Prelim NTSB report, Pilatus accident in PA

[vincent p. norris]

Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
NTSB report:

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1

vince norris

[Jay Honeck]

vincent p. norris wrote:
> Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
> NTSB report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1

Boy, that's a strange one. It sure sounds like he just lost control,
and that ice wasn't a factor.

Heart attack? Stroke?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jay Masino]

Jay Honeck > wrote:
> vincent p. norris wrote:
>> Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
>> NTSB report:
>>
>> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1
>
> Boy, that's a strange one. It sure sounds like he just lost control,
> and that ice wasn't a factor.
>
> Heart attack? Stroke?

Why assume a medical problem? He may have just F'ed up, and got
disoriented beyond recovery prior to breaking out of the clouds. This
is why you and I don't fly our families IFR.

--- Jay


--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Jim Burns]

If it wasn't for this line: Visual flap examination, and flap lever and worm
drive positions revealed that the flaps were up. I would speculate on
differential flap deployment.

Icing in the area, but not found on the plane make me think of tail plane
icing and a possible tail plane stall when slowing for the approach.

Truly a tragedy and a mystery.
Jim

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
> NTSB report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1
>
> vince norris

[Gene Seibel]

Visual meteorological conditions prevailed.
--
Gene Seibel
Hangar 131 - http://pad39a.com/gene/plane.html
Because I fly, I envy no one.

[Jay Masino]

Gene Seibel > wrote:
> Visual meteorological conditions prevailed.

The ceiling was still 1700 overcast, so he (atleast) started the approach
in the clouds.

--
__!__
Jay and Teresa Masino ___(_)___
http://www2.ari.net/jmasino ! ! !
http://www.oceancityairport.com
http://www.oc-adolfos.com

[Blueskies]

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message ...
> Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
> NTSB report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1
>
> vince norris

It went in 4 days after he went through recurrent training. I wonder what the extent of the training was?

[Blueskies]

Ice...

"vincent p. norris" > wrote in message ...
> Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
> NTSB report:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1
>
> vince norris

[Peter Duniho]

"Jay Masino" > wrote in message
...
> [...] This is why you and I don't fly our families IFR.

I thought Jay H.'s reason was that he didn't actually have an instrument
rating?

[George Patterson]

Peter Duniho wrote:
> "Jay Masino" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>[...] This is why you and I don't fly our families IFR.
>
>
> I thought Jay H.'s reason was that he didn't actually have an instrument
> rating?

IIRC, one of the main reasons he doesn't have one is that he would never fly in
IMC with his family in the plane. Something about not trusting the vacuum system.

George Patterson
Whosoever bloweth not his own horn, the same shall remain unblown.

[vincent p. norris]

>The ceiling was still 1700 overcast, so he (atleast) started the approach
>in the clouds.

If he was on final approach, inside the marker, his heading should
have been 240; bu tone witness reported seeing him flying NE. He must
have been below the ceiling, in VMC, at that time.

Perhaps that report is wrong; they often are. If it is correct, it is
very puzzling since he was within sight of the airport.

Sorry, I won't be able to respond to any questions; I'm leaving the
country tomorow for six weeks.

vince norris

[Jay Honeck]

Well, not exactly. Although vacuum systems are ridiculously prone to
failure, my reasons for not finishing my instrument training are:

1. Time. I was signed off to take the test back in '02 . Then we
bought the hotel, and my time ceased being my own.

2. Utility. I have carefully tracked the weather since '02, to see what
weather I would have flown in with an IR that I wouldn't have flown in
VFR. In those nearly three years, we have not scrubbed a single flight
that I would have flown in with my instrument ticket, simply because a
Piper Pathfinder doesn't have de-icing equipment, and I can't wrestle
with thunderstorms in a Cherokee.

Because instrument weather around here consists primarily of either
(a) icing

*or*

(b) thunderstorms (usually embedded), my instrument ticket would not
enhance my flying much.

3. Proficiency. Because of this very lack of utility, I fear that one
of two things would happen to me:

(a) I would feel compelled to practice instrument flight regularly, in
order to remain proficient. Instrument flying under the hood is not
something I enjoy, and -- given my extremely limited time -- would take
precious time away from the family flying that I currently am able to
do.

*or*

(b) I would simply not use it very often, and then -- when I really
needed it -- I would not be proficient at it. A non-proficient
instrument pilot in the clouds is a very scary thought.

So, some day, when my life slows down, I will finish up my instrument
training -- not because I believe it's essential, or even because I
think that it will enhance the utility of my airplane, because I know
both of these statements are untrue.

When I get the IR, it will be because I want to -- plain and simple --
or because I've purchased a Pilatus (or better) that can truly fly in
the clouds in the Midwest.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[jsmith]

Oh come on now Jay! ;-)
I just flew 6.5 hours in beautiful VFR weather today on IFR flight
plans. There was the possibility of fog at my initial destination, but
it burned off before we arrived.
For this trip, it was more expeditious to file IFR due to transiting
Class B airspace enroute.
Takeoff, climb, cruise, set the autopilot, descend, land.
Two weeks ago, I took off in VFR conditions but had to air-file to
continue to my destination. I then shot an approach, breaking out 200
feet above the MDA. Had I not been instrument rated, I would have had to
turn back and return to my departure point.
With as many long cross-country trips that you make, you would have
greater flexibility in your travel plans.
You do not fly exclusively in Iowa, so to say that ice and thunderstorms
are the reasons you choose not to complete your instrument rating is
not as valid as you would like it to be.
A family trip to and from Florida promted me to get current four years
ago. We were in Savannah GA, got up at 7 am, the air was thick with
humidity and with no wind. By the time we ate, checked out and got to
the airport, the fog was thick on the ground. We waited four hours for
it to finally lift sufficiently and break up for a VFR departure. Had I
been current at that time, I would have waited only an hour for it to
lift above approach minimums (you always want to be able to get back in
if something should arise) and depart IFR.
JUST DO IT!

[Peter Duniho]

"jsmith" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> A family trip to and from Florida promted me to get current four years
> ago. We were in Savannah GA, got up at 7 am, the air was thick with
> humidity and with no wind. By the time we ate, checked out and got to the
> airport, the fog was thick on the ground. We waited four hours for it to
> finally lift sufficiently and break up for a VFR departure. Had I been
> current at that time, I would have waited only an hour for it to lift
> above approach minimums (you always want to be able to get back in if
> something should arise) and depart IFR.
> JUST DO IT!

While I agree that Jay would likely get more utility from an instrument
rating than he suggests, I also think that for someone flying
recreationally, ratings should be obtained as they are desired. As he
currently has no desire to get the rating, it's probably best he not waste
time on it. And it certainly is a time-consuming rating. The instrument
rating is roughly the same amount of work as the initial rating, IMHO.

Pete

[Jay Honeck]

> JUST DO IT!

That's the worst possible reason to get a rating, AFAIK.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[[email protected]]

Blueskies wrote:
> Ice...
>
> "vincent p. norris" > wrote in message
...
> > Fo those who inquired about this accident, here is the preliminary
> > NTSB report:
> >
> > http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20050331X00387&key=1
> >
> > vince norris


No post crash fire. No fuel?

....richie