356 N73WA Beech Baron Crash at Catalina and the Deadly Effects of Somatogravic Illusion + GA News
49:47 Share

You've probably heard about November 7-3 Whiskey Alpha, a beach B-55 Baron that took off in dark night conditions from Catalina Island just off the coast of Southern California on October 8th. Sadly, that crash killed the pilot and four passengers, which included two CFIs and two student pilots. But what you may not have heard is that somatogravic illusion was likely a major factor in that crash, and I'll explain why.

Also in this episode, we talk about recent regulation changes that affect CFIs and about my recent trip back from Knoxville in an SR22TG7 and all of its new features that I particularly liked. We'll also talk about how I use the VNAV direct function to help with congestion that I picked up on the trip. And I'll play an ATC recording of a pilot we heard on our trip who is IFR but not following his clearance.

We'll also talk about a recent fatal accident involving a student pilot in a Cessna 150 that will leave you shaking your head. Hello again, and welcome to Aviation News Talk, where we talk general aviation. I'm Max Trescott. I've been flying for 50 years. I'm the author of several books and the 2008 National Flight Instructor of the Year, and my mission is to help you become the safest possible pilot.

Last week in episode 355, we talked with Rob Mark about Envoy Flight 3936 landing on the wrong runway at Chicago O'Hare. So if you didn't hear that episode, you may want to check it out at aviationnewstalk.com slash 355. And if you're new to the show, welcome. Glad you found us.

Take a moment right now if you would, and on whatever app you're listening to us with, touch either the subscribe key, or if you're using Spotify or the Apple Podcast app, touch the follow key so that next week's episode is downloaded for free. And let me remind you that this is a listener-supported show. We have lots of ways that you can show your love and support for the show.

When you get a moment, go out to aviationnewstalk.com slash support, where you'll find links to support the show via PayPal, Venmo, Zelle, and Patreon. And when you make a donation, I'll read your name on the show. Coming up in the news for the week of November 11th, 2024, JEP is in maybe for sale, a passenger lands a Cessna 150 after the pilot suffers a medical emergency, and the Coeur d'Alene airport is building a control tower in a novel way. All this and more in the news starts now.

From FlyingMag.com, Boeing is eyeing the sale of Jeppesen. Bloomberg has reported that Jeppesen could top Boeing CEO Kelly Ortberg's list of non-core assets being sold to shore up the plane manufacturer's balance sheet. Bloomberg, quoting unnamed sources, said the company is looking for $6 billion for the world's largest provider of aviation charts and air navigation materials to help whittle its $58 billion in debt.

It paid $1.5 billion for the company in 2000, and it's been a reliable cash cow ever since. Boeing also owns digital chart provider ForeFlight, which serves JEPs and data, but there was no mention of ForeFlight in the Bloomberg report. ForeFlight fits the profile of business units Ortberg is looking to sell. He announced early in his tenure that he will look at getting rid of anything that doesn't directly contribute to the core airliner and defense business.

From Cron4.com, Oakland Airport ordered to stop using the new San Francisco Bay name. A court ruled on Tuesday that the Oakland Airport must stop using its new name, the San Francisco Bay Oakland International Airport. The Port of Oakland opted to change the name in April to include the words San Francisco Bay to increase the visibility of the airport, claiming that travelers did not know Oakland was located in the Bay Area.

The city of San Francisco did not like that, suing the Port of Oakland and City of Oakland. On Tuesday, a court ruled in favor of San Francisco. Quote, the port has taken San Francisco's valuable mark and applied it to a smaller, less successful, and lower-rated airport, court documents read. Accordingly, San Francisco will suffer irreparable harm if a preliminary injunction is not issued. SFO submitted evidence that 15 travelers went to SFO when they meant to go to the Oakland airport.

San Francisco City Attorney David Chu said, quote, For months we have tried reasoning with Oakland officials to avoid litigation and come up with alternative names that would work for all of us. Unfortunately, those efforts were not productive, and we have no choice but to ask the court to step in and protect our trademark. The court's ruling mandates that the airport stop using the name everywhere, including advertisements, marketing, and promotion.

From GlobalAir.com, passenger lands Cessna 150 after pilot suffers medical emergency.

The passenger on a Cessna 150, November 11519, made a hard landing at the Lee-Gilmer Memorial Airport after the pilot experienced a medical emergency on October 18th. She could be heard on ATC audio calling for help and made multiple attempts before landing with guidance from ATC and a CFI on the ground, sustaining damage to the aircraft and starting a small fire. The passenger was uninjured, but the pilot later died.

The FAA said the passenger made the landing after the pilot experienced a medical emergency around 6.30 p.m. According to Aviation Safety Network, the airplane departed from the Lawrenceville-Gwinnett County Briscoe Airport. That's K-L-Z-U for K-G-V-L. From avweb.com, Wichita photographer dies in tragic ramp accident.

A 37-year-old Wichita photographer, Amanda Gallagher, was killed when she inadvertently backed into a spinning propeller on the ramp of Cook Airfield in Derby, Kansas, a suburb of Wichita. An avid skydiver herself, she was reportedly taking pictures of people exiting an airplane at the air capital drop zone when she was struck by the propeller. Gallagher was transported to a hospital but died of her injuries. The accident occurred at about 3 p.m. local time on Saturday, October 26th.

And from GeneralAviationNews.com, this comes from a final NTSB report, CFI survives propeller contact. It was chilly November morning on the ramp at KABE, the Lehigh Valley International Airport in Allentown, Pennsylvania, when a flight instructor and her student were preparing a 1976 Piper Cherokee PA-28-140 for a training flight. It was windy during the pre-flight, so the instructor elected to leave the nose gear wheel chucks in place,

They finished the pre-flight at about 10:30 in the morning and then holed up inside the cabin to wait for the winds to abate. About 30 minutes later, the CFI commanded the student to fire up the engine. When they went to throttle up to taxi, they realized that the wheel chocks were still in place.

The CFI later told the NTSB, I realized that the wheel chocks were not removed. I thought I could quickly run over to move them out of the way, so I got down from the aircraft and removed it. And not too surprisingly, that's when the accident happened. Quote, after removing the chock, the flight instructor moved to signal the student pilot that the chock was removed. In the process, she made physical contact with the spinning propeller, resulting in serious injury.

Flight instructor was a 21-year-old female who held commercial instrument tickets along with CFI and CFII flight instructor certificates. She had just shy of 550 hours, including 110 hours in make and model.

She'd racked up 185 hours in the prior three months, nearly 60 of them in the previous 30 days. In her words, once the wheel chocks were removed, I did a hand gesture indicating thumbs up with my right hand to the student sitting inside. When I did the thumbs up, I extended my hand far enough that it was close to the propeller and came in contact with it. The student's version of the report added an interesting tidbit.

He said his CFI told me that she was going to remove the chocks. I suggested shutting down, but she said it was all right. She exited the plane. After she tried to move the chocks, she looked up at me like she was in pain and told me to secure the airplane. After I secured the airplane, I got out and saw that she was bleeding and immediately put pressure on the injury and called the fuelers for assistance. In the safety recommendations section of the report, the flight school stated, quote, we will instruct all renters to shut down the aircraft before exiting the cockpit.

From GeneralAviationNews.com, standing order to top off fuel tanks backfires on pilot. This comes from an NTSB report. The pilot reported that he was under the impression that the Beach B-60's inboard fuel tanks had been topped off and he had 202 gallons on board prior to departure.

He had a standing order with the airport's FBO to top the tanks. However, the fueling was not accomplished, and he did not visually check the fuel level prior to departure. He entered 202 gallons in the cockpit fuel computer and unknowingly commenced the flight with just 61 gallons on board.

Prior to reaching his destination, his fuel supply was exhausted, both engines lost power, and he performed a forced landing in a cemetery about one mile from the airport in Farmingdale, New York. The pilot and his passengers sustained minor injuries in the crash.

Inspectors with the FAA examined the wreckage and determined the damage to the wings and fuselage was substantial. Probable cause, the pilot's improper pre-flight inspection of the airplane's fuel system, resulting in him commencing the flight with an inadequate fuel supply. From the sun.co.uk, this comes from the UK, 87-year-old grandmother killed by helicopter downwash.

Jean Langan, 87, was walking through the car park at Darreford Hospital in Plymouth, Devon when the horror unfolded. Exeter Coroner's Court heard that she and her niece were blown over by downwash by a helicopter. She suffered fatal head injuries in the tragedy and died three and a half hours later. The inquest was told that Jean had gone to the hospital to have a hearing aid fitted. As she left the appointment, the search and rescue helicopter was making its way to a helipad with a patient.

The court was told the downwash was caused by fast-moving air created by the helicopter landing. CCTV showed people falling to the ground as they walked next to the wall of the helipad. Dr. Amanda Jeffery, a home office pathologist, told the inquest jury that Jean sustained significant head injuries. She added Mrs. Langan was swept off her feet, causing her to fall backward onto the ground.

From FlyingMag.com, cash-strapped electric eVTOL manufacturer Lilium picks KPMG to handle sale. The all-electric Lilium, a vertical takeoff and landing eVTOL design being developed by German manufacturer Lilium, may need to find new life elsewhere.

On Tuesday, Lilium enlisted accounting consultancy KPMG to help find a buyer for the business after failing to secure a loan guarantee from the Bavarian government, which forced it to file for insolvency. The manufacturer said more than 1,000 employees are continuing to work toward the first crewed flight of its flagship model, for which it has received 780 firm orders, reservations, options, and memorandum of understanding from operators worldwide.

The restructuring of the company could result in liquidation via the sale of individual assets or the entire company. Elsewhere, I've read that the company had raised a total of $375 million, but that the German government recently turned down a $108 million loan request from the company.

As I've mentioned in the past, there are over 200 eVTOL companies, and we can expect that ultimately most of them will fail and that in the process, billions of dollars of investment will be lost. Of course, a few of these companies will undoubtedly survive and thrive. And finally, from spokesman.com, Coeur d'Alene Airport built a control tower from shipping containers. Instead of waiting for the FAA to build an air traffic control tower, Coeur d'Alene Airport decided to build its own.

The semi-permanent structure, built atop a stack of shipping containers, will be staffed next summer. It is really a safety issue, said Bruce Matera, county commissioner and airport liaison. The GA Airport in Hayden mostly serves small bush planes, private jets, express cargo, and emergency aircraft. Despite having no commercial passenger service, it's the second busiest airport in Idaho in terms of total flights. And some days during peak season, it even has more flights than Boise or Spokane.

Airport director Gaston Patterson said that they looked into installing a prefabricated fire lookout tower, but quotes ranged from half a million dollars. Then he thought about a popular social media post he'd seen of houses built creatively out of shipping containers. He crunched the numbers and realized he could build a tower for $300,000. The smallest FAA towers cost $20 million, he said. At first, the tower will be used from June through October. Eventually, it could be open year-round.

Well, that's the news for this week. Coming up next, a few of my updates, including our video of the week. And then later, we'll talk about two crashes, including the Baron crash on Catalina Island. All right here on the Aviation News Talk podcast. ♪

Yeah, now let's get to the good news. First, congratulations to patron supporter Jim Samuel. He wrote that he just passed his instrument rating. He says, I have listened to all your recorded podcasts and found them to be of great help as I become a competent and safe pilot again. I originally got my private in 1975, but had not flown as PIC since 1995. I returned as a rusty pilot in 2020 and have since logged 400 hours. I currently own a 1975 PIC.

Mooney M20J MSC based at Coulter Field in Bryan, Texas. I hope to complete my commercial license by the end of the year. Thanks for your service to the aviation community. Well, congratulations to you, Jim. I'm glad you're having fun doing that. And also congratulations to listener Carlos Dominguez. He says, I passed my IFR check ride. Thanks, Max. I'm an avid listener and I believe the show helps me build better habits and procedures and thus helps me be a safer pilot.

And now let me tell you about our video of the week. This comes from Robinson Helicopter and it's episode three of their Climb Higher series. And it's about the many different jobs that Robinson Helicopters are performing in Australia. It runs about five minutes and you can see them doing everything from crop dusting to my favorite, sheep mustering, which is essentially driving large herds of sheep with a helicopter. I don't think we do much of that here in the U.S.,

Anyway, I was really struck by the excellent editing. Having done some of that myself, I can see this video was professionally done. And just watching the edits that they do is almost as much fun as watching the helicopters. So to see that and our past videos of the week, go out to aviationnewstalk.com slash video. And of course, there'll be a link for that in the show notes. Now, I want to mention a number of recent changes to regulations that affect CFIs.

And these come from Jason Blair's website at jasonblair.net. So we thank him for posting this information. First one, as of November 1st, any CFI providing flight or ground training must have a TSA provider account. Now, historically, that's only been applicable for training providers who provided training with non-U.S. citizen students. But an account is now required for all CFIs, even if you're only going to provide training to U.S. citizens.

Now, it used to be pretty easy to find that website. The old URL was flightschoolcandidates.gov, but they've changed it, and it's now a little complicated. It's ftst.tsa.dhs.gov, and of course, I'll include a link to that in the show notes.

Number two, he says, remember, if you're just training U.S. citizens, you still need to verify a flight training student's U.S. citizenship before training them and retain records of these identification verifications for five years.

Next, he says TSA security awareness training was required annually. The new regulation is now that we have to do it every 24 calendar months, which matches up with our CFI currency requirements. An easy way to do this is to take a course which AOPA has online, and I'll include a link to that in the show notes.

Number four, we've mentioned in the past that for CFIs, their certificates will no longer include an expiration date. And there's a new grace period for reinstatement that's now available. If your CFI currency expires, you now have a three-month window afterwards in which to reinstate the CFI currency using a FERC. Now, FERC stands for Flight Instructor Refresher Course. In the past, these were in-person events, but they're also available online now.

So this offers CFIs who've missed the renewal window a short period of time after which they can still reinstate their CFI privileges without having to go through a full CFI reinstatement checkride. Now, during the grace period, a CFI no longer has flight instruction privileges, and you can't exercise them until after a reinstatement has been completed. So for a CFI whose certificate expires on December 31st,

They could do a FERC and then reinstate their CFI privileges in January, February, or March. If they go beyond that date, they then need to do a practical test, which is another checkride for reinstatement, or add a new CFI privilege, which would also be another checkride. And finally, Jason notes that the advisory circular that CFIs use as a reference when writing endorsements has been updated. So you'll now want to use AC61-65J.

And let me tell you a little about what I'm up to. I'm just back from a trip to Knoxville where we brought back an SR22T G7 model back to Hayward, California with the owner. Good trip, though unfortunately I picked up some congestion at the beginning of the trip, so my right ear blocked multiple times, though I was able to clear it each time. I'd been through two Cirrus training sessions on the new G7 model, though this was the first time I'd flown in one.

The G7 uses the Garmin G2000 and runs software that is very similar to the prospective Touch Plus software that runs on the Garmin G3000 in the VisionJet. So for people stepping up to the VisionJet in the future, the very best preparation you can do is to get some time on a G7 before you go off to do your VisionJet type rating. Now let me mention just one of the many features that I absolutely love.

The magneto switch has an alarm on it. So when you shut the aircraft down, if you turn off the battery switches before turning off the mag switch, you'll get an alarm which lets you know that the mag switch has been left on. And of course, that is a safeguard to minimize the chance of having a hot prop if you forget and leave the mags on when you exit the cockpit.

Note that I said this works when the battery is off. So obviously this is a hot bus item, which is powered even when the battery switches are off. So kudos to Cirrus for adding this simple feature, which I hope other aircraft manufacturers will consider as well.

Now, I talked about the G7 model in detail back in episode 310. So if you're curious about it, check out that episode at aviationnewstalk.com slash 310. And if you're interested in buying a G7, please contact me and I'll tell you more about it. Just send an email to me at max at aviationnewstalk.com.

Now, I mentioned I was congested on the trip, and we used a nifty Garmin feature that's not well known to deal with that. But first, a quick shout out to CFI Travis Clarson, who I met at our next to the last stop in Hermiston, Oregon, which is KHRI. He'd just finished a lesson in a Cessna 172 as we arrived. I'd gone to the restroom, and when I came out, I ended up face-to-face with him, and he immediately said, Max Prescott. I'm not sure how he knew what I looked like, but

He's a listener to Aviation News Talk. He's been teaching a long time and thinking of specializing in Bonanzas. I've always encouraged CFIs to specialize for a number of reasons. First, you get to know a few aircraft types in depth, and hence you can end up delivering more value to your clients. Anyway, if you're located anywhere between Walla Walla, Washington and Hermiston, Oregon, and need flight instruction, you might want to look up Travis and fly with him.

We departed Hermiston for our final leg, being careful to avoid the restricted area near the airport, and headed toward Redding, California at 8,500 feet as that took us to the top end of the Central Valley where we could descend to a lower altitude. And to generate a slow descent, we used the VNAV Direct key, which is not an autopilot function. In G1000s and Perspectives, it's a soft key, and in the VisionJet and the G7, it's under the flight plan's VNAV key.

So what we did is we chose a point on the visual approach to runway 28 right at Hayward and then hit the VNAV direct key. That generated a descent rate of about 70 feet per minute. And then we used the VNV key on the autopilot to couple to that gentle glide slope that was created for us. And that gave my ears lots of time to equalize on the descent. And I find that I'm using that feature more than I have in the past. Lots of different reasons you can choose to use it.

So nice feature you may want to check out if you're flying a glass cockpit. And earlier on the trip, we heard an interesting exchange between an aircraft and Des Moines Approach. We had just switched frequencies and caught the tail end of this before we checked in on frequency. It sounded interesting, so I went on out to liveatc.net to hear the entire exchange so that I could understand what had happened.

Here are the relevant parts of their conversation, and I've edited out other aircraft to save you time and listening. The aircraft checking in is on an IFR flight plan at 8,000 feet when he calls Des Moines Approach. Des Moines Approach, this is 176 Charlie Fox. Have information, Julia. Okay, I think I'm clear. 165, what's your approach?

I'd like to do an approach with vectors. Are you using runway 5 for that? 6 Charlie Fox, roger. Sir, 6 Charlie Fox, do we do runway 5 or runway 21? Sir, I was referring to the runway 21. Roger that. I'd like to do runway 31 RNAV with vectors. 6 Charlie Fox, roger. Sir, 6 Charlie Fox, roger. Very well. Planning 160, vector RNAV on runway 21. I'll take that.

And then this part of the conversation happened about three minutes later. Copy that. We'll apply level. Thank you.

Okay, 6 Charlie Pock drop, you're on an IFR weapon and you can't just do whatever you like, so I'll let you know otherwise, you can do exactly what I say. Copy that, 6 Charlie Pock drop. 6 Charlie Pock drop, maintain 6 down.

Maintain fixed out. Fixed early. The aircraft had descended about 1,300 feet from their assigned altitude when Des Moines Approach called them. The controller could have violated them if he'd chosen to, as anything more than a 300-foot deviation from the assigned altitude is a violation.

First, it was kind of the controller not to do this, as I'm sure this was an honest mistake. And second, it was a beautiful day with no clouds, and I'm guessing that the pilot and CFI, if there were one on board, simply forgot that they were IFR. And this is easy to do if you do a lot of instrument training, and sometimes you're IFR and sometimes you're not.

I'll often depart IFR on a training flight to give a client the experience of filing a flight plan and following a clearance. And then later, I'll often cancel IFR and continue to fly practice approaches while VFR. There is little additional educational value to being IFR when flying a practice approach. And being VFR greatly reduces the chances of getting a violation as we are VFR and can often select our own altitude and heading.

Plus, being VFR relieves the controller of some of the separation standards required when a flight is IFR. So if you're out doing instrument practice and you depart IFR, consider switching to VFR later in the flight, which will help you avoid the kind of issue that this pilot had. I also want to mention a rather tragic accident in a Cessna 150 that occurred last month. Tragic because it was totally avoidable.

A student pilot purchased a 1965 Cessna 150, and it was so new to him that on the day of the crash, he'd just submitted an application for insurance on it. On the application, he stated that he had accumulated 65 total hours of flight experience, including 30 hours in the accident aircraft make and model.

On October 31st, the aircraft, November 8110 Sierra, departed Falcon Field in Atlanta at 4.37 p.m. ET, intending to fly to KDPA, the DuPage airport near Chicago, to visit family. That distance, by the way, is 541 nautical miles.

It landed about two hours later at around 5.30 p.m. Central Time at Crossfield, Tennessee to refuel. After refueling, it departed from runway 26 at Crossfield at about 6.17 p.m. Sunset had occurred at 5.44 p.m. and the end of civil twilight was at 6.11, so it would have been very dark when the aircraft departed. The airplane proceeded to the northeast, then to the north, then to the northwest.

About a minute before the accident, the airplane turned to the west and ADS-B data ended at 6.37 p.m. at an altitude about 200 feet above the ground and about 0.3 miles east of the accident site. The pilot was not in contact with ATC prior to the accident and there were no known distress calls received by any facilities.

An initial review of the weather conditions at the time of the accident revealed that the accident site was located along the eastern edge of an eastward-moving band of precipitation. A convective segment was valid for the area surrounding the accident site. There was no evidence that the pilot received a weather briefing from a source that logged contact with pilots prior to the flight.

The pilot, age 36, left behind a wife and two children. A family friend said that the pilot had made the trip from Peachtree City to Chicago on several prior occasions. All of which probably raises a number of questions in your mind, as it certainly does for me.

First, I would never under any circumstances sign off a student pilot for a trip of that length, 541 nautical miles. There's just too much risk associated with long trips, and students lack the experience and the judgment to deal with all of those risks. My wild guess is that this pilot was not endorsed to fly this cross-country trip.

as we've seen with some other student pilot accidents in the past. And if he was endorsed for this trip, well, what was the CFI thinking? Next, the night accident rate is several times higher than the daytime accident rate. So I don't recommend low-time pilots taking long trips at night. Of course, an instrument rating can mitigate some of those risks from encountering unexpected weather. Third, have you ever flown in a Cessna 150 at night?

My primary training was done in a 1964 and a 1967 Cessna 150, and I have a fair amount of experience in these aircraft. And if you've flown one of these older airplanes at night, you know that the standard cockpit lighting in these aircraft is abysmal. In the more poorly equipped of these aircraft, there's a single red light that's above and slightly behind the pilot's head, and it's the sole source of illumination of the cockpit instruments.

What I noticed was that my head blocked the light and so perhaps only the top three flight instruments were partially illuminated. The lower three flight instruments were just impossible to see. Some of these aircraft had what was called post lighting, which placed a tiny light that was in a shielded body next to each flight instrument. And this lighting was a little better, but for aircraft without post lighting, it's very difficult to view the flight instruments at night.

By the way, the weather at Crossfield, 22 miles from the accident site, was 6,500 foot overcast. So the pilot would have been flying in dark night conditions without any possible moonlight as it would have been obscured by the clouds above him. So in dark night conditions with no moonlight, a pilot needs the skills of an instrument pilot to scan their instruments since it will be sometimes impossible to make out the horizon by looking outside.

And finally, the crash occurred right on the edge of a convective segment. The pilot was getting close to a light band of showers. So this pilot had a near zero chance of completing this flight. About the only possible good that could come out of this crash is if you in the future should ever encounter a low-time pilot, especially a student pilot.

who looks like they're about to embark on a dangerous journey, spend some time with him or her and help them understand the risk that they're about to undertake. And don't forget that if you're thinking of buying a Lightspeed headset, the brand I've been using for 25 years, they'll send a check to help support this show if you buy a new headset from them by first going to a special link that I've set up on my website. And that link is aviationnewstalk.com slash lightspeed.

And now see if you know any of these people who signed up to support the show. And it's been two months since I read names of new supporters. So I'm going to just read about half the names and we'll get to the rest of them next week. Thanks to these new patron supporters who include Katrina Chen, Alex Cole, Brent Mays, Steve.

Paul Sedlicek, and Jason Busboom. And we had some one-time donations via PayPal, including Matthew Walker, Anonymous, and Ken Anson, who wrote, thanks for all you do to help us learn, Max. And thanks to these people who donated one time via Venmo, Nicholas Balinski and Tim Holler. And finally, thanks to this one-time donation via Zelle, Mahmoud Hommad, whose email address I don't have, so I won't be able to send him a thank you. And thanks to everyone who supports the show in whatever way you do.

Coming up next, we'll be talking about somatographic illusion and the fatal crash on Catalina Island. All right here on the Aviation News Talk podcast.

You probably heard about November 7-3 Whiskey Alpha, a Beechcraft B-55 Baron that took off in dark night conditions from Santa Catalina Island just off the coast of Southern California on October 8th. Sadly, that crash killed the pilot and four passengers, which included two CFIs and two student pilots. What you may not have heard is that somatographic illusion was likely a major factor in that crash, and I'll explain why.

Coincidentally, I flew over Catalina four times on the following day, and I'm fairly sure I spotted the wreckage on the third time we passed overhead. I was on a day trip flying a Cirrus Vision jet out of Oakland with the owner. Our mission was to fly to KCRQ, the McClellan Palomar Airport in Carlsbad, California, pick up a family member of his, and then fly to Camarillo for lunch. After lunch, we made the reverse trip, taking the family member back to Carlsbad and then returning to Oakland.

So we flew four legs, and by coincidence, SXC, the Santa Catalina VOR, was part of our clearance for every leg we flew. The crash occurred the night before, but I didn't hear about it until after we'd crossed over Catalina twice. During lunch, I was checking my newsfeed and was horrified to hear of the crash, particularly since it killed so many people. Initial reports were that the aircraft departed runway 22 and crashed about a mile off the end of the runway.

The next leg we flew after lunch had us cleared on a tech route, which is short for a tower and route control route. If you don't fly IFR in a few large metro areas, such as New York, Chicago, and LA, you may not have encountered tech routes before. Earlier this year, I was given one in the air by a controller, and after reading it, he immediately asked, do you know what that is? A savvy controller. I'm sure he's encountered pilots before who didn't know what he was talking about.

Essentially, these are predefined routes between city pairs for a few U.S. metropolitan areas, but they're used inconsistently. For example, even though they're published for both Northern and Southern California, they're used extensively in Southern California, and yet I've never heard one ever issued into clearance in Northern California.

The routes used to be easier to find because they were printed in the back of the government instrument charts that were so common 10 years ago. You can find them in ForeFlight and other EFB apps, but you need to know where to look. In ForeFlight, go to the Documents tab, select the FAA drive, and then the Chart Supplement AFD folder, and in it you'll find the Tower and Route Control Route document.

I think we were assigned the VTUP-25. Now, VTU stands for the Ventura VOR, and I think they read that clear and says the Ventura Papa 25, which makes no sense unless you recognize it to be a tech route and know where to find the description. By the way, there's an easier way to find a tech route description than looking it up in the AFD. If you have ForeFlight handy, type in this route in the Maps tab.

KCMA, VTUP25, and KCRQ. Then tap on VTUP25, and the last choice in the menu is Expand VTUP25. If you compare what you then see in ForeFlight with the chart supplement, there is a minor difference. In the AFD or chart supplement, it defines the route as VTU, Victor 208, SXC, Victor 208, OCN,

And the J110 after the route tells us that jets are assigned 11,000 feet.

When you expand the route in ForeFlight, it says DCT, presumably for direct, then VTU, Victor 208, OCN, DCT. It doesn't mention the SXCVOR since that's a waypoint on Victor 208. Anyway, as we approached Catalina at 11,000 feet, I could clearly see the airport. I had heard that the crash was about a mile beyond the airport, so I thought about how to estimate one mile.

Now, often in the past, I've practiced estimating distances, primarily so I can estimate in-flight visibility. And one trick I've used is if there's a runway in sight, look at the length of the runway and then estimate how many runway lengths I can see ahead. I didn't know the length of the Catalina airport, so I looked it up in ForeFlight and found that it's 3,000 feet long. So two runway lengths would be almost exactly a mile, since a nautical mile is 6,076 feet.

Looking about a mile from the runway, I could see a tiny white object surrounded by trees and rugged terrain, and there appeared to be vehicles parked on the nearest road, which was at least a few tenths of a mile away. Interestingly, the white dot was almost exactly on the runway extended center line, and the fact that the crash site was pretty much on runway heading offers some clues.

The accident aircraft took off about an hour and a half after sunset, so it was dark. As soon as it left the runway environment, there would have been no lights visible below as the aircraft was flying over forested terrain toward the Pacific Ocean. Having no lights below during a night takeoff is a serious risk factor for accidents involving somatographic illusion. But first, let's talk about the ADS-B data and all the reasonable possibilities of what could have brought this plane down.

The data showed that the aircraft landed on Catalina at 1:19 Zulu, which was 6:19 p.m. local time. It then started its takeoff roll about an hour and 40 minutes later at 3:01 Zulu, which was 8:01 p.m. Pacific Daylight Time. The field elevation of the airport is listed as 602 feet, and it's the highest point in the immediate vicinity of the airport. At both ends of the runway, the terrain slopes down toward the ocean.

The barometric pressure at the time was close to 29.92, so the altitudes reported by ADS-B don't need any conversion. At the beginning of the takeoff roll, ADS-B reported the aircraft at 1,600 feet or field elevation. At the end of the runway, the aircraft had climbed 75 feet and had reached 1,675 feet, which was also the highest altitude the aircraft reached on its short flight. Airspeed at the end of the runway was 92 knots.

The aircraft then started to slowly descend. EDSBExchange.com captured data for about a third of a mile beyond the end of the runway.

Those last few data points were 97 knots at 1,675 feet, 102 knots at 1,650 feet, 106 knots at 1,625, 109 knots at 1,575 feet, 117 knots at 1,575, and finally 122 knots at 1,500 feet, which was 100 feet below the field elevation because terrain was dropping away toward the ocean.

The data also show a gradual turn to the right, though the last point is only 15 degrees off the runway heading, so it was a very gradual turn. Now, here's a key fact in the data that we'll get back to later. After the aircraft crossed the end of the runway, it continually accelerated. In those last 12 seconds, the airspeed increased from 92 knots to 122 knots for a gain of 30 knots. That's a lot of acceleration in a short period of time.

The preliminary NTSB report came out a few days ago, and it says that, quote, the airplane impacted the east face of a ridgeline about 0.7 miles west of the last recorded ADS-B target and about 0.96 miles west-southwest of the departure end of runway 22 at an elevation of 1,230 feet. Ground scars were consistent with the airplane striking the ground on a 280-degree heading and a wings-level attitude with the landing gear extended.

So the aircraft impacted terrain about 370 feet below the airport elevation in a wings-level attitude. Poor decision-making is most likely the ultimate cause for this crash, as I'll explain in a moment. And I see at least three possibilities for the proximate cause of the crash.

One possibility is that the aircraft experienced a partial or even a complete loss of power in one engine shortly after takeoff. We've talked about at least two and perhaps three twin accidents that occurred this year because of loss of engine power after takeoff. But those ADS-B tracks looked very different from this latest accident. In both of the two cases I remember, the aircraft was unable to hold heading and made large deviations in heading before the crash.

That's typical as in a conventional twin aircraft when you lose an engine, there's a lot of yaw and it's difficult for pilots to immediately correct for that yaw. So we almost always see a heading change when a twin loses an engine. But in this case, the flight path is very smooth with no sharp changes in heading. So I think it's unlikely the NTSB will find a mechanical problem with this aircraft, though of course it's possible.

The other two possibilities are spatial disorientation and somatographic illusion. Both can lead to a loss of control of an aircraft, though in very different ways. First, let me mention that in addition to it being dark outside, the aircraft also was flying over an area with no lights at all, and there may have been some low clouds in the area.

Along the Pacific, we often have low-stratus clouds that roll in on many nights, and it's called the marine layer. When the marine layer is in, it's typically widespread, meaning you'll find it over many coastal cities simultaneously, though it may arrive at those cities at different times.

Our passenger on the Vision Jet that day lives in Southern California, and he said that the marine layer had been heavy in Southern California for the prior few days. The marine layer always comes in from the ocean, so it would reach Catalina Island first before reaching the mainland.

The airport manager mentioned that at the time of the accident, it was clear at the airport. The report says, quote, an hour post-accident, he observed cloud tops approximately 200 feet below airport elevation off the departure end of the runway. The wreckage was located below the cloud tops. So it's unlikely the airplane initially encountered clouds, though it may have encountered them later after it descended below the airport elevation.

Spatial disorientation usually occurs when pilots can't see a horizon outside because it's dark or they're in the clouds or both. Typically, when we see these kinds of accidents, the flight path is very erratic with lots of rapid changes in direction and altitude as the pilot struggles to keep the plane level. Of course, the solution in these situations is to trust your instruments and use them to force the airplane to fly straight and level.

In this accident, we didn't see an erratic flight path, and the aircraft impacted terrain in a wings-level attitude. Since it appears the aircraft was under control when it hit, it's unlikely that spatial disorientation was a factor. Instead, we saw a relatively straight path that was descending, and that is a classic signature for accidents involving somatographic illusion. Now, what is somatographic illusion?

According to the FAA Instrument Fly Handbook, a rapid acceleration, such as experienced during takeoff, stimulates the otolith organs in our ears in the same way as tilting the head backwards does. This action creates the somatographic illusion of being in a nose-up attitude, especially in situations without good visual references. The disoriented pilot may push the aircraft into a nose-low or dive attitude.

So a pilot taking off at night will falsely perceive the acceleration to be a climb and release yoke back pressure, allowing the plane to descend into terrain. The same thing occurs when instrument pilots reach the missed approach point and add full power to do a go around. They perceive that acceleration as a climb, and then rather than pitch and trim for climb at VY, they continue to fly level at what's probably the worst possible time,

close to the ground and possibly an IMC. A classic example of smautigraphic illusion was Atlas Flight 3591, a Boeing 767 that crashed into Trinity Bay during an approach into Houston, which we talked about in Episode 156. The flight was normal until the 767 suddenly plummeted from 6,000 feet into the bay.

The event began when the first officer accidentally engaged the go-around mode and the aircraft began to accelerate. Because the aircraft was accelerating, some monographic illusion caused the pilot to perceive that the aircraft was pitching up when it was actually just accelerating. The NTSB said the pitch-up sensation that the pilot would have felt would have been equivalent to the aircraft being pitched up to an 80-degree angle, so almost straight up.

To compensate for that nose-up perception, the pilots pushed forward and came out of the clouds in a nose-down attitude that was 45 degrees below the horizon. After they exited the bottom of the clouds, they had insufficient altitude to recover. In the Catalina accident, as the aircraft accelerated on the runway and accelerated even more after rotation, the pilot would certainly have experienced the somatographic illusion and perceived that the aircraft was pitching up higher than normal.

If he was not looking at the attitude indicator, but instead relied on his senses, he would have lowered the nose. The ADS-B data that shows the aircraft accelerating and descending on essentially runway heading matches that scenario perfectly. So when taking off at night, it's important that you do not rely on your senses, but instead focus on the attitude indicator and verify that you're pitched up to a normal pitch attitude, which in many aircraft might be somewhere between 7 and 10 degrees pitch up.

and that you check the VSI or vertical speed indicator to verify that you have a positive rate of climb. Now there are a couple of other interesting aspects to this accident. Authorities first learned of the crash from a phone call that was initiated automatically after the crash by one of the pilot's iPhones. That call was triggered by the impact of the crash and provided authorities with GPS coordinates to locate the crash.

Crash detection is an Apple Watch and iPhone feature that automatically places an emergency services call when it detects that the device owner has been in a serious collision. The feature was introduced in 2022 on Apple Watches and iPhones, and it's similar to the car crash detection feature that Google introduced on its Pixel 3 smartphone in 2019.

The other interesting aspect to the crash is that the airport closes at night, and the pilot did not have permission to take off when he did. The circumstances were that earlier in the day, a flight instructor and two student pilots were preparing to depart Catalina Airport in a rented single-engine airplane.

The rental aircraft experienced a magneto malfunction during pre-flight, which prevented them from departing. The stranded pilots contacted the flight school they had rented the airplane from and were informed another airplane would fly to the airport from Santa Monica to pick them up and fly them back to Santa Monica.

The airport manager at Catalina stated that he gave the pilots permission to land there after closing hours and relayed to them that they had to depart before sunset at 6.31 local time. The airplane subsequently landed at 6.20. The pilots shut down both engines, loaded the stranded pilots, and attempted to restart the engines. During restart, the right engine would not start due to insufficient battery power.

The occupants exited the airplane, and an extension cord was then attached to an onboard battery charger. The pilots were informed by the airport manager that since the time required to charge the battery would extend beyond sunset, that a post-sunset departure would not be approved. The pilot-slash-airplane owner informed the airport manager that he had to go and intended to depart anyway.

The airport manager advised him that while he could not stop him, his departure would be unapproved and at his own risk. The airport manager then went to his residence and about 8 p.m. heard what sounded like a normal departure. Now it's worth thinking for a moment about what you might do in a similar situation.

One pilot posted online that he once had an issue with his airplane on Catalina and wrote that, quote, "...the tower stayed open for me while I went past closing time trying to get it working so I could take off. When I taxied back after giving up, they were holding the last bus for me. They said they hold the last bus until everyone takes off. Bus to town, then boat back," he wrote. He said that was quite a while ago so that the standard operating procedures may have changed.

Now, I have ridden in that shuttle bus from the airport to downtown Avalon, and it takes about 45 minutes. Depending upon what time you arrive in Avalon in the evening, it's possible you might miss the last boat to the mainland. However, I just looked it up, and there are about a dozen hotels around Avalon, so you could spend the night on the island and start again the following day when it's daylight.

So please remember that you always have options. And as pilots, we should always be playing the what-if game and try to generate as many good alternate solutions to each issue we encounter. In retrospect, it's clear that it would have been better for these pilots to follow the rules and not take off at night when the airport was closed, even though it would have been more expensive and more time-consuming to pursue these other options.

So please remember somatographic illusion anytime you take off at night over a dark area such as unlit fields or water or even a forest. And immediately after takeoff, watch your attitude indicator and VSI to verify that you're in a stable climb and not inadvertently descending back down into the terrain.

And just a reminder that I love hearing from you and I read many of your emails on the show. If you'd like to send me a message, just go out to aviationnewstalk.com, click on contact at the top of the page. That's absolutely the best way to send me a message. And of course, I also want to thank everyone who supports the show in one of the following ways. We love it when you join the club and sign up at aviationnewstalk.com slash support to

To support the show financially, you can also do that at aviationnewstalk.com slash PayPal. We also love it when you leave a five-star review on whatever app that you're listening to us on now. And of course, if you're in the market for a headset, please consider buying a Lightspeed headset and using one of the links in our show notes, because if you use those links, they will donate to help support the show. So until next time, fly safely, have fun, and keep the blue side up. And remember that you can always go around. Go around.

Thank you.