![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() J Haggerty wrote: I had been a controller 3 years when that mishap occurred, and I recall that I wondered why the pilot would have descended so low when he hadn't yet crossed Round Hill, where the 1800 segment began. 2 big clues that the 1800 wasn't a good altitude are the MSA which is higher and the spot elevation depicted right about where they were flying showing terrain at 1764 MSL. Nothing on the chart indicates that 1800 is a safe altitude at that point. (They actually were about 1670' when they hit the ground.) I do remember that controllers weren't required by 7110.65 (or was it still FAAH 7110.8 back then) to provide an altitude to maintain until established on a portion of the approach until after, and as a result of this accident. It's a good rule, it's just too bad that the need for that rule wasn't recognized back then. There's a good article by AOPA on line at http://www.aopa.org/asf/asfarticles/sp9806.html that shows that other pilots reacted differently to the same clearance. As far as the NTSB could determine, one or two airlines besides TWA taught you could descend to the highest altitude shown in the profile when cleared for an approach. TWA "learned" it from the Air Force. A Lear Jet a month before did the same thing but didn't have the strong winds so he cleared the 1675' terrain. Confusion was rampant at the month-long hearing. Also, the chart did not comply with government charting specs, in that ROUND HILL was required to be in the profile. Had ROUND HILL been in the profile, some altitude in excess of 3,000 would have been charted at ROUND HILL, thus the accident would not have happened. And, on the CVR tape one of the crew members raises concern about the higher altitude coming in from Front Royal. But, finally the TWA training overcomes that concern and they all end up agreeing. As to the MSA, TWA pilots were never taught to pay much heed to those as they are intended for someone who is lost off course. And, speculation has it they wanted to get down because the turbulance was pretty bad. Also, the very strong head winds made their descent gradient rather steep. The vastly improved rules and GPWS came out of that accident. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Cessna 206 Pilot position....... | [email protected] | Home Built | 0 | January 28th 05 08:27 PM |
Glad to hear the initial reports were wrong about accidents, as they usually are. | Tedstriker | Home Built | 0 | April 19th 04 02:52 AM |
3 blade prop position on 6cyl engine. | Paul Lee | Home Built | 3 | February 26th 04 12:47 AM |
LED for position lights | Jerry Springer | Home Built | 2 | August 19th 03 01:43 AM |
Wrong Brothers Air Force Party Invite | Jay Honeck | Home Built | 1 | July 20th 03 10:55 PM |