A good friend is grieving the sudden loss of another friend from a plane
crash about a week ago. Neither the pilot nor the sole passenger survived.

With very little information to go on with... I'm wondering what could
have had been the possible factors into such an accident.

I am sure the NTSB will do a good job in about 12-18 months from now
when the final report is released. However, I'm still curious about the
possibilities, and trying to make some head and tail of it all.

Situation: pilot departed Portland, Oregon in his 1983 Glasair with
destination being Crescent City, CA (CEC) around 12:30 am local time.

Shortly after 2am local time, Seattle ATC reportedly received word from
the pilot indicating he had CEC in visual sight and was terminating
radar service, and switching to the local airport frequency. That was
the final transmission received.

Sounds like he had flight following? NTSB indicates he hadn't filed a
flight plan so he had to be flying VFR.

The authorities later determined the plane crashed in the ocean right by
the Oregon and California border, about 700 yards off shore. The place
is about 20-something miles away from CEC?

Preliminary NTSB report indicates that at 0156 local time, at CEC:

1. VMC conditions prevailed -- clear at 10 statue miles
2. Wind was 110 degrees at 5 knots
3. Temp was 12 deg C, dewpoint was 5 deg C

Final radar contact was lost at 0204, when the plane was at 400' AGL.

Radar data indicates that 'the target' [as the NTSB put it] was
descending at an high rate prior to the final radar contact.

So my questions:

1. Would it have been possible for a pilot to see a destination
airport from about 25 nm out, at night?

I don't have much night flying experience. On the east coast,
it's not easy to see places that far out at night... but
that's mostly due to *all* the lights on the ground!

2. Is it possible the pilot might have seen lights reflecting
off the water and misinterpreted it as runway lights?

3. If #2 is possible, could the pilot have had dived to 'make
the runway'?

I seem to recall that with night flying, it's easier to
misjudge height.

4. Rapid descent -- a possible stall/spin?

Uncoordinated flight, slowing down, maybe a change in AOA
without benefit of a visible horizon to warn brain? Aka 'a
graveyard spiral'?

5. Engine failure (fuel, mechanical) or carb icing due to shock
cooling?

I'm skeptical of this one because the trained pilot will
ordinarily immediately set up for best glide speed and only
maneuver as necessary.

6. Asymmetrical flaps situation?

Seems somewhat unlikely because flaps wouldn't have had been
deployed until late in the downwind leg by the destination runway.

7. Could the pilot have gotten lost, misunderstood current
position, or just gotten confused, and mistaken the area for CEC?

From my understanding, the pilot's home airport may have had
been CEC. If that was the case, then he would probably be more
familiar with CEC+vicinty flying and possibly including night flight?

8. CFIT? Hitting a tower/antenna or mountainous/cliff terrain?

I'm not familiar with places out west, though I understand that
terrain is a very real issue. But if the plane crashed in the
ocean... hard to see how it could be terrain related.

Granted, it wasn't too far from shore -- about 700 yards.

I don't have a Klamath Falls sectional... alas. I know
there's some r.a.p folks here that either lives in the region or
are pretty familiar with the region.

9. Airframe icing doesn't sound too likely since there was no
report of that from other pilots in the area at time of the crash.

10. Wind shear doesn't sound too likely. Wasn't really windy on
the ground at CEC; unlikely to be significantly different
only 20nm away along the coast?

11. Does the Glasair have special handling characteristics that
someone not familiar with it might need to pay attention to?

12. The NTSB didn't specify the rate of descent, but their choice
of wording ('rapid') suggests an higher than normal rate of
descent.

Does this sound like establishing for best glide to anyone?
Or like a really serious problem?

13. Sudden debilitating medical condition seems unlikely because
the pilot was 27 years old and not known to have any
preexisting serious health issue.

14. Other possibilities?

I do know for sure the pilot owned this plane.

Considering his age, I find it unlikely he was the original owner.

I do not know his total time (flight hours) nor hours in the Glasair. I
understand the Glasair is a pretty nice plane, in general.

I do not know the cruise altitude he flew at. They might know that one
based on radar returns, but if they do, they didn't say so in the
preliminary report. I understand the NTSB got its preliminary data from
both FAA and U.S. military radar data.

Not so sure it's necessarily plane's fault like the family and friends
seems to think -- odds in general aviation are pretty good that it's
often human error somewhere in the chain.

I am accepting that while not pleasant, these things do happen despite
the best of efforts made to prevent it. I know, understand, and
appreciate the risks.

I understand survivability was not real good -- reportedly 50 degree F
water at the time of crash, though a local newspaper described the water
as being 'icy'.

No idea if hyperbole or fact... but either way, the passenger was
recovered about 6 1/2 hours later. I doubt one could have had survived
that long without any additional protection. (Neither person made it.)

The family and friends, not being as familiar with aviation, are taking
it much harder. So I'm hoping to be able to converse more intelligently
once whenever they're ready to start asking questions about aviation
related matters and the crash.

Anyway... any comments would be much appreciated.

-Dan

"Dan Foster" wrote:
> Not so sure it's necessarily plane's fault like the family and friends
> seems to think -- odds in general aviation are pretty good that it's
> often human error somewhere in the chain.

Sorry for the loss of your friend.

Could have been just about any of the things you mention, or a
combination of several; we may never know, of course.

Still, if I were betting, my money would be on simple spatial
disorientation as the cause. Very easy to lose one's bearings over
water at night, even when it's good VMC.

Even over land, one can get out of shape from visual illusions very
easily. The only time I ever came close to killing myself in an
airplane was in the pattern at a rural airport on a nice, VMC night.
Turning base, I looked at the airspeed indicator a moment and, when I
looked outside again, got a false horizon off some ground lights and
quickly overbanked the airplane. By the time I realized I had a
problem--just a few seconds--I was within a couple hundred feet of the
ground in a 60-deg. bank and descending fast. I had a moment of near
panic as I realized I couldn't find the real horizon. The attitude
indicator saved the day--er, night--but a few more seconds delay would
have put me in the ground.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM

Was he instrument rated? Did the airplane have a GPS? If he had a GPS,
I doubt he mistook lights in the ocean for the airport.

I doubt he was using flaps at 20 miles out, and it's no problem to see
the airport at 25 out also. It sounds to me like structural failure
from what I read so far.

I would say he was in a descent and well into the yellow arc. If he
reported in sight at 25 out, he would have to have some altitude. Five
miles later would mean he had the nose pointed down and the airspeed
way up, I usually do anyway 20 miles out -

Or a bird coming through the windshield maybe.

Recently, Dan Foster > posted:

> A good friend is grieving the sudden loss of another friend from a
> plane crash about a week ago. Neither the pilot nor the sole
> passenger survived.
>
> With very little information to go on with... I'm wondering what could
> have had been the possible factors into such an accident.
>
[...]
> Final radar contact was lost at 0204, when the plane was at 400' AGL.
>
> Radar data indicates that 'the target' [as the NTSB put it] was
> descending at an high rate prior to the final radar contact.
>
My guess is spatial disorientation. When flying over the water at night,
or even during the day on a hazy overcast day, one pretty much has to rely
on instruments. It doesn't take long to get out of whack.

> So my questions:
>
> 1. Would it have been possible for a pilot to see a destination
> airport from about 25 nm out, at night?
>
Yes, very easily. At night, I have no problem seeing airports with
arriving/departing flights from that distance even from 1,500 ft. Judging
distances can be difficult on a clear night.

> I don't have much night flying experience. On the east coast,
> it's not easy to see places that far out at night... but
> that's mostly due to *all* the lights on the ground!
>
You may be able to see them, but not discern the airport from the other
lights. The tower lights may be more easy to find.

> 2. Is it possible the pilot might have seen lights reflecting
> off the water and misinterpreted it as runway lights?
>
Hmmm. I wouldn't think so.

> Uncoordinated flight, slowing down, maybe a change in AOA
> without benefit of a visible horizon to warn brain? Aka 'a
> graveyard spiral'?
>
That is very possible.

Best regards, and condolences to your friends.

Neil

A few things come to mind:

First .. was he instrument rated? I know you said it was clear .. but could
he have gotten into some scattered clouds or had some get between him and
the city lights and lost control maneuvering by reference to instruments?

Second .. a 22 yr old homebuilt composite aircraft. Structural failure?



"Dan Foster" > wrote in message
...
>A good friend is grieving the sudden loss of another friend from a plane
> crash about a week ago. Neither the pilot nor the sole passenger survived.
>
> With very little information to go on with... I'm wondering what could
> have had been the possible factors into such an accident.
>
> I am sure the NTSB will do a good job in about 12-18 months from now
> when the final report is released. However, I'm still curious about the
> possibilities, and trying to make some head and tail of it all.
>
> Situation: pilot departed Portland, Oregon in his 1983 Glasair with
> destination being Crescent City, CA (CEC) around 12:30 am local time.
>
> Shortly after 2am local time, Seattle ATC reportedly received word from
> the pilot indicating he had CEC in visual sight and was terminating
> radar service, and switching to the local airport frequency. That was
> the final transmission received.
>
> Sounds like he had flight following? NTSB indicates he hadn't filed a
> flight plan so he had to be flying VFR.
>
> The authorities later determined the plane crashed in the ocean right by
> the Oregon and California border, about 700 yards off shore. The place
> is about 20-something miles away from CEC?
>
> Preliminary NTSB report indicates that at 0156 local time, at CEC:
>
> 1. VMC conditions prevailed -- clear at 10 statue miles
> 2. Wind was 110 degrees at 5 knots
> 3. Temp was 12 deg C, dewpoint was 5 deg C
>
> Final radar contact was lost at 0204, when the plane was at 400' AGL.
>
> Radar data indicates that 'the target' [as the NTSB put it] was
> descending at an high rate prior to the final radar contact.
>
> So my questions:
>
> 1. Would it have been possible for a pilot to see a destination
> airport from about 25 nm out, at night?
>
> I don't have much night flying experience. On the east coast,
> it's not easy to see places that far out at night... but
> that's mostly due to *all* the lights on the ground!
>
> 2. Is it possible the pilot might have seen lights reflecting
> off the water and misinterpreted it as runway lights?
>
> 3. If #2 is possible, could the pilot have had dived to 'make
> the runway'?
>
> I seem to recall that with night flying, it's easier to
> misjudge height.
>
> 4. Rapid descent -- a possible stall/spin?
>
> Uncoordinated flight, slowing down, maybe a change in AOA
> without benefit of a visible horizon to warn brain? Aka 'a
> graveyard spiral'?
>
> 5. Engine failure (fuel, mechanical) or carb icing due to shock
> cooling?
>
> I'm skeptical of this one because the trained pilot will
> ordinarily immediately set up for best glide speed and only
> maneuver as necessary.
>
> 6. Asymmetrical flaps situation?
>
> Seems somewhat unlikely because flaps wouldn't have had been
> deployed until late in the downwind leg by the destination runway.
>
> 7. Could the pilot have gotten lost, misunderstood current
> position, or just gotten confused, and mistaken the area for CEC?
>
> From my understanding, the pilot's home airport may have had
> been CEC. If that was the case, then he would probably be more
> familiar with CEC+vicinty flying and possibly including night flight?
>
> 8. CFIT? Hitting a tower/antenna or mountainous/cliff terrain?
>
> I'm not familiar with places out west, though I understand that
> terrain is a very real issue. But if the plane crashed in the
> ocean... hard to see how it could be terrain related.
>
> Granted, it wasn't too far from shore -- about 700 yards.
>
> I don't have a Klamath Falls sectional... alas. I know
> there's some r.a.p folks here that either lives in the region or
> are pretty familiar with the region.
>
> 9. Airframe icing doesn't sound too likely since there was no
> report of that from other pilots in the area at time of the crash.
>
> 10. Wind shear doesn't sound too likely. Wasn't really windy on
> the ground at CEC; unlikely to be significantly different
> only 20nm away along the coast?
>
> 11. Does the Glasair have special handling characteristics that
> someone not familiar with it might need to pay attention to?
>
> 12. The NTSB didn't specify the rate of descent, but their choice
> of wording ('rapid') suggests an higher than normal rate of
> descent.
>
> Does this sound like establishing for best glide to anyone?
> Or like a really serious problem?
>
> 13. Sudden debilitating medical condition seems unlikely because
> the pilot was 27 years old and not known to have any
> preexisting serious health issue.
>
> 14. Other possibilities?
>
> I do know for sure the pilot owned this plane.
>
> Considering his age, I find it unlikely he was the original owner.
>
> I do not know his total time (flight hours) nor hours in the Glasair. I
> understand the Glasair is a pretty nice plane, in general.
>
> I do not know the cruise altitude he flew at. They might know that one
> based on radar returns, but if they do, they didn't say so in the
> preliminary report. I understand the NTSB got its preliminary data from
> both FAA and U.S. military radar data.
>
> Not so sure it's necessarily plane's fault like the family and friends
> seems to think -- odds in general aviation are pretty good that it's
> often human error somewhere in the chain.
>
> I am accepting that while not pleasant, these things do happen despite
> the best of efforts made to prevent it. I know, understand, and
> appreciate the risks.
>
> I understand survivability was not real good -- reportedly 50 degree F
> water at the time of crash, though a local newspaper described the water
> as being 'icy'.
>
> No idea if hyperbole or fact... but either way, the passenger was
> recovered about 6 1/2 hours later. I doubt one could have had survived
> that long without any additional protection. (Neither person made it.)
>
> The family and friends, not being as familiar with aviation, are taking
> it much harder. So I'm hoping to be able to converse more intelligently
> once whenever they're ready to start asking questions about aviation
> related matters and the crash.
>
> Anyway... any comments would be much appreciated.
>
> -Dan

Take a look at:

http://www.landings.com/evird.acgi$pass*70934345!_h-www.landings.com/_landings/pages/search/certs-pilot.html

If you know the pilot's name, you can see if he was instrument rated.

On 2005-03-02 14:35, Bravo8500 wrote:
> Or a bird coming through the windshield maybe.
>
Not many birds fly at night.

/Rolf

Neil Gould wrote:

>>IÂ*don'tÂ*haveÂ*muchÂ*nightÂ*flyingÂ*experience.Â* OnÂ*theÂ*eastÂ*coast,
>>it'sÂ*notÂ*easyÂ*toÂ*seeÂ*placesÂ*thatÂ*farÂ*outÂ* atÂ*night...Â*but
>>that'sÂ*mostlyÂ*dueÂ*toÂ*allÂ*theÂ*lightsÂ*onÂ*the Â*ground!
>>
> You may be able to see them, but not discern the airport from the other
> lights. The tower lights may be more easy to find.

As Neil wrote earlier in his note, it is often possible to spot the traffic
using the airport before the airport. I'd that experience recently
approaching Albany: I didn't see the airport, but I did see traffic lined
up on final. Follow the line drawn by the traffic...and there's the
airport.

The rotating beacon (if that's what you mean by "tower light") I find much
more difficult to spot. The flash frequency is so low that one really
needs to be looking at the same spot for a while to catch it. Plus, if
there's any civilization there are plenty of other lights flashing about.

I'll occasionally think I see a tower only to realize it's a curve in a road
(with headlights "flashing" me as cars drive the curve).

- Andrew

Andrew Gideon > wrote:

> The flash frequency is so low that one really
> needs to be looking at the same spot for a while to catch it.

And, be sure to look to the left or the right of where you think the beacon
will be since it is the rods of the eyes that will detect the beacon easier
at night.

--
Peter













----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Foster" wrote:
> > Not so sure it's necessarily plane's fault like the family and friends
> > seems to think -- odds in general aviation are pretty good that it's
> > often human error somewhere in the chain.
>
> Sorry for the loss of your friend.
>
> Could have been just about any of the things you mention, or a
> combination of several; we may never know, of course.
>
> Still, if I were betting, my money would be on simple spatial
> disorientation as the cause. Very easy to lose one's bearings over
> water at night, even when it's good VMC.

The so-called "Black Hole Approach".

http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/182402-1.html


>
> Even over land, one can get out of shape from visual illusions very
> easily.

Dan,

My condolences to your friend.

You've laid out a very long list of "What Ifs" but it's almost impossible to
say. It could be one or a combination of several factors which culminated in
an accident.

Flying can be unforgiving. Night flying even more so and night over water
with little or no landmarks / horizon is maybe the most unforgiving of all.

I hope you eventually get the answers you seek.

Peace,

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ

That's tough. I also lost a friend at night. He was over the desert and
just didn't know how low he was.

Another good possibility in your friend's case is that he started a
decent without realizing how low he was. At night, it can be hard.

ANother possibility is that he got disoriented. Many VFR pilots are
surprised that flying over the water at night really is the same as
IMC. You really can get disoriented. In fact, the FAA even allows you
to log actual instrument time when flying over water at night even when
the weather is perfect.

-Robert, CFI

Can you send the link for the NTSB initial report ("factual")? Or at
least, the date or tail number of the airplane?

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

"John Clonts" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Can you send the link for the NTSB initial report ("factual")? Or at
> least, the date or tail number of the airplane?
>
> Thanks,
> John Clonts
> Temple, Texas
> N7NZ
>

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/AccList.asp?month=2&year=2005

Avery Glasair? These preliminary reports are supposed to be updated daily
but they are not.

In article . com>, John Clonts > wrote:
> Can you send the link for the NTSB initial report ("factual")? Or at
> least, the date or tail number of the airplane?

Sure.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050225X00234&key=1

-Dan

"Matt Barrow" wrote:
> The so-called "Black Hole Approach".
>
> http://www.avweb.com/news/airman/182402-1.html

Maybe, as in http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20031215X02030&key=1

Either that or a JFK-type loss of control.
--
Dan
C-172RG at BFM

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> That's tough. I also lost a friend at night. He was over the desert and
> just didn't know how low he was.
>
> Another good possibility in your friend's case is that he started a
> decent without realizing how low he was. At night, it can be hard.
>
> ANother possibility is that he got disoriented. Many VFR pilots are
> surprised that flying over the water at night really is the same as
> IMC. You really can get disoriented. In fact, the FAA even allows you
> to log actual instrument time when flying over water at night even when
> the weather is perfect.
>
> -Robert, CFI
>

That's Interesting, About logging IFR at night over water would you still
need a Safety pilot?

"Dan Foster" > wrote in message
...
> A good friend is grieving the sudden loss of another friend from a plane
> crash about a week ago. Neither the pilot nor the sole passenger survived.
>
> With very little information to go on with... I'm wondering what could
> have had been the possible factors into such an accident.
>
> I am sure the NTSB will do a good job in about 12-18 months from now
> when the final report is released. However, I'm still curious about the
> possibilities, and trying to make some head and tail of it all.
>
> Situation: pilot departed Portland, Oregon in his 1983 Glasair with
> destination being Crescent City, CA (CEC) around 12:30 am local time.
>
> Shortly after 2am local time, Seattle ATC reportedly received word from
> the pilot indicating he had CEC in visual sight and was terminating
> radar service, and switching to the local airport frequency. That was
> the final transmission received.
>
> Sounds like he had flight following? NTSB indicates he hadn't filed a
> flight plan so he had to be flying VFR.
>
> The authorities later determined the plane crashed in the ocean right by
> the Oregon and California border, about 700 yards off shore. The place
> is about 20-something miles away from CEC?
>
> Preliminary NTSB report indicates that at 0156 local time, at CEC:
>
> 1. VMC conditions prevailed -- clear at 10 statue miles
> 2. Wind was 110 degrees at 5 knots
> 3. Temp was 12 deg C, dewpoint was 5 deg C
>
> Final radar contact was lost at 0204, when the plane was at 400' AGL.
>
> Radar data indicates that 'the target' [as the NTSB put it] was
> descending at an high rate prior to the final radar contact.
>
> So my questions:
>
> 1. Would it have been possible for a pilot to see a destination
> airport from about 25 nm out, at night?
>
> I don't have much night flying experience. On the east coast,
> it's not easy to see places that far out at night... but
> that's mostly due to *all* the lights on the ground!
>
> 2. Is it possible the pilot might have seen lights reflecting
> off the water and misinterpreted it as runway lights?
>
> 3. If #2 is possible, could the pilot have had dived to 'make
> the runway'?
>
> I seem to recall that with night flying, it's easier to
> misjudge height.
>
> 4. Rapid descent -- a possible stall/spin?
>
> Uncoordinated flight, slowing down, maybe a change in AOA
> without benefit of a visible horizon to warn brain? Aka 'a
> graveyard spiral'?
>
> 5. Engine failure (fuel, mechanical) or carb icing due to shock
> cooling?
>
> I'm skeptical of this one because the trained pilot will
> ordinarily immediately set up for best glide speed and only
> maneuver as necessary.
>
> 6. Asymmetrical flaps situation?
>
> Seems somewhat unlikely because flaps wouldn't have had been
> deployed until late in the downwind leg by the destination runway.
>
> 7. Could the pilot have gotten lost, misunderstood current
> position, or just gotten confused, and mistaken the area for CEC?
>
> From my understanding, the pilot's home airport may have had
> been CEC. If that was the case, then he would probably be more
> familiar with CEC+vicinty flying and possibly including night flight?
>
> 8. CFIT? Hitting a tower/antenna or mountainous/cliff terrain?
>
> I'm not familiar with places out west, though I understand that
> terrain is a very real issue. But if the plane crashed in the
> ocean... hard to see how it could be terrain related.
>
> Granted, it wasn't too far from shore -- about 700 yards.
>
> I don't have a Klamath Falls sectional... alas. I know
> there's some r.a.p folks here that either lives in the region or
> are pretty familiar with the region.
>
> 9. Airframe icing doesn't sound too likely since there was no
> report of that from other pilots in the area at time of the crash.
>
> 10. Wind shear doesn't sound too likely. Wasn't really windy on
> the ground at CEC; unlikely to be significantly different
> only 20nm away along the coast?
>
> 11. Does the Glasair have special handling characteristics that
> someone not familiar with it might need to pay attention to?
>
> 12. The NTSB didn't specify the rate of descent, but their choice
> of wording ('rapid') suggests an higher than normal rate of
> descent.
>
> Does this sound like establishing for best glide to anyone?
> Or like a really serious problem?
>
> 13. Sudden debilitating medical condition seems unlikely because
> the pilot was 27 years old and not known to have any
> preexisting serious health issue.
>
> 14. Other possibilities?
>
> I do know for sure the pilot owned this plane.
>
> Considering his age, I find it unlikely he was the original owner.
>
> I do not know his total time (flight hours) nor hours in the Glasair. I
> understand the Glasair is a pretty nice plane, in general.
>
> I do not know the cruise altitude he flew at. They might know that one
> based on radar returns, but if they do, they didn't say so in the
> preliminary report. I understand the NTSB got its preliminary data from
> both FAA and U.S. military radar data.
>
> Not so sure it's necessarily plane's fault like the family and friends
> seems to think -- odds in general aviation are pretty good that it's
> often human error somewhere in the chain.
>
> I am accepting that while not pleasant, these things do happen despite
> the best of efforts made to prevent it. I know, understand, and
> appreciate the risks.
>
> I understand survivability was not real good -- reportedly 50 degree F
> water at the time of crash, though a local newspaper described the water
> as being 'icy'.
>
> No idea if hyperbole or fact... but either way, the passenger was
> recovered about 6 1/2 hours later. I doubt one could have had survived
> that long without any additional protection. (Neither person made it.)
>
> The family and friends, not being as familiar with aviation, are taking
> it much harder. So I'm hoping to be able to converse more intelligently
> once whenever they're ready to start asking questions about aviation
> related matters and the crash.
>
> Anyway... any comments would be much appreciated.
>
> -Dan

Hey dan, sorry about your friends friend, I live in the NW and have done the
trip to Crescent City a few times and a few times I turned back because of
enroute weather was not very favorable and/or not as reported or forecasted
but that's to usual for the weather up here.

I like to fly single engine at night over mountainous terrain & water and I
would not attempt to fly to CEC at night because of the flash fog and
weather that can change in a blink of an eye along the Oregon/Northern CA
coast. I wonder how far out he was over the ocean when I fly the rout along
the coast I try to be with-in glide distance to shore.

No, its actual instrument time. The FAA says in their Lynch FAQ (the
book the FSDO's keep on their desk) that a "dark moonless night" is an
example of flying only by reference to instruments even though its VMC.
Its the conditions that require you to fly "only by reference to
instruments" that make it loggable. You don't even need to be IFR rated.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No, its actual instrument time. The FAA says in their Lynch FAQ (the
> book the FSDO's keep on their desk) that a "dark moonless night" is an
> example of flying only by reference to instruments even though its VMC.
> Its the conditions that require you to fly "only by reference to
> instruments" that make it loggable. You don't even need to be IFR rated.

I logged .5 of same on my dual-night XC...

Moonless (hadn't risen yet) departure from Prescott, AZ back to Chandler,
AZ.

Once the moon rose, we changed from actual to simply night VFR.

Jay B

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> No, its actual instrument time. The FAA says in their Lynch FAQ (the
> book the FSDO's keep on their desk) that a "dark moonless night" is an
> example of flying only by reference to instruments even though its VMC.
> Its the conditions that require you to fly "only by reference to
> instruments" that make it loggable. You don't even need to be IFR rated.
>

So that night flight I did with high clouds blocking out the moon and the
stars in the mountians that there is a long thread about I could have logged
that as instrument time?

"NW_PILOT" > wrote in
:

>
> "Dan Foster" > wrote in message
> ...
[snip]
>>
>> -Dan
>
> Hey dan, sorry about your friends friend, I live in the NW and have
> done the trip to Crescent City a few times and a few times I turned
> back because of enroute weather was not very favorable and/or not as
> reported or forecasted but that's to usual for the weather up here.
>
> I like to fly single engine at night over mountainous terrain & water
> and I would not attempt to fly to CEC at night because of the flash
> fog and weather that can change in a blink of an eye along the
> Oregon/Northern CA coast. I wonder how far out he was over the ocean
> when I fly the rout along the coast I try to be with-in glide distance
> to shore.
>

Yeah, that's a real gamble flying from PDX to Crescent City at night in
February. I wouldn't have a problem trying it myself, but I would always
make sure I have enough fuel to make it east back across the mountains.
If I have the date of this flight correct, the moon was just about full,
and wouldn't have set for another 4 hours after the time of the crash.
Really, it's been so incredibly clear in the PNW lately that it could
have been a beautiful night for this flight. I really am sorry it ended
this way.

DanH

An update with more data. Not proven facts, but intriguing thoughts.

http://triplicate.com/news/story.cfm?story_no=1651

Seems well researched and with new information (but not yet publically
confirmed by the NTSB).

To summarize, the article suggests that the cause may have been:

- Simple fuel starvation due to cutting it extremely close on a
round-trip flight without refueling.

or

- From a possibly poor Glasair fuel tank selector design
compounded by flight at night.

There's also a possibility that the engine separated from the airframe,
but that seems relatively remote. It wouldn't be immediately known if it
separated during flight or as result of the forced landing / crash.

Anyway, thank you to everyone that replied. I've found the thread very
interesting, illuminative, and informative.

(I hadn't realized that VMC flight over water could sometimes be logged
as IFR! Conversely, if I'm not IFR-rated, sounds like I'd have to avoid
such flying if without a safety pilot?)

-Dan

Looks like the pilot wasn't instrument rated. Seems like the plane
would not have shown a high rate of descent with fuel starvation ... He
probably would have been at best glide.

.... And he probably would have had time to transmit on 121.5 if he ran
out of gas.

In article . com>,
"Bravo8500" > wrote:

> I would say he was in a descent and well into the yellow arc. If he
> reported in sight at 25 out, he would have to have some altitude. Five
> miles later would mean he had the nose pointed down and the airspeed
> way up, I usually do anyway 20 miles out -

From 2000 feet AGL you can see around 50 miles to the horizon.
You could see a 50 foot tall light a few miles further. However,
if they had him on radar, they know his track and altitude. I
don't know if there's a way to get that information prior to
the NTSB report, though.

Mike Beede

I have blown through a Vee formation of Canadian geese in the middle of
the night, a couple of times... Scares the crap out of you...

denny

In article . com>, "Denny" > wrote:
>I have blown through a Vee formation of Canadian geese in the middle of
>the night, a couple of times... Scares the crap out of you...
>
>denny
>
Man, I bet it would. They fly over our house at night many times. They even
fly VFR over the top. I'll be working outside on a foggy day, and can hear
them calling as they fly over the fog.

tom pettit

I saw a flight of ducks just a few weeks ago skimming the top of an
overcast, daytime though.

Dan

Flew Air Defense Fighters out of Hamilton AFB for 7 years in the 60's.

One dark (no moon) VFR night I was in the general area your friend
went in and got the worst case of vertigo I had ever had or had since.

I immediately went on full instruments and made a upset attitude
recovery and it took me about 45 minutes on instruments until I could
look outside without spatial disorientation and differentiate between
the stars and the lights on the ground.

A similar situation could have happened to your friend very easily.

Flying is a rough game. My condolences of course.

Big John
``````````````````````````````````````

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 11:02:40 +0000 (UTC), Dan Foster
> wrote:

>A good friend is grieving the sudden loss of another friend from a plane
>crash about a week ago. Neither the pilot nor the sole passenger survived.
>
>With very little information to go on with... I'm wondering what could
>have had been the possible factors into such an accident.
>
>I am sure the NTSB will do a good job in about 12-18 months from now
>when the final report is released. However, I'm still curious about the
>possibilities, and trying to make some head and tail of it all.
>
>Situation: pilot departed Portland, Oregon in his 1983 Glasair with
>destination being Crescent City, CA (CEC) around 12:30 am local time.
>
>Shortly after 2am local time, Seattle ATC reportedly received word from
>the pilot indicating he had CEC in visual sight and was terminating
>radar service, and switching to the local airport frequency. That was
>the final transmission received.
>
>Sounds like he had flight following? NTSB indicates he hadn't filed a
>flight plan so he had to be flying VFR.
>
>The authorities later determined the plane crashed in the ocean right by
>the Oregon and California border, about 700 yards off shore. The place
>is about 20-something miles away from CEC?
>
>Preliminary NTSB report indicates that at 0156 local time, at CEC:
>
> 1. VMC conditions prevailed -- clear at 10 statue miles
> 2. Wind was 110 degrees at 5 knots
> 3. Temp was 12 deg C, dewpoint was 5 deg C
>
>Final radar contact was lost at 0204, when the plane was at 400' AGL.
>
>Radar data indicates that 'the target' [as the NTSB put it] was
>descending at an high rate prior to the final radar contact.
>
>So my questions:
>
> 1. Would it have been possible for a pilot to see a destination
> airport from about 25 nm out, at night?
>
> I don't have much night flying experience. On the east coast,
> it's not easy to see places that far out at night... but
> that's mostly due to *all* the lights on the ground!
>
> 2. Is it possible the pilot might have seen lights reflecting
> off the water and misinterpreted it as runway lights?
>
> 3. If #2 is possible, could the pilot have had dived to 'make
> the runway'?
>
> I seem to recall that with night flying, it's easier to
> misjudge height.
>
> 4. Rapid descent -- a possible stall/spin?
>
> Uncoordinated flight, slowing down, maybe a change in AOA
> without benefit of a visible horizon to warn brain? Aka 'a
> graveyard spiral'?
>
> 5. Engine failure (fuel, mechanical) or carb icing due to shock
> cooling?
>
> I'm skeptical of this one because the trained pilot will
> ordinarily immediately set up for best glide speed and only
> maneuver as necessary.
>
> 6. Asymmetrical flaps situation?
>
> Seems somewhat unlikely because flaps wouldn't have had been
> deployed until late in the downwind leg by the destination runway.
>
> 7. Could the pilot have gotten lost, misunderstood current
> position, or just gotten confused, and mistaken the area for CEC?
>
> From my understanding, the pilot's home airport may have had
> been CEC. If that was the case, then he would probably be more
> familiar with CEC+vicinty flying and possibly including night flight?
>
> 8. CFIT? Hitting a tower/antenna or mountainous/cliff terrain?
>
> I'm not familiar with places out west, though I understand that
> terrain is a very real issue. But if the plane crashed in the
> ocean... hard to see how it could be terrain related.
>
> Granted, it wasn't too far from shore -- about 700 yards.
>
> I don't have a Klamath Falls sectional... alas. I know
> there's some r.a.p folks here that either lives in the region or
> are pretty familiar with the region.
>
> 9. Airframe icing doesn't sound too likely since there was no
> report of that from other pilots in the area at time of the crash.
>
> 10. Wind shear doesn't sound too likely. Wasn't really windy on
> the ground at CEC; unlikely to be significantly different
> only 20nm away along the coast?
>
> 11. Does the Glasair have special handling characteristics that
> someone not familiar with it might need to pay attention to?
>
> 12. The NTSB didn't specify the rate of descent, but their choice
> of wording ('rapid') suggests an higher than normal rate of
> descent.
>
> Does this sound like establishing for best glide to anyone?
> Or like a really serious problem?
>
> 13. Sudden debilitating medical condition seems unlikely because
> the pilot was 27 years old and not known to have any
> preexisting serious health issue.
>
> 14. Other possibilities?
>
>I do know for sure the pilot owned this plane.
>
>Considering his age, I find it unlikely he was the original owner.
>
>I do not know his total time (flight hours) nor hours in the Glasair. I
>understand the Glasair is a pretty nice plane, in general.
>
>I do not know the cruise altitude he flew at. They might know that one
>based on radar returns, but if they do, they didn't say so in the
>preliminary report. I understand the NTSB got its preliminary data from
>both FAA and U.S. military radar data.
>
>Not so sure it's necessarily plane's fault like the family and friends
>seems to think -- odds in general aviation are pretty good that it's
>often human error somewhere in the chain.
>
>I am accepting that while not pleasant, these things do happen despite
>the best of efforts made to prevent it. I know, understand, and
>appreciate the risks.
>
>I understand survivability was not real good -- reportedly 50 degree F
>water at the time of crash, though a local newspaper described the water
>as being 'icy'.
>
>No idea if hyperbole or fact... but either way, the passenger was
>recovered about 6 1/2 hours later. I doubt one could have had survived
>that long without any additional protection. (Neither person made it.)
>
>The family and friends, not being as familiar with aviation, are taking
>it much harder. So I'm hoping to be able to converse more intelligently
>once whenever they're ready to start asking questions about aviation
>related matters and the crash.
>
>Anyway... any comments would be much appreciated.
>
>-Dan