"The airplane made a left turn following the highway, and suddenly rolled
inverted and impacted the canyon wall," the report states. "The motorist
said the conditions in the canyon were very windy."==========
...and Cruising altitude should have been almost 8,000 ABOVE the
Wrong interpretation of "visual meteorological conditions prevailed.""Visual flight rules (VFR) are a set of regulations under which a
pilot operates an aircraft in weather conditions generally clear enough to allow
the pilot to see where the aircraft is going. Specifically, the weather must be
better than basic VFR weather minima, i.e. in visual meteorological conditions
(VMC), as specified in the rules of the relevant aviation authority. The pilot
must be able to operate the aircraft with visual reference to the ground, and by
visually avoiding obstructions and other aircraft.If the weather is below
VMC, pilots are required to use instrument flight rules, and operation of the
aircraft will primarily be through referencing the instruments rather than
visual reference."Although high temperatures and wind may have
been factors, a crash in VFR conditions usually indicate that pilot error was
the major factor.
Why do people need to fly to a sports game? Don't you need to then drive to
the event from the airport? Didn't they have to travel by car to get to
the airport they took off from?
There are no specifics on altitude but it sounds like the pilot was flying
through the gorge at the time of the accident. That is dicey at best but with
high winds and updrafts and a relatively inexperienced pilot, it's an
accident waiting to happen.
The investigation shows they were flying within the rules of the FAA that day
and it appears that a gust of wind that was not expected took the craft down. It
was a terrible tragedy for the family and I find it very demeaning and
disrespective when people with no knowledge of what they are taking about try to
pin blame on these boys.
What does weather have to do if a plane/pilot is flying too low? And inverted?
A human error factor. Reports from eye witnesses allege that the small aircraft
was much lower than safe altitude just before impact My heart just sinks to
know these young men are gone. The loss is doubled for their parents, family
and friends. Maybe that is a comfort to them to still be together.
This is the kind of reporting that drives pilots to want to rip the wires out of
some reporter's computer.If there were no mechanical problems
with the aircraft, there was no reason for it to have been flying so low. To
this old pilot, it sounds simply as if a youngster gave in to temptation and
tried to pretend that he was flying an F-16 on a low level training exercise.That, coupled with treacherous winds resulting from the canyon's
topography, and from the lack of available lift and engine power caused by
something called Density Altitude on a very hot day -- thin air, in other words,
that robs an aircraft of much of its performance parameters. An
immature, low-time, inexperienced pilot trying to give his little brother a
thrill. Perhaps we need to adopt the same kinds of rules for young pilots that
we now have for youthful automobile drivers --- no passengers your own age until
you have more time at the controls.This was a tragedy and my
sympathies are with their family and friends. But that won't change the
circumstances of the crash. I hope future young pilots might learn from it.
Author misunderstood report. Visual Meteorological Conditions means that the
weather is generally good. Very sad story however weather was not a factor.
Poor decision making and Very, Very dangerously low flying through the canyon is
the primary cause of this very sad accident.
Environmental IdiotThe pilot had just got his private flying license
in May. Visual Flight Rules (VFR) were in effect. No mechanical problems were
noted in the investigation. Had the pilot just flown to his
destination, avoiding the risks of low altitude flight in the canyon and the
KNOWN turbulence that often comes from flying in such an environment, I beg to
say they would have made their destination.Call it what you want but
this was an unfortunate accident and probably could have been avoided.Chalk it up to youthful inexperience. The inability to understand and avoid
unnecessary risks.Nothing demeaning or disrespectful. These kids
were on an expensive joy ride, kind of like giving the keys to your nice car to
your teenager on homecoming or prom. Lots of accidents happen on those nights.
I had a kid slam his dad's nice Monterro straight into the back
of my parked Suburban. He simply was overjoyed with his new found freedom and
could not negotiate a left turn on to my street in broad daylight, went wide,
too fast and bam it was totaled.At a higher altitude they might have
avoided this and lived.
Sounds like they were flying FTH (following the highway) because of the limited
I'm saddened by this incident, but I also believe they were too young to be
Hank, there are hundreds of us who obtained our licenses at age 17. We soloed
at 16, went through vigorous ground schools, passed a four-hour FAA written
test, and met all the qualifications necessary to become pilots. A young person
may solo a glider at age 14 and become a licensed glider pilot at 15.I firmly believe that it's a tragedy that flying has become so
prohibitively expensive that few young folks today have the chance to enter into
an activity that will help them become more responsible citizens.Because that's one of the things learning to fly will do for a teenager.
It's an accomplishment to be proud of. But it also, unfortunately, does
not completely immunize them against immaturity and occasional lapses in
judgement. Then again, I know many people much older who could use a little
booster shot now and then. (Including me.)The final NTSB accident
report will almost certainly state that "Pilot Error" was the primary
cause of this crash.Mrs. TAP, the weather that day had unlimited
visibility.Winds in a canyon like that are not part of the overall
weather picture. Winds in a narrow canyon with steep gradient are always
environmental idiotSanpete, UTThe investigation shows they were
flying within the rules of the FAA that day and it appears that a gust of wind
that was not expected took the craft down. It was a terrible tragedy for the
family and I find it very demeaning and disrespective when people with no
knowledge of what they are taking about try to pin blame on these boys.10:23 a.m. Aug. 10, 2014========= If you want to think
that a Pilot of 42 years, USAF veteran, Airframe and Power Plant mechanic of 40
years, retired Boeing engineer and Hill AFB Engineer has no knowledge of what I
am talking about...over a 19 year old with a license of barely 3 months -- then
that is your poragative.Tradgic accident, but that is what
flight training is suppose to teach you -- SAFETY.FYI -- If
you flew a plane intentionally into the ground or twin towers, you could
still be technically "flying within the rules of the FAA that day".Sad case of pilot error.I'll continue to pray for their
friends and family...
19 is too young, outside of the military, to fly. Yes a car can cause a
fatality, the fatality of passengers and those outside the vehicle. A small
plane can cause far greater damage to more people and property than a car. 19 is
too young. And more of a headache to clean up after an accident. Doesn't
really matter whose fault it is at this point.