WX

wrote:

Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?

Wondering about the C172 crash? What time of day did it occur? White
Plains had some pretty low visibility that day from a persistent low
pressure that is still entrenched in the region.

--
Peter


















----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Peter R." wrote in news:n1dlcqrp98v$.dlg@ID-
259643.user.individual.net:

wrote:

Anybody know what the weather conditions were around HPN on Saturday?

Wondering about the C172 crash? What time of day did it occur? White
Plains had some pretty low visibility that day from a persistent low
pressure that is still entrenched in the region.


The crash evidently happened shortly after 3pm EST (1900Z).

METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
T01220122

Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...

Condolences to the families of the two people who were lost.

Judah wrote:

Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...

Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
of us who are not professionals.

It will be interesting to read what the investigators find.

--
Peter

I like practicing in actual but I'd stay away from that weather.
- 1/8SM and 200 in fog with 12/12 says to me that it could go zero/zero
in a sec. I can practice misses under the hood.
- Combined with 12G18 or whatever says to me that a cell has just
entered the picture because you rarely get 12Ganything with fog...

Not arguing here - just reacting. At this point and skill level, I
don't practice actual to mins - I save that for the hood and for real
live mistakes.

Gotta think more about that.

wrote:

Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
of us who are not professionals.

Maule Driver wrote:

I like practicing in actual but I'd stay away from that weather.
- 1/8SM and 200 in fog with 12/12 says to me that it could go
zero/zero
in a sec. I can practice misses under the hood.

IMO, flying under the hood and flying actual IMC are two different,
albeit similar experiences. However, the differences are such that I
believe there is simply no substitute for the real thing. This
statement is only meant to offer another opinion.

Additionally, I believe that practicing in actual low IMC to a real
missed when possible, assuming again that there is a suitable alternate
and proper fuel, is very important to the active instrument pilot,
since it may very well happen that an airport goes from "low to no"
during a real approach. A good example of low IMC going to below
minimums would be during lake effect snow season downwind of the Great
Lakes, something that is not always correctly forecasted.

--
Peter

wrote in news:1114444542.583751.157440
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Judah wrote:

Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...

Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
of us who are not professionals.

It will be interesting to read what the investigators find.


Only if both the pilot and instructor are up to the task that day. There is
one good reason to fly such a mission, and many more reasons to cancel.

From the Passur site it looks as if the pilot was frequently and
consistently low at various phases of the approach, and the instructor did
not correct him promptly. For example, at one point, outside the outer
marker, the plane is shown at 1200', when the MSA is 1900'.


As you say, it will be interesting to read the reports...

I'm a little late getting into this, because I have been offline since late
April, but I have to ask...what does MSA have to do with anything? It is not
a part of an instrument approach procedure and is for use in emergencies
only.

Now I have to go find the original post.

Bob Gardner

"Judah" wrote in message
. ..
wrote in news:1114444542.583751.157440
@l41g2000cwc.googlegroups.com:

Judah wrote:

Kinda elucidates the value of personal minimums...

Assuming there were a sutable alternate airport and the C172 contained
adequate fuel, I view this weather as excellent conditions for
training, since a real missed approach seems to be a rarity for those
of us who are not professionals.

It will be interesting to read what the investigators find.


Only if both the pilot and instructor are up to the task that day. There
is
one good reason to fly such a mission, and many more reasons to cancel.

From the Passur site it looks as if the pilot was frequently and
consistently low at various phases of the approach, and the instructor did
not correct him promptly. For example, at one point, outside the outer
marker, the plane is shown at 1200', when the MSA is 1900'.


As you say, it will be interesting to read the reports...

Bob

It may be true that one never actually flies the MSA. However, I don't
agree that MSA has no relavance for routine flying. If that is the
case, then OROCA also has no relavance either, as well as all the
obstacles depicted on the IFR charts. If you are descending below MSA,
then you better be on a published segment of the approach. It certainly
has value in that respect.

"Bob Gardner" wrote in
:

I'm a little late getting into this, because I have been offline since
late April, but I have to ask...what does MSA have to do with
anything? It is not a part of an instrument approach procedure and is
for use in emergencies only.

Now I have to go find the original post.

Bob Gardner


snip

I incorrectly referred to the Minimum Altitude for that segment of the
approach as the Minimum Safe Altitude. Someone else also corrected my error
in this thread.

I'm not sure what the "official" name for the minimum altitude published on
the approach segment outside the outer marker is, but the minimum altitude
that I refer to is undoubtedly part of the approach, and they unquestionably
busted it by a significant amount...

Watching the 2 hours before on the flight monitor (linked elsewhere in
thread) you can watch another 172 miss once and abandon another before
getting in. You also see two jet types apparently divert somewhere
else. You can also watch 2 jets hold waiting for the 172. That's all
before the accident.

The weather seems to be 1sm and 200' most of the afternoon but the wind
goes from 7 to 13G19 for awhile. Passing cell I guess.

Down to mins with a convective disturbance passing thru.

I was flying the DC area on the 22nd and 24th. Reflecting on my own
thinking and hoping that I would divert to a better alternate or return
to my start point. Easier said than done.

Judah wrote:



The crash evidently happened shortly after 3pm EST (1900Z).

METAR KHPN 231756Z 18013G19KT 1/8SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2952 RMK AO2 SLP996
60014 T01220122 10128 20100 56012
METAR KHPN 231856Z 19012G16KT 1/2SM FG OVC002 12/12 A2951 RMK AO2 SLP993
T01220122