AOPA Pilot Magazine - February 2023 - 83

The pilot recovered with help
from Potomac at least enough to track
the RNAV approach course inbound,
but according to the NTSB preliminary
report he remained below-and
in some cases, well below-altitude
restrictions on the entire approach.
Inside the final approach fix, Potomac
noticed a low altitude return and
issued two low altitude alerts, but the
pilot was off frequency, clicking the
Montgomery County unicom to activate
runway lights and attempting
activation of the lights four separate
times, while steadily getting lower on
the approach. He dropped well below
the decision altitude and struck the
power lines and a support tower; the
stout Mooney saved his and the passenger's
lives.
Confusion in the initial setup
for the approach may have rattled
the pilot and put him behind the
airplane for the remainder of the
approach. He was likely struggling
to confirm inputs in his GPS and
perplexed as to why Potomac was
correcting his heading, or why the
fix he programmed took him on an
unexpected heading, away from his
destination. He may have inadvertently
set BECKA in his navigation
system, a similar-sounding fix about
40 miles northwest of his position
that was directly on course with his
errant heading.
The situation is a good reminder
to all pilots that when entering the
approach phase of flight, navigate to
fixes programmed on the approach
rather than manually entering them,
except in unusual cases in which
ATC should be clear and specific.
Pilots must ensure their situational
awareness is strong and they are
ahead of the airplane, mentally and
physically in complete situational
control before beginning an IFR
approach-especially so in demanding
conditions like very low IFR at
night. If a pilot is struggling with
any aspect of the flight, they should
buy some time and get some space.
Talk to ATC and advise them of an
apparent systems problem, ask for
a vector to climb back into clear
air, or ask for vectors to a holding
pattern where you can delay, on
autopilot if equipped, long enough
to sort out any confusion, confirm
programming of your systems, and
get mentally back ahead of the airplane.
Barreling in, trying to claw
back in front of the airplane while
on an approach in low IFR is fraught
with risk and is unnecessary.
The setup for this accident started
long before confusion inbound to the
initial approach fix. Perhaps some
holiday influences-time and emotional
pressures-nudged the pilot
to launch in such demanding conditions.
Did he realize on his trip out
to White Plains that weather for the
return trip would be so low? What
were the constraints that prevented
him from either launching earlier
to make the low IFR flight back
home in daylight, or delaying the
flight altogether-on either end, the
launch in the morning or the return
flight home. A thorough review of
the forecast for the day and a candid
discussion on expectations with
family and others counting on us
for the flight can help with planning
and help relieve family pressures and
set expectations.
When he started the approach,
weather was below minimums, so he
should have been expecting to fly the
missed approach. But based on his
actions, it does not seem he was flying
in that mental mode. Once inbound
on the approach, the NTSB reported
the pilot missed each altitude at every
fix on the approach. He was consistently
low, and low enough that a
missed approach was warranted. It's
unclear why he never corrected. Was
he unaware of his altitude misses,
or was he working unsuccessfully
AOPA PILOT / February 2023
83
The setup for this
accident started long
before confusion
inbound to the
initial approach
fix. Perhaps some
holiday influences-
time and emotional
pressures-nudged
the pilot to launch
in such demanding
conditions.
AOPA Pilot Magazine - February 2023

Table of Contents for the Digital Edition of AOPA Pilot Magazine - February 2023
