Chicago lawyers plane found in Toronto harbour

[Wooduuuward]

I heard on the radio that a small plane from Chicago went missing in the fog
during a landing attempt at the Toronto City Centre Airport.
This morning I see in the newspaper that the plane and the pilot have been
located at the bottom of Lake Ontario. The plane was a Beechcraft that could
seat six people.
There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash, according
to the article.
I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor visibility, by the
construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a simple
receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway.
All of this technology is available, is it not?

[Rick Pellicciotti]

We have radio signals that parallel the runways, they are called localizers.
Light beams have been tried all the way back to before WWII without any
favorable outcomes.

Rick Pellicciotti

"Wooduuuward" > wrote in message
...
> I heard on the radio that a small plane from Chicago went missing in the
fog
> during a landing attempt at the Toronto City Centre Airport.
> This morning I see in the newspaper that the plane and the pilot have been
> located at the bottom of Lake Ontario. The plane was a Beechcraft that
could
> seat six people.
> There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash,
according
> to the article.
> I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor
visibility, by the
> construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a
simple
> receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing
over the runway.
> All of this technology is available, is it not?

[Morgans]

"Wooduuuward" > wrote in message
...
> I heard on the radio that a small plane from Chicago went missing in the
fog
> during a landing attempt at the Toronto City Centre Airport.
> This morning I see in the newspaper that the plane and the pilot have been
> located at the bottom of Lake Ontario. The plane was a Beechcraft that
could
> seat six people.
> There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash,
according
> to the article.
> I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor
visibility, by the
> construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a
simple
> receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing
over the runway.
> All of this technology is available, is it not?

Don't take this as a flame or a slam.

It is becoming more and more apparent to me (and others, I would think) that
you are new to aviation. As a place to learn, this is a great forum. I do
have a suggestion that will keep you from coming off as a know-it-all, or an
ass.

As in the case of this post, instead of suggesting a solution to a problem,
why not come out with a question, as to what is available? You will get
answers, but without making yourself look foolish.

In other words, be humble, confess that you don't know it all, and seek
answers. It will keep your reputation much less unstained.

YMMV.
--
Jim in NC

[Ernest Christley]

Wooduuuward wrote:
> receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing over the runway.
> All of this technology is available, is it not?

Yes it is. It's called a VASI. If you can't see that, you can't see a
laser beam either.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

[Peter Gottlieb]

Three disagreements with what you said:

1) Whatever the statistics say, it is purely wild speculation that it was
pilot error in this case.

2) I strongly disagree that technological innovations will not help reduce
pilot errors. Technology has made a huge difference.

3) Single pilot IFR is far from "as dangerous as it gets." Plenty of
flying activities are significantly more dangerous.




"Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message
news:3f0ee130$1@ham...
> Wrong. He was instrumented rated and his airplane was instrument
equipped.
> He was also a fairly accomplished aerobatic competitor and airshow pilot.
> There hasn't been nor will there ever be a technological solution to pilot
> error. Flying solo, in a complex airplane, in IFR conditions is about as
> dangerous as it gets.
>
> Rick Pellicciotti
>
> "Hal Davey" > wrote in message
> news:uKzPa.35615$H17.10623@sccrnsc02...
> > Sounds like a case of a non-instrument rated pilot trying to find the
> bottom
> > of the overcast. He did.
> > Cheers,
> > Hal Davey
> >
>
>

[Larry Smith]

"Peter Gottlieb" > wrote in message
et...
> Three disagreements with what you said:
>
> 1) Whatever the statistics say, it is purely wild speculation that it was
> pilot error in this case.
>
> 2) I strongly disagree that technological innovations will not help
reduce
> pilot errors. Technology has made a huge difference.
>
> 3) Single pilot IFR is far from "as dangerous as it gets." Plenty of
> flying activities are significantly more dangerous.
>
>
>
>
> "Rick Pellicciotti" > wrote in message
> news:3f0ee130$1@ham...
> > Wrong. He was instrumented rated and his airplane was instrument
> equipped.
> > He was also a fairly accomplished aerobatic competitor and airshow
pilot.
> > There hasn't been nor will there ever be a technological solution to
pilot
> > error. Flying solo, in a complex airplane, in IFR conditions is about
as
> > dangerous as it gets.
> >
> > Rick Pellicciotti
> >
> > "Hal Davey" > wrote in message
> > news:uKzPa.35615$H17.10623@sccrnsc02...
> > > Sounds like a case of a non-instrument rated pilot trying to find the
> > bottom
> > > of the overcast. He did.
> > > Cheers,
> > > Hal Davey

Thanks for a voice of reason.

[Larry Smith]

<clare @ snyder.on .ca> wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 20:39:28 GMT, Ernest Christley
> > wrote:
>
> >Wooduuuward wrote:
> >> receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing
over the runway.
> >> All of this technology is available, is it not?
> >
> >Yes it is. It's called a VASI. If you can't see that, you can't see a
> >laser beam either.
> Toronto Island is a tricky airport. Between the smog of Hogtown and
> the weather overLlake Ontario, there are a LOT of poor visibility
> days. Single Pilot IFR is not TOO dangerous if you are an accomplished
> IFR pilot and familiar with the airport. You want to be GOOD at the
> IFR thing. Being good takes lots of practice.
> Remember the Bonanzas?
> Lots of Doctors and lawyers

Nope. Not lawyers. They're fork-tailed doctor killers.

I like doctors but they are remiss at gassing up. Mostimes they run out of
fuel. Hell. One ran out of fuel and landed his B00nanza in the lot at
Epcot Center.

[C J Campbell]

Many runways have localizers or other radio aids to help aircraft land. The
most precise of these is the ILS system, which allows you to not only track
in to the runway, but also guides you down in altitude as well. GPS with
WAAS promises such precision approaches will someday be available at
airports that do not have expensive ILS equipment.

There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any
kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want
to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of
some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all
Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own. This is
why in movies you not only see laser beams, but also bullets always flash
when they hit something, people can outrun shock waves, and people can stand
around in shorts and without oxygen masks in a cargo plane that has the
doors open in flight, but the hero needs oxygen and a protective suit the
moment he leaves the airplane. You cannot shine a laser beam at an airplane
cockpit because it might blind the pilot. The same fog or clouds that render
an airport invisible will also obscure a laser beam.

[Jim Vadek]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
...

> :There has been no known reason, as yet, as to the cause of the crash,
according
> :to the article.
> :I think this type of crash may be preventable, if it was due to poor
visibility, by the
> :construction of radio signal buoys parallel to the runways lights and a
simple
> :receiver on board light aircraft. Or visible laser beams criss crossing
over the runway.
> :All of this technology is available, is it not?
>
> Easily preventable, it just takes money. Good IFR instruments and a
> rated pilot would take care of it.
>
> The new GPS terrain aware maps, and terrain view horizions, would have
> prevented it easily. But they aren't cheap.

You should offer your services to the NTSB since you know the reason for
this accident without even seeing the aircraft or knowing anything else
about the circumstances.

[Wooduuuward]

The area was fogged in at the time of the crash.

C J Campbell wrote:
> snip. . .
> There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any
> kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want
> to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of
> some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all
> Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own.P

[Larry Smith]

"Richard Riley" > wrote in message
> As far as the NTSB is concerned, I've been there and done that. My
> work is with TSA and DHS now.

Hotdayyum, and acronym from rdhr, Mr. acronym himself.

[clare @ snyder.on .ca]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:33:26 -0400, Wooduuuward >
wrote:

>Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
>I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
>"hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
>you're too low, Dave "
>Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
>up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
>should not be that difficult. My own computer talks at me sometimes
>if I forget to close an appl. or something.
>I think a new look at how things are done could cheat gravity and leave
>a family with a dad.
>
>clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:
>>
>> Gravity is like the RCMP, always gets it's man.
Yeah, I have to admit to that one being mine.

Only problem with your suggestion is I have yet to meet a computer I
totally trust my life to. This one is NOT mine, but I'll use it
anyway.

"To err is human, to really screw something up takes a computer."

I work with the little demons day in and day out, and, like a woman
(this one is mine), just when you think you've got them all figured
out, they surprize you AGAIN!.

That said, a computerized checklist that reminds you is a good idea.
The use of a GPS to give the altimeter a sanity check also makes sense
- but as I said before, flying into an unfamiliar airport under poor
conditions in thick IFR is NOT the time for a lone pilot to be taking
on an extra workload.
Another one I can't take credit for:
"Takeoffs are optional, Landings are mandatory".
Make sure your landing site is clear or you have other options (like
lots of fuel to take you elsewhere) before taking off. Hamilton,
Brantford, Buttonville, Brampton, and numerous other airports within
less than 50 miles were in VFR at the time of the crash. Hamilton is
an international, and a bit busier, but nothing like Pearson.

[Mark Hickey]

He reads all this:

>>There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any
>>kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want
>>to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of
>>some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all
>>Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own. This is
>>why in movies you not only see laser beams, but also bullets always flash
>>when they hit something, people can outrun shock waves, and people can stand
>>around in shorts and without oxygen masks in a cargo plane that has the
>>doors open in flight, but the hero needs oxygen and a protective suit the
>>moment he leaves the airplane. You cannot shine a laser beam at an airplane
>>cockpit because it might blind the pilot. The same fog or clouds that render
>>an airport invisible will also obscure a laser beam.

and then Wooduuuward > wrote:

>The area was fogged in at the time of the crash.

Don't confuse him with reality, please. It doesn't agree with him.

Mark Hickey

[Morgans]

"Wooduuuward" > wrote in message
...
> There is nothing more boring in leaving things the way they are because
they've 'always been
> done that way'. If the current method of doing things worked perfectly,
there would be no need
> to look at alternatives. The plane went down. Experienced pilot. Good
aircraft. The systems
> failed him. This is 2003 isn't it?
> If anyone figures they know everything, and everything in place already
works perfectly,
> why would you be talking about leaf blowers and aircraft?

Ploink!

[C J Campbell]

"Wooduuuward" > wrote in message
...
| Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
| I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
| "hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
| you're too low, Dave "
| Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
| up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
| should not be that difficult.

You still don't get it, do you? All of this stuff exists already and is in
common use -- we call it ILS, approach lights, GPS, terrain avoidance, etc.
It is not cheap -- equipping a Cessna 182 with WAAS certified GPS,
multi-function display, with terrain and traffic avoidance (which come with
voice warning systems), will cost a minimum of $40,000. It is outrageous,
considering the MFD is probably running Windows NT 4.0 on a Pentium
processor and an 8 inch display, the rest using stuff that you would see in
a PDA.

If you think you can do better, take a look at the avionics manufacturers'
web sites and find out what is out there before shooting your mouth off
about stuff you don't know anything about. And learn some basic physics
while you are at it.

[Wooduuuward]

Clare, I wouldn't mind talking with you, outside of this 'clic' if you would.
Discuss a few things already floating around here.
Leave it up to you.

clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:
>
> On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 18:33:26 -0400, Wooduuuward >
> wrote:
>
> >Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
> >I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
> >"hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
> >you're too low, Dave "
> >Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
> >up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
> >should not be that difficult. My own computer talks at me sometimes
> >if I forget to close an appl. or something.
> >I think a new look at how things are done could cheat gravity and leave
> >a family with a dad.
> >
> >clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:
> >>
> >> Gravity is like the RCMP, always gets it's man.
> Yeah, I have to admit to that one being mine.
>
> Only problem with your suggestion is I have yet to meet a computer I
> totally trust my life to. This one is NOT mine, but I'll use it
> anyway.
>
> "To err is human, to really screw something up takes a computer."
>
> I work with the little demons day in and day out, and, like a woman
> (this one is mine), just when you think you've got them all figured
> out, they surprize you AGAIN!.
>
> That said, a computerized checklist that reminds you is a good idea.
> The use of a GPS to give the altimeter a sanity check also makes sense
> - but as I said before, flying into an unfamiliar airport under poor
> conditions in thick IFR is NOT the time for a lone pilot to be taking
> on an extra workload.
> Another one I can't take credit for:
> "Takeoffs are optional, Landings are mandatory".
> Make sure your landing site is clear or you have other options (like
> lots of fuel to take you elsewhere) before taking off. Hamilton,
> Brantford, Buttonville, Brampton, and numerous other airports within
> less than 50 miles were in VFR at the time of the crash. Hamilton is
> an international, and a bit busier, but nothing like Pearson.

[Wayne Sagar]

Wooduuuward > wrote in message >...
> I think I'm going to like sparing with you, Mark, you're so friendly
> and understanding. Must be why so many people want to post here.

One word here guys... TROLL....

Ewe guys are all experienced with this type, yet, I just read a thread
with one of the best trolls I've ever seen.. He starts innocent
enough, but now he's sitting back beaming with glee at how easily he
got his fishies on his hook...

Filter the bum out... He's just another troll, but one that is more
subtile in his approach than most.. Just like with brainwashing
technique, you'll never get him to agree with even the most logical
response, he'll challenge everything you say and on it will go..

Wayne Sagar

[Barnyard BOb --]

On 13 Jul 2003 12:20:43 -0700, (Wayne Sagar) wrote:

>Wooduuuward > wrote in message news:
>> I think I'm going to like sparing with you, Mark, you're so friendly
>> and understanding. Must be why so many people want to post here.
>
>One word here guys... TROLL....
>
>Ewe guys are all experienced with this type, yet, I just read a thread
>with one of the best trolls I've ever seen.. He starts innocent
>enough, but now he's sitting back beaming with glee at how easily he
>got his fishies on his hook...
>
>Filter the bum out... He's just another troll, but one that is more
>subtile in his approach than most.. Just like with brainwashing
>technique, you'll never get him to agree with even the most logical
>response, he'll challenge everything you say and on it will go..
>
>Wayne Sagar
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Smells like shades of..... Liability Stealth.

What the hell is a 'wooduuuward', anyway?
Anybody know, heard or ever met this flake?


Barnyard BOb --

[Ernest Christley]

Wooduuuward wrote:
> Now who said that? Is that yours? I really got a 'kick' out of it.
> I'm for computer assisted flight with small voices that say
> "hello Dave. Did you check your altimeter Dave? Dave . . .
> you're too low, Dave "
> Computers these days are not expensive. Hooking one
> up to an airplanes instruments together with monitoring long and lat
> should not be that difficult. My own computer talks at me sometimes
> if I forget to close an appl. or something.
> I think a new look at how things are done could cheat gravity and leave
> a family with a dad.
>
> clare, @, snyder.on, .ca wrote:
>
>>Gravity is like the RCMP, always gets it's man.
>

Watch it. Microsoft will have that damnable paperclip in your airplane,
and it will be just as irritating as it is in the office.

I read somewhere that during the Nam era, the engineers kept adding more
and more 'warning' instrumentation to 'protect' the pilot. It got to
the point where the first job after takeoff was to switch off all the
damn warning systems.

It's easy to say that the ship should give a warning in this instance
because we think there's a possibilty that we have an accurate
speculation as to what happened, and a simple warning would have fixed
the problem. But how many problems can be fixed with a simple warning
given early enough, and how soon would you begin turning off the warner
if it was constantly berating you.

--
----Because I can----
http://www.ernest.isa-geek.org/
------------------------

[Barnyard BOb --]

On 13 Jul 2003 23:42:57 -0700, wrote:

>>What the hell is a 'wooduuuward', anyway?
>>Anybody know, heard or ever met this flake?
>>
>>
>>Barnyard BOb --
>
>Maybe the same family, but not the same guy. Interesting google search. He
>first shows up May 17 2003, and has about 180 posts since then. He's all over
>the map, but lots of posts in bible/religious groups. Mostly positive,
>innoffensive stuff. I don't know why, in this group, he suddenly thinks he
>knows everything.
>
>I find him as annoying as you do, but I wonder if we're too sensitive.
>Objectively, he's not that bad. We may be too ready to pull the trigger
>(understandable, given the history here)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

'Wooduuuward' is harmless enough and for my money, he can
certainly say and do whatever he wishes here. However, I have
place wooduuuward and Jay in my filtered list. If anything useful
or amusing should come about, I will pick it up via the replys of
those that suffer these ilk more glady than I do. If I miss anything,
it will be my loss and I surely will be heartbroken. However....
nobody ever said life would be easy for us 'ultra-sensitive' types.

Barnyard BOb - YMMV ;o)

[C J Campbell]

"Barnyard BOb --" > wrote in message
...
| On 13 Jul 2003 23:42:57 -0700, wrote:

If I miss anything,
| it will be my loss and I surely will be heartbroken. However....
| nobody ever said life would be easy for us 'ultra-sensitive' types.
|

Ah, BOb. We didn't know you were such a sensitive guy. I'm touched. Really,
I am. :-)

[Barnyard BOb --]

"C J Campbell"wrote:

>If I miss anything,
>| it will be my loss and I surely will be heartbroken. However....
>| nobody ever said life would be easy for us 'ultra-sensitive' types.
>|
>
>Ah, BOb. We didn't know you were such a sensitive guy. I'm touched. Really,
>I am. :-)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Yeah.
I do have a tendency to hide my ultra-sensitivity at times.

Don't you feel it is extremely important to stay in touch with your
feminine side to be a complete and well balanced real man? :-)


Barnyard BOb --

[Dillon Pyron]

On Sat, 12 Jul 2003 11:44:22 -0400, Wooduuuward >
wrote:

>The area was fogged in at the time of the crash.

nuf said. A laser is no more visibile than any other light source.
If he couldn't see the VASI, he wouldn't see a laser.

>
>C J Campbell wrote:
>> snip. . .
>> There is no such thing as a visible laser beam. In order for you to see any
>> kind of light, it has to be reflected off some kind of surface. If you want
>> to see a laser beam you have to shine it through a fog or cloud of dust of
>> some kind. I know that in Hollywood you can always see laser beams, but all
>> Hollywood movies use physics from some other universe than our own.P

--
dillon

The pen may be mightier than the sword,
but a .sig never beat a SIG

[bci]

How about a heart attack, stroke, or other pilot health problem? Are
they doing an autopsy?

Betsy Ilfeld

[Warren & Nancy]

Barnyard BOb -- wrote:

> "C J Campbell"wrote:
>
> >If I miss anything,
> >| it will be my loss and I surely will be heartbroken. However....
> >| nobody ever said life would be easy for us 'ultra-sensitive' types.
> >|
> >
> >Ah, BOb. We didn't know you were such a sensitive guy. I'm touched. Really,
> >I am. :-)
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
> Yeah.
> I do have a tendency to hide my ultra-sensitivity at times.
>
> Don't you feel it is extremely important to stay in touch with your
> feminine side to be a complete and well balanced real man? :-)
>
> Barnyard BOb --

You remind me of a guy we had on the Mooney list for a while. We called him s&c
bob (for sensitive and caring). I do believe that that could be used here for
you! ;-)))

Warren

[Snowbird]

Barnyard BOb -- > wrote in message >...

> I do have a tendency to hide my ultra-sensitivity at times.
>
> Don't you feel it is extremely important to stay in touch with your
> feminine side to be a complete and well balanced real man? :-)

Unka Bob:

Somehow, I thought your idea of "staying in touch with your
feminine side" involved a woman smooshed up again' ya

Sydney (keeping it clean)

[Barnyard BOb --]

>>Barnyard BOb -- wrote:
>>
>>> I do have a tendency to hide my ultra-sensitivity at times.
>>>
>>> Don't you feel it is extremely important to stay in touch with your
>>> feminine side to be a complete and well balanced real man? :-)
>
>>You remind me of a guy we had on the Mooney list for a while. We called him s&c
>>bob (for sensitive and caring). I do believe that that could be used here for
>>you! ;-)))
>>
>>Warren
>
>
>Unka Bob is such a sensitive guy that we usually call him Sweet Old
>Bob... however most of us only use the initials.
>
>- J.O.-
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

It's testimonials like yours that really choke up
[gag], a sensitive old phart like me.

Thanx, J.O.


Barnyard BOb or SOB --
a rose by any other name would smell as sweet...

[Barnyard BOb --]

>Barnyard BOb --

>> I do have a tendency to hide my ultra-sensitivity at times.
>>
>> Don't you feel it is extremely important to stay in touch with your
>> feminine side to be a complete and well balanced real man? :-)
>
>Unka Bob:
>
>Somehow, I thought your idea of "staying in touch with your
>feminine side" involved a woman smooshed up again' ya
>
>Sydney (keeping it clean)
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

The 'smooshed woman thing' worked great
in theory. In practice, it's a work in progress.


Barnyard BOb -- alias Unka Bob
The more women I meet,
the more I like my dawg.