Todos
← Back to Squawk list
3 killed in small plane crash near Hobby Airport - KHOU - KHOU News
Cirrus crashed just off of Hobby Airport this afternoon. (www.khou.com) Más...Sort type: [Top] [Newest]
A final thought, had the aircraft landed on the roof of the hardware store, rather than the vehicle, the aircraft occupants might possibly have survived, as a building roof allows 3-5 times more "crumple room" than that of an SUV. Granted, one might then have seen injuries or deaths of persons inside the building, though judging from the parking lot they may not have been to many inside at the time.
Did you see what I saw!
At 1752 Z, prior to beginning the approach descent, winds were reported as 080 at 13 gusting 18 Kt. That gave equal crosswind for runways 04 and 12. On the first approach (to 04) the pilot slowed to 68 kt and descended to 400 ASL by the 2nd approach light or about 1/3 mile before the threshold (about right for a 3 deg approach slope), then ballooned (?) up to 500 ASL at 2 lights before threshold at 76 Kt (evidence of gusting) and again down to 400 ASL at 91 Kt by 1500' and just before taxiway H2, at 1757 Z. The ATC audio seems out of synch, since the "go around for traffic behind" instruction comes at 23:07 on the 1730 Z recording, or 1753 z, but it seems to me that instruction occurred when she still had lots of runway to land on. I have no Cirrus time (700+ h in the C172M), but it seems crosswind approach speeds are 85-90 Kt for 1/2 flap or no-flap, while the pilot typically got down to 73-76 Kt at the lowest descent points. On the two attempts to land on 35 the pilot descended to 200 ASL & 100 ASL just south of the F taxiway, with too little runway left for landing. Winds were 100 at 15 gusting 20 and then 090 at 13 gusting 18 for the runway 35 approaches.
The last ADSB reported speed was 55 Kt, which is the landing configuration stall speed. If you closely watch the video you can see the shadow rotating counterclockwise. The last tracing shows a left turn to join the left traffic circuit pattern for 04, and just prior the pilot was instructed to "keep it tight". Tight turn at stall speed = spin. Remember that at 60 degrees bank G force doubles and stall speeds rise, The pilot lost sight of the ASI. It doesn't take long to fall from 400 ASL, not long enough to effectively deploy the insurance parachute.
As another has written, had ATC let the pilot land on 04 rather than instructing to go-around, likely none of this discussion would have taken place. As far as runway and winds, 35 was the WORST choice given the winds, with either a complete crosswind or even slight tail wind, while 12 was likely the BEST, with wind quartering at 040 to 020 from the left, and 04 second best/worst, as wind quartered from 040 to 060 from the right.
Given the go-around from 04, Tower should have instructed the pilot to climb and join the mid-downwind for an extended left pattern to 12, as needed for departing aircraft & wake turbulence should the Cirrus land long. The upset occurred NW of the field and I doubt wake turbulence as a cause, as the departing aircraft would not generate it until rotation, perhaps mid runway 12, and it would blow westward over runway 35 (!), while the wake turbulence from aircraft landing on 04 would also be blown predominantly over the first half of runway 35 (!). Perhaps the pilot understood where the greatest wake turbulence risk lay, and so deliberately but unsuccessfully tried to land long on 35. It makes me wonder what the Tower was thinking?
This accident could have been avoided had ATC chosen the most appropriate runway, and failing that had the pilot kept the airspeed up while turning to join the 04 left downwind leg.
Best practice: always ask for the the most IN THE WIND runway.
Incidentally, a 737 first slows to 200 Kt, then flies the actual approach at between 124 & 140 Kt, per a Boeing pdf, which is about 50% faster than the SR20 approach speed.
Occasionally when I have had priority over commercial traffic I've offered to fly a circle to let them pass, since they burn more in a go-around than I would in an hour, perhaps my whole flight. It doesn't matter whether that is measured in pounds, gallons, greenbacks, or greenhouse gasses, the light GA going around is always the least entropic.
The last ADSB reported speed was 55 Kt, which is the landing configuration stall speed. If you closely watch the video you can see the shadow rotating counterclockwise. The last tracing shows a left turn to join the left traffic circuit pattern for 04, and just prior the pilot was instructed to "keep it tight". Tight turn at stall speed = spin. Remember that at 60 degrees bank G force doubles and stall speeds rise, The pilot lost sight of the ASI. It doesn't take long to fall from 400 ASL, not long enough to effectively deploy the insurance parachute.
As another has written, had ATC let the pilot land on 04 rather than instructing to go-around, likely none of this discussion would have taken place. As far as runway and winds, 35 was the WORST choice given the winds, with either a complete crosswind or even slight tail wind, while 12 was likely the BEST, with wind quartering at 040 to 020 from the left, and 04 second best/worst, as wind quartered from 040 to 060 from the right.
Given the go-around from 04, Tower should have instructed the pilot to climb and join the mid-downwind for an extended left pattern to 12, as needed for departing aircraft & wake turbulence should the Cirrus land long. The upset occurred NW of the field and I doubt wake turbulence as a cause, as the departing aircraft would not generate it until rotation, perhaps mid runway 12, and it would blow westward over runway 35 (!), while the wake turbulence from aircraft landing on 04 would also be blown predominantly over the first half of runway 35 (!). Perhaps the pilot understood where the greatest wake turbulence risk lay, and so deliberately but unsuccessfully tried to land long on 35. It makes me wonder what the Tower was thinking?
This accident could have been avoided had ATC chosen the most appropriate runway, and failing that had the pilot kept the airspeed up while turning to join the 04 left downwind leg.
Best practice: always ask for the the most IN THE WIND runway.
Incidentally, a 737 first slows to 200 Kt, then flies the actual approach at between 124 & 140 Kt, per a Boeing pdf, which is about 50% faster than the SR20 approach speed.
Occasionally when I have had priority over commercial traffic I've offered to fly a circle to let them pass, since they burn more in a go-around than I would in an hour, perhaps my whole flight. It doesn't matter whether that is measured in pounds, gallons, greenbacks, or greenhouse gasses, the light GA going around is always the least entropic.
meaning no disrespect lance defoa..the speculating and spouting off of your own facts and figures sppears to be a bit pompous..were you there that day? are you an air traffic controller? are you with the ntsb and have personal knowledge of the pilots credentials,how experienced she was with that aircraft,or actually how busy hobby is with commercial aircraft at various bank times of the day?why don't we all out of respect for the families of the three who died,hold off on further commentary without the facts from the experts...thank you
Ms. Watkins:
I've only now come back to this thread after a month. I'm sorry you took my analysis of the publicly available data related to this unfortunate accident to be pompous spouting off. Of course I was not there that day. I am not an air traffic controller, nor do I work for the NTSB. My knowledge of the pilots's skill level is only what I've been able to glean from her time licensed and having read that she had recently flown the same route. As I mentioned in my post, I am a pilot with some 750 hours logged, a good bit of that at night over unlit forests and some in cloud under IFR. I have flown in the region bounded by Edmonton AB & Ottawa ON, Wilmington NC & McAllen TX, and eastern Mexico down to San Jose Costa Rica, all in my Cessna 172. I prefer little airports, but I've landed in Memphis, Monterrey & Mexico City (not my intended airport) and others, and many times have been sequenced between commercial flights, and had family members as cockpit resources/distractions.
I am a rural general practice physician, and acting as a Civil Aviation Medical Examiner for Transport Canada is one of my roles. The TC Aviation Safety Letter has as its slogan "Learn from the mistakes of others, you'll not live long enough to make them all yourself …" (I've seen it attributed to Groucho Marx, amongst others.) I have made some errors while flying myself, including mismanaging a poorly designed fuel system, and flying inadvertently into fog at night and requiring a radar guided approach when I was only a VFR pilot, and I am fortunate to have survived them all. So it was for the purpose of learning that I looked at the evidence and made my best effort at a preliminary diagnosis.
The "facts & figures" were not my own. Most was ADS-B transponder data transmitted every 15-20 seconds available at https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4252G/history/20160609/1511Z/tracklog. I put the GPS coordinates into maps.google.com and then visually correlated the reported altitudes & speeds with positions over the airport. Of course 15 seconds is long enough for altitude to dip/balloon and recover, so the aircraft could have been closer to the runway than the data shows. I Googled the approach speeds for the SR20 as I have never been in one, let alone been pilot in command. Winds were as reported on the ATC audio and readily available in text from aviation weather sites. The tracing of the route flown is found here https://aviation-safety.net/photodata/188000_575a9108f0c27ghggh1.jpg
The data is public so pilots can learn as quickly as possible so their very next flight might be safer. The last thing any of us want to do is kill our families in a plane or vehicle due to some error. Most pilots would hope, if they are ever that poor unfortunate soul, that other pilots would soon learn how not to follow their example. It is other pilots hearing of a crash and asking, "What do I need to do or avoid doing to not repeat that same event?", that help make other pilots and their passengers safer. I've already learned from this accident and I hope my posts help other pilots stay safe too.
I've now looked up the fuel selector & the layout of the landing gear & fuel tanks. The gear are attached to the fuselage and the nose down landing would have collapsed them rearward and away from the fuel tanks in the wing, which may well have been cracked but reports suggest they did not suffer a catastrophic rupture with fuel gushing out. As the Cirrus is a plastic aircraft there is also less to make sparks. If fuel doesn't get near a source of ignition, there is no fire. Now, unlike a Cessna there is no "both" position for the SR20 fuel selector, so it is possible that one tank may have gone dry at just the worst possible time, causing loss of power during a low altitude turn. The fuel I had in two wing tanks didn't compensate for the dry header tank which stopped the engine and resulted in a Zenith CH701 landing in a river. Otherwise, I also discounted the armchair speculation about running out of 5 hours fuel (full tanks on departure) after only a 3 hour flight.
It wasn't until during my instrument training that I learned the magic word "unable" for use when ATC is trying to fly the plane from the tower. It takes a certain amount of experience, confidence & conviction that one is pilot "in command" to tell ATC they are there to serve you for flight safety, not you them for commercial flight economy. I didn't hear that in the unfortunate pilot's responses to ATC.
I've only now come back to this thread after a month. I'm sorry you took my analysis of the publicly available data related to this unfortunate accident to be pompous spouting off. Of course I was not there that day. I am not an air traffic controller, nor do I work for the NTSB. My knowledge of the pilots's skill level is only what I've been able to glean from her time licensed and having read that she had recently flown the same route. As I mentioned in my post, I am a pilot with some 750 hours logged, a good bit of that at night over unlit forests and some in cloud under IFR. I have flown in the region bounded by Edmonton AB & Ottawa ON, Wilmington NC & McAllen TX, and eastern Mexico down to San Jose Costa Rica, all in my Cessna 172. I prefer little airports, but I've landed in Memphis, Monterrey & Mexico City (not my intended airport) and others, and many times have been sequenced between commercial flights, and had family members as cockpit resources/distractions.
I am a rural general practice physician, and acting as a Civil Aviation Medical Examiner for Transport Canada is one of my roles. The TC Aviation Safety Letter has as its slogan "Learn from the mistakes of others, you'll not live long enough to make them all yourself …" (I've seen it attributed to Groucho Marx, amongst others.) I have made some errors while flying myself, including mismanaging a poorly designed fuel system, and flying inadvertently into fog at night and requiring a radar guided approach when I was only a VFR pilot, and I am fortunate to have survived them all. So it was for the purpose of learning that I looked at the evidence and made my best effort at a preliminary diagnosis.
The "facts & figures" were not my own. Most was ADS-B transponder data transmitted every 15-20 seconds available at https://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4252G/history/20160609/1511Z/tracklog. I put the GPS coordinates into maps.google.com and then visually correlated the reported altitudes & speeds with positions over the airport. Of course 15 seconds is long enough for altitude to dip/balloon and recover, so the aircraft could have been closer to the runway than the data shows. I Googled the approach speeds for the SR20 as I have never been in one, let alone been pilot in command. Winds were as reported on the ATC audio and readily available in text from aviation weather sites. The tracing of the route flown is found here https://aviation-safety.net/photodata/188000_575a9108f0c27ghggh1.jpg
The data is public so pilots can learn as quickly as possible so their very next flight might be safer. The last thing any of us want to do is kill our families in a plane or vehicle due to some error. Most pilots would hope, if they are ever that poor unfortunate soul, that other pilots would soon learn how not to follow their example. It is other pilots hearing of a crash and asking, "What do I need to do or avoid doing to not repeat that same event?", that help make other pilots and their passengers safer. I've already learned from this accident and I hope my posts help other pilots stay safe too.
I've now looked up the fuel selector & the layout of the landing gear & fuel tanks. The gear are attached to the fuselage and the nose down landing would have collapsed them rearward and away from the fuel tanks in the wing, which may well have been cracked but reports suggest they did not suffer a catastrophic rupture with fuel gushing out. As the Cirrus is a plastic aircraft there is also less to make sparks. If fuel doesn't get near a source of ignition, there is no fire. Now, unlike a Cessna there is no "both" position for the SR20 fuel selector, so it is possible that one tank may have gone dry at just the worst possible time, causing loss of power during a low altitude turn. The fuel I had in two wing tanks didn't compensate for the dry header tank which stopped the engine and resulted in a Zenith CH701 landing in a river. Otherwise, I also discounted the armchair speculation about running out of 5 hours fuel (full tanks on departure) after only a 3 hour flight.
It wasn't until during my instrument training that I learned the magic word "unable" for use when ATC is trying to fly the plane from the tower. It takes a certain amount of experience, confidence & conviction that one is pilot "in command" to tell ATC they are there to serve you for flight safety, not you them for commercial flight economy. I didn't hear that in the unfortunate pilot's responses to ATC.
Well thought out and presented. My first post and supposition that the aircraft met it's fate due to fuel exhaustion was based on the first responder reports that the fuel tanks had ruptured and there was no evidence of a fuel spill. My participation on this site since it's inception (poetic license) has been the banter with other pros. and the dissemination of knowledge to those who would be pros. or just the safest GA pilot that they can be. While it may seem at times our comments to be at the expense of those involved, it is literally a reflection of the weariness of reading accident reports in GA. NTSB reports are always a year or more down the road, this forum is not.
LANCEDEFOA..my comments were not meant as disrespectful to you sir,nor your resume/experience as a pilot..the point of this thread is to share information and comments on aircraft and events,and that is done by the sharing of knowledge..i worked with many commercial pilots in my career,and had family members with private licenses..i did however,meet quite a few who accurately could have been described as having an "attitude"..best wishes to you and I do appreciate your courteous response...
Meaning no disrespect to MSW, and all due respects to the deceased, This is (or was) an aviation first website, not FB. I have been a poster here virtually since its inception (Hello Preacher) and "the original choir" was at least 85% industry with a considerable number of GA non pro pilots and ATC. If you picked a couple of other old time ATP regulars on this site and added their total time to mine, we would quickly be over 100,000 hrs. flight time. Though we don't receive pay for it, the only reason some of us are not truly "The experts" is because we don't have the Data the FAA and NTSB are privy to. Some times you don't need it. Scroll down a couple and read my first comment, and one of the first. After you read about, Oh, a hundred accident reports about "fuel exhaustion" you kinda recognize the signs, and when they hit and rupture the tanks like this one, if they don't burn, they didn't have any in them. Fair enough, your investment in this seems emotional, mine is not. Don't run out of fuel while sortin out problems, Eastern Airlines 401 is a good read. PS. the NTSB report will come out some time in 2017 for this one, hence, the relevance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Air_Lines_Flight_401
well bentwing60 and hou1crj..no, I am not a pilot..however, I worked in the airline industry for about 30 years total for two major carriers,have always been interested in airplanes,and I have been around an awful lot of pilots during that time..of course this website is not facebook, as you so "kindly" mentioned..it is for those who are interested in aviation,the aviation industry, and stories in that capacity which happen to come from all over the globe (posters on this site do as well)..sharing knowledge of a particular aircraft or a particular situation can be informative or educational,and it is not a matter of having an "emotional investment" as you stated,because I did not know these people,but rather, being human..i also might add I am familiar with both hou and iah,and hou is now an international hub for southwest,making it even busier than before..these postings pop up in e mail if you are a logged in to flightaware,so that you can "share"as did a lot of people on this topic,or you can "rebut"...
Well Miss MSW, proud to hear you are not a pilot, and I strongly suspect you wouldn't have been one for long. I don't know or care your motives but scroll up a click or two to the MSW comment at day 5. New tune. C'mon, your gonna vote for Hillary, aren't you!
I'm #neverhillary but that was unnecessary. Let's keep the discussions technical on FA.
thank you matt..as I stated..this website is for sharing articles and oomments on aviation,aircraft and others such,not for personal remarks or political ones..discussions are open to anyone who is logged into flightaware,and I think most are in the aviation industry or private aircraft owners..i have no idea why bw60 is so acrimonious towards me,so i will ignore..hope all have a good day..by the way,civlity and courtesy go a long way..