The Aviation New Talk podcast consistently ranks among the top couple of Aviation podcasts, out of the more than 200 Aviation podcasts in Apple Podcasts! We're a no-nonsense, to-the-point show focused on General Aviation. Not only do we deliver news, but I also give a perspective that comes from over forty years as a pilot. We also talk on each show about a pilot skill or safety issue. And I spend a lot of time researching information, so you can rely on what I tell you. Listeners us they like how the show as gets to the point without a lot of fluff and doesn't waste their time. You can also get the Aviation News Talk in podcast form in the Apple Podcasts app, or with our dedicated iOS or Android app. Just search on your smartphone in your App Store for Aviation News Talk. Please Support Aviation News Talk by donating via either: Patreon ➜ aviationnewstalk.com/Patreon PayPal ➜ aviationnewstalk.com/PayPal
Why are you talking about landing with the gear up? What kind of idiot doesn't know this aircraft type is not retractable landing gear. Stopped watching at the 3-minute mark. Not going to watch this channel again.
Thanks very much for this excellent analysis; this has been a topic of much speculation here in Maine bc it was such a rare event at BHB. I was working in the Bar Harbor /Trenton area that day and there were many visibility issues that morning; the fog was exceptionally dense at times, even by our standards. We drove by the airport two hours after accident and it was very sad to see all of the rescue vehicles and news crews. Cape Air regularly runs flights in and out of BHB; I would be curious to know if even they were flying that morning. Thanks again.
What is the purpose of a circling approach? Is it used if only one runway heading has ILS? What other situation would it make sense for an airport to have a circling approach? Is it just a way to land and not something on an approach plate? Non pilot trying to understand?
I’ve done some circling app to opposit QFU, in CAVOK, and the big challenge for an airliner is to keep runway in sight while banking and to manage strong tail wind in downwind, staying within OCH area in high terrain layout 😊. PS : considere to cancel the circling if some failure are modifying your speed profile etc …
The minimum safe altitude for pulling CAPs in that model would be around 600' AGL. This aircraft was much lower than that, so it wouldn't have been an option. No the aircraft aren't deadly. Last I saw, the fatal accident rate for Cirrus was nearly identical to other GA planes and the overall accident rate (which includes non-fatal accidents) was about half that of other aircraft. So arguably, they are safer that other planes.
I'm not sure that's the right conclusion. A conclusion I was hoping listeners might draw from this is that they should review weather carefully, and train, train, train!
Agreed. For a flight like this, there's little margin for error. But even the best pilots make mistakes, which is why it may have made more sense to cancel the flight or divert to an airport with better weather.
I would suggest showing all your videos and animations on your youtube page instead of Patreon (because other youtubers like VasAviation show them on theirs for free, including the OSH video you only let Patreon supporters watch). That way you get more subscribers and can make money from RU-vid more easily instead of Patreon.
Cirrus G3 Avidyne and 430. Great points about choosing RNAV over ILS as less button pushing. Had loaded ILS but not put it in active position once cleared and had reload when did not track. Thankfully it was indicating and tracking the LPV and I was in IMC so I continued until visual well above minimums. I had briefed both the night before and had both in ForeFlight plates. It was good practice as I fly IFR every flight and request approaches even in VMC. I am using the audible checklist from ForeFlight which allows you to focus on scan rather than hunting for next checklist item.
Hi Max, another great in-depth analysis. I’m a SR22T driver, and have a question on one statement you made. You said, “under speed protection will not work with the auto-pilot off.” My understanding is under speed is part of ESP, and ESP is always active, (unless you press and hold the AP disconnect button, or deliberately turn off ESP in the Perspective menus. That said, I wonder if ESP turns on/off below 200 agl?
I agree, ESP is always on. But when we do stall practice in a Cirrus, I don't think underspeed protection activates. Though come to think of it, I often turn ESP off for stall practice, since it tends to make the recovery for the pilot! I'll need to research it.
Great content! Having spent some decades in 121, I couldn’t come up with a good reason for 135 crews always gravitating to an RNAV approach other than “it’s the way we were trained”. Your explanation of that logic switched the bulb on. THANKS
Glad to help. One of the big gotchas in using an ILS in G1000-equipped aircraft is that if pilots manually switch the CDI from GPS to a Nav radio for the ILS while the autopilot is in Nav mode, it will kick into ROL mode, which many pilots miss. That wasn't an issue on this flight into Bar Harbor, but it's an example of one of several things that make an ILS approach a little more error-prone than an RNAV approach.
I did mention landing gear seven times, but it all of the mentions were with reference to the Bonanza incident that I referred to. Are you guys listening at 2X and missing words???
Does change fuel requirements of course. I fly Part 91 but don’t go if forecasted below mins, and don’t start approaches that are below minimums. No worth the risk.
Oddly, under Part 91, not only can you depart when the destination is below minimums, you can also fly the approach when it's below minimums to "take a peek" and see if you can see the runway. Not a particularly great idea, as it's easy to bungle the missed at minimums.
I will suggest '#11' to you list of 10 impossible turn facts. Depending on your airplane's climb performance, power-off efficiency, and the runway length you depart from, even if you have attained an altitude to safely turn around once the engine quits, you may have already flown too far away from the runway to get back to it. In that case, there would be no point in trying. This problem would be magnified for a given airport as density altitude increases. I did some calculations years ago for my plane. If I could theoretically turn around safely at a given altitude with a given takeoff runway length at sea level, I estimated I would need to begin with a runway length twice as long on a day with a DA of 5000' just to have a chance of returning. Even if my calculations were reasonably accurate, they would still be based on flying the maneuver like a cold and calculating computer, no fear factor to louse things up. To this day, I vote for landing as straight ahead as possible...especially if you accept the fact that you can't make it back to some runways in any situation.
Great reviews/training! More time than not I just land Bangor and drive to Bar Harbor...At least if the ceilings are low the margins are better. On this day I would go to lunch and postpone.
Thanks for the great content. The RNAV approach was the better option. In addition to being able to use the AP for the full approach - the missed approach is much easier to fly - coupled, straight ahead to a fix instead of hand flying initially and having multiple turns to a VOR.
If you could provide some minimal video with your presentation it certainly would be a step To bring many more viewers to your channel . I hope you can do this and start with photos of The subject matter . Make it as interesting as possible . Thanks Captain .
Bob, Thanks for input. A typical episode takes me 20 hours to produce, though this one was less as it didn't include the ten or so news stories I usually include. The primary audience is the audio podcast audience, and that audio posts automatically to RU-vid. I'd love to add video to the RU-vid posts, but I'm also a full time flight instructor, and I just don't have the time to do a full video version as well.
Thanks for our kind words. My primary motivation for producing the Aviation News Talk podcast is to hopefully save a few lives. I've been to way too many funerals and have lost too many pilot friends to crashes, almost all of which were totally avoidable.
The place I now live at is Greenville S.C.And the downtown airport is over run with apartments all around the perimeter of the airport.If the engine quits,your shit out of luck.I drove around the place and there's no where to go.
The old saying is runway behind you and sky above you is useless.If he took off in the opposite direction he would have ended up on eather saint John land Rd. or Veterans Hwy.
NEVER TURN AROUND AND HE HAD ENOUGH RUN WAY CANCEL THE TAKE OFF YES HE SHOULD HAVE PICKED OUT SOMETHING IN FRONT OF HIM AND FLEW THE PLANE STRAIGHT BUT HE MESSED UP WITH ALL THAT RUNWAY AND NOT CSNCEL THE TAKE OFF MAKES ME SICK THEY WERE NOT PILOTS BY NO MEANS
From the witneses statement, sounds like aborting the T/O would also have been an option. It will be interesting to see what caused the engine failure.
I wonder how much time the pilot had in the A36. Based on witnesses hearing popping and sputtering I am thinking the pilot may have taken off with fuel pump on high boost, basically flooding the engine. Unlike other aircraft, the fuel pump is off for takeoff in the A36.
150 agl Turnback ? How stupid you can be. You need at least 500 agl to turnback with partial power or 1k agl with no power on a Bonanza. Source: I learned those turnbacks 2 kinds and more 2 decades ago. They taught them on Cherokees. to about 20 students BEFORE SOLO. No accidents.
As am A&P mechanic. I listened to the first 30 seconds 😂and now I'm going to stick it out with what I think happened. The Aircraft is tied down outside. The gas tanks are not full. It sat in the sun and cold. About an inch of water condensed over time. The pilot when he preflight the Aircraft was just going thru the motions and did not "check the color or the 100 low lead when he sumped his tanks He had enough avgas in his fuel systum and line to Start up , mag check taxi take off and between 150 feet and 200 feet above ground the water enters the engine. sputters and dies. Then Ace here tries to make a 180 back to the runway instead of admitting you are an idiot. Because to NEVER TURN ON TAKE OFF. bite the bullet, be a man. Pick your landing site straight as possible
But it was noted that MacArthur Airport was not this pilot's home airport. If this aircraft was the pilot's, I doubt it had been sitting on the flight line for days or weeks or months to collect water in the fuel tanks. But that could certainly be the case and water in the fuel could have been the cause of the engine failure. Good comment.
Airports should have golf courses and or fields at the ends of runways to give pilots the option to land straight ahead under 500. Granted not all can but building new houses and commercial facilities at the end of runways is reckless.
I am based at isp, the most common used rwy 24 intersection deptrs are @ 33L and not even @B. IMO, if he had used the full length, and eyewitness reports of ~ 100 ft are correct, there was plenty of rwy to put it back down on 24, though running off the end of that rwy would put you through the approach light poles without a turn, then through the fence and a 4 lane heavily used road. I seriously doubt they would have made it that far. Personally,I never use any intersections there. There are no hangers next to the either approach end of 6 where they went in , left wing first , as you stated, and they did cartwheel a couple of times before crashing upright. Pilot was in the cabin and passenger thrown outside on the right wing. There is the Connectiquot Forrest straight ahead off rwy 6, had they aimed for that across the nearby busy road intersection, just over the fence, assuming they had the altitude for a much better outcome. I saw the scars on the ground when I flew out yesterday. I agree, just go straight ahead and fly level into the crash. Nice report. May they R.I.P.
Agreed except Bohemia and the residential/commercial community is off the extended centerline of 24 while Connetquot State Park is further away. At 100-150 AGL they were probably better off putting it down within the airport boundary but prob would have gone thru the fence onto Lakeland or Vets. Not good choices either way. Not sure why they couldn’t taxi to take full length 24. May they Rest In Peace.
Under the heading “Always do a pre-takeoff briefing,” it’s probably good to do that aloud even if you’re alone! As you said, speaking the words aloud greatly increases the likelihood of doing the brief if the need suddenly arises. I knew a mechanic who would perform the likely repair several times in his mind as he drove his tool-laden truck to the job site. His track record was far better than that of his peers. He explained that to me when I asked him one time how he got major repairs done so quickly. So, always do a pre-takeoff briefing! Good advice. Thanks, Russ - wherever you are!
The three most important things against the impossible turn to me are; 1. It’s *not* a 180 degree turn, not even close. 2. You will be landing with a tailwind. 3. You will need to actually turn the aircraft, which will affect your stall speed negatively.
This is almost becoming a bad joke. I mean, at this point every pilot who flies has to know the terminology "impossible return" or "turn" How, in 2024 at your home base do you not have an alternate field or glide to safely, engine dies scenario in your back pocket? How!! This isnt just tragic? It's useless!!!! I Feel sorry for the families and flumexed by the pilot!!
