Passenger Causes DUAL ENGINE FAILURE | Accident Case Study 

More case studies? You mean this was not the last accident? Do people have desire to crush every plane they fly on? Wow.

​@@zdenekkindl2778 case studies is meant to reduce the crash, but we can only reduce the possibility, not totally eliminate

The 60 year old pilot was former Oklahoma University quarterback Steve Davis and his friend was 58 year old Wes Caves. Let's actually use their names since they are responsible.

That pilot's casual attitude (I'm being very polite there) caused the death of the two front seat occupants, and the serious injury of three other people. Not to mention the grief caused to at least two families. All for a 'bit of fun'. I'm shuddering at his totally reckless attitude and sheer stupidity.

😊😅😅​@@zdenekkindl2778

I believe it was his son who was messing with the auto pilot and the PIC becoming confused as to why it was on and it showed no indication in the Co-Pilots chair.

iirc he turned the ap off by accident when moving the yoke, and for some reason there wasn't an ap off alarm

Seriously I can only fly using instruments I have no sense of direction in the sky. I've flown with a senior professional pilot many times he was a great teacher but I wasn't actually being taught he just let me fly. He did the yearly inspections at John Wayne airport and he could land at Catalina like it was a regular runway. He never let me land or play with anything else he was a really great teacher.

Yeah, but you _won’t believe_ what happened next!

@@silverXnoise haha lol :)

⁠@@silverXnoise *what happened next literally says nothing about the main story and is just a 15 minute intro with a sponsor after it*

The cause was literally the passenger turning off the engines... which exposed the pilot's idiocy

@@juanleon3875it was a joke. Many titles have headings as “you won’t believe what happens next” as a form of click bate, which was what the OC brought up originally…

Which makes me wonder whether someone with so few hours should be able to fly that many passengers with so few hours after his type rating. It takes time to synthesize the information that was rote memorized and spat out on a knowledge exam and demonstrated immediately afterwards in a practical test. Maybe they should have to get a few hundred hours and then pass a review, before being allowed to take non-pilot passengers in the front or back.

@@RetreadPhoto Experience is always a factor, be it total or model specific. Insurance companies often decide what experience is required (not a terrible system as they are risk averse). My main issue here is with the atrocious attitude towards safety and complete lack of professionalism.

If you're riding a skateboard... it's best you know what you're doing eh!

Well, in a roundabout way, he certainly did fail his last check.

If both engines go out at least look at the location of the throttles. That would give clues as to why they were turned off. Immediately ready for ignition. In seconds.​@@RetreadPhoto

Agreed. The Pilot-in-Command is ultimately responsible for the safe operation of his aircraft and the safety of his passengers. Additionally, regardless of whether a particular aircraft is private or commercial, the flight deck must ALWAYS be considered "holy ground." The ONLY time an unqualified person may be on the flight deck is under the tutelage of a trained and certificated flight instructor. This flight had the word NO plastered on it from wheels-up.

The "passenger" DID have, as a grown-up man, the ability at any time, to simply release the controls and tell his friend, "I'm not doing this - it's too dangerous. Yes, I am scared," - and this is exactly what I would have said and done, for a 100% certainty. This sounds like two "manly men," supremely confident in their ability to accomplish any task, no matter how ill-prepared and casual they both were... This was just ego - sheer, stupid ego. I'm just really sorry that two houses were demolished by the jet, and that someone in one of them was severely injured - And I can't believe the two innocent rear passengers (who were they?) survived at all, even with serious injuries - this was a miracle. The destruction depicted should have killed everyone aboard, It's a testament to the durability of the jet that (sad as it was) it demolished two houses, and allowed the two rear passengers to survive. As for the pilot, and his friend, who KNEW he wasn't qualified, continued to try to impress his pilot friend by keeping control. To me, the two men in front - as awful as this sounds - were simply an example of Darwin's Hypothesis: only the strong and capable survive. Those willing to risk their own, and everyone else's lives, to simply impress people, will perish sooner or later, from one cause or another. This was a very sad, but instructive, video.

Flying, like motorcycling, just “ain’t for everybody “. All the money and training in the world won’t save you if you cannot resist the urge to panic.

Exactly right. Flying a plane isn't advisable for everyone. If you can't take advice, have a problem taking orders, and hate to read manuals, you better let somebody else do the flying and relax in the cabin as a passenger...

People who take orders are the ones who aren't fit to fly. Fly the wing. Speed = Q Angle of Attack = lift coefficient. "Elevator" sets angle of attack. Do not exceed 15 degrees AoA unless in an F/A-18 with both blowers lit.

@jj4791 have you ever flown a plane yourself? And no, flight Sims don't count here... If you don't follow the orders of ATC, you get a number to call the first time, and if you continue not to follow orders you'll soon have a problem, because you don't have a license anymore.

even flight simmers listen to ATC. guy doesn't know what he's talking about ​@@stscc01

the passenger/pilot kept saying he was uncomfortable, and recognized he was far behind the aircraft. If only he had refused to play co-pilot .

@@captlarry-3525 Yeah, really had me thinking about how potentially bad peer/social pressure can go. If he had felt just a bit more comfortable saying no. They might both be alive. I'm not assigning blame to the passenger at all, but it's something to think about.

Yeah, he knew well that Alex would scoff at him if he refused to "play jet pilot" -- the proper answer is "You can call me chicken all you like but I intend to live to cackle another day." If he had that kind of sense he might not have been friends with Alex in the first place.

Google says: Captain Alfred G. Lamplugh, a British pilot and Principle Surveyor for The British Aviation Insurance Co., Ltd., is credited with saying, “Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous. But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect”

Actually it is inherently dangerous because of the affore mentioned, and other issues.

It's inherently extremely dangerous. Insanely complicated machines with hundreds of thousands of parts that must work flawlessly, moving at hundreds of miles an hour through oftentimes severe weather and filled with large volumes of highly flammable fuel that is apt to explode when subjected to airframe damage. And that's just the machine and the environment, not even taking into account the human factor. Indeed, when you think about how many things have to go exactly right for any given flight to not end up as a massive fireball, it's a wonder it is as safe as it is.

​@@somealias-zs1bwYet it is statistically proven to be vastly safer than automobile or horse travel.

@@scottpatterson4105 By dint of strict regulations and requirement, and an extremely structured safety culture whose rules are 'written in blood.'

Brains don’t always process properly during intense stress which is why it’s important to stay calm. Who knows what else happened during those last 7 minutes.

@@dgcastellanos This is what checklists are for. Idc how well I think I know my procedures, I will always be reaching for that checklist especially in emergencies. The last 7 minutes are of course a mystery and at that point the mistakes make sense due to task saturation but they never would have been in that situation to begin with if they were flying with a modicum of responsibility. So sad.

Wanton*

@@realSethMeyerswas just checking if anyone else caught/corrected that…nice.

@@dgcastellanosprolly getting a sloppy toppy from his college buddy

Agreed, this Alex sounds totally clueless and never even came close to grasping the emergency of the situation.

The guy had enough altitude and airspeed to just calmly run the checklists and relit both engines .That's the sad reality here. .Never panic ,but straighten up and fly right immediately after you find yourself in an unusual situation like this

@@acbulgin2Well said. There’s no reason to think this guy was especially arrogant because he was rich. It looks to me like just the normal amount of arrogance, coupled with enough money to finance some potentially very risky activities.

@@acbulgin2The crash of Sikorsky S-76 C-GIMR was similar in that respect. It belonged to the organization I worked for at the time. Without being a training pilot or briefing the situation, the PIC was instructing the FO on how to perform a black hole approach - while performing an actual black hole approach. That meant that there was no pilot monitoring. They descended into the trees and totalled the aircraft. Fortunately they suffered only serious but non-life-threatening injuries from the CFIT. Interestingly, the PIC swore up and down during the investigation that he suffered a compressor stall. I’m sure he thought he did, but the investigation revealed that the thumping he heard was actually the sound of his rotor hitting trees. The same organization lost a hull and crew a couple years later during a black hole departure, also due to neither pilot assuming PM duties, among other factors. That one was C-GIMY, also a CFIT.

I see this attitude a lot with cars. Many think that just because they can afford a fast car they can drive that car fast.

Brian May of the group Queen is a brilliant exception. Mega rich but he opted to be a line pilot for Easy Jet in the UK.

@@tyrotrainer765huh?

I think the problem is that in business they can bullshit their way to success, but out in the real world competence is the only thing that matters.

@@tyrotrainer765 I don't think Brian May holds an ATPL, on the other hand Bruce Dickinson of Iron Maiden does, and did fly for a charter airline for a while until it went under (but not Easyjet), and now owns an FBO in Cardiff, Wales.

@@therealchayd You're right, thanks.

They definitely need remedial training ive never heard something so dumb.

My guess is, that instruction was a CYA call, not a call they thought he could follow. I make the assumption the controllers are at least as smart and tuned in as the rest of us. With that assumption, I would guess they just want it on record they told him and waived him off.

It seems that although the pilots were not communicating, air traffic control could see they had managed to restart one of the engines. This is what powered their way to coming around for another landing attempt.

​@@Darkvirgo88xx the aircraft indeed did do a go around, what exactly was dumb?

They would have been better off doing a belly landing on the runway. Hindsight is a bitch. The whole thing is just sad.

That was my thought too. Had they come in gear up they might've made it

@@EricTheBlue2010you are correct.

All he had to do was pull the emergency gear handle all the way out and the main gear would have extended .If he would have practiced that in the simulator at flight safety where he likely got his type rating ,he would have known this .

@@Bax60 well, sure, with all gears down would have been the better scenario, but it looks like that wasn't a day to be too picky about those little details 👀

@@julienb5815 Its not about being picky, it's about flying the airplane properly and using the checklist. And you have to do it that way every single time.The bottom line here is this never had to happen .Even after he made rhe bad decision to let the unqualified pilot pull the throttles in to cutoff ...all he had to do is run the engine out checklist and restart the engines ..there was never a need to pull the emergency gear handle yet ...and if you are going to pull it ,pull lt out all the way ,and the gear comes down...it's better to land with no gear ,than just the nose gear ...This whole thing went south because the pilot just did not follow checklist procedures for a double flameout of the engines.He had plenty of time altitude and airspeed for a restart..he got one relit ,so climb back out and run the checklist and start the other one ..This aircraft will fly just fine on one engine for hours ...no need to hurry

I agree, I’m assuming once an engine is relit you would leave the main battery on. Going back to standby seems strange and could indicate panic.

Probably the first time he had to use that emergency lever, maybe he had no idea how far he had to yank it. Or just fudged it under stress. Either way, what a stupid way to die. After all the stupidity that went into putting himself into that situation in the first place, the flight would have ended with both the aircraft and his body perfectly intact if he had just tugged on that lever a little harder.

@@somealias-zs1bwthat lever needs to be redesigned. Reminds me of a knob on a analog watch where the first detent sets hours and second detent sets day. But screwing up a watch knob won’t kill anyone.

That is why the V-tail Bonanza was always called the "fork-tailed doctor and lawyer killer".

Bit like presidents

You don't have to be a genius. You just need to do it by the checklist, and do it the same way every single time .He had plenty of altitude, and enough airspeed and time to run the emergency restart checklist .If he would have just calmly done this immediately, he could have relit both engines easily, and landed safely

They see an airplane as a "Flying Household Appliance" Literally.

​@@RedArrow73 Which ironically resulted them in flying *into* household appliances.

@RubenKekevra. Yesss❗

When the engines were shut down, they shouldn’t have told them to go around Should’ve just done a belly landing

They totally could've survived a belly landing. That go around was the nail in the coffin.

@@ascherlafayette8572 yeah at least it added a lot of stress duration making the outcome likely worse.

@@leexgx Yeah the ATC should not have made that a command. Had they belly landed they might have all survived.

Think is that substance abuse also can work well to get overconfident of your own abilities as a pilot. Well, if it's cocaine, but alcohol won't make you a better pilot as well. In a way I can kind of understand those people who are rich, and everything/everyone is lifting their ego, they are successful, and nothing can harm them. They get the idea they literally can't fail and have the idea checklists and rules are mainly for lesser people who need the guidance. Pretty misplaced form of arrogance if it's about flying but you see the same with expensive race cars etc. especially sad for the passengers.

Arrogance is a big factor. While would love to fly planes, and have a good knowledge of their systems, I recognize that there are a number of skills I would be lacking. I think panicking under stress might kill me, and my passengers as they sleep soundly behind me.

Pretty sure there are some really smart engineers building the plane to certain parameters. It's not like a car or motorcycle.

That's the attitude of a pilot who never learned to appreciate handling a clean, fast airplane. Even when i was just transitioning from slower Cessnas to a Mooney 201, many years ago, the instructor kept reminding me that "in this airplane you can not both slow down and go down at the same time". In studying this accident I see the poorly-trained right seat pilot failing to appreciate that he is flying a high-performance aircraft as he repeatedly busts Vne trying to descend the aircraft.

@@LexipMediapitch for airspeed and power for altitude

🌿🏆🌿🍷😉👌

just a LITTLE too fast, no biggie

And don’t ever let anyone tell you it’s not.

All of them...

yeah. not going to happen

An autonomous airborne drone class transportation fleet for human beings is probably 25-30 years out, but there won't be any human control involved. You just get in, give it your destination and whoosh- Off you go. 99.999% of the time you won't die.

@@bobbykeene12 Hopefully you won't run into birds, hail, micro burst even volcanic ash.

@@bobbykeene12 not much difference from commercial flights right now then

@@zsigzsag That stuff will not factor in, the system will probably use existing roadways as flight paths 90% of the time, never go more than 40 feet above the ground and leverage vertical flight while coordinating peer to peer to maximize efficiency and reduce congestion. Range will probably be max of 80 miles.

Don’t blame the tower. He could’ve gone in. They told him his gear was up. He could’ve kept going.

I do blame the tower for complicating a nasty situation. 30 yr controller here and adding extra stress by telling a deadstick-landing pilot to go around is ridiculous. He could have just calmly questioned “verify gear-up landing?”

@@bwalker4194 After reading the first comment about that, I thought it was pretty strange to tell pilot with no engines to go around. And then watch the entire video. And while stupid, it had absolutely nothing to do with the crash. When he came around the second time and crashed. They let him know only his nose gear was down. at that point he had a functioning flyable aircraft and should have gone back up in the air got it fully functional and then landed.

@@neilkurzman4907 "Go around, go around, I repeat go around, go around." Hop off the tower's lap. And it absolutely did have something to do with the crash. There are always many factors that lead to an accident. The pilots incompetence was only one.

@@JapanesePiano1 And the pilot can say unable. But it had nothing to do with this crash. He, we gained his engines and was able to takeoff. He then went to land without fully recovering the aircraft. At that point, it was no longer an emergency. I certainly think it’s strange to tell a plane with no engines to go around. But in the end, it didn’t contribute to the crash. We’re also assuming this guy could’ve made a successful belly landing the first time. Since he failed the second time.

I watch a lot of "Air Disaster" videos and about half of professional airline pilots never get around to that.

@@natehill8069 Flying the aircraft is higher priority. Nobody is gonna fly up there to the stricken aircraft and fix the hydraulics.

@@rhyoliteaquacade They are talking on the radio already, but they are just chatting. The first words out of their mouth should be "Maydaymaydaymayday flight ## total engine failure." This gives them priority handling and makes people pay close attention to what they say after that.

Why? Just because someone is a wealthy owner and operator does not mean they can't engage in safe single pilot operations for jets certificated for single pilot operations. Providing the wealthy owner operator has the requisite type rating, current training and proficiency, and exercises proper ADM, why would being a wealthy pilot be a problem for flying small jets? We should always examine the root cause of the crash and not characteristics that do not contribute to being a pilot, like being wealthy.

They are RICH and therefore invincible.

@@Mistamannfour was a contract corporate pilot in the LA area. Flew right seat as a safety pilot for many; usually required by insurance or the board. Most were competent, but flying wasn't their profession. They often exhibited, laziness, cut corners and most of what I saw was impatience if things weren't going their way. It wasn't until later when I became a airline pilot I realized how "cowboy" a lot of Part 91 flying is.

@@patrickeppler6438 Understood; however, your experience speaks to quality and professionalism of the pilot, not the impact wealth has, or lack thereof, on piloting. Also, professional pilots are trained to a different level, that is not needed for GA flying. Therefore, you may evaluate a non-professional as lacking skill when they meet the skill, training, and competency to pilot small jets. The point is, wealth has no impact on a pilot's ability.

@@Mistamannfour But being wealthy contributes to being arrogant! Many wealthy people have that problem.

he likes arts and crafts too

Part of that understanding should come from the fact they don’t realise they are pulling that crap. I guarantee this guy overspeed the plane multiple times. The first time he 💩 himself, perhaps he reported in the logs and had a costly maintenance inspection that showed no damage. Each subsequent time he conditioned himself to think nothing would happen exceeding VNE, end result he’s happy to exceed it with no real idea what hard limit he is close to. This guy was an excellent example of the dunning Kruger effect.

@@chrisbeauchamp5563 Why do you think his tail number ended in "DK"..? 🙂

To be fair engine relit procedure is methodical but really designed for a single shut down engine. Given he was at 6000ft there was not a lot of time to pull out the checklist especially as he was single pilot. I would be treating those as immediate actions but I wouldn’t be in that situation either. Im a helicopter guy, is dual engine failure restart often taught in the Sim? In a helicopter we practice the failure but not a restart. There’s to much going on too quickly and configuring for the landing is more important than the relit.

You are right. Dual engine failure restart is not trained very often in the sim, or never. In a situation like this though, The idea is to get one going, level off, then take some time to go through the checklists and get the other one started before landing.

@@Airway222I agree, if he had done that that he probably would have landed safely. Your other comments in first post are spot on.

Once he got the left engine relit and he went around ...he could have just climbed on out and had all kinds of time to run the checklists all the way though ,several times .Maybe then he would have caught the emergency gear handle being only partially deployed and been able to get the gear down so he could do another low approach to confirm gear down,he likely could have even have gotten the other engine lit too..or set up a nice long stable single engine approach by the books ...plenty of time ,no hurry...oh yeah ...tell the other guy to shut tf up ,don't touch anything ...just let me do everything and you just read the checklist off to me one by one..after they got the #1 engine relit ,just let the airplane fly,Climb to 5000 ,circle the airport , slow down and start over on the checklist ,no need to hurry back around..climb ,relax ,don't hurry ,fix your idiot problem ,the airplane isnt broken,they got the airplane flying again ...let it fly,no need to hurry now

This.

I think its more likely that he didn't have hydraulics and NTSB never found out what was really going on. I mean certainly pilot error but recovery likely didn't work exactly as it should have. Most people never have to restart engines in the air and never will. There are 2 people that survived and zero mention of their account tells me this was a "we don't know, but we don't want to say we don't know so we're going to put a bow on it and call it good enough" from NTSB. I'm sure the passengers have a slightly different account of events than what is described here.

​@@dustsmoke This aircraft can be flown and landed without hydraulics. The NTSB did interview one of the passengers. The other passenger suffered a severe brain injury and I'm guessing he probably had no memory of the crash. The one who was interviewed didn't have much information on what happened but everything he did say was consistent with what was described in the video. You'd know all this if you actually read the report.

I think since he had an engine back the go around was appropriate. He should have climbed and held over the airport to reconfigure start the other engine (assuming he didn’t) and slow everything down.

It's "kind of true" but in reality, "0%" is not the "fuel cutoff" position. In the simulation you can see pulling the throttles straight back takes it back to full idle. Pulling the lock handles UP allows the throttle to come back one more notch BEHIND the Stop Gate to a fuel cut-off position.

He didn’t just pull the throttle back, that’s the problem. He lifted the locks and pulled the whole throttle body back to the stops. Past even the clearly marked IDLE detent, all the way to the STOP. For a pilot with 1700+ hours, who arguably should have known that a sterile cockpit during a critical phase of flight is no place to be letting an untrained and inexperienced pilot play around with controls to twin turbofan engines he is unfamiliar with, as the results show. A pilot that didn’t know what IDLE and STOP or CUTOFF meant? Why would any pilot go past IDLE if not on the ground?

​​@@RetreadPhotoBecause the guy in the right seat isn't type rated in turbine aircraft and he hasn't flown in 4 years .As soon as the first overspeed warning went off ..that's it ,the pilot should have taken back the controls immediately.and none of this would have happened. This whole thing was a bad idea from the start ...but you have to know when to take the airplane back ...warnings bells going off is usually a good indicator that it's time to do that

I agree with your assessment of the situation.

Difference between turbine and piston

He went from 'rusty' to Clueless in an instant.

You have to do things by the checklist, and do it that way no matter what ever single time .This pilot had plenty of attitude airspeed and time .All he had to do is run the emergency restart checklist by the numbers ,and he could have relit both engines and landed safely .

Good advice

I agree. In Australia, to hold a PPL you are required to do one exam. And this guy flies a jet. I think his money got him IFR ticket. I hold all of them RPL PPL CPL ATPL TWIN IFR. I wouldn't touch that aircraft without a type rating. But a PPL holder can fly literally anything but not for monetary gain. Shame We don't go to the toilet without a check list

Not sure that getting killed in a piston-engine or turboprop aircraft is any better than in a jet aircraft. When I was trained as a flight instructor (on single piston engine), one of the first tricks my instructor pulled on me was to flip off the magneto switch while saying "hey, what's this ?" at about 1000ft above ground. That shit can happen at any altitude is something any pilot should be aware of. Airmanship is not a matter of holding a commercial pilot license, it's a mater of not overestimating one's competences. Like : if you're no instructor, don't instruct, for instance; and for everyone's life sake, RTFM...

@@philippelambert329 I agree with what you’re saying, it’s quite sensible. I’ve been lucky enough in my career to fly everything from C150s, to high performance turboprops, aerobatic aircraft, helicopters and jets. The honest truth is, I think money talks. Those of us who fly for our livelihood have to prove ourselves through interviews, selection processes, sim checks and psychometric testing just to get the privilege of being trained and assessed to fly aircraft like this, with failing being a distinct possibility if the competency or work ethic isn’t there. But a PPL-holder with enough money can simply buy one and make it his personal plaything, without anyone vetting him to ensure he’s actually up to the task. So I think you might be right, the license is less relevant than the individual. Ideally I’d like to see aircraft manufacturers and/or brokers have a stringent evaluation system for potential owners. You roll up, do ground school, sim events and checkrides, and if you’re not up to scratch you don’t get the jet, regardless of how deep your pockets are. Jets are no joke, much less forgiving of mishandling or maltreatment than the light piston singles and twins PPL pilots learn on, and they need to be treated with respect. This guy didn’t seem to have that respect for his machine, and to your other point, certainly didn’t have any respect for the profession of a flight instructor. I have never been a flight instructor, and I wouldn’t dare try to teach someone without the requisite ratings and experience. Ultimately, this is another one of those incidents that sadly falls squarely into the category of “tragic but avoidable”.

I’ve been to a house just under lax airport the houses are ridiculously cheap in those areas but during the day the landing it’s loud

Thats ridiculous and stupid

@@davidmotter5140 Tell that to the people in the house.

No doubt

Not a simple mistake its called an idiot in the pilots seat

Nah, flying is fun. Imagine getting a Porsche and then hiring a driver. Defeats the purpose entirely. In fact, I would never respect a guy who bought a jet for himself and never learned to fly it, relying instead on some stranger. What a lamer that would be lol.

@@somealias-zs1bw Oops, thank you for the callout! Yes, I would definitely learn how to fly it, proficiently. But I would always prefer the recreational nature of the J3 over G6.

Where do you think runways are?

That's a good idea, thanks!

@@PilotInstituteAirplanes Very well made video by the way! Thanks!

@@PilotInstituteAirplanes You mentioned hazardous attitudes, and this guy had it in spades. Incompetence assumes you are just ignorant or forgetful of procedures. From what he said about intentionally ignoring W&B that goes past incompetence and into sheer arrogance and lack of regard for safety. I don't understand how, after so many fatal crashes caused by going over W&B limitations one could possibly have that kind of cavalier attitude towards it. Same goes for taking an overspeed in stride.

Too much money, too sloppy and irresponsible. No room for error. It's not a low speed ultralight.

mo'money than skill

I think it says as much about why a fairly new, low hour pilot can so quickly get a type rating in that much plane, to fly single pilot, carrying passengers no less, based on a week of ground school, a day of flight training, and a check ride. The system allows people to rush and slip through, with insufficient checks and balances. Would it be different if he had to get multiple other endorsements and ratings (complex, high power, commercial), hold each of them for a while before starting another, and rack up hours and experience (maybe even a review) in them first, to help solidify and verify the knowledge and skill needed for the next step? He really rushed through PPL, MEL, IFR, and type rating. The system “enabled” a few of those hazardous attitudes. Rushing may make sense for young pups cruising through an ATP program and earning an SIC seat to gel and mature under direct mentoring. But for men in their 50s or 60s, single pilot? Recipe for failure. I think this is as much a systemic failure as it is a pilot failure.