Jan, this is where it apparently started to go wrong.
At the very beginning of the recording the pilot reported descending out of 5000 feet for 3000 feet. He was asked which approach he wanted and he replied. In other words, he reported the engine failure at about 2500 feet, but he was already descending for the approach at that time.
The Live ATC is a tough listen. As he is trying to pick up the localiser, the vibration gets worse, then it quits. The controller then attempts a move to the Highway, because the nearest airfield is now behind. The one in front is the destination field. Passed over a golf course also, but could not see it. In a sense, that is why I asked the question in the beginning. When one is in IMC, the addege, do not stall, is always there, BUT, in attempting not to stall, what do you do. Fly straight ahead, in control, but then run out of options? Again, I appreciate this is the ultimate nightmare scenario, but, it is interesting to question how others would handle/plan, or have a plan B in place.
FWIW, he was 1 mile from the edge of the highway when he crashed into the house.
Pilots are supposed to be able to deal with an engine failure, in/under all conditions. Always have a plan B, remember? This pilot was flying in conditions she/he couldn’t manage.
Jan, it is not possible to be able to glide to a field in all conditions from any point. What on earth are you talking about? IFR, there is a risk if your engine fails at some point you may not have a convenient steep ILS to land off. It is no different from airliners which, if they lose all their engine over the Atlantic, have a problem.
Yes, Jason, sure enough there is no flying with zero risk. The prime risk was with the PIC, who did her/his own risk assertion exercise, and this was an unfortunate case of things going wrong in the least likely way possible. Which can go exactly the same for potato peeling, or ironing one’s shirts. Shit happens, at whatever one does. So far, all ok, nothing new.
Still, these three people would have had a lot better chance of survival if the powers that be, who seem to take every chance of getting us to spend money to force us to use the best of modern technology (mode S, 8,33, …) for the sake (or so they say) of our alther safety and security, had applied said technology to implement a 7 degree glide slope approach. Technically perfectly doable, but apparently nobody cares. As I read this story, they take our money and (occasionally, and hopefully not willingly) our lives, and offer ZERO in return. That is what makes me revolt.
[[ edit: upon re-reading, I found my above phrase slightly bewildering. Will try to reword it to improve clarity, if I can manage within the time bounds as set ]]
BTW the comparison to airliners is not entirely appropriate: they have multiple engines, to begin with; not to mention their habit of flying a good deal higher than us poor blighters.
Most piston aircraft wouldn’t be able to fly a 7 degree glide slope engines running. Please try to explain as your posts are certainly bewildering.
Well, the 7 degree was an example – I must admit I selected the figure at random. And to be even more lowly: do not ask me what glide slope I could manage in my humble craft. I do know, though, that when an examinator talked me into arriving in final at 1500’ AGL instead of the usual 500’, I sideslipped and put the wheels right on the threshold. Passing several points of the test in one smiling go.
And I must admit my rantings may sound confused – the story of three dead is really revolting and shocking to me – here’s one more try:
We must spend lots of money to get more and more sophisticated equipment in our cockpits; and this is justified by claims of increased safety and security. But nothing is done to offer more safety to us, we still have to accept 3 degrees glideslopes as they have existed since the days of Pontius Pilates though today’s technology perfectly allows other and even variable glideslopes.
Had the plane in the story been offered a glideslope that it could manage without engine power – well feasible with the technology that IFR planes need to carry anyway, these days – these three people might have been alive today, and enjoying their next flight. They are now dead because things went wrong at a point in space and time where they would never have needed to be if available technology had really honestly been used and applied for their safety.
I think engine failures on approaches are very rare. It is a low power phase after all.
Also the approaches need to be designed for slippery aircraft which cannot fly say 5 degrees or more.
It is the nature of IFR that one often doesn’t have a gliding option. Even in VFR one often doesn’t have one, with noise abatement circuits in all sorts of places.
Jan, you will have to accept that not every risk in life can be mitigated. Even less so in moving machinery that’s heavier than air through the skies. Gravity will win. Always. With your logic, SEP flight here in the L.A. basin would not be possible – there is almost nowhere you can set the a/c down, especially in the western part.
The three-deg GS exists for a reason, and that’s that most jets cannot fly a much steeper approach. Only certain types, for example, can do LCY (which, I think, has a 5.5 deg GS), which, to the best of my knowledge, is one of the steepest ILS GSs in the world.
FWIW, I personally know a pilot who had to glide into an Alpine valley through an undercast. Cherokee Six, late 90s, probably no GPS on board (or only one of the early rudimentary ones). Catastrophic engine failure. He managed to get through the clouds and land in the only meadow for miles around. Both he and his family walked away without a scratch. Sometimes Fate just looks the other way….
yes
yes
yes yes yes of course
But why must glideslopes be fixed, these days?
“The A380 et al are only certified for 3 degrees glideslopes so our ILS will only be calibrated for 3 degrees.” And all of G/A are smilingly passing their money and cheerfully accepting 3 degree glideslopes which may be deadly to them – as shown, more’s the pity. Today’s technology has better to offer. We are paying for it. Let us have the benefits, too!
Why must we spend more and more money without getting better service?
Actually Jan two pierces of modern tech could have saved them, synthetic vision and a parachute.
And if he had an engine failure while still setting up for an approach, he would have been even further from TOD for a steeper GS.
You have extrapolated a single accident into some sort of systemic risk. There is no evidence whatsoever for it.
Exactly why or how is a 3deg glideslope “deadly” or indeed have any relevance at all? Does it affect engine failure rate? If the engine fails in the wrong place it doesn’t matter what the glideslope is.
