NASCAR Air Force Story

[john smith]

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH carried an AP story on the NASCAR Air Force this=20
morning.

NASCAR teams rely on private planes
Sunday=92s fatal crash shows risk goes with convenience
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Mike Harris
ASSOCIATED PRESS

A fleet of private planes known as the "NASCAR Air Force" has made=20
travel easier for drivers and teams. But as shown by Sunday=92s crash tha=
t=20
killed 10 people flying to a race aboard a Hendrick Motorsports team=20
plane, such convenience also can involve risks.

"We use planes just like our cars," said Ricky Rudd, one of several=20
NASCAR Nextel Cup drivers who are also pilots. "We put a lot of hours in =

the air and have some of the best pilots in the country that fly these=20
things, and some of the best equipment."

The backbone of the NASCAR air fleet has been twoengine, 12-passenger=20
aircraft like the Beech 200 King Air that crashed into a mountain in=20
thick fog Sunday while trying to land at a small airport near=20
Martinsville (Va.) Speedway.

All 10 people aboard were killed, including team owner Rick Hendrick=92s =

son, Ricky; his brother, John, and John=92s two daughters, Jennifer and=20
Kimberly. Also on the plane were the team=92s general manager, Jeff=20
Turner, and its chief engine builder, Randy Dorton, as well as a DuPont=20
executive and three pilots.

For years, nearly everyone traveled to races in team vans or private=20
cars, but the proliferation of private planes changed that.

Nextel Cup teams race 38 weekends each year. On many of those weekends,=20
Concord (N.C.) Regional Airport =97 the closest airport for most teams =97=
=20
is buzzing with activity. More than 100 aircraft take off and land,=20
ferrying drivers, team owners, crewmen, sponsors and fans to airports=20
near the racetrack.

More aircraft, including two 727 jets owned by Roush Racing, fly in and=20
out of nearby Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

"Actually, it=92s not just race weekends," said Annette Privette, a=20
spokeswoman for the city of Concord. "Our airport has approximately 200=20
aircraft based there, and about 60 percent of them are NASCARrelated.=20
There=92s a lot of flying back and forth to testing and pole nights and=20
driver appearances and races."

Driver Jeff Green sees private plane travel as more than just a convenien=
ce.

"Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won=92t work,"=20
Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you=20
miss practice. Miss practice, and they don=92t let you attempt to qualify=
=2E"

Mark Martin, another driver who is also a pilot, lost his father,=20
stepmother and half sister in 1998 when a private plane his father was=20
piloting crashed in Nevada. But Martin said he has no qualms about using =

his plane.

"I suppose we=92ve been pretty lucky in a way," Martin said last year.=20
"But everybody knows that flying is still safer than driving in your=20
personal car. And we really have no choice. We have to fly to get our=20
jobs done."

With the escalating use of helicopters =97 for short hauls =97 and privat=
e=20
planes, NASCAR=92s Air Force has a very good safety record.

Driver Alan Kulwicki and three others were killed in 1993 while flying=20
to a race in Bristol, Tenn. Later that year, Davey Allison died while=20
trying to land his helicopter at Talladega Superspeedway.

There had been no aircraft-related fatalities in NASCAR since, but that=20
doesn=92t mean there haven=92t been accidents.

In one three-week period in November 2003, Martin=92s plane blew two tire=
s=20
taking off from an airport after a race in Phoenix, a plane carrying=20
Petty Enterprises crewmen also blew a tire on takeoff after a test=20
earlier in Phoenix, and driver Tony Stewart=92s plane hit a deer while=20
landing at a rural Texas airport. There were no injuries.

While teams say there is no substitute for private planes, there is for=20
the small planes.

Martin=92s team owner, Jack Roush, bought his 727s four years ago after=20
starting to feel less and less comfortable about having up to 16 small=20
planes in the air each race weekend.

Since his team has been using the big planes, with pilots trained for=20
commercial airlines transporting most of his people, Roush said he is=20
sleeping better.

"I=92m confident as I can be in the safety of our planes and the ability =

of our pilots, but I still breathe a sigh of relief every time we get=20
through a race weekend without a problem," Roush said

[G.R. Patterson III]

john smith wrote:
>
> "Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won’t work,"
> Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
> miss practice. Miss practice, and they don’t let you attempt to qualify."

Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

[C Kingsbury]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> john smith wrote:
> >
> > "Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
> > Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
> > miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to
qualify."
>
> Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

This could be said for pretty much every type of corporate aviation. And yet
the safety record is pretty exemplary.

Good equipment kept in good operating condition with a well-trained 2-pilot
flight crew will make nearly any flight with safety. The airlines have
proven this.

GGT-itis typically kills light GA pilots by tempting them into weather that
either they or the airplane are not capable of handling. That does not
appear to be the primary factor here, though it goes without saying that
2-pilot planes do not generally impact terrain in VMC.

Given that accident rates on ILSs seem to be significantly lower than on
non-precision approaches (for both light GA and corporate) I was just
thinking that we should really be pushing for more LNAV/VNAV and LPV
approaches as a safety issue. I wonder how many crashes have occurred on
missed approaches that might have been avoided had LPV minima been available
and capable of getting the plane into the airport.

-cwk.

[Morgans]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote .


Given that accident rates on ILSs seem to be significantly lower than on
> non-precision approaches (for both light GA and corporate) I was just
> thinking that we should really be pushing for more LNAV/VNAV and LPV
> approaches as a safety issue. I wonder how many crashes have occurred on
> missed approaches that might have been avoided had LPV minima been
available
> and capable of getting the plane into the airport.
>
> -cwk.
>


When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others going
to be available?

Seems like more effort should be made towards this end.
--
Jim in NC



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004

[Ron Natalie]

Morgans wrote:

>
>
> When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others going
> to be available?
>
MTV already has two non-precision GPS approaches.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others going
>to be available?
>
>Seems like more effort should be made towards this end.
>--


Why would a GPS be better than a Localizer/DME. I doubt a GPS
approach would have had any lower minimums than the LOC did, so I'm
not sure how that would have helped in this situation.

z

[C Kingsbury]

"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:56 -0400, "Morgans"
> > wrote:
>
> >When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others
going
> >to be available?
> >
>
> Why would a GPS be better than a Localizer/DME. I doubt a GPS
> approach would have had any lower minimums than the LOC did, so I'm
> not sure how that would have helped in this situation.
>

LPV approaches (GPS+WAAS with lateral and vertical guidance) can I believe
get you down to 250' and 1-1/2, which is a lot lower than a GPS (LNAV)
approach and quite close to ILS minima.

Second, an LPV approach should be comparable to an ILS in terms of
difficulty to fly: just configure the airplane and keep the needles in the
donut. By bringing planes down on a stabilized approach all the way to MDA
you eliminate a number of opportunities to screw things up.

None of which may have been responsible for this particular crash, but the
overall statistics strongly suggest that better approaches mean safer
approaches.

-cwk.

[Richard Hertz]

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> john smith wrote:
>>
>> "Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
>> Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
>> miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to qualify."
>
> Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

Hardly - when you are talking about the pilots, equipment and approaches
they have at their disposal. This is much different than some private pilot
wanting to beat home a lowering cloud deck at night or trying to beat a t
storm...

>
> George Patterson
> If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
> have
> been looking for it.

[Richard Hertz]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote .
>
>
> Given that accident rates on ILSs seem to be significantly lower than on
>> non-precision approaches (for both light GA and corporate) I was just
>> thinking that we should really be pushing for more LNAV/VNAV and LPV
>> approaches as a safety issue. I wonder how many crashes have occurred on
>> missed approaches that might have been avoided had LPV minima been
> available
>> and capable of getting the plane into the airport.
>>
>> -cwk.
>>
>
>
> When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others
> going
> to be available?
>

There was nothing difficult about these approaches. The LOC at that airport
was quite timple. If they cannot read the chart for a LOC approach, what
makes you think that any new approach will be better?


> Seems like more effort should be made towards this end.
> --
> Jim in NC
>
>
>
> ---
> Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
> Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
> Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004
>
>

[Rutger]

What's really needed is affordable synthetic vision / enhanced vision
technology so pilots can see the terrain right thru the clouds.

[zatatime]

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 22:23:48 GMT, "C Kingsbury"
> wrote:

>
>"zatatime" > wrote in message
...
>> On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:56 -0400, "Morgans"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others
>going
>> >to be available?
>> >
>>
>> Why would a GPS be better than a Localizer/DME. I doubt a GPS
>> approach would have had any lower minimums than the LOC did, so I'm
>> not sure how that would have helped in this situation.
>>
>
>LPV approaches (GPS+WAAS with lateral and vertical guidance) can I believe
>get you down to 250' and 1-1/2, which is a lot lower than a GPS (LNAV)
>approach and quite close to ILS minima.
>
>Second, an LPV approach should be comparable to an ILS in terms of
>difficulty to fly: just configure the airplane and keep the needles in the
>donut. By bringing planes down on a stabilized approach all the way to MDA
>you eliminate a number of opportunities to screw things up.
>
>None of which may have been responsible for this particular crash, but the
>overall statistics strongly suggest that better approaches mean safer
>approaches.
>
>-cwk.
>
>

I was thinking about a standard GPS (LNAV) approach, but fully agree
on the LPV type of approach adding more safety and ability. I'm not
real familiar with those, but aren't they fairly new, and thre's only
one GPS that is certified for them at this point? I'm sure the way
the teams spend money, they'll all have them as soon as possible, but
will there be enough approaches to make it money well spent? Seems
like its still a few years off to me, but again I admit I don't have
the lo down on them.

Thanks for the explanation.

z

[G Farris]

In article >,
says...


>
>There was nothing difficult about these approaches. The LOC at that airport
>was quite simple. If they cannot read the chart for a LOC approach, what
>makes you think that any new approach will be better?
>


This was a non-precision approach at or below minimums to an airport with
terrain issues in at least one quadrant, so it is not without difficulties, at
least in the judgement department. Given this was an experienced, well-trained
crew, familiar with the airport and operating top-notch equipment, I think
it's likely there is a missing piece in the puzzle, which we will learn from
the factual investigation. Your summary, damning report that the crew "cannot
read" a LOC approach chart is unsubstantiated, and I believe unhelpful.

G Faris

[Bob Moore]

(G Farris) wrote

> Given this was an experienced, well-trained crew,
> familiar with the airport and operating top-notch
> equipment, I think it's likely there is a missing
> piece in the puzzle, which we will learn from the
> factual investigation. Your summary, damning report
> that the crew "cannot read" a LOC approach chart is
> unsubstantiated, and I believe unhelpful.

And I believe that your assertion that it was a "well
trained crew operating top-notch equipment" is nothing
more than speculation.
I tried corporate jet flying for one month after my
retirement from PanAm. I could write a book about the
southern good-ole-boy corporate flying culture.
One example...there was not a check-list in either the
Sabreliner or Diamond, and no-one cared.
My parting words...."You assholes aren't going to kill
me".

Bob Moore

[Richard Hertz]

"G Farris" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
>
> says...
>
>
>>
>>There was nothing difficult about these approaches. The LOC at that
>>airport
>>was quite simple. If they cannot read the chart for a LOC approach, what
>>makes you think that any new approach will be better?
>>
>
>
> This was a non-precision approach at or below minimums to an airport with
> terrain issues in at least one quadrant, so it is not without
> difficulties,

And what difficulties are those? It is a simple approach. If you cannot
see the airport, you execute the missed. My point was that how would a GPS
approach help, there are already a few approaches into the airport. What
makes you think that if they had a precision approach they would have been
able to fly it if they failed to fly the existing one correctly?

They could not have been all that familiar with the airport if they flew
into the highest terrain published on the chart... I think you have to
reconsider your position. I am not damning them - I think it is a shame,
but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
would have saved these people I wonder why they think that. There is
nothing difficult int he approach. Now, it is certainly possible that
something happened to cause this crash, but I am not going to speculate on
that, all I stated was that they clearly did not follow the instructions on
the approach chart. If you feel that is damning them, then that is your
business. I can't say that they followed the chart, because clearly they
did not, otherwise they would not have crashed into terrain.

Your ill admonishment to me is unhelpful. No one has yet pointed out why
another approach to this airport would be useful or how it would have helped
in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
think they will execute a different one correctly?

at
> least in the judgement department. Given this was an experienced,
> well-trained
> crew, familiar with the airport and operating top-notch equipment, I think
> it's likely there is a missing piece in the puzzle, which we will learn
> from
> the factual investigation. Your summary, damning report that the crew
> "cannot
> read" a LOC approach chart is unsubstantiated, and I believe unhelpful.
>
> G Faris
>

[C Kingsbury]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
et...
>
> but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
> would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.

Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.

I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
here.

What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
unmistakable trends emerge.

Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable to
step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.

LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to an
ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent precision
approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply allow
fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.

> in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
> approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
> think they will execute a different one correctly?

This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as a
safety issue.

-cwk.

[WIACapt]

>
>And I believe that your assertion that it was a "well
>trained crew operating top-notch equipment" is nothing
>more than speculation.
>I tried corporate jet flying for one month after my
>retirement from PanAm. I could write a book about the
>southern good-ole-boy corporate flying culture.
>One example...there was not a check-list in either the
>Sabreliner or Diamond, and no-one cared.
>My parting words...."You assholes aren't going to kill
>me".
>
>Bob Moore
>
>
>
I think the same could be said about some air carrier pilots as well.

[Richard Hertz]

"C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
link.net...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
>> would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.
>
> Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.
>
> I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
> here.
>
> What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
> accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
> unmistakable trends emerge.

Yes, that pilots make mistakes and many are unprepared and ill-trained. I
do not mean that of these two pilots, bet certainly many are.

>
> Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
> non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable
> to
> step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
> vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.

I do not see how they are inherently "safer." I prefer them - they let me
get closer to the ground before having to make a decision. A decision that
was not made by the plane in question.

>
> LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to an
> ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent
> precision
> approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply
> allow
> fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.

Better than a localizer in that dimension?
The localizer is not a bad guidance system. They failed to get to the
appropriate height.

>
>> in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
>> approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
>> think they will execute a different one correctly?
>
> This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
> specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
> approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as
> a
> safety issue.

Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and missed
properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one? I responded to
this other person who objected to me doing what he thought was speaking ill
of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in this case a
precision approach would have been any better. They ran into a clearly
plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved height for that
sector/part of the approach.


>
> -cwk.
>
>
>

[Icebound]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
et...
>
> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>>
>> john smith wrote:
>>>
>>> "Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
>>> Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
>>> miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to
>>> qualify."
>>
>> Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.
>
> Hardly - when you are talking about the pilots, equipment and approaches
> they have at their disposal. This is much different than some private
> pilot wanting to beat home a lowering cloud deck at night or trying to
> beat a t storm...
>

Not at all different.

No matter how good the pilots, equipment, and approach equipment is , it can
still be insufficient to successfully execute the approach and be in a
position to land when the runway pops into view.

So, do we go a little below posted minimums, 'cause we might still break
through?
If we pop out high, do we steepen our descent and try to make what's left of
the runway????
Do we attempt to keep the runway in sight with a below-limits circle???...

(Everybody here tell me that you have never tried one or more of the above
and managed it successfully, and if you did it once, why not again).

Remember, practice (or qualifying, or photo-shoot, or...) starts in an
hour.... If we overshoot, we may not do any better on the next try and will
have to divert.

Different conditions, maybe, but still the same potential for
"have-to-get-there". More dangerous than the Cessna beating the cloud deck,
because the tolerance for error is much smaller, and the financial
consequence much greater.

[Aviv Hod]

Richard Hertz wrote:
> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
> link.net...
>
>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
et...
>>
>>>but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
>>>would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.
>>
>>Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.
>>
>>I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
>>here.
>>
>>What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
>>accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
>>unmistakable trends emerge.
>
>
> Yes, that pilots make mistakes and many are unprepared and ill-trained. I
> do not mean that of these two pilots, bet certainly many are.
>
>
>>Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
>>non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable
>>to
>>step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
>>vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.
>
>
> I do not see how they are inherently "safer." I prefer them - they let me
> get closer to the ground before having to make a decision. A decision that
> was not made by the plane in question.
>
>
>>LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to an
>>ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent
>>precision
>>approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply
>>allow
>>fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.
>
>
> Better than a localizer in that dimension?
> The localizer is not a bad guidance system. They failed to get to the
> appropriate height.
>
>
>>>in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
>>>approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
>>>think they will execute a different one correctly?
>>
>>This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
>>specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
>>approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as
>>a
>>safety issue.
>
>
> Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
> correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and missed
> properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one? I responded to
> this other person who objected to me doing what he thought was speaking ill
> of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in this case a
> precision approach would have been any better. They ran into a clearly
> plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved height for that
> sector/part of the approach.
>
>

I agree that precision approaches preferable to nonprecision approaches,
but the bottom line is that actually flying either type of approach is
more difficult than necessary, given what current technology makes
possible. The amount of effort necessary to fly approaches safely in
IMC even under normal conditions is very high. It is way too easy to
lose situational awareness. What we need is to demand faster
development and adoption of synthetic vision and Highway in the Sky
symbology in cockpits.

I've flown extremely complicated approaches (curving around mountains,
etc.) down to very low minimums in a research simulator equipped with
Rockwell Colins' future synthetic vision system. It turned hard IMC to
a bright sunny, day VFR pleasure flight, with a display that showed
where all terrain and obstruction were. Folow the boxes and don't fly
into anything brown that looks like a mountain, and you're fine. The
flight management system that drives the displays depends on solid state
Attitude Heading Reference System (solid state gyros) and precision GPS
(GPS + WAAS) but also integrates barometric altimeter and terrestrial
navigation aids. The GPS, however, is generally the most precise
navigation instrument available.

The technology is available, and the faster we get it into cockpits the
more lives we'll save. I find it unfortunate that we still have the
attitude that training alone will solve all our problems. The accident
record clearly shows that even well trained crews can lose situational
awareness in perfectly healthy airplanes. The fact is that there are
human factor issues involved in just about every fatal IMC accident, and
THOSE HAVE BEEN SOLVED with synthetic vision. There should be no
technological hurdles to implementation of this technology in even the
smallest GA aircraft. In fact, I can foresee the Garmin G-X000
replacing the dirt and sky attitude indicator with a SV display. It
would be a matter of changing software. A change that will save lives!

-Aviv

[Richard Hertz]

"Aviv Hod" > wrote in message
...
> Richard Hertz wrote:
>> "C Kingsbury" > wrote in message
>> link.net...
>>
>>>"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
et...
>>>
>>>>but when people spout things like adding another approach to an airport
>>>>would have saved these people I wonder why they think that.
>>>
>>>Well, I'm the original spouter and I approve this spouting.
>>>
>>>I thought my first post made the point pretty clearly but I'll elaborate
>>>here.
>>>
>>>What we are dealing with here is by nature a game of generalities. Every
>>>accident is by definition unique, but looking at broad patterns certain
>>>unmistakable trends emerge.
>>
>>
>> Yes, that pilots make mistakes and many are unprepared and ill-trained.
>> I do not mean that of these two pilots, bet certainly many are.
>>
>>
>>>Among those trends is the fact that precision approaches are safer than
>>>non-precision ones. Stabilized-descent approaches are likewise preferable
>>>to
>>>step-downs, and several of the major airlines got approval for FMS-based
>>>vertical-guidance for non-precision approaches starting a few years ago.
>>
>>
>> I do not see how they are inherently "safer." I prefer them - they let
>> me get closer to the ground before having to make a decision. A decision
>> that was not made by the plane in question.
>>
>>
>>>LPV approaches provide a capability that is on its face almost equal to
>>>an
>>>ILS, and have all the inherent advantages of a stabilized-descent
>>>precision
>>>approach. They provide better guidance in all 3 dimensions and simply
>>>allow
>>>fewer opportunities for the pilot to screw up.
>>
>>
>> Better than a localizer in that dimension?
>> The localizer is not a bad guidance system. They failed to get to the
>> appropriate height.
>>
>>
>>>>in this case. The bottome line is that you still have to execute the
>>>>approach and if they did not exdcute this one correctly, what makes you
>>>>think they will execute a different one correctly?
>>>
>>>This is a red herring. My point is not to glom onto this case so
>>>specifically but rather to make the broad point that since precision
>>>approaches are generally safer, we should push for more LPV approaches as
>>>a
>>>safety issue.
>>
>>
>> Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
>> correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and
>> missed properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one? I
>> responded to this other person who objected to me doing what he thought
>> was speaking ill of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in
>> this case a precision approach would have been any better. They ran into
>> a clearly plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved
>> height for that sector/part of the approach.
>>
>>
>
> I agree that precision approaches preferable to nonprecision approaches,
> but the bottom line is that actually flying either type of approach is
> more difficult than necessary, given what current technology makes
> possible. The amount of effort necessary to fly approaches safely in IMC
> even under normal conditions is very high. It is way too easy to lose
> situational awareness. What we need is to demand faster development and
> adoption of synthetic vision and Highway in the Sky symbology in cockpits.
>
> I've flown extremely complicated approaches (curving around mountains,
> etc.) down to very low minimums in a research simulator equipped with
> Rockwell Colins' future synthetic vision system. It turned hard IMC to a
> bright sunny, day VFR pleasure flight, with a display that showed where
> all terrain and obstruction were. Folow the boxes and don't fly into
> anything brown that looks like a mountain, and you're fine. The flight
> management system that drives the displays depends on solid state Attitude
> Heading Reference System (solid state gyros) and precision GPS (GPS +
> WAAS) but also integrates barometric altimeter and terrestrial navigation
> aids. The GPS, however, is generally the most precise navigation
> instrument available.
>
> The technology is available, and the faster we get it into cockpits the
> more lives we'll save. I find it unfortunate that we still have the
> attitude that training alone will solve all our problems. The accident
> record clearly shows that even well trained crews can lose situational
> awareness in perfectly healthy airplanes. The fact is that there are
> human factor issues involved in just about every fatal IMC accident, and
> THOSE HAVE BEEN SOLVED with synthetic vision. There should be no
> technological hurdles to implementation of this technology in even the
> smallest GA aircraft. In fact, I can foresee the Garmin G-X000 replacing
> the dirt and sky attitude indicator with a SV display. It would be a
> matter of changing software. A change that will save lives!
>
> -Aviv
>

And who is going to pay for your silver bullet? Is this stuff so reliable
that you can ignore failure? What happens when it fails? Your argument
about "training alone will solve all our problems" can be thrown right back
at you with "Do you really think that ,insert technology/methodology of your
choice> will solve all our problems?" You seem to claim "synthetic vision"
will do it. I have yet to be convinced, but perhaps it will.

Regardless, I was only stating, contrary to previous posters, another
approach to the airport would not have helped - the pilots (for whatever
reason) picked the the worst place to fly and found the highest piece of
terrain on the approach chart and flew into it. That is a problem.

It could not be solved by adding more approaches and spending more money on
flight testing another GPS approach.

>
>

[Richard Hertz]

"Icebound" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
> et...
>>
>> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>>
>>> john smith wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
>>>> Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
>>>> miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to
>>>> qualify."
>>>
>>> Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.
>>
>> Hardly - when you are talking about the pilots, equipment and approaches
>> they have at their disposal. This is much different than some private
>> pilot wanting to beat home a lowering cloud deck at night or trying to
>> beat a t storm...
>>
>
> Not at all different.

Yes sir, it is.

>
> No matter how good the pilots, equipment, and approach equipment is , it
> can still be insufficient to successfully execute the approach and be in a
> position to land when the runway pops into view.
>
> So, do we go a little below posted minimums, 'cause we might still break
> through?
> If we pop out high, do we steepen our descent and try to make what's left
> of the runway????
> Do we attempt to keep the runway in sight with a below-limits circle???...
>
> (Everybody here tell me that you have never tried one or more of the above
> and managed it successfully, and if you did it once, why not again).

Never. That might be why I am alive and some other folks aren't.

>
> Remember, practice (or qualifying, or photo-shoot, or...) starts in an
> hour.... If we overshoot, we may not do any better on the next try and
> will have to divert.

So divert. You will not run into the ground. We are not talking about that
situation here anyway. We are talking about being at 2000 feet bewlow the
suggested altitude 7 miles or so away from the airport and failed to climb
and failed to turn on the missed procedure. Now that sounds to me like they
did everything wrong except the silly scenarios you mentioned.

>
> Different conditions, maybe, but still the same potential for
> "have-to-get-there". More dangerous than the Cessna beating the cloud
> deck, because the tolerance for error is much smaller, and the financial
> consequence much greater.

I don't give a rat's ass about financial consequence. There were no drivers
on that plane. No one "had" to be there. I don't know how you can say more
dangerous or more worth risking life for - sort of reminds me of the Jack
Nicholson quote from "A few good men" - "grave danger? Is there any other
kind?"

Your argument is horse ****.

>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Morgans]

"zatatime" > wrote > >
>
> I was thinking about a standard GPS (LNAV) approach, but fully agree
> on the LPV type of approach adding more safety and ability. I'm not
> real familiar with those, but aren't they fairly new, and thre's only
> one GPS that is certified for them at this point? I'm sure the way
> the teams spend money, they'll all have them as soon as possible, but
> will there be enough approaches to make it money well spent? Seems
> like its still a few years off to me, but again I admit I don't have
> the lo down on them.
>
> Thanks for the explanation.
>
> z

True, but the Garmin 480 (and 580) is , and it seems that such an up to date
operation would have at least one of these. Garmin also has a page that
highlights all of the terrain higher than the aircraft (or on the present
climb/descent profile) as red, right? Seems like controlled flight into
terrain would be pretty tough with that running, and synthetic vision is not
even needed.

Lots of unanswered questions, that may never be answered.

Still I agree with a recent article in AOPA, that someone (forgot who) was
urging the FAA to get busy releasing approaches for those airports that do
not have precision approaches through conventional aids, and not waste time
on those who already have ILS in place.

Is a letter writing campaign from grass roots GA, to the FAA, on this
subject due? What do you all think?
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/28/2004

[Morgans]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote

Snip

No one has yet pointed out why
> another approach to this airport would be useful or how it would have
helped
> in this case.

Snip

Lower minimums with a LPV in place, might have gotten them low enough to not
have to execute a missed. That would have been helpful, since if they were
on the runway, flight into terrain would have been *much* more difficult.
--
Jim in NC


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/28/2004

[Aviv Hod]

Richard Hertz wrote:
>
>
> And who is going to pay for your silver bullet?

Obviously, it will be paid for by owners and pilots, just like every
other piece of equipment. This is the way it should be. However, right
now, SV not widely available and costs a lot mainly because of very
high barriers to entry caused by the FAA bureaucracy. In the interest
of having absolute control over standards and process, the FAA slows
down the new product introduction process and makes it unprofitable to
deliver to market without a huge "certification premium". This is a
problem that can be minimized if not eliminated, if we could only find a
way to pressure the FAA to reform.

One nice thing about SV is that it does not depend on its full benefits
being delivered at some future time when everyone has it, like ADS-B or
TCAS. When you have it, you can benefit from it. Simple as that. I
think SV will be the "next big thing" precisely because of this. If I
were in the market for a new airplane, I would wait for SV glass
cockpits to become available.

>Is this stuff so reliable
> that you can ignore failure?

Absolutely not!

> What happens when it fails?

There is no way to IGNORE failure. The engineers that put these things
together therefore are very diligent to provide a robust system that is
both fault tolerant, and very reliable to begin with. In fact, what I
said about the G1000 becoming a Gx000 with SV should remind you that the
SV only minimally complicates the system, and reliability issues are
really exactly the same as the current G1000 or any other advanced
cockpit system. Synthetic vision is merely more advanced symbology
running on a very similar system to currently certified and flying glass
cockpits, which have acceptable failure modes and redundancies.

Failures should never be ignored, and I contend that looking at the
current system, failure IS ignored with respect to the human factors of
the non-SV cockpit. The system interacts in such a way that too many
pilots lose situational awareness with perfectly running instruments.
That IS FAILURE.

It's a situation very similar to a gear squat switch. A problem was
identified with pilots getting confused between the flaps and gear
switches. They lose situational awareness for a split moment, and
despite all their experience and training, continue to make the
expensive mistake of pulling the gear on roll out or when taxiing back
to the ramp. Will more training help this situation out? Unlikely.
Pilots who make this mistake know where the switches are, but simply
mess up just that one time. What is the solution? Simple - change the
design of the interface so that it is unlikely to confuse one switch
from another. Don't make all the switches look the same, and locate
them in positions unlikely to be confused for something else. Better
yet, don't allow pilots to make the mistake in the first place by giving
them feedback about which switch they're on by not allowing the gear to
go up with weight on the wheels. Could this mechanism fail, causing the
original problem to occur? Sure! But for every failure of the
mechanism, many more would have avoided the mistake. By changing the
interface we decrease the failure rate, even though we're using the same
exact hardware! We have to look at the whole picture.


There is in my opinion an unhealthy attitude in the FAA and the aviation
community that does not weigh the overall benefits of introducing a
clearly safety inducing innovation into the cockpit versus the
possibility of technical failure. A classic example is the recent FAA
rule proposal (I'm not sure it passed) that mandated the use of a child
safety seat on commercial airliners. Sounds like a great idea, right -
the kids would be safer in a safety seat, no? But you have to look at
the overall effect. Since infants were allowed in the past to sit on a
parent's lap, and now would be required to be in and pay for a separate
seat, there will be a certain number of people that would opt to drive
instead of fly. The overall risk of driving versus airline travel is so
much higher, that statistically you would expect that many more kids
will die traveling by car because of the new "safety" regulation on
airlines.

Similarly, the FAA continues to regulate to such a high extent, that we
continue to fly with radios and instruments that were certified 30 years
ago, and likewise display reliability and quality from that era. It's
so expensive to go through the certification process that the majority
of us miss out on huge jumps in reliability and capability. In the case
of radios, it's mostly an annoyance. In the case of attitude
indicators and vacuum systems, it can be fatal. I haven't heard of
anyone at the FAA ever studying the overall effects of the system on
safety, even though there must be one, because pilots don't upgrade
equipment for economic reasons that are substantially increased by the
FAA process. Just like in the case of the airline child seat question,
the FAA should study this and act accordingly. (Yeah, I know...
Wishful thinking...)


> Your argument
> about "training alone will solve all our problems" can be thrown right back
> at you with "Do you really think that ,insert technology/methodology of your
> choice> will solve all our problems?" You seem to claim "synthetic vision"
> will do it. I have yet to be convinced, but perhaps it will.
>

I never said that SV is a silver bullet. All it does is reduce the
cognitive workload of the pilot from IMC to essentially virtual VMC.
Statistically, I believe this will save lives. CFIT accidents occur at
a much lower rate in VFR conditions than IFR conditions, despite many
more less trained and experienced pilots flying less capable equipment.
So statistically, I would expect that the number of CFIT accidents due
to loss of situational awareness would go down dramatically. That is
all I want. SV will not be a silver bullet because it can't make up for
stupid pilots making bad decisions (or highly unlucky pilots that don't
manage to break the accident chain), so we'll still have accidents. But
at least a good chunk of highly fatal CFIT accidents can be reduced.


> Regardless, I was only stating, contrary to previous posters, another
> approach to the airport would not have helped - the pilots (for whatever
> reason) picked the the worst place to fly and found the highest piece of
> terrain on the approach chart and flew into it. That is a problem.
>

We actually agree here, and this is what I said earlier - it didn't
matter much whether they flew a precision or non precision approach.
The problem is that they lost situational awareness and flew into the
highest piece of terrain on the approach chart. Would they have done
that with if they could see the mountain? No? Then I dare say that SV
would probably have saved them. The interface is just so dang intuitive
that it's much harder to miss the mountain that fills up the display,
even if you manage to blow the approach.

This is, in fact, the biggest reason that SV provides a higher level of
safety. Current approaches and interfaces are more difficult to use,
but are perfectly safe if you don't blow the approach, and can keep the
needles centered. However, if for one reason or another you can't
manage to keep it all in line, you find yourself off the approach in a
somewhat ambiguous situation. How do you know where you are with
respect to the obstruction on the chart exactly? If you're 4 dots away
from centerline to the right and 2.2 miles away from the VOR, and blew
the approach, can you point on the chart to exactly where you are? If
you can, bravo. Now point out the window exactly where that antenna
was. Or that mountain. It's just hard to do, and that's why pilots get
in trouble. With SV, you have precision "guidance" even if you're way
off the approach, and you can more easily avoid hazards.

> It could not be solved by adding more approaches and spending more money on
> flight testing another GPS approach.
>

I don't know about this particular terrain, but I would argue that there
is potential for making approaches safer in certain instances by routing
the approach over valleys, maximizing the distance from the mountains
and obstructions in the area. That would typically require more
complicated approaches that curve around mountains, like the approach
that I, a VFR pilot, was able to do with no more instrument training
than the private PTS by using an SV cockpit. Again, I don't think this
is a silver bullet, for cost and other reasons, but it can be another
initiative that I anticipate will increase the overall safety record.

-Aviv

[C Kingsbury]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> Not a red herring at all. Precision approaches are "safer" if flown
> correctly, but since this crew was not able to fly the localizer and
missed
> properly, how can they be expected to fly any other one?

Maybe because the other one provides more positive vertical guidance. An
approach with vertical guidance to the runway end offers fewer opportunities
to screw up. Therefore it is more likely that the approach will be flown
correctly.


> I responded to
> this other person who objected to me doing what he thought was speaking
ill
> of the dead. Again, I see no reason to belive that in this case a
> precision approach would have been any better. They ran into a clearly
> plotted bit of terrain that is 2000 feet below the approved height for
that
> sector/part of the approach.

There is a question of intent here. I agree that if you willingly bust
minimums or go sniffing around where you shouldn't be that no magical
approach will save your ass. But we do know that circling to land at night
near minimums is a much more dangerous place to be than coming down an ILS
to even lower altitudes. It is likely that many accidents that happen on
non-precision approaches would not happen on a precision approach. Therefore
the publishing of LPV approaches should be seen as a safety issue and not
just a matter of utility. That's my point and I'm sticking to it.

-cwk.

[Icebound]

"Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
. net...
>
> "Icebound" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Richard Hertz" <no one@no one.com> wrote in message
>> et...
>>>
>>> "G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> john smith wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
>>>>> Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
>>>>> miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to
>>>>> qualify."
>>>>
>>>> Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.
>>>
>>> Hardly - when you are talking about the pilots, equipment and approaches
>>> they have at their disposal. This is much different than some private
>>> pilot wanting to beat home a lowering cloud deck at night or trying to
>>> beat a t storm...
>>>
>>
>> Not at all different.
>
> Yes sir, it is.
>
....snip...
>
> Your argument is horse ****.
>


Whoa-ho.... you seem to have misread my post completely. You seemed to imply
that there ARE NO "get-there" pressures. My argument is simply that the
"get-there" pressures are there. I never said it was worth risking life
for, succumbing to the pressure, or even worth considering it..... (where
the hell did you get THAT from my post??).

And I applaud you for never doing so. But can *all* the pilots in this ng
say the same?

I am certain that NASCAR pilots recognize those pressures more than most,
and that they are very professional about avoiding them.

As for this *particular* accident, there has been no information yet that
suggests *any* cause to me, mechanical OR operational.... nor do I expect
any for many months.