A Lack of Peer Pressure
- Maddie Moles
- Nov 27, 2023
- 3 min read
On February 25, 2017, a Cessna 172H Skyhawk was substantially damaged during impact with terrain while maneuvering at a low altitude in Panguitch, Utah. What went wrong?
When I was a student pilot, I was lucky to have some of the mentors that I did. There were a lot of “do this” and “don’t do that”, a lot of tips, shortcuts, and rules of thumb, plus some advice about decision-making. A lot of that advice could be broken down into “It’s better to be on the ground wishing you in the air than to be in the air wishing you were on the ground”, but it was often accompanied by the “Let me tell you what I learned the hard way” kind of introduction.
Once I became something of a peer to other pilots, the questions I might be asked about a planned flight became more detailed and focused on the consequences of my decisions and actions. As a result of those interactions, I canceled a few flights over the years, and a few more on my own. Here’s an example of when a more skeptical and less trusting pilot peer’s input regarding actual conditions might have saved the day:
Before taking off, a pilot-rated friend of the family texted back and forth with the accident pilot, discussing VFR route options. The weather was also discussed, with the friend telling the pilot the clouds to the east of his house “are all low.” The friend informed the pilot, “My radar app shows weather over Tropic, but light and some over by Beaver. Nothing bad.” The pilot replied, “That’s what I’m seeing too. I’m just going to stay over the highways.” That was the last communication the friend received from the pilot. Earlier, the FBO at Page had topped off both fuel tanks.
The flight departed Page, AZ., about 1930, with Salt Lake City, Utah, as its destination. The direct route between the two points included terrain in excess of 11,000 feet. Minimum en route IFR altitudes along plausible airways are as high as 14,000 feet.
The surface analysis chart depicted a stationary front located across central Arizona with a high-pressure system over northern Utah. The accident site was located north of the front in an area with a weak pressure gradient. Light north and west winds with variable cloud conditions were being reported, with a station northwest of the accident site reporting light continuous snow. At the time of the accident, the moon was more than 15 degrees below the horizon and provided no illumination. The investigation found no evidence that the pilot had received a weather briefing before takeoff.
The NTSB determined the probable causes of this accident to include: “The pilot’s continued visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain. Contributing to the accident were the pilot’s inadequate preflight weather planning and his poor decision-making.” According to the NTSB, “The changes in heading and altitude between the end of the radar data and the impact suggest that the pilot began maneuvering the airplane after radar contact was lost.”
The accident pilot had a friend reaching out to him, but neither was taking seriously the weather or dark night conditions. Discussing certain issues; perhaps including what the accident pilot’s nonexistent weather briefing contained and the limitations of a loaded 145-hp airplane over mountainous terrain might not have saved the day. But minimizing the flight’s risks wasn’t the best input the pilot could have received from a peer.
Source
Comments