Menu Sign In Contact FAQ
Banner
Welcome to our forums

Accident in Spain, M20K D-ETFT

The problem with an FI on board is that you get a strong effect whereby the non-FI tend to delegate the risk assessment to the FI. Not necessarily rationally; it is just human nature. Especially if the FI works in their club or some other social sphere. I recently read the expression “experience gradient” in an article written by an airline TRE but I can’t find it on google.

Most pilots who have an IR but (for whatever reason) are flying VFR are reluctant to ask for an IFR clearance, presumably because they are worried it might draw attention (post-landing) to some dodgy decisionmaking.

This sort of thing is one of the reasons why I almost never fly in somebody else’s plane.

Administrator
Shoreham EGKA, United Kingdom

Even if you know very little about IFR, can barely fly straight and level on instruments, if you find yourself in IMC for whatever reason, just ask for a clearance and tell them. They’ll help you. I doubt there would be much fallout in a successful outcome – slap on the wrist, probably.

Peter wrote:

The problem with an FI on board is that you get a strong effect whereby the non-FI tend to delegate the risk assessment to the FI. Not necessarily rationally; it is just human nature.

That’s very true and if you read accident reports and the subsequent discussions in the airline world, quite often the concept of ‘cockpit gradient’ comes up. The lesser experienced will defer to the more (real or perceived) experienced pilot. Call it ‘experience gradient’, if you may, although not entirely the same (authority gradient comes into play in the cockpit, especially with a FI).

AdamFrisch wrote:

Even if you know very little about IFR, can barely fly straight and level on instruments, if you find yourself in IMC for whatever reason, just ask for a clearance and tell them. They’ll help you. I doubt there would be much fallout in a successful outcome – slap on the wrist, probably

Well, in my book any subsequent action is better than death.

Altogether pretty shocking decision making and risk assessment – or rather, lack thereof.

Tragic accident….looking at those weather graphics previously posted I can only imagine heavy rain, turbulence and no clear view of the hills below the cloud base….the turn to the south was probably met by low clouds and high hills…hence the right orbit and continuation along the valley…completely boxed in…ugly black killer clouds above…hills either side…terrifying really.

YPJT, United Arab Emirates

172driver – yes, it’s terrible planning on their behalf. Maybe the good wx in beginning of trip lulled them into a false sense, but surely when you see that wall of thunderstorms you must question if it’s a good idea to continue?

We lose too many people to wx accidents because PPL training is unsuitable for the use to which the privilege is put, by the small % of people who actually get off their backside and do something interesting with their bit of paper. For all those instructors who diligently try to teach people how to fly safely, the product/service sold is still no good for actually going from A to B other than when doing trivial “club” flights i.e. 50-100nm and on nice days.

I don’t agree. We are private individuals. We are not the air force or some air line company. Orders of magnitude more people die each year boating, mountain hiking, climbing, skiing etc due to “bad weather” and “bad luck”. Some of them genuinely have bad luck, but mostly it is poor planning and ignorance of the risks, or they just don’t care, recklessness.

With a private pilot license you have the theoretical and practical knowledge/training to pilot an aircraft anywhere. The rest is just “business as usual”. If you go by boat or air or foot, it doesn’t matter. If you do stupid things, if you don’t care for airmanship, seamanship or common sense in the mountains, you have a much greater chance of experiencing “bad luck”.

The elephant is the circulation
ENVA ENOP ENMO, Norway

MooneyDriver wrote:
Cessnatraveller: with 3 pob a 252 can carry around 50 USG before going over gross. 3 hours plus climb makes about 40 USG so 10 left at the time of the accident, enough to start the fire. What if it was all in the other tank? Or mostly unusable or mess then we think?

According to Flightradar24 the duration of the previous flight Bordeaux to Cascais was almost 4 hrs. (VFR in 8500“ btw.)
https://www.flightradar24.com/data/aircraft/d-etft#11546608

This does not support your theory that lack fuel (due to respecting MTOW) was a problem on the accident flight.

AdamFrisch wrote:

Even if you know very little about IFR, can barely fly straight and level on instruments, if you find yourself in IMC for whatever reason, just ask for a clearance and tell them. They’ll help you.
Exactly.
AdamFrisch wrote:
I doubt there would be much fallout in a successful outcome – slap on the wrist, probably.
Barely. Just send the incident report. My VFR into IMC is engraved in my memory and decision making process, additional slapping wouldn’t serve any purpose. The local CAA was just happy ATC could help me and it ended ok.
cessnatraveller wrote:
the duration of the previous flight Bordeaux to Cascais was almost 4 hrs. (VFR in 8500“ btw.) This does not support your theory that lack fuel (due to respecting MTOW) was a problem on the accident flight.
Well rather that they probably took off above MTOW then, and probably on the fatal flight as well. Mooney_pilot’s theory (as I read it) was precisely that they still had fuel on board, although not necessarily a lot. The fuel selector could still be on the wrong side though, it’s easy to forget switching if they spent the last 30minutes trying to get out of the pickle they had put themselves in.

ESMK, Sweden

nobbi wrote:

Still why didn’t he ask for an IFR clearance into Reus?

I don’t know the full history, but at I said on page 1, they where VFR, the pilot contacted Barcelona ATC and reported they were having ‘problems’, and after he told that they had lost the engine and were unable to reach LERS. In Reus they were aware and retained a departing RYR flight to receive the aircraft in emergency.
Source is an ATCO on duty that day.

The crash area was very wet because it was raining heavily, so I would say that the fire is a good indicator that they had not run out of fuel, but let’s wait for the investigation.

LECU - Madrid, Spain

LeSving wrote:

I don’t agree. We are private individuals. We are not the air force or some air line company. Orders

Well operations of an airplane HAS to be executed as if it was. There is no margin for error nor for tolerance of reckless behavior.

I strongly disagree with the notion that it should be left to individuals to decide what they are capable of especially in aviation. Any privilege a license holds has to be trained and examined prior to people venturing out on their own. And retrained and reexamined if allowed to lapse.

Either a license or rating includes those things or not. If it does, training needs to include All the aspects. In that regard, European PPL training as opposed to privileges is massively deficient.

Also I don’t see how FI s are allowed to work on if their skills and teaching methods have remained outdated for years. FI s who refuse to use up to date navigation and procedures should have their privileges removed.

The same goes for any other things you quote the moment that 3rd parties are included.

LSZH(work) LSZF (GA base), Switzerland
Sign in to add your message

Back to Top