4 fatal - crash nw of Waterloo ON Aug 24 2012

[DH Driver]

Does anyone know if the shut down at WWFC was voluntary, voluntary recommended by TC or TC mandated?

[cdnpilot77]

Does anyone know if the shut down at WWFC was voluntary, voluntary recommended by TC or TC mandated?

Sort of both...they could have continued to operate but in light of the investigation it was jointly decided to shut down until they were cleared by TC

[trampbike]

There's an increased chance to spin going into 'decreased performance' (+/-) of the cold-front transition shear-zone

How thin do you think the transition between 2 air masses really is??

Actually, our old CFI - Bill Whaley, died of old age years
ago - used to spin a little Grumman Yankee trainer AA1A,
I think it was. He was a quiet, unassuming but cagey fellow,
and knew exactly what he was doing.

No matter how much someone knows what he's doing in an airplane, wouldn't you say that the AA1 is an airplane you might not want to spin with?
NASA test pilots entered a couple of unrecoverable spins in the AA1.

[iflyforpie]

Considering that consumed fuel lightens aircraft Weight carried at C-of-G, the "aft-CofG" Weight remains in the same position while the aircraft's overall gross-weight lightens substantially with fuel-lbs burned. Then in combination with performance-reducing shear while at a slower cruise-speed a touch tail-heavy is a trap to in-advertantly enter the "flat spin", just while turning in 'no flap config' to the higher loadfactor with a rising (banked) stallspeed. The 'lightened' aircraft Weight could be seen to influence maneuverablility positively just as the shear starts to sap airspeed, where the "aft-CofG " near 'outer limit' (in the same W&B envelope) then creates a much bigger 'negative effect' on stablity.

Here, a picture is worth a thousand words.



Notice how the destination weight and zero fuel weight move forward from the most aft C of G. You'd think that--looking at this diagram--that the arm of the fuel tank was actually behind the most aft C of G location.

And you'd be right, considering that the most aft C of G is at the pilot's head rest in the 172!

I fly a 172 regularly at max gross, aft C of G, absolute altitude, and in gusty conditions, and what you say about the 'negative effect' on stability is absolute hogwash. The plane is just as stable as it ever was.

[Sulako]

I have toasted a whole bunch of posts on this thread. Please try to keep it on the actual OP topic, which is the tragic accident that cost the lives of 4 kids.

[Colonel Sanders]

I know how to teach knowledge and skill.

Teaching maturity and good judgement, especially
to a young person whom is convinced he is immortal
is a little bit harder.

You can toast this post too, but I somehow suspect
that it won't be off-topic when the TSB report comes
out in a few years.

[cgzro]

Teaching maturity and good judgement, especially
to a young person whom is convinced he is immortal
is a little bit harder.

Not that I'm implying that bad judgment was a factor here. I simply don't know, however I'm very curious if the insurance industry considers younger pilots i.e. in the 16-25 year old range to be higher risk and therefore more expensive the same way they do with young drivers?

Now I suppose its pretty rare for a 16-25 to want insurance on their own plane, but just curious. Anybody know?

What I would have liked to believe and i think what I've seen, is that the young kids that get licences tend to be pretty responsible on the whole. Ok, the odd floating pencil but in general they seem to be a pretty good crowd .. unlike young drivers that don't seem to understand the physics of going around a corner too fast in the rain.

So do younger pilots make up a disproportionate number of accidents?

[Sulako]

There's a fair amount of research on this.

Inexperienced pilots make up a disproportionate number of accident cases. Unfortunately, the younger you are, the greater the odds that you have less flying experience.

What basically happens is that your chance of having an accident goes down as you accumulate flying hours. After about 10,000 hours, the accumulating protective effect of more flying time diminishes, and after about 70 years of age the accident rate starts to creep up again even in experienced pilots. Obviously every pilot is different - for example, my sense is that Cat Driver will be able to safely fly for as long as he chooses to, etc.

http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/157/10/874.full

"Flight experience, as measured by total flight time at baseline, showed a significant protective effect against the risk of crash involvement. With adjustment for age, pilots who had 5,000–9,999 hours of total flight time at baseline had a 57% lower risk of a crash than their less experienced counterparts (relative risk = 0.43, 95% confidence interval: 0.21, 0.87). The protective effect of flight experience leveled off after total flight time reached 10,000 hours. The lack of an association between pilot age and crash risk may reflect a strong “healthy worker effect” stemming from the rigorous medical standards and periodic physical examinations required for professional pilots."


http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/safetystudies/SS0501.pdf

Some really interesting tables starting on page 24 of the previous link - they basically show that experience, not age, makes the most difference between a group of pilots who have had accidents and a group of pilots who have not had accidents.

[Colonel Sanders]

This is what I have been saying, to the annoyance of many
people here, for quite some time:

Learn to fly when you are young!

The combination of these results indicated that pilots in the nonaccident
group started flying earlier in life, on average, than accident pilots.

Based on the results of these analyses, the Safety Board concludes that
pilots who start flying earlier in life are at lower risk of being involved in
a weather-related GA accident than those who start flying when they are
older, and age at first certificate is a better predictor of future accident
involvement than age at time of flight.

This looks non-intuitive, but it really isn't. When you 40, you're probably
going to be a better pilot if you had started flying at 15 (eg 25 yrs experience)
than if you had started flying at 35 (eg 5 yrs experience). Not exactly
rocket science. What is a little trickier to understand is that skills learned
at an earlier age are simply better learned. For example, the younger
you are when you learn to speak another language, the better you will
speak it when you are older. Same with learning to play a musical instrument.

But back to my original point. It's hard to think of anything more dangerous
than a 19 yr old with 200TT. He knows it all, and despite his sharp eyesight,
great reflexes and excellent motor skills, is prone to horrible lapses of judgement
which may or may not prove fatal.

If he survives, and continues to fly regularly, he is going to be a very good
pilot when he turns 40. Much, much better than if he learned to fly when he
was 35.

Horrible lapses of judgement amongst teenagers is not exactly a new
subject. Every year, you can tell when it's prom time because teenagers
get drunk and kill themselves off in their cars.

[CD]

Along the lines of what the Colonel just posted above, there was an interesting article in the National Geograpic magazine in October 2011 about the teenage brain and the different views of risk vs. reward between teens and adults:

So if teens think as well as adults do and recognize risk just as well, why do they take more chances? Here, as elsewhere, the problem lies less in what teens lack compared with adults than in what they have more of. Teens take more risks not because they don't understand the dangers but because they weigh risk versus reward differently: In situations where risk can get them something they want, they value the reward more heavily than adults do.

A video game Steinberg uses draws this out nicely. In the game, you try to drive across town in as little time as possible. Along the way you encounter several traffic lights. As in real life, the traffic lights sometimes turn from green to yellow as you approach them, forcing a quick go-or-stop decision. You save time—and score more points—if you drive through before the light turns red. But if you try to drive through the red and don't beat it, you lose even more time than you would have if you had stopped for it. Thus the game rewards you for taking a certain amount of risk but punishes you for taking too much.

When teens drive the course alone, in what Steinberg calls the emotionally "cool" situation of an empty room, they take risks at about the same rates that adults do. Add stakes that the teen cares about, however, and the situation changes. In this case Steinberg added friends: When he brought a teen's friends into the room to watch, the teen would take twice as many risks, trying to gun it through lights he'd stopped for before. The adults, meanwhile, drove no differently with a friend watching.

To Steinberg, this shows clearly that risk-taking rises not from puny thinking but from a higher regard for reward.

"They didn't take more chances because they suddenly downgraded the risk," says Steinberg. "They did so because they gave more weight to the payoff."

National Geograph Magazine, October 2011: Teenage Brains

[5x5]

But back to my original point. It's hard to think of anything more dangerous
than a 19 yr old with 200TT. He knows it all, and despite his sharp eyesight,
great reflexes and excellent motor skills, is prone to horrible lapses of judgement
which may or may not prove fatal.

If he survives, and continues to fly regularly, he is going to be a very good
pilot when he turns 40. Much, much better than if he learned to fly when he
was 35.

Not quite sure this is a totally valid comparison. You're comparing two 40 year-olds, one with 21 years flight experience and one with 5. Of course the one with 21 years experience will be better and not because of the age when he started. If you had the 19 year-old at 40 compared to a 29 year-old at 50, would the younger one definitely be better? They both have 21 years experience and the old age factor isn't affecting the 50 year old yet.

So I don't think starting age is necessarily the most important factor.

[cgzro]

Add stakes that the teen cares about, however, and the situation changes. In this case Steinberg added friends: When he brought a teen's friends into the room to watch, the teen would take twice as many risks, trying to gun it through lights he'd stopped for before. The adults, meanwhile, drove no differently with a friend watching.

Thats pretty interesting and makes a lot of sense. I can think of many fatal teen+honda civic type accidents where the teen was not alone in the car but had 3 male friends with him.

If I am not mistaken there is some province where teens are not allowed to drive with other teens as passangers unless they are family members for precisely this reason.

[Cat Driver]

They both have 21 years experience and the old age factor isn't affecting the 50 year old yet.

At what age does the old age factor start?

[Doc]

They both have 21 years experience and the old age factor isn't affecting the 50 year old yet.

At what age does the old age factor start?

Somewhere between you and me?

[Cat Driver]

Maybe old age starts when you decide flying is more work than it is worth?

[Doc]

Or, when you're too old to drive a fork lift?

[Cat Driver]

Or when they won't hire you to work the ramp because you are getting to weak to lift a fork lift with your bare hands?

[BverLuver]

Hey Fellas,

4 people under 30 died in an accident in which this thread was meant to discuss. Can you please leave your personal distress about growing old out of it and not make jokes that are completely irrelevant to thread. It is very disrespectful to those that were killed, their families and their friends.

Thank you!

BL

[Cat Driver]

The discussion has been linked to the age factor and like every discussion has gotten off track.

For sure we do not mean to be disrespectful.

[Colonel Sanders]

At what age does the old age factor start?

Very good question. If the old guys here were honest (ahem) I
would suspect that most of them would admit that they
weren't quite as youthful at 50 as they were at 40. Your
eyesight up close at night (reading those damned plates)
isn't as good, you're a little heavier, softer and not quite
as strong and fast as you were when you were 40.

Obviously with a rigorous regimen of physical exercise
and the diet of an olympic athlete and good genes you
can delay the inevitable and still be pretty good at 50.

Or if you don't exercise, eat crap, smoke and drink
heavily (esp with not so good genes) you're going to
be a wreck by the time you're 50 - if you're even still
alive.

My 40/50 numbers may be off. Anyone remember the
AC co-pilot that died in the cockpit of a sudden heart
attack at 39?

Interesting theoretical question: Let's say a pilot learned
to fly at 15 (optimal). Would he be a better pilot at 40
with 25 years of continuous flying experience, or at 50
with 35 years of continuous flying experience?

At some point you have to admit that there isn't much
new under the sun - experience is asymptotic in benefit:



Where years of experience is on the X-axis (S) and skill
as a result of experience is on the Y-axis (R).

[Colonel Sanders]

I can think of many fatal teen+honda civic type
accidents where the teen was not alone in the car but
had 3 male friends with him.

If I am not mistaken there is some province where teens are not allowed to drive with other teens as passangers unless they are family members for precisely this reason.

Odd that you mention that, Peter - in the Ottawa newspaper
this morning:

OTTAWA — One man, believed to be in his 20s, is dead and four others injured after a single-vehicle crash early Saturday morning in the area of Lowen Drive and River Road in Ottawa South.

At 2:10 a.m., paramedics were called to the intersection, where they found a severely damaged minivan with five injured occupants.

One man, who had been ejected from the vehicle with “fatal multi-system trauma,” was pronounced dead at the scene. His identity has not been confirmed.

Another man, also believed to be in his 20s, was ejected about 50 feet from the vehicle, suffered severe trauma, and was treated by paramedics and taken to hospital.

The other three occupants, including the 17-year-old man who was driving the vehicle, suffered minor injuries.

Back to what I said earlier:

But back to my original point. It's hard to think of anything more dangerous
than a 19 yr old with 200TT. He knows it all, and despite his sharp eyesight,
great reflexes and excellent motor skills, is prone to horrible lapses of judgement
which may or may not prove fatal.

[Rookie50]

Hey Fellas,

4 people under 30 died in an accident in which this thread was meant to discuss. Can you please leave your personal distress about growing old out of it and not make jokes that are completely irrelevant to thread. It is very disrespectful to those that were killed, their families and their friends.

Thank you!

BL

++1. I get the impression, It seems some can't resist not waiting for the TSB to do their work, by some of the ( implied) comments. So being a great pilot also means being a perfect accident investigator without the data, as well? Impressive. Let's just decommission the TSB. BTW, some comments....Might be good topics for discussion, some of it. Out of respect, move it to another thread.

[Doc]

Hey Fellas,

4 people under 30 died in an accident in which this thread was meant to discuss. Can you please leave your personal distress about growing old out of it and not make jokes that are completely irrelevant to thread. It is very disrespectful to those that were killed, their families and their friends.

Thank you!

BL

++1. I get the impression, It seems some can't resist not waiting for the TSB to do their work, by some of the ( implied) comments. So being a great pilot also means being a perfect accident investigator without the data, as well? Impressive. Let's just decommission the TSB. BTW, some comments....Might be good topics for discussion, some of it. Out of respect, move it to another thread.

Frankly, I don't get how, as you say "showing respect" in any way trumps taking steps to insure this doesn't happen again tomorrow. I'm one who isn't about to wait for the "sanitized" TSB version a year or more down the road. We have as many "facts" right here to deal with as TSB has. There are no CVRs, no BLACK BOXES. They have a few photos of an impact site. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's pretty obvious what happened here. To me, at least. We going to get "touchy feelly" or are we going to try to prevent the next one? I know where my priorities lie.

[Cat Driver]

"touchy feelly" trumps everything in today's society Doc.

Best we wait for the TSB report and not dwell on the present.

I bet you and I could write their report fairly accurately now.

[Colonel Sanders]

being a perfect accident investigator

Snarky sarcasm from the low-timers.

Here's a fact for the low-timers:

All of the aircraft accidents this year - including the ones
you very well could be involved in - will be found to have
no new causes as compared to accidents in the previous
108 years of powered human flight.

What can you learn from the above sentence?

You probably can't understand it, but after decades
and decades of watching people make the same mistakes
over and over again, it gets a little repetitive.