Accident Case Study: Airframe Icing 

Same here.

Crashing in sn airplane aint cool idiot!!!

@@mikearakelian6368 ok boomer

I think it's good to watch these videos as a way to remember that pilots are ordinary people. Ordinary people make ordinary mistakes, but ordinary people can also learn how to avoid the mistakes of others with a lot of training. A lot of the pilots flying small planes in these videos are highly experienced commercial and airline transport pilots, but they, like surgeons, star athletes, scientists, and musicians, are ordinary people.

Same

Yes, totally agree!! I am DEATHLY scared of icing (in GA aircraft not fully equipped for flight into KNOWN icing). First, because it is so incredibly hard to forecast accurately. And second, because it can be so insidious, and deadly, leaving you no way out!!

Neither of you have ever been on a plane

@@spoonforthought3534 You've never used a spoon or thought about it beforehand.

none of u ever seen a plane

ya , it's kind of the irony of the cirrus, high performance aircraft , with a chute and de icing equip, and a high service ceiling, but it creates problems with low hour pilots who see this sort of thing as a safety net.. had he been forced to descend due to service ceiling , or had no icing equip he may have elected not to fly at all.. but the aircraft's systems, though limited, had him fly regardless..Poor guy got in over his head, and the plane could not cope, even the ballistic system couldn't help him.. poor guy must have been falling like a stone.. feel bad for him, as he filed a flight plan and took a lot of precautions, this was bad luck, timing, and one bad move, where the high performance of this plane actually gave him the option to get into worse trouble..

I have no idea why they don’t.

Yup

I hope you don't mean more accidents hehe

@@yembolit1988 hahaha no, I know what he means. Just more accident analysis videos, not more accidents haha. I agree too. These analysis videos are incredibly interesting. This is the only channel I’ve seen private plane accident analysis videos

@@josephdale69 funding

As a complete noob and non-pilot, why not go for IFR training? It seems obvious to me. Are there large associated costs that prevent it for you, or is there just no need for you (ultralight plane, sunny day recreational flying, etc.)?

@@engineerskalinera cost is close to 10k dollars along with months of training. It’s just not feasible for some people who can barely afford to get their private cert. Everyone says “get your IFR!” Like it’s easy. It’s almost as long as getting your private, and just as expensive.

@@ducky8075 well, that explains it. Thank you

​@engineerskalineraneonnicke8270 Yes, and I would say most private pilots are purely receational 'flying for fun' pilots, with a large portion flying only in ideal weather. I'm instrument-rated, but I HATE flying in IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions, or 'Pea Soup') - as do most private pilots. Even an instrument-rated pilot can get pretty stressed while operating an aircraft instruments-only over an extended period. Just like driving on the road in ice and snow. - Just because you CAN do it, doesnt mean it's fun to do. Its enough for many VFR-only pilots to decide not to go through the added effort and expense to get an instrument rating.

Even if you aren't ifr certified, you should know what your attitude indicator and other gauges do, and know how to use them to prevent disorientation

I’ve noticed that too. The top 1,000’ or so is considerably worse than lower regardless of temperature.

Just a shame people don’t seem to learn anything from it

@@spannaspinna Many pilots do. Safe pilots get safer. Those who are reckless, delusional wont change no matter what kind of education and information is available to them

he made a lot of mistakes really. 1) he took off into pretty much known icing conditions in an aircraft not equipped for that 2) he didn't tell ATC he had icing the moment he started experiencing it 3) he didn't declare an emergency when he was struggling well before the loss of control 4) he kept pressing on, despite the fact that he was clearly in danger. Make no mistake. The video doesn't show it, but the pilot knew he was in trouble for a while. It's a shame he didn't speak up

Absolutely. You don't get into a fatal accident without making mistakes, certainly. But I feel there were a lot of understandable little factors at play here as opposed to blatant clear mistakes. He did have an anti-ice system installed for example. It wasn't certified to go into icing conditions straight up but it's very very easy (and 'human') to develop overly amount of trust into systems like that. Not telling ATC about issues properly is also the same category, happens all the time, even with commercial pilots. You've got face to lose and you're not willing to accept the situation you're in. These ARE grave mistakes that any pilot should be trained not to make but they happen because we're all human. I was trying to point out that the mistakes of this particular pilot were fairly minor in comparison to, say, taking off without take off clearence etc., ie. cases that are much more simple, black-and-white to deal with. Cheers!

taking off with inadequate deicing into low freezing levels with visible moisture and a front nearby... pretty black and white to me tbh. and that's just the first big mistake. I understand what you're saying and I agree with you in the sense that ppl don't want to lose faith. Despite that, the mistakes were pretty big. They might not be as dramatic as messing up a SID or something, but it's way more deadly. Not telling ATC when your de-icing systems aren't clearing it is a big deal. Not declaring an emergency when it persists is the equivalent of not declaring an emergency when you experience an engine failure. Seriously. At least with an engine failure you can still fly the aircraft. Those weren't minor mistakes.

Agreed. Very well done.

It's always easy to armchair what he was seeing after the outcome is known. I pulled the full NTSB narrative and I'm inclined to agree with NihiL's original comment. Given the briefing and the aircraft's capabilities (like supp. ox on board, assuming it was working--that didn't seem to be investigated), I don't see much as especially noteworthy until the Southwest Airlines pirep. Whether or not he heard or received that is apparently unknown. The progression of the front needed watching with the freezing levels, maybe with a detour to the south if necessary. The icing forecast was certainly erroneous, but the cloud layers in the METARs are AGL and don't seem to have been that significant even in the pirep (out of it in 1,500 ft. well above the pilot's filed altitude). Another curious thing is that I find no indication that he even utilized his weeping-wing or other ice-response capability (pitot heat, even? Who knows). Maybe, but the NTSB doesn't seem to even check for any indications of those, and just resorts to proving that the airplane and the system weren't certified for known ice (no kidding?). He was definitely not communicative once he started getting into trouble--that was undoubtedly his single biggest, and likely lethal, mistake--though he also got no response from ATC at all when he did mention it. Does the Cirrus turn into a 5,000 fpm brick if it stalls with ice? Maybe. Or maybe other failures or failure-to-fly-the-airplane errors were then at work. I actually don't think that most of the mistakes made, or which ones were or weren't, are especially clear in this accident example. There are many better ones to learn from.

Yea I dont understand why this private pilots have the get there itis...Its not worth your life! after binge watching these vidoes...I notice when the plane is going down most pilots remain calm...Ik they say dont panic. R.I.P

Yeah, that would be a good time to try descending, though arguably mentioning ice earlier and questioning the request to go to 16000 was the "early acton" that would have prevented it. These videos are grat for spotting the holes in the cheese lining up, but you can just imagine being in the scenario and thinking "ATC want me to climb, ok. The clouds will probably break up before 16000 and I'll be fine." Damn these things are so tragic.

@@mjudec Like the one where the plane iced up quickly going through known icing, crashed on a busy highway during the morning commute, killing the pilot, his kids, his wife, their dog, and a coworker, who was a vice president or the like. All that horror! Then there was ATC, one who said, "Oh, that Cirrus? He's descending on his own?" And the other who said, "I think he doesn't want to be." Like, "Oh, well."

I wonder if during his high altitude stall he considered deploying his aircraft parachute. As he likely knew he was losing control of the plane and would drop rapidly.

@@nonmihiseddeo4181 No, that was the ATC beginning to panic for the pilot. I really feel for those guys - there's nothing they can actually do to help in situations like that. 😣

@@michaelmccarthy4615 He appeared to be focusing *too* intently on flying his way out of it. As a result of accidents like this, Cirrus is really pushing some 'When in doubt, pop it out" training.

Reminds me of when we lose a firefighter and the "final call" goes out over the radio.

No pun received

@@justinwbohner aaa¹1p]]p]pp0ppp]0ppp0]]]p

No $#it

The old pressonitus. 😪

My instructor told me one thing a while back that I will never forget. He said "if you are considering whether or not to cancel a flight, and your circumstances sound like the start of an ASI video, cancel it."

Traded airspeed for altitude*

Hey JM, just wondering if you could explain why icing occurs with planes flying above desert or southern US airports. I'm not a pilot, just a father (ex-navy tactical air controller) with two student pilot sons. I worry about them constantly. I see this crazy stuff where weight and balance as well as cg was ignored by a high time pilot, and others, where they went up got into imc (could still control the plane) but yet fell out of the sky due to icing in a GA aircraft. It's crazy. Thanks!

Although it is fairly easy to predict where the large areas of icing potential exist, the accurate prediction of specific icing areas and altitudes poses more of a quandary. Mountains, bodies of water, wind, temperature, moisture, and atmospheric pressure all play everchanging roles in weather-making. www.aopa.org/-/media/files/AOPA/Home/Pilot-Resources/ASI/Safety-Advisors/sa11.pdf

Yah I was sad he accepted those requests. His earlier route was ok.

Pops was right. Any single engine at night is suspect, IMC is an absolute no-no at night for me over flat ground. It was a bold decision to head into that weather at those altitudes. He might have been emboldened by the TKS system. I had a Mooney that had it and it definitely emboldened me to do some flights I would not have taken had I not had it, but nothing as crazy as this.

@@schdavjer imc is vfr?

" freezing level into visible moisture= recipe for icing conditions" that sounds more like expect the expected

Hey man is this type of weather information part of obtaining an IFR endorsement? I'm armchair flying here guessing this was completely avoidable. Thank you.

Yes, but he tried to get ABOVE the clouds so he would be completely clear of icing conditions. It wasn't an entirely bad idea.

jcflocher Yes, not entirely bad-- just bad enough. As ‘ B1900pilot ‘ said , in cloud layers with icing it’s usually worst near the tops. That’s why,if you’re taking on ice in a layer it’s better to descend, for two reasons: 1) That reason and 2) Pitching up in the climb will expose more of the underneath of the wings to ice formation as well. He didn’t need more , he needed to descend.

@@davidwhite8633 Since he wasn't expecting icing conditions in that area, perhaps he really did just want to get above the clouds at first. The severe icing may not have occurred until the latter part of his climb to 16,000 or even his final ascent to 16,800. If that's the case then the shock and lack of decision-making time would've made an appropriate & timely response very difficult, to say the least.

there you go, experience trumps a de icing system any day, might be alive had he known this, and taken it into account.. can see that turbo/high ceiling/de icing equip/parachute getting inexperienced pilots into trouble..

That's 153 mph. Who knows what his true airspeed was. It's not so much the parachute can't handle the load....the air-frame can only handle so much of a jerk and load as well.

Munsell, yeah that I already knew. It makes the parachute only useful in the rare situation where the engine dies at high altitude and you're able to glide while slowing down to a parachute acceptable speed, but that particular situation is normally manageable in an emergency in that you can glide the airplane down either to an airport or open field, and you'd be doing so at a rate of decent close to a parachute, i.e. I don't really see where the parachute is actually helpful.

Yea the parachute is mainly meant for engine-out failures which some comments mention are usually manageable but if you are over water or in an area where there are no suitable places to conduct an off-field landing you'll be glad you have the parachute. The parachute can't save you from poor flying choices.

well put together report(by AVweb) based on data and critical thinking regarding the safety of the airplane parachute here: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-zT58pzY41wA.html

Leggo My Ego - My thought when I heard that was "why can't Cirrus increase the useful airspeed of the BRS?" This pilot truly thought it was his lifesaver, but it just ripped away from the airframe. I'm an A&P who's specialized in structures/sheet-metal for over 20 years (also have a commercial license & instrument rating) so from what I've seen in aircraft structures, it certainly is possible to use a BRS and airframe components that can withstand deployment over 150 mph. However, the cost of such an improvement might make purchasing a Cirrus more difficult for this already overpriced airplane. Overpriced, but DAMN well built and an awesome flying plane, though I do prefer a Bonanza A-36.

I disagree. Airplanes ice all the time. It's when you get too much ice for the deiceing system is when you get a problem.

If you don't have de-icing it's an emergency...

Caleb, Teague, if you fly with that mentality, you're potentially gonna be like this pilot. Airplanes that ice up, typically can fly into known icing conditions, but even so, there are limitations to how much an aircraft can take. Most general aviation aircrafts cannot fly into ANY icing, so if there is ice, you need to go into immediate actions to exit the icing conditions.

Yes. A professional.

I believe it would be more consistent to say transitioning from VMC (Visual Meteorological Conditions) to IMC (Instrument Meteorological Conditions). However what you said certainly gets the point across. I wouldn't personally go as far as saying 100% sunny skies the whole way or I wouldn't fly. Its all about knowing your limitations, and planning your route (or rerouting mid flight) to avoid bad weather. But ya, its easy to get in way over your head quickly near bad weather. A lot of these crashes seem to stem from not having a proper respect and fear for the dangers of flying.

Onnie Simza, LOL me too!!!! Even though Kobe died in a helicopter, not a plane, I've been watching these videos as well. That's funny. But I have gained some useful knowledge.

Sands Real Estate West You and the OP should check out the USCSB’s videos also (US Chemical Safety Board). They latest ones are so well done you won’t believe it!! Top notch narration and state of the art, incredibly detailed computer simulations of the exact industrial site where the accident occurred. Extremely entertaining & fascinating, there are hundreds of us on “Notification Squad”, people are even demanding it be put on Netflix and that we get an upcoming release schedule to look forward to, LOL 😂 One of these 2 links should work: ru-vid.com ru-vid.com

@@etherealessence Or maybe it's VFR to IFR then IMC and double IMC (IIMC) I've been binge-watching after Kobe's accident also. Still can't believe he's gone.

Also, if you ever win a coin toss for a seat on a plane during dubious weather, don't take it.

I caught that too but I think it wasn't relayed I think in this case the pilot relied on his own de-icing system as a way to get out of trouble he wasn't concerned with asking about ice.

If I was flying a Cirrus and got a pirep of a Boeing getting moderate rime I'd be "uh nope, heading back" What's moderate in a huge aircraft like that would be severe in a small GA aircraft. Same for turbulence.

@@ryanhampson673 My thought, heading out for departure, might have been "that PIREP was for 17,000 feet. I'm not going to be anywhere close to that altitude." I might have gone forward in departing.

Wouldn't have made any difference as that pilot wanted to get home a day early.

Parachute is always plan Z. The amount of damage you will incur wouldn't make up for it otherwise. Maintenance perosn I was talking to said that opening parachute will still cause the plane to sink 500 FPM and destroy the main and nose gears. This is another story of a pilot not asserting his dire situation to ATC and not descending to better conditions. Your plane icing up beyond what your anti-ice can do is a serious emergency and should not be underestimated. Icing severely reduces the plane wing's aerodynamics, creating a significant amount of drag while significantly reducing lift that keeps the plane from stalling. Once his plane stalled, it was pretty much unrecoverable.

Indeed. Use of the parachute totals the airplane no matter what. It puts you into the random terrain below over which you have no control, much of which will kill you even if everything else works. It provides a reduced chance of dying not a safe escape.

@@BillPalmer Perhaps that was why he didn't deploy it until too late.

Instead of being so smug you should improve on your reading comprehension and notice the point between the two quoted sentences. The second one represents an alternative to the first one, which means: you should have a plan b for encountering and thus evading icing conditions, before you come to rely on your anti icing systems or even come into a situation where your parachute could fail. Means, dont rely on these 2 systems, but have a plan B instead, that does not include or rely on either anti icing systems or the parachute. I love it when ppl think they are smart, and can't even read properly.

Glad you like them!

Remember the report is estimating his airspeed. Just before that we see quite a hefty negative vertical airspeed. The plane could have been doing well over 200kts.

Not to mention that by pulling it, they're facing aircraft damage which will likely be a total loss. Plus the blow to their pride.

It's true. ATC DON'T know what's best. They aren't pilots most of the time. It's up to the PIC to say yes/no, that's our jobs as pilots. ATC are NOT the boss of us. They have rudimentary meteorology training compared to pilots anyhow. The weather brief clearly indicated a low freezing level and thus icing. He shouldn't even have taken off tbh, since that was flying into known icing conditions. Ignoring that, it was the pilot's inability to assert himself and his pilot in command authority that got him in that mess. Be pilot in command. Number one rule. The pilot was instrument rated. If he truly believed ATC knew better than him then he should have grounded himself and hit the books for a recap. ATC was not at fault here. The pilot was. He made all the mistakes. He did not communicate his emergency, he did not communicate his inability to deal with icing. ATC It's a real shame he deployed the chute before checking his speed. Dunno how he could have done it by that point though...

+BB992 as a pilot and a controller I hands down received more weather training for atc than during pilot training. The controller asked if the cirrus pilot could accept higher to 14000, he could have easily said unable. It's the pilot's responsibility to know the limits of them self and their aircraft. Controllers will separate ifr aircraft, provide advisory services, and help in any way they can but ultimately they have to carry the assumption that the pilot is competent enough to fly his aircraft safely and responsibly, which all too often isn't the case.

+BB992 ATC are the boss of us in controlled airspace. As this guy was flying IFR and started in controlled airspace he was under the instruction of ATC. Not sure he was in controlled airspace when the ATC controller asked him to climb to 14000 but as he had just gone from a controlled area then I guess the mindset may still have been in place that he should comply to requests. You are correct that it ultimately comes down to the pilot and indeed the pilot was to blame, all I'm saying is that this request from ATC was not helpful/safe given the known conditions.

I like to...- Maybe that' the case in the US. but in the EU we have to do one theory exam just for meteorology, two if you're going pro. I'm with you on the rest of your comment, that was my point. Andy- ATC are not the master of us in controlled airspace, under any flight rules. You are allowed to deviate from ATC's instructions AND you're allowed to flat out refuse an instruction if you feel it affects your safety. They're on the ground. they don't know what's going on, and regulations take that into account. Ask "I like to fly stuff" here, ATC provide a service, nothing more. Of course the request was not helpful, but ATC doesn't know the pilot/aircraft/conditions. The system depends on proper communication between pilot and controller, and the pilot failed to deliver. Remember, as PIC you have the authority to do anything in the name of safety. You can, if you want, when number 10 in the traffic pattern, key in the mic and say "i'm now number 1 to land" and you'll be in your right to do that. Of course, the tricky bit afterwards is having to explain WHY you needed to be no1 to land!

No they are not. PIC is always the final authority as to the operation of the aircraft. ATC's job is to *coordinated* traffic flow. They work for the pilots, not the other way around. "Unable" is a perfectly good response to any instruction the PIC feels is unsafe or potentially unsafe. As they say, never let ATC fly your airplane.

Indeed. Watch this Air Force training film. Very similar: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Aa1Ba_NEobs.html

It has saved many lives though

I wonder if he was worried about terrain if he went lower? Being a proper IFR flight though, he should have been able to determine how low he could safely go. Perhaps he was thinking that if going high didn't work he could always come back down, whereas low and iced leaves you cornered. Probably didn't realize just how bad icing can get. Sounds like his plane turned into a brick real fast.

The pilot deployed it above the system's maximum airspeed and the chute separated - it says at the end of the video

@@gamma_hedge Yeah, I know, I watched the video. It would've been nice if you bothered to actually read my comment. "... or don't deploy it until they're well outside operating ranges". Got some more useless, redundant words to say? You are capable of reading, I presume?

@@CharlesFreck panic will hinder decision making greatly.

A big part of the issue is that pilots have a mindset where they don't want to admit that their situation is unsalvagable until it is too late.

Underrated comment

He didn't call it "the" Mecca, only "a" gambling Mecca. That means a place to gravitate to.

He needed a bigger plane.

Like Brody said, should have stayed closer to the shoreline.

That's a totally different metric.

If you need a gun to your head to be convinced to watch these, maybe you shouldn’t be a pilot in the first place!

The freezing level was at 6000. It's mostly granite at 6000' in the Sierra...

Sounds like they didn’t think about designing faster than 133kts, you should join the design team. I’m sure it’s just that nobody raised the idea of making it work at faster speeds..

It is difficult to say, because we don't know how bad the ice buildup was. The extreme buildup of ice on the wings could have rendered the angle of attack so high (and consequently increased the stall speed to a very high level as well), that it would have made the aircraft essentially un-flyable. In that case, it becomes impossible to "trade airspeed for altitude" and "slow down" the plane. So if he was "falling" at 5000 fpm, there is no way to reduce the vertical descent speed, and he was most likely doomed at that point!

What about F-16 Fighting Falcon? Its a single engine, all-weather plane. I'd take it

@@rykehuss3435 Generates a lot more thrust though....

My thoughts exactly. ATC get's at least 30 percent of the blame in this accident.

Ask your instructor.

Example of “Plan B that is guaranteed to work” Plan B: Don’t fly - take commercial, or a bus.

Icing happens quickly. Declaring an emergency during a free fall from 16000 feet isn't going to help much.

He was actually supposed to leave the next day. He chose this night because there was no icing forecasted. The plane only had 100 hours on the airframe also. In the final report its has unforseen weather as one of the causes also. Im sure the parachute also gave him a false sense of security also but it pulled it in the dive which was too late.

And the best insurance you can buy for your airplane is a well trained pilot.

Miguel Oliveira SPOKEN LIKE A TRUE PILOT.

Weather doesn't kill anyone. People flying into it do.

Why Private Planes Are Nearly As Deadly As Cars www.livescience.com/49701-private-planes-safety.html

@@brianhackert8513 that article is akin to saying "privately owned guns are as deadly as cars". Very few aviation mishaps occur due to mechanical failure. The majority are pilot error - as was the case with this Cirrus pilot. So, let's not blame the private plane as the "culprit". AOPA provides a lot of case studies on here of low-time (and some high-time) pilots making really stupid decisions for a whole variety of reasons.

Sadly, it was all his fault. It sucks to see this happen, and I wish he hadn't climbed to 14,000.

This is a Cirrus SR22, a small single engine aircraft, the "flight deck" is a few meters from the wings at most. It should also have "ice lights" which shine on top of the wings. In airliners, it's different but they also have much more capable de-icing systems than a SR22.

robo931 last attempt to save his life.

Being iced up, probably had no control on the AC. That was his last option.

Agreed, I don't get why people do it. You can't say you didn't know ice would be there.

There is a lot of info about cirrus control & spin problems out there. But It is the instantaneous decision making process related to flying a plane. 1. The Cirrus stick has no feedback from airfoil surfaces. 2. Not certified for spins (which on it's face is not disqualifying), but at 5k feet and no ability to recover? I've seen very little on this other than arguments that break out in internet forums that without evidence, the Cirrus 20/22 can recover. steve wilson's blog has been deleted from the internet, but it had a several informative articles about it. web.archive.org/web/*/stevewilsonblog.com Look at the 2016 range. I think the cirrus gets a bad rap from defective decision making; and it has happened with even the best qualified pilots as well. IMO, just from all of the research I've done, (MY NON-PILOT OPINION) it's like going from a corvette (a 172) to a mid engine lamborghini (Cirrus) without understanding the limitations in many different situations. I have flown in both. But only as a passenger. The ballastic parachute option is not programmed into a pilots head. It is like the last option available, and only after the pilot recovers his thought processes and thinks... oh hell I got this thing above my head that can save me. At the point of damn near dying, spiraling into the ground, it's either going to be too fast (in this case), or too low (in all the rest). Information overload and critical self judgement are real killers when things fail in flight. People always second guess themselves, and from the many many videos produced on youtube... fail to (recognize) & declare emergencies out of what? fear? Looking bad? This is so sad. I have tried this mental exercise many times in my head. If I don't declare an emergency, I'm cool, but I'm also responsible for what happens in the end. But yet if I declare and emergency then my head is free to think outside the box, and I may exercise options that may save my life, that I might not ever do otherwise. As well, having ATC on alert changes everything too. Just my 2 cents as an arm-chair wanna-be. IMO, it's not the plane, it's the thinking!

@@dryan8377 Pilot ego has existed since there were...Pilots. Ego kills. Watch this 1981 training film: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-Aa1Ba_NEobs.html

My guess is when the wings ice up it adds much weight to the aircraft and also takes the "flex" out of the wings ( think of it as moving around in a frozen shirt) the plane just becomes a brick