Hendrick Motorsports Report

[Icebound]

About a month ago, there were some brief news reports about the Hendrick
Motorsports deal at Martinsville/Blue Ridge from Oct 2004. The complete
report has been posted this week.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

[Peter R.]

Icebound > wrote:

> About a month ago, there were some brief news reports about the Hendrick
> Motorsports deal at Martinsville/Blue Ridge from Oct 2004. The complete
> report has been posted this week.
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

Interesting read. Totally tragic accident.


--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
They never were in position to do the approach. They did
not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Icebound > wrote:
|
| > About a month ago, there were some brief news reports
about the Hendrick
| > Motorsports deal at Martinsville/Blue Ridge from Oct
2004. The complete
| > report has been posted this week.
| >
| > http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf
|
| Interesting read. Totally tragic accident.
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Peter R.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
> They never were in position to do the approach. They did
> not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.

Based on my understanding of this approach, an aircraft holding at 4,000
feet over the BALES LOM would be best served performing a few turns around
the hold to lose the approx. 2,000 excess feet of altitude before starting
the approach.

As far as a situational awareness observation, I am a little curious why
the controller didn't suggest some type of descent vectors or spins around
the hold to lose the altitude, since he also knew the aircraft was last
assigned 4,000 ft, then immediately cleared him for the approach.

Before I get pounded on, let me point out that I do not mean to divert
attention from the pilot-in-command. Rather, this observation simply comes
from the fact that I have overheard our local controllers at Syracuse offer
these unsolicited suggestions all the time when they believe an aircraft
might be too high to start an approach.

Just another check and balance in the system, as it were.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

The controller issues the clearance based solely on the
traffic. The crew reported in the hold at 4,000 and had
been cleared for 5 or 10 mile legs, but they appear to have
just done a 360 at the LOM and proceeded inbound at 4,000
and then began their descent. The runway threshold is at 1
DME on the LOC. The BE 200 is easy to fly and can make
those descents handily. The crew just didn't know where
they were or have any plan for what they were doing.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
| > They never were in position to do the approach. They
did
| > not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.
|
| Based on my understanding of this approach, an aircraft
holding at 4,000
| feet over the BALES LOM would be best served performing a
few turns around
| the hold to lose the approx. 2,000 excess feet of altitude
before starting
| the approach.
|
| As far as a situational awareness observation, I am a
little curious why
| the controller didn't suggest some type of descent vectors
or spins around
| the hold to lose the altitude, since he also knew the
aircraft was last
| assigned 4,000 ft, then immediately cleared him for the
approach.
|
| Before I get pounded on, let me point out that I do not
mean to divert
| attention from the pilot-in-command. Rather, this
observation simply comes
| from the fact that I have overheard our local controllers
at Syracuse offer
| these unsolicited suggestions all the time when they
believe an aircraft
| might be too high to start an approach.
|
| Just another check and balance in the system, as it were.
|
| --
| Peter

[B A R R Y]

Jim Macklin wrote:
> It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
> They never were in position to do the approach. They did
> not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.

I was kind of wondering what was going on myself.

[Ben Jackson]

On 2006-03-08, Icebound > wrote:
>
> http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

To me this is a perfect example of how you can be totally mentally
prepared for one thing (entering a long hold, in this case) and then
be thrown a curveball by ATC. The pilots hand the mental bandwidth
to solve their immediate problem (by continuing their hold entry turn
on course for the approach) but they were no longer ahead of the plane.
I'd never quite been able to put my finger on it before, but that's
what it is -- you can't be ahead of the plane if you just got an
unexpected ATC instruction. The lesson here is that (except in case
of emergency or an "expedite" from ATC) you should probably keep
executing your old plan until you have a new plan fully formed. They
had passed "V1" on their hold entry and should have entered it no
matter what.

--
Ben Jackson
>
http://www.ben.com/

[Jim Macklin]

I agree, issuance of an approach clearance does not mean you
have to press on. You really need to be at the initial
approach altitude when you cross the fix inbound. These
pilots were way above the altitude and inside the fix before
they even began the descent. They were 7 miles past the
airport [six DME and increasing] when they began a straight
climb.

CRM, did they ever discuss the approach and their options
before they arrived in the area? They had lots of advanced
training from the big schools, but do any of the instructors
who work for these schools have any experience in these
types of operations. My experience is that many do not.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Ben Jackson" > wrote in message
...
| On 2006-03-08, Icebound
> wrote:
| >
| > http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf
|
| To me this is a perfect example of how you can be totally
mentally
| prepared for one thing (entering a long hold, in this
case) and then
| be thrown a curveball by ATC. The pilots hand the mental
bandwidth
| to solve their immediate problem (by continuing their hold
entry turn
| on course for the approach) but they were no longer ahead
of the plane.
| I'd never quite been able to put my finger on it before,
but that's
| what it is -- you can't be ahead of the plane if you just
got an
| unexpected ATC instruction. The lesson here is that
(except in case
| of emergency or an "expedite" from ATC) you should
probably keep
| executing your old plan until you have a new plan fully
formed. They
| had passed "V1" on their hold entry and should have
entered it no
| matter what.
|
| --
| Ben Jackson
| >
| http://www.ben.com/

[Greg Farris]

In article <28IPf.116573$QW2.54634@dukeread08>,
says...
>
>
>It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
>They never were in position to do the approach. They did
>not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.
>


The report doesn't really say that.

GF

[Jim Macklin]

It doesn't need to say that and the NTSB can't because there
was no cockpit voice recorder or other means to know what
was going on. But since the DME is on the LOC and the
approach chart shows 1 DME as the runway threshold/MAP and
they were tracked miles past the airport before they began a
missed approach proper use of the DME can be rules out.

Since the NDB is the IAP fix and they were well past the NDB
when they began the approach that can be relied on as being
an indication that the crew needed to have their two heads
working.

The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
position of their airplane to the airport.

Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
from making educated statements about the obvious.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
| In article <28IPf.116573$QW2.54634@dukeread08>,
| says...
| >
| >
| >It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
| >They never were in position to do the approach. They did
| >not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.
| >
|
|
| The report doesn't really say that.
|
| GF
|

[Greg Farris]

In article <NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08>,
says...

>
>The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
>position of their airplane to the airport.
>
>Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
>from making educated statements about the obvious.
>

Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving your best guess on
it. However, the report states they were using the GPS, and strongly
hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully understood how to fly
it.

If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant with the "legacy"
IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because it's "easier" when
in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I believe it's more
constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified people get into
situations like this, than to state they crashed because they were
"stupid".

GF

[Jim Macklin]

I'm not sure I said they were stupid, I think I said they
did a stupid thing. The GPS was not IFR approved if I
remember what the report said. The approach is a LOC w DME
and LOM.

It is really a shame we are left with guessing about what,
how and why the crew made so many mistakes.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
| In article <NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08>,
| says...
|
| >
| >The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the
general
| >position of their airplane to the airport.
| >
| >Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
| >from making educated statements about the obvious.
| >
|
| Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving your
best guess on
| it. However, the report states they were using the GPS,
and strongly
| hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully
understood how to fly
| it.
|
| If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant
with the "legacy"
| IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because it's
"easier" when
| in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I
believe it's more
| constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified people
get into
| situations like this, than to state they crashed because
they were
| "stupid".
|
| GF
|

[Wizard of Draws]

On 3/11/06 12:05 PM, in article , "Greg
Farris" > wrote:

> In article <NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08>,
> says...
>
>>
>> The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
>> position of their airplane to the airport.
>>
>> Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
>> from making educated statements about the obvious.
>>
>
> Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving your best guess on
> it. However, the report states they were using the GPS, and strongly
> hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully understood how to fly
> it.
>
> If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant with the "legacy"
> IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because it's "easier" when
> in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I believe it's more
> constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified people get into
> situations like this, than to state they crashed because they were
> "stupid".
>
> GF
>
What I find odd is that the missed approach calls for an immediate climbing
right turn, and there appears to be no turn at all after they went missed.
--
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.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> The GPS was not IFR approved if I remember what the report said.

Also, the accident aircraft's GPS database had expired by more than a year,
FWIW.


--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

The entire approach was flown improperly. And the missed
approached was out of the protected area and as you said,
does require an immediate climbing turn.


"Wizard of Draws" >
wrote in message
news:C0389B43.6639B%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
| On 3/11/06 12:05 PM, in article
, "Greg
| Farris" > wrote:
|
| > In article <NTBQf.116896$QW2.34594@dukeread08>,
| > says...
| >
| >>
| >> The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the
general
| >> position of their airplane to the airport.
| >>
| >> Since I am not a government official, I am not
restricted
| >> from making educated statements about the obvious.
| >>
| >
| > Nor do I believe you should be restricted from giving
your best guess on
| > it. However, the report states they were using the GPS,
and strongly
| > hints they may have misinterpreted it, or not fully
understood how to fly
| > it.
| >
| > If true, it could be a case of pilots fully conversant
with the "legacy"
| > IFR system, bcoming over-reliant on the GPS, because
it's "easier" when
| > in fact they haven't even fully mastered its use. I
believe it's more
| > constructive to speculate on how trained, qualified
people get into
| > situations like this, than to state they crashed because
they were
| > "stupid".
| >
| > GF
| >
| What I find odd is that the missed approach calls for an
immediate climbing
| right turn, and there appears to be no turn at all after
they went missed.
| --
| 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
|

[Jim Macklin]

I think is why it wasn't an approved system.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > The GPS was not IFR approved if I remember what the
report said.
|
| Also, the accident aircraft's GPS database had expired by
more than a year,
| FWIW.
|
|
| --
| Peter

[Wizard of Draws]

On 3/11/06 7:13 PM, in article SPJQf.116929$QW2.4426@dukeread08, "Jim
Macklin" > wrote:

> The entire approach was flown improperly. And the missed
> approached was out of the protected area and as you said,
> does require an immediate climbing turn.
>

I wonder if they had current, or correct charts, or even looked at it from
the way the approach was flown.
--
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

[Jim Macklin]

Or even had the wrong airport chart. Something was
certainly wrong, we know what happened from the NTSB report,
but why has not been answered.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Wizard of Draws" >
wrote in message
news:C038EDAE.66524%jeffbREMOVE@REMOVEwizardofdraw s.com...
| On 3/11/06 7:13 PM, in article
SPJQf.116929$QW2.4426@dukeread08, "Jim
| Macklin" > wrote:
|
| > The entire approach was flown improperly. And the
missed
| > approached was out of the protected area and as you
said,
| > does require an immediate climbing turn.
| >
|
| I wonder if they had current, or correct charts, or even
looked at it from
| the way the approach was flown.
| --
| 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
|

[Greg Farris]

In article <SPJQf.116929$QW2.4426@dukeread08>,
says...
>
>
>The entire approach was flown improperly. And the missed
>approached was out of the protected area and as you said,
>does require an immediate climbing turn.
>

Everything in the report suggests they did not realize they were past the
airport, or the MAP. Perhaps they knew they had to turn right, but they
probably had no idea they were out of the protected area, and thus didn't
see the urgency of it.

We all know about "expect to land" syndrome, and the unpreparedness for
the missed that results from it. All the more in that the preceding crew
landed easily. It seems they were, as others here suggest, thrown a curve
by the unexpected early clearance, then misread the GPS, which had
already cycled to the last programmed point.

What do you bet if they didn't have the GPS, they would have used the
DME, and it would have been second nature to them to check what it was
tuned to. They may not have lost situational awareness and bumbled along
as they did, seemingly waiting for something to happen in their favor. We
can guess they may have been discussing the situation, trying to figure
out where they were - but then we don't really know. . .

GF

[Jim Macklin]

The failure to make a climbing right turn missed approach
was just the last link in a long chain of errors.

I would describe the crew as "head up and locked" because
anytime you have any question about your position on an
approach, a climb is in order and if the crew had
cross-checked any of the readouts that were in front of
them, they would have [should have] known they were about to
kill their passengers.

The King Air had RMI, HSI, DME, a GPS all with dual displays
and a two person crew... why they failed to perform is
subject to interpretation. They were in a hurry? They were
careless? They had equipment problems that were not
reported? Food poisoning?


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.




"Greg Farris" > wrote in message
...
| In article <SPJQf.116929$QW2.4426@dukeread08>,
| says...
| >
| >
| >The entire approach was flown improperly. And the missed
| >approached was out of the protected area and as you said,
| >does require an immediate climbing turn.
| >
|
| Everything in the report suggests they did not realize
they were past the
| airport, or the MAP. Perhaps they knew they had to turn
right, but they
| probably had no idea they were out of the protected area,
and thus didn't
| see the urgency of it.
|
| We all know about "expect to land" syndrome, and the
unpreparedness for
| the missed that results from it. All the more in that the
preceding crew
| landed easily. It seems they were, as others here suggest,
thrown a curve
| by the unexpected early clearance, then misread the GPS,
which had
| already cycled to the last programmed point.
|
| What do you bet if they didn't have the GPS, they would
have used the
| DME, and it would have been second nature to them to check
what it was
| tuned to. They may not have lost situational awareness and
bumbled along
| as they did, seemingly waiting for something to happen in
their favor. We
| can guess they may have been discussing the situation,
trying to figure
| out where they were - but then we don't really know. . .
|
| GF
|

[Morgans]

"B A R R Y" > wrote

> Since it's so close to
> home, I can even see race teams doing multiple shuttle runs to get a
> bunch of employees and VIPs there.
>
> If so, complacency?

Not likely. Most of the lower placed people on the team get there by
transport, or other ground means, much before the day of the race.

The pilots had most likely been there before, but never in such poor
visibility.
--
Jim in NC

[Greg Farris]

In article >, says...

>The pilots had most likely been there before, but never in such poor
>visibility.

The report doesn't really tell us - might be interesting to know.
What's strange though is that the weather wasn't *that* bad. The crew
ahead of them had time to break out, cancel IFR and land visually (which
I'm not sure they really had the right to do under these conditions -
and which indirectly may be important, as it probably allowed several
minutes' time savings for the KingAir's clearance).

Anyway, a two professional crew setup in this aircraft really should not
be lost under these standard IFR conditions. It may have been lousy
weather for boating, but no special challenge for this type of operation.

GF

[B A R R Y]

Morgans wrote:
> "B A R R Y" > wrote
>
>> Since it's so close to
>> home, I can even see race teams doing multiple shuttle runs to get a
>> bunch of employees and VIPs there.
>>
>> If so, complacency?
>
> Not likely. Most of the lower placed people on the team get there by
> transport, or other ground means, much before the day of the race.

I know.

I was thinking non-race day employees (shop and corporate types vs. crew
that works during the actual race), family, and business VIP's.

As I remember, many of the folks on the plane were not race day employees.

I've had "hot pit" access at enough races to be staggered by the size of
some of the entourages that accompany some teams, and since Hendrick
runs several cars, it was a thought.

[Peter R.]

Jim Macklin > wrote:

> I think is why it wasn't an approved system.

Perhaps, but as you know it is possible to have an IFR-certified GPS unit,
such as the Bendix/King KLN90, installed in such a manner that it is not
certified for IFR flight.

A former acquaintance of mine (since moved to Arizona) flew a nicely
equipped Cessna P210 turbo. Nicely, that is, except for the fact that his
panel-mounted Bendix/King KLN89 was not IFR-certified, due to the
installation. He did mention that he had an appointment with an avionics
shop to rectify this, but I never did find out if he followed through or
what was needed in his case to certify the installation.

In the case of the King Air accident report, I don't recall reading
specifically why their GPS was not IFR certified.

--
Peter

[Jim Macklin]

It did not have a current database, which the NTSB reported
in the text as the reason it wasn't "approved."

The GPS apparently auto-cycled from the LOM to the airport
wpt when they over-flew the LOM and that caused the crew to
see the GPS as being about 6 miles from their position.

The crew was lost and confused, which should have resulted
in a missed approach while they were at 4,000 feet in the
area of the LOM. Instead they pressed on, to low altitude
straight into the mountain.

The had the equipment, but did not used it properly. If you
are using a GPS, you need to "hold" the auto-sequencing as
you approach a holding fix, you need to use the NDB and
DME/LOC to fix your position. When there is a question,
make a missed approach and ask ATC for a radar fix.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter R." > wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin > wrote:
|
| > I think is why it wasn't an approved system.
|
| Perhaps, but as you know it is possible to have an
IFR-certified GPS unit,
| such as the Bendix/King KLN90, installed in such a manner
that it is not
| certified for IFR flight.
|
| A former acquaintance of mine (since moved to Arizona)
flew a nicely
| equipped Cessna P210 turbo. Nicely, that is, except for
the fact that his
| panel-mounted Bendix/King KLN89 was not IFR-certified, due
to the
| installation. He did mention that he had an appointment
with an avionics
| shop to rectify this, but I never did find out if he
followed through or
| what was needed in his case to certify the installation.
|
| In the case of the King Air accident report, I don't
recall reading
| specifically why their GPS was not IFR certified.
|
| --
| Peter

[Darkwing]

"B A R R Y" > wrote in message
et...
> Morgans wrote:
>> "B A R R Y" > wrote
>>
>>> Since it's so close to
>>> home, I can even see race teams doing multiple shuttle runs to get a
>>> bunch of employees and VIPs there.
>>>
>>> If so, complacency?
>>
>> Not likely. Most of the lower placed people on the team get there by
>> transport, or other ground means, much before the day of the race.
>
> I know.
>
> I was thinking non-race day employees (shop and corporate types vs. crew
> that works during the actual race), family, and business VIP's.
>
> As I remember, many of the folks on the plane were not race day employees.



Most of the people on the flight were the top of the Hendricks corporate
team including the owner's son and brother.

--------------------------------------------------
DW

[Jay Beckman]

"Darkwing" <theducksmail"AT"yahoo.com> wrote in message
...
>
> "B A R R Y" > wrote in message
> et...
>> Morgans wrote:
>>> "B A R R Y" > wrote
>>>
>>>> Since it's so close to
>>>> home, I can even see race teams doing multiple shuttle runs to get a
>>>> bunch of employees and VIPs there.
>>>>
>>>> If so, complacency?
>>>
>>> Not likely. Most of the lower placed people on the team get there by
>>> transport, or other ground means, much before the day of the race.
>>
>> I know.
>>
>> I was thinking non-race day employees (shop and corporate types vs. crew
>> that works during the actual race), family, and business VIP's.
>>
>> As I remember, many of the folks on the plane were not race day
>> employees.
>
>
>
> Most of the people on the flight were the top of the Hendricks corporate
> team including the owner's son and brother.
>
> --------------------------------------------------
> DW

Ricky Hendrick (the son) was supposed to be spotting for Brian Vickers that
day and NASCAR rules mandate that you have to have a spotter or else you
don't race (Vickers did race with a substitute spotter that day.)

The race (IIRC) was scheduled for about a 130pm EDT green flag and had they
diverted, there is a good chance that Ricky would have not made it to the
track in time for the start of the race. As it was, a 1230pm-ish landing at
KMTV to get to a 130pm-ish race at Martinsville would be cutting it close
unless they had a helo waiting for them (they did have Tony Stewart's helo
driver on board so maybe they had a fly in ... chopper to the track plan in
place.)

They also had the director of DuPont Motorsports on board.

Jay Beckman
PP-ASEL
Chandler, AZ
Technician, NASCAR on FOX/NBC

[Peter R.]

Jay Beckman > wrote:

<snip>
> The race (IIRC) was scheduled for about a 130pm EDT green flag and had they
> diverted, there is a good chance that Ricky would have not made it to the
> track in time for the start of the race.

The aircraft on the approach prior to the accident aircraft broke out above
minimums and canceled IFR while still in the air, so this crew should not
have had to worry about a diversion.

The fact that the previous aircraft had no problems on the approach, yet
they were still IMC over the airport, should have been another clue to this
very experienced crew that the approach was not being flown properly, but I
suppose the lack of situational awareness (thinking they were further back
on the approach) could account for this.

In light of a diversion being this costly to the team, arrangements should
have been made to get the spotter to the race the previous evening or via
another mode of transportation. As someone who has no idea how corporate
aviation works, I would think the responsibilities of the team's chief
pilot would have been to warn the team that flying a non-precision approach
to a landing is never a sure thing.


--
Peter