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
|
|||
|
|||
Wellston Crash Report Quote
Aero-News Quote of the Day
"This tragic accident that took the lives of a respected U.S. Senator, members of his family, staff, and the flight crew, shocked us all...*It sadly and starkly points out the need for more aggressive action to improve safety in the on-demand charter industry." Source:*NTSB Chairman Ellen G. Engleman, commenting on the final report issued in the NTSB investigation of the KingAir crash that took the life of Senator Paul Wellstone and seven others.* You don't suppose the federal governments decisions to close local flight service stations (and control towers that report weather) over the past twenty years have had anything to do with it, do you? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
The NTSB report concluded that that pilot stalled the aircraft. How would a
control tower or a local FSS have prevented that? Best regards, Steve Robertson N4732J 1967 Beechcraft A23-24 EDR wrote: Aero-News Quote of the Day "This tragic accident that took the lives of a respected U.S. Senator, members of his family, staff, and the flight crew, shocked us all... It sadly and starkly points out the need for more aggressive action to improve safety in the on-demand charter industry." Source: NTSB Chairman Ellen G. Engleman, commenting on the final report issued in the NTSB investigation of the KingAir crash that took the life of Senator Paul Wellstone and seven others. You don't suppose the federal governments decisions to close local flight service stations (and control towers that report weather) over the past twenty years have had anything to do with it, do you? |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
In article , Steve Robertson
wrote: The NTSB report concluded that that pilot stalled the aircraft. How would a control tower or a local FSS have prevented that? He stalled it because he flew into icing conditions and iced up. AFSS's are so widely located the the local weather the smaller local FSS's would gather provided filled in the gaps. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"EDR" wrote in message ... He stalled it because he flew into icing conditions and iced up. AFSS's are so widely located the the local weather the smaller local FSS's would gather provided filled in the gaps. There are more weather observation stations now than before FSS consolidation. One of them is at the Eveleth-Virginia airport. |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
In article . net,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote: There are more weather observation stations now than before FSS consolidation. One of them is at the Eveleth-Virginia airport. AWOS and ASOS are no substitute for human observers and balloons. It would be an interesting study to learn how many accidents have been caused by pilots flying into conditions reported by ASOS and AWOS. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
On 2003-11-19 20:52:17 -0800, EDR said
In article . net Steven P. McNicoll wrote There are more weather observation stations now than before FS consolidation. One of them is at the Eveleth-Virginia airport AWOS and ASOS are no substitute for human observers and balloons It would be an interesting study to learn how many accidents have bee caused by pilots flying into conditions reported by ASOS and AWOS Are you offering to fund all of these human observers |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"EDR" wrote in message ... AWOS and ASOS are no substitute for human observers and balloons. It would be an interesting study to learn how many accidents have been caused by pilots flying into conditions reported by ASOS and AWOS. You still don't get it. AWOS isn't substituting for a human observer at EVM. There was no human observer at EVM before the AWOS. If EVM didn't have AWOS it would have no weather reporting at all. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
EDR wrote in message
He stalled it because he flew into icing conditions and iced up. AFSS's are so widely located the the local weather the smaller local FSS's would gather provided filled in the gaps. Hey - the NTSB sure could have used your help. They completely missed the icing factor. In fact, the NTSB said that ICING WAS NOT A FACTOR. Sometimes it helps to read what the NTSB actually says. From their press release dated 18 November 2003: The Board judged that while cloud cover might have prevented the flight crew from seeing the airport, icing did not affect the airplane's performance during the descent. Cockpit instrument readings on course alignment and airspeed should have prompted the flight crew to execute a go-around. Instead, as others have said, the pilot just stalled the plane. In short, it was just poor flying. Again, from the press release: "During the later stages of the approach," the Board said, the flight crew "failed to monitor the airplane's airspeed and allowed it to decrease to a dangerously low level (as low as about 50 knots below the company's recommended approach speed) and to remain below the recommended approach speed for about 50 seconds." The airplane then entered a stall from which it did not recover. 50 knots off the approach speed??? I don't think that even meets the private pilot PTS standards. So, now maybe you can clarify your point by explaining how the closure of FSS resulted in this pilot not being able to fly the proper approach speed. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Ace Pilot wrote:
Hey - the NTSB sure could have used your help. They completely missed the icing factor. In fact, the NTSB said that ICING WAS NOT A FACTOR. Interesting... the "Press Release" contains more information than the final report contained in the database webpage. DCA03MA008 On October 25, 2002, at about 1022 central daylight time, a Beech King Air A100, N41BE, operated by Aviation Charter, Inc., crashed while on the VOR approach to runway 27 at Eveleth-Virginia Municipal Airport (EVM), Eveleth, Minnesota. The accident site was located approximately two miles southeast of the runway 27 approach end. The airplane was destroyed by impact forces and post-crash fire, and the six passengers and two flight crewmembers were fatally injured. The airplane was being operated as a charter flight under Title 14 CFR Part 135 of the Federal Aviation Regulations (FARs). Instrument meteorological conditions existed at the time of the accident, and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed. The public docket on this accident has been opened and includes NTSB group chairman factual reports. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
In article , john smith wrote:
Ace Pilot wrote: Interesting... the "Press Release" contains more information than the final report contained in the database webpage. DCA03MA008 The database shows only a summary. The actual report on any accident is hundreds or even thousands of pages long. For some reason, the web database hasn't been updated with final report summaries since September. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Who's At Fault in UAV/Part91 MAC? | Larry Dighera | Instrument Flight Rules | 24 | April 29th 04 03:08 PM |
12 Dec 2003 - Today’s Military, Veteran, War and National Security News | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | December 12th 03 11:01 PM |
Report blames pilots in crash of two Navy jets | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | September 26th 03 01:27 AM |
USAF = US Amphetamine Fools | RT | Military Aviation | 104 | September 25th 03 03:17 PM |
Senator asks Navy for report on pilot | Otis Willie | Naval Aviation | 0 | July 17th 03 10:08 PM |