NTSB Preliminary report on HPN crash

In article 2005050421420215925%bodhijunkoneeightyeightjunkat macdotcom@junkjunk, Tom Fleischman wrote:
If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.
*
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p

I had an Angel Flight mission scheduled last the week. Night before,
looking at the forecast, I was thinking the flight was doable but
a bit below my comfort level. I called my instructor to ask if he'd
come along. Didn't need him as an instructor, but as an extra pair
of eyes and hands to shed that critical workload. Conditions were
forcast for near minima, but better at the destination and scheduled
to improve.

He looked at the forecast and said he wouldn't do it without a second
engine, second alternator, second vac, ...

What he said was particularly articulate. It would be a doable
flight *if* nothing went wrong.

Wound up cancelling the trip, despite the self-induced pressure
to go. Next morning, when the actual conditions were reported, I
knew it was the right decision.


Morris

He looked at the forecast and said he wouldn't do it without a second

engine, second alternator, second vac, ...

That's the logic that put me in a twin, where I do indeed have a second
engine, second generator, second vacuum pump, second attitude gyro -
well, you get the idea. I wouldn't absolutely say no for a one time
deal, but I wouldn't make a habit of making flights like that single
engine either. Eventually the odds will catch up with you.

What he said was particularly articulate. It would be a doable
flight *if* nothing went wrong.

Right. Thing is, nothing went wrong (with the airplane - everything
that could be checked after the crash checked out OK) and they died
anyway. And this, unfortunately, is the reality of most accidents. No
system failure. No gross violations of common sense. Just another
pilot who got behind the curve and mishandled the airplane in the
approach/landing or takeoff/climb phase of the flight. A twin would
have been no help.

Michael

Tom Fleischman wrote:
If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p


You're right. It IS disturbing that you are ready to be judge
and jury based on this report, which contains virtually nothing
new.

Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the
general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and
kill all hangar talk among pilots.

Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we
all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar
talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who
isn't.

We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable
doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing.
They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost
every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea
that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole
lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things
we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be
it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know
and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity.

(this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant)

Scott Moore wrote:
Tom Fleischman wrote:

If you want to read something really disturbing, this is it.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/GenPDF.asp?id=NYC05FA075&rpt=p



You're right. It IS disturbing that you are ready to be judge
and jury based on this report, which contains virtually nothing
new.

"Maule Driver" wrote in message
om...
Sometimes I think we pilots get a little too defensive about crash talk.
Its one thing to be circumspect and relentlessly factual with the
general non-flying public, but it seems a bit short sighted to try and
kill all hangar talk among pilots.

Now it's arguable whether forums are 'communities' or 'public'. And we
all know that each aviation sub-community has it's own version of hangar
talk, acceptable subject matter, and definitions of who is 'in' and who
isn't.

We don't have the facts and probably never will beyond a reasonable
doubt - NTSB report or not. The things we seem to know are disturbing.
They are disturbing as documented in the prelim. We can defend almost
every aspect of the flight in isolation but what happened to the idea
that accidents are the result of a sequence of events. There are a whole
lot of things to learn from and think about the incomplete set of things
we read here. If some want to kill any speculation in writing, so be
it. But if we can't learn something from the little we think we know
and from reasonable speculation, we are missing an opportunity.

(this isn't aimed at Scott or anyone in particular, just a rant)

No rant at all--your post is a good perspective on usenet in general and
this issue in particular...