ATC says wrong position

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:02:26 -0700, wrote:

So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to
touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-)

I don't have a copy of the approach at hand, and I cannot recall how I
would have flown it. Clearly your supposition is ludicrous. However, I
would NOT have descended from 7,000' until I was on a charted portion of
the approach.

If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more
precise information.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It's on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have
been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles
prior to the FAF. The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they
descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the
profile view.

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:

On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:02:26 -0700, wrote:

So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to
touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-)

I don't have a copy of the approach at hand, and I cannot recall how I
would have flown it. Clearly your supposition is ludicrous. However, I
would NOT have descended from 7,000' until I was on a charted portion of
the approach.

If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more
precise information.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It's on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have
been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles
prior to the FAF. The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they
descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the
profile view.

On Thu, 29 Apr 2004 07:01:13 -0700, wrote:

It's on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have
been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles
prior to the FAF. The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they
descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the
profile view.

Yes, my *hazy* recollection was that there was information on the chart.

Of course, today, they would (hopefully) have been given a safe altitude to
maintain until crossing ROUND HILL.


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

I'd be willing to cut them some slack every now and then.

As I am. I don't think poorly of ATC for making this mistake. Live
humans just aren't good at getting minute details correct on a
continual basis. But it's important that the pilot get a good feel
for all areas in which ATC *might* make a mistake and have a
contingency plan.

Thanks

wrote in message ...
Ron Rosenfeld wrote:
....
If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more
precise information.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

It's on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation


I can't seem to locate that on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation, can you
tell me when and/or what title? I think it may have already scrolled
off of my server.

Would someone please get it and put it on a web page somewhere. I
have googled for it as well, to no avail....

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

John Clonts wrote:

Would someone please get it and put it on a web page somewhere. I
have googled for it as well, to no avail....

Thanks,
John Clonts
Temple, Texas
N7NZ

It's still there, prior to all the French porno someone loaded later on
today.

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.

JPH

wrote:

Ron Rosenfeld wrote:


On Wed, 28 Apr 2004 18:02:26 -0700, wrote:


So, you guys would have probably flown to the FAF at 7,000 then descended to
touchdown (300 feet) in some 5 miles. ;-)

I don't have a copy of the approach at hand, and I cannot recall how I
would have flown it. Clearly your supposition is ludicrous. However, I
would NOT have descended from 7,000' until I was on a charted portion of
the approach.

If you have a copy of that approach, I would be able to give you more
precise information.

Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)


It's on alt.binaries.pictures.aviation

And, I stand corrected, there was information in the plan view (that should have
been in the provile view, that would have permitted descent from 7,000 11.6 miles
prior to the FAF. The flight crash 2 or 3 miles prior to ROUND HILL because they
descended to 1,800 prior to ROUND HILL based on their training and use of the
profile view.

Greg Esres wrote
When being vectored, and ATC says your 4 miles from X, I noticed
occasionally that they state the wrong X. They confuse the FAF with
the IF. For this reason, I tell students to never rely on ATC's
distance statements to make a descent.

How often do others see this?

All the time. In fact, sometimes when being vectored for the NDB-F at
my home field (EYQ), I get distances from HOCCO, a fix that used to be
charted on the FAC but has been gone for years.

Michael

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.