The pilot reported that, while making a straight-in approach to a private airport in Plato Center, Illinois, just after dusk, but before dark, he attempted to activate the pilot-controlled lighting (PCL), but was unsuccessful.
He continued toward the airport, and while maneuvering for landing, he lost sight of the airport. He didn’t regain visual reference of the airport during the landing descent, and the airplane hit a fence adjacent to the runway.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The airport owner reported that the PCL antenna required line-of-sight with the aircraft to operate the PCL system. Due to the antenna’s position and hangars on the airport, the antenna did not receive signals from the southeast, the direction from which the airplane was approaching.
He added that, because the airport was private, he could not issue a NOTAM to describe the operation of the runway lights.
Probable cause: The pilot’s decision to continue to land without visual reference to the airport in low light conditions. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s inability to activate the private airport’s pilot-controlled lighting system due to its configuration.
NTSB Identification: GAA18CA069
This December 2017 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Just to make it known, private airports whether open to the public or restricted use, do not have to comply with any FAR’s or FAA website BS that has to do with the type of equipment used on the field. ONLY if Uncle Sam spends your money on the airport or if it is an FAR Part 139 Airport does that airport have to buy the most expensive, elaborate, over priced equipment made. Whether it is an AWOS, lighting, communications, etc., a private airport does NOT have to purchase this over rated over priced equipment. Private Airports, can use incandescent light bulbs in Mason Jars as runway lights, and we did many years ago. Private Airports don’t have money trees growing on their property.
No mandatory regulations because Uncle Sam is not footing the bill. The FAA has nothing to say about the operations of a private airport unless that airport is beholding to them. Enough said.
Wish all of the private airports had the money to waste like Uncle Sam! Christmas presents anyone?
For those interested in the technicalities I’d like to reference the FAA website as the authority for all involved with using the NAS. This includes pilots, airports, manufactures of the equipment’s used to provide approach lighting and NAV aid’s for every class of airport from Commercial HUBs to private fields.
The radio systems used for PLC applications are designated as a FAA L-854 Radio. The receiver must conform to the AC/ 150-5345-49, which states:
1. L-854 Type I receiver: must be a super heterodyne type.
a. Frequency: the receiver must operate at a single frequency within a band of
frequencies from 118 to 136 Megahertz (MHz) and process amplitude modulated (AM) signals.
b. Alternatively, the receiver may use frequency modulation (FM) with a discriminator and
variable squelch to detect the presence of the radio frequency
(RF) carrier within the 118 to 136 MHz VHF band.
While it’s true that this band is slightly higher than commercial FM radio frequencies of 188MHz to 108MHz, it is close enough that line of site propagation is predominant. The theoretical distance to the horizon for the pilots eye in an aircraft at 5000 feet MSL is about 86 miles. Granted atmospheric conditions will limit seeing the that edge but depending on the signal strength of the transmitter as sensitive radio that has been properly installed may be able to detect the signal. Of course the terrain between the aircraft plays a huge part of how well the signal will be reached, as does the placement of the receiver antenna. Ground interference by structures is not uncommon and the fact that this was a PPR, the use may have been designed for the owner of the field, who may have had no intension for it to be used by the general aviation flying public. Prior Permission Required fields typically mandate the operator must request a PPR number to arrival to that end a landing permit may be required. For the most part this gives the owner to have on file at least some minimum restrictions proof of insurance, type of aircraft, valid certificates, identification etc. A non-compliance is basis for denying access.
Since I don’t know all the facts of this particular incident my comments are restricted to just technical aspects of Airfield Ground Lighting Systems.
In closing here are the links, one for the GA portal, Airport Engineering portal, the L-854 Radio requirements, and lastly the IESALC Aviation Lighting Committee:
https://www.faa.gov/airports/engineering/
https://www.faa.gov/airports/resources/advisory_circulars/
https://www.faa.gov/documentLibrary/media/Advisory_Circular/150-5345-49D.pdf
http://www.iesalc.org/subcommittees/
I’m very appreciative of General Aviation News and this forum.
I think you’re a little lost in the technical aspects of this accident. It comes down to the decision making of the PIC. Bad decision, bad result.
Howard, I agree that the pilot made bad decisions, no question in my mind either. I should have address this to Mr. Wong or any owner operators that may have similar technical questions. But I do respect your comments and thank you also for your reply.
I should’ve started with “no disrespect intended”. My apologies for that, my take on incidents or accidents is from the aviation safety aspect of why it happened.
Non taken, and no apology needed either. I believe we have the same intentions, to improve safety for the flying public. Be safe and tail winds.
Who cares about antenna placement or frequency? When he couldn’t turn the lights on he should’ve gone somewhere else.
“He didn’t regain visual reference of the airport during the landing ” nothing more needs to be said! You just can’t fix stupid!
Let’s do the basics people. The pilot made poor decisions per the recommended procedures for landing at a non tower airport. No over fly. No wind confirmation. No clearing the runway. None of the proper procedures to give himself the chance of a good landing. Poor judgment for a poor outcome. Let’s quit transferring responsibility to others not involved for his actions.
The problems with, or the configuration of, the lighting system is incidental to the accident.
When an airport is PPR and you neglect to action the ‘PP’ part, the pilot is the cause of whatever misfortune befalls him.
Blaming the private, restricted use airport that requires permission to use it is lame!
Straight in approach, 2400′ runway and no lights says it all. Anybody including the NTSB investigator in charge that blames the private, restricted use airport for this accident needs an FAA 709 checkride.
FM radio stations are quasi line of sight, but there is an interesting phenomena that FM signals follow the curvature of the earth (from my electronics classes back in 1970-74 — and I decided to not work in RF). So the top end of FM Broadcast is the bottom of the Aviation frequencies (~108MHz).
So, if one set up PCL to work on the frequencies used for Pilot communications based on the “100MHz” band, they are not truly line of sight. But as he noted to the NTSB/FAA, the antenna was obstructed from one particular direction (aluminum or steel will do the trick). As a result, I have problems with what this guy says.
What I think the problem really is, is that his antenna is below the level of a masking metal structure that reflects/absorbs the signal in one area. And since he knows this, but couldn’t put out a NOTAM about lighting operations…. He basically convicted himself.
Well although I like your thinking, landing at a private airport also requires permission to land which means you must contact the owner/manager and if permission granted then the owner/manager could have provided that crucial information. Which now goes back to pilot error.
There are many private owned/ public use airports that do not require prior permission to land.
Note that the aviation band is AM ,not FM, even though it is adjacent to the broadcast FM band.
I don’t understand why the PCL antenna was not raised in order to receive signals from any direction ?
Could you provide me with the tech data, specifying aviation radios use Amplitude Modulation? I’ve seen many a post stating that we use AM, but I’d like to see the specifications.
I’m asking because I do not recall static bursts when flying around thunderstorms that I get when using AM rather than FM. And the difference may be squelching that this level of transceiver has.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airband#References
Thank you. That cleared up my confusion — I finally was able to track to a source document. Generally I don’t trust wikis because in the area I would use them, I find things to not be correct — Long story, but something about Wilbur Wright saying you can believe everything you find on the internet….
The FAA NOTAM system, as stated by NTSB Chairman Sumwalt, is truly broken. I manage a PPR privately owned airport and trying to issue a NOTAM is possible but extremely difficult to navigate through the bureaucrat levels of the FAA.
An unfortunate incident but avoidable if the pilot had been briefed.