Fatal Turboprop Crash in New Bedford, Massachusetts

A Pennsylvania trial lawyer, his wife, and a third person were killed in
tragedy last night when their Socata TBM turboprob crashed during a
second approach to New Bedford Regional in southeastern Massachusetts.
Weather conditions weren't great, with a mix of rain and snow, low
ceilings (around 200'), very low freezing levels, and reduced ground
visibility.

Also, the runway 5 ILS has been NOTAMed out of service, and there has
been a NOTAM that the approach lights to rwy 5 have been out of service
since about August due to a vegetation issue.

The Boston Globe had a detailed article about the crash, but the
discussion about the lighting system is very confusing.

"Norman Komich , a retired US Airways pilot, said airline pilots were
not allowed to land if ILS runway edge lights are not operating."
[who knows what the reporter told him about the crash to get that
quote about "edge lights."]
.....
"Lang confirmed that the runway lights that were part of New Bedford
Regional's ILS were off at the time of the crash. The lights extend from
the end of the runway 2,400 feet down each side of the strip."

[My impression is that approach lighting systems are part of the ILS,
but runway edge lights are not. There is no indication that there were
any NOTAMs for runway edge lights being inoperative, so perhaps the
2,400 ft is beyond the runway threshold, and the reporter misinterpreted
that as "down each side the strip."

(Boston Globe is owned by New York Times Co. so that may explain any
misreporting).


Boston Globe
http://www.boston.com/news/local/mas...ash/?page=full

Allentown Morning Call
http://www.mcall.com/news/local/all-...l=all-news-hed

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 13:08:48 -0500, Owen Rogers
wrote:

A Pennsylvania trial lawyer, his wife, and a third person were killed in
tragedy last night when their Socata TBM turboprob crashed during a
second approach to New Bedford Regional in southeastern Massachusetts.
Weather conditions weren't great, with a mix of rain and snow, low
ceilings (around 200'), very low freezing levels, and reduced ground
visibility.

Also, the runway 5 ILS has been NOTAMed out of service, and there has
been a NOTAM that the approach lights to rwy 5 have been out of service
since about August due to a vegetation issue.

Darn.

PVD is minutes away.

PVD is minutes away.

Mother nature and the laws of physics do not care if you are a hot
shot trial lawyer, apparently...

What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...

denny

In article .com,
"Denny" wrote:

What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...

Any such lawsuit should be immediately dismissed unless the OTS
system was transmitting a valid ident.

How many instrument-rated pilots remember that any navaid can be
on when OTS? How many instrument-rated pilots remember what the
ident will be in such a situation?

--
Bob Noel
Looking for a sig the
lawyers will hate

"Bob Noel" wrote in message
...
:
: Any such lawsuit should be immediately dismissed unless the OTS
: system was transmitting a valid ident.
:
: How many instrument-rated pilots remember that any navaid can be
: on when OTS? How many instrument-rated pilots remember what the
: ident will be in such a situation?
:
: --
: Bob Noel
: Looking for a sig the
: lawyers will hate
:


-. ...-

Blueskies wrote:
"Bob Noel" wrote in message



-. ...-


Very nice Blueskies. You pass the TEST.

KC

On 4 Feb 2007 04:53:49 -0800, "Denny" wrote:

PVD is minutes away.

Mother nature and the laws of physics do not care if you are a hot
shot trial lawyer, apparently...

What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...

After I thought about it more, you'd think Providence Approach would
have known about the NOTAM.

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 07:59:59 -0500, Bob Noel
wrote:

In article .com,
"Denny" wrote:

What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...

Any such lawsuit should be immediately dismissed unless the OTS
system was transmitting a valid ident.

How many instrument-rated pilots remember that any navaid can be
on when OTS? How many instrument-rated pilots remember what the
ident will be in such a situation?

How many should care? If the morse ident or self-identing (a-la
G1000) is anything other than the ident printed on the chart it's not
right and one needs to go missed (if you somehow got that far into the
approach before figuring it out) and determine why before attempting
to fly the approach. Could have tuned the wrong frequency or
something.

I haven't heard any ATC tapes or anything, but I wonder what happened
on the first approach that led the pilot to believe he'd get in the
second time around.

B A R R Y wrote:

On 4 Feb 2007 04:53:49 -0800, "Denny" wrote:

PVD is minutes away.

Mother nature and the laws of physics do not care if you are a hot
shot trial lawyer, apparently...

What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...

After I thought about it more, you'd think Providence Approach would
have known about the NOTAM.

Is there any indication that Providence TRACON didn't know about the
NOTAM? The EWB ATIS certainly has included the glideslope (if not the
entire ILS) is out of service for some time.

In other words is there any indication that the aircraft was cleared for
the ILS 5 approach? I had assumed they were cleared for the NDB 5 or the
GPS 5. There was one missed approach.

If you go the http://www4.passur.com/bos.html and
http://www4.passur.ack.html you can watch the plane take off from Boston
around 1917 that evening and begin the approach around 10 minutes later.

(For the Nantucket passur site, use the pan feature to zoom in on the New
Bedford area. Interesting how aircraft positions are often quite
different between the two sites when an aircraft is in the coverage area
of both. Not sure if that is just because of the website or if the radar
can really vary that much. Then again the dual coverage area is a
sizable distance from both ACK and BOS, unless the ACK data is being fed
by the ASR radar antenna at FMH.)

Denny wrote:

PVD is minutes away.

Mother nature and the laws of physics do not care if you are a hot
shot trial lawyer, apparently...

What will cause lawsuits in this case is leaving the ILS transmitter
on when notamed out of service...

Well the deceased brother is a lawyer and he already seems to know the
cause. (See Globe article below).

I'm still fuzzy on exactly what lights they were claiming were not
working. The ALS has been NOTAMed out for months. But I keep seeing
reports of "runway lights" or even "runway edge lights" not working Are
all of those reports wrong?

If the ALS was not working, that is only part of the ILS, not part of
the NDB or GPS approaches (although it sure is a nice to have).

So, was the plane doing an ILS approach? If so, was it cleared for an
ILS approach? (I sincerely doubt that, given the NOTAMs).

If the pilot needed the ALS to do his NDB or GPS approach, why initiate
the approach? What happened on the first approach that gave the pilot
reason to believe a second approach would be more successful on such an
awful night weather-wise?

I'm sure investigators will take a close look at the tapes, the weather
briefing, the approach clearances, the ATIS letter read back etc. I
will be interested in hearing those facts.

http://www.boston.com/news/local/art...l_plane_crash/

Funny thing about Massachusetts is they feel the need to have some
little state agency run around and "investigate" airplane accidents.
This despite the NTSB (and/or FAA as needed) already does that anyway.