182 crash at GON

[Gary Drescher]

http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2005/06/27/four_dead_in_small_plane_crash/

The reported crash site looks like it was near the DA point for GON ILS 5.
The plane's owner is a commercial instrument pilot, according to the FAA's
database.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2005/06/27/four_dead_in_small_plane_crash/
>
> The reported crash site looks like it was near the DA point for GON ILS 5.
> The plane's owner is a commercial instrument pilot, according to the FAA's
> database.

The NTSB now has a preliminary report on this one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?ev_id=20050706X00942&key=1

The pilot seemed confused: on his first ILS approach, he requested a
"circle-to-land" after breaking out off-course at 200'. After going missed,
he went off course again on the next approach and crashed a mile from the
runway. He never mentioned any mechanical problems; other pilots reported no
difficulty with the ILS before and after the crash. The ceiling was at the
ILS minimum, but the weather was otherwise benign.

When this sort of thing happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if CO
poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

--Gary

[Richard Kaplan]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote > When this sort of thing
happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
> CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if CO
> poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

Or just lack of recent IMC experience. Or in fact if he EVER flew an ILS to
minimums at all in actual weather -- no IMC is required to get an IFR
rating. How much and how recently he flew in IMC conditions would be a
valid question to ask.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1120751520.3709114750bf2b30df5d880f7f0429e7@t eranews...
>
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote > When this sort of thing
> happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
>> CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if
>> CO poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.
>
> Or just lack of recent IMC experience. Or in fact if he EVER flew an ILS
> to minimums at all in actual weather -- no IMC is required to get an IFR
> rating. How much and how recently he flew in IMC conditions would be a
> valid question to ask.

I agree that's a valid question. But this guy is a 1400-hour CP-AS/MEL-IR
who owns a 182 and has done real flying (not just time-building instruction,
as some CFIs do; he wasn't a CFI) all over the country (friends reported he
"flew at least four times weekly... He flew organs for transplants... He
flew exchange students to San Diego or Las Vegas for a day... He was always
going off on a fly-away somewhere..."). So it'd be pretty astonishing if he
lacked extensive IMC experience.

And even a pilot who lacks recent IMC experience should at least be able to
go missed in benign conditions rather than crashing. But most peculiar of
all, in my view, was his request to "circle to land" while off-course under
a 200' ceiling, instead of going missed immediately. That's really hard to
understand, unless he was somehow impaired. (That wasn't the approach he
crashed on, but apparently something was already wrong.)

Still, I admit I'm just speculating.

--Gary

[Richard Kaplan]

"Gary Drescher" > wrote

> And even a pilot who lacks recent IMC experience should at least be able
to
> go missed in benign conditions rather than crashing. But most peculiar of

Many, many IFR pilots have never flown an approach to low IMC conditions.
In fact I would guess this is true of the majority of single-engine piston
IFR pilots and certainly it is true of many pilots from the Southwest.
Doing a missed approach in low IMC conditions is very different from an
emotional or mental perspective than doing so under the hood. This is pure
speculation, but if indeed this was the pilot's first-ever missed approach
in low IMC then that alone could explain what happened.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Gary Drescher]

"Richard Kaplan" > wrote in message
news:1120753627.1593ded429ac4976c51641c1b0c3388f@t eranews...
> Many, many IFR pilots have never flown an approach to low IMC conditions.
> In fact I would guess this is true of the majority of single-engine piston
> IFR pilots and certainly it is true of many pilots from the Southwest.
> Doing a missed approach in low IMC conditions is very different from an
> emotional or mental perspective than doing so under the hood. This is
> pure speculation, but if indeed this was the pilot's first-ever missed
> approach in low IMC then that alone could explain what happened.

I wish the NTSB report had said analyzed that possibility. (They apparently
had the pilot's logbook.)

--Gary

[Bob Moore]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
> Or just lack of recent IMC experience. Or in fact if he EVER flew an
> ILS to minimums at all in actual weather -- no IMC is required to get
> an IFR rating.

Richard, for someone in the instrument training business, I would
think that you would not refer to an "IFR rating". That puts you
on a level with all of the amateurs with their "PPL"s and "CPL"s.
This note is not intended for those of you in other parts of the
world where you indeed do have a "pilot license".
A couple of other points, in certain types of airspace, 4 miles of
visability and no cloud would constitute IMC.

From the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:

"Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Meteorological
conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance
from cloud, and ceiling less than the minimums specified for
visual meteorological conditions, requiring operations to be
conducted under IFR."

Again from the Instrument Flying Handbook:

"Holding the Instrument Rating does not necessarily make you
a competent weather pilot. The rating certifies only that you
have complied with the minimum experience requirements,
that you can plan and execute a flight under IFR, that you
can execute basic instrument maneuvers, and that you have
shown acceptable skill and judgment in performing these activities.
Your Instrument Rating permits you to fly into
instrument weather conditions with no previous instrument
weather experience. Your Instrument Rating is issued on the
assumption that you have the good judgment to avoid
situations beyond your capabilities."

I consider "Weather Flying" to be an entirely separate subject from
the Instrument Training course which I teach to the PTS standards.
If I find that a students airplane is adequately equipped and Wx
conditions are satisfactory, I will provide "Weather Flying" instruction
if desired, AFTER the student has obtained an Instrument Rating.

As I have pointed out previously in the newsgroups, I, and every other
Naval Aviator that left Advanced Training in Kingsville, TX, were
launched off into the wild-not-so-blue younder, fully qualified to
takeoff, approach, and land in 100-1/4 conditions in "really high"
performance aircraft without so-much-as a single minute of "flying in
the clouds" time.

We just need better instructors and better training in the civilian
world. Better use of "real" simulators and doing away with "joyriding"
with a safety pilot and counting it as instruction.

My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
Teaching Instrument Flying since 1962

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
> professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)

--Gary

[Richard Kaplan]

I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

As for your issue with flying in IMC conditions solo with no prior
experience in actual weather, we have discussed many times in the past that
in the military you were supervised considerably and in fact did not have
dispatch authority. So you had someone watching you who knew your recent
experience level and the weather at hand. That is totally different than
the current world where an "instrument rating" is a license to dispatch
oneself as well as to fly the mission.


--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

[Bob Moore]

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
> I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
> Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.

And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...


> As for your issue with flying in IMC conditions solo with no prior
> experience in actual weather, we have discussed many times in the past
> that in the military you were supervised considerably and in fact did
> not have dispatch authority. So you had someone watching you who knew
> your recent experience level and the weather at hand. That is totally
> different than the current world where an "instrument rating" is a
> license to dispatch oneself as well as to fly the mission.

That might have been the theory, but in practice, if your name was
on the schedule, you went flying.

Bob Moore

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Richard Kaplan" wrote
>> I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
>> Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.
>
> And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...


Did you have any question in your mind what he was talking about when he
wrote "IFR Rating"? No, I din't think so and neither did anyone else who
read it.

Hell, one of the books you quoted said IFR Rating.

[RST Engineering]

Not to mention "visibility" instead of "visability" and "take off" instead
of "takeoff".

Jim





"Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
...
> "Bob Moore" > wrote in message
> . 122...
>> My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
>> professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.
>
> In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)
>
> --Gary
>
>

[Richard Kaplan]

> That might have been the theory, but in practice, if your name was
> on the schedule, you went flying.

OK so you are now making my point even better than I did regarding the
difference in acceptable risk vs. reward standards between military and
civilian flying. Certainly you will agree that the above weather assessment
strategy is not acceptable for a civilian pilot and that a military pilot
transitioning to civilian aviation would benefit from some sort of training
regarding the differences in military and civilian risk management...do you
not agree?

[Gary Drescher]

"Bob Moore" > wrote in message
. 122...
> "Richard Kaplan" wrote
>> I think "IFR Rating" is common enough a term to be well understood.
>> Effective communication is key and I think that does it quite well.
>
> And if we all use the terms that the issuing agency does...

Bob, I'm all for using correct terminology; I can be as pedantic as the next
person. :) But there's nothing incorrect about "IFR rating"--it's a
perfectly accurate description of the rating.

Similarly, there's nothing incorrect about "private pilot license".
"License" is even one of the terms that the issuing agency uses (though it
would be correct even if not); see, for example,
http://www.faa.gov/pilots/lic_cert/change/.

--Gary

[Morgans]

"RST Engineering" > wrote in message
...
> Not to mention "visibility" instead of "visability" and "take off" instead
> of "takeoff".
<chuckle>

What is the old bit? Those in glass houses?

Without BOb around, seems like nobody regularly points out things, like he
so loved to do. He stomped me pretty good, a few times, (in an amusing sort
of way, *kinda* <g>) and while I still make mistakes, (fewer, I think) I am
very hesitant to point out others, else get the treatment you just tossed
out!

Where is the ole' goat, anyway?
--
Jim in NC

[RST Engineering]

No.

Those in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.

{;-)

Jim





"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> What is the old bit? Those in glass houses?

[[email protected]]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Gary Drescher" > wrote in message
> ...
> > http://www.boston.com/news/local/connecticut/articles/2005/06/27/four_dead_in_small_plane_crash/
> >
>
> When this sort of thing happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
> CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if CO
> poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

Does experience make you immune to spatial disorientation? These were
certainly the conditions to produce it, especially for someone from
Phoenix. I'm a newbie and it's quite possible that I have more actual
instrument hours from 3 years of flying in New England than a 1400-hour
pilot from Arizona does.

Maybe his number just came up. I know the FAA calls this a hazardous
attitude (i.e. "resignation") but Ernie Gann said it best, "fate is the
hunter." This is in my mind the real "risk" of flying, that no matter
how hard you try to do things right, there is still that chance that
some day the universe will decide to punch your ticket for no
particular reason. For more information, contact your local
preacher-man.

-cwk.

[Wizard of Draws]

On 7/7/05 6:36 PM, in article , "RST
Engineering" > spewed:

>
> Those in grass houses shouldn't stow thrones.
>

Hugh, and only Hugh, can prevent florist friars.
--
Jeff 'The Wizard of Draws' Bucchino

Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.wizardofdraws.com

More Cartoons with a Touch of Magic�
http://www.cartoonclipart.com

[Peter R.]

> wrote:

> Does experience make you immune to spatial disorientation?

Experience should make an instrument pilot more adept at quickly diagnosing
and then disregarding the confusion brought on by spatial disorientation.

--
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 =----

[Montblack]

("Gary Drescher" wrote)
>> [Bob Moore]
>> My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
>> professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

> In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)


I'm cool with "ascribes" in this case. Had to look at it a number of times
to
see if it fit. Yes, I think it fits.

www.dictionary.com (ascribe)
2. To assign as a quality or characteristic: "was quick to ascribe jealousy
to her critics."

I also think "aspires" takes the original thought in a different direction -
one of yearning to someday become professional, as opposed to announcing
you're already there.

With ascribed, you've assigned yourself that quality - professionalism.
You're signed up. You're a subscriber to the requirements it takes to be, or
appear to be, professional.


Montblack
Sent this sucker through three different spell checkers :-)

[Gary Drescher]

"Montblack" > wrote in message
...
> ("Gary Drescher" wrote)
>>> [Bob Moore]
>>> My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
>>> professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.
>
>> In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)
>
> I'm cool with "ascribes" in this case...
> With ascribed, you've assigned yourself that quality - professionalism.

No, not as Bob put it; look again. It would be proper to speak of ascribing
professionalism to oneself. But that's not what Bob said. He spoke instead
of "ascribing to professionalism". That makes no sense. (Ascribing *what* to
professionalism?) In contrast, "If one *aspires* to X, one must do Y" is a
standard formulation.

--Gary

[Tony]

The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to
land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out.
Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200
foot ceiling. Also, for those without a lot of 'actual' time, take that
"expect to fly the miss" seriously. My experience is that about 5
percent of my IMC approaches (I flew a lot in New England, often to
uncontrolled airports) were misses, and expecting to "fly runway
heading to 1100 feet, right turn" etc is a lot less confusing than
expecting to see the runway and then having to consult the approach
plate at a faily busy time.

That's my story and I'm sticking to it(and await the grammer police
with a grin on my face, but Mooney jocks usually have a grin on their
face).

[Gary Drescher]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> That's my story and I'm sticking to it (and await the grammer police
> with a grin on my face, but Mooney jocks usually have a grin on their
> face).

Don't worry--I, for one, consider it impolite to correct others' grammar,
except when they themselves are lecturing on proper usage. :-)

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to
> land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out.
> Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
> often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
> expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
> accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200
> foot ceiling.

Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal or
safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about elementary
IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the
subsequent approach).

--Gary

[[email protected]]

Gary Drescher wrote:
> "Tony" > wrote in message
> oups.com...
> > The other thing about the OP's note is the pilot asked for circle to
> > land after flying the ILS to what sounds like MDA before breaking out.
> > Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
> > often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
> > expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
> > accident. We'd just not consider requesting circle to land under a 200
> > foot ceiling.
>
> Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal or
> safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about elementary
> IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the
> subsequent approach).

OK, I agree on this specific point. My OP on "getting your ticket
punched" was more addressed at the suggestion that a 1400 hour pilot
was unlikely to be involved in a fairly common, garden-variety accident
mode. I still think it's grasping at straws to suggest that it was CO
poisonin or a medical, but I suppose one could make a case for it. I
still think the fact he was from Phoenix says an awful lot,
potentially.

-cwk.

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
ups.com...
> Gary Drescher wrote:
>> Exactly. A "circle to land" under a 200' ceiling can't possibly be legal
>> or
>> safe, so the very request already shows serious confusion about
>> elementary
>> IFR procedure (even though the crash itself didn't occur until the
>> subsequent approach).
>
> OK, I agree on this specific point. My OP on "getting your ticket
> punched" was more addressed at the suggestion that a 1400 hour pilot
> was unlikely to be involved in a fairly common, garden-variety accident
> mode. I still think it's grasping at straws to suggest that it was CO
> poisonin or a medical, but I suppose one could make a case for it. I
> still think the fact he was from Phoenix says an awful lot,
> potentially.

Ordinarily I'd agree, but the testimonials about his flying all over the
place (not just in Arizona) suggest more familiarity with IMC than I'd be
inclined to assume just from his hours and certificates. But yeah, I
probably am grasping at straws--there just doesn't seem to be a really good
explanation yet for this crash.

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

Oh, I should add that one reason I thought of pilot incapacitation is that
this crash reminded me of a similar fatality at KBED a couple of years ago.
There too, a very experienced pilot crashed in benign IMC after exhibiting
serious confusion during his first approach. In *that* case, the NTSB
reported that a shaving kit found in the pilot's baggage contained used
diabetes paraphernalia (even though the pilot, a physician, had not
disclosed diabetes to his AME).

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief2.asp?ev_id=20031010X01704&ntsbno=NYC03FA205&akey=1

--Gary

[Gary Drescher]

"Tony" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Fate punching one's ticket happens, but those of us who fly SEL in IMC
> often (at least if they were trained as I was) fly the approach
> expecting to fly the miss and treat finding the runway as a happy
> accident.

Yup. And even if the you forget to brief the missed approach, it still
should be instinctive, once you know an approach has been botched, to climb
using the final-approach heading (or just *any* heading) and then, when the
climb is stable a few seconds later, to consult the chart or the tower to
find out what to do next. That's especially true in this case since GON is
in a flat coastal area, as the pilot would've known from even the most
cursory preflight planning.

--Gary

[[email protected]]

That's interesting. I'm based at BED and remember that crash pretty
well. The report doesn't draw any specific connection (nor did I see it
call the items "used") but a 6.4% A1C would be consistent with
diabetes.

Best,
-cwk.

[Gary Drescher]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> That's interesting. I'm based at BED and remember that crash pretty
> well. The report doesn't draw any specific connection (nor did I see it
> call the items "used")

It said "The Concord Police Department found a diabetic test kit, including
a glucose test meter... The glucose test meter was read out at the
manufacturer's facility under the supervision of an FAA airworthiness
inspector. The readings were consistent with a diabetic person." So the test
meter must've been used.

--Gary