Alaska Aircrash Investigations

[poteroo]

A new series has begun on Channel ONE (in WA ), and it appears to be largely dealing with GA accidents. I watched the 1st program of the series last night, wherein a Cessna 207 collided with terrain during marginal weather conditions in coastal Alaska. I thought the NTSB, (US), were presented in a very fair way, and the findings were, unfortunately, that for reasons unknown the pilot flew a serviceable aircraft into terrain. Again, another weather related accident, but one of many in Alaska, which has a combination of high terrain and rapidly changing weather. With this combination, being IFR qualified/current, and in an IFR equipped aircraft, may help, but is not the full solution. Only staying VFR is going to keep one alive. I'd recommend watching this series as the issues are far more relevant to RAAus and GA than the original 'Accident' series.

 

 

[johnm]

also, the following archive web site has good accident information - either location or type from around the world - can't remember where I got it from ........... probably from here

 

stacks of stuff ................... Aviation Safety and Security Archives: Digital Library

 

 

[dsam]

Yes, I’m keen to watch this series.

 

I’ve flown as a passenger from Juneau RPT, and can attest to the often cloudy & rainy coastal mountain terrain there. The 737 I was to depart in took 2 attempts to land there due to poor conditions, not achieving minimums on first approach.

 

Specifically with the 207 CFIT incident, any charter pilot operating around Juneau should expect IFR conditions at any time, and maintain excellent terrain awareness capability.

 

 

[Gravity]

Actually VFR is far safer "if" the rules are adhered to, sadly they are mostly not hence the accident reports are full of them!

 

 

[Jaba-who]

Actually VFR is far safer "if" the rules are adhered to, sadly they are mostly not hence the accident reports are full of them!

Do you mean

VFR is safer than IFR if you follow the rules (for either or both)

 

Or

 

Do you mean

 

VFR if you follow the rules - is far safer than - VFR if you don’t follow the rules.

 

 

[Gravity]

Thats way to complicated to answer:cheezy grin:

 

 

[poteroo]

Do you meanVFR is safer than IFR if you follow the rules (for either or both)

Or

 

Do you mean

 

VFR if you follow the rules - is far safer than - VFR if you don’t follow the rules.

Question of the many twists in the English language!

 

I think what is a certainty is that it's very difficult, even dangerous, to make a sudden transition from VFR to IFR when the pilot is close to mountainous terrain. Unless the aircraft can be turned away from higher terrain, and then climbed while safely over lower terrain, all while suddenly entering into cloud, rain, and turbulence - then CFIT is inevitable. Given that almost every US Commercial Pilot would hold an instrument rating, and has a fully IFR aircraft panel in front - there would be great temptation to just go 'IFR' when the going becomes non-VMC.

 

These weather related accidents have been happening since aircraft have been operated in places like Alaska, the tropics and mountainous regions like the Andes, Himalayas. The old timers managed to find their way about in Cubs and Cessna 180s - with only VFR panels - but they took considerable risks. I well remember flying with a couple of older PNG 'legends' who went through conditions that stretched the very limits of VMC. It used to be known colloquially as 'New Guinea VFR' - a bit of a sick joke really - because it surely wasn't! When asked why they didn't bother obtaining an instrument rating - the response was 'there are no approved letdown/approach procedures for the locations that we operate into'. Most told me that if they couldn't get to their destination in some semblance of VMC - then any instrument approach would probably fail because the conditions would likely be below the IFR minima.

 

This weeks Alaska Aircrash Investigations looks at 2 more Cessna accidents and I expect it to be very interesting.

 

 

[dsam]

Unless the aircraft can be turned away from higher terrain, and then climbed while safely over lower terrain, all while suddenly entering into cloud, rain, and turbulence - then CFIT is inevitable.

Agreed, potreroo. That's why I mentioned having excellent terrain awareness capability.

These days, terrain avoidance data is easily displayed on EFB's like OzRunways, AvPlan, and affordable glass panels such as Dynon Skyview. If a commercial pilot operation in Alaska doesn't use some-such technology to help their pilots avoid terrain in the event of sudden & unexpected Wx they aren't doing the right thing by their customers & pilots.

 

I suspect much of the remote-area airstrips of Alaska would be similar to the PNG situation, without approved letdown/approach procedures, so self-reliance is a way of life up in Alaska. That shouldn't be construed to mean I'm advocating VFR ops in IFR conditions - far from it. It is more about recognising the rapid changeability of mountainous Alaskan weather, that just makes terrain data a sensible fallback safety provision - you always retain the option to avoid terrain that you can't always see.