Hendrick Motorsports Report

About a month ago, there were some brief news reports about the Hendrick
Motorsports deal at Martinsville/Blue Ridge from Oct 2004. The complete
report has been posted this week.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

Icebound wrote:

About a month ago, there were some brief news reports about the Hendrick
Motorsports deal at Martinsville/Blue Ridge from Oct 2004. The complete
report has been posted this week.

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

Interesting read. Totally tragic accident.


--
Peter

It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
They never were in position to do the approach. They did
not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Peter R." wrote in message
...
| Icebound wrote:
|
| About a month ago, there were some brief news reports
about the Hendrick
| Motorsports deal at Martinsville/Blue Ridge from Oct
2004. The complete
| report has been posted this week.
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf
|
| Interesting read. Totally tragic accident.
|
|
| --
| Peter

Jim Macklin wrote:

It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
They never were in position to do the approach. They did
not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.

Based on my understanding of this approach, an aircraft holding at 4,000
feet over the BALES LOM would be best served performing a few turns around
the hold to lose the approx. 2,000 excess feet of altitude before starting
the approach.

As far as a situational awareness observation, I am a little curious why
the controller didn't suggest some type of descent vectors or spins around
the hold to lose the altitude, since he also knew the aircraft was last
assigned 4,000 ft, then immediately cleared him for the approach.

Before I get pounded on, let me point out that I do not mean to divert
attention from the pilot-in-command. Rather, this observation simply comes
from the fact that I have overheard our local controllers at Syracuse offer
these unsolicited suggestions all the time when they believe an aircraft
might be too high to start an approach.

Just another check and balance in the system, as it were.

--
Peter

The controller issues the clearance based solely on the
traffic. The crew reported in the hold at 4,000 and had
been cleared for 5 or 10 mile legs, but they appear to have
just done a 360 at the LOM and proceeded inbound at 4,000
and then began their descent. The runway threshold is at 1
DME on the LOC. The BE 200 is easy to fly and can make
those descents handily. The crew just didn't know where
they were or have any plan for what they were doing.


--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

"Peter R." wrote in message
news | Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
| They never were in position to do the approach. They
did
| not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.
|
| Based on my understanding of this approach, an aircraft
holding at 4,000
| feet over the BALES LOM would be best served performing a
few turns around
| the hold to lose the approx. 2,000 excess feet of altitude
before starting
| the approach.
|
| As far as a situational awareness observation, I am a
little curious why
| the controller didn't suggest some type of descent vectors
or spins around
| the hold to lose the altitude, since he also knew the
aircraft was last
| assigned 4,000 ft, then immediately cleared him for the
approach.
|
| Before I get pounded on, let me point out that I do not
mean to divert
| attention from the pilot-in-command. Rather, this
observation simply comes
| from the fact that I have overheard our local controllers
at Syracuse offer
| these unsolicited suggestions all the time when they
believe an aircraft
| might be too high to start an approach.
|
| Just another check and balance in the system, as it were.
|
| --
| Peter

Jim Macklin wrote:
It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
They never were in position to do the approach. They did
not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.

I was kind of wondering what was going on myself.

On 2006-03-08, Icebound wrote:

http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf

To me this is a perfect example of how you can be totally mentally
prepared for one thing (entering a long hold, in this case) and then
be thrown a curveball by ATC. The pilots hand the mental bandwidth
to solve their immediate problem (by continuing their hold entry turn
on course for the approach) but they were no longer ahead of the plane.
I'd never quite been able to put my finger on it before, but that's
what it is -- you can't be ahead of the plane if you just got an
unexpected ATC instruction. The lesson here is that (except in case
of emergency or an "expedite" from ATC) you should probably keep
executing your old plan until you have a new plan fully formed. They
had passed "V1" on their hold entry and should have entered it no
matter what.

--
Ben Jackson

http://www.ben.com/

I agree, issuance of an approach clearance does not mean you
have to press on. You really need to be at the initial
approach altitude when you cross the fix inbound. These
pilots were way above the altitude and inside the fix before
they even began the descent. They were 7 miles past the
airport [six DME and increasing] when they began a straight
climb.

CRM, did they ever discuss the approach and their options
before they arrived in the area? They had lots of advanced
training from the big schools, but do any of the instructors
who work for these schools have any experience in these
types of operations. My experience is that many do not.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Ben Jackson" wrote in message
...
| On 2006-03-08, Icebound
wrote:
|
| http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2006/AAB0601.pdf
|
| To me this is a perfect example of how you can be totally
mentally
| prepared for one thing (entering a long hold, in this
case) and then
| be thrown a curveball by ATC. The pilots hand the mental
bandwidth
| to solve their immediate problem (by continuing their hold
entry turn
| on course for the approach) but they were no longer ahead
of the plane.
| I'd never quite been able to put my finger on it before,
but that's
| what it is -- you can't be ahead of the plane if you just
got an
| unexpected ATC instruction. The lesson here is that
(except in case
| of emergency or an "expedite" from ATC) you should
probably keep
| executing your old plan until you have a new plan fully
formed. They
| had passed "V1" on their hold entry and should have
entered it no
| matter what.
|
| --
| Ben Jackson
|
| http://www.ben.com/

In article 28IPf.116573$QW2.54634@dukeread08,
says...


It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
They never were in position to do the approach. They did
not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.



The report doesn't really say that.

GF

It doesn't need to say that and the NTSB can't because there
was no cockpit voice recorder or other means to know what
was going on. But since the DME is on the LOC and the
approach chart shows 1 DME as the runway threshold/MAP and
they were tracked miles past the airport before they began a
missed approach proper use of the DME can be rules out.

Since the NDB is the IAP fix and they were well past the NDB
when they began the approach that can be relied on as being
an indication that the crew needed to have their two heads
working.

The GPS, should have shown them a clear view of the general
position of their airplane to the airport.

Since I am not a government official, I am not restricted
from making educated statements about the obvious.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Greg Farris" wrote in message
...
| In article 28IPf.116573$QW2.54634@dukeread08,
| says...
|
|
| It was completely stupid actions by the two pilot crew.
| They never were in position to do the approach. They did
| not use the DME, the NDB or the GPS.
|
|
|
| The report doesn't really say that.
|
| GF
|