Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

N186CB PA46 accident report

Familiarisation and differences training is already a legal requirement. In my experience – the diligent pilots don’t need the rules, the problematic ones don’t follow them, so without strict policing rules achieve nothing. Policing is appropriate for commercial air transport and other settings where the unsuspecting public needs protection, and it happens to an extend by outfits that rent out their aircraft (club / charter operation / schools), but the pilot-owner is on his/her own, regardless.

Biggin Hill

It would be interesting to know how the opinon of the forum is split between those who woud fly this arrival on autopilot and those by hand (or when you would disengage the autopilot). Obviolusy you can address both the possibility that it was intended to be a DIY approach or a visual approach.

Fuji_abound on a visual approach without an ILS, and assuming you had briefed to achieve VMC by the MSA (1900 feet for recovering to VMC from IFR in this location?), or diverted, typically AP disconnect when configuring on base or long final. Recall you are not ‘coupled’.

To manoeuvre you would use Control Wheel Steering, until you disconnect the AP.

Most APs have a minimum height for disconnect when not ‘coupled’ for an approach. Typically 400’ agl, or 1,300’ in this case.

In this case around 1,700’ or 900’ agl, might be a good point to disconnect.

There is a 900’ tower close to 5nm from Dunkeswell, so your VMC let down minima would need to take this into account, and from where the aircraft approached this might have required a 2,500’ MSA?

Oxford (EGTK), United Kingdom

It would be interesting to know how the opinon of the forum is split between those who woud fly this arrival on autopilot and those by hand (or when you would disengage the autopilot). Obviolusy you can address both the possibility that it was intended to be a DIY approach or a visual approach.

In IMC, DIY IAP, I would fly it on the autopilot, for maximum “spare brain”, all the way to minima, or to getting visual. Missed approach “has” to be flown manually… Hand flying in IMC, with passengers, is just being a hero and is not necessary. Also, if in CAS, ATC will be onto you over the slightest deviation.

In VMC, I would hand fly the last 5-10mins at least. I found in instrument training that if I flew on the autopilot till very late, I flew the approach (by hand) badly. A good time to disconnect and hand fly is some 10-20nm out.

Whether this guy was in VMC or IMC we will never know. My bet would be on IMC because I can’t imagine someone screwing up like this in VMC (anybody can fly a plane in VMC, short of doing it in a canyon or some such) and that scenario would probably involve losing it (in pitch control) while still in VMC and then doing the rapid climb into IMC and then losing it (in roll angle).

To manoeuvre you would use Control Wheel Steering, until you disconnect the AP.

That would IMHO depend on what exactly CWS does. Let’s say I am in AP+HDG+ALT (heading and altitude hold). When CWS is exited, what do you get? I actually can’t remember but I think you get the heading and altitude which were current when CWS was released. If you release CWS in ROL mode however, the autopilot will level the wings if the roll angle is under 7deg. I rarely use CWS – mainly use it to relieve a stall at FL200

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

My view on Fuji assertion, is thatFuji_Abound wrote:

It would be interesting to know how the opinon of the forum is split between those who woud fly this arrival on autopilot and those by hand (or when you would disengage the autopilot). Obviolusy you can address both the possibility that it was intended to be a DIY approach or a visual approach.

My view. The autopilot adds another complication, to what is already an ever developing complicated and difficult scenario. If it was a DIY approach, leaving the autopilot to get you onto the imaginary glideslope, and if you are not visual by a self imposed, large, minima, you Go Away. If it were a visual approach, with a cloudbase of 300-500’, then life is becoming extremely difficult. If flying an aeroplane with a gs of under 90kts, it maybe possible.

Flying something of speed, and not easily manoeuvrable, then forget it. Looking at the track again, I do wonder if he confused the disused airfield. I have flown into Dunkeswell a few times, and there are some land rises, some flat features, that make it not the easiest place to find, visually. Especially crawling about in the murk at 400’. Therefore to answer the question, I would hand fly, where all my concentration was on flying the aeroplane. That way, no decision about uncoupling. Just fly away if you do not like it.

Last Edited by BeechBaby at 17 Nov 16:14
Fly safe. I want this thing to land l...
EGPF Glasgow

I know I’m going back some pages, but CDI scaling on DIY IAPs has caused accidents in the past. The one that comes to mind is an S-76 accident in the 90s – in this case a professional crew practicing without the boss on board.

He didn’t take the message as he was killed lifting in thick fog, and his crews were still flying the approach that had killed his crew into Carlingford Lough.

I normally try to read accident reports in a rather detached fashion, but seeing a photo of the pilot and his family in The Times made me take a rather less objective view of the cavalier way the aircraft was being operated.

London area

Incidentally, are there any certified avionics which would give you LNAV+VNAV (i.e. like ILS or LPV) autopilot coupled guidance on a DIY approach?

This guy had a GTN750.

There is no mention of that GPS-ILS app (whose glideslope was never anywhere near the real one when I tested it on ILS approaches) but the report says he wasn’t using his tablet.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Peter wrote:

Incidentally, are there any certified avionics which would give you LNAV+VNAV (i.e. like ILS or LPV) autopilot coupled guidance on a DIY approach?

So you can collide with terrain more accurately?

EGTK Oxford

Noe wrote:

Are there reasons not to have pitot heat on from take off to landing on a PA46 (Or 98% of the planes)? (Excluding emergencies such as alternator failure where you want to save batteries)

OAT limitation on pitot heat is about the only one for me. It’s a limitation I don’t like but what can you do.

Martin wrote:


OAT limitation on pitot heat is about the only one for me. It’s a limitation I don’t like but what can you do.

I dont recall the PA46 having any airborne OAT limitation. A ground limit is more common eg i have a 2minute limitation on the ground in the C510 (which leads to many simulator ride fails apparently).

EGTK Oxford
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top