KOWD crash - Norwood Airport - N4126H - June 4, 2007 10AM EDT

[dave]

I always dislike listening to these recordings, but place crashes are a fact of life.  There's nothing remarkable in this recording - the Boston Approach Plymouth sector (120.6) handling arrivals as usual.  That position takes ORW3 arrivals off PVD and vectors airplanes to Boston prior to handing off to the Boston Final Vector controller (126.5).  The Plymouth controller also handles arrivals into Norwood (KOWD) when the lower sector (124.1) is not activated.  I removed as many silence gaps as possible from the recording.

It was just a typical low visibility day around Boston - around 10 A.M.:

KBOS 041354Z 10017KT 1/2SM R04R/6000VP6000FT -RA BR OVC004 15/14 A2961 RMK AO2 SFC VIS 2 SLP027 P0002 T01500144

and a normal sounding approach.

There were two inbounds to Norwood at the time: a Citation and a Mooney (the crash plane):

N499RC:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N499RC/history/20070604/1138Z/KDPA/KPVD

N4126H:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N4126H

The C550 was cleared for the LOC 35 approach and ended up going missed - then asked immediately to divert to Providence (KPVD).  Not long after that, the Mooney was vectored and cleared for the LOC 35, and then told to contact Norwood Tower.  Nothing sounded wrong at all.

Article on the crash:
http://www.boston.com/news/local/articles/2007/06/05/woman_killed_in_plane_crash_near_norwood_airport/

Too bad - sounded like she was a wonderful woman.  Doing what she loved.

[LockedinIMC]

Curious what happened here, Citation goes missed. That would be a hint for me. The IAP shows circling minimums at 600. Situations like these are unfortunate.

[KSYR-pjr]

Curious what happened here, Citation goes missed. That would be a hint for me. The IAP shows circling minimums at 600. Situations like these are unfortunate.

While the Citation going missed might be a hint that the weather is below minimums, a proficient Part 91 IFR pilot should not theoretically have a problem flying an approach to take a look as well; that is unless fuel is approaching reserves.

Consider this:  During instrument training just about every instrument approach an instrument candidate flies is to the minimums (DH or the MDA, depending).  Other than fuel and proficiency, there should be no reason why a Part 91 pilot should not be able to fly any approach to minimums thereafter, if for no other reason that to have the opportunity to practice it and practice the transition to the missed segment (which arguably is perhaps the most challenging part of flying on instruments).

 

[MagicMan21]

Curious what happened here, Citation goes missed. That would be a hint for me. The IAP shows circling minimums at 600. Situations like these are unfortunate.

I have never been a fan of flying single engine(single pilot) into below minimums instrument conditions. It just does not leave you many "outs" if an engine failure were to happen.

[KSYR-pjr]

I have never been a fan of flying single engine(single pilot) into below minimums instrument conditions. It just does not leave you many "outs" if an engine failure were to happen.

         

Flying will always have greater risks than remaining ground-bound and risk mitigation is paramount.  Uncompromising maintenance and meticulous fuel planning mitigate the risk of engine failure in a single for me.  As you probably know, if you remove fuel exhaustion/starvation from the statistics, engine failure as the cause of accidents drops to roughly a mid-single digit percentage of total GA accidents in the US (see the Nall Safety Report report for specifics) .

[MagicMan21]

I have never been a fan of flying single engine(single pilot) into below minimums instrument conditions. It just does not leave you many "outs" if an engine failure were to happen.

         

Flying will always have greater risks than remaining ground-bound and risk mitigation is paramount.  Uncompromising maintenance and meticulous fuel planning mitigate the risk of engine failure in a single for me.  As you probably know, if you remove fuel exhaustion/starvation from the statistics, engine failure as the cause of accidents drops to roughly a mid-single digit percentage of total GA accidents in the US (see the Nall Safety Report report for specifics) .

I agree with you that single engine failures are few and rare. I am much more fearful of driving to the airport than flying a single engine airplane but good pilots should always try to minimize the risk. The worst scenario which could possibly happen during an engine failure is being in IMC conditions. First, you are flying IFR and unable to see the ground but more of a problem is losing your vacuum instruments in below minimums coniditions in the most critical part of flight with very little time to understand what’s going on.


On a side note, the news reports state that no engine fire happened. Could be a fuel starvation accident.

 

[KSYR-pjr]

First, you are flying IFR and unable to see the ground but more of a problem is losing your vacuum instruments in the most critical part of flight with very little time to understand what’s going on.

Which is mitigated in my Bonanza by the existence of an electric, always-on artificial horizon as a backup to the primary artificial horizon (installed just to the left of the primary six pack) and an electric HSI that is backed up by two alternators.   

[dave]

Which is mitigated in my Bonanza by the existence of an electric, always-on artificial horizon as a backup to the primary artificial horizon (installed just to the left of the primary six pack) and an electric HSI that is backed up by two alternators.   

We installed an electric artificial horizon recently in the BE36 I fly in (club plane).   It was a great addition!

-dave

[KSYR-pjr]

We installed an electric artificial horizon recently in the BE36 I fly in (club plane).   It was a great addition!

What year is your club's BE36?   Any pictures you can share?   

Also, any more word about this particular crash?  Like MagicMan pointed out, a lack of fire sometimes indicates fuel exhaustion and I was curious about that detail as well.     

[MagicMan21]

I hate to put a face on this accident but news videos of the seen:

http://wbztv.com/topstories/local_story_155102811.html


I also went to the FAA accident reports page but no real data on what happened other than facts already known:

http://www.faa.gov/data_statistics/accident_incident/preliminary_data/media/G_0605_N.txt

[MagicMan21]

FAA Update on web site:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20070614X00725&key=1

[KSYR-pjr]

This is an interesting fact from the accident report: 

The flap switch was in the neutral/off position, and the landing gear selector was in the UP position.

Two comments:  1)  The airplane had a higher stall speed than had the flaps and gear been down and  2) typically pilots of retractable gear aircraft (at least light GA aircraft like this Mooney) drop the gear and then at least one notch of flaps when crossing the final approach fix of the instrument approach, which in this case was about 4.5 miles further back from the accident location.

 

[MagicMan21]

 

Both propeller blades remained attached to the flange. One propeller blade exhibited s-bending, and the other was not damaged. Several tree branches, ranging in diameter from 1 to 6 inches, were cut at approximate 90-degree angles and exhibited black paint transfer.

They are just noting that the engine appeared to be at least moving the propellers.


Could be a case of the pilot just falling behide the airplane which could be deadly in IMC weather. Does not look like a fuel issue since 15 gallons were found in one wing.