Canadian Plane Crash near Dunkirk

[bcrosby]

The buffalo feed caught some of the transmission from a beech baron that had an engine failure.

It's a shame that three people died.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/05/17/plane-crash.html

Edited to remove non relevant transmissions.

[KSYR-pjr]

This is really tragic.   It sounds to me by the constant corrections offered by the controller that this pilot was having difficulty flying the VOR approach into Dunkirk.   Whether he was distracted by the dead engine or having spatial difficulty in the clouds cannot be discerned from listening to the recording.  His communications are clear and seemingly professional.

Here are the KDKK METAR observations from the time surrounding the crash:

KDKK 171453Z AUTO 28006KT 10SM BKN007 OVC011 07/06 A3016 RMK AO2 CIG 005V010 SLP216 60000 T00720056 51021
KDKK 171353Z AUTO 29007KT 4SM BR BKN006 OVC014 07/06 A3014 RMK AO2 RAE21 CIG 004V010 SLP210 P0000 T00670056
KDKK 171345Z AUTO 28005KT 3SM BR SCT006 SCT009 OVC014 07/06 A3014 RMK AO2 RAE21 P0000

Notice the broken layer at 600 feet and the CIG 004v010 in the remarks of the 9:53 local observation (roughly the time of the crash), which translates to "ceilings variable between 400 feet and 1000 feet."  Note that these reports above are "system-wide" AWOS reports, but the pilot would have (hopefully) been listening to the airport's "live" AWOS frequency that was reporting conditions by the minute.  Perhaps ceilings had momentarily lifted to above VOR approach minimums?  Doubtful.

Dunkirk does not have any precision approaches.  The VOR 24 approach into Dunkirk, a step-down approach to a higher MDA, has minimums at 1,300 feet, which seems to imply that this poor soul didn't have a chance of getting into Dunkirk that morning given the low ceilings.  Here is that particular approach plate:

http://www.myairplane.com/databases/approach/pdfs/00880V24.PDF

Buffalo International, which he had passed about five minutes prior on his way down to DKK, has an ILS to 200 feet minimums.    Why he opted for Dunkirk instead of  Buffalo is the fateful question.   My thoughts and prayers go out to the family(ies) of those on board.

[Hollis]

A tragic situation indeded.
Not one to be too critical, but I fault both the controller and the pilot for attempting a DOWNWIND single-engine landing with an aircraft nearly fully loaded.
I did a follow-up on his flight track and subsequent radio chatter with the helicopter MercyFlight2, which dispached to the crash site shortly thereafter. C-FDJP had impacted 3/4 mi SSW from the departure end of Rwy 24, having apparently been in a left turn at the time.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out what happened. A missed approach downwind at low airspeed, with gear and flaps down and full throttle on the 'critical' engine, with an aircraft having a maximum r/c of 350 fpm CLEAN at BROC speed, in addition to it being very prone to flat spins under those conditions, the poor guy never had a chance.
(I also noted from the archive recording that at just about that time, someone had keyed a mic for about 5 or 6 seconds, then once more for about one second. Comparing the cockpit background noise with that of his prior transmissions, it sounded exactly the same to me).

Hollis 

[KSYR-pjr]

Not one to be too critical, but I fault both the controller and the pilot for attempting a DOWNWIND single-engine landing with an aircraft nearly fully loaded.

Winds were shown in the above METARs as averaging from 280 degrees magnetic and quite light in velocity.  The pilot was attempting to land runway 24, which has a magnetic heading of 236.  That is a right 44 degree crosswind with a headwind component.  Where are you getting the idea that he was attempting a downwind landing?

[Hollis]

Can't speculate there, but it seems odd that KBUF, less than 30 miles NE,  was using Rwy 5 as the active, and reporting winds from 050-070 at 6 to 10 kts over that same time period.

[KSYR-pjr]

Can't speculate there, but it seems odd that KBUF, less than 30 miles NE,  was using Rwy 5 as the active, and reporting winds from 050-070 at 6 to 10 kts over that same time period.

Dunkirk airport is right on Lake Erie, whereas Buffalo is northeast of the tip of Lake Erie and about 12 miles inland.   On the day of the accident geographical and meteorological differences were apparently enough to cause the winds to blow from different directions.

I was working in Buffalo that morning and being that Thursday is normally the day I fly out of Buffalo I did note the low and thick ceilings at least over the city itself during the morning hours.

[keith]

Not that it changes things a great deal, but METARs report winds in true degs, not magnetic, so the mag wind direction would be another 7 degs on top of that (based on mag var of 7W at at the field).

I'm curious if the controller had easy access to the ASOS data which may have indicated ceilings below the published minimums.

While the pilot sounds professional, he also sounds fairly tense (not surprisingly). He also mistakes a wind report (from 050) as an instruction to fly hdg 050 at one point. I'm not a pyschologist by any means, but it seems like he's operating under great strain.

This is a tragedy. I haven't got any real world time in twins, but hearing about this makes me want to learn more about them, and become comfortable with single engine ops.  Obviously it's a fine art because here was an aircraft that was apparently stable and under control at the start of the approach, but still had met  tragic conclusion.

[davolijj]

Not that it changes things a great deal, but METARs report winds in true degs, not magnetic, so the mag wind direction would be another 7 degs on top of that (based on mag var of 7W at at the field).

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's improper use of magnetic wind data based on a METAR report.

[JetScan1]

He also mistakes a wind report (from 050) as an instruction to fly hdg 050 at one point.

It's not a wind report, the controller is telling him the airport is on a 050 bearing from the aircraft, but the pilot does appear to interpret this as an instruction to turn to a 050 heading, which the controller corrects by telling him to fly present heading.

Anyone familiar with the Baron ? What's the beeping noise that can be heard in the background when the pilot is transmitting ? 

http://www.thestar.com/article/215878

DJ

[Hollis]

I think that beeping noise in the cockpit may have been the 'engine failure' warning horn, which he finally turned off later.
My personal suspicion is that he attempted a go-around from the initial approach for whatever reason(s).
Some sage advice from an expert -
"Piloting 101 - NEVER make a go-around on single engine, especially heavy with a full load of fuel".
Quoted by a retired Cessna Engineering Test Pilot (who just happens to be my brother!).

Hollis

[KSYR-pjr]

Not that it changes things a great deal, but METARs report winds in true degs, not magnetic, so the mag wind direction would be another 7 degs on top of that (based on mag var of 7W at at the field).

Wow, that was an aviation subtlety that eluded me.  I was fully aware that TAFs and Winds Aloft forecasts reported winds relative to TRUE, but I mistakenly assumed that METARs, since they were reporting surface winds and were receiving data right from the AWOS/ASOS collectors, were reporting winds relative to MAGNETIC.   

I was completely unaware until I saw your post and subsequently performed a five minute research (which included calling my local airport's AWOS and then observing its posted METAR) that AWOS/ASOS winds are corrected to TRUE when they are transmitted to the National Weather Service (or wherever the data are collected).

Of course, spoken winds by the ASOS/AWOS or ATIS frequencies are reported relative to MAGNETIC.

What a PITA this fact is.     A great trick question, it is...

[Greg01]

I know two guys who were there when it happened and watched him go down. All were involved in the search and rescue after he went down. Sad, indeed.

[bcrosby]

Wow, that was an aviation subtlety that eluded me.  I was fully aware that TAFs and Winds Aloft forecasts reported winds relative to TRUE, but I mistakenly assumed that METARs, since they were reporting surface winds and were receiving data right from the AWOS/ASOS collectors, were reporting winds relative to MAGNETIC.   

...

I just use the rule, if its spoken over the radio, its magnetic. otherwise its true.

[bcrosby]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's improper use of magnetic wind data based on a METAR report.

Do you have a link to this report? I can't find it on the NTSBs website.

[KSYR-pjr]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot's improper use of magnetic wind data based on a METAR report.

Do you have a link to this report? I can't find it on the NTSBs website.

I am pretty sure he was being humorously sarcastic.   

[davolijj]

Sorry I wasn't trying to start rumors...I figured people would know that was a joke.  C'mon an accident cause by magnetic versus true wind data??  What's 7 degrees??

Incidently the preliminary or factual report will be found here once its published:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=5&year=2007

[bcrosby]

Hah! sorry I didn't catch on to it... must have been an off day for me.