Beech bonanaza crash

[Harry K]

I tried to find the story on the website with no luck. Following is a
heavily edited version

---------------------------------------------------------------

>From Spokesman-Review (spokesmanreview.com), Spokane, Wa 09/14/07

Plane crash kills all three on board

An A-36 Beechcraft bonanza registed toTextana Inc, a Montana oil and
gas exploration company, on a flight from Havre Montana to Skagit
Regional airport crashed near Burlington, Wa (about 60 miles N of
Seattle).

FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane was preparing to land when
it dropped off radar.

NTSB investigor Kirt Anderson said the plane was on its second
approach to the airport at the time. Anderson said visibility was 1/4
mile with a cloud ceiling of 100 ft but it was too early to say
whether the weather played any part.

--------------------------------------------------------

Interesting conditions for a single engine plane attempting to land.

Harry K

[J.Kahn]

Harry K wrote:
> I tried to find the story on the website with no luck. Following is a
> heavily edited version
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
>>From Spokesman-Review (spokesmanreview.com), Spokane, Wa 09/14/07
>
> Plane crash kills all three on board
>
> An A-36 Beechcraft bonanza registed toTextana Inc, a Montana oil and
> gas exploration company, on a flight from Havre Montana to Skagit
> Regional airport crashed near Burlington, Wa (about 60 miles N of
> Seattle).
>
> FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane was preparing to land when
> it dropped off radar.
>
> NTSB investigor Kirt Anderson said the plane was on its second
> approach to the airport at the time. Anderson said visibility was 1/4
> mile with a cloud ceiling of 100 ft but it was too early to say
> whether the weather played any part.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interesting conditions for a single engine plane attempting to land.
>
> Harry K
>
Surely it was IFR. They must have done a missed approach and were
coming a second time hoping it would lift a bit. The ceiling may be
reported as 100 but the pilot just needs a visual reference of some kind
at 200 if it's an ILS, like runway approach lights which could be
visible from within the lower fringe of the cloud base, to be legal to
land so it isn't necessarily wrong to try it even though the reported
ceiling is below minimums.

John

[Roger (K8RI)]

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:12 -0400, "J.Kahn"
> wrote:

>Harry K wrote:
>> I tried to find the story on the website with no luck. Following is a
>> heavily edited version
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>>>From Spokesman-Review (spokesmanreview.com), Spokane, Wa 09/14/07
>>
>> Plane crash kills all three on board
>>
>> An A-36 Beechcraft bonanza registed toTextana Inc, a Montana oil and
>> gas exploration company, on a flight from Havre Montana to Skagit
>> Regional airport crashed near Burlington, Wa (about 60 miles N of
>> Seattle).
>>
>> FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane was preparing to land when
>> it dropped off radar.
>>
>> NTSB investigor Kirt Anderson said the plane was on its second
>> approach to the airport at the time. Anderson said visibility was 1/4
>> mile with a cloud ceiling of 100 ft but it was too early to say
>> whether the weather played any part.
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Interesting conditions for a single engine plane attempting to land.
>>
>> Harry K
>>
>Surely it was IFR. They must have done a missed approach and were
>coming a second time hoping it would lift a bit. The ceiling may be
>reported as 100 but the pilot just needs a visual reference of some kind

I've landed at Midland MI, Barstow (3BS) when nearby KMBS (11.3 Mi)
was reporting occ below 200 which is DH for the ILS. It was probably
in the neighbor hood of 100 around 3BS. I shot the VOR with the full
expectation of having to go missed and maybe even have to hold for the
ILS at MBS. I was at MDA (1140MSL/504AGL with only an occasional
glimpse of the ground below. About 3 miles from the airport a path
opened up leaving the airport in plain sight and a ceiling of roughly
600. A mile either side of us appeared to be 100 to 200 feet.

You shoot the approach, but don't go below MDA expecting it to be
clear just because of the occasional glimpse of land. Those holes
were the exception. Had we not had that big opening, I'd have
continued on to MBS after the missed with no second attempt.

There is a strong *tendency* for pilots to push their luck and
descent below MDA on subsequent approaches if they think it might be
clear just a little lower.

I saw that at OSH a few years back. The morning started out with
conditions below minimums for the VOR-27. You could hear the planes
shooting approaches for about half an hour, then one guy dropped below
the cloud deck which was still low. The flood gates opened.

Roger (K8RI)

>at 200 if it's an ILS, like runway approach lights which could be
>visible from within the lower fringe of the cloud base, to be legal to
>land so it isn't necessarily wrong to try it even though the reported
>ceiling is below minimums.
>
>John

[J.Kahn]

Roger (K8RI) wrote:
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:12 -0400, "J.Kahn"
> > wrote:
>
>> Harry K wrote:
>>> I tried to find the story on the website with no luck. Following is a
>>> heavily edited version
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> >From Spokesman-Review (spokesmanreview.com), Spokane, Wa 09/14/07
>>>
>>> Plane crash kills all three on board
>>>
>>> An A-36 Beechcraft bonanza registed toTextana Inc, a Montana oil and
>>> gas exploration company, on a flight from Havre Montana to Skagit
>>> Regional airport crashed near Burlington, Wa (about 60 miles N of
>>> Seattle).
>>>
>>> FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane was preparing to land when
>>> it dropped off radar.
>>>
>>> NTSB investigor Kirt Anderson said the plane was on its second
>>> approach to the airport at the time. Anderson said visibility was 1/4
>>> mile with a cloud ceiling of 100 ft but it was too early to say
>>> whether the weather played any part.
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> Interesting conditions for a single engine plane attempting to land.
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>>
>> Surely it was IFR. They must have done a missed approach and were
>> coming a second time hoping it would lift a bit. The ceiling may be
>> reported as 100 but the pilot just needs a visual reference of some kind
>
> I've landed at Midland MI, Barstow (3BS) when nearby KMBS (11.3 Mi)
> was reporting occ below 200 which is DH for the ILS. It was probably
> in the neighbor hood of 100 around 3BS. I shot the VOR with the full
> expectation of having to go missed and maybe even have to hold for the
> ILS at MBS. I was at MDA (1140MSL/504AGL with only an occasional
> glimpse of the ground below. About 3 miles from the airport a path
> opened up leaving the airport in plain sight and a ceiling of roughly
> 600. A mile either side of us appeared to be 100 to 200 feet.
>
> You shoot the approach, but don't go below MDA expecting it to be
> clear just because of the occasional glimpse of land. Those holes
> were the exception. Had we not had that big opening, I'd have
> continued on to MBS after the missed with no second attempt.
>
> There is a strong *tendency* for pilots to push their luck and
> descent below MDA on subsequent approaches if they think it might be
> clear just a little lower.
>
> I saw that at OSH a few years back. The morning started out with
> conditions below minimums for the VOR-27. You could hear the planes
> shooting approaches for about half an hour, then one guy dropped below
> the cloud deck which was still low. The flood gates opened.
>
> Roger (K8RI)
>
>> at 200 if it's an ILS, like runway approach lights which could be
>> visible from within the lower fringe of the cloud base, to be legal to
>> land so it isn't necessarily wrong to try it even though the reported
>> ceiling is below minimums.
>>
>> John

Doing my instr rating I realized that the circling non precision
approach, with only 300ft obstacle clearance allowed for by MDA, done in
a heavily loaded piston twin is probably one of the most dangerous
maneuvers in aviation. Very little room for screwing around. No
surprise that the altitude tolerance for the ride is -0 ft below MDA.

John

[Harry K]

On Sep 14, 10:40 pm, Harry K > wrote:
> I tried to find the story on the website with no luck. Following is a
> heavily edited version
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >From Spokesman-Review (spokesmanreview.com), Spokane, Wa 09/14/07
>
> Plane crash kills all three on board
>
> An A-36 Beechcraft bonanza registed toTextana Inc, a Montana oil and
> gas exploration company, on a flight from Havre Montana to Skagit
> Regional airport crashed near Burlington, Wa (about 60 miles N of
> Seattle).
>
> FAA spokesman Allen Kenitzer said the plane was preparing to land when
> it dropped off radar.
>
> NTSB investigor Kirt Anderson said the plane was on its second
> approach to the airport at the time. Anderson said visibility was 1/4
> mile with a cloud ceiling of 100 ft but it was too early to say
> whether the weather played any part.
>
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Interesting conditions for a single engine plane attempting to land.
>
> Harry K

Update:

>From the Spokesman-Review, Spokane, WA 09/27/07

Pilot in Fatal Plane Crash Tried a GPS Landing

Associated Press

Great Falls - A Havre (Montana) based plane that crashed in Washington
state, killing all three people aboard, clipped some trees as the
pilot was attempting a second global positioning system approach to
land, the NTSB said in a preliminary report.

Pilot John O. Brown Sr., 59 and passengers Randall Mcpherson and
Cristopher Schafer died in the Sept 13 crash at bayview-Skagit
regional Airport....

The plane crashed into a dense stand of trees about four hours later,
1.5 miles NW of the runway's approach....

The cloud ceiling was 100 feet overcast and visibility was a quarter
mile, said NTSB Investigator-In-charge Orrin K. Anderson....

--------------------------------------------------

I didn't know GPS could be used as a landing aid.

Harry K

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Harry K wrote:
>
> I didn't know GPS could be used as a landing aid.
>
> Harry K

[Gig 601XL Builder]

Harry K wrote:
>
> The plane crashed into a dense stand of trees about four hours later,
> 1.5 miles NW of the runway's approach....
>
> The cloud ceiling was 100 feet overcast and visibility was a quarter
> mile, said NTSB Investigator-In-charge Orrin K. Anderson....
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> I didn't know GPS could be used as a landing aid.
>
> Harry K

Yes you can and there is a GPS approach for rwy 28 there. BUT the MDA is
600-1 at best.

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
> Harry K wrote:
>>
>> The plane crashed into a dense stand of trees about four hours later,
>> 1.5 miles NW of the runway's approach....
>>
>> The cloud ceiling was 100 feet overcast and visibility was a quarter
>> mile, said NTSB Investigator-In-charge Orrin K. Anderson....
>>
>> --------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I didn't know GPS could be used as a landing aid.
>>
>> Harry K
>
> Yes you can and there is a GPS approach for rwy 28 there. BUT the MDA is
> 600-1 at best.

Plus, it must be an IFR approved, panel mounted GPS.

No handhelds need apply. (;-))
--
Jim in NC

[Blueskies]

"Harry K" > wrote in message ups.com...
> The cloud ceiling was 100 feet overcast and visibility was a quarter
> mile, said NTSB Investigator-In-charge Orrin K. Anderson....
>
> --------------------------------------------------
>
>
> Harry K
>

Cat I GPS approach?

[Roger[_4_]]

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 22:56:43 -0400, "J.Kahn"
> wrote:

>Roger (K8RI) wrote:
>> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 22:08:12 -0400, "J.Kahn"
>> > wrote:
>>
<snip>

>Doing my instr rating I realized that the circling non precision
>approach, with only 300ft obstacle clearance allowed for by MDA, done in
>a heavily loaded piston twin is probably one of the most dangerous
>maneuvers in aviation. Very little room for screwing around. No

Yah, but they're fun in a high performance single. Nowhere else can I
get that low let alone steep turns with plenty of powerover the
airport.

Roger (K8RI)

>surprise that the altitude tolerance for the ride is -0 ft below MDA.
>
>John
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Roger[_4_]]

On Fri, 28 Sep 2007 10:51:51 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Gig 601XL Builder" <wrDOTgiaconaATsuddenlink.net> wrote in message
...
>> Harry K wrote:
>>>
>>> The plane crashed into a dense stand of trees about four hours later,
>>> 1.5 miles NW of the runway's approach....
>>>
>>> The cloud ceiling was 100 feet overcast and visibility was a quarter
>>> mile, said NTSB Investigator-In-charge Orrin K. Anderson....
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I didn't know GPS could be used as a landing aid.
>>>
>>> Harry K
>>
>> Yes you can and there is a GPS approach for rwy 28 there. BUT the MDA is
>> 600-1 at best.
>
>Plus, it must be an IFR approved, panel mounted GPS.

What? You don't do a "roll your own" with the ADF off the local AM
station 10 miles out?

Roger (K8RI)
>
>No handhelds need apply. (;-))
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Roger" <wrote

>
> What? You don't do a "roll your own" with the ADF off the local AM
> station 10 miles out?

Ahhh, no?

I'm still here, aren't I? <g>
--
Jim in NC

[Roger[_4_]]

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 14:32:44 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote:

>
>"Roger" <wrote
>
>>
>> What? You don't do a "roll your own" with the ADF off the local AM
>> station 10 miles out?
>
>Ahhh, no?
>
>I'm still here, aren't I? <g>
Hey! Where's your sense of adventure. It sounds as if your IQ is
winning over your sense of adventure. <:-))

OTOH I do think it's a good idea to make up and practice such as it
gives some real insight to what the early pioneers had to do. it also
makes you wonder how so many survived.<:-)) Then there is that little
"make use of all available resources" just-in-case.

I also wonder what some one who *relies* on GPS would do if their
glass panel failed.

Disclaimer: I am not suggesting or condoning a pilot use their hand
held for approaches.

It is true you need a certified, panel mounted GPS for approaches, but
only having VORs and the old RNAV in the Deb, I've flown simulated
approaches on the hand held that were far more accurate than the VORs
or RNAV. No vertical guidance, but then again I don't have that on the
VORs or RNAV either. That hand held also gives warnings if the number
of satellites is insufficient for accurate navigation.

I have flown NDB approaches in IMC and didn't find them all that
difficult. OTOH they weren't a "roll your own" either<:-)) My
Instrument Instructor had me doing NDBs that were 5 miles off the
field right down to minimums. Time he got me to that point I never
blew one. These were in actual, and very close to minimums with the
published missed and hold. I also had to do all the talking as we had
reached the point were I was supposed to treat him like a passenger
who was just watching to see how I'd do.

One such was at Alma Michigan (AMN) where the ceiling was just feet
above legal with heavy rain, yet the hold was skimming the tops
(through the occasional one sticking up) that left you with an
unbelievable feeling of speed. Kinda like a go-cart at 70 MPH except
we were doing 120. That is so distracting it really makes following
the gages difficult.<:-)) It's also amazing, at least to me, how that
much rain could be squeezed out of such a thin layer of clouds. Of
course I've seen the reverse where I descended into torrential rain at
7000 wondering "how am I going to see to land" and found only light
rain 5500 to 6000 feet lower.

BUT back to the original thread. Even if ATC was reporting 100 which
is well below minimums, I have found that doesn't necessarily mean the
particular field is socked in. It might and I emphasize the might be
well above minimums at that field. As I mentioned in an earlier post,
I flew the VOR-A into our airport when conditions were reported
between 100 and 200 with less than a mile, yet found 600 and 2 to 3
for visibility.

BTW Well before I took the check-ride weather was not a reason to
cancel a lesson unless it would have been unsafe such as ice or
thunderstorms.
We had some pretty rough rides, but most were far smoother than flying
simulated on a sunshiny day.

Roger (K8RI) I wish I were that proficient now.
Roger Halstead (K8RI & ARRL life member)
(N833R, S# CD-2 Worlds oldest Debonair)
www.rogerhalstead.com