and on profile, appropriate configurations and power settings. It’s just a machine.
+1
6 miles per minute is only 360 kts... 1800 FPM is all you need for a 3-degree descent angle at that speed.
I am a big fan of the Vertical Speed Required readout that the Garmin GPSs offer, you set the target altitude and position, and it constantly tells you what vertical speed you need to fly to get to that goal. Makes it really easy to stay on/get on profile! It sounds like the pilot in this accident used this feature to find the top of descent, but did not continue to monitor progress towards that goal throughout the descent. A mistake I have seen fairly regularly with people new to high performance, high altitude flight; one that normally gets fixed long before anybody gets the captain upgrade.
---------- ADS -----------
  

Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”