182 crash at GON

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

The reported crash site looks like it was near the DA point for GON ILS 5.
The plane's owner is a commercial instrument pilot, according to the FAA's
database.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
http://www.boston.com/news/local/con...l_plane_crash/

The reported crash site looks like it was near the DA point for GON ILS 5.
The plane's owner is a commercial instrument pilot, according to the FAA's
database.

The NTSB now has a preliminary report on this one:
http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...06X00942&key=1

The pilot seemed confused: on his first ILS approach, he requested a
"circle-to-land" after breaking out off-course at 200'. After going missed,
he went off course again on the next approach and crashed a mile from the
runway. He never mentioned any mechanical problems; other pilots reported no
difficulty with the ILS before and after the crash. The ceiling was at the
ILS minimum, but the weather was otherwise benign.

When this sort of thing happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if CO
poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote When this sort of thing
happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if CO
poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

Or just lack of recent IMC experience. Or in fact if he EVER flew an ILS to
minimums at all in actual weather -- no IMC is required to get an IFR
rating. How much and how recently he flew in IMC conditions would be a
valid question to ask.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1120751520.3709114750bf2b30df5d880f7f0429e7@t eranews...

"Gary Drescher" wrote When this sort of thing
happens to experienced pilots (1400 hours,
CP-AS/MEL-IR, Angel Flight volunteer; co-pilot, 540 hours), I wonder if
CO poisoning, or some other impairment, could be responsible.

Or just lack of recent IMC experience. Or in fact if he EVER flew an ILS
to minimums at all in actual weather -- no IMC is required to get an IFR
rating. How much and how recently he flew in IMC conditions would be a
valid question to ask.

I agree that's a valid question. But this guy is a 1400-hour CP-AS/MEL-IR
who owns a 182 and has done real flying (not just time-building instruction,
as some CFIs do; he wasn't a CFI) all over the country (friends reported he
"flew at least four times weekly... He flew organs for transplants... He
flew exchange students to San Diego or Las Vegas for a day... He was always
going off on a fly-away somewhere..."). So it'd be pretty astonishing if he
lacked extensive IMC experience.

And even a pilot who lacks recent IMC experience should at least be able to
go missed in benign conditions rather than crashing. But most peculiar of
all, in my view, was his request to "circle to land" while off-course under
a 200' ceiling, instead of going missed immediately. That's really hard to
understand, unless he was somehow impaired. (That wasn't the approach he
crashed on, but apparently something was already wrong.)

Still, I admit I'm just speculating.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote

And even a pilot who lacks recent IMC experience should at least be able
to
go missed in benign conditions rather than crashing. But most peculiar of

Many, many IFR pilots have never flown an approach to low IMC conditions.
In fact I would guess this is true of the majority of single-engine piston
IFR pilots and certainly it is true of many pilots from the Southwest.
Doing a missed approach in low IMC conditions is very different from an
emotional or mental perspective than doing so under the hood. This is pure
speculation, but if indeed this was the pilot's first-ever missed approach
in low IMC then that alone could explain what happened.

--------------------
Richard Kaplan

www.flyimc.com

"Richard Kaplan" wrote in message
news:1120753627.1593ded429ac4976c51641c1b0c3388f@t eranews...
Many, many IFR pilots have never flown an approach to low IMC conditions.
In fact I would guess this is true of the majority of single-engine piston
IFR pilots and certainly it is true of many pilots from the Southwest.
Doing a missed approach in low IMC conditions is very different from an
emotional or mental perspective than doing so under the hood. This is
pure speculation, but if indeed this was the pilot's first-ever missed
approach in low IMC then that alone could explain what happened.

I wish the NTSB report had said analyzed that possibility. (They apparently
had the pilot's logbook.)

--Gary

"Richard Kaplan" wrote
Or just lack of recent IMC experience. Or in fact if he EVER flew an
ILS to minimums at all in actual weather -- no IMC is required to get
an IFR rating.

Richard, for someone in the instrument training business, I would
think that you would not refer to an "IFR rating". That puts you
on a level with all of the amateurs with their "PPL"s and "CPL"s.
This note is not intended for those of you in other parts of the
world where you indeed do have a "pilot license".
A couple of other points, in certain types of airspace, 4 miles of
visability and no cloud would constitute IMC.

From the FAA Instrument Flying Handbook:

"Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). Meteorological
conditions expressed in terms of visibility, distance
from cloud, and ceiling less than the minimums specified for
visual meteorological conditions, requiring operations to be
conducted under IFR."

Again from the Instrument Flying Handbook:

"Holding the Instrument Rating does not necessarily make you
a competent weather pilot. The rating certifies only that you
have complied with the minimum experience requirements,
that you can plan and execute a flight under IFR, that you
can execute basic instrument maneuvers, and that you have
shown acceptable skill and judgment in performing these activities.
Your Instrument Rating permits you to fly into
instrument weather conditions with no previous instrument
weather experience. Your Instrument Rating is issued on the
assumption that you have the good judgment to avoid
situations beyond your capabilities."

I consider "Weather Flying" to be an entirely separate subject from
the Instrument Training course which I teach to the PTS standards.
If I find that a students airplane is adequately equipped and Wx
conditions are satisfactory, I will provide "Weather Flying" instruction
if desired, AFTER the student has obtained an Instrument Rating.

As I have pointed out previously in the newsgroups, I, and every other
Naval Aviator that left Advanced Training in Kingsville, TX, were
launched off into the wild-not-so-blue younder, fully qualified to
takeoff, approach, and land in 100-1/4 conditions in "really high"
performance aircraft without so-much-as a single minute of "flying in
the clouds" time.

We just need better instructors and better training in the civilian
world. Better use of "real" simulators and doing away with "joyriding"
with a safety pilot and counting it as instruction.

My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

Bob Moore
ATP CFII
Teaching Instrument Flying since 1962

"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)

--Gary

Not to mention "visibility" instead of "visability" and "take off" instead
of "takeoff".

Jim





"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...
"Bob Moore" wrote in message
. 122...
My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)

--Gary

("Gary Drescher" wrote)
[Bob Moore]
My rant for the day...but back to the subject, if one ascribes to
professionalism, one must carefully weigh each and every word.

In that case, please note that you meant "aspires", not "ascribes". :-)


I'm cool with "ascribes" in this case. Had to look at it a number of times
to
see if it fit. Yes, I think it fits.

www.dictionary.com (ascribe)
2. To assign as a quality or characteristic: "was quick to ascribe jealousy
to her critics."

I also think "aspires" takes the original thought in a different direction -
one of yearning to someday become professional, as opposed to announcing
you're already there.

With ascribed, you've assigned yourself that quality - professionalism.
You're signed up. You're a subscriber to the requirements it takes to be, or
appear to be, professional.


Montblack
Sent this sucker through three different spell checkers :-)