NTSB: Crossfield Not Warned Of Adverse Weather

[Jim Logajan]

Avweb's story, which has a link to NTSB's factual report, notes that Scott
Crossfield was not warned of adverse weather. However, he did have
access to XM Satellite Radio with a subscription to its basic weather
package. The autopsy likewise isn't suggestive of any obvious causative
medical issue (unless I'm misreading it):

http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB_Crossfield_Not_Warned_Of_Adverse_Weather_1958 21-1.html

[Paul kgyy]

Using XM radio to avoid Tstorms can be pretty hazardous unless you
allow a very wide margin of error.

1. Time delay up to 15-20 minutes
2. Max Precip isn't strongly correlated with max turbulence
3. Lightning shows cloud to ground only, not cloud to cloud.

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Paul kgyy" wrote:

> Using XM radio to avoid Tstorms can be pretty hazardous unless you
> allow a very wide margin of error.

It is odd that he was taking so much advice from ATC. XM Wx should easily
keep you clear of level 5-6 stuff, and is much better than depending on
controllers to avoid big CBs.

If Crossfield's XM Wx was working, he was either ignoring it or pushing way
too hard.

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Peter R.]

On 8/2/2007 8:48:11 PM, Paul kgyy wrote:

> 3. Lightning shows cloud to ground only, not cloud to cloud.

Interesting. I use WSI's downlinked weather service, but wondered if XM was
better due to their lightning strike date. Is this limitation
(cloud-to-cloud) documented on their site, or in other words, how did you
learn of this? I am curious from a WSI comparison point of view.

--
Peter

[Paul kgyy]

On Aug 3, 8:05 am, "Peter R." > wrote:
> On 8/2/2007 8:48:11 PM, Paul kgyy wrote:
>
> > 3. Lightning shows cloud to ground only, not cloud to cloud.
>
> Interesting. I use WSI's downlinked weather service, but wondered if XM was
> better due to their lightning strike date. Is this limitation
> (cloud-to-cloud) documented on their site, or in other words, how did you
> learn of this? I am curious from a WSI comparison point of view.
>
> --
> Peter

Not sure where I saw it - maybe AOPA magazine or Plane & Pilot.

[Danny Deger]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Paul kgyy" wrote:
>
>> Using XM radio to avoid Tstorms can be pretty hazardous unless you
>> allow a very wide margin of error.
>
> It is odd that he was taking so much advice from ATC. XM Wx should easily
> keep you clear of level 5-6 stuff, and is much better than depending on
> controllers to avoid big CBs.

Last I checked many controllers only have transponder indications with no
weather on their display at all. Even if they can paint the weather, they
have no obligation to help you with weather if they are under heavy
workload.

Danny Deger
Lots of good flying stories on my web site,
www.dannydeger.net

[[email protected]]

On Aug 2, 6:44 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> Avweb's story, which has a link to NTSB's factual report, notes that Scott
> Crossfield was not warned of adverse weather. However, he did have
> access to XM Satellite Radio with a subscription to its basic weather
> package. The autopsy likewise isn't suggestive of any obvious causative
> medical issue (unless I'm misreading it):
>
> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB_Crossfield_Not_Warned_Of_Ad...

I am hoping that ADS-B will help to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
Having real-time traffic and weather data streaming into your avionics
from ground stations should make all of us safer if we know where to
look for each other in flight, and we all give severe weather the
respect and wide berth it deserves...

Dean
AeroLEDs LLC
www.aeroleds.com

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Aug 2, 6:44 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
>> Avweb's story, which has a link to NTSB's factual report, notes that
>> Scott Crossfield was not warned of adverse weather. However, he did
>> have access to XM Satellite Radio with a subscription to its basic
>> weather package. The autopsy likewise isn't suggestive of any
>> obvious causative medical issue (unless I'm misreading it):
>>
>> http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB_Crossfield_Not_Warned_Of_Ad...
>
> I am hoping that ADS-B will help to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
> Having real-time traffic and weather data streaming into your avionics
> from ground stations should make all of us safer if we know where to
> look for each other in flight, and we all give severe weather the
> respect and wide berth it deserves...
>
> Dean
> AeroLEDs LLC
> www.aeroleds.com

While ADS-B will certainly reduce the number of WX related accidents there
is no reason to think that any significant percentage of single engine
aircraft will ever be fitted with it.

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 10:21 am, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
> > On Aug 2, 6:44 pm, Jim Logajan > wrote:
> >> Avweb's story, which has a link to NTSB's factual report, notes that
> >> Scott Crossfield was not warned of adverse weather. However, he did
> >> have access to XM Satellite Radio with a subscription to its basic
> >> weather package. The autopsy likewise isn't suggestive of any
> >> obvious causative medical issue (unless I'm misreading it):
>
> >>http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/NTSB_Crossfield_Not_Warned_Of_Ad...
>
> > I am hoping that ADS-B will help to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
> > Having real-time traffic and weather data streaming into your avionics
> > from ground stations should make all of us safer if we know where to
> > look for each other in flight, and we all give severe weather the
> > respect and wide berth it deserves...
>
> > Dean
> > AeroLEDs LLC
> >www.aeroleds.com
>
> While ADS-B will certainly reduce the number of WX related accidents there
> is no reason to think that any significant percentage of single engine
> aircraft will ever be fitted with it.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I think that depends on how well the FAA does in getting a low cost
system in play like they claim they will...

Dean

[Dan Luke[_2_]]

"Danny Deger" wrote:

> Last I checked many controllers only have transponder indications with no
> weather on their display at all.

How many? Where did you check?

--
Dan
T-182T at BFM

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:

>
> I think that depends on how well the FAA does in getting a low cost
> system in play like they claim they will...
>
> Dean


The FAA has little to do with the cost of the in-aircraft equipment other
than the requirements for certification. (Which I admit are not
insignificant) Now look at the cost of say a AM/FM/CD player that is legal
for certified aircraft
http://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aicd3.php. The thing costs in
excess of $1500.

Low cost and FAA certified really can't be used in the same sentence with a
straight face.

[B A R R Y[_2_]]

Danny Deger wrote:
>
> Last I checked many controllers only have transponder indications with
> no weather on their display at all.

Maybe you're thinking of a Class D contract tower?

Two years ago, I took a GREAT two-hour+ private tour of BDL TRACON and
tower. I spent an hour downstairs sitting with an approach controller,
and another in the tower cab, rotating among the jobs up there. The
tour took place on an IFR w/ thunderstorms and low-level wind shear
evening, from ~ 1800-2030 local.

The TRACON folks had a complete set of keys at each position that could
display, or not display, all kinds of different weather information,
overlaying on the individual controller's screen. They were also
actively soliciting PIREPS from nearly every approach and several
departures.

During a post tour debriefing with the duty-supervisor, were were led to
believe that the equipment we saw was FAA standard issue nationwide.

Since the radar paints were all computer generated, the BDL folks could
flip a few switches and actually work Boston or NY Metro approach /
departure traffic. In a training room, it was demonstrated how the
center of the screen could be moved to the center of whatever they
wanted to define as a "sector". They even moved the center to JFK,
zoomed it in, and we watched approaches to all the NY area airports,
with and without weather.

One thing I took away from the tour was the weather assistance available
for the asking. I was glad that the tour wasn't on a severe clear night!

[[email protected]]

On Aug 3, 12:17 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
wrote:
> wrote:
>
> > I think that depends on how well the FAA does in getting a low cost
> > system in play like they claim they will...
>
> > Dean
>
> The FAA has little to do with the cost of the in-aircraft equipment other
> than the requirements for certification. (Which I admit are not
> insignificant) Now look at the cost of say a AM/FM/CD player that is legal
> for certified aircrafthttp://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aicd3.php. The thing costs in
> excess of $1500.
>
> Low cost and FAA certified really can't be used in the same sentence with a
> straight face.

I spoke with the FAA people behind ADS-B at Oshkosh last year, and
they told me that they were working with major avionics manufacturers
to try to come up with a standard, reasonably priced (due to higher
volumes and streamlined certification process) box that could go in
light singles. Whether they can pull it off or not remains to be
seen...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

wrote:
> On Aug 3, 12:17 pm, "Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net>
> wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I think that depends on how well the FAA does in getting a low cost
>>> system in play like they claim they will...
>>
>>> Dean
>>
>> The FAA has little to do with the cost of the in-aircraft equipment
>> other than the requirements for certification. (Which I admit are not
>> insignificant) Now look at the cost of say a AM/FM/CD player that is
>> legal for certified
>> aircrafthttp://www.aircraftspruce.com/catalog/avpages/aicd3.php. The
>> thing costs in excess of $1500.
>>
>> Low cost and FAA certified really can't be used in the same sentence
>> with a straight face.
>
> I spoke with the FAA people behind ADS-B at Oshkosh last year, and
> they told me that they were working with major avionics manufacturers
> to try to come up with a standard, reasonably priced (due to higher
> volumes and streamlined certification process) box that could go in
> light singles. Whether they can pull it off or not remains to be
> seen...


I'm not going to hold my breath. I will be delighted if it happens but what
the FAA and even the major avionics manufacturers consider reasonably priced
and what the average 172/182 owner does has in every case that I can think
of been two very different things.

[Danny Deger]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Danny Deger" wrote:
>
>> Last I checked many controllers only have transponder indications with no
>> weather on their display at all.
>
> How many? Where did you check?

I don't think any of the "Centers" have skin paint. Having said this, I
don't know if Crossfield was talking to approach, Center, or tower. As far
as I know most, if not all, approach control radars can paint rain. But if
they are busy, they are not obliged to help pilots out with weather. I am
sure there are towers out there that have no radar at all. I personally
NEVER rely on a controller for weather information. If I get some
information that is great, but you can not rely on it.

Danny Deger

[Danny Deger]

"Danny Deger" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Dan Luke" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Danny Deger" wrote:
>>
>>> Last I checked many controllers only have transponder indications with
>>> no weather on their display at all.
>>
>> How many? Where did you check?
>
> I don't think any of the "Centers" have skin paint. Having said this, I
> don't know if Crossfield was talking to approach, Center, or tower. As
> far as I know most, if not all, approach control radars can paint rain.
> But if they are busy, they are not obliged to help pilots out with
> weather. I am sure there are towers out there that have no radar at all.
> I personally NEVER rely on a controller for weather information. If I get
> some information that is great, but you can not rely on it.

I finally got through to the story and it states the controller did have a
paint on the weather, but didn't trust his own weather paint.

Danny Deger

[Newps]

Danny Deger wrote:

>
>
> I don't think any of the "Centers" have skin paint.

They all do. And thus they have weather.

[Danny Deger]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> I don't think any of the "Centers" have skin paint.
>
> They all do. And thus they have weather.
>

Then you have operated in a different flight control system I have for the
last 35 years. A friend of mine died because he lost his transponder and
Washington Center didn't have his skin paint.

Danny Deger

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Fri, 3 Aug 2007 10:15:17 -0500, "Danny Deger"
> wrote:

>
>"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
>>
>> "Paul kgyy" wrote:
>>
>>> Using XM radio to avoid Tstorms can be pretty hazardous unless you
>>> allow a very wide margin of error.
>>
>> It is odd that he was taking so much advice from ATC. XM Wx should easily
>> keep you clear of level 5-6 stuff, and is much better than depending on
>> controllers to avoid big CBs.
>
>Last I checked many controllers only have transponder indications with no
>weather on their display at all. Even if they can paint the weather, they
>have no obligation to help you with weather if they are under heavy
>workload.

When sitting up around 10 to 12,000 I've had approach from several
airports ask me what I was seeing and then relayed it to aircraft in
those areas. Two I remember are Toledo and Kalamazoo. I also had
At Kazoo (at 8000 IIRC) the front and line of thunderstorms was within
a couple of miles of the airport. For Toledo the aircraft reporting
the rough ride, and lightning were in storms quite a ways north and
not showing on Toledo's RADAR.
Minneapolis Center asked about visibility over the UP of Michigan and
over Lake Michigan on a night flight with thunderstorms coming out
over Lake Michigan from the West. OTOH they may have just breaking up
the monotony of making sure I was still awake as the storms were quite
a ways from me, (but they were visible and moving way slower than
forecast).


>
>Danny Deger
>Lots of good flying stories on my web site,
>www.dannydeger.net

[Ron Lee[_2_]]

>I am hoping that ADS-B will help to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
>Having real-time traffic and weather data streaming into your avionics
>from ground stations should make all of us safer if we know where to
>look for each other in flight, and we all give severe weather the
>respect and wide berth it deserves...

I am confused. He could not look outside and see that weather was
bad? Technology is nice but common sense is needed more by some
pilots.

Ron Lee

[Danny Deger]

"Ron Lee" > wrote in message
...
> >I am hoping that ADS-B will help to prevent these kinds of tragedies.
>>Having real-time traffic and weather data streaming into your avionics
>>from ground stations should make all of us safer if we know where to
>>look for each other in flight, and we all give severe weather the
>>respect and wide berth it deserves...
>
> I am confused. He could not look outside and see that weather was
> bad? Technology is nice but common sense is needed more by some
> pilots.

I don't know his case, but when flying in the clouds with imbedded
thunderstoms, you can't see the storms. Without a radar on board, I prefer
to stay VMC if there are thunderstorms in the area.

Danny Deger
>
> Ron Lee

[B A R R Y]

On Sat, 4 Aug 2007 11:23:29 -0500, "Danny Deger"
> wrote:
>
>I don't know his case, but when flying in the clouds with imbedded
>thunderstoms, you can't see the storms. Without a radar on board, I prefer
>to stay VMC if there are thunderstorms in the area.

That's what I was thinking.

Has anyone read this book?
<http://www.amazon.com/Beyond-Checkride-Flight-Instructor-Taught/dp/0070224684/ref=sr_1_1/102-8529981-0193753?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1186268573&sr=8-1>

The author was vectored into an embedded thunderstorm, blowing the
door off of a Piper twin, which removed part of the tail.

Embedded t-storms do happen...

[150flivver]

On Aug 3, 6:06 pm, "Danny Deger" > wrote:
> "Newps" > wrote in message
>
> . ..
>
>
>
> > Danny Deger wrote:
>
> >> I don't think any of the "Centers" have skin paint.
>
> > They all do. And thus they have weather.
>
> Then you have operated in a different flight control system I have for the
> last 35 years. A friend of mine died because he lost his transponder and
> Washington Center didn't have his skin paint.
>
> Danny Deger

There could be several reasons why a skin paint is not displayed on a
radar scope. The fact that a particular radar does not pickup
enough energy from a primary return to display it does not mean that
it is incapable of displaying any primary returns. The reason we have
transponders is to make radar returns more powerful. Aside from a
return too weak to display, the radar operator has to configure his
radar to display primary returns or secondary returns or both. If the
radar operator filters out all but secondary returns (transponders)
then of course, no "skin paints" or weather will be displayed on his
scope.

[Danny Deger]

"150flivver" > wrote in message
ups.com...
> On Aug 3, 6:06 pm, "Danny Deger" > wrote:
>> "Newps" > wrote in message
>>
>> . ..
>>
>>
>>
>> > Danny Deger wrote:
>>
>> >> I don't think any of the "Centers" have skin paint.
>>
>> > They all do. And thus they have weather.
>>
>> Then you have operated in a different flight control system I have for
>> the
>> last 35 years. A friend of mine died because he lost his transponder and
>> Washington Center didn't have his skin paint.
>>
>> Danny Deger
>
> There could be several reasons why a skin paint is not displayed on a
> radar scope. The fact that a particular radar does not pickup
> enough energy from a primary return to display it does not mean that
> it is incapable of displaying any primary returns. The reason we have
> transponders is to make radar returns more powerful. Aside from a
> return too weak to display, the radar operator has to configure his
> radar to display primary returns or secondary returns or both. If the
> radar operator filters out all but secondary returns (transponders)
> then of course, no "skin paints" or weather will be displayed on his
> scope.
>

My understanding is -- "Centers" do not have ANY capability for primary
radar. They are secondary only. Maybe I am mistaken, but I have been
flying for many years and have been told this by many people. This is why
"Centers" have, as I understand it, zero capability to help out with storms.

The factors you mention have a lot to do with why approach controls and a
radar equipped towers are very poor for weather avoidance. They have their
primary radar optimized for painting aircraft, not for painting weather.

I am not going to say I can't be wrong. If someone like a Center flight
controller pops in and says he has primary radar capability, I will stand
down. But I am an active pilot in Texas. My plan is to continue to think I
MIGHT get some storm information from approach control and I will NEVER get
storm information from a Center.

Danny Deger

[Newps]

Danny Deger wrote:

>
> My understanding is -- "Centers" do not have ANY capability for primary
> radar. They are secondary only. Maybe I am mistaken,


Terribly.




but I have been
> flying for many years and have been told this by many people. This is
> why "Centers" have, as I understand it, zero capability to help out with
> storms.


All Centers have weather radar capability.

[Danny Deger]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
>>
>> My understanding is -- "Centers" do not have ANY capability for primary
>> radar. They are secondary only. Maybe I am mistaken,
>
>
> Terribly.

Thanks for the information. Next time I am talking to a Center and need
storm information, I will ask them.

Danny Deger

[B A R R Y]

On Sun, 5 Aug 2007 13:04:36 -0500, "Danny Deger"
> wrote:

>
>Thanks for the information. Next time I am talking to a Center and need
>storm information, I will ask them.

If you get a chance, call the local ATC center an ask for a tour.
That's what a group of us did to tour BDL a few years ago, and the
tour was absolutely fantastic. The tour wasn't a simple "this is this
and that's one of those", but we were allowed to sit one-on-one with
controllers for a decent amount of time to really see how things
worked. We each rotated through all the different jobs in the
location, both app/dep and the tower cab!

I seem to remember reading somewhere, possibly in the AIM, that stated
something about how the FAA encourages pilots to visit ATC facilities.

Of course, here on the forum we get to ask Newps and Steven. <G>

Call and ask! I can't wait to go again, one of these days.

[Danny Deger]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
>>
>> My understanding is -- "Centers" do not have ANY capability for primary
>> radar. They are secondary only. Maybe I am mistaken,
>
>
> Terribly.

Have you ever worked a Center that looked out over the water? I friend of
mine flying F-4s died because Washington Center lost radar contact when he
lost his transponder. He was out over the water in a warning area. We
were told Washington Center had no primary radar. Perhaps it is only over
the water for Centers along the coast that there is no primary radar.

Danny Deger

[Newps]

Danny Deger wrote:

>
> Have you ever worked a Center that looked out over the water?

No.


I friend
> of mine flying F-4s died because Washington Center lost radar contact
> when he lost his transponder. He was out over the water in a warning
> area. We were told Washington Center had no primary radar. Perhaps it
> is only over the water for Centers along the coast that there is no
> primary radar.


>

So ATC loses his transponder and he forgets how to fly the plane?

[Danny Deger]

"Newps" > wrote in message
. ..
>
>
> Danny Deger wrote:
>
>>
>> Have you ever worked a Center that looked out over the water?
>
> No.
>
>
> I friend
>> of mine flying F-4s died because Washington Center lost radar contact
>> when he lost his transponder. He was out over the water in a warning
>> area. We were told Washington Center had no primary radar. Perhaps it
>> is only over the water for Centers along the coast that there is no
>> primary radar.
>
>
>>
>
> So ATC loses his transponder and he forgets how to fly the plane?

It was obviously much more complex than that. Go to my web site
www.dannydeger.net and download a free copy of my book. Look in the Seymour
Johnson chapter. I have a section on this fatal mishap.

Danny Deger