LiveATC Discussion Forums

Air Traffic Monitoring => Aviation Audio Clips => Topic started by: dan9125 on April 23, 2006, 11:25:27 PM

Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: dan9125 on April 23, 2006, 11:25:27 PM
This was a close call near Buffalo tonight (Sunday)at around 10:15pm, listen to this!

  Dan

(http://audio.liveatc.net:8012/kbuf.m3u)http://
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: cpumodem on April 24, 2006, 12:40:43 AM
First mistake she made after getting control of the airplane is to keep going. I would of landed at the nearest airport. Maybe changed my shorts and continued flying the next morning if the weather was better.
Title: ice
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 07:44:06 AM
Sorry its such a big file, my version of audacity would only let me export it as a WAV. file. I bet my friend Peter could turn it into a MP3!

  Dan
Title: Re: ice
Post by: Jason on April 24, 2006, 08:16:40 AM
Quote from: dan9125
Sorry its such a big file, my version of audacity would only let me export it as a WAV. file. I bet my friend Peter could turn it into a MP3!

  Dan


Hi Dan,

I turned it into MP3, but I'm running out the door and don't have time to upload it.  Ill be sure and get it up by this afternoon.

Jason
Title: Wav. file
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 09:12:28 AM
Thanks Jason,
  Pretty tense moments last night, glad everything worked out ok.

 Dan
Title: flight aware
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 09:18:17 AM
I found a link that shows her flight path. You can see it takes her right over Buffalo.


http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1278Chttp://
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 09:24:28 AM
Try this one....

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1278C
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: bcrosby on April 24, 2006, 11:38:10 AM
Interesting how she regained control at 6500' which also happens to be 0C (freezing level)

I would have probably landed at the nearest airport and figure out why I wasn't paying attention to the icing.

I dont like how she was like "I have the auto pilot on now, everythings fine". Thats what probably got her in trouble in the first place.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 03:03:08 PM
Wow, Dan, another incredible clip!

Those damn Cessna Caravans have quite a terrible history with icing encounters.    The FAA is currently re-evaluating the known icing certification for the Caravan, due to several icing accidents over the last ten years.  

She is one lucky pilot.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 03:06:46 PM
Quote from: dan9125
Try this one....

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1278C


Actually, that is not the track.  The tail ID was 1278L.

Here is the track history:

http://flightaware.com/live/flight/N1278L/history/20060423/2119Z/KEWK/KBGR/tracklog

While the graphic doesn't depict the dive, the track history from the link above shows the dive in the form of a major deviation of altitude.
Title: Re: ice
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 03:13:30 PM
Quote from: dan9125
Sorry its such a big file, my version of audacity would only let me export it as a WAV. file. I bet my friend Peter could turn it into a MP3!


Here is the MP3 file.  Not too much smaller, however:
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: digger on April 24, 2006, 03:18:30 PM
Quote
I would of landed at the nearest airport. Maybe changed my shorts and continued flying the next morning if the weather was better.


Then, in addition to explaining the emergency situation, she'd have also have to explain to her boss why the cargo wasn't in Bangor on time. I'd bet that the majority of pilots in her situation (not just weather, but employer pressure), would have weighed the relative consequences, and electd to press on. (Ours is not to judge which would have been the better decision, although we can certainly speculate about what we'd have done personally.)

One has to wonder though, whether the airframe was subject to any excessive loads during the excursion. I'd certainly do a *thorough* preflight before the next takeoff....
Title: Re: ice
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 03:18:32 PM
Quote from: dan9125
Sorry its such a big file, my version of audacity would only let me export it as a WAV. file.


Dan, to use Audacity to create MP3 files, simply copy this one DLL file attached here  into the Audacity program folder (unzip this file first, of course).  Relaunch Audacity and you will now have the option to produce MP3 files.

EDIT:  Cannot attach a ZIP here, Dan.  Send me your email address and I will email it to you.  (pjricc@gmailX.com - remove the capital letter)
Title: track
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 03:22:36 PM
I did see there was 2 similar flights and picked the wrong one. Check out the speed also, down to 106 knots!

 Dan
Title: audacity
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 03:27:10 PM
I found the file for audacity and now can make an MP3 file, thanks.

 Dan
Title: Re: track
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 03:31:14 PM
Quote from: dan9125
I did see there was 2 similar flights and picked the wrong one. Check out the speed also, down to 106 knots!


Based on her lengthy explanation near the end of the clip, my speculation is that she failed to use the pitot heat and failed to routinely cycle the boots to shed the ice from the leading edges as she cruised at 11,000 feet on her way up to Bangor.

The failure to use the boots is most likely what allowed the ice to build and result in a stall and the three 90 degree rolls she described, and her erroneously low airspeed indications that she screamed out during the emergency were probably due to an ice-blocked pitot tube rather than a slow aircraft.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: digger on April 24, 2006, 03:41:37 PM
Quote
I did see there was 2 similar flights and picked the wrong one. Check out the speed also, down to 106 knots!


That's the speed across the ground. In a 1200 fpm descent (which is how far she descended in that minute), the airspeed would certainly have gone up, not down. The ground speed is lower because she was moving down, instead of forward, so fast...
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: Biff on April 24, 2006, 03:42:26 PM
Sounds like she got into icing, and let the autopilot fly her into a stall.  She might have noticed before it got to that point if she'd been hand flying it.

Not that there's anything wrong with using an autopilot.  I sure would be.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: Jason on April 24, 2006, 05:05:29 PM
Quote from: Biff
Sounds like she got into icing, and let the autopilot fly her into a stall.  She might have noticed before it got to that point if she'd been hand flying it.

Not that there's anything wrong with using an autopilot.  I sure would be.


No, you're right, Biff.  It is a recommended practice (studies by NASA have proved this) to always handfly the aircraft if flying in icing.  You can detect ice and remedy the issue a lot sooner than if the autopilot is flying the plane.

Unless your autopilot knows how to talk to you, hand-flying in icing conditions is a much better choice under most instances.
Title: ice
Post by: dan9125 on April 24, 2006, 05:10:42 PM
I think the worst thing was that she didnt seam to know what was causing the problem, just that she suddenly lost controll.

 Dan
Title: Controller
Post by: flyer_d on April 24, 2006, 06:44:54 PM
While the controller helped by staying calm, he really should have given her the groundspeed earlier (as soon as she said she was showing 80 kts, which would have helped her diagnose the (apparent) blocked pitot) and he never once gave her vectors to the nearest airport (saying "south-south-east" is only marginally helpful in that situation).

(I agree it also sounds like the pilot made some serious mistakes.)

A scary post.
Title: Re: Controller
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 06:55:54 PM
Quote from: flyer_d
While the controller helped by staying calm, he really should have given her the groundspeed earlier (as soon as she said she was showing 80 kts, which would have helped her diagnose the (apparent) blocked pitot) and he never once gave her vectors to the nearest airport (saying "south-south-east" is only marginally helpful in that situation).


During the moments that the controller was calling out the nearest airports, the aircraft was still in an uncontrolled descent.  IMO, there really was nothing the controller could do to help the situation at that point, perhaps other than to be the calm voice at the other end.
Title: Re: Controller
Post by: flyer_d on April 24, 2006, 07:08:57 PM
Quote
During the moments that the controller was calling out the nearest airports, the aircraft was still in an uncontrolled descent.  IMO, there really was nothing the controller could do to help the situation at that point, perhaps other than to be the calm voice at the other end.


Perhaps true, but I was noting that he "never once" gave her vectors -- even in the time between arresting the descent and saying that she would press on to Maine.  At that time, something like "nearest airport is 10 degrees right and 5 miles" would have been very helpful.

I'm not trying to dump on the controller -- he did a good job.  But it's always a good idea to try to learn from these events.
Title: Format
Post by: flyer_d on April 24, 2006, 07:11:57 PM
How come the quote is all screwed up?  It looked fine when I did the preview, but when I hit submit, it looked like that.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 07:22:19 PM
Quote from: Jason
No, you're right, Biff.  It is a recommended practice (studies by NASA have proved this) to always handfly the aircraft if flying in icing.  You can detect ice and remedy the issue a lot sooner than if the autopilot is flying the plane.


As an IFR pilot of a single-engine GA (general aviation) aircraft who flies in the Northeast US, let me offer a dissenting opinion based on experience:  

Regardless of whether the aircraft is known-ice (certified to fly into forecast icing conditions) or not, a proficient IFR GA pilot about to launch on an IFR flight will already know, thanks to proper preflight planning, that icing conditions might or will be encountered.   Hence, if icing conditions are suspected during the flight, the pilot must routinely scan the leading edges of the wing or horizontal stabilizer, or scan some other protrusion in order to see the first sign of ice build-up.  This is just as important as scanning the instruments for proper altitude, attitude, speeds, and heading.   At the first sign of ice build-up, the pilot must then respond by executing his/her already conceived plan to escape the ice build-up.

With this in mind, using the AP if the aircraft is so equipped is actually preferable since the AP will fly the aircraft and free up the pilot to both monitor the AP's performance (heading, alt, speed, etc) and scan for the first signs of ice formation.

Any IFR GA pilot who waits for reduced performance (aka feeling it in the hand flying of the aircraft) to confirm that ice build-up is occurring is just asking for an ice-induced episode like that which seems depicted in this audio clip.
Title: Re: Controller
Post by: KSYR-pjr on April 24, 2006, 08:43:27 PM
Quote from: flyer_d
Perhaps true, but I was noting that he "never once" gave her vectors -- even in the time between arresting the descent and saying that she would press on to Maine.  At that time, something like "nearest airport is 10 degrees right and 5 miles" would have been very helpful.


The pilot never asked for vectors to the nearest airport, despite the controller querying her a few times as to what she needed.   If she didn't request to be vectored to the airport, why clutter up the airwaves?

Regarding your quoting, this is a known problem with this forum software here at LiveATC and Dave admitted in another, recent post that he is going to look into correcting the problem.  It even happens to Dave, so you are in good company.  :)
Title: Quote/Vectors
Post by: flyer_d on April 25, 2006, 12:15:52 AM
Thanks for the info on the quotes.  Glad to know it wasn't my error.  :D

On the vectors issue, check out chapter 10 of Order 7110.65R.  For guidance to an emergency airport, radar is #1, and compass headings is #6.  There is a reason for that.  (And there is nothing that says that emergency guidance is provided only upon request.)

Fly safe.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: Hobbyist on April 25, 2006, 12:23:56 PM
Yes everybody I had listen to it but she was in distress/panic about it and congrats to her that she regained control of the airplane. And also to the controler who talked her out of the situation. Otherwise she may of bought the farm.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: Rich of Peak on May 02, 2006, 01:48:58 PM
Pretty scary stuff.....

 But you have to wonder after an episode like that why the pilot would keep going to destination.  She was obviously extremely irrate to say the least and sounded pretty shaken up at the end of the clip.  What amazes me is that the controller had to suggest a descent below the freezing level.  He was basically holding her hand, in that type of situation that aircraft should land ASAP.

Pilot Decision Making was definately lacking in this situation, maybe thats what got the aircraft into trouble in the first place.

Wow
Sometimes I wonder
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: Check Airman on May 02, 2006, 05:56:46 PM
Then, in addition to explaining the emergency situation, she'd have also have to explain to her boss why the cargo wasn't in Bangor on time.

Forget the darn cargo. I'll save my rear any day.
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: Cessna172 on May 02, 2006, 09:50:48 PM
Thanks for the clip. Pretty tense! :shock:

I totally agree with the majority opinion. She definetly should have told the controller that she wanted vectors to the nearest airport.

Here's a question: if the 78L pilot was VFR only, and that had happened, and she re-gained control at 6,500, which is in the clouds, do you think that the controller would let her stay at that altitude? I know it says in the FAA regs about the cloud restrictions for VFR flight, but do you think that, if she ABSOLUTLY wanted to stay at 6,500 for control reasons, the controller would let her?
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: chris325ci on May 05, 2006, 04:53:56 AM
I'm an enroute controller (ZOA) who used to be in the terminal option.  This controller did a poor job of assisting the pilot.  It actually bothers me to listen to this tape.  He could have assisted her in a number of ways but instead seemed to have taken the situation rather lightly.  No MVAs or MOCAs issued, let alone runway and airport information.
Title: ice
Post by: dan9125 on May 05, 2006, 07:21:59 AM
It bothered me too, i heard it happen live! by the way, what are MVAs or MOCAs ?

 thanks Dan
Title: Re: ice
Post by: KSYR-pjr on May 05, 2006, 07:58:17 AM
Quote from: dan9125
It bothered me too, i heard it happen live! by the way, what are MVAs or MOCAs ?


Minimum Vectoring Altitudes and Minimum Obstacle Clearance Altitudes.  

Based on my perspective on the other end of the radio, these attitudes are generally the lowest altitude that ATC can issue for en route IFR aircraft, as it is it the altitude that guarantees not running into anything on the ground.

For example, just south of the NY State Thruway (toll road) and approach Buffalo from the east, the MVA is 4,000 feet.  However, north of the NYST the MVA is 2,100 feet.  Being that you are from the area, you can guess why:  Large hills and towers to the south of the NYST, relatively flat and low terrain to the north.
Title: mva
Post by: dan9125 on May 05, 2006, 10:50:15 AM
So is that why planes arriving into Buffalo for runway 32 have to stay at 4000' for so long. I hear complaints from pilots on occasion during the winter wanting to get lower due to ice build up but the tower makes them hang at that altitiude.

 Dan
Title: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: digger on May 05, 2006, 04:27:14 PM
Quote
He could have assisted her in a number of ways but instead seemed to have taken the situation rather lightly. No MVAs or MOCAs issued, let alone runway and airport information.


I'm not sure the pilot was in any condition to absorb runway and airport information. The controller offered general airport locations a couple of times, with no response to that particular information. I don't think MVAs or MOCAs would've helped at the time either. (If she was approaching those altitudes that information might've sacred her even more!)

I didn't think the controller's suggestion that "We'll have people standing by in that area" was the best thing he could've said either--that was like saying, "When you're finished crashing, then we'll be able to help".

One thing that wasn't said, that I thought would have been reassuring, was that there was no other traffic in the vicinity, or that it had been vectored out of the way, and she had unobstructed airspace to do whatever maneuvering was needed.
Title: Re: mva
Post by: KSYR-pjr on May 05, 2006, 08:26:14 PM
Quote from: dan9125
So is that why planes arriving into Buffalo for runway 32 have to stay at 4000' for so long. I hear complaints from pilots on occasion during the winter wanting to get lower due to ice build up but the tower makes them hang at that altitiude.


Exactly.  When I learned that the MVA northeast of Buffalo was 2,100 feet, that was my out when approaching Buffalo  from the east last winter.  I would request vectors that put me into this area and then requested 2,100 feet, which (at least for my Monday AM commutes) was low enough to get below the icing layer.
Title: Re: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: freightdog on May 22, 2006, 07:34:50 PM
As a seasoned Caravan pilot, this recording sends chills down my spine.

It sounds to me like the pilot encountered moderate to severe icing. The sudden dive could have been due to a tail plane stall caused by ice accumulation. Or the plane could have loaded up with ice and lost sufficient airspeed to enter a wing stall. It's hard to know, which. The blocked pitot tube only added to the pilot's confusion. Pitot heat can only do so much, so I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that the pilot forgot to turn it on.

While second-guessing the pilot is tempting, remember that many Caravan operators provide little if any training for dealing with ice encounters. Even with some training, it can be difficult to tell how much ice is accumulating at night. Most of the aircraft are flown single-pilot, which doesn't help.

My experience is that cycling the boots in the Caravan can have little if any effect. Usually the ice cracks, some flakes off, and the majority stays firmly attached. Even if the ice sheds from the boots, there is the problem of runback to the unprotected surfaces.

The FAA issued an AD that prohibits the continued operation of a Caravan into moderate or greater icing conditions. It also restricts autopilot use. You can read more here:

http://freightdogtales.blogspot.com/2006/03/patch-upon-patch_17.html

My three step approach to flying the Caravan in ice is:

1) Avoid - know where you're likely to encounter ice and don't fly there.

2) Evade - never let ATC put you or keep you in icing conditions. Be assertive and declare an emergency if you have to.

3) Escape - when you ice up, have an escape route already figured out so you can shed the ice or land

The Caravan is a great plane, but it becomes one scary ride when loaded up with ice. Kudos to that pilot for regaining control.
Title: Re: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: digger on May 22, 2006, 10:28:03 PM
Thanks, freightdog, for sharing your "direct experience" point of view.

Admittedly, any discussion we can have here amounts to "Monday morning quarterbacking", but do you have any thoughts on the pilot's decision to press on to her destination, as opposed to landing at the first suitable airport, as so many here have suggested would have been wise?
Title: Re: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: freightdog on May 22, 2006, 10:47:26 PM
Once she was out of the ice and all her equipment was functioning normally, I can't think of any reason not to continue the flight. It could also be that her domicile was at her destination and she just wanted to get home. That would be understandable, given what she'd just experienced.
Title: Re: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: spallanzani on May 29, 2006, 01:45:03 AM
I think that I would have landed right away after such an incident.

In my opinion, I do believe that the ATC did a great job. I don't think that it would have helped to give her precise information or vectors. She was in panic and it looks like she was talking a lot to calm herself. Any specific information given to her as she was fighting to get the aircraft back under control wouldn't have been very efficient.
Title: Re: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: ecrane99 on May 29, 2006, 10:16:46 PM
After such a horrific incident and all that flipping around I think a landing would be a the best option.  If not for that reason,  at least to avoid another icing encounter.  Ed
Title: Re: Another ice problem near Buffalo tonight
Post by: freightdog on May 29, 2006, 11:09:17 PM
My last comment on this, I promise.

As to whether ATC could have done a better job, I leave that to the professional air traffic controllers to debate. As a professional pilot, I think the bottom line is that ATC can't fly the plane for you or do your flight planning or tell you how to handle an icing encounter.

Airframe icing is usually encountered in isolated areas at limited altitudes. Climbing or descending 3000' is often all it takes to escape. The key is don't hang out where ice is accumulating and have an escape plan if you do run into ice. Based on the recording, the pilot descended below the freezing level, regained control, and was out of the icing conditions, so landing for that reason wasn't necessary.

As a flight instructor, I always encourage GA pilots to always take the conservative approach. The thought of departing controlled flight as a result of an icing encounter is terrifying and shouldn't be taken lightly. The thing is, experienced professional pilots are expected to get a job done. This is a different world than GA flying or flight instructing, where you can easily choose to stay on the ground or land if the weather is bad or gets bad. The Caravan is (at least for the time being) certificated for flight into known moderate icing conditions and this sort of thing can happen. Professional pilots go through recurrent training for this and other sorts of emergencies, while GA pilots fly to maintain a base level of proficiency which is a different world altogether.

Check out this link: http://freightdogtales.blogspot.com/2006/01/dont-mess-with-ice.html