Lucky to be alive?

[john smith]

Family’s faith stronger after plane crash
Worthington couple, kids walk away after aircraft goes down in North
Carolina fog
Monday, January 01, 2007
Jodi Andes
THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
Laurenze Ducatte, second from left, and Caitlin, 11, front, were
unharmed when the family’s plane crashed in North Carolina. Gerald
Ducatte and Chelsea, 14, had minor bumps and scrapes.

It was as though angels landed the plane in the woods.

That was Gerald Ducatte’s thought as his wife and two daughters stood
outside their crumpled 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer somewhere deep in the
woods of North Carolina.

Minutes before, Ducatte was piloting the four-seater on their way to a
vacation to Florida when it crashed in thick fog late Saturday morning
outside Asheville, N.C.

The Worthington family, though, walked away.

Chelsea, 14, had a cut on her right hand. Mr. Ducatte had abrasions on
his left shoul- der and a few lumps from where the left side of the
cabin caved in.

His wife, Laurenze, and their youngest daughter, Caitlin, 11, walked out
of the back of the plane without a scratch.

Mrs. Ducatte, who teaches nursing at Columbus State Community College,
didn’t need to treat anyone.

"It was truly a miracle. There are no other explanations for it," said
Gerald’s mother, Beverley Ducatte, a Virginia resident who viewed
pictures of the mangled plane on CNN.

The Ducattes took off from Don Scott Field at 8 a.m. Saturday, heading
for Orlando, Fla. They left in light, comfortable clothes, ready for
Florida’s 80-degree warmth.

A heavy fog made it impossible to see in the skies above North Carolina.

A recorded message from the Asheville airport said there was 1,000 feet
of clearance between the clouds and ground. Mr. Ducatte descended to
find those clear skies.

But when they got to that level, visibility was actually worse, he said.
The next time he was able to see something, it was too late.

"When we got down there and got out of a cloud there were trees," Mrs.
Ducatte said.

The plane skidded off the top of the trees before plowing into limbs,
Mr. Ducatte said.

Standing outside the wreckage, the family could see that trees clipped
off the plane’s left wing, and the right wing was barely attached. The
fuselage came to rest with its nose nestled between trees. Fuel leaked
from several spots but didn’t ignite.

Snow covered parts of the mountainside and the air felt only a few
degrees above freezing. With no heavy jackets on board, the family
pulled extra clothes from their luggage, called 911 and waited for help.

Rescuers made it to the site in about two hours. It took another three
hours to climb down the mountain, Mrs. Ducatte said.

Medics and deputies were gracious as they helped the family — and their
luggage — down the mountain, she said.

"They were tremendous," Mrs. Ducatte said.

The family took a cab to a nearby hotel before renting a car yesterday
and continuing on to Florida for their vacation.

Chelsea, a freshman at Thomas Worthington High School, rested so well
that she was even laughing in her sleep, her mother said.

There were many calls from friends after the family’s story made
national news. Chelsea said she was happy knowing she was loved.

Mrs. Ducatte said that the family’s Christian beliefs are even stronger now.

Mr. Ducatte, a chemist at Battelle, has a basic pilot’s license and has
been flying a few years. He said he is thankful for his flight
instructor, Chuck Miele.

Mrs. Ducatte said she is glad that her husband was so skilled and that
emergency crews worked so quickly to find them.

But both say that credit for their safety doesn’t belong in human hands.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"john smith" > wrote

> Mrs. Ducatte said she is glad that her husband was so skilled

?????????????????????????????????????

What in the hell were they trying to go down in that mess? Not good
planning, or good decision making, IMHO. Skill?

Luck. Or God's grace, one of the two.

> and that emergency crews worked so quickly to find them.
>
> But both say that credit for their safety doesn’t belong in human hands.

Once again, controlled slow flight into trees is better than a spin/stall or
nose-down attitude impacts.

Someone was not so lucky, closer to Charlotte.
http://www.wsoctv.com/news/10641149/detail.html

You have to sit through an ad and the weather and another story before the
video clip of the crash comes up.
http://www.wsoctv.com/video/10645271/detail.html

Story in the paper. I also saw a report that said there was no fire, and no
witnesses heard engine noises. It was on a long flight from the coast of
NC. I have to wonder if it is a case of fuel starvation.
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/16360258.htm
--
Jim in NC

[Matt Whiting]

john smith wrote:
> Family’s faith stronger after plane crash
> Worthington couple, kids walk away after aircraft goes down in North
> Carolina fog
> Monday, January 01, 2007
> Jodi Andes
> THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
> Laurenze Ducatte, second from left, and Caitlin, 11, front, were
> unharmed when the family’s plane crashed in North Carolina. Gerald
> Ducatte and Chelsea, 14, had minor bumps and scrapes.
>
> It was as though angels landed the plane in the woods.

Yes, I too believe that God looks out for fools and children. They
should pull this guy's certificate.


Matt

[Peter R.]

john smith > wrote:

> A recorded message from the Asheville airport said there was 1,000 feet
> of clearance between the clouds and ground. Mr. Ducatte descended to
> find those clear skies.

The FAA's website lists this pilot as a non-instrument rated, newly
certificated private pilot.

Hopefully the FAA will require this pilot to attend remedial flight
planning training before he accidentally kills his family next time.

--
Peter

[Mxsmanic]

john smith writes:

> "It was truly a miracle. There are no other explanations for it," said
> Gerald’s mother, Beverley Ducatte, a Virginia resident who viewed
> pictures of the mangled plane on CNN.

A miracle is an event that occurs even though it is impossible. This
event was not impossible, therefore it was not a miracle. They were
lucky.

If they had as much brains as they have religion, they never would
have had the accident in the first place.

> Mr. Ducatte, a chemist at Battelle, has a basic pilot’s license and has
> been flying a few years. He said he is thankful for his flight
> instructor, Chuck Miele.
>
> Mrs. Ducatte said she is glad that her husband was so skilled and that
> emergency crews worked so quickly to find them.

So skilled? If he was so skilled, why did he have an accident?

> But both say that credit for their safety doesn’t belong in human hands.

The dice rolled in their favor. Next time they may not.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Morgans wrote:
> Someone was not so lucky, closer to Charlotte.
> http://www.wsoctv.com/news/10641149/detail.html
>
> You have to sit through an ad and the weather and another story before the
> video clip of the crash comes up.
> http://www.wsoctv.com/video/10645271/detail.html
>
> Story in the paper. I also saw a report that said there was no fire, and no
> witnesses heard engine noises. It was on a long flight from the coast of
> NC. I have to wonder if it is a case of fuel starvation.
> http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/news/16360258.htm


I've been following this accident since it happened yesterday about 5 miles from
where I live. Apparently a family of 4 was flying from Manteo, NC to Shelby, NC
in a Cessna 182 when they fell out of the sky... literally. There were BIG
pieces of aircraft that rained down over a fairly large area.... intact wings,
etc. Given yesterday's crappy weather (today's no better here), I assume the
pilot lost control, went into a graveyard spiral and then broke up in mid air.

He was maybe 40 miles short of his destination when he crashed only 3 miles from
KCLT. He was in contact with Charlotte Approach (since it's Class B airspace)
but nothing has been said so far whether he was attempting to land at Douglas
d/t emergency or whatever. I still don't know if he made any Mayday calls.

We've got low ceilings, steady light rain and I assume smooth flight conditions.
It's not cold... I slept last night with the back door to my bedroom open so I
could listen to the rain. I am assuming the weather wasn't the primary problem
though it surely didn't help him at all. He could have suffered a mechanical,
unexpectedly found himself short of fuel, or possibly had a health problem (he
was the right age for heart problems). All of this is the coarsest conjecture
and is backed up by very little fact.

I've already fired off a letter to the Observer raising hell about the "stalled
engine" phrasing they used. <SIGH> Not enough detail available at this point.


--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Happy Dog]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
> "john smith" > wrote
>
>> Mrs. Ducatte said she is glad that her husband was so skilled
>
> ?????????????????????????????????????
>
> What in the hell were they trying to go down in that mess? Not good
> planning, or good decision making, IMHO. Skill?
>
> Luck. Or God's grace, one of the two.
>
>> and that emergency crews worked so quickly to find them.
>>
>> But both say that credit for their safety doesn’t belong in human hands.
>
> Once again, controlled slow flight into trees is better than a spin/stall
> or nose-down attitude impacts.
>
> Someone was not so lucky, closer to Charlotte.
> http://www.wsoctv.com/news/10641149/detail.html

Maybe God was preoccupied with the holiday season...

m

[john smith]

In article >,
"Happy Dog" > wrote:

> "Morgans" > wrote in message
> > "john smith" > wrote
> >
> >> Mrs. Ducatte said she is glad that her husband was so skilled
> >
> > ?????????????????????????????????????
> >
> > What in the hell were they trying to go down in that mess? Not good
> > planning, or good decision making, IMHO. Skill?
> >
> > Luck. Or God's grace, one of the two.
> >
> >> and that emergency crews worked so quickly to find them.
> >>
> >> But both say that credit for their safety doesn’t belong in human hands.
> >
> > Once again, controlled slow flight into trees is better than a spin/stall
> > or nose-down attitude impacts.
> >
> > Someone was not so lucky, closer to Charlotte.
> > http://www.wsoctv.com/news/10641149/detail.html
>
> Maybe God was preoccupied with the holiday season...

Do a google search.
Lots of crashes and deaths in the last two weeks.
Majority were families.
Doesn't make a good impression about GA.

[Blueskies]

"john smith" > wrote in message ...
: Family’s faith stronger after plane crash
: Worthington couple, kids walk away after aircraft goes down in North
: Carolina fog
: Monday, January 01, 2007
: Jodi Andes
: THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH
: Laurenze Ducatte, second from left, and Caitlin, 11, front, were
: unharmed when the family’s plane crashed in North Carolina. Gerald
: Ducatte and Chelsea, 14, had minor bumps and scrapes.
:
: It was as though angels landed the plane in the woods.
:
: That was Gerald Ducatte’s thought as his wife and two daughters stood
: outside their crumpled 1963 Beechcraft Musketeer somewhere deep in the
: woods of North Carolina.
:


Fate is the Hunter - Gann

[601XL Builder]

john smith wrote:
> Family’s faith stronger after plane crash
> Worthington couple, kids walk away after aircraft goes down in North
> Carolina fog
> Monday, January 01, 2007

>
> Mr. Ducatte, a chemist at Battelle, has a basic pilot’s license and has
> been flying a few years. He said he is thankful for his flight
> instructor, Chuck Miele.
>


He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting
with the FSDO as well.

[Happy Dog]

"john smith" > wrote in message
>> > "john smith" > wrote

>> > Someone was not so lucky, closer to Charlotte.
>> > http://www.wsoctv.com/news/10641149/detail.html
>>
>> Maybe God was preoccupied with the holiday season...
>
> Do a google search.
> Lots of crashes and deaths in the last two weeks.
> Majority were families.
> Doesn't make a good impression about GA.

Doesn't look good on God either. Probably, it has something to do with an
increased number of families all being on vacation together at that time of
year.

moo

[mike regish]

No. Just luck.

mike

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
>
> "john smith" > wrote
>
> Luck. Or God's grace, one of the two.

[mike regish]

Morons.

mike

"john smith" > wrote in message
...

> Family’s faith stronger after plane crash

[Mxsmanic]

601XL Builder writes:

> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting
> with the FSDO as well.

That's the first reaction. However, a large part of his mistake is
probably inexperience. He _might_ be more careful next time; or he
might not. If it's due entirely to stupidity, though, a second chance
won't help.

He should have known what he was getting into. If he did, he was
being stupid, and probably shouldn't have a license. If he didn't,
someone has to find out how that knowledge managed to escape him in
his training, and how he got a license without having it.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Newps]

601XL Builder wrote:

>
>
> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting
> with the FSDO as well.


Why would you think that?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting with
>> the FSDO as well.
>
>
> Why would you think that?

Are you asking about the first or second part of my statement.

[Newps]

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:

>>>
>>>He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting with
>>>the FSDO as well.
>>
>>
>>Why would you think that?
>
>
> Are you asking about the first or second part of my statement.

The second. What interest would the FAA have in the instructor?

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting with
>> the FSDO as well.
>
>
> Why would you think that?

Are you questioning the first or second part of the statement?

For part one the guy acted in a reckless manner.

For part two, around these parts the FSDO has been having meetings with the
instructors of low time pilots that have done have had accidents. In one
case the Part time CFI was told he was going to have to take a check ride
because his yet uncertificated but soloed student wrecked a 172. This was a
CFI with at least 20 years experience. He was told (by an aviation lawyer)
that should he fail the check ride not only would his CFI certificates but
his ATP would also be at risk. He chose not to take the check ride and give
up his CFI tickets because instructing for him was a side line to his flying
day job.

[Mxsmanic]

Gig 601XL Builder writes:

> Are you asking about the first or second part of my statement.

The first, about revoking his license.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
> john smith wrote:
>> Family’s faith stronger after plane crash
>> Worthington couple, kids walk away after aircraft goes down in North
>> Carolina fog
>> Monday, January 01, 2007
>
>>
>> Mr. Ducatte, a chemist at Battelle, has a basic pilot’s license and has
>> been flying a few years. He said he is thankful for his flight
>> instructor, Chuck Miele.
>>
>
>
> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting with
> the FSDO as well.

From the description, it sounds like he attempted VFR over the top of the
overcast - I assume he was counting on a hole somewhere near the
destination? Perhaps he had a favorable forcast for somewhere down the way?

The funny thing is that I have heard others on this newsgroup (or perhaps,
r.a.student) talk about doing exactly the same thing with not much of a
reaction. I guess they got away with it.

But, I will aggree, he has a real problem with getthereitis. Lucky a whole
bunch of people didn't end up dead.

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[M[_1_]]

Peter R. wrote:

> The FAA's website lists this pilot as a non-instrument rated, newly
> certificated private pilot.
>

Actually, the "date of issue" listed on the FAA website doesn't
necessarily reflect the time when someone is first issued a grade of
certificate for the ratings listed. Anytime FAA re-issues the same
certificate for any reason (name change, certificate number change to
remove SSI, etc) the DOI will change on the airman record.

I know this from my personal experience (twice).

This is in no way a defense of Mr. DUCATTE's VFR into IMC stunt,
however.

[Peter R.]

M > wrote:

> Actually, the "date of issue" listed on the FAA website doesn't
> necessarily reflect the time when someone is first issued a grade of
> certificate for the ratings listed. Anytime FAA re-issues the same
> certificate for any reason (name change, certificate number change to
> remove SSI, etc) the DOI will change on the airman record.

Yep, you are correct. My mistake.

--
Peter

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 02 Jan 2007 12:19:02 -0700, Newps > wrote:

>
>
>Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting with
>>>>the FSDO as well.
>>>
>>>
>>>Why would you think that?
>>
>>
>> Are you asking about the first or second part of my statement.
>
>The second. What interest would the FAA have in the instructor?

Oh they do, they do.... Low time pilot, big time screw up. They are
most likely going to want to have a talk with the instructor. We've
had that happen a couple of times in the past few years and the screw
up weren't nearly that bad. No one was hurt and the airplanes could
be reused...after a bit of work. Both a 150 and a 172 had shoulders
put in the wings and another 150 was totaled all from the same FBO
which was really hard on his insurance rates.


Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"M" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> Peter R. wrote:
>
>> The FAA's website lists this pilot as a non-instrument rated, newly
>> certificated private pilot.
>>
>
> Actually, the "date of issue" listed on the FAA website doesn't
> necessarily reflect the time when someone is first issued a grade of
> certificate for the ratings listed. Anytime FAA re-issues the same
> certificate for any reason (name change, certificate number change to
> remove SSI, etc) the DOI will change on the airman record.
>
> I know this from my personal experience (twice).
>
> This is in no way a defense of Mr. DUCATTE's VFR into IMC stunt,
> however.
>

That's true. But the original story led said he was a fairly new pilot or
words to that effect.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:29:41 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
>> john smith wrote:
>>> Family’s faith stronger after plane crash
>>> Worthington couple, kids walk away after aircraft goes down in North
>>> Carolina fog
>>> Monday, January 01, 2007
>>
>>>
>>> Mr. Ducatte, a chemist at Battelle, has a basic pilot’s license and has
>>> been flying a few years. He said he is thankful for his flight
>>> instructor, Chuck Miele.
>>>
>>
>>
>> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting with
>> the FSDO as well.
>
>From the description, it sounds like he attempted VFR over the top of the
>overcast - I assume he was counting on a hole somewhere near the
>destination? Perhaps he had a favorable forcast for somewhere down the way?
>
>The funny thing is that I have heard others on this newsgroup (or perhaps,
>r.a.student) talk about doing exactly the same thing with not much of a
>reaction. I guess they got away with it.

VFR over the top here in the states is quite common.

>
>But, I will aggree, he has a real problem with getthereitis. Lucky a whole
>bunch of people didn't end up dead.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:29:41 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
> Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:
>
>>"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
<...>>>
>>>
>>> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting
>>> with
>>> the FSDO as well.
>>
>>From the description, it sounds like he attempted VFR over the top of the
>>overcast - I assume he was counting on a hole somewhere near the
>>destination? Perhaps he had a favorable forcast for somewhere down the
>>way?
>>
>>The funny thing is that I have heard others on this newsgroup (or perhaps,
>>r.a.student) talk about doing exactly the same thing with not much of a
>>reaction. I guess they got away with it.
>
> VFR over the top here in the states is quite common.
>

So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his luck
ran out?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Matt Whiting]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
> "Roger" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:29:41 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
>>Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
>
> <...>>>
>
>>>>He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting
>>>>with
>>>>the FSDO as well.
>>>
>>>From the description, it sounds like he attempted VFR over the top of the
>>
>>>overcast - I assume he was counting on a hole somewhere near the
>>>destination? Perhaps he had a favorable forcast for somewhere down the
>>>way?
>>>
>>>The funny thing is that I have heard others on this newsgroup (or perhaps,
>>>r.a.student) talk about doing exactly the same thing with not much of a
>>>reaction. I guess they got away with it.
>>
>>VFR over the top here in the states is quite common.
>>
>
>
> So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his luck
> ran out?

Because it sounded like the descended through an area of less than VFR
visibility (maybe even through a cloud layer, I don't recall the
specifics) and crashed. That has nothing to do wtih flying VFR above a
cloud layer.


Matt

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
...
> Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>> "Roger" > wrote in message
>> ...
<...>>
>> So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his
>> luck ran out?
>
> Because it sounded like the descended through an area of less than VFR
> visibility (maybe even through a cloud layer, I don't recall the
> specifics) and crashed. That has nothing to do wtih flying VFR above a
> cloud layer.
>

"A recorded message from the Asheville airport said there was 1,000 feet
of clearance between the clouds and ground."

So he is a moron, should have his ticket yanked, etc. etc. because his luck
ran out and he didn't find the VFR he was expecting?

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Matt Whiting]

Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:

> "Matt Whiting" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe wrote:
>>
>>>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> <...>>
>
>>>So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his
>>>luck ran out?
>>
>>Because it sounded like the descended through an area of less than VFR
>>visibility (maybe even through a cloud layer, I don't recall the
>>specifics) and crashed. That has nothing to do wtih flying VFR above a
>>cloud layer.
>>
>
>
> "A recorded message from the Asheville airport said there was 1,000 feet
> of clearance between the clouds and ground."
>
> So he is a moron, should have his ticket yanked, etc. etc. because his luck
> ran out and he didn't find the VFR he was expecting?

Funny, I don't flight plan with luck as a requirement for a successful
outcome. To me anyone who does that shouldn't be a pilot so that is
reason enough to yank his ticket.

Anyone flying VFR over the top should have a pretty good plan B and
probably a plan C as well. My plan B is being instrument rated, but
since he wasn't, he should have had another plan B such as VMC elsewhere
within range of his airplane.


Matt

Matt

[Stefan]

Matt Whiting schrieb:

> Because it sounded like the descended through an area of less than VFR
> visibility (maybe even through a cloud layer, I don't recall the
> specifics) and crashed.

No, it clearly sonded that he tried to stay on top but was washed down
into the soup.

> That has nothing to do wtih flying VFR above a cloud layer.

That has everything to do with flying VFR above a cloud layer.

[Peter R.]

"Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

> So he is a moron, should have his ticket yanked, etc. etc. because his luck
> ran out and he didn't find the VFR he was expecting?

What happened to the 180 degree turn-around? Can't admit defeat and
retreat? Must press on at all costs?


--
Peter

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
> VFR over the top here in the states is quite common.
>

I thought VFR over cloud cover was only legal if the ground can be sighted
at least once every 30 minutes.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Jose[_1_]]

> I thought VFR over cloud cover was only legal if the ground can be sighted
> at least once every 30 minutes.

In the states it is legal without such a restriction. In fact, such a
restriction doesn't make sense, since you don't know (until it happens)
when you'll be able to sight ground, nor is that glimpse necessarily all
that helpful. What's the rule in Oz?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> I thought VFR over cloud cover was only legal if the ground can be
>> sighted at least once every 30 minutes.
>
> In the states it is legal without such a restriction. In fact, such a
> restriction doesn't make sense, since you don't know (until it happens)
> when you'll be able to sight ground, nor is that glimpse necessarily all
> that helpful. What's the rule in Oz?
>
> Jose
> --

I have the regs at home. I'll look it up and let you know exactly what it
says, but from memory, it's something like .... Every 30 minutes, for long
enough to maintain positive navigation.... or some such. In other words, you
can't go with 8 OCTA.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
t...
>> I thought VFR over cloud cover was only legal if the ground can be
>> sighted at least once every 30 minutes.
>
> In the states it is legal without such a restriction. In fact, such a
> restriction doesn't make sense, since you don't know (until it happens)
> when you'll be able to sight ground, nor is that glimpse necessarily all
> that helpful. What's the rule in Oz?
>
> Jose

Here are the specs: (Cut and pasted from
http://www.auf.asn.au/navigation/airspace.html)
Visual Meteorological Conditions
Ultralight - and non-instrument rated pilot - operations may only be
conducted in Visual Meteorological Conditions [VMC].The visual
meteorological conditions [minima] applicable below 10 000 feet amsl, and
thus the VMC for ultralight, and most light aircraft, operations (take-off,
enroute and landing) are:


a.. minimum average range of visibility forward from the cockpit - 5000
metres. 'Visibility' means the ability to see and identify prominent
objects. The problem of course is that there may not be any prominent
identifiable objects when flying over featureless areas and, secondly, few
people are adept at judging distance from the cockpit.
b.. horizontal cloud clearance - 1500 metres
c.. vertical cloud clearance - 1000 feet.
d.. If the visibility is less than 5000 metres or either cloud clearance
is below the minima then Instrument Meteorological Conditions [IMC] exist.
If operating (in Class G airspace) at or below 3000 feet amsl or 1000 feet
agl, whichever is the higher, an ultralight or other aircraft may operate
'clear of cloud' but remaining in sight of the ground, provided the aircraft
is equipped with a serviceable VHF radio, the pilot has a radio endorsement
and the pilot listens out and transmits on the appropriate area frequency.
Note that a non radio equipped aeroplane can then only operate in conditions
where the cloud base is 1000 feet above the flight level, thus such an
aircraft can only take-off and land when the cloud base is 1000 feet higher
than the circuit height and the horizontal cloud clearance is at least 1500
metres. Even when there is no regulatory requirement the carriage of VHF
radio, and the continual maintenance of a listening watch, is highly
recommended.

Visual Flight Rules
The Visual Flight Rules applicable to ultralight, and most light aircraft,
operations are primarily 'see and avoid' other traffic, plus the following
specifics:


a.. VMC must be maintained during the entire flight (climb, cruise and
descent) and the flight conducted in daylight hours,
b.. the pilot must be able to navigate by reference to the ground and
c.. position fixes must be taken at least every 30 minutes.
VFR 'on top'
In addition an aircraft cannot be operated on top of cloud which is more
extensive than scattered unless it is fitted with serviceable flight and
navigation instruments as specified in CAO 20.18 appendix IV - which
includes an artificial horizon and directional gyro. Other restrictions
apply, see AIP ENR 1.1 19.2. Taking all into account it is probably unwise
for an ultralight aircraft to operate above any cloud cover.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Jose[_1_]]

> b.. the pilot must be able to navigate by reference to the ground and
> c.. position fixes must be taken at least every 30 minutes.

Interesting. (Oz rules)

Does (b) mean that at any point in the flight, one must be able to
determine their position by reference to the ground visible at the time?
Or does this allow ded reckoning between visual fixes?

Given that radio navigation equipment is probably required and certainly
permitted when "over the top", do the position fixes required in (c)
need to be visual, or can they be VOR fixes?

Jose
--
He who laughs, lasts.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

[Newps]

Crash Lander wrote:


>
>
> I have the regs at home. I'll look it up and let you know exactly what it
> says, but from memory, it's something like .... Every 30 minutes, for long
> enough to maintain positive navigation.... or some such.

Wow, you guys only need to get a glimpse of the landscape every 30
minutes to navigate correctly? That's pretty good.

[Crash Lander[_1_]]

"Jose" > wrote in message
om...
>> b.. the pilot must be able to navigate by reference to the ground and
>> c.. position fixes must be taken at least every 30 minutes.
>
> Interesting. (Oz rules)
>
> Does (b) mean that at any point in the flight, one must be able to
> determine their position by reference to the ground visible at the time?
> Or does this allow ded reckoning between visual fixes?
>
> Given that radio navigation equipment is probably required and certainly
> permitted when "over the top", do the position fixes required in (c) need
> to be visual, or can they be VOR fixes?
>
> Jose

No idea. I'm still at the circuits stage of my training, so unfortunately I
can't answer that with any great accuracy yet.
Oz/Crash Lander

[Mxsmanic]

Crash Lander writes:

> I thought VFR over cloud cover was only legal if the ground can be sighted
> at least once every 30 minutes.

In that case, an SR-71 can fly anywhere in the world under VFR.

--
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.

[Mortimer Schnerd, RN[_2_]]

Peter R. wrote:
> "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:
>
>> So he is a moron, should have his ticket yanked, etc. etc. because his luck
>> ran out and he didn't find the VFR he was expecting?
>
> What happened to the 180 degree turn-around? Can't admit defeat and
> retreat? Must press on at all costs?


The terrain around Asheville isn't particularly helpful. The airport sits down
in a valley at 2165'. There are peaks rising up over 6000' all over the place.
You better know where the hell you're going when you enter the clouds around
Asheville... or be really high.

I had a roommate once who flew a cancelled check route into Asheville every day
in a Bonanza. Just the thought of it used to give me the willies. She'd get
home and crack open a beer the second she got home just so she could refuse any
popup flights afterwards "because I've just had a beer."

Good looking honey too... could have been the twin sister of Nicole Brown
Simpson except she had blonde hair and blue eyes... Norwegian. But I
digress....

Aviators from out west can turn their noses up at the Smoky Mountains but rocks
are rocks. Best not to fly into them.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN
mschnerdatcarolina.rr.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Stefan wrote:
> Matt Whiting schrieb:
>
>> Because it sounded like the descended through an area of less than
>> VFR visibility (maybe even through a cloud layer, I don't recall the
>> specifics) and crashed.
>
> No, it clearly sonded that he tried to stay on top but was washed down
> into the soup.

I think you are mixing two different accidents. The one that started this
thread was a guy who, with his family heard that there was 1000 ft ceilings
below the clouds and went through the clouds looking for it and it wasn't
there.

You are, I beleive thinking of the guy in the Bo that got hit by a down
draft.

[Stefan]

Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:

> I think you are mixing two different accidents. The one that started this

I'ce cancelled my post as soon as I got aware of this. Unfortunately,
not all servers do honour cancel messages.

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Stefan wrote:
> Gig 601XL Builder schrieb:
>
>> I think you are mixing two different accidents. The one that started
>> this
>
> I'ce cancelled my post as soon as I got aware of this. Unfortunately,
> not all servers do honour cancel messages.

Done it myself many times. And from what I can tell none of the servers
honor cancel messages any more even the one I post to to that requires me to
login with a user name and password.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Thu, 4 Jan 2007 17:52:30 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 2 Jan 2007 17:29:41 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
>> Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:
>>
>>>"601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiacona@suddenlinkDOTnet> wrote in message
...
><...>>>
>>>>
>>>> He needs his ticket yanked and I'll bet his instructor has a meeting
>>>> with
>>>> the FSDO as well.
>>>
>>>From the description, it sounds like he attempted VFR over the top of the
>>>overcast - I assume he was counting on a hole somewhere near the
>>>destination? Perhaps he had a favorable forcast for somewhere down the
>>>way?
>>>
>>>The funny thing is that I have heard others on this newsgroup (or perhaps,
>>>r.a.student) talk about doing exactly the same thing with not much of a
>>>reaction. I guess they got away with it.
>>
>> VFR over the top here in the states is quite common.
>>
>
>So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his luck
>ran out?

I'd guess because he apparently descended through the clag with out a
rating instead of proceeding on to where he could let down VFR.
Although the one area reported 1000 foot ceilings it appears others
were reporting much less and some cases of fog.

VFR over the TOP is taking a calculated risk and should be done with
"known" good VFR below the ceiling.(at least 1500 and 5) You also need
to know what is below just in case the engine quits or you smell
something burning. Plus you need good VFR within reach plus some
reserve.

The problem as I see it (with what information I have), is not that
his luck ran out, but with lack of planning, he made some poor
decisions resulting in a dangerous situation where he needed that
luck..
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe]

"Roger" > wrote in message
...

<...>
>>So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his
>>luck
>>ran out?
>
> I'd guess because he apparently descended through the clag with out a
> rating instead of proceeding on to where he could let down VFR.
> Although the one area reported 1000 foot ceilings it appears others
> were reporting much less and some cases of fog.

So, apparently, he had enough fuel to go on however far it was to get to
VMC?

> VFR over the TOP is taking a calculated risk and should be done with
> "known" good VFR below the ceiling.(at least 1500 and 5) You also need
> to know what is below just in case the engine quits or you smell
> something burning. Plus you need good VFR within reach plus some
> reserve.
>

And, at the time he started over the top, he didn't have good forcasts up
ahead?
And, if you have good VMC underneath, why in the world would one want to
take the chance on going over?
VMC underneath is nice to know about, but if you don't have the IMC skills
to get there, it ain't gonna do you no good.

> The problem as I see it (with what information I have), is not that
> his luck ran out, but with lack of planning, he made some poor
> decisions resulting in a dangerous situation where he needed that
> luck..

I would say proceding over the top was poor decision #1 - Betting on a
forcast being right, nothing going wrong with the airplane, and no other
options (e.g. IFR)

--
Geoff
The Sea Hawk at Wow Way d0t Com
remove spaces and make the obvious substitutions to reply by mail
When immigration is outlawed, only outlaws will immigrate.

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sat, 6 Jan 2007 09:36:45 -0500, "Capt. Geoffrey Thorpe" <The Sea
Hawk at wow way d0t com> wrote:

>"Roger" > wrote in message
...
>
><...>
>>>So then, why is everyone trying to get on this guy's case. Because his
>>>luck
>>>ran out?
>>
>> I'd guess because he apparently descended through the clag with out a
>> rating instead of proceeding on to where he could let down VFR.
>> Although the one area reported 1000 foot ceilings it appears others
>> were reporting much less and some cases of fog.
>
>So, apparently, he had enough fuel to go on however far it was to get to
>VMC?

To be legal he should have and he must have been legal. Not that I'd
take any bets though.

>
>> VFR over the TOP is taking a calculated risk and should be done with
>> "known" good VFR below the ceiling.(at least 1500 and 5) You also need
>> to know what is below just in case the engine quits or you smell
>> something burning. Plus you need good VFR within reach plus some
>> reserve.
>>
>
>And, at the time he started over the top, he didn't have good forcasts up
>ahead?

"I think" they said morning fog that was "expected" to clear. Not
something I'd even depend on for IFR without reserves to get me to
VMC.

>And, if you have good VMC underneath, why in the world would one want to
>take the chance on going over?

Turbulence below when it's *usually* smooth above layers, unfavorable
winds below, favorable winds on top, I flew from NC Tennessee to
central Michigan on top and never saw the ground from about Kentucky
to a bit north of the Michigan/Ohio border. It was absolutely clear up
here. We left Gainesville GA in good weather. We cut over to the
West about as far as Chattanooga to miss some stuff in the Knoxville
area.

After crossing the mountains it started to get pretty rough. We tried
descending and it got worse. So, we climbed up to put us over the
cloud layer to the north. It was silk smooth from there home.

>VMC underneath is nice to know about, but if you don't have the IMC skills
>to get there, it ain't gonna do you no good.

Agreed
Long before I had the rating I had the skills to let down, or even fly
in the stuff IF an emergency happened and I flew a fair amount under
the hood and in actual with an instructor. I had more time in actual
and doing approaches to minimums as an instrument student than I have
accumulated since. Which means I was a lot more proficient then than I
am now. At present I need to take an IPC before going back in the
clouds and I'd not go over the top unless it were a short trip with
good VMC on the other side.

>
>> The problem as I see it (with what information I have), is not that
>> his luck ran out, but with lack of planning, he made some poor
>> decisions resulting in a dangerous situation where he needed that
>> luck..
>
>I would say proceding over the top was poor decision #1 - Betting on a
>forcast being right, nothing going wrong with the airplane, and no other
>options (e.g. IFR)

Pretty much sums it up. However I believe the forecasts were not good
enough to even qualify those areas as alternates for an IFR flight.
Remember the 1, 2, and 3 where 1 is one hour before to one hour after
the scheduled arrival time with a ceiling of 2000 AGL and 3 miles
visibility. So he should have been expecting marginal conditions or
divine intervention.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com