We sure can learn from this accident

[mtrv]

FYI

I believe the Hendricks crash airplane had a "VFR only" GPS installed. Again, as pilots were are scared that the FAA is around every corner and might violate us, so since we are flying a IFR approach, of course we cannot "use" the VFR only GPS, right?

The Hendricks aircraft was equipped with a Bendix/King KLN 90B, but the database was not current for use with IFR approaches.

According to the in depth article on this subject in the Sept. 06 AOPA magazine under "Safety Pilot", the GPS was installed between the seats, which required the pilot or co-pilot to look down and almost 90 degrees away from the panel & instrument scan.

And as I previously mentioned, what you get on a KLN 90B's screen isn't much information compared to today's moving map GPS's. Once passing the airport, all the screen displayed was a black line from the aircraft's symbol, back to the airport.

I set this same scenario up on my Garmin 296 hand-held with a color moving map & terrain/terrain warning features. Instead of a missed approach and climbing right turn, I continued on the runway heading beginning at 1,400' msl., waited for five miles plus another minute, and then began a straight ahead climb to 2600'.

And here is the point; while their old style GPS is showing no more than a black line, my terrain warning box has already came on with a yellow field (terrain within 2000' altitude) of warning X's followed by a red field, meaning terrain is approaching within 100' of my current altitude.

At the same time, my moving map is also showing the airport's locatiion, relative to the aircraft's, as well as terrain shading, plus the fact that the runway center line arrows would depict the airplane as outbound from the airport.

While it appears that the crew was confused regarding the fact that they had already passed the airport and overflew the missed approach point, and possibly have been relying on the GPS's annunciation lights instead of other nav instruments; they were in fact confused, or just didn't realize their real location. Just the same way, the Comair crew apparently didn't realize that the aircraft was pointed down the wrong runway.

Now, I'm not saying to replace paper charts with just electronic boxes, or to depend solely on GPS as a means of navigation. The title of this thread, has to do with what we can learn. I don't believe it's the controllers problem, as stated in the original thread. However, I'm well aware of how far GPS has improved in the last 15 years. And from what I've seen, even my hand-held Garmin will display in your face information at the exact second (as well as before) that the confused pilot apparently needs, even if he/she doesn't yet know it. And a 15" center panel mounted moving screen MFD is even going to show a lot more detail than my hand-held including high resolution airport/runway diagrams.

Since flight into terrain accidents still happen month after month, after month (I've kept track since Frank Sinatra's mother's plane crash a long time ago); I'm quite sure that these newer high tech screens, especially the future models with synthetic 3D terrain imaging, should help in reducing terrain collusions in IMC.

 

[avbug]

Yes and no...if one immediately rotates skyward and climbs like an exceptionally healthy bat, yes. But if one is spending time amid terrain, such as an approach in mountainous terrain, then the terrain informaton offered on moving maps, displays, enhanced ground prox, gpws, and the like aren't particularly useful.

As in the example I cited above, during particular types of flying I've had to silence the devices because I got sick and tired of "terrain! Pull-Up! Pull-Up!" I wasn't going to pull up; that wasn't part of the profile, and on the moving map of display on some units, I had boxes appearing which obliterated the screen, showing me different obstacles that were apparently the prominant terrain features in the area.

I was visual. Flying on instruments in those circumstances is beyond stupid. Yet pilots do it. In the example cited above, a pilot had told me at great length that he trusted the device to do just that, and closely monitored terrain while flying into mountainous airports. He told me he felt that with an instrument failure, he would catch it on the terrain display. Perhaps he would, but I made the point that perhaps he would not by having him select a cayon that would allow us out of the valley, before he could see the canyon, based on the terrain display...and then flying him to the canyon to show him what would have been the result. He was very quiet after that.

Certainly if the only purpose of these devices, displays, and equipment is to indicate that *something* big is out in front and that you must pull up, then great...but predicating terrain avoidance upon them, rather than upon standard approach proceedures, is wrong.

A crew that can't tell if they've passed the MAP or not needs only do one thing. Climb. Like a ruptured duck. Loss of situational awareness is bad. Very bad. I'm not familiar with the Hendricks crash to which you're referring, so I can't address the details. I can say that chances are the crew was far more at fault than the controller, which is the theme established by the person who started this thread...blame the controller. In the cockpit w(h)eather we are situationally aware or not, our fate is in our hands. The pilot needs to know what safe altitude will get him back out, the terrain into which he's flying, the timing involved, and all other basic aspects of the approach if he's to survive. Flying blind toward the ground at high rates of speed with terrain all around you is NOT a natural act, and it behooves on to take the full brunt of responsibility in backing ones self up sixteen ways from sunday to remain situationally aware, lest one marry the terrain.

 

[Waldom]

I hope what Erlanger and mtrv learned from this accident report is not to perform an instrument departure without a plan for terrain avoidance and not to abdicate their responsibility for situational awareness whether or not radar contact.

 

[mtrv]

I hope what Erlanger and mtrv learned from this accident report is not to perform an instrument departure without a plan for terrain avoidance and not to abdicate their responsibility for situational awareness whether or not radar contact.

I'm interested in what the future is bringing, and what's already here on a limited bases.

Synthetic 3D vision that will be presented on a HUD or MFD. Using built in topography databases, the screen projects an out the window VFR representation of mountains, nearest terrain , and the runway. It also uses a "highway in the sky" mode, that can be used for flying exacting IFR approaches, as well as holding patterns, even if an approach plate isn't used.

I'm not advocating (nor is anyone else) doing away with the approach plates, but for testing purposes, they were not used, to see how well the system can be flown. The right seater observers who see nothing but IMC are amazed just how perfect the approach is flown; either by hand or auto-pilot.

Reports on different systems being developed by NASA, Chelton and a few others, are very positive. Pilots who have flown these systems, feel that moving maps representing topography from above, such as the Garmin 1000 glass panel, now seem somewhat antique.

One can see just how good sythetic vision terrain databases are getting, by just looking at Microsoft's new FSX flight simulator, that uses newer high resolution topography databases from Space Shuttle topography mapping. X-Plane also has global terrain mapping available.

 

[Axel]

Old school:

Wait for your clearance, depart IFR and fly the DP. A little patience goes a long way.

 

[Publishers]

Avbug brings a great deal more experience to the table than a black box. While the new tech is great, recently I have had the chance to look at both the Garmin and Avadyne systems in slow piton pounders. Frankly, admitting I am an old guy, It almost became more confusing than old school. Looking all over and checking all things,,,,, oh yeah, I am supposed to be flying this thing. That is all at 100 knots not 400.
This whole thing is a bit like the DUI accident--- the bartender should have stopped me, my friends should have taken my keys, the parking lot guy should have noticed I was drunk. In the end, it was my stupidity.

 

[A Squared]

Old school:

Wait for your clearance, depart IFR and fly the DP. A little patience goes a long way.

Exactly, and even if you can't be patient and get a clearence, use the DP and don't just blindlyfly reunway heading toward mountains.

I think the point that mtrv is missing here is the guys completely dropped the ball on any sort of terrain awareness, they apparenty didn't review the departure procedure (or if they did review it and flew runway heading anyway, the gene pool is better off without them), they didn't make any attempt to figure out what the terrain was around the airport ... if they are so unconcerned about hitting a mountain that they don't do the bare basics, what makes anyone think that they wiould have correctly set up and used the terrain display if it was available. Seems to me that given thier casual attitude toward terrain, they would have had the MFD set up on the "nearest ARTCC frequencies" page as they plowed into the same mountain.

 

[mtrv]

if they are so unconcerned about hitting a mountain that they don't do the bare basics, what makes anyone think that they wiould have correctly set up and used the terrain display if it was available. Seems to me that given thier casual attitude toward terrain, they would have had the MFD set up on the "nearest ARTCC frequencies" page as they plowed into the same mountain.

Then happily, thanks to new technology as designed,

The terrain warning box will pop up, no matter what page your reviewing. Even my Garmin 296 hand-held forces me to acknowledge the fact that I'm possibly about to die, if I don't do something about it. If VFR, and low to terrain, such as putting out fires, then ignore it or don't use it, as Avbug has suggested.

I'd be willing to bet, that on those moonless nights or in IMC conditions, that a synthetic 3D topography image on the pilot's PFD or HUD will become a matter of routein, when available. Who would not use one, if it was there in front of you?

 

[satpak77]

technology will never beat a sectional chart and knowing how high the terrain is

(but yes, it helps)

 

[mtrv]

Avbug brings a great deal more experience to the table than a black box. While the new tech is great, recently I have had the chance to look at both the Garmin and Avadyne systems in slow piton pounders. Frankly, admitting I am an old guy, It almost became more confusing than old school. Looking all over and checking all things,,,,, oh yeah, I am supposed to be flying this thing. That is all at 100 knots not 400.
This whole thing is a bit like the DUI accident--- the bartender should have stopped me, my friends should have taken my keys, the parking lot guy should have noticed I was drunk. In the end, it was my stupidity.

I'm an old guy too.

And sure, it's somewhat more confusing than old school. But find someone who has actually used these new systems, and learned how to use them, instead of just a flight or two with the glass setups; and then see how many prefer to go back to the six pac setups. I have found no one! Not one single soul.