Aftermath of this mornings crash in San Diego

[-]

thx2000@reddit

No judgement, just an honest question. How do they find themselves so low even under IFR? Is there no ground proximity sensor? Is it not reliable under these conditions?

[-]

qalpi@reddit

CNN reporting that all fatalities are from the plane. A blessing, of sorts, for the folks in that neighborhood.

Hell on earth.

[-]

UsualFrogFriendship@reddit

Fortunate that no one on the ground was seriously hurt — the crash occurred in a housing complex for US military members (E1-E9) and their families.

[-]

hextreme2007@reddit

I believe the pilot had tried everything he could to land the plane on the street instead of a house, for his own sake.

[-]

https://globe.adsbexchange.com/?icao=a63388,a5f6bb,a8cadf

[-]

DanTMWTMP@reddit

I’m not so sure.

https://gis.data.ca.gov/datasets/CalEMA::power-outage-incidents/explore?location=32.919492%2C-117.107422%2C9.35&showTable=true

No unplanned power events noted.

[-]

FIRSTFREED0CELL@reddit

such lines have redundancy and can usually handle excess loads if needed

Utilities have computers constantly analyzing the loads and transmission lines, and are not supposed to even get into a state where the loss of a single transmission line would cause an outage. They are supposed to shed load before they get into a situation where a single outage would cause a failure.

The 2003 Northeast blackout was, at least partly, because the state analysis system was down and the operators didn't know it, and then they lost a major transmission line, and didn't know they were in trouble in time.

And they lost that transmission line because they had neglected tree trimming for years, and a tree grew tall enough for when a line sagged under load (line heats up and sags) it shorted to the tree.

We've been bringing you news over the last hour of a small plane crash that has occurred in a San Diego neighbourhood.

If you're just joining now, here's what we know so far:

A Cessna 550 aircraft, a small model which can carry six to eight people, crashed into the Murphy Canyon neighbourhood

The crash occurred at around 03:45 local time amid foggy weather conditions with local emergency services attending the scene minutes after it was called in

Fifteen homes were set on fire as a result of the incident and several blocks have been told to evacuate

Yeah. One big theory I've heard is "we all died in 2012 and this is purgatory/a simulation/a dark alternate universe" it's silly I guess but it explains some of the insanity.

[-]

Informal_Process2238@reddit

Apparently they aren’t supposed to even make that approach with the equipment available on that plane

[-]

teiladay@reddit

I would've headed straight to the alternate from the get go because for me the approach didn't pass the common sense test, but I'll admit that I'm often more conservative than many. If it were still air, and an approach over the water to some 4ft. MSL airfield in Florida where obstacles weren't a factor, then margins for wiggle-room in the decision making process are naturally higher, as the risk is far less.

I'm not sure what avionics suite they've added over the years, but if it's the standard avionics suite - it's rather limited considering what's available today. Are category C approach speed(s) allowed for that particular approach?

montagious@reddit

They were doing the RNAV28R. I believe(not sure) that the weather was below mins for the approach. Unfortunately in the 91 world you can still shoot the approach to mins to have a look. Not a great idea especially when you're single pilot in a complex A/C after an all night cross country. A lot of threats including , the temptation to duck under the mins to see if you break out, especially if its flown old school, where you descend to the minimum altitude and fly to the missed approach point, aka dive and drive.

The allowable tolerance for altimeter inaccuracy is 75 feet, checked as part of every pre-flight inspection. When the altimeter is set to the setting given on ATIS/AWOS, it must display an altitude within 75 feet of the published airport elevation found on the "10-9" airport diagram chart. Inaccuracy of more than 75 feet is a criteria for grounding the aircraft.

[-]

rocketsocks@reddit

I'm not a pilot, so I don't know much about instrument flying, but aren't you supposed to also try and get some kind of visual of the ground, or you can land totally blind?

What if you decide that you want to try to get a view of the ground so you fly lower, but you end up so low you hit power lines? That might have been exactly what happened here. If you need to rely on your instruments you have to be able to do so while being blind, because that can happen. If you aren't comfortable doing that and it causes you to get out of your glide slope you risk crashing the plane.

[-]

Sarpool@reddit

Making a decision to descending to so low that you can see the ground would mean you are disregarded the glide slope.

Rather what you would be doing is follow the glide slope and altitude restrictions/warnings until your confidence runs out and abort the approach’s.

Crashing a few files from the runway clearly means that what I said certainly was not followed.

[-]

Thatgliderpilot@reddit

You can land totally blind, now this aircraft and airport I’m not familiar with and highly doubt they’re both capable of CAT 3 operations but I know up here in Canada at least we have planes land in 0’ Visibility and 0’ ceiling at capable airports with capable aircraft and from what I’ve heard it’s quite eerie putting the plane down and not seeing the lights until you’re basically lowering the nose

[-]

oshunluvr@reddit

Montgomery Field is def not a CAT 3 airport. I've never seen a Citation with that capability either. Not to say that the newest larger Citations might, just never in a 550.

[-]

MD500_Pilot@reddit

I fly a mix of different jets, including the G550, Challenger 350, and the smaller Citations like the 560 Ultra, 560XL, and the CJ3. The G550 and the CL350 are certified for CAT II approaches, as are we, the pilots flying them, but none of the smaller jets that I fly can do CAT III.

[-]

oshunluvr@reddit

Autoland too? One of the coolest landings I experienced at my time in LAX tower was a 767 or 777 (Delta I think) that autolanded in heavy ground fog. The tower cab was well above the top of the fog but when the 76 rolled out they could not see the taxiways! All I could see of the airplane was the top of the tail. I had to send a city car out to guide them to the gate.

The visual from the cab was like watching Jaws and a shark fin moving a white oceanI Cool as hell!

[-]

Trixie_737@reddit

MYF is CAT1. The WX was likely below minimums by all accounts but Part 91 operations can attempt an approach regardless.

[-]

Techhead7890@reddit

What are the chances the instruments weren't calibrated properly?

Doesn't seem that likely, and not more than other possibilities.

but aren't you supposed to also try and get some kind of visual of the ground, or you can land totally blind?

Obviously seeing the ground will help, but it depends on the radionavigation guidance available (not comms radio, think more like computer beacons). Instrument landing system (ILS) in the best case can get you down with only a few hundred feet of visibility or less.

The airport had a basic one on this runway which is still good with about 2000ft or so, and I can't find anything indicating it was shut off, so that should have been sufficient to get them close enough. But they crashed a few miles short of the runway, which is thousands of feet away. Too early to say why or what happened yet. Could be anything so far and I wouldn't want to speculate much. The NTSB will have preliminary findings done in the next 30 days.

[-]

ciaomeridian@reddit

VAS aviation already put a video out on this and it seems either the pilot diverted to this landing from another one or was actively trying to divert to another just prior to the accident.

[-]

Scary-Plantain@reddit

Is it selfish to think that private flying should be more limited.

These small crashes and seemingly more frequent crashes are putting innocent lives in danger

[-]

NewSmokeSignalWhoDis@reddit

Fatalities from general aviation accidents (and accidents themselves) have been on a decline due to many things including better training.

If you’re worried about someone flying their plane and killing oeople on the ground, there have only been 25 general aviation accidents that caused fatalities between 2013-2022…. It’s very rare.

Video of the immediate aftermath. NSFW with bodies shown.

Sorry for being that guy, buy the pilot's name being Dave and everyone in this thread knows him reminds me of that "Everyone knows Dave" joke.

Soytaco@reddit

Or I could just read the answer in the thread where it was asked because other commenters bothered to answer it

[-]

StephThePhobiaSlayer@reddit

You could do that too. But like I said above, it's not like the tail number is a complete nonanswer to where you can't even look up the aircraft type with it.

[-]

Either-Bid1923@reddit

To be fair this is r/aviation and people should know what a tail number is and if one simply highlights and searches the tail number all their questions would be answered. I think it is casuals down voting here because this thread is popular.

Are there standard databases of offensive strings that you can acquire or do you have to "roll your own"?

The owner, and pilot, is a friend of mine. Dave was a booking agent for bands that were predominantly in the heavy metal and hardcore world. References in the tail sign also has his initials.

--“Memories That Will Never Go Away” The Crash of Flight 182 and Its Aftermath (The Journal of San Diego History, Alexander D. Bevil)

[-]

Throwawayyacc22@reddit

Yup! I remember the tree account. Crazy stuff.

[-]

roberta_sparrow@reddit

Yeah I read about it - it was not good

[-]

Throwawayyacc22@reddit

Yeah, I dove down the rabbit hole on it, had to use WaybackMachine to access some old forums regarding it, some unbelievably insane things I won’t mention here, the pics and video on YouTube are bad too.

I forget the details exactly, But The plane essentially opened up, so the structural integrity was diminished, so when it made contact with the ground and right before, many people were ejected outward..

[-]

Throwawayyacc22@reddit

kingOofgames@reddit

This always seems to be a common occurrence with small private planes. Still very low chance, but they’re often on the news more than any other kind of aviation issue.

Also worked with Dave. Such a nice guy in an industry that was otherwise toxic.

Commercial aviation (big planes) have a very good safety record over the last few decades.

Still just from the plane. All the house residents survived and escaped.

CountRoloff@reddit

As someone who doesn't pay attention to aviation much, this subreddit has been getting recommended to me a lot lately, and the post is almost always related to a crash of some kind.

No. Statistical analysis are the only source you should be looking at when talking about plane crashes

_Meowdy@reddit

Idiot realized that his comments were beyond stupidity. Atleast he had the braincells to realize that his argument about “small planes shouldn’t take be crashing because obtaining a pilots license and maintaining an aircraft is harder than a car” is answering his own question. I guess big planes are invincible then lol

[-]