What's wrong with this idea?

[Ace Pilot]

After reading the “Do you always file IFR?” thread, I
began thinking about some of the benefits of IFR flight that some
mentioned. The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft and
you’re guaranteed flight following. If those two benefits
outweigh the downside of flying IFR (in your opinion), wouldn’t
it make sense to always file and fly IFR, even if not legal to do so?
Specifically, I’m thinking that if you follow these 2 rules:

1. Fly under VMC conditions only (i.e., treat it just like a VFR
flight for visibility and cloud clearance).
2. If given a clearance you are unable to follow, inform ATC
“Unable” and get another clearance, or, as a last resort,
cancel IFR.

then it would be safer to fly IFR than VFR, even in an aircraft that
is not IFR certified. Taking it a step further, it would also be safer
to fly IFR than VFR, even if you aren’t IFR current.

Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
idea?

[John T]

"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
m
>
> Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
> idea?

What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

--
John T
http://tknowlogy.com/tknoFlyer
__________

[Peter R.]

John T ) wrote:

> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> m
> >
> > Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
> > idea?
>
> What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

VFR FF can be, and often is (here in the Northeast US) canceled by ATC if
the next controller is unable to accept the hand-off.


--
Peter

[David Megginson]

"John T" > writes:

> What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

(I won't comment on filing IFR in VMC without a rating -- I'm pretty
sure that's illegal in Canada, even if there is some loophole in the
U.S.)

When I got passed on from Ottawa Terminal to Toronto Centre on Monday,
the controller initially didn't bother to check his slips (or
whatever) or pay attention to my reported altitude, but just answered

"aircraft requesting flight following, standby"

and went straight to another call. Oops. I gave him five minutes to
figure things out, while he was possibly busy on the phone with other
ATC units, or just hoping I'd give up and leave him alone (the
frequency wasn't busy), then I called again with a small addition to
the end:

"Toronto Centre, this is Cherokee foxtrot bravo juliet oscar, level
8 thousand on victor 316, *IFR*."

Boy, I got an answer quickly that time. South of the border in New
Jersey, before I was rated, I had trouble getting VFR flight following
from New York on a departure out from KCDW after 11:00 pm -- the
controller just didn't want to talk to me. I could hear his
transmission to every other aircraft perfectly clearly, but every time
he called me he broke up into static (do controllers ever play tricks
with their mic buttons to get rid of VFR pilots, instead of simply
saying "unable," or was it just a weird coincidence?).


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Larry Dighera]

On 30 Jul 2003 07:28:22 -0700, (Ace
Pilot) wrote in Message-Id:
>:

>The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
>decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft...

Are you referring to Class A airspace?


--

Irrational beliefs ultimately lead to irrational acts.
-- Larry Dighera,

[Michael 182]

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> > Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
> > idea?
>
> Well, one way to look at it is this: if you don't have the rating, then
it's
> reasonable to assume you're not qualified to fly in the IFR system without
> an instructor on board.

I agree. Besides, I worked for my IR, and proved I was able to use it (at
least as far as the DE was concerned). Flying IFR includes both
responsibility and privilege. If you want the privilege, earn it.

[Ace Pilot]

"John T" > wrote in message m>...
> "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> m
> >
> > Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
> > idea?
>
> What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?

As stated above, it reduces your chances of colliding with VFR traffic
because you will be at a different enroute altitude than VFR traffic
(e.g., 5,000 feet vs. 4,500 or 5,500 feet).

[journeyman]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 19:27:36 -0400, Guy Elden Jr.
> wrote:

[filing and flying IFR without the rating]

>is wreckless and selfish, not to mention inconsiderate, and of course,
>illegal.

Sadly, it is all too frequently not wreckless, which is what makes
it reckless. :-)


Morris (not a spelling flame, just a bad pun)

[Addison]

On Wed, 30 Jul 2003 07:28:22 -0700, Ace Pilot wrote:

> After reading the "Do you always file IFR" thread, I
> began thinking about some of the benefits of IFR flight that some
> mentioned. The two biggest being that you can cruise at altitudes that
> decrease your chances of colliding with a VFR aircraft and
> you're guaranteed flight following.

The point of VFR conditions is that you should be able to avoid other
aircraft. Also, as my IFR ground school instructor insisted almost every
session... IFR doesn't mean that you're separated from VFR traffic.

You're also not guaranteed "flight following".

http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/183139-1.html
http://www.avweb.com/news/columns/182649-1.html

Check those out.

> outweigh the downside of flying IFR (in your opinion), wouldn't
> it make sense to always file and fly IFR, even if not legal to do so?

No.

If so, then that's what we'd do.

> Specifically, I'm thinking that if you follow these 2 rules:
>
> 1. Fly under VMC conditions only (i.e., treat it just like a VFR
> flight for visibility and cloud clearance).

> 2. If given a clearance you are unable to follow, inform ATC
> "Unable"; and get another clearance, or, as a last resort,
> cancel IFR.

Want to think about this a little bit more? So if you're in the IFR
system, and the controllers are expecting you to be IFR trained, tested,
and current - or at least HAVE been at some point, and when they issue you
a clearance - and you suddenly cancel...

So you'll (without all the training), in a plane that doesn't meet the
requirements (not _all_ regs are there just to give bureaucrats a job)
overload the system, then cause mass confusion? And that will be safer?

> it would also be safer
> to fly IFR than VFR, even if you aren't IFR current.

_If_ you're IFR rated, I might agree. But then, in that case, why not
just _get current_?

Addison

[David Megginson]

(Ace Pilot) writes:

> I was referring to the fact that IFR cruising altitudes are offset by
> 500 feet from VFR cruising altitudes.

All of the IFR pilots in any given sector are on the same altimeter
setting, as provided by ATC. Unless they have flight following, God
only knows what altimeter setting the VFR pilots are using -- if a
front's moving in, a VFR pilot's 7500 ft may well be the same as your
8000 ft.


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Teacherjh]

One other downside - what if everybody did it? [fly IFR irrespective of the
rating and equipment to attempt to avoid VFR midairs]

Jose

(for Email, make the obvious changes in my address)

[Mike Rapoport]

How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?

Mike
MU-2


"Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
om...
> "John T" > wrote in message
m>...
> > "Ace Pilot" > wrote in message
> > m
> > >
> > > Besides just being illegal, is there anything else wrong with this
> > > idea?
> >
> > What does it give you that VFR FF doesn't?
>
> As stated above, it reduces your chances of colliding with VFR traffic
> because you will be at a different enroute altitude than VFR traffic
> (e.g., 5,000 feet vs. 4,500 or 5,500 feet).

[G.R. Patterson III]

David Megginson wrote:
>
> do controllers ever play tricks
> with their mic buttons to get rid of VFR pilots, instead of simply
> saying "unable," .....

Well, if it can be done, it'll be a New York controller that figures out
how.

George Patterson
The optimist feels that we live in the best of all possible worlds. The
pessimist is afraid that he's correct.
James Branch Cavel

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Guy Elden Jr. wrote:
> If you haven't demonstrated that you're able to meet the IR Practical
> Test Standards, then one could argue you'd be more of a liability to other
> planes in the sky.

> I remember reading recently on one of the rec.aviation.* groups of a pilot
> who, without an instrument rating, regularly files and flies IFR. That to me
> is wreckless and selfish, not to mention inconsiderate, and of course,
> illegal. I don't agree with the argument that as long as he doesn't hit
> anybody, then it's ok. He's a statistic waiting to happen.

Guy,

I'm rather a "follow the regs" kind of person myself, but I have
to comment:
*I have observed a number of pilots who are instrument rated
and current, but who fail to meet the IR PTS or who no longer
know basic things, like what a low-altitude airway is and what
its MEA means
*I have heard pilots whose radio work and knowledge of IFR
procedures seemd quite lacking. I know for a fact some of
them are IR
*I know some pilots who are not IR whose knowledge of regs and
procedures are extensive, and who are quite able to fly to
tight tolerances on instruments

All that said, it's my opinion that someone who wants to fly IFR
should bite the bullet, take the test, and get the rating, and
I hold to that opinion even when it's frustrating or inconvenient
to me because I'm not IR and we fly w/ one adult in the back
these days.

I suppose this is a verbose way of saying I think it's fallacious
to assume that every non-IR pilot is a liability in the system,
just as it's fallacious to assume that every IR pilot is safe,
or not a liability in the system.

Cheers,
Sydney

[Sydney Hoeltzli]

Ace Pilot wrote:

> I assumed the pilot was IFR rated and understood how the system works,
> but was not necessarily proficient at flying in IMC conditions, but
> was perfectly capable of flying safely in VMC.

One consideration is (discussed in prev. threads), if you are flying
IFR, you can not expect to necessarily be able to maintain clear of
clouds. If you are flying above a broken layer, you can not, on an
IFR flight plan, maneuver to descend through a hole as you could
VFR. You can request ATC to accomodate altitude and routing prefs
which will keep you VMC, but they may not be able to accomodate you.

Basically, I don't think it's a good idea to file IFR if you're
not prepared to fly in clouds, unless the wx is truly "bluebird"
all the way. CAVU below 12,000 or something.

> The big question is whether
> there are any "costs" associated with this proposal, and do those
> costs outweigh the benefit. Just being illegal is not a cost.

I would disagree. I think being illegal is a cost. I think there is
a slippery slope in setting out to deliberately break one regulation.
Even if you disagree, don't discount the cost of being discovered
and facing punative action.

> As for being a danger to other pilots in the air, I see no difference
> between a non-current IFR-rated pilot on an IFR flight plan and a
> VFR-only pilot, as long as it is on a VMC day.

Does the VFR pilot understand IFR procedures, or is he going to
clog up the system if directed to fly a STAR or given a crossing
restriction on altitude?

A non-current IFR pilot can be a problem, too, if he's forgotten
his basics.

> I'm now starting to wonder if there are some things that the Feds deem
> illegal, but are actually safer.

There's no question that there are illegal things which are arguably
safer. The problem is, who is doing the arguing? Once you set out
to break one regulation, you are saying your judgement is superior to
the regulations. Maybe it is in this instance. But I see a slippery
slope, where it becomes easier to justify breaking another reg in the
next instance. And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the
regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

Cheers,
Sydney

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
>
> How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?
>

At least one.

[David Megginson]

Sydney Hoeltzli > writes:

> *I have observed a number of pilots who are instrument rated
> and current, but who fail to meet the IR PTS or who no longer
> know basic things, like what a low-altitude airway is and what
> its MEA means
> *I have heard pilots whose radio work and knowledge of IFR
> procedures seemd quite lacking. I know for a fact some of
> them are IR
> *I know some pilots who are not IR whose knowledge of regs and
> procedures are extensive, and who are quite able to fly to
> tight tolerances on instruments

Canada requires instrument-rated pilots to retake the complete IFR
flight test (including the ground portion) every two years. I
understand that the IFR checkride in the U.S. is a once-in-a-lifetime
thing, like the PPL checkride. Would you prefer to use the Canadian
system, or would that seem like unwelcome government interference to
U.S. pilots?


All the best,


David

--
David Megginson, , http://www.megginson.com/

[Snowbird]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> Sydney Hoeltzli > wrote
> > And maybe your judgement is not always superior to the
> > regulations, but once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
> > how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?

> I have a real problem with the idea that legality is a valid sanity
> check on your judgment.

1) Yes, of course you do. You've made that clear. You think the
FAA is "evil" and the personal flying should be unregulated. I figured
that statement would elicit pretty much this response from you.

2) I try to use words very carefully. Where did I say anything
to the effect that legality is a valid sanity check on an
individual's judgement?

FTR, I look at it this way. Legal is often a least common denominator.
There are a number of things which are legal, which aren't particularly
safe. Including, for example, instrument-rated pilots who aren't
particularly proficient flying IFR in IMC. But asking "is it legal?"
gives one a first-pass approximation, that someone somewhere thought
that under some circumstances, the operation one proposes wasn't
horrendously unsafe.

There are arguably a number of things which aren't legal, but
probably are relatively safe. Such as, for example, a non-IR pilot
who is proficient and familiar with the system flying IFR in IMC.
But if such a pilot contemplates doing so, who *is* sanity-checking
their judgement? Who *is* judging whether they are as proficient
and familiar as they think they are? And if they are proficient
and familiar enough to fly in the system safely, why not get the
"sanity check" from the system? Why not bone up, hone up, take the
tests and do so legally?

Cheers,
Sydney

[David]

In article ink.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>
>"Mike Rapoport" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> How many enroute mid-air collisions have there been in the past century?
>>
>
>At least one.
>
I can think of at least four.
One in mid USA over the Grand Canyon. Constellation/ DC-7
One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation
One over Yugoslavia Trident/ DC-9
One over Switzerland (or that region) quite recently

Flicking through one of my books I spotted a couple of others. Would
include civil/military accidents?

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to >
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation
>

I don't think that one was enroute.

[Grumman-581]

"Mike Weller" wrote ...
> Well, just always fly at an even or odd altitude plus or minus 250
> feet and you won't have to worry about that.

Then you're just going to collide with the other aircraft that are doing the
exact same thing... <grin>

About a month or so ago, I was flying from New Orleans to Houston and was
down low checking out the scenery in the swamps... I was at 500 ft... Next
thing I know, another aircraft flew UNDERNEATH me... I saw him go under my
left wing and then come out under my right wing... He was perhaps flying at
200-300 ft...

One could assume that one could just allow their altitude to vary +/- 250
feet while flying at a normal altitude to decrease the chance of a
collision... Basically make the target a little more like hitting a moving
and dodging target instead of just a moving one... <grin>

[Guy Elden Jr.]

"David Megginson" > wrote in message
...
> Canada requires instrument-rated pilots to retake the complete IFR
> flight test (including the ground portion) every two years. I
> understand that the IFR checkride in the U.S. is a once-in-a-lifetime
> thing, like the PPL checkride. Would you prefer to use the Canadian
> system, or would that seem like unwelcome government interference to
> U.S. pilots?

I don't know how I feel about this one yet... I just completed my training
last week. In the U.S., you can maintain your currency as long as you fly 6
approaches and do some holding and tracking every 6 months. I'm wondering if
anybody who has let their currency lapse completely (beyond 12 months), and
has taken a checkride with a CFII or examiner, feels that that was adequate
to getting you current again? I imagine a lot of practice would be required
before someone felt safe enough to carry passengers or even fly solo in the
system once those skills have been idle for so long.

--
Guy Elden Jr.

[Peter Duniho]

"Guy Elden Jr." > wrote in message
...
> [...] I'm wondering if
> anybody who has let their currency lapse completely (beyond 12 months),
and
> has taken a checkride with a CFII or examiner, feels that that was
adequate
> to getting you current again?

I have, several times.

> I imagine a lot of practice would be required
> before someone felt safe enough to carry passengers or even fly solo in
the
> system once those skills have been idle for so long.

You are correct. If I haven't flown IFR for a year (give or take), it takes
at least three hours of instrument training for me to feel like I'm back up
to snuff, sometimes more. Two or three lessons has been typical when I've
been away from the instrument stuff that long.

Pete

[Michael]

(Snowbird) wrote
> > > once you remove "it's illegal" as a restraining factor,
> > > how will you second-guess or sanity check your judgement?
>
> > I have a real problem with the idea that legality is a valid sanity
> > check on your judgment.

> 2) I try to use words very carefully. Where did I say anything
> to the effect that legality is a valid sanity check on an
> individual's judgement?

See above. I can't imagine how it can be read other than to imply
that legality is a valid sanity check on an individual's judgment.

> FTR, I look at it this way. Legal is often a least common denominator.
> There are a number of things which are legal, which aren't particularly
> safe. Including, for example, instrument-rated pilots who aren't
> particularly proficient flying IFR in IMC. But asking "is it legal?"
> gives one a first-pass approximation, that someone somewhere thought
> that under some circumstances, the operation one proposes wasn't
> horrendously unsafe.

Well, sure. But the important question to ask is this - WHO was this
someone who thought so? What do we know about him? Why should we
value his opinion?

If some random person hanging around the airport thought that under
some circumstances the operation you propose wasn't horrendously
unsafe, would that mean anything to you? How about the reverse?

Your argument stands or falls on the assumption that because this
person works for the FAA writing regulations, that makes his opinion
somehow more valid than the opinion of a random person hanging around
the airport. That assumption is exactly what I'm disputing.

All we really know about this person is that he works for the FAA.
This generally means that he attempted to make a living in aviation in
the private sector, failed to do so, and is now working for the
government. Thus my initial reaction is to assume that his opinion is
going to be less valid than average, not more.

To take that a step further - it's not that I believe that having
personal flying totally unregulated is the ideal case. I don't
believe that at all, though I can make a reasonable case that it would
not be nearly as bad as you might think, simply by comparing it to
other activities. What I do believe is that the people (it all comes
down to people in the end) doing the regulating are so incompetent and
so unethical (see http://www.avweb.com/pdf/brinell_report.pdf for
examples) that their net impact on safety is negative, and that having
nothing at all, while far from optimal, would still be better.

> There are arguably a number of things which aren't legal, but
> probably are relatively safe. Such as, for example, a non-IR pilot
> who is proficient and familiar with the system flying IFR in IMC.
> But if such a pilot contemplates doing so, who *is* sanity-checking
> their judgement?

Really, the same person who is sanity-checking the judgment of an
instrument rated pilot who got his rating years ago - he and nobody
else. As long as you go under the hood in bright daylight with a
safety pilot and do six full-panel ILS approaches and one hold every
six months, you're good to go. And the safety pilot need not even be
instrument rated or qualified in the aircraft. The point is that
legality does nothing whatsoever to keep the unqualified out of the
clouds. In the end, the pilot makes his own judgments.

As an aside, I recently did an ICC. I will note that the CFII/MEI was
ready to sign me off LONG before I felt that I had reached adequate
proficiency. Of course he was more than willing to fly additional
hours while I practiced - multi time is like gold to these guys - but
what that means is that even for someone like me, who does get
recurrent training and really meets not only the letter but the spirit
of the IFR currency regs, there is still nobody sanity checking my
judgment.

> And if they are proficient
> and familiar enough to fly in the system safely, why not get the
> "sanity check" from the system? Why not bone up, hone up, take the
> tests and do so legally?

Any number of reasons. Ones that I'm familiar with (these are all
real cases) include reasons like:

Not enough instrument hours for IFR checkride. I know LOTS of
instrument rated pilots who had about 5-10 hours solo actual before
the checkride, but are now rated.

Airplane won't pass pitot-static check - quite possibly because it
never had a static port. That's common for the earlier airplanes. On
low speed non-pressurized airplanes, it's simply not an issue, but the
rules are the rules.

Got ****ed off and didn't complete training. This is more common than
you might imagine, and is IMO mostly a reflection on the largely
incompetent CFII community. This is one of those 'personality issues'
that I've observed in those who have little or no formal education.

Most formal education has a high bull**** factor; if you want to get
the dergee you WILL learn to do what you're told, even when you know
it's pointless, and to do it on time and according to arbitrary and
often suboptimal procedures. Some people learn to tolerate it, and
some don't. Most employers prefer (and many require) college
graduates not for the degree content (a surprising amount, including
all major airlines, absolutely don't care what the degree is in) but
for the proven ability to put up with pointless bull**** and smile
while doing it.

Your question of "If you can do it, why not jump through the hoops and
do it legally?" is basically asking why everyone can't put up with
pointless bull**** and smile while doing it just because you can.

Michael

[David]

In article k.net>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>
>"David" > wrote in message
...
> >
>> One over New York DC-8/ Super Constellation
>>
>
>I don't think that one was enroute.
>
Depends on how you define enroute I guess! :-) The collision took place
at 5,000ft. But I agree that it might be described as the descent or
initial approach phase.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to >
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> Depends on how you define enroute I guess! :-) The collision took place
> at 5,000ft. But I agree that it might be described as the descent or
> initial approach phase.
>

Well, since the collision occurred at low altitude while the Constellation
was on approach and cleared to land, and the DC-8 cleared to a holding
pattern to await approach clearance, I don't think it fits any reasonable
definition of enroute.

[David]

In article t>, Steven
P. McNicoll > writes
>
>"David" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> Depends on how you define enroute I guess! :-) The collision took place
>> at 5,000ft. But I agree that it might be described as the descent or
>> initial approach phase.
>>
>
>Well, since the collision occurred at low altitude while the Constellation
>was on approach and cleared to land, and the DC-8 cleared to a holding
>pattern to await approach clearance, I don't think it fits any reasonable
>definition of enroute.
>
This is not really a very significant disagreement. :-) My reference
says the last instruction to the Constellation was 'turn left to a
heading of 130'.

Does your reference refer to a clearance to land? Isn't 5000 ft, a bit
high to be cleared to land? La Guardia is pretty close to sea level.

What is the aviation definition of 'enroute' by the way?
Is it the same as 'en route'?
My dictionary gives no help - it just says it means 'on the way'.
--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to >
-----------------------------------------------------------

[Steven P. McNicoll]

"David" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is not really a very significant disagreement. :-) My reference
> says the last instruction to the Constellation was 'turn left to a
> heading of 130'.
>
> Does your reference refer to a clearance to land?
>

"A midair collision took place over Staten Island at 5,000 ft. The Connie
was cleared to land at La Guardia Airport on Runway 04 when the United DC-8
struck the Connie tearing it apart. The Connie immediately crashed to the
ground at Miller Army Air Field on Staten Island. One passenger was sucked
out into one of the DC8s jet engines. Other passengers fell from the Connie
as the spinning fuselage fell onto Staten Island. The United jet tried to
make an emergency landing at La Guardia Airport but could not maintain
altitude and crashed into the streets of Brooklyn. Forty-four passengers on
the Constellation and eight-four passengers on the DC-8 were killed. Three
passengers from the DC-8 died shortly after. One young boy, Stephen Baltz
survived several days before succumbing to his injuries. Six people were
also killed on the ground. The United crew entered a low-altitude holding
pattern at 500 miles per hour, twice the speed it should have been going and
flew past the clearance limits and airspace allocated to the flight. One of
2 VORs on the DC-8 was not functioning. Although the crew knew this, they
failed to report this to the ATC, who probably would have provided extra
radar assistance."

http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1960/1960-51.htm


>
> Isn't 5000 ft, a bit high to be cleared to land? La Guardia is pretty
close to sea level.
>

Not necessarily.


>
> What is the aviation definition of 'enroute' by the way?
> Is it the same as 'en route'?
>

Yes.


>
> My dictionary gives no help - it just says it means 'on the way'.
>

En route procedures come after departure procedures and before arrival
procedures.

http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/chap5toc.htm

[David]

Steven,

Thanks a lot for your reference which does differ from mine in some
respects although the basics are the same. My reference is Aviation
Disasters by David Gero.

In article et>,
Steven P. McNicoll > writes
>
>"David" > wrote in message
...
>>
[Snip]
>>
>> Does your reference refer to a clearance to land?
>>
>
>"A midair collision took place over Staten Island at 5,000 ft. The Connie
>was cleared to land at La Guardia Airport on Runway 04 when the United DC-8
>struck the Connie tearing it apart. The Connie immediately crashed to the
>ground at Miller Army Air Field on Staten Island. One passenger was sucked
>out into one of the DC8s jet engines. Other passengers fell from the Connie
>as the spinning fuselage fell onto Staten Island. The United jet tried to
>make an emergency landing at La Guardia Airport but could not maintain
>altitude and crashed into the streets of Brooklyn. Forty-four passengers on
>the Constellation and eight-four passengers on the DC-8 were killed. Three
>passengers from the DC-8 died shortly after. One young boy, Stephen Baltz
>survived several days before succumbing to his injuries. Six people were
>also killed on the ground. The United crew entered a low-altitude holding
>pattern at 500 miles per hour, twice the speed it should have been going and
>flew past the clearance limits and airspace allocated to the flight. One of
>2 VORs on the DC-8 was not functioning. Although the crew knew this, they
>failed to report this to the ATC, who probably would have provided extra
>radar assistance."
>

My reference says the DC8 was approaching at a ground speed of 380mph
(about 410 mph true at 5,000 ft ignoring wind effects). The above also
seems inconsistent, because if the aircraft entered a holding pattern it
should not have overshot its clearance to the Preston Intersection by 10
miles. The chart included with my reference shows no signs that the DC8
diverted from its flight path in the last few minutes, after being
allowed to 'cut the corner' towards Preston.

Is your reference from a newspaper report? To me, it has a few signs
that it might be.

My reference suggests to me that any attempt to land by the DC8 was
unlikely, as it had lost its no. 4 power plant and the wing outboard
of that in the impact.

>http://www.planecrashinfo.com/1960/1960-51.htm
>
[Snip]
>>
>> What is the aviation definition of 'enroute' by the way?
>> Is it the same as 'en route'?
>>
[Snip]
>
>En route procedures come after departure procedures and before arrival
>procedures.
>
>http://www1.faa.gov/atpubs/AIM/chap5toc.htm
>
A useful reference - thank you.

--
-----------------------------------------------------------
David Francis E-Mail reply to >
-----------------------------------------------------------