NASCAR Air Force Story

THE COLUMBUS DISPATCH carried an AP story on the NASCAR Air Force this=20
morning.

NASCAR teams rely on private planes
Sunday=92s fatal crash shows risk goes with convenience
Thursday, October 28, 2004
Mike Harris
ASSOCIATED PRESS

A fleet of private planes known as the "NASCAR Air Force" has made=20
travel easier for drivers and teams. But as shown by Sunday=92s crash tha=
t=20
killed 10 people flying to a race aboard a Hendrick Motorsports team=20
plane, such convenience also can involve risks.

"We use planes just like our cars," said Ricky Rudd, one of several=20
NASCAR Nextel Cup drivers who are also pilots. "We put a lot of hours in =

the air and have some of the best pilots in the country that fly these=20
things, and some of the best equipment."

The backbone of the NASCAR air fleet has been twoengine, 12-passenger=20
aircraft like the Beech 200 King Air that crashed into a mountain in=20
thick fog Sunday while trying to land at a small airport near=20
Martinsville (Va.) Speedway.

All 10 people aboard were killed, including team owner Rick Hendrick=92s =

son, Ricky; his brother, John, and John=92s two daughters, Jennifer and=20
Kimberly. Also on the plane were the team=92s general manager, Jeff=20
Turner, and its chief engine builder, Randy Dorton, as well as a DuPont=20
executive and three pilots.

For years, nearly everyone traveled to races in team vans or private=20
cars, but the proliferation of private planes changed that.

Nextel Cup teams race 38 weekends each year. On many of those weekends,=20
Concord (N.C.) Regional Airport =97 the closest airport for most teams =97=
=20
is buzzing with activity. More than 100 aircraft take off and land,=20
ferrying drivers, team owners, crewmen, sponsors and fans to airports=20
near the racetrack.

More aircraft, including two 727 jets owned by Roush Racing, fly in and=20
out of nearby Charlotte Douglas International Airport.

"Actually, it=92s not just race weekends," said Annette Privette, a=20
spokeswoman for the city of Concord. "Our airport has approximately 200=20
aircraft based there, and about 60 percent of them are NASCARrelated.=20
There=92s a lot of flying back and forth to testing and pole nights and=20
driver appearances and races."

Driver Jeff Green sees private plane travel as more than just a convenien=
ce.

"Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won=92t work,"=20
Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you=20
miss practice. Miss practice, and they don=92t let you attempt to qualify=
=2E"

Mark Martin, another driver who is also a pilot, lost his father,=20
stepmother and half sister in 1998 when a private plane his father was=20
piloting crashed in Nevada. But Martin said he has no qualms about using =

his plane.

"I suppose we=92ve been pretty lucky in a way," Martin said last year.=20
"But everybody knows that flying is still safer than driving in your=20
personal car. And we really have no choice. We have to fly to get our=20
jobs done."

With the escalating use of helicopters =97 for short hauls =97 and privat=
e=20
planes, NASCAR=92s Air Force has a very good safety record.

Driver Alan Kulwicki and three others were killed in 1993 while flying=20
to a race in Bristol, Tenn. Later that year, Davey Allison died while=20
trying to land his helicopter at Talladega Superspeedway.

There had been no aircraft-related fatalities in NASCAR since, but that=20
doesn=92t mean there haven=92t been accidents.

In one three-week period in November 2003, Martin=92s plane blew two tire=
s=20
taking off from an airport after a race in Phoenix, a plane carrying=20
Petty Enterprises crewmen also blew a tire on takeoff after a test=20
earlier in Phoenix, and driver Tony Stewart=92s plane hit a deer while=20
landing at a rural Texas airport. There were no injuries.

While teams say there is no substitute for private planes, there is for=20
the small planes.

Martin=92s team owner, Jack Roush, bought his 727s four years ago after=20
starting to feel less and less comfortable about having up to 16 small=20
planes in the air each race weekend.

Since his team has been using the big planes, with pilots trained for=20
commercial airlines transporting most of his people, Roush said he is=20
sleeping better.

"I=92m confident as I can be in the safety of our planes and the ability =

of our pilots, but I still breathe a sigh of relief every time we get=20
through a race weekend without a problem," Roush said

john smith wrote:

"Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won’t work,"
Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
miss practice. Miss practice, and they don’t let you attempt to qualify."

Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to have
been looking for it.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


john smith wrote:

"Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to
qualify."

Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

This could be said for pretty much every type of corporate aviation. And yet
the safety record is pretty exemplary.

Good equipment kept in good operating condition with a well-trained 2-pilot
flight crew will make nearly any flight with safety. The airlines have
proven this.

GGT-itis typically kills light GA pilots by tempting them into weather that
either they or the airplane are not capable of handling. That does not
appear to be the primary factor here, though it goes without saying that
2-pilot planes do not generally impact terrain in VMC.

Given that accident rates on ILSs seem to be significantly lower than on
non-precision approaches (for both light GA and corporate) I was just
thinking that we should really be pushing for more LNAV/VNAV and LPV
approaches as a safety issue. I wonder how many crashes have occurred on
missed approaches that might have been avoided had LPV minima been available
and capable of getting the plane into the airport.

-cwk.

"C Kingsbury" wrote .


Given that accident rates on ILSs seem to be significantly lower than on
non-precision approaches (for both light GA and corporate) I was just
thinking that we should really be pushing for more LNAV/VNAV and LPV
approaches as a safety issue. I wonder how many crashes have occurred on
missed approaches that might have been avoided had LPV minima been
available
and capable of getting the plane into the airport.

-cwk.



When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others going
to be available?

Seems like more effort should be made towards this end.
--
Jim in NC



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004

Morgans wrote:



When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others going
to be available?

MTV already has two non-precision GPS approaches.

On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:56 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others going
to be available?

Seems like more effort should be made towards this end.
--


Why would a GPS be better than a Localizer/DME. I doubt a GPS
approach would have had any lower minimums than the LOC did, so I'm
not sure how that would have helped in this situation.

z

"zatatime" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 29 Oct 2004 17:02:56 -0400, "Morgans"
wrote:

When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others
going
to be available?


Why would a GPS be better than a Localizer/DME. I doubt a GPS
approach would have had any lower minimums than the LOC did, so I'm
not sure how that would have helped in this situation.


LPV approaches (GPS+WAAS with lateral and vertical guidance) can I believe
get you down to 250' and 1-1/2, which is a lot lower than a GPS (LNAV)
approach and quite close to ILS minima.

Second, an LPV approach should be comparable to an ILS in terms of
difficulty to fly: just configure the airplane and keep the needles in the
donut. By bringing planes down on a stabilized approach all the way to MDA
you eliminate a number of opportunities to screw things up.

None of which may have been responsible for this particular crash, but the
overall statistics strongly suggest that better approaches mean safer
approaches.

-cwk.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


john smith wrote:

"Taking the chance on being delayed in an airport just won't work,"
Green said. "You have to be there Friday morning for practice or you
miss practice. Miss practice, and they don't let you attempt to qualify."

Sounds like a recipe for "gottagetthereitis" to me.

Hardly - when you are talking about the pilots, equipment and approaches
they have at their disposal. This is much different than some private pilot
wanting to beat home a lowering cloud deck at night or trying to beat a t
storm...


George Patterson
If a man gets into a fight 3,000 miles away from home, he *had* to
have
been looking for it.

"Morgans" wrote in message
...

"C Kingsbury" wrote .


Given that accident rates on ILSs seem to be significantly lower than on
non-precision approaches (for both light GA and corporate) I was just
thinking that we should really be pushing for more LNAV/VNAV and LPV
approaches as a safety issue. I wonder how many crashes have occurred on
missed approaches that might have been avoided had LPV minima been
available
and capable of getting the plane into the airport.

-cwk.



When are GPS approaches for places like this, and thousands of others
going
to be available?


There was nothing difficult about these approaches. The LOC at that airport
was quite timple. If they cannot read the chart for a LOC approach, what
makes you think that any new approach will be better?


Seems like more effort should be made towards this end.
--
Jim in NC



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.784 / Virus Database: 530 - Release Date: 10/27/2004

What's really needed is affordable synthetic vision / enhanced vision
technology so pilots can see the terrain right thru the clouds.