In article >,
wrote:

> Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?

http://www.uswx.com/us/stn/?code=c&n=200&stn=KHPN

> wrote:

> Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?

Wondering about the C172 crash? What time of day did it occur? White
Plains had some pretty low visibility that day from a persistent low
pressure that is still entrenched in the region.

--
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 =----

wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 11:26:54 -0400, "Peter R."
> > wrote:
>
>
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?
>>
>>Wondering about the C172 crash? What time of day did it occur? White
>>Plains had some pretty low visibility that day from a persistent low
>>pressure that is still entrenched in the region.
>
>
>
> Yes I was talking to a friend Saturday afternoon who lives 60 or so
> miles from there, and he said it was raining heavily where he was.
>
> I don't know when the crash occurred, but they found the wreckage
> around 4pm I am told. It's a pretty heavily populated area, so I
> assume it didn't take them long to find it.

I don't know anything about the crash you're referring to (or even that
there had been a crash), but I drove down to Westchester from Boston on
Saturday afternoon -- a trip I have flown fairly often. My wife asked at
some point if I would rather be flying, and I told her I was happy to be
on the ground. The ceilings looked to be well below minimums for most of
the trip(maybe 50 foot ceilings) and there was pouring rain with limited
forward visibility on the ground. Then the lightning started....

--
David Rind

"Peter R." > wrote in news:n1dlcqrp98v$.dlg@ID-
259643.user.individual.net:

> > wrote:
>
>> Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?
>
> Wondering about the C172 crash? What time of day did it occur? White
> Plains had some pretty low visibility that day from a persistent low
> pressure that is still entrenched in the region.
>

The crash evidently happened shortly after 3pm EST (1900Z).

METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
T01220122

Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...

Condolences to the families of the two people who were lost.

Peter R. wrote:

> WhatÂ*timeÂ*ofÂ*dayÂ*didÂ*itÂ*occur?

As someone else posted, you can watch it at:

http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html

The aircraft which I assume is it - N61AF - appears at about 15:14 on the
23rd. Watching is somewhat spooky.

Someone else flew the approach at 15:10, which may be useful for comparison
purposes.

- Andrew

wrote:
> Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?
>

Enter the airport identifier in the subject line (ex: KLAX) of your
email and the wx reports immediately come to your inbox.

CURRENT METAR:
CANADIAN METAR:
AERODROME FORECAST:
AIRPORT LOCATOR:

WEBSITE: www.flightwx.com



Antonio

Judah wrote:

> Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...

Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
of us who are not professionals.

It will be interesting to read what the investigators find.

--
Peter

I like practicing in actual but I'd stay away from that weather.
- 1/8SM and 200 in fog with 12/12 says to me that it could go zero/zero
in a sec. I can practice misses under the hood.
- Combined with 12G18 or whatever says to me that a cell has just
entered the picture because you rarely get 12Ganything with fog...

Not arguing here - just reacting. At this point and skill level, I
don't practice actual to mins - I save that for the hood and for real
live mistakes.

Gotta think more about that.

wrote:
>
> Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
> adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
> training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
> of us who are not professionals.
>

Watching the 2 hours before on the flight monitor (linked elsewhere in
thread) you can watch another 172 miss once and abandon another before
getting in. You also see two jet types apparently divert somewhere
else. You can also watch 2 jets hold waiting for the 172. That's all
before the accident.

The weather seems to be <1sm and 200' most of the afternoon but the wind
goes from 7 to 13G19 for awhile. Passing cell I guess.

Down to mins with a convective disturbance passing thru.

I was flying the DC area on the 22nd and 24th. Reflecting on my own
thinking and hoping that I would divert to a better alternate or return
to my start point. Easier said than done.

Judah wrote:
>>
>
>
> The crash evidently happened shortly after 3pm EST (1900Z).
>
> METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
> 60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
> METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
> T01220122
>

"Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
online.com...
> As someone else posted, you can watch it at:
>
> http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html
>
> The aircraft which I assume is it - N61AF - appears at about 15:14 on the
> 23rd. Watching is somewhat spooky.
>
> Someone else flew the approach at 15:10, which may be useful for
comparison
> purposes.
>
> - Andrew
>
OK, now I'm really spooked. That's the plane in which I passed my private
checkride a year ago, almost to the day...

Happened to me and the twin I got my ME in. Gets your attention it does.

Joe Johnson wrote:
> "Andrew Gideon" > wrote in message
> online.com...
>
>>As someone else posted, you can watch it at:
>>
>> http://www4.passur.com/hpn.html
>>
>>The aircraft which I assume is it - N61AF - appears at about 15:14 on the
>>23rd. Watching is somewhat spooky.
>>
>>Someone else flew the approach at 15:10, which may be useful for
>
> comparison
>
>>purposes.
>>
>> - Andrew
>>
>
> OK, now I'm really spooked. That's the plane in which I passed my private
> checkride a year ago, almost to the day...
>
>

Maule Driver wrote:

> I like practicing in actual but I'd stay away from that weather.
> - 1/8SM and 200 in fog with 12/12 says to me that it could go
zero/zero
> in a sec. I can practice misses under the hood.

IMO, flying under the hood and flying actual IMC are two different,
albeit similar experiences. However, the differences are such that I
believe there is simply no substitute for the real thing. This
statement is only meant to offer another opinion.

Additionally, I believe that practicing in actual low IMC to a real
missed when possible, assuming again that there is a suitable alternate
and proper fuel, is very important to the active instrument pilot,
since it may very well happen that an airport goes from "low to no"
during a real approach. A good example of low IMC going to below
minimums would be during lake effect snow season downwind of the Great
Lakes, something that is not always correctly forecasted.

--
Peter

Andrew wrote:

> OK, now I'm really spooked. That's the plane in which I passed my
private
> checkride a year ago, almost to the day...

Bad things sometimes happen to good airplanes and pilots.

A few months ago I queried the NTSB database for all of the eight or so
aircraft I flew during my initial training or rented soon thereafter.
The only one I found in the NTSB reports was a new C172SP I rented out
in Palm Springs, California. A few months after I rented it, an
instructor. as the sole occupant, had flown the aircraft to a nearby
airport and, upon landing, taxied off the runway and into a ditch
between the runway and a taxiway.

--
Peter R.

"Maule Driver" > wrote in message
.com...
> Happened to me and the twin I got my ME in. Gets your attention it does.
>
Remember TWA 800, which blew up off the coast of Long Island? My DPE
brought that plane back from Athens as captain the previous evening. It had
2 crews on board, one flying the plane and one being deployed to Paris for
some other assignment. They were all colleagues and friends of my DPE.
While this HPN tragedy is not of the same magnitude, I now understand a
little better how he must have felt.

Antonio wrote:

> Enter the airport identifier in the subject line (ex: KLAX) of your
> email and the wx reports immediately come to your inbox.

That's certainly a service, but I don't see how this helps the OP. He
was looking for weather from a few days ago. It appears to me that
this site only offers current weather and forecasts. Am I missing
something?

--
Peter

In article om>,
Peter R. > wrote:

> Antonio wrote:
>
> > Enter the airport identifier in the subject line (ex: KLAX) of your
> > email and the wx reports immediately come to your inbox.
>
> That's certainly a service, but I don't see how this helps the OP. He
> was looking for weather from a few days ago. It appears to me that
> this site only offers current weather and forecasts. Am I missing
> something?

Try this:

http://vortex.plymouth.edu/sa_parse-u.html

wrote in news:1114444542.583751.157440
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

> Judah wrote:
>
>> Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...
>
> Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
> adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
> training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
> of us who are not professionals.
>
> It will be interesting to read what the investigators find.
>

Only if both the pilot and instructor are up to the task that day. There is
one good reason to fly such a mission, and many more reasons to cancel.

From the Passur site it looks as if the pilot was frequently and
consistently low at various phases of the approach, and the instructor did
not correct him promptly. For example, at one point, outside the outer
marker, the plane is shown at 1200', when the MSA is 1900'.


As you say, it will be interesting to read the reports...

I'm a little late getting into this, because I have been offline since late
April, but I have to ask...what does MSA have to do with anything? It is not
a part of an instrument approach procedure and is for use in emergencies
only.

Now I have to go find the original post.

Bob Gardner

"Judah" > wrote in message
. ..
> wrote in news:1114444542.583751.157440
> @l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Judah wrote:
>>
>>> Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...
>>
>> Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
>> adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
>> training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
>> of us who are not professionals.
>>
>> It will be interesting to read what the investigators find.
>>
>
> Only if both the pilot and instructor are up to the task that day. There
> is
> one good reason to fly such a mission, and many more reasons to cancel.
>
> From the Passur site it looks as if the pilot was frequently and
> consistently low at various phases of the approach, and the instructor did
> not correct him promptly. For example, at one point, outside the outer
> marker, the plane is shown at 1200', when the MSA is 1900'.
>
>
> As you say, it will be interesting to read the reports...

Bob

It may be true that one never actually flies the MSA. However, I don't
agree that MSA has no relavance for routine flying. If that is the
case, then OROCA also has no relavance either, as well as all the
obstacles depicted on the IFR charts. If you are descending below MSA,
then you better be on a published segment of the approach. It certainly
has value in that respect.

"Bob Gardner" > wrote in
:

> I'm a little late getting into this, because I have been offline since
> late April, but I have to ask...what does MSA have to do with
> anything? It is not a part of an instrument approach procedure and is
> for use in emergencies only.
>
> Now I have to go find the original post.
>
> Bob Gardner
>

<snip>

I incorrectly referred to the Minimum Altitude for that segment of the
approach as the Minimum Safe Altitude. Someone else also corrected my error
in this thread.

I'm not sure what the "official" name for the minimum altitude published on
the approach segment outside the outer marker is, but the minimum altitude
that I refer to is undoubtedly part of the approach, and they unquestionably
busted it by a significant amount...

Even if the instructor was flying, he did not correct for the altitude
errors during the approach. ;)

But you're right. I don't know who was flying nor what happened, and so I
cannot make judgements.


wrote in
:

> On Sat, 07 May 2005 01:14:17 GMT, Judah > wrote:
>
>>From the Passur site it looks as if the pilot was frequently and
>>consistently low at various phases of the approach, and the instructor
>>did not correct him promptly
>
>
> How do you know the instructor was not flying?