I think there is a human instinct in these situations to find reasons why ‘I wouldn’t do that’. This is not a good way to look at it. However I think learning about the links in a chain of events leading to an accident can provide useful lessons . For me most accidents make me think about times when I have done some of the things accidents pilots have done but, in my case, they worked out.
And I think we all have to accept that if we have an accident (let alone a fatal one), these days you will end up part of a thread on a forum.
Is this recorder watertight to a depth, and fireproof?
If not, it’s completely irrelevant.
In some land crashes, where there was no fire, they recover the GPS track from some Ipad etc. Not in this case…
Peter wrote:
Is this recorder watertight to a depth, and fireproof?
It is a file on an SD card.
JasonC wrote:
It is a file on an SD card.
This should be recoverable, if they find it.
On a more general note. Yes, I think we should discuss accidents. We can all learn from them. Not necessarily in a direct manner, but rather indirectly, as thinking about an accident stimulates our own thought processes about aviation. IOW – the ‘what would I have done’ question. And that can only be a good thing. Btw, if I ever come to grief in an accident, feel free to speculate to your heart’s delight including calling whatever you feel like.
yes we should discuss accidents like this, particularly accidents like this, as they keep happening and most of us will feel “it can’t happen to us” but it can.
So every time one of our fellow aviators is involved in something like this and he can no longer tell us why, it is important that we think about it, that we try to find out what has happened and even if we fail to conclude the right things in the end, we will have tought about the circumstances and maybe it will pop up in our heads if confronted with a similar scenario. Which then might just save us from ourselfs.
Even in this thread we see two almost parallel accidents: The subject SR20 and the Commander before Blackpool. Both crashed in VFR in weather which may have looked to them to be flyable when they took off but turned out not to be.
Every time I read about VFR into bad weather accidents I ask myself why. Every time I wonder why the pilot had not seen what we could find minutes after we got the news: that the weather was bad, questionable at best, that there were high risks involved in attempting this flight and that the accident became “clear” to us the moment we start looking at it.
Why not to him? Why not to a guy whose professional career does not suggest a lax attitude, a happy go lucky guy who would endanger himself without thinking. What was it that he did not see before taking off for his delivery flight in his new pride and joy?
This pilot was fairly well experienced by the facts we know, he had ample glass experience, but he was a pure VFR pilot. From what I could get out of our weather systems and posted earlier, he would have taken off and flown below a medium low overcast at around 2000-3000 ft prior to encountering the deadly conditions off the coast of Holland when the ceiling dropped down to nothing. How many of us have had similar situations, where we were flying comfortably under a manageable cloud base, particularly where people are used to fly that low due to local habits, and all of a sudden low was not low enough? I’ve experienced this twice, once crossing a not very active warm front where for 2-3 km the ceiling dropped down to 1000 ft AGL, once near Klagenfurt where clouds nearly closed off the crossing from Ljubljana. it is not a good place to be.
One bit I keep trying to drill into the heads of decision makers: Why the hell can’t we get the same kind of in flight weather information the US offers it’s pilots? Why the hell do we have to use amateur techniques to at least get some wx information into the flight deck when there is technology widely available which could get us full real time data? Because the Europeans think that weather data are a precious comodity they have to protect at the cost of lifes? This Cirrus had a modern cockpit which, given the availability, could have easily displayed most weather on the screens of that airplane. Would Mr Schäfer have continued inbound the coast if he had known that there was a 200 ft overcast in front of him? Most likely not. But he did not know that. But he could have.
Accidents like this leave me sad but also mad. First of all we all know how dangerous it is to underestimate weather, but secondly, many of us are aware what is out there to prevent this kind of thing, yet we have to make do with 1950 voice broadcasts if we want actual weather. When will this finally change?
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Would Mr Schäfer have continued inbound the coast if he had known that there was a 200 ft overcast in front of him? Most likely not.
Well, it wouldn’t have taken much to find out:
EHKD DEN HELDER/DE KOOY
METAR: EHKD 041425Z AUTO 12015KT 1100 R21/1100N BR OVC002 02/02 Q0988 AMB 12015KT 2500 BR FEW004 SCT005 BKN006
Mooney_Driver wrote:
One bit I keep trying to drill into the heads of decision makers: Why the hell can’t we get the same kind of in flight weather information the US offers it’s pilots?
This is a very good point.
Is an SD card recoverable after immersion?
It might be… but I would be most surprised… the data is stored as charges on little capacitors and they are just inside the plastic which is permeable to water. At work we have to bake the chips after 16hrs’ exposure to the air before they can be soldered, otherwise they will crack.
FWIW, here is an accident investigation report where a plane spent three weeks under the sea water before being recovered. The twin FADEC units were analysed by authorities so the data was still readable, but I do not think it was on SD cards. Perhaps someone can make that out from the photography. The plane was a Thielert-powered DA-40D.
Just like many other fatal GA accidents, this accident happened in silence.
No Mayday was sent out. No contact with ATC.
Why is that? Wasn’t the pilot aware of the deadly situation he was in?
He was flying alone. So if you want to talk to someone or ask advice, the radio would be the only option.
The golden rule in flying is “Aviate, Navigate, Communicate” where Communication has least priority.
But in this case Communication would have been a very powerful tool and why bother about Navigation if the controller can take over that task and give you a heading towards safety?
I know the guy who was at duty at Amsterdam Info at that time. He has a PPL and he would have tried all he could to get this guy out of trouble. Only if he would have been aware…
