Pilot describes poor weather, stall that preceded crash that injured Austin Hatch and killed family
A pilot who has looked at the preliminary report issued by the National Transportation Safety Board involving the crash that critically injured Michigan basketball recruit Austin Hatch and killed his father and stepmother, says the weather was bad the night of June 24.
Austin Hatch continues to improve, according to online updates from his family.
Doug Hackbeth, a Fort Wayne, Ind., pilot, spoke to NewsChannel 15 in Fort Wayne about the report that outlined the crash near Charlevoix that killed Dr. Stephen Hatch, 46, and his wife, Kim, 44. Cloud cover was low, just 200 feet, Hackbeth told the TV station. The report notes that visibility was about one mile.
The Hatch single-engine plane, a Beech A36, likely stalled before crashing, he said. The Hatch family flew out of their hometown of Fort Wayne and crashed into a residential garage about 7:35 p.m. on June 24.
The NTSB report says witnesses saw the Hatch plane drop below the clouds halfway down the runway, then heard it increase power as it turned left, apparently to try for another pass at the runway.
“Generally ... You can recover from a stall in a matter of seconds, but when you’re below 200 feet from the ground there’s virtually no time for a recovery,” Hackbarth said. “It’s just almost impossible.”
Download the NTSB report: NTSB-REPORT.pdf
Austin Hatch, a 16-year-old junior at Canterbury High School, made a verbal commitment to be part of the 2013 Michigan basketball recruiting class in mid June.
He remains in the Munson Medical Center in Traverse City and is improving as brain swelling is reduced and his breathing improves, according to recent online updates from his family.
Austin Hatch and his father also survived a similar plane crash in 2003 that killed his mother and two siblings.
Comments
David Canter
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 1:59 a.m.
I should have added "small planes and airports with non-precision instrument approaches have their limitations". Pilot experience counts for a lot.
David Canter
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 1:49 a.m.
Some facts worth noting. On the instrument approach plate for the RNAV approach to Runway 27 at Charlevoix, the lowest altitude the pilot should have descended to was 438 feet above the ground. If the runway is not in sight due to either poor visibility or the plane is still in the clouds at a point 1.3 miles BEFORE the runway, then the correct procedure is to execute a missed approach. That missed approach starts with an immediate climb to 3000 feet and once over the runway then a 180 degree climbing turn to the left. If the pilot is approved by approach control for a circle to land approach then the minimum descent altitude is increased to 611 feet above the ground, note another 150 feet higher than a straight in approach. There are three obstacles close to the airport one either side of the runway the tallest being 250 feet above the ground to the right of the runway. It all makes sense that staying at least 438 feet above the ground should keep a plane from hitting something You can make your own judgement based on the facts so far reported. The weather conditions were not good although a different type of instrument approach into Traverse City close by would have been reasonable and safe in the conditions. I drove up that same day, late afternoon, to Crystal Lake deciding not to fly to Frankfort because the weather conditions up the west side of the state seemed marginal. It's frustrating to be a pilot, have access to a plane and then drive; sometimes the hardest flying decision is to stay on the ground and admit that small planes have their limitations.
johnnya2
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 1:27 a.m.
Any way you look at the information provided shows it is pilot error. If the pilot is not skilled enough for the conditions, he should not be flying. There comes a time when people have to stop thinking they are capable of something that they are not. It killed his wife, and injured his son this time, and killed his first wife and two kids the first time.
townie54
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 1:43 a.m.
I was thinking along those same lines myself johnny
Greggy_D
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 12:09 a.m.
He also had his gear down during the turns. Low speed, high drag is not good.
81wolverine
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.
It seems pretty clear that the low cloud ceiling (200 feet) definitely had a big role in the crash. Having failed his first landing attempt, instead of climbing higher so he had more vertical space to work with, he chose to stay under the clouds so he could readily see the runway. Unfortunately, this allowed very little margin of error in the event of a stall which is what happened. The preliminary report mentioned in the article only recounts the facts of what happened. After the investigation, the NTSB will eventually do a final report which have their conclusions as to the actual cause of the crash.
heresmine
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 5:36 p.m.
A lot of pilot cliches come into play here. First and foremost is the one about a Bonanza being a "doctor killer". It's not a myth. The accident reports show that a disproportionate number of doctors have fatal accidents in Bonanzas, either a straight tail, like this accident, or a "V" tail. They are fast and can get you into a lot of trouble in a hurry. This comes from the experience of owning one for almost 30 years. In the accident report it seems the pilot did what he could to stay underneath the overcast when he realized he'd need to do a missed approach. The report mentions a first turn to the left then to the right to avoid a water tower. It goes on to say he entered a downwind leg for RWY 27, so he'd already been succesful in making at least a 180 degree turn. The report then states he was turning toward RWY 27 when the stall occured. This is where it gets tricky. You're already close to the ground. He may have made a steep turn which then caused the stall (lost of lift) because of a low airspeed to begin with. There's also the possibility that the proper fuel tank had not been selected prior to making the approach and the steep turn may have cause to engine to sputter, but no one on the ground seems to have noticed that. Another cliche - the "suicide corner". A fatal crash like this happened at the AA airport some years ago except the weather was clear and in daylight conditions. Just too tight a turn too close to the ground. I'm interested in why no mention was made as to the amount of fuel on board. In many accidents like this one, fire results due to ruptured tanks. As the wings were intact, maybe so were the tanks.
dmalmquist
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 7:43 p.m.
I too remember that crash like it was yesterday. I was going south on State St from Briarwood, and had just passed over I94 when I watched this plane make an extremely sharp bank and nose dive right into the ground at the southwest intersection of State and Ellsworth, by the ball field. I was one of the first people on the scene, but there nothing we could do. And it was a football Saturday, and the plane had football fans coming to the game. It was many years ago, but I am not sure of the year. That image of the plane going down has haunted me for years.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.
I remember that accident. I believe it was a football Saturday.
Ron
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 3:48 p.m.
Okay people, (esp. SNC) perhpas you should read the second paragraph again. Here are the high pionts, Hatch's from Fort Wayne, pilot from Fort Wayne and TV station from Fort Wayne. The only reason this "article" is in an A2 blog is because the young man was planning on going to the U of M in a few years. If he isn't a recruit you wouldn't have seen the story at all. Maybe A2.com should have contacted a local pilot and built their own story.
Jen Eyer
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.
Thanks for your feedback and additional context. We have revised the headline.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 2:02 a.m.
The has been no official statement as to the cause of the crash. Therefore, any conclusions drawn by anybody, especially somebody who is 300 miles from the crash and going on less information than the NTSB has, is, by definition, speculation. Speculation can vary in degrees of accuracy, but it is still speculation. Sure, maybe I'm not a journalist, but I got the headline right and the "journalists" got it wrong. Good Night and Good Grief.
zeeba
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 3:59 p.m.
What speculation? They're reporting what the witnesses saw and what weather conditions were, plus a factual statement from a pilot about the difficulty of recovering from a stall at low altitude. Other accounts of the NTSB report say witnesses saw the aircraft stagger and fall in a manner consistent with a stall - so that's not speculation, it's a likely cause supported by evidence. You may know a bit about flying, but you obviously don't have much knowledge about journalism - or is it only against your rules for others to go off half-cocked about subjects they know little about?
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.
As Macabre Subset pointed out, you are speculating on the cause of a tragic death. Isn't that against your rules? Or is it only against the rules for us to do it, even though we obviously have more knowledge on the subject matter than you do?
SillyTree
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 2:59 p.m.
Charlie Brown is correct about the headline. It's okay if you didn't know before, but now you know. You should change it. Nothing in your quotes says anything about the engine. You added that information without cause. You need to change it. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stall_(flight)</a>
SillyTree
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.
Also, you cannot increase power with a failed engine without a restart. Restarting the last thing you would try. You want to set up best glide and find a safe place to land. Then if you have time check fuel and igntiion. After that you can try a restart. 200 feet gives you little time except to land in whatever is in front of you and hope you miss any ojects. Not much time for the full checklist.
Townie
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 2:54 p.m.
Yes, this headline is incorrect and needs to be changed. There's no mention of a 'stalled engine' in the preliminary NTSB report and it appears from that report that this was an instrument approach and when the pilot realized he was too far down the runway to land a 'missed approach' was initiated - unsuccessfully as the aircraft did not have enough speed to remain airborne, stalled and went down.
SNC
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.
Really....They contacted a "pilot"? And in Indiana no less? What, are there no pilots here in A2? Come on. Who was this pilot. Some guy with 100 hours in a sport plane? Heaven forbid they contact someone locally who has thousands of hours in both manned and unmanned aircraft as well as fixed and rotorary wing. Maybe it was more than a stall. With the clouds, could have been carb icing. There are too many "what ifs" for some yahoo to say what he thinks might have happened by reading a prelim report.....
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 1:57 a.m.
"just shut up" So, was that an example of a nice thing to say? Good Night and Good Grief.
Bablat
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 1:20 a.m.
No carb ice in a A36 Bonanza. it's fuel injected. Stop the nonsense.
a2citizen
Thu, Jul 7, 2011 : 12:11 a.m.
Next time maybe a2.com will contact you for your expert opinion. How many hours have you spent in an unmanned aircraft (thanks for spotting that, Zeeba)? You know, there are a bunch of dead people and soon 16-year-old will finally wake up and learn that the part of his family that was not killed in his first plane crash was killed in his second plane crash. These articles are meant to give information. When it comes to people dying in tragic situations maybe some commenters should follow this old saying: "If you don't have something nice to say, then just shut up."
zeeba
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.
Thousands of hours in an unmanned aircraft? That would be quite a feat. Besides, it only makes sense that a Ft. Wayne TV station - which is where the quote came from - would contact an Indiana pilot. Don't forget, the family was from Indiana. And don't whine about the A2.com staff reporting secondhand information - a small operation like this doesn't have the time or resources to do firsthand reports on everything that might be of interest to its readership.
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 2:22 p.m.
A "stall" is not a "stalled engine," it is a reduction of lift forces to the degree where the aircraft cannot be kept aloft. The solution to this is to give up altitude in exchange for airspeed, with the goal of gaining enough airspeed to produce the lift needed to keep the aircraft aloft. At 200 feet, however, there is not enough altitude to perform this recovery. Good Night and Good Grief
Charlie Brown's Ghost
Wed, Jul 6, 2011 : 2:42 p.m.
In short, my point is you need to fix the headline.